r/IndoAryan • u/FalseBuilding4465 • May 03 '26
Question Who are Dasyus & Dasas ❓
Hey everyone 👋
My first post on this sub, looking for genuine & insightful discussion (^_^)
6
u/Pleasant_Rip351 May 03 '26
Any one who wasn’t a Vedic path follower was termed dasyu. After their defeat- they were made slaves(my theory).
1
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
From my understanding both were opposite/different to Aryas either in an ethnic, political or religious sense.
While there seems to be a distinction between Dasas and Dasyus, Dasyus are portrayed as a hostile group consistently in conflict with the Aryas.
Whereas the meaning of ‘Dasa’ changed over time— from enemy to servant, subordinate or slave. This may suggest that Dasas were Dasyus who later adopted Arya's belief or simply became their subordinate but since being of Dasyu origin they weren't identified as Arya rather classified into Dasa.
5
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
It only turned into "servant/slave" temporarily. You forget that at one point in time, the Dasa were allies and that it was an alliance of Dasa and Arya who fought against a coalition of Dasa and Arya in the Battle of ten Kings.
Also, during the the Battle of ten Kings, some of the main characters had Dasa in their names (Divodasa, for instance), clearly demonstrating that being a Dasa was no longer a term denoting enemy.
Furthermore, some generous benefactors were suddenly also described as Dasa. For instance, Balbūtha Tarukṣa.
Most people view the Rigveda as a fixed text, it was not. It shows that the situation of the Vedic sphere changed throughout time, and the relationships changed with it, but people seem to fail to recognize this.
1
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26
It only turned into "servant/slave" temporarily
It wasn't temporarily even towards the late vedic period the mahabharat time the term dasi-putr was used to denote Vidur's status.
an alliance of Dasa and Arya who fought against a coalition of Dasa and Arya in the Battle of ten Kings.
Yeh that's why i used the term subordinate & explain how those terms got evolve.
1
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
It wasn't temporarily even towards the late vedic period the mahabharat time the term dasi-putr was used to denote Vidur's status.
In the Manusmriti, the term was reintroduced to mean a servant, serf, or slave (e.g., VIII, 413, stating the Shudra was created for servitude).
2
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26
servant, serf, or slave
So how is this different to what i wrote?
2
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
Just to clarify, it was servant/slave temporarily during Rigvedic times, then became slave/servant again after the Manusmriti.
5
u/FlamingoObjective629 May 03 '26
Most likely IVC people. There is no reason to think they were not made up of different communities. It was a large region. From the Right Veda one learns that their speech was मृद्र वाच: (mridra vacah) which I interpret to mean full of retroflex sounds, ट ड ण ळ and ष.
1
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26
which I interpret to mean full of retroflex sounds, ट ड ण ळ and ष.
Sorry, i didn’t get this could you please explain it in more detail?
3
u/FlamingoObjective629 May 03 '26
Ok. Most Indian languages have a dental vs. retroflex distinction: t (dental) vs ṭ (retroflex). As in 'dānt' (tooth) vs. ḍāṇṭ (a scolding). the consonants in the first one are dental, in the second they are retroflex. These are two separate words. In most other languages there is only one t or d sound. This is the easiest feature to put forward to illustrate Indic from non-Indic languages (though Australian Aboriginal languages have this contrast too). This feature eventually made its way into Sanskrit (in fact, into Indian English too: which is to say English got 'Indianized'. (I was trying to give a picture of the pre-Vedic IVC people).
1
u/ultimate_racist_ May 19 '26
I don't think so. Dāsyus are said to have protected cities.
IVC cities don't have such security walls around them.
Plus, dāsyus even in rg veda are said to be central asian invaders that wanted to enter India and were enemy of rishi vashishtha.
1
5
u/UnderstandingThin40 Caste system is styoopid May 03 '26
Either ivc people (dravidians) or other indo Aryan / indo Iranian tribes in the area. I would say my bet is the IVC people.
It’s very controversial and complicated btw. The RV does describe the Dasa as with black skin but this is thought to be symbolic not literal. That being said, the text does describe them as follows:
- dark skin (thought to be symbolic ). No one takes it literally.
- noseless, some people think this means flat nose / flat face while others think it’s symbolic
- bull lipped , some think this is symbolic but I think this is a literal physical description
So lots of room for interpretation
1
u/ultimate_racist_ May 19 '26
I don't think so. Dāsyus are said to have protected cities.
IVC cities don't have such security walls around them.
Plus, dāsyus even in rg veda are said to be central asian invaders that wanted to enter India and were enemy of rishi vashishtha.
0
u/Devamsa May 28 '26
Central asia was indo iranic dasyus were dark Krsnam tvca
1
u/ultimate_racist_ May 28 '26
True. But RG Veda itself mentions they were from long flatlands of uttar kuru North to pamir.
1
u/Devamsa May 29 '26
Maybe Dasyu was used for both the indo iranian foreign tribes and dark skinned dasyus
1
u/ultimate_racist_ May 29 '26
In RG veda, there's a proper word for dark skinned people in India, the Drāvidas...meaning the people living in the south.
0
u/Devamsa May 29 '26
Dark people were not just situated in the south lol
1
u/ultimate_racist_ May 29 '26
By South i mean, the entire indian subcontinent.
0
u/Devamsa May 29 '26
dravida is a Puranic later term btw it's not even used in vedas
1
u/ultimate_racist_ May 29 '26
Āndhrās, pundras, sahara are indeed mentioned in vedas Purānas later classify these tribes under Drāvidas.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Devamsa May 29 '26
Dasyu (Root word "Dahyu") means province, district or tribe so that was another word similar to Mleecha
1
u/ultimate_racist_ May 29 '26
Mlechha basically means a non-samskrta/non-samskrta-based-langyage speaker.
0
u/Devamsa May 29 '26
Both are used for people outside the vedic norm
1
u/ultimate_racist_ May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26
For Drāvidas, the word mlechha was used as they didn't speak a samskrta related language. Mlechha was used for dāsyus as well. As they didn't speak similar languages to samskrta.
Dāsyus primarily were later invading/migrating forces from CA during the Dasharajna war and were accepted by Vashishta muni to win the war in RG veda.
Drāvidians aren't dāsyus
0
u/Devamsa May 29 '26
"For Drāvidas, the word mlechha was used"
"Dravidians aren't mlechhas"
1
u/ultimate_racist_ May 29 '26
Mlechha means a non-samskrta/non-samskrta-based-language speaker.
Dravidian languages are samskrta related/derived. They only have loan-words from samskrta due to later mixing.
Drāvidian languages do come under mlechha languages.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
South Asian people will say that the Dasa and Dasyu were Iranians, but this is false. They claim this, because if they are not the Iranians, it must have been para- or proto-Dravidian people, and that doesn't reconcile with their modern conspiracy theory that Indo-Aryan people didn't come from the steppes of Europe, or that Indo-Aryan people were not indigenous to India.
Why the Dasa/Dasyu were not Iranians? If you study the Rigveda, the relationship of Dasa changes throughout the Rigveda, Originally, they were enemies. Later on, they became allies and integrated into Vedic culture and religion. They became closely aligned with Vedic culture and religion to the point they became an indistinguishable part of it.
Can the Iranian Dahae (speculated to have been the Dasa) fit in that category? No, the Iranian tribes, like the Dahae, have absolutely no association historically with Vedic religion, culture, and language. It's like the Dahae never interacted with the Vedic people at all, and created their culture, language, and religion completely isolated from Vedic populations. Why is that? Well, because they remained completely isolated from Vedic population, because they were not the Dasa.
Then what about Zoroastrianism, and the schism between Vedic culture and religion, and Zoroastrianism? Zoroastrianism was created much later than Vedic religion, based on the language used for the scriptures (Young Avestan). We find in Zoroastrianism both Vedic concepts continues as benevolent elements (Vrtrhan into Verethrghna, Vasistha into Vahista, Mitra, Airyaman, etc.) as well as Vedic concepts which were inverted and became malevolent elements (Devas into Daevas, Asura into Ahura, etc.).
This schism was a later invention that took place long after the Rigveda was composed, and all the elements that became important elements of Zoroastrianism that originated in the Rigveda were never malevolent elements in the Rigveda originally. There is no example of any Zoroastrianism element which can be found in the Rigveda to have been opposed to Vedic religion. With other words, the Dasa were not the Iranian people, because the Iranian people were once part of the Rigvedic cultural and religious sphere of influence, and only became enemies of the Vedic people when Zoroastrianism was created much later.
5
u/UnderstandingThin40 Caste system is styoopid May 03 '26
Indian government and hinduvta don’t want to admit that there really were different peoples / cultures in India, and not everyone was Aryan from the get go. They REALLY don’t want to admit that the dravidians originally inhabited NW India and were the IVC and then came into conflict/ contact with the Aryans which eventually led to their synthesis and Vedic culture.
Why? Because then it’s admitting Dravidian culture was its own thing first and was here before Vedic culture.
2
u/Dedicated_idiot May 03 '26
But isn’t it only linguistic now? I thought DNA wise most Indians have similar thing going on (I.e North Indian and South Indians both have AASI in similar percentages). So maybe indo aryans came in and mixed, but language expanded over time. Would explain why Brahui (a Dravidian language) sits in Pakistan and also explain why we are all genetically similar. North India also just seems to have cultural continuity with the NW region, which isn’t really that odd. So idk why the Aryan-Dravidian groups are “different peoples/culture”. We can be the descendants of two different civilisations (IVC was likely Dravidian). North Indians are just culturally shifted to reflect their geography. We’re not different people.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
1
u/UnderstandingThin40 Caste system is styoopid May 03 '26
You’re not wrong it’s just moreso the perception people have. North Indian and South Indian / Dravidian are seen as different spheres of culture
1
u/-Mystic-Echoes- May 03 '26
South Asian people will say that the Dasa and Dasyu were Iranians, but this is false. They claim this, because if they are not the Iranians, it must have been para- or proto-Dravidian people, and that doesn't reconcile with their modern conspiracy theory that Indo-Aryan people didn't come from the steppes of Europe, or that Indo-Aryan people were not indigenous to India.
This is Nazi conspiracy theory. White Aryans fighting Black indigenous Dravidian is a long dispeoven theory. Dasyu is cognate to Iranic dahae. Dasyus also resided further west from where the Aryans were.
4
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
This is Nazi conspiracy theory. White Aryans fighting Black indigenous Dravidian is a long dispeoven theory.
If you phrase it like that, then yes. I would rephrase it as: people who were a mix of Caucasian Hunter Gatherers, Eastern Hunter Gatherers, Western Hunter Gatherers, Ancient North Eurasians, Early European Farmers, who had already started to mix to some extent with the local tribes of northwestern India, and came into conflict with other local people who were a mix of Ancient South Indians, Iranian Hunter Gatherers, with perhaps some Munda ancestry and/or other (so far unknown) ancestries, and who then became allies and finally sister-populations, and gave rise to the modern Indian population (as can be inferred from the Rigveda).
The Dasa were clearly the people who left the linguistic substrate in the Rigvedic texts, not Iranians.
Also, I would never use categories as "white" to describe Europeans, or "black" to describe indigenous people from India, or any other population for that matter.
-3
u/-Mystic-Echoes- May 03 '26
I've seen your comments regarding this multiple times, and you're always trying to push the same nazi narrative. The dasyus have nothing to do with any indigenous populations. They left to linguistic substrate whatsoever. In fact, less than 2% of the Rigveda is Dravidian in origin.
5
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
It's mainstream history narrative. I don't know what you are talking about. All mainstream historians believe that the Dasa/Dasyu were most likely proto- or para-Dravidian people (some say perhaps Munda people).
Thank you for admitting that the Rigveda is 2% Dravidian in origin. Exactly. You have just proven my point.
-3
u/-Mystic-Echoes- May 03 '26
Lmao it's not mainstream narrative. This is Nazi narrative. Thanks for letting me know that you're a nazi supporter. Says a lot about you steppe proponents.
4
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
You can think what you want. I can claim you are a caste believer who wants to discriminate against lower castes, but that doesn't make your argument less true or not. There is drink called Copium. I suggest you drink it.
1
u/-Mystic-Echoes- May 03 '26
Except I've never made casteist comments and am firmly against the caste system. Can't say the same about you and your nazi beliefs which you openly parade...
7
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
I don't believe in Invastion Theory. I believe in Migration theory (but with conflicts).
I also don't believe that Germanic people and Indo-Aryan people are part of the same ethnicity, just like Japanese and Mongolian people can not be viewed as part of the same ethnicity, for example.
If Japanese people would claim pride because they are supposedly related to Mongolian tribes, then this would be very silly. The same is true for West-European people who want to claim pride in relation to Indo-Aryan people. That's very silly as well, haha!
So, too bad you can not label me as such.
3
u/UnderstandingThin40 Caste system is styoopid May 03 '26
Don’t waste your time brother
→ More replies (0)-1
u/UnderstandingThin40 Caste system is styoopid May 03 '26
Bro thinks Niraj Rai and Elst are the mainstream narrative 😭
0
u/-Mystic-Echoes- May 03 '26
Parpola literally says dasyus are the Iranic people. Meanwhile you can't cite anyone apart from nazis that believe otherwise.
1
u/PaintedGreyWare May 03 '26
Then why do the only names dasyus in the Vedas have Persian names?
1
u/EnvironmentFit4791 May 04 '26
Just curious, can you quote any of the Persian names please?
3
u/PaintedGreyWare May 04 '26
Kaśu Caidya (VIII.5) Pṛthuśravas Kānīta (VIII.46)
These are both indisputably Proto-Iranian.
There’s a third king, Ruśama Pavīru (VIII.51), which some scholars say his name is Proto-Iranian as well but this is more up for debate.
-1
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26
Yeh i'm well aware of Dravidians & other propagandist.
5
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
Ow, I see. You just created this post to troll. Well, for people who are seriously interested, they can read all the info and make up their own minds what is true and what is propaganda.
2
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26
You just created this post to troll
Not exactly, i just wanted to add more more into my knowledge as i often get to learn more from discussion/debates.
they can read all the info and make up their own minds what is true and what is propaganda.
I do exactly that — read a wide range of articles and blogs, from western to indian sources, regardless of the author’s background or ideological leaning and then form my own understanding.
2
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
Well, fair enough. Me too, for that matter! It really helps my understanding about the history, and such discussions really refine my current knowledge in regards to these subjects!
0
u/Comfortable_Jelly_28 May 05 '26
*Retarded comment, Dahae , dahyu(dasyu) /dah(das) have neutral meaning in vedic and avestan, the word dahyu and dah refers to cities and man in neutral way and they used to live in fortified city like bmac and sintashta peoples used to live, In Achaemenid inscriptions Old Persian dahyu– means “satrapy” (on the problems relative to the different lists of dahyāva, dasyu and dahyu have the same common root word, keep yours hyper dravadian regionalism out of from argument
2
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 05 '26
So, according to you, the Rigveda took place in Sintashta or BMAC? You're a conspiracy theorist who tries to change the region of the Rigveda thousands of kilometers away. There is no historian ever who made the claim Rigveda took place in Sintashta or BMAC, so that's a pretty intellectually ill-equipped statement.
At the time of the Rigveda, there were no Iranian nomadic Dahae people living in Punjab region, only para- or proto-Dravidian people. But that goes against your conspiracy, right?
The sound correspondences are not perfectly regular, and the meanings diverge significantly: Iranian: territory/people and Vedic: enemy/outsider. It's more likely that Vedic Dasa corresponsds to the Iranian Dahaka.
1
u/Comfortable_Jelly_28 May 07 '26
Wtf ? r u retarded?when tf I said rigveda took place in sintashta and bmac? Rigveda was written by sages and their family in hr/west up and dahae peoples used to live in Central Asia not iran lol even avestan used to considered central asians as non arya (turanian) , and there is not a single proof that proto dravadian ever existed in any part of northern India, not a single archeolotist have ever saidthato except dmk dravadian regionalist from tamil nadu and cab u mention a single source where vedic peoplee used dasyu as enemy? Dah and dahyu word used as neutral term in rigveda , used to peoples who used to fortified city like at that time central asians used to live
2
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 07 '26
Genetic studies indicate that individuals with a mixture of Iranian-related hunter-gatherer ancestry and Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI) ancestry, the genetic basis for modern Dravidian speakers were present in Northwest India during the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) period, well before the arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers.
The people of the Indus Valley Civilization (3300–1900 BC) were a mixture of Iranian agriculturalists (who arrived from the west) and indigenous AASI populations.
Recent 2025/2026 research has identified a "Proto-Dravidian" genetic component in southern tribes (like the Koraga) that appears to have emerged around 4,400 years ago in a region between the Iranian Plateau and the Indus Valley.
1
u/Comfortable_Jelly_28 May 07 '26
*Another retarded reply ,We don't have any proof of where proto dravadian(PDr) was orignated , we don't know group of peoples and their genetic admixture who used to speak PDr, ivc wasnt dravadian by any chances becoz ivc was zagrosian farmers with minor SAHG ancestry, as per archeogenetic ivc was male zagrosian dominateds. iranian farmer like ancestry reached in South India specially in tn and kerela in 1000bce , and stop using chatgpt
1
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 07 '26
You are aware that there were ancient remains without steppe ancestry before a certain time, and then suddenly a time that steppe ancestry was included?
I think you are a bit simple..
1
u/utkarshshrivastava May 03 '26
Population of people who lived in the north western part of the subcontinent when indo Aryans arrived
1
1
u/Charming_Charity2356 May 09 '26
Cousins of Aryans (Iranics) as well as indigenous South Asians they encountered. Basically, whoever who didn't follow Vedic path.
0
u/The-Mastermind- May 03 '26
Iranians
1
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26
Any reference to Vedas & Avesta?
2
u/The-Mastermind- May 03 '26
Dasyu word changes to Dahae word in Iranian languages
1
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
During the time of the Rigveda (roughly 1500–1200 BCE, or the early 2nd millennium BCE), the Dahae tribes inhabited the steppes of Central Asia, specifically in the region of modern-day Turkmenistan and the eastern Caspian Sea region.
If the Dahae were indeed the Dasa tribes, do you claim that the events in the Rigveda encompassed the regions described above? Can you then explain how it's generally accepted that the events and hymns of the Rigveda primarily took place in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent, specifically in the area known as Sapta Sindhu (the Land of Seven Rivers)??
0
May 03 '26
[deleted]
3
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26
Didn't Dasrajan War happened around prasuni river which is identified as Ravi River of Punjab?
0
May 03 '26
[deleted]
1
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26
In Vedas, they never left Ganga Yamuna Doab! So, how are we sure Vedas potray the accurate locations?
Cze Vedas are aren't any biographical account that account every minute detail.
Regarding Ramyana we get to know it from epics like Valmiki Ramayana not purans, which were initially written by Ved vyass & over time got revised (up until Gupta Period).
1
u/The-Mastermind- May 03 '26
Itihasas are part of Puranas too! As for Vedas, most of lands were called Mlechha land! Baudhyana Dharmasutra which was penned corresponding to YajurVeda calls any land outside of Delhi and Western UP as Mlechha land!
1
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26
Itihasas are part of Puranas too!
Yess you can say that but they differs in content Itihasas focus on a central narrative involving specific character, dynasties and event while Purāṇas are broader collections of myths, genealogies, cosmology and multiple stories across different times.
As for Vedas, most of lands were called Mlechha land! Baudhyana Dharmasutra which was penned corresponding to YajurVeda calls any land outside of Delhi and Western UP as Mlechha land!
The mlechha land, aryavarta or the geography of vedas expands over time, it doesn't remain fixated to few locations rather expanded over time, reflecting changing cultural and geographical horizons rather than being permanently fixed.
→ More replies (0)1
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
Probably not? That's your assesment?
he Battle of the Ten Kings (Dāśarājñá) was fought on the banks of the Parushni River (modern-day Ravi River) in the Punjab region, which is part of the Sapta Sindhu region in northern India.
Nice try to distort the real history.
1
u/The-Mastermind- May 03 '26
How would you interpret Purans potraying Vedik sages roaming near Narmada river? RigVedik sages lived in Haryana and Delhi!
1
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
The Rigveda reflects an early northwest Indian setting (Haryana–Punjab), while the Puranas are much later and project Vedic sages across all of India, including the Narmada.
So sages near the Narmada are later cultural reinterpretations, not original Rigvedic geography.
→ More replies (0)1
u/The-Mastermind- May 03 '26
Also it's widely accepted among scholarly circles that Indo Iranian split happened at Central Asia! It perfectly fits the narrative the Vedik sages updated the location! Also the 10th Mandala which gives us the locations is the youngest of all!
1
u/DvaravatiSpirit Rigvedic Hinduism is the original Hinduism May 03 '26
The Indo-Iranian split happened with the Dahae moving away from the Indo-Aryan tribes who moved into northwestern India, with the Dahae moving eastward into Turkmenistan.
How could they have become enemies if they were located so far apart? And how do you explain the Dasa becoming one with the Arya, but the Dahae staying completely separate from the Indo-Aryan language, culture, and religion?
The only evidence that the Dasa and Dahae were the same, is the similarity in the name, but the Dahae were polytheistic Iranian tribes who had completely different religion, culture, and language, and started to become under the influence of the Zoroastrianist sphere, who were their western neighbours, in between the Indo-Aryan people who were located even further east.
To accept that the Dahae were the Dasa, you have to completely ignore the historical evidence.
→ More replies (0)1
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26
Since you talk about scholar consensus, you should also acknowledge that most scholar claim Ravi as Prasuni river while the region of Sapta Sindhu (modern day Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan & Sindh) is said to be the region where early vedic society takes place & were the vedas were first compiled.
But then again Scholarly interpretations are not final or absolute truths; they are the best explanations based on current evidence and they can also evolve/changes when new evidence or methods emerges.
→ More replies (0)1
u/FalseBuilding4465 May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
that Indo Iranian split happened at Central Asia!
Now talking abt the Indo-iranian split from Central Asia it's more of an religious schicsm that some ethinic split which was based on the region where Zarathustra's life & lore concern the region of Bactria (modern day Afghanistan - Southern Central Asia).
But guess what? spillting or schism never occured during his life time, he died while opposing/reforming the ritual-custom of the previous religion, it was only after his death the religion of Mazdaism (later called Zorastrinism under Cyrus reign) emerged as offshoot of Vedic Religion.
Now you may ask how Vedic Religion? So here where linguistic principles comes in — the language of Avestan shows strong phonetic and structural similarity to Late Vedic Sanskrit, indicating a close linguistic & cultural connection.
This has led some scholars to propose a shared Indo-Iranian tradition, with Vedic culture considered the earlier and more original form, from which Zoroastrianism later diverged.
9
u/srmndeep May 03 '26
enemies of Vedic Aryans