From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: Re: About contribution of Dravidian to Indian culture
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:56:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.232700.26597@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, akash@sol.berkeley.edu (Akash R. Deshpande) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.164446.10025@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>,
> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes... vis-a-vis Virendra,
> Selvakumar, Kuram, etc,
> 
> >... You have proved after all these long articles
> >that you are even more fanatical
> >compared to other fanatics
> 
> There is no point in being narrowly fanatical about religion, race, gender,
> etc, but there is nothing wrong in being fanatical about the pursuit of truth.
> For most people, however, this pursuit is soon hijacked by narrow claims.
> 
> While Selvakumar claims that the genesis of eternity, so to speak, is Tamil,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> all quotes and references in his articles are to incidents and artifacts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that are
^^^^^^^^^
> later than 500BC. This is ~ Buddhism, far too recent in the span of Indian
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> cultural development. I have pointed out before that Aryan invasion within the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      Let me clarify, just in case, you had misunderstood my articles.
      Although you had added the phrase 'so to speak' in a view which 
      you say I had claimed, I wish to clarify. I had NOT claimed 
      that the 'genesis of eternity is Tamil'. I am only pointing out
      the findings of others based on archeological findings ( about
      cultural elements) and linguistic findings that the Indian
      Civilization was and is Dravidianoid and the "Aryan" elements
      -mostly as evident from Rig Vedic literature- are minimal. 

      Barring a few Tamil songs and the literature of Tholkappiam,
      all the rest are post-500 B.C. But some songs in Tamil which
      Talk about the MahaBharat war and about rivers "PahruLi' and
      "Kumari" and the mountains "Kumari_kOdu" are considered to be
      probably earlier than 1000 B.C. There are some who claim that
      Tholkappiyam belongs to 700-1500 B.C ( not commonly accepted
      by most Tamil scholars although they believe 700-800 B.C is NOT
      impossible). However, the Vedic literature clearly shows
      the existence and cultural accomplishments of non-vedic people.
      Tamil literature offers more support. Rig Veda talks of enemies
      of 'Aryans' such as Dasyus, Daasas, Raakshasas, Asuras, PaNi's
      as rich people ( 'dhaninah' but without sacrifice; see Rig Veda
      I.176.4 and many other places as well). Some of these 'enemies' 
      have been owning fortified cities etc...

> last 7000 odd years doesn't stand to reason. If there was an invasion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> before that,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> it is not germane to the discussion of Indian culture as we know it. In
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     I entirely agree with you ! I had often stated that the influx of
     Aryans took place some 3500 plus years ago as per almost
     all authorities and hence there is not much point in discussing
     whether the influx was an invasion on peaceful waves of setlements.
    
> the absence
> of an Aryan invasion in our cycle of culture-development in India, it is
> useless
> to talk of Dravidian being superior to Aryan, etc, because they are only
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> different
> names or at most different aspects/phases of the same process.

       I agree there is not much point in talking about superior-infereior
       etc. but your observation ' because they are only different names
       or at most different aspects/phases of the same process"
       is very significant. Don't you think the description of Indian
       Civilization as Dravidian fits better than Aryan as many scholars
       think ( example S.Tyler) ? I personally feel that the indian
       culture is mostly non-vedic, although vedic culture is an important
       sub-culture of Indian culture. I had often stated that the vedic
       culture is a gem but one of many in India. 
> 
> Of course, when I say Aryan invasion doesn't stand to reason, I mean
> anthropological,
> socio-cultural, etc reason. It excellently stands to colonialist reason
> by instilling
> for ever an inferiority complex in a subject race, especially when
> Europe couldn't
> stomach the possibility that greater cultures preceded it, and could
> easily sweep
> it with a little military/economic backing.
> 
> With respect to all the recent rambling about subservience of Indian culture,
> I suggest that people go to India and see the remarkable interest in and
> resurgence of Indian culture - classical and pop, as well as blending,
> commingling
> and new-creation of modern cultures. Now civic sense - that's another matter.
> 
> -Akash

      Regards
      Selva Selvakumar