The Dravidian Problem - K.V Ramakrishna Rao

The Dravidian Problem

1. Introduction: the ethnic interpretation and connotation of Caldwell’s linguistic ‘Dravidian’ has led to the racial hypotheses and theories of ‘Dravidians’. Though the concepts of race and language are two separate entities, the “Dravidians’ are still held only in the racial esteem against the so called “Aryans”, in all religious,
 social and political interactions and processes, even today.

Indeed, Caldwell himself has shown the way for such a transition to take place from linguism to racism1. in case of ‘Aryans’, it was the study of Sanskrit literature, particularly, the Vedas that played a crucial role in their invention, whereas, comparative linguistuic study, but not the study of ancient Tamil literature, popularly known as ‘Sangam literature’, which has resulted in the production of “Dravidians’. When ‘Aryans’ could be found only in the Sanskrit literature, but also in the ancient Tamil literature, ‘Dravidians’ are not at all found in the ancient Tamil literature, but in the Sanskrit literature mostly n the geographical context.

Bishop Robert Caldwell 1814 - 1891

2. ‘Dravidians’ and Tamil literature: For the purpose of this paper, the forms of Dravid, viz., Dravida, Dravidi, Dravidam, Damila, Dramila, Dravida, dravida and their derivatives are considered. But, surprisingly, none of these words is found in the ‘sangam literature’, generally represented by Pattuppattu, ettuttogai and Padinkizhkanakku.

Nalvar

Even in Tevaram2, only ‘Tamizhan’ was used in the expression, “Seen Aryan, seen Tamizhan”. Only Tayumanavar of 18th century uses the word “Dravidam”, that too, to denote the Tamil language3. Therefore, it is evident that the forms of ‘dravid’ and their usage by Tamils and Tamil poets were not in vogue upto 18th century.

Tayumanavar

 “Nama thipa nikhandu”⁴, a Tamil lexicon assigned to7, 8 or 11^th century mentions ‘dravidam’ as one of the words used for Tamil. “Senthan Divakaram”, another Tamil lexicon of 9^th century mentions that ‘Dravidam’ as one of the eighteen languages spoken. A later work “Kanthanthu Upadesa Kandam” mentions that Lord Shiva revealed to Agastya the grammar of proud language ‘Dravidam’. The authors of “Prayoga Vivegam”  explain that the Sanskrit word “Tramilam” had been changed to “Tamil”, but the modern (Dravidian) scholars refute this strongly and assert that only the word ‘Tamil’ had been pronounced and used as ‘Dravida’ by the Sanskrit scholars. Sivagnana Yogi also mentions that Sanskrit scholars used the word “Dravidam” symbolically to denote “Ten mozhi” (the language of south), that is Tamil⁵. Therefore, it is very clear that Tamils were not only unfamiliar with the usage of the word ‘Dravida’, but also started to denote it for their language only in the modern period, particularly about the advent of the European scholars in south India.

3. ‘Tamil’ in Tamil literature: there is a well known interpretation that ‘Dravida’ is derived from ‘Tamil’. The word ‘Tamil’ is of course found in the “Sangam’ literature at many places. Therem, it is used to denote – 1. Tamil language, 2. Tamil army and 3. Tamil country⁶. The usage of the word ‘Tamil’ is on the increase with the passage of time in the Tamil literature, as is observed from the frequency of its occurrence as follows (see TABLE-A). In Tolkappiyam, it appears five times and in ‘Sangam’ literature 21 times. In the literature of the period 200-500 CE, it is used 45 times, 500-900 CE - 475 times, 900-1200 CE - 381 times and 1200-1900 CE -  341 times⁷. Therefore, when the Tamils know very well about the name of their language and its usage, they need not have derived it from Sanskrit ‘Dravida’ and used such a non-Tamil word to name their ancient language. Moreover, they have been using the word ‘Tamil’ from ‘Sangam’ period to modern times, to denote their ancient language as proper and abstract nouns, but in any case, it has never been used in their racial connotation.

4. ‘Ariyar” in the Tamil literature: ‘Ariyar’ have been mentioned several times in the Tamil literature and dexrfibed sufficiently to know them⁸. Therefore, an important question arises, “When there were Aruyar, why not Dravidar available at that time?”. The answer is that the Tamils never considered ‘Ariyar’ as outsiders and ‘Dravidar’ themselves. Originally, ‘Ariyar’ or ‘Aryans’ were created by Maxmueller from the Vedic literature, but ‘Dravidians’ from the comparative grammar of the “Dravidian languages”. The anthropologists succeeded in comparing the descriptive physical features of Dasas, Dasyus and Panis, like Varna, Anas, Mridhavachah etc., with their anthropometry. But, ‘Aryans’ were not compared with the description given in the Tamil literature to verify the anthropometric parameters like Cranial index, Nasal index, Stature etc.

5. Anthropometry of ‘Dravidians’: Huxley (1871), Haeckal, Turner (1900), G. Oppoert, Risely (1908), E. Thruston (1909), Seligman, Sclater and others have given different and varying anthropometric data and descriptions about ‘Dravidian race’ (Table-B). They have tried to compare them with the Mediterranean, Negrito and Australoid races with

the above racial parameters. Their stature / height varies from short to medium, skin / complexion from yellow brown / brown to black; head from mesocephalic to dolicocephalic; nore from broad to narrow and flat to narrow; eye colour from brown to black; hair from straight or wavy to curly but not woolly or frizzy; lips from thick to protruding and so on. If this is the racial picture of ‘Dravidians’, the picture given by the Tamil poets about the ancient Tamils is entirely different.

6. “Anthropometry” of the ancient Tamils: the Tamil poets have too meticulously described about head, eyes, hair, lips, ears, eyelids, hands, legs and body structure of the ancient Tamils at many places, but they never painted them with ‘black’ as has been done by the above ‘racist’ scholars. Indeed they have used different terminology for each characteristic e.g, uchi, talai, siram for head; kudimi, mayir, kundal, mudi, ori, alagam, ulai for hair; adi, siradi, sivanta adi, kal for feet; meni, uruvam, udal, agam, sariram, uru for body; euiru, muruval, pal for teeth; nodal, netri for forehead; kavul, tadai, movai for jaw; kannidazh, imai for eyelids; idazh, adaram, udadu for lips, these words are used with

Cranial measurememt

suitable adjectives to specify the physical characteristics of men and women. Each word is used appropriately to describe a morphological trait. Indeed, many poets, scholars and other personalities were named after a specific characteristic possessed by them,

Nasal Index measurement

e.g, Asiriyar Perungannan (the teacher with big eyes), Perungannan (a man with bigger eyes), Ilangannan (a man with youthful eyes), Sengannan (a man with reddish eyes), Nettimaiyar (a man with lengthy eye brows), Naraimudi nettiyar (a man with white hair and high stature), Irumbidattalaiyar (black colour haired headed man or a man with a strong head like a iron), Sittalai sattanar ( Sattanar with puss-head), Peruntalaiyar (a man with bigger head), Pullatru eyitranar), Kazharkkiran eyitranar (men with characteristic teeth). The ancient Tamil literature clearly mentions that the skin colour of the ancient Tamils were that of the ‘tender mango leaves’ (mamai). The kings had the colour that of Sun. The heroines have been described that they had bright colours body like ‘unsheathed sword’ with reddish hand and feet⁹. Interestingly, Kalittogai stresses that women should have big mons venris, shoulders and eyes and small forehead waist and feet, as such parameters were considered as good characteristics i.e, morphology. Recently, a gold ring dated to

c. 2 BCE to 1 CE has been discovered on the banks of Amaravati (formerly Anporunai) Karur in Trichirappalli (District of Tamilnadu). Figures of man and woman have been embossed on the front side of the ring which clearly exhibits the physical features. The man is tall, slim, eyes lengthy, lips medium, nose normal and head dolicephalic. The woman is also tall but shorter than man with the same morphological traits. The gold mouth pieces recovered from Adichanallur are indicators to show that the Tamil lips are in perfect shape with medium size, but not protruding. From these details, one can bring ot the morphological characteristics of ancient Tamils, they were never considered as belonging to a particular race or different races.

6.1. Here the important point should be noticed is that though the Indologists have compared and correlated the physical feature described in the Vedas with their ‘Dravidians’, they have not applied the same methodology in comparing and correlating the morphological features of the ‘ancient Tamils’ from ‘Sangam literature’ with the modern antropometric indices. In any case, we do not come across ‘Dravidians’ with black skin, snubbed nosed (anas), impaired speech (mrdhavacah) and other ‘Vedic’ descriptions in Tamil literature.

7. Inconsistent race theories: When going through the classification of the races according to different scholars, we are surprised to know how the races and sub-races increase and overlap. According to Linnaeus (1735) there were four races – European, Asiatic, African and American; and according to Blumenback (1781), five – Caucasians, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American and Malay. Huxley recognizes five principal and fourteen secondary races.

Deniker (1900) makes provisions for seventeen groups consisting of twenty five races and sub-races. J. S. Huxley and A. C. Huddon have only three groups white, yellow and black races. This classification definitely exposes the pseudo-scientific character as it looks much more scientific in Greek garb – dolicocephalic, mesocephalic, brachycephalic, leiotrichi,

cymotrichi, leuchoderms, xanthoderms and so on.And in the case of ‘Dravidians’, too, we have Homo-Dravidians, Proto-Dravidians, Pre-Dravidians, Mongol-Dravidians, Scytho-Dravidians and of course Arya-Dravidians (!) and so on. But, significantly, the ancient Tamils never described and grouped themselves so. But, forgetting all facts, ‘Dravidians’ are viewed characteristically with all exceptions and a great deal of overlapping, as a separate race.

7.1. Divergent theories about the origin of Dravidians: About the origins of ‘Dravidians’, Keans, Morries, Sclater, Turner, Ragozin, Caldwell, Perry, Smith, Hornell and Indian scholars including Kanakasabhai have propounded many interesting, but divergent hypotheses and theories based on mythology, philology, anthropometry, and other factors¹⁰. They can be broadly grouped and explained as follows:

Central Asian Origins: From the comparisons of morphological and some linguistic similarities, some scholars considered that Dravidians cam from Central Asia. Caldwell delved much on the ‘Scythian’ origins. Here, they coolly forgot the other famous hypotheses / theories that ‘Aryans’ also came from Central Asia. It is really surprising the if both “Aryans’ and ‘Dravidians’ come from ‘Central Asia’, then why they should have been pitted against each other for all Indian historical processes?

West Asian Origins: As the west Asia had several ancient civilizations, it was argued that ‘Dravidians’ must have been originated from one of such civilizations by intermixing or interbreeding.

Diffusion theory: Tracing all civilizations to an Egyptian and Mediterranean source, it was argued that ‘Dravidians’ were a branch of Mediterranean race evolved consequent to miscegenation of Mediterranean and West Asian elements.

North-Indian and Trans-Himalayan Origins: Before, the advent of ‘Aryans’, ‘Dravidians’ were living in the north including north-eastern ad western parts of India. When the ‘Aryans’ started occupying, the Dravidians had to spread towards south. The Trans-Himalyan origins locate ‘Dravidians’ beyond Himayalas like Tbert, from where they entered India from the north east. Here, how the ‘Aryan’ factor has also been taken into consideration to explain the advent of ‘Dravidians’ in India, can easily be noticed. Interestingly, however, no scholar has ever propounded the ‘Dravidian invasion’ hypothesis or theory so far.

Lemurian or Kumari continent Origins: To counter the above ‘out of India’ or ‘foreign’ origins, it was argued that ‘Dravidians’ came from the submerged ‘Kumari’ or ‘Lemuria’ continent.

7.2. Of the above, the first three origins heavily depend on Semitic religious literature and the last two on the references mentioned in the “Sangam” literature about the submergence of land masses. But where in the ancient Tamil literature, it is mentioned that they can be from outside the boundaries of Himalayas in the north, Kumari in the south, eastern ocean (Kuna kadal) in the east and Western ocean (Kuda kadal) in the west.

8. Contradictions of Anthropometry: The anthropologists turned ‘race science’ with their craniometers, spheroidal hooks and other instruments have tried to create ‘Dravidians’ out of ‘Aryans’ with their inconsistent, divergent measurements of morphometry and craniometry. They have completely ignored the hereditary and environmental factors like climate, diet, occupation, genes, combination of chromosomes etc., in their ‘scientific’ study. Now, it has been proven on research work that stature increases with urban life, occupation and of course changes with hereditary. Children differ from parents. Dolicocephalic parents produce brachycephalic children and in turn, such brachycephalics produce mesocephalics. Thus, physical changes occur in all groups under consideration and their extent increases with every child.

8.1. A careful study and analysis of the antropometric tables given by Edgar Thruston reveal such contradictions11. We find one brachycephalic among 23 dolicocephalic Kadis; 5 out of 40 Kammalans; 6/50 Pallans; 5/42 Idaiyans; 5/24 Pulayans; 8/40 Madiga; 6/30 Malas; 11/60 Besthas; 10/40 Odee; 12/60 Golla; 14/50 Boya; 12/40 Bant; 16/40 Kapu; 19/50 Kurumba; 23/50 Pamhala; 20/50 Holeya; 28/50 Billava; 27/50 Vakkaliga. Thus, the heads of South India tribes or ‘Dravidians’ ethnologically and or racially do not conform the views of anthropologists or Vedic and Tamil literature.

8.2. Brahmans are always considered ‘Aryans’ in the ‘Dravidian’, context . But, surprisingly such Brahmans themselves do not oblige anthropologists to fit into ‘Aryan anthropometry’ showing variations. Among 20 dolicocephalic Brahmans, we find one brachycephalic, Pattar Brahmans 2/25; Desastha 4/24; Madhvas – 18 brachycephalics out of 60 mesocephalics; Karnataka Smartha – 9 brachy out of 50 meso; Mandya – 31 brachy out of 50 meso; shivalli – 17 brachy out of 30 meso. Similarly stature and nasal indeces given by him for respective groups do vary considerably. Thus, we find more ‘Aryans’ among ‘Dravidians’ and more ‘Dravidians’ among ‘Aryans’. At one stage, the demarcation between ‘Aryans’ and ‘dravidians’ ceases. Therefore, it is very clear that these studies are far from the scientific nature.

9. Origin of Linguistic ‘Dravidian’ and ‘Dravidian race’: When those ‘race scientists’ were making attempts to invent ‘Dravidians’, linguistics were also busy in the same process, but trying to approach differently. Thus, Francis W. Ellis, while comparing the languages Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam and others used the expression ‘South Indian dialects’. A. D. Campbell in his ‘A Grammar of Telugu language’ (1816) named them as ‘The dialects of South India’. Lassen grouped the South Indian languages under the terminology ‘Dekhan language’. Hackson through his studies carried out in 1848 and 1856 in the Nilgiris and surrounding places, termed the languages spoken by the people of those areas as ‘Tamulian’. For the first time Caldwell called them “Dravidian languages”. T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau, Kamil V. Zvelebil, M. Anthropov and other modern scholars skillfully used their linguistic studies to confirm the “Dravidian race”. They have given more emphasis to the ‘Dravidian race’ than to the linguistic research, as is evident from their works.

10. Dravida – Sanskrit sources: According to Manu¹² ‘Dravidas’ were the degraded Kshtriyas and said to be the descendants of Dravida, son of Vrishaba. In the two lists of degraded Kshtriyas given in Mahabharat, Dravida are the only South Indian group mentioned. Bhagavata Purana mentions Satyavrata as the ‘Lord of Dravida’, i.e., King of Dravida, Kanchi. In Saundharya Lahiri, a work assigned to Adi Sankara, the 75^th verse mentions about ‘Dravida sisu’. Chanakya, the great minister of Chandragupta Maurya was mentioned as a native of Dravida i.e., Kanchi. Indeed, he had several names viz., Vatyayana, Mallanga, Kutila, Dramila, Paksilasvami, Vishnugupta and Angula, of which, we see ‘Dramila’ as one of them. Kumarila Bhatta of the 7^th century uses the expression ‘Andhra Dravida Bhasa’. A Dramidacharya¹³ has been  referred to in Visistadvaita literature (c.7^th cent). Varahamihira’s Brahat Samhita and Yoga Yatra, Varahapurana,  Varahitantra and Mahabharat collectively call the following people as ‘Dravidas’, viz., the Andhras, Karnatakas, Gurjars, Tailingas and Maharastras. Indeed they were also collectively known as ‘Pancha Dravidas’ in contrast to ‘Pancha Gaudas’, butto represent Brahmans of India.

The Brahmans of north of Vindhyas were called ‘Pancha Gaudas’, and they are –

1. Sarasvasthas of Kashmir,

2. Kanyakubjas of Punjab,

3. Mukya Gaudas of Bengal,

4. Utkalas of Orissa and

5. Maithilas (with ‘Misra’ title) of Nepal and Bihar.

Markandeya, Garuda, Vishnu-Darmottara Haha Puranas and Brihat samhita locate ‘Dravidas’ along with the Kambojas, Strimukhas and Anarttas in the south-west of Bharat. Dasakumara Charitra¹⁴ also mentions that there was a country named ‘Dravida’ and Kanchi, a city was sityated in it. Kadambari¹⁵ calls as inhabitant or native of that country as ‘Dravida’. A sage is known as ‘Dravida-gaudaka’ and a Upanishad ‘Davidoupanishad’. Bharata refers to ‘Dravida’ in his Natyasastra and Bana mentions about a ‘Dramida marga’. In the rhapsodies of Bilhana ‘Vikramaditya’s digvijata’, the Chola army has been refered to as ‘Dravida army’ and Chola king as the ‘Dravida Lord’. According to Muir and Caldwell, as lare as in 1854, the learned Hindu philologist Babu rajendra Lal Misra spoke of ‘Dravidi’ as one of the recognized Prakrits, equally with the Sauraseni.

11. Dramila and Dravida – Jain accounts: Jaoin works Samvanga Sutra (c.300 BCE) and Pannavanna Sutta (c.168 BCE) mention about the prevalence of eighteen varieties of scripts I the country in the early times and ‘Damili’ was one of them. To propagate Jainism in Tamilnadu, the Digambara Jaina teacher Vajrananti established a ‘Dravida Sangha’ (in 470 CE) at Madurai. In the Saturngaya Purana, Chap. VII (400 vv) assigned to 421 or 605 CE, it is mentioned “Dravida-valikhilla-charitratrithoddhavara”, referring to a ‘Dravida’, the son of Vrisbhasvamin, a Jain¹⁶. ‘Damila’ has been mentioned in Hemachandra’s Sthaviravali Charitra, but according to Fleet, Dramila was the Dravida country of the Pallavas on the east-coast, and Kanchi was its Capital.

12. Damila – Buddhist accounts: Pali chronicle gives detailed accounts of ‘Damila’. The Buddhist work Lalitavistara, a work in Sanskrit (c. 2 cent. CE) refers to 64 scripts used at the time of uddha and they included ‘Dravidi lipi’. A Vinaya commentary called ‘Vimativinodani’ was written by Kssapa Thera, who was in inhabitant of the kingdom of ‘Damila’. A careful study of the Buddhist texts shoes that ‘Damilas’ were fighting people always engaged in constant strifes with Sinhalese in Lanka. It is interesting to note that they are described as ‘Anarya’, the Ceylon chronicles, Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa give more details about ‘Damilas’ on several occasions. At the same time, it does not clearly say as to who were Damilas or from which part of India, they came over toi Ceylon, but to distinguishes between Pandya and Chola divisions of the Tamil country. In Dipavamsa,’Dramilas’ have been mentioned eight times¹⁷. The commentators of Buddhgosa distinguish the ‘Damilas’ from Yavanas and Kiratas on the one hand and from the Andhras on the other. The Chinese monk Yuan Chwang who visited the Tamil country in 637 CE mentions in his report that Kanchi (Kan-chih-pulo) was the capital of ‘Dravida’ (To-lo-pi-la) country. Peutinger table gives that he used Timila, Timir, Cimbo for ‘Dravida country’. Parakrama Bahu I (1153-86 CE) had the able services of a Tamil general known as “Damiladhikarin’ Rakka.

13. Dravida, Dramila and Damila in Inscriptions: An epigraphic study of inscriptions and copper plates of Southern India from ancient times to 18^th century reveal an interesting fact that the words Dravida, Dramila, Dravida of Sanskrit, Dravida, Dramida, damila of Prakrit and their forms and variations in other South Indian languages including Tamil denote only Tamil language “Tamil” and they are used as nouns and adjectives. At several places, Dravidas or Damilas have been distinguished from other South  Indian Kings Cheras, Cholas, Pandyas, Andhras and others. Among the traditional 56 kings and kingdoms, ‘Dravida’ was always one of them, as mentioned in the inscriptions and copper plates. Therefore, even in their linguistic approach, the South Indian epigraphs have not clubbed Kalingas, Andhras, Karnatakas, Keralas and others with ‘Dravidas’ or ‘Damilas’ and also not grouped the Tamilians – Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas under the category. Hence, it is very evident that the term ‘Dravida’ or ‘Damila’ was restricted to the Tamil language and Tamils but no racial connotation was attributed to it.

14. Dravidians of Modern scholars: From the above, we can how the ‘Dravidians’ created out of the words Dravida, Dravida, Damila, Dramila and Damila do not tally with the anthropometry and anthropological data. But, in spite of this, there is much rhetoric about ‘Dravidian race’, ‘Dravidian blood’, ‘Dravidian skull’, ‘Dravidian bones’ and so on. About their origins also, it has already been shown how the ‘Dravidian’ protagonists propose and propound the theories that they came from Egypt, Central Asia, Mediterranean, Tibet and so on, ignoring tradition, heritage, culture and civilization of the ancient Tamils. From the geographical description of ancient Tamilagam, five fold division of land and people, names of rivers, mountains, kings, cities and kingdoms, well defined boundaries and socio-cultural norms followed that they did not come from outside or even outside the boundaries enumerated. In fact, there has not been a single instance mentioned in the ancient Tamil literature that Tamils had come from outside of India, north or some other place. Though, Ganges and Yauna have been mentioned, the river Sindhu has not been mentioned. Similarly, Patali (putra) and Ayodhya have been mentioned, but not the cities of Indus valley civilization. This directly proves that the Tamils belonged to Tamilagam, which was part and parcel of Bharat and also they were not driven away to the end of the Bharat by the so called ‘Aryans’. Indeed, in ‘Sangam’ literature, it was never mentioned that they were defeated by ‘Aryans’ or driven away to the southern end by them, instead, they are many references, which describe how the kings of north were defeated by the Tamil kings and royal symbols of them were inscribed on the Himalayas.

15. Conclusion: In the case of ‘Aryan race’, Max Mueller confessed, “I have declared again and again that if I say Aryan, I mean neither blood nor bones,, nor hair, nor skull, I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language……………To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, as great sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolicocephalic dictionary or brachycephalic grammar”.

But, unfortunately, the propounders of “Dravidian race” hypotheses and theories had not repented and confessed about their “invention”, during their life-time. Therefore, they have to resurrect from their graves and confess, “We have declared again and again that if I say Dravidian, we mean neither blood nor bones,, nor hair, nor skull, we mean simply those who speak a Dravidiyan language……………To us an ethnologist who speaks of Dravidian race, Dravidian blood, Dravidian eyes and hair, as great sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolicocephalic dictionary or brachycephalic grammar”. But, now-a-days not only politicians but also historians talk and write about such contradictions and concoctions. The westerners’ wrong understanding or the ill-motivated study of the word ‘Aryan’ resulted in the world wars with the genocide of a particular (assumed) race. When they realized the danger of the ‘Aryan’ and other racial myths, they consigned these theories to dustbins.

15.1. Caldwell’s linguistic invention was given a racial twist by the western and Indian scholars with vested interests. Thus has resulted in the present day Dravidian movements characterized by contempt and hatred for a particular community. The word ‘Dravidian’ was specifically coined on a hypothetical basis to create a race superior to the Aryan race. It was not confusion about the nature of races and their cultures (languages), but a planned conspiracy by the British and their priest-turned historians and other Indologists with political motive to divide Indians. Now, we see that the Indian politicians too adapt and adopt the same methodology to achieve their goals. Those who speak about Aryans and Dravidians should keep in mind one important fact. These people always quote Sanskrit scriptures or non-Dravidian literature to prove the existence of a pre-Aryan Dravidian race in India. But, there is not a single reference in their so called ‘Dravidian literature’ to this effect. Even they did not call themselves by that name, which was invented later, is vouchsafed by their own literature.

15.2. Race and language are two separate entities. Just because a section of people speaks a particular language, it cannot become a distinguishable race. Among the so called ‘Dravidians’, we find tall white dolicocephalics, short dark brachycephalics, intermediate types, half-breeds and a few blonds. So, anthropologically also, a Dravidian cannot be described specifically by stature, nasal index, cranial index, characters. Traits and aptitudes, as they differ in culture and morphology at different places. If the ‘Aryan’ race theory is a myth, as has been accepted by world scholars, the theory of the ‘Dravidian race’ is the greatest myth and this has to e accepted by the Indian scholars in the interest of Indian society, nation and national integration in the historical perspective.

Notes and References

1. Robert Caldwell, A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages, University of Madras, 1976, pp. 108-120, 636.

2. Tevaram of Tirugnana Sambandar, 6^th Tirumarai, 23^rd Padigam, Tirumaraikkadu-6479.

In another place, he says, “Aryan with chaste Tamil” – 46^th Padigam, Tirumarakkadu-6710.

Here, both ‘Aryan’ and ‘Tamizhan’ refer to God Shiva.

3. Siddharkanam.

4. Sivasubramanya Kavirayar, NamaThipa Nikandu, Thanjavur University, 1985.

5. Sabapathy Navalar, Dravida Prakasikai, Madras, 1899, p.7.

6. Purananuru 50: 9-10; 58: 12-13; Sirupanatruppadai: 66-67; Paripadal 6:60.

7. This clearly proves that the word ‘Tamil’ is ancient than ‘Dravida’ in the linguistic context.

8. K. V. Ramakrishna Rao, Summary published in the Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Calcutta, 1990, p.165

……………………….., Published in the proceedings of Seminar on the Aryan Problem, The Mythic Society and The Bharatriya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, Bangalore, 1991, pp.215-225.

…………………………, The Aryan Problem, Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, Pune, 1993, pp.75-80.

9. Agananuru – 45, 208, 270, 383. 136: 20-24: When the heroine removed the cloth covered, she appeared bright like the unsheathed sword. Kalittogai: 108-2 and 3 mention the specific morphological traits of the ancient Tamil women.

10. These race theories have been based on many unscientific myths like purity of blood, eugenics etc., In fact, the U. N. has passed resolutions condemning such “racist myths”.

11. Edgar Thruston, Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Vol. I, Madras, 1909, pp.lxi-lxxii.

12. Manu. X. 43-44; Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, Vol. I, Bhagavat Purana. IX.i.23 (Pargiter).

13. “The progenitor of Tamuna spoke of a ‘Dravidabhasyakara’ as the great expounder of the Brahmasutra and of ‘Srivatsankamisra’ as a great commentator and as an expounder of Nyaya…..‘Dravidabhasyakara’ spoken of by Yamuna superficially appears to be the same Dravidabhasyakara due to the similarity of name. but, we have shown in the pages of the book that he is none other than Shri Satakopa (Nammalvar) who sang the hymns in Taml (Tiruvaimozhi)  and who has been extolled by Yamuna in his ‘Stotraratna’ (117-119). Hence, it is that instead of saying ‘written by ‘Dravidabhasyakara’, Yamuna says in his ‘Atma Siddhi’, Dramidabhashya krta’. Dramida should ordinarily be referred to an Dramida himself”. Polaham Rama Sastri, Dravidatreya Darsanam, Madras, 1957, p.ix.

14. Verse – 130.

15. Verse – 229.

16. Indian Antiquary, Vol. 30, 1901, p.250.

17. Herman Oldenberg (Translator), Dipavamsa, asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1982, 18-47; 19-16; 20-15; 17, 18, 27, 29, 21-45.

18. Tolkasppiyam, Eluttadhikaram, Payiram: The Boundaries Tamilagam: Vengada hill in the north, Kumari in the south, Kunakadal in the east and Kudakadal in the west. This description continues consistently throughout the Tamil literature.

19.  Max Muller, Biographies of Words and the Home of Aryans, London, 1888, p. 120.