Refuting the Aryan theory
The debate on the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory has been a historic one. The idea was first propounded by Max Muller, a german philologist who studied the vedas and found similarities between Sanskrit and european languages like greek and latin.
The basic premise of the theory was that Indians being a primitive people and racially inferior to the Europeans could not be the authors of civilization in India and civilization in India had to be introduced from outside. Before Max Muller, when western academia did not know of ancient India, the mainstream thought was that civilization was introduced to India by Alexander of Macedonia.
The introduction of Indic Studies and ancient texts like the vedas in europe prompted the Aryan Invasion hypothesis.
It basically stated that the dark skinned Indians before the arrival of the master european race of the Aryans were a primitive people who were introduced of civilization by the Aryans.
This theory was the critical moral platform for colonial powers to enslave India and it also provided life blood for evil ideologies like Nazism.
This story took a different turn when the Indus Valley Civilization was discovered by John Marshall with the excavation of the ancient city of Harappa. The Indus Civilization was at its peak around 2500 BC and the theory that civilization was introduced by fair skinned europeans into India was no longer tenable, since the Indus Valley civilization was a contemporary of the Ancient Mesopotamian and Ancient egyptian civilization ( Fertile Cresent). ( The europeans would still not give Indians credit for their own ancient civilization, and the theory that Indus valley was actually an offshoot of the mesopotamian civilization was further propagated, which in face of overwhelming evidence against it, had to be abandoned.)
It was Marshall who was the real author of the theory of Aryan "Invasion". He discovered a set of skeletons in the ruins of mohen jo daro and claimed that they were the Indus Valley People who were massacred by the invading aryans. He quoted some verses from the Rigveda which address Indra as the "Puramdara", destroyer of forts, and tried to reason that the forts meant the cities of Indus valley, and famously declared that "Indra stands accused" for the collapse of Indus Valley civilization.
However, this popular theory of Aryan Invasion and the simplistic western models of invasion and subjugation have been rejected by mainstream academia in face of mounting evidence against it.
The search for the Master European Aryan race, with blue eyes and blond hair, has been unsuccessful. No such race exists as acknowledged by archeologists and philologists. Even Max Muller subsequently abandoned this idea of language=race.
There is no archeological proof of invasion of India around 1500 BC as per the current research. The archeological findings in the Indus Valley do not show any signs of warfare and the skeletons found in Mohenjodaro and elsewhere in Indus Valley were shown to be of people who died of natural causes.
The most ancient veda, the rig veda, gives absolutely no account of an immigration, let alone an invasion, into India. The search of the Aryan race in vedas and other ancient texts like the avesta and gathas has proved unfruitful.
This mainstream academic opinion can be best summarized as follows,
Jim Shaffer wrote, "Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from prehistoric to historic periods".
^ Jim Shaffer. The Indo-Aryan Invasions : Cultural Myth and Archaeological Reality.
Jim G. Shaffer is an American archaeologist and Professor of Anthropology at Case Western Reserve University.
Shaffer holds a BA (1965) and M.A. (1967) in Anthropology from Arizona State University. He also has a Ph.D. (1972) in Anthropology from University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is noted for his studies on the Indus Valley Civilization.
This was forseen by Revered Dr Ambedkar even when the Aryan Invasion Theory was very much in vogue and many Indians even supported it.
One can quote him from his book " Who were the Shudras?" which is an excellent study on the origins of the varna and the caste system in India. This study remains unparalled in academic pursuit in this subject.
Dr Ambedkar argues that Shudras were originally kshatriya clans of the solar race (sooryakula) whose social degradation was brought about by the bramhins who refused to perform vedic sacrifices and ceremonies for them. This academic feat by Dr Ambedkar remains an unattainable peak for the rest of the students of ancient India and indologists.
I shall quote a few passages from the book.--
(1) Who were the Shudras? and (2) How they came to be the fourth Varna of the Indo-Aryan society? My answers to them are summarised below :
(1) The Shudras were one of the Aryan communities of the Solar race.
(2) There was a time when the Aryan society recognised only three Varnas, namely. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.
(3) The Shudras did not form a separate Varna. They ranked as part of the Kshatriya Varna in the Indo-Aryan society.
(4) There was a continuous feud between the Shudra kings and the Brahmins in which the Brahmins were subjected to many tyrannies and indignities.
(5) As a result of the hatred towards the Shudras generated by their tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to perform the Upanayana of the Shudras.
(6) Owing to the denial of Upanayana, the Shudras who were Kshatriyas became socially degraded, fell below the rank of the Vaishyas and thus came to form the fourth Varna.
WHO were the Shudras if they were not a non-Aryan aboriginal race? This question must now be faced. The theory I venture to advance may be stated in the following three propositions:
(1) The Shudras were Aryans.
(2) The Shudras belonged to the Kshatriya class.
(3) The Shudras were so important a class of Kshatriyas that some of the most eminent and powerful kings of the ancient Aryan communities were Shudras.
The primary piece of evidence on which this thesis rests is a passage which occurs in Verses 38-40 of Chapter 60 of the Shanti Parvan of the Mahabharata. It reads as follows :
"It has been heard by us that in the days of old a Shudra of the name of Paijavana gave a Dakshina (in his own sacrifice) consisting of a hundred thousand Purnapatras according to the ordinance called Aindragni."
The Western writers have a definite theory about the origin of the Shudras. Though all of them are not agreed upon every aspect of the theory, there are points on which there seems to be a certain amount of unity among them. They comprise the following :
1. The people who created the Vedic literature belonged to the Aryan race.
2. This Aryan race came from outside India and invaded India.
3. The natives of India were known as Dasas and Dasyus who
4. were racially different from the Aryans. (4) The Aryans were a white race. The Dasas and Dasyus were a dark race.
5. The Aryans conquered the Dasas and Dasyus.
6. The Dasas and Dasyus after they were conquered and enslaved were called Shudras.
7. The Aryans cherished colour prejudice and therefore formed the Chaturvarnya whereby they separated the white race from the black race such as the Dasas and the Dasyus
What is however of particular importance is the opinion of Prof. Max Muller on the question of the Aryan race. This is what he says on the subject:[f4]
There is no Aryan race in blood; Aryan, in scientific language is utterly inapplicable to race. It means language and nothing but language; and if we speak of Aryan race at all, we should know that it means no more than... Aryan speech.
I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts, and Slavs. When I speak of them I commit myself to no anatomical characteristics. The blue-eyed and fair-haired Scandinavians may have been conquerors or conquered, they may have adopted the language of their darker lords or their subjects, or vice versa. I assert nothing beyond their language, when I call them Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts and Slavs; and in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians.
The value of this view of Prof. Max Muller will be appreciated by those who know that he was at one time a believer in the theory of Aryan race and was largely responsible for the propagation of it.
In this conflict of views one may well ask: what is the testimony of the Vedic literature? As examination of the Vedic literature shows that there occur two words in the Rig Veda—one is Arya with a short 'a' and the other is Arya with a long 'a'. The word Arya with a short 'a' is used in the Rig Veda[f5] in 88 places. In what sense is it used? The word[f6] is used in four different senses; as (1) enemy, (2) respectable person, (3) name for India, and (4) owner, Vaishya or citizen.
The word Arya with a long 'a' is used in the Rig Veda in 31 places [f7] . But in none of these is the word used in the sense of race.
From the foregoing discussion, the one indisputable conclusion which follows is that the terms 'Arya' and 'Arya' which occur in the Vedas have not been used in the racial sense at all.
One may also ask: what is the evidence of anthropometry? the Aryan race is described as long-headed. This description is not enough. For as will be seen from the table given by Prof. Ripley, there are two races which are long-headed. The question which of the two is the Aryan race still remains open.
( The study of Prof Ripley which Revered Dr Ambedkar refers to is given in detail in the book.)
What evidence is there of the invasion of India by the Aryan race and the subjugation by it of the native tribes? So far as the Rig Veda is concerned, there is not a particle of evidence suggesting the invasion of India by the Aryans from outside India. As Mr. P. T. Srinivasa lyengar[f12] points out:
"A careful examination of the Manatras where the words Arya, Dasa and Dasyu occur, indicates that they refer not to race but to cult. These words occur mostly in Rig Veda Samhita where Arya occurs about 33 times in mantras which contain 153,972 words on the whole. The rare occurrence is itself a proof that the tribes that called themselves Aryas were not invaders that conquered the country and exterminated the people. For an invading tribe would naturally boast of its achievements constantly."
So far the testimony of the Vedic literature is concerned, it is against the theory that the original home of the Aryans was outside India. The language in which reference to the seven rivers is made in the Rig. Veda (X.75.5) is very significant. As Prof. D. S. Triveda says[f13] —the rivers are addressed as 'my Ganges, my Yamuna, my Saraswati' and so on. No foreigner would ever address a river in such familiar and endearing terms unless by long association he had developed an emotion about it.
First is the paucity of references in the Rig Veda to wars between the Aryans on the one hand and the Dasas or Dasyus on the other. Out of the 33 places in which the word occurs in the Rig Veda only in 8 places is it used in opposition to Dasas and only in 7 places is it used in opposition to the word Dasyus. This may show the occurrence of sporadic riots between the two. It is certainly not evidence of a conquest or subjugation.
The second point about the Dasas is that whatever conflict there was between them and the Aryans, the two seem to have arrived at a mutual settlement, based on peace with honour. This is borne out by references in the Rig Veda showing how the Dasas and Aryans have stood as one united people against a common enemy. Note the following verses from the Rig Veda :
Rig Veda - vi. 33.3;
vii. 83.1;
viii 51.9;
x 102.3.
The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary because of a gratuitous assumption which underlies the Western theory. The assumption is that the Indo-Germanic people are the purest of the modern representatives of the original Aryan race. Its first home is assumed to have been somewhere in Europe. These assumptions raise a question: How could the Aryan speech have come to India: This question can be answered only by the supposition that the Aryans must have come into India from outside. Hence the necessity for inventing the theory of invasion.
The third assumption is that the Aryans were a superior race. This theory has its origin in the belief that the Aryans are a European race and as a European race it is presumed to be superior to the Asiatic races. Having assumed its superiority, the next logical step one is driven to take is to establish the fact of superiority. Knowing that nothing can prove the superiority of the Aryan race better than invasion and conquest of native races, the Western writers have proceeded to invent the story of the invasion of India by the Aryans and the conquest by them of the Dasas and Dasyus.
The fourth assumption is that the European races were white[f15] and had a colour prejudice against the dark races. The Aryans being a European race, it is assumed that it must have had colour prejudice. The theory proceeds to find evidence for colour prejudice in the Aryans who came into India. This it finds in the Chaturvarnya— an institution by the established Indo-Aryans after they came to India and which according to these scholars is based upon Varna which is taken by them to mean colour.
Not one of these assumptions is borne out by facts. Take the premise about the Aryan race. The theory does not take account of the possibility that the Aryan race in the physiological sense is one thing and an Aryan race in the philological sense quite different, and that it is perfectly possible that the Aryan race, if there is one, in the physiological sense may have its habitat in one place and that the Aryan race, in the philological sense, in quite a different place. The theory of the Aryan race is based on the premise of a common language and it is supposed to be common because it has a structural affinity. The assertion that the Aryans came from outside and invaded India is not proved and the premise that the Dasas and Dasyus are aboriginal tribes[f16] of India is demonstrably false.
Again to say that the institution of Chaturvarnya is a reflection of the innate colour prejudice of the Aryans is really to assert too much. If colour is the origin of class distinction, there must be four different colours to account for the different classes which comprise Chaturvarnya. Nobody has said what those four colours are and who were the four coloured races who were welded together in Chaturvarnya. As it is, the theory starts with only two opposing people, Aryas and Dasas—one assumed to be white and the other assumed to be dark.
The originators of the Aryan race theory are so eager to establish their case that they have no patience to see what absurdities they land themselves in. They start on a mission to prove what they want to prove and do not hesitate to pick such evidence from the Vedas as they think is good for them.
Prof. Michael Foster has somewhere said that 'hypothesis is the salt of science.' Without hypothesis there is no possibility of fruitful investigation. But it is equally true that where the desire to prove a particular hypothesis is dominant, hypothesis becomes the poison of science. The Aryan race theory of Western scholars is as good an illustration of how hypothesis can be the poison of science as one can think of.
----------------from "who were the shudras".
The whole text of the book can be found on the website www.ambedkar.org .
Of course I have quoted only a few parts from this great book. It is very instructive and I would urge everyone to go through it in details.
Anthropology, archeology and philology have made great advances since the time Revered Dr. Ambedkar published this book but the broad conclusions drawn by him still remain unchallanged.
Genetic science is still in its primitive stage and no definitive conclusions can be drawn from it. The factors such as sample size may vary the conclusions greatly and the interpretations one can draw from the results of the genetic tests may also vary greatly.
I would also like to point towards a study made by Dr.Pragna Patel of the University of South California.
She was researching the genetic origins of problems such as obesity, hypertension commonly associated with indians.
Interestingly she found out that there is very little genetic variation in population of the whole subcontinent. According to experts it is very surprising that people living in such a huge area have very little genetic variation. Further it was also inferred from the findings that the basic genotype if indians hasn't changed for about 10,000 years. So according to them indians constitute a distinct and major human race.
This study represented the largest study of Indian genetic variation performed to date, in terms of the total number of sites in the human genome that were surveyed.
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/
Nikhil Pujari.
Comments