Author: M R Mallya
Publication: Organiser
Date: March 3, 2002
In The Hindu (January 22) and Organiser
(February 3), N.S. Rajaram has given an overview of the wrong theories
on ancient Indian history. He has suggested that the Vedic age and the
Indus-Saraswati civilization was in the same areas, they were most probably
closely related. By deciphering the Indus script one can bridge the vast
archeological remains and the considerable literature of the Vedic Aryans.
In a rejoinder, Michael Witzel (The Hindu, January 29) calls Rajaram's
views a "serious misrepresentation". This leaves the reader nonplussed.
Rajaram has not misrepresented Max Mueller, nor has he said that he "derived
his history from the Bible". Witzel is again incorrect in stating that
the "Indus civilization is dated by all archaeologists between 2600 (not
3100) and 1900 BC". This is contradicted by the excavations of the French
archaeologist Jarrige and also by Asko Parpola and J. M. Kenoyer in his
recent publication in Pakistan (Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization.
OUP, 2000). From Mehergarh to Dholvira, the Indus Saraswati region had
settlements and towns from BC. The recent findings at Cambay further confirms
these remote dates.
Now Clarence Maloney (The Hindu,
February 5) has serious doubts about Rajaram's main thesis on the ground
of the primacy of Dravidian and other languages, whose importance has not
been fully understood in our attempts to unravel ancient Indian history.
(As if the past 80 years efforts in this direction was not long enough).
Rajaram is on strong grounds in
contending that ancient Indian history has been a victim of the arbitrary
views of Western scholars for which there is no proof at all: that the
Aryans invaded, later migrated, to India; that the Dravidians were the
original inhabitants of the Indus region and its civilization; that the
Rigvedic culture is later to the Indus civilization, etc. Their wrong theories
get compounded by farfetched explanations mooted by Witzel and Maloney.
(These get repeated by their mentors in India.) What is now required is
the deciphering of the Indus script that could throw some light on the
subject.
While the script is yet to be read,
the symbols and motifs encountered in the Indus-Saraswati basin are a clear
pointer to the Vedic/Hindu heritage, as mentioned by Asko Parpola (Deciphering
the Indus Script, 1994) and Kenoyer. In fact Kenoyer even goes further
and agrees that the Aryan invasion is a myth (p 180).
It appears that the deciphered Indus
script could be Vedic Sanskrit, though this is yet to be conclusively proved.
The script has 12 alphabets in common with Brahmi. Some of the decipherments
appear to be Vedic Sanskrit but some others cannot be easily explained.
Narration in the Rigveda and the
Puranas
But apart from it, why should Indian
historians, or world historians, hesitate to scrutinize the narration of
events in the Vedas and our Puranas, which are the "old narratives"? Some
of these are as old as the Vedas. One can cross check them with Vedic references
and any other historical data and accept them just as in other histories
similar narrations are accepted, e.g. ancient China, the Biblical narrations
that don't even have an archaeology as a basis, like the Jewish exodus
from Egypt under Moses.
If historical events as mentioned
in the Vedas and the Puranas, (after deleting any exaggerations) are more
realistic and explain related data than the presently based 'postulates'
and 'theories' that fail to explain the controversies, then these should
he accepted as the truly authentic history of India just as other countries
do, in the light of their ancient literature
One should first get rid of many
false notions spread only in the last two hundred years that ancient Indian
history is based on Aryan vs. Dravidian tribes and Sanskrit vs. Dravidian
languages. This incorrect framework has bedeviled Indian history along
false lines creating unnecessary controversies. According to the Rigveda
and the Puranas, speakers of Sanskrit and related languages were mostly
in Aryavarta while the Dramilas were mostly in Dakhsinapatha, but they
often shared a relationship and culture with each other. There were Dravidian
rishis even in the Vedic age, like Kushik, Gadhi, Rishabha, That is why
the South Indian "phoneme" occurs in the Rigveda even though' it is not
included in Panini's classical Sanskrit. (L.S. Wakankar). There were Dravidians.
Later they intermarried with Kshatriya princes even during the Gupta age.
There were also Brahmin priests, Panch Dravidas as mentioned in the Skandapurana,
Sahyadri khanda, chapter 1:
"The Maharashtras, Andhras, Dravidas
(Tamils) Kamatas and Gurjaras live to the South of the Vindhyas and are
called Panch Dravidas.
"The Saraswats, Kanyakubjas, Gaudas
(Bengalis), Utkalas and the Maithilis are living to the North of the Vindhyas
and are called Panch Gaudas".
When, from the Himalayas to Dakshinapatha,
the various tribes and kingdoms had a common culture, religious rites,
etc., the notion of 'Aryan tribes driving out the Dravidians to the South'
is purely the figment of western imagination.
Much is made of the linguistic differences
by Maloney. While Sanskrit and its related languages (Prakrit, Pall, etc)
were predominant in Aryavarta. there was continuous interaction with other
languages, notably Dramila in the South, Munda in the cast and Dardic language
in the North. The truth about the borrowing of words by the different languages
can be endlessly debated where parochialists will take extreme positions.
It hardly matters in determining the trends of ancient Indian history.
However, the Vedas and the Puranas antedate the Dramila languages, and
Sanskrit has often contributed to these other languages. The literature
of even Tamil goes back to only about 100 BC and it was heavily influenced
by Sanskrit language and literature (Swaminatha Iyer, Dravidian Theories,
1975). Tamil itself was written in a form of Brahmi. The role of sage Agasthya
in the south and of Parasurama in the west coast in spreading the Vedic
culture shows how well the North and the South of India was a part of the
Vedic religion. Southern rites had an equal role in a polytheistic religion
and a pluralistic society.
The Aryan tribes in the Indus valley
or Aryavartha were not always Vedic Aryans though most of them worshipped
Vedic deities. There were Panis who were cattle breeders and merchants,
Vratyas who followed different rites, Mlecchas who did not observe Aryan
customs. It was they who probably traded with Mesopotamia and were known
as 'Melekha', as the Mesopotamian seals indicate.
In short, even during the very early
period of 5000-2000 BC, various tribe tribes/kingdoms, mostly Sanskrit-speaking,
inhabited the Indus valley and most of Aryavartha, though, with pockets
of Dravidian-speakers, or Munda-speakers, etc.
It is most likely that the Indus
script is allied to Sanskrit or related languages though not necessarily
to Vedic religion. On this matter further investigation is going on. Jha
and Rajaram are hopeful of making a major breakthrough in this regard.
If the speculative assumptions of
Western scholars going against the literature and traditions of India are
discarded, then, there should be no difficulty in understanding clearly
what the Rigveda and the Puranas say:
1. The Rigvedic culture mainly flourished
on the banks of the Saraswati river east of the Indus whose dried up sources
have now been located by archaeologists and geologists like K. S. Valdiya.
It was a mighty river flowing earlier to 8000 BC. It gradually dried up
after 2000 BC, due to tectonic and other reasons. The Aryans of the Rigveda
antedated the Indus civilization in its later phase of towns and cities,
since at that time they were yet to know the use of cotton, or iron or
how to produce 'baked' bricks.
2. The Rigveda clearly mentions
the two battles fought by Mandhata, and later by Sudas, when they drove
out the enemy Aryan tribes westwards across the Parushni (Ravi) towards
Afghanistan and beyond. The Puranas even mention that some of these tribes
went further westwards to distant, foreign, lands. Pargiter mentions this-and
much greater details are available in Talageri's two- books, Aryan Invasion
Theory (1993) and The Rigveda, a Historical Analysis (2000). By ignoring
these references certain scholars are only obfuscating the realistic narration
of ancient Indian history.
Clarence Maloney concludes that
the "real issue" is not how to rewrite ancient history but "how to reinvigorate
Indian civilisational creativity in modern concepts." His remarks against
the "six Indian languages" are derogatory; nor have they anything to do
with the subject under discussion. Hence, irrelevant. Let us recall what
Shrikant Talageri says: "History is a very potent subject... a nation which
forgets, or falsifies, or will fully ignores, or glosses over the lessons
of its history is a nation heading towards doom."
