A remarkable continuity has existed between missionary academia of the nineteenth century, which denigrated non-Western cultures out of religious biases, Marxist academia of the mid-twentieth century, which did the same out of political motivations, and the current liberal academia of the late twentieth century, which does so out of social and cultural concerns. This idea was originally promoted with a missionary and colonial fervor to help conquer, divide and convert the Hindus. The Marxists used it to substitute the European idea of class warfare as the dominant historical movement with an Indian equivalent of caste warfare, which served their interests of seeking political power in the country. Current liberal academicians use it to denigrate Hindu culture as inhumane and promote Western multiculturalism (read Western subordination of other cultures) in India.

All have used it to make the dominant Hindu culture of India a historical fraud. Western academicians, and their Indian imitators, rejected the testimony not only of the ancient Rishis and yogis of the country but that of modern sages like Aurobindo, who did not accept this idea. In other words, in interpreting the history of India they simply rejected what the country itself had to say useless, substituting their own voice. Is this not cultural arrogance?

Today after several decades of new discoveries current archeology lends no support to the Aryan Invasion view. It shows an organic development of civilization in India from the Mehrgarh site in Pakistan, which dates to before 7000 BCE, with no major intrusions of outside peoples, such as the Aryan Invasion theory requires, to the first millennium BCE. The great Sarasvati river of Vedic fame has been remapped and proves to be the main center of habitation in both Harappan and pre-Harappan eras (4000 - 1900 BCE).

 [ Back ] [ David Frawley ] [ Up ] [ Next ]