GO TO SOURCE


UNITED STATES, January 2, 2003: This lengthy article by Hari Chandra is a well-written rebuttal in response to “Hijacking India’s History,” an Op-Ed piece by Kay Friese, published in the New York Times on December 30, 2002. Mr. Chandra writes: “India’s Hindu nationalists have a rightful quarrel with the official history, which has for long been guided by colonial masters with their own agendas, racial, regional, religious and otherwise.” Among the many issues Mr. Chandra takes exception to is the Aryan Invasion Theory. He says, “The Aryan Invasion Theory, a favorite of professional secularists, is largely based on philology of Indo-European languages, and was dated around 1500 BCE by Max Mueller. The dating of the theory was arbitrary, and was acknowledged as such by Max Mueller himself later. Surprisingly, the roots of Aryan Invasion Theory are not found in any oral, written or archeological record of India, but in the European political discourse and more specifically, the German nationalism of the 19th century. There is no way to reconcile the philological assumptions and the anomalies and inconsistencies that crop up with the Aryan Invasion Theory. The alternate Indus-Saraswati civilization theory, on the other hand, posits that the Aryans were indigenous people, and the original habitants of the townships along the Indus, Ravi and Saraswati rivers, and that no invasion from outside took place during the Vedic times. Post-Vedic invasions did occur, and are well documented and are backed up with substantial evidence. This theory is backed by evidence, which is at least consistent, scientific and can stand up to critical scrutiny.” Mr. Chandra also addresses issues of religious freedom and the Godhra riots. To read Mr. Chandra’s remarks in full and the original Op-Ed piece, go to “source” above.

Post Views: 207