In recent years, the saffron ideologues have started propagating a strikingly new historical theory in India which states that the Aryans didn’t come to India, rather they originated in India and then spread out elsewhere.
There are socio-political reasons for floating around such unsubstantiated ideas. But before getting into that, it’s important to understand the hollowness of their arguments. The logic of some, mostly Hindutavadis of India or their quasi-intellectual sympathisers and revisionist historians with regards to Aryan indigeneity in India, is inadequate to definitively say that Aryans were indigenous in this sub-continent.
It’s not impossible that the Aryans (eastern branch of proto Indo-Europeans) came to India before the demise, not at the time, of Indus Valley civilisation but it seems improbable.
It’s extremely unlikely that the Indus Valley civilisation was created by Aryans for the evidence found in those ruins are different from Aryan ones. Even the complexion and stature of man found in their carvings resemble Austro-Asiatic people, not Aryans.
The other reasons that the Aryans are not indigenous include the pattern of the spread of the Caucasoid (Indo-European) people, the centre of gravity of that spread (Euro-Asian steppe/eastern Europe as per the much respected Kurgan hypothesis) and mixture with other races only in the edges for example India, Central Asia, Siberia, etc.
Talk and theories
“Out of India” theory of the revisionist Hindutva sympathiser historians (if they are proper historians at all) posits that Aryans are indigenous to India and from here they spread out to the rest of the world.
Because that would mean the origin of two distinct kinds of people -- Indo-European and Austro-Asiatic -- with very different genetic/biological features at the same place simultaneously and their lack of intermixing for approximately 10-20,000 years which is unrealistic and scientifically holds very high improbability.
Another major reason is linguistic analysis and the findings which relate north Indian languages more to the Iranian, Turkish, and European languages. Interestingly, there are significant similarities between Greco-Roman pantheon and Vedic pantheon as well.
It’s true that Hinduism is a synthetic religion and many local non-Aryan deities were gradually absorbed in Hinduism. Also, Central Asia and Iran are barren areas compared to India. Historical migrations took place normally from barren areas to fertile lands, not the other way round.
The Brahui community of Baluchistan are from Dravidian family and there are similar pockets of such Dravidian communities in northern, central, and eastern India who haven’t mixed with others much. This shows a Dravidian recede pattern in the wake of Aryan invasion/immigration from north to south.
How most people of Bengal became Muslims can be a topic of interesting historical research. One hypothesis is that large number of travelling Islamic preachers eventually got assembled here
This whole Aryan indigeneity/”out of India” theory seems to have been developed in a certain socio-political context. The Hindutva ideologues wanted to create an artificial religion-based Hindu unity among these diverse and caste-ridden groups. They were not interested in the modern all-inclusive Indian nationalism of Gandhi.
For this upper-caste led Hindu unity they thought to create an enemy so that the fear and competition can be utilised as a means to attain artificial unity. They imagined the Muslim bogeyman and started othering the Muslims with Islamic invasion theory despite the fact that most Muslims converted from indigenous Austro-Asiatic people.
They ignored that wars took place for political purposes and in India, Muslim kings have also fought other Muslims. Ironically, they fell in the same trap of invasion theories and many Austro-Asiatic Indians (South Indians/Dalits) started othering the caste Hindu as Aryan invaders.
Hence, all these stories. BR Ambedkar probably has said all these, if at all, for a different reason. He was a respectable person but wasn’t a historian. With different kinds of logic, he tried to say that all Indians are equal and hence this despicable “untouchability” notion is bad and should be abolished.
Too much invocation of history would be detrimental for modern Indian nationhood as that would bring back divisiveness. The modern Indian nation was formed in the early 20th century and it gradually became an all-inclusive one. It’s important to nurture that rather than going back to pre-modern and ancient India which was hardly united.
Another kind of propaganda
Forced conversion is another saffron propaganda which simply doesn’t add up with the demographic facts. Perpetual Hindu majority in the surroundings of medieval Muslim power centers like Delhi vindicates the fact. The northeastern part of the sub-continent is geographically close to other Muslim hinterlands and, perhaps, received more Islamic preachers than other parts.
Hence, proximity and communication are some of the reasons besides the egalitarian pool of Islam vis-a-vis caste-ridden Vedic religions. Arab sea merchants are responsible for high percentage of Muslims in Kerala. In the West, many Rajput clans converted in groups for political and social reasons. So did many Jat clans.
There were various local factors. How most people of Bengal became Muslims can be a topic of interesting historical research. One hypothesis is that large number of travelling Islamic preachers eventually got assembled here as no further passage was possible eastwards because of mountains, forests, and marauding tribes.
Read to know
All the nationalisms of South Asia are essentially modern conceptions constructed in the socio-political tumults of late 19th and early 20th century. Hence, medieval and ancient history is ought to be read and known in South Asia in an objective manner without involving emotions.
Manipulative quarters keep bringing it up in their own biased ways for political gains despite the danger of further schism in already considerably divisive societies. It’s imperative to maintain the natural disconnect between pragmatic politics of now and the ancient and medieval history of the sub-continent for the greater good of the present and the future.
Sarwar Jahan Chowdhury is a freelance commentator on politics, society and international relations. He currently works at BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD).
