Posted on: 6 August 2013

New Book:
Myth of Aryan Invasion in India
By David Frawley

The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin of predominant culture, but gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere. It even teaches that some of the most revered books of hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India’s culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.David Frawley, goes to the roots of this theory promoted by Max Muller in 1848 and proves it wrong.

Read book online:

 View Post on Facebook

Comments from Facebook

Marcus Fonseca

looking for a downloadable version

Any historical theory would have to explain the origins of the concept "Indian," and its many subsequent transformations. It seems that you're assuming what must actually be explained--in other words the existence of a cultural/national category of "India" and "Indian."

Varun Gupta P

Myth? It's a fact (Y)

Its a fact that Aryans did invade & pushed dravidians further south...prior 2 aryan invasion,v already had a thriving culture along d harappa,mohenjodaro,tamilakkam country in pre historic antiquity times

Here is the downable link:

It is false propogandists' version of India history written by pseudo researchers.

There is an old saying "When Elephant's walk ... Dogs Bark" ... Needles to say more ...

Arayn invasion theory itself is a propaganda - and the propagandists are nurtured in left leaning Harvard's Indian Studies Department in the leadership of lead propagandists such as Professor Micheal Witzel.

this is no rare book yaar -- its a half-baked full-dolt mockery of history -- aryan invasion theory has been long debunked -- no frawley aka vamdev didn't postulate it --

Aryan invasion 'theory' can be proved as 'not a fact' in many ways. But the most simple way is that it is just a 'theory' like many other theories it is based on supposition by Mr. Max Muller. And secondly, how can Max Muller know the history and culture of a country foreign to him more than its natives?

Max Muller

Frawley at it again ...

The following phrase shows that the writer did indirectly mention that the religious missionaries group could not understand the earlier conception of the God(by Hindus) when they had this question in their mind " How do you go about converting a religion which says that God takes as many shapes to manifest Himself as there are forms on this earth?" It has been said all the time that God has no form...the teaching being mis-interpreted and the western religious missionaries group has begin accepting the religion with that statement!!! it seems like you are begin to introduce something without understanding the existing one....!!! does not seems right to me... this is not abt Aryans invasion... it is abt misconception abt the religion with the left-over evidence... feeling sick with some statements...

Historiography evolves. Early historians thought there was an Aryan invasion and they came up with the Aryan Invasion theory. That was quickly discounted and the theory has evolved into the mainstream as the Aryan migration theory where Aryan really refers to Indo-Aryan speaking people. That is the predominant theory these days and explains most things pretty well. David Frawley's theories are at the fringe of modern Indian historiography, the likelihood of them being true is very very remote, it would require some major findings that upturn a lot of what we already know. What I don't understand is why the Rare Book Society of India is promoting a book that is neither rare nor regarded as a very important contribution in modern Indian historiography. I don't see any examples of papers and books by the more mainstream historiographers over here and that to me is a concern. Is there a hidden agenda?

There is an Iranian historian who also similarly proves the aryan invasion myth thoroughly wrong. The land of Aryavrat always existed with genealogical connections between people of central asia / eurasia to indians as far as the remotest east of bharatkhanda. Avestan and sanskrit sciptures and the common linguistic root of vedic sanskrit only underscore the theory

Thank you Supratik Chaudhuri for a thoughtful comment on this material.

I reccomend Anandamurti's and ananda marga org. writings on the Aryan Invasion.Very thought -provoking>

Interesting junctures in 'history' around these notions - dividing 'east' from 'west'. The Zoroastrian Zurvanite heresy controversy was essentially about 'orientalism' - which developing western thought could not handle or manipulate ideologically quite as well as a more singular one - focusing on the Mazhdan beliefs. Not that orientalism and messianism are exclusive of one another. It's just that trends in religious and philosophical thought began to differ radically around them.

Arya is a just a honorific, is not it?

I have to say that I find both sides of these kinds of arguments to be somewhat incomprehensible. Everyone says "history shows this" or "studies have shown that" and those statements are followed by listings of names of papers and journals and scholars supporting one side or the other. Its all very civilized and gentlemanly on the surface(at least, this particular outbreak of it is...that has not always been the case elsewhere), but the dispute itself is....what? Over who was there first? Don't we know enough about history now(and see, now you've got me doing it! I refuse to quote any scholars tho) to be able to see that the concept of this or that group of people being "from" some particular part of the surface of this planet is a concept based in falsehoods? Even the concepts of coherent groups of people that are the "same" now as their much distant ancestors is ridiculous. While some people plant roots, others grow wings, so it appears it has been with all humans since time immemorial. So what if a few "Aryans" did roll through the area long, long ago? They would be so dissimilar in so many ways from any modern caucasian or "Aryan" that any surface resemblance is exactly that--a surface resemblance and no more. Their actual physical characteristics would probably bear no resemblance at all; the large part of any percieved similiarity no doubt stems from the huge amount of importance humans put on shades of skintone, which is silly, since it takes no more than three generations to completely change the skintone and aspect of a particular line, and no matter what there are always some humans who wander, and migrations, and wars, mixing things up. So what is the argument about? Who was where first? Who built what? Can anyone really look at monuments many thousands of years old and think, "Yeah, WE built that, not THEM". Even if you know for an absolute fact that you are directly descended from someone who took part in the building, does that somehow transfer accomplishment? I can't see that it does...that seems just as silly to me as someone looking at such a monument and thinking, "Well! thats it couldn't have been THEIR people who made it, it must have been MINE".

Our Epics tell us a lot about our ancient culture and tradition.

I believe Frawley is a fraud. I do not believe him: he has been paid to say what he is saying. He lies.

Aryan Invasion and Migration theory have flows. If you compare Veda and Gend Abestha then you will find there are lots of similarities. As per my research and studies Indo- Iranian history and religion were almost matched. And most of the story is present day afganistan and pakistan centric. In two holy books main carecter is Indra the king of devas.

he is right

D vedic scriptures mention about battle of ten kings & as per that many aryan tribes led by king sudas fought with dravidian kings n occupied much of north India in ancient times.its a controversial matter on the origin of Aryans and their migrations but the fact is that dravidians had been ruling & living in most parts of India cannot b denied. Later dravidians were labelled as cow thieves,conjurers,etc by the pseudo Anglo historians who don't know a thing about pre ancient history of india

@Afaz Ahamed I read TEACHINGS OF DON JUAN by CARLOS CASTANEDA. I was surprised how Mexican civilization carried ideas that are astonishingly simillar to ADVAITA propounded by ADI SANKARCHARYA. It is not clear whether you are hinting to support Aryan Invasion theory. If That is the argument, Mexican Invasion Theroy can also be propounded. Personally I feel it is pointless to engage in a discussion whether a great idea was authored by to my forefather or your forefather. As ṛg ved ( rig veda) saṃhitā¹ ( ṛg ved 1.89.1) says:"May auspicious knowledge come to us from all sides, which harm no one; are unimpeded and victorious over the forces of division | May the gods be always for our increase, never moving away from us, but always guarding us day-to-day. I have no problem if an auspicious knowledge is sourced to Koran.

Keerthi Shivkumar Senthil Prabhu

History is what we intrpret, Not what happnd coz that's also intrpretation of somebody . is'nt it?...

Jyothis Vasudevan check out if you want to subscribe to above society

Subramanian Swamy check this out...

@Mohan: Well said, sir! Wisdom is wisdom, it matters little where it comes from. Being the descendant of a wise man does not count in one's favor, similarly, being a descendant of a murderer does not count against. It does me no harm if your ancestor spoke wise words while mine did not. I am only harmed if I reject those words of wisdom.

“Sar Zamin-e-hind par aqwaam-e-alam ke firaq kafile guzarte gae Hindustan banta gaya” - Firaq Gorakhpuri

A brilliant work indeed!

dna test of indian revels sumthng else

Rare Book Society of India

in our gondi langauage(tribal/native of india/ language) there is given a defination of name bharat(name of country) as bhar tayye bhumi...tha land which holds simple and who would want to listen from natives????

nobody listen the voice of natives ( history start wid them bt who cares they should be the frst source of any thing realted to history of bharat and india) and the books of tribal writers on history nobody give jsut go deaf and dumb when it knwoldge and info comes from natives...i have said times to time that our writers have tried and prove the connction og gond tirbes and haddpa culture bt anyone help??

The day has come when everybody has to take stock of the foundational self-understanding of the natives.

Here is the link for download -

Thanks Manas ...

This is the kind of book America teaches of history, Not stating America is a bad country, but it's true and sad

All populations in India show evidence of a genetic mixture of two ancestral groups: Ancestral North Indians (ANI), who are related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI), who are primarily from the subcontinent. .....