Colonial Roots of the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory and the Contemporary Archaeological Evidence in Western Sources

William Jones, famously, by identifying close linkages between Sanskrit and European languages, gave birth to research into the common ancestry between Indians and Europeans. In the earlier years of contention on the matter, India was considered the cradle of civilisation and Sanskrit as the mother of all Indo-European languages. With the rise in the imperial power of Europe over India, the cradle of civilisation began to shift outside India and ultimately landed in Europe. Simultaneously, the idea of invasion of India by the ‘Aryan race’, or the Aryan invasion theory (AIT), was promoted. Since then, however, one archaeological find over another have consistently refuted the AIT, proving it as false. As flawed as it remains, this theory has, nonetheless, persisted and morphed in its current form as the Aryan migration theory (AMT) and continues to find mention and favour in contemporary academic discourse. In mainstream academia, today, whether in grade-school texts or in texts meant for undergraduate and graduate study, whenever India and Hinduism are mentioned, the coming of Aryans from outside of India and establishing Hinduism and civilisation in India are discussed as veritable facts. By examining the theory in anticolonial and postcolonial contexts, we show that despite considerable archaeological evidence refuting the theories of the invasion or migration of Aryans into India, its colonial embeddedness in the notion of the racial superiority of the Europeans or people with European ancestry that the theory does not fade into oblivion.

Lost in the hall of mirrors

The category Aryan and the paradigm of ideas associated with it remains highly controversial in contemporary India, and the history, status, and impact of this concept are contested at many levels. This paper starts with the assumption that the genesis of this concept lies in Western linguistic theorizing, and analyzes in outline the reception and impact of Aryan Invasion Theory and the postulation of an Aryan-Dravidian divide. Radical Hindu nationalists reject all aspects of the colonial scholarship of India; other Indian scholars see Western scholarship as authoritative to the extent that it falls within the framework of secular modernity. The argument made here is that the entire Aryan paradigm rests on a faulty set of academic presumptions and that its impact has been more long lasting and destructive than even the application of race theory to the understanding of India. In this sense the paper accepts the criticisms made by radical Hindu nationalists of colonial linguistics, and this raises further complex issues about knowledge production and application, scholarly expertise and authority.

Aryans versus Non-Aryans: A Study of Dalit Narratives of India’s Ancient Past

This article discusses the Dalit narratives of India’s ancient past, particularly varied interpretations of Aryan invasion of India. The colonial administrators introduced Aryan theory and race science in order to justify their authority over India. In a response, social reformers and nationalist scholars, largely coming from upper castes, constructed their own narratives of Indian history, which promoted the idea of glorious Aryan-Hindu past. Contrary to the colonial and nationalist scholars, who had characterized the Aryan race as a founder of Hindu civilization, Jotirao Phule’s counter-narrative projected them as foreign invaders. In addition, as Brahmanas were identified with Aryans, all non-Brahmanas including Shudras and untouchables were identified as original inhabitants of India in Dalit writings. However, Ambedkar, who challenged the colonial and nationalist views on Aryan invasion, refused to accept Jotirao Phule’s identification of Aryans with foreign invaders. Instead, he rejected the Aryan invasion theory and presence of distinct warring races in ancient India. The article highlights the impact of the rapidly changing political atmosphere of the 1940s on Ambedkar’s counter-narratives that proposed a common Aryan identity for all—Brahmanas, Shudras and untouchables.