Dravidian Cryptography:The responsibility

[Mariana Caixeiro]

Dear members of the Indology List,
Two questions which have been aked of me need to be answered: (1): How can
anyone who calls himself a scholar, can doubt in the same posting on this
List, the very existence of something (he called Dravidian Cryptography may
be "conjectures and coincidences"), and then in the same breath utter "(if it
is there) is exclusively Tamilian"? (another Dravidian scholar posted saying
that it is there in onomatopoeic words, but not common in Tamil).(2): If I
published these findings before, why have they not been known to the scholars
since their publication?
The first question here, I am afraid, is misdirected. The answer must come
from the one who made those remarks. Regarding the second question: I have
noted previously that my earlier work :The Sumerians: Their Identity and the
Evidence for it" in two volumes, even though registered with the Copyright
office, and their copies housed in the Library of Congress, was essentially a
desktop publication, published with the intention that I was going to use the
material in them to write other works. I could not get to this task right
away, for two reasons: when I sent copies of these volumes to certain
so-called authorities in the subjects (Sumerian and Dravidian) it was like
dropping a stone in a deep hole. There was not even the sound of it hitting
anything at the bottom. But then, I just sent them and have the postal proof
of having done so by Registered Mail, but did not contact them and persue the
matter. I thought they were supposed to at least acknowledge, even if, as a
matter of common courtesy.
Because of this discouragement as well as due to the fact that I had to put
food on the table and such other things, I did not persue writing deriving
material from this work. But it was always on my mind, and I was constantly
gathering more and more evidence. When I did get to work, the result was "The
Best Kept Secret of Dravidian," the offspring of which is the work on the
Internet. When I was about to publish the former work, it occured to me that
the same fate might befall this work also, (as what had happened to 'The
Sumerians'). Since  the discovery was too significant to be not known to a
number of scholars, I decided to put it on the Internet. I had to make lot of
changes mainly beacause it was not going to be on paper, and I had to hold
much new material back to keep the length short. One of the other reasons to
publish this on the Internet was that, I had come to have a rather negative
opinion about the existence of true scholarship in the world, for there was
no response, negative or positive, when I mailed the copies of 'The
Sumerians' to the concerned scholars. I gained the impression that these
scholars, if they have read all the contents of 'The Sumerians,' for some
reason, either do not like what they see there, or are under the impression
that it will go away if they ignore it or pretend like they have not seen it.
I might be wrong on both counts, but that is the impression I got. This
impression was substantiated when after I had given the manuscript of 'The
Best Kept Secret' to one of the linguists (who teaches Tamil) in an
University, it was kept for about two months, and when I went back to ask for
an opinion, I found out that, perhaps, it was not read at all. One of the
reasons why I did not go directly to and insist upon the Dravidian scholars
about my findings, can be seen by a ceratin scholar's disposition to first
doubt the existence and operation of the linguistic phenomenon of inversion
and substitution when the evidence is placed in front of the world, then,
second: to claim it exclusively for a certain Dravidian language, before
going and examining more than the two dozen Dravidian languages to base his
conclusion upon. I am also of the impression, and it is only my impression,
that there is a tendency among the Indian scholars in general and the
Dravidian scholars in particular, (particularly those who want to go and work
in a Wester University) that the Western scholar will not like it or will not
consider if something great is discovered or said about the Indian and/or the
Dravidian phenomenon. I would be glad if I am wrong on this, but it is my
impression. I personally is of the opinion, that a scholar is a scholar no
matter whether he belongs to the Western or Eastern World. This is why we
have the contributions of such scholars as Hinks,  Oppert, Sir William Jones,
Revs. Kittel, Caldwell, Rice, Sir Ralph Turner, Burrow, Emeneaun and others
like them; some of them not linguists, archaeologists, or historians in the
traditional sense. They took the responsibility immediately without being
invited or assigned. I still beleive that there are scholars in the world who
take on the responsibility of scholarship whether they are invited to take it
or assigned. Now that the findings concerning the Dravidian phenomenon of
inversion and substitution are in front of the world, no one can say that
they remained obscure and out of view. I have fulfilled my responsibility
under the most strenous circumstances. I can not be blamed for not having
published them widely, this time. Besides, the results of the operation of
this phenomenon will live as long as the last words of the last Dravidian;
the knowledge about their significance will not go away, even if ignored,
this time. Best regards.
V. Keerthi Kumar  ( http://www.mninter.net/~kumar/ );  email:
 dkumar6248 at aol.com



I blamed myself partly, that is why I took Dominik's jest seriously