The Aryan Invasion theory was first propounded when linguistic
similarities between Sanskrit and the major European languages
were discovered by European scholars during the colonial era. In
an atmosphere of raging eurocentricism, it was inevitable that
any explanation of this seemingly inexplicable discovery would
taken on racial and ideological overtones. (See Refs. 1)
Colonial expositions of the Aryan Invasion Theory
British intellectuals were particularly nonplussed by this
apparent link between the languages of the conquerors and the
conquered. In the earliest phases of British rule in India, the
East India Company proceeded largely unconsciously - without
moral dilemmas and without overt recourse to ideological or
racial superiority. But as the rule of the East India Company
expanded, and battles became more hard fought and the resistance
to British occupation in India grew, the ideology of European
racial superiority became almost essential in justifying British
presence in India - not only to assuage British conscience, but
also to convince the Indian people that the British were not
mere colonial conquerors but a superior race on a noble
civilizational mission.
After 1857, the British education system in India had been
deliberately designed to assist in the development of a narrow
but influential class of deeply indoctrinated and predominantly
loyal agents of British colonial rule in India. British
elaborations of the Aryan invasion theory became powerful and
convenient ideological tools in generating legitimacy for
British rule. In its most classical and colonially tinged
incarnation, it portrayed the Aryans as a highly advanced and
culturally superior race in the ancient world, locating their
original home in Northern Europe. It then went on to suggest
that some time in antiquity, the Aryans migrated from their
original home in Europe and brought with them their language and
their superior culture and transcendental philosophy to civilize
the primitive and materially backward Dravidian people of the
subcontinent. All the greatness of Indian civilization was
ascribed to the Aryans, thus implying that if India were to ever
achieve greatness again, a return to Aryan rule was imperative.
And by claiming a cultural continuity between this noble race of
ancient times and themselves, the British could become
inheritors of the grand Aryan tradition and assert their
"legitimate" civilizational right to rule over the people of the
subcontinent - not to exploit them, but so as to "reinvigorate"
Indian civilization by reintroducing Aryan rule that had been
disfigured and corrupted by the violent and barbaric incursions
of the Muslims. Preposterous and distorted as it was, this
absurdly racist proposition was made palatable to a
self-doubting and repressed class of upper-caste Hindus who were
told that they were descendants of the Aryans, and could
identify with the manifold and globally encompassing
achievements of the Aryan people by accepting British authority
so as to participate in this great Aryan renaissance in India.
(See Ref. 2)
The theory gained rapid currency amongst upper-caste Hindus who
had legitimate gripes against the Muslim nobility for having
been denied equal access to power in the Muslim courts, but were
too enfeebled to put up a fight on their own, and were too
alienated from the mass of artisans and peasants to join in
popular rebellions against the feudal dispensation. The British
rulers offered the opportunity of gaining petty privileges in
exchange for acquiescence to colonial rule, and the Aryan
invasion theory provided the ideological justification for
betraying the rest of ones nation. By placing the ancestral home
of the Aryans far off in Northern Europe, the British were
putting the idea in the heads of such upper-caste Hindus that
they were far removed from the Indian masses and had no good
reason to identify with them.
Wittingly or unwittingly, the Aryan invasion theory thus became
the emotional bait for a section of the Indian population who
were to aid and abet the colonial project in India. Although
some of these Indians ultimately did develop national feelings,
and forged a national identity that eventually came into
conflict with the continuation of colonial rule, the theory
continued to play an important role in confusing the psyche of
the post-independence Indian intelligentsia.
Since the Aryan invasion refers to a period of considerable
antiquity, and there is little physical evidence to support any
authoritative conclusion, theories affirming (or opposing) the
invasion hypothesis can vary from being wildly speculative at
worst, to being reasonably plausible at best. Even the most
diligent and objective of historians can at best come up with
informed conjectures, leaving open the possibility for
uncertainty, and ideologically-driven diversionary postulations.
The absence of concrete data and the ambiguity involved in
interpreting surviving texts from the Aryan period makes the
task of combating history-writing that has been colored by
colonially influenced analysis doubly difficult.
Nevertheless, it is possible to construct the contours of what
may be more plausible, and at least eliminate what is obviously
fiction or fantasy.
Arguments for and against the Invasion Theory
Opponents of the invasion theory make a somewhat plausible case
that the sacrificial rites and rituals described in some of the
Vedic texts bear a resemblance to practices that may have been
common during the Harappan period. The similiarity of Harappan
and Vedic altars is indeed intriguing. This would bolster the
argument that Brahmins of the Vedic age emerged from the
Harappan priesthood, and not from any Aryan invasion. But a link
between the Harappan priesthood and Vedic Brahminism does not
preclude the possibility of an invasion or foreign migration
since North Western India attracted a constant stream of
migrants and invaders.
However, the mere possibility of what may have happened cannot
be the basis of an all-encomapssing theory such as the "Aryan
Invasion Theory". It must be grounded on more solid evidence to
withstand critics who might describe such assertions as
racially-tarred speculations.
Philological Analysis
Proponents of an invasion (or migration) theory feel quite
strongly that the Indo-European linguistic commonality cannot be
explained in any other way, and cite philological studies that
appear to bolster their case.
However, some opponents of the invasion theory argue that the
observed commonality of the Indo-European group of languages
could have been achieved without an Aryan invasion. They observe
that the Harappan civilization had extensive trade and
commercial ties with Babylon as well as with civilizations to
the further West. There is a remarkable similarity in seals and
cultural artifacts found in Harappan India, Babylon and even the
early civilizations of the Mediterranean such as Crete. Hence,
they argue that a linguistic commonality may have developed
quite early through trade and cultural contacts and that this
common linguistic structure may have subsequently moved from
South to North. Since Mediterranean Europe and the Middle
Eastern civilizations developed well before the civilizations of
Northern Europe, such a possibility is not altogether
inconceivable.
But such a hypothesis does not preclude the possibility that
invading or migrating clans may have also introduced non-Indian
words into the existing Indian languages - leading to a
composite language stream that incorporated both Indo-European
and indigenous features. (Urdu is an example of a language that
was introduced as a result of a series of invasions, adding a
large body of foreign words while maintaining the syntactical
structure and vocabulary base of the previous language.)
Since much of the Indo-European linguistic commonality appears
to correspond to the basic vocabulary of a pastoral nomadic
population, intrusions by patriarchal warrior clans from Central
Asia cannot be ruled out. Authors such as Gimbutas (The
Civilization of the Goddess, the World of Old Europe) present a
reasonably convincing model of how the older matriarchal order
in Europe was gradually broken down by migrants/conquerors who
spoke a language that might account for certain common elements
of the Indo-European group of languages. However, it would be
inappropriate to mechanically apply the same conclusions to
India, (nothwithstanding some of the linguistic and philological
arguments in favor of such a theory) because other explanations
for the linguistic similarities are now being illuminated
through very recent DNA studies.
It must be emphasized that while there are both similarities and
differences amongst the various Indo-European languages, our
essay on Indian Languages shows quite convincingly that the
differences outnumber the similarities. The essay shows how the
primary and dominant motive force for the development of Indian
languages, (including the so-called Indo-European languages of
the North) especially during the written period was indigenous.
Far too often, historians (and philologists) have tended to
downplay (or ignore) the contributions of the Adivasi and Tamil
language streams in the development of the Indic languages. A
more objective and balanced philological analysis of the Indian
languages points to rather limited Indo-European links, but to a
considerably greater degree of independent indigenous
development. Moreover, just as South Indian languages have
absorbed Sanskrit words, North Indian languages have also
absorbed words from Tamil and languages related to it.
Another criticism of the invasion theory lies in the
interpretation of the word "Arya" to mean race, nationality or
even linguistic group. Critics suggest that the word Arya as
used in the Rig Veda and other texts is better translated as one
who was noble in character (or noble in deed) or perhaps hailing
from a noble (or royal) background. Hence, to use the term
"Aryan" to describe the racial or national characteristics of an
invading clan or clans would naturally be erroneous.
|