Re: Indo-European Studies

Vinay Kashyap (
Tue, 18 Jul 1995 03:22:35 GMT


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. The
> British also succeeded because of Indian cultural weakness.

o The Mughals were not Arabs.
o The Mughals did not in general have a policy of systematic looting and
pillaging of temples. War was a different matter.
o The Mughals defeated the Lodis, who were the tail end of the 3 century
long "Afghan" rulers of Delhi.
o The Khiljis managed to destroy a Hoysala kingdom which was, if not at
its peak, very close to it.
o The British and the Mughals are separated in time by about 3 centuries.

> 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

Egypt, 18th century BC
Crete, 14th century BC
Persia, 4th century BC
Rome, 5th century AD