Aryans and Dravidians: Summary for non-experts by non-expert

[Dileep Karanth]

On Tue, 20 Sep 1994 phil013 at csc.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
> 
> Originally it was claimed that "new evidence" of some kind called 
> the whole theory of Aryan migration into question.  But it turned 
> out that there wasn't much, if any, new evidence of a scholarly 
> sort, and in any case that most of us have already aborbed the 
> implications of the evidence (e.g. that the Indus Valley 
> Civilization was not suddenly destroyed by waves of attacking 
> Aryans).
> 
> Perhaps all the facts are not in yet.  Is there indeed any new or 
> noteworthy evidence about Aryan origins, migrations, etc., that 
> hasn't yet been discussed?  Would anyone care to summarize it for 
> non-experts like myself?


	Let me tell you what little is intelligible to a non-expert and 
biased mind like mine. 

	The writers of the Kak/Frawley school (including others like 
Shrikant Talageri, Koenraad Elst (to a certain extent), Navaratna Rajaram 
(who calls it the "Indo-American School)) claim that :

1)	The chronology of the civilization(s) of India as generally agreed 
upon by Western (for want of a better word in my vocabulary) needs to be 
revised. This, they say, follows from an examination of the assumptions 
of the original formulators of the theory. For instance, Max Mueller has 
actually said that the Vedas could not have been composed before some 
date, because the world was only created at some date etc (or something 
to that effect). 
	Koenraad Elst does point out that a conspiracy theory could not 
posibly be true. Generations of Indologists could not possibly have faked 
evrything. But he does not rule out that some of the old stalwarts may 
have missionary motives, and the later indologists may have taken their 
assumptions  for granted.
	A similar thing has happened in other branches of Indian history. 
For instance, modern Indian Historians do not concede that the Puranas 
are historical source material. (I generalise for simplicity only). 
Earlier Marxist historians like Kosambi did treat the Puranas as source 
material for history. However modern historians who do not significantly 
modify Kosambi's conclusions nevertheless sweep away inconsistencies that 
would arise by a reading of the Puranas more seriously (eg Ravana's being 
a Brahmin is a challenge to some conclusions of the Marxists theorists 
who believe in the Aryan invasion theory) by saying that the Puranas are 
not to be taken seriously. But they hide that their basic premises would 
then also have to be abandodned. 
	A similar thing, the Kak/Frawley says school also happens in the case of 
Western Aryan-theory-wallahs. Perhaps modern historians have revised the 
invasion theory, but they have not revised the chronolgy and the dating 
of the Indus valley etc. (I do have any knowledge to comment one way or 
the other -- but I do believe that this point needs to be thrashed out in 
our discussions)

2)	The Kak school also says that the Rig Veda was the work of a people 
based on the Saraswati river. Which is further in the heartland of India. 
They claim that many new archaeological discoveries have been made, on 
the basis of a reading of the Rig Veda. This leaves them with little 
doubt that the Sarasvati river as found by geologists is the same 
Sarasvati of the Rig Veda. 
	They then conclude that in this light it can be said that the Vedas 
only know of "India". There is no mention of places other than in India 
in the Vedas. There is no a priori reason to believe that Aryans came from 
outside India. (The Iranian scriptures talk of an Iranvej as their 
ancient homeland, but Indian scriptures only talk of India). 

3)	The only thing that can be said conclusively is that the languages 
of India, and of many other countries to its west and north show many 
similarities. But these could equally well be due to the migration of 
Indians westward. I think that the Kak school is saying that there is as 
yet nothing that can clinch the issue of the direction of migration. In a 
review of Frawley's book, Kak says that Frawley speculates that India was 
the original homeland of the Aryans. Kak does not insist that it is 
already an established fact.
	The Kak school thinks that the Western pictures cannot be salvaged 
simply by saying that the Aryans enterd India after the Indus valley 
civilization declined. They claim that the Indus-wallahs were actually 
the western branches of the Sarasvati-based civilization, and so the 
whole idea that Aryans came to India is an unnecessary assumption. The 
earlier ideas which had necissated the postulation of Aryan outsiders in 
India simply need not arise.

It may well be true that the whole Kak/Frawley theory is as trivial as 
daniken's book. But so far nothing said on this net has made it clear. 

( Aside:	Kak's book has been published by the Voice of India 
Publications. 
The VOI is not part of the BJP or RSS. It has in fact criticised the BJP 
and the RSS in three or four of its publications, though not in the way 
many leftists would like. 
	It is another matter that certain people who largely (not entirely) 
support the BJP or the RSS, also subscribe to the opinions of the VOI. 
	I say this with confidence, because I have the following VOI 
publications in electronic form (and permission from the publishers to 
share them freely):
	Perversion of India's Political Parlance (Sita Ram Goel)
	Hindu Society Under Siege (Sita Ram Goel)
	Hindus and Hinduism: Manipulation of Meanings (Sita Ram Goel)
	Cultural Self-Alienation and Some Problems Hinduism Faces (Ram Swarup)

Dileep Karanth