Scientific Evidence = Hindu Conspiracy

According to Harvard Professor Michael Witzel, scientific evidence against the creationism based Aryan Invasion Theory is a Hindu conspiracy!

A few months back, Science magazine published a paper that disproves the Aryan Invasion Theory. You can read about that paper here.

The research shows that there was only a single dispersal from Africa, via a southern coastal route, across the mouth of the red Sea, through India and onward into Southeast Asia and Australasia. There was subsequently a northern offshoot from the Gulf region, leading ultimately to the settlement of the Near East and Europe, but this only occurred much later.

However, this turns out to be wrong. According to the Harvard Professor who supports theories based on Biblical creationism, this is nothing but a conspiracy hatched by Hindus!

Witzel claimed the changes were motivated by “Hindutva” forces and would “lead without fail to an international educational scandal if they are accepted by the California’s State Board of Education.”

Hindus had suggested changes in textbooks based on this paper to California’s State Board of Education. According to another “scholar” named James Heitzman who was on the “Super Review Team” to assess the facts placed by Hindus, the “undecayed body of Saint Francis Xavier” is actually a miracle! And Islam began when “Muhammad received visions in which the Archangel Gabriel revealed the word of God to him.” Heitzman also states that Hinduism is based on speculations.

The activists led by Michael Witzel were also planning to contact BBC and make them take off the section on Hinduism that stated that the Aryan Invasion Theory “was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas.” Apparently, they temporarily succeeded in their efforts to foil the Hindu conspiracy to plant DNA evidence when BBC pulled down the page for two days, but the page was restored after BBC received complaints from people who believed in DNA evidence. [SABHA 4M Report]

For more on the text book issue in California, read this post by Sibin, who asks who the experts are.

9 thoughts on “Scientific Evidence = Hindu Conspiracy

  1. JK,
    Thank you for this post.
    The California Text Book controversy is an interesting one. It is key that the Board of Education rely on the same methodology while depicting Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism in school text books. If the Board chooses to present Christianity and Judaism as the believers of those religions see it, the same principle should apply to Hinduism. On the other hand, if it intends to apply the rigors of a detached historiography to Hinduism, it should use the same approach to portray Christianity and Judaism. This is the crux of the issue.
    The Board’s initial approach entailed an “academic” presentation of Hinduism in contrast to a relatively “theological” presentation of Christianity and Judaism. This duality is inappropriate.
    Turning to a related subject, the study of history in India since the 1970s has been hijacked by the ideological left. I refer to Romila Thapar, Sarvapalli Gopal, K.N. Panikkar, Gyanendra Pandey, R.S. Sharma and D.D. Kosambi. This Nehruvian school was outmoded in its interpretation and anti-Hindu.
    Unfortunately, the Hindutva school was not trained in the rigors of historical research to effectively refute the Indian left. Their approach was flawed. We are reliant therefore on an earlier generation of Indian historians of the 1950s to salvage the truth. The evidence of archeology also serves to effectively refute the Nehruvian historiography.
    There are good Indologists in the United States. They offer a refreshing alternative to the current leftist stranglehold of academia in India. I rely on them to better understand the latest research on Indian and Sri Lankan (my country) history.
    However, Witzel (the Harvard affiliation notwithstanding), Heitzman and company are not part of that group. The latter are motivated by an anti-Hindu animus which explains their close links with Romila Thapar.
    It is a pity that the study of Indian history has been so politicized. Truth is the first casualty. It is time to “de-politicize” the study of the past.
    Returning to the California Text Book controversy, my preference would have been to have an academic approach to all religions. This would have questioned the very premise of Christianity and Judaism to begin with. But since the Board chose to present both religions in light of the believer’s perspective, the same should hold true for Hinduism. It is as simple as that.
    Best regards

  2. None of the present scientific studies deny Aryan Invasion or Aryan migration theories. However, what is becoming clear that the genetic make up of any castes donot support pre-historic exclusive Aryan markers. The Aryans who came to India didn’t bring any new male genetic markers(though European female markers could be present). There were multiple migrations to India and not all the migrations bringing the people sharing the same chromosome could be identified as Aryans. It’s more a cultural construct that genetics one.
    However, point of contention is not Aryan invasion/migration but development of caste system. Was it solely perpetrated by Aryans or was it synthesis with native structure? Also, we can’t consider India as a whole while discussing imposition of caste system. The way it spread in South and East is different from the North-West Indian scenario.

  3. These grant old historians like Michael Witzel, Romila Thapar, Farmer are all using the old,outdated knowledge, which they had been grinding from their childhood and which was there bread and butter. If they really are historians should accept the science and latest DNA and Carbon dating, which proves AIT is an illusion created. THe time has come for their journey to grave but these people still lying.

  4. JK,
    In scholarly circles AIT has almost never been about race or genotype (the kind of evidence that would be refuted by the Out of Africa study) but about language. The existence of Indo-Iranian speakers and Dravidian speakers are evident. The AIT or the more recent migration theory are merely explanations of how IndoEuropean speakers got to to India, because their language did not originate in India.

  5. I just saw that message, and will be replying to it. A theoretical construct it is, but so is evolution – it comes down to how strong the evidence is. And quoting the Wikipedia, ” The existence of such a language is generally accepted by linguists, though there has been debate about many specific details”. Even the archaeological evidence is pretty strong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *