Note: Readers please click on the links to get details from reference material

Section – A: History of Acceptance and Assimilation in India

The Indian mind is broadly defined by the philosophy of acceptance and assimilation. This has been happening for many a millennium. Indian history often begins with the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization.

Although this concentrates only on the North-Western part of the subcontinent, the exciting finds have often diverted students from learning the happenings in the rest of the subcontinent. The finds in the rest of the country which are relevant to the study of the growth of Hinduism shall also be seen in this essay.
Keeping with the tradition, we shall look at the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization first. It was a complex civilization by which we mean that having mastered settled agriculture and then manufacturing, they were into a service-based economy with expertise in art, architecture and administration. The script found in the region is yet to be deciphered. However, the evidences presented by the unearthing of a large bath with bitumen sealed bottom, the statue of a bearded man clad in a decorative robe with the look of vested authority – indicating that he is either a ruler or a priest – and the remnants of what is believed to have been a temple with several icons in the vicinity1, show that temples could have been part of the civilization. The icons are clearly part of the religious tradition. How these are part of India still, we shall see now.

The icon of the figure seated in a yogic posture with a headgear adorned with horns, famously called ‘Pashupati’ or the Lord of Animals, is believed to have been proto-Siva. The headgear is believed to have transformed into the crescent later on. Some disagree, as seen in the referenced source above. However, the author desires to draw attention to the stark similarity between the figure and that of a popular present-day god Ayyappan. Ayyappan is also depicted riding a tiger, which is one of the prominent animals beside the yogi of Mohenjo-Daro. Therefore, the deity is still in vogue, whether or not the Pashupati figure represents proto-Shiva. The conclusion one draws is that the icon has survived until the modern day.
Pashupati-Ayyappan (source: Wikipedia)

The second point to be noted is the ‘yoga’ posture. Nearly all historians agree that the posture is yogic. Several other figures depicted in a similar posture have been unearthed in the various sites belonging to the civilization. This is a pointer that the ritual was practised at the time. For this difficult concept of self-control to be learnt, propagated and preserved, there has to have been a rigorous mechanism of transmission. Yoga is still practised. It is always associated with the higher realms and spirituality. In that way, it is part of our traditions until this day.Moortis or icons of gods and goddesses are an inherent part of the profoundly simple Hindu mind.

[Note: It has not been found necessary to do away with this form of worship by any of the great philosophers of Bharata. This is precisely because it is grounded in the psychology and working of the human mind. However, to a person steeped in Abrahamic religions, this appears strange although the fact still remains that even there, one finds the presence of some sort of symbol or another to meditate upon without expressly stating so. In this way, Hinduism is far more honest and makes clear the spiritual/inner path to the lay person].

The traditional use of the Sindur in the parting of the hair of married women has been proven to have been in use even during the Sarasvati-Sindhu era.

The fire altars of Kalibangan provide ample proof that rituals similar to the Vedic period originated well before they were textually documented in Sanskrit. These are practised even today.

Ritual ablutions are still a strong part of the Indian tradition. A bath everyday especially before offering prayers is a must. Temple tanks are found all over the subcontinent.

Nature worship is widely practised until today and is a vital part of temple architectural detail.

***

Now, moving over to the rest of the subcontinent, we shall see a few of the sites that have been lesser discussed than the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization.

Very early religious systems have left behind archaeological evidences right from the Mesolithic period dating about 11,000 years ago. A site in Baghor2 in Madhya Pradesh with a circular shaped stone platform with a polished stone in the middle has, unto the present day, its equivalent arrangement and worship in the same region. The special stone is representative of a totem, a very early moorti (statue or icon held with reverence for the virtues it inherently represents).

The Bhimbetaka paintings (c. 7000 B.C.) of central Madhya Pradesh represent religion through depiction of Yakshas, tree gods, the Sun and magical sky-chariots. These are among the only paintings that are not interpreted as part of daily-life. Yet, these concepts represent highly evolved human minds. [Note that the techniques used to make these paintings continue to boggle man until the present day]. One cannot help observe the close similarity of these concepts with the much-later Yaksha of the Mahabharata, the trees that were relieved of their curse by Sri Krishna and the Pushpaka Vimana of the Ramayana respectively.

The presence of cow dung ash mounds in Kupgal, a Neolithic site in the Central Deccan region of Karnataka, has been interpreted to represent the importance of cattle, ash and cow dung. These associations have continued till date. Rock ‘gongs’ for music are thought to have been used for rituals. Music, percussion drums (esp. In Kerala and Tamil Nadu) and bells (in lieu of the gongs) and religion continue to be inter-related to this day.

A more important find in the South was that of the urban settlement of Adichanallur (c. 1800 B.C.) close to Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. This discovery shows that urbanisation as a concept existed even in parts far-flung from the Sarasvati-Sindhu valley though it is in the latter that it shows highest maturity. In both the Sarasvati-Sindhu sites and the Adichanallur sites, the town-planning shows segregated settlements based on occupation. This continued on as castes until recently when it became independent of profession but remains simply lineage based.

In Adichanallur the burial-urn site with some personal belongings along with the people buried represents of veneration for the dead and belief in after life. These are still part of Hindu traditions.

The use of cow dung to coat floors in the site at Adichanallur continues to this day.

Figurines of the ‘Mother Goddess’ have been found all over the subcontinent. Until today we worship the Mother.

***

Section – B: The Invalidity of the ARYAN INVASION THEORY

Geographic mentions in the Rig Veda – the first among the surviving Vedas – refer to almost the same regions of the Sarasvati-Sindhu belt as the archaeological sites. However, the gods and the primary economic mode differ

starkly. Again, what happened of the urban civilization remained an enigma during the time it was discovered. Even before the discovery of the Sindhu sites, there were ‘scholarly’ theories of an invasion of the ‘natives’ by a more powerful ‘Aryans’. When the site was discovered, the Invasion theory was strengthened to provide an explanation to the death of the civilization. It also presented a ‘racial’ discriminatory platform to divide the subcontinent into the native ‘Dravidian’ and the foreign ‘Aryan’.

The Aryan Invasion Theory was reinforced at the time of the discovery of the site as the reason responsible for the ‘sudden death’ of the civilization. This has been largely ruled out now as many things do not fall in place, among the foremost being that there are evidences that the civilization did not die out suddenly but declined over several hundreds of years (the link I have provided here provides anthropological evidence of there being no sudden or large scale genetic changes in the region).

There are also many other reasons that the author wishes to present here.

  • 1. The pastoral immigrants who arrived (possibly) from Central and/or West Asia and/or East Europe, did not value land as asset as they were nomadic. They merely moved their herds to greener pastures. They did not conform to the urban culture.


  • 2. They did not have a developed money economy and did not value precious commodity that were possessed or traded by the inhabitants of the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization. Therefore, it seems presumptive that they had a reason to destroy an urban settlement that apparently posed no threat to them.


  • 3. Until very recently, nomadic tribes of India have successfully led lives of cultural isolation. It seems highly probable that the immigrants simply moved around the cities and villages and were culturally isolated from the civilized world until some of them gradually settled down and learnt agriculture and other advanced sciences from the hosts while assimilating and integrating the culture, language and philosophy of the two.


  • 4. The idea of the rich and the servile4 was present prior to the arrival of the immigrants. The archaeological sites show distinct settlements for different classes of people. This, very obviously, continued even after the immigrants began a settled life. The ‘Aryans’ and ‘Dasus’ referred to in the literary texts simply mean the ‘noble one’ or ‘Master’ and ‘servant’ respectively.


  • 5. Reference to ‘Dravida’ is clearly not racial. One explanation often quoted is that it could be linguistic that is presently South Indian. However, one senses that it could refer to a learned class as in ‘Druid’ of Europe. Here is the explanation in detail:


It has been hitherto argued that Dravida is the root to the word ‘Thamizha’ and explained as Dravida –> Dramila –> Thamila –> Thamizha. [One has this urge to provide the simile of the letter-change word-change that is often part of aptitude tests: ship-->slip-->slap-->clap-->clan but would ‘ship' therefore be the same as ‘clan' by the previous derivation?] One sees not even a single common letter between Dravida and Thamizha (when written in Tamil).


On the other hand, see the proximity of Dravida and Druid.

The reasoning is clear: The geographical connectivity of the regions to the South, the West and the North-West of the Himalayas makes it highly probable for peoples, cultures and languages to coalesce. Within this area, it seems very unlikely that the stark similarity in the names of two peoples is simple coincidence.


  • 6. Going by the above two points, Dravida was the learned class (not necessarily lineage based initially).


They comprised of (or later split into) two streams – the ascetic Sramanas (the Shamans) and the settled teacher-priest Brahmana (children of Brahma, of creation and learning; Abraham in the Middle East).


As well known, the Brahmanas were held in reverence for their knowledge and intellect. Often holding the advisory posts to the rulers, they wielded great amounts of power and privilege and this made them a feared people. The Druids were just as powerful in the Western world.


The Sramanas – the ones that exerted themselves to great extents – were held in high reverence and were the wandering teachers. Most of the great philosophies were crystallised by the Sramanas. They were the healers of body-mind-soul and lived a life of extreme self-deprivation. The similarity between Sramanas and the Shamans cannot be ignored.


The proximity in the roles of the Brahmana (Dravida) and the Sramana and correspondingly the roles of the Druid and the Shaman are highlighted and compared.


One does not know where any of these originated, but it was a pan South Asia-South-East Asia-Europe establishment but which Europe and South-East Asia lost consequent to the Christian and other subsequent persecutions.


Aryan was the rich warrior/trading class.


Dasu was the poor servile class.


Later these crystallised into Brahmana (Dravida), Kshatriya and Vaishya (Aryan) and Shudra (Dasu).


In short, these were all mere class/professional caste distinctions.


  • 7. Arya means ‘Noble one’ in Sanskrit. Ayya means the same in the South Indian languages and is used commonly in names by even those that have no exposure to any language outside their own. Why would one (lovingly) call a ‘Dravidian’ an ‘Aryan’ if Dravida and Arya were (antagonistic) race mentions?

The above points along with evidences that there was no abrupt decline of the civilization point to the fact that there was no ‘Aryan Invasion’ of any kind and the immigrants did not discriminate against the earlier inhabitants. Rather, the two integrated successfully into a megaculture.
References:

1, 3, 4 Harappan Civilization, Prabhat Kumar Basant (Ancient India – A Source book for Civil Services Examination – Publications Division, March 1995)

2 Himanshu Prabha Ray, http://www.ochs.org.uk/publications/multimedia/documents/HinduTemple2_Origins_HPRay_1106.doc

http://riverine.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/07/hinduism-through-history-part-2.htm