Midnight's Knights?

rsridhar

``Do you guys believe in scientific work or you go only by heresay and what appeals to you``

..........i look at a kashmiri and a keralite and i see two distinct races ........ common sense tells me that they are not the same ``people`` regardless of what wierd science might say ......... there are a lot of kooks out there with strange theories about monkey kings, flying horses, men walking on water and little green men ... are we supposed to believe in all that crap? .........there is as much in common between kashmiris and keralites as between swedes and papua new gunieans ......... you don`t have to be an anthropologist to tell the difference ............

............ of course this theory serves the purpose of the bjp types in creating their myth of a hindu nation, but it is as baseless as the pakistani silliness about their arab roots and the insane concept of the ummah .......... next you will be suggesting that the greeks are descendents of the coorgs who swept out of india to conquer asia minor ............ sometimes i wish the brits had stuck around another five hundred years to educate us ....................

re: myths versus reality
Are myths really myths or they are based on some reality? Saraswati river is no more a myth. Underwater lost city of Dwaraka has been excavated by SR Rao (i think in the 80s)and has been well chronicled in the National Institute of Oceanography web site as well as by many others (including Graham Hancock in his book Underworld, the mysterious origins of Civilization). Dwaraka has thereby ceased to be a myth. In 1991, marine archeologists of NIO discovered the remnants of the lost city of Poompuhar (talked about in Tamil legends as a great port city) off the ocast of Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu.
More recently, the seven Pagodas off the coast of Mahabalipuram has been discovered by Indian and British marine archeologists. See the url:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1923794.stm
The white man in that article is Hancock, who brought the Indian and british marine archeologists to unravel some exciting things.
Thus, one by one the myths are falling by the wayside. It will take years before we get any coherent picture of India`s past. But, it will be an interesting one.
Sridhar

re:#82 by AAmir
Looks like you did not understand my post. I have been quoting authorities. Gregory Possehl is an authority who has been excavating since the 60s. Rajaram looks like he is a BJP stooge who tried to get publicity and is not ashamed of it. He stands discredited today.
Thanks for the reference to the urls you posted viz
``http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.htm`` and
``http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs/index.html``
which only refer to ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF VEDIC STUDIES. Nothing on the topic of discussion though.
I am not talking of the likes of Rajaram and his horse seal controversy as pointed out by the urls you posted viz
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/methodology/antiquity/india/harappa.html
``http://www.flonnet.com/fl1723/17231220.htm``
and
``http://www.dalitstan.org/holocaust/negation/witzel/horsplay.html`` , the last of which deals with Rajaram/Jha controversy regarding horse-seals and deciphering of the scripts. Avid readers like me are aware of this controversy for sometime. That is why i do not quote these people`s works. Read the fascinating book of Graham Hancock that i quoted in my last post and see for yourself what i am talking about.
Sridhar

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

First of all a VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR to Farzana & all CHOWK readers
A little less than 3 hours left to go here in California till Midnight.

I am not surprised by either Farzana`s article or the response thus far.
Both individuals (Rushdie and Naipaul) are BRILLIANT writers that have also been ADOPTED by the West with all their ``popularity`` in their
own original cultural bases. In the case of Rushdie, he has been both a tool (for whom?), a great commentator and very recently, a bridge
of understanding.

But let us really not forget that in spite of my personal dislike for the fundo viewpoint, these two are arrogant windbags when they choose to be and are shrewed at marketing themselves, no matter what the cost.

I had the opportunity to have a brief encounter with Rushdie (all 2 minutes) and did not come away very impressed. What an a.hole
I thought but I still read every book that he writes. I am a big fan of his work such as in Shame and Midnight`s Children and believe that SV still
remains his worst writing to date.

Naipaul is a perfectionist. A superb writer of English to say the least.
But it often appears that he looks down on his Desi roots period.

Anyone know where I can get a hold of some Desani books?

Ras

Happy New Year to all !

....12-head and faisaluno, be careful...


FBI, NYPD conduct terrorism sweeps

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Authorities conducted raids in New York and Connecticut as part of the FBI manhunt for five men who entered the country illegally, a law enforcement source told CNN Tuesday.

A number of people from Pakistan and the Mideast were brought in for questioning after Monday night`s raids on six locations, the source said.

#68
``Well, Saraswati was mythical until its riverbed was photographed by an American satellite. It is not mythical anymore. It existed until 1800 BC or thereabout and vanished into earth due to earthquake or other plectonic changes. There are interesting theories about this. It is inconceivable that people who sang Rig Veda would mention Saraswati river so many times if it had not really existed






About your other point, of the river `Saraswati`, I`m afraid it is another
instance of the media`s inaccurate reportage: what was found was the dry
path of an extinct river. Such remnants of dry river beds are found
regularly across the globe. Anything beyond this is unfounded speculation
along the lines of Noah`s Ark etc.
Noah, or Nuh, is also an Islamic prophet, and the Flood is a very important
event in the Koran. I feel I must say this so these comments are not
construed as being aimed at every religion but my own....

A few general points….
1. I think too much is made of this “anger” business; it belittles the questions one has raised even if it not be in consonance with those of others. A writer, or anyone, trying to reflect upon the nature of societies ceases to be a mere literateur and will be judged by norms one would for a social commentator or a critic. Therefore my “indignation” for these writers on subjects other than their forte, literature, is valid and a prerogative.

2. Regarding the accusations of me taking ‘personal’ potshots, read the other posts. The accusers have been doing the same…hamidm does not care if the writers he likes wear pantyhose, yet he takes time out to remark on Arundhati Roy and her “silly shorn hair”. She “whines”, Naipaul does not. These are ‘personal opinions’ which we all have the right to express. While one objects to my getting “personal” about Nadira being a trophy wife, there are others who are happily commenting on the “lovely” lady with a “lovelier daughter” and Padma too is lovely. However, bimbos they may not be (I dislike the term anyway) but they are using, and are being used by, their partners. As to why one has to comment on them at all, it is my privilege to critique the way I feel fit, especially when I am dealing with the writers’ needs to make a flimsy connection with their roots. It ought to be noted that neither of these writers spoke extensively about their previous wives, who were of ‘foreign’ origin. Padma is Rushdie’s Muse and Nadira is Naipaul’s totem.

3. To say that Naipaul and Rushdie do not care about being accepted by India is, to my mind, a wrong assumption. While one has made it a point to credit this country in his Nobel acceptance speech, the other’s quotes bear me out.

4. The contrarian view that those of Indo-Pak origin outside the subcontinent do not give a hoot is not entirely correct either. They are as much children of a diaspora, but while the two writers have intellectualised it and often market their ‘nailed to a Cross’ status, the rest of the expatriates cannot afford that luxury and oftentimes live through these ‘mavericks’ and come to believe that what they expose is what they too had left behind. I might point out to GhalibZaman (# 2) that the colonial curse is not ours alone. I would say that Indians living in their country add to the English language and enrich it, whereas those who are supposedly not burdened by the curse feel the need to toe the lines of their adopted countries. It may not be a “faarin language” to them, but in the privacy of their homes they are seeking to embellish their pastas with coriander, so to speak. And Rushdie has done the same with his use of language, which is enticing. But, had an Indian writer in English done so, and sought an international readership, s/he would have been berated for either trying to sell ‘ethnicity’ or be condemned for using pidgin.

Aamir: Thanks for those cut-pastes that were relevant to what is being discussed on this Board. Though a URL with an excerpt would have done! Btw, the lady from IIT had sent her paper to me for my comments some months ago.

Romair (# 28): I liked your analogies about freedom of speech. I would add that Rushdie had no compunctions about being ready to ‘apologise’ for having hurt the sentiments of Muslims; that was the time he went into overdrive about how he was rethinking about his atheism etc. This proves that he lacks conviction as a commentator; unlike a Solzhenitsyn, whose exile was more real in that he was silenced intellectually. (Have you read ‘Candle in the Wind’?) Rushdie rode on the wave and then cribbed about the storm rocking his boat.

I think ‘Shame’ was a wonderful book, even better than ‘Midnight’s Children’, though ‘Ground…’ had tacky moments (but then, being an Indian in India I could see them!). Naipaul as novelist is quite different from Naipaul the social observer. In the first role, he is subtle. You might like starting out with ‘The Enigma of Arrival’ and ‘The Mimic Men’, though ‘House for Mr. Biswas’ is a great fave here…As observer, he is doing a sort of pantomime, and I take exception to his books on India as much as his journeys through the Islamic world. (Koenraad Elst is better at rubbishing the latter societies.)

-------------
A happy, happening, humming 2003 to all!
Farzana

More specifically…

temporal (#13):
It was not a comparison really, but a transposition. You seem to agree with me when you say that they are adept at selling the sizzle rather than the steak. Glad you brought in Desani, but what body of work does he have? And if we are looking for adept observers, then I would say Nirad Chaudhari did a good job of playing the ‘insider’ outside by almost caricaturing himself. Ved Mehta, the visually-impaired writer, tried it too.

About Roy being a “one trick pony”, she never did promise to deliver more. Besides, if writers must be judged by their body of work, I cannot understand why everyone has been in such a hurry to judge her for that one really good effort. Perhaps I commend her because I can read tea leaves J

Samina (#23):
Most of your queries do need to be discussed on an ongoing basis. As I said, this piece was not about their literary oeuvre. I have commented elsewhere on the diasporic element; I do not think there can be an “ideal diasporic writer” just as there cannot be an ideal refugee. It is how they choose to imbue their works with the embroidery from the soil of their origin (real or imagined – Naipaul’s is for all practical purposes the latter) and mesh them with the threads of their acquired worlds.

Our expectations would depend to a large extent on whether they are able to fuse their expectations from ‘our’ world with our experiences and vision of the same. It has been said that most Indians objected to Naipaul’s books on India because they were uncomfortable truths. I have no problems with such truths, but it’s clear he saw only what he wanted to see. Her was censoring the truth to fit in with his bird’s eye view and calling it the caged reality. This is unfair. Rushdie uses his magician’s hat to bring out rabbits…

We cannot agree on what should constitute their realism. I have my version, you have yours and they have theirs. And we have a right to disagree – they, you, I.

By “classicalisation of pop” I meant what I indicated at the very start – propping up a piece of straw. And then the Barbie intellectualization. I would add the academic theses on Madonna. The immortalisation of Elvis. Essentially, elevation of stray comments to the level of a cultural rendering. What I wrote was: “Art imitates art here while all the time pretending to uphold reality.”

That is my take.

Harish (#45):
Thank you for a thorough critique.
(Ought this piece have been titled ‘Why N&R’s amours have chicks’)
Now who is making too much of the women???!! Had it been ‘amours’ rather than armours, I might imagine ‘chicks’ would not have been the only option available…

(Authors cannot attain even one percent of the completeness of the best created characters of imagination.)
Precisely. Which is why I or anyone else can see the ‘chinks’; a gap begs to be filled in.

(“Both are clinging to roots they have no claims over. And they don’t give a damn about the soil”
Isn’t this a case of intentional fallacy? R&V chose whatever they chose because that was what held their concerns. Satyajit Ray has often been criticized for ignoring the leftist underground, the emergency, even the number of Bengali youth killed during the course of his working life. That he did not chose to film them merely means they did not hold his creative attention. Even if he chose to be safe rather than sorry, it was still a choice that Ray the citizen made. Ray the artist also made the same choice. But did he compromise on his creative freedom by NOT making political reality films? I should think, even if it were true, to be insignificant.)

The operative phrase here would be “Ray the citizen” as Ray the artist. You are right. He chose not to make political reality films; Naipaul and Rushdie claim to do precisely that and not even as citizens. Which is why I would have an entirely different yardstick by which to judge Arundhati Roy. The issue is not so much on compromising creative freedom, but on how much you compromise on the reality you claim to uphold. Ray’s films were true to their subjects. Btw, I think a film like ‘Jalsaghar’ is a socio-political commentary of the denuding of feudal values; somewhat like Anita Desai’s ‘In Custody’ was.

Yes, I was universalising my idea of ‘decency’ and projecting it onto Naipaul, just as he has been doing through his works. These are mutual expectations, of us fitting into his way of thinking and we wanting him to be what we deem appropriate. I am certain that had he gone on with his creative/personal life as an outsider, we might not have bothered too much. At one level, even a Kipling does not make us uncomfortable because he was not making claims over us.

(Like the argument against television, shut him out. He is not going to come to India. And Indians need not listen to him.)
There is a problem here. It is by shutting him out to some degree that we legitimise him even more. He is not seen as pulp. His political statements are taken seriously enough to be quoted, not as mere sound-bytes but as the ‘objective’ truth of an outsider who has no axe to grind.

Regarding Rushdie’s not getting a visa at that time, the Congress government was playing safe. But the issue I am interested in is how he was being co-opted by the extremists here later. This is the point where Rushdie and Naipaul meet.

(Nadira was his before he was the target of criticism for his views on Islam.)
Perhaps. But she is his trump card when faced with criticism for his pro-Hindutva stance.

(not all readers are really interested in identification with the author. Ideas that interest, challenge, connect. All are good enough material to read. Agreement is not part of a reader writer relationship at all.)
I would not state this with such certitude, for connectivity does have an element of agreement. Besides, what you say may apply to a work of fiction, not necessarily to contemporary history which these authors are trying to record.

(About his treatment of women. But again, only if his real life is connected to his literary works. The reason you give, I suspect, maybe too tame, and more diatribe.)
He was exceedingly rude at the seminar where women’s writing was concerned. Which is why Shashi Deshpande and the rest were indignant. And I do believe his real life is connected to some of his works.

(Remember Arundhati Roy once declared her independence from India and called herself a ‘mobile republic’. This disconnect, you too have written about feeling.
Muslim/Woman/India. If you also added geography to that confusion, is Rushdie’s dilemma so difficult to fathom? Pico Iyer, many many expatriates, Kundera has even
started to write in French, abandoning his native Czech. So if an individual does not feel rooted, or belonging, or still further belongs to his belongings and not to the place he stays, does that make him worthless in any sense? Does that take away his right to comment,interpret, voice his idea of nationalisms, Japanese army, or Indian intolerance? I think, he has the right to say, and readers will decide whether what he says is worth
listening to.)
I agree that feeling disconnected is part of the human condition. As a gypsy one can speak with authority about the tent and the place where one has pitched it, or even the vast expanse of terrain surrounding it, but after one has moved on, one relies on memory. And memory takes liberties. I can understand the need to politicise certain aspects of that vision, but to give it the stamp of verisimilitude is to me dishonesty. Pico Iyer writes essentially as a visitor; he does not get proprietorial.

(Coopted by colonialists. Wasn’t Nirad C Chowdhury a far easy target for this charge than Rushdie? He did not contribute to their technology, health care, education, but had become a showpiece. Like the Kohinoor?)
As I said elsewhere, he had the good sense to become a caricature.

(And, also you seem to refuse to entertain a thought that it could have been a love
interest, at least in one among each couple. The other had only to take a call. I do not think they were part of a strategy to wash guilt, or repair their rootlessness that these two men have these two women by their side.)
Sure, to begin with. But then…advertisers often find a USP within the product they are selling; they just give it a new twist. Or the brand positions itself according to the demands of the time!

It is all about a circle rather than a deep well.

Regards,
Farzana

Hamid Sahib,
While I dont agree with everything in the second to last post you wrote, the Composition Prof/writer/reader in me wholeheartedly agreees with this idea:
``.............let`s not continue to make fools of ourselves by whining and complaining ................go write a comic book like the japanese and work your way up from there .........``

This is exactly what needs to be done. Btw, are your growing numbers of pause punctuations an intentional device or are they used in moments of irritation? :)

Writers and readers on Chowk

Farzana Behen, I hope you dont feel compelled to resolve all of the issues and questions engendered by your essay...I have a feeling most of us on this board have spent a great deal of time already trying to work some answers out- so I cant wait to read how each of us begins to think about what it means to be a South Asian native/diasporic writer, if anything...

For example, I will be extremely honest and disclose that sometimes I do not write because I am immobilized by the idea of ``authencity``. What is authenticity and how does everyone grapple and practice with it?

THE GUJARAT REFERENDUM
- Hindutva was the only question before the Gujarat electorate
=========================================
Dipankar Gupta


The author is professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

The 2002 assembly elections in Gujarat were more like a referendum. The Bharatiya Janata Party set the poser and the rest responded to it. Narendra Modi’s call for early elections was clearly calculated to capitalize on the after-effects of Godhra. The question before the electorate was whether to support Hindutva’s majoritarian programme or not. As there was just no other issue, the elections took on the characteristics of a referendum. Therefore, the poll results should also be analysed as one would a referendum or a plebiscite.

In spite of the fact that the BJP won a clear two-thirds majority in terms of seats, it did not do that well if one looks at the results in terms of a referendum. Less than 50 per cent voted for the BJP, and in many areas, Hindutva forces in fact lost ground. Those who did not vote in favour of the BJP were clearly opposed to the ideology of Hindutva. The parties opposing the BJP and its Hindutva allies, primarily the Congress, had only anti-Hindutva as their election plank. This is why the votes that the combined opposition won did not represent a fragmented verdict. They had all voted against Hindutva.

In an election as surcharged as this one was, to argue that Hindutva was just one of several issues is clearly misleading. Hindutva was the only issue. While it may be argued that those who voted in favour of the BJP may have yielded to fears of national security and of terrorism, this cannot detract from the fact that there was no ambiguity in the minds of those who voted against the BJP.

Modi’s pre-election nervousness had a reasonable factual basis. He was probably looking at the outcome in terms of a referendum, which, under the circumstances, was quite natural. Even in Godhra and Gandhinagar, the BJP did not fare spectacularly. In Godhra, it marginally improved upon its 1999 election performance by winning a mere 0.5 per cent more votes. In Gandhinagar, it actually lost 10 percentage points allowing the Congress to em- erge as the clear winner. In constituencies like Dhrangadhara, Wankaner and Jamjodhpur where the voting turn out was over 70 per cent, the BJP did not do remarkably well.

In Wankaner, if the Nationalist Congress Party had not come in the way, the Congress would indeed have emerged victorious. In over 30 constituencies the Congress lost narrowly. The results could have gone either way. In 17 constituencies, it was the NCP or the Samajwadi Party who acted as spoilers, or else the Congress would have probably won. Had this happened, the tally of seats for the BJP would have been a lot less, and even by election standards, the outcome would not have been something for the saffron parties to crow about.

The post-Godhra riots helped, but not that much. Any sensible analyst in the BJP should realize that the strategy that the BJP adopted for these elections was a pretty chancy affair. Likewise, any sensible observer on the other side should also conclude that on no occasion should the Congress ever allow itself to be shoe-horned into a referendum which is not of its choice.

That the combined anti-BJP forces, most significantly the Congress, did not do as badly in the referendum as they did in the elections is itself quite remarkable. If there were a great show of strength among the saffron parties when Modi was sworn in, it was because of two reasons. The first was plain relief: they were glad that formally the votes cast were for an election and not for a referendum. Secondly, the BJP-led forces were jubilant as only Modi and his followers had an agenda.

A quick look at the election results shows that only two independents won, though independents as a whole took away a crucial 5 per cent of the total votes polled. As for the other parties, besides the Congress and the BJP, they did not even manage to get 1 per cent of the votes. This again indicates the referendum character of this election. This should give the Congress party enough to chew on in terms of strategizing elections for the future. Obviously, the soft Hindutva argument just did not work. If soft Hindutva were so appealing then the National Democratic Alliance allies should have done respectably. After all, their entire existence in the national alliance in the Centre is based on soft Hindutva.

The votes that the Congress received were, therefore, clearly not because it campaigned as Hindutva’s B team. It was a vote against the referendum’s poser for establishing a majoritarian Hindu rule in Gujarat. And let us not forget that over 50 per cent voted against the BJP. Let us also not overlook the other interesting aspect of these elections. The BJP did exceedingly well in roughly 33 reserved constituencies in Gujarat. This was another reason for the BJP’s strong electoral performance in the state.

Can the Modi model be repeated? Yes, but at great risk. The BJP does not independently have a sound base among the Dalits in other parts of India, except in pockets of Madhya Pradesh. Moreover, even after conducting a highly successful riot, the gains were not that significant. It did well in central Gujarat, no doubt, but did not sweep the minds of the electorate state-wide in a massive popular “wave”.

In fact, the metaphor, “wave”, is itself highly suspect as it is used very indiscriminately, particularly in the electoral context. Metaphors, after all, have a way of conditioning one’s thinking, which is why they should be employed very carefully. A convincing electoral victory is often called a wave, giving the impression that nearly everybody is drenched. For example, when Rajiv Gandhi won the elections after his mother’s assassination, it was also considered to be a “wave”. But in large parts of India, many voters were not in favour of Rajiv Gandhi. Consider, for instance, what happened in Medak, which was supposed to be such a safe Congress constituency.

As the wave metaphor hides from view the fact that a large body of voters are on the other side, when the tables turn the next time round it comes as a huge surprise to everybody. How could this happen, they ask? It is not just election results which swing from one extreme to the other, our political analyses do so as well. This not only muddles electoral forecasting but also creates a false political atmosphere in which ordinary people have to somehow manage their lives.

If we are able to wade our way out of this wave metaphor we will find that there is just one survival mantra for secularists. An electoral strategy cannot be devised piecemeal. There must be a vision of India and a clear statement of “Project India”. The Congress leadership gave no thought to these matters and that is why it lost the elections. The only silver lining is that the sleeping secular forces together somehow managed to win the referendum.

...more special treats for the ally pakistan...where`s romair?...


BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A U.S. jet dropped a 500-pound precision-guided bomb to end a clash between U.S. soldiers and Pakistani border guards this week, U.S. military officials said.

A U.S. soldier was shot and wounded during the incident, which occurred Sunday near Shkin in eastern Afghanistan, a report by American Forces Press Service said. A U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Steve Clutter, was quoted by The Washington Post as saying it was unknown how many Pakistanis might have been killed.

U.S. soldiers were observing Pakistani border guards destroy inert missiles found in the area. The border in the region is in dispute, but U.S. officials said the American soldiers were within Afghan territory.

According to officials, one of the border guards approached the U.S. patrol and was asked by the American soldiers to return to his side of the boundary.

The officials say that as he began to walk back, the Pakistani border guard turned, dropped to one knee and fired on the Americans, wounding a U.S. soldier. The soldier was grazed on the head by AK-47 automatic rifle fire, officials said.

After the border guard ran into a nearby abandoned religious school, U.S. soldiers said they took more fire from the building and called in close-air support.

An AV-8B Harrier jet dropped the precision-guided bomb on the building, according to the report.

Officials said the border guard who shot the U.S. soldier is in Pakistani custody.

Brig. Saulat Raza, a Pakistani armed forces spokesman, said ``We are investigating the incident.``

Previously, the incident was described as an exchange of enemy gunfire. American officials said U.S. and Pakistani troops continue to work closely together to patrol the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The wounded U.S. soldier was transferred to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany for further examination and neurological testing, a statement said. His condition is listed as stable.

CNN Islamabad Bureau Chief Ash-har Quraishi contributed to this report

re:#70 by hamidm2
I was quoting from the website. Those were not my words. Sorry for the confusion.
Some very important historians have had reservations about this theory. Archeological findings now support the fact that there indeed was no Aryan Invasion. I read a very well researched book by Bhagwan Gidwani ``The return of Aryans`` many years ago. He seems to suggest that the invasion happened the other way round. Ancient Indians migrated out to various parts of the world and some of them returned home. AIT is an aberration of history and colonial past and is being rectified by modern day historians.
I am reading a very interesting book ``Underworld: The mysterious origins of Civilisations`` by Graham Hancock. Hancock is an investigative writer and archeologist with special interests in marine archeology and has investigated sites near Japan, India and visited places like Mohanjodaro in Pak. He goes down scuba diving with his wife and collects pictures of archeological sites in India, Egypt etc. He is not an authority on AIT but quotes other experts widely. This is what he has to say about AIT :
Beginning of Hancock`s quote:
`` the idea of violent invasion of India by a non-indian people calling themselves Aryas survived in at least some enclaves of mainstream scholarship into early 1990s- when even its most ardent supporters began to distant themselves from it. By 1999 the standard texts on the subject caught up and Gregory Possehl was able to write the defitnite obituary of the AIT in his massive tome Indus Age:
In the end (writes Possehl) there is no reason to believe today that there ever was an Aryan race that spoke Indo-European languages and was possessed of a coherent or well-defined set of Aryan or Indo-European cultural features.
End of quote by Hancock.

So, it seems that this theory survived due to a certain mindset and lack of enough data in the past. So, indeed there was no displacement of any Dravidian race southwards by Aryan invaders and everything is now indegenous. The onus of proving that there was an outside invader falls on the modern historians. All evidence so far suggest to the contrary.


``if you are trying to tell us that fair and beautiful kashmiris are from the same gene pool as the sideways head wagging golliwogs from kerala with six syllabuls in their names ,you must think we are a bunch of idiots .....``
Do you guys believe in scientific work or you go only by heresay and what appeals to you. Scattered around India you can see races that differ in color and features. Indian races are Australoid, Mongoloid, Caucasian, Dravidian etc etc.
The fair Kashmiris were all hindus once and were later converted. Their color is not much different from the fair Afghans or Turks. Color difference is a result of geographical location and constant interbreeding. Kashmiris, who were fair in color, interbred (for obvious reason) and maintained their perceived color superiority. It was the same mindset that led the British, Germans and other colonial powers of the time to give an arbitrary theory to explain what they could not digest. They saw a remnant of a great cultural past, a great language (sanskrit) that resembled in many ways German, Latin and came up with their own explanation. They did not have access to data that archeologists and scientist today have. Your question about Kashmiris being so different from Keralites only convinces me of the mindset that early colonisers would have had in formulating this theory. Can you really blame them!
Sridhar

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts