ARYANS, DRAVIDIANS AND NAGAS---- PART TWO !

'ARYANS','DRAVIDS' AND 'NAGAS'---SOME LIES, MYTHS AND SOME LEGENDS-PART TWO Jul 12 2008  | Views 3999 |  Comments  (34)  | Report Abuse Tags: nagas dravidians aryans myths and lies.              In Part One, I had stated that VEDIC KNOWLEDGE in India pre-existed the arrival of so- called ARYANS. I had also gone on to say that the MYTH of ARYA, as a race, was created by Europeans or more particularly the GERMANS, who were looking for a racial supremacy. Therefore, when in the early twenties of the last Century, such magnificent archaeological sites as HARAPPA and MOHANJO-DARO were excavated, they were immediately linked to something superior which had imported itself from outside to the Indian mainland. People, like MAXMULELLER and MORTIMER WHEELER, could not believe that ancient INDIA could have had created such ARCHITECTURAL WONDERS IN URBAN DWELLING. Western Scholars, trained and educated on the biblical beliefs that the universe was created only around 23 October 4100BC, could not think of the world existing prior to this. In time and space,they reduced everything to within 2000BC and originating from Central Asia. Thus, based on the flimsiest of grounds, the theory of ARYAN INVASION and CONQUER was floated when a mount of dead bodies was found at MOHANJO-DARO. It was assumed that they might have been slaughtered by the SUPERIOR ARYANS. This myth led to the emergence of a SUPER MYTH on the supremacy and superiroity of a great ARYAN & VEDIC KNOWLEDGE, imported from outside. New archaeological excavations and the interpretation of the ORAL HISTORY reveal that the MYTH and the SUPER MYTH, both, were a cruel joke on the ANCIENT GREATNESS of INDIA.           I have already highlighted in Part One that ARYANS were only a lingual fraternity of SANSKRIT speaking people, who probably used it as a title to add honour and dignity to self. They did not belong to one particular race as is true of ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE of today. Also, it would be pertinent to note that they did not come as a one big migration or invading hordes but as a trickle and gradually their numbers multiplied. Who can deny that SILICON VALLEY in CALIFORNIA, USA was bursting at seams today with growing population of INDIANS and ASIANS?  What would you say, 500 or 1000 years hence, if the demographic shift takes place in their favor----and you have more  of HINDI, Chinese or TAMIL speaking people there? I suspect something of this nature happened in ancient India in the late HARAPPAN period around 2800-1900 BC. The people speaking crude- sanskritic- dialect came as TRADERS from Central Asia and began settling down. It is a different matter that after coming to the LAND OF SAPTASINDHU they might have contributed towards the further development of the existing VEDIC KNOWLEDGE.            By the way, we call this knowledge "VEDIC" for ease of understanding and also because it was SANSKRITISED by the Sanskrit speaking people who were enamored by its greatness and depth. More ever, the main fact is that the PICTORIAL SCRIPT of the INDIGENOUS INDIANS, like the HARAPPAN SCRIPT, was too difficult for the general public to understand. Sanskrit language had become to ancient INDIANS what English language is to modern India. I would also like to emphasize here THAT THE REAL, ACTUAL AND INTELLIGBLE DEVELOPMENT OF SANSKRIT TOOK PLACE ONLY IN THE ‘SAPTA SINDHU REGION’. It was perfected by PANINI in the first Century AD and he created a GRAMMAR for it. Prior to this, SANSKRIT was the poor sister of AVESTAN ZENDA of ancient Persians. It was crude and without a proper script. Before PANINI perfected the script and the grammar, there was a tradition of ORAL TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE from one generation to another generation. GURUKUL SCHOOLS excelled in this.          It has now been established that origins of Indian civilization go back to the end of last ICE AGE, which geology tells us was around 10,000 years back. The SARASVATI River in the post 'ICE-AGE' era, and the main site of URBAN RUINS in ancient INDIA, say around 80 percent of the excavated sites, is well documented in the VEDIC LITERATURE. Old Rig Vedic litereature talks about the river from the "MOUNTAINS TO THE SEA". This phase is primarily between 5000BC to 8000BC. There is a general belief that a seismic upheaval around 4500 BC diverted its two main tributaries, YAMUNA and SATLUJ towards their current courses. This river, which was generally 6-8 KMs wide, at times up to 14 KMs, was very deep with a fast flowing current. It is assumed that between 3000BC and 1900BC, the river was gradually dying and drying. After another upheaval around 3000BC, the river used to disappear in a place called VINASHNA in the deserts of Rajasthan, where a series of lake formed themselves. The water level having further reduced, the river began to dry up and it is estimated it ceased to flow around 1900BC. RIG VEDA, HAS ITS MENTION SOME 60 TIMES WHILE THE GANGES IS ONLY ONCE. The cessation of the river SARASWATI (1900BC) corresponds with the decline of the HARAPPAN CIVILISATION. It was the drying up of the River SARASWATI that caused the ababndonment of HARAPPAN CITIES and not any invasion by some SUPER RACE. It was these ECOLOGICAL changes that led to the fall of Harappan Civilisation.         Most Western historians and some Indians too, say that RAMAYANA STORY was enacted around 1900-1500BC, that is post-SARASWATI period. Based on the same analogy, they assign MAHABHARTA the date of around 1000BC. I find major lacunae with these theories. It is that they do not take into account VEDIC RISHIS or seers such as VASHISHTA , JAGDAMBI and VISHAVMITRA, who are the creators of RIG VEDAS. So, how can these RISHIS be post SARASVATI?          This river has now been identified, through satellite imagery, as a PALAEO channel, running now along the dry channel of River GHAGHAR of Haryana –Rajasthan in India and River HAKRA in SINDH, Pakistan. It allegedly started from HAR KI DOON in UTTARANCHAL and flowed, along with its tributaries DRISHTAVADI, YAMUNA, SATLUJ etc, through KURUKSHETRA, PAHEWA, SHATRANA, SIRSA, KALBANGAN, SURATGARH (all in India) HAKRA and LOTHAL in Pakistan. Major archaeological sites have been found along this channel of the mythological river. This falsifies the super myth of INDUS VALLEY CIVILISATION. It is now referred to as SARASVATI VALLEY CIVILISATION.        'Sarasvati River' has been the cradle of ancient Indian civilization. It was the FOUNTAIN HEAD of the SAPTA-SINDHU REGION. It must be noted that there was nothing 'ARYAN' or 'DRAVIDA' about this civilization. In the words of Dr. DAVID FRAWLEY and Dr. NAVRATNA S RAJARAM in their book, “HIDDEN HORIZONS”, the concepts of ARYANS and DRAVIDA races have no scientific and archaeological basis. To quote them: “ ------------The late ancient Aryan and Dravidians migrations, postulated to have taken place c.1500BCE (3500Before Present), into India from Central Asia of WESTERN Linguistic theories, occur too late, after populations and cultures were already formed, to result in the great changes attributed to them. Besides, no records of such proposed invasions or migrations have yet been found. Archaeology, literature, and science, including genetics, all contradict it. ----------------------------”            To put it simply, ARYANS were SANSKRIT SPEAKING people and DRAVIDIANS were non-SANSKRIT SPEAKING people. This was initially when crude Sanskrit was spoken before it was developed by PANINI. The word DRAVIDA is found first time in written form in a SIXTH CENTURY SANSKRIT TEXT, called TANTRIKAVARTIKA by KUMARILA BHATTA , to describe people who were inferior or lacking in knowledge and who spoke unintelligible language. This was the time, when, after the decline of BUDDHISM and emergence of GUPTA EMPIRE, HINDUISM had been given RELIGIOUS CONNOTATION with the confluence of SHAIVISM and VAISHNAVISM.  This was also the time when the movement for the revival of SANATAN DHARMA would begin.               However, the word ‘DRAVIDA’ came into extensive modern use in the last half of the 19th Century when a BRITISH AUTHOR, Robert Caldwell, picked up the word from this SANSKRIT TEXT to describe the people of SOUTH INDIA—as they thought all SOUTH INDIANS speak TAMIL or DAMILA or DRAMILA. Thus, such a simplistic identification of the people is an example how SANSKRIT SPEAKING PEOPLE would have disfigured the originality of the NON-SANSKRITIC KNOWLEDGE. Actually, the idea of DRAVIDA created the myth of their migrations prior to ARYANS from Central Asia. The man behind this was CALDWELL, who regarded them as SCYTHIANS people because of some affinities between DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES and CENTRAL ASIAN LANGUAGES.             Ancient India had movement of people from North to South and vice versa more freely. This is evident as you read the the immediate period in the aftermath of last ICE AGE. Peninsular India was the place where humans lived and cultivated. It is only when glacier melting raised the sea levels that people moved north into plain vacant areas, along the water bodies.Thus, through this Northward migration of peoples & cultures from South India, at the end of 'Ice Age', that the SARASVATI RIVER CIVILISATION WAS CREATED around 8000 BC—which was primarily NAGA CIVILISATION. But this Civilization had the best of both the regions i.e. North and South. As oral history tells us that the greatest of Rig Vedic Rishi, VASHISHTHA was the younger brother of AGASTYA –who is considered a great dominant seer in South India and Tamil Nadu It is also known that seer AGASTYA has supposedly composed 25 hymns for RIG VEDA..It establishes the fact that proto-Vedic and proto-Tamil cultures were closely related. It is further important to note that people from south like TURVASHAS and the YADUS are also mentioned in RIG VEDA as are PURUS of North India.              Anthropologists, Archaeologists and historians have now veered round to the view that the populations in the late ICE AGE were centered in the coastal areas and not along the rivers. In fact these populations preceded the river civilizations some thousands of years.  Surprisingly, the historians and anthropologists have found that these sites were located not in CENTRAL ASIA, EURASIA or Europe but in the COASTAL REGIONS OF PENINSULAR INDIA or particularly now submerged LAND MASS of “SUNDA LAND”—also called GREATER INDIA.             In Tamil literature there is a mention of an island called LEMURIA, also called KUMARI KANDAM, which was located south of modern India. It supposedly spread from East Africa to Australia. Though it has not been accepted but the basic fact that the area between Madgascar to Australia through South India was once one land mass is acknowledged by the scientists now.               However, in Tamil tradition, Kumari Kandam is referred to as the Land of Purity, a sophisticated kingdom of higher learning, located south of Kanyakumari or Cape Comorin. During a violent geologic catastrophe the entire island was submerged under the water. The survivors migrated to the present Indian subcontinent and supposedly sparked the Indus Valley Civilisation.This mass of land is often compared to the island of Lemuria.There are various claims from Tamil authors that there was a large land mass connecting Madagascar and Australia from the Southwest and Southeast respectively to the present-day Kanyakumari District coast. In Ayyavazhi mythology, specifically Akilathirattu Ammanai, speaks of a sunken land about 152 miles south of present day Kanyakumari. It goes on to describe the civilization with exactly 16008 streets.              Whether it was Sunda Land, Kumari Kandam or even Lemuria, it is now accepted that agriculture was first started in the coastal region and when the temperatures rose at the end of Ice age, water level rose about 400 feet, submerging most of SUNDALAND —which had included whole of present day South Asia including Thailand, Myanmar and land up to INDONESIA, ANDEMAN & NICOBAR, SRILANKA etc, the people migrated to North West Region which became SARASVATI  RIVER basin. Thus, began the saga of river civilizations.             HARAPPAN seals tell the story of this MUTATION of KNOWLEDGE. I would like to draw your attention to seals depicting YOGIC POSTURES—such as MULBANDHAASANA of YOGA on a seal. It is by a three headed deity who is also called PASHUPATINATH or Lord Shiva. I have said in my earlier write-up that NAGAS WERE followers of Lord SHIVA. Take another seal of SWASTIKA or SVASTI-KA meaning maker of welfare. These seals have been extensively found in Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. There is a seal with five SVASTI-SIGNS—which finds mention in Rig Veda and ‘Yajur Veda’. Again, the UNI-CORN or one horned animal seal found extensively in all the archaeological sites. It could be a boar. In Mahabharata it is described as ‘one horned’ or “EK-SHRINGA” This VARAH or BOAR seal has references in Rig Veda, ‘Yajur Veda’ and Mahabharata. Again, there are several seals as well as terra-cotta figurines demonstrating various YOGIC POSTURES. They are available on the WIKIPEDIA article on HARAPPAN SEALS. All this goes to show that HARAPPAN had this knowledge prior to the coming of so-called ARYANS. There is an artifact discovered which can be interpreted as OM sign. It is ‘bow-shaped’ with ashavattha tree leaves adorning it.  I conclude from all this that VEDIC KNOWLEDGE was available to HARAPPAN people who dominated the SARASWATI –SINDHU region and who had migrated to this region from the COASTAL AREAS at the end of last ICE AGE.           Now the question arises who were HARAPPANS? Were they ARYANS or DRAVIDIANS? My answer is BIG NO.  Ancient history, tradition, anthropology, literature, archaeology knows none as ARYANS and DRAVIDIANS. At best ARYA was a title used by aristocratic and educated people who spoke PERFECTED SANSKRIT—a language of the elite. I would rather say the crude language was used by the traders and adopted by ancient INDIAN SCHOLARS to replace the unscientific and difficult pictorial language of SARASVATI region. Today AMERICANISED English has overshadowed the Queen’s English. So must have been the case of INDIANISED SANSKRIT- which could have overshadowed AVESTAN ZENDA or CRUDE SANSKRIT.            ‘Dravidian’ was a myth created by a SANSKRIT scholar to identify NON-SANSKRIT SPEAKING people as a derogatory reference. It later was used by BRITISH scholars to describe people of PENINSULAR INDIA. Some Sanskrit texts referred to five DRAVIDAS—or PANCH DRAVIDAS i.e. GUJRAT, MAHARASHTRA, KARNATKA, TAMIL and TELGU. It was basically to describe five regions of peninsular India.  Neither ARYANS nor DRAVIDAS were a race to acquire that unique status. I would further like to reiterate that SANSKRIT, in crudest form, came to INDIA as a language of the TRADERS from the Central Asia and Iran as did English. It is known now that HARAPPAN had trade links with Egyptians, Sumerians and Iranians. It was reformed and developed in India and then utilized to transpose the KNOWLEDGE from PICTORIAL SCRIPTS to its improved version. So, who were HARAPPANS?         As a simple answer I would like to say they were ‘ancient Indians’—who had migrated from the coastal regions to SAPTA SINDHU REGION at the end of last ICE AGE, when bulk of SUNDA LAND or THE GREATER INDIA was submerged into the rising ocean. They were agriculturalists and URBAN DWELLERS who lived along the water bodies such as lakes and rivers. They knew the importance of water as they had developed agriculture in the coastal areas. Discovery of an urban city in the ‘bay of cam bay ‘ or “KHAMBHAT BAY” off the coast of Gujarat  testifies this theory. Carbon dating suggests that city was submerged around 7500BC. This is around the time ICE AGE came to an end. Similar discoveries are being reported from near Chennai. I will talk about  this later. A sunken Island of Lemuria or Kumari Kandam is alleged to be located off the coast of KanyaKumari. And they were the ancient INDIANS. Let us not talk of color and complexion. Climate, weather and geographic features play their part. American speaks their English through nasal sounds whereas English men speak differently. The geography does have its impact on your speech.         I firmly believe that people of SARASVATI-INDUS region were the carrier of VEDIC KNOWLEDGE as NAGA PEOPLE. They were followers of LORD SHIVA—who had the entire region mapped by his temples. His followers believed in drinking SOMARAS, an intoxicant, and relished non-vegetarian dishes. They believed living happily in the present. EAT, DRINK, and be MERY was their basic philosophy of life. Natural upheavals between 4500 BC to 2000BC led to their cities being devastated. It is during this period that trading jamborees of people from WEST began to settle in the region where vacuum was created by the migration EAST and SOUTH of the NAGAS. Even Ramayana mentions that Lord RAVNA was worshipper of LORD SHIVA---he is alleged to have offered his head in YAGNA to lord SHIVA one thousand times. It is also truism that RAVNA was a most LEARNED KING—he was known to have the knowledge of FOUR VEDAS. At the time of his death, Lord RAMA and LAXMAN go to RAVNA to get the final Lesson of life. And what did he tell them: “NEVER BE HAUGHTY”. I reckon Ravna was a NAGA KING. BALMIKI, who wrote Ramayana was a CHANDAL—a NAGA. Mythology talks about them as DANAVS or DASYUS, DAITYAS, RAKSHASHAS etc. This is the time when NAGAS had withdrawn from SARASVATI region to down south and East and they had established their own kingdoms. Perhaps geography, weather and climate affected them.         ‘Mahabharata’ too, makes a mention of these NAGAS in a most derogatory sense—when it paints them as demons or dangerous people. There are three stories in Mahabharata about them. One is lord Krishna, as a child, overpowering a KALIYA NAAG on the banks of River Yamuna near Mathura. He has been depicted as half human and half snake. I am sure he must be some NAGA chieftain who lived near the river. Then there is a mention of ARJUNA marrying a NAGA girl ULUPI in MANIPUR during ‘Pandav’s’ 14 year exile who gave birth to his son. She ought to be a human if ARJUNA married her and got a son through her. Then we come to the famous YAGNA by JANAMAJAY, grand son of ARJUNA, who in his zeal to revenge his father’s killing by a NAGA Prince, TAKSHAK, took a vow to eliminate NAGA race from the earth. He systematically carried out ETHNIC CLEANSING—like what happened in KASHMIR some years back when Kashmiri Pundits (KPs) were made to vacate the valley. He went on to ravage the beautiful city of TAXILA—in Pakistan. This is the only instance I find of ARYAN butchery of the HARAPPAN people. Ethnic Cleansing has historical precedence in Indian Context.          So, who were Nagas?  I think it needs to take into account historical, archaeological, anthropological and mythological tales to form an opinion. It would be better if I do it separately in another blog. I will do it in PART THREE.                               ------TO BE CONTINUED IN PART THREE   © rajee kushwaha., all rights reserved. Bookmark this pageEdit this blog   Oakhollow8 posted 1 year ago Mr. Kushwaha, I am new to the study of Historical India, and I wish to thank you for an informative and a breath of fresh air to the otherwise dry information in most journals and texts. I am in the process of researching the Naya (Nair), for my first Cultural Anthropology course. I like to get as much background as possible, and you present some interesting variables to follow up. Again Thank You, Michael Mingus Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   IMPEACE posted 3 yrs ago Dear rajee kushwaha, Thanks for historical information. Keep it up. Regards IMPEACE Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 3 yrs ago dear luke,    thanks a lot. i am really obliged and also very grateful for these kind words. the whole thrust of my blog was to bring out the fact that vedic knowledge was indigenous and belonged to a race called naga-- which was the origional ihabitant of the land called india but this knowledge was appropriated by aryans who were sanskrit speaking.    your questions on sonia, her children, jay lalita and arundhati are very interesting. i can answer you in one stroke but it would be unfair because i do not apprve of these divisions such as aryans and dravidians.       you know, the anthropologists have established that there were only four human races. these are caucksoids--from caucasian region or central asia or caspian sea; mangloids, from mangloia---yellow races; negroids---from the dark continent---the dark people and the australoids --the people of sunda land---or australian coast lines. the  indians today are a mix of all four races. but in north india they owe their ancestry to austaraloids and cucksoids. in the east they owe it to mangoloids and australoids. in the south they owe it to negroids and australoids. it is the west whic is badly mixed up--after centuries of merging.     sir, you are enticing me to write my part-iii which i had given up when i realised people might not be keen to know this serious stuff. i might do it now.    regards. thanks for your informed views. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   j LUKE posted 3 yrs ago kushwaha-ji this part-2 is definitely an improvement over your part-1 in this series. you have now grasped concepts of aryan/dravidia/nagas... and so on,  planted somehow in dna & blood streams of punjabis, tamils and most other colour concious indians by colonial masters of india. can we say sonia (...you know who) & her children are 'aryan',  amma jaya of tamilnadu 'dravidian' & arundhati a 'naga' ?  hope you consider this a serious question from a foreigner (to india) like me. i want to read more of your blogs, time permitting. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   santhemant posted 4 yrs ago sanskrit grammar only after panini??!!-- that too only 1000 years back-lothal in pakistan? it is in gujart nr cambay where saraswati ended !yoga vashistah and tripurarahasya of duttatraya are >5000 yrs old. read some from web site www.sanskritdocuments.org to know oldest amongst grammaraised sanskrit.other comments later.bye. has Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago dear amit,    thanks for the complements. tell you frankly, last month and a half i devoted to this topic for reading and visiting unknown and unrecognised historical places to get my take on nagas. i am halfway through writing my third and final part---but i am going slow--because such dry subjects do not interst bulk of the people. therefore, i have postponed its immediate posting.    my problem is people have pre-conceived notions or religious overdose to give it even  one glance. and you know sulekha audience wants fastfood stuff. most of the young crowd is not interested in these dry issues. like my son told me: "how does it matter whether we were nagas or aryans or vedic people, if today, we can not behave as humans, too?  haven't we locked up that knowledge only for political discussions but not for practical following."    and i agree with the thinking of these young people. these academic discussions are meaningless unless we practically follow their values advocated. that's why i have held in abeyance the posting of the third part. i will see if it merits publication on sulekha. regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   writer at heart posted 4 yrs ago rajee ji, well researched and informative blog. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago sreenivasrao ji,    i would like to quote from the very authentic sources which have been greatly accepted by all indologists and vedic scholars. this is from the book hidden treasure by dr david frawley and dr nav ratna s  raja ram--both renowned scholars of vedic knowledge and indology. they have been able to decipher the harappan seals and feel they would soon decipher the script too. i would like to quote the chronology of ancient indian history by them--which has been authenticated by archaeologists, anthroplogists and other vedic scholars. the chronology is: dates     natural/historical event       historical development     17000bc    late ice age                     coastal cultures in sunda land,                                                                  the idea of pre-flood civilizations. 15000bc     warming begins, unstable   coastal cultures under stress                       coast line 13000bc     ice age ending; flooding         proto- vedic civilizations mainly in                     begins of coastal areas.           south india.                     north india opens up for                      the habitation. 11000bc    glaciations; freeze returns        indra -vritra battles as per the                                                                          vedas  10000bc    farming spreads in          indra -vritra battles continue.                     sunda land and indian                      interiors. 8000bc     renewed warming. ice sheet    vritra--the coverer is slain by                   finally retreats.                           indra--the solar deity                   great north indian rivers                   (glacier fed) begin to flow.                   saraswati becomes the                   greatest river and saraswati-                   drishadvati doab becomes the                    rig vedic home. 8000bc     beginning of the post saraswati         manu vivaswan period.                    settlements. 7000bc     prime era of ocean-going saraswati      the early vedic dynasties;    to                                                                            yayati, turvash, yadu and 4000bc                                                                     puru. the early rishis;                                                                                   angirasas, bhrigus,                                                                                    bhardwajas, vamdev. 4000bc   weakening of saraswati;     great kings of ikshavakus    to           end of early vedic age.       and the puru -bhartas.  3100bc                                                trasyadasu, mandhara,                                                                bharat etc. late vedic                                                                rulers, ram sudas and                                                                the panchalas. the                                                                 battle of ten kings.                                                                 rishis vasishta and                                                                vishavmitra. 3100bc traditional date of krishna     compilation of vedas                sacking of takshila by            under the purus. the                  janamajay                              mahabharata war, ved vyas                                                                 and his pupils compile                                                                 the vedas. 3100bc harappan civilization             late vedic age and the   to 200bc   to declining saraswati              early puranic age. 2200-1900 bc worldwide droughts--.    end of late vedic                           europe to china.              age. the focus shifts to                           saraswati dries up.           east--gangetic plains.                                                                     janpadas are                                                                    established and                                                                     kingdoms vanish. 1900-1300bc post harappan period.        some vedic people move                                                                      out of india to the west.                                                                      mesopotamia is                                                                      conquered and kassite                                                                      empire established.    sir, i have given you this chronology which is in sync and harmony with traditional hindu literature. i am sure this will lead to some formulation of our views. i am not totally relying on this. and despite the temptation i have not touched upon the naga aspect of all this. regards. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   ashualec posted 4 yrs ago you are very right i always read the comments part of blogs as along with the views on the particular subjects and the educational part,  the comments also reflect the real persona of the blogger to some extent  ..the mindset and the prejudices are apparent Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago dear ashualec,     thanks for the visit and the palatable observations. kindly read the comments and the counter comments because a lot of unsaid things of the blog are coming out in the discussion which has followed. you will notice we are now veering around to the view that the words arya and dravida have no ethnic identity. it was a western scholar's created myth. arya was at best a title for people who spoke crude sanskrit--dravida was the word evolved in sixth century to describe non-sanskrit speaking people. by this time sanskrit had been perfected for 600 years by panini. it became an intelligible and developed language of the elite--who ever did not know it were considered inferior. for example, like the non english speaking indians before liberalisation of economyin the 90's of the last century--were looked at disdainfully by all these public school wards of the ruling class. there is nothing new in these behaviours--this had been so around for 2500 years now.   yea, i will come back with my third part--it will take some time--let me first resolve these issues. regards and many thanks for the support. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse 1 2 3 4 Displaying  1 -  10 of  34  Blog Comments    rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago dear sekhar,    i appreciate your honesty and views. i myself do not believe in the caste or subcaste system---frankly speaking i do not use this subcaste in my real life name--i do not believe in caste, creed, colour and religious distinctions. in fact iam religious to the point that i believe in the existence of god. i do not believe in the birth tag religions. this is not to say that i am not a hindu. i am very much--but i have a different definition of hinduism--would you like to read my blog on "is hinduism a euphemism for a people or the religion". i have stated in no uncertain terms that the word hindu is the lost elder brother of the modern word indian. woulld you like to go through this article. i can send you the link if you want.       i have talked of the caste system there. i would like you to read my views on this--i feel it was social the division of work and its hereditory specialisation because of the lack of written scripts and the need to spread the knowledge through oral traditions. unfortunately the brahmanical class ritualised and prepetuated it for their own vested intersts. you will note in history--that people of so called lower castes became kashatriyas and vice versa--through their work. have you heard of nanda dynasty of magadh--they were 'nais'--or the barbers. i can give you many such examples but for my emphasis on differebnt subject. the caste system was something like today's class system. i stop it at that. we can take it up later.   i would request you to read my comments to sh ds sampath and sreenivasrao. i am laying bare my mind.   i have only one objection to you all--i do not agree with the use of word dravida to describe south indians as much as i do not accept the north indians as aryans--or something racially superior--even if they claim that--the genes have been mutated over the last four millenium through climate, weather and cross breeding. this is as much applicable to people of present day south india, too---particularly who carry the torch og the greatness of dravidas.   yea, sh vs gopalji is very much there on my blog. he promised to come back. i would definitely like to be addressed as rajee and no other title please---i hate it. my real name is rajinder singh---rajee is its shortned form. thanks for the inputs. regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago sampath sir,    your deductions are fine . they fit into what i am saying? you see when the time dimrnsion is thousands of years---a few hundreds years here and there, have no meaning as long as basic premise is concerned . i am only drawing your attention to natural history and natural geography which has now undoubtedly established the existence of  'sundaland' urban dwellings--who were the pioneers in agriculture which demolishes the myth of central asian origin of vedic knowledge as hither to claimed. this is my first point.    my second point is that these urbanised people of sundaland came into the saraswati-indus or the sapta-sindhu region and further developed their knowledge which is called the vedic knowledge. i am insisting and emphasising , they were nagas--which will come out in my part three on nagas.   my third point is about dravida--an all out myth on ethnicity and linguistic affinity. there are only interpretations by learned people both from south, west and north on its evolution and the use of this word. no vedic text or the pre christ literature has this word dravida---none of the languages of the south, too. my emphasis are on pre-christ tamil, telgu, kannad, malayalam, marathi and gujrati texts. the word first time finds mention in a sanskrit text of kumarilla bhatta who uses the term to describe only the non sanskrit speaking people. he does not say whether they were from south or east or west. he is an anti-buddhist who uses this term as a derogatory reference. you must understand his psyche. the use of this word to describe the people of south india was popularised by robert caldwell--a british priest--who saw the similarity of the tamil language with central asian languages. i have been saying this that proto-tamil(you might say dravid) languages are more close to brahmi--prakritic and pictorial languages. if you look at harappan script it will resemble more with these pistorial scripts of south.   my fourth point is about mighty river saraswati. it has three phases in its life. first--"mountain to sea" course in the immediate aftermath of last ice age when it had such great tributaries as yamuna, satluj and drishtabadvati.  this phase lasted from 8000bc to 4500 bc. around this time a seismic upheaval led to saraswati losing its tributaries of drishtavati and yamuna. in the second phase it had only satluj as it main tributary. this phase lasted till 3000bc when the river had totally stopped going to the sea, because of anothe major earthquake and satluj changed course  to its present allignment. it used to disappear in the desert near vanashna and it formrd lakes. then startedthe third phase. the source of water began reducing and finally around 1900 bc it disappeared  totally. this led to rajasthan and sindh being desertified. and all the major urban dwellings being vacated. some of the sites like mohanjo-daro could have faced the devastation due to natural upheavals.   my fifth point is the south ward movement of these naga people led by seer agastya--younger brother of vashishta --the dynastic guru of king dsarath and lord rama--which leads me to conclude that all this drama was enacted by the original inhabitants of the coastal sundaland. may be at some stage their long lost cousins, who had gone further north and west returned as traders and speakers of crude sanskrit.    my final point is about lord ravna--he was the knower of all vedas---he was the worshipper of lord shiva--who was he. mythology calls him rakshas born through the union of an aryan rishi and rakshas mother. who were rakshasha--or asuras--or danavas --or daityas? most of them worshipper of lord shiva--you talk of sangrahasur or maheshasur---they were all asuras. they all were learned men. how did the knowledge come to them if it were not indigenous---as these people were definitely indigenous---nagas as per my dictionary and paraphrasing.  regards. rajee Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   sreenivasarao s posted 4 yrs ago what shri sampath says makes a lot of sense. setting aside various theories, perhaps the only date that could be approximated is the drying up of the saraswathi – around 1900 bce (as per the geo-physical surveys).the migrations forwards the east and  the west up to syria (mitanni kingdoms) might have  occurred around that period. rig veda might have flourished 500 to 1000 years before the saraswathi grew weak. dravida in the later stages meant a region or a language; not a race.   regards   Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   ashualec posted 4 yrs ago vow ..its highly enriching ..i am awaiting the third part..whatever you have said it all has a logic behind it so its just the thing it that history is not recorded gives rises to myths which is dangerous if the stones could speak history would hav e been so different .. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   DSampath posted 4 yrs ago dear sreenivasarao and rajee khushawaha, i am a novice and i know very little..... i am making thesec comments at the behest of mr sreenivasarao... otherwise i consider myself not erudite enough to make these statements in front of a doyan like sreenivasarao or a well researched gentleman like rajee.... i see five distinct historical eras pre arctic ice ara....hunter civilisations                      before 10000 bc  (nagas??) geophysical instance of major shift  tribal era         10000 to7500 bc   (harappa??) from then on to drying of saraswathi  agrarian era  7500to 2000bc (aryans,dravidian) after 2000 bc  technological era                                   2000 bc to 2000 ad after 2000 ad to running information era...                  2000 ad to current running... ramayana to me signified the end of the tribal and beginning of agrarian era...maha bharath signified the end of agrarian and the dawn of technological era...y2k signified the dawn of information era.... the languages emerged from complex form of sanskrit to the simpler forms and n then to linear forms of sanskrit and devnagari... both dravidians and the aryans in my undertsanding  come from the agrarian eras... there is a doubt about  the origin of ravana.... between aryans and dravidians my surmise of differntiation would be that dravidians were the people who made a departure from the aryan norms and deviced their own seperate identity.... the real glory was lost in the sea.... south of kanyakumari...they had even probaly took up new forms of language and life style.... dear sreenivasa rao   you are an authority and i have only read form many books with a view of acquiring a perspective.. the names and dates may be very wrong.. but i stand by my meta perspectives on the basis of my experiential reading... as usual sreenivasa rao gave me clarity on many issues including the defenitons, sanakrit origins, sarasswathi river and many more.....rajee sab was able to add to my perspective by bringing in some new perspectives.. thanks to both of you... Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   dmrsekhar posted 4 yrs ago dear rajee sb, in fact i was curiously waiting for some folk lore to be quoted by you. actually i did not come to any conclusion so far. i agree with most of the views of sreenivasa rao sb and those expressed by you.   let me tell you where my interest is. i am an indian and i love india and all indians unconditionally. this does not mean that i hate non indians. what troubles me is the caste system of india. i perfectly hate it and i will do every thing to destroy it. destroy the caste system not the people. i have no hidden agenda. well this was my aim when i was in the university. i was active in student politics and noted that it is possible to convince our people that caste system is out dated. to take the issue further one needs to form a political force. as i could not do it i took up my profession as mineral engineer in the year 1979 and fully devoted my self to it.   i came to sulekha for the blog ongole bull by danji thotapalli as i am from ongole and in fact we had an ongole bull with our family. it is here [ at sulekha ] i developed interest in harappan culture. i learned many things from your blogs and the blogs of sreenivasa rao , dr vs gopal sb etc. this lead me to get more books which i am reading now. i visited many places in india in this context. as a researcher i have to do a job that is intellectually honest even if my findings go against my beliefs.   as of now i understand that [1] the words arya and dravida does not stand for any purticular race [2] harappan culture is a cosmopolitan culture [3] harappans were essentially dravidians like maharastrians in mumbai today [ call them nagas if you so wish] [4] there are several dravidian languages and among them tamil is the oldest yet maintaining its purity [5] prakrit was a working language of harappans [ like today's bombayya of mumbai] which later gave birth to sanskrit. each of my under standing needs to be supported by evidence from different branches of knowledge including population genetics. i am still gathering information.   i greatly appreciate your initiative on this subject and also your willingness to be flexible. may i request you to invite dr vs gopal sb for comments? may be matheikal will also be interested. let us keep debating. cheers !   a request pl. address me either as sekhar or as dmr and jee is not required. i add sb to dr vsg and sreenivasa rao because of their seniority. may i address you just as rajee? dmr sekhar. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago dear sreenivasrao ji,     i am greatly delighted by your detailed and minute observations which really make the comments very interesting. i can understand the pain taken by you to not only read it fully, grasp it and then give clarification. i take it as great honour from a man of your stature and learning. towards this end, i am grateful to you.      i would like to answer your observations in a detailed manner and therefore it would take time. but i would like to stress upon certain initial points to take the debate further.      firstly, i am no one to comment upon the findings of sh bal gangadhar tilak. but i have a feeling he was handicapped by the availability of modern findings and information on this subject. archaeology, anthropology, genetics and technology have gone far beyond the early decades of the last century. almost a hundred years have gone by since he said what he said. it has now been established that glaciated high lands of the north, during the late ice age  or immediately in its aftermath, could not have been the breeding grounds of human--let alone the develoment of intellect, speech and intelligence to produce the vedic knowledge. astronomical data, when now interpretted with the help of computers it tells a different story. there is a very much a case in point for the misinterpretation of astronomical and geographical data given in the early rigveda texts. it has now been demonstrated and proved that cultivation and agriculture was developed along the coastal region of sunda land.   i leave it at that.   secondly, my observation is on sunda land--no, it is not a myth. avinash chandra das as quoted by you and old tamil sangam texts, as stated by you, bear testimony to the fact of it existence. i am glad that it is now fitting in. i say even vedic texts talk about this. do you remember jambu dweep being mentioned in each pooja and yagna? i draw your attention to the opening sentence by the priest: jambu dweepe--uttarkhande/dakshin khande---bharat varshe----etc.  let us go into geography--it talks of the existence of gondwana land--which stretched from present south asia to include australia. in the middle of the last ice age as the temperatures began to rise--the glaciated north of high mountains began to melt---raising the sea level and submerging the land. by the time ice age came to an end the most part of the jambu dweep/sunda land was submerged. it is possible that the rising water levels and the melting glacier flooded the plains & the sea, and thus the story of swayambhu manu moving from south to highlands in the north  with his people. therefore 10000 years back or even earlier, it was northwards movement . coastal regions of the sundaland were the origional home of the saraswati people. they might have gone further west and north or even to the steppes of central asia from there.        thirdly, second migration, albeit in the reverse direction, begins around 1900 bc when river saraswati had dried up as a natural phenomenon. the fertile land became a desrt with the disappearance of saraswati--rajasthan and sindh are known deserts because of this ecological shift. the towns and cities were evcuated and a vacuum was created which was filled by the traders from north and the west--whom every one calls aryans or the vedic people. they were actually the long lost cousins of people of saraswati region whom i call 'nagas'. there is a gap of almost six thousands years in their reunion. by then the fundamental change had taken place in their colour, complexion, language, dialect and other aspects. do consider this.    i too, agree, that ravna might not be a non-aryan--if the term is only as a title--you can not call him non-vedic too--because he was a very very learned man who knew all the four vedas. i would like to call him a descendant of origional ancient indians--who were later addressed as nagas. if he knew vedas, this implies this knowlege was not imported but pre-existed in this land. i am happy you endorse my views on the context and content of the word arya.     as regards the early sanskrit language spoken by te traders from the north and the west--i have said it was crude and unintelligible. but as the trders from the north increased in numbers and the demographic shift took place in their favour--the language got the prominence and also got indianised. panini perfected around fist century ad. you can say the same thing on americanised english or even of the now emerging hinglish. language and speech are always adaptive of local conditions and dialects.   now coming to the word dravida---i would like to dwell on it in a leisurely manner because it has to be dealt with at length. as i have explained in the main blog--the root cause of this word lies in the attempt of the westerners to deduce wrongly from the sanskrit texts and then give their own interprettation to suit their own deductions. two persons i hold responsible for this--one a sanskrit scholar of sixth century who coined this word and second a british bishop, caldwell, who gave it a ethnical twist in 1854.   i would like to talk about it at length to expose the real meaning of the word and remove the mystery shrouding it. i will come back. regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago dear dmr sekhar ji,      thanks for your kind visit. but i expected you to give your informed observations--particularly on the sunda land and my attempt at extending the life of ancient indian civilisation by some 5000 years. so, far it was said that indian civilisation was some 5000 years back and my research tells me it was 10,000 years---though indian mythology would take it back by millions of years back---if you believe the hindu ( not vedic) dating of ramayana it was some 17 lakh years back. any way this is not the subject now.      my concern is about sunda land or the greater india or the vedic jambu dweep---or even geographic gondwana land. aren't they one and the same thing? i feel they are the same links of the the chain that adorns the neck of ancient indian history.        the sunda land connection of saraswati people (harappan, per se) was a big surprise to me. but when i further reserached and connected it modern findings i realised how much ill-informed we are about our known ancient history. we continue to rely the western sources while our own literature talks about it. sreenivasan rao s talks about some tamil literature which does talk  of something akin to sunda land. even vedic literature is full of it.  give you a simple example of the jambu dweep---which is frequently mentioned in all our poojas and yagnas by the performing priests. what was this? sir, this is the jambu dweep. even geography talks of some gondwana land in the distant past, which was a contiguous land mass from south asia to australia. we have to draw our own conclusions from it.it falsifies the myth that agriculture started in central asia or eurasia or even europe. new findings say it was the coastal region of sunda landi.e. india. it is from here the people migrated as urban dwellers. what a news!       i would like you to study this aspect and then formulate your opinion about ancient history. i am also refurbishing my views on various aspects of our history after this fact dawning upon me. regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago sampath sir,     thanks a lot for your immediate response. yea, i too was surprised when i read it for the first time. the sunda land connection of saraswati people (harappan, per se) was a big surprise to me. but when i further reserached and connected it modern findings i realised how much ill-informed we are about our known ancient history. we continue to rely the western sources while our own literature talks about it. sreenivasan rao s talks about some tamil literature which does talk  of something akin to sunda land. even vedic literature is full of it.      give you a simple example of the jambu dweep---which is frequently mentioned in all our poojas and yagnas by the performing priests. what was this? sir, this is the jambu dweep. even geography talks of some gondwana land in the distant past, which was a contiguous land mass from south asia to australia. we have to draw our own conclusions from it.      regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   dmrsekhar posted 4 yrs ago nice and educative. dmr sekhar. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse 1 2 3 4 Displaying  11 -  20 of  34  Blog Comments Leave a Comment   Flat Nested Comments (34)   DSampath posted 4 yrs ago dear rajee, from what liitle i have read. the farthest  that some historians where refering to was about 5000 bc... so it was a great surprise for me to see the figure of 10000 bc... i was not able to get my comments easily across due to some  technical problem and ended up making typo errors.... Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   DSampath posted 4 yrs ago i wnted to write10000 l it is atypo... Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago  sampathsir,       you have probably misread or your comments have missed a zero. sir, i am saying it is 10,000 years old civilisation---created by cross migration of people first, around the last ice age some 10,000 years back, from sunda land (greater india) coastal regions to saraswati -indus river region ard then reverse movement from saraswati region to south and east around 1900bc--when river saraswati dried up and rajasthan became a desert.        the sunda land was greater land mass which included south asia, thailand ,myanmar, andeman& nicibar, and indonesia. it has now been established through the new discoveries that agriculture was first started in its coastal region and not central asia or europe. due to the end of ice age some 10,000 years back--sea level rose upto 400 feet and thus most of sundaland was submerged into the sea. with this the people moved north west to sarasvati region--which had become a great river at the close of ice age.     so, it is about 10,000 years old i have said. kindly check. regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   DSampath posted 4 yrs ago dear rajee kuswaha,  100 years old civilization  wow that is great news... waiting for your next .... Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   DSampath posted 4 yrs ago dear rajee kuswaha,  100 years old civilization  wow that is great news... waiting for your next .... Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago dear sreenivasrao sir,     thanks for your appreciation and supporting my views on aryas. i would definitely wait for your observations on the word dravida or dravidian. i reckon yours will be very informed and knowledgable observations. it does not matter if they are conflicting with my statements. my aim is to get to some definite conclusions through debate and discussion. i will definitely like to hear as to where i have gone wrong, if at all i am not correct.    the subject fascinates me and more i get into it--------more i learn that what was definitely ours we had been attributing to outsiders who may or may not have existed.   regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   sreenivasarao s posted 4 yrs ago dear shri kushwaha, 1. let me admit i am not familiar with the theory of human migration from sunda land towards the saraswathi valley. i am therefore not quite equipped to comment on that. there are of course various other theories. for instance: bala gangadhar tilak in his book arctic home in the vedas argued with aid of astronomical data and analysis - supported by some passages in rig veda - that the vedic people were primarily the inhabitants of the arctic region. avinash chandra das in his rigvedic india argued that the saptha sindhu region was the homeland ofthe vedicaryans .he however had a rather interesting theory. according to him, the land belt connecting rajasthan and assam formed the southern coast line of that region. the southern part was a huge island and comprised what is now australia and most of the far east. sometime after the rig vedic period this island broke up, due to seismic upheavals, and the large parts of the island to the south of what is now kanyakumari sank in to the occasion. the remaining part, to the south of the vindhyas became attached to the northern plateau. [interestingly the ancient tamil sangam texts too talk of lands and kingdoms  to the south of kanyakumari that submerged in to the sea.]   there is of course the theory that vedic people migrated from central asia. a branch of them settled in to what is now europe. the quote in their support the verses from rig veda which adore the mountainous regions located to the north of himalayas. the home of the vedic aryans, they surmise, might be around palmer knot.   others, such as sathyavrata samashrami and dharma marthanda lele argue that the land to the south of the himalayas was truly the abode of vedic aryans. they quote in their support the opinions of yaska_ charya. according to them, the rasa river formed the northern border of the aryavartha, while the khuba river (the present-day kabul river) was to its west while the saryu was to its east.   there are thus a number of competing theories; each of them supported by some sort of “proof”.   my personal take is (not that it matters a great deal) the mountains, rivers and the regions mentioned in rig veda were in aryavartha, which extended up to afghanistan and parts of iran. the mainland of the vedic aryans was the saptha sindhu region. during the rig veda period the saraswathi was a mighty river flowing in full grandeur. the river started drying up around 2000 bce, as evidenced by the geo-physical maps. rig veda period might have been in its zenith several centuries earlier that; say around 5000 bce. harappa was in the  post rig vedic period.   the drying up of the saraswathi triggered the movement of the vedic communities to east and to the west. the westward movement reached up the present-day syria where the vedic aryans established mitanni and kasset kingdoms, around 1700 bce.   the other point you made about entry of people from other regions, in trickles, appears to be correct. rig veda repeatedly refers to the composite character of its society and to its pluralistic population. it mentions the presence of several religions and languages and calls upon all persons to strive to become noble parts of that pluralistic society.   2. the language spoken was of course sanskrit. it was however not the classic language that panini chiseled, with meticulous care. the vedas were compiled over long periods, stretching over several centuries. during those periods the vedic language changed and developed in several stages. yaska_charya who centuries later compiled nirukta, a glossary of the technical terms in the vedas, could not help remarking that it was difficult to understand and interpret many terms , as  both the language and the meanings had changed considerably.   3. as regards arya and aryan, i agree entirely the terms, at any stage, did not signify a race or color. it was term employed to denote a person of honor, of nobility and one deserving respect. later in his life, max muller conceded that: 'aryan in scientific language is utterly inapplicable to race. it means language and nothing but language. aryans are those who speak aryan language (sanskrit) with aryan grammar, whatever their color, whatever their blood.'  kindly refer to my blog arya, aryan , saraswathi  and other issues for a detailed discussion on the subject.   i do not agree with the statement that ravana was non-aryan.   4. on the issue of the dravida, dr. raj pandit sharma in his essay bharatam has cited an earlier reference. he says the word dravida occurs in the rig-veda (iii.61.6) but means treasure or prosperity. in atharva-veda (xviii.3.1), the word dravina alludes to property or wealth. the term dravida did not indicate a race. further he says, some scholars theorized that fair-skinned aryans invaded india during 1500 bc, defeating dark skinned dravidians and pushing them into south india. it is totally baseless. there is no mention of forced southward migration either in the rig- veda or in dravidian literatures. the scholar shri b. krishnamurti in his book dravidian languages, states that the term dravida is of a later origin. he says the term s damila, dameda are found in the sinhala inscriptionsof the per-christian era. they referred to merchants from south india. the buddhist and jain texts too used those terms to the people of south and also to the southern country. he opines that dravida was later derived from dramila. the term dravidian did not refer to any particular race. some ancient tamil texts however carry interesting references to the issue of migration to the south by a group of people.  in his commentary on the prefatory sutra to thol kappiyam, the grammar rule book of the 2nd and 3rd sangam, nacchinaarkkiniyar describes that agasthya brought with him 18 kings of the lineage of krishna; 18 families of velirs and aruvaalars and had them settled in the lands by clearing the forest tracts. the reference made here is to the deluge of dwaraka and the subsequent migration of the yadavas and other tribes to safer areas. the sage agasthya is believed to have led the migration to south. it was not about a race. it was about a place where people had ‘run to rest’   perhaps it was because of those ancient links, the kings or the common people of south did not consider themselves different from the rest of india. for instance, the chola kings claimed (copper plate inscriptions of thiruvaalangaadu and in sangam texts) they were descendants of the emperor shibi of ikshvaku dynasty; cherans claimed they are descendants of parasurama; and pandyans too claimed that they were the offsprings   of goddesses gowri, at a later time the region lying to the south of the godavari came to be known as dravida desha (godavaryaha dakshine theere- as the people in the south mention in their daily sankalpa). sir monier williams sanskrit dictionary mentions even the gujjara and maharashtras as dravidas sri adi shankara called himself dravida shishu – an offspring of the south.   the destructive theories that the dark skinned southerners (dravidians) the indigenous indian populace and primitive in nature were forcibly driven south was planted by the british to create disunity between indians in the north and south. sadly, we too fell prey to that ploy, rather willingly.   i am not sure, if my comments are of any help to you.   pardon the length.   regards Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   sreenivasarao s posted 4 yrs ago my dear kushwaha, that recommendation was to signify my initial response – wholehearted appreciation. you talked about dravida and its plausible origin. i had some contributing thoughts on that issue and was about to post it. but, we had some weekend-guests. i will post a few brief comments later tonight. pardon me for the delay. i agree with your discussion about arya and aryan. they were no outsiders; and the term did not signify a race.  the theories spun around the color of skin etc. are all rubbish. i had earlier posted   my position, along those lines. you are a very kind and a very generous person. i am not a scholar of any sort; nor am i an expert. i am just a clueless old-guy who spends his time at the pc.   see you later. thank you for a thought proving post.   regards Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago dear sreenivasraoji,    i am grateful to you for your visit. i am happy that it did impress you and you were kind enough to recommend it. i need not explain as you are yourself an expert on vedic thoughts. but i would like to have your views on my deductions that vedic knowledge is the product of human movements around 9000-10000bc from the coastal regions of sunda land or the greater india to north west towards saraswati-indus region and then reverse journey to south and east around 1900bc. it is their knowledge and it is non-aryan or as i say of nagas.     you see we know that ravna was a non- aryan but he knew all the vedas and was considered a very learned man. if so, then this knowledge had pre-existed the so-called arrival of aryans, if at all they came from outside. i very much doubt their central asian origin. i am now convinced that it was a title used by aristocratic and educated amongst the nagas. therefore, vedic knowledge is absolutely indian and the sanskrit language was also fully developed while in india.       if at all the aryans were outsiders, they were the traders from central asia--with whom nagas of harappa had trading links. they might have come in trickles and settled down in sapta sindhu region.  they brought with them only crude sanskrit as did the english men of east india company. interesting comparison? isn't it? regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago dear avinashji,         thanks for reading it and recommending it.. i am sure something must have appealed to you before you decided to recommend it. i wish if you could give your views. thanks anyway. regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse 1 2 3 4 Displaying  21 -  30 of  34  Blog Comments  Leave a comment Use rich text editor: Post Comment   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago dear vs gopalji,     thank you very much for your apt observations. yea, i have deliberately not touched on prakriti and brahmi which are supposedly very close to harappan and proto-dravidian scripts. i am using the term proto-dravidian in a generic sense though i do not believe in anything bein dravidian. it is hoax played on south india , first by aryan hordes and then by european historians.     i will be talking about them at length in my third part when i talk of the origin, growth, spread of nagas based on historic, literary, spiritual, archaeological and anthropological, genetic records. i am now coming to believe, if there was anything aryan it was indigenous or more specifically -a privileged class amongst the nagas themselves.       do you know the tulu dialect and the language from south india is more nearer to english than any other language. i am getting tto the view that development and growth humans took place in sunda land--and not central asia---and it is from sunda land or the peninsular india they went west and north west. so, the ancesters of britishers might belong to tullu speaking people of south india.   looking forward to more critical comments from your great learned-self. it will further add to my knowledge. i will await your detailed comments before writing part three. regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   rajee kushwaha posted 4 yrs ago dear amit shankar,     thanks for correction--supermyth is about the vedic knowledge being aryan. i have made the correction in the script, too.    you might like to check on the validity of sunda land --the greater india and nw migration of population from peninsular india to saraswati region around 9000-10000 bc. again south ward  and eastward movement of these people after the drying up of saraswati---particularly from rajsthan-gujrat -sindh region which had become deserts with the saraswati having dried up.     now link up with ravna and mandodri temples in jodhpur--which will tell you how oral history needs to be studied. ravna was branded a non aryan but a knower of four vedas and worshipper of lord shiva. he was a naga---no doubts.      thanks for good inputs--i would like you to read critically and point out the loopholes in the theory i am building. i am convinced on the fallacy of the aryan and dravida myths, created on the ruins of nagas.      regards. rajee. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   amit shankar posted 4 yrs ago dear rajee, "the theory of aryan invasion and conquer was floated when a mount of dead bodies was found at mohanjo-daro. it was assumed that they might have been slaughtered by the superior aryans. this myth led to the emergence of a super myth on the harappan archaeological sites as being remnants of a great aryan & vedic civilisation of indus valley"  the above statement does not seem to logically forward your argument. am i missing something? one opinion exists that the harappan civilization (non-aryan) was overrun by the aryan invaders. but what gave birth to the "super myth" that the harappan civilization is a remnant of aryan civilization? otherwise your development of argument for the theory of naga civilization is consistent. looking forward to part iii... regards, amit shankar saha. Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse   V-S-Gopal posted 4 yrs ago  hi rajee, this is a great product from you from sheer labour of love for the subject. i am sure you have done extensive reading, and your own summing up. the materials available are vast and the materials out of reach must be monumental. at best, this is informed guess. fair and good enough. you have not brought in prakrit at all, as precursor to sanskrit. any reason?  our 'asuras' were benign 'ahuras' for the zorros ( i mean zoroastrians) and our cultured 'aryan' was the evil 'ahriman' for them. will be interesting to throw light on the historical factors behind this. nice to know that saraswati must have been a great and mighty river as you have concluded, and essentially the indus valley civilization was saraswati based. will comment more later! fascinating subject!!!!! cheers vs gopal Reply  |  Delete  |  Block this user  | Report Abuse 1 2 3 4 Displaying  31 -  34 of  34  Blog Comments