http://satyameva-jayate.org/2005/10/08/rev.../#comment-11010
25 Responses to âRevising the âAryan Invasion of Indiaâ Theoryâ
1.
Neville Ramdeholl, on March 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am Said:
: The Indus is not Aryan
The idea that the Aryans are an indigenous lot is absurd as the theory that the Indus is Aryan. It is all plain for everyone to see despite the hundreds of books , articles and internet reports, that the Aryans are an intrusive people into India.
For sometime now I have been reading several articles of the case for and against AIT/AMT versus OIT. Although the Indian historians and certain archaeologists have more or less proven that there was no invasion per se of India, by Indo-Aryans , the fact still remain that India was and still is occupied by the descendants of the Vedic Aryans whose culture and history make up what is India today and including those from the Indus civilization. A detailed reading and study of the various opinions by those historians and archaeologists on this website, especially from India still maintain and doubt that the horse and chariot came from outside the country and who insist that horses and chariots are indigenous to the land. I have perceived that there are three major points which mostly the Indian historians are stubbornly refusing to concede and that is :
(A) They continue to hang on to the dead theory that the Indus
civilization is Aryan and indigenous.
(B) Despite the mountain of official documented and textual
evidence from various sources eg: Andronovan proven Indo-
Iranian sites, evidence from the Vedas itself, lack of evidence of
horses and chariots in ancient India before the advent of the
Aryans etc, Indian officials and historians still attempt to castigate
the authors and doubt the veracity of the documented and
archaeological evidence.
© The clear absence of archaeological and attestation of horse trade
between the Indus Civilization and its neighbors in the time period
of supposed finds of horse remains.
We begin from the beginning by placing the Aryans outside of India rather than being an indigenous people living thousands of years in India as so many Indian scholars believe. It is a fact that the Avesta places a home for the Aryans who sojourned outside India, which they called Airyana Vaejah or Aryan Homeland. The Aryans came through the Northwest of what is now today the state of Pakistan. That old natural pass called the Khyber. This same pass was used by different conquerors to conquer India in later times. This is a northwest route , not an east or west or south route and you can see from the geographical map where the Aryans forded and settled for a time calling it the Saptasindhu of which Five Rivers of the area were Shutudri called the Sutlej, the Vipasha or Vipash now called the Beas, the Parushini now called the Ravi, the Vitasta now called the Jhelum. Two main rivers were added called the Indus or Sindhu and the Sarasvati making it the Seven Rivers. The following points shows why the Aryans are intruders to India.
a) Despite, the writings and articles of Indian historians, archaeologists and Internet writers, these are the only rivers other than the Ganga and Yamuna mentioned in the Vedas. If the Aryans were indigenous people, why didnât they mention the Kaveri, the Krishna, the Bhima, the Godavari, the Narmada, the Chambal and the others?
b) Why didnât they mention all the other civilizations such as the Indus, and those of Southern India etc?
c) Some may have noticed that the Vedas descriptions of their life and society only is confined to the northwest of India. There is no mention of areas of Bengal, Tamil Nadu or Maharastra and other areas.
d) Do the historical departments of India and other such cultural organizations have the names of the original rivers , because these are mostly Rigvedic names. If the Harappans occupied the Indus civilizations for so long, surely they must have names for these rivers.
2.
B Shantanu, on March 21st, 2007 at 1:12 am Said:
Neville,
Thanks for the comment. However, I felt it was slightly meandering in its logic; I have therefore taken the liberty of editing it (basically removing the bit after the four points that you make - the removed âbitâ is about 30+ pages in word).
I suspect most readers will loose the thread after the first few sentences if they read the original. I really appreciate your taking the time to write this but is it possible for you to post a summary?
Dhanyawaad,
3.
Neville Ramdeholl, on April 28th, 2007 at 11:35 am Said:
Hi Dhanyawaad, Namaste, I donât think it was right to censor my contribution to your website. I have written other articles to other websites and they have never this. I donât know what you are afraid of. I have written compelling arguments that the Indus could not have been Aryan because its inhabitants have not interacted nor were integrated with the horse and chariot. Secondly, there is the question of the lack of horse trading in the Indus civilization. These and other such evidence say quite a lot about the Dravidian civilization. I think you are afraid that your nationalist audience will decide that the evidence is solid and believe that the Indus is not Aryan. I wonât be contributing to your website.
4.
Shefaly, on April 28th, 2007 at 11:46 am Said:
Just to provide balance with another discussion on the same topic, where many other views can be seen:
http://dedanaan.com/vedic-origins-children-of-danu/
5.
B Shantanu, on April 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pm Said:
Neville,
Namaste. A few points:
1] This is my personal blog and I hope you agree that as the publisher/editor, I have the right to edit content.
2] As I mentioned above, the portion that you say was âcensoredâ was 30+pages in word. I dont think it is appropriate for a blog comment to be of that length. As you probably know, free blogs and websites are now extremely easy to build and if you already have one (with the full contribution), I will happily provide a link here (but will not reproduce it in full - due to length and for reasons of aesthetics).
3] I dont model my blog on what other websites do - but as you no doubt know, several blogs, magazines, newspapers, websites reserve the right to edit contributions (especially unsolicited voluntary comments) and frequently exercise that right.
4] I dont believe I am afraid of anything - except readers leaving my site because of the poor quality of content or prejudiced, biased, one-sided poorly edited views.
5] I have no doubt that your arguments are compelling (thats why I have included your comment - I could easily have edited it - if I had felt it was not good enough).
6] I do not consider what you call the âDravidian civilizationâ as any less or inferior or unworthy of the attention and study that has been focused on other civilisations or cultures. In fact, I will be very happy to receive essays and comments from you on this topic - with the proviso that I will reserve the right to edit. However if you have links to the original article in full (whether on your own or another website, I promise to publish the link - so that interested readers can read the article in full for themselves).
Are you agreeable to this?
7] I am not sure what you mean when you say that âI think you are afraid that your nationalist audience will decide that the evidence is solid and believe that the Indus is not Aryanâ - why should anyone be âafraidâ of that? I certainly am not. I am sure we are one in our quest for truth and the real history of our motherland and nation.
P.S. Finally, I do not believe in the dichotomy between âAryansâ and âDravidiansâ that you pose. In this context, have a look at this article: âThe Aryan Dravidian Controversyâ by David Frawley:
http://hindudharma.wordpress.com/2005/05/1...an-controversy/
Shefaly: Thanks for the link.
6.
drsurya, on April 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pm Said:
Shantanu you nailed it spot on with your summation - there is actually no dichotomy between the so called Aryan or Dravidian civilisations which has become a pet topic for several self confessed historians.
The more rabid and shriller the comment the more these historians shoot into limelight.
The focus seems to be the same. Run down and defame anything that might point to a glorious Hindu Rashtra in the past.
I am reminded of a docuumentary which i watched on BBC a couple of years back. It went on to say India was dominated by warrior tribes and uncivilised nomads who had no sense of culture or arts till the Mughal invasion. The documentary went on to add that the culture we have in India today is only because of the Mughal Invasion and without the Mughals India wudnt have had the Taj Mahal and we would have been a rotting landd of beggars and snake charmers.
Such myopic versions of history might sound very worthy for people in the paylist of Saudi paymasters or Evangelical Historians based outside India. But anyone with a slight modicum of History Knowledge would not even stoop to reply to such fanciful assumptions, let alone credit it by indulging in a meaningful debate.
Maybe people in BBC thi9nk Taj Mahal is the only building of architectural value. But they fail to understand that the Brihadeeshwarar Temple of Tanjavoor and Chidambaram Natarajar Temple were built several hundreds of years before the mughal set foot on India and they still remain architectural marvels.
Nevilles biased historical assesment is yet another âpolitically correctâ study which seems to know all about India and its past. The less said about his work thew better.
And given the fact how hostile people are to differing views on the Aryan Civilisation and its several facets, I think Shantanu has been more than accomodating regarding Nevilles viewpoint. If he feels he wudnt be contributing to this website because Shantanu called his bluff then the website would actually be better off.
We have read several concocted versions of Aryan history none of all can claim they are right and the others are wrong. Thats the funny part of history isnt it? Poeple want to beleive what they think is right.
Good job Shantanu and keep the good stuff rollingâ¦.
7.
Indian, on April 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pm Said:
Yes, but what they failed to study is that all artisans were Hindus or converted muslims. In case of âTaj Mahalâ too. For example, see our beautiful south temples and much more in rest of our country. No amount of dust thrown towards the âSUNâ can diminshed its shine, its not going to fade, it will shine more brigter in the coming days.
8.
B Shantanu, on April 29th, 2007 at 8:27 pm Said:
DrSurya and Indian, Thanks for your comments and support - as always.
I completely agree that the finest extant examples of amazing achievements in the fields of art and architecture in ancient India are to be found only in the south today.
In fact I encourage everyone who is even remotely interested in learning about our past history (especially temple art and architecture) to spend some time in the towns of South India and visiting not only the Brihadeshwara Temple but also the Meenakshi temple, Rameshwaram and many other places.
I was myself very fortunate to have the chance of spending three months several years ago visiting all of South India - it was truly an unforgettable experience.
As for the Taj Mahal, I would recommend you this post - in case you missed it: âTaj Mahal: The Biggest whitewash in Indian History?â
9.
Chitra, on May 26th, 2007 at 10:29 pm Said:
This argument is getting nowhere. It does not matter who settled the land first. According to evolution, all life came from one source (Archaebacteria in deep ocean trenches).
10.
B Shantanu, on May 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pm Said:
Chitra: Thanks for your comment. I wish this was merely an academic argument. Unfortunately, it is not.
This is more about whether the Saraswati-Indus civilisation and culture was indigenous (with roots firmly in this land) or was it really a result of mass migration from outside India.
Why is it important? At least for two reasons
i) to ensure historical accuracy and (ii) because it subtly (but profoundly) influences notions of national identity and pride.
Having said that, your comment has given me the idea for another post on this issue - addressing exactly the point you raised above.
Thanks for your other comment too.
11.
Rajiv Chandran, on August 14th, 2007 at 6:07 pm Said:
I think this is a problem deriving from a larger problem -problems with historiography about India
1. The foundations laid by etic scholars has not been revised in face of new evidence (at most cosmetic adjustment have been made - but the overall frame remains unrevised). Modern historiographers are content to model thier theories within frames developed with insuffecient scholarship.
Notably
i) All early historians who developed the idea of indian history were victorian englishmen or europeans.
ii) Thier work has been found to be inaccurate, biased, unscholarly, having extrenious motivations on many counts
iii) Thier familiarity with thier subject of study is questionable , biased , unsuffecient.
iv) They have tried to reconstruct history from the wrong sources
v) Primary motivation to develop a history of india was to give europe and europeans a high seat in the ancient world and is highly questionable
2. Reconstruction of Indian history does not use Indian historical sources as primary sources. Indian sources are insufficiently investigated or cursorily dismissed as
i) improbable - most certainly mythological
ii) not fitting into existing theories
iii) leading to improbably ancient dates
iv) having dubious chronologies
3. Modern Indian historians have not done serious historiography.
Probably because
i) the subject is studied as a western subject - and appendage of European history using western methods and techniques without critically analyzing thier objectivity.
ii) being more interested in political activism they wish to construct a history favourable to thier political persuations.
iii) being in awe of the âwhite scholarâ they are loath (scared) to confront them on so fundamental a point as basic frame of indian historiography.
iv) they associate genuine prestige to being âshabashâed by the western scholar - do not attach any importance to homegrown opinion.(Hence thier casual dismissal of very penetrating insights of a highly respected archeologist, and that of an independent historian )
v) are fundamentally of a Eurocentric persuation ie a macaulayist or a marxist or a âgunga-dinâ or are mercenaries who are doing dishonest work due to monetary considerations.
vi) are fundamentally ignorant of and do not have scholarly expertise on the tools (languages, techniques) for an emic analysis of history.
vii) indulge in cirular references to materials within thier clique to support and buttress theories
4. Modern western historians
i) Counldnt care less about indian history
ii) Are presumptious to think that thier supposedly unbiased and allegedly scientific methods are beyond reproach.
iii) Are Eurocentric, are brought up in a Judeo-christian tradition - where study of the outsider generally boils down to anthropological analysis of other cultures with a view to establishing dominance of the Eurpean viewpoint.
iv) Are too engrossed, subsumed within the Western Grand Narrative to pay much attention to any other viewpoint.
v) Are culturally so different that they are incapable of understanding the subtelities (going beyond gramattical textual analysis) ; are unaware of the nuances and historical/mythological/symbolic connections to draw ready inferences from any historical document of suitable antiquity.
vi) Are unwilling to understand the viewpoint, unable to communicate with indegenious scholarship with a non-western viewpoint.
vii) have a vested interest in protecting thier academic dominance of scholarship on other cultures and thier histories.
viii) lack suffecient funding from sources sympathetic to the indegenious indian viewpoint,
Serious indepth studies of ancient texts have not yet been done. A majority of ancient sanskrit(and other sources) lie untranslated , uninterpreted and insuffeciently placed within the framework of history.
There is need for unbiased indegenious scholars to reconstruct i) ancient history of indian subcontinent from original sources
ii) ancient history of most non-european cultures with indegenrious sources
iii) try and correlate these indegenious histories
iv) try to derive accurate/approximate dates and inferences from indegenious sources
v) then and only then associate our history with european histories and sources.
12.
B Shantanu, on August 15th, 2007 at 1:18 am Said:
Dear Rajiv:
Thats a great comment and something that should make us all think about the long-term consequences of this indifference.
To me, the task is urgent and needs serious scholarly attentionâ¦unfortunately I do not see much reason for hope.
I will add some more thoughts to this in a day or two.
Thanks.
P.S. I have formatted your comment for ease of reading.
13.
Deva, on August 15th, 2007 at 4:33 am Said:
In the course of this debate which is very important for us to understand better our roots, some refer to the Brahmanas as proof that the so called Aryans came from what is now Iran. Can you provide some clarification on yhis aspect?
14.
Rajiv Chandran, on August 15th, 2007 at 2:00 pm Said:
Shantanu
Thanks for your reply. Until a few months ago I used to look at OIT (as against AIT) as an hindutva fantasy and was casually dismissive of the claims without going through the evidence. So when I looked at how claims were built and on both sides of the argument - I could not escape the fact that there was a lot of obfucscation, unsatisfactory evidence , shoddy scholariship , ideological pretense etc that was passing off for mainstream theory ie AIT, AMT etc. Stripping of the political positions of the OIT theorists - thier positions seems very reasonable, quite deeply researched and entirely plausible. What is more it would seem to explain some very plausible contradictions in the narrations of modern history
* dismissal of puranas as mythology while using bible as having some historicity.
* great gaps in pre Maurya history
* no great empires existing in india - yet there being cultural unity
* AIT and the lack of genetic / archeological proof for it.
* lack of context for indus valley civilization etc. (where did they come from, where did they dissappear ? who were they ?)
* lack of context for the ancient vedas (where were they composed? how could Aryan nomads have propounded such deep philosophies?)
* lack of context for the epics ( with AIT scholars placing them in Afghanistan and Turkistan when the mentioned geography is claerly indian)
Anyway here is a response to points raised by Neville. unfortunate but they seem mostly petulant (sadly In response I have been somewhat petulant too) . All the points he raised are lucidly explained in books by various leading OIT theorists.
(btw please feel free to format my mails )
Reply : The Indus is not Aryan
QUOTE : The idea that the Aryans are an indigenous lot is absurd as the theory that the Indus is Aryan.
RESPONSE : Only if you consider âoriginal raceâ based theories by Europeans. Otherwise it is not only possible but more plausible. Remains of humans dug up suggest there was no difference between indus-valley people and current people of india.
QUOTE âIt is all plain for everyone to see despite the hundreds of books , articles and internet reports, that the Aryans are an intrusive people into India. For sometime now I have been reading several articles of the case for and against AIT/AMT versus OIT. Although the Indian historians and certain archaeologists have more or less proven that there was no invasion per se of India, by Indo-Aryans , the fact still remain that India was and still is occupied by the descendants of the Vedic Aryans whose culture and history make up what is India today and including those from the Indus civilization. â
RESPONSE : How does this prove that the so-called Aryans were invaders/migrants ? If it has been proven that there had been no invasion how is it possible that the descendants of the alleged invaders occupy the land ? This can only be true if there was no invasion - which actually seems to be the case.
QUOTE : A detailed reading and study of the various opinions by those historians and archaeologists on this website, especially from India still maintain and doubt that the horse and chariot came from outside the country and who insist that horses and chariots are indigenous to the land. I have perceived that there are three major points which mostly the Indian historians are stubbornly refusing to concede and that is :
RESPONSE : There has been shoddy scholarship from mainstream academia - from whom detailed study is still awaited - and that is the real question.
Horse and chariot mentioned in the Vedas are a in the context of Indian geography and fauna. Chariots - please remember are urban weapons not that of nomads - which aryans are purported to be according to AIT.
QUOTE : (A) They continue to hang on to the dead theory that the Indus
civilization is Aryan and indigenous.
RESPONSE : No proof. In fact OIT seems more and more plausible by the day. Recent studies have shownt that IVC was definitely indian having many so-called Aryan features. In fact most indian academia/researchers accept this as a fact except marxist scholars who have a vested interest in keeping AIT alive.
QUOTE <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->B) Despite the mountain of official documented and textual
evidence from various sources eg: Andronovan proven Indo-
Iranian sites, evidence from the Vedas itself, lack of evidence of
horses and chariots in ancient India before the advent of the
Aryans etc, Indian officials and historians still attempt to castigate
the authors and doubt the veracity of the documented and
archaeological evidence.
RESPONSE : how does this prove movement into India but not movement out of india. Emic readings of vedas seem to suggest a movement out of India.. There is no archeological evidence suggesting movement into India. Avestan seems to imply movement out of India. Indian officials and historians attempt to pin down western authors and thier evidence because they are decidedly shoddy and utterly lacking in standards they seem to expect out of others. There is actually no horse evidence leading into india either.
QUOTE :© The clear absence of archaeological and attestation of horse trade
between the Indus Civilization and its neighbors in the time period
of supposed finds of horse remains.
RESPONSE : Possible that the horse was a valuable strategic commodity not traded with outsiders. Also all horse references in the Vedas suggest it is the Indian horse rather than âSteppe horsesâ or Middle Eastern ones. if Aryans were outsiders thier horse-lore would reflect this fact. Please note that there is also no horse evidence to support an Aryan Invasion. What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
QUOTE : We begin from the beginning by placing the Aryans outside of India rather than being an indigenous people living thousands of years in India as so many Indian scholars believe. It is a fact that the Avesta places a home for the Aryans who sojourned outside India, which they called Airyana Vaejah or Aryan Homeland.
RESPONSE : Pray why ? Careful understanding of avestan texts would seem to imply that Airyanam Vaejoh - could have been Kashmir/South Afghanistan. One of the Avestan ancestral lands mentioned is the Hapta Hendu - Saptha Sindhu. in India. Mainstream scholarship is coming around to the view that the original homelands of the Avestans was east and not west of modern Iran. And where else in the east was a major population center from where people could have migrated ?
QUOTE : âThe Aryans came through the Northwest of what is now today the state of Pakistan. That old natural pass called the Khyber. This same pass was used by different conquerors to conquer India in later times. This is a northwest route , not an east or west or south route and you can see from the geographical map where the Aryans forded and settled for a time calling it the Saptasindhu of which Five Rivers of the area were Shutudri called the Sutlej, the Vipasha or Vipash now called the Beas, the Parushini now called the Ravi, the Vitasta now called the Jhelum. Two main rivers were added called the Indus or Sindhu and the Sarasvati making it the Seven Rivers. The following points shows why the Aryans are intruders to India.â
RESPONSE : âThere is nothing in Vedas that suggest arrival from a norwestern ancestral land to Sapta sindhu - infact this is a reading of western scholars who have consistently misread the vedas and have had to resort to all sorts of sophistry to arrive at that conclusion. The fact that there is no mention of Aryans as invaders is what all great scholars of the vedas state without exception. Amongst great scholars are not included poeple like Max Muller - whose understandng of the vedas has been derided by many indegenious scholars. If at all - there is a mention of the Indo-Aryans moving in from the east. If avestan with comparably older antiquity (according to ATI) remembers ancestral lands - why not the vedas ? The only plausible answer is becuase the vedas were composed in the homelandâ
<b>
QUOTE : a) Despite, the writings and articles of Indian historians, archaeologists and Internet writers, these are the only rivers other than the Ganga and Yamuna mentioned in the Vedas. If the Aryans were indigenous people, why didnât they mention the Kaveri, the Krishna, the Bhima, the Godavari, the Narmada, the Chambal and the others?</b>
RESPONSE : vedas are composed by a very limited subgroup of people who are otherwise mentioned in the vedas. Thier homeland (and thier salutations hymns etc) would have only encompassed the lands they belonged to and which they thought of was sacred. There are mentions of lands of other people - but not necessarily thier rivers . Also it is possible that the rivers described as excluded were not considered sufficiently holy to deserve a mention. It is possible that settlements by the rivers exempted were minor population centers. Remember the Vedas were sacred hymns rather than geography and political texts. Indegenious scholars have always resented Western scholars reading the vedas and not the itihasa puranas as history.
QUOTE : b) Why didnât they mention all the other civilizations such as the Indus, and those of Southern India etc?
RESPONSE : Because vedic could have preceded the Indus civilization (according to indegenious origin theories) - a civilization which thier descendents would form many years later. Another plausibility is that it was not excluded at all - this is just how western scholars read it.(For example the vedic people are described as pastoral by western scholars which is not necessarily the case. The vedas are replete with mention of cities and towns.)
Just how many civilizations flourished in southern india circa 6000bc - 3000 bc to deserve a mention (we are not speaking 1500bc here) ? how can we comprehensively establish that there was no mention - when we do not have all the oral traditions at our disposal.
QUOTE : c) Some may have noticed that the Vedas descriptions of their life and society only is confined to the northwest of India. There is no mention of areas of Bengal, Tamil Nadu or Maharastra and other areas.
RESPONSE : Wrong - there are ample references to the plains, oceans, rivers of non-northwestern geographies to suggest that the vedics were acquainted with north india from kashmir to the vindhyas and from sindh to bihar. Event today these areas are the main population centers of India. It is also dubious why there should be any mention of geographies other than the ones the composers of the vedas are able to relate themselves with.
QUOTE : d) Do the historical departments of India and other such cultural organizations have the names of the original rivers , because these are mostly Rigvedic names. If the Harappans occupied the Indus civilizations for so long, surely they must have names for these rivers.
RESPONSE : There seem to be absolutely no allegedly non-vedic names for indian rivers. why ? the simple explanation is that they never existed. The Vedics were the first to name them
I personally prefer the word Vedics to Aryans. Vedics would encompass an entire people of this era whereas âAryaâ was a very limiting designation even during the vedic times.
15.
B Shantanu, on August 17th, 2007 at 2:34 am Said:
@ Deva: I have not studied the âBrahmanasâ and am therefore not qualified to comment on them.
Hopefully someone from my learned readers group may be better able to respond to your query.
Otherwise give me some time and I will ask a few people who I believe would be better placed to provide the clarification that you have asked for.
***
@ Rajiv: Thanks for your follow-up and the response to Nevilleâs comments.
Would you be willing to write up a short article on this? I would be very happy to post it here â with full attribution of course. Pl. do let me know via email jai DOT dharma AT gmail.com
Another related post for you on this topic:
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/05/24/a...ak-attack/
16.
Subadra Venkatesh, on August 18th, 2007 at 8:44 am Said:
David Frawley is correct in assessing that the Aryan- Dravidian divide was used by the British to explain apparent (though not real) racial differences between northern and Southern Indians. But let us not blame the British alone for the perpetuation of this two race theory. A closer examination of Tamil history as understood and studied in Tamil Nadu, along with the official government position on this history will help us understand many of the unique positions and decisions this government has often taken.
According to the Tamil people and government, their history starts on the banks of the Indus. The Indus valley civilization and people with their unique achievements were the original inhabitants of India. They were a peaceful, civilized group who had organized their society on truly egalitarian principles.
Around 3000-5000 years BCE or later (depending on your source of information), successive bands of invading barbarians called the Aryans pushed the Indus valley people south until they all relocated to Southern India, specifically present day Tamil Nadu. The Aryan society was a far inferior civilization for various reasons: namely, it was polytheistic (too many Gods) and ritualistic (fire sacrifices). In addition, it was not an egalitarian society (caste system). Thus the Indus valley people, who are the ancestors of present day Dravidians, were robbed of their original homeland.
After settling in Tamil Nadu or thereabouts, the great Dravidian/Tamil civilization continued and flourished. It made great strides in all fields including architecture (temples), literature (sang am literature, Kambar Ramayanam etc.), music (carnatic), dance (bharata natyam). Unfortunately, because of the Aryan influence, the caste system became a part of Tamil civilization, and the Brahmins, who are actually the minions of northern Aryans, were responsible for upholding and perpetuating the caste system. In fact the Brahmins are also foreigners who have no right to be a part of Tamil culture (Brahmins are often referred to a s âPaapanââa derogatory term and even called âArya Paapanâ specifying their origin).
So, is any of this history actually true? Who knows? But this is the official position and understanding of Tamil history, and it is definitely the one used to shape public discourse. Thus, many of the socio-political events can be understood when one understands the Tamils â own version of history.
A case in point would be the anti-Hindi agitations of the past. Most non-Tamil indians, for whom Hindi was also not their mother-tongue (e.g. Bengalis, Telugu , etc.), saw Hindi merely as a link language to be learned as a second or third language in school. Not so in Tamil Nadu. Here, learning Hindi became a North Indian (read Aryan) imposition on a South Indian (Dravidian) civilization. So in Tamil Nadu, you have people who donât learn Hindi (which is North Indian) , but donât mind learning English. Here, English is not seen as the language of colonial masters .
We can also understand the reservation policies of the Tamil Nadu government using this paradigm. In most parts of India, the Forward castes refers to those groups of people who have had greater privileges or access to education and economic resources and opportunities. In Tamil Nadu the forward community refers only to Brahmins. Although, initially other groups who were economically prosperous, groups such as the Chettiars, were included in the forward classes, they now have been reclassified (which, I understand from Chettiar friends , can be done voluntarilyâi.e. you can get yourself reclassified) as backward. So the reservation policy of Tamil Nadu is not only implicitly anti- Brahmin, it is expressly so. This actually makes perfect sense if one understands how Tamils interpret their history. Thus, Brahmins are not thought of as Tamils who also constitute the priestly classes, but rather, local Aryan residents who have no right to be here.
Since so many of the leaders in Tamil Nadu have been atheists (They call themselves ârationalistsâ), Tamil pride in its architecture, literature etc. is often combined with discomfiture. The problem is that most of Tamil literature, arts, music, architecture ( as is most Indian literature of the past,) is religious in nature, specifically Hindu. So, while one can feel pride at the great temples at Tanjore and Srirangam, one canât get over the fact that these are Hindu temples. This âproblemâ pervades Tamil discussion on all their cultural and historic artifacts. So while Bharata Natyam and Carnatic music are praised, there are various attempts to âTamilizeâ these arts and perhaps even âsecularizeâ them. Thus, in Government music colleges most of the songs taught will be Tamil songs, although when the great composers of the past lived and composed in Tamil Nadu, many did so in the Sanskrit and Telugu languages.
This problem of trying to de-Hinduize Tamil culture (separate Tamil identity from the larger Hindu one which is pan âIndian) is one that apparently occupies the thoughts of the government officials. So there is great fan-fare accorded to placing Periyarâs statue in front of the Srirangam temple etc. This act is considered as both an affront on the Brahmanical hegemony which exists in the temples, and at the same time resurgence and reestablishment of Tamil pride.
The arrest of Kanchi Shankaracharya, and the muted Tamil response puzzled many of those who are not from Tamil Nadu. The arrest was portrayed by some in the mainstream media as an attack on Hinduism and an attempt of the then chief-minister, Jayalalitha, to establish her secular credentials. Maybe that was part of it. However, the reason for the muted response is that this particular religious figure is not considered merely a Hindu leader, but an elitist Brahmin one. Thus the majority of the people did not respond. In addition, we can perhaps also conclude that Jayalalitha might have actually wanted to establish her Dravidian credentials since she is a Brahmin person born in Mysore herself.
The Aryan Invasion debate can also be understood using this paradigm. Some of the most virulent opposition to any research or reinterpretation of original data from the Indus valley civilization comes from those who consider themselves Dravidian âthe original inhabitants of this land. The Aryan invasion theory is what validates decades of public policy in Tamil Nadu. Now , suppose we find out that there was no invasion. What if DNA evidence were to suggest that all people of India are from the same gene pool and the last incursions into India were between 40,000 to 60,000 years back. What would this do to the Tamilsâ understanding of their history. Would they then have to accept that their culture, though wonderful, is really a regional expression of pan-Indian civilization , and they should take pride in all its civilizational achievements, including its religions.
17.
B Shantanu, on August 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm Said:
Subadra: Thats a great comment and I am tempted to make a post out of it. Perhaps I will.
I think you are right in suggesting that the crux of the problem is the issue of crafting (or attempt at carfting) a distinct Tamil identity which is distinct from its Hindu origins.
You say, âThe Aryan invasion theory is what validates decades of public policy in Tamil Nadu. Now , suppose we find out that there was no invasion. What if DNA evidence were to suggest that all people of India are from the same gene pool and the last incursions into India were between 40,000 to 60,000 years back.â
This already seems to be the case. See this, e.g.:
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/05/24/a...ak-attack/
Thanks again for patiently explaining the nuances behind the politics of TN.
Jai Hind, Jai Bharat.
18.
Sujay Rao Mandavilli, on September 30th, 2007 at 6:04 pm Said:
who ever claimed this theory was correct ?
http://www.sujayraomandavilli.com
19.
B Shantanu, on October 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm Said:
Sujay: Thanks for the link. Do you have the article uploaded somewhere? Can you pl. send a link?
Thanks.
20.
Sujay Rao Mandavilli, on October 15th, 2007 at 1:30 pm Said:
Shanthanu,
Please send me your mail id, iâll send you a personal copy. The others will have to wait until I publish it
Sujay
21.
Nemo, on October 17th, 2007 at 7:14 pm Said:
#1
The Aryan Invasion Theory is part of a bigger net of inter-connected and inter-dependent theories.
Scholars have not universally accepted the theory of a Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) as the sole possibility. This theory says that all Indo-European languages originally sprung from a shared root language. A *hypothetical* language, nowhere recorded, no literature ever found written in it.
Going from that theory, they thought that there might long ago have been a single group of people who spoke that alleged Proto-Indo-European language. These hypothetical people were named the Aryans - also known as the Indo-Europeans (especially after WWII).
From there, they reasoned that that group of people (Aryans/Indo-Europeans) lived together at some point in time in some geographic place dubbed the Aryan homeland (or Urheimat in German).
So what we have is 3+ theories, each one depending entirely on the previous one being true:
(a) Theory 1 - All languages identified as Indo-European (IE) had a common ancestor language once upon a time: the entirely theoretical language PIE/Proto-Indo-European.
(b) Theory 2 - (*Only if* theory 1 is true, then) there *could* have been some single population that spoke it long ago: called the Indo-Europeans/Aryans.
© Theories 3 to n - (*Only if* theory 2 is true, then) there might have been a region somewhere between Europe and Asia where these Aryans lived once upon a time. They might then have shared single religion, and a shared culture. They might have invented somethings and even created civilisations. (And more such dramatic speculations.)
From the above theories follows the Aryan Invasion Theory, which *ENTIRELY* depends on there being Aryans in the first place (and on them having lived in an unconfirmed âsomewhereâ).
BUT (pasting from elsewhere):
Hereâs some researchers working in Indo-European studies showing how thereâs serious doubt about (a) the very existence of any PIE and - even more doubt on - (b) the existence of any âIndo-Europeansâ (Aryans) who spoke it:
(1) Summary of Trubetskoy quotes below: Trubetskoy says that âIEâ languages need not have derived from a common ancestor at all. But that in fact, it is equally likely that different languages converged and thatâs why they ended up having similarities. In other words: he says thereâs no need for any PIE. If thereâs no need for PIE, this also means thereâs no need for the derived assumption that there existed a people who spoke itâ¦
FROM: Trubetzkoy, N. S. (2001), Studies in General Linguistics and Language Structure, Anatoly Liberman (Ed.), translated by Marvin Taylor and Anatoly Liberman, Durham and London: Duke University Press.
- âIt is usually supposed that, at one time, there was a single Indo-European language, the so-called Indo-European protolanguage, from which all historically attested Indo-European languages are presumed to descend. This supposition is contradicted by the fact that, no matter how far we peer back into history, we always find a multitude of Indo-European-speaking peoples. The idea of an Indo-European protolanguage is not absurd, but it is not necessary, and we can do very well without it (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 87).â
- âThere is therefore, no compelling reason for the assumption of a homogeneous Indo-European protolanguage from which the individual branches of Indo-European descended. It is equally plausible that the ancestors of the branches of Indo-European were originally dissimilar but that over time, through continuous contact, mutual influence, and loan traffic, they moved significantly closer to each other, without becoming identical (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 88).â
- âThis possibility must always be kept in sight when the Indo-European problem is addressed [and every statement about the problem should be formulated so as to be valid for either assumption: divergence or convergence.] Since only the hypothesis of a single protolanguage has been considered until now, the discussion has landed on the wrong track. Its primary, that is, linguistic, nature has been forgotten. Prehistoric archaeology, anthropology, and ethnology have been brought in without any justification. Attempts are made to describe the home, race, and culture of a supposed Indo-European proto-people that may never have existed. The Indo-European problem is formulated [by modern German (and not only German) scholars] in something like the following way: âWhich type of prehistoric pottery must be ascribed to the Indo-European people?â But scholarship is unable to answer questions of this kind, so they are moot. Their logic is circular because the assumption of an Indo-European protopeople with definite cultural and racial characteristics is untenable. We are chasing a romantic illusion instead of keeping to the one positive fact at out disposalâthat âIndo-Europeansâ a purely LINGUISTIC concept (Trubetzkoy 2001, p. 90, emphasis in the original).â
22.
Nemo, on October 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pm Said:
#2 (cont.)
(2) Bruce Lincoln also makes it clear thereâs no valid reason to accept belief in any imaginary people - the Indo-Europeans/ âAryansâ - even *if* we assumed the hypothetical PIE existed. He also illustrates how other scholars in the field have stated that even if there were a PIE, there need not have been a single ethnic group that uniquely spoke it, how there are other hypotheses (than the one supposing Aryans) that are equally admissable.
FROM: Lincoln, Bruce (1999), Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
- âIn specific, reconstructing a âprotolanguageâ is an exercise that invites one to imagine speakers of that protolanguage, a community of such people, then a place for that community, a time in history, distinguishing characteristics, and a set of contrastive relations with other protocommunities where other protolanguages were spoken. FOR ALL THIS, NEED IT BE SAID, THERE IS NO SOUND EVIDENTIARY WARRANT (Lincoln 1999, p. 95, emphasis added)â
- âwe recognize that the existence of a language family does not necessarily imply the existence of a protolanguage. Still less the existence of a protopeople, protomyths, protoideology, or protohomeland (Lincoln 1999, p. 216).â
(Protopeople in the above quote refers to the âIndo-Europeans/Aryansâ of the topic)
- âOther authors have challenged the Stammbaum model on other grounds, observing that even if the historically attested Indo-European languages did descend from a single proto-language, the existence of this ancestral language by no means implies the existence of a single, ethnically homogeneous people who spoke it. Thus Franco Crevatin suggested that Swahiliâan artificial lingua franca, spoken across vast portions of Africa as an instrument to facilitate long distance tradeâmay be a better analogue than Latin for theorizing Proto-Indo-European. [â¦] In Crevatinâs view there was a Proto-Indo-European language and there were people who spoke it for certain finite purposes, but no community of Proto-Indo-Europeans. Similar is Stefan Zimmerâs position, intended as a rebuke of racist theories, hypothesizing a protolanguage spoken not be an ethnically pristine Urvolk but by a shifting, nomadic colluvies gentium, a âfilthy confluence of peoples,â (Lincoln 1999, pp. 212-213).â
(3) And finally, here Stefan Arvidsson gives us a lowdown on all the âevidenceâ there is in support of that hypothetical people, the Indo-Europeans/Aryans: All the proof for any Indo-European/Aryan people is â¦. air. Thatâs it. Thereâs nothing. Thereâs only stuff that some obsessed western scholars have imagined might be the remains of their imaginary Aryans, but at the end of the day, what theyâre doing is just construing things the way they like.
FROM: Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
- âFor over two hundred years, a series of historians, linguists, folklorists, and archaeologists have tried to re-create a lost culture. Using ancient texts, medieval records, philological observations, and archaeological remains they have described a world, a religion, and a people older than the Sumerians, with whom all
history is said to have begun. Those who maintained this culture have been called âIndo-Europeansâ and âProto-Indo-Europeans,â âAryans,â and âAncient Aryans,â âJaphetites,â and âwiros,â among many other terms. THESE PEOPLE HAVE NOT LEFT BEHIND ANY TEXTS, NO OBJECTS CAN DEFINITELY BE TIED TO THEM, NOR DO WE KNOW ANY âINDO-EUROPEANâ BY NAME. IN SPITE OF THAT, scholars have STUBBORNLY tried to reach back to the ancient âIndo-Europeans,â with the help of bold historical, linguistic, and archaeological reconstructions, in the hopes of finding the foundation of their own culture and religion there. (Arvidsson 2006, p. xi, emphasis added).â
There can be no talk of Aryans (or aryan invasions or whatnot) unless [Neville Ramdeholl or whoever else] can prove that there were Aryans in the first place.
And even if they ever managed to prove (a) the hypothetical PIE existed,
theyâd still have to prove that (b) a single ethnic group, specifically the Indo-Europeans/Aryans, existed who spoke it.
Because, REMEMBER: Theory 2 (âonce upon a time there were Aryansâ) *does not* automatically follow from Theory 1 (âPIE existedâ), as seen in (2).
23.
Nemo, on October 17th, 2007 at 7:17 pm Said:
#3 (cont. again - but no longer pasting from elsewhere)
Note the word âJaphetitesâ in the quote in (3). It was the term Europeans ORIGINALLY used for what were later called Aryan/Indo-European. It is BIBLICAL.
Japheth was one of the 3 sons of Noah. Europeans believed they were descended from Japheth; European christians still believe it.
And so, when the whole field of investigating Indian, Iranian and European languages started, the language group was originally called - not Indo-European, not Aryan - but Japhetic. And at that early time, Dravidians were considered Hamitic (the secularised term âDravidianâ was invented later). According to biblical mythology, Hamites were the cursed descendents of Noahâs son Ham. Theyâre all the brown peoples of the world. In the bible theyâre cursed to be slaves to the descendents of Noahâs other two sons, Japheth and Shem (whose descendents were called Semites).
So just believing in Japethites and Hamites (or as they are called today: the Aryans and Dravidians) means youâve accepted christian mythology.
So we can forget the âAryans/Indo-Europeanâ as Indo-European studies calls them.
David Frawley appears to be referring to those of Indiaâs Hindus in the Vedic period who lived in the north/northwest of India, when he uses the (unfortunate) term âAryan/Indo-Europeanâ. Perhaps heâs just thinking of his audience: being consistent, sticking to terminology readers might already have learnt.
Hindus of the Vedic times existed, so did Persiaâs Zoroastrians. Their literatures are there for all to see.
Itâs the hypothetical âIndo-Europeansâ who are nowhere attested.
On the matter of the âIndus Valley Civilisationâ (IVC). (The IVC was named at a time when the larger geographical extent of the civilisation was not yet discovered. Saraswati-Sindhu civlisation is more appropriate, as the archaeological sites involved span the region indicated by this name.)
Archaeology has shown how the Saraswati-Sindhu civilisation people of long ago are connected to todayâs people in East Punjab and Gujarat: (Entire quoted section pasted between â)
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/agarwal.html
â [1] Archaeologists like Jim Shaffer and D. A. Lichtenstein [1999] completely reject the notion of transfer of IA languages into South Asia as a result of migrations and invasions, and speak in terms of cultural shifts and diffusion of cultural traits. They do however, acknowledge a population shift from the IVC area to East Punjab and Gujarat [1999:256]:
âThat the archaeological record and significant oral and literature traditions of South Asia are now converging has significant implications for regional cultural history. A few scholars have proposed that there is nothing in the âliteratureâ firmly placing the Indo-Aryans, the generally perceived founders of the modern South Asian cultural traditions(s), outside of South Asia, and now the archaeological record is confirming thisâ¦. Within the context of cultural continuity described here, an archaeologically significant indigenously significant discontinuity was a regional population shift from the Indus valley, in the west, to locations east and southeast, a phenomenon also recorded in ancient oral traditions. As data accumulate to support cultural continuity in South Asian prehistoric and historic periods, a considerable restructuring of existing interpretative paradigms must take place. We reject most strongly the simplistic historical interpretations, which date back to the eighteenth century, that continue to be imposed in South Asian culture history. These still prevailing interpretations are significantly diminished by European ethnocentrism, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism. Surely, as South Asia studies approaches the twenty-first century, it is time to describe emerging data objectively rather than perpetuate interpretations without regard to the data archaeologists have worked so hard to reveal.â
â
(Physical anthropology has also confirmed the same. See Kenneth Kennedy. And Brian Hemphill.)
24.
Nemo, on October 17th, 2007 at 7:19 pm Said:
#4 (cont. final)
Repeat (Lincoln, Theorizing Myth): âthe existence of a language family does not necessarily imply the existence of a protolanguage. Still less the existence of a protopeople, protomyths, protoideology, or protohomelandâ
Of course, Neville and others who insist on believing in the Aryans without any proof are free to do so. After all, the Japhetic-Hamitic (âAryan-Dravidianâ) invention is but more christian mythology. And like christianism, itâs a matter of âfaithâ not facts.
[By the way, geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer has a lot of interesting things to say on the largely Basque (=non-Indo-European) gene pool of Britain. (As opposed to the âIndo-Europeanâ Celtic or Germanic/Anglo-Saxon.) Maybe Nevill may find it interestingâ¦
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article...ils.php?id=7817
âEverything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islandsâ]
For the rest of us, hereâs Bruce Lincolnâs Theorizing Myth again (heâs a scholar in Indo-European mythology - a field which he has now discounted for not having any concrete basis).
âOf the available hypotheses, the Stammbaum model is the most popular, but by no means the only one. It ought not to be accepted as long as others exists, and we ought not discard these others unless there is compelling reason to do so. In the absence of such compelling reason, we can REMAIN AGNOSTIC, recognizing the existence of multiple hypotheses and maintaining a particularly skeptical posture toward those with histories of subtexts of racism.â
25.
Meenakshi, on January 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pm Said:
The Vedas do mention places and people in the south of India. Some of these places were known by ancient names then, not by their current names.
Vedas talk about Manu, who did not coem from Iran or any other part of Central Asia. He was from this region. The Vedas do not discriminate between South and North India, Dravidians or Aryans.
