Folks
I would like to collect more information on the dravidianist history.
Added Later : I recognise the possibility this thread can lead to free for all tamil bashing. Please avoid doing this. I hate to modify/delete posts . Please, please use your judgement. Thankyou..
A portion of a post from another forum..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Dravidianist movement started off as a highly casteist and racist movement. Initially, they divided the population of Tamilnadu into 3 races: Aryans, Dravidians and native tribes (See, V. Kanakasabhai Pillai). According to this fantastic hypothesis, Brahmins were Aryans. All the upper-caste non-brahmins (esp. Vellalas) were Dravidians whose homeland was, uh... Tibet, from where they came to Tamilnadu. The "lower castes" were divided into a set of tribes and denied any Dravidian pedigree. So, in the initial decades (end 19th -early 20th century), the Dravidianist movement was entirely catering to the upper-caste non-brahmins. Its sole agenda, as evident from the manifesto of the Non-Brahmin movement (1919) was to deny the brahmins their place in the public sphere, and this culminated in the Montague-Chelmsford Act. EVR, who subsequently headed the Dravidianist movement was a Balija Naidu from Andhra Pradesh, and displayed a condescending attitude towards the Harjans. In all personal matters including matrimony he remained a casteist. He advocated the ethnic cleansing of the brahmins</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The article below is written by Kalavai Venkat. The original can be found at
Why EVR quit Congress
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Note: Where relevant TSCII 1.7 fonts have been used for Tamil characters.
It is often alleged that the great revolutionary and selfless freedom fighter V.V.S.Aiyar ran a gurukul, which segregated its Brahmin and non-Brahmin students. It is alleged that they were served food seperately. Some of the notoriously false versions would claim that while the Brahmins were served superior food inside, the non-Brahmins were served inferior food outside. It is claimed that E.V.R. quit the Congress party because of this caste based segregation, and the support Gandhiji gave it. Just like the myth of trade between the Tamils and Hebrews in 1000 B.C., this myth also has got transformed into "fact" by mere repetition and intense propaganda. In this series of posts, I am covering the entire episode, by taking recourse to primary data, so that the truth is known to all. The following is the format of the series:
1. The gurukul: Its beginnings and the controversy
2. Gandhiji's judgement and Rajaji's statement
3. EVR's politics of lies and hate
4. Death of V.V.S.Aiyar and Gandhiji's letter
5. Conclusion
I have utilised the following sources for compiling this series:
1. The Hindu - from the archives of that period
2. For a general summary and some references, please see "The Political Career of E.V.Ramasami Naicker" by Professor E.Sa.Visswanathan with a forward by Professor A.L.Basham
3. For a notorious version packed with lies and hate, please see "Ramasami Naicker - Collected Works volumes 1-11" by C.N.Annadurai and translated by A.S.Venu and published by Periyar Self-respect Propaganda Institution
4. For Gandhiji's letters, please see "The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (especially volumes 21-35)
5. For those who can understand Tamil, I would recommend "vIraviLakku V.V.S.Aiyar" by Yogi Suddhananta Bharati, and "V.V.S.Aiyar" by T.S.S.Rajan
6. Others are quoted as relevant
The bulk of my references themselves would be primary - that is reliable newspaper report of that period.
1. The gurukul: Its beginnings and the controversy
------------------------------------------------
December 1922: The great revolutionary and freedom fighter V.V.S.Aiyar starts a school in Kallidaikkuricchi, a pre-dominantly orthodox Brahmin locality in Tirunelveli. The school is started with the objective of imparting patriotic and religious education to boys of *all castes*. T.S.S.Rajan tells us that Aiyar started the school entirely on his own initiative, with the blessings of Gandhiji, who is pleased to hear that this school would turn out boys willing for social service by the hundreds. V.V.S.Aiyar had decided to do something radical then: to impart training in the vedas and other shastras to boys of all castes. He also published a newspaper "Desabhaktan", and often implored the readers to contribute money for this cause. His associate, Mahadeva Iyer, raised a fund of 20,000 rupees from the Nattukkottai Chettiars of Malaya. Tamilnadu Congress Committee (TNCC) promised a donation of 10,000 rupees of which it promised 5,000 rupees would be initial contribution.
This school, which was in makeshift buildings initially, gets shifted to a pucca building in another orthodox Brahmin locality - Shermadevi. There were approximately 200 students in the Gurukul. There is no mention of girls, so probably, it was restricted to boys.
In January 1925, in the TNCC meeting, E.V.Ramasamy Naicker (EVR) charged that the gurukul practised caste segregation. He alleged that the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins were forced to dine seperately, and that inferior food was served to non-Brahmins, who were forced to eat outside the building. He claimed that the son of Chief Minister O.P.Ramasami Reddiar, who also studied there, had complained to him. In the meantime, EVR and his coterie, also started a vicious campaign in the seperatist Tamil newspaper "Tamilnadu". They also indulged in disruptive tactics and stalled every proceeding.
V.V.S.Aiyar explained the scenario. "The Hindu" dated 15, April 1925 reports that Aiyar explained that there was *no* caste based segregation in the gurukul. He explained that *only* 2 Brahmin students were granted the *exemption* to dine seperately, as their parents insisted on it, and threatened to pull out the students if their demand wasn't conceded. Aiyar explained that inter-caste dining is yet unknown in Tamilnadu, and more importantly, this was not made known to the parents when the students were admitted to the gurukul. So, he reasoned, that the 2 students were granted exemption from inter-dining. He denied that seperate food was served or anyone was made to eat outside the building, and invited the disruptive elements to visit the gurukul to ascertain themselves. He pointed out that all the other Brahmin and non-Brahmin students dined together, barring these 2 students. He further said that after he raised funds from the public, that is in 1922-23, he had made it very clear that all students should inter-dine, and *no exemptions* will be granted in the future. He also clarified that everbody was taught the same set of lessons - religious and nationalistic. He was quite pained at this campaign of lies by EVR.
2. Gandhiji's judgement and Rajaji's statement
--------------------------------------------
The explanation given by V.V.S.Aiyar should have made it clear that there was no caste based segregation in the Shermadevi gurukul, nor was there any plan to introduce one in the future. The controversy should have died, but that was not to be. EVR and his coterie was actually interested in making political mileage through false allegations. They not only continued disruptive tactics, but also a vicious campaign in their newspapers. Varadarajulu Naidu, a supporter of EVR, had earlier (before the controversy became public) written to Gandhiji. In his letter dated 10, March 1925, addressed to Varadarajulu Naidu, Gandhiji replied (ref. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi vol. 26):
"It seems to me that insofar as the present (2) brahmacharis are concerned, if the parents of the Brahmin boys insist on their boys being allowed to dine seperately, their scruples should be respected (as they were not told about this inter-dining before admitting the students). But for the future, it may be announced that ***no*** brahmacharis would be accepted whose parents would not let their boys dine in the same row with the others. I understand from you (r letter) that the cook at the gurukulam (is and) would be always a Brahmin. What you object to (in your 2 letters) is the seperating of the non-Brahmin boys from the Brahmins. I ***do think*** that all the boys should sit in the same row whilst they are taking their meals."
Note: The original letters of Varadarajulu Naidu were published in Navasakthi dated 27, February 1925 and 6, March 1925, the relevant parts I have indicated within brackets in Gandhiji's letter.
In TNCC meeting on 29, April 1925, Varadarajulu Naidu raised the issue of gurukul. Rajaji made 3 pertinent remarks, as reported by "The Hindu" 30, April 1925:
1. He made it clear that he was against all commensal restrictions, whether the gurukul practised it or not.
2. He said that inter-dining was not practised by *any* section of the Tamil society, so any reform on that front should be gradual and happening without causing friction.
3. He felt that no political capital should be made out of the supposed activities of a private institution - the gurukul here.
Further, "The Hindu" 1, May 1925 reports that in the same resolution, tabled by S.Ramanathan and supported by Rajaji (who differed on point 3 mentioned above), it was recommended that gradations based on birth should ***not*** be observed by ***any*** organization participating in the national movement - private or otherwise. A committee comprising of V.Thiagaraja Chettiar, S.Ramanathan and EVR was constituted (by Rajaji) to look into the gurukul matter as well as all such related issues and report the facts.
3. EVR's politics of lies and hate
-------------------------------
Soon after the TNCC meeting on 29, April 1925, the leadership of the Congress party made a tactical error. They passed a censure against Varadarajulu Naidu for communalising politics. While the censure was justified on factual grounds, it served as ammunition in the hands of EVR & co. EVR had already been humiliated on 2 grounds on previous occasions. Earlier, he tried to make political capital out of Vaikkom agitation, in which he was a late and reluctant entrant. Not only that, he abandoned the agitation mid way through. An imprisonment of few days had rattled him, and like a scared rat he gave up the agitation. Of course, in the few days he participated, he abused the Brahmins, used the filthiest language ever heard by the audience, and abused Gandhiji, and also the Hindu Gods. Much to his chagrin, it was a Brahmin, C.P.Ramaswamy Aiyar who passed the historical bill of allowing the entry of Harijans into the temples. Ironically, while EVR was obsessed with the Brahmins, hated and abused them, he just couldn't emulate their admirable courage in facing the adversary and facing rigourous imprisonment. He just ran away like the coward he was, and for political reasons came to be known as ¨Ã
ì¸õ Ã
£Ã÷ (vaikkom vIrar), meaning "the courageous (fighter) of Vaikkom". That epithet, he was unfit to wear. Anyway, a discussion into this has to be a seperate thread.
When he couldn't get any real credit for Vaikkom agitation, which he didn't deserve anyway, he felt humiliated. The second occasion occurred in April 1925. According to Gandhiji's adjudication and the subsequent resolution of the TNCC, V.V.S.Aiyar should have been handed over the check for Rupees 5000. EVR was the Secretary then, and it was his duty to do so. But he was consumed by hate for the Brahmins. He was also an autocrat, a fact that would prompt his protege C.N.Annadurai to part ways with him later on. EVR was also very ambitious. Though he had joined the Congress party only in 1920, he had risen to a position of authority. He also took pride in the fact that hailed he from a wealthy, upper caste family. He believed that he could violate the rules and get away with that, when he unjustly withheld the check payment to Aiyar. As "The Hindu" dated 30, April 1925 reports, TNCC authorised the joint secretary to release the check, and EVR took that as an affront.
He was an angry man now. For a few weeks EVR and Varadarajulu Naidu had been indulging highly abusive public speeches. "The Hindu" dated 14, April 1925 says that they instigated the public to settle the "Brahmin question", failing which they would have to suffer under "Brahmanocracy". But after these 2 incidents, which EVR brought upon himself, he set out on an all out war of unprecedented hate. "The Hindu" dated 4, May 1925 reports what Varadarajulu Naidu said in a public meeting:
"If I win (in this battle against the Brahmin leadership of the Congress party), it will be a glory to both Brahmins and non-Brahmins, but, if I lose, the consequences will be disastrous to the Brahmins of Madras Presidency."
EVR and his cronies would deliver far worse inflammatory speeches and writings, through their mouthpiece ÃÃÃÃÃ (kudiyarasu) - a Tamil daily of the "Dravidianists". He would continuously abuse and tarnish the name of the selfless revolutionary V.V.S.Aiyar, Rajaji and Gandhiji, without any moral scruples and without taking the slightest recourse to facts. Having been a rowdy from his childhood, EVR would excel at this. Bhaktavatsalam, later the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu, and a non-Brahmin himself, was so disgusted with the hate politics of EVR that he would remark, in his letter to "The Hindu" dated 18, April 1925 as well as his public speech in Tamil which is reported in "Politics and Social Conflict in South India" by Eugene F. Irschick:
"¸¡ó¾¢ þó¾ Ã
Ãâò¾ (áð¨¼) Ãò¾à Ã
Ãâá ¬ì¸î ¦º¡ýáÃ, ¬Ã¡ø «¨¾ ®.¦Ã
.á. Ãò¾¢à Ã
Ãâá ¬ì¸¢ð¼¡§Ã" (Gandhi wanted this to be the year of spinning the wheel, but EVR has made it into the year of Shudras).
4. Death of V.V.S. Aiyar and Gandhiji's letter
------------------------------------------
V.V.S.Aiyar had been the most selfless revolutionary and a freedom fighter. He was a man of great moral scruples. Even before the Congress party gave any money, on his own volition he had raised funds to impart vedic as well as nationalistic education to the Brahmins and non-Brahmins alike. That great man had never learnt to face the filthiest campaigns of hate and lies that EVR and his cronies launched.
"The Hindu" dated 25, May 1925, as well as Yogi Suddhanandha Bharati in his book mentioned earlier report that somehow wanting to end the controversy and all the hate campaign, K.Ganapati Shastri and V.S.Shanmugham Chettiar tried to bring about a reconciliation.
But that wouldn't happen, as V.V.S.Aiyar would die on 3, June 1925 at Papanasam water falls. (Reports "The Hindu" dated 6, June 1925). The great man, for none of his faults, and despite all his selfless acts, would die an embittered man, all due to the hateful politics of lies of an evil rowdy called EVR.
One needs to point out that there were certainly sections of Brahmins within the Congress party who were opposed to inter-dining. T.R.Mahadeva Iyer, who took over the gurukul after the death of V.V.S.Aiyar was one such. He held that the rights of the individual students to dine seperately or together must be respected. Even though, no data is forthcoming on how he ran the gurukul after V.V.S.Aiyar died, there is reason to believe that he allowed each caste, not just Brahmins, to dine seperately, if they so wanted.
This prompted Gandhiji to write a letter (ref. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi vol. 34) to him on 27, August 1927 (The exact date is uncertain, as another publication, just comprising Gandhiji's letters mentions the date as 22nd) where he stated that he should hand over the gurukul to a committee of principal donors, if he can't run the institution on the basis of the resolution of TNCC (to which we ref. earlier).
There is no mention of Mahadeva Iyer's reaction to this, but the gurukul never functioned after 1927. There is no reason mentioned anywhere why it closed down. May be if I research further on "The Hindu" archives I will find out. If I do, I will update all of you.
5. Conclusion
-------------
Now one can conclude on the basis of the facts presented so far that,
1. V.V.S.Aiyar didn't practise segregation in his gurukul.
2. He allowed exemption for 2 Brahmin boys to dine seperately, only because their parents insisted, and he allowed it because inter-dining wasn't a clause when those students were admitted. Aiyar himself was opposed to segregation.
3. Gandhiji never supported segregation. In fact, he insisted on common dining. He only allowed those 2 exempted students to continue as it is, because a promise had already been made.
4. Rajaji never supported segregation. He was also for common dining and asserted that all nationalistic institutions should never allow such practices. His only contention was that the Congress party shouldn't interfere in the affairs of private institutions for entirely politicised reasons. He also felt that changes, at individual level, should be gradual.
5. EVR didn't quit the Congress party because of the alleged segregation. He quit because of his hatred for Brahmins, and because he had been sidelined after all his attempts to communalise and indulge in autocratic and hateful politics.
6. EVR never again fought for either independence or for removing untouchability, after quitting the Congress. So, that could have never been his reason for quitting.
Thanks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From another discussion that can be found here..
Link
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Mountstuart Grant-Duff, the British Governer of Madras in his address to the students of the madras university in 1886 told the students "You are of pure Dravidian race" and he prceeded to say they have been cheated by the Brahmins (even though 75% of listeners were Brahmins) This is the first time in history a group of human beings have been addressed as Dravidian Race.
Therefore <span style='color:red'>Mountstuart Grant-Duff is the father of dravidian race and the year of birth of this race is 1886</b>.</span>
According to colonialists, this race comprises tamil non-brahmins. But the success of european colnialism was not just on military or political field. It's success was psychological and the people of India have adopted the colonialist's view of them instead of saying "Bugger off sonofabitch, we know who we are , you don't have
to tell us who we are".
Legends say that Brahma created brahmins from his mouth. Many people ask how is it possible? But here we have the evidence of Dravidians created from the mouth of Mountstuart Grant-Duff, the Governer of Madras in Anne Domino 1886.
<b>How to create Dravidian Race? Just by saying it again and again from the pens, mouths and keyboards of Western academics, Indologists, missionaries and colonialists</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I would argue that "Dravidian race" is of very dubious parentage, though there is little doubt that the parent is a missionary. :-)
The "birth" of the "Dravidian race", doesn't owe itself to any blissful union; rather it was an outcome of missionary hate for the Brahmins. If a union based on hate can be called rape, then "Dravidian race" is a product of rape. F.W.Ellis was the
Collector (District Magistrate) of Madras in 1817 A.D. He was a zealous missionary and hated Brahmins, whom he perceived as an impediment to large scale conversions. He said, as quoted by Professor J.D.M. Derrett in "Historiography of India, Pakistan and Ceylon", that: "the Brahmins are the unworthy purveyors of all evil and the greatest obstacle to missionary conversions." Then, Ellis would also say: "In the caste structure of Madras, there have always been dominant non-Brahmin castes, who have been always antagonistic to Brahmins, but srtived to maintain their parity with the Brahmins."
Thus were sown the seeds of divide.
Then came Mountstuart Elphinstone Grant-Duff, who also supplied the hate themes for the "Dravidianists". In the same event you had quoted, this person also said: "You (non-Brahmin "Dravidian race"!) have less to do with Sanskrit than we English have. Ruffianly Europeans speak of Indians as "Niggers", but they do not, like the
proud speakers or writers of Sanskrit, speak of the people of the South as legions of monkeys. It was these Sanskrit speakers, not Europeans, who lumped up the Southern races as 'Rakshasas' (demons). It was they who deliberately grounded all social distinctions of 'varna' or 'colour'."
Now you know who was the original author of the pet hate themes of the Dravidianists. This anti-Brahmin "Dravidianist" movement was actually led by the British missionaries, and their Tamil counterparts like the Justice Party and later Dravida Kazhagam, just played the role of paid henchmen, repeating *verbatim* what their masters taught them at Madras Christian College. Governors of Madras, such as, Lord Pentland and Lord Willingdon, hardly concealed their hatred for the Brahmins and openly propped up the "Dravidianists". Even some of the common "Dravidianist" hate "proverbs" directed at Brahmins were authored by their English missionary masters. Two of them quoted below, first find their mention in the book "Castes and Tribes of South India - Vol 6" edited by Professor Edgar Thurston in
1909:
"You can believe a "Paraiyan" in ten ways; but a Brahmin, you can not."
"If you see a Brahmin and a cobra (together), leave the cobra alone and attack the Brahmin first."
One of the leading "luminaries" of the "Dravidianist" movement, the anti-social element E.V.Ramaswamy Naicker would propagate the latter "proverb" in all his public speeches. His proteges would avidly implement them by cutting the sacred thread of the Brahmins and garlanding aging, defenseless Brahmin widows with chappals. I presume that a Brahmin and a cobra didn't appear together during his
time, for there is no record of the "Dravidianist" Talibans having stoned a Brahmin to death after sparing the cobra.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can trace the "template" for anti-brahmin, anti-sanskrit, anti-arya, anti-Hindu rhetoric of 20th C Dravidian movement from the speeched and writings , for the first time in English by Colonials and missionaries of 19th Century. It has no precedence in Tamil writings itself.
Dravidian movement have remained faithful to the colonial template and have added very little on top of that.
Another pet missionary scheme waa to paint Rama as an aryan villain who crushed "native dravidian race" . By reading Valmiki or Kamba Ramayanam, one cannot make out anything like that. Recently, some missionary-dalit orgs in the west are peddling some cooked up verse called "Oh aryan Rama, you cut off the head of untouchable Guha" and so on. This is even included in some courses on Hinduism organized by Wendy. But in Kamba Ramayanam, Rama calls Guhan a brother for helping him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><<<Dravidian movement have remained faithful to the colonial template and have added very little on top of that.>>>
That is because they didn't possess even one cerebral person in their entire camp, even to produce scholarship of the venomous variety. Not because they lacked they desire to do so.
<<<Another pet missionary scheme waa to paint Rama as an aryan villain who crushed "native dravidian race" . By reading Valmiki or Kamba Ramayanam, one cannot make out anything like that. Recently, some missionary-dalit orgs in the west are peddling some cooked up verse called "Oh aryan Rama, you cut off the head of untouchable Guha" and so on. This is even included in some courses on Hinduism organized by Wendy. But in Kamba Ramayanam, Rama calls Guhan a brother for helping 7:38 AM 12/16/02him.>>>
That too has its basis in the missionary schools. It was first started by P.Sundaram Pillai, who wrote filth about Ramayana and Sanskrit under the aegis of the missionaries at Madras Christian College (they gave out scholarships and prizes for such "refutations of Hinduism"!). Of course, the "Dravidianists" would soon run out of
any creativity, and hence another "Dravidianist scholar", C.N.Annadurai would declare in the state assembly that "Kamba Ramayanam" should be burnt!
<<<This is even included in some courses on Hinduism organized by Wendy. But in Kamba Ramayanam, Rama calls Guhan a brother for helping him.>>>
As Rama calls him so in Valmiki's version as well. I am not at all surprised that Wendy, who all along saw *only* sexuality in Indian works, has included "Dravidianist" drivel. She is not alone. Many western academics, though not displaying the same mind set publicly, have given credence to the "Dravidianist" movement in various ways. One such western Tamil Professor would elevate another DMK activist called IlakkuvanAr to the high pedestal. It is all in the game. all
these western academics who are today bashing Hinduism, will change colours if the NRIs decide to fund only those who are sensitive towards Hinduism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mountstuart Grant-Duff, the British Governer of Madras in his address to the students of the madras university in 1886 told the students "You are of pure Dravidian race" and he prceeded to say they have been cheated by the Brahmins (even though 75% of listeners were Brahmins) This is the first time in history a group of human beings have been addressed as Dravidian Race.
Therefore Mountstuart Grant-Duff is the father of dravidian race and the year of birth of this race is 1886.
According to colonialists, this race comprises tamil non-brahmins. But the success of european colnialism was not just on military or political field. It's success was psychological and the people of India have adopted the colonialist's view of them instead of saying "Bugger off sonofabitch, we know who we are , you don't have to tell us who we are".
How to create Dravidian Race? Just by saying it again and again from the pens, mouths and keyboards of Western academics, Indologists, missionaries and colonialists
<span style='color:red'>We can trace the "template" for anti-brahmin, anti-sanskrit, anti-arya, anti-Hindu rhetoric of 20th C Dravidian movement from the speeched and writings , for the first time in English by Colonials and missionaries of 19th Century. It has no precedence in Tamil writings itself.</span>
So in simple terms we can trace the origins of the Pakistan movement and the Dravidistan movement to the same decade of 1880s along with the founding of the Indian National Congress. Does this all appear coincidental? Or a British plan to ensure that Indian sub-continent is divided along religious lines.
I think that the Dravidian movement was a precursor to the Christianisation of the South India.
And this divide India policy the Brits handed over to the US after WWII and loss of pre-eminence in world and even Europe. Thats why Seshan called Annadurai a US agent.
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Dec 3 2004, 12:26 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 3 2004, 12:26 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Therefore Mountstuart Grant-Duff is the father of dravidian race and the year of birth of this race is 1886.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it is much earlier than 1886, and it was introduced by a french missionary. I will post the reference in a little while.
(Not posting in full due to copyright violation clauses, can email to interested people in full)
From: <b><i>Colonial Indology and identity. Antiquity; 9/1/2000; CHAKRABARTI, DILIP K. </i></b>
[snip]
The race-language-culture framework in colonial India
<b>By the beginning of the 19th century scholars in Europe had already infused a linguistic element into the concept of race. The idea of a masterful race of people coming down from the heights of the Caucasus or other highlands of central Asia and marching towards Europe gained currency during that period (Poliakov 1974: 187-91). </b>Perhaps nobody did more to apply this idea to India than Max Muller in the middle of that century. According to him, there were at least two races of people in India, who were `distinct in mind as well as in body' (1854: 342) -- Aryan settlers and aboriginals. <b>In fact, the idea that the `immigrant Brahmanical races' drove the earlier inhabitants of India into the jungles can be traced much earlier to the French missionary J.A. Dubois in 1806 (Pope 1879). This concept was later augmented in 1849 by Hodgson, who categorized all non-Aryans under the identity of a `Tamulian race' and argued that the unity of this race was demonstrable through linguistic means, as had been the case with the Aryans (1849). In 1856 Caldwell further explored Hodgson's non-Aryan category and identified a `Dravidian physical type' (1857). Ethnological studies began in earnest with scholars such as Campbell who classified the Indian population according to physical appearance, language, laws, manners and moral characteristics (1866). </b> <b>He described three main physical types -- Caucasian, Mongolian and Negrito -- but was not enthusiastic about introducing a separate `Dravidian' group. Indeed, he attributed Caldwell's Dravidian premise to `his amiable enthusiasm for his beloved Dravidians', this being an allusion to the fact that Caldwell was a missionary in Madras (Campbell 1866: 54).</b> Craniological studies, based on cephalic and nasal indices and supplemented by studies of type of hair and skin colour, had come into sharp focus by the 1880s. From the 1880s Risley published extensively on the Indian situation using such criteria (Chakrabarti 1997: 116-29). <b>He established seven main Indian physical types, all with some linguistic implications; Mongoloid, Mongolo-Dravidian, Aryo-Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Scytho-Dravidian, Turco-Iranian and Dravidian (1903). </b>As far as the notions of Indian racial types, their history and the issues of racial links with different aspects of Indian culture are concerned, Risley's publications consolidate the earlier hypotheses. These offered a forceful image of India's racial components and history on the basis of anthropometric measurements and formulated, in fact, an authoritative version of India's past (Chakrabarti 1997: 122). The Risley framework remained the essential framework of Indian racial studies for a long time; the most important attempt to modify and elaborate it was by Guha & Hutton (Hutton 1933). <b>It is also important to mention that, whilst Risley was conducting his ethnological survey, the first detailed linguistic survey of India was undertaken by Grierson (1909) -- repeatedly using such terms as `Dravidian ethnic characteristics'. </b>
[snip]
The foll discussion is a copy paste from another yahoo group ..
On MaRaimalai AdigaL
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Dravidianist scholarship": Sounds like an oxymoron! So, I will start by making a distinction between the terms "Dravidian" and "Dravidianist".
The term "Dravida" has been used in Sanskrit works to refer to the people of the South in general. At times, it was used to denote the Brahmins, as the term "Pancha Dravida" in Skanda Purana would indicate. Otherwise, it stood for all the residents of the South. It was a geographical - and not a racial or linguistic - term until the 19th century A.D. when the missionaries gave this term a new twist. "Dravidians" have always had a great culture, art and literature that can rival anyone else'. They were the ones who gave India the pithy philosophical couplets of TirukkuRaL on the one hand and the profound Bhakti literature on the other. The splendid dancing Nataraja statues would bear testimony to their aesthetic sensibilities. As a people, they valued simplicity, erudition and courage while facing adversity.
"Dravidianists", are the anti-thesis of "Dravidians", though they have capitalized on the latter for their political gains. They were founded and funded by the missionaries during the 19th century, <b>with the purpose of destroying Hinduism and India. Their ideology was one of hate and jingoism. Hate against Hinduism, Brahmins, North Indians, Vedas, Sanskrit and Hindi. Grapevine has it that "Dravidianists" were discouraged from attaining Upanishadic self realization - "Aham Brahmasmi" - for such a state leaves no second to hate</b>! A discussion of their politics would constitute a seperate discussion by itself and is beyond the scope of this article.
Initially, the "Dravidianists" were patronized by the missionaries, though during the 20th century they captured political power to further their ideology. <b>Writings of "Dravidianist scholars", though devoid of logic, facts and scholarship, was promoted with fan fare. Just like the Marxists hijacked the academic establishment during the Nehruvian era, the "Dravidianists" hijacked the educational institutions, under the tutelage of the missionaries, in Tamilnadu, from the end of the 19th century</b>. Even though their methods were barbaric, they called themselves scholars. Of course, it would be futile to search for scholarship in their works; you would be better off looking for an extra terrestrial at your nearest Pizza Hut.
One of the much touted "Dravidianist scholar" was MaRaimalai AdigaL, born VedAchalam. He spent the formative years of his career at <b>Madras Christian College, the breeding ground of anti-nationalism, anti- Brahminism and anti-Hinduism</b>. He would also write purport to several literary works, which included the Sangam classics. One of them was "MullaippAttu". Some of the lines of this poem would be:
"valipuNar yAkkai van kaN yavanar
pulittodar vitta punaimA NalliR
RirumaNi viLakkam kAttit tiNgnA
Nezhini vAkgkiya vIraRaip paLLiyu
Ludambi nuraikku muraiyA nAviR
padampugu milecchar uzhaiyarAga" (lines 61-66)
MaRaimalai AdigaL's purport for the same, loosely translated into English, was: "The able bodied Yavanas reside in a house lit up by an ornamental lamp; a curtain divides the room where they sleep while dumb mlecchas stand guard without."
Nothing wrong so far. MaRaimalai AdigaL could have stopped there; instead he decided to indulge in some "Dravidianist research". He went on to comment that the word "milecchar" in the song actually refers to the Aryans! One would need a bout of fantasy to justify such a comment and for sure MaRaimalai AdigaL had one. He went on to say that the Aryans were actually Turks who came from Balucchistan and invaded India. He claimed that hence they were called "Belucchis" from which word the Tamil word "Mileccha" arose! Of course, he didn't bother to explain by what linguistic rule the word "Belucchi" transformed into "Mileccha". Such an exercise was not a requirement in "Dravidianist scholarship". They firmly believed that all they had to do was to have an incredible fantasy. Once they had it, all that was left to be done was to repeat it often until it gains currency as fact. They certainly had the missionaries and later their own government in Tamilnadu to back them in their efforts.
Let us ignore the fact that "Mleccha" is a Sanskrit word. We also won't bother to inquire why MaRaimalai AdigaL equated the word "milecchar" in the poem with the Aryans, though there is no mention of Aryans at all in that context. Let us also not address the puzzle how the Aryans could have been Turks if they had come from
Balucchistan. For a "Dravidianist" every "stan" north of Tamilnadu is one and the same - a place from where the Aryans came and invaded India. It doesn't matter if the 2 "stans" in question are seperated by thousands of miles. For the sake of drawing simplistic inferences, they can be merged. Let us just concentrate on his fundamental claim.
For the word "Mileccha" to have originated from "Belucchi", by any sleight of hand, the word Balucchistan must have existed at the time the Aryans *supposedly* invaded India. We are talking of a period between 1900 B.C. and 1500 B.C. The region where Balucchistan stands today was known by several names then, but not by its present name. As we fast forward in history, the Persians too had known that place by a few names but not what we call it today. They called it "Maka". Even Alexander the Great (325 B.C.) had known it by the name "Maka" only, as the references to the journey across "Makran desert" would indicate. The first definitive use of the word "Balucchi" occurs in Firdausi's Persian epic "The Book of Kings", around 1000 A.D., where he says:
"Heroic Balucches and Kucches we saw
Like battling rams all determined on war."
It probably coincides with the time period when the Balucchis themselves had supposedly migrated from Iran to their present home. In any case, 1000 A.D. is a period posterior to Sangam classics and a word occurring in 1000 A.D. for the first time couldn't have been known to the Sangam authors. Even if one were to accept, for argument's sake, Herman Tieken's very late date of the Sangam classics, which he dates to the end of 8th century A.D., still 11th century A.D., when the word "Balucchi" first occurs, is too late a period for that word to have found its way into Sangam literature. MaRaimalai AdigaL passionately argues that the Sangam literature was composed in the pre-Christian era, which only makes it impossible that the word "Mileccha" found in the poem could have been derived from "Belucchi".
In case you thought that MaRaimalai AdigaL's writings were intended to provide comic relief, you are mistaken. The government of Tamilnadu not only subsidised his works, but also elevated him to the status of a Tamil saint-scholar! One can only hope that the days of the "Dravidianists" end and the glorious days of "Dravidians" return.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maraimalai Adikal aka Swamy Vedachalam also wrote a tract "Vellaalar Nagarigam" i.e. Civilization of Vellalas. Vellaalar refers to land owning non-Brahmin castes like Pillai, Mudaliyar, Nayakkar, etc.
Naturally, the usual villain in Maraimalai Adigal's schemes are brahmins, aryans and sanskrit. He has an honoured place in dravidian movement and his ideas made sure that Dravidian movement was the fiefdom of "upper-caste" non Brahmins and they were and still are anti-Harijans.<b> Maraimalai adigal also received lot of support from Adheenams i.e. religious mutts which have Saiva siddhanta as their inspiration. But many of these adheenams are as much tied to their particular caste as Kanchi Sankara mutt.</b>
That is why a new crop of dalit leaders in Tamilnadu reject 'dravidianism' as much as what they see as brahmin hegemony.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maraimalai adigal was the head of a saivite adheenam; The Justice party and the Dravidian movement stalwarts owed allegiience to Saiva siddhants mutts like Maraimalai Adigal. Even while taking the usual anti-Brahmin stand, MA could not brook any real or imaginary challenges to his sect. Or rather, any real or imagined slights to him was imagined as an attack on saivite religion. <b>When Self-respect movement was started by E.V.Ramasawmy naicker, a man with a Vaishnava family background, MA attacked Self-respect movement as a plot by Vaishnavites to undermine Tamils, whom he equated with Saiva Siddhanta saivites</b>.
This is what he said about EVR in 1928:
"Self-Respect movement is a plot by Vaishnavites to destroy Saivite religion. The leader of the Self-respect movement is a Vaishnavite (He means EVR). <b>He (EVR) and his brother have put the 'naamam' on innumerable, gullible Saivites and made them into Vaishnavites. His deputy is another Vaishnavite. There are a number of Vaishnavites in the Justice Party leadership. They are not only vaishnavites, but
also Telugu speaking </b>(so much for 'Dravidian consciousnes')
Namam is the Tamil word for thr vaishnavite marks on the forehead of white and red lines. Any sane person can see the utter stupidity of accusing EVR, an atheist, of using Self-respect movement to promote Vaishnavism.
June 1929, M.Balasubramania Mudaliyar, Editor "Siddhantam" organ of Saiva Siddhanta Mahasabha wrote:
"Tamilnadu knows that all the good points in the Self-respect movement are the alms given by the Father of Knowledge (Gnana Thanthai) Maraimalai Adigal due to his boundless Divine Grace ('Arul'). Those who recieve his alms and go for propoganda forget the Grace of the Father, their propaganda will be as useless as the rain falling on the sea"
Even while denouncing Self-respect movement alleging it was vaishnava plot, once it got some popularity he was keen to claim credit for it through his sycophants.
Translated from 'Thinnai' November 28, 1999 based on the book "Dravidian movement and Vellalas" by A.R.Venkatachalapathy<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ramana wrote
I think that the Dravidian movement was a precursor to the Christianisation of the South India.
---
The xtian game plan is first drive out brahmins and let temples decay and into this vacuum, jesus can be poured in
The kanchi acharya has been targeted since he was reviving rural hinduism
Anyone interested in hindu revival, please contact me by private email
PAN-AFRICANISM IN SOUTH ASIA
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The invading Aryans enforced the caste system on the Black population with a merciless and bigoted spiritual philosophy, having whites occupy the top echelons of society, mixed races in the middle and the mass of the conquered Blacks at the bottom, today known as Dalits and Dravidians. </b>The physical differences between the black-skinned Dravidian races of southern and eastern India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka and the Caucasoid Aryan races mainly comprising of upper caste Hindus and Sikhs is not the mere design of European colonialist historians, but a fact of human existence in the apartheid state of India. The indigenous people of the Indian Sub-Continent are the descendents of the Dravidian tribes that founded the celebrated Indus Valley civilization. Recent genetic evidence has confirmed what anthropologists have known all along, that the Dravidians, tribals, and lower caste Hindus belong to the greater African Diaspora. As affirmed in the pioneering mitochondria DNA studies published in Human Biology vol. 68 (1996) p.1, "The caste populations of Andhra Pradesh cluster more often with Africans than with Asians and Europeans". Additionally, another study performed by the Department of Medical Genetics in Umea University, Sweden discovered that "significant ethnic differences in single polymorphisms were found between all groups except for African Blacks-Dravidian Indians, who differed only in their MspI7-16-bp duplication haplotype distribution".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Repeat after me
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>
There is no such thing or race called Dravidian (there is no such race as Aryan either)</span>
<b>Dravidian is not the same as Tamil and Tamil is not the same as Dravidian</b>
Malayalees, Kannadigas and Andhras are proud of the connections to their language with Samskrtam and almost all Tamils that i know personally are too. Languages borrow heavily from one another and Tamil and Samskrtam are no exception.
It should be irrelevant to the tamil people whether we debunk Dravidianism for what it is a hoax perpetrated on the Indian people by the colonial overlord who had an agenda of his own to propagate.
I believe that the Dravidian movement must be seen in a certain contextual framework and I may not necessarily agree with everything that has been mentioned here.
Firstly we must note that the Indians faced something unprecedented with the dawn of the British Raj. In areas where they were prominent before the war of 1857, the indoctrination of covert Christian ideals and English superiority was underway for a while. After 1857 it basically spread all over the country. The Indians faced with this indoctrination reacted regionally in various ways. In Bengal we saw the internalization of Christian thought in the Brahmo movement. In the Panjabi belt we saw the rise of the Arya Samaj, a peculiar reaction to the British criticism of Hindu practices. In Maharashtra the Prarthana Samaj arose, which in some ways tried reformist practices parallel to Arya Samaj and Brahmo. The British at the same time were watching these reactions. They tacitly encouraged some like Brahmo that they saw as preparing the Indians for Brown Sahibdom and ultimate conversion to Christianity. In Bengal we have the tale of Mr Dutt who epitomizes the case of how a man softened by Brahmo become a Christian and migrates to England to be a Pucca Sahib (and his tragic tale of his remarkable daughter Toru Dutt who made a Malhotran U-turn back to the Hindu fold in very adverse conditions in her bried life is also of interest). The British also noted that the natural leaders of Hindu society, the Brahmins were organizing a variety of revivalist efforts and held tremendous influence over the native population. Like the Moslem tyrants who preceded them the Britons realized that the key to controling India was storming the "fortress of Brahminism". Thus encouraged anti-Brahminical reactions by planting missionary propagandists and by using the newly enforced ideas of Maculayian education for the "unwashed natives".
The result was a plethora of anti-Brahmin movements through out. For example, in Maharashtra, we saw Jyotiba Phule's Christian instigated anti-Brahmin movement, later leading to the largely anti-national Ambedkar movement. The British also de-contextualized brahminical law books and tried to deftly paint the image that the true cause of the ills of the Hindu society was the Brahmin and that the Britons were the liberators. Many brahmins too internalized this message and reacted in diverse ways. Some tried to rebutt the British charge while retain their conservative position- e.g. Tilak. Others tried to go in for reform and downplay the role caste in a new Hindu social system (E.g. the Brahminical supporters of the Arya Samaj). The British also encouraged atheism to dilute the bonds of Hindu dharma amongst the Indians. In Tamil Nad there was a special situation. The Tamil language with a distinctive history of its own was a very dominant force. The efforts of the Brahmin UV Svaminatha Iyer and some upper caste tamils was reviving the lost history Tamil's ancient literary past. These were generating something vague but still tangible as a Tamil identity.
The British saw an opportunity in it and introduced the idea of the Tamil as a culturally distinct Dravidian, who had been subjugated by the Aryan Brahmin (remember in the Tamil country the Brahmins still retained their old ethnonym derived from the Prakrit form of Arya). This became the rallying point for the local anti-Brahmin movement. Ambedkar's flawed belief of the non-distinct origin of the Aryans ironically prevented him from resorting to this line in his anti-Brahminical movement further north. Telugu, Kanada and Malayalam's direct and persistant Sanskrit influence also prevented these linguistic regions from buying into the British construct in its entirity. So the Anti-Brahminism was somewhat limited. The anti-Brahmin movements of Tamil Nad combined with the atheisitic movements also encouraged by the British and we saw the birth of the Dravidian movement and its first political incarnation the Justice party.
The nature of the Dravidian movement from inception was Anti-national in addition to anti-brahminical. So it was extensively aided by the British. Naicker had said that Aug 15th should be observed as a date of mourning. Karuna and Anna brought it more in line with the mainstream politics of the newly formed Indian nation and concentrated on their pet projects of anti-Brahminism, anti-Sanskrit and anti-Hindi. Those Tamils who on this forum have romantic feelings towards the Dravidian movement because it assailed their "pet hates" should pause and a give a thought to the fact that they have been made to hate their own culture and past by the British and continue to do so at their own expense long after the white man has departed.
To add, perhaps superfluously, to what has already been said by other folks earlier, the word originally, I believe, refers to geography rather than race or ethnicity. This tactic of dividing a people based on repetition of a made-to-order theory-turned-to-fact has been practised in other places outside India as well by the Brit. colonialists. I think the Tutsi-Hutu warfare in Rwanda has its early roots in some similar British concoction of an outside privileged race grabbing land/opportunities from the wronged original inhabitants.
<i>(incidentally, I am a distinct entity from Samudra_Gupta, in case there is any confusion by board-members on that account).</i>
Hi SamudraGupta.
Thanks , i was surprised. Pleasantly.
Any specific reason for this username ?
x-posting Ramana Garu's post ..
<!--QuoteBegin-Ramana+-->QUOTE(Ramana)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Op-Ed by Sandhya Jain, Pioneer,13 Dec., 2004....
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Brahmin and the HinduÂ
Sandhya Jain
As Swami Jayendra Saraswati stoically braves the onslaught of secular oppression unleashed by an unholy alliance of Government and media, it is clear that his tormentors have no case, have failed hopelessly in their nation-wide fishing expedition, but are nonetheless determined to keep him incarcerated. Nothing the judiciary has done so far gives ground for hope, so Swamigal's devotees may well prepare for a long eclipse of justice.
There is no legitimate cause to believe that the Kanchi Peetham's lawyers are not up to the mark, as was initially feared when bail did not materialise on the first day, as it should have. The Matham's meticulously drafted public statement, which appeared in select newspapers on 7 December 2004, reflects the professional skill of those engaged in defending the Swami. We must, therefore, take it in the spirit that the scales are tilted against us.
The Hindu-hating media has noted with satisfaction that adherents of Sanatan Dharma lack the terrorising talents of Abrahamic faiths, and we may concede this. We have tolerated blasphemies such as the Shankaracharya's "plans" to flee to Nepal, but we have not asked how the Snam Progetti employee who became a political embarrassment to Signora Sonia Gandhi successfully escaped from the capital in a most timely fashion.
Meanwhile, Brahmin-bashers have rushed to fish in troubled waters. It is being said that Ms Jayalalithaa ordered the action against the Shankaracharya because she needed to shed her pro-Brahmin image and curry favour with the Dravidian masses. It is being insinuated that the Brahmin community is an ogre that has been sucking the blood of the Hindu people for centuries. As the attempt to de-link the Hindu community from the Brahmin preceptor who preserved Dharma through a thousand years of oppression instantly reminds one of the mischief of the British Raj, it is worth scrutinising the language of its modern advocates.
The Aryan Invasion Theory, raison detre for the north-south divide, has been debunked internationally. Brahmin-bashing, however, is one of the corrosive legacies of the Raj that has not been challenged head-on. It is therefore instructive to ask if Brahmins truly monopolised all access to education in the pre-British era, and thus cornered all avenues of employment. What kind of access did non-Brahmin castes have to education in south India before the British liberated them (sic) from the stranglehold of Brahmin control?
Dharampal (The Beautiful Tree) has effectively debunked the myth that Dalits had no place in the indigenoullkkks system of education. Sir Thomas Munro, Governor of Madras, ordered a mammoth survey in June 1822, whereby the district collectors furnished the caste-wise division of students in four categories, viz., Brahmins, Vysyas (Vaishyas), Shoodras (Shudras) and other castes (broadly the modern scheduled castes). While the percentages of the different castes varied in each district, the results were revealing to the extent that they showed an impressive presence of the so-called lower castes in the school system.
Thus, in Vizagapatam, Brahmins and Vaishyas together accounted for 47 per cent of the students, Shudras comprised 21 per cent and the other castes (scheduled) were 20 per cent; the remaining 12 per cent were Muslims. In Tinnevelly, Brahmins were 21.8 per cent of the total number of students, Shudras were 31.2 per cent and other castes 38.4 per cent (by no means a low figure). In South Arcot, Shudras and other castes together comprised more than 84 per cent of the students!
In the realm of higher education as well, there were regional variations. Brahmins appear to have dominated in the Andhra and Tamil Nadu regions, but in the Malabar area, theology and law were Brahmin preserves, but astronomy and medicine were dominated by Shudras and other castes. Thus, of a total of 808 students in astronomy, only 78 were Brahmins, while 195 were Shudras and 510 belonged to the other castes (scheduled). In medicine, out of a total of 194 students, only 31 were Brahmins, 59 were Shudras and 100 belonged to the other castes. Even subjects like metaphysics and ethics that we generally associate with Brahmin supremacy, were dominated by the other castes (62) as opposed to merely 56 Brahmin students. It bears mentioning that this higher education was in the form of private tuition (or education at home), and to that extent also reflects the near equal economic power of the concerned groups.
As a concerned reader informed me, the "Survey of Indigenous Education in the Province of Bombay (1820-1830)" showed that Brahmins were only 30 per cent of the total students there. What is more, when William Adam surveyed Bengal and Bihar, he found that Brahmins and Kayasthas together comprised less than 40 per cent of the total students, and that forty castes like Tanti, Teli, Napit, Sadgop, Tamli, etc., were well represented in the student body. The Adam report mentions that in Burdwan district, while native schools had 674 students from the lowest thirty castes, the 13 missionary schools in the district together had only 86 students from those castes. Coming to teachers, Kayasthas triumphed with about 50 per cnet of the jobs and there were only six Chandal teachers; but Rajputs, Kshatriyas and Chattris (Khatris) together had only five teachers.
Even Dalit intellectuals have questioned what the British meant when they spoke of "education" and "learning". <b>DR Nagaraj, a leading Dalit leader of Karnataka, wrote that it was the British, particularly Lord Wellesley, who declared the Vedantic Hinduism of the Brahmins of Benares and Navadweep as "the standard Hinduism", because they realised that the vitality of the Hindu dharma of the lower castes was a threat to the empire.</b> Fort William College, founded by Wellesley in 1800, played a major role in investing Vedantic learning with a prominence it probably hadn't had for centuries. In the process, the cultural heritage of the lower castes was successfully marginalised, and this remains an enduring legacy of colonialism.
Examining Dharampal's "Indian science and technology in the eighteenth century," <b>Nagaraj observed that most of the native skills and technologies that perished as a result of British policies were those of the Dalit and artisan castes. </b>This effectively debunks the fiction of Hindu-hating secularists that the so-called lower castes made no contribution to India's cultural heritage and needed deliverance from wily Brahmins.
Indeed, given the desperate manner in which the British vilified the Brahmin, it is worth examining what so annoyed them. As early as 1871-72, Sir John Campbell objected to Brahmins facilitating upward mobility: "The Brahmans are always ready to receive all who will submit to them - <b>The process of manufacturing Rajputs from ambitious aborigines (tribals) goes on before our eyes."</b>
<b>Sir Alfred Lyall was unhappy that "more persons in India become every year Brahmanists than all the converts to all the other religions in India put together... these teachers address themselves to every one without distinction of caste or of creed; they preach to low-caste men and to the aboriginal tribes"; in fact, they succeed largely in those ranks of the population which would lean towards Christianity and Mohammedanism if they were not drawn into "Brahmanism". So much for the British public denunciation of the exclusion practiced by Brahmins!</b>
<b>Swami Jayendra Saraswati belonged to this league of Brahmin preceptor so hated by proselytisers. </b>He even rebelled against Paramacharya Chandrashekhar-endra Saraswati in order to serve the Dalits. He became vulnerable to the present conspiracy because of the liberal access he permitted to himself.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hauma,
In, TN DMK and DK had the covert support of C.Rajagopalachari (my relatives who were associated with him vouched for that, when they were alive). According to them Rajaji had a hatred of another congress ace Sathyamoorthy, whose protege was Kamaraj and hence Rajaji supported the DMK covertly. He was partially responsible for the demise of Congress in TN and the rise of DMK. Incidently EVR was seen crying (in his wheel chair) during the final rites of Rajaji and MK even made fun of him. According to my grandfather, EVR often looked up to Rajaji for advice, on a lot of issues.
Couple of points:
- The name Rahul Dravid proves that Dravida is not a race as claimed by Dravidianists.
- Our National Anthem referes to Dravida as a region and not race.
|
