Re: Indo-European Studies

Gerold Firl (
17 Jul 1995 12:42:08 -0700

In article <3udrfu$> (Virendra Verma) writes:

> 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.

Interesting statement ... I wonder if you could clarify a couple of points.
First, what are the indian values which were unknown to the indian people?
If indian people were ignorant of these values, does that imply that either
the people, or the values, weren't really indian? Each succesive wave of
conquerors has brought a new set of values with themAs the newcomers
assimilate, their values assimilate as well. Some of them take, others do
not. Determining which are *really* indian seems like a difficult task.

Second, what do you mean with the last statement quoted above, about the
brahmins collaborating(?) with the arabs?

> 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.

Barbarians have defeated advanced civilizations on many occasions. Germans
vs. rome, turks vs. byzantium, mongols vs. china, hyksos vs. egypt, semites
vs. sumerians; it is not uncommon at all. Besides, the indian
"civilization" which existed prior to the arrival of the aryans hardly
deserves the name. The indus valley cultures appear to have been mere
colonial appendages of mesopotamia, more like a combination trading post
and off-shore manufacturing site than a true civilization. They had a very
limited area of influence, confined to the indus valley, and wouldn't be
expected to put up much of a fight.

The ganges valley is the prize of india. That was the land which attracted
the cattle-herding aryans. I'm not sure about kashmir; was there a vedic
presence in kashmir?

It is also interesting to note that india south of the ganges valley
remained a stone-age backwater for 1500 years after the arrival of the
aryans. It wasn't until the arrival of the buddhist missionaries of ashoka
around 200 bc that southern india emerged from the paleolithic, and only
with the arrival of *roman* trading posts around 50 ad that the wealth of
the southern coastal kingdoms was established.

Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf