phaedrus

LP

I would like to reply, but will do so after you reply to the post directed at u

[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: phaedrus ]

phaedrus

copernicus

I never said that it could. Note that there is no evidence of any kind that proves the AIT or its antithesis incontrovertibly

Danke So we just keep theorising.....

All I have said is that the linguistic evidence is quite strong (and lpetrich and I have given specific reasons why), and you have to confront it.

And i have been trying tell you that linguistic evidence is not good enough. And as I tried to point out using the Renfrew interview in today’s world, a synthesis of archaeology, linguistics and genetics is considered the way to learn about our origins. And until somone who comes along with the original verses in which this so called linguistic evidence lies, i will keep waiting. And the phrase “lack of evidence does not constitute proof” could be used both ways.

Have you read the keyoner’s quote ("Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization") which I have provided in the thread?? He is the guy who is working in the harappan site and he says….

Emphasis mine

Elst hardly qualifies as a refutation, and I have given specific reasons why I think it doesn't.

You talked something about parent and daughter languages and i responded, so would request you to respond to that.

On the other hand, you have never said what it is about Elst's arguments that convinces you. I would be happy to address something a little more focused than the whole article. I don't think that this forum is appropriate for a full-fledged rebuttal, nor do I have the time for it. Lpetrich did ask you for specifics on what impressed you in the article, but you never responded.

You never asked whether i subscribe to his views and please point out to that part of the thread where LP asked me. The whole point was to show how linguistic evidence could be twisted around and how it doesn’t suffice to legitimize any theory. If you dont have the time dont dismiss anything flippantly until unless you want to back it up, as i said until you do that i would not know whether you are aware of what you are talking about.

Any views on the reservations part?

I am not basing anything just on dictionaries, by the way.

Then what are you basing on? List them out

. Lpetrich is right that the argument becomes more compelling if you find lots of references to iron weapons and horses in the Hindu literature.

How would he know anything about them first-hand and with accuracy while relying on secondary sources?

It is also difficult to explain why the Hindu literature lacks references the kind of city life that Harappans led. Harappan scholars have made the same point, if you bother to read the web materials I cited.

Web materials ? you mean harappa.com?? That particular site I was aware of much before you had provided the links while doing research on Parpola and I had used him to respond to your point about

and my response was
The coming of the Aryans

So again “no invasion”, this time a linguist !

You keep mentioning this point as if it supported your argument. The fact remains that we don't find words for horses and iron in the Harappan literature because it hasn't been decoded. It would be very interesting if there were such references, but, as you like to point out, it wouldn't prove anything "incontrovertibly".

It supports only my argument that there is nothing “final” on this issue as of now.

Sorry, but I think you are splitting hairs all over the place on this one.

Maybe or maybe not, it is a subjective notion isn’t it?

Actually, I gave my reasons for rejecting Elst in quite a bit more detail than you gave for accepting him.

Did I ever state that I accepted his view? My whole point is about linguistic evidence aint enough.

You claim that you have better ways to "spend [your] time and energy". Au contraire, my friend, you couldn't spend it more profitably, since you admit that you are not a linguistic expert. You have a lot more to learn about the subject than I do. I, on the other hand, really don't have the time and energy to provide you with a detailed critique of a self-admitted amateur like Elst.

Alas I would like to learn lots of things in life but at the moment the rat race keeps me busy, plan to indulge later in life. And at that time, would like to ask you given that you are already in the field, is it a challenging field? What sort of attitude/aptitude suits the field best?

On the other hand since the linguist and archaeolgist agree that there is not invasion should i bother to indulge in linguistics?

Not at all. It could be right, but you have to ask why not a single expert gives it any credence. After all, ideas are not validated by the fact that an entire community of scholars reject them. If that were the case, we might as well accept creationism and astrology.

Is that a right analogy? Creationism and astrology have been accepted by an entire community of scholars whose views are respected worldover?

copernicus

Phaedrus, every time I read one of your posts, I know that we are going to be having red herring for dinner. I think that you have been attributing a lot to me that was never said. I don't believe that linguistic evidence alone is incontrovertible proof of anything. We are only talking about plausibility, not absolute certainty. Why do you keep insisting that we are arguing over absolute certainty?

You say that you don't care whether there was an invasion or not, but then you jump up and down every time someone says that invasion is the most plausible theory. Evidence from one or two archeological sites does not prove or disprove that periods of invasion and fighting ever took place. Some sites were probably abandoned for other reasons. Others show evidence of a violent end. I don't see how generalizations about the entire civilization by workers at a single site (Keyoner's quote) can be taken as evidence against the AIT as a general theory of what happened in northern India.

Colin Renfrew is a great archeologist, not a linguist. His views are not necessarily evidence against the validity of linguistic evidence, and he especially does not reject the AIT. Nothing he says contradicts paleolinguistics as a methodology. His differences with linguists are a red herring in this discussion. Let's try to focus on the argument, not vague discussions about whether linguistic evidence can be ignored out of hand, which seems to be your view.

What? Do you bother to read the materials you cite? That link is about Parpola's theory that there were two Indo-European waves of invasion, not just one! Read the first paragraph. You are so obsessed with denying invasion (which you claim not to care about) that you see evidence against it everywhere.

Don't be coy, Phaedrus. If you are going to cite articles and demand detailed critiques of them, then people are going to assume that you believe them credible. And your point is that you want to reject the linguistic evidence, because it makes the AIT look plausible. Therefore, you'll grab onto anything that appears to float in these choppy waters.

No, creationism and astrology have been rejected by the scientific community. The idea of an Indian homeland for Indo-European has been rejected by the scholarly community. That doesn't disprove anything "incontrovertibly", but it hardly recommends it as a viable theory. You need very strong evidence to the contrary, if you want to defend the idea.

[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: copernicus ]

lpetrich

LP:
OK, Phaedrus, I'll bite.

phaedrus:
Could you give specific reasons for which you find the article not convincing?

LP
Elst's article describes a lot of Indo-European borrowings and connections to other Eurasian language families, like Sumerian, Uralic, Semitic, Sino-Tibetan, and Austronesian. While that is certainly very interesting evidence, all Elst proves is that it might be made to fit with the idea of the IE homeland being in northern India. However, it also fits with the standard picture of the IE homeland's location -- and IMO it fits better, because a northern-Black-Sea location makes for easier borrowing from the Middle East than India does. And though Elst states that such borrowings are are better-represented in the western IE languages, there are simply more of such languages to supply examples. Here goes:

"Cow": *gwou- (Latin bos, bov-, Greek bous, Skt gau, go-) ~ Sumerian gud-

"Bull": *(s)tauros (English steer, Latin taurus, Greek tauros) ~ Semitic: Hebrew shor, Arabic thawra

"Six": *s(w)eks ~ Semitic: Hebrew shisha, Arabic sitta

"Seven": *septm ~ Semitic: Hebrew shiva, Arabic sab'a

"Ax": *pelekus (Greek pelekus, Skt paras'u) ~ Semitic: Akkadian pilakku "ax", Arabic falaqa "split apart"

Elst also discusses the use of wild plants and animals to locate a homeland, and he correctly notes one pitfall of their use: transference, when people move to some other area and then transfer the word for some plant or animal in the left-behind area to one in the new area. However, domestic plants and animals may be continuously possessed, thus eliminating that difficulty.

So we should look to domestic plants and animals instead of wild ones, and see where they are found in the archeological record; if they had been used, their users must have had words for them. Likewise, technology is also useful, especially technologies that are absent before some time.

The ancestral Indo-European speakers had known about dogs, cows, pigs, horses, fire, and wheeled vehicles; let us see how useful they are. Dog domestication may be Paleolithic; cows and pigs were first domesticated in the early Neolithic, and horses were domesticated a few thousand years later. Since horses appear the latest, they supply the strongest constraint. Utilization of fire may be older than our species, but wheeled vehicles only start appearing when horses get domesticated. Thus, wheeled vehicles are a better constraint than fire. So we must look to where domestic horses and wheeled vehicles were present, and they were first present among the Kurgan cultures just north of the Black Sea about 4500-3500 BCE. And NOT in India at that time.

phaedrus:
How does the harappan writing link to the significant reasons to not believe about the IE homeland?

LP:
As I had explained earlier, there are several reasons:

* Horses. Rare or absent in Harappan remains, abundantly referred to in the Vedas. There is also no convincing depiction of a horse in Harappan remains, despite there being depictions of other familiar animals such as bulls and rhinos; there are serious questions about the authenticity of one proposed candidate. Horses were important enough to the Vedas' composers for them to include these beasts in various important rituals, like the Asvamedha ("horse-mead"): a stallion would be selected and allowed to roam freely while being kept away from mares for one year; at the end, that horse would be sacrificed and the king's favorite wife would lie with his corpse.

* Writing itself. No reference in the Vedas. In fact, there is no evidence that the ancestral IE speakers had had either writing or a word for writing; all the words in the later IE languages are a multitude of later coinages.

* Iron. Rare in Harappan remains, abundantly referred to in the Vedas.

* Irrigation. Used heavily by the Harappans, seldom-used in the Vedas.

phaedrus:
Aryan presence is 3500 years old??(Are you suggesting 1500bc, just like all those AIT chaps do?) How did you come to the conclusion?

LP:
See above about the Harappans.

phaedrus

copernicus

every time I read one of your posts, I know that we are going to be having red herring for dinner.

And when i read yours i have this feeling of deja vu. Wonder why ?

I think that you have been attributing a lot to me that was never said. I don't believe that linguistic evidence alone is incontrovertible proof of anything. We are only talking about plausibility, not absolute certainty. Why do you keep insisting that we are arguing over absolute certainty?

Nope I havent been attributing anything, i am making sure the phrasing is right which i finally got in one phrase earlier "Note that there is no evidence of any kind that proves the AIT or its antithesis incontrovertibly" (and i think they use AMT nowadays instead of AIT btw)

You say that you don't care whether there was an invasion or not, but then you jump up and down every time someone says that invasion is the most plausible theory

I have been static, so it must be you moving around and hence the jumping of your perception of moi

Evidence from one or two archeological sites does not prove or disprove that periods of invasion and fighting ever took place. Some sites were probably abandoned for other reasons. Others show evidence of a violent end. I don't see how generalizations about the entire civilization by workers at a single site (Keyoner's quote) can be taken as evidence against the AIT as a general theory of what happened in northern India.

Care to elaborate on this ? What sites are you referring to? And generalizations? And a single site??? And a worker? It is THE site of harappa and keyoner happens to one of the co-directors of the HARP (Harappa Archaeological Research Project). Which other site can provide more relevant evidence to this issue than this one?

Colin Renfrew is a great archeologist, not a linguist. His views are not necessarily evidence against the validity of linguistic evidence, and he especially does not reject the AIT. Nothing he says contradicts paleolinguistics as a methodology.

He doesnt? Can you substantiate that? And please check this book and then maybe compare it with the edge interview and you will know the problems facing linguistics...
Time Depth in Historical Linguistics
I am sure it will help linguists a lot and since you say you are one, you could check it out.

His differences with linguists are a red herring in this discussion. Let's try to focus on the argument, not vague discussions about whether linguistic evidence can be ignored out of hand, which seems to be your view.

Sigh, logic mate. When the process used to collect evidence is shaky, how can we talk about the evidence?

What? Do you bother to read the materials you cite? That link is about Parpola's theory that there were two Indo-European waves of invasion, not just one! Read the first paragraph. You are so obsessed with denying invasion (which you claim not to care about) that you see evidence against it everywhere.

Umm looks like your linguistic credentials (?) do not help you in comprehension. If you read the whole article at the end ...
Comprende ?

Don't be coy, Phaedrus. If you are going to cite articles and demand detailed critiques of them, then people are going to assume that you believe them credible.

Err, if someone asked me whether i supported or liked particular views in the article, i would clarified. Nobody did and if people presume, i cant help it. And i would be justified in asking for critiques in specifics instead of genrics coz i cant differeniate a statement made in earnest and bullshit from just a flippant dismissal.

And your point is that you want to reject the linguistic evidence, because it makes the AIT look plausible. Therefore, you'll grab onto anything that appears to float in these choppy waters.

How can i reject linguistic evidence when i am not an expert on it and cant judge the improtance of it for the issue. I have been saying that it alone is not enough and provided quotes and links which indicate that. And grabbing to straws ...wonder who is doing that?

No, creationism and astrology have been rejected by the scientific community.

Ok so bad analogy.

The idea of an Indian homeland for Indo-European has been rejected by the scholarly community.

Will take your word for it

Nothing is final is the final takeout.............

copernicus

Phaedrus, there was nothing substantive in your last post, which contained the usual sniping and dodging. The only thing of interest to comment on is your complete misrepresentation of the Coming of the Aryans essay. Here is what you wrote:

In fact, the very first paragraph on that page says:

In case you missed it, I put another wave of Indo-European speaking invaders in bold for you. If the Arya-Dasa conflict referred to "another wave", then there must have been an earlier one, right? Also, the page takes great care to point out that this is just a new theory by Parpola and not yet tested in the literature. For you, it seems to be a stunning blow against the invasion theory.

Go back and read the paragraph you quoted. All it says is that the historical account of a battle might have been between Indo-European tribes, not the Harappans. It does not say that there was no Indo-European invasion in the first place, and it certainly does affirm the linguistically-based claim that Indo-European languages originated outside of India. Parpola is quite solidly in the AIT (or AMT) camp, however much you would like it to be otherwise.

This type of selective misrepresentation of the facts is typical of your entire argument. Whether or not the Hindu scripture records an invasion against the Harappas is an entirely separate issue from whether or not an Indo-European invasion took place.

[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: copernicus ]

phaedrus

copernicus

umm first of all i dont know why i keep continuing conversation with a mutual admiration society and the way you guys keep responding to only parts which you "think" you can defend...*admonishes himself*

Getting back to ur post..


Phaedrus, there was nothing substantive in your last post, which contained the usual sniping and dodging. The only thing of interest to comment on is your complete misrepresentation of the Coming of the Aryans essay.

Dude seriously if you cant understand the meaning between "invasion" and "migration" i cant help it inspite of ur "so-called" linguistic credentials (sic!)..

In case you missed it, I put another wave of Indo-European speaking invaders in bold for you. If the Arya-Dasa conflict referred to "another wave", then there must have been an earlier one, right? Also, the page takes great care to point out that this is just a new theory by Parpola and not yet tested in the literature. For you, it seems to be a stunning blow against the invasion theory.

So? Cant you read what i quoted????? So if you think it is just a theory (i am sure from a careful reading you "did" compared to the last time since you missed the last part)

Stunning blow?? *yawn* read the whole link before you go off shouting off blanksWhat my quote says in case you cant comprehend (sigh i didnt want to indulge in tit-for-tat crap) it says that if at all there was any violent battle as described in the earlier parts of Rig Veda...it could have been between two aryan tribes rather than being relevance to the demise of the mature phase of the Indus Civilization.
Do i have to explain to you this in plain english ????

Parpola was quoted for your guys' convenience so that you can update yourself on the latest "notions" on this particular issue which btw is not "final".

This type of selective misrepresentation of the facts is typical of your entire argument. Whether or not the Hindu scripture records an invasion against the Harappas is an entirely separate issue from whether or not an Indo-European invasion took place.

And I dont think you do selective misrepresentation , i just merely question your level of comprehension. And regarding the last line i will just wait for an elaboration since it sounds like one of your generic statements.

Edited to add..."dum di dum"

[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: phaedrus ]

copernicus

I don't think I have ever said anything to support your gratuitous remark that I confuse "invasion" with "migration". I have taken pains to say several times that there was no pure linguistic evidence to tell us whether or not the Indo-Europeans "invaded" in a violent sense. You have even quoted my comments to this effect. I believe that the "migration" probably did involve fighting, but I have never made any serious effort to support that claim, and you know it. If you think otherwise, then please tell me where I said it. Having failed to make your case in favor of an Indian homeland for Proto-Indo-European, you fall back on the straw man argument over whether the migration was violent or peaceful, something for which there is no solid evidence one way or the other.

All of my posts are still there for anyone to read. Unfortunately for your case, so are yours, eh "mate"?

[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: copernicus ]

hinduwoman

Copernicus, I picked up my impressions from various Indian articles so I can be wrong about what Western scholars do. but I assure you in India it has become a political issue. also once I saw on the internet an African calling for black organization to liberate their oprressed black brothers in India --- never mind he would not be able to distinguish a balck Brahmin from a Dalit. However what the anti-Ait scholars complain is that they are dismissed outofhand. Ipetrich himself says he has not read even a translation of the Vedas, yet he simply says that the whole anti-thing is made up out of cloth by hindu nationalists. That is the attitude they complain about.

I read the article coming of Aryans. so it says that Dasa and Aryans are both Indo-Europeans in which case the clash between native and invader collapses as does the colour theory.

Ipetrich here are links: www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts
But since they are only old translations I don't know how accurate they will be.and very florid and no notes.

for whatever it is worth here are my two cents worth from Rigveda where I think Arya is used for people who follow the vedic rites which could have originated here---
1:51:8 "O indra! be aware of who is Arya and who is Dasyu" why would such a prayer be made unless both are of the same kind and probably worshipped the same gods? After all Jehovah did not have to be told to distinguish Jews from others!

1:104:2 "... increase our varna for our happiness" do you think they are seriously asking to be made more white? or that they are asking their tribe to be made more populous?

4:42, the rishi is TrasDASYU

5:29:10 --- [Indra] you killed with thunder in war the Dasyus [who are] UNABLE TO SPEAK
Here there is no colour , simply that they refused to perform Vedic mantras.

6:33:3 O heroic Indra! You have slain both types of enemies, whether Dasyus or Aryas!"
Surely some kind of distinction would have been drawn if one was entirely foreign.

7:83:1 "[indra and varuna] Destroy both Dasa and Aryan enemies, come to protect King suDAS.

8:51:9 "the giver of wealth, whose worshipper and keeper of wealth these Aryas and Dasas are, who comes bfore the white Pabirur, let that giver of wealth unite with them".

10:31:11 kanva rishi is called dark and the greatest performer of fire-sacrificers.

10:38:3: "O many-worshipped Indra! whether Arya JATI or Dasa JATI, whoever wishes to war with us in godless ways, all such enemies may be easily defeated by us"
The term godless is used but if the Dasas were completely different they neednot have been called so separately.

10:49:3 "... I [indra] have deprived the Dasyus from the name arya.

These verses do not demolish AIt theory, but equally they can mean that Aryans were simply a tribe orignating in India with their own religuous rituals and dialect.

Traditionally, colour of Brahmins is white, kshatriyas is red, Vaishyas is yellow and shudras is black. If colour theory is correct then then have to drag in people like american Indians and chinese.


About the anti-Rama song:
The link is www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0012/ET25-6471.html
But I found out the professor's address, so I can ask her what all this is about.

Caste and racism: the feeling is westerners are imposing their cateogies on us, particularly when they drag in Ramayana and Mahabharata. But what Tagore wrote about the conflict in Ramayana is simply ignored in favour of european style racism. Little things like the media and scholars saying that hindu nationalists supports racial purity and that hindus use swastika (without explaining that 70% hindus have no idea about its Nazi associations) all make nationalists defensive and suspicious.


CASTE.

when it comes to untouchability, marriage rules and limitations of opportunites, and curtailing the rights of individuals, caste is not a problem. I thought that in the modern age, Caste would simply wither away. then I started reading a year ago and it got confusing. Please bear in mind I have never encountered real discrimination nor support of a caste-network.
1. Several social workers are saying that caste provides identity and strength to ordinary Hindus. [You see each caste has its own elders to pass out judgements and laws, which in rural areas take precedence over written laws.] A leading feminist even said that thoughtless equality is depriving them of their selfrespect. They are working in the field so they ought to know. but what if they are romanticising the poor?

2. Sevral foreigners are saying that the caste system is on the whole good, if we leave out its flaws. Except one or two who has gone over the top in reaction to Christianity, they do not have any axe to grind so they should be impartial? Here is what one Joe Elder says (sorry, i have lost the link), a mixture of good and evil.
'True or False
As a consequence of the term "caste" referring to such different social
phenomena in India, misconceptions about caste have frequently arisen. Taking
"caste" to mean lineages of related families from among which parents arrange
their children's marriages, here are seven prevalent misconception about India's
caste system:
The caste into which one is born determines one's occupation.
False. People in the same caste engage in (and historically have engaged in) a
wide variety of different occupations. Confusion arises from the fact that
according to the mythical varna system of the idealized Hindu law books,
everyone is supposed to carry out occupations that match their varnas. However,
the mythical varna system and the current caste system are two very different
phenomena. Only a very few caste names listed in official publications refer
specifically to occupations. Most caste names are merely designations whereby
other castes identify a given caste.
Caste designations are changeless.
False. There are many historical instances of castes changing (or trying to
change) their caste names and behavior in order to receive advantageous
treatment. Trying to convince someone in authority to label one's caste more
highly in a public document is one well-tried way to change one's status. Some
efforts to "move up" have succeeded; others have failed. There are instances of
castes moving to new areas and thereby changing their names and status. When
members of a caste acquire wealth or political leverage, they can sometimes use
such recourses to upgrade their caste.
Castes relate to each other in mutually accepted hierarchical patterns.
Frequently false. In any given locality some castes are likely to differ from
other castes in their perceptions of what the "correct" local hierarchal
patterns are. Disputes regarding the "correct" hierarchy occur (and have
occurred) frequently.
Everyone called by the same caste name is related to everyone else by that same
caste name.
False. Castes are assigned names by other castes, living around them. Labeling
coincidences frequently occur. Thus, there are numerous castes, some of whose
members perform priestly functions, that are called brahmans by those around
them. However, they are not related to all other castes that are called
brahmans. There are castes that are called "patels," "deshmukhs,"or "rajputs."
There are numerous castes, some of whose members make (or did make) pots, that
are called "potters" by those around them that are not related to all other
castes called "potters." Every "gandhi" is not related to every other "gandhi"
Castes are Uniquely Hindu.
False. In India castes exist among Christians, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and
Muslims. Frequently the rules about marrying within one's own castes are as
strict among Christians, Jains, etc. as they are among Hindus.
Hinduism legitimizes preferential treatment according to caste.
Occasionally False. In the idealized Hindu varna system, being born into a high
varna was seen as a reward for virtue in a previous life. Being born in a low
varna was seen as punishment for sins in a previous life. However, throughout
India's history, movements have appeared within Hinduism criticizing
preferential treatment according to caste (or varna). These movements have
appeared within Hinduism criticizing preferential ranking and treatment
according to caste (or varna). These movements have included Buddhism, Jainism,
bhakti poets and saints, the Lingayats, Sikhism and philosophers such as Mahatma
Gandhi and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the architect of India's constitution.
Castes have been abolished
False. India's constitution declares that "untouchability" is abolished and
anyone discriminating against "untouchables" can be persecuted. In addition,
India's government now provides certain benefits to members of the "scheduled
castes," "scheduled tribes," and "Other Backward Classes." However, India's
constitution says nothing about abolishing castes. That would mean abolishing
lineages of related families from among which parents select their children’s
marriage partners, and that would not be possible.
In the United States, discrimination on the ground of race and gender has been
declared illegal. However, the U.S. has no laws abolishing race and gender. Just
as race and gender cannot be abolished by laws (although efforts can be made to
end discrimination on race and gender) so castes cannot be abolished by laws
(although efforts can be made-and some are being made-to end discrimination
based on caste)

3. Though hinduism can survive without caste, casteism can also survive without hinduism. Muslims and christians still keep to the castes their ancestors had folowing all purity and marriage rules. does this mean that caste as a social phenomenon is something more useful than religion?

4. In one board two dalits said that in the experience of their families, discrimination was done more on the basis of poverty than on caste and they bear no malice towards the poor Brahmins who shared their village. this sounds reasonable. But since this is the internet, I don't know whether they are really dalits or claiming to be only.

5. ambedkar argued that untouchables are not hindus since the hindus exclude them. Makes sense. But http://saxakali.com , a Dalit site, argues that untouchables are a part of the four Varnas. Also a Perriyar leader warned his muslim party members to stay away from an entry to temple agitation since this is purely an internal matter of Hindus. the Yadavs came to power in bihar as the champion of Dalits and backward castes and the chief minister gives regular speeches on evils of Brahmins; in fact before coming to power his gang had fought bloody wars with Brahmin landowners. so why the heck is he feeding Brahmins in ritual sacrifices?

6. Many argue that proof of the need of caste system is that the untouchables do not convert. ambedkar asked his followers to become Buddhists and do away with caste, yet he could not persuade most! The Nama-shudras of Bengal stayed away from freedom struggle because the Congress was dominated by uppercastes, but did not become christians. Even now many Christian missionaries have found that lower classes would convert provided they can bring their whole caste-structure with them!

7. I asked round the lower castes in my locality who work as servants, porters etc. they simply cannot envisage life without caste. they want equality, but not the abolition of castesystem itself. caste to them is a social security network; example --- one labourer's mother died. He had to feed all castemembers in his village, which is costly. but in return all those shaved their heads in sign of mourning. he himself had got this job through another castebrother and it is expected that he will also provide jobs to others. In sickness or poverty or emotional need castes rally round their members. apparently, this even works in America and England --- you help out your castebrothers even if you have never seen him in your life! So when I want them to abandon caste am I being a snob thinking that being educated I know better than they what they need?

Caste-system will ALWAYS lead to discrimination and infringe on rights of individuals. So it must go.
BUT what if I am wrong and it will take away a sense of identity?

Personally, I incline to the former view, but since I have never been part of a functioning caste-system I am

lpetrich

hinduwoman:
... However what the anti-Ait scholars complain is that they are dismissed out of hand.

LP:
Sorry, Hinduwoman, what do you expect? If anti-AIT folx are unwilling to account for things that cause great difficulty for their theories, then how do they expect to be taken seriously?

HW:
...Ipetrich himself says he has not read even a translation of the Vedas, yet he simply says that the whole anti-thing is made up out of cloth by hindu nationalists. That is the attitude they complain about.

LP:
I didn't mean to have some arrogant, snotty attitude; I had had a hard time getting a hold of actual copies of the Vedas. I had wanted online copies because they are MUCH easier to search than dead-tree copies. If I want to find references to horses, for example, then all I do is use a browser or text-editor search function to search for the word "horse" -- which is much more difficult with a dead-tree version.

HW:
I read the article coming of Aryans. so it says that Dasa and Aryans are both Indo-Europeans in which case the clash between native and invader collapses as does the colour theory.

LP:
Parpola's theory is that Dasa arrived first, then the Aryans, who disliked the Dasa.

HW:
[links to copies of the Griffith translation...] But since they are only old translations I don't know how accurate they will be.and very florid and no notes.

LP:
Thanx a lot, HW; I appreciate you finding these online translations for me. I wish Phaedrus had been as helpful as you have been here. I had done a lot of fruitless searching without discovering these online documents. The translations are not too difficult for me to read, although they are not annotated, and the first of your links includes an ASCII transcription of the original Sanskrit versions.

And yes, I found plenty of references to horses and chariots and iron; horses are considered very desirable possessions. Which is why Harappan horselessness is so significant.

HW:
[A lot of stuff about the caste system, especially in the present day...]

LP:
Whatever is to be said about the caste system, I think that that is a separate issue.