ORIENTALISMAND

THEORIGINSOFTHEARYANINVASIONTHEORY

MarianneKeppensandJakobDeRoover
ResearchCentreVergelijkendeCultuurwetenschap

Abstract
TheoriginoftheAryaninvasiontheory(AIT)isgenerallylocatedinthediscoveryofthe
IndoEuropeanandDravidianlanguagefamilies.However,thesediscoveriescannotaccount
for the emergence of the AIT, because the postulation of the invasion preceded the
linguistic research. In its search for an alternative explanation, this article illustrates a
particularwayofstudyingtheintellectualhistoryofOrientalism.TheOrientalistdiscourse
onIndiaisapproachedasabodyofreflectionsonthewesternculturalexperienceofIndia.
ThisperspectivebringsustothethesisthattheAITcameintobeingtoaccountfortwo
entitiesintheOrientalistdiscourseonIndia:theHindureligionanditscastesystem.
BoththesenotionsandtheAITappearedcogentandcoherenttoEuropeanminds,because
theymirroredinternaldevelopmentswithinChristiantheologyandEuropeanhistory,which
hadgivenshapetoEuropesexperienceofIndia.

PerhapsthemostheatedcontroversyintherecenthistoriographyofIndiahasbeenthat
about the Aryan invasion theory (hereafter AIT). In its classical textbook version, this
theoryclaimsthataSanskritspeakingAryanpeopleenteredIndiaaround(orbefore)1500
BCandspreaditslanguage,religionandsocialstructureamongtheindigenouspopulation.
1

MoresophisticatedversionsspeakofagradualimmigrationofgroupscarryingIndoAryan
languageandcivilisationintotheIndiansubcontinent.1Attheothersideofthedebate,there
are thosewhoclaimthattheAryanpeople,its language,civilisationandreligionwere
native to India and that the invasion or immigration never happened.2 This debate has
become highly politicised. The party that claims an Indian origin for the IndoAryan
civilisation is tied to the agenda of Hindu nationalism and it rejects the AIT as a
Eurocentricmisconceptionandcolonialimposition.Itsopponents,ontheotherhand,intend
tofighttheHindunationalistmisrepresentationofhistoryandretainthoseelementsofthe
IndoAryan migration thesis that find support in linguistic, archaeological and other
scientificevidence.
Ratherthandefendinganypositiononthequestionofgeographicaloriginoradding
anothervoicetothedebateaboutthequalityoftheevidencefortheAIT,wewouldliketo
contributesomenewinsightsintoitshistoricaldevelopment.Thequestionoftheorigins
and persistence of the AIT is equally fraught with political overtones. In the wake of
EdwardSaidscritiqueofOrientalism(1978),manyauthorshavefocusedonthecolonial
motives of the nineteenthcentury scholars. Some, both academics and amateurs, have
arguedthatthetheoryservedtolegitimisethecolonialruleofIndia.3Whilethereistruthto
theclaimthattheAITwasusedtojustifythecolonialproject,itdoesnothelpusgraspthe
natureandoriginofthistheory.Theproblemwewishtoaddressisbestformulatedasa
contrastivequestion:whydidnineteenthcenturyOrientalistspostulatetheinvasionofa
SanskritspeakingpeopleintotheIndiansubcontinent, ratherthananyotherhypothesis?
Here, colonial motives fail to do the required explanatory work, since one can never

establishanyconclusivelinkbetweenthemotivesoftheOrientalistsandtheformulationof
thishypothesis.TolegitimisetheEuropeanruleofIndia,onecouldhaveconstructeda
varietyofhistoricalaccountsofthesubcontinent,drawingonnotionsoffalsereligiosity,
divineprovidenceandculturalorracialinferiority.Inotherwords,eventhoughthetheory
wasinvokedtojustifycolonialrule,thisfactcannotexplainitsemergenceandpersistence
inthehistoriographyofIndia.
Instead, we will argue, one has to circumscribe the conceptual conditions that
broughttheEuropeanOrientaliststopostulatingtheinvasion.Throughoutthehistoryofthe
sciences,theorieshaveemergedinresponsetoparticularproblemsituations:anewtheory
answeredoldquestionsthathadsofarnotbeenresolvedbyanyexistingtheory;itprovided
solutionstoempiricalanomaliesandconceptualproblemsofexistingtheories;oritwas
developed to account for new discoveries. Our analysis will focus on the following
problems:WhicholdproblemsornewdiscoveriesdidtheAITintendtoaccountforwhenit
wasfirstformulated?Whatevidencewasavailableatthetime?Whatweretheconceptual
conditionsthatmadethistheoryappearcogenttoEuropeanscholarsasanexplanationof
theancientreligioushistoryofSouthAsia?
Inourattempttoanswerthesequestions,wewillillustrateaspecificapproachto
studyingtheintellectualhistoryofOrientalism.WhilethisapproachalsohasrootsinSaids
work, it does not rely on the presumed motives of Orientalist scholars or on the
power/knowledgenexusofthecolonialstateinordertoaccountforthedevelopmentof
Orientalistdiscourse.Instead,itaimstoshowhowstableconceptualpatternsdeveloped
within the European descriptions of India, whose internal coherence depends on the

religious,culturalandhistoricalbackgroundofmodernEurope.Inordertoaccountforthe
emergenceoftheAIT,wewillargue,onehastoexaminehowinternaldevelopmentswithin
ChristiantheologyandEuropeanhistorygavestructuretoEuropesculturalexperienceof
India.

NATION,LANGUAGEANDRELIGION
Generally, the origin of the AIT is situated at the intersection of two discoveries: the
discoveryoftherelationbetweenSanskritandtheEuropeanlanguages,attributedtoSir
WilliamJonesin alecturedeliveredin1786,4 andthatoftheDravidianlanguagefamily,
firstmadepublicin1816byAlexanderCampbellandFrancisW.Ellis.Together,these
discoveriesaretakentohavegeneratedtheideathatoncetwodifferentpeoplesinhabited
India,SanskritspeakersandDravidians.
Severalscholarshavearguedthatthebackgroundframework,whichledOrientalists
fromtheselinguisticdiscoveriestotheclaimsabouttheAryaninvasion,wasthatofbiblical
chronology.Withoutthebiblicalpresuppositionthateachlanguageislinkedtoanationor
people,onewouldnothaveinferredtheexistenceofanAryanpeople. 5Attheendofthe
eighteenth century, the main concern of the comparison of languages was to track the
dispersalofthesonsofNoah.AsBryantnotes,theideaofonecommonsourceforall
languages,relatedtooneoriginalpeople,wasembeddedinthebiblicalversionofhistory,
inwhichNoahsthreesons,Japhet,ShemandHam,weregenerallyacceptedasbeingthe
progenitorsofthewholeofhumanity.BeforeBabel,therewasonehumanracespeaking
onelanguage,whichwasthendividedanddispersedovertheearth.Thistheme,even
4

whenstrippedofitsbiblicaltrappings,wastoremainthoroughlyimprintedinEuropean
consciousnessuntilwellintothetwentiethcentury.6
Thus,atthetimewhenWilliamJonesdisclosedthelinkbetweenSanskritandLatin
andGreekin1786,onealsopostulatedaconnectionbetweenlanguagesandnations.Jones
wasunambiguousabouttheprojectoftracingallthenationsoftheworldbacktothethree
sonsofNoah.7Heapproachedthelinguisticdiscoveriesasevidenceforacommonancestry
forIndiansandEuropeans,whomheconsideredtobedescendantsofHam(contraryto
mostofhiscontemporaries,whosawintheIndoEuropeansthedescendantsofJaphet).8
While the link between language and nation was indeed of import to the
developmentoftheideaoftheAryanraceorpeople,9wesuggestthatitfailstoaccountfor
theemergenceandpersistenceoftheAIT.MaxMller,thescholaroftenmisidentifiedas
thefatherofthetheory,hadalreadyexplicitlyrefutedthedirectrelationbetweenlanguage
andraceinhis ChipsfromaGermanWorkshop.10Peculiarly,thisaffectedonlythebelief
thatIndiansandEuropeansbelongedtothesamerace,whilethepostulateoftheSanskrit
speakingpeoplewasnotquestioned.TheexplanationofancientIndianhistoryintermsof
theinteractionbetweenthisAryanpeopleandtheDravidianaboriginalsremainedintact.
Thelinguisticevidencewasreplacedbyotherevidence,namely,dubiousinterpretationsof
theVedas,suchasthatofanasaasnoselessorspeechless,varnaasskincolour,ordasas
asindigenouspeople.11
Wewishtoemphasisethattheconnectionbetweenlanguageandnationwaspartof
atrianglethatalsoincludedreligion.ThesonsofNoahwereidentifiednotonthebasisof
linguistic similarities alone, but also resemblances in religion. Sir William Jones, for

instance,sawsuchresemblancesbetweentheritesanddeitiesoftheancientGreeksand
RomansandthoseofthemodernHindus,whichcorrespondedtothesimilaritiesbetween
theancientlanguagesofbothgroups.Heconsideredtheseasevidenceforthediffusionand
degenerationoftheoriginalreligiongivenbythebiblicalGodtoAdamatthebeginningof
humanhistory.12
Theimportanceofreligiontothepostulationoftheinvasionisindicatedbyseveral
facts.First,thenotionofaBrahmanicaltribeofforeignorigin,withitsownreligion,had
existedlongbeforethediscoveryoftherelationbetweenSanskritandLatinandGreek.In
the first half of the eighteenth century, several French clerical scholars had already
speculatedthattheBrahmins,theancientinhabitantsofIndiaortherepresentativesofthe
BrahmanicalfaithhadoriginatedasanancientEgyptiancolony.FatherCatrouhadreached
thisconclusionbecauseofsimilaritiesbetweenthemorals,religionandcustomsofthe
BrahminsandthoseoftheEgyptians.13 In1777,PreCoeurdouxhadproposedthatthe
BrahminsweretheprogenyofJaphet.Accordingtohim,itwasbeyonddoubtthatIndiahad
knowninvasionsofgroupscomingfromthenorthandthatoneofthesehadbroughtthe
Brahminsandtheirreligion.14 Fromtheendoftheeighteenthcenturyonwards,scholars
begantorefertotheHindus,thenationthatwassupposedtohavetheBrahminsasits
priestsandtheVedasasitssacredtexts.15EventhoughthediscoveryoftheIndoEuropean
languagefamilyinthisperiodgaverisetoaproliferationofspeculationsabouttheoriginof
the Sanskritspeaking people, this people continued to be called the Hindu or
BrahmanicalpeopleandSanskritastheBrahmanicallanguageortongue.
Second,theroleofreligionwascrucialinanothersense.Duringtheearlynineteenth

century,EuropeanwritingsincreasinglydescribedtheHindureligionanditscastesystemas
institutionsinventedbythecorruptBrahminpriesthood,whichhadimposedasystemof
sacredlawthatputtheBrahminsatthetop,theKshatriyasonerungbelowthemandthe
Vaishyas and Shudras even lower, while it excluded the untouchables or Pariahs.
Accordingly as this description gained popularity, European scholars began to see the
Hindusaseitherthefirstorthefirstthreecastesofthiscastesystem.TheShudras,then,
cametobeseenasthedescendantsofanindigenouspeople,whichhadbeenconqueredand
subjectedbytheHindus.Initially,ithadnotbeentheShudras,butthePariahs,whowere
identified as the aboriginals of India. This idea had already existed in the eighteenth
century,withoutbeingconnectedtoanyideaofaHinduinvasion.16 However,inthefirst
half of the nineteenth century, the hypothesis emerged that the caste system had been
established in India as the result of a Hindu invasion, represented most clearly by the
Brahmins,whohadsubjectedtheindigenouspopulationandabsorbeditasthelowestcaste
ofthesystem.
BETWEENPARISANDMADRAS
ThehypothesisofaHinduconquestofIndiacrystallisedintwodifferentlocationsinthe
earlynineteenthcentury.ThefirstwasthecircleofscholarsaroundF.W.EllisandColin
MackenzieattheCollegeofFortSt.GeorgeinMadras;whilethesecondwastheselect
clubofOrientalistsattheSocitAsiatiquedeParis.17
AnearlyinstanceoftheideaoftheinvasionisfoundinHistoricalSketchesofthe
SouthofIndia(1810)byColonelMarkWilks.FormerlyapoliticalresidentattheCourtof
Mysore,WilkswasappointedastownmajorofFortSt.George,thecapitaloftheMadras
7

Presidency. Based on his readings of the Laws of Manuthe dharmashastra text

identifiedbytheBritishasthesacredlawbookoftheHindusWilksintroducedthenotion
of a Hindoo conquest, which he saw as the cause behind the formation of the caste
system18.Hereferredtothetraditionaltaleofakingwhoinabout1450yearsbeforeChrist
hadreducedHoobasica,aHulliaorPariarking,andallhissubjects,toastateofslavery,
in which their descendants continue to this day. According to him, this story gave
groundsforaconjecturewhichmanycircumstanceswillsupport, thattheseunhappy
outcastsweretheaboriginesofIndia;andthattheestablishmentofcastswasnottheeffort
ofasinglemind,buttheresultofsuccessiveexpedientsforretaininginsubjectionthe
conquestsofthenorthernHindoos;forthey,also,areconfessedlyfromthenorth.19Wilks
mentionedtwonationsorpeoples,theHindusasopposedtotheaboriginalpeoplethey
weresupposedtohaveconquered;heidentifiedtheHindusasthesuperiorcastesofthe
castesystemandimaginedthattheestablishmentofthecastesystemwastheresultofthe
Hinduconquest.Exceptforthetraditionalstory,heneverreferredtoanyfactsandfailedto
mentionthemanycircumstancessupportinghisconjecture.
SomeoftheFrenchOrientalistshadcometosimilarconclusionsinthefirsthalfof
thenineteenthcenturyinParis,thehuboforientalscholarshipduringthisperiod.20Inhis
MonumentsAnciensetModernesdelHindoustan(1821),MathieuLouisLanglsexpanded
onthethesisofaninvasion.LanglswasastudentofSilvestredeSacy,theinfluential
scholarandfoundingfatherofthe SocitAsiatiquedeParis.Thesecondvolumeofhis
workcontainedanelaborateessayonthereligion,lawsandcustomsoftheHindus,where
he pitied them for being supplanted first by Muslim conquerors and then by English

merchants,similartotheancestorsoftheHindusthemselves,whonodoubtinadistant
past,sincethememoryofithasbeenlost,hadsupplantedtheindigenousinhabitantsof
India,ofwhichthecasteofPariahsprobablyoffersusthesadremains.21Withoutgiving
evidence,LanglsdescribedthePariahsasthedescendantsofanindigenouspopulation
conqueredbyHinduinvaders;heneverdefendedthisclaimabouttheHinduconquestofan
aboriginalpeopleintermsoflinguisticdifferences.
ToLanglstheseideasappearedtoreflectestablishedfacts.However,inareview
articleofthesamework,publishedbyAbelRmusatintheJournaldesSavansof1822,it
becameclearhownewthisideaofaHinduconquestofIndiaactuallywas.Rmusatwasa
foundingmemberofthe SocitAsiatique andwouldlaterbecomeitspresident.Inhis
review article, he mentioned the hypothesis of a foreign invasion as an idea of little
importance,butnotedthatthehypothesisatleastdeservedsomeelaboration,ifonlyfor
thesakeofitsnovelty.22.Fascinatingly,Rmusatgavethefollowingreasonforretainingthe
hypothesisinspiteofthelackofevidence:
Thisiswithoutadoubtonlyahypothesis,onethatisstrengthenedbyno
historicalmonumentwhatsoever;butwehavetoagreethatitoffersahigh
enoughdegreeofprobability,andthatitisdifficulttostudythesystemof
castes,andtoinvestigatetheoriginofthelawsthatthetwofirst[castes]
attributedtothemselveswithregardtothelasttwo[castes],withoutthe
ideaofaconquestpresentingitselftothemind,asawaytoexplainthe
excessive superiority of the ones and the extreme degradation of the
others.23
9

In the absence of any linguistic or archaeological facts that supported the hypothesis,
Rmusatstillconsideredthehypothesisunavoidableifonedesiredtounderstandthecaste
system.
Evenwherethehypothesiswasquestioned,itspotentialutilityasanexplanationof
theoriginofthecastesystemwasadmitted.InareviewarticleofatranslationoftheLois
deManou(1833),AlexandreLanglois,anothermemberoftheSocitAsiatique,wondered
whetherthelawsofManuandthecastesystemhadbeenimportedbythecolonythatisto
havecomefromthenorthwesttoestablishitselfinIndiainatimebeyondmemory.Have
they, he asked, been imposed on the indigenous people by a more powerful and
enlightenedconqueror?Or,aretheytheproductofanIndiansoil,theresultofaslowand
progressivecivilisation?Giventhefactthattheelementstodecideonthesequestionsmay
bemissingforalongtimetocome,Langloisfavoredthehypothesisthatthecastesystem
emergedasavariantofthenaturalprocessofgrowthofallsocieties,albeitconstrainedby
philosophyinthecaseofIndia.24
SimilarremarksarefoundintheworkoftherenownedOrientalistandprofessorof
SanskritattheCollgedeFrance,EugneBurnouf.InalectureontheSanskritlanguage
andliterature,BurnoufpresentedthehypothesisthattheIndianshadoncebeenforeigners
to their owncountry.25 Ifthisisthecase,headded,itis probablethattherehadbeen
original inhabitants of India, conquered by the currently dominant people. The most
important and selfevident factual evidence for this claim, Burnouf said, was the caste
system.
AccordingtoBurnouf,thefirstthingeveryobserverofIndiawouldnoticewasthat

10

underneaththeapparentunityrestsavarietyofdiverseculturalelements.Theunity,he
said,isprovidedbythereligiousandcivilinstitutionsthatwerespreadbyanenlightened
race.Thevarietyofculturalelements,ontheotherhand,reflectedtheremainsofthenative
tribesandnationsofIndia,whichhadbeenforcedtosubmitthemselvestotheunity.For,
heargued,thoserejectedcastesatthelowerranksofthesocialhierarchy,aretheyanything
elsethantheremnantsofaconqueredpeople?OnlythendidBurnoufprovidefurther
evidenceaboutdifferencesinlanguage,skincolourandcustomsbetweenthehigherand
lowercastestosupportthisconnectionbetweenthecastesystemandtheinvasionofan
alien people. It is important to note that Burnouf does not compare the skin colour,
languagesorcustomsofnorthandsouthIndians,norofthespeakersofSanskritderived
vernacularsasopposedtospeakersofotherlanguages,butratherthedifferencesbetween
the lower and higher castes of India. The hypothesis he intended to defend is not the
existenceoftwodistinctracesinIndiaassuch,buttheclaimthatthelowerandhigher
casteshadoriginallybelongedtotwodifferentraces.26
Towardsthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury,thehypothesisoftheAryaninvasion
hadbeenacceptedbymostscholarsofIndianreligion.Onlyoccasionallydidthelackof
evidencebringscholarstodoubtitstruth,butevenwheretheydidso,theyfailedtoreject
the hypothesis. One of these scholars was Mountstuart Elphinstone, the Governor of
Bombay.Inhisinfluentialwork TheHistoryofIndia (1841),Elphinstoneconsideredthe
lackofevidencefortheattributionofaforeignorigintotheIndians.Neverthelesshefelt
compelledtoacknowledgethattheideaofaninvasionwasaveryplausibleexplanationfor
theexistenceofthecastesystem.

11

BasedonhisreadingsoftheVedasandtheLawsofManu,Elphinstoneobserved
thatthethreetwicebornclassesformingthewholecommunitywereembracedbythelaw,
while the Shudras were in a servile and degraded condition. Yet, he pointed out, it
appearsthattherearecitiesgovernedbySdraKings,inwhichBraminsareadvisednotto
reside and that, as the code of Manu stated, there are whole territories inhabited by
Sdras,overwhelmedwithatheistsanddeprivedofBramins.27Heconsidereditimpossible
nottoconcludefromallthis,thatthetwicebornmenwereaconqueringpeople;thatthe
servileclasswerethesubduedaborigines;andthattheindependentSdratownswerein
such of the small territories, into which Hindostan was divided, as still retained their
independence.Notentirelyrejectingtheideaofaninvasion,Elphinstonesuggestedthatthe
conquerorscouldhavebeenalocaltribeliketheDoriansinGreeceormerelyaportion
ofoneofthenativestates(areligioussectforinstance)whichhadoutstrippedtheirfellow
citizensinknowledge,andappropriatedalltheadvantagesofthesocietytothemselves.28
THEDRAVIDIANDESIGN
ThediscoveryoftheDravidianlanguagefamilyistakentohavecontributedsignificantlyto
the formulation of the AIT. Drawing on the same belief that languages are related to
specificpeoples,thisdiscoveryistohavegeneratedthenotionoftwodistinctpeoples,
SanskritspeakersandthespeakersofDravidianlanguages.Whilethisbeliefwasindeed
indispensableforthedevelopmentoftheconceptofaDravidianpeople,wewouldliketo
suggest a different sequence. The discovery of the Dravidian language family did not
generate the ideaofan indigenous Dravidian population, butmerelyreinforcedit.The
notionofadistinctlanguagefamilyhadexistedpriortothelinguisticdiscoveryandwas
12

basedonthebeliefthattheShudraswereasubjectedaboriginalpeople.
Thoughnotyetconclusive,ourtentativeresearchsuggeststhattheinvestigations
intothesouthIndianlanguageswerestructuredbythesearchforevidencefortheexistence
ofanaboriginalpeople(ratherthanviceversa).Thepursuitofalanguagefamilythatcould
nothavestemmedfromSanskritwasinspiredbythedesiretoprovethatIndiahadonce
upon a time been governed by another people, with a different language and religion.
SimilartothewayinwhichthesearchforthesonsofNoahgaverisetotheprojectof
comparative linguistics, we propose that the hypothesis about the Hindu conquest or
invasionshapedtheresearchintothelinguisticdifferencesbetweenSanskritandthesouth
Indianvernaculars.
InhisrecentworkLanguagesandNations(2006),ThomasTrautmannpointsinthe
samedirection.ExaminingtheworkofF.W.EllisandhiscontemporariesattheCollegeof
FortSt.George,Trautmanntellsthereaderthathebeganhisresearchsupposingthatthe
Collegewasthecause oftheDravidianproof,inthesensethatitwasthesitewherea
synopticviewoftheDravidianlanguagesbecamepossibleandabodyofscholarswhohad
thenecessaryskillsfortheircomparisonhadassembled.29However,helaterfoundthatthe
DravidianideaisalreadyevidentinthereportthatproposedthecreationoftheCollege
[datedOctober20th,1811]andgaveititsstructure.Inotherwords,theCollegewasnotthe
cause of the Dravidian idea; rather, the Dravidian idea was the cause of the Colleges
structure from the outset.30 Trautmann thinks that the design of retrieving a common
structureinthesouthIndianlanguagesaroseoutoftheattempttoencouragethestudyof
southIndianlanguages.IntheplansoftheCollege,Ellisindeedarguedthatifonewould

13

study their common structure, this would help one learn any south Indian language.
However,thisdoesnotexplainwhyEllisexpectedandintendedtoidentifyasouthIndian
familyoflanguagesnotderivedfromSanskrit.
AcircularletterwrittenbyColinMackenziein1807givesanotherindicationofthe
factthattheideaofasouthIndialanguagefamilyprecededthelinguisticresearch.Inthe
circular,MackenziegavealistofDesiderataandenquiriesconnectedwiththePresidency
of Madras andTrautmann tells us that it included several passages onthe soughtfor
parentoftheSouthIndianlanguagesandtheirnonderivationfromSanskrit.31Thecircular
arguedthatitiscertainthattheHindulanguagesofthesouthofIndiaarenotderivedfrom
theSanscrit,anditisatraditionwhichthiscircumstanceconfirmsthattheBrahmans,with
theirreligionandlanguage,camefromthenorth.ThisbroughtMackenzietothefollowing
question:Isthereanytraceofalanguagewhichmaybeconsideredtheparentofthosenow
existinginSouthernIndia?Ifso,whatisitsname?Wherewasitvernacular?Andhowfar
has it entered into the formation of the other peninsular languages?32 Mackenzie also
believedinthedivisionbetweentheBrahmanicalpeopleandtheoriginalinhabitantsof
India. A few years earlier, he had already remarked that he considered the Brahmins
throughallthedifferentprovincesofIndiatobeofthesamefaircomplexionandcastof
features.These,hesaid,distinguishedthisclassamongnationsvaryingsomuchinboth,
astheTamuls,theTellingas,theCanarins,Mahrattas,andOrias.Thesefivefamilies,he
added,appeartocomposethebodyoftheoriginalinhabitantsofthepeninsula.33
Thus,MackenziescircularshowsthatheconsideredthestudyofthesouthIndian
languagesimportant,becauseofthesignificanceofshowingthattheywerenotderivations

14

from Sanskrit. In this decade, most scholars still believed that all vernaculars in India
derivedfromSanskrit.Atthetime,Mackenziesclaimwasaconjecture,forhardlyany
researchhadbeendone.Suchconjectures,asweknowfromthehistoryofthesciences,
generally take place against the background of a particular theoretical framework. The
circularandearlierwritingspointtothisbackgroundtheory:Mackenziewasconvincedthat
SanskritwasalanguagethatcametothesouthalongwiththeBrahminsandtheirreligion.
Hence,hisresearchdesignaimedtoidentifyalinguisticstructurecommontothesouth
IndianlanguagesanddifferentfromthatofSanskrit.34
ThisishowthepioneeringresearchintotheDravidianlanguagefamilytookoffat
theCollegeofFortSt.George.Thefirstworkpublishingtheresultsofthisresearchwasthe
AGrammaroftheTeloogooLanguage(1816)byAlexanderCampbell.Inthisworkwesee
veryclearlythatCampbellconsideredthethreeinferiorclassesorcastesinTelingana,
whichhespecifiesastheVelmawars,Comtees,andSoodracasts,tohavedescendedfrom
theaboriginesofthecountryandtohaveabandonedthecultureoftheirlanguage,with
everyotherbranchofliteratureandsciencetothesacredtribeoftheBrahmins.Thethree
inferiorclasses,headds,retainagreatdealoftheoriginallanguageofTelingana,andare
moresparingintheuseofSanscritwordsthantheBramins.35 ViewingSanskritasthe
languageoftheBrahmins,andthelatterasasacredtribeandthesuperiorcaste,Campbell
looked into the number of Sanskrit words spoken by the Shudras as compared to the
number used by the higher castes, both groups being Telugu speakers. According to
Campbell,theShudrasnotonlyusedlessSanskritwordswhenspeakingTelugu,butcould
also notpronouncetheseas fluentlyorcorrectlyas thesuperior classessuchas the

15

Vysyus,andpretenderstotheRajahcast.Thelatter,hesays,increasedtheiruseofSanskrit
termsinproportiontotheirgreaterintimacywiththeBramins,andtheirbooks.Vice
versa,theBrahminsdidnotquestiontheirpronunciationofpureTeloogoowords.Onthe
basis of these facts, rather than any salient structural difference between Telugu and
Sanskrit,heconsidereditveryplausiblethatSanskrithadoncebeenaforeignlanguagein
thesouthofIndia.36
The main argument to demonstrate that Telugu was not derived from Sanskrit
consisted in the reinterpretation of a classification used by the Telugu grammarians.
AccordingtoCampbellitiscertainthateveryTeloogooGrammarianconsidersthetwo
languages as derived from sources entirely distinct; for each commences his work by
classingthewordsofthelanguageunderfourseparateheads,whichtheydistinguishbythe
respective names of ... language of the land, Sanscrit derivatives, Sanscrit
corruptions,andprovincialterms.37Thedeshyaorlanguageofthelandcategorywas
interpreted as evidence for the existence of anative Indian language, distinct fromthe
Sanskritlanguage.ThesameargumentwasusedbyEllisinhisNotetotheIntroductionin
Campbellsgrammar.38
As Trautmann argues, however, Campbell and Ellis were misguided in their
interpretation of deshya words as words of a native language even though the Telugu
grammariansusedthisclassification.OneofthemostimportantadversariesofCampbell
andEllisatthattimewasWilliamCarey.Thelatterrefusedtointerpretdeshyaasanative
languagedifferentfromSanskrit.Careysanalysis,Trautmannclaims,wasinlinewiththe
viewofthePrakritgrammariansoftheTelugulanguage:Campbell,inshort,maythinkhe

16

isgivingtheplainmeaningofancientauthors,butheisreallyexpoundinganewideawhich
came about when the European and the Indian traditions of analysis came together in
BritishIndianMadras.39 This interpretationwasinspiredbythebackgroundframework
thathadEllisandCampbellconcludethattheintroductionofSanskritwordsintoTelugu
musthavetakenplaceinaremoteperiod:WiththereligionoftheBramins,thepeopleof
Tilinganacouldnotfailtoadoptmuchofthelanguageofthatextraordinarytribe.40
InhisBritishIndiainitsRelationtotheDeclineofHindooism,andtheProgressof
Christianity(1839),WilliamCampbellalsodisagreedwiththeopinionthattheSanskritis
theparentofallvernacularlanguages.Nothing,heargued,canbemorecertainthanthis,
that the Tamul, the Telloogoo, and the Canarese which arethe cognate dialects of the
peninsula,areofadifferentfamily,andhavenomoreconnexionwiththeSanskrit,than
theyhavewiththePersian,orArabic.Threekindsofevidenceexisted:(1)thefactthatthe
modernandvulgardialectsoftheselanguagesaremorerepletewithSanskritwordsthan
theirancientdialectsinwhichonescarcelyfindsaSanskritword;(2)thefactthatonefinds
intheworksofthenativegrammariansofIndiathesamedistinctionbetweenthesethree
languagesandSanskrit;and(3)aperceiveddifferenceinthekindsofwordsthatareusedin
Sanskritorinthevernaculartongue,thelatterbeingexpressiveofprimitiveideasandof
suchthingsasareusedintheearlystagesofsociety,theformerentirelybelongingtothe
sphereoflaw,literatureandreligion.Andinadditiontothistheconversationofthe
Bramins,aboundsmuchmorewithSanscritterms,thanthatoftheotherclasseswhospeak
theirowncolloquialdialectsbest,andwho,inattemptingtouseSanscritwords,oftenexcite
thescornandderisionoftheirmorelearnedsuperiors.41 Onthebasisofthisevidence,

17

CampbellsuggestedthatSanskrithadbeentransfusedintothevernaculars,implyingthat
thelatterwerenotderivationsbutdifferentlanguagesthatadoptedSanskritelements.This
argumentfunctionedasasteppingstonetothefollowingconjecture:
Themostprobableconjectureis,thatit[Sanskrit]wasthelanguageofthe
Bramins,thattheywerearaceofconquerorswhocamefromthenorth,
that they easily overran and subdued the continent of India, that they
engraftedtheirsystemofsuperstitionupontheidolatrywhichtheyfound
amongthepeople,andthat,asthesonsofBruhma,theyhaveretainedin
theirhands,thekeyofknowledge,andthereinsofgovernment.42
ThereisnorelationbetweentheevidenceandthisconjecturethattheBrahminsorreal
Hindooswerearaceofconquerors whosubjectedtheaboriginaltribes ofIndiato its
religionandlaw.Next,Campbellpresentedhisconjectureasfact,whenheexplainedwhy
theTelloogoo whichisspokenbythetribesofthenorth,ismorereplete,inthevulgar
dialect,withSanscritwords,thantheTamulandtheCanaresewhicharespokenfurtherto
thesouth,andtothesouthwest.Sincethelowerclassesofthepeoplearenowconsidered
theaboriginesofthelandandsincetheBraminsareconsideredaraceofconquerorswho
emigratedfromthedistantnorth,heargued,itwouldbeevidentthatthedialectnearerto
theseatoftheaggressors,wouldbemorelikelytobeaffectedbytheforeignlanguage.43
ThereweremoreOrientalistswhosharedtheaimoffindingasouthIndianlanguage
familyinthevernaculars:
YetifwecantracealanguagewhollydifferentfromtheSanscritinallthe

18

moderndialects,afterseparatingalsotheeasilyrecognizedimportations
bytheMahomedanconquerorsofIndia,itwillseemtofollow,thatthe
wholeregionprevioustothearrivaloftheBrahmanswaspeopledbythe
membersofonegreatfamilyofadifferentorigin.Thatfamilymayhave
beendividedintodifferentbranches;oneofthesemayhaveprecededthe
otherintheirmigrations,yetonenessoflanguagewouldseemtopointto
onenessinorigin,especiallysincebothhistoryandtraditionaresilentas
toanywidespreadinfluenceexercisedinancienttimes,byanyforeign
tribe except the Braminical. I call the Brahmans a foreign tribe in
accordancewithindicationsderivablefromthecastoftheirfeatures,and
thecolouroftheirskin,aswellasfromtheirpossessingalanguagewhich
none of the natives of India but themselves can even so much as
pronounce;andtheconstantcurrentoftheirowntraditions,makingthem
foreigntothewholeofIndia,exceptperhapsasmalldistricttothenorth
westupontheGanges.EveninthetimeofManu,thewholecountrytothe
southoftheVindhyamountainsandNerbuddariver,wasinhabitedby
menwhodidnotsubmitthemselvestotheBraminicalinstitutions,and
amongwhomheadvisesthatnoBrahmanshouldgotoreside.44

Inearlierarticles,theReverendStevensonhadalreadysuggestedthattherehadbeenan
aboriginalpeopleofIndia,withoutanyreferencetolinguisticevidence,butpurelyonthe
basis of evidence he saw of a religion nonBrahmanical in nature. Moreover, in his
linguisticresearch,Stevensonnotonlytriedtoshowthatthereisnoaffinitybetweenthe
19

southIndianlanguagesandSanskrit,butalsoarguedagainststructuralrelationsbetween
SanskritandHindioranyoftheothervernacularsofIndia.Thisboldhypothesiswas
followedbyatheory:

Thetheorywhichhassuggesteditselftothewriterasthemostprobable
is,thatontheentranceofthetribeswhichnowformthehighestcastes,
thoseoftheBrahmans,Kshatriyas,andWaisyas,intoIndia,theyfounda
rude aboriginal population, speaking a different language, having a
differentreligion,anddifferentcustomsandmanners;thatbyarmsand
policytheaboriginalinhabitantswereallsubdued,andingreatnumbers
expelledfromtheNorthernregions,thosethatremainedmixingwiththe
newpopulation,andbeingfirsttheirslaves,andthenformingtheSudra
caste.Thelanguageoftheseaboriginesissupposedtohavebelongedto
the Southern family of languages, the most perfect remaining type of
whichfamilyistheTamil.45
Theinvasionisnowinvokedasafacttoexplainotherfacts.Thistheoryabouttheorigin
oftheSudracastewassupposedtoexplainadifferenceingrammaticalstructurebetween
Sanskrit and the vernacular languages of India, including Hindi, a claim for which
Stevenson then produced linguistic evidence. Again this indicates how the linguistic
research of the Orientalists was shaped by a background framework that had already
postulatedtheinvasionofaforeignSanskritspeakingtribe.TheAryaninvasionwasnot
developedtoaccountfornewlinguisticdiscoveries;ratheritprecededandstructuredthe

20

researchthatgeneratedthesediscoveries.
ORIENTALISMANDTHEDEGENERATIONOFRELIGION
ToworktowardsabetterunderstandingoftheoriginsoftheAryaninvasiontheory,we
proposetoturntoS.N.BalagangadharasideasonthenatureofOrientalism.46Startingfrom
Edward Saids insight that notions such as the Orient exist as entities in the western
experience ofAsia,47 ratherthanasempiricalrealitiesinAsiansocieties,Balagangadhara
developsageneralhypothesisonOrientalistdiscourse.Hearguesthatsuch experiential
entitieshaveaninternalconceptuallogic,butthislogiccorrespondstothestructuresofthe
westernculturalexperience,ratherthantothestructuresofAsiansocieties.
Fromthisviewpoint,Orientalistdiscourseisabodyofreflectionsonthewestern
culturalexperienceofAsia,withthesalientpropertythattheyaremistakenforfactual
descriptionsofAsiansocieties.Theconceptualstructuresthatshapethiswesterncultural
experiencehavecomeintobeinghistorically,againstthebackgroundofreligious,cultural
andintellectualdevelopmentswithinEurope.TomakesenseofOrientalism,then,wehave
to trace how specific background schemes deriving from Christian theology and the
European cultural and historical experience constituted the necessary preconditions for
certaindescriptionsofAsia.
InordertoillustratethishypothesisonthenatureofOrientalism,wewillfurther
examinethecaseoftheAIT.Theaimofouranalysisistouncovertheconditionsthat
compelledOrientaliststoproducethistheory,ratherthananyalternative.Whilewedonot
yethaveacompletesolutiontooffer,wewillcharacterisetheconceptualbackgroundthat
madetheconjecturesofthenineteenthcenturyEuropeansappearsensibleandintelligible.
21

ThelinguistichypothesesabouttheIndoEuropeanandDravidianlanguagefamiliescannot
play this role,becausetheywereprecededbythebelief inthe invasionofaSanskrit
speakingpeople.Fromtheforegoing,weknowthatOrientalistspostulatedalinkbetween
thecastesystem,BrahmanicalorHindureligion,theSanskritlanguageandtheinvasionof
aconqueringpeopleintoIndia.Letusnowsketchdifferentpiecesofthepuzzle,eachof
whichisnecessarytoexplainhowthiscoherentpatterncameintobeingintheEuropean
understandingofIndianhistory.
Thefirstpieceofthepuzzleconsistsofthebiblicaltriangleofnation,languageand
religion.Fromthepatristicperiodonwards,Christianityhadtoldthefollowingstory:the
biblicalGodhadgiventheoriginalandtruereligiontohumanity,onlytobecorrupted
amongallnationsbythedevilandhisminions,untilitwasrestoredinHisrevelationin
JesusChrist.TogetherwiththebiblicalaccountaboutthedispersalofthesonsofNoahand
thefragmentationoftheoriginallanguage,thistheologystructuredEuropeaninvestigations
intoaliencultureslikeIndia.48Thishadthreeimportantconsequences:first,therewasthe
beliefthatallhumanbeingshadretainedtheawarenessofthebiblicalGodandthedesireto
worshipHimandobeyHiswill;second,thisledtothebeliefthatreligionexistedamongall
nations;andthird,anynonChristiansocietyhadtobelocatedsomewhereonascaleof
religiousdegeneration.
This Christian historiography produced a theological model for understanding
pagannationsandtheirfalsereligion.Drawinguponseveralsources(theOldTestament
descriptionofthenationofIsrael,covenanttheologyandtheunderstandingofpaganismas
afalsecounterpartofChristianreligion),westernChristendomhaddevelopedamodelthat

22

attributed certain properties to the nations of the pagan world. First,anysuch nation
wouldhaveacorruptreligionthatexpresseditsthirstafterthetrueGod,butmisdirected
this towards false gods. Second, this false religion would consist of human laws and
ceremonies,whichwereprescribedasthoughtheywerethebiblicalGodswill.Third,most
nationshadancientlawgiverslikeMoses,whoclaimedthatGodhadrevealedHiswillto
themintheformofcertaindoctrines,ritesandlaws.Fourth,theselawsandriteswouldbe
sustainedbyapriesthood,whichinterpretedandenforcedthelawsonthebelievers.
AfterthesixteenthcenturyReformation,thisconceptualmodelunderwentfurther
elaborationintermsofthetheologicalstrugglebetweenProtestantsandRomanCatholics.
TheReformationsclaimthatRomanCatholicismhaddegeneratedintoidolatrygaveriseto
identifyingthestructureoffalsereligionwiththepriestlyhierarchy.Thepriesthood,the
reformerssaid,hadledthechurchintofalsereligionbykeepingScripturetoitself,hiding
truerevelationbehindtheLatinlanguage,andinventingritesanddogmasasitpleased;all
thistomanipulateandexploitthebeliever.Thehistoryoffalsereligionwasconstruedasa
progressive degeneration caused by the accumulation of priestly additions to divine
revelation.49 Inthisway,theologicalandhistoricaldevelopmentswithinChristianitygave
risetoaconceptualmodeltomakesenseofthedegenerationofreligion,whichwould
determinetheEuropeanperceptionofIndia.50
Thistheologicalmodelconstitutesthesecondpieceofthepuzzle.Guidedbythis
model,theBritishmissionariesandOrientalistsbegantolookforthedoctrines,priests,law
books,ancientlawgiversandsacredcustomsoftheIndians.Theybelievedthatthenatives
wouldhaveretainedthedesiretoworshipthebiblicalGodandobeyHiswill,butthatthey

23

mustbemisguidedbysomeformoffalsereligion,whichhadbeeninventedbyanancient
lawgiver and enforced by evil priests whose power would depend on an edifice of
complicatedlawsandrites.Thismodelofreligiousdegenerationprovidedtheoutlinesfor
theEuropeanconceptionoftheheathenreligionofIndia.Bytheearlynineteenthcentury,
ithadsuccessfullyconstructedtheHindureligionasanexperientialentityandconceptual
unitintheOrientalistwritingsonIndia.51Thebasicmodeloffalsereligionhadcompelled
missionaries andscholars toidentify the Brahmins as the evil priests,theHindus as a
nation,Sanskritastheirsacredlanguage,theVedasasthescriptures,Manuastheancient
lawgiver,theManavadharmashastraasthecodeoflaw,andthecastesystemasthelegal
systemthatwasfalselyimposedasGodswill.52
Ourpuzzlehasmorepieces.Oneofthesewasthebeliefintheexistenceofanation
ofBrachmanes,whichhadsurfacedintheEuropeanliteraturefromthelatemiddleages
onwards.Inarecentarticle,RafGeldershasshownhowEuropeanmedievalscholarsdrew
uponatraditionoflegendarydialoguesbetweenAlexandertheGreatandDindimus,the
leaderoftheBrahmins,inordertospeculateaboutanobleandasceticBrahmanicalnation,
whichlivedsomewhereintheEastandpracticedapureprotoChristianreligion.Inthe
period before andfollowing the Reformation, anticlerical sentiment generated a second
imageoftheBrahminastheevilpriestoffalsereligionandidolatry,butthefirstimage
neverquitedisappeared.Severalattemptsemergedtoreconcilethesetwoimages:themost
popular solution was the story that, originally, the Brahmins had indeed possessed a
relativelypurereligionwithremnantsofdivinerevelation,but,inthefamiliarprocessof
religiousdegeneration,theyhadcorruptedthisreligionintoaconvolutedbodyofritesand

24

laws,whichtheyimposedonthebeliever.53Aswehaveseen,thenotionofaBrahmanical
nationofforeignstockhadremainedpopularamongeighteenthcenturyFrenchscholars
and wascertainlyoneofthebuildingblockscontributingtothebeliefthataSanskrit
speakingnationhadinvadedthesubcontinent.
ThelastpieceofourpuzzleliesinthestoriesthatdifferentEuropeannationshad
told about their origins.As Poliakov notes,after their conversion to Christianity,these
nationstracedtheirgenealogytodifferentbiblicalpersonaeand,fromthesixteenthcentury,
the historical truth of such genealogies became of increasing importance: each group
desiredtotraceitshistorybacktooneofthethreesonsofNoah.54 Commonalitieswere
lookedforandtieswerepostulatedbetweengroupsthathadhithertobeenunrelated.Inthis
attempttoconstructagenealogicaltreeoftheEuropeannations,largerfamiliesoftribes
andnationswereimagined,suchastheGermanicnation.Onedescribedthesefamiliesin
termsoftheintrinsiccharacteristicsofeachpeopleornation,suchaslanguageandreligion,
butalsophysicalappearanceandmoralqualities.
EspeciallyinFrance,seventeenthcenturyscholarsstartedtolinkthesocialposition
ofgroupsinsocietytothenationorfamilythatthesegroupshadoriginallybelongedto.
Thatis,socialclassbecameapropertythatsupposedlyallowedonetodistinguishdifferent
racesornationsfromeachother.TheFrenchnobilitybegantowritehistoriesaboutits
FrankishancestryanditsconquestoftheGalloRomans.Itselevatedsocialpositionwas
explainedintermsofthefactthatthenoblemenhadbeenFranksandbelongedto the
superiorandconqueringGermanicrace.Thelowerclasses,accordingtothisaccount,were
the progeny of the GalloRomans who had been conquered by the Franks. In the late

25

eighteenthcentury,whentherevolutionaryatmospherethreatenedthestatusoftheFrench
nobility,Poliakovsuggests,suchaccountsbecameparticularlyimportantindefendingits
socialposition.55Buildingonthistypeofaccount,nineteenthcenturyhistoriansconstructed
auniversalmodeltoexplaindifferencesinsocialclassintermsofhistoricalinvasionsby
foreign races. That is, one speculated that groups with a high position in society had
belonged to a conquering race, while the lower classes belonged to a different and
vanquishedrace.Totheextentthattheseconquerorshadintermingledwiththeoriginal
population,thisexplainedthedegenerationofthenatureoftheconqueringrace.56
Thismodel,whichbecamedominantinEuropeinthenineteenthcenturyaccording
toPoliakov,canhelpustomakesenseofthefactthatEuropeansweresocertaintherehad
beenanAryaninvasionofIndia,whentherewasnoevidenceforthisthesis.Lookingatthe
earlynineteenthcenturyversionsoftheAIT,wenotethatthesewereexplicitlyformulated
asanexplanationofthecastesystemandthesuperiorpositionoftheBrahmins.Inspiteof
theabsenceofanyhistoricalevidence,oneconjecturedthataninvasionofaBrahmanical
people musthavehappened,sincethiswastheonlywayinwhichtoexplainthesocial
hierarchy. Even before the discovery of the Dravidian language family or any other
empirical discoveries, the existence of a second, original people had already been
postulated. Conquered by the Brahmanical Hindus, the latter constituted the original
populationofIndia,whichnowformedthelowercastesandoutcastesofthecastesystem.
Towardsthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcenturythequestionalsoemergedastowhich
racetheDravidiansbelongedtoandwhattheiroriginwas.57Nomatterwhatracialidentity
or origin one put forward, however, the Shudras were considered to be the aboriginal

26

inhabitantsofIndiathathadbeenconqueredbytheAryans.58
Atthispoint,wecannotyetestablishhowexactlythesedifferentpiecesofthepuzzle
fit together. We merely intend to argue that this specific theological and historical
frameworkofEuropewasnecessaryfortheAITtobeformulatedandacquirethestatusof
established fact by midnineteenth century. By then, Orientalists had imagined a
degeneration of religion in India: from the relatively pure worship of Vedism, Indian
religionwassupposedtohaveevolvedtowardsthepriestlyBrahmanismoftheSanskrit
speaking people; Buddhism was taken to be a sort of Protestant revolt against this
Brahmanismanditspriestlycastehierarchy;buttheevenmoredegeneratedHindureligion
absorbedBuddhismandDravidianpopularreligionintotheBrahmanicalcastesystem.This
notion of a gradual degeneration of religion depended on the old Christian belief that
humaningenuityaddedevermorefalsitiestothecoreofdivinerevelation.
TheperspectiveontheancientreligioushistoryofIndiaastheamalgamationof
AryanpriestlyreligionandDravidianpopularreligionemergedfromthisnotion.Theseeds
ofthestoryhadalreadybeenplantedinBurnoufswork,whenhedescribedthevarietyof
religiouselementsinIndiaasremnantsoftheoriginalreligionofitsinhabitants.TheAIT
now became the framework for explaining the evolution of religion in India. The
degenerationparadigmlinkedtheevolutionoftheoriginalBrahmanicalreligionofthe
Aryanstotheabsorptionofelementsfromtheidolatroussystems oftheaboriginalsof
India.59FromVedismthroughBrahmanismtoHinduism,eachphasewasapproachedasa
progressivelymorecorruptvariantoftheformer,resultingfromtheabsorptionofaspects
frompopularDravidianreligions.

27

Adecadelater,MaxMllercoulddrawupontheachievementsofhispredecessors
topresentthereaderwiththematureversionoftheAryaninvasiontheory,whichwas
receivedasthedescriptiveframeworkfortheancientreligioushistoryofIndia.Thelatest
researchesofIndianscholarslikeWilson,BurnoufandLassenhadestablished,Mller
wrote,thattheBrahminicalpeoplehavebroughtatanearlyperiodthelightofcivilisation
intotheplainsofIndia;thattheirlanguagewasthelanguageofthenation,thoughvarying
indifferentpopulardialects,thattheirreligionconstitutedthegroundworkoftheIndian
worship,thoughmodifiedbylocaltraditions;thattheirlawsandmannersformedthesocial
tiesoftheIndianworld,thoughofteninstrugglewithheterogeneouselements.60
Bythemiddleofthenineteenthcentury,theAIThadbeenacceptedasthehistorical
andconceptualframeworkfordescribingandexplainingHinduismandthecastesystem.
EuropeanscholarshipputforwardanindissolublelinkbetweenBrahmanism,Sanskritand
the Aryan people, on the one hand, and the Dravidian languages and an aboriginal
Dravidianpopulationwithitsownpopularreligion,ontheotherhand.Fromthenonwards,
the development of Hinduism and the caste system was conceived as the result of an
interactionbetweenthesetwopeoplesandtheirrespectivereligions.
CONCLUSION
ThestoryoftheAryaninvasiontheoryrevealshowathesisthatreflectedtheEuropean
culturalexperienceofIndiagraduallytransformeditselfintothehistoricaltruthabout
India.Thisthesishadgrownwithinaspecificsystemoftheologicalandhistoricalbeliefs
thatEuropeanssharedanddependedforitscoherenceandplausibilityonthissystem.Its
fundamentaltheoreticaloutlinesreflectedthelogicoftheEuropeanculturalexperience,
28

ratherthananyscientificorempiricalresearchintotheIndianpast.
ThereisatragicparttothestoryabouttheAIT,butthisisbetterleftforanother
placeandtime.ThecolonialeducationalsystemplacedOrientalistdiscourseatthesame
levelasNewtonstheoryofgravitationandtaughtitasascientificdescriptionoftheIndian
subcontinent.Indianseducatedwithinthissystembegantoadoptthisdiscourseasthoughit
trulywerethehistoricaltruthaboutIndia.Theydidnotdosoaspassiverecipients,but
ratherbecameactivepropagatorswhoappropriatedthisdiscoursetofightthepresumed
historicalinjusticesofIndiansociety.InthesouthofIndia,politicalpartieswerecreated
thatclaimedtorepresentDravidianinterestsagainstBrahmanicalsupremacy.
MoreresearchisneededinordertounderstandtheeffectsofOrientalistdiscourse
onIndiansociety.Inthisarticlewehavepinpointedtheproblemstobeaddressedbyfuture
inquiriesintotheoriginsoftheAryaninvasiontheory.Thenineteenthcenturynotionsof
thecastesystemanditsrelationtotheHindureligionplayedafundamentalrolehere.In
ordertofullygrasptheconditionsunderwhichtheAITemergedandflourished,wehaveto
furthertracethedevelopmentoftheseentitiesintheOrientalistdiscourse:Whatmadethis
link betweenthecastesystem,HinduismandanAryanconquestsoselfevidenttothe
Europeanscholars?
TheimportanceofexaminingtheoriginsandnatureoftheAITliesintheimpactit
stillhasonthewayweunderstandthehistoryandsocietyofIndia.AsBryantremarks,in
almosteverythingSouthAsian,thereislittlethathasnotbeenpredicatedontheassumption
thatIndianculture,history,andreligionaretheamalgamofexternalAryanandindigenous
nonAryan characteristics.61 In response, Hindu nationalist authors have advocated the

29

claimthattheAryansarenativetothesubcontinent.Theseauthorsalsoacceptthetheorys
selfimageasahistoricalexplanation,butmerelydisputecertainelementswithinthesame
framework,suchasthegeographicaloriginoftheIndoAryans.Ifthistheoryreproduces
thespecificculturalexperiencethatEuropehashadofIndiaintheguiseofhistoricaltruth,
thenitishightimetotaketheongoingcontroversyabouttheAIToutoftherealmof
partisan politics. We not only need to reexamine the foundations of such historical
accounts,butalsotheframeworkbehindthecurrentunderstandingofHinduismandthe
castesystem,whichalsoemergedasapartoftheOrientalistdiscourseaboutIndia.

30

Bibliography
PrimarySources
Burnouf,E.DiscourssurlaLangueetlaLittratureSanscrite,PrononcauCollgede
France,JournalAsiatique,Vol.63(2),1833,pp.25172.
Campbell,A.D. AGrammaroftheTeloogooLanguage,CommonlyTermedtheGentoo,
Peculiar to the Hindoos Inhabiting the North Eastern Provinces of the Indian
Peninsula,Madras,1816.
Campbell, W. British India in its Relation to the Decline of Hindooism, Progress of
Christianity,London,1839.
Catrou,F.HistoireGnraledel'EmpireduMogoldepuissaFondation,LaHaye,1708.
Croze,V.La.HistoireduChristianismedesIndes,LaHaye,1724.
Ellis, F.W. Note to the Introduction, in Alexander D. Campbell, A Grammar of the
TeloogooLanguage,Madras,1816,pp.131.
Elphinstone,M.TheHistoryofIndia,Vol.1.,London,1841.
HerbertofCherbury,E.ADialoguebetweenaTutorandHisPupil,London,1768.
. Pagan Religion: A Translation of De religione gentilium, ed., John A. Butler,
Ottawa,1996.
Huet,HistoireduCommerceetdelaNavigationdesAnciens,Paris,1727.
Jones,W.TheThirdAnniversaryDiscourse,Delivered2February,1786,bythePresident,
AsiaticResearches,Vol.1,1788a,pp.41531.
.OntheGodsofGreece,ItalyandIndia, AsiaticResearches,Vol.1,1788b,pp.
22175.
31

. Discourse the Ninth. On the Origin and Families of Nations. Delivered 23

February,1792,in TheWorksofSirWilliamJonesinThirteenVolumes,Vol.3,
London,1807,pp.185204.
Lambert,C.F.Receuild'ObservationsCurieuses,surlesMoeurs,lesCoutumes,lesUsages,
les Diffrentes Langues, le Gouvernement, la Mythologie, la Chronologie, la
Gographie,... DeDiffrentsPeuplesdel'Asie,del'Afrique,&etdelAmrique,
Vol.3,Paris,1749.
Langls,L.M.MonumentsAnciensetModernesdelHindoustan,DcritsSousleDouble
RapportArchaeologiqueetPittoresque,etPrcdsduneNoticeGographique,
duneNoticeHistorique,2vols,Paris,1821.
Langlois,A.ManavaDharmaSastra,JournalAsiatique,Vol.68(2),1833,pp.14255.
Mackenzie,C.RemarksonSomeAntiquitiesontheWestandSouthCoastsofCeylon;
written in the year 1796, Asiatic Researches; or Transactions of the Society,
Instituted in Bengal, for Inquiring into the History and Antiquities, the Arts,
SciencesandLiteratureofAsia,Vol.6,1801,pp.425454.
Mller, M.OntheRelationoftheBengalitotheArianandAboriginalLanguages of
India, in Three Linguistic Dissertations Read at the Meeting of the British
AssociationinOxford,London,1848,pp.31950.
.ChipsfromaGermanWorkshop,4vols,London,186775.
Murr, S. LInde Philosophique entre Bossuet et Voltaire I. Moeurs et Coutumes des
Indiens(1777):UnInditduPreG.L.Coeurdouxs.j.danslaVersiondeN.J.
Desvaulx,Vol.146,Publicationsdel'EcoleFranaised'ExtrmeOrient,Paris,1987.

32

Prichard,J.C.TheNaturalHistoryofMan,4thed.,2vols,London,1855.
Rmusat,A.MonumentsAnciensetModernesdelHindoustan;parL.Langls,Journal
desSavans,Avril,1822,pp.22032.
Stevenson,J.OntheAnteBrahmanicalWorshipoftheHindsintheDekhan,Journalof
theRoyalAsiaticSocietyofGreatBritainandIreland,Vol.5,1839,pp.18997.
.AnEssayontheLanguageoftheAboriginalHindus, JournaloftheBombay
BranchoftheRoyalAsiaticSociety,Vol.1,18411844,pp.10326.
. Observations on the Grammatical Structure of the Vernacular Languages of
India,JournaloftheBombayBranchoftheRoyalAsiaticSociety,Vol.3(1),1849,
pp.7176.
Tindal,M.ChristianityasOldastheCreation,London,1730.
Wilks,M.HistoricalSketchesoftheSouthofIndia,Vol.1,London,1810.
Wilson,J.IndiaThreeThousandYearsAgo,theSocialStateoftheA'ryasontheBanksof
theIndusintheTimesoftheVedas,Bombay,1858.
SecondarySources
Allchin,F.R.TheArchaeologyofEarlyHistoricSouthAsia:TheEmergenceofCitiesand
States,Cambridge,1995.
Arvidsson,S.AryanIdols:IndoEuropeanMythologyasIdeologyandScience,trans.Sonia
Wichmann,Chicago,2006.
Balagangadhara,S.N.TheHeatheninHisBlindness...:Asia,theWestandtheDynamicof
Religion,Leiden,1994.
.TheFutureofthePresent:ThinkingThroughOrientalism, CulturalDynamics,
33

Vol.10(2),1998,pp.10123.
. Orientalism, Postcolonialism and the Construction of Religion, in Esther
Bloch,MarianneKeppensandRajaramHegde,eds, RethinkingReligioninIndia:
theColonialConstructionofHinduism,LondonandNewYork,2010,pp.135163.
Balagangadhara, S.N. and Keppens, M. Reconceptualizing the Postcolonial Project:
BeyondtheStricturesandStructuresofOrientalism, Interventions:International
JournalofPostcolonialStudies,Vol.11(1),2009,pp.5068.
Bryant,E.F.TheQuestfortheOriginsofVedicCulture:TheIndoAryanMigrationDebate,
NewYork,2001.
.ConcludingRemarks,inEdwinF.BryantandLaurieL.Patton,eds, TheIndo
AryanControversy:EvidenceandInferenceinIndianHistory,London,2005,pp.
468506.
Caldwell, S.L. Whose Goddess? Kali as Cultural Champion in Kerala, in Johannes
BronkhorstandMadhavM.Deshpande,eds,AryanandNonAryaninSouthAsia:
Evidence,InterpretationandIdeology,Cambridge,1999,pp.85106.
De Roover, J. and Balagangadhara, S.N. Liberty, Tyranny and the Will of God: The
Principle of Toleration inEarly Modern Europe and Colonial India, History of
PoliticalThought,Vol.30(1),2009,pp.11139.
DeRoover,J.andClaerhout,S.TheColonialConstructionofWhat?,inEstherBloch,
Marianne Keppens and Rajaram Hegde, eds, Rethinking Religion in India: the
ColonialConstructionofHinduism,LondonandNewYork,2010,pp.164183.
Elst,K.LinguisticAspectsoftheAryanNonInvasionTheory,inEdwinF.Bryantand

34

Laurie L. Patton, eds, The IndoAryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in

IndianHistory,London,2005,pp.23481.
.UpdateontheAryanInvasionDebate,NewDelhi,1999.
Emeneau,M.B.LinguisticPrehistoryofIndia,inThomasR.Trautmann,ed.,TheAryan
Debate,NewDelhi,2005,pp.2545.
.Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity: Theoretical Perspectives, in George
Erdosy,ed., TheIndoAryansofAncientSouthAsia:Language,MaterialCulture
andEthnicity,Berlin,1995,pp.131.
Erdosy, G. Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity: Theoretical Perspectives, in G.
Erdosy,ed., TheIndoAryansofAncientSouthAsia:Language,MaterialCulture
andEthnicity,Berlin,1995,pp.131.
Frawley,D.TheMythoftheAryanInvasionofIndia,NewDelhi,1994.
.HinduismandtheClashofCivilisations,NewDelhi,2001.
Gelders, R. Genealogy of Colonial Discourse: Hindu Traditions and the Limits of
EuropeanRepresentation,ComparativeStudiesinSocietyandHistory,Vol.51(3),
2009,pp.56389.
Gelders,R.andDerde,W.MantrasofAntiBrahmanism:ColonialExperienceofIndian
Intellectuals,EconomicandPoliticalWeekly,Vol.38(43),2003,pp.46114617.
Hock, H.H. Through a Glass Darkly: Modern Racial Interpretations vs. Textual and
GeneralPrehistoricEvidenceonAryaandDasainVedicSociety,inJohannesBronkhorst
and Madhav M. Deshpande, eds, Aryan and NonAryan in South Asia: Evidence,
InterpretationandIdeology,Cambridge,1999,pp.14574.

35

.PhilologyandtheHistoricalInterpretationoftheVedicTexts,inEdwinF.Bryant
andLaurieL.Patton,eds,TheIndoAryanControversy:EvidenceandInferencein
IndianHistory,London,2005,pp.282308.
Kak,S.VedicAstronomyandEarlyIndianChronology,inEdwinF.BryantandLaurieL.
Patton,eds,TheIndoAryanControversy:EvidenceandInferenceinIndianHistory,
London,2005,pp.30931.
Kenoyer,J.M.CultureChangeDuringtheLateHarappanPeriodatHarappa:NewInsights
onVedicAryanIssues,inEdwinF.BryantandLaurieL.Patton,eds, TheIndo
AryanControversy:EvidenceandInferenceinIndianHistory,London,2005,pp.
2149.
Lal,B.B.AryanInvasionofIndia:PerpetuationofaMyth,inEdwinF.BryantandLaurie
L. Patton, eds, The IndoAryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian
History,London,2005,pp.5074.
Leopold,J.BritishApplicationsoftheAryanTheoryofRacetoIndia,18501870, The
EnglishHistoricalReview,Vol.89(352),1974,pp.578603.
Mehendale, M.A. Indo Aryans, IndoIranians, and IndoEuropeans, in Thomas R.
Trautmann,ed.,TheAryanDebate,NewDelhi,1993,pp.4661.
Misra,S.S.TheDateoftheRigvedaandtheAryanMigration:FreshLinguisticEvidence,
in Edwin F. Bryant and Laurie L. Patton, eds, The IndoAryan Controversy:
EvidenceandInferenceinIndianHistory,London,2005,pp.181233.
Norman,K.R.DialectVariationinOldandMiddleIndoAryan,inGeorgeErdosy,ed.,
TheIndoAryansofAncientSouthAsia:Language,MaterialCultureandEthnicity,

36

Berlin,1995,pp.27892.
Poliakov,L.TheAryanMyth:AHistoryofRacistandNationalistIdeasinEurope,trans.E.
Howard,NewYork,1977.
Said,E.W.Orientalism:WesternConceptionsoftheOrient,London,1978.
Schwab,R.TheOrientalRenaissance:EuropesRediscoveryofIndiaandtheEast1680
1880,trans.GenePattersonBlackandVictorReinking,NewYork,1984.
Schaffer, J.G. and Lichtenstein, D.A. The Concepts of Cultural Tradition and
PalaeoethnicityinSouthAsianArchaeology,inGeorgeErdosy,ed., TheIndo
AryansofAncientSouthAsia:Language,MaterialCultureandEthnicity,Berlin,
1995,pp.12654.
.Migration,PhilologyandSouthAsianArchaeology,inJohannesBronkhorstand
Madhav M. Deshpande, eds, Aryan and NonAryan in South Asia: Evidence,
InterpretationandIdeology,Cambridge,1999,pp.23960.
.SouthAsianArchaeologyandtheMythofIndoAryanInvasions,inEdwinF.
Bryant and Laurie L. Patton, eds, The IndoAryan Controversy: Evidence and
InferenceinIndianHistory,London,2005,pp.75104.
Sharma,A.Dr.B.R.AmbedkarontheAryanInvasionandtheEmergenceoftheCaste
SysteminIndia,JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion,Vol.73(3),2005,
pp.84370.
Singh, U. TheDiscoveryofAncientIndia,EarlyArchaeologistsandtheBeginnings of
Archaeology,NewDelhi,2004.
Thapar,R.SomeAppropriationsoftheTheoryofAryanRaceRelatingtotheBeginnings

37

ofIndianHistory,inThomasR.Trautmann,ed., TheAryanDebate,NewDelhi,
2005,pp.10628.
Trautmann,T.R.AryansandBritishIndia,Berkeley,1997.
.Introduction:WhatIstheAryanDebate?,inThomasR.Trautmann,ed., The
AryanDebate,NewDelhi,2005,pp.xiiixliii.
. Languages and Nations: Conversations in Colonial South India, Berkely/ Los
Angeles/London,2006.
Wheeler,SirM.TheIndusCivilisation,SupplementaryVolumetotheCambridgeHistory
ofIndia,3rded.,Cambridge,1968.
Witzel, M.AryanandNonAryanNamesinVedicIndia,inJohannes Bronkhorstand
Madhav M. Deshpande, eds, Aryan and NonAryan in South Asia: Evidence,
InterpretationandIdeology,Cambridge,1999,pp.337404.
.Indocentrism:AutochthonousVisionsofAncientIndia,inEdwinF.Bryantand
Laurie L. Patton, eds, The IndoAryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in
IndianHistory,London,2005,pp.341404.
Zuesse,E.TheDegenerationParadigmintheWesternStudyofWorldReligions,Journal
ofEcumenicalStudies,Vol.13,1976,pp.1535.
Endnotes

38

SeeAllchin,TheArchaeologyofEarlyHistoricSouthAsia;Caldwell,WhoseGoddess?;Emeneau,

LinguisticPrehistoryofIndia;Erdosy,Language,MaterialCultureandEthnicity;Mehendale,Indo
Aryans,IndoIranians,andIndoEuropeans;Norman,DialectVariationinOldandMiddleIndo
Aryan;Wheeler,TheIndusCivilisation;Witzel,AryanandNonAryanNamesinVedicIndia,
Indocentrism.
SeeElst,LinguisticAspectsAspectsoftheAryanNonInvasionTheory;Frawley,TheMythofthe

AryanInvasionofIndiaandHinduismandtheClashofCivilisations;Kak,VedicAstronomyand
EarlyIndianChronology;Kenoyer,CultureChangeDuringtheLateHarappanPeriodatHarappa;
Lal,AryanInvasionofIndia;SchafferandLichtensteinTheConceptsCulturalTraditionand
Palaeoethnicity.
Bryant,ConcludingRemarks;Frawley,TheMythoftheAryanInvasionofIndia;Thapar,Some

AppropriationsoftheTheoryofAryanRace,p.108.SeeBryant,TheQuestfortheOriginsofVedic
CultureandLeopold,BritishApplicationsoftheAryanTheoryofRacetoIndiaforanoverviewof
theBritishandIndianapplicationsoftheAITincolonialandnationalistdiscourses.
Jones,TheThirdAnniversaryDiscourse,pp.42223.

Arvidsson,AryanIdols;Bryant,TheQuestfortheOriginsofVedicCulture;Poliakov,TheAryan

Myth;SchafferandLichtenstein,TheConceptsCulturalTraditionandPalaeoethnicity;
Trautmann,AryansandBritishIndia.
Bryant,TheQuestfortheOriginsofVedicCulture,p.16.

Jones,DiscoursetheNinth.

Ibid.,pp.1945.

ItshouldbenotedherethatintheearlyOrientalistwritingsthetermsrace,nation,people,tribe,

etc.wereoftenusedinterchangeably.

Mller,ChipsfromaGermanWorkshop,Vol.4,p.223.

10

Bryant,TheQuestfortheOriginsofVedicCulture;Hock,ThroughaGlassDarklyandPhilology

11

andtheHistoricalInterpretationoftheVedicTexts;Sharma,Dr.B.R.AmbedkarontheAryan
Invasion;Trautmann,Introduction.
12

13

JonesOntheGodsofGreece,ItalyandIndia;seealsoArvidsson,AryanIdols.

PreCatrou,HistoireGnraledel'EmpireduMogol,p.54;seealsoHuet,HistoireduCommerceet

delaNavigationdesAnciens,pp.367andLaCroze,HistoireduChristianismedesIndes,p.427.Both
authorsconsidertheIndiannation,withtheBrahminsasitspriesthood,tobedescendantsofthe
Egyptians.
Murr,L'indePhilosophiqueentreBossuetetVoltaire,p.18.

14

15

e.g.Jones,TheThirdAnniversaryDiscourse,p.419.

Lambert,Receuild'ObservationsCurieuses,p.37.

16

WhiletherearesignificantdifferencesintheapproachesoftheBritishandFrenchOrientalists,we

17

willfocusonthecommonstructuresintheiraccounts,becausethisallowsustogaininsightintothe
conceptualconditionsthatmadetheAITappearacogentaccounttobothgroups.Wewilladdresssome
oftheinternaldifferentiationswithinEuropeanOrientalismanditsunderstandingofIndiainfuture
research.
Throughoutthearticle,weusethetermcastesystemtorefertothehierarchicalsystempostulated

18

byEuropeanobserversasthesocialstructureofIndiansociety.AccordingtotheOrientalistaccount
thatcrystallisedinearlymodernEurope,thiswasahierarchyconsistingofthefourvarnasandthe
untouchables,whichhaditsfoundationsinIndianreligiousscripturesandwhichorganisedthe
relationsbetweenthedifferentcastesinIndiansociety.NotallEuropeanauthorsusedthetermscaste
systemandcastes,whichbecamecommononlyduringthenineteenthcentury;instead,theyuseda

varietyoftermsliketribe,nation,cast,class,etc.Evenwhereauthorsdonotthemselvesusethe
termcastesystem,weuseittorefertotheirconvictionthatthestructureofIndiansocietywasa
religiouslysanctionedhierarchyoffourvarnas,castes,estatesorclasses.
Wilks,HistoricalSketchesoftheSouthofIndia,pp.1501.

19

20

Schwab,TheOrientalRenaissance,pp.456.

Langls,MonumentsAnciensetModernesdelHindoustan,p.170.

21

22

Rmusat,MonumentsAnciensetModernesdelHindoustan,p.223.

23

Ibid.,p.224.

24

Langlois,ManavaDharmaSastra,pp.1434.

25

Burnouf,DiscourssurlaLangueetlaLittratureSanscrite,p.268.

26

Ibid.,p.268.

Elphinstone,TheHistoryofIndia,Vol.1,p.95.

27

28

Ibid.,p.96.

29

Trautmann,LanguagesandNations,p.130.

30

Ibid.,p.131.

Ibid.,p.177.

31

32

InIbid.,p.177.

33

Mackenzie,RemarksonSomeAntiquities,pp.42627.

AsimilarresearchagendawefindinthePlanforinvestigatingthelanguages,literature,antiquities

34

andhistoryoftheDekkanformulatedbyJohnLeyden.JohnLeyden,cametoMadrasin1803,worked
underMackenzieandwasafriendofEllis.InhisPlanLeyden,speakingaboutSanskrit,saysthatitis
notthenativeorindigenouslanguageoftheDekkanbutonlysuperinducedbythepropagationof
religionandforeignconquest(inTrautmann,LanguagesandNations,p.176;italicsadded).

35

Campbell,AGrammaroftheTeloogooLanguage,p.xv.

36

Ibid.,p.xvi.

37

Ibid.,p.vxiiiii.

38

Ellis,NotetotheIntroduction,pp.1121.

39

Trautmann,LanguagesandNations,p.165.

40

Campbell,AGrammaroftheTeloogooLanguage,p.xx.

Campbell,BritishIndiainitsRelationtotheDeclineofHindooism,pp.10910.

41

42

Ibid.,p.106.

43

Ibid.,p.110.
Stevenson,AnEssayontheLanguageoftheAboriginalHindus,p.104.

44

45

Stevenson,ObservationsontheGrammaticalStructure,pp.734.

46

Balagangadhara,TheFutureofthePresent;BalagangadharaandKeppens,Reconceptualizingthe

PostcolonialProject.
47

Said,Orientalism,p.1.

48

Balagangadhara,TheHeatheninhisBlindness.

49

e.g.HerbertofCherbury,ADialoguebetweenaTutorandHisPupilandPaganReligion;Tindal,

ChristianityasOldastheCreation.
50

GeldersandDerde,MantrasofAntiBrahmanism;Zuesse,TheDegenerationParadigminthe

WesternStudyofWorldReligions.
Balagangadhara,Orientalism,PostcolonialismandtheConstructionofReligion;DeRooverand

51

Claerhout,TheColonialConstructionofWhat?.
52

DeRooverandBalagangadhara,Liberty,TyrannyandtheWillofGod.

53

Gelders,GenealogyofColonialDiscourse.

Poliakov,TheAryanMyth,pp.1720.

54

55

Ibid.,pp.2231.

56

Ibid.,pp.224238.

57

AsUpinderSinghshows,severalarchaeologistsdevelopedthehypothesisthattheDravidianshad

comefromtheWestandbelongedtotheTuranianrace.Assuch,shesays,Turanianwasfashionable
inscholarlycirclesofthetimeandwasusedasacatchalltermtorefertosundrygroupsconsidered
nonAryan.Singh,TheDiscoveryofAncientIndia,p.70.
58

WecanseethisforinstanceinthefollowingquotefromthefamousarchaeologistsAlexander

Cunningham:HereIfullyagreewithDrCaldwell,thattheSudrasweremostprobablythepeoplewith
whomtheAryanscameintocontactinNorthenIndia.ButIthinkthathehasunnecessarilyhampered
himselfbysupposingthattheDravidiansenteredfromthenorthwest.Onthecontrary,Ibelievethat
theycamefromthewest,andthattheyweretheAccadorAccadians,abranchofthesouthern
Turanians,whooccupiedSusaniaandtheshoresofthePersianGulfandIndianOcean....InIbid.,p.
101.
59

Stevenson,OntheAnteBrahmanicalWorshipoftheHindsintheDekhan.

60

Mller,OntheRelationoftheBengalitotheArianandAboriginalLanguagesofIndia,pp.3256;

seealsoWilson,IndiaThreeThousandYearsAgo.
61

Bryant,TheQuestfortheOriginsofVedicCulture,p.310.