Indian Perception Of History

[acharya]

Who is an Aryan?



Nanditha Krishna



The recent ban on sacrifices by the Government of

Tamil Nadu has resulted in a rash of statements by

ill-informed and motivated politicians on the

“Aryanisation” or “Brahminisation” of Dravidian

culture, in which gods, systems of worship and rituals

have all been divided into one or another camp. The

British created an Aryan-Dravidian divide, which

became a useful tool for Indian politicians. It is

time to separate truth from falsehood.



The conventional belief is that the “Dravidians” of

the Indus Valley civilisation originally populated

North India. Along came the nomadic Aryan warriors who

killed or enslaved most of the Dravidians, packed off

the remainder to the South, destroyed their cities and

imposed their language, religion and culture. How

simple, how easy!



Firstly, we now know that the cities of the Indus

Valley civilisation were destroyed by the environment

and geological changes, not invasion.



Secondly, nobody moved south: The Indus Valley culture

moved eastwards towards the Ganga, as did the Aryans.

Even Tamil literature does not speak of a north-south

migration. Then, there is absolutely no evidence that

the Aryans came from any place other than modern

Punjab-Sindh. So we must discard forever the theory of

a foreign origin for the Aryans.



The writers of the Vedas called themselves Aryas,

which meant a “noble person” and not an ethnic group.

Who were the Dravidians? No such word is ever used in

Vedic literature, and is a very late addition, adopted

by British historians. There are references to Dasa,

which meant enemy (Persian daha = enemy) and later, as

defeated enemies were enslaved, came to mean slave. No

racial differences have been found in any Harappan

archeological site, wiping out theories of different

races.



There is a presumption, created by British historians,

that Aryan and Brahmin are synonymous, and caste was

an Aryan creation. But Aryans included every caste and

jati. There are several non-Aryan Brahmin and

non-Brahmin Aryan castes. There is no mention of caste

in the Rig Veda, the oldest and purest Aryan

literature: its first appearance is as late as the

Purusha Sukta. So, caste must have been non-Vedic - or

non-Aryan - in origin. Further, people changed their

castes as they migrated. In our times, Pattunool

weavers from Saurashtra became Iyengars in Madurai,

Shreshtis (merchants) of ancient India became Sethis

and Seths in northern and western India, Shettys in

Karnataka and Chettys in Tamil Nadu.



All castes and communities who speak Sanskrit-based

languages are presumed to be Aryans, while the

speakers of Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu and Kannada are

considered to be Dravidians. Language is the least

reliable of all ethnic characterisations. I speak and

write English -does that make me English? People

always adopt the language that serves them best, for

language is, after all, a means of communication.



The Saurashtra Pattunool weaving community, the

Marathas of Thanjavur, and the Telugu-speaking

Nayakars are among the many examples of people who

have migrated and adopted the Tamil language. In the

North, scheduled castes and tribes of distinct

non-Aryan origin speak Sanskrit-based languages. India

has a long history of migrants who adopted the local

language and customs, like the Parsees who landed in

Gujarat. While Sanskrit and its descendant languages

belong to the Indo-European group (which includes

Persian), and Southern languages are grammatically

different, speaking a language does not give you an

ethnic identity.



Then there is this fallacy of an indigenous Dravidian

religion and an imposed Aryan religion. The gods of

the Aryans were Indra, Varuna, Mitra, Agni and so on.

With the exception of Agni, the all-consuming and

essential fire, all of them lost their pre-eminent

position to Brahma the Creator, Shiva the Destroyer,

and vishnu the Preserver, none of whom are even

mentioned in the Rig Veda but are now described as the

face of Aryan religion. These gods are both non-Aryan

and Brahmanic.



And what about the vehicles of the Gods? All this

makes the Brahmins the chief promoters of non-Aryan

religion! If Kartikeya or Murugan is now called the

“Tamil God”, let us not forget that he owes his origin

to the Greek Kshatrapas and Kushanas. The chief God of

the Tamil Silappadikaram is Indran: Does that make the

epic “Aryan”?



Sacrificing animals is, we are told, basic to

Dravidian culture: banning sacrifice is “Aryanisation”

or “Brahminisation”. Firstly, the earliest instances

of animal sacrifice are recorded in Sanskrit

literature, when the Aryans also sacrificed animals.

In time, as religion and people evolved, Brahmins

stopped sacrificing animals, thanks to the preaching

of the Upanishadic rishis, the Buddha and Mahavira.



The indigenous Bhakti movement that originated in the

Tamil country and slowly spread over the whole of

India, spoke out against killing animals for food or

sacrifice, and took the message of devotion to a

personal God to the common man. One should laud the

religious evolution and abjuring of primitive and

cruel practices that was preached by our saints.



Sacrifice was basic to all ancient religions, a life

for a life, blood for blood. As philosophers and

schools of philosophy developed, the contrast between

good and evil, right and wrong were extended to cover

previously accepted practices. Thus slavery, human

sacrifice and the caste system were condemned as

crimes against people, while vegetarianism and

condemnation of animal sacrifice were regarded as

respect for all life.



Even those who claim that sacrifice is essential to

“Dravidian” religion - whatever that means - will not

eat meat on Saturdays or on the New Moon (Amavasya)

day, nor will they sacrifice an animal in the pooja

rooms of their homes, affirming that non-killing of

animals is the higher goal. The so-called rationalists

support animal sacrifice in the name of “Dravidian”

culture and oppose “Brahminisation”, understanding

neither and unable to define either, losing in the

process, all rationalism.



Today's Hinduism is an amalgam of every tradition to

be found in this country. The religion has absorbed

and encompassed local traditions and gods. Thus

deities like Kamakshi of Kanchi, Meenakshi of Madurai,

the Ashta Vinayak of Maharashtra, Balaji of Tirumala,

Ranganatha of Srirangam and Vaishno Devi of the

Himalayan foothills may not find themselves in any

Vedic text, but have more devotees than the Vedic

Gods.



Are they Aryan or Dravidian, or even local tribal

gods? Who knows and, more importantly, who cares?



The only pure Aryan ritual left is the presence of

Agni or Fire, who was essential to Vedic religion.

There are several non-Vedic variations to every

ceremony and festival in every community, such as the

mangal sutra or thaali in the wedding ceremony, the

various birth rites and even forms of disposing the

dead - from cremation to burial to cremation-burial.

The religion has evolved and adapted over 5000 years.

The best example is the festival of Ganesha, who was

never a Vedic God. His worship remained localised for

centuries until Lokamanya Tilak decided to utilise

Ganesh Chaturthi to unite Indians to fight for

self-rule. Ganesha came out of the family pooja and

into the public arena, a symbol of resurgent India.

Today the festival is probably the largest pan-Indian

celebration after Deepavali. Yet none of these

developments have scriptural sanction, nor are they

Aryan or Dravidian.



So it is time politicians stop hoodwinking people

about Aryan and Dravidian, and cease to blame

Brahminisation to score points against each other or

cover their own failures. No demarcation is possible

in Hinduism. We should ask ourselves whether a law is

good or bad, and support or oppose it thereafter. And

stop politicians from dividing us over non-existing

Aryan and Dravidian differences.