P. 1
Aryan Invasion - Dr. Koenraad Elst

Aryan Invasion - Dr. Koenraad Elst

4.0

|Views: 671|Likes:
Published by prasadkarkare
Until the mid-19th century, no Indian had ever heard of the notion that his ancestors
could be ¯Aryan invaders from Central Asia who had destroyed the native civilization and
enslaved the native population. Neither had South-Indians ever dreamt that they were the
rightful owners of the whole subcontinent, dispossessed by the ¯Aryan invaders who had
chased them from North India, turning it into A¯ryavarta, the land of the A¯ryans. Nor had
the low-caste people heard that they were the original inhabitants of India, subdued by
the ¯Aryans and forced into the prisonhouse of caste which the conquerors imposed upon
them as an early form of Apartheid. All these ideas had to be imported by European
scholars and missionaries, who thought through the implications of the ¯Aryan Invasion
Theory (AIT), the theory that the Indo-European (IE) language family had spread out
from a given homeland, probably in Eastern Europe, and found a place in Western and
Southern Europe and in India as cultural luggage of horse-borne invaders who subjugated
the natives.
One of the first natives to interiorize these ideas was Jotirao Phule, India’s first modern
Mahatma, a convent-educated low-caste leader from Maharashtra. In 1873, he set the
tone for the political appropriation of the AIT: “Recent researches have shown beyond
a shadow of doubt that the Brahmins were not the Aborigines of India ( . . . ) Aryans
came to India not as simple emigrants with peaceful intentions of colonization, but as
conquerors. They appear to have been a race imbued with very high notions of self,
extremely cunning, arrogant and bigoted.”

Dr. Koenraad Elst, Belgium, makes it clear that the theory was a propaganda of British to divide & rule Indians.
Until the mid-19th century, no Indian had ever heard of the notion that his ancestors
could be ¯Aryan invaders from Central Asia who had destroyed the native civilization and
enslaved the native population. Neither had South-Indians ever dreamt that they were the
rightful owners of the whole subcontinent, dispossessed by the ¯Aryan invaders who had
chased them from North India, turning it into A¯ryavarta, the land of the A¯ryans. Nor had
the low-caste people heard that they were the original inhabitants of India, subdued by
the ¯Aryans and forced into the prisonhouse of caste which the conquerors imposed upon
them as an early form of Apartheid. All these ideas had to be imported by European
scholars and missionaries, who thought through the implications of the ¯Aryan Invasion
Theory (AIT), the theory that the Indo-European (IE) language family had spread out
from a given homeland, probably in Eastern Europe, and found a place in Western and
Southern Europe and in India as cultural luggage of horse-borne invaders who subjugated
the natives.
One of the first natives to interiorize these ideas was Jotirao Phule, India’s first modern
Mahatma, a convent-educated low-caste leader from Maharashtra. In 1873, he set the
tone for the political appropriation of the AIT: “Recent researches have shown beyond
a shadow of doubt that the Brahmins were not the Aborigines of India ( . . . ) Aryans
came to India not as simple emigrants with peaceful intentions of colonization, but as
conquerors. They appear to have been a race imbued with very high notions of self,
extremely cunning, arrogant and bigoted.”

Dr. Koenraad Elst, Belgium, makes it clear that the theory was a propaganda of British to divide & rule Indians.

More info:

Published by: prasadkarkare on Nov 28, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/17/2013

pdf

text

original

The second element in the progressive separation of Sanskrit from PIE was the impression
that the [a/e/o] differentiation in Latin and Greek was original, and that their reduction to
[a] in Sanskrit was a subsequent development (as in Greek genos corresponding to Sanskrit
jana). Satya Swarup Misra argues that it may just as well have been the other way
around, and unlike the palatalization process, this vowel shift is indeed possible in either
direction.13

Mishra cites examples from the Gypsy language, but we need look no farther
than English, where [a], still preserved in “bar”, has practically become [e] in “back” and
“bake”, and [o] in “ball”.
There are, however, excellent reasons to stick to the conventional view that the [a/e/o]
distinctness is original and their coalescence into [a] a later development. Firstly, the
reduction to [a) is typical of just one branch, viz. Indo-lranian, whereas a differentiation
starting from [a] would have been a change uniformly affecting all the branches except
one, which is less probable. Secondly, the different treatment of the velar consonants in
reduplicated Sanskrit verb forms like jag¯ama or cak¯ara suggests a difference in subsequent
vowel, with only the first vowel having a palatalizing impact on the preceding velar: jeg¯ama

< geg¯ama, cek¯ara < kek¯ara.
So, there is no reason to reject the conventional view that Greek vowels are closer to
the PIE original than the Sanskrit vowels are. But here again, we also see no reason to
make geographical deductions from this. India may as well have been the homeland of
Proto-Greek, which left before the shift from [a/e/o] to [a] took place.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->