Ambedkar's Views on the Aryan Invasion Theory

[TTCUSM]

Namaste Everyone,

I am sure that many of you have heard of the great Dalit leader, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, who was also the author of the Indian constitution. This is what he had to say about the Aryan Invasion Theory:

The Aryan race theory is so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago. But far from being dead, the theory has a considerable hold upon the people…The first explanation is to be found in the support which the theory receives from Brahmin scholars. This is a very strange phenomenon. As Hindus, they should ordinarily show a dislike for the Aryan theory with its express avowal of the superiority of the European races over the Asiatic races. But the Brahmin scholar has not only no such aversion but most willingly hails it. The reasons are obvious. The Brahmin believes in the two nation theory. He claims to be the representative of the Aryan race, and he regards the rest of the Hindus as descendents of the non-Aryans. The theory helps him establish his kinship with the European races and share in their arrogance and their superiority…it helps him maintain and justify his overlordship over the non-Brahmins. (76)

In other words, he didn't approve of it because it was stoking the superiority complex of upper-caste Hindus. This leads to a few interesting questions:

Is it ethical for Indian schools to teach the Aryan Invasion theory? If it's going to exacerbate caste tensions, would it be a good idea to leave it out of school curricula?

 

[Riverwolf]

It's important to teach what the theory is, but I think it's important to teach the alternative theories, as well. Here in the West, at least in the Comparative Religions class that I took, AIT was the only theory taught, with a footnote that the only people who didn't accept it anymore were Indian nationalists. Therefore, I don't really know much, if anything, about other theories that there may be.

 

[kaisersose]

Namaste Everyone,

I am sure that many of you have heard of the great Dalit leader, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, who was also the author of the Indian constitution. This is what he had to say about the Aryan Invasion Theory:



In other words, he didn't approve of it because it was stoking the superiority complex of upper-caste Hindus. This leads to a few interesting questions:

Is it ethical for Indian schools to teach the Aryan Invasion theory? If it's going to exacerbate caste tensions, would it be a good idea to leave it out of school curricula?

Ambedkar was not a historian. His personal prejudices were well known and his opinions are just that - opinions.

The prevailing academic view leans towards the Kurgan model which would have Aryans moving from Central Asia to North Western India. We can either go with the academic view or go with the opposition formed by people like David Frawley, Talageri, et al., neither of whom are historians or academic scholars.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Professor Emeritus Klaus Klostermaier who wrote the most used college text book in America. Jim G. Shaffer Professor of Anthropology who is one of out standing experts on on Indus Valley. Both reject the the Aryan Invasion.

This is what Professor Gavin Flood of Oxford has to say.

Secondly, there does seem to be archaeological continuity in the subcontinent from the Neolithic period. The history of this period is therefore complex. One of the key problems is that no horse remains have been found in the Indus Valley but in the Veda the horse sacrifice is central. The debate is ongoing.

BBC - Religions - Hinduism: History of Hinduism

With the recent evidence of horse teeth in Harrapen sites this might just be a death blow to the AIT.

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/harappan-horse.html

I know this is not an academic site but it is all I can find on the internet. Dr Klostermair also talks about horses being found in Indus.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Here in the West, at least in the Comparative Religions class that I took, AIT was the only theory taught, with a footnote that the only people who didn't accept it anymore were Indian nationalists.

Some call any body who is against the AIT Hindu nationalists. I have a white hippy type person as a friend. When she brought up her anti AIT feelings to her Professor. He called even her a Hindu nationalist. She is as far from an Hindu nationist as one can get. In fact she loves Gandhi. The fact is 20 years ago all western scholars believed in AIT. Every year goes by less and less do. Even people like Dr Flood from Oxford who won't throw out AIT and leave it up in the air, date Hinduism pre 2000 bc do to influence of Indus Valley.

So times are changing.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Is it ethical for Indian schools to teach the Aryan Invasion theory? If it's going to exacerbate caste tensions, would it be a good idea to leave it out of school curricula?

Even the BBC has called Aryan Invasion theory Racist.

 

[kaisersose]

Even the BBC has called Aryan Invasion theory Racist.

I don't see anything racist about it. Everyone agrees that man originated in Africa and moved out of Africa less than 50,000 years ago. Obvously then, everyone who lives in India originally came from somewhere else. What is it about the Aryans that makes them different?

The problem is with Hindu nationalists trying to imagine an indigenous India where the civilization started in India and then moved to other parts of the world. And none of these people are trained scholars or professionals in the field. There is overwhelming linguistic evidence that Latin, Sanskrit, Ancient Iranian (Persian) and Ancient Greek have striking similarities. The similarity between Sanskrit and Persian is higher than Sanskrit and ancient Tamil. And yet they like to hold on to their "out of India" theory.

Perhaps, because they read Amar Chitra Katha comics where Brahma created the first human somewhere in the Himalayas and therefore academic historians must be wrong?

 

[Metempsychosis]

Namaste Everyone,

I am sure that many of you have heard of the great Dalit leader, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, who was also the author of the Indian constitution.

Though Ambedkar contribution in removing caste-sysem was monumental,his views on religion esp.hinduism were juvenile.This may not be related to the OP.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I don't see anything racist about it. Everyone agrees that man originated in Africa and moved out of Africa less than 50,000 years ago. Obvously then, everyone who lives in India originally came from somewhere else. What is it about the Aryans that is problematic here?

Jean-Pierre Vernant Professor Emeritus of Comparative Study of Religions at the Collège de France in Paris

“As scholars established the disciplines of Semitic and Indo-European studies, they also invented the mythical figures of the Hebrew and the Aryan, a providential pair which, by revealing to the people of the Christianized West the secret of their identity, also bestowed upon them the patent of nobility that justified their spiritual, religious, and political domination of the world."

 

[kaisersose]

Jean-Pierre Vernant Professor Emeritus of Comparative Study of Religions at the Collège de France in Paris

“As scholars established the disciplines of Semitic and Indo-European studies, they also invented the mythical figures of the Hebrew and the Aryan, a providential pair which, by revealing to the people of the Christianized West the secret of their identity, also bestowed upon them the patent of nobility that justified their spiritual, religious, and political domination of the world."

As I have said earlier, take the Veda out and Hinduism hardly changes. Practically everything remains exactly as is. So I fail to see the motive.

You are giving Indians too much credit. Though I am Indian myself, I have no problems admitting we are a weak bunch. For nearly a thousand years, we let foreigners walk all over us. At any point of time, the total number of British in India never exceeded a hundred thousand. And yet, they completely subjugated a population which was in the millions. They were already in full control and had no need to doctor the Manu Smriti or to create a ficticious Aryan. These allegations have no evidence and can only make for entertaining reading.

Raj Ram Mohan Roy, a reformer worked hard to abolish the practice of Sati and met with stiff opposition from his fellow Indians who criticized him for going against their "lofty" tradition. Eventually, William Bentinck banned the practice and the ban managed to survive court appeals. Though Mughal emperors like Humayun, Akbar, Shah Jahan and even the flaky Aurangzeb tried to abolish the practice, they had never really succeeded (Aurangzeb managed to ban burning widows who had children). That ought to give an idea of the kind of power the British had over us.

In short, there is no motive behind this alleged British conspiracy to create a fake Aryan tribe. They had nothing to gain by that and if it was indeed bogus, then it would be dismissed by now - like the flat earth concept. Also, if these alleged motives were true, it makes me wonder why they did not have the Aryan originating in London instead of Central Asia and also have humans originating first in England instead of Africa.

 

[nameless]

I don't see anything racist about it. Everyone agrees that man originated in Africa and moved out of Africa less than 50,000 years ago. Obvously then, everyone who lives in India originally came from somewhere else. What is it about the Aryans that makes them different?

this proves racism never existed anywhere, great thinking kaisersose. Now i smell a turning point, history should be rewritten.

 

[Andal]

It's important to teach what the theory is, but I think it's important to teach the alternative theories, as well. Here in the West, at least in the Comparative Religions class that I took, AIT was the only theory taught, with a footnote that the only people who didn't accept it anymore were Indian nationalists. Therefore, I don't really know much, if anything, about other theories that there may be.

I teach comparative religion and I teach both the AIT and the counter arguments. We have a whole class about it and I leave it up to the students to argue it out and find what they believe to be true. The AIT is no longer held as fact in many scholarly circles. It is just as problematic as other theories and should be taught only in conjunction with other theories.

I don't have a problem with AIT because it dismisses the idea of an indigenous India. I have a problem with it because it is based on shoddy Victorian Era scholarship.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Arav]

I believe that this speaks alittle about the Aryan Invasion Theory. Sorry if I doesnt say too much.

sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/ORIGINS.PDF

This link doesnt appear to work so just type in "origins of vedic civilization PDF" in google and its the first link.

 

[Riverwolf]

I do have to wonder if one of the reasons the AIT has survived so long is because there hasn't been a whole lot of good counter-evidence presented to the most influential academies, and it's therefore the default until something else can come along to prove it wrong.

But I don't think for one second it was some sort of racist conspiracy. Like Kaisersose said, if that were the case, it would have died out with the British occupation.

 

[kaisersose]

this proves racism never existed anywhere, great thinking kaisersose. Now i smell a turning point, history should be rewritten.

Then I take it that the out of Africa theory was motivated by race too, for some secret reason only known to the British? If not, then please explain why it is not racist, but an Aryan tribe is.

The Out of Africa theory says it is not just the Aryans, but *all* people in India (including the Dasyus) came from somewhere outside India. Why is that not racist? Why are the "Aryan Bashers" not taking offense at the Out of Africa theory which says all Indians came from outside and just focusing on the Aryan part?

You will have to be consistent, if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But I don't think for one second it was some sort of racist conspiracy. Like Kaisersose said, if that were the case, it would have died out with the British occupation.

I do not believe that people today who believe in AIT are racist. I said it was founded by people who had racist views of non-whites and were Eurocentric.

“The West tried its best to persuade India that its philosophy is absurd, its art puerile, its poetry uninspired, its religion grotesque and its ethics barbarous”.
Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (Fellow of the British Academy)

I am sorry my friends when you read many of the early quotes on how Indians need to be ruled over and converted to Christianity it is very clear that racism was a part of this theory.

 

[kaisersose]

I am sorry my friends when you read many of the early quotes on how Indians need to be ruled over and converted to Christianity it is very clear that racism was a part of this theory.

I do not see that as racism.

The British wanted to colonize America too, which was their own race and religion. It was not just India in the Eastern Hemisphere; they had control over most of the world at one time. The primary reason for colonization was economical. It was natural Christian Evangelism - to convert everyone over to Christianity. The Buddhist missionaries wanted to convert everyone over to Buddhism, the Hare Krishnas wanted to take over the world. Religious zealotry is not racism and neither is trying to take control of an economy.

When the Spanish came to Central America, needless to say, they wanted to convert them all over to Christianity. They did not try to translate Maya books to show they were inferior or invent a fake Caucasian tribe who started the Maya Civilization. Instead, they systematically burnt all their books and disconnected them from their history, tradition and religion. It worked fine, for most of them are Christians today and have little or no idea about their pre-columbian way of life. That is what a commited evangelist with power would do.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Quote from Max Muller.

The Aryan nations, who pursued a northwesterly direction, stand before us in history as the principal nations of northwestern Asia and Europe. They have been the prominent actors in a great drama of history...to the fullest growth nature would endow... In continual struggle with each other and with Semitic and Turanian races, these Aryan nations become the rulers of history.

Come on guys can't you see this for what it is...

Now to defend Max Muller later on in life he rejected this type of thing.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

When the Spanish came to Central America, needless to say, they wanted to convert them all over to Christianity. They did not try to translate Maya books to show they were inferior or invent a fake Caucasian tribe who started the Maya Civilization. Instead, they systematically burnt all their books and disconnected them from their history, tradition and religion. It worked fine, for most of them are Christians today and have little or no idea about their pre-columbian way of life. That is what a committed evangelist with power would do.

Since I am part native American I can give you a fuller picture of the Genocide of the Native Americans. Yes, the Spanish did want to convert them. But facts are facts when Cortes went to Mexico there were 22 million Indians. 100 years later less then a million due to disease and Murder. We now know that the spanish knew how to spread disease and thats what they did.

The Northern Europeans were a lot less willing to convert. In America Natives were just pushed off there land. Missionaries took blankets from small pox wards and gave them to the Indians so they would die. In California money was offered for every scalp taken off an Indian you killed. Racism was a part of this Genocide. Please don't minimize the suffering of native peoples. The way Europeans viewed non-white people was a big part of the problem. Still to this day 1 out of 3 native women will be raped by a non-Indian male (white). Very little is done about it.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Just one Massacre of native Americans this is the tribe my Grandmother comes from.


"Black Kettle ever trusting raised both an American and a white flag of peace over his tepee. In response,[Colonel ] Chivington raised his arm for the attack. Chivington wanted a victory, not prisoners, and so men, women and children were hunted down and shot.
With cannons and rifles pounding them, the Indians scattered in panic. Then the crazed soldiers charged and killed anything that moved. A few warriors managed to fight back to allow some of the tribe to escape across the stream, including Black Kettle.
The colonel was as thourough as he was heartless. An interpreter living in the village testified, "THEY WERE SCALPED, THEIR BRAINS KNOCKED OUT; THE MEN USED THEIR KNIVES, RIPPED OPEN WOMEN, CLUBBED LITTLE CHILDREN, KNOCKED THEM IN THE HEAD WITH THEIR RIFLE BUTTS, BEAT THEIR BRAINS OUT, MUTILATED THEIR BODIES IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD." By the end of the one-sided battle as many as 200 Indians, more than half women and children, had been killed and mutilated."... Chivington later appeared on a Denver stage where he regaled delighted audiences with his war stories and displayed 100 Indian scalps, including the pubic hairs of women.

When Colonel Chivington asked about the Massacre and why he killed children. He said "NITS MAKE LICE."

Can you tell me that racism had no part in this. I can tell you it did.

http://www.lastoftheindependents.com/sandcreek.htm

You need to read the book BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE to better understand the Genocide of Native Americans. You might also want to see the movie "Rabbit proof fence" about the Australian Aborigines. This will give you a better understanding of this type of thing.