In a seminar on Indian civilization graced by scholars and archeologists from India and abroad, hard evidence was propounded that goes against the Marxist, Eurocentric theory of any Aryan invasion or migration into what is now South Asia . The seminar was graced by luminaries from Archaeological Survey of India, Indian Archaeological Society, Indian Space Research Organization, California State University, University of Bologne (Italy), Shah Abdul Latif University (Pakistan). The keynote address was delivered by Prof. B. B. Lal, who is a world renowned scholar and giant in Archeology . Prof. Lal mentioned how parochial postulates born out of colonial lenses have distorted Indian history.
Former ASI Director-General Prof. B. B. Lal spoke about “postulates [that] have been distorting our vision of India’s past”. Among these is the belief that the Vedas are no older than 1200 B.C. and that Vedic people were nomads. Recent excavations at sites in Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and Gujarat and a fresh study of Vedic texts, he said, have proved that most of these postulates are “ill- founded.”
According to Prof. Lal, these excavations proved that the Rigveda is older than 2,000 BC and people of this civilisation were not nomads. Quashing the “Aryan invasion theory” he said that the Harappan civilisation did not become extinct, and C-14 dating procedures proved that Harappan and Vedic people were indigenous, not invaders or migrants.
Prof. Lal, has in the past been the target of Marxist and Eurocentric historengineers who have resorted to crass ad-hominems and outright bawdy calumny to try and malign him simply because his scholarship and incontrovertible archeological findings hinder their rubric of engineering history to fit into their ideological moorings and agendas. Among other often used innuendoes, “Hindutva(vaadi)” is one that has been liberally thrown at him.
In this context it would be pertinent to mention the alleged mistranslation of a part of the Baudhayana Srautasutra by Prof. Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at the Harvard University (Witzel 1995: 320-21). In 2003 Prof. Lal published a paper in the East and West (Vol. 53, Nos. 1-4), exposing Prof. Witzel’s manipulation . The original Sanskrit text is as follows:
pran ayuh pravavraja; tasyaite kuru-pancalah kasi-videha ity; etad ayavam.
pratyan amavasus; tasyaite gandharayas parsavo íratta ity; etad amavasavam.
Prof. Witzel’s translated this as:
“Aya went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and Kasi Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parasu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group).
It is hard to miss how conveniently Prof. Witzel’s mistranslation fits into his vehement propounding of the Aryan migration theory.
Whereas the correct translation as pointed out by Prof. Lal (and other Sanskrit scholars) is:
Ayu migrated eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas. This is the Ayava (migration). Amavasu migrated westwards. His (people) are the Ghandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu (migration).
According to the correct translation, there was no movement of the any Aryan people from anywhere in the north-west as held by proponents of the Aryan invasion/migration/trickle-in theories. On the other hand, the evidence indicates that it was from an intermediary point from where some of the indigenous people went eastwards and some went westwards. Figure-1 below well elucidates this.
Figure-1: Migration of people as mentioned in the Baudhayana Srautasutra (image courtesy: )
Following is quoted from Prof. Lal’s inaugural address at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology, held at University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy on July 2-6, 2007 .
Professor Witzel and I happened to participate in a seminar organized by UMASS, Dartmouth in June 2006. When I referred, during the course of my presentation, to this wrong translation by the learned Professor, he, instead of providing evidence in support of his own stand, shot at me by saying that I did not know the difference between Vedic and Classical Sanskrit. Should that be the level of an academic debate? (Anyway, he had to be told that I had the privilege of obtaining in 1943 my Master’s Degree in Sanskrit (with the Vedas included), with a First Class First, from a first class university of India, namely Allahabad.)
As aptly noted by Prof. Lal, academic decency is fast discarded by the Marxists and Eurocentrics when they find their pet history engineering projects threatened. Given the lack of any evidence for the Aryan Invasion/Migration/Trickle-in theory from archaeology, palaeo-anthropology or genetics, given the constant stream of genetic research papers refuting this theory being published  and given only the tenuous, speculative linguistic arguments for it, it is only a matter of time before this colonial concoction meets its end. Of course those married to it for ideological, careerist or other agendas will no doubt use various types of mendacity to convince themselves and their bedfellows otherwise. That said, I do hope that the professional invasionists and migrationists won’t call C-14 dating “Hindutva” technology.
Please refer to Vishal Agarwal’s piece  for an erudite exposition of Prof. Witzel’s “piltdown translation”.