Aryavarta - Original Habitat Of Aryas

Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam

Aryavart : The Original Habitat of The Aryans – Swami Vidyanand Saraswati

OM

ARYAVARTA

( The Original habitat of Aryans)

Author

SWAMI VIDYANAND SARASWATI

(Formerly Principal and Fellow Punjab University)



To,

Swami Dayananda Saraswati

Who first declared that

“The Aryans are the original inhabitants of India, and thus instilled new life and

vigour into the body-politic of the country and vested its people with the power to

claim and secure self rule “.



Contents :

1> PREFACE

2> The Vedas

3> THE MYTH CREATED

a> CENTRAL ASIA

b> ARCTIC HOME OF THE ARYANS

c> TILAK REFUTED

4> ARYA AND DASYU

5> DASA AND DASYU

6> THE REALITY

7> THE WAR BETWEEN THE ARYAS AND THE DASAS

8> Aaryavarta

9> THE NURSERY

10> DAYANANDA’S HYPOTHESIS ACCEPTED

11> BOUNDARIES OF ARYAVARTA



PREFACE

History of India has yet to be written. Traditions of modern historical research

founded by British scholars of repute were unfortunately colored by their attitude

towards ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome, which have a dead past and in a sense

dead exhibits.

Our available sources of information are inadequate and in so far as they are

foreign, are almost invariably tainted with a bias towards Indian‘s conquerors. The

attempts of British scholars, with the exception of Tod, have indeed, rather than

helped the study of Indian history.

The treatment of the British period in most of our histories is equally defective. It

generally reads like an unofficial report of the British conquest of India and the

benefits derived by India from it. It does not give us the real India, nor does it

present a picture of what we saw, felt and suffered, of how we reacted to foreign

influences or of the values and organizations we created out of the impact with the

West.

The history of India, as dealt with, in most of the works of this kind naturally,

therefore lacks in historical perspective. Unfortunately for us, during the last two

hundred years we had not only to read such histories but unconsciously to mould

our whole outlook on the life upon them. Few people realize that the teaching of

such histories in our schools, colleges and universities has substantially added to

the difficulties which India has had to face during the last hundred years and never

more than the recent years.

In most fields of human activity the Indian elite is more imitative than original.

Creative thinking, which political independence should have activated, rarely

animates Indian endeavors in literary or historical research. But our teacher ‗s and

leaders, looking through the eyes of white man, whose race prejudice, pure and

simple, prevails upon him to persist his views about India , still continues to hold

their old, wrong and damaging views about our ancient heritage. Generations after

generation, during their school and college career, were told about the successive



foreign invasions of the country, but little about how we resisted them and less

about our victories. They were taught to decry the Hindu social system; but they

were never told how this system came into existence as a synthesis of political,

social, economic and cultural forces; how it developed in the people the tenacity to

survive catastrophic changes for millennia; how it protected life and culture in

times of difficulty by its conservative strength and in favorable times developed an

elasticity which made ordered progress possible; and how its vitality enabled its

national culture to adjust its central ideas to new conditions.

Even after forty Eight years of attainment of freedom from the foreign yoke, we in

our schools and colleges still continue teaching and instilling into the tender minds

of our children the same fallacious, divisive and self-deriding material that was

designed with nefarious motives to revile and subvert our traditions. The poison

injected by them in our young men and women who pass out of the portals of our

educational institutions is bearing rotten fruit in the form of our contempt for our

cultural heritage and national disintegration. What is surprising and at the same

time shameful is that we have ourselves become instrumental in fructifying the

aspirations of Macaulay by merely toeing his line and making matters worse by

putting our own stamp of authenticity.

I reproduce below a passage from ‗History and Civics‘ for class six published by

N.C.E.R.T. New Delhi and prescribed as a text-book throughout the country-

"Until the discovery of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa it was thought that Indian

history began with the coming of the Aryans. But now we know that it is much

older. The Aryans came from outside India, probably from Nort-Eastern Iran.

When they first arrived in India they had to fight for the land with the people

already living in India. These people they called the Dasyus or Dasas. The

Dasyus are described as dark-skinned with flat noses. The Dasyus did not

worship the same god as the Aryans. They spoke the language which the Aryans

did not understand, because the Aryans spoke Sanskrit. The Aryans who

defeated the Dasyus did not treat them kindly and enslaved many of them. The

Dasyus had to work for the Aryans and had to do the most difficult and low

work. The Dasyus and those Aryans who had mixed with Dasyus and married

them, were called Shudras and were looked down upon. Gambling was their

pastime. They ate meat and drank intoxicating drinks like Soma and Sura. They



worshipped the Sun, the trees, rivers and mountains. Altars were built and

animals were sacrificed." - The Tribune, dated 18/1/1969.

While depicting the Aryans in the darkest possible colors, these seeds of discord on

the one hand created differences between the North and the South, and on the other

hand by labeling sections of the people as high and low castes, scheduled caste and

backward class, they have increased mutual dissentions, hatred and enmity among

the people. Today the greatest hurdle in the way of forging unity and integrity of

India, as also solving many other problems is the wrong notion that the Aryans

from some foreign land invaded this country and occupied it by liquidating or

enslaving its original inhabitants-Dravidians. And all this is being done by the

government of the day through our own National Council of Educational Research

and Training.

Political independence has not yet terminated India‘s cultural and intellectual

dependence. Even now whatever is being taught in our educational institutions is

‗made in England‘. Commenting on this state of affairs, the great scientist,

educationist and once chairman of University Grants Commission, Dr. D.S.

Kothari said in his address at the International Conference on Science and

Technology in 1969 –"I regret that the centre of gravity of India‘s intellectual life

was outside India. We are influenced largely by what happens outside. Indian

Universities have been implanted from outside and have not yet taken roots in the

country‘s soil. Indian thought enshrined in ancient Sanskrit books did not find a

place in the country‘s University education. The country should rediscover its

ancient heritage."

In most fields of human activity the Indian elite is more imitative than original

creative thinking which independence should have activated, rarely animates

Indian Endeavour‘s in literary or historical research. Researches have

revolutionized methods of Vedic interpretation. But our teachers and leaders,

looking through the eyes of the white man, whose race prejudice, pure and simple,

prevails upon him to persist in his views about India, still continue to hold their

old, wrong and damaging views about our ancient heritage.



It is not possible to completely wipe out the past; but it is quite possible to develop

hatred for it by projecting it in a distorted form and tarnishing it beyond

recognition. This is exactly what Macaulay and his associates, who were the

architects of the educational policy of India, did. Old values were systematically

omitted, deliberately distorted and willfully obscured. Gradually they were forced

to fade away and forgotten by posterity. What the succeeding generations were

given to remember was only a vague and hazy picture of their glorious past.

As a matter of fact, these European scholars when they sat down to write about

India felt themselves to be judges sent down from some region, far away from the

high above the world of humanity and the Vedas and the country of the Vedas to

be criminals whose case they had to judge. It was pre-eminently a communal and

racial cobweb of fortuitous and bumptious theories broadcast to keep under and

reduce to servility, in the sphere of literature and culture, the oldest and most

cultured people.

Western‘ism has taught us false values. We can never develop, the faith of a free

nation if our Universities still continue to depend upon histories of India of the

British type for telling us what we are. To understand, to recapture and live upto

the best in our culture it is necessary for a student of history to discover for himself

the Aryan discipline, character and outlook and to wrest the secrets of the Vedas.

ANTECEDENTS

The battle of Plassy in 1757 sealed the fate of India. With the defeat of

Sirajuddaula on 23rd June, 1757 Bengal came under the dominance of Lord Clive,

a very shrewd administrator. Subsequently the French, the Dutch and the Portugese

were ousted and virtually the whole of India became a British colony ruled through

the East India Company.

The first impulse to the study of Sanskrit was given by the practical administrative

needs of the country. Warren Hastings, the then Governor General, clearly seeing

the advantage of ruling the vast Hindu majority, as far as possible, according to

their own laws and customs caused a number of Brahmanas to prepare a digest of

laws based on the Indian legal authorities. An English version of this Sanskrit



compilation was published in 1776. The introduction to this work, besides giving

specimens of Sanskrit script, for the first time supplied some trustworthy

information about the ancient Indian language and literature. The earliest step,

however, towards making Europe acquainted with actual Sanskrit writings was

taken by Charles Wilkins, having at the instance of Warren Hastings, acquired

considerable knowledge at Banaras, published in 1785, translation of the

Bhagavadgita "the song of the Adorable one," and two years later, a version of the

well—known collection of fables, entitled ‗HitopadEsha‘ or a ‗friendly advice‘.

Sir William Jones (1746-94) was, however the pioneer of Sanskrit studies in the

West. He was appointed Chief Justice in the British settlement at Fort William in

1783. It was this brilliant and many sided orientalist who, during his too brief a

career of 11 years in India first aroused a keen interest in the study of Indian

antiquity by his unwearied literary activity. Having rapidly acquired proficiency in

Sanskrit, he published in 1789 a translation of ‗Shakuntala‘, the finest Sanskrit

drama of the celebrated Sanskrit poet Kalidas. This was followed by a translation

of the code of Manu, Manusmriti which was published in 1794, the year in which

he died. To Sir Jones goes the credit of establishing the Royal Asiatic Society of

Bengal in_ 1784. And he was the first than who ever printed an edition of a

Sanskrit text. This was a shortest lyrical poem, entitled ‗Ritusamhar‘ or ‗Cycle of

Seasons‘, published in 1792.

It was the Florentine merchant Flippo Sassetti who, after five years stay in Goa

(1583-88) is said to have declared for the first time that there existed a definite

relation between Sanskrit and some of the languages of Europe. But that this

relation is due to their origin from a common source was suggested in I786 by Sir

William Jones in his famous address to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. He thus

established the common origin of a number of languages, such as Greek, Latin,

Goethic, Celtic, German, Sanskrit, Persian etc. to which the scholars gave the name

Indo-European or Indo-Germanic and therewith laid the foundation of the science

of comparative Philology.

After him came his younger associate, Sir Henry Thomas Colebroke who wrote an

article on the Vedas in 1805. Colebroke (1765-1835) was a man of extra-ordinary

industry combined with rare clearness of intellect and sobriety of judgment. He

published many texts, translations and essays dealing with almost every branch of



Sanskrit learning, thus laying the foundation on which later scholars have built a

lot. One of the results of Sanskrit studies in Germany was the publication by

Frederich Schlegal of his work. ‗On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians‘

(1808). In the early days of Sanskrit studies Europeans acquainted themselves

with what is commonly called classical Sanskrit. Colebroke had, it is true, supplied

as early as 1805 valuable information about the literature of older period in his

essay ‗On the Vedas‘. But it was not till Rodolf Roth (1821-95), the founder of

Vedic philology published his epoch-making little book ‗On the literature and

History of the Veda" in 1846 that the studies of Sanskrit received a lasting impulse

in the direction of the earlier and more important literature of the Vedas.

In the year August 1818, Wilhelm Von Schlegel was appointed the first Professor

of Sanskrit in the Bonn University of Germany. Frederich Sahlegal was his elder

brother. He wrote in 1808 a work entitled ‗The Language and Wisdom of the

Hindus‘. Both the brothers evinced great love for Sanskrit. Another Sanskrit

scholar Hern Wilhelm Von Humboldt became the collaborator of August Schlegel

whose edition of the Bhagwadgita directed his attention to its study. In 1827 he

wrote to a friend saying: "It is perhaps the deepest and loftiest thing the world has

to know". At that very time Arthur Schopen-hauer (1788-1860), a great German

philosopher, happened to read the Latin translation of the Upanishads (1801-02)

done by a French writer Antiquetil du Person (1731-1807) from the Persian

translation of Prince Dara Shikoh (1665). He was so impressed by the philosophy

of the Upanishads that he called them ‗the production of the highest human

wisdom and considered them to contain almost superhuman conception‘. The study

of the Upanishads was a source of great inspiration for him and writing about it he

said-"It is the most satisfying and elevating reading which is possible in the world.

It has been the solace of my life and will be the solace of my death". He called the

opening up of Sanskrit literature ‗the greatest gift of our century‘ and predicted the

philosophy and knowledge of the Upanishads would become the cherished faith of

the West. Such writings attracted the German scholars more and more to the study

of Sanskrit, and many amongst them began to hold Indian Culture and Literature in

great esteem.

Many unbigoted scholars were highly impressed by the profound wisdom of Vedic

Rishies. The enthusiastic applause of the honest people of Christian lands created a

flutter in the devotees of Jewry and Christian missionaries, who were as ignorant



of their own scriptures and traditions as those of Indians and followed only the

dictates of dogmatic Christianity which has made them intolerant of all other

faiths. A majority of them found it hard to reconcile themselves to the view that

any race or civilization could be older than the date of Adam accepted by them.

They resented the hoary antiquity ascribed by their broad—minded brother

scholars to the literature and civilization of India.

The study of Sanskrit continued to flourish in Europe and very rapidly the opinions

and judgments of scholars also became warped by the influence of inherent

prejudice fanned by the clergy. From 1801 to I840 Eugene Burnouf occupied the

chair of Professor of Sanskrit in France. He had two German pupils-Rudolph Roth

and Friedrick Maxmueller who later on made a mark in European scholarship.

MACAULAY AND MAXMUELLER

With the advent of British rule in India a large number of English men had to be

imported from England to assist in the governance and administration of the vast

country. They were all products of the Christian Church who made common cause

with the government of the day that the whole world must be baptised and

converted to christianity. One such man was Thomas Babington Macaulay. Being

the son and grandson of Christian missionaries, Macaulay had received severe

Christian education from his early childhood. His young mind had gathered a bias

which, like anyone else, he too could not give up. Charles Wallace French, in his

introduction to ‗Macaulays‘ essay on Milton, says—"His marvelously fertile mind

began to pour forth its treasures at an age when the overage child has not yet

learned even to read. One of his earlier productions was a paper which was

intended to persuade the people of Travancore to embrace the Christian religion, of

which his mother says: ‗On reading it, I found it to contain a very clear idea of the

leading facts and doctrines of that religion, with some strong arguments for its

adoption". Later, when he was a mature man, 39 years old, we get a very clear

glimpse of this attitude in one of his essays which he wrote in April 1839. In

‗Education in India‘ he writes-

"The education of the people, conducted on those principles of morality which

are common to all forms of Christianity, is highly valuable as a means of



promoting the main object for which the government exists ..... There is

assuredly no country where it is more desirable that Christianity should be

propagated‖. (Historical Essays by Lord Macaulay, pp. 387-89)

T.B. Macaulay is known to the world as an essayist, historian and politician. But

the contents of the letters produced above clearly show that Macaulay was

basically a Christian missionary. Macaulay first came to India in 1834 as member

of the supreme Council of Calcutta. He was soon appointed President of the new

law Commission for India. The salary attached to both these positions was very

large, and during his three year‘s stay in India he was enabled to acquire a

competency which made him independent for the rest of his life. The then

Governor General Lord William Bentinck made him President of the Board of

Education for India. That Lord Macaulay was a man of sharp intellect and forceful

pen, no one can deny. But his rigid education received as a devout Christian child

stood all his life time in his way of becoming an impartial man. The territorial

conquest by the British forces had already placed the swords at the disposal of the

East India Company under the aegis of the British government. The object of the

British, which was to make India a British colony appeared to have been achieved.

But Macaulay had an eye on a far distant object. And that was to try to make India

a perpetual slave by converting the Hindus to Christianity. Only thus could the

political and cultural slavery of the Indians be complete. The members of the

Board of Education were unanimous in their decision to opt for Indian languages

as the medium of instruction. Macaulay here gave another proof of his religious

zeal, political sagacity and far-sightedness when he successfully intervened for the

introduction of English and vetoed the decision of the majority with the approval

of his bosses at home. Arthur W. Jose is of the opinion (The growth of the Empire,

P.204) that by this resolution of March 7, 1835, the swords as well as the brains of

India were forever passed on to England. This enemy of India and India‘s glorious

past, its ancient religion and culture, has been paraded so long and so often as a

friend of India unwittingly. But it was Macaulay who planned to produce Indian

boys and girls who should be Indian in blood and complexion but English in

thought and deed. Letters reveal a man and the following letter, written by him to

his father on October 12, 1836 throws bare the ingenious intentions that he

concealed behind the veneer and polish of English education.



"My dear father, our English schools are flourishing wonderfully-the effect of

my system of education on the Hindus is prodigious. No Hindu who has

received English education, ever remains sincerely attached to his religion.

Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy and some embrace

Christianity. It is my belief that, if our plans of education are followed up,

there will not be a single idolater ·among the respectable castes in Bengal

thirty years hence. And this will be affected without the least interference with

religious liberty, by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily

rejoice in the prospect".-Yours most affectionately, T.B. Macaulay". (The Life

and Letters of Lord Macaulay by Sir George Otto Trevelyan Bart pp. 329-30).

Speaking of the policy of Lord Macaulay, Dr S.Radhakrishnan says-- "The policy

inaugurated by Macaulay is loaded on one side. While it is careful as not to

make up forget the force and vitality of western culture, it has not helped us to

love our own culture. In some cases Macaulay’s wish is fulfilled and we have

educated Indians who are ‘more English than the English themselves’ to quote

his own words. They look upon India’s cultural evolution as one dreary scene of

discord, folly and superstition. One of their member recently declared that if

India is to thrive and flourish, England must be her ‘spiritual mother’ and

Greece her ‘spiritual grandmother". - S.Radhakrishnan: Indian Philosophy, Vol.

IL p. 778

Macaulay, as a true Christian, was convinced that his translation of the Vedas

based on the interpretation of Sayana and their scholiasts, would take away the

faith of Indians from the Vedas and, in consequence, help him in converting them

to Christianity. However, the result has been otherwise. Due to Dayanand and

others who shared his views, the Vedas have become much more popular than in

Macaulay‘s days and their teachings have started revitalizing human mind.

Dayanand‘s commentary of the Vedas on indigenous lines gave a fresh outlook

and depth of vision which opened new vistas for another Indian savant, Aurobindo

(Arvind) in his psychological approach.

Macdonell, in his preface to the first edition of his ‗History of Sanskrit Literature‘,

admitted in 1899--"Sanskrit is still spoken as the tongue of the learned by

thousands of Indians, as it was centuries before our era. The Vedas are still

learnt by heart as they were long before the invasion of Alexander, and could



even now be restored from the lips of religious teachers if every manuscript or

printed copies were destroyed". (p. 8).

Macaulay wrote that letter in 1836. He rejoiced at the prospects of this land and its

people becoming Christian in the next thirty years - by 1866. And it was in the

very same year that Maxmuller, another Christian missionary, engaged earlier for

the purpose by the East India Company through Macaulay himself, thus wrote in a

letter to his wife -

"This edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a

great extent on the fate of India. It is the root of their religion and to show

them what the root is, I am sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has

sprung from it during the last three thousand years". (Life and Letters of

Frederick Maxmuller) It is clear that the uprooting of Hinduism by

misinterpreting the Vedas was the only mission for which Maxmuller was

engaged. And the cat was out of the bag when on December 16, 1868 thus

wrote to the Duke of Argyl, the then secretary of State for India--"The ancient

religion of India is doomed. If now Christianity does not step in, whose fault

will it be?"

MAXMULLER HIRED

Macaulay had planned to annihilate or rather inject poison into the views of

Hinduism. He wanted to launch a multi-pronged attack. From one side Christianity

was to be introduced to the Hindu through the medium of Sanskrit and from

another Hinduism was to be misrepresented to him through the medium of English.

It was, therefore, thought necessary, officially and unofficially, to decry all other

translations of the Vedas and commend, uphold, prize, laud, applaud, eulogise and

recognise those by western scholars and from amongst Orientalists only those

which on purpose misrepresented the Vedic teachings. Macaulay was on the

lookout for an assasin. He had thrown his net wide and ultimately caught

Maxmuller for doing this abominable and hideous job. There were other

Sanskritists also in Europe. Why should have then Macaulay picked up

Maxmuller?

Left to himself, Maxmuller was a man and a scholar of integrity. But like nearly all

scholars here, there and everywhere he was a man without means. Intellectually a



giant, he was financially a pauper. As a matter of fact, the social and political

conditions obtaining in Germany in those days must have imposed additional

strains -mental and monetary- on Maxmuller. So, when Macaulay sent for

Maxmuller for an interview on 28th December 1855, the latter saw in it a rare

chance for continuing his scholarly researches and enjoying a care-free happy life.

While Macaulay at the age of 55 was an experienced worldly man, Maxmuller was

an immature young man of 32. Macaulay had made up his mind either to win over

Maxmuller to his side or jettison him and render completely innocuous. Under his

well-planned onslaught Maxmuller‘s determination to resist gave way and he

succumbed. All distorted and falsified versions of the Vedas then emanated from

the pen which Macaulay had pushed into Maxmuller‘s fingers. Consequently these

spurious and altogether false interpretations of the Vedas were made the subject of

study in Indian schools, Colleges and Universities. Recalling this interview later,

Maxmuller is reported to have said with a heavy heart-"I went back to Oxford

a sadder, but a wiser man". Sadder because he had bartered away his pen for gold

........ ‗Why sell for gold what gold can‘t buy‘ (goldsmith) or, as the Bible says -

"What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but, in the bargain, loses his

soul". Maxmuller had sold his soul to feed his body. He felt wiser because he could

now make a mark as a scholar and lead a comfortable worldly life.

Like Macaulay, Maxmuller too feigned, professed and pretended to be a friend of

India. That is why an eminent man like Swami Vivekanand failed to see

through his collision in the theo-political conspiracy hatched and perfected

first by the British East India Company and then by the government of India

to wipe out Hinduism and supplant Christianity. He was deeply affected by

Maxmuller‘s love for India. "I wish", he wrote enthusiastically, "I had a hundredth

part of your love for my motherland. Endowed with an extra-ordinary and at the

same time an intensely active mind, he has lived and moved in the world of Indian

thought for fifty years or more and watched the sharp interchange of light and

shade in the interminable forest of Sanskrit literature with deep interest and

heartfelt love, till they have sunk into his very soul and coloured his whole being".

The Swami asked Maxmuller—"When are you coming to India? All men there

would welcome one who has done so much to place the thoughts of their ancestors

in true light". (Biography)



As already stated, Maxmuller was engaged by the British to perpetuate their rule in

India and for that to Christianize her people by misinterpreting the Vedas and

distorting her history. Vivekanand had already declared his faith in Jesus as an

incarnation of God. But, to ask Maxmuller to come to India was to invite

Mohammad Ghori or Babar to invade India.

BODEN CHAIR OF SANSKRIT--THE MOTIVES BEHIND

One Colonel Boden founded at Oxford the Boden chair of Sanskrit on August 15,

1811. The intention and the purpose behind the founding of this chair was to

produce intellectuals who could be instrumental in converting the Hindus to

Christianity. The founder had most explicitly stated in his ‗Will‘, made before his

death that the object of this munificent bequest was to promote the translation of

scriptures so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the

natives of India to the Christian religion. (See Manier William‘s Preface to his

Sanskrit-English Dictionary). It was thus at Oxford, the most advertised seat of

learning, that the conspiracy to kill Hindu religion and culture and thereby convert

Hindus to Christianity was hatched- Macaulay was a product of this cell.

Macaulay‘s eyes fell on Frederick Maxmuller (1823-1900) who was a German by

birth. He picked him for this purpose and had him attached to this cell.

Horace Haymen Wilson was appointed first Boden Professor of Sanskrit in the

Oxford University in 1833. Wilson was a man of very noble disposition, but he had

his obligations towards the motives of the founder of the chair he occupied. He,

therefore, wrote a book on the ‗Religious and Philosophical Systems of the

Hindus‘. Explaining the compulsions for writing such a book, he said: ―These

lectures were written to help candidates for a prize of $200 -- given by John Muair,

a well-known great Sanskrit scholar, for the best refutation of the Hindu Religious

System.

Monier Williams was the second occupant of the Boden Chair of Sanskrit.

Revealing the real object of the establishment of the Boden Chair, he thus delivers

himself:



"Brahmanism, therefore, must die out. In point of fact, false ideas in the most

ordinary scientific subject are so mixed up with its doctrines that the

commonest education-the simplest lessons in geography without the aid of

Christianity must inevitably in the end sap its foundation".

ln all likelihood Monier William repeats it in pursuance of his policy of

denegrading Indian scriptures and culture with the avowed aim of propagating

Christianity and thus converting the Indian people to the religion of Christ. He

further stated in his book The Study of Sanskrit in relation to Missionary Work in

lndia‘ that "When the walls of the mighty fortress of Hinduism are encircled,

undermined and finally stormed by the cross, the victory of Christianity must

be signal and complete".

We are, therefore, justified in concluding that his book ‗The Study of Sanskrit in

relation to Missionary Work in India‘ (London, 1861) was written with the sole

object of promoting Christianity and ousting Hinduism. Inspite of this, some of our

Indian Sanskrit scholars call these European scholars, unbiased students of Sanskrit

literature, whose sole aim has been to acquire knowledge for its own sake. And

Vivekananda went to the extent of eulogizing Maxmuller as ‗one who has done so

much to place the thought of their ancestors in true light‘.

Congratulating Maxmuller for his efforts, his friend EB. Pussay wrote to him -

"Your work will mark a new era in the effort for the conversion of India".

Albert Weber-While Maxmuller was busy besmirching the glory of India in

England, Albert Weber was devoting himself to the same ignominious task in

Germany. He had the temerity to postulate that the Mahabharata and Gita were

influenced by Christian thought. Mark what he writes -

"The peculiar colouring of the Krishna sect which pervades the whole book, is

noteworthy. Christian legendary matter and other western influences are

unmistakable present".

This is what Bankim Chandra Chatterji, the well-known Bengali scholar and

composer of India‘s National Anthem- Bande (Vande) Mataram—has to say about

Weber in Krishna Charit (Chap.4) -



"The celebrated Weber was no doubt a scholar, but I am inclined to think that

it was an unfortunate moment for India when he began the study of Sanskrit.

The descendents of the German savages of yesterday could not reconcile

themselves to the ancient glory of India. It was, therefore, their earnest effort

to prove that the civilisation of India was comparatively of recent origin,.

They could not persuade themselves to believe that the Mahabharata was

composed centuries before christ was born".

In fact to a generation which had been brought up to believe that in 4004 B.C. or

there about the world was being created, the idea that man himself went back to

100,000 years ago was both incredible and inconceivable. Hence a majority of the

modern Jews, dogmatic Christians as also many Indians found it hard to reconcile

themselves to the view that any race or civilisation could be older than the date of

Adam accepted by them. They resent the hoary antiquity ascribed by their unbiased

brother scholars to the history, culture and civilisation of India.

In the same spirit of prejudice Rudolph Roth, a fellow student of Maxmuller, wrote

his thesis ‗Zur literature Gescliichte des Veda‘, a dissertation on the Vedic

literature and history. In 1852 was published his edition of the Nirukta of Yaska.

Arrogantly proud of his own learning of the German genius, Roth asserted that by

means of the German science of philology Vedic mantras could be interpreted

much better than with the help of Nirukta. Roth wrote many other things in this

haughty vein.

The same pedantry is exhibited in the writings of WD. Whitney - "The principles

of German School" are the only ones which can ever guide us to a right

understanding of the Veda. .

The pride and superiority of their own philosophy and of the infallibility of their

own conclusions has become so ingrained in these western Sanskrit scholars that

they feel no hesitation in giving expression to such brazen absurdities. Reverent

admiration of the philosophy of the Upanishads by Schopenhaeur rankled in the

hearts of the Europeans and as late as 1925 Prof. Winternitz thought it incumbent

on him to denounce the sincere and heart-felt sentiments of Schopenhaeur in the

following words - -



"Yet I believe, it is a wild exaggeration when Schopenhaeur says that the teaching

of the Upanishads represents the fruit of the highest human wisdom and contains

superhuman conceptions the originators of which can hardly be regarded as mere

mortals."

Not content with his invective against the Upanishads he had the audacity to

deprecate even the greatness of the Vedas by saying --

"It is true, the authors of these hymns rise, but extremely seldom to the exalted

flights and deep fervour of, ‗say, religious poetry of the Hebrews."

And Maxmuller had the impudenticity to declare that-

1. "A large number of Vedic hymns are childish in the extreme, tedious low and

common place". (Chips from a German Workshop, Ed. 1866, p.27)

2. "That the Veda full of Childish, silly and monstrous conceptions, who would

deny? (Ibid P.57)

Again, in ‗Vedic Hinduism‘ published by the Madras Christian Society,

Maxmuller reiterated-"I remind you once again that the Vedas contain a great deal

of what is childish and foolish".

MAXMULLER AND JACOLLIOT

French scholar Louis Jacolliot, Chief Judge in Chandranagar, wrote a book called

‗La Bible dans L‘lnde‘ in 1869. Next year an English translation (The Bible in

India) of it was published. In that book the learned author has laid down the thesis

that all the main currents of thought in the world have been derived from the

ancient Aryan thought. He called the ‗Land of Ancient India Cradle of humanity‘.

This book cut Maxmuller to the quick and, while reviewing it, he said that ‗the

author seems to have been taken in by the Brahmans in India‘.

Such blasphemous reviling of the most ancient and highly scientific scripture of

the world can come only from the mouth of a bigoted (as opposed to an honest)

Christian, a low pagan or an impious atheist. But this was a part of his plan of

education, or mis-education clandestinely thought out by Macaulay to subvert or

prevert the Hindu mind and create doubts and misgivings about Hinduism.



His distrust and mistrust of the Brahmanas is symptomatic. He knew it too well

that Brahmanas as a class were devoted to the reading and the teaching of the

Vedas. He also knew that their interpretation of the Vedas was likely to differ

from his. He also realized that there would surely be some voices of dissent as well

as protest. As a clever strategist, therefore, he planned to run down Brahmans and

their teachings-give the dog a bad name and hang him. He had made up his mind to

disparage and slight all others who differed from his interpretation.

It is true that foreign scholars made considerable research in Sanskrit (particularly

in the Vedic field) language and literature. But on account of their communal bias,

lack of deep knowledge and, above all, political motivation they could not present

Vedic literature in its true perspective.

VICTOR AND THE VANQUISHED

History tells us that all conquerors bring their religion with them and they always

force the conquered to accept it. Mr. Mangles, chairman of the Board of Directors

of East Indian Company which ruled over India until Queen Victoria‘s

proclamation in 1858, stated in the British Parliament that-

"Providence has entrusted the extensive empire of Hindustan to England in order

that the banner of Christ should wave triumphant from one end of India to the

other. Everyone must exert all his strength so that there may be no dilatoriness on

any account in continuing in the country, the ground work of making all Indians

Christians".

Two years after our defeat in our first war of independence in 1857 Lord

Pamerston, the then Prime Minister of England, said -

"It is not only our duty but in our own interest to promote the diffusion of

Christianity as far as possible throughout the length and breadth of India."--

(Christianity and Government of India by Mahew pg.164 ).

This explains why the Governor of Bombay introduced a deputation of Christian

missionaries to the Prince of Wales when the latter visited Bombay in 1896,

saying:



"They are doing in India more than all those civilians, soldiers, judges and

governors your Highness has met."

HISTORY OF INDIA

Unfortunately India‘s history written by western scholars over the past one century

and more and imitated by the Indian historians has played havoc with established

facts. On the question of the study of history our methods have been learnt from

the west. We were so much swayed by the new method by which our history

began to be studied by western scholars that we uncritically adopted their ideas

and concepts without examining how far they were applicable to our Indian

traditions of maintaining historical records. Our concept of history was borrowed

from the west and we were so much influenced thereby that we began to repeat

everywhere that the Indian people had no idea of history. Our history, we are told,

goes so far back as it was possible to go, was built up either from foreign sources

or from archaeological remains including epigraphy and numismatics etc.

The Christians have the curious belief that the earth and of course, the whole

universe, as they have understood it, was created in 4004 B.C. This was formally

stated in 1650-54 A.D. by when James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh (a city in

Ulster in Northern Ireland) published a celebrated work in which he included a

scheme of chronology for Biblical events, beginning with 4004 B.C. as the date of

creation. This date is still printed in copies of the authorized version of the Bible.

This belief had sunk so deep into the minds of almost all scholars of the west that

when they chanced upon the discovery of the unfathomable dimensions of ancient

Indian literature, which revealed that the creation was no less than 2000 million

years old and that the age of the Indian civilization as also of Egypt and China was

to be calculated in terms of aeons lasting over several millennia B.C. they began to

shiver in their shoes and the hot blood of their over-confident and complacent

beliefs congealed in their veins.



1. See ‗Everybody‘s Book of Facts‘, compiled by F.L. Dumbar, Ed. by Harold

Wheeler, Published by the ‗Home Library Club‘ Associated Newspapers of

Ceylone Ltd. (1940)

2. Scientist (Prof. Nagi and Prof. Zumberg of the University of Arizona) have

found traces of ancient life and matter dating backs to 2300 million years. The

discovery was made in the rocks found in Transval area of South, Africa, 320 Km.

north of Johannesberg. -The Tribune, Chandigarh, 13th July, 1975

The world‘s highest mountain range could be 20 million years old--twice as old as

previously thought - a group of scientists said in a statement issued in Bonn by

West German research group ‗DFG‘. The 25 Scientists reached this conclusion

after taking samples of sediment washed down to the bottom of the Indian Ocean

by erosion in the Himalayas.—The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, dated 18th

October, 1987.

From a floating laboratory in the Sri Lanka area they spent July and August

examining the micro-organisms that the sediment contained.

How could those scholars, who had been nursed on the belief that the total age of

the earth was not more than 6000 years, swallow such staggering dimensions of

both time and space as they found in Indian literature? Relying on the Christian

beliefs and Biblical Chronology, these scholars naturally attempted to fit the

historical data of Indian history within the framework of the time given in the

bible. Efforts were made to twist and distort history to suit the preconceived ideas

or theories of the writer.

Examples of this tendency are numerous. A conspicuous example of such

tendentious writing is to be met within the thesis propounded by the late Dr.

Tarachand who went to the ridiculous length of theortsing that the Adi

Shankaracharya in propounding his moustic philosophy (adwaitavaad) was

influenced by the monothoistic creed (Ekeshwaravaad) of the Arab merchants who

landed on the coast of Malabar in the ninth century A.D. According to the records

maintained in the various Mathas (monastries) founded by the Adi

Shankaracharya, the great Acharya was born in 509 B.C. But even if we ignore the

traditional date, the date of birth of the Acharya as now generally accepted by

modern scholars is the latter half of the Seventh century A.D. This was just the



time when Muhammad had started preaching his new religion to the people in

Mecca. How could Shankar who flourished in the Seventh century A.D, possibly

meet the Arabs who came to India in the ninth century A.D.? The solid fact that

Shankar had left Malabar of the age of 8 or 9 for the Ashrama of Govinda

Bhagavatpada, situated near Omkarnath on the bank of the Narmada. leaves no

scope for his coming into close contact with the Arabian Malabar. lt was there that

Shankar studied Vedanta at the feet of Govindapad, the disciple of Gaudapada. It

may also he mentioned that Muhammad‘s conception of God was purely

anthropomorphic, monotheism.

Another glaring example is to be met with the achievement of a great

archaeologist, Dr. B.B.Lal. In the course of his conducting excavations at

Ayodhya, his spade found some bricks which appeared to indicate that Rama

flourished after Krishna of Mahabharata fame. According to him the excavations at

Ayodhya did not indicate a beginning for the site earlier than the 8th century B.C.

He is expecting excavations at other Ramayana sites to confirm his theory that

Rama flourished later Krishna.

The excavations conducted at Hastinapur by Romila Thapar of the Jawahar Lal

Nehru University recently revealed that a portion of it was inundated in the Ganges

in the 8th century B.C. This is said to have occured soon after the Mahabharat war

during the reign of the seventh descendent of the ruler of Hastinapur. The date of

the Mahabharat war may, therefore, be safely fixed in the 9th century B.C.

Not long ago, archaeologist S.R.Rao associating the remains found in the sea near

Dwarka in Gujrat with Shri Krishna, came to the conclusion that he belonged to the

14th century B.C. But Shri Krishna was undoubtedly the most conspicuous man in

the Mahabharat episode. Then if the remains of Dwarka belonged to the 14th

century B.C., how could Mahabharata be assigned to the 9th century B.C.?

(According to Jacobi—"Sanskrit epic poetry falls into two main classes. That

which comprises old stories goes by the name of Itihasa, legend; Akhyana,

narrative or Purana, ancient tales; while the other is called Kavya or artificial

epic. The Mahabharata is the oldest representative of the former group, the

Ramayana of the latter. There is good reason for supposing the original part of the

Ramayana assumed the shape at a time when the Mahabharata was still in a state



of flux. The seventh book (kanda) is undoubtedly a later addition; for the sixth was

evidently at one time the end of the whole poem. Macdonel: History of Sanskrit

literature, p.283 )

As a matter of fact, archaeology is yet in its infancy. The death of Shri Krishna

coincided with the commencement of Kalyuga in 3101 B.C. According to western

astronomer Bailly Kalyuga commenced in 3102 B.C. on 20th February at 27

minutes and 30 seconds past 2. "According to astronomical calculations of the

Hindus the present period of the world, Kalyuga, commenced 3102 years before

the birth of Christ on the day of February at 2 hrs, 27 minutes and 31 seconds. A

conjunction of planets (Grahayuti) took place there and tables show this

conjunction. It was natural to say that a conjunction of planets then look place. The

calculation of the Brahmans is so exactly confirmed by our own astronomical

calculations that nothing but actual observation could have given so correspondent

a result."--- The Theogony ofthe Hindus by count Bjorustuourna, Pub. John

Murray; London, 1844, p.82

But unfortunately the starting point of recorded history in India as accepted by

modern scholars is 327 B.C., being the date of Allexanders invansion of India. And

this is based on Megasthanese‘s ‗Indica‘. This is not at all reliable. The whole

account attributed to `lndica‘ is only hearsay, for nobody has ever seen ‗lndica‘

itself. It is no more than a fantasy which O.E.D. defines as ‗a supposition resting

on no solid grounds? ‗lndica‘ is a myth, for it makes no reference to Chanakya, the

world famous politician and architect of the Mauryan Empire. Mauryan Empire, or

for that purpose, Chandragupta without Chanakya would be Hamlet without the

Prince of Denmark. If Megasthanese had ever visited India and stayed at he court

of Chandragupta, he could never have missed Chanakya. According to V.R.

Ramchandran and Ramchandran Dikshitar, authors respectively of ‗A Peep into

Historical Past‘ (1892) and ‗Mauryan Polity‘ (1860) the account of the social

conditions and military organisation as we find in Chanakya‘s Arthashastra does

not tally with the one attributed to lndica.

Even so, the so-called critical historians still occupy themselves in endeavoring to

reduce our antiquity as far as possible. In his concluding address as President of the



All India Oriental Conference at Lahore in 1928, Mahamahopadhyaya Har Prasad

Shastri said -

"At the end of my address I think it is my duty to give you a warning. At the

present moment there is a large body of men who go as Sanskrit scholars without

knowing a word of Sanskrit. There are others again who have the brains of

Shastries and take big name as Oriental scholars. I often see big works on Sanskrit

literature and special branches of it, compiled mainly, if not wholly, from

translations of Sanskrit works in English, French, German and other European

languages - but translations are never reliable..... They should be taken as their

worth." -- Proceedings of A,I. O. C., 1928, p.128-29

Translations

Resort to translation even in crucial matters has played havoc. Even the best brains

have been misled by faulty translations. It was in pursuance of their policy of

‗Divide and Rule‘ that the British propounded the theory of the foreign origin of

the vast majority of Indians-the Aryans. The impact of this vicious propaganda was

that even an eminent and patriotic person like Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak fell

victim to this erroneous belief and pleaded that the Aryans were basically

foreigners. According to him some ten thousand years ago North Arctic

experienced a heavy snow-stom and for that reason the Aryans living there left

their Arctic home. They invaded India and after killing, slaughtering and throwing

out the aborigines occupied the country. When Umesh Chandra Vidyaratna, a

renowned scholar from Bengal met him at his house in Poona,Tilak told him — "I

have not gone through the original text of the Vedas, but have studied them

through their translation by western scholars." : -

But the mischief was done. It is strange and distressing that even today we are

engrossed in such wrong beliefs. Evil effects are coming before us in many forms.

Now it is being contended that if the British, who came some hundred years ago,

were foreigners, why not the Aryans who came a few thousand years back? The

country will be considered independent when the invading Aryans (about 65



crores) quit India and the reins of government pass into the hands of the aborigines

who are its original inhabitants. It is being said by the Muslims and (Christians that

they are the real owners of this land, as they are converts from its original

inhabitants-the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, hill tribes and other low

castes—who were victimized by foreign invaders, the Aryans. The British have

left; the Aryans who were the first invaders should have left first. In this context

the following statement published in ‗Muslim India‘ of 27th March, 1985 deserves

attention -

"This land (India) belongs to those who are its original inhabitants and hence its

rightful owners. It is they who built the Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, the world‘s

most ancient civilization. Most of India‘s Muslims and Christians are converts

from the sons of the soil. They are either Dalits or tribles. In all foreign invasions it

is these people who defended it. They (Aryans) don‘t belong to India and hence

don‘t love India. They are foreigners, the enemy within. As Aryans, they are

India‘s first foreigners. If Muslims and Christians are foreigners and must get out

of India, as India‘s first foreigners, the Aryans are duty - bound to get out first.

Those who came first must leave first."

On 4th September 1977 Mr. Frank Anthony, who was nominated to the Lok Sabha

by the Rashtrapati, demanded that "Sanskrit should be deleted from the eigth

schedule of the constitution because it is a foreign language brought to this country

by foreign invaders: the Aryans."

In the beginning of 1978 India launched its first satellite. It was named after India‘s

ancient scientist, ‗Aryabhatta‘. This was objected to in the Rajya Sabha. K.

Lakshmanan, a representative of D.M.K. who demanded that the Indian satellite

should not have been named Aryabhatta because it is a foreign name.

Today the greatest hurdle in the unity and integrity of India as also many other

problems facing the country is the wrong notion that the Aryans from some foreign

land invaded this country, pushed the aborigines southward, enslaved its original

inhabitants-Dravidians and occupied the country by force. These seeds of

dissention created on the one hand, a wedge between North and South and on the

other, by labeling sections of the people as high and low caste, scheduled caste and



backward class increased mutual dissentions, hatred and enmity amongst the

people.

Another example of how resort to translation tarnished the name of ancient Vedic

people is given below.

A great writer and exponent of Indian culture, Dr. KM. Munshi has thus described

the Aryans in his book ‗Lopa-mudra‘-"Traces of primate conditions are still to be

found in their language. They took meat, including beef. One who fed people with

beef was conferred the most prestigious epithet of ‗Atithigva‘. The Rishies

remained under the influence of liquor by taking ‗Somaras‘ and exhibited greed

and anger. They also indulged in gambling. Ordinary people took to ordinary

liquor, ‗Sura‘. The Rishies slaughtered thousands on battlefields. They composed

Ved Mantras in order to attract and lure beautiful women. Children born of virgins

were not considered low or fallen. The parentage of many Rishies were not known.

The Aryans were gluttonous like wolves. There was no idea or belief or

contemplation of God. They had no idea of patriotism. Dasyus, who worshipped

Shiva-ling were the original inhabitants of India."

In his preface to the book Shri Munshi had stated that whatever he had written

therein was based on the Rigveda. In my(Swami Vidyanand Saraswati) letter dated

18th November, 1949 I asked Shri Munshi to quote the verses (Mantras) on the

authority of which he had written all that in his book under reference. He wrote

back as under in his letter dated 2nd February, 1950 --

"I believe the Vedas to have been composed by human beings in the very early

stage of our culture and my attempt in this book has been to create an atmosphere

which I find in the Vedas as translated by western scholars and as given in Dr.

Keiths‘ Vedic Index. I have accepted their views of life and conditions of those

times."

When I pursued the matter further he wrote back vide his letter dated 3rd February,

1951 --

"I am afraid I am too occupied at present to find time to discuss the points raised

by you. We shall meet and discuss these academic matters when I have time."



Yet another example: Dr Sampurnananda, himself a scholar of repute and once

Education, and later Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh found extreme obscenity in

the 23rd Chapter of the Yajurveda and condemmned it in his book, ‗Ganesha‘. He

also held that the ancient Vedic Aryans were non-vegetarians, indulged in drinking

and gambling and offered animals in sacrifice (Yagna). In his letter dated 9th

February 1951, addressed to me, Dr. Sampurnananda stated that his findings were

based on the translation (commentaries) of the Yajurveda by Mahidhara and Uvat.

Hence the advice (caution) by M.M. Har Prasad Shastri to take translations on their

worth, and not on their face value.

CONCEPT OF HISTORY

Macdonell in his book ‗History of Sanskrit Literature‘ wrote--"History is one weak

spot in Sanskrit literature. It is in fact non-existent. The total lack of the historical

sense is so characteristic that the whole course of Sanskrit literature is darkened by

the shadow of this defect, suffering as it does from an entire absence of exact

chronology. The early Indians wrote no history as they never made any. The

ancient Indians never went through a struggle for life, like the Greeks in the

Persian and the Romans in the Punic wars, such as would have welded their tribes

into a nation and developed political greatness.

The extent of Western influence on our way of thinking can be judged from the

prouncements that the Indian people had no idea of history and that they did not

even know the art of writing because writing materials were not known to them

until the advent of Muslim invaders. The idea was so deeply impregnated in our

head that some of our greatest historians of the early days began to tell us that our

concept of history, like many other things, was borrowed from the west. It was

Alberuni who told us that "the Hindus do not pay much attention to the historical

order of things. They are very careless in relating the Chronological succession of

Kings." On this Prof. D.R. Bhandarkar, a historian in his own right comments that

these remarks of Alberuni could perhaps have some justification when he was in

India and when the culture and civilisation of this country was as its lowest ebb.

But to say or to imply that prior to the medieval period, the Indians never had any

idea of history is the height of absurdity.



History used to be a compulsory subject in our scheme of studies. By the time of

Kautilya the domain of history (Itihasa) had become both extensive and compact. It

was an integral part of statecraft or the art of conducting state affairs. Kautilya

enjoins upon the princes to listen to lectures on Itihas every afternoon and this

Itihas included six different subjects, namely, Purana, Itivritta, Akhyayika,

Udaharana, Uharmashastra and Arthashatra. Purana originally dealt with

cosmology, cosmogony and divine pedigrees. Itivritta most probably devoted

dynastic chronologies. This is evident from the fact that both Itivritta and Purana

have been recommended by Kautilya to a minister as the means by which he

should bring back a misguided king to right path. The fourth component of Itihas

consists of examples of rulers coming to grief through infatuation or through being

too credulous or over confident.

In ancient times both Itihas and Purana were generally mentioned together. But

they cannot be synonymous. The Atharvaveda says -

Along with Itihas and Purana are mentioned Gathas, Narashansis etc. In

the‗Amarkosha Itihas means Puravritta i.e. a record of past events and puran is

explained as possessed of five characteristics - (Sargashcha Pratisargascha sargO

manvantaraaNi cha | vamshaanucharitam chaiva puraaNam panchalakshaNam);

Pratisarga or dissolution or recreation; Varnsha or divine geneologies; and

anvantaras or ages of Manu etc.

History as a guide for the conduct of rulers finds in welcome parallel in the Roman

and Greek historians. While Dharmashastra (Law) and Arthashastra (Political

Science) are treated as allied disciplines in our Universities, Kautilya considers

them both component parts of history.

Prof. Bhandarkar in his Presidental address to the Indian History Congress Session

at Allahabad in 1938 forcefully stated that our historians have been misled by the

views of Western scholars into affirming that Indians were totally lacking in a



sense of history. Prof. Bhandarkar extensively quoted Kalhan who has justly been

praised, not only by Indian, but also western scholars. What is more significant is

that Kalhai mentions no less than eleven previous works as his sources. Similarly

Kautilya admits that he is indebted to a large number of his predecessors as the

source of his Arthashastra.

Again, if today we find that most of our ancient treasures of historical literature,

like the rest of it, has either been destroyed beyond recovery or is yet waiting to be

brought to light, are we justified in rushing to the conclusion that our ancients had

no sense of history. Why do we forget the simple fact that our history goes back to

such long streches of time that much of the perishable records were bound to decay

and disapppear beyond recovery. As if the hand of the inclement elements of

nature was not enough to destroy our records, the havoc that was done by the

vandalism of medieval invaders to the enormous collections of MSS stored in our

libraries must not be forgotten.

INDIA DIVIDED

Macaulay, Maxmuller, Monier Williams and a host of others were honest in as

much as they almost openly declared that they were out on a compaign of

vilification. They aimed at delivering a brutal blow to our already shattered morale

and prestige. In the process a meeting of a few intellectuals was held on 9th April,

1866 in a room of the Royal Asiatic Society of London to theorise that an ethnic

group from somewhere outside India had attacked it and after liquidating the

aborigines called Dravadians had forcibly occupied it.

The meeting was presided over by Rt. Hon‘ble Viscount Strongfield. The

suggestion put up by Edward Thomas was readily accepted. The modalities

worked out, it was implemented through the Board of Education. This gave birth to

a sort of two-national 1heory-the Aryans and the Dravidians, the North and the

South:—See Royal Asiatic Journal London, Footnote, Page 420, Produced in

(Agastyaha bhaarateeya itihaas tatha kaalakram me atyadhik viparyaas, Nagpur)

The result of these planned efforts on the part of western scholars was that by and

by Indian scholars began to imbibe their view and directly or indirectly help them

in their mission.



Political independence has not yet terminated lndia‘s cultural and intellectual

dependence. Even now whatever is being taught in our educational institutions,

circulated through our media and spoken here, there and everywhere, is all ‗Made

in England‘. A passage reproduced here from ‗History and Civics‘ for class,

published and prescribed as a text book by N.C.E.R.T (National Council of

Educational Research and Training, Government of India) throughout the country,

will bear me out -

"Until the discovery of Mohenja-daro and Harappa it was thought that Indian

history began with the coming of the Aryans. But now we know that it was much

older. The Aryans came from outside India, probably from North-Eastern Iran.

When they first arrived in India they had to fight for land with the people already

living in India. These people they called Dasyus or Dasas. The Dasyus are

described as dark skinned with flat noses. The Dasyus did not worship the same

gods as the Aryans. They spoke the language which the Aryans did not understand,

because the Aryans spoke Sanskrit. The Aryans who defeated the Dasyus did not

treat them kindly and enslaved many of them. The Dasyus had to work for the

Aryans and had to do the most difficult and low work. The Dasyus and those

Aryans, who had mixed with the Dasyus and married them, were called shudras

and were looked down upon. Gambling was their pastime. They ate meat and

drank intoxicating drinks like Soma and Sura. They worshipped the Sun, the trees,

rivers and mountains. Altars were built and animals were sacrificed‖

Thus even after forty years of attainment of freedom from the foreign yoke, we in

our schools and colleges still continue teaching and instilling into the tender minds

of our children the same fallacious, divisive and self-deriding material that was

designed with the nefarious motives to revile and subvert our traditions. The

poison injected by them in our young men and women who pass out of the portals

of our temples of learning is bearing rotten fruit in the form of our contempt for

our cultural heritage. What is surprising and at the same time shameful is that we

have ourselves become instrumental in fructifying the aspirations of Macaulay by

meekly toeing his line and making matters worse by putting our own stamp of

authenticity.

Today, while European nations divided by history, language, race, customs and

economic rivalries are building common markets, we, who were once one, eye one



another with suspicion, hatred and animosity. As if this were not enough, almost

immediately after attaining independence we re-distributed India on the basis of

language. These small states are not trying to become sub-nations, fighting over

border villages and distribution of river waters. What is actually happening today

in India is indicated in the following words of Professor Dr. Lallanji Gopal, Head

of the Dept. of ancient history on the Banaras Hindu University-

―‗Before the Communist Party formed its government in China, it carried on

for 20 years a systematic campaign of producing books interpreting every

aspect of Chinese life in Marxist terms. The aim behind it was to prepare the

minds of the people to accept the correctness of various phases of man’s

history as described by Marx. A similar attempt is being made by historians

here ......

Dr. D.N. Jha, Secretary of Indian History Congress, and his colleagues in Delhi

University did not hide their Marxist leanings and said that they would live to

interpret historical events in Marxist terms." –Indian Express Delhi, Feb. 14-15,

1979.

Have we lost all reason? Yet, atleast for the time being. At first the Muslims

distorted and destroyed our history, then the Englishman corrupted it, and

now the communists on one hand and the government of India (Ministry of

Education) on the other, are busy in Scissoring it in a wanton way. In history

things should be represented in their true perspective. Distorting facts, for

whatever reasons, will be tantamount to intellectual suicide. In course of time

it would be difficult to understand what India was in the past, what it is today

and what it would be in future.

It is high time for students of history to discard outmoded ideas and notions what

we have uncritically imbibed, to forget what we have wrongfully learnt and to

cultivate a correct approach so that we may do justice to our past.

In conclusion, I invite, in the name of Truth, candid criticism of the points urged

by me in this work. To err is human. And I am no exception. None will rejoice

more than myself if they prove any point, or criticism, to be untenable; for Truth

alone triumpheth, not Untruth (Satyameva Jayate Naanrutam). I have ventured to

write this book on the principle, that one hypothesis is probably as good as another,



if it can be supported by facts and arguments and afford some food for thinking. At

this stage, therefore, it would be quite premature for me to predict the course, that

the ancient history of the Aryans must take, if my hypothesis be found on

examination to contain any elements of truth.

My indebtness to those scholiasts and savants, whose works I have consulted and

drawn freely from, is immense. And I owe a deep obligation, which I hereby

acknowledge, to Dr. P. Sharan, Head of the Department of History, Delhi

University, the late Padmashri Dr. V.S. Wakenker, Head of the Department of

Archaeology, Vikram University and Dr. Waradpande of the Research and

Development Organisation, Govt. of India for helping me in my venture.

-Vidyanand Saraswati

D-14/16 Model Town,

Delhi.

January 20, 1995



The Vedas

The Vedas were revealed to the earliest man and traditionally handed down to

posterity. Since they were revealed in the beginning of creation, that is, In prior to

human history, no historical or geographical references should be sought for in the

Vedic texts. As such the question of historical or geographical references to any

particular country or the people inhabiting it does not arise. The Vedas were given

to us when there were not territorial or political divisions and no geographical

boundaries of land, sea or interspace and no proper names given to particular lands,

mountains, rivers or seas. All men belonged to a common world, and they stood for

universal fraternity for whom the whole world was one family ('vasudhaiva

Kutumbakam‘). It was centuries, or may be, millenia afterwards that the lands,

rivers and mountains etc. were given names, borrowed from the Vedic texts. Manu

tells us that having taken out terms from Divine speech, the Vedas, names were

ascribed to all objects and actions.

Says Manu :

The Mahabharata corroborates the same:



Thus, before the Vedas were delivered to us, neither Himalayas were known by

this name, nor our Vindhyas; neither the Pacific Ocean, nor the Arabian Sea;

neither the Sindhu, nor the Ganges or the rivers forming Punjab, nor the Saraswati;

neither the cities like Prayag, Ayodhya or Kashi were known as such. The Vedas

speak of Shaswata Itihas or eternal history,not the history as we understand it

today. All these names or persons, places and objects of any description were

selected from the Vedas and given by us much later. Until there were conflicts,

how could the Vedas give any account of war of human history. The Vedas do

speak of the universal and eternal conflict that goes on in man even today-an

eternal conflict between good and evil, between noble and baser instincts, a

conflict between knowledge and ignorance. If we come across in the Vedas a

conflict between an Arya or a Dasyu, it is not between two particular races or

tribes known by these names, but between the law (Dharma) abider and the law

(Dharma) breaker. The Asuras or Panis are not the Assyrians, nor the Dasyus the

Dravidians. To strive to sense such things in the Vedas would be our utter

ignorance.

The Vedas are known for their deep spiritual and philosophical meanings which

ascribe sanctity to the text. The Dominance of the ritualistic interpretation did not

allow Sayana to enter into these depths. He could not go deeper into the etymology

or mystic sense behind the words. In fact he was misled by the Pauranic myths and

mythological events, as if these mythologies preceded the revelation of the Vedas.

As a matter of fact the stories of the Puranas were woven round the Vedic words,

capable of natural interpretations, millenniums of years afterwards. The Vedas

were always held sacred in Indian society, and the words used in common parlance

were, in course of time, given as proper names, not only to kings and queens,

princes and princesses of repute who came to be so well known in epics and

mythologies, but also to so many rishies, associated with Vedic hymns. The



modern Vedic scholars both in the East and the West - who seek to interpret

history on the basis of Vedic texts, have erred a step ahead of Sayana and other

medieval commentators in this respect.

Principles of Interpretation

Yaska in his Nirukta says —

AthaapIdamantarENa ntESHwarthapratyayO na vidyate -1-15

Without the aid of Nirukta, the Vedas cannot be understood.

Words are of three kinds - Rudhi, Yogarudhi and Yangika. A ‗rudhi‘ term is the

name of a particular or specific object where the connotation of the word (as

structurally determined) gives no clue to the object denoted by the word. lt means a

word of arbitrary significance. ‗Yogarudhi‘ means a term which, retaining the root-

meaning, gets fixed to mean a particular object. For instance, the root -meaning of

(Pankaja) is anything born in mud. But the word got fixed to lotus only. A

‗Yangika‘ term is one that has a derivative meaning, that is, one which only

signifies the meaning of its root together with the modifications effected by the

prefixes and suffixes. In fact, the structural elements, out of which the word is

compounded afford the whole or the only clue to the true significances of the word.

The word is purely connotative.

All the words used in the Vedas are ‗Yangika‘ and must necessarily be interpreted

in that sense- Tatra naamaanyaakhyaatajaani nairuktasamayashcha (Nirukta 1.11).

And the Mahabhashya of Patanjali (3.31) says – naama cha dhaatumasaaha niruktE

vyaakaranEshakaTasya cha tOkam | naigamarooDi bhavamhi susaadhu | All the

Rishies, Muni‘s and ancient commentators regarded the Vedic terms as Yangika or

derivative. In this context the following two verses from the Artharva Veda call for

review -



-

- Atharva Veda 18.3.15-16

We find here a host of sages being invoked to protect us (pitarO nah avantu ka

pitarO mrudataa naha) All these are spread over a period of, say, thousands of

years. Their contemporaneity cannot be established. And why should they all be

called simultaneously. Again, in the Samhita all these names are seen accented.

Accentreation is necessary only in the case of ‗Yagnic‘ or derivative (formed by

root meanings) words and not in the case of proper nouns. Hence these names have

nothing to do with historical personages.

The suffixes (tarap) and (tamap) are used to denote comparative and superlative

degrees of adjectives, and never with nouns. We can speak of something as

(Shubratara) or (Shubratama) but never of a man as (samatara) or (yagnadattatam).

In the Vedas we come across words like ‗kanva yeshaam kanvatamaha‘ (Rig.

1,48.4), 'Angeerastamaha', (Rig. 7.75.1 and 7.93.3) In R.V 7.93.3 ‗AngeerastamA‗

has been used as an adjective with UshA. With the Tamap suffixed to

Indra(IndratamA), Indra also ceases to be a proper noun. We read

BharadwaajEshu(Rig.1.159.7), jamadagnayaha(Rig 3.53.13), Kanveshu (Rig.

8.4.3.) Gomateenaam (2.28.2) and (gOmateeshu) Rig. 4.2.4). Proper names, be

they men or rivers, mountains or cities, cannot be pluralised. All these anomalies

are removed when we take them to be Yangiks or derivatives and not names.

Kanvaha=mEdhaavee (Nighantu 3.15)= kanati nimIlati asoukanvaha (UNaadi

1.151) = nimeelitaaksha yOgI. Similarly vishwaamitra= one who befriends all

(Nirukta 2.17) kakshivaan= Ever ready to serve others etc. In the Rigveda we read-

Maataa sapitaa sa putraha(Rig. 1.89.10) How can the same person be one‘s mother,

father and son at the same time? Nirukta helps us and says maataanirmaataa

bhavati, paalayitaa and putraha puruhu traayatE = punnarakam tatastraayata iti

vaa(Nirukta 2.11) The riddle is solved.



The question of historical or geographical references in the Vedas cannot be solved

by internal evidence from the Vedas which are beyond the limitation of time and

space. Accordingly, on the basis of one or two words, apparently referring to some

person or space, no logical conclusion could be arrived at. Lokmanya Tilak has

tried to determine the age of the Vedas on the basis of the specific position of

certain Nakshatras as decribed in the Vedas. In his book ‗Orion‘ he says that in the

86th Sukta of the tenth Mandal of Rigveda Vasant Sampat (Vernal Equinox) is said

to have occured in Mrigsheersha Nakshatra. Mrigsheersha Nakshatra is six

Nakshatra before the present uttara—bhadrapada. It takes 960 years for Vasanta—

Sampat to travel from one Nakshatra to another. According to this calculation

Vasant Sampat should have been in Mrigsheesha Nakshatra some six thousand

(960x6) years before the present times. This Sukta thus helps in determining the

antiquity of the Vedas. Apparently this reasoning appears to be quite convincing.

But if we dig deeper its hollowness is exposed. There are 27 Nakshatras. Thus after

every (960x27) 25930 years Vasant-Sampat returns to its previous position after

revolving at its Vritta. If Vasanta—Sampat was in Mrigsheersha Nakshatra some

6000 years before Christ, then 26000 years before that, i.e., 32000 years before

today, also it should have been in the same Nakshatra. Prior to that too, 26000

years before it should have been in the Mrigsheersha Nakshatra. In the course of

existence of this creation during 200 crore years this should have occured many

times.

Monday comes after every seven days. The mention of Monday would not imply

Monday which was just seven days before today. Why should Monday not be

taken to be referring to one which was one month, one year or hundred years

before this day? There is no valid reason to assume that the position of Nakshatras

mentioned in the Vedas pertains to 6000 years before this day and not to any

earlier period—say, twenty million years before. Twenty thousand (26000-6000)

years after this day Vasant-Sampat would be again in the Mrigsheersha Nakshatra.

Scholars born 500 years after that would, on the basis of this argument, may

contend that the Vedas were composed 500 years before him. Indeed it may be said

that all historical or geographical indications attributed in the Vedas are propped

upon were conjectives.

Names of historical persons and geographical places found here and there in the

Vedas may create a false impression about the existence of the element of



historicity in the Vedas. But when we dig deeper and examine them in the context

which precedes or follows them, the so-called historical element in the Vedas

vanishes. A few examples given here will substantiate our point of view-

1. Mention is made in the Yajurveda (23.18) about Amba, Ambika and Ambalika.

It is contended that these names refer to the three girls whom Bhishma had

abducted to marry his brothers. It may, however be noted that in the Yajuiyeda

they are stated as kampeelvasiness (residents of Kampeel,whereas in the

Mahabharata they are stated to be the daughters of the king of Kashi. In fact, as

indicated in the Yajurveda (12.76 and 3.57) these are names of threee specific

medicines,

2. In the Atharva Veda (13.3.26) mention is made of Krishnaa (Draupadi) and her

son, Arjun – ‗krishnayaaha putrO Arjunaha‘. But, as is well known, Arjuna was

Draupadi‘s husband, and not son, As already stated, Vedic terms, being derivations

are to be interpreted etymologically. The position becomes clear when, as

enjoined, the Veda Mantra is interpreted etymologically, and not literally. The

Shatapatha Brahmana, interpreting it, as required, says that Krishna here means

‗night‘ and the day or the sun, born of night, is called the son-‗raatrirvai krishnaa

asaavaaditya stasyaa vatsa arjunaha‘. As such Krishna and Arjuna in this context

cannot be Krishna (Draupadi) and Arjuna of Mahabharata fame.

3. Naktam jaatasyOvadhE raamE krishnE aasakti cha (Atharva 1.23.1)-Rama of

the Ramayana and Krishna of the Mahabharta belonged to quite different ages; and

both long after the Vedas. These, therefore, cannot be historical persons. They

have to be interpreted etymologically in the context in which they occur in the

Atharva Veda. Atharva Veda is a treatise on medicine. The verse under

consideration deals with the treatment of leucoderma (kilaasa) and suggests a

particular herb which is duskly (Rama), dark (Krishna) and black (Asikni) in hue.

This medicine is said to recolour the ashy spots.

In the Rigveda we read – chatvaarimshad dasharathasya shONaaha(1.126.4). Here

the description pertains to ten chariots (dashratHa) drawn by forty (each by four

tawny horses).

In the Rigveda (7.20.2) Sudas refers to one who is good (liberal) in giving charity

or favors. Any particular king bearing that name does not fit in the context.



In Rigveda (10.95.17) we read—―Antarikshapraam rajasO

vimaaneemupashikshaarkyuvasheem vasishtaha |" A story has been woven round

the names ‗Usha‘ and ‗Vasishtha‘, whereas in reality it merely refers to a natural

phenomenon, metaphorically saying ‗I, her best lover, bring under subjection the

lightening who fills the firmament with luster and measures out the region. Thus

‗Usha‘ is no nymph in heaven, known by that name, nor the wife of any Pururava

on earth. Vararuchi, in his Nimkta Samuch-chaya thus explains it — ―urvashee

vidyudvisteerNam antariksham prashnutE deevyatE iti urvashI varshaakaalE

vidyuti‘"

Maxmuller too considers the story to be one of those which express the co-relation

of the dawn and the sun. According to Doctor goldstucker. Urvashi is the morning

mist which vanishes away as soon as Pururava, the sun displays himself.

Devata or Deity=According to Brihaddevata, only those who know the Devata,

really grasp the meaning of the Mantra. Sarvanukramani defines Devata as 'yaa

tEnOchyatE saa dEvataa', Commenting on this shadguru = shishya in his

Vearthapuadeepika says – ‗ tEna vaakyEna yat pratipaadyam vastu saa dEvataa.‘

This means that the subject, dealt with in the Mantra, is its Devata.

We have a detailed discussion on devata (deities) in the Nirukta; i.e. a discussion

on the subject-matter in the Vedic verses. Before taking up the work of

commenting on the Vedic texts, Dayananda prepared for his personal use, the

index of all devtas of all the four Vedas, that is, he tentatively assigned the subject

matter with care and scrutiny. ln this he was supposed to be guided by the already

existing ones. as also by his own vision in respect of the intepretations of the

Mantras – ‗evam ucchaavachairabhi – praayaiRrsHeeNaam mantradrushTayO

bhavanti‘ (Nirukta 7.3)

Nirukta or Nighantu gives thirty seven synonyms of ‗river‘ – iti

saptatrishanaadeenaamaani | Of these sindhavaha, iraavatyaha, saraswatyaha and

paarvatyaha = are all in the plural form. Elsewhere 'gOmateenaam' (Rig. 2.28.2)

and ‗gOmateeshu' (Rig. 4.21.4) also fall in the same category. And, as we have

already seen, any proper name cannot have a plural form. Also, the gomati near

Lucknow said to be only four hundred years old. How could it find a mention in



the Rigveda, admittdly the oldest book in the Library of the world. As such, these

names in the Vedas cannot be identified with the rivers on the earth today.

There is the following Mantra in the Yajurveda (34.11) which, because of the

mention in it of the five rivers, is said to be referring to the Punjab of today –

But a glance at the map of India reveals that the five rivers fall into the Arabian

Sea and nowhere into the legendry Saraswati. Here the five river indicate the

knowledge gained through the five senses and Saraswati refers to the speech which

is the medium of expression.

Saraswati is wrongly said to be the focal point in determining the original home of

the Aryans. But so far as its mention in the Rigveda is concerned, we have already

argued in detail that it has nothing to do with the legendary, river known by that

name. So far it has not been specifically loacated in India or elsewhere in the

world. The oft-quoted three verses from the Rig Veda are reproduced below –

-Rigved 1.3.10-12

May the divine speech, the fountainhead of all faculties (mental and spiritual), the

purifier and bestower of knowledge, the recompenser of worship, he the source of

inspiration and accomplishment for all our organised benevolent acts.

O divine speech, you inspire those who delight in truth.. You instruct them who are

dilegent. Please assist us in our efforts to perform the organised sacred acts.

This speech-divine sets in motion all the energies of the soul and intellect. It

enliglitens the wisdom of all who are seekers of truth.

Does this all apply to a river holding water. Manu says·



Water can pruify the physical body, but not the mind or the intellect or the spirit.

Elsewhere (Rig. 9.67.27) it is said -

May the enlightened persons purify me; may the persons of riches make me pure

by their blessings; may all the bounties of nature purify me, O omniscient Lord,

may you purify me. Saraswati (from Sru to flow; the uninterrupted from divine

inspiration) has relation with dhiy; the intellect or discriminating instinct

(saraswatee saadhayanteedhiyam Rig—2.3.8)

-Rig. 10.17.7

The true seekers of divine knowledge invoke the goddess of speech. They worship

the goddess of speech at the sacred altar. The virtuous people pray to the goddess

of speech. May the divine goddess of speech bestow blessings upon the dedicated

devotees.

In this significant verse the Supreme Lord is represented as Saraswati. Men

aspiring for transcendental meditation invoke the Lord Saraswati; when one aspires

to undertake sacred works for the good of all (Adhwara), they also invoke

Saraswati. This Saraswati blesses all who dedicate themselves for noble ends. As

already indicated, the word ‗Saraswati‘ is from the root ‗Srugatou‘ or to move.

Deriving from this root, one has sadas which with the particles ‗manup‘ and

‗ngeep‘ gives the word Saraswati. ‗Saro‘ or ‗Saras‘ means knowledge, or

transcedental science – sarO sarasa naama vigyaanam naama vividham yaj

jnaanam tad vignaanam ‗ and the one in whom such knowledge is sustained is



Saraswati – sarO naama vignaanam vidyatE yasyaam saa saraswatee , Dayananda

also derives the word similarly : -

According to Arvind (Aurobindo), Saraswati means "She of the stream, the

flowing movement" and is, therefore, a natural name both for any river and for the

goddess of inspiration. And finally -

-Rig 1.13.9.

May everglorious blissful virtues—‗ila‘ (wisdom), `Saraswati‘ (speech) and ‗mahi‘

(motherland or prosperity)-always occupy a respectable place in our heart.

The ancient Aryans did not believe, like Darwin, in the evolution of man from

anthopoid apes. They believed that man, as also other creatures, was created

independently as such. The fishesd of Palaeozoic age were in no respect the

ancestors of reptiles of the secondary age, nor did man descend from mammals

which preceded him. This exactly represents the view of man‘s appearance on

earth held by the Aryans.

Recent archaeological discoveries have carried the origin of man to millions of

years back hence, The excavations at Nevada, Charleston. The Ohio Valley and

Mohen-jo-daro and many other places have proved not only that man existed as

early as tens of millions of years ago, but also that at his primitive life was to a

very high degree cultured and refined, so much so that he was proficient in some of

the most modern arts.

The problem of the original home of the Aryans has raised a great deal of

controversy and confusion. The question bristels with enormous difficulties and

still awaits a right solution. Western scholars believe the Aryans to be a race and

hence their movement has been supposed to be a migration of an ethnic group.

India‘s history written by Western scholars over the past one century or more, and



imitated bluntly by Indian historians of repute have played havoc with established

facts. Old values have been systematically omitted, willfully obscured and

deliberately distorted. lt was in pursuance of the policy of ‗Divide and rule‘ that the

British propounded the theory of the foreign origin of the vast majority of

Indians—the Aryans. The impact of this vicious propaganda was that, as already

discussed, even an eminent patriotic person like Lokmanya Balgangadhar Tilak fell

victim to their erroneous belief and pleaded that the Aryans came to India from the

North Pole.

After telling us that "there is little doubt that India must have been one of the

earliest centres of human civilisation, and it seems natural to suppose that the

strange unsemetic, unaryan people who came from the East to civilize the West,

were of India origin, Mr. H.R. Hall in his ‗Ancient History of the near East‘ adds

in a foot-note that "this civilization was not Aryan. The culture of India is pre-

Aryan in origin; as in Greece, the conquered civilised the Conquerors. The Aryan

Indian owed his civilization and his degeneration to the Dravidians." This is all

preposterous and, to our mind, is reading history on an altogether wrong line. If

Mr. Hall had cared to study Rigvedic civilisation as diligently as he has studied

Babylonian Civilisation, he would assuredly have reached to a quite different

conclusion. Granting, but not admitting, the priority of Dravidian culture, it will be

seen that it was Aryan civilization that put its indelible stamp on Dravidian culture

and uplifted the so-called Dravidian race.

Aryavarta

There is ample proof to show that the Aryans are the original inhabitants of India -

l. Wherever any people live, that habitat or region is necessarily given some name.

If the Dravidians, or for that matter, any group of people,other than the Aryans had

been living here prior to the coming of the Aryans, they would have certainly given

some name to it. The absence of any such name in their language and literature

clearly shows that the theory of India‘s being the original home of people other

than the Aryans is a myth. In fact, there is no evidence to show that the Vedic

Aryans were foreigners or that they had migrated into India within traditional

memory.



2. Sufficient literary material is available to indicate with some degree of certainty

that the Vedic Aryans themselves regarded Sapta-Sindhu as their original home.

3. The most emphatic evidence of Northern Himalayan region and the territories

south of them being the Aryan home is ‗provided by the fact that in the entire

range of Vedic and Sanskrit literature right home the Vedas down to the latest

works, there is not even so much as a hint, direct or indirect , of their scarcely be

emphasised that in the various cases of migration known to history, there is not a

single example in which those who have migrated from their homes to foreign

lands have ever forgotten their original habitations. Indeed most of them have been

so nostalgic that they carry the names of their original cities and give the same to

the towns and cities which they establish in the lands where they settle down.

Likewise, they retain their vocabulary and names of men and women. In ancient

times they underwent changes owing to the influence of time and environment as,

for instance, the language of Zend Avesta and the Gathas of the Parsees which

represent the closest and earliest branch of the people who called themselves

Aryas.

Some scholars and historians like Prof. Giles have suggested that the Aryans, being

too proud of their belonging to a superior race, remained isolated from the native

population. But then, as Prof. Kalla has rightly observed, this is all the more reason

that they should have retained their identity and consequently remembered their

original homes.

All through the ages, the Aryans have given expression to -their great love and

adoration of Aryavarta or Bharatavarsha as their motherland. Taking pride in

having born in Aryavarta, Manu enulogised her thus - "All denizens earth came to

this land to learn their duties and functions of life from those born in this country‖

(Manu, 2.20)

Migratory races, tribes or even groups look back to the land of their origin for

centuries. The Parasees in India remember their origin even after eight hundred

years. The ancient Egyptians and the Phoenicians lovingly cherished the memory

of their respective lands of origin even though they had forgotten their location.

The Kambojas in Delhi, who once lived in Cambodia, do not forget to invite the

ambassador of that country on speical occasions. The lsraelese did not forget their



motherland even though they remained scattered away from it for nearly two

thousand years. But the Aryans, who are said to have come to India from outside,

have no such memories of their origin. From times immemorial they have been

eulogising India and India alone.

4. The linguistic affinities are not positive proof of Aryan immigration. The Vedic

Sanskrit has the largest number of vocables found in the Aryan language, These

are preserved in the languauge of the Sanskrit family in different parts of India,

even when there has been inter-racial contact for centuries. On the other hand, if

the pre—Aryan language was spoken in different parts of Europe and Asia, where

the Aryans were settled before coming to India, how is it that only a few vocables

are left in the present day speech of those parts, while the largest number of them is

found in the distant places of ultimate settlement and the so-called racial admixture

in India.

5. The Vedic literature is the earliest extant record of the Aryan mind. If the

Aryans had come to India from outside and settled here, then their literature must

be available in the country of their origin. At least some portions must be found

there. And how is it that in the course of their journey to India they left no such

record elsewhere? This cannot be explained away by the hypothesis that the brains

of the Aryans were developed and all literature produced after their arrival in India.

It would be more appropriate to say, and there is ample evidence to substantiate it,

that some of the Aryans went out of India. Those must have been ordinary people

with moderate talent and wisdom who could not impart to the country of their

migration the high culture and civilisation they belonged to.

6. "The Aryan invasion of India is mentioned in no recorded document and it

cannot be traced archaeologically." (T Burrow: ‗Early Aryans Published in the

Cultural History of India edited by A.L.Basham, published by Clarandon press,

Oxford, 1975.

7. Some years ago, a seven member delegation of the Government of India

participated in an International Conference and refuted the theory that the Aryans

came to India from Iran. The proceedings were published in the Hindustan Times,

New Delhi, dated 31st October, 1977. The report said:



"There is no conclusive evidence of Aryan immigration into India from outside,

according to India historians, linguists and archaeologists who participated in the

international seminar in Dushambe, the capital of the Soviet Republic of

Tajikistan.

Dr. N.R. Bannerji, Director of National Museum and a member of Indian

delegation, said that Indian scholars made out this point at the seminar and the

papers presented by them were very much appreciated. The seminar was held

under the aegis of UNESCO to discuss the problems of ethnic movement during

the second millenium B.C. Ninety delegates from the Soviet Union, West

Germany, Iran, Pakistan and India attended. The seven member delegation was led

by Prof. B.B. Lal, Director of Advanced Studies. It was pointed out by Indian

scholars that the archaeological material associated with the Aryans in different

regions and periods in India did not show any link with the archaeological survival

of the Aryans in Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia.‖

8. It may be argued that Lithunion, being the most archaic in the Aryan family of

Languages, Lithunia is likely to be the original home of the Aryans. But a language

remains archaic even when the persons using it are unprogressive; or if they remain

in a locality where no fusion is possible with people speaking other languages; or if

they develop a highly refind technique for preserving and using archaic forms. The

first two conditions are probably responsible for the archaic character of the

Lithunions.

9. The rulers of Iran have been using the epithet of ‗Arya-Mehar‘ after their name.

Mehar in Persian means ‗Sun‘. The Iranians have always considered themselves

descendents of the solar dynasty (Suryavanshi) of India. We in our schools teach

that the Aryans came to India from Iran; but what is being taught in the schools in

Iran is that "some thousands of years ago the Aryans came down from the

Himalayas and finding the climate of Iran Salubrious settled here." (See Jugrafia-

Panj-kita Banam tadrees darsul panjam ibtadsi, safu 78, Tehran, San Hijri 1309

aztarg of vizarat muarif Va Sharashud).

The dates for archaeological sites are at best hypothetical and tentative and have to

be altered whenever new discoveries are made. The Indus-Valley civilisation so

called has been found spread over a vast area extending from Baluchistan in the



West to the basin of Ganga in the East and from Lothal on the Narmada in Gujrat

upto northern Rajasthan. While there seems to be a general agreement among the

archaeologists about the date of Indus-Harappa Civilisation (roughly between 3000

BC. to 2000 B.C. or 1500 B.C.), the fantastic theories of men like Sir Mortimer

Wheeler about the destruction of Harappa by Aryan invaders have to be summarily

dismissed as absurd.

Various arguments have been advanced by Sir John Marshall in order to prove that

the Indus Valley civilisation was quite distinct from and earlier than the Vedic

civilisation.. Although this view is generally accepted, there is no dearth of

scholars who still regard the Vedic civilisation as older than that of the Indus

Valley. As a matter of fact there is no conclusive evidence against the view that

ascribes the authorship of the Indus Valley civilisation to the Rigvedic Aryans, and

regards it as a logical corollary, a lined descendent, of the culture described in the

Rigveda.

It may be argued that assuming that Rigvedic Civilisation was earlier, we must

remember that during the period that intervened it and the Indus Valley

civilisation, the Vedic religion was incorporating many alien and non-Aryan

features and was already tending to become comprehensive, composite and all-

embracing, harmonising different constituent elements and catering to the needs of

the various strata. It would not, therefore, be correct to ascribe the authorship of the

Indus Valley Civilisation to the Aryan or any other particular race. It will then be

representing the synthesis of the Aryan and non-Aryan cultures. But in that case

too, since the Rigvedic Aryans formed the dominant part of the populace and,

therefore, contributed the major share to the evolution of the Indus Valley

Civilisation, the priority of the Aryan civilisation is maintained.

The principal investigator of the National Institute of Oceanography, Dr. S. R. Rao,

a prominent decipherer of the Indus script, says that the language of the Harappans

was Sanskrit, akin to its Vedic form.

Another Scholar, Mahadevan, has interpreted one of the Indus seals and connected

it with the Somayajna on the basis of a pictorial representation of a vessel or cup.

He says: "If the vessel was strainer of ‗Soma‘ juice, the writing above the figure

could be related to the same theme. "SomayajNa".



A rethinking has set in among historians whether the protohistoric period

represented by the Indus or Harappan Civilisation was earlier than the Rigvedic

culture. According to Dr. Shrinivasa Ritti, Professor of Ancient Indian History and

Epigraphy at Karnataka University, Dharwad, recent marine excavations by the

National Institute of Oceanography (N.I.O.) justify the position that both

settlements were identical.

The Harappans, as the architects of the Indus Valley Civilisation, are known to

have constructed the world‘s first tidal port at Lothal at the head of the gulf of

Cambay. They possessed a high degree of knowledge relating to the ebb and flow

of tides and carried on brisk overseas trade with Behrain, and African countries.

In a paper on "Ancient shipping and shipwreck" Dr. Ritti postulates that there are

numerous references to ‗Samudra‘ in Rigveda and it is difficult to think that all of

them point to the big rivers, as some may be inclined to think. The statement that

all waters go to the sea clearly shows that the Rigvedic people had knowledge of

the sea, he says.- The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 16th Oct. 1987

Reference is still made about the Indus Valley Civilisation being in existence prior

to the Aryan civilisation. On the strength of the excavations carried out at Harappa

and Mohen-jo-daro it is claimed that this was the ancient most civilisation of the

country. The Aryans came after the collapse of this civilisation, whether by the

Aryans or by some natural calamity. But a seal found during the operations at

Mohen-jo-daro clearly contradicts it. A photostat copy of the seal is reproduced

below.



Photastat of plate No. CXII, Seal No. 387 form the excavations at Mohan-jo-daro

(From Mohen-jo-daro and the Indus Civilisation, edited by Sir John Marshall,

Cornhridge, 1931)

The seal speaker for itself. Two birds are shown here, sitting on the same tree, One

of them is enjoying its fruits, while the other simply looks on.

The Mantra (Rigveda 1.164.20) referred to here says :

Two birds (god and soul) of beautiful plumage, both co-mates of the same age, are

attached to the same tree (Prakriti). Of the two, one (the soul) enjoys its fruits,

while the other (god) only supervises everything whithout tasting anything.

It is evident that whatever is depicted here in this seal is based upon the Mantra of

the Rigveda referred to above. That the Rigveda is the oldest in the library of the



world is a universal admitted fact. The existence of the Rigveda prior to the seal

designed by the artist stands proved. This also shows that the Rigveda is atleast

prior to the so-called Indus civilisation. It may,however be argued that the Aryan,

for that matter, vedic civilisation could have been concurrent with the period of the

mohen-jo-daro civilisation as revealed by the excavations carried out in 1924 and

recorded by marshall in 1930-31. an eminent historian, Mr.Wilson, who first

translated the Rigveda into English, held that the Harappa and Aryan civilisations

were contemporaneous, representing respectively the urban and rural life styles. In

any case, the existence of any one prior to the Aryan civilisation stands disproved.

In 1960 Dr. Fateh Singh, for the first time, successfully deciphered the Indus script.

He had read by that time 2500 seals, on the basis of which he had contributed

many articles in ‗Swaha‘ magazine, published by the Rajasthan Pracya Vidya

Pratisthan . Dr. Padmadhar published an article in the Hindustan Times, New Delhi

which was based on the researches made by Dr. Fateh Singh in which he supported

him. After that Dr. Alchin of Cambridge wrote a letter to the editor, stating that the

researches of Dr. Fateh Singh will end the difference between Aryan and dravidian

civilisations.

In this context the following statement published in the Indian Express New Delhi

of 3rd August, 1985 is noteworthy-

"Mr Vishnu Shridhar Vakankara, former Head of the Department of Archaeology

Vikram University (Ujjain) claimed here on Thursday that he had successfully

made a breakthrough in solving the mystery of the writing of the seals found in the

Indus Valley civilisation. The script was original to India and its roots are found in

the Aryan civilisation. He challenged foreign claims that the Indus Valley

civilisation was non-Aryan by stating that recent results were based on computers.‖

In his subsequent speech which appeared in the Times of India (Ahmedabad

edition) of 22.2.1986 Dr.Vakankar stated that "His survey (conducted by 30

experts drawn from disciplines like archaeology,zoology, history, folk-lore etc.")

when completed might even drastically change the popular conception among

historians that the Aryans invaded India from Central Asia."

The notion that there are references to the Aryan invasion of the Indus civilisation

in the Rigveda assumess that the Indus civilisation is older than the Rigveda. This



assunption was initially supported by the absence of the skeleton of a horse in the

excavations, whereas the horse figures prominently in the Vedas. But the

subsequent unearthing of a horse skeleton has knocked out whatever plausibility

this argument had.

Not only this, these excavations have brought to light evidence to prove that the

Vedas are older than the Indus civilisation. Cotton has been encaniated. The Vedas,

on the other hand, are silent on cotton. Wool, and not cotton was used to filter

soma, as is clear from the expression.

‗through sheep‘s hair‘. The other type of cloth known to the Vedas is flax.

Maitrayani Samhita (111.6.7) mentions flax with the word kshoumi. The more you

wash flax, the more it shines. When the use of flax became rare and silk came into

vague, silk also used to be called kshouma, because of this quality. The lenseed

plant, from which flax is made, is mentioned several limes in the Rigveda, when

wool and flax have been mentioned, the complete silence of cotton can seasonably

be attributed to its absence.

It was said that the Aryans who came to India destroyed the advanced civilisation

in existence here and subjugated the local population, pushing them down the

social ladder. Some of them escaped and fled to the forests. These are the people

who are today known as tribles. Things have since changed. It is now known that

not the Aryans invasion, but the progressive desiccation of the lower Indus Valley

was the main cause of the decay and disappearance of the so-called Indus Valley

civilization. The growing danger of floods was certainly responsible for the

evacuation of mohen-jo-daro and other Indus cities. But that connot entirely

account for the desertion of the indus settlements, though possibly climatic

changes were an important factor. There was a remarkable dearth of means of

defence both structural, such as walls turrets etc. and mechanical,such as weapons

etc. And it is probable that these rich, but unguarded cities with their unwarlike

mercantile population was sacked by invading tribes. The skeletons found at

Mohen-jo-daro bear out this conjecture.

There is no suggestion or hint in the Vedas of the Aryans foreign origin. The most

emphatic evidence of northern Himalayan region and the territories south of them

being the Aryan home is provided by the fact that in the entire range of Vedic and



Sanskrit literature right from the Vedas down to the latest works there is not even

so much as a hint, direct or indirect, of their having come from any other country.

On the Contrary, we find that all through the ages they have given impression to

their deep love and adoration of Bharatavarsh as thier Motherland.

Prof. Neelkanth Shastry observes: "The earliest stratum of the articulate literature

of the tamils, the literature of the sangama, Contains no hint whatsoever of any

conflict between the Aryans and the people of the south." (Development of religon

in the south).

American anthropologist, Dr. Milton singer and well known historian of India, KA.

Neelkantha shastri are unanimous in their view that the Aryan-Dravidian

controversy has no scientific basis. (The Hindu, Madras).

"I must, however begin with the candid admission that, so far as I know, none of

the Sanskrit books, not even the most ancient, contains any distinct reference or

allusion to the foreign origin of the Aryans. There is no indication in the Rigveda

of the words dasyu, das, asura etc having used for non-Aryans original inhabitants

of India." (Muir: original sanskrit texts, Vol.II)

"Neither the code of manu, nor in the Vedas, nor in any book which is older than

the code of manu, is there any illusion to the Aryan‘s prior residence in any

country outside India." (Elphinstion: History of India, Vol. I)

"No extra-Indian origin of the Dravidian languages can be traced and it can be

traced that the dravidian langugages developed from the Aryan dialects even as

Italian is the result of the break down of Latin." (Shrikantha Shastri : Bhartiya

vidya, P 146)

From the beginning the Andhras has traced their origin to Aryan source and

provided themselves of their more intimate connection with the Aryans in regard to

their script, language, literature, religion, art and science." (Anantashayanam

Ayyangar : Sanskrit Vimarsha, Part II)

It is said that while no definite conclusion about the original home of the Aryans

may be reached, it can be reasonably urged that had India been the original home

of the Aryans, they would have certainly tried fully to Aryanise, the whole of this

sub-continent before crossing the frontier barriers in quest of adventure. The fact



that the whole of South India are `to this day non-Aryan in speech is the strongest

single argument against their Indian home hypothesis. Could it be proved that the

language of the pre-historic Mohen-jo-daro culture was Sanskrit or proto-Sanskrit,

then it might have been possible to argue that, inspite of all the evidence to the

contrary, India was the original home of the Aryans; for there is no definite proof

of the existence of an Aryan race or language outside India, previous to the age of

Mohenjo-daro culture.

It is true that the Aryans possessed tremendous power to diffuse their language and

culture, so that instead of being absorbed by the indigenous population, they could

super-impose their language and culture on that population. Even so, the Indian

Civilisation was not influenced by the Aryans, because it was itself the Aryan

Civilisation, whereas outside India, it was a super-imposition non-Aryan

civilization in due course of time.

According to R.C. Maiumdar—"It would be wrong to think, as many do, that the

conception of the fundamental unity of India is of recent growth. This idea can be

traced to ancient periods by the use of the common name, Bharatavarsha, for the

whole country, and the designation of ‗Bharati-santati‘ applied to the people of

India. Thus we read in the Vishnu Purana (2.3.1) that "the country lying to the

north of the (Indian Ocean) and to the south of the Himadri (Himalayas) is called

Bharatavarsha (the land of Bharata); for there live the descendants of Bharats

(Bharati- santati)." Similarly, the conception of the political unity of India appears

from the references of the thousand yojanas (leagues) of land stretch from the

Himalayas to the sea as the proper domain of a single universal Emperor" and the

conventional description in literature and epigraphic records of imperial domains,

stretching from the Brahmaputra (or Eastern Ocean) to the seven mouths of the

Indus or the Western Ocean. As regards the cultural unity, findstops of Ashoka‘s

records prove that one language and one script were used or, atleast understood, by

common people all over India in the third country B.C. since then the Sanskrit

language and literature have throughout been a common land of culture, in addition

to religious and social ideas and institutions‖(p. 105-06)

The world—famous historian, A.L. Basham put his seal on this multi-racial theory

when he emphatically declared in 1963—"There is no Aryan race or Dravidian



race." (His article entitled ‗Some Reflec-tions on Aryans and Dravidians‘ in the

Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Reasearch, Madras, 1963, p. 225)

And Concurring with Basham, the great ethnologist, Sir George Compbell wrote—

"I draw no ethnological line between the northern and Southern parts of

India, not recognising a separate Dravidian classification of the latter as

ethnological. A change takes place when passing southward we exchange the

Marathi for Telgu or Cauarese .... But looking at the people we see no radical

change of features .... I have no doubt that the southern society, in its

structure, its manners and its laws and institutions is an Aryan society,"

(Ethnology of India, Page 15)

"The aborigines of Australia and the so called Dravidians of South India have

much in common, so far as their manners and customs are concerned. If the

Australians are Aryans, why not the Dravidians." (gilbert Slater. Dravidian

Elements in Indian Culture, P. 97)

―No extra-Indian origin of the Dravidian languages can be traced and it can be

demonstrated that the Dravidian languages developed from the Aryan dialects even

as Italian is the result of the breakdown of Latin."- Shrikantha Shastri: Bharatiya

Vidya, P. 146.

"There is no actual mention of any such invasion. The discussion between

Aryans and non-Aryans, on which so much has been built, seems on the mass

of evidence to indicate a cultural, rather than a racial difference?” - Shri

Aurobindo: The Vedas, P. 30.

The main languages of the south are-Telgu,Tamil, Kannad and Malyalam.

Colletively they are called the dravidian languages. The idea that these languages

have nothing to do with sanskrit is only politically motivated to serve selfish ends.

Maxmuller declared in most emphatic terms ——

"Aryan in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to race. It means language and

nothing but language; and if we speak of Aryan race, we should know that it means

no more than the Aryan speech."-Maxmuller: Collected Works, 1898, Vol.X (The

Home of the Aryans, P.9)



And he did not stop there. In his monumental work ‗India: what can it teach us‘ he

added -

"Even if sanskrit were more of a dead language, which it really is not, both Indian

and Dravidian, draw their life and soul from sanskrit. Any candidate (for I.C.S.),

who knows but the elements of Sanskrit, will understand any language of India,

even Tamil.) page,75

The then deputy speaker (later speaker) of the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the

Indian parliament) Anantshaynam Iyangar, himself a Tamilian, said in his

inaugural speech at the Sanskrit association of the Delhi University- ,

"Sanskrit was the fountain head of all Indian languages. All Indian languages are

off-shoots of Sanskrit. Bangla and Telugu had about 75 percent words, while

Malyalam had 90 percent. The only change was that sanskrit words had been

absorbed with slight changes here and there." -The Hindustan Times, New Delhi,

1342-1953.

Again, in a seminar, organised by the Indraprastha Sanskrit Parishad, at the Delhi

Public Library, the same Shri Iyangar said that Telgu had 75 percent sanskrit

words, Kannada 80 percent and Tamil 50 percent.

We substantiate our statement by giving here a few instances -

Here are a few lines from our two National Anthems-

Both these songs are in Bangla, but people take them to be in Sanskrit.



Telgu and Sanskrit --

A shloka of Bhatrihari, the famous Sanskrit poet is as follows ---

Sanskrit --

Following is its Telgu version —

Another example from Telugu –

In this poem comprising 7 lines as many 32 words are from Sanskrit with such a

large number of Sanskrit words, who can honestly say that Telgu, being a Dravid

language, is far from being an Aryan language?



Kannada and Sanskrit

Here is a passage from a Kannada book ‗Advaita-mata-Vichar‘ by Swami

Satyadhyana of Uttaradi Matha--

In this passage runing into just 6 lines as many as 34 words are from sanskrit to say

that Kannada, belonging to the aborigines of India, is not related to Sanskrit is

travesty of truth.

Malyalam and Sanskrit

The percentage of Sanskrit words is the highest in Malyalam. For example, we

reproduce here a part of a poem from the pen of one of the greatest Malyalam

poets of today, Vallatol --

The poem is full of purely Sanskrit and basically Sanskrit words; so much so that

an ordinary may confuse it with Sanskrit.

Tamil and Sanskrit



The champions of the Aryans invasion the day are very emphatic in declaring that

Tamil is a purely different language and has nothing in common with Sanskrit. It is

said that "it was proved years ago by D.C. Taylor that a Tamiloid language, now

represented by its most cultivated branch in the south, constituted the original

staple of all the languages of India. The existence of a Tamilian substratum in all

the modern dialects of India and the profound influence, which the classical Tamil

has exercised on the formation and development both the Vedic and classical

Sanskrit, is gradually coming to be recognized by students of Indian

philosophy."—Origin of the word ‗Arya‘ by Tambe Pillai, Tamil Antiquity, Vol.

II, No.2

Prof. Rlys Dovids in his ‗Buddhist India', commenting on the evolution of Aryan

languages of India, maintains that "Vedic Sanskrit is largely mixed up with

primitive Dravidian" (Buddhist India, P. 156)-The Ancient Dravidians by TR.

Shesha Iyangar, P. 43.

Kambana Ramayan is cited as an important scripture in Tamil, forgetting, that the

very name ‗Ramayana‘ is a Sanskrit word. We have already referred to the

statement of Anantashayanarn Iyangar that Tamil has at least 50 percent Sanskrit

words, the statement of Shri Iyangar, who is himself a Tamilian scholar, cannot be

challenged. Even so, we reproduce here a small passage from a text book in Tamil-

Two tamil prayer songs given below leave no doubt about sanskrit and tamil being

like twin sisters, meeting as it were, after a long time –

1.



2.

Mark the words – ‗Omkaara, Satya jyotih, parabrahma namaha,

sacchidaanandamaya jnana, paripoornanandam, jaati ,mata, aadi, anta,

aatmaswaroopa , roopateetamaana, nirgunam , surya jyoti (swayam jyoti) -- Are

they not sanskrit words?

Anantashayanam, raadhaakrushnan, raamaswaamy, ramachandra, bhaktavatsalam,

raja gOpaalacharya, raama murti, satya murty, prakasham, kaamaraaja,

subrahmanyam swamy, bhaarati, sahaalingam, Krishna swamy, naarayanam,

swamInAthan, karuNanidhi, vaijayanti, jaanaki, jayalalitha, lakshmi are all sanskrit

names. Not only that, they are equally used and respected both in the north and

south.

Below is given a list of Sanskrit words, taken from ‗Tamil Swayam shiksham‘

edited by S. Mahalingarn, and published by the Dakshin Bharati Hindi Prachar

Sabha.



In the presence of so much linguistic unity on the basis of sanskrit, the mother of

all languages of the country, the question of Aryanisation of the so called

Dravidians or aborigines did not arise.

If the Aryans really invaded India, They must have slaughtered a lot of the local

population, forcibly occupied their lands, abused their women, folk, forced many

to take refuge in mountains and jungles and invaded the rest. These aborigines

cannot be imagined to have accepted the language of their tormenters in large

numbers all over the country.

The aryans: Whence and where?

Professor Maxmuller, in his ‗lectures on the science of language‘ delivered in 1861

said—"There was time when the first ancestors of the Indians, the Persian, the

Greeks, the Romans, the Slaus, the Celts and the Germans were living together

within the same enclosures, may, under the same roof.‘ He further argued that

"because the same forms of speech are preserved by all members of the Aryan

family, it follows that before they left for their respective homes elsewhere, they

were all speaking the same language?‖

"And the whole was of one language and one speech, and it came to pass as they

journeyed from the east." —The Bible, Genesis.



"The affinities of the Sanskrit language prove a common origin of the non widely

scattered nations amongst whose dialects they are traceable and render it

unquestionable that they must have all spread abroad from some centrical spot in

that part of the globe first inhabited by mankind."—Wilson: Introduction to

English translation of Vishnu Purana, Oxford, 1864.

To substantiate our hypothesis regarding the affinities of Sanskrit to other

languages, a few examples are given below:













An exhaustive list of words of different languages of the world clearly establishes

the effinity of these languages to Sanskrit. Bopp, an illustrious linguist and founder

of the school of Comparative Philology wrote in the ‗Edinburgh Review Vol. 33,

Page 43, that "At one time, Sanskrit was the one language spoken all over the

world." W.C. Taylor, an English scholar of repute, said—"Sanskrit is a language of

unrivalled richness and variety, a language, the parent of all those dialects that

Europe has finally called classical-the source alike of Greek flexibility and Roman

strength."

And, in his ‗chips from a German Workshop‘ (Vol.I, P.163), Professor Maxmuller

wrote-"The list of words of different European languages clearly established the

affinity of these language to Sanskrit, The only question that remains is what

relationship does it bear to the different languages of the world. Is it sister, aunt or

mother of the various languages of the world? lt is here that scholars differ."

Maxmuller himself adds—"In a certain sense, we are still speaking and thinking

Sanskrit, or more correctly, Sanskrit is like dear aunt to us and she takes the place



of a mother who is no more." Maxmuller here may be referring to Vedic Sanskrit

which is a bit different from the classical Sanskrit and which was spoken when we

were all living together in Tibbet, the birthplace of mankind.

Will Durant, an old American scholar and author of the ‗Story of Philosophy and

The Story of Civilisation (in 7 volumes)‘ says -

"India was the motherland of our race and Sanskrit the mother of our languages,

that she was the mother of our philosophy, mother through the Arabs of much of

our mathematics, through mother Buddha, of the ideals of Christianity, mother

through the village community of self—government and democracy—mother India

is in many ways, the mother of us all."

All these languages have maintained their similarity over a long period, because

they have descended from a common ancestor.

THE DELUGE

An evidence (though of a negative kind) of the antiquity of the Vedas and of the

Aryans is the absence in them of the great Deluge. But that all people had a

common origin is evidenced by its mention in the Shatapatha Brahmana and later

Sanskrit literature, such as the Mahabharata and the Puranas. The deluge is also

referred to in the Gilgamesh Epic of Babylonia, Another Babylonian account of it

is left by Berosus in the ancient flood—legend of Egypt, with which the name of

Tem, said to be the ‗father of human beings is associated, in the classical accounts

of Greece, and lastly in the Biblical account of the great flood from which Noah

saved himself along with the seeds of all floras and faunas.

According to Maxmuller—"It is a peculiarity of many of the ancient myths that

they represent events which happen everyday or every month or every year as

having happened ‗once upon a time' ...... I have little doubt, therefore, that accounts

of deluge, for instance, which we find almost everywhere, are originally

recollections of torrents of rain or snow. ― – India : What can it teach us?



This may be true of many such anecdots, but not so of the occurrences of deluge

narrated in the annals of so many nations that separated some thousand of years

ago. That once upon a time these nations met somewhere and decided amongst

themselves to float such a story, is beyond appreciation. Anyhow, the similarity in

the essence of the narration does lend credence to the belief that there was a time

when they all lived together in the distant past.

Whether all these different accounts refer and point to one and the same event, it

may not be easy to ascertain; but there can be no doubt that the occurrence was a

real event. Whatever may have been the time of its happening, one thing stand out

clear and certain that the deluge, as mentioned in the Shatapatha Brahmana,

occured long after the Vedas had been revealed. The Indian flood, not having been

caused by heavy rainfall, must have been caused by violent seismic action which

seems to have some connection with the partial disappearance of the Rajputana

sea.

It is indeed extremely difficult to try to fix the period of time in which the flood

occured or the Rajputana sea disappeared. But it may be safely summarized that it

took place long after the Rigveda had been revealed, for we find mention made in

the later literature of the Saraswati and the Shutudri flowing into the sea, which

could be no other than the Rajputana sea.

THE MYTH CREATED

When Mohen-jo-daro was discovered, Western historians could neither believe nor

tolerate that ancient India could have such an early and glorious history and

culture. Hence, instead of associating this culture with the Vedic Aryans, they

created a theory of Aryan migration from Central Asia and the wholesale massacre

of the indigenous population, the Dravidians.

The myth of Aryan invasion was created so that the Aryans may not have the pride

of owning a highly civilised urban culture. With this end in view, Sir John

Marshall, Sir Morlimer Wheller and many other imperial Archaeologists created an

imaginary theory of Aryan invasion and the civilised Aryans were made

barbarians.



Sri Aurobindo wrote as far back as 1916 - "We are aware how modern scholars

twist away from the evidence. This hymn (Rigveda, 1.164.46, pleading

Monotheism), they say, was a later production; this loftier idea which it

expresses with so clear a force rose up somehow in the mind or was borrowed

by those fire-worshippers (the Aryans) from their cultured and philosophic

Dravidian enemies. But throughout the Veda we have conformatory hymns

and expressions. Well, because primitive barbarians could not possibly have

so risen, you imperil our theory of evolutionary stages of human development.

Truth must hide itself, common sense disappear from the field, so that a

theory may flourish. I ask in this point, and it is the fundamental point, who

deals most straightforwardly with the text, Dayanand or the western

scholars?"—Dayananda and the Veda.

National history was so twisted that national unity and integration was completely

hampered. Trained in Christian tradition, they nailed a vedge into national unity by

creating imaginative war between the Aryans and the Dravidians; between the

North and the South, without any Archaeological or Scriptural evidence.

Aryan migration to India from Central Asia was theorized in London at the office

of the Royal Asiatic Society in 9th April, 1866 meeting presided over by Viscount

Strongfold. The plot of Aryan descent to India was hatching for quite sometime in

British Imperial circles. And it came to the lot of Edward Thomas to adventure to a

single point and first outline a new history of India, starting from the invasion of

the so-called Aryan race. It was he who launched separately lineage to the South

Indian dialect whom he named Turanian. This scheme was further developed by

the missionaries.

The relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting as recorded in the Royal Asiatic

Society, London is reproduced below -

"The meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society on 9th April, 1866, Rt. Honourable

Viscount Strongfold in the chair. Mr. Thomas then proceeded to advent to the

single point open to discussion involved under 4th head. Tracing the progress of

successive waves of Aryan immigration from the Oxus into the province of Aryana

and Hindukush and downward course of the pastoral races from their first entry

into Panjab and associated crude chants of the Vedic hymns to the establishment of



the cultivated Brahmanic institutions on the banks of Saraswati and the elaboration

of Sanskrit grammar at Taxila."—Royal Asiatic Society Journal, Page 420, Foot-

note.

It was in the same year that Maxmuller wrote to his wife that his translation of the

Vedas would uproot all that had spring from them during the last three thousand

years. Mac Crindle had earlier stated in his ‗Ancient India, Megasthanse –

"It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by

races both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign

descent, but all were evidently indigenous; and moreover that India neither

received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a colony to any other nation."

The whole process was since reversed. When Macdonell became incharge of

Oriental learning at the Oxford University, he collaborated with Dr. A.B. Keith in

preparing the ‗Vedic Index‘ in two volumes. More books were published with the

sole aim of tarnishing the image of the Aryans and eradicating Vedic religion. The

people were now to be told that the Aryans were nomads and barbarian hoards of

foreign invaders who slaughtered the aborigines, looted them, abused their women-

folk and enslaved the rest. To further the implementation of the policy o

propagating the theories invented by western scholars in India, two centres of

Oriental studies were established, one at Banaras and the other at Lahore. Mr.

Griffith was appointed Principal of the Banaras College at Banaras. He translated

the Rigveda into English. But his translation suffered from the same defects as

those of other Europeans with vested interests. Mr. A.C. Woolner started his work

at Lahore as Principle of the Oriental College there. Special scholarships were

awarded to students (especially to the Brahman students) to enable them to proceed

to Oxford for higher studies.

These Indian students, who returned home after completing their studies abroad,

were appointed lecturers in Indian Colleges. As they were well indoctrinated in the

theories of the western scholars, they proved to be potent instruments in

propagating those half-baked and assimilated theories among their students. As the

scheme of studies in Indian Universities was the same as that at Oxford, the result

was that the Indian students, who received education in these institutions and who

were totally devoid of their own traditions, were imbued with those ideas and



under their influence became indifferent, if not altogther hostile, to their own

heritage, This had a most disastrous effect on the fate of India. And in 1899

Maxmuller had the audacity to write as follows to Mr. N.K. Majumdar, a Brahmo-

Samaj leader -

"You know for how many years I have watched your efforts to purify the popular

religion of India, and thereby to bring it near to the purity and perfection of other

religions, particularly of Christianity. ...... Tell me some of your difficulties which

prevent you and your countrymen from openly following Christ."

CENTRAL ASIA

The resemblance of Sanskrit and Zend, the principal languages of Europe led some

eminent historians of the last century to broach the hypothesis that the ancestors of

the Europeans, the Iranians and the Hindus must have originally lived in some

place of Central Asia close to Bactria and Iran from which many tribes marched

towards the West and settled in different parts of Europe.

But the assumption of identity of race from identity of speech made by philologists

was decisively disapproved and rejected by anthropologists. But inspite of the

anthropological evidence disproving the common origin of the Aryan speaking

races of Europe and Asia, the philologists continued to believe in it. They were

agreed that the cradle of the Aryan race must be sought in Central Asia on the

upper waters of the Oxus.

The Central Asia theory was first propounded in 1820 by J.G. Rhod on the basis of

geographical indications contained in `the first chapter of the Vendiad which

pointed to Bacteria as the earlier home of the Iranians. According to Dr.

Sampuranand the theory of Central Asia being the original home of the Aryans was

first floated by Cuno.

Maxmuller, in his ‗The Science of Language‘ had said-"Aryans, whose origin is

still doubtful, though it was probably in Central Asia." (P.32l). But, while writing

in ‗good words‘ later in August in 1887, he omitted the word ‗Central‘ and said "I

should still say, as I said forty years ago, ‗somewhere in Asia‘ and no more."

It would appear that the region now occupied by Sanskrit and Zend must be the

nearest to the primitive centre of dispersion. This conclusion is confirmed by the



assertion in the Avesta that the first creation of mankind took place in the Bactrian

region.

Prof. Rhys, after careful examination has come to the conclusion that "the original

home of the Aryans was in Northern Europe, somewhere between Germany and

Scandinavia, especially the South of Sweden." (Rhys: Hibbert lectures, p. 637).

This last would do well enough, as the country in which the Aryans may have

consolidated and organized themselves after sending out their excess of population.

Dr. Taylor, however, argues that "the ideas may be the same and language may

also be identical, but the individual Aryans may not be in possession of the same

mythology? Against the argument that the cradle of the lndo-Aryans must be the

cradle of the Aryan race, because Sanskrit and Zend are the most archaic of the

Aryan languages, it is urged that Lithunian is also archaic in its character and,

therefore, the region where this language is spoken, may also be regarded as the

Aryan cradle. But it is overlooked, because Lithunian does not possess any

literature that can be compared with Sanskrit and Zend literatures, showing thereby

that the language was taken to Europe by an unprogressive race in its archaic form

and remained in its primitive condition, while Sanskrit and Zend, in their native

home and congenial environments, flourished luxuriantly, and produced literature

that still command the admiration of the world. Admitting Lithunian will only

prove the Unprogressive genius of the people who took the language to Europe.

Contending that the undivided Aryans must have been a numerous people

inhabiting an extensive territory, Cuno held that a long period-several thousand

years-must have passed in evolving an elaborate system of the primitive speech.

The necessary geographical conditions were a vast plain, undivided by lofty

mountain barriers, by desery tracts or impassable forests together with a temperate

climate where numerous people could have expanded and then, in different

portions of the territory could have evolved those dialectical differences which

afterwards developed into several Aryan languages. There is only one region, he

contends, on the whole surface of the globe which presents necessary conditions

of uniformity of climate and geographical extension. This is the great plain of

Northern Europe, stretching from the Ural mountains over Northern Germany and

the North of France as far as Atlantic.



"To this it may be replied that the Steppes of Central Asia, extending eastward of

the Caspian for more than a thousand miles, beyond Lake Balkash, also offer the

necessary conditions." (Taylor: Origin of the Aryans, P.30-31). But it must be

conceded to Cuno that the conditions of climate, of soil, of greater geographical

extension and of proximity to the region now occupied by the Aryans are

arguments for selecting the European than the Asiatic plain as the probable cradle

of the Aryan race. (Ibid 222·223)., But if the plains of Europe be the probable

cradle of the Aryan race, how would the fact of near all the principal Aryan

speaking races being of the brachycephalic Turanian family of Asia be explained?

The original home of the Aryans must, therefore, be sought not in Europe, but in

Asia whence the Turanians admittedly went to Europe with Aryan speech.

Prof. Maxmuller, who had forcefully advocated this theory in 1859; made a final

pronouncement on the subject in 1887, when he wrote: "If an answer must be given

to the place where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation, I should still

say, as I said forty, years ago, ‗somewhere in Asia‘, and no more". (Maxmuller:

Introduction to the Science of Language, Third Ed. 1885) And this ‗somewhere in

Asia‘ was no other than India or Sapta Sindhu.

Agriculture is said to have been the main profession of the Aryans. But the land in

central Asia is not fertile. It also suffers from scarcity of water. In the opinion of

Prof. Vadel, therefore, the Aryans could not be expected to have lived there before

migrating to other areas. One argument in favour of the Central Asian theory

advanced by Prof. Sayace in 1874, is the existence of the word ‗Hima‘ as in the

prayer to live for a hundred years –‗tarEma tarasaa shatam himaaha‘ (Rig.

5.54.15), i.e. May we pass over hundred winters, indicating that the place where

the Aryans originally lived, remained very cold during the greater part of the year.

But then the Aryans also prayed to live a hundred ‗autumns‘, as in ‗shatam nO

raaswa sharadO vichkshE ashyaamaayUnshi sudhitaani poorvaa ‗ (Rig. 2.27.10) -

‗May you grant unto us a long life to behold for hundred ‗autumns‘ ..... And there

is no dearth of such prayers.

Prof. Maxmuller, A.B. Keith, Prof. Giles, Griarson and Suniti Kumar Chatterji

have been telling us that the invaders (the Aryans) entered by the western passes of

the Hindukush and proceeded thence through Punjab to the east. But they concede

that that advance is not reflected in the Rigveda- (Maxmuller: Chips from a



German Workshop, 1887 p. 64+65; Keith: The Rigveda in the Cambridge History

of India, 1962, p. 70-71). If the Aryans had actually lived in Central Asia, how is it

that they left no mark of their language, literature and civilisation there. What is

strange is that the same tribe as invaders became so strong and effective that it

could influence the language and culture of such a vast country as India.

According to Jacob, therefore, it was the other way round, that is, the Indians went

out as ambassadors of their country.-Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London,

1909, p. 721

Again, why did they leave their homeland for ever? If the exodus was caused by

over-population or want of food, at least some of them should have stayed there.

What is designated as the original home of the Aryans should turn into a barren

land, who would believe?

The theory of Prof. Maxmuller and others about the Central Asiatic home of the

Aryans falls to the ground, in as much as Central Asia could not afford sufficient

pasturage to the cattle of a large pastoral people as the ancient Aryans are supposed

to have been.

Dr. K. L. Alur, a veterinarian surgeon turned archaeozoologist, expounding his

theory, pointed out that Lord Rama and Krishna were purely Indian, and from

Central India. He argued that the theory of Aryans coming from abroad and

settling in India was an imperialistic and politically motivated one.

According to him, the physiognomic difference between the Aryans and the

Harappans were induced by ecology, food and climate and had nothing to do with

the original habitat of the Aryans, as is the current belief.

And to strengthen his views Dr. Alur insisted that if anybody can write the history

of a nation, it is only a veterinarian, The 83 year old doctor was recently conferred

an honorary Doctorate of Science by the University of Agri-sciences Dharwad.

Earlier, Zoologists did not go beyond determining the species and types of the

bone remains found during excavations. According to him archaeological

interpretation has necessarily to be an inter-disciplinary effort, involving expertise

from the anthropology, veterinary and social sciences. This was needed to study

the animal bones and the ceramic and pottery finds. The interpretation by a



veterinarian had to be more decisive and scientific all, more definite as almost 80

percent of the finds were animal bones. Human bones could not help much as pre

or pro historical periods were concerned. On the other hand, the entire picture of

the society and human life of earlier times could be recreated by the archaeo-

zoological study of the animal bones found.

Dr. Alurs name features prominently in the world directory of archraeo—

zoological along with nine others. He has developed a unique laboratory technique

for archaeo-zoological study of faunal remains. According to him, the infrences

derived from the animal bones give a more exact picture of the climate, the food,

temperature and the nature of rainfall of the period. These inferences could never

to be wrong.

Dr. Alur‘s technique sheds new light on Indian history, especially in respect of the

original home of the Aryans. Dr. Alur insisted that the inferences drawn from the

pottery and the coins excavated show that the Aryans migrated from India, and not

vice-versa. - Times of India, Bombay, 20.4.1990

ARCTIC HOME OF THE ARYANS

There is an impression that Tilak has proved that the remote forefathers of the

Vedic people once lived in the Arctic regions. Vedic scholars like CV. Vaidya

have accepted this theory. But it will not be far from truth to say that nobody

outside Maharashtra takes it seriously, and in the world of Vedic scholars, this

theory generally goes unmentioned. But in view of the eminence of Lokmanya

Tilak, who sponsored this theory, it deserves our consideration.

Among the scholars who have propounded the hypothesis of the Arctic home of

the Aryans, the name of Dr. Warren, President of the Boston University, stands

foremost. His work ‗Paradise found or the cradle of the Human Race at the North

Pole‘ opened up a new vista for speculation and record. M.D. Saporte, a

distinguished French Savant, has also propounded a new theory to the effect that

"the entire human race originated on the shores of the Polar Sea at a time when the

rest of the Northern Hemisphere was too hot to be inhabited by men." (Rhys:

Hibbert Lectures, p.637).



The theory of the Arctic region being the original home of the Aryans would, on

the face of it, appear startling and incredible, in as much as those regions are

covered with ice, at places hundred feet deep, and are not at all calculated to favor

the growth and development of a large family of human beings. The very

appealing loneliness and desolation of the region cannot but be associated with the

haunts of unearthy beings, if at all such really exist, with whom solitude probably

is the very essence and condition of their existence.

The very fact that some sacrifice (yajna) was performed both by the Vedic Aryans

and the Zoratarians and the Soma plant was indigenous only to the Himalayas

should have convinced Tilak of the absurdity of his Arctic theory.

Philologists and historians have shown that `Soma‘ was originally a medicinal

plant which yielded a potent invigorating drink. The scriptures lay down specific

ways to prepare this drink from the herb ‗Soma‘ by pressing the latter and adding

milk to the extract. No ingredients which produce fermentation were mixed with it.

According to A.L. Basham, the great historian, the drink prepared from the herb

‗Soma‘ according to the afore said formula could hardly have been alcoholic (The

Wonder that was India). Alcoholic drinks cannot be compared with ‗Soma-rasa‘.

While ‗Soma-rasa‘ was a sacred drink, ‗Sura‘ was disapprored and frowned upon.

Modern day drinks should be compared with Sura. According to Tilak himself the

"Soma juice was extracted and purified at night during the Atiratra sacrifice in the

Arctic and Indra was the only deity to whom oblations were offered in order to

help him in his fight with the Asuras who had taken shelter with the darkness of

the night." (NB. Panagi : Aaryavartaateel, aaryanchee janmabhumi)

Soma plant certainly grown on the mountains in the Himalayas. But no individual

speak of the Himalaya is mentioned with the exception of Mujavat which is

indirectly referred to as the home of Soma. This peak, inferred from later Vedic

literature, was situated close to the Kabul Valley, and was probably one of the

mountains to the South-West of Kashmir. This most important plant is described as

growing on the mountains, and must have been easily obtainable as its juice was

used in large quantities for the daily ritual, or substitutes had to be used on account

of its rarity. In course of time identity of the original plant came to be lost in India.

The plant which is now commonly used is evidently quite another, for its juice



when drunk produces nauseating effect, widely different from the feeling of

exhilaration. Nor can the plant which the Parsees still import from Persia for the

‗HAOMA‘ rite can be identical with the old Soma.

Soma plant grows in the highlands of Kashmir in the Himalaya- ―Maujavati

Maujavati jaatO moojavaan parvatOmunchavaan munjaha ‗(Nirukta 9.8). This is

corroborated by the Mahabharata (XIV 8.1) where is said –

As Soma is not obtainable in the Arctic, the question of the Aryans having ever

lived there does not arise. As already elaborated, the Soma drink was prepared

from the Soma plant, mixed with milk and honey. It had a cheering and

invigorating effect. With reference to the Parsees it is said that the genuine Soma

plant, and not the spurious substitute among the ancient Parasees, was nowhere

obtainable except the peak of the Himalaya.

Moreover, we have already established that the Vedas do not refer to anything

relating to any particular time and space - persons, rivers, mountains, events etc.

Vedic Mantras and the words in them, have to be interpreted accordingly. Pavagi

has referred to "the taste of exhilirating Soma herbs grown on mountains.‖

(sOmasyEva moujavatasya bhakshaha Rig. 10.34.1).

Elsewhere we read -

Wise men have acclaimed that within the waters dwell all balms that heal, the

waters contain all healing herbs, and also the fire, the benefactor of the universe.

Soma has also been described as the one that nourishes all medicinal herbs -



Soma is stationed in the midst of all constellations. And the Aitareya Brahman tells

us—‗yetadvai soma yachhandramaaha‘ - Soma is verily the moon which gives life

to all plants.

Sushrut, one of the two supreme authorities in Ayurveda, says—―Soma is

―anshumaan rajataprabhah chandramaaha‖ that is, these are all synonyms.

Rigveda (10.85.4)tells us-"n ache, ashnaati paarthivaha‖- O divine elixir! no

terrestrial being can taste you.

It is also said that in the Soma plant one leaf grows everyday for fifteen days and

then one leaf withers away for fifteen days. This refers to the Shukla Paksha and

Krishna Paksha respectively of a fortnight each. This clearly applies to the moon.

The word Soma is derived from the root ‗Shu prEraNe‘ and, therefore, means one

‗who impels or motivates‘. As such it is another name of God. But since in the

present context of the original home of the Aryans, Tilak refers to it as a plant and

the juice extracted from it, we had to go into its details to show that it was all

irrelevant to the Arctic theory, because this plant did not grow there.

Since Tilak had propounded his theory on the Rigveda and extensively quoted

from the Vedic texts Umesh Chandra Vidyaratna, a noted scholist of Bengal went

to Poona to personally discuss it with Tilak. In his own words:

Refuting Tilak, A.C. Dass of ‗Rigvedic lndia‘ writes -



A sea actually covered a very large portion of modern Rajputana (Rajasthan).

This Rik, clearly indicated that at the time of its composition, the Saraswati used

to flow from the Himalaya directly to the sea. If the disappearance of the

Saraswati was synonymous with that of the sea, then the event must have taken

place some tens of thousands of years ago, if not hundreds of thousands millions

of years ago. –(Rigvedic India, p.7)

This means that the Aryans lived somewhere near the confIuence of the Saraswati

and the sea. But according to Tilak himself the Aryans came to India not more than

ten thousand years ago. In that case they could not have witnessed that position.

There is also another factor which has to be reoponed with. The Arctic region

became uninhabitable more than 50000 years ago, when present inclement climate

commenced there. Where did the Aryans go after the destruction of their home in

the Arctic circle? Tilak has attempted to prove from internal evidence from the

Rigveda and the Zendavasta that the Arctic region was the original home of the

Aryans, But the evidence gathered and marshalled by him have failed to support

his theory. We must candidly say that even the western Vedic scholars who

invented and propounded the theory of the Aryans being of foreign origin, have

clearly admitted that there is no evidence of the Aryans having ever immigrated to

India from any country in any epoch or of their original home having been

destroyed by excessive snowfall.

The night, the day, the dawn, the sun, the months and the seasons do not have the

Polar or circum-polar characteristics. Nor do the annual Sattras and the Ratri

sattras prove the existence of a long Arctic night extending from two to three

months. What Tilak calls a long night was nothing but the rain season during

which the long fight between Indra and Vritra always takes place. It is a usual

natural phenomenon occurring many times during the rainy season when the sun

(Indra) is enveloped by the clouds (Vritra) for many days and, sometimes, weeks

together, causing great distress to all living creatures. This struggle is explained by

what is known as the Storm Theory. It would have been better if it were designated

as the Rainy-Season Theory.

Yaska, the greatest among the etimologists, writes:



"Who is this Vritra‗?" "A cloud", say the Nairuktikas (etymologists). "An Asura,

son of Tvastri", say the Aitihasikas (historians). The fall of rain arises from the

mingling of the waters and the lightening. This is figuratively or metaphorically

depicted as a conflict between Indra (the sun) and the Asura (the clouds). The

hymn and the Brahmanas describe Vritra as a serpent (Ahi). By the expansion of

his body, he locked up the streams. When he was destroyed, the waters flowed

forth.

Vritra is a cloud, a storm-cloud or a rain-cloud, hovering in the sky and by smiting

it with his thunderbolt, Indra may well be described as releasing the waters

imprisoned therein. When Vritra becomes sufficiently strong and powerful, and his

forces are marshalled, he expands his body till he covers up the entire sky and

envelops the sun, the dawn, the solar rays and the waters in one dark pall. The sky

then remains overcast with clouds for days, weeks and months together, during the

rainy season, without revealing the sun or the solar rays.

This two-fold character of the struggle, viz., the daily and periodical, is well

explained by the Dawn or Solar theory and by the Storm and Rainy season theory,

both of which have been adopted almost without reservation by all western

scholars.

TILAK REFUTED

It is neither necessary nor possible to examine all that Tilak has said in his 469

page book. It would suffice to consider only a few of the references which he

regards as conclusive.

1. Tilak says that "the Aitareya Brahmana lays down a ritual the time for which is

after midnight when light is taking the place of darkness. And the Rigveda (7.67.2



and 7.67.3) lay down the same. ln this ritual 1000 verses have to be chanted. The

Apastamba ordains that if the sun does not rise even after chanting 1000 verses, all

the ten mandals shall have to be recited. It is only in the Arctic regions that such a

long ritual can be performed within the period when light is taking the place of

darkness."

Refutation - Tilak does not say that the Aitareya Brahmana which lays down the

ritual and the Apastamba which speaks of further instructions in this behalf had

already been composed in the Arctic regions. How could then Tilak speak of a

ritual in the Aitreya Brahmana which did not even exist at the time and which was

physically impossible in the geographical surroundings? The proviso: In case the

sun does not rise even after chanting 1000 verses etc. shows that the phenomenon

referred to is something whose rising depends on the chanting of the verses and not

the sun which always rises with iron regularity, irrespective of the chanting of the

verses. What is most surprising is the fact that in the two verses (Rig. 6.67.2 and

6.67.3) there is not a word to suggest that any such ritual is to be practiced at all

between the dawn and the sunrise. This is all the creation of Tilak‘s imagination.

2. Tilak says that the polar days and nights are much longer than those in the torrid

zone. He tries to show that the days and the nights, referred to in the Vedic

literature, are these long days and nights, and do not make 24 hours only.

"Let not the long night delay us", "All rest in the night, whose end or a dividing

live is not seen", "O long dark night, let us see your end", "Let us cross every night

unscathed".

The Taittiriya Samhita says that of yore the Brahmanas were afraid that the night

will not end at all.

These references could not point to the nights in the torrid zone because they last

only for a few hours.

Refutation :The verses concerned are the following:

"I have come to the auspicious night, Oh wholesome one, let us obtain the end"

(A.Veda XIX47.2) and "One whose end is not seen, one which does not

distinguish, and one in which all the moving rest. Let us, Oh great wholesome one,

full of darkness, reach the shore unscathed? (Ibid XIX 50.3)



The whole tenor of the line, however, suggest that the light and darkness referred

to here are not physical light and darkness, but that it is only a figure of speech.

The first line implores Mitra and Varuna to forgive the sins. The darkness that is

going to ‗abhinash‘ him is the result of his sin and not a natural and unfailing

phenomenon. There is nothing in this line to serve as a spring-board for jumping to

the North Pole.

According to the Taittiriya Samhita, only the Brahmanas were afraid of darkness.

Why only the Brahmanas'? Were the nights long only for them? A.C. Das has

given a convincing answer to this. In the light sacrifices, Brahrnanas had to stay

away and recite the hymns non-stop, without food and drink and any relaxation.

This got on their nerves, and they felt that the nights were endless.

3. Tilak- The statement that the Brahmanas were afraid of the nights in ancient

times shows that long nights were seen by the remote ancestors of the Vedic

people who lived in the polar regions.

Refutation - The Buddhacarita says that Siddhartha Gautama became

disenchanted of life by seeing an old, an ill and a dead man. Does it mean that

people have since ceased to be afraid of old age, illness and death?

4. Tilak- The Taittiriya Aranyaka says that the black and the white are the left and

the right halves of the year. This shows that only one day and one night made the

year. And this is possible only in the Arctic regions.

Refutation -One may as well say that the statement ‗a march consists of right and

left steps‘ implies that there are only two steps in a march or that ‗a man and a

woman are equally important part of the society‘ means that there is only one man

and one woman that make a society.

5. Tilak - "Varuna made the sun rock in heaven". (Rig. 7.87.5). Rocking is to and

fro. Therefore the word rock is applicable to the motion of the polar sun and not to

the torid zone sun.

Refutation - Tilak‘s argument is self-refuting. A circular motion is never called

rocking. Nobody would describe the rotating fan as rocking, nor is rocking or

rotating to and fro. So the very word rocking by which Tilak wants to express the

motion of the polar sun, shows that the author does not refer to the polar sun. The



torried zone sun comes back to the east after going to the west, though its

backward motion is not seen. Really speaking, this is more of a to and fro motion

than that of a rotating fan.

6. Tilak says that the Vedic literature mentions sacrifices lasting for nine or ten

months. This refers to polar regions, where one day last for nine or ten months.

Refutation - Why should the sacrifice require only day- time? As already referred,

the Vedic people performed night sacrifices also. The Ashwin Shastra, mentioned

elsewhere by Tilak himself, begins at midnight. There could be other reasons for

stopping the sacrifices for two or three months. Rain is one obvious reason. The

academic session is generally of nine or ten months, but one does not infer thereby

that these sessions are held in the Arctic regions with nine or ten months day.

7. Tilak - The Aittiriya Samhita says that the Sun has three phases. The spring is

the morning, the summer is mid-day and autumn is the evening. Sayana in his

commentary has quoted a Vedic statement to the effect that the seasons hemanta

and winter end when the sun sets. This shows that the seasons hemanta and winter

consisted of night only. This is a descripion of the polar conditions.

Refutation - It is clear that the different parts of the day are figuratively named

after the seasons in order only to indicate the intensity of heat. The night is called

winter, because it is the coldest part of the day.

Mythology and the Avesta - The arguments considered so far are regarded as

direct evidence by Tilak. In addition to this direct evidence he maintains that there

is also indirect evidence for his theory in mythology in the Avesta. lf no substance

is found in the direct evidence, it is not necessary to consider the indirect evidence.

But in view ofthe strange attitude adopted by the western scholars, such indirect

evidence has also to be considered. They treat allegories as history and history as

allegories. The Indian tradition has regarded the Ramayana and the Mahabharata as

part of our ancient history, but some western scholiasts treat them as allegories. On

the contrary, the exploits of the Vedic gods, which Indian tradition has all along

regarded as political descriptions or narrations of natural phenomena, have been

regarded by them as parts of human history.



A scholar of repute, Tilak had to indulge in these absurdities, because he was

pleading a weak case. We are told that Tilak lateron realised this weekness and

wrote another book on this subject in which he contradicted himself. But before it

could be published, he passed away. Hanuman Prasad Poddar of the Gita Press

Gorakhpur was very close to Tilak. He was by Tilak‘s bedside when the latter

breathed his last on August 1, 1920. In one of his reminiscences (published in

Bhaiji Pavan Sthal‘ ,p. 448) he wrote that in the said book Tilak had subscribed to

the view that the Aryans were the original inhabitants of India. Poddar asserted that

he had himself seen the manuscript which, however could not be traced after his

death.

ARYA AND DASYU

The word Arya was first introduced into modern European literature by Sir

William Jones. In the early nineteenth century it was realised by a number of

European philologists that there was a concrete group of languages which had

certain very distinctive common factors and included Sanskrit, Zend, Sinhalese,

Pahlavi, Pali, Armenian, Persian, Greek,Latin as well as Celtic, Tutonic, Shovanic

and other sub-groups. Hittait has recently been added to this group. The largest

number of these languages are or were spoken in Asia. They came to be described

as Aryan, though they were also called Indo-European and Indo-Germanic etc.

There was, however, a tendency among philologists to restrict the use of the word

Arya to the Asian portion of this group of languages on the ground that only the

ancient Persian and Indian speakers of this family of languages called themselves

Arya.

In 1853, Maxmuller introduced the term Aryan as applied to a group of languages

and suggested that the cradle of the common ancestor of these languages was

Ariana of the ancients, in Central Asia. He failed to understand then or perversely

refused to admit that this common ancestor was none other than Vedic Sanskrit.

Maxmullers suggestion gave ground for raging a controversy. Not content with

this, Maxmuller spoke also of a specific Aryan race. The idea was rapidly taken up

in England and Germany as it suited the imperialist object of some scholars there.

The absurdity of this idea did not take long to be exposed. In England and America



the phrase ‗Aryan race‘ has ceased to be used by scholars with scientific attitude,

though still sometimes appears in propagandist and political literature. In Germany

too the idea of Aryan race met with cold reception. Nevertheless it has found some

literary and political advocates here and there.

The most damaging work was the Sanskrit - English Dictionary by Monier

William. This is what Maxmuller wrote in l888—"Aryas are those who speak

Aryan languages, whatever their colour, whatever their blood. In calling them

Aryas we predicate nothing of them, except that the grammer of their language is

Aryan. I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood

nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean only those who speak an Aryan language .....

To me an ethnologist who speaks of an Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes,

Aryan hair is a great sinner." (Op. Cit. P.120)

Monier William‘s dictionary was published ten years later in 1899. Can anyone

believe that Monier William or his collaborators were unaware of what a renowned

contemporary of their‘s at Oxford itself, where they were all engaged on the

compilation of the dictionary, had written about his racial theory of the Aryas.

How are we then to understand why the connotation of the term Aryan in Monier‘s

dictionary was given as—―A respectable or honourable or faithful man, an

inhabitant of Aryavarta; one who is faithful to the religion of his country. Name of

the race which immigrated from Central Asia into Aryavarta (opposed to anarya,

dasyu, dasa). In later times name of the first three castes (opposed to Shudra, a man

highly esteemed, a respectable, honourable man, behaving like an Arya; Ayyo or

Ariya (Pali) a man who has thought over the four chief principles of Buddhism and

lives accordingly, of good family, excellent, wise)" - p. 152

The compiler of dictionary denotes nearly two complete columns to give the

various meanings and connotation in different contexts and situations. In most

cases he is on the right track but when he calls the Aryas ‗a race which immigrated

from Central Asia into India‘, he betrays an amazing ignorance of the hypothesis

which had already been rejected by the author, Maxmuller himself. The fact

remains that this was deliberately dime with the avowed purpose of maligning

India and in pursuance of his policy of denigrating Indian culture with a view

to propagating Christianity and converting the Indian people to the religion of

Christ.



The issue of ethnicity, in India‘s case, has been confounded by the western

imperialist discourse, invariably a product of the west‘s own history and

environment. The problem has, however, begun to ease. A number of scholars

have, for example, come to reject the Aryan invasion or migration theory and

question the Aryan-Dravidian divide.

Some of them have put back the date of the Rigveda to the 10th million B.C.,

instead of the standard second. The well-known archaeologist, S.R.Rao, has

established fairly conclusively that the so-called Indus Valley Civilization was

Vedic, and not pre-Vedic and that it covered at least 1.5 million sq. kilometer of

territory.

It was thus with the advent of the British that the world Arya assumed a racial

content. The mischief was done and the British succeeded quite conspicuously in

jeopardizing national integrity and solidarity by injecting the virus of mutual

suspicion and rivalry between one community and another. Dr.Ambedkar in his

book ‗The Shudras‘ was at pains to show that the Shudras were nothing but outcast

Kshatriyas, suggesting that they initially belonged to the Aryan race. Evidently, he

borrowed this idea from Monier William‘s Sanskrit dictionery (Page 501).

Unfortunately, he did not care to find out that the race-theory had long been

discarded by the author himself. But this evoked a Dravidian nationalist feeling

which in its turn has given rise to something which can be termed Adi

Dravidianism, an idea which is absolutely baseless, being only the creation of the

fertile imagination of interested politicians. These politicians gave prominence to

an imaginary racial difference leading to hostility between the Dravidians and the

Aryans, as also higlighted the supposed aggression committed by the so-called

Aryan invaders. Purposely, or through ignorance, by such wrong notions the

country has been pushed on the path of disruption.

The great southern authority on Tamil history, Principal P.I. Shrinivasa Aiyangar

in his book ‗Dravidian Studies‘ stated—"The Aryans and the Dasyus are not

referred to as indicating different races but to culture. The Dasyus are without

rules, fire less, without prayers etc. The difference between the Aryas and the

Dasyus was not one of race, but of cult, Thus Aiyyangar has based the difference

between the two on qualities, activities and temperaments and not on class or race.

The basis of his belief may be the following Mantra of the Rigveda-



A person who indulges in falsehood, cruetly and evil deeds and avoids the

company of learned men of divine virtues is a ―Dasyu‖.

This Mantra does not in any way spell out hatred or animosity against any tribe or

class. V.P. Ramachandra Dikshitar of Madras University says -

"The fact is that the Dasyus were not non-Aryans. The theory that the Dasyus—

Dravidians- inhabited the Panjab arid the Ganges valley at the time of the so-called

Aryan invasion of India and, overcome by the latter, they fled to South India and

adopted it as their home, cannot stand." (Origin and Spread of Tamils, p.14)

Muir also supports this view and says—"I have gone over the names of Dasyus and

Asuras mentioned in the Rigveda with a view to discovering whether any of them

can be regarded as non-Aryans or of indigenous origin, but I have not come across

anything of that type." (Original Sanskrit Texts, Vol. IL P.387)

The following Mantra of the Rigveda (10.22.8) spells out the character of a Dasyu

in these words –

Dasyus is defined here as one who commits evil deeds and is an idler, one who is

lacking in thoughtfulness and who shuns taking a vow or making a resolve to do

good deeds, such as non- injury, service of fellowmen and sacrifice for the sake of

others. His actions arise from selfish motives, he is cruel and has no compassion.

In this Mantra Indra has been invoked to destroy such enemies of mankind. In

another Mantra (Rig. 6.22.10) a Dasyus has been called Ashiva i.e., inauspicious -

one who brings misfortune to all beings.

Hymn 9.63.5 of the Rigveda enjoins –



God ordains that while you try to raise your own moral and spiritual stature by

removing your evils, you must exert yourself to make the whole world Arya, i.e.

noble. If men were born Arya or Dasyus and were known as such because of their

belonging to a class or race, the question of making them did not arise. It follows,

that to make one Arya it is necessary to develop in him certain qualities of head

and heart. By implication it means that persons devoid of such qualities are

Dasyus. The difference between an Arya and a Dasyu lies in their individual

character.

Rigveda (1.51.8) says – (―vijaaneehyaaryan yE cha dasyavE bahirspate randhayaa

shaasadavrataan | )

Herein the two words Arya and Dasyu have been used as opposites. If Dasyu is

Avrata and has, therefore, to be subdued, Arya is ‗satyavrata‘ and has, therefore, to

be respected.

This Mantra marks the identity of the two and makes the distinction between them

crystal clear.

When Yogiraj Aurobindo started his quarterly in 1914, he named it ‗ARYA and

defined the term ARYA as follows: -

"The word Arya expresses a particular ethical and social order of well-governned

life, candour, courtesy, nobility, courage, purity, straight- forwardness, gentleness,

humanity, compassion, protection for knowledge, respect for the wise and the

learned and social accomplishment. There is no word in human speech that has a

nobler history. The Arya is one who strives and overcomes all outside him and

within him that stands opposed to human advance. Self-conquest is the first law of

his nature, He overcomes mind and its habits and does not live in a shell of

ignorance, inherited prejudice, customary ideas, pleasant opinion, but knows how

to seek and choose, to be large and flexible in intelligence, even as he is firm and

strong in his will. The Arya is a worker and warrior. He always works for the

coming kingdom of God within himself and the world."—The ARYA, Vol. 1 p.63

The most signified thing about an Arya was that whenever anybody was found

guilty of an unworthy act, he or she was invariably reprobated or reprimanded as

un-arya, i.e., one behaving in a manner unbecoming of an Arya. When Arjuna felt

despondent and refused to fight, saying that he would rather live on alms than kill



his kith and kin, Lord Krishna reprimanded him, saying that he was behaving like

an un-Arya— ‗Unaryajushtam‘ (Gita 2.2). When Kaikayi insisted on sending

Rama into exile for fourteen years, Dasharath, and later Valrniki too called her un-

arya (Ayodhya Kanda, 13.5;19.19). When Dushyant discarded Shakuntala, saying

that he did not recognise her, the latter reproched him, saying that he was un-arya.

The four fundamental truths, expounded by Buddha, were named by him ‗Arya

truths‘ and the eight-fold way loading to salvation was called the ‗Arya-

path‘(Arya Ashtangik Marg). Buddha defined ‗Arya‘ in his Dhammapada

(Dhammapada) in the following terms –

A person who kills living beings is not an Arya. An Arya always entertains

feelings of non-killing for all beings.

So far as facial features are concerned, there is not much difference between the

men in the north and those in the South. On the basis of craniology and

physioguomy, there is no difference between the two, excepting that south of the

Vindhyas, due to environmental and climatic conditions, a somewhat larger

proportion of pigmentation in the skin is found in a slightly larger number of men

than in the north. But for any northerner to say the he is more handsome or the

women of North more good-looking than those of the south, is nothing but

shallow-minded vanity, often bordering on vulgarity.

It has often been suggested that the Aryans belonged to a different race of fair-

coloured men and so on. It may be remembered here that some of the most revered

men among the ancient Aryans, including the so-called incarnations of God –Rama

and Krishna—(as also Gods—Vishnu and Shiva themselves) were not fair

complexioned. Arjuna and Draupadi were both dark-complexioned. It was

Vedavyas Rishi gave us the Mahabharat (containing the Gita), the Brahmasutra

and a commentary on the Yoga Darshana. He too was dark-coloured. Was he a

Dasyu or one of the aborignes on that account?



Physical features, complexion etc. have nothing to do with the Aryas or Dasyus

wherever the word Dasyu occurs in the Vedas, it always refers to men of evil

intentions, evil character and evil behaviour. Such people are found at all times and

all places —

Discussing the creation or rise of such communities, Manu observes:

Those persons, belonging to Brahmana and other castes, who are excommunicated

on account of non-performance of good deeds are Dasyus, though they speak

Aryan and non-Aryan languages. It is clear that even amongst the Aryans the evil

doers are called Dasyus, Dasyus or the so-called aborigines are people who, when

excommunicated, took their new names probably from or after the regions in

which they settled down or from some ancestor. Thus it is absurd to say that these

people belong to a different race or tribe whom the Aryans pushed down beyond

the Vindhyas or elsewhere.

At the time when Dr. Sampurnanand was the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh a list

of Siamese words of Sanskrit origin with English translation was compiled. ln that

list the word ‗civilisation‘ is rendered as ‗Arya dharma‘.

The conflict between the Aryas and the Dasyus, i.e., between the Devas and the

Danvas (=Asuras or demons) is known in ancient Sanskrit literature as Devasura-

Sangrama or the war between the Devas and Asuras. In one sense, it may be said

that this conflict commenced from the very beginning of creation and will last till

the end of it. In other words, the dualism of good on evil is co-existent with the

creation of the world, and evil is as powerful and, in a way, more powerful than

good.



DASA AND DASYU

As earlier stated the ingenious idea of the foreign origin of the Aryans was floated

to create dissentions among the people of India. The meanings of the word‘s Arya,

Dasa and Dasyu were twisted to suit their purpose. The people were told that the

Dasa & Dasyus were the original inhabitants of India and the Aryas were their

tormentors. Muir clearly says that none of the names of the Dasyus were of non-

Aryan or indigenous origin. By the word ‗indigenous‘ he probably meant

‗aboriginal‘ as the black skinned Dravidians and Kolarians were supposed to have

been the original inhabitants of the Punjab, whom the Aryan invaders are said to

have ousted and driven to the South. The Aryans, not having been regarded as

indigenous, the names of the Dasyus were also necessarily not regarded indigenous

by Muir. But in the light of the results of the latest investigations, we should call

these names indigenous, though certainly Aryan, because the Dasyus were as much

autochthonous as the Aryans themselves.

In the opinion of A.C. Das the frequent mention of black-skined non-Aryas of the

Dravidian or Kolarian stocks, but to those Aryan pests who, on account of their

backward state and want of culture, were a disgrace to the race and called blacks,

just as the Englishman would call an English robber or swindler a ‗black-guard‘.

And this is the interpretation that some western Sanskrit scholars feel disposed to

put on the words black and black-skinned. In this connection it may be stated here

that there is a notable instance of the use of the epithet black to the Vedic Aryans

themselves by their enemies, the Iranians or Persians, who were also a branch of

the Aryan race. In the ‗Gatha Ustavaiti‘ Zarthustra says: "That I will ask thee, tell

me it right, Thou living God, who is the religious man, and also the impious after

whom I wish to enquire. With whom of both is the black spirit, and with whom the

bright one? Is it not right to consider the impious the man who attacks me or Thee,

to be black one?" (Dr. Hang‘s essay on the Sacred Language, Writings and

Religion of the Parsees Ed. 1862, p. 151). It would thus appear that a branch of the

Aryan race, who were inimical to another, on account of difference of religious

opinions, called the latter blacks, although they were admittedly a white people.

We need not, therefore, at all wonder that the Rigvedic Aryans called the dregs of

their society ‗blacks‘, not only for their dark complexion, but also for their dark

life and character. (A. C. Das: Rigvedic India, p.119)



Yet, on finding the words Arya, Dasa and Dasyu in the Rigveda, the western

scholars formed a wrong and baseless notion that these words denoted the

existence of different races and tribes in the Vedic period. In 1912, Professor

Macdonell and Keith published in London a voluminous book entitled ‗Vedic

Index‘ in which they dealt with the words ‗Varna‘ and ‗Jati i.e, race, occurring in

some Rigvedic texts. In that book they wrote what had been going on between the

Aryans and the Dasyus in which the Aryans used to burn the houses of the Dasyus,

i.e., the Aboriginal Tribes of India. Their contention was that in the Vedas, there is

mention of these aboriginal tribes and the wars which went on between them. In

consequence the Aryans killed these natives and enslaved those who survived.

These aboriginal tribes were known as Dravids, Kols, Bhils and Santhals etc. They

were dark coloured with nose, that is, flat, nose. Their speech was harsh and loud.

In religious faith they differed from the Aryans in that they were opposed to their

rituals and ceremonies. They disliked their yajnas and worshiped the phallus (ling),

As a matter of fact, the Dasas were the settled inhabitants amongst the Aryans

living on the products of agriculture. They had their own modes of living and did

not perform the sacrifice - Yajna. Like the Dasyus they too incurred the odium and

displeasure of the ARYAs. The ARYAs were also invoked to distinguish between

the Aryas and the Dasyus who did not perform the Yajnas -

Distinguish between the Aryas (the noble) and Dasyus (evildoers). Chastising the

wicked and the infidels (who observe no sacred rites), encourage the noble in their

performance of virtuous deeds.

Nesfield, in his ‗Brief view of the System of the North-Western Provinces‘, says

that there was no such division of the people as the Aryan conquerors of India and

the aborigines of the country, that this division is modern and that there is essential

unity of the Indian race. (Vide Pavagi‘s Aryavartic Home, p. 271)



THE REALITY

ARYA-In the Rigveda, the word ‗Arya‘ has been used in two senses, viz., that of

progeny (apatya) and that of ‗one fit to be approached (gamaniya). from the root ‗r‘

to go‘. When the individual to be approached is agreeable the word ‗Arya‘ means

‗noble, good‘ etc., but when that person is disagreeable it (Anarya) means ‗one to

be encountered or assailed. These senses become explicit when the word occurs as

an adjective in the context of ‗Indra‘ or of Dasa or Vritra (cf. Rig 6.25.2, 6.22.10

and 6.60.6)

Dasa-The word is derived from two roots (1)‗dasu to destroy‘ and (2) ‗dasri to

give‘. From the former root it gives two senses, one in the passive and the other in

the causative, meaning ‗to be destroyed‘ and ‗causing destruction‘ respectively.

From the second root meaning ‗to give‘ it denotes ‗one who is given or paid

sornething‘, i.e., a servant.

Dasyu- The word ‗Dasyu‘ also comes from the ‗dasu to destroy‘, meaning thereby

‗one who destroys‘ and is, therefore, harmful.

In many passages of the Rigveda, Dasas and Dasyus are said to refer to human

foes (probably the aborigines) of the Aryans. The Dasas are described as having

forts. They were of black colour, flat nose and hostile speech. They were phallus-

worshipers, devoid of rites and engaged in strange vows and activities. (Vedic

Index, Pt. I, pp. 347-48 and 356-57; Cf. also Vedic Mythology by Mcdonell, p.

64). The following mantra is quoted to substantiate their contention:

Griffith‘s translation: "Thou slewest noseless Dasyus with thy weapon and in their

homes overthrewest hostile speakers".

In the footnote he takes noseless to be the flat-nose barbarians, a-nasah.

As a matter of fact, this mantra belongs to the hymn which describes the conflict

and valour of Indra (atmospheric electricity) with the Dasas and the Dasyus

(various forms of clouds. It has nothing to do with the Aryans and the aborigines

or, for that matter, their mutual wars and conflicts. Actually, the mantra should be



translated as : " O Indra! Thou hast smashed and destroyed the silent (a-nas,

noiseless) as well as the thundering (mridhravach) clouds (Dasyus) with thy

weapon (i.e., Vajra or thunderbolt) in the battle."

Dasyu - In the Rigveda (1.59.6), Dasyu is mentioned along with Shambara, which

is interpreted by Yaska in his Nirukta (7.23) as ‗destructive cloud‘.

Anas-It is wrong to derive ‗Anas‘ as the negative form of ‗nas‘ (a + nas) and then

interpret it to mean ‗noseless‘ or ‗flat- nosed‘. It is derived from the root ‗nas‘, ‗to

make sound‘. One that makes noise would be ‗nas‘ and the one that does not,

would be ‗a-nas‘. Clouds which come silently and start raining are called ‗anas‘.

If, as the western scholars interpret it, ‗a-nas‘ were derived from ‗nas‘ (nose) the

correct form in the Bahuvrihi compound should have been ‗a-nasa‘ and its plural

form in the accusative case would have been ‗anasan‘ and not ‗a-nasah‘ (vide

Panini 5.4.119).

Mridhravach - The word ‗mridhra‘ is derived from the root ‗mridh‘, ‗to moison,

to wet‘. The compound ‗mridhra-vacha‘ therefore, alludes to a ‗cloud which

thunders and rains‘.

Etymologically interpreted, shambara, chumuri, dhuni, pipru, varchin, Ilvish etc.

deemed to be devils, demons, will be found to be different categories of clouds.

Shambara - As already stated, Yaska in his Nimkta (7.23) interprets as cloud In

Rig. 1.59.6 it is said -Vaishvanara (atmospheric electricity) smote the destructive

cloud (Dasyu) and the rain-withholding cloud (shambara), so that the waters began

to rain. Had it been some aboriginal person, how could rain waters begin to flow

when he was shattered?

Similarly, Chumuri and others also do not represent human beings, but are the

names of clouds.

Chumuri is derived from the root ‗cham‘, to eat etc. and refers to the cloud which

eats up, i.e., retains within itself the rain-water without releasing it. Indra destroyed

chumuri, Dhuni etc. and, demolishing their strongholds, made them to flow. (Rig.

6.18.8).



Dhuni- Dhuni is derived from the root ‗dhu‘ to shake, to quiver, and means the

quivering cloud. Nirukta (10.32) interprets ‗Dhuni‘ as a cloud in the sky (Rig.

6.20.18)

Pipru- Pipru is derived from the root ‗pru‘, to bring up, to nourish, and refers to of

the nourishing cloud. The relevant mantra says--"O Indra. The wielder of

thunderbolt, thou didst shatter the stronghold of Pipru which twists like a serpent.

(Rig. 6.20.7)

Ilibisha- Ilibish is derived from ‗ila‘ earth and the root ‗vish‘ to enter and means a

cloud which soaked into the soil after raining. Indra broke the strong restraining

powers of the cloud ilibisha, and cut the drought cloud Shushna into pieces. (Rig.

1.33.12)

Pani-The Panies were Aryans, belonging to the trading class (vaishyastu

vyavahartA viDvaartikaha paaNinO vaNik ―-Raja Nighantu). They traded not only

on land, but also by sea. They were notorious for their money grabbing nature

which made them unpopular with the cultured people. The epithet of niggard was

applied to them like the Jews they were a community by themselves - selfish,

narrow-minded and intent only on their own business and gain. In the context of

the clouds, Panis meant those clouds which kept hovering in the sky, but did not

rain. The epithet of Pani meaning niggard or miserly was applied to such clouds.

Shishnadev : Modern scholars, both Europeans and Indians, have tried to show

that the aborigines were phallus-worshipers. They have based their conclusion on

the word shishnadeva which, in reality used in the Vedas or lusty and sensuous

people.

Yaska has interpreted it to mean (Abrahmachari) or one who does not observe

brahmacharya. This word occurs in the Rigveda (7.21.5, 10.99.3). In the verses

concerned a prayer is addressed to Indra that evil-doors should not create hurdles

in the way of noble men. These verses do not even remotely refer to any kind of

worship. Sensuous persons in any society or country may be called

shishnadevas.(shishnadEvaha).



THE WAR BETWEEN THE ARYAS AND THE DASAS

In the Vedic index (Part I, p. 65), under the word Arya, we find the following

statement-

"The word Arya also occurs frequently used as an adjective to describe the Aryan

classes (Visha) or name (naman), caste (Varna). Aryan foes (Vritra) are referred to

besides Dasa foes, and there are many references to war of Aryan versus Aryan as

well as to wear of Aryan against Dasa."

Macdonell writes—"Indra destroys the aerial demons in battle. He protects the

Aryan colour and subjects the black skin. He dispersed 50000 of the black race and

rent their citadels". (Vedic Mythology, p. 62)

Let us examine some mantras which speak of the fight between Indra and the

Vritra -

I will narrate the exploits of Indra, the first that he performed, the thunderbolt

wielder slew the Ahi (the serpent-like Vritra) and released the waters and cleft the

channels of rain water from the clouds.

He slew the cloud Ahi resting on the slopes of the mountains. Tvashta fashioned

for him the thundering weapon Vajra. As the milk-dripping and lowing cows go

forth quickly (towards their calves), so do the gurgling and dripping waters rush

down to the sea.



Indra with his mighty weapon of thunderbolt cut the arms of the worst cloud Vritra

of enveloping darkness, and the fitting Ahi (i.e., Vritra) fell prostrate on the ground

like the branches of a tree cut asunder with an axe.

This hymn contains 15 Mantras describing the war between Indra and vritra (i.e.,

atmospheric electricity and clouds) in an allegorical manner. But, unfor-tunately,

without understanding the spirit of the Veda, and depending upon ordinary

dictionaries and without regard to the ancient traditions and with an eye on

creating dissentions, the western scholars turned it into a war between the Aryans

and the so-called aborigines or Dravidians. The fruits of this poisonous seed and

the results of the communal virus injected into the body-politic of this country, we

are experiencing now in the almost anarchical conditions prevailing today.

I feel constrained to repeat here what I have earlier said in a different context -

I feel constrained to repeat here what I have earlier said in a different context -

This struggle is explained by what is known as the ‗Storm Theory‘. It would

have been better if it were designated as the ‗Rainy Season Theory‘. Yaska in his

Nirukta (2.16) asks-"Who was this Vritra?" "A cloud", say the Vairuktah

(etymologists); "As Asura, the son of Tuastri, say the Aitihasikas. The fall of rain

is caused by the mingling of the waters and lightning (atmospheric electricity).

This is figuratively depicted as a fight between the sun (Indra) and the clouds

(vritrah). Thus in this context the depiction of battles is allegorical, i.e. in the

nature of a simile. The hymns and the Brahmanas describe Vritra as ‗Ahi‘ which

means cloud as well as serpent. By the expansion of his body, he blocked the

streams. When he

was destroyed (dispersed), the waters flowed forth -—



This two-fold character of the struggle, viz., the daily and periodical, is well

explained by the Dawn or the Solar theory and by the Storm and Rainy season,

both of which have been adopted by all western scholars. Vritra is a cloud-a storm

cloud or a rain cloud, hovering in the sky and by smiting it with his thunderbolt

(vajra), Indra may well be described as releasing the waters imprisoned therein.

When the Vritra becomes sufficiently strong and powerful and his forces (Vritrah

in the plural) are marshalled, he expands his body till he covers up the entire sky

and envelops the sun, the dawn, the solar rays and the waters in one dark pall. The

sky then remains overcast with clouds for days, weeks and months together, during

the rainy season, without revealing the sun or the solar rays. It is then that Indra

comes to the rescue of all with his vajra (thunderbolt).

Durga, one of the most authentic commentators of Nirukta (some 550 Years before

the Vikrarna era), too says that ―the waters heated by the electric flashes, known as

the air-enveloped Indra, thaw and fall in the form of rain."

Indra means‘ electricity" vide Aitareya brahmana, 3.4 Satapatha 11.6.39 regards

Indra to be ‗the thundering lighting‘. And the Kausitaki brahmana takes Indra to be

Asani, ‗lightning or thunderbolt‘. Vidyut and asani are synonyms in Satapatha,

6.1.3.14.

To sum up, the evidence of the vedic context, the Brahmanas and the

elucidations of the ancient etymologists and commentators leave no doubt

about the so-called war being nothing more than the usual violent struggle of

the elements that cause rain and nourish the earth below. This should be

sufficient to refute the baseless and mischievous theories of wars between the

Aryans and the so-called aborigines propounded by the westerners to ridicule

and humiliate us and destroy our unity and integrity.



DESTRUCTION OF FORTS

"Dasas, in many passages of in the Rigveda, refer to human foes of the Aryans.

They are described as having forts (purah) and their clans (visah) are also

mentioned‖ (Vedic Index, P.I, p.356)

"The wealth of the Dasas was no doubt considerable, but in civilisation, there is no

reason to suppose that they were equal to the invaders." (Ibid, 358)

"Purah means ‗fort‘ or ‗stronghold‘. Such fortifications must have ` been

occasionally of considerable size ..... Autumnal (Saradi) forts are named,

apparently as belonging to Dasas, this may refer to the forts in that season being

occupied against Aryan attacks or against indations caused by overflowing rivers."

(Ibid, pp. 538-39)

We concede that forts of Dasas are mentioned in the Rigveda. Pipru (Rig. 1.51.5)

and Susnu (Rig. 1.51,11) had forts. According to Rig, 1.53.8, Vangrda inundations

had a hundred forts and ‗Sambara (Rig. 2.19.6; 4.26.3) also had ninety nine or a

hundred forts (Rig. 2.14.6). In Rig. 6.20.10 autumnal (Saradi) forts belonging to

the Dasas are mentioned.

But, as a matter of fact, these forts are not made of bricks and stones like those on

earth. They are merely fantastic formations of the clouds by themselves. In the

rainy season these clouds assume many impressive shapes by the force of the wind.

That is why they are spoken of as ‗chyantnani‘ (Rig. 1.173.4), i.e. moving and

being shaken (adhunutam,Rig. 3.12.6) by Indra ahd Agni.

O Luckily, the truth dawned on Macdonell and, visualising the real import of these

forts, he wrote in his ‗Vedic Mythology‘-"In the mythical imagery of the

thunderstorm the clouds also very frequently become the fortresses (Purah) of the

aerial demons. They are spoken of as ninety, ninety nine or a hundred in number.

These fortresses are ‗moving‘, autumnal, not made of metal or stone. Indra shatters

them and so the epithet ‗fort—shatterer‘ (Purbhid) is peculiar to him." (p.60).

While editing the ‗Vedic Index‘ in collaboration with Keith, he forgot that he was

contradicting himself by calling these fort‘s as material strongholds of the Dasas or

the aborigines, after having first declared them ‗mythical imagery‘. Thus, the entire



fictitious fabric of the theory that the forts were being used as refuge from the

Aryans enemies or from floods falls like a house of cards.

Aaryavarta

The word Aaryavarta was defined by Manu as follows : -

आ समुद्रात्तु वै ऩूवाादासमुद्रात्तु ऩश्चिमात |

तयौरवान्तरम ्गियौरायाावत्ता ववदरु्ुाधा: || (ManuSmriti 2.22)

It has been explained by the commentator, Kullukabhatta, as ―the land in which

Aaryas are born again and again.‖ From this analogy the word Brahmavarta may

be figuratively explained to mean the region where the creator Brahma appears

again and again at the time of creation and again after dissolution or disintegration

of the world at the end of each of the cycle. Or, if the word Brahma meant Vedas,

it may indicate the region where the Vedas are revealed again and again in each

cycle of beginning in creation. Whatever may be the meaning of the word, it is

significant to as pointing to the belief of the ancient Aryans that they were

autochthones in Aaryavarta and not colonists or immigrants from another country.

The great scholiast and savant, Dayanand Saraswati declared – “This country

had no name before the advent of the Aryaas, nor they lived people before the

Aryans here. It was then called – Aaryavarta.”

The archaeological evidence from different countries points to Vedic India as the

radiating centre of the language of ancient Aryas, their culture and civilization

spreading into various foreign lands.‖

Pandit Kalla also suggest that the account of ancient deluge which is found in

Semetic, Iranian and Indian history can be reconciled by referring to the Kashmir



lake which may synchronize with the dispersion of the Aryans to distant lands and

points to the Aryan home in the Himalayas.

A brief Analysis of Dr. Sampurnanad’s hypothesis : -

Dr. Sampurnanand has exhaustively dealt with the problem, relating to the original

habitat of the Aryans in his ‗Aryan Ka Adi Desha‘ wherein he has tried to establish

on the internal evidence of the Vedas that the original home of the Aryans was

Saptasindhu. He has pointed out that according to Vedic geography, Saptasindhu

was bounded by a sea in the North, South and East. This region is that part of the

country which covers the Kashmiri Valley, Rajputana(Rajasthan) and

UttarPradesh. According to a rough estimate by geologists, the situation of this

region, as described here existed between 25000 to 50000 years ago. At that time

the Himalaya is said to be slow rising out of the sea, the mountains were trembling

and the earth was subject to frequent earthquakes. In support of his connection he

quotes the following verses from the RigVeda on the basis of which he says that

the Aryans had witnessed these occurances :-

The English translation of these verses according to Dr. Sampurnanand is as

follows :-

He who fixed firm the moving earth, who tranquilized the incensed mountains ,

who spread the spacious firmament and who consolidated the heaven, he is Indra.



By his strength he fixed the wandering mountains, he directed the downward

course of waters; he upheld the earth; the nurse(of all creatures) and by his craft

he stayed the earth from falling.

Response :

The word for mountains here is ‗Parvataan‘ which has also been used in the

RigVeda to mean ‗clouds‘ in as much as they look like mountains in the sky.

These verses may also be interpreted as follows :-

O men! It is the resplendent self who makes the trembling earth i.e the body

physique firm; who tranquilizes the agitated senses; he measures out the mind

and keeps the celestial mental realm upright.

He with his might makes firm shaky and unstable mountains; he channels

downwards the course of the waters. He controls the earth and nourishes us

all and with his skill, stays the heaven(pleasant bliss) from falling.

Infact these verses far from referring to any particular event at some

particular time, tell us of the power of the Supreme to create and sustain the

Universe at all times. This is further elaborated in the following verse : -

O resplendent God! You are great; with your well-known powers you sustain

heaven(Pleasant Blissful State) and earth and on your account, all firmly set

mountains, and all their vast and solid things, never tremble like the rays of

the sun.



All this can be, and is, seen even today. And this is so because –

You have made straight the elevations of the earth and have strengthened the

foundations of the uppermost celestial region.

A brief analysis of MacDowells fraudulent hypothesis :-

The concept of the immigration of Aryans from outside as also the SaptaSindhu is

largely based on RigVeda 10.75.5. But according to Macdonell(himself one of the

advocates of Aryan immigration theory and the most trusted lieutenant of Prof.

Max Muller) wrote in his introduction to ‗A Vedic Reader for the Students‘ that

the RigVeda first comprised only eight books(Mandals). Subsequently the nineth

and last of all the tenth books were added. And according to Cambridge History of

India ―the 10th

book of the RigVeda displays, both in material form and linguistic

details, signs of more recent origin than the bulk of collection.‖[Cambridge History

of India Part 1, chapter 4, page 76]. Thus the whole concept of SaptaSindhu is

based on the text of 10th

book interpolated or added much later to the original

scripture. This in itself puts a question mark on the authenticity of the theory under

discussion!

The mantra(Rig 10.75.5) reads as follows :-

The text refers to 10 rivers. What was the criterion for selecting seven out of the

ten and then why should only one(Saraswati) acquire the santity and respect, while

the remaining be associated only with the annual rains and irrigation of fields? The

fourth Mantra of the Sukta reads –



Grifith has translated it as follows :-

Like mothers to their calves, like milch kine with their milk, so Sindhu into the

roaring rivers.

Do all these ten rivers actually flow into the sea like that?

Response :

1> MacDowell, like other western Indologists(purposefully or unknowingly) ,

has erred in asserting that the Aryans were not directly familiar with the

Ocean. When their attention is drawn to the innumerable passages in Rig

Veda, in which the word ―Samudra‖ , meaning the sea occurs, they have

contend that this refers to the lower course of the Indus, united by its

tributaries and thus giving it the look of the sea. But if that were so, what

would be the meaning of Eastern and Western seas? If the Indus be

identified with the Western Samudra, what would be the Eastern

Samudra(Puru Samudra), since in the east there was no large river like the

Indus!!

2> The etymology of the word Samudrah, as given by Yaska in his Nirukta is –

―समुद्र: कस्मात ? समुदद्रवन्त्यस्मादाऩ : समाभिद्रवन्त््नमाऩ :‖ (2.3.11) – Why

is it called Samudra? Because waters evaporate from it in the form of clouds

towards mid-space and waters flow into it in the form of rivers.

3> The distinction between the words Sindhu and Samudra has been clearly

drawn in Rig Veda 8.6.4, where in it is said that all mankind bow before

India, as the Sindhus to the Samudra, that is, as rivers fall into the sea. And



again where Sindhu and Samudra are mentioned together, separately, as in

‗ववशाश्न्त समुद्रभमव भसन्धव:‘ (Rig 8.92.22) . Sindhu means both sea and

river, but Samudra means sea only. ―Sindhavaha‖ in the plural, falling into

the samudra in the singular will mean only rivers falling to sea.

4> If the Aaryans came into India through the western passes of the Hindukush

and won in their war against ab-origines this important fact should have

been mentioned in the very beginning, i.e. the first book(mandala) of

RigVeda. And if this mantra referred to the route they came by, the order of

the rivers, mentioned therein, should have been like – Sindhu, Jehlam,

Chenab, Ravi, Beas, Satluj, Saraswati, Yamuna and Ganga. But it is the

other way round!!

Griffith has translated the 5th

Mantra as follows :-

―Favour ye! This my land, O Ganga, Shutudra, Parushni and Saraswati with

Asikni, Vitasta, O Marudvridha, O Arjikiya with Sushoma, hear my call.”

5> How was it that after crossing Sindhu, they straightway jumped over to

Yamuna and again in the reverse order – Yamuna, Saraswati, Satluj and so

on backward!!

6> About Marudvridha, Griffith has declared – ‗not identified‘. And

Gomati(which did not exist four hundred years ago) has been identified, not

as Gomati in Lucknow, but as Gomal in Kabul!! If Ganga is the same Ganga

of Haridwar, Yamuna is same as in Mathura, why Gomati is not the same as

in Lucknow? Kramu and Kubha of the RigVeda has been traced respectively

as Kurram and Kabul!

All this had to be created so that the original home of the Aryans could be treated

in Central Europe. Griffith(may be purposefully!) and later Dr. Sampurnaananda

failed to check and resolve these absurdities in the name of Rig Veda.



Sapta Sindhu Argument :

The mention of Sapta Sindhava is made in the RigVeda more than once. Wherever

the expression ‗Sapta Sindhava‘(Sapta Sindhum or the like) occurs in the RigVeda,

Sayana invariably interprets it as ―Ganganadyaha‖. May be because of the high

esteem in which Ganga was held and is held even today. But that Sayana had no

idea of any territory called by that name is quite clear. Dr. Sampurnananda

arbitrarily omitted Ganga, Yamuna and Marudhurida and named the territory with

the remaining seven rivers Sapta Sindhu. Why Ganga and Yamuna(held in the

highest esteem) occurring at the beginning of the Mantra were omitted is not

known. It seems that Dr. Sampurnananda first conceived the idea of Sapta Sindhu

and then decided to retain the seven adjoining rivers to create a contiguous area.

The territory comprising of the five rivers of Punjab with Sindhu and Saraswati

was designated as SaptaSindhu. The territory comprising the five rivers is called

Panjab. This is a Persian name. It is referred as ―Panchanada‖ in

Mahabharat(Sabha Parva, 3.2.11). But no territory as marked by Dr.

Sampurnananda is designated as ‗SaptaSindhu‘ anywhere in the Vedic literature,

including the Braahmanaas, Mahabharata, Raamayana, Puraanas etc.

―Sapta‖ means seven and ―Sindhavaah‖ means ‗rivers‘ i.e plural form of ‗Sindhu‘.

Separately they will only mean ‗seven rivers‘. In compounded format will become

‗SaptaSindhu‘ not ‗Saptasindhavah‘. (This compound is called ‗Bahuvrihi‘

samaasa). Then it will be split as –

‗सप्त भसन्धव: सश्न्त प्रवहश्न्त वा यश्स्मन ्देशे स: सप्तभसन्धु:‘ , both giving up their

separate meanings and assuming a different meaning and denoting a territory. But

such a word is not found in Vedas. When no territory called ―SaptaSindhu‖

existed, the question of its being the original habitat of the Aaryas do not arise.

Another verse , which is said to very clearly prefer to the territory known as Sapta

Sindhu reads as follows :



Here too ‗Sapta Sindhoon‘ in the plural simply means seven rivers. It can by no

stretch of imagination, mean a territory known as Sapta Sindhu. Then you

will have to create more Sapta Sindhus, for in Sanskrit plural implies at least

three!

Etymologically interpreted, the Mantra under consideration here means :

―O men, he is the resplendent, who with his majestic strength controls with seven

reins and sends down with seven streams of light to flow forth. He with the bolt in

his arms invigorates the ascending clouds.‖

The Mantra deals with the dawn of creation and has nothing to do with any

particular event or any particular event on any particular part of the world.

All these anomalies are removed if as earlier discussed, we remember that the

Vedas were given to us in the beginning of the creation when there were no

territorial or political divisions and no geographical boundaries of land, sea or

inter-space and no proper names given to particular persons, places, rivers or seas

or mountains. It was centuries or millenniums afterwards that these names were

borrowed from the Vedas and assigned to persons or places with requisite

characteristics. As such the question of historical or geographical references

therein did not arise. They refer to things or events in their eternity.

THE NURSERY

We have shown that there was a time in the distant past when all Aryans lived

together under the same roof and spoke the same language. After sometime they

dispersed in several directions. A piece of ground, in which young plants or trees

are reared until fit for transplantation, is known as nursery. We have to trace the



piece of land where the Supreme Lord prepared his nursery for human race where

they were fostered and here they dispersed for transplantation in what are now

known as different countries.

Dayananda Saraswati first propounded the theory that man was first born in

Trivishtapa (now known as Tibet) in the Himalayas. In Sanskrit literature, the area

where man was first born, is designated as Devaloka(उत्तरो वै देवऱोक् ……

उत्तरयेव देवाऱोकमावरुन्धे – Shatapatha 12.6.3.7)

DAYANANDA’S HYPOTHESIS ACCEPTED

Dayananda‘s theory has since been scientifically established. His hypothesis is

supported by the findings of a team of international geologists who went public in

a BBC documentary shedding new light on climate shifts and solar radiation.

Based on these findings, an article in Hongkong-based South China Morning Post

said the scientists believe India was dragged towards Asia in the age of Dinosaurs.

"According to these scientists human life originated in Tibet after the planet‘s

greatest intercontinental collision. They have come out with a hypothesis that

human life is formed out of the uplift of the Tibetan plateau when the Indian sub-

continent crashed into Asia many million years ago.

It collided and dug under Asia to a distance of 2000 Kms. Deformed strata once

horizontal, now angled upward, is evident across Tibet, showing the effect of the

collision. Eventually Tibet stopped rising upwards between 5 and 11 million years

ago and began to collapse, dropping in earthquake-prone fault lines.

The article quoted to leader of the team, Dr.Maureen Raymo of the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology as saying-"This land mass has huge impact on the

circulation of the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere. It heats up in the summer

in connections of hot air, the winds can‘t go over it, they have got to go around it."

The scientists say, with a half height Himalayas, southeast Asia and ironically

some part of currently desert East Africa would be wet. They also examined fossils

found in Northern China and Tibet to demonstrate how plants, once found at low

latitudes, were not evidenced in rock some 5000 metres above sea level.



The analysis of strontium in both the rivers and ocean sediments gave clues about

the rate of uplift of the Himalayas."

This report from Beijing (China) was published in the Indian Express Baroda, on

16th January, 1995 under the caption ‗Human Life Originated in Tibet‘ at page I3.

According to the eminent Parsee scholar of the Iranian branch of the Aryans.

Khurshedji Rustamji, in a lecture delivered at Bombay in The Framj‘s Cowasji

Institute Hall, stated that the original home of the Parsees was Iran Baij (Airyana

Vaejo) or Arya Nivasa which is represented by the region near the Pamirs or

somewhere in the north-western Himalayas. This is supported by the Mahabharata,

wherein it is said -

The sacred Himalayas are famous in the world, and within them, there is a

mountain, named Meru, which is half Yojan wide and five Yojanas long and on

which first men were born.

Nana Pavagee, in his ‗Aryavartanteel Aryanchi Janmabhumi‘ says –

Adelling, father of comparative philology, and leader in 1806, placed the cradle of

mankind in the valley of Kashmir which he identified with Kashmere. (Tailor‘s

Origin ofthe Aryans, p. 9)

According to A.C. Das of the ‗Rigveda India‘ fame, "the beautiful mountainous

countanous country and the plains of Saptasindhu were the cradle of the human

race." (Rigvedic India, p.55)

The most ancient form of life occurs in the Himalayas. (Manual of Geology of

India). The most ancient and largest number of fossils are found in this area. This

means that all that should precede the creation of man was available in that very

region. There is no dearth of flora and fauna in the Himalayas.



Tibet is not as cold as the North Pole. And there is a wonderful power in man to

get himself acclimatized and adapt himself to the environment, how so ever

unfavorable they may be, as he is possessed of a spirit of conservation which

makes him unwilling to change his habitat, howsoever unsuitable it may appear to

others, unless he be absolutely compelled by circumstances to do so. That is why

we find Iceland, Greenland and many parts of Scandinavia and Russia still

inhabited by human beings, who are quite as much at home in those inhospitable

regions as we are.

The climate of Saptasindhu itself, as geologists have proved, had been cold in

ancient times in consequence of the existence of seas round about the country.

However it changed into hot with the disappearance of the seas and creation of a

vast tract of arid desert in their place.

When the Aryans left their birth-place in the Himalayas, one branch come to India

and started living here. They are said to have entered through the Hindukush. But

the climate of this region did not suit them and they fell ill. Consequently they

went back. After some time they returned, made it their home and called it

ARYAVARTA—the home or the habitat or Aryas.

The whole episode is narrated in the Charaka-Samhita (Chikitsasthana, 4.3)

According to Maxmuller (Chips from a German Workshop, p.376) the ancestors of

the Iranians first came down to India and then proceeded to and settled in Iran.

This is corroborated by the text books prescribed for schools in Iran. Until

monarchy was abolished in Iran by Khomeni some years ago. The Emperors of

Iran used the epithet of ‗Arya Mehr‘ indicating that they were the descendants of

the solar dynasty of India. Even the stadium there was named ‗Arya Mehr

Stadium‘. Things have since changed.

BOUNDARIES OF ARYAVARTA

The boundaries of Aryavarta, as specified by the Manusmriti are as follows—The

Himalaya on the north, the Vindhyachala in the South, the oceans in the east and in

the west. Or, the Saraswati (Sindhu) in the west and the Drishadvati (Brahmaputra)

which rises in the eastern hills of Nepal, and flowing in the east of Bengal and

Assam, and in the west of Bengal, and in the west of Myanmar (Burma) falls into



the Southern sea (Bay of Bengal). And, as earlier mentioned, the Aryavarta is also

the name of the very same country, lying between the Himalayas and the

Vindhyachala, stretching right upto Rameshwaram in the south.

Now-a-days, the Vindhyachala is considered the dividing line between the North

and the South. But, as Dayanand Saraswati tells us (Satyarthaprakasha, Chap.8), in

the past it meant the rnountanous range which stretches upto Rarneshwaram along

the sea- coasts—the Arabian sea in the west and the Bay of Bengal in the east. This

means that what are now called the eastern and the western ghats, were in ancient

times known as the Vindhyachala. Thus the area covered by the Himalayas in the

north, the Vindhyas in the South and the two seas in the east and the west, now

called Bharat or Bharatavarsha as originally called the Aryavarta.

Our contention is based on the internal evidence of the Ramayana, where it is said

-

Verily, this is the Vindhyachal on the shore of the southern sea giving the details of

the boundaries, Varahamihira says -

Lanka and Calicut are here said to be located to the south of Bharatvarsha. This

means that the boundaries of Bharat extended upto the farthest and adjacent to

Lanka.

Spelling out the details of the geography of Indian ancient times, we are told -



Accordingly, the distance of Setubandh Rameshwar from Badrinath is one

thousand yojanas; from Dwarika to Puri it is seven hundred yojanas; the rivers

Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati, Godavri and Kaveri, and the mountains Vindhya,

Malaya, Sahya and Raivataka were all located within the boundaries of Bharat.

The Manusmriti tells us that-

The Saraswati (Sindhu) and the Brahmaputra form the boundaries of Brahmavarta

or Aryavarta or what today is called Bharatvarsha or India. Dayananda Saraswati

has categorically denied that the Aryans came to India from outside and forcibly

occupied it. To quote his own words from his ‗magnum opus‘, the

Satyarthaprakasha —

Q. What was the original name (of this country) and who dwelt in before the

Aryas?

A. It had no name before their advent. Also, there were no people in it before the

Aryas. For the Aryas came to this land direct from Tibet a little after the creation of

the world.

Q. Some say that they came from Iran. Hence they were called Arya?

A. It is absolutely wrong.

||Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam – Make the whole world Noble ||

Date post:	23-Aug-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	keshava-arya
View:	961 times
Download:	14 times

Aryavarta - Original Habitat Of Aryas

Documents