The myth of Aryan Invasion

[chanda_s]

This is an essay written by David frawley, a western scholor who had done and still is doing a great research on India. he has written several books on indian history after learning sanskrit. this article rebuffs the Aryan invasion theory and argues that Aryans are indigeneous people and have always belonged to India and didn't come from outside. this theory is now being accepted the world over.

One of the main ideas used to interpret and generally devalue the ancient history of India is the theory of the Aryan invasion. According to this account, India was invaded and conquered by nomadic light-skinned Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100 BC, who overthrew an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization from which they took most of what later became Hindu culture. This so-called pre-Aryan civilization is said to be evidenced by the large urban ruins of what has been called the "Indus valley culture" (as most of its initial sites were on the Indus river). The war between the powers of light and darkness, a prevalent idea in ancient Aryan Vedic scriptures, was thus interpreted to refer to this war between light and dark skinned peoples. The Aryan invasion theory thus turned the "Vedas", the original scriptures of ancient India and the Indo-Aryans, into little more than primitive poems of uncivilized plunderers.

This idea totally foreign to the history of India, whether north or south has become almost an unquestioned truth in the interpretation of ancient history Today, after nearly all the reasons for its supposed validity have been refuted, even major Western scholars are at last beginning to call it in question.

In this article we will summarize the main points that have arisen. This is a complex subject that I have dealt with in depth in my book "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization", for those interested in further examination of the subject.

The Indus valley culture was pronounced pre-Aryans for several reasons that were largely part of the cultural milieu of nineteenth century European thinking As scholars following Max Mullar had decided that the Aryans came into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus valley culture was earlier than this, they concluded that it had to be preAryan. Yet the rationale behind the late date for the Vedic culture given by Muller was totally speculative. Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era, believed in Biblical chronology. This placed the beginning of the world at 400 BC and the flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became difficult to get the Aryans in India before 1500 BC.
Muller therefore assumed that the five layers of the four 'Vedas' & 'Upanishads' were each composed in 200 year periods before the Buddha at 500 BC. However, there are more changes of language in Vedic Sanskrit itself than there are in classical Sanskrit since Panini, also regarded as a figure of around 500 BC, or a period of 2500 years. Hence it is clear that each of these periods could have existed for any number of centuries and that the 200 year figure is totally arbitrary and is likely too short a figure.

It was assumed by these scholars many of whom were also Christian missionaries unsympathetic to the 'Vedas' that the Vedic culture was that of primitive nomads from Central Asia. Hence they could not have founded any urban culture like that of the Indus valley. The only basis for this was a rather questionable interpretation of the 'Rig Veda' that they made, ignoring the sophisticated nature of the culture presented within it.

Meanwhile, it was also pointed out that in the middle of the second millennium BC, a number of Indo-European invasions apparently occured in the Middle East, wherein Indo-European peoples the Hittites, Mit tani and Kassites conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for some centuries. An Aryan invasion of India would have been another version of this same movement of Indo-European peoples. On top of this, excavators of the Indus valley culture, like Wheeler, thought they found evidence of destruction of the culture by an outside invasion confirming this.
The Vedic culture was thus said to be that of primitive nomads who came out of Central Asia with their horse-drawn chariots and iron weapons and overthrew the cities of the more advanced Indus valley culture, with their superior battle tactics. It was pointed out that no horses, chariots or iron was discovered in Indus valley sites.
This was how the Aryan invasion theory formed and has remained since then. Though little has been discovered that confirms this theory, there has been much hesitancy to question it, much less to give it up.
Further excavations discovered horses not only in Indus Valley sites but also in pre-Indus sites. The use of the horse has thus been proven for the whole range of ancient Indian history. Evidence of the wheel, and an Indus seal showing a spoked wheel as used in chariots, has also been found, suggesting the usage of chariots.

Moreover, the whole idea of nomads with chariots has been challenged. Chariots are not the vehicles of nomads. Their usage occured only in ancient urban cultures with much flat land, of which the river plain of north India was the most suitable. Chariots are totally unsuitable for crossing mountains and deserts, as the so-called Aryan invasion required.

That the Vedic culture used iron & must hence date later
than the introduction of iron around 1500 BC revolves around the meaning of the Vedic term "ayas", interpreted as iron. 'Ayas' in other Indo- European languages like Latin or German usually means copper, bronze or ore generally, not specially iron. There is no reason to insist that in such earlier Vedic times, 'ayas' meant iron, particularly since other metals are not mentioned in the 'Rig Veda' (except gold that is much more commonly referred to than ayas). Moreover, the 'Atharva Veda' and 'Yajur Veda' speak of different colors of 'ayas'(such as red & black), showing that it was a generic term. Hence it is clear that 'ayas' generally meant metal and not specifically iron.

Moreover, the enemies of the Vedic people in the 'Rig Veda' also use ayas, even for making their cities, as do the Vedic people themselves. Hence there is nothing in Vedic literture to show that either the Vedic culture was an ironbased culture or that there enemies were not.
The 'Rig Veda' describes its Gods as 'destroyers of cities'. This was used also to regard the Vedic as a primitive non-urban culture that destroys cities and urban civilization. However, there are also many verses in the 'Rig Veda' that speak of the Aryans as having having cities of their own and being protected by cities upto a hundred in number. Aryan Gods like Indra, Agni, Saraswati and the Adityas are praised as being like a city. Many ancient kings, including those of Egypt and Mesopotamia, had titles like destroyer or conquerer of cities. This does not turn them into nomads. Destruction of cities also happens in modern wars; this does not make those who do this nomads. Hence the idea of Vedic culture as destroying but not building the cities is based upon ignoring what the Vedas actually say about their own cities.

Further excavation revealed that the Indus Valley culture was not des- troyed by outside invasion, but according to internal causes and, most likely, floods. Most recently a new set of cities has been found in India (like the Dwaraka and Bet Dwaraka sites by S.R. Rao and the National Institute of Oceanography in India) which are intermidiate between those of the Indus culture and later ancient India as visited by the Greeks. This may eliminate the so-called dark age following the presumed Aryan invasion and shows a continuous urban occupation in India back to the beginning of the Indus culture.

The interpretation of the religion of the Indus Valley culture -made incidentlly by scholars such as Wheeler who were not religious scholars much less students of Hinduism was that its religion was different than the Vedic and more likely the later Shaivite religion. However, further excavations both in Indus Valley site in Gujarat, like Lothal, and those in Rajsthan, like Kalibangan show large number of fire altars like those used in the Vedic religion, along with bones of oxen, potsherds, shell jewelry and other items used in the rituals described in the 'Vedic Brahmanas'. Hence the Indus Valley culture evidences many Vedic practices that can not be merely coincidental. That some of its practices appeared non-Vedic to its excavators may also be attributed to their misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of Vedic and Hindu culture generally, wherein Vedism and Shaivism are the same basic tradition.

We must remember that ruins do not necessarily have one interpretation. Nor does the ability to discover ruins necessarily gives the ability to interpret them correctly.

The Vedic people were thought to have been a fair-skinned race like the Europeans owing to the Vedic idea of a war between light and darkness, and the Vedic people being presented as children of light or children of the sun. Yet this idea of a war between light and darkness exists in most ancient cultures, including the Persian and the Egyptian. Why don't we interpret their scriptures as a war between light and dark-skinned people? It is purely a poetic metaphor, not a cultural statement. Moreover, no real traces of such a race are found in India.

Anthropologists have observed that the present population of Gujarat is composed of more or less the same ethnic groups as are noticed at Lothal in 2000 BC. Similarly, the present population of the Punjab is said to be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar 4000 years ago. Linguistically the present day population of Gujrat and Punjab belongs to the Indo-Aryan language speaking group. The only inference that can be drawn from the anthropological and linguistic evidences adduced above is that the Harappan population in the Indus Valley and Gujrat in 2000 BC was composed of two or more groups, the more dominent among them having very close ethnic affinities with the present day Indo-Aryan speaking population of India.

In other words there is no racial evidence of any such Indo-Aryan invasion of India but only of a continuity of the same group of people who traditionally considered themselves to be Aryans.

There are many points in fact that prove the Vedic nature of the Indus Valley culture. Further excavation has shown that the great majority of the sites of the Indus Valley culture were east, not west of Indus. In fact, the largest concentration of sites appears in an area of Punjab and Rajsthan near the dry banks of ancient Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. The Vedic culture was said to have been founded by the sage Manu between the banks of Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. The Saraswati is lauded as the main river (naditama) in the 'Rig Veda' & is the most frequently mentioned in the text. It is said to be a great flood and to be wide, even endless in size. Saraswati is said to be "pure in course from the mountains to the sea". Hence the Vedic people were well acquainted with this river and regarded it as their immemorial hoemland.
The Saraswati, as modern land studies now reveal, was indeed one of the largest, if not the largest river in India. In early ancient and pre-historic times, it once drained the Sutlej, Yamuna and the Ganges, whose courses were much different than they are today. However, the Saraswati river went dry at the end of the Indus Valley culture and before the so-called Aryan invasion or before 1500 BC. In fact this may have caused the ending of the Indus culture. How could the Vedic Aryans know of this river and establish their culture on its banks if it dried up before they arrived? Indeed the Saraswati as described in the 'Rig Veda' appears to more accurately show it as it was prior to the Indus Valley culture as in the Indus era it was already in decline.

Vedic and late Vedic texts also contain interesting astronomical lore. The Vedic calender was based upon astronomical sightings of the equinoxes and solstices. Such texts as 'Vedanga Jyotish' speak of a time when the vernal equinox was in the middle of the Nakshtra Aslesha (or about 23 degrees 20 minutes Cancer). This gives a date of 1300 BC. The 'Yajur Veda' and 'Atharva Veda' speak of the vernal equinox in the Krittikas (Pleiades; early Taurus) and the summer solstice (ayana) in Magha (early Leo). This gives a date about 2400 BC. Yet earlier eras are mentioned but these two have numerous references to substantiate them. They prove that the Vedic culture existed at these periods and already had a sophisticated system of astronomy. Such references were merely ignored or pronounced unintelligible by Western scholars because they yielded too early a date for the 'Vedas' than what they presumed, not because such references did not exist.

Vedic texts like 'Shatapatha Brahmana' and 'Aitereya Brahmana' that mention these astronomical references list a group of 11 Vedic Kings, including a number of figures of the 'Rig Veda', said to have conquered the region of India from 'sea to sea'. Lands of the Aryans are mentioned in them from Gandhara (Afganistan) in the west to Videha (Nepal) in the east, and south to Vidarbha (Maharashtra). Hence the Vedic people were in these regions by the Krittika equinox or before 2400 BC. These passages were also ignored by Western scholars and it was said by them that the 'Vedas' had no evidence of large empires in India in Vedic times. Hence a pattern of ignoring literary evidence or misinterpreting them to suit the Aryan invasion idea became prevalent, even to the point of changing the meaning of Vedic words to suit this theory.

According to this theory, the Vedic people were nomads in the Punjab, comming down from Central Asia. However, the 'Rig Veda' itself has nearly 100 references to ocean (samudra), as well as dozens of references to ships, and to rivers flowing in to the sea. Vedic ancestors like Manu, Turvasha, Yadu and Bhujyu are flood figures, saved from across the sea. The Vedic God of the sea, Varuna, is the father of many Vedic seers and seer families like Vasishta, Agastya and the Bhrigu seers. To preserve the Aryan invasion idea it was assumed that the Vedic (and later sanskrit) term for ocean, samudra, originally did not mean the ocean but any large body of water, especially the Indus river in Punjab. Here the clear meaning of a term in 'Rig Veda' and later times verified by rivers like Saraswati mentioned by name as flowing into the sea was altered to make the Aryan invasion theory fit. Yet if we look at the index to translation of the 'Rig Veda' by Griffith for example, who held to this idea that samudra didn't really mean the ocean, we find over 70 references to ocean or sea. If samudra does noe mean ocean why was it traslated as such? It is therefore without basis to locate Vedic kings in Central Asia far from any ocean or from the massive Saraswati river, which form the background of their land and the symbolism of their hymns.

One of the latest archeological ideas is that the Vedic culture is evidenced by Painted Grey Ware pottery in north India, which apears to date around 1000 BC and comes from the same region between the Ganges and Yamuna as later Vedic culture is related to. It is thought to be an inferior grade of pottery and to be associated with the use of iron that the 'Vedas' are thought to mention. However it is associated with a pig and rice culture, not the cow and barley culture of the 'Vedas'. Moreover it is now found to be an organic development of indegenous pottery, not an introduction of invaders.

Painted Grey Ware culture represents an indigenous cultural development and does not reflect any cultural intrusion from the West i.e. an Indo-Aryan invasion. Therefore, there is no archeological evidence corroborating the fact of an Indo-Aryan invasion.

In addition, the Aryans in the Middle East, most notably the Hittites, have now been found to have been in that region atleast as early as 2200 BC, wherein they are already mentioned. Hence the idea of an Aryan invasion into the Middle East has been pushed back some centuries, though the evidence so far is that the people of the mountain regions of the Middle East were Indo-Europeans as far as recorded history can prove.

The Aryan Kassites of the ancient Middle East worshipped Vedic Gods like Surya and the Maruts, as well as one named Himalaya. The Aryan Hittites and Mittani signed a treaty with the name of the Vedic Gods Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Nasatyas around 1400 BC. The Hittites have a treatise on chariot racing written in almost pure Sanskrit. The IndoEuropeans of the ancient Middle East thus spoke Indo-Aryan, not Indo-Iranian languages and thereby show a Vedic culture in that region of the world as well.

The Indus Valley culture had a form of writing, as evidenced by numerous seals found in the ruins. It was also assumed to be non-Vedic and probably Dravidian, though this was never proved. Now it has been shown that the majority of the late Indus signs are identical with those of later Hindu Brahmi and that there is an organic development between the two scripts. Prevalent models now suggest an Indo-European base for that language.

It was also assumed that the Indus Valley culture derived its civilization from the Middle East, probably Sumeria, as antecedents for it were not found in India. Recent French excavations at Mehrgarh have shown that all the antecedents of the Indus Valley culture can be found within the subcontinent and going back before 6000 BC.

In short, some Western scholars are beginning to reject the Aryan invasion or any outside origin for Hindu civilization.

Current archeological data do not support the existence of an Indo Aryan or European invasion into South Asia at any time in the preor protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural development from prehistoric to historic periods. The early Vedic literature describes not a human invasion into the area, but a fundamental restructuring of indigenous society. The Indo-Aryan invasion as an academic concept in 18th and 19th century Europe reflected the cultural milieu of the period. Linguistic data were used to validate the concept that in turn was used to interpret archeological and anthropological data.

In other words, Vedic literature was interpreted on the assumption that there was an Aryan invasion. Then archeological evidence was interpreted by the same assumption. And both interpretations were then used to justify each other. It is nothing but a tautology, an exercise in circular thinking that only proves that if assuming something is true, it is found to be true!

Another modern Western scholar, Colin Renfrew, places the IndoEuropeans in Greece as early as 6000 BC. He also suggests such a possible early date for their entry into India.

As far as I can see there is nothing in the Hymns of the 'Rig Veda' which demonstrates that the Vedic-speaking population was intrusive to the area: this comes rather from a historical assumption of the 'comming of the Indo-Europeans.

When Wheeler speaks of 'the Aryan invasion of the land of the 7 rivers, the Punjab', he has no warrenty at all, so far as I can see. If one checks the dozen references in the 'Rig Veda' to the 7 rivers, there is nothing in them that to me implies invasion: the land of the 7 rivers is the land of the 'Rig Veda', the scene of action. Nor is it implied that the inhabitants of the walled cities (including the Dasyus) were any more aboriginal than the Aryans themselves.

Despite Wheeler's comments, it is difficult to see what is particularly non-Aryan about the Indus Valley civilization. Hence Renfrew suggests that the Indus Valley civilization was in fact Indo-Aryan even prior to the Indus Valley era:

This hypothesis that early Indo-European languages were spoken in North India with Pakistan and on the Iranian plateau at the 6th millennium BC has the merit of harmonizing symmetrically with the theory for the origin of the IndoEuropean languages in Europe. It also emphasizes the continuity in the Indus Valley and adjacent areas from the early neolithic through to the floruit of the Indus Valley civilization.
This is not to say that such scholars appreciate or understand the 'Vedas' their work leaves much to be desired in this respect but that it is clear that the whole edifice built around the Aryan invasion is beginning to tumble on all sides. In addition, it does not mean that the 'Rig Veda' dates from the Indus Valley era. The Indus Valley culture resembles that of the 'Yajur Veda' and the reflect the pre-Indus period in India, when the Saraswati river was more prominent.

The acceptance of such views would create a revolution in our view of history as shattering as that in science caused by Einstein's theory of relativity. It would make ancient India perhaps the oldest, largest and most central of ancient cultures. It would mean that the Vedic literary record already the largest and oldest of the ancient world even at a 1500 BC date would be the record of teachings some centuries or thousands of years before that. It would mean that the 'Vedas' are our most authentic record of the ancient world. It would also tend to validate the Vedic view that the Indo-Europeans and other Aryan peoples were migrants from India, not that the Indo-Aryans were invaders into India. Moreover, it would affirm the Hindu tradition that the Dravidians were early offshoots of the Vedic people through the seer Agastya, and not unaryan peoples.

[lalitha]

Sir, i have read some similar essays elsewhere. But will it not be suicidal to express such ideas in the exam?

Please tell us your views on the subject. do you really believe in the Aryan invasion?

[chanda_s]

the problem with writing history in modern india has been that the horse has always been put ahead of the cart.

there are always certain set of facts and evidences that archeology, literature etc offer to study history. a true historian should first go through these facts and evidences and then build up a thesis.

but what has happened all these years in modern india is that the thesis was first built, rather assumed(to suit certain ideologies) and then the available evidences and facts were conveniently used, modified and ignored to prove the initial assumption. the myth of aryan invasion is one such classical assumption.

the british wanted to justify their invasion and destruction of india. when they could not do it under any moral grounds, they sought to justify by saying that 'your ancestors are also guilty of the same crime so you cant say that we are doing anything wrong.'

the basic idea of entire western education introduced my macaulay was to wean away the indians from their traditional knowledge and pride; to instill a sense of inferiority complex among the young indians. and i must say maccaulay must be smiling in his grave now. with one master stroke of introducing his western education, he has undone what hundreds of generations have built patiently.

and a section of indian history writers has inherited maccaulay's ideology and unfortunately we as a block are in a position where we have to follow the tradition. thats because the ideology is so hopelessly entrenched in the text books that we just cant write anything in opposition to that. if we do, we run the risk of losing marks

but that you have asked, lalitha, i confess that i have never believed in the aryan invasion myth. and i have always reflected that in my answers in the upsc exam. but then the answers have been backed by reasoning as well. i dont remember having done poorly in history.

whether you choose to do the same or not entirely depends on the strength of your conviction and the solidity of your reasoning. i would refrain from advising anyone on this count but i have already narrated what i did in my exams.

but on the academic side, not since the nazis has anybody dared to project the term aryans as denoting a race. the originator of the racist concept of aryan, maxmueller himself admitted in his later years that aryan is only a linguistic expression and not racial.

and for the more academically oriented among you, here's food for thought.
the entire argument of aryan invasion theory is built upon the bhogaz-koi inscription and for those of you who read the translation of the inscription it would definitely appear terrifying that such an important theory was based on such misinterpretation of evidence of bhogaz-koi inscription.

[chanda_s]

here's another interesting article on the same topic written by Sidharta Jaswal of Stanford University. give it a patient reading. it helps in your understanding of the ancient indian history.
______________________________ ______________________________
Aryan Invasion Theory: Revising History to Change the Future


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.

[jhaaman24]

sir i want to literally touch your feet( saashtaang pranam ) for this very article of yours

[Indrakumarhb]

Thank you very much for your post, its is very useful.
But I am not sure with the sentence "this theory is now being accepted the world over" from the historians part and my personal knowledge also. We have to debate on this issue, historically and if time is less, we must think on the articles credibility to take the same to the mains!!!
Anyway, its very nice to see so huge work by the person and by the person who uploaded and created awareness to see new and different stuff happening around.
Indrakumar HB

[Nethra K Putti]

thanzxs..for this informative post...sir..
but my doubts regarding this vedic is that: where rupar come from? what is griffith? where does drishadvati river?

thanzxs.......