More by Bryant

[Guest guest]

http://www.barnard.edu/religion/defamation/bryant.htmWhen Scholarship Matters:The Indo-Aryan Origins Debate

Edwin Bryant

Rutgers University

Everyone in the field of South Asian studies by now knows about, and

is likely exasperated by, the debate over the origins of the

Vedic-speaking Indo-Aryans. We have all, I think, heard something of

the voices that have emerged, primarily from Indian archaeologists and

historians, as well as from the Hindu diaspora, challenging the idea of

an external origin for this language and cultural group, and claiming an

Indigenous origin for the Vedic culture (a view I have termed the

'Indigenist' position). Fueled by suspicion of the racist and elitist

biases of colonial Indology, and, according to its detractors, by the

imperatives of Hindu nationalism, this view provokes endless

discussions, as anyone with the patience to follow the Indo-Aryan

migration debates on the Indology nets and other conferences in the West

can attest. These debates all-too-often degenerate into emotional

name-calling, as accusations of 'neo-colonial chauvinism' from one side,

and assertions of 'Hindu nationalistic dogma' from the other, inevitably

start to be bandied about, while the scholarly value of the discussions

rapidly evaporates.

Most western Indologists, on the whole, have remained unconvinced by

the limited exposure they have had with the all-too-often selective

quality of the Indigenist arguments they encounter, which they view as

indicative of a nationalism that seeks authenticity in unscholarly

interpretations of history and pre-history, and some scholars are

becoming exasperated by the polemical rehashing of the racist genesis of

western Indology. While the debate is viewed by most western

Indologists as, at best, peripheral to serious scholarship and, at

worst, as an annoying—and, in the present-day Indian context,

politically dangerous—disturbance, it is ferociously contested in

India, where it is situated in much more of a mainstream academic

context.

The Indigenist stress on the continuity of Indian history, and the

generic use of the term 'Vedic culture', with its ahistorical and

monolithic overtones and troublesome implications for minority cultures,

is the feature of the 'Indigenist' position, that is most troubling to

opponents of this view. The concerns of those who fear the ideological

corollaries underpinning such interpretations are by now well-known: if

the Vedic Indo-Aryans are interpreted as being indigenous to India, then

the 'Vedic Civilization' and all that developed from it can be construed

as 'truly Indian' and all subsequent cultural groups known to have

immigrated into India can be depicted as 'Others'. Indigenism,

consequently, is generically stereotyped as a discourse promoting

communal tension.

Predictably, an inevitable corollary of stereotyping is that it

results in counter-stereotypification, and those most actively defending

the theory of Aryan migrations in India (whom I have termed the

'Migrationist' school), are characterized in turn as having ideological

predispositions of their own. These are usually associated with secular

Marxist agendas in some Indian contexts, and neo-colonialist ones in

others, and the 'Leftist' or 'secular Marxist' academic is subject to an

amount of disgust equaled only by that vented upon the 'colonial

stooge.' Secular Marxists are accused by Indigenists of maintaining a

defunct theory in order to insist that the arrival of the Aryans is

analogous to the arrival of the Muslims, Christians and numerous other

groups of newcomers to the subcontinent. In such an amalgamation of

immigrants, no one has more claim to indigenous pedigree or cultural

hegemony than anyone else. A secular state, from this perspective, is

the only political system that can protect the equal rights of all

citizens to define themselves as being Indian with cultural credentials

that are as good as anybody else's. Thus, Migrationist, that is,

anti-Indigenist scholarship is stereotyped, in its turn, as being

subservient to secular, Marxist ideology by its opponents.

As for the colonial stooge caricature, a recent book by D.K

Chakravarti captures this perspective with such statements as: " the

Indian historians became increasingly concerned with the large number of

grants, scholarships, fellowships and even occasional jobs to be won in

Western universities, [and thus] there was a scramble for new

respectability to be gained by toeing the Western line of thinking about

India and Indian history. " The bitterness, hostility and ad

hominem sarcasm seeping from the pens of participants in this debate

(from both sides of the fence) when referring (increasingly by name) to

those holding opposing views is apparent for all to see, and the

academic value of much of the exchange—on all sides—has been singed by

the emotional temperature such issues ignite. The result is an almost

complete lack of communication between two mutually antagonistic and

angry camps, and intransigent, cavalier, selective and often grossly

inaccurate generalizations of opposing views are bandied about on both

sides of the issue. Thus, an entire fascinating field of study has

become inextricably linked with ideology and the politics of

representation to the point where it is almost impossible to have a

rational and objective conversation on the origin of the Indo-Aryans in

India without becoming associated with the ideologies that are

immediately correlated with pro- or contra- stances on the issue.

Blanket stereotypification of the Aryan debate with Hindu nationalism

was a source of great annoyance amongst numerous scholars I interviewed

in India who were questioning the theory of external Aryan origins. In

such generalizations, distinctions are often not made between communal

revisionism and post-colonial reconsideration. Of course, these two

ingredients are not always easily distinguishable, nor detachable, but,

tiresome or not, this anti-imperialistic, post-colonial dimension of the

issue is nevertheless an inherent and essential ingredient. Many members

of the Indigenist school are quite understandably uncomfortable about

inheriting an account of their ancient history that was assembled for

them by their former colonial masters, and are committed to reclaiming

control over the reconstruction of the ancient history of their country.

A principal motive of many Indian scholars in this debate is the desire

to reexamine the infrastructure of ancient history that is the legacy of

the colonial period and test how secure it actually is by adopting the

very tools and disciplines that had been used to construct it in the

first place. While the more dogmatic, polemical and sometimes amazingly

ill-informed publications do not exactly help the case along, some

Indigenists have presented some quite compelling arguments that do merit

consideration. There are a number of quite legitimate reasons to

question a good deal of the data that has been produced to support a

Migrationist position.

Moreover, the opinions of significant numbers of Indian intellectuals

about the history of their own country cannot simply be dismissed by

those engaged in research on South Asian proto-history, or be relegated

to areas outside the boundaries of what is considered worthy of serious

academic attention. One must beware of falling into a kind of uncritical

Indological McCarthyism towards those open to reconsidering the

established contours of ancient Indian history, irrespective of their

motives and backgrounds, and of lumping all challenges into a

simplistic, convenient and easily-demonized 'Hindu Nationalist'

category. Neglected viewpoints do not disappear. They reappear with

more aggression due to frustration at being ignored. The western

academy must, in my opinion, revisit the entire issue of Indo-Aryan

origins, respond respectfully to the objections that have been

raised by the Indigenous school against the prevailing western consensus

of Indo-Aryan migrations, and submit their own presuppositions,

inherited or otherwise, to fresh scrutiny—an exercise that is surely

healthy for any scholar committed to striving for objectivity, (and

especially so given both the critique of 'Orientalism,' and the

present-day, post-colonial environment of South Asian studies).

Having said that, it seems fair to state from the other side, that

while pointing out colonial biases is of fundamental

importance—cleansing Indology from the ghosts of the past is a process

that is by no means passé—there is still solid empirical data that need

to be confronted and addressed if one chooses to tackle a problem like

that of the Indo-Aryans; suspicion of colonial motives does not make

such evidence disappear. Besides, this is no longer the colonial

period; it is still a post-modern one where alternative, suppressed and

subaltern views are, if anything, glamorized. Established paradigms

have been subverted left, right and center throughout humanities

departments all over western academia. Why on earth would present-day

western Indologists still be invested in an 'Aryan Invasion' theory

anyway? Whatever may have been the agendas underpinning 19th century

scholarship, the fact is that most present-day western scholars have

been unconvinced by the polemical and all-too-often embarrassingly

ill-informed arguments they encounter, not because they somehow have

some mysterious investment in insisting on an external origin for this

language group. There were, and still are, some very good reasons to

retain the theory of Aryan migrations, and this evidence needs to be

addressed. Simply aggressively promoting only those selective aspects

of the data that are amenable to a specific alternative view with

troubling ideological underpinnings is to duplicate the errors and

excesses of the much-maligned 19th century European Indological

enterprise. Two wrongs do not make a right: European racism and elitism

cannot be replaced by Hindu chauvinism. History cannot be written by

decibel.

Casting off the legacies of colonialism opens up exciting new

possibilities for the understanding of Indian proto-history provided the

constraints of the colonial period are not replaced by an equally

constraining insistence on a different ideologically driven reading of

the historical evidence, whether 'western elitist,' 'secular Marxist' or

'Hindu nationalist.' Unless attitudes to this issue change from all

sides, I foresee the perpetuation of two widening divides as the

'Indigenist' position becomes more vociferous: one between western

Indologists, and the more persistent voices from the Hindu diaspora, and

the other much more serious confrontation between 'leftist' and

'rightist' academics in the subcontinent itself. Most unfortunate, if

this trend continues, will be that the entire field will suffer due to

loss of communication between differing opinions and points of view—the lifeblood of a progressive field of study.