From
Are you an Aryan
invader? Colonial views on fair-skinned Aryans vs dark-skinned Dravidians have
wide political currency today
By
A south Indian politician
recently accused a north Indian colleague of being an Aryan invader. I was
tempted to dismiss it, at first, as another case of the usual politicking.
Politicians, after all, will do what politicians do. Some condemn Turkic/Mongol
invaders, others British invaders and then there are those who move on to Aryan
invaders. One can certainly nurse grudges against assorted invaders; but it has
nothing to do with Indians living in the 21st century. That’s obvious.
My surprise, though,
emanated from this politician seemingly believing, without any doubt, in the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). What is the AIT? We’ve
been told that the Indus or Harappan civilisation was peopled by dark-skinned
Dravidians (the name was a much later addition; initially the theory called
them ‘indigenous people’) who were invaded by fair-skinned Aryans from Central
Asia/Eastern Europe around 3,500 years ago.
The Aryans apparently
massacred and then pushed the remaining Dravidians to the South, occupied the
freed land and composed the Vedas along with a vast body of other Sanskrit
texts. They also created the caste system to oppress the Dravidians. This theory was liked by British colonialists, who were
struck by the “romantic” parallel of a fresh wave of new white-skinned
invaders, repeating an ancient story.
AIT is largely based on linguistics, ie the study of languages. European scholars of the colonial era found striking
similarities between Sanskrit and Iranian/European languages, suggesting a
common source or intermingling. Many theories were propounded to explain this
intriguing discovery. One was the AIT.
Another was the Out-of-India
Theory, suggesting that people moved out from their homeland in India in a
northwest direction and hence spread their language. There were other theories
as well. Now, languages don’t have return addresses, so frankly, one can find
enough arguments to support them all.
Linguistics is regarded as a science by some (many others may disagree),
but it has inherent limitations as compared to other, more rigorous scientific
disciplines. Theories based on linguistics are open to interpretations. Unfortunately, the debate in this area also takes
place in a rather “mature” manner (sarcasm alert). Linguistics-driven historians, instead of conducting
public and scholarly debates, indulge in name-calling. Insults are
thrown freely. That’s unfortunate and childish.
Linguistics, due to its nature, may open the field to contradictory
opinions, but fortunately there are
other scientific disciplines to evaluate the AIT issue.
Archaeology examines history through site excavations and
analysis of artefacts/physical remains. Invaders tend to leave a trail of
destruction. Unfortunately for AIT proponents, there is little credible archaeological
evidence for a violent invasion 3,500 years ago.
Seeing the sands shift, some
proponents of AIT pirouetted and propounded a new Aryan Migration Theory (AMT),
ie the so-called Aryans migrated peacefully into India and most of the
so-called Dravidians of the heavily-populated Indus civilisation moved south.
If this were true, there should have been a massive influx of Eastern
Europeans/Central Asians into India at that time, right? Which would show up in
genetic records?
Unfortunately for the (now)
AMT proponents, genetic science disproves
this hypothesis. Most major papers on Indian genetics published in scientific
journals like Nature and American Journal of Human Genetics over the last few
years agree on one thing: There was no significant addition to the Indian gene
pool 3,500 years ago!
So, the AIT/AMT proponents
ask us to believe that there was this small bunch of nomadic people called the
Aryans who came to India 3,500 years ago. It was such a small band that they do
not show up in any archaeological or genetic records at all! And this tiny
group did not indulge in mass violence. But somehow, these mythical supermen
managed to, peacefully, convince the far more populous, advanced and urbane
Dravidians to migrate en masse to south India.
Presumably they debated the
so-called Dravidians into abandoning their homes. And while doing so, these
nomadic-barbarians also overturned the entire linguistic and cultural landscape
of India. Moreover, this alleged foreign culture was so comprehensively absorbed
that it survives to this day, thousands of years later, across the country.
Honestly, does this make any sense?
Consider another paradox we are asked to believe: The so-called Dravidians who
built the greatest civilisation of its time (called the Harappan/Indus
civilisation today), left no literature at all. On the other hand, these
nomadic-barbarian ‘Aryans’, with no settled homeland, created the largest body
of literature, philosophical and technical texts of that era. Creating
narratives of hi‘story’ to reconcile these huge contradictions leads to more
contortions than a jalebi.
Paraphrasing the principle
of Occam’s Razor, the simpler explanation is probably true. Simply put, there was probably no race called the Aryans. The
Indus and Vedic cultures were likely one and the same. And most of us in India
today, north or south, are descendants of that culture.
Our history books need to teach that there are serious and credible
doubts among many historians (not just Indian, but global) about the Aryan
Invasion Theory. These
alternative theories, based on archaeology and genetics, which largely do not
support AIT, must also be taught. Then let students make up their own minds.
I, for one, tend to agree
with what a European friend remarked. That the Aryan Invasion Theory is the
greatest piece of fiction cooked up by Europeans since the ethereal plays of
Shakespeare. Perhaps it’s time to close the book.
2 comments:
Namaskaram! Thanks for your enlightening blog posts. It helped me to change the way I think. I still have few questions to clarify myself.
I could fine many verses in Tamil Sangam texts using the work 'ஆரிய', to denote north Indian People.
Doesn't it mean that the entire of North Indian are called as 'Aariyans'? Any explanation would be very helpful
வில்லோன் காலன கழலே தொடியோள்
மெல்லடி மேலவும் சிலம்பே நல்லோர்
யார்கொல் அளியர் தாமே ஆரியர்
கயிறாடு பறையில் கால்பொரக் கலங்கி
வாகை வெண் நெற்று ஒலிக்கும்
வேய்பயில் அழுவம் முன்னி யோரே.
- குறுந்தொகை
In சிலப்பதிகாரம்:
· அருஞ்சிறை நீங்கிய ஆரிய மன்னரும்
பெருஞ்சிறைக் கோட்டம் பிரிந்த மன்னரும்
குடகக் கொங்கரும் மாளுவ வேந்தரும்
· ஒன்றித் தோன்றும் தனிக்கோள் நிலைமையும்
வடவாரியர் படைகடந்து
· கொங்கணர் கலிங்கர் கொடுங்கரு நாடர்
பங்களர் கங்கர் பல்வேற் கட்டியர்
வடவாரியரொடு வண்டமிழ் மயக்கத்துன்
கடமலை வேட்டமென் கட்புலம் பிரியாது
· வட ஆரிய மன்னர் ஆங்கோர் மடவரலை மாலைசூட்டி
· ஆரியநாட்டரசோட்டி அவர் முடித்தலை அணங்காகிய பேரிமயக் கல்சுமத்திப் பெயர்ந்து
Thanks,
Karthik
Post a Comment