Genesis of Hutu-Tutsi conflict
An Article by Saumitra Sen
The concept of Aryan Invasion theory being a handiwork of the German for the sake of proving the superiority of the European Caucasian races is not an isolated case. There exist a similar theory in other part of the world, involving other nations and other ethnicities and I wonder why hasn’t anyone yet given an attention over that.
If we see the map of middle Africa, we see two little countries named Rwanda and Burundi, bordering Zaire (or Democratic Republic of Congo). With the name Rwanda it suddenly flashes in our mind, the picture of ethnic violence, civil war, genocide and military juntas. Few Indians know the history of Rwanda or Burundi. These countries are inhabited by two different so-called ethnic groups, namely Hutu and Tutsi. The ethnic composition of these countries is as follows:
1) Rwanda – Hutu 84%, Tutsi 15%, Twa (Pygmies) 1%
2) Burundi – Hutu 85%, Tutsi 14%, Twa (Pygmies) 1%
Among these the minority Tutsis are believed to be the Hamitic people, a race which was often intermixed with the whiter races from North, particularly from Ethiopia and Egypt, which on their turn were intermixed by the Asiatic people, mainly Hittites, by the repeated invasions from the North. And these people are said to have arrived from North and thus not the native people of Rwanda.
The majority of Hutus are believed to be Bantu, the original African race which spilled out from the mid-Western African coast of Nigeria, Cameroon, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Cote d’ Ivoire and the inland countries of Burkina Faso and some other parts of the neighbouring countries.
Tutsis are considered to be the foreigners, invaders or migrants in the Rwanda-Burundi region. Hutus are said to be a much older race but not the original one. The original inhabitants of the Rwanda-Burundi region are said to be the Pygmies, who consist only 1% of the population of the region. It is said that Tutsis despite being the minorities, consider themselves superior in race and constitute the reigning elite and aristocracy of Rwanda-Burundi and they have subjugated the more indigenous Hutus from centuries and have forced them to agriculture and to the inferior position. Now, the crystallization of the theory. Hutus and Tutsis are two completely separate races, with Black Hutus forming the oppressed majority and the more original inhabitants of Rwanda-Burundi, and the fairer Tutsis forming the oppressing minority and the foreign invaders.
This accounts for a Rwandan version of the Aryan Invasion Theory, namely the Tutsi Invasion theory.
Here we have some startling parallels with the Aryan Invasion theory here. Northern Indians, namely Aryans are said to be the ultimate foreign invaders or migrants. Southern Indians, namely Dravidians are said to be the much older inhabitants of Indian sub-continent who were invaded by the Aryans and were oppressed and driven in the interiors and to the South of the Indian continent, with the ultimate consequence of being incorporated into the Hindu fold of caste system and occupying the lowest rung of Indian society. And even these so-called Dravidians are not considered as the original inhabitants of the India. There is said to be a Dravidian migration into India long before that of the Aryans, and some so-called aboriginals (such as Santhals) are considered to be the originals of India, which were forced into the jungles by the invasions, migrations of Dravidians, followed by Aryans.
About Aryan Invasion theory and the cause of its origin much has been said in this debate, and will be said in future so here I go for the explanation of Tutsi Invasion theory, its cause and origin and its socio-political consequences.
Hutus and Tutsis never as such existed as two different ethnic groups or races and were never at war with each other. The history of ethnic violence in the region began with the advent of colonialism in Africa and Rwanda-Burundi. Rwanda-Burundi was a part of German East Africa but after the World War I, it was occupied by Belgium and made a Belgian colony. It was these colonial Belgian masters of Rwanda-Burundi who started entertaining strange ethnic differences and racial differences between the two so-called different groups Hutus and Tutsis, and created the Hutu-Tutsi rift. They invented two separate races, the racist Tutsi Invasion theory and invented the divide between them, labeling Tutsis as aristocratic rulers and Hutus as the oppressed masses.
It seems that skin colour superiority is so deeply embedded in the psyche of West that they rarely get out of it.
While the Hutu and Tutsi are often considered by the followers of this Tutsi Invasion theory, as two separate ethnic groups, scholars point out that they speak the same language, have a history of intermarriage, and share many cultural characteristics. Traditionally, the differences between the two groups were occupational rather than ethnic. Agricultural people were considered Hutu, while the cattle-owning elite were identified as Tutsi. Supposedly Tutsi were tall, thin and fair, while Hutu were short, black and square, but it is often impossible to tell one from the other. (as reported by the Time Almanac)
This distinction was increased and racialized in 1933 by the Belgian government requirement that everyone carry an identity card indicating tribal ethnicity as Tutsi or Hutu, in order to play the power politics between the inhabitants of the nation and thus letting them bogged down in civil war.
Since, independence, repeated violence in both Rwanda and Burundi has increased ethnic differentiation between the groups. Some 2.5 million Tutsis and Hutus are massacred in mutual ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The usual opportunist African leaders are much common in Rwanda-Burundi and they have exacerbated the ethnic tensions of their countries by inciting the hatred between the two groups on the basis of the supposed ethnic difference between the two. Hutu leaders have described Tutsis as cockroaches and they used to telecast their views on radio during the 1994 Rwandan genocide of Tutsis, which inspired the common Hutus to massacre the Tutsis, in a bid to annihilate them completely.
So a peaceful, placid nation with a common populace was destroyed and annihilated by the colonialist, racist view of the Tutsi Invasion theory.
But why are we learning this? Because Tutsi Invasion theory has ominous parallels with Aryan Invasion theory as explained above. The cause of the origin of TIT is also the same as that of AIT. And the ethnic tension and violence was also incited between the North Indians and the South Indians. The DMK, AIADMK and all the other anti-Hindu, anti-Brahmin movements (namely the Periyar movement) were the consequence of this racist Aryan Invasion theory. If not for Hinduism and its cultural ethos, India would have gone the way of Rwanda and Burundi. (Remember, Rwandans and Burundians have been converted to Christianity) But anti-Hindu leadership of India, and the Marxist academia and media is bent on defending the Aryan Invasion theory/AMT, in league with their traitorous aims, and anti-Hindu, anti-Indian designs. By keeping the various sections of Hindu society at war with each other they can maintain their political hold over India, and AIT is a proven tool for their designs.
The opposition of AIT is derided as an emotional, chauvinist handiwork of Hindu nationalist or fundamentalists. But the difference between Tutsis and Hutus is denied by the modern genuine Western scholars (non-Witzels). Is it also a handiwork of an emotional, chauvinist Tutsi nationalists?
The answer lies in the correct reading of the indigenous history through various new tools of Science and Archaeology and the deconstruction of the colonial edifice which has so far promoted the racist theories in order to prove the White supremacy.
Return to topics
Showing posts with label aryan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aryan. Show all posts
Myths of Indus script
The world of scholars was totally ignorant about the culture known as Indus Valley Civilization or Harappa Culture till the early twenties of this century. The excavations at Mohenjodaro in Sind and at Harappa in Panjab (now in Pakistan) in 1922-23 and later and the discovery of numerous steatite seals in these excavations pushed back, at one stroke, the history of Indian Civilization including writing to the third millennium before Christ. After partition of India in 1947 when Mohenjodaro and Harappa went to Pakistan, similar sites in Eastern Panjab, Western Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat were discovered. Of these Ka#liban#gan in Rajasthan and Lothal in Gujarat are important ones which have also yielded seals (and sealings) and have contributed much in establishing the chronological sequence of early and late phases of Harappan Culture. During the last fifty years and more, different views have been expressed by scholars about the authors of this great and highly developed culture which is comparable to that of Sumer, Babylon, Egypt and Assyria. And the key to the understanding of it lies in the decipherment of the writing on the seals and sealings. But unfortunately, the decipherment of this writing has defied the attempts of several scholars during the past fifty years and more. While some scholars think that this writing is of indigenous origin, others feel that it is of foreign origin. Even amongst those who think of indigenous origin, one set of scholars propound the theory of Dravidian origin while the other set put forth the theory of Aryan origin. These different views may be briefly mentioned here.
As stated above, the Indus script appears on a large number of steatite seals which are beautifully prepared. From Lothal in Gujarat some sealings are also found. From these sealings, which are found in association with packing material:; such as cloth, matting and twisted cords, it has been suggested that the sealings were used as labels and affixed to the packages of goods were thus of commercial or merchandise value10.
Waddel was one of the earliest scholars to attempt the decipherment of the Indus script. He thought that the writing represents the Sumerian script and, based on the identity of Sumerians with Aryans, he read the names of Vedic and Epic persons11 . Pran Nath assigned alphabetic values to the script and suggested their connection with the later Bra#hmi# script12. Sankaranand and Barua also thought that the script was alphabetic. Sudhansu Kumar Ray also held a similar view. Hrozny tried to connect the script with the Hittite language. But Heras suggested that the script is picto-phonographic and connected it with Dravidian languages reading old Tamil on the seals. Hevesy sought to establish similarity between the Indus script and the script of the Eastern Islands in the Pacific ocean. Hunter felt that the Indus script is derived -partly from Egyptian script and partly from Mesopotamian script. Flinders Petrie also connected the Indus script with the Egyptian hieroglyphs and thought that the seals contained only the titles and not the names of the officials. He also assumed that the symbols were ideographs while Meriggi thought that while symbols were ideograms, others were phonemes so that the writing was of ideo-phonographic system. Amongst other early scholars who have attempted to read the Indus script may be mentioned Gadd, Sydney Smith and Langdon13 . David Diringer remarks "it seems obvious that the Indus Valley script which is rather schematic and linear on the extant inscriptions, was originally pictographic but it is impossible to decide whether it was truly indigenous or imported"14.
The above discussion would show how scholars are holding different views regarding the Indus script and how difficult the problem of decipherment of this script has been during the last several years. It is possible to decipher an unknown language in a known script or a known language in an unknown script. But in regard to Indus script, it is a case of deciphering an unknown language in an unknown script and hence it has baffled and defied the attempts of many a well-known scriptologist. For the success of such an attempt certain points of contact are necessary15. For example, the script of the Egyptian hieroglyphs remained undeciphered for a very long period until the discovery of the famous 'Rosetta Stone' inscription in 1799 by the French engineer Bouchard at the time of Napoleon's expedition to Egypt. This sensational discovery proved to be a turning point in understanding the nature of the hieroglyphic script, because the Rosetta Stone contained inscriptions in three different kinds of script, viz., hieroglyphic, demotic (or local script) and Greek. With the help of the Greek text attempts to decipher the other two scripts were made by pioneers like the French orientalist Silvestre de Sacy and the Swedish diplomat Akerblad. And it was left to the fortune and credit of Sacy's pupil and French scholar J. Fr. Champollion to finally and conclusively decipher the inscriptions of the Rosetta Stone in 1821-2216. Again, the decipherment of the Cretan Linear B inscription, whose language was unknown and for which no bilingual text was available, was made possible for Ventris and Chadwick by the existence of, similar scripts n Cypriot and in Greek mainland written in Greek language17. Similarly some points of contact are necessary to find a satisfactory solution to the problem of the decipherment of the Indus script like the biscriptal or bilingual inscriptions.We shall now review the recent attempts made by Indian and foreign scholars about the decipherment of the Indus or Harappan script. Amongst the foreign scholars, the Russian team consisting of Knorozov, Volcok and Gurov may be mentioned. They are credited to have taken the help of the computer machines. They assign word value to the signs and suggest that the script belonged to the Dravidian family of languages18. The Finnish team of scholars led by Asko Parpola also believed the language of the Indus script to be Dravidian. Amongst the Indian scholars I. Mahadevan and S.R. Rao have made a detailed study of the problem19. While the former is inclined to attribute the script to be Dravidian, the latter thinks it to be pre-Vedic. Mahadevan has also made use of the computer facilities and has attempted to achieve 'word-division' in the script assuming the language to be Dravidian. S.R. Rao claims that his approach is without any presumption and has tried to show that there has been a change in the script from its earlier phase to the later phase in that the number of signs which were more in the earlier period were reduced considerably in the later phase. He compares the signs of this later phase with the symbols of the North Semetic script of a comparative date and by showing similarity between them gives the same phonetic value to the Harappan script that is found in the Semetic script, other words, S.R. Rao suggests that there was evolution of the Indus script from an earlier period or mature peri9d (2500 B.C. to 1500 B.C.) and that the early syllabic-cum-alphabetic writing was disciplined into an alphabetic system by 1500 B.C. He also suggests that the Indus people spoke an Indo-European language which shows close affinity to Indo-Aryan in vocabulary, semantics and phonology. The names of the rulers and chiefs and of countries, sacrifices and divinities, as read by him, would suggest that the Harappans were the progenitors of the Vedic Aryans.
B.B. Lal has pointed out the difficulties in accepting the views of both I. Mahadevan and S.R. Rao20. Mahadevan himself has changed his views and methods of approach on more than one occasion and we have yet to wait and see what his final views in the matter of decipherment of the Harappan script are. In one of his latest papers entitled 'Study of the Indus Script : A Bilingual Approach'21 he has suggested that the problem should be studied from the point of view of interpreting the ideograms in the light of the Indian historical tradition which has come down to us in two main streams, viz., Indo-Aryan and Dravidian. This theory still remains to be tested by scholars before expressing any opinion.
As regards S.R. Rao's approach, viz., assigning the phonetic values of the Semitic script to the late Harappan script and reading it as pre-Vedic Sanskrit is also not decisive and final. As pointed out by Lal, Rao compares the symbols of the late Harappan with those of the Semitic ones and this material is not enough to arrive at any conclusion. Regarding the vowel sign Rao compares it not with any Semitic sign, since Semitic has no vowel signs, but with Sumerian sign for a following Waddel. And for some signs, Rao suggests different sources, viz., Akkadian and Ugaritic. This will be a difficult proposition. Moreover, while the late Harappan script, as suggested by Rao, has many vowel marks, the- Semitic script is completely devoid of any vowel marks. In justification of his approach, Rao says that he is proceeding from the known script (Semitic) to the unknown script (Harappan). But he is silent about the known origins of both these scripts which are different. While the Harappan is descended from the early Indus script according to Rao himself, the origin of the Semitic script is suggested to be Egyptian. So Rao has to explain at what stage the Semitic script acquired the phonetic values of the Indus script if his theory is to be supported. He has not attempted to answer these questions but has only instituted some comparison between the two scripts and has tried to establish some kind of phonetic relationship. Another defect in Rao's findings is that while he has given his reading as pre-Vedic or Indo-European, he has quoted not a single authority of Indo-European Linguistics or even an authority of Vedic language that the readings given by him can be accepted. In view of what is said above, it is not possible to accept Rao's claim that he has deciphered the Indus script. Of course, every scholar who makes an attempt at decipherment of a new script does claim that he has deciphered, but a new script can be taken as deciphered only when the world of scholars accept his views without any doubt22. So we can say, without any fear of contradiction, that the Indus script has defied the attempt of all scholars so far and has not yet been deciphered just as the Asokan Bra#hmhi# script has been deciphered. The discovery of longer record in the script or a bilingual or biscriptal writing or some definite contact point would help us in finding a satisfactory solution to this unknown script in an unknown language.
Rleated Posts
Was Ancient India Literate
Brahmi Script Origin
Tamil Brahmi
Pallava Granta Script
As stated above, the Indus script appears on a large number of steatite seals which are beautifully prepared. From Lothal in Gujarat some sealings are also found. From these sealings, which are found in association with packing material:; such as cloth, matting and twisted cords, it has been suggested that the sealings were used as labels and affixed to the packages of goods were thus of commercial or merchandise value10.
Waddel was one of the earliest scholars to attempt the decipherment of the Indus script. He thought that the writing represents the Sumerian script and, based on the identity of Sumerians with Aryans, he read the names of Vedic and Epic persons11 . Pran Nath assigned alphabetic values to the script and suggested their connection with the later Bra#hmi# script12. Sankaranand and Barua also thought that the script was alphabetic. Sudhansu Kumar Ray also held a similar view. Hrozny tried to connect the script with the Hittite language. But Heras suggested that the script is picto-phonographic and connected it with Dravidian languages reading old Tamil on the seals. Hevesy sought to establish similarity between the Indus script and the script of the Eastern Islands in the Pacific ocean. Hunter felt that the Indus script is derived -partly from Egyptian script and partly from Mesopotamian script. Flinders Petrie also connected the Indus script with the Egyptian hieroglyphs and thought that the seals contained only the titles and not the names of the officials. He also assumed that the symbols were ideographs while Meriggi thought that while symbols were ideograms, others were phonemes so that the writing was of ideo-phonographic system. Amongst other early scholars who have attempted to read the Indus script may be mentioned Gadd, Sydney Smith and Langdon13 . David Diringer remarks "it seems obvious that the Indus Valley script which is rather schematic and linear on the extant inscriptions, was originally pictographic but it is impossible to decide whether it was truly indigenous or imported"14.
The above discussion would show how scholars are holding different views regarding the Indus script and how difficult the problem of decipherment of this script has been during the last several years. It is possible to decipher an unknown language in a known script or a known language in an unknown script. But in regard to Indus script, it is a case of deciphering an unknown language in an unknown script and hence it has baffled and defied the attempts of many a well-known scriptologist. For the success of such an attempt certain points of contact are necessary15. For example, the script of the Egyptian hieroglyphs remained undeciphered for a very long period until the discovery of the famous 'Rosetta Stone' inscription in 1799 by the French engineer Bouchard at the time of Napoleon's expedition to Egypt. This sensational discovery proved to be a turning point in understanding the nature of the hieroglyphic script, because the Rosetta Stone contained inscriptions in three different kinds of script, viz., hieroglyphic, demotic (or local script) and Greek. With the help of the Greek text attempts to decipher the other two scripts were made by pioneers like the French orientalist Silvestre de Sacy and the Swedish diplomat Akerblad. And it was left to the fortune and credit of Sacy's pupil and French scholar J. Fr. Champollion to finally and conclusively decipher the inscriptions of the Rosetta Stone in 1821-2216. Again, the decipherment of the Cretan Linear B inscription, whose language was unknown and for which no bilingual text was available, was made possible for Ventris and Chadwick by the existence of, similar scripts n Cypriot and in Greek mainland written in Greek language17. Similarly some points of contact are necessary to find a satisfactory solution to the problem of the decipherment of the Indus script like the biscriptal or bilingual inscriptions.We shall now review the recent attempts made by Indian and foreign scholars about the decipherment of the Indus or Harappan script. Amongst the foreign scholars, the Russian team consisting of Knorozov, Volcok and Gurov may be mentioned. They are credited to have taken the help of the computer machines. They assign word value to the signs and suggest that the script belonged to the Dravidian family of languages18. The Finnish team of scholars led by Asko Parpola also believed the language of the Indus script to be Dravidian. Amongst the Indian scholars I. Mahadevan and S.R. Rao have made a detailed study of the problem19. While the former is inclined to attribute the script to be Dravidian, the latter thinks it to be pre-Vedic. Mahadevan has also made use of the computer facilities and has attempted to achieve 'word-division' in the script assuming the language to be Dravidian. S.R. Rao claims that his approach is without any presumption and has tried to show that there has been a change in the script from its earlier phase to the later phase in that the number of signs which were more in the earlier period were reduced considerably in the later phase. He compares the signs of this later phase with the symbols of the North Semetic script of a comparative date and by showing similarity between them gives the same phonetic value to the Harappan script that is found in the Semetic script, other words, S.R. Rao suggests that there was evolution of the Indus script from an earlier period or mature peri9d (2500 B.C. to 1500 B.C.) and that the early syllabic-cum-alphabetic writing was disciplined into an alphabetic system by 1500 B.C. He also suggests that the Indus people spoke an Indo-European language which shows close affinity to Indo-Aryan in vocabulary, semantics and phonology. The names of the rulers and chiefs and of countries, sacrifices and divinities, as read by him, would suggest that the Harappans were the progenitors of the Vedic Aryans.
B.B. Lal has pointed out the difficulties in accepting the views of both I. Mahadevan and S.R. Rao20. Mahadevan himself has changed his views and methods of approach on more than one occasion and we have yet to wait and see what his final views in the matter of decipherment of the Harappan script are. In one of his latest papers entitled 'Study of the Indus Script : A Bilingual Approach'21 he has suggested that the problem should be studied from the point of view of interpreting the ideograms in the light of the Indian historical tradition which has come down to us in two main streams, viz., Indo-Aryan and Dravidian. This theory still remains to be tested by scholars before expressing any opinion.
As regards S.R. Rao's approach, viz., assigning the phonetic values of the Semitic script to the late Harappan script and reading it as pre-Vedic Sanskrit is also not decisive and final. As pointed out by Lal, Rao compares the symbols of the late Harappan with those of the Semitic ones and this material is not enough to arrive at any conclusion. Regarding the vowel sign Rao compares it not with any Semitic sign, since Semitic has no vowel signs, but with Sumerian sign for a following Waddel. And for some signs, Rao suggests different sources, viz., Akkadian and Ugaritic. This will be a difficult proposition. Moreover, while the late Harappan script, as suggested by Rao, has many vowel marks, the- Semitic script is completely devoid of any vowel marks. In justification of his approach, Rao says that he is proceeding from the known script (Semitic) to the unknown script (Harappan). But he is silent about the known origins of both these scripts which are different. While the Harappan is descended from the early Indus script according to Rao himself, the origin of the Semitic script is suggested to be Egyptian. So Rao has to explain at what stage the Semitic script acquired the phonetic values of the Indus script if his theory is to be supported. He has not attempted to answer these questions but has only instituted some comparison between the two scripts and has tried to establish some kind of phonetic relationship. Another defect in Rao's findings is that while he has given his reading as pre-Vedic or Indo-European, he has quoted not a single authority of Indo-European Linguistics or even an authority of Vedic language that the readings given by him can be accepted. In view of what is said above, it is not possible to accept Rao's claim that he has deciphered the Indus script. Of course, every scholar who makes an attempt at decipherment of a new script does claim that he has deciphered, but a new script can be taken as deciphered only when the world of scholars accept his views without any doubt22. So we can say, without any fear of contradiction, that the Indus script has defied the attempt of all scholars so far and has not yet been deciphered just as the Asokan Bra#hmhi# script has been deciphered. The discovery of longer record in the script or a bilingual or biscriptal writing or some definite contact point would help us in finding a satisfactory solution to this unknown script in an unknown language.
Rleated Posts
Was Ancient India Literate
Brahmi Script Origin
Tamil Brahmi
Pallava Granta Script
Myth of Divine Tamil
Article from Passions of the Tongue by Sumathi Ramaswamy
The Polarization of Tamil and Sanskrit
From the turn of this century, neo-Shaivism engaged in a complex set of maneuvers. On the one hand, it had to counter the damaging caricatures of Dravidian religion in colonial narratives. On the other, these very texts also contained much ammunition that could be deployed for its battle against neo-Hinduism and its surrogate, Indian nationalism: the declaration that Dravidian religion far preceded Aryan arrival, not just in the Tamil-speaking country but all over India; the suggestion that Tamil-speaking Brahmans had never participated in this religion; the pronouncement of ancient Tamilian society as egalitarian, untainted by the hierarchical and oppressive caste system of the Aryans; and above all, the possibility that that most important Hindu deity, Shiva, might be Dravidian in origin (Elmore 1915: 13-14; Gover 1871: 1-15). Neo-Shaivism appropriated such colonial propositions, fused them with statements drawn from pre-colonial Shaiva narratives, and proposed the following tenets of the emergent “Tamilian religion,” tamiḻar matam (also called by some, “Dravidian religion,” tirāviṭa matam): Shaivism is the true and original religion of all Tamilians who are not Brahman. It is also the most ancient religion of India, predating Sanskritic Hinduism by many centuries. Its principles are enshrined in the devotional and philosophical texts of divine Tamil, and it would be in vain, therefore, to seek it in the demonistic rituals of the populace (as the colonials were wont to). Further, it was not the Dravidians who corrupted a pristine Hinduism (as neo-Hindus were inclined to suggest); on the contrary, it was Brahmanism and Aryanism that had debased the original Tamilian religion and diverted it from its hallowed path of monotheism, rationalism, and egalitarianism into the “gutters” of polytheism, irrational rituals, and unjust social hierarchies (Maraimalai Adigal 1930a: vii-viii; Savariroyan 1900-1901: 269). The removal of such impurities brought in by Sanskritic Brahmanism would lead to the retrieval of pristine Shaivism, the restoration of a pure Tamilian subjectivity, and the growth of self-respect and pride among speakers of Tamil. And it is for this project that Tamil was enlisted by neo-Shaivism, its divinity reemphasized and popularized in the process. Cleansed of its Sanskritic impurities, the divine language would be the beacon that would throw light on all that was originally Tamil/Dravidian. It would sift and separate the pure Tamil Shaiva texts from all those masquerading as such.
The writings and speeches generated by neo-Shaivism show that this was not an easy or consistent project, not least because there was little agreement over what constituted the original Shaivism, and because it was difficult—in certain cases impossible—to dismantle the complex linkages that had developed between Tamil and Sanskrit over the centuries of their coexistence from the early first millennium C.E. In the early decades of neo-Shaiva activity, from around the 1880s to around 1905, there were few explicit statements against Sanskritic Hinduism per se. The focus instead was on countering the negative characterizations of Dravidian religion by asserting its distinctiveness, its uniqueness, its rootedness in high philosophy, and its parity with the Sanskritic tradition. “Moderate” neo-Shaivism, therefore—as exemplified by the writings of J. Nallaswami Pillai, for instance— visioned Tamilian religion as part of a larger Hindu complex, but oriented around divine Tamil and its scriptures rather than around Sanskrit.
Gradually, however, such assertions gave way to overt antagonism towards Sanskritic-Brahmanical-Aryan-Hinduism, and even to calls for a complete break from the latter by the 1920s. This transformation took place in the context of changes in the curriculum of Madras University, which, starting in 1906, became the site of an acrimonious debate over the compulsory study of Sanskrit and the elimination of the “vernaculars” the growing demand for “Home Rule” by the Besant led factions of the Congress, beginning in 1915; the British promise of “self-government” by stages in 1917; the many attempts after that by the colonial state to play off the “non-Brahman” against the Brahman in electoral politics; and finally, the iconoclastic atheism of E. V. Ramasami (1879-1973) and his followers (Irschick 1969; Nambi Arooran 1980: 35-139; Washbrook 1976: 274-87). In the “radical” neo-Shaivism that crystallized in response to these events, and is perhaps best exemplified by the later religious writings of Maraimalai Adigal, a Tamil-speaking Dravidian “non-Brahman” Shaiva community was clearly posited against Sanskritic, Brahmanical, Aryan Hinduism (Maraimalai Adigal 1930b, 1974b; K. Subramania Pillai, 1940: 45-47). Talk of parity between Tamil and Sanskrit gave way to assertions of the superiority of the former. Legends and stories that had accumulated over the centuries about Tamil’s divine powers were recycled and embellished, and the very legitimacy of Sanskrit was questioned in this process.
One such story, based on an incident in the life of the nineteenth-century mystic Dandapanisami, is especially popular in neo-Shaiva tellings. When challenged by a Brahman who invoked the superiority of Sanskrit because the Vedas were in that language, Dandapanisami declared that unlike them, the Tamil scriptures did not advocate the sacrifice of goats and the consumption of meat. The argument between the two notables continued for a while, and it was finally decided to settle the matter by calling upon the deities. They placed in front of the spear of Lord Murugan three chits with the following messages: “Tamil alone is eminent,” “Sanskrit alone is eminent,” and “Both are eminent.” A virgin maiden was asked to choose among the chits and she picked out the one that declared, unambiguously, “Tamil alone is eminent.” Dandapanisami rejoiced, brushed his eyes reverentially with the chit, and then placed it in his mouth. Subsequently, he composed his famous verse on Murugan which praised him as the lord who himself had declared Tamil’s superiority over Sanskrit. He then went on to write the Tamiḻalanḳāram, a hundred-verse eulogy of Tamil recounting its various miraculous abilities and supernatural powers (Velayutam Pillai 1971: 124-61). In the same vein, another of Tamil’s admirers, years later, narrated a story his mother had told him about one of his ancestors who had had the power to cure the sick and the dying with the help of Tamil hymns. One day, a cobra, with its hood raised, wandered into the room where he sat, offering his prayers in Tamil. It drank some milk and slithered away, leaving him unharmed. “Is it not clear from this that Tamil has supernatural powers!” he asked rhetorically of his readers. Such stories, of which there are many, reminded Tamil speakers that the Tamil scriptures were infinitely superior in their moral and ethical content, and in their salvific potential, to the Sanskrit Vedas. It was a Brahmanical conspiracy that denied the divinity and ritual efficacy of Tamil, designated it as a “Shudra” language, and appropriated all its treasures, including the mighty Shiva himself, for Sanskrit (Maraimalai Adigal 1936a: 105-6; K. Subramania Pillai n.d.: 15-17).
By the time radical neo-Shaivism was under full steam in the 1920s, it was declared unequivocally that Tamil, and not Sanskrit, was the only appropriate ritual language for all pious Tamilians. Indeed, Tamil is the world’s first divine language, and the religion it expounds the most eminent: “In the whole wide world, there is no greater god than Paramashivam [Shiva]; no religion loftier than Shaivism; no land more superior to the Tamil land; no language more divine than Tamil…and no people more auspiciously pure than Tamilians” (Swaminatha Upatiyayan 1921: 20). Taking advantage of the technologies and communication possibilities generated in the colonial milieu, neo-Shaiva associations and publications took this message of Tamil’s divinity to the public. They urged Tamil speakers to make divine Tamil the center of their renewed religious lives, the core of their (recast) beings. Prior to the neo-Shaiva revival, the cause of divine Tamil and of Shaivism had largely been the purview of religious specialists, temples, and monasteries. Now, lay intellectuals and activists—who were career bureaucrats, lawyers, academics, and even civil engineers—established societies for propagating the message of neo-Shaivism in various cities and towns across the Tamil-speaking parts of the Presidency. They published books and journals, conducted religious and Tamil classes, arranged conferences, and ran local libraries (Nambi Arooran 1980: 20-21; Ramaswamy 1992b: 84-89). Many of these societies as well as their journals were short lived, and suffered throughout their careers for want of support and subscription. Yet there are success stories as well, such as the Tirunelvēli Teṉṉintiya Caivacittānta Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, founded in 1920. Both this organization and its journal Centamiḻc Celvi (founded in 1923) continue to exist today, albeit not without their share of problems. Although neo-Shaiva organizations eschewed direct participation in associational politics, they threw their influence behind many causes dear to tamiḻppaṟṟu such as the demand for education in Tamil, the numerous protests against Hindi, and the movement for renaming Madras state as Tamilnadu, the land of Tamil.
Being Religious, The Tamil Way
Movements for religious reform in colonial India have been extensively studied, and a recent volume clearly shows that spoken, rather than scriptural, languages were the sites of some of the most intense debates and discussion in this regard (K. Jones 1992). Yet, while we have a growing understanding of the recastings of religious doctrines, practices, and conceptions of community, the changes undergone by the languages through which such reconfigurations were attempted have been left largely unexamined. Tamiḻppaṟṟu’s divinization of Tamil to authenticate its project(s) reminds us that the medium itself has to be empowered in order to empower the message, to invoke an overused but nevertheless appropriate cliché. Neo-Shaivism declared that Shaivism and divine Tamil are the two “eyes” with which modern Tamil speakers would regain their lost vision and be redeemed. Divine Shiva and his divine Tamil go together, hand in hand, and cannot be separated: each lends power and authority to the other.
Neo-Shaivism emerged to counter what was perceived as the recasting of India as predominantly Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical, and Hindu by both colonialism and neo-Hinduism. Such a countering was necessary because of the fear that “non-Brahman” Tamil speakers would inhabit such an India only in the fissures: ritually denigrated, socially demoted, and symbolically cast out, as “Dravidians” and “Shudras.” Yet speakers of Tamil had once been the dominant people of the subcontinent, a preeminence they had lost with the arrival of Sanskritic Aryan Brahmanism. In Maraimalai Adigal’s version of this imagined history, “the religion of the land, that is Shaivism, underwent a marked change.” Yet, he wrote, this was a change that was limited to the “outer rim,” for “in its center, it remained as pure as crystal and as impenetrable as a hard diamond. What is bound and true to its core, what is perfect and complete in itself, requires no change, requires no improvement” (Maraimalai Adigal 1930c: iii). Neo-Shaivism attempted to recover this imagined pure center and use it as the foundation on which to (re)constitute a true Tamilian religious subjectivity untouched by Brahmanism, Aryanism, Sanskrit, and Hinduism. Cleansed of its Sanskritic impurities, Tamil, the language in which its pure and original scriptures were deemed written, was the means through which this center could be reached. The language had perforce to be (re)divinized for this project, for it had to take on and counter the power of divine Sanskrit. Other religious groups in earlier times had advocated the divinity of Tamil, but not always at the expense of Sanskrit, and not in such a sustained and prolific manner using the modern technologies of print and communication (Ramaswamy 1996). In the changed circumstances of the late colonial period, when a devolving state rewarded communities that could establish their timeless distinctiveness and religious autonomy, there was much to be gained by claiming the existence of a unique Tamilian/Dravidian community, bonded together from time immemorial by its own distinctive religious traditions that were embodied in its own sacred language. Such a claim necessarily called for a delegitimization of Sanskrit and a radical distancing from its scriptures and tradition. Such a project also perforce needed the projection of Tamil as divinity, the ranking favorite of the gods themselves
The Polarization of Tamil and Sanskrit
From the turn of this century, neo-Shaivism engaged in a complex set of maneuvers. On the one hand, it had to counter the damaging caricatures of Dravidian religion in colonial narratives. On the other, these very texts also contained much ammunition that could be deployed for its battle against neo-Hinduism and its surrogate, Indian nationalism: the declaration that Dravidian religion far preceded Aryan arrival, not just in the Tamil-speaking country but all over India; the suggestion that Tamil-speaking Brahmans had never participated in this religion; the pronouncement of ancient Tamilian society as egalitarian, untainted by the hierarchical and oppressive caste system of the Aryans; and above all, the possibility that that most important Hindu deity, Shiva, might be Dravidian in origin (Elmore 1915: 13-14; Gover 1871: 1-15). Neo-Shaivism appropriated such colonial propositions, fused them with statements drawn from pre-colonial Shaiva narratives, and proposed the following tenets of the emergent “Tamilian religion,” tamiḻar matam (also called by some, “Dravidian religion,” tirāviṭa matam): Shaivism is the true and original religion of all Tamilians who are not Brahman. It is also the most ancient religion of India, predating Sanskritic Hinduism by many centuries. Its principles are enshrined in the devotional and philosophical texts of divine Tamil, and it would be in vain, therefore, to seek it in the demonistic rituals of the populace (as the colonials were wont to). Further, it was not the Dravidians who corrupted a pristine Hinduism (as neo-Hindus were inclined to suggest); on the contrary, it was Brahmanism and Aryanism that had debased the original Tamilian religion and diverted it from its hallowed path of monotheism, rationalism, and egalitarianism into the “gutters” of polytheism, irrational rituals, and unjust social hierarchies (Maraimalai Adigal 1930a: vii-viii; Savariroyan 1900-1901: 269). The removal of such impurities brought in by Sanskritic Brahmanism would lead to the retrieval of pristine Shaivism, the restoration of a pure Tamilian subjectivity, and the growth of self-respect and pride among speakers of Tamil. And it is for this project that Tamil was enlisted by neo-Shaivism, its divinity reemphasized and popularized in the process. Cleansed of its Sanskritic impurities, the divine language would be the beacon that would throw light on all that was originally Tamil/Dravidian. It would sift and separate the pure Tamil Shaiva texts from all those masquerading as such.
The writings and speeches generated by neo-Shaivism show that this was not an easy or consistent project, not least because there was little agreement over what constituted the original Shaivism, and because it was difficult—in certain cases impossible—to dismantle the complex linkages that had developed between Tamil and Sanskrit over the centuries of their coexistence from the early first millennium C.E. In the early decades of neo-Shaiva activity, from around the 1880s to around 1905, there were few explicit statements against Sanskritic Hinduism per se. The focus instead was on countering the negative characterizations of Dravidian religion by asserting its distinctiveness, its uniqueness, its rootedness in high philosophy, and its parity with the Sanskritic tradition. “Moderate” neo-Shaivism, therefore—as exemplified by the writings of J. Nallaswami Pillai, for instance— visioned Tamilian religion as part of a larger Hindu complex, but oriented around divine Tamil and its scriptures rather than around Sanskrit.
Gradually, however, such assertions gave way to overt antagonism towards Sanskritic-Brahmanical-Aryan-Hinduism, and even to calls for a complete break from the latter by the 1920s. This transformation took place in the context of changes in the curriculum of Madras University, which, starting in 1906, became the site of an acrimonious debate over the compulsory study of Sanskrit and the elimination of the “vernaculars” the growing demand for “Home Rule” by the Besant led factions of the Congress, beginning in 1915; the British promise of “self-government” by stages in 1917; the many attempts after that by the colonial state to play off the “non-Brahman” against the Brahman in electoral politics; and finally, the iconoclastic atheism of E. V. Ramasami (1879-1973) and his followers (Irschick 1969; Nambi Arooran 1980: 35-139; Washbrook 1976: 274-87). In the “radical” neo-Shaivism that crystallized in response to these events, and is perhaps best exemplified by the later religious writings of Maraimalai Adigal, a Tamil-speaking Dravidian “non-Brahman” Shaiva community was clearly posited against Sanskritic, Brahmanical, Aryan Hinduism (Maraimalai Adigal 1930b, 1974b; K. Subramania Pillai, 1940: 45-47). Talk of parity between Tamil and Sanskrit gave way to assertions of the superiority of the former. Legends and stories that had accumulated over the centuries about Tamil’s divine powers were recycled and embellished, and the very legitimacy of Sanskrit was questioned in this process.
One such story, based on an incident in the life of the nineteenth-century mystic Dandapanisami, is especially popular in neo-Shaiva tellings. When challenged by a Brahman who invoked the superiority of Sanskrit because the Vedas were in that language, Dandapanisami declared that unlike them, the Tamil scriptures did not advocate the sacrifice of goats and the consumption of meat. The argument between the two notables continued for a while, and it was finally decided to settle the matter by calling upon the deities. They placed in front of the spear of Lord Murugan three chits with the following messages: “Tamil alone is eminent,” “Sanskrit alone is eminent,” and “Both are eminent.” A virgin maiden was asked to choose among the chits and she picked out the one that declared, unambiguously, “Tamil alone is eminent.” Dandapanisami rejoiced, brushed his eyes reverentially with the chit, and then placed it in his mouth. Subsequently, he composed his famous verse on Murugan which praised him as the lord who himself had declared Tamil’s superiority over Sanskrit. He then went on to write the Tamiḻalanḳāram, a hundred-verse eulogy of Tamil recounting its various miraculous abilities and supernatural powers (Velayutam Pillai 1971: 124-61). In the same vein, another of Tamil’s admirers, years later, narrated a story his mother had told him about one of his ancestors who had had the power to cure the sick and the dying with the help of Tamil hymns. One day, a cobra, with its hood raised, wandered into the room where he sat, offering his prayers in Tamil. It drank some milk and slithered away, leaving him unharmed. “Is it not clear from this that Tamil has supernatural powers!” he asked rhetorically of his readers. Such stories, of which there are many, reminded Tamil speakers that the Tamil scriptures were infinitely superior in their moral and ethical content, and in their salvific potential, to the Sanskrit Vedas. It was a Brahmanical conspiracy that denied the divinity and ritual efficacy of Tamil, designated it as a “Shudra” language, and appropriated all its treasures, including the mighty Shiva himself, for Sanskrit (Maraimalai Adigal 1936a: 105-6; K. Subramania Pillai n.d.: 15-17).
By the time radical neo-Shaivism was under full steam in the 1920s, it was declared unequivocally that Tamil, and not Sanskrit, was the only appropriate ritual language for all pious Tamilians. Indeed, Tamil is the world’s first divine language, and the religion it expounds the most eminent: “In the whole wide world, there is no greater god than Paramashivam [Shiva]; no religion loftier than Shaivism; no land more superior to the Tamil land; no language more divine than Tamil…and no people more auspiciously pure than Tamilians” (Swaminatha Upatiyayan 1921: 20). Taking advantage of the technologies and communication possibilities generated in the colonial milieu, neo-Shaiva associations and publications took this message of Tamil’s divinity to the public. They urged Tamil speakers to make divine Tamil the center of their renewed religious lives, the core of their (recast) beings. Prior to the neo-Shaiva revival, the cause of divine Tamil and of Shaivism had largely been the purview of religious specialists, temples, and monasteries. Now, lay intellectuals and activists—who were career bureaucrats, lawyers, academics, and even civil engineers—established societies for propagating the message of neo-Shaivism in various cities and towns across the Tamil-speaking parts of the Presidency. They published books and journals, conducted religious and Tamil classes, arranged conferences, and ran local libraries (Nambi Arooran 1980: 20-21; Ramaswamy 1992b: 84-89). Many of these societies as well as their journals were short lived, and suffered throughout their careers for want of support and subscription. Yet there are success stories as well, such as the Tirunelvēli Teṉṉintiya Caivacittānta Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, founded in 1920. Both this organization and its journal Centamiḻc Celvi (founded in 1923) continue to exist today, albeit not without their share of problems. Although neo-Shaiva organizations eschewed direct participation in associational politics, they threw their influence behind many causes dear to tamiḻppaṟṟu such as the demand for education in Tamil, the numerous protests against Hindi, and the movement for renaming Madras state as Tamilnadu, the land of Tamil.
Being Religious, The Tamil Way
Movements for religious reform in colonial India have been extensively studied, and a recent volume clearly shows that spoken, rather than scriptural, languages were the sites of some of the most intense debates and discussion in this regard (K. Jones 1992). Yet, while we have a growing understanding of the recastings of religious doctrines, practices, and conceptions of community, the changes undergone by the languages through which such reconfigurations were attempted have been left largely unexamined. Tamiḻppaṟṟu’s divinization of Tamil to authenticate its project(s) reminds us that the medium itself has to be empowered in order to empower the message, to invoke an overused but nevertheless appropriate cliché. Neo-Shaivism declared that Shaivism and divine Tamil are the two “eyes” with which modern Tamil speakers would regain their lost vision and be redeemed. Divine Shiva and his divine Tamil go together, hand in hand, and cannot be separated: each lends power and authority to the other.
Neo-Shaivism emerged to counter what was perceived as the recasting of India as predominantly Aryan, Sanskritic, Brahmanical, and Hindu by both colonialism and neo-Hinduism. Such a countering was necessary because of the fear that “non-Brahman” Tamil speakers would inhabit such an India only in the fissures: ritually denigrated, socially demoted, and symbolically cast out, as “Dravidians” and “Shudras.” Yet speakers of Tamil had once been the dominant people of the subcontinent, a preeminence they had lost with the arrival of Sanskritic Aryan Brahmanism. In Maraimalai Adigal’s version of this imagined history, “the religion of the land, that is Shaivism, underwent a marked change.” Yet, he wrote, this was a change that was limited to the “outer rim,” for “in its center, it remained as pure as crystal and as impenetrable as a hard diamond. What is bound and true to its core, what is perfect and complete in itself, requires no change, requires no improvement” (Maraimalai Adigal 1930c: iii). Neo-Shaivism attempted to recover this imagined pure center and use it as the foundation on which to (re)constitute a true Tamilian religious subjectivity untouched by Brahmanism, Aryanism, Sanskrit, and Hinduism. Cleansed of its Sanskritic impurities, Tamil, the language in which its pure and original scriptures were deemed written, was the means through which this center could be reached. The language had perforce to be (re)divinized for this project, for it had to take on and counter the power of divine Sanskrit. Other religious groups in earlier times had advocated the divinity of Tamil, but not always at the expense of Sanskrit, and not in such a sustained and prolific manner using the modern technologies of print and communication (Ramaswamy 1996). In the changed circumstances of the late colonial period, when a devolving state rewarded communities that could establish their timeless distinctiveness and religious autonomy, there was much to be gained by claiming the existence of a unique Tamilian/Dravidian community, bonded together from time immemorial by its own distinctive religious traditions that were embodied in its own sacred language. Such a claim necessarily called for a delegitimization of Sanskrit and a radical distancing from its scriptures and tradition. Such a project also perforce needed the projection of Tamil as divinity, the ranking favorite of the gods themselves
Who are Aryans
Let us see from different contexts.
A paper presented by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
1. Introduction: Ever since the advent of "Ariyar" in Indian history, the word "Aryan" has assumed significance and far-fetching linguistic and racial connotations. Then came the advent of "Dravidians". Caldwell's linguistic invention was given a racial twist by the westerners and Indian scholars, though the concept of race and language are two separate entities. Leaving these hypotheses and theories aside, an attempt is made in this paper to study the word "Ariyar" fund in the ancient Tamil literature. In the process of understanding the past, there have been persistent and insistent attempts in historiography to import later day ideas, concepts and theories to reflect back on the past events leading to diversified and contradicting situation. But, here the approach has been restricted to get the meaning of the word "Ariyar" as found in the ancient Tamil literature.
2. In Tamil literature, the word "Ariyar", "Ariyan", "Ariya" etc., found in various places withy their other forms and have been used both as nouns and adjectives. As in recent times, diametrically opposite views have been expressed1 about the inclusion of the Tamil epics Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai within the ambit of Sangam literature, the discussion is restricted to Ettutogai (the eight anthologies), Pattupattu (the Ten poems) and Padinen Kizh Kanakku (the Eighteen Minor works). Now, let us see, what these poems say about "Ariyar".
3. Natrinai: It is the heading the list of Ettuttogai and its general theme is love. The word "Ariyar" appears in the 170th poem, sung by an unknown poet. The companion of the heroin of the poem warts that the hero might be seduced by the beautiful lonely dancing girl. She compares the victory of the Virali (the dancer), who came to a festival clad in a leaf-garment, over her group to the fact that the famous town of Mullur, the "Ariya" soldiers swarmed, but ran away before the lance-battalion of Malayan (a Cheran), who unsheathed a shining sword and attacked with his large army. From this, we can see that the people who came from the north to attack Cheras were known as "Ariyar".
4. Kuruntogai: Literally meaning `a collection of short poems', it comes next and its theme is also love. The word "Ariyar" appears in the verse 7, line 3. Here, it is described how "Ariyars" dance on a tied rope according to the beatings of a drum. "The forest full of bamboos were rattled the white ripe seeds of shivering vakai tree (Sirisa tree) tossed by the wind like the drumming of the "Ariyar" dancing on the rope". Therefore, here it is evident that "Ariyar" refers to a group of jugglers or tumblers, who performed acrobatics.
5. Paditruppattu (the Ten tens): It gives more information about `Ariyar' in historical setting. The entire extant collection of poems with the deeds and exploits of the Chera Kings. The first and tenth Tens are not available. In the Second Ten, the Patigam (Preface) describes how Imayavaramban Nedunjeraladhan engraved his royal sign `bow', which figures on his flag, on the top of the Himalayas (lines 4-7). Having roaring oceans has his boundaries (imizh kadal velittamizhagam), he ruled Tamizhagam (the Tamil country) in such a way o excel the other nadus (countries). He made `Ariyar' bow before him, who were having very great name (fame and heritage).
5.1. In the Second Ten, the 11th verse details as how the very famous Himalayas abound with "Ariyas". Hence, scholars give two different meanings for the `Ariyar':
`Ariyar" = Munivar (rishis) and
"Ariyar' = `Ariya mannar' ( Aryan kings) .
The hillside was resplendent with densely and well grown trees of erthrina indica (mullu murukka), a kind of citrus and the yak sleeping there would dream of waterfalls and sweet smelling grass. The Himalayas with such fertility was filled with many rishis. In between the Himalayas (in the north) and Kumari in the South, there wee Kings who boasted their valour but they were conquered by Nedunjeraladhan. The meaning is thus rendered, "You quelled the valour of those who called themselves monarchs of the land between Camorin in the South and the famous Himalayas, where the Ariyas2 abound and yak sleeps on the hills covered thick with the Oleander and dreams of the broad mountain stream and the narandam (lemon-grass)"
5.2. In fifth Ten, the patigam mentions `vadavar' or vadukar, i,e, the people of north and `Ariya Annal' i.e, head of Ariya Kings. It describes how the kings of the north were afraid of Kadal Prakkottiya Senguttuvan. He marched with his army to bring a good stone for chiseling an image of the goddess of chastity. He came across a head or chief of Ariya Kings, while passing through forests, and defeated him. Then, he brought a stone and washed it in waters of the Ganges. While coming back, he stayed at Irumbil, destroyed Viyaur and Kodungur. He also killed a king named Pazhaiyon.
5.3. In the same fifth Ten, the 43rd verse mentions the defeat of kings who were ruling between the Himalayas in the north and Kumari in the south as boundaries. However, the names of the kings or the countries thus defeated are not given in the poem. In the padigam, the kings are mentioned as the `vadavar' (the Kings of north), the Chiefs of `Ariyar' are called `Ariya Annal', but here they are generally mentioned as `Ariya arasar', i.e, the Kings between the Himalayas and Kumari.
5.4. In Seventh Ten, the 68th poem narrates how the people who were living in the north or northern direction, were leading a fearless and happy life. The expression used to denote them is `vadapula vazhnar'.
5.5. So from the description of Paditruppattu, we can see that `Ariyar' are ?
? `the Kings of the north',
? `Rishis of the Himalayas',
? `the Kings between the boundaries of Himalayas and Kumari' and
? `the people of the north or northern direction of Tamilagam'.
6. Agananuru (or Neduntogai): It also gives more details about `Ariyar'. `Ariyars' capture elephants by the use of trained female elephants. A public woman takes a vow that she would chain her hero with her hair just as the `Ariyar' make the wild elephant domesticated with the she-elephant. Mullaippattu throws light on their employment by the kings of Tamilagam to train elephants.
6.1. In another poem, a harlot wishes her bangles may be broken just like the army of `Ariyars', which was defeated by the Kurumba bowmen who fought under the Cholas, with their shower of arrows, victorious spears and the black buckler. Here, also the names of the defeated `Ariyars' are not given, but it is mentioned that they were defeated at Vallam (Tanjore).
6.2. Paranar3 in his poem eulogises Senguttuvan that he attacked the Aryar so as to make them scream, carved his emblem bow on the very famous mountain and chained the ferocious Kings. Here one can notice that the name of the mountain is not specified and it is mentioned in singular. As Himalayas are always mentioned in plural to denote a chain of mountains, a doubt arises as to whether the poet actually alludes to the Himalayas or to a certain `very famous, ancient and well grown' mountain situated north of Tamizhagam in those days.
6.3. Agam.386 narrates how an Ariya wrestler was defeated by one Panan. The Ariya wrestler was known as `Ariya Porunan' and Panan was another wrestler, whose state was in the north of Tamizgagam (Agam.325). Panan wrestled with Ariya Porunan and crushed his shoulders and arms, the sight of which made Kanaiyan, the commander of Chera army, feel ashamed.
6.5. So, according to Agananuru, `Ariyar' were ?
? the people who captured and trained elephants,
? who got defeated by the Cholas at Vallam,
? who were the Kings of the north, conquered and chained by Senguttuvan and
? who were in possession of a mountain where gold was available.
As there was a wrestler known as `Ariya Porunan', the name should imply either that he was an Ariya or he came from the north. But, it should be noted that Panan, who defeated Ariya Porunan and came from a state situated north of Tamizhagam, was not given the prefix of `Ariya'. Therefore, it is evident that there were Ariya wrestlers, just like Ariya jugglers, tumblers or rope dancers, elephant trainers and trainers in Tamizhagam.
7. Purananuru: In one poem4, Kovur Kizhar, a Tamil poet, describes how the kings of north were afraid of Cholan Naklankilli that they were spending their nights without sleep. Marudanila Naganar, another poet5 describes how Pandiyan Kudakartattutunjiya Maran Vazhudi was having a chariot to wage a fierce war to kill the kings of north (vadapula mannar). Actually, the poet eulogises Maran Vazhudi who is said to have caused `northern kings to fade'. But, particular given about the names of such northern kings or countries and the place or places where he defeated them in the battles are not at all given. There is a mention6 of a type of a sandal paste of `northern mountain' (vadakundrattuchandanam), Agananuru also refers to this
But here also, the name of the northern mountain is not mentioned. Thre important point to be noted is, though the expressions `vadapulattarasar', `vadapulamannar' and `vadakundram' are used to denote the kings of the north and northern mountain, the prefix `Ariyar' is conspicuously missing. Therefore, it is very evident that there were northern kings and northern mountains other than Ariya kings of north and northern mountain of `Ariyar'.
8. Non-Tamilian people of North: In the case of non-Tamilian people, specific names have been mentioned like Kosar8, Moriyar9, Nandar10, Tondaiyar11, and Vadugar12. Kosars belonged to Tulu country and they were living south of the Vindhya and near the shores of western ocean. Nandar and Moriyar are no others but the Nandas and Mauryas of north India. Tondaiyars were found in the forests of Vengadam hills where elephants were abundant. So they went on expeditions, captured, trained and formed them into a brigade. The trained elephants brought firewood to the Rishis and they ate the food of their country only. From this, we can infer that Tondaiyars were having similar vocation like Ariyars, as far as elephants are concerned. Vadugar were having their lands beyond Vengadam and they spoke a different language. Another point to be noted is that at one place (Puram. 378), the Vadugars are denoted as `vada vadugar'. The term `vadugar' connotes that they were from the north and hence the expression `vada vadugar' is very significant, as it actually denotes `northern group of northerners'. This can be compared with the expression `vada Ariyar' and vadavariyar" denoting `northern Ariyar', but such expressions are found in Silappathikaram and not in the Sangam literature taken for discussion. But the important point to be noted is the usage of `Ariyar', while the word `Ariyar' is generally used to denote the people of north or the kings of north, the above mentioned words Kosar, Nandar, Moriyar, Tondaiyar and Vadugar are used to denote only particular groups of people who lived in the north of Tamizhagam.
9. Arya and Ariya suffixes and prefixs: Epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidences are abundant to show that the Sathavahanas were ruling in the north of Tamizhagam with their intruding territories extended up to Caddalore. The important point which should be mentioned here is that the `Arya' endings in the names of the donees are found only in the grants coming from the territory immediately south of river Krishna (The Kondamudi, the Mayadavolu, the Hira Hadagalli, the Kanteru Nandivarman I and the Mattapad grants). `Arya' (venerable) as honorific prefix to the names of Buddhist and Jain teachers and saints occurs in inscriptions all over India. Indeed the Tamil epic Manumekhalai mentions Buddha as `Ariyan' (25-6). `Arya' as an honorific title is found in the Hathigumpa inscription of Kharavela13. `Arya' as initial part of personal names occur in Junnar inscription inscription14 (Ayama), and in the Nagarjunakonda inscription15 (Ayakotosiri) and Ayasiri, names of royal ladies. `Aryadeva' is the name of the celebrated disciple16 of Nagarjuna ,who spent a greater part of his life in Andhradesha. But the earliest inscription to exhibit names with Arya-ending is the Kondamudi grant of Jayavarman where all doinees have names ending with `aja', as also found in the same manner in the Mayadavola and Mattapad grants.
9.1. `Aja' is another form of Prakrit `Arya', Sanskrit `Arya' and Tamil `Ayya', `Iyya', `Iyer' and `Ariyar'. `Ariyar' or `Ariya' started as an honorific prefix anmd become a name-ending much the same way as `sri' found in many inscriptions. And we can find the same trend in Tamil literature, as in `Ariya Annal' (Head or chiuef of Ariya Kings), `Ariya Porunan' (Arya wrestler), `Ariya Arasan Bragadattan'17 (Ariya king named Bragadattan) and `Ariya Arasan Yazh Brahmadattan'18 (Ariya king poet Brahmadattan). The word `Ayyar' or `Iyer' is found in many places in ancient Tamil literature including Tolkappiyam19, which is considered as the oldest extant Tamil work. It is used to represent a teacher, brother, priest, saint, andanan (Brahmana), superior, master or king, with veneration.
10. `Ariake': A reference to Periplus' `Ariaca' and Ptolemy's `Ariake' has to be made, as it has direct bearing on the discussion of `Ariyar' of the ancient Tamil literature. About the name `Ariaca' of the Periplus, W. H. Scoff opines: "the word in the text is very uncertain". Lassen thinks that the name Sanskrit `Latica' (pronounced Larica) and included the land on both sides of the gulf of Cambay20. Ptolemy (c.140 CE) calls the first province of Tamil country going down from the north as `Lymyrice or Dymirike'. He and the author of Periplus use it only as the name of the Chera territory. The country north of it was to them `Ariake', belongoing to the Aryas, Taking the other forms `Ariake Sadinon' and `Ariake of the Pirates', they could easily have made out that `Ariake' referred to the country later known as the Maharastra, then ruled over by the Satavahana kings of the Andhra dynasty21. Therefore, it is evident that Ariake or Aricca denotes `Akam' or the country of Ariyar who were ruling or living immediately north of Dymirike or Tamizagam.
11. Himalayas of Ariyar: We have seen how some Tamil kings marched towards the Himalayas to bring stones or to defeat the kings in between the `Himalayas' and `Kumari', and inscribed their royal emblems on it. Already it has been pointed out that the poets considered `Himalayas' as single Tall Mountain. From various expressions like `very famous, ancient and well grown' mountain (Agam.396), `tall mountain with gold' (Agam.398), `a big stone' (Puram.171) and a `tall mountain' (Puram.61), even without naming the mountain, it is evident that the poets coisidered `Imaiyam' or `Imayam' was a single mountain situated north of Tamizhagam. `Imam' means snow, that is why, the Himalayas are called so. But, in the Tamil literature, wherever the name `Imayam' is not mentioned, it is also not mentioned that the `tall, ancient, very famous and stony' mountain with gold is covered with snow. Everybody knows that Himalayas are indeed very famous, ancient and `several series of more or less parallel or converging ranges'. Also the poets have not given the details how the kings climbed up the `Himalayas', cut the required stone, brought it down, etc., except that `he washed it in the waters of Ganges'. Therefore, it is evident that whenever the name `Imayam' is not mentioned, we have to take it as a mountain that was situated in the north of Tamizhagam.
12. Non-Tamil kings of north: The Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela, a king of Kalinga and a contemporary of the third or fifth king of the Satavahana line, is the only epigraphic reference to the kingdoms of the Tamil country after the Asoka inscription. Kharavela ruled Kalinga in the first half of the second century BCE and in the eleventh year of hid reign (c.155 BCE), he is said to have destroyed a confederacy of Tamil states ? Tramiradesa sanghatanam [(T(r)mira, Damira or Tamila] ? which was 113 years old (113+17) at the time and had been a source of danger22. The Satavahanas were ruling, starting with the first king Simukha around 230 BCE, in the north of Tamizhagam with the lineage of Kanha (.207-189 BCE), Sri Satakarni I, Satakarni II (c.166), Hala (c. 20-24 CE), Sri Yajna Satakarni (c.170-199) and others. Before that, the Asokan empire was extending up to Sravanabelagola covering the areas of the Cholas. He died in 232 BCE and his successor Brihadratha was killed by Pushyamitra Sunga in 185 BCE. The Sunga dynasty continued up to 73 BCE. Therefore, during the reign of these kings of north, no Tamil king could have crossed over to Ganges or Himalayas without encountering them. If the Tamil kings would have actually defeated or conquered the kings of north, as mentioned in the Tamil literature, definitely, there would be some cross reference in their description. But, unfortunately no such reference has been pointed out so far. Moreover, a careful study of ancient Tamil literature clearly shows that the geography of Tamizhagam is restricted between Vengadam in the north and Kumari in the south. This has been repeatedly mentioned by the poets and the later commentators. Therefore, if any Tamil king had conquered or defeated any Aryan king or king or north, he might have defeated an Andhra king of his time.
13. `Ariyar' denotes what? From the foregoing discussion about the word `Ariyar' and its forms mentioned in the ancient Tamil literature, it is evident that they would come under the following categories:
`Ariyar' are ?
1. the people who were living immediately north of Tamizhagam or Vengadam.
2. the kings who were ruling immediately north of Tamizhagam or Vengadam.
3. the jugglers, tumblers, rope-dancers or acrobats of Tamizhagam.
4. the Rishis or saints of northern mountain of Tamizhagam or Himalayas.
5. the elephant captors and / or trainers.
6. the groups or kings who waged wars against Tamil kings or chiefs coming from north.
7. ]the honorific title `Ariya' was used to respect certain professionals like wresrtlers, poets or king-cum-poets of Tamizhagam.
14. Were the `Ariyar' foreigners? A reference has already been made about non-Tamil people coming from the north of Tamizhagam, who were specifically mentioned as Kosar, Moriyar, Nandar, Tondaiyar and Vadugar. There have been many specific references to Romans and Greeks collectively called as `yavanar' by the Tamilians. Their habits, dress, behaviour etc., are clearly described and explained to show that they were foreigners. The word `milechar' is specifically found in Mullaippattu; "Within the elegant well-lit inner apartment, adorned with tiger-chains of skilled workmanship, well clad dumb milechas (who make themselves understood by signs) attend the king, who spends night absorbed in thought of (coming) battle23. The mention about the employment of milechas as bodyguards is very significant, because unless the king had so much of confidence about his safety, he would not have appointed the foreigners as his bodyguards. And if the `Ariyar' mentioned were actually milechas or foreigners, they would have been described and treated differently by the Tamil poets. Though the poets repeatedly mention that the boundaries of this land were Himalayas in the north, Kumari in the south, Kuna kadal (eastern ocean), in the east and Kuda kadal (western ocean) in the west and that `Ariyar' were the people or kings of the north of Tamizhagam, nowhere they have been mentioned that they were foreigners and that they came from outside the boundaries enumerated by them. Except in the references about the encounters between them and Tamilian Kings or chiefs, in all other places, they were treated as the people of Tamizhagam. Even in the case of battles among the Tamil kings, chieftains and particularly, Chera, Chola and Pandyas, elaborate details have been given as to how they fought with each other, killed others, destroyed the lands and towns, captured cattle, men and women, collected their booty, seized the crowns and gold (which in turn to be given to the pots) etc. But, surprisingly such details of after-battle exploits and booties are not given in the case of defeat of `Ariyar'. So it is not known why and how they were spared even after their defeat. Many cases of Sati committed by the wives of killed Tamililan kings and chieftains have been specifically mentioned. Even Imayavaramban Nedunjeraladhan fought a war with the contemporary Chola king, in which both the monarchs lost their lives and their queens performed sati. But, surprisingly, there are no mentions of killing of `Ariyar' kings and of performing of sati by their queens. Therefore, really, it is very intriguing as to why and how such benevolent and lenient treatment was given to the defeated, conquered and captured `Ariyan' kings by the Tamil poets and kings. In any case, it is evident that the `Ariyar' were not foreigners.
15. Conclusion: In the study of ancient Tamil literature, with a view to find out the meaning and position of `Ariyar' as mentioned in their context, it has been pointed out that `Ariyar' were the people or kings of north of Tamizhagam and also of Tamizghagam considering the various descriptions of them. Literary evidences of ancient Tamizhagam with other epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidences of contemporary kings of Maurya, Kalinga and Satavahana show that the exploits of Tamil kings were perhaps restricted to the boundaries of the ancient Tamizhagam and the defeat of `Ariya' or northern king or kings refers to the defeat of Andhra king or kings. The word `Ariya' was also used as an honorific title to certain professionals, besides the generic usage to denote the people of the land with the boundaries of Himalayas. As the names Kosar, Nandar, Moriar, Tondaiyar and Vadugar have been used to indicate individual groups of north, and the name `Ariya' is used to denote the people or kings who were living or ruling immediately in the north of Tamizhagam, it is very evident that no racial connotation was given to `ariyar' by the ancient Tamils.
My Views
Seeing the location according to ptolemy and other tamil sources , we can come to the conclusion Ariya is nothing but ancient kannada land that is today karnataka and Maharastra
A paper presented by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
1. Introduction: Ever since the advent of "Ariyar" in Indian history, the word "Aryan" has assumed significance and far-fetching linguistic and racial connotations. Then came the advent of "Dravidians". Caldwell's linguistic invention was given a racial twist by the westerners and Indian scholars, though the concept of race and language are two separate entities. Leaving these hypotheses and theories aside, an attempt is made in this paper to study the word "Ariyar" fund in the ancient Tamil literature. In the process of understanding the past, there have been persistent and insistent attempts in historiography to import later day ideas, concepts and theories to reflect back on the past events leading to diversified and contradicting situation. But, here the approach has been restricted to get the meaning of the word "Ariyar" as found in the ancient Tamil literature.
2. In Tamil literature, the word "Ariyar", "Ariyan", "Ariya" etc., found in various places withy their other forms and have been used both as nouns and adjectives. As in recent times, diametrically opposite views have been expressed1 about the inclusion of the Tamil epics Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai within the ambit of Sangam literature, the discussion is restricted to Ettutogai (the eight anthologies), Pattupattu (the Ten poems) and Padinen Kizh Kanakku (the Eighteen Minor works). Now, let us see, what these poems say about "Ariyar".
3. Natrinai: It is the heading the list of Ettuttogai and its general theme is love. The word "Ariyar" appears in the 170th poem, sung by an unknown poet. The companion of the heroin of the poem warts that the hero might be seduced by the beautiful lonely dancing girl. She compares the victory of the Virali (the dancer), who came to a festival clad in a leaf-garment, over her group to the fact that the famous town of Mullur, the "Ariya" soldiers swarmed, but ran away before the lance-battalion of Malayan (a Cheran), who unsheathed a shining sword and attacked with his large army. From this, we can see that the people who came from the north to attack Cheras were known as "Ariyar".
4. Kuruntogai: Literally meaning `a collection of short poems', it comes next and its theme is also love. The word "Ariyar" appears in the verse 7, line 3. Here, it is described how "Ariyars" dance on a tied rope according to the beatings of a drum. "The forest full of bamboos were rattled the white ripe seeds of shivering vakai tree (Sirisa tree) tossed by the wind like the drumming of the "Ariyar" dancing on the rope". Therefore, here it is evident that "Ariyar" refers to a group of jugglers or tumblers, who performed acrobatics.
5. Paditruppattu (the Ten tens): It gives more information about `Ariyar' in historical setting. The entire extant collection of poems with the deeds and exploits of the Chera Kings. The first and tenth Tens are not available. In the Second Ten, the Patigam (Preface) describes how Imayavaramban Nedunjeraladhan engraved his royal sign `bow', which figures on his flag, on the top of the Himalayas (lines 4-7). Having roaring oceans has his boundaries (imizh kadal velittamizhagam), he ruled Tamizhagam (the Tamil country) in such a way o excel the other nadus (countries). He made `Ariyar' bow before him, who were having very great name (fame and heritage).
5.1. In the Second Ten, the 11th verse details as how the very famous Himalayas abound with "Ariyas". Hence, scholars give two different meanings for the `Ariyar':
`Ariyar" = Munivar (rishis) and
"Ariyar' = `Ariya mannar' ( Aryan kings) .
The hillside was resplendent with densely and well grown trees of erthrina indica (mullu murukka), a kind of citrus and the yak sleeping there would dream of waterfalls and sweet smelling grass. The Himalayas with such fertility was filled with many rishis. In between the Himalayas (in the north) and Kumari in the South, there wee Kings who boasted their valour but they were conquered by Nedunjeraladhan. The meaning is thus rendered, "You quelled the valour of those who called themselves monarchs of the land between Camorin in the South and the famous Himalayas, where the Ariyas2 abound and yak sleeps on the hills covered thick with the Oleander and dreams of the broad mountain stream and the narandam (lemon-grass)"
5.2. In fifth Ten, the patigam mentions `vadavar' or vadukar, i,e, the people of north and `Ariya Annal' i.e, head of Ariya Kings. It describes how the kings of the north were afraid of Kadal Prakkottiya Senguttuvan. He marched with his army to bring a good stone for chiseling an image of the goddess of chastity. He came across a head or chief of Ariya Kings, while passing through forests, and defeated him. Then, he brought a stone and washed it in waters of the Ganges. While coming back, he stayed at Irumbil, destroyed Viyaur and Kodungur. He also killed a king named Pazhaiyon.
5.3. In the same fifth Ten, the 43rd verse mentions the defeat of kings who were ruling between the Himalayas in the north and Kumari in the south as boundaries. However, the names of the kings or the countries thus defeated are not given in the poem. In the padigam, the kings are mentioned as the `vadavar' (the Kings of north), the Chiefs of `Ariyar' are called `Ariya Annal', but here they are generally mentioned as `Ariya arasar', i.e, the Kings between the Himalayas and Kumari.
5.4. In Seventh Ten, the 68th poem narrates how the people who were living in the north or northern direction, were leading a fearless and happy life. The expression used to denote them is `vadapula vazhnar'.
5.5. So from the description of Paditruppattu, we can see that `Ariyar' are ?
? `the Kings of the north',
? `Rishis of the Himalayas',
? `the Kings between the boundaries of Himalayas and Kumari' and
? `the people of the north or northern direction of Tamilagam'.
6. Agananuru (or Neduntogai): It also gives more details about `Ariyar'. `Ariyars' capture elephants by the use of trained female elephants. A public woman takes a vow that she would chain her hero with her hair just as the `Ariyar' make the wild elephant domesticated with the she-elephant. Mullaippattu throws light on their employment by the kings of Tamilagam to train elephants.
6.1. In another poem, a harlot wishes her bangles may be broken just like the army of `Ariyars', which was defeated by the Kurumba bowmen who fought under the Cholas, with their shower of arrows, victorious spears and the black buckler. Here, also the names of the defeated `Ariyars' are not given, but it is mentioned that they were defeated at Vallam (Tanjore).
6.2. Paranar3 in his poem eulogises Senguttuvan that he attacked the Aryar so as to make them scream, carved his emblem bow on the very famous mountain and chained the ferocious Kings. Here one can notice that the name of the mountain is not specified and it is mentioned in singular. As Himalayas are always mentioned in plural to denote a chain of mountains, a doubt arises as to whether the poet actually alludes to the Himalayas or to a certain `very famous, ancient and well grown' mountain situated north of Tamizhagam in those days.
6.3. Agam.386 narrates how an Ariya wrestler was defeated by one Panan. The Ariya wrestler was known as `Ariya Porunan' and Panan was another wrestler, whose state was in the north of Tamizgagam (Agam.325). Panan wrestled with Ariya Porunan and crushed his shoulders and arms, the sight of which made Kanaiyan, the commander of Chera army, feel ashamed.
6.5. So, according to Agananuru, `Ariyar' were ?
? the people who captured and trained elephants,
? who got defeated by the Cholas at Vallam,
? who were the Kings of the north, conquered and chained by Senguttuvan and
? who were in possession of a mountain where gold was available.
As there was a wrestler known as `Ariya Porunan', the name should imply either that he was an Ariya or he came from the north. But, it should be noted that Panan, who defeated Ariya Porunan and came from a state situated north of Tamizhagam, was not given the prefix of `Ariya'. Therefore, it is evident that there were Ariya wrestlers, just like Ariya jugglers, tumblers or rope dancers, elephant trainers and trainers in Tamizhagam.
7. Purananuru: In one poem4, Kovur Kizhar, a Tamil poet, describes how the kings of north were afraid of Cholan Naklankilli that they were spending their nights without sleep. Marudanila Naganar, another poet5 describes how Pandiyan Kudakartattutunjiya Maran Vazhudi was having a chariot to wage a fierce war to kill the kings of north (vadapula mannar). Actually, the poet eulogises Maran Vazhudi who is said to have caused `northern kings to fade'. But, particular given about the names of such northern kings or countries and the place or places where he defeated them in the battles are not at all given. There is a mention6 of a type of a sandal paste of `northern mountain' (vadakundrattuchandanam), Agananuru also refers to this
But here also, the name of the northern mountain is not mentioned. Thre important point to be noted is, though the expressions `vadapulattarasar', `vadapulamannar' and `vadakundram' are used to denote the kings of the north and northern mountain, the prefix `Ariyar' is conspicuously missing. Therefore, it is very evident that there were northern kings and northern mountains other than Ariya kings of north and northern mountain of `Ariyar'.
8. Non-Tamilian people of North: In the case of non-Tamilian people, specific names have been mentioned like Kosar8, Moriyar9, Nandar10, Tondaiyar11, and Vadugar12. Kosars belonged to Tulu country and they were living south of the Vindhya and near the shores of western ocean. Nandar and Moriyar are no others but the Nandas and Mauryas of north India. Tondaiyars were found in the forests of Vengadam hills where elephants were abundant. So they went on expeditions, captured, trained and formed them into a brigade. The trained elephants brought firewood to the Rishis and they ate the food of their country only. From this, we can infer that Tondaiyars were having similar vocation like Ariyars, as far as elephants are concerned. Vadugar were having their lands beyond Vengadam and they spoke a different language. Another point to be noted is that at one place (Puram. 378), the Vadugars are denoted as `vada vadugar'. The term `vadugar' connotes that they were from the north and hence the expression `vada vadugar' is very significant, as it actually denotes `northern group of northerners'. This can be compared with the expression `vada Ariyar' and vadavariyar" denoting `northern Ariyar', but such expressions are found in Silappathikaram and not in the Sangam literature taken for discussion. But the important point to be noted is the usage of `Ariyar', while the word `Ariyar' is generally used to denote the people of north or the kings of north, the above mentioned words Kosar, Nandar, Moriyar, Tondaiyar and Vadugar are used to denote only particular groups of people who lived in the north of Tamizhagam.
9. Arya and Ariya suffixes and prefixs: Epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidences are abundant to show that the Sathavahanas were ruling in the north of Tamizhagam with their intruding territories extended up to Caddalore. The important point which should be mentioned here is that the `Arya' endings in the names of the donees are found only in the grants coming from the territory immediately south of river Krishna (The Kondamudi, the Mayadavolu, the Hira Hadagalli, the Kanteru Nandivarman I and the Mattapad grants). `Arya' (venerable) as honorific prefix to the names of Buddhist and Jain teachers and saints occurs in inscriptions all over India. Indeed the Tamil epic Manumekhalai mentions Buddha as `Ariyan' (25-6). `Arya' as an honorific title is found in the Hathigumpa inscription of Kharavela13. `Arya' as initial part of personal names occur in Junnar inscription inscription14 (Ayama), and in the Nagarjunakonda inscription15 (Ayakotosiri) and Ayasiri, names of royal ladies. `Aryadeva' is the name of the celebrated disciple16 of Nagarjuna ,who spent a greater part of his life in Andhradesha. But the earliest inscription to exhibit names with Arya-ending is the Kondamudi grant of Jayavarman where all doinees have names ending with `aja', as also found in the same manner in the Mayadavola and Mattapad grants.
9.1. `Aja' is another form of Prakrit `Arya', Sanskrit `Arya' and Tamil `Ayya', `Iyya', `Iyer' and `Ariyar'. `Ariyar' or `Ariya' started as an honorific prefix anmd become a name-ending much the same way as `sri' found in many inscriptions. And we can find the same trend in Tamil literature, as in `Ariya Annal' (Head or chiuef of Ariya Kings), `Ariya Porunan' (Arya wrestler), `Ariya Arasan Bragadattan'17 (Ariya king named Bragadattan) and `Ariya Arasan Yazh Brahmadattan'18 (Ariya king poet Brahmadattan). The word `Ayyar' or `Iyer' is found in many places in ancient Tamil literature including Tolkappiyam19, which is considered as the oldest extant Tamil work. It is used to represent a teacher, brother, priest, saint, andanan (Brahmana), superior, master or king, with veneration.
10. `Ariake': A reference to Periplus' `Ariaca' and Ptolemy's `Ariake' has to be made, as it has direct bearing on the discussion of `Ariyar' of the ancient Tamil literature. About the name `Ariaca' of the Periplus, W. H. Scoff opines: "the word in the text is very uncertain". Lassen thinks that the name Sanskrit `Latica' (pronounced Larica) and included the land on both sides of the gulf of Cambay20. Ptolemy (c.140 CE) calls the first province of Tamil country going down from the north as `Lymyrice or Dymirike'. He and the author of Periplus use it only as the name of the Chera territory. The country north of it was to them `Ariake', belongoing to the Aryas, Taking the other forms `Ariake Sadinon' and `Ariake of the Pirates', they could easily have made out that `Ariake' referred to the country later known as the Maharastra, then ruled over by the Satavahana kings of the Andhra dynasty21. Therefore, it is evident that Ariake or Aricca denotes `Akam' or the country of Ariyar who were ruling or living immediately north of Dymirike or Tamizagam.
11. Himalayas of Ariyar: We have seen how some Tamil kings marched towards the Himalayas to bring stones or to defeat the kings in between the `Himalayas' and `Kumari', and inscribed their royal emblems on it. Already it has been pointed out that the poets considered `Himalayas' as single Tall Mountain. From various expressions like `very famous, ancient and well grown' mountain (Agam.396), `tall mountain with gold' (Agam.398), `a big stone' (Puram.171) and a `tall mountain' (Puram.61), even without naming the mountain, it is evident that the poets coisidered `Imaiyam' or `Imayam' was a single mountain situated north of Tamizhagam. `Imam' means snow, that is why, the Himalayas are called so. But, in the Tamil literature, wherever the name `Imayam' is not mentioned, it is also not mentioned that the `tall, ancient, very famous and stony' mountain with gold is covered with snow. Everybody knows that Himalayas are indeed very famous, ancient and `several series of more or less parallel or converging ranges'. Also the poets have not given the details how the kings climbed up the `Himalayas', cut the required stone, brought it down, etc., except that `he washed it in the waters of Ganges'. Therefore, it is evident that whenever the name `Imayam' is not mentioned, we have to take it as a mountain that was situated in the north of Tamizhagam.
12. Non-Tamil kings of north: The Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela, a king of Kalinga and a contemporary of the third or fifth king of the Satavahana line, is the only epigraphic reference to the kingdoms of the Tamil country after the Asoka inscription. Kharavela ruled Kalinga in the first half of the second century BCE and in the eleventh year of hid reign (c.155 BCE), he is said to have destroyed a confederacy of Tamil states ? Tramiradesa sanghatanam [(T(r)mira, Damira or Tamila] ? which was 113 years old (113+17) at the time and had been a source of danger22. The Satavahanas were ruling, starting with the first king Simukha around 230 BCE, in the north of Tamizhagam with the lineage of Kanha (.207-189 BCE), Sri Satakarni I, Satakarni II (c.166), Hala (c. 20-24 CE), Sri Yajna Satakarni (c.170-199) and others. Before that, the Asokan empire was extending up to Sravanabelagola covering the areas of the Cholas. He died in 232 BCE and his successor Brihadratha was killed by Pushyamitra Sunga in 185 BCE. The Sunga dynasty continued up to 73 BCE. Therefore, during the reign of these kings of north, no Tamil king could have crossed over to Ganges or Himalayas without encountering them. If the Tamil kings would have actually defeated or conquered the kings of north, as mentioned in the Tamil literature, definitely, there would be some cross reference in their description. But, unfortunately no such reference has been pointed out so far. Moreover, a careful study of ancient Tamil literature clearly shows that the geography of Tamizhagam is restricted between Vengadam in the north and Kumari in the south. This has been repeatedly mentioned by the poets and the later commentators. Therefore, if any Tamil king had conquered or defeated any Aryan king or king or north, he might have defeated an Andhra king of his time.
13. `Ariyar' denotes what? From the foregoing discussion about the word `Ariyar' and its forms mentioned in the ancient Tamil literature, it is evident that they would come under the following categories:
`Ariyar' are ?
1. the people who were living immediately north of Tamizhagam or Vengadam.
2. the kings who were ruling immediately north of Tamizhagam or Vengadam.
3. the jugglers, tumblers, rope-dancers or acrobats of Tamizhagam.
4. the Rishis or saints of northern mountain of Tamizhagam or Himalayas.
5. the elephant captors and / or trainers.
6. the groups or kings who waged wars against Tamil kings or chiefs coming from north.
7. ]the honorific title `Ariya' was used to respect certain professionals like wresrtlers, poets or king-cum-poets of Tamizhagam.
14. Were the `Ariyar' foreigners? A reference has already been made about non-Tamil people coming from the north of Tamizhagam, who were specifically mentioned as Kosar, Moriyar, Nandar, Tondaiyar and Vadugar. There have been many specific references to Romans and Greeks collectively called as `yavanar' by the Tamilians. Their habits, dress, behaviour etc., are clearly described and explained to show that they were foreigners. The word `milechar' is specifically found in Mullaippattu; "Within the elegant well-lit inner apartment, adorned with tiger-chains of skilled workmanship, well clad dumb milechas (who make themselves understood by signs) attend the king, who spends night absorbed in thought of (coming) battle23. The mention about the employment of milechas as bodyguards is very significant, because unless the king had so much of confidence about his safety, he would not have appointed the foreigners as his bodyguards. And if the `Ariyar' mentioned were actually milechas or foreigners, they would have been described and treated differently by the Tamil poets. Though the poets repeatedly mention that the boundaries of this land were Himalayas in the north, Kumari in the south, Kuna kadal (eastern ocean), in the east and Kuda kadal (western ocean) in the west and that `Ariyar' were the people or kings of the north of Tamizhagam, nowhere they have been mentioned that they were foreigners and that they came from outside the boundaries enumerated by them. Except in the references about the encounters between them and Tamilian Kings or chiefs, in all other places, they were treated as the people of Tamizhagam. Even in the case of battles among the Tamil kings, chieftains and particularly, Chera, Chola and Pandyas, elaborate details have been given as to how they fought with each other, killed others, destroyed the lands and towns, captured cattle, men and women, collected their booty, seized the crowns and gold (which in turn to be given to the pots) etc. But, surprisingly such details of after-battle exploits and booties are not given in the case of defeat of `Ariyar'. So it is not known why and how they were spared even after their defeat. Many cases of Sati committed by the wives of killed Tamililan kings and chieftains have been specifically mentioned. Even Imayavaramban Nedunjeraladhan fought a war with the contemporary Chola king, in which both the monarchs lost their lives and their queens performed sati. But, surprisingly, there are no mentions of killing of `Ariyar' kings and of performing of sati by their queens. Therefore, really, it is very intriguing as to why and how such benevolent and lenient treatment was given to the defeated, conquered and captured `Ariyan' kings by the Tamil poets and kings. In any case, it is evident that the `Ariyar' were not foreigners.
15. Conclusion: In the study of ancient Tamil literature, with a view to find out the meaning and position of `Ariyar' as mentioned in their context, it has been pointed out that `Ariyar' were the people or kings of north of Tamizhagam and also of Tamizghagam considering the various descriptions of them. Literary evidences of ancient Tamizhagam with other epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidences of contemporary kings of Maurya, Kalinga and Satavahana show that the exploits of Tamil kings were perhaps restricted to the boundaries of the ancient Tamizhagam and the defeat of `Ariya' or northern king or kings refers to the defeat of Andhra king or kings. The word `Ariya' was also used as an honorific title to certain professionals, besides the generic usage to denote the people of the land with the boundaries of Himalayas. As the names Kosar, Nandar, Moriar, Tondaiyar and Vadugar have been used to indicate individual groups of north, and the name `Ariya' is used to denote the people or kings who were living or ruling immediately in the north of Tamizhagam, it is very evident that no racial connotation was given to `ariyar' by the ancient Tamils.
My Views
Seeing the location according to ptolemy and other tamil sources , we can come to the conclusion Ariya is nothing but ancient kannada land that is today karnataka and Maharastra
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 1500-1000BC, 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 pre-Aryan. 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, Mittani 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 iron- based 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 destroyed 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.
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 homeland.
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 not 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 moun- tain 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 Indo - Europeans 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 pre- or 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 Indo- Europeans 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 Indo- European 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, Monier- Williams 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.
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 1500-1000BC, 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 pre-Aryan. 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, Mittani 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 iron- based 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 destroyed 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.
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 homeland.
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 not 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 moun- tain 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 Indo - Europeans 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 pre- or 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 Indo- Europeans 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 Indo- European 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, Monier- Williams 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)