Why Wasn't India United Before?

Aug 2014
3,886
India
#94
  • SSDD

    SSDD

Thats the only place vedas talk about any varnas,three varnas only never appear in any vedic text to best of my knowledge.

Individual anything is modern concept,individuality didn't exist in past times,even taxes were based on per house rather than per head.
And shudra or vaishya did form army of empire.

Obviously caste based discrimination is wrong and should be avoided,but in india caste system was not as rigid as many people try to portray it,it was quite fluid.
And being of origin demonstrates fluidity,or atleast social fluidity of india,atleast in that specific area.
I meant only if 3 fold Varna system prevailed instead of caste system and 4 fold Varna system. Each tribal society had 3 categories, Priests, warriors and Commoners. Individual mobility is better than whole Jati's mobility. A Jati is not a united thing, even within a Jati people may not have same experience, some may want to change job, some may not. So individual mobility is better.

In addition as caste system as it was instead of how it should have been, prevented poor caste's people's access to education, instead of a meritocratic administration, Indian kingdoms depended on feudal chiefs backed by Priests. Even China could not escape from it. Jiedusi or regional military Governors almost weakened Tang dynasty.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2014
435
India
#96
I am glad they did that. As a result, Hindus in Goa had taken a liking to beef dishes. What's more? Hindus from elsewhere in India where beef is banned go to Goa to taste the forbidden meat (they go to Kerala too). Once you eat it, you are hooked, because it is the best tasting meat - the king of meats. Sorry to see Brahmins forbid Hindus from eating such a tasty food. Another harm done to Indians by the Brahmins!
That is Christian secularism for you. Unfortunately, Christianity, Islam and communism make people lose objectivity. Most of the time they fail to even understand the dictionary meaning of objectivity, forget trying to be objective, that is an impossible task for them.
 
Likes: Zanis
Aug 2015
2,239
USA
#97
No, because Aryans were never invaders but people of this land.
I see. Let me see if I get this straight. The natives of India are the Adivasis or people like the Dalits/tribals. So Aryans were the Dalits. As a result Brahmins of Aryan origin are really of Dalit origin. Did I get the story right?
 
Jun 2017
401
usa
#98
I see. Let me see if I get this straight. The natives of India are the Adivasis or people like the Dalits/tribals. So Aryans were the Dalits. As a result Brahmins of Aryan origin are really of Dalit origin. Did I get the story right?
Nope. India had lots of tribes of different types. India is a pretty big landmass with different climatic conditions which resulted in variations in lifestyles, clothing, food.
Why this grossly faulty assumption that everyone from the himalayas to kanyakumari were the same people linguistically and appearance wise? That is plain ridiculous! There are many similarities and some differences. However a north indian has far more common with a southindian than you think.
Aryan as a race is a story cooked up by your so called academics from Europe, many of whom had never visited India nor learned Sanskrit from a native scholar. They keep on referencing their own faulty interpretations and perpetuating this lie.
 
Apr 2015
3,872
India
#99
Really? Did your "foreign invaders" include the Aryan invaders?
are you referring to colonial British propaganda.


The Aryan invasion theory was cooked up based on misinterpretation of Battle of the Ten Kings of Rigveda. Although, Dasyu(Iranic: Dahyu) were an Iranic tribe who had opposing religious beliefs to Vedic Indians, the Dasyus were faked as native Dravidians for colonial 'Divide and rule policy' to create differences between North Indians and South Indians and create a ground for evangelizing South Indian Hindus. Similar to that a mool nivasi concept was invented for North India.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2015
3,872
India
Aryan as a race is a story cooked up by your so called academics from Europe, many of whom had never visited India nor learned Sanskrit from a native scholar. They keep on referencing their own faulty interpretations and perpetuating this lie.
Dravida is not even a race, its a Sanskrit term for Tamil. Dravida is Damela in Prakrit and Tamil in Tamil language. Also, in Tamil language D and T are used interchangeably so Tamil and Damil would be written and pronounced in the same way. Kannadigas/Karnataka called their neighours as Damila, Telugus were referred as Andhra/Telugus. Dravidian identity was invented by one Scottish missionary named Robert Caldwell.
 

Similar History Discussions