Aryan Invasion Theory Is Wrong

Aryan Invasion Theory Is Wrong.

He even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not really Indian, and devalues ​​Indian culture by making it look less ancient than it really is. As far as such scholars are concerned, no convincing evidence has yet been presented for postulating an external origin for the Indo-Aryans [...] they have taken it upon themselves to counter the theory of Aryan incursions and migrations – hence the label of native Arianism. The Native Aryan theory has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream science. 

It is clear that there is layer upon layer of archaeological, literary, linguistic and, most importantly, genetic evidence that forms a coherent, repetitive and predictable pattern that debunks the MTA and supports the native Aryan theory. Because of these Indo-Aryan registration data, a genetic case developed by Josephs "92 scientists from around the world" which places the supposed immigration of some people from Central Asia into South Asia during the "second millennium BC (from 2000 BC) . to 1000 BC) “seems completely unviable. Because of these data on the enrollment of Indo-Aryan languages, no one can claim any evidence that the Indo-Aryan languages ​​entered India from Central Asia in 2000 BC. or even in any previous historical period. 

The Indologists solved this problem by declaring that the first Indo-Aryan group whose presence in Western Asia was so scientifically recorded and dated was a pre-Rigvedic group that separated from other Indo-Aryans in Central Asia itself and migrated westward, hence the Vedic Indo-Aryans who later composed the Rig Veda, penetrated into northwestern India at about the same time that the pre-Mitannian Indo-Aryan group entered western Asia. The Indo-Aryans lived in India for at least 15,450 years, which refutes the theory that the Indo-Aryans invaded India 3,500 years ago. The German linguist Max Müller suggested in the 19th century that an Indo-European tribe (the Aryans) invaded the subcontinent 3000-4000 years ago, bringing with it the caste system. Based only on this similarity and without any concrete evidence, nineteenth-century European scholars, including the famous Max Müller and Muir, proposed the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), according to which Aryan tribes invaded India around 1500 BC, destroying the existing Harappan culture, moved east to create the doab Ganga-Yamuna culture, imposed their own language and caste system on the natives, writing the Vedas quickly over several centuries (Klostermaier, 2007). 

Not only did this explain very easily the similarities between Sanskrit and Greek or Latin, when it was assumed that one branch of the Aryans migrated to Europe and another invaded India. Simply put, AIT claims that India was invaded by the Aryans, a blue-eyed nomadic tribe from Europe, in 1500 BC. who drove the swarthy and snub-nosed Dravidians to southern India. The Aryan invasion theory denies an Indian origin for the predominant culture of India, but attributes Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere. A frequent approach of OIT proponents is to mistakenly label AMT as IAT and present these theories as an attempt by Westerners since the days of Max Müller to subjugate Indian culture to the higher culture carried by light-skinned invaders. 

Proponents of the OIT postulate - without any genetic, archaeological or linguistic evidence - that Vedic and Puranic culture originated in India and that Aryans with a gray past are the original inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent. It is assumed that the Indo-Aryan peoples and their languages ​​originated in the Indian subcontinent and that the Indus Valley Civilization (Sindhu-Saraswati Civilization) was a Vedic civilization and not a Dravidian civilization as claimed in the AIT. This is part of the Kurgan Hypothesis / Revised Steppe Theory, which further describes the spread of Indo-European languages ​​in Western Europe through the migrations of Indo-European-speaking people. In other words, the new evidence completely debunks the 19th century colonial Aryan invasion theory and its late 20th century refinement, the Indo-Aryan migration theory. 

Changing our view of history is as radical as Einstein's ideas changed our view of physics. D. Frawley. Aryan Invasion Theory and Hindu Politics. In India it can be traced back to at least 6000 BC. (Melgar). Now more than ever, there is a severe lack of supporting and conflicting evidence to support theories popularized by the UK, such as the Aryan invasion theory, or that Muslim invaders made a huge contribution to Indian art, music or culture in India. Even architecture and Buildings such as Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Qutub Minar and others all over India. Taken together the above evidence proves the genetic and cultural continuity of India from north to south and proves that the artificial concept of "Aryan-Dravidian split" and between "high caste" and "low caste" has no real basis. This A Nature report cites three genetic studies showing that most Indians are genetically similar, refuting the hypothesis of the Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy [9]. 

But historians now largely agree that the Aryans did not come to India in some sudden movement right at the heart of the Harappan civilization. It is tragic that the history books claim that the Aryans invaded India and destroyed the civilization of the Indus Valley. According to this account, India was invaded and conquered by light-skinned nomadic Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100 BC. became a Hindu culture. In a serious challenge to the popular "Aryan invasion" theory, a group of Indo-American researchers on Friday presented scientific evidence from the Harappan era to prove that there has never been such a massive migration from Central Asia to India. 

A study published in Cell, one of the world's leading journals, not only discards the Aryan migration theory, but also finds that Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers developed into their own farming communities and were the creators of the Harappan civilization. . The idea of ​​"invasion" has been rejected by mainstream scholars since the 1980s and replaced by more sophisticated models, [note 3] called the Indo-Aryan migration theory. The Aryan invasion theory rests on very fragile ground, Shinde said, adding that the history we are taught in textbooks now needs to be changed. “The exodus from India theory was motivated by bad politics, not good scholarship,” Namit Arora said, adding that the “controversy” over Aryan migration was never a genuine disagreement among scholars.