The validity of the idea of the Aryan invasion of the urban centers of the Harappan people leading to the final disappearance of their culture has been enmeshed in controversy, though it has been put to various uses by different groups of scholars and social and political activists. The invasion theory was first clearly expounded by an eminent British archaeologist who trained most of the first generation post independence professional Indian archaeologist, and remained more or less unchallenged in his lifetime. But during the last twenty-five years, especially after his/death, it has come in for much criticism. Some archaeologist – Indians in particular have criticized the theory with a vengeance as it were, tough in the Western academic circles the theory continues to occupy an important place. Both the critics and the defenders of the Aryan invasion (s) thesis have used all weapons in their armory to support their view. But their efforts have often been informed by political considerations.
Both in India and Europe, the Aryans have been thought of as a race in the genetic sense and have been credited with many cultural achievements. In India socio-economic reformers led by Dayanand Saraswati, who founded the Arya Samaj in 1875, laid stress on Aryan culture as the root of all Indian tradition and sought the sanction of the Vedas, the earliest extant Aryan literature, for their ideas. Some scholars continue to believe in pan-Aryanism and go so far as to claim that India was the cradle of world culture. Blind racial prejudice has led them to believe and propagate that every peak of Indian cultural achievement must be Aryan; accordingly the authors of even the Harappan culture have been taken to be the Aryans. This idea has always betrayed a strong upper caste Hindu bias, because the Aryans did not include the shudras and untouchables. The bias is glaringly evident in the activities of Hindu communal and revivalist organization in recent years. But from the nineteenth century itself Dayanand’s Arya Samaj came into being, there has been a sharp reaction to the upper caste orientation of the theory of Aryan race. A contemporary of Dayanand and a leader of the non-brahmana movements in Maharashtra during the Peshwar rule who founded the Satya Shodahak Samaj in 1873, Jyotiba Phule exploited the theory in a radical manner described in the brahmanical texts as Dasas and shudras, the real inheritors of the land. The ideas of Phule gave ideological support to non-brahmana movements in other parts of the country and played a progressive role in this time, though in contemporary India these many have been used, consciously or unconsciously, to justify frequent caste confrontations. In European countries, as in India, the Aryan concept has played a significant role since the nineteenth century much inspiration from it. The culmination of racism took place under the German Nazi regime which gave a hideous racial sanctioned the cruelest genocide in history. Although unfortunately, the concept, central to the pre-World War II fascisms, is being revived by a large number of racial hate groups mushrooming in different parts of the world even in our own time, in academic circles the whole concept of race based on skeletal measurements and colour (of the hair, skin and eyes) is now regarded in invalid. In view of the research in the biological sciences, it is extremely difficult to think of any ethnic group as having retained its purity of blood for any length of time.
The existence of groups of people speaking closely related languages, called Indo-European/Indo-Aryan, cannot however be doubted. Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, Germanic (German, English, Swedish), Slav (Russian, Polish) and Romance (Italian, Spanish, French, Rumanian) languages being to the Aryan family. On the that the original Aryans had a common homeland somewhere in the steppes stretching from southern Russia to Central Asia. From this region the Aryan-speaking peoples may have migrated to different parts of Europe and Asia. One of their branches migrated to Iran where they lived fro a long time. From the Iranian tableland they moved in the south-eastern direction towards India where they encountered the city civilization of the Indus valley. The dispersal of the Aryans in India was not a single event. It took place in several stages, covering several centuries and involving many tribes. These tribes were often considerably different from each other but, at the same time, shared many cultural traits.
In a sense the Aryan subjugation of the earlier inhabitants meant a reversal to a comparatively less advanced way of life. For the Harappans were culturally for more advance than the Aryans who figure in the Rig-Veda as destroyers for towns, not their builders. The chief Aryan god Indra is described as the breaker of forts (urandara) and is said to have shattered ninety forts for his protégé Divodasa. We are told that he ‘rends forts as age consumes a garment’. The Rig-Veda speaks of several ruined cities and associates them with earlier inhabitants of the area, presumably the Harappans.
The Aryans came to India as semi-nomadic people with a mixed pastoral and agricultural economy, in which cattle-rearing played a predominant role. Cattle formed their most valued possession and the chief form of their wealth; a wealthy person was called gomat. Prayers were made for the increase of cattle. The sacrificial priest was rewarded for his services with cattle, and the cow was the chief medium of exchange. Cattle were often the cause of inter-tribal wars. For, the word for battle came to be known as gavishti, literally, ‘a search for cows’. Several other terms fro battle like goshu, gavyat, gavyu and gaveshana were also derived from cattle. The social impact of cattle-raising can be seen from the fact that those who lived with their cows in the same cowshed came to indicate descent from a common ancestor and hence an exogamous clan unit. The daughter was known as duhitri, milcher of the cow. The cow is described in one or two places as not to be killed (aghnya), but his may imply its economic importance. It was not yet held sacred; nor had it become a politicized animal till then. Both oxen and cows were therefore slaughtered for food. Beef was a delicacy offered to the guest, described as goghna both for milk and meat. Not surprisingly a good quantity of charred bones of cattle and other animals has been found at several archaeological sties. Bhagwanpura and Dadheri in haryana where the post-Harappan cultural horizons coincide with the early Vedic period are cased in pint. Since cattle seem to have been tended by common hardsmen, it has been suggested that they were collectively owned by members of the tribe.
The early Aryans, who were essentially pastoral, did not develop any political structure which could measure up to a state in either the ancient or the modern sense. The Land of the Seven Rivers, the region of their initial expansion in the subcontinent, was held by small tribal principalities; few of them are mentioned as the panchajanah in the Rig-Veda. Kingship was the same as tribal chief ship, the term rajan being used for the tribal chief. Primarily a military leader, the chief of the tribe fought for cows and not territory. He ruled over his people (jana) and not over any specified are of land. He was therefore called their protector (gopa janasya or gopati janasya). The term gopati, basically indicating the protector of the herds of cattle, came to acquire the extended meaning of the protector of the people or tribe (jana). The world jana occurs twenty-seven times in the Rig-Veda, but janapada is not mentioned at all and the term rajya occurs only once. Yet the idea of territorial monarchy emerged towards the close of the Rig-Veda period when the chief/king (rajan) came to be looked upon as un upholder of the rasthra. Entitled to booty from successful cattle raids or battles, the kind could also receive gifts in kind. But his position was not beyond question. Very likely he owned his office to the choice of the people, though kingship was perhaps confined to certain families. Available evidence does not indicate the continuance of royal succession in one family for more than three generations. This suggests that the principle of hereditary succession from father to son was not yet established. The king’s authority was substantially limited by tribal assemblies like the sadha and samiti, which discharged judicial and political functions. The sabha was a council of the elder members of the tribe; perhaps women also attended it. The samiti was a general tribal assembly and less exclusive than the sabha. Another tribal assembly, the vidatha, also may have restricted the power of the rajan, tough its political role is not possible to determine precisely. His dependence on the priest, who was quite influential, perhaps further acted as a constraint on the chief.
It is likely that the early Aryans had some consciousness of their distinctive physical appearance. They were generally fair, the indigenous people dark in complexion. The colour of the skin may have been an important mark of their identify. This provided the context for the use of the term ‘varna’ (colour). Scholars of racist persuasion have blown this out of proportion to explain the emergence of the varna (caste) system. But the more important factor leading to the creation of social divisions was the conquest of the Dasas and Dasyus who were assigned the status of slaves and shudras. Tribal chiefs and priests who cornered a larger share of booty, acquired great power and social inequalities. The gift of slaves to priest was made frequently; most of them being female slaves could, however, be employed only for domestic purposes and not for agricultural production or other productive activities. But all members of even the priestly class were not fortunate enough to receive lavish gifts. No wonder then that the berahmana Vamdeva laments his grim poverty: ‘in the utmost protection; I beheld my wife in degradation….’ Another indigent brahmana humbly implore Agni ‘to accept his sacrifice of worm-eaten firewood, as he has no cow, nor even an axe’. We also hear of a brahmana who prays for the return of his wife forcibly abducted by the king.
In course of time the tribal society was divided into three groups warriors (rajanya/kshatriya), priests (brahmana) and the common people; the fourth division called the shudras appeared towards the end of the Rig-Veda period, the tern being derived from the name of one of the subjugated tribes. The fourfold social division into brahmana, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra as given religious sanction. A late passge in the earliest Veda tells us that the brhamana emanated from the mouth of the primeval man, the kshariya his arms, the vaishya from this thighs and the shudra from his feet. This may be a post factor rationalization of the occupations and of the position that the various groups came to occupy in the social hierarchy. But occupational differentiation did not always coincide with social divisions in the Rig Vedic period. We come across a family consisting of a poet son, his father a physician and mother a grinder of corn.
Unequal distribution of the spoils of war was certainly the basic reason for the emergence of the fourfold division of society. But the phenomenon was also linked with the process of assimilation of the aboriginal non-Aryan people by the various sections of Aryan society. In a passage of the Rig-Veda, Vasishtha, who replace Vishvamitra as the chief priest of Sudas and later came to be treated as the founder of a major brahmana gotra, is said to have been ‘born of the mind of Urvashi’, born also of a jar which received the combined samen of the tow gods; and discovered ‘clad’ in the lightning’ in a pushkara (tank). Modern racists may painlessly swallow the garbled version of his birth, which was evidently invented to gloss over his non-Aryan origin so as to facilitate his adoption into the Aryan fold. The same is true of Agastry, who is also said to have been born of a jar, involving no biological process. Several seers like Kanva and Angiras are described in the Rig-Veda as black, which points to their non-Aryan antecedents. Like the non-Aryan priesthood, some conquered chief were also assimilated and given high status. Such Dasa chiefs such as Balbhuta and Tarukha are said to have made generous gifts to the periest; they thus earned unstinted praise and gained in status in the Aryan social order. Even Sudas (literally ‘good-giver’) seems to have had a Dasa origin. The Rig-Veda does not throw any light on the process of assimilation of the pre-Aryan or non-Aryan commoners into the Aryan fold. Perhaps most of the ordinary members of the aboriginal tribes were considered to be outside the pale of the Aryan life and were reduced to the lowest position in society. Social distance between the Aryans and the ‘dark skinned’, full-lipped, snub-nosed’ non-Aryans increased over time. Not surprisingly they may have felt the need to retain the purity of their blood, little realizing that much non-Aryan blood was already following in their veins, just as some non-Aryan gods had wormed their way into the Vedic pantheon. For example, Rudra, whose arrows brought disease, evolved from a Harappan cult; so did Tvashtri (the Vedic Vulcan). A synthesis of Aryan and non-Aryan speaking peoples was taking place at different levels.
The Rig Vedic gods were predominantly male and was natural in a patriarchal society. Their favour could be won through sacrifice. A number of domestic and public sacrifices are mentioned in the Rig-Veda. A passage from this text tells us that creation emanated from the first cosmic sacrifice. Prajapati (later known as Brahma) is thought of as a primeval man. He is said to have been sacrificed to himself by the gods who were apparently his children; and it was from the body of the divine victim that the universe was produced. This underscores the necessity of sacrifice of the maintenance of the world order, but the real development of the sacrificial cult took place in the second phase of Aryan expansion in India.
Among the gods the most popular was Indra, who shared some of the characteristics of the Greek god Zeus. Always ready to smite dragons and demons, he is credited with the sacking of many cities and is therefore called Purandara (breaker of forts). A warlord leading the Aryan tribes to victory against the demons, Indra is described as rowdy and amoral, and as fond of feasting and drinking Soma, which was the name of the heady drink as well as of the Vedic god of plants. The largest number of hymns – some two hundred and fifty of them in the Rig-Veda is addressed to Indra. His servants were the Gandharvas (heavenly musicians). Their female counterparts were the beautiful, libidinous and seductive nymphs (assarasas). One of them, Urvashi, admitted to her earthly lover Puruvas that ‘friendship is not to be found in women’ and has been associated with some kind of hetaerism. Next in impotance was Agni, literally fire, who dwelt in the domestic hearth and acted as intermediary between gods and men; two hundred hymns of the Rigveda re devoted to him. Varuna was third in importance to both Indra and Agni, though he was the upholder or the cosmic order (rita). Surya (the sun), Savitri (the deity to whom the famous gayatri mantra is addressed), and Pushan (guardian of roads, herdsmen and straying cattle) were the principal solar deities. Vishnu, a minor god, also had solar characteristics and was believed to have covered the earth in three steps. Some of the gods may be traced back to the period when the Aryans had not branched off from the Indo-European community. Amongst them Dyaus (the heaves personified) was the father-god, but lost his position of prominence in the Vedic pantheon. Few goddesses find mention in the Rigveda. Prominent among them are Ila, Aditi and Ushas. The gods were generally not married. Their wives are called gnas collectively, which is reminiscent of group marriage prevalent among the Aryans at some stage.
Towards the end of the later Vedic period Vedic people moved further east to Koshala in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Videha in north Bihar. In course of this eastward movement they encountered copper using groups who used a distinctive pottery called the Ochre Coloured Pottery, as well as people associated by archaeologists with the use of Black-and-Red Ware. They now seem to have forgotten their old home in the Panjab. Rerference to in the later Vedic texts are rare; the few that exist describe it as an impure land where the Vedic scarifies were not performed.
According to one view the main line of Aryan thrust eastward was along the Himalayan foothills, north of the Ganga. But expansion in the areas south of this river cannot be precluded. Initially the land was cleared by means of fire. In a favour passge of the Shatapatha Brahmana we are told that Agni moved eastward, burning the earth until he reached the river Sadanira, the modern Gandak. There he stopped. In his wake came the chieftain Videha Mathava, who caused the fire god to cross over the river. Thus the land of Videha was Aryanized; and it took its name from its colonizer. The legend may be treated as a significant account of the process of land clearance by burning leading to the founding of new settlements by migrating warrior-peasants. Burning may have been supplemented by the use of the iron axe for cutting the forests in some areas. This metal is referred to in literature as shyama ayas (dark or black metal) and has also been found at excavated sties like Atranjikhera and Jakhera in western Uttar Pradesh and adjoining regions, whose dates fall in the time bracket of the later Vedic period. The number of iron agricultural tools and implants is less than that of the weapons. On this basis the importance of iron technology is facilitating the clearance of land has altogether been denied by some scholars who see no relationship between technological development and social change.
Settled life led to a further crystallization of the fourfold division of society. Initially one of the sixteen classes of priest, the brahmanas of society. Initially one of the sixteen classes of priest, the brahmanas embered as the most important class and claimed social and political privileges on account of the sixteen classes of priests, the brahmanas emerged as the most important class and claimed social and political privileges on account of the growing cult of sacrifice and ritual performed for their client and patrons (mostly the rajanyas/kshatriyas). The kshatriyas constituted the warriors class and came to be looked on as protectors; the king was chosen from among them. The vaishays devoted themselves to trade, agriculture and various crafts and were the tax-paying class. The shudras were supposed to serve the three higher varnas and formed the bulk of the labouring masses. Most likely the community exercised some sort of general control over them; in this sense they may be compared with the helots of Sparta. Shudras were not owned by members of the upper classes as slaves, the evidence for whose existence in the greater part of the Vedic period is lacking. A text speaks of ten thousand women slaves captured from various countries and given by Anga to his brahmana priest; but there is no mention of men slaves. Obviously their number was far too small to attract any notice.
With the emergence of the case system certain social norms developed. Marriage between the members of the same gotra was not permitted. This applied especially to brahmanas, who were by now divided into exogamous gotra groups. Members of the higher varnas could marry shudra women. But marriage between men of the lower orders and women of the upper varnas was dicountenanced. This was due to the gradual strengthening of varna distinction, which began to appear in social life. A special position was claimed for brahmanas and kshatriyas, distinguishing them from vaishyas and shudras—a tendency which became pronounced in later centuries. Although rules restricting inter dining between the higher and the lower orders had n9ot yet evolved, the first signs of the extreme form of social exclusion manifesting itself as unsociability in the subsequent times began to appear in this period; autochthonous people like the Chandalas and Paulakasas were objects of spite and abhorrence.
The family became increasingly patriarchal; the birth of a son was more welcome than that of a daughter who was often considered a source of misery. Princes could take several wives, though polyandry was not unknown. A reference to self-immolation by the widow at the death of her husband is found, and the origin of the later practice of sati has sometimes been traced to this period.
No comments:
Post a Comment