When Scholarship Matters:
The Indo-Aryan Origins Debate
Edwin Bryant
Rutgers University
Everyone in the field of South Asian studies by now knows about, and
is likely exasperated by, the debate over the origins of the
Vedic-speaking Indo-Aryans. We have all, I think, heard something of
the voices that have emerged, primarily from Indian archaeologists and
historians, as well as from the Hindu diaspora, challenging the idea of
an external origin for this language and cultural group, and claiming an
Indigenous origin for the Vedic culture (a view I have termed the
'Indigenist' position). Fueled by suspicion of the racist and elitist
biases of colonial Indology, and, according to its detractors, by the
imperatives of Hindu nationalism, this view provokes endless
discussions, as anyone with the patience to follow the Indo-Aryan
migration debates on the Indology nets and other conferences in the West
can attest. These debates all-too-often degenerate into emotional
name-calling, as accusations of 'neo-colonial chauvinism' from one side,
and assertions of 'Hindu nationalistic dogma' from the other, inevitably
start to be bandied about, while the scholarly value of the discussions
rapidly evaporates.
Most western Indologists, on the whole, have remained unconvinced by
the limited exposure they have had with the all-too-often selective
quality of the Indigenist arguments they encounter, which they view as
indicative of a nationalism that seeks authenticity in unscholarly
interpretations of history and pre-history, and some scholars are
becoming exasperated by the polemical rehashing of the racist genesis of
western Indology. While the debate is viewed by most western
Indologists as, at best, peripheral to serious scholarship and, at
worst, as an annoying—and, in the present-day Indian context,
politically dangerous—disturbance, it is ferociously contested in
India, where it is situated in much more of a mainstream academic
context.
The Indigenist stress on the continuity of Indian history, and the
generic use of the term 'Vedic culture', with its ahistorical and
monolithic overtones and troublesome implications for minority cultures,
is the feature of the 'Indigenist' position, that is most troubling to
opponents of this view. The concerns of those who fear the ideological
corollaries underpinning such interpretations are by now well-known: if
the Vedic Indo-Aryans are interpreted as being indigenous to India, then
the 'Vedic Civilization' and all that developed from it can be construed
as 'truly Indian' and all subsequent cultural groups known to have
immigrated into India can be depicted as 'Others'. Indigenism,
consequently, is generically stereotyped as a discourse promoting
communal tension.
Predictably, an inevitable corollary of stereotyping is that it
results in counter-stereotypification, and those most actively defending
the theory of Aryan migrations in India (whom I have termed the
'Migrationist' school), are characterized in turn as having ideological
predispositions of their own. These are usually associated with secular
Marxist agendas in some Indian contexts, and neo-colonialist ones in
others, and the 'Leftist' or 'secular Marxist' academic is subject to an
amount of disgust equaled only by that vented upon the 'colonial
stooge.' Secular Marxists are accused by Indigenists of maintaining a
defunct theory in order to insist that the arrival of the Aryans is
analogous to the arrival of the Muslims, Christians and numerous other
groups of newcomers to the subcontinent. In such an amalgamation of
immigrants, no one has more claim to indigenous pedigree or cultural
hegemony than anyone else. A secular state, from this perspective, is
the only political system that can protect the equal rights of all
citizens to define themselves as being Indian with cultural credentials
that are as good as anybody else's. Thus, Migrationist, that is,
anti-Indigenist scholarship is stereotyped, in its turn, as being
subservient to secular, Marxist ideology by its opponents.
As for the colonial stooge caricature, a recent book by D.K
Chakravarti captures this perspective with such statements as: "the
Indian historians became increasingly concerned with the large number of
grants, scholarships, fellowships and even occasional jobs to be won in
Western universities, [and thus] there was a scramble for new
respectability to be gained by toeing the Western line of thinking about
India and Indian history." The bitterness, hostility and ad
hominem sarcasm seeping from the pens of participants in this debate
(from both sides of the fence) when referring (increasingly by name) to
those holding opposing views is apparent for all to see, and the
academic value of much of the exchange—on all sides—has been singed by
the emotional temperature such issues ignite. The result is an almost
complete lack of communication between two mutually antagonistic and
angry camps, and intransigent, cavalier, selective and often grossly
inaccurate generalizations of opposing views are bandied about on both
sides of the issue. Thus, an entire fascinating field of study has
become inextricably linked with ideology and the politics of
representation to the point where it is almost impossible to have a
rational and objective conversation on the origin of the Indo-Aryans in
India without becoming associated with the ideologies that are
immediately correlated with pro- or contra- stances on the issue.
Blanket stereotypification of the Aryan debate with Hindu nationalism
was a source of great annoyance amongst numerous scholars I interviewed
in India who were questioning the theory of external Aryan origins. In
such generalizations, distinctions are often not made between communal
revisionism and post-colonial reconsideration. Of course, these two
ingredients are not always easily distinguishable, nor detachable, but,
tiresome or not, this anti-imperialistic, post-colonial dimension of the
issue is nevertheless an inherent and essential ingredient. Many members
of the Indigenist school are quite understandably uncomfortable about
inheriting an account of their ancient history that was assembled for
them by their former colonial masters, and are committed to reclaiming
control over the reconstruction of the ancient history of their country.
A principal motive of many Indian scholars in this debate is the desire
to reexamine the infrastructure of ancient history that is the legacy of
the colonial period and test how secure it actually is by adopting the
very tools and disciplines that had been used to construct it in the
first place. While the more dogmatic, polemical and sometimes amazingly
ill-informed publications do not exactly help the case along, some
Indigenists have presented some quite compelling arguments that do merit
consideration. There are a number of quite legitimate reasons to
question a good deal of the data that has been produced to support a
Migrationist position.
Moreover, the opinions of significant numbers of Indian intellectuals
about the history of their own country cannot simply be dismissed by
those engaged in research on South Asian proto-history, or be relegated
to areas outside the boundaries of what is considered worthy of serious
academic attention. One must beware of falling into a kind of uncritical
Indological McCarthyism towards those open to reconsidering the
established contours of ancient Indian history, irrespective of their
motives and backgrounds, and of lumping all challenges into a
simplistic, convenient and easily-demonized 'Hindu Nationalist'
category. Neglected viewpoints do not disappear. They reappear with
more aggression due to frustration at being ignored. The western
academy must, in my opinion, revisit the entire issue of Indo-Aryan
origins, respond respectfully to the objections that have been
raised by the Indigenous school against the prevailing western consensus
of Indo-Aryan migrations, and submit their own presuppositions,
inherited or otherwise, to fresh scrutiny—an exercise that is surely
healthy for any scholar committed to striving for objectivity, (and
especially so given both the critique of 'Orientalism,' and the
present-day, post-colonial environment of South Asian studies).
Having said that, it seems fair to state from the other side, that
while pointing out colonial biases is of fundamental
importance—cleansing Indology from the ghosts of the past is a process
that is by no means passé—there is still solid empirical data that need
to be confronted and addressed if one chooses to tackle a problem like
that of the Indo-Aryans; suspicion of colonial motives does not make
such evidence disappear. Besides, this is no longer the colonial
period; it is still a post-modern one where alternative, suppressed and
subaltern views are, if anything, glamorized. Established paradigms
have been subverted left, right and center throughout humanities
departments all over western academia. Why on earth would present-day
western Indologists still be invested in an 'Aryan Invasion' theory
anyway? Whatever may have been the agendas underpinning 19th century
scholarship, the fact is that most present-day western scholars have
been unconvinced by the polemical and all-too-often embarrassingly
ill-informed arguments they encounter, not because they somehow have
some mysterious investment in insisting on an external origin for this
language group. There were, and still are, some very good reasons to
retain the theory of Aryan migrations, and this evidence needs to be
addressed. Simply aggressively promoting only those selective aspects
of the data that are amenable to a specific alternative view with
troubling ideological underpinnings is to duplicate the errors and
excesses of the much-maligned 19th century European Indological
enterprise. Two wrongs do not make a right: European racism and elitism
cannot be replaced by Hindu chauvinism. History cannot be written by
decibel.
Casting off the legacies of colonialism opens up exciting new
possibilities for the understanding of Indian proto-history provided the
constraints of the colonial period are not replaced by an equally
constraining insistence on a different ideologically driven reading of
the historical evidence, whether 'western elitist,' 'secular Marxist' or
'Hindu nationalist.' Unless attitudes to this issue change from all
sides, I foresee the perpetuation of two widening divides as the
'Indigenist' position becomes more vociferous: one between western
Indologists, and the more persistent voices from the Hindu diaspora, and
the other much more serious confrontation between 'leftist' and
'rightist' academics in the subcontinent itself. Most unfortunate, if
this trend continues, will be that the entire field will suffer due to
loss of communication between differing opinions and points of view—the
lifeblood of a progressive field of study.
Back to top
|
