Indo-Aryan Invasion

Vaidix Vaidix at AOL.COM
Fri Mar 13 06:22:07 UTC 1998

Dear Krishna,

I am not very keen on a political agenda, but I better answer this one.  One
has to put different things together for a complete picture.  If isolated
ideas are discussed, it is easy to get confused.

Dravidians were supposed to be barbarian Dasyus!  When did they change from
being barbarians to meek good cultured sheep?  There is no answer because the
proposal is false.  Dasyus are an ancient European tribe, and according to
RGveda they are particularly feroceous and hateful.  The aryans were so fed up
fighting with them that they finally found the Indian subcontinent a peaceful
place to live.  This fact was covered up and the Dasyu qualities were imposed
on Dravidians who are actually a peaceloving lot.  That was a double trick
which established European origins of Indian arts and dividing India into
North and South.

North Indians are politically active because they were the most recent tribes
to migrate to Indian subcontinent, and for most recent centuries they have
been facing invasions on the north western frontiers.  South India has always
been peaceful, so it had enough time to develop culturally.

The postulate that Aryans moved to India would never have hurt the then white
rulers because it was also argued that the Aryans who migrated to India had
racially mixed up with the black Dravidians (implying the migrated Aryans lost
their racial purity, and so they are no more Aryans in the correct sense of
the word).  Such an explanation surely establishes that Europeans are
superior, at the same time establishes their cultural past (in terms of links
to Vedic literature) and is therefore not objectionable.

Being less informed linguistically and scientifically, the Indian scholars
countered the onslaught with foolish arguments mostly quoting from purANAs
which are themselves fictional.  To give a parallel, the fight between
Indigenous scholars and western scholars is like the battles Britishers had
with the Indian kings in which systematic battalions of guns and canons
attacked disorganized animal riders holding conventional weapons.

There are plenty of weaknesses in AIT that have been covered up nicely,
sometimes under scholarly garb.  Most foreign scholars still want to view
ancient Indian history in fast forward (by dating RGveda at 1500BC).  It does
not need intense astronomical, historical or archaelogical proofs to dismantle
such nonsense, common sense would do.

I suggest it is time for indiginous Indologists to stop being reactionary and
devote their time to develop the subects as insiders, a skill western scholars
can rarely achieve.  I believe it is possible to bring up a new generation of
scholars who can create new scriptures that the west can later study and
interpret (fun intended).  Let us concentrate on strengths rather than lament
on weaknesses.

BTW, politics has to be renounced at the end for any one to understand the
core of Indology.

Bhadraiah Mallampalli

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list