Hinduism and Aryan

[The_Spartan]

I have always thought about the origins of the Vedas. I have a few doubts that some of you, with good knowledge on Vedas, Hindu mythology etc could clarify -

In what geographical area/s was the Vedas authored?

Of course the Vedas were not written by a single author or over a single time window, but rather by a different groups over a whole lot of time.

The question is - were the Vedas written in the Indian sub continent itself? or were they written in places elsewhere than the Indian sub continent, by the "Aryans" during their movement into the Indian subcontinent?

For time being forget about the reference or argument about the mention of Saraswati river in the Vedas.

Are there any geographical indicators of the Indian sub continent mentioned in the Vedas that indicates that they were written in the Indian subcontinent?

and for the case of the mention of the Saraswati river, could this attribute to Saraswati river be to some other river, which the ":Aryans" could have come across/lived on, some places else than in the Indian subcontinent?

Just food for thought.

[+DieChecker]

I have always thought about the origins of the Vedas. I have a few doubts that some of you, with good knowledge on Vedas, Hindu mythology etc could clarify -

In what geographical area/s was the Vedas authored?

Of course the Vedas were not written by a single author or over a single time window, but rather by a different groups over a whole lot of time.

The question is - were the Vedas written in the Indian sub continent itself? or were they written in places elsewhere than the Indian sub continent, by the "Aryans" during their movement into the Indian subcontinent?

For time being forget about the reference or argument about the mention of Saraswati river in the Vedas.

Are there any geographical indicators of the Indian sub continent mentioned in the Vedas that indicates that they were written in the Indian subcontinent?

and for the case of the mention of the Saraswati river, could this attribute to Saraswati river be to some other river, which the ":Aryans" could have come across/lived on, some places else than in the Indian subcontinent?

Just food for thought.

Mind blowing idea!

I'll read up a little....

[Knight Ryder]

I have always thought about the origins of the Vedas. I have a few doubts that some of you, with good knowledge on Vedas, Hindu mythology etc could clarify -

In what geographical area/s was the Vedas authored?

Of course the Vedas were not written by a single author or over a single time window, but rather by a different groups over a whole lot of time.

The question is - were the Vedas written in the Indian sub continent itself? or were they written in places elsewhere than the Indian sub continent, by the "Aryans" during their movement into the Indian subcontinent?

For time being forget about the reference or argument about the mention of Saraswati river in the Vedas.

Are there any geographical indicators of the Indian sub continent mentioned in the Vedas that indicates that they were written in the Indian subcontinent?

and for the case of the mention of the Saraswati river, could this attribute to Saraswati river be to some other river, which the ":Aryans" could have come across/lived on, some places else than in the Indian subcontinent?

Just food for thought.

I am not an expert in history nor can I claim to be sanskrit scholar. But to answer your question quoting from Griffith's translation of the Rig Veda:

01-126] HYMN CXXVI. Bhavayavya.

1. WITH wisdom I present these lively praises of Bhavya dweller on the bank of Sindhu;

For he, unconquered King, desiring glory, hath furnished me a thousand sacrifices.

[Knight Ryder]

Our most ardent Hindu nationalist and revisionist was removed from UM some time ago, so I don't know how long the resurrection of this thread will last. All constructive comments are welcome, however.

I have to wonder where some Indian peoples get their information and how they're being educated. I stress "some" because this is certainly not the case across the board. In my work in our Egyptian exhibit at the museum I've encountered a great many Hindus, and they're almost always exceedingly polite, friendly, and inquisitive. Their children are very well behaved and respectful. I nearly always enjoy interacting with Hindus.

I can't say I've ever had a negative experience with one, but more than once I've seen strains of nationalistic revisionism. One of my favorite of all ancient peoples is Alexander the Great, and just last weekend I met a friendly young Hindu man who was trying to convince me that Alexander lost to Porus at the battle of the Hydapses (326 BCE). It's a basic historical fact that Alexander won every single battle in which he led his men, from Granicus in Asia Minor to Malli in the Lower Indus.

I'm left wondering where this young man I met got his information and who in the hell was teaching him.

This is a very complex question and it would be very difficult to answer it without sounding biased, still would try.

Post independence the history being taught in India stayed exactly what the Britishers left behind. The British perspective of history was designed to serve their purpose, not giving Indian people a chance to feel a sense of pride about their history, so that they continue to be subservient to the ruling elite.

In 1972, the then Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi set up Indian Council of Historical Research. Unfortunately for her personal political ambitions she had to rely heavily on the Marxists at that point of time. As such ICHR was set-up predominantly with historians who had a Marxist leanings or were Marxists. Another example of Marxists dominance at that time is Jawahar Lal Nehru University, set-up in 1969.

ICHR went on to rewrite (actually approve and promote authors who subscribed to their political views) Indian history. Under the garb of secularism, they downplayed certain events and in some cases completely ignored historical events related to religious persecution. This was done with the objective of giving equal credit to all communities for building the nation called India (actual history be damned). Basically what is taught in Indian schools today and has been taught for the last 40 odd years, is the Marxists perspective of Indian History.

The hindu nationalists on the other hand are the exact opposite of the Marxist school of thought and have been producing literature to counter, what in their opinion are, the wrongs (downplaying the atrocities committed by the Muslim Invaders) committed by the Marxists. In their zeal to prove the Marxists wrong they, more often than not, step over the thin line between History and propaganda.

Most Indians don't care to read about history after leaving school and stays indifferent to the debate about most historical issues like Origin of the Aryans, the rise and fall of Buddhism & Jainism, Islamic Invasions, Religious Persecution, Caste based discrimination, etc. Most Indians you would come across, would fall in this category.

The few that go out to search for more information, more often than not, end up at the doors of the Hindu nationalists. This is your guy, who thinks Alexander was defeated by Porus.

As a further reading I would recommend Koenraad Elst's commentary on the politics of the AIT in his book 'Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate'.

[The_Spartan]

Here is something i came across while searching

For the purpose of this article I will only focus on the important genetic markers that are relevant to India.

Genetic Marker M168: This marker first appeared approximately 79,000 years ago and is found in every human being living outside of Africa including India. The M168 marker mostly likely occurred in modern day Ethiopia or Sudan.

Genetic Marker M130 (M168-M130): Human beings carrying the M130 genetic marker are the first inhabitants of India. They walked along the coast of Africa and on to India, Malaysia and Indonesia and finally ended up in Australia almost 60,000 years ago. Less than 5% of Indian men have this marker (most of them in places like Tamil Nadu and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands). In contrast about 60% of Australian Aborigine men have this genetic marker.

Genetic Marker M20 (M168-M9-M20): The M20 genetic marker is part of the M9 lineage. The M20 was very likely a Middle Eastern marker. The group that carries this marker migrated into India in large numbers (the haplogroup L that has this marker is known as the Indian clan). This migration into India happened approximately 30,000 years ago. This marker is found in large numbers among South Indians who speak the Dravidian languages (Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada). In some South Indian populations the frequency of this marker is as high as 50%.

Genetic Marker M17 (M168-M9-M173-M17): The M17 is one of the most controversial markers as far as India is concerned. We have long known through oral traditions and literature that people from Eastern Europe/Central Asia migrated to India in our not so recent past (the Aryan invasion theory). The M17 marker found among certain Indians (including me) proves once and for all that Europeans did migrate to India. But DNA cannot prove whether these Europeans are indeed the Aryans that we talk about or whether or not these European migrants were the cause of the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization.

As some members of the M9 clan where migrating towards India other members of the group headed north towards Central Asia and Europe. From this group came the M173 marker which is the first large wave of human migration to Europe. Most Europeans (and North Americans) today can trace their DNA back to the M173 marker. For some strange reason some members of the M173 group turned and headed back towards South Asia (may be due to climatic conditions). From this returning group comes the M17 Indo-European marker.

The M17 marker first appears about 15,000 years ago in Southern Russia/Ukraine. The Indo-European languages including Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and now English are closely linked to this group. It is highly likely that the members of this group are the initial Indo-European language speakers. It is estimated that over 35% of Hindi speaking males in India carry this marker (compared to less than 10% among Dravidian language speakers).

The descendants of the first Indians still live in the Andaman islands and places like Tamil Nadu. People with the M20 marker and the Dravidian languages are also still here (they arrived about 30,000 years ago) and finally the Indo-European speakers (started with Sanskrit a language that has origins in places like Ukraine) and their M17 markers are also present (they arrived less than 5000 years ago).

There are many more markers present in India that shows migration into India and out of India. The study of human migration and population genetics is a fascinating subject. But this is just the beginning. But at least we now know who we “Indians” really are.

http://indiafirsthand.com/2010/07/22/history-of-india-the-first-indians/

Maybe i should get my DNA tested. i would know more about my lineage too.

[kmt_sesh]

This is a very complex question and it would be very difficult to answer it without sounding biased, still would try.

Post independence the history being taught in India stayed exactly what the Britishers left behind. The British perspective of history was designed to serve their purpose, not giving Indian people a chance to feel a sense of pride about their history, so that they continue to be subservient to the ruling elite.

In 1972, the then Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi set up Indian Council of Historical Research. Unfortunately for her personal political ambitions she had to rely heavily on the Marxists at that point of time. As such ICHR was set-up predominantly with historians who had a Marxist leanings or were Marxists. Another example of Marxists dominance at that time is Jawahar Lal Nehru University, set-up in 1969.

ICHR went on to rewrite (actually approve and promote authors who subscribed to their political views) Indian history. Under the garb of secularism, they downplayed certain events and in some cases completely ignored historical events related to religious persecution. This was done with the objective of giving equal credit to all communities for building the nation called India (actual history be damned). Basically what is taught in Indian schools today and has been taught for the last 40 odd years, is the Marxists perspective of Indian History.

The hindu nationalists on the other hand are the exact opposite of the Marxist school of thought and have been producing literature to counter, what in their opinion are, the wrongs (downplaying the atrocities committed by the Muslim Invaders) committed by the Marxists. In their zeal to prove the Marxists wrong they, more often than not, step over the thin line between History and propaganda.

Most Indians don't care to read about history after leaving school and stays indifferent to the debate about most historical issues like Origin of the Aryans, the rise and fall of Buddhism & Jainism, Islamic Invasions, Religious Persecution, Caste based discrimination, etc. Most Indians you would come across, would fall in this category.

The few that go out to search for more information, more often than not, end up at the doors of the Hindu nationalists. This is your guy, who thinks Alexander was defeated by Porus.

As a further reading I would recommend Koenraad Elst's commentary on the politics of the AIT in his book 'Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate'.

Very thoughtful and helpful reply, Knight Ryder. I found it informative. I wasn't aware of the entire situation.

[Frank Merton]

I think Hindu nationalism propaganda pales besides some of the things I have seen Pakistanis claim.

[Knight Ryder]

I think Hindu nationalism propaganda pales besides some of the things I have seen Pakistanis claim.

Hi Frank, I have never had the opportunity of reading the Pakistani perspective. Would it be possible for you to share the name of the authors I should read? Or websites.

Kmt_sesh, Happy to help.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Knight Ryder