Are Hindus Essentially Aryans Who Invaded The Indian

Subcontinent And Imposed The Caste System?

Answer: Aryans never invaded the Indian subcontinent or South Asia. Nor did anyone impose
the caste system here. So the simple answer to the question is no.

The word Aryans is loosely used for a set of people who spoke the Proto-Indo-European (PIE)
language that spread to different parts of the world, giving rise to the Indo-European family of
languages such as Sanskrit and Latin, from which various Indian and European regional languages
emerged.

These people domesticated the horse, herded cattle, and were familiar with the wheel with spokes
and agriculture. There has been a great debate as to where they originated from: Europe, Turkey
(Anatolia), India or Eurasia.

The racial theory of the 19th century assumed that blonde blue-eyed warriors on horse-drawn
chariots smashed their way into India by overpowering the cities of the Indus Valley, enslaving their
people. This theory explained the collapse of the Indus Valley cities and the ubiquitous caste system
of India. This theory was however part of the European propaganda machinery. The Germans used
it as part of nationalist mythology, celebrating their pre-Semitic Nazi heritage. The British used it to
delegitimise Hindus, claiming that upper caste Hindus were as much invaders and conquerors of
India, as Muslims and Europeans, and so they have no moral right to claim India as homeland.

Naturally, it got every self-respecting Hindu nationalist riled up. But this theory lacked scientific
evidence. Research has shown that the cities of Indus Valley collapsed because of climate change,
not invasion, long before the Vedic hymns were compiled or composed.

Genetic data has revealed that genetic mixing was common in India 4,000 years ago. Rigid marriage
rules based on caste that created unique genetic clusters can be traced only from around 2,000 years
ago. Despite being proved wrong, in popular imagination, this propaganda still rings true owing to
its simplicity.
The Anatolian theory states that the original homeland of Indo-Europeans was the region we now
associate with Turkey and that the migration took place 8,000 years ago. This theory has been
rejected as the language itself emerged 7,000 years ago and genetic studies show massive migration
only around 5,000 years ago.

The Out of India theory emerged in the 1980s. According to this, India is the homeland of the
Aryans. The Aryans composed the Vedas and built the Indus Valley cities. They migrated out to
Iran, and to Europe thereafter. This argument is based on sound logic, however recent genetic
studies clearly tilt the evidence in favour of Aryan migration. Later research may prove otherwise.

Current data from linguistic, archaeology, and most importantly, genetic studies favours the
Eurasian origin of Aryans. The language developed around 7,000 years ago, around the time the
horse was domesticated. Climate change, around 5,000 years ago, forced migration. One group
moved westwards towards Europe and the other group moved eastwards, around 5,000 years ago.

The westward brand left the only epigraphic record available of gods mentioned in the Vedas -
Indra, Mitra and Varuna, in the Mittani inscription, in Mesopotamia, dated to 3,500 years ago. The
eastward branch was unique as they both spoke of a narcotic substance homa/soma. This split into
two groups about 4,500 years ago. There was an Iranian arm, which eventually venerated the Avesta
where devas are demons which then gave rise to the Zoroastrian religion. And there was an Indian
arm that eventually venerated the Vedas where devas are gods, which eventually gave rise to what
we now call Hinduism.

These Aryans entered the Indian subcontinent around 4,000 years ago, a period when the cities of
the Indus-Saraswati valleys had already declined. These cities were first established as early as
8,000 years ago, as per current evidence, but after thriving for nearly 3,000 years, had collapsed
following climactic change and poor agricultural patterns. The Aryans brought horses and PIE
language with them, but not quite the Vedas.

In the Indus Valley and dry river beds of Saraswati, in the decaying brick cities, as they mingled
with local people who had memories of the great Saraswati river that once flowed in this region. The
Aryans refined old hymns, composed new hymns that eventually were compiled to form the Rig
Veda, in a language we now know as Vedic, or pre-Panini, or pre-classical, Sanskrit. This language
has nearly 300 words borrowed from the Munda language, considered as a pre-Vedic Indian
language, indicating local influence. It is key to note that the hymns speak of no Eurasian homeland,
But there is clear awareness of the river Saraswati. One can speculate that the hymns were
composed in North West India, generations after the actual migration.

About 3,000 years ago, the migration continued eastwards to the lush green Gangetic plains, where
Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas were composed. Here eventually, 2,500 years ago, the Upanishadic
revolution and the rise of Buddhist and Jain monastic orders refined one idea that makes Indic
thought unique - faith in karma, or rebirth.

In conversations about Aryans, we need to ask ourselves, why do we give race so much importance?
Why is it important to prove that Indus Valley and Vedas are the creations of original Indians, and
has nothing to do with migrants?

British colonisers used racial theories such as Aryan invasion theory as part of their divide and rule
policy. Are we being racist in our discomfort with the Aryan migration theory? In the vociferous
rejection of this theory, there seems to be implicit suggestion that all things good in India from
Vedas to Indus Valley civilisation to discovery of zero are purely Indian, while all things bad in
India from untouchability to misogyny to homosexuality came with foreigners such as Greeks (who
were repelled by Hindu kings) or Muslims and Europeans (who used cunning to overthrow Hindu
kings). This reeks of the fear of contamination and the desire for purity. Can immigrants and
invaders not be Indians?

We must be careful about the politics of origin according to which a land belongs to people who
originated there; this delegitimises all immigrants and nomads.

We must be careful also of politics of purity that is hostile to all foreigners. Our earliest ancestors
emerged from Africa, and populated the whole world, forming various groups, tribes, clans, races,
ethnicities, communities and nationalities.
Due to natural calamities (climate change, famine) and cultural calamities (war), people have had to
migrate again and again in different directions, often returning to spaces their ancestors abandoned
thousands of years earlier.

So every land is populated by waves of people who have come in at different points of time, from
different spaces, each one bringing new ideas and new technologies. There is no such thing as a pure
and homogenous society. Every society is hybrid and heterogeneous. This is the reason perhaps why
Puranas say that even if we have different fathers, we have a common grandfather, Brahma. And it
is ok, if he was African.