http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/eth...-india-965.html
Now the controversial part for debate:
We have been asked to study Indian history only from the writings from Sanskrit texts which is being used by the last migrants (though they are invaders which is considered as controversial) called Nordic Caucasoid mixture race (Indo-Aryans in terms linguistic). It is funny to study the whole Indian history on the basis of Sanskrit texts alone which came to India much later/last when compare with other races in India.
Often people are mixing the racial group with the linguistic groups. Both Dravidian and Indo-Aryans can be mapped to racial as well as linguistic identity. What is the difference?
If Dravidian and Indo-Aryans are mapped to Racial then Dravidian are the majority racial group in India and Indo-Aryans are minority racial group in India. On the other hand, If Dravidian and Indo-Aryans are mapped to linguistic groups then Dravidian linguistic groups are less in percentage when compare with India and Indo-Aryans linguistic groups in India
Why Indo-Aryans linguistic groups are higher in percentage though Indo-Aryans racial group came to India last?
A simple reason, they were ruling the central India after their migration/invade, in their rule, the entire Dravidian racial groups in central India lost their linguistic and forced/converted to follow Indo-Aryans linguistic and Dravidian linguistic got vanished from those areas. Due to this invader/rulers forced linguistic conversion, Indo-Aryans linguistic groups becomes higher in number than Dravidian linguistic groups...
The majority spoken language Hindi is a mix of Sanskrit (Scripts) and Urdu (Dialog/Words) and the fact is majority of the people in India can't speak / understand Hindi (including me!). The Urdu mix has happened due to Muslim rulers from central India...
The name Indian Race is a mix of all the classified races in the World
- Is it correct? This can be proved with the variety of facial structure and skin colors from India!