Re: Indo-European Studies

Virendra Verma (
17 JUL 95 09:56:47

In article <3u69ne$>, (Raghu Seshadri) writes...
>Virendra Verma ( wrote:
>: >Well, advanced weapons technology!=civilization.
>: True. Does advanced civilization means stupidity? That's the only way
>: uncivilized/barbarians few (i.e. Aryans) would be able to kick those
>: natives to the south in favor of a less civilized culture of the Aryans.
>Here I think you are on weak ground, Mr Verma.
>You know that the Hindus got whipped by the
>Arabs, the Afghans etc. And these guys were
>relatively very few in number.
>So you know that a few uncivilized groups can
>defeat a more civilized, far more numerous settlement.

No. At the time of Moghul invasion, the Indian civilization was at
its low point: people were confused, divided, and ignorant of
Indian values. The culture was pre-occupied with mysticism and
could hardly be called an advanced civilization. The history tells
us that Arabs had no intention of ruling India. Their main aim was
to loot temples and get back to their homeland. The brahmins
corroborated with the invading Arabs to revenge ruling class. The
British also succeeded because of Indian cultural weakness.

What bothers me with the Aryan invasion theory is that they had to
face the so called an advanced civilization of Dravidians. How could
it be possible? In modern time, can few third-world nomads invade
modern Europe or America? It doesn't make any sense to me. It needs
lots of scientific basis to prove as to why a few barbarions could
displace an advanced civilization to the south.


-- Virendra Verma