Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:00, 24 December 2005

gTemplate:FormerFA

For earlier discussion, see

/Archive 1

Archived

This talk page is just a morass of ranting. I've archived it. john k 17:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Vvuppala 01:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted WIN's comments. They are archived. See Archive1. Vvuppala. I am sorry I have not replied to yiour message. Will do soon. Paul B 12:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If you delete any against scientifically proven and logical points for Aryan Invasion then it means that you are not able to withstand anything against AIT/AMT. If you can not answer to that logical points then do not delete it also. This reflects your Eurocentrism of last centuries still prevailing in 21st century.

You can term those points ( which are very scientifically proven and not any hyposis like AIT/AMT ) as rants & discard but dare to answer that points also.

Written by Win

=

I'm removing the npov tag. It was added by User:67.180.0.55, who added no other explanation for the tag as the statement that "We are white supremists and racists. We need to support this theory to prove that" And to WIN: Please understand that talk pages here are a place to discuss the articles and that they are not meant to be an internet forum or Usenet. (I mean the discussions and posts at IA-migration and AIT). As I said before, take a look at other wiki articles to familirize yourself about wikipedia. --Machaon 12:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User:67.180.0.55's edit summary was just dumb mischief-making. S/his edit history indicates that s/he's anything but a white supremacist. S/he seems to be an anti-Muslim Indian (surprise surprise).

I think this article needs to find a way to evade the constant confusion between arguments about race and arguments about migration. I suggest that it should concentrate on the history of the theory from the 1840s though to the post-war period, including a lead-in to the modern version addressed in detail in the I-A migration page. It should have a lot more detail on the actual arguments made over time, including the specific Nordicist/Nazi version of the theory, so we can see how that aspect related to other versions, rather than reduce everything to a misleading maninchean opposition between white supremacists and indigenists. Paul B 16:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the political and historical aspects (for example more details on Max Müller,...) of this theory upto recent times should be expanded. (Part of this is of course already in other articles).Don't wait for someone else to do it. Be bold in updating pages. --Machaon 18:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

rewrite

I've done an extensive rewrite with the intention of clarifying that this article deals with the historical and ideological functions of the theory in the period from the its creation up to Indian independence. I've retained the concise discussion of the post-independence ideological debates and the modern theory. There is some overlap with the Aryan race article, but not too much, I hope. In general the race stuff about blond haired Indians etc etc should go here. I think a lot of these issues arise from confusion between the use of "Aryans" to mean "Indo-Iranians" and the use to mean PIEs. But that confusion is already there in many of the theorists in the 1880-1920 period, when the Nordic model is most influential. Another problem is that many theorists in this period also say quite "modern" things about IE migrations. There is no clear cut off between the early models and the current ones. Paul B 13:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Paul, the rewrite is amazing. Thank you, thank you, thank you! Vvuppala 23:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it! Paul B 17:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you too for the rewrite, it really is great. Just a minor comment: The first sentence of the article says: "AIT, is a term used by Hindu nationalists in India to refer to the 19th century European theory..." I think that this sentence, especially in the introduction is misleading, because the term AIT is used by others as well (Aryan invasion was after all not invented by them) and because to link to "Hindutva" is too general: Veer Savarkar, who invented the term Hindutva, did believe in the AIT. So, if such a statement has to be made, it would be more correct to say this about the OIT (Out of India Theory) (not the AIT) and to link to Indian Nationalism, not Hindutva. --Machaon 09:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In the first sentence I was trying to stress that the phrase "Aryan Invasion Theory" is now pretty much exclusively used by people who are opposed to the migration/invasion model rather than by supporters of it, and these opponents are mostly Hindu nationalists. Later on in the intro I do say that supporters of modern Indo-Aryan migration models do use the term to refer to the 19th century version, which stressed the idea of invasion by "superior" warrior peoples. However, I think you are right that this is not clear enough. Thanks. Paul B 17:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If /Archive 1 is morass of ranting then crediting some Aryans people of Central Asia or Steppes for whole of ancient India's achievements is much much more ranting. India's ancient past was suppressed by Britishers by way of AIT. But India's effects on her neighbouring areas like South East Asia, Indonesia & Malasia , China etc. can not be denied.

AIT and now AMT was propogated by Europeans and not by Indians so AIT now only used by Hindu Nationalists is wrong to say in main articles's first line. And, Out of India theory is also not any recent Hindu nationalist but AIT was opposed by many during last centuries also. To speak anything in favour of India should not be termed as Hindu thing. Do any Indians label AIT as some Christian thing always ? Then, why wrong terminology. WIN 04:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

India's "ancient past" is no more "suppressed" by AIT than the ancient past of Europe itself is "suppressed" by the argument that its languages resulted from the very same migrations. Is it derogatory to the British to say that their culture arose from migrations and invasions of Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans etc? All these invasions are thought to have happened after the Indo-Aryan migration into India. According to the very same "Aryan" (I-E) migration model, the Greek language entered Greece from the outside. Is that derogatory to the Greeks? Does it "suppress" their ancient achievements? The same is true for Latin in Italy. India is not being singled out by this model. The very European peoples you are accusing of doing-down Indian culture put their own cultures in the same position. No-one says that "the whole of ancient India's achievements" is due to "Aryan people of the Russian steppe". At the most, that's what some very extreme white supremacists say, and what people like the Nazis said in the past. Yes, at one point (c1890-1930) the Nordicist model was widely accepted, but even then it was strongly challenged within Europe (see Mediterranean race). All that the modern theory says is that the I-A languages resulted from migrations of peoples, just like numerous other migrations and invasions in human history. The early Vedic culture is assumed to have emerged from more primitive Indo-Iranian cultures, but to have developed over time in India to heights of spiritual and intellectual sophistication unknown to the the Proto-Indo-Iranian peoples and unique to India. In Iran independant ideas developed into Zoroastrianism - unique to Iran. In Greece independent ideas evolved into Greek philosophy and culture - unique to Greece. Just because the Rosenbergs of history have used AIT to justify racism and cultural-imperialism doesn't mean it has to be that way. The same model can be used to show the wonderful variety and diversity of achievements in different cultures as peoples spread and mix with eachother. AIT can just as easily be co-opted for the values of multiculturalism and diversity as for exclusivism. Paul B 15:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sanskrit language which is called as IE language and that or some previous PIE language is called as language of Aryans ( now called Indo-Iranians by Westerners ). They are called to migrate ( and not invade as per previous AIT )in India around 1500 BC. Around that time or afterwards same PIE speaking tribe is thought coming to Europe. But that time there was no civilized culture in Europe where as that time Indians were highly civilized as evident from Indus valley civilization excavations. And to implant some language + religion + culture on very vast civilized area by comparatively very minor amount of these Indo-Iranian ( Aryan ) tribe people is highly impossible and that to with migration and not invasion method. Britishers ruled 150-200 years fully in India but were not able to implant their English language on masses.So, implanting language & culture on more primitive people of then Europeans will be easier than ancient Indians who were highly advanced then that time Europeans.

Indians are living in USA or UK via migration ( and not invasion ) in very very less percentage in those countries but they will not be able to implant their language on others. Infact they are highly educated people and cream of Indian social & intelectual people but implanting language & culture is not possible as they have migrated there and they are not any invaders for whom it may be easier or possible ( Mughals invaded North India & ruled for 200 years but infact they could not totaly suppress the original language of Indians )

Aryans came and sang in praise of Saraswati river in Rigved but during 1500 BC Saraswati river was a dead river. So, if at all they have come to India then it's much before it. Aryans came to India and wrote in Mahabharat that Saraswati river is dying river and it's not reaching sea anymore.So, Mahabharat will be before around 1900 BC.

Before AIT proposal noone in India knew about any Aryan tribe coming to India ( not even South Indian people ). Before Indus Valley civilization's findings in 1920, India's past was limited to Superior, advanced & cultured Aryans invading native & primitive dravid Indians. Whole very grand Sanskrit scriptures were attributed to these Aryans. In 1920's Indus Valley civilization was foundand then same aryans became nomadic , primitive & barbaric Invaders and native south Indians became original very advanced inhabitants of north India and driven away to Southern India by nomadic aryans. Then after Saraswati river findings & other proofs, same aryans or Indo-Iranians as called by today's western Indologists instead of invading India came to India via simple migration method. Aryans were nomads and then also were able to possess very highly structured Sanskrit language and other things which original Indians loved so much that they changed their original dravid language for Sanskrit. They also forgot town planning & making abilities of Indus Valley time that whole of India started living in primitive era. Now what to tell you for this current prevailing story !

To explain about relation between current European languages & Sanskrit , so many things is required to assume and modify the story when some against findings are met.

What to tell of Rigvedic Anu people driven away in extreme North West ancient India ( i.e. NW province of current Pakistan & Afghanistan ) and beyond areas.

What to tell about Hebrew 's similarity with Sanskrit. And, what about Lithuanian & Latvian languages' ( of Extreme western Baltic states ) very nearness in word,alphabet,grammer with Sanskrit and not with any other current European languages.

I have visited Tamilnadu few times and talked with my mothertongue people settled there.They have not found any major difference between Tamil and my mother tongue West Indian Regional language (IE ) that Tamil can be classified as from Dravid separate language family. I myself has noticed that there are many loan words specific to marathi & gujarati in Tamil language. They are not pure Sanskrit word also. After AIT intro in India, last century Tamils tried delebarately to remove Sanskritic words otherwise Tamil also would have sounded similar to Malayalam. Malayalam came from Tamil some thousand years ago and Malayalm still contains heavily Sanskrit words ( like other South Indian language like Kannada or Telugu ).

Indian language scripts also looks slowly changing regionwise like language.

Script wise from Hindi ( IE ) to eastern side Bangla ( IE) & Assamese (IE) script change then little down in south Oriya (IE) ( of Orissa ) change and it's alphabets round more than Hindi or Bangla. Then further down in south Telugu ( Dravid ) & Kannada ( Dravid ) script comes. Their alphabets are more rounded & scripts are similar. Then further down Tamil ( Dravid ) & Malayalam ( Dravid ) scripts come and are similar looking.

In India, it's gradual change region wise and it's similar to Europe only ,like Greek,Italic,Spanish,French,German,Polish,Russian,English etc. There is similar degree of distinction between Gujarati ( of West India ) , Assamese & Bangla ( of East India ) and Malayalam & Tamil ( of South India ).So, classification of Dravid language itself false and misguiding.

This is same situation like Europe but in relatively smaller land area of India. Do any English person understand ( read or speak ) Russian of East Europe or Greek of South East Europe. The answer will be NO. It's similar to that.

How Dravid and Aryan as separate race was called in last century, it's similar situation of false fabrication for Dravid language family.

WIN 10:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please go through http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/astronomy.html for dating of Rig-Veda which gives very clear idea that Rig-Veda can not had been composed around 1500 BC. This also confirms Hindu tradition that it was first in India that highly advanced civilization spung up and that knowledge was radiated to other parts of the world. WIN 12:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

they did not come from "Europe", they came from Kazakhstan (Andronovo culture. Nobody (almost) believes in an "out of Europe" picture anymore, and whoever argues that IA migration is "Eurocentrist" is shooting 19th century strawmen. What do you mean "civilized"? Indo-Aryans in 1500 BC were not "civilized" according to modern standards. Nor was anyone in Europe. If the IVC was "civilized", that was 300 years in the past by 1500 BC. The whole "barbarian vs. civilized" dichotomy is, likewise, shooting 19th century strawmen. 1500 BC Indo-Aryans were a semi-nomadic culture with highly developed ritual and poetry. If you consider this "civilized" or "barbarian" is a matter of perspective, I suppose. Nobody is crediting "Central Asians" with "Indian acheivments". These people started migrating maybe in 1800. They came to India maybe in 1600. The Vedic civilization reached its peak in maybe 1000, and early Hindu science peaked in 500, full 1300 years after the "Central Asians". These people were Indians, no doubt about it, just like English people today are from England, not from Germany, even if their ancestors migrated from there 1500 years ago. Ah, and the astronomy claims. Have you read the Rigveda? I have yet to see identifiable astronomical information there. It is all in the eye of the beholder. The topic is a red herring (but it has to be properly debunked, I agree, I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. It is just very rare that these astronomical "discussions" quote actual texts. So quote your "tables", and we'll see if we can debunk them. Obscurantist numerological musings à la Kak of course hardly quailfy, if you look for a given number in a given text, you'll be sure to find it somehow) dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Aryan invasion theory is a myth created by British and has been completely debunked. Please read "The Real Eve Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa: Stephen Oppenheimer Publisher: Carroll & Graf; (September 9, 2004) ISBN: 0786713348".

DNA shows that the non-african world was colonised by different waves of emigrants from India. He has analysed both maternal DNA ( mitochondrial ) and Paternal DNA, the Y chromosome.

There is a genetic link indeed between Europe and north west India However, the DNA shows the roots to lie in kashmir and Punjab (Ancient Saraswati civilization which is mentioned most in Vedas and was destroyed due to an earthquake which caused saraswati to dry up).

The author specifically debunks the Aryan Invasion Theory

Every single non-african human is traceable to India which was the only inhabitable place outside africa till about 50k years ago.

Page 83

Mitochondrial DNA study

The main African Eve circa 150k years ago is denoted as L

L had several daughters of which a branch of L3 , rooted in Ethiopia During the ice age circa 85k years ago, the red sea was shallow and the gulf was above water A small band of L3 migrated to coastal Yemen and on the beach road and the first inhabitable non-coastal area was India

L3 then splits into N and M lines

N was born near baluchistan and M deeper in India

Europeans and middle eastern people have no M lines

India has the deepest variety of M lines dated to 75k years

M is found in Central Asia, Australia, New Guinea

Page 87

Europeans came from South asia circa 50k years ago

Page 136

N had a daughter lineage R, born in India 65 K years ago

(R is genetically rooted in India )

R had several daughters

U in India, splitting up into several U lines

U5 is the ancestor of kurds, armenians and basques and dates to 50k

years

U6 migrated to North African coast

R had another daughter HV, dated 40K years ago

and HV migrated to Europe

N had a daughter I , dated 33K years

who migrated to Europe

R had a daughter J/T who migrated out of India

20K years ago

In short the entire maternal DNA of Europe is rooted in India which in turn is rooted in Africa

Shivraj Singh 15:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Aryan or Indo-Iranians Migration supporter believes in it like it is some scientific invension. And, then they are not ready for any kind of opposition. 1500 BC invasion or migration is like some God's words. So, their story revolves around invasion or migration based hyposis. It's really useless to speak with such deaf people.

WIN 19:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WIN do not worry be bold and make your edits and I will support you. Shivraj Singh 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Support what? So far you have produced a genetic timeline that has no connection whatever to "Aryan invasion theory". If you don't even understand what the theory is about, what are you going to add? Whether or not Europeans descend from a hunter-gatherer ancestor who migrated from India 20 thousand years ago has absolutely no relevance to a theory about the migration of Indo-Iranian peoples a mere 3-4000 years ago. All your evidence demonstrates is that there were already people in India, which no-one has ever denied. Who, after all, were these Aryans supposed to have invaded? Indeed even the most racialised forms of the AIT theory depended upon the assumption that people already lived in India, since they tended to see India as microcosm of human evolution brought together in one place – from "primitive" tribals through to "superior" Aryans. The proponents of Nordicism would be entirely happy with the argument you present. They took the view that ancient peoples migrated from warmer to harsher environments, evolving through natural selection into hardier and more determined races as they did so. They then used their superior determination to migrate southwards again and become the ruling classes of the people who created the great Mediterranean civilisations (Greece, Rome) – and others, including India. It's baloney of course, but it's not so very different in essence from the kind of racial nationalism peddled by "WIN". That's what make his arguments so offensive. The endless complaining about unfair treatment from Europeans would be more convincing if it were not in the service of an argument that is the mirror image of the one it objects to. WIN wants to claim India to be the racial source of "civilised" peoples and even to be the fons et origo of all civilisation. This is pure ethnocentism of the worst kind, made all the more objectionable by the fact that it claims to condemn the very thing it epitomises. If you genuinely want to contribute to this subject, I suggest you read some of the pages related to the relevant issues, and, more importantly, some of the primary sources. Paul B 03:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Support WIN's correct stance. Genetic timeline is crucial as DNA in India has no source from Europe. If 2000 years ago Europeans "came back" to the home they left this would be traceable in our genes and it is not. Secondly no archaelogical digs have brought up an iota of evidence supporting the "invasion" claims. Thirdly Panini wrote Sanskrit Grammar in 900 BC.

Panini should be thought of as the forerunner of the modern formal language theory used to specify computer languages. The Backus Normal Form was discovered independently by John Backus in 1959, but Panini's notation is equivalent in its power to that of Backus and has many similar properties. It is remarkable to think that concepts which are fundamental to today's theoretical computer science should have their origin with an Indian genius around 2500 years ago.

This sourced from

If Panini was an Aryan how come his relatives back in Europe did not even know what grammar was in 9th century BC? Problem is west wants to acknowledge Greeks as source of all ancient knowledge and the truth is most thigs attributed to greeks were learnt by Greeks from india as these two countries had pehnomenal cultural exchanges. If you get a chance read Megasthenes. Also read Donald Knuth's book on algorithms where he describes what was discovered where. He still missed out on quite a few things but is still right in attributing bunch of stuff to Indian scientists like pythagorean theorem etc i.e greeks learnt it from India. Shivraj Singh 18:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What? I do apologise. I thought you might be amenable to rational argument. It seems not. You are another inhabitant of WINworld. What on earth has Panini's grammar got to do with whether or not he was an "Aryan"? Of course he was, since he was a Brahmin from Gandhara. Why do you persist with the fantasy that the theory has something to do with "Europeans" "coming back" to India, or that some mass military "invasion" is, or ever was, proposed. It was always a theory about migration and always a theory Paul B 12:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul , you are dire supporter of Dravid race theory and Aryan Invasion ( which is ruled out world over but it still lingers on you ). Dravid as separate race and even language wise ( as opposed by me ) is totally false fabrication. Then why Lithuanian & Latvian is not made Indo-Aryan when their words,grammer,pronunciation all are very very near to Sanskrit ?

Before 4 thousand years England was hardly civilized or even inhabitated.So, germans can easily come to that place for settling there but 4 thousand years ago Kazakhistan is & was scantly populated compared to India. And, from there some people invading ( which is ruled even by BBC ) or migrating & leaving such a mark on Indian civilization & her people that they forget their Indus Valley civilization time skill & knowledge and start leaving like primitive Aryans is highly illogical. And, when Indus valley time Indians were having advanced town planning, metalurgy , sense of uniform weight system, trading , navigation skills then they must be having some sort of language & literatures.And, that language + literatures they forget for some nomadic & primitive aryans is highly illogical. Infact in kalibagan & lothal excavation in Indus valley civilization area , fire altars as mentioned in Rig-Ved is found.So, Sanskrit ( which is highly advanced language ) and superb scriptures in Sanskrit are from atleast Indus Valley time. That's why they are and were very dear for Indians for long. I have also mentioned Shrimad Bhagvat ( one of holiest book for Hindus )'s time frame of composition as around 6 years before ( It is mentioned in my previous arguments ).So, to overlook every scientific points seems to be order of every Aryan Migration supporter.

You always keep any sort of logic behind and firmly believe in Max Muller theory of some aryans so rigidly.

Rigved verses were misinterpreted differently and racially by Max Muller. And, why you are not commenting on it. Instead you are commeneting on some Astronomical coding in Rigvedic verses as mis-interpretation. That's your pseudo thing about this matter. Rigved's wrong and racial interpretation is criticized and ruled out by many western acedamics.So, to find basis in it through Aryan Invasion or Migration is totally wrong. WIN 05:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If you had ever read any books by Max Muller you would not characterise his views in this way. Where does he interpret Rigvedic verses "differently and racially"? Show me the relevant passages. And what exactly is "Dravid race theory"? "Dravidians" is a loose term used to refer to a large ethno-linguistic group. Even in the 19th century European ethnologists divided India's peoples into several different racial categories, according to the models of the day. Of course the Indus valley had a language, but there is no good evidence that it had a literature. Go to Indus script and read the famous Farmer/Sproat/Witzel article that is linked from there. Look at the history of the IVC - when it declined and the common explanations for it. As for your fantasy that Dravidian languages are similar to Sanskrit, find a bona fide linguist who agrees. There are none. Of course they contain many Sankrit loan-words, but English contains many loan words from Latin. That does not make it a Romance language. Quite what you are trying to argue about Baltic languages, I don't know. Of course they are similar to Sanskrit to an extent, because they are part of the Indo-European group (unlike Dravidian). They contain some distinctive archaic features, that's true, but no linguist puts them in the Indo-Aryan group, or even the Indo-Iranian group. Paul B 10:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Indus writings decipherment is not done till today. But that is not related with our topic. Where as fire altars findings in Kalibangan & other Indus Valley excavations gives proof that similar fire altars which are mentioned in Rig-Ved must have been known to Indus Valley people. Then only you can find them in excavation. This is just one solid proof of Rig-Ved knowing Indus valley people.

All Indians' knowing of Ganga, Yamuna & Saraswati's confluence at Prayag gives idea that Indians are still remembering their Ancient Rig-Vedic Saraswati river. In Rig-Ved , it's mentioned as Mother River from all Indian rivers including Ganga and Sindhu. That means during Rig-Vedic time , it was the greatest and widest of all Indian rivers.

But, then in Mahabharat ( writtern by so-called Aryans around 1000 BC - 500 BC as told by Max Muller's follower Indologists ), Saraswati river is mentioned as Dying river and it's mentioned that Saraswati river is no more reaching sea and ending in land area only.

But modern findings say that Saraswati river was dried by 2500 BC or at the most latest by 1900 BC. So, now tell me whether this is not any proof that Rig-Ved and Mahabharat were written atleast before 1900 BC.

Even my above mention of Shrimad Bhagawat's period around 6,000 years before is one proof besides so many proofs.

Go through http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/astronomy.html for dating of Rig-Veda which gives very clear idea that Rig-Veda can not had been composed around 1500 BC.

There are so many logical proofs which clearly says that Rig-Ved is written much before 1500 BC. But then also you always overlook that points and do not comment on it. Because you do not have any answer for that logical & scientific explanations.

You have one set mind that there was Aryan Invasion or Migration in India and then based on that you give your explanations.

Your assumptions & speculations are always right. No way. First Aryans were Literate and highly civilized people before Indus Valley excavations. Then after they became primitive & nomadic people. Aryans related story line always changes with some proofings. First Invasion and now Migration. But your idea of Sanskrit coming from out of India will be always right.

In other veda, the kind of depth is shown in Medicine,Plants in knowledge is hardly makes us believe that that was obtained within 300-400 years after coming to India.

Avesta mentions Sapta-Sindhu area ( i.e. current punjab & haryana ) as their earliest occupied area. Then it mentions Afghanistan area, East Iran and then in the last nearby Central asian areas as occupied areas.

If avestan people came from Central asia then they should not mention Sapta-Sindhu area as occupied and that too very early occupied area. They should mention deep Central asian area first as occupied area and then East Iran and then Afghan area. But not at all Sapta - Sindhu area.

It clearly means that Avestan Iranians moved from Sapta Sindhu to Iran and then nearby central asian areas.

So, now comment on this points.

WIN 06:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A Call To Arms

Friends, there is a swiss-german admin of wikipedia called Dbachmann User: Dbachmann who holds deep hatred of Hindus and Indians in his psyche, for reasons best known to him only. He has been vandalizing any good article edits which even mildly favorable to Hindus. In place of that he spreads lies like Bhagvad-Geeta was written after Jesus christ's times and so on.

He was unknown to most Indian wikipedians till he tried to mess up the Rajput article. A cursory glance of his contributions on wikipedia convinced us to report this guy to other admins. He deserves to be banned from wikipedia altogether, and at the very least his admin previledges needs to be revoked. We have filed a complained against him. Here is a link to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29

All self respecting Indians are called upon to go to this link and sign the petition. A complete list of charges against this user can be found in the petition.

Thanks everybody

Sisodia