Why Perpetuate Myths? - A Fresh Look at Ancient Indian History

[Guest guest]

HinduThought, "Ashok Chowgule" <ashokvc@c...>

wrote:

 

This is a long article, 3250 words. It is a good summary about what

the

origin of India really is, contrary to what is taught even today in

the

text-books. What people of India can take to heart is the end part

titled "In retrospect". The same is reproduced in this introduction:

 

In retrospect. One is set wondering as to why and how this great

civilization of the Indian subcontinent - called variously the

Harappan,

Indus or Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and whose roots go as deep as

the

fifth millennium BC - still lives on, not as a fugitive but as a vital

organ of our socio-cultural fabric. The Indian psyche has indeed been

pondering over this great cultural phenomenon of 'livingness', and the

quest has very aptly been echoed by a great Indian poet and thinker,

Allama Iqbal, in these words:

 

Yunan-o-Misra-Ruma sab mit gaye jahan se

Ab tak magar hai baqi namo-nisan hamara

Kuchh bat hai ki hasti mitati nahin hamari

Sadiyon raha hai dusman daur-i-zaman hamara

 

The poet says that whereas the ancient civilizations of Greece, Egypt

and Rome have all disappeared from this world, the basic elements of

our

civilization still continue. Although world events have been inimical

to

us for centuries, there is 'something' in our civilization which has

withstood these onslaughts.

 

What is that 'something', some inherent strength? Doubtless it lies in

the liberal character of the Indian civilization, which allows for

cross-fertilisation with other cultures, without losing its own

identity. One may well recall the words of the greatest man of our

times, Mahatma Gandhi: Let me keep my doors and windows wide open so

that fresh air may enter from all directions. Nevertheless, he was

firmly seated in his room (the soul). The soul of India lives on !!

 

Namaste.

Ashok Chowgule

 

 

 

 

Why Perpetuate Myths? - A Fresh Look at Ancient Indian History

B. B. Lal, Director General (Retd.), Archaeological Survey of India

Lecture given at the National Council of Educational Research and

Training (NCERT), New Delhi

http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl002.html

 

For a pretty long time the following four myths have been obscuring

our

vision of India's past:

 

Myth 1: 'There was an Aryan Invasion of India'

 

Myth 2: 'The Harappans were a Dravidian-speaking People'

 

Myth 3: 'The Rigvedic Sarasvati was the Helmand of Afghanistan,' and

 

Myth 4: 'The Harappan Culture became Extinct'

 

And here is how these myths came into being.

 

In the nineteenth century a German scholar, F. Max Muller, dated the

Vedas, on a very ad hoc basis, to 1200 BC. Granting that the Sutra

literature may have existed in the sixth-fifth centuries BC, he

assigned

a duration of two hundred years to each of the preceding literary

periods, namely those of the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Vedas and thus

arrived at the figure of 1200 BC for the last-named texts. However,

when

his own colleagues, like Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilson, challenged

him, he stated that his dating was 'merely hypothetical' and

confessed:

'Whether the Vedic hymns were composed in 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000

BC, no power on earth will ever determine.' However, the saddest part

of

the story is that his blind followers, both in India and abroad, even

today swear by 1200 BC and do not dare cross this Laksmana rekha.

 

Be that as it may. The first quarter of the twentieth century

witnessed

the discovery of an altogether unknown civilization on the Indian

subcontinent, datable to the third millennium BC. Called variously the

Harappan, Indus or Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, it is characterised,

amongst other things, by systematic town-planning, an underground

drainage, excellently engraved seals, a monumental script, a refined

system of weights and measures and some beautiful statuary. However,

recent excavations have thrown new light on various other aspects of

this civilization, which call for a fresh look at many issues

connected

with it. Radiocarbon dates indicate that its roots go back to the 5th

millennium BC, while its peak period lay between 2600 and 2000 BC,

after

which began its decline.

 

With the discovery of the Harappan Civilization there also started a

debate about its authors. Because of Max Muller's fatwa that the Vedas

were not earlier than 1200 BC, it was argued that this civilization

could not be associated with the Vedic people. Since the only other

major language spoken on the subcontinent was the Dravidian it was but

natural at that point of time to assume that the Dravidian-speakers

were

its authors.

 

In 1946 Sir Mortimer Wheeler carried out further excavations at

Harappa

and discovered a fortification wall around one of the mounds. However,

his interpretation of it was nothing more than a mere flight of

imagination. Since the Rigveda refers to Indra as puramdara (destroyer

of forts), he jumped at the idea that there was an 'Aryan invasion'

which destroyed the Harappan Civilization, and the latter became

'extinct'. To give a prop to his thesis, he referred to certain

skeletal

remains found at Mohenjo-­daro, which, he held, provided evidence of a

'massacre' by the invaders.

 

If these skeletons are at all to be associated with a massacre by

invaders, one expects that these would have come from the latest

level.

But the hard fact is that these came from various levels, some from

the

middle and some from the late, and some were found in deposits which

accumulated after the site had been abandoned. Thus, there is no case

for a massacre; and Professor George F. Dales of the University of

California, Berkeley, has rightly dubbed it as a 'mythical massacre'.

Further, if there at all was an invasion, one expects at the site the

weapons of warfare as also some remains of the material culture of the

invaders. But there was no such evidence. On the other hand, there is

a

clear case of cultural continuity, not only at Mohenjo-daro but also

at

other Harappa Culture sites.

 

Commenting on this issue, Lord Colin Renfrew (UK) avers: 'If one

checks

the dozen references in the Rigveda to the Seven Rivers, there is

nothing in any of them that to me implies invasion. ... Despite

Wheeler's comments, it is difficult to see what is particularly

non-Aryan about the Indus Valley Civilization.'

 

After a thorough analysis of the skeletal data, Professor Hemphill (of

USA) holds: 'As for the question of biological continuity within the

Indus Valley, two discontinuities appear to exist. The first occurs

between 6000 and 4500 BC. The second occurs at some point after 800 BC

but before 200 BC.' It is, thus, abundantly clear that no new people

entered the Indus Valley between 4500 BC and 800 BC. So, where is any

case for an 'Aryan invasion' around 1500-1200 BC?

 

Now to the second myth, viz. the 'Harappan = Dravidian' equation. It

has

been made out that the Aryan invaders drove away the

'Dravidian-speaking' Harappans to South India but a small section

somehow managed to stay on in Baluchistan, speaking the Brahui

language.

However, many scholars do not agree that Brahui belongs to the

Dravidian

group. Some even hold that the Brahui-speaking people migrated to that

region from elsewhere during the medieval times. Further, if the

so-called Dravidian-speaking Harappans were pushed down to South

India,

one expects some Harappan sites over there. But the hard fact is that

in

none of the four Dravidian­-speaking States of South India, viz. Tamil

Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala do we have even a single

site

of the Harappan Culture !! On the other hand, what we do have in South

India about that time is a neolithic culture. Do then the proponents

of

the 'Harappan = Dravidian' equation expect us to believe that the

urban

Harappans, on being sent away to South India, shed away overnight

their

urban characteristics and took to a Stone Age way of living?

 

Again, it has been observed all over the world that even if the

original

inhabitants are pushed out of an area, some of the rivers, mountains

and

towns in that area continue to bear the original names. Thus, for

example, even after the Europeans overran North America and gave their

own names to the towns, such as New York, New Jersey, etc., many of

the

names of the towns and rivers given by the earlier inhabitants, viz.

the

Red Indians, may still be noted: for example, Chicago and Massachusett

as those of towns and Missouri and Mississippi as of rivers. But in

the

entire region once occupied by the Harappans there is not even a

single

name of river, mountain or town which can claim a Dravidian origin.

Why?

The obvious answer is that the Harappans were not a Dravidian-speaking

people.

 

Let us deal with the third myth, viz. that the Helmand of Afghanistan

was the Rigvedic Sarasvati. This is totally wrong. According to RV

10.75.5, it lay between the Yamuna and Sutlej (imam me Gange Yamune

Sarasvati Sutudri stotam sachata Parusnya...). RV 3.23.4 states that

the

Drishadvati and Apaya were its tributaries (Drishadvatyam manusa

Apayam

Sarasvatyam revadagne didihi... ). Further, RV 7.95.2 clearly mentions

that the Sarasvati flowed all the way from the mountains to the sea

(ekachetat Sarasvati nadinam suchir yati giribhya a samudrat... ). In

Afghanistan there are no rivers by the name of Yamuna and Sutlej, nor

are there Drishadvati and Apaya. Further, there is no sea in

Afghanistan. So how can the Rigvedic Sarasvati be placed there? All

this

evidence ¾ positive in the case of India and negative in the case of

Afghanistan ¾ clinches the issue: the present-day Sarasvati-Ghaggar

combine, though now dry at places, does represent the Rigvedic

Sarasvati

(see Figs. 1 and 2); the Helmand of Afghanistan does not.

 

Earlier we had established that the Harappans were not a

Dravidian-speaking people. Were then they the Sanskrit-speaking Vedic

people? Against such an equation the following four objections have

been

raised. First, the Vedic Aryans were 'nomads', whereas the Harappan

Civilization had a major urban component. Secondly, the Vedas refer to

the horse, whereas the Harappan Civilization is thought to be

unfamiliar

with it. Thirdly, the Vedic carts had spoked wheels, whereas the

Harappan vehicles are supposed to be bereft of such wheels. And

finally,

since according to the dating of Max Muller the Vedas cannot be

earlier

than 1200 BC and the Harappan Civilization belonged to the third

millennium BC, how can the two be equated?

 

Unlike nomads, the Vedic people lived a settled life and even

constructed forts. In RV 10.101.8 the devotee's prayer is: '[O gods]

make strong forts as of metal, safe from assailants

(purahkrinadhvamayasiradhrista). RV 4.30.20 refers to 'a hundred

fortresses of stone'. Sometimes these had a hundred arms (RV 7.15.14:

purbhava satabhujih).

 

The Vedic people carried on trade, not merely on land but also across

the sea. RV 9.33.6 states: 'From every side, O Soma, for our profit,

pour thou forth four seas filled with a thousand-fold riches (rayah

samudranchaturo asmabhyam soma visvatah. Apavasva sahasrinah)'.

Further,

the ships used in sea-trade were not petty ones but could be as large

as

having a hundred oars (sataritra, RV 1.116.5).

 

Even on the political and administrative fronts, the Vedic people were

highly organised. Not only did they have sabhas and samitis which

dealt

with legislative and perhaps judiciary matters, but they also had a

well-established hierarchy amongst the rulers, viz. samrat, rajan and

rajaka. Thus, in RV 6.27.8 Abhyavarti Chayamana is stated to be a

Samrat. (Soverign), while RV 8.21.8 states that, dwelling beside the

Sarasvati river, Chitra alone is the Rajan (king) while the rest are

mere Rajakas (kinglings or petty chieftains). That these gradations

were

absolutely real is duly confirmed by the Satapatha Brahmana

(V.1.1.12-13), which says: 'By offering the Rajasuya he becomes Raja

and

by the Vajapeya he becomes Samrat, and the office of the Rajan is

lower

and that of the Samraj, the higher (raja vai rajasuyenestva bhavati,

samrat vajapeyena l avaram hi rajyam param samrajyam).

 

The horse. In his report on Mohenjo-daro, Mackay states: 'Perhaps the

most interesting of the model animals is one that I personally take to

represent the horse.' Wheeler also confirmed the view of Mackay. A lot

more evidence has come to light since then. Lothal has yielded not

only

a terracotta figure of the horse (Fig. 3) but some faunal remains as

well. On the faunal remains from Surkotada, the renowned international

authority on horse-bones, Sandor Bokonyi, Hungary, states: 'The

occurrence of true horse (Equus Caballus L.) was evidenced by the

enamel

pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and

form

of the incisors and phalanges (toe bones).' In addition, there are

quite

a few other Harappan sites, such as Kalibangan and Rupnagar, which

have

yielded the faunal remains of the horse.

 

The spoked wheel. It is absolutely wrong to say that the Harappans did

not use the spoked wheel. While it would be too much to expect the

remains of wooden wheels from the excavations, because of the hot and

humid climate of our country which destroys all organic material in

the

course of time - the Harappan Civilization is nearly 5,000 years old,

the terracotta models, recovered from many Harappan sites, clearly

establish that the Harappans were fully familiar with the spoked

wheel.

On the specimens found at Kalibangan and Rakhigarhi (Fig.4), the

spokes

of the wheel are shown by painted lines radiating from the central hub

to the periphery, whereas in the case of specimens from Banawali these

are executed in low relief (Fig.5) - a technique which continued even

into the historical times.

 

Now to the chronological horizon of the Vedas. The Harappan settlement

at Kalibangan in Rajasthan was abandoned, while it was still in a

mature

stage, because of the drying up of the adjacent Sarasvati river. This

evidence has been thoroughly worked out by Italian and Indian

hydrologists, and Raikes, the leader, aptly captions his paper:

'Kalibangan: Death from Natural Causes.' According to the radiocarbon

dates, this abandonment took place around 2000-1900 BC. Eminent

geologists, V. M. K. Puri and B. C. Verma, have demonstrated how the

Sarasvati originated from the Himalayan glaciers and how subsequently

its channel got blocked because of tectonic movements in the

Himalayas,

as a result of which the original channel dried up and its water got

diverted to the Yamuna.

 

Putting together the entire archaeological, radiocarbon­-dating,

hydrological, geological and literary evidence, the following

conclusion

becomes inescapable, viz. that since during the Rigvedic times the

Sarasvati was a mighty flowing river and according to the

archaeological-radiocarbon-dating-cum-hydrological evidence this river

dried up around 2000 BC, the Rigveda has got to be earlier than 2000

BC.

How much earlier, it would, of course, be anybody's guess.

 

As is absolutely clear from RV 10.75.5-6, the entire area right from

the

Ganga on the east to the Indus on the west was occupied by the

Rigvedic

Aryans. Further, since the Rigveda must be dated to a period prior to

2000 BC, a question may straightaway be posed: Which archaeological

culture covered the entire region from the Ganga on the east to the

Indus on the west during the period prior to 2000 BC? Please think

coolly and dispassionately. If you do that, you cannot escape the

inevitable conclusion: It was none other than the Harappan

Civilization

itself (Fig. 6). However, in spite of such strong evidence in support

of

a Vedic = Harappan equation, it would be prudent, as I have all along

advocated, to put this equation on hold until the Harappan script is

satisfactorily deciphered. It is needless to add that all the tall

claims made so far in this respect are not tenable at all.

 

 

There is also no truth in the fourth myth, viz. that the Harappa

Culture

became 'extinct'. What had really happened was that the curve of the

Harappa Culture, which began to shoot up around 2600 BC and reached

its

peak, in the centuries that followed, began its downward journey

around

2000 BC. Several factors seem to have contributed to it.

Over-exploitation and consequent wearing out of the landscape must

have

led to a fall in agricultural production. Added to it was probably a

change in the climate towards aridity. And no less significant was a

marked fall in trade, both internal as well as external. As a result

of

all this, there was no longer the affluence that used to characterise

this civilization. The cities began to disappear and there was a

reversion to a rural scenario. Thus, there was no doubt a set-back in

the standards of living but no extinction of the culture itself. In my

recent book, The Sarasvati Flows On, I have dealt extensively with

this

aspect of continuity, giving comparable photographs of the Harappan

objects and the present ones. In a nutshell, let it be stated here

that

whichever walk of life you talk about, you will find in it the

reflection of the Harappa Culture: be it agriculture, cooking habits,

personal make-up, ornaments, objects of toiletry, games played by

children or adults, transport by road or river, folk tales, religious

practices and so on. Here we give just a few examples. The excavation

at

Kalibangan has brought to light an agricultural field dating back to

circa 2800 BC. It is characterised by a criss-cross pattern of the

furrows (Fig. 7). Exactly the same pattern of ploughing the fields is

followed even today in northern Rajasthan (Fig. 8), Haryana and

western

Uttar Pradesh. Today mustard is grown in the widely-distanced furrows

and chickpea in the narrower ones (Fig. 9) and it is most likely that

these very crops were grown in a similar manner during the Harappan

times; we do have evidence of both these items from the Harappan

levels.

Kalibangan has also yielded a linga-cum-yoni (Fig. 10) of the same

type

as is worshipped now (Fig .11).

 

This very site, along with Banawali, Rakhigarhi and Lothal, has

brought

to light 'fire-altars', indicating rituals associated with fire. In

the

illustration given here (Fig. 12) there were originally seven

fire­-altars, some of which have been disturbed by a subsequent drain.

There is a north-south wall at the back, indicating that the performer

of the ritual had to face the east. In the front may be seen the lower

half of a jar in which were found ash and charcoal, signifying that

fire

was kept ready for the ritual. Close to these fire-altars, on the left

(not seen in the picture), there were a well and a bathing pavement,

suggesting that a ceremonial bath constituted a part of the ritual.

(It

needs to be clarified that these fire-altars have nothing to do with

those of the Parsis.)

 

It would appear to be a mere tale if it was stated that yogic asanas,

which are now becoming fashionable even with the elites, were being

already practised by the Harappans (Fig. 13).

 

A married Hindu woman usually applies sindura (vermilion) to the manga

(the line of partition of the hair on the head; Fig.14). Though most

surprising, yet it is a fact that Harappan ladies did the same, as

evidenced by many female terracotta figurines (Figs.15 and 16). In

these

terracottas, the ornaments are painted yellow to indicate that these

were made of gold, the hair is black, while a red colour has been

applied in the manga, indicating the use of vermilion. Even the Hindu

way of greeting with a namaste (Fig.17) is rooted in the Harappan

Culture, as shown by certain other terracotta figures (Fig.18).

 

>From the foregoing it must have become abundantly clear that all the

four theories, viz. that there was an 'Aryan Invasion of India', that

the 'Harappans were a Dravidian-speaking People', that the 'Rigvedic

Sarasvati is the Helmand of Afghanistan' and that there was an

'Extinction of the Harappa Culture', are nothing more than mere myths

which, once created, have subconsciously been perpetuated. Since these

have coloured our vision of India's past, the sooner these are cast

away

the better would it be. How long must we continue to bury our heads,

ostrich-like, into the sand of ignorance?

 

In retrospect. One is set wondering as to why and how this great

civilization of the Indian subcontinent - called variously the

Harappan,

Indus or Indus-Sarasvati Civilization and whose roots go as deep as

the

fifth millennium BC - still lives on, not as a fugitive but as a vital

organ of our socio-cultural fabric. The Indian psyche has indeed been

pondering over this great cultural phenomenon of 'livingness', and the

quest has very aptly been echoed by a great Indian poet and thinker,

Allama Iqbal, in these words:

 

Yunan-o-Misra-Ruma sab mit gaye jahan se

Ab tak magar hai baqi namo-nisan hamara

Kuchh bat hai ki hasti mitati nahin hamari

Sadiyon raha hai dusman daur-i-zaman hamara

 

The poet says that whereas the ancient civilizations of Greece, Egypt

and Rome have all disappeared from this world, the basic elements of

our

civilization still continue. Although world events have been inimical

to

us for centuries, there is 'something' in our civilization which has

withstood these onslaughts.

 

What is that 'something', some inherent strength? Doubtless it lies in

the liberal character of the Indian civilization, which allows for

cross-fertilisation with other cultures, without losing its own

identity. One may well recall the words of the greatest man of our

times, Mahatma Gandhi: Let me keep my doors and windows wide open so

that fresh air may enter from all directions. Nevertheless, he was

firmly seated in his room (the soul). The soul of India lives on !!

--- End forwarded message ---