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 and
Dr. Kosla Vepa, to have kindly invited me to deliver the Inaugural
Address. This will give me an opportunity to meet so many
intellectuals and discuss with them many important aspect of Indian
history.
History has been defined in one of the dictionaries as ëa
continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a
particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written in
a chronological orderí. But a million-dollar question is: Can this
ënarrativeí be wholly truthful i.e. without any ëdistortionsí? If you
pause for a while and ponder over the question, your answer, in
all likelihood, would be: ëPerhaps not.í Why? Because, just as
ëbeauty lies in the eyes of the beholderí, I would say, ëhistory lies in
the perception of the historianí. To the best of my understanding,
no narrator of any event can honestly claim that he/she has seen
that event in its entirety. The position is more or less like the
proverbial description of an elephant ëseení by blind persons. Those
who touched the legs said that the elephant was like the trunk of a
tree; those who had a feel of the ears compared the animal with a

Inaugural Address delivered at the International Seminar on ëIndian

History with specific focus on ìDistortionsîí, held at India
International Centre, New Delhi, on January 9-11, 2009.

1
big fan; and so on. No one ought to blame these persons since they
reported what they observed. But, as we know, their descriptions
were only partly correct and cannot be taken to be ëall-inclusiveí
and are, therefore, ëinconclusiveí.
Leaving aside this narration of an elephant, even if we look at
the reporting of any of the current events in a newspaper or on the
television, we will find that the situation is not much different. For
example, the recent beating up of some Biharis who had come to
Mumbai to appear at a Railway Entrance examination, by the
members of the Maharashtra Navanirman Sena was hailed as
ëpatrioticí by the leaders of the Sena, whereas others condemned it
as ëatrociousí. The same event was seen with coloured glasses worn
by the viewers concerned and their own versions will go down as
ëhistoryí written by their respective ëhistoriansí.
Let us take another example of yesteryears. What happened in
India in 1857 has been termed as a ëMutinyí by the Britishers, but
hailed as the ëFirst War of Independenceí by Indians. Perhaps both
the parties will insist that their perception was/is correct. Who is
going to be the arbiter?
The real culprit in all such cases seems to be the element of
ëperceptioní of the narrator, in other words the ëmind-setí of the
ëhistorianí. And howsoever the historian ñ or for that matter
anybody ñ might try to be ëtruthfulí, he just cannot be, since how
can he detach himself from his ëperceptioní ñ something ingrained
in his mind? The above-noted two simple examples, namely those
of the Mumbai beating up and the 1857 event, amply illustrate this.
Thus, history can never ever be ëtrueí in its entirety: the grey patches
will always remain, though the depth and extent of the greyness
may vary from narration to narration. And, to be honest, how is
the reader better qualified to be the judge? Does he too not have
his own ëperceptioní which, not unjustifiably, has often been termed
as ëprejudiceí?
Having accepted the fact that no history can be bereft of
ëdistortionsí, I would like to distinguish between ëunconsciousí and
ëconsciousí distortions, in other words distortions which may have
crept in unwittingly and those which were deliberately engineered.
Whereas the former could be the result of sheer ignorance of the
complete data or of a shabby analysis thereof and are, therefore,
pardonable in a way, it is the ëconscious distortionsí on which a
heavy axe must fall. I will illustrate my point by citing examples of

2
these two categories. However, since I am a bit more familiar with
the 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 very
ad-hoc basis. Having accepted that the Sµutra literature could be as
old as the sixth century BCE, he assigned a duration of two hundred
years 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 his
contemporary scholars, such as Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilson
raised objections to this kind of ad-hocism, he relented and came
out with the following statement:
I have repeatedly dwelt on the merely hypothetical character of
the dates, which I have ventured to assign to the first periods of
Vedic literature. All I have claimed for them has been that they are
minimum dates, and that the literary productions of each period
which either still exist or which formerly existed could hardly be
accounted 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, reprint
1979):
If now we ask how we can fix the dates of these periods, it is quite
clear that we cannot hope to fix a terminum a qua [sic]. Whether the
Vedic 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 closed

from his side. But the greatest irony is that his original fatawa of
1200 BCE, given in the 19th century, is sill ruling the roost in ceratin
quarters even in the 21st century!
The disastrous effect of this fatawa was seen in the 1920s when
the Harappan Civilization was discovered and attempts were made
to identify its authors. On the basis of the occurrence of several
objects of this civilization in deposits of certain already-dated West
Asian cultures, it was assigned to the 3rd millennium BCE. The net
result was that the Vedic people were never even considered to
have been the authors of the Harappan Civilization, since according

3
Fig. 1. Region of Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.

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

4
 Fig. 3. ëCitadelí at Gonur, Margiana.

to Max Mullerís fatawa the Vedas were only as old 1200 BCE .
Simultaneously, without any sustainable reason the authorship was
thrust on the Dravidian-speaking people. And this is how the first
major 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 a
fortification-wall around one of the mounds at Harappa and on
learning 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

5
was the second major distortion. The hands of the Vedic
ëinvadersí were sullied with the blood of the so-called ëDravidian-
speaking Harappansí who were said to have been massacred by
the 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 some
skeletons met with at Mohenjo-daro. However, an in-depth analysis
of the provenance of these skeletons shows that they occurred in
different stratigraphic levels ñ some in the middle, some in the
late and yet some others in deposits which had accumulated at
the site after its abandonment. Had an invasion been the cause of
these deaths, one expects that the skeletons would have been found
in one level which also would have been the uppermost, after which
the inhabitants are taken to have deserted the site and migrated to
south India. Further, all the skeletal remains came from the Lower
Town which was occupied by the commoners, but none from the
Citadel area which was the seat of the government. Are we expected
to believe that the ëinvadersí killed the commoners and carefully
spared the high-ups? The doubt about the deaths having been the
result of an ëinvasioní is also supported by that fact some of the
skeletons bore cut-marks which had been healed ñ a process which
must have taken quite some time. There would have been no healing
had the deaths been due to a ëmassacreí. I am in full agreement
with George F. Dales who captioned his paper (1964): ëThe
Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daroí.
In this context, it also needs to be added that no site of the
Harappan Civilization has yielded any evidence of ëinvasioní,
much less of ëmassacreí. Nor is there any evidence of an alien
culture overtaking any of these sites. On the other hand, the data
show a continuity of occupation and only gradual cultural
transition ñ such as into what has been labeled as the Jhukar
Culture at Chanhu-daro or Cemetery H Culture at Harappa or
the 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 that
theory has begun to re-appear in a new avatåra (incarnation), namely
that of ëmigrationí. Says Romila Thapar (1989-91: 259-60): ìIf
invasion is discarded then the mechanism of migration and
occasional contacts come into sharper focus. The migrations appear
to have been of pastoral cattle breeders who are prominent in the

6
Åvestå and °Rigveda.î Faithfully following her, R.S. Sharma asserts
(1999: 77): ì... the pastoralists who moved to the Indian borderland
came from Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex or BMAC
which 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 do
not appear to have done any home-work about the Bactria-
Margiana Archaeological Complex. V. I. Sarianidi and his
colleagues have unearthed the wonderful remains of the BMAC,
which spread over the area from Turkmenistan to northern
Afghanistan (Fig. 1) between circa 2100 and 1700 BCE. And, as would
be seen from what follows, the BMAC was a highly developed
urban culture having nothing to do with ënomad-ismí ñ the basal
point of the Thapar-Sharma thesis.
Thus, it seems necessary to spell out, howsoever briefly, the
characteristic features of the BMAC. The settlements were not only
marked by well planned large-sized houses but also had distinctive
religious and public buildings like temples at Dashly-3 in Bactria
and Togolok-21 in Margiana, and even Citadel complexes like the
one at Gonur. The Dashly-3 temple was circular on plan, with a
diameter of 40 metres and was provided with nine square bastions
on the exterior. The Toglok-21 temple was much more elaborate.
Situated on about 1.5 hectares of land, it had an inner unit
measuring 60 x 40 metres, provided with circular and semi-circular
bastions on the exterior. This inner complex was surrounded by
two 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 a
massive fortification-wall with rectangular bastions all around, it
included within the complex the kingís palace, audience hall and
administrative and garrison blocks (Fig. 3).
The antiquities found at the BMAC sites also speak volumes
for the high calibre of the culture. Without going into too many
details, it may suffice to draw attention to even just a few items.
Thus, for example, there is the elaborate axe of silver covered with
gold lamina. At the butt-end it bears the heads of two eagles and a
winged feline (Fig. 4). Evidently, this axe was not an ordinary one
(like so many others found at the site) but appears to have been
used for some ceremonial purpose. Maybe it was mounted on a
staff which was held by the ruler as a symbol of authority.

7
 Fig. 4. Silver ceremonial axe with Fig. 5. Composite stone figurine
parts covered with gold lamina, from Bactria.
from Bactria.

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

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

Fig. 6. Chlorite and gold leaf Fig. 7. Limestone goat

representation of a feline, with with horns, eyes and
semi-precious stone inlay. beard in lapis lazuli.

8
portrayals were no less breath-taking. Thus, for example, have a
look at the feline in Fig. 6. It is covered with a gold-leaf in which
are embedded semi-precious stones of a variety of colours. No less
remarkable 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 BMAC
people were nomads ñ whom Thapar and Sharma would like to
push into India as the progenitors of the °Rigvedic people? I am
sure, you wouldnít.
But why blame the Thapar-Sharma duo alone? Even the
principal excavator of the BMAC sites has erred when he sees in its
authors the ancestors of the Vedic Aryans. I thoroughly examined
these pitfalls in the Inaugural Address which I delivered in July
2007 at the 19th International Conference on South Asian
Archaeology, held at the University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy. (A
printed copy of it was circulated amongst the over-500 participants
and pending its publication in the official Proceedings, it has already
been included in Puråtattva, No. 37, 2006-07, pp. 1-19.) Here I shall
touch upon just a few major blunders in Sarianidiís thesis.
He advances four arguments in support of his thesis, namely
those 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 ephedra
and poppy occurred in the temple at Togolok-21, which he identifies
with soma of the Vedic people. First of all, it needs to be stated that
not 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 with
those of ephedra or poppy. Hence the shaky nature of this
argument.
Having found a skeleton of the horse with the head missing,
Sarianidi concludes that it was a case of a‹vamedha sacrifice. In the
first place, this skeleton lay just a few centimetres below the surface
and there was no burial-pit (Fig. 8). Thus, the missing of the head
could be due to a variety of extraneous reasons. More importantly,
however, the remains do not conform to the description given in
the Vedic texts about the a‹vamedha which states: ìThe axe
penetrates the thirty-four ribs of the swift horse, the beloved of the
gods, (the immolators), cut up (the horse) with skill, so that the

9
limbs may be perforated and recapitulating joint by joint.î The
theory of a‹vamedha sacrifice, therefore, is a non-starter.
The case of fire-worship is still worse. Sarianidi first compares
the 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 at
Gonur. Let that alone, the error is beyond redemption when
Sarianidi calls a structural complex at Mohenjo-daro (Fig. 10) a ëfire-
templeí. The excavator of Mohenjo-daro, however, categorically
calls it a normal residential complex (Marshall 1931, Vol. I: 202).
But the greatest pitfall is that whereas the Mohehjo-daro complex
belongs to the 3rd millennium BCE , the Gonur example is
assignable to the 2nd millennium BCE. Did Sarianidi ever realize
the adverse repercussion of these dates? Indeed, if his comparison
were to be valid, the movement of the people would have to be
from India to the Bactria-Margiana region. Would he like to
accept this position?
Now to the cult-motifs on the BMAC glyptics. Since there occur
on 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 Aryan
deities, there cannot be any doubt about the connection of the

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

10
 Fort at Gonur Temple at Nush-i-Jan

Fig. 9.

Mitanni empire with the so-called Aryan problem. As the

replication of Mitanni art in Bactria and Margiana is clearly not
coincidental, we are justified in connecting the tribes migrating into
Central Asia and Indus Valley with the settlement process of the
Aryan or Indo-Aryan tribes.í While some parallels between the
motifs on the BMAC and Syro-Hittite glyptics may be conceded,
these have hardly to do anything with Aryan deities. To be more
specific, may not one ask Sarianidi to point out what exactly Aryan
is there in the two of the seals chosen by him in this context (Figs.
11 and 12)? Does he think that the ëstanding nude anthropomorphic
winged deity with avian head and holding animals by their tailsí
in 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 ìthe
offering of Soma to Indraî, where Indra is the figure seated on the
chair and a devotee is offering the soma in a cup, the beverage itself
having been stored in the jar behind!
However, more important than whatever has been stated in the
past couple of paragraphs is the fact that no cultural element of
the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex ever reached east
of the Indus (cf. Figs. 13 and 14), which was the domain of the
Vedic Aryans as per the Nad∂-stuti Sµukta of the °Rigveda itself

11
 Fig. 10. Mohenjo-daro: ìFire Templeî?

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

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

(10.75: 5 and 6). How can then one force the entry of the BMAC
people into the °Rigvedic region even through a back door?
And now to yet another daring attempt at pushing the Vedic
Aryans from the Bactria-Margiana region into India. The renowned
author 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 immigrants
may also have introduced the Copper Hoards into India.î (Cf.
Fig. 15.)
Those who are familiar with the Indian Copper Hoards know
full well that these comprise not merely one type, namely the

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

13
 Fig. 14. Spread of ëminiature columnsí and their probable
prototypes in the Syro-Hittite world.

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

Fig. 15. Antennae-hilted swords of copper.

14
 This over-enthusiasm to somehow push the Aryans into India
from the west has led scholars even to mis-interpret the Vedic Texts.
And here is a case in point. The learned Sanskrit scholar at the
Harvard 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 vague
reminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in the °Rgveda, in spite
of repeated assertions to the contrary in the secondary literature.
Then, there is the following direct statement contained in (the
admittedly much later) B›S[Baudhåyana ›rautasµutra], 18.44:397.9

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

15
 Fig. 17. Harappan seal from Gonur, and its impression.

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

Though Witzel takes pride in being the first to translate this

passage from the Baudhåyana ›rautasµutra, have a look at the
deliberate distortion he has made. In order to make my point clear
it is necessary to quote the relevant text in the original. It runs as
follows: ìPrå∆åyu¨ pravavråja. Tasyaite Kuru-Pa¤cålå¨ Kås∂-Videhå
ity etad Åyavam. Pratya∆ Amåvsu¨ [pravavråja] tasyaite Gåndhårayas
Par‹vo ìr墢å ity etad Åmåvasam.î
In the first sentence of the text the verb used is pravavråja which
means ëmigratedí. Simple rules of grammar require that in the
second sentence too, wherein the verb is not mentioned but is
understood, it has got to be the same, namely ëpravavråjaí. The
correct translation of the entire piece will thus be: ìÅyu migrated
eastwards. 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 the
Amåvasava (migration).
What then the text really says is that (from some intermediary
region) Åyu migrated eastwards and Amåvasu migrated
westwards. In other words, the migrations must have taken place

16
 Fig. 18. Westward Emigration of the Vedic Aryans in the
2nd Millennium BCE.

from an area somewhere between the Gåndhåra region on the west

and the Kuru region on the east. In contrast, Witzelís translation
says that while Åyu migrated eastwards, the Amåvasu group
stayed back, implying thereby that there was an eastward migration
from a body of people who had their own land in the west and
where they stayed back. This is a deliberate distortion by Witzel
in order to give a boost to his pre-conceived theory of an Aryan
immigration from the west.
The Baudhåyana ›rautasµutra does in fact narrate the story of a
section of the Vedic Aryans, namely the descendants of Amåvasu,
having migrated westwards, via the Gåndhara region in
Afghanistan to Persia (Par‹u of the text) and Ararat (Åra¢¢a) in
Armenia. From there they must have proceeded to Turkey where
the Bogazkoy tablets of the 14th century BCE refer to a treaty between
the Hittite king Suppiluliuma and Mitanni king Matiwaza who
cite the Vedic gods Indra, Varuƒa, Mitra and Nåsatyas as witnesses.
In my forthcoming book, How Deep are the Roots of Indian
Civilization?: Archaeology Answers, I have included a special chapter

17
on this topic in which I have quoted literary, epigraphical and
archaeological evidences, variously from India, Iran, Iraq and
turkey, duly establishing this westward emigration of the Vedic
people in the 2nd millennium BCE and would not like to take more
of the precious time of my audience now. Only a map is presented
here, 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 also
guard against being swayed away by any kind of political or
religious considerations. A true academic should worship only one
god: the truth ñ unmitigated truth.
At the end, I would like to thank you all once again for having
given me this valuable opportunity of addressing you and look
forward to very fruitful discussions during the course of the
conference.

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 Conference
on 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 Ancient
South Asia, pp. 382-406. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Parpola, Asko. 1993. Margiana and the Aryan Problem. In IASCCA
Information 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.

18
Sharma, R.S. 1999. Advent of the Aryans in India. New Delhi: Manohar
Publishers.
Thapar, Romila. 1988-91. In Journal Asiatic Society of Bombay, Vol. 64-66,
pp. 259-60.
Wheeler, R.E.M. 1947. Harappa 1946: The Defences and Cemetery R 37,
Ancient India,3:58-130.
Witzel, M. 1995. °Rigvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Polities. In G.
Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, pp. 307-52. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.

19