SV: SV: SV: Kinship systems

V.C.Vijayaraghavan vijay at VOSSNET.CO.UK
Fri Oct 13 07:07:56 UTC 2000

From: "Swaminathan Madhuresan" <smadhuresan at YAHOO.COM>

> contemporary political debates aside, isn't this list
>  for the study of ancient india? In old times,
>  people called themselves dramidacharyas, and
>  pancha-dravida brahmanas. that area included even
>  gujarat.

Your points are valid. But I was not doing a "political debate", but getting
clarifications of the way a word viz ethnicity is used

Since it was claimed "Gonds are ethnic dravidians", it is not a statement of
ancient India, but today's. This statement assumes these propoitions :

1. Ethnic clasifications are valid for India
.2. There are ethnic groups in India
3. Ethnic groups are based on language "families"
3.Dravidian is one of those ethnic groups
4. Gonds are also dravidian.

I protest against all these propositions being taken as self-evident truths
. A little examination shows that none of these statements are valid. It is
an irrational urge to put ethnic labels on everybody in the world.

I agree about Pancha dravida and dramidacharyas.  (ancient India at last)
But they are not ethnic categories as it is understood in the west. Pacha
dravida sounds more like a Idangai and Valangai groupings. It is not anymore
"ethnic" than Idangai/Valangai. In any case Idangai/valngai has the merit of
being self-referrents and hence better candidates for ethnicity - and not
something imposed by "outsiders" to the system.

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list