From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: On Indian Civilization being the oldest..
Keywords: Aryan, Dravidian
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:22:41 GMT


In article <BxJ50y.GCM@cs.psu.edu>, narayana@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Kuram T Narayana) writes:
> In article <BxIxMG.8F1@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
> >
> >In article <92314.101858RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
> >> In his `Genes, Peoples and Languages', (Sci. Am. Nov 91) Luigi Cavalli-Sforza
> >> classifies the following groups as caucasoid:
> >> 
 Selvakumar writes: 
> > [2]  I don't understand why many are so concerned to show that Dravidians 
> >      ALSO moved into indian subcontinent ( cf. your 'If this is the case
> >     we are all foreigners !!'). Has there been any claims on this thread
> 
> No! Nobody was interested in that. We only pointed out this aspect when
> you started claiming (against all avaliable evidence at our disposal)
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     I have NOT seen any 'evidence' on the net contrary to what I have 
     been saying except some name calling such as 'tamil fanatic',
     'dravidian racist', 'insane arguement' etc.

> that dravidians were indus people or that dravidians inhabited most
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     I did NOT claim that Indus people are dravidian BUT most
     international researchers think that they probably were.
     [ this I mentioned in an earlier posting as well !]
     It is my belief that these researchers might be quite right.
     I hold the view that the vast majority of people and their culture 
     in the indian subcontinent is dravidianoid.
     I have NOT heard anything to revise this view.

> of india. For example in the prehistoric times, Naga tribes have inhabited
> a large part of northeast and what is now AP. I don't know if you take
> Nagas as Dravidians. Because by all accounts of features, they are not
> anywhere near the features that the aboriginals (of which tamils are one)
> have. This you can find even today. I don't think we are dravidians (read
> as Tamils)  by prehistorical culture. We may have languages that belong to
> a family.

    Nagas were snake worshippers and are dravidianoids. Many consider
    Nagas as Tamils, and I think there appears to be much truth in it. 
    Tamils are called 'Arava' by the Telugus and noting that 'aravam'
    means snake in tamil it appears reasonable.
    Some Sanskrit works condemn and some speak as demi-gods of Nagas. 
    One of the primary dravidian religious belief centres around 
    cobra ( = naagam) and you can see this in all dravidian Gods
    Siva, Vishnu, Murugan ( Karthikeya), Sakthi. The aryan Gods are
    Varuna and Mitra and Indra and possibly Brahma. These Gods are
    rarely worshipped or given some minor role in dravidian religio-cultural
    framework.  Considering that 
    cobra worship or its concept is among the core beliefs of dravidians 
    and that Indra's foes were snake-worshippers such as Vritra, Danu
    the head of Kaalakeyas, Arbuda and Sisnadevas. Some even consider
    Dasyus as Nagas ( see C.V.Vaidya, Mediaevial India vol-I, p.82).

    I believe vast majority of Indians by about 90% are dravidianoid
    by culture. [ again by dravidianoid i mean non-vedic in culture]. 
    The rest of the 10% of our culture might be aryanoid.
    Please note I am not isolating any particular group. For example,
    if you consider a Tamil Brahmin Iyer he might practice 25% 
    vedic-culture and 75% dravidian-culture and if we take a man
    from Naadar community he may practice 2% vedic-culture and 98%
    dravidian and so on. By affinities or natural inclinations somehow
    many Brahmin folks and some other community folks as well seem 
    to strongly favour aryanoid-culture . 
    Therefore we are 90% dravidianoid not by language but by culture.
    By language too we might come close to 80-90% in the south and
    70-80% in the north considering the syntax, vocabulary and idiom
    and linguistic features. In the area of vocabulary, I mean language of
    the common people and not merely sanskrit pundits and their cousins :-)
    
> 
> >     that 'because some people were original owners of this land the 
> >     later-arrived group should accept or do bla bla' ?? Please correct 
> >     me if I am wrong, does this not reflect a sense of feeling
> >     "we both were foreigners, so no one has more right". Has anyone
> 
> No! It doesn't. It only says about the gross generalization of your
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> posts and no more than that. It was intended to point out the 
> hypothesis to the contrary. That is all.

      Can you quote some of my 'gross generalizations' ? 
      I had tried to be as objective as possible and i did NOT
      make any 'gross generalizations' as far as i can recall.
      [ i'm open to correction ]
> 
> >     arguing in this thread had argued for "more right or ownership" ?  
> >     I had always said and I do sincerely believe that whether aryanoids
> >     came from elsewhere or not, aryanoids and dravidianoids have been
> >     living in the indian sub-continent for **more than 3500 plus years** for
> >     sure. I had often raised the question 'why at all should it matter *when*
> >     aryans came into subcontinent when we know for sure , and no one
> >     disputes, that aryans and dravidians have been living for 3500 plus
> >     years in this same indian-subcontinent'. 
> 
> You only raised this issue. No one else on this group raised it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      Well, you have been posting 'monolithic aryan india', and several
      nettors posted unsubstantiated claims such as 'Vedic Head' and
      and various views such as "Aryan invasion is a myth' and 'Sanskrit
      is the mother of all languages' etc. I had
      felt that I should say something to counter these since  i sincerely
      believe these are plain untruths, or serious distortions of facts
      or quite unsubstantiated results.
      Therefore I jumped in only to offer my *counter views*.  
      Now, can you be honest, is it i who raised these ? it was not i who talked
      of 'aryan invasion is a myth' but Girish and his ilk. It is possible
      I might have been one of those few who might have offered counter
      views. :-)
> 
> >     ( There appears to be a group of people attached deeply 
> >     to some politcal persuations ( with racist and facist agenda and 
> >     a religious fundementalism as its backbone) for whom this question 
> >     seems to be important because it is a foundational requirement of 
> >     their religious fundementalism. )
> 
> Boloney! Firstly you are a dravidian racist unable to stomach 
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that the largesse
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of the Indian culture is Aryan. That is the reason why you post racially
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> slanted articles. There are a lot of us who have some dravidian cultural
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     
      Wow! I have bagged one more title 'dravidian racist' ! :-)
      you fellas are quite generous !
      At least Narayana if you have indicated what racist ideas i
      advanced, i would have had a chance to explain any possible 
      misunderstanding.
      Now, without anything to answer you back I am forced to repeat my
      earlier message that dravidian stands for class-free, caste-free
      society which emphasizes honesty, truth, equality, 
      true achievement, ( ThirukkuRaL will be a good example) and thus 
      if i spouse dravidian cultural priciples at all
      how I can be a racist? I will try to explain a little more:

      I honestly believe that religious fundementalism is fragmenting
      our great country ( please look at Punjab, Kashmir, once-peaceful
      Kerala and Tamil Naadu, once-peaceful Ahmadabad.. once peaceful
      Meenakshipuram in tamil Nadu..). True Hinduism is being hijacked
      by religious fundementalists, in my honest opinion. 
      Muslims in our country who are our own kith and kin
      in a larger sense are made to feel as if they are foreigners or
      untrustworthy unpatriotic fellows ( this is certainly in my 
      mind a casteism in a different disguise) and because of the attack 
      on their religion and religious principles,
      our indian muslims are FORCED to look for further meaning and
      significance to their religion and religious priciples and in 
      the process seek advice from
      Islamic experts outside India... Take the example of Sikhs, they
      defended our country with their lives, blood and sweat and they 
      created an economically prosperous Punjab ( some on the net even
      argue that Punjab attained these economic status because 'India'
      provided the infrastructure thereby subtly denying the credit for
      Sikhs hard work and enterprise and arrogating to themselves as
      representing India's source-persons; I am NOT denying the provision
      of infrastructure by "india" but Punjab was as much a part of india
      in putting this infrastructure there. What is this india these
      religious-fundementalists think ( their own parochial views?)? 
      I call these religious-fundementalists
      pseudo-patriots BECASE these are the people who DIVIDE india in the
      name of religion, based on their own defintion of 'hindu-culture' 
      and their own brand of racism and facism of various sorts including . 
      I believe that these parochial elements do not respect others
      religio-cultural differences..I honestly believe a truly and deeply
      catholic hinduism is systematically been poisoned by pseudo-patriotic
      hindu-fundementalism. Opposing racism, casteism, distortions of
      truth is NOT racism. Only because I am concerned at the erosion of
      true hindu broad-mindedness and catholicity, I am spending hours
      to argue with nettors. 

      Dravidian philosophy and culture is one of the most harmonious and is
      non-racist and  non-casteist by defintion and practice in the past. 
      Unfortunately Manu and his ilk have
      derailed its progress and vast majority of people had been suppressed. 
      When we are about to feel happy and take those giant progressive 
      steps as nearly caste-free society, we are confronted by religious 
      fundementalism which is fragmenting our
      country and importantly is poisoning our minds. These pseudo-patriots
      talk of muslims and Sikhs in such contempt and psychologically
      fragment our country. If my attempts to point out these sound 
      'racially slanted' to you, I should request you read my articles
      again because you might have misunderstood me. If you did and came to
      the conclusion that I'm a dravidian racist, i probably have to 
      admit I don't understand you.
      
      
      Regards
      Selva Selvakumar