The Aryans were indigenous: Neither invaders nor immigrants
by B B Lal on 08 Jul 2017 10 Comments

My attention has been drawn to an article published by Tony Joseph in The Hindu, dated June 17, 2017, which, in essence, tries to say that The Vedic Aryans came to India from outside. I would like to apprise the readers of the reality of the situation. I have published many books on the subject, each one dealing with a specific aspect of the issue. The latest book, The Rigvedic People: Invaders? Immigrants? Or Indigenous?, published in 2015 by Aryan Books International, New Delhi, clearly explains, using evidence of archaeology, hydrology, C-14 dating and literature, why the Aryans were neither Invaders nor slow Immigrants, but were
indigenous. I present here my arguments, as briefly as possible.

 

At the root of the trouble lies the dating of the Vedas to 1200 BCE by the German Scholar Max Muller. He did it on a very ad hoc basis and when his contemporaries, such as Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilson, challenged his methodology, he surrendered by saying, “Whether the Vedas were composed in 1000 or 2000 or 3000 BC no one on earth can ever determine.” The pity is that in spite of such a candid confession by Max Muller himself, many of his followers
even today stick to this date, or at the most give concession to 1500 BCE.

 

In 1920s the Harappan Civilization was discovered and dated to the 3rd millennium BCE on the basis of the occurrence of many Indus objects in the already dated archaeological contexts in Mesopotamia. This led to the immediate conclusion that since, according to Max Muller, the Vedas were not earlier than 1200 BCE, the Harappan Civilization could not have been the creation of the Vedic people.

 

In 1946 Mortimer Wheeler (later knighted) excavated Harappa and discovered a fort over there. On learning that in the Vedic texts Indra has been described as puramdara i.e. ‘destroyer of forts’, he jumped to the conclusion that the Vedic Aryans, represented by Indra, invaded India and destroyed the Harappan Civilization. But, it must be stressed that there was no evidence of any kind of destruction at Harappa.

 

In support of his Invasion thesis, however, Wheeler referred to some skeletons at Mohenjo-daro which he said represent the people massacred by the Invading Aryans. But the fact is that these skeletons had been found in different stratigraphic contexts, some in the Middle levels, some in the Late and some in the debris which accumulated after the desertion of the site. Thus, these cannot be ascribed to a single event, much less to an Aryan Invasion.

 

The ghost of ‘Invasion’ re-appeared in a new avatara, namely that of ‘Immigration’. Said Romila Thapar in 1991: “If invasion is discarded then the mechanism of migration and occasional contacts come into sharper focus. These migrations appear to have been of pastoral cattle breeders who are prominent in the Avesta and Rigveda. ” Faithfully following her, R.S. Sharma elaborated: “The pastoralists who moved to the Indian borderland came from Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex or BMAC which saw the genesis of the culture of the Rigveda.”

 

These assertions of Thapar and Sharma are baseless. In the first place, the BMAC is not a product of nomads. It has fortified settlements and elaborate temple-complexes. It has yielded a very rich harvest of antiquities which include silver axes, highly ornamented human and animal figurines and excellently carved seals. But what is more important is that no element of the BMAC has ever been found east of the Indus which was the area occupied by the Vedic people. So there is no case whatsoever for the BMAC people having migrated into India.

 

Now, if there was no Aryan Invasion or an Aryan Immigration, were the Vedic people indigenous? To answer this question we must first find out the correct chronological horizon of the Rigveda. It refers to the river Sarasvati nearly seventy times. The river dried up before the composition of the Panchavimsa Brahmana, as this text avers. Today this dry river is identifiable with the Ghaggar in Haryana and Rajasthan. On its bank stands Kalibangan, a site of the Harappan Civilization.

 

An Indo-Italian team, under the leadership of Robert Raikes, bore holes in the dry bed to find out its history. Raikes wrote an article in Antiquity (UK), captioning it: ‘Kalibangan: Death from Natural Causes.’ C-14 dates show that the flourishing settlement was suddenly abandoned because of the drying up of the Sarasvati around 2000 BCE. What are the implications of this discovery? Since the Sarasvati was a mighty flowing river during the Rigvedic times, the Rigveda has got to be earlier than that date. Thus, at least a 3rd millennium-BCE horizon is indicated for the Rigveda.

 

We now pass on to another very important statement in the Rigveda. Verses 5 and 6 of Sukta 75 of Mandala 10 enumerate all the rivers serially from the Ganga and Yamuna on the east to the Indus and its western tributaries on the west. In other words, this was the area occupied by the Rigvedic people in the 3rd millennium BCE (the minimal date arrived at for the Rigveda, referred to in the previous paragraph). Now, if a simple question is asked, ‘Which  archaeological culture flourished in this very area in the 3rd millennium BCE’, the inescapable answer shall have to be, ‘The Harappan Civilization’. In other words, the Rigveda and Harappan Civilization are but two faces of the same coin.

 

The Harappan Civilization, which attained its maturity in the 3rd millennium BCE, had its formative stages at Kunal and Bhirrana in the Sarasvati valley itself, taking the beginning back to the 5th millennium BCE. In other words, the Harappans were the ‘sons of the soil’. And   since, as already established, the Harappan Civilization and the Rigveda are but two faces of the same coin, the Vedic Aryans ipso facto were indigenous. They were neither invaders nor immigrants.

 

The application of DNA research to the Aryan debate is nothing new. The renowned scientist Sanghamitra Sahoo and colleagues had declared: “The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with the diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward.”

 

This north-westward movement of the Vedic people is duly supported by both literature and archaeology. The Baudhayana Srautasutra, a later Vedic text, mentions that Amavasu, a son of Pururavas and Urvashi, migrated westwards and his progeny are the Gandharas, Persians and Arattas. Moving through these regions, a section of the Vedic people reached Turkey where a 1380-BCE inscription from Boghaz Koi refers to a treaty between the Hittite and Mitanni kings mentioning as witnesses the Vedic gods Indra, Varuna, Mitra and Nasatya. Further, there a treatise on horse-training by one Kikkuli, which uses Sanskrit terms like ekavartana, dvivaralana and trivartana, meaning thereby that the horses under training should be made to make one, two or three rounds of the prescribed course. What more evidence is needed to support a westward migration of the Vedic Aryans themselves?

 

Let us, therefore, analyze the facts coolly and not remain glued to the 19th century paradigms!

 

Note

The map shows a correlation between the Rigvedic area and the spread of the Harappan Civilization before 2000 B.C. 

 

The author is a renowned archaeologist, author, and former Director General, Archaeological Survey of India  

User Comments Post a Comment
A very crisp summary of the facts
Gopal
July 08, 2017
Report Abuse
Excellently presented.
Bharati
July 08, 2017
Report Abuse
Attested food for thought
Abha
July 08, 2017
Report Abuse
Who else, but "THE PEOPLE'S DAILY OF CHENNAI " will publish a piece of hogwash like Aryan Migration Theory ?
H.Balakrishnan
July 08, 2017
Report Abuse
A fine summary. Dr.Lal's latest book on the question should be mandatory reading for college and university students.
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
July 08, 2017
Report Abuse
The word "Aryan" indicates noble people and NOT any race.. if this single fact could be established, every brick of the aryan migration theory could be demolished..

Aryavarta, means the land of nobles.. In our ithihasas, this land is described as the one b/w himalayas in north and vindhyas in the south.. It is based on this premise, that the land to the south of vindhyas were declared as dravidian, and people living there are categorised as dravidians..

The common people easily fell prey to this nasty trick.. But ithihasa has to be interpreted properly and right context, to nail this propoganda lie..


Let me list down few..

1. During Ramayana, the entire south india was called as Dandakaranya.. which means, the peninsular india was full of forest and there were no kingdoms established. To my knowledge, i could not find any mention of south indian dhesams in ramayana.

The settlement of people in south india and establishment of dhesams by kshatriyas happened very later long after the period of ramayana.. Probably when people started going pilgrimages to rameshwaram..


2. Aryans do not represent any race or ethnicity.. it is the dhesams, jathi, kula, gothram which represent the ethnicity and race. The term Arya refer to people who are well behaved, cultured, respectable.. In tamil, this term "Arya" is colloquially called as "Ayya", normally used to denote village heads, head of family, leader etc.


3. The hindutva intellectuals should come out of the religious mindset, to understand the real history.. There is no universal homogenous religious society existing in the ancient bharath.

Sociologically, there are four different people groups. the aborigines, the tribal society (vanavasis), the nomadic pastorals, varna based society,

Aborigines are highly primitive.. Tribals are highly organised with centralised setup.. The nomadic pastorals are mostly shepherds and cow herds (abhiras, gollas etc).. and varna based society is what formed the established kingdoms of different dhesams.

The term kshatriya refers ONLY to the rulers of varna society.. NOT to other tribal kings or pastoral leaders.. But today, every kingship is attributed as kshatriya..

Kshatriya is NOT about wielding weapon or waging war.. kshatriyahood is about quality of rulers with well defined rules and restrictions..

There is difference b/w tribal kings and kshatriyas.. the tribal kings only know a bout authority and subjugation, whereas kshatriyahood is about righteousness.. In tamil history, manu neethi cholan killed his own son to give justice to a cow.. the pandya king killed himself when he committed blunder of killing kovalan.. Such quality cannot be expected of tribal kings, because they are always obsessed & focussed with survival and hunting.

In bharath, we had both varna based kingdoms and tribalistic kingdoms.. ekalavya is a tribal, whereas arjuna is kshatriya of varna society.. When dhronacharya denied teaching to ekalavya, because he lacked the qualities of kshatriya and also bcoz he do not belong to varna society.. he was hunting tribal leader..

In mahabharatha, when dwaraka was collapsing due to the curse of a rishi, krishna asked arjuna to take the womenfolks and elders from dwaraka to mathura.. On the way, tribals invaded arjuna's forces and kidnapped the women.. arjuna suddenly became powerless and his kandeepam could not be used..

This indicates both varna society and tribal society both existed in this land..

Most of the problem today is the inability of the HIndu Intellectuals in differentiating the different sections of our society, and treating whole population of india as single homogenous hindu society.. They have imbibed western tribalistic mindset and totally forgot the dharmic mindset of bharathiya society.. that is reflected in the history debates too..

4. Bharath was NOT single homogenous political entity. It is collection of many dhesams, each of different ethnicity. I never find any single hindu intellectuals ever recognizing this fact.. they only resort the Hinduism bullshit theory of colonisers.. alice in wonderlands..

5. Varna society is established by rishis by selective breeding of people group based on tri-gunas... they breeded people for kshatriyahood, for brahmahood, for vyshya and for shudrahood..

And when it comes to breeding, it has to be always birth based.. they established birth based varna, where the offspring acquired the same guna (traits) suited for the varna.. That's how the varna social engine functioned automatically..

Do any hindutva intellectuals have the boldness to accept this truth ?

6. Our rishis always kicked out people with asuric gunas among kshatriyas beyond himalayas.. This is done to weed out the wrong people born in the kshatriyas and brahmanas.. It is these people who became asuras of the west and established asuric (centralised) kingdoms..
senthil
July 08, 2017
Report Abuse
The great Paramacharya of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam who was variously described as an avatar of Sri Adi Sankara used to say that there is no difference between Aryans and Dravidian.

The Aryans came from the North of Bharata varsha while the Dravidian are southerners.

The newspapers cannot be trusted and publish utter communist rubbish.

An enlightening article all in all.
Ganesh
July 08, 2017
Report Abuse
This is a question to the author. The Harappan civilization was a sophisticated urban one. The Rig Veda is not a product of an urban civilization. How does one reconcile this discrepancy?
Brahmapandita
July 10, 2017
Report Abuse
/** This is a question to the author. The Harappan civilization was a sophisticated urban one. The Rig Veda is not a product of an urban civilization. How does one reconcile this discrepancy
**/


The term Urban - Rural is purely a colonial one..

Nagara is NOT same as Urban Metros.. Many hindu intellectuals dont accept this, and that is the problem..

We have given in to western standard that only modern version of Urban is civilization and anything other is backward and barbaric..

In bharath, we had only Nagaras and Gramas..

Nagaras is administrative capital, and Gramas are permanent settlement with self-autonomy..

Nagara is NOT same as Urban..

Grama is NOT same as Rural..

We need to look in to our history from native perspective and NOT thru colonial terminologies..
senthil
July 10, 2017
Report Abuse
Very timely.And coming as it does from the horse's mouth.This Joseph and his ilk are part of break India project and should be countered like this.
Jitendra Desai
July 11, 2017
Report Abuse