Sadhguru as a Proponent of the Aryan Invasion Theory

 

 

Sadhguru as a Proponent of the Aryan Invasion Theory

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

Sadhguru is an Indian guru (a sadhguru in fact) who has a massive fan following. I have seen videos of his, where he deals very effectively with anti-Hindu activists (leftists, etc.), which are truly inspiring. Seeing those videos I always felt a thrill of pleasure, and felt that this man certainly knows how to deal with anti-Hindus and can deal with them through the use of uncompromisingly sharp and unrelenting logic.

Of course, from certain other videos (where, for example, he fervently glorifies the alleged acts of Rāma in banishing a pregnant Sītā to the jungle because she is, as he well knows, falsely accused of being "impure"; or in slaying a "śudra" named Śambuka for the "sin" of performing tapasyā in spite of being a "śudra"; or in making a dog-killing brahmin the head-priest of a monastery because a brahmin can never be punished by a king for his crimes), it is clear that his logic goes into somnolent slumber when it comes to evaluating the black acts of Hindu heroes—even when those black acts are the motivated inventions of latter-day vested interests in ancient India rather than the actual recorded acts of Rāma. But while in those cases he seems to be  adopting a fundamentalist extreme-right attitude towards issues, it is surprising that the pendulum can swing to the other extreme where he can also mortgage his intelligence in defence of extreme-left ideas:

I came across this video (titled "sadhguru vs subrahmanian swamy on aryan invasion" uploaded on youtube on 11th May 2020, although most of the video has little to do with subrahmanian swamy who only appears towards the end in a separate and short speech!), and the entire idea in my mind about his sharp and unrelenting logic collapsed like a house of cards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km2xX_97wkw

After seeing this video I understood once more (i.e. obviously not for the first time, but it always strikes me each time as if it is a new discovery) that a majority of Hindus (though it may be I am being insular here: probably this applies to humans as a whole and not just Hindus) are never able to think logically when it comes to such issues: they simply refuse to think or to consider anything beyond the fairy tales and ajji-kathas (as we call them in Konkani/ Kannada) that they learnt or heard in childhood. This kind of discourse from a village elder sitting among his small circle of local admirers and spouting his wisdom would be quite all right, but a Hindu guru—and one who has shown his intellectual brilliance on other occasions—with a following of possibly millions, saying things of this intellectual and knowledge level is mind-numbing and depressing.

The surprising thing is that Sadhguru does not even seem to have an idea about what the whole "Aryan-Dravidian" linguistic dichotomy is all about. He tells us, correctly, that the Tamil language "has no basis in Sanskrit". But then he messes it up by telling us that Tamil is the only language which has no basis in Sanskrit: meaning that the other Dravidian languages (Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu, etc.) do? And then he compounds this ignorance by specifically telling us that "every other language from here to Europe is based on the Sanskrit language", meaning not only all the Indo-European languages (which is bad enough) but also presumably the Semitic, Uralo-Altaic and Caucasian languages!!

This linguistic ignorance is highlighted once again when he specifically tells us that the rākṣasas, Rāvaṇa, Hanumanta, etc. were all Tamilians. Hanuman, in fact is a "Tamil superhero" who is worshipped by all Indians (although the "Aryans" showed their contempt for the "Dravidians" in general by remembering them as monkeys). The fact that all these words (and all others associated with them, including Vālī, Sugrīva, Kumbhakarṇa, Vibhīṣaṇa, Meghnāda/Indrajit, etc.) are all purely Sanskrit names and not Tamil ones is of no consequence in branding them all as Tamilians.

Further, the Aryan theory came into being only when the European scholars discovered that most of the languages of northern India, Iran, Central Asia and Europe were all related to each other, and the name "Aryan" (later "Indo-European") was given to this language family, and linguistic studies led to the theory that all the twelve branches of these languages separated from each other around 3500 BCE, after which (as per the AIT) the "Aryans" migrated eastwards from the Steppes and entered India around 3500 years ago (i.e. in 1500 BCE).

But Sadhguru so blindly accepts the essence of this theory (that "Aryans" came into India from "outside"), without understanding the actual details of the theory, that he starts out by telling us that "the first Aryan invasions happened somewhere between 8500-9000 years ago" (i.e. in 7000-6500 BCE!), and that "they started coming from across the Himalayas to the Indian subcontinent" (from Tibet?). As he then derives all the languages "from here to Europe" as being derived from Sanskrit, then, presumably they all migrated from India after that! Although he does not specifically say this, it is clear that Sadhguru's weird  AIT-cum-OIT version is derived from the writings of FE Pargiter (see TALAGERI 2000:384-397).      

Among the gems narrated by Sadhguru:

1. The "Aryans lived in harsh lands" (before invading India), and were "rough men" who were "nomadic in nature". They looked up at the sky all the time (the indigenous Tamil people never looked up at the sky: they only "looked down at the earth", which is why they developed agriculture, huge cities, sciences, etc—except apparently the art of sea-travel (to which they were probably introduced by the "Aryan" hordes coming from across the Himalayas)!

The Aryans first came as "bandits", then they became "settlers", and finally "conquerors". In the course of 2000 years they gradually "pushed them south and pushed them south" (the indigenous Tamil people were pushed down into the South). Which is why, as the two peoples intermingled, we find a range of shades of skin color from the dark (in the south) to the fair (in the north).

The Mahabharata is replete with stories of the atrocities of the "Aryans" against the "Dravidians" (killings and burnings which we must interpret as racial events, and must not wrongly interpret as examples of social exploitation, by the rich and powerful, of the poor and helpless sections of society).

Inspite of the intermingling, certain "Tamil diehards" retained the memories of the Aryan atrocities, and the present Dravida Kazhagam diehards are carrying on this ancient tradition of reaction.

2. But then there are the extreme-right views to balance the extreme-left ones:

There were huge and complex "settled cities" in India as far back as 12000 to 13000 years ago, and in these cities gold and diamonds were so abundant that they were found lying around everywhere.

In fact, we even find "properly manufactured coins with images of Śiva which are 12000 years old"!

 

It is unfortunate that there is so little understanding of the "Aryan" problem even among the most vocal and eloquent of our own Hindu gurus and spiritual leaders, and, worse, that this does not prevent them from spouting wisdom on the subject to influence their blindly trusting and gullible followers.