The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India
By David Frawley
One of the main ideas used to
interpret and generally devalue the ancient history of India is the theory of
the Aryan invasion. According to this account, India was invaded and conquered
by nomadic light-skinned Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-100
BC, who overthrew an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian
civilization from which they took most of what later became Hindu culture. This
so-called pre-Aryan civilization is said to be evidenced by the large urban
ruins of what has been called the "Indus valley culture" (as most
of its initial sites were on the Indus river). The war between the powers of
light and darkness, a prevalent idea in ancient Aryan Vedic scriptures, was thus
interpreted to refer to this war between light and dark skinned peoples. The
Aryan invasion theory thus turned the "Vedas", the original scriptures of
ancient India and the Indo-Aryans, into little more than primitive poems of
uncivilized plunderers.
This idea totally foreign to
the history of India, whether north or south has become almost an unquestioned
truth in the interpretation of ancient history Today, after nearly all the
reasons for its supposed validity have been refuted, even major Western scholars
are at last beginning to call it in question.
In this article we will
summarize the main points that have arisen. This is a complex subject that I
have dealt with in depth in my book "Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets
of Ancient Civilization", for those interested in further examination of
the subject.
The Indus valley culture was
pronounced pre-Aryans for several reasons that were largely part of the cultural
milieu of nineteenth century European thinking As scholars following Max Mullar
had decided that the Aryans came into India around 1500 BC, since the Indus
valley culture was earlier than this, they concluded that it had to be preAryan.
Yet the rationale behind the late date for the Vedic culture given by Muller was
totally speculative. Max Muller, like many of the Christian scholars of his era,
believed in Biblical chronology. This placed the beginning of the world at 400
BC and the flood around 2500 BC. Assuming to those two dates, it became
difficult to get the Aryans in India before 1500 BC.
Muller therefore assumed that
the five layers of the four 'Vedas' & 'Upanishads' were each
composed in 200 year periods before the Buddha at 500 BC. However, there are
more changes of language in Vedic Sanskrit itself than there are in classical
Sanskrit since Panini, also regarded as a figure of around 500 BC, or a period
of 2500 years. Hence it is clear that each of these periods could have existed
for any number of centuries and that the 200 year figure is totally arbitrary
and is likely too short a figure.
It was assumed by these
scholars many of whom were also Christian missionaries unsympathetic to the
'Vedas' that the Vedic culture was that of primitive nomads from Central
Asia. Hence they could not have founded any urban culture like that of the Indus
valley. The only basis for this was a rather questionable interpretation of the
'Rig Veda' that they made, ignoring the sophisticated nature of the
culture presented within it.
Meanwhile, it was also pointed
out that in the middle of the second millennium BC, a number of Indo-European
invasions apparently occured in the Middle East, wherein Indo-European peoples
the Hittites, Mit tani and Kassites conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for some
centuries. An Aryan invasion of India would have been another version of this
same movement of Indo-European peoples. On top of this, excavators of the Indus
valley culture, like Wheeler, thought they found evidence of destruction of the
culture by an outside invasion confirming this.
The Vedic culture was thus said
to be that of primitive nomads who came out of Central Asia with their
horse-drawn chariots and iron weapons and overthrew the cities of the more
advanced Indus valley culture, with their superior battle tactics. It was
pointed out that no horses, chariots or iron was discovered in Indus valley
sites.
This was how the Aryan invasion
theory formed and has remained since then. Though little has been discovered
that confirms this theory, there has been much hesitancy to question it, much
less to give it up.
Further excavations discovered
horses not only in Indus Valley sites but also in pre-Indus sites. The use of
the horse has thus been proven for the whole range of ancient Indian history.
Evidence of the wheel, and an Indus seal showing a spoked wheel as used in
chariots, has also been found, suggesting the usage of chariots.
Moreover, the whole idea of
nomads with chariots has been challenged. Chariots are not the vehicles of
nomads. Their usage occured only in ancient urban cultures with much flat land,
of which the river plain of north India was the most suitable. Chariots are
totally unsuitable for crossing mountains and deserts, as the so-called Aryan
invasion required.
That the Vedic culture used
iron & must hence date later than the introduction of iron around 1500 BC
revolves around the meaning of the Vedic term "ayas", interpreted as
iron. 'Ayas' in other Indo- European languages like Latin or German
usually means copper, bronze or ore generally, not specially iron. There is no
reason to insist that in such earlier Vedic times, 'ayas' meant iron,
particularly since other metals are not mentioned in the 'Rig Veda' (except gold
that is much more commonly referred to than ayas). Moreover, the 'Atharva
Veda' and 'Yajur Veda' speak of different colors of 'ayas'(such as
red & black), showing that it was a generic term. Hence it is clear that
'ayas' generally meant metal and not specifically iron.
Moreover, the enemies of the
Vedic people in the 'Rig Veda' also use ayas, even for making their cities, as
do the Vedic people themselves. Hence there is nothing in Vedic literture to
show that either the Vedic culture was an ironbased culture or that there
enemies were not.
The 'Rig Veda' describes
its Gods as 'destroyers of cities'. This was used also to regard the
Vedic as a primitive non-urban culture that destroys cities and urban
civilization. However, there are also many verses in the 'Rig Veda' that speak
of the Aryans as having having cities of their own and being protected by cities
upto a hundred in number. Aryan Gods like Indra, Agni, Saraswati and the Adityas
are praised as being like a city. Many ancient kings, including those of Egypt
and Mesopotamia, had titles like destroyer or conquerer of cities. This does not
turn them into nomads. Destruction of cities also happens in modern wars; this
does not make those who do this nomads. Hence the idea of Vedic culture as
destroying but not building the cities is based upon ignoring what the Vedas
actually say about their own cities.
Further excavation revealed
that the Indus Valley culture was not des- troyed by outside invasion, but
according to internal causes and, most likely, floods. Most recently a new set
of cities has been found in India (like the Dwaraka and Bet Dwaraka sites by
S.R. Rao and the National Institute of Oceanography in India) which are
intermidiate between those of the Indus culture and later ancient India as
visited by the Greeks. This may eliminate the so-called dark age following the
presumed Aryan invasion and shows a continuous urban occupation in India back to
the beginning of the Indus culture.
The interpretation of the
religion of the Indus Valley culture -made incidentlly by scholars such as
Wheeler who were not religious scholars much less students of Hinduism was that
its religion was different than the Vedic and more likely the later Shaivite
religion. However, further excavations both in Indus Valley site in Gujarat,
like Lothal, and those in Rajsthan, like Kalibangan show large number of fire
altars like those used in the Vedic religion, along with bones of oxen,
potsherds, shell jewelry and other items used in the rituals described in the
'Vedic Brahmanas'. Hence the Indus Valley culture evidences many
Vedic practices that can not be merely coincidental. That some of its practices
appeared non-Vedic to its excavators may also be attributed to their
misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of Vedic and Hindu culture generally,
wherein Vedism and Shaivism are the same basic tradition.
We must remember that ruins do
not necessarily have one interpretation. Nor does the ability to discover ruins
necessarily gives the ability to interpret them correctly.
The Vedic people were thought
to have been a fair-skinned race like the Europeans owing to the Vedic idea of a
war between light and darkness, and the Vedic people being presented as children
of light or children of the sun. Yet this idea of a war between light and
darkness exists in most ancient cultures, including the Persian and the
Egyptian. Why don't we interpret their scriptures as a war between light and
dark-skinned people? It is purely a poetic metaphor, not a cultural statement.
Moreover, no real traces of such a race are found in India.
Anthropologists have observed
that the present population of Gujarat is composed of more or less the same
ethnic groups as are noticed at Lothal in 2000 BC. Similarly, the present
population of the Punjab is said to be ethnically the same as the population of
Harappa and Rupar 4000 years ago. Linguistically the present day population of
Gujrat and Punjab belongs to the Indo-Aryan language speaking group. The only
inference that can be drawn from the anthropological and linguistic evidences
adduced above is that the Harappan population in the Indus Valley and Gujrat in
2000 BC was composed of two or more groups, the more dominent among them having
very close ethnic affinities with the present day Indo-Aryan speaking population
of India.
In other words there is no
racial evidence of any such Indo-Aryan invasion of India but only of a
continuity of the same group of people who traditionally considered themselves
to be Aryans.
There are many points in fact
that prove the Vedic nature of the Indus Valley culture. Further excavation has
shown that the great majority of the sites of the Indus Valley culture were
east, not west of Indus. In fact, the largest concentration of sites appears in
an area of Punjab and Rajsthan near the dry banks of ancient Saraswati and
Drishadvati rivers. The Vedic culture was said to have been founded by the sage
Manu between the banks of Saraswati and Drishadvati rivers. The Saraswati is
lauded as the main river (naditama) in the 'Rig Veda' & is the most
frequently mentioned in the text. It is said to be a great flood and to be wide,
even endless in size. Saraswati is said to be "pure in course from the
mountains to the sea". Hence the Vedic people were well acquainted with
this river and regarded it as their immemorial hoemland.
The Saraswati, as modern land
studies now reveal, was indeed one of the largest, if not the largest river in
India. In early ancient and pre-historic times, it once drained the Sutlej,
Yamuna and the Ganges, whose courses were much different than they are today.
However, the Saraswati river went dry at the end of the Indus Valley culture and
before the so-called Aryan invasion or before 1500 BC. In fact this may have
caused the ending of the Indus culture. How could the Vedic Aryans know of this
river and establish their culture on its banks if it dried up before they
arrived? Indeed the Saraswati as described in the 'Rig Veda' appears to more
accurately show it as it was prior to the Indus Valley culture as in the Indus
era it was already in decline.
Vedic and late Vedic texts also
contain interesting astronomical lore. The Vedic calender was based upon
astronomical sightings of the equinoxes and solstices. Such texts as
'Vedanga Jyotish' speak of a time when the vernal equinox was in
the middle of the Nakshtra Aslesha (or about 23 degrees 20 minutes Cancer). This
gives a date of 1300 BC. The 'Yajur Veda' and 'Atharva Veda' speak of the vernal
equinox in the Krittikas (Pleiades; early Taurus) and the summer solstice
(ayana) in Magha (early Leo). This gives a date about 2400 BC. Yet earlier eras
are mentioned but these two have numerous references to substantiate them. They
prove that the Vedic culture existed at these periods and already had a
sophisticated system of astronomy. Such references were merely ignored or
pronounced unintelligible by Western scholars because they yielded too early a
date for the 'Vedas' than what they presumed, not because such references did
not exist.
Vedic texts like
'Shatapatha Brahmana' and 'Aitereya Brahmana' that
mention these astronomical references list a group of 11 Vedic Kings, including
a number of figures of the 'Rig Veda', said to have conquered the region of
India from 'sea to sea'. Lands of the Aryans are mentioned in them from Gandhara
(Afganistan) in the west to Videha (Nepal) in the east, and south to Vidarbha
(Maharashtra). Hence the Vedic people were in these regions by the Krittika
equinox or before 2400 BC. These passages were also ignored by Western scholars
and it was said by them that the 'Vedas' had no evidence of large empires in
India in Vedic times. Hence a pattern of ignoring literary evidence or
misinterpreting them to suit the Aryan invasion idea became prevalent, even to
the point of changing the meaning of Vedic words to suit this theory.
According to this theory, the
Vedic people were nomads in the Punjab, comming down from Central Asia. However,
the 'Rig Veda' itself has nearly 100 references to ocean (samudra), as well as
dozens of references to ships, and to rivers flowing in to the sea. Vedic
ancestors like Manu, Turvasha, Yadu and Bhujyu are flood figures, saved from
across the sea. The Vedic God of the sea, Varuna, is the father of many Vedic
seers and seer families like Vasishta, Agastya and the Bhrigu seers. To preserve
the Aryan invasion idea it was assumed that the Vedic (and later sanskrit) term
for ocean, samudra, originally did not mean the ocean but any large body of
water, especially the Indus river in Punjab. Here the clear meaning of a term in
'Rig Veda' and later times verified by rivers like Saraswati mentioned by name
as flowing into the sea was altered to make the Aryan invasion theory fit. Yet
if we look at the index to translation of the 'Rig Veda' by Griffith for
example, who held to this idea that samudra didn't really mean the ocean, we
find over 70 references to ocean or sea. If samudra does noe mean ocean why was
it traslated as such? It is therefore without basis to locate Vedic kings in
Central Asia far from any ocean or from the massive Saraswati river, which form
the background of their land and the symbolism of their hymns.
One of the latest archeological
ideas is that the Vedic culture is evidenced by Painted Grey Ware pottery in
north India, which apears to date around 1000 BC and comes from the same region
between the Ganges and Yamuna as later Vedic culture is related to. It is
thought to be an inferior grade of pottery and to be associated with the use of
iron that the 'Vedas' are thought to mention. However it is associated with a
pig and rice culture, not the cow and barley culture of the 'Vedas'. Moreover it
is now found to be an organic development of indegenous pottery, not an
introduction of invaders.
Painted Grey Ware culture
represents an indigenous cultural development and does not reflect any cultural
intrusion from the West i.e. an Indo-Aryan invasion. Therefore, there is no
archeological evidence corroborating the fact of an Indo-Aryan
invasion.
In addition, the Aryans in the
Middle East, most notably the Hittites, have now been found to have been in that
region atleast as early as 2200 BC, wherein they are already mentioned. Hence
the idea of an Aryan invasion into the Middle East has been pushed back some
centuries, though the evidence so far is that the people of the mountain regions
of the Middle East were Indo-Europeans as far as recorded history can
prove.
The Aryan Kassites of the
ancient Middle East worshipped Vedic Gods like Surya and the Maruts, as well as
one named Himalaya. The Aryan Hittites and Mittani signed a treaty with the name
of the Vedic Gods Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Nasatyas around 1400 BC. The Hittites
have a treatise on chariot racing written in almost pure Sanskrit. The
IndoEuropeans of the ancient Middle East thus spoke Indo-Aryan, not Indo-Iranian
languages and thereby show a Vedic culture in that region of the world as
well.
The Indus Valley culture had a
form of writing, as evidenced by numerous seals found in the ruins. It was also
assumed to be non-Vedic and probably Dravidian, though this was never proved.
Now it has been shown that the majority of the late Indus signs are identical
with those of later Hindu Brahmi and that there is an organic development
between the two scripts. Prevalent models now suggest an Indo-European base for
that language.
It was also assumed that the
Indus Valley culture derived its civilization from the Middle East, probably
Sumeria, as antecedents for it were not found in India. Recent French
excavations at Mehrgarh have shown that all the antecedents of the Indus Valley
culture can be found within the subcontinent and going back before 6000
BC.
In short, some Western scholars
are beginning to reject the Aryan invasion or any outside origin for Hindu
civilization.
Current archeological data do
not support the existence of an Indo Aryan or European invasion into South Asia
at any time in the preor protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to
document archeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous
cultural development from prehistoric to historic periods. The early Vedic
literature describes not a human invasion into the area, but a fundamental
restructuring of indigenous society. The Indo-Aryan invasion as an academic
concept in 18th and 19th century Europe reflected the cultural milieu of the
period. Linguistic data were used to validate the concept that in turn was used
to interpret archeological and anthropological data.
In other words, Vedic
literature was interpreted on the assumption that there was an Aryan invasion.
Then archeological evidence was interpreted by the same assumption. And both
interpretations were then used to justify each other. It is nothing but a
tautology, an exercise in circular thinking that only proves that if assuming
something is true, it is found to be true!
Another modern Western scholar,
Colin Renfrew, places the IndoEuropeans in Greece as early as 6000 BC. He also
suggests such a possible early date for their entry into India.
As far as I can see there is
nothing in the Hymns of the 'Rig Veda' which demonstrates that the
Vedic-speaking population was intrusive to the area: this comes rather from a
historical assumption of the 'comming of the Indo-Europeans.
When Wheeler speaks of 'the
Aryan invasion of the land of the 7 rivers, the Punjab', he has no warrenty at
all, so far as I can see. If one checks the dozen references in the 'Rig Veda'
to the 7 rivers, there is nothing in them that to me implies invasion: the land
of the 7 rivers is the land of the 'Rig Veda', the scene of action. Nor is it
implied that the inhabitants of the walled cities (including the Dasyus) were
any more aboriginal than the Aryans themselves.
Despite Wheeler's comments, it
is difficult to see what is particularly non-Aryan about the Indus Valley
civilization. Hence Renfrew suggests that the Indus Valley civilization was in
fact Indo-Aryan even prior to the Indus Valley era:
This hypothesis that early
Indo-European languages were spoken in North India with Pakistan and on the
Iranian plateau at the 6th millennium BC has the merit of harmonizing
symmetrically with the theory for the origin of the IndoEuropean languages in
Europe. It also emphasizes the continuity in the Indus Valley and adjacent areas
from the early neolithic through to the floruit of the Indus Valley
civilization.
This is not to say that such
scholars appreciate or understand the 'Vedas' their work leaves much to be
desired in this respect but that it is clear that the whole edifice built around
the Aryan invasion is beginning to tumble on all sides. In addition, it does not
mean that the 'Rig Veda' dates from the Indus Valley era. The Indus Valley
culture resembles that of the 'Yajur Veda' and the reflect the pre-Indus period
in India, when the Saraswati river was more prominent.
The acceptance of such views
would create a revolution in our view of history as shattering as that in
science caused by Einstein's theory of relativity. It would make ancient India
perhaps the oldest, largest and most central of ancient cultures. It would mean
that the Vedic literary record already the largest and oldest of the ancient
world even at a 1500 BC date would be the record of teachings some centuries or
thousands of years before that. It would mean that the 'Vedas' are our most
authentic record of the ancient world. It would also tend to validate the Vedic
view that the Indo-Europeans and other Aryan peoples were migrants from India,
not that the Indo-Aryans were invaders into India. Moreover, it would affirm the
Hindu tradition that the Dravidians were early offshoots of the Vedic people
through the seer Agastya, and not unaryan peoples.
In closing, it is important to
examine the social and political implications of the Aryan invasion
idea:
- First, it served to
divide India into a northern Aryan and southern Dravidian
culture which were made hostile to each other. This kept the Hindus divided
and is still a source of social tension.
- Second, it gave the British an
excuse in their conquest of India. They could claim to be doing only what the
Aryan ancestors of the Hindus had previously done millennia ago.
- Third, it served to make Vedic
culture later than and possibly derived from Middle Eastern cultures. With the
proximity and relationship of the latter with the Bible and Christianity, this
kept the Hindu religion as a sidelight to the development of religion and
civilization to the West.
- Fourth, it allowed the
sciences of India to be given a Greek basis, as any Vedic basis was largely
disqualified by the primitive nature of the Vedic culture.
This discredited not only the
'Vedas' but the genealogies of the 'Puranas' and their long list of the kings
before the Buddha or Krishna were left without any historical basis. The
'Mahabharata', instead of a civil war in which all the main kings of
India participated as it is described, became a local skirmish among petty
princes that was later exaggerated by poets. In short, it discredited the most
of the Hindu tradition and almost all its ancient literature. It turned its
scriptures and sages into fantacies and exaggerations.
This served a social, political
and economical purpose of domination, proving the superiority of Western culture
and religion. It made the Hindus feel that their culture was not the great thing
that their sages and ancestors had said it was. It made Hindus feel ashamed of
their culture that its basis was neither historical nor scientific. It made them
feel that the main line of civilization was developed first in the Middle East
and then in Europe and that the culture of India was peripheral and secondary to
the real development of world culture.
Such a view is not good
scholarship or archeology but merely cultural imperialism. The Western Vedic
scholars did in the intellectual spehere what the British army did in the
political realm discredit, divide and conquer the Hindus. In short, the
compelling reasons for the Aryan invasion theory were neither literary nor
archeological but political and religious that is to say, not scholarship but
prejudice. Such prejudice may not have been intentional but deep-seated
political and religious views easily cloud and blur our thinking.
It is unfortunate that this
this approach has not been questioned more, particularly by Hindus. Even though
Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda saraswati, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Arobindo
rejected it, most Hindus today passively accept it. They allow Western,
generally Christian, scholars to interpret their history for them and quite
naturally Hinduism is kept in a reduced role. Many Hindus still accept, read or
even honor the translations of the 'Vedas' done by such Christian missionary
scholars as Max Muller, Griffith, MonierWilliams and H. H. Wilson. Would modern
Christians accept an interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history done by
Hindus aimed at converting them to Hinduism? Universities in India also use the
Western history books and Western Vedic translations that propound such views
that denigrate their own culture and country.
The modern Western academic
world is sensitive to critisms of cultural and social biases. For scholars to
take a stand against this biased interpretation of the 'Vedas' would indeed
cause a reexamination of many of these historical ideas that can not stand
objective scrutiny. But if Hindu scholars are silent or passively accept the
misinterpretation of their own culture, it will undoubtly continue, but they
will have no one to blame but themselves. It is not an issue to be taken
lightly, because how a culture is defined historically creates the perspective
from which it is viewed in the modern social and intellectual context. Tolerance
is not in allowing a false view of one's own culture and religion to be
propagated without question. That is merely self-betrayal.
