Debunking Aryan-Dravidian division theory:

Ever since the British rule, the ‘break India’, and ‘divide India’ forces have gained big momentum. The British left India yet their ‘break and divide India’ influence hasn’t. Distorted historical records which they have left behind and which find a prominent place in our History text books continue to influence minds, generation after generation. 

The mainstream narrative, which portrays Indo-Aryan (Hindu) culture as hegemonic, racist, intolerant, rapacious, and inegalitarian, imposes an Indian version of “white guilt” on persons of Indo-Aryan ancestry, and engenders deep resentment and a desire to right historical wrongs among persons of Dravidian and “Dalit” ancestry – which manifests itself in various forms such as separatism and rejection of Hinduism and Indian culture, among others.

This makes the aryan invasion theory a powerful political tool which dovetails perfectly with the leftist, ‘secular’, and ‘liberal’ political narrative, as well as with the agendas of Dravidian nationalists, Dalit supremacists, missionaries, separatists, and other “Breaking India” forces, internal as well as external. As such, it has long been used to neatly divide India into dichotomous categories such as North and South Indians, Aryans and Dravidians, the fair skinned and the dark skinned, ‘high castes’ and Dalits, the privileged and the oppressed.

Let's debunk this myth step-by-step:

1. Why Indians still believe in Aryan-Dravidian myth?
2. How the lost river debunks the theory?
3. How do our ancient books debunk this theory?
4. How DNA samples debunk this theory?
5. What is the final result?
6. What needs to be done?

The final conclusion.

How the lost river debunks the theory?

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

The lost river falsifies the leftists:

Sarkar et al’s study found that the Sarasvati was a mighty river along which Indian civilization’s earliest settlements were founded. It states that the monsoon declined monotonically after 5,000 BCE, gradually weakening the Sarasvati, which is known to have eventually dried out to a large extent around 1,500 BCE. The Harappan civilization thus gradually deurbanized due to declining monsoons, rather than collapsed abruptly. Smaller settlements continued, and eventually dispersed toward the Himalayan foothills, the Ganga-Yamuna plain, Gujarat, and Rajasthan.

These results were obtained by studying just one site on the Sarasvati’s dry paleo-channel. More than 500 such sites are known to exist along the ancient river’s course, and there may be many more. Investigating more sites will give a better idea of the age of the civilization and possibly demonstrate that it is even older.

The Sarasvati is extensively mentioned in the Rig Veda, India’s foundational literary text. It is referred to as “greatest of rivers”, “glorious”, “loudly roaring”, and “mother of floods”. This clearly refers to a mighty river in its prime, not one in decline.

This falsifies the claim that the Rig Veda was composed after a purported Aryan invasion/migration circa 1,500 BCE, and indicates that it was composed closer to 5,000 BCE when the river was last in its prime per the results of Sarkar et al’s study. This raises serious questions about the Aryan invasion theory’s validity.

It also refutes the theory that the Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization was destroyed and supplanted with a “foreign” Hindu culture and civilization, and proves that modern India is a continuation of that ancient civilization.

Previous article: Why Indians still believe in Aryan-Dravidian myth?

Next article: How do our ancient books debunk this theory?

More Articles:

Home