06-14-2009, 05:36 AM
> 4. Then a firm disapproval of the Aryan theory and a
> message to bridge the north - south differences and
> He says " even taking for granted that both these
> grand sub-divisions of Indian humanity came from outside
> the Western frontier"
The word 'arya' means 'noble'. It was used for those people that
followed the noble path of Vaidika Dharma. Aryas lived both within
the current boundaries of India and beyond it, but the land where
they were concentrated was Bharata Varsha. That is why it is
called 'Aryavarta'. Bharata Varsha or Aryavarta (at that time) was
defined as the land that stretched from Kanyakumari to Himalayas, and
from Gandhara to Brahma Desha.
Aryavarta was divided into two deshas called Dravida desha and Gowda
desha. Dravida desha was all that which lay south of Saurashtra, and
Gowda desha was all that which lay north of Saurashtra. Both Dravida
desha and Gowda desha were parts of Bharata Varsha or Aryavarta.
What many people may not know is that the Aryan invasion theory was
first suggested by an Indian named Ramprasad Chanda. It was then
picked up by Gordon Childe to give it somewhat the shape that it
later came to have. Meanwhile Ramprasad Chanda had his doubts about
his own hypothesis and he actually wrote against it, but the momentum
of the Aryan invasion theory had already picked up due to R.E.M
Wheeler and others. Even though it never was a theory, it came to
assume the guise of a theory and it is most unfortunate that the
Indians themselves picked it up and solidified its foundations.
Today the basis of the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) has been countered
by the OIT (Original Inhabitants Theory) on most of the points, but
there still remain two points on which the proponents of the AIT
(Aryan Invasion Theory) hold on to their grounds. These two points
are the linguistic argument and the horse argument. In my opinion,
the linguistic argument is sheer nonsense i.e., it is based on a
theory of lingusitics that has no idea of what language is, and
moreover the law of palatals on which the argument is spearheaded is
a case of perfect circular reasoning. The horse argument is a case of
using an absence to prove a thesis and it suffers from logical
insufficiency. <span style='color:red'>Most historians are simply bad logicians.</span>