Wednesday, May 21, 2008

ambedkar debunks 'aryan' invasion (supports 'aryan' tourist theory :-))

may 20th, 2008



ambedkar has been hijacked by the 'dravidians' and 'dalitists' -- he was a sensible guy, but he has been made to look like a separatist anti-national by those separatist anti-national christist funded terrorist types.

do brahmins believe in the 'aryan' hypothesis? i don't think so, perhaps some of them did in ambedkar's time. but the genetic fact is that brahmins in any area are genetically identical to the non-brahmins in the same area. there is no racial difference. i think this whole 'aryan' - 'dravidian' hypothesis is like the pseudo-science of measuring the head and deciding that a person was a criminal based on certain bumps on the head. it's pure bunkum. the similar, stupid reason that this 'dravidian' idea came into being is because in tamil nadu the majority of the people are dark skinned and some of the brahmins are light skinned. that chrisist mole caldwell extrapolated wildly from this and created the 'dravidian' hypothesis, which has been used by the dmk-types for gaining power. that's about it. it has about as much relatinonship to reality as the story of yhwh creating the world in 4004 bce.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The

Introduction: Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's original works are rarely studied by students of modern Indian history, his theories and worldview still buried from wider exposure and scrutiny... His writings clearly reveal that he totally debunked the Aryan theory of race. Excerpts:

That the theory of the Aryan race set up by Western writers falls to the ground at every point goes without saying. This is somewhat surprising since Western scholarship is usually associated with thorough research and careful analysis. Why has the theory failed? … Anyone who cares to scrutinise the theory will find that it suffers from a double infection. In the first place, the theory is based on nothing but pleasing assumptions and inferences based on such assumptions. In the second place, the theory is a perversion of scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On the contrary the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to prove it.

The theory of the Aryan race is just an assumption and no more. It is based on a philological proposition put forth by Dr. Bopp in his epoch-making book called Comparative Grammar, which appeared in 1835. In this book, Dr. Bopp demonstrated that a greater number of languages of Europe and some languages of Asia must be referred to a common ancestral speech. The European languages and Asiatic languages to which Bopp's proposition applied are called Indo-Germanic. Collectively, they have come to be called the Aryan languages largely because Vedic language refers to the Aryas and is also of the same family as the Indo-Germanic. This assumption is the major premise on which the theory of the Aryan race is based.

From this assumption are drawn two inferences: (1) unity of race, and (2) that race being the Aryan race. The argument is that if the languages have descended from a common ancestral speech then there must have existed a race whose mother tongue it was and since the mother tongue was known as the Aryan tongue the race who spoke it was the Aryan race. The existence of a separate and a distinct Aryan race is thus an inference only. From this inference, is drawn another inference which is that of a common original habitat. It is argued that there could be no community of language unless people had a common habitat permitting close communion. Common original habitat is thus an inference from an inference.

The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary because of a gratuitous assumption, which underlies the Western theory. The assumption is that the Indo-Germanic people are the purest of the modern representatives of the original Aryan race. Its first home is assumed to have been somewhere in Europe. These assumptions raise a question: How could the Aryan speech have come to India? This question can be answered only by the supposition that the Aryans must have come into India from outside. Hence the necessity for inventing the theory of invasion.

The third assumption is that the Aryans were a superior race. This theory has its origin in the belief that the Aryans are a European race and as a European race it is presumed to be superior to the Asiatic races. Having assumed its superiority, the next logical step one is driven to is to establish the fact of superiority. Knowing that nothing can prove the superiority of the Aryan race better than the invasion and conquest of native races, the Western writers have proceeded to invent the story of the invasion of India by the Aryans and the conquest of native races, and the conquest by them of the Dasas and Dasyus.

The fourth assumption is that the European races were white and had a colour prejudice against the dark races. The Aryans being a European race, it is assumed that it must have had colour prejudice. The theory proceeds to find evidence for colour prejudice in the Aryans who came into India. This it finds in the Chaturvarnya - an institution by the established Indo-Aryans after they came to India and which according to these scholars is based upon Varna which is taken by them to mean colour.

Not one of these assumptions is borne out by facts. Take the premise about the Aryan race. The theory does not take account of the possibility that the Aryan race in the physiological sense is one thing and an Aryan race in philological sense quite different, and that it is perfectly possible that, the Aryan race, if there is one, in the physiological sense may have its habitat in one place and that the Aryan race, in the philological sense, in quite a different place. The theory of the Aryan race is based on the premise of a common language and it is supposed to be common because it has a structural affinity. The assertion that the Aryans came from outside and invaded India is not proved and the premise that the Dasas and Dasyus are aboriginal tribes of India is demonstrably false.

Again, to say that the institution of Chaturvarnya is a reflection of the innate colour prejudice of the Aryans is really to assert too much. If colour is the origin of class distinction, there must be four different colours to account for the different classes, which comprise Chatur-varnya. Nobody has said what those four colours are and who were the four coloured races who were welded together in Chaturvarnya. As it is, the theory starts with only two opposing people, Aryas and Dasas - one assumed to be white and the other assumed to be dark…
Prof. Micheal Foster has somewhere said that 'hypothesis is the salt of science.' Without hypothesis there is no possibility of fruitful investigation. But it is equally true that where the desire to prove a particular hypothesis is dominant, hypothesis becomes the poison of science. The Aryan race theory of Western scholars is as good an illustration of how hypothesis can be the poison of science as one can think of.

The Aryan race theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago. But far from being dead, the theory has a considerable hold upon the people. There are two explanations which account for this phenomenon. The first explanation is to be found in the support which the theory receives from Brahmin scholars. This is a very strange phenomenon. As Hindus, they should ordinarily show a dislike for the Aryan theory with its express avowal of the superiority of the European races over the Asiatic races. But the Brahmin scholar has not only no such aversion but he most willingly hails it. The reasons are obvious. The Brahmin believes in the two-nation theory. He claims to be the representative of the Aryan race and he regards the rest of the Hindus as descendants of the non-Aryans. The theory helps him to establish his kinship with the European races and share their arrogance and their superiority. He likes particularly that part of the theory which makes the Aryan an invader and a conqueror of the non-Aryan native races. For it helps him to maintain and justify his overlordship over the non-Brahmins.

The second explanation why the Aryan race theory is not dead is because of the general insistence by European scholars that the word Varna means colour and the acceptance of that view by a majority of the Brahmin scholars. Indeed, this is the mainstay of the Aryan theory. There is no doubt that as long as this interpretation of the Varna continues to be accepted the Aryan theory will continue to live. This part of the Aryan theory is therefore very important and calls for fuller examination. It needs to be examined from three different points of view: (1) Were the European races fair or dark? (2) Were the Indo-Aryans fair? (3) What is the original meaning of the word Varna?

On the question of the colour of the earliest Europeans, Prof. Ripley is quite definite that they were of dark complexion. Prof. Ripley goes on to say: "We are strengthened in this assumption that the earliest Europeans were not only long-headed but also dark complexioned, by various points in our inquiry thus far. We have proved the prehistoric antiquity of the living Cro-Magnon type in Southern France; and we saw that among these peasants, the prevalence of black hair and eyes is very striking. And comparing types in the British Isles we saw that everything tended to show that the brunet populations of Wales, Ireland and Scotland constituted the most primitive stratum of population in Britain… it would seem as if this earliest race in Europe must have been very dark.... It was Mediterranean in its pigmental affinities, and not Scandinavian.'

Turning to the Vedas for any indication whether the Aryans had any colour prejudice, reference may be made to the following passages in the Rig Veda:

In Rig Veda, i. 117.8, there is a reference to Ashvins having brought about the marriage between Shyavya and Rushati. Shyavya is black and Rushati is fair.

In Rig Veda, i. 117.5, there is a prayer addressed to Ashvins for having saved Vandana who is spoken as of golden colour.

In Rig Veda, ii. 3.9, there is a prayer by an Aryan invoking the Devas to bless him with a son with certain virtues but of (pishanga) tawny (reddish brown) complexion.

These instances show that the Vedic Aryans had no colour prejudice. How could they have? The Vedic Aryans were not of one colour. Their complexion varied; some were of copper complexion, some white, and some black. Rama the son of Dasharatha has been described as Shyama, i.e., dark in complexion, so is Krishna the descendant of the Yadus, another Aryan clan. The Rishi Dirghatamas, who is the author of many mantras of the Rig Veda, must have been of dark colour if his name was given to him after his complexion. Kanva is an Aryan rishi of great repute. But according to the description given in the Rig Veda - x. 31.11 - he was of dark colour.

To take up the third and the last point, namely, the meaning of the word Varna. Let us first see in what sense it is used in the Rig Veda. The word Varna is used in the Rig Veda in 22 places. Of these, in about 17 places the word is used in reference to deities such as Ushas, Agni, Soma, etc., and means lustre, features or colour. Being used in connection with deities, it would be unsafe to use them for ascertaining what meaning the word Varna had in the Rig Veda when applied to human beings. There are four and at the most five places in the Rig Veda where the word is used in reference to human beings. They are: i. 104.2; i. 179.6; ii. 12.4; iii. 34.5; ix. 71.2.

Do these references prove that the word Varna is used in the Rig Veda in the sense of colour and complexion? ... The question is: What does the word Varna mean when applied to Dasa? Does it refer to the colour and complexion of the Dasa, or does it indicate that Dasas formed a separate class? ...

The evidence of the Rig Veda is quite inconclusive. In this connection, it will be of great help to know if the word occurs in the literature of the Indo-Iranians and if so, in what sense.

Fortunately, the word Varna does occur in the Zend Avesta. It takes the form of Varana or Varena. It is used specifically in the sense of "Faith, Religious doctrine, Choice of creed or belief." It is derived from the root Var which means to put faith in, to believe in. One comes across the word Varana or Varena in the Gathas about six times used in the sense of faith, doctrine, creed or belief… This evidence from the Zend Avesta as to the meaning of the word Varna leaves no doubt that it originally meant a class holding to a particular faith and it had nothing to do with colour or complexion.

The conclusions that follow from the examination of the Western theory may now be summarised. They are:

(1) The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race.

(2) There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus, supposed to be natives of India.

(3) There is no evidence to show that the distinction between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction.

(4) The Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryans were different in colour from the Dasas and Dasyus.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is a book on 'Worshipping false gods' - By Arun Shourie.

1- Ambedkar postulated a constitution while he was working with the british govt- in which muslims, 'dalits' christians would have more votes combined than the hindus.

2- Muslims would elect their leader directly. Hindus would elect a leader, who is approved by the muslims and christians.

Isn't that being attempted by secularists today ?

3- Ambedkar shared dias with Jinnah when Jinnah was trying a separate country on grounds of religion. Ambedkar himself didn't get votes, INC overwhelmingly own.

4- Ambedkar worked in British admin all through out - he opposed Gandhi, when Gandhi fasted against 'award' of separate electorates.

5- For his life, Ambedkar was close to british admin.

6- Why did he demanded separate electorate for one caste, if he didn't believe in race like stuff, and european ideas of nation hood. Could Ambedkar be a british stooge - supporting stuff like separate electorate based on one race=> one political nation - asides religion and language ?

Anonymous said...

Communalism combat are power brokers...they go with the wind.

All those interpretation of Veda is still anglicized. Our nation is being run by the national socialists ideology...they wouldn't disown themselves without trying more effective control over the population.

In Rig Veda, i. 117.8, there is a reference to Ashvins having brought about the marriage between Shyavya and Rushati. Shyavya is black and Rushati is fair.

Are they talking about Mantras and gods ? It is a different issue that the only tune to those mantras are by Arya Samajis...I attended one of their festivals, and all their lady speaker was passionate about was thrashing the Brahmins and old institutions of Adi Shankara on silly and least understood stuff. It was so painful to listen those 20 minutes.

Anonymous said...

(1) The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race.

The race is a national socialist and modern progressive idea, extended from reformed(?) Christianity. Some found no better use, even when they thought to know about Vedas.

(2) There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus, supposed to be natives of India.
The history depts thugs who assault the brahmins for govt money, should stay away from Vedas. They should stick to their own gossips.

(3) There is no evidence to show that the distinction between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction.

This is clever statement by a barbarian who focuses race to explain celestial stuff. This person doesn't acknowledge that he should be taking a bath, instead of finding race everywhere.
There should be acknowledgment for sake humanity....how millions of historians looted tax money ( Churchians looted poor people's money) to propagate these frauds.

(4) The Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryans were different in colour from the Dasas and Dasyus.
This statement obfuscates the fixation of modern academics on 'color'..These academics are paid by tax payers money. These kind of statements assumes the it is fine by lethargic idiots to treat the sacred in this way.
The lethargic idiots instead could dig into the basics of humanism, that asserts the history was actually had no better vision than the races...I suspect that is because the modern man is ficated with race.

It is very difficult to get out of race, when one reads volumes of skull measurement and their 'mathematical' and 'statistical' analysis.

JNU thugs and sociologists wouldn't disclose their moral depravity on being based on these material stuff. Instead they would slander the Brahmins to rise on moral pedestals.

Shahryar said...

This study is quite illuminating:
The aryan invasion by Svami B.V. Giri.

drisyadrisya said...

I have not read extensively about Ambedkar, however some of his statements would peraps make the psecs frown

1) "I prefer the partition on India into Muslim India and non Muslim India as the safest method of providing for the defence of both " quoted from "Pakistan or Partition of India " p364

(meaning he wanted India to be devoid of Muslims)

http://www.geocities.com/satyawaadi/islam.html

2) "The Hindus wanted the Vedas and they sent for Vyasa, who was not a caste Hindu. The Hindus wanted an epic and they sent for Valmiki, who was an untouchable. The Hindus wanted a Constitution and they sent for me"

http://www.geocities.com/satyawaadi/smrithi.html

3) http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers4/paper331.html

On the death of Gandhi he expressed, "My real enemy has gone, thank goodness the eclipse is over"

4) http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=231&page=27

That led some on in the Congress hierarchy to decide that Savarkar should also be treated as a co-conspirator and tried and possibly sentenced to jail Evidence, apparently, was concocted but, interestingly, one man saw through it all. That was Dr B.R. Ambedkar who went out of his way to inform Savarkar’s defence lawyer, L.B. Bhopatkar that “there was no real charge against Savarkar”, that “quite worthless charges have been concocted” and several members of the Nehru cabinet were strongly against roping in Savarkar as a co-conspirator.

What is amazing it that Dr Ambedkar, then Law Minister, should have gone out of his way to inform Savarkar’s Counsel of his client’s innocence.

Anonymous said...

drisyadrisya : Please buy the book Worshipping False gods...It is an Arun Shourie book...Meaning you would have the book constructed before you, rather than hidden Assumptions.

On Death of Gandhi Ambedkar and Gandhi worked opposite to each other, for most of his life in pre-independence India, Ambedkar worked and paid by the british govt. So if Gandhi did fasting to stop the separate electorates, Ambedkar would frown it.

On the partition
Why 'Hindu' are fascist ( except for RSS - hindu nationalism), but the europeans acceded to Pakisthan's statehood ? This is because of a complex perception of political science...in which having one book , one god etc are considered symptoms of commonness. One understanding of the multipleness of one in situations was not considered oneness by the churchians of europe

Similarly language - It was oneness for European colonists.

Similarly race - It was oneness. You could be a nation ( how absurd is that) because of one race.

I suspect the partition was supposed to be 3 fold - The muslims, and a division of hindus so that the 'upper caste' hindus couldn't have elected leaders without consent of rest of the groups. The caste was segregated based on race. Considering Ambedkar's proposals for the constitution ( Not the Indian constitution - it has a different history since 1930s, Ambedkar was reconciled to be its head by the Neheruvians after he was defeated ) I think Ambedkar was propped up as the leader of the third group of nationalities - the racial nationalities. Jinnah was leader of the religion nationality partition.

Basically Gandhi defeated this racial partition, by accepting all caste based issues within hindu framework. Gandhi failed to defeat the religious partition. Hostile western SICK intellectuals managed to foist the partition through Jinnah. I am not sentimental to political partition, But It is terrible that they have made land of pure. And land of pure in Kashmir Valley too...

In the final decades of independence Jinnah gained popularity by slandering Gandhi as an upper caste hindu , he got muslim votes. Ambedkar didn't get enough Scheduled caste votes, he got defeated by the Indian National Congress. It is during this crucial time, he shared dias with Jinnah...their target was same...to split and destroy india in ideological lines as prescribed by colonial impoverished men, called intellectuals.


It would have been merely suggestive to the empire about what Ambedkar wanted about Muslims, he seems to have been largely set up in a consulting role to empire on anti-gandhi ( Anti INC) role, and to foster caste issues.

"The Hindus wanted the Vedas and they sent for Vyasa, who was not a caste Hindu. The Hindus wanted an epic and they sent for Valmiki, who was an untouchable. The Hindus wanted a Constitution and they sent for me"
Apparent sentiments of humanistic unity ( though guised in disrespect) in a divisive atmosphere.

-0-


But there might might have a different opinion- a venerable Vaishya lady- the mother of Vidura, saw the great sage as the Brightest one . The grand Khyatriya considered his luck to get darshan of this great sage. The saints and Brahmins composed verses saying Vyasaya, Vishnu Rupaya, the sage who could meditate upon Hiranya Garbha.

This son of Maharishi was not the gene or flesh of a fisher man lady or a flow of Kamana that a life experiences, He was not measured in terms of utility of progressive history, or a communal member, nor by the ability of empire to be compassionate . Not even by the success or failure of Kuru Vansa..or the Mahabharat, the deep sea or heavenly fires, The Mahirshi saw all this as it is with clarity, as clear it could have been. the temporal manifestation of vast and vastness of sansara, the life, the death...the game of loss of the self in this vast sea...

May We bow to great sages for their blessing.

Jai Sri Rama.

Arvind said...

See http://www.sabha.info/research/aif.html

This has scanned pages from the works of William James, Max Muller and Abbe Dubois.

These pages clearly prove that Muller, James and others based AIT on the Bible.

There were two separate views back then - one based its claims on the belief that everyone is descended from the 3 sons of Noah. The descendants of one of the sons, Japheth, was supposedly the Aryan Race.

The other group believed that all languages came from the Tower of Babel. This was the basis for philology and the claim that Sanskrit came from Central Asia.

These scanned pages show that every component of AIT is explained by biblical beliefs.

1) 1500 BCE - Noah's flood happened in 2480 BCE. So give a 100 years

2) Invasion of Aryans - Noah blessed his son Japheth that his tribe will expand. So they must have invaded other countries!

3) Central Asia - location of Noah's boat and the Tower of Babel.

4) India's import of Sanskrit - Tower of Babel

5) Light skin of Aryans and dark skin of the conquered - Noah blessed Japheth and at the same time cursed another of his son Ham that his descendants would serve the descendants of the other two brothers. The Hamitic race are supposedly the Blacks and this myth was used to justify slavery during the civil war.

6) No one knows what made Aryans leave Central Asia - this is a euphemism for "God dispersed the people when he got angry at the people building the Tower of Babel."

पाखंड खंडिणी said...

Aryna INvasion is absolutely baseless and ridiculous ! Neither Archaeology nor Medical science ( mitochondrial DNA) supports this false theory !

Unknown said...

Dhara , if u know Worshipping false gods is considered a very good example of bad history by a journalist who concocted facts, put quotes out of context. He selectively chose sources to malign Ambedkar.Read Ambedkar's original writings to know the truth.