This is a question which belongs to one of the most controversial topics in the modern history - 'The Aryans: their origin, culture and movements.' It all got started in India, when the British in India (India was a British colony for 150-200 years till the year of Indian independence & its partition into Pakistan, India and Bangladesh in the year 1947) discovered the linguistic similarities between several European, central Asian and north Indian languages. After years of research into the Indian history, culture, religion, literature, and excavation of the Indus valley civilization in the North-west India, the British (and a few other European scholars) concluded that the Aryans (concluded to be the fair skinned people from Caucasus region) got into India from the parts of modern Afghanistan and Iran, where they had settled earlier. They were thought to have invaded the north-west India, that is, the Indian valley civilization, subsequently defeating, massacaring the civilization's dark skinned inhabitants and driving them to the south of India, while making the north their own. Later, the Aryans classified the dark skinned original inhabitants or the Dravidians as the 'Shudra' or 'untouchable' class of the Indo-Aryan society, and classified themselves as the Brahmins (priestly or knowledgeable class), the Kshtriyas (warrior class) and the Vaishyas (the business class). The Brahmins were the most authoritative and respected. This above written Aryan Invasion theory (AIT), which is accepted by most European and Indian historians, has some more-than-serious flaws. These flaws (pointed by both - some European and many Indian historians) had been pointed out much earlier, but have gained much popularity and support since a few decades after the independence of India. These are as follows: 1) If the 'light skinned and mostly blonde haired and blue eyed' Aryans had really invaded India and settled here thereafter, then why are such people with pure Caucasian features rarely found in India now? If it is because of centuries of racial intermixing, then how come one can still find some quite dark skinned people in India but not central Asian/ European type 'white' skinned people in India? Even the light brown skinned people found in the far north of India in places like Kashmir aren't as fair as the 'Aryans' are considered to be. 2) The Aryans divided themselves into 3 classes. The fourth class was the lowly 'Shudra' class, explained by the European historians as the Aryan conquered Dravidians' class. By this logic, all the high castes, esp. the Brahmins had to be white/ light brown skinned and the people belonging to the 'Shudra' class had to be dark brown skinned. And yet, many dark skinned Brahmins and light skinned 'Shudras' can easily be found in India - both in north as well as south. And upon that, inter-caste marriages, esp. high and low caste ones, are still uncommon in almost all parts of India. Another point regarding castes is that - Valmiki, the writer of the great Indian epic 'Ramayana', was born a Shudra, but ultimately, by attaining the Brahminical aspect of knowledge earning, spiritual understanding and noble mannerisms, became a Brahmin. 'Ramayana' is the story (does not matter if it was factual or myth) of a Kshtriya (Aryan) prince of North India - Lord Rama, who at the climax of the story defeats and kills the demonic king of Sri Lanka (south of India) - Ravana. Now, even though Ravana was a Brahmin (Aryan) by caste, he is considered, in the Indian spiritual folklore, as an UnArya or a non-Aryan, on account of his demonic deeds. This all suggests that Caste System, originally, was not rigid, and that, 'Aryan' was an open, attainable socio-spiritual status. 3) How come almost all the light brown skinned people in India (considered to be the descedants of the original Aryans) belong to the cold climate locations of India like Kashmir and Himachal and the dark brown skinned (considered to be the Dravidians themselves) belong to the warm climate locations? This suggests that skin colour in India has more do do with the climate and atmosphere of a particular region in India. 4) If the Aryans were outsiders in India, then why do their spiritual-cultural-social compilation 'The Vedas' do not mention any outside cities, rivers and mountains? Why do they only mention the places that are found in India, as their sacred most? Why not some place in Caucasus or Iran? Why don't the Vedas, which contain references to many battles, contain no reference to an 'invasion' of the land of Indus-Saraswati (India)? How come the modern descendants of Aryans in India have no recollection of their foreign origins? How come the descendants of Shudras (so called Dasas or Dasyus or Dravidians or indigenous race of India) have no recollection of an Aryan invasion of their land and their subsequent subjugation because of a defeat at the hands of the Aryans? 5) If the Dravidians' Indus valley civilization met its end at the hands of the invading Aryans, then how come no horse remains, broken chariots and burned buildings were discovered in and around the valley? 6) How come there was (and is) no conflict or confrontation of any kind between the people or north and south India, ever? How come Brahmins (the highest Aryan caste) are present at both the locations? They should have been concentrated in the north. According to an Anthropological survey of India report, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu (especially the Iyengars) have physical traits that more in common with non-Brahmins in the state than with fellow Brahmins in western or northern India. Detailed anthropometric surveys carried out among the people of Uttar Pradesh, Gujrat, Maharashtra, Bengal and Tamil Nadu revealed significant regional differences within a caste and a closer resemblance between castes of different varnas within a region. 7) If Aryans were outsiders in India (and not the insiders), then how come 'Swastika' - an Aryan symbol - was found on some Indus valley seals? 8) The invading Aryans have been described as either nomadic or semi-nomadic people. It is difficult to imagine that any nomadic people could create anything even close to the complex Vedas. 9) India (or more specifically Hinduism which forms 80% of Indian population and which considers the Vedas as its highest spiritual-cultural-social authority and 'Swastika' as its religious symbol) does not have any oral or written account of any 'Aryan invasion' or any north-south or white-dark divide, past 3500-5000 years of its existence. Infact, the Britishers were the first ones to talk about all such things in India, to the utter shock of the Hindus. 10) Some historians claim an non-Indian origin for Aryans on the basis of languages; that: North Indian, Pakistani and Afghanistani languages are much similar to Central Asian, Iranian and European languages than to the ones that are spoken by South Indians. The former group of languages are termed as PIE (Proto Indo-European) and supposed by AIT theorists to have been created by the 'white' Aryans. However, there are many instances where no connection between genetics and linguistics was found; for example, Basques, a nation in the French-Spanish borderland which has preserved a pre-PIE language, has a high concentration of rhesus negative factor in its population. In comparison, the rhesus negative factor's concentration is much lower in the populations of India and Pakistan. Rhesus negative factor is a genetic one, which decides how genetically close a person is to the 'white Caucasian race'. Similar is the case with large portions of populations from Scotland, Baltic Area, Sami (Lapp) population of Northern Scandinavia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, etc. While these people are closer (than Indians and Pakistanis) to the white Caucasians in genetic formation and looks, they speak languages other than the PIE group of languages. So, while there generally is, but not a definite connection between languages and races. So, does that mean the Aryans were never to (or present in) India? No. The Aryans were definitely here. Because the Vedas were clearly written by the Aryans (mentioned as 'Arya' in the Vedas - this is the term from which the word 'Aryan' was derived) and they were clearly written in India only. This leaves us with this possible explanation about the origin of Aryans: Aryanism was a spiritual and cultural concept or revolution, which spread from North-West India to Afghanistan, Ganga-Yamuna plain, South India, Iran and from there on to Central Asia and finally to Europe, on the basis of cultural, spiritual, linguistic and social superiority mainly, not muscle power. Note: This is a highly controversial subject; and, for anyone who is interested, I suggest that he should do his own 'deep' research about the topic, before jumping on to any conclusion on the basis of any one book or article.
Aryans migrated to India.
No, Hitler didn't search for Aryans in India.
yes. Hinduism was brought into India by the Aryans, when the Aryans invaded India. Hinduism was founded, basically, in India.
Aryans were responsible for bringing Hinduism to India. Aryans invaded India and brought their Religion into India.
The aryans were a proto-slavic people from the caucus mountins, the aryans were advanced and expanded throughout europe and asia. The aryans brought there language and genes to india.
Aryans impacted India socially by using religious reasons.
Mainly Aryans moved into India. Hinduism was founded by Aryans in India.
Aryans were the original habitats of India and they gave the whole world the knowledge of life
The Aryans that migrated to India were Caucasian, and the natives there were dark-skinned. The racial diversity that resulted is apparent in the people that now inhabit India.
The Aryans that migrated to India were Caucasian people that were native to Central Asia. The natives of India were dark-skinned, and the racial diversity of the resulting descendants is apparent today.
the aryans dummy
The decline of the Aryans was due to the division of their society into bootie.The Aryans mixd with the original inhabitants of India.
India was originated through the migration of Aryans from the Steppes Grassland of South Russia. Aryans migrated to Europe, Iran and some to India. These Aryans established there villages throughout India and yet continued to carry their people to other countries. Therefore, most of the Aryans captured Asian countries and established their territory.
The Aryans had horses
Aryans are not a group of people nor a ethnicity. It is only Hitler who made Aryans a race of people who he used to make others of a lesser race. So, Aryans didn't bring anything to India.
It is not mentioned anywhere but first persons in India were Aryans. Because of large number of Aryans in India it was also known as Aryadesh in ancient times.
The Aryans have influenced India because the had iron tools and weapons and horse drawn chariots that lead them against enemies. :)
the aryans, but the dravidians were living in India first. The aryans settled in the north and pushed the dravidians into the deccan plateau.