06-17-2006, 06:51 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Two notable positive evidences adduced by Babasaheb are:
1. Babasaheb endorses Bhandarkar's view that cow-killing was made a
capital offence by the Gupta kings sometime in the 4th Century A.D.
and that 'untouchability' emerged by 600 AD. "In Vedic times there
was no untouchability. As to the period of the Dharma Sutras, there
was 'Impurity' but there was no untouchability. Manu's decision is
that there is no Fifth Varna. There was no untouchability at the time
of Manu. We can definitely say that Manu Smriti did not enjoin
untouchability...The word 'Varna' originally meant a class holding to
a particular faith, and it had nothing to do with colour or
complexion. The Vedic Aryans had no colour prejudice. They were not of
one colour. Rama, Krishna, Dirghatamas, Kanva etc. have been described
as dark in complexion."
2. Verse 23 of Adhyaya 65 of the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. The
verse says: "In all the Varnas and in all the Ashramas one finds the
existence of Dasyus." This indicates that the term 'Dasyus' is not
used for a non-Aryan, notes Babasaheb.
Indologists who posit dasyu versus aryan in the texts have only
perpetrated a hoax. As Babasaheb notes: "Invasion theory a concoction.
The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary
because of a gratuitous assumption that the Indo-Germanic people are
the purest of the modern representatives of the original Aryan race.
The theory is based upon nothing but pleasing assumptions and
inferences based on such assumptions. The theory is a perversion of
scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On
the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to
prove it. It falls to the ground at every point. The Western theory is
in conflict with the Rig Veda on a major issue. The Rig Veda being the
best evidence on the subject, the theory which is in conflict with it
must be rejected. There is no escape."
-xx
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0302/151.html
The Original Home of the Hindus (Interview of Dr Ambedkar)
Author:
Publication: Organiser
Date: January 23, 1994
(The Father of the Indian Constitution, Dr B. R. Ambedkar, was the
foremost nationalist leader of the oppressed classes and an erudite
scholar. The following is an account of the en lightening dialogue the
author had with him. Though the author himself does not agree with all
of Sri Ambedkar's conclusions, the dialogue is significant for the
fact of Sri Ambedkar's total rejection of the theory of Aryan invasion
as "a perversion of scientific investigation".)
Question: Do you believe that the Shudras were a non-Aryan aboriginal
race?
Dr. Ambedkar: No. After deep study of the subject I have come to
conclude:
i) That, the Shudras were Aryans;
ii) That the Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya Class; and
iii) That the Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriyas that
some of the most eminent and powerful kings of the ancient Aryan
Communities were Shudras.
Western Theories
Q: I know you are well acquainted with the various theories of Western
writers about the origin of the non-Traivarnikas whom they describe as
'Non-Aryans'. Are there any points on which there seems to be a
certain amount of unity among all of them?
A: Yes. Such points comprise the following:
1) The people who created the Vedic literature belonged to the Aryan
race.
2) This Aryan race came from outside India and invaded India.
3) The natives of India were known as Dasas and Dasyus who were
racially different from Aryans.
4) The Aryans were a white race. The Dasas and Dasyus were a dark race.
5) The Aryans conquered the Dasas and Dasyus.
6) The Dasas and Dasyus after they were conquered and enslaved were
called Shudras.
7) The Aryans cherished colour prejudice and therefore formed the
chaturvarnya whereby they separated the white race from the black race
such as the Dasas and the Dasyus.
Q: What is the basis for these Western Theories?
A: The foundation on which the whole fabric of the theory rests is the
proposition that there lived a people who were Aryan by race.
Q: Is this proposition correct?
A: The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race. A race may
be defined as a body of people possessing certain typical traits which
are hereditary.
An examination of the Vedic literature shows that there occur two
words in the Rig Veda-one is Arya with a short A and the other is Arya
with a long A.
The word Arya with a short A is used in the Rig Veda in 88 places. The
word is used in four different senses; as (1) enemy, (2) respectable
person, (3) name for India and (4) owner, Vaishya or citizen.
The word Arya with a long A is used in the Rig Veda in 31 places. But
in none of these is the word used in the sense of race.
The one indisputable conclusion which follows is that the terms Arya
and Arya which occur in the Vedas have not been used in the racial
sense at call.
This is what Prof. Max Mueller says on the subject: "There is no Aryan
race in blood', Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable
to race."
The Aryan Race Theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long
ago.
Q: From where did the so-called 'Aryan race' come into India? What was
the original home of the 'Aryan race'? Is the theory of Aryan invasion
of India a historical fact?
A: There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the
Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to
be natives of India. There is no evidence to show that the distinction
between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction. The Vedas
do not support the contention that the Aryans were different in colour
from the Dasas and Dasyus. The word 'Varna' originally meant a class
holding to a particular faith, and it had nothing to do with colour or
complexion.
The Vedic Aryans had no colour prejudice. They were not of one colour.
Rama, Krishna, Dirghatamas, Kanva etc. have been described as dark in
complexion.
The assertion that the Aryans came from outside and invaded India is
not proved and the premise that the Dasas and Dasyus are aboriginal
tribes of India is demonstrably false.
Invasion theory a concoction
The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary
because of a gratuitous assumption that the Indo-Germanic people are
the purest of the modern representatives of the original Aryan race.
The theory is based upon nothing but pleasing assumptions and
inferences based on such assumptions. The theory is a perversion of
scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On
the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to
prove it. It falls to the ground at every point. The Western theory is
in conflict with the Rig Veda on a major issue. The Rig Veda being the
best evidence on the subject, the theory which is in conflict with it
must be rejected. There is no escape.
Q: Are there any Hindu scholars who supported this Western theory?
A: This theory has received support from some Brahmin scholars. This
is a very strange phenomenon. As Hindus, they should ordinarily show a
dislike for the Aryan theory with its express avowal of the
superiority of the European races over the Asiatic races. But the
Brahmin scholar has not only no such aversion but he most willingly
hails it. He claims to be the representative of the Aryan race and he
regards the rest of the Hindus as descendants of the non-Aryans.
Q: What is your opinion about the suggestion of Lokamanya Tilak that
the original home of the Aryan race was in the Arctic region?
A: This is of course a very original theory. There is only one point
which seems to have been over-looked. The horse is a favourite animal
of the Vedic Aryans. It was most intimately connected with their life
and their religion. The question is: Was the horse to be found in the
Arctic region? If the answer is in the negative, the Arctic Home
theory becomes very precarious,
So far as the testimony of the Vedic literature is concerned, it is
against the theory that the original horde of the Aryans was outside
India.
The language in which reference to the seven rivers is made in the Rig
Veda (x. 75.5) is very significant. No foreigner would ever address a
river in such familiar and endearing terms as 'My Ganga, my Yamuna, my
Sarasvati', unless by long association he had developed an emotion
about it. In the face of such statements from the Rig-Veda, there is
obviously no room for a theory of a military conquest by the Aryan
race of the non-Aryan races of Dasas and Dasyus.
As Mr. P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar points out:
"A careful examination of the Mantras where the words Arya, Dasas and
Dasyus occur, indicates that they refer not to race but to cult. These
words occur mostly in Rig Veda Samhita where Arya occurs about 33
times in mantras which contain 153,972 words on the whole. This rare
occurrence is itself a proof that the tribes that called themselves
Aryas were not invaders that conquered the country and exterminated
the people. For an invading tribe would naturally boast of its
achievements constantly."
The Fourth Varna
Q: If the theories of European scholars are incorrect, how can one
explain the emergence of the Fourth Varna suffering from a number of
social disabilities and degradations?
A: The whole position can be stated briefly as follows:
1) The Shudras were one of the Aryan Communities of the Solar race.
2) The Shudras ranked as the Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society.
3) There was a time when the Aryan Society recognised only three
Varnas, namely, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. The Shudras were
not a separate Varna but a part of the Kshatriya Varna.
4) There was a continuous feud between the Shudra Kings and the
Brahmins, in which the Brahmins were subjected to many tyrannies and
indignities.
5) As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras due to their
tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to invest the Shudras
with the Sacred Thread.
6) Owing to the loss of the Sacred Thread the Shudras became socially
degraded, fell below the rank of the Vaishyas and came to form the
Fourth Varna.
Q: What about the origin of the Fifth Varna known as untouchables?
A: In Vedic times there was no untouchability. As to the period of the
Dharma Sutras, there was 'Impurity' but there was no untouchability.
Manu's decision is that there is no Fifth Varna. There was no
untouchability at the time of Manu. We can definitely say that Manu
Smriti did not enjoin untouchability.
While untouchability did not exist in 200 A.D., it had emerged by 600
A.D. As has been shown by Dr D.R. Bhandarkar, cow-killing was made a
capital offence by the Gupta kings sometime in the 4th Century A.D. We
can, therefore say with some confidence that untouchability was born
sometimes about 400 A.D.
Q: Can the hatred between Buddhism and Brahminism he taken to be the
sole cause why 'Broken Men'* became untouchables?
A: Obviously, it cannot be' The propaganda of the Brahmins was
directed against Buddhists in general and not against the 'Broken
Men'* in particular. Since untouchability struck to 'Broken Men' only,
it is obvious that there was some additional circumstance which has
played its part in fastening untouchability upon them.
Q: Can we say that the 'Broken Men'* came to he treated as
untouchables because they ate beef?
A: There need be no hesitation in returning an affirmative answer to
this question. No other answer is consistent with facts as we know
them.
Q: Do the untouchables, belong to a separate, non-Aryan race?
A: As I said earlier, historians have made a mistake in proceeding on
assumption that the Aryans were a separate race. In this connection,
reference may be made to verse 23 of Adhyaya 65 of the Shanti Parva of
Mahabharata. The verse says: "In all the Varnas and in all the
Ashramas one finds the existence of Dasyus." This indicates that the
term 'Dasyus' is not used for a non-Aryan.
If anthropometry is a science which can be depended upon to determine
the race of a people, then the results obtained by the application of
anthropometry to the various strata of Hindu society disprove that the
untouchables belong to a race different from the Aryans and the
Dravidians. The measurements establish that the Brahmins and
untouchables belong to the same race. If the Brahmins are Aryans, the
untouchables are also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the
untouchables are also Dravidians. The racial theory of untouchability
finds very little support from such facts as we know about the
ethnology of India. Racial theory of the origin of untouchability must
therefore be abandoned -23-7-1962.
(The Perspective by D.B. Thengadi, Sahitya. Sindhu Prakashan)
* In a fight between two tribes, the surviving men of the vanquished
tribe found it difficult to retain their identity because of their
reduced numerical strength. They, therefore, used to approach the
settled agricultural communities and enter into agreement with them.
These were termed as 'Broken men'.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. Babasaheb endorses Bhandarkar's view that cow-killing was made a
capital offence by the Gupta kings sometime in the 4th Century A.D.
and that 'untouchability' emerged by 600 AD. "In Vedic times there
was no untouchability. As to the period of the Dharma Sutras, there
was 'Impurity' but there was no untouchability. Manu's decision is
that there is no Fifth Varna. There was no untouchability at the time
of Manu. We can definitely say that Manu Smriti did not enjoin
untouchability...The word 'Varna' originally meant a class holding to
a particular faith, and it had nothing to do with colour or
complexion. The Vedic Aryans had no colour prejudice. They were not of
one colour. Rama, Krishna, Dirghatamas, Kanva etc. have been described
as dark in complexion."
2. Verse 23 of Adhyaya 65 of the Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. The
verse says: "In all the Varnas and in all the Ashramas one finds the
existence of Dasyus." This indicates that the term 'Dasyus' is not
used for a non-Aryan, notes Babasaheb.
Indologists who posit dasyu versus aryan in the texts have only
perpetrated a hoax. As Babasaheb notes: "Invasion theory a concoction.
The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary
because of a gratuitous assumption that the Indo-Germanic people are
the purest of the modern representatives of the original Aryan race.
The theory is based upon nothing but pleasing assumptions and
inferences based on such assumptions. The theory is a perversion of
scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On
the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to
prove it. It falls to the ground at every point. The Western theory is
in conflict with the Rig Veda on a major issue. The Rig Veda being the
best evidence on the subject, the theory which is in conflict with it
must be rejected. There is no escape."
-xx
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0302/151.html
The Original Home of the Hindus (Interview of Dr Ambedkar)
Author:
Publication: Organiser
Date: January 23, 1994
(The Father of the Indian Constitution, Dr B. R. Ambedkar, was the
foremost nationalist leader of the oppressed classes and an erudite
scholar. The following is an account of the en lightening dialogue the
author had with him. Though the author himself does not agree with all
of Sri Ambedkar's conclusions, the dialogue is significant for the
fact of Sri Ambedkar's total rejection of the theory of Aryan invasion
as "a perversion of scientific investigation".)
Question: Do you believe that the Shudras were a non-Aryan aboriginal
race?
Dr. Ambedkar: No. After deep study of the subject I have come to
conclude:
i) That, the Shudras were Aryans;
ii) That the Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya Class; and
iii) That the Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriyas that
some of the most eminent and powerful kings of the ancient Aryan
Communities were Shudras.
Western Theories
Q: I know you are well acquainted with the various theories of Western
writers about the origin of the non-Traivarnikas whom they describe as
'Non-Aryans'. Are there any points on which there seems to be a
certain amount of unity among all of them?
A: Yes. Such points comprise the following:
1) The people who created the Vedic literature belonged to the Aryan
race.
2) This Aryan race came from outside India and invaded India.
3) The natives of India were known as Dasas and Dasyus who were
racially different from Aryans.
4) The Aryans were a white race. The Dasas and Dasyus were a dark race.
5) The Aryans conquered the Dasas and Dasyus.
6) The Dasas and Dasyus after they were conquered and enslaved were
called Shudras.
7) The Aryans cherished colour prejudice and therefore formed the
chaturvarnya whereby they separated the white race from the black race
such as the Dasas and the Dasyus.
Q: What is the basis for these Western Theories?
A: The foundation on which the whole fabric of the theory rests is the
proposition that there lived a people who were Aryan by race.
Q: Is this proposition correct?
A: The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race. A race may
be defined as a body of people possessing certain typical traits which
are hereditary.
An examination of the Vedic literature shows that there occur two
words in the Rig Veda-one is Arya with a short A and the other is Arya
with a long A.
The word Arya with a short A is used in the Rig Veda in 88 places. The
word is used in four different senses; as (1) enemy, (2) respectable
person, (3) name for India and (4) owner, Vaishya or citizen.
The word Arya with a long A is used in the Rig Veda in 31 places. But
in none of these is the word used in the sense of race.
The one indisputable conclusion which follows is that the terms Arya
and Arya which occur in the Vedas have not been used in the racial
sense at call.
This is what Prof. Max Mueller says on the subject: "There is no Aryan
race in blood', Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable
to race."
The Aryan Race Theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long
ago.
Q: From where did the so-called 'Aryan race' come into India? What was
the original home of the 'Aryan race'? Is the theory of Aryan invasion
of India a historical fact?
A: There is no evidence in the Vedas of any invasion of India by the
Aryan race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to
be natives of India. There is no evidence to show that the distinction
between Aryans, Dasas and Dasyus was a racial distinction. The Vedas
do not support the contention that the Aryans were different in colour
from the Dasas and Dasyus. The word 'Varna' originally meant a class
holding to a particular faith, and it had nothing to do with colour or
complexion.
The Vedic Aryans had no colour prejudice. They were not of one colour.
Rama, Krishna, Dirghatamas, Kanva etc. have been described as dark in
complexion.
The assertion that the Aryans came from outside and invaded India is
not proved and the premise that the Dasas and Dasyus are aboriginal
tribes of India is demonstrably false.
Invasion theory a concoction
The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary
because of a gratuitous assumption that the Indo-Germanic people are
the purest of the modern representatives of the original Aryan race.
The theory is based upon nothing but pleasing assumptions and
inferences based on such assumptions. The theory is a perversion of
scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On
the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to
prove it. It falls to the ground at every point. The Western theory is
in conflict with the Rig Veda on a major issue. The Rig Veda being the
best evidence on the subject, the theory which is in conflict with it
must be rejected. There is no escape.
Q: Are there any Hindu scholars who supported this Western theory?
A: This theory has received support from some Brahmin scholars. This
is a very strange phenomenon. As Hindus, they should ordinarily show a
dislike for the Aryan theory with its express avowal of the
superiority of the European races over the Asiatic races. But the
Brahmin scholar has not only no such aversion but he most willingly
hails it. He claims to be the representative of the Aryan race and he
regards the rest of the Hindus as descendants of the non-Aryans.
Q: What is your opinion about the suggestion of Lokamanya Tilak that
the original home of the Aryan race was in the Arctic region?
A: This is of course a very original theory. There is only one point
which seems to have been over-looked. The horse is a favourite animal
of the Vedic Aryans. It was most intimately connected with their life
and their religion. The question is: Was the horse to be found in the
Arctic region? If the answer is in the negative, the Arctic Home
theory becomes very precarious,
So far as the testimony of the Vedic literature is concerned, it is
against the theory that the original horde of the Aryans was outside
India.
The language in which reference to the seven rivers is made in the Rig
Veda (x. 75.5) is very significant. No foreigner would ever address a
river in such familiar and endearing terms as 'My Ganga, my Yamuna, my
Sarasvati', unless by long association he had developed an emotion
about it. In the face of such statements from the Rig-Veda, there is
obviously no room for a theory of a military conquest by the Aryan
race of the non-Aryan races of Dasas and Dasyus.
As Mr. P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar points out:
"A careful examination of the Mantras where the words Arya, Dasas and
Dasyus occur, indicates that they refer not to race but to cult. These
words occur mostly in Rig Veda Samhita where Arya occurs about 33
times in mantras which contain 153,972 words on the whole. This rare
occurrence is itself a proof that the tribes that called themselves
Aryas were not invaders that conquered the country and exterminated
the people. For an invading tribe would naturally boast of its
achievements constantly."
The Fourth Varna
Q: If the theories of European scholars are incorrect, how can one
explain the emergence of the Fourth Varna suffering from a number of
social disabilities and degradations?
A: The whole position can be stated briefly as follows:
1) The Shudras were one of the Aryan Communities of the Solar race.
2) The Shudras ranked as the Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society.
3) There was a time when the Aryan Society recognised only three
Varnas, namely, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. The Shudras were
not a separate Varna but a part of the Kshatriya Varna.
4) There was a continuous feud between the Shudra Kings and the
Brahmins, in which the Brahmins were subjected to many tyrannies and
indignities.
5) As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras due to their
tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to invest the Shudras
with the Sacred Thread.
6) Owing to the loss of the Sacred Thread the Shudras became socially
degraded, fell below the rank of the Vaishyas and came to form the
Fourth Varna.
Q: What about the origin of the Fifth Varna known as untouchables?
A: In Vedic times there was no untouchability. As to the period of the
Dharma Sutras, there was 'Impurity' but there was no untouchability.
Manu's decision is that there is no Fifth Varna. There was no
untouchability at the time of Manu. We can definitely say that Manu
Smriti did not enjoin untouchability.
While untouchability did not exist in 200 A.D., it had emerged by 600
A.D. As has been shown by Dr D.R. Bhandarkar, cow-killing was made a
capital offence by the Gupta kings sometime in the 4th Century A.D. We
can, therefore say with some confidence that untouchability was born
sometimes about 400 A.D.
Q: Can the hatred between Buddhism and Brahminism he taken to be the
sole cause why 'Broken Men'* became untouchables?
A: Obviously, it cannot be' The propaganda of the Brahmins was
directed against Buddhists in general and not against the 'Broken
Men'* in particular. Since untouchability struck to 'Broken Men' only,
it is obvious that there was some additional circumstance which has
played its part in fastening untouchability upon them.
Q: Can we say that the 'Broken Men'* came to he treated as
untouchables because they ate beef?
A: There need be no hesitation in returning an affirmative answer to
this question. No other answer is consistent with facts as we know
them.
Q: Do the untouchables, belong to a separate, non-Aryan race?
A: As I said earlier, historians have made a mistake in proceeding on
assumption that the Aryans were a separate race. In this connection,
reference may be made to verse 23 of Adhyaya 65 of the Shanti Parva of
Mahabharata. The verse says: "In all the Varnas and in all the
Ashramas one finds the existence of Dasyus." This indicates that the
term 'Dasyus' is not used for a non-Aryan.
If anthropometry is a science which can be depended upon to determine
the race of a people, then the results obtained by the application of
anthropometry to the various strata of Hindu society disprove that the
untouchables belong to a race different from the Aryans and the
Dravidians. The measurements establish that the Brahmins and
untouchables belong to the same race. If the Brahmins are Aryans, the
untouchables are also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the
untouchables are also Dravidians. The racial theory of untouchability
finds very little support from such facts as we know about the
ethnology of India. Racial theory of the origin of untouchability must
therefore be abandoned -23-7-1962.
(The Perspective by D.B. Thengadi, Sahitya. Sindhu Prakashan)
* In a fight between two tribes, the surviving men of the vanquished
tribe found it difficult to retain their identity because of their
reduced numerical strength. They, therefore, used to approach the
settled agricultural communities and enter into agreement with them.
These were termed as 'Broken men'.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->