From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: Ancient Indian History
Keywords: Aryan, Dravidian
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:37:27 GMT


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:
> 
>    Berber, N. African
>    SW Asian
>    Iranian
>    European
>    Sardinian
>    Indian  *
>    SE Indian  **
>    Lapp
> 
>    Indian (*) and SE Indian (**) are correlated with Indo-Aryan and Dravidian
> languages respectively.  Having travelled extensively in South India, I have
> found the following caucasian features to be almost universal:
> 
> wavy hair (rather than straight or wooly), narrow noses, often prominent,
> heavy beards and occasional chest hair among men, the bar of Michael-Angelo
> (this refers to the way in which the eyes are recessed from the forehead -
> a feature which is common to Indians, both North and South but does not occur
> in Africa or China).  Of course, one feature, light skin, which is almost
> universal in Europe, in quite rare in south India  among non-Brahmins.
> 
> Dravidian languages also have connections with non-Indian languages, including
> Brahui, but also others.  It seems plausible to believe that Dravidians belong
> to a very dark skinned caucasian race which one can find also in Egypt and in
> Sicily.
> 
> Some scholars do believe that Dravidians entered India after the Aryans.  If
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> this is the case, the we are all foreigners!!  But where shall we go back to?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Maybe Selvakumar has an answer.  And BTW, what about the the `kumar' in
> Selvakumar?  Is it Tamil?  -:)

[1]  There are some scholars who think that Sumerian is Dravidian and 
     some others think that the Elamite language and culture might 
     be proto-Elamo-Dravidian, and there are still others who think
     Dravidians could be related to Egyptian....These theories 
     have not been shown to be sufficiently convincing.
     I have NOT heard any convincing argument to show that Dravidians
     came from elsewhere. It is possible dravidians could have travelled
     to other places to found newer settlements, even ancient Tamil songs
     speak of sea-faring adventures and they seem to have travelled in the
     three 'seas'. The key thing should be
     the *direction* of population flow. In the case of vedic aryans it is
     clear (northwest to east and then south). I would appreciate if 
     someone can post points cited by scholars 
     to argue about the flow of dravidian population INTO indian sub-continent.

 [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
     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
     arguing in this thread had argued for "more right or ownership" ?  
     So, what is the point in trying to show whether both (aryan and dravidian)
     came from elsewhere or only one came from elsewhere ?
     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'. 
     ( 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. )
     What I had been critical had been about the claim that
     indian heritage and hindu heritage is aryan and vedo-centric,
     because I believe these are SERIOUS distortions of 
     facts and truth. Vedas are great and ancient and vedic literature
     and sanskritic literature contain much wisdom and beauty which 
     we all can feel proud of BUT it is only ONE of many such rich and
     beautiful traditions, cultures and heritages. Quite importantly,
     sanskritic and vedic literature are from a small minority
     of indians mostly belonging to brahminic traditions and thus is not
     representative of pan-indian culture. I sincerely believe that 
     many authors of various books on India and Indian culture have 
     painted brahminical culture as Indian culture which is completely
     untrue and a serious injustice. Sanskrit was popular only among a 
     small fraction of Brahmins
     and a few royal patrons and hence Sanskrit was NOT a lingua franca
     of India as popularly propagated. It will be similar to a claim: "look, 
     there are people who read and buy Tamil magazines in Bombay,
     Calcutta, and Delhi etc. and therefore Tamil is lingua franca of India". 
     Lest some patriotic soul call me 'tamil fanatic' for saying this , 
     let me suggeest replacing Tamil with Telugu :-) :-) [ Dr.Parikh, this
     is NOT directed at you but I have a friend on the net 
     'king-list-with-days-accuracy-for-4000-plus-years' fame 'Virendra' 
      and it is to this good friend I suggest switching Telugu for Tamil
      (-: :-)

[3]  Finally, you had asked whether "kumar" in my name is Tamil. 
     YES. Kumari and Kumaran are pure Tamil words meaning young lady and
     young man. There was a huge mountain range said to be in the south
     which is now submerged in Indian ocean which is called 'kumari_kOdu'
     and it is mentioned in ancient Tamil poems. Similarly there was also
     a river by name 'kumari' which is also said to have got submerged.
     In the above the word 'kumari' is used in the sense of 'pure , virgin'
     Another sense is 'unscaled, too great' where the root semantic sense
     is 'not yet'.
     
     In Tamil 'Kumari' means young and unmarried lady. I'll give some
     more words and word useages where the root semantic sense of 
     'not yet' or 'maiden effort' permeates with further semantic
      sense develpment of 'not yet > indestructible':
        
        kumari_pOr = first war 
        kumari_padai = invincible army ( literally indestructible army)
        kumari_mathil = indestructible fort ( although 'madhil' means 
                                  only a protective wall usually of fort
                                   here it refers to fort.)
       kumari = no-death-ness, unmarried lady, daughter, a Godess
       kumaran = young lad or man; son; Lord Murugan
       kumaram = an ancient Grammatical work ( apparently lost).
       kumaram = a young animal without horns or antlers ( not yet grown).
       kumari_malar = this is a rare flower and blooms only once in twelve
                       years and it is found near Ooty near Madurai in
                       Tamil Nadu.

    I would also like to say that Skt. 'kumaara' comes from Tamil 'kumaran'

    (There is no satisfactory indo-european cognates and also no satisfactory
    derivation that it is a Sanskrit word and this word is considered a loan)

    Thus 'kumar' is a short form of Tamil word 'kumaran'.

    However, i am curious what would be your point if my name were to be
    100% sanskrit ? I would have been equally proud and happy with my name.
    I would have put forward all my view points exactly as I did anyways !!
    What I say comes from my understanding and my desire to share and my name
    is quite innocent, leave it alone ! :-)  If you would not mind, may I
    respectfully ask you what Rohit and Parikh mean ? Two more words would
    then be in my repertoire ! :-) thanks.


     

> 
> I quite sypathise with the anger which Tamilians feel at the fact that India
> has been presented as an Aryan country, neglecting the enormous (though, in
> my opinion not overwhelming) non-Aryan contributions to Hinduism.  But
> ultimately this anger has to be abandoned.  

      First, I don't think there is any significant anger among Tamilians
      that the Tamil/Dravidian contributions to Hinduism is NOT properly
      accounted for! If there is then there might be a civil war or it might
      be some other wasteful activity like 'ayodhya'.  *I* believe there 
      was serious injustice done by our
      authors of history and culture in not giving a balanced and more
      wholesome picture of India. Since I believed that SCI is read
      by 'educated' folks I posted some of my observations and viewpoints.
      I don't understand how you concluded that there was anger among
      Tamilians :-) :-) I hope I did not give that picture ! I had taken
      pains to explain my points of view as best as I could thats all.
       

> Being interested in our  differences
> does not mean that we ignore the similarities and our common interest in
> preserving what is more INDIAN rather than Aryan or Dravidian or, for that
> matter Muslim.
> 
> Rohit Parikh

        Regards,
        Selva Selvakumar

From: seshadri@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:47:31 GMT
Subject: Intellectuals don't fight over language
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA