<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>A dead end for Aryan Invasion Theory"s Racism - Part I</b>
By: Saurav Basu
<i>Summary: Critical analysis and implication of "Aryans and British India" by Thomas R Trautmann</i>
Aryans And British India by Thomas R Trauttmann represents a remarkable and momentous occasion in Indological studies which deal with the vexed Aryan question.
Trautmann has shown a dexterous historical approach and insight into the framing of those vital questions which mark the evolution of the colonial construct of the role of Aryanism in Indian History and also successfully argues that its evolution "do(es) not reside within the idea itself as a kind of hidden virus or all-determining genetic but code but vary with circumstance and are the creatures of historical conjecture and human purpose"
It is unfortunate, that today throughout the western world the word Aryan conjures up images of devastating horror; a word loaded with the most sinister connotations. So much that you cannot even register a username on the MSN network containing Aryan as prefix or suffix. The mendaciousness of such concepts was challenged even a century ago by Sri Aurobindo who clarified that "All the highest aspirations of the early human race, its noblest religious temper, it"s most idealistic velleities of thought are summed up in this single vocable. In later times, the word Arya expressed a particular ethical and social ideal, an ideal of well-governed life, candour, courtesy, nobility, straight dealing, courage, gentleness, purity, humanity, compassion, protection of the weak, liberality, observance of social duty, eagerness for knowledge, respect for the wise and learned, the social accomplishments. It was the combined ideal of the Brahmana and the Kshatriya. Everything that departed from this ideal, everything that tended towards the ignoble, mean, obscure, rude, cruel or false, was termed un-Aryan. There is no word in human speech that has a nobler history." "
In contrast in modern India, the Aryan word invokes a fiery debate on the origin of the Aryan people; the speakers of the Indo Aryan group of languages. The standard position that Aryans came from Central Asia and invaded and subsequently subjugated the majority native aboriginal population of India now has been largely replaced by an effeminate version - the Aryan migration theory. However, the former view is voraciously applauded by the sectarian Dravidian politicians whose historical consciousness is clouded with a strongly vituperative discontent against the imaginary fair skinned Aryan invader who supposedly destroyed and drove their forefathers with Dravidian blood running in their veins from the lap of the flourishing Indus Valley into their current Deccan abode. Although, DNA and archaeological evidence jettisons them, such claims are steadfastly adhered to for political reasons, if not much else.
Indeed, so much rests on the Aryan question that one cannot but absolutely reject the cynical view of as senior a historian as Romila Thapar who claimed that "the Aryan question is the greatest red herring in studies on Ancient India" For we are certain that unraveling the identity of the Aryan people will cut the Gordon knot of several of the confusing conundrums of Indian and perhaps World History at large, especially those which deal with civilization in the ancient world from an Indo Aryan perspective.
However, there are issues, which transcend the Aryan identity question; and yet are crucial to the Indian history scene but so far have not been satisfactorily tackled by scholars. Foremost, among them is the origin and evolution of the Aryan theory through the vicissitudes of colonial scholarship. <b>The Aryan theory is a colonial construct, but its edifice was always in a flux especially during its formative years. The ground beneath its feet was frequently altered by different brands of orientalism; some having a distinctive doctrinal axes to grind which could range from upholding of Mosaic Ethnology to purely racist white supremacy theories.</b>
Trautmann builds his book as a series of chapters mimicking the swing of the pendulum of oriental scholarship with humble beginning in Mosaic Ethmology, to a fancy for all things old and Indian [British Indophania] to diametrical opposed stirrings in<b> British Indophobia. Trautmann in the next two chapters shows how the latter was heavily spruced up by immature philological and ethnological studies, which consummated into the racial theory of the Indian civilization with all its obnoxious ramifications.</b>
We all know that ever since the publication of Edward Said"s Orientalism; Oriental scholarship has been looked upon as an academic tool to legitimize and perpetuate colonialism, them being western authoritative pronouncements on Asiatic Societies and as a result currently most indigenous scholars work furiously to decolonize their history. India has been no exception; and several Saidian and even Non Saidian influenced authors have indulged in similar exercises to dislodge colonial hegemony in the form of Orientalism.
But what struck me was the virtual absence of Indian encounters of the Orientalists in Said"s book.<b> Said has simply substituted his denunciation of Oriental scholarship in the Middle East to India without building even a generalization, forget demarcating the differences. </b>Trautmann rightly considers the simple inversion of the idea of Orientalism as a monument of colonialism as hardly satisfactory. It seems to betray a feeling that one cannot seriously weight the value of Orientalism"s substance without running the risk of finding some of it good, and in that measure a justification of the colonial power.
Moreover, in the case of India; the orientalists were divided. James Mill and Grant were totally opposed to the Sanskritist orientalists like Jones and Wilson. To say that colonialism and orientalism are mutually interchangeable does not get far. <b>Questions like why the German enthusiasm for oriental studies cannot be explained at all using Saidian motives at play.</b> Especially when Humbolt went so far as to declare in 1827: "The Bhagavadgita is perhaps the loftiest and the deepest thing that the world has to show." (A concise summary of the contribution of the early German indologists can be found in the work of Valentina Stache-Rosen) Yet, Dilip Chakrabarti in his hard hitting "Colonial Indology" considers the German romantics pouring encomiums at even the mention of India as the outcome of their personal search for an acceptable and unsullied past framework of their own reality. India, herself did not have much to do with it. He considers their motives were rooted to political control of India and the conversion of the Indian people to Christianity. I would consider the view as being too cynical as the empirical evidence till date remains unsatisfactory
Oriental scholarship: boon or bane
One point however which Trautmann ignores is the selective rejection of orientalist scholarship models by contemporary scholars depending upon their ideological affiliation. To instantiate; the (self conferred) secular Marxists as also the current crop of eurocentric authors like John Keay excitedly espoused the racial theory of the Indian civilization which Trautmann has critically denounced in the later part of his book. Even others who will not fit any of the above categories like Al Basham and Stanley Wolpert wholeheartedly voiced their support for these mendacious racial theories; although the former modified his view in time. In the past decade, if anything has changed, is the old canard of Aryans bringing civilization to time. Instead, it is now claimed that Dravidian and Mundas are original torch bearers of civilization in India.
In contrast, nationalist Indians a.k.a. Hindu revivalists have been decrying the racial theories of Indian civilization for over a century now- from Swami Vivekananda, to Sri Aurobindo, then Pusalkar, to Sethna and now Rajaram. <b>Trautmann"s analysis has inadvertently vindicated their stand in this matter. Perhaps, it is the potentially damming consequence of Trautmann"s study that has compelled some extremist Marxist historians like D N Jha to dismiss Trautmann as a crypto neocolonialist agent, who has somehow managed to extort a positive review from their finest historian - Romila Thapar. </b>[1]
But the elements of Orientalism which were typical of Indomaniacs - like praise for the qualities of Sanskrit; the acceptance of the existence of a civilization of the highest order in ancient India; critical appreciation for Ancient Indian literature, art and philosophy and their influences over Greek culture have all <b>been vehemently attacked by these secular Marxist historians. </b>While, some of it was surely exaggerative like Sanskrit being the mother of all Indo European languages there is no reason to hold them in such sharp contempt as has been done by our Marxist and secular historian. They lament that these theories were instruments of the divisive divide and rule British government policy which sought to divide Indians into two mutually exclusive groups of Hindus and Muslims; for according to them such social identities had not been effective crystallized prior to the advent of British colonialism. Finally, their voices are shrill in dismissing orientalist beliefs from those quarters where the evils of India had been attributed to Muslim tyranny and despotism. I might add that Hindu revivalists endorse all such Orientalist ideas, invariably with a greater degree of enthusiasm.
The secular and marxists also criticize Hinduism as being the vile product of such colonial encounters. Trautmann again is mature enough to reason that one has to be wary of attitudes which hold the British responsible for the invention of Hinduism. Many of the elements in which Hinduism is construed by the British in the period of Indomania derive from Indians and Indian sources. It cannot be an accident that the superior value of ancient times and sources in British sources is so strikingly consistent with the degenerationist character of brahmin views of the historical process - involving among other thing a decline in virtue and religion. This point is further buttressed by the fact that key indigenous informants played a key role in the construction of modern notions of "the Hindu religion" [Orientalism and the modern myth of Hinduism, Richard King]
Thus, we can discover a distinctive pattern at work here. <b>The Marxist/nehruvian/secular historians aim to undermine that orientalist scholarship which Trautmann dubs as Indomania while espousing Indophobic tendencies in later Orientalist scholarship together with racial theories of Indian civilization.</b> On the other hand, Hindu revivalists would reject the indophobic viewpoints, as also the racial theories; they would be unhesitant in accepting the indomaniac views. As Dilip Chakravarti in Colonial Indology sums up that while Romila Thapar decries attempts to discover an indigenous origin for aryans, she is by no means better in tracing a foreign origin for all positive elements of Indian History.
Naturally, both indulge in posturing themselves as being anti-orientalist in scope for both cannot risk themselves being projected as patronizing orientalism; more especially for the Marxist historians for the are bonded to anti imperialism. Finding worth with orientalism or its defense is considered to be the hallmark of Eurocentric and neocolonialist authors only.
.... Continued<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are some confused issues in the piece eg the alleged anti-orientalism of Marxists and the supposed orientalist indo-mania of Hindus. Colonial construction of Hindusim is an inexact way to state the colonial veneer and interpretation imparted on Hindu practices and traditions. These issues need to be straightened as they keep manifesting again and again and may actually be internal to the colonial dynamic. Apparently, Hindus are not permitted to be anti-orientalists and anti-colonials. This function is reserved for the liberal strains in the catholic (conservative) versus protestant (liberal) internal conservation.
By: Saurav Basu
<i>Summary: Critical analysis and implication of "Aryans and British India" by Thomas R Trautmann</i>
Aryans And British India by Thomas R Trauttmann represents a remarkable and momentous occasion in Indological studies which deal with the vexed Aryan question.
Trautmann has shown a dexterous historical approach and insight into the framing of those vital questions which mark the evolution of the colonial construct of the role of Aryanism in Indian History and also successfully argues that its evolution "do(es) not reside within the idea itself as a kind of hidden virus or all-determining genetic but code but vary with circumstance and are the creatures of historical conjecture and human purpose"
It is unfortunate, that today throughout the western world the word Aryan conjures up images of devastating horror; a word loaded with the most sinister connotations. So much that you cannot even register a username on the MSN network containing Aryan as prefix or suffix. The mendaciousness of such concepts was challenged even a century ago by Sri Aurobindo who clarified that "All the highest aspirations of the early human race, its noblest religious temper, it"s most idealistic velleities of thought are summed up in this single vocable. In later times, the word Arya expressed a particular ethical and social ideal, an ideal of well-governed life, candour, courtesy, nobility, straight dealing, courage, gentleness, purity, humanity, compassion, protection of the weak, liberality, observance of social duty, eagerness for knowledge, respect for the wise and learned, the social accomplishments. It was the combined ideal of the Brahmana and the Kshatriya. Everything that departed from this ideal, everything that tended towards the ignoble, mean, obscure, rude, cruel or false, was termed un-Aryan. There is no word in human speech that has a nobler history." "
In contrast in modern India, the Aryan word invokes a fiery debate on the origin of the Aryan people; the speakers of the Indo Aryan group of languages. The standard position that Aryans came from Central Asia and invaded and subsequently subjugated the majority native aboriginal population of India now has been largely replaced by an effeminate version - the Aryan migration theory. However, the former view is voraciously applauded by the sectarian Dravidian politicians whose historical consciousness is clouded with a strongly vituperative discontent against the imaginary fair skinned Aryan invader who supposedly destroyed and drove their forefathers with Dravidian blood running in their veins from the lap of the flourishing Indus Valley into their current Deccan abode. Although, DNA and archaeological evidence jettisons them, such claims are steadfastly adhered to for political reasons, if not much else.
Indeed, so much rests on the Aryan question that one cannot but absolutely reject the cynical view of as senior a historian as Romila Thapar who claimed that "the Aryan question is the greatest red herring in studies on Ancient India" For we are certain that unraveling the identity of the Aryan people will cut the Gordon knot of several of the confusing conundrums of Indian and perhaps World History at large, especially those which deal with civilization in the ancient world from an Indo Aryan perspective.
However, there are issues, which transcend the Aryan identity question; and yet are crucial to the Indian history scene but so far have not been satisfactorily tackled by scholars. Foremost, among them is the origin and evolution of the Aryan theory through the vicissitudes of colonial scholarship. <b>The Aryan theory is a colonial construct, but its edifice was always in a flux especially during its formative years. The ground beneath its feet was frequently altered by different brands of orientalism; some having a distinctive doctrinal axes to grind which could range from upholding of Mosaic Ethnology to purely racist white supremacy theories.</b>
Trautmann builds his book as a series of chapters mimicking the swing of the pendulum of oriental scholarship with humble beginning in Mosaic Ethmology, to a fancy for all things old and Indian [British Indophania] to diametrical opposed stirrings in<b> British Indophobia. Trautmann in the next two chapters shows how the latter was heavily spruced up by immature philological and ethnological studies, which consummated into the racial theory of the Indian civilization with all its obnoxious ramifications.</b>
We all know that ever since the publication of Edward Said"s Orientalism; Oriental scholarship has been looked upon as an academic tool to legitimize and perpetuate colonialism, them being western authoritative pronouncements on Asiatic Societies and as a result currently most indigenous scholars work furiously to decolonize their history. India has been no exception; and several Saidian and even Non Saidian influenced authors have indulged in similar exercises to dislodge colonial hegemony in the form of Orientalism.
But what struck me was the virtual absence of Indian encounters of the Orientalists in Said"s book.<b> Said has simply substituted his denunciation of Oriental scholarship in the Middle East to India without building even a generalization, forget demarcating the differences. </b>Trautmann rightly considers the simple inversion of the idea of Orientalism as a monument of colonialism as hardly satisfactory. It seems to betray a feeling that one cannot seriously weight the value of Orientalism"s substance without running the risk of finding some of it good, and in that measure a justification of the colonial power.
Moreover, in the case of India; the orientalists were divided. James Mill and Grant were totally opposed to the Sanskritist orientalists like Jones and Wilson. To say that colonialism and orientalism are mutually interchangeable does not get far. <b>Questions like why the German enthusiasm for oriental studies cannot be explained at all using Saidian motives at play.</b> Especially when Humbolt went so far as to declare in 1827: "The Bhagavadgita is perhaps the loftiest and the deepest thing that the world has to show." (A concise summary of the contribution of the early German indologists can be found in the work of Valentina Stache-Rosen) Yet, Dilip Chakrabarti in his hard hitting "Colonial Indology" considers the German romantics pouring encomiums at even the mention of India as the outcome of their personal search for an acceptable and unsullied past framework of their own reality. India, herself did not have much to do with it. He considers their motives were rooted to political control of India and the conversion of the Indian people to Christianity. I would consider the view as being too cynical as the empirical evidence till date remains unsatisfactory
Oriental scholarship: boon or bane
One point however which Trautmann ignores is the selective rejection of orientalist scholarship models by contemporary scholars depending upon their ideological affiliation. To instantiate; the (self conferred) secular Marxists as also the current crop of eurocentric authors like John Keay excitedly espoused the racial theory of the Indian civilization which Trautmann has critically denounced in the later part of his book. Even others who will not fit any of the above categories like Al Basham and Stanley Wolpert wholeheartedly voiced their support for these mendacious racial theories; although the former modified his view in time. In the past decade, if anything has changed, is the old canard of Aryans bringing civilization to time. Instead, it is now claimed that Dravidian and Mundas are original torch bearers of civilization in India.
In contrast, nationalist Indians a.k.a. Hindu revivalists have been decrying the racial theories of Indian civilization for over a century now- from Swami Vivekananda, to Sri Aurobindo, then Pusalkar, to Sethna and now Rajaram. <b>Trautmann"s analysis has inadvertently vindicated their stand in this matter. Perhaps, it is the potentially damming consequence of Trautmann"s study that has compelled some extremist Marxist historians like D N Jha to dismiss Trautmann as a crypto neocolonialist agent, who has somehow managed to extort a positive review from their finest historian - Romila Thapar. </b>[1]
But the elements of Orientalism which were typical of Indomaniacs - like praise for the qualities of Sanskrit; the acceptance of the existence of a civilization of the highest order in ancient India; critical appreciation for Ancient Indian literature, art and philosophy and their influences over Greek culture have all <b>been vehemently attacked by these secular Marxist historians. </b>While, some of it was surely exaggerative like Sanskrit being the mother of all Indo European languages there is no reason to hold them in such sharp contempt as has been done by our Marxist and secular historian. They lament that these theories were instruments of the divisive divide and rule British government policy which sought to divide Indians into two mutually exclusive groups of Hindus and Muslims; for according to them such social identities had not been effective crystallized prior to the advent of British colonialism. Finally, their voices are shrill in dismissing orientalist beliefs from those quarters where the evils of India had been attributed to Muslim tyranny and despotism. I might add that Hindu revivalists endorse all such Orientalist ideas, invariably with a greater degree of enthusiasm.
The secular and marxists also criticize Hinduism as being the vile product of such colonial encounters. Trautmann again is mature enough to reason that one has to be wary of attitudes which hold the British responsible for the invention of Hinduism. Many of the elements in which Hinduism is construed by the British in the period of Indomania derive from Indians and Indian sources. It cannot be an accident that the superior value of ancient times and sources in British sources is so strikingly consistent with the degenerationist character of brahmin views of the historical process - involving among other thing a decline in virtue and religion. This point is further buttressed by the fact that key indigenous informants played a key role in the construction of modern notions of "the Hindu religion" [Orientalism and the modern myth of Hinduism, Richard King]
Thus, we can discover a distinctive pattern at work here. <b>The Marxist/nehruvian/secular historians aim to undermine that orientalist scholarship which Trautmann dubs as Indomania while espousing Indophobic tendencies in later Orientalist scholarship together with racial theories of Indian civilization.</b> On the other hand, Hindu revivalists would reject the indophobic viewpoints, as also the racial theories; they would be unhesitant in accepting the indomaniac views. As Dilip Chakravarti in Colonial Indology sums up that while Romila Thapar decries attempts to discover an indigenous origin for aryans, she is by no means better in tracing a foreign origin for all positive elements of Indian History.
Naturally, both indulge in posturing themselves as being anti-orientalist in scope for both cannot risk themselves being projected as patronizing orientalism; more especially for the Marxist historians for the are bonded to anti imperialism. Finding worth with orientalism or its defense is considered to be the hallmark of Eurocentric and neocolonialist authors only.
.... Continued<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are some confused issues in the piece eg the alleged anti-orientalism of Marxists and the supposed orientalist indo-mania of Hindus. Colonial construction of Hindusim is an inexact way to state the colonial veneer and interpretation imparted on Hindu practices and traditions. These issues need to be straightened as they keep manifesting again and again and may actually be internal to the colonial dynamic. Apparently, Hindus are not permitted to be anti-orientalists and anti-colonials. This function is reserved for the liberal strains in the catholic (conservative) versus protestant (liberal) internal conservation.