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 “information” (actually conjecture) provided by modern theorists with their invasionist
model. This is in fact a general tendency among academics trying to come to grips with
the challenge to their trusted AIT-based models: even while evaluating non-AIT scenarios,
they often relapse into AIT-derived assumptions.
By contrast, Shrikant Talageri’s survey of the relative chronology of all R. g-Vedic kings
and poets has been based exclusively on the internal textual evidence, and yields a com-
pletely consistent chronology.16

Its main finding is that the geographical gradient of Ved

ic ¯

Aryan culture in its R. g-Vedic stage is from east to west, with the eastern river Ga˙ng¯a
appearing a few times in the older passages (written by the oldest poets mentioning the
oldest kings), and the western river Indus appearing in later parts of the book (written by
descendents of the oldest poets mentioning descendents of the oldest kings).
The status quaestionis is still, more than ever, that the Vedic corpus provides no ref-
erence to an immigration of the so-called Vedic ¯

Aryans from Central Asia. This need not
be taken as sufficient proof that such an invasion never took place, that Indo-¯

Aryan was
native to India, and that India is the homeland of the Indo-European language family.
Perhaps such an invasion from a non-Indian homeland into India took place at a much
earlier date, so that it was forgotten by the time of the composition of the R. g-Veda. But
at least, such an “¯

Aryan invasion” cannot be proven from the information provided by the

Vedic narrative itself.

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)//-->