The Indigenous Aryans theory known as the Out of India theory, proposes that the Indo-European languages, or at least the Indo-Aryan languages, originated within the Indian subcontinent, as an alternative to the established migration model which proposes the Pontic steppe as the area of origin of the Indo-European languages. The indigenist view sees the Indo-Aryan languages as having a deep history in the Indian subcontinent, being the carriers of the Indus Valley Civilization; this view proposes an older date than is accepted for the Vedic period, considered to follow the decline of Harappan culture. It includes arguments against the Indo-Aryan migration theory, arguments to re-date the Vedas and the presence of the Vedic people in accordance with traditional, Vedic-Puranic datings; the idea of "Indigenous Aryans" implies a migration "Out of India" to Europe and Central Asia. This is contrary to the mainstream scholarly view, saying that the Indo-Aryan languages originated outside India; the proposal has been entwined with political and religious arguments, since it is based on traditional and religious views on Indian history and its identity.
There has been resistance among some Indian scholars to the idea that Indian culture can be divided between external Indo-European and indigenous Dravidian elements, a division, sometimes described as a legacy of colonial rule and a hindrance to Indian national unity. The debate exists among the scholars of Hindu religion and the history and archaeology of India, whereas historical linguists nearly unanimously accept the migration model of Indic origins; the standard view on the origins of the Indo-Aryans is the Indo-Aryan migration theory, which states that they entered north-western India at about 1500 BCE. An alternative view is the idea that the Aryans are indigenous to India, which challenges the standard view. In recent times the indigenous position has come to the foreground of the public debate; the Indo-Aryan Migration theory posits the introduction of Indo-Aryan languages into South Asia through migrations of Indo-European-speaking people from the Pontic Steppes via Central Asia into the Levant, south Asia, Inner Asia.
It is part of the Kurgan-hypothesis/Revised Steppe Theory, which further describes the spread of Indo-European languages into western Europe via migrations of Indo-European speaking people. Historical linguistics provides the main basis for the theory, analysing the development and changes of languages, establishing relations between the various Indo-European languages, the time frame wherein these languages developed, it provides information about shared words, the corresponding area of the origin of Indo-European, the specific vocabulary, to be ascribed to specific regions. The linguistic analyses and data are supplemented with archaeological data and anthropological arguments, which together provide a coherent model, accepted. In the model, the Yamna culture is the "Urheimat" of the Indo-Europeans, east of which emerged the Sintashta culture, from which developed the Andronovo culture. Andronovo culture interacted with the BMAC and, out of this interaction, developed the Indo-Iranians, which split into the Indo-Aryan and the Iranian branches around 1800 BC.
The Indo-Aryans migrated to the Levant, northern India, Inner Asia. The migration into northern India was not a large-scale immigration, but may have consisted of small groups of ethnically and genetically heterogeneous composition, who introduced their language and social system into the new territory; these are emulated by larger groups of people, which become absorpted in the new language group. Witzel notes that "small-scale semi-annual transhumance movements between the Indus plains and the Afghan and Baluchi highlands continue to this day." The so-called "Aryan Invasion theory" is an outdated variant on this model. In the 1850s, Max Müller introduced the notion of two Aryan races, a western and an eastern one, who migrated from the Caucasus into Europe and India respectively. Müller dichotomized the two groups, ascribing greater value to the western branch; this "eastern branch of the Aryan race was more powerful than the indigenous eastern natives, who were easy to conquer." By the 1880s, his ideas had been "hijacked" by racist ethnologists.
For example, as an exponent of race science, colonial administrator Herbert Hope Risley used the ratio of the width of a nose to its height to divide Indian people into Aryan and Dravidian races, as well as seven castes. The idea of an Aryan "invasion" was fueled after the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilisation called Harappan Civilisation; the Indus Valley Civilisation underwent decline at around the same period during which the Indo-Aryan migration occurred. This led to the idea that this migration was an aggressive invasion which caused the decline of the Harappan Civilisation; this argument was developed by the mid-20th century archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler, who interpreted the presence of many unburied corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-daro as the victims of conquests. He famously stated that the Vedic god "Indra stands accused" of the destruction of the Indus Civilisation. Scholarly critics have since argued that Wheeler misinterpreted the evidence he found, that the skeletons were better explained as hasty interments, not victims of a massacre.
The theory has been discarded in mainstream scholarship since the 1980s, replaced by much more sophisticated models. Critics of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory use it to present the Indo-Aryan Migration theory as a variant of "Aryan Invasion Theory". A
Newar, or Nepami, are the historical inhabitants of the Kathmandu Valley and its surrounding areas in Nepal and the creators of its historic heritage and civilisation. Newars form a linguistic and cultural community of Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman ethnicities following Hinduism and Buddhism with Newari as their common language. Newars have developed a division of labour and a sophisticated urban civilisation not seen elsewhere in the Himalayan foothills. Newars have continued their age-old traditions and practices and pride themselves as the true custodians of the religion and civilisation of Nepal; the Kathmandu Valley and surrounding territories constituted the former Newar kingdom of the Nepal Mandala. Unlike other common-origin ethnic or caste groups of Nepal, the Newars are regarded as an example of a nation community with a relict identity, derived from an ethnically-diverse, previously-existing polity. Newar community within it consists of various strands of ethnic, racial and religious heterogeneity, as they are the descendants of the diverse group of people that have lived in Nepal Mandala since prehistoric times.
Indo-Aryan tribes like the Licchavis and Mallas from respective Indian Mahajanapada that arrived at different periods merged with the local population by adopting their language and customs. These tribes however retained their Vedic culture and brought with them their Sanskritic languages, social structure and Hindu religion, assimilated with local cultures and gave rise to the current Newar civilization. Newar rule in Nepal Mandala ended with its conquest by the Gorkha Kingdom in 1768. Newars are known for their contributions to culture and literature, trade and cuisine. Today, they rank as the most economically and advanced community of Nepal, according to the annual Human Development Index published by UNDP. Nepal's 2011 census ranks them as the nation's sixth-largest ethnicity/community, with 1,321,933 Newars throughout the country; the terms "Nepāl", "Newār", "Newāl" and "Nepār" are phonetically different forms of the same word, instances of the various forms appear in texts in different times in history.
Nepal is the learned form and Newar is the colloquial form. A Sanskrit inscription dated to 512 in Tistung, a valley to the west of Kathmandu, contains the phrase "greetings to the Nepals" indicating that the term "Nepal" was used to refer to both the country and the people; the term "Newar" or "Newa:" referring to "inhabitant of Nepal" appeared for the first time in an inscription dated 1654 in Kathmandu. Italian Jesuit priest Ippolito Desideri who traveled to Nepal in 1721 has written that the natives of Nepal are called Newars, it has been suggested that "Nepal" may be a sanskritization of "Newar", or "Newar" may be a form of "Nepal". According to another explanation, the words "Newar" and "Newari" are colloquial forms arising from the mutation of P to W, L to R; as a result of the phonological process of dropping the last consonant and lengthening the vowel, "Newā" for Newār or Newāl, "Nepā" for Nepāl are used in ordinary speech. For about a thousand years, the Newar civilization in Central Nepal preserved a microcosm of classical North Indian culture in which Brahmanic and Buddhist elements enjoyed equal status.
Snellgrove and Richardson speak of'the direct heritage of pre-Islamic India'. The Malla dynasty was noted for their patronisation of the Maithili language, afforded an equal status to that of Sanskrit in the Malla court. Maithil Brahmin priests were invited to Kathmandu and many Maithil families settled in Kathmandu during Malla rule. Due to influx of people from both north and south who brought with them not only their genetic and racial diversity but greatly moulded the dominant culture and tradition of Newars; the different divisions of Newars had different historical developments. The common identity of Newar was formed in the Kathmandu Valley; until the conquest of the valley by the Gorkha Kingdom in 1769, all the people who had inhabited the valley at any point of time were either Newar or progenitors of Newar. So, the history of Newar correlates to the history of the Kathmandu Valley prior to the establishment of the modern state of Nepal; the earliest known history of Newar and the Kathmandu Valley blends with mythology recorded in historical chronicles.
One such text, which recounts the creation of the valley, is the Swayambhu Purana. According to this Buddhist scripture, the Kathmandu Valley was a giant lake until the Bodhisattva Manjusri, with the aid of a holy sword, cut a gap in the surrounding hills and let the water out; this apocryphal legend is supported by geological evidence of an ancient lakebed, it provides an explanation for the high fertility of the Kathmandu Valley soil. According to the Swayambhu Purana, Manjusri established a city called Manjupattan, now called Manjipā, made Dharmākara its king. A shrine dedicated to Manjusri is still present in Majipā. No historical documents have been found after this era till the advent of the Gopal era. A genealogy of kings is recorded in a chronicle called Gopalarajavamsavali. According to this manuscript, the Gopal kings were followed by the Mahispals and the Kirats before the Licchavis entered from the south; some claim Buddha to have visited Nepal during the reign of Kirat King Jitedasti.
Newar reign over the valley and their sovereignty and influence over neighboring territories ended with the conquest of the Kathmandu Valley in 1769 by the Gorkhali Shah dynasty fou
History of Hinduism
History of Hinduism denotes a wide variety of related religious traditions native to the Indian subcontinent. Its history overlaps or coincides with the development of religion in Indian subcontinent since the Iron Age, with some of its traditions tracing back to prehistoric religions such as those of the Bronze Age Indus Valley Civilization, it has thus been called the "oldest religion" in the world. Scholars regard Hinduism as a synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions, with diverse roots and no single founder; the history of Hinduism is divided into periods of development. The first period is the pre-Vedic period, which includes the Indus Valley Civilisation and local pre-historic religions, ending at about 1750 BCE; this period was followed in northern India by the Vedic period, which saw the introduction of the historical Vedic religion with the Indo-Aryan migrations, starting somewhere between 1900 BCE to 1400 BCE. The subsequent period, between 800 BCE and 200 BCE, is "a turning point between the Vedic religion and Hindu religions", a formative period for Hinduism and Buddhism.
The Epic and Early Puranic period, from c. 200 BCE to 500 CE, saw the classical "Golden Age" of Hinduism, which coincides with the Gupta Empire. In this period the six branches of Hindu philosophy evolved, namely Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mīmāṃsā, Vedanta. Monotheistic sects like Shaivism and Vaishnavism developed during this same period through the Bhakti movement; the period from 650 to 1100 CE forms the late Classical period or early Middle Ages, in which classical Puranic Hinduism is established, Adi Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, which incorporated Buddhist thought into Vedanta, marking a shift from realistic to idealistic thought. Hinduism under both Hindu and Islamic rulers from c. 1200 to 1750 CE, saw the increasing prominence of the Bhakti movement, which remains influential today. The colonial period saw the emergence of various Hindu reform movements inspired by western movements, such as Unitarianism and Theosophy; the Partition of India in 1947 was along religious lines, with the Republic of India emerging with a Hindu majority.
During the 20th century, due to the Indian diaspora, Hindu minorities have formed in all continents, with the largest communities in absolute numbers in the United States and the United Kingdom. Western scholars regard Hinduism as a synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions. Among its roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age northern India itself the product of "a composite of the Indo-Aryan and Harappan cultures and civilizations", but the Sramana or renouncer traditions of northeast India, mesolithic and neolithic cultures of India, such as the religions of the Indus Valley Civilisation, Dravidian traditions, the local traditions and tribal religions. After the Vedic period, between 500-200 BCE and c. 300 CE, at the beginning of the "Epic and Puranic" c.q. "Preclassical" period, the "Hindu synthesis" emerged, which incorporated śramaṇic and Buddhist influences and the emerging bhakti tradition into the Brahmanical fold via the smriti literature. This synthesis emerged under the pressure of the success of Jainism.
During the Gupta reign the first Puranas were written, which were used to disseminate "mainstream religious ideology amongst pre-literate and tribal groups undergoing acculturation." The resulting Puranic Hinduism differed markedly from the earlier Brahmanism of the Dharmaśāstras and the smritis. Hinduism co-existed for several centuries with Buddhism, to gain the upper hand at all levels in the 8th century. From northern India this "Hindu synthesis", its societal divisions, spread to southern India and parts of Southeast Asia, it was aided by the settlement of Brahmins on land granted by local rulers, the incorporation and assimilation of popular non-Vedic gods, the process of Sanskritization, in which "people from many strata of society throughout the subcontinent tended to adapt their religious and social life to Brahmanic norms". This process of assimilation explains the wide diversity of local cultures in India "half shrouded in a taddered cloak of conceptual unity." James Mill, in his The History of British India, distinguished three phases in the history of India, namely Hindu and British civilisations.
This periodisation has been criticised, for the misconceptions. Another periodisation is the division into "ancient, classical and modern periods", although this periodization has received criticism. Romila Thapar notes that the division of Hindu-Muslim-British periods of Indian history gives too much weight to "ruling dynasties and foreign invasions," neglecting the social-economic history which showed a strong continuity; the division in Ancient-Medieval-Modern overlooks the fact that the Muslim-conquests took place between the eight and the fourteenth century, while the south was never conquered. According to Thapar, a periodisation could be based on "significant social and economic changes," which are not related to a change of ruling powers. Smart and Michaels seem to follow Mill's periodisation, while Flood and Muesse follow the "ancient, classical and modern periods" periodisation. An elaborate periodisation may be as follows: Indus Valley Civilisation; the earliest prehistoric religion in India tha
Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism is a 2011 book by Rajiv Malhotra, an Indian-American author and public speaker, published by HarperCollins. The book reverts the gaze of the western cultures on India, repositioning India from being the observed to the observer, by looking at the West from a Dharmic point of view. Malhotra intends to give a critique of western culture, by comparing it with Indian culture, as seen from a'Dharmic point of view.' To accomplish this goal, he postulates a set of characteristics of western culture, a set of characteristics of Indian culture and religion, characterised as "Dharmic." Malhotra explains that in Being Different,'Dharma' is used to indicate a family of spiritual traditions originating in India which today are manifested as Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. I explain that the variety of perspectives and practices of dharma display an underlying integral unity at the metaphysical level. Malhotra summarizes his rationale for treating Dharmic traditions as a family, contrasting the family of Dharmic traditions with Abrahamic religions.
He constructs their differences from this'Dharmic perspective,' thereby'reversing the gaze.' Malhotra clarifies that he is not replacing a West-centric view with a Dharma-centric view by proposing the reversal of gaze. Malhotra explains that he seeks a dialogue, where the world civilizations are not seen from the viewpoint of the West, but the west is seen from a non-western, c.q.'dharmic' point of view. Malhotra calls for mutual respect as a higher standard for pluralism than tolerance. Mutual respect does not call for acceptance of beliefs held by others, only to have genuine respect for difference, beliefs are not facts. Malhotra explains why this gaze from the other side benefits the West, explaining that he... hopes to set the terms for a deeper and more informed engagement between dharmic and Western civilizations." Malhotra identifies "six distinct and fundamental points of divergence between the dharmic traditions and the West." Malhotra argues that understanding these six points of divergence is crucial to recognizing the fallacy of facile sameness arguments and to understanding senselessness of inculturation efforts.
These points of divergence are: Approaches to difference History-centrism versus inner sciences Integral versus synthetic unity The nature of chaos and uncertainty Translatability vs. Sanskrit Western universalism challenged According to Malhotra, there is a pervasive anxiety in the west over personal and cultural differences. Therefore, the west tries to assimilate and convert "all that does not fit its fundamental paradigms." According to Malhotra, this anxiety is grounded in schisms which are inherent in the western worldview. In contrast, "Dharmic traditions are more comfortable with differences." According to Malhotra, Dharmic traditions rely on adhyatma-vidya, while the Abrahamic religions rely on God's interventions in human history. For followers of history-centric religions, truth-claims based on history are more significant than the scriptural message itself. History-centric dogma such as original sin and resurrection become critical beliefs and no compromise can be made on their acceptance.
This explains the centrality of Nicene creed to all major Christian denominations. Followers of history-centric religions believe that the God revealed His message through a special prophet and that the message is secured in scriptures; this special access to God is available only to these intermediaries or prophets and not to any other human beings. Dharma traditions do not hold history central to their faith. Gautama Buddha emphasized that his enlightenment was a discovery of a reality, always there, he was not bringing any new covenants from any God. The history of the Buddha is not necessary for Buddhist principles to work. In fact, Buddha stated that he was neither the first nor the last person to have achieved the state of enlightenment, he asserted that he was not God nor sent by any God as a prophet, whatever he discovered was available to every human to discover for himself. This makes Buddhism not History-Centric. Malhotra explains how history-centrism or lack of it has implications for religious absolutist exclusivity vs. flexible pluralism: Abrahamic religions claim that we can resolve the human condition only by following the lineage of prophets arising from the Middle East.
All other teachings and practices are required to be reconciled with this special and peculiar history. By contrast, the dharmic traditions – Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism -- do not rely on history in the same absolutist and exclusive way; this dharmic flexibility has made fundamental pluralism possible which cannot occur within the constraints of history centrism, at least as understood so far. Both Western and Dharmic civilizations have cherished unity as an ideal, but with a different emphasis. Here, Malhotra posits a crucial distinction between what he considers a "synthetic unity" that gave rise to a static intellectualistic Worldview in the West positioning itself as the Universal and an "integrative unity" that gave rise to a dynamically oriented Worldview based on Dharma. While the former is characterized by a "top-down" essentialism embracing everything a priori, the latter is a "bottom-up" approach acknowledging the dependent co-origination of alternative views of the human and the divine, the body and the mind, the self and society.
Dharma philosophical systems are systematized in their approach to understanding ultimate reality and in addressing what one can know through various means of knowledge. However, this rigor does not restrict their freedom in being comfortable with social organization. Indians exhibit remarkable openness to self-o
Hindi, or Modern Standard Hindi is a standardised and Sanskritised register of the Hindustani language. Hindi, written in the Devanagari script, is one of the official languages of India, along with the English language, it is one of the 22 scheduled languages of the Republic of India. However, it is not the national language of India because no language was given such a status in the Indian constitution. Hindi is the lingua franca of the Hindi belt, to a lesser extent other parts of India. Outside India, several other languages are recognized as "Hindi" but do not refer to the Standard Hindi language described here and instead descend from other dialects of Hindustani, such as Awadhi and Bhojpuri; such languages include Fiji Hindi, official in Fiji, Caribbean Hindustani, a recognized language in Trinidad and Tobago and Suriname. Apart from specialized vocabulary, spoken Hindi is mutually intelligible with Urdu, another recognized register of Hindustani; as a linguistic variety, Hindi is the fourth most-spoken first language in the world, after Mandarin and English.
Alongside Urdu as Hindustani, it is the third most-spoken language in the world, after Mandarin and English. The term Hindī was used to refer to inhabitants of the region east of the Indus, it was borrowed from Classical Persian Hindī, meaning "Indian", from the proper noun Hind "India". The name Hindavī was used by Amir Khusrow in his poetry. Like other Indo-Aryan languages, Hindi is a direct descendant of an early form of Vedic Sanskrit, through Sauraseni Prakrit and Śauraseni Apabhraṃśa, which emerged in the 7th century A. D. Modern Standard Hindi is based on the Khariboli dialect, the vernacular of Delhi and the surrounding region, which came to replace earlier prestige dialects such as Awadhi and Braj. Urdu – another form of Hindustani – acquired linguistic prestige in the Mughal period, underwent significant Persian influence. Modern Hindi and its literary tradition evolved towards the end of the 18th century. However, modern Hindi's earlier literary stages before standardization can be traced to the 16th century.
In the late 19th century, a movement to further develop Hindi as a standardised form of Hindustani separate from Urdu took form. In 1881, Bihar accepted Hindi as its sole official language, replacing Urdu, thus became the first state of India to adopt Hindi. Modern Standard Hindi is one of the youngest Indian languages in this regard. After independence, the government of India instituted the following conventions: standardisation of grammar: In 1954, the Government of India set up a committee to prepare a grammar of Hindi. Standardisation of the orthography, using the Devanagari script, by the Central Hindi Directorate of the Ministry of Education and Culture to bring about uniformity in writing, to improve the shape of some Devanagari characters, introducing diacritics to express sounds from other languages. On 14 September 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India adopted Hindi written in the Devanagari script as the official language of the Republic of India replacing Urdu's previous usage in British India.
To this end, several stalwarts rallied and lobbied pan-India in favor of Hindi, most notably Beohar Rajendra Simha along with Hazari Prasad Dwivedi, Kaka Kalelkar, Maithili Sharan Gupt and Seth Govind Das who debated in Parliament on this issue. As such, on the 50th birthday of Beohar Rajendra Simha on 14 September 1949, the efforts came to fruition following the adoption of Hindi as the official language. Now, it is celebrated as Hindi Day. In Northeast India a pidgin known as Haflong Hindi has developed as a lingua franca for various tribes in Assam that speak other languages natively. In Arunachal Pradesh, Hindi emerged as a lingua franca among locals who speak over 50 dialects natively. Part XVII of the Indian Constitution deals with the official language of the Indian Commonwealth. Under Article 343, the official languages of the Union has been prescribed, which includes Hindi in Devanagari script and English: The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script; the form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.
Notwithstanding anything in clause, for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used before such commencement: Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorize the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devanagari form of numerals in addition to the international form of Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union. Article 351 of the Indian constitution states It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages.
It was envisioned that Hindi would become the sole working language of the Union Government by 1965 (per directi