caste and aryan invasion theory

[Guest guest]

The Caste System and Aryan Invasion Theory Author: Rudranathh,

Posted: 29 Jan 2008 08:56 am

—

The Caste System and Aryan Invasion Theory

 

 

Marianne Keppens

 

 

Abstract

 

 

The controversy about the Aryan Invasion Theory has occupied scholars

from several domains over the last few decades. The advocates of this

theory claim that a Sanskrit-speaking Aryan people invaded or entered

India around 1500 BC and brought along a language, religion and social

structure, which they imposed on the indigenous population.

 

The opponents claim that the Aryan people, their language and religion

have always been present in India and hence that an invasion could

never have happened. When we analyze the arguments from both sides,

these sustain only one general conclusion: India has a long history of

co-existence and cross-fertilization of different groups of people,

cultural traditions, languages, etc.

 

Given the trivial nature of this conclusion, the question becomes: why

have so many scholars debated the Aryan Invasion Theory with such

passion? To answer this question, my paper looks at how the Aryan

Invasion Theory was developed in the nineteenth century. I argue that

the theory itself did not emerge from empirical evidence or scientific

theorizing about the Indian languages, archaeology or history.

 

Instead this theory developed as an explanation of two entities central

to the European experience of India: the caste system and Hinduism as a

degeneration of Vedic religion. The Aryan Invasion Theory not only

explained how the caste system came into being, it also accounted for

the degeneration of the religion of the Vedas and allowed for the

classification of its evolution into three main phases: Vedism,

Brahmanism and Hinduism.

 

The contemporary debate shows that it

remains impossible to defend the occurrence of an Aryan invasion on the

basis of the available linguistic, archaeological and other evidence.

 

 

However, the significance of the Aryan

invasion controversy becomes intelligible when one realizes that this

theory did not emerge as a description of real historical events.

Rather, it is a theory that explained entities which exist only in the

European experience of India.

 

 

As such, if we

desire to understand how the 'Aryan invasion' as well as the 'caste

system', 'Brahmanism' and other related concepts came into being, we

need to study the development of Western culture.

[Guest guest]

, " kishore patnaik "

<kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

>

> *The Caste System and Aryan Invasion Theory* Author:

*Rudranathh*, [image:

> Post] <http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?

p=448092#448092>Posted:

> 29 Jan 2008 08:56 am

> —

> The Caste System and Aryan Invasion

> Theory<http://www.icassecretariat.org/index.php?q=node/419>

>

> Marianne Keppens

>

> Abstract

>

> The controversy about the Aryan Invasion Theory has occupied

scholars from

> several domains over the last few decades. The advocates of this

theory

> claim that a Sanskrit-speaking Aryan people invaded or entered

India around

> 1500 BC and brought along a language, religion and social

structure, which

> they imposed on the indigenous population.

>

> The opponents claim that the Aryan people, their language and

religion have

> always been present in India and hence that an invasion could never

have

> happened. When we analyze the arguments from both sides, these

sustain only

> one general conclusion: India has a long history of co-existence and

> cross-fertilization of different groups of people, cultural

traditions,

> languages, etc.

>

> Given the trivial nature of this conclusion, the question becomes:

why have

> so many scholars debated the Aryan Invasion Theory with such

passion? To

> answer this question, my paper looks at how the Aryan Invasion

Theory was

> developed in the nineteenth century. I argue that the theory itself

did not

> emerge from empirical evidence or scientific theorizing about the

Indian

> languages, archaeology or history.

>

> Instead this theory developed as an explanation of two entities

central to

> the European experience of India: the caste system and Hinduism as a

> degeneration of Vedic religion. The Aryan Invasion Theory not only

explained

> how the caste system came into being, it also accounted for the

degeneration

> of the religion of the Vedas and allowed for the classification of

its

> evolution into three main phases: Vedism, Brahmanism and Hinduism.

>

> The contemporary debate shows that it remains impossible to defend

the

> occurrence of an Aryan invasion on the basis of the available

linguistic,

> archaeological and other evidence.

>

> However, the significance of the Aryan invasion controversy becomes

> intelligible when one realizes that this theory did not emerge as a

> description of real historical events. Rather, it is a theory that

explained

> entities which exist only in the European experience of India.

>

> As such, if we desire to understand how the 'Aryan invasion' as

well as the

> 'caste system', 'Brahmanism' and other related concepts came into

being, we

> need to study the development of Western culture.

>

 

 

My oh my, what postmodern babble. Pomobabble, sister of

psychobabble. And also pocobabble, the " post-colonial " critique

of " Orientalism " pioneered by that pitiable dhimmi Edward Said. Poor

Said wanted us to believe that harem ladies weren't all that

sensuous, and that European travellers' reports of sultans ordering

their harem guards to prevent the frustrated harem ladies from

smuggling cucumbers to their rooms, were all projections of the

Victorian imagination.

 

A typical pomo attitude is not to look through your glasses at the

world, but to look at your glasses. So far, so good, this may be a

useful exercise once in a while. But it only gets real pomo when the

implication is added that the glasses are the only reality, the world

out there is only a projection from the glasses outwards, e.g.: " this

theory did not emerge as a description of real historical events.

Rather, it is a theory that explained entities which exist only in

the European experience of India. " Not out there in India, only in

the glasses of the early Indologists.

 

It is a testimony to the West's decadence that postmodernism could be

so in vogue for several decades. And to India's subservience that

Indians like Rajaram, Kalyanaraman etc. could copy this sterile model

and replace a study of ancient India with the study (or at least

discussion) of Orientalist scholarship.

 

The real Aryan invasion debate is very exciting, the debate on the

impact of colonial scholarship is old hat, boring, and useless. To

be sure, someone had to explain this aspect of the story, but that

job was pretty much done in the 1990s, and maybe some historian of

19th century Europe can add some more detail to it, but it is far

outside the proper focus of historians of ancient India and of PIE.

Let's do something far more rewarding and far more fascinating:

finding the Holy Grail, or rather the Urheimat of IE.

 

> When we analyze the arguments from both sides, these sustain only

> one general conclusion: India has a long history of co-existence and

> cross-fertilization of different groups of people, cultural

traditions,

> languages, etc.<

 

Fortunately, the author admits

 

> the trivial nature of this conclusion <.

 

Just so.

 

It's not merely trivial, it misses the whole point. If the IE

language family originated in one region (a very modest assumption,

true for all other language families as well), whence it spread and

differentiated partly by localized internal changes and partly by

mixing with different local non-IE languages, then that homeland was

either inside India or outside of it. In the first case, the OIT is

true, in the second, the AIT. To the chagrin of the postmodernists,

simple logic applies: tertium non datur, there is no third

possibility.

 

If the author cannot reach a better conclusion than the trivial one,

he simply hasn't investigated the question hard enough. No shame in

that, the best minds have been investigating the question for two

centuries now without arriving at decisive evidence in one sense or

the other. But all the same, the answer to this question exists

somewhere, we only have to find it. (That's the modern, as opposed

to the postmodern, appraoch.)

 

Incidentally, it must be noted at this point that the OIT is espoused

or considered with favour by only a handful of people, mainly the

late Satya Swarup Misra, Shrikant Talageri, and myself. Most people

who are dubbed OIT advocates, do not consider India the homeland of

IE, wellspring of emigrations that brought the IE languages to their

historic locations. They in fact don't consider any migration at

all. They have no theory about, nor any interest in, the non-Indian

part of IE expansion history. For all they care, the IE family may

not exist and the question of its homeland doesn't arise. They are

exclusively concerned with proving that the Indian branch of IE did

not immigrate into India. Their horizon stops at the Khyber pass.

AIT and OIT have this in common, that they assert a migration that

took the IE language family across the Indo-Afghan border, either in

one sense or the other. Misra, Talageri and myself have tried to

reconstruct the relation between India and the non-Indian part of the

IE world.

 

Most other so-called OIT votaries, including bright scholars like

B.B. Lal, have only and exclusively dealt with arguing for the Indian

origin of Indian culture, disregarding any extra-Indian data or

developments. The term " OIT " was not coined by them but by Western

Orientalists (no term of abuse in my book), probably Edwin Bryant,

who rightfully took the IE family for granted and correctly deduced

that the only alternative to an " Aryan " invasion into India is

an " Aryan " outflow from India. These Orientalists didn't realize

that most Indian anti-AIT participants in the debate either already

had their hands full with the Indian data (that'll explain the stand

of most archaeologists, like BB Lal) or were ideologically struck

with such a total fixation on India and only India, that they blinded

themselves to the need for explaining the presence of IE both inside

and outside India.

 

Kind regards,

 

KE

 

 

PS: Who is this " Marianne Keppens " , cited as source? The name sounds

pretty Belgian, I may run into her some time.