The theory gained rapid currency amongst upper-caste Hindus who had legitimate gripes against the Muslim nobility for having been denied equal access to power in the Muslim courts, but were too enfeebled to put up a fight on their own, and were too alienated from the mass of artisans and peasants to join in popular rebellions against the feudal dispensation. The British rulers offered the opportunity of gaining petty privileges in exchange for acquiescence to colonial rule, and the Aryan invasion theory provided the ideological justification for betraying the rest of ones nation. By placing the ancestral home of the Aryans far off in Northern Europe, the British were putting the idea in the heads of such upper-caste Hindus that they were far removed from the Indian masses and had no good reason to identify with them.

Wittingly or unwittingly, the Aryan invasion theory thus became the emotional bait for a section of the Indian population who were to aid and abet the colonial project in India. Although some of these Indians ultimately did develop national feelings, and forged a national identity that eventually came into conflict with the continuation of colonial rule, the theory continued to play an important role in confusing the psyche of the post-independence Indian intelligentsia. 

Since the Aryan invasion belongs to a period of considerable antiquity, and there is little physical evidence to support any authoritative conclusion, theories affirming (or opposing) the invasion hypothesis can vary from being wildly speculative at worst, to being reasonably plausible at best. Even the most diligent and objective of historians can at best come up with informed conjectures, leaving open the possibility for uncertainty, and idealogically-driven diversionary postulations. The absence of concrete data and the ambiguity involved in interpreting surviving texts from the Aryan period makes the task of combating history-writing that has been colored by colonially influenced analysis doubly difficult.

Arguments for and against the Invasion Theory

Nevertheless, it is possible to construct the contours of what may be more plausible, and at least eliminate what is obviously fiction or fantasy. Opponents of the invasion theory make a somewhat plausible case that the sacrificial rites and rituals described in some of the Vedic texts bear a resemblance to practices that may have been common during the Harappan period. The similiarity of Harappan and Vedic altars is indeed intriguing. This would bolster the argument that Brahmins of the Vedic age emerged from the Harappan priesthood, and not from an Aryan invasion. But a link between the Harappan priesthood and Vedic Brahminism does not preclude the possibility of an  invasion or migratory conquest. It is not inconceivable that the Vedic Brahmin developed as a composite of the Harappan priest and the priest of an invading tribe or clan. Animal sacrifices were common amongst many tribes in that age - and it is not entirely implausible that some kind of synthesis may have taken place.

Opponents of the invasion theory also make some compelling arguments to suggest that the structural commonality of the Indo-European group of languages could have been achieved without an Aryan invasion. They argue that the Harappan civilization had extensive trade and commercial ties with Babylon as well as with civilizations to the further West. There is a remarkable similarity in seals and cultural artifacts found in Harappan India, Babylon and even the early civilizations of the Mediterranean such as Crete. It is not impossible that a linguistic commonality may have developed quite early through trade and cultural contacts and that this common linguistic structure may have subsequently moved from South to North. At some point, this linguistic commonality may have been broken by the advance of a Semitic language stream that replaced the Indo-European stream in the Middle-East. Since Mediterranean Europe and the Middle Eastern civilizations developed well before the civilizations of Northern Europe, such a possibility is not altogether inconceivable.

Another criticism of the theory lies in the interpretation of the word "Arya" to mean race, nationality or even linguistic group. Critics suggest that the word Arya as used in the Rig Veda and other texts is better translated as one who was noble in character (or noble in deed) or perhaps hailing from a noble background. Hence, to use the term "Aryan" to describe the racial or national characteristics of an invading  clan or clans  would naturally be erroneous. Thus, if an invasion did take place, and if the invaders identified themselves as "Aryans", it would merely reflect their claim to noble status, and would not reflect upon their national or racial origin. 

On the other hand, historians favoring the invasion theory have based many of their arguments  on postulates connecting the introduction of the horse and chariot to the "Aryans". But the strongest arguments in favor of a possible invasion lie in the balladic character of some of the verses in the  Rig Veda with  references to armed cattle raids and warriors on horse-driven chariots who appear to portray a race or a group of clans of pastoral nomadic warriors. The imagery  fits particularly well with artifacts found in Babylon and Ancient Persia (and other regions near the Caspian Sea) that depict warriors riding on horse-driven chariots. Other literary evidence from the Rig Veda also appears to connect the authors of these Rig Veda verses to the "Aryan" identified civilization of ancient Persia.

On the other hand, there is no tangible evidence of warrior clans in the numerous urban settlements that comprise the Harappan civilization. There are also few references to pastoral nomadism or cattle raids. The Harappans were a highly urbanized people and based their existence on what seems to be primarily settled agriculture. The character of such verses in the Rig Veda texts does not seem to fit with a people who designed vast granaries, roads, urban bungalows, and for their time a highly sophisticated drainage system. And while there is evidence to suggest that the Harappans had a priestly class, there is almost no evidence of standing armies. There is evidence of a local police force but there is little to suggest that the police forces were as well armed or proficient in the use of archery as were the warrior tribes that find mention in the Rig Veda. Unlike the contemporaneous civilizations of Babylon and old Persia, where the institution of monarchy may have been already established, requiring the existence of  standing armies and warrior clans to support the monarchy, the Harappan civilization seems to have been largely republican in character, with a much weaker and smaller police force to ensure stability. Based on a survey of surviving physical artifacts, it is possible to surmise that priests may have played a greater role in ensuring the legitimacy of the Harappan state, whereas the warriors may have begun to play a more powerful role in the civilizations of the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is therefore, not unlikely that the introduction of monarchy and  the Kshatriya caste may have come about, at least indirectly, as a consequence of an invasion or conquest. Another argument favoring some kind of an invasion is the evidence for Aryan-like invasions of other settled civilizations such as in Greece, and other parts of the Near East and Europe, and  references in the Manusmriti to ruling clans who were clearly of non-Indian origin. Considering how frequently the subcontinent has faced invasions from the  North West, an "Aryan" identifying invasion would not be entirely out of character with the experience of the subcontinent.  As to the physical origins of these possible invaders, it is very hard to be definitive - but in all likelihood, their origins  could not have been too far from the Caspian region.

Verses in the  Rig Veda paint a picture of a people who were familiar with settled agriculture, but whose economic life was dominated by animal husbandry, and who had been exposed to a large body of water such as the Caspian Sea. Geographically, parts of Persia fit quite well with such a description as might other regions bordering on the Caspian or located in the geographical vicinity of the Caspian. These regions offered rather limited possibilities for settled agriculture and shepherding played an important role in the semi-urban civilizations that emerged around the Caspian basin.

The Aryan identifying warrior clans could have been a branch of the ruling warrior clans of early Persia, or else they may have originated in Central Asia or Southern Russia with a civilization that closely resembled the civilization of the old Persians. While some of the verses in the Rig Veda point to a Persian connection, other verses suggest that while these warrior tribes who came to India followed practices that closely resembled those of the Persians, they may not have originated in Persia. The close similarities between names for various kinship ties and familial relationships in India and Russia appears to place these Aryan identifying clans or tribes on the northern side of the Caspian. An explanation that reconciles this apparently conflicting evidence is that there was not a single  invasion but a series of invasions by different Aryan identifying clans - some of whom collaborated with each other while others saw each other as rivals or enemies.

It is also possible that these clans may have introduced non-Indian  words into the existing Indian languages.  (Urdu is an example of a language that was introduced as a result of a series of invasions, adding a large body of foreign words while maintaining the syntactical structure and  vocabulary base of the previous language.) 

Examples from more recent history might also offer us some clues of what may have occurred. Just as India was confronted by a series of invasions by Islamic rulers from different parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, it is not implausible that several Aryan identifying  tribes or clans  developed certain common cultural features that spanned Persia, Central Asia and the South Caucasus region and then spread South East towards India, (and also North and West into greater Russia and the Mediterranean). Of course, it is possible and likely that upon their entry into India, they also borrowed from  the settled agriculture civilizations of India who may have been more culturally more  advanced in many ways. 

Alternatively, the invaders of the Rig-Vedic period may have been like the Rajputs or Gujjars, entering India as warrior clans, conquering territories in India, but  adopting the culture and language of India albeit with certain modifications, and enjoining their balladeers to introduce into the Rig Veda, verses that glorified their conquests, and expressed their particular world view. This would not be too dissimiliar from how the Rajputs and other ruling dynasties  had local court chroniclers invent fictional noble lineages to create an impression of continuity. 

Relevance of the Aryans

Thus, while it is difficult to argue with certainty that no such invasion took place, it is much easier to argue that there is a much greater degree of continuity in Indian civilization than previously realized, and that the  invading Aryans were not primarily  responsible for the numerous developments in philosophy and culture that have taken place in India. In fact,  the main significance of the invasion theory does not lie in the determination of whether such an invasion took place or not, but rather in how much of a debt Indian civilization might owe to such an invasion.

For instance, prior to the series of Islamic invasions, and long after the Aryan period of Indian history, there have been numerous other invasions that had an impact on the subcontinent. Yet it is only the Aryan invasion that attracts popular and scholarly attention. This is primarily because of the importance ascribed to the Aryan invasion by British colonial historians. Before the invention of the "exalted" Aryan by British ideologues, references to the Aryans  in the Rig Veda were not treated with any particular importance, and few Indians had any conscious memory of an "Aryan" warrior past. This is not surprising, because the legacy of such invading warrior tribes or clans to Indian civilization is not especially significant.

Prior to any "Aryan"  invasion, India already had a relatively advanced  settled-agriculture based urban civilization. And within a few centuries after their possible introduction in India, the Aryan-identified gods described in the Rig Veda ceased to be worshipped and gradually faded from  Indian consciousness. Brahmin gotra (clan) names mentioned in the Rig Veda also lost their import and the vast majority of Brahmin gotra (clan) names that came into common use could not have had any  Aryan-invasion connection. As Kosambi convincingly points out in his Introduction to Indian History, many of India's Brahmins rose from 'Hinduised' tribes that earlier practised animism or totem worship, or prayed to various fertility gods (or goddesses), or revered fertility symbols such as the linga (phallus) or the yoni (vagina). A majority of these Hinduised tribes retained many elements of their older forms of worship, and several Brahmin gotra (clan) names are derived from pre-Aryan clan totems and other tribal associations.

For instance, one of the most popular gods in the Indian pantheon - Shiva - appears to have no  connection with any aryan invasion, and may in fact have it's prototype in the fertility god of the Harappans. Similiarly, Hanuman, Ganesh, Durga and Kali - none have any Aryan connection, and find no mention in the Rig Veda. Whether in matters of popular religion or in matters of high philosophy, there is little contribution of note that can be traced directly to an Aryan invasion.

India's great surviving temples and Stupas with their rich carvings and sculpture were all created with aesthetic principles and formulations that developed centuries after any invading "Aryans" would have completely melted into Indian society. And though it is possible  that these foreign "Aryans" may have introduced certain technological innovations and inventions (possibly in the realm of metallurgy, metal tools or carpentry, and may have thus facilitated the spread of settled agricultural civilizations along the Gangetic plain), knowledge of textile production, tool-making, and  metallurgy was already available in the Harappan period.

The grammar of Sanskrit and it's highly systematized alphabet also had little to do with any "Aryan" invasion.  Sanskrit is a highly structured and methodical language, optimized for engaging in rational debates and expressing mathematical formulas. And it's skillfully organized alphabet bears little resemblance to the rather random and arbitrary alphabet of it's European cousins.  Much of it's vocabulary and syntax developed long after any supposed  invasion, and although the structure of the South Indian languages may differ from those of the North, the majority of India's languages (both Northern and Southern) share a large base of a common Sanskrit-derived vocabulary. It is therefore ironic how much is made of the "Indo-European" classification.

It is also curious, to say the least, when Indian civilization is described as synonymous with an imported "Aryan" civilization - and the self-esteem of so many Indians is tied up with trying to disprove the Aryan invasion theory. Other than perhaps accelerate the demise of republicanism in India, and hasten the spread of settled agriculture along the Northern plains, there appears to be few other tangible and long-lasting effects that could be ascribed to an "Aryan" invasion. It is therefore largely immaterial if these Aryan-identified warrior-clans  were foreigners or migrated from within India.

It should also be noted that while the Aryans of the Rig-Veda may be credited with laying the foundations of "Hindu" civilization in the Gangetic plain, the essence of Hindu civilization emerged gradually, taking several centuries to crystallize. Undergoing both internal reform and fusion with pre-existing tribal and matriarchal cultures, the Hinduism of both the rulers and the masses diverged considerably not only from the Rig Veda but to some extent, even from the later Vedas. It should also be noted that outside the Gangetic plain, the effects of an Aryan invasion would have been even more marginal. Vedic influences on the civilizations in Bengal, Assam and Orissa were almost minimal, and these Eastern civilizations largely followed their own (and somewhat unique trajectories), as did the civilizations of Central India, Rajasthan, Sindh, Gujarat and South India.

In essence, Indian civilization whether Hindu, Buddhist or Jain, or any other, developed primarily from the unique (and varied) conditions of Indian geography and the human exertion that went into modifying those conditions to advance agriculture and settled civilization. Taken in the general context of say three or four thousand years of Indian history, it is hard to ascribe to an "Aryan" invasion/s the sort of paramountcy assigned by the British. While British motives in magnifying the "Aryan" character of Indian civilization are only too apparent,  this contemporary obsession with the "Aryan" question that appears to have gripped large sections of the Indian intelligentsia makes sense only if Indian civilization is seen as nothing more than the "Aryan" civilization described in the Vedas. 

It is also puzzling how the "Aryan" question has engrossed so many of the nation's most well-known historians. While it is essential that Indian history be rescued from colonial era paradigms, and it is also important that Indian history not be subjected to new communal or obscurantist twists, it is perhaps questionable if every Indian historian needs to get involved in every historical controversy that gets thrown up. 

The needlessly contentious debate on the Aryan question has diverted too many of India's historians from equally (or more) important tasks - such as describing and integrating those periods of Indian history where considerable new archeological material is now available and needs to be incorporated into the presently known and documented view of Indian history.

Key aspects of Indian history remain poorly researched and documented. Many Sanskrit and vernacular texts have not been studied and assimilated by English speaking historians. Regional variations in Indian history have not been studied enough. A deeper understanding of some of the lesser known kingdoms all across India is required to correct false generalizations about Indian history. Much more effort is required in understanding social movements, gender and caste equations. Simplifications and generalizations based on antiquated documents like the Manusmriti (which was mainly resurrected by British historians) provide a very incomplete and distorted picture of actual social relations and practice in India. The Manusmriti also offers little in terms of understanding local and regional peculiarities in matters of social relations. (See Ref.3)

Considerable work is also required in unifying haphazard and scattered studies in the area of India's economic history and the history of philosophy, science, technology and manufacturing. It is also important that the vast body of work that has been published since independence in English be translated into the nation's many languages and regional dialects. It is tragic that so much of the best research done in Indian history is available only to English speakers. These are just some of the tasks that need greater attention from the community of Indian historians.

Intriguing as the Aryan-origin debate may be, it is in the end only one facet of Indian history, and merits further attention only if  historians and archeologists can offer fresh and new insights on this subject and relate them to the broad dynamics of Indian civilization.

References:

b. British anthropologist, Edmund Leach also termed the Aryan invasion theory as being born out of European racism.

2.. "What has taken place since the commencement of the British rule in India is only a reunion, to a certain extent, of the members of the same family," John Wilson, a colonial missionary, declared with a straight face, and naturally this happy reunion had now brought India into contact "with the most enlightened and philanthropic nation in the world." - quoted by Sri Aurobindo: The Origins of Aryan Speech, (The Secret of the Veda, p. 554).

3. See Madhu Kishwar: Manusmriti to Madhusmriti

Also see History of Mathematics in India and 

Technological discoveries and applications in India

or back to main index for South Asian History

(If you liked our site, or would like to help with the South Asian History project and help us expand our reach, please click here)

Click  here to contact the South Asian History Project