[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Questions about 'One people'
It was good to read the articles that exposed the historical
distortions relating to the origins of the Vedic people. Having lost
contact with our real history, most Indians accepted the 'Aryan
invasion' story and this has caused bitterness and a burning anger to
fester for a long time. We must make it our duty to disseminate the
correct information to all Indians that we encounter.
There are however many questions that remain unanswered. I would like
to raise those questions here so that anyone who has the correct
answers or even plausible theories can post them here for all to read.
I realise that I may posssibly be opening a Pandora's box because
opinion is likely to be divided on these issues. I do hope I am not
triggering any new 'wars'. I would like to appeal to all to exercise
restraint and prevent 'arguments' from becoming too hot and from going
on for too long.
It has been my observation that in the arguments that drag on and on,
the parties concerned are really each trying to convince the other to
accept their point of view, but neither show any signs of budging from
their previously held position. My suggestion is this : if after 3
exchanges of opinion the other remains unconvinced, then he is not
likely to be convinced after 10 exchanges. Therefore the best thing to
do would be to 'agree to disagree' and desist further exchange. There
is of course the matter of ego and 'getting the last word'. I suppose
the 'bigger' person should not face this problem at all.
Anyway, here are my questions, and some related comments...
1. Why does there appear to be 2 distinct racial types in India?
Those of the North-West are different from those of the East and the
South. Of course there has been much mixing of genes but the primary
characteristics are still evident.
Did a Caucasian type people from Central Asia migrate into Bharat in
ancient times and merge into the culture there? Or are they the result
of the Muslim invasion and related immigration in more recent times?
2. The Germanic languages have many words that appear to have Sanskrit
origins. Artifacts have also been found that resemble ancient Indian
artifacts. Was there then a migration of the Vedic type people into
Europe?
3. The pre-Christian culture of Europe did not leave any written
history. These people appear to have had only an oral tradition.
Ironically the only records of their history are engraved as
decorations on the huge crosses erected by the Christian invaders as
they conquered the land.
If these ancient Europeans did not have a written tradition, could
they have been descendents of the Vedic people? If they migrated to
Europe out of India, the migration may have happened before the Vedic
revelations. Does this mean that they were already speaking a language
which later infleunced Sanskrit? Did they also have artifacts which
were then carried into Europe? Or did they originate elsewhere and
migrate into both Europe and India and influence the cultures there?
4. Who are the Dravidians? Is this another concoction of the European
historians or does the word appear in historic Indian texts?
5. Thamilz is acknowledged to be an ancient language. It is obviously
the language from which the other South Indian languages evolved. And
these languages are quite distinct from the languages of the North.
As one who can read neither Hindi not Sanskrit, it appears to me that
Hindi and the other North Indian languages have a writing that is
closer to Sanskrit that those of the South. Is this correct?
How about the vocabulary and syntax? How closely does any Indian
language approximate Sanskrit? For that matter, how closely are the
languages of the North related to each other?
If Sanskrit is the language of the Vedas, is Thamilz then not a Veda
derived or related language? Does this lend credence to the theory
that Shiva was in fact a Thamilz deity who was later equated to the
Vedic Rudra?
Hmmm... so many questions. Not too many controversies I hope :-)
Peace and blessings.
SV Singam
Minden, Penang
