Download the full article : http://www.planetfreebook.com/Classic_collection/classic_books_author_F_PDF_edited_filenames/Frawley.%20Dr%20David!The%20Myth%20of%20the%20Aryan%20Inv.pdf

Many believe that Aryans never invaded India.... I don't think there exists any scriptures which tells about the invasion... So,probably they were always indigenous people of mainland Indian subcontinent....!

I'm no expert, but I've come across no historian who advocates the idea of an Aryan Invasion. This idea has long since become history itself, and yet I keep coming across fresh debunkings of it. Caveat: I'm speaking here as an interested person but one of limited knowledge. Archaeologists used to associate a change of style or technology with a mass migration of people, the ones with the new stuff displacing the old. Now they tend to think in terms of a transfer of style and technology. I like to think of a woman going to a market in 10,000 years ago and seeing some new style pots. Going home she argues with her man; he claims that the ones they have have been good for millenia so why change. Eventually he wins the argument but somehow finds himself obtaining some of the new pots. Similarly for language: new language = new people, but not any more. The spread of Latin through France and Spain was not because the original populations were replaced by Romans. And we see a similar situation with English in India. In India we see two language families, North and South. The Northern, Sanskrit-based, languages are strongly related to languages in the strip from India through the Middle east, Europe and Britain, and there is the proposed parent Indo-European language. No one knows where IE originated but the consensus is in what is now Iran (coincidentally, Aryan and Iran have a common root). How IE spread as it did is mostly conjecture. It could hardly have been a mass migration/invasion over such a large area. Better military technology, better farming techniques, better table manners, better...? OK, I'm ready to be beaten up...

i think the most accepted theory now is not of an invasion, but of a slow trickling of people from Iran and beyond into the subcontinent. This trickle happened over several centuries, say historians. These people called themselves Arya, and brought with them a new way of life, a new language, and new gods. The Rig Veda definitely talks of a new land, the land of seven rivers, which the five tribes have entered. It talks of a people called the Dasyus whose fortresses they destroyed. It also describes battles over water resources. But maybe we should wait for the results of the National Geographic genome mapping project to understand the migration patterns of human populations...

@Rohini: Why wait? There are some results already: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/26/india-genetics-genes-science (The Nature article referenced is behind a paywall) There are no dates given so I can see no conclusions other than that there are two populations. One, the earliest inhabitants who it is believed travelled along the coast and at a time when sea-levels were lower, and a second presumably entering via the north-west. A more extensive study would be interesting. BTW I too have donated to the Nat Geo scheme: Both are common in Europe and the UK, my X travelled through central Asia before heading north, my mtDNA took the shorter route through the ME.

This article draws out more conclusions, albeit tentative ones: http://www.colaco.net(/)1(/)/SantoshIndiaMigration.htm You'll have to remove the brackets around the slashes - FB says that some have claimed it is abusive...

I think - does it really matter? Hitler tried to exploit this Aryan theory to gain some alliances in his evil design, but failed thankfully! India is a tapestry of races and cultures, such blending that has no parallel in human history. We should appreciate that.That the Aryans came and settled in Kashmir ( the Saraswat Kashmiri pandits) and flourished is well accepted by a lot of experts. They spread,amalgamated in North and North east India is also proven fact. Invasion /wave migration, whatever happened, had an impact on the local cultures. This is clearly borne out in the stunningly different looks, cultures, dresses in remote regions like the hills of Kashmir, HP, Uttaranchal & Nepal. In fact, Nepali is considered to be one of the purest forms of (Sanskritized) IE languages. People with European looks ( blond hair, blue/green eyes) are common in these regions...including among the Nepali 'Bahuns'. By no means were the local cultures inferior...just possibly that the Aryans were more dominating and managed to impose their will through various means.

Hitler Believed in Aryan bunkum as do, unfortunately, millions of other lunatics about the world. Later 19th and early 20th century racialism -- often confused with 'racism' in our idiom Definitely promoted the idea of northern European superiority. As a person of textbook 'Aryan' appearance, this lingering idiocy and its results shall forever bother me in India... & nein, I don't expect to visit Germany, ever again. The crazier the lie, the more people are bound to Believe it.

I think the longevity of the Aryan Invasion Theory owes much to the belief that Indo-European peoples originated somewhere unspecified in the Caucasus from where they radiated in all directions, and obscures the possibility that the entire racial group originated in India.

India's diverse racial gene-pool was indeed founded upon a mixture from the Caucasus regions and the Tamil (Dravidian) from southern India. Additionally, let us not forget the Bon Mongolian in the North East, that brought some of the magical yantra practices to Tantricka Hinduism. Please read www.zacharyselig.com - Spiritual - History.

I had the pleasure of meeting Frawley while I was in the South Asian Studies Dept and was president of the Indian students group. He made some very good arguements. A lot of SA scholars don't believ in the Aryan myth for a number of reasons. I had to write one paper on the topic for Dr. JT O'Connell all those years back. I recall coming across ample evidence that Aryans are indigenous to India and it doesn't describe a race. Some examples are the fact that the Mahabharata and Ramayana are Aryan epics and do not take place outside of Bharat. The whole "light-skin" theory was also garbage since Krishna is a dark skinned God of the North, while Shiva is a white skinned God of the South. Also, another example is that Chanakya was the most powerful man in the empire of Chandragupta, and if the northerners were so racist, then how could a dark-skinned brahmin of the south wield so much power. These are just a few examples. As for Zachary, I have to disagree with you on a number of accounts. The Mongolians were very much influenced by both vedic and buddhist India, thus Bon's mystical yantras were an export of India. Hu Shih, the former ambassador of China to America and Chancellor of Beijing University once said "India ruled China for 20 centuries, without sending over one soldier". As for the Caucasus theory, I can't agree either because in the Srimad Bhagvatam we have clear references to an exodus of Indians towards europe who were exiled during King Yayati time, and there is mention of the places they settled, such as greece, and ravenna in Italy and as far as Ireland, taking Tara devi with them to Ireland. Sorry for any typos. Had to write fast because I am in the middle of research.

I usually love reading RBSI posts and the amazing photos. But I think this post deviates from normal charter, venturing into questionable "theory" which is politically motivated and have been discredited by serious researchers. Here's an example of exchanges regarding this topic: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Har-veda.htm

Hari Shankar : On the contrary...I am actually delighted that I posted this subject. See the diverse, articulate and persuasive opinions by so many bright individuals in just one go.....simply priceless !! Whether we agree with them or not is not the point.... but this is learning for me. Thank you my brilliant RBSI members !!

I also favor reading The Vedas and develop an understanding of the AIT. In that sense there is one point that David Frawley makes that I am attracted to is what he calls as "adhikArI bhAShya". The Vedas are Holy Scriptures to a practicing Hindu. Thus a practicing Hindu having or showing allegiance to the Scriptural utterances has the first right to say what they mean. And there is a lot of tradition that goes with the Interpretations of the Scriptural Texts. These must be adhered to. Reading history or aspects of sociology into them is not in consonance with the canons of interpretation. When the British came and studied the Hindu Scriptures partly it was to understand the Indian mind with a view to enslave or put in mischievous arguments to grind one's own axe. Anyhow, I am going through a traditional learning process of The Vedas. I would really like to reflect on how much of it can really be called or identified as History or about migration of peoples.So, far as I have read I am not able to give even a tentative reality to the Aryan Invasion Theory- definitley not from reading the statements in the Vedas.

@ ameeta, crisp and informative as ever!

when Europeans tackled Hindu scripture they were by no means serving the aims if imperialism. That materials were preserved owes in large part to scores of colonial oddballs, including a host of gentleman scholars now forgotten. Actually, if one is to appreciate scripture of any description, important to know historical context, who produced materials and for whom. Am keener on the Upanishads & their perhaps cynical composers to jot things down in Prakit, the ever observing habituees of bazaars and roadsides. I like to think that comparable observers lurk in South Asia, today, far from the dominant classes. New synthesis needed?

Ameeta - yes, there are clear links to Harappa even today. Also, the Vedic fire rituals, and the brick sacrificial altars they constructed seem drawn from Indus practices. I doubt that the IVC was wiped out by any horde of fair skinned invaders. Rather, the two cultures mingled and inter-married, to give rise to what isnow known as the Indo-Aryan culture...which is really what we call the Vedic Age. But as you say, we need more evidence before we can say anything with certainty

Allen - thanks for the articles.

@Ameeta... how right you are about the advanced urban nature of the Indus valley civilization.... they have been pioneers in town planning on our earth, if i may say so. @Amrita.... Agree with you... the idea of an aryan civilization originating in India sounds a bit absurd.... there is more enuf proof that there was a slow migration of people from the caucasus region( may not be an invasion). They were primarily nomadic herdsmen and later settled in our fertile land to pursue agriculture......

@ Ameeta That is a great summation! No one has mentioned Ramdhari Singh Dinkar here but the first part of his ' Sanskriti ke Char Adhyaya' considers this issue in great detail and has traced the evolution of the' Indian' ethos as a result of the admixture of cultures and through gradual migration in a very convincing way. Some theories also hold that the Indus Valley Civilisation survivors were pushed into the centre of India and can be found as the Hos and Mundas still living there.

Yeah, absolutely true

Very interesting discussion. Thanks for the information and the links. In Ïn the book Ïnvasion that never was"by Micheal Danino, he goes to argue that the movement of people was from East to West and not into the Indian subcontinent. Its a very interesting read. Also in the translation of the Vedas by R L Kashyap and Sadagopan, there is a detailed word by word translation and meaning of the entire Vedas and Samhitas. I am still reading them but to whatever extent I have covered the meaning is more spiritual than anything geographical or historical. Though I do respect and follow the works of historians on the Indus Valley Civilization I somehow cannot bring myself to accept how the Vedas a purely spiritual and religious text could be used towards wars, trade or superiority. Anyway, I am very interested in knowing about the civilization that was lucid enough to think such lofty ideals as given in the Upanishads. Thanks for the links and discussion, really informative

@Rajiv Ramaswamy. There, I agree with you. When someone reads The Vedas with the view that, they are Scriptures primarily and not some pastoral poetry as some early indologists have us believe you will see a totally different picture. Though Max Mueller must be credited with having published Sayanacharya's commentary on The Vedas, in his elaborate introduction he has senn the Rig Veda as Pastoral Poetry of a Nomadic Tribe. The derivation of History from only literary sources, esp. from the early Indian Literature - of the Vedic and Post-Vedic Age works it is really very difficult to precisely order them on a timescale. The only other alternative is to work on archeological evidence. That the Harappan peoples were tradesmen and agriculturists and had no military prowess to speak of yet having had such marks of an advanced civilization leaves much to be desired in deriving acceptable history. And Sir, RL Kashyap's Translation of the Samhitas esp. in a Spiritual Framework is ONE possible interpretation of The Vedas, of course without compromising, on lingustics, philology and Grammar. The Vedic Passages afford many shades of consistent sets of meanings. For instance, Sayana the earliest commentators on the total Vedic Corpus, had taken what is called as a yAjnika-viewpoint, which translates to the Ritualistic View. That several such view points are possible is known to students of Sanskrit Literature like, for instance, one could contrast the two entirely different interpretations taken for the same mantra by SayanAcharya and Patanjali-the author of vyAkaraNa mahAbhaShyaM. I am referring to the mantra "chatvAri shR^ingA trayo asya pAdaaH... " Now, if one goes by the direct literal meanings of some of these words and passages, you will be able to see the "war cries... and asking for victory in war etc., " Now, a consistent interpretation (plausible) could be that there were tribes that were warlike(Aryan) invading the peaceable Harappans(Dasyus) and pushing them inward..and they will suddenly lose all their excellent civilizations and become Ho's and Mundas to be converted later to Vedic Aryanism?!?

@Mahadeva: You are indeed doing the right thing by looking at the original source and understanding it. While Max Muller must be credited for his understanding of Sanskrita and translations, his followers just reinterpreted and twisted facts to suit their own theories. Modern "scholars" like Witzel, Doniger etc. have no clue of Sanskrit, yet go on to write books and oh well, write history too. To people who cannot think of an alternative of Aryan invasion/migration: Opinion is good to have, but they are not necessarily facts. Point to me one literature/veda/purana from India, where the "original" land is mentioned or glorified. Surely atleast somebody must have been nostalgic? Among the seven dvIpA-s (continents) mentioned, only Jambudvipa is always glorified. Also read the books "Rgveda: Historical analysis" by Talageri and "In search of cradle of civilization" by Kak & Co.

I've been reading Stephen Oppenheimer's Out of Eden. He is one of those researching our deep past by DNA analysis. He suggests that after the initial spread of people along the southern coastline of Asia that there was a spread north along the Indus and through the Khyber into central Asia.. However this was 40-50,000 years ago, well before the events under discussion. Just thought I'd mention it. @Rajotavo: Is it important? I find it fascinating and a wonderful story. The world was not created with people in place; they moved, they changed, developed techniques to survive in desolate places. Perhaps, despite being an atheist, there is an inate ancestor worshipper inside me, and knowing and understanding these people is the best to show respect for them, to understand ourselves, and to see through the foolishness of those who would divide us. Sorry, that's the end of my sermon :)

@Rajiv Agreed that it is tough to change one's long held beliefs, especially when it pertains to religion. However, I would concur with the thought that most scriptures do have a vein of history and sociology mixed with them. It is my humble opinion that most complaints made against Hinduism in general today are due to the inability or reluctance of people to separate the meaning from the context but instead to misinterpret the original meaning without the original context, be it the caste system or anything else. That said, I have heard similar arguments even pertaining to Ramayana and Mahabharata where the contention is that the portrayal of Devas and Asuras are really wars that occurred between one clan (Arya, or the lighter skinned) versus another (Dravida, the darker skinned). More research definitely needs to be done and like what Mr. Mahadeva is doing, it is important to understand the source than an interpretation.

@Sathya. Thanks for wishing me well. I have taken every opportunity in trying to explain to my Tamil speakin friends who have somehow "bought" this Arya Dravida divide saying that this does not really mean in the way we have been led to believe. Tolkappiam sutras very much like Paninain ones for Sanskrit Grammar. Agastya is common to Veda, Sanskrit, Tamil and the Tantras.Ramayana is definitely not the Arya Dravida fight but triumph of good over Evil. For when Valmiki describes Ravans for the best positive attributes in him he is not only not uncharitable but very positive in stating the same. In his Vol 1 of the Complete works of Swami Vivekananda, he says that while it is very good to look into the Scriptures for the sources history as a rational approach to using literature, it is to be remembered that typically in Hinduism there is no need for the Historicity of a person for the value of an idea presented.This is because, Hinduism is not a religion based on one person's ideas at all. True Ramayana, Mahabharata, or the 18 Puranas could probably serve as sources of history; but it is all so muddled that one is tempted to leave them as allegories. Even this idea had been put forth by Swami Vivekananda. It was only this utter confusion as the sequence of concepts and ideas in religion and sociological constructs that I had when I read translations that made me seriously take up study of Sanskrit(this ongoing) and The Vedas in particular[On this I am merely scratching the surfac]

@Mahadeva: The purANas to a certain extent do denote history, why else there would be painstaking description of rAjavamsa-s in Bhagavatam or Ramayana/MahabhArata (the latter two are separately classified as itihasa, not purana). Why imagine so much lineages, Why such a meticulous detail, if the story of good over evil is the primary focus. Later, why would kAlidAsa try to describe a mere lineage in his master epic Raghuvamsa? But yes they are muddled with allegories. A lot of them are contradictory and confusing too. But my point is when discovering history, let the "historians" consider studying the 2000+ year tradition of the civilization too. Current academics totally ignore purAnAs as some religious text and concentrate on interpreting what suits their theories best. For eg, Vedas are just wars between clans. But Vedanta (the end-part of Veda) is being re-packaged as a distinct entity with high philosophical notions. Does it make sense? Thats what I wanted to hilight. That Ramayana is Aryan-Dravidian fight is laughable at best. The Dravidian politics used it well for political purposes. Rama was of darker color skin; Ravana was a Brahmin and extremely well educated. So who is Aryan, who is Dravidian?

@Mahadeva: Its always been a mystery to me how the early Tamil language (Tolkappiyam times) has been so distinct from Sanskrit, yet so much influenced by it. Like you rightly said Tolkappiam rules are very much like Paninis. Tiruvalluvar has used several Sanskrita words seamlessly in his kural. The very first kural has 4 Sanskrita words in it. In music too there has been influences between Tamil pann and Bharata's grAma system. When we understand the early relationship of these two languages, the myth of Aryan-Dravidian division will be truly demolished.

To clarify, I did not bring up the potential aryo-dravidian fight undertone in Ramayana or other stories to undercut the importance of the stories or to dismiss them as just history repackaged as stories. As you duly note, there are multiple layers to the stories that are difficult to separate out. However, my hope is to look at it objectively and explore if it could be true. Even if it is true, it does not make the stories any less valuable or important, but if we let our emotions and prejudices rule our conclusions, then aren't we making the same mistakes that others have made in the past? To me, there seems to be enough coincidences between the symbolisms to at least warrant a closer examination. And technically, Rama and even Krishna to an extent are described as 'blue' skinned and not dark (not sure why they picked blue).

@Allen - India is already facing a lot of problems in terms of caste,language,religion, region...leftist,rightist,terrorist etc...while I agree with u that it wud b fascinating/psychologically satisfying for one to see who were our ancestors...it might not help to get all these scientific stuff too much in the public domain...rather, this might lead to ultra racialism/ division ( which still exists despite a lot of egalitarian movements)...we are Indians - mixture of a lot of genetic pools - good for us ! truly global - end of story. Jai Hind!

Dr. David Frawley’s pamphlet is fascinating and touches on the key aspect our ancient history which goes into the making of our modern thinking and psyche, which I would like to call the Indian Psyche. I found the paper particularly fascinating and persuasive as he has dwelt on all aspects of the problem and has laid the ground for further thinking and research. The myth of invading Aryan's is ingrained in our minds so much that it has stunted our positive thinking faculty. The discussion that followed on the board is indeed heart warming and I sincerely hope that each of the contributors will pursue their line of thought and come up with more evidence and argument do describe what we truly are as a society. So many nuances have been captured in the discussion! I will presently add another comment consequent to this discussion.

RBSI: Apropos my preceding comment, it is time you re-christened yourself. You are no longer a Rare Book Society of India. That is because of the speed with which you put different stuff on board. That proves the books are not rare. It is time, instead, you called yourself Rare Brains Society of India! (Needless to say, the pun is definitely not intended.) :0))

Given 800,000 square miles of arable land in the Subcontinent, it is the most fertile region in the Old World. The Central Asian Steppes have provided horses to India (and Iran) and with horses came soldiers and cavalry, as documented history of the past 1000 years confirms. My guess is that there has been a steady movement of nomads or hunter gatherers (Turks and Mongols) from central Asia to India as well as to Europe. The distribution of Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) from South Asia to Ireland seems to confirm this people migration from early times: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b-conquest