Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Aryan Invasion Theory

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 9>
Author
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Aryan Invasion Theory
    Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 22:40
Originally posted by balochii

and look at this for your uneducated mind:
 
 Vedic literature, the lion is mentioned as the king of the jungle. Asiatic lions were abundant in the Indus Valley (actual Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Sind). Tigers were the animals of the East. For Vedic people, the inhabitants of western India, the lion was a more popular animal than the tiger and was the icon of power. That explains why in the ancient history and mythology of India, the lion is more prevalent than the tiger
 
 
 
 
^ it clearly proves that lions were popular in the western areas of the subcontinent( mainly pakistan) today and tigers were more popular in east bengal/bihar areas.
 
So this clearly exposes how uneducated you are, even about Rig veda itself
 
 

Calling lion as king of beasts or King of Jungle in Vedas is not an attestation for their presence in Pakistan.Vedas might have spoke about the lions of Gujarat.Or did they specifically mention l;ions of Pakistan.Then just give me the details of the verses.
If you have any biological proofs provide it.
Your link is speaking about the presence of lion in Uttarpradesh and Bihar too but not pakistan.

If Vedic people were from west they should have known tiger rather than lion.


Most of the Northwestern parts of the Subcontinet are Tiger habitats.



Edited by ranjithvnambiar - 13-Dec-2010 at 22:54
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 22:29
Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Elephants existed in the north/punjab area as recently as porus/alexander battle, he used elephants to fight alexander, this is a fact which is recorded
 
about lions, the only lions remaining today in south asia exist in Gujarat state of india which borders pakistan, they dont exist in east india places like bihar/bengal, so considering the location today is so close to pakistan, lions must have existed in pakistan very recently maybe until few thousands years ago. infact if i am not mistaking, mughals, sikhs, and rajputs were famous for hunting lions in punjab/sindh/rajhistan area, just go research, so they must have existed there until very recently

No...
Porus Alexander battle had battle elephants ie tamed ones brought for battles not wild ones 

Wild elephants are found only in Tropical rainforests and pakistan,punjab and even haryana is not an elephant habitat.

And for your information Girnar or the Gir forest is not on Gujarat -Pakistan border,it is in Saurastra.It is seperated from pakistan by sea.And no data about Mughals,Rajputs and sikhs hunting from "Punjab,Sindh and Rajastan" are till date available.
 
lol, so even if you what you are saying it true, dont you think aryans could have done the same as porus, by bringing elephants from wild places? oh and the fact is, elephant have existed in northern part of south asia for very very long time, they home might in the jungles but they were brought to the north thousands of years ago be people.
 
Gir Forest is still in Gujarat and that sea is such a small sea, the area is not very far from pakistan, just go look at a map. it is not in east india as you claim
Then why they are mentioning about wild elephants..?
And if you say pakistan has wild elephants..provide proofs..

Lions are not good swimmers.And they were not at all known to be present in Pakistan..
Are saying that lions swam to pakistan to show their presenceLOL
 
firstly, please speak proper english, half of the things your saying, i can't understand. where did i say anything about swimming? that fact is today lions only exist in Gujarat, a bordering state with Pakistan, not bengal/bihar. so it clearly shows lions existed with in the vicinity of pakistan because they still do
If you dont understand english,go and get some tuition and learn it instead of complaining..
You were mentioning about two landscapes divided by ocean.
And pakistan is not a lion habitat, thats it.
And if you say it is, then provide proof
 
your english is horrible ok, when did i say any thing about ocean and landscapes?
 
look at this and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Lion
 
there is where the only lions remaning in south asia are found, it is not far from pakistan at all:
 
 

That map doesnt show lions in Pakistan.

Oh! you need to introduce me to the landscape of Gujarat and the ocean and if you dont say anything about ocean I should keep mum...!!!

Your ignorance is not others lack of knowledge.

If lions live in Gujarat it is not an attestation for their presence in Pakistan.


Edited by ranjithvnambiar - 13-Dec-2010 at 22:32
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 22:25
Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

The above referrences of Rigveda will leave the Bharata dynastic lists as this.There maybe many intervening kings in between who are not mentioned in Rigveda.

1.       Bharata

2. DevavAta

3. Srnjaya

4. VadhryaSva

5. DivodAsa

6. Pratardana

7. Pijavana 


8. a. DevaSravas
    b. SudAs

9. Sahadeva


10. Somaka


Pratardana is referred to as the King of kasi in the Anukramani(composer details) which indicates that Bharatas were the Kings of Kasi in Eastern Uttarpradesh.

Their association with Sarasvati and the fire rituals performed by them on the banks of Sarasvati on Manusa,Apaya(Apaga Tirta) & ilayaspada at Varaprithivya (ie Kurukshetra in Haryana) indicates that their kingdom extended from eastern Uttarpradesh to haryana ie the banks of Sarasvati. 

 
like i said before, it is very much possible that a small group of aryans, ruled over india, just like the mughals, who were very small in number, yet managed to rule over the dravdian indian population, in a same way small groups of aryans of central asia could have ruled over all of these parts of india including UP. History is full of fact how so many small tribes from central asia ruled over many parts of dravdian india many many times, Aryans did the exact same thing. Again no way aryans were of indian origin. Indians can not turn in to white people with blue eyes/blonde hair with in a matter of few thousand years, its a hindu nationalistic joke LOL

Bharata dynasty mentioned here is the core characters of Rigveda.The chronological order of the kings here are attested.4 kings from Akbar to Aurangazeb took 150 years of reign and ten kings of Bharata clan(may be there are other intervening kings unmentioned) might have taken atleast 400 years.And apart from this there are many generations of the other composing rishis(bharatas themselves are among the composers).Rigveda itself might have taken more than a minimum of 4 centuries to get composed, if not more.
There is no account of a long migration or invasion throughout the Rigveda....
And most of the verses speaks about long presence of several generations on the bank of Sarasvati.

If you say that Rigveda was composed by migrants provide proofs instead of repeating yourself...

And also provide some proofs for theblue eye,white skin and blonde hair of Aryans..
 
Bharta was a ruling dynasty, so what? they could be aryans, i never denied that, however these ruling aryans were not of indian orgin, they were ruling over the dravdians of india.
 
even Mughals ruled areas like UP, Bihar, does that make Mughals of Indian origin?? no, they were central asian ruling over dravidian indians
 
 

Ya Bharata was a ruling dynasty and they were of Kasi.
They were indigenous, ie sons of the land.

There is no proof of any migration of Bharatas.

Or if you are saying they came from outside prove it
 
No they were not (black dravdians) indigenous people. Aryans never were indians and no they did not go to europe and became white skinned, its so foolish to think that will happen, just shows how stupid hindu nationalists are.

There is absolutely no proof for your claims.

Dravidians belong to south of India and their presence in north India is not Attested.
bharatas were not dravidians and Rigveda says they are sons of the land.

Otherwise you  Prove  that Bharatas were not indigenous


Edited by ranjithvnambiar - 13-Dec-2010 at 22:27
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 22:22
Originally posted by balochii

^stop lying ok, we all know most dravdians dont look like that, by posting some pics of actors and polticians who are of probably brahamin/north indian origin you can't fool me. The pics i posted are much more acurate, those people are not austroliod, only the first pic is off tribal. Again most dravdians are darkskinned as african, so stop lying, you are pretty much showing your cheap class.

Only 2 or 3 pictures I posted are of brahmins.You can google it and find out yourself.

If facts are against your beliefs, just admit it or give it up instead of forcing your beliefs on others.
Your racist thoughts are making you think low of others.
If you have any clear proof to justify what you say, then provide it instead of repeating your dravidian race theory.
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 13:30
Originally posted by Cryptic

Please keep try to keep the discussion civil.
 
As a side note, light complections seem to be indigenous to some parts of Europe.   Study the photos of the  Sa'ami and other Finno Ugaric people in this thread.   These peoples have been in Europe and northwest Siberia since neolitihic times. 
 
Please note their very distinctive cheek bones which are unlike Indo Aryan peoples. 
 
These people do not resemble any Indo Aryans. Therefore, light complected genes seem to be indigenous to both some parts of Europe and also indigenous to some parts of the ancient Indo Aryan homeland.
 
Originally posted by medenaywe

My personal opinion is:Those that were conquerors have left traces,but had not changed mayor DNA plan.
I think this guy has a good point.  Indo Aryans did not bring light complected genes to Europe. Rather, their light complected genes supplemented what was already there.
 
indo europeans were a people of central asia, not of india nor europe. Central asians were caucasians before the invasions of turks and mongols, most likely they looked like the some caucasian we still see in places like central asia, northern iran, northern afghanistan, northern pakistan. ofcourse i am not denying that europeans were already white before the indo aryans cames, however indo europeans themselves were also white, perhaps with a bit different facial features, like modern day white pashtuns.
 
But to say that they were from india, which is a largerly dravdian land is not true, if this was true, surely they would have left traces of their culture/looks in central asia and even europe, this is not true at all. India is a very hot land, how could indians even leave that place go in to central asia/europe and survive there in the harsh winter, espeically central asia where temperatures can drop to -30.  there is no archaeological evidence of this at all. The aryans cities that are being found in Russia and Kazakhstan, do not resemble any thing indian. There is no record of indians ever leaving the subcontinent.


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 13:32
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 12:46
Please keep try to keep the discussion civil.
 
As a side note, light complections seem to be indigenous to some parts of Europe.   Study the photos of the  Sa'ami and other Finno Ugaric people in this thread.   These peoples have been in Europe and northwest Siberia since neolitihic times. 
 
Please note their very distinctive cheek bones which are unlike Indo Aryan peoples. 
 
These people do not resemble any Indo Aryans. Therefore, light complected genes seem to be indigenous to both some parts of Europe and also indigenous to some parts of the ancient Indo Aryan homeland.
 
Originally posted by medenaywe

My personal opinion is:Those that were conquerors have left traces,but had not changed mayor DNA plan.
I think this guy has a good point.  Indo Aryans did not bring light complected genes to Europe. Rather, their light complected genes supplemented what was already there.


Edited by Cryptic - 13-Dec-2010 at 12:56
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 12:40
and look at this for your uneducated mind:
 
 Vedic literature, the lion is mentioned as the king of the jungle. Asiatic lions were abundant in the Indus Valley (actual Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Sind). Tigers were the animals of the East. For Vedic people, the inhabitants of western India, the lion was a more popular animal than the tiger and was the icon of power. That explains why in the ancient history and mythology of India, the lion is more prevalent than the tiger
 
 
 
 
^ it clearly proves that lions were popular in the western areas of the subcontinent( mainly pakistan) today and tigers were more popular in east bengal/bihar areas.
 
So this clearly exposes how uneducated you are, even about Rig veda itself
 
 


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 12:41
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 12:37
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Elephants existed in the north/punjab area as recently as porus/alexander battle, he used elephants to fight alexander, this is a fact which is recorded
 
about lions, the only lions remaining today in south asia exist in Gujarat state of india which borders pakistan, they dont exist in east india places like bihar/bengal, so considering the location today is so close to pakistan, lions must have existed in pakistan very recently maybe until few thousands years ago. infact if i am not mistaking, mughals, sikhs, and rajputs were famous for hunting lions in punjab/sindh/rajhistan area, just go research, so they must have existed there until very recently

No...
Porus Alexander battle had battle elephants ie tamed ones brought for battles not wild ones 

Wild elephants are found only in Tropical rainforests and pakistan,punjab and even haryana is not an elephant habitat.

And for your information Girnar or the Gir forest is not on Gujarat -Pakistan border,it is in Saurastra.It is seperated from pakistan by sea.And no data about Mughals,Rajputs and sikhs hunting from "Punjab,Sindh and Rajastan" are till date available.
 
lol, so even if you what you are saying it true, dont you think aryans could have done the same as porus, by bringing elephants from wild places? oh and the fact is, elephant have existed in northern part of south asia for very very long time, they home might in the jungles but they were brought to the north thousands of years ago be people.
 
Gir Forest is still in Gujarat and that sea is such a small sea, the area is not very far from pakistan, just go look at a map. it is not in east india as you claim
Then why they are mentioning about wild elephants..?
And if you say pakistan has wild elephants..provide proofs..

Lions are not good swimmers.And they were not at all known to be present in Pakistan..
Are saying that lions swam to pakistan to show their presenceLOL
 
firstly, please speak proper english, half of the things your saying, i can't understand. where did i say anything about swimming? that fact is today lions only exist in Gujarat, a bordering state with Pakistan, not bengal/bihar. so it clearly shows lions existed with in the vicinity of pakistan because they still do
If you dont understand english,go and get some tuition and learn it instead of complaining..
You were mentioning about two landscapes divided by ocean.
And pakistan is not a lion habitat, thats it.
And if you say it is, then provide proof
 
your english is horrible ok, when did i say any thing about ocean and landscapes?
 
look at this and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_Lion
 
there is where the only lions remaning in south asia are found, it is not far from pakistan at all:
 
 


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 12:40
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 12:28
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

The above referrences of Rigveda will leave the Bharata dynastic lists as this.There maybe many intervening kings in between who are not mentioned in Rigveda.

1.       Bharata

2. DevavAta

3. Srnjaya

4. VadhryaSva

5. DivodAsa

6. Pratardana

7. Pijavana 


8. a. DevaSravas
    b. SudAs

9. Sahadeva


10. Somaka


Pratardana is referred to as the King of kasi in the Anukramani(composer details) which indicates that Bharatas were the Kings of Kasi in Eastern Uttarpradesh.

Their association with Sarasvati and the fire rituals performed by them on the banks of Sarasvati on Manusa,Apaya(Apaga Tirta) & ilayaspada at Varaprithivya (ie Kurukshetra in Haryana) indicates that their kingdom extended from eastern Uttarpradesh to haryana ie the banks of Sarasvati. 

 
like i said before, it is very much possible that a small group of aryans, ruled over india, just like the mughals, who were very small in number, yet managed to rule over the dravdian indian population, in a same way small groups of aryans of central asia could have ruled over all of these parts of india including UP. History is full of fact how so many small tribes from central asia ruled over many parts of dravdian india many many times, Aryans did the exact same thing. Again no way aryans were of indian origin. Indians can not turn in to white people with blue eyes/blonde hair with in a matter of few thousand years, its a hindu nationalistic joke LOL

Bharata dynasty mentioned here is the core characters of Rigveda.The chronological order of the kings here are attested.4 kings from Akbar to Aurangazeb took 150 years of reign and ten kings of Bharata clan(may be there are other intervening kings unmentioned) might have taken atleast 400 years.And apart from this there are many generations of the other composing rishis(bharatas themselves are among the composers).Rigveda itself might have taken more than a minimum of 4 centuries to get composed, if not more.
There is no account of a long migration or invasion throughout the Rigveda....
And most of the verses speaks about long presence of several generations on the bank of Sarasvati.

If you say that Rigveda was composed by migrants provide proofs instead of repeating yourself...

And also provide some proofs for theblue eye,white skin and blonde hair of Aryans..
 
Bharta was a ruling dynasty, so what? they could be aryans, i never denied that, however these ruling aryans were not of indian orgin, they were ruling over the dravdians of india.
 
even Mughals ruled areas like UP, Bihar, does that make Mughals of Indian origin?? no, they were central asian ruling over dravidian indians
 
 

Ya Bharata was a ruling dynasty and they were of Kasi.
They were indigenous, ie sons of the land.

There is no proof of any migration of Bharatas.

Or if you are saying they came from outside prove it
 
No they were not (black dravdians) indigenous people. Aryans never were indians and no they did not go to europe and became white skinned, its so foolish to think that will happen, just shows how stupid hindu nationalists are.


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 12:46
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 12:26
^stop lying ok, we all know most dravdians dont look like that, by posting some pics of actors and polticians who are of probably brahamin/north indian origin you can't fool me. The pics i posted are much more acurate, those people are not austroliod, only the first pic is off tribal. Again most dravdians are darkskinned as african, so stop lying, you are pretty much showing your cheap class.
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 07:22
Here are some Famours Dravidians(Malayalees from Kerala)

G.Madhavan Nair the Chief of Indian Space Research Organization is a Malayalee Nair

Arundhati Roy writer and social worker is a Malayalee christian.

Mavila Viswanathan Nair , chief of Union Bank is a Malayalee Nair

E.Sreedharan Chief of Delhi metro is a Malayalee nair

Kris Gopalakrishnan CEO of Infosys is a Malayalee nair

Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 07:14
In the above post there are politicians ad ministers too ie Karunakaran,Muraleedharan,Kodiyeri Balakrishnan & J.Jayalalitaa.
And if You have problem with models & film stars, here are some dravidian politicians,beaurocrats ,athletes,singers & others

E.K.Nayanar Former Communist Chiefminister of Kerala


Prakash Padukkone a Former Badmonton player from bangalore

V.S.Acharya Home Minister of Karnataka

B.S.Yeddyurappa Chief minister of Karnataka.

K.S.Chitra a malayalee singer




Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 03:19
Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

The above referrences of Rigveda will leave the Bharata dynastic lists as this.There maybe many intervening kings in between who are not mentioned in Rigveda.

1.       Bharata

2. DevavAta

3. Srnjaya

4. VadhryaSva

5. DivodAsa

6. Pratardana

7. Pijavana 


8. a. DevaSravas
    b. SudAs

9. Sahadeva


10. Somaka


Pratardana is referred to as the King of kasi in the Anukramani(composer details) which indicates that Bharatas were the Kings of Kasi in Eastern Uttarpradesh.

Their association with Sarasvati and the fire rituals performed by them on the banks of Sarasvati on Manusa,Apaya(Apaga Tirta) & ilayaspada at Varaprithivya (ie Kurukshetra in Haryana) indicates that their kingdom extended from eastern Uttarpradesh to haryana ie the banks of Sarasvati. 

 
like i said before, it is very much possible that a small group of aryans, ruled over india, just like the mughals, who were very small in number, yet managed to rule over the dravdian indian population, in a same way small groups of aryans of central asia could have ruled over all of these parts of india including UP. History is full of fact how so many small tribes from central asia ruled over many parts of dravdian india many many times, Aryans did the exact same thing. Again no way aryans were of indian origin. Indians can not turn in to white people with blue eyes/blonde hair with in a matter of few thousand years, its a hindu nationalistic joke LOL

Bharata dynasty mentioned here is the core characters of Rigveda.The chronological order of the kings here are attested.4 kings from Akbar to Aurangazeb took 150 years of reign and ten kings of Bharata clan(may be there are other intervening kings unmentioned) might have taken atleast 400 years.And apart from this there are many generations of the other composing rishis(bharatas themselves are among the composers).Rigveda itself might have taken more than a minimum of 4 centuries to get composed, if not more.
There is no account of a long migration or invasion throughout the Rigveda....
And most of the verses speaks about long presence of several generations on the bank of Sarasvati.

If you say that Rigveda was composed by migrants provide proofs instead of repeating yourself...

And also provide some proofs for theblue eye,white skin and blonde hair of Aryans..
 
Bharta was a ruling dynasty, so what? they could be aryans, i never denied that, however these ruling aryans were not of indian orgin, they were ruling over the dravdians of india.
 
even Mughals ruled areas like UP, Bihar, does that make Mughals of Indian origin?? no, they were central asian ruling over dravidian indians
 
 

Ya Bharata was a ruling dynasty and they were of Kasi.
They were indigenous, ie sons of the land.

There is no proof of any migration of Bharatas.

Or if you are saying they came from outside prove it
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 03:17
Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Elephants existed in the north/punjab area as recently as porus/alexander battle, he used elephants to fight alexander, this is a fact which is recorded
 
about lions, the only lions remaining today in south asia exist in Gujarat state of india which borders pakistan, they dont exist in east india places like bihar/bengal, so considering the location today is so close to pakistan, lions must have existed in pakistan very recently maybe until few thousands years ago. infact if i am not mistaking, mughals, sikhs, and rajputs were famous for hunting lions in punjab/sindh/rajhistan area, just go research, so they must have existed there until very recently

No...
Porus Alexander battle had battle elephants ie tamed ones brought for battles not wild ones 

Wild elephants are found only in Tropical rainforests and pakistan,punjab and even haryana is not an elephant habitat.

And for your information Girnar or the Gir forest is not on Gujarat -Pakistan border,it is in Saurastra.It is seperated from pakistan by sea.And no data about Mughals,Rajputs and sikhs hunting from "Punjab,Sindh and Rajastan" are till date available.
 
lol, so even if you what you are saying it true, dont you think aryans could have done the same as porus, by bringing elephants from wild places? oh and the fact is, elephant have existed in northern part of south asia for very very long time, they home might in the jungles but they were brought to the north thousands of years ago be people.
 
Gir Forest is still in Gujarat and that sea is such a small sea, the area is not very far from pakistan, just go look at a map. it is not in east india as you claim
Then why they are mentioning about wild elephants..?
And if you say pakistan has wild elephants..provide proofs..

Lions are not good swimmers.And they were not at all known to be present in Pakistan..
Are saying that lions swam to pakistan to show their presenceLOL
 
firstly, please speak proper english, half of the things your saying, i can't understand. where did i say anything about swimming? that fact is today lions only exist in Gujarat, a bordering state with Pakistan, not bengal/bihar. so it clearly shows lions existed with in the vicinity of pakistan because they still do
If you dont understand english,go and get some tuition and learn it instead of complaining..
You were mentioning about two landscapes divided by ocean.
And pakistan is not a lion habitat, thats it.
And if you say it is, then provide proof
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 03:01
Originally posted by balochii

^ you think i am a fool? you just posted some actors/models and saying that dravidians look like that?? even most punjabi north indians are not light skinned as that:
 
average dravdians look like these:
 

I dont think, but you speak like one.
 
Thank you for your compliment.

Thats not an average dravidian thats an average australoid...
 
First of all you have posted the photographs of Tribals and some tamil actors.Ya there are australoid people in South India.But that doesnt mean all south Indians are australoid.

There are a large chunk population of Australoids in South India.
But that doesnt mean that others are not dravidians( they speak dravidian ie malayalam),
and majority of malayalees are not australoid.
or if you say all south Indians are australoid,then prove that , I have given their identity also.
Your concept about the whole dravidians being black is wrong.
There are millions of fair skinned dravidians in South India.
(But they may not belong to the aaustraloid race)
Nair is a community of people who belongs to Kerala ie they are dravidians bjut not australoids.There are 3 million nairs all over India.
Similar are Nambudiris,Majority of Ezhavas,Tulu bunts,Tulu Brahmins Konkanis etc of Kerala & Karnataka.Vaidekis of Andhra,Iyers,Iyengars,Gounders,Mudaliyars of Tamilnadu are also not australoids.So put a hold to dark dravidian theory.
Hemamalini,the old dreamgirl of Bollywood & Kamalhasan are  Iyengars.
Shashi Taroor the Ex-UN under secretary,Shivshanker Menon Indian PM's security advisor.
Parvaty Omanakuttan ex-missworld are all Nairs.
Shilpa Shetty,Sunil Shetty,Aishvarya Rai are Tulu bunts and so on.
South India has different races and dravidian is not a reference to skin colour.



Edited by ranjithvnambiar - 13-Dec-2010 at 07:03
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 01:02
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

The above referrences of Rigveda will leave the Bharata dynastic lists as this.There maybe many intervening kings in between who are not mentioned in Rigveda.

1.       Bharata

2. DevavAta

3. Srnjaya

4. VadhryaSva

5. DivodAsa

6. Pratardana

7. Pijavana 


8. a. DevaSravas
    b. SudAs

9. Sahadeva


10. Somaka


Pratardana is referred to as the King of kasi in the Anukramani(composer details) which indicates that Bharatas were the Kings of Kasi in Eastern Uttarpradesh.

Their association with Sarasvati and the fire rituals performed by them on the banks of Sarasvati on Manusa,Apaya(Apaga Tirta) & ilayaspada at Varaprithivya (ie Kurukshetra in Haryana) indicates that their kingdom extended from eastern Uttarpradesh to haryana ie the banks of Sarasvati. 

 
like i said before, it is very much possible that a small group of aryans, ruled over india, just like the mughals, who were very small in number, yet managed to rule over the dravdian indian population, in a same way small groups of aryans of central asia could have ruled over all of these parts of india including UP. History is full of fact how so many small tribes from central asia ruled over many parts of dravdian india many many times, Aryans did the exact same thing. Again no way aryans were of indian origin. Indians can not turn in to white people with blue eyes/blonde hair with in a matter of few thousand years, its a hindu nationalistic joke LOL

Bharata dynasty mentioned here is the core characters of Rigveda.The chronological order of the kings here are attested.4 kings from Akbar to Aurangazeb took 150 years of reign and ten kings of Bharata clan(may be there are other intervening kings unmentioned) might have taken atleast 400 years.And apart from this there are many generations of the other composing rishis(bharatas themselves are among the composers).Rigveda itself might have taken more than a minimum of 4 centuries to get composed, if not more.
There is no account of a long migration or invasion throughout the Rigveda....
And most of the verses speaks about long presence of several generations on the bank of Sarasvati.

If you say that Rigveda was composed by migrants provide proofs instead of repeating yourself...

And also provide some proofs for theblue eye,white skin and blonde hair of Aryans..
 
Bharta was a ruling dynasty, so what? they could be aryans, i never denied that, however these ruling aryans were not of indian orgin, they were ruling over the dravdians of india.
 
even Mughals ruled areas like UP, Bihar, does that make Mughals of Indian origin?? no, they were central asian ruling over dravidian indians
 
 


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 01:12
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 00:59
Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Originally posted by ranjithvnambiar

Originally posted by balochii

Elephants existed in the north/punjab area as recently as porus/alexander battle, he used elephants to fight alexander, this is a fact which is recorded
 
about lions, the only lions remaining today in south asia exist in Gujarat state of india which borders pakistan, they dont exist in east india places like bihar/bengal, so considering the location today is so close to pakistan, lions must have existed in pakistan very recently maybe until few thousands years ago. infact if i am not mistaking, mughals, sikhs, and rajputs were famous for hunting lions in punjab/sindh/rajhistan area, just go research, so they must have existed there until very recently

No...
Porus Alexander battle had battle elephants ie tamed ones brought for battles not wild ones 

Wild elephants are found only in Tropical rainforests and pakistan,punjab and even haryana is not an elephant habitat.

And for your information Girnar or the Gir forest is not on Gujarat -Pakistan border,it is in Saurastra.It is seperated from pakistan by sea.And no data about Mughals,Rajputs and sikhs hunting from "Punjab,Sindh and Rajastan" are till date available.
 
lol, so even if you what you are saying it true, dont you think aryans could have done the same as porus, by bringing elephants from wild places? oh and the fact is, elephant have existed in northern part of south asia for very very long time, they home might in the jungles but they were brought to the north thousands of years ago be people.
 
Gir Forest is still in Gujarat and that sea is such a small sea, the area is not very far from pakistan, just go look at a map. it is not in east india as you claim
Then why they are mentioning about wild elephants..?
And if you say pakistan has wild elephants..provide proofs..

Lions are not good swimmers.And they were not at all known to be present in Pakistan..
Are saying that lions swam to pakistan to show their presenceLOL
 
firstly, please speak proper english, half of the things your saying, i can't understand. where did i say anything about swimming? that fact is today lions only exist in Gujarat, a bordering state with Pakistan, not bengal/bihar. so it clearly shows lions existed with in the vicinity of pakistan because they still do


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 01:11
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 00:57
^ most dravdians have the same skin tone as africans from africa, there is no way these people would be aryans, who went out of india and settled in europe. How did they become white/coloured eyes/blonde hair. what a joke man LOL

Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 00:57
Back to Top
balochii View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-May-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 699
  Quote balochii Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 00:50
^ you think i am a fool? you just posted some actors/models and saying that dravidians look like that?? even most punjabi north indians are not light skinned as that:
 
average dravdians look like these:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by balochii - 13-Dec-2010 at 00:55
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 672
  Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2010 at 00:26
Here are the photos of some dravidians.
I dont know why you call them black
Prithviraj.S.Nair a malayalam actor

Surya ,Tamil Actor

Sridevi,A bollywood actress from South India

Muraleedharan A Congress Politician from Kerala

Kodiyeri Balakrishnan ,Home Minister of Kerala

Karunakaran former Chiefminister of Kerala

J.Jayalalitaa Former Chiefminister of Tamilnadua

Jayaram malayalam actor

Devan malayalam actor


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.