Rebuttal to a New York Times Op-Ed Piece

January 9, 2003

UNITED STATES, January 2, 2003: This lengthy article by Hari Chandra is a

well-written rebuttal in response to "Hijacking India's History," an Op-Ed

piece by Kay Friese, published in the New York Times on December 30, 2002.

Mr. Chandra writes: "India's Hindu nationalists have a rightful quarrel with

the official history, which has for long been guided by colonial masters

with their own agendas, racial, regional, religious and otherwise." Among

the many issues Mr. Chandra takes exception to is the Aryan Invasion Theory.

He says, "The Aryan Invasion Theory, a favorite of professional secularists,

is largely based on philology of Indo-European languages, and was dated

around 1500 BCE by Max Mueller. The dating of the theory was arbitrary, and

was acknowledged as such by Max Mueller himself later. Surprisingly, the

roots of Aryan Invasion Theory are not found in any oral, written or

archeological record of India, but in the European political discourse and

more specifically, the German nationalism of the 19th century. There is no

way to reconcile the philological assumptions and the anomalies and

inconsistencies that crop up with the Aryan Invasion Theory. The alternate

Indus-Saraswati civilization theory, on the other hand, posits that the

Aryans were indigenous people, and the original habitants of the townships

along the Indus, Ravi and Saraswati rivers, and that no invasion from

outside took place during the Vedic times. Post-Vedic invasions did occur,

and are well documented and are backed up with substantial evidence. This

theory is backed by evidence, which is at least consistent, scientific and

can stand up to critical scrutiny." Mr. Chandra also addresses issues of

religious freedom and the Godhra riots. To read Mr. Chandra's remarks in

full and the original Op-Ed piece, go to "source" above.

_______________

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

Recommended Posts