Birth of Hindu religion:
There are different opinions regarding of the birth of Hindu religion. There is literally a tug of war between the scholars’ one in favour of Dravidian origin and other of Aryan origin. There is hardly any third opinion on that though a small section feels that it has originated from indigenous tribal of India. This is because no great man of this origin had ever tried to write or researched to claim that Hindu religion is born from their indigenous tribal faith.

First of all the word Hindu it self has root to non-aryan Kirata or Borok origin with Sindu or Chindi river through the Indus civilisation, is not at all the Indo-Aryan one. Secondly the theory of Hindu religions birth from indo-Aryan faith is null and void by the following facts. Let us look at the list of names of Gods which the Indo-Aryan people had brought when they invaded Indus civilisation. Rig-veda has all the names of god which the Indo-Aryan used to worship when they first came to India. Their faith and philosophy were based on these gods only. The rituals, procedure and hymn etc were detailed in the sacred text of Vedas. Some of the primary and powerful gods mentioned in the Rig-Vedas are Indra, Agni, Varun, Vrihaspati, Brahma, Arundhati, Soma, Vayu, Aswin, Rhitu, Marut, Rudra, Ribhus, Savitar, Brahmanspati. But in the present day Hindu religion none of the Vedic god is worshipped in India. The Brahma is the only one ha temple at Puskar in Rajasthan, and he too does not have any day fixed through out a year. There is no god of Aryan or Vedic origin in the list of Hindu Gods of modern India, other than doubtfully the Vishnu which is considered to be origin of Dravidian. On the contrary none of the Hindu gods of modern India is mentioned or had a place in Vedas. These facts clearly prove that the Hindu religion and its gods are neither born from Aryan faith nor derived from Vedic gods and philosophy.

http://tripurasociety.org/hindu.htm

I know very little about Hinduism, I admit.  So, it really does not behoove me to spew out what little knowledge I have on the subject.  But there are vast authoritative sources one can check out. 

For those who are, like me, interested in the origin of Hinduism, might I suggest a book: The Hindus.

Here's a review of it in Wall Street Journal:

 

A People and Their Karma

A militant Hindu once hurled an egg at the author as she lectured in London. He missed.

JPEG-



Thanks for presenting Piggott's research/version. What you need to
understand is I am not denying the research you have done, but in terms
of drawing conlcusion one needs to understand context and the pretext. If
this is your research/article, ideally would have been better to cite
more than one authors and perhaps contradictory versions to draw better
conclusion. Again, like I said earlier, western scholars always tried
to impose this idea of " aryan invasion theroy" where as bunch of
eastern scholars deny that theroy. 



What I have been taught is that in  research, you do not deny or accept the fact from reading one
scholar, you read and do research more about that prior to draw any
conclusion. The whole myth of " aryan invasion theroy" still remains as
big  discourse. I think we need to understand why there is a battle between
eastern and western scholars in regard to " ONLY eastern civilization".
I might be wrong but if so those eastern scholars are also wrong from whom
I learnt many amzing thing about eastern civilization.

I am not scholar enough to write a research paper or article. I will try though.

The Myth of the Aryan Invasion
of India

By David Frawley

---

One of the main ideas used to interpret and generally devalue the ancient
history of India is the theory of the Aryan invasion. According to this
account, India was invaded and conquered by nomadic light-skinned Indo-European
tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100 BC, who overthrew an earlier and
more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization from which they took
most of what later became Hindu culture. This so-called pre-Aryan civilization
is said to be evidenced by the large urban ruins of what has been called
the "Indus valley culture" (as most of its initial
sites were on the Indus river). The war between the powers of light and
darkness, a prevalent idea in ancient Aryan Vedic scriptures, was thus
interpreted to refer to this war between light and dark skinned peoples.
The Aryan invasion theory thus turned the "Vedas", the
original scriptures of ancient India and the Indo-Aryans, into little more
than primitive poems of uncivilized plunderers.

This idea totally foreign to the history of India, whether north or
south has become almost an unquestioned truth in the interpretation of
ancient history Today, after nearly all the reasons for its supposed validity
have been refuted, even major Western scholars are at last beginning to
call it in question.

In this article we will summarize the main points that have arisen.
This is a complex subject that I have dealt with in depth in my book "Gods,
Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization", for
those interested in further examination of the subject.

The Indus valley culture was pronounced pre-Aryans for several reasons
that were largely part of the cultural milieu of nineteenth century European
thinking As scholars following Max Mullar had decided that the Aryans came
into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus valley culture was earlier than
this, they concluded that it had to be preAryan. Yet the rationale behind
the late date for the Vedic culture given by Muller was totally speculative.
Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era, believed in
Biblical chronology. This placed the beginning of the world at 400 BC and
the flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became difficult
to get the Aryans in India before 1500 BC.

Muller therefore assumed that the five layers of the four 'Vedas'
& 'Upanishads' were each composed in 200 year periods before
the Buddha at 500 BC. However, there are more changes of language in Vedic
Sanskrit itself than there are in classical Sanskrit since Panini, also
regarded as a figure of around 500 BC, or a period of 2500 years. Hence
it is clear that each of these periods could have existed for any number
of centuries and that the 200 year figure is totally arbitrary and is likely
too short a figure.

It was assumed by these scholars many of whom were also Christian missionaries
unsympathetic to the 'Vedas' that the Vedic culture was that of
primitive nomads from Central Asia. Hence they could not have founded any
urban culture like that of the Indus valley. The only basis for this was
a rather questionable interpretation of the 'Rig Veda' that they
made, ignoring the sophisticated nature of the culture presented within
it.

Meanwhile, it was also pointed out that in the middle of the second
millennium BC, a number of Indo-European invasions apparently occured in
the Middle East, wherein Indo-European peoples the Hittites, Mit tani and
Kassites conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for some centuries. An Aryan invasion
of India would have been another version of this same movement of Indo-European
peoples. On top of this, excavators of the Indus valley culture, like Wheeler,
thought they found evidence of destruction of the culture by an outside
invasion confirming this.

The Vedic culture was thus said to be that of primitive nomads who came
out of Central Asia with their horse-drawn chariots and iron weapons and
overthrew the cities of the more advanced Indus valley culture, with their
superior battle tactics. It was pointed out that no horses, chariots or
iron was discovered in Indus valley sites.

This was how the Aryan invasion theory formed and has remained since
then. Though little has been discovered that confirms this theory, there
has been much hesitancy to question it, much less to give it up.

Further excavations discovered horses not only in Indus Valley sites
but also in pre-Indus sites. The use of the horse has thus been proven
for the whole range of ancient Indian history. Evidence of the wheel, and
an Indus seal showing a spoked wheel as used in chariots, has also been
found, suggesting the usage of chariots.

Moreover, the whole idea of nomads with chariots has been challenged.
Chariots are not the vehicles of nomads. Their usage occured only in ancient
urban cultures with much flat land, of which the river plain of north India
was the most suitable. Chariots are totally unsuitable for crossing mountains
and deserts, as the so-called Aryan invasion required.

That the Vedic culture used iron & must hence date later than the
introduction of iron around 1500 BC revolves around the meaning of the
Vedic term "ayas", interpreted as iron. 'Ayas'
in other Indo- European languages like Latin or German usually means copper,
bronze or ore generally, not specially iron. There is no reason to insist
that in such earlier Vedic times, 'ayas' meant iron, particularly since
other metals are not mentioned in the 'Rig Veda' (except gold that is much
more commonly referred to than ayas). Moreover, the 'Atharva Veda'
and 'Yajur Veda' speak of different colors of 'ayas'(such as red
& black), showing that it was a generic term. Hence it is clear that
'ayas' generally meant metal and not specifically iron.

Moreover, the enemies of the Vedic people in the 'Rig Veda' also use
ayas, even for making their cities, as do the Vedic people themselves.
Hence there is nothing in Vedic literture to show that either the Vedic
culture was an ironbased culture or that there enemies were not.

The 'Rig Veda' describes its Gods as 'destroyers of cities'.
This was used also to regard the Vedic as a primitive non-urban culture
that destroys cities and urban civilization. However, there are also many
verses in the 'Rig Veda' that speak of the Aryans as having having cities
of their own and being protected by cities upto a hundred in number. Aryan
Gods like Indra, Agni, Saraswati and the Adityas are praised as being like
a city. Many ancient kings, including those of Egypt and Mesopotamia, had
titles like destroyer or conquerer of cities. This does not turn them into
nomads. Destruction of cities also happens in modern wars; this does not
make those who do this nomads. Hence the idea of Vedic culture as destroying
but not building the cities is based upon ignoring what the Vedas actually
say about their own cities.

Further excavation revealed that the Indus Valley culture was not des-
troyed by outside invasion, but according to internal causes and, most
likely, floods. Most recently a new set of cities has been found in India
(like the Dwaraka and Bet Dwaraka sites by S.R. Rao and the National Institute
of Oceanography in India) which are intermidiate between those of the Indus
culture and later ancient India as visited by the Greeks. This may eliminate
the so-called dark age following the presumed Aryan invasion and shows
a continuous urban occupation in India back to the beginning of the Indus
culture.

The interpretation of the religion of the Indus Valley culture -made
incidentlly by scholars such as Wheeler who were not religious scholars
much less students of Hinduism was that its religion was different than
the Vedic and more likely the later Shaivite religion. However, further
excavations both in Indus Valley site in Gujarat, like Lothal, and those
in Rajsthan, like Kalibangan show large number of fire altars like those
used in the Vedic religion, along with bones of oxen, potsherds, shell
jewelry and other items used in the rituals described in the 'Vedic
Brahmanas'. Hence the Indus Valley culture evidences many Vedic
practices that can not be merely coincidental. That some of its practices
appeared non-Vedic to its excavators may also be attributed to their misunderstanding
or lack of knowledge of Vedic and Hindu culture generally, wherein Vedism
and Shaivism are the same basic tradition.

We must remember that ruins do not necessarily have one interpretation.
Nor does the ability to discover ruins necessarily gives the ability to
interpret them correctly.

The Vedic people were thought to have been a fair-skinned race like
the Europeans owing to the Vedic idea of a war between light and darkness,
and the Vedic people being presented as children of light or children of
the sun. Yet this idea of a war between light and darkness exists in most
ancient cultures, including the Persian and the Egyptian. Why don't we
interpret their scriptures as a war between light and dark-skinned people?
It is purely a poetic metaphor, not a cultural statement. Moreover, no
real traces of such a race are found in India.

Anthropologists have observed that the present population of Gujarat
is composed of more or less the same ethnic groups as are noticed at Lothal
in 2000 BC. Similarly, the present population of the Punjab is said to
be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar 4000 years
ago. Linguistically the present day population of Gujrat and Punjab belongs
to the Indo-Aryan language speaking group. The only inference that can
be drawn from the anthropological and linguistic evidences adduced above
is that the Harappan population in the Indus Valley and Gujrat in 2000
BC was composed of two or more groups, the more dominent among them having
very close ethnic affinities with the present day Indo-Aryan speaking population
of India.

In other words there is no racial evidence of any such Indo-Aryan invasion
of India but only of a continuity of the same group of people who traditionally
considered themselves to be Aryans.

There are many points in fact that prove the Vedic nature of the Indus
Valley culture. Further excavation has shown that the great majority of
the sites of the Indus Valley culture were east, not west of Indus. In
fact, the largest concentration of sites appears in an area of Punjab and
Rajsthan near the dry banks of ancient Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers.
The Vedic culture was said to have been founded by the sage Manu between
the banks of Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. The Saraswati is lauded
as the main river (naditama) in the 'Rig Veda' & is the most frequently
mentioned in the text. It is said to be a great flood and to be wide, even
endless in size. Saraswati is said to be "pure in course from
the mountains to the sea". Hence the Vedic people were well
acquainted with this river and regarded it as their immemorial hoemland.

The Saraswati, as modern land studies now reveal, was indeed one of
the largest, if not the largest river in India. In early ancient and pre-historic
times, it once drained the Sutlej, Yamuna and the Ganges, whose courses
were much different than they are today. However, the Saraswati river went
dry at the end of the Indus Valley culture and before the so-called Aryan
invasion or before 1500 BC. In fact this may have caused the ending of
the Indus culture. How could the Vedic Aryans know of this river and establish
their culture on its banks if it dried up before they arrived? Indeed the
Saraswati as described in the 'Rig Veda' appears to more accurately show
it as it was prior to the Indus Valley culture as in the Indus era it was
already in decline.

Vedic and late Vedic texts also contain interesting astronomical lore.
The Vedic calender was based upon astronomical sightings of the equinoxes
and solstices. Such texts as 'Vedanga Jyotish' speak of a
time when the vernal equinox was in the middle of the Nakshtra Aslesha
(or about 23 degrees 20 minutes Cancer). This gives a date of 1300 BC.
The 'Yajur Veda' and 'Atharva Veda' speak of the vernal equinox in the
Krittikas (Pleiades; early Taurus) and the summer solstice (ayana) in Magha
(early Leo). This gives a date about 2400 BC. Yet earlier eras are mentioned
but these two have numerous references to substantiate them. They prove
that the Vedic culture existed at these periods and already had a sophisticated
system of astronomy. Such references were merely ignored or pronounced
unintelligible by Western scholars because they yielded too early a date
for the 'Vedas' than what they presumed, not because such references did
not exist.

Vedic texts like 'Shatapatha Brahmana' and 'Aitereya
Brahmana' that mention these astronomical references list a group
of 11 Vedic Kings, including a number of figures of the 'Rig Veda', said
to have conquered the region of India from 'sea to sea'. Lands of the Aryans
are mentioned in them from Gandhara (Afganistan) in the west to Videha
(Nepal) in the east, and south to Vidarbha (Maharashtra). Hence the Vedic
people were in these regions by the Krittika equinox or before 2400 BC.
These passages were also ignored by Western scholars and it was said by
them that the 'Vedas' had no evidence of large empires in India in Vedic
times. Hence a pattern of ignoring literary evidence or misinterpreting
them to suit the Aryan invasion idea became prevalent, even to the point
of changing the meaning of Vedic words to suit this theory.

According to this theory, the Vedic people were nomads in the Punjab,
comming down from Central Asia. However, the 'Rig Veda' itself has nearly
100 references to ocean (samudra), as well as dozens of references to ships,
and to rivers flowing in to the sea. Vedic ancestors like Manu, Turvasha,
Yadu and Bhujyu are flood figures, saved from across the sea. The Vedic
God of the sea, Varuna, is the father of many Vedic seers and seer families
like Vasishta, Agastya and the Bhrigu seers. To preserve the Aryan invasion
idea it was assumed that the Vedic (and later sanskrit) term for ocean,
samudra, originally did not mean the ocean but any large body of water,
especially the Indus river in Punjab. Here the clear meaning of a term
in 'Rig Veda' and later times verified by rivers like Saraswati mentioned
by name as flowing into the sea was altered to make the Aryan invasion
theory fit. Yet if we look at the index to translation of the 'Rig Veda'
by Griffith for example, who held to this idea that samudra didn't really
mean the ocean, we find over 70 references to ocean or sea. If samudra
does noe mean ocean why was it traslated as such? It is therefore without
basis to locate Vedic kings in Central Asia far from any ocean or from
the massive Saraswati river, which form the background of their land and
the symbolism of their hymns.

One of the latest archeological ideas is that the Vedic culture is evidenced
by Painted Grey Ware pottery in north India, which apears to date around
1000 BC and comes from the same region between the Ganges and Yamuna as
later Vedic culture is related to. It is thought to be an inferior grade
of pottery and to be associated with the use of iron that the 'Vedas' are
thought to mention. However it is associated with a pig and rice culture,
not the cow and barley culture of the 'Vedas'. Moreover it is now found
to be an organic development of indegenous pottery, not an introduction
of invaders.

Painted Grey Ware culture represents an indigenous cultural development
and does not reflect any cultural intrusion from the West i.e. an Indo-Aryan
invasion. Therefore, there is no archeological evidence corroborating the
fact of an Indo-Aryan invasion.

In addition, the Aryans in the Middle East, most notably the Hittites,
have now been found to have been in that region atleast as early as 2200
BC, wherein they are already mentioned. Hence the idea of an Aryan invasion
into the Middle East has been pushed back some centuries, though the evidence
so far is that the people of the mountain regions of the Middle East were
Indo-Europeans as far as recorded history can prove.

The Aryan Kassites of the ancient Middle East worshipped Vedic Gods
like Surya and the Maruts, as well as one named Himalaya. The Aryan Hittites
and Mittani signed a treaty with the name of the Vedic Gods Indra, Mitra,
Varuna and Nasatyas around 1400 BC. The Hittites have a treatise on chariot
racing written in almost pure Sanskrit. The IndoEuropeans of the ancient
Middle East thus spoke Indo-Aryan, not Indo-Iranian languages and thereby
show a Vedic culture in that region of the world as well.

The Indus Valley culture had a form of writing, as evidenced by numerous
seals found in the ruins. It was also assumed to be non-Vedic and probably
Dravidian, though this was never proved. Now it has been shown that the
majority of the late Indus signs are identical with those of later Hindu
Brahmi and that there is an organic development between the two scripts.
Prevalent models now suggest an Indo-European base for that language.

It was also assumed that the Indus Valley culture derived its civilization
from the Middle East, probably Sumeria, as antecedents for it were not
found in India. Recent French excavations at Mehrgarh have shown that all
the antecedents of the Indus Valley culture can be found within the subcontinent
and going back before 6000 BC.

In short, some Western scholars are beginning to reject the Aryan invasion
or any outside origin for Hindu civilization.

Current archeological data do not support the existence of an Indo Aryan
or European invasion into South Asia at any time in the preor protohistoric
periods. Instead, it is possible to document archeologically a series of
cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural development from prehistoric
to historic periods. The early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion
into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of indigenous society. The
Indo-Aryan invasion as an academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe
reflected the cultural milieu of the period. Linguistic data were used
to validate the concept that in turn was used to interpret archeological
and anthropological data.

In other words, Vedic literature was interpreted on the assumption that
there was an Aryan invasion. Then archeological evidence was interpreted
by the same assumption. And both interpretations were then used to justify
each other. It is nothing but a tautology, an exercise in circular thinking
that only proves that if assuming something is true, it is found to be
true!

Another modern Western scholar, Colin Renfrew, places the IndoEuropeans
in Greece as early as 6000 BC. He also suggests such a possible early date
for their entry into India.

As far as I can see there is nothing in the Hymns of the 'Rig Veda'
which demonstrates that the Vedic-speaking population was intrusive to
the area: this comes rather from a historical assumption of the 'comming
of the Indo-Europeans.

When Wheeler speaks of 'the Aryan invasion of the land of the 7 rivers,
the Punjab', he has no warrenty at all, so far as I can see. If one checks
the dozen references in the 'Rig Veda' to the 7 rivers, there is nothing
in them that to me implies invasion: the land of the 7 rivers is the land
of the 'Rig Veda', the scene of action. Nor is it implied that the inhabitants
of the walled cities (including the Dasyus) were any more aboriginal than
the Aryans themselves.

Despite Wheeler's comments, it is difficult to see what is particularly
non-Aryan about the Indus Valley civilization. Hence Renfrew suggests that
the Indus Valley civilization was in fact Indo-Aryan even prior to the
Indus Valley era:

This hypothesis that early Indo-European languages were spoken in North
India with Pakistan and on the Iranian plateau at the 6th millennium BC
has the merit of harmonizing symmetrically with the theory for the origin
of the IndoEuropean languages in Europe. It also emphasizes the continuity
in the Indus Valley and adjacent areas from the early neolithic through
to the floruit of the Indus Valley civilization.

This is not to say that such scholars appreciate or understand the 'Vedas'
their work leaves much to be desired in this respect but that it is clear
that the whole edifice built around the Aryan invasion is beginning to
tumble on all sides. In addition, it does not mean that the 'Rig Veda'
dates from the Indus Valley era. The Indus Valley culture resembles that
of the 'Yajur Veda' and the reflect the pre-Indus period in India, when
the Saraswati river was more prominent.

The acceptance of such views would create a revolution in our view of
history as shattering as that in science caused by Einstein's theory of
relativity. It would make ancient India perhaps the oldest, largest and
most central of ancient cultures. It would mean that the Vedic literary
record already the largest and oldest of the ancient world even at a 1500
BC date would be the record of teachings some centuries or thousands of
years before that. It would mean that the 'Vedas' are our most authentic
record of the ancient world. It would also tend to validate the Vedic view
that the Indo-Europeans and other Aryan peoples were migrants from India,
not that the Indo-Aryans were invaders into India. Moreover, it would affirm
the Hindu tradition that the Dravidians were early offshoots of the Vedic
people through the seer Agastya, and not unaryan peoples.

In closing, it is important to examine the social and political implications
of the Aryan invasion idea:

• First, it served to divide India into a northern Aryan
  and southern Dravidian culture which were made hostile to each other.
  This kept the Hindus divided and is still a source of social tension.
• Second, it gave the British an excuse in their conquest of India. They
  could claim to be doing only what the Aryan ancestors of the Hindus had
  previously done millennia ago.
• Third, it served to make Vedic culture later than and possibly derived
  from Middle Eastern cultures. With the proximity and relationship of the
  latter with the Bible and Christianity, this kept the Hindu religion as
  a sidelight to the development of religion and civilization to the West.
• Fourth, it allowed the sciences of India to be given a Greek basis,
  as any Vedic basis was largely disqualified by the primitive nature of
  the Vedic culture.

This discredited not only the 'Vedas' but the genealogies of the 'Puranas'
and their long list of the kings before the Buddha or Krishna were left
without any historical basis. The 'Mahabharata', instead of a civil
war in which all the main kings of India participated as it is described,
became a local skirmish among petty princes that was later exaggerated
by poets. In short, it discredited the most of the Hindu tradition and
almost all its ancient literature. It turned its scriptures and sages into
fantacies and exaggerations.

This served a social, political and economical purpose of domination,
proving the superiority of Western culture and religion. It made the Hindus
feel that their culture was not the great thing that their sages and ancestors
had said it was. It made Hindus feel ashamed of their culture that its
basis was neither historical nor scientific. It made them feel that the
main line of civilization was developed first in the Middle East and then
in Europe and that the culture of India was peripheral and secondary to
the real development of world culture.

Such a view is not good scholarship or archeology but merely cultural
imperialism. The Western Vedic scholars did in the intellectual spehere
what the British army did in the political realm discredit, divide and
conquer the Hindus. In short, the compelling reasons for the Aryan invasion
theory were neither literary nor archeological but political and religious
that is to say, not scholarship but prejudice. Such prejudice may not have
been intentional but deep-seated political and religious views easily cloud
and blur our thinking.

It is unfortunate that this this approach has not been questioned more,
particularly by Hindus. Even though Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda
saraswati, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Arobindo rejected it, most Hindus today
passively accept it. They allow Western, generally Christian, scholars
to interpret their history for them and quite naturally Hinduism is kept
in a reduced role. Many Hindus still accept, read or even honor the translations
of the 'Vedas' done by such Christian missionary scholars as Max Muller,
Griffith, MonierWilliams and H. H. Wilson. Would modern Christians accept
an interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history done by Hindus aimed
at converting them to Hinduism? Universities in India also use the Western
history books and Western Vedic translations that propound such views that
denigrate their own culture and country.

The modern Western academic world is sensitive to critisms of cultural
and social biases. For scholars to take a stand against this biased interpretation
of the 'Vedas' would indeed cause a reexamination of many of these historical
ideas that can not stand objective scrutiny. But if Hindu scholars are
silent or passively accept the misinterpretation of their own culture,
it will undoubtly continue, but they will have no one to blame but themselves.
It is not an issue to be taken lightly, because how a culture is defined
historically creates the perspective from which it is viewed in the modern
social and intellectual context. Tolerance is not in allowing a false view
of one's own culture and religion to be propagated without question. That
is merely self-betrayal.

---

References

1. "Atherva Veda" IX.5.4.
2. "Rig Veda" II.20.8 & IV.27.1.
3. "Rig Veda" VII.3.7; VII.15.14; VI.48.8; I.166.8; I.189.2;
   VII.95.1.
4. S.R. Rao, "Lothal and the Indus Valley Civilization",
   Asia Publishing House, Bombay, India, 1973, p. 37, 140 & 141.
5. Ibid, p. 158.
6. "Manu Samhita" II.17-18.
7. Note "Rig Veda" II.41.16; VI.61.8-13; I.3.12.
8. "Rig Veda" VII.95.2.
9. Studies from the post-graduate Research Institute of Deccan College,
   Pune, and the Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI), Jodhapur. Confirmed
   by use of MSS (multi-spectral scanner) and Landsat Satellite photography.
   Note MLBD Newsletter (Delhi, India: Motilal Banarasidass), Nov. 1989. Also
   Sriram Sathe, "Bharatiya Historiography", Itihasa Sankalana
   Samiti, Hyderabad, India, 1989, pp. 11-13.
10. "Vedanga Jyotisha of Lagadha", Indian National Science
    Academy, Delhi, India, 1985, pp 12-13.
11. "Aitareya Brahmana", VIII.21-23; "Shatapat
    Brahmana", XIII.5.4.
12. R. Griffith, "The Hymns of the Rig Veda", Motilal
    Banarasidas, Delhi, 1976.
13. J. Shaffer, "The Indo-Aryan invasions: Cultural Myth and Archeological
    Reality", from J. Lukas(Ed), 'The people of South Asia', New York,
    1984, p. 85.
14. T. Burrow, "The Proto-Indoaryans", Journal of Royal
    Asiatic Society, No. 2, 1973, pp. 123-140.
15. G. R. Hunter, "The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its
    connection with other scripts", Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner &
    Co., London, 1934. J.E. Mitchiner, "Studies in the Indus Valley
    Inscriptions", Oxford & IBH, Delhi, India, 1978. Also the
    work of Subhash Kak as in "A Frequency Analysis of the Indus Script",
    Cryptologia, July 1988, Vol XII, No 3; "Indus Writing",
    The Mankind Quarterly, Vol 30, No 1 & 2, Fall/Winter 1989; and "On
    the Decipherment of the Indus Script A Preliminary Study of its connection
    with Brahmi", Indian Journal of History of Science, 22(1):51-62
    (1987). Kak may be close to deciphering the Indus Valley script into a
    Sanskrit like or Vedic language.
16. J.F. Jarrige and R.H. Meadow, "The Antecedents of Civilization
    in the Indus Valley", Scientific American, August 1980.
17. C. Renfrew, "Archeology and Language", Cambridge University
    Press, New York, 1987.

In response to your The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, i have the following research articles which you people can decide also look into weather it is fact or just another myth.

The discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization in the 1920s brought to light a suppressed chapter of Indian history, namely the large-scale destruction and genocide perpetrated over 1000 years by the Aryan invaders on indigenous Negroid Sudras, Mongoloids and Semites. However, this episode is blatantly denied by the Brahmin-controlled press of India, which propagates highly distorted versions of history, and even goes to the extent of denying that any genocide took place. Such distortion of history leads to the continuation of crimes against humanity; the massacre of Sudroid Tamils in Sri Lanka by Aryan Buddhists and the genocide of Dalits by the Brahmanist Republic of India after 1947 are merely consequences of the negationist mindset. In order to comprehend current Caucasoid-Negroid conflicts in South Asia, it is necessary to comprehend the full history of the engagement. In order to solve the current Arya-Sudra problem in India a clear unbiased understanding of history is required. This book seeks to address some of these concerns, and hopes to provide a factual account of atrocities perpetrated by the Aryan invaders.

This book demonstrates that the Aryan invasions were the most severe catastrophe to afflict the Indian subcontinent. In fact, several Holocausts occurred during this period :

    * The Semitic Holocaust - This refers to the annihilation of the Indic Semitic peoples comprising the Indo-Assyrians (`Asuras') and the Indo-Pheonicians (`Pnais').
    * The Sudra Holocaust - By far the most severe Holocaust was that inflicted upon the Sudra Negroids, who were exterminated from all of North India. Under the impact of the Aryan invasions, the Sudroid race broke up into the disparate units of Dravidians, Kolarians, Dalits and Adivasis. The Dravidian Brahui isolate surviving in Baluchistan is an extremely northern isolate of the ancient Sudric stock.
    * The Naga Holocaust - The Indo-Mongoloid populations of Eastern India were also massacered during the Later Aryan invasions in what is referred to as the Naga or Kirata holocaust.

The behaviour pattern of the invaders was not limited to slaughter during war-times, but embraced the large-scale persecution of indigenous populations. There were several aspects to the invasions, which were as follows :

    * Mass slaughter of non-Aryans not only during war but also during peacetime.
    * Establishment of the Vedic Apartheid (`caturvarna') System based on varna (race, or skin colour).
    * Vedic human sacrifice (`purushamedha') of large numbers of non-Aryans by Vedic Brahmins.
    * Forced Labour extracted from non-Brahmins.
    * Capture of large numbers of non-combatant men, women and children as booty and their sale into slavery in Aryan households.
    * Forcible conversion of people, initially to the Vedic religion, and later to the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, mainly to Vaishnavism.
    * Reduction of the Status of first non-Aryans and later non-brahmins to that of sub-humans through prevention of learning and destruction of non-Brahmin literature and culture.
    * Destruction of temples belonging to pre-Brahmanic religions like Shaivism, Shaktism and Tantrism and their replacement with Vedist and Vaishnava mandirs.
    * Impoverishment of the non-Aryans, and later of non-Brahmins, through religious fraud, appropriation of land, discriminatory taxes, and confiscation of womens' properties after the Sati ritual.

Nor was this conflict over with the end of the Brahmanic Dark Ages in 1000 AD. The Vijayanagar Kingdom of South India re-imposed the harsh Vedic apartheid caste system, whoch was again adopted by the Maratha kingdom. During the Anglo-Brahmin colonial era, this Aryan revival spread from the South and infected the more liberal Islamicised North. The Government of India also permits the continuation of the Vedic caste system in many parts of its territory.

Tnis book does not attempt to study all aspects of the age under question, but shall present a brief account of the events. By necessity, the ghastly nature of the Aryan invasion makes any such task extremely unpleasant. More so, when one comes to Brahminist politics, with its ruthless Kautilyan creation and destrucion of entire states and peoples. Yet all throughout, I have kept a basically objective view of events.
1. The Aryan Invasions
The following are the invasions elaborated in the later parts of the book. The all-pervading spirit of negationism falsely portrays ancient racial conflicts as purely political struggles. The following pages shall rectify that. To summarise, there was not one, but several Aryan invasions during the history of India.

(1) Rigvedic Aryan Invasion (1500 BC) :
The First Aryan Invasion involved the annihilation of the Semito-Negroid (Sudra-Panian) Indus Valley civilization by the hordes of Indra , and the slaughter of 5 million of its inhabitants. The Indus irrigation system was shattered to permanently destroy agriculture in the region. Sudroid blacks were displaced from all of North India, the survivors retreating to the hill tracts of Bundelkhand-Gondwana.

(2) Second Aryan Invasion (1400 BC) :
Bharata launched the second Aryan invasion from Afghanistan, and conquered much of the upper Ganges valley, defeating the descendants of the first wave of invasions under Indra.

(3) The Krishnaite (Third) Aryan Invasion (1200 BC) :
Krishna launched the third Aryan invasion, invading Western India (Gujarat, Rajastan etc.) from Mathura in Aryavarta. He finally established his capital there, naming it Dwarka. He destroyed the surviving traces of the Indus Valley civilization, abducting and raping 16000 women (low-caste `gopis') of the races he exterminated. Survivals of these acts are found in the much toned-down Krishna-gopi songs.

(4) Mahabharatan Aryan Invasion (900-800 BC) :
The Fourth Aryan Invasion occurred in 2 parts: First, the Digvijay Aryan invasions that led to the subjugation of all of India to the Aryan yoke. The revolt by the non-Aryans and mixed races led to the terrible Mahabharatan War between the Aryan Pandavas on one side and the mixed race Kauravas and black aboriginals on the other. The Aryan victory enabled them to invade & settle in the Ganges valley and confirmed Aryan dominance. The genocides of this war permanently changed the racial composition of India. These conflicts were some of the most terrible recorded.

(5) Fifth (Solar) Aryan Invasion (800 BC) :
The Fifth Aryan invasion is named Solar, since the Aryans who invaded India during this epoch were of the Solar race (Suryavamsi), while the earlier Aryans were of Lunar race (Chandravamsi). Kashyap (ie. from the Caspian) is the progenitor of the Solar race of kings. From the Caspian they swept down into India, driving the preceding peoples before them. Ikshvaku established his chiefdom at Ayodhya, while his grandson Mithi conquered Mithila (named after him). Parasurama continued the 5th Aryan invasion, exterminating various aboriginal races.

(6) Ramaite Aryan Invasion & Dravidian Holocaust (600 BC) :
The 6th Aryan invasion of the deep South (Dravidia) by the armies of `Lord' Ram led to the fall of the Rakshasa (Dravidian) empire & the destruction of the splendid city of Ravana. The apartheid varna system was imposed, with those black Dravidian Sudras who accepted Aryan enslavement being relegated to the `Clean Sudra' caste , while those who fought the Aryans were relegated to the `Untouchable Sudra' castes (`panchama') of Dalits and Adivasis. The worship of the Aryan religion of Vaishnavism was introduced, and most Dravidians in Lanka exterminated.

(7) Buddhist Aryan Invasion (260 BC) :
This Seventh Aryan invasion was launched by Askoka, King of Aryan Magadha. His attack on Kolarian Kalinga led to the horrible Kalinga War, in which 200,000 black aboriginals were killed & countless more enslaved. Several wars with the aboriginal races were waged. The Aryanised religions of Jainism and Buddhism entered South India. Although these religions were liberal with Aryan castes, and Buddha was in fact a Mongoloid, these faiths kept the fundamental Aryan-Sudroid apartheid varna system. The Aryan Sinhalese Buddhists, invading from East India, meanwhile, exterminated the entire population of native black Dravidoids . Staunch Buddhist fanatics, they destroyed scores of Shaiva shrines, erecting Buddhist temples on the ruins and eventually eradicating Shaivism from Lanka.

(8) Eighth Aryan Invasion (100 BC) :
The Eighth Aryan Invasion occurred under the Maharashtrian Satavahanas. They invaded Dravidia, sacking several cities and annexing Dravidian lands. This was the first of the Maharasthrian Aryan Invasions.

(9) Nineth (Guptan) Aryan Invasion (250 AD) :
Samudra Gupta of the Gupta dynasty in Aryavarta invaded south India and conquered several non-Aryan nations. The famous invasion of Daskhinapatha led to the subjugation of many native Indian races, incl. Tamil Nadu. This led to a hardening of the varna system even in remote areas. Several wars with the Scythians were also waged.

(10) Rajput (Scythic) Aryan Invasion (300 AD - 1400 AD) :
The Rajputs are descendants of Scyths, Greeks, Kushans, Romans, etc. who entered India mostly after the fall of Guptan Koshala. Finding Aryavarta (Braj-Koshala) dominated by Aryans, they entered Rajastan and over several centuries, annihilated the Black Abroginal population of Bhils & Minas.

(11) Eleventh Aryan Invasion (600 - 1000 AD) :
This occurred under the Maharashtrian Chalukyas, and is also known as the Second Maharasthrian Aryan Invasion. During these wars, Pulkesin II (610 - 642) conquered several Dravidian peoples, and invaded Tamil Nadu. Finally, after severe persecution of Dravidians, a wave of revolt by the Dravidian Shaivite Lingayats destroyed Aryan Chalukya rule.

(12) Vijayanagaran Aryan Invasion (1336-1646) :
The semi-Aryanized Andhras embarked on one of the most systematic subjugations of the Dravidian races on record. The entire epoch of the dark Vijayanagar empire was one of conquest, oppression, and mass murder of Dravidians. In the Apartheid Andhrite Vijayanagar varna system, a semi-Aryan Mulatto Nair warrior would shoot a Dravidian Sudra Negro at sight .

(13) Oriya Aryan Invasion (1450-60 AD) :
Kapilendradeva of Indo-Aryan Orissa invaded the Dravidian nations in the 1450s-60s, conquering the Reddi kingdom of Vengi and pillaging his way deep into Tamil Nadu.

(14) Mughal Caliphate of Islam : The Mughal Caliphate of Delhi in Hindustan (North India) meant the end of the apartheid varna system in the north. Sudra Blacks could re-enter civilization, and contributed much to Mughalstani (Indo-Islamic) civilization as warriors, miners, agricultural labour, police, etc. The varna apartheid system remained in force in Dravida Nadu (South India), however. Here the Aryan Brahmins collaborated with the Aryan Islamic invaders from Central Asia and maintained this inhuman institution.

(15) Marathan (Thirteenth) Aryan Invasion (18th century) :
The barbaric Marathas launched the fourteenth Aryan invasion. All Dravidian nations were subjugated to the Aryan yoke once again. Blacks were subject to severe oppression, eg. the Peshwa rulers forced the Dalits in Maharashtra to carry pots to hold their own spittle and brooms to wipe away their footsteps as they walked.

(16) European Aryan Invasions (1500s-1947) :
With the help of the Aryan Brahmans, the Portuguese Aryan invaders managed to conquer Malabar. The Portuguese allowed their white cousins to maintain the apartheid varna system of Manu in most of Malabar, and even adopted some of its features in Goa. The Aryan Anglo-Saxon invaders were also supported by the Indo-Aryans, especially the Brahmans (cf. RSS never opposed the English, Congress supported the English in World War I, etc.). The kindred Aryan civilizations adopted much from each other, eg. the Theosophical Society, etc., but combined in their suppression of Black Sudra civilization.

(17) Republic of India (1947 ->) :
The Republic of India officially perpetrated the pro-Aryan government of the English. Thus, Sudra Religion (Saivism) is not recognised as a separate religion, but they are classed, along with all Sudra Blacks, as (Aryan) Hindus. It has been shown that they are not the Hindus. This was mainly due to the racist anti-Sudra M.K.Gandhi, who prevented the British, and later the Indian Government from enacting such legislation. `Khari Boli' Hindi, heavily Sanskritised, is, along with English, the co-official language of India, and is expanding rapidly at the expense of Dravidian tongues.
2. The Vedic & Vaishnava Ideologies of Brahmanism
How did this behaviour pattern persist so consistently over a period of more than 2500 years under very different conditions ? Is there any deeper ideological source ? Was it, as is sometimes claimed, merely due to econonic complustions ?

The answer is that these acts are rooted in the Vedic religious teachings and subsequent Vaishnava theology of Brahmanism. It is only for this reason that the Brahmanic world view could persist for such a long period of time. This ideology is derived from the peculiarly Brahmanist Vedic-Vaishnava concepts of Aryan, varna (`skin-color', `caste' or `race'), dasyu (`slavery'), iconoclasm, Manu-Smirti, rakshasa, brahmana, Aryavarta and Brahmavarta. Non-Brahmin India is called upon to make a deeper study of the Vedic and Vaishnava religions than they have hitherto done. It shall neglect this task at its own peril.

By means of translations into European languages, these notions entered 19th century Europe and led to the rise of racism and Nazism. Hence, blacks and non-Aryans all over the world are called upon to make a closer scrutiny of the Vedic and Vaishnava religions. Negroes all across the world are called upon to realise that their suffering at the hands of Caucasoids did not start in the 18th century with the rise of plantation slavery in the US South, but date back to several centuries, and started with the Aryan invasion of India.
3. Negationism & Denial of Aryan Invasions
Negationism in General
Genocide has been a recurring event in human history. Thus, the genocide of the Native Americans by invading Latin Europeans, the mass murders of Communism, and the massacres of ethnic Palestinians by Isreali Jews are all historically documented events. Yet, each episode has its own brand of deniers and negationists. At the same time it must be admitted that sometimes the claim of genocide is now all too commonly used, being applied for even small-scale massacres which technically speaking do not come under that category. I shall show that the Aryan Invasions led to several Holocausts of staggering magnitude, including the Sudra Holocaust, which was the largest of these.

Denial of the Aryan Invasions
In recent years a considerable vociferous movement has arisen completely denying the Aryan invasions. This brand of `scholars' goes to any length to deny the notion of any Aryan invasion. Even physical facts are distorted merely to fit in with their fanciful concepts.

Another fraud perpetrated by these scholars is to perpetually claim that their theory denying an Aryan invasion is `new'. This is definitely not true; indeed, the traditional Vaishnava Puranic view, which is supported by all the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, is that the Aryas migrated from Aryavarta in Bharat and then spread all across the world. Moreover, ever since the discovery of the non-Aryan Harappan civilization the Aryans have been inventing wild and fantastic theories denying the invasion.

Patterns in the Deniers of Holocaust
What could be the reasons for such a vociferous denial of established facts ? Is it just plain guilt ? Or is there some hidden agenda ?Firstly, there are several things to notice regarding the background of the `scholars' who propound these negationist theories :

    * Brahmins - Most of the scholars propagating these hypotheses, including Golwalkar and Rajaram, are Brahmins. The rest are either Aryans or a handful of European sympathisers such as Frawley, Gautier and Elst. In all cases, they are all white-skinned Caucasoids who are denying crimes allegedly perpetrated by white-skinned Caucasoids. Taking such attempts seriously is like trying to ask Nazi historians to write an unbiased account of the Holocaust. Whatever unbiased theories shall ultimately prevail, these must be produced by neutral third parties not involved in the incident.
    * European `Hindus' - Most of the European deniers of Aryan invasions, such as Koenraad Elst, Francois Gautier and David Frawley, are converts to `Hinduism', which in technical terms means one of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, generally of a Vaishnavite sub-sect. Needless to say, such persons shall not be allowed to enter the Vaishnava Jagannath temple at Puri or many other Vaisnava temples, yet these persons still like to live in a fantasy-world where they imagine themselves to be `Hindu'. Thus, David Frawley is an American convert to Vaishnavism, as is the virulently anti-Islamic Belgian Roman Catholic Koenraad Elst, and Francois Gautier is a French devotee of Aurobindo. All these persons have hence adopted the `Indian Home for Aryans' hypothesis as a result of their religious persuasion.
    * Hindutva - The Denial of Aryan Invasions is central to the Hindutva ideology, a neo-Brahmanist form of Vedic fascism. This movement is famous for being involved in the organisation of pogroms against various races, notably Christians, Dalits, Sikhs and Muslims. The Denial of Aryan Invasions is accompanied by a virulent hatred of Christians and Muslims [SAME COMMON FATHER-ABRAHAM, who are dubbed as `invaders'. Sudra human-rights activists are, in this framework, dubbed as `traitors' to the `Indian' Brahmanist tradition.

Pseudo-Secular Denial
A far more subtle form of denial has, however, been the officially propagated version of history by the `leftist' dominated universities of India for the last 50 years. In this version of teaching, Aryan invasions are accepted; it is also accepted that the Harappan civilization was pre-Aryan. However, the Sudra Holocaust is denied by asserting that the Harappan civilization was not destroyed by the Aryan invaders, but collapsed due to some other means. There was then a `peaceful interaction' between these two cultures, and no Genocide. This version is also referred to as the `soft' AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory), and has caused far more damage to history on account of its `correct' appearance, accepting the most well-established facts.

Firstly, most of the Communists and other leftists are Brahmins. Pandit Nehru, his daughter Indira Gandhi (who married the Iranian Brahmin, or `Parsi', Feroze Gandhi) and his grandson (technically still a Brahmin) Rajiv Gandhi were all Brahmins. Namboodirpad, the leader of the first democratically elected Communist government in the world, was a Kerala Brahmin. Virtually the entire hierarchy of Indian Communism, including Marxism and Leninism, consists of Brahmins. More than 60 % of leaders of all Communist organisations in India are Brahmins. Only Maoism, of Chinese origin, is not. The reason for this is that Kautilya, a Brahmin minister during the Mauryan Empire, is the founder of totalitarianism; all forms of communism are based on his teachings as expounded in the Arthasastra. Totalitarian Communism is thus a Brahmin invention.

In this Communist framework, the Holocaust is denied by asserting that `natural causes' led to its downfall, or that `internal decay' were the reasons. Again, the motive is the same as in the case of the Brahmin supremacist Hindutva movement, namely to deny the Sudra Genocide. However, since it is not as obviously wrong, this point of view is widely held, even amongst scholars and requires much more effort to disprove.

Alternative Theories
The only reason for the fall of the Harappan civilization is due to Aryan invasions. Here all other hypotheses are refuted in a short space. elaborations are to be found in the book; the following is a brief summary :

    * Comet Impact - Absurd suggestions have been put forth that a cometary impact led to the fall of the Indus Valley. The fact is, no trace of an iridium anomaly that is generally characteristic of all meteorite impacts (eg. the K/T crater in Mexico) has been found. Also absent is any trace of a crater.
    * Volcanic Eruptions - There are no traces of any volcano vents nearby, nor is there any volcano crater in the vicinity.
    * Floods & Climate Change - There are signs of flooding in the Indus cities, and climate changes also occurred. The Kautilyanists hence often attribute the demise of the IVC (Indus Valley Civilization) to flooding. Yet the Aryan researchers do not state why these changes occurred. The fact is, as vividly displayed in the book, these changes were brought about by Aryanist environmental destruction. The annihilation of the Indus dam and irrigation system and the fact that Rajastan and the Punjab are now one Great Thar Desert, are all due to the catastrophic environmental degradation caused by the Aryan marauders.

Denial of Historical Aryan Invasions
Even historical Aryan Invasions, such as the Ashokan Aryan invasion, or the Maratha Aryan Invasions, are portrayed as `political' wars rather than race wars. Asoka himself, who deported hundreds of thousands of Kalingans, and massacered thousands of Jains after his conversion to Buddhism, are all crimes that have been `white-washed' and erased from the Sudra mind.

More significantly, the post-Maratha Marathas are presented as `liberators' from Muslim rule by both `left' and `right', while in actual fact they reinstated Vedic forms of apartheid and suppressed the Dalits in Maharasthra to the the level of sub-humans. The fact that the Marathas massacred half of the `fellow-Hindu' population of Rajastan is also swept under the carpet. The cult of Shivaji in modern times led to the rise of the Maratha fascist Shiv Sena. It is interesting to note that the anti-Islamic rhetoric of the Shiv Sena and its leader Bal Thackeray is of late origin; the movement started and spread solely on the basis of the anti-Dalit platform. Pogroms against the Dalits were organised directly by the Shiv Sena, and statues of Ambedkar continue to be smashed even when the party had officially taken an `anti-Muslim' stand.

Secret Motives for the Denial of the Sudra Holocaust
Let it be said straight away - the motive for Indo-Aryan Denial of Aryan Invasions is part of a greater secretive plan to obliterate Sudra civilization from the face of the earth. I now come to explain how this is so.

Firstly, there are only two possible motives for such a denial: either out of a sense of guilt, or out of deep-seated, sometimes camouflaged, hatred of the victims. If guilt is the main reason, then the denial of historic crimes is not accompanied by a denigration of the victims' race and culture. It is now imperative to study what are the assertions of the Deniers of the Aryan Invasions :

1) Vedic Indus Valley - The Brahminist theory denying Aryan invasions necessarily implies that the Harappan civilization was `Aryan' and Sanskrit based. Essentially this amounts to a theft of Sudra civilization, implying that the aboriginal was permanently a forest-dweller inherently incapable of creating any civilization.

2) Sub-Human Sudras - Indirectly, this theory implies that the Sudra were not civilized humans, but were sub-humans living in the forest waiting to be civilized by Aryans.

3) Eternal Brahmin Rule - This theory also implies that the Brahmins have been the rulers of all of South Asia from time immemorial. It is another indirect justification for the casteist `Purusha-sukta' hymn of the Vedas which states that the Brahmins were created to rule over humanity on account of their birth from Brahma's head.

6) Sanskrit Origin of Sudric Languages - Again, as per this model, the Sudric (or Dravido-Kolarian) languages are descendants of Sanskrit. Essentially, beneath the veil of pseudo-scholarship, the theory says that Dravidian and Kolarian languages are degraded forms of Sanskrit.

5) Continuation of Apartheid - By its justification of Brahmin rule, and the simultaneous glorification of Shivaji, this theory is basically in justification of apartheid.

If follows that the plan of denying the Sudra Holocaust is part of a greater gameplan, ranging from the soft AIT of neo-Kautilyan Communists to the OIT (Out-of-India Theory ) of neo-Manuite Hindutvadins, attempting to obliterate Sudroid (Dravido-Kolaric) civilizations.

Where is the Sudra Holocaust Museum ?
In summary, one may ask, `Where is the Museum of the Sudra Holocaust ?' . The Jews have their Holocaust Museum, but where is ours ? Nazi Gold has now been mostly returned to its rightful owners. But what about Brahmin Gold ? `Why is the illegally acquired Brahmin Gold not being returned to its rightful owners, the Sudras ?'

  I just want to highlight the Chronology of India’s History so that NON Archeology's, Anthropologist and Historian have better ideas of what and where i am referring to.

(Note: BCE = Before Common Era; all
dates prior to 700 BCE are approximations)

3200-1600
BCE: India - The INDUS VALLEY

civilization grows up along the banks of the Indus River in what is now
Pakistan. The two most important sites uncovered so far by
archaeologists are Harappa and Mohenjo-Dara;
both cities show considerable development including multi-level houses
and city-wide plumbing. The Indus Valley civilization appears to have
collapsed because natural disaster altered the course of the Indus
River.

2300-2000
BCE: India - Cultural exchange between the INDUS
VALLEY civilization and MESOPOTAMIA
(present day Iraq) is especially prominent.

1600-1500
BCE: India - The Aryans invade the INDUS VALLEY
region.

Brahmanic Ages (1500 BC - 1000 AD) These comprised the

• Vedic Dark Ages 1500 BC - 500 BC
  
• Puranic Ages 500 BC - 100 AD
  

1600-1000
BCE: India - Between these dates, the Early Vedic period of Indian civilization unfolds.


1550 BCE: India - Writing disappears from India for a time with the destruction of the INDUS
VALLEY civilization.

1000-600 BCE:
India -
During this period of Indian civilization, the Late Vedic period, the
Aryans are integrated into Indian culture. The caste system emerges.

1000 BCE: India - The Rig Veda, the first Vedic literature, is written.

800-600
BCE: India - The Brahmans, a priestly caste, begin to emerge.

800-500
BCE: India -
The Upanishads are written around this time; the doctrines of rebirth
and the transmigration of souls start to appear, leading to important
theological transformations within Hinduism.

563 BCE: India - Gautama
Siddharta Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, is born somewhere in what is today Nepal during Kirata rule. He will die sometime around 483.

540 BCE: India - Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, is born. He will die around 486.

537 BCE: India - Cyrus the Persian campaigns west of the Indus River.

517-509
BCE: India - Darius the Persian conquers the INDUS  VALLEY region, making the area a province of the Persian Empire.

500-200
BCE: India - The Mahabharata, of which The Bhagavad Gita is a part, is put into final form.

400 BCE: India - Panini's Sutra, the earliest Sanskrit grammer, is written.

327-326
BCE: India - Alexander the Great passes through the INDUS VALLEY installing Greek officials in the area.

323 BCE: India -
Alexander the Great dies, providing the opportunity for an independent
state in India. Chandragupta Maurya founds the Maurya dynasty, the
first Indian empire. Its capital is in Patna. By 184, this dynasty will conquer most of India.

304 BCE: India - Chandragupta trades 500 war elephants to Seleucus in exchange for the Indus region and regions immediately to the West.

273-232
BCE: India -
Ashoka, grandson of Chandragupta Maurya and most impressive ruler in
the Maurya dynasty, rules in India and institutes a series of edicts
designed to bring about moral reform. His policy on reform flows from
his Buddhist orientation.

251-246
BCE: India - The Aryan Hindus occupy Celyon.

250 BCE: India - A general council of Buddhist monks is held in Patna, where the canon of Buddhist scriptures is selected.

184 BCE: India - The Maurya dynasty ends when the last ruler is assassinated by an ambitious army
commander.

thanks,
            jpg

JPEG,

I do not think you are understanding  the point what I said. It seems like this is your first research  and  writing a paper on history??? and came across this thing which has enlightened you and got fascinated. Otherwise you would have understood the very meaning of "discourse" in scholarly world.

What I was trying to say is the "whole aryan invasion theory" is a discourse.and in this regard there are/will be many articles researches written for and against  this theory. It is upto you  to choose . I posted the articles written against the aryan invasion theory because

1. Intially when I posted my comments, people inclduing you  might have felt I am writting just on top of my head without any base, which is not true.

2. Second you should also know that there are many counter theories , and mostly that are presented by eastern scholars.

3. People visiting this thread should also know that this whole thing of aryan invasion is big discourse Again, this whole idea of "Aryan Invasion" initiated/imposed by the western scholars for the first place and there are many underlying resaons for them to do so. And as for me, along with many eastern scholars, I  also DO NOT BELIEVE that once so rich and sophisticated civilization got vanished just because of unskilled- nomadic invasion.THAT IS MY POINT

-THE END- FROM MY SIDE

Dear Kanchu no i understand your point loud and clear sir. What you trying to do here is to mislead people by coming out with the hypothethical therory by creating  "aryan invasion theory".
Well you have all the rights to exercise your freedom to protect your race. Anyway any one will do that. Including me.

You keep on claiming that aryan was a native/indigenous of ancient India. But i fail to see that and so have many scholars. Even science through excavations by archaeologist and anthropologist have proven  that aryan was not a native of ancient India and came from elsewhere(Persia/Iran).
You keep claiming that scholars are all foreigners and they are trying to down aryan race hence you seemed to have a phobia and think like "whole aryan invasion theory"!

Sir, let me tell you. I am not trying to revolt against aryan or any other race. I am just trying to put some things that are wrong. For example the title of this thread is The Origin of Hindu Religion.
Therefore i am going to show to some extend about some God that it has a tribal roots to its owner, the natives/indigenous people of ancient India.
The aryan having coming later on claim the tribal's gods/goddess and religions as theirs.
One simple question you need to ponder seriously is why are they so many Gods/Goddess
in Hindu religion?

In my next post i will begin with my ancient tribes/natives of ancient India and then go on to explain the connexions with Hindu(Vedic) God/Goddess!

See you then folks,
                              jpg

Oh my fkg god, how can i convince this guy what does " research discourse means" . I am sure now either  you must of an undergrad doing a paper and came across new thing, got enlightned, felt on top of the world???or a person who is just got some exposure in researh world. else you would not have come to attack me in a personal level and throwing racist comments. What makes you think that I am aryan? Just because I am not buying your western indoctrinated theory? SON first do some authentic research, read more..and do not come in a personal level. You might right but this is not the way...in a scholarly world you do not attack in a personal level....

you wrote"that aryan was not a native of ancient India and came from elsewhere(Persia/Iran")
are you contracting yourself now??? kid, in my very first comments I said "aryans" did not come from europe like your many of the western scholars are saying. Read my very first comment -where i explianed their link to central asia.

this shows how weak you are in your mind and so are your research no wonder.

you wrote-Well you have all the rights to exercise your freedom to protect your race.
Son it is not about my race, it is about how western world tend to dominate eastern world by all means, you will understand it later..keep on doing research.

you wrote -What you trying to do here is to mislead people by coming out with the
hypothethical therory by creating  "aryan invasion theory"..
Kid, I am not that scholar enough to create my own hypothesis, there are many scholars anthers who do not buy your theory.

you wrote-I am not trying to revolt against aryan or any other race
what is this then "......our freedom to protect your race"

Hindu religion came from eating mushrooms....

Scriptural texts mention a number of tribes that inhabited the region, such as the Sakas, the Nagas, Khasas, Hunas and Kiratas.
There is enough evidence from the pre-historical period of human habitation in these parts of the Himalayas. These include rock paintings, rock shelters, palaeoliths and megaliths.

According to the Tripuri people website, the Indus civilization was found to be comprised of heterogeneous group of human race. The skulls found of Harappa and Mahenjo-daro belonged to proto-australoid, Mongoloid, Mediterranean and Alpine races. This clearly proved that the mongoloid were also part of the Indus civlisation. The proto-australoid were ancestor of modern day's Santal, Kol, Bhil, Munda etc. tribes of central India, Mediterranean were ancestor of modern day's Tamil, Telegu, etc. but no skull was found of from the site of excavation belonging to Aryan people.

Who are the descendants of mongoloid living during Indus civilization in present day in India? These are none other than the present day's indo-mongoloid people or the Kirata or the Borok race living in India namely, Himalyan mongoloid tribes, Kinnours, Spitian, Lahuli, Nepalese, Koch, Mech, Bodo, Rabha, Garo, Tiwas, Dimasa, Kachhari, Karabi, Tripuri etc.

Where from the Kiratas had migrated:

China civilization Dadiwan culture of flourished between 8000-7000 years before present time. According to the Chinese legend the founder of Chinese civilization is Taihao Fasi, a legendary god in ancient Chinese civilization. Similarly our legend says Danghai Fa (Taihao Fasi) is the founder of Borok people. From this area a group of Chinese people migrated to the head water of Yangti river. After settlement in this area because of in fight a group of people migrated along the route of Sindu river under the leader of Donghorfa and settled civilization at Harappa around 6000 years ago.

Tracing the Origin of Kirata/Borok race and Tripuri people:

The Harappa civilization was of multi racial and multi ethnic one. The Kirata or the Borok race migrated in the Indus civilization site in the route of Khyber pass. They founded the Indus civilization under the king or leader of Donghorfa in the valley of Indus or Sindu river, called Harappa city. The mongoloid were most probably the ruler of the city by virtue if their past civilization at Dadiwan in china and their unconquerable nature.

Origin of the word Sindu or Indus river:

It is fact that the India or Indus or the Hindu had derived from the word Sindu river. But the Persian pronounced it as Hindu and the Greek/European as Indus. But what is the origin or root word of Sindu river? It has derived form the Kirata or Borok word of Chinti which means river of china people. Then it modified to Chinti>Sindi. So we can trace route like this Chinti> Chindi> Sindi>Sindu> Indus> India. Similar example still exist in the Kachhar district of Assam in the name race as Borak river which was earlier Borok twima.

Origin of Harappa word:

According to Tripuri legends passed through generations the first Father and mother of Borok people vis-à-vis the human race were Donghorfa and Donghorma, or also pronounced as Dangaima Dangaifa. The Aryan people could not pronounce it properly so the Donghorfa was split in to two words dong+horfa, the dong word was omitted and Horfa was misspelled and mispronounced in to Harappa, that is Horfa>Harappa. If we look at the history of Tripura, the kings of Tripura were titled as Fa till the Ratnafa who took title of Manikya. For example Muchungfa, Khichungfa, Rajafa, Achongfa etc. So it was this Donghorfa from which the Harappa had originated. In India none other than kings of Tripura took the title of Fa. It is one of the proofs of Borok race's king ruling the Harappa civilization and naming the city after the king's name. similar example exist in the name of most of cities/ towns of Tripura, Amarpur, Udaipur, Kalyanpur Dharma nagar, Agartala (Agarfa) etc.

More Proofs of Kiratas living in the Indus valley:

By the name of rivers in Indus valley:

There were many rivers that passed through the Indus civilization. According to famous ethnologist Cunningham any river whose name ends with ti or di indicates that it was once inhabited by Sino-Tibetan race. Most of the river name of Indus valley were in Borok/Kirata origin, for examples the ‘Ravi river' was earlier Rawa-ti, ‘Bias river' was Nyang-ti, ‘satlez' was-Zong-ti, ‘Para river' was Para-ti, Saraswati was Solsolti, Gomati was Gomati, Jammu tawi was Jomuti/Somti, Tapti etc. It clearly proofs that once in the ancient time these valleys were inhabited by Sino-Tibetan or Borok race. On the contrary there is no river whose name begins or ends with ti or di in the southern part of India, beyond the Bindhya parbat, which had never been inhabited by the Borok race.

By the name of place around Indus valley:

There are many places in the north India and sub-Himalayan area whose names are indication that the area had once been inhabited by the Indo-mongoloid races ‘Bodo/borok' branch. Prof. Suniti Kr. Chatterjee in his famous book of Kirat-Jana-Kriti mentioned that there was a city of Kiradu, now ruined, with its 27 temple in the western border of Rajasthan near the Indus civilization site. It means that the city was inhabited and founded by Kirata people. There was also a hamlet named ‘hathma' or ‘hatma' meaning wide land in Tripuri language, suggestive of Boro/k people's inhabitation in the Indus valley region. The capita city of India, Delhi is also considered to be derivatives of Kirata /Borok word dwi-lili>Dilli. There are plenty of similar examples in Assam like Dibrugor, Dihong, Digboi Dimapur, and many more.


Name of rivers and Places in the Sub-Himalayan region:

There are numerous examples that proves that Borok race once lived in the Himalyan region. Places name: Dehradoon>Di-ran-doong, Teheri>Tiyari, Kampti fall >Kapti > Kaptwi, Khumbu valley>Khumuk valley, Tripura Sundari Temple in Kulu etc.

Rivers Name: Bhagirathi>Bagroti, Gangutri>Gungti, Yamunatri>Yungti, Tista>Twisuta, Tursa>Twiursa, Riang twima, Terai>Twirai etc. These rivers flows from the Uttrakhand to North Bengal in sequences.

 Anthropological evidences:

There are many ethnological evidences that there was once habitation of Borok or Kirata race in the Indus valley. If through research and search are being carried out, there will be definite traces of Borok race in the Pakistan around the Indus area even now. The Kinnours, Lahuli etc. are still living in the Himachal Pradesh, who are none but Tibeto-Burman origin and are the people of Borok race who were left back at the time of migration. Similarly there are Rungsa who are still living in the Pithoragarh district of Uttaranchal whose mother tongue had been clubbed with Tripura language in the 1991 census and who claim to be Tibeto-Burman descendant. This Rungsa is none but the previous form of Reangsa of Tripuri Sub-tribe, who were left behind at the times of migration. There are many small tribes of Tibeto-burman race who are scattered in the Himalayan region.

Route of migration of Tripuri people in the present state:

From the Dadiwan area of China a group migrated to head water of Yangtze river around 7000 years ago. Then our ancestors migrated from this Yangtze river head to the site of Indus or Chindi river valley through Khyber pass around 6000 years ago, that is 4000 BC and founded the Indus valley civilization along with Proto-australoid and Mediterranean people. This civilization flourished between 4000-1900 BC. The Kirata or indo-mongoloid might have been the ruler as history proves that mongoloid race founded most of mighty empire in the past. When the Aryan nomadic tribes invaded Indus valley riding on the horse, the Borok race could not resist them and had to migrate towards the east along the path of sub-Himalyan region. Where as the Dravidian migrated to the south and the Australoid migrated to the east and middle of India. The Borok or Kirata migrated through Punjab, Jammu, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Nepal, north Bengal, Assam, Dimapur, Kachhar and finally reached in the present state of Tripura 1400 years ago, and then up to Coast of Bay of Bengal at Chittagong hill tract. On the way of migration many tribes were left behind who in the course of time formed a distinct tribes, but there linguistic and ethnic relation still exist. The descendant of Borok race are Kinnours, Rungsa, Koch, Mech, Hajong, Rabha, Bodo, Garo, Tiwas, Chutia, Karbi, Dimasa, Kachhari, and Tripuri.

Dear JPEG,

The whole texts you have put under the 'Bible of Aryan Invasion' by Uday Naidu and 'Chronology of Indian History' were posted in a website www.dalitstan.org sometimes back, which was banned later on due to its attempt of false exaggeration of Aryan domination over Dravids and so called lower castes in India. The credibility of the contents on those articles can be argued for or against any race's favor. I just thought you would be more wise on posting anything in a public forum that has such a dark and misleading tone against a certain ethnic group, which as a very little or no credibility. (I am talking about the banned website and the article by Uday Naidu, of course.)

I was following this thread and also wanted to post some
comments, as I do not posses any depth on the subject matter and I kept my self
content in enjoying the info posted by different users. However, reading some
of the comments and information posted, I find while kanchu is trying to deny
western intervention in a way is trying to defend rich eastern civilization acknowledging
different opinions, JPEG postings and arguments seems less receptive, amateur  and self contradictory. I do not know, but
most of the time we are told not to refer web sources and cite peer reviewed
journals or authentic publications. When it comes to sensitive issue, I would
rather be 100% sure before posting anything.  No offense to JPEG, but bro it seems like you
are happy posting what you know rather than getting to the point.  For example, many people including less
informed person like me would know about chronology/historical development that you posted. No big
deal . Again, though I do not believe in any religion, but it seems you are
trying to denigrate Aryan, Bramhin or Hindu as a whole. As pointed out by USER 123 I
also suggest you not to mislead people by posting less credible arguments.

 

 

Peace!

.

Kanchu

Yes, I'm a bit ignorant in these matter. It's not my field, sorry if I annoyed you. I'm not claiming I'm an expert like you but I do have a great interest in history. I keep past and preset in different contest. Yes, present comes from the past but that does not mean we have to live on the glory of the past and not move on. Last time I checked the site around modern day Mahenzo/Harrapa civilization (Pakistan/Afganistan), they are still stuck in their ancient life, pretty backward, even worse than Nepal. So what they were once a great civilization. Again, it is my view. Forgive me if it offends you.

I'm a pro Eastern like you but I hate those fake irrelevant pride, like those who think Eastern civilization invented aviation because of the reference of a flying chariot in our old religious book. I've seen many educated Nepali brag about it right here in Sajha. Mix modern medicine of cloning - a human being with monkey- which they probably will do pretty soon, we will call it is a stolen concept of "Hanuman". There is no end to this sort of dumb claims. Hear this...when I was in high school I was told that they detected/recorded the sound wave at the location where the epic Mahabharata took place. I look back with anger and disgust for a kids to be taught with these sort of BS.

But I do agree with you that many Western scholars have twisted the facts all throughout the history and has made us look inferior. But then it is up to people like you who are expert to prove them wrong. 

Sorry if I've distracted too far away from the topic. I really enjoy reading all the posting. 

JPEG..how about some ancient history about Nepal, not just India.

 Anthropological evidences:

There are many
ethnological evidences that there was once habitation of Borok or
Kirata race in the Indus valley. If through research and search are
being carried out, there will be definite traces of Borok race in the
Pakistan around the Indus area even now. The Kinnours, Lahuli etc. are
still living in the Himachal Pradesh, who are none but Tibeto-Burman
origin and are the people of Borok race who were left back at the time
of migration.
When the Aryan nomadic tribes invaded Indus
valley riding on the horse, the Borok race could not resist them and
had to migrate towards the east along the path of sub-Himalyan region.
Where as the Dravidian migrated to the south and the Australoid
migrated to the east and middle of India. The Borok or Kirata migrated
through Punjab, Jammu, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Nepal,
north Bengal, Assam, Dimapur, Kachhar and finally reached in the
present state of Tripura 1400 years ago, and then up to Coast of Bay of
Bengal at Chittagong hill tract. On the way of migration many tribes
were left behind who in the course of time formed a distinct tribes,
but there linguistic and ethnic relation still exist. The descendant of
Borok/Kirata race are Kinnours, Rungsa, Koch, Mech, Hajong, Rabha, Bodo, Garo,
Tiwas, Chutia, Karbi, Dimasa, Kachhari, and Tripuri.


From this website; http://www.garhwaltourism.net/
Garhwal is smack in the middle of the Himalayas, with Himachal Pradesh in the West and North-West; Tibet in the North; the plains of Western Uttar Pradesh in the South and Kumaon in the East.
Historically, it has been described in the ancient text of Kedarkhand to extend from Gangadwar (modern day Hardwar) in the South to the high mountains in the North, and from the Tamsa (Tons) river in the in the West to Buddhachal (probably the Nanda Devi group of peaks between Garhwal and Kumaon) in the East.
Today it is an administrative division of the raising state of Uttaranchal, comprising the districts of Chamoli, Dehradun, Pauri, Tehri and Uttarkashi.
The history of Garhwal is older than that of the Ramayan and Maha- bharata.It is a land of popular myths, like that of Lord Shiva appearing as Kirat,
of Urvashi, Shakuntala and the Kauravas and Pandavas. Worship of Lord Shiva is pre-dominant in this region.  In earliest times, Garhwal was known as Kedarkhand, or the region of Kedarnath. Scriptural texts mention a number of tribes that inhabited the region, such as the Sakas, the Nagas, Khasas, Hunas and Kiratas. The Nagas were a mysterious race whose traces are still to be found in the Hills. The hooded snake was sacred to them, hence their name. (Naga-Snake)
The Khasas were the dominant race in the Garhwal and Kumaon Himalayas till the coming of the Rajputs and Brahmins from the plains.
According to one version, Garhwal derives its name from the fifty two forts, ‘garhs,’ that had come together to form a loose confederacy.

More support:
http://mod.nic.in/samachar/aug1-01/html/ch14.htm
Utaranchal State came into existence on November 9, last year. The state was carved out of Uttar Pradesh. It has dense forests, green valleys, a large number of lakes and natural fountains. The state borders Himachal Pradesh in the north-west, Uttar Pradesh in the south and has international borders with Nepal and China.

The history of the state goes back to ancient times. Of the two component cultural units, Garhwal was known as Kedarkhand or the region of Kedarnath, and Kumaon as Kurmanchal, the land of Kurmavatar (Lord Vishnu in his incarnation as tortoise). There is enough evidence from the pre-historical period of human habitation in these parts of the Himalayas. These include rock paintings, rock shelters, palaeoliths and megaliths. The scriptural texts mention a number of tribes that inhabitated the region like the Sakas, Kol-Munds, Nagas, Khasas, Hunas, Kiratas, Gujars and Aryans. After the Kols and the Kiratas, the Khasas were the dominant race in the Garhwal and Kumaon Himalayas till the advent of the Rajputs and Brahmins from the plains. With the establishment of Aryan culture, most of these people were absorbed into the caste system.

Today's Uttaranchal and its culture is the sum total of the people's experience as mountain dwellers with a unique insight into life derived from the belief in the divinity of the land they have lived in. The Rishis and Munis made it the cradle of Indo-Aryan culture. The archaeological remains point out the existence of ancient practices in the region. There are many places of historical, cultural and religious significance that manifest the multilayered facets of existence in the Himalayas.

Please continue to read the example and proof i have given.
As time permits i am slowly going to describe about the ancient tribe/native of ancient India from the vedic literature.
This is for Rewire. Sir, Nepal did not exist during this period. There wasn't boundary at this point.
Right now i am focusing at this period:1600-1500 BCE: when The Aryans started arriving at the INDUS VALLEY region and natives of the land being pushed to other parts of the Indian sub-continent. At this period, Nepal was still part of ancient India. But when i say ancient India, it is not being referred as one nation or country. Ancient India refers to a whole mass of land that collided with the himalayas. This mass of land is call Indian sub-continent but scholars normally refer to it as ancient India for ease.

hasundo lagyo yo thread, gyan bata suru bhayera mukha ma adkeko jasto lagyo hai narisaunu pehri afian mukha paryo afu ta!!! rewire lai chain history ko k matlab bhancha pheri jpeg lai nepal ko history rakh bhancha, jpeg chain website bata copy paste garcha, nepal ko history janne ho bhane ta tyetro nepali ithihaskar le lekheko cha book pade bho ni..khoi afulai ta dubai ko kura bachha jasto lagyo! jpeg ko research garne tarika website ho bhane teacher le plagiarism garyo bhanera alu grade dela hai..!

Aparrt from where Hinduism came from and Indian history........

I am very interested in knowing where did Nepali people come from? How did we get divided in to Brahmin, Newars , etc…..?

jaiyeta division ta paile dekhinai thiyo kyara, mathi ka bidwan le ni bhanya chan ni rig-veda dekhi, tara nepal ko case ma chain Jayesthiti malla le caste divide garya ho kyare..khai afu tyeti dherai bidwan parena,
idea!!! google gare ra copy paste garaun? ani ma ni bidwan hunchu....kasaile bhane ni nabheneni afain bidwan hunchu yetrai sidhhe..

suvachintak1
Sir, you have asked very good question. your question of "I am very interested in knowing where did Nepali people come from? How did we get divided in to Brahmin, Newars , etc…..?" will come very soon. Sir, I will certainly raise this question. This question will no doubt help to resolve some Nepali identity crisis. Please wait.
My dear brothers and sisters, please do not pressurize me to hurry up with so many question at one time. It's will be very confusing for all of you which i had initially too when i was doing my research and study.
Time will tell. So please be patient.

Shantipriya
Sir, yes you are correct to say that i have so far only done my research by Google, copy, cut and paste. But you need to remember that info. on the websites are not false either.
The info. given out by these sites do contains valuable piece of work which is just the finding.

Anyway so i am going to continue my findings.

Scriptural
texts mention a number of tribes that inhabited the region, such as the Sakas, the Nagas, Khasas, Hunas, and Kiratas....etc.
Most importantly Kiratas has been mentioned the most number of times in the
vedic literature and because several scholars have done extensive research onto this unique race, i have quite a findings to share with you.

Kirata in Ancient Religious Text, Epic and
Mythology:

Now from my own research;
Let me quote some paragraphs from the book by Suniti Kumar Chatterji.
The name Kirata is for the first time found in the Yajurveda (Sukla Yajurveda, Vajasaneya, XXX, 16;
also Krsna Yajurveda, Taittiriya Brahmana, III, 4,12,1).
In connexion with the Purusa-medha or ‘Man-Offering’ sacrifice, where a list of all kinds of human beings and animals symbolically or figuratively offered to the gods as sacrifice is given, we find the
following passage:–

guhabhyah Kiratam; sanubhyo Jambhakam; paravatebhyah Kimpurusam
which upon translation will read ‘A Kirata, for the caves; a Jambhaka (long-toothed man?) for the slopes; a Kimpurusa (an ugly man, a wild man, an ape?) for the mountains.’

Then
in the Atharvaveda (X,4,14) we have a reference to a Kirata girl
(Kairatika) who digs a herbal remedy on the ridges of the mountains:–

Kairatika kumarika saka khanati bhesajam:
hiranyayibhir abhribhir girinam upa sanusu.

‘The young maid of Kirata race, a little damsel, digs the drug:
Digs it with shovels wrought of gold on the high ridges of the hills.’
(Translation by R.T.Griffith.)

“Macdonell and Keith have the following note in their Vedic Index on Kirata:
‘Kirata is a name applied to a people living in the caves of the mountains, as appears clearly from the dedication of the Kirata to the caves in Vajasaneyi Samhita (also Taittiriya Brahmana), and from the reference to a Kirata girl, who digs a remedy on the ridges of the mountains.
The Manava Dharma-sastra regards the Kiratis as degraded Ksatriyas (ref. X, 44).’
When a non-Aryan or foreign people is describes in an old Indian text as being of degraded Kshatriya origin, there is always an implication that they were, to some extend at least, advanced in civilisation or military organisation”. — Suniti Kumar Chatterji (KIRATA-JANA-KRTI)

The book said the Kiratas were 'gold-like', i.e, yellow in color (and not dark or black like the Dasas
and Dasyus and the Nisadas and other pre-Aryan peoples of the plains).
Here's the quote from the the book taken from Kirata-parvan section of Varna-parvan of the Mahabharata.

Kairatam vesam asthaya kancana-druma-sannibham
"Taking up a Kirata resemblance, like unto a tree of gold" (IV,35,2);

dadarsatha tato jisnuh purusam kancana-prabham
"Then the Victorious One(Arjuna) saw a Man, shining like gold" (IV, 35,17)

na tvam asmin vana ghore bibhesi kanaka-prabha

“O thou that art shining like gold (addressing Siva in the form of
Kirata), dost thou not fear in this terrible forest” (IV, 35, 18)


The Ramayana also mentions the golden color of the Kiratas; thus

Kiratasca tiksna-cudasca hemabhah priya-darsanah,
antar-jala-cara ghora nara-vyaghra iti srutah
(Kiskindhya-Kanda, 40, 27, 28, qouted by N.N Vasu)
upon
translation is The Kiratas, with hair done in pointed top-knots,
pleasant to look upon, shining like gold, able to move under water, terrible, veritable tiger-men, so are they famed.

In Yoga Vasistha 1.15.5 Rama speaks of "kirAteneva vAgurA", "a trap [laid] by Kiratas", so about BCE Xth Century, they were thought of as jungle trappers, the ones who dug pits to capture roving deer. The same text also speaks of King Suraghu, the head of the Kiratas who is a friend of the Persian King, Parigha.

Secondly
The Kiratas in Sanskrit (Sanskrit: किरात) mentioned in early Hindu
texts are the tribals of the forest and mountains with this sanskrit
phrase “kiram atati bhramati yah” meaning one wandering over the forests.

There are two analogy from this findings:
1. All the non-aryan people in an ancient india were referred to as Kiratas.
2. That the Kiratas(Mongoloid) are the tribes/indigenous people of ancient India.

Now ladies and gentleman please get ready for more confusion and surprises. I too was shock and dumbfounded initially but you get to see the point and light slowly as we go on.
But this will be provided when i have the time. stay tune then!

Now we know who the Kiratas were, ASK
where and when did they first arrived in ancient India?
and
what contributions did they make in the early civilizations of India and Nepal?

work cited:
KIRATA-JANA-KRTI
The Indo-Mongoloids:
Their Contribution to the History and Culture of India
by Suniti Kumar Chatterji (1951)

see you soon,
JPG

jpeg, do not take it to your heart, but brother citing
websites will never make your research authentic. Today some info  are there and tomorrow they are not there that
is the nature of internet sources. They are often misleading as well as sometime
I find them commercial. That is why information posted on website are not
considered credible in  research f. You can cite journals, articles
which are published already and if that is posted on the website then that is
OK. I am advising you because you are doing some kind of research on history,
but you have to be very careful about it. Tomorrow you might want to publish
your article in some journal but then if you are citing webistes they will not publish your
article as your references includes more websources , nor anyone in the
research field will give you credit for your hard work, nor you will be able to defend your arguments. If you are taking any
course related to research method (assuming you are graduate student) then you
should know this, if your professor is not telling you this fact then ask him
about this issue. In haste does not copy paste info from net they might be
valuable but won’t be considered authentic.  This is the reason I was bit critical about
you. But no offense.Good luck with your research!