[col. 1] The most extraordinary aspect of the theory of Aryan invasion is that it has its genesis not in any Indian records, but in German nationalism.

It has no support either in literature, tradition of science. It is essentially the creation of 18th and 19th century Europeans, especially Germans, that was later adopted by the British colonial government as a convenient administrative tool to divide and control the people of India.

So the Aryan invasion has been a political creation right from the start. It was also racial in origin. It is only much later that it was given a linguistic form. It is interesting to note that several leading researchers in Europe and America are in the process of rejecting the Aryan invasion theory. But Indian history books are not yet prepared to accept the verdict.

We thus have on the one hand a historical problem of monumental importance - the puzzle of the origin and spread of languages - and on the other, a theory that is contradicted by all empirical data.

Thus the proponents of the Aryan invasion are demanding that in every new theory their beliefs must also be included and accounted for. One has only to look at the summary rejection of the independent investigations into the Indus Valley civilisation by S.R. Rao, Subhash Kak, Hrodzy and others as unacceptable for the sole reason that they do not lend support to the Aryan invasion theory and the Aryan-Dravidian conflicts.

The issue assumes importance because it is a question relating to the origins of our culture. Our identity depends on it. For thousands of years we have looked to the Vedas as the wellsprings of our existence. None of our ancestors questioned it. And now, in the last century and a half, others are telling us that they don't really belong to us. That they are impositions by foreign invaders.

Are we to accept this without raising questions and examining the credentials of these people, who not coincidentally were alien colonisers, and their modern Indian followers? Should we not feel suspicious about their motives - that they may be making the imposition of their own alien ideas acceptable by claiming all our tradition to be alien impositions?

We have been led to believe that this theory is supported by linguistic evidence, namely, that people of North India and South India speak languages said to be from different families. There is the belief that the inhabitants of the Indus Valley civilization, which in the people's mind is synonymous with the sites of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, were Dravidians whose civilisation the invading Aryans destroyed. The invading Aryans are said to ne blond and blue-eyed while the Dravidians are believed to be dark-skinned.

The evidence for this, we are told, is found in the Rig Veda. All this we are also told has been reconstructed by great European scholars, notably Max Mueller, believed by most educated Indians to be the greatest of them all. This invasion is said to have taken place around 1500 BC. We are also informed that the composition of the Vedas began about 1200 BC or 1000 BC, though again. But the basis on which the latter two formulations [col. 2] have been arrived at is not disclosed.

The two most influential forces that went into creating this theory were European racism, especially anti-Semitism, and German nationalism. Comparative linguistics, let alone archaeology, did not even exist at the time. It is standing history on its head now to claim the theory to be the outgrowth of archaeology and comparative study of invasion theory.

This theory had its origins in eighteenth century Europe but received its full development only in the 18th century. It seemed to strike no one as odd - at least at the time - that this supposed invasion by light skinned people of a land inhabited by ark-skinned people, happened to be an exact reply of the contemporary European experience in colonizing Asia and Africa. Substituting European for Aryan, and Asia and Africa. [sic] Substituting European for Aryan, and Asian or Africa of the time. [sic] So according to this theory, the Aryans were nothing but carbon copies of European colonisers. Not only is this an absurd anachronism, it is not even original. Science alone cannot explain this theory.

The main point to be noted is that the theory (of the invasion) once formulated was treated as an established fact, and all subsequent findings were interpreted as deriving from it. And these interpretations were themselves offered as proof of the theory. A prime example of it is the interpretations of the ruins of Mohenjodaro and Harappa as the result of the invasion; later this interpretation itself became the proof of the invasion. This is called a tautology or circular argument. In effect, the theory in due time becomes its own proof. A fact not widely known is that the Aryan invasion theory owes a great deal to German nationalism and Max Mueller's concerns about his career and position in England. It was this that made him change the focus of his theory from race to language.

This abrupt shift from race to language meant that his new theory of Aryan migration - with language replacing race - had to be put together in extreme haste, and it shows. He placed the original Aryan ancestors in Sogdiana in the Trans-Oxus region in Central Asia north of Kashmir. According to the new theory, actually a linguistic reincarnation of the old race theory, one branch migrated southeast into Iran, Afghanistan and India to become the Indo-Europeans, while a [col. 3] second branch migrated southwest and went on to become the Greeks and the Europeans. Looking at it today, the extraordinary shoddiness with which his new theory was put together is truly astounding. In his rush to dissociate himself from the Aryan race theory and German nationalism, Max Mueller had succeeded in creating the most absurd contradiction imaginable: the Aryans of Central Asia were so immobile that they were ignorant of the ocean just a few hundred miles away, and fish found even closer. And yet they were so fleet of foot (or horse) that they managed to spread over a vast stretch from Ireland to the east coast of India. Nothing but extreme haste can account for this preposterous theory from a scholar of Max Mueller's stature. And the rest is history.

Thus the whole Aryan invasion scenario, [col. 4] first racial but later claimed to be linguistic, was the result of a complex interaction of diverse forces among which scholarship was probably the least important component. It started with the Aryan invasion theory of Europe that was transferred to India. In such a situation, evidence and logic inevitably give way to political needs and rationalising rhetoric. And poor Max Mueller, great scholar though he was, could do little but produce what his masters wanted. He was a small pawn in an imperial game which he had to play by the rules set by others.

The current Indian intellectual scene, with its continued attachment to the Aryan invasion theory is nothing more that a perpetuation of the old colonial policies; only the sponsors have changed. It is the result of a politicised intellectual environment that was [col. 5] fostered and nurtured by leaders following Indian independence. In such an environment, politically correct ideology tends to eclipse scholarly achievement.

It is therefore no accident that not a single significant contribution has come from Indian historians belonging to the 'establishment'. Their contribution to date consists of recasting Indian history in accordance with the Marxist model by replacing race with caste. Otherwise it is but a rehash of the 19th century formulations. The main proponents of the non-Indian origin of the Aryans and their civilisation are those historians who have spent a lifetime erecting a Marxist version of Indian history. Romila Thapar, a leading proponent of this school has recently written claiming that all evidence is against Aryans being native to India and also that attempts at historical revision in the face of new eidence [sic] are but a scheme for enforcing class inequality. These are her exact words:

"...The theory of the Aryans being a people has been seen as fundamental to the understanding of the identity of modern Indians and the question is central to the change of Indian society from caste to class. The upholding of a false theory (of Aryans as indigenous to India) is dangerous. The next step can be to move from indigenous origins of 'the Aryans' to propagating the notion of an 'Aryan nation'.

I don't think it is necessary to highlight the obvious - that all this talk about 'caste to class' is nothing but vintage Marxist rhetoric with absolutely no basis in fact. But interestingly Thapar and her fellow travelers want to have it both ways. She finds the theory of the Aryans as a people to be "seen as fundamental to the understanding of the identity of modern Indians" in the Marxist framework of class struggle. Without this identity, the whole Marxist fabrication collapses. But anyone who has a different approach to the historical problem of 'Aryan origins' even if it is based on science and archaeology, is of course a fascist!

This is not scholarship, it is political propaganda.

To gratuitously drag in the bogey of the 'Aryan nation' by which she obviously means Nazi Germany is pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with scholarship. It is a blatant attempt aimed at diverting attention away from the real issue - examining the scientific basis of the foreign origin theory of ancient Indian tradition which she and other fellow travellers uphold.

The facts therefore are as follows: however unpalatable it may be to the 'progressive' historian, the historical reality is inescapable. The Aryan invasion theory of India and the rise of Nazism in Europe share a common intellectual and emotional heritage. Neither has any basis in fact. And it cannot be wished away by semantic sophistry and scare tactics. The proponents of the Aryan invasion of India must either produce scientific evidence to prove it, or acknowledge that they have inherited the mantle to a discredited European race theory which they are trying to make respectable by painting it in new political colours.

It was politics then, it is politics now.

(Excerpted from a paper presented by the author at the Swami Chidbhavananda Memorial Lecture organised by Vigil.)