365bet娱乐

India has witnessed foreign invasions many a time in diverse shades in the past that resulted in different catastrophic episodes in Indian history. Indian civilization was repeatedly targeted but it managed to survive by assimilating the different cultures and beliefs. The foreigners had many political agenda to rule over and the main objective was to break the cultural heritage of India and plunder the resources. One of the most confusing topics propagated by western-inspired intellectuals and promoted by the erstwhile British rulers of India was the theory of Aryan invasion.

According to the Theory India鈥檚 earliest inhabitants were the Dravidians of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and these Dravidians were driven away South by the mighty Aryans who migrated from Central Asia during the 2^nd millennium BCE, or according to some 1500 BCE. Earlier Indologists like Max M眉ller during nineteenth century were determined to confuse India in order to glorify and propagate their religious ideology and further strengthen the British rule as part of their mission of driving Indians away from the legacy of the Vedas. On the basis of only a few superficial similarities between Indian and some other 鈥渁ncient civilizations鈥� he and his contemporary scholars tried to establish this confusing theory that directly denies the unparallelled and enviable cultural legacy of ancient Indian civilization. For Max M眉ller the culture of the vedic people represented a form of nature worship, an idea clearly influenced by Romanticism. Max M眉ller shared many of the ideas associated with Romanticism, which coloured his account of ancient religions. In particular he highlighted the formative influence on early religion of emotional communion with natural forces.^[1] Even now most of the historians are singing the same tune without any scientific logic and validity. The advocates of this unscientific theory have their own politics, and knowingly or unknowingly, they try to break the Indian movement sponsoring thereby the foreign anti-India forces. Thus, at regular intervals the proponents of the Aryan invasion theory come forward to keep it alive, and it is unfortunate that they have always received unparallelled support from a section of Indian intellectuals. They are trying to establish their statement that the Aryans were a foreign race that invaded India and the original natives here. They neither have anything to substantially prove the theory nor a clear idea about the real nature of the Aryan concept in the Vedas.

Eminent modern Indologist Michel Danino had debunked Aryan Invasion theory in his book 鈥�The Invasion That Never Was.鈥� He scraps the theory of invasion of India by the Aryans, and strongly makes it clear that India was the land of the Aryans. According to him there were not any scientific roots in early literature or in archaeological findings to prove that Aryans were outsiders or invaders. Danino examined the validity of the controversial theory from different angles: literary and geographic, archeological and cultural, anthropological and genetic. He cited several historical literary examples that go against the theory.

In BBC Knowledge^[2] journal Danino said,

鈥淢ost Indian history textbooks tell us that about 1500 BCE, semi-barbarian, Sanskritspeaking nomads called 鈥楢ryans鈥� poured from Central Asia into the Indian Subcontinent. There, they came upon the Indus or Harappan cities, destroyed them and drove survivors southward (where they became 鈥楧ravidians鈥�), although softer versions propose that the Aryans arrived after the decline of the Indus cities. Either way, they swept across the Indus plains, composed the Vedas over a few centuries, spread Sanskrit and their caste system over India, and built the mighty Ganges civilization. This neat tale, known as the 鈥楢ryan invasion theory鈥� (AIT) or 鈥楢ryan migration theory鈥� (AMT) was first propounded in the nineteenth century by European scholars, notably F Max M眉ller. It was a convenient way to explain obvious similarities between Sanskrit and Greek or Latin, since another branch of the Aryans were assumed to have migrated towards Europe. But it also allowed India鈥檚 British masters to portray themselves as 鈥榦ne more Aryan wave鈥� destined to bring about a 鈥榬eunion of the great Aryan family鈥� and to bring once more true civilization to this land! Besides, the Aryan theory proved useful in deepening divisions among Indians between high-caste (supposed descendants of the Aryans) and low-caste or tribal (supposed descendants of India鈥檚 original inhabitants), also between North and South Indians. In Europe, meantime, an obsession with racial superiority and the mythical 鈥楢ryan race鈥� added grist to the mill of a rising German nationalism, until Hitler declared that the said race was the 鈥榤aster race鈥� destined to rule the world鈥攚ith the consequences we know. But let us leave those aberrations and examine the theory in its Indian context.鈥�

In this regard, he points to the silence of the ancient Indian texts about this theory. In addition, he also discusses archaeology which has not been able to show any evidence in this case. He quotes some great Indian thinkers including Swami Vivekananda who have rejected this theory.

He said,

鈥淪wami Vivekananda, for instance, asserted, 鈥楾here is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside India.鈥� Indeed, the 峁欢惫别诲补鈥檚 geography is limited to northwest India. Moreover, as Sri Aurobindo pointed out, its rich spiritual symbolism and the complexity of its Vedic Sanskrit language are quite incompatible with the cultural status of supposed Aryan nomads. Curiously, the earliest Tamil (or 鈥�Sangam鈥�) literature is also silent about a clash with Aryans, and on the contrary lavishes praise on the Vedas. In other words both supposed aggressors and supposed victims carry no memory of the alleged invasion鈥攁 strange case of double amnesia!鈥�

This can be taken as true since in vedic literature, the word 腻谤测补 is not defined in connection with racial group, rather the word 腻谤测补 means noble man. Therefore, even in ancient texts like The 搁腻尘腻测补苍补 and The 惭补丑腻产丑腻谤补迟补, the word 腻谤测补 seen to be used as an adjective of a great or special character or noble male personality.

Giving examples of archaeology, he added,

鈥淗ad an Aryan people entered the Subcontinent, they would have brought new types of tools or weapons, new styles of pottery, figurines and other art forms; but archaeologists working in the Indus basin have detected no such intrusive culture in the 1st millennium BCE. The preceding millennium (2600鈥�1900 BCE to be precise) saw in the same region the rise and decline of Harappan cities, but in none of them has evidence of manmade destruction come to light. For these two reasons, the current consensus among archaeologists is to reject the invasion / migration theory. The cultural and technological continuum of India鈥檚 history debunks the Aryan invasion theory.鈥�^[3]

Swami Vivekananda asked strongly condemning the theory of Aryan invasion:

鈥淲hat your European Pundits say about the Aryan鈥檚 swooping down from some foreign land, snatching away the lands of the aborigines and settling in India by exterminating them, is all pure non-sense foolish talk! Strange, that our Indian scholars too, say amen to them, all these monstrous lies are being taught to our boys! This is very bad indeed.^[4] 鈥淭here is not one word in our scriptures, not one to prove that the Aryans ever came from anywhere outside India 鈥� the whole of India is Aryan, nothing else.鈥�^[5]

Likewise Swami Dayananda Saraswati questioned,

鈥淗as it been stated that the Aryans came from Iran, vanquished the aborigines...and became rulers.鈥滺e stressed that the word arya referred in the Veda to a moral or inner quality, not to any race or people, and insisted that India was the home of the Aryans-a word he used purely in its original sense of 鈥榁edic Indians.鈥�^[6] Sri Aurobindo also systematically refuted the Aryan invasion theory and said, 鈥淪o great is the force of attractive generalizations and widely popularized errors that all the world goes on perpetuating the blunder talking of the IndoEuropean races, claiming or disclaiming Aryan kinship and building on that basis of falsehood the most far-reaching political, social or pseudo-scientific conclusions. How prophetic, if we consider that this was written some twenty years before the growth of Nazism with its claims to "Aryan kinship.鈥�^[7]

So it turns out that this theory is not based on any solid evidence. Can we call anyone's observation 'a theory' that is not properly established in the right scientific way and so many profoundly wise people like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, and others have refuted that with proper logic? This theory proves nothing but the manipulative politics of history. However, there is scope for further discussion on this topic and much deliberation is needed for students of future generations and researchers to establish the actual historical information.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Sushil Mittal and Gene Thursby, Studying Hinduism: Key Concepts and Methods.

[2]:

Michel Danino, 鈥淭he Aryan Invasion: Myth or fact?鈥� In BBC Knowledge, vol. 2, issue 5, p. 77.

[3]:

Ibid., pp. 77-79.

[4]:

Swami Vivekananda, The complete works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. V, p. 534.

[5]:

Ibid., vol. III, pp. 292-293.

[6]:

Sri Aurobindo, On the Mahabharata, p. 10.

[7]:

Loc. cit.