Guest guest Posted April 25, 2008 Report Share Posted April 25, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 , " 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.