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

A third element which increased the distance between reconstructed PIE and Sanskrit
dramatically was the discovery of Hittite. Though Hittite displayed a very large intake
of lexical and other elements from non-IE languages, some of its features were deemed
to be older than their Sanskrit counterparts, e.g. the Hittite genus commune as opposed
to Sanskrit’s contrast between masculine and feminine genders, or the much-discussed
laryngeal consonants, absent in Sanskrit as in all other IE languages.
It is by no means universally accepted that these features of Hittite are indeed PIE.
Thus, the erosion of grammatical gender is a common phenomenon in IE languages, es-
pecially those suddenly exposed to an overdose of foreign influence, notably Persian and
English. So, it is arguable that Hittite underwent the same development when it had to
absorb large doses of Hattic or other pre-IE influence. In the past, the laryngeals have been
explained by competent scholars (the last one probably being Heinz Kronasser, d. 1967)
as being due to South-Caucasian or Semitic influence.
In any case, those who reject the laryngeal theory have definitely been marginalized.
But for our purposes there is no need to align ourselves with these dissident opinions. Even

13

Satya Swarup Misra: The Aryan Problem, p. 80-87, p. 89.

78

CHAPTER 3. LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF THE IE URHEIMAT QUESTION

if we go with the dominant opinion and accept these elements as PIE, that is still no reason
why the Urheimat should be in the historical location of Hittite or at least outside India.
As the first emigrant dialect, Hittite could have taken from India some linguistic features
(genus commune, laryngeals) which were about to disappear in the dialects emigrating only
later or staying behind.

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)//-->