Are we Indians actually descendants of the Aryan and Dravidian race? Is there any proof of it?

Question

Today is day five of 'India’s Mysterious 5 Contest' where we feature the last unsolved, mysterious question of the contest.
The featured questions of the second - http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…
third - http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…
and the fourth day http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind… are still open to answering. So get those grey cells in action!

Also don't forget to answer today’s question. You might just walk away with a Sony Ericsson K300i Mobile phone up for grabs.

Additional Details

Winners will be contacted on their yahoo email ids, so keep checking. If you haven’t registered for this contest yet, register now! http://w11.in.yahoo.com/answers/main.php

Keep checking our blog for more on the contest and winners.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/y_answrs_team_…

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

There is no real evidence that the Indians are actually descendants of the Aryan and Dravidian race - whether archeological, literary or linguistic - and no scholar working in the field, even those who still accept some outside origin for the Vedic people (the so-called Aryans), accepts the theory in its classical form of the violent invasion and destruction of the Harappan cities by the incoming Aryans.

The following 4 points will prove the above statement,

1. The main center of Harappan civilization is the newly
rediscovered Sarasvati river of Vedic fame. While the Indus river has about three dozen important Harappan sites, the Sarasvati has over five hundred. The drying up of the Sarasvati brought about the end of the Harappan civilization around 1900 BC. As the Vedas know of this river they cannot be later than the terminal point for the
river or different than the Harappans who flourished on its banks. Harappan culture should be renamed "the Sarasvati culture" and the Vedic culture must have been in India long before 2000 BC.

2. No evidence of any significant invading populations have been found in ancient India, nor have any destroyed cities or massacred peoples been unearthed. The so-called massacre of Mohenjodaro that Wheeler, an early excavator of the site claimed to find, has been found to be only a case of imagination gone wild. The sites were abandoned along with the ecological changes that resulted in the drying up of the Sarasvati.

3. So-called Aryan cultural traits like horses, iron, cattle-rearing or fire worship have been found to be either
indigenous developments (like iron) or to have existed in Harappan and pre-Harappan sites (like horses and fire worship). No special Aryan culture in ancient India can be differentiated apart from the indigenous culture.

4. A more critical reading of Vedic texts reveals that Harappan civilization, the largest of the ancient world, finds itself reflected in Vedic literature, the largest literature of the ancient world. Vedic literature was previously not related to any significant civilization but merely to "the destruction of Harappa." How the largest literature of the ancient world was produced by illiterate nomadic peoples as they destroyed one of the great civilizations of the ancient world is one of the absurdities that the Aryan invasion leads to, particularly when the urban literate Harappans are not given any literature of their own remaining.

Putting these points together we now see that the Vedas show the same development of culture, agriculture and arts and crafts as Harappan and pre-Harappan culture. Vedic culture is located in the same region as the Harappan, north India centered on the Sarasvati river. The abandonment of the invasion theory solves the literary riddle. Putting together Vedic literature, the largest of the ancient world, with the Harappan civilization, the largest of the ancient world, a picture emerges of ancient India as the largest civilization of the ancient world with the largest and best preserved literature, a far more logical view, and one that shows India as a consistent center from which civilization has spread over the last five thousand years.

Source(s):

http://www.tri-murti.com/ancientindia/aryan0.html

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

Chosen by Indian, the asker who had brought this question to light.

Answer 2

yes we indians are descendants of the aryan and dravidian race.

The puranas & vedic books are proof of our being aryans or dravidians.

Answer 3

Yes.South Indians are descendants of Dravidian and North indians descendants of Aryans.

Answer 4

yes the proof is in the Ancient civilization how our forefathers lived and their society have been given in Indian Civilization

Answer 5

yes,
from history we got proof that on bank side of sindhu river people those stayed called Aryans and Dravidian , so they are our ancestors. also we can imagine from haddpa and mohendejdo about this

Answer 6

:30
--------------------------------------…
Questioning the Aryan Invasion Theory and
Revising Ancient Indian History1
Klaus Klostermaier

NB. The footnotes for this article are linked to a separate footnote page.

Introduction
Tacitus, the classical Roman writer, claimed to have described past events and
personalities in his works sine ira et studio, free from hostility and bias. This motto has
guided serious historians through the ages, and it became their highest ambition to write
history 'objectively', distancing themselves from opinions held by interested parties.

The ideal was not always followed, as we know. We have seen twentieth century
governments commissioning re-writings of the histories of their countries from the
standpoint of their own ideologies. Like the court-chroniclers of former times, some
contemporary academic historians wrote unashamedly biased accounts of events and
redesigned the past accordingly.

When, in the wake of World War II the nations of Asia and Africa gained
independence, their intellectuals became aware of the fact that their histories had been
written by representatives of the colonial powers which they had opposed. More often
than not they discovered that all traditional accounts of their own past had been brushed
aside by the 'official' historians as so much myth and fairytale. Often lacking their own
academically trained historians-or worse, only possessing native historians who had
taken over the views of the colonial masters-the discontent with existing histories of their
countries expressed itself often in vernacular works that lacked the academic credentials
necessary to make an impact on professional historians.

The situation is slowly changing. A new generation of scholars who grew up in
post-colonial times and who do not share the former biases, scholars in command of the
tools of the trade-intimacy with the languages involved, familiarity with the culture of
their countries, respect for the indigenous traditions-are rewriting the histories of their
countries.

Nowhere is this more evident than in India. India had a tradition of learning and
scholarship much older and vaster than the European countries that, from the sixteenth
century onwards, became its political masters. Indian scholars are rewriting the history
of India today.

The Aryan Invasion Theory and the Old Chronology
One of the major points of revision concerns the so called 'Aryan invasion theory', often
referred to as 'colonial-missionary', implying that it was the brainchild of conquerors of
foreign colonies who could not but imagine that all higher culture had to come from
outside 'backward' India, and who likewise assumed that a religion could only spread
through a politically supported missionary effort.

While not buying into the more sinister version of this revision, which accuses the
inventors of the Aryan invasion theory of malice and cynicism, there is no doubt that
early European attempts to explain the presence of Indians in India had much to with the
commonly held Biblical belief that humankind originated from one pair of humans-
Adam and Eve to be precise (their common birth date was believed to be c.4005
BCE)-and that all peoples on earth descended from one of the sons of Noah, the only
human to survive the Great Flood (dated at 2500 BCE). The only problem seemed to be
to connect peoples not mentioned in Chapter 10 of Genesis ['The Peopling of the Earth']
with one of the Biblical genealogical lists.

One such example of a Christian historian attempting to explain the presence of Indians
in India is the famous Abbé Dubois (1770-1848), whose long sojourn in India
(1792-1823) enabled him to collect a large amount of interesting materials concerning
the customs and traditions of the Hindus. His (French) manuscript was bought by the
British East India Company and appeared in an English translation under the title Hindu
Manners, Customs and Ceremonies in 1897 with a Prefatory Note by the Right Hon.
F. Max Müller.2 Abbé Dubois, loath 'to oppose [his] conjectures to [the Indians']
absurd fables' categorically stated:

It is practically admitted that India was inhabited very soon after the Deluge,
which made a desert of the whole world. The fact that it was so close to the
plains of Sennaar, where Noah's descendants remained stationary so long, as well
as its good climate and the fertility of the country, soon led to its settlement.

Rejecting other scholars' opinions which linked the Indians to Egyptian or Arabic origins,
he ventured to suggest them 'to be descendents not of Shem, as many argue, but of
Japhet'. He explains: 'According to my theory they reached India from the north, and I
should place the first abode of their ancestors in the neighbourhood of the Caucasus.'3
The reasons he provides to substantiate his theory are utterly unconvincing-but he goes
on to build the rest of his migration theory (not yet an 'Aryan' migration theory) on this
shaky foundation.

Max Müller (1823-1903), who was largely responsible for the 'Aryan invasion theory'
and the 'old chronology', was too close in spirit and time to this kind of thinking, not to
have adopted it fairly unquestioningly. In his Prefatory Note he praises the work of
Abbé Dubois as a 'trustworthy authority. . .which will always retain its value.'

That a great deal of early British Indology was motivated by Christian missionary
considerations, is no secret. The famous and important Boden Chair for Sanskrit at the
University of Oxford was founded by Colonel Boden in 1811 with the explicit object 'to
promote the translation of the Scriptures into Sanskrit, so as to enable his countrymen to
proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian Religion'.4 Max Müller,
in a letter to his wife wrote in 1886: 'The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a
great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It
is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way
of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3 000 years.'5

When the affinity between many European languages and Sanskrit became a commonly
accepted notion, scholars almost automatically concluded that the Sanskrit speaking
ancestors of the present day Indians were to be found somewhere halfway between
India and the Western borders of Europe-Northern Germany, Scandinavia, Southern
Russia, the Pamir-from which they invaded the Punjab. (It is also worth noting that the
early armchair scholars who conceived these grandiose migration theories, had no actual
knowledge of the terrain their 'Aryan invaders' were supposed to have transversed, the
passes they were supposed to have crossed, or the various climates they were believed
to have been living in). Assuming that the Vedic Indians were semi-nomadic warriors
and cattle-breeders, it fitted the picture, when Mohenjo Daro and Harappa were
discovered, to also assume that these were the cities the Aryan invaders destroyed
under the leadership of their god Indra, t

Answer 7

yes. our Indian people are the descendants of Aryan and Dravidan race, because so many years before(B.C) aryan people came from central China and they entered into India through Kaiber and Polan paths of Himalayas. After their arrival Hinduism has started. The Researchers found some things at Mohanghataro about Aryan people things and we knew so many things about Aryan people. before entering to India they were living in the central Asia as the Shepherds, they were moving continiously for feeding to their sheeps at last they came to India. After that the 4 vedas Ric, yazur,Sama, Otherwa written.

They are the forefathers for Idol worship as like as Sumarians.They had spreaded allover the North India especially the Ganga River areas for pasture and Agriculture. And the culture started. they divided people according to their works as the four divisions. And Sanskirit became the capital language, then the other languages were born from that.


In south India Tamil Has a long age, and other languages like kanada, malayalam, telugu,have started from tamil. but for all that the capital language was Sanskirit. It was created by Aryas.we are generally mentioning including Tamil and regional south Indian languages as Dravidan languages. The Aryan people dominated only North India, the south India was dominated by Dravidan race. But Nowadays also the Hinduism has the traditional worship of Sanskirit.After these two big races the old and regional things couldnot get important.

besides the fake worships and beliefs were created by them to earn money through God name by some people. And the wrong things in society like untouchability, the wife burns after her husband death, a young widow should wear white saree and should wear flower in her hair, all of them created. those things mixed in society and those people frightened fellow people by God's Name. after some period the Buddhism had started from Hinduism to clear the fake and wrong beliefs. The Hinduism had so many Gods and traditions and the Puranas land the Mahabaradam and Ramayanam had written in this stages.People started to give their goat, Ox as their scapegoats to Gods.Besides in North India people found Ayurvedic treatments in south India Siddha treatments by plants and leafs.The all territories had joined after independence as India Republic and we have forefathers of Aryas and Dravidas. If whether India would have any races they were gone by time period. Sumarians Called Hinustan asIndia. our history says India had another name Bharath named by one popular King Bharathan who ruled this. Any way these two races dominated and we are the people of these two races, and the other religions and dialects, races had created from these two races and from Hinduism.

Source(s):

Indian History, and Vedas.

Answer 8

Yes. Our culture is proof to it

Answer 9

We are the descedents of arians and dravidians only. No doubt in it,Read it in the history .Before the arians came by the kiber kanaway to India there were dravidians lived in India and they out of fear worshipped fire,sun,water, and everything they think superior to them, Then Arians came and they dominated them and taught them to worship idols and they themselves were the pujaries,

Source(s):

Through history

Answer 10

Yes we are actually descendants of the Aryan and Dravidian race

we have the proof of Aryan civilization. in our history.

Answer 11

We are not actually descendants of the Aryan. Aryan background belongs to Brahmin community. They came to India and settled in India. Only Brahmin community belong to Aryan descendants. All other Indians are from different races and different backgrounds and also Dravidian race.

Source(s):

History

Answer 12

no.Because we dont have enough proof.and who have seen them? nobody knows about them.

Answer 13

My answer is --- Originally we Are decsendants of aryans and dravidians..... But ARE ALL OF US???? I know that our holy books prove it... But I think later (after the mughal invasion and all other invasions) I can only say that many of us are not purely aryans .....

Answer 14

yes we are belonging from aryans and davidians race.
its proof is in our ancient epic and mythology like mahabharat.

Answer 15

Al Max Muller made it very clear that Aryan, in scientific language, According to Will Durrant, the word Aryan originally meant peasant. It is most likely derived from Sanskrit root ri-ar, “to plough” .However, the word Aryan describes nobleman in Rig-Veda, the oldest source of ancient Indian history.The Aryans entered Indian sub-continent from northwest circa 1500-1200 BC. The time frame is suggested to coincide with the violent destruction of Indus valley civilization of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro . The Aryan, a semi-nomadic pastoral people, came in successive waves. They were swift horse-men armed with broad axes or riding horses drawn two-wheeled chariots overwhelming their enemies with showers of arrows. The pre-Aryans, non-Aryan or Dravidian moved south and east for safety after their cities in the Indus valley were destroyed by advancing Aryans. The Aryans settled down in villages, created an Aryan dominant cultural and political elite, composed Rig-Veda and, in time, their language, culture and religion became dominant in the Indian sub-continent. The older generation of European scholars and orientalists had erroneously traced all good or great elements of Indian civilization to Vedic Aryans. Recent archaeological discoveries and linguistic paleontology have, however, greatly changed our perspective of Vedic Aryans life, culture and religion. A great deal of pre-Aryan or non-Aryan influence on Aryan or Vedic language, culture and religion is now generally acknowledged. Suniti Kumar Chatterji in “Indian Heritage” insinuated that we owe more than 75 percent of culture and civilization to non-Aryan fore-fathers. Hinduism is truly the legacy of non-Aryans. The pre-Aryan worship of Sun and is part of Hinduism. Sun was worshipped in the Vedic age under various names as Surya, Savitri, Pushan, Bhag, Mitra, Varuna and Visavant. Similarly Rudra, Siva, Krishna, Sakti, Kubera, Ganesha and Hanumana are deities of pre-Aryan origin. More importantly yoga and dhayana were practiced in Harappa and Mohenjo-daro and thus a pre-Aryan origin.

an Aryan invasion during 1500-1200 BC was having no archaeological evidences suggesting people invading Indian sub-continent in successive waves. It is highly unlikely that Aryan people took off from their homelands with the specific purpose of invading Indian sub-continent. They must be the people on the move for any of a number of possible reasons. They must have stopped along the way to replenish their stocks and strength. It would have taken them several generations with settling down along the way. Again, there is a lack of supporting archaeological evidences along the proposed migrating routes. The Neolithic age came to Indian sub-continent much earlier than previously thoughtMost surprising of this excavation is the evidence of cultivation of cereal crops (barley, einkorn, emmer and wheat) dating back to circa 6000 BC. Although it is possible for Mehrgarh to be the easternmost end of Mesopotamia but impossible for it not to influence and initiate a move towards farming in the nearby Mohenjo-daro and Veda, there is no mention of Aryans or their descendants to have any memory of their homelands outside Indian sub-continent. It was generally assumed that the pre-Aryan or non-Aryan people of Indus valley were Drividians. . It is almost certain that Aryan invasion never took place and Hinduism is the legacy of Aryan/ non-Aryan Indians. The the rest of Indus valley. Indian, it IRig-Veda, there is no mention of Aryans or their descendants to have any memory of their homelands outside Indian sub-continent. I generally assumed that the pre-Aryan or non-Aryan people of Indus valley were Drividians. . It is almost certain that Aryan invasion never took place and Hinduism is the legacy of Aryan/ non-Aryan Indians.

Answer 16

Because many Indians have the Sirname/family name Arya and Dravid e.g. Rahul Dravid etc,.

Answer 17

Yes, We Indians are actually decendants of the Aryan & Dravidian Race, If we see our cultare in villages & in those cities, in which people are still living that style, in which Aryan & Dravidains were used to live, then we can find tht we indians are actually descendants of them... there is no doubt tht we are running fast in the 21st century bt look on those who still living in tht era of aryan & dravidian ...

Answer 18

I am very much confident that we Indians are descendants of the Aryan and Dravidian race. However, it is true only when I look upon the the answer to the said question through the widow of history and myths. We are still accepting the same culture and phillosophy, which my ancestors taught to my forefathers. The vedic lores, which were chanted by saint and sages during the time of yore are still heard into the depth of our hearts. And we, the Indians are still singing the song of Vedas and Upanishad with our family and freinds. As there are sufficient historical evidences that enligtened saint and sages are responsible to raise a civilisation, from which mankind realised the difference between Good and Bad. The two great epics 'Ramayana. and 'Mahabharata' give us several instances, which have put on the lamp of judgement in our consciences till today. As we know that Rishis belonged to the Aryan race and there were definitely another race , which did not maintan the culture brought forward by them. As such, saint Balmiki had composed the story of a battle between Rama (the symbol of goodness in human form ) and the Ravana ( the symbol of bad elements in man ) as well as Vyasha composed 'Mahabharta', which is nothing but a conflict between 'Dharma' and 'Adharma'. Now, we can refer to the good and bad conducts of the aforesaid races and find out a reasonable link among all the three races Indian, Aryan and Dravidian.

However, it is not possible to make the above statement as final and last. I am always puzzled, when I go back to wilderness, where my forefathers failed to live in a particular place on the globe. As from the very birth they had to struggle for survival of the fittest and wandering into exile ( from one place to another place ) keeping their progeny in different suitable places. As it is a well known fact that man became civilised after passing the period of wild life , a question always raised itself; - who is the decendant of what race ? Is it possible to know whether Aryan and Dravidian are decedants of what race ? - And so, we , Indian too..........?

Source(s):

Self observation.

Answer 19

Indians where aryans, they did not invade A classical instance of the canard is the continued plugging in of the thesis that the Indo-Aryans were not the sons of the soil of India and that they were as much intruders or invaders as the other recorded historical invaders and plunderers from Alexander onwards.Aryans of India possessed the earliest known book and spoken words in the entire world literature as their Vedas. It is amazing that it does not strike as extremely odd to the so-called intellectuals and rationalists that if the early Aryans of India had their original abode elsewhere outside this country, it would be elementary to expect the knowledge contained in the Vedas to have necessarily pre- existed in such land of their alleged origin. So, the universally accepted proposition that the Vedas were the earliest known literature of the world, both spoken and recorded, does establish that no other people anywhere possessed the capacity and the treasury and knowledge of the Vedas-like literature. Accordingly, when no other foreign people outside India had Veda-like literature at their command, it would be calumny to persist with the awkward proposition that people of some foreign land were the ancestors of the Indo- Aryans and that the Aryans poured into or streamed into India from other lands or regions of the world. A few more aspects of the ridiculous thesis that Aryans entered India from elsewhere are intended to be highlighted in the subsequent discussions. An obstinate myth in circulation for centuries is regarding the origin of Aryans being from land outside India. Originally the Aryans seem to have lived somewhere in the region stretching from southern Russia to Central Asia. Certain names of animals, such as goats, dogs, horses, etc. and names of certain plants such as pine, maple, etc. are similar to one another in all the Indo-European languages. They show that the Aryans were acquainted with the rivers and forests. Curiously enough, common words exist only in a few Aryan languages for mountains although the Aryans crossed many hills." The Aryans had a concept of universalism not advanced by any people of that age; they glorified non-violence, then not preached or practiced anywhere in the world. The facts, however strongly suggest the foregoing hypothesis to be altogether fictitious and imaginary: Noted historian, Vincent A. Smith, has clearly concluded the proposition that "Language was no proof of commonality of blood". (Oxford History of India by Vincent A. Smith, 1957, p. 40). It is sheer superstitious prejudice and continued misplaced belief in myths with their least factual or historic foundation that tempts or drives even learned "A little earlier than 1500 b.c. the Aryans appeared in India. We do not find clear and definite archaeological traces of their advent." The above clear admission by the proponents of the theory of non-Indian origin of Aryans, despite all endeavours to paint Aryans as foreigners immigrating into India, is really astounding. These scholars themselves admit the absolute absence of any trace of archaeological evidence in their possession in support of this much- hyped and persistently repeated myth. It is a surreptitious suggestion and a mere nai"ve conjecture and surmise in gross distortion of truth or history seemingly with the blind purpose to equate other foreign people entering and invading India as being of the same kind of intruders that Aryans were wrongly suggested to be.It is our intent to show in further write-ups that Aryans were natives of India, and not in the least intruders or invaders or immigrants or migrants into India at any point of time in history or of pre-historic period. This caricature of history, being absurdly carried out by known learned historians persistently, must in the interest of truth and historical values cease unless these scholars have pursuits other than truth in the matter. This matter can hardly be put on the back burner any further. It has already done grave injustice to the Aryans and to the people of India. How the hypothesis of Aryan intrusion into India came to be widely postulated during the efforts to reconstruct history of India needs some exposition: "In fact, the accepted belief in the Indo-Aryan immigration from Central Asia depends largely on the interpretation of geographical allusions in the Rig Veda and Yajurveda. Direct testimony to the assumed fact is lacking and no tradition of an early home beyond the frontier survives in India." "The Vedas are in a sense hymns, but the gods to which they refer are not persons but manifestations of the ultimate truth and reality." The Aryans had no slave system; they reared cows. They were agriculturists and not pastoral or indulging in animal husbandry like the Asians. They had no feudal landlords; they never attacked or enslaved any people or country, not even Ceylon; they had no purdah; they cremated their dead while all the remaining communities of the world buried their dead. The script of their language was from left to right, unlike the Semitics or Iranians whose script ran from right to left. They had village democratic units and no kings or lords or chiefs like Central Asians or Mongols or Tartars. These features are in sharp contradistinction to the contemporary Central Asian or Arabic or Roman or Greek traditions or habits or institutions of these people. The Aryans could not, therefore, ever have been their constituents at any point of time in history. The Aryan had a concept of universalism not advanced by any people of those eras; they glorified non-violence, not preached or practiced anywhere in the world. What more proof is required to show their distinct identity from any The ). regarding the origin of the Aryans in India: "Theories of the origin of the Aryans in India relate to the question of what has been called the Indo-European homeland. In the 17th and 18th centuries, European scholars who first studied Sanskrit were struck by the similarity in its syntax and vocabulary to Greek and Latin. This resulted in the theory that there had been a common ancestry for these and other related languages, which came to be called the Indo-Europeans group of languages. This, in turn, resulted in the notion that the Indo-European-speaking people had a common homeland from which they had migrated to various parts of Asia and Europe. This theory led to unlimited speculation which continues today, regarding the original homeland of Aryans and the date of their dispersal from it. The early history of India is still beset by `the Aryan problem' which often clouds a genuine search for historical insight into this period." 11. The time has come now when, as per German philosopher Rudolf Karl Bultmann's advice, the demystification and demythologisation of the Aryan ingress into or their alleged invasion of ancient India can no longer be avoided. We have to expose its absolute hollowness as well as its fictitious origin. This matter can hardly be put on the back burner any further. It has already done grave injustice to the Aryans and to the people of India. Pricking of this prejudicial and false hypothesis is essential to show its absolutely imaginary origin. Its continuous repetition is obstinate, motivated by a fatal disregard of the truth. The habit is merely in line with the imitative peculiar to Indian people's trait of self-denigration. It is misconceived modernism and false rationalism. The entire enlightened spiritual centres) at Badrinath in the north (UP), Puri in the east (Orissa), Dwaraka in the west (Gujarat), and Shringeri and Kanchi in the south. That is India, that is Bharat, and that is Hinduism. In 1853, Max Muller introduced the word `Arya' into the English and European usage as applying to a racial and linguistic group when propounding the Aryan racial theory. However, in 1888, he himself refuted his own theory and wrote: "I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language...to me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar." (Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas by Max Muller, 1888, 120 pp) In Vedic literature the word `Arya' is nowhere defined in connecti

Answer 20

hey guys...we all know that history is all about the past when we were not there....all most of the stories and facts in history are just based on assumptionsand myths!!! the proofs are less and the stories many....hence its not true that we are the descendants of the Aryan and Dravidian race...

Answer 21

Yes, we Indians are descendants of Aryan and Dravidian race. Yes.

Answer 22

We are descendants of Dravidian Race

Answer 23

The indications are that Mohenjo-daro was at its height when Cheops built the first great pyramid; that it had commercial, religious, and artistic connections with Sumeria, and Babylonia

Answer 24

Does it really matter to look behind when we are talking about the future ahead of us

Answer 25

yes indians are actually descendants of the aryan and dravidan race. According to the following passages it is evident to the previous statement.
"Archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Dravidians were the founders of the Harappan culture which extended from the Indus Valley through northeastern Afghanistan, on into Turkestan. The Harappan civilization existed from 2600-1700 BC. The Harappan civilization was twice the size the Old Kingdom of Egypt. In addition to trade relations with Mesopotamia and Iran, the Harappan city states also had active trade relations with the Central Asian peoples."

The aryan invasion theory sugest that
"According to this theory, northern India was invaded and conquered by nomadic, light-skinned RACE of a people called 'ARYANS' who descended from Central Asia (or some unknown land ?) around 1500 BC, and destroyed an earlier and more advanced civilization of the people habitated in the Indus Valley and imposed upon them their culture and language. These Indus Valley people were supposed to be either Dravidian, or AUSTRICS or now--days' Shudra class etc.

The main elements on which the entire structure of AIT has been built are: Arya is a racial group, their invasion, they were nomadic, light-skinned, their original home was outside India, their invasion occurred around 1500 BC, they destroyed an advanced civilization of Indus valley, etc. And what are the evidences AIT advocates present in support of all these wild conjectures:

Invasion: Mention of Conflicts in Vedic literature, findings of skeletons at the excavated sites of Mohanjodro and Harappa

Nomadic, Light-skinned: Pure conjecture and misinterpretation of Vedic hymns.

Non-Aryan/Dravidian Nature of Indus civilization: absence of horse, Shiva worshippers, chariots, Racial differences, etc.

Date of Invasion, 1500 BC: Arbitrary and speculative, in Mesopotamia and Iraq the presence of the people worshipping Vedic gods around 1700BC, Biblical chronology "

Chronology of the pre-historic period of India

"According to the invasionists, the Indian civilization or the Indus Valley civilization is only 4000-5000 years old. They place the end of this civilization around 1900BC, and invasion of Aryans around 1500BC. There is also no plausible explanation from these invasion advocates for a gap of 400 years between the end of the Indus Valley civilization (IVC) and the appearance of Aryans on the Indian scene if Aryans were responsible for the destruction of the IVC. They propose the period of 1400-1300 BC as the beginning of the Vedic age when the Vedas were composed and Aryans began to impose their culture and religion on the indigenous population of the northern India.

The Ramayana and Mahabharat, if considered as real events, must be according to them arbitrarily be dated in the period 1200-1000BC. And only after 1000BC, the historic accounts of empire building, Buddha's birth etc. have to be dated. This chronology first proposed by Max Muller was primarily based on his firm belief in the Biblical date of the creation of the world, i.e. October 23, 4004 BC. "

But what ever they say i folow swamy vivekanandha who said
Swami Vivekananda on Aryan Invasion Theory

"Our archaeologists' dreams of India being full of dark-eyed aborigines, and the bright Aryans came from - the Lord knows where. According to some, they came from Central Tibet; others will have it that they came from Central Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think that the Aryans were all red haired. Others, according to their idea, think that they were all black-haired. If the writer happens to be a black-haired man, the Aryans were all black-haired. Of late, there was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on Swiss lake. I should not be sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that they lived at the North Pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for as the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends..."

so at last we all are indians...

Source(s):

Tamil nation, Max Muller.

Answer 26

The British ruled India, as they did other lands, by a divide-and-conquer strategy. They promoted religious, ethnic and cultural divisions among their colonies to keep them under control. Unfortunately some of these policies also entered into the intellectual realm. The same simplistic and divisive ideas that were used for interpreting the culture and history of India. Regrettably many Hindus have come to believe these ideas, even though a deeper examination reveals they may have no real objective or scientific basis.

One of these ideas is that India is a land of two races - the lighter- skinned Aryans and the darker-skinned Dravidians - and that the Dravidians were the original inhabitants of India whom the invading Aryans conquered and dominated. From this came the additional idea that much of what we call Hindu culture was in fact Dravidian, and later borrowed by Aryans who, however, never gave the Dravidians proper credit for it. This idea has been used to turn the people of south India against the people of north India, as if the southerners were a different race.
The idea of Aryan and Dravidian races is the product of an unscientific, culturally biased form of thinking that saw race in terms of color. There are scientifically speaking, no such things as Aryan or Dravidian races. The three primary races are Caucasian, the Mongolian and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and Dravidians of the south is not a racial division. Biologically both the north and south Indians are of the same Caucasian race, only when closer to the equator the skin becomes darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to become a little smaller. While we can speak of some racial differences between north and south Indian people, they are only secondary.

For example, if we take a typical person from Punjab, another from Maharashtra, and a third from Tamil Nadu we will find that the Maharashtrians generally fall in between the other two in terms of build and skin color. We see a gradual shift of characteristics from north to south, but no real different race. An Aryan and Dravidian race in India is no more real than a north and a south European race. Those who use such terms are misusing language. We would just as well place the blond Swede of Europe in a different race from the darker haired and skinned person of southern Italy.
Nor is the Caucasian race the "white" race. Caucasians can be of any color from pure white to almost pure black, with every shade of brown in between. The predominant Caucasian type found in the world is not the blond-blue-eyes northern European but the black hair, brown-eyed darker skinned Mediterranean type that we find from southern Europe to north India. Similarly the Mongolian race is not yellow. Many Chinese have skin whiter than many so-called Caucasians. In fact of all the races, the Caucasian is the most variable in its skin color. Yet many identification forms that people fill out today in the world still define race in terms of color.

The Indus Civilization - the ancient urban culture of north India in the third millennium BC - has been interpreted as Dravidian or non-Aryan culture. Though this has never been proved, it has been taken by many people to be a fact. However, new archaeological evidence shows that the so-called Indus culture was a Vedic culture, centered not on the Indus but on the banks of the Saraswati river of Vedic fame (the culture should be renamed not the Indus but the "Saraswati Culture"), and that its language was also related to Sanskrit. The ancient Saraswati dried up around 1900 BC. Hence the Vedic texts that speak so eloquently of this river must predate this period.
The racial types found in the Indus civilization are now found to have been generally the same as those of north India today, and that there is no evidence of any significant intrusive population into India in the Indus or post-Indus era.
This new information tends to either dismiss the Aryan invasion theory or to place it back at such an early point in history (before 3000 BC or even 6000 BC), that it has little bearing on what we know as the culture of India.
The Aryans and Dravidians are part of the came culture and we need not speak of them as separate. Dividing them and placing them at odds with each other serves the interests of neither but only serves to damage their common culture (which is what most of those who propound these ideas are often seeking). Perhaps the saddest thing is that modern Indian politicians have also used this division to promote their own ambitions, though it is harmful to the unity of the country.

Answer 27

Just by saying that X were living in india long long ago. we can not say that we are the descedent of X. X and Y may have the same property or suppose X is older than Y. It may be possible that after some time Y may bheave as X. This logic also valid for group of people. So there must be some scientific reason to accept the this statement. These days only using DNA properties we are able to say who belongs to whom group. so it is very very difficult to prove .

Answer 28

We Indians are actually descendants of the Aryan and Dravidian race, since there is enough evidence in history that people Dravidian's are from Indian origin (south Indians) black in colour, Aryans invaded and conquered Dravidian's and adapted their culture and Aryans later settled down in Northern part of India and they we White people.

Answer 29

There is no proof of it. We are just following what we have told by our elders.

Answer 30

yes

Source(s):

hindus bhagawatgita

Answer 31

We do belong to the same family as of aryans and dravidians. We do follow such surnames today as well.

History has witmessed the truth of our ancestors who were aryans.

Source(s):

from teh books , we read in schools