Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum

INDIA AND THE DIASPORA => Indian Perspectives => Topic started by: fierytrini on June 13, 2012, 07:43:43 PM

Post by: fierytrini on June 13, 2012, 07:43:43 PM
There has been a general denial by East Indians in India and their descendants about the true origins of our history in India.

India has long had a dichotomous approach to the world. On one hand we see India’s glorious epic heritage: eternal monuments to love and religion, its strict adherence to its many faiths and culture, its ability to become a nation while retaining its multi-faceted traditions and numerous festivals. And on the other hand its stark poverty rates, burgeoning population rate, continued practice of untouchability, negation of its indigenous tribes, female oppression and female foeticide, myopic political regimes and inadequate ability to deal with pollution on a global scale are downplayed.

 India’s history has been retold through the process of colonization and re-created through the settlement of Aryans, Sythians, Cimmerians, Greeks, Ethiopians (King Ghanges, the Sidis) Semites, Mongols, Arabs and the British. It has been reworked to serve the needs of which new group controlled the resources of the nation. These ideologies have been capable of keeping millions of people in servitude; a bonded labour akin to slavery.

Noted historians as Cheikh Diop, Runoko Rashidi and Ivan van Sertima have been highlighting for years the relationship between Africa and India.
The first Indians were Black Africoid people.The earliest Indian settlement dates from the 6th millennium B.C.E. and earlier. The geographical area of existence was in today’s Baluchistan and in lower Sind, to the north and west of present day Karachi (
Even though there is genetic evidence to prove the claim that modern humans evolved from Africa, and there is physical evidence that shows an African presence in Asia, it is still refused by India in spite of the evidence. Such physical evidence as architecture abounds in the former early civilizations like Harappan and Mohend-jaro. The fact that the early aboriginal settlers of India and many of its still existing tribes have black skin and predominantly African features is such a prominent measure of evidence, is denied.

It is important for me to address this area as India denies its African roots/origins as do other peoples in the world. Furthermore, it is because of the association of India to its well known strict culture that addressing its foundations is so very important to assess. When Indian scholars choose to research this issue, it is the Indian political and religious bodies that most vehemently deny any such claims. For example, Vontibettu T. Rajshekar has been severely criticized for creating the Dalit Voice which has Afro centrist ideologies. Dr. Bhimrao. R Ambedkar, was an Untouchable who campaigned for the rights of Dalits, and is considered the father of the movement: but it was MK Gandhi who has come across as the savior of the Untouchables to the world at large.

But other European writers like the French Francois Gautier gets welcomed when he writes about Indian history. ( Or even American David Frawley who has been accepted as a “Jyotish Kovid” (a Vedic astrologer) and Stephen Knapp who has been showing links between Krishna and Christ has been “brahminically initiated” to the Vedic order. ( . How could authors like this be given preference over Indians who live the experience day in and day out? It is this sort of complex where Indians need their own history told to them by Europeans and Americans which has seen the true history of India become distorted and confusing. And this fatalistic reason by outside historians has adversely influenced a better understanding of the history of India for her inhabitants and her descendants.

There is a school of thought that if one accepts that aboriginal Indians originated in Africa then one is denying one’s “Indianess.” That is not the case, as I clearly point to naysayers. I do not deny that I identify as an Indian, if I choose to discover my true origins, then I do so to be better informed about India’s history, practices and traditions.

For how am I to gain insight into India without an understanding of India’s past? Furthermore, denying such truths about African influences in India’s origins in light of the glaring evidence prejudices any understanding I am to gain about my SELF. And if I don’t understand my past history, how will I gain a better understanding of my own journey?

Post by: Belle on September 27, 2013, 12:08:37 AM
History has become so distorted. Africans were indigenous to the Indus Valley before the arrival of the Aryan's. In Andaman, India, there is the Jarawa tribe, who have inhabited the area for over 50,000 years. Even the Zhou Dynasty of China was of African origins 

Post by: kain on December 10, 2013, 09:29:17 PM
I think that because people continue to think about race or color or ethnicity this creates problems, all the past origins should not necessarily be forgotten but it should be put aside in order to move humanity forward! All "religions" teach the same basic truth which is universal love, (which was the Very first "religion") even early Christianity taught reincarnation as was taught by that enlightened soul known as Christ but the church omitted this in order to control people! This is just one example of how the past can affect our future if we dwell on it.

Post by: Kurious Rose on December 11, 2013, 09:19:25 PM
How can thinking about or acknowledging race, color and ethnicity create problems? Whether one acknowledges this or not, people view, judge and treat people based on their race, color, social class, gender, size etc.  So it is unrealistic to think that people can just dismiss these especially when there are historical legacies which allow systemic imbalances to occur and where people are negatively discriminated against as a result. For humanity to move forward, racism, sizism, sexism, colorism and other forms of negative discrimination must be addressed. In addition, learning about one’s racial and ethnic origins, as well as understanding how society views and treats with one based on size, gender, hair texture etc., is beneficial in not only understanding more about one’s self but can also help in improving one’s conduct in how one treats others and how one accepts or rejects treatment from others. Without these there can be no universal love.

Post by: kain on December 13, 2013, 11:03:54 AM
I agree about learning about our origins, but i should not see someone as white or black, as Indian or Chinese, I should only see them as the person that they are and i should not be influenced by their origins when I interact with them. Everyone should be treated the same regardless of background! We need to see past all these obstacles when we deal with anyone. As an example, if someone is hungry and needs food should their colour/race/ethnicity affect how I choose to help this person? Or the fact that other people have treated this person badly or better than i can treat them should this affect my interaction with this person? It should not.

Post by: baseman on December 14, 2013, 08:12:54 AM
People’s differences are not obstacles; they are major signs of their unique histories that we can all learn from. No one treats everyone equally. It is not possible and it’s impractical. Add to that the many prejudices that people have, they are bound to treat themselves and others badly.

Post by: Blue on December 14, 2013, 09:00:03 AM
I believe that a knowledge of one's physical genesis is key to properly understanding one's self and will aid in how we communicate with the global society.  Why ignore what physical or historical characteristics define an individual?  Social values would have us fixating on a partial dimension of a person, his personality, or his circumstances, his looks, what is deemed virtue (or not), etc.  India is not unique in the whitewash of history but it has been very successful at eradicating any African association/connecting in its history because of both religious and socio/economic policies.  So much so in fact that when I mention the African presence in the diaspora the reaction is usually confusion...there is no knowledge of there ever having been an African in India...sometimes I'm greeted with belligerence because the denial is so entrenched.  It is important to discuss and acknowledge that such a history exists.  "Putting aside" any inaccuracy/atrocity trivialises the travesty of justice done to an entire people and furthermore strengthens a historical falsehood, it will make me party to a lie if I fail to acknowledge in the proper context.  I also disagree that everyone should be treated the same.  I've never met anyone who can claim that the world has treated with him/her in a standardised fashion and I'm not sure where such a fallacy originated but it has been a recurring theme for me.  Equal rights do not equate equal treatment though they are often confused as one and same.  There are different needs to be fed via our interactions.  There ought to be balance and that is shown via the respect we can give to the recognition of the whole of a person, rather than a few selective elements.