[Prev][Next][Index]
Debate on Aryan Invasion Theory
Path: psuvm!dxa4
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: aryan origin, Part 1/3
Supersedes: <94361.212450DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 22:36:39 EST
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
In article <3dptlb$bt5@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu>, iyengar@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu
(Manu Iyengar) says:
>
>In article <94360.164810DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>,
>Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <enemiesD1DqM6.B95@netcom.com>, enemies@netcom.com
>>(Gauravemies/.nameEnemiesPatricia) says:
>>>
>>>'Aryan' is a Sanskrit word meaning noble. It was stolen by the Germans
>>>(as was the Swastika) and used by the Nazis which has given the word
>>>some distasteful connotations.
>>>
>>>The Aryans were an invading tribe from the west who came into the Indus
>>>Valley and drove the Dravidians southward. They settled in India and are
>>>the anscestors of most North Indians. My Question is - Where exactly did
>>>the Aryans come from? If they spoke Sanskrit before coming to India how
>>>come there is no remenant of the language in their native homeland (i.e.
>>>where they came from originally)?
>>>
>>>I would greatly appreciate your answers or suggestions for further reading.
>>
>>Perhaps, the following article may answer some of your queries.
>>
>>***********************************************
>>
>> "The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India"
>> By David Frawley.
>>
>'nuff seen. David Frawley, while a prolific author, is hardly an authority
>on India. (For the uninitiated, Frawley is an American with a very strong
>interest in ancient Indian culture, especially from the theological
>perspective.
What made you think that he is hardly an authority on India, just him being an
American does not disqualify him to be an authority on India. With the same
logic, one should also dismiss Max Muller, the original exponent of the Aryan
race and Aryan Invasion theory. Nay, Muller did not even ever visit India in
his entire life-time while Frawley has spent most of his studentlife in India,
which evantually led him to accept the sanyansihood, and now he is a director
of the American Institute of Vedic Studies in Santa Fe.
>He has authored a good number of books on the subject, mostly
>published by Passage Press, I believe). His hypotheses about the origins of
>Vedic culture, while making an entertaining read, are mostly
>unsubstantiated and unsupported by his peers. The scarcity of evidence in
>archaeology and the difficulty in finding what little of it exists permits
>almost any appealingly worded claim. I have read three of Frawley's books
>and while a very small number of the things he says are interesting, most of
>his argument boils down to impassioned handwaving with unacceptable
>arguments to back them up.
It would have been better if instead of making some filippant and superficial
comments, if you had provided some specific examples where Frawley's views
contradicted the archaelogical facts. I have read couple of his books too, and
I found them very revealing in facts, compelling in conviction, and rich in
historical and scriptural evidences. Your criticism is unfair.
>In most of the cases, as for example in his astronomical arguments, he lacks
>even the basic concepts and terminology required to communicate with a
>reader. No, the stuff posted will not answer any questions. It is widely
>accepted that there was indeed an Invasion by nomadic tribes of the North
>Indian plains and I have yet to come across a convincing argument to the
>contrary.
Please again cite the specific points in Frawley's article, which in your view
are in confrontation with the archaelogical or modern findings?
Please remember the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is only a 'Theory' not a
factual event. And theories keep changing with the emergence of new knowledge
and data. It is a scientific truth. The AIT is not accepted as Gospel truth
(though perhaps it may turn out to be the greatest hoax of the history
pedrpetrated by the European historians without any scientific or literary
evidence.)
The most weird aspect of the AIT is that it has its origin not in any Indian
records (no where in any of the ancient Indian scriptures or Puransa, etc.
there is any mention of this AIT, sounds really incredible!), but in
European politics and German nationalism of 19th century. AIT has
no support either in Indian literature, tradition, science, or not
even in any of the south Indian (Dravidians who were supposed
to be the victims of the AI) literature and tradition. It is essentially the
creation of 18th and 19th century Europeans, especially Germans, and this
idea was later adopted and fully exploited by the British government in India
as a convenient tool to divide the Indian society on racial and ethnic lines
with the aim of controlling and justifying its occupation of the Indian
subcontinent. Now, since more and more evidence is emerging which not only
challenges the old myth of Aryan Invasion, but is destroying all the pillers
on which AIT had been assiduously but falsly built. And still the Indian
history books are not yet prepared to accept the verdict, and make the amends.
It is a known fact that most of the original proponents of AIT were not
historians or archaeologists but had missionary and political axe to grind.
Max Muller in fact had been paid by the East India Company to further its
colonial aims, and others like Lassen and Weber were ardent German national-
ists, with hardly any authority on India, only motivated by the superiority
of German race/nationalism through white aryan race theory, which eventually
ended up in the most calamitous event of 20th century: the World War II. Even
in the early times of the AIT's onward journey of acceptance, there were
numerous challengers like CJH Hayes, Boyed C. Shafer and Hans Kohn
who made a deep study of the evolution and character of nationalism in
Europe. They had exposed the unscientificness of many of the social sciences
which were utilized in the 19th century to create the myth of AIT.
In the last couple of decades, the discovery of the lost track of the
Rigvedic river Saraswati, the excavation of a chain of Harappan sites from
Ropar in the Punjab to Lothal and Dhaulavira in Gujarat all along this lost
track, the discovery of the archaelogical remains of Vedis and Yupas
connected with Vedic Yajnas at Harrapan sites like Kalibangan, decipherment
of the Harappan script by many scholars as a language of the Sanskrit
family, the view of the archaelogists like Prof. Dales, Prof. Allchin etc.
that the end of the Harappan civilisation came not because of the so called
Aryan invasion but as a result of a flood, the discovery of the lost
Dwarka city beneath the sea water near Gujarat coast and its similarity
with harappan civilisation - all these new findings indicate convincingly
towards the full identity of the Harappan/Indus civilisation with Vedic
civilisation, and demand a reexamination of the entire Aryan Race/Invasion
Theories which have been forcefully pushed down to the throats of Indian
society by some European manipulators all these years.
Also please read the following two posts in this thread for more on AIT
and its downfall.
Dinesh Agrawal...
*************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: aryan origin, Part 1/3
Supersedes: <94364.125641DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 19:58:55 EST
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
In article <3dsf0p$nl4@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu>, iyengar@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu
(Manu Iyengar) says:
Mr. Iyenger's diatribe to my response is illogical, irrational and self-
contradictory. He not only displays his ignorance about the basic features of
AIT which he so ardently and obsessedly clinges to his heart, but also lacks
understanding and knowledge of the chronological and archaelogical premises of
the AIT's advocates. First, let me make some general comments: First, the
theory which was propounded as the racial invasion of some nomadic tribes from
Western north of Indian sub-continent, was given up in favor of the migration
of linguistic nomades from an area which is still to be identified, but it is
contended that this migration is from west to east. What it entails: that there
was no race as being Aryan, that there was no invasion by any nomadic tribe
with superior martial qualities to the aborigines, there was no destruction of
Indus valley civilization by any Aryan nomadic race, and many more other
natural corrolaries which go counter to the long held myths based on AIT. Now
what is the proof of what I have written above? Well, first let us go back to
Max Muller himself, who is responsible for giving a racial meaning to the world
'Arya', but when his admirers and peers had pointed out numerous lacuna and
faults in the racial meaning of the word, and all these cavils were taking
their toll on Muller's reputation as being a distinguished scholar of Sanskrit
and Vedas, after 20 years of using the term inn racial sense, in 1871 Max
Muller changed his stand. That year, speaking at a university in German
occupied France, he claimed that the word Aryan could only mean a family of
languages, and could never apply to a race. Not coincidently, that was also the
year of German unification following Prussia's victory over France in the
Franco-Prussian War.
To clarify his position he even went to the extent of blurting out in a highly
uncharacteristic language: "Aryas are those who speak Aryan languages, what-
ever their color, whatever, their blood. In calling them Aryas we predicate
nothing of them except that the grammar of their language is Aryan - I have
declared again and again that if I say Arya, I mean neither blood nor bones
nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language."
(Biographies of the words and the home of the Aryans by Max Muller, p120)
But his original claim had done enough damage for people in Europe had been
using this racial theory for political movemnets, and lately had been exported
to India in order to include in the Mecaulayean scheme of Indian education
system to serve the purpose of mental colonisation of Indian masses.
The tragedy is that even after the British left this closed mentality and
clinging to colonial heritage still persists, as we have seen by the comments
of some offsprings of this Mecaulayean system, and the hard-core Marxist
historians who still continue to propagate this Aryan racial myth since it
suits their class-conflict theory. Also pleae read more evidence against this
Aryan race myth in Colin Renfrew's book (excerpts from which have been posted
by Mr. Arun Gupta. Thanks Arun)
Now some specific comments:
>>[ snip ]>What made you think that he is hardly an authority on India, just
>>him being an
>>American does not disqualify him to be an authority on India. With the same
>>logic, one should also dismiss Max Muller, the original exponent of the Aryan
>>race and Aryan Invasion theory. Nay, Muller did not even ever visit India in
>>his entire life-time while Frawley has spent most of his studentlife in
>>India, which evantually led him to accept the sanyansihood, and now he is a
>>director of the American Institute of Vedic Studies in Santa Fe.
>I didn't say that. My criticism was solely of his arguments and the
>evidence, or more precisely, his interpretation of the evidence that he
>presents in his numerous books. Any prejudices based on his nationality or
>ethnic origins are solely yours.
Well, let me quote you what exactly you had said in your earlier post:
"Frawley is no authority on India (....., he is an American...)"
I was only responding to your this comment. If you did not mean any prejudice
based on nationality etc., please let us know why do you think he is not an
authority on India, and what is the criterion which makes somebody an
authority on India. Also please remember these criteria must also apply to
all those who (in the present context) have been either in the past or at
present advocates of AIT. Further, the Aryan Invasion does not solely a matter
of Indian subcontinent, it has even a stronger bearing on European civilisa-
tional issues, it has inspired an intense debate in the academia in Europe,
has been the basis of many political and nationalist movements in Europe. So
any person who has interest or is affected by the events either in India or
Europe is well qualified to comment on issues pertaining to AIT etc.
>Max Muller may not have visited India, but
>his writings are works of scholarship, not idle speculation. Frawley did not
>accept "sanyasihood", whatever you take that nebulous term to mean. He was
>declared a "Vedacharya" by his ashrama, something the back cover of his
>books claim to be a rare honour for a westerner. This, of course, is
>wonderfully misleading. Indian vedacharyas are ten a penny. I suspect that
>the rarity of the honour is because few westerners are interested enough in
>Indian culture in the first place to grasp the essentials, and not because
>of any tremendous personal merit.
The above personal comments have nothing to do with the subject of this
thread.
>>>In most of the cases, as for example in his astronomical arguments, he lacks
>>>even the basic concepts and terminology required to communicate with a
>>>reader. No, the stuff posted will not answer any questions. It is widely
>>>accepted that there was indeed an Invasion by nomadic tribes of the North
>>>Indian plains and I have yet to come across a convincing argument to the
>>>contrary.
>>
>>Please again cite the specific points in Frawley's article, which in your
>view
>>are in confrontation with the archaelogical or modern findings?
>>
>See above. Once again, the point that I wished to make is that it is not so
>much evidence as its interpretation that form theories in archaeology
>and history. Frawley's interpretations are miserable.
>
>>Please remember the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is only a 'Theory' not a
>>factual event. And theories keep changing with the emergence of new knowledge
>>and data. It is a scientific truth. The AIT is not accepted as Gospel truth
>>(though perhaps it may turn out to be the greatest hoax of the history
>>pedrpetrated by the European historians without any scientific or literary
>>evidence.)
>I think you're entering this argument with a-priori prejudice towards the
>"AIT".
I do not have any a-priori prejudice for or against AIT, I am only interested
in knowing the truth, and that is why advocating this in the light of new data
and new evidence, let us re-examine the entire edifice of AIT. Have an open
mind on the subject. Just because some European scholars had propounded some
theory, we must not accept it as a Gospel truth. (If you do not like Frawley's
approach, read again what Colin Renfrew says on the subject).
>Theories are not the wild fantasies of racist con-artists, as you
>seem to think. Theories are formed in order to account for empirical data,
>and the currently accepted view of what happened in prehistoric North India
>is based on such data. One theory has reason to supercede another if it
>presents a more convincing account of events and fits facts better.
Well, fully agreed with you about the general scientific rational behind the
acceptance or rejection of a theory, and that is what exactly I have done in
my posts. On the other hand you are showing a total closed-minded mentality and
have been clinging to AIT like a die-hard fanatic. To quote Max Plank - the
discoverer of Quantum Theory, who had said that only death can separate people
from their long held beliefs. This may be true in your case but I am sure there
are enough open minded people who are willing to listen and change their
views based on new data and new light on this subject.
>I don't see this happening with the Frawley camp.
Are you sure? There is no universally accepted theory, the AIT is already
dead since there is no prehistoric data to back it up. If you think otherwise,
please show this data.
>>The most weird aspect of the AIT is that it has its origin not in any Indian
>>records (no where in any of the ancient Indian scriptures or Puransa, etc.
>>there is any mention of this AIT, sounds really incredible!), but in
>>European politics and German nationalism of 19th century. AIT has
>>no support either in Indian literature, tradition, science, or not
>>even in any of the south Indian (Dravidians who were supposed
>>to be the victims of the AI) literature and tradition. It is essentially the
>
>On what basis are you making these remarks? From what sources did you draw
>these conclusions?
Again show any evidence in support of AIT in either Vedas or other Indian
scriptures, or any other Indian literature prior to 18th-19th century, or
cite any reference in South Indian scriptures or literatures to prove that
either some nomadic people invaded northern India or the so-called Dravidians
were driven by north-Indians/Aryans/Brahmins/etc. to the south of India. On
the contrary, in Europe especialy in Germany and France during 18-19th century
political movements had drawn inspiration from Aryan race and its superiority,
even much before it was made to be known to the Indian people.
>>creation of 18th and 19th century Europeans, especially Germans, and this
>>idea was later adopted and fully exploited by the British government in India
>>as a convenient tool to divide the Indian society on racial and ethnic lines
>>with the aim of controlling and justifying its occupation of the Indian
>>subcontinent. Now, since more and more evidence is emerging which not only
>>challenges the old myth of Aryan Invasion, but is destroying all the pillers
>>on which AIT had been assiduously but falsly built. And still the Indian
>>history books are not yet prepared to accept the verdict, and make the
>amends.
>>
>Sure. This is the same British government that *began* the systematic and
>scientific excavation of ancient Indian artefacts and created the study of
>archaeology in India. This is the same set of people, who being outsiders
>and conquerors, bothered to find some factual basis for the myths and
>legends that have carried down in Indian culture, whose native people didn't
>bother to do so themselves. You are talking nonsense. Please explain how you
>think the "AIT" has anything to do with British political aspirations inb
>the subcontinent. It was the Germans you disparage of who undertook the
>monumental task of learning a completely foriegn and very difficult language
>(to them), Sanskrit, and who put together the authoritative lexicon of the
>language (Otto B{o:thlingk & Rudolf Roth's Sanskrit W{o:rtenbuch) and who
>began deciphering *our* old texts. The British produced the first annoted
>translation of the Mahabharata. The Indian history books are based on
>Western foundations for a good reason - we didn't do diddley squat on our
>own.
Acknowledged that British and Europeans scholars did do all that. But what does
it have to do with the AIT's validity? Nothing. You are self-contradicting
yourself when earlier you had formulated some rationale for the verification of
a theory, and now you are stating that since so and so did so much in other
areas, some has so much reputation in certain field, we must accept whatever
he has to produce on AIT. It does not make any sense, may be to you it
does.
>Whatever you said above does not in any way undermine the strength of
>the "AIT".
Well, let us see the 'strength' of AIT from you Mr. Iyenger. Show us what are
strong, irrefutable, clinching points of AIT.
>> It is a known fact that most of the original proponents of AIT were not
>>historians or archaeologists but had missionary and political axe to grind.
>>Max Muller in fact had been paid by the East India Company to further its
>>colonial aims, and others like Lassen and Weber were ardent German national-
>>ists, with hardly any authority on India, only motivated by the superiority
>
>Once again, please cite evidence in place of wild conjecture. This is all rot.
Your comments clearly indicate that you have neither cared to read the other
two articles on this thread, nor dared to respond them. Most of your queries,
and cavils have been answered in those two articles. Please read before making
inane comments.
>>of German race/nationalism through white aryan race theory, which eventually
>>ended up in the most calamitous event of 20th century: the World War II. Even
>>in the early times of the AIT's onward journey of acceptance, there were
>>numerous challengers like CJH Hayes, Boyed C. Shafer and Hans Kohn
>>who made a deep study of the evolution and character of nationalism in
>>Europe. They had exposed the unscientificness of many of the social sciences
>>which were utilized in the 19th century to create the myth of AIT.
>>
>There were *NO* social sciences before the British. They did all the work in
>finding the evidence, and then interpreted it.
I do not understand what you mean by 'no social sciences before the British'.
What I mentioned was in the context of European society, and the consequences
of AIT on European society. And FYI there was social sciences in 19th and 18th
century in Europe and India. What was not available at that time was the
science of archaelogy and linguistic. And still scholars came out with this
AIT without any archaeological and liguistic evidences. And the reason for this
was again the European politics, and not the academic curiosity or excellence.
>It is only later that ICS
>officials became interested in the subject and eventually took over as India
>gained independance. I hate repeating myself, but substantiate your claims.
>As for the studies of european psyche, I can always find you any number of
>crackpots who promote just about any claim. I tend to accept a united
>consensus of a large group of experts in the field over one random citation.
>Can you provide this?
This shows how little you know about the controversy of AIT. This controversy
has been going on for decades, if not from the very beginning when the theory
was first propounded. Numerous Indian and European scholars have expressed
their views on both sides of the issue. It is not one randon 'crackpot' making
noise. Perhaps, you are advised to go to the library and consult any recent
book on Aryan race/invasion theory. Now, more and more scholars in the field
are openly refuting AIT/ACT/etc.
>> In the last couple of decades, the discovery of the lost track of the
>>Rigvedic river Saraswati, the excavation of a chain of Harappan sites from
>>Ropar in the Punjab to Lothal and Dhaulavira in Gujarat all along this lost
>>track, the discovery of the archaelogical remains of Vedis and Yupas
>>connected with Vedic Yajnas at Harrapan sites like Kalibangan, decipherment
>>of the Harappan script by many scholars as a language of the Sanskrit
>>family, the view of the archaelogists like Prof. Dales, Prof. Allchin etc.
>>that the end of the Harappan civilisation came not because of the so called
>>Aryan invasion but as a result of a flood, the discovery of the lost
>>Dwarka city beneath the sea water near Gujarat coast and its similarity
>>with harappan civilisation - all these new findings indicate convincingly
>>towards the full identity of the Harappan/Indus civilisation with Vedic
>>civilisation, and demand a reexamination of the entire Aryan Race/Invasion
>>Theories which have been forcefully pushed down to the throats of Indian
>>society by some European manipulators all these years.
>>
>This is all incorrect. The archaelogical evidence for the existence of the
>Sarasvati is a little thin at present, amounting to estimates of soil
>composition from Landsat data. While people are vigorously looking into the
>matter, it does not in any way undermine the "AIT" as yet.
What makes you think that the evidence for the existence of the Saraswati is
thin? In the recent World Archaelogical Conference III, held in N.Delhi Dec. 5-
11, 1994 (under the presidentship of Prof. Jack Golson) had a special session
on the drying up of Saraswati and the latest Landstadt satellite photographs
which confirm that Saraswati was once a mighty river, nearly 8 km wide at
certain places. And your claim that the existence of Saraswati does not in
any way undermine the AIT, shows how little you know about the subject. Please
first read the basic premises of AIT before making puerile comments.
>The excavation of
>the Harrappan civilization is hardly new news. What does this have to do
>with anything?
(See above) Also for your information, 70 years ago scholars did not know
what is known now that Mohenho-Daro and Harappa were the part of more than
2500 settlements stretching from Baluchistan to the Ganga and beyond and down
to the Tapti Valley, covering a million and a half square km. Also most of
these settlements are concentrated not along the Indus or even the Gangas,
but along the now dry Saraswati river, which had dried around 2000BC. Also in
these excavations skeletons of horses, evidences of rice etc. were
discovered. The Rig Veda celebrates not the Ganga, but the Saraswati as the
holiest river. The Ganga is mentioned only once while the Saraswati is lauded
at least 50 times. Thus the Rig Veda and the archaelogy are in agreement, i.e.
the life in Rig Veda has been described as it was prior to the time when the
river Saraswati dried up. And no destruction of any civilisation by the
invading hordes of nomadic Aryas. People just moved out to different areas
after the source of the life along Saraswati/Indus/etc. dried up or in some
cases the course of the river changed. All these evidences refute the arbitra-
ry chronological order of events as advanced by the proponents of AIT. And
hence also demolishes the theory itself.
>The Harrappan script has NOT been deciphered as yet, and remains a msytery,
>primarily due to the lack of any substantial amount of writing to work
>with. The Harrappans did not leave us the equivalent of the Rosetta stone.
>The demise of the Harrappan civilization has by no means been settled and
>continues to be a hot topic of debate. What Dwarka city are you talking
>about?
I will post on this decipherment of Indus Valley script separately. And also
about Dwarka city. This only shows how little knowledge you have about various
issues related to AIT. The discovery of Dwaraka city in coastal region of
Gujarat has immence bearing on the validity of AIT as well as the mythology
and dating of Mahabharat, since the Carbon-dating of this city has indicated
its antiquity as old as 3000 BC.
>All your remarks are based on half-baked or just plain incorrect premises.
>The mood of your article seems to be fervently anti-establishment and
>anti-european rather than rational. There seems to be little point in
>debating the issue along these lines.
Again the display of the same closed-minded mentality. If you do not like the
lines of this debate, please choose your own approach to debate this issue of
AIT, and present your case in support of AIT instead of castigating the oppo-
nents' views for the sake of criticism.
Dinesh Agrawal...
=========================================================================
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 20:11:17 EST
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <94364.201117DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj
Subject: Re: aryan origin, Part 1/3
In article <3e1sm4$6ps@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, verma@awecim.enet.dec.com (Virendra
Verma) says:
>
> Opposition to AIT is as old as AIT itself. The reason it did not
> get recognition was that India was ruled by colonists and therefore
> such opposition was insignificant.
>
> When AIT was being developed around mid-ninteenth century, Swami
> Dayananda Saraswati and Swami Vivekanda opposed it vehemently
> purely based on Vedic scriptures. Swami Dayananda's profound
> knowledge of Sanskrit and Vedic literature allowed him to tear
> apart the basis for AIT from documented literature point of view.
> Obviously, he was no archaeologist. Later, Sri Aurobindo analysed
> the theory from philological view point. He found philology not
> only unscientific in its analysis but being misused by stretching
> its domain in the study of cultures.
>
> During British Raj, archaeology was in its infancy. Many data from
> the scriptures were either interpreted as myths or a matter of
> coincidence. The euphoria of the success of physical sciences,
> combined with Imperialist's socio-political motives, also
> contributed to the success of the AIT during early 20th century.
Very well put, the reasons of the so-called acceptance of the AIT by a vast
majority of Indian and Western scholars during the initial period this theory.
And now when more and more evidence is emerging to challenge the very founda-
tion of this outdated theory, the most vocal critics of the opponents of AIT
are mostly Indians themselves. If a similar case had been existed say for Greek
or say Jewish civilisation, there would have been special conferences, numerous
articles, and official patronage to the new evidences, but in India we are
still carrying the baggage of the British colonialism that anything which
even slightly goes counter to the established rules of British policy are
quickly termed as regressive, communal, Hindu chauvanism, and what not.
It is strange that the first major university textbook to seriously question
the theory of Aryan Invasion has not come from India but from the West, in USA.
In his recent edition of Survey of Hinduism (SUNY, State University of New
York Press 1994), Prof. Klaus Klostermaier has noted important objections to
this theory. He suggests that the weight of the emerging and existing evidences
is clearly against this theory, and it should no longer be regarded as the
main model and basis of interpreting the life of ancient India. Survey of
Hinduism is perhaps the main textbook used in North America for university
courses on the study of Hinduism. And the author is neither a Hindu nor an
Indian, he is a Catholic priest. He is not speaking relative to any Hindu
agenda but as a scholar and academician.
Dinesh Agrawal...
=========================================================================
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 20:40:52 EST
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <94364.204052DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: To: Jayant Mahajan - RE: AIT
In article <Pine.ULT.3.91a.941229180233.5450B-100000@stein3.u.washington.edu>,
Anshuman Pandey <apandey@u.washington.edu> says:
>
>> 1) The Aryan Invasion Theory is a Myth.
>
>Where's your proof. This stance is very Gandhian. Why cannot people
>accept that India consists of numerous peoples of different
>racial backgrounds
In the last few days several netters have commented on the invalidity of
AIT. Please explain what other kind of proof is needed to shatter your long
held belief. In my several posts, I have presented various kinds of evidences,
I have posted several articles from scholars who have challenged AIT based on
new data. Now regarding your distress that why cannot people accept that India
consists of people of different racial backgrounds: well, there are only three
primary races, namely, Caucasian, the Mangolian and the Negroid. Both the
Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally
placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the
so-called Aryans of the north and the Dravidians of the south or other
communities of Indian subcontinent is not a racial type. Biologically all are
the same Caucasian type, only when closer to the equator the skin gets darker,
and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to get a
little smaller. And these differences can not be the basis of two altogether
different races.
>> 2) There are no Aryan and Dravidian races. It is one Indian race.
>
>Ok, so explain the difference in stature? Characteristics, tongue,
>and features cannot become so diverse in such a small area.
See above. Similar differences one can observe even more distinctly among the
people of pure Caucasian white race of Europe. Caucasian can be of any color
ranging from pure white to almost pure black, with every shade of brown in
between. The predominent Caucasian type found in the world is not blond-blue-
eyed northern European but the black hair, brown-eyed darker skinned Medite-
rranean type that we find from southern Europe to north India. Similarly,
the Mongolian race is not yellow. Many Chinese have skin whiter than many
so-caled Caucasians. So Dr. Pandey, it is not surprising that one single
race with so diverse characteristics can reside in a small area like India.
Do you believe that Europe which has much wider diversity has 30 different
races?
>> 3) The Indus Valley Civilization is the Vedic Aryan/Dravida civilization
>
>Where's your proof. The comparison of skeletal remains denounces this
>theory.
If the Vedas were composed at the banks of Saraswati river which did really
existed before 2000BC, and there was no invasion by any nomadic Aryans to
destroy the Indus Valley civilization (in fact there was no destruction of
any civilisation at all, the people who inhabited the area just moved out due
to natural disasters to other areas either in the interior of India or towards
the western regions.), various artifects and recent decipherment of the
Indus valley script by Dr. SR Rao, did indicate to only only conclusion:
Indus Valley Civilisation was nothing but Vedic civilisation.
(Also please read Colin Renfrew's book for more details, excerpts of which
have been posted on the net.)
Dinesh Agrawal...
=========================================================================
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 21:12:29 EST
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <94364.211229DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: To Dinesh Agrawal - RE: AIT
In article <Pine.ULT.3.91a.941229172306.4129A-100000@stein3.u.washington.edu>,
Anshuman Pandey <apandey@u.washington.edu> says:
>
>> The most weird aspect of the AIT is that it has its origin not in any Indian
>> records (no where in any of the ancient Indian scriptures or Puransa, etc.
>
>I don't know where you people are getting the "invasion" bit from. BUT, the
>Vedas DO mention the Aryan "invasion" of Bharata. The Rgveda, like other
>religious documents must be looked upon with a greater light. The ancient
>scholar wanted to preserve everything they possibly could. If one were to
>look at the Avestan texts of the ancient Iranians, one would find information
>referring on how the Asuras (Iranians) defeated the aboriginal tribes of
>the Iranian plateau. The stories are celestialised. Meaning that history
>was made into myth to preserve it. The Puranas may be disregarded for any
>historical evidence. The Rdveda contains several lines on the peoples the
>Aryans faced when coming to India, ie. the Ahis, Iksvakus, the Yadus, the
>Vritras, the Rakshasa. These are not the "demons" you find in Hindu
>mythology, but names of tribes and peoples the Aryans met. The Rgveda keeps
>this information in this order: the Aryans, who called themselves "Brahma"
>were divided into smallered tribes called "ganas" who were ruled by
>"devas". These "devas" were war-lords who found these Ahis, Iksvakus, etc.
>Since the "devas" fought these tribes, they were seen as good, and the
>adversaries were seen as bad. Ram Chandra Jain has published a text called
>"The Ethnology of Ancient Bharata" which discusses this fully.
The so-called conflicts in Rig Veda which you are interpreting as between
Aryans and non-Aryans, are in fact largely the 'conflicts' of natural elements.
Indra, the Thunder-God of the Rigveda, occupies a central position in the
naturalistic aspects, since it is he who forces the clouds to part with their
all-important wealth, the rain. In this task, he is pitted against all sorts
of demons and spirits whose main activity is the prevention of rainfall and
sunshine. The second category of conflicts in the Rigveda represents the
genuine conflicts between the Vedic people and the Iranians. These conflicts
pertaint to only Iranians and not to any 'non-Aryans' has been proved by the
fact that nowhere else outside the Vedic literature do the terms, which refer
to the enemies of the Vedic people, occur other than in the Iranian texts.
The Iranians not only called their God Ahura (Vedic Asura), and their demons
Daevas (Vedic Devas), but they also called themselves Dahas and Dahyus (Vedic
Dasas and Dasyus). The oldest Iranian texts, moreover depict the conflict
between the Daeva-worshippers and Dahyus on behalf of the Dahyus, as the Vedic
texts depict them on behalf of the Deva-worshippers. Indra, the dominant
God of Rigveda, is represented in the Iranian texts by a demon Indra. There
are numerous similar counter similarities between Iranian and Vedic texts.
Therefore to interpret these conflicts of Rigveda as the evidence for Aryan
Invasion of North India is perversion of the factual situation. The fact is
there is not a slightest evidence in Vedas to prove the destruction of non-
Aryan civilisation of any kind by the so-called Aryan people. Vedic people
and the Iranians were the same people at one time, but for some reason got
separated and the two people faught with each other for natural resources.
That is all the Vedic and Iranian texts imply by the conflict therein.
>> there is any mention of this AIT, sounds really incredible!), but in
>> European politics and German nationalism of 19th century. AIT has
>> no support either in Indian literature, tradition, science, or not
>> even in any of the south Indian (Dravidians who were supposed
>> to be the victims of the AI) literature and tradition.
>
>WRONG! No where does it say that the Dravidians were the adversaries of the
>Aryan peoples. The Dravdians and Aryans had no contact prior to 300 BC.
>You can check Colin Renfrew's texts on this, as well as Tamil and Sanskrit
>government text that were preserved.
Which simply means that Dravidians were not the original inhabitants of Indus
Valley, and the Indus valley civilisation was not the Dravidian as was believed
by the AIT proponents initially. You are only proving the point made by many
opponents of the AIT.
>> decipherment of the Harappan script by many scholars as a language of
>> the Sanskrit family,
>
>When did this occur?!?!
Well, in early 1980 by Dr. S.R. Rao, former head of Archaelogical Survey of
India. Please refer to his monumental work: Decipherment of Indus script,
in which he shows the language used in the Indus script was an Aryan language.
>> the view of the archaelogists like Prof. Dales, Prof. Allchin etc.
>> that the end of the Harappan civilisation came not because of the so called
>> Aryan invasion but as a result of a flood, the discovery of the lost
>> Dwarka city beneath the sea water near Gujarat coast and its similarity
>The inhabitants of Dwarka were a people called the Yadus. The Yadus were
>a branch of the Ahi sub-race of Mediterreanean peoples. Anyhow, the Indus
>cities fell due to flood, invasion, and disease. NOT only flood. Archaelogical
>excavations show ten layers of burned city at Sutkagendor, Lothal, and at
>various smaller sites on the Indus. Some cities were indeed sacked by
>invaders.
What is the proof that some cities were destroyed by Aryans coming down from
some fabled land in the central north. This is the main theme of AIT, we have
been debating, not some local skirmishes between tribes or two kingdoms etc.
which can also be termed as invasions. So please be focused.
>> with harappan civilisation - all these new findings indicate convincingly
>> towards the full identity of the Harappan/Indus civilisation with Vedic
>> civilisation, and demand a reexamination of the entire Aryan Race/Invasion
>> Theories which have been forcefully pushed down to the throats of Indian
>> society by some European manipulators all these years.
>
>Yes. Perhaps through assimilation. Not all Indus peoples assimilated with
>Aryan peoples. What do you make of the Minaro tribe living in the Hindu Kush?
>They are white skinned with black hair and blue eyes. They number in the 500
>and speak a dialect of Kashmiri. No, they are not Bactrian Greeks, they are
>an offshoot of those Indo-Iranians who first came to the area circa 1600 BC.
This is not same as hordes of white Aryan race came down and destroyed a
fluorishing civilisation and killed thousands of people like barbarians, and
subjugated or converted the rest into slavery or to the fourth caste, the
shudras, and so on. This is what entails from the acceptance of the AIT, and
its advocates and ardent political supporters in India are using this theory
to divide Indian society, to create hatred and animosity between various
castes, and in the process using this falsehood for their own political
aggrandisement. And this is what must stop.
The British rulers of colonial India, Marxist scholars and politicians,
Dravidian nationalists, Caste reform advocates of various types, Christian
missionaries and Muslim groups have used the invasion theory of worst kind to
discredit or divide Hindu society and culture, particularly its Brahminical
side. Dravidians, the lower castes, and Muslims have all at one time or the
other identified themselves as the non-Aryans and indigenous people of India
whom the invading Aryans were supposed to have conquered and enslaved. This
is all based on pure conjecture and a monumental historical hoax. And its
exploitation for harming the Indian society any more must stop.
Dinesh Agrawal...
