|
Page < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >
Evidence from Indian tradition
The Aryan invasion theory and its
reconstruction of India's ancient history is in head-on
contradiction with Indian tradition on many points.
Vedic Lore: The Vedas nor any other
Sanskrit scripture make any reference to an original homeland
outside India, in fact, all descriptions of the Vedic homeland,
called variously, Aryavarta, Bharatvarsha, Ila, etc., apply to the
Indian subcontinent and nowhere else. The Rig Veda repeatedly refers
to Saptasindu, or the seven rivers, a clear description of the
Punjab with the Saraswati to the east, the Indus to the west, and
its five tributaries in between, all the rivers are explicitly
invoked in the nadi sukta (X.75).
As the historian P.
T. Srinivasan Iyengar pertinently noted in 1926,
"A careful study of the Vedas...reveals the fact that Vedic culture
is so redolent of the Indian soil and of the Indian atmosphere that
the idea of the non-Indian origin of that culture is absurd." It
is hard to imagine that the Vedic people, who had such a strong bond
with their land and constantly praised or deified its mountains and
forests and rivers, would not have carried into their culture the
least memory of their supposed ancestral steppes away in Central
Asia. A strange amnesia for people who cultivated their memory so
methodically that they could transmit the four Vedas orally
generation after generation to the present day.
" As
far as I can see," writes the eminent British
archaeologist Colin Renfrew,
"there
is nothing in the Hymns of the Rigveda which demonstrates that the
Vedic-speaking populations were intrusive to the area...Nothing
implies that the Aryans were strangers there."
Thomas Trautmann,
for instance traces the history of those illegitimate
extrapolations, and concludes that "the Dasysys image of the
'dark-skinned savage' is only imposed on the Vedic evidence with a
considerable amount of text-torturing."
 Mark Kenoyer,
a leading U.S. archaeologist who has worked on Harappan cities for
over twenty years, refers to the "uncritical readings of the
Vedic texts by some scholars."
George
Erdosy, a Canadian archaeologist, is refreshingly
perceptive:
"Even apparently
clear indications of historical struggles between dark aborigines
and Arya conquerors turn out to be misleading....(The Dasas and
Dasyus) appear to be demonic rather than human enemies...It is a
cosmic struggle which is described in detailed (Vedic) accounts that
are consistent with one another."
There is, however, a subtle
paradox central to the old misinterpretation of the Veda:
we are asked to believe that in a few centuries, the Aryans not only
composed the Veda, but conquered Northern India, "imposed"
over most of the subcontinent their culture and literature and
founded on Sanskrit, then built up a great civilization from scratch
in the Gangetic plains - quite a stunning development, if we
remember that the said Aryans were pictured as semi-primitive
pastoral and illiterate, and presumed to faced the opposition of the
more civilized Dravidians.
Not only that, the Rig
Veda makes dozens of references to the sea or the ocean, which
"clearly show a maritime culture," in the words of the
Vedic scholar David Frawley:
"The
image of the ocean permeates the entire text of the Rig Veda."
Even India's eastern and western oceans are clearly mentioned (X.
136.5), so are
ships and shipping. All this does not fit with invaders from
landlocked Central Asia, which
is why this prominent aspect of the Rig Vedic environment was
obscured by conventional scholars. Yet, according to a prominent Indian
historian (A History of India History - By
Romila Thapar, p. 43): "The earliest religious ideas
of the Aryans were those of a primitive animism where the forces
around them, which they could not control or understand, were
invested with divinity and personified as male or female gods."
Epic and Puranic Lore:
According to
Marxist historian,
Romila Thapar, the great War described in the
Mahabharata, is, the
glorification of a "local feud" between two Aryan tribes
sometimes between 1000 and 700 B.C: as for the Ramayana, the war
between Rama and Ravana may have been originally "a description
of local conflicts between the agriculturists of the Ganges Valley
and the more primitive hunting and food-gathering societies of the
Vindhyan region."!!!! One is left wondering whose imagination
is the wilder - that of our Epic (Sanskrit) poets, if they could
magnify "local conflicts" into virtual world wars and such
"primitive societies into glorious kingdoms and empires full of
great heroes, or that of our good historians, who can turn these
Epics into such insipid tiffs.
The Puranas explicitly mention
migrations out of India.
(source: The Invasion That Never Was
-
By Michel Danino and Sujata
Nahar
***
The view that the Aryas were white in color and that they were
divided into 3 classes – Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas was proposed by some
Western Indologists who telescoped race, color and varna. Griffith deliberately introduced the notion of a racial
conflict between the Aryas and the Dravidas based on color. The Vedic hymns have not made such a distinction nor implied any conflict between the two.
Nor have the post-Vedic writings in Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit and Tamil mentioned such a
conflict. Indian writings have not attributed white color to Aryas or black to
Dravidas.
The color and racial conflict is a Western concoction. Any objective search for facts will explode several myths
propagated by Western Indologists and their Indian fans.
The
Lotus-Eyed God. Keshava, One Who Has Long, Black Matted Locks. Krishna,
Dark-Complexioned Lord. It
has been said that in Krishna we have the fullest and the most perfect
manifestation of the Divine.
Demolished
once for all: Aryan Invasion Theory
 Girilal
Jain ( - 1933)
doyen of Indian journalists and editor of The
Times of India from 1978-1988, was
a passionate crusader of the Hindu cause. Author of The Hindu
Phenomenon, he has observed in his
masterful review of Shrikant G. Talageri's
‘Aryan Invasion Theory and
Indian Nationalism,’ published in 1993
thus:
“An
unknown Indian has taken on proponents of the Aryan
invasion/migration theory, demolished their case, and established
that northern India is the original home of the Aryans and the
Indo-European family of languages. The importance of this remarkable
achievement cannot be exaggerated. In course of time, it can compel
the revision of the history not only of Indian but also world
civilization.”
Since
then, Talageri, a not-so-unknown Indian now, has come up with two
more works. His ‘The Rigveda:
A Historical Analysis’ (2000) established that Vedic
Aryans were inhabitants of the area to the east of Punjab,
traditionally known as Aryavarta; that the region of Saptasindhu
formed the western periphery of their activities and that the Aryans
migrated from the east to the west within India and beyond it. For
this, he relied solely on a detailed analysis of the Rigveda.
His latest book, “The
Rigveda and the Avesta: the Final Evidence,”
seeks to prove conclusively beyond all reasonable doubt that India
was the original homeland of the Indo-European family of languages,
that the Rigvedic people were settled in areas around and to the
east of the Sarasvati river in at least the third millennium BCE if
not earlier, that the proto-Iranians who later became Zoroastrians
were settled in the areas to the west of the Vedic Aryans, and that
both started expanding westward around that period.
As the
name of the book suggests, Talageri collects, collates and compares
a massive amount of evidence from the Rigveda and the Avesta and
also marshals undisputed recorded facts from Mesopotamian history
about the Mitanni and the Kassites to support his conclusions. He
relies on non-controversial data such as names of people, animals
and places, and on the provenance and numerical frequency of their
occurrences, rather than subjective interpretations of esoteric
texts.
We teach our children even today as settled
facts that nomadic Aryans invaded/migrated to India around 1500 BCE,
destroyed the Indus Valley culture and began what is known as the
Vedic Age, and produced Rigveda around 1200 BCE. However, this is
only a theory, and an extremely weak one at that.
That there is not a shred of evidence
for it in either the ancient literature or archaeology, that it is
based on nothing more solid than some striking similarities among
the Indo-European languages, that there is an overwhelming body of
solid evidence against it, and that even the linguistic data
supporting it can be better explained by an alternative opposite
theory, has not daunted its proponents who are deeply entrenched in
the academia, media and, worst of all, in politics.
Originally cooked up by 19th
century European scholars to serve
the interests of India’s colonial masters, the theory has now been
appropriated by current political ideologies whose sole purpose is
to keep India weak, divided and confused. It is used to deepen and
exploit regional, linguistic and racial cleavages in Indian society,
deny nativity and originality to Hindu civilization, and justify
later invasions: if Aryans came from outside, how can the Hindus
cavil at Muslim or European invaders?
 This
is not the first time that the Aryan Invasion Theory has been
disproved. It has been demolished several times over in the past.
Talageri’s specialty is that he uses only objective,
non-controversial and verifiable data from ancient texts to support
his conclusions. Talageri’s point of departure is the internal
chronology of the Rigveda. The Rigveda, the oldest book in the world
and the most primary source of knowledge about ancient India,
consists of 1028 hymns divided in ten Books, or Mandalas. The
composition of these hymns, their collation and compilation in the
present form, must have been a gradual process stretching over a
vast geographical expanse, spanning several centuries if not
millennia, and involving generations of seers, kings and other
actors.
That
argument can be simply stated. Rigveda and Avesta have a lot in
common—names of people, animals, meters, geography. However, the
Early Books of Rigveda have very little in common with Avesta, while
the Middle Books have a little more. But it is the Late Books of
Rigveda that have a lot in common with Avesta, pointing to a period
of contemporary development.
Apart
from names and name-elements, there is the evidence of the
development and use of meters used in various hymns of the different
Books. The earliest hymns in the Avesta, the Gathas, composed by
Zarathustra, use the six-line Mahapankti meter, which is used only
in the Late Books of the Rigveda. On this parameter also, the
evidence points to the same conclusion: the common development of
the joint Indo-Iranian culture represented by these two sacred books
took place in the period of Late Books of Rigveda. The
Early and the Middle Books of Rigveda belong to a period which is
older than the period of the development of this joint culture.
The
geographical evidence of Rigveda is very clear and unambiguous. It
shows that the Vedic Aryans, in the period of the Early and the
Middle books, were inhabitants of interior parts of India, to the
east of river Sarasvati and were only just expanding into and
becoming acquainted with areas further west. The geographical
horizon of the Rigveda extends from (at least) western Uttar Pradesh
in the east to eastern and southern Afghanistan in the West. Let us
divide it in three regions: the eastern region comprising the
Sarasvati and areas to its east, mainly modern Haryana and western
UP; the western region comprising the Indus and areas to its west,
mainly the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan, Afghanistan and
contiguous areas of southern Central Asia; and the central region
comprising Saptasindhu or Punjab between the Sarasvati and Indus.
The eastern region is clearly known to the whole of the Rigveda.
Copious references to the rivers such as Sarasvati, Drshadvati,
Hariyupiya, Yavyavati, Ashmanvati, Yamuna, Ganga, places such as
Ilayaspada, Kikata, and animals such as elephant, buffalo, peacock
and spotted deer are scattered all over the Rigveda, but
particularly in the Early books. In sharp contrast, the western
region is totally unknown to the Early Books, only very newly
familiar to the Middle Books, but quite familiar to the Late Books.
The western places (except a solitary reference to Gandharva in a
late hymn), animals, lakes and mountains are totally unknown to the
Early as well as the Middle Books, and exactly three rivers are
mentioned in Book IV, which represents the western-most thrust of
the Vedic Aryans in the Middle period.
The late books, on the other hand, are strewn with references to
rivers such as Sindhu, Amitabha, Rasa, Svetya, Kubha, Krumu, Gomati,
Sarayu and Susoma; places such as Gandhari, mountains such as
Arjikya and Mujawat, lakes such as Saryanavat, and animals such as
Bactrian camel, Afghan horse, mountain sheep, mountain goat and
boar.
Most
interesting are the references to the central region—the
Saptasindhu or Punjab between Indus and Sarasvati. Very
significantly, the Nadi Sukta lists the rivers from the east to the
west. Book VI, the oldest book, does not know any of the five rivers
of Punjab. The second oldest book, Book III, mentions only the two
easternmost rivers—Vipas (Beas) and Sutudri (Sutlej). The third
oldest book, Book VII, mentions Parushni (Ravi), the third river
from the east, with reference to the Battle of Ten Kings in which
the non-Vedic enemies figure as western people of the fourth river
Asikni (Chenab). Even the phrase Saptasindhu first appears in the
Middle Books.
As
Girilal Jain had observed,
“if it can be established that
the movement of the users of the Indo-European speech in India in
ancient times was from the east to the west and not vice-versa, the
invasion/migration theory, as it has been propounded, cannot stand.”
This
makes the Rigvedic Age contemporaneous with the Indus Valley
culture. Far from being the destroyers of
Harappa and Mohenjodaro, Vedic Aryans turn out to be the architects
of those great cities. This is
what Girilal Jain meant when he said that in course of time
Talageri’s research can compel the revision of the history not
only of Indian, but also world civilization.
(source: Demolished
once for all: Aryan Invasion Theory - By Virendra
Parekh - vijayvaani.com). Refer to chapter on
First Indologists and
European Imperialism.
Watch
video - The
Myth of Aryan invasion theory - Part I and Part
II and Part
III and Myth
of Aryan Dravidian Divide and Dwaraka
- A Lost City of Lord Sri Krishna.
The
Aryan myth in perspective - History, science and politics
To
a historian of science, there is a remarkable similarity between the
attitudes of theologians in Galileo’s time and of philologists and
anthropologists in our own. They cannot accept the fact that the
very foundation of their discipline—not just the Aryan invasion
theory—has collapsed. Natural history and genetics have demolished
their theories as well as their methods. And like Galileo’s
adversaries, they too have chosen to resort to politics and
propaganda, though the forces they invoke lack the authority of the
Church in Galileo’s time.
A
Racist Myth that refuses to die
When
judged by evidence and logic, the various Aryan theories, especially
the Aryan
invasion theory (AIT) must be regarded one of the
weakest intellectual exercises in recent history— an intellectual
failure of the first magnitude. But if longevity and capacity for
survival are measures of success, then the Aryan myth—it is hardly
a theory—must be counted among the most successful.
 It
is now more than a century since the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT)
made its way into history books and encyclopedias the world over, as
the basis for the history of ancient
India
and the source of the Vedic civilization. Though linguistic in
origin, the climate in which it evolved—dominated by British
colonialism and German nationalism—ensured that it soon acquired a
political and even biological form, giving rise to such notions as
the Aryan race and the Aryan nation. Government departments in
British India
like the Anthropological Survey mixed up physical appearance and
character traits and made it a tool of divide and rule.
Because of its European origin and orientation, there were attempts
to shift the origin of the Vedic Civilization and its language to
sources in lands closer to
Europe
. This gave rise to an academic discipline called Indo-European
Studies, devoted to exploring the origin of Europeans, their
language and culture. A major result of this approach has been to
make
India
and its culture including the Vedas to be
of non-Indian origin. The Aryan invasion (or migration)
has been the lynchpin of this discipline.
While the defeat of Nazi Germany
and end of European colonialism
put an end to the political needs of these theories, they have
survived in Western academia because of the heavy investment that
scholars have made in Indo-European studies. Recent findings in
science, particularly in population genetics have delivered a mortal
blow to the Aryan Invasion Theory. This has led its proponents to
resort to propaganda and political lobbying to save it by
overturning scientific and historical facts.
This campaigning, like during the recent controversy over the
revision of California schools curriculum,
is only the latest manifestation of the kind of struggle that is
waged whenever new discoveries overthrow old ideas. The most famous
of these took place in the time of Galileo. In the end, the
supporters of Indo-European studies are no more likely to succeed
than Galileo’s opponents,
who too had the support of powerful political and religious
interests. Ultimately, it is truth not personalities that
will prevail though the battle for truth is likely to be prolonged.
It is best to take a long-term view and prepare the ground for a new
generation of researchers.
It [Aryan invasion theory] gave a historical precedent to justify
the role and status of the British Raj,
who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in
the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier.
 That
is to say, the British presented
themselves as a ‘new and improved brand of Aryans’
that were only completing the work left undone by their ancestors in
the hoary past. Today it is sustained by
‘special interests’ rather than special conditions that no
longer exist. These new interests include political
chauvinism in
India
and the survival of Indo-European studies as a discipline in Western
academia. It is only a matter of time before this vestige of
colonial politics disappears from the scene making way for a more
objective approach to the study of ancient
India
. This is already happening. In the interim, the kind of dispute and
controversy witnessed in
California
are only natural.
The seriousness of this struggle for survival of this academic
discipline, and its practitioners cannot be underestimated. This
existential fear is what is behind the desperate actions bordering
on the bizarre of some
Western Indologists
, notably the Harvard Indologist Michael
Witzel and his colleagues.
On the scientific side, the emergence of molecular biology and the
growth of population genetics in the second half of the twentieth
century have delivered the coup de grace to this pseudo-discipline.
The story that science has to tell us is very different from what
had been believed for well over a century
(source: The
Aryan myth in perspective - History, science and politics - By N
S Rajaram). For
more refer to chapter on Aryan
Invasion Theory, European
Imperialism and First
Indologist.For
more refer to chapter on Aryan
Invasion Theory, European
Imperialism and First
Indologist.
Watch
video - The
Myth of Aryan invasion theory - Part I and Part
II and Part
III and Myth
of Aryan Dravidian Divide and Dwaraka
- A Lost City of Lord Sri Krishna.
Page < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >
|
