CPS: The drying of the Sarasvati was a result of a massive earthquake and, therefore, it took place rather quickly. At harappa.com you will also see how the Indus motifs are similar to the later "Aryan" ones.

To,
Prof. Kak

Western scholars must be given credit for discovering relationship between Indian, Iranian and Eurpean languanges.There were many Indians who knew both Sanskrit and Persian but couldnot sense their linkage;not even Panini. Further,it were Europeans who deciphered Brahmi script. Our own people simply failed to read the script which was our own ancient script ans which is considered mother of all the present Indian scripts. Again, it were these people who tought us how to study History. Otherwise our history was limited to epics and bardic songs. It was they who tought us archaeology. Blaiming them to be racists and imperialists doesnot undermine their contribution.

You have said that it is not possible to reconstruct the PIE. May be you are correct; but your statement is not proven as yet. Perhaps you are not competent enough to make such statements as you are not trained into this field. By such statements you cannot dissuade others to make further efforts in this field. Afterall,many extinct scripts were finally deciphered after many failures.

Many of your readers and commentators have stated that Harappan civilisation is creation of Aryans. They have based their arguements with drying up of Sarasvati. But they forget that drying up takes long period. Rigveda was composed during this period. Your commentators have stated that their is no evidence about invasion or migration of Aryans in India. But their is no evidence about presence of Aryan in Indus Valley area during Harappan period. There is simply no specific evidence to show that it were Aryans who were residing in this region during Harappan period and it was they who created this civilisation. For example, there is no evidence of horse or chariots etc. which were so central to aryan culture.

Thanx

CPS

India
by bhattathiry
Posted on January 7, 2004 1:55 AM EST
Accessed 502 Times
Hot List Score: 209


A History of India and Hindu Dharma
Much of what India and Hinduism are today can be understood by examining
their origins and history. Here is a humble chronology that tells the story
of the sages, kings, outside invaders and inside reformers who contributed
to the world's oldest living civilization and largest modern-day democracy.
Remarkably, Hindu India has been home to one-fourth of the human race since
the dawn of recorded time. Its story, summarized here, is crucial to human
history.
The emphasis on spirituality in India's thought and history is unparalleled
in human experience. The king in his court, the sage on his hill and the
farmer in one of Bharat's 700,000 villages each pursues his dharma with a
common ultimate purpose: spiritual enlightenment. This perspective is the
source of Hinduism's resilience in the face of competing faiths and
conquering armies. No other nation has faced so many invaders and endured.
These invasions have brought the races of the world to a subcontinent
one-third the size of the United States. There are many feats of which the
ancient Hindus could be proud, such as the invention of the decimal system
of numbers, philosophy, linguistics, surgery, city planning and statecraft.
And most useful to us in this particular timeline: their skill in astronomy.
Dates in Hindu history after Buddha are subject to little dispute, while
dates before Buddha have been decided as much by current opinion and
politics as by scientific evidence. An overwhelming tendency of Western
scholarship has been to deny the great antiquity of Hinduism.
Indian scholar S.B. Roy points out that the commonly accepted chronology of
German linguist Max Muller (1823-1900) is based solely "on the ghost story
of Kathasaritasagara." Historian Klaus K. Klostermaier agrees: "The
chronology provided by Max Muller and accepted uncritically by most Western
scholars is based on very shaky ground indeed." While making crucial
historical contributions in bringing India's wisdom to the West, Muller
admitted his covert intention to undermine Hinduism. In a letter to his wife
in 1886 he wrote: "The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a
great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in
that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the
root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from
it during the last 3,000 years.''
Contemporary researchers, such as Dr. B.G. Siddharth of B.M. Birla Science
Centre, Dr. S.B. Roy, Professor Subhash Kak, Dr. N.R. Waradpande, Bhagwan
Singh and Dr. David Frawley, Vedacharya, have developed a more accurate
picture of ancient India, assembling new chronologies based on a highly
reliable method: dating scriptural references by their relationship to the
known precession of the equinoxes. Earth's axis of rotation "wobbles,"
causing constellations, as viewed from Earth, to drift at a constant rate
and along a predictable course over a 25,000-year cycle. For example, a Rig
Vedic verse observing winter solstice at Aries can be correlated to around
6500 bce. Frawley states, "Precessional changes are the hallmark of Hindu
astronomy. We cannot ignore them in ancient texts just because they give us
dates too early for our conventional view of human history." Besides
astronomical references from scripture, there is much to support their
dates, such as carbon-14 dating, the discovery of Indus-Sarasvati Valley
cities and the recent locating of the Sarasvati River, a prominent landmark
of Vedic writings.
Much of the dating in this timeline prior to 600 bce derives from the work
of Dr. S.B. Roy (Chronological Framework of Indian Protohistory-The Lower
Limit, published in The Journal of the Baroda Oriental Institute, March-June
1983) and that of David Frawley Ph.D. (Gods, Sages and Kings). For technical
enhancements to the timeline we depended on Prof. Shiva G. Bajpai PhD.,
Director of Asian Studies at California State University, who co-authored "A
Historical Atlas of South Asia" with Prof. Joseph E. Schwartzberg and Dr.
Raj B. Mathur.
Max Muller is the primary evangelist of another, more invidious, dogma
imposed on Hindu history: the "Aryan invasion" theory. Originally a Vedic
term meaning "noble," then applied to the parent-language of Greek,
Sanskrit, Latin and German, the term Aryan soon referred to those who spoke
it, a supposed race of light-skinned Aryans. The idea of a parent race
caught the imagination of 18th and 19th century European Christian scholars,
who hypothesized elaborate Aryan migrations from Central Asia, west to
Europe, south to India (ca 1500 bce) and east to China-conquering local
primitive peoples and founding the world's great civilizations. This theory
states that the Vedas, the heart and core of Sanatana Dharma, were brought
to India by these outsiders and not composed in India.
Although lacking supporting scientific evidence, this theory, and the
alleged Aryan-Dravidian racial split, was accepted and promulgated as fact
for three main reasons. It provided a convenient precedent for Christian
British subjugation of India. It reconciled ancient Indian civilization and
religious scripture with the 4000 bce Biblical date of Creation. It created
division and conflict between the peoples of India, making them vulnerable
to conversion by Christian missionaries.
Scholars today of both East and West believe the Rig Veda people who called
themselves Aryan were indigenous to India, and there never was an Aryan
invasion. The languages of India have been shown to share common ancestry in
ancient Sanskrit and Tamil. Even these two apparently unrelated languages,
according to current "super-family" research, have a common origin: an
ancient language dubbed Nostratic.

HINDU TIMELINE INTRODCTION

Satya Prabhakar, please be warned of rogue editors. Reposting with changes.

India shining: Aryans are Hindu

By Sandhya Jain
April 5 2004

Even as political parties debate whether India is "shining," a
momentous-though unreported- international academic consensus has
established that there was no Aryan invasion of India. This
intellectual breakthrough has staggering implications for us as a
nation. Not only has a colonial falsehood been overturned, but the
origins of a corrosive divide in our political, cultural and
emotional life stand exposed.

Hopefully, our Leftist (read anti-Hindu) historians will accept the
truth and help in re-writing true history for new generations, so
they may enjoy legitimate pride in their heritage. The Aryan
invasion theory (modified to Aryan migration theory) did grave
damage to the Hindu psyche and to national unity.

As Hindus are both the native and the majority community of India,
this colonial canard wrought terrible havoc upon the nation. Its
foremost manifestation was the North-South divide, engineered by Sir
William Jones when he invented the fair-skinned Aryan "race" that
drove native dark-skinned Dravidians southwards after seizing their
lands. The archaeological evidence for this claim was sketchy even
at the time, and was challenged by qualified Indians, but colonial
intellectual monopoly triumphed. This mischief, many will remember,
triggered Tamil separatism, even though Tamil Nadu has long been an
outstanding centre of classical Hindu erudition and cultural
accomplishment.

Sadly, the post-Independence intellectual tradition fostered by
Jawaharlal Nehru was obdurately anti-Hindu. The Aligarh School took
advantage of this environment to forge an alliance with Leftist
historians and promote a supercilious history wherein India was ever
subjected to foreign rule and conquest; that this was its true
historical tradition; that contemporary Indians (read Hindus) had no
right to regard Arab-Turk-Afghan rule as foreign; or currently, to
object to the possible reign of Ms Sonia Gandhi! The British were
outsiders because they disrupted the glory of India's Islamic
rulers.

Naturally, this school of history did not permit a true account of
the horrors perpetrated by Muslim armies and rulers upon native
Hindus to be disseminated in public. The meticulous recording of
these atrocities by contemporary chroniclers was downplayed. A
corollary of this whitewash job entailed distorting the glories of
India's pre-Islamic past. The Aryan invasion theory helped "prove"
that the Hindu people and the Vedic civilisational ethos were
themselves alien grafts on the Indian landscape.

Five decades of academic absolutism by Left-Aligarh historians have
bequeathed what Prof Shiva G.Bajpai, University of Wisconsin, USA,
calls "the burden of bad ideas". Mercifully, these lies will now
wither away. A little background to the rebuttal of the invented
invasion may be in order. In October 2003, California State
University, (CA), USA, held a conference on "The Rise of
Civilisation in the Greater Indus Valley and Saraswati: Recent
Interpretations."

The participants included Prof BB Lal, former Director-General, ASI;
Mr Iravatham Mahadevan, expert on Harappan and Tamil Brahmi scripts;
Left academic Dr Shireen Ratnakar; Dr Vasant Shinde and Dr Gregory
Possehl who are excavating Gilund in Rajasthan; anthropologists Dr
Steve Farmer and Dr Brian Hemphill who have worked on archaeological
evidence through skeletal remains; Prof Jonathan Mark Kenoyer and Dr
Richard Meadow who have worked extensively on Harappa sites; Prof DR
Sar Desai, University of California, Los Angeles; Prof Ihsan Ali,
University of Peshawar, Pakistan; and Prof Kaminsky.

The conference proved to be epochal as academics arrived at a
consensus on the "End of the Aryan invasion theory". Its moderator,
Dr Sardesai, declared that future writings on Indian history would
assert that there was no Aryan invasion of India. The organiser,
Prof Kaminsky, was authorised to get in touch with authors of Indian
history textbooks and introduce this consensus at the secondary and
high school level, where falsehoods are still being perpetuated.

Prof Kenoyer contacted publishers of school textbooks in New York to
revise the issue of the Aryans and Vedic-Harappan culture in
American school textbooks. In fact, the conference organisers have
written to school level educational institutions all over the world,
including the NCERT in India.

The belated dismissal of the Aryan invasion theory is no small
triumph of the Hindu civilisational memory of a continuous spiritual-
cultural tradition beginning with the Vedas and centred round the
region of the once mighty river, Saraswati. Hindus have no memory of
a pre-Vedic past, and have always maintained that the term "Arya"
simply meant "noble", and denoted adherence to an elevated culture
with no ethnic connotations. It was Sir William Jones who
misrepresented Vedic allegories and conjured up the Aryan race by
Immaculate Conception-a seedless parenthood, that is to say, one
without any foundation. Yet his colonial brethren embraced the
spurious offspring with the fervour of new converts; the rest is
history.

Personally, it gives me great pleasure to witness this international
vindication of Prof BB Lal, who has been villified and hounded by
the Leftist-Aligarh oligarchy and its media consorts for daring to
establish our civilisational veracity through archaeology. Prof. Lal
and scholars like Prof Bajpai have been asserting the unity of
Harappan and Vedic cultures, as their geo-cultural areas are
historically overlapping and identical.

Indeed, there is no credible evidence of a difference between the
two, barring the highly suspect discipline of linguistics, upon
which the likes of Prof Romila Thapar are now trying to make some
dubious claims. What is of critical importance is the fact that the
finding and mapping of the Saraswati riverbed archaeologically
establishes the identity of Harappan and Vedic culture, and puts the
lower chronology of the Rig Veda at about 2000 BCE. Professor Bajpai
traces the Sapta-Saindhava and Saraswati country from Kubha (Kabul)
river (Hindukush range) to the Ganga river (western Ganga plain),
and claims this was the cultural and geopolitical realm of the Vedic
Aryans.

He believes that the core area of the Rig Vedic culture, as noted in
two different places in the Rig Veda itself, was the doab of the
Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. As for the antiquity of the Rig
Veda, it must be dated before circa 2000 BCE when the Saraswati
dried up, for it is the Saraswati, and not the Indus, that is the
most celebrated river of the Rig Veda. Actually, the fallacies in
the Aryan invasion theory had long been apparent, and scholars had
diligently traced a plethora of inconsistencies between the
empirical data and literary sources vis-`-vis the theories of
committed historians.

For instance, there was simply no archaeological evidence to
substantiate the hypothesis of an invasion or even a massive
migration from Eurasia in the Vedic period. Then, the geographical
descriptions in the Rig Veda match the topography of north India in
the fourth millennium BC, as does the climate. The flora and fauna
mentioned in Vedic literature, especially those found in sacred
symbols, are tropical and sub-tropical varieties not found in
temperate zones or in the steppes.

But the crux of the matter was chronology. Pro-invasion theorists
claimed the Aryans entered after 2000 BC. In that case, they would
hardly compose hymns praising the bountiful Saraswati flowing from
mountain to sea.

Alternately, if the Vedas were composed by people living in the
Saraswati basin when she was truly a mighty river, then those people
were progenitors of a civilisation that has continued unbroken up to
the present-despite some wrenching historical encounters. Arya is
then original, authentic Hindu. It is now time to deconstruct that
other great colonial artifice-caste.

David Frawley's Paradox

The Harappans of the Indus Valley have left profuse archaeological records over a vast region - from the borders of Iran and beyond Afghanistan to eastern UP and Tapti valley, and must have supported over 30 million people and believed to be living an advanced civilization. And yet these people have left absolutely no literary records. Sounds incredible! The Vedic Aryans and their successors on the other hand have left us a literature that is probably the largest and most profound in the world. But according to the AIT there is absolutely no archaeological record that they ever existed. Either on the Indian soil or outside its boundaries. So we have concrete history and archeology of a vast civilization of 'Dravidians' lasting thousands of years that left no literature, and a huge literature by the Vedic Aryans who left no history and no archaeological records. The situation gets more absurd when we consider that there is profuse archaeological and literary records indicating a substantial movement of Indian Aryans out of India into Iran and West Asia around 2000 BC.

So, how can all these obvious anomalies and serious flaws be reconciled? By accepting the truth that the so-called Aryans were the original people habitants of the townships along the Indus, Ravi, Saraswati and other rivers of the vast northern region of the Indian subcontinent. And no invasion by nomadic hordes from outside India ever occurred and the civilization was not destroyed but the population simply moved to other areas, and developed a new syncretic civilization and culture by mutual interaction and exchange of ideas.

(I am reposting these deleted quotes, with changes)

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0302/151.html

Dr. Ambedkar refutes AIT
The Original Home of the Hindus (Interview of Dr Ambedkar)

Author:
Publication: Organiser
Date: January 23, 1994

(The Father of the Indian Constitution, Dr B. R. Ambedkar, was the foremost nationalist leader of the oppressed classes and an erudite scholar. The following is an account of the en lightening dialogue the author had with him. Though the author himself does not agree with all of Sri Ambedkar?s conclusions, the dialogue is significant for the fact of Sri Ambedkar?s total rejection of the theory of Aryan invasion as ?a perversion of scientific investigation?.)

Question: Do you believe that the Shudras were a non-Aryan aboriginal race?
Dr. Ambedkar: No. After deep study of the subject I have come to conclude:

i) That, the Shudras were Aryans;

ii) That the Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya Class; and

iii) That the Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriyas that some of the most eminent and powerful kings of the ancient Aryan Communities were Shudras.

Western Theories

Q: I know you are well acquainted with the various theories of Western writers about the origin of the non-Traivarnikas whom they describe as ?Non-Aryans?. Are there any points on which there seems to be a certain amount of unity among all of them?
A: Yes. Such points comprise the following:

1) The people who created the Vedic literature belonged to the Aryan race.

2) This Aryan race came from outside India and invaded India.

3) The natives of India were known as Dasas and Dasyus who were racially different from Aryans.

4) The Aryans were a white race. The Dasas and Dasyus were a dark race.

5) The Aryans conquered the Dasas and Dasyus.

6) The Dasas and Dasyus after they were conquered and enslaved were called Shudras.

7) The Aryans cherished colour prejudice and therefore formed the chaturvarnya whereby they separated the white race from the black race such as the Dasas and the Dasyus.

Q: What is the basis for these Western Theories?
A: The foundation on which the whole fabric of the theory rests is the proposition that there lived a people who were Aryan by race.

Q: Is this proposition correct?
A: The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race. A race may be defined as a body of people possessing certain typical traits which are hereditary.

An examination of the Vedic literature shows that there occur two words in the Rig Veda-one is Arya with a short A and the other is Arya with a long A.

The word Arya with a short A is used in the Rig Veda in 88 places. The word is used in four different senses; as (1) enemy, (2) respectable person, (3) name for India and (4) owner, Vaishya or citizen.

The word Arya with a long A is used in the Rig Veda in 31 places. But in none of these is the word used in the sense of race.

The one indisputable conclusion which follows is that the terms Arya and Arya which occur in the Vedas have not been used in the racial sense at call.

This is what Prof. Max Mueller says on the subject: ?There is no Aryan race in blood?, Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to race.?

The Aryan Race Theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago.

Q: From where did the so-called ?Aryan race? come into India? What was the original home of the ?Aryan race?? Is the theory of Aryan invasion of India a historical fact?
A: There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to be natives of India. There is no evidence to show that the distinction between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction. The Vedas do not support the contention that the Aryans were different in colour from the Dasas and Dasyus. The word ?Varna? originally meant a class holding to a particular faith, and it had nothing to do with colour or complexion.

The Vedic Aryans had no colour prejudice. They were not of one colour. Rama, Krishna, Dirghatamas, Kanva etc. have been described as dark in complexion.

The assertion that the Aryans came from outside and invaded India is not proved and the premise that the Dasas and Dasyus are aboriginal tribes of India is demonstrably false.

Invasion theory a concoction

The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary because of a gratuitous assumption that the Indo-Germanic people are the purest of the modern representatives of the original Aryan race. The theory is based upon nothing but pleasing assumptions and inferences based on such assumptions. The theory is a perversion of scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to prove it. It falls to the ground at every point. The Western theory is in conflict with the Rig Veda on a major issue. The Rig Veda being the best evidence on the subject, the theory which is in conflict with it must be rejected. There is no escape.

Q: Are there any Hindu scholars who supported this Western theory?
A: This theory has received support from some Brahmin scholars. This is a very strange phenomenon. As Hindus, they should ordinarily show a dislike for the Aryan theory with its express avowal of the superiority of the European races over the Asiatic races. But the Brahmin scholar has not only no such aversion but he most willingly hails it. He claims to be the representative of the Aryan race and he regards the rest of the Hindus as descendants of the non-Aryans.

Q: What is your opinion about the suggestion of Lokamanya Tilak that the original home of the Aryan race was in the Arctic region?
A: This is of course a very original theory. There is only one point which seems to have been over-looked. The horse is a favourite animal of the Vedic Aryans. It was most intimately connected with their life and their religion. The question is: Was the horse to be found in the Arctic region? If the answer is in the negative, the Arctic Home theory becomes very precarious,

So far as the testimony of the Vedic literature is concerned, it is against the theory that the original horde of the Aryans was outside India.

The language in which reference to the seven rivers is made in the Rig Veda (x. 75.5) is very significant. No foreigner would ever address a river in such familiar and endearing terms as ?My Ganga, my Yamuna, my Sarasvati?, unless by long association he had developed an emotion about it. In the face of such statements from the Rig-Veda, there is obviously no room for a theory of a military conquest by the Aryan race of the non-Aryan races of Dasas and Dasyus.

As Mr. P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar points out:

?A careful examination of the Mantras where the words Arya, Dasas and Dasyus occur, indicates that they refer not to race but to cult. These words occur mostly in Rig Veda Samhita where Arya occurs about 33 times in mantras which contain 153,972 words on the whole. This rare occurrence is itself a proof that the tribes that called themselves Aryas were not invaders that conquered the country and exterminated the people. For an invading tribe would naturally boast of its achievements constantly.?

The Fourth Varna

Q: If the theories of European scholars are incorrect, how can one explain the emergence of the Fourth Varna suffering from a number of social disabilities and degradations?
A: The whole position can be stated briefly as follows:

1) The Shudras were one of the Aryan Communities of the Solar race.

2) The Shudras ranked as the Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society.

3) There was a time when the Aryan Society recognised only three Varnas, namely, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. The Shudras were not a separate Varna but a part of the Kshatriya Varna.

4) There was a continuous feud between the Shudra Kings and the Brahmins, in which the Brahmins were subjected to many tyrannies and indignities.

5) As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras due to their tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to invest the Shudras with the Sacred Thread.

6) Owing to the loss of the Sacred Thread the Shudras became socially degraded, fell below the rank of the Vaishyas and came to form the Fourth Varna.

Q: What about the origin of the Fifth Varna known as untouchables?
A: In Vedic times there was no untouchability. As to the period of the Dharma Sutras, there was ?Impurity? but there was no untouchability.

Manu?s decision is that there is no Fifth Varna. There was no untouchability at the time of Manu. We can definitely say that Manu Smriti did not enjoin untouchability.

While untouchability did not exist in 200 A.D., it had emerged by 600 A.D. As has been shown by Dr D.R. Bhandarkar, cow-killing was made a capital offence by the Gupta kings sometime in the 4th Century A.D. We can, therefore say with some confidence that untouchability was born sometimes about 400 A.D.

Q: Can the hatred between Buddhism and Brahminism he taken to be the sole cause why ?Broken Men?* became untouchables?
A: Obviously, it cannot be? The propaganda of the Brahmins was directed against Buddhists in general and not against the ?Broken Men?* in particular. Since untouchability struck to ?Broken Men? only, it is obvious that there was some additional circumstance which has played its part in fastening untouchability upon them.

Q: Can we say that the ?Broken Men?* came to he treated as untouchables because they ate beef?
A: There need be no hesitation in returning an affirmative answer to this question. No other answer is consistent with facts as we know them.

Q: Do the untouchables, belong to a separate, non-Aryan race?
A: As I said earlier, historians have made a mistake in proceeding on assumption that the Aryans were a separate race. In this connection, reference may be made to verse 23 of Adhyaya 65 of the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. The verse says: ?In all the Varnas and in all the Ashramas one finds the existence of Dasyus.? This indicates that the term ?Dasyus? is not used for a non-Aryan.

If anthropometry is a science which can be depended upon to determine the race of a people, then the results obtained by the application of anthropometry to the various strata of Hindu society disprove that the untouchables belong to a race different from the Aryans and the Dravidians. The measurements establish that the Brahmins and untouchables belong to the same race. If the Brahmins are Aryans, the untouchables are also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the untouchables are also Dravidians. The racial theory of untouchability finds very little support from such facts as we know about the ethnology of India. Racial theory of the origin of untouchability must therefore be abandoned -23-7-1962.

(The Perspective by D.B. Thengadi, Sahitya. Sindhu Prakashan)

* In a fight between two tribes, the surviving men of the vanquished tribe found it difficult to retain their identity because of their reduced numerical strength. They, therefore, used to approach the settled agricultural communities and enter into agreement with them. These were termed as ?Broken men?.

sulekha editors had deleted this post earlier. With changes, i am reposting.

Kak many people in India feel superior to the Europeans. This is bad, please treat them as equal. Also Kak do you represent outside countries or India? I think it is the former. Also Kak read the textbooks in India all is clear Sanskrit is the mother language of European languages there can be no doubt. So why the fake controversy?

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your wonderful analysis. I have read much literature on the "Indo-European" languages by many well-known authors. What always struck me is the undercurrent of assumed European superiority. It is sad that many Indians find it acceptable to think that Sanskrit and Indians are some kind of mongrelized proto-european results of history.
It goes without saying that it is stupid to make racial assumptions based on language spoken. If someone wonders what an English speaker looked like 3000 years in the future, what would you say?
Although I agree that the languages of Europe are related quite closely to Sanskrit, and that the spread of the languages can be explained by movements of populations, an idealized PIE and the master race are figaments of imagination.

This comments different, it's regarding final cricket Test next week at
Rawalpindi between India and Pakistan [ biggest nuclear rivals ]

There are very strong speculations between bothside fans that Pakistan
will give away this final championship trophy to Indan cricet team next week at Rawalpindi.

And it's also proved that all of a sudden Pakistan's fastest bollers Umar
Gul, Mohammad Sami and other four best batsman are on the sidelines
due to injuries.

Thousands of fans on both sides, beiives very strongly that the series has been fixed, by their respective governments which regard the tour as an integral part of peace moves between the two countries.

Fans will loose the enterest, because everyone knows the end results of this final championship match.

AKBER A. KASSAM
[ former cricketers and fastest bowler]
U.S.A.

Jiten,
Please absolutely feel free to use all evidences which have been presented. Arboreal is a most apt term for these euro nonentities. It is original to someone on Sulekha NH. All the decisive proofs have been posited in various forums - we just need emphatic re-inforcement. I agree- no consideration need be given to the arboreal hysterics.