who were the 'Aryans' and 'Dravidians'?
597608
The most basic division of the Indian society is of Aryans and Dravidians. According to this division, nearly 72% of Indians are Aryans and 28% are Dravidians. The north Indians are the descendants of Aryans and the south Indians are Dravidians. The languages spoken in five states of south India are considered Dravidian languages and most of the languages spoken in the north are considered Aryan languages. The general script of the Aryan languages is different from the general script of Dravidian languages. The Indians also distinguish themselves by the general north Indian accent and general south Indian accent.\n\nAccording to general Indian legend, the Aryans arrived in north India somewhere from Iran and southern Russia at around 1500 BC. Before the Aryans, the Dravidian people resided in India. The Aryans disregarded the local cultures. They began conquering and taking control over regions in north India and at the same time pushed the local people southwards or towards the jungles and mountains in north India. According to this historical fact the general division of Indian society is made. North Indians are Aryans and south Indians are Dravidians. But this division isn’t proper because of many reasons.\n\nMany Indians immigrated from one part of India to other parts of India and not all local people of north India were pushed southwards by the Aryans. Some stayed and served the Aryans and others moved to live in the forests and the jungles of north India. Before the arrival of the Aryans there were also other communities in India like Sino-Mongoloids and Austroloids. There were also other foreign immigrations and invaders who arrived in India, from time to time. \n\nThere are many that completely doubt that there was ever any Aryan invasion in India. This skepticism is based on the dating of the Aryan invasion of India and the fact that Hinduism and the caste system are believed to have been established as the result of the meetings between the intruding Aryans and original residents of India, the Dravidians. \n\nThe caste system is believed to have been established by the Aryans. The fair skinned Aryans who occupied parts of India established the caste system, which allowed only them to be the priests (Brahman), aristocracy (Kshatria) and the businessmen (Vaisia) of the society. Below them in hierarchy were the Sudras who consisted of two communities. One community was of the locals who were subdued by the Aryans and the other were the descendants of Aryans with locals. In Hindu religious stories there are many wars between the good Aryans and the dark skinned demons and devils. The different Gods also have dark skinned slaves. There are stories of demon women trying to seduce good Aryan men in deceptive ways. There were also marriages between Aryan heroes and demon women. Many believe that these incidences really occurred in which, the gods and the positive heroes were people of Aryan origin. And the demons, the devils and the dark skinned slaves were in fact the original residence of India whom the Aryans coined as monsters, devil, demons and slaves. Normally the date given to Aryan invasion is around 1500 BC. But according to Hinduism experts some of the events in Hinduism occurred much earlier. Some of the events like the great war in the Mahabharta epic is believed to have occurred (based on astronomical research) 7000 years ago. \n\nAccording to this Hindu experts the word Aryan is a misinterpretation of the original Sanskrit word, Arya. Arya means pure or good in Sanskrit. In the holy Vedas the good people were called Arya. Some of the European scholars of Indian culture in the 19th century were Germans. These German scholars who found that Swastika was also a holy symbol among the Hindus distorted, the word Arya to Aryan.
179577
Hitler's was big on propoting the "master race" of Aryans and the swastika was an ancient symbol that had some Aryan connections.
592809
HInduism. it existed before romans or greeks or even christanity.
431664
Judeochristian-\n\nGod-no real nation, never a man\nJesus-a Jew\nMohammed-Arabic\n\nBuddha-no real nation, never a man\n\nHindu-\nRamayana, Mahabharta, etc.- Mostly Indian\n\nBenefit of the people?  That's not really what a God is for.  He's there partly to explain our origin (and anything else we don't understand), partly to have something to give your life meaning, and partly to help enforce a belief system, allowing a social lifestyle.\n\n"So called"?  That's arrogant in the extreme.  I'm agnostic myself, but I try to avoid insulting others.  Belief systems are hardly right or wrong.  There is good and bad in all of them.
1061670
aryabhatta of india,he also discoved the decimal system-he was a great scientist of his time,most others would say arabs,but they don't know thay arysbhatta taught them.u know that there r 2 numeral systems-roman numerals and arab numerals but u would be surprised that it is actually india who invented the arab system,arabs r given the credit because they taught all our information to europe but said that they invented this system.
797166
Tamil (தமிழ்) is a classical language and one of the major languages of the Dravidian language family. Spoken predominantly by Tamils in India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Singapore, it has smaller communities of speakers in many other countries. As of 1996, it was the eighteenth most spoken language, with over 74 million speakers worldwide. It is one of the official languages of India, Singapore and Sri Lanka.\n\nTamil is one of the few living classical languages and has an unbroken literary tradition of over two millennia. The high level of diglossia exhibited by Tamil, and the prestige accorded to classical Tamil, have resulted in much of the vocabulary and forms of classical Tamil being preserved in modern literary Tamil, such that the higher registers of literary Tamil tend towards the classical language. The classical language also forms an important part of Tamil-medium education: verses from the Tirukkural, a classical work, are, for example, taught in primary school. The ordinary form of the modern language used in speech and writing, in contrast, has undergone significant changes, to the extent that a person who has not learnt the higher literary form will have difficulty understanding it.\n\nThe name 'Tamil' is an anglicised form of the native name தமிழ். The final letter of the name, usually transcribed as the lowercase l or zh, is a retroflex r. In phonetic transcriptions, it is usually represented by the retroflex approximant.\n\nThe origins of Tamil, like the other Dravidian languages are unknown, but unlike most of the other established literary languages of India, are independent of Sanskrit. Tamil has the oldest literature amongst the Dravidian languages (Hart, 1975), but dating the language and the literature precisely is difficult. Literary works in India or Sri Lanka were preserved either in palm leaf manuscripts (implying repeated copying and recopying) or through oral transmission, making direct dating impossible. External chronological records and internal linguistic evidence, however, indicate that the oldest extant works were probably composed sometime in the 2nd century CE.\n\nThe earliest extant text in Tamil is the Tolkāppiyam, a work on poetics and grammar which describes the language of the classical period, the oldest portions of this book may date back to around 200 BCE (Hart, 1975). Apart from these, the earliest examples of Tamil writing we have today are rock inscriptions from the 3rd century BCE, which are written in Tamil-Brahmi, an adapted form of the Brahmi script (Mahadevan, 2003). Linguists categorise Tamil literature and language into three periods: ancient (500 BCE to 700 CE), medieval (700 CE to 1500 CE) and modern (1500 CE to the present). During the medieval period, a number of Sanskrit loan words were absorbed by Tamil, which many 20th century purists, notably Parithimaar Kalaignar and Maraimalai Adigal, later sought to remove. This movement was called thanith thamizh iyakkam (meaning pure Tamil movement). As a result of this, Tamil in formal documents, public speeches and scientific discourses is largely free of Sanskrit loan words.\n\nTamil is the first language of the majority in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, and in northern, eastern and northeastern Sri Lanka. The language is also spoken by small groups of minorities in other parts of these two countries, most notably in the Indian states of Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra, and in Colombo and the hill country in Sri Lanka.\n\nThere are currently sizeable Tamil-speaking populations descended from them in Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa, and Mauritius. Many people in Guyana, Fiji, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago have Tamil origins, but the language is spoken only by a small number there-.
241799
Well, ancient India developed writing (Sanskrit) before almost everyone (with the exception of the Cuniform found in Mesopotamia).  Additionally, in India they developed cities, a complex caste system (where people were divided into different socioeconomic classes) and a strong written and oral tradition (see the Vedas, the Baghavadgita, etc).  Additionally, there are many who believe that India had the first real civilization as much as 14000 years ago, but that their initial advancement was set back by a rise in the sealevel due to glacial runoff (the thawing of the most recent ice age, actually).  There are even speculations that they possessed advance techology.  For example, there is an account in the Gita about a weapon that sounds a lot like a nuclear weapon.  Additionally, Alexander the Great (not a guy known for exageration) swore up and down that when he invaded that area he was attacked by "flying machines".  Very interesting story.
223068
It seems clear from the hymns of the .Rg-Veda and the Persian Gathas and Avesta that the Vedic Aryans and the Zoroastrians had a common origin. The languages in which Zoroaster preached and the Rsis sang their hymns are almost identical, and Vedic meters are re-produced in the Avesta. Evidently, the two groups of Aryans separated after a violent quarrel, so that several deities of one group - Indra or Jindra, Sarva and Nasatya - were transformed in the other into evil spirits. It is, however, to be noticed that Mitra, Aryama, Vayu and Vrtraghna are divine in both the systems. A period of unity was probably followed by civil war, as envisaged in the fight between Asuras and Devas. \n\nThe Vedic Aryans were warlike, while the Avesta reflects an abhorrence of war. In the period when the ancestors of the Iranians and the Hindus had lived together, Asura had been a term of honour; and the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda was Asura Mahat, the great Asura. The .Rg-Yeda (III-55-11 & 15) cites several Asura qualities of the Divinities. Varuna, Mitra and several other gods were called Asuras. Later, when differences were accentuated between the two communities, Asura became equivalent to a spirit of evil and Sura came to signify a good spirit. \n\nThe undivided Indo-Iranians must have passed a long time in their Central Asian home. The Indo-Iranian culture and religion have been reconstructed, at least in part, by comparing the Vedas with the Avesta. Before the occupation of Iranian high lands by tribes from the Indo-Iranian original home, the plateau was the seat of a culture that was probably matriarchal, and the people worshipped snake-gods in the manner of India's primitive non-Aryans. It is likely that the pre-Aryan cultures of North- western India and Iran were alike in origin and spirit. \n\nThis ancient cultural link between pre-Aryan Iran and pre- Aryan India, instead of getting strengthened by Aryan migration into the two countries, as could be normally expected, was to all appearances completely severed. Also, there is nothing to show that the Vedic Aryans of India maintained an active cultural relation with their brethren in Iran. \n\nIn the earliest days, while the Aryans of India must have been connected with the Aryans of Iran as friends or as foes, actual historical contact cannot be asserted with any degree of probability. The two peoples turned their backs upon each other, as it were, and developed their distinctive civilisations apparently without the least mutual influence, although in language, culture and religion their similarity in the earliest period had been little short of identity. When, later in history, under the Achaemenids, Greeks, Bactrians and Sakas, the Iranians and the Indians were forced to meet as citizens of the same empire, they met as complete strangers, not as cousins or as scions from the same stock. The earliest literary productions of the Aryan settlers in India were the Rg-Veda, Sama Veda (consisting of chants), Yajur Veda and the Atharva Veda (a composite religious and magical compilation) The Vedas comprise Mantras (hymns ), Brahmanas (ritual and ceremonies), Aranyakas (forest speculations) and the philosophical Upanisads. In the context of This commonly accepted interpretation of the Vedas, it may be recalled that European Orientalists have too often considered them mainly from the theological, anthropological and sociological points of view. A study of the material in its religious aspect is difficult, since even the great commentary of Sayana is in terms of the ideas of his own age. On the presumption that the Vedas originated in primitive times, the Rg-Veda hymns were regarded as the outpourings of a child-like nature worship. John Dowson in his Hindu Classical Dictionary observed: "The Aryan settlers were a pastoral and agricultural people, and they were keenly alive to those influences which affected their prosperity and comfort. They knew the effects of heat and cold, rain and droug
227865
if u mean which religion then its Hinduism. plus the hindu swastika isn't exactly what u'd get when u reversed the nazi symbol.i'm hindu so i know.
636044
Arya is not a race. Whole rig veda uses the word only four times and just to refer a well behaved educated person.\n\nAryan race theory was a foul propoganda spread by Imperialists and evangelicans to justify their own acts. They wanted to tell indians that they are also outsiders and simultaneaouly snatching native acheivement away from them by telling it was not their own civilisatiuon but some western one who developed India.\n\nThe Aryan migration theory has got overwhelming evidence agaist it today. \n\nGharat?? it is a kind of machine. what it has to do with aryans?
1143055
hmmm difficult question...let me try\n\nJesus ------Love and sacrifice\n\nTolerance --- Islam (dont laugh)\n\nAcceptance-- Hindus know it well..they accept all.. even if rejected by all\n\nStone- Used to kill infidels and women and thieves\n\nword -Microsoft\n\nFundamentalist - the one who is not from your religion..and tries to propagate his faith ...as u do often\n\nsheeple -Jim_darwin
836362
They both are Indo-Aryan languages but they belong to different subbranches. So hence, they are different languages.
416297
hey nevin , i'm sorry about that caption but i was just joking man . aryans are even north indians (as believed in india ) and never ever call an indian a fool again .\n\nmy id mohitupta_4 u can chat with me .
324492
Depends on which Aryan Nation you're talking about.
437197
India's History\n\n India's extraordinary history is intimately tied to its geography. A meeting ground between the East and the West, it has always been an invader's paradise, while at the same time its natural isolation and magnetic religions allowed it to adapt to and absorb many of the peoples who penetrated its mountain passes. No matter how many Persians, Greeks, Chinese nomads, Arabs, Portuguese, British and other raiders had their way with the land, local Hindu kingdoms invariably survived their depradations, living out their own sagas of conquest and collapse. All the while, these local dynasties built upon the roots of a culture well established since the time of the first invaders, the Aryans. In short, India has always been simply too big, too complicated, and too culturally subtle to let any one empire dominate it for long. \n\nTrue to the haphazard ambiance of the country, the discovery of India's most ancient civilization literally happened by accident. British engineers in the mid-1800's, busy constructing a railway line between Karachi and Punjab, found ancient, kiln-baked bricks along the path of the track. This discovery was treated at the time as little more than a curiosity, but archaeologists later revisited the site in the 1920's and determined that the bricks were over 5000 years old. Soon afterward, two important cities were discovered: Harappa on the Ravi river, and Mohenjodaro on the Indus. \n\nThe civilization that laid the bricks, one of the world's oldest, was known as the Indus. They had a written language and were highly sophisticated. Dating back to 3000 BC, they originated in the south and moved north, building complex, mathematically-planned cities. Some of these towns were almost three miles in diameter and contained as many as 30,000 residents. These ancient municipalities had granaries, citadels, and even household toilets. In Mohenjodaro, a mile-long canal connected the city to the sea, and trading ships sailed as far as Mesopotamia. At its height, the Indus civilization extended over half a million square miles across the Indus river valley, and though it existed at the same time as the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Sumer, it far outlasted them. \n\nThe first group to invade India were the Aryans, who came out of the north in about 1500 BC. The Aryans brought with them strong cultural traditions that, miraculously, still remain in force today. They spoke and wrote in a language called Sanskrit, which was later used in the first documentation of the Vedas. Though warriors and conquerors, the Aryans lived alongside Indus, introducing them to the caste system and establishing the basis of the Indian religions. The Aryans inhabited the northern regions for about 700 years, then moved further south and east when they developed iron tools and weapons. They eventually settled the Ganges valley and built large kingdoms throughout much of northern India. \n\nThe second great invasion into India occurred around 500 BC, when the Persian kings Cyrus and Darius, pushing their empire eastward, conquered the ever-prized Indus Valley. Compared to the Aryans, the Persian influence was marginal, perhaps because they were only able to occupy the region for a relatively brief period of about 150 years. The Persians were in turn conquered by the Greeks under Alexander the Great, who swept through the country as far as the Beas River, where he defeated king Porus and an army of 200 elephants in 326 BC. The tireless, charismatic conqueror wanted to extend his empire even further eastward, but his own troops (undoubtedly exhausted) refused to continue. Alexander returned home, leaving behind garrisons to keep the trade routes open. \n\n While the Persians and Greeks subdued the Indus Valley and the northwest, Aryan-based kingdoms continued developing in the East. In the 5th century BC, Siddhartha Gautama founded the religion of Buddhism, a profoundly influential work of human th
889172
Yes. Indians, for the most part, along with other West and South Asian groups such as Iranians (Persians), Pakistanis, Iraqis, Turks, etc., are definitely Caucasoid peoples. Most North Africans are also considered Caucasian.\nWhile race is largely a social construct, it does have a firm foundation in physical anthropology. It should be noted that skin color really has nothing much, if anything at all, to do with race. Unfortunately, far too many people take the term "white" much too literally and this narrow thinking no doubt contributes to the very erroneous notion  that only Anglo-Saxons or Scandnavians are white. (I've even seen a few postings here on YA from people who actually seem to believe that even Italians, Greeks, Spaniards or Portuguese aren't white! That, of course, is wrong.) There are several subdivisions within the "white" or Caucasoid  race. In addition, many, if not most, Hispanics ("Latinos") are actually Caucasian. Also, Gypsies (originally from the area around India and Persia) are Caucasian as well. \n(An interesting sidenote: Back in the 1930's, Ethiopians were considered, in some anthropological circles, to be Caucasoid because they lacked the profound Negroid features found in most sub-Saharan black Africans.) \nSo, in short, Indians, Arabs and Middle Eastern people are Caucasoid Asians, as opposed to Mongoloid Asians such as the Chinese,  Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, etc.   \nAmerindians are also a Mongoloid people who crossed the Bering land bridge from Asia to the Americas some 30,000 years ago.
280024
Akbar pursued a policy of vigorous expansion until his empire reached the greater part of the sub-continent north of the Godavari, writes Hambly. Akbar proved himself as sophisticated a commander and leader as any of his ancestors. Akbar's far-sighted policies also included the employment of talented Hindus in senior administrative positions in a regime that previously had been exclusively Muslim.\n\nhis kingdom was a secure one, hindus and muslims were equal!