Ayodhya Dispute, facts and fiction

Until politicized by motivated pseudo-scholars no one disputed the basic fact that a temple had been destroyed to build a mosque at the site. Here is a summary of findings to date.

Navaratna Rajaram


The disputed structure

For all the sound and fury in the media about Ayodhya, the historical question is surprisingly simple: was there or was there not a Hindu temple at the spot known as Ram Janmabhumi that was destroyed to build a mosque? The answer is also equally simple — ‘yes’. There are two parts to the question: (1) was there a Hindu temple, and (2) was it destroyed and a mosque known as Babri Masjid built in its place. Again the answer is — ‘yes’ to both questions. It is as simple as that.

We should not allow ourselves to be diverted by the dispute whether Lord Ram was born at Ayodhya. It can neither be proved not disproved on the basis of existing evidence, just as we can neither prove nor disprove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Mohammed was born in Mecca. The point of this essay is the destruction of Ram Temple to build a mosque in Babar’s time.

There are basically two sources for studying the history: literary sources and the archaeological record. Following the demolition on December 6, 1992, a great deal of archeological and historical information has come to light. Thus, much of the published material, as well as the controversy about previous temples at the site have been rendered moot by new discoveries following the demolition. What is presented here is a summary of the latest evidence — literary as well as archaeological.

Literary evidence

The latest (fifteenth) edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in its article on Ayodhya tells us: Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babur in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple.” This is only one of hundreds of references to the destruction several languages. One recent author (Harsh Narain, below) cites more than a hundred and thirty references in English, French, Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian and Arabic. And I have identified several not found in his work.

The most comprehensive discussion of the primary material available is probably the book The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on the Muslim Sources by Harsh Narain. We next go on to examine several of these sources provided by Harsh Narain. When we survey this vast literature, we see that until recently, until the Secularists created the so-called ‘controversy’, no author — Hindu, Muslim, European or British official — had questioned that a temple existed on the spot which had been destroyed to erect the mosque. We may begin with a couple of references from European writers provided by Harsh Narain. These are from published sources that are widely available.

  1. Fuhrer (name) in his The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1891, pp 296-297 records: Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s Masjid [This is supported by archaeology, as we shall soon see.]
  2. H.R. Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 168-169, writes that the Janmasthan temple ‘was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque.’ Neville, in his Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 172-177 further tells us; ‘The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar’s mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation. [Again supported by archaeological finds.]
    In 1855, Amir Ali Amethawi led a Jihad (Islamic religious war) for the recapture of Hanuman Garhi, situated a few hundred yards from the Babri Masjid which at that time was in the possession of Hindus. This Jihad took place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. It ended in failure. A Muslim writer, one Mirza Jan, was a participant in that failed Jihad. His book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada was published in 1856, i.e. the year following the attempted Jihad. Miza Jan tells us:

wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the establishment of Sayyid Salar Masaud Ghazi’s rule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed muazzins, teachers and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs. Likewise they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama’s father. Where there stood a great temple (of Ramajanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, … Hence what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in 923 A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqqan! (Harsh Narain: p 105)

In fact, as late as 1923, the book Asrar-i-Haqiqat written by the Hindu scholar Lachmi Narain Qunango assisted by Maulvi Hashmi confirms all of the above details. The book leaves one with the impression that many sources were still available to them, especially to the Maulvi who served as Pandit Lachmi Narain’s munshi. This brings us to a Persian text known as Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa’ih Bahadurshahi written in 1707 by a granddaughter of the Moghul emperor Aurangazeb, and noted by Mirza Jan in his Urdu work Hadiqah-i Shuhada previously cited.

Aurangazeb’s ideology

Mirza Jan quotes several lines from it which tell us:

keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing attendance on Id days and waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer and keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadh (Harsh Narain: pp 23-24; emphasis added.)

Then there is the evidence of the three inscriptions at the site of the mosque itself, at least two of which mention its construction by Mir Baqi (or Mir Khan) on the orders of Babar. Babar’s Memoir mentions Mir Baqi as his governor of Ayodhya. Some parts of the inscription were damaged during a riot in 1934, but later pieced together with minor loss. In any event, it was well known long before that, recorded for instance in Mrs. Beveridge’s translation of Babur-Nama published in 1926.

Overwhelming as all this evidence is, the archaeological evidence is still stronger.

Discoveries at the site I: The Temple City of Ayodhya

Let us next look at what archaeology has to say about the Ayodhya site. The first point to note is that Ayodhya lies in a region that is generously watered, and has therefore been densely populated since time immemorial. As a result, archaeological work at Ayodhya is more difficult, and has not been on the same scale as at Harappan sites lying a thousand miles to the west. Here is what a leading archaeologist, Dr. S.P. Gupta (former director of the Allahabad Museum), has to say about recent excavations at Ayodhya.

From 1975 through 1980, the Archaeological Survey of India under the Directorship of Professor B.B. Lal, a former Director General of the Survey, undertook an extensive programme of excavation at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Ramajanmabhumi on which the so-called “Janmasthan Masjid” or Babri Mosque once stood and was later demolished on 6th December 1992.

At Ayodhya, Professor Lal took as many as 14 trenches at different places to ascertain the antiquity of the site. It was then found that the history of the township was at least three thousand years old, if not more… When seen in the light of 20 black stone pillars, 16 of which were found re-used and standing in position as corner stones of piers for the disputed domed structure of the ‘mosque’, Prof. Lal felt that the pillar bases may have belonged to a Hindu temple built on archaeological levels formed prior to 13th century AD…

On further stratigraphic and other evidence, Lal concluded that the pillar bases must have belonged to a Hindu temple that stood between 12th and the 16th centuries. “He also found a door-jamb carved with Hindu icons and decorative motifs of yakshas, yakshis, kirtimukhas, purnaghattas, double lotus flowers etc.”

What this means is that Lal had found evidence for possibly two temples, one that existed before the 13th century, and another between the 13th and the 16th centuries. This corresponds very well indeed with history and tradition. We know that this area was ravaged by Muslim invaders following Muhammad of Ghor’s defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain in 1192 AD. This was apparently rebuilt and remained in use until destroyed again in the 16th century by Babar.

Temple Ruins found at the demolished site of Babri Structure.

Excavation was resumed on July 2, 1992 by S.P. Gupta, Y.D. Sharma, K.M. Srivastava and other senior archaeologists. This was less than six months before the demolition (which of course no one then knew was going to take place). Their particular interest lay in the forty-odd Hindu artifacts that had been discovered in an adjacent pit that had been missed by Lal. These finds had been widely reported in the newspapers. Gupta, a former Director of the Allahabad Museum and an expert on medieval artifacts had a special interest in examining the finds. He tells us:

The team found that the objects were datable to the period ranging from the 10th through the 12th century AD, i.e., the period of the late Pratiharas and early Gahadvals. The kings of these two dynasties hailing from Kannauj had ruled over Avadh and eastern Uttar Pradesh successively during that period.

These objects included a number of amakalas, i.e., the cogged-wheel type architectural element which crown the bhumi shikharas or spires of subsidiary shrines, as well as the top of the spire or the main shikhara … This is a characteristic feature of all north Indian temples of the early medieval period and no one can miss it — it is there in the Orissa temples such as Konarak, in the temples of Madhya Pradesh such as Khajuraho and in the temples of Rajasthan such as Osian.

There was other evidence — of cornices, pillar capitals, mouldings, door jambs with floral patterns and others — leaving little doubt regarding the existence of a 10th – 12th century temple complex at the site of Ayodhya. So B.B. Lal had been right in believing there was an earlier temple — prior to the one destroyed by Babar. More discoveries were made following the demolition of December 6. All these discoveries leave no doubt at all about the true picture.

So archaeology also leaves little doubt about the existence of the prior temple. Then came the explosion of December 6, 1992, which demolished not only the Babri Masjid but also the whole case of the Secularists and their allies. It revealed a major inscription that settled the question once and for all.

Discoveries at the site II: the Hari-Vishnu inscription

The demolition on December 6, 1992 changed the picture dramatically, providing further support to the traditional accounts — both Hindu and Muslim. Some of the kar-sevaks, no doubt influenced by all the publicity about history and archaeology, went on to pick up more than two hundred pieces of stone slabs with writing upon them. A few of these proved to belong to extremely important inscriptions, more than a thousand years old. In effect, the kar-sevaks had done what archaeologists should have done years ago; they had unearthed important inscriptions — in howsoever a crude form — something that should have been done years ago by professional historians and archaeologists. The inscriptions, even the few that have been read so far, shed a great deal of light on the history of not only Ayodhya and its environs, but all of North India in the early Medieval, and even the late ancient period. Here is what S.P. Gupta found upon examining the two-hundred and fifty or so stone pieces with writing upon them. The most important of these deciphered so far is the Hari-Vishnu inscription that clinches the whole issue of the temple. It is written in 12th century AD Devanagari script and belongs therefore to the period before the onslaught of the Ghorids (1192 AD and later). Gupta tells us:

This inscription, running in as many as 20 lines, is found engraved on a 5 ft. long, 2 ft. broad and 2.5 inches thick slab of buff sandstone, apparently a very heavy tablet … Three-fourths of the tablet is found obliterated anciently. The last line is also not complete since it was anciently subjected to chipping off. A portion of the central part is found battered, maybe someone tried to deface it anciently. The patination [tarnishing including wearout] is, however, uniform all over the surface, even in areas where once there were inscriptions. (In The Ayodhya Reference: pp 117-18)

Gupta is an archaeologist and not an epigraphist trained to read ancient inscriptions. It was later examined by Ajay Mitra Shastri, Chairman of the Epigraphical Society of India who gave the following summary. What the inscription tells us is of monumental significance to the history of Medieval India.

The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a very small portion in prose, and is engraved in chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. It has yet to be fully deciphered, but the portions which have been fully deciphered and read are of great historical significance and value … [It has since been fully deciphered.] It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stones … , and beautified with a golden spire … unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings … This wonderful temple … was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in Saketamandala. … Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali … and the ten headed personage (Dashanana, i.e., Ravana). (op. cit. 119; emphasis mine. Original Sanskrit quotes given by Shastri have been left out.)

Need we say more — a temple for Hari-Vishnu who killed the ten-headed Ravana, in the temple city of Ayodhya? So Ayodhya was known as a temple city even then; Saketa was the ancient name of the district. The inscription confirms what archaeologists Lal and Gupta had earlier found about the existence of a temple complex. And yet the Secularists and their allies have been telling the world that there was no temple!

Summary of findings

We may now sum up the findings based on both literary and archaeological/epigraphic evidence:

   1. All the literary sources without exception, until the Secularists began their negationist masquerade, are unanimous that a Rama temple existed at the site known since time immemorial as Rama Janmabhumi.
   2. Archaeology confirms the existence of temples going back to Kushan times, or about 2000 years. This date may well be extended by future excavations assuming that such excavations will be permitted by politicians.
   3. Archaeology records at least two temple destructions: the first in the 12th-13th century; the second, later, in all probability in the 16th. This agrees well with history and tradition that were temple destructions following the Ghorid invasions (after 1192 AD) and restored, and was destroyed again in 1528 by Babar who replaced it with a mosque. This is the famous — or infamous — Babri Masjid that was demolished by kar-sevaks on
ecember 6, 1992.
   4. A large inscription discovered at the site dating to 11th-12th century records the existence of numerous temples including a magnificent one in which Hari-Vishnu was honored as destroyer of the ten-headed Ravana. Ayodhya was always known as a temple city.

These facts drawing upon several literary and archaeological sources leave no doubt at all that a temple located at a site sacred to the Hindus was destroyed to build a mosque under Babar’s express orders.


The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New

Delhi:Voice of India. Ayodhya and the Future of India. 1993. Edited by Jitendra

Bajaj. Madras: Centre for Policy Studies.

Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. 1996. Edited, translated and

annotated by Wheeler M. Thacktson. New York and London: Oxford University Press.

Elst, Koenraad. 1990. Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid. New Delhi: Voice of India.

Goel, Sita Ram. 1991. Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them. Volume I (A

Preliminary Survey). New Delhi: Voice of India.

Goel, Sita Ram. 1991. Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them. Volume II (The

Islamic Evidence). New Delhi: Voice of India.

Harsh Narain. 1993. The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources.

Delhi: Penman Publishers.

Rajaram, N.S. (1998). A Hindu View of the World: Essays in the Intellectual Kshatriya

Tradition. New Delhi: Voice of India.

Rajaram, N.S. (2000). Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New



The Rigveda is replete with oceanic symbolism suggesting its creators were familiar with the ocean and maritime activity.

 Navaratna Rajaram



            For well over a century Indologists have insisted that the Vedas and its language were brought by a race of nomadic invaders (the notorious Aryans) from some land locked regions of Central Asia or Eurasia and the Indian Civilization was largely land base. Some have gone so far as to claim that the Vedic people had no knowledge of the sea.

Of late, some scholars (notably Sanjeev Sanyal) have questioned this formulation, highlighting the role of maritime activity in Indian history and its close ties with East Asian lands.


What is interesting is that the Vedas themselves show great familiarity with the ocean and maritime activity. This is not surprising since our African ancestors had to negotiate the oceans in order to reach India, This is what is presented here.

 Rigveda and the image of the ocean

The verdict of archaeology is therefore clear: Vedic literature must be placed before the drying up of the Sarasvati region.

Secondarily, the Indus civilization, which in reality was an extension of the Sarasvati civilization, should be seen as Vedic.

All evidence from literature to natural history strongly supports this finding. Unless some incontrovertible

evidence can be found to support it, the idea of the Dravidian-

Aryan conflict must be seen as no more than an academic fantasy

that still awaits evidence. Since this theory is the creation of linguists,

the same linguistic arguments cannot be accepted as its proof.

To avoid circularity, the evidence for the proof must be independent

of the theory. This could take the form of the decipherment of the

Indus script showing the language to be proto-Dravidian totally

independent of Sanskrit. Until that time, the Aryan-Dravidian

divide must be regarded as an unproved linguistic theory or

conjecture. No theory can ever be accepted as its own proof.

It is not only linguistic evidence that has gone towards the

creation of the historical model of the Aryan invasion of India,

but also literary interpretations of the Vedic literature, notably the

hymns of the Rigveda. Scholars who subscribe to this theory,

just as they are not linguists, for the most part, they are also not

Vedic scholars. As a result, they are forced to build their models

by drawing upon the translations of the Vedic literature available

to them. The best known translations in English are the ones by

Max Muller and Griffith, the former in prose and the latter in

verse. But for this difference, there is little to choose between the

two from an interpretive point of view: They are both more than

a hundred years old and also they both lean heavily upon the

medieval Indian scholiast and commentator Sayana. (Max

Muller’s translation was only of some fragments of the Rigveda but it

was highly influential and went on to set the tone for all

subsequent interpretations and translations in the West.)

Here lies the first difficulty: Sayana belonged to the

Yajurvedic school of Brahmins, a fact that heavily colors his

Rigvedic interpretations and commentary. The Yajurveda is

primarily a book of ritual, and this fact resulted in Sayana

imposing a ritualistic interpretation on the Rigveda. But he

faithfully notes that other (non-ritualistic) interpretations are also

possible and exist. But modern scholars lack this humility and insist on the correctness of their interpretations.

European scholars, however, have adopted Sayana’s point of

view in their translations, and historians following their lead have

implicitly assumed that they really have the true sense of the

Rigveda. To take just one example, historians accept Griffith’s

(and Max Muller’s) reading that the Rigveda describes

northwestern India and Afghanistan, and that it does not know the

ocean. This, as we shall soon see, is an extraordinary assumption

that is contradicted by the Rigveda itself. (Sayana on the other

hand makes no such assumptions.)

From our present vantage position, we can see that these

translators were unable to gain mastery of the Veda in all its

fullness, and struggled to render only the textual portion, leaning

heavily upon Sayana for help. Lacking the traditional Vedic

schooling they probably had little choice. Thus gross errors of

interpretation are only to be expected. But they compounded the

problem with an artifice of their own making: They assumed that

the authors of the Rigveda, the Vedic Aryans, were nomadic

barbarians from the steppes of Central Asia. A result of this

preconception is the assertion that they were therefore unfamiliar

with the ocean. It is claimed by scholars of this school, including

historians, that the ocean is unknown to the Rigveda. Since this

interpretation holds the key to the Aryan invasion theory, it is

worth a serious look.

A commonly used word for ocean in all Indian languages is

samudra, a word that occurs very frequently in the Rigveda.

Scholars have tried to explain this away by claiming that this is to

be taken generically in the sense of any body of water, just as the

word sindhu can mean any river. The word sindhu can mean

either river or ocean, but we have not found a single passage

where the meaning ocean for samudra does not make sense. In

fact, in an overwhelming majority of cases, samudra can only

mean ocean or sea. We reproduce below a few examples taken

from several books of the Rigveda. For a more comprehensive

discussion of the same topic, the interested reader is directed to

Frawley (1991).

We begin with the following remarkable verse by Sunahsepa,

a characteristic example of the Rigvedic style in which empirical

natural laws are couched in poetic imagery. In this case it ties the

path of migratory birds to seasonal marine winds. (Translations

by Rajaram)

He who knows the path of the birds flying in the sky, he knows the

course of the ocean-going ships.

RV, I.25.7

North India is a land of great rivers. It was therefore natural

for the Vedic Aryans to use images of rivers and oceans. Since

historians and linguists claim that the Aryans were unfamiliar

with the ocean, and that the word samudra should be read as river

or any body of water, we cite below examples in which the

images of oceans as well as rivers are used to telling effect. Using

both samudra and sindhu in the same context to mean the same

thing does not seem plausible.

The flow of our devotions hasten to him, like rivers to a vast ocean.

RV, I.52.4

All ecstasies merge into Agni, like seven forceful streams into the


RV, I.71.7

As rainwaters, rivers follow their course into the oceans, like chariots in pursuit of their goal.

RV, III.36.6

O Maruts! You uplift waters from the ocean, the heavens filled with

moisture, shower down the rains.

RV, V.55.5

This last hymn by Atri not only shows familiarity with the

ocean, but also an understanding of the source of the monsoon

rains. Our next example uses the phrase maha samudram or

egreat ocean, inexplicable in a people unfamiliar with the sea.

The hymn is to Varuƒa, the God of the seas. (Frawley’s


The ships of truth have delivered the righteous. Varuƒa takes us

across the great ocean.

RV, IX.73.1.3

What can samudra mean, if not sea or ocean? The people of

the Rigveda were not only familiar with the ocean, but in fact

their daily life was inseparably bound to it. Intimate knowledge

of ships, wind patterns and rain causing monsoon winds was part

of their daily knowledge. It is in fact so detailed that it is not hard

to see that the Vedic civilization must have included a very

substantial maritime component.


This is not the full story, however. Some of the most

celebrated verses in the Rigveda describe the creation of the

universe using striking poetic imagery. What is interesting is that

the image of the ocean is the dominant metaphor used by the

Vedic poets in their description of the creation. Here are a few

examples (Translations by Frawley):

In the beginning, there was darkness hidden in darkness,

all this universe was an unillumined sea.

RV, X.129.3

When the Gods stood together in the sea. Then as dancers they

generated a swirl of dust.

When, like ascetics, the Gods overflowed the world,

then from hidden in the ocean they brought forth the Sun.

RV, X.72.6-7

The creative Sun upheld the Earth with lines of force.

He strengthened the Heaven where there was no support.

As a powerful horse he drew out the atmosphere.


He bound fast the ocean in the boundless realm.

Thence came the world and the upper region,

thence Heaven and Earth were extended.

RV, X.149.1-2

Law and truth from the power of meditation were enkindled.

Thence the night was born and then the flooding ocean.

From the flooding ocean the year was born. The Lord of all that

moves ordained the days and nights.

The Creator formed the Sun and Moon according to previous

worlds; Heaven and Earth, the atmosphere and the realm of light.

RV, X.190

The whole of this is permeated by the image of the ocean. A

society totally ignorant of the sea does not visualize the creation

myth itself in terms of the ocean. The Vedic society therefore

must have had a very large maritime component. These examples

are a sobering reminder of the very great deficiency of nineteenth

century Vedic scholarship. How could any Vedic scholar miss

such strong oceanic symbolism and claim that the Vedic people

did not know the ocean?

It is said of the Eskimos, that because of their great

familiarity with snow, they have many words for it in their

language. Similarly, the Vedic Sanskrit also has many words for

the sea often indicating finer nuances. Among the commonly

used words are: samudra, salila, sagara and sindhu. The word

sindhu can mean either the sea or a large river, and sometimes

even the river Indus. This is worth a look.

The etymology of the word sindhu is particularly interesting

and sheds light on the Vedic society as a maritime one. It is

derived from the root sidh which means to go or to move. This is

quite distinct from the root sri meaning to flow. From the root sri

we get river names like Sarayu and Sarasvati which were swift

flowing rivers, at least in their upper reaches. Sindhu on the other

hand was applied mainly to more navigable flows and the sea. It

is interesting that one of the words for a mariner is sindhuka

deriving also from the root sidh. And sindhuka, Sanskrit for

ilor, became Sindbad the Sailor when stories from India found

their way into the famous Arabian Nights.

Thus the whole idea of the Aryans as a people unfamiliar with

the sea is a modern fallacy totally unsupported by anything in the

Rigveda itself. Of the many puzzling statements made about the

Rigveda, none is so baffling as the claim that it does not know the

ocean. What trust are we to place in a scholarship that for over a

century claimed that the Rigveda does not know the ocean?

Also, these theories require the Aryans to have come from

Iran and Central Asia through the mountain passes of

Afghanistan. Again, this is purely a preconception used in

interpreting the Rigveda; the idea itself is nowhere to be found in

  1. Nor is it so according to the Indians themselves who have

never looked to Afghanistan or any other place in the northwest

as their ancestral home. From time immemorial they have looked

to places in the northeast, to Mount Kailas and ›aryaƒavant o

Manas Sarovar (Lake Manas) as their spiritual home. This eastern

origin is made quite explicit in a little known passage in the

Mahabharata. We give below Ganguliis excellent English

rendering of the passage.

Looking East

This quarter is called purva [east, also ancient] O! Brahmana,

for the reason that in far older times, it was first overspread by the

Devas. Here first chanted the Vedas, the glorious God who

promotes the welfare of the worlds. Here was recited to the chanters

of the Vedas, the Savitri by Savitar the Sun God.

Here in the old days of yore, O best among twice born, took place

the birth, the acquisition of renown and the death o of the ancient

rishi Vasistha. Mahabharata, Udyoga Parva (108).

It is noteworthy that the Eastern direction is assigned to Agni, one of the principal deities of the Rigveda. The northeast is called Agneya.


Angkor Wat, Cambodia


Acknowledgement: From https://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/what-is-hinduism-n-s-rajaram/. And some personal notes at the end.

It is a serious error to say that all religions say the same thing. They emphatically do not. When Krishna says, “Those who worship other gods with devotion worship me,” and Jesus says, “He that is not with me is against me,” they are not saying the same thing. – Dr N. S. Rajaram

Many Hindus, including some who see themselves as leaders and thinkers are stumped when asked to describe what they see as the essential features of Hinduism. This being the case, it is not surprising that young people should be confused—mistaking ritual and traditional practices for the essence. What is given here is a rational description that does not rest on the beliefs and practices of any sect.

In case some readers, Hindus in particular feel offended by what I have to say, I want to make it clear that I see religion as the creation of man and nothing divine, no matter what any believers, especially priests and religious scholars might say.

The first thing to note is Hinduism cannot be viewed as religion deriving its authority from a book or the teachings of a founder: these are just sects. The appropriate term for what we now call Hinduism is “Sanatana Dharma”. It is not a creed like Christianity or Islam, but a philosophic system that has spiritual freedom as its core. Any path that accepts the spiritual freedom of everyone may be considered part of Sanatana Dharma. It has no national or geographical boundaries. Unlike Mecca for Islam and Jerusalem for Christianity, any land in any country can be the Holy Land for Hindus.


The basis of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma is the quest for cosmic (spiritual) truth, just as the quest for physical truth is the domain of science. The earliest record of this quest is the Rigveda. Its scripture is the record of ancient sages who by whatever means tried to learn the truth about the universe, in relation to Man’s place in the cosmos. They saw nature—including all living and non-living things—as part of the same cosmic equation.

This search has no historical beginning. This is not to say that the Rigveda always existed as a literary work. It means that we cannot point to a particular time or person in history and say: “Before this man spoke, the Rigveda did not exist.” On the other hand, we can say this about Christianity and Islam, because they are historical religions with human founders.

This brings up another important facet of Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism: it is a-paurusheya, which means it is not originate in any man (purusha). That is to say it has no historical founder like Christianity has Jesus Christ and Islam has Prophet Muhammad. We can say that Jesus is the purusha of Christianity while Muhammad is the purusha of Islam. These religions cannot exist without their founders. Christianity and Islam are therefore paurusheya. Hinduism has no such purusha on whose authority it exists. Great figures like Krishna and Rama are only teachers and exemplars that we may accept or reject. Hence they are referred to as purushottama (best of men)


Further, all human have divinity within them which may be cultivated and by which humans can attain divinity. Similarly humans have also elements of evil like greed and misuse of force which turns them into what Krishna calls asura. This gives rise to the concept of daivic (divine) and asuric (demonic) by the dominance of traits (divine and demonic) present in every one of us.


This is the background to Avatar also. Krishna says he comes down to earth as avatar whenever forces of evil become dominant. He sees his role as destruction of evil and protection of the good.


Hence there is no absolute separation of man (or woman) from God (or Goddess) that we find in Abrahamaic religions. And the feminine divine is an integral part of Hinduism. The same freedom gives rise to pluralism of sects and gods which critics deride as polytheism. I regard monotheism as an unmitigated evil that leads to priestly monopoly and intolerance, but that is a different matter, not germane here.

Metaphysics, little theology

As a consequence theology plays a negligible role in Hindu philosophy. It is founded on metaphysics, on concepts like reality, actions and the like. Even devotional Hinduism (Bhakti Yoga) attempts a rational explanation and justification. This has not prevented the growth of devotional movements and cults in practice, but is not seen as essential part of philosophy by scholars.

Some are bound to take issue with this reading as coming from a person with a science bias. But this is my reading.

Hinduism has no clergy

Hinduism is a-paurusheya in a deeper sense also, which brings it close to science, and brings its spiritual quest close to the scientific method. In paurusheya religions, the word of the purusha (founder)—be it Jesus or Muhammad—must be accepted without question. This gives rise to an enforcing authority known as the clergy to ensure that no one deviates from the ‘true path’ as shown by the founder, but in reality as dictated by the human representative who claims to be the true spokesman of the purusha. He is the enforcing authority of the true faith.

This naturally leads to men exercising political power in the name of God. This is what we call theocracy. The authority is the scripture, which is said to represent the word of God as conveyed through his medium (thePurusha). In this scheme, the medium eventually becomes more important than God. For example, it is Jesus not his God that defines Christianity. Also, the sacred book becomes also the law book in the hands of its enforcers.

Likeness of a Vedic sage c. 6000 years ago) ?

Hinduism on the other hand leaves the individual free from any religious authority. If any work is considered great, it has to be because of its merit and not because of the authority of the author. Similarly, a teacher is considered great because of the greatness of the teaching. For example, Vishwamitra is considered a great sage because of the greatness of the Gayatri Mantra, which he enunciated. If someone else than Vishwamitra had given us the Gayatri Mantra, it would still be considered great because of its message.

It is the same with Krishna and the Gita. It is the message of the Gita and his actions as leader, that has led to people revering Krishna as a great teacher. Also, a Hindu is free to question or reject any part or all of a religious work. Krishna himself says he has nothing new to offer but is only summarizing knowledge that already existed.

Hinduism has no authority figure or text

It is different with revealed religions like Christianity and Islam: Jesus and Muhammad are invoked as authority to justify teachings that sometimes cannot be justified on their own merit. No such authority exists in Hinduism: the teaching must stand or fall on its own merit. This is what makes it apaurusheyaCosmic truths existed before the arrival of Vishwamitra and Krishna. These sages, who first expressed them, were historical persons but the truth of their message is eternal and always existed.

This feature—of focusing on the message and its truth rather than the authority of the source brings Sanatana Dharma close to science and the scientific method.

In science also, a principle or a theory must stand or fall on its own merit and not on the authority of anyone. If Newton and Einstein are considered great scientists, it is because of the validity of their scientific theories.

In that sense, science is also a-paurusheya. Gravitation and Relativity are eternal laws of nature that existed long before Newton and Einstein. These are cosmic laws that happened to be discovered by scientific sages Newton and Einstein. But no  scientist invokes Newton or Einstein as authority figures to ‘prove’ the truth of laws of nature. They stand on their own merit. They may be disproved and rejected in the light of new knowledge. The same is true of the Gita and the Gayatri Mantra.

Hindu thinkers and philosophers can be quite emphatic on this point.

Shankara (788-820 CE, above) said, “Scripture is not any word of God but compiled (by humans) based on knowledge and experience.”

His successor and critic Madhva (1238-1317, above left) went further.  With steely logic he dismissed the notion of prophetic medium altogether. “Accept nothing on the authority of a purusha (human) for humans are subject to error and deception. One deludes oneself in believing one free of error and deception existed, and he alone was the author of the work.”

The Buddha was gentler, and also cautioned, “Accept nothing on my authority, Think and be a lamp unto yourself.”

Hinduism gives freedom to choose

Hinduism recognizes the freedom of the individual. It recognizes no prophet’s claim as the possessor of the “only” truth or the “only” way.

This is probably the greatest difference between Sanatana Dharma and revealed religions like Christianity and Islam. One can see this in a recent proclamation by the Vatican. In a document titled “Declaration of Lord Jesus” [Dominus Iesusthe Vatican proclaims non-Christians to be in a “gravely deficient situation” and that even non-Catholic churches have “defects” because they do not acknowledge the primacy of the Pope.

This of course means that the Vatican refuses to acknowledge the spiritual right of others (including Hindus) to their beliefs and practices. It consigns non-Christians to hell; the only way they can save themselves is by becoming Catholics and submit to the Pope. It also makes the Pope more important than both God and Jesus.

It is worth noting that this statement has nothing to do with God, or noble conduct. A non-Catholic who lives a life of virtue is still consigned to hell because he refuses to acknowledge Jesus as the only saviour and the Pope as his representative on earth. The same is true of Islam: one must submit to Prophet Muhammad as the last, in effect the only prophet, to be saved. Belief in God means nothing without belief in Christ as the saviour or Muhammad as the Last Prophet.

One who believes in God but does not accept Jesus or Muhammad as intermediary is still considered a non-believer and therefore a sinner. They simply do not tolerate pluralism. This is what makes both Christianity and Islam exclusive. The rejection of this formulation is also what makes Hinduism pluralistic and tolerant. There are intolerant Hindus also but they cannot invoke the Vedas or any teachings, but themselves.

Freedom leads to pluralism

From this it is clear that what governs a revealed religion is not God but the founder who claims to be God’s intermediary. (The clergy acting in the founder’s name becomes the enforcing authority or the thought police.) A believer is one who accepts the intermediary as the savior. God is irrelevant. He is even dispensable but not the intermediary who is all-important.

Hinduism recognizes no intermediary as the exclusive messenger of God. In fact the Rigveda itself says: “ekam sat, vipra bahuda vadanti,” meaning “cosmic truth is one, but the wise express it in many ways.” The contrast between exclusivism and pluralism becomes clear when we compare the following statements by Krishna and Jesus Christ.

Krishna of the Bhagavadgita says: “All creatures great and small—I am equal to all. I hate none nor have I any favorites…. He that worships other gods with devotion worships me.” Jesus of the Bible says: “He that is not with me is against me.”

This means that Krishna has no favorites and accepts all forms of worship—even worship of other deities. But revealed religions like Christianity and Islam could not exist without favorites or intermediaries like the Prophet or the Son of God. The Bible says that God is jealous. Reflecting the “jealous God” of the (Old Testament), the chosen intermediary is also jealous. In fact it is the jealous nature of the intermediary that created the jealous God.

Hinduism is the exact opposite of this. Anyone can know God and there is no jealous intermediary to block the way. And the Hindu tradition has methods like yoga and meditation to facilitate one to know God. Further, this spiritual freedom extends even to atheism. One can be an agnostic or even an atheist and still claim to be a Hindu.

In addition, there is nothing to stop a Hindu from revering Jesus as the Son of God* or Muhammad as a Prophet. In contrast, a Christian or a Muslim revering Rama or Krishna as an avatar would be rejected as a heretic. This is also what makes Christianity and Islam exclusive, and Hinduism pluralistic and inclusive.

From this it is also clear why revealed religions always claim to be monotheistic: One God allows only One Intermediary. So every monotheistic religion also tends to be monopolistic. It also requires a thought police to enforce this belief system, just as every earthly dictator does. So they invariably become theocratic political systems. In contrast, in Hinduism, God is internal to the seeker. As a result each seeker has his or his own version of God. Different traditions like Dvaita, Advaita and others represent different pathways. They exercise no authority and there is no clergy to enforce.


So the single most important theme of Hinduism is the freedom of the spirit. Just as science insists on freedom in exploring the physical world, Sanatana Dharma embodies freedom in the exploration of the spiritual realm. There are no dogmas or prophets—or their agents—to block the way. This allows Hinduism, like science, to grow and evolve with time. Dogmatic religions on the other hand are frozen in time. (In fact, a good deal of the effort by the priesthood in Islam and Christianity is to ensure that the original teachings do not become corrupted due to change.)

This freedom of spirit is most concisely expressed in the famous Vedic prayer, the Gayatri Mantra, which prays: “dhiyo yo nah pracodayat”— which means, “Inspire our wisdom.” So the greatest prayer in Hinduism is for clarity of thinking. It does not ask anyone to accept anything on faith in a prophet, book or any other representative of God. Teachers in Hinduism are only guides who suggest pathways. They have no authority. The seeker has to find his or her own way, with the help of guides as needed.

In the light of this,“ conversion” to Hinduism entails accepting a way of looking at the world and not simply changing faith and adopting a new mode of worship. Above all it means acknowledging spiritual freedom and rejecting exclusivism. It is like accepting the scientific method, which also is a way of looking at the world. It cannot be done by force or with promises of profit.

Swami Vivekananda on a-paurusheya: “Our philosophy does not depend upon any personality for its truth. Thus Krishna did not teach anything new or original to the world, nor does Ramayana profess anything which is not contained in the Scriptures. It is to be noted that Christianity cannot stand without Christ, Mohammedanism without Mohammed, and Buddhism without Buddha but Hinduism stands independent of any man, and for the purpose of estimating the philosophical truth contained in any Purana, we need not consider the question whether the personages treated of therein were really material men or were fictitious characters. The object of the Puranas was the education of mankind, and the sages who constructed them contrived to find some historical personages and to superimpose upon them all the best or worst qualities just as they wanted to, and laid down the rules of morals for the conduct of mankind. ” – Vijayvaani, 8-9 January 2016

» Dr Navaratna Srinivasa Rajaram is an Indian-American mathematical scientist, notable for his contributions on history and philosophy of science.

SOME PERSONAL NOTES, by a learned critic

Despite knowing that this article may raise the hackles of some of the readers, especially of the abrahamic religions, I chose to copy and translate it because it states truths one after another, whether many like it or not. Because truth must be told. For the sake of Dharma and for the benefit of so many of the readers that can wake up from their slumber of love and peace and of “all religions are the same” and realise the truth.

Still, and with due respect, I would like to go further in some of the statements made by the learned author. Especially out of my own experience in a Christian/atheist atmosphere, my own study and search, and with the help of being as I am a follower of Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, I can dare to be even a bit more radical than the author in my statements:

  • “there is nothing to stop a Hindu from revering Jesus as the Son of God”, Sri N.S. Rajaram says: this statement talks about the greatness of our philosophy. You may find images of Jesus in many Hindu temples, but I am yet to see one single church or mosque with some Hindu deity. The inclusive Hindu view allows Hindus to do that. But in my view it is more than high time that we STOP this practice. Why? For several reasons:
    • a) there is no positive feature of Jesus or Mohammed that we could not find in any of our deities
    • b) because of the need for Hindus to demand MUTUAL RESPECT, in words of Sri Malhotra and Sw. Dayananda Saraswati. If our deities are not given the same reverence and respect, I would say it is even foolish for us to do so. Because instead of taking it in the good spirit, Christians use it in their own benefit against us [see c)]
    • c) because of the reverence given to Jesus by Hindus, and the false and dangerous statement embedded in the Hindu ethos out of ignorance and for vested interests (the motto “all religions are the same”, ), this inclusiveness is used, under the guise of a shift a little more towards Jesus and end up CONVERTED into Christian. (Please see post.n. 22 on this topic, to understandThen, yes: because I chose spiritual freedom. Because I chose that I wanted experience and not blind faith in other´ s words. Because I made of my spiritual quest the meaning of my life. Because I found  in Dharma all the responses to the deepest questions I had. Because trying to be attuned whith Dharma gives me a contentment impossible to find by trying to fulfill all the (endless) desires . For all of this and for many more reasons, I can say that I am a PROUD HINDU. And the more I learn, the more proud I become. So please, world, either respect us, or simply get aside. Do not demean in your ignorance the richest and most scientific philosophy that it is still alive: that one that simply reflects the truth as IT IS, with or without the approval of the West, its abrahamic religions and its imperialistic interests. Do not disrespect Sanatana Dharma.

 Dr. Rajaram responds:

            I appreciate and welcome his criticisms, but I see them, especially conversion as more a question of political practice than spiritual substance, which is the main focus of my article. It is also the principal source of conflict

Columbus and other conquistadators exercized imperialism and committed genocides in the name of God and Jesus but were hardly spiritual figures. This was pointed out by church figures themselves like Bartolome de Las Casas. No one has a monopoly on good or evil. An abridged summary of his work (see above) is available as The Devastation of the Indies, published by Johns Hopkins University Press. It makes for painful reading and decidedly not for the squeamish



What science, especially natural history and genetics tell us is the near opposite of what historians and linguists have been saying for over a century. In particular, they have vastly underestimated the time scales involved by an order of magnitude.
Navaratna Rajaram

Introduction: natural history-genetics
There is now a revolution in our understanding of our past. Science has finally answered the 200 year-old question of why people from India to Iceland speak languages clearly related to one another.

By modern humans scholars often mean bipedal humans, which supposedly left their hands free for tool-making. This is misleading since the only humans now populating the planet are speaking humans with language. All others including Neanderthals are extinct. Hence speech and language were of paramount importance in the survival of the human species. Only then can we talk about the spread of related languages from India to Iceland.
Studies of population genetics indicate that all non-African humans and their languages can be traced to about a thousand individuals in South Asia some 60,000 years ago.

FOX P2 , the language gene, which made us speaking species

Two major events during the Pleistocene (or the last Ice Age)—a gene mutation about 80,000 or more years ago and a massive volcanic eruption 73,000 years ago—played a crucial role in triggering the evolution and spread of Indo-Europeans and their languages.
It is natural history, not linguistics that has cut the Gordian Knot of Indo-European origins. Natural history and archaeology both show there were at least two waves of migration out of India into Eurasia and Europe during the prehistoric (c. 40,000 YBP or Years Before Present) and the proto historic (c. 10,000 YBP) periods. Further, it is Sanskrit, not any Proto-Indo-European that has left its mark on Indo-European languages. It may further be said that Sanskrit is to linguistics what mathematics has been to the natural sciences.
With slightly less confidence it may be said that Vedas and the later Sanskrit (of the Upanishads, epics and the classical) were all products of a period of intense cultivation of language culture lasting thousands of years. They were painstakingly constructed by drawing upon Gauda (northern) and Dravida (southern) sources prevailing in the Indian subcontinent around 10,000 years ago if not earlier. This accounts for the so-called ‘Dravidian’ features in the Rig Veda as well as the extraordinary perfection of Sanskrit grammar. They are the product of a culture that took the science of language—etymology and grammar—to heights that were never again to be attained. Example: Panini and Yaska and the Mahabhashya of Patanjali.

Fallacious language model based on non-existent PIE.

This goes against modern theories (or rather beliefs) that seek to derive languages from a common source often called Proto-Indo-European (PIE). In this essay we take the view that anatomically modern humans with language capability came from East Africa migrated to India and spread across the subcontinent and moved to other parts of the world. This is supported by the haplogrups of world populations. From South Asia they spread to other parts of the world, including Europe. There were other human species in India earlier, but their descendants have not survived. We, descendants of the speaking humanoids of African origin are the only remaining survivors of the humanoid species.

Rigveda knowledge and content
This helps address another puzzle. How Vedic Sanskrit, the oldest surviving language is also the most sophisticated, even more so than literary Sanskrit with its highly sophisticated grammar and etymology. The Vedic people may have been primitive in material terms but there was nothing primitive about their language or poetry. The Rigvedic language and its content are the product of a long period of evolution and development when humans had speech capability but no fixed language.
We know that children are born with speech and language capability but acquire language from their surroundings. But how about the first humans, who came with a language capability but had to create languages where none existed before. So they had to struggle for thousands of years to create language(s). Geneticists tell us that humans who migrated to India from East Africa lived in a state of drift for something like 15,000 years after the Toba explosion wiped out most of the human population.
It is reasonable to suppose that this long period of drift was when early languages came into being, which were then used to create the Rigvedic language. This may help explain why such great care was taken by generations of Vedic seers to preserve the Vedic language and the Vedas with pristine purity. They recognized this to be their greatest heritage and achievement.
The same natural history suggests there may be a similar story of East and Southeast Asian peoples and languages— almost like a mirror reflection of the birth and spread of Indo-Europeans. It is a story that remains to be told. Thus, the picture given by science is the exact opposite of the Aryan invasion-migration theories favored by linguists for over a century. Above all it may said with confidence that historians and linguists in particular have very greatly underestimated the time spans by compressing time scales by an order of magnitude driven by the compulsion to fit history within the 6000 years mandated by the Biblical Belief in Creation.


It is reasonable to suppose that this long period of drift was when early languages came into being, which were then used to create the Rigvedic language. This may help explain why such great care was taken by generations of Vedic seers to preserve the Vedic language and the Vedas with pristine purity. They recognized this to be their greatest heritage and achievement.


The same natural history suggests there may be a similar story of East and Southeast Asian peoples and languages— almost like a mirror reflection of the birth and spread of Indo-Europeans. (See map above.) It is a story that remains to be told. Thus, the picture given by science is the exact opposite of the Aryan invasion-migration theories favored by linguists for over a century. Above all it may said with confidence that historians and linguists in particular have very greatly underestimated the time spans by compressing time scales by an order of magnitude driven by the compulsion to fit history within the 6000 years mandated by the Biblical Belief in Creation.

Prehistoric archaeology and Vedic astronomy

People have long sought to locate the archaeological remains of the Vedic people, but the issue has been clouded by the gratuitous introduction of the undefined term Aryan, making it a search for Aryan archaeology. Crackpot theories claiming no horse and no wheel in India before the Aryan invasion made some place the original Aryans (undefined) in South Russia and Kurgan steppes (Ukraine), north of the Black Sea. All this has been totally demolished by science.

Prehistoric archaeology explored by workers like J. Petraglia, Ravi Korisettar and their colleagues suggest that Indians have lived where they are today for 60,000 years or more following their advent from Africa. This means that early astronomical dates like the Fall of Abhijit (Vega) which gives us 12,000 years before present may be plausible and cannot be dismissed. All this calls for a complete overhaul of what is called Indology, which we next survey.

 Western Indology: ‘Discovery’ of Sanskrit

            Unlike most academic disciplines, Indology (i.e. Western study of India) and its offshoot of Indo-European studies can be dated almost to the day. In a lecture in Kolkotta delivered on 2 February 1786 (and published in 1788) Sir William Jones, a forty year-old British jurist in the service of the East India Company observed:

“The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists…”

This influential statement is well known but not the errors Jones committed like his dating of Indian tradition based on the Biblical superstition that the world was created on Sunday, 23rd of October 4004 BCE at 9:00 AM— time zone not specified. The date was first derived by the Irish bishop James Ussher (1581 – 1656) based on a literal reading of the Bible combined with the belief that world would end 2000 years after Christ, meaning it should have ended some twelve years ago.

While it sounds comical today, it was taught as history through most of the nineteenth century even though both Darwin’s theory of evolution and geology had determined the earth had to be millions of years old to support fossils and the enormous diversity of life forms. Even this very greatly underestimated its age. (The current estimate for the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years.)

Bible as history

Jones was a capable linguist and knew some Sanskrit. His task was to study Indian texts and understand Hindu law to help administer British justice in a manner acceptable to them. In his study of Hindu texts like the Puranas he came across dates that went much further back than the Biblical date for Creation. He dismissed them as superstitions (for failing to agree with the Biblical superstition) and imposed a chronology on Indian history and tradition to fit within the Biblical framework.

This was to have fateful consequences for the study of India over the succeeding two centuries down to the present. To cite an example, Indian tradition going back at least to the mathematician Aryabhata (476 – 540 CE) has held that the Kali Age began with the Mahabharata War in 3102 BCE. This marks the end of an era known as the Vedic Age. Accepting it takes the beginning of the Vedic period as well as several dynasties like the Ikshwakus to 6000 BCE and earlier. This is millennia before the Biblical date for Creation which men like Jones could not accept.

Dates based on the Biblical chronology were accepted as historically valid by most Western scholars like F. Max Müller, the most influential of them. He explicitly stated that he took the Biblical account including the dates to be historical. Most of them were classical scholars or students of religion and had no inkling of science. The widely quoted dates of 1500 BCE for the Aryan invasion and the 1200 BCE date for the Rig Veda were imposed to make them conform to the Biblical Creation date of 4004 BCE.

The situation has not changed much in the succeeding two centuries. Indologists like Wendy Doniger, Diana Eck, Michael Witzel and their Indian counterparts like Romila Thapar have little comprehension of the revolution in our understanding of the past brought about by science in the past two decades. They continue to quote 1200 BCE for the Rig Veda without mentioning that it rests on the authority of a 400 year-old Biblical superstition! (Some ‘scholars’ like Doniger and Thapar don’t know any Sanskrit either, but that is a different matter.) The main point is they know no more science than their predecessors of a century and more ago.

Popular but faulty map of languages

Language puzzle, linguistic perversion

To return to Jones and his successors, in their ignorance of science it was natural they should have come up with some speculative theories to account for similarities between Sanskrit and European languages, especially Greek and Latin. Being linguists, they created a field called philology of comparing languages and cultures but it soon got mixed up with crackpot theories on race and language— like the ‘Aryan’ race speaking ‘Aryan’ languages somehow ending up in Nazi Germany! There was even an ‘Aryan’ science movement that demonized Einstein and his ‘Jewish’ physics! It was denounced by scientists, especially in the twentieth century, but politics and prejudice kept it alive for over a century. In addition to the Nazi ideology, British colonial policy used race as a way of classifying its British Indian subjects.

Setting aside such aberrations, Jones did raise a legitimate question: why do people from India and Sri Lanka to Ireland and Iceland speak languages clearly related to one another, and have done so for more than two thousand years? This fact has been widely noted and a few examples help illustrate the point. What is deva in Sanskrit becomes dio in Latin, theo in Greek and dieu in French. Similarly, agni for fire in Sanskrit becomes ignis in Latin from which we get the English words ignite and ignition. Amusingly, the famous Russian drink vodka has its Sanskrit cognate in udaka both meaning water. And there are many more, far too many to be seen as coincidence. Prejudice and politics aside this basic question remains.

Over the past two hundred years many theories have been created to account for these similarities. These are based mostly on superficial phonetic similarities but none has proved satisfactory. Even without the confusion due to race theories, these explanations give glaring inconsistencies. To take one example, using the same data and the same methods some scholars have argued that a branch of Indo-Europeans called ‘Aryans’ invaded India, while some others claim the reverse— that Aryans (or Indo-Europeans) originated in India and migrated to Eurasia and Europe taking their language(s) with them. The AIT of course holds the opposite view—that the invading Aryans were the eastern branch of Indo-Europeans whose original homeland was in Eurasia or Europe.

March of science

With the benefit of hindsight one can see that the science needed to unlock the language mystery did not become fully available until about fifty years ago. It was only in the last few decades, with the emergence of molecular biology after World War II and especially gene sequencing and genome research in the past decade and more that we are able to trace the origin and spread of Indo-Europeans and their languages. Two areas of natural history— the distribution of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes (and haplogroups) in the world’s population groups and the fate of humans in the face of natural events have resulted in the spread of Indo-Europeans and their languages from a group of perhaps as few as a thousand 60,000 years ago well over two billion speakers today.

L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, leading population geneticist

What has allowed us to unlock the mysteries of IE origins is science, especially natural history and population genetics. Population genetics was founded by Sir Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright and J.B.S. Haldane. Fisher, a geneticist as well as statistician had two outstanding successors, C. Radhakrishna Rao (C.R. Rao) and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Rao became known as the world’s greatest mathematical statistician while Cavalli-Sforza carried forward Fisher’s work in population genetics, combining microbiology with mathematical genetics. If we are able to unlock the secrets of our origins it is thanks to these pioneers. The material presented here, especially in the second part, draws heavily on the work of Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues. (This author had the good fortune of working with C.R. Rao while a student in the U.S.)

What is extraordinary in all this is the depth and power of scientific analysis needed to unlock the puzzle. Linguistics, the principal tool used for over two hundreds has proven unequal to the task of unraveling the mystery of our origins. The creation of Vedic and Sanskrit languages in India going back perhaps 10,000 years or more was crucial in the evolution of the final phase of Indo-European languages.

Also remarkable is the immense time scales involved— not thousands but tens of thousands of years. Even this is miniscule by evolutionary standards. We Indo-Europeans (and their ancestors Gauda-Dravidas and Afro-Indians) have been on the planet for barely 65 thousand years, while dinosaurs ruled the earth for as many million years. What follows next is a brief account of our origin and spread. This is on the basis of our current knowledge and might change due to new discoveries.

It is worth noting that the three great philosophers, Shankara, Madhva and Ramanuja, all from the South,  wrote in Sanskrit.

The Aryan myth and the idea of the invasion (AIT) were taught as history for nearly a century until archaeologists discovered the Harappan or the Indus Valley civilization. It continues to be taught in one form or another in spite of the many contradictions highlighted by archaeologists like Jim Shaeffer and B.B. Lal as well as natural scientists like Sir Julian Huxley L. Cavalli-Sforza and others. Politics and entrenched academic interests have succeeded in keeping alive this two hundred year old ad-hoc hypothesis but science has put an end to its survival while at the same time opening a vast new window on the origin and spread of Indo-Europeans.

Recent discoveries in natural history and population genetics, especially in the past two decades have changed our understanding of Indo-European origins in ways that were totally unexpected. The picture, still a bit hazy, highlights the fact that theories like the AIT are naïve and simplistic. To begin with, they very greatly underestimate the time scales involved and also ignored the revolutionary impact of natural history on humans in the past hundred thousand years. It is science, not linguistic theories that help us unlock the mystery of Indo-Europeans.

A volcano and a gene mutation

             Our story takes us to Africa some hundred thousand years ago. Our ancestors, called ‘anatomically modern humans’ have been located in fossils in East Africa dating to about that time or a bit earlier. We were not the only humans then existing: there were several other ‘humanoid’ species in Asia and Africa among which the now extinct Neanderthals are the best known. What separates us from them is we have survived and they have not. In addition we are a speaking species with language without which civilization as we know it is inconceivable. So it is the origin of spoken language that we must speak and not just phonetic similarities; with some effort we can find phonetic similarities between any two languages.

This also explains the genetic bottleneck following the Toba super-volcanic explosion. This was followed by 6000 to 10,000 year drift during which only a small number of humans, perhaps 5000 or fewer in India. survived. This also helps account for the great genetic similarity of the humans living today.

The language (and human) picture may be stated simply as follows.

Speaking Africans –> Afro-Indians (Gauda-Dravida) –>Indo-Europeans


This means there were two major waves of Indo-Europeans, both out of India into the north and west. We know of the first (c. 45,000 BCE) only from genetic studies of modern populations around the world. We have no idea what their languages were like. The second, and much more recent, occurred at the turn of the Pleistocene-Holocene transition some 10,000 years ago. It has left many traces in archaeology, genetics, culture, and above all in the Sanskritic imprint on the languages of Europe and Eurasia. This is supplemented by genetic and other scientific data relating to animals that accompanied them including of rats and mice!

Finale: why India and Sanskrit so pivotal?

The role of Sanskrit or what led up to it played therefore a crucial role. Sanskrit grew along two parallel tracks—Vedic and what became classical. As Sri Aurobindo pointed out a century ago, the Rig Veda, the world’s oldest literature, was the culmination of a long effort that must have occupied thousands of years and not the beginning. Everything that followed is a simplification and in some ways a degeneracy— even the later Vedas like the Yajur. Its creators must have recognized that they had created something extraordinarily precious because they put in enormous effort into preserving it through hundreds of generations of teachers and pupils as well as devising methods like ghana-patha, pada-patha and the like to facilitate the preservation.

While less sophisticated than the Vedic, the later classical Sanskrit also was carefully constructed language as the word ‘Samskrita’ indicates. This explains the extraordinary perfection of its grammar: the grammar used by Kalidasa 2000 years ago is the same as what we use today. This is not true of any other language, and it is no accident. Since the idea that it was brought by invading Aryans has been demolished by science, we must look to indigenous sources. Sanskrit is and will always remain the lynchpin of linguistics, not any PIE or anything else. Sanskrit can do without PIE and has for thousands of years but Indo-European Studies will collapse without Sanskrit.

India was (and is) pivotal because of its strategic location and climate. Both land and sea routes—east-west as well as north-south—are accessible from India. Also, India enjoys a subtropical climate that allows both tropical and temperate flora and fauna to flourish.

The picture given here is by no means definitive but decidedly more in agreement with scientific data and the fossil record than linguistic theories like the AIT which must now be relegated to the dustbin of history. Many details remain to be filled, but any new theory must account for scientific data, especially from natural history and genetics, and take also into account the vast time scales involved. Such momentous developments as the evolution and spread of languages over half the world cannot be squeezed into a few thousand years like the Biblical account of Creation in 4004 BC on which AIT was based.

Toba destroys humans & vegetation in South Asia giving rise to a 6 year ‘volcanic winter’ and a 6000 year to 10,000 year freeze. 73 K BP Toba explosion eliminates all humans without speech; only Neanderthals and our speaking African ancestors survive.
Groups of Africans settle in South Asia (India) and along the Arabian coast taking a coastal route. World population down from about 60 million to a few thousand. 65 K BP Our African ancestors arrive in India bringing their language. It is the ancestor of our languages– the Primordial Afro-Indo-European.
Hunting-gathering: small population in a state of genetic drift. Cold period. Dramatic warming c. 52 K BP allows population and habitation expand. Migration East (East Asia, Australia). 65 K – 52 K BP Cold phase: population and area

small enough for a single or a few

languages to suffice. More languages evolve over the next 10,000 years and more.

Temporary warming leads to increase in population, area, flora and fauna. Overhunting causes depletion of fauna. 52 K – 40 K BP Expansion results in the birth of several regional languages and dialects- Gauda (northern) and Dravida (southern).
Depletion of fauna due to over-hunting sends people in search of better hunting grounds to Eurasia and Europe. First Indo-Europeans. 50 K – 35 K BP Indo-Europeans, first wave with languages from India moves to Eurasia and Europe. No trace of their languages survives.
Late Pleistocene, transition to Holocene. Beginning of agriculture and domestication of animals— pigs, sheep, cattle, and horse. 35 K – 11K BP Spread of agriculture and movement north. Beginning of Sarasvati settlements.
Transition to the Holocene. Expansion of agriculture and domesticated stock into West Asia, Eurasia, Europe. Second wave of Indo-Europeans. 11 K BP… Creation of Sanskrit and the Vedic from Gauda and Dravida sources. The second wave takes Sanskritic terms into Eurasia & European languages.

Timeline of Indo-European transitions (K = 1000, BP = Before Present) (Courtesy, Dr. Rosalee Wolfe)

Note:  The title and the approach were suggested by the author’s late father Col (Dr.) N.S. Rao, an eminent medical scientist with interest in history. (Picture, above left.)

The author gratefully acknowledges valuable suggestions and help from Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer, Dr. David Frawley, Dr. Premendra Priyadarshi and Dr. Rosalie Wolfe. The material presented here is a summary only, keeping in mind the fact not all the readers will be familiar with the highly technical details relating to population genetics of humans as well as of the flora and fauna on which it rests. It should be seen only as a framework for future presentations and research. The author has just completed a book on the book Genes of Time and the Birth of History in which fuller details will be provided. The author would also like to remark that the research and the methodology followed here owe nothing to the so-called Out of India Theory or the OIT, which the author sees as little better than the now discredited AIT.