Dear Howard,
I think that regardless of any etymological link, we need to apply a semantic distinction between the Sanskrit word arya and the English
word Aryan. When the former is translated, it tends to come out as “noble” or something like that (e.g. in truths 1 to 4 of that ilk), rather than as “Aryan”. Under the latter, the OED reads as follows (“arya” has no entry):
A. adj.
1.
a.
Applied by some to the great division or family of languages, which includes Sanskrit, Zend, Persian, Greek, Latin, Celtic, Teutonic, and Slavonic, with their modern representatives; also called
Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, and sometimes Japhetic; by others restricted to the Asiatic portion of these.
absol., the original Aryan or Arian language.
b.
spec. Of or pertaining to the ancient Aryan people.
2. Under the Nazi régime (1933–45) applied to the inhabitants of Germany of non-Jewish extraction.
B. n.
1. A member of the Aryan family; one belonging to, or descended from, the ancient people who spoke the parent Aryan language.
2.
spec. under the Nazi régime (cf. sense
A. 2).
I think Chakrabarti is probably thinking in terms of meanings A1b and B1. But I can’t speak for him.
All the best,
Simon Brodbeck
Cardiff University
From: INDOLOGY [mailto:indology-bounces@list.indology.info]
On Behalf Of Howard Resnick
Sent: 08 June 2015 15:10
To: Geoffrey Samuel
Cc: Dominik Wujastyk; Indology List
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Article about the politics surrounding indology at the IHRC
As we know, Arya is a Vedic term. In the Telegraph article, Bharadwaj states that he wants to research the notion of Aryan migration. Bharadwaj does not state that he takes ‘Aryan’ as a racial, rather than a cultural, term. So please help
me here. Where is the racism?
Thanks,
Howard