b.b. lal distortions in indian history

8/14/2019 B.B. Lal Distortions in Indian history

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bb-lal-distortions-in-indian-history 1/19

1

Distortions in Indian History

B.B. Lal

Distinguished fellow delegates and other members of the audience,I am indeed greatly beholden to the organizers of this

International Seminar, in particular to Professor Shivaji Singh andDr. Kosla Vepa, to have kindly invited me to deliver the Inaugural

Address. This will give me an opportunity to meet so manyintellectuals and discuss with them many important aspect of Indianhistory.

History has been defined in one of the dictionaries as ëacontinuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to aparticular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written ina chronological orderí. But a million-dollar question is: Can thisënarrativeí be wholly truthful i.e. without any ëdistortionsí? If you

pause for a while and ponder over the question, your answer, inall likelihood, would be: ëPerhaps not.í Why? Because, just asëbeauty lies in the eyes of the beholderí, I would say, ëhistory lies inthe perception of the historianí. To the best of my understanding,no narrator of any event can honestly claim that he/she has seenthat event in its entirety. The position is more or less like theproverbial description of an elephant ëseení by blind persons. Those

who touched the legs said that the elephant was like the trunk of atree; those who had a feel of the ears compared the animal with a

Inaugural Address delivered at the International Seminar on ëIndianHistory with specific focus on ìDistortionsîí, held at IndiaInternational Centre, New Delhi, on January 9-11, 2009.



2

big fan; and so on. No one ought to blame these persons since theyreported what they observed. But, as we know, their descriptionswere only partly correct and cannot be taken to be ëall-inclusiveíand are, therefore, ëinconclusiveí.

Leaving aside this narration of an elephant, even if we look atthe reporting of any of the current events in a newspaper or on thetelevision, we will find that the situation is not much different. Forexample, the recent beating up of some Biharis who had come toMumbai to appear at a Railway Entrance examination, by themembers of the Maharashtra Navanirman Sena was hailed asëpatrioticí by the leaders of the Sena, whereas others condemned itas ëatrociousí. The same event was seen with coloured glasses worn by the viewers concerned and their own versions will go down asëhistoryí written by their respective ëhistoriansí.

Let us take another example of yesteryears. What happened inIndia in 1857 has been termed as a ëMutinyí by the Britishers, buthailed as the ëFirst War of Independenceí by Indians. Perhaps boththe parties will insist that their perception was/is correct. Who isgoing to be the arbiter?

The real culprit in all such cases seems to be the element ofëperceptioní of the narrator, in other words the ëmind-setí of theëhistorianí. And howsoever the historian ñ or for that matteranybody ñ might try to be ëtruthfulí, he just cannot be, since howcan he detach himself from his ëperceptioní ñ something ingrainedin his mind? The above-noted two simple examples, namely thoseof the Mumbai beating up and the 1857 event, amply illustrate this.Thus, history can never ever be ëtrueí in its entirety: the grey patcheswill always remain, though the depth and extent of the greynessmay vary from narration to narration. And, to be honest, how isthe reader better qualified to be the judge? Does he too not havehis own ëperceptioní which, not unjustifiably, has often been termedas ëprejudiceí?

Having accepted the fact that no history can be bereft ofëdistortionsí, I would like to distinguish between ëunconsciousí and

ëconsciousí distortions, in other words distortions which may havecrept in unwittingly and those which were deliberately engineered.Whereas the former could be the result of sheer ignorance of thecomplete data or of a shabby analysis thereof and are, therefore,pardonable in a way, it is the ëconscious distortionsí on which aheavy axe must fall. I will illustrate my point by citing examples of



3

these two categories. However, since I am a bit more familiar withthe writings on ancient Indian history, my examples will naturally be drawn therefrom.

Way back in the 19th century, the renowned German scholar

Max Muller dated the Vedas to circa 1200 BCE. This he did on a veryad-hoc basis. Having accepted that the Sµ utra literature could be asold as the sixth century BCE, he assigned a duration of two hundredyears to each of the preceding periods, namely those of the Åraƒyakas, Bråhmaƒas and Vedas. Thus, 600+200+200+200= 1200 BCE

was his ready-made date for the Vedas. However, when hiscontemporary scholars, such as Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilsonraised objections to this kind of ad-hocism, he relented and cameout with the following statement:

I have repeatedly dwelt on the merely hypothetical character ofthe dates, which I have ventured to assign to the first periods ofVedic literature. All I have claimed for them has been that they areminimum dates, and that the literary productions of each periodwhich either still exist or which formerly existed could hardly beaccounted for within shorter limits of time than those suggested.

(Emphasis added.)But when even this explanation-cum-apology did not satisfy

the scholars, Max Muller threw up his hands in sheer desperation.His confession, as follows, is worth noting (Max Muller 1890, reprint1979):

If now we ask how we can fix the dates of these periods, it is quiteclear that we cannot hope to fix a terminum a qua [sic]. Whether theVedic hymns were composed [in] 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC ,no power on earth will ever determine. (Emphasis added.)

In so far as Max Muller was concerned, the matter was closedfrom his side. But the greatest irony is that his original fatawa of1200 BCE, given in the 19th century, is sill ruling the roost in ceratinquarters even in the 21st century!

The disastrous effect of this fatawa was seen in the 1920s whenthe Harappan Civilization was discovered and attempts were madeto identify its authors. On the basis of the occurrence of severalobjects of this civilization in deposits of certain already-dated WestAsian cultures, it was assigned to the 3rd millennium BCE. The netresult was that the Vedic people were never even considered tohave been the authors of the Harappan Civilization, since according



4

Fig. 1. Region of Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.

Fig. 2. Temple at Togolok-21, Margiana.



5

to Max Mullerís fatawa the Vedas were only as old 1200 BCE.Simultaneously, without any sustainable reason the authorship wasthrust on the Dravidian-speaking people. And this is how the firstmajor distortion took place in interpreting ancient Indian history!

Adding fuel to the fire was the famous declaration of my revered

guru, Sir Mortimer Wheeler. In 1946, after having discovered afortification-wall around one of the mounds at Harappa and onlearning that in the Vedas Indra has been described as pura≈dara(i.e. destroyer of forts), he lost no time and announced (1947: 82):ìOn circumstantial evidence Indra [symbolic of the Vedic Aryans]stands accused [of destroying the Harappan Civilization].î This

Fig. 3. ëCitadelí at Gonur, Margiana.



6

was the second major distortion. The hands of the Vedicëinvadersí were sullied with the blood of the so-called ëDravidian-speaking Harappansí who were said to have been massacred bythe former, and whose territories were usurped by them driving

the latter all the way down to south India.In support of the (supposed) massacre, Wheeler cited someskeletons met with at Mohenjo-daro. However, an in-depth analysisof the provenance of these skeletons shows that they occurred indifferent stratigraphic levels ñ some in the middle, some in thelate and yet some others in deposits which had accumulated atthe site after its abandonment. Had an invasion been the cause ofthese deaths, one expects that the skeletons would have been foundin one level which also would have been the uppermost, after whichthe inhabitants are taken to have deserted the site and migrated tosouth India. Further, all the skeletal remains came from the LowerTown which was occupied by the commoners, but none from theCitadel area which was the seat of the government. Are we expectedto believe that the ëinvadersí killed the commoners and carefullyspared the high-ups? The doubt about the deaths having been the

result of an ëinvasioní is also supported by that fact some of theskeletons bore cut-marks which had been healed ñ a process whichmust have taken quite some time. There would have been no healinghad the deaths been due to a ëmassacreí. I am in full agreementwith George F. Dales who captioned his paper (1964): ëTheMythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daroí.

In this context, it also needs to be added that no site of theHarappan Civilization has yielded any evidence of ëinvasioní ,much less of ëmassacreí. Nor is there any evidence of an alienculture overtaking any of these sites. On the other hand, the datashow a continuity of occupation and only gradual culturaltransition ñ such as into what has been labeled as the JhukarCulture at Chanhu-daro or Cemetery H Culture at Harappa orthe Rangpur Culture in Gujarat.

Confronted with the foregoing situation, the crusaders of the

ëinvasion theoryí now no longer swear by it. But the ëghostí of thattheory has begun to re-appear in a new avatåra (incarnation), namelythat of ëmigrationí. Says Romila Thapar (1989-91: 259-60): ìIfinvasion is discarded then the mechanism of migration andoccasional contacts come into sharper focus. The migrations appearto have been of pastoral cattle breeders who are prominent in the



7

Åvestå and ° Rigveda.î Faithfully following her, R.S. Sharma asserts(1999: 77): ì... the pastoralists who moved to the Indian borderlandcame from Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex or BMACwhich saw the genesis of the culture of the ° Rigveda.î

It appears that both Thapar and Sharma are still wedded to the bygone notion that the Vedic Aryans were nomads. But they donot appear to have done any home-work about the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex. V. I. Sarianidi and hiscolleagues have unearthed the wonderful remains of the BMAC,which spread over the area from Turkmenistan to northernAfghanistan (Fig. 1) between circa 2100 and 1700 BCE. And, as would be seen from what follows, the BMAC was a highly developedurban culture having nothing to do with ënomad-ismí ñ the basalpoint of the Thapar-Sharma thesis.

Thus, it seems necessary to spell out, howsoever briefly, thecharacteristic features of the BMAC. The settlements were not onlymarked by well planned large-sized houses but also had distinctivereligious and public buildings like temples at Dashly-3 in Bactriaand Togolok-21 in Margiana, and even Citadel complexes like the

one at Gonur. The Dashly-3 temple was circular on plan, with adiameter of 40 metres and was provided with nine square bastionson the exterior. The Toglok-21 temple was much more elaborate.Situated on about 1.5 hectares of land, it had an inner unitmeasuring 60 x 40 metres, provided with circular and semi-circular bastions on the exterior. This inner complex was surrounded bytwo successive enclosures which too had bastions on the outer side(Fig. 2). The ëCitadelí at Gonur was a still more elaborate affair.Covering an overall area of 120 x 115 metres and enclosed by amassive fortification-wall with rectangular bastions all around, itincluded within the complex the kingís palace, audience hall andadministrative and garrison blocks (Fig. 3).

The antiquities found at the BMAC sites also speak volumesfor the high calibre of the culture. Without going into too manydetails, it may suffice to draw attention to even just a few items.

Thus, for example, there is the elaborate axe of silver covered withgold lamina. At the butt-end it bears the heads of two eagles and awinged feline (Fig. 4). Evidently, this axe was not an ordinary one(like so many others found at the site) but appears to have beenused for some ceremonial purpose. Maybe it was mounted on astaff which was held by the ruler as a symbol of authority.



8

The sculptural art of the BMAC people was, once again, of a

very high order. This may be seen from the three illustratedspecimens. Fig. 5 shows the seated statue of a lady from Bactria. Inorder to bring out a contrast in the portrayal, the sculptor has useda blackish stone for the dress but a pinkish white for the head andhands. Attention may also be drawn to the fine herring-bone weaveof the garment and to the delicate hair-style. And the animal-

Fig. 4. Silver ceremonial axe withparts covered with gold lamina,

from Bactria.

Fig. 5. Composite stone figurinefrom Bactria.

Fig. 6. Chlorite and gold leafrepresentation of a feline, with

semi-precious stone inlay.

Fig. 7. Limestone goatwith horns, eyes and beard in lapis lazuli.



9

portrayals were no less breath-taking. Thus, for example, have alook at the feline in Fig. 6. It is covered with a gold-leaf in whichare embedded semi-precious stones of a variety of colours. No lessremarkable is the limestone goat whose horns, eyes and beard are

made of lapis lazuli (Fig. 7).Would you like to deduce from the foregoing that the BMACpeople were nomads ñ whom Thapar and Sharma would like topush into India as the progenitors of the °Rigvedic people? I amsure, you wouldnít.

But why blame the Thapar-Sharma duo alone? Even theprincipal excavator of the BMAC sites has erred when he sees in its

authors the ancestors of the Vedic Aryans. I thoroughly examinedthese pitfalls in the Inaugural Address which I delivered in July2007 at the 19th International Conference on South AsianArchaeology, held at the University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy. (Aprinted copy of it was circulated amongst the over-500 participantsand pending its publication in the official Proceedings, it has already been included in Puråtattva, No. 37, 2006-07, pp. 1-19.) Here I shalltouch upon just a few major blunders in Sarianidiís thesis.

He advances four arguments in support of his thesis, namelythose of: (i) soma, (ii) a‹vamedha, (iii) fire-worship, and (iv) cult-motifs on the BMAC glyptics.

It has been claimed by Sarianidi that the remains of ephedraand poppy occurred in the temple at Togolok-21, which he identifieswith soma of the Vedic people. First of all, it needs to be stated thatnot all scholars agree that ephedra is indeed soma. Secondly, Harri

Nyberg (1995), the well known authority on the subject,categorically denies the identification of the pollens concerned withthose of ephedra or poppy. Hence the shaky nature of thisargument.

Having found a skeleton of the horse with the head missing,Sarianidi concludes that it was a case of a‹vamedha sacrifice. In thefirst place, this skeleton lay just a few centimetres below the surfaceand there was no burial-pit (Fig. 8). Thus, the missing of the headcould be due to a variety of extraneous reasons. More importantly,however, the remains do not conform to the description given inthe Vedic texts about the a‹vamedha which states: ìThe axepenetrates the thirty-four ribs of the swift horse, the beloved of thegods, (the immolators), cut up (the horse) with skill, so that the



10

limbs may be perforated and recapitulating joint by joint.î Thetheory of a‹vamedha sacrifice, therefore, is a non-starter.

The case of fire-worship is still worse. Sarianidi first comparesthe outer plan of a structure at Gonur with that of a fire-temple at

Nush-i-Jan (Fig. 9). But there is no evidence of any fire-worship atGonur. Let that alone, the error is beyond redemption whenSarianidi calls a structural complex at Mohenjo-daro (Fig. 10) a ëfire-templeí. The excavator of Mohenjo-daro, however, categoricallycalls it a normal residential complex (Marshall 1931, Vol. I: 202).But the greatest pitfall is that whereas the Mohehjo-daro complexbelongs to the 3rd millennium BCE , the Gonur example isassignable to the 2nd millennium BCE. Did Sarianidi ever realizethe adverse repercussion of these dates? Indeed, if his comparisonwere to be valid, the movement of the people would have to befrom India to the Bactria-Margiana region. Would he like toaccept this position?

Now to the cult-motifs on the BMAC glyptics. Since there occuron some Bogazkoy tablets the names of the Vedic gods like Indra,Mitra, Varuƒa and Nåsatya, Sarianidi (1993: 677) argues, as follows:

ëSince it is Mitanni texts that contain the oldest mention of Aryandeities, there cannot be any doubt about the connection of the

Fig. 8. Burial (?) of a horse in Gonur Depe.



11

Mitanni empire with the so-called Aryan problem. As thereplication of Mitanni art in Bactria and Margiana is clearly notcoincidental, we are justified in connecting the tribes migrating intoCentral Asia and Indus Valley with the settlement process of theAryan or Indo-Aryan tribes.í While some parallels between themotifs on the BMAC and Syro-Hittite glyptics may be conceded,these have hardly to do anything with Aryan deities. To be morespecific, may not one ask Sarianidi to point out what exactly Aryanis there in the two of the seals chosen by him in this context (Figs.

11 and 12)? Does he think that the ëstanding nude anthropomorphicwinged deity with avian head and holding animals by their tailsíin the former of these seals is Indra or Mitra or Varuƒa or Nåsatya?At that rate, one fine morning someone might come out with a brilliant idea that the scene in the next seal (Fig. 12) depicts ìtheoffering of Soma to Indraî, where Indra is the figure seated on thechair and a devotee is offering the soma in a cup, the beverage itselfhaving been stored in the jar behind!

However, more important than whatever has been stated in thepast couple of paragraphs is the fact that no cultural element ofthe Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex ever reached eastof the Indus (cf. Figs. 13 and 14), which was the domain of theVedic Aryans as per the Nad∂-stuti Sµukta of the ° Rigveda itself

Fig. 9.

Fort at Gonur Temple at Nush-i-Jan



12

Fig. 10. Mohenjo-daro: ìFire Templeî?

Fig. 11. Impression of cylinder seal from Gonur-1.



13

(10.75: 5 and 6). How can then one force the entry of the BMACpeople into the °Rigvedic region even through a back door?

And now to yet another daring attempt at pushing the VedicAryans from the Bactria-Margiana region into India. The renownedauthor from Finland, Asko Parpola, states in one of his papers (1993:47): ìA newly found antennae-hilted sword from Bactria paralleling

those from Fatehgarh suggests that this same wave of immigrantsmay also have introduced the Copper Hoards into India.î (Cf.Fig. 15.)

Those who are familiar with the Indian Copper Hoards knowfull well that these comprise not merely one type, namely the

Fig. 12. Scene on a cosmetic flacon, Bactria.

Fig. 13. Spread of the motif of man-bird with hit animals.



14

antennae sword, but several others, such as the anthropomorphs,harpoons, bar celts, shouldered celts, etc (Fig. 16). Besides, should

the occurrence of a single antennae sword in Bactria entitle thatcountry to be the ëoriginal homeí of the Copper Hoard Culture(which, incidentally, also has many other components such asthe distinctive Ochre Colour Ware)? At that rate, on the basis ofthe occurrence of a single Harappan seal at Gonur in Margiana(Fig. 17) Parpola might one day turn round and claim that theHarappan Civilization also originated in that region! Hasnít it been rightly said that to the jaundiced eye everything appears to be yellow?

Fig. 14. Spread of ëminiature columnsí and their probableprototypes in the Syro-Hittite world.

Fig. 15. Antennae-hilted swords of copper.



15

This over-enthusiasm to somehow push the Aryans into Indiafrom the west has led scholars even to mis-interpret the Vedic Texts.And here is a case in point. The learned Sanskrit scholar at theHarvard University, Professor Michael Witzel, writes (1995: 320-

21):Taking a look at the data relating to the immigration of the Indo-Aryans into South Asia, one is struck by the number of vaguereminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in the °Rgveda, in spiteof repeated assertions to the contrary in the secondary literature.Then, there is the following direct statement contained in (theadmittedly much later) B›S[Baudhåyana ›rautasµutra], 18.44:397.9

Fig. 16. Copper-hoards from the Gangetic valley, India.



16

sqq which has once again been overlooked, not having beentranslated yet: ìAyu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kurµu-Pa¤cåla and Kås∂-Videha. This is the Åyava (migration). (Hisother people) stayed at home in the west. His people are theGåndhår∂, Par‹u and Ara¢¢a. This is the Amåvasa (group).

(Emphasis mine.)

Though Witzel takes pride in being the first to translate thispassage from the Baudhåyana ›rautasµutra, have a look at thedeliberate distortion he has made. In order to make my point clearit is necessary to quote the relevant text in the original. It runs asfollows: ìPrå∆åyu¨ pravavråja. Tasyaite Kuru-Pa¤cålå¨ Kås∂-Videhåity etad Åyavam. Pratya∆ Amåvsu¨ [pravavråja] tasyaite Gåndhårayas

Par‹vo ìrå¢¢å ity etad Åmåvasam.îIn the first sentence of the text the verb used is pravavråja which

means ëmigratedí. Simple rules of grammar require that in thesecond sentence too, wherein the verb is not mentioned but isunderstood, it has got to be the same, namely ë pravavråjaí. Thecorrect translation of the entire piece will thus be: ìÅyu migratedeastwards. His people are the Kuru-Pa¤chålas and Kås∂-Videhas.

This is the Åyava (migration). Amåvasu migrated westwards.His (people) are the Gandhår∂, Par‹u and Åra¢¢a. This is theAmåvasava (migration).

What then the text really says is that (from some intermediaryregion) Åyu migrated eastwards and Amåvasu migratedwestwards. In other words, the migrations must have taken place

Fig. 17. Harappan seal from Gonur, and its impression.



17

from an area somewhere between the Gåndhåra region on the westand the Kuru region on the east. In contrast, Witzelís translationsays that while Åyu migrated eastwards, the Amåvasu groupstayed back, implying thereby that there was an eastward migrationfrom a body of people who had their own land in the west andwhere they stayed back. This is a deliberate distortion by Witzelin order to give a boost to his pre-conceived theory of an Aryanimmigration from the west.

The Baudhåyana ›rautasµ utra does in fact narrate the story of asection of the Vedic Aryans, namely the descendants of Amåvasu,having migrated westwards, via the Gåndhara region inAfghanistan to Persia (Par‹u of the text) and Ararat (Åra¢¢a) in

Armenia. From there they must have proceeded to Turkey wherethe Bogazkoy tablets of the 14th century BCE refer to a treaty betweenthe Hittite king Suppiluliuma and Mitanni king Matiwaza whocite the Vedic gods Indra, Varuƒa, Mitra and Nåsatyas as witnesses.In my forthcoming book, How Deep are the Roots of IndianCivilization?: Archaeology Answers, I have included a special chapter

Fig. 18. Westward Emigration of the Vedic Aryans in the2nd Millennium BCE.



18

on this topic in which I have quoted literary, epigraphical andarchaeological evidences, variously from India, Iran, Iraq andturkey, duly establishing this westward emigration of the Vedicpeople in the 2nd millennium BCE and would not like to take more

of the precious time of my audience now. Only a map is presentedhere, which speaks for itself (Fig. 18).Now some parting words. While no doubt it is our bounden

duty to set the distortions right, it is imperative that this ought to be done only with cogent evidence and fully sustainable arguments.No talking in the air or emotions will do. Further, we must alsoguard against being swayed away by any kind of political orreligious considerations. A true academic should worship only onegod: the truth ñ unmitigated truth.

At the end, I would like to thank you all once again for havinggiven me this valuable opportunity of addressing you and lookforward to very fruitful discussions during the course of theconference.

REFERENCES

Dales, G.F. 1964. The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daro. Expedition 6(3):36-43.

Lal, B.B. 2007. Let not the 19th Century Paradigms Continue to Haunt Us.Inaugural Address delivered at the 19th International Conferenceon South Asian Archaeology, held at the University of Bologna,Ravenna, Italy, on July 2-6, 2007.( Since published in Puråtattva,No. 37, 2006-07, pp. 1-19.)

ñññ. In press. How Deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization: Archaeology

Answers. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.Marshall, John.1931. Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization , 3 vols. London:

Arthur Probsthain.Muller, F. Max. 1890, reprint 1979. Physical Religion. New Delhi: Asian

Educational Services.Nyberg, Harri. 1995. The Problem of the Aryans and the Soma: The

Botanical Evidence. In G. Erdosy (ed.). The Indo-Aryans of AncientSouth Asia, pp. 382-406. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Parpola, Asko. 1993. Margiana and the Aryan Problem. In IASCCAInformation Bulletin, 19, pp. 41-62. Nauka.Sarianidi, V.I. 1993. Margiana and the Indo-Iranian World. South Asian

Archaeology, Vol. II, pp. 667-80.ñññ. 2002. Margush: Ancient Oriental Kingdom in the Old Delta of the Murghab

River. Ashgabat.

b.b. lal distortions in indian history

Documents