Sapr,
There is a gaping distance b/w what is claimed historically or what the scriptures say and what is found in reality. Thankgod for genetics, for genes cannot be cooked up like stories.
I do not think there was any invasion. There were intra-tribal wars. Like sons of Diti fighting with sons of Aditi and so on. And if there was any invasion at all, it should have happened such a long time ago that it is untracable now. Am trying to explain by dividing into layer as below.
Layer 1:
The ones we call devas with Indra as their head was probably the austroasiatic naga mundari or kolarian speaking tribes. The ones that got spread all across SE Asia and still live with snake as an integral part of their culture like the Thais, Cambodian and Southern Chinese people.
It is most likely that they gave us the concepts (that got enhanced into later day cultures) of Devi worship, Kundalini, Siddha cult, Sesha naga, Vasuki, ancestor and spirit worship like paying appeasement to dead ancestors and animal spirits, and so on. They were matrilineal like many Indonesians tribes today, and were most likely farming settlements. Indra is a revered diety in SE Asia, but has disappeared in India (in the sense there hardly are any temples for Indra in india).
This naga / austroasiatic substrate has remained in indian caste-populations also, not only tribal ones. It is interesting to note that a section of tamil brahmins carry markers found in SE Asians like Thais and Koreans. Such people cud be an old population (since nothing is confirmed yet, cannot say with surety).
Layer 2:
The ones that attacked / merged into these mongloid or naga tribes were most likely the so-called 'dravidian' speakers. They most likely gave us the concepts of sun worship, henotheistic approach, no-seperate creator ideology, celebrating war heros as (village) dieties, marking burial sites of these war heros into temples, offering animal and human sacrifices; but also merged the practices of mundaris themselves (since they also absorbed the mundari populations into themselves). Probably the stories of Parashurama and Haiheyas are coming from this layer of merger.
These dravidic speakers were also the ones most likely the ones that maintained classist tendencies, and seperated people on occupation basis (since they turn up as differentiated endogamous groups now). And each tribe celebrated its own war heros and victory. It wud be interesting to see if they produced any female warriors since it appears (so far atleast) that the mundaris were the ones who produced female warriors, not the dravidian speakers.
Layer 3:
All of this merger might have finished around 10,000+/-7000 ybp. It is speculated that dravidian and indo-european languages split off from a nostratic group. We do not know if it is true. Perhaps it happened in the sub-continent. Either there must have a more recent intermingling from the group that brought in mantras, chants, worship thru fire and associated rituals; or all of these mixed groups from various layers originated in India and spread outwards into other areas.
--
Each time a new group had to be accomodated, the society had to be reorganized. To accomodate this, came the various dharmasutras.
What is brahmanism today is a sheer mystery (to me atleast). It appears to be a mixuture of various concepts and beliefs, all representing the various layers of mergers. (for a lover of geneology, genetics and history, am thankful that atleast there is one class that brings out all possible mergers).
So, Muller's A.I.T (which he later retracted) makes no sense to anyone.
The question in the colonial times was not about loosing money power. It was sheer propaganda created by the colonialists, and everyone fell for it.
The ones who were told (by caste awareness created by the british) that they were oppressed by brahmins felt that they now had the money and position to seek revenge from brahmins. Many members of so-called Justice Party were known to freely quote all kinds of anti-shudra verses from the scriptures. Whether they knew Shuklambharadaram or not, they certainly knew verses from dharmasutras. It was instilled into them that they had been oppressed by the brahmins and only because of the muslim invasions, they refound their role as so-called warriors, and probably in that sense they became indirectly 'grateful' to muslims (please note all of this is what i gather after talking to a good many people on this issue, it is rather laughable now).
These so-called warriors felt that brahmins were oppressors since even after refounding their warrior role, the brahmins did not recognize them as kshatriyas (this awareness btw was created by the british in them). This is the time, the british connected the concept of varna (class) and jati (occupation) as the same; and in that they were helped by english educated brahmins in colouring things with a one-sided brahmin superiority shade (this part i gathered from some former brahmins turned monks - they blamed the english educated brahmins for certain things as during the colonial times, the brahmins turned into large scale land owners by citing or making up certain scriptures, with the active help of the british - however, i do not know how far this info given out by the monks is true).
And btw, how many people have explored the relationship b/w evr and a particular dalit christian who influenced evr tremundously..that dalit xtian had got most of his material fed into him by colonialists. Evr was the front, like a brand endorser or a movie director, while the manufacturers and movie producers stayed behind the scenes.
It all seems like a well played scenario of a fox encouraging two angered monkeys in their fight against one another. One section (obc) was made to feel that must avenge brahmins, another section (dalits) was made to feel brahmins will always treat them as inferior, and a section of brahmins were made to feel they were always superior. Divide and rule, played to the hilt. And if i have something to blame, then i wud blame us indians for our own lack of unity and the missionaries for taking advantage of it. We are still in the same boat, aren't we...
wow so Ravana became a dalit king for Kancha? I was digging for info on whether Bhargavs were armed brahmins, and found that both Ravana and Rama both came from the line of Brighus (also maybe it is possible that ikshvakus were sugarcane farmers turned administrators / so-called kings and yavanas were probably barley farmers from SE asia...the times when ppl moved from farming (village) settlements into town building (??) ). Anyways, hope Kancha's next publication is not some sorta ravanayam on the lines of evr..
