2) Aryan Invasion Theory

                      One of the main ideas used to interpret and generally devalue the ancient history of India is the theory of the Aryan invasion. According to this account, India was invaded and conquered by nomadic light-skinned Indo-European tribes from Central Asia around 1500-1000 BC, who overthrew an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization from which they took most of what later became Hindu culture.

                    David Frawley states that the war between the powers of light and darkness, a prevalent idea in ancient Vedic scriptures, was thus interpreted to refer to this war between light and dark skinned peoples. In the middle of the second millennium BC, a number of Indo-European invasions apparently occurred in the Middle East, wherein Indo-European people the Hittites, Mittani and Kassites conquered and ruled Mesopotamia for some centuries. An Aryan invasion of India would have been another version of this same movement of Indo-European peoples. On top of this, excavators of the Indus valley culture, like Wheeler, thought they found evidence of destruction of the culture by an outside invasion confirming this.(David Frawley[1]) 

                     The Vedic culture was thus said to be that of primitive nomads who came out of Central Asia with their horse-drawn chariots and iron weapons and overthrew the cities of the more advanced Indus valley culture, with their superior battle tactics. It was pointed out that no horses, chariots or iron was discovered in Indus valley sites. This was how the Aryan invasion theory formed and has remained since then. However new excavations have been done and new evidences have been brought into record. These excavations reveal that remnants of horses have been found not only in Indus Valley sites but also in pre-Indus sites. The use of the horse has thus been proven for the whole range of ancient Indian history.(Frawley)

                      The 'Rig Veda' describes Indra as 'destroyers of cities'. This was used also to regard the Vedic as a primitive non-urban culture that destroyed cities and urban civilization. The latest opinion is that the Indus Valley culture was not destroyed by outside invasion, but according to internal causes and, most likely, floods. According to the theory proposed in this book it never declined at all. The Indus sites are discarded burial sites and merely give an impression that these sites were destroyed by some invaders. This new hypothesis eliminates the ‘Dark Age Theory’ which is in current consumption.(Frawley)

                     The interpretation of the religion of the Indus Valley culture made incidentally by scholars such as Wheeler who were not religious scholars much less students of Hinduism was that its religion was different than the Vedic and more likely the later Shaivite religion. However, further excavations both in Indus Valley site in Gujarat, like Lothal, and those in Rajasthan, like Kalibangan show large number of fire altars like those used in the Vedic religion, along with bones of oxen, potsherds, shell jewellery and other items used in the rituals described in the 'Vedic Brahmanas'. Hence the Indus Valley culture evidences many Vedic practices that cannot be merely coincidental. That some of its practices appeared non-Vedic to its excavators may also be attributed to their misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of Vedic and Hindu culture generally, wherein Vedism and Shaivism are the same basic tradition. (Frawley)

                     According to the theory, which is currently in use, the Vedic people were nomads in the Punjab, came down from Central Asia. However, the 'Rig Veda' itself has nearly 100 references to ocean (samudra), as well as dozens of references to ships, and to rivers flowing in to the sea. To preserve the Aryan invasion idea it was assumed that the Vedic (and later Sanskrit) term for ocean, samudra, originally did not mean the ocean but any large body of water, especially the Indus river in Punjab. Here the clear meaning of a term in 'Rig Veda' and later times verified by rivers like Saraswati mentioned by name as flowing into the sea was altered to make the Aryan invasion theory fit. (Frawley.)

                      In his opinion David Frawley states that there is nothing in the Hymns of the 'Rig Veda' which demonstrates that the Vedic-speaking population was intrusive to the area: this comes rather from a historical assumption of the 'coming of the Indo-Europeans. Wheeler speaks of 'the Aryan invasion of the land of the 7 rivers, the Punjab', whereas David Frawley states that there is no evidence to conclude that there was an invasion. If one checks the dozen of references in the 'Rig Veda' to the 7 rivers, there is nothing in them to imply that there was an invasion in the land of the 7 rivers, which is the land of the 'Rig Veda'.

                       Aryan invasion theory is not good scholarship or archaeology but merely cultural imperialism. The Western Vedic scholars did in the intellectual sphere what the British army did in the political realm discredit, divide and conquer the Hindus. In short,  compelling reasons for the Aryan invasion theory were neither literary nor archaeological but political and religious. Such prejudice may not have been intentional but deep-seated political and religious views easily cloud and blur our thinking.
                       David frawley concludes that never there was any Aryan invasion in India, but takes a view that Indus valley culture itself is that of Indo-European people who migrated in to India much ahead of the presently accepted dates. In this book Indo European have been defined as the people those who have the genetic marker M-17, whereas the Indus people were Neolithic Anatolian farmers with genetic marker M-172. (See the Table-1: Human Migration details). That makes them they were Middle Eastern stock and not the central Asian stock.
                    Genetic evidences suggest that people with M-20 marker genes were the second group of people to enter India and they were living and multiplying in Turan basin 30,000 years ago, and this marker is found in high frequency in south India (i.e.50%). (Wells, 2003, p. 113) Hence it is reasonable to conclude that they were early pastoral Dravidians and they formed the basic strata of Indian populace of that time and were culturally interacting with Sumerian people as well as Turan people. Further the cultural interaction sphere as defined by Possehl clearly shows the similarities in seals and religious belief between Turan people, Sumerian people and Indus people. (L.Possehl, 2003, pp. 215-236).

                   From the facts narrated above it can be said that the language of the Indus priests  could have been  Sanskrit (as described in the chapter under Sanskrit) and the Rig Veda itself is the work of Indus priests and not the Indo-European people as imagined by various different authors. Wherein the Dravidian language was the language of common people and could have survived along with the Vedic language of the priests.