From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Subject: Re: Ancient Indian History
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:47:50 GMT

In article <By0vxt.92H@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.151723.7946@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> > > -     The whole of India was and is overwhelmingly dravidian and NOT
> > > -                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > -     aryan ( = vedic-culture-people).
> > > -
> > > -     Regards,
> > > -     Selva Selvakumar
> > > -
> > 
> > Is that why the dravidians (tamilians) decided to form a separate group
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>       Please remember that NOT all dravidians speak Tamil. 
I know that. However it is Tamilian Dravidians who went ahead to
form a separate group first. Did not even call it soc.culture.indian.tamil.
Other major DRavidian group at least called itself soc.culture.indian.telugu.
Show how much Tamilians care about India.


>       SCT was formed to discuss Tamil and Tamil Culture which is
>       a sub-set of dravidian langguage-and-culture. I think you
>       have got confused because you equate dravidian with tamil.

No I am not confused but it is Tamilian Dravidians that I have found
to be beating the 'Dravidian drum'.

>       Most of the Biharis, Bengalis... are dravidianoids but NOT
>       Tamils. 

That is utter nonsense. Biharis do not consider themselves DRavidians,
neither do the Bengalis. I know you claimed Gujarati and Marathis too
as Dravidnoids. You were refuted by atleast Gujaratis. 

> Dravidianoids can be thought to be those who are not vedic-aryans 
> in culture. 

That is your definition and is utter nonsense again. There are a multitude 
of races in India, it is not just Aryan and Dravidian.
I am not vedic-aryan in culture but I do not consider myself Dravidinoid 
either.

> Those who follow vedas today
>       ( not all of them are 'aryan' though they might have adopted
>         some aspects of original aryan ways) can be said to be partly
>       aryanoids.

Problem is that you are bent on dividing the country in dravidianoids
and aryanoids for your own selfish reasons. You post like a sick man 
suffering from egotistical malfunctions.

> > and abandon soc.culture.indian ? If Indian culture was and is primarily 
> > Dravidian then why did dravidians form a separate group ? If what Selva
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>      SCTamil serves not merely Indians but Singapurians, Sri Lankans,
>      Malasians and others. Further one wants to discuss in Tamil
>      most in the SCI land would not linke and hence is not advisable.
> 
There are people from other language groups too all over the world.
There are Telugus, Hindi, Gujarati, Punjabi etc speaking people too
in many countries. They still identify with India as a country. They
are not out to divide the country in races - dravidnoids and aryanoids
and blah, blah.

> > claims is true, than tamilians should have felt right at home on SCI.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>       The Indian Tamilians are still contributing a large chunck of the
>       postings in SCI which are of general interest to SCI. If one wants
>       to discuss 'kanthar kali veNpaa" ( = a type of philosophical
>       songs on Murugan) it is best done in a separate cultural group.

It very well can be done on SCI. In fact, by discussing that on SCI,
one would have made other Indians too aware of Tamil culture.

>       Please remember that Tamil is a national language of other countries

For example what nation ?  I don't know of any nation which has declared
Tamil as its National Language. It may be one of the officially recognized
language in another country for example Sri-Lanka.

>       and the cultural contributions coming from these countries are
>       very significant. The prime theme of SCTamil is Tamil language
>       based and is thus international ( meaning involving a few more
>       countries than India). 

I would have no problem in supporting a tamil language group like
alt.lang.tamil or something like that. But cultural group was not a
good idea from the Indian perspective, particularly considering that
Tamil culture is a part of Indian culture in a significant way.

>       
> > 
> > Something fishy here ....
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>    There is nothing fishy it just your imagination. [ just curious,
>    were you not the one that complained that SCT was created 
>    by fradulant means ? If so you might still be carrying some mistrust
>    about Tamilians and that might be the reason that it looks fishy ]
> > 

Your posts increased my mistrust. While I previously did not hate
Tamilians and in fact I remember of posting many good words about
Tamil culture, this admiration is now giving way to hate. It is
growing everyday I see one more fanatical jingoistic post from you
and a few other Tamil culture vultures.

And I am sure many more feel like that.

> > Alok
> 
> 
>    regards
>    Selva Selvakumar

Alok.

P.s. - I am not interested in a pissing match with you. So go on, if you 
want to carry on this. I find you unworthy of a gentleman's discussion.


Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian:37557 soc.culture.tamil:3745 soc.culture.indian.telugu:1103