The Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory

8/14/2019 The Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory

1/26

The Myth of theAryan Invasion

Theory

Anupam Manur2/16/2009


2/26

I

1. INTRODUCTION

The Aryans came down from central Asia and invaded India in 1500 BC, afterdestroying the Harappan civilization and they brought with them the rich Vedas

Thats exactly how my 9th standard History text book reads. Shocking, now, notthen. I have to admit that I was quite disappointed that the one greatest wealth(Vedas) that India has was given to us by outsiders.

However, something was fishy in the whole scheme of things. Something didnt addup. Acting upon this hunch, I decided to do a bit of investigation and found out thatmany scholars had already been in this place and had disproved every inch of thetheory.

1.1 BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE AIT:

In the beginning of the 18th century, Germany, France and England started taking avery special interest towards the study of Asian cultures and Indian society inparticular in the context of British India. This gave birth to Indology as an academicdiscipline in the 19th century with pioneers such as William Jones, Colin Mackenzie,Henry Thomas Colebrooke, Max Mller, etc, largely affected by the romanticOrientalism at that time (see my post on Orientalism). Indology mainly involvedstudying the ancient scriptures of the Hindus (Vedas, Puranas, etc), which wasfacilitated by new volumes of Sanskrit-English and Sanskrit-German dictionariesthat were being published. One of the most important breakthroughs was MaxMllers edition of the Rigveda, which appeared in 1849-75. The main objective ofthe Indologists was to rediscover Indias glorious past and give it to the Indians.Noble indeed! Needless to say, things were not quite as it seems, as I shall try touncover the hidden agenda.

1.2 THE THEORY ITSELF:

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, many seals were found in theHarappan region (now in Pakistan). This led to a fervent excavation campaign andthe result of which was the discovery of the ancient civilization of the Harappans.

The fact is that the people inhabiting this area seemed to have moved out and thecivilization had perished. Then, the task of the archaeologists and Indologists of thetime was to try to explain this mysterious phenomenon as to why such a greatcivilization had perished. That it was great, there was no doubt because it was oneof the most ancient urban settlements which displayed ingenious city planning,advanced knowledge of science and astronomy, efficient municipal governments


3/26

which placed a high priority on hygiene, sewage and drainage systems, publicbaths, granaries, etc.

The moment was opportune and it was seized by the scholars and archaeologistswho tried to explain this by propounding the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), which Ishall briefly restate in the following passages after dealing a bit about the

theoretical background...

It has to be remembered that, at that time, there were no Indian scholars who werewriting about Indian history but there was an abundance of literature from the West,as mentioned earlier, owing to the birth of Oriental Studies and Indology. AbbDubois is perhaps one of the first such western historians who has tried to explainthe origin of the Indian population and their presence in India. He stayed in India fornearly 30 years, in which he collected a large volume of data pertaining to theHindu traditions and customs. A thorough missionary agenda in mind, his aim wasto present the Hindus as barbaric and superstitious and not possessing any inherentgreatness. His manuscript was bought by the British East India Company andappeared in an English translation under the title Hindu Manners, Customs andCeremonies in 1897 with a Prefatory Note by the Right Hon. F. Max Mller.

It is practically admitted that India was inhabited very soon after the Deluge, whichmade a desert of the whole world. The fact that it was so close to the plains ofSennaar, where Noah's descendants remained stationary so long, as well as its goodclimate and the fertility of the country, soon led to its settlement. (Dubois, 1897)

He explains: 'According to my theory they reached India from the north, and Ishould place the first abode of their ancestors in the neighbourhood of theCaucasus.' The reasons he provides to substantiate his theory are utterlyunconvincing-but he goes on to build the rest of his migration theory (not yet an

'Aryan' migration theory) on this shaky foundation.

It was Max Mller, the German scholar (who was, supposedly, an authority on theVedas), who first or the most notable to propound the Aryan Invasion Theory.According to him, the only reason to explain the disappearance of the Harappanswas due to an external invasion of their cities. To firmly establish the link betweenEurope and India (through the concept of the Aryans), Mller and others suggestedthat the Aryans were a nomadic tribe who were allocated a place that was halfwaybetween Europe and India. They chose the mystical and elusive place calledCentral Asia (how precise!) from where they moved down towards India andentered India from the North, though they do not take the trouble of explainingwhich passes they traversed or any other geographical details. They then went on

to destroy the cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro with the help of their Vedic GodIndra and that the dark-skinned indigenous people (Dravidians) were the ones onwhom they imposed their religion and their caste system. The Aryans supposedlyenslaved the native Dravidians and wiped them out from the Indus valley civilization(this idea stemmed from the fact that a few skeletons and bones were found inthese sites). The entire Harappan civilization was supposed to have been massacredby the invading Aryans. The Dravidians, in fear of the onslaught fled from theirthriving civilization and migrated to the south of the Indian subcontinent. However,


4/26

they could not help but accept the superior culture of the Aryans and thus, thoughbelonging to different races, the North and South followed an almost identical Hinduculture.

The chronology of these events becomes all too important, as we shall see later on.Max Mller, a firm believer of the Biblical chronology, tried to establish the periods

of these events using the same. According to the Bible, humankind originated fromone pair of humans Adam and Eve, who were created around 4005BC. The greatflood took place in 2500 BC, the only one to survive the flood was Noah, and thus allhumans are descendents of the sons of Noah. If this was the case, then logically,the Aryan invasion could have occurred only after 2500 BC. Based purely onconjecture, Mller gave about 500 years for the regeneration of human kind andanother generous 500 years where the Harappan civilization thrived. Thus, hearrived at the conclusion that the Aryan invasion would have occurred in 1500 BC.

Since the Aryans were the superior race who were capable of having literary culture(though they were nomadic), they are the ones who imposed the Vedas on India.

Thus, we have to remember that the dating of the Vedas also becomes extremelyimportant in order to prove or disprove the Aryan Invasion theory (the Hindus,however, believe that the Vedas are Anadhi, having no beginning or end, which isalso the belief of the author, but for the sake of academic interest in the invasiontheory, we shall consider the first written records of the Vedas). Western scholarsdecided to apply their own methodologies and, in the absence of reliable evidence,postulated a timeframe for Indian history based on conjectures. Considering thetraditional dates for the life of Gautama, the Buddha, as fairly well established in thesixth century BCE, supposedly pre-Buddhist Indian records were placed in asequence that seemed plausible to philologists. Accepting on linguistic grounds thetraditional claims that the Rigveda was the oldest Indian literary document, MaxMller allowing a time-span of two hundred years each for the formation of every

class of Vedic literature, and assuming that the Vedic period had come to an end bythe time of the Buddha, established the following sequence that was widelyaccepted:

Rigveda c. 1200 BCE Yajurveda,Samaveda,Atharvaveda, c. 1000BCE Brahmanas, c.800 BCEAranyakas,Upanishads, c. 600 BCE

1.3 WHERE DO THE ARYANS COME FROM?

What is not so well known in India is that our footloose Aryans, not content withoverrunning the Indian subcontinent, invaded Europe too! And thereby hangs an

instructive tale. For Christian Europe, long uncomfortable with what it thought to bea Hebrew ancestry, was eager, to find for itself an identity distinct from the Jewish;the sudden appearance of the Aryan race out of the misty plateaus of Central Asiawas seen as a godsend, especially in the strong anti-Semitic atmosphere of thenineteenth century. Thus was born one more myth, this time of the Aryan European,Christian of course, and preferably Germanic. (Nahar, 1996) It had the addedadvantage of confirming the natural supremacy of the white race.


5/26

Though there was hardly any sort of proof for such theories, it still widely gainedmomentum in the rising fervour of European Nationalism. Year after year, ragingdebates went on across borders to determine which European people was the truedescendent of the Aryan master-race, and therefore which nation could claim adivine right to dominate others. Europe witnessed the ridiculous and humiliatingspectacle of eminent scholars subordinating their interest in truth to the inflation ofracial and national pride. The most vociferous were undoubtedly the pro-Germanic. Germany seemed to have won the race in claiming descent from theAryan race. After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, Aryanism became anationalist dogma in the newly unified German state. In fact, it came to be doubtedthat the Aryans original homeland was not at all in Central Asia, and severalscholars sought to prove on scientific grounds that it really was Germany (Centraland Western Germany, to be precise!). When in 1924 Hitler wrote in his MeinKampf, The Aryan alone can be considered as the founder of culture.a conquerorwho subjugated inferior races, he was merely echoing and amplifying dozens ofnineteenth-century savants who had written as many thick tomes to buttress theirfantasy. A few years later, full-blown Nazism was no more than a monstrous but in

a way perfectly logical-application of their race theories, with consequences weknow.

Swami Vivekananda who has long been refuting the Aryan Invasion Theory madethis comment: "Our archaeologists' dreams of India being full of dark-eyedaborigines, and the bright Aryans came from - the Lord knows where. According tosome, they came from Central Tibet; others will have it that they came from Central

Asia. There are patriotic Englishmen who think that the Aryans were all red-haired.Others, according to their idea, think that they were all black haired. If the writerhappens to be a black haired man, the Aryans were all black haired. Of late, there

was an attempt made to prove that the Aryans lived on the Swiss lake. I should notbe sorry if they had been all drowned there, theory and all. Some say now that theylived at North Pole. Lord bless the Aryans and their habitations! As for the truth ofthese theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to provethat the Aryans came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient Indiawas included Afghanistan. There it ends." (Vivekananda)

END OF PART I


6/26

II

WHY DO WE NEED TO DISPROVETHE THEORY?

What are the effects or consequences of such a theory? Why do we need todisprove it? What did the British and other European scholars gain by doing so? Whyis it relevant today to talk about a theory that was constructed over a hundred yearsago about a particular phenomenon that occurred 3000-4000 years ago? All thesequestions and answers diffuse into an overlapping schema of deconstructingacademic falsity, which has had an overbearing socio-political undertone to it.

Aryan Race and Invasion Theory is not a subject of academic interest only,rather it conditions our perception of India's historical evolution, the sources of herancient glorious heritage, and indigenous socio-economic-political institutions,which have been developed over the millennia. Consequently, the validity orinvalidity of this theory has an obvious and strong bearing on the contemporaryIndian political and social landscape as well as the future of Indian nationalism.1

1 Dr Dinesh Agarwal in his article Demise of the Aryan Invasion Theory.


7/26

Lets look into some of the effects of the theory on Indian society today and themotives behind the construction of such a theory.

2.1 HISTORICAL EFFECTS

2.1.1 RATIONALISING COLONALIZATION:

Firstly, by constructing such a theory of Aryan invasion, the British received theperfect justification for their own invasion of India. How? By proving that the presentpopulation of India was never truly the original inhabitants, and that they had beenconstantly invaded upon, they could justify saying that they are not really doinganything different from those invasions of the past. The main argument was thatthey are merely re-enacting what the Aryans had done a couple of thousand yearsago upon the native population. Since, the Aryans had invaded, plundered,oppressed and pressed their culture on the native population, the Mughal rulersconquests and those of the British themselves were perfectly justified as an

extension of the previous invasion and meting out to the Indian Aryans what theyhad done to the Dravidians. In effect, it gave the British a way to rationalizetheir brutal exploitation and domination of India. It also seemed to lessen theseverity 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 asa land dominated by foreigners ever since its inception. Karl Marx even wrote thatthe whole history of India was a series of invasions. By showing that the Hindus aremere upstarts and squatters on the land (as they themselves are in America,Australia and other places), they can set up their own claim. For then neither theHindus nor the Europeans are indigenous and as to who should possess this land,becomes merely a matter of superior might.

While this kind of reasoning might seem far out and implausible to us today, it mustbe mentioned that the British Empire would use any kind of argument to justify theircruelty and injustice. I am not trying to say that they went into the entire exercise ofcreating the myth just for justification purposes, as it is too small a motive if weconsider the magnanimity of the other astute and scheming motives.

2.1.2 CULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES OF RULE:

How does one conquer a nation? One way is by the sword, but that is outdated andimplies quite a heavy cost of operation, loss of men, etc. The other way is the onethat Nicholas Dirks and Cohn refer to as the Cultural Technologies of Rule, or whatis more commonly known as the Divide and Rule policy. The formula is quitesimple. Enter a land, divide the people on any possible lines, break their solidarity,prove to them that they are not worthy masters of themselves, and evoke a need inthem to be ruled by a superior kind, which happens to be the British. This playhas been enacted over and again in many colonies of the British and it worked toperfection here in India also.


8/26

So how did they divide India? On the basis of religion, i.e. Hindus and Muslims isvery easy to comprehend and is well known. That was the easier task of the British.However, for some time, they were confounded as to how to break the Hindus. Howcould they break into the fairly well unified and cohesive Hindu social structure?How could they pit sections of the Hindu society against another? Well, by theintroduction of the Caste System, of course. I am not trying to credit the British withthe creation of the caste system but it was the British who objectified, reified andtransformed the existing social stratification system of the Hindus, with all its meritsand demerits into the sole and overarching social identity of the Hindus. They over-emphasized the importance of caste as the onlyidentity of the Hindu. That was thefirst true politicization of caste. After assuming all importance to the caste, theythen used the same to divide the Indians (read Dirks for more). What does this haveto do with AIT? Simple, they proposed to the lower caste Dravidian castes thatthey were the result of historic oppression from the Aryan upper castes namelythe Brahmins who were the sole authority on the Vedas. This was in continuationwith their theory that since the Aryans were the ones who gave the Vedas to India,it is only legitimate that they should be the sole authority over it.

While creating animosity between the upper and lower castes using historicalarguments was much easier, the greater task still lay in trying to break theBrahmins, who were firmly rooted in their culture and traditions. The moment thatthey could win over the upper castes and make them adulate Western culture andtraditions, that was their true victory and could be rest assured of a long stay inIndia.

Let me bring in a little bit of history...

Well before the 1857 uprising it was recognized that British rule in India could notbe sustained without a large number of Indian collaborators. Recognizing this

reality, influential men like Thomas Babbington Macaulay, who was Chairman of theEducation Board, sought to set up an educational system modelled along Britishlines that would also serve to undermine the Hindu tradition. He believed that theconversion of Hindus to Christianity held the answer to the problems ofadministering India. His idea was to create an English educated elite that wouldrepudiate its tradition and become British collaborators.

The key point here is Macaulay's belief that 'knowledge and reflection' on the part ofthe Hindus, especially the Brahmins, would cause them to give up their age-oldbelief in favour of Christianity. In pursuit of this goal, he needed someone who wouldtranslate and interpret Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas, in such a way thatthe newly educated Indian elite would see the differences between them and the

Bible and choose the latter. Upon his return to England, after a good deal of efforthe found a talented but impoverished young German Vedic scholar by the name ofFriedrich Max Mller who was willing to undertake this arduous task. (Rajaram)

This was the genesis of the herculean task of translating and interpreting the Rig-Veda and Max Mlers commitment to the conversion process was alwayspersistent, exemplified by his letter to his wife: It [the Rigveda] is the root of their


9/26

religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprootingall that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years.

The main objective now, as stated earlier was to separate the Brahmins and theirVedas. How could they achieve this task? By reducing the value of the Vedas in theeyes of the Brahmins. The theory not only stole the antiquity of the Vedas but also,

in a single blow, was successful in invalidating most of the Hindu traditionsdescribed in the Vedas. The post-dating of the Vedas has serious consequences. Forstarters, by assigning the invading Aryans as the original authors, it made the Vedasa borrowed tradition. Can you imagine being told one day that something youvebeen practicing for over 3000 years is actually borrowed from outside and is notreally that old or great.

In addition, one has to remember that by 1500 BC, the Greek and Egyptian cultureswere already thriving, and by assigning a later date to the Vedas, it makes itborrowed knowledge. The Vedas were made to be derived from the Middle Easterncultures, especially the Greek culture, which is an absolutely absurd proposition. Itallowed the science of India to be given a Greek basis, as any Vedic basis waslargely disqualified by the primitive nature of the Vedic culture: In fact, the oppositeis true.

If the theory of Aryan invasion and its proposed period were true, this discreditednot only the Vedas but the genealogies of the Puranas, and all the kings mentionedin these scriptures including Lord Krishna, Rama, Buddha etc. would become asfictional characters with no historical basis: Which simply means disowning anddiscarding the very basis and raison d'tre of the Hindu civilization (Agarwal, 1995).

In short, on the basis of this theory, the propaganda by these scholars was madethat there was nothing great in the Hindu culture and their ancestors and sages.

And most Hindus fell for this devious plan. It made Hindus feel ashamed of theirculture - that its basis was neither historical nor scientific. The Vedas were the workof nomadic shepherds and not the divine revelations or eternal truth perceived bythe rishis during their spiritual journey, and hence there is nothing to feel proudabout India's past, nothing to be proud of being Hindu.

2.1.3 WHITE SUPREMACY:

When, in the eighteenth century, a few European thinkers began to try and fathomIndia's philosophy and religion, they were so struck by the depth, the ancientness,the richness they saw, that they soon declared India to have been the "cradle of the

human race" and the "birthplace of civilization" in the words of Dohm, a Germanscholar, and the Hindus to be "the gentlest of people." The great Voltaire also heldthis view: "We have shown how much we surpass the Indians in courage andwickedness, and how inferior to them we are in wisdom. Our European nations havemutually destroyed themselves in this land where we only go in search of money,while the first Greeks travelled to the same land only to instruct themselves."

He concluded, "I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banksof the Ganges, astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc." Many of the early


10/26

travellers to India of the time (the exceptions being found mostly among themissionaries) tended to share this enthusiasm. "All history points to India as themother of science and art". William Macintosh wrote. "This country was ancientlyso renowned for knowledge and wisdom that the philosophers of Greece did notdisdain to travel thither for their improvement." Pierre Sonnerat, a Frenchnaturalist, concurred: "We find among the Indians the vestiges of the most remoteantiquity.... We know that all peoples came there to draw the elements of theirknowledge.... India, in her splendor, gave religions and laws to all the other peoples;Egypt and Greece owed to her both their fables and their wisdom."

I admit that this is not the place to indulge in glorifying Indian culture but I amtrying to point out the dominant world-view at that particular period. For, during the19th century, with the birth of fervid European nationalism and racial glorification, allthis drastically changed. The Europeans could not support acknowledging the factthat the birth of civilization and everything it included like science, art,mathematics, astronomy, architecture, etc could be pointed out to some remoteand dark corner of the World, especially with their firm belief that if it is great, it

has to be white dogma. How could they possibly rob India of its greatness andproject the same onto themselves? The answer lay in proving that the knowledgeand wisdom existing there is not original and belongs to a race, of which they are apart. This gave birth to one of the greatest academic blunders: the creation of themyth of the Aryan Invasion.

However, this wouldnt be enough. They also simultaneously proved that India hadplunged into darkness later by amassing large amounts of information on thecustoms, traditions and religious practices of the native population (refer back toAbb Dubois), to only later dismiss them as being barbarous, dangerous, uncivilized,outdated, etc. Juxtaposed with the justification argument, the British actually triedto convince the world that it had arrived with the noble intention of rescuing India

from its darkness.

The British were anxious to clothe their greed in lofty ideals: the "whiteman's burden" of civilizing (and, naturally, Christianizing) less enlightenedraces, the "divinely ordained mission" of bringing to India the glory ofEurope's commercial and industrial civilization, and so forth. Articles,pamphlets, speeches, thick volumes began pouring forth by the hundreds year afteryear in praise of the "tremendous task of rescuing India" from the darkness intowhich she had fallen. (Agarwal, 1995) Understandably, the recognition of India's farmore ancient and refined civilization made such noble motives untenable. Thusbegan a systematic campaign to disparage not only this civilization, its culture andsociety, but the very roots of Hinduism by falsifying History with AIT.

2.2 THE MODERN EFFECTS


11/26

2.2.1 THE N-S DIVIDE:

While these are some academic and colonizing antecedents, we must equallyconsider the modern effects of such a theory, else it would be an incompletepicture. Nowhere in History has any single theory, singlehandedly, caused so muchhavoc in so many domains of life. Moreover, it has to be firmly kept in mind that

such a theory is universally accepted and even taken for granted unquestioningly.

Post-independent India has witnessed some serious challenges to its national-integrity and we can, in fact, shift part of the blame on the AIT. The continuousstruggle on part of the Tamil state to break away from India and establish a republiccan be attributed to their firm belief and acceptance of the AIT. Their claim isstraightforward: they rely on the AIT to prove that they are the original inhabitantsof the country and simultaneously, the antiquity of the Tamil language. Since, theDravidians were conquered and forced down to the south, the Tamilians readilyrelate to this set of Dravidians and the supposed historic oppression by thedominant Sanskritic Aryans. Thus, they are able to achieve a two-fold objective: of

being able to justify their claims for a separate nation and secondly to prove theantiquity of the Tamil language and that it is the true original and oldest Indianlanguage which would then translate into being the oldest language in the world, asagainst what is commonly believed to be Sanskrit. With the deconstruction of theAIT, their claims would no longer become tenable.

Apart from this, it is also the general cause of tension and animosity between theNorth and the South in India. The southerners (Dravidians) generally mistrust andfeel bitter about the Northerners (Aryans) due to the fictional historic oppressionand thus make claims for compensation, antiquity, etc in the same breath. This haseffectively created a North-South divide on racial lines grce imagination of a fewgifted and talented historians, which is readily used by the politicians for petty vote

bank politics. Thus, disproving the theory and more importantly, making it publiclyknown through the rewriting of the text books becomes imperative in order toachieve national integration.

In short, the communists used the Aryan Invasion theory as the basis fortheir history of India, substituting the caste war of the Brahmin invadersfrom Central Asia for the European class war model. Dravidian nationalistsused it to their advantage, claiming an older purer Dravidian culture thatwas different from that of the Aryan invaders from the north. The Dalitsused it to identify themselves with the original inhabitants of the countryenslaved by the invading Brahmin dominated Aryans.

2.2.2 THE COMMUNIST AGENDA:

Yet, unfortunately, quite strangely and for no apparent reason, India possesses aunique breed of Marxian and other pseudo intellectual Historians (Romilla Thaparwould prove to be an exemplary leader in this context) who are only too happy tosubscribe to these pejorative colonizing ideas. Even against concrete counter-evidence against such a theory, our historians are rather determined in their stance


12/26

and refuse to correct the historical academic fallacy, leading to a continued life spanfor outdated and dangerous ideas. Moreover, it is this unique group of leftisthistorians who have managed to crawl their way to the governing bodies ofeducational committees, who are responsible for framing the syllabus for freshunpolluted minds to read, digest and inculcate. As aforementioned, my ICSE (thepremier educational governing body) textbook carries an entire chapter dedicatedto the Aryan Invasion theory belting out one lie after another, with no considerationto the kind of effects it could have on young minds especially in the realm ofnational pride. Any attempt to correct this by great scholars (like Jha, BB Lal, etc)will be branded as Hindu-fundamentalists attempting to distort history for theglorification of Hinduism. I will leave this idea here and proceed to the next aspect,as our famed Marxist historians need another voluminous article in praise of them.

We have to realize that by negating the antiquity of the Vedas, its spiritual andscientific value and by, finally, claiming it to be borrowed, they are successful inchurning out a large army of young students who are no longer proud of theirculture or nation, juxtaposed with the simultaneous and incessant glorification of

the Western culture has lead to a pathetic vicious cycle of imitation of the latter anddiscarding the former. How can one expect India to truly progress, economically andmorally; and how can one expect India to be truly united if such debasing theoriesare allowed to float about unchallengedely?

END OFPARTII


13/26

IIIDISPROVING THE THEORY

Now that we have had a grasp over the intentions behind such a theory and themultifarious effects it ensures, the task now lies in disproving the theory. I have toadmit, though, that compared to the previous two sections, this task is of relativeease as there have been scores of scholars and archaeologists who have alreadyachieved this feat and my task is to just state these findings. Unfortunately,

however, these findings have been continuously discarded as Hindutva agenda orSaffron scholarship. I shall present the facts, it is really upto you to decide whetherit is the coloured ramblings or plain unbiased facts.

Disproving the theory entails certain quintessential approaches/ methods. Asaforementioned, the dating of the Rig Veda is absolutely essential, for, if it can beproved that the Rig-Veda dates earlier than the supposed date for the AryanInvasion, then it is clear that the Vedas was innate to the Harappans and thus,Indians. Once having done this, we must find clues within the Rig-Veda itself tofalsify the theory and finally, we must also prove that there really was no invasionas such based on archaeological findings and it becomes equally important toprovide an alternate and more credible version of the evacuation of the Harappan

sites.

3.1 DATING THE RIG-VEDA

The dating of the age in which the Vedic literature commenced and thrived has adetrimental effect on the Aryan Invasion question. The oldest of the Vedas, the Rig-Veda, is full of references to places and natural phenomena that occurred in what ismodern day Punjab and Haryana and must have unmistakably been written in thatpart. The date at which it was composed is absolutely essential to the dating of theAryan Invasion (presuming that there was one), for whether they came from abroador they were natives, one thing will be sure: they were certainly completely Indians

without a trace of memory of their original home.

The dating of the Rig-Veda, as done by Max Muller is, as mentioned, 1200BC andreceived considerable criticism even during his time on a number of grounds.Maurice Winternitz, for example, based his estimate on purely philologicalconsiderations: "We cannot explain the development of the whole of this greatliterature if we assume as late a date as round about 1200 BC or 1500 BC as itsstarting point." There is much sense in what he says. It is not possible to cram all


14/26

the philosophical, linguistic, cultural and scientific developments, which are evidentin the Vedas, into just a few centuries, for, we have to remember that the Vedic agewas over by the time of the Buddha, which is the 6 th century. However, this willremain as an argument of plausibility and is not sufficient enough to disprove theolder chronology. The most explicit chronology would be provided by astronomicalmarkers of time.

3.1.1 ANCIENT HINDU ASTRONOMY2

In 1790, a Scottish mathematician, John Playfair demonstrated that the starting -date of the astronomical observations recorded in the tables still in use amongHindu astrologers had to be 4300 BC. Though this was ridiculed by some and calledabsurd, it was not refuted by any scientist.

Basically, Playfair demonstrated that the Vedas contained observations ofastronomical events dating back to the 4000 odd BC. This was claimed as anattempt by the Brahmins to falsely claim antiquity of their texts by providing

astronomical observations of the past as presented in their scriptures by backcalculation. In retaliation, Playfair showed that this kind of advanced backcalculation was in fact impossible.

Backcalculation of planetary positions is a highly complex affair requiring knowledgeof a number of physical laws, universal constants and actual measurements ofdensities, diameters and distances. Though Brahminical astronomy was remarkablysophisticated for its time, it could only backcalculate planetary position of thepresumed Vedic age with an inaccuracy margin of at least several degrees of arc.With our modern knowledge, it is easy to determine what the actual positions were,and what the results of backcalculations with the Brahminical formulae would havebeen (Elst, 1998), e.g.:

""Aldebaran was therefore 40' before the point of the vernal equinox, accordingto the Indian astronomy, in the year 3102 before Christ. (...) [Modern astronomy]gives the longitude of that star 13' from the vernal equinox, at the time of theCalyougham, agreeing, within 53', with the determination of the Indian astronomy.

This agreement is the more remarkable, that the Brahmins, by their own rules forcomputing the motion of the fixed stars, could not have assigned this place toAldebaran for the beginning of Calyougham, had they calculated it from a modernobservation. For as they make the motion of the fixed stars too great by more than3'' annually, if they had calculated backward from 1491, they would have placed thefixed stars less advanced by 4 or 5, at their ancient epoch, than they have

actually done." (Playfair, 1790) Therefore, it turns out that the data given by theBrahmins corresponded not with the results deduced from their formulae, but withthe actual positions, and this, according to Playfair, for nine different astronomicalparameters. This is a bit much to explain away as coincidence or sheer luck..

2 This section largely involves the work of Dr. Koenraad Elst, from his paper Astronomicaldata and the Aryan question as I have little knowledge of astronomy myself.


15/26

Fabricating astronomical data going back thousands of years calls for knowledge ofNewton's Law of Gravitation and the ability to solve differential equations. Failingthis advanced knowledge, the data in the Brahminical tables must be based onactual observation. So far weve seen that the astronomical events that arerecorded in the Rig-Veda could not have been back-calculations but the ancientHindu seers were actually present and recorded it based on observation, whichgives vital clues regarding the dating of the Vedas. The next task is to find theevents as such, if I could call them that, which could give us an idea of the exactdates.

3.1.2 THE START OF THE KALI YUGA:3

Hindu tradition makes mention of the conjunction of the "seven planets" (Saturn,Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury, sun and moon) and Ketu (southern lunar node, thenorthern node/Rahu being by definition in the opposite location) near the fixed starRevati (Zeta Piscium) on 18 February 3102 BC. This date, at which Krishna issupposed to have breathed his last, is conventionally the start of the so-called Kali-

Yuga, the "age of strife", the low point in a declining sequence of four ages.

Bailly and Playfair had already shown that the position of the moon (the fastestmoving "planet", hence the hardest to backcalculate with precision) at thebeginning of KaliYuga, 18 February 3102, as given by Hindu tradition, was accurateto 37'. Either the Brahmins had made an incredibly lucky guess, or they had

recorded an actual observation on Kali Yuga day itself.

3.1.3 THE PRECESSION4 OF THE EQUINOX:

The truly strong evidence for a high chronology of the Vedas is the Vedicinformation about the position of the equinox. The phenomenon of the "precessionof the equinoxes" takes the ecliptical constellations (also known as the sidereal

Zodiac, i.e. those constellations through which the sun passes) slowly past thevernal equinox point, i.e. the intersection of ecliptic and equator, rising due East onthe horizon. The whole tour is made in about 25,791 years, the longest cyclemanageable for nakedeye observers. If data about the precession are properly

recorded, they provide the best and often the only clue to an absolute chronologyfor ancient events.

3 The next few sections are a little tough to comprehend if one is not familiar with the Hinducalendar and astronomy in general.4 For the uninitiated, precession refers to the regular motion of a spinning body such as aspinning top or a planet, in which the axis of rotation describes a cone.


16/26

If we can read the Vedic and post-Vedic indications properly, they mentionconstellations on the equinox points which were there from 4,000 BC for the Rg-Veda, through around 3100 BC for the Atharva Veda and the core Mahabharatadown to 2,300 BC for the Sutras and the Shatapatha Brahmana.

However, our dear Communist historian Romila Thapar, amongst others, still

believes that "planetary positions could have been observed in earlier times andsuch observations been handed down as part of an oral tradition" (Thapar, 1992), sothat they "do not constitute proof of the chronology of the Vedic hymns". This isperhaps one of the most illogical arguments that I have come across, for she isimplicitly acknowledging that accurate astronomical data were indeed made fromthe 5th millennium onwards, and that they were preserved for more than twothousand years, an unparalleled feat in oral traditions. If such a feat is not anindication of literacy and of written records, at the least, it supposes amnemotechnical device capable of preserving information orally, and the one thatwas available then was verse. So, some poems with the memory aiding devices ofverse, rhythm and tone must have been composed when the information was

available firsthand, i.e. close to the time of the actual observation, and those hymnswould of course be the Vedic hymns themselves.

There are scores of other astronomical references in the Rig-Veda, each of whichgives us the date for such an event occurring. These dates range from 3000 odd BCuptil 5000-5500 BC (inferences drawn from the Saptharishi cycle, etc). Whicheverdate we might choose as the earliest recorded astronomical observation, it isdefinitely at least a couple of thousand years older than the date given by MaxMller.

3.2 MAJOR FLAWS IN THE AIT

Presuming for an instant that the Vedas were given by the nomads, there are fewquestions that are begging to be answered by the defenders of the theory. Mostimportantly, how is it that the invaders who scripted the Vedas have not mentioneda word about their original habitat? It is a peculiar phenomenon where richdescriptive accounts regarding the flora, fauna, forests, rivers, mountains, etc of theIndian subcontinent are found but not a single mention of their homeland.

There are constant references to India as their holy land. Why dont they considertheir original home as their holy land? There is no mention of any location outside

the mainland of India in any of the Vedic texts! If Aryans came from Europe, thenwhy havent the so-called Aryans mentioned any of the European locations in any ofthe Vedic or related texts? The farthest location away from India towards the westmentioned in the Vedas is Kadhahar of present day Afghanistan, which was calledGandhar in the Vedic texts and was said to be the kingdom of Shakuni.

Why havent any of the texts mentioned about their European locations? Why isthere no Vedic text that talks about migration from Europe? If the Aryan Hinduswere outsiders, why don't they name places outside India as their most holy places?


17/26

Why should they sing paeans in the praise of India's numerous rivers crisscrossingthe entire peninsula, and mountains - repositories of life giving water and naturalresources, nay even bestow them a status of goddesses and gods. (Agarwal, 1995)

We are also aware that for all ancient civilizations, rivers were the mains source ofsustenance and each of these civilizations, in whatever capacity, adulate these

rivers and sing praise of them. In the Vedas, Saraswati, Yamuna, Sindhu, Ganga, etcare all mentioned constantly but the question arises as to why the Aryans did notmention any European or Central Asian river, which would have been their source oflife previously?

The range of questions does not end here. Further, if the Aryans did come fromoutside and destroyed its inhabitants and their civilization, why is it that they didnot occupy it? The wandering tribe could not have asked for a better home. For, thefact is that the excavations of these sites clearly reveal that these townships hadbeen abandoned. Was the Harappan town, with all its modern, urban facilities notgood enough for them? In addition, if, in fact, they did decide not to inhabitHarappa, where did they settle?

Moreover, if the original inhabitants, the Dravidians, were indeed pushed down tothe south, how come there is no Aryan-Dravidian divide in the respective literaturesand historical traditions? We know that, prior to the arrival of the British, the Northand South were not culturally or politically hostile to each other. In fact, the contraryis true. There was a continual intermingling and exchange of culture between thetwo. The Sanskrit language, the so-called Aryan language was the lingua franca ofthe entire society for thousands of years. For example, the three great figures oflater Hinduism - Shankaracharya, Ramanujam and Madhavacharya wereSoutherners who are universally respected in the North, and who have writtencommentaries on Vedic scriptures in Sanskrit only for the benefit of the entire

population. Even in the ancient times, some of the great Sutra authors likeBaudhayana and Apastamba were from South. Agastya, a celebrated Vedic rishi, iswidely venerated in the South as the one who introduced Vedic learning to theSouth India.(Agarwal, 1995)

One of the most important practical and historical complication that arises out ofaccepting the AIT is the logical wondering about who were the original inhabitants inthe south? Was South India uninhabited? Unlikely. Then, did the original inhabitantswelcome the Dravidians who were pushed down with wide, open arms? How is itthat the Dravidians were accepted without any hostility or at least a grudge? It justdoes not make sense. The final truth is that there were neither Aryans norDravidians.

3.2.1 THE REAL MEANING OF THE WORD ARYA

True, the Rig Veda and the other Vedas and Puranas have, at times, mentioned theword Arya. It was dear old Max who is again credited with the introduction of theword Arya into the English language as referring to a racial, linguistic category whenpropounding the AIT. This is glaringly a false conception of the term, which, hehimself has admitted later on. Nonetheless, it was unquestioningly accepted.


18/26

The real meaning of the word Arya, however comes to mean a gentleman, good-natured, righteous person, noble-man, and is often used like 'Sir' or 'Shree' beforethe name of a person like Aryaputra, Aryakanya, etc. In Ramayan (Valmiki), forexample, Rama is described as an Arya in the following words: Arya - who cared forthe equality to all and was dear to everyone. V.S. Apte's Sanskrit-English dictionaryrelates the word Arya to the root r-,to which a prefix a has been appended to give anegating meaning. And therefore the meaning of Arya is given as "excellent,best", followed by "respectable" and as a noun, "master, lord, worthy,honourable, excellent", upholder of Arya values, and further: teacher, employer,master, father-in-law, friend, Buddha.

Thus, we see that even in the myriad of meanings and connotations that the wordcarries, relative to different interpretations, like all Sanskrit words, nowhere does itmean a race or a linguistic group. This linguistically absurd idea was the result of acomplete misinterpretation and mistranslation of Sanskrit by Mller. Etymologically,according to Max Mller, the word Arya was derived from ar-, "plough, to cultivate".

Therefore, Arya means - "cultivator" agriculturer (civilized sedentary, as opposed to

nomads and hunter-gatherers), landlord, etc.

In fact, scientific literature now confirms that there are primarily only four races inthe world. There are only four primary races, namely, Caucasian, the Mongolian, theAustralians and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches ofthe Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. Thedifference between the so-called Aryans of the north and the Dravidians of thesouth or other communities of Indian subcontinent is not a racial type. Biologicallyall are the same Caucasian type, only when closer to the equator the skin getsdarker, and under the influence of constant heat, the bodily frame tends to get alittle smaller. Moreover, these differences cannot be the basis of two altogetherdifferent races. Similar differences one can observe even more distinctly among the

people of pure Caucasian white race of Europe. Caucasian can be of any colourranging from pure white to almost pure black, with every shade of brown inbetween.

Further, a recent landmark global study in population genetics by a team ofinternationally reputed scientists over 50 years reveals that the people habited inthe Indian subcontinent and nearby including Europe, all belong to one single raceof Caucasian type. According to this study, there is essentially, and have been nodifference racially between north Indians and the so-called Dravidian South Indians.

The racial composition has remained almost the same for millennia. This study alsoconfirms that there is no race called as an Aryan race. (Luca Cavalli-Sforza).

3.2.2 WARS AND SKELETONS

The Rig-Veda contains references to wars that have occurred during its period. Thisis used by the invasionists to further their claims about the war between the darkskinned Dravidians and the fair-skinned Aryans. This is a gross misinterpretation ofthe Vedas and as we shall see, has no connection whatsoever to an invading tribe.


19/26

So what do these wars that are mentioned refer to? They can be studied under twobroad categories: (Agarwal, 1995)

The Wars between forces of nature: Indra, the Thunder-God of the Rig Veda,

occupies a central position in the naturalistic aspects of the Rig Vedic religion,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 whosemain activity is the prevention of rainfall and sunshine. The clouds aredepicted in terms of their physical appearance: as mountains, as the blackabodes of the demons who retain the celestial waters of the heavens (i.e. therains), or as the black demons themselves. Thus, it is a conflict between therain(pure, white) and the clouds(dark, evil). This, in no way, is to beconstrued as the war between white Aryans and black Dravidians. This is aperverted interpretation from those who have not understood the meaningand purport of the Vedic culture and philosophy. Most of the verses, whichmention the wars/conflicts, are composed using poetic imagery, and depictthe celestial battles of the natural forces, and often take greater and greater

recourse to terrestrial terminology and anthropomorphic depictions. Thedescriptions acquire an increasing tendency to shift from naturalism tomythology.

Actual conflict between different groups: Iranians are known to have been

originally residing in Northern India, but had an ideological schism from theVedic Indians. Due to which, they moved out to the North West. However,there were quite a few wars between the two groups. The Iranians not onlycalled 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 conflicts between thedaeva-worshippers and the Dahyus on behalf of the Dahyus, as the Vedictexts depict them on behalf of the Deva-worshippers. There also mentions ofthe various conflicts between different indigenous tribal groups over naturalresources and various minor kingdoms to gain supremacy over the land andits expansion.

There have been a few skeletons that were excavated from the Harappa andMohenjo daro sites, which is conveniently explained as the bodies of the warriorswho fought the battle against the invaders. However, consider the facts properly. Acity of 3 miles in circuit has given way to only 37 skeletons, which can be attributedto the Indus Valley period! Does that represent a war? They were all found in thearea of the Lower Town - probably the residential district. Not a single body wasfound within the area of the fortified citadel where one could reasonably expect thefinal defence of this thriving capital city to have been made. (Dales, 1964)

Further, one can reasonably expect some sort of souvenirs from the war. The warsite can expect to have burned fortresses, arrowheads, weapons, pieces of armour,smashed chariots and bodies of the invaders or defenders, etc. Nevertheless, the


20/26

extensive excavations at these sites provide not even a clue to such an invasionhaving been taken place.

3.2.3 INDUS SCRIPT DECIPHERMENT

S. R Rao, a renowned Indian archaeologist, who worked in the ASI (ArchaeologicalSurvey of India), has done extensive research on the Indus script. This work hasborne fruitful results, as he has been able to bridge the gap between the ancientIndus script and the Brahmi script. The language that he deciphered belonged tothe Aryan language family after all. The people who resided at Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, and other sites were culturally Aryan is thus confirmed by the deciphermentof the Harappan script and its identity with Sanskrit family. The Harappa culture wasa part of a continuing evolution of the Vedic culture, which had developed on thebanks of Saraswati River.

Among the many words yielded by Dr. Rao's decipherment are the numerals aeka,tra, chatus, panta, happta/sapta, dasa, dvadasa and sata (1,3,4,5,7, 10,100) and

the names of Vedic personalities like Atri, Kasyapa, Gara, Manu, Sara, Trita, Daksa,Druhu, Kasu, and many common Sanskrit words like, apa (water), gatha, tar(savior), trika, da, dyau (heaven), dashada, anna (food), pa(protector), para(supreme), maha, mahat, moksh, etc.

While the direct connection between the late Indus script (1600 BC) and the Brahmiscript could not be definitely established earlier, more and more inscriptions havebeen found all over the country in the last few years, dating 1000 BC, 700 BC, andso on, which have bridged the gap between the two. Now it is evident that theBrahmi script evolved directly from the Indus script. (Rao, 1991)

3.2.3.1 HORSEPLAY AT HARAPPAIn 2000, N. Jha and N. S Rajaram published a book The Deciphered Indus Script.

The findings of this book are astounding. It simultaneously achieves a two foldobjective: It links the ancient Indus script to the Vedic culture and also proves thatthe script on the Indus seals are perhaps the oldest available writings by anyhuman civilization. In the Indus seals, we have in all probability the mother ofalphabetic writing is the conclusion drawn after Jhas phenomenal work. Thoughthe seals were found in 1920s, it could not be appropriately deciphered previous to

Jhas work because of the dogma of the AIT. It is impossible to decipher unless theIndus script can be seen as a predecessor to the Brahmi script and its contentcannot be comprehended unless seen as part of the overall Vedic culture. This was

yet another blow to the Theory.

However, strangely, this phenomenal work by Jha and Rajaram was sidelined andscholars such as Steve Farmer and Michael Witzel were more interested in horses.

They go on to label the book as Hindutva propaganda (Michael Witzel, 2000). Theirmain qualm with the book is that the authors have misrepresented a particular sealwhere a bull is shown to look like a horse.


21/26

It is impossible not to question: ...why bother with one unimportant seal whenthe book gives a complete methodology and one hundred tables ofdeciphered readings covering over fifteen hundred Harappan seals? In abook of nearly 300 pages, there are just two footnotes about the horse. (The articleby Witzel and Farmer occupies ten pages of small print followed by a two-pagearticle by eminent historian Romila Thapar about horses.)

The point is that the defenders of the AIT have held that the Harappans did nothave horses and it was this point that made them weak and susceptible to theAryans who had a fairly good cavalry. By proving that horses were, in fact, known tothe Indus civilization before the supposed invasion of the Aryans, their entire theoryfalls flat. Thus all of this horseplay is nothing but a desperate attempt on part of theWestern academicians, Indologists and the tribe of Thapars (communist Historians)to save the theory from being completely discarded. The Frontline article is part ofthe campaign to somehow save the crumbling edifice of the Aryan invasion versionby creating diversions and raising the spectre of Hindutva propaganda. The realagenda is clear: protect their discredited Aryan invasion/migration version and the

non-Indian origin of the Vedic civilization by labeling opponents as Hindutvapropagandists. The rest is diversion. (Rajaram N. S., 2000)

Men like Witzel are successors to these colonial-missionary scholars,while Indians like Thapar and her tribe, are their camp followers. Our bookexposes this. So their tactic is to discredit the book by attacking us personally. Thisis exactly what the Secularists did to the distinguished archaeologistB.B. Lal when he exposed their lies at Ayodhya.More things change, morethey remain the same. (Rajaram N. S., 2000)

What reason do the duo give for their long article criticizing Jhas and Rajaramswork? What importance is a horse seal from centuries old civilization to the German

and American scholars? Why, its the White mans burden card played all overagain. Cant Indians think for themselves and decide the authenticity of the work?Apparently not, which is why they feel they have to caution us. We fear for Indiaand for objective scholarship. (Michael Witzel, 2000) So Witzel and Farmer have tosave India and Indians from being corrupted by devilish heathens and natives likeRajaram, Jha and Talageri!

But seriously, who are they trying to kid? Surely, there must be other reasons whysomeone like Witzel should go to such length to attack two writers who he himselfdismisses as of no consequence. One reason is probably emotional. Witzel is aGerman Romantic. His heroes still are nineteenth century German Indologists likeBothlingk and especially Oldenberg.Therefore, it is natural that he should be

attached to nineteenth century German ideas like the Aryan nation and the Aryaninvasion. But there is a more serious concern: fear of academic survival in the faceof downsizing the humanities at American universities. The collapse of the AryanInvasion model of history, which the work records, and which is receiving widenotice, could not have come at a worse time for the likes of Witzel. Their careersand reputations are at stake. This is what one needs to understand. Harvard, likemany other universities, in America is not interested in funding research offices andprograms that are unproductive and which does not attract new students. Thus,


22/26

unless Witzel and his likes do not weave research papers regularly, off goes theirfunding.

That apart, horses were really found in Harappa. Numerous excavated sites alongIndus valley and along the dried Saraswati river have produced bones ofdomesticated horses. Dr. SR Rao informs us that horse bones have been found both

from the 'Mature Harappan' and 'Late Harappan' levels. In fact, as far back as 1928,John Marshall, Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India had writtenabout Harappan sites: Among the domesticated animals were the humped longhorned Indian bull (Bos Indicus) (of which to judge by the frequency of the remainslarge herds must have been maintained), the sheep, pig, dog, horse and theelephant. And he is quite specific about the horse: The horse in the Indus Valleywas the small equis cabalus near akin to the Indian country bred.

3.3 DAVID FRAWLEYS PARADOX

The Harappans of the Indus Valley have left profuse archaeological records over avast region - from the borders of Iran and beyond Afghanistan to eastern UP and

Tapti valley, and must have supported over 30 million people and believed to beliving an advanced civilization. And yet these people have left absolutely no literaryrecords. Sounds incredible! The Vedic Aryans and their successors on the otherhand have left us a literature that is probably the largest and most profound in theworld. But according to the AIT there is absolutely no archaeological record thatthey ever existed. Either on the Indian soil or outside its boundaries. So we haveconcrete history and archeology of a vast civilization of 'Dravidians' lastingthousands of years that left no literature, and a huge literature by the Vedic Aryans

who left no history and no archaeological records. The situation gets more absurdwhen we consider that there is profuse archaeological and literary records indicatinga substantial movement of Indian Aryans out of India into Iran and West Asia around2000 BC. (Frawley, 1999)

Sanskrit is supposed to be the language of primitive invaders and yet it is, by theopinion of many, one of the most refined languages in the world. It has beenregarded as the best language for computers because of its clarity. How can anomadic primitive tribe develop such a sophisticated language while a highlyadvanced civilization with intense knowledge of maths and science has no literarydevelopments at all?

Sanskrit is also a highly self-contained language developing organically out ofspecific roots, quite unlike English, which is a mixture of various different languageslike old German, Danish and French, with an admixture of Greek and Latin, reflectinga land that was invaded by many different peoples. This also goes to show thatSanskrit was home to the Indus Valley Civilization.

3.4 THE REAL EXPLANATION


23/26

Though for many years now, renowned scholars and academicians have beenrefuting the AIT on numerous grounds but, were not able to provide a firmalternative explanation to the reason of the abandonment of the Harappan cities.

The final nail on the coffin of the AIT was delivered with the finding of the driedcourse of the river Saraswati.

In the Rig-Veda, the honour of the greatest and holiest river was not bestowed uponGanga but upon the River Saraswati. a mighty flowing river all the way from theHimalayas to the ocean across the Rajasthan desert. The Ganga is mentioned onlyonce while the Saraswati is mentioned at least 60 times.

In 1910, G E Pilgrim published a landmark paper in which he drew attention to analluvial deposit of great antiquity found stretching all the way from the Himalayanfoothills to the Sind gulf Pilgrims imagined the deposit to have been laid by aprimitive river. Recent satellite imagery by the NASA and ISRO have shown a driedup river bed along this course. Geological excavations have also proven the same.

The River Saraswati seemed to have changed directions atleast four times in her

lifespan, each time shifting to a more westerly alignment according to geologicaldata. She seems to have been massive, up to five miles across in her heyday,flowing through Hanumangarh in Rajasthan to Marot in Pakistan as divulged bysatellite photography. The Post Graduate Research Institute, Deccan College hasworked out the changing routes of the river in detail. About 4000 BC, Saraswati inher original course emanating from the Himalayas lay in a south-west directionpassing through Mathura and Panchbhadra to the mouth of the Kutch. With theclimate turning drier, the flow shifted between Sirsa and Nohar through Bikaner.

The next shift occurred with the flow through Rangmahal, also in Rajasthan. In thetertiary stage she wended her way through Jaikkal and Hanumangarh during theIndus civilisation and in the fourth and final stage she flowed westward from

Samargarh to merge with the Indus, thereby losing her independent identity'. (RaoV. G., 2000). And therefore, the river, finally, dried up by 3000 BC.

This has two serious implications. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, the Rig-Veda is full ofpraise to this particular river. The river called Saraswati is the most important of therivers mentioned in the Rig Veda. The image of this 'great goddess stream'dominates the text. It is not only the most sacred river but also the Goddess ofwisdom. She is said to be the Mother of the Veda.

A few Rig Vedic hymns, which mention Saraswati River, are presented below:

ambitame naditame devitame sarasvati (II.41.16)(The best mother, the best river, the best Goddess, Saraswati)

maho arnah saraswati pra cetayati ketuna dhiyo visva virajati (I.3.12)(Saraswati like a great ocean appears with her ray, she rules all inspirations)

surpassing all other rivers and waters:visva apo mahina sindhur anyah;


24/26

pure in her course from the mountains to the sea:sucir yati girbhya a samudrat(VII.95.1-2)

If the river dried up by 3000 BC, then it must have been flowing in its full intensityat least a 1000 years back when she would have deserved the praises accorded toher in the Veda. This proves that the Rig-Veda belongs to a period of at least 4000BC, much earlier than the supposed invasion.

The second important implication is that it proves that the Harappan civilization wasformed on the bed of the River, much like any ancient civilization. Numerousarchaeological sites have also been located along the course of this greatprehistoric river. A 350 km land survey conducted in 1985 by V S Wakankar fromAdibadri to Somnath has yielded over 160 more sites on the dried-up course of theriver. Thus, when the river did dry up in 3000 BC, the Harappans, who weredependent on the mighty river, moved along with the river when she changed hercourse. The ending of Indus Valley and the Saraswati civilization was due to theconstant floods and drought in the Indus area and the drying up of the Saraswati

River. There was no invasion or battle but merely an ecological change that madethe Harappans abandon their home and move towards other perennial rivers, whichcould provide sustenance. This is the truth and there ends the matter!

CONCLUSION

We have seen that the AIT was the invention of a few parochial and nationalistscholars, which is used till date for political ends. The far-reaching consequences ofthis theory cannot be overstated and, as we have seen, never before in history hasany theory been so abused to subjugate a group of people.

The truth is clear: there was never an invasion but the city was deserted because ofecological reasons. The Rig-Veda dates clearly earlier than 3700 BC and the Indusscript can be placed on a continuum of the evolution of the Sanskritic script.

Based on Vedic testimonies, Puranic references, archaeological evidences, and allthe accounts presented here above, the most realistic and accurate chronologicalevents of the pre-historic period of India should be fixed as follows:

Vedic Age - 7000-4000 BC End of Rig Vedic Age - 3750 BC End of Ramayana - Mahabharat Period - 3000 BC Development of Saraswati-Indus Civilization - 3000-2000 BC Decline of Indus and Saraswati Civilization - 2200-1900 BC Period of Complete chaos and migration - 2000-1500 BC Period of evolution of syncretic Hindu culture - 1400 - 250 BC

Finally, we should remember that this was just another tool in the British armor intheir colonial expansion agenda, which is strangely supported by a blindly followinggroup of Indian historians and has, unfortunately, succeeded in permeating themindset of the Indian population.


25/26

Therefore, while acknowledging its falsity on the personal level is the first step,much needs to be done with regards to exposing the myth in the eyes of the public.

This perhaps, entails sweeping out of irresponsible, dishonest and ideologically fixedacademicians from prominent posts, who decide what the young minds imbibe andsimultaneously endeavour to rewrite history based on facts and academic honesty!

WORKS CITED

Agarwal, D. (1995). Demise of the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Dales, G. F. (1964). The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daro, Expedition Vol VI.

Dubois, A. (1897). Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies.

Elst, K. (1998).Astronomical data and the Aryan question. Leuven .

Frawley, D. (1999). The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, In Search of the Cradleof Civilization.

Luca Cavalli-Sforza, P. M. The History and Geography of Human Genes. PrincetonUniversity Press.

Michael Witzel, S. F. (2000). Horseplay in Harappa. Frontline .

Nahar, M. D. (1996). The Invasion that never Was.

Playfair, J. (1790). Dharampal: Indian Science and Technology.

Rajaram, N.Aryan Invasion - History or Politics?

Rajaram, N. S. (2000). Harappan Horseplay: The real story.

Rao, S. R. (1991). Decipherment of the Indus Script, Dawn and Development ofIndus Civilization, Lothal and the Indus Civilization.

Rao, V. G. (2000, November 13). Saraswati: River Beyond the Myth. Times Of India .


26/26

Thapar, R. (1992). The Perennial Aryans.

Vivekananda. The Myth of Aryans and non-Aryans. Madras.

Documents

The Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory