Summary
Ambedkar viewed the Shudras as Aryan and adamantly rejected the Aryan invasion theory, describing it as "so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago" in his 1946 book Who Were the Shudras? In chapter 4, he gives detail reasoning to debunk Aryan Invasion theory. He exposes the entire purpose, strategy and lie of this dubious theory.
Signup to stay updated.
Signup
Login
This may be a matter of surprise for the so-called Ambedkarites but this is a firm truth that Dr Ambedkar rejected and debunked AIT with facts and logic. When it comes to AIT, there are several questions which need to be answered by those who reject it. And Dr Ambedkar answered each and every question in great detail.
Ambedkar viewed the Shudras as Aryan and adamantly rejected the Aryan invasion theory, describing it as "so absurd that it ought to have been dead long ago" in his 1946 book Who Were the Shudras? In chapter 4, he gives detail reasoning to debunk Aryan Invasion theory. He exposes the entire purpose, strategy and lie of this dubious theory.
The Western writers have a definite theory about the origin of the Shudras. Though all of them are not agreed upon every aspect of the theory, there are points on which there seems to be a certain amount of unity among them.
They comprise the following : —
(1) The people who created the Vedic literature belonged to the Aryan race.
(2) This Aryan race came from outside India and invaded India.
(8) The natives of India were known as Dasas and Dasyus who were racially different from the Aryans.
(4) The Aryans were a white race. The Dasas and Dasyus were a dark race.
(5) The Aryans conquered the Dasas and Dasyus.
(6) The Dasas and Dasyus after they were conquered and enslaved were called Shudras.
(7) The Aryans cherished colour prejudice and therefore formed the Chatmvarnya whereby they separated the white race from the black race such as the Dasas and the Dasyus.
The foundation on which the whole fabric of the theory rests is the proposition that there lived a people who were Aryan by race. By making Rigveda as the foundation of his opinion, Dr Ambedkar made an observation that:
An examination of the Vedic literature shows that there occur two words in the Rig Veda—one is Arya (????) with a short ‘a’ and the other is Arya (????) with a long ‘a’. The word Arya (????) with a short ‘a’ is used in the Rig Veda in 88 places. In what sense is it used? The word is used in four different senses: as (1) enemy, (2) respectable person, (3) name for India, and (4) owner, Vaishya or citizen. The word (????) with a long ‘a’ is used in the Rig Veda in 31 places. But in none of these is the word used in the sense of race.
--chapter 4 , Who Were the Shudras
Thus Ambedkar argued that terms ‘Arya’ and’ ‘Arya’ which occur in the Vedas have not been used in the racial sense at all. Another point he mentioned that an?s in Rig Veda 5.29.10 refers to speech rather than the shape of the nose. Ambedkar anticipated this modern view by stating:
The term Anasa occurs in Rig Veda V.29.10. What does the word mean? There are two interpretations. One is by Prof. Max Muller. The other is by Sayanacharya. According to Prof. Max Muller, it means 'one without nose' or 'one with a flat nose' and has as such been relied upon as a piece of evidence in support of the view that the Aryans were a separate race from the Dasyus. Sayanacharya says that it means 'mouthless,' i.e., devoid of good speech. This difference of meaning is due to difference in the correct reading of the word Anasa. Sayanacharya reads it as an-asa while Prof. Max Muller reads it as a-nasa. As read by Prof. Max Muller, it means 'without nose.' Question is : which of the two readings is the correct one? There is no reason to hold that Sayana's reading is wrong. On the other hand there is everything to suggest that it is right. In the first place, it does not make non-sense of the word. Secondly, as there is no other place where the Dasyus are described as noseless, there is no reason why the word should be read in such a manner as to give it an altogether new sense. It is only fair to read it as a synonym of Mridhravak. There is therefore no evidence in support of the conclusion that the Dasyus belonged to a different race.
Dr Ambedkar even quoted Max Muller to strength his viewpoint. It is a general believe that Max Muller supported AIT, but it is not the complete truth. He evolved his views from Time-to-Time. As Dr Ambedkar quoted Max Muller [4], where he said:
There is no Aryan race in blood; Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to race. It means language and nothing but language; and if we speak of Aryan race at all, we should know that it means no more than… Aryan speech.
So Dr Ambedkar not only himself clarified with facts that ‘Aryan’ is not some ‘race’ but he even quoted Max Müller who agreed that ‘Aryan’ is not a race but speech.
Ambedkar disputed various hypotheses of the Aryan homeland being outside India, and concluded the Aryan homeland was India itself. According to Ambedkar, the Rig Veda says Aryans, D?sa and Dasyus were competing religious groups, not different peoples.
Login or Signup to share your views on this post.
Signup
Login