Aryan Invasion Theory: Revising History to Change the Future (excerpts)
Siddhartha Jaiswal - Stanford University

According to the Western view of Indian history, the Mahabharata was probably just a petty skirmish between tribes, if it ever happened at all, and Rama most likely never even existed. In fact, the only thing definitive the textbooks said about Indian history was that a group of tall, fair-skinned nomads called Aryans invaded India, displacing the native population and creating the current Indian culture. All of Indian history, as Indians understood it, was merely mythology or the musings of some talented storyteller. Moreover, the Indian civilization was not even indigenous to India; rather, it was created by the same people who had established civilization in Ancient Greece and the Middle East.

What these textbooks said greatly undermined my belief in my culture. It meant that all the stories I heard as a child were just fantasy; it meant that my culture was founded by violent barbarians; it meant that everything my culture had accomplished was lessened because it had a foreign origin. Needless to say, I, as a thirteen year old boy, was not flattered by this picture of my nation's past.

What I did not know then was that the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), which has always been disputed by prominent Indian scholars, was falling into disrepute among current historians as well. I learned much later that AIT was developed by Eurocentric historians who had certain biases regarding Indian culture. Today, however, AIT is no longer accepted as fact. But why is the debate over AIT such a pressing issue in modern India? The answer is that AIT has several serious implications for Indians, especially in our contemporary society. First, a belief in a foreign origination of Indian culture has marginalized the importance of Indian history for many, like me. It has also led many educated Hindus to develop feelings of shame and a Eurocentric attitude toward their own culture. Second, AIT has a decidedly negative impact on the contemporary Indian political and social fabric. It has created divisions between North and South Indians, different ethnic groups, and between castes. Finally, AIT needs to be discarded by the very demands of historical truth. The Indian psyche and social system has suffered greatly because AIT, and some measure of justice must be exacted before these wounds can heal. By discrediting AIT, Indians can regain pride in their ancient and glorious history, and use it as a foundation to build a more united, stronger India.

 In order to understand more fully the damaging effects AIT has had in India, it is necessary to examine the theory in some detail and explore the biases and misconceptions of those who originally proposed it. These late nineteenth century scholars, who included such luminaries as Max Muller and Max Weber, strongly believed in a race of people known as Aryans who were the ancestors and founders of culture in ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, and India. The Aryans, according to these scholars were tall, fair-skinned, light-eyed nomads. The Aryans invaded India around 1500 BC and displaced the darker-skinned native population there, eventually subjecting them to the Aryan culture and religion. They forced the natives, known as Dravidians, to move south and put them into the lowest castes of Aryan society. Eventually, through centuries of interbreeding and cultural miscegenation, the current Hindu society was formed. The main evidence for an Aryan race came from the fact that Sanskrit, the classical language of ancient India, bore a striking resemblance to Greek, Latin, and other European tongues. This similarity gave rise to a new language group: the Indo-European languages. When, in the 1920s, the ancient cities of Harappa and Mohenjodaro were discovered in northwest India, they appeared to be abandoned for no apparent reason. The invasion theorists took this as evidence that an Aryan invasion had occurred, and had displaced the earlier civilization.

In formulating this theory, the proponents of AIT had very set ideas about race and culture. "European thinkers of the era were dominated by a racial theory of man, which was interpreted primarily in terms of color" (Frawley 1996). In this era of European expansionism and colonialism, Europeans had enslaved much of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The European conquerors were primarily white, and the conquered peoples were primarily dark-skinned. Similarly, the Aryan Invasion was seen as a racial group with a common culture and language who came to India and dominated all those who were different racially or spoke a different language. They assumed that the original speakers of Indo-European language had to be lighter skinned; thus, the darker-skinned Hindus could not have been the original speakers. However, scholars are only now realizing that the simplicity of AIT does not explain the enormous complexity of Indian culture and society, nor does it even fit with the known facts. "The Aryan invasion theory is an example of European colonialism turned into a historical model" (Frawley 1994). AIT was certainly not the work of objective and open-minded scholars.

In addition, those who proposed the theory were often ardent nationalists or Christians, opposed to anything that would glorify a great culture of non-European, non-Christian origin. Max Muller had set the date for Aryan invasion at 1500 BC But Muller's basis for such a date was completely speculative. "Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era, believed in Biblical chronology" (Frawley 1994). Given then that the world was created in 4000 BC and the flood occurred in 2500 BC, it was impossible to give the Aryan invasion a date earlier than 1500 BC Also, many of these scholars had dubious credentials and motives. "Max Muller in fact had been paid by the East Indian Company to further its colonial aims, and others like Lassen and Weber were ardent German nationalists, with hardly any authority on India, only motivated by the superiority of German race/nationalism through white Aryan race theory" (Agarwal 1995).

To what ends was AIT used by the colonizers in India? It served primarily as a tool for justification of the British presence in India. The British argued that they were doing only what had been done by the Aryans centuries before (Agarwal 1995). In effect, it gave the British a way to rationalize their brutal exploitation and domination of India. It also seemed to lessen the severity of the equally brutal Muslim invasions of India prior to the British arrival. This is perhaps the most terrible use of AIT by the historians. India was described as a land dominated by foreigners ever since its inception. Karl Marx even wrote that the whole history of India was a series of invasions (Sukhwal 1971). How could such a "dominated" people find value and pride in their culture? Of what use were Rama and Krishna when they inevitably lost to the hordes of barbarians that plundered India?

The British also used AIT to 'divide and conquer' India. "They promoted religious, ethnic, and cultural divisions among their colonies to keep them under control" (Frawley 1996). Often, various principalities and kingdoms were played off against each other by inciting regional or cultural tensions in order to make British domination that much easier. Unfortunately, many of these divisions are still present in Indian society today.

Copyright © 2001 - All Rights Reserved.

a r t i c l e s    o n    a r y a n    i n v a s i o n