WHO ARE THE ARYANS

WHO ARE THE ARYANS?
SANSKRIT ?……..

Until 18th century, apart from India the term 'Aryan' does not occur in any of the world literature including European literature. Though Europeans claim that they belong to Aryan race, we do not find even the word 'Aryan' in their literature until 18th century.
Generally, it is supposed that there is an Aryan race, with a very ancient history. But scrutiny of history of the 'Aryans' disprove many such claims of the 'Aryans'.

There are fundamentally two distinct races in India, the native Dravidians and the immigrant Aryans. It has been historically proved that the Dravidians are the original inhabitants of India and the sons of Indian Soil. Hence, Aryans are obviously not the original inhabitants of India and they are the foreigners who came into India from outside at various periods. They can be classified as follows:

1. The group of foreigners who came with religions
2. The group of foreigners who came without any religion.

The term 'Aryan' was coined by the Indians i.e., the Dravidians to denote the groups of foreign invaders who came into India from outside, without any religion, during various periods. They spoke different languages and entered in different groups. In Dravidian India, since the term 'Aryan' was used in order to identify those who are non - Dravidians, it has led to the wrong impression that there is an Aryan race in the world society. The historic fact, however, is that groups of foreigners who came with religions of their own are Israelites, Jews, Zoroastrians, Syrian Christians, Muslims and European Christians, known after the name of their religions.
The groups of foreign invaders who came without any religion of their own in various periods are Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushanas and Huns who were denoted by a common term 'Aryan' by the Indian Dravidians. The different periods of their invasion of India are as given below:

· Persians - 6th c.B.C.
· Greeks - 4th c.B.C.
· Sakas - 2nd c.B.C.
· Kushans - 1st c.A.D
· Huns - 4th c.A.D

Romans were not invaders but they came for trade. They were also included in the term 'Aryan' since they also came without any religion of their own.
Until 7th c.A.D. the invader groups were not united together. They were capturing and losing political power from the Indian Dravidians individually.

It was in 7th c.A.D. after the demise of Harsha, the last great Dravidian Emperor, the invading groups joined together and formed an United Front against Indian Dravidians at Mount Abu of Rajasthan. Because of their united efforts, they were able to capture political power from the Indian Dravidians in North India and they formed 'Aryavardha', the Kingdom of the Aryans.
Treating this 'united front' as one race is a historical error.

Amongst the Aryans of Aryavardha, three sections were developed viz.,

1) Aryan Purohits
2) Aryan Kshatriyas
3) Aryan Vaishyas

They captured the religious, political and the economical power of the Indians respectively. They christened the people who accepted their supremacy as 'Sudras' and the leaders and the philosophers of India who opposed them as 'Panchamas' or Untouchables. Thus they have degraded the Dravidians and devised 'Varnashrama Dharma' (also known as Manu Dharma or caste system) on the basis of colour.

Amongst the foreign invaders, the Persians were the first invaders of India. Cyrus, who ruled Persia from 558 B.C. to 530 B.C. tried to capture the political power of India but was defeated. After Cyrus, Darius who ruled Persia from 522 B.C. to 486 B.C. established his political power in Northern Punjab of India in 518 B.C.
Historians mention that the invasion of the Persians over North Western India had led to the trade relationship between India and Persia and it had also encouraged other foreigners to launch invasion over India.
"As Persians had established their authority over India and India had become a part of their empire, people were free to travel in any part of India or Persia. The Indian traders started trading with the Persians on a large scale...
...Persian invaders exposed the political weakness of India to all the world. It encouraged the Greeks and the Bactrians to launch invasions over Indian territory. 1

The foreigners who were already in the northwestern frontier of India established matrimonial relationship with the Persians after their invasion and it had led to the emergence of various new castes, say the historians.

They have been acting as traitors since then and have betrayed India to the foreigners.

"Various new castes came into being as many foreigners settled on the northwestern frontier of India after the invasion of Persia. They established matrimonial relations and gave birth to several sub-castes. Moreover, they always acted treacherously and joined hands with the invaders who wanted to conquer India from time to time".2

Ambi, who ruled Taxila in India, was responsible for the invasion of Alexander over India, and the historians say that Ambi was the descendant of the traitors.

"Greeks were the second invaders after the Persians, who had invaded the Indian territory..."3

"The ruler of Taxila fired his ambition and provided Alexander an opportunity to invade India by sending an invitation to him"4
"Ambi has been described as a traitor in the history of ancient India, who for his own selfish ends sent an invitation to Alexander with the evil design of maneuvering the fall of Porus" 5
Hence, we can infer from the quotations mentioned above that the foreigners who mixed with the Persians, have been betraying India to the foreigners, and Ambi the descendent of this traitors, betrayed India to Alexander. Sungas and the Kanvas are the descendants of this treacherous group, and they are proud of their white colour their cunning behavior and their act of betrayal.
Pushyamitra, who established the Sunga dynasty, had perfidiously killed Brihathratha, the last king of the Mauryan dynasty, who had trusted and appointed Pushyamitra as the Commander-in-Chief of his army. Thus by treachery he captured the political power and established his dominion over North India.
Similarly the first king of the Kanva dynasty, treacherously killed the last king of the Sunga dynasty who also had appointed him as a minister and he captured the political power.
History reveals that the Aryan Brahmins are the descendants of the Sungas and Kanvas. Since betrayal is their traditional task, it is not new to their nature to betray India to the Europeans, who came for the purpose of establishing trade. Hence, it was the duty of the Europeans to honour the Brahmins and so they made the world believe that the Brahmins are the leaders of Hinduism.

Europeans claimed that they were from the same stock of Aryans and it is highlighted as follows:
"This work summarizes India's intellectual history, which in its various aspects has been the subject of my studies for slightly more than half a century (1875 to 1926). It sets forth in nine chapters the mental development of the most easterly branch of Aryan civilization since it entered India by land till it came in contact by sea with the most westerly branch of the same civilization after a separation of at least 3,000 years. The four centuries that have since elapsed (1498 to 1926) are here touched upon only as showing the most recent distribution of the Indian vernaculars and the rise of their literature, as well as the process by which the development of the purely indigenous period gradually became known to the new-comers from the west...
These two civilizations, starting from a common source, have after a separation of at least 3,000 years again become united during the last four centuries, representing together a quarter of the total of the earth's inhabitants. During these four centuries the newcomers from the west have gained acquaintance with and recovered the history of India's past mental development. Al this, as set forth in the following pages, will, I trust, contribute something to clearer mutual understanding by two civilizations which in their origin were one and the same". 6

If we analyze history, it reveals that the term 'Aryan' includes the group of people who came into India in different periods without any religion viz. Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushans and Huns. It is a historical error if we consider and denote them as one race. They are the combination of different races.

It has already been pointed out that the Aryans are not a separate race but a combination of many races who came to India in different periods of time and had separate languages and Sanskrit is not their language but it was a religious code language that was formed by the Indian Dravidians.

It is quite natural that the Dravidian scholars who formed Sanskrit language found it necessary to include words from the existing languages of the time. Hence, it is obvious that the Europeans found correlation for Sanskrit with Persian, Greek and Latin, which were the foreign languages that were prevalent in India at that time as mentioned earlier.

There is no such race as the 'Aryan race' in India. In order to identify the non-Dravidian, non-Indian foreigners, this term is used, but this term was purposely utilized by the Europeans in order to create a fictitious relationship with the local foreigners. Even though it is a mythical race, in the world historical perspective this term is very important in the history of India, since it denotes the foreigners who came to India, in various periods, without any religion.
It has already been mentioned that the ancestors of Sungas and Kanvas mixed with the Persians and the mention of the struggles in the Vedas that had taken place between the two groups, happened in Afghanistan and not in India, says David Frawley.

"Asko Parpolo claims that the struggles mentioned in the Vedas were not in India at all, but in Afghanistan between two different groups of Indo-Iranian peoples"7
Megasthenes mentions about the Arianois who were living near India,
"Megasthenes speaks of 'ARIANOIS' as one of the three peoples inhabiting the countries adjacent to India"8
The Arianois, mentioned by Megasthenes were a mixture of Persians. Khurana points out connection between them and the Persians.
"........the names of the Sunga rulers (Pushyamitra. Agnimitra, Vasumitra) ended in 'Mitra' i.e.., the sun. As the Persians (Iranians) were the worshippers of the sun, and the Sunga rulers also worshipped sun, it seems that the rulers of the Sunga dynasty were the Persians".9
Khurana denied this later, though historical evidences were not given for his denial.
The Iranians are known as Aryans by the historians.

'That the Aryans were closely related to the Iranians is proved by many resemblance in language and worship, which have been found in the Avesta- the scriptures of the Iranians, and the Rigveda-the most important collection of the hymns of the Aryans".10

The following statement of R.S. Sharma should be noted here.

"The cult of SOMA called HAOMA in the Avestan language, was typical of both the Vedic and the Iranian people".11

"Louis Renow holds that the ASVAMEDHA or horse sacrifice was an Indo-European ritual. Clearly, there is no evidence of horse sacrifice in pre-Vedic India".12

"The Indo-Europeans also adopted the use of the horse, but perhaps none of them performed the horse sacrifice which was known as 'ASVAMEDHA' in India". 13

"In Vedic times, the king or the chief performed the ASVAMEDHA to assert his suzerainty".14

The Asvamedha yajna, which is mentioned in the Vedas does not occur amongst the Persians and it was the Sungas, who started Asvamedha yajna. Hence, the songs about Asvamedha Yajna, in the Vedas belong to the period of Sunga and afterwards.

The points mentioned above reveal that the Brahmins are traditionally a mixture of the Persians and they have mostly the features of Persians.

IS SANSKRIT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARYANS?

It is also generally believed that Sanskrit is the langauge of the Aryans. But scrutiny of history proves otherwise. It should be noted that the language of none of the invaders or the traders was Sanskrit. They had their own respective languages. Sanskrit was never spoken anywhere by any of these groups any time outside India.

1. Sanskrit inscriptions do not occur in the pre - Christ era. First occurrence of Sanskrit is only from 2nd c.A.D.715
2. King Ashoka's inscriptions are in the languages that were existing at that time, and also they were in Greek and Aramaic, the foreign languages that were existing in his kingdom. But none of the inscriptions of Asokan edicts are in Sanskrit 16
3. Ashoka's inscriptions command the cessation of animal sacrifice in the name of worship. Would there not have been an inscription in Sanskrit also at the time of Ashoka, whose inscriptions commanded the cessation of animal sacrifice, if Sanskrit was existing in his period?
SANSKRIT ---- DRAVIDIANS
Earliest Sanskrit Ithihasas like Ramayana was written by Valmiki, a Dravidian and Mahabharatha, written by Vedavyasa, a Dravidian and the Epics written by Kalidasa, a Dravidian. Also it should be noted that even the Vedas were compiled not by the Aryans but by Vedavyasa, a Dravidian. Adi Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva were not the original authors but the commentators of the Dravidian religious literature viz.,Brahma Sutra, Bhagavadgita and Upanishads which were in Sanskrit.

It should be noted that Buddhism and Jainism are the religions opposed to animal sacrifice, whereas Saivism and Vaishnavism are the religions of fulfillment of sacrifice, i.e., Vedantic religions of the Dravidians.. If there is no sacrifice, there will be no room for fulfillment of sacrifice. It is clear that the doctrine of fulfillment of sacrifice can take its development from the doctrine of sacrifice alone. In order to explain Vedanthic philosophy, i.e., the philosophy of fulfillment of sacrifice of the Dravidians, Veda Vyasa compiled the worship songs, which give importance to sacrifice, in Sanskrit, and christened them as Vedas.

Sanskrit was formed from out of the existing languages of that period in the post - Christ era. They include Pali of Buddhism, Arthamagathi of Jainism, Tamil, and also the foreign languages that were existing at that time in India because of foreign invaders such as Persian, Greek, and also Latin which was the language of the foreign traders all of which were in use at that time.
Sir. William Jones while translating Manu Dharma Shastra, on seeing Persian, Greek and Latin words in Sanskrit, came to the wrong conclusion that Sanskrit was the mother of these languages, presuming Sanskrit as the language of the Aryans, also he wrongly concluded that Aryans and the people whose language is Persian, Greek and Latin are of the same race. 17
When Sir. William Jones translated Manudharma Sastra from Sanskrit to English, the Europeans were not aware of the glorius past of the Dravidinas at that time since the Dravidians were the victims of racial and caste discrimination devised and imposed by the Aryans.

Even Caldwell who had done a deep research on Indian languages and wrote 'Comparative Grammar on Dravidian Languages' was not aware of Early Tamil Sangam literature since they were not unveiled at that time.

"Indus Valley Civilization that reveals the greatness of the Dravidians…"18
. Maxmuller who wrote 'Sacred Books of the East' was not aware of the Early Tamil Sangam literarure, Thirukkural, that has been translated in more than 46 languages and Bhakthi literature viz., Saiva, Vaishnava literature, are known as the Dravidian Vedas.

SANSKRIT LITERATURE:

While the literature of Hinayana Buddhism were in Pali the literature of Mahayana Buddhism were not written in Pali but in Sanskrit. Historical evidences show that the Mahayana Buddhist's literature and the literature of the Six-fold religion of the family of Siva were written in Sanskrit.
All the Sanskrit scholars Veda Vyasa, Valmiki, Kalidasa... who have written valuable books in Sanskrit were the Dravidians. It was by the Dravidians that the worship songs were written in Sanskrit and were compiled and classified as the Vedas.

Sanskrit is considered to be the language of the scholars or eminent people since the books written in Sanskrit are of a high standard. Thus Sanskrit was formed by the Dravidian scholars as common link language (religious code language) and was not the language of the foreigners.
However, we can find the influence of the Persian and Greek languages in Sanskrit. Scholars know the development and the difference between the Sanskrit language which was in the early centuries of the Christian era in which the Mahayana Buddhist literature were written, and the Sanskrit which evolved in the Gupta period and Pallava period (between 4th c.A.D. to 6th or 7th c.A.D.) in which the literature of the Six-fold religion of the family of Siva were written. The latter is known as classical Sanskrit.

After the development of Sanskrit the languages that emerged were also known as Prakrit. So, it is to be observed that the Prakrit languages, which were before the formation of Sanskrit, are different from the languages, which emerged after the development of Sanskrit, and there is a long interval of time between them.

Historians create a great deal of confusion while discussing the Prakrit languages that were prevalent before the formation of Sanskrit, and those that emerged after the development of Sanskrit. The confusion developed since they were not able to understand the history of Early Indian Christianity, and, they believed the wrong ideologies that were formed and spread by the European Aryans that the Six-fold religion of the Early Indian Christianity is the religion of the Brahmins. Hence, the scholars write that the period of Vedas belong to 1000 B.C., or 2000 B.C., or 5000 B.C..... and this is the first language of the world and it was spoken by the Aryans. Further many erroneously write that the Indian Aryans and the European Aryans were separated from the common Aryan race, and after 3000 years they were united again in India, and the Brahmins are the leaders of the Indian Aryans and Hinduism.

This resulted in the Germans to think that they were the most superior amongst the Aryans, and this led to the massacre of millions of Jews by Hitler. Hitler who had the same racial fanaticism was the root cause for the great destruction of innocent lives in many countries during the Second World War.

Correlation in language alone cannot denote a racial correlation, says R.S.Sarma,
"Towards the end of the eighteenth century when William Jones discovered that Sanskrit was similar to Greek, Latin and other European languages, it was postulated that the Aryans lived in a area either in central Asia or Eastern Europe. They were supposed to have descended from same racial stock. This concept prevailed in the nineteenth century and was used as a powerful political weapon in Nazi Germany during the anti-Jewish campaign launched by Hitler. After 1933 it was declared that the German people constituted a pure Aryan race. In the Nazi view, they occupied the highest place among the Aryans and hence were entitled to hegemony over the world. But scholars who have studied the Aryan problem deeply have come to the conclusion that those speaking the same language need not necessarily belong to the same racial or ethnic stock".19

McDonnell's statement about William Jones, quoted by R.S.Sarma is as follows:

"Sir W. Jones was, moreover, the first scholar who definitely asserted the genealogical connection of Sanskrit with Greek and Latin, and its probable affinity with Persian, German and Celtic".20
Jones has done research in the correlation between Sanskrit and the European languages. Now the question is why he has not done research to correlate between Sanskrit and the Indian languages. If he has deciphered an answer for this question, then he might have given the explanation for the term 'Aryans'. He might also have been relieved from the wrong conception that Sanskrit is of the Aryan race.

-------------------------------------------

1) K.L. Kurana, Political & Cultural History of India, P. 110
2) Ibid, P.110
3) Ibid, P.112
4) K.L. Kurana,op.cit.,p.113
5) Ibid
6) A.A. Macdonell, India's past, Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1927, Pp.V-VII
7) David Frawley,The Myth of the Aryan invasion of India,1994,pp.23,24
8) R.S.Sharma, Op. Cit., P.4
9) K.L. Kurana,op.cit.,p.174,175
10) E.W.Thompson History of India ,Christian Literature Society,Madras.13th Ed.,1940,p.15
11) R.S.Sharma, Op. Cit., P.51
12) Ibid,p.45
13) Ibid,p.44
14) Ibid
15) Nirad C. Chaudhuri, Hinduism, Oxford University Press, 1979, Pp.38,39
16) B.N.Mukherjee, Studies in the Aramaic Edicts of Asoka, Indian Museum, Calcutta, 1984, P.47
17) R.S. Sharma, Looking for the Aryans, Oriental Longman Ltd., Madras-2, F.P.1995, P.1,(ii) A.A. Macdonell, Op.Cit., P.240
18) John Marshall, Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilization Vol I & Vol.II, Arthur Probsthin, London - 1931
(ii) Ernest Mackay, Early Indus Civilization, New Delhi Indological Book Corporation, 1976

(iii) D. Devakala Jothimani, Origin and development of Tamil Bhakti Movement (in the light of Bible), (Dept. of Christian Tamil literature, University of Madras, 1993.) was also not brought to light at that time

19) R.S. Sharma, Looking for the Aryans, (Oriental Longman Ltd., Madras-2, F.P.1995, P-1)

20) A.A. McDonnell, Op. Cit., P.240

Home

Contribution of Dravidian Religious Heritage to India's Peace and Social Harmony

108 Questions to Sankara Mutt |

Iconography of Hindu Religion |

Who are the Indian Dalits? |

Cycle of birth |

Humane love and Spirituality |

Is Indus Valley Civilization of Dravidians or Aryans? |

Bhakthi from North or South? |

Christ-Bodhisattva-Brahman |