India

for discussing science, relationships, religion or non-BK spirituality.
  • Message
  • Author
User avatar

uddhava

ex-BK

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 May 2006

India

Post31 Dec 2007

Can anyone please remind me what are the major ethnic groups in India - there are the dark skinned Tamils (subdivision of Dravidian) in the south - what else? I think that Tamils are mostly Saivite, while Vaisnavism is stronger in the north. I think that most founding BK's were northern Indian. I am not sure whether the term 'Aryan' is historical or whether some Indians today consider themselves to be Aryan.
User avatar

arjun

PBK

  • Posts: 3588
  • Joined: 01 May 2006
  • Location: India

Post31 Dec 2007

Dear Uddhava,

Hello. There are three kinds of ethnic groupings in India.

One is based on religion with the majority of population being Hindus, then Muslims, then Christians, then Sikhs, then Buddhists, then Jains, etc. etc.

The next is based on language. Even in this there are two major groupings. One is the Dravidian language group consisting of the four South Indian languages - Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam. The second is the group consisting of the remaining languages like Hindi, Marathi, Gujrati, Punjabi, Oriya, Bengali, Assamese etc.

The third is based on the castes within the Hindus (and to some extent in other religions too, even though they do not believe in division based on castes). Within Hindus there are the Brahmins (the teaching community), Kshatriyas (warrior class), Vaishyas (business community) and Shudras (named Harijans by Gandhiji and called backward castes/scheduled castes/sheduled tribes by Govt. of India). The above divisions were based on the tasks performed by the respective groups in the ancient times. But in modern days these groupings have become meaningless to a great extent although people (especially politicians) use these labels for selfish desires.

As regards the division among Hindus based on their mode of worship, they are broadly divided into Shaivites, Vaishnavites and worshippers of Shakti (consorts of Shiva and other female deities). The division of Hindus as Shaivites and Vaishnavites is apparently visible particularly in the South India (that too among the Brahmins) but in North India there is no such specific grouping. Almost all North Indian Hindus worship all the Hindu deities (including Shiva and Vishnu). The worship of shakti is particularly popular in Eastern India although Shakti is worshipped in general in the entire country.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun
User avatar

uddhava

ex-BK

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 May 2006

Post31 Dec 2007

Dear Arjun,

Thanks for your reply but what about ethnicity in the sense of race rather than language or religion – is there not an obvious difference between dark skinned Indians of Dravidian origin (I think mostly in the south) and fairer skinned Indians (I think mostly in the North)?
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Post31 Dec 2007

One line of thought is that the Aryan were horsemen that came down from the North, from the Caucasus in Russia. The bit between the Black Sea and the Caspian. And that they were the Proto-Indo-European.

This was the general opinion for a long time but the whole "Aryan Concept" has been questioned recently as being part of an early British Imperial and then German fixation with racial superiority of whites.

In rough terms, in India you get white people, brown people, black people, blue people and yellow people. Some of the North East look like Chinese as they are closer to Mongol. Some look like Negroes. There has been racial mixing between Europe, Africa, the Far East for at least 2,000 thousand years. Amongst the Adivasis (tribal people) there are some quite unique genetic strands that probably go back until whenever you chose humanity to have started.
User avatar

uddhava

ex-BK

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 May 2006

Post01 Jan 2008

Here is one theory, unfortunately no pictures...

http://www.culturopedia.com/Tribes/tribesintro.html

According to Dr. B. S. Guha, the population of India is derived from six main ethnic groups:

(1) Negritos: The Negritos or the brachycephalic (broad headed) from Africa were the earliest people to inhabit India. They are survived in their original habitat in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Jarewas, Onges, Sentelenese and Great Andamanis tribes are the examples. Studies have indicated that the Onges tribes have been living in the Andamans for the last 60,000 years. Some hill tribes like Irulas, Kodars, Paniyans and Kurumbas are found only in patches among the hills of south India on the mainland.

(2) Pro-Australoids or Austrics: This group was the next to come to India after the Negritos. They represent a race of people, with wavy hair plentifully distributed over their brown bodies, long heads with low foreheads and prominent eye ridges, noses with low and broad roots, thick jaws, large palates and teeth and small chins. Austrics tribes, which are spread over the whole of India, Myanmar and the islands of South East Asia, are said to "form the bedrock of the people". The Austrics were the main builders of the Indus Valley Civilisation. They cultivated rice and vegetables and made sugar from sugarcane. Their language has survived in the Kol or Munda (Mundari) in Eastern and Central India.

(3) Mongoloids: These people have features that are common to those of the people of Mongolia, China and Tibet. These tribal groups are located in the Northeastern part of India in states like Assam, Nagaland and Meghalya and also in Ladakh and Sikkim. Generally, they are people of yellow complexion, oblique eyes, high cheekbones, sparse hair and medium height.

(4) Mediterranean or Dravidian: This group came to India from the Southwest Asia and appear to be people of the same stock as the peoples of Asia Minor and Crete and the pre-Hellenic Aegeans of Greece. They are reputed to have built up the city civilization of the Indus Valley, whose remains have been found at Mohenjodaro and Harappa and other Indus cities. The Dravidians must have spread to the whole of India, supplanting Austrics and Negritos alike. Dravidians comprise all the three sub-types, Paleo-Mediterranean, the true Mediterranean and Oriental Mediterranean. This group constitutes the bulk of the scheduled castes in the North India. This group has a sub-type called Oriental group.

(5) Western Brachycephals: These include the Alpinoids, Dinaries and Armenois. The Coorgis and Parsis fall into this category.

(6) Nordics: Nordics or Indo-Aryans are the last immigrants into India. Nordic Aryans were a branch of Indo-Iranians, who had originally left their homes in Central Asia, some 5000 years ago, and had settled in Mesopotamia for some centuries. The Aryans must have come into India between 2000 and 1500 B.C. Their first home in India was Western and northern Punjab, from where they spread to the Valley of the Ganga and beyond. These tribes are now mainly found in the Northwest and the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP). Many of these tribes belong to the "upper castes".
User avatar

uddhava

ex-BK

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 May 2006

Post01 Jan 2008

Of course there is always mixing and many people do not fit neatly into any category but here is my idea of what a Dravidian face looks like ... http://abroadabroad.ca/wp-content/uploa ... CT0057.jpg.

Meanwhile, the Hindu nationalist party Shiv Sena (Army of Shiva) believe that 'Maharashtrians (Marathi People) are superior in race and culture to the ones of rest of India'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Sena

I am guessing that Marathi would be a subdivision of Aryan.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Post02 Jan 2008

uddhava wrote:Here is one theory, unfortunately no pictures ...

Ha! Great minds etc ...

Of course, that account miss the last of the Nordic/Germanic types to leave some genetic and but a lot more cultural input; The Brits!
User avatar

nivi_k

PBK

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2009
  • Location: usa

Re: India

Post27 Mar 2009

It's nice to see that everyone has their own theories about this topic based on what they have read in textbooks, internet, and other sources of modern day knowledge. So we are all just speculating at this point and maybe one day we will have the real answers.

Terry

ex-BK

  • Posts: 389
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2009
  • Location: OZ

Re: India

Post02 Apr 2009

nivi_k wrote:we are all just speculating at this point and maybe one day we will have the real answers

It is said that the past is foreign country, i.e. it is hard for us to understand fully what happened there.

Genetics is quite accurate - DNA cannot lie. The human genome was fully mapped by the year 2001.

I think many scholars say that language can be an even more accurate trail of clues. Of course, if one is genuinely interested, it takes time and dedication to research and understand for yourself. Or someone can tell you a simple story that requires no effort on your part - you can believe that.

If you want to stay as a child, believe what you are told. Some people live their whole lives as children. If you want to be an individual with your own sense of knowledge & wisdom that you have gained for yourself, the you have to actually find out for yourself based on the available evidence and resources. You can study and merely believe what you read, or you can read it critically and be aware of its foundations and its limitations.

But if you think all of history is encapsulated in 5,000 years and that the Aryan is the first human society - because someone said so - that is belief not knowledge. Here's another example of how we know: radiocarbon dating was validated as a workable method for dating objects since about 1950. The discoverer - William Libby - tested his theory that radiocarbon 14 isotope decays at a particular rate so can be used to date objects containing carbon.

How would you do this? You test it against something that you know the age of. One famous test was of a piece of wood from an ancient Egyptian tomb whose age was known in the historical records. The technique has been vastly improved in recent times. It is considered quite accurate up to 70,000 years. It is also tested against other knowns - tree rings, geological core samples etc. It is about not denying the undeniable, and working from there. You might care to look at the topic "starlight" for more discussion on this.
User avatar

joel

ex-BK

  • Posts: 529
  • Joined: 01 May 2006

Re: India

Post02 Apr 2009

Nice post, Terry.

nivi_k may be reading, but she is not writing ... banned.
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: India

Post03 Apr 2009

nivi_k wrote:It's nice to see that everyone has their own theories about this topic based on what they have read in textbooks, internet, and other sources of modern day knowledge. So we are all just speculating at this point and maybe one day we will have the real answers.

This is a typical logical fallacy used by low level pundits and the Brahma Kumaris. (See link for more information).

Amazingly for such a short post, it probably included 4 or 5 such false arguments based upon the premise that only Baba knows, that modern is ignorant and false, that scientific laws are entirely subjective and that "one day we will have the real answers". Which, of course, only the BK can deliver.

exbktt

ex-BK

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2007

Re:

Post26 Apr 2009

What you are saying is that there were no human beings in India before the negritos, it was a barren land, without human life. Hogwash ...

uddhava wrote:Here is one theory, unfortunately no pictures ... THE ORIGIN OF RACES IN India
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BK

  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: India

Post27 Apr 2009

Someone puts some images to the Doctor's ethnic theory; here. What is your alternative, exbktt?

Gupta's theory goes back to 60,000 years ago. The general opinion amongst evolutionist is that Homo Sapiens colonized Africa about 150,000 years ago, moved out of Africa 70,000 years ago, and had spread across Australia, Asia and Europe by 40,000 years ago.

I suppose it is going to be hard for Indians to swallow that the first, and rightful Indians, were negros or blacks and at some point the much later Aryan invaders did what the whites did to North America.

There are separate evolutionary theories, e.g. the 'multiregional hypothesis' as an alternative theory to the mainstream 'single-origin hypothesis' (or 'Out-of-Africa' model) but they are not widely supported, e.g. even the Chinese, post-'Peking Man' and after widespread genetic testing, are now accepting the African connection.

To put the boot on the other foot, has anyone asked BapDada for a clear and precise explanation of the 2,500 years human diaspora model and to account for all the cultural, linguistic and genetic changes? I am supposing all the Pre-Hindu "deities" were the same color. About the only details according to the BKWSU we have about their breeding are, as far as my recollection goes, that according to the Murli they procreated after 75 years old and practised incest (Brother and Sister having children).

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Return to Anything goes