Myth of Aryan Invasion

Aryan Invasion Theory is a Hoax

Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory

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 her ancient glorious heritage, and indigenous socio-economic-political institutions which have been developed over the millennia. Indian culture and nationalism have been evolved and fostered over the millenia by India's ancient rishis who at the banks of holy rivers of Saptasindhuand Saraswati had composed the Vedic literature - the very foundation of Indian civilization, and realized the eternal truths about the Creator, His creation, and means to preserve it. These pioneers of the ancient Vedic culture were indigenous people of mother India, this fact is mendaciously denied by the Aryan Invasion theory which professes their foreign origin, and thereby challenges the very raison d'etre of Indian culture and nationhood. In this article an attempt has been made to expose the myth of Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) by quoting scriptural, historical and archaeological evidences, and presenting proper interpretation of Vedic literature.

The Aryan issue is quite controversial and has been the focus of historians, archaeologists, Indologists, and sociologists for over a century. AIT is merely a proposed 'theory', and not a factual event. And theories keep modifying, are discredited, nay even rejected with the emergence of new knowledge and new data. Now with the emergence of new information in last couple of decades, and an objective analysis of the archaeological data and scriptures, the validity of AIT is seriously challenged by scholars, and by many is outrightly discarded. The most weird aspect of the AIT is that it has its origin not in any Indian records but in European politics and German nationalism of 19th century. No where in any of the ancient Indian scriptures or epics or Puranas, etc. is there any mention of Aryan migration or invasion or Aryan race.

In the last couple of decades, the discovery of the lost track of the Rig Vedic river Saraswati, the excavation of a chain of Harappan sites from Ropar in the Punjab to Lothal and Dhaulavira in Gujarat all along this lost track, the discovery of the archaeological remains of Vedis (alters) and Yupas connected with Vedic Yajnas (sacrifices) at Harrapan sites like Kalibangan, decipherment of the Harappan/Indus script by many scholars as a language belonging to Vedic Sanskrit family, the view of the archaeologists like Prof. Dales, Prof. Allchin etc. that the end of the Harappan civilization came not because of the so called Aryan invasion but as a result of a series of floods, the discovery of the lost Dwarka city beneath the sea water near Gujarat coast and its similarity with Harappan civilization, and an objective, accurate and contextual interpretation of Vedas indicate convincingly towards the full identity of the Harappan/Indus civilization with post Vedic civilization, and demand a re-examination of the entire gamut of Aryan Race/Invasion Theories.

For thousands of years the Arya (Hindu) society has looked upon the Vedas as the fountain-head of all knowledge: spiritual and secular, and the mainstay of Arya (Hindu) culture, heritage and its existence. Never our historical or religious records have questioned this fact. Even western and far eastern travellers who have documented their experiences during their prolonged stay and sojourn in India have testified the importance of Vedic literature and its indigenous origin. A nomadic, barbaric horde of invaders cannot from any stretch of imagination produce the kind of sublime wisdom, pure and pristine spiritual experiences of the highest order, a universal philosophy of religious tolerance and harmony for the entire mankind, one finds in the Vedic literature.

1. Major Flaws in Aryan Invasion Theory

A major flaw of the invasion theory was that it had no explanation for why the Vedic literature that was assumed to go back into the second millennium BC had no reference to any region outside of India. Also the astronomical references in the Rig Veda allude to events in the third millennium BC and even earlier, indicating origin of Vedic hymns earlier than 3000 BC. If it is assumed that the so-called Aryans invaded the townships in the Harappa valley and destroyed its habitants and their civilization, how come after doing that they did not occupy these towns? The excavations of these sites indicate that the townships were abandoned. And if the Harappan civilization had a Dravidian origin, who were allegedly pushed down to the south by Aryans, how come there is no Aryan - Dravidian divide in the respective literatures and historical traditions. The North and South have never been known to be culturally hostile to each other. Prior to the descent of British on Indian scene, there was a continuous interaction and cultural exchange between the two regions. The Sanskrit language, the so-called Aryan language was the lingua-franca of the entire society for thousands of years. The three greatest figures of later Hinduism - Shankaracharya, Madhavacharya and Ramanujam were Southerners who are universally respected in the North, and who have written commentaries on Vedic scriptures in Sanskrit only for the benefit of the entire population. Even in the ancient times some of the great Sutra authors like Baudhayana and Apastamba were from South. Agastya, a celebrated Vedic rishi from North India, is widely venerated in the South as the one who introduced Vedic learning to the South India. And also was the South India un-inhabitated prior to the pushing of the original population of Indus Valley? If not, who were the original inhabitants of South India, who accepted the newcomers from North without any hostility or fight?

There is enough positive evidence in support of the religious rites of the Harappans being similar to those of the Vedic Aryans. Their religious motifs, deities and sacrificial altars bespeak of Aryan faith, indicating continuity and identity of Vedic culture with the Indus valley civilization.

If the Aryan Hindus were outsiders, why don't they name places outside India as their most holy places? Why should they sing paeans in the praise of India's numerous rivers crisscrossing the entire peninsula, and mountains - repositories of life giving water and natural resources, nay even bestow them a status of goddesses and gods. If Aryans were outsiders why should they consider this land as the 'holy land' and not their original land as the 'holy land' or motherland? For the Muslims, their holy place is Mecca. For the Catholics it is Rome or Jerusalem. For the Hindus, their pilgrim centers range from Kailash in the North, to Rameshwaram in the South; and from Hingalaj (Sindh) in the West to Parusuram Kund (Arunchala Pradesh) in the East. The seven holy cities of Hinduism include Kanchipurum in the south, Dwarka in the west and Ujjain in central India. The twelve jyotirlings include Ramashwaram in Tamil Nadu, Srisailam in Andhra Pradesh, Nashik in Maharashtra, Somnath in Gujarat and Kashi in Uttar Pradesh. All these are located in greater India only. No Hindu from any part of India has felt a stranger in any other part of India when on a pilgrimage. The seven holy rivers in Hinduism, indeed, seem to chart out the map of the holy land. The Sindhu and the Saraswati (now extinct) originating from the Himalayas and move westward and southwards into the western sea; the Ganga and the Yamuna also start in the Himalayas and move eastward into the north-eastern sea; the Narmada starts in central India and the Godavari starts in western India, while the Kaveri winds its way through the south to move into the southern sea. More than a thousand years ago, Adi Shankaracharya, who was born in Kerala, established several mathas (religious and spiritual centers) including at Badrinath in the north (Uttar Pradesh), Puri in the east (Orissa), Dwaraka in the west (Gujarat), and at Shringeri and Kanchi in the south. That is ancient India, that is modern Bharat, and that is Hinduism.

These are some of the obvious serious objections, inconsistencies, and glaring anomalies to which the invasionists have no convincing or plausible explanations which could reconcile the above facts with the Aryan invasion theory and destruction of Indus Valley civilization.

Origin of Aryan Race Theory: Max Muller, a renowned Indologist from Germany, is credited with the popularization of the Aryan racial theory in the middle of 19th century. Though later on when Muller's reputation as a Sanskrit scholar was getting damaged, and he was challenged by his peers, since nowhere in the Sanskrit literature, the term Arya denoted a racial people, he recanted and pronounced that Aryan meant only a linguistic family and never applied to a race. But the damage was already done. The German and French political and nationalist groups exploited this racial phenomenon to propagate the supremacy of an assumed Aryan race of white people, which Hitler used to its extreme absurdities for his political hegemony and his barbaric crusade to terrorize Jews and other societies. This culminated in the holocaust of millions of innocent people.

What, really, is Aryan Invasion Theory?: According to this theory, northern India was invaded and conquered by nomadic, light-skinned race of a people called 'aryans' who supposedly descended from central Asia (or some unknown land ?) around 1500 BC, and destroyed an earlier more advanced civilization of the people habitated in the Indus Valley, and then imposed upon them their culture and language. These Indus Valley people were supposed to be either Dravidian, or Austrics or now--days' Shudra class etc.

The main elements on which the entire structure of AIT has been built are: Arya is a racial group, their invasion, they were nomadic, light-skinned, their original home was outside India, their invasion occurred around 1500 BC, they destroyed an advanced civilization of Indus valley, etc. And the evidences AIT advocates present in support of all these wild conjectures can be sumarized as follows:

Evidence for Invasion: Mention of Conflicts in Vedic literature, findings of skeletons at the excavated sites of Mohanjodro and Harappa Evidence for Aryans being Nomadic and Light-skinned: None whatsoever, Pure conjecture except some misinterpretated quotes from Vedas. Evidence for Non-Aryan/Dravidian Nature of Indus civilization: Absence of horse, Siva worshippers, chariots, racial differences, etc. Evidence for proposed date of invasion, 1500 BC: Arbitrary and speculative, in Mesopotamia and Iraq the presence of the people worshipping Vedic gods around 1700BC, Biblical chronology.

Now let us examine the facts about the so-called evidences in support of AIT: 1. Real Meaning of the Word 'ARYA' In 1853, Max Muller introduced the word 'Arya' into the English and European usage as applying to a racial and linguistic group when propounding the Aryan Racial theory. However, in 1888, he himself refuted his own theory and wrote:

I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language...to me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar. (Max Muller, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas, 1888, pg 120) In Vedic Literature, the word Arya is nowhere defined in connection with either race or language. Instead it refers to: gentleman, good-natured, righteous person, noble-man, and is often used like 'Sir' or 'Shree' before the name of a person like Aryaputra, Aryakanya, etc.

In Ramayan (Valmiki), Rama is described as an Arya in the following words: a;yR: sv;R-smWcewv: sdwv ip[y;dxRn (Aryah sarvasamashchaivah sadaiv priyadarshan ) :Arya - who cared for the equality to all and was dear to everyone.

Etymologically, according to Max Muller, the word Arya was derived from ar- (ar-), "plough, to cultivate". Therefore, Arya means - "cultivator" agriculturer (civilized sedentary, as opposed to nomads and hunter-gatherers), landlord;

V.S. Apte's Sanskrit-English dictionary relates the word Arya to the root r- (r-) to which a prefix a (a) has been appended to give a negating meaning. And therefore the meaning of Arya is given as "excellent, best", followed by "respectable" and as a noun, "master, lord, worthy, honorable, excellent", upholder of Arya values, and further: teacher, employer, master, father-in-law, friend, Buddha.

So nowhere either in the religious scriptures or by tradition the word Arya denotes a race or a language. There are only four primary races, namely, Caucasian, the Mangolian, the Australians and the Negroid. Both the Aryans and Dravidians are related branches of the Caucasian race generally placed in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and the Dravidians of the south or other communities of Indian subcontinent is not a racial type. Biologically all are the same Caucasian type, only when closer to the equator the skin gets darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to get a little smaller. And these differences can not be the basis of two altogether different races. Similar differences one can observe even more distinctly among the people of pure Caucasian white race of Europe. Caucasian can be of any color ranging from pure white to almost pure black, with every shade of brown in between. Similarly, the Mongolian race is not yellow. Many Chinese have skin whiter than many so-called Caucasians.

Further, a recent landmark global study in population genetics by a team of internationally reputed scientists over 50 years (The History and Geography of Human Genes, by Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, Princeton University Press) reveals that the people habitated in the Indian subcontinent and nearby including Europe, all belong to one single race of Caucasion type. According to this study, there is essentially, and has been no difference racially between north Indians and the so-called Dravidian South Indians. The racial composition has remained almost the same for millennia. This study also confirms that there is no race called as an Aryan race.

(Article from V.Thakur, ASI )

THE history being taught in Indian schools is factually wrong and ignores convincing scientific evidence from the fields of archaeology, geology, genetics, and archaeo-astronomy. It is also contrary to ancient Indian literary evidence, claims the world famous Vedic acharya, David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri), Director, American Institute of Vedic Studies. During the course of a rather lengthy visit to India earlier in the year, Frawley stressed the need to thoroughly revamp Indian history by incorporating recent discoveries within a multi-disciplinary framework that incorporates all relevant data in a consistent fashion.

In a paper co-authored with N. Rajaram, Frawley points to recent articles in the British Journal Current Biology, that have major implications for India. Based on genetic tests, the articles note that a key mitochondria DNA of the Western Eurasian strain accounts for no more than 5.2 per cent in Indian populations, as against over 70 per cent in European countries like Germany. Simply put, this means that the supposed Aryan invasion is contradicted by genetics. This means that there was no Aryan invasion, not even any significant Aryan migration.

What is more, the study shows that this West Eurasian strain is present in roughly the same proportion in North and South India. This means that there is no genetic divide between the so-called Dravidians and the Aryans in India. Hence, according to the latest scientific evidence, both the Aryan invasion and the Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy have no basis.

Other evidence, says Frawley, also points to the same conclusion. Archaeological discoveries over the past fifty years have repeatedly shown the Aryan invasion theory found in Indian history books to be false. For instance, the course of the ancient Saraswati river, discovered by the late V.S. Wakankar and his associates, matches the geography of North India as depicted in the Rig Vedas descriptions of the ocean-going Saraswati before the river dried up around circa 2000 BC. The Geological Society of India has proved this point from various perspectives. That is why most Harappan sites are located not on the Indus but on the banks of the Saraswati, as it was their central region.

The literary evidence also challenges the Aryan invasion myth. Vedic literature describes a maritime society with a vast cosmology of many oceans and full of oceanic symbolism. The common prayer is for safety in crossing the sea by ships. Frawley points out that such a prayer is used by navigators, not by nomadic invaders, and as such the Rig Veda could not have been composed in land-locked Afghanistan. Indeed, Indian cotton has been found at sites in Mexico and Peru dating to 2500 BC and even earlier, indicating maritime activity in ancient times. Similarly, Vedic astronomy and calendar systems show a sophisticated knowledge of observational astronomy, including calendars of the Krittika equinox (Taurus equinox) of about 2500 BCE. This fits in well with the maritime nature of Vedic society, as navigation is impossible without knowledge of astronomy.

A study of Harappan archaeology and Vedic literature shows that Vedic mathematical texts (Sulva Sutras) were used in the design and construction of carefully planned cities of the Harappan civilisation. The American mathematician, A. Seidenberg, has established that both Old Babylonia (1900-1750 BC) and the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (2050-1800 BC) borrowed heavily from Vedic mathematics, which was already well known in Harappan times. Natwar Jhas decipherment of the Indus script shows that the Harappan civilisation belongs to the later Vedic period. The recent deciphering of the "Worlds Oldest Writing" shows that the core of the Rig Veda must already have existed by 3500 BC.

At the same time, there is no evidence physical or literary of invading hordes, horse-riding warriors from Afghanistan with iron weapons, Eurasian skeletal types, destroyed cities, or any of the standard images portrayed by the Aryan invasion theory. The theory, Frawley states, was an offshoot of a nineteenth century colonial mindset that projected the experience of colonising Asia and Africa onto Vedic times and called it history. It came into being when there was no data from archaeology, but has persisted due to political and other considerations.

Frawley points out that the history Indian children are being taught is totally false and contrary to all scientific and literary evidence. The Aryan invasion model is being upheld by vested interests that have benefited from it politically, who offer no evidence to support their views, and instead accuse those who refute the theory of "tampering with history." Frawley laments at this anti-intellectual bias among Indian academics, and points out that most reputed Western archaeologists are rejecting the Aryan invasion/migration scenario. He believes that the present unsatisfactory state of affairs in Indian humanities, particularly history, came about because the generation of Indian scholars after independence continued to look to the West for inspiration, and persisted with the Euro-centric models of the colonial period.

Indians, Frawley urges, should take the initiative to rewrite their history books, taking the latest findings and scientific methods into account. It is imperative that children be told the truth about their countrys past. The first point to note in re-writing history, he says, is that the ancient Indians have left ample materials with which to reconstruct the history of the Vedic period. There are the Vedas, the Puranas, the epics and other literature, which contain much in the way of history, though this is often couched in symbolic language, as ancient texts are throughout the world. However, this can be supplemented by archaeology and what we have learnt about ancient ecology, such as the drying up of the Saraswati.

The recently deciphered Harappan seals provide inscriptional data to supplement literary records. The seals deciphered so far show that ancient figures like Rama, Sudasa, Krisna, Puru, etc. were historical persons who lived long before 2000 BC.The Seals from Mehgrah had Sri Rama encrypted. The deciphered seals, therefore, provide a historical context for both the Harappans and the Vedic people by linking archaeology and Vedic-Puranic literature. Naturally, everything should be based on science and primary sources not beliefs and prejudices.

India had an indigenous and organic development of civilisation from 7000 BCE, starting in sites like Mehrgarh. Frawley states that both the pre-Harappan and Harappan cultures centred on the Saraswati river. The main migration of peoples was from the Saraswati to the Ganges when the Saraswati dried up after 2000 BCE, though there were also some movements in other directions, such as Europe and Central Asia. The Saraswati culture continued, though in modified form, with no intrusion of major populations from Central Asia. While the Saraswati is mirrored in Vedic literature, the Puranas reflect mainly the Ganges. Texts like the Mahabharata, that speak of the Saraswati drying up in the desert (Vinashana Saraswati) show the transitional period.

We thus have a vast body of primary data authenticated by scientific methods. The time is therefore ripe for Indians to take the lead and rewrite their history. As Swami Vivekananda said more than a century ago, "It is for Indians to write Indian history."

Finally, Frawley asserts, the world as a whole will have to give due recognition to Indian culture, with its spiritual and dharmic background, as central to world civilisation. Its importance both for India and the world should not be underestimated. As India is the only civilisation of antiquity to have survived, it is the responsibility of Indians to discover not only their own history, but also that of the world. Revamping the way history is taught in Indian schools would be a major step in that direction. This is a scientific and spiritual imperative, not only for India, but for the whole world.

According to Puranic (ancient Indian texts of lore and legends) sources the Aryan civilization was established by king Ikshaku . And now with the latest archeological finds we are just getting near the beginning of Aryan Origin. Purans also suggest that during the rule of King Dileepa some tribes were forced to leave Aryavrata for their Barbarian acts. Here I am not suggesting any thing, my approach is just to prove that AIT is completly a insult to aryans. This article is a tribute to people who gave this world Math and Science.

Ikshvaku the founder of Aryan Civilaztion is also mentioned in Vedas..

Article by David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri), Director, American Institute of Vedic Studies.

SARASVATI RIVER AND CIVILISATION

It is clear from the vedic texts, that the Rigvedic people lived on the banks of a river called the Sarasvati.

Satellite technology, geography, and archaeology have confirmed the courses of the Sarasvati river adored in the Rigveda as the 'best of all mothers, best of all rivers and best of all goddesses' -- ambitame, nadiitame, devitame.

4,600 BC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

The Sarasvati river had nourished a glorious civilisation, exemplified by over 1200 archaeological sites unearthed on the banks of the river; the more important of these 1200 sites are: Rakhigarhi, Ropar, Banawali, Kalibangan, Rangmahal, Ganweriwala, Dholavira, Kotda, Rojdi, Lothal. The artefacts unearthed from these sites represent a homogeneous cultural mosaic exemplified also in the famous sites of Harappa and Mohenjodaro on the banks of the river Sindhu (Indus). Radiocarbon dating of these sites and occurrence of inscriptions on seals, establishes that the civilisation matured between 8750 to 1900 B.C. and had contacts with the Mesopotamian civilisation (on the Tigris-Euphrates rivers).

REASONS FOR THE DRYING-UP OF THE SARASVATI RIVER AND MIGRATIONS OF PEOPLE

The river had flowed for millennia originating from the Har-ki-dun glacier, in the Bandarpunch massif of W.Garhwal of the Himalayas flowing through Kurukshetra, Kalibangan, Ganweriwala (in Bahawalpur province, Pakistan), Rann of Kutch (close to Dholavira) and through the Nall lake into the Gulf of Khambat (close to Lothal). The river had dried up circa 1900 B.C. in many stretches. The reasons for this drying up are: river capture and aandhi (sandstorms). Yamuna (erstwhile Chambal) which is a tributary of the Ganga, captured the Sarasvati source at Paontasaheb (where there is a famous Sikh shrine in Punjab); thus the popular belief of Sangam at Prayag is based on groundtruth: the Yamuna captured Sarasvati and took her to join Ganga at Prayag, near Allahabad. Thus, due to river capture, Sarasvati was deprived of the perennial source of molten glaciers from the Himalayas. The aandhi phenomenon also accounted for the submergence of the river bed by sandstorms. As the river started drying-up, people starting migrating eastwards towards the Ganga-Yamuna doab (e.g. Alamgirpur and Kunal) and southwards towards the Godavari river, traversing the Arabian sea-coast. (Daimabad is a cognate archaeological site located on the banks of Pravara river which is a tributary of the Godavari river, near Nasik).

India was the mother of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages. She was the mother of our philosophy, mother through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics, mother through Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity, mother through village communities of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all."

- Will Durant