Friedrich Max Müller (1823 - 1900), the most influential Indologist of all time
There is a great deal of confusion over the origins of the Aryan invasion theory and even the word Arya. The present article clarifies the picture and explains also the use and misuse of the word.
The evidence of science and literature now
points to two basic conclusions: first, there was no Aryan invasion, and second,
the Rigvedic people were already
established in India no later than 4000 BC. How are we then to account for the
continued presence of the Aryan invasion version of history in history books and
encyclopedias even today? Some of the results — like Jha’s decipherment of
the Indus script — are relatively recent, and it is probably unrealistic to
expect history books to reflect all the latest findings. But there is no excuse
of ignoring important evidence like the Sarasvati River, which has refuted the
Aryan invasion. Unfortunately,
influential Indian historians and educators continue to resist all revisions and
hold on to this racist creation — the Aryan invasion theory. Though there is
now a tendency to treat the Aryan-Dravidian division as a linguistic phenomenon,
its roots are decidedly racial and political, as we shall soon discover.
Speaking of the Aryan invasion theory, it would
probably be an oversimplification to say: "Germans invented it, British
used it," but not by much. The concept of the Aryans as a race and the
associated idea of the 'Aryan nation' were very much a part of the ideology of
German nationalism. For reasons known only to them, Indian educational
authorities have continued to propagate this obsolete fiction that degrades and
divides her people. They have allowed their political biases and career
interests to take precedence over the education of children. They continue to
propagate a version that has no scientific basis.
Before getting to the role played by German
nationalism, it is useful first to take a brief look at what the word Arya does
mean. After Hitler and the Nazi atrocities, most people, especially Europeans,
are understandably reluctant to be reminded of the word. But that was a European
crime; Indians had no part in it. The real Aryans have lived in India for
thousands of years without committing anything remotely resembling the Nazi
horrors. So there is no need to be diffident in examining the origins of the
European misuse of the word. In any event, history demands it.
The first point to note is that the idea of the
Aryans as foreigners who invaded India and destroyed the existing Harappan
Civilization is a modern European invention; it receives
no support whatsoever from Indian records — literary or archaeological.
The same is true of the notion of the Aryans as a race; it finds no support in
Indian literature or tradition. (And now genetics demolishes it.) The word 'Arya' in
Sanskrit means noble and never a race. The authoritative Sanskrit
lexicon (c. 450 AD), the famous Amarakosha
gives the following definition:
mahakula kulinarya sabhya sajjana
sadhavah
An
Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor,
good-natured and of righteous conduct
And the
great epic Ramayana has a singularly
eloquent expression describing Rama as:
arya
sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah
Arya, who worked for the equality of all and
was dear to everyone
The
Rigveda also uses the word Arya
something like thirty six times, but never to mean a race. The nearest to a
definition that one can find in the Rigveda is probably:
praja arya jyotiragrah ... (Children
of Arya are led by light)
RV,
VII. 33.17
The
word 'light' should be taken in the spiritual sense to mean enlightenment. The
word Arya, according to those who
originated the term, is to be used to describe those people who observed a code
of conduct; people were Aryans or non-Aryans depending on whether or not they
followed this code. This is made clear in the Manudharma
Shastra or the Manusmriti
(X.43-45):
But in consequence of the omission of sacred rites, and of their not
heeding the sages, the following people of the noble class [Arya
Kshatriyas] have gradually sunk to the state of servants — the Paundrakas,
Chodas, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Shakhas, Paradhas, Pahlavas, Chinas,
Kiratas and Daradas.
Two
points about this list are worth noting: first, their fall from the Aryan fold
had nothing to do with race, language, birth or nationality; it was due entirely
to their failure to follow certain sacred rites. Second, the list includes
people from all parts of India as well as a few neighboring countries like China
and Persia (Pahlavas). Kambojas are from West Punjab, Yavanas from Afghanistan
and beyond (not necessarily the Greeks) while Dravidas refers probably to people
from the southwest of India and the South. Thus, the modern notion of an
Aryan-Dravidian racial divide is contradicted by ancient records. We have it on
the authority of Manu that the Dravidians were also part of the Aryan fold.
Interestingly, so were the Chinese. Race never had anything to do with it until
the Europeans adopted the ancient word to give expression to their nationalistic
and some other chauvinistic ideas.
Friedrich Max Müller (1823 - 1900), the most influential Indologist of all time
Scientists have known
all this for quite some time.
Julian Huxley, one of the leading biologists of the century, wrote as far back
as 1939:
"In 1848 the young German scholar Friedrich Max Müller (1823-1900)
settled in Oxford, where he remained for the rest of his life. … About 1853 he
introduced into the English language the unlucky term Aryan as applied to a
large group of languages. …
"Moreover, Max Müller threw another apple of
discord. He introduced a proposition that is demonstrably false. He spoke not
only of a definite Aryan language and its descendents, but also of a
corresponding ‘Aryan race’. The idea was rapidly taken up both in Germany
and in England. It affected to some extent a certain number of the nationalistic
and romantic writers, none of whom had any ethnological training. …
"In England and America the phrase ‘Aryan
race’ has quite ceased to be used by writers with scientific knowledge, though
it appears occasionally in political and propagandist literature. In Germany the
idea of the ‘Aryan’ race found no more scientific support than in England.
Nonetheless, it found able and very persistent literary advocates who
made it very flattering to local vanity. It therefore spread, fostered by
special conditions.
This
should help settle the issue as far as its modern misuse is concerned. As far as
ancient India is concerned, one may safely say that the word Arya denoted
certain spiritual and humanistic values that defined her civilization. The
entire Aryan civilization — the civilization of Vedic India — was driven and
sustained by these values. The whole of ancient Indian literature: from the
Vedas, the Brahmanas to the Puranas to the epics like the Mahabharata
and the Ramayana can be seen as a record of the struggles of an ancient
people to live up to the ideals defined by these values. Anyone regardless of
birth, race or national origin could become Aryan by following this code of
conduct. It was not something to be imposed upon others by the sword or by
proselytization. Viewed in this light, the whole notion of any 'Aryan invasion'
is an absurdity. It is like talking about an 'invasion of scientific thinking'.
Then there is also the fact that the concept of
the Aryan race and the Aryan-Dravidian divide is a modern European invention
that receives no support from any ancient source. To apply it to people who
lived thousands of years ago is an exercise in anachronism if there ever was
one.
The sum total of all this is that Indians have
no reason to be defensive about the word Arya. It applies to everyone who has
tried to live by the high ideals of an ancient culture regardless of race,
language or nationality. It is a cultural designation of a people who created a
great civilization. Anti-Semitism was an aberration of Christian European
history, with its roots in the New Testament, of sayings like "He that is
not with me is against me." If the Europeans (and their Indian disciples)
fight shy of the word, it is their problem stemming from their history. Modern
India has many things for which she has reason to be grateful to European
knowledge, but this is definitely not one of them.
As Huxley makes clear in the passage cited
earlier, the misuse of the word ‘Aryan’ was rooted in political propaganda
aimed at appealing to local vanity. In order to understand the European misuse
of the word Arya as a race, and the creation of the Aryan invasion idea, we need
to go back to eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe, especially to Germany.
The idea has its roots in European anti-Semitism. Recent research by scholars
like Poliakov, Shaffer and others has shown that the idea of the invading Aryan
race can be traced to the aspirations of eighteenth and nineteenth century
Europeans to give themselves an identity that was free from the taint of
Judaism. The Bible, as is well known, consists of two books— the Old Testament
and the New Testament. The Old Testament gives the traditional history of
mankind. It is of course a Jewish creation. The New Testament is also of Jewish
origin; recently discovered manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls show that
Christianity, in fact, began as an extremist Jewish sect. But it was turned
against the Judaism of its founding fathers by religious propagandists with
political ambitions. In fact, anti-Semitism first makes its appearance in the
New Testament, including in the Gospels. Nonetheless, without Judaism there
would be no Christianity.
To free themselves from this Jewish heritage, intellectuals of Christian Europe looked east, to Asia. And there they saw
two ancient civilizations — India and China. To them the Indian Aryans were
preferable as ancestors to the Chinese. As Shaffer has observed:
Many
scholars such as Kant and Herder began to draw analogies between the myths and
philosophies of ancient India and the West. In their attempt to separate Western
European culture from its Judaic heritage, many scholars were convinced that the
origin of Western culture was to be found in India rather than in the ancient
Near East.
So
they became Aryans. But it was not the whole human race that was given this
Aryan ancestry, but only a white race that came down from the mountains of Asia,
subsequently became Christian and colonized Europe. No less an intellectual than
Voltaire claimed to be "convinced that everything has come down to us from
the banks of the Ganges — astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc."
(But Voltaire was emphatically not intolerant; he was in fact a strong critic of
the Church of his day.)
A student today can scarcely have an idea of
the extraordinary influence of race theories in eighteenth and nineteenth
century Europe. Many educated people really believed that human qualities could
be predicted on the basis of measurements of physical characteristics like eye
color, length of the nose and such. It went beyond prejudice, it was an article
of faith amounting to an ideology. Here is an example of what passed for
informed opinion on 'race science' by the well-known French savant Paul Topinard.
Much of the debate centered on the relative merits of racial types called
dolichocephalics and brachycephalics, though no one seemed to have a clear idea
of what was which. Anyway, here is what Topinard wrote in 1893, which should
give modern readers an idea of the level of scientific thinking prevailing in
those days:
The Gauls, according to history, were a people formed of two elements:
the leaders or conquerors, blond, tall dolichocephalic, leptroscopes, etc. But
the mass of the people, were small, relatively brachycephalic chaemeophrosopes.
The brachycephalics were always oppressed. They were the victims of
dolicocephalics who carried them off from their fields. ... The blond people
changed from warriors into merchants and industrial workers. The brachycephalics
breathed again. Being naturally prolific, their numbers [of brachycephalics]
increased while the dolichocephalics naturally diminished. ... Does the future
not belong to them? [Sic: Belong to
whom? — dolichocephalic leptroscopes, or brachycephalic chaemeophrosopes?]
This
tongue-twisting passage may sound bizarre to a modern reader, but was considered
an erudite piece of reasoning when it was written. In its influence and
scientific unsoundness and dogmatism, ‘race science’ can only be compared in
this century to Marxism and its offshoot of communism. Like Marxist theories,
these race theories have also been fully discredited. The emergence of molecular
genetics has shown these race theories to be completely false.
By creating this pseudo-science based on race,
Europeans of the Age of Enlightenment sought to free themselves from their
Jewish heritage. It is interesting to note that this very same theory — of the
Aryan invasion and colonization of Europe — was later applied to India and
became the Aryan invasion theory of India. In reality it was nothing more than a
projection into the remote past of the contemporary European experience in
colonizing parts of Asia and Africa. Substituting European for Aryan, and Asian
or African for Dravidian will give us a description of any of the innumerable
colonial campaigns in the eighteenth or nineteenth century. According to this
theory, the Aryans were carbon copies of colonizing Europeans. Seen in this
light the theory is not even especially original.
The greatest effect of these ideas was on the
psyche of the German people. German nationalism was the most powerful political
movement of nineteenth century Europe. The idea of the Aryan race was a
significant aspect of the German nationalistic movement. We are now used to
regarding Germany as a rich and powerful country, but the German people at the
beginning of the nineteenth century were weak and divided. There was no German
nation at the time; the map of Europe was then dotted with numerous petty German
principalities and dukedoms that had always been at the mercy of the neighboring
great powers — Austria and France. For more than two centuries, from the time
of the Thirty Years War to the Napoleonic conquests, the great powers had
marched their armies through these petty German states treating these people and
their rulers with utter disdain. It was very much in the interests of the French
to keep the German people divided, a tactic later applied to India by the
British. Every German at the time believed that he and his rulers were no more
than pawns in great power rivalries. This had built up deep resentments in the
hearts and minds of the German people. This was to have serious consequences for
history.
In this climate of alienation and impotence, it
is not surprising that German intellectuals should have sought solace in the
culture of an ancient exotic land like India. Some of us can recall a very
similar sentiment among Americans during the era of Vietnam and the Cold War,
with many of them taking an interest in eastern religions and philosophy. These
German intellectuals also felt a kinship towards India as a subjugated people,
like themselves. Some of the greatest German intellectuals of the era, men
like
Humbolt, Frederick and Wilhem Schlegel, Schopenhauer and many others were
students of Indian literature and philosophy. Hegel, the greatest philosopher of
the age and a major influence on German nationalism was fond of saying that in
philosophy and literature, Germans were the pupils of Indian sages. Humbolt went
so far as to declare in 1827: "The Bhagavadgita
is perhaps the loftiest and the deepest thing that the world has to
show." This was the climate in Germany when it was experiencing the rising
tide of nationalism.
Where the German involvement in things Indian
was emotional and romantic, the British interest was entirely practical, even
though there were scholars like Jones and Colebrooke who were admirers of India
and its literature. Well before the 1857 uprising it was recognized that British
rule in India could not be sustained without a large number of Indian
collaborators. Recognizing this reality, influential men like Thomas Babbington
Macaulay, who was Chairman of the Education Board, sought to set up an
educational system modeled along British lines that would also serve to
undermine the Hindu tradition. While not a missionary himself, Macaulay came
from a deeply religious family steeped in the Protestant Christian faith. His
father was a Presbyterian minister and his mother a Quaker. He believed that the
conversion of Hindus to Christianity held the answer to the problems of
administering India. His idea was to create an English educated elite that would
repudiate its tradition and become British collaborators. In 1836, while serving
as chairman of the Education Board in India, he enthusiastically wrote his
father:
Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. The effect of this
education on the Hindus is prodigious. ...... It is my belief that if our plans
of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolator among the
respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected
without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with
religious liberty, by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily
rejoice in the project.
So
religious conversion and colonialism were to go hand in hand. As Arun Shourie
has pointed out in his book Missionaries
in India, European Christian missions were an appendage of the colonial
government, with missionaries working hand in glove with the government. In a
real sense, they cannot be called religious organizations at all but an
unofficial arm of the Imperial Administration. (The same is true of many
Catholic missions in Central American countries who were, and probably are, in
the pay of the American CIA. This was admitted by a CIA director, testifying
before the Congress.)
The key point here is Macaulay's belief that
'knowledge and reflection' on the part of the Hindus, especially the Brahmins,
would cause them to give up their age-old belief in favor of Christianity. In
effect, his idea was to turn the strength of Hindu intellectuals against them,
by utilizing their commitment to scholarship in uprooting their own tradition.
His plan was to educate the Hindus to become Christians and turn them into
collaborators. He was being very naive no doubt, to think that his scheme could
really succeed converting India to Christianity. At the same time it is a
measure of his seriousness that Macaulay persisted with the idea for fifteen
years until he found the money and the right man for turning his utopian idea
into reality.
Baron von Bunsen (1791 - 1860) who introduced Max Müller to Macaulay
In pursuit of this goal he needed someone who
would translate and interpret Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas, in such a
way that the newly educated Indian elite would see the differences between them
and the Bible and choose the latter. Upon his return to England, after a good
deal of effort he found a talented but impoverished young German Vedic scholar
by name Friedrich Max Müller who was willing to undertake this arduous task.
Macaulay used his influence with the East India Company to find funds for Max Müller's
translation of the Rigveda. Though an
ardent German nationalist, Max Müller agreed for the sake of Christianity to
work for the East India Company, which in reality meant the British Government
of India. He also badly needed a major sponsor for his ambitious plans, which he
felt he had at last found.
This was the genesis of his great enterprise,
publishing the Rigveda with Sayana's
commentary and the editing of the fifty-volume Sacred
Books of the East. There can be no doubt at all regarding Max Müller's
commitment to the conversion of Indians to Christianity. Writing to his wife in
1866 he observed:
It [the Rigveda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the
root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it
during the last three thousand years.
Two
years later he also wrote the Duke of Argyle, then acting Secretary of State for
India: "The ancient religion of India is doomed. And if Christianity does
not take its place, whose fault will it be?" The facts therefore are clear:
like Lawrence of Arabia in this century, Max Müller, though a scholar was an
agent of the British government paid to advance its colonial interests.
But he remained an ardent German nationalist
even while working in England. This helps explain why he used his position as a
recognized Vedic and Sanskrit scholar to promote the idea of the 'Aryan race'
and the 'Aryan nation', both favorite slogans among German nationalists. Though
he was later to repudiate it, it was Max Müller as much as anyone who
popularized the notion of Arya as a race. This of course was to reach its
culmination in the rise of Hitler and the horrors of Nazism in our own century.
Although it would be unfair to blame Max Müller
for the rise of Nazism, he, as an eminent scholar of the Vedas and Sanskrit,
bears a heavy responsibility for the deliberate misuse of a term in response to
the emotion of the moment. He was guilty of giving scriptural sanction to the
worst prejudice of his or any age. Not everyone however was guilty of such
abuse. Wilhem Schlegel, no less a German nationalist, or romantic, always used
the word 'Arya' to mean honorable and never in a racial sense. Max Müller's
misuse of the term may be pardonable in an ignoramus, but not in a scholar of
his stature.
At the same time it should be pointed out that
there is nothing to indicate that Max Müller was himself a racist. He was a
decent and honorable man who had many Indian friends. He simply allowed himself
to be carried away by the emotion of the moment, and the heady feeling of being
regarded an Aryan sage by fellow German nationalists. To be always in the public
eye was a lifelong weakness with the man. With the benefit of hindsight we can
say that Max Müller saw the opportunity and made a 'bargain with the devil' to
gain fame and fortune. It would be a serious error however to judge the man
based on this one unseemly episode in a many-sided life. His contribution as
editor and publisher of ancient works is great beyond dispute. He was a great
man and we must be prepared to recognize it.
Much now is made of the fact that Max Müller
later repudiated the racial aspects of the Aryan theory, claiming it to be a
linguistic concept. But this again owed more to winds of change in European
politics than to science or scholarship. Britain had been watching the progress
of German nationalism with rising anxiety that burst into near hysteria in some
circles when Prussia crushed France in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871. This led
to German unification under the banner of Prussia. Suddenly Germany became the
most populous and powerful country in Western Europe and the greatest threat to
British ambitions. Belief was widespread among British Indian authorities that
India and Sanskrit studies had made a major contribution to German unification.
Sir Henry Maine, a former Vice Chancellor of Calcutta university and an advisor
to the Viceroy echoed the sentiment of many Englishmen when he said: "A
nation has been born out of Sanskrit."
This obviously was an exaggeration, but to the
British still reeling from the effects of the 1857 revolt, the specter of German
unification being repeated in India was very real. Max Müller though found
himself in an extremely tight spot. Though a German by birth he was now
comfortably established in England, in the middle of his lifework on the Vedas
and the Sacred Books of the East. His
youthful flirtation with German nationalism and the Aryan race theories could
now cost him dear. German unification was followed in England by an outburst of
British jingoism in which Bismarck and his policies were being daily denounced;
Bismarck had become extremely unpopular in England for his expansionist
policies. With his background as a German nationalist, the last thing Max Müller
could afford was to be seen as advocating German ideology in Victorian England.
He had no choice but to repudiate his former theories simply to survive in
England. He reacted by hastily propounding a new 'linguistic theory' of the
Aryan invasion.
So in 1872, immediately following German
unification, the culmination of the century long dream of German nationalists,
Friedrich Max Müller marched into a university in German occupied France and
dramatically denounced the German doctrine of the Aryan race. And just as he had
been an upholder of the Aryan race theory for the first twenty years of his
career, he was to remain a staunch opponent of it for the remaining thirty years
of his life. It is primarily in the second role that he is remembered today,
except by those familiar with the whole history.
Let us now take a final look at this famous
theory. It was first an Aryan invasion theory of Europe created by Europeans to
free themselves from the Jewish heritage of Christianity. This was to lead to
Hitler and Nazism. This theory was later transferred to India and got mixed up
with the study of Sanskrit and European languages. Europeans — — now calling
themselves Indo-Europeans became the invading Aryans and the natives became the
Dravidians. British hired Max Müller to use this theory to turn the Vedas into
an inferior scripture, to help turn educated Hindus into Christian
collaborators. Max Müller used his position as a Vedic scholar to boost German
nationalism by giving scriptural sanction to the German idea of the Aryan race.
Following German unification under Bismarck, British public and politicians
became scared and anti-German. At this Max Müller worried about his position in
England got cold feet and wriggled out of his predicament by denouncing his own
former racial theory and turned it into a linguistic theory. In all of this, one
would like to know, where was the science?
As Huxley pointed out long ago, there was never
any scientific basis for the Aryan race or their invasion. It was entirely a
product — and tool — of propagandists and politicians. Giving it a
linguistic twist was simply an afterthought, dictated by special circumstances
and expediency.
The fact that Europeans should have concocted
this scenario which by repeated assertion became a belief system is not to be
wondered at. They were trying to give themselves a cultural identity, entirely
understandable in a people as deeply concerned about their history and origins
as the modern Europeans. But how to account for the tenacious attachment to this
fiction that is more propaganda than history on the part of 'establishment'
Indian historians? It is not greatly to their credit that modern Indian
historians — with rare exceptions — have failed to show the independence of
mind necessary to subject this theory to a fresh examination and come up with a
more realistic version of history. Probably they lack also the necessary
scholarly skills and have little choice beyond continuing along the same
well-worn paths that don't demand much more than reiterating nineteenth century
formulations.
It is not often that a people look to a land
and culture far removed from them in space and time for their inspiration as the
German nationalists did. This should have made modern Indian historians examine
the causes in Europe for this unusual phenomenon. It is one of the great
failures of scholarship that they failed to do so.
We no longer have to continue along this discredited path. Now thanks to the contributions of science —from the pioneering exploration of V.S. Wakankar and his discovery of the Vedic river Sarasvati to Jha’s decipherment of the Indus script — we are finally allowed a glimpse into the ancient world of the Vedic Age. The Aryan invasion theory and its creators and advocates are on their way to the dustbin of history.
The rise and fall of Indology closely parallels
the growth and decline of European colonialism and the Euro-centric domination
of Indian intellectual life. (Marxism is the most extreme of Euro-centric
doctrines — a ‘Christian heresy’ as Bertrand Russell called it.) The
greatest failure of Indology has been its inability to evolve an objective
methodology for the study of the sources. Even after two hundred years of
existence, there is no common body of knowledge that can serve as foundation, or
technical tools that may be used in addressing specific problems. All that
Indologists have given us are theories and more theories almost all of them
borrowed from other disciplines. If one went to botany to borrow tree diagrams
for the study of languages, another went to psychology to study sacrificial
rituals, and a third — followed by a whole battalion — borrowed the idea of
the class struggle from Marx to apply to Vedic society. Not one of them stopped
to think whether it would not be better to try to study the ancients through the
eyes of the ancients themselves. And
yet ample materials exist to follow such a course.
With
the benefit of hindsight, even setting aside irrational biases due to politics
and Biblical beliefs, we can now recognize that Indology has been guilty of two
fundamental methodological errors. First, linguists have confused their theories
— based on their own classifications and even whimsical assumptions — for
fundamental laws of nature that reflect historical reality. Secondly,
archaeologists, at least a significant number of them, have subordinated their
own interpretations to the historical, cultural, and even the chronological
impositions of the linguists. (Remember the Biblical Creation in 4004 BC which
gave the Aryan invasion in 1500 BC!) This has resulted in a fundamental
methodological error of confounding primary
data from archaeology with modern
impositions like the Aryan invasion and other theories and even their dates.
This mixing of unlikes — further confounded by religious beliefs and political
theories — is a primary source of the confusion that plagues the history and
archaeology of ancient India. In their failure to investigate the sources,
modern scholars — Indian scholars in particular — have much to answer for.
As an immediate consequence of this, the vast body of primary literature from the Vedic period has been completely divorced from Harappan archaeology under the dogmatic belief that the Vedas and Sanskrit came later. This has meant that this great literature and its creators have no archaeological or even geographical existence. In our view, the correct approach to breaking this deadlock is by a combination of likes — a study of primary data from archaeology alongside the primary literature from ancient periods. This means we must be wary of modern theories intruding upon ancient data and texts. The best course is to disregard them. They have outlived their usefulness if they had any.
In the final analysis, Indology — like the Renaissance and the Romantic Movement and Nazism — should be seen as part of European history. And Indologists — from Max Müller to his modern successors — have contributed no more to the study of ancient India than Herodotus. Their works tell us more about them than about India. It is time to make a new beginning. The decipherment of the Indus script — and the scientific methodology leading up to it — can herald this new beginning.
Home | Special Focus | Feature | Contents | Contact TRUTH IS GOD |