How DNA samples debunk this theory?

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

A haplogroup is a large, extended family or clan, all of whose members have a shared ancestry. There are two types of haplogroups: Y-chromosome (patrilineal) haplogroups, and mtDNA (matrilineal) haplogroups. Haplogroups are identified by letters of the alphabet (A, B, C, etc.) and sub-groups are denoted by letters and numbers (A1, A1a, etc.).

The Y-chromosomal (patrilineal) haplogroup R1a1a (also known as R-M17) is the world’s most successful extended family. Its members number in the high hundreds of millions, possibly over a billion. It is widespread across Eurasia, with high concentrations in Russia, Poland and Ukraine, as well as in the Indian subcontinent and the Tuva region of Asiatic Russia.

This more recent study published in 2015 confirms that the oldest examples of the haplogroup R1a are found in the Indian subcontinent and are approximately 15,450 years old.

This is a momentous discovery. It proves that:

1. The R1a haplogroup originated in India.

2. The Indo-Aryan people have lived in India for at least 15,450 years, which invalidates the theory that the Indo-Aryans invaded India 3,500 years ago.

3. The hundreds of millions of members (possibly over a billion) of the R1a family living across the world today – a very large fraction of humanity – are all descended from one single male ancestor who lived in India at least 15,450 years ago.

This discovery demonstrates the close genetic (and hence linguistic and cultural) affinity of Indians with the Russian and Polish people, the Vikings and Normans, and with the ancient Scythians and Tocharians, among many others.

This is irrefutable scientific proof that not only did the Indo-Aryan people originate in India over 15,450 years ago, but also that they expanded out of India and settled in lands far to the west in Europe. It thoroughly invalidates the Aryan invasion theory.

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

Next article: What is the final result?

More Articles:

Home

How do our ancient books debunk this theory?

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

India’s leftist historians and academics have for decades dismissed 'our ancient books' out of hand as “Hindutva”. This is why they decry any attempt to alter the status quo (such as modernizing history textbooks) as “fascism”, and why they have marginalized scholars such as the distinguished archeologist B. B. Lal, whose immense body of work has never been allowed to make it to Indian textbooks.
India’s “mainstream” historians dismiss the Rig Veda as mythology. This is a naive and subjective assumption that betrays an unscholarly bias on their part. If the Rig Veda is mythology, then so are Herodotus‘ fanciful and inaccurate histories. Herodotus, however, continues to be cited as a reliable historian. This smacks of double standards. The Rig Veda is certainly less fanciful than Herodotus’ Histories. Moreover, it is a veritable treasure that gives us the earliest literary insight into human society and thought. As such, it must be taken seriously.

Let's talk about the power of these books to debunk these myths and topple the Leftist regimes (which garner their votes by fooling people on the basis of caste, regionalism and language) when these truths reach the general public:

1. According to leftists, Rig Veda was written after an Aryan invasion in 1500 BCE when the Saraswati river had declined leading to the fall of Harappan civilization. However, 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.
2. Indian literary sources such as the Puranas, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana – which contain extensive genealogies of kings that date back thousands of years – and which mainstream scholars reject as mythology. 
3. Claims that the Dravidians belong to a separate, non-Hindu civilization are also discredited by ancient Tamil Sangam literature, which dates back to c. 300 BCE. The Mahabharata is mentioned in the oldest Tamil Sangam literature. The Vedas and the Ramayana are also mentioned in Sangam literature. Sangam literature mentions the whole of India, starting from lands to “the north of the Himalayas”, which contradicts the claim that the Dravidians were confined to the south of India.

These books prove that the Vedic civilisation did not replace the Harappan civilisation but they are both a reference to the same civilisation which existed on the banks on Indus and Saraswati.

These books also refute the eastward expansion theory of Aryans and support the westward expansion theory of Aryans.

1. Consider the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra, it records "Amavasu migrated westward." This refers to a Vedic king called Amavasu, whose people are the Gandhari (Gandhara – Afghanistan), the Parsu (Persians) and the Aratta, who are tentatively identified as living in the vicinity of Mt. Ararat, which is located in Turkey (eastern Anatolia) and Armenia.
2. Afghanistan (Gandhara) was historically part of the Indian civilization until the Islamic invasions. The name “Persia” comes from the ancient Parshva people (an Aryan clan). The word “Parshva” is derived from the Sanskrit/Avestan (Old Persian) word “Parshu”, which means “battle-axe”. There are clear linguistic and cultural similarities between India and Persia.
3. The traditional Armenian name for Mt. Ararat is Masis. It is named after the legendary Armenian king Amasya. The name “Amasya” is linguistically related to the name “Amavasu” of the Indian king recorded in the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra. This establishes literary evidence for the westward expansion of Indo-Aryans, via Afghanistan, to Persia, Armenia and Anatolia.
4. The ancient kingdom of Mitanni, located in Syria and Anatolia, had an Indo-Aryan Sanskrit speaking ruling class. They had Indo-Aryan names. The Mitanni belonged to the Indian-origin haplogroup R1a1a. This is clear evidence of a large-scale westward expansion of Sanskrit-speaking Indo-Aryans, and their presence as the ruling aristocracy in lands thousands of kilometers west of India. This quashes the asinine claim that the first speakers of Sanskrit were Syrians, a claim that would be laughable were it not portrayed as serious journalism in a mainstream publication.

• The primordial Rig Vedic river goddess Danu is the mother/progenitor of the Danava clan of Indo-Aryans. The Danavas revolted against the Devas, and were eventually defeated and banished. As it turns out, that was far from the end of their story. The word dānu means “fluid, drop” in Rig Vedic Sanskrit. The Avestan (old Iranian) word for “river” is “dānu”. The Scythian (Saka/Shaka) & Sarmatian words for “river” are also “dānu”. Now consider this: linguistically, the names of the European rivers Danube, Dnieper, Dniestr, Don, Donets, Dunajec, Dvina/Daugava, and Dysna are all derived from the Rig Vedic Sanskrit root word “dānu”. These rivers flow across eastern & central Europe. These rivers, all named after the Rig Vedic goddess Danu, seem to trace the gradual westward migration through Europe of the Danava clan of Rig Vedic Indo-Aryans.

So where did the Danavas eventually end up?

According to Irish & Celtic mythology, the Irish & Celtic people are descended from a mother goddess – a river goddess – called Danu. The ancient (mythological) people of Ireland are called the Tuatha Dé Danann (Old Irish: “The peoples of the goddess Danu”). The fact that R1a1a is still present in Ireland proves that people of Indo-Aryan origin settled there in the past.

Previous article: How the lost river debunks the theory?

Next article: How DNA samples debunk this theory?

More Articles:

Home

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

Why Indians still believe in Aryan-Dravidian myth?

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

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.

However,
The outdated 19th century widely acclaimed theory of Aryan invasion by Max Muller has been debunked. But why did this take so long?

1. Encouragement provided to this theory by colonialists to promote the North-South or the popular 'Aryan Dravidian divide' which still exists in minds of Indians. This was so intense during that time, that the founder of DK party of South, Ramasamy Periyar even supported Jinnah's idiotic demand of Pakistan to gain latter's support for his demand of a seperate Dravida state in South.
2.  The left/secular/liberal ecosystem derives much of its strength and power from its decades-old stranglehold on Indian academia, especially in the humanities (but also in other fields). Leftist academics staff or control most of India’s humanities departments. Leftist historians and academics monopolize academic discourse in India and marginalize dissenting voices. The leftist clique has ensured that every school, college, and university textbook teaches the theory.
3. India’s education system discourages students from asking questions and thinking on their own. This conditioning makes them accept the leftist narrative without question. As a consequence, several generations of Indians have grown up and spent their lives hating, or, at the very least, feeling ashamed of their culture and heritage. The theory gives leftist academics the ideal rationale for denigrating Indian culture, exhorting ‘lower caste’ students to reject Hinduism and rebel against ‘the establishment’, encouraging female students to reject Hinduism for being patriarchal and misogynistic, calling into question India’s right to exist as a nation, and supporting anti-national and separatist movements, all on academic and scholarly grounds. This is the modus operandi by which several generations of unquestioning and impressionable students have been indoctrinated and recruited into the leftist movement.
   
4. The science of genetics has revolutionized the study of ancient history and given researchers an unprecedented ability to uncover the details of humanity’s past. India has lagged behind in genetic research, and the government of India has in the past prohibited foreign researchers from collecting genetic samples of Indians. This restriction has been removed of late, and, as a consequence, a new picture of Indian history is emerging.
5. Instead of investigating the Indigenous Aryans Theory (IAT) using all means available, India’s leftist historians and academics have for decades dismissed it out of hand as “Hindutva”. This is why they decry any attempt to alter the status quo (such as modernizing history textbooks) as “fascism” and “historical revisionism”, and why they have marginalized scholars such as the distinguished archeologist B. B. Lal, whose immense body of work has never been allowed to make it to Indian textbooks.
6. India’s “mainstream” historians dismiss the Rig Veda (which has enough evidences to debunk this theory) as mythology. This is a naive and subjective assumption that betrays an unscholarly bias on their part. If the Rig Veda is mythology, then so are Herodotus‘ fanciful and inaccurate histories. Herodotus, however, continues to be cited as a reliable historian. This smacks of double standards. The Rig Veda is certainly less fanciful than Herodotus’ Histories. Moreover, it is a veritable treasure that gives us the earliest literary insight into human society and thought. As such, it must be taken seriously.

Next article: How the lost river debunks the theory?

More Articles:
Home

Why is India a subcontinent and Europe a continent?

Homepage    About me      Contact me    Privacy policy

Disclaimer: **I love Europe but some questions need to be answered and by India I mean South Asia because most of the present day countries of South Asia were parts of India earlier.**

You might have wondered sometime 'Why India is a subcontinent and not a continent?' If you try to convince yourself by saying that India is connected to Asia then you really need to read this article.

Of the seven most globally recognized continents, only Antarctica and Australia are completely separated from other continents by ocean. Asia and Africa are joined by the Isthmus of Suez, and North and South America by the Isthmus of Panama. In both cases, there is no complete separation of these landmasses by water (disregarding the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, which are both narrow and shallow, as well as artificial). What separates Europe from Asia? Ural hillocks.. And what separates Subcontinent from Asia? The mother of all mountain ranges, the legendary, the impenetrable, the gigantic, HIMALAYAS! Which separation is stronger?


Across the world, different types of models are taught:

• The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, parts of Western Europe and most English-speaking countries, including Australia^[22] and the United Kingdom.
• The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan.
• The six-continent combined-America model is often used in France and its former possessions, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Latin America and Greece.
• A five-continent model is obtained from this model by excluding Antarctica as uninhabited. This is used, for example in the United Nations and in the Olympic Charter.

Also before 60 to 70 million years ago this Indian Landmass was not a part of Eurasian landmass. This Indian Subcontinent drifted from southern hemisphere and collided with Eurasian plate to lift these tallest mountain ranges. So, don't you think we qualify to be called as a continent? 

Calling Indian subcontinent a "Subcontinent" and Europe a full continent is a pure euro-centric mindset and has nothing to do with logic. We are much more diverse when compared to the rest of Asia. 

There are only two types of religions in world: Abrahamic(Islam, Christianity, Jew) and Dharmic (Hindu, Jain, Buddhism). We have an entirely separate SET of religions, not just a separate religion. Both Kashmiri and Keralian cuisines are spicy. But differently spicy. Is English food differently bland than Hungarian food?

So if India is more drastically different from Asia culturally, geographically, racially, spiritually, linguistically, culinarily, sartorially and on every other imaginable fronts; Why is it not a continent and Europe is?

Answer : Because Europeans wrote the geography books and not Indians.

Read more articles:

Home

Is Napoleon Europe's Samadragupta?

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

First of all, I doubt that you guys know about Samudragupta. Even most of the Indians don't know about this great conquerer because as far as I remember only a single page is devoted to him in our 'school history books' and in that he is referred to as India's Napoleon. But is Napoleon worthy enough to be called as Europe's Samudragupta?

4th century AD, India was once again divided into numerous kingdoms. The great Mauryan empire (Ashoka's empire) which was once created by the immense hardships of the great Mauryan kings had shattered. For nearly 500 years after the death of Ashoka, the numerous small kingdoms warred with each other. Finally a new empire started to take shape in the Northern India. The 'empire of Guptas' started to take shape which was going to provide political stability to India once again.

Samudragupta was the younger son of the founder of the Gupta empire. The small empire founded by his father started to take a gigantic shape under him. His indefatigable energy and strong determination along with his brilliant strategies and diplomatic skill and shrewdness made him the 'king of kings'. His policy of conquest and liberal attitude towards the defeated kings earned him a place in the list of the greatest Indian kings. His diplomatic triumph opened new way for cementing friendliness with the foreign rulers of southeast Asia and middle East. He commanded the biggest army of the world at that time.
He was also a great administrator. The reforms brought by him formed the basis of administration of the later Indian rulers.

But Samudragupta was more than a fighter; he was also a lover of the arts. He set the stage for the emergence of classical art, which occurred under the rule of his son and successor Chandragupta II. Samudragupta is also known to have been "a man of culture". He was a patron of learning, a celebrated poet and a musician. Several coins depict him playing on the Indian lyre (veena). He gathered a galaxy of poets and scholars and took effective actions to foster and propagate religious, artistic and literary aspects of Indian culture. Though he favoured the Hindu religion like the other Gupta kings, he was reputed to possess a tolerant spirit for other religions. His reign is rightly called as the 'Golden Age' of India.

According to professor Dr. HC Roychowdhury, Samudragupta was more versatile than King Ashoka. Ashoka was proficient in scriptures only, but the versatility of Samudragupta lies in the fact that Samudragupta was proficient in all facets of art and culture.


Comparison with Napoleon:

Samudragupta never lost a single battle during his entire reign. Napoleon on the other hand faced numerous defeats throughout his career which ended with his ultimate defeat at Waterloo. Napoleon’s forces regularly plundered and pillaged the territories which he conquered. His rule which consisted of wars spread over 17 years supposedly left 6 million people dead across Europe, led to the loss of overseas French territories and the great nation of France became bankrupt. He also emancipated the Jews across Europe, the Catholics in Protestant majority countries and the Protestants in Catholic countries.

On the contrary, Samudragupta was a man of honour. He treated his opponents with respect. He established relations with almost all kingdoms in India and cemented them through matrimony. He was a man of culture and his court was filled with some of the greatest intellectuals. He was a Hindu by faith but encouraged all faiths. At the request of the Sri Lankan king and the Buddhist monks from over there, he allowed the construction of a large monastery at Bodh Gaya one of the holiest sites for Buddhists. Nalanda University was founded during this Golden Age. This center of Buddhist learning was built in a place that the Buddha himself had visited a number of times, and was patronized by the Gupta kings. He left behind a great legacy which is rightly called as The Classical Age in Indian history.

There is absolutely no similarity between Samudragupta and Napoleon yet European exceptionalism creates that similarity and the much superior Samudragupta is called as Indian Napoleon, a man who was nowhere near his standards.

More Articles:
Home