The Aryan Question:Unveiling Myths and Deconstructing Narratives

What is The Aryan Question?

The ‘Aryan Question’ refers to numerous debates, inquiries, and theories surrounding the origins, migrations, and identity of the Aryans. The controversy surrounding this question has long been an intriguing intersection of myth, politics, and identity. It is a historical concept, or rather, a conquest that has carried ideological, political, geographical, and cultural weight. Therefore, it is interesting to ask: Who were the Aryans? And why does their story continue to influence how we perceive history, culture, and power in modern times?

Derived from the Sanskrit word Arya, meaning noble, the term ‘Aryans’ was used to refer to the people who spoke Indo-European languages[1] (here, also Sanskrit) (Trautmann 1997, xii). This term was originally derived from the Vedic texts, which designated the members of pastoral tribes as the Aryans (Ballantyne 2006, 170). However, it is interesting to note that this concept primarily distinguished the classes of people culturally (that is, based on language and religion) and not racially (Trautmann 1997, xii). The Aryans were capable of comprehending the sacred language of the Vedic scriptures (that is, Sanskrit) and were associated with adherence to the Vedic religion. Thus, the interpretation of ‘nobility’ was not in relation to aristocratic or racial hierarchy as is understood at present. Rather, it was in relation to the spiritual and cultural superiority of the Aryans.

The Aryan invasion theory, as proposed by Max Müller and William Jones, posits that the Aryans migrated to India around 1500 BCE from Central Asia (Ballantyne 2006). It further states that the Aryans conquered and displaced the class of people belonging to the Dravidian culture (Ballantyne 2006). While modern research has profoundly discredited this theory based on several scientific and historical findings, this theory continues to influence the societal perceptions of ‘indigeneity’ and ‘originality’.

This paper, first, analyses the colonial and nationalist interpretations of the Aryan question to understand the genesis and the basis of such claims, second, it analyses the genetic and archaeological evidence to evaluate the claims related to Aryan Question as explained in the preceding sections, and lastly it examines the contemporary implications of the Aryan Question in modern politics and identity narratives and how such interpretation continues to impact the masses of the Indian society.   

Section I

Colonial Interpretations and Nationalists’ Reimaginings

The Aryan Question has been repeatedly moulded to suit the distinct and often conflicting theories. In India, the Aryan identity has been historically wielded as an ideological tool,  firstly as a tool for justifying colonial hegemony, and secondly as a form of resistance to colonial hegemony, as elaborated further.

Colonial interpretation of the Aryan question

The Aryan identity was broadly interpreted in colonial ethnology and philology to mobilise the imperial agendas and justify colonial hegemony. Eurocentric scholars like Jones and Müller proposed several theories with the objective of depicting the shared ancestry between European and Indian civilisations (Trautmann 1997, 8-13). Their theory portrayed the Vedic Aryans as the ancestors of both Europeans and upper caste Indians. This portrayal served two purposes: firstly, it validated the British rule by lending cultural legitimacy to their rule and portraying it as a “reunion of kindred peoples,” and secondly, it further stratified the Indian society by institutionalising a dichotomy between Aryan and non-Aryan groups and aligning the British rulers with the so-called pure-bred Aryan elites (Trautmann 1997, 15-17).

The divide between Aryan and non-Aryan groups further deepened because of the racialisation of the Aryan identity at the hands of the colonial scholars. This theory flows from the assumption that the ‘light-skinned’ Aryans who migrated to the Indian subcontinent were a civilising force who disciplined and subjugated the ‘darker-skinned’ Dravidian and aboriginal populations (Trautmann 1997, 196-198). It indicated that all the achievements of Indian civilisation were the product of Aryan ingenuity, while the Dravidians were considered primitive and incapable of independent cultural and social development (Trautmann 1997, 195). This framework, while justifying the British rule then, also delegitimised the non-Aryan groups by characterising them as inherently inferior. Therefore, the colonial interpretation of the Aryan Question was a strategic endeavour aimed at legitimising imperial rule, maintaining social hierarchies, and reinforcing racial superiority to worsen the divisive framework of Indian society and use it to the advantage of the British.

Nationalist interpretation of the Aryan question

In response to the colonial interpretation, the Aryan Question was appropriated and reinterpreted by several Indian scholars to make claims for Aryan originality and indigeneity. For instance, Dayanand Saraswati attempted to reconstruct the Aryan identity to call for a cultural and national revival by portraying Aryans as indigenous to India (Figueira 2015, 105-106). Another Indian reformer, Swami Vivekananda, vehemently contested the Aryan Invasion Theory, positing that the Aryans were not foreign invaders but rather the original inhabitants who “organically assimilated” into the social fabric of the subcontinent (Figueira 2015, 133). He further asserted that Aryans were spiritually and morally superior and were the carriers of ancient wisdom and ethical consciousness (Figueira 2015, 134). Similarly, Justice Ranade described the Aryans as the “chosen race”, whose cultural and moral systems were central to the Indian civilisational identity (Figueira 2015, 125). These interpretations attempted to reclaim national pride by portraying Aryans as indigenous and morally superior, thereby opposing the dehumanising narratives of colonial ethnology.

Why were such claims made?

The discourse around the ‘Aryan Question’ can be distinctly identified under two broad themes: firstly, in relation to the construction of Aryan identity through respective scholars, and secondly, in its strategic weaponisation to either uphold or challenge the power structures. It can be inferred that the colonial powers understood that to sustain their rule, they needed to shape the perception of the common person, and eventually the entire mass, in their favour through a myth. The Aryan identity was one such convenient historical narrative that could be converted to a myth that would eventually be used to construct the societal forms (Trautmann 1997, 1).

For an average common person[2], the ‘Aryan Question’ comprises, firstly, who truly belongs, and secondly, who came first. The answers to these questions are shaped more often by popular political and historical narratives. The common person's understanding of such a question during British rule solidified the imperial rule. Eventually, the nationalist reimaginations of such a question led the common person to perceive the Aryans as the indigenous population of the Indian subcontinent and furthermore, as the ‘founders of Indian civilisation’ (Trautmann 1997, 146). A common person’s interpretation of the ‘Aryan Question’ reflects the broader societal impact of historical narratives and its influence on cultural identity and political agendas. Therefore, the claims related to the ‘Aryan identity’ were not merely a part of academic discourse, rather, they were psychological tools to influence the psyche of the Indian masses to reinforce political and social agendas from time to time.

Section ii

Empirical insights to unveil the Aryan question

The previous section illustrated that the interpretation of the Aryan identity is laden with visible biases and selective interpretations to reinforce certain agendas and ideologies that obscure historical realities. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted solely by relying on textual interpretations and rhetorical arguments. Thus, it is pertinent to analyse the empirical evidence and historical studies providing insights into prehistoric human migrations, cultural interactions, and demographic shifts. This paper draws on Tony Joseph’s study of population genetics, particularly regarding the third wave of migration (Joseph 2023, 16) and Narasimhan’s comprehensive and multidisciplinary analysis of genome data from over 500 individuals spanning 8,000 years across Central and South Asia, which aims to investigate the origins of the Aryan community (Patterson 2019, 2).

Genetic and genomic evidence

Population genetics is the science of using DNA (specifically ancient DNA) to trace the ancestry, interactions, and migrations of different human populations over thousands of years (Joseph 2023, 16). This study is relevant to addressing the ‘Aryan Question’ because it enables historians and researchers to make substantiated claims about the origins, migrations, and interactions of the Aryan people by studying the genetic makeup of populations in India.

The third wave of migration refers to the arrival of Central Asian pastoralists (or Aryans) in the Indian subcontinent around 2000 BCE (Patterson 2019, 1). After 2000 BCE, genetic evidence indicates a gradual migration of the pastoralist population. Steppe-derived ancestry, which accounts for up to 30% of the genetic makeup of modern populations linked to the spread of Indo-European languages to South Asia (Patterson 2019, 1 ). It further indicates that this steppe ancestry became integrated into Indian populations. The Steppe ancestry did not replace the entire local population; instead, it mixed gradually with the population of the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) (Patterson 2019, 1). This admixture gave rise to two major ancestral groups, namely, the Ancestral North Indians (ANI), a blend of Steppe pastoralists and IVC ancestry, and the Ancestral South Indians (ASI), a mix of IVC ancestry and indigenous hunter-gatherer populations (Patterson 2019, 1).

It can thus be clearly inferred from the above findings that there was a pattern of admixture within the local populations, and interestingly, there is no evidence of large-scale population replacement. It can be further inferred that the migration of Aryans was not a violent takeover by a singular population but rather a movement characterised by integration and cultural exchange among populations. It is also pertinent to note that the genetic makeup of the Indian subcontinent before the Aryan migrations was not monolithic. Several waves of human migration have shaped the genetic makeup of the Indian subcontinent, including the First Indians, West Asians, East Asians, and Central Asians. Hence, the Aryans were only one of the populations that shaped the broader migratory framework (Joseph 2023, 19). Therefore, considering the genetic and genomic evidence, the claims of Aryan superiority based on racial purity or indigenous exceptionalism are untenable.

Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Evidence

Archaeological and historical findings further discredit both the Aryan Invasion Theory and the claims of Aryan originality. The notion of violent conquest and displacement does not stand as the transition from the Harappan to the Vedic period is evidence of cultural adaptation in agricultural practices and synthesis rather than abrupt replacement and sudden change (Patterson 2019, 2; Joseph 2023, 22-24). Moreover, the linguistic and cultural characteristics associated with the Aryans, such as the Sanskrit language and Vedic traditions, are evidence of the interactions among the Aryans and the IVC population (Joseph 2023, 22).

Therefore, taking both population genetics and archaeological evidence into account, it can be established that the demographics of the Indian subcontinent were the result of admixture due to the migration of the Aryans, and there is no evidence of any sudden replacement or large-scale displacement. The genetic evidence further underscores that the Aryans were neither racially pure nor entirely distinct; rather, they were part of a mosaic of migrations that shaped the subcontinent’s demographics.

Section iii

Debunking and deconstructing the Aryan question

The evidence presented in the previous section clearly indicates that the Aryans were not the original, indigenous inhabitants of India. Instead, their arrival and integration into the Indian subcontinent is best understood as part of a broader migratory and cultural exchange all over the region. It is also established that the claims of Aryan indigeneity have been largely spread for political and ideological purposes, establishing a nationalist narrative to contest the colonial interpretations of Aryan Invasion Theory, which were used to justify imperial rule.

The narrative of Aryan indigeneity continues to be a crucial tool to reinforce a variety of dominant and often distorted political ideologies in India. For instance, the right-wing nationalist groups have strategically emphasised the indigeneity of Aryans to construct a homogeneous cultural identity to promote and justify historical ownership of certain communities by the majoritarian upper-class Hindus, thereby sidelining the multicultural and pluralist Indian society and marginalising minority groups by framing them as “outsiders” (Ballantyne 2006, 182-184).

Therefore, it is clear that there are significant political, historical, and social stakes attached to the Aryan question. Hence, an unbiased and evidence-based inquiry on this question becomes a necessity, especially for an average person. For a common person, an objective understanding of the Aryan Question would be imperative in fighting widespread misinformation and manipulative political narratives. The general masses must understand that the narratives surrounding the Aryan question are a constructed reality which is tailored to serve specific agendas.

For a layman, an informed understanding of the Aryan question should encompass reliable historical studies and empirical, evidence-based research. Such an approach would allow them  to gauge the reality of the Aryan question, as described in the preceding sections of this paper.  It would also help  in moving beyond the simplistic and mistaken interpretation of the Aryan question and unravel the complex and important demographic constitution of the Indian subcontinent. This awareness would empower individuals to critically engage with historical claims rather than passively accepting them and encourage them to act, which holds vital importance in a diverse and democratic society like India, where the Aryan question continues to hold immense political, historical, and social significance.

---

By Mudra Mehta Mudra Mehta is a second-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at the National Law School of India University. Her academic interests span history, political and social sciences, criminology, and constitutional and commercial law. Outside the classroom, she is actively involved in debating.

---

Endnotes

[1] Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-European family of languages. It is one of the three earliest ancient, documented languages that arose from a common root language now referred to as Proto-Indo-European.

[2] Here, an average common person is a representative of the public. All the individuals in a society are recognised as average common people.  

References

1. Joseph, Tony. “The Migrations that Shaped Indian Demography.” In The Indians: Histories of a Civilisation, edited by G.N. Devy et al., 16–24, 557–558. New Delhi: Aleph Book Company, 2023.

2. Narasimhan, V. M., N. Patterson, P. Moorjani, et al. “The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia.” Science 365, no. 6457 (2019): eaay7487. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7487.

3. Figueira, Dorothy M. Aryans, Jews, Brahmins: Theorising Authority through Myths of Identity. New Delhi: Navayana, 2015.

4. Ballantyne, Tony. Orientalism and Race: Aryanism in the British Empire. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

5. Trautmann, Thomas R. Aryans and British India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997