From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: Ancient Indian Civilization
Keywords: Dravidians, Aryans
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:35:54 GMT


In article <92314.071142RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
> -         I have to take both sides now (waffling like Clinton).  It is true
> -    that Hinduism  and Indian  culture is  90 percent  non-Aryan,
> 
>       I very much doubt this figure for which the only  confirming source
>       would be Hitler's Mein Kamph. 30-40 percent Aryan would seem to  be
>       closer to facts.  It is likely, that racially, India is a Dravidian
>       majority  (or  plurality?)  country.   But  where  is the Dravidian
>       Clinton?

    I think Dr. Sankara Rao meant by Culture..
    The Vedic Aryans might be around 4 or 5% and there might be some
    more who might have adopted or intermixed with these to 
    account for say 10% vedic aryanoids and the rest as non-aryan 
    or dravdianoids. May I know how you arrived at 30-40% Aryan ?

> 
> -                      but where
> -    does this South North  divide come from?  If  you say that non-Aryan  =
> -    South India and  Aryan = North  Indian, you are  getting into the  same
> -    trap.   ALL  THE  INDIAN  LANGUAGES  whether  the  four Southern or the
> -    northern languages are basically Dravidian in nature.
> -
>     This is not true.  For Gujarati at least, the second largest source of
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     words, after Sanskrit, is the muslim culture, represented by Farsi and
>     Arabic.

      
    There were supposed to be 'pancha dravida' languages and they were
    said to be Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Marathi and Gujarathi even by
    old indian tradition [ Malayalam was not born then][ I don't have 
    ready reference now, but it is from sanskrit sources.]. I will
    append at the end a posting by Dr. Sankara Rao ( originally to
    SCTelugu) to offer support to the view that all indian languages are
    essentially dravidian. This is also a conclusion I arrived at based on
    my independent studies . I would be grateful if you can let me know
    any Gujarathi works where etymology of Gujarathi words are given.
    All indian languages including tamil have influences of arabic and
    portuguese and other languages but the vast majority of core words
    of any indian language AND most importantly the syntax are dravidian.
    A tamil sentence can be translated very easily with accuracy of 
    nuances and emphasis in tact into any indian language and vice versa.
    It is a well regarded fact that the structure of all indian languages
    are dravidian and sanskritic. Further many of the sanskrit words are
    in reality tamil/dravidian/pan-indian word. It is Sanskrit which
    borrowed heavily from native indian languages ( which were and are
    closely related including tamil) but often it is taught that the
    native indian languages BORROWED the sanskrit word ! There is a well
    known thing known as 'sanskritization' which means twist a native
    word to sound like sanskrit. Examples will be 'pa' will become 'pra'
    'ka' will become 'kra'. This sanskritizations have been sometimes
    applied to already sanskritized words and these are called 'hyper
    sanskritizations'. 

    Since the sanskrit-is-the-mother-of-all-language believers  can NOT
    question the independent growth and true richness of Tamil and 
    since Tamil scholarship still flourishes with vigour, and since
    an impressive body of literature in tamil exists for at least
    2500 years, the history of linguistic heritage can be reliably
    studied. My opinion is at least 50% of sanskrit words might be
    shown derived from Tamil/dravidian origin. But more importantly
    more than 70% of words and linguistic structure of all indian
    languages can be shown to be common.  

     
> 
> -         K. Sankara Rao
> -
>                       ---------------------------------
> -
> -     If Ravana is a sex maniac and he had such urges as you
> -     confidently ( (-:) say
> -     he would not have let Sita remain pure. Agree ?
> -
>                  Good point.
> -
> -     regards,
> -     Selva Selvakumar
> -
> 
> -     Do you mean to say that brahmins and kshatriyas are descendents of
> -aryans,  the other castes that of dravidians..atleast majority of them???
> -This means you are saying that all the casteist philosophy in the ancient
> -books is in reality racist stuff, right?  Then two small puzzles ....
> -
> --Narain
> 
>       Narain has a good point.  Here is a verse from the Rigveda:
> 
>                  "The Brahmin was his mouth,
>             of both his arms was Rajanya made,
>                   His thighs became the Vaisya,
>             from his feet the Sudra was  produced"

   I know that this is a famous hymn. Is this not a clear statement of
   superior, inferior description ( supported by numerous other sources)
   of humans and thus a statement of racism ? If we honestly consider 
   the statements in Manu and other Smrithis, it is quite clear that
   the system is NOT very different from Hitler's or Nazi 'philosophy'.
   I am not finding fault with any section of our people, but I can NOT
   understand why we can NOT admit that some of our sanskritic culture
   was 'uncivilized' and condemn and forget about them and take the
   many gems found in the Vedic literature and cherish ? Why should there be
   any hesitation in looking at our past in a factual manner? ( Dr. Parikh,
   I am raising these questions and offering these comments for general
   net-junta and not specifically directed at you :-) :-) ) 
> 
>       This is the only reference to the word Sudra in the Rigveda.  There
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     Could it be a reason why the westerners consider this hymn is an
     interpolation ?

>       are 68 references to Dasyus.  It would seem that the two words  are
>       not synonymous.  Also,  there is no  hint in the  verse above that,
>       apart from being  lower, the Vaisyas  and Sudras are  fundamentally
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>       different in any way.   Some scholars, e.g.  Mallory,  have pointed
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    These are inferred from various vedic literature not just from this one
    verse. But the hatred for Dasyus should be clear from the numerous verses.

>       out that  the 3-partite  division into  3 castes  in Indo-European,
>       rather than specifically  Aryan.  (I am  using the term  `Aryan' as
>       scholars  do,  to  indicate  `Indo-Iranian',  so  that  Germans are
>       Indo-European,  or  Indo-Germanic,  but  not  Aryan.   There  is no
>       evidence that  Germans called  themselves Aryans  before Westerners
>       learned Sanskrit  and realised  that European  languages and  North
>       Indian languages had a common  root.  The original German word  for
>       the Swastika is Haken-kreuz, which means cross with hooks.  Anyway,
>       the  Swastika  is  definitely  not  an  Aryan  symbol  - another of
>       HItler's illusions)
> 
>       Rohit Parikh

        Regards
        Selva Selvakumar

----------I'm appending the article by Dr. Sankara Rao in SCTelugu-----------

From ksrao@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu Tue Oct 20 10:31:59 1992