Harvard Ethics: An Oxymoron

[acharya]

1.0 Background

The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT), rooted (to a great extent) on the white supremacist and colonialist paradigms of the 19th century, states that sometime in the second millennium BCE, hordes of Indo-Europeans descended from somewhere in Central Asia and subjugated the black skinned, stub nosed, Dravidian speaking natives of India through a military conquest and thereby, occupied entire North India, Pakistan, Bangladesh in course of time. The Indus Valley Culture (IVC), straddling over an area of 800,000 square kilometers, is supposed to be the Dravidian civilization that was overwhelmed by these ‘fair-skinned, blonde, blue-eyed, sharp-nosed’ invaders. In the process, the Dravidian inhabitants were supposedly pushed to the southern parts of peninsular India. As decades of research has failed to yield a shred of archaeological [Ref. 1,2], anthropological [Ref. 3,], genetic and literary [Ref. 4,5] evidence, and the linguistic evidence in support of AIT is also tenuous at the most [Ref.5,6,7], Indologists (who are largely linguists and philologists outside India) have proposed a new model called the ‘Aryan Migration Theory’ (AMT).

This model, as of yet, is rather confused and seems to be just a euphemistic nomenclature for AIT [See Note 1]. I say so because AMT still incorporates notions like the military use of ‘thundering chariots’ as ‘Vedic tanks’ by the ‘migrating’ Aryans, the scare caused by neighing horses of Aryans to the IVC inhabitants [see Notes 2-4], and the reduction of the native Indian population to serfdom [See Note 5] for rice cultivation through elite domination. In AMT, the ‘migrating’ groups are still postulated to resemble the (relatively fairer) present day Iranians and Afghans, and the Aryan migrations are explained with the examples of later ‘migrations’ (in reality, clear cut invasions) of Huns, Shakas etc. to India. [see Note 6]

While the only large scale migration attested archaeologically in the relevant time frame is that from the Indus basin to the more easterly Gangetic basin and to greater Gujarat, and there is no clear cut evidence for any other one way migration into India from outside in the time period in question, literary evidence is now being searched from ‘inside the Vedic texts’ to buttress the case of AMT.

The present article reviews one such attempt by Professor Michael Witzel, the Wales Professor of Sanskrit at the Harvard University. Witzel was born in and studied at Germany, and has thereafter worked in Nepal, Netherlands and in other countries.

2.0 The Literary ‘Evidence’

When the AIT was accepted as gospel truth, the invasionists (= proponents of AIT) mis-interpreted passage after passage, verse after verse of the Vedic texts to ‘prove’ their notions of the Aryan Invasion of India. This becomes amply clear when one reads the translations of or annotations on the Rigveda by Griffith, Keith, Oldenberg, Macdonell and so many other old and new Western scholars as well as their followers in India. Critiques of these invasionist translations started appearing simultaneously in India in the writings of Dayanand Sarasvati, Sri Aurobindo, Swami Vivekanda, Suryakanta, Bhagavad Datta, Ramagopal Shastri and many others but were ignored by the adherents of the ‘scholarly consensus’. However, the AIT has become unfashionable now, and even certain Western Indologists like Hans Heinrich Hock (an eminent linguist) have come to acknowledge that the earlier invasionist interpretations of the Rigveda were in error [Ref. 9] and that the Rigveda does not allude to any invasions from Central Asia to India.

With invasions out, and migrations in, literary evidence from the Vedic texts must necessarily be found and retrofitted into the theoretical migration models. Witzel has written several pioneering, noteworthy and widely read articles in this regard. Two of them [Ref. 10, 11] appear in Erdosy’s volume (first published in 1995) on the proceedings of a conference at Toronto on October 4-6, 1991, and the third in the proceedings (edited by Bronkhorst, Johannes and Deshpande, Madhav) of the 1995 conference at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor on October 25-27, 1996 [Ref. 12] that was published in 1999. In his recent book [Ref. 13], Talageri has critiqued the articles by Witzel in Erdosy’s volume very extensively and has shown how the data presented by Witzel actually proves an East to West migration within South Asia, and not otherwise as claimed by Witzel. Talageri has also demonstrated how the internal chronology of Rigvedic hymns itself militates against the scenario of Aryan migration from out of India in the stated time frame. This critique is now available on-line and Witzel’s abusive response to a portion of the book is also on the web.

In his rather long article on the ‘textual evidence’ from the Vedic texts, Witzel has produced a mere solitary passage as proof of the AMT thesis [Ref. 11, pg. 320-321]. I quote the relevant passage:

Taking a look at the data relating to the immigration of the Indo-Aryans into South Asia, one is stuck by the number of vague reminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in the Rgveda, in spite repeated assertions to the contrary in the secondary literature. Then, there is the following direct statement contained in (the admittedly much later) BSS (=Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra) 18.44:397.9 sqq which has once again been overlooked, not having been translated yet: “Ayu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru Panchala and the Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group)” (Witzel 1989a: 235).

The reference (Witzel 1989a: 235) at the end is to an earlier article by Witzel, which is in publication that is rather difficult to obtain [Ref. 14]. We will come back to this publication later. In a footnote, Witzel also reproduces the original Sanskrit passage from the text in question.
<b>
That the above passage from a Vedic text is the sole ‘direct’ evidence for the AMT is clarified by Witzel later [Ref. 11, pg, 321]:

“Indirect references to the immigration of Indo-Aryan speakers include reminiscences of Iran….”</b>




5.0 Cover Ups?

The diversity of the numerous mutually incompatible explanations given by Witzel to account for his (mis-)translation (and ‘interpretation’) of the passage from the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra leaves one wondering- which is the correct explanation? Is the mistranslation due to editorial slips on part of Erdosy, the misplacement of a bracket, the ‘nirukta like use’ of words on the passage or is it simply a case of mistranslation?

The issue becomes serious when one considers the reference “(Witzel 1989a: 235)” in the original paper in Erdosy. The earlier publication referred [Ref. 14] to by Witzel is actually difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, I was able to get hold of a copy and found the following on pg. 325 of Witzel’s article of the text:

In the case of ancient N. India, we do not know anything about the immigration of various tribes and clans, except for a few elusive remarks in the RV (= Rigveda), SB (= Shatapatha Brahmana) or BSS ( = Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra). This text retains at 18.44 :397.9 sqq. The most pregnant memory, perhaps, of an immigration of the Indo-Aryans into Northern India and of their split into two groups: pran Ayuh pravavraja. Tasyaite Kuru-Pancalah Kasi-Videha ity. Etad Ayavam pravrajam. Pratyan amavasus. Tasyaite Gandharvarayas Parsavo ‘ratta ity. Etad Amavasavam. “Ayu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancala and the Kasi Videha. This is the Ayava migration. (His other people) stayed at home in the West. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group)”. [see Note 10]

Witzel further comments:

…the text makes a differentiation between the peoples of the Panjab and the territories West of it on one hand, and the “properly Vedic” tribes of Madhyadesa and the adjacent country East of it.

Witzel then brings in a discussion on Eastern Vratyas and I leave it to the reader to refer the original article by Witzel for further details. The edition of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra referenced by Witzel is the one by W. Caland [Ref. 30]

However, the following observations can indeed be made safely when the above citation from Witzel’s 1989 article is compared with that in Erdosy’s book:

· The translation in the 1995 Erdosy volume is identical to Witzel’s translation in his earlier publication of 1989. Therefore, the translation in Erdosy’s 1995 volume is entirely Witzel’s since Erdosy was nowhere in the picture in the 1989 volume published from Paris. Hence, Witzel’s attempt to confuse the issue by attributing the error to Erdosy’s editorial slips is of no consequence to this specific case. Erdosy’s carelessness might have resulted in other errors in Witzel’s article, but not this one. It was therefore, extremely unethical on the part of Witzel to blame a professional colleague in a public forum for a fault which was purely his own.

· The ‘revised’ translation and interpretation of the passage by Witzel is not significantly different from the one in Erdosy’s book in so far as its implications for the Aryan Migration Theory are concerned.

· Witzel has highlighted the centrality of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra passage both in his 1989 publication (‘The most pregnant memory, perhaps, of an immigration of the Indo-Aryans into Northern India and of their split into two groups.’) and also in his 1995 article (see section 2.0 above). Understandably then, the non-tenability of Witzel’s translation of the passage actually deprives the AMT of its primary textual evidence.

· Internet lists such as the Indology List and the Indian Civilization list, are much more affordable and accessible to scholars and to non-professional Indologists than the expensive volume by Erdosy (even its Indian reprint) and (especially) the volume published in 1989 from Paris. Unfortunately, although Witzel referred to his 1989 article in Erdosy’s volume, he has completely refrained from doing so in his numerous replies on the issue on the Internet. While I do not want to impute a deliberate effort at concealment on the part of Witzel (in his hope that readers will not check the original sources) here, the omission did potentially mislead 100’s of readers, who read merely the false accusations against Erdosy and also numerous other misleading statements made by Witzel. Without checking the book published in 1989 personally, one can only blame Erdosy for distorting Witzel’s actual translation.

· No where in his two translations/interpretations of the passage does Witzel indicate the ‘nirukta like interpretations as verbs’- which seems only a later ploy to defend his stance. Nor does Witzel indicate the difficulty in translating this passage in his articles- an argument that he has brought up only later.

· Nor does one understand Witzel’s self-defense that he had merely misplaced a bracket. I suggest that readers try relocating a parenthesis in his statement at other places in his translation and see if that makes any significant difference. If Witzel had erred in the placement of the parenthesis in Erdosy’s article (so not an editorial slip of Erdosy!), he committed the same mistake in his earlier article as well. In any case, how does the misplacement of a parenthesis explain his clear conclusion on the implications of this passage for the AMT?

· Interestingly, while the article in Erdosy’s volume says that the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra is admittedly a late text, the revised version of Witzel contains a different (albeit correct) emphasis by specifying that it is a passage from the Brahmana period. The Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra is considered very close to the Brahmana texts in time by scholarly consensus and the relevant sections are of the form of an Anvakhyana Brahmana. Nevertheless, Witzel should have still prefixed the word ‘late’ to the word ‘Brahmana’ in his revised translation). Was this the result of Elst’s critique that Witzel has been able to produce only one passage from a late Vedic text to substantiate his AMT paradigms? Second, while Indologists often reject even the Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda as texts that are too late to study the immigration/invasion of Aryans into India, is it appropriate to use an even much later Kalpasutra text for this purpose?




6.0 Conclusion

Despite 150 years of research by legions of Indologists, the picture of pre-Buddhist India is largely hazy and therefore adherence to dogmas conforming to one’s pet theories is not desirable. It is clear that the pioneering attempt to retrofit literary evidence from the Vedic texts into the Aryan Migration model has ended in a fiasco. The attempt is reminiscent of earlier efforts of proving the AIT from the Vedic texts- with the difference that the attempt to seek evidence for AMT in the Vedic texts is even more desperate.

To be charitable to Dr. Witzel, let us assume that he was right and Cardona, Hock, Elst, Kalyanaraman are all in error. Does that still entitle him to make false, misleading and defamatory statements?

While even Michael Witzel, the Wales Professor of Sanskrit at the Harvard University, is entitled to make elementary mistakes in the translation of Sanskrit passages, it was not appropriate for him to have made misleading statements made not once, but many times, and in front of more than 600 specialists in the field. On the possible cause for the same, I leave it to the reader to use his own judgment for arriving at a decision on this matter after consulting Witzel’s writings and also the evidence presented here. Elst’s relevant comment [Ref 31] is however, certainly not out of place here:

…The same is true of Michael Witzel's "Piltdown translation" of the Ayu/Amavasu passage of the Baudhayana Shrautasutra ("debunked", in Farmer's parlance, on p.164-5 of my Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate and on my website). It is so obviously wrong that one wonders how a student of Sanskrit, let alone a Harvard professor of Sanskrit, could put his name under it. And yet, Witzel being just a human being, I accept that he was subject to the over-eagerness which made him see what he hoped to see…..

In a recent publication [Ref. 32], Witzel and co-author Steve Farmer pontificate, lashing out at one of their opponents:

The historical fantasies of writers like Rajaram must be exposed for what they are: propaganda issuing from the ugliest corners of the pre-scientific mind. The fact that many of the most unbelievable of these fantasies are the product of highly trained engineers should give Indian educational planners deep concern.

Much of Rajaram’s training in engineering has been in the United States, contrary to the authors’ implied assumption! As a new parent, I get concerned about our education system when an American academician indulges in the inappropriate behavior that we have just discussed in this article – and all the more because he is a Professor at the Harvard University.





7.0 Epilogue

Indology is one of the few areas of specialization in which several 19th century colonial and racist paradigms are still accepted as gospel truth [Ref. 33, 34]. Understandably then, specialists in other areas like geology, archaeology, anthropology, archaeo-metallurgy and even scientists/physicists (and members of other professions) who are ardent students of Indological topics have often challenged the sacred dogmas of Indology. Some Indologists, largely linguists and philologists, have hit back, often in the most distasteful manner. For instance, in their recent publication [Ref. 32], Witzel (as well as his co-author) lampoons the people who have critiqued his (and those of others holding similar opinions) writings in the most condescending manner:

Ironically many those expressing anti-migration views are migrants themselves, engineers or technocrats like N. S. Rajaram. S. Kak, and S. Kalyanaraman, who ship their ideas to India from the U.S. shores. They find allies in a broader assortment of home grown nationalists including university professors, bank employees, and politicians (S. S. Misra, S. Talageri, K. D. Sethna, S. P. Gupta, Bh. Singh, M. Shendge, Bh. Gidwani, P. Chaudhuri, A. Shourie, S. R. Goel). They have gained a small or vocal following in the west among “New Age” writers or researchers outside mainstream scholarship, including D. Frawley, G. Feuerstein, K. Klostermaier, and K. Elst. Whole publishing firms, such as the Voice of India, and Aditya Prakashan, are devoted to propagating their ideas.

Witzel is not the only Indologist who demonizes those that question the dogmas of Indology. In his hit list above, Frawley (a Hindu), Elst (a secular humanist) and Klostermaier (an ordained Catholic priest and a celebrated Professor Emeritus at a mainstream University of Canada) are not ‘New Agers’, S. Kalyanaraman lives very much in India, while S. S. Misra, M. Shendge, K. D. Sethna (born a Parsi), A. Shourie and S. R. Goel (has a graduate degree in History) are definitely not ‘nationalists’ in the parochial sense of the word. S. P. Gupta is an archaeologist, Bh. Gidwani is a novel writer, M. Shendge is an Indologist, K. Elst has a doctoral degree in Indology, Bh. Singh is said to have been a Marxist and Misra is a renowned mainstream Sanskritist/linguist. Aditya Prakashan is an old publishing house that has brought out dozens of books that have nothing to do with ‘propagating their ideas’. In fact, some of the above (eg. Arun Shourie, S. R. Goel) have not even written anything significant on AIT or related matters. Nevertheless, this example shows the extent to which some academicians can stoop to lampoon those who disagree with them - or with their Marxist colleagues in India (as is the case with Shourie and Goel, who have criticized Marxist Indologists in India).