UNCEASING WAVES

Tamil or Dravidian?

Posted in Politics by Karthick RM on April 29, 2010

Some time in the early 90’s, ‘Arinyar’ Guna published a pamphlet titled “Dravidathaal Veezhnthom” (We fell due to Dravidianism) where he criticized the self-respect movement and its emphasis on a Dravidian identity for weakening the consciousness of a Tamil national identity. This paper seeks to explore the inner contradictions between the ‘Dravidian’ and the ‘Tamil’ using K. Nambi Arooran’s seminal work on ‘Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism: 1905-1944’ as reference, while keeping the essence of Guna’s argument in mind.

The number of academic works on the Dravidian movement have been few and Nambi Arooran’s book provides a detailed chronological account of the political and cultural scenario in Tamil Nadu in the earlier half of the 20th Century. Arooran observes that Tamil nationalism and Dravidian nationalism were synonymous (p9). Yet, there were political reasons for the preference of the term ‘Dravidian’ over the term ‘Tamil’, which also had political repercussions both in short term and in long term.

TAMILS A NATION?

Nations, it can be argued, are relatively modern constructs. Vague though the various definitions of nation are, it is generally agreed that they are social groups defined by the presence of a common language, identification with a common territory, common economic formations and a sense of common identity. Language in particular is central for a national formation because “language is directly connected with man’s productive activity, as well as with all his other activities in all his spheres of work without exception.” (Stalin 2008) By the above indicators, the Tamils can be said to constitute a nation.

Ernest Gellner argued that “nationalism is not the awakening of an old, latent, dormant force, though that is how it presents itself. It is in reality the consequences of a new form of social organization” (Gellner 1983, p48). By a Marxist viewpoint, “A nation is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definit e epoch, the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of elimination of feudalism and development of capitalism is at the same time a process of the constitution of people into nations.” (Stalin 2010, p78) Tamil or Dravidian nationalism, like Indian nationalism, was a new construct. The rise of Tamil nationalism is to be traced to the emergence of the Tamil bourgeoisie in the late 19th and early 20th century. In this period, there were great debates, both in political as well as cultural circles, on Tamil culture, language and history. As a social formation, the Tamils enjoyed greater socio-cultural autonomy for a longer period than any other major political grouping in India owing to the Tamil regions not falling under any centralized rule till the arrival of the British. As the author points out, “this primary independence of Tamil culture has been the source of constant tension and conflicts since the beginning of the 20th century.” (p9) Tamil nationalism as a socio-political force in the modern era began to emerge in the early 20th Century.

One of the demands of national consciousness is the construction of a common history. And the rich history of the Tamils provided the Tamil nationalists great sources to common cultural pasts. The literature of this period, especially the works of Subramaniya Bharati and ‘Manonmaniam’ Sundaram Pillai referred greatly to the glory of the Tamil language and the greatness of the Tamil society. Also, the Pure Tamil Movement, which laid emphasis on the lingual purity of the Tamil language by avoiding alien loanwords, led by stalwarts of Tamil literature like Maraimalai Adigal, Paaventhar Bharathithaasan, Perunchittiranaar and Devaneya Paavanaar, had a direct impact on the regional cultural politics of that period.

LOCATING THE BRAHMIN WITHIN THE TAMIL

With the rise of Tamil consciousness, which grew in parallel with the Indian national movement, the Tamil brahmins had a very uneasy relationship with developments in Tamil Nadu. While brahmin scholars like Krishnaswami Iyengar, UV Swaminatha Iyer, Srinivasa Iyengar, Subramaniya Bharati had contributed extensively to Tamil language and literature, their loyalties were two fold “to the concept of one India, and to the idea of the Tamil language and the persistent and distinct culture that went with the language.” (p59) Bharati was also opposed to the non-brahmin movement as he felt that it would impede the Indian national struggle. Moreover, these few scholars apart, most of the brahmins had an aloofness from the non-brahmin Tamil masses and were hostile to Tamil nationalist sentiments. As Prof. MSS Pandian puts it, “The zeal of the brahmin for Sanskrit had to exist in a complicated relationship with Tamil. While the brahmin’s use of Tamil was heavily Sanskritized and was celebrated for its beauty despite its relative unintelligibility to most, the Tamil spoken by non-brahmins was treated as unworthy of any man’s tongue.” (Pandian 2008, p80) The brahmins as a community could not be completely integrated in the folds of Tamil nationalism with their loyalty to the Indian entity over the aspirations of the Tamils and with their privileging of Sanskrit over Tamil. Thus, “The Tamil renaissance which coincided with the nationalist movement demanded that the non-brahmin, the Dravidian, become the custodian of his own culture.” (p69)

THE NON-BRAHMIN MOVEMENT

It is of vital importance to note the role played by the non-brahmin movement in shaping the political discourse in Tamil Nadu. While the origins of anti-brahmin philosophical thought can be traced to Iyothee Thass, as an organized political movement, it began with the formation of the South Indian Liberal Federation, or the Justice Party. The Justice Party, which was started in 1917 by a group of elite non-brahmins, strove to achieve political power and proportional representation in educational institutions and government services for the non-brahmin Tamils. It was the first political outfit to oppose the imposition of Hindi as an official language in the Madras Presidency, as early as 1937. The focus of the non-brahmin movement was urban, “appropriation of education was not only a means for the capture of new emerging power structures but also for emancipation from the rigidity of ascribed, occupational status – the basis of caste-feudal relations; a share in the political power of administration and legislation was the other issue.” (Aloysius 1997, p59)

The Justice Party used the term Dravidian to all non-brahmin castes in South India and sought to use the identity of the Dravidians, their cultural past and the vision of an egalitarian future under them as an assertion of the non-brahmin castes against brahminism. From an economic perspective, it was the assertion of the emerging Tamil regional bourgeoisie – comprising of elite sections of the non-brahmin castes – who felt discontented by the economic and political dominance of the brahmins despite the latter being a miniscule minority in the Tamil region. Though the membership was open to all persons of South India, except the brahmins, the Justice Party was confined to Tamil Nadu due to various factors, the primary one being that the antagonism between the brahmin and the non-brahmin had not developed in the other southern states to the extent it had developed in Tamil Nadu. Thus, “the use of Dravidianism as a political weapon was mostly confined to the Tamil non-brahmins.” (p55) Later, under the leadership of Periyar EV Ramasamy Naicker, the Justice Party evolved in to a radical social organization – the Dravida Kazhagam (DK). The Dravida Kazhagam, through consistent propaganda, managed to create a ethnic consciousness among the Tamils, viz. the Dravidian Tamil non-brahmin vs. the Aryan brahmin.

IMAGINING A DRAVIDIAN NATION

Originally, the term ‘Dravidian’, popularized by Robert Caldwell, was used in a linguistic sense to refer to the four major languages of South India. With the beginning of the non-brahmin movement, the term was used to denote not just linguistic groups, but rather to a race and also to a nation – the ‘Dravidian nation’ of non-brahmin south Indians who were pitted against the brahminical dominance in Indian nationalist politics. It was with this idea that the demand for Dravidanad was placed. “The idea of a separate Dravidanad was associated with the linguistic proposition that the four main languages spoken in South India constituted a separate Dravidian group.” (p233) Periyar, who argued that the brahmins were not Tamils, defined Dravidians to include non-brahmin Hindus, depressed classes, Muslims and Christians. R. Kannan points out in his book on CN Annadurai that Periyar’s appeal to backward castes and untouchables of North India to consider themselves as Dravidians additionally complicated the issue. “The Dravida Nadu concept was in effect an idea that offered something for all except the brahmins and later the northern banias… Territorially unworkable and ethnically amorphous, the project was indeed no more than a medley of ad hoc theses and arguments.” (Kannan 2010, p59)

Most of the leaders of the non-brahmin movement in Tamil Nadu did not have a clear picture about how to convert the idea of Dravidanad into a mass movement for national liberation. Even the demand of ‘Tamil Nadu for Tamils’ was never complemented with direct militant political action. Also, there was no such demand from any popular leader from the other southern states. If it could be argued, and correctly, that India had never been a historical national formation, it could also be said that Dravida Nadu too comprised of different nations, each with its unique history. However, it can be argued that these demands were used as pressure tactics to gain concessions for the non-brahmin castes.

Another point is that the Self-respecters’ defined the Dravidian nation “in terms of shared ideologies and convictions rather than in terms of language, ethnicity and geography.” (Geetha 1999, p453) Ideologies and convictions can be national or transnational – but they cannot be the factors that constitute a nation. Any nationalist movement needs to have a notion of who ‘we’ are and who ‘they’ are. ‘We’ is formed through a historical process and ‘they’ is formed through confrontation or conflict. The ‘Dravidian’ was too general a term to generate the kind of exclusive ‘we feeling’ that a nationalist movement requires. But it did prevent the polarization on the lines of ‘we’ Tamils for quite some time.

WHITHER TAMIL NATIONALISM?

It was, however, the socio-political scenario that prevailed in India, post-British rule, that provided the strongest impetus for Tamil nationalist sentiments in Tamil Nadu. The imposition of Hindi by the central government as the official language of India provoked a strong backlash in Tamil Nadu. Narendra Subramanian, author of Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization, observed that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which split from the DK in 1949, “decided to encompass the ethnic notions within a populist discourse that would attract and appeal to larger sections of people.” (Vaasanthi 2006, pxvi) C.N. Annadurai, the founder and leader of the DMK, with his vitriolic speeches and plays, gave a new status to the Tamil language and identity. His efforts to “crystallize a distinct linguistic and cultural identity” was based on “the planks of separatism, brahmin-bashing, the glorious past of the Tamils, and the exploitation of the South by the North.” (Vaasanthi 2006, p44)

The strongest opposition to the imposition of Hindi, however, came from the student community of the Tamil Nadu – the section of the population who were directly affected by the measure. Numerous anti-Hindi demonstrations and agitations were held in Tamil Nadu through out the fifties, continuing up to the mid sixties. Owing to the intensification of these protests in 1965, the use of Hindi as the sole official language of India was dropped by the then Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri. The DMK profited the most from the student uprising and the sentiments generated in Tamil Nadu. Riding on the wave of popular discontent, the DMK came to power in the State assembly elections of 1967, securing 138 seats out of 234, and effectively decimating the Congress as a political force in Tamil Nadu. C. N. Annadurai, who was installed as the Chief Minister, was the key player in changing the name of the Madras state to Tamil Nadu – the Land of the Tamils.

To sum it up, “the DMK’s discourse on Tamil nationality was centered on ideas of Tamil identity, or Tamil-ness that appealed to the sense of human dignity among those who rallied around the party. Honour, maanam, and valour, veeram, were emphasized and skillfully linked to the ‘mission’ of protecting the Tamil language and culture.” (Vaasanthi 2006, pxxii) And these ideas became the planks on which any aspiring politician of Tamil Nadu had to base her or his Weltanschauung.

Yet, the DMK and the other parties that emerged from it, reconciled Tamil nationalism to the interests of India owing to their prospects within the Indian parliamentary system. A powerful alternative to the major Dravidian parties based on Tamil nationalism could not emerge as these parties claimed to inherit the ideals of the Dravidian movement – social justice, reservations, populist schemes and so on – while at the same time claiming to be the ‘defenders’ of Tamil interests. This is the main reason why even after considerable mass discontent in Tamil Nadu over the atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan government against the Tamils, there could be no sustainable political movement. A party which seeks a radical breakthrough in Tamil nationalist politics would need now to push the Dravidian aside and bring the Tamil to the forefront.

REFERENCE

ALOYSIUS, G. (1997) Nationalism Without a Nation in India, New Delhi, Oxford

AROORAN, K. NAMBI (1980) Tamil Renaissance and Dravidian Nationalism: 1905-1944, Madurai, Koodal

GEETHA, V. & S.V. RAJADURAI (1999) Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to Periyar, Kolkata, Samya

GELLNER, ERNEST ANDRE (1983) Nations and Nationalism, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

KANNAN, R. (2010) Anna: The Life and Times of C.N. Annadurai, New Delhi, Penguin-Viking

PANDIAN, M.S.S. (2008) Brahmin and Non-Brahmin: Genealogies of the Tamil Political Present, New Delhi, Permanent Black

STALIN, J.V. (2008) Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, Lucknow, Rahul Foundation

STALIN, J.V. (2010) The Essential Stalin ed. by Bruce Franklin, Lucknow, Rahul Foundation

VAASANTHI (2006) Cut-outs, Caste and Cine stars: The World of Tamil Politics, New Delhi, Penguin.

Tagged with: ,

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. j.t.modeire said, on September 2, 2010 at 5:24 am

    tamilla>damila.dravida> Tamil whats the diffrence non.

    • Karthik RM said, on September 3, 2010 at 12:38 am

      The difference is in the use of the terms, their meanings, and perceptions in political language.

  2. RajTamil said, on September 12, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    ‘Arinyar’ Guna is one of the few great Tamil intellectuals who is steeped in Tamil consciousness and a fitting expert in Tamil historical research. He has stimulated an enlightenment and awakening for Tamil nationalism & consciousness. The various invaders’ ideologies divided the Tamils into various blocks as: ‘dravidian’ ‘indian’ ‘communism’ ‘marxism’ ‘casteism’ etc. Tamils never lived as Tamils with their own sentiments of unity, nationalism. Consciousness because of these dividing forces alien to their sentiments. Arinyar Guna is a ‘Peritus’ who has given a impetus for introspection of Tamils’ glorious history, eternal language, divine teachings, sublime culture etc and our great fall. It is time for us Tamils to rise as Tamils to re-establish our Glorious Golden Tamil with our consciousness & nationalism!
    “Dravidathaal Veezhnthom”! “SEN-THAMIZHAAL EZHUVOM”!

  3. Viswarupa Vallabhapuria said, on September 7, 2013 at 10:41 pm

    The Tamil nationalism is formed on false ideology. The Indian history is continuous only for the avarnas i.e., not falling under the caste system viz., jats, yadavas, kurmis, gujjars,ahirs,nishadas etc., for whom the ruler has no relevance as evidenced by disinclination shown during invasion of Delhi by all and sundry. The Savarnas of North India changed themselves with rulers. On the other hand there was complete reverse in South India especially in Tamilnadu. Tamilnadu’s history is completely discontinuous. The composition of social set up on Sangam classic is not purely Tamil. The Velirs, Kosars and Einars were not Tamils. Tamil was prevalent throughout India but all Tamil speaking people were not of single ethnic race. However the emergence of Kadambas/Satavahanas changed the profile of South India. Strong mercantile community along with industrial class of right and left hand emerged. The earliest Kadamba inscriptions speak about Valangai and Idangai classification. However only the Pallava/Chola hegemony completely supported mercantile groups. This changed the entire character of Tamilnadu. Only in Tamilnadu we can find Town Panchayatswhich emerged in Chola hegemony as independent small city states along with Nagarams independent mercantile towns. The Cholas unlike Pandyas did not derive army from caste groups but absorbed armies of mercantile groups which not only performed military duties but also performed functions in temples. The success of Cholas was consolidation of various groups comprising of eighteen bhumis and valangai idangai and Nagarams as an imperialistic center with autonomy but accepting suzerainity of Tamil. Though the biggest group was Aihole mercantile group it is puzzling to note that they were more favorably disposed towards Cholas than Chalukyas. With the collapse of Chola empire the imperialism of mercantile group shrunk and the local people viz.,confederation of Brahmins/Vanniars/Vellalas did not recognize them. By the end of fourteenth century Tamil Brahmins completely vanished but dominance of Tamil as mercantile language still continued. Due to dominance of Tamil as mercantile language it attracted the attention of Europeans turned towards Tamil. During the second half of nineteenth century the history made a full cycle and Displaced Tamil Brahmins for four hundred years again emerged as the most potent force. The Tamil imperialism was converted as Dravidian movement not as a counter to Tamil Brahmin resurgence but the hidden imperialistic instinct blossomed on the resurgence of Tamil Brahminism. Since Tamil has already developed imperialism in its own peculiar form it became all and sundry Telugu’s, Kannadigas, Saurashtras, Muslims everybody joined the bandwagon of Tamil movement to express its imperialistic instinct. Whether one likes or not from the time of Pallavas, Tamil Brahmins had carried their cultural imperialism in the form of Temple worship/Bharatanatya/Sanskrit and Tamil up to even today wherever they go to be followed by other groups. One is yet to see any North Indian Brahmin to impose cultural imperialism like Tamil Brahmins. Hence Dravidianism (imperialism of common man) will last as long as Tamil Brahminism exists. With their disappearance Dravidinism will vanish from the scene like the period following collapse of Chola hegemony. Thus anti Tamil Brahminism is only a formal cause for the Tamil imperialism and will die the moment Tamil Brahmins become extinct or lose their relevance. Since the Tamil Brahmins are a declining and vanishing race with their exist Dravidism will lose its shean and will remain only to be used by CONGRESS/BJP who will see Dravidism does not completely become non existent.

    • ewilli14 said, on April 24, 2015 at 4:50 am

      Do you have sources for what you wrote? How was Tamil prevalent throughout ancient India yet now there is a clear distinct difference between northern Indian languages and southern Indian languages? Wouldn’t there be some evidence to Tamil in the current languages themselves or even in inscriptions or some reference to this in other works? This false argument is always brought up by Indian Nationalists who claim India was a single united country since “ancient times”. The nation of India would not have existed if the British had not conquered the country and united it for easier governance. You are speaking nonsense.

      • VISWARUPA VALLABURIA said, on April 24, 2015 at 10:38 am

        I am deeply religious believing in Brahminical way of life. But that does not preclude rejecting false history hanging on AIT/DRAVIDIAN PHOBIA/IVC which are all humbug. History of India is not isolated but influenced by DARIUS I INVASION and the Pala’s contribution. Let us try to cogently follow the two most important aspects. Let us first turn towards DARIUS I. He was the true follower of ARATHUSHTRA and foremost among ACCHEMENIAN KINGS. He was the first to introduce engravings in stone. You please read DARIUS I STONE INSCRIPTIONS AND COMPARE WITH ASOKAN EDICTS AND TIRUVALANGADU SEPPEDU. ALL THE THREE ARE AMAZINGLY SIMILAR. How was ZARATHUSHTRA influenced world history? a close reading of GATHAS will reveal that the so called ARYA DASYU/DASA WAR EMANATED ONLY IN IRAN and Zarathushtra was so much exasperated by sensualities of Iranians that he condemned GOMATA(NONE OTHER THAN JAIN FOLLOWERS)and condemned NIRISHWARAVADA and introduced the concept ETERNAL FIGHT BETWEEN LIGHT AND DARK which formed the basis of ABRAHAMIC RELIGION. Darius I drove the followers of GOMATA and established AHURA MAZDA who came to India. That is why Jainism is prevalent in India even during the time of Darius I. Jainism is simple since hard life is only for SANYASINS and there is no good or bad in Jainism.Why did SEKKILAR WRITE PERIYA PURANAM? The people did not know good or bad and completely sensous. Even now that is why a BIDI MANUFACTURING MP PROCLAIMS THAT there is nothing bad in BIRI!.VEERAPPAN CAN BE ANJANEYA BHAKTHA AFTER DRINING BLOOD OF KARUKURANGU!SMUGGLERS CAN GO ON DESTROYING RED SANDERS. Further Jains believed in three VARNAS and during the dawn of history there were only sixteen janapadas and Jains as well as Buddhists had fascination for SERENDIP OR TABROPANNI and that is why Sanskrit literature completely omits region from Krishna Godavari to Tondi. Even Dandi in his AVANTHISUNDARIKATHA never mentions Pallavas bu Dravidas only.Further since Jains travelled upto Tabropanni it is easier for them to approach extreme South Tamilnadu and ancient mariners did not find difference between West coast of Srilanka upto Korkai. Further Jain relics are available only from extreme South Tamilnadu and shifting towards Palani/Karur and reaching Mysore. The early Tamil kingdoms were existing between Sholapur in North and traversing through western Tamilnadu it ended in Korkai. There are numerous evidences to support the fact the original home of Cholas was only in Mysore region upto Bellary and Cheras betweennKarwar and Trichur and Pandias from Trichur to Korkai. The Arriyan map clearly points out and the southern tip is very small which is possible only if Kodikarai is taken and instead of imaging curved coastline of Goa to Kodikarai if we transpose it by st.line it will just land at Kodikarai. My rticle will be very lengthy and I will complete with two more evidences. There is a sub sect among Tamil Brahmin notably VADAMAS among them the major classification CHOLA DESA AND OUTHIRA VADAMAL. There is no necessity to identify Chola Vadamal with CAUVERY DELTA since in my own native district of THANJAVUR OUTHIRA VADAMAL outnumber CHOLA VADAMAL.tHEN WHAT IS THE PERPLEXITY?Normally the CUDDPAH/BELLARY districts were in ancient days known as CHODA. VADAMAR in Sangh literature refer to outstanding persons persons with PURINOOL AS VADAM or prakrithic VRIDDHA as VADAMA that is the earliest Brahmins. Thus Choda Vadamal means Tamil speaking Brahmins in Andhra desha upto Bellary and OUTHIRA VADAMAL means people north of Bellary. Further Outhira Vadamal believe that they belong to Narmada which exactly fits. The second thing is composition of North Indian army. Palas chronicles classify them as six and the King’s true battalion is known as MOOLA BALA and all others are all mercenaries. That is why palas suffered at the hands of KAMBHOJAS OF EAST ASIA/CHOLAS AND ALL INVADING ARMIES. Thus inspite of prouding themselves as martial race North Indian kings employed only mercenaries who deserted the kings. That is why Megasthenes had exclaimed Indians were never aggressive and never went for war.SELF EULOGY AND SELF DECEPTION WILLNEVER YIELD RESULTS. Hinduism can never religion of Masses and people can turn towards Hinduism only when their basic desires are satisfied and only Jainism is the common religion since unlike Hinduism Jainism does not treat good or bad and strictly following Karmic theory bad actions are reserved for rebirth in the next birth and hence after doing bad actions one day they can follow eight cardinal pricnciples of charity/ahimsa and become elevated souls. That is why an ordianary Indian does not care for acts that is violitive of ordinary intelligence.

      • ewilli14 said, on June 22, 2015 at 3:18 am

        Instead of answering my question you went on a rant that is barely legible. Your brahminical fantasies are just that, famtasies.

      • TAMILKELVAN said, on June 23, 2015 at 9:30 pm

        What is your question? I am very clear in my point:THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY/INDUS VALLEY CIVILISATION is the greatest historical hoax. Do you accept that BRAHMINS ARE DESCENDANTS OF ARYANS?DO YOU ACCEPT THAT DRAVIDIANS WERE FORCED INTO SOUTH INDIA. Please be candid. I am refuting both these stupid hypotheses. Indian history cannot go beyond DARIUS I. At the dawn of written history DARIUS I IS THE FIRST KING TO KNOW ABOUT INDIA and considered SIND AND PUNJAB AS TWENTHFOURTH PROVINCE. DO YOU DISPUTE THIS ALSO? WHO WAS THE KING DURING THAT PERIOD OR WHO WERE KINGS DURING THE PERIOD IN NORTH iNDIA. CAN ANYONE SAY about anything. Without having any proof the historians dishonestly refer to PURANAS compiled during the period SATAVAHANA/KADAMBAS TO VAKATAKAS and resort to cok and bull story of GENEOLOGY OF KINGS. Which was the oldest literature in North India. UDAYANA KATHA is the oldest literature which is in PRAKRITHAM. IF AIT is true then why were no SANSKRIT LITERATURE on any of the kings. For your kind information the PITHAMAHA OF SANSKRIT DRAMAS-BHASA’S FIRST AND SECOND DRAMA were based only on UDAYANA–PRATHIGYANA YOUGANDHARAYANA AND SWAPNA VASAVADATTA.. After DARIUS I the North India was referred only as sixteen MAHAJANAPADAS and it was during AJATHA SHATRU the emergence of monarchy appeared. Even AJATHASHATRU was not Aryan but of NAGA LINEAGE. Which king invaded SOUTH INDIA AND SETTLED BRAHMINS? NO ANSWER. One should remember that North Indian people never moved out of their home even during invasions. Even during Mahratta times it was only Brahmins who moved to Tamilnadu but could not flourish and MARATHAS did not occupy TANJORE PRINCIPALITY. That is why MEGASTHENES EXCLAIMED INDIANS NEVER WAGED war with anybody. But what about SOUTH INDIA. CHALUKYAS/RASHTRAKUTAS/CHOLAS devastated NORTH/CENTRAL/EAST INDIA. During the collapse of CHOLA EMPIRE thousands of farmers of CAUVERY ELTA FLED TO GANGETIC PLAIN AS PER INSCRIPTIONS. It is puzzling that SANKRIT LITERATURE AND NORTH INDIA REMAINED DORMANT AFTER SATAPADA BRAHMANA IN EIGHTH CENTURY BC HAVING NO KINGDOMS BUT ONLY JANAPADAS GIVING WAY TO JAINISM and suddenly emerged BRAHMANICAL DURING GUPTA AND SUNGA PERIOD! WHAT A FANTASTIC HISTORY! EVEN SUNGAS AND GUPTAS WERE NOT ARYANS SINCE SUNGAS WERE RELATED TO KADAMBAS/SATAKARNIS AND GUPTAS TO LICHAVIS!. DON’T GO BY EXTENSIVELY QUOTING RIG VEDA AND SATAPADA BRAHMANA. EVEN HERE THERE IS INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. THE PERSIAN GATHAS EXTENSIVELY DEAL WITH FOURFOLD VARNA AND ARYA DASA WAR. NOW THE ARYANS SIMULTANEOUSLY WAGED WAR WITH DASAS IN IRAN AS WELL AS IN INDUS VALLEY! WHAT A FANATASTIC HISTORY! PLEASE PROVE BY LITERARY/INSCRIPTIONAL EVIDENCES FROM EIGHT CENTURY BC TO 326 BC WITH REGARD TO KINGS OF NORTH INDIA WHO PERFORMED VEDIC SACRIFICES/DROVE DRAVIDIANS TO SOUTH SETTLED BRAHMINS IN SOUTH. I AM GIVING EVIDENCES FROM TAMIL LITERATURE INSCRIPTIONS ETC., WHY DID NOT THE KINGS OF NORTH INDIA PERFORM ASWAMEDHA/RAJASUYA UNLIKE SOUTH INDIAN KINGS FROM TAMIL KINGS TO SATAKARNIS? THERE IS NOTHING BRAHMINICAL IN MY ARGUMENT. INDIA DOES NOT AND NEEDS NO HISTORY WHICH IS FARBRICATED. HEAVENS WILL NOT FALL IF HISTORY IS ABOLISHED.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: