[world-vedic] Revising History to Change the Future

[Guest guest]

Aryan Invasion Theory: Revising History to Change the Future

 

FOR FULL GRAPHIC VERSION OF THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE, CLICK ON LINK BELOW

http://www.stanford.edu/class/wct3b1/sjaiswal/aryan.html

Dr.Siddhartha Jaiswal

Stanford University

 

Growing up, I used to love hearing my mother tell me the stories of the

Mahabharata and the Ramayana, two of ancient India's greatest epic

poems. Heroes like Krishna, Rama, and Arjuna were my role models and

integral parts of my cultural identity. The great war between the

Pandavas and the Kauravas and Rama's fourteen year trek through the

jungles of India and Lanka were not just fanciful children's stories to

me; this was Indian history, according to our tradition. But once I

entered grade school, I was taught our history was wrong.

 

According to the Western view of Indian history, the Mahabharata was

probably just a petty skirmish between tribes, if it ever happened at

all, and Rama most likely never even existed. In fact, the only thing

definitive the textbooks said about Indian history was that a group of

tall, fair-skinned nomads called Aryans invaded India, displacing the

native population and creating the current Indian culture. All of

Indian history, as Indians understood it, was merely mythology or the

musings of some talented storyteller. Moreover, the Indian civilization

was not even indigenous to India; rather, it was created by the same

people who had established civilization in Ancient Greece and the

Middle East.

 

What these textbooks said greatly undermined my belief in my culture.

It meant that all the stories I heard as a child were just fantasy; it

meant that my culture was founded by violent barbarians; it meant that

everything my culture had accomplished was lessened because it had a

foreign origin. Needless to say, I, as a thirteen year old boy, was not

flattered by this picture of my nation's past.

 

What I did not know then was that the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT),

which has always been disputed by prominent Indian scholars, was

falling into disrepute among current historians as well. I learned much

later that AIT was developed by Eurocentric historians who had certain

biases regarding Indian culture. Today, however, AIT is no longer

accepted as fact. But why is the debate over AIT such a pressing issue

in modern India? The answer is that AIT has several serious

implications for Indians, especially in our contemporary society.

First, a belief in a foreign origination of Indian culture has

marginalized the importance of Indian history for many, like me. It has

also led many educated Hindus to develop feelings of shame and a

Eurocentric attitude toward their own culture. Second, AIT has a

decidedly negative impact on the contemporary Indian political and

social fabric. It has created divisions between North and South

Indians, different ethnic groups, and between castes. Finally, AIT

needs to be discarded by the very demands of historical truth. The

Indian psyche and social system has suffered greatly because AIT, and

some measure of justice must be exacted before these wounds can heal.

By discrediting AIT, Indians can regain pride in their ancient and

glorious history, and use it as a foundation to build a more united,

stronger India.

 

In order to understand more fully the damaging effects AIT has had in

India, it is necessary to examine the theory in some detail and explore

the biases and misconceptions of those who originally proposed it.

These late nineteenth century scholars, who included such luminaries as

Max Muller and Max Weber, strongly believed in a race of people known

as Aryans who were the ancestors and founders of culture in ancient

Greece, Mesopotamia, and India. The Aryans, according to these scholars

were tall, fair-skinned, light-eyed nomads. The Aryans invaded India

around 1500 BC and displaced the darker-skinned native population

there, eventually subjecting them to the Aryan culture and religion.

They forced the natives, known as Dravidians, to move south and put

them into the lowest castes of Aryan society. Eventually, through

centuries of interbreeding and cultural miscegenation, the current

Hindu society was formed. The main evidence for an Aryan race came from

the fact that Sanskrit, the classical language of ancient India, bore a

striking resemblance to Greek, Latin, and other European tongues. This

similarity gave rise to a new language group: the Indo-European

languages. When, in the 1920s, the ancient cities of Harappa and

Mohenjodaro were discovered in northwest India, they appeared to be

abandoned for no apparent reason. The invasion theorists took this as

evidence that an Aryan invasion had occurred, and had displaced the

earlier civilization.

 

In formulating this theory, the proponents of AIT had very set ideas

about race and culture. "European thinkers of the era were dominated by

a racial theory of man, which was interpreted primarily in terms of

color" (Frawley 1996). In this era of European expansionism and

colonialism, Europeans had enslaved much of Africa, Asia, and the

Americas. The European conquerors were primarily white, and the

conquered peoples were primarily dark-skinned. Similarly, the Aryan

Invasion was seen as a racial group with a common culture and language

who came to India and dominated all those who were different racially

or spoke a different language. They assumed that the original speakers

of Indo-European language had to be lighter skinned; thus, the

darker-skinned Hindus could not have been the original speakers.

However, scholars are only now realizing that the simplicity of AIT

does not explain the enormous complexity of Indian culture and society,

nor does it even fit with the known facts. "The Aryan invasion theory

is an example of European colonialism turned into a historical model"

(Frawley 1994). AIT was certainly not the work of objective and

open-minded scholars.

 

In addition, those who proposed the theory were often ardent

nationalists or Christians, opposed to anything that would glorify a

great culture of non-European, non-Christian origin. Max Muller had set

the date for Aryan invasion at 1500 BC But Muller's basis for such a

date was completely speculative. "Max Muller, like many of the

Christian scholars of his era, believed in Biblical chronology"

(Frawley 1994). Given then that the world was created in 4000 BC and

the flood occurred in 2500 BC, it was impossible to give the Aryan

invasion a date earlier than 1500 BC Also, many of these scholars had

dubious credentials and motives. "Max Muller in fact had been paid by

the East Indian Company to further its colonial aims, and others like

Lassen and Weber were ardent German nationalists, with hardly any

authority on India, only motivated by the superiority of German

race/nationalism through white Aryan race theory" (Agarwal 1995).

 

To what ends was AIT used by the colonizers in India? It served

primarily as a tool for justification of the British presence in India.

The British argued that they were doing only what had been done by the

Aryans centuries before (Agarwal 1995). In effect, it gave the British

a way to rationalize their brutal exploitation and domination of India.

It also seemed to lessen the severity of the equally brutal Muslim

invasions of India prior to the British arrival. This is perhaps the

most terrible use of AIT by the historians. India was described as a

land dominated by foreigners ever since its inception. Karl Marx even

wrote that the whole history of India was a series of invasions

(Sukhwal 1971). How could such a "dominated" people find value and

pride in their culture? Of what use were Rama and Krishna when they

inevitably lost to the hordes of barbarians that plundered India?

 

The British also used AIT to 'divide and conquer' India. "They promoted

religious, ethnic, and cultural divisions among their colonies to keep

them under control" (Frawley 1996). Often, various principalities and

kingdoms were played off against each other by inciting regional or

cultural tensions in order to make British domination that much easier.

Unfortunately, many of these divisions are still present in Indian

society today.

 

The primary schism caused by AIT is the north/south divide of India

along racial lines. The European scholars interpreted certain verses in

the Vedas (Hinduism's oldest surviving texts), which described wars

between lightness and darkness, to mean that clashes between

light-skinned Aryans and dark-skinned Dravidians occurred (Frawley

1996). As evidence for their claim, they point to the constant

references to people described as 'Aryan' in the Vedas. However, this

is a skewed interpretation of Hindu texts based on European ideals. "In

Vedic literature, the word Arya is nowhere defined in connection with

either race or language" (Agarwal 1995). Arya, instead, is a title of

respect, similar to the English title 'sir'. An Aryan is one who is

truly noble by his deeds, intelligence, and sense of duty:

"Intrinsically, in its most fundamental sense, Arya means an effort or

an uprising and overcoming" (Aravind 1996). In the Vedas, many of the

defeated kings of supposedly Dravidian stock are described as Aryan.

Many of these kings also trace back their lineage to Manu, the first

man, as do the 'Aryan' kings. There simply is no Vedic evidence of a

racial connotation for the term Arya. Eventually, a number of the

European scholars, including Max Muller, recanted their belief that

Aryan denoted a race. However, this was largely ignored by others who

became enamored by the idea of an Aryan race and exploited this idea

for political gain.

 

In fact, this idea of North and South Indians being explicitly

different has been a major source of tension in the modern Indian

republic. According to Romila Thapar, a professor of Ancient Indian

history, "The theory of Aryan race has not only served cultural

nationalism in India but continues to serve Hindu revivalism and,

inversely, anti-Brahman movements" (Thapar 1992). After India gained

independence in 1949, there was a call for reorganization of Indian

states on the basis of language and cultural identity. A Dravidian

movement in South India, encouraged by the idea of Aryan domination of

Dravidian people, developed in several southern states. Its goal was

nothing short of secession, and creation of a 'Dravinadu' nation.

Fortunately, the movement never gained force, but it left wide rifts

between North and South India. In its wake came the formation of the

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party in 1967. Their basic platform was that

"Dravidians, the folk of South India, were systematically expropriated

and enslaved by Brahmans and their ideology of brahmanical superiority,

which they-originally migrants from North India-derived from the

Sanskrit texts of north-Indian Hindu injunctive culture" (Stern 1993).

These Dravidian movements have lasted to the present and continue to

have an affect in Indian politics and serve to divide the nation.

 

There is, however, no logical basis for this schism. Other than

linguistic differences, North and South India share much of the same

culture and religion. The major cause of this undue tension is the

belief in separate Aryan and Dravidian races. Some historians have

classified the Indian pantheon of deities into two types: Northern gods

and Southern gods. Vishnu is supposedly the most prominent Northern god

because he is mentioned several times in the Vedas. Shiva is not

considered an Aryan god because he is not prominent in the Vedas.

However, Shaivism and hero-worship of Krishna are common throughout

India. My family, which is North Indian, worships both of these

figures. I have never been taught that darker-skinned gods are

Dravidian and therefore inferior. In fact, Rama and Krishna are both

depicted as dark complexioned, and they are the most famous of all the

Indian heroes. Unfortunately, though there is no true division of

Hinduism into Northern and Southern sects, regional differences in

culture have been exploited and used to divide India.

 

This problem of the north/south divide is indicative of an even larger

problem in India: the question of national unity. If one accepts that

modern India is the result of an Aryan invasion of a random assortment

of native tribes and peoples, then the question of Indian unity is

resoundingly negative. This, in fact, is the view that many British

scholars had of India. Sir John Seeley, a British historian, wrote in

1883:

 

The notion that India is a nationality rests upon that vulgar error

which political science principally aims at eradicating. India is not a

political name, but only a geographical expression, like Europe or

Africa. It does not mark the territory of a nation and a language, but

the territory of many nations and many languages (Handa 1983).

 

 

The result of this type of thinking has lasted into the present, and

has led to calls for secession from all sorts of ethnic groups ranging

from Punjabis to Bengalis to Keralis. Fortunately, there have been

voices which have opposed this colonial mindset and brought to light

the cultural unity of India. Sardar K.M. Panikkar, a Congressman,

stated that "there was no such thing as Assamese, Bengali or Kerala

culture; there was only one Indian culture which emanated from the

Mahabharata and the Ramayana" (Sukhwal 1971).

 

In fact, all of the Vedic rishis are in agreement that, according to

scripture, there was only one Indian culture, and it was founded by

Manu at the time of the flood. Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu guru who

toured the West in the late nineteenth century, wrote: "The only

explanation can be found in the Mahabharata, which says that in the

beginning of Satya Yuga there was only one caste, the Brahmanas, and

then by difference of occupation they went on dividing themselves into

castes" (Vivekananda 1893). Madhav M. Deshpande, of the Department of

Linguistics at the University of Michigan, asserts that, "If we remove

the mantle of mythology and mysticism, the classical Indian literature

shows an awareness of this notion of India as a cultural area"

(Deshpande 1983). Thus, according to Indian history, India was in the

past a unified nation of one people with a common tradition and

culture. Only by accepting a European view of Indian history does the

notion of a divided India arise. Unfortunately, those who receive a

Westernized education, like me, only see the European view of world

history.

 

Not only has AIT served to justify British conquest of India and divide

the country on racial and ethnic lines, but it has also had a negative

effect on Indian nationalism. Perhaps the single greatest blow to

Indian nationalism dealt by AIT was its denial and marginalization of

Indian history according to Indians. Indian history is seen as

secondary to the history of the West. The Vedic culture is considered

to be an offshoot of Middle Eastern cultures. The sciences of India

were also considered to be derived from the Greeks. Vedic advances in

astronomy and mathematics were largely ignored because of the

'primitive' nature of the Vedic culture. AIT also discredited many of

the great historical works of Indian literature, such as the

Mahabharata, Ramayana, and the Puranas. All of the great Indian heroes,

including my favorites Rama and Krishna, were dismissed as fictional

characters without historical basis. This rejection of Indian tradition

is tantamount to "disowning and discarding the very basis and raison

d'être of the Hindu civilization" (Agarwal 1995). The net result of

this demeaning of Indian culture was to generate feeling of shame at

Hindu culture, a feeling that "its basis is neither historical nor

scientific, but only imaginary, while being actually rooted in invasion

and oppression" (Frawley 56). It made Hindus feel like their culture

was based on the writings of nomadic barbarians and was inherently

inferior to the Western civilization.

 

Even in India today, schools teach Western views of Indian history and

use European translations of the great texts. Children are being taught

that their culture is inherently inferior to the Western tradition and

that Hinduism is an archaic and outdated pagan religion. This creates a

dichotomy within the educated Indian's mind between observing tradition

and risk being considered 'backward', or rejecting Indian culture

altogether in favor of a more rational, Western attitude. It is not

surprising that the notion of an Aryan invasion was welcomed by some

Indians who accepted the Western view of Indian civilization: "There

was an appeal to some middle class Indians that the coming of the

English represented a reunion of parted cousins, the descendants of two

different families of the ancient Aryan race" (Thapar 1992). For the

Indian living in a Western society, this dichotomy is at the forefront

of his identity. For me, accepting Indian culture and tradition after

reading about it in Western books was a difficult, if not impossible

task. Not until I discovered the dubious origins and factual

inconsistencies of AIT, and the implications therein, did I could

regain the sense of pride I once found by reading the stories of Rama

and Krishna.

 

Over the past fifteen years, a tremendous amount of new evidence has

surfaced that refutes the Aryan Invasion Theory. Provided here is a

brief summary of some of the evidence to date. First, there is

absolutely no evidence of a foreign origin for the so-called Aryans in

any of the Indian texts. The Vedas, the most important and oldest texts

in the Hindu religion, make no mention of foreign lands or invasions

(Talageri 1993). If the Vedas are the foundational texts of the Aryans,

why do they not make mention of anything outside of India?

 

Second, new archaeological findings at the ancient sites of the

Harappan culture show no evidence of a foreign invasion. These sites,

which supposedly predate Vedic culture by at least a thousand years,

show evidence of Vedic religious practice (Agarwal 1995). In addition,

the lost city of Dwaraka, which is mentioned in the Mahabharata as

being gradually submerged into the ocean, was recently found in the

Arabian Sea off the coast of Gujarat, and dated at 3000-1500 BC This

confirms both the antiquity of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, as well as

the historical truth of the works. Also, a study of ancient Middle

Eastern cultures has shown evidence of a thriving Vedic culture for a

thousand years after the Harappan culture, suggesting an east to west

migration of people from India, and not vice versa.

 

Third, new philological evidence has surfaced with the deciphering of

the Harappan civilization script. The script has been deciphered by Dr.

S.R. Rao, and has been confirmed to be of an Indo-Aryan base. Hence,

the inhabitants of the Harappan civilization could not have been

Dravidians, as proposed in AIT.

 

Finally, there is no racial evidence that there is any real racial

difference among the peoples of India. In fact, according to a recent

landmark study of race (The History and Geography of Human Genes),

Europeans, Middle Easterners, and all Indians belong to a single race

of Caucasian type (Agarwal 1995). In addition, anthropological evidence

indicates that the inhabitants of ancient Gujarat and Punjab are

ethnically the same as the present day populations of those areas

(Frawley 1994).

 

The reevaluation of history occurring in India is part of a larger,

growing trend of non-European cultures to rectify the injustices done

to their nations' histories. The implications for India, and for the

world at large, are significant. For India, the refutation of AIT

places Hinduism and the culture of India in a much older and

significant context in the annals of history. If AIT is rejected, it

would mean that the Vedas are the oldest religious texts in the world,

Hinduism the oldest surviving religion, and the Indian culture the

oldest living culture in the world. It would also serve to unify the

country by proving its past solidarity and the common history of its

peoples. Finally, it would put Indian literature and science, long

regarded as primitive, into a place of historical importance. But the

larger implications of challenging AIT are as equally important. If

Indian scholars can successfully challenge what has long been regarded

as truth by the European tradition, then other cultures will also have

the same hope of rewriting their histories from a non-Western point of

view. For too long, the development of Western civilization has been

regarded as the only important one in world history, with other equally

important cultures given only token acknowledgment. After all, how a

culture views itself historically ultimately determines what kind of

future it can build. And finally, the refuting of AIT will help heal

wounds on a personal level. I know that discovering that AIT is not

necessarily factually true has made me come to terms with my culture

and helped me learn to respect the greatness of its tradition. My hope

is that it will help others to do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Aravind, Yogi. (1996). Arya: Its Significance [Online]. Aryan Invasion

Theory Links. Available Internet: http://rbhattnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080/

hindu_history/ancient/aryan/ aryan_link.html

 

 

Agarwal, Dinesh. (1995, November 8). Demise of Aryan Invasion/Racial

Theory [Online]. Available Internet: NEWS: soc.religion.hindu

 

 

Deshpande, Madhav M. (1983). Nation and Region: A Socio-Linguistic

perspective on Maharashtra. In Milton Israel (Ed.), National Unity: The

South Asian Experience (pp. 111-134). New Delhi: Promilla.

 

 

Frawley, David. (1996). The Aryan-Dravidian Controversy [Online]. Aryan

Invasion Theory Links. Available Internet: http://rbhattnagar.ececs.uc.

edu: 8080/ hindu_history/ancient/aryan/ aryan_link.html

 

 

Frawley, David. (1994). The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India. New

Delhi: Voice of India.

 

 

Handa, Madan L. (1983). National Unity, Social Justice and Education:

The Indian Experience. In Milton Israel (Ed.), National Unity: The

South Asian Experience (pp. 47-76). New Delhi: Promilla.

 

 

Stern, Robert W. (1993). Changing India. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

 

 

Sukhwal, B.L. (1971). India: A Political Geography. New Delhi: Allied.

 

 

Talageri, Shrikant G. (1993). The Aryan Invasion Theory: A Reappraisal.

New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

 

 

Thapar, Romila. (1992). Interpreting Early India. New Delhi. Oxford

Universiy Press.

 

 

Vivekananda, Swami. (1893). [speech in Madras]. Aryan Invasion Theory

Links. Available Internet: http://rbhattnagar.ececs.uc.edu: 8080/

hindu_history/ancient/aryan/ aryan_link.html