The difficulty of letting go

While talking of evolution, Richard Dawkins lamented that many still consider evolution as a theory and not as a fact. He was surprised that people hung on to ideas that were scientifically proven wrong. Unlike Dawkins, I am not surprised. As I see the reluctance of some of the ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ minded in letting go of theories in the face of facts, it does not surprise me that the 'believers' are still hanging on to various religious ‘theories’ on the topic.

For example, consider how a so called fact based discipline like history hangs on to its ideas in the face of contradicting evidence. A century back, some Europeans ventured into learning Vedas and Sanskrit. They were stricken by the similarity of the language to their own. In the absence of any other fact, they postulated that Aryans invaded India and spread their language and culture in India. This was not founded on much, but we can’t blame those who made this theory because there was no other fact to contradict the theory either. It must have been comforting for them to think that this colonized civilization came to being from European origins than the other way around. This invasion was fixed at around 1200BC, again without any fact to go for or against it.

The good people and good attitude in Vedas were referred to by the adjective Arya in Vedas. Hence it is obvious that Arya refers to the race. If you are not convinced, please note that in English “white” was used to refer to a race as well as a fair attitude until it became politically incorrect. Any remaining lack of conviction will fully fade away once you consider that the Vedic people were manifestly politically incorrect.

The caste system in India was also conveniently explained by this theory. The Aryans who came in called themselves the upper castes and the ‘natives’ became the untouchables.

Now more facts began to emerge. Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa ruins were discovered and they were dated to be older than 1200BC. This fact was easily assimilated in the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). If the Harappan civilization was here before 1200 BC, then they were clearly the invaded. If Aryans destroyed them completely, that explains why there is no continuation of the civilization in to later times. Some random skeletons found in Harappan sites which were not properly buried became the evidence of Aryan massacre. 
 There was also a view that the Harappan people were Dravidians who later fled to south of India. This would address the concern of those who were looking for the continuation of Harappan civilization. This would beautifully support the Dravidian politics as well. It is difficult to create a theory that supports one divisive politics. This one can support two. A theory that has so many benefits needs to be defended fiercely. It would indeed be foolish to let go of it just because some facts contradicted it.

Now, more difficulties for the theory began to emerge as other trouble makers started discovering more facts. It was proven that Harappan civilization did not vanish due to an invading army, but due to other natural causes. Also, genetic studies suggest no significant racial influx into India during the time frame of AIT. But if we could take a theory based on zero facts this far, this minor hurdle should not discourage us.

To accommodate the genetic findings, the AIT theory was modified as Aryan Migration Theory. According to this theory, an insignificant number of Aryans migrated to India and spread the language and culture among the existing population. They were small enough in numbers not to leave any genetic evidence – See how smartly we took care of the genetics buffs. Now whatever they might discover in future is irrelevant to our theory. You might ask how such a small number of Aryans established power over the existing population. No, they did not. They just meekly walked in. All the natives immediately discovered how smart the visitors were and they assimilated the culture and language of the visitors voluntarily. Were the migrants more advanced compared to civilized Harappans? Well, that is an inconvenient question. Lets hope that someone will come up with a creative answer to that!

Now, what about the reality that one of the fundamental arguments in the favour of this invasion theory was the textual references in Vedas on wars between Arya and Dasyu? That’s easy. Though in reality Aryans meekly merged in with the native crowd, on paper they were tigers who attacked and conquered the Dasyus.

Now if Aryans peacefully merged with the existing crowd, why are all the rivers in Rigveda named in Indo-Aryan? The natives should have continued to use their names for these. Though Aryans came from elsewhere, deep down in their hearts they were Indians. Why else would they rename each and every river and mountain in their own language at the first opportunity?

Now this theory - that Aryans peacefully blended in with natives and that the natives assimilated and continued the Aryan culture and tradition - creates a serious problem : it does not support the divisive politics that we nurtured so long. But let’s keep quiet about that now lest people stop fighting.