--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...>
wrote:
> Let's see, Mr Kalyanaraman is apparently unsatisfied with
> Dravidian languages (spoken largely by very dark-skinned folks)
> being a native language of India, so he'd rather have
> Indo-European languages (historically spoken by more
> light-skinned folks) as the native language of India.
The correlation between skin colour and the language family Indo-
atyan or Munda or Dravidian of a speaker is too hazy to make a
generalization like that in India. Even more so is the correlation
between skin colour and the arya/nonarya. A dark skinned Brahmin
with Telugu as mother tongue can consider himself an arya while a
Muslim or with an Arabic/Persian connction connection will have no
such feelings.
And why should assume that vedic people like Vasista or Visvamitra
or Angirasa looked any different from an average Hindu of today?
That assumption has no basis.