Indo-Aryan Invasion

S Krishna mahadevasiva at HOTMAIL.COM
Fri Mar 13 04:54:57 UTC 1998

Edwin Bryant writes:
.  Challenges to the
>theory go back at least to Dayananda, Vivekanada and Aurobindo (and I
>am sure that there is a plethora of reactions even earlier in Bengali
>and other non-English sources).  Statements may be in the form of
>inserted here and there in literature dedicated to other topics,
>or of articles or complete books focused on some aspect of this
specific problem.

Since Questioning the intentions of the scholars who came up with the
whole business of Dravidian vs Aryan in the veda and it( the AI/AM
theory)reflecting the divide and rule policy of the British is a
recurring theme( in different ways and tones all the way from Aurobindo
Ghose to Rajaram and Subhash Kak) with all indigenous theory scholars, I
would like to point out( what in my non-academic view point) is a basic
fallacy with  this whole business.

  It is true that the British followed a divide and rule policy in
India, but their picking on South Indian "Dravidians" and North Indian
"Aryans" and dividing them consequentially seems to be a big illogical
leap. The Harappa excavations were carried out only in this century, by
which time the MAdras province ( i.e. Dravidian) had already acquired
the reputation of being "benighted". It is only too very well known that
the extremist faction of the Congress ( and consequent terrorist
activity) was weak in the South and that the Britishers had labelled
Madras as a province that was more governable
than the others. (This shows up in one form or the other in the works
of both non-Indian and Indian historians- M.Venkatarangaiya,Irschick,
Wolpert being just random examples)

  On the other hand, the provinces which had a lot of political
activity( and were regarded as trouble spots) were the Bombay province
(Poona city being singled out for special consideration) , BEngal
and Punjab.( This is a fact that is so well known that most elementary
history books written in India mention it; not to speak of official
Indian government sanctioned and commisioned histories like the 2 volume
book edited by Dr B.Pattabhiseetaramaiya).

  In light of this divide between "politically dangerous" and "safe"
provinces, would the British have benefitted by classifying all the
dangerous states into one category i.e. Aryan and the relatively safe
people i.e. Dravidian people into another? The theory would be more
credible if they tried to divide the "dangerous" states and races into
splinter groups, as opposed to the classification that they came up
with. TRanslated into plain English, when one has to fight a group
of "lions" and "sheep"( pardon my expressions), who would one fear, the
"lion" or the "sheep"...So, when one is trying to win wars by creation
of divisions, who would one try to divide, the lions or the sheep? I
find the overlooking of this particular point by the revisionists a
little strange, unless they've glossed it over because of it's

  And then, to rub salt into *THEIR*i.e. British wounds( this was the
time when "The White Man's Burden" theory was still strong, as can be
discerned thru Winston Churchill's utterances), would they( the rulers)
actual allow a theory to be postulated about their having a common
ancestry with the ruled i.e. the Indians?  Our historians who are always
ready to talk of "divide and rule" seemed to have overlooked this also.

  I therefore believe that the people who came up with this whole
theory of racial divide did so because of genuine conviction( however
flawed their conclusions may have been) and not because of some
political agenda of dividing and ruling India...

  I welcome all comments and explanations for this phenomenon.


Get Your Private, Free Email at

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list