IDEOLOGICAL AGENDAS: Book Review

                                    IDEOLOGICAL AGENDAS

The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate.  Edwin Bryant; Oxford University Press (2001) 2002 Indian edition.

Review [article].

How human mind can both create a theory and manipulate it to fulfill any of its ideological agenda is well demonstrated in this book. ¹  The theory here as the sub-title of the book itself says is “The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate”.  This book is of the scholar for the scholar(s) and by a scholar and those who are not only interested but also well trained in the art of “linguistics, epigraphy, numismatics, archaeology, anthropology, philology, and a host of other ‘ologies’,” (p.52) alone can both understand and evaluate this book.  However a lay reader will also be benefited as the aim of this book is to help not only the scholars but every student interested in this subject (p.308)

            In this book, to use the authors own word, “Chapters 1 and 13 touched upon some of the forces that have influenced the scholarship involved with the incredibly resilient Aryan problem.  It is structurally and chronologically appropriate that these two chapters—the first one on the European context, and the last one on the Indian one—sandwich the intervening chapters, which deal with the interpretation of the historical “evidence”; there is an intriguing symbiosis between the two”.(p.303)

            And though the author says that,  “My goal here has been to stir up some of the assumptions that have remained dormant for well over a century and to remove jurisdiction over the Indo-Aryan problem from the exclusive control of specialists by laying out some of the basic contested issues in nontechnical terms for the benefit of the general scholar or student interested in Indian protohistory”,(p.308)yet the sandwiched chapters 3 to 12 gives lot of information, discussion and minute details about the subject of this book.  And only a scholar who has some authority on those respective fields alone can dare to write any kind of review.  So we can conveniently skip not going in detail about those chapters as they talk about Vedic Philology (ch.3), issues related to Comparative Linguistics (ch.4: The dethronement of Sanskrit), Linguistic Substrata (ch.4), Linguistic Paleontology (ch. 6) Linguistic Evidences from outside India (ch.7), The Viability of a South Asian Homeland [for Aryans] (ch.8), The Indus Valley Civilization (ch.9), Aryans in the Archaeological Records (ch.10: outside the Subcontinent, ch.11: inside the Subcontinent) and the Date of the Veda (ch.12).

            As noted earlier for our purpose as students of Indian protohistory and its present implication, we will be benefited more if we learn from chapters 1 and 13.  However before talking about the Origin and formative debates about Ariyan issues, in introduction the authors prepares us by pointing out that:

…historical data do not tell their own story: they are interpreted.  And interpretation emanates from human cognition that is structured by each individual’s cultural, religious, political, economic and social circumstances and choices.²  People have a reason to contest or reinterpret history.  The present volatile situation in India has made Western, and many Indian, scholars particularly concerned about the repercussions of communal interpretations of history.  However, although the promotion of Indigenous Aryanism is undoubtedly extremely important to notions of identity and to the politics of legitimacy among certain Hindu nationalists, such concerns are not representative of all the scholars who have supported this point of view. Unfortunately, the whole Indigenous Aryan position is often simplistically stereotyped, and conveniently demonized, both in India and in the West, as a discourse exclusively determined by such agendas. (p.6)  This bypasses other concerns also motivating such reconsideration of history: the desire of many Indian scholars to reclaim control over the reconstruction of the religious and cultural history of their country from the legacy of imperial and colonial scholarship.  In chapter 13 I discuss the manifold concerns that I perceive as motivating Indigenous Aryanists to undertake a reconsideration of this issue.  I argue that although there are doubtlessly nationalistic and, in some quarters, communal agendas lurking behind some of this scholarship, a principal feature is anticolonial/imperial.³(pp.6-7)

Thus, “This book, accordingly, is primarily an examination of the empirical, historical evidence—philological, archaeological, linguistic, and so on—and how this has been interpreted both to support the theory of Aryan migrations and to contest it.  However, since interpretations take place only in a specific context, a secondary aim is to touch upon (and no more) some aspects of the religious and political forces, in both Europe and India, that influenced and continue to influence, the prioritization of certain interpretive possibilities and the exclusion of others”.⁴(p..9)

            Chapter one is rightly titled as, “ Myths of Origin: Europe and the Aryan Homeland Quest”.  And in the whole chapter the author traces out all the historical development of this “Myths of Origin”.  The main issue that motivated to trace out the Aryan Homeland Quest is to prove the authenticity of Old Testament, “Features such as the monogenic descent from Adam, the evolution of all human language from the monolingual descendants of Noah, and the brief period that seemed to be allotted to the dispersion of the human race after the Flood became the subjects of intense debates”.(p.14)

            The intensity of such debate could be understood from the fact that, “For well over a millennium, much of Europe had accepted the Old Testament as an infallible testament documenting the history of the human race.”(p.14)  However as, “‘some intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt the authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses” scholars like Sir William Jones “undertook the responsibility of unraveling Indian chronology” so that in his estimation, too, “either the first eleven chapters of Genesis … are true, or the whole fabrick {fabric}of our national religion is false, a conclusion which none of us, I trust, would wish to be drawn” (Jones 1788, 225)”. ⁵(p.15)

             As Trautmann notes that, “for the most part up until the early part of the nineteenth century, British Indomania was excited about the discovery of Hinduism for several reasons: it provided independent confirmation of the Bible; its religion contained the primitive truth of natural religion still in practice, a unitary truth from which the forms of paganism of Rome and Greece were perverted offshoots; and its arts and cultures were connected to Egypt’s (1997, 64)”.  And Jone’s chronological researches did manage to calm the waters somewhat and “effectively guaranteed that the new admiration for Hinduism would reinforce Christianity and would not work for its overthrow” (Trautmann, 1997, 74).(P.15)

            Till the early part of twentieth century the Biblical account of common source of human origin,⁶ language, history was “thoroughly imprinted in European consciousness”.(p.16)  And “The influence of the Bible, initially overtly and subsequently in a more inadvertent or subconscious fashion, pervaded the entire field of Indo-European studies in its formative stages throughout the nineteenth century”.⁷(p.17)  However the discovery of Sanskrit gave birth to alternative and radical view to the biblical origin and , “India, in particular, was a popular candidate, especially among segments of the intelligentsia in the late eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, and especially (but not exclusively) on the Continent.  As it had done in classical times, India again captured the imagination of Romantic Europe”. ⁸(p..18)

            “Although it was suspected, in some circles, that the enthusiastic acceptance of India as the cradle of the human race was a reaction against biblical chronological hegemony, the position did not initially appear to be without foundation …{and} early linguists tended to treat Vedic Sanskrit as identical or almost identical to the original Indo-European⁹ mother tongue due to the antiquity of its textual sources”.(p.19)

            But after the establishment of British Raj firmly in India, “it was the time to begin to visualize the history and cultural process of India as a series of invasions and foreign rules”. ¹⁰ However, “many scholars were uncomfortable about moving the Indo-Europeans too far from their biblical origins somewhere in the Near East.  There were those among the British, in particular, whose colonial sensibilities made them reluctant to acknowledge any potential cultural indebtedness to the forefathers of the ricshaw pullers of Calcutta”(p.22) and this attitude is well reflected in the attitude of Christian Missionaries and leaders of that time:

            [Charles] Grant was by no means the first or sole Christian leader to engage in extreme diatribes against Hinduism—these continued throughout the colonial period.  In 1840, the Reverend Alexander Duff briefly referred to the Aryan commonality by stating that the Hindus “can point to little that indicates their high original.”  But for the most part he also simply ranted that they “have no will, no liberty, no conscience of their own.  They are passive instruments, moulded into shape by external influences—mere machines, blindly stimulated, at the bidding of another, to pursuits the most unworthy of immortal creatures.  In them, reason is in fact laid prostrate.  They launch into all the depravities of idol worship.  They look like the sports and derision of the Prince of darkness” (107).(p. 23)  {This point can go as foot notes—DB}

            As noted above the discovery of Sanskrit in some circle created an, “extreme Indophobic discomfort with the connection of Sanskrit with Greek and Latin was exemplified by the conviction of the Scottish philosopher Dugald Stewart, who, without knowing a word of the language, proposed that Sanskrit was not a cognate of Greek, it was Greek. It had been borrowed by the wily Brahmans during Alexander’s conquest and adopted to keep their conversations inaccessible to the masses (124). Max Muller (1875), commenting on Stewart’s attempt, again reveals the mood of the time, “This … shows, better than anything else, how violent a shock was given by the discovery of Sanskrit to prejudices most deeply engrained in the mind of every educated man….{and}if they could only furnish a loophole by which to escape the unpleasant conclusion that Greek and Latin were of the same kith and kin as the language of the black inhabitants of India. (164) ¹¹(p.24)

            Thus prompted by the denigration of Indian civilization and “the shunning of embarrassing cultural and linguistic ties…. British, despite having primary access to Sanskrit source material, did not pursue the study of comparative philology.  This was to become a predominantly German domain.(p.24)

And further:

The racial theorists paved the way for the postulate that the Aryans were an autonomous white¹² race who brought civilization and the Sanskrit language to the different races of India—a development Trautmann holds as pivotal to the political construction of Aryan identity developing in Germany.  The biblical model of the identity of language and race still held good for the original white Aryans, but not for the Hindus.  These invading Aryans taught the racially and linguistically distinct natives the Indo-European language and the arts of civilization.  But in so ding, they, in time, lost their superior status and became racially subsumed by the native population.

            There were those in the colonial power who were much more comfortable with these new developments … The British could now present themselves as a second wave of Aryans, again bringing a superior language and civilization to the racial descendants of the same natives their forefathers had attempted to elevate so many centuries earlier¹³….Bolstered with the new racial theories, such scholars could now exonerate themselves for, and indeed insist on the need for remaining aloof and superior to their subjects.(p.26)

This reunion, of course, was hardly on equal terms; as Maw (1900, 36) notes, such scholars “refused to follow the notion to is logical conclusion: that consanguinity entitled contemporary India to a moral parity with Great Britain, and ultimately, to national independence”. (p.26)  And clearly, “the Aryan connection could turn out to be a politically shrewd card to play because ‘in thus honouring our Aryan forerunners in India we shall both honour ourselves and make the most direct and effective appeal to Indian loyalty’” (Havell 1918, ix).(p.27)

            However, The Aryan connection proved useful on a variety of occasions and in a variety of sometimes conflicting ways,

Devendraswarup a historian of the colonial period (1993, 36) argues that after the British were shaken by the Great Revolt of 1857, certain individuals suddenly found reason to stress their common Aryan bond with the Brahmanas where others had previously shunned it….  Chakrabarti (1997, 127) notes that the same Risley quoted previously who had voiced such relief that the new science of racial anthropology exempted the need for Europeans to affiliate themselves with the Hindu side of the family, did not hesitate in his 1881 Bengal survey on the races, religions and languages of India, to allot common Aryan descent liberally to the Indian groups predominant in the British army such as the Rajputs, Jats, and Brahmins.  The Aryan connection was simply manipulated at will.(p.27)

“Such Aryan commonalty was not only adapted to suit colonial exigencies.  Maw (1990) has thoroughly outlined how certain Christian evangelists also found advantages in discourses of Aryan kinship….Along these same lines, a general history of the subcontinent, written by W.C. Pearce in 1876, compared the ancient pre-Christian Aryan invasion of the subcontinent to the modern Christian Aryan one….”(p.27)

Like wise the missionaries, as “they were having little or no success in converting the Brahmans and upper classes”, used the discourse of Aryanism for their purpose of converting aboriginals and lower castes by creating a sense of alienation from Brahmanical religion “thereby preparing them for exposure and conversion to Christianity.… The Aryan invasion theory proved to be adaptable to a curious mis{h}mash of contradictory (but not necessarily competing) interests”.(p.28)

            However, “There was no shortage of voices who rejected an Aryanism that bonded British rulers with their ungrateful subjects (Day 1994, 19)”…. {and} It seems tempting to suggest that the concern of many British colonialists during this period was not so much where the Aryans had come from (there was, after all, no question that England could have been the homeland), provided they had not come from India, and provided the British did not need to acknowledge any embarrassing kinship with their Indian subjects”.(p.28)  At the same time we have to note that , “not all British intellectuals can be generically categorized as arrogant elitists”.(p.29)

            And after England become a principal center of Sanskrit study, as the new comparative philology and Indological studies created embarrassing situation for their political advantage, some in British were, “relieved to hand the Germans the philological baton of a white Sanskrit-speaking race that had come into India from somewhere else—anywhere else.  And there were those among the Germans who were happy to take it and run”.(p. 29)

            As “Much of Europe, from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, was intensely preoccupied with racial origins”, they could point something to brag either like ancient Greek and Latin heritage by the southern Europeans or colonial and technological advances like the British.   And, “It was German national pride that was most in need of some dramatic infusion from the past. …if the Germans could somehow appropriate the mantle of the original Indo-Europeans (which they soon began to call Indo-Germans), they could then lay claim to being the progenitors of all subsequent derivative cultures, by they Greek, Latin, or colonial”.(p.30)   And using zoology and ethnology to physical anthropology, “The Germans won by default”. ¹⁴(p.32)

            Though Max Muler raised his voice against such claims yet, “after all, it was he who had been a principal cause in such misconceptions through his earlier remarks on the common blood that the ‘English soldier’ shared with the ‘dark Bengali (1854a, 29-30).  Needless to say, his retraction went largely unnoticed, and the history books recorded the earlier Max Muller who, for a quarter of a century, had contributed to the idea of a common racial Aryan ancestry based on a common Aryan tongue.”(p.33)  It is worth to quote what Bryant has to say later in his conclusion:

A scholar with international status makes a tentative speculation, which is challenged and rejected by his intellectual peers (and, in this case, even retracted by the original scholar), but, because of the intellectual prestige of the individual, this opinion is taken as authoritative and promoted as an established fact outside of academic circles.  In a very short time, the tentativeness of the initial speculation is completely forgotten, and further theories and assumptions are grafted onto the “established fact,” producing a whole new generation of “established facts,” with reproductive capacities of their own….When theories become sufficiently long-lived and commonplace, they cease to strike one as theoretical and can often become the facts and building blocks of subsequent realities.(p.308)

Thus the discovery of Sanskrit and the birth of comparative philology paved the way for Two {18^th – 20^th}Centuries of Homeland Theories (pp.35-57).  And:

The original Aryans have been reconstructed as being nomadic pastoralists, sedentary agriculturists, dolichocephalic, brachycephalic, blond and fair, and brown-haired and dark.  The Indo-European homeland has been located and relocated everywhere from the North Pole to the South Pole, to China.  It has been placed in South India, central India, North India, Tibet, Bactria, Iran, the Aral Seal, the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, Lithuania, the Caucasus, the Urals, the Volga Mountains, south Russia, the steppes of central Asia, Asia Minor, Anatolia, Scandinavia, Finland, Sweden, the Baltic, western Europe, northern Europe, central Europe, and eastern Europe.(p.37)

            However, “Not everyone has been lured by the quest for the Indo-Europeans; there has been a long history in the West of scholars repeatedly voicing criticisms over the years” as “It is a problem of interpretative logic and ideology.”  And, “Even Mallory (1989), who has been the most prolific scholar in quest of the Indo-Europeans, is moved to quip: ‘One does not ask “where is the Indo-European homeland?” but rather “where do they put it now?”’ (143).  He concludes his summary of the various Indo-European homeland theories by noting that ‘the cynical have been tempted to describe it as the phlogiston of prehistoric research (1973, 60)”.(P.37)

            Even today, “Scholars hardly agree on even the most basic details of the Indo-European-any more in the present than they did in the past”, because of lack of proper agreement between archaeology and linguistics.  Thus, “Any attempt to isolate or highlight one aspect of the data as paramount is inevitably countered by contradictory conclusions produced by other factors.  A convincing picture has yet to emerge from the totality of evidence despite significant advances in the relevant disciplines”.(p.43)

Added to this, “Until very recently, Western scholars have paid little or no attention to, or are completely unaware of, the reaction of scholars outside Western intellectual circles to the Indo-European debate.  Western scholars, whose primary emphasis and concern, at least historically, have been the origins of Western civilization, have renegotiated and reconfigured the pre and protohistory of other nations such as India as by-products of their investigations”. ¹⁵(p.44)  And in particular opinion from India, “especially if in disagreement with the more forceful voices in the West, are poorly understood or cursorily dismissed.  This has deprived Western scholars of alternative views that might force them to question their own inherited assumptions—assumptions that have not always been shared by those outside mainstream Western academic spheres of influence who have filtered the Indo-European problem through different historical, religio-cultural, social, and political mind-sets.  It has likewise deprived these Indian scholars of valuable feedback from their Western peers.”(p.44) Thus:

“Instead of letting us know definitely and precisely where the so-called original home of the Aryans lay, they {European scholars} drag us into a maze of conjectures clouded by the haze of presumptions.  The whole subject of the Aryan problem is a farrago of linguistic speculations or archaeological imaginations complicated by racial prejudices and chauvinistic xenophobia.  It is high time we extricate ourselves from this chaos of bias and belief.”( Prakash, 1966, xliv.)(p.45) 

And this view is supported by the author also, “Indo-European studies should, if anything, be an Indian forte, not exclusively a European one; many Indian scholars have a distinct head start due to their advanced knowledge of Sanskrit, which still plays a fundamental and extensive role in this field.  In particular, it is simply unacceptable that research into substratum influence in Sanskrit texts has primarily been the preserve of a dozen or so Western scholars, however qualified”.(p.306)

And Bryant also warns about the serious consequence because of lack of communication between among Western and Indian scholars:

Unless attitudes to this issue change from all sides, I foresee two widening divides as the Indigenous Aryan position becomes more vociferous: one between individuals in Western academic circles, Indo-Europeanists as well as Indologists, and the more vocal scholars in the Indigenous camp, and the other between “leftists” and “rightists” in the subcontinent itself.  Unfortunately, the views of the many scholars who are less politically or ideologically motivated in their interest in ancient history will likely be branded one way or the other depending on the views they are open to considering.  More unfortunate still, if this happens, is that the entire field will suffer due to loss of communication between differing opinions and points of view—the lifeblood of a progressive field of study.(p.307)

            The early Indian Responses (Chapter 2), however was based on the construction of a golden past, which is “hardly unique to India”.  At the same time, “Just as the Aryan connection was configured to support a wide variety of domestic and colonial agendas by Europeans, it surfaced in a variety of ways among Indians in their internal negotiations with each other, in addition to their dealings with the external imperial power.  The Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy was put to political use both by Brahman elitists in the North and by Tamilian separatist voices in the South who were quick to capitalize on the idea of Aryan invasions,”(p.49):

Although not all Hindu nationalists participated in the denigration of Dravidian culture, most did share a strong conviction that India could be saved by returning to the purity of a reconstituted Sanskritic Aryanism. … According to spokesmen from southern castes like the Chetti and Vellala, who were particularly dismayed by the prospect of Brahmanical culture highjacking the emerging nation, “it was not the Dravidians who corrupted a pristine Hinduism…. On the contrary, it was Brahmanism and Aryanism that had debased the original Tamil religion and diverted it from its hallowed path of monotheism, rationalism, and egalitarianism into the ‘gutters’ of polytheism, irrational rituals, and unjust social hierarchies” (Ramaswamy 1997, 29-30).  For them the Dravidian religion far predated that of the Aryans, not just in the South, but all over the subcontinent.  Siva was a pre-Aryan Tamilian deity whom the later Aryan intruders had pressed into service in their own pantheon.(pp.49-50)

            Thus the Aryan debate soon snowballed in to various level of controversy and everyone wanted their own pound of flesh to propagate and promote their own respective ideology.  For example, “Ambedkar, in his book Who Were the Sudras? (1946) offers a critique of the philological basis of the Aryan invasion theory, …  He adamantly rejected this theory, which he saw as partly responsible for propagating the erroneous idea that the Sudras were a non-Aryan, indigenous ethnic group.  Nonetheless, he does resonate with Periyar Ramaswami on one issue”: (p.50)

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 descendants of the non-Aryans.  The theory helps him establish his kinship with the European races and share their arrogance and their superiority…. It helps him maintain and justify his overlordship over the non-Brahmins. (Ambedkar,76)—(p.51)

            Similarly, “Other spokesmen for the most disadvantaged castes had different ideas about how to redress injustices.  In their estimation, better gains might be had by accepting the Aryan invasion theory, with all its implications, rather than rejecting it…. As far as some in the South were concerned, it was a ‘misrepresentation to say that the Brahmins belong to the same Indian nation as the non-Brahmins while the English are aliens…. Indian Brahmins are more alien to us than Englishmen’ (Raghavan, quoted in Irschick, 1971, 158).  In short, although the excesses of Aryan ideology in Europe would be hard to surpass, the Indians themselves were not averse to attempting to extract political mileage from the Aryan theme to support their own agendas”.(p.51)

            Though the early opposition against the Aryan invasion theory, “were inaugurated by prominent religious figures, whose discourses were in direct political and religious response to the hegemony of British intellectual power, which was portrayed as untrustworthy in the face of Vedic sabda pramaana ‘scriptural evidence’” ¹⁶(p.55) yet, “Politically, in terms of its European connections, Aryanism was welcomed by some as evidence of equality between the colonizers and the colonized-and could even be invoked to elicit assistance from the English Aryan brethren.  In other discourses, it was heralded as proof of the spiritual superiority of the Hindu Aryans in comparison to the materialistic Western Aryans.  In terms of its ramifications in the Indian political scene, it was deferred to as proof of Brahmanical Aryan superiority over the rest of the subcontinent or, contrarily, as proof of Brahmanical Aryan exploitation of the same”.(p.56)

            Now this early Indian response led to the development of various ideologies, each carving their own to fulfill their particular agenda.  To have a clear picture about this now we have to jump from Chapter 1 and 2 to 13 leaving rest of the chapters for scholarly study and research as the purpose of this (selective) review is to learn from this “The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate.”  Thus:

…theme of Aryan origins has been utilized to support a variety of agendas on the Indian subcontinent in the modern period.  Here, among the linguistic descendants of the Indian branch of the Indo-European language family, the Aryan invasion debate is intensely relevant to the constructions of several very different sets of competing identities: association of colonizer and colonized, neo-colonial and Hindu fundamentalist, Vedic Hindu and biblical Christian, Hindu and Muslim, indigene and foreigner, Aryan and Dravidian, and Hindu communal and Marxist secularist are all permeated in one way or another with a variety of notions connected with Aryan origins.(p.267)

            However before proceeding further Bryant again remind us that “Since there is a tendency to stereotype any local reconsiderations of ancient Indian history whatsoever as nationalist or communal, the purpose of this chapter is to suggest that a wide variety of motives inspire Indian scholars to revisit the topic of Indo-Aryan origins: it is erroneous to lump them all into a simplistic, hastily identified and easily demonized Hindutva category”.(P.267)

            In the first section of this chapter (13) “Nationalism and Historiography: General Comments,” the author draws our attention to the fact that, “Archaeology, and historical reconstruction in general, has always been deeply involved in nationalist enterpreises”.¹⁷ (p.268)

            Though, “voices challenging the theory of Aryan invasions were, and are, often co-opted and even, in certain cases, initiated and sponsored by nationalist and communal elements, but a wide range of motives have inspired Indian scholars to challenge the idea of Aryan invasions or migrations…. Let us not forget that it was Europeans who originally ‘revised’ India’s Brahmanical notions of history and then imposed their version of events on their subjects…. My reading of the Indigenous Aryan school is that its concerns are also to a great extent anti-imperial and anticolonial: it is determined to review the revision”.(p.270)

            In the next section, “The Aryans in Hindutva Ideology”, Bryant traces the development of Hindutva initiated by Savarkar and carried by  M.S.Golwalkar.  Though Savarkar’s concern (in his book “Hindutva”) was not to create a nation state but to define a Hindu, yet those who envisioned a “nation-state based on notions of a Hindu identity of the majority have taken his writing very seriously”. ¹⁸(p.270) Initially Savarkar considered geographical identity for this concept, yet soon he dismissed it as a Muslim can then be considered as a Hindu (p.271).  Similarly dismissing common civilization he went a step ahead even to dismiss, “other possible defining factors of Hindutva such as the allegiance to Hinduism, Vedic Dharma, or Sanatana Dharma.  The adoption of these rubrics would exclude and alienate heterodox and minority groups such as the Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs who are valuable allies in the agenda of this type of Hinduism”.¹⁹ (p.271)  Finally, according to Savarkar the, crux of Hindutva is that , “To be considered a real Hindu, a person’s religious faith must have an indigenous origin”.{Bryant’s italics}(p.271)  This cleared the way for him to proclaim that though Muslims and Christians communities, “possess all the essential qualifications but one and that is that they do not look upon India as their Holyland (Hindutva, p.113).(p.272)  However, “It is puzzling that Savarkar, who must have been aware that some of his contemporaries and predecessors had challenged the Aryan invasion theory, did not aggressively oppose it.  Taken to its logical conclusion, his acceptance of the Aryan invasion theory seems incompatible with his started objectives in formulating the concept of Hindutva,(p.272) because,

the forefathers of the Vedic Aryans are indubitable foreigners and their followers essentially no different from those revering other “foreigners” such as Muhammad or Christ.  Not only that, but Savarkar envisions the Aryans as Sindhis who, upon arriving in India, disseminated their blood throughout the land by intermarriage with the real natives of the land, thereby creating a common blood link.  Adopting this logic (which involves the old model equating language and race), if the Aryans came from somewhere near the Caspian Sea area, adjacent to Persia, they would actually share close blood links (and Indo-European linguistic and protohistoric religious ties) with the proto-Iranians who remained nearer the ancestral home and therefore diluted their blood less.  This would therefore make the Vedic Aryans much closer relatives in language, protoreligion, and blood with the Muslims who came to India from these areas (as descendants of the proto-Iranians) than with the original non-Aryans of India whose blood needed to be transfused by mixed marriages.(p.272)

However, M.S. Golwalkar has elucidated what Savarkar has overlooked:

The Aryan invasion theory would make the arrival of the Vedic people analogous with that of the Mughals and other invaders and undermine any indigenous formulations for Hindutva.  In short, this brand of Hindu nationalism, which seems determined to alienate the Muslim community on the grounds of its lack of autochthonous religious pedigree, is obliged to refute the Aryan invasion theory or risk logical absurdity.  Golwalkar, accordingly, rejects the theory but attempts to reconcile this position with Tilak’s North Pole homeland.  Unwilling to contradict the prestigious Tilak, who had accepted an external origin of the Aryans in the Arctic Circle, Golwalkar (1947, 13) states that modern scientific research has shown the North Pole not to be stationary, and that “quite long ago it was in that part of the world … [which] is called Bihar and Orissa at the present”.(p. 273)

These kinds of far fetched interpretation of facts, figures, history and texts are always there to twist and turn them to suit each one’s own ideology.  The following two will highlight this kind of thamasas, which unfortunately continue even today:

            There are southern Tamil-centric myths of origin that are just as creative as some of the Aryan-centered ones from the North.  Thus, Purnalingam Pillai (1963) describes the original land of Tamilaham, which included the lost continent of Le Muria, the “cradle of civilization.”” This was submerged after a deluge, rending asunder Australia, China, and Africa (all supposedly proven by geological science).  The survivors fled in crafts or on foot to North India, Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and other regions.  Accordingly, “in its widest sense, Tamilaham at present lies all the world over, wherever the enterprising Tamils have found their home” (5).  Pillai finds evidence of this everywhere.  According to him, there are lingas in Saint Paul’s Cathedral; indeed, due to the “many semblences and traces of Saivism … in every nook and corner of England, it is impossible to think of England as anything else except a Saivite country.”  As for the Tamils, they “were the sons of Tamilaham itself.  They were indigenous” (18-19).  In fact, “history finds the Tamils in their present abode long before the Romans conquered Egypt or Christ was born in Bethlehem, before Porus met the Greek or Darius lost his crown; before Plato wrote his Dialogues and Solomon made his songs” (33). (notes 5, p. 343)

…Self-styled historian and ardent Hindu P.N. Oak,²⁰ for example, has his own unique way of resolving the Hindutva problem as it relates to the Muslims.  According to Oak (1984):

Allah is a Hindu God and the Kaba a Hindu temple.  Evidence is also available indicating that prophet Mohammed Himself was born a Hindu and that when He chose to break away from the family’s Hindu tradition and heritage and declare himself a prophet, the joint Hindu family broke up in an internecine feud and Hazrat Mohammad’s own uncle had to lay down his life fighting to save Hinduism…. That means that like Buddha, Mahavira, Jaina and the ten Sikh Gurus, Hazrat Mohommad was yet another prophet which Hinduism gave to the world.  Like the other reformers, Mohammad reiterated some of the basic values of Hinduism. (310-313)

….there are many serious and sober scholars who sincerely feel that the Aryan migration theory is not supported by the available data.  Their input on this issue should not be stereotyped or cursorily dismissed by associating it with positions, often encountered in India, such as that of Oak.(p.273)

As a digression I want to draw the attention of the reader of this review that such Oaks cab become jokers to fulfill their ideology, but anyone claiming to be the followers of the Truth, by becoming Oaks, not only become jokers but also make that Truth as the laughing stock before any sensible and serious student of history and scripture(s).  Particularly some fulfilmentalists among evangelical Christians even went ahead of Purnalingam Pillai and Oak by making Adam a Tamilian, Krishna might be a Tamilian (because Krishna means block and as Dravidians are block, Krishna might be a Davidian viz. Tamilian) and therefore Gita came from Tamilnadu  (of course this Krishna is different from the Krishna of Mahabharata).  The Brahmins in India are the descendant of Jews (therefore the logical conclusion is that Jesus too was a Brahmin or proto-Brahmin?), Christianity came to India with St. Thomas and only from here then it spread to all over Europe, The Saivasiddhanta of Tamilaham and other bhakti movements originated from Tamilnadu only from this Christianity (want any proof, see the Syrian Orthodox and St. Thomas Malabar Christians, who still worship like Tamilians!).  Even Tiruvalluvar was either a Christian or wrote Tirukkural because of Christian influence (as he was assumed as living in Mylapore in present Chennai where St. Thomas came and converted several Brahmins!), Temple in Tamilnadu are exactly constructed as mentioned in the Old Testament.  I don’t want to multiple the lists as it would irritate all of us in every way. 

            So returning back to Aryanism, finally making several alteration the Hindutva ideology finally made their own declaration not only about who a Hindu is but who and what should happen to a non-Hindu living in India:

“The non-Hindu people in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture … or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, … not even citizen’s rights” ({Golwalkar}55-56)—(p.275)

            Anyhow though we can claim to know what is the present ideology of Hindutva in India, there are several under currents on the both camp who support and oppose such ideology.  But we all know very well that those who try to fix everything to accommodate to promote and uphold their own ideology are only going to “USE” every opportunity, not only twisting and torturing history, facts and scriptures but even their own “IDEOLOGY” to accommodate it very well according to any changing scenario (best example is Ayodhya debate every time in Parliament).  But in such endeavor not only the TRTUTH but also those sincere scholars (as well as seeking students) also become easy victims.  And in the next section on “Stereotypes and Counterstereotypes”, Bryant high lights the path in which they have to tread.

            This section highlights how this Aryan Migration Debate has almost divided the camp in (more visible) two camps of Indigenists vs. Invasionsist.  If we begin to comment on each point it not only disturb the scholarly analysis of the author but will become my own (unscholarly and a mere student’s) interpretation of facts.  So I simply give some quotes as it is:

Thus Hock states:

Scholars now are running into the problem that the issue has become politically surcharged. … The problem … [is] the quest of present-day nationalist groups to establish their “authenticity” as the original inhabitants of India. … [G]iven the unfortunate consequences in my native country, Germany, of a nationalism that sought authenticity in non-scholarly interpretations of history and pre-history, I am extremely uncomfortable with … modern Indian nationalism. (1999b, 148).(p.275)

Irfan Habib (1997) echoes similar concerns in a newspaper interview:

I would like to cite the example of the Nazis, of how a particular perception of history held by a respectable section of the German intelligentsia. … This perception was not racist at least outwardly and certainly was not anti-Jewish.  But how easily was this perception utilised by the Nazis? … So, here you have an example of how a historical theory is created by someone who had no idea of what use it can be put to. ..,. Before 1947 the idea that the Aryans went out of India was hardly espoused by any serious historian. … But now, while some people deny that they espouse the Nazi race theory, they have in fact espoused it. (12)—(p.275)

And again: “The striking parallels between the Nazi campaign and the majoritarian project in India are not restricted to the revanchist campaigns being carried out by the RSS.  The more important commonality of the two can be seen in the construction of the myth about the Aryans being a superior race” (Ananth 1998).(p.275)

…One must be cautious about contributing to a sort of Indological McCarthyism whereby anyone reconsidering or challenging long-held assumptions pertaining to the Indo-Aryans is instantly dubbed a fundamentalist or nationalist or, more drastically, is accused of contributing to Nazi agendas!²¹(p.276)

…whitewashing all Indigenous Aryanists as right-wing Hindu fundamentalists is not just erroneous, but unscholarly, dogmatic, and offensive.(p.277)

…Although I, too, arrived in India with my preconceived set of expectations about right-wing Hindu “revisionism,” it soon became clear to me that themes resonating with Hindutva, that is, the prioritizing of Hindu culture as the indigenous, and therefore legitimate, heir to hegemonic power in India (with its anti-Muslim subtext), while blatantly and disatastefully present in a number of publications, does not pervade the views of all the members of the Indigenous Aryan school. ²²(p.277)

            An inevitable corollary of stereotyping is that it results in counterstereotypification.  In India, some Indigenous Aryanists, being branded communal, then label their detractors either “colonial stooges” or “secular Marxists” who are motivated by their own particular political agendas….(pp.277-78) 

…academic finds are selectively appropriated and propagated on a popular level.(p.279)

…Secular Marxists are accused of maintaining a defunct theory in order to insist that the arrival of the Aryans is analogous to the arrival of the Muslims, Christians, and numerous other groups of newcomers to the subcontinent.  In such an amalgamation of immigrants, no one has more claim to indigenous pedigree or cultural hegemony than anyone else.  A secular state, from this perspective, is the only political system that can protect the equal rights of all citizens to define themselves as being Indian with cultural credentials that are as good as anybody else’s.

            Thus, anti-Aryan invasionsist scholarship, in its turn, is stereotyped as being subservient to secular, Marxist ideology.  The most maligned figureheads are precisely those who have most publicly opposed the Indigenous Aryan position….(p.280)

            Both sides of the debate sometimes refuse to even acknowledge that there is a legitimate controversy….(p.281)

            The preceding series of exchanges captures the essence of some of the primary concerns underpinning this debate.  Clearly, the academic value of many statements—on all sides—has been singed by the emotional temperature such issues ignite.  They reveal how an entire fascinating field of study has become inextricably linked with ideology and the politics of representation to the point where it is almost impossible to have a calm, objective and detached conversation on the matter in India. ²³

            That the emotional involvement in the process of historical reconstruction among professional scholars can reach astonishingly unprofessional levels is easily illustrated.  The entire proceedings at the plenary session of the prestigious 1994 World Archaeological Congress in Delhi came to a complete (and ridiculous) standstill for more than thirty minutes as “leftist” and “rightist” historians actually clambered onto the dais, physically wrestled each other in attempts to snatch up the microphone, and hurled abuse into the air in front of over two hundred flabbergasted foreign delegates {Indian Express, December 12, 1994, 1}.  This breakdown in order was ostensibly triggered by a resolution condemning destruction of historical structures, but the Aryan invasion problem was also part of the agenda at the conference.(p. 282)

            In addition to being stereotyped in an overly hasty fashion, the reconsideration of the Aryan invasion theory is often associated with the rewriting of other periods in Indian history and lumped under one generic label categorized under the convenient rubric of “revisionism.”  Indigenous Aryanism, the construction of a golden age of Chandragupta, biased accounts of the Mogul period, and material relating to the Ram temple in Ayodhya and the “evil Babur” are all juxtaposed as if emanating from a generic, undifferentiated, communal mentality.  There are undoubtedly grounds for this in certain genres of literature, but such juxtapositions cannot be applied indiscriminately….(p.282)

…By simply referring to extreme or not fully representative points of view, the more plausible points of contention in this debate are bypassed and frustrations get further aggravated.(p.283)

Clearly, tales of Hindus being the initiators of world culture and civilization can be seen as cathargic for psches still recovering from the wounds of the colonial period….(p.283)

…As anyone following the Indo-Aryan migration debates on the Indology nets and other conferences in the west can attest, the discussions almost invariably become exasperating and all too often degenerate into emotional name-calling as accusations of “neocolonial chauvinism” from one side and assertions of “Hindu nationalistic dogma” from the other inevitably start to be bandied about while the scholarly value of the  discussions rapidly evaporates.  As a consequence, the topic has long been banned by the moderator of the principal Indology List on the internet. ²⁴(p. 286)

            These voices are useful since they afford an opportunity of comprehending why so  many Indians are suspicious of the Aryan Invasion theory.  It is precisely in these types of publications, with their more spontaneous (and often polemical) tone, that motives and sentiments can be more easily perceived.  Moreover, this type of literature is more available to members of the urban literate middle-class than the less accessible, and often far more costly, publications of professional scholars.  Therefore, it is very relevant in terms of informing and influencing popular understandings of Indian history and as such of interest to the historiographer.(p.287)

…By targeting the Aryans as invaders and oppressors, the missionaries are portrayed as discouraging the tribes and lower-ranking castes from identifying with Brahman-dominated Hinduism, gaining their sympathy, and offering them a new set of loyalties in the form of Christianity.  Such views, as noted in chapter 1, can certainly be substantiated.(p.289) 

            In addition to motives articulated in terms of Hindutva, anti-imperialism, missionary bias, and/or potential Dravidian separatism, there is another tension underlying much of the reaction of the Indigenous Aryan school to the invasion/migration theory….The tension is an epistemological one.  As a cross-cultural phenomenon, it can be situated in the universal encounter between tradition and modernity—between scriptural authority and critical scholarship….(pp.289-90)

…as I have repeatedly stressed, there are many different voices in the Indigenous Aryan school.  Some, although accepting the textual tradition as an important source of information, are hard-core empiricists who consider even linguistics to be a pseudoscience. When all is said and done, the various scholars in the Indigenous Aryan school, while sharing a common opinion that Indian history has been erroneously constructed, seem to reveal very different concerns in their scholarship. Ultimately, the motives underlying this issue are genuinely complex, and it becomes very difficult to categorize people into easily definable molds.(p.291)

…The treatment of the issue in English-language sources seems to fall into several categories,… The first consists of scholars who outline the various homeland theories and the various objections raised against India being the homeland and orient themselves around the Indigenous Aryan position….—pp.292-93

            The second category consists of scholars who outline the arguments in favor of the external origin of the Aryans, as well as the arguments that oppose it, but leave the issue unresolved—in other words, the Indigenous Aryan position is treated on equal terms with the standard version of events….—p.293

            A third category of writers gives the Indigenous Aryan school equal and respectful time but passes a verdict against them…. A fourth category of historians simply represent the standard version of Aryan invasions without referring to the debate or the Indigenous Aryan school…. A final category—more ideologically sensitive and, as has been exemplified earlier, usually stereotyped as the Marxist camp—actively opposes the Indigenous Aryan school.—pp.293-94

CONCLUSION

The overall summarizing of both Migrationist scenario and Indigenist scenario in the Conclusion (pp.298-302) will help us again to understand all the complicated discussion based on archaeology and philology and other discipline in the entire book.  (It is tempting quote²⁵ some of them as I have “conveniently” omitted all the points from chapter 3 to 12—to present my “ideology”) in this review.   

            The Conclusion in this book is remarkable summary particularly for those who wants to understand as well as learn about the recent debate in India about re-writing Indian History. ²⁶  As it becomes a sensitive issue, each camp keeping its own agenda and ideology, sometimes we have to listen some objective, impartial and outside view even to understand our own personal agendas in such endeavor.  And this conclusion helps us in this direction. 

The first thing Bryant brings to our attention in this endeavor of historic study is that:

In my view, any attempt to present a comprehensive account of the prehistoric period in South Asia—if it is to be an objective account—should give a fair and adequate representation of the differences of opinion on this matter, as well as of the criticisms that can be levied against any point of view.  And attention must always be paid to the context of interpretation—from all sides, as well as the actual range of interpretations.(p.303)

The next is the peril in such endeavor putting one’s own agenda first and then search for facts to fulfill it:

Both Europeans and Hindus have allowed elements from within their intelligentsia to utilize academic debate in support to ideological agendas,²⁷ specifically in the discourse of Aryan/Semitic in its respective manifestations of German/Jew and Hindu/Muslim.  The Aryan race ideologues, while by no means a thing of the past in the streets and politics of Europe and America, are not as immediate an issue of national or international concern in those countries as they are on the subcontinent.  India’s situation is much more immediately volatile.  With the fruits of Europe’s own Aryan ideology still a vivid memory, many concerned scholars and friends of India are very wary of the potential of the Aryan discourses in the Indian subcontinent.(p.304)

Giving the main reason for the European scholar’s concerns the author says:

This point cannot be over stressed.  It is the Hindutva element in the Indigenous Aryan group that has inhibited many Western scholars, at least, from analyzing and engaging with these alternative points of views or has caused them to be a priori hostile to them.  However, the interpretation of evidence being presented by the Indigenous Aryan group cannot be opposed because of the Hindutva element: that would equally be allowing ideological beliefs to manipulate historical interpretation.  Critical scholarship is mandated to attempt to detach debate on this topic from political orientations concerning personal visions for a modern Indian nation-state.(p.304)

However objective and impartial may be the European scholars, yet Bryant also endorses the concern of the Indian scholars view:

After all, it was Europeans who introduced archaeology, linguistics, philology, etc. into the subcontinent and presented their Indian subjects with a new, and in places unfamiliar, version of ancient events authorized by these seemingly formidable disciplines.  Many members of the Indigenous Aryan school are quite understandably uncomfortable about inheriting an account of their ancient history that was assembled for them by their erstwhile colonial masters. (p.304)

This point might be emphasized more poignantly if a clumsy analogy is considered.  How would most Americans react if the reconstructed history of their country had continually been (and to a great extent were still being) written by their onetime governing authorities, the British (or even the Russians, Japanese, Iraqis, or any foreign group of scholars)?  How would the British feel if the major contours of British history were determined by the French?  How would they then feel if, upon objecting to what they considered to be inaccurate reconstructions, they were dismissed as patriots, ideologues, or even Nazis?  This is not to say that only “Indian” scholars have a right to interpret the history of the subcontinent as some would have it.  Surely, if it is objective and not partisan knowledge that we are after, any point of view that can be made with reason and argument will be welcome if it can throw light on the history of any country, irrespective of the ethnic origin of the contributor.  Nonetheless, a principal motive of many Indian scholars in this debate is the desire to reexamine the infrastructure of ancient history that is the legacy of the colonial period and test how secure it actually is by adopting the very tools and disciplines that had been used to construct it in the first place.(p.305)

At the same time any hasty conclusion and out right rejection of outsiders contribution to our historic study by Indian school is to be checked and challenged:

From the other side, it seems fair to state that while pointing out colonial biases is of fundamental importance—cleansing Indology from the ghosts of the past is a process that has only just begun—there is still solid empirical data that need to be confronted and addressed if one chooses to tackle a problem like that of the Indo-Aryans.  Suspicion of colonial motives does not justify a priori jettisoning such theories nor make such data disappear….There were, and still are, very good reasons to believe in Aryan migrations, and this evidence needs to be addressed.  Many Indigenous Aryanists have made sweeping proclamations about the fallacies of the theory and the biases of colonialism, often with not so much as a passing reference to the linguistic infrastructure of the problem except to dismiss it as nineteenth-century speculation and concoction.  This understandably results in such scholarship being viewed as indicative of predetermined attitudes as opposed to serious research.  It can only hope to appeal to those predisposed to a certain conclusion.  A scholarly and more neutral disposition will at least take the time and energy to become familiar with all the relevant data before pronouncing an opinion.(pp.305-06)

Pointing out the contribution of Indigenous Aryan critique the author further says:

The Indigenous Aryan critique has certainly influenced my own agnosticism.  I hope that scholars do not ignore the arguments being made by the Indigenous Aryan school because it contains a vociferous, element that is blatantly inimical and insensitive to non-Hindu interests.  That element should be isolated and exposed, to be sure, but the whole debate cannot be rejected because of this, or stereotyped as being exclusively a nationalistic discourse.  I have cautioned against the tendency of contributing to what I have termed an Indological McCarthyism in this regard.(pp.308-09)

However he might be sympathetic to such critique, yet his one main concern is:

Of most concern to me is that my analysis of the problem, which has, on the whole, been sympathetic to many of the arguments of the indigenous Aryan position, will be understood in the proper spirit—as an attempt to contribute to scholarly debate—and not as a source of authority to be exploited by, or viewed as contributing to, the politics of authenticity.  I especially hope that it will not be co-opted to bolster the often encountered quote that “even Western scholars have disproved the theory of Aryan invasions.”  The thought of this work being brandished about in support of preconceived agendas is personally very troubling to me.  Let us be very clear: the essential, that is, pruned, elements of an Aryan migration theory have not by any means been disproved.  That they are open to different interpretations does not at all mean that the Indigenist position can carry the day.  But, to my mind, it does mean that an Indigenous position merits a place at the table.(p.309)

Finally sharing his ambition in this field Bryant says:

I also hope and choose to believe that the many scholars of ancient Indian history whom I have had the privilege of meeting over the years will realize the potential for ideological misuse of historical revisionism and will, accordingly, without compromising their position on issues of critical scholarship, actively oppose communal agendas that attempt to appropriate academic debate.  From the hodgepodge of characters who have been represented here, those, at least, who have sincerely adopted critical methods of scholarship in order to present their point of view should be responded to in kind, not stereotyped as communalists.  They deserve a fair hearing.  As for those who are not interested in academic dialogue, there is nothing academia can do for them (or they for academia), except be aware of their existence and expose them to public attention if they become ideologically menacing.(p.309)

And in conclusion the author points out the need to continue the debate as we cannot easily give up because of its influence and the nature of our great civilization:

In conclusion, the Indigenous Aryan position is by now far too widespread to be ignored—most teachers and scholars of South Asian religion or cultural history will have been confronted with it by some of their second-generation South Asian students, in discussions with colleagues or friends in India, on the Indology lists on the internet, or in some other context.  I hope this analysis will assist them in drawing a clearer picture of the logic and perspectives of this point of view.  It is, of course, only one point of view—the Aryan invasion model, when trimmed of its excesses, still has much of its own internally consistent logic and perspectives, and it remains a reasonable way of accounting for a good deal of the available evidence.  Trautmann, commenting on the longevity of the Aryan racial theory of Indian civilization discussed earlier, wonders: “Is it not time we did away with it?” (1997 215).  I will stop well short of suggesting that we do away with the whole Indo-Aryan migration theory.  But we do, at the very least, need to reappraise it all again very carefully and make a clear distinction between the data and their interpretations.  The implications of the Indigenous Aryan critique for the entire area study of South Asia are far too immense to be ignored or taken lightly: from goddess worship in Kerala to tantra in Bengal; from bhakti in South India to Shaivism in Kashmir; from the caste system in Brahmanical culture to the daily puja performed in  (p.309) the temples and religious households across the subcontinent; from the separatist voices in Tamil Nadu to the social aspirations of Ravi Das’s followers in the North; in Indian languages, music, medicine, art, and philosophy in short, in almost everything South Asian, there is a little that has not been predicated on the assumption that Indian culture, history, and religion are the amalgamation of external Aryan and indigenous non-Aryan characteristics.—p.309-310

A FINAL WORD

As a final word I am very much benefited by this remarkable and objective study by Bryant.  Though I am often questioned USING facts and figures, texts and scriptures selectively for one’s own personal agenda, this book gave me a clear answer to such disturbing question within me.  Above all we need not accept everything that comes from the WEST as infallible scholarly and objective contribution—a tendency which is very much alive particularly among some Christian circle and rejecting everything that is reasonable questioned and challenged any preconceived agendas by the Indian is dangerous.  Selective “use and throw” of any scholar’s contribution quoting them often out of context is real betrayal.  “Authority to be exploited” is a shameful policy.  However we uphold the principle of “Agree to disagree”, yet “ideologically menacing” need to be checked and challenged in everyway. BRYANT has done this BRILIANTLY in this book.

Mathigiri, February 19, 2003.

               NOTES

1. Since my task is to be receptive to all rational points of view, including the more cogent interpretations of the Indigenous Aryan school, there have been many moments when I have regretted undertaking this research for fear that it might be misconstrued and adapted to suit ideological agendas.  This concern very much remain as a dark cloud hovering over what has otherwise been an intriguing and intellectually very fulfilling research project.—p.7

2. The validity of a particular interpretation of some aspect of the data has not been minimized because of the author’s overt religious or political bias, however distasteful they might be to the sensitivities of those of us who do not share those values.  Ignoring a serious attempt to analyze data because of the author’s ideological orientations does not invalidate the arguments being offered, or make them disappear.  On the contrary, they resurface, often more aggressively because of having been ignored.  I have attempted to analyze, as objectively as possible, any serious interpretation of the data that might further the task of accurately reconstruction proto-history, while also, in separate chapters, drawing attention to any ideological agendas that might favor the promotion of a particular point of view.—p.10

3. …an overwhelming concern of Indigenous Aryanists is to reexamine what is suspected of being a false account of Indian history concocted by European imperialists—an account that does not correspond to the “facts” even when analyzed by the modern processes of critical scholarship.  In short, the Aryan invasion hypothesis is seen by many Indian historians as an Orientalist production. As a result, Indigenous Aryanism can be partly situated within the parameters of postcolonial studies.

            Having said all this, I do not intend to suggest that the Indigenous Aryan school is somehow angelically engaged in the disinterested quest for pure knowledge.  There is no disinterested quest for knowledge.  Many Indigenous Aryanists are, indeed, engaged in the search for self-definition in the modern context.  Some are Hindu nationalists, and some do engage in communal polemics….—p.9

4.  My intention herein has been not so much to take sides in the actual debate but to present the interpretations of the evidence from all rational perspectives and point out the various assumptions underlying them—this book is intended to be a reasonably thorough exposition of the entire problem of Indo-Aryan origins….—p.9

            Ancient Indian pre- and protohitory is an extremely rich and fascinating area of study, but, unfortunately, the origin of the Indo-Aryans has become inextricably enmeshed with the politics of representation.  There is every reason to be concerned that if the Vedic Indo-Aryans are interpreted as being indigenous to India, then the Vedic “civilization” and all that developed from it will be construed as “truly Indian” and all subsequent cultural groups known to have imigrated into India could explicitly or implicitly be depicted as “Others.”  Indigenous Aryanism, as a result of such concerns, is generically portrayed as a discourse promoting communal tension….—p.295

5. Jones (1790) concluded his researches by claiming to have “traced the foundation of the Indian empire above three thousand eight hundred years from now” (145), that is to say, safely within the confines of Bishop Usher’s creation date of 4004 B.C.E. and, more important, within the parameters of the Great Flood, which Jones considered to have occurred in 2350 B.C.E.—p.15

6.  As Max Muller, who “look[ed] upon the account of Creation as given in Genesis as simply historical” (1902,481), later(p.16) reminisced: “All one’s ideas of Adam and Eve, and the Paradise, and the tower of Babel, and Shem, Ham, and Japheth , with Homer and Aeneas and Virgil too, seemed to be whirling round and round, till at least one picked up the fragments and tried to build a new world, and to live with a new historical consciousness” (Muller 1883, 29)—pp.16-17  And

7. Since “the Hebrew narrative [is] more than human in its origin and consequently true in every substantial part of it.”  Therefore, “it is no longer probable only, but absolutely certain, that the whole race of man proceeded from Iran, whence they migrated at first in three great colonies [those of Shem, Japheth, and Ham]; and that those three branches grew from a common stock” (Jones 1792, 486-487).—p.18

Although European scholars have long since forgotten the biblical roots of the Aryan problem, Old Testament narrative was certainly an initial factor causing European scholars to interpret the data in selective ways.  One must bear in mind that European notions of human history had been based on Genesis for the better part of a millennium and a half.  This formative influence was strengthened and then superseded by research intimately connected with the specific political exigencies extant in nineteenth-century Europe.  This combination of factors contributed to the development of various assumptions concerning Indo-Aryan (and Indo-European) origins, some of which have remained by and large unquiestioned, outside of India, to this very day….—p.303

8. Voltaire voiced his agreement {with Bailly, the astronomer}: “In short, Sir, I am convinced that everything—astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc.—comes to us from the bank of the Ganges” (Bailly 1777,4).  The French naturalist and traveler Pierre de Sonnerat (1782) also believed all knowledge came from India, which he considered the cradle of the human race.—p.18

9. “The term Indo-European was coined in 1816 by the linguist Thomas Young … Nowadays Indo-European is the standard term for the whole language family, although some German scholars still prefer Indo-Germanic despite a history of complaints against it”.—p.20

10. Chakrabarti, 1967{1976}, (no page number is given!)—p.21

11. Pollock (1993) has shown how the study of Sanskrit was adopted by various quite distinct agendas by multiple Orientalisms—the British for external colonial purposes, the Germans for internal, European colonization, and the Brahmans for the maintenance of their own elite dominance in traditional India.  Similarly, Indigenous Aryanism is also multifaceted.  It is adopted by some as a means of opposing European Orientalism—the scholarship of the colonial period.  It is simultaneously promoted by others to serve an internal Orientalsim (in the sense of the production of unflattering knowledge about the “Other,” albeit not an Oriental one, for political domination), connected to the discourse of legitimacy in Hindu notions of nationhood.—p.295  {is this notes relevant here?—DB}

12. For them, fairness of skin paralleled highness of civilization, and the Indians were a beggarly lot who could not possibly be allowed to claim a common racial pedigree, not to speak of being recognized as “one of” the British….—p.25

13. Muller himself (1847) had earlier expressed that “it is curious to see how the descendants of the same race, to which the first conquerors and masters of India belonged, return … to accomplish the glorious work of civilization, which had been left unfinished by their Arian brethren” (349).—p.26

14.       It was a very small step from zoology and ethnology to physical anthropology, which was soon pressed into service to identify these original Indo-Europeans in Europe.  In 1878, the German philologist L. Geiger was the first to suggest that the Indo-Europeans were blond, blue-eyed people, and that these traits had become diluted and darkened in those places where there had been a foreign admixture of genes….

            Dubious interpretations of certain passages in the Vedic texts, … were then introduced to produce readings of fair, invading Aryans clashing with snub-nosed indigenous daasas…. Greeks, Italians, and French had the correct linguistic  credentials but were disqualified due to being dark, while some of the Scandinavians had the right physical qualities but spoke the wrong language.  The Germans won by default.—p.32

15. European intellectual hegemony is by no means a thing of the past.  Indo-European studies, in particular, are still almost exclusively a Western undertaking, primarily because of lack of facilities and interest in India; and still retains control, in the view of many scholars, over the fate of the Indo-Aryans.  And if truth be told, one still not infrequently encounters dismissive attitudes in the Western academy toward certain types of scholarship from India.  There are justifiable reasons for this when it comes to the Indo-Aryan debate, given the appalling quality (particularly with regard to the linguistic issues) and polemical tone of some Indigenist literature.  But frustrating as it might sometimes be, Western scholars must address the suspicions of the Indigenists—at least of those that are open to dialogue and exchange—given the necessity of examining our own attitudes and biases made incumbent on us by the Orientalist critique.  The postcolonial climate is a sensitive one, and it should be obvious why there might be very good reasons for Indian scholars to want to reevaluate the version of Indian history that was constructed during the colonial period.  One cannot ignore or dismiss the sentiments and opinions of significant numbers of scholars about the history of their own country.  And it is never a bad exercise to have one’s own assumptions challenged, or to step out of one’s own time-worn paradigms momentarily so as to consider things from other perspectives.—p.305 (and also see p. 308)

16. It was the testimony of the Bible that originally led scholars to propose the existence of a linguistically unified group of people living somewhere near the Caspian Sea, a subset of whom emanated forth and entered India.  And it is the testimony of the Rgveda that is used to deny that any such people ever entered from any such place.  The Bible laid the groundwork for the construction of the Aryan invasion theory, and the Rgveda has been the principal foundation for attempts at its deconstruction.—p.303

17.       On the negative side, nationalism has encouraged the misinterpretation of archaeological data for political purposes and ignored important aspects of human history…. Clearly, archaeological interpretation can reinforce and articulate the centralizing policies of emerging nationalisms, as well as be used to legitimize ethnic cleansing or territorial expansion.  –p.268

             Silberman (1995) goes so far as to suggest that “all archaeological stories –be they classical, biblical, nationalist, or evolutionary—can be read as narratives of the inevitability of certain lands to be conquered and the right of certain people to rule” (256).  Chernkh (1995) points out that many of the nationalist movements unfolding throughout the old Soviet Union are actually being led by archaeologists, philologists, and historians…. Ancient history can be used to define a people as distinct and as the legitimate and primordial heirs to a range of territory….Indeed, “the emotional power of archaeology in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and the regions of the former Yugoslavia, for example, is that they all link the present to a particular golden age” (Silberman 1995, 257).—p.269

18.  The focus of those who promote Indigenous Aryanism for nationalist purposes is to try to show that the Hindus are an integral, indigenous people who have always had the ingredients required for a  nation-state in the form of a shared cultural past with clear links to the present: the “Vedic” culture.  New nations paradoxically claim to be the opposite of novel, namely, rooted in the remotest antiquity; nationalists co-opt archaeology, philology, and linguistics in efforts to “prove” that the imagined nation has always existed….—p.8

19. Savarkar is especially keen on accommodating the Sikhs into the Hindu fold: “Really, if any community in India is Hindu beyond cavil or criticism it is our Sikh brotherhood in the Punjab, being almost  autochthonous dwellers of the Saptasindhu land and the direct descendants of the Sindhu [Aryan] or Hindu people” (123).—343

20. Oak is best known, perhaps, for his continued efforts to prove that the Taj Mahal was originally a Siva temple.  Oak’s books attempt to argue that everything of value in the world originally came from India or was part of a greater India.  His etymologizing and general level of scholarship are astounding, even in the context of this genre of literature; for example, (p.343) England was originally pronounced as Angulisthan, since “ancient Hindu explorers and administrators who fanned over a virgin Europe looked across the English channel and called the British isles ‘Anguli’ (‘sthan’ or ‘desh’) i.e. a finger-size, finger-length land.  If one imagines Europe to be a palm-size, palm-shaped continent Great Britain appears to be ‘anguli’ namely the (extended) finger” (Oak 1984, 842).  I was informed by a professor of history at Jawarhal Lal Nehru University that even the RSS, which previously had cultivated Oak, has since completely distanced itself from his views.  Oak’s insistence that all other cultures from all over the world in all historical epochs ultimately originated in Vedic India, however, does parallel some of the scholarship of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Europe.  Attempts were made to accommodate the newly discovered eastern traditions within a biblical narrative by suggesting etymologies such as Brahman being the Sanskrit for Abraham and Sarasvati for Sarah.—notes 6, pp.343-44

21. …anyone reconsidering the status quo of Indo-Aryan origins is instantly and a priori dubbed a nationalist, a communalist, or, even worse, a Nazi.  Since I have observed that many scholars, when confronted with “Indigenous” voices of dissention, immediately assume that it must be just another manifestation of Hindu nationalist discourse (even without being aware of the linguistic and archaeological issues at stake), a few words on this issue might be in order at this point.

            There is major difference in focus between nationalism and anti-imperialism although they overlap in a number of ways.  Nationalism involves attempts to concoct  notions of shared identity in order to unify a variety of individuals and social groups into a cohesive political and territorial body in contradistinction to other such bodies—Anderson’s “imagined” communities.  Communalism, as understood in the context of academic discourse about India, also involves attempts to construct political unity between individuals and groups, but it is predicated on notions of shared religious affiliation that is distinct from that of other groups who are perceived as identifying with different religious communities.  Anti-imperialism and anticolonialism, on the other hand, are the opposition, by a group of people, to alien power-often advantaged because of superior technology—to which it has been subjected against its will.  It is a struggle against an oppressive, and generally stifling, force.—pp.7-8

22.  Aggressively promoting a point of view on the basis of a very meager and biased understanding of the actual data involved naturally indicates the existence of preconceived ideas that are nonnegotiable.  Such ideas are generally ideological.  Such publications contribute to the association of Indigenous Aryanism with Hindu nationalism.—p.295

23.       In a progressive academic context, difference of opinions, however radical, challenge scholars to constantly reexamine their views, assumptions, and methods.  This is the lifeline of healthy scholarship.  But in the present academic climate in the subcontinent, it has become increasingly difficult, particularly for Indian scholars, to discuss the pre-history of the subcontinent in a rational, objective way without becoming associated with the ideologies that are immediately correlated with pro- or contra- stances for or against the Indigenous Aryan issue….—p.297

24.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  European racism and elitism cannot be replaced by Hindu chauvinism.  As I have stated repeatedly, it is the Hindutva agenda that has prevented many Western and Indian scholars from paying attention to the Indigenous Aryan school because they are justly troubled by the potential for alienation, hate, and aggression that such discourses have provoked….—p.296

25. …my own present position on the Indo-European problem.  I am one of a long list of people who do not believe that the available data are sufficient to establish anything very conclusive about an Indo-European homeland, culture, or people….

            However, regarding homelands, I differ from most Western scholars in that I find myself hard pressed to absolutely eliminate the possibility that the eastern part of this region could be one possible candidate among several, albeit not a particularly convincing one, provided this area is delimited by Southeast Central Asia, Afghanistan, present-day Pakistan, and the northwest of the subcontinent (rather than the Indian subcontinent proper).  I hasten to stress that it is not that the evidence favors this area as a possible homeland—on the contrary, there has been almost no convincing evidence brought forward in support of a homeland this far east.  As we shall wee, the issue is that problems arise when one tries to prove that the Indo-Aryans were intrusive into this area from an outside homeland.  In other words, one has almost no grounds to argue for a South Asian Indo-European homeland from where the other speakers of the Indo-European language departed, but one can argue that much of the evidence brought forward to (p.11) document their entrance into the subcontinent is problematic.  These are two separate, but obviously overlapping issues.—pp.11-12

            Coupled with the problems that have been raised against all homeland candidates, these issues have caused me conclude that, in the absence of radically new evidence or approaches to the presently available evidence, theories on the homeland of the Indo-European speaking peoples will never be convincingly proven to the satisfaction of even a majority of scholars.  This skepticism especially applies to the theories of some Indian scholars who have attempted to promote India as a Homeland….—p.12

26.       However exasperating and polemical some Indigenist anticolonialist harangues tend to be, there is nonetheless some very good reasons for Indian scholars to be highly suspicious of the fact that the ancient history of their country was constructed by an imperial power, as was outlined in chapter 1.  This does not justify replacing one perceived myth with another.  There are still data that have to be addressed in order to form a comprehensive picture of an ancient period.  Simply ignoring major aspects of the evidence and focusing on features that are amenable to a specific alternative view with troubling ideological underpinnings is to duplicate the errors and excesses of the much maligned nineteenth century European historical enterprise.  History cannot be written by decibel….—p.296

27.  Anthony (1995b) notes that “Indo-European linguistics and archaeology have been exploited to support openly ideological agendas for so long that a brief history of the issue quickly becomes entangled with the intellectual history of Europe” (82).—p.269

Mistakes as I observed in this book:

1. P. 15 –Jones (1790)—1790a or 1790b ?
2. P. 15“…are true, or the whole fabrick of our national…”—is it fabric?
3. P.16. “The idea was inbedded in the biblical version…”—‘imbedded?
4. P. 17 “Shem Ham, and Japhet ,…”—‘Japheth’
5. P. 18 “ Shem, Japhet, and Ham…– ‘Japheth’
6. P. 18. (Bailly 1777,4).—but in Bib. P. 351 the year is mentioned as 1977
7. P. 21 “…foreign rules”. (1967)—it should be 1976.
8. P. 26. “(quoted in Maw 1950, 14-15).—in bib. Year is mentioned as 1990
9. P. 26. ‘…by their Arian bretheren”.—brethren.
10. P. 27 “quoted in Maw 1950, 35).—in bib. Year is mentioned as 1990.
11. P. 28. “..to a curious mismash of…”—mishmash?
12. P. 39. “…nonetheless holds that her homeland…”—his? (Mallory is male).
13. P. 62. (Dutta 1936)—Datta
14. P. 81. Hock (1996b)—according bib. It should be only 1996.
15. P. 112. “…who wondered away were…”—it should be wandered.
16. P. 122. “…of the Indo-Euopean civilization…”—European
17. P. 148. “…Tocharian group A my parts…”—may?
18. P. 149. “Or course, many other issues…”—Of course 
19. P. 167. (V.N. Misra 1994, 511)—but in bib. For V.N. Misra the year is mentioned as ‘1989’ and in Misra S, S. 1994 is mentioned.
20. P. 187. (Rau 1997, 206).—in bib year is mentioned as 1977. 
21. P. 191. “Or it meant tht the…”—that
22. P. 236. “…possible remanants of a new…”—remnants
23. P. 242. “…for one proot-Indo-European term…”—Proto
24. P. 243. “…around 60000 BP for…”—is it BC
25. P. 248. “…So it is possibile that…”—possible
26. P. 249. “…in the Panjab and….”—Punjab.
27. P. 257. (S.B. Dikshit 1985, 245).—I think the year should be 1885.  Because Kamesvara Aiyar supporting Dikshit’s position wrote in 1919 (p.257).  And Jean Fillozat in 1969 has also supported the arguments of Dikshit (see p. 260).  These could be possible only if Dikshit’s work is before 1919 at least.
28. P. 279. “… and propogated on a popular…”—propagated.
29. P. 279. “…dedicated to anti-Muslin oratory…”—Muslim?
30. P. 281. “For the nth time it is…”—nth?
31. P. 294. “…as as has been…’—as has been.
32. P. 300. “…importation accured in India…”—accrued
33. P. 308. “…initated by individuals…”—initiated.
34. P. 312. notes. 3. “….Tartars of Japhet.”–Japheth
35. P. 333. notes 16. “Gupta 1993, 163…”—1993a or 1993b?
36. P. 339. Notes 9 & 12. 500 B.C.E. for Avesta—is it 1500? (see p. 132)

37. Stewart ,Dugald—no bibliography

Bibliography:

Ambedkar, B.R., 1946.  Who Were the Sudras? Bombay: Thacker.

Ananth, Krishna V.  1998. “The Aryan and Dravidian Myths.”  The Hindu, November 11.

Anthony, David W.1995b. “Nazi and Eco-Feminist Prehistories: Ideology and Empiricism in Indo-European Archaeology.” In Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (82-96). Ed. P. Kohl and C. Fawcett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bailly, Jean-Sylvain.  1977. Letters sur l’origine des sciences et sur celle des peoples de l’Asie. Paris: Freres Debure.

Chakrabarti, D.K.–1977b. “India and West Asia: An Alternative Approach.” Man and Environment 1:25-38.

–1976. “India and the Druids.” Antiquity 197:66-67.

Chernkh, E.N.  1995. “Postscript: Russian Archaeology after the Collapse of the USSR: Infrastructural Crisis and the Resurgence of Old and New Nationalisms.” In Nationalism Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (120-138). Ed. P. Kohl and C. fawcett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Devendraswarup. 1993. “Genesis of the Aryan Race Theory and Its Application to Indian History.” In The Aryan Problem (30-39). Ed. S.B.Deo and Kamath Suryanath. Pune: Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti.

Day, John V.  1994. “The Concept of the Aryan Race in Nineteenth-Century Scholarship.” Orpheus 4:15-48

Dugald Stewart—no bibliography

Duff , Rev. Alexander. 1840. Missions: The Chief End of the Christian Church.  Edinburgh: Johnstone.

Geiger, L. 1878. Zur Enwicklungsgeschichte der Menschheit. Stuttgart: Berlag.

Golwalkar M.S. 1947. We, or Our Nation Defined. Nagpur.

Habib, Irfan. 1997. “Distortion of History.” The Hindu, August, 1, 12.

Havell, E.B.  1918. The History of Aryan Rule in India. London.

Hock, Hans Henrich. 1999b. “Through a Glass Darkly: Modern ‘Racial’ Interpretations vs. Textual and General Prehistoric Evidence on Arya and Daasa/Dasyu in Vedic Indo-Aryan Society.”  In Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia (145-174).  Harvard Oriental Series Opera Minora 3. Ed. J. Bronkhorst and M. Deshpande. Cambridge: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.

Irschick, Eugene F. 1971. “Dravidianism in South Indian Politics.” In Symposium on Dravidian Civilization (148-169). Ed. A. Sjoberg. Austin: Jenkins.

Jones ,Sir William.1790a. “On the Chronology of the Hindu.” Asiatic Researches 2:111-147.

— 1790b. “A Supplement to the Essay on Indian Chronology.” Asiatic Researches 2:391-403.

— 1792. “On the Origin and Families of Nations.” Asiatic Researches 3. Reprinted in The Collected Works of Sir William Jones (185-204). New York: New York University Press, 193.

Mallory, J.P.1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames and Hudson.

–1973. “A History of the Indo-European problem.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 1:21-66.

Maw, Martin.  1990. Visions of India. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.

Muller, F. Max 1847. “On the Relation of the Bengali to the Arian and Aboriginal Languages of India.” Report of the British Association for the advancement of Science 319-350.

–1854a. The Languages of the Seat of War in the East. London: Longmans.

–1875. The Science of Language. New York: Scribner.

–1883. India: What Can It Teach Us? London: Longmans.

–1902. The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Muller. Edited by his wife. Vol. 1. London: Longmans.

Oak P.N. 1984. World Vedic Heritage. New Delhi: Oak.

Pillai Purnalingam. 1963. Tamil India. Madras: South India Saiva Siddhanta Works.

Pollock, S. 1993. “Deep Orientalismn.” In Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament (76-133). Ed. Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Prakash, Buddha. 1966. Rgveda and the Indus Valley Civilization. Hoshiapure: Vishveshvarananda Institute.

Ramaswamy, Sumathi. 1997. Passions of the Tongue.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Savarkar, V.D. 1989. Hiutva, 6^th ed. New Delhi: Bharti Sahitya Sadan.

Silberman, Neil Asher. 1995. “Promised Lands and Chosen Peoples: The Politics and Poetics of Archaeological Narrative.” In Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (249-262). Ed. P. Kohl and C. Fawcett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sonnerat, Pierre de. 1782. Voyages aux Indes Orientales et la Chine. 2 vols. Paris.

Trautmann, Thomas R. 1997. Aryans and British India. Berkeley: University of California Press.

                                    IDEOLOGICAL AGENDAS

The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate.  Edwin Bryant; Oxford University Press (2001) 2002 Indian edition.

Review [article].

How human mind can both create a theory and manipulate it to fulfill any of its ideological agenda is well demonstrated in this book. ¹  The theory here as the sub-title of the book itself says is “The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate”.  This book is of the scholar for the scholar(s) and by a scholar and those who are not only interested but also well trained in the art of “linguistics, epigraphy, numismatics, archaeology, anthropology, philology, and a host of other ‘ologies’,” (p.52) alone can both understand and evaluate this book.  However a lay reader will also be benefited as the aim of this book is to help not only the scholars but every student interested in this subject (p.308)

            In this book, to use the authors own word, “Chapters 1 and 13 touched upon some of the forces that have influenced the scholarship involved with the incredibly resilient Aryan problem.  It is structurally and chronologically appropriate that these two chapters—the first one on the European context, and the last one on the Indian one—sandwich the intervening chapters, which deal with the interpretation of the historical “evidence”; there is an intriguing symbiosis between the two”.(p.303)

            And though the author says that,  “My goal here has been to stir up some of the assumptions that have remained dormant for well over a century and to remove jurisdiction over the Indo-Aryan problem from the exclusive control of specialists by laying out some of the basic contested issues in nontechnical terms for the benefit of the general scholar or student interested in Indian protohistory”,(p.308)yet the sandwiched chapters 3 to 12 gives lot of information, discussion and minute details about the subject of this book.  And only a scholar who has some authority on those respective fields alone can dare to write any kind of review.  So we can conveniently skip not going in detail about those chapters as they talk about Vedic Philology (ch.3), issues related to Comparative Linguistics (ch.4: The dethronement of Sanskrit), Linguistic Substrata (ch.4), Linguistic Paleontology (ch. 6) Linguistic Evidences from outside India (ch.7), The Viability of a South Asian Homeland [for Aryans] (ch.8), The Indus Valley Civilization (ch.9), Aryans in the Archaeological Records (ch.10: outside the Subcontinent, ch.11: inside the Subcontinent) and the Date of the Veda (ch.12).

            As noted earlier for our purpose as students of Indian protohistory and its present implication, we will be benefited more if we learn from chapters 1 and 13.  However before talking about the Origin and formative debates about Ariyan issues, in introduction the authors prepares us by pointing out that:

…historical data do not tell their own story: they are interpreted.  And interpretation emanates from human cognition that is structured by each individual’s cultural, religious, political, economic and social circumstances and choices.²  People have a reason to contest or reinterpret history.  The present volatile situation in India has made Western, and many Indian, scholars particularly concerned about the repercussions of communal interpretations of history.  However, although the promotion of Indigenous Aryanism is undoubtedly extremely important to notions of identity and to the politics of legitimacy among certain Hindu nationalists, such concerns are not representative of all the scholars who have supported this point of view. Unfortunately, the whole Indigenous Aryan position is often simplistically stereotyped, and conveniently demonized, both in India and in the West, as a discourse exclusively determined by such agendas. (p.6)  This bypasses other concerns also motivating such reconsideration of history: the desire of many Indian scholars to reclaim control over the reconstruction of the religious and cultural history of their country from the legacy of imperial and colonial scholarship.  In chapter 13 I discuss the manifold concerns that I perceive as motivating Indigenous Aryanists to undertake a reconsideration of this issue.  I argue that although there are doubtlessly nationalistic and, in some quarters, communal agendas lurking behind some of this scholarship, a principal feature is anticolonial/imperial.³(pp.6-7)

Thus, “This book, accordingly, is primarily an examination of the empirical, historical evidence—philological, archaeological, linguistic, and so on—and how this has been interpreted both to support the theory of Aryan migrations and to contest it.  However, since interpretations take place only in a specific context, a secondary aim is to touch upon (and no more) some aspects of the religious and political forces, in both Europe and India, that influenced and continue to influence, the prioritization of certain interpretive possibilities and the exclusion of others”.⁴(p..9)

            Chapter one is rightly titled as, “ Myths of Origin: Europe and the Aryan Homeland Quest”.  And in the whole chapter the author traces out all the historical development of this “Myths of Origin”.  The main issue that motivated to trace out the Aryan Homeland Quest is to prove the authenticity of Old Testament, “Features such as the monogenic descent from Adam, the evolution of all human language from the monolingual descendants of Noah, and the brief period that seemed to be allotted to the dispersion of the human race after the Flood became the subjects of intense debates”.(p.14)

            The intensity of such debate could be understood from the fact that, “For well over a millennium, much of Europe had accepted the Old Testament as an infallible testament documenting the history of the human race.”(p.14)  However as, “‘some intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt the authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses” scholars like Sir William Jones “undertook the responsibility of unraveling Indian chronology” so that in his estimation, too, “either the first eleven chapters of Genesis … are true, or the whole fabrick {fabric}of our national religion is false, a conclusion which none of us, I trust, would wish to be drawn” (Jones 1788, 225)”. ⁵(p.15)

             As Trautmann notes that, “for the most part up until the early part of the nineteenth century, British Indomania was excited about the discovery of Hinduism for several reasons: it provided independent confirmation of the Bible; its religion contained the primitive truth of natural religion still in practice, a unitary truth from which the forms of paganism of Rome and Greece were perverted offshoots; and its arts and cultures were connected to Egypt’s (1997, 64)”.  And Jone’s chronological researches did manage to calm the waters somewhat and “effectively guaranteed that the new admiration for Hinduism would reinforce Christianity and would not work for its overthrow” (Trautmann, 1997, 74).(P.15)

            Till the early part of twentieth century the Biblical account of common source of human origin,⁶ language, history was “thoroughly imprinted in European consciousness”.(p.16)  And “The influence of the Bible, initially overtly and subsequently in a more inadvertent or subconscious fashion, pervaded the entire field of Indo-European studies in its formative stages throughout the nineteenth century”.⁷(p.17)  However the discovery of Sanskrit gave birth to alternative and radical view to the biblical origin and , “India, in particular, was a popular candidate, especially among segments of the intelligentsia in the late eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, and especially (but not exclusively) on the Continent.  As it had done in classical times, India again captured the imagination of Romantic Europe”. ⁸(p..18)

            “Although it was suspected, in some circles, that the enthusiastic acceptance of India as the cradle of the human race was a reaction against biblical chronological hegemony, the position did not initially appear to be without foundation …{and} early linguists tended to treat Vedic Sanskrit as identical or almost identical to the original Indo-European⁹ mother tongue due to the antiquity of its textual sources”.(p.19)

            But after the establishment of British Raj firmly in India, “it was the time to begin to visualize the history and cultural process of India as a series of invasions and foreign rules”. ¹⁰ However, “many scholars were uncomfortable about moving the Indo-Europeans too far from their biblical origins somewhere in the Near East.  There were those among the British, in particular, whose colonial sensibilities made them reluctant to acknowledge any potential cultural indebtedness to the forefathers of the ricshaw pullers of Calcutta”(p.22) and this attitude is well reflected in the attitude of Christian Missionaries and leaders of that time:

            [Charles] Grant was by no means the first or sole Christian leader to engage in extreme diatribes against Hinduism—these continued throughout the colonial period.  In 1840, the Reverend Alexander Duff briefly referred to the Aryan commonality by stating that the Hindus “can point to little that indicates their high original.”  But for the most part he also simply ranted that they “have no will, no liberty, no conscience of their own.  They are passive instruments, moulded into shape by external influences—mere machines, blindly stimulated, at the bidding of another, to pursuits the most unworthy of immortal creatures.  In them, reason is in fact laid prostrate.  They launch into all the depravities of idol worship.  They look like the sports and derision of the Prince of darkness” (107).(p. 23)  {This point can go as foot notes—DB}

            As noted above the discovery of Sanskrit in some circle created an, “extreme Indophobic discomfort with the connection of Sanskrit with Greek and Latin was exemplified by the conviction of the Scottish philosopher Dugald Stewart, who, without knowing a word of the language, proposed that Sanskrit was not a cognate of Greek, it was Greek. It had been borrowed by the wily Brahmans during Alexander’s conquest and adopted to keep their conversations inaccessible to the masses (124). Max Muller (1875), commenting on Stewart’s attempt, again reveals the mood of the time, “This … shows, better than anything else, how violent a shock was given by the discovery of Sanskrit to prejudices most deeply engrained in the mind of every educated man….{and}if they could only furnish a loophole by which to escape the unpleasant conclusion that Greek and Latin were of the same kith and kin as the language of the black inhabitants of India. (164) ¹¹(p.24)

            Thus prompted by the denigration of Indian civilization and “the shunning of embarrassing cultural and linguistic ties…. British, despite having primary access to Sanskrit source material, did not pursue the study of comparative philology.  This was to become a predominantly German domain.(p.24)

And further:

The racial theorists paved the way for the postulate that the Aryans were an autonomous white¹² race who brought civilization and the Sanskrit language to the different races of India—a development Trautmann holds as pivotal to the political construction of Aryan identity developing in Germany.  The biblical model of the identity of language and race still held good for the original white Aryans, but not for the Hindus.  These invading Aryans taught the racially and linguistically distinct natives the Indo-European language and the arts of civilization.  But in so ding, they, in time, lost their superior status and became racially subsumed by the native population.

            There were those in the colonial power who were much more comfortable with these new developments … The British could now present themselves as a second wave of Aryans, again bringing a superior language and civilization to the racial descendants of the same natives their forefathers had attempted to elevate so many centuries earlier¹³….Bolstered with the new racial theories, such scholars could now exonerate themselves for, and indeed insist on the need for remaining aloof and superior to their subjects.(p.26)

This reunion, of course, was hardly on equal terms; as Maw (1900, 36) notes, such scholars “refused to follow the notion to is logical conclusion: that consanguinity entitled contemporary India to a moral parity with Great Britain, and ultimately, to national independence”. (p.26)  And clearly, “the Aryan connection could turn out to be a politically shrewd card to play because ‘in thus honouring our Aryan forerunners in India we shall both honour ourselves and make the most direct and effective appeal to Indian loyalty’” (Havell 1918, ix).(p.27)

            However, The Aryan connection proved useful on a variety of occasions and in a variety of sometimes conflicting ways,

Devendraswarup a historian of the colonial period (1993, 36) argues that after the British were shaken by the Great Revolt of 1857, certain individuals suddenly found reason to stress their common Aryan bond with the Brahmanas where others had previously shunned it….  Chakrabarti (1997, 127) notes that the same Risley quoted previously who had voiced such relief that the new science of racial anthropology exempted the need for Europeans to affiliate themselves with the Hindu side of the family, did not hesitate in his 1881 Bengal survey on the races, religions and languages of India, to allot common Aryan descent liberally to the Indian groups predominant in the British army such as the Rajputs, Jats, and Brahmins.  The Aryan connection was simply manipulated at will.(p.27)

“Such Aryan commonalty was not only adapted to suit colonial exigencies.  Maw (1990) has thoroughly outlined how certain Christian evangelists also found advantages in discourses of Aryan kinship….Along these same lines, a general history of the subcontinent, written by W.C. Pearce in 1876, compared the ancient pre-Christian Aryan invasion of the subcontinent to the modern Christian Aryan one….”(p.27)

Like wise the missionaries, as “they were having little or no success in converting the Brahmans and upper classes”, used the discourse of Aryanism for their purpose of converting aboriginals and lower castes by creating a sense of alienation from Brahmanical religion “thereby preparing them for exposure and conversion to Christianity.… The Aryan invasion theory proved to be adaptable to a curious mis{h}mash of contradictory (but not necessarily competing) interests”.(p.28)

            However, “There was no shortage of voices who rejected an Aryanism that bonded British rulers with their ungrateful subjects (Day 1994, 19)”…. {and} It seems tempting to suggest that the concern of many British colonialists during this period was not so much where the Aryans had come from (there was, after all, no question that England could have been the homeland), provided they had not come from India, and provided the British did not need to acknowledge any embarrassing kinship with their Indian subjects”.(p.28)  At the same time we have to note that , “not all British intellectuals can be generically categorized as arrogant elitists”.(p.29)

            And after England become a principal center of Sanskrit study, as the new comparative philology and Indological studies created embarrassing situation for their political advantage, some in British were, “relieved to hand the Germans the philological baton of a white Sanskrit-speaking race that had come into India from somewhere else—anywhere else.  And there were those among the Germans who were happy to take it and run”.(p. 29)

            As “Much of Europe, from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, was intensely preoccupied with racial origins”, they could point something to brag either like ancient Greek and Latin heritage by the southern Europeans or colonial and technological advances like the British.   And, “It was German national pride that was most in need of some dramatic infusion from the past. …if the Germans could somehow appropriate the mantle of the original Indo-Europeans (which they soon began to call Indo-Germans), they could then lay claim to being the progenitors of all subsequent derivative cultures, by they Greek, Latin, or colonial”.(p.30)   And using zoology and ethnology to physical anthropology, “The Germans won by default”. ¹⁴(p.32)

            Though Max Muler raised his voice against such claims yet, “after all, it was he who had been a principal cause in such misconceptions through his earlier remarks on the common blood that the ‘English soldier’ shared with the ‘dark Bengali (1854a, 29-30).  Needless to say, his retraction went largely unnoticed, and the history books recorded the earlier Max Muller who, for a quarter of a century, had contributed to the idea of a common racial Aryan ancestry based on a common Aryan tongue.”(p.33)  It is worth to quote what Bryant has to say later in his conclusion:

A scholar with international status makes a tentative speculation, which is challenged and rejected by his intellectual peers (and, in this case, even retracted by the original scholar), but, because of the intellectual prestige of the individual, this opinion is taken as authoritative and promoted as an established fact outside of academic circles.  In a very short time, the tentativeness of the initial speculation is completely forgotten, and further theories and assumptions are grafted onto the “established fact,” producing a whole new generation of “established facts,” with reproductive capacities of their own….When theories become sufficiently long-lived and commonplace, they cease to strike one as theoretical and can often become the facts and building blocks of subsequent realities.(p.308)

Thus the discovery of Sanskrit and the birth of comparative philology paved the way for Two {18^th – 20^th}Centuries of Homeland Theories (pp.35-57).  And:

The original Aryans have been reconstructed as being nomadic pastoralists, sedentary agriculturists, dolichocephalic, brachycephalic, blond and fair, and brown-haired and dark.  The Indo-European homeland has been located and relocated everywhere from the North Pole to the South Pole, to China.  It has been placed in South India, central India, North India, Tibet, Bactria, Iran, the Aral Seal, the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, Lithuania, the Caucasus, the Urals, the Volga Mountains, south Russia, the steppes of central Asia, Asia Minor, Anatolia, Scandinavia, Finland, Sweden, the Baltic, western Europe, northern Europe, central Europe, and eastern Europe.(p.37)

            However, “Not everyone has been lured by the quest for the Indo-Europeans; there has been a long history in the West of scholars repeatedly voicing criticisms over the years” as “It is a problem of interpretative logic and ideology.”  And, “Even Mallory (1989), who has been the most prolific scholar in quest of the Indo-Europeans, is moved to quip: ‘One does not ask “where is the Indo-European homeland?” but rather “where do they put it now?”’ (143).  He concludes his summary of the various Indo-European homeland theories by noting that ‘the cynical have been tempted to describe it as the phlogiston of prehistoric research (1973, 60)”.(P.37)

            Even today, “Scholars hardly agree on even the most basic details of the Indo-European-any more in the present than they did in the past”, because of lack of proper agreement between archaeology and linguistics.  Thus, “Any attempt to isolate or highlight one aspect of the data as paramount is inevitably countered by contradictory conclusions produced by other factors.  A convincing picture has yet to emerge from the totality of evidence despite significant advances in the relevant disciplines”.(p.43)

Added to this, “Until very recently, Western scholars have paid little or no attention to, or are completely unaware of, the reaction of scholars outside Western intellectual circles to the Indo-European debate.  Western scholars, whose primary emphasis and concern, at least historically, have been the origins of Western civilization, have renegotiated and reconfigured the pre and protohistory of other nations such as India as by-products of their investigations”. ¹⁵(p.44)  And in particular opinion from India, “especially if in disagreement with the more forceful voices in the West, are poorly understood or cursorily dismissed.  This has deprived Western scholars of alternative views that might force them to question their own inherited assumptions—assumptions that have not always been shared by those outside mainstream Western academic spheres of influence who have filtered the Indo-European problem through different historical, religio-cultural, social, and political mind-sets.  It has likewise deprived these Indian scholars of valuable feedback from their Western peers.”(p.44) Thus:

“Instead of letting us know definitely and precisely where the so-called original home of the Aryans lay, they {European scholars} drag us into a maze of conjectures clouded by the haze of presumptions.  The whole subject of the Aryan problem is a farrago of linguistic speculations or archaeological imaginations complicated by racial prejudices and chauvinistic xenophobia.  It is high time we extricate ourselves from this chaos of bias and belief.”( Prakash, 1966, xliv.)(p.45) 

And this view is supported by the author also, “Indo-European studies should, if anything, be an Indian forte, not exclusively a European one; many Indian scholars have a distinct head start due to their advanced knowledge of Sanskrit, which still plays a fundamental and extensive role in this field.  In particular, it is simply unacceptable that research into substratum influence in Sanskrit texts has primarily been the preserve of a dozen or so Western scholars, however qualified”.(p.306)

And Bryant also warns about the serious consequence because of lack of communication between among Western and Indian scholars:

Unless attitudes to this issue change from all sides, I foresee two widening divides as the Indigenous Aryan position becomes more vociferous: one between individuals in Western academic circles, Indo-Europeanists as well as Indologists, and the more vocal scholars in the Indigenous camp, and the other between “leftists” and “rightists” in the subcontinent itself.  Unfortunately, the views of the many scholars who are less politically or ideologically motivated in their interest in ancient history will likely be branded one way or the other depending on the views they are open to considering.  More unfortunate still, if this happens, is that the entire field will suffer due to loss of communication between differing opinions and points of view—the lifeblood of a progressive field of study.(p.307)

            The early Indian Responses (Chapter 2), however was based on the construction of a golden past, which is “hardly unique to India”.  At the same time, “Just as the Aryan connection was configured to support a wide variety of domestic and colonial agendas by Europeans, it surfaced in a variety of ways among Indians in their internal negotiations with each other, in addition to their dealings with the external imperial power.  The Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy was put to political use both by Brahman elitists in the North and by Tamilian separatist voices in the South who were quick to capitalize on the idea of Aryan invasions,”(p.49):

Although not all Hindu nationalists participated in the denigration of Dravidian culture, most did share a strong conviction that India could be saved by returning to the purity of a reconstituted Sanskritic Aryanism. … According to spokesmen from southern castes like the Chetti and Vellala, who were particularly dismayed by the prospect of Brahmanical culture highjacking the emerging nation, “it was not the Dravidians who corrupted a pristine Hinduism…. On the contrary, it was Brahmanism and Aryanism that had debased the original Tamil religion and diverted it from its hallowed path of monotheism, rationalism, and egalitarianism into the ‘gutters’ of polytheism, irrational rituals, and unjust social hierarchies” (Ramaswamy 1997, 29-30).  For them the Dravidian religion far predated that of the Aryans, not just in the South, but all over the subcontinent.  Siva was a pre-Aryan Tamilian deity whom the later Aryan intruders had pressed into service in their own pantheon.(pp.49-50)

            Thus the Aryan debate soon snowballed in to various level of controversy and everyone wanted their own pound of flesh to propagate and promote their own respective ideology.  For example, “Ambedkar, in his book Who Were the Sudras? (1946) offers a critique of the philological basis of the Aryan invasion theory, …  He adamantly rejected this theory, which he saw as partly responsible for propagating the erroneous idea that the Sudras were a non-Aryan, indigenous ethnic group.  Nonetheless, he does resonate with Periyar Ramaswami on one issue”: (p.50)

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 descendants of the non-Aryans.  The theory helps him establish his kinship with the European races and share their arrogance and their superiority…. It helps him maintain and justify his overlordship over the non-Brahmins. (Ambedkar,76)—(p.51)

            Similarly, “Other spokesmen for the most disadvantaged castes had different ideas about how to redress injustices.  In their estimation, better gains might be had by accepting the Aryan invasion theory, with all its implications, rather than rejecting it…. As far as some in the South were concerned, it was a ‘misrepresentation to say that the Brahmins belong to the same Indian nation as the non-Brahmins while the English are aliens…. Indian Brahmins are more alien to us than Englishmen’ (Raghavan, quoted in Irschick, 1971, 158).  In short, although the excesses of Aryan ideology in Europe would be hard to surpass, the Indians themselves were not averse to attempting to extract political mileage from the Aryan theme to support their own agendas”.(p.51)

            Though the early opposition against the Aryan invasion theory, “were inaugurated by prominent religious figures, whose discourses were in direct political and religious response to the hegemony of British intellectual power, which was portrayed as untrustworthy in the face of Vedic sabda pramaana ‘scriptural evidence’” ¹⁶(p.55) yet, “Politically, in terms of its European connections, Aryanism was welcomed by some as evidence of equality between the colonizers and the colonized-and could even be invoked to elicit assistance from the English Aryan brethren.  In other discourses, it was heralded as proof of the spiritual superiority of the Hindu Aryans in comparison to the materialistic Western Aryans.  In terms of its ramifications in the Indian political scene, it was deferred to as proof of Brahmanical Aryan superiority over the rest of the subcontinent or, contrarily, as proof of Brahmanical Aryan exploitation of the same”.(p.56)

            Now this early Indian response led to the development of various ideologies, each carving their own to fulfill their particular agenda.  To have a clear picture about this now we have to jump from Chapter 1 and 2 to 13 leaving rest of the chapters for scholarly study and research as the purpose of this (selective) review is to learn from this “The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate.”  Thus:

…theme of Aryan origins has been utilized to support a variety of agendas on the Indian subcontinent in the modern period.  Here, among the linguistic descendants of the Indian branch of the Indo-European language family, the Aryan invasion debate is intensely relevant to the constructions of several very different sets of competing identities: association of colonizer and colonized, neo-colonial and Hindu fundamentalist, Vedic Hindu and biblical Christian, Hindu and Muslim, indigene and foreigner, Aryan and Dravidian, and Hindu communal and Marxist secularist are all permeated in one way or another with a variety of notions connected with Aryan origins.(p.267)

            However before proceeding further Bryant again remind us that “Since there is a tendency to stereotype any local reconsiderations of ancient Indian history whatsoever as nationalist or communal, the purpose of this chapter is to suggest that a wide variety of motives inspire Indian scholars to revisit the topic of Indo-Aryan origins: it is erroneous to lump them all into a simplistic, hastily identified and easily demonized Hindutva category”.(P.267)

            In the first section of this chapter (13) “Nationalism and Historiography: General Comments,” the author draws our attention to the fact that, “Archaeology, and historical reconstruction in general, has always been deeply involved in nationalist enterpreises”.¹⁷ (p.268)

            Though, “voices challenging the theory of Aryan invasions were, and are, often co-opted and even, in certain cases, initiated and sponsored by nationalist and communal elements, but a wide range of motives have inspired Indian scholars to challenge the idea of Aryan invasions or migrations…. Let us not forget that it was Europeans who originally ‘revised’ India’s Brahmanical notions of history and then imposed their version of events on their subjects…. My reading of the Indigenous Aryan school is that its concerns are also to a great extent anti-imperial and anticolonial: it is determined to review the revision”.(p.270)

            In the next section, “The Aryans in Hindutva Ideology”, Bryant traces the development of Hindutva initiated by Savarkar and carried by  M.S.Golwalkar.  Though Savarkar’s concern (in his book “Hindutva”) was not to create a nation state but to define a Hindu, yet those who envisioned a “nation-state based on notions of a Hindu identity of the majority have taken his writing very seriously”. ¹⁸(p.270) Initially Savarkar considered geographical identity for this concept, yet soon he dismissed it as a Muslim can then be considered as a Hindu (p.271).  Similarly dismissing common civilization he went a step ahead even to dismiss, “other possible defining factors of Hindutva such as the allegiance to Hinduism, Vedic Dharma, or Sanatana Dharma.  The adoption of these rubrics would exclude and alienate heterodox and minority groups such as the Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs who are valuable allies in the agenda of this type of Hinduism”.¹⁹ (p.271)  Finally, according to Savarkar the, crux of Hindutva is that , “To be considered a real Hindu, a person’s religious faith must have an indigenous origin”.{Bryant’s italics}(p.271)  This cleared the way for him to proclaim that though Muslims and Christians communities, “possess all the essential qualifications but one and that is that they do not look upon India as their Holyland (Hindutva, p.113).(p.272)  However, “It is puzzling that Savarkar, who must have been aware that some of his contemporaries and predecessors had challenged the Aryan invasion theory, did not aggressively oppose it.  Taken to its logical conclusion, his acceptance of the Aryan invasion theory seems incompatible with his started objectives in formulating the concept of Hindutva,(p.272) because,

the forefathers of the Vedic Aryans are indubitable foreigners and their followers essentially no different from those revering other “foreigners” such as Muhammad or Christ.  Not only that, but Savarkar envisions the Aryans as Sindhis who, upon arriving in India, disseminated their blood throughout the land by intermarriage with the real natives of the land, thereby creating a common blood link.  Adopting this logic (which involves the old model equating language and race), if the Aryans came from somewhere near the Caspian Sea area, adjacent to Persia, they would actually share close blood links (and Indo-European linguistic and protohistoric religious ties) with the proto-Iranians who remained nearer the ancestral home and therefore diluted their blood less.  This would therefore make the Vedic Aryans much closer relatives in language, protoreligion, and blood with the Muslims who came to India from these areas (as descendants of the proto-Iranians) than with the original non-Aryans of India whose blood needed to be transfused by mixed marriages.(p.272)

However, M.S. Golwalkar has elucidated what Savarkar has overlooked:

The Aryan invasion theory would make the arrival of the Vedic people analogous with that of the Mughals and other invaders and undermine any indigenous formulations for Hindutva.  In short, this brand of Hindu nationalism, which seems determined to alienate the Muslim community on the grounds of its lack of autochthonous religious pedigree, is obliged to refute the Aryan invasion theory or risk logical absurdity.  Golwalkar, accordingly, rejects the theory but attempts to reconcile this position with Tilak’s North Pole homeland.  Unwilling to contradict the prestigious Tilak, who had accepted an external origin of the Aryans in the Arctic Circle, Golwalkar (1947, 13) states that modern scientific research has shown the North Pole not to be stationary, and that “quite long ago it was in that part of the world … [which] is called Bihar and Orissa at the present”.(p. 273)

These kinds of far fetched interpretation of facts, figures, history and texts are always there to twist and turn them to suit each one’s own ideology.  The following two will highlight this kind of thamasas, which unfortunately continue even today:

            There are southern Tamil-centric myths of origin that are just as creative as some of the Aryan-centered ones from the North.  Thus, Purnalingam Pillai (1963) describes the original land of Tamilaham, which included the lost continent of Le Muria, the “cradle of civilization.”” This was submerged after a deluge, rending asunder Australia, China, and Africa (all supposedly proven by geological science).  The survivors fled in crafts or on foot to North India, Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and other regions.  Accordingly, “in its widest sense, Tamilaham at present lies all the world over, wherever the enterprising Tamils have found their home” (5).  Pillai finds evidence of this everywhere.  According to him, there are lingas in Saint Paul’s Cathedral; indeed, due to the “many semblences and traces of Saivism … in every nook and corner of England, it is impossible to think of England as anything else except a Saivite country.”  As for the Tamils, they “were the sons of Tamilaham itself.  They were indigenous” (18-19).  In fact, “history finds the Tamils in their present abode long before the Romans conquered Egypt or Christ was born in Bethlehem, before Porus met the Greek or Darius lost his crown; before Plato wrote his Dialogues and Solomon made his songs” (33). (notes 5, p. 343)

…Self-styled historian and ardent Hindu P.N. Oak,²⁰ for example, has his own unique way of resolving the Hindutva problem as it relates to the Muslims.  According to Oak (1984):

Allah is a Hindu God and the Kaba a Hindu temple.  Evidence is also available indicating that prophet Mohammed Himself was born a Hindu and that when He chose to break away from the family’s Hindu tradition and heritage and declare himself a prophet, the joint Hindu family broke up in an internecine feud and Hazrat Mohammad’s own uncle had to lay down his life fighting to save Hinduism…. That means that like Buddha, Mahavira, Jaina and the ten Sikh Gurus, Hazrat Mohommad was yet another prophet which Hinduism gave to the world.  Like the other reformers, Mohammad reiterated some of the basic values of Hinduism. (310-313)

….there are many serious and sober scholars who sincerely feel that the Aryan migration theory is not supported by the available data.  Their input on this issue should not be stereotyped or cursorily dismissed by associating it with positions, often encountered in India, such as that of Oak.(p.273)

As a digression I want to draw the attention of the reader of this review that such Oaks cab become jokers to fulfill their ideology, but anyone claiming to be the followers of the Truth, by becoming Oaks, not only become jokers but also make that Truth as the laughing stock before any sensible and serious student of history and scripture(s).  Particularly some fulfilmentalists among evangelical Christians even went ahead of Purnalingam Pillai and Oak by making Adam a Tamilian, Krishna might be a Tamilian (because Krishna means block and as Dravidians are block, Krishna might be a Davidian viz. Tamilian) and therefore Gita came from Tamilnadu  (of course this Krishna is different from the Krishna of Mahabharata).  The Brahmins in India are the descendant of Jews (therefore the logical conclusion is that Jesus too was a Brahmin or proto-Brahmin?), Christianity came to India with St. Thomas and only from here then it spread to all over Europe, The Saivasiddhanta of Tamilaham and other bhakti movements originated from Tamilnadu only from this Christianity (want any proof, see the Syrian Orthodox and St. Thomas Malabar Christians, who still worship like Tamilians!).  Even Tiruvalluvar was either a Christian or wrote Tirukkural because of Christian influence (as he was assumed as living in Mylapore in present Chennai where St. Thomas came and converted several Brahmins!), Temple in Tamilnadu are exactly constructed as mentioned in the Old Testament.  I don’t want to multiple the lists as it would irritate all of us in every way. 

            So returning back to Aryanism, finally making several alteration the Hindutva ideology finally made their own declaration not only about who a Hindu is but who and what should happen to a non-Hindu living in India:

“The non-Hindu people in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture … or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, … not even citizen’s rights” ({Golwalkar}55-56)—(p.275)

            Anyhow though we can claim to know what is the present ideology of Hindutva in India, there are several under currents on the both camp who support and oppose such ideology.  But we all know very well that those who try to fix everything to accommodate to promote and uphold their own ideology are only going to “USE” every opportunity, not only twisting and torturing history, facts and scriptures but even their own “IDEOLOGY” to accommodate it very well according to any changing scenario (best example is Ayodhya debate every time in Parliament).  But in such endeavor not only the TRTUTH but also those sincere scholars (as well as seeking students) also become easy victims.  And in the next section on “Stereotypes and Counterstereotypes”, Bryant high lights the path in which they have to tread.

            This section highlights how this Aryan Migration Debate has almost divided the camp in (more visible) two camps of Indigenists vs. Invasionsist.  If we begin to comment on each point it not only disturb the scholarly analysis of the author but will become my own (unscholarly and a mere student’s) interpretation of facts.  So I simply give some quotes as it is:

Thus Hock states:

Scholars now are running into the problem that the issue has become politically surcharged. … The problem … [is] the quest of present-day nationalist groups to establish their “authenticity” as the original inhabitants of India. … [G]iven the unfortunate consequences in my native country, Germany, of a nationalism that sought authenticity in non-scholarly interpretations of history and pre-history, I am extremely uncomfortable with … modern Indian nationalism. (1999b, 148).(p.275)

Irfan Habib (1997) echoes similar concerns in a newspaper interview:

I would like to cite the example of the Nazis, of how a particular perception of history held by a respectable section of the German intelligentsia. … This perception was not racist at least outwardly and certainly was not anti-Jewish.  But how easily was this perception utilised by the Nazis? … So, here you have an example of how a historical theory is created by someone who had no idea of what use it can be put to. ..,. Before 1947 the idea that the Aryans went out of India was hardly espoused by any serious historian. … But now, while some people deny that they espouse the Nazi race theory, they have in fact espoused it. (12)—(p.275)

And again: “The striking parallels between the Nazi campaign and the majoritarian project in India are not restricted to the revanchist campaigns being carried out by the RSS.  The more important commonality of the two can be seen in the construction of the myth about the Aryans being a superior race” (Ananth 1998).(p.275)

…One must be cautious about contributing to a sort of Indological McCarthyism whereby anyone reconsidering or challenging long-held assumptions pertaining to the Indo-Aryans is instantly dubbed a fundamentalist or nationalist or, more drastically, is accused of contributing to Nazi agendas!²¹(p.276)

…whitewashing all Indigenous Aryanists as right-wing Hindu fundamentalists is not just erroneous, but unscholarly, dogmatic, and offensive.(p.277)

…Although I, too, arrived in India with my preconceived set of expectations about right-wing Hindu “revisionism,” it soon became clear to me that themes resonating with Hindutva, that is, the prioritizing of Hindu culture as the indigenous, and therefore legitimate, heir to hegemonic power in India (with its anti-Muslim subtext), while blatantly and disatastefully present in a number of publications, does not pervade the views of all the members of the Indigenous Aryan school. ²²(p.277)

            An inevitable corollary of stereotyping is that it results in counterstereotypification.  In India, some Indigenous Aryanists, being branded communal, then label their detractors either “colonial stooges” or “secular Marxists” who are motivated by their own particular political agendas….(pp.277-78) 

…academic finds are selectively appropriated and propagated on a popular level.(p.279)

…Secular Marxists are accused of maintaining a defunct theory in order to insist that the arrival of the Aryans is analogous to the arrival of the Muslims, Christians, and numerous other groups of newcomers to the subcontinent.  In such an amalgamation of immigrants, no one has more claim to indigenous pedigree or cultural hegemony than anyone else.  A secular state, from this perspective, is the only political system that can protect the equal rights of all citizens to define themselves as being Indian with cultural credentials that are as good as anybody else’s.

            Thus, anti-Aryan invasionsist scholarship, in its turn, is stereotyped as being subservient to secular, Marxist ideology.  The most maligned figureheads are precisely those who have most publicly opposed the Indigenous Aryan position….(p.280)

            Both sides of the debate sometimes refuse to even acknowledge that there is a legitimate controversy….(p.281)

            The preceding series of exchanges captures the essence of some of the primary concerns underpinning this debate.  Clearly, the academic value of many statements—on all sides—has been singed by the emotional temperature such issues ignite.  They reveal how an entire fascinating field of study has become inextricably linked with ideology and the politics of representation to the point where it is almost impossible to have a calm, objective and detached conversation on the matter in India. ²³

            That the emotional involvement in the process of historical reconstruction among professional scholars can reach astonishingly unprofessional levels is easily illustrated.  The entire proceedings at the plenary session of the prestigious 1994 World Archaeological Congress in Delhi came to a complete (and ridiculous) standstill for more than thirty minutes as “leftist” and “rightist” historians actually clambered onto the dais, physically wrestled each other in attempts to snatch up the microphone, and hurled abuse into the air in front of over two hundred flabbergasted foreign delegates {Indian Express, December 12, 1994, 1}.  This breakdown in order was ostensibly triggered by a resolution condemning destruction of historical structures, but the Aryan invasion problem was also part of the agenda at the conference.(p. 282)

            In addition to being stereotyped in an overly hasty fashion, the reconsideration of the Aryan invasion theory is often associated with the rewriting of other periods in Indian history and lumped under one generic label categorized under the convenient rubric of “revisionism.”  Indigenous Aryanism, the construction of a golden age of Chandragupta, biased accounts of the Mogul period, and material relating to the Ram temple in Ayodhya and the “evil Babur” are all juxtaposed as if emanating from a generic, undifferentiated, communal mentality.  There are undoubtedly grounds for this in certain genres of literature, but such juxtapositions cannot be applied indiscriminately….(p.282)

…By simply referring to extreme or not fully representative points of view, the more plausible points of contention in this debate are bypassed and frustrations get further aggravated.(p.283)

Clearly, tales of Hindus being the initiators of world culture and civilization can be seen as cathargic for psches still recovering from the wounds of the colonial period….(p.283)

…As anyone following the Indo-Aryan migration debates on the Indology nets and other conferences in the west can attest, the discussions almost invariably become exasperating and all too often degenerate into emotional name-calling as accusations of “neocolonial chauvinism” from one side and assertions of “Hindu nationalistic dogma” from the other inevitably start to be bandied about while the scholarly value of the  discussions rapidly evaporates.  As a consequence, the topic has long been banned by the moderator of the principal Indology List on the internet. ²⁴(p. 286)

            These voices are useful since they afford an opportunity of comprehending why so  many Indians are suspicious of the Aryan Invasion theory.  It is precisely in these types of publications, with their more spontaneous (and often polemical) tone, that motives and sentiments can be more easily perceived.  Moreover, this type of literature is more available to members of the urban literate middle-class than the less accessible, and often far more costly, publications of professional scholars.  Therefore, it is very relevant in terms of informing and influencing popular understandings of Indian history and as such of interest to the historiographer.(p.287)

…By targeting the Aryans as invaders and oppressors, the missionaries are portrayed as discouraging the tribes and lower-ranking castes from identifying with Brahman-dominated Hinduism, gaining their sympathy, and offering them a new set of loyalties in the form of Christianity.  Such views, as noted in chapter 1, can certainly be substantiated.(p.289) 

            In addition to motives articulated in terms of Hindutva, anti-imperialism, missionary bias, and/or potential Dravidian separatism, there is another tension underlying much of the reaction of the Indigenous Aryan school to the invasion/migration theory….The tension is an epistemological one.  As a cross-cultural phenomenon, it can be situated in the universal encounter between tradition and modernity—between scriptural authority and critical scholarship….(pp.289-90)

…as I have repeatedly stressed, there are many different voices in the Indigenous Aryan school.  Some, although accepting the textual tradition as an important source of information, are hard-core empiricists who consider even linguistics to be a pseudoscience. When all is said and done, the various scholars in the Indigenous Aryan school, while sharing a common opinion that Indian history has been erroneously constructed, seem to reveal very different concerns in their scholarship. Ultimately, the motives underlying this issue are genuinely complex, and it becomes very difficult to categorize people into easily definable molds.(p.291)

…The treatment of the issue in English-language sources seems to fall into several categories,… The first consists of scholars who outline the various homeland theories and the various objections raised against India being the homeland and orient themselves around the Indigenous Aryan position….—pp.292-93

            The second category consists of scholars who outline the arguments in favor of the external origin of the Aryans, as well as the arguments that oppose it, but leave the issue unresolved—in other words, the Indigenous Aryan position is treated on equal terms with the standard version of events….—p.293

            A third category of writers gives the Indigenous Aryan school equal and respectful time but passes a verdict against them…. A fourth category of historians simply represent the standard version of Aryan invasions without referring to the debate or the Indigenous Aryan school…. A final category—more ideologically sensitive and, as has been exemplified earlier, usually stereotyped as the Marxist camp—actively opposes the Indigenous Aryan school.—pp.293-94

CONCLUSION

The overall summarizing of both Migrationist scenario and Indigenist scenario in the Conclusion (pp.298-302) will help us again to understand all the complicated discussion based on archaeology and philology and other discipline in the entire book.  (It is tempting quote²⁵ some of them as I have “conveniently” omitted all the points from chapter 3 to 12—to present my “ideology”) in this review.   

            The Conclusion in this book is remarkable summary particularly for those who wants to understand as well as learn about the recent debate in India about re-writing Indian History. ²⁶  As it becomes a sensitive issue, each camp keeping its own agenda and ideology, sometimes we have to listen some objective, impartial and outside view even to understand our own personal agendas in such endeavor.  And this conclusion helps us in this direction. 

The first thing Bryant brings to our attention in this endeavor of historic study is that:

In my view, any attempt to present a comprehensive account of the prehistoric period in South Asia—if it is to be an objective account—should give a fair and adequate representation of the differences of opinion on this matter, as well as of the criticisms that can be levied against any point of view.  And attention must always be paid to the context of interpretation—from all sides, as well as the actual range of interpretations.(p.303)

The next is the peril in such endeavor putting one’s own agenda first and then search for facts to fulfill it:

Both Europeans and Hindus have allowed elements from within their intelligentsia to utilize academic debate in support to ideological agendas,²⁷ specifically in the discourse of Aryan/Semitic in its respective manifestations of German/Jew and Hindu/Muslim.  The Aryan race ideologues, while by no means a thing of the past in the streets and politics of Europe and America, are not as immediate an issue of national or international concern in those countries as they are on the subcontinent.  India’s situation is much more immediately volatile.  With the fruits of Europe’s own Aryan ideology still a vivid memory, many concerned scholars and friends of India are very wary of the potential of the Aryan discourses in the Indian subcontinent.(p.304)

Giving the main reason for the European scholar’s concerns the author says:

This point cannot be over stressed.  It is the Hindutva element in the Indigenous Aryan group that has inhibited many Western scholars, at least, from analyzing and engaging with these alternative points of views or has caused them to be a priori hostile to them.  However, the interpretation of evidence being presented by the Indigenous Aryan group cannot be opposed because of the Hindutva element: that would equally be allowing ideological beliefs to manipulate historical interpretation.  Critical scholarship is mandated to attempt to detach debate on this topic from political orientations concerning personal visions for a modern Indian nation-state.(p.304)

However objective and impartial may be the European scholars, yet Bryant also endorses the concern of the Indian scholars view:

After all, it was Europeans who introduced archaeology, linguistics, philology, etc. into the subcontinent and presented their Indian subjects with a new, and in places unfamiliar, version of ancient events authorized by these seemingly formidable disciplines.  Many members of the Indigenous Aryan school are quite understandably uncomfortable about inheriting an account of their ancient history that was assembled for them by their erstwhile colonial masters. (p.304)

This point might be emphasized more poignantly if a clumsy analogy is considered.  How would most Americans react if the reconstructed history of their country had continually been (and to a great extent were still being) written by their onetime governing authorities, the British (or even the Russians, Japanese, Iraqis, or any foreign group of scholars)?  How would the British feel if the major contours of British history were determined by the French?  How would they then feel if, upon objecting to what they considered to be inaccurate reconstructions, they were dismissed as patriots, ideologues, or even Nazis?  This is not to say that only “Indian” scholars have a right to interpret the history of the subcontinent as some would have it.  Surely, if it is objective and not partisan knowledge that we are after, any point of view that can be made with reason and argument will be welcome if it can throw light on the history of any country, irrespective of the ethnic origin of the contributor.  Nonetheless, a principal motive of many Indian scholars in this debate is the desire to reexamine the infrastructure of ancient history that is the legacy of the colonial period and test how secure it actually is by adopting the very tools and disciplines that had been used to construct it in the first place.(p.305)

At the same time any hasty conclusion and out right rejection of outsiders contribution to our historic study by Indian school is to be checked and challenged:

From the other side, it seems fair to state that while pointing out colonial biases is of fundamental importance—cleansing Indology from the ghosts of the past is a process that has only just begun—there is still solid empirical data that need to be confronted and addressed if one chooses to tackle a problem like that of the Indo-Aryans.  Suspicion of colonial motives does not justify a priori jettisoning such theories nor make such data disappear….There were, and still are, very good reasons to believe in Aryan migrations, and this evidence needs to be addressed.  Many Indigenous Aryanists have made sweeping proclamations about the fallacies of the theory and the biases of colonialism, often with not so much as a passing reference to the linguistic infrastructure of the problem except to dismiss it as nineteenth-century speculation and concoction.  This understandably results in such scholarship being viewed as indicative of predetermined attitudes as opposed to serious research.  It can only hope to appeal to those predisposed to a certain conclusion.  A scholarly and more neutral disposition will at least take the time and energy to become familiar with all the relevant data before pronouncing an opinion.(pp.305-06)

Pointing out the contribution of Indigenous Aryan critique the author further says:

The Indigenous Aryan critique has certainly influenced my own agnosticism.  I hope that scholars do not ignore the arguments being made by the Indigenous Aryan school because it contains a vociferous, element that is blatantly inimical and insensitive to non-Hindu interests.  That element should be isolated and exposed, to be sure, but the whole debate cannot be rejected because of this, or stereotyped as being exclusively a nationalistic discourse.  I have cautioned against the tendency of contributing to what I have termed an Indological McCarthyism in this regard.(pp.308-09)

However he might be sympathetic to such critique, yet his one main concern is:

Of most concern to me is that my analysis of the problem, which has, on the whole, been sympathetic to many of the arguments of the indigenous Aryan position, will be understood in the proper spirit—as an attempt to contribute to scholarly debate—and not as a source of authority to be exploited by, or viewed as contributing to, the politics of authenticity.  I especially hope that it will not be co-opted to bolster the often encountered quote that “even Western scholars have disproved the theory of Aryan invasions.”  The thought of this work being brandished about in support of preconceived agendas is personally very troubling to me.  Let us be very clear: the essential, that is, pruned, elements of an Aryan migration theory have not by any means been disproved.  That they are open to different interpretations does not at all mean that the Indigenist position can carry the day.  But, to my mind, it does mean that an Indigenous position merits a place at the table.(p.309)

Finally sharing his ambition in this field Bryant says:

I also hope and choose to believe that the many scholars of ancient Indian history whom I have had the privilege of meeting over the years will realize the potential for ideological misuse of historical revisionism and will, accordingly, without compromising their position on issues of critical scholarship, actively oppose communal agendas that attempt to appropriate academic debate.  From the hodgepodge of characters who have been represented here, those, at least, who have sincerely adopted critical methods of scholarship in order to present their point of view should be responded to in kind, not stereotyped as communalists.  They deserve a fair hearing.  As for those who are not interested in academic dialogue, there is nothing academia can do for them (or they for academia), except be aware of their existence and expose them to public attention if they become ideologically menacing.(p.309)

And in conclusion the author points out the need to continue the debate as we cannot easily give up because of its influence and the nature of our great civilization:

In conclusion, the Indigenous Aryan position is by now far too widespread to be ignored—most teachers and scholars of South Asian religion or cultural history will have been confronted with it by some of their second-generation South Asian students, in discussions with colleagues or friends in India, on the Indology lists on the internet, or in some other context.  I hope this analysis will assist them in drawing a clearer picture of the logic and perspectives of this point of view.  It is, of course, only one point of view—the Aryan invasion model, when trimmed of its excesses, still has much of its own internally consistent logic and perspectives, and it remains a reasonable way of accounting for a good deal of the available evidence.  Trautmann, commenting on the longevity of the Aryan racial theory of Indian civilization discussed earlier, wonders: “Is it not time we did away with it?” (1997 215).  I will stop well short of suggesting that we do away with the whole Indo-Aryan migration theory.  But we do, at the very least, need to reappraise it all again very carefully and make a clear distinction between the data and their interpretations.  The implications of the Indigenous Aryan critique for the entire area study of South Asia are far too immense to be ignored or taken lightly: from goddess worship in Kerala to tantra in Bengal; from bhakti in South India to Shaivism in Kashmir; from the caste system in Brahmanical culture to the daily puja performed in  (p.309) the temples and religious households across the subcontinent; from the separatist voices in Tamil Nadu to the social aspirations of Ravi Das’s followers in the North; in Indian languages, music, medicine, art, and philosophy in short, in almost everything South Asian, there is a little that has not been predicated on the assumption that Indian culture, history, and religion are the amalgamation of external Aryan and indigenous non-Aryan characteristics.—p.309-310

A FINAL WORD

As a final word I am very much benefited by this remarkable and objective study by Bryant.  Though I am often questioned USING facts and figures, texts and scriptures selectively for one’s own personal agenda, this book gave me a clear answer to such disturbing question within me.  Above all we need not accept everything that comes from the WEST as infallible scholarly and objective contribution—a tendency which is very much alive particularly among some Christian circle and rejecting everything that is reasonable questioned and challenged any preconceived agendas by the Indian is dangerous.  Selective “use and throw” of any scholar’s contribution quoting them often out of context is real betrayal.  “Authority to be exploited” is a shameful policy.  However we uphold the principle of “Agree to disagree”, yet “ideologically menacing” need to be checked and challenged in everyway. BRYANT has done this BRILIANTLY in this book.

Mathigiri, February 19, 2003.

               NOTES

1. Since my task is to be receptive to all rational points of view, including the more cogent interpretations of the Indigenous Aryan school, there have been many moments when I have regretted undertaking this research for fear that it might be misconstrued and adapted to suit ideological agendas.  This concern very much remain as a dark cloud hovering over what has otherwise been an intriguing and intellectually very fulfilling research project.—p.7

2. The validity of a particular interpretation of some aspect of the data has not been minimized because of the author’s overt religious or political bias, however distasteful they might be to the sensitivities of those of us who do not share those values.  Ignoring a serious attempt to analyze data because of the author’s ideological orientations does not invalidate the arguments being offered, or make them disappear.  On the contrary, they resurface, often more aggressively because of having been ignored.  I have attempted to analyze, as objectively as possible, any serious interpretation of the data that might further the task of accurately reconstruction proto-history, while also, in separate chapters, drawing attention to any ideological agendas that might favor the promotion of a particular point of view.—p.10

3. …an overwhelming concern of Indigenous Aryanists is to reexamine what is suspected of being a false account of Indian history concocted by European imperialists—an account that does not correspond to the “facts” even when analyzed by the modern processes of critical scholarship.  In short, the Aryan invasion hypothesis is seen by many Indian historians as an Orientalist production. As a result, Indigenous Aryanism can be partly situated within the parameters of postcolonial studies.

            Having said all this, I do not intend to suggest that the Indigenous Aryan school is somehow angelically engaged in the disinterested quest for pure knowledge.  There is no disinterested quest for knowledge.  Many Indigenous Aryanists are, indeed, engaged in the search for self-definition in the modern context.  Some are Hindu nationalists, and some do engage in communal polemics….—p.9

4.  My intention herein has been not so much to take sides in the actual debate but to present the interpretations of the evidence from all rational perspectives and point out the various assumptions underlying them—this book is intended to be a reasonably thorough exposition of the entire problem of Indo-Aryan origins….—p.9

            Ancient Indian pre- and protohitory is an extremely rich and fascinating area of study, but, unfortunately, the origin of the Indo-Aryans has become inextricably enmeshed with the politics of representation.  There is every reason to be concerned that if the Vedic Indo-Aryans are interpreted as being indigenous to India, then the Vedic “civilization” and all that developed from it will be construed as “truly Indian” and all subsequent cultural groups known to have imigrated into India could explicitly or implicitly be depicted as “Others.”  Indigenous Aryanism, as a result of such concerns, is generically portrayed as a discourse promoting communal tension….—p.295

5. Jones (1790) concluded his researches by claiming to have “traced the foundation of the Indian empire above three thousand eight hundred years from now” (145), that is to say, safely within the confines of Bishop Usher’s creation date of 4004 B.C.E. and, more important, within the parameters of the Great Flood, which Jones considered to have occurred in 2350 B.C.E.—p.15

6.  As Max Muller, who “look[ed] upon the account of Creation as given in Genesis as simply historical” (1902,481), later(p.16) reminisced: “All one’s ideas of Adam and Eve, and the Paradise, and the tower of Babel, and Shem, Ham, and Japheth , with Homer and Aeneas and Virgil too, seemed to be whirling round and round, till at least one picked up the fragments and tried to build a new world, and to live with a new historical consciousness” (Muller 1883, 29)—pp.16-17  And

7. Since “the Hebrew narrative [is] more than human in its origin and consequently true in every substantial part of it.”  Therefore, “it is no longer probable only, but absolutely certain, that the whole race of man proceeded from Iran, whence they migrated at first in three great colonies [those of Shem, Japheth, and Ham]; and that those three branches grew from a common stock” (Jones 1792, 486-487).—p.18

Although European scholars have long since forgotten the biblical roots of the Aryan problem, Old Testament narrative was certainly an initial factor causing European scholars to interpret the data in selective ways.  One must bear in mind that European notions of human history had been based on Genesis for the better part of a millennium and a half.  This formative influence was strengthened and then superseded by research intimately connected with the specific political exigencies extant in nineteenth-century Europe.  This combination of factors contributed to the development of various assumptions concerning Indo-Aryan (and Indo-European) origins, some of which have remained by and large unquiestioned, outside of India, to this very day….—p.303

8. Voltaire voiced his agreement {with Bailly, the astronomer}: “In short, Sir, I am convinced that everything—astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc.—comes to us from the bank of the Ganges” (Bailly 1777,4).  The French naturalist and traveler Pierre de Sonnerat (1782) also believed all knowledge came from India, which he considered the cradle of the human race.—p.18

9. “The term Indo-European was coined in 1816 by the linguist Thomas Young … Nowadays Indo-European is the standard term for the whole language family, although some German scholars still prefer Indo-Germanic despite a history of complaints against it”.—p.20

10. Chakrabarti, 1967{1976}, (no page number is given!)—p.21

11. Pollock (1993) has shown how the study of Sanskrit was adopted by various quite distinct agendas by multiple Orientalisms—the British for external colonial purposes, the Germans for internal, European colonization, and the Brahmans for the maintenance of their own elite dominance in traditional India.  Similarly, Indigenous Aryanism is also multifaceted.  It is adopted by some as a means of opposing European Orientalism—the scholarship of the colonial period.  It is simultaneously promoted by others to serve an internal Orientalsim (in the sense of the production of unflattering knowledge about the “Other,” albeit not an Oriental one, for political domination), connected to the discourse of legitimacy in Hindu notions of nationhood.—p.295  {is this notes relevant here?—DB}

12. For them, fairness of skin paralleled highness of civilization, and the Indians were a beggarly lot who could not possibly be allowed to claim a common racial pedigree, not to speak of being recognized as “one of” the British….—p.25

13. Muller himself (1847) had earlier expressed that “it is curious to see how the descendants of the same race, to which the first conquerors and masters of India belonged, return … to accomplish the glorious work of civilization, which had been left unfinished by their Arian brethren” (349).—p.26

14.       It was a very small step from zoology and ethnology to physical anthropology, which was soon pressed into service to identify these original Indo-Europeans in Europe.  In 1878, the German philologist L. Geiger was the first to suggest that the Indo-Europeans were blond, blue-eyed people, and that these traits had become diluted and darkened in those places where there had been a foreign admixture of genes….

            Dubious interpretations of certain passages in the Vedic texts, … were then introduced to produce readings of fair, invading Aryans clashing with snub-nosed indigenous daasas…. Greeks, Italians, and French had the correct linguistic  credentials but were disqualified due to being dark, while some of the Scandinavians had the right physical qualities but spoke the wrong language.  The Germans won by default.—p.32

15. European intellectual hegemony is by no means a thing of the past.  Indo-European studies, in particular, are still almost exclusively a Western undertaking, primarily because of lack of facilities and interest in India; and still retains control, in the view of many scholars, over the fate of the Indo-Aryans.  And if truth be told, one still not infrequently encounters dismissive attitudes in the Western academy toward certain types of scholarship from India.  There are justifiable reasons for this when it comes to the Indo-Aryan debate, given the appalling quality (particularly with regard to the linguistic issues) and polemical tone of some Indigenist literature.  But frustrating as it might sometimes be, Western scholars must address the suspicions of the Indigenists—at least of those that are open to dialogue and exchange—given the necessity of examining our own attitudes and biases made incumbent on us by the Orientalist critique.  The postcolonial climate is a sensitive one, and it should be obvious why there might be very good reasons for Indian scholars to want to reevaluate the version of Indian history that was constructed during the colonial period.  One cannot ignore or dismiss the sentiments and opinions of significant numbers of scholars about the history of their own country.  And it is never a bad exercise to have one’s own assumptions challenged, or to step out of one’s own time-worn paradigms momentarily so as to consider things from other perspectives.—p.305 (and also see p. 308)

16. It was the testimony of the Bible that originally led scholars to propose the existence of a linguistically unified group of people living somewhere near the Caspian Sea, a subset of whom emanated forth and entered India.  And it is the testimony of the Rgveda that is used to deny that any such people ever entered from any such place.  The Bible laid the groundwork for the construction of the Aryan invasion theory, and the Rgveda has been the principal foundation for attempts at its deconstruction.—p.303

17.       On the negative side, nationalism has encouraged the misinterpretation of archaeological data for political purposes and ignored important aspects of human history…. Clearly, archaeological interpretation can reinforce and articulate the centralizing policies of emerging nationalisms, as well as be used to legitimize ethnic cleansing or territorial expansion.  –p.268

             Silberman (1995) goes so far as to suggest that “all archaeological stories –be they classical, biblical, nationalist, or evolutionary—can be read as narratives of the inevitability of certain lands to be conquered and the right of certain people to rule” (256).  Chernkh (1995) points out that many of the nationalist movements unfolding throughout the old Soviet Union are actually being led by archaeologists, philologists, and historians…. Ancient history can be used to define a people as distinct and as the legitimate and primordial heirs to a range of territory….Indeed, “the emotional power of archaeology in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and the regions of the former Yugoslavia, for example, is that they all link the present to a particular golden age” (Silberman 1995, 257).—p.269

18.  The focus of those who promote Indigenous Aryanism for nationalist purposes is to try to show that the Hindus are an integral, indigenous people who have always had the ingredients required for a  nation-state in the form of a shared cultural past with clear links to the present: the “Vedic” culture.  New nations paradoxically claim to be the opposite of novel, namely, rooted in the remotest antiquity; nationalists co-opt archaeology, philology, and linguistics in efforts to “prove” that the imagined nation has always existed….—p.8

19. Savarkar is especially keen on accommodating the Sikhs into the Hindu fold: “Really, if any community in India is Hindu beyond cavil or criticism it is our Sikh brotherhood in the Punjab, being almost  autochthonous dwellers of the Saptasindhu land and the direct descendants of the Sindhu [Aryan] or Hindu people” (123).—343

20. Oak is best known, perhaps, for his continued efforts to prove that the Taj Mahal was originally a Siva temple.  Oak’s books attempt to argue that everything of value in the world originally came from India or was part of a greater India.  His etymologizing and general level of scholarship are astounding, even in the context of this genre of literature; for example, (p.343) England was originally pronounced as Angulisthan, since “ancient Hindu explorers and administrators who fanned over a virgin Europe looked across the English channel and called the British isles ‘Anguli’ (‘sthan’ or ‘desh’) i.e. a finger-size, finger-length land.  If one imagines Europe to be a palm-size, palm-shaped continent Great Britain appears to be ‘anguli’ namely the (extended) finger” (Oak 1984, 842).  I was informed by a professor of history at Jawarhal Lal Nehru University that even the RSS, which previously had cultivated Oak, has since completely distanced itself from his views.  Oak’s insistence that all other cultures from all over the world in all historical epochs ultimately originated in Vedic India, however, does parallel some of the scholarship of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Europe.  Attempts were made to accommodate the newly discovered eastern traditions within a biblical narrative by suggesting etymologies such as Brahman being the Sanskrit for Abraham and Sarasvati for Sarah.—notes 6, pp.343-44

21. …anyone reconsidering the status quo of Indo-Aryan origins is instantly and a priori dubbed a nationalist, a communalist, or, even worse, a Nazi.  Since I have observed that many scholars, when confronted with “Indigenous” voices of dissention, immediately assume that it must be just another manifestation of Hindu nationalist discourse (even without being aware of the linguistic and archaeological issues at stake), a few words on this issue might be in order at this point.

            There is major difference in focus between nationalism and anti-imperialism although they overlap in a number of ways.  Nationalism involves attempts to concoct  notions of shared identity in order to unify a variety of individuals and social groups into a cohesive political and territorial body in contradistinction to other such bodies—Anderson’s “imagined” communities.  Communalism, as understood in the context of academic discourse about India, also involves attempts to construct political unity between individuals and groups, but it is predicated on notions of shared religious affiliation that is distinct from that of other groups who are perceived as identifying with different religious communities.  Anti-imperialism and anticolonialism, on the other hand, are the opposition, by a group of people, to alien power-often advantaged because of superior technology—to which it has been subjected against its will.  It is a struggle against an oppressive, and generally stifling, force.—pp.7-8

22.  Aggressively promoting a point of view on the basis of a very meager and biased understanding of the actual data involved naturally indicates the existence of preconceived ideas that are nonnegotiable.  Such ideas are generally ideological.  Such publications contribute to the association of Indigenous Aryanism with Hindu nationalism.—p.295

23.       In a progressive academic context, difference of opinions, however radical, challenge scholars to constantly reexamine their views, assumptions, and methods.  This is the lifeline of healthy scholarship.  But in the present academic climate in the subcontinent, it has become increasingly difficult, particularly for Indian scholars, to discuss the pre-history of the subcontinent in a rational, objective way without becoming associated with the ideologies that are immediately correlated with pro- or contra- stances for or against the Indigenous Aryan issue….—p.297

24.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  European racism and elitism cannot be replaced by Hindu chauvinism.  As I have stated repeatedly, it is the Hindutva agenda that has prevented many Western and Indian scholars from paying attention to the Indigenous Aryan school because they are justly troubled by the potential for alienation, hate, and aggression that such discourses have provoked….—p.296

25. …my own present position on the Indo-European problem.  I am one of a long list of people who do not believe that the available data are sufficient to establish anything very conclusive about an Indo-European homeland, culture, or people….

            However, regarding homelands, I differ from most Western scholars in that I find myself hard pressed to absolutely eliminate the possibility that the eastern part of this region could be one possible candidate among several, albeit not a particularly convincing one, provided this area is delimited by Southeast Central Asia, Afghanistan, present-day Pakistan, and the northwest of the subcontinent (rather than the Indian subcontinent proper).  I hasten to stress that it is not that the evidence favors this area as a possible homeland—on the contrary, there has been almost no convincing evidence brought forward in support of a homeland this far east.  As we shall wee, the issue is that problems arise when one tries to prove that the Indo-Aryans were intrusive into this area from an outside homeland.  In other words, one has almost no grounds to argue for a South Asian Indo-European homeland from where the other speakers of the Indo-European language departed, but one can argue that much of the evidence brought forward to (p.11) document their entrance into the subcontinent is problematic.  These are two separate, but obviously overlapping issues.—pp.11-12

            Coupled with the problems that have been raised against all homeland candidates, these issues have caused me conclude that, in the absence of radically new evidence or approaches to the presently available evidence, theories on the homeland of the Indo-European speaking peoples will never be convincingly proven to the satisfaction of even a majority of scholars.  This skepticism especially applies to the theories of some Indian scholars who have attempted to promote India as a Homeland….—p.12

26.       However exasperating and polemical some Indigenist anticolonialist harangues tend to be, there is nonetheless some very good reasons for Indian scholars to be highly suspicious of the fact that the ancient history of their country was constructed by an imperial power, as was outlined in chapter 1.  This does not justify replacing one perceived myth with another.  There are still data that have to be addressed in order to form a comprehensive picture of an ancient period.  Simply ignoring major aspects of the evidence and focusing on features that are amenable to a specific alternative view with troubling ideological underpinnings is to duplicate the errors and excesses of the much maligned nineteenth century European historical enterprise.  History cannot be written by decibel….—p.296

27.  Anthony (1995b) notes that “Indo-European linguistics and archaeology have been exploited to support openly ideological agendas for so long that a brief history of the issue quickly becomes entangled with the intellectual history of Europe” (82).—p.269

Mistakes as I observed in this book:

1. P. 15 –Jones (1790)—1790a or 1790b ?
2. P. 15“…are true, or the whole fabrick of our national…”—is it fabric?
3. P.16. “The idea was inbedded in the biblical version…”—‘imbedded?
4. P. 17 “Shem Ham, and Japhet ,…”—‘Japheth’
5. P. 18 “ Shem, Japhet, and Ham…– ‘Japheth’
6. P. 18. (Bailly 1777,4).—but in Bib. P. 351 the year is mentioned as 1977
7. P. 21 “…foreign rules”. (1967)—it should be 1976.
8. P. 26. “(quoted in Maw 1950, 14-15).—in bib. Year is mentioned as 1990
9. P. 26. ‘…by their Arian bretheren”.—brethren.
10. P. 27 “quoted in Maw 1950, 35).—in bib. Year is mentioned as 1990.
11. P. 28. “..to a curious mismash of…”—mishmash?
12. P. 39. “…nonetheless holds that her homeland…”—his? (Mallory is male).
13. P. 62. (Dutta 1936)—Datta
14. P. 81. Hock (1996b)—according bib. It should be only 1996.
15. P. 112. “…who wondered away were…”—it should be wandered.
16. P. 122. “…of the Indo-Euopean civilization…”—European
17. P. 148. “…Tocharian group A my parts…”—may?
18. P. 149. “Or course, many other issues…”—Of course 
19. P. 167. (V.N. Misra 1994, 511)—but in bib. For V.N. Misra the year is mentioned as ‘1989’ and in Misra S, S. 1994 is mentioned.
20. P. 187. (Rau 1997, 206).—in bib year is mentioned as 1977. 
21. P. 191. “Or it meant tht the…”—that
22. P. 236. “…possible remanants of a new…”—remnants
23. P. 242. “…for one proot-Indo-European term…”—Proto
24. P. 243. “…around 60000 BP for…”—is it BC
25. P. 248. “…So it is possibile that…”—possible
26. P. 249. “…in the Panjab and….”—Punjab.
27. P. 257. (S.B. Dikshit 1985, 245).—I think the year should be 1885.  Because Kamesvara Aiyar supporting Dikshit’s position wrote in 1919 (p.257).  And Jean Fillozat in 1969 has also supported the arguments of Dikshit (see p. 260).  These could be possible only if Dikshit’s work is before 1919 at least.
28. P. 279. “… and propogated on a popular…”—propagated.
29. P. 279. “…dedicated to anti-Muslin oratory…”—Muslim?
30. P. 281. “For the nth time it is…”—nth?
31. P. 294. “…as as has been…’—as has been.
32. P. 300. “…importation accured in India…”—accrued
33. P. 308. “…initated by individuals…”—initiated.
34. P. 312. notes. 3. “….Tartars of Japhet.”–Japheth
35. P. 333. notes 16. “Gupta 1993, 163…”—1993a or 1993b?
36. P. 339. Notes 9 & 12. 500 B.C.E. for Avesta—is it 1500? (see p. 132)

37. Stewart ,Dugald—no bibliography

Bibliography:

Ambedkar, B.R., 1946.  Who Were the Sudras? Bombay: Thacker.

Ananth, Krishna V.  1998. “The Aryan and Dravidian Myths.”  The Hindu, November 11.

Anthony, David W.1995b. “Nazi and Eco-Feminist Prehistories: Ideology and Empiricism in Indo-European Archaeology.” In Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (82-96). Ed. P. Kohl and C. Fawcett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bailly, Jean-Sylvain.  1977. Letters sur l’origine des sciences et sur celle des peoples de l’Asie. Paris: Freres Debure.

Chakrabarti, D.K.–1977b. “India and West Asia: An Alternative Approach.” Man and Environment 1:25-38.

–1976. “India and the Druids.” Antiquity 197:66-67.

Chernkh, E.N.  1995. “Postscript: Russian Archaeology after the Collapse of the USSR: Infrastructural Crisis and the Resurgence of Old and New Nationalisms.” In Nationalism Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (120-138). Ed. P. Kohl and C. fawcett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Devendraswarup. 1993. “Genesis of the Aryan Race Theory and Its Application to Indian History.” In The Aryan Problem (30-39). Ed. S.B.Deo and Kamath Suryanath. Pune: Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti.

Day, John V.  1994. “The Concept of the Aryan Race in Nineteenth-Century Scholarship.” Orpheus 4:15-48

Dugald Stewart—no bibliography

Duff , Rev. Alexander. 1840. Missions: The Chief End of the Christian Church.  Edinburgh: Johnstone.

Geiger, L. 1878. Zur Enwicklungsgeschichte der Menschheit. Stuttgart: Berlag.

Golwalkar M.S. 1947. We, or Our Nation Defined. Nagpur.

Habib, Irfan. 1997. “Distortion of History.” The Hindu, August, 1, 12.

Havell, E.B.  1918. The History of Aryan Rule in India. London.

Hock, Hans Henrich. 1999b. “Through a Glass Darkly: Modern ‘Racial’ Interpretations vs. Textual and General Prehistoric Evidence on Arya and Daasa/Dasyu in Vedic Indo-Aryan Society.”  In Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia (145-174).  Harvard Oriental Series Opera Minora 3. Ed. J. Bronkhorst and M. Deshpande. Cambridge: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.

Irschick, Eugene F. 1971. “Dravidianism in South Indian Politics.” In Symposium on Dravidian Civilization (148-169). Ed. A. Sjoberg. Austin: Jenkins.

Jones ,Sir William.1790a. “On the Chronology of the Hindu.” Asiatic Researches 2:111-147.

— 1790b. “A Supplement to the Essay on Indian Chronology.” Asiatic Researches 2:391-403.

— 1792. “On the Origin and Families of Nations.” Asiatic Researches 3. Reprinted in The Collected Works of Sir William Jones (185-204). New York: New York University Press, 193.

Mallory, J.P.1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames and Hudson.

–1973. “A History of the Indo-European problem.” Journal of Indo-European Studies 1:21-66.

Maw, Martin.  1990. Visions of India. Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.

Muller, F. Max 1847. “On the Relation of the Bengali to the Arian and Aboriginal Languages of India.” Report of the British Association for the advancement of Science 319-350.

–1854a. The Languages of the Seat of War in the East. London: Longmans.

–1875. The Science of Language. New York: Scribner.

–1883. India: What Can It Teach Us? London: Longmans.

–1902. The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Muller. Edited by his wife. Vol. 1. London: Longmans.

Oak P.N. 1984. World Vedic Heritage. New Delhi: Oak.

Pillai Purnalingam. 1963. Tamil India. Madras: South India Saiva Siddhanta Works.

Pollock, S. 1993. “Deep Orientalismn.” In Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament (76-133). Ed. Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Prakash, Buddha. 1966. Rgveda and the Indus Valley Civilization. Hoshiapure: Vishveshvarananda Institute.

Ramaswamy, Sumathi. 1997. Passions of the Tongue.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Savarkar, V.D. 1989. Hiutva, 6^th ed. New Delhi: Bharti Sahitya Sadan.

Silberman, Neil Asher. 1995. “Promised Lands and Chosen Peoples: The Politics and Poetics of Archaeological Narrative.” In Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (249-262). Ed. P. Kohl and C. Fawcett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sonnerat, Pierre de. 1782. Voyages aux Indes Orientales et la Chine. 2 vols. Paris.

Trautmann, Thomas R. 1997. Aryans and British India. Berkeley: University of California Press.