Preface

A few things about Hinduism especially in regard to the debate as to its origins. This debate centers on the Indus Valley civilization which paralleled Mesopotamian civilization which centered on the rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates. Basically one theory suggests that Hinduism originated within the Indus Valley civilization and generally paralleled its evolution. This theory asserts that the Aryan invaders -who are distinguished by their kinship to the Indo-European family of languages and are therefore identified as distinct from the indigenous Dravidian family of languages - were assimilated into the cultural sphere of Hinduism. This theory is known as the Aryan migration thesis.

Gavin Flood writes with regard to this thesis, “the Indus Valley civilization, which speaks a Dravidian language, declines between 2000 and 1800 BC and the Aryans become the dominant cultural force. This has been the traditional, scholarly picture…”(Flood, 1996:31).

The alternate thesis is known as the cultural transformation thesis. Flood writes with regard to this thesis, “Aryan culture is a development of the Indus Valley culture whose language belongs to the Indo-European family, possibly spoken in the region as far back as the Neolithic period, (the Stone Age) in interaction with Dravidian culture. On this view there were no Aryan incursions into India, but Indus Valley culture is an early Aryan or Vedic culture”(Flood, 1996:31).

So, which theory is correct? The seemingly foreign Sanskrit language - the ancestor of Hindi - and the kin language belonging to the Indo-European group – linguistically- is the main evidence for the Aryan migration thesis. The reason is that - linguistically - the Indo-European family of languages includes English, German, Latin, Spanish, Persian, and many languages of Europe. 

But, why is it so pressing to find out which language was spoken by the culture that built the Indus Valley civilization? Is it perhaps because they built the Indus Valley civilization? This would suggest that it was the Indo-Europeans or Indo-European culture was more advanced than the Dravidian culture. If it is actually in fact the Dravidians who built the Indus Valley civilization it would suggest that the Dravidians were more advanced than the Indo-Europeans who were nomadic sheepherders.

So, the debate itself is jaded by this purpose which overshadows the scholarly work in favor of either thesis. Nevertheless, the culture of the Indus Valley civilization is a key piece to understanding Hinduism. The word Hindu is actually the Islamic popularization of the name given by the Islamic invaders of the 13th and 14th centuries to the inhabitants of the Indus Valley basin.

So, when the Muslims arrived in the Indus Valley - which could be called India - they called them Hindus. So, there were Hindus living in the Indus Valley when the Muslims came in the 13th and 14th century. What about in 1500 BC almost 3000 years before the Muslim invasions? 

Where did the name for the river ’Ind’ come from? Is it an Aryan name? Or is it a Dravidian name? Obviously, the river and the people living on its banks are tied together. They are called by the river which enables them to survive and nurtures them, and they may have also named the river. In all likelihood it was them who named the river, ’Ind’ or ‘Indu’.

Of course, being able to decipher the Indus Valley script would be enormously helpful. Which language is being written in the Indus Valley script? Dravidian or pro-Dravidian? Or proto-Aryan?