To Rashmun and other AITians on SUCH

Rashmun wrote:english permeates every aspect of north american culture today. even though a few centuries ago english was not around at all in north america.
just as europeans were immigrants to north america similarly the Aryans were immigrants to India. Just as the european immigration to north america is not considered an invasion, but an immigration, similarly the coming to India of aryans should be considered an immigration and not an invasion. That is why modern historians use the term Aryan Migration and not Aryan Invasion which was coined by colonial historians.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:english permeates every aspect of north american culture today. even though a few centuries ago english was not around at all in north america.
just as europeans were immigrants to north america similarly the Aryans were immigrants to India. Just as the european immigration to north america is not considered an invasion, but an immigration, similarly the coming to India of aryans should be considered an immigration and not an invasion. That is why modern historians use the term Aryan Migration and not Aryan Invasion which was coined by colonial historians.

Totally wrong example of English permeating every aspect of north American culture through the influx of white Europeans (from England etc.) in north America to support the flawed idea of AIT/AMT resulting in Sanskrit permeating the Indian culture.

If the above were true, i.e. Sanskrit had arrived in India from Europe with Europeans ('Aryans') long ago as advocated by AIT / AMT, most of the Indians now would like the Europeans as the most Americans (almost 90%) now look like Europeans, but that is not the case (most Indians don't look like the white Europeans) which shows that there is no truth to AIT / AMT and Sanskrit arriving in India with the Europeans ('Aryans').

Moreover, if the above were true, i.e. Sanskrit had arrived in India from Europe with Europeans ('Aryans') long ago as advocated by AIT / AMT, most of the Europeans (people in Europe) these days would also have Sanskrit names like the Indians do presently, but that is not the case. Instead, most Europeans have names like people in north America where the Europeans brought and spread their languages and cultures. This lack of Sanskrit names for people in Europe presently again shows that there is no basis for AIT / AMT (including the arrival of Sanskrit in India with the Europeans / 'Aryans') according to the above example.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:english permeates every aspect of north american culture today. even though a few centuries ago english was not around at all in north america.
just as europeans were immigrants to north america similarly the Aryans were immigrants to India. Just as the european immigration to north america is not considered an invasion, but an immigration, similarly the coming to India of aryans should be considered an immigration and not an invasion. That is why modern historians use the term Aryan Migration and not Aryan Invasion which was coined by colonial historians.

Totally wrong example of English permeating every aspect of north American culture through the influx of white Europeans (from England etc.) in north America to support the flawed idea of AIT/AMT resulting in Sanskrit permeating the Indian culture.

If the above were true, i.e. Sanskrit had arrived in India from Europe with Europeans ('Aryans') long ago as advocated by AIT / AMT, most of the Indians now would like the Europeans as the most Americans (almost 90%) now look like Europeans, but that is not the case (most Indians don't look like the white Europeans) which shows that there is no truth to AIT / AMT and Sanskrit arriving in India with the Europeans ('Aryans').

Moreover, if the above were true, i.e. Sanskrit had arrived in India from Europe with Europeans ('Aryans') long ago as advocated by AIT / AMT, most of the Europeans (people in Europe) these days would also have Sanskrit names like the Indians do presently, but that is not the case. Instead, most Europeans have names like people in north America where the Europeans brought and spread their languages and cultures. This lack of Sanskrit names for people in Europe presently again shows that there is no basis for AIT / AMT (including the arrival of Sanskrit in India with the Europeans / 'Aryans') according to the above example.

when the Aryans arrived in India there were already local people inhabiting the Indian sub-continent. These included tribal people who were living in forests (some of who continue to remain tribals living in forests, etc. in modern India), and they included dravidian people who are believed to be inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization which collapsed some time after the coming of the Aryans. The Aryans were not completely responsible for it; there were probably various natural causes like earthquakes (like the one we saw in Gujarat just before Modi became CM of Guj) or floods which contributed to the destruction of the IVC but the Aryans probably provided the coup de grace in this respect since they were militarily superior to the inhabitants of the IVC.
The inhabitants of the IVC, in particular, were not Aryans.
Sanskrit and the Avestan language (language of ancient Persia) share a common ancenstral  language, and are closely related but persians do not have sanskrit sounding names. This disposes of your name argument.

Rashmun wrote: you were talking about names. i just told you that persians of today do not have sanskrit sounding names. for some reason you have become unhappy when told this.

Rashmun wrote:The fact that the Indus Valley people were not Aryans supports my view that India was a multi-ethnic society thousands of years ago. Kind of like the North America of today.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:This article talking about the Old Tamil (?) script 'discovered' in the IVC excavations is like if someone 500 years in future (2500 CE) discovers something (seals etc.) carved in Latin script in the current Portugal area and says English was the language of Portugal and other countries during the 20th century. It's totally absurd and simply due to the fact that Latin script is being used currently to read and write many languages / dialects (numbering in dozens) all over Europe and not just English.

Even during Buddha’s times (earlier than 500 BC), Sanskrit was the main official language and used for important knowledge / info. etc. (as suggested by the Sanskrit names Buddha and Siddhartha et al.), while most of the people in that area used Pali colloquially. Finding Pali inscriptions these days does not mean that Pali was the only language used at that time or Pali is the mother of all languages and that Sanskrit did not exist during those days.