Rajasthan passed a new reform bringing domestic maids under the purview of state laws. The question is — when will the Indian state learn to stop passing laws that it cannot enforce and which can only increase harassment by inspectors? The below picture gives the summary of the reform as published in the Times of India.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
Why this law is another addition to the junk that we already have?
1. From the implementation perspective:
Large number of domestic maids and households. How is the state going to inspect everyone?
Courts are already overburdened. Now we want to burden them more by taking them away from real decision making.
Most maids are paid in cash and work without a written contract. In such a scenario, how will anyone prosecute anybody except engaging in “he said/she said” style arguments?
The government cannot even ensure implementation of existing labour laws — how can it add to the already existing laundry list?
2. From the economic perspective:
Why can’t it come under existing minimum wage? When will the fetish for a new law for every new situation end?
No tax gain for the government.
The only gainers would be state inspectors who can harass the middle class for bribes citing some imaginative violation.
What about domestic workers who want to work more than eight hours out of their own free will?
Given its law enforcement capability, the Indian state should focus on more constructive law making and stop poking its nose in every small business activity. Domestic maids are free to choose their employers, which ensures that there is enough mobility and competitive wages determined by local conditions. The government would have done much better by spending the implementation cost of this law on educating maids about using financial services like savings and pensions. In the long run, financial education would have paid back much more than creating further hassles for employment.
Representative restoration image generated because no original image was embedded in the supplied HTML.
The Lost River: On the trail of the Saraswati — Michel Danino
What are the characteristics of a good book? It should keep you hooked and should have an element of mystery to be revealed at the end. The first quality is ensured because Michel Danino has made a good effort in putting a lot of information about the mighty river and Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). In addition, the fluidity in his writing style makes it an easy read. Since this topic has great consequences for the debate on Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory, Danino has reserved that discussion for the end — which keeps the mystery element alive till the last chapter of the book. Given the vastness of the Aryan Invasion debate, we will not keep this article as a simple book review but add our analysis about how the Saraswati river forms an essential part in this jigsaw puzzle.
One of the biggest misconceptions that this book clears up is that the association of the Ghaggar-Hakra system with ancient Saraswati is not a recent discovery based on new evidences from satellite imagery. What the recent satellite pictures do is further corroborate the presence of the paleo-channel of Saraswati as predicted by other fields like geology, linguistics and archaeology much before these satellite images became available. Danino builds a compelling story by adding pieces of small discoveries about Saraswati that started in the early 19th century after the first surveys of Rajasthan and Punjab were conducted by the British Raj.
The first section of the book deals with the work of past two centuries that has gone into the understanding of this river as we know it today. The readers are taken on this exceptional journey which begins by following the first explorations done by Colonel James Tod, who was deputed in Rajputana in 1812. The narration follows by recounting stories of some amateurs and other professional surveyors who bumped into the mighty Saraswati in one or another way — sometimes based on rural folk traditions or other times through hard archaeological and geological discovery. This understanding about Saraswati becomes perfectly clear after the advent of modern satellite imagery and Danino does a perfect job in summarizing the findings from these recent studies.
The story about the lost Saraswati becomes more interesting after the discovery of IVC settlements along the now dried-up Ghaggar channel in the dry and arid regions of the Thar desert, thus establishing the relationship between the IVC and the mighty river of the Vedas. This relationship is explored in further detail in the second part of the book, which takes a deep look at the IVC settlements along the Ghaggar. Surprisingly, the number of settlements along the lost river is much higher than those along the banks of the Indus river. Danino thus makes a good case for renaming IVC as Indus-Saraswati Civilization, as the current name reflects the partial knowledge that we had at the beginning of the 20th century. This is definitely a suggestion which will not go down easily among the current generation of leftist historians in academia.
The third section of the book is definitely the most interesting part for the readers who have closely followed the debate on Aryan Invasion Theory. Here again, Danino makes convincing arguments to connect the old IVC with the latter Vedic civilization. The evidences for this connection range from materialistic matters like weight measurements and arts to spiritual traditions like yoga. No surprise, the proponents of Aryan Invasion theory have wilfully disregarded all this evidence and are happy to concede that there was a big 800–1000 year gap — often called the dark age — between the last IVC period and the early Vedic civilization.
Where does this book leave us then? Following Occam’s razor, one has to go for the simplest explanation: that the mighty Saraswati once flowed through India and hence captured the imagination of all the Vedic poets. Why else would they recount the location of the river as in the NadiStuti verse, or later talk about its slow disappearance as in repeated references in latter Vedas, Mahabharat and other Vedic texts? On the other hand, one really needs to do a lot of mental gymnastics to claim that the mythic Saraswati river is the Helmand river in current Afghanistan.
Once it is accepted beyond doubt that the current Ghaggar system was the mythical Saraswati as mentioned in the Vedas, it will have a great impact on the study of Indology. Not only will it completely discredit the whole Aryan Invasion/Migration theory, it will also require fresh research to put correct dates on the Vedic texts as well as the IVC. A new survey into geology will help put a precise date on the disappearance of Saraswati which in turn will help arrive at correct dates for the Vedas and other Hindu texts. The disappearance of a big river like Saraswati — which sustained the whole IVC — forms a credible case for the slow deterioration and disappearance of the mighty IVC, negating the need for any invasion or migration to be the primary reason. Also, this implies continuity of the Indic civilization, as its centre slowly moved from the banks of Saraswati to the banks of the now-revered Ganga. The only missing part in this whole story is the Indus script, which is not yet deciphered, but will complete our understanding of this great puzzle.
Verdict: A compelling, well-researched read that builds a powerful case for the Ghaggar-Saraswati identification and its implications for the Aryan Invasion debate. Essential reading for anyone interested in the origins of Indian civilization.
The leftist thought and memes are so deeply entrenched in modern culture that one does not even acknowledge it and plays a wilful accomplice in establishing the left agenda. But what is their agenda and how can you defeat it? The below video is time well spent on understanding this mechanism:
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
The biggest problem the world is facing today is that free market advocates and those on the right have not been very successful in destroying the left because they don’t seem to understand them well. Failure to understand them has led to the result that everyone who does not agree with the left’s agenda is immediately branded illiberal, fascist or with some other ugly and fancy word that leftists often coin to denounce their opponents. Most right wingers think that leftists can be defeated by right economics and making people rich. But if you see the video you will find that Marx was a cultural critic and not an economist in the actual sense of the word. Thus most of his work dealt with subverting society using the cultural agenda rather than just the economic agenda.
If you have noticed, communists usually attack the cultural icons of society wherever they are — Christianity in the west or Hinduism in India — because communists have a deep hatred for the present cultural order, which stops them from implementing their agenda. That’s why they are attacking Christmas in the west and want to secularise it. While they are calling for secularisation of Christmas, on the other hand, they are simultaneously asking for the inclusion of Ramzan and other non-Christian festivals as part of western culture. Back in India, they try to secularise Hindu festivals like Pongal, Onam and Durga Puja while pushing to incorporate Christmas and Ramzan as part of our culture even though these festivals have nothing to do with Hindus.
But why do leftists wage a serious attack on culture? One has to understand that Communism arose in the west and has deep Judeo-Christian roots — religions which have subverted a large number of local cultures and religions across the world. So given their historical experience, the left knows very well that if they have to implement their agenda, they need to estrange the people from their local culture, just like their imperial religions did in the past. Once it is achieved, only then is it possible to defeat the bourgeois and usher in a new revolution and social order.
After having successfully destroyed the cultural milieu, the leftists have now set their eyes on the family — the last bastion of social order. Their attack on family values is consistent with Marx’s views on family and culture and has been taken forward by their sub-branch in the form of the feminist movement. They have almost completely succeeded in destroying family and personal responsibility in the west to the point of forcing everyone to be dependent on the state. If you think carefully — a fatherless child needs a welfare state while a family with strong ties despises begging the government. A family-oriented woman would be much smarter in choosing her partner while a “liberated” woman would sleep around carelessly getting unwanted children, which would necessitate state care and welfare. Men having families would have to be responsible with their spendings and savings and would hate government interfering with anything in their life, while men hooked to welfare and support systems would be totally dependent on a nanny state.
All this is very consistent with the agenda to advance their goals of a strong and intrusive state which has more power over the individual than the individual themselves. Black families survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but they are completely disintegrated in the wake of the civil rights movement and assimilation. While in the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families, today more than 70% of black children are born to single women. 14 million black babies have been aborted since 1974 — that’s what feminism and planned parenthood has done to their society. Look at any black-dominated city and it is overflowing with crime. There was something called the “Black Wall Street” back in the early 1900s, but now these same enterprising people are completely dependent on welfare and affirmative action and many spend their time back and forth between prisons. In the US, a fatherless child is more likely to commit crime and on average, blacks commit more crime than whites. But the statistics become equal as soon as one accounts for fatherless children in both communities i.e. fatherless children are more prone to engage in crime. Since blacks suffer more from broken families, they also form a bigger share of criminals.
The same agenda is now being played in India — glorification of single womanhood and destruction of our family values with marital rape and other highly biased laws. The same crass individualism which is now promoted in India has left the west with around 50% divorce rates, 50% single mothers, one-third of children not knowing their actual father and 2000% higher rape rates than India. Having successfully destroyed family values in the west, they now want to portray how such a miserable lonely life is great when compared to the family-oriented life in India. Given the leftist bias in the media and entertainment industry, soap operas and other media outlets today have more serials extolling the greatness and joy in extramarital affairs while dishing out propaganda against traditional marriages and family norms. We have big stars like Deepika Padukone openly promoting extramarital affairs as a female rights issue in an attempt to make this regressive idea look normal.
In fact, the US would not have needed expansion of welfare to such an extent if their culture had not degraded so much with so many single mothers who need constant state support to provide for their kids and hence vote for continuous expansion of welfare and government. This has ultimately turned the US into the socialist hell hole that it is today. So even if economic right wingers did manage to destroy the left in economic ideology, we would still be left with the leftist influence on our society which will eat us from within and finally turn our society into a hell hole that western countries have turned into today. So economic liberalisation must go hand in hand with cultural revival and family preservation to permanently defeat the left. It is only in the latter case that we would be able to take our country to its former glory of being the moral, religious, scientific, economic and intellectual capital of the world like it was one and a half millennia ago.
So how can you defeat the left? The first and only important goal should be to thwart the attacks on our culture and traditions — as focusing on economics is not enough. We will need to preserve our family structure for this plan to succeed. This is where most right wingers and libertarians have failed as they only envisaged it as an economic battle and not a cultural one. While Americans laughed at the economic demise of the USSR in the 1990s, Marx must be laughing right now at the cultural demise of the US. Strange are the ways of revenge!
While the Aryan Invasion Theory/Aryan Migration Theory has been debunked beyond doubt by genetics, its proponents still try to claim ambiguity on other grounds — linguistics, archaeology, mythology etc. — similar to how creationists claim that Creationism is as plausible an explanation as Evolution.
Linguistics evidence
Since genetics debunks AIT/AMT, linguistic arguments are the first refuge for the AIT/AMT apologists. The reasoning is that the similarity between North Indian and European languages means Aryan invasion or migration must have happened. However, the problem with this assertion is that it derives its conclusion from partial information. The similarity of languages could have come from migration on either side — one cannot claim that Europe is the origin for the Indo-Aryan language family based on similarity of Indo-European languages alone. The British, who first propounded AIT/AMT, didn’t like the idea that the west might have had its origin from Indians, so they postulated that Europe gave rise to Indian languages and culture — and this is exactly what people trained in leftist and Marxist schools push even today.
However, recent analysis on linguistics is also making life difficult for AIT/AMT proponents. Recent studies show that Sanskrit has more in common with the proto Indo-European language — which gave rise to the Indo-European language family — than any other European language.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
The most important finding from linguistic reconstruction is that Sanskrit has the most in common with the proto Indo-European language, and not the Central Asian or Eastern European languages. For example, Childe gives 72 basic cognate proto Indo-European words constructed scientifically, of which Sanskrit has 70 words, German 46 words, Baltic 23 words, Slavic 16 words, and Greek 48 words. Sanskrit is the only Aryan language besides proto Indo-European to have retained three genders, three numbers and eight cases intact.
Another evidence is presented using ancient mythologies. When you compare Greek and Vedic mythologies, there are many common elements. Similarly, German and Vedic mythologies share many common elements. But if you compare German and Greek, there are no common elements — meaning Sanskrit and Vedic mythology is the common element connecting the European language tree and mythologies. Also, Iranian Mythology has common elements only with Vedic mythology. But according to AIT, Aryans came from South Russia to Central Asia and then separated in Iran. This cannot be the case when Iranian mythology has nothing in common with any other European mythology of that time.
Archaeological evidence
The initial basis for AIT was based on the claim by Mortimer Wheeler when he found some skulls in archaeological sites around Harappa and used them to support AIT by claiming the skulls belonged to Dravidians killed by invading Aryans. However, subsequent archaeological research showed that the skulls were mere burial sites of IVC people and not the result of any fighting between invading armies and locals. In fact, there is no archaeological proof that any kind of invasion ever took place. This is the reason AIT proponents have recently changed their stand to Aryan Migration Theory — much like how creationists changed their theory to “Intelligent Design” keeping all but the name. But unfortunately for the proponents of AMT/AIT, even AMT falls flat on the archaeological evidence: there is no archaeological evidence for any kind of migration into IVC either.
Another popular argument used by the AMT/AIT side is that IVC had no chariots and it was the Aryans who brought chariots and horses into India. This is a preposterous claim. India is protected from the north and north-west by the Hindukush, and any invader had to overcome it. The Greeks, who were known for their chariots, had to leave them behind when Alexander invaded India. So it is nothing more than wishful thinking to assume that nomadic barbarians from Central Asia could have achieved the feat of bringing chariots into India through the Hindukush two thousand years before Alexander — something that even he didn’t achieve. Michael Danino presents detailed evidence showing that horses were present in India much before the supposed Aryan invasion, and some recent studies actually claim horses are native to India.
Ice Age evidence
The world came out of the last ice age roughly around 10,000–12,000 years ago. India was not affected by the ice age to the same extent as Europe and Central Asia because of the presence of the Himalayas to the north. So the population living in India at that time could have easily migrated north towards Central Asia and then Europe as the ice age began to end and glaciers began retreating. This is consistent with what is observed in the genetic studies.
However, AIT/AMT posits the opposite direction for migration. Why would Europeans and Central Asians, who were by then accustomed to ice-covered climate, migrate south into India specially at a time when the ice age had ended and the climate was getting hotter? It makes no sense that people who lived and survived in the ice-covered plains of Europe and Central Asia would abandon their native land specially at a time when it was turning greener and food was getting plentiful. Also, the cold temperature during the Ice Age would have supported smaller populations in Central Asia compared to India. So migration would have been possible only from the high-density area of India to Central Asia and Europe — not the other way around.
Cultural perspective
The latest attempt by AMT/AIT pushers is the theory of cultural assimilation — this way they don’t have to present any genetic or archaeological evidence, merely stating their assertions are true. As per this version, Aryans were not invaders but a small number of migrants — too small to be detected by any genetic or archaeological evidence — who over a very large period of time successfully managed to force millions of people living in IVC to give up their religion and language in favour of Indo-European languages and gods.
This is by far the most absurd explanation for the Aryan Invasion Theory — it assumes that millions of Dravidians living in IVC, which was at that time the most populous region on the planet, had no good language or religion of their own and thus gave up their own civilisation and copied the few hundred migrating Aryans whose numbers were so low that current archaeology or genetic studies can barely detect them. Many people prefer such mental gymnastics rather than the much simpler explanation that the Aryan invasion or migration never happened and that the Aryan-Dravidian divide was an artificial construct of the British.
Even after all these attempts, the Aryan Invasion Theory leaves behind many more questions than it solves. There are crores of temples for Dravidian Gods — Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma — all over India, while the Aryan gods — Indra, Varuna, Vayu, Agni etc. — have very few temples dedicated to them. Unless one is wilfully disingenuous, it makes no sense that the Aryan invaders or migrants who supposedly defeated the Dravidians would have adopted the gods of the Dravidians as the primordial deities above their own Indra or Vayu.
This brings to an end this series of articles. The articles here have tried to debunk the most common arguments used by the supporters of AIT/AMT. Given the amount of propaganda and politics which supports the pro-AIT lobby, the mounting evidence against this theory will take some time to change things on the ground. Till that happens, the job of debunking this theory should continue at all levels.
Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) has been debunked by almost all of the recent datasets and studies on genetics, linguistics, mythology/religion and archaeology. Yet this theory keeps cropping up in one form or other, especially in its milder form as the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) — which is just the invasion theory rephrased as migration due to the lack of any archaeological evidence for invasion in the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) at 1500 BC. Most often, the proponents of AIT or AMT cite either outdated studies or half-truths to push their ideas. The most blatant case of misinformation is from the field of genetics — which unlike linguistics is a hard science with little room for guesswork.
One of the most often used justifications for AIT is that North Indians have genetics similar to Europeans and hence this theory is true. The proponents even cite various genetics studies to show this point. However, this is a classic case of presenting half-truths. This similarity is higher between North Indians and Europeans than between South Indians and Europeans. While this genetic similarity does show that Indians and Europeans are related, it fails to show the direction of that relationship — it does not give information on whether Indians migrated to Europe or Europeans migrated into India. The proponents of AIT just push invasion from Central Asia and Europe as per their pre-conceived notions, and are almost always silent on the time period of this invasion or migration.
But unfortunately for AIT proponents, deeper genetic studies can now give the direction of movement of population as well as the time period for this mixing. The recent studies on the genetics of R1a1 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) in the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA studies have helped understand the migration pattern of humans during the late Holocene period better. Y chromosome is found only among males and is inherited only by sons, giving valuable insight into patrilineal gene flow. Mitochondrial DNA is exclusively derived from the mother, helping understand matrilineal gene flow. By tracing Y chromosomes, one can trace the fathers and grandfathers of a group; by tracing mitochondrial DNA, one can trace the mothers and grandmothers.
Lucotte G. is one such major study on genetics which studies the distribution pattern of R1a1 haplotype in detail among Europeans, Central Asians and Indians. The principle behind this study is that newer groups of people would have far fewer variations among them while older population groups would have a higher frequency of variations. This is how modern humans’ ancestry is traced back to Africans — because Africans have the highest amount of genetic variations among all groups of people today.
In the present study we have extended the field of detection of haplotype XI/haplogroup R1a… We found high haplotype XI frequencies values in Afghanistan (18.4%), in Iran (26.5%), in Pakistan (28% and 30.4%) and in India; in this last subcontinent, the maximal value of 61.3% was found in Punjab… Datations show that the Z93 Pakistano-Indian group is the most ancient (about 15.5K years); in Europe, the Eastern populations are the most ancient (about 12.5K years) and the Northern ones the most recent (about 6.9K years).
— Lucotte G., study on R1a1 haplotype distribution
So the data gives evidence that the R1a1 found in Punjab is the oldest, the Central European haplotype is in the middle, and the Northern European R1a haplotype is the youngest. This pretty much buries the Aryan invasion and migration theories — if AIT or AMT were true, we would have seen from the genetic results that the Eastern European haplotype is the oldest and the Indian haplotype is the youngest, since AIT claims Europeans came as invaders/migrants to North India. The study states that Central/Eastern European population is 12.5k years old while Northern European population is 6.9k years old — and the Punjabi/North Indian population is at least 15.5k years old.
As per Aryan Invasion Theory, IVC ended because of migration or invasion by Aryans around 1500 BC — 4,000 years ago. In the light of the above and similar genetic studies, the Aryan Invasion Theory is off the mark by at least 10,000 years. Since North Indian population is at least 15,000 years old, the claim that Hinduism is not native to India falls flat on its face — it makes Hinduism indigenous to India and India alone.
The actual population composition of India
As per the latest genetic studies, population of India is derived from two separate population groups — ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians). The data suggests that ANI came to India at around 60,000 BC and ASI at around 45,000 BC. But the ANI and ASI are not synonymous with Aryans and Dravidians as some AMT/AIT enthusiasts try to make it seem. North Indians on average have about 60% ANI genes and 40% ASI genes while South Indians on average have 40% ANI and 60% ASI. The South and North Indian names for ASI and ANI denote their relative contribution to each group — not distinct Aryan or Dravidian entities. This is also the reason why South Indians share genetic similarity with Europeans. Since North Indians share 40% genetic material with South Indians, and Europeans share 60–70% genetic similarity with North Indians, Europeans have 20–30% genetic commonality with South Indians. This mixture of North and South Indian ancestors must have happened before 12,000 years ago — only then would South Indians share the DNA of Europeans. This also puts to rest the theory that Aryan invaders became upper castes and Dravidians became lower castes, as Hinduism originated roughly 5,000 years back — almost 10,000 years after the ANI and ASI had mixed.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
ANI migrations
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
ASI migrations
Technical summary on using genetics for dating migration patterns
The first part is sample selection — random samples are taken from a selected population group and a particular gene loci is selected to study. Gene loci have multiple expressions. SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) are changes in a gene at a single nucleotide that do not change the behaviour of the gene significantly, producing no discernible phenotype difference. Because SNPs don’t confer any genetic advantages, they can be used as tools for studying distribution and migration of populations. A tallness gene, by contrast, cannot be used for studying migrations because survival advantages would confound the study.
Let’s say there is a parent population A with a gene called R1a1, present in a place called X. After a few centuries, a sub-group of population A moves from place X to a new place Y. Since X is far from Y, any new mutations in A at X won’t be found in the population at Y. So while new mutations might occur in Y, X will have more variety of variations as the parent population. The higher the degree of variations in the genetics, the older the population must be. This is how scientists concluded that modern humans came out of Africa — because of the highest density of variations there.
When scientists study X and Y populations and their SNPs, the population with a higher density of variations is the older one. This is how the above mentioned study by Lucotte concluded that Punjab, with the highest density of R1a, is the oldest population group among those studied.
Other References:
1. European Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 18, No. 4 — R1a1 M458 chromosomes speak against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including India, at least since the mid-Holocene.
2. Journal of Human Genetics, Vol. 54, No. 1 — Highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins suggested as a founder lineage, with extended phylogenetic analyses supporting autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India.
3. Indian Academy of Sciences study — Among R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes, “the highest diversity is observed among populations of the Indus Valley yielding coalescent times above 14 KYA”, declining toward Europe where maximum diversity and coalescent times of 11.2 KYA are observed in Poland, Slovakia and Crete.
Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is a hot topic for discussion in academia as well as politics and is a major source of conflict and identity theft in modern India. So it did not come as a surprise when Mallikarjun Kharge, one of the Congress MPs, used this argument in Parliament. It is not only used as a means to justify conversions out of Hinduism by Abrahamic missionaries but is also one of the prime drivers of conflict between North and South India.
But what is AIT? It is a theory on the origin of Indians and Hindu religion outside India and was first propounded by the British in the 19th and 20th century. To study the AIT, it is important to understand the historical background and origin behind it. In the 18th century, there was a major drive in Europe to study India, Indian culture and its philosophy, following the discovery of the sea route to India and the beginning of colonisation. The early 18th century was filled with Indophiles who were astounded by Indian philosophical and cultural richness. During this time, the study of Sanskrit became prominent in Europe, especially in the UK and Germany. At that time, linguists were amazed by the similarities between North Indian and European languages. The western works during this time were full of praises for India and its culture as a civilisation.
However, by the end of the 19th century, India had fallen to British rule due to infighting and lack of organised resistance. This period marks the departure from Indophilia towards Indophobia among western intellectuals, who wanted to downplay all the achievements of Indian civilisation — any praise of such achievements would have kindled nationalism among Indians. Also, such downplaying meant that Indians could be convinced that India had nothing great to produce. It was under these circumstances and in the late 19th century that the Aryan Invasion Theory was propounded by the British by exploiting the similarities between Sanskrit and other European languages.
According to this theory, the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) — which existed from 3500 BC to 1500 BC — ended around 1500 BC because of the invasion by a group of nomads called Aryans, who came from Central Asia and Europe. The theory also claimed that the IVC was Dravidian and that the Dravidians were driven out of the Indus Valley by Aryan nomads who became the new rulers. The religion of the Aryans (worshipping Indra, Varuna, Vayu, Agni etc.) and the religion of the Dravidians (worshipping Shiva and other deities) was born as a result of this mixture. This whole premise was based on mere linguistic similarity between Sanskrit and European languages. The western intellectuals, especially the British, dismissed the possibility of North Indians migrating to Europe on the grounds that inferior Indians could not have been the forefathers of Europeans. So the linguistic similarity was used to posit invasion of India from Central Asia and Europe — not the other way round. This should come as no surprise as the 19th century was dominated by race-based theories.
The politics of the British
Using this theory, the British successfully sold the idea that Indians had no say in their own culture and that their civilisation owes its origin to the invading Aryans who gave them the Vedas written in Sanskrit. This was also used as an excuse to justify their own invasion and colonisation of India — Indians (Aryans) were themselves migrants into India, so Britain could also invade India since its inhabitants were not natives either. Also, it allowed the British to convince gullible Indians that British and Indians were from the same racial stock, except that the Aryan blood was impure in India due to inter-mixing with the Dravidians.
British also successfully convinced both upper castes and lower castes on the validity of AIT by playing them against each other. The upper castes — who by then predominated the Civil Service posts under the British — were taught that they were related to British and Europeans since they are Aryans, and are better than the lower caste Dravidians who got defeated. This was also acceptable to the lower castes, who the British claimed were Dravidians, because they saw themselves as victims of upper caste Aryan invasion.
Note that this theory also served the British purpose of creating a divide along North-South identity — North Indians as descendants of Aryans and South Indians as Dravidians driven down south from the Indus Valley. Beginning with Max Muller, the original proponent of AIT, many scholars tried but could not come up with any archaeological evidence that could prove such invasion or Aryans killing Dravidians. Since western intellectuals controlled the narrative on Sanskrit scholarship, they interpreted Rig Vedic verses on wars and conflicts to support AIT — even though there is no explicit mention of Aryans fighting Dravidians. In fact, the word “Dravidian” itself is derived from Sanskrit meaning South.
Since the British were masters of the divide-and-rule policy, they also came up with other race theories to suit their agenda — the most prominent being the Martial Race Theory (MRT). The regions and races which supported British imperialism were awarded the high title of “Martial Race” to win their loyalty by creating a false sense of superiority. It would take another complete article to show the political convenience behind MRT and debunk it, but it is important to understand the similarities with AIT and the depth of British imperial design to colonise Indian minds.
The current politics
Post departure of the British, the same theory has been used by Indian politicians backed by the Marxist intelligentsia to discredit Hinduism and widen the fault lines existing in India. The direct impact of this politics can be seen in the following ways:
AIT has a direct impact on fuelling language antagonism between north and south Indians on Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil and other south Indian languages. This Dravidian nationalism was stoked by the British in the late 19th century and was used to weaken Indian nationalism as a whole. Many Dravidian parties of today were actually against independence and were active collaborators against the Indian freedom movement. This trend continues even today with many Dravidian leaders covertly stoking separatist tendencies in South India.
AIT is used as a means for conversion in South India by missionaries, who first de-link South Indian Hindus from Hinduism by claiming that they are following the religion of their invaders. This is one of the reasons behind Christians being 10% of Tamil Nadu and other southern states and growing at an alarming rate. Dravidian politicians use AIT to justify anti-Hindu policies like giving grants for missionaries and tax breaks for Christians and churches while simultaneously trying to destroy Hindu temples through wanton neglect.
The north is also reeling under the caste divide created and sustained by this theory. Many North Indians and upper castes from South India think that they are direct descendants of superior European Aryans as opposed to the lower castes who were defeated. This strange pride and loyalty towards invaders is only a result of their colonised minds. As the saying goes, the colonised people try to mimic the culture of their colonisers and would try to associate themselves with the colonisers instead of their native culture. Seen in this context, AIT provides a pseudo-scientific explanation and another reason for upper caste bigots to justify their caste-based superiority.
To summarize, AIT was used by the British as a convenient tool to create and sustain fault lines among Indians. The same theory is now used by Indian politicians — sometimes to create rift among Hindus, or to create the North-South divide. Not only that, it is also used as a tool by forces inimical to India to convert Hindus out of Hinduism by first de-linking them from Hinduism and then using them as a tool for balkanising India. Given the above political benefits and dominance of Marxist intelligentsia, this theory still finds many supporters and has not been rejected on the basis of new evidence. The new evidences have only resulted in the change of goalposts and the exposition of a milder version called Aryan Migration Theory. Since this article has presented the politics behind this theory, it sets the stage for the next few articles in this series that will deal with providing evidence and debunking this theory in detail.
There has been a lot of debate and opinion pieces lately in Indian and western media on how India is a dangerous place for women, lambasting the rape culture of India. The critics use the Nirbhaya rape case from Delhi as an example and use it to broad-brush all Indian men as rapists. While no society is above criticism, such criticism should be well deserved and one incident should not be extrapolated to pass moral judgements on the whole society. So let’s dig deep and see whether international rape statistics support this horrendous claim propagated by international newspapers.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
Number of rape incidents per 100,000 citizens in different countries
Above are the statistics for reported rape rates per 100,000 population around the world. As seen from the above figure, it is pretty clear that India ranks at the bottom when it comes to rapes against women. India has 1.8 rapes per 100k as opposed to rape rates of 132 in Sweden, 26 in the USA or 28 in UK per 100k citizens. So it is pretty clear that India is actually 15 times better than USA or UK when it comes to reported rape cases. Yet these western critics and their local sepoys in the media have no qualms claiming India has a rape culture while giving a free pass to the western rape problem. The perfect example of such an attitude is reflected by the actions of Leslee Udwin who flew all the way from UK to make a documentary on the Nirbhaya rape case and lump all Indian men as rapists and trash Indian culture — while completely ignoring that the rape crisis is 15 times worse in her home country.
One of the common criticisms against the above statistic is that there are large numbers of unreported rape cases in India and that we cannot use it for comparison with western nations. But even if we go with the argument that Indian rapes are 90% under-reported and USA rapes are reported 100%, it would still mean India only has a rape rate of 18 per 100,000 as opposed to 26 per 100,000 in the USA — and so USA rape rates will still be 50% higher than India’s. Also, other crime rates per capita in India like homicide or theft are much lower than other countries in general, and so it should not be surprising that rape rates are also substantially lower in India.
Others cite Indian rape definitions as different from western definitions of rape and how western countries have a broader rape definition. But this argument cuts both ways. For example, Indian law stipulates that consensual sex under promise of marriage is rape if the man later changes his mind on marriage. No western country has such laws on rape. Furthermore, rape is a complicated term in India because more than 50% of reported rape cases are “proven” false — not just unproven cases. More than 53% of the rape cases in India are filed by girls’ parents on the boyfriend in cases where the couple elopes and the girl later changes her mind. So the actual rape rates will be much lower than the reported cases.
On further analysis, the claim about broader rape definition in the west compared to India turns out even more problematic. The US definition for rape is exactly as India’s except on marital rape — a highly contentious issue. Considering the case where we take marital rape out of the USA’s rape statistics, it would still leave India far behind. The USA has a reported marital rape rate of 10% out of total rapes. So if we remove 10% of 26 reported rapes in USA to correct for marital rapes, it would still be 23 per 100k population — still 12 times higher than the reported rape rate of 1.8 per 100k in India. Even if we make the assumption that India has 90% unreported rapes, India’s rape rate would only be 18 per 100k and would still be 30% lower than the rape rate of USA. Indian rape statistics are lower than USA even if we inflate the Indian rape statistics by 1000%.
The Indian rape rate can be demonstrated to be lower even from third-party data sources like British tourism data on rapes of British women visiting foreign countries — and here we have no excuse that rapes are under-reported specifically in India, since these cases were reported by British women to British officials and Embassies. Nearly 8 lakh Britishers had visited India and none of them were raped — as opposed to Spain, where 53 rapes were reported. What is important to note is that for two consecutive years no rapes were reported from India, and so India did not just get lucky in one particular year.
Why India has low rates of rape?
In India, women are seen as sacred and protected with the life of men if needed. Indian society actually gives more importance to the safety of women than western societies. This is why there are many places in India where a woman’s honour is considered far more important than her life. As many Hindus will say, a man who kills a woman is just killing her body, while a man raping her destroys her soul. This is why we Indians feel obliged to protect women better and strive to lower the present rape rate even further. Similar cultural aspects can be corroborated by visiting any jail in India where rapists usually bear the brunt of other criminals and are ostracised for their heinous act. Such behaviour of criminals explains well why any normal Indian, who has much better civic and moral sense than criminals, morally abhors the concept of rape. Even though rape laws are misused to the tune of 50%+ in India, the protests and demands to strengthen rape laws post the Nirbhaya incident only bolster the claim that Indian opinion is strictly against any culture of condoning rapes.
So why this fear mongering by the western media on rape culture in India?
This fear mongering in the western media on India goes back to the old days of colonialism where they considered it their duty to “civilise” Indians and other brown and black people. This holier-than-thou attitude is nothing more than an imperialistic tool for these hypocrites to “civilise” us even when our society is more civilised. Despite chronic poverty, Indian society has a very low crime rate and similarly lower rapes. India has a marital success rate of 95%+ as opposed to 50% in the west. The single mother percentage is 1% compared to 40–50% in the west. So instead of trying to teach us how to live civilly, western media will do much better by simply cleaning their own house, which is leading to many societal problems.
We will now give a few examples to show how the western media is completely complicit in covering up the big sex rackets and scandals in their own countries. If a Rotterdam-style grooming, sex and rape racket had been busted in India instead of UK, the whole world would have issued travel advisories against India — but nothing of the sort happened against UK. The complete failure of authorities to act against Pakistani immigrants who abused some 1,400 young girls between 1997 and 2013 is a glaring example of the failure of western society. Another incident corresponds to the cover-up in Westminster paedophilia cases where big UK politicians were involved in raping young children. The double standards of western media are very apparent as all these incidents are passed off as rare incidents, unlike the hype built around the Nirbhaya incident.
To summarize: yes, India needs to protect her women better and no woman should be made to go through the horrors of rape. But it is time for Indians to stop listening to the racism-inspired rancour of the west and fall for the false media-generated hype to denounce the whole culture based on a few incidents. The evidence presented above clearly suggests that it is actually the west which has a big rape problem and needs immediate social attention to alleviate this problem.
Hindu is a currently endangered species of animal found in India. Geographically the earliest Hindus were found in the whole of South-East Asia from Afghanistan to Myanmar. Over time they were over-run by other species of animals, who came searching for fresh pastures from the north west. Historically, the evolutionary strategy of the Hindus had been to accommodate other carnivorous animals on their grassland and slowly turn them into herbivores. This worked perfectly till the last big migration of carnivores came from the desert lands of bARbarIA. This forced Hindu populations to go down or migrate to the east and south. The new carnivores of bARbarIA completely annihilated Hindus in Afghanistan to regions as far flung as Bangladesh.
The Hindu evolutionary strategy to dupe carnivores into eating grass did not work well with the new carnivores of bARbarIA as they refused to eat any grass offered by the Hindus. The Hindus found it difficult to understand these new carnivores because they would adopt grass eating for some time when their numbers were small but would immediately switch to their carnivorous genetic program as soon as they got numerical superiority over Hindus. Since Hindus are genetically programmed to first offer grass to any new species and expect them to turn herbivore, this strategy has backfired badly against the carnivores of bARbarIA. The carnivores of bARbarIA have thus used this duping strategy of the Hindus against themselves and endangered their survival.
Thus to fight against this new species of carnivore, the genetic response of Hindus have led to their mutation into different branches. The below paragraphs summarize their names as well as behaviour:
1. Mindus (Moronic Hindus)
This is the most common variety of Hindus found in India these days. These herbivores think that the past strategy of offering grass still works in the new world. This variety of Hindu has deep belief that since they have survived for 5000 years by offering grass to new carnivorous species, they can survive in the future as well by using the same strategy. They are evenly distributed all around India and can be found in all corners. It is due to large population of Mindus that Hindus end up selecting wolves like Malu, Lulayam and Bejattiwal as their leaders.
2. Vindus (Vedanta Hindus)
This sub-species has given up on fight for survival because they bumped into treasure trove of knowledge left over by their ancestors to achieve spiritual bliss. These herbivores usually pay a lot of grass to attend workshops by other established Vindus like Sari Rhankar to bring a change in their lives. They also send grass by money order to Bl-Aaghdadi carnivore of Syria to convert him into herbivore. Till now their strategy has not worked, but probably they are only interested in their own spiritual bliss leaving other sub-species to their fate. Vindus are usually find in big and fertile grasslands like Delhi or Bangalore, where they can cultivate lots of grass and then spend on expensive spiritual lessons from established Vindus.
3. HINO (Hindus in name Only)
These are the mutants from the carnivores of bARBarIA or Romaria, who are not Hindus but fool Mindus and Vindus using their external appearance. The females of this sub-species are usually found with big round red dot called bindi on their foreheads, almost five times the size of bindi used by other Hindu females. The males usually sport unclean and unhygienic look to appear as common Hindus. They usually exhort Mindus and take pride in the fact that they now don’t eat grass but cows, another sub-species that is friends with common Mindus. HINOs occupy the highest place in Hindu hierarchy right now, thanks to the grass they get from their foreign sponsors. Durkha Butt and Sasdeep Rardesai are the flag bearers of this group. This sub-species of Hindus are commonly found in power corridors and university departments that churn unemployable Mindus.
4. DSB (Daughter Selling Brigade)
Out of all Hindu sub-species, this one is special as it has evolved a completely new evolutionary mechanism unheard of in the animal kingdom. DSB dupe themselves by thinking that there is no difference between them and carnivores of bARBarIA. But when carnivores of bARBarIA strike they offer their daughters for temporary peace. Bharmal of Amer was the pioneer of this subspecies and offered his daughter Barka Hai to BAkbar. Currently Mindus who can do mental gymnastics form this subspecies and are found predominantly in the regions of Bengal and Kerala.
5. Lindus (Liberal Hindus)
This sub-species of Hindus derive pleasure from grass eating and grass eating alone. They think if they can harvest bountiful of grass then everyone will be satisfied including carnivores of bARBarIA. They think carnivores of bARBarIA only eat Hindus because of lack of grass. So, they want to import more carnivores of bARBarIA from Bangladesh if they can help in bumper harvest of grass. This is the most insignificant sub-population of Hindus but has greatly increased its numbers in the last 2-3 years since Marendra Nodi became head of Mindu-Rashtra. Supa Rubramaniam and Burjit Shalla are some of the leaders of this sub-species. You can usually spot Lindus eating grass in big corporations or economics grass think-tanks.
6. Findus (Fascist Hindus)
Findus are the last subspecies and despised by all other subspecies of Hindus except when they are under attack from carnivores of bARBarIA. Findus have given up the ritual of offering grass to carnivores of bARBarIA as they have realized that this new species in town cannot be controlled by old methods. Findus want to drive out carnivores of bARBarIA out of India or convert them back to Hindu fold using force. This violent activity has turned many Findus into carnivores now. They are equally dispersed all around India but their numbers are hard to guess. Traveen Pogadia and others are some known members of this sub-species.
Conclusion
These genetic mutations have now led to a lot of infighting among different subspecies with each subspecies denying others the right to call themselves true Hindu. But the million dollar question remains whether any of these mutations will help the Hindus survive in the long run.
