Aryans and Dravidians

[R.Mayer at ukc.ac.uk]

Related to the Aryan invasion theory of Maz Mueller and co
is the idea that Indian religions can be sensibly divided
into "Aryan" and "Non-Aryan" strata; the most persistent
product of this outlook is the idea that Tantra is derived
from a "non-aryan substratum" and Vaidika religions is
derived from the Aryan strata. To my mind, there are serious
problems with this theory; I support the views of Madeleine
Biardeau and Alexis Sanderson that this is sociologically
improbable, not to mention textually disproven. Why is the
Atharvaveda not accepted as Aryan by the "non-Aryan" theorists?
Surely this is moving the goalposts a little! And tantra is
emically an heir to the AV, and etically can be seen to,
indeed, share many of its categories and many of its
social niches. 
As a Tibetanist rather than an Indologist, I would dearly
love to know what proportion of Indologists subscribe
to the "non-Aryan" theory of Tantric origins, and what proportion
follow Sanderson, Gombrich, Biardeau et. al. In my field,
it is safe to say thar 99% of scholars of Tibetan tantra
follow the "non-aryan" view of Tantric origins, so I am
interested to understand the prevailing view among
the actual professionals in the field.
To reinforce the critique of the "non-aryan" theory,
we can see that the classic defining vrata of Tantrism,
the kaapaalikavrata, is derived from the Dharmashaastras,
and Tantric transgressions are an inversion of Brahmanic
rules of purity. Likewise, the early Pashupata Suutras
are limited to twice-born males etc. None of this looks
"non-aryan" to me!
Feedback from Indologists on this issue would be very welcome
to this Tibetanist.
Rob Mayer
Research Fellow
Theology & Religious Studies
University of Kent at Canterbury
U.K.