Hacker News Reader

Comment by akshitgaur2005 | Hacker News Reader

akshitgaur2005·

There is a difference between invasion and migration though, AIT has long been debunked, the current consensus is AMT

There are many historical events of Indo-European speakers invading India from the north, like Darius the Great, Alexander the Great, the Mughals. AIT refers to a theory from an earlier time period but rejecting it does not rule out subsequent Indo-European conquests of the region which surely contributed to the spread of Indo-European culture and language southward.

But the advent of Indo-European languages in Northern India (let alone Southern Sri Lanka) has nothing to do with Alexander or the Mughals.

The Aryan Invasion Theory was propagated by the British to justify their colonial brutality, and no self-respecting historian will now call the gradual Aryan migration an invasion. The only people who still do are usually trying to achieve some political aims, usually imperial apologia.

Why are you being down voted... By the time alexander showed up India had spoken an indo European language for thousands of years.

People don't like getting their dogmas challenged, especially when it comes to their Fathers' sins.

His first sentence is reasonable. The rest of the comment is unhinged.

> The theory of an immigration of IA speaking Arya ("Aryan invasion") is simply seen as a means of British policy to justify their own intrusion into India and their subsequent colonial rule: in both cases, a "white race" was seen as subduing the local darker colored population.

Source: Edwin Bryant in https://archive.org/details/EdwinBryantLauriePattonIndoAryan...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com