lystn

When the Aryans or a people came to India(what has been referred to as the subcontinent or Indian subcontinent), they mixed with the locals and created a composite culture. This had many of the local pre-existing element and probably some new elements. But during the British rule over India, orientalist historians presented/created/built the Aryan theory to demonstrate how they were the rightful rulers of India for, according to their words, the Aryans of India had digressed and had to be civilised by his Aryan brothers from Great Britain. This was probably an abuse of the word civilised and civilidsations. Post independence of India we see many marxist historians pitching their support for an Aryan invasion theory, later proven to be not even if not otherwise. Based on todays understanding we can say that some people probably migrated into India and added to the existing culture, this probably led to the Rigvedic civilisation. But it may not be correct to say that everything in it was foreign. Somethings might be.

Many Indians such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, author of Arctic home of the Aryans, also conceded that some peoples, groups might have come into the Indian geographical and cultural sphere and added to it.

Today, in west, when a foreigner joins their culture the term used is cultural enrichment. Can't such courtesy be extended to places they once ruled?

But what is the truth? Well, we would probably have a better picture in the coming days with newer innovations and scientific advancements and methods to discover the past, our pasts. Or shall we say "Pasts"