In the sixteenth century European travelers to India were struck by the remarkable affinties between Sanskrit and European languages. Fillippo Sasseti a Florentine merchant living in Goa between 1583-88 CE, observed that there was definite connection between Sanskrit and European languages. But it was Sir William Jones a Calcutta judge with the British East India Co. the founder of the Asiatic Society who launched a comparative linguistics study. He observed…
The Sanskrit language whatever be its antiquity is of wonderful structure; more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of the verbs and the forks of the grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed that no philologer could examine them all three without believing them to have sprung from the some common source.
Many historians regard this observation by William Jones as the basis for ancient Indian history. Please note that the whole approach to ancient Indian history came into existence flowing from the study of Sanskrit and other European languages.
Its not surprising that linguist such as Friedrich Max Muller and Albrecht Weber should have formulated a model of ancient Indian history based on their theories of comparative linguistics.
According to the AIT a people called Aryans, a branch of the Indo-Europeans living originally in Central Asia or Europe invaded India overcame the natives, who according to this theory were ‘a rabble of aboriginal savages’ to become the lord and masters of India. This is the famous Aryan invasion theory being treated as historical facts by Indian and western historians. According to this theory the invaders brought the Vedas and Sanskrit language with them.
To arrive at this theory and date of 1500 BC Max Muller relied on the only model available for ancient history available in Europe then - The Biblical account of Creation.
Points to note:
1) For a moment lets take the AIT at face value. The AIT was created in the mid 1800 and the Harappan ruins were found in the 1920’s then how is it that the linguists have concluded on ‘invasion’.
2) Later historians have very smartly retrofitted all new findings, artifacts and evidence into the AIT model without looking at alternate theories.
Comment: JNU Marxist historians like Romila Thapar who recently retracted the Aryan race and invasion theory and other western scholars like Michael Witzel, Akso Parpola etc are ready to base their studies and reputation on the unscientific conjecture of British bureaucrats and civil servants but don’t give alternate models due respect. The funny part is that in the last 150 odd years the scholars supporting the AIT have only done just that ‘supported’ this flawed theory and have not come out with any new break through. Witzel and her minions have spent their entire lifetime in propping up this false theory.