Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) is a hot topic for discussion in academia as well as politics and is a major source of conflict and identity theft in modern India. So it did not come as a surprise when Mallikarjun Kharge, one of the Congress MPs, used this argument in Parliament. It is not only used as a means to justify conversions out of Hinduism by Abrahamic missionaries but is also one of the prime drivers of conflict between North and South India.
But what is AIT? It is a theory on the origin of Indians and Hindu religion outside India and was first propounded by the British in the 19th and 20th century. To study the AIT, it is important to understand the historical background and origin behind it. In the 18th century, there was a major drive in Europe to study India, Indian culture and its philosophy, following the discovery of the sea route to India and the beginning of colonisation. The early 18th century was filled with Indophiles who were astounded by Indian philosophical and cultural richness. During this time, the study of Sanskrit became prominent in Europe, especially in the UK and Germany. At that time, linguists were amazed by the similarities between North Indian and European languages. The western works during this time were full of praises for India and its culture as a civilisation.
However, by the end of the 19th century, India had fallen to British rule due to infighting and lack of organised resistance. This period marks the departure from Indophilia towards Indophobia among western intellectuals, who wanted to downplay all the achievements of Indian civilisation — any praise of such achievements would have kindled nationalism among Indians. Also, such downplaying meant that Indians could be convinced that India had nothing great to produce. It was under these circumstances and in the late 19th century that the Aryan Invasion Theory was propounded by the British by exploiting the similarities between Sanskrit and other European languages.
According to this theory, the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) — which existed from 3500 BC to 1500 BC — ended around 1500 BC because of the invasion by a group of nomads called Aryans, who came from Central Asia and Europe. The theory also claimed that the IVC was Dravidian and that the Dravidians were driven out of the Indus Valley by Aryan nomads who became the new rulers. The religion of the Aryans (worshipping Indra, Varuna, Vayu, Agni etc.) and the religion of the Dravidians (worshipping Shiva and other deities) was born as a result of this mixture. This whole premise was based on mere linguistic similarity between Sanskrit and European languages. The western intellectuals, especially the British, dismissed the possibility of North Indians migrating to Europe on the grounds that inferior Indians could not have been the forefathers of Europeans. So the linguistic similarity was used to posit invasion of India from Central Asia and Europe — not the other way round. This should come as no surprise as the 19th century was dominated by race-based theories.
The politics of the British
- Using this theory, the British successfully sold the idea that Indians had no say in their own culture and that their civilisation owes its origin to the invading Aryans who gave them the Vedas written in Sanskrit. This was also used as an excuse to justify their own invasion and colonisation of India — Indians (Aryans) were themselves migrants into India, so Britain could also invade India since its inhabitants were not natives either. Also, it allowed the British to convince gullible Indians that British and Indians were from the same racial stock, except that the Aryan blood was impure in India due to inter-mixing with the Dravidians.
- British also successfully convinced both upper castes and lower castes on the validity of AIT by playing them against each other. The upper castes — who by then predominated the Civil Service posts under the British — were taught that they were related to British and Europeans since they are Aryans, and are better than the lower caste Dravidians who got defeated. This was also acceptable to the lower castes, who the British claimed were Dravidians, because they saw themselves as victims of upper caste Aryan invasion.
- Note that this theory also served the British purpose of creating a divide along North-South identity — North Indians as descendants of Aryans and South Indians as Dravidians driven down south from the Indus Valley. Beginning with Max Muller, the original proponent of AIT, many scholars tried but could not come up with any archaeological evidence that could prove such invasion or Aryans killing Dravidians. Since western intellectuals controlled the narrative on Sanskrit scholarship, they interpreted Rig Vedic verses on wars and conflicts to support AIT — even though there is no explicit mention of Aryans fighting Dravidians. In fact, the word “Dravidian” itself is derived from Sanskrit meaning South.
Since the British were masters of the divide-and-rule policy, they also came up with other race theories to suit their agenda — the most prominent being the Martial Race Theory (MRT). The regions and races which supported British imperialism were awarded the high title of “Martial Race” to win their loyalty by creating a false sense of superiority. It would take another complete article to show the political convenience behind MRT and debunk it, but it is important to understand the similarities with AIT and the depth of British imperial design to colonise Indian minds.
The current politics
Post departure of the British, the same theory has been used by Indian politicians backed by the Marxist intelligentsia to discredit Hinduism and widen the fault lines existing in India. The direct impact of this politics can be seen in the following ways:
- AIT has a direct impact on fuelling language antagonism between north and south Indians on Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil and other south Indian languages. This Dravidian nationalism was stoked by the British in the late 19th century and was used to weaken Indian nationalism as a whole. Many Dravidian parties of today were actually against independence and were active collaborators against the Indian freedom movement. This trend continues even today with many Dravidian leaders covertly stoking separatist tendencies in South India.
- AIT is used as a means for conversion in South India by missionaries, who first de-link South Indian Hindus from Hinduism by claiming that they are following the religion of their invaders. This is one of the reasons behind Christians being 10% of Tamil Nadu and other southern states and growing at an alarming rate. Dravidian politicians use AIT to justify anti-Hindu policies like giving grants for missionaries and tax breaks for Christians and churches while simultaneously trying to destroy Hindu temples through wanton neglect.
- The north is also reeling under the caste divide created and sustained by this theory. Many North Indians and upper castes from South India think that they are direct descendants of superior European Aryans as opposed to the lower castes who were defeated. This strange pride and loyalty towards invaders is only a result of their colonised minds. As the saying goes, the colonised people try to mimic the culture of their colonisers and would try to associate themselves with the colonisers instead of their native culture. Seen in this context, AIT provides a pseudo-scientific explanation and another reason for upper caste bigots to justify their caste-based superiority.
To summarize, AIT was used by the British as a convenient tool to create and sustain fault lines among Indians. The same theory is now used by Indian politicians — sometimes to create rift among Hindus, or to create the North-South divide. Not only that, it is also used as a tool by forces inimical to India to convert Hindus out of Hinduism by first de-linking them from Hinduism and then using them as a tool for balkanising India. Given the above political benefits and dominance of Marxist intelligentsia, this theory still finds many supporters and has not been rejected on the basis of new evidence. The new evidences have only resulted in the change of goalposts and the exposition of a milder version called Aryan Migration Theory. Since this article has presented the politics behind this theory, it sets the stage for the next few articles in this series that will deal with providing evidence and debunking this theory in detail.