SV: Rajaram's bull

nanda chandran vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM
Tue Aug 8 06:42:25 UTC 2000

>As a Portuguese member of the list I must say that we do, from the 5th
>on (10-11 years of age) we learn about the "autos de fé" (burnings) the
>injustice of inquisition  trials, the slave trade, the killing of whole
>cultures, the selling of indulgences by the catholic church (we are a
>catholic country) etc.. etc... on our school history books.

What the Portugese did is not possible to deny - It is in the records of
so many of the affected peoples as well as the Portugese themselves. Plus it
only happened within the last two centuries, so it is fresh in the memories
of many peoples, including the Portugese.

But this is not the case with the so called invasion by the Aryans. How
can ruins as old as four millenea act as solid fool proof evidence? Neither
the so called Aryans nor Dravidians remember any such thing, nor is it
clearly evident in their respective literatures. Given the nature of this
evidence, what make this theory valid enough to be taught in schools?

Recently there's been a huge furore about the absence of horses in the
IVC. If there was indeed a Dravidian civilization which was destroyed
in a war, how come there're no corpses of horses of the invading Aryans?
Are we to assume that in the battle no horses were killed? Early Tamil
literature attests to the warlike nature of the Tamils. Were they so
docile that they did not even kill one horse of the invading Aryans?

When the Haraappan script itself lies undeciphered on what basis is the
IVC portrayed as a Dravidian civilization? Also if IVC was indeed
destroyed by an invasion, how do we know that it was Aryans who were
responsible for that? How do we know that it was not another warlike
tribe from another part of Asia or Europe?

And why should the lack of horses be taken as an important factor
to negate the presence of Aryans in the IVC? How do we know horses were
always used in the Aryan society? Is it because horses are mentioned in
the Rg Veda? But why could it not be that Aryans lived in IVC but didn't
have horses initially and horses were later brought in by merchants from
Mesapotamia or other civilizations? And it was after this that the
horse acquired an important place in the Aryan society and it was only
then that the Rg Veda was composed. Why couldn't this have happened?

According to a report in a San Francisco newspaper which I read with
surprise some time back, Aryans came into India, overpowered the Dravidians,
took their women and property. If this was so how did Dravidians move down
South and establish their own kingdoms? Why did not the Aryan kings invade
them again and take over these kingdoms too? If Aryans were warlike why is
there a lack of interest on part of Aryan kings in countries outside
Aryavrta? If they were warlike why did they not attack the Persians and the
Chinese? If Aryans initially took women from the Dravidians, why did they
suddenly stop this practice on the grounds of purity of race? Where's the
logic in that, given
that from time immemorial, from the ancient Dharma Shaastrams to the present
day, Brahmins generally do not marry outside their society.

Some of the earliest of Tamil literature mentions
Brahmins and they're referred to only in their religious capacity. Plus
also what kind of evidence is there in Tamil literature regarding any
invasion? If an Aryan invasion did happen why did the Dravidians never
write about it? And where's there any evidence in Tamil literature
regarding a homeland for Tamils anywhere outside Tamil Nadu? Even today
Tamils talk of "Tamilagam" - Tamil Nation and "Tamizh munn" - Tamil
earth. So if they were originally from the north, why did they forget
their original homeland?

Again if the Aryans were warlike, how did they become docile as we see
Brahmins of late? Take the current blatant discrimination against
the Tamil Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, by the Dravidian movement which is a
prime example of facism. Contrary to the popular belief that Brahmins are
wealthy, many Brahmins were sunk in poverty and in the face of blatant
discrimination had a very tough time even surviving. In such circumstances
how many societies would keep quiet if they were deliberately deprived of
education or job opportunities. Did the Tamils keep quiet in Sri Lanka? On
the other hand what was the reaction of Tamil Brahmins - was there even one
single incident where Brahmins have reacted violently against the deliberate
discrimination against them? In contrast even a couple of weeks back a poor
Brahmin gurukkal was assaulted by thugs of the Dravidar Kazhagam in Mylapore
in Chennai. Does this fit the picture of aggressive Aryans and docile,
cultured Dravidians?

How many of these questions can be answered with solid, irrefutable
evidence? Where is the "truth" here which Dr.Rajesh Kochar seems
to see? When the incident seperates us by four millenea and there's
little hard evidence, what's the necessity for such speculation? When
there's so much left unanswered, what warrants the interpretation of
Indian history the way it is? Why is the invasion theory taken as the
holy grail and taught in schools? Why should a positive interpretation
of history favorable to the people of India not be done?
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list