“Aryan Invasion Theory” – The Greatest flaw in our Indian History ?

YEAR 1835

British Parliament

Lord Macaulay*

“I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”

History was Re-written :-

Sometime around 1700 BC

The white-skinned Europeans, so called the Aryans, were a tribe of Indo-European-speaking, horse-riding nomads living in the arid steppes of Eurasia. These nomadic tribe still involved in primitive hunting and fishing (While Indians were building great cities and making steel out of iron). While wandering, they came to the Sapthsindhu (Indus) civilization and were so much amazed with the richness of culture and knowledge of Indians, that they invaded the ancient urban civilizations of the Indus Valley, and overthrew an earlier and more advanced dark-skinned Dravidian civilization from which they took most of what later became Hindu culture.

This so-called pre-Aryan civilization is said to be evidenced by the large urban ruins of what has been called the “Indus valley culture”. This Indus Valley civilization was far more civilized than any horse-back nomad, having had a written language, farming capabilities, and led a truly urban existence. Some 1,200 years after the supposed invasion, the descendants of the Aryans, so they say, wrote the classic Indian literature called the Vedic manuscripts. The war between the powers of light and darkness, a prevalent idea in ancient Aryan Vedic scriptures, was thus interpreted to refer to this war between light and dark- skinned peoples. Dravidians where pushed down to south and in course of history they adopted the much preached Hinduism forced by the upper caste Aryan people. They have their own culture and beliefs and are far more different then the Aryans and should remain suppressed and in low dignity. Thus this gave rise to century old divide between North and South (India).

Sounds Great ?

Let’s see how the above theory came into existence –

During the 19th century, many European missionaries and imperialists traveled the world seeking conquests and converts. One country which saw a great deal of this kind of exploration was India (including what is now Pakistan). Some of the missionaries were also antiquarians by avocation, and one such fellow was the French missionary Abbé Dubois(1770-1848). His manuscript on Indian culture makes some unusual reading today; the good Abbé tried to fit in what he understood of Noah and the Great Flood with what he was reading in the great literature of India. It was not a good fit, but he did describe Indian civilization at the time, and provided some pretty bad translations of the literature.

It was the Abbé’s work, translated into English by the British East India Company in 1897 and with a laudatory preface by German archaeologist Max Muller that formed the basis of the Aryan invasion story–not the Vedic manuscripts themselves.

The Sanskrit word ‘Aryan’ refers to one who is righteous and noble. It is also used in the context of addressing a gentleman (Arya-putraAryakanya etc). Nowhere in the Vedic literature is the word used to denote race or language. This was a concoction by Max Mueller who, in 1853, introduced the word ‘Arya’ into the English language as referring a particular race and language. He did this in order to give credibility to his Aryan race theory. However in 1888, when challenged by other eminent scholars and historians, Mueller could see that his reputation was in jeopardy and made the following statement, thus refuting his own theory –

“I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language…to me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.”
(Max Mueller, Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas, 1888, pg 120)

But, Political and Nationalist groups in Germany and France (later, British in India) exploited this racial phenomenon to propagate the supremacy of an assumed Aryan race of white people. Later, Adolf Hitler used this ideology to the extreme for his political hegemony and his barbaric crusade to terrorize Jews, Slavs and other racial minorities, culminating in the holocaust of millions of innocent people.

Scholars had long noted the similarities between Sanskrit, the ancient language in which the classical Vedic texts are written, and other Latin-based languages such as French and Italian. And when the first excavations at the large Indus Valley site of Mohenjo Daro were completed early in the 20th century, and it was recognized as a truly advanced civilization, a civilization not mentioned in the Vedic manuscripts, among some circles this was considered ample evidence that an invasion of people related to the peoples of Europe had occurred, destroying the earlier civilization and creating the second great civilization of India.

According to Mueller’s etymological explanation of ‘Aryan’, the word is derived from ‘ar’ (to plough, to cultivate). Therefore Arya means ‘a cultivator, or farmer’. This is opposed to the idea that the Aryans were wandering nomads. V.S. Apte’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary relates the word Arya to the root ‘r-’ to which the prefix ‘a’ has been added in order to give a negating meaning. Therefore the meaning of Arya is given as ‘excellent, best’, followed by ‘respectable’ and as a noun, ‘master, lord, worthy, honorable, excellent,’ ‘upholder of Arya values, and further: teacher, employer, master, father-in-law, friend.’


Let’s take the ground reality and facts available today by all the eminent archeologist and historian of this world and put our common sense to test inorder to put forward few logicall questions, which are still unanswered and lead way into a great FLAW in our INDIAN history :-

Here it goes –

  • In the Rig Veda Indra is described as the ‘Destroyer of Cities,’ the same text mentions that the Aryan people themselves were urban dwellers with hundreds of cities of their own. They are mentioned as a complex metropolitan society with numerous professions and as a seafaring race. This begs the question, if the Aryans had indeed invaded the city of Harappa, why did they not inhabit it after? Archeological evidence shows that the city was left deserted after the ‘Invasion’.Kenneth Kennedy of Cornell University has recently proven that there was no significant influx of people into India during 4500 to 800BC. Furthermore it is impossible for sites stretching over one thousand miles to have all become simultaneously abandoned due to the Invasion of Nomadic Tribes.
  • Aryan invasion theory had no explanation for why the Vedic literature (that was assumed to go back into the second millennium BC) had no reference to any region outside of India and Nowhere in the Vedas, Puranas or Itihasas is there any mention of a Migration or Invasion of any kind. Important point is that none of the Vedic literatures refer to any Invasion from outside or an original homeland from which the Aryans came from. They only focus upon the region of the Seven Rivers (sapta-sindhu). The Puranas refer to migrations of people out of India, which explains the discoveries of treaties between kings with Aryan names in the Middle East, and references to Vedic gods in West Asian texts in the second millenium BC. However, the indologists try to explain these as traces of the migratory path of the Aryans into India.
  • Vedic and late Vedic texts also contain interesting astronomical lore. The Vedic calender was based upon astronomical sightings of the equinoxes and solstices. Such texts as ‘Vedanga Jyotish’ speak of a time when the vernal equinox was in the middle of the Nakshtra Aslesha (or about 23 degrees 20 minutes Cancer). This gives a date of 1300 BC. The ‘Yajur Veda’ and ‘Atharva Veda’ speak of the vernal equinox in the Krittikas (Pleiades; early Taurus) and the summer solstice (ayana) in Magha (early Leo). This gives a date about 2400 BC. Yet earlier eras are mentioned but these two have numerous references to substantiate them. They prove that the Vedic culture existed at these periods and already had a sophisticated system of astronomy. Such references were merely ignored or pronounced unintelligible by Western scholars because they yielded too early a date for the ‘Vedas’ than what they presumed, not because such references did not exist.
  • If the Harappan civilization had a Dravidian origin, who were allegedly pushed down to the south by Aryans, how come there is no Aryan – Dravidian divide in the respective literatures and historical traditions. There are various objections to the conclusions reached by the indologists concerning linguistics. Firstly they have never given a plausible excuse to explain how a Nomadic Invasion could have overwhelmed the original languages in one of the most densely populated regions of the ancient world.
    Secondly, there are more linguistic changes in Vedic Sanskrit than there are in classical Sanskrit since the time of Panini (aprox.500 BC). So although they have assigned an arbitrary figure of 200 year periods to each of the four Vedas, each of these periods could have existed for any number of centuries and the 200 year figure is totally subjective and probably too short a figure.
    Prior to the British, the North and South lived in peace and there was a continuous cultural exchange between the two. Sanskrit was the common language between the two regions for centuries. Great acaryas such as Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, and Nimbarka were all from South, yet they are all respected in North India. Prior to them, there were great sages from the South such as Bodhayana and Apastamba. Agastya Rsi is placed in high regard in South India as it is said that he brought the Tamil language from Mount Kailasa to the South.Yet he is from the North! Are we to understand that the South was uninhabited before the Aryan Invasion? If not, who were the original inhabitants of South India, who accepted these newcomers from the North without any struggle or hostility?
    There is no solid evidence that the Aryans belonged to a nomadic tribe. In fact, to suggest that a nomadic horde of barbarians wrote books of such profound wisdom as the Vedas and Upanisads is nothing more than an absurdity and defies imagination.
  • Nowhere either in the religious scriptures or by tradition the word Arya denotes a race or a language. The difference between the so-called Aryans of the north and the Dravidians of the south or other communities of Indian subcontinent is not a racial type. Biologically all are of the same type, only when closer to the equator the skin gets darker, and under the influence of constant heat the bodily frame tends to get a little smaller. And these differences cannot be the basis of two altogether different races.
  • If the Aryan Hindus were outsiders, why don’t they name places outside India as their most holy places? Why should they sing poems in the praise of India’s numerous rivers crisscrossing the entire peninsula, and mountains – repositories of life giving water and natural resources, many even bestow them a status of goddesses and gods. If Aryans were outsiders why should they consider this land as the ‘holy land’ and not their original land as the ‘holy land’ or motherland? For the Muslims, their holy place is Mecca. For the Catholics it is Rome or Jerusalem. For the Hindus, their pilgrim centers range from Kailash in the North, to Rameshwaram in the South; and from Hingalaj (Sindh) in the West to Parusuram Kund (Arunchala Pradesh) in the East. The seven holy cities of Hinduism include Kanchipurum in the south, Dwarka in the west and Ujjain in central India. The twelve jyotirlings include Ramashwaram in Tamil Nadu, Srisailam in Andhra Pradesh, Nashik in Maharashtra, Somnath in Gujarat and Kashi in Uttar Pradesh. All these are located in greater India only. No Hindu from any part of India has felt a stranger in any other part of India when on a pilgrimage. The seven holy rivers in Hinduism, indeed, seem to chart out the map of the holy land. The Sindhu and the Saraswati (now extinct) originating from the Himalayas and move westward and southwards into the western sea; the Ganga and the Yamuna also start in the Himalayas and move eastward into the north-eastern sea; the Narmada starts in central India and the Godavari starts in western India, while the Kaveri winds its way through the south to move into the southern sea.Based on literary analysis, many scholars including B.G. Tilak, Dayananda Saraswati and Aurobindo dismissed any idea of an Aryan Invasion. For example, if the Aryans were foreign invaders, why is it that they don’t name places outside of India as their religious sites? Why do the Vedas only glorify holy places within India?
  • More than a thousand years ago, Adi Shankaracharya, who was born in Kerala, established several mathas (religious and spiritual centers) including at Badrinath in the north (Uttar Pradesh), Puri in the east (Orissa), Dwaraka in the west (Gujarat), and at Shringeri and Kanchi in the south.
  • There is no mention of Conflictsin Vedic literature, findings of skeletons at the excavated sites of Mohanjodro and Harappa.“What of these skeletal remains that have taken on such undeserved importance?
    Nine years of extensive excavations at Mohenjo-daro (1922-31) – a city of three miles in circuit – yielded the total of some 37 skeletons, or parts thereof that can be attributed with some certainty to the period of the Indus civilizations. Some of these were found in contorted positions and groupings that suggest anything but orderly burials. Many are either disarticulated or incomplete. They were all found in the area of the Lower Town – probably the residential district. Not a single body was found within the area of the fortified citadel where one could reasonably expect the final defense of this thriving capital city to have been made…Where are the burned fortresses, the arrow heads, weapons, pieces of armor, the smashed chariots and bodies of the invaders and defenders? Despite the extensive excavations at the largest Harappan sites, there is not a single bit of evidence that can be brought forth as unconditional proof of an armed conquest and the destruction on the supposed scale of the Aryan Invasion.
  • An important point in this regard is that nomadic tribes do not use chariots. They are used in areas of flat land such as the Gangetic plains of Northern India. An Invasion of India from Central Asia would require crossing mountains and deserts – a chariot would be useless for such an exercise People who give credence to an Aryan invasion of India cite archeological evidence as proof. Among the thousands of clay seals that have been found in the region of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro (the sites of the Indus Valley Civilization, supposedly the home originally of the Dravidian people), no seals depict the horse or the wheel. In contrast, Aryans were known to have the horse and the chariot. From this evidence it is concluded that the Aryans conquered the people of the Indus Valley through the use of the chariot and the horse. K. D. Sethna in his book cited above disputes this evidence. Some seals depicting the wheel have indeed been discovered at the Harappan archeological sites. The wheel was known to the people of the Indus Valley.
  • A references in the Rig Veda that point to India being a land of mixed races. The Rig Veda also states that “We pray to Indra to give glory by which the Dasyus (Demons) will become Aryans.” Such a statement confirms that to be an Aryan was not a matter of birth.
  • It was claimed that another reason why the Invading Aryans gained the upper hand was because their weapons were made of iron. This was based upon the word ‘ayas’ found in the Vedas, which was translated as iron. Another reason was that iron was not found in the Indus Valley region. However, in other Indo-European languages, ayas refers to bronze, copper or ore. It is dubious to say that ayas only referred to iron, especially when the Rig Veda does not mention other metals apart from gold, which is mentioned more frequently than ayas. Furthermore, the Yajur and Atharva Vedas refer to different colors of ayas. This seems to show that the word was a generic term for all types of metal. It is also mentioned in the Vedas that the dasyus (enemies of the Aryans) also used ayas to build their cities. Thus there is no hard evidence to prove that the ‘Aryans invaders’ were an iron-based culture and their enemies were not.
  • Yajna-Vedhis : Throughout the Vedas, there is mention of fire-sacrifices (yajnas) and the elaborate construction of vedhis (fire altars). Fire-sacrifices were probably the most important aspect of worshiping the Supreme for the Aryan people. However, the remains of yajna-vedhis (fire altars) were uncovered in Harrapa by B.B. Lal of the Archeological Survey of India, in his excavations at the third millenium site of Kalibangan. The geometry of these yajna-vedhis is explained in the Vedic texts such as the Satpatha-brahmana. The University of California at Berkley has compared this geometry to the early geometry of Ancient Greece and Mesopotamia and established that the geometry found in the Vedic scriptures should be dated before 1700BC. Such evidence proves that the Harrapans were part of the Vedic fold.
  • North-South divide: Saivism : The advocates of the Invasion theory argue that the inhabitants of Indus valley were Saivites (Siva worshippers) and since Saivism is more prevalent among the South Indians, the inhabitants of the Indus valley region must have been Dravidians. Siva worship, however, is not alien to Vedic culture, and is certainly not confined to South India. The words Siva and Sambhu are not Dravidian in origin as some indologists would have us believe (derived from the Tamil words ‘civa’ – to redden, to become angry, and ‘cembu’ – copper, the red metal). Both words have Sanskrit roots – ‘si’meaning auspicious, gracious, benevolent, helpful, kind, and ‘sam’meaning being or existing for happiness or welfare, granting or causing happiness, benevolent, helpful, kind. These words are used in this sense only, right from their very first occurrence. Moreover, some of the most important holy places for Saivites are located in North India: the traditional holy residence of Lord Siva is Mount Kailasa situated in the far north. Varanasi is the most revered and auspicious seat of Saivism. There are verses in the Rig Veda mentioning Siva and Rudra and consider him to be an important deity. Indra himself is called Siva several times in Rig Veda (2:20:3, 6:45:17, 8:93:3).
    So Siva is not a Dravidian divinity only, and by no means is he a non-Vedic divinity. Indologists have also presented terra-cotta lumps found in the fire-alters in Harappa and taken them to be Siva-lingas, implying that Saivism was prevalent among the Indus valley people. But these terra-cotta lumps have been proved to be the measures for weighing commodities by shopkeepers and merchants. Their weights have been found in perfect integral ratios, in the manner like 1 gm, 2 gms, 5 gms, 10 gms etc. They were not used as the Siva-lingas for worship, but as the weight measurements.
  • The Discovery Of The Sarasvati River: The famous River Ganga is mentioned only once in the Rig Veda whereas the River Sarasvati is mentioned at least sixty times. Sarasvati is now a dry river, but it once flowed all the way from the Himalayas to the ocean across the desert of Rajasthan. Research by Dr. Wakankar has verified that the River Sarasvati changed course at least four times before going completely dry around 1900BC.The latest satellite data combined with field archaeological studies have shown that the Rig Vedic Sarasvati had stopped being a perennial river long before 3000 BC.

    As Paul-Henri Francfort of CNRS, Paris recently observed –
    “…We now know, thanks to the field work of the Indo-French expedition that when the proto-historic people settled in this area, no large river had flowed there for a long time.”

    The proto-historic people he refers to are the early Harappans of 3000 BC. But satellite photos show that a great prehistoric river that was over 7 kilometers wide did indeed flow through the area at one time. This was the Sarasvati described in the Rig Veda. Numerous archaeological sites have also been located along the course of this great prehistoric river thereby confirming Vedic accounts. The great Sarasvati that flowed “from the mountain to the sea” is now seen to belong to a date long anterior to 3000 BC. This means that the Rig Veda describes the geography of North India long before 3000 BC. All this shows that the Rig Veda must have been in existence no later than 3500 BC. With so many eulogies composed to the River Sarasvati, we can gather that it must have been well known to the Aryans, who therefore could not have been foreign invaders. This also indicates that the Vedas are much older than Mahabharata, which mentions the Sarasvati as a dying river.

  • Discoveries Of New Sites : Since the initial discoveries of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa on the Ravi and Sindhu rivers in 1922, over 2500 other settlements have been found stretching from Baluchistan to the Ganga and beyond and down to the Tapti Valley. This covers almost a million and a half square kilometers. More than 75% of these sites are concentrated not along the Sindhu, as was believed 70 years ago, but on the banks of the dried up river Sarasvati. The drying up of this great river was a catastrophe, which led to a massive exodus of people in around 2000-1900BC. Some of these people moved southeast, some northwest, and some to Middle-eastern countries such as Iran and Mesopotamia. Dynasties and rulers with Indian names appear and disappear all over west Asia confirming the migration of people from East to West.
  • Some people misread Ramayana as describing an invasion of the South by a Northern prince. The Indian epic Ramayana narrates Rama’s tale, who invaded the island of Lanka to rescue his wife Sita. Sita had been forcibly abducted by Ravana to the island of Lanka. Nowhere does Ramayana characterize Ravana as belonging to an alien or an inferior race. Ravana was a scholar of the Vedas and was called a Chaturvedi, a knower of the four Vedas. Ravana belonged to the same stock as the victorious Rama.
  • Francois Gautier cites recent research which indicates that the script on the Indus seals is of Sanskrit lineage. This suggests that the people of Harappa belonged to a much older Vedic age.

The most recent claim which genetically studied the origin of Indian people, is given by the article published by Times of India (newspaper, in 2009 )

Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study
25 September 2009

HYDERABAD: The great Indian divide along north-south lines now stands blurred. A pathbreaking study by Harvard and indigenous researchers on ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed “fact” that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth.

“This paper rewrites history… there is no north-south divide,” Lalji Singh, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) and a co-author of the study, said at a press conference.

Senior CCMB scientist Kumarasamy Thangarajan said there was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.

The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally “upper” and “lower” castes and tribal groups. “The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society,” the study said. Thangarajan noted that it was impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different.

The study was conducted by CCMB scientists in collaboration with researchers at Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. It reveals that the present-day Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations – the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI).

“The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,” said Thangarajan. He added, “At a later stage,40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the populations within India.”

The study also helps understand why the incidence of genetic diseases among Indians is different from the rest of the world. Singh said that 70% of Indians were burdened with genetic disorders and the study could help answer why certain conditions restricted themselves to one population. For instance, breast cancer among Parsi women, motor neuron diseases among residents of Tirupati and Chittoor, or sickle cell anaemia among certain tribes in central India and the North-East can now be understood better, said researchers.

The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world. However, researchers said there was no scientific proof of whether Indians went to Europe first or the other way round.

Migratory route of Africans

Between 135,000 and 75,000 years ago, the East-African droughts shrunk the water volume of the lake Malawi by at least 95%, causing migration out of Africa. Which route did they take? Researchers say their study of the tribes of Andaman and Nicobar islands using complete mitochondrial DNA sequences and its comparison those of world populations has led to the theory of a “southern coastal route” of migration from East Africa through India.

This finding is against the prevailing view of a northern route of migration via Middle East, Europe, south-east Asia, Australia and then to India.

So know, BBC Accepts that the Aryan Invasion theory is flawed ( 2009 ).

This is a very important article which calls the cloak off the most damaging theory concocted by the British and served to Indians. Most of the apparent differences that are seen in Indian society like the North-South Divide, Upper caste – Lower caste divides, language problems, can be related to the Aryan-Dravidian theory. I believe that this theory to be the most successful chapter of the British ‘Divide and Rule” policy. They employed Muller as part of Macaulay’s grand scheme to devalue Indian history. So much so, that today we have large sections of “educated Indians” who undermine their own heritage and consider that the British rule as a great chapter in India’s history.The theory was not just wrong, some says, but included unacceptably racist ideas.

It is important to examine the social and political implications of the Aryan invasion idea:

  • First, it served to divide India into a northern Aryan and southern Dravidian culture which were made hostile to each other. This kept the Hindus divided and is still a source of social tension.
  • Second, it gave the British an excuse in their conquest of India. They could claim to be doing only what the Aryan ancestors of the Hindus had previously done millennia ago.
  • Third, it served to make Vedic culture later than and possibly derived from Middle Eastern cultures. With the proximity and relationship of the latter with the Bible and Christianity, this kept the Hindu religion as a sidelight to the development of religion and civilization to the West.
  • Fourth, it allowed the sciences of India to be given a Greek basis, as any Vedic basis was largely disqualified by the primitive nature of the Vedic culture.

When Macaulay came to India, he realized that the only way the Britishers can rule over India is to break their religion and culture or else it’s impossible to rule upon such a wealthy and united Bharat, that’s when he gave the statement stated in the beginning of this blog. So he gathered his eminent scholar to rewrite India’s history and root it so deep, into our daily curriculum, giving it scientific significance that we Indian till today look down to our own history & culture and feel ashamed of it. We are far more concerned in teaching PT in our school rather than acknowledging the fact that YOGA is in the soul of our culture and should be preached in the same way as any language.

So Is There Something that need to be changed, Our history book, Our language Or the mindset of our people, Its left to you to think?

I will close my blog with the words of Lalji Singh (former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB))

“This paper rewrites history… there is no north-south divide”

YEAR 2012

Indian History

History was Re-written



*Who was Lord Macaulay?

Macaulay was Secretary to the Board of Control under Lord Grey from 1832 until 1833. After the passing of the Government of India Act 1833, he was appointed as the first Law Member of the Governor-General’s Council. He went to India in 1834. He served on the Supreme Council of India between 1834 and 1838. He introduced English education in India through his famous minute of February 1835. He called an educational system that would create a class of anglicised Indians who would serve as cultural intermediaries between the British and the Indians. Macaulay succeeded in implementing ideas previously put forward by Lord William Bentinck, the governor general since 1829. Bentinck favored the replacement of Persian by English as the official language, the use of English as the medium of instruction, and the training of English-speaking Indians as teachers. He was inspired by utilitarian ideas and called for “useful learning.”  Macaulay convinced the Governor-General to adopt English as the medium of instruction in higher education, from the sixth year of schooling onwards, rather than Sanskrit or Persian then used in the institutions supported by the East India Company. By doing so, Macaulay wanted to “educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother tongue” and thus, by incorporating English, he sought to “enrich” the Indian languages so “that they could become vehicles for European scientific, historical, and literary expression”. Macaualay’s preference for the English language was based on his view of the local languages as “poor and rude” and on his belief that the body of writing available in Sanskrit and Arabic was no match for the scholarship available in English. He famously stated in his “Minute on Indian Education” (1835): “all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in Sanskrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England”. His final years in India were devoted to the creation of a Penal Code, as the leading member of the Law Commission.

Source : wikkipedia

Credits :

**“Solid Evidence Debunking Aryan Invasion” by David Frawley
**wikki answers