Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of this controversy. For modern scholarly views on the subject of Indian migrations see Indo-Aryan migration.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

The "Aryan Invasion Theory," (AIT), is a controversial polemical term used in the context of discussions of South Asian prehistory of the period 3000 BC to 1000 BC. It is not known who coined the phrase. It refers to theory that an Aryan people who may have originated from Europe or Central Asia either migrated to or invaded South Asia. It is typically used to refer to an invasion model that had backing in the early 20th century, and which was associated with Nordicist ideology (the belief that the Aryans were a master race of Northern European origin). This version of the theory has now been rejected by modern scholars, many of whom believe a non-military migration may still have occurred. The point at dispute is the historical movements of speakers of Indo-Aryan languages (the Indo-Aryan migrations), contrasting claims of Indo-Aryans being autochthonous to the Indian subcontinent with scenarios of invasion and military conquest.

Contents 1 Overview 2 Early history of the theory 3 Racialisation of the theory 4 Role in Imperialism and Nazism 5 Later developments 5.1 Out of India theory 6 Political and religious issues 7 Notes 8 Bibliography and References 9 See also 10 External links

[edit] Overview

The case of the supporters of the AIT may be set down as follows: unlike in the case of Mesopotamia, where there are readable written inscriptions dating as far back as the Sumerian period in 3100 BC, there are no written records from the Indian subcontinent before the third century BC except the Indus Valley seals, which remain by general academic consensus unreadable despite occasional claims to the contrary.^[1] Yet, the earliest Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, were orally transmitted and hence cannot be firmly dated. Fragments of a superstrate language of the Mitanni kingdom dating to the 14th century BC do contain several names and words that bear very close relationship to Vedic Sanskrit, thus qualifying as Indo-Aryan. Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages derive from Proto-Indo-Iranian. Since these languages were historically spread over vast areas of Eurasia, it is clear that there was necessarily an extended period of geographical expansion of their speakers.

It is however important to note that this conclusion refers to the spread of languages, not people. There are numerous instances in the historical record to show that large areas can change their linguistic affiliation without the original population being wiped out and replaced by another. The dominance of English in Ireland is an instance of "elite dominance" in which a relatively small number of immigrants are able to impose their own language on a local population, albeit via a process that can take many centuries to carry out. Such processes are today considered the main vehicle of language spread, while replacement of the language of an original population by complete or even significant replacement of that population is an exception, known only from Modern (colonial) times, such as the case the virtually complete dominance of English languages and European peoples over both indigenous languages and peoples in North America.

The theory has a number of implications for the people of India and has been a topic of considerable debate. There has been much debate as to the suggestion that Vedic teachings originated from outside India and thus affecting the view of Hinduism in Indian society. Some interpretations of the theory also suggest that a primitive Dravidian people adopted their religion from the light-skinned Aryans. Recent archaeological evidence has allowed the growth of scepticism at these concepts of the theory. The scientific progress and organization of the Indus Valley Civilization seems to disprove the idea that a more technologically advanced light-skinned race could have conquered the Indus Valley^[2] In fact, some Hindu parties oppose the AIT completely, saying that Aryans invaded Eastern Eurasia after originating in South Asia. This view has often been described as the Out of India theory..^[3]

Those "AIT supporters" who enter into the political debate however have also used the underlying motives of their opponents to buttress their arguments. They believe that the other side's polemics are motivated by a strong feeling that the Hindu religion, with its highest texts in Vedic Sanskrit, would become less "authentic" if it were to be accepted that the origin of this language were outside the sacred places of the Indian subcontinent. It is of course a fallacy to imply that a theory is correct because its opponents are using flawed argumentation. It would be an example of association fallacy to conclude "the AIT has been opposed by religious zealots; therefore it must be correct". Modern scholarly views of Indo-Aryan migration, relativized by notions of acculturation and ethnogenesis, are thus being formed by actual evidence of ancient history and archaeology and not by the state of the socio-religious debate in India.

[edit] Early history of the theory

The modern history of Indo-European studies and indeed of linguistics begins with William Jones, writing in the 1790s, who was the first to relate the kinship of Sanskrit with classical European languages and to propose that an earlier language "which perhaps no longer exists" was the common source of Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. He also suggested that the Germanic and Celtic languages may have derived from the same source..^[4] Later theorists confirmed this and identified that the Slavic languages also derived from the lost proto-language.

Some early scholars, notably Friedrich Schlegel in 1808, postulated that India was the source of this original language. They adopted the term "Indo-Germanic." Others preferred "Indo-European," which is now the standard term. Like other European writers Schlegel was of the opinion that India was the "cradle of civilization". For example Voltaire had written some years before Jones's discovery that "I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc...,^[5] and said: "It does not behove us, who were only savages and barbarians when these Indian and Chinese peoples were civilized and learned, to dispute their antiquity."^[6]

Other scholars, including Jones, attempted to fit the spread of languages to the Biblical model of human orgins, following earlier debates about the "confusion of tongues" following the fall of the Tower of Babel. It was widely speculated that the Biblical tribe of Japheth had expanded from Mesopotamia or Anatolia into the Caucasus and thence into Europe. Such a migration would be consistent with the expansion and differentiation of languages from a common root, and would place Iran and the Indus close to the supposed origin of the migrations.^[7]

By the 1840s the distribution-pattern of the languages had led several scholars to conclude that India was an unlikely origin-point, since it was at what was then believed to be the easternmost extension of the languages. (Tocharian, once spoken by the inhabitants of the Tarim basin in what is present-day China, had yet to be discovered.) Statements made in the Iranian sacred texts about a northern homeland, along with descriptions of battles in the Rig-Veda, led scholars to conclude that the original Aryans must have migrated to India. This theory is most associated with the linguist Friedrich Max Müller, who argued that the Aryans had migrated to India at around 1500 BC, from an earlier homeland in Bactria or further north, in the Central Asian steppe. Like Jones, Müller also believed that the gods of the Vedic pantheon were related to the gods of Greek, Roman and of Norse mythology, so he argued that the pagan culture of Europe could be traced back to the Aryans, who must have expanded both eastwards and westwards from their homeland.

Other discoveries in linguistics, such as the role of palatalization in Indo-European language change, discredited the idea that Sanskrit could be the mother of other IE languages.

Müller dated the Rig Veda to 1500-1200 BCE, but he also said that these dates were provisional and that he has "repeatedly dwelt on the hypothethical character of the dates... All I have claimed for them has been that they are minimum dates."^[8] And he also asserted: "Whether the Vedic hynmns were composed 1000, or 1500, or 2000, or 3000 years BC, no power on earth will ever determine." (Müller 1891:91)^[9] He also wrote on the homeland of the Aryans: "if an answer must be given as to the place where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation,... I should still say, as I said forty years ago, "Somewhere in Asia," and no more"^[10] Max Müller's contemporary critics have pointed out that "the whole foundation of Müller's date rests on the authority of Somadeva.. [who] narrated his tales in the twelfth century after Christ [and] would not be a little surprised to learn that "a European point of view" raises a "ghost story" of his to the dignity of a historical document."^[11] Some critics have alleged that Müller's dating of the Vedas was influenced by a desire to bring Hindu chronology in line with Biblical chronology (4004 BC for Creation and c. 2448 BC for Noah's Flood according to the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar).^[12]

The common heritage of the Indo-European languages is one of the most powerful and unexpected discoveries of modern science and elicited incredulity which is still to be encountered today. Max Müller recounted that any remarks on Sanskrit were treated with contempt by his teachers and that "no one was for a time so completely laughed down as Professor Bopp, when he first published his Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Latin and Gothic. All hands were against him."^[13]

[edit] Racialisation of the theory

The Aryan invasion theory was controversial from its beginning and thus was sometimes subject to racialisation, mostly by people who believed in white supremacy. While many of these views were disputed at the time, or quickly proved to be false, they are still sometimes used by Neo-Nazi groups.

From early on some scholars had argued that the transfer of the Indo-Aryan languages into India was accomplished by white-skinned invaders, who subordinated dark-skinned natives. The famous German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer proposed just such a theory, observing the "fairer white color" of the ruling caste of the non-local Nordic Brahmans: "The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste or race is fairer in colour than the rest and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmans, the Incas, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands.”^[14]

The derogatory application of the word "anasa" (interpreted to mean "noseless") to the Dasa, the enemies of the Aryans, was explained as a reference to negroid-type flat noses. Other arguments were derived from alleged references to the "golden" hair of some Vedic deities. From these arguments scholars derived the idea that the Aryans had subordinated or displaced earlier inhabitants of India. Because of the distribution of the Dravidian languages, which are unrelated to Sanskrit and the other languages of the Indo-European group, it was often speculated that Dravidian speaking peoples had been the aboriginal inhabitants.

By the 1880s several scholars were arguing that the original home of the of Indo-European speakers was somewhere in Europe.^[15] At this time these people, now known as Proto-Indo-Europeans, were referred to in English as the "primitive Aryans", to distinguish them from the historical Aryans of Iran and India. By this date Darwinian ideas had replaced the biblical model of human origins. Thomas Huxley in his essay The Aryan Question (1890) summed up the thinking of the day,

Professor Max Müller, to whom Aryan philology owes so much, will not say more now, than that he holds by the conviction that the seat of the primitive Aryans was "somewhere in Asia." Dr. Schrader sums up in favour of European Russia; while Herr Penka would have us transplant the home of the primitive Aryans from Pamir in the far east to the Scandinavian peninsula in the far west.[16]

Huxley took the view that what he called the "primitive Aryans" were of Nordic race, writing that "typical specimens have tall and massive frames, fair complexions, blue eyes, and yellow or reddish hair–that is to say, they are pronounced blonds." Huxley's view was shared by other writers such as Charles Morris in his 1888 book The Aryan Race, and Friedrich Nietszche in On the Genealogy of Morals (1887). These and other later writers argued that the Aryans were a warrior people who had imposed themselves over others by their ruthless military energy, based on chariot warfare. The invaders were thought to have entered the Indian subcontinent from the mountain passes of the Hindu Kush (present-day Afghanistan), bringing with them the domesticated horse, probably previously unknown in India.

Isaac Taylor^[17] noted that "German scholars have contended that the physical type of the primitive Aryans was that of the North Germans - a tall, fair, blue-eyed dolichocephalic race", while French writers have maintained that they were brachycephalic Gauls. This increasing preoccupation with race led Max Müller to point out that language and race are not necessarily coterminous: "I have declared again and again that if I say Aryans, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language… To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar."^[18]

Even in the 19th century, several theorists had criticised the use of the term "primitive [i.e. primal] Aryans" to refer to the earliest speakers of Indo-European languages, wherever they may have originated. They argued that the word should only describe the cultures in which the term "Arya" was used – those that occupied Iran and northern India. The tribal name of the earliest speakers is unknown, hence the term Proto-Indo-Europeans is now used. Such writers stated that equation of the Indo-Iranians with northern European invaders was unjustified. There was no reason to believe that the peoples of Iran and northern India were ever Nordic. There are references in Sanskrit literature where the hair of Brahmins is assumed to be black. For example, Atharva Veda 6:137. 2-3 contains a charm for making "strong black hairlocks" grow and in Baudhayana’s Dharma-Sutra 1:2,^[19] we read the verse "Let him kindle the sacrificial fire while his hair is still black". And apart from a few gods associated with the sun, there is in Sanskrit literature only one golden-haired (hiranyakeshin) person , i.e. Hiranyakeshin, the author of the Hiranyakeshin-Shrauta-Sutra.^[20]

More recent writers have taken the view that racial arguments are irrelevant to the theory. Hans Hock (1999b) studied all the occurrences that were interpreted racially in Geldner's translation of the Rig Veda and concludes that they were either mistranslated or open to other interpretations. He writes that the racial interpretation of the Indian texts "must be considered dubious." (p.154) Hock also notes that "early Sanskrit literature offers no conclusive evidence for preoccupation with skin color. More than that, some of the greatest Epic heroes and heroines such as Krishna, Draupadi, Arjuna, Nakula and (...) Damayanti are characterized as dark-skinned. Similarly, the famous cave-paintings of Ajanta depict a vast range of skin colors. But in none of these contexts do we find that darker skin color disqualifies a person from being considered good, beautiful, or heroic." (p.154-155) Hans Hock also notes that the world of the Aryas is often described with the words "light, white, broad and wide", while the world of the enemies of the Aryas is often described with the words "darkness or fog". And in many of these instances, he notes, a "racial" interpretation can be safely ruled out. Vishnu, Rama and many others are also described as dark-skinned. Ravana, who was often described as Dravidian, came from a Vedic family in Gujarat. On the other hand Siva who is considered by many invasion-theorists as a Dravidian god is often described as fair-skinned. Also, Veda Vyas who compiled the Vedas and wrote the great Hindu epic Mahabharata was dark-skinned. In RV 2.3.9, there is a verse about a son and hero who has a pishanga (tawny, reddish brown, golden) complexion.^[21] The Rishi Kanva is described as having a dark complexion.^[22]

According to another examination by Trautmann (1997), the racial evidence of the Indian texts is soft and based upon an amount of overreading. He concludes: "That the racial theory of Indian civilization still lingers is a miracle of faith. Is it not time we did away with it?" (p.213-215)

Earlier commentators on the Rig Veda like Sayana (14th century) did not interpret the Rig Veda in racial terms. According to Romila Thapar (1999, The Aryan question Revisited), "There isn't a single racial connotation in any of Sayana's commentaries."

[edit] Role in Imperialism and Nazism

The theory that the original Aryans were northern Europeans who had migrated into India was used by some British imperialists as an ideological justification for British control of India, on the grounds that the founders of Indian culture were of the same race as the Anglo-Saxon invaders who established the British Raj.^[23] The theory provided an argument for an alliance between the British and the Indian ruling classes, however, some Indian nationalists also took the view that the Aryans had originated outside India. In The Arctic Home in the Vedas (1903) Bal Gangadhar Tilak argued on the basis of astronomical data that the Vedas could only have been composed from an Arctic location – the Aryan bards having brought them south after the onset of the last Ice age. The Aryan Invasion Theory was also accepted by the Hitler sympathizers Savitri Devi and her husband Asit Krishna Mukherji. Elst (1999) asserted that "after reading her autobiography, Memories and Reflexions of an Aryan Lady, there is not the slightest doubt left that for her and her husband, their belief in the AIT, along with their distortive reinterpretation of Hindu tradition in terms of the AIT, was the direct cause of their enthusiasm for Hitler."

The most notorious appropriation of the Nordic theory was that of the Nazis, who adopted the swastika design from Indian culture as an "Aryan" badge.^[24] The Nazi race-theorist Alfred Rosenberg argued in his book The Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930) that the Vedas were written by a superior Nordic master race who had invaded and occupied India in ancient times. These people had later become corrupted because they had lost contact with their "racial soul" due to their involvement with subordinated non-Aryans. Accordingly, Gustaf Kossinna argued that the Nordic Aryans became "contaminated" after they vanquished Greece, Rome and India.^[25] For the Nazis, the Aryan invasion of India served as an allegory of the dangers of racial mixing. The AIT was also supported in Nazi textbooks.^[26] This argument was later repeated by other white supremacists such as the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.^[27] The AIT is also supported or accepted by several Western nationalists.^[28] An European Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans is also sometimes claimed by some writers associated with the "Nouvelle Droite"^[29], e.g. by Jean Haudry and Alain de Benoist in 1997.^[30] It is still sometimes suggested even by academics that the Indo-Aryans had blue eyes and fair or blond hair (e.g. Victor Mair 1998,^[31] Jean Haudry 1985). The Indo-European linguist Jean Haudry, a member of the Scientific Committee of the Front National, claimed in 1985 in his book "Les Indo-Européens" that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were tall, blue-eyed, fair-haired, long-skulled and straight-nosed. In the same publication, he also supported the Aryan Invasion Theory and claimed that it is probable that the Aryans left from Jamna on the Volga.

Some aspects of the Aryan Invasion Theory fit in with a racist framework.^[32] Even though the AIT has also been used as a moral justification for racist or colonial doctrines,^[33] it does not follow that writers who support the AIT are racist themselves.^[34] Likewise the theory has been used by several writers as an argument against racism, on the grounds that it reveals the benefits of cultural fusion.^[35] This view is asserted even by some Nordicist writers,^[36] and was presented in the form of fiction in the novel The Venus of Konpara (1960). Elst (1999) asserted that what the non-invasionist school rejects "is precisely the creation of the conceptual framework which has made the racialist misuse of the term "Aryan" possible."

[edit] Later developments

By the 1920s, the theory of Aryan superiority was also challenged by the discovery of the remains of the Indus Valley Civilization, which preceded the postulated Aryan invasion. It was obviously advanced for its time, with planned cities, a standardized system of weights and bricks, etc, and it was understood that if the Aryans had invaded, then, regardless of their later achievements, they had in fact overthrown or at least post-dated a civilization more advanced than their own. On the basis of the Rig-Veda, it was argued that the Aryans themselves must have been semi-nomadic pastoralists. The British archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler argued that the Aryans may have taken advantage of the decline of the Indus civilization to invade it. As he wrote, the war-god Indra "stands accused" of its final destruction.

In 1999, archaeologists Jim Shaffer and Diane Lichtenstein claimed that there is absolutely no indication of an Aryan invasion into northwestern India.^[37] The British anthropologist Edmund Leach, who didn't believe in the Aryan invasion theory, described the effect the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization had on the AIT:

"Common sense might suggest that here was a striking example of a refutable hypothesis that had in fact been refuted. Indo-European scholars should have scrapped all their historical reconstructions and started again from scratch. But that is not what happened. Vested interests and academic posts were involved. Almost without exception the scholars in question managed to persuade themselves that despite appearances, the theories of the philologists and the hard evidence of archeology could be made to fit together. The trick was to think of the horse-riding Aryans as conquerors of the cities of the Indus civilization in the same way the Spanish conquistadores were conquerors of the cities of Mexico and Peru or the Israelites of the Exodus were conquerors of Jericho."[38]

More recently it has become widely accepted that the dramatic invasionist model is unlikely. More recent research indicates that a migration would have been much more peaceful. The idea that chariots and horses could have been used as "bronze age tanks" in an invasion is disputed because chariots would not be suitable for a mass invasion of South Asia from the north, as this would mean they would have to cross both mountains and deserts, both unsuitable for chariot.^[39] Even, South Asian Elephants will be more threatening to any central Asian nomads as use of Elephants on Indian battle ground was common feature.

[edit] Out of India theory

Main article: Out of India theory

Opponents of scenarios of Indo-Aryan migration to India sometimes go as far as postulating Indo-Aryan migration out of India, often to the implication of identity of Sanskrit and the Proto-Indo-European language. Others, notably Koenraad Elst, suggest that an expansion from India occured, but that Sanskrit is a later evolution from PIE.

The "Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory" formulated on blogspot by S. Kalyanaraman and M. Kelkar in 2005 postulates Paleolithic origin of the Indo-Aryan languages in the Indian subcontinent.^[40] It is similar to, and apparently inspired by the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) postulating Paleolithic origins of the Indo-European languages in Europe, but has stronger political overtones due to the political nature of the debate in India. Like the PCT it falls entirely outside academic mainstream, qualifying as pseudoscience.^[41]

[edit] Political and religious issues

Some Hindu thinkers like Sri Aurobindo reacted against the Aryan Invasion theory on spiritual rather than historical grounds, claiming them to be "materialistic." Sri Aurobindo interprets the descriptions of war in the Rig Veda often as descriptions of spiritual warfare or as nature-poetry. He also warned against the misuse of the theory: "So great is the force of attractive generalizations and widely popularized errors that all the world goes on perpetuating the blunder talking of the Indo-Aryan races, claiming or disclaiming Aryan kinship and building on that basis of falsehood the most far-reaching political, social or pseudo-scientific conclusions."^[42] Some Hindus have emphasized the fact that there is not an explicit mention of an Aryan invasion in the Hindu texts. Aurobindo thus writes: "But the indications in the Veda on which this theory of a recent Aryan invasion is built, are very scanty in quantity and uncertain in their significance. There is no actual mention of any such invasion..."^[43] Also Vivekananda^[44] remarked: "As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends."

In modern India, the discussion of Indo-Aryan migration is charged politically and religiously. The debate has produced a lot of polemics on both sides.^[45] Supporters of migration are faced with several accusations. The major one is that the British Raj and European Indologists from the 19th century to the present day promoted the Aryan Invasion hypothesis in support of Eurocentric notions of white supremacy. Assertions that the highly advanced proto-Hindu Vedic culture could not have had its roots in India are seen as attempts to bolster European ideas of dominance.

After Indian independence, Socialist and Marxist accounts of history proliferated in Indian universities. Opponents of the invasion theory contend that Marxists promoted the theory because its model of invasion and subordination corresponded to Marxist concepts of class struggle and ideology. But it was also pointed out that Western and Russian Marxists were often critical of the AIT.^[46] Some modern opponents of the Aryan-Vedic continuity in India, like Romila Thapar, are Marxist. Some others like V.T. Rajshekar (Dalit Voice) are proponents of the Dalit (outcast) movement.^[47] Such writers have alleged that the Aryans were nomadic plunderers who invaded and destroyed civilizations from Europe to India, especially the Harappan civilization. Missionaries in India have utilized the Aryan Invasion Theory for their own political goals. They claim for example that the AIT proves that Aryan Hinduism is as much a foreign import as Christianity.^[48] It was thus proposed by some Christians and Muslims that "Sanskrit should be deleted from the Eight Schedule of the Constitution because it is a foreign language brought to the country by foreign invaders - the Aryans."^[49] Some Marxists, Missionaries and others have thus questioned the legitimacy of Hinduism (e.g. as a native religion) because of the Aryan Invasion Theory. According to Elst (1999), "the ridiculous argument of doubting the legitimacy of a community's presence in India on the basis of an ancestral immigration of 3500 years ago has been launched in all seriousness by interest groups wielding the AIT as their major intellectual weapon, not by the critics of the AIT."

In contrast, the proponents of a continuous, ancient, and sophisticated Vedic civilization are seen by some as Hindu nationalists who wish to dispense with the foreign origins of the Aryan for the sake of national pride or religious dogma. Another motivation may arise from the desire to eradicate the problem associated with the Indian caste system; the hypothesis that it may originally have been a means of social engineering by the Aryans to establish and maintain a superior position compared to the Dravidians in Indian society may be a source of discomfort.

Shrikant G. Talageri (1993: 47) thinks that the question of whether the Aryans came from outside India is not very relevant to Hinduism itself, whose holy places are all in India (in contrast to other religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam). He noted that "Even if it is assumed that a group of people, called 'Aryans,' invaded, or immigrated into, India,... they have left no trace, if ever there was any, of any link, much less the consciousness of any link, much less any loyalties associated with such a link, to any place outside India."

Scholars who have been critical of the AIT are often stereotyped as "Hindutva", even if they are not Indians or Hindus themselves. Koenraad Elst noted that this "mistakenly attributes a political identity and motive to a scholarly hypothesis about ancient Indian history."^[50] Sometimes all opponents of the AIT are bracketed with other writers like P Choudhury who make inordinate claims.^[51]

Critics of the AIT have also claimed that pro-AIT (or pro-AMT) scholars refuse the debate by dismissing arguments against the AIT as politically motivated or that they replace arguments with mud-slinging.^[52][53] A book by Shrikant Talageri that was critical of the AIT was strongly dismissed in an academic publication by Michael Witzel and G. Erdosy. However, they condemned Talageri's book without even having read it. Talageri noted that „this strong condemnation of a book, unread and unseen by them, is both unacademic and unethical.“^[54]

It should however be noted that many scholars who have written for or against the Aryan Invasion Theory are not politically motivated.^[55] Moreover, the AIT was accepted by Veer Savarkar, Tilak and other Indian nationalists.^[56] The AIT was also criticized by some Indian Marxists.^[57] Ambedkar, an icon of the Dalit movement, was dismissive of the AIT: "There is not a particle of evidence suggesting the invasion of India by the Aryans from outside India...The Aryan Race theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago."^[58] Ambdekar also claimed that the racialist and invasionist interpretation of the Rig Veda is "a perversion of scientific investigation" by western scholars who are on a mission "to prove what they want to prove, and do not hesitate to pick such evidence from the Vedas as they think is good for them."^[59]

[edit] Notes

[edit] Bibliography and References

[edit] See also

• Indo-European studies
• Historiography and nationalism
• Nationalism and archaeology
• Aryan race
• Colonialism
• Eurocentrism
• Hindutva

[edit] External links

• Web Index to AIT versus OIT debate
• Selected Internet Resources on the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) Debate

Discussion of socio-religious and political aspects

• contemporary India
  • The Hindutva Movement and Reinventing of History - FOSA by Amartya Sen discussing the role of the question in Hindu nationalism
• colonial India
  • Edmund Leach on Racism & Indology by Subhash Kak
  • Aryan Invasion Fantasy a compilation alleging a Christian missionary motivation for 19th century AIT views

Sites critical of AIT and/or AMT

• Aryan Invasion Theory Large collection of quotes by scholars and writers
• The Aryan Invasion Theory and Hindu Politics By David Frawley (dharmacentral.com)
• Aryan invasion theory - David Frawley (stephen-knapp.com)
• Overview on the Aryan Invasion Theory by Stephen Knapp (stephen-knapp.com)
• The Riddle of India’s Ancient Past, Vedic roots of early Tamil culture Michel Danino (voiceofdharma.com)