Has Tamilnadu historically remained outside rest of India?

In the aftermath of Election 2019 that found Tamilnadu standing outside the Modi wave, a message doing rounds in social media says that Tamilnadu had historically been outside India. That message in crisp terms is illustrated as below.

The first figure is from pre-common era while the rest are from the last 800 years. The history of last 800 years is fairly known to the general public as one ridden with foreign invasions both political and religious. By comparing the current (2019) political absence of the BJP in Tamilnadu (and even Kerala) with the other maps, an image is attempted to be created that the Tamils have always resisted invasions, and much in the same way rejected the Hindu(tva) invasion by rejecting the BJP.

The mistake in this illustration is that the creator of this illustration had cleverly avoided the Indian map between 1700 and 1947 when Tamilnadu was one with the rest of India by coming under a single rule. With the rise of Tipu Sultan in 1700s all of Kerala and part of Tamilnadu bore the onslaught of jihadi religion and lost their own colour and character. This was followed by British invasion that came along with another wave of displacement of native Hindu religion with its own religion. Any map of this 250 year period would show Tamilnadu in unison with rest of India. So why this big hullabaloo now that Tamilnadu cannot be ‘captured’ by others?

An analysis of the election results show that these two States that once formed the land of the three Tamil kingdoms are continuing to be in the grip of colonial and Mughal hangover, in a brainwashed state of following their political ideology (Dravidian) and (imported) religious identity, while the rest of India had voted through their brains! No one can deny the fact that the only people who prayed en masse for the defeat of Modi were the Christians and Muslims of Tamilnadu. Only these people have resurrected the fallen princes, Rahul Gandhi in Kerala and Stalin in Tamilnadu. They were the descendants of a people who were very much Hindu but converted by word or sword. These descendants are trying to perpetuate the agenda of the invaders even after they were defeated or sent out.

Until 1699, the Hindu rulers of these two States had kept the Mughals under bay. Though there were periodic incursions, they were repelled and status quo restored. But once they fell to Tipu and then the British, there was complete surrender to the foreigners and proliferation of foreign religions. With the tacit support of the Constitution of India and overt support of secular parties Independent India is seeing phenomenal growth of foreign religion in our soil to the extent that their combined number seems to have reached a threshold level in Tamilnadu as to reverse the original character of Tamil lands. The so-called resistance to the ‘outsider’ BJP is by the same people, enslaved to foreign religions. Is this something to gloat about? Is this the same as how ancient Tamil kingdoms remained free from invasions?

If aversion to Modi is because he is an outsider, then substantial part of Tamil population are outsiders as their ancestors were also from Modi’s land. The Tamil Sangam texts testify the migration of 18 kings coming in the lineage of Krishna of Dwaraka, 18 groups of people called Velirs and Aruvalars to Tamil lands including Kerala of those times. The 18 groups include skilled workers in different fields and agriculturists. Nalliyakkodan praised in Sangam text ‘Siru Panarru padai’ was from one such group called ‘Oviyar’ Perhaps they were skilled in painting. Adhyaman Neduman Anji whose name is mentioned in Ashokan edict was also an outsider coming from Gangetic plain but ruled the Tamil lands. All the seven philanthropists known as “Kadai ezhu vallal” in Tamil sangam age were from this group that came from Dwaraka.

Perhaps they were from northern plains with whom the northern dynasties had kept up good relations, the Mauryan extent was limited to regions outside these Velir kings who occupied the boundaries of Tamil kings. The first map in the above illustration shows Ashokan Empire though the time period mentioned in the map refers to the previous regime, i.e., Ashoka’s father. The filial connection with the kings perhaps stopped the northerners to invade Tamil lands at that time. One must remember there was no event of war with northern kings before the Common Era. This was possible due to family and friendly connections between Tamil and northern kings. The reference to Moriyar crushing the people of Mogur in Sangam texts is interpreted by some as an invasion by Mauryas. But it is not true and to know why, click this link.

Around the beginning of Common Era the Chera king Senguttuvan faced no resistance on his way to the Ganges and Himalayas but was aided by the Satakarnis. The Chera forces had joined with Satakarni forces in trouncing Yavanas somewhere near North West Himalaya, perhaps the Berber region called as Paruppadam in Tamil. (Amarnath is likely to be Paruppadam). This is an evidence of fraternity and friendship between Tamil kings and north Indian kings. To the information of those Tamils who detest Modi and Hinduism, this Chera king had gone to the river Ganga along with his widowed mother to offer ancestral worship to his father. This king had even done Soma yaaga in his kingdom, says Silappadhikaram. All these had happened 2000 years ago. So Tamil lands were Hindu and Vedic – call whatever, at the time of ancient Tamil dynasties.

Go farther back in time, and you get to know that Krishna of Dwaraka had married a girl of Tamil lands. The marriage with the Tamil girl Nappinnai finds mention in many texts including a Sangam poem by Nalkoor Velviyar and in Jeevaka Chinthamani composed by a Jain monk. So there is scope to deduce that movement of people between Tamil lands and Dwaraka or even Mathura had happened at Krishna’s time itself.

Krishna’s time is when Mahabharata war happened. Puranauru tells about a Chera king as having fed the armies of both Pandavas and Kauravas. A Pandyan king had fought on the side of Pandavas but got killed by Asvattama. A complete chapter of Mahabharata describes the valiant fight done by this Pandyan king. So is there any truth in the claim that Tamils had a separate identity and history away from rest of India?

Talking on Aswattama, how many Tamils and slaves of foreign religion know that north Tamilnadu was under the grip of descendants on Aswattama in recent history? How many of them know that Pallavas who ruled the very place that is now the capital city of Tamilnadu were the descendants of Aswattama, the son of Dronacharya, a Brahmin whom the illustrator of the above image would like to identify as an Aryan?

Pallavas encouraged stone works. It was only in the Pallava period we see sudden spurt in stone architecture in Tamilnadu. The workers must have come from outside and could not have been native to Tamil lands. By now their lineages must have merged well throughout Tamilnadu. Did the ancient native Tamils resist their merger? No scope to say so. Such merger could be possible only if the migrants were also following the same culture and religion. Compare this with the behaviour of the present day Tamils enslaved to migrant religions. They don’t merge with mainstream Hindus and India but claim exclusivity from the native religion and the country. So who is outsider to this land?

All the incidents cited above propose an unstated message that merger and migrations were possible within and outside Tamil lands only because of a common culture that springs from a common religion. There may have been resistance to specific rulers at times but none were against the common culture that is HINDU culture. How many Tamil chauvinists are ready to accept this?

Go back further in time to chola beginnings. They first chola was the son of none other than Bharata, son of Dushyanta and Shakuntala. The chola ancestry given in inscriptions such as the one found in Tiruvalangadu traces its roots to Ikshvaku dynasty of Rama! Virarajendra, the son of Rajendra Chola I goes a step further and claims in his Kanyakumari inscription that Rama was his ancestor! How many in Tamilnadu know this information?

The Epic heroes Rama and Krishna worshiped with reverence by Hindus were not aliens to Tamil lands. One can be called as son of the soil while the other is the son-in-law of the soil. Both have visited the Tamil lands during their life time. Both have left their presence through their descendants. Both were part of Tamil history.

Unanimity in historical, cultural and religious spheres promotes friendship and fraternity among different regions of India including Tamil lands. But many regions were at war with each other in the past. One could say commerce was the driving force behind invasions. People wanted to get hold of more riches available at other places. This was the basis of war between Pandavas and Kauravas which developed into pan-Indian proportions in course of time as each side had control over one each of the two important transit centres for commerce of that time. The Kauravas had control over Gandhara which gave access to West Asia and Central Europe. The Pandavas were in control of Dwaraka / ports in Gujarat coast that offered access to sea routes to Middle East. The victor would have control over both. This led to most kingdoms of that time to side with one of the warring groups.

Of all the kings, the Chera king preferred to stay away but offered to supply food to both the armies, for he was not dependant on any of those centres due to geographic advantage of having his own ports on the west coast. Only the warring brothers were in need of his assistance for using his ports and he in turn benefited by friendly relations with them. The same advantage was not there for the Pandyan king and therefore had no option other than taking sides. Thus one can make out the dynamics of mutual benefit among the different regions of India. The ancient Tamil kings were great statesmen in keeping cordiality with others around them for the benefit of prosperity of their kingdoms.     

When cultures were the same, friendship and bonding is developed and commerce is promoted to the benefit of all the players involved. Sangam literature is replete with instances of Tamil people travelling to far off places such as Pataliputra and beyond on the eastern sector and crossing the desert to go to West Asia. Unless peace and cordiality was maintained in the regions that one has to cross, such expeditions that have annually happened from Tamil lands could not have taken place.

Presence of common culture enabled peaceful movement of people for commerce. There is mention of collection of toll for the traders in a Sangam text which reveal that highways and highway patrol were maintained by respective kings of the regions. The entire eastern sector known as Coromandal (corrupted from Cholamandala) ran from the southern tip of India to Patna. It was only around 1000 CE we come across wars in this regions by the Cholas to gain control or to keep the kingdoms on the way under their check.

In the first millennium CE many kingdoms came under the influence of Jains and Buddhists. When religion changes the culture also changes. With the advent of Jainism and Buddhism in Tamilnadu newer strains appeared, but ultimately the Tamil dynasties remained steadfast on native Vedic religion only.

The Tamil chauvinists are raking up newer issues such as claiming that ancient Tamils were not Hindus but worshiped Shiva, Vishnu etc. These deities in addition to four others are part of native religion of entire India and named as Shanmata later. They were accepted in Tamil lands and worshiped by ancient Tamils. Just a cursory look at Mullaik kali verses of Kalithogai would reveal this truth. The Shanmata is for entire India. If anyone is averse to the word Hindu, let them call the culture as Shanmata culture, but never should they think that Tamil culture was different from the rest. Never could they claim that the foreign religions were part of Tamil land. And never can they claim that Tamil’s past was different from the rest of India.

Hinduism’s long history deciphered from the legends of Diwali. Part 1

Published in Ind Samachar

In the wake of cracker ban by the Supreme Court on the entire country, Diwali this year has evoked great interest among people comparing the variants of this festival in different parts of the country spanning over a period of not just one day, but five days, making people wonder which day was referred to by the Supreme Court in its stricture on fire-crackers. With most of South India celebrating Diwali as Naraka Chaturdasi, there is another dissenting voice heard from the fringe political elements in Tamilnadu condemning the festival as glorification of murder, as the story goes that Diwali was the celebration of elimination of Narakasura by Krishna. Those fringe elements had gone to the extent of glorifying Narakasura – without even knowing who he is - in their urge to sully Krishna, the Hindu deity. Analysis of these two issues, the variants in Diwali and the truth about the death of Narakasura brings us to a pleasant conclusion on the very long history and spread of Hinduism across Asia.

Basis of Diwali legends.

Starting of a new life after destruction is the basic theme in the different legends of Diwali celebrated throughout India. A popular version in North India is that Diwali marks the return of Rama to Ayodhya after the destruction of Ravana, while the fact remains that Rama returned on a Pushyami day and not on the day of Chitra or Swati when Diwali occurs. The only justification for this deviation from the original fact could have been the tradition that Diwali marks the ushering in of Light after a period of gloom! So there is something special about the day that even if Krishna’s legend is forgotten, people had felt it necessary to replace it with an olden legend of Rama without checking the veracity of it, only to be in consonance with the importance of the day. This goes to show that there is something cosmologically important for the day of Diwali. The following illustration shows the cosmic position of the day.

The illustration shows two signs in opposite ends, namely Aries and Libra. Aries marks the coming of the New Year in the northern hemisphere of the globe. The opposite holds good for the southern hemisphere, that is, Libra heralds the arrival of the New Year in the southern hemisphere. It is in the month of Libra around the time of the new Moon, Diwali is celebrated throughout India. It is a 5-day festival in its entirety starting from the 13^th tithi before the New Moon and ending on the 2^nd tithi after the new Moon. Within this period comes the New Year of the southern hemisphere– on the day after New Moon. Wonder of wonders, this is the New Year for only one people of India (northern hemisphere) – that is the people of Gujarat, the land ruled by Krishna!

Doesn’t it sound puzzling that what is rationally the New Year in the southern hemisphere happens to be the New Year for the land of Krishna?

If we probe deeper, we would see that the now discarded Vikrama Era started on the same day as in the southern hemisphere. Its original name was ‘Krita’ or ‘Purva’ Era indicating its origin in antiquity. It was followed by the Mālava gaṇa, whose origins can be traced to the paternal home of Savitri, famous for getting back to life her husband Satyavan from the noose of Yama. Malavi was the name of Savitri’s mother and by the boon extracted by Savitri from Yama, the sons of Malavi came to be known as Mālavas whose location came to be named after them as Malwa. That Mālavas had followed the tradition of the southern hemisphere could only mean their ancestors had their origin somewhere in the southern hemisphere.

The Vikrama Era followed by them can be related to Trivikrama in the legend of Bali, an Asura whose location can be traced to the southern hemisphere. (Usually the inhabitants of the southern parts were known as Asuras while those of the north were known as Devas. Another definition of an Asura is that he is a tormenter). The dominance of Mahabali, the Asura tells of a time when the Southern hemisphere was brimming with life. With movement of Time, the location of life shifts places. This happened when the Northern hemisphere started becoming habitable and the southern hemisphere went under water. This is made out in the story of Mahabali. 

Mahabali initiated Diwali.

The narration of Vamana Purana on Mahabali sounds metaphorical of geological events of land forms experiencing tremors and going under water. Wherever Vamana went –even when he was in his mother’s womb – the land lowered. The lowered land got easily inundated with sea water. After Vamana was born and went on to meet Bali, the same thing happened. When Vamana placed his foot on Bali’s head, Bali sank into Pātāla which is the lowermost layer of the earth’s crust and the covering over the mantle. This is an allegorical description of loss of land into deep sea. The lands were lost to the seas in sudden and violent tremors causing many to lose their lives. The survivors had started a new life with new hope of a bright future.

In the legend of Bali comes the reference to Diwali!  Mahabali asked for a boon from Trivikrama that people make Deepa-dāna for three days in his memory for getting vanquished by three feet measures of Trivikrama. The three feet measures in fact refer to the tremors in the land and in the sky and then again on the land making it sink forever - the last one referring to the loss of habitat for people represented by Mahabali. Trivikrama’s boon that Mahabali would once again come back in a future Manvantra is allegorical of a future probability of the sunken lands rising up again which would then be recognised as Varaha lifting up the lands.  Vamana and Varaha avataras are thus alternating recurrences of two geological phenomena.

The three days starting from the day before the New Moon in Libra till the day after that are supposed to be the time of a massive destruction of a former civilization in the southern hemisphere. That also happens to be the New Year time in the southern hemisphere. The survivors have remembered it in two ways, as destruction of Asuras (of the southern hemisphere) and a beginning of new life and marked it with lighting lamps.

The continuity of New Year Era of the south in India by Mālavas and the people of Krishna’s country is in effect proof of migration of an olden civilization from South and South East Asia and not from Europe or West Asia, as western Indologists want us to believe. Migrations could have happened from Europe at later dates but the original customs and culture had come from the south along with the people who survived destruction. Or else kings from Manu’s times could not be expected to have celebrated the day with Lamps.

In support of this claim, there is an inscription (E.I. Vol 4, No 18) found in the northern wall of the 2^nd prakara of the temple of Lord Ranganatha at Srirangam attributed to king Ravivarman of Kerala saying that the auspicious festival of ‘Deepotsava’ aimed at dispersing darkness was celebrated in olden days by kings Ila, Kartavirya and Sagara. Of them Ila was the son of Vaivasvata Manu, the progenitor of the current population of India as per Hindu texts whose name is associated with Matsya avatara. But celebration of Deepotsava by his son is proof of a further past with a connection to southern hemisphere (Mahabali) and subsequent migration to Indian mainland. He had carried the memory of Trivikrama.  One must remember that until 12,000 years ago, India, particularly north India was not habitable due to Ice Age and glaciations of the Himalayas while southern hemisphere was more hospitable for human life.

Newer legends of Diwali from Krishna’s times

As time passed by, newer episodes added fresh impetus to the old concept of Deepa-dāna. All the concepts around the 5-day Diwali except Bali Pratipada (in memory of Mahabali) can be related to a single event in Krishna’s life that happened in a place called Prāgjyothisha, which was originally located in today’s Myanmar and Thailand – known as Indra Dweepa in olden days! That event was the slaying of Narakasura!

This event recounted in Mahabharata and Vishnu Purana sounds more like a geological happening, similar to the destruction of Mahabali by Trivikrama. The etymological understanding of the names further reinforces the geological secret embedded in the event. The story is this:

The city of Prāgjyothisha was held by Naraka, the son of earth (hence he was known as Bhauma). He was fierce and tormented the people killing them often. He kept the two ear rings of Aditi under him, and made it inaccessible to the Devas. Many were imprisoned by him. His deputy, another asura by name Muru defended his city be a series of nooses around that were difficult to cross.

Then came Krishna from Dwaraka along with his wife Satyabhama, mounted on his carrier, Garuda. He entered Prāgjyothisha by clearing the way and making a road. He cut the nooses laid by Muru by his Chakrayudha (discus) and killed many asuras in a place called Nirmochana (meaning Liberation). Finally he killed Naraka and freed the people trapped by him. Then Aditi, the mother of Devas and also of Naraka appeared before Krishna. What she told to Krishna unravels the true purport of the slaying of Narakasura.

Aditi told that when she was held high by Krishna in his Varaha avatar, Naraka was born to her by rising from her. Naraka was given by Krishna and was also killed by him. Her two jewelled ear studs had been restored from Naraka and she was happy to offer them to Krishna to keep for progeny.  What does this all convey? Basically it conveys that Naraka was not a human being! There was some geological trouble happening for a long time which Krishna had stopped. 

To be continued in Part 2

My paper on Aryan – Dravidian issue.

My paper presented at SI3 conference in IIT Chennai on Dec 23, 2017 is basically a refutation of the ideas of Aryan migration to India and Dravidian migration to south India. These two were primarily the assumptions on which the famous epigraphist, Mr Iravatham Mahadevan built his research on Indus script. His main evidence was the presence of Brahui in North West India, in the region where Indus civilization flourished. But recently he reversed this idea while conceding that Brahui was originally spoken by the people of North east India. This shakes the very foundation of his research and therefore I took up his works as Purva paksha to check the veracity of his assumptions and methodology of research to find out how far his inference of Dravidian substratum for Indus is reliable.

The paper can be read here 

https://www.academia.edu/40148326/Harappan_was_Vedic_but_Tamil_was_not_Dravidian_A_critical_evaluation_of_Iravatham_Mahadevans_works?email_work_card=view-paper

The ppt slides of the paper can be accessed here:

https://www.academia.edu/36976504/SI3_conference_Challenging_Mahadevans_Assumptions_and_Methodology_of_Indus_script_decipherment

The following ideas were mooted by me in the paper.

The Aryan issues:

1. Vedic society was not rural as it is made out to be.

2. The Harappan script “fell into disuse” not because the Aryans could not follow it owing to the oral transmission of Vedas.

3. Indra-Dhvajā was found in the Indus seals and its continued presence can be seen as the Dhvaja-stambha (flag-posts) of temples even today.

4. Absence of horse in Indus motifs is because horse was never an emblem of anyone anytime in India in the pre-Common Era. On the other hand Unicorn, the most recurring sign of the Indus seal was the emblem of Jayadratha of Mahabharata who ruled over the Indus region.

5. The early Harappan phase coincides with the end of Mahabharata war giving scope to theorise that the losers in the war became Vaisyas and started the trade. All the prominent Harappan animal motifs are the emblems of the losers of Mahabharata war.

6. Varaha emblem continued as the emblems of many dynasties until a few centuries ago. Varaha’s presence pre-dates Jayadratha and can be traced to Manu’s times.

7. History of Manu heralds the Vedic history of India, not Aryan Invasion.

8. Manu’s previous location was in what came to be known as Pancha Dravida, in the west coast of South India. First sea floods of Holocene pushed him into River Saraswathi which was a mighty Himalayan river draining into the Arabian Sea at that time.

9. Manu’s new home is traced to Kashmir and Brahmavarta located in between Saraswati and Drishadvati.

10. Manu explored the east of India and chose Sarayu for setting up Ayodhya thereby ushering in the Saraswati –Sarayu culture.

11. Sarayu of Rig Veda was the Sarayu in east India, not Haroiiu of Afghanistan as claimed by the supporters of the Aryan Invasion Theory.

12. Evidence shown from Ramayana that Sarayu of Rigveda was indeed the Sarayu of Ayodhya. This also means that Ramayana did happen and happened before the composition of that Rig Vedic verse on Sarayu.

14. Archaeo-botanical studies are cited to show that Sarayu - Gangetic and Vindhya region was a rice-bowl around the 6^th millennium BCE – during which time the Ramayana had happened. This period concurs with Pushkar Bhatanagar’s date of Ramayana.

15. Migrations had happened from India to West- Northwest India. Amāvasu, whom Witzel claims to be an incoming Aryan, was from the Indian stock as he was the 12^th fore-father of Vishwamitra.

16. The location of Kekaya of Ramayana is established as Bactria (and nearby) to show that Bactria was Vedic land and not a stop-over region for the invading Aryans and Dasyus as claimed by Witzel and Parpola respectively.

The Dravidian issues:

17. Brahui was not Dravidian.

18. No Dravidian words in the Rig Veda (as claimed by Mahadevan)

19. Jyeshta Devi whom Mahadevan calls as the indigenous God of South India was the sister of Lakshmi (whom Mahadevan calls Aryan) and her cult was spread as far as Kekaya in the Ramayana times.

20. Mahadevan’s version that Mahabharata was a civil war that led to the decline of Indus civilization is disputed.

21. Mahadevan’s version that Krishna was a Dravidian is disputed by showing that Krishna is mentioned in the Rig Veda four times along with his family (son and grandson – Pradhyumna and Aniruddha) which gave rise to the Vyuha concept of Vaishnavism.

22. Further disputed by showing 2 verses in the Rig Veda on Krishna offering Soma to the Asvin-s. This concept continues even today in the festival of Sharad Purnima by capturing the image of the Full Moon (Soma) of the Asvin month in the milk offered.

23. Mahadevan’s notions on Velir and Agastya disputed.

24. Agastya’s time established.

25. Agastya’s time concurs with the period of rice cultivation at Sarayu which once again concurs with the date of Rama by Pushkar Bhatnagar.

26. No Aryan or Dravidian element in the legends of Agastya.

27. Coming to the Tamil substratum for Indus seals, there is no ‘an’ suffix in old grammar (Tol Kappiyam).

28. Tamil Brahmi as the basis for Tamil letters is false.

29. Brahmi was basically the product of Jains and Jain connection to Indus is shown.

30. Indus script found in Hathigumpha inscriptions and not in Tamil nadu.

31. No loan words and loan translations in Tamil.

32. Disputable nature of derivation with an example of “Muruga”.

33. No loan words from Sanskrit. As per Tol Kappiyam’s definition of ‘Vada sol’ (Sanskrit) ‘Meenam’ is as much a Sanskrit word as it is a Tamil word. Therefore wrong to say that (Indus) Meen was a Tamil word.

34.  Tamil and Sanskrit were sister languages: proved by the Tol Kappiyam sutra on Vaikhari vaak.

35. Pali and Sanskrit were sister languages. Proofs include Pali word in Rig Veda.

36. Pali in vogue in the Indus and beyond and seen in Mitanni treaty. Mohenjo in Mohenjo-Daro sounds like Pali.

37.  No parallelism with Tamil, only hints from Tamil.

38. Hint 1 from Silappadhikaram: The Great Bath likely to have been built by the descendants of the  assistants of Maya who built the indoor water pool for Pandavas.

39. Hint 2 from Silappadhikaram: The script on the Indus seals are about the name of the goods, their size, number and the stamp of the trader.

40. No Dravidian substratum for Indus as Mahadevan’s assumption of Aryan Invasion and methodology of using Tamil stand disputed.

Rakhigarhi was “Aryan”, Mr Witzel.

Earlier published in www.pgurus.com in three parts: 
Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

The preliminary findings of a DNA study of the skeletal remains of Rakhigarhi dated at 6000 years BP and reported in Economic Times on 13^th June 2018 reveal that there was no trace of Central Asian ancestry. Mr Vasant Shinde, one of the authors of the study says, “This indicates quite clearly, through archeological data, that the Vedic era that followed was a fully indigenous period with some external contact.” 

Another author, Mr Neeraj Rai who did the DNA study says that the findings point to “greater continuity rather than to a new Aryan race descending and bringing superior knowledge systems to the region.”

While these are on expected lines concurring with the indigenous history of ancient India as known from the Itihasas, it is necessary to know the reaction from the other side of the fence. One of the prominent proponents of Aryan Invasion Theory, Mr Witzel had reacted to this news in one of the group-forums as follows:

“.. “proving" the same: ancient DNA (just 2 persons) from the Indus site of Rakhigarhi, long bandied about, now is said to show that their DNA was *not* that of “invading Aryans.”

Of course, in a Harappan site we would not expect W. Central Asian (Indo-Aryan) DNA, as the recent paper by Vagheesh et al. indicated: the *speakers* of Indo-Aryan entered the subcontinent only in the LATE Bronze Age: as evidence from Swat indicates.

For a nationalist/Hindutva person that does not matter, of course, as they wrongly maintain that the Harappan population was “Aryan” anyhow.
Problem solved, LOL.”

It is amusing to read this reaction with many pitfalls contained. Let me discuss them one by one.

Sample size

At the outset he seems to take a dig at the number of samples taken for the study. The samples were taken from just two persons. Can any conclusive word be given on a well-oiled theory like the AIT, from just 2 specimens?

Why not? If 92 scientists (Vagheesh M.Narasimhan and others /Narasimhan et al) can justify Aryan Invasion or rather, the movement of Indo-Aryan speakers to India on the basis of *zero* samples from the Indus region, the Shinde-Rai pair sounds more reliable when they made their claim on *just* 2 samples.  

Thankfully, Narasimhan et al adhered to academic integrity by conceding that they have no “access to any DNA directly sampled from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC)” , but built up an hypothesis of an ancestry to IVC from outside Indus (Indus Periphery). In their own words,

“Without ancient DNA from individuals buried in IVC cultural contexts, we cannot rule out the possibility that the group represented by these outlier individuals, which we call Indus_Periphery, was limited to the northern fringe and not representative of the ancestry of the entire Indus Valley Civilization population.” (lines 293-295)

 “Indus Periphery-related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia.” (Abstract)

Contrast this with the findings of Shinde-Rai which is based on the genetic material extracted from 2 specimens, found in a core IVC location from a layer of 6000 years BP and arriving at a conclusion that it is predominantly a local element and did not contain any central Asian genetic element. This is not a hypothesis but a finding. Can we say the same for the conclusion of Narasimhan et al? Theirs is a hypothesis – a ‘possibility’.  

The Swat evidence

Perhaps in realisation of this fact, Mr Witzel switches over to finding an excuse for the absence of Central Asian element in the genetic material of Rakhigarhi specimen.  He expresses in the next line of his comment that he doesn’t expect Central Asian gene in any Harappan site, meaning to say that they would appear in the genetic make-up only after the Aryan Invasion had started – i.e., from the middle of the 2^nd millennium BCE. To support this he quotes the paper by Narasimhan et al on Swat-evidences. But then the Swat evidence speaks about an admixture of Iranian-agriculturists and South Asian hunter-gatherers (AASI) in 4700- 3000 BCE in outliers of BMAC and eastern Iran that was genetically similar to post-IVC groups of Swat region thousand years later (1200-800 BCE). This group is favoured by Narasimhan et al as forming “the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia.”

The fact of the matter is that there is NO central Asian ancestry in this group claimed by Mr Witzel as evidence from Swat (on subsequent Aryan Invasion). The admixture in Indus periphery / Swat is made of 58% - 86% of Iranian agriculturists related ancestry with “little Anatolian agriculturist related admixture” and 14%-42% AASI ancestry. On the other hand Shinde-Rai study shows minor traces of Iranian strains in Rakhigarhi which, going by the time period of the specimens, would be ancestral to Iranian genetic presence in Indus Periphery. In lay terms this means out of India movement of Iranian strains which however have to be corroborated by the exact strains found out in the study and made known once the paper is published.  

Can language be identified by genetics?

Another issue in Mr Witzel’s comment is about how he pinpoints the identity of the people that he calls Aryans. He identifies them by the language – “the *speakers* of Indo-Aryan”.

I never knew that linguistic research can be so easy that just by studying the genetic origins of a person one can tell the language he spoke! If DNA can tell the language a person spoke, it is certainly not a big deal to identify the languages spoken by say, the pre-historic people of Adichanallur in South East Tamilnadu.

Dated at 2500-2200 BCE, the skeletal remains of Adichanallur were found to have belonged to four races, namely, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids and Australoids, with none of them resembling contemporary Tamil people (here). 

Pic credit: The Hindu

The presence of these four races is absolutely not in sync with present day dwellers. How they reached this part of Tamilnadu from the presently known regions of these races might give a new migratory route. Instead if we link them with the language we speak, is it scientifically tenable to make a conclusion something like – that they brought Tamil to present-day Tamilnadu?

The Adichanallur specimens challenge one of the findings of the genetic study of Narasimhan et al. If Caucasoid had their origins in Central Europe or in central Steppe how did some of them reach this part of India at 2500-2200 BCE when their genetic markers were still hovering around BMAC between 2100 – 1700 BCE?

This means that there is many a slip in-between and Indian population history is not as easy as can be explained by an Aryan Invasion that is supposed to have brought a sophisticated language along with it. India’s location in a prime population blooming tropics, surrounded by oceans and drained by numerous rivers since Holocene offers a logical and plausible location for autochthonous growth of population with simultaneous growth of accessories like its own language and culture.

For saying this, if people like me are branded as “nationalist/ Hindutva person”, then the counter part of it makes the likes of Mr Witzel as anti-Indian and anti-Hindu, as Hindutva has its base in being a Hindu. Will he accept this identity for him?

Was Harappan Aryan?

Coming to the next and the last part of his comment, by rejecting the ‘Swat evidence’ of Narasimhan et al and subscribing to Shinde-Rai finding of indigenous strain in Rakhigarhi specimen, we are wrongly maintaining that Harappan was Aryan and be happy that ‘problem (is) solved’!

But the fact is that not just Harappan but the entire land of Bharat had been Aryan from an undated past. It was not caused by an Aryan Invasion. Central Asians or anybody could have come to India at any time or many times in the past, but how does it justify that they were the Vedic people?

In this entire issue of Aryan Invasion, one must be clear of what actually makes the culture Vedic?

Is it the spoke-wheeled chariot?

Yes, according to Mr Witzel. In the same comment on Rakhigarhi DNA study, he refers to the buried chariot excavated at Sinauli and observes,

“.. this is not a spoke-wheeled chariot but a cart with two *full* wheels, as is known from Harappa and Daimabad (see attached pictures). The usual confusion between chariots and wagons/carts, but exploited here for obvious political reasons : “No Aryan invasion” ”  

Does the animal pulling the chariot determine Aryan-ness?

Yes, according to Mr Witzel. His further comment on Sinauli-finding goes like this:

“The draft animals will have been oxen, as in the Harappan and Daimabad cases. These were not “horse ridden chariots” as one newspaper had it : LOL.” 

Spoke-wheeled chariot and horses determine the Aryan-ness and characterise the people as Vedic! Witzel and others quote the Vedas as authority for this!

Nothing can be more ridiculous and unscientific than this, as the very identity of the Vedic people is the fire ritual, the Yajna and not chariots and horses. Anybody from anywhere in the world could have had chariots and horses but the fire-ritual of the kind done in Vedic society is unique for the Vedic culture only.

The basic fire ritual of the Vedic culture is called ‘aupāsana’.  Aupāsana is done every day at twilights throughout one’s life and at no time this fire is extinguished.  From father to son, this fire travels down the generations endlessly. The fire for every other Vedic Yajna is taken from this Aupāsana fire. The one and only offering done in this fire is RICE.

Without rice no aupāsana can be done. Without aupāsana, no other yajna can be done and no Samskaras can be done. Rice is so basic to the Vedic society.

Now the question is, did the Central Asians know about rice?

They could have brought chariots and horses but did they bring rice – a grain very essential for doing the Vedic yajna?

Did they grow rice in the steppes or learnt about it anywhere en route to India identified by Witzel?

The simple fact is rice is not grown in those regions due to absence of supportive climatic conditions.

As per the AIT, they started Vedic life after reaching the IVC. But rice was already known to the IVC people and importantly in the present context of Rakhigarhi (IVC), a parallel archaeo-botanical study established that rice was grown in Rakhigarhi 6000 years ago! 

This is proof enough that the central Asians who were supposed to have entered the IVC in the 2^nd millennium BCE, had learnt the use of rice in the Yajna - assuming they developed the concept of Yajna by themselves – from the native, indigenous people of the IVC. A rational interpretation would however treat the central Asians as learning the very technique of Yajna from the natives and not as developing a Yajna all in a sudden by themselves and making the native rice as integral to the Yajna.

Rice, the staple food for natives of India from time immemorial also happens to be the staple food for Gods worshiped through Yajna. More importantly, in the Yajna for departed ancestors (sharadha) only cooked rice is offered. Having their ancestral homes in Central Asia, isn’t it illogical to expect them to have devised a Yajna for their ancestors in which the offering is a food that doesn’t grow in their ancestral land? So the role of rice in Vedic Yajna is something that defines the identity of the original Vedic Aryans.

Cultivation of rice in India predates the IVC.

 The currently available proof on domestication of rice goes up to 9000 years ago in the Gangetic plain. Excavations done at Lahuradewa in the trans- Sarayū region showed that rice was the staple food for the people. Cultivation of wild rice in Lahuradewa dates back to an early period of Holocene. One can see the limits of rice cultivation in the figure given below, with the Indus region falling outside.

Map of wild rice zones since 20,000 BP (marked as P) in comparion to expansion since 9,000 BP (marked as H). Recent populations are marked in crosses and circles. (Fuller 2011)

The tropical climate and wetness have favoured domestication of rice in south east and eastern parts of India in the riverside regions from times before Indus civilization. This is proof of settled habitation in the Gangetic region much before Indus Valley Civilization started.  Indus region is out of place in the rice map of early Holocene days.

The author (Fuller 2011) of the study (above figure) says in the abstract that ‘much dispersal of rice took place after Indo-Aryans and Dravidian speakers adopted rice from speakers of lost languages of Northern India’. This observation is influenced by the faulty and hypothetical division of people of India as Indo-Aryan and Dravidian. Like human genetics, rice-genetics is also assumed to reveal the speech of the people of the region! How unscientific!

Research  by Upinder Singh (Singh 2008:110) has revealed the presence of cultivated rice of the variety Oryza sativa from the northern fringes of Vindhyas on the banks of Belan river up to Allahabad in the trans- Sarayū region. While Koldihwa and Mahagara in Allahabad show independent domestication of rice from 8^th to 6^th millennium BCE, the Neolithic sites in Son Valley in Madhya Pradesh has shown rice cultivation from 6^th to 5^th millennium BCE.  Thus the Vindhya- Ganga- Ghaghara region is found to be the nuclear zone of rice domestication and cultivation from10,000 years BP. Delving on the same subject, Varma (2008:40-41) opines  that this was not due to cultural diffusion from West Asia and South East Asia as one can find layers of evolution in the sites from Mesolithic to Neolithic culture.

The continuity or rather the spread of rice cultivation from east India to the Indus regions in the west was established by Petrie et al. The proof comes from Rakhigarhi!

In their paper Petrie et al established that rice was cultivated in Rakhigarhi even before the Indus Urban phase and observed that proximity of this region to the Ganges where the earliest domestication of rice was found in 7^th millennium BCE “prompts the re-evaluation of the role of rice for Indus populations, and the way that it was transmitted from farther east”. This is a direct challenge to the view in support of AIT (Gangal et al. 2014) that farming entered India through Iran and Central Asia.  

All the rice growing regions mentioned above were home to the Ikśvāku-s of Sarayū, Kuśikā-s of Viśvāmitra and Jamadagni-s of Vindhyas – the last two being Rig Vedic sages having close blood relationship. Jamadagni was Viśvāmitra’s sister’s son and they both were of same age. (MB 13.4, VP 4.7)

The trans- Sarayū region had shown human settlements as early as 6^th to 5^th millennium BCE along with evidence of rice cultivation. It is significant that the birth date of Rama established by Puṣkar Bhaṭnāgar in his book “Dating the Era of Lord Ram” using astronomy software on the planetary position given in Valmiki Ramayana falls on 5114 BCE, within this period.

Ramayana period falling within 6^th -5^th Millennium BCE perfectly matches with archaeo-genetic of rice domestication in trans-Sarayu region. The same period witnessed rice domestication in Vindhya-Ganga-Ghaghara region lending cross-referential support for the contemporariness of Viśvāmitra and Jamadagni with Rama – a feature well attested through another cross-referential source, namely Ramayana.

Rice domestication in Vindhya-Ganga-Ghaghara-trans Sarayū region strengthens the case for a Vedic society at that time. There is literary evidence for rice in Valmiki Ramayana (Iyengar 1997:31). A sage by name Trijaṭa used to collect a rice variety called ‘lāṅgalī’ scattered in the forest. Twice it is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana about this sage subsisting on rice grains collected this way (VR 2.32.29 & 34). This rice could be either a wild variety growing in the forest or the left-over’s of cultivated variety after harvest.

The date of rice cultivation in Rakhigarhi a millennia later to trans-Sarayū –Vindhya region establishes the route of movement of cultivation of rice that forms the heart of the Vedic yajna.

What is the more rational of the two – the chariot driving Central Asians of the mid-2^nd Millennium BCE, after halting at the IVC grabbing the rice from the indigenous people and inventing Vedic fire ritual or a continuing indigenous population, growing rice since 7^th Millennium BCE and gradually developing Vedic culture where rice is central to fire rituals?   Those in the know of Vedas would attest that Vedas and Vedic rituals could not have been developed in a few centuries but over a larger span of time (which would take another article to explain). So Mr Witzel, it is not nationalistic, but rationalistic to claim that Rakhigarhi was indigenously Vedic, and therefore Aryan!  

References:

Fuller, D.Q. (2011). “Pathways to Asian Civilizations: Tracing the Origins and Spread of Rice and Rice Cultures”. RICE. 4(3-4). pp78-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12284-011-9078-7

Gangal K, Sarson GR, Shukurov A (2014) “The Near-Eastern Roots of the Neolithic in South Asia”. PLoS ONE 9(5): e95714. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095714

Ganguli, Kisari Mohan (Trans) (1883-1896). Mahabharata http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/source:mahabharata

Griffith, Ralph T. H. (Trans) (1870-1874). Ramayan of Valmiki. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/index.htm

Iyengar, Srinivasa C.R. (1997) (Trans).  “Sakala Kāriya Siddhiyum, Srimad Rāmāayaṇamum”  LIFCO Publication, Chennai. pp 29-32

Petrie, C., Bates, J., Higham, T., & Singh, R. (2016). “Feeding Ancient Cities in South Asia: Dating the Adoption of Rice, Millet and Tropical Pulses in the Indus Civilisation.” Antiquity.  90 (394).  pp1489-1504. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.210

Singh, Upinder (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12^th Century. Pearson Education India. Delhi.  pp 110-111.

Varma, Radha Kant  (2008). “Beginnings of Agriculture in the Vindhya-Ganga Region” History of Agriculture in India (up to c.1200 A.D). Concept Publishing Company. New Delhi. pp 31-46

Recommended Reading for clarification of the yuga-time of Ramayana: 

Yuga Classification and how Yuga must be understood

(Mailed to Mr Witzel)