Since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected both
the Aryan invasion hypothesis and the use of the term
Aryan as a racial designation, suggesting that the Sanskrit term
arya (“noble” or “distinguished”), the linguistic root of the word,
was actually a social rather than an ethnic ...
The word Arya is used in Vasistha Dharma Sutras as follows:
8. The country of the Âryas (Âryâvarta) lies to
the east of the region where (the river Sarasvatî) disappears, to the west of
the Black-forest, to the north of the Pâripâtra (mountains), to the south of
the Himâlaya. 8
9. (According to others it lies to the south of the Himâlaya) and
to the north of the Vindhya range (being limited east and west by the two
oceans). 9
10. Acts productive of spiritual merit, and customs which (are
approved of) in that country, must be everywhere acknowledged (as
authoritative);
11. But not different ones, (i.e. those) of (countries where) laws
opposed (to those of Âryâvarta prevail).
12. Some (declare the country of the Âryas to be situated) between the
(rivers) Gaṅgâ and Yamunâ.
(Vasistha Dharmasutras,Chapter
1)
Manu Smriti also uses the word
Arya or Aryan many a times.This text uses such words to mean a twice-born who
has received his sacraments and who is also performing his duties without
failure.
2.21. That (country) which
(lies) between the Himavat and the Vindhya (mountains) to the east of Prayaga
and to the west of Vinasana (the place where the river Sarasvati disappears) is
called Madhyadesa (the central region).
2.22. But (the tract) between those
two mountains (just mentioned), which (extends) as far as the eastern and the
western oceans, the wise call Aryavarta (the country of the Aryans).
2.39. After those (periods men
of) these three (castes) who have not received the sacrament at the proper
time, become Vratyas (outcasts), excluded from the Savitri (initiation) and despised by the Aryans.
2.103. But he who does not
(worship) standing in the morning, nor sitting in the evening, shall be excluded, just like a
Sudra, from all the duties and rights of an Aryan
2.165. An Aryan must study the
whole Veda together with the Rahasyas, performing at the same time various
kinds of austerities and the vows prescribed by the rules (of the Veda).
2.169. According to the
injunction of the revealed texts the first birth of an Aryan is from (his
natural) mother, the second (happens) on the tying of the girdle of Munga
grass, and the third on the initiation to (the performance of) a (Srauta)
sacrifice.
Arya in the Vedas
I have found more than one
references to Arya in the Vedas themselves. Here is one such mantra from Yajur
Veda:
YathA imAm vAcham kalyAnim
AvadAni janebhyah (1) BrahmarAjanyAbhyAm sudrAya cha AryAya cha
(2) SwAya cha aranAya cha (3)
............
May i speak the sacred word to
the masses of the people (janebhya) (1) to the brahmana, kshatriya, to the
sudra and the Arya (2) and to our own men and the strangers.
Shukla Yajur Veda 26.2
And, here is another mantra from
the Atharva Veda:
Priyam mam krinu deveshu piyam
rAjashu mA krinu piyam sarvasya pashyat uta sudra utArye.
.............
Make me dear to everyone (to
Gods, Kshatriyas etc) and both to sudra and an AryA.
Atharva Veda 19.62.1
In these mantras the word Arya
simply means a noble one. Also note that, in the first mantra Brahmin,
Kshatriya and Arya are all mentioned separately.
So, it implies that it is not
necessary for an Arya to belong to a particular caste (varna) like Brahmin or
Kshatriya.
·
Manu
says आ समुद्रात् तु वै पूर्वादा समुद्राच्च पश्चिमात् । तयोरेवान्तरं
गिर्योरार्यावर्तं विदुर्बुधाः ॥ २२ ॥ (2.2) but there exists no Eastern and western ocean between
Himalayas and Vindhyas. Anyways, i think Arya means just noble people, not
particular race. You can get Sanskrit verses for Manusmriti
·
Arya
means one who's worthy of initiation and also one who after initiation performs
his duties as prescribed in Shastras without fail..Noble one is also right but
that definition/translation is somewhat vague IMO.. –
he Sources of History
There are
four sources, which can provide factual information for the study or a better
understanding of history. They are:
Archaeological
sources like the excavations at Harappa and Mohenjodaro.
Literary sources like scriptures, epics, legends such as the Vedas or the Mahabharata.
Historical accounts of travellers like Megasthanes.
New scientific and technological innovations like genetics, satellite
photography or new dating techniques.
Archaeological Discoveries
The first
major archaeological discoveries which opened new horizons in Indological
studies were the excavations at Mohenjodaro and Harappa. These excavations,
which was a well-known event reported in all text-books of history and
encyclopedias, pushed back in time the origin of Indian civilisation to make it
one of the most ancient civilizations of the world, probably contemporary with
Egypt, Sumeria , ancient Greece, Assyria and the Celtic.
Sometime
in the year 1922 archaeological excavations conducted in the province of
Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan unearthed two ancient cities. They are Mohenjodaro
on the banks of the Indus and Harappa on the banks of the Ravi and Lothal.
Further excavations carried over many years dug out a large number of villages,
towns, cities and went on to uncover the buried remnants of a vast and ancient
urban civilisation which was given the name Indus-valley civilisation
After
Harappa and Mohenjodaro, the next major archaeological discovery is at Mehgarh
in Pakistan. Excavations at Mehgarh pushed back further the date of the
Harappan civilization to about 8000 BC. Excavations near by Nausharo, also in
Baluchisthan, indicates the growth of urban centers, which later developed into
large cities with a population of over 80,000 people. These excavations confirm
the antiquity of the Indian civilization, as having existed before that of
Mesopotamia and some 2500 years before Egypt. According to some archaeologists,
at its prime, Mohenjodaro was the largest city in the world.
The most
striking feature of the Indus-valley settlement is that it was built with
remarkable architectural and engineering skill. There were well-built houses,
big and small, constructed with smooth, perfectly aligned and standardised
bricks. Towns were carefully planned with a well-laid network of roads and
efficient drainage and water-supply systems. Many of the towns were like some
of our modern metros. An English visitor who was looking at the Indus-valley
sites was reported to have remarked that he felt himself to be surrounded by
ruins of some present day working town in Lancashire.(2) Among the ancient
civilizations, only the Romans, after many centuries, had displayed an equal
engineering and building skill as the Harappans. The other important feature of
the Harappan civilization was trade. Trade and commerce seemed to be the main
source of Harappan economy. The Harappan merchants used a standardised system
of measures based on the decimal systems and had extensive trade contacts with
other contemporary civilizations.
The first
impression we get from looking at the Indus-valley excavations is that these
early Indians were not navel gazing spiritual dreamers with no grip or mastery
over material life. This is the usual popular prototype of ancient Indians,
especially in the west. The Harappan Indian seemed to possess a well-developed
pragmatic mind with a lively interest and skill in earthly occupations like
building towns, trade and commerce, and even in making toys.
Some
scholars and archaeologists looking superficially at the highly standardized
and utilitarian structures of the Harappans, without any religious edifices
like the pyramid or the Temple, concluded that their civilization was
materialistic, lacking in religious or spiritual advancement. But that would be
a hasty judgment. Harappan Indians probably preferred to express their
spiritual knowledge through the subtler medium of speech or the word rather
than through the concrete medium of architecture. And this word of knowledge
was transmitted orally from the Master to the disciple as in all ancient
spiritual traditions or else preserved through a vigorous education and
discipline of memory and recitation as in the Vedic culture. The other
possibility is that Harappan culture was a phase in the evolution of Indian
civilization, a phase in which it could have probably slipped into materialism
and conventionalism. Such lapses do happen in the evolution of civilizations,
even to a spiritually advanced civilization. In fact, such a lapse happens quite
often after a period of intense spiritual endeavour. This is because we humans,
limited as we are, cannot sustain spiritual effort for a long time. The need to
rest and relax and the clamour of the needs and desires of the body, heart and
mind act as a gravitational pull. However, evolutionary Nature uses such lapses
to develop the qualities and faculties of other parts of our being like the
body, vital or mind which remained under-developed or undeveloped in the
previous cycle.
But there
is strong evidence within the Harappan artefacts to show that these ancient
Indians were not materialistic as their outer material life suggests. One of
the fascinating Harappan seals is of a horned figure sitting in a classical
meditative posture of yoga. There were many such figures in yoga posture among
Harappan artefacts. This shows that Harappans were well aware of the spiritual
art of meditation and yoga which is one of the unique contributions of Indian
genius to human progress. As the eminent Indian archaeologist and an authority
on Indus archaeology, S.K. Rao points out:
“One of
the major contributions made by Harappans is Yoga which the Vedic Aryans
practiced. Several terracotta figures of Harappa are depicted in Yogic asanas
and what is quite impressive is that the human figures with horn, which suggest
divinity, are seated in Yoga posture”(3)
Whether
the science of yoga (not the outer posture) was the invention of Harappans, as
Rao seems to suggest, or it belongs to a much earlier epoch is a debatable
point. But the element of Yoga in Harappan artefacts provides the spiritual
link between the archaeological and literary evidence and suggests a continuity
or even a possible identity between the Harappan and Vedic civilization, for,
yoga is the central core of Vedic religion and spirituality.
The Aryan Invasion:
Was there any?
This brings us to
the important question: Who are the builders of the Indus-valley civilization?
Many answers have been suggested. But one of the answers which established
itself in the academic community as the most authoritative explanation of the
origin of Indian civilization is the Aryan Invasion theory. The most surprising
element in this scholarly coup of the Aryan Invasion theory is that it gained
wide acceptance among the scholastic world and entered into history textbooks
and encyclopedias without any credible archaeological and literary evidence.
The theory of the Aryan invasion is a creation of
European scholars based on some linguistic affinities between Indian and
European languages. In the 17th and 18th Centuries, European scholars who first
studied Sanskrit were struck by the similarities between its syntax and
vocabulary and that of Greek and Latin. This resulted in the theory that there
had been a common ancestry for these and other related languages, which came to
be called the Indo-European languages. This in turn led to the notion that
Indo-European speaking people had a common homeland from which they had
migrated to parts of Asia and Europe. Based on such linguistic speculations,
later European scholars led by German Indologist Max Mueller conceived the idea
of an Aryan Invasion of India. The scenario of Aryan invasion runs somewhat
like this:
A horde of nomadic Aryan barbarians from
Afghanistan in Central Asia, somewhere around 1500 BC, invaded India, which was
at the time inhibited by the culturally advanced Dravidians. Aryan invaders,
blonde, blue-eyed and fair skinned, crude and primitive but vigorous and
aggressive with a superior military technology, thundered into the Indian
subcontinent in their chariots and horses, plundered and slaughtered the native
dark skinned Dravidians, destroyed their cities and politically and culturally
subjugated them, replacing their language with their own Sanskrit tongue,
composing the Vedas and going on to build the later Indian civilization and
culture. There are here three ideas or assumptions of which we have to take
note. First is the idea that the origin of Indian civilization is not
indigenous. Second, is the suggestion of a conflict between Aryan and
Dravidian, who are considered as two distinct races; third is the assumption
that Harappan civilization is pre-Vedic.
We must note here, though most of the scholastic
world accepted this Aryan invasion theory and its implications, there were many
scholars who even while accepting the invasion scenario admitted lack of
supportive evidence for the invasion. British archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler, a
diehard defender of Aryan invasion theory, said, “It is best to admit that no
proto Aryan material has been identified in India.”(1) Another Indian scholar
and supporter of Invasion theory S.K. Chatterjee admitted: “There is no
indication from the Rigveda that the Aryans were conscious of entering a new
country when they came to India.”(2) And B.K. Ghose remarks: “It really cannot
be proved that the Vedic Aryans retained any memory of their extra Indian
association….”(3) A.L. Bhasan, who believed in the Aryan invasion, confesses
honestly: “Direct testimony to the assigned fact is lacking and no tradition of
an early home beyond the frontier survived in India.”(4) But all of them
tenaciously clung to the idea of invasion and tried to buttress the lack of
evidence with some ingenious speculations.
The first among the critical voices to question the
very idea of invasion were that of two great Yogis of modern India: Swami
Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo. Vivekananda raised the issue of lack of evidence
in his characteristic flamboyant style:
“Where the Europeans find an opportunity, they
exterminate the aborigines and settle down in ease and comfort on their lands;
and therefore they conclude that the Aryans must have done the same. But where
is your proof? Guess work? Then keep your fanciful ideas to yourself! In what
Veda, in what Suktha do you find that the Aryans came into India from a foreign
land? Where do you get the idea that they slaughtered the wild aborigines? What
do you get by talking such nonsense?”(5)
We can understand the truth behind the first part
of Vivekananda’s statement, when we look at some of the scenarios constructed
by invasion theorist—a horde of blue-eyed and blonde warriors coming crashing
in their chariots and horses and destroying cities—the scene seems to proceed
more from a dramatic imagination based on the violent and aggressive histories
of European nations than from an objective consideration of facts. We are not
against imagination. In fact we are very much in favour of it. But when it is
used for external events of history like the Aryan invasion it has to a certain
extent correspond to facts. However, if the event belongs to a very remote past
where there is no possibility of any evidence or if it is related to invisible
psychic, occult or spiritual realities, the imagination has to be based on an
authentic spiritual intuition. The main defect of the Aryan invasion scenario
is that it is an imaginative construction based exclusively on linguistic
speculations without any correspondence to facts. After Swami Vivekananda, Sri.
Aurobindo, taking a critical view of Aryan invasion theory, wrote:
“But the indications in the Veda on which this
theory of a recent Aryan invasion is built are very scanty in quantity and
uncertain in their significance. There is no actual mention of any such
invasion. The distinction between Aryan and Non-Aryan on which so much has been
built seems on the mass of evidence to indicate a cultural rather than a racial
difference….” (6) Sri Aurobindo came to the following conclusion on Aryan
invasion: “…it is indeed coming to be doubted whether the whole story of Aryan
invasion through the Punjab is not a myth of the philologist.”(7)
However, since Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo
did not belong to the academic community and made no attempt to substantiate
their critique of Aryan invasion theory in a systematic way, their views
remained outside the academic mainstream. This work of bringing the critique of
the Aryan invasion theory to the academic mainstream was done by K.D.Sethna, an
Indian scholar, poet and a disciple of Sri Aurobindo. In his brilliant,
meticulously researched studies on ancient India, Sethna systematically negates
the Aryan invasion theory and provides new insights on ancient Indian history
based on Sri.Aurobindo’s thoughts. Sethna’s thesis reiterates Sri Aurobindo’s
views on ancient Indian civilization as of indigenous origin and inhabited by
homogeneous people. Rig Veda, according to Sethna, is pre-Harappan, that is,
Harappan civilization is placed somewhere in the post-rigvedic Suthra period in
Vedic literature and viewed as “a derivative, a development and a deviation”
from the Rig Vedic culture. Sethna arrived at this conclusion through a keyword
for cotton, Karpasa, in Rig Veda. He found that the word Karpasa for cotton
appears for the first time in the post-Rigvedic Suthra literature. The earlier
Vedic literature shows no knowledge of cotton. But Harappan archaeology reveals
widespread use of cotton. Sethna was also the first among Indian scholars to
recognize and state the fact that the Aryan problem is not merely of academic
interest but has social and political ramifications for modern India. In his
book, Problems of Aryan Origin, Sethna writes:
“In India the problem of Aryan origins has not only
a bearing on the remote past. It has also a relevance to the immediate present.
Ever since Western historians pronounced, and the historians of our country
concurred, that a Dravidian India had been invaded by the Aryans of the Rig
Veda in the second millennium B.C., there has been a ferment of antagonism,
time and again, between the North and the South. The Northerners, figuring in
their own eyes as Aryan conquerors, have occasionally felt a general
superiority to the Southerners who have come to be designated Dravidians. The
people of the South have often resented those of the North, as being,
historically, intruders upon their indigenous rights. An unhealthy movement has
arisen in the Tamil lands, sometimes erupting in violent strength and otherwise
flowing as a subtle pervasive undercurrent which tends to make for a touchy and
suspicious relationship between the two parts of our subcontinent, in spite of
a broad unifying sense of nationhood”(8)
The other problem with Aryan invasion is that most
of the cultural and spiritual achievements of India are attributed to an alien
influence, which is a distortion of history. So, the problem of ‘Aryan’ origins
has ramification in education, society, and politics. If an idea which has
crept into the mainstream of national education turns out to be unsound,
lacking in evidence, distorts history and likely to be harmful to the
solidarity of the nation, then all its defects have to be highlighted and
exposed to the student and the public, and alternative views have to be
presented so that people may choose what they think or feel to be true. But, at
the same time national interests should not be allowed to cloud our objectivity
as historians. As Sethna points out:
“But, of course, the fact that the extra-Indian
origins of Aryanism has been a pernicious force amongst us and that its
demolition would lead to greater harmony and cooperative creativity in India
must not prejudice us as historians. We have to be calm and clear in our
approach to the problem even while realizing that we cannot afford to be lax
about a matter that keenly affects our collective future.”(9)
After Sethna, an increasing number of scholars,
from India and abroad, are rejecting the Aryan invasion model and some of them
are trying to evolve a new paradigm of Indian history based on the idea of
indigenous origins of Indian civilization. This emerging trend of scholarship
can be considered as a new school of thought in Indian history with Sri
Aurobindo, Vivekananda and Sethna as its leading pioneers. This school of
thought accepts in principle the views of Sri Aurobindo and Sethna on the
origins of Indian civilization and further develops the leads and clues given
by them with more supportive thoughts, arguments, facts and evidences. The
exponents of this new school of thought, armed with new discoveries in
archaeology, science and other sources have presented an impressive array of
arguments and evidences against the Aryan invasion theory.
owever, before proceeding further with our
discussion on the Aryan invasion debate we have to answer a legitimate question
which may arise in the mind of a thoughtful reader. What is the need for giving
so much space and attention to an academic debate on an external historical
event in a study which is focused on the spiritual and cultural genius of
India? First of all, the ongoing debate on Aryan invasion is an important event
in the intellectual and cultural history of India. A new idea related to the
origins of Indian civilization is fighting against an old, established idea and
trying to dislodge it. Secondly, the debate raises some ticklish cultural
issues like the distinction between the Dravidian and the Aryan people and the meaning
of the term ‘Aryan’ which has acquired harmful racial overtones due to
misunderstanding of the word by modern western scholarship. Thirdly the debate
is related to the question on the origins of India’s spiritual and cultural
genius: Is it entirely indigenous or of alien origin? Keeping these factors in
our mind, let us now examine some of the arguments advanced by the new school
of thought against the Aryan invasion theory.
The first argument is the one voiced forcefully by
Vivekananda. There is no trace of any aggressive invasion in the memory,
records, literature, legends and archaeological remnants of the Invaded or the
Invader. How can such an allegedly massive invasion which affected an entire
civilization as vast as India leave no trace or record in the memory of the
invaded or invading people? This is a mystery which the invasion theorists were
never able to explain satisfactorily.
The second argument is that invasion theory
attributes incredible feats of cultural advancement and assimilation to a horde
of nomadic barbarians. According to invasion theorists, invading ‘Aryans’ after
politically and militarily subjugating the more culturally advanced native
population, the ‘Dravidians’, either imposed their culture or entirely
assimilated all the cultural achievement of the natives, invented a new
language or replaced the language of the natives with their own highly
sophisticated Sanskrit language and went on to develop one of the most
spiritually advanced civilizations of the world. For example, how can a group
of primitive and uncivilized nomads invent a language like Sanskrit which was
described by British indologist Sir William Jones as, “…more perfect than
Greek, more copious than Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either.” Such
fantastic feats of cultural or spiritual assimilation was possible if the
invaders are more spiritually and culturally advanced than the natives. A
certain amount of cultural assimilation happens when a primitive tribe invades
a more advanced civilization, but never on such a massive scale as suggested by
invasion theorists. As Sri Aurobindo, pointing this cultural anomaly in the
Aryan invasion scenario, says:
“We have then to suppose that entering a vast
peninsula occupied by civilized people, builders of great cities, extensive
traders, not without mental and spiritual culture, they were yet able to impose
on them their own language, religion, ideas and manner. Such a miracle would
just be possible if the invaders possessed a very highly organized language, a
greater force of creative mind and a more dynamic religious force and
spirit.”(1)
The third argument is that all the recent
archaeological, literary and other evidences indicate a continuity and
concordance between the Vedic and Harappan culture and the later development in
Indian culture. None of the archaeological or literary data in the Harappan
civilization or in the Vedic literature suggest a discordant note of an alien
invasion. We have already mentioned one of the evidences, the Yoga posture in
the Harappan. The other important evidence is the sacrificial altars discovered
in some of the Harappan sites. Sacrificial oblations in fire-altars was one of
the important outer forms of the Vedic religions. The Yoga-seal and fire-altars
found in Harappan sites show that Harappans were following the Vedic religious
and spiritual traditions and practices.
The fourth argument is that nowhere in Indian
history or tradition do we find any trace of conflict between “Aryans” and
“Dravidian” based on racial feelings. One of the factors behind the Aryan
invasion theory is the attempt to explain two distinct language groups in India
and its dialects Tamil in the south and Sanskrit in the north, with a certain
amount of corresponding variation in culture and tradition and physical
characteristics of people. But the Aryan invasion theorists made these
variations (which could be due to cultural or climactic factors) into a race
conflict. First of all, the word “Arya” in the Vedas or in the Indian
tradition, did not mean “race”. It meant a state of culture, refinement or
higher aspiration. Here are some definitions of Arya from the Vedas and Indian
epics:
“Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of
gentle behaviour and demeanour, good natured and righteous conduct.”
“Children of Aryan seek and are led by Light.”
“Arya is the one who cared for the equality of all
and was dear to everyone.”
Even Buddha who rejected the Vedic tradition
described the Path He preached as the “Aryan Path.”
It is interesting to note that a book on Indian
History published recently by Encyclopedia Britannica shows a much better
understanding of the concept of Arya than the earlier European scholars. On the
meaning of the Arya in the Vedas, this publication by Britannica says:
“Rita the order of the cosmos is a main theme of
the Rigveda, which distinguishes humans as votaries of rita or enemies of rita.
Rita (right, rite) invokes the principle of order, restraint, generosity and
altruistic compassion. It is universal law that works for the benefit of all creation.
The gods and sages preserves this order, and the right thinking man must do
likewise and if he does he is an arya (noble). Those whose inclination is for
pleasure, power and possession violate the Rita, knowingly or unknowingly; and
they are unarya (ignoble).” (2)
However, it is quite possible that ancient India
was a multi-ethnic society with each group following a distinct tradition and
culture. It is also possible that there existed in ancient India two distinct
cultures or spiritual traditions in different geographical regions. As Sri
Aurobindo states:
“The one thing that seems fairly established is
that there were at least two types of ancient cultures in ancient India, the
‘Aryan’ occupying the Punjab and Northern and central India, Afghanistan, and
perhaps Persia and distinguished in its cult by the symbols of the Sun, the
Fire, and the Soma sacrifice, and the Un-Aryan occupying the East, South, and
West, the nature of which it is quite impossible to restore from the scattered
hints which are all we possess.” (3)
For example, along with the Vedic or the ‘Aryan’
religious and spiritual tradition and culture created by the Vedic sages with
Sanskrit as the main language, there was in ancient India an equally deep and
profound spiritual tradition of the Siddhas in the South created by great
Yogis, with Tamil as its main language and its own distinct philosophy,
literature, culture, and Yogic practices. Such things are possible in a
spiritual civilization like India shaped by sages who created from the
innermost depth and sources of their being in direct communion with divinity. A
spiritually illumined sage can create a new and original language, tradition
and culture. In fact, according to an Indian legend, Tamil language is created
by the sage Agastya who is a Vedic sage. If there were many sages there could
be many original languages, traditions, and cultures.
However, when we examine the history and literature
of ancient India, we never find any conflict between the
‘Aryan-Sanskrit-Northern’ and the ‘Dravidian-Tamil-Southern’ cultures. As we
have mentioned earlier, one of the Indian legends says that Tamil was created
by Agastya who was a Vedic sage, but he is also venerated in the Siddha
tradition in the South as one of its founders. Another Indian legend says that
both Tamil and Sanskrit emanated from the Drum, Damaru of Shiva, ascribing
equal divine origin to these two great and ancient languages of India. Southern
kingdoms of India like the Chola, Pandya, Pallava, and Vijayanagara, where
Tamil and other South Indian languages were spoken, actively and vigorously
promoted Sanskrit and Vedic learning. In fact, some of the important and
prestigious schools of Vedic learning were in South, for example, Kancheepuram.
Similarly some of the greatest exponents of Vedic culture, who made important
contributions to the preservation and propagation of Vedic culture, for
example, Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhwa, Sayana, Baudhayana, belong to the South.
Thus, there is no sign of any conflict between the ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’
people. So to convert cultural differences into a race conflict is a
mischievous distortion which, as Sethna pointed out, can have harmful
consequences for the solidarity of the Indian nation.
The difference in the structure of the language between
Sanskrit and Tamil was cited by the invasion theorists as a strong argument in
favour of their racial ideas. But when we examine more deeply and closely both
these ancient languages of India, we may perhaps find that the difference is
not as big or radical as it was made out by European scholars. However, such a
statement can be made only by those who have made a deep comparative study of
these two languages. To close with remarks by Sri Aurobindo:
“And there was always the difference of language to
support the theory of meeting of races. But here also my preconceived ideas
were disturbed and confounded. For on examining the vocables of the Tamil
language, in appearance so foreign to the Sanskritic form and character, I yet
found myself continually guided by words or by families of words supposed to be
pure Tamil in establishing new relation between Sanskrit and its distant sister
Latin and occasionally between Greek and Sanskrit. Sometimes the Tamil vocables
not only suggested the connection, but found the missing link in a family of
connected words. And it was through this Dravidian language that I came first
to perceive what it seems to me now the true law, origin, and as it were, the
etymology of the Aryan tongues. I was unable to pursue my examination far
enough to establish any definite conclusion, but it certainly seems to me that
the original connection between the Dravidian and Aryan tongue was far closer
and more extensive than is usually supposed and the possibility suggests itself
that they may even been two divergent families derived from one lost primitive
tongue.” (4)
Recent
Discoveries and Evidence
We
have discussed some of the arguments against the Aryan invasion model. Let us
now look at some of the more recent evidences against the model. The first
important discovery was regarding the Sarasvati river. The Rig Veda mentions
seven rivers of which Sarasvati seems to be the largest and the most important
of the Vedic people. Sarasvati seems to be the major river which sustained the
Vedic civilization. However, most scholars considered Sarasvati as a mystical
river. But recent archaeological and hydrological surveys supported by
satellite photography indicate that such a great, ancient river flowed through
Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan, emptying into the Arabian sea near Bhrigukucha,
the modern Broach. Interestingly, archaeological survey conducted by American
archaeologist Mark Kenoyer in 1991 showed the greatest concentration of
Indus-valley sites were located not near the Indus river, but along the course
of the ancient river Sarasvati. According to the emerging scientific opinion,
this Sarasvati river dried up completely somewhere around 1900 BC, long before
the supposed Aryan invasion around 1500 BC. Thus after the discovery of the
Sarasvati river, scholarly opinion is veering around to the view that Harappan
civilization ended not by Aryan invasion as it was believed by European
scholars, but as a result of an ecological catastrophe which dried up the
Sarasvati river. As a result, the Harappan population, abandoned their cities
and migrated to the Gangetic plains. In the words of scientist- turned-historian,
Navarathna S.Rajaram:
“The
verdict of science therefore is clear and unambiguous: the Rig Veda describes
the geography of North India as it was before the Sarasvati dried up. The
Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley was a continuation of the Vedic; its
ending coincided roughly with the final drying up of the Sarasvati in 2000BCE.
So the idea of the Aryan invasion in1500BCE and the composition of the Rig Veda
in 1200BCE are pure fiction. Since there was no invasion of any kind—all talk
of Aryan-Dravidian wars is also a figment of imagination.”(1)
The
second evidence from science comes from the research of American mathematician
Seidenberg. Most of the historians still believe that Indian mathematics came
later than Babylonia, Greek and Egyptian mathematics. But Seidenberg after
extensive research on ancient mathematics has come to the following conclusion:
“Hence we
do not hesitate to place the Vedic altar rituals or more exactly like them, far
back of 1700 BC. To summarise the argument: the elements of ancient geometry
found in Egypt and Babylonia stem from a ritual system of the kind observed in
Sulabasutra.”(2)
Based on
Seidenberg’s research some scholars like Navarathnam S.Rajaram, have come to
the following conclusions:
i) The
Vedic people possessed a fairly advanced mathematical knowledge needed for
planning and building big cities of the Harappan civilization. This was
confirmed by further studies on Harappan archaeology, and Vedic literature
which show that Vedic mathematics texts were used in the design of the cities
of Harappan civilization.
ii)
Harappan civilization corresponds to the Sutra period in Vedic literature.
In the
Vedic literature, the Sutras and Brahamnas belong to the post Rig Vedic period.
Sutras contain mostly practical instructions on conduct and ritual. And
Sulabasutra gives the mathematical formula for building ritual altars According
to Seidenberg, old Babylonians of 1700 BC and the Egyptians of the Middle
Kingdom of 2000 to 1800 BC derived their mathematics from the Sulabasutra.
As we
have mentioned elsewhere, Sethna approaching from a different angle came to the
same conclusion as Rajaram. When we link together the evidence or conclusion of
Sethna, Seidenberg, Rajaram and other archeological evidences like the
yoga-seal and five altars, it strongly reinforces the indigenous continuity of
ancient Indian Civilization and very much undermines the theory of an alien
invasion.
Interestingly,
the mounting evidence and criticism against the invasion theory have made some
of the supporters of the theory shift their position from the scenario of
aggressive invasion to a milder migration. For example, a well-known Indian
historian and a strong supporter of the invasion theory writes:
“It is
now generally agreed that the decline of Harappan urbanism was due to
environmental changes of various kinds, to political pressures and possible
breaks in trading activities, and not to any invasion .Nor does the
archaeological evidence register the likelihood of a massive migration from
Iran into north-western India on such a scale as to overwhelm the existing
culture. If invasion is discarded then the mechanism of migration and
occasional contact come into sharper focus. The migration appear to have been
of pastoral cattle-breeders who are prominent in Avesta and Rig Veda.”(3)
But this
new version of the theory does not solve the cultural anomalies of the older
version. As David Frawley, commenting on this migration theory, points out:
“How can
small groups of pastoral migrants accomplish changing the language of a country
as big as a subcontinent—which already has given birth to its own great
civilization—and imposing their own culture and social system upon it? It is
highly improbable and almost absurd. An existent complex cultural order—such as
ancient Indian indicates—can assimilate easily a few cattle breeders moving in,
but such groups cannot be given the credit to assimilate the whole culture of a
big country.”(4)
So if we
are willing to drop the idea of an alien intrusion, then all the archaeological
and literary evidence fits together into a simple and coherent picture of
ancient India. All this new thinking, research and evidence have left a dent on
the established opinion. A recent Publication on Indian History by Encyclopedia
Britannica, says:
“The
decline of Mohenjodaro is no longer attributed to Indo-Aryan invasion,
migrations, disease or flood as proposed by earlier scholars, but rather to a
combination of factors that include the changing river system, the disruption
of the subsistence base, and a breakdown in the important integrative factors
of trade and religion.”(5)
The New Model
But what
is precisely this new picture of ancient India? In the previous section we have
discussed mainly the arguments, facts and evidences against the Aryan invasion
theory. But what are the positive conclusion and alternative view points
emerging from this debate on Aryan invasion theory? To answer this question, we
present here the conclusions of one of the leading exponents of the new school
of History.
“The New
model of ancient India that has emerged from the collapse of the Aryan invasion
theory is that of an indigenous development of civilization in ancient India
from the Mehrgarh site of 6500BC.The people in this tradition are the same
basic ethnic groups as in India today, with their same basic types of languages
–Indo-European and Dravidian. There is a progressive process of the
domestication of animals, particularly cattle, the development of agriculture,
beginning with barley and then later wheat and rice and the use of metal,
beginning with copper and culminating in iron, along with the development of
villages and towns. Later Harappan (Saravati) civilization 3100-1900 BC show
massive cities, complex agriculture and metallurgy, sophistication of arts and
crafts and precision in weights and measures. This Sarasvati civilization was a
center of trading and for the diffusion of civilization throughout South and
West Asia, which often dominated the Mesopotamian region.
Post-Harappan
civilization 1900-1000BC shows the abandonment of the Harrapan towns owing to
ecological and river changes but without a real break in the continuity of the
culture. There is a decentralization and relocation in which the same basic
agricultural and artistic traditions continue, along with a few significant
urban sites like Dwaraka. This gradually develops into the Gangetic
civilization of the first millennium BC, which is the classical civilization of
ancient India, which retains its memory of its origin in the Sarasvati region
through the Vedas.”(6)
Literary
Sources: The Vedas
Our
discussion so far is based mainly on archaeological and scientific discoveries.
But a more extensive source of information for understanding ancient India are
the literary sources like the Vedas. We will discuss this ancient sacred
literature of India in greater detail in our subsequent chapters. Here, in this
section, we will take a bird’s eye-view of some of the apparent facts of the
vedic literature as it appears to an ordinary view with no deep insight, and
see what it tells us about ancient India. We use the term Vedas or vedic
literature to include the four Vedas, Brahmanas and the Upanishads.
The first
impression we get when we take a sweeping view of vedic literature is that like
all ancient civilizations, religion dominates the life of the people. When we
look at the outer forms of religion, we find ritualistic sacrifice—by pouring
oblations into the fire, with a belief that it is carried by the fire to the
gods—seems to the main practice. When we look at the religious thought of the
Vedas we find a bewildering range from what appears to be a primitive, nature
worshipping and polytheistic religion of the early vedism to the most
spiritually advanced religion of the later Upanishads. However even in the
early vedic religion which in its outer form seems to be predominantly
naturalistic or ritualistic, praying for mundane objects like cows and horses,
we find sometimes sublime and beautiful verses which express deep and profound
spiritual thoughts or lofty monism. We give here below a few verses from the
vedic literature to show the apparent range of vedic religious thought:
“Give us
treasure of cattle, or heroes, O Dawn, treasure of horses that nourishes many.
Make not our altar grass a reproach among men, O Gods, protect us with
blessings.” (Rig Veda).
“Heaven
and Earth bow before Him, the mountains are in fear of His might, who is known
as the soma-drinker, with thunderbolt on his arms, He, O, men, is Indra.” (Rig
Veda)
“Varuna
spread abroad the air through the forests, he put speed in horses, milk in
cows, intellect in the heart, Agni in the waters, the Sun in the sky, Soma in
the mountain.” (Rig Veda)
“The
Universal Being (the purusha) has infinite heads, unnumbered eyes, and
unnumbered feet . Enveloping the universe on every side, He exists transcending
it…..From a part of Him was born the body of the universe. Out of it were born
the gods, the earth, and men.” (Rig Veda)
“That
which exists is the One, sages call it variously.” (Rig Veda)
“That
moves and That moves not; That is far and the same is near; That is within all
this and That also is outside all that.” (Isha Upanishad)
“But he
who sees everywhere the self in all existences and all existences in the self,
shrink not therefore from ought.” (Isha Upanished)
What is
the process by which this progress took place from a seemingly primitive
religion of the early vedism to sublime spirituality of the Upanishad? Is it a
gradual spiritual progression? Or is the Upanishadic religion, as most western
scholars believed, an abrupt revolt or departure from the primitive and
ritualistic religion of early vedism or else as Sri Aurobindo suggests, it is
only a restatement and recovery of a spiritual knowledge which was already
present in early vedism, but concealed behind symbols of outer life and nature?
These are important question for understanding the deeper truth of Indian
civilization.
When we
come to the geographical and social condition of the Vedic age, the Vedic
literature talks about several rivers and two oceans, cows, horses and cattle,
towns and cities, kings and wars, merchants and trade and a fourfold social
order. In Rig Veda there were constant references to conflict between Aryans
who are the favorites of the gods and Dasyus and the various forms of demons.
The gods, especially Indra was frequently invoked by the Aryans for help and
protection against their enemies, Dasyus and demons. Dasyus were sometimes
described as dark and stub-nosed. This has given birth to speculations amongst
scholars, especially aryan invasion theorists, that the Dasyus were perhaps the
dark-skinned Dravidians. But there are many verses in the Rig Vedas in which
Dasyus are described as ‘noseless’, ‘handless’ and ‘footless’ which makes us
wonder whether Dasyus are human being or denizens of another world.
All these
references in the Vedas may help us to have some image of the economic, social
and political life and geography of ancient India. However, If the early vedism
turns out to be what Sri Aurobindo has suggested, and these antique vedic hymns
are the expressions of the spiritual experience and discoveries of the vedic
seers, expressed in the symbols of outer life, then all the objects, events,
and beings described in the vedic hymns acquire a deeper symbolic and spiritual
significance.
When we
pass from the early vedic to the later Upanishadic age, as described in the
Upanishads, we find a remarkable civilization in which people from every
section of the society—lowly outcastes, kings, merchants, ascetics—seeking for
the highest truth of the spirit. If this great spiritual efflorescence of the
Upanishad is not a sudden growth unrelated to the past but only a recovery or
rekindling of the spiritual knowledge inherent in the earlier age, then the
beginnings of Indian civilization points out to a unique civilization and culture
which has a special, or natural and inborn affinity to religion and
spirituality.
___________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
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
pre-Aryan. 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 occurred in the Middle East, wherein
Indo-European peoples - the Hittites, Mittani 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 occurred 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 literature
to show that either the Vedic culture was an iron- based 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 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 so happens in modern wars; this
does not make those who do this are 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 destroyed 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 Dwarka sites by S.R. Rao and the
National Institute of Oceanography in India) which are intermediate between
those of the Indus culture and later ancient India as visited y the Greeks.
This may eliminate the so-called Dark Age following the presumed Aryan invasion
and shows a continuous urban occupation India back to the beginning of the
Indus culture.
The interpretation of the
religion of the Indus Valley culture -made incidentally 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 give 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 dominant 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 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 Rajasthan
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 homeland.
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 calendar 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 (Afghanistan) 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,
coming 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 not mean ocean why was it translated 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 appears 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 indigenous 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 moun- tain
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 Indo -Europeans 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 pre- or 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 Indo- Europeans 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 'coming of the Indo-Europeans.
When Wheeler speaks of
'the Aryan invasion of the land of the 7 rivers, the Punjab', he has no
warranty 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 Indo- European 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 reflects 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.
In closing, it
is important to examine the social and political implications of the Aryan
invasion idea: First, it served to divide India into a northern
Aryan and southern Dravidian cultures that were made hostile to each other.
This kept the Hindus divided and is still a source of social tension.
Second, it gave the
British an excuse in their conquest of India. They could claim to be doing only
what the Aryan ancestors of the Hindus had previously done millennia ago.
Third, it served to make
Vedic culture later than and possibly derived from Middle Eastern cultures.
With the proximity and relationship of the latter with the Bible and
Christianity, this kept the Hindu religion as a sidelight to the development of
religion and civilization to the West.
Fourth, it allowed the
sciences of India to be given a Greek basis, as any Vedic basis was largely
disqualified by the primitive nature of the Vedic culture.
This discredited not only
the 'Vedas' but the genealogies of the 'Puranas' and their long list of the
kings before the Buddha or Krishna was left without any historical basis. The
'Mahabharata', instead of a civil war in which all the main kings of India
participated as it is described, became a local skirmish among petty princes
that was later exaggerated by poets. In short, it discredited the most of the
Hindu tradition and almost all its ancient literature. It turned its scriptures
and sages into fantacies and exaggerations.
This served a social,
political and economical purpose of domination, proving the superiority of
Western culture and religion. It made the Hindus feel that their culture was
not the great thing that their sages and ancestors had said it was. It made
Hindus feel ashamed of their culture - that its basis was neither historical
nor scientific. It made them feel that the main line of civilization was
developed first in the Middle East and then in Europe and that the culture of
India was peripheral and secondary to the real development of world culture.
Such a view is not good
scholarship or archeology but merely cultural imperialism. The Western Vedic
scholars did in the intellectual sphere what the British army did in the
political realm - discredit, divide and conquer the Hindus.
In short, the compelling
reasons for the Aryan invasion theory were neither literary nor archeological
but political and religious - that is to say, not scholarship but prejudice.
Such prejudice may not have been intentional but deep-seated political and
religious views easily cloud and blur our thinking. It is unfortunate that this
approach has not been questioned more, particularly by Hindus. Even though
Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda Saraswati, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and
Arobindo rejected it, most Hindus today passively accept it. They allow
Western, generally Christian, scholars to interpret their history for them and
quite naturally Hinduism is kept in a reduced role. Many Hindus still accept,
read or even honor the translations of the 'Vedas' done by such Christian
missionary scholars as Max Muller, Griffith, Monier- Williams and H. H. Wilson.
Would modern Christians accept an interpretation of the Bible or Biblical
history done by Hindus aimed at converting them to Hinduism? Universities in
India also use the Western history books and Western Vedic translations that
propound such views that denigrate their own culture and country.
The modern Western
academic world is sensitive to criticisms of cultural and social biases. For
scholars to take a stand against this biased interpretation of the 'Vedas'
would indeed cause a reexamination of many of these historical ideas that can
not stand objective scrutiny. But if Hindu scholars are silent or passively
accept the misinterpretation of their own culture, it will undoubtedly
continue, but they will have no one to blame but themselves. It is not an issue
to be taken lightly, because how a culture is defined historically creates the
perspective from which it is viewed in the modern social and intellectual
context. Tolerance is not in allowing a false view of one's own
culture and religion to be propagated without question. That is
merely self-betrayal.
@@@@@@@
The Aryan Invasion
theory- Something I am being taught in school right from 5th grade. Unlike most
of my classmates who read subjective fields like history and sociology, get influenced
by the school of thought which the text book imposes, complying with the
personal biases of majority of their professors, prefer not doing additional
research or thinking out of the text instead, write in paper whatever is
indoctrinated in them, I generally look for a more compatible and objective way
of finding historical truth and strongly abide by the reality – although
in paper, I need to show them what they “want” to see.
This fallacy of the
Indian educational system forced me to explore the truth out of the conformity
since within the Institution, never have I ever experienced an environment of
free academic debate.
This article consists
of 5 main parts-
A. Explanation of the
Aryan invasion theory
B. Reasons for its
proposal
C. Refutation of the
Theory – 8 arguments against the AIT
D. Counter theory
based on interpretation of Indo – Greek (Hindu – Pagan) similarities in culture
and linguistics
E. Ending notes and
future of the AIT
****************************************************
A] What is the Aryan
Invasion Theory –
It states that
“Aryan” were a race of tall, fair and blue – eyed people who migrated to the
Indian subcontinent from Eastern Europe and Central Asia between 1500 – 2000
BCE, waged war against the original inhabitants of India – the Dasyus or
Dravidians of the Indus Valley civilization who were comparatively darker and
shorter and forced them to adapt their own Vedic Culture and norms while
pushing the Dasyus Southwards.
While the Aryans did
this, they designated the caste of “Shudra” to the native Indians while they
maintained their ethnic purity of Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.
B] Why the Aryan
Invasion Theory – Reasons by the British.
The proposal of the
Theory was an attempt to explain the entry and development of the Hindu Culture
which exists today in India along with the Caste system which has a big role to
play in society.
It also fairly
explains why many people in India have a taller and fairer complexion as
compared to others. The Theory also proposes a possibility for the decline of
the Indus Valley Civilization or the Harappa civilization at the hands of the
Aryan Invaders. This Theory was first proposed by the British Historians when
India was a British colony.
C] Refutation of the
Aryan Invasion Theory–
1) “Vedic invaders”
refutation–
Aryan Invasion Theory
states that Aryans, a race entered India from Europe “with the Vedic Culture”.
This point is refuted
by the argument – the oldest of the Vedas – Rig Veda mentions all climatic and
geographic conditions, plant and animal species and soil conditions that belong
to Central and North West parts of the Indian subcontinent.
It would have
definitely been impossible for people living in Central Asia and Europe to be
aware of these.
2) The Saraswati
River argument-
The Rig Veda also
makes a special mention of the Saraswati River (Rig veda 7:36:6 and others)
which has been proved to be an existing River between 9000 and 5000 years back
by a paper published in Nature’s Science Magazine in November, 2019. This
period highly contradicts the period when Aryans were said to have come.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53489-4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05745-8
3) Corruption of
terminologies by the British-
The term “Aryan” is a
Western one used by the British. The Sanskrit term is “Arya” and Arya doesn’t
equate to being a “Race” as the English historians mention. Arya simply means a
Noble Person while Dasyu too doesn’t refer to a group of people but rather is
synonymous for a “thief” or an “evil person” in Sanskrit Language.
4) Authenticity of
Ancient Indian History-
The texts Ramayan and
Mahabharata which with adequate amount of evidence have been proved to have
been narrated since 7000 and 5000 years respectively do mention the term
“Aryavrata” (Land of the Nobles) for the Indian Subcontinent or “Bharatvarsh”
(Named after King Bharat) at that time. These two epics too have been proved to
match the astronomical positioning of the stars with that of what is mentioned
in the texts as time of the events.
https://detechter.com/evidences-that-support-mahabharata-actually-happened/
https://www.boloji.com/articles/1052/dating-mahabharata–two-eclipses-in-thirteen-days
5) The so called Aryans
and Harappas-
The existence of the
submerged city of Dwarka which according to archaeological studies proves to
date back 9000 years (7000 BCE) points towards the high probability of the
Harrapa and Vedic civilizations to be one and the same, living in co-existence.
The reasons for
decline of the Indus Valley civilization holds true merely on the following
reasons which are enough to perish any ancient civilization –
i) Changing river
patterns leading to loss of water and ineffective drainage system.
ii) Pattern of earthquakes
iii) Proof for
diseases in the civilization like leprosy, plague, small pox, etc.
iv) Drastic change in
climatic conditions
6) Archaeological
dissimilarities-
There appears to be
absolutely no similarly between ancient Indian architecture and ancient
European or Central Asian architecture which again disapproves the Theory. A
civilized, cultural “race” would definitely have left some traces of its
development in its place of origin and the same would have been seen in the new
place where they would migrate. But this trace is absent completely.
7) DNA argument
refutation post experiment-
Later studies have
also found evidence for a common gene – R1A1 haplogroup which is common to some
Indians as well as Europeans and is called an “Eurasian Gene” implying a gene
found at the stretch of India as well as Europe.
This argument falls
weak as a result of a study conducted by a team of Journal of Human Genetics
which shows a common pattern of the presence of that gene in the percentage of
samples collected across the Indian subcontinent from Pakistan in the West to
tribals in the East, Kashmiris in the North to the southern Indian States and
not only this, but a proportionate sample from all Castes mentioned in the
Hindu Scriptures.
This shows that the proposal
of a race with a distinguished DNA invading a place and giving a separate caste
to the people of that land fails to prove its authenticity when subjected with
scientific DNA testing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg20082
8) Colour difference-
The difference in
complexion among the Indians too appears to follow the most common pattern
which is the universal truth – as a country in the Northern Hemisphere, the
Southern parts of the
subcontinent, bring closer to the equator experience more heat as compared to
the northern parts.
Hence, the complexion
of Indians gradually gets lighter as one moves from extreme South to extreme
North. The complexion of Indians on the West – East axis (from Gujarat to
Arunachal Pradesh) remains more or less the exact same considering an average
altitude throughout the scale.
The explanation of
complexion difference through the Aryan Invasion Theory seems to hold no
substance at all since this difference is thoroughly based on geographic
conditions!
D] Alternative
Possibility of reverse migration
This research on the
contrary reverses the migration as proposed earlier and gives incentive to do
studies on whether there was migration from the Indian subcontinent towards
other countries with more models such as common linguistics between Sanskrit
and Greek along with other Latin derived languages as well as many common
elements between Indian Hindu and Greek Pagan Mythology and culture have been
found in abundance.
This gives some idea
that English is not a direct derivative from Latin but there is some amount of
Sanskrit interference either directly from Sanskrit to English or indirectly
through Latin.
This evolution of
linguistics with this deep similarity is next to impossible considering there
was no migration from one side.
Out of many a few
shall be listed as evidence and incentives for further speculation on the topic
by the readers –
1)
Cultural Similarities–
Ramayan, Mahabharat
and The Trojan War.
Derivation of Saturday,
Sunday and Monday from the same planets by both – Babylonians and Indians.
(Saturday, Shanivaar
– named after Saturn or Shani.
Sunday, Ravivaar –
named after the Sun or Ravi.
Monday, Saumvaar –
named after the Moon or Saum)
The common pagan deities
– Indra and Lord Zeus (both the king of all Gods,Responsible for lightning and
Thunder and in possession of a similar looking weapon)
Hindus and Greek
pagans – Nature Worshippers, idol worshippers and have a God for everything –
Sky, Fire, Water, Sun, Planets, etc.
Similarities between the Greek and Indian Epics – Mahabharata, Ramayana
2)
Linguistic Similarities–
Common linguistics
between Sanskrit and and English with Latin as the mediating language
Sweet and स्वाद
Penta and पंच
Dental and दन्त:
Man and मनु
Cow and गौ
Mother and मैत्री
Anonymous and अनामिका
Door and द्वार
Medium and मध्यम
Me and मम:
Credible reference-
This idea of opposite
migration has also been highly elaborated and explained in the book called,
“Return of The Aryans” Authored by Shri. Bhagwandas Gidwani.
https://penguin.co.in/book/fiction/return-of-the-aryans/
E] Ending Notes-
1)
Success of Agenda-
The Aryan Invasion
Theory was a great weapon for the British to defend their narrative of being
foreigners and invaders and justifying the same with designating the Hindus of
India with the same title.
This Theory
successfully divided the already unstable Hindu Society during the British rule
on the grounds of caste, colour, ethnicity and North – South geography.
2)
Future of the Aryan Invasion Theory-
It is unfortunate
that many schools still teach the AIT not as a mere theory but as the truth.
However, in recent times there have been historians and archaeologists refuting
with debates, discussions and research articles that are published either to
defend or refute the AIT.
For the first time in
the history of independent India, this topic is being given attention in a
number of educational institutions. However, there is no change or addition of
reverse arguments or refutation of the AIT that seems to be present in the
history text books of today. The HRD ministry under the current Indian
Government will hopefully bring a change through their New Educational Policy
after 60 years of previous government’s monopoly on the subject of History –
agenda based, biased, falsified and truth suppressing History.
@@@
In a major finding that could impact
the understanding of Indian ancestry, the DNA study of a 4500-year-old skeleton
found in Rakhigarhi, in Haryana, suggests that modern people in India are
likely to have descended from the same population.
These path-breaking insights came to
light after scientists were able to sequence genome from the skeleton of a
woman and study the archaeological evidence found in Rakhigarhi, a village
located some 150 kilometers from Delhi. Rakhigarhi is the largest
Harappan site in India.
“The ancient-DNA results completely
reject the theory of steppe pastoral or ancient Iranian farmers as source of
ancestry to the Harappan population. This research also demolishes the
hypothesis about mass human migration during the Harappan time from outside
South Asia,” Prof Vasant Shinde, director of the Rakhigarhi project,
said.
Shinde said the new breakthrough
completely sets aside the Aryan migration or invasion theory. “The skeletal
remains found in the upper part of the citadel area of Mohenjodaro belonged to
those who died due to floods and not (of those) massacred by the Aryans as
hypothesised by Sir Mortimer Wheeler. The Aryan invasion theory is based on
very flimsy ground,” Shinde said, adding that the history being taught to us in
text books should now be changed.
The DNA revealed that there was no
migration or inclusion of any Iran or Central Asian gene into Harappan people.
"There is a continuity till the modern times. We are descendants of the
Harappans. Even the Vedic culture and (that of) Harappans are same,” Shinde
said.
“This research, for the first time,
has established the fact that people of Harappan civilisation are the ancestors
of most population of South Asia. For the first time, the research indicates
movement of people from east to west. The Harappan people's presence is evident
at sites like Gonur in Turkmenistan and Shahr-i-Sokhta in Iran. As the
Harappans traded with Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persian Gulf and all over South Asia,
there are bound to be movements of people resulting into mixed genetic
history,” he added.
These revelations assume political
significance as there have been demands to rewrite the history books to say
that Vedic people were the original inhabitants of the country and they did not
come from Central Asia. “Our premise that the Harappans were Vedic people thus
received strong corroborative scientific evidence based on ancient DNA
studies,” he added.
Another significant claim in the study published in
the scientific journal Cell, titled "An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe
Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers”, is that farming was not brought to South Asia
by large-scale movement of people from the Fertile Crescent where farming first
arose. Instead, farming started in South Asia by local hunter-gatherers.
As the study results were published,
separate statements were issued by Harvard Medical School which had
collaborated in the study.
"Even though there has been
success with studies of ancient-DNA from many other places, the difficult
preservation conditions mean that studies in South Asia have been a
challenge," says senior author David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard
Medical School, the Broad Institute, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment