Are Colonial Historical Constructions Perpetrated in the Name of Marxist/Secularist History of India

Colonial Vestiges of Race, Religion, and Land: Aryans, Horse, and Script: A Response to Romila Thapar’s Outdated Views (“Hindutva and History” Frontline Oct 13, 2000, reprint Jan 2015)

1. First of All Stop Calling Them Aryans!

I think abstaining from using the word Aryans as a designation for people of the Vedas would solve most of the issues associated with early history of India. Besides the people of the Vedas called themselves the Aryas, a designation reserved for civilized and cultured folk, and it does not denote a race. Using it as a racial term is taking it out of context from the normal Vedic usage.

It is an undeniable historical fact that colonialism always benefited from invented historical categories, especially invasion theories, most importantly those that present invaders as bringers of knowledge and civilization. This angle of presentation of history is beneficial for colonial government formed by invaders, who are considered alien rulers by the natives. Thus the Aryas of the Vedas are equated with Aryans of somewhere (or anywhere and nowhere). The Aryan invasion theory current until the turn of the second millennium construed that an alien group of people referred to as Aryans in Indian history during the Neolithic phase, who are said to have arrived with the Neolithic package (agriculture, metals, chariot), influencing the indigenous culture of India in a major way. This is not only presented as a theory, but as a fact legitimizing alien rule in India as a beneficiary historical event. This did not only happen in India, but in numerous countries across the world, wherever colonial empires were established.

Colonial states brought with them the theoretical identity shift, which helped colonial governance, by making them amenable to a group of the general population of the governed, generally a minority, already threatened by the majority. They cling on to this new found superior identity offered by the colonial rulers, and become part of the exploiters separated from the governed public, by the new theories of identity being popularized by the colonial government. Some of the postcolonial states wrestle with this pseudo identity for many years, which becomes an irreversible obstacle in their state formation and nationhood. African states such as Yemen, Rwanda, and Sudan, still wrestle with this issue, although India has found some peace, this issue still continues to plague the identity politics in India, conveniently grabbed by two opposing political sections of society- the lower classes presented as the oppressed (Dalits) and the higher classes presented as oppressors and invaders. Two race theory always involves an indigenous group, and a invader group; although the origins invaders are mired in mystery, this theory has worked in a number of colonial states, sometimes leading to ravaging results in some post colonial states such as Rwanda (Forges 1995). The invaders are always pale skinned, and come from north, while the indigenous are always the dark skinned and came from the south in general. Buying into this theory of two-race divide of Indian population, Indian epics such as the Mahabharata, and especially the Ramayana are reinterpreted as representing the struggle between the invaders and the indigenous tribes. The story of Ramayana is interpreted to show that Ravana is the leader of the indigenous tribes, while Rama is shown as the repressing invader. Contradictory evidence of appearances or story is ignored (while Rama is dark skinned, his wife Sita is of dark tan color (the color of the indigenous people), while Ravana is fair skinned; is also noted as Brahmana).

There are no races in India as they were portrayed in the early 20^th century. The Aryans is an invented race, and the Aryas of the Vedas is not a racial designation.

This theory of Aryan invasion has recently been revised to Aryan migration due to mounting historical evidence showing no evidence of large movements of people into India. Following this revision old time historians like Romila Thapar have also accepted that Aryan invasions/migrations is untenable in view of the current researches. My research (Vemsani 2014) utilizing genetic evidence clearly shows that no large migrations of alien human groups had ever occurred in India.

It is appalling that Romila Thapar quotes Jyotiba Phule, and Savarkar to construct her contention on Hindutva. Both Phule and Savarkar had written their work during the colonial regime in early twentieth century when the Aryan invasion theories were current, and did not have an opportunity to revise their views in the light of the new research. Further it has to be noted that Thapar herself had held similar views. She convenietly forgets her own work written during the late twentieth century asserting the same theories on Aryan invasion and Aryanization of Indian culture (Thapar 1966: 29). It is a false parallelism to equate early twentieth century notions of Aryans with current research on Aryans and Indus valley to label it as Hindutva. If Thapar wanted to argue against the current debates on Aryans she should have consulted current research on Ancient India, and its archaeology. Based on this false equivalency she argues that “A Hindu therefore could not be descended from alien invaders,” and goes on to propose that “since Hindus sought a lineal descent from Aryans, and a cultural heritage, the Aryans had to be indigenous.” In fact, the Aryas of the Vedas are indigenous to India. Romila Thapar is forgetting here that India did not exist in this modern geographical form at the time of the Vedas during its early historical phase. The Hindu land (country of Hindus) referred to the land of the Indian subcontinent all the way from Afghanisthan to the Indian Ocean. This is what the Jambudvipa referred to in the classical Hindu texts. The earliest references made by Persians, and Greeks have also referred to the Indian subcontinent as a whole as Hindu country. Then is’nt it true that the Vedic people who lived in the Saptasindhu region are indigenous to India. Mobility and cultural contacts, and multiplicity of life styles existed in the region called Saptasindhu, and Aryas were no aliens to that region.

2. Neolithic package (horse, iron, and chariots) Import Lacks Evidence

Cities, unicorns, and Script

Existence or nonexistence of horses, elephants or any other animals is not central to the question of whether the Indus valley people and the Rigvedic people lived in the same region, since introduction of Neolithic package (horses, iron, agriculture) by way of Aryan invasion or migration has already been disproved, and Romila Thapar agrees with this. Then it does not matter if horses existed in Indus valley or India. When there were no invasions and migrations into India, it is out of question if any animals were brought into India or not. Indus valley seals depicted a number of animals, and it is safe to assume that the people of Indus region including the Aryas are familiar with these animals. Kenoyer asserts that many different animals were depicted on the Indus seals including the unicorn, humped bull, elephant, rhinoceros, water buffalo, short-horned humpless bull, goat, antelope, crocodile, and hare (Kenoyer, 2012). It is hard to know what animal the unicorn might have represented. If the representation is just that of a bull, other seals of humped bull, humpless bull exist, and it differs significantly form these other bull seals. It bears features of a stylized image of a horse (or something similar to a horse) with sylized bovine horn (single horn unlike the two horns noted in the seals representing bulls). Unicorn depiction only shows that a stylized representation of an animal is in vogue, and that they were differentiating it from other known animals such as the bull. If the unicorn seals just represent a bovine bull, I don’t understand why they were stylizing it to look different from the other images of bovine bulls found on Indus seals. It must bear some significance to be depicted so differently and frequently across the Indus valley. It can be said that simply considering the unicorn seals as another representation of bull is missing its significance. Numerous seals of unicorn are found, which indicates its popularity in the region. Kenoyer further notes that the mythical unicorn was the most common symbol on seals, and moulded tablets as well as on a unique carved medallion or pendant. Kenoyer also found terracotta figurines of unicorns from Harappa, Mohenjodaro, Chanhudaro, and Ganeriwala. Does Romila Thapar then accuse Kenoyer of lying when she says ‘the unicorn image is computer enhanced and fabricated’ in her Frontline article? May be one image could have been fabricated, but what about all these other unicorn seals? What could they be representing? How could so many Indus valley seals depict a unicorn (a mix of bull, horse or deer), if the horse did not fascinate the Indus valley people? And how can the horses fascinate them, if they did not have horses? They did not also depict cow on the seals. Does that mean cow is somehow cow is not important to the Indus people or that only bulls existed in the Indus valley culture?

Importation of Neolithic package (horses, script, iron) by way of Aryans is only a colonial construction. Research on early India should progress beyond these colonial constructions.

Decipherment of Indus Valley script is not important to understanding where the Rigvedic people lived. It is common in this world to write several languages in the same script. A number of languages may have been spoken in the extensive Indus valley region spreading between Baluchitan to Kutch. Efforts to decipher any single language from these scant symbols on the seals are not helpful to understand the early history of India. Besides, the Aryas have described where they lived in the Rigveda.

3. Aryas Claimed their Home was Saptasindhu

Thapar rightly argues that the Aryan invasion theory is untenable, but continues with her assumptions that they must have lived somewhere other than the Indus Valley. She argues that “the village-based, pastoral society of the Rigveda could not be identical to the complex urban society of the Indus.” Can she tell us where the Aryas may have lived?

Assuming that Indus valley civilization is uniform throughout, and completely urban is a fantasy.  Based on this false assumption Thapar argued that “If the two societies were identical, the two systems would at least have to be similar.” She urgently needs to consult Dr. Kenoyer’s research on Indus valley civilization (Kenoyer 1998; Rao 2014; Harappa.com). Archaeologists have proposed that Indus valley is not just a civilization of cities, but each city is also flanked by a number of villages, and pastoral settlements. Kenoyer has proposed, after a number of years of tedious research in the Indus valley, that Indus valley civilization is complex and not uniform throughout. Indus valley civilization was thought of as urban when only the first two cities were excavated, and not much is known about other settlements in the area. However, recent researches have expanded the geographical extent of Indus valley civilization from Baluchistan to Kutch in Gujarat. Some later Indus valley evidence is found in Inamgaon in Maharashtra, and some Megalithic pottery fragments excavated in South India contains Indus valley script. 

Whether Indus valley civilization is Aryan or not is a different question. But one thing is for certain; Indus valley is an indigenous civilization, and people of Indus valley had migrated into India beginning with 2^nd millennium B.C.E. Those people may have certainly belonged to a number of cultural settlements such as pastoral, rural and urban. This is proven by archeology. At the same time the Aryas of the Rigveda also mention that they lived in the Saptasindhu region (exactly the same geographical location as the Indus valley civilization) and they also mention in the later Vedic texts that they migrated from there to the Ganga-Yamuna region. Why not trust the Aryas when they say their homeland is Saptasindhu region?

Romila Thapar selectively chooses her evidence from the Rigveda when it suits her. Romila Thapar insists that people of the Rigveda may not have lived in the Indus valley region because the Rigveda does not contain any description of cities, drainage etc, but describes only pastoral life style. The Rigveda also describes the area where the people of the Rigveda lived- the Rigveda includes a hymn on Indus river, and other geographical landmarks where they lived. Why not trust the Rigveda when it describes where the people of the Vedas roamed? Why trust them only on pastoral life style and not on their geographical information?

In conclusion it could be said that Romila Thapar rules out the Vedic evidence on geographical location of the Aryas, archaeological evidence on unicorn by scholars without offering any alternative evidence or explanation of her own.

Thapar should note that efforts to understand the true history of India, while rescuing it from the colonial projections is not Hindutva. Looking through the Marxist lens may make it seem so. Every Indian has the right to know the extent and features of Indus valley civilization as well as the true background and geographical extent of the early Vedic civilization. Multiplicity of views and debates are always a feature of Indian culture. Suppressing a viewpoint through name calling or branding it as ‘Hindutva,’ is not conducive to productive thought. Thapar’s comment that “history as projected by Hindutva ideologues, which is being introduced to children through text books,” is a short sighted observation. The points raised by Thapar in her Frontline article about Aryan invasion, horses, geographical extent, and cultural nature of Indus valley are complex, and undergone several updates since its first discovery during the 1920s. These issues deserve the attention of each and every scholar interested in understanding early India. Name calling and accusing opposing analyses as fabrications is not conducive to production of knowledge and do not contribute to understanding the truth about early origins of Indian culture.

References:

Forges, Alison Des. 1995. “Ideology of Genocide,” Issue: A Journal of Opinion. 116-125.

Kenoyer, Jonathan. 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

Kenoyer, Jonathan. 2012. “Iconography of the Indus Unicorn: Origin and Legacy,” in Connections and Complexity: New Approaches to the Archaeology of South Asia. Ed. S. Abraham, P. Gullipoli, T. Raczek, and U, Rizvi. PP. 107-25. Walnut Creek: Left Creek Press.

Thapar, Romila. 1966. Early India. New Delhi: Penguin.

Vemsani, Lavanya. 2014. “Genetic Evidence of Early Human Migrations in the Indian Ocean Region Disproves Aryan Migration/Invasion Theories: An Examination of Small-statured Human Groups of the Indian Ocean Region,” Ed. Rao, N. Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization: New Perspectives. New Delhi: DK Printworld, and Nalanda International, Los Angeles.