The historians always have said that to form a culture co-existence of basic essential elements are required. They say about the weather, water resources, furtive lands and amicable surroundings to be major influencing factors for flourishing of a culture. They say lands of India, especially basin of Indus, being furtive and nature least hostile caused birth of Indus civilization. Few Indian pundits say that those were Aryans who invaded India and destroyed local cultures to form a new one, and now there is counter claim that those were Aryans who were creators of Indus civilization. (See…Dr. M.K. Dhawalikar’s “Aryanchyaa Shodhat.” )
From where these mysterious Aryans did come? Have they so far have been able to identify land of their origin and the people those could be possibly proved to be ancestors of Aryans?
Let us discuss this issue because for centuries this prejudice has been influencing the socio-religious strife in India and abroad. If Aryans were already been able enough to develop their culture in northern parts of earth, why they had to migrate without leaving a footprint of their origin in the lands they belonged? They say Aryans from central Asia or from Arctic regions in troops migrated and invaded India and Europe. Germans still tend to believe that they are successors of Aryans. Hindu Brahmins think they are of the Aryan origin and superior over other races. They tend to claim that those were Aryans that introduced mature culture to aboriginals, and admonitions of RSS or rather their secret aims are similar to that of Hitler.
But the fact remains they don’t have any substantial proof that they intruded India or Europe from some unknown place to confirm their claim.
The main questions arising from Aryan Invasion Theory are:
a. How a so-called developed cultured race in unison migrated from one place to another?
b. Why Rugveda doesn’t support AIT theory as there is not even a single mention?
c. If Aryans migrated to India and elsewhere why there is no similar composition like of Veda’s elsewhere?
d. If they were migrated to India, Iran would be their first camping station. But Avesta was composed about 6th century BC. Veda’s are considered to be composed during 2500 BC till 1750 BC. How this reversal of timeline is possible?
e. Greeks, as it claimed that belongs to Aryan origin…but pre-history of Greeks doesn’t date back beyond 1500 BC. Again same problem with timeline. Also Greeks never composed any text similar to Veda;s. Had it been the case that they too belonged to Aryan race, there would be some kind of similar composition. Also notable factor is Greeks were Pagans and not nature-worshippers as so-called Aryans of India were.
Indian thinkers do tend to nod in unison with Max Muller, a German Pundit, who in fact provided enough fuel to the claim rich imaginary ancestry of high-caste people of India.
But the fact remains that Aryans so called invasion or migration is a myth that is not substantiated by any solid proof. So if at all Aryans did exist in some northern part of the globe we don’t find any signs of their forebear’s that can be linked with myth of Aryans. There could not be any culture of prominence in northern parts of the globe beyond 41 north. It could only have nomads of primitive kind and we know from history how central Asia was crowded with uncultured nomadic tribes, having no influence over global societies except of their mass attacks and vandalism upon the rest of the world.
So there never was intrusion of Aryans neither in India nor in Europe.
If it was the case when Aryans that Intruded India could compose world’s ancient philosophical books, the Vedas, why the same Aryans that branched in Europe remained in the dark of ignorance for centuries to come?
And I am sure they don’t have any answer. Rules of fanatics don’t apply when you really are serious. When you want to learn and understand.
There are professors of another myth. They say life on earth was due to some comet that carried cells of life. Some say those were the species from other galactic planet that not only visited earth but from monkeys they produced this new breed…the mankind. They are in search for life upon Mars and upon Venus. Now they are also claiming that they have found a planetary system in the Universe where earth-like planet must be existing. That may be the case. May be some day we could reach those planets where alike species do exists.
But how that is going to help solve mystery of our own world?
Say for example that those were space travelers of ancient times that gave birth to the mankind. Then why it is so that civilizations we find only in the particular belt I am telling about?
Or say some comet that entered our earth that caused the life on our lonely planet. That may be an assumed case that some meteoric crash wiped out a species of behemoths that used to rule the earth. If both cases are thought together then we come across a gross contradiction. Then we not only contradict theory of evolution but also it forces us to trust on laws of destiny the science forsakes of.
Here we tend to accept law of destiny only because we have not found truth as yet. Both are wrong. They were destined to be wrong who suggested life had to come upon the earth through galactic couriers. They are fatally wrong when they suggest entire species of dinosaurs and monstrous birds were erased because of some galactic attack. When Charles Darwin says it is evolution he is wrong in his conclusions though he has been good in his findings.
There are actually many issues that we have to look together…in wise combination and they are:
a. Is man an evolved creature from primitive apes?
b. If it is the case from what apes did evolve?
c. If the life on earth is gift of a comet crash, why there is no life on other planets as well including our moon where many comets have ended their existence?
d. Atmosphere on our earth was toxic and poisonous in its beginning. May it be compared with the atmosphere of Venus.
e. On earth there roamed behemoths like dinosaurs. They got dinstinct in course of time. End of dinosaurs is linked to another comet crash. Why comets that have brought life on earth had to end it?
f. On end of behemoths how come that new life flourished with no link to past ancestors?
g. Early evidence of presence of Homo sapiens is not later than 25 million years. In last 25 million years only apes did evolve...they say…what about other species?
h. Human species is existent, not only today, but from as if eternity in every part of the globe though civilizations didn’t know about their existence and there were no means to venture transit from one place to other in those olden times. If the theory of travel of ancient primitive people is accepted that made settlements on every part of the earth then we have to accept primitive man was as similar in knowledge and in science as we the modern men are. Should we trust in this?
i. Even if, we consider this as a fact, then why the men belonging to single ancestry could not stream the flow of same culture they belonged to wherever they settled? Why there are so many cultural discrepancies even today when technology has brought world closer?
j. If origin of the man was at single place, as some anthropologist’s claim, saying modern man is predecessor of Homo sapiens or of Neanderthal why there is distinct difference in races? Why we have to classify people in Mongoloids, Austreloids and Caucasians or in Negroid? If origin of species is single then why there should be that distinct difference?
k. Does genetic structure change with environment mankind belongs to in course of time to form a distinct race?
There are many questions. I just don’t want you to be perturbed much over them. We are here not to raise just questions but to find answer. Looking back in history of our so-called wizard our thinkers and scientists lacked in fundamental queries. I don’t blame them for they too were children of their time and had to present their theories based on their individual observations. Not that there observations were wrong. But the conclusions they derived from their observations were wrong. Their findings though were accepted by the so-called progressive people in heart, they remained aristocrats. The findings helped them to prove they were supreme. At one hand they bought Darwin’s theory and at other hand they trusted in myth of Aryans. At one hand they bought theory of destiny and at other hand they praised and enjoyed fruits of the science. There were many those abandoned old mythological gods and began to praise new god…science. Even after Big bang theory there were many who placed their belief in old theory of static universe. The rest of the world was happy to place their faith in new theory. Theory always is like a god. It can be said and deliberated over but hardly can be proved. It just is matter of faith. When it comes to theosophy we tend to trust.
When it comes to personal beliefs we tend to trust.
What we tend to trust not necessarily is the truth.
I have raised the questions not only to baffle you. I have raised them to come up with all plausible answer.
So let us begin our probe. Also let’s find out why culture develops in some regions and declines…there are scientific views on this…)