Many Indian scholars don't accept the Aryan Invasion theory. Are they "nationalist bloggers" just because they don't concur with their Western counterparts? Or maybe, the all-knowing West knows more about Hindu culture than Hindus themselves.
Read the article and come to your own conclusions.
Some quotes for your convenience:
"Hindus collectively have no memory of an Aryan invasion of India that supposedly took place
around 1,500 B.C. Hindu epics do not mention any such invasion. Surely, the extensive Hindu
literature would describe the Aryan invasions if such had indeed taken place. Swami
Vivekananda remarked: “As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our
scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in
ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends.” (Collected Works, Vol. 3). "
"The recent discovery of the dried-up Saraswati River further negates the Aryan invasion theory.
Satellite photography from outer space shows the existence of a dried-up river bed in Northern
India. The archeological evidence indicates that the river dried up completely about 1900 B.C.,
much before 1,500 B.C., the date ascribed to Aryan invasions. Saraswati is mentioned numerous
times in the Vedic scriptures of the Aryans, indicating that these people lived in India during very
ancient times."
"Recent DNA evidence further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Advances in genetics make it
possible to show ancient migrations. It is generally accepted that modern man arose in East
Africa about 200,000 years ago. From there, they spread to India about 90,000 years ago taking
the southern route to Yemen, Sindh and the Indus region. In India they multiplied and spread to
other parts of Asia and Europe. The research is reported in Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve."
There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family. This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct. However, this of course does not say anything about the ethnicity.
In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term.
"An invasion of India from the outside around 1,500 B. C. did not occur. Recent scholarship does
not deny that the people in India had relations with other Indo-European people in Asia and
Europe. There was a belt stretching from India to the Mediterranean inhabited by a people who
spoke related languages, known as the Indo-European languages. Sanskrit is the oldest known
language in this family and may appropriately be called as the Mother of Indo-European
languages. English is an Indo-European language."
How can Sanskrit be called as the "Mother of Indo-European languages" and still be "derived" from the Indo-European family?
> This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct.
Again the article I linked to clearly explains this falsehood/whitewashing done by the West:
"Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950), a scholar of Latin and Greek as well as of Sanskrit, debunked this
theory of the North-South racial divide in India. He disagreed with the theory that the languages
of North and South India are unrelated. Sri Aurobindo’s study of the Tamil led him to discover
that the original connection between the Sanskrit and Tamil languages was “far closer and more
extensive than is usually supposed.” These languages are “two divergent families derived from
one lost primitive tongue.” And, “My first study of Tamil words had brought me to what seemed
a clue to the very origins and structure of the ancient Sanskrit tongue.” –See The Secret of the
Veda, V 10, the Centenary Edition, p 36, 46. Sri Aurobindo also noted that a large part of the
vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with
Sanskrit."
> How can Sanskrit be called as the "Mother of Indo-European languages" and still be "derived" from the Indo-European family?
Because a language does not pop out of nowhere. A language is simply a relatively standardized register. I'm not asserting that Sanskrit is derived from a Western language (far from it) but that the roots of Sanskrit are shared with roots of various Western languages, which is quite clear.
> Sri Aurobindo also noted that a large part of the vocabulary of the South Indian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam) is common with Sanskrit.
Vocabulary is not very indicative as these can easily be loanwords. As in my other sibling (cousin?) comment consider basic articles and fundamental verbs.
> Vocabulary is not very indicative as these can easily be loanwords. As in my other sibling (cousin?) comment consider basic articles and fundamental verbs.
I understand where you come from. Even if I consider the "linguistic relationship" vs "loanwords" argument as a fact explain to me how Vedic literature got integrated into Sangam literature (I ask this because the context of this discussion is "Aryan Invasion theory")? How is it that the Sangam literature extols Lord Vishnu as "the supreme deity who is the inner controller of the entire universe" if the concepts of Vishnu were Aryan of origin? If there was a clear division between the "Aryan invaders" and the "Dravidian natives" why is it that there is no mention of any such strife in the Vedas/Puranas or even in the Sangam literature (which is considered the oldest literature by the Tamilians)? Also, why does the Sangam literature have Vedic/Puranic stories (stories of Kartikeya, Vishnu, Shiva etc) if the civilizations are so distinct (and supposedly in strife during that period)?
Also, the other big problem with "Aryan Invasion Theory" is that it directly conflicts with a very famous Indian scripture: Ramayana. In the story, which takes place in the Treta Yuga (many hundreds of thousands of years before the supposed "Aryan invasion" took place), the Demon King Ravana of Lanka (modern day Sri Lanka) was killed by Lord Rama (of Ayodhya). Ravana is extolled in the Ramayana as a great worshipper of Lord Shiva and a great Brahmin Vedic scholar who was thorough in all the 4 Vedas. How is this even possible? Aryan Invasion had not taken place during the Ramayana. How is it that Ravana, who was a King of the supposed "Dravidian" Lanka, be a Brahmin Vedic scholar who worshipped Shiva? Why doesn't Ramayana mention that Lanka was a "Dravidian Kingdom" and was invaded by "Aryan Ram"? It's not a small detail that can be missed right?
No. Sanskrit is not derived from Indo-European family. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Nor do South Indian languages appear linguistically distinct. I'm a Kannadiga and many Kannada words are directly derived from Sanskrit. My mother is a Tamilian and a lot of Tamil words are also derived from Sanskrit. This falsehood was spread by the British.
> In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term.
It doesn't matter because India was also called Āryāvarta (Abode of the Aryans) in the Ancient days. This was way before Iran got it's name (possibly in the 3rd century A.D). Iran was called Persia in the olden days.
The word Aryan itself has multiple meanings. The definition of Proto-European Aryan is different from Indo-Aryans of India.
You are confusing loanwords with actual linguistic relationships. I understand Kannada fluently and it's quite plausible that the commonalities with Sanskrit are loanwords compared to more structural or fundamental similarities between Sanskrit and Persian, Latin, etc.
Consider the basic articles (I, you, etc.) or many fundamental verbs, for instance, which at least modern Kannada almost surely does not share.
