Monday, June 29, 2009

No Aryan and no Dravidian either!

One of the themes I keep bringing out in this blog is that there is no Aryan Invasion. If there is no Aryan invasion, it also precludes that there is no Dravidian division. Though the present intellectual debates are concentrated on disproving Aryan Invasion and also that Aryan is not a race, not much is happening to find out whether any identity as Dravida did exist. In the early posts of this blog, I did try to bring out the sources to denounce the Dravidan myth. Due to preoccupations and multiple interests – particularly astrology taking most of my time, I am not writing more on 'no-dravida' issue to my satisfaction. I hope to revive the posts on that topic later this year.

For this post, I found the article by Dr NS Rajaram published in the following link quite convincing.


Just the introduction part of it is produced at the end of this article and the rest can be read in the link.

For my part, I want to add a few information.


The word Arya or Arya puthra is not confined to human beings. Any entity that exhibits nobility is Arya. In Valmiki Ramayana, Tara addresses Vaali at the verge of death as 'Arya putra'.


"uptaa iva punar utthaaya aarya putra iti vaadinii |
ruroda saa patim dR^iSTvaa samviitam mR^ityu daamabhiH ||" 4-19-27


Meaning:- "On getting up as though reawakened from sleep she saw her husband bound fast by the strings of death, and then she wailingly addressed him as, "oh, nobleman's son...""


Aryam is found in bhagawad Gita.

If a person fails to rise to the occasion as deemed necessary, then he is losing his 'Aaryam'. Krishna says so in Bhagawad Gita. When Arjuna threw down his bow saying that he could not fight against his relatives, the first words of Krishna is that what spoke was "kashmalam" (dirty) and poisonous.

Was refusing to fight one's relatives dirty and poisonous?


Arjuna was running away from the duty. One should not run away from one's duty come whatever be his personal opinion about it. Such a dereliction of duty due to personal reasons is 'an- aaryam', says Krishna. He says what Arjuna did by refusal, amounts to 'non- aryanism'! It will be considered as "anaaryam" (non-aryan or ignoble), "aswargyam" (can not take him to the heavens) and "akeerthi" (non glorious).



This land of Bharata varsha was known as Arya vartha.

Vartha means that which is existent, which subsists or just 'being'.

Arya vartha is that place where Aryanism exists.

There is no difference that it existed only in one part of Arya vartha and not in another part of Aryavartha. The general culture of this country was that everyone was trying to excel each other in Aryanism.

That is why we have a vanara king considered as "arya putra".

Vaali's father also was an Arya.



This understanding about this country as of Aryan nature was prevalent until Bharathiyaar's times.

He calls this country as Aryan country only.

The famous Tamizh vaazhtthu "vaazhiya senthamizh" sung in most music concerts, continues further (which is not usually sung) talking about this country as Aryan country. Thus until a century ago the inhabitants of this country, particularly Tamilnadu considered this entire country as Arya-naadu.

When everything was Aryan, there was no talk of Dravidian. That was picked up by EVR and his cronies from the British invention of Aryan- Dravidian divide.


In fact the early mention of 'Dramila' is from Adhi Shankara. In Soundarya Lahiri verse 75, he calls himself as "Dramila Sishu" (the child of Dramila). Dramila means dra + mila. Dra or Dravati means to run. Mila means to join. Dramila means those who have run away to join or meet someone. In the absence of Aryan invasion or Aryan victory over Dravidians to drive them to south, scholars must start working on what was meant by this Dramila.

In some editions of Soundarya lahiri it is given as "Damila sishu". It is Dau +mila. Dau means 'cut off'." Damila means who have been cut off and ran away.

It must be borne in mind that no mean person is saying that he is a Dramila. Adhi shamkara himself says that he is a Dramila.

Does it mean he ran away from some place to be known for ever as Dramila?

Will a person of Shankara's stature take pride in calling himself as Dramila (the run away person) unless it comes with some dignity?

If we think in these lines, we will realize that some migration has indeed taken place in the past on their own volition. A Nambhoothiri Brahmain, calling himself as this shows that it was common term to refer to certain people who have runaway.

If we look at our ancient texts, we get an idea of who these people were.

I have written about this in many post before such as

Migration from Dwaraka to Tamilnadu.

Genetic studies - Dravidas and Kashmiri Pandits share a common ancestor.

Paari of Parambu hills and Paari (caste) of Kashmir – Are they same?

Tretha yuga in the Cholan inscriptions.


At the end of Kali yuga, when seas arose in many places around the world, Dwaraka was also gobbled by seas. People were leaving the country. Mahabharata speaks about a group headed by Arjuna moving northward along a river. They had settled all along the rive banks while the rest of them reached Himalayas (Kashmir). The remnants of that civilization are now regarded as Harappan civilization. The dating of this civilization is Post- Mahabharatha, strengthening the notion that the people were indeed the descendants of Dwaraka people. That is why we find a lot of resemblance of Harappan culture with a Vedism and conches – the specialty of Krishna and unique for the people of dwaraka who were said to carry the Conch symbol with them.

There was another group that was cut off from the people fleeing the chasing sea waters.

This group was headed by sage Agasthya who brought then to Tamilnadu. We find mention of this information in Nacchinaarkkiniyaar's commentary which has been quoted in the above mentioned posts in this blog. We have the information in 2 sources in Tamil, one in the Paayira-urai of Tholkaappiyam and the other in the urai for the 32nd sutra of the AgatthiNai iyal.

In the commentary on Paayiram of Thol kaapiyam, Nacchinaarkkiniyar says,

"Agatthiyanaar ..Thuvaraa-pathi pOndu,

nilam kadantha nedu-mudi aNNal vazhi-k-kaN arasar padhiNmaraiyum,

padhiNeNkudi VeLiruttaraiyum,

AruvaaLaraiyum kondu pOndu,

kaadu kedutthui naadaakki.."


(Agasthya went to Dwarkapathi and brought back with him

18 kings of the lineage of Krishna who measured the land (as Thrivikrama),

18 families of Velirs and AruvaaLars and

had them settled in the lands by clearing the forest tracts)

The same information is told by Nacchinaarkiniyar in his commentary

for the 32 nd sutra of AgatthiNai-iyal,

"Malaya Madhavan nilam kadantha nedumudi Annalaluzhai

nara-pathiyaarudan kONarntha

padhiNeN vagai kudi-p-pirandha VeLirkkum.."

(the kings born in the family of Krishna and along with them

VeLirs born in 18 families (kudi) were brought)


That was the time when deluge engulfed Pandyan land that had Kapatapuram as its capital. The Pandyan king with his subjects moved northward and reached the place what is Tamilnadu today. Udhiyan Cheralaathan's kingdom was spread from east seas to west seas at this area then. We deduce this from Purananuru. His descendant must been ruling then. He was dislodged and sent to the west. Agasthya seems to have played a pivotal role in organizing the land and people who are displaced.

 In the AgatthiNai-iyal urai (mentioned above), the formation of Mullai is mentioned. The 5 land formations were made during this time. The people merged with the local population. The Velir kings who came from Dwaraka were always seen with contempt by the Tamil kings. The descendants of these migrants were called by their counterparts in Kashmir as "dravida" ( run away people). The first earliest mention of Dravida is seen in Kashmiri Raja Tarangini of the 6th century AD. But the Migrants in the South called themselves as Dramila or Damila. The Nambhoothiri  Brahmins were migrants from Dwaraka.

I request the interested readers to read my posts on Mangalya dharanam on the role of Nambhoothiri Brahmins in Mangalya practices. They had connection with others throughout the stretch of eastern parts of Western ghats until Gujarat.

- jayasree


Aryan Invasion — History or Politics?

By Dr. N.S. Rajaram

Speaking of the Aryan invasion theory, it would probably be an oversimplification to say: "Germans invented it, British used it," but not by much. The concept of the Aryans as a race and the associated idea of the 'Aryan nation' were very much a part of the ideology of German nationalism. For reasons known only to them, Indian educational authorities have continued to propagate this obsolete fiction that degrades and divides her people. They have allowed their political biases and career interests to take precedence over the education of children. They continue to propagate a version that has no scientific basis.

Before getting to the role played by German nationalism, it is useful first to take a brief look at what the word Arya does mean. After Hitler and the Nazi atrocities, most people, especially Europeans, are understandably reluctant to be reminded of the word. But that was a European crime; Indians had no part in it. The real Aryans have lived in India for thousands of years without committing anything remotely resembling the Nazi horrors. So there is no need to be diffident in examining the origins of the European misuse of the word. In any event, history demands it.

The first point to note is that the idea of the Aryans as foreigners who invaded India and destroyed the existing Harappan Civilization is a modern European invention; it receives no support whatsoever from Indian records - literary or archaeological. The same is true of the notion of the Aryans as a race; it finds no support in Indian literature or tradition.

Rest of the article in




Anonymous said...

Very Interesting inference. Also the interpretation of 'Dramila Sisu' relects your 'out-of-the-box' thought process.

Re. Namboodiri brahmin origin, a lot of theories have been put forth. Sri Kanchi Paramarcharya Sankaracharya Svamikal has relied on Keraliya Mahatmyam to infer that brahmans from Chola Desam were settled first in the new land (retrieved from the sea). Since the climatic conditions were not hospitable, many families choose to return back to Chola country without inform Sri Parasurama Bhagavan (ran away?). Subsequently he settled Brahmans from the Telegu & Kannada regions (and that also explains the origin of the 'house-names' ILLAM (Telegu) & MANA (Kannada) by which the families of Namboodiris are identified ever since.
The word for house used by Chola (Tamil) Brahmans is 'Akam' or 'Aham' (colloquially used as 'Aam').

Below are the links where you can find the story as quoted by Sri Paramacharya Svamikal (in Tamil):

Interestingly the third link mentions that Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada's family were among the few from the Chola country who chose to stay back (so were these remaining families called as 'Dramila since the rest of the Chola-brahman families who 'ran way'?)

Sorry if I digressed from the original intent of your article.

jayasree said...

Thanks for the feed back. It is thought provoking.
I will write later with more authentication form Tamil texts. I want to mention one thing here. The local migration tracing back to Parashurama is older than the migration form Dwaraka I mentioned. Parashurama far pre-dates the many chola kings mentioned in sangam texts.

The Dramila must have come into existence post Mahabharata when Kashmir to Tamil land connection among separated families must have existed. Prior to that the land was far stretched to the south of today's kanyakumari. The Aryavartha was thus stretched far down. Brahimins had existed there and Vedism had existed there. The verses in praise of a Pandyan king (Purananuru)Mudu kudumi peru vazguthi who was known with a title "Pal yaaga shaalai" were about the older Tamil land that had river PahruLi flowing. Kapatapuram was its capital. The verses on this king reveal the vedic life that existed then and the homas done by Brahmins. So I dont exactly buy the argument that vedic brahmins came from the North. They were there everywhere in Arya vartha doing their varnashrama dharma. Some migrations might have happened due to local reasons - as you have said. But migration after Dwaraka-deluge is huge enough in that people from different varnas and status had migrated. The kings too had migrated. Kapilar's verse in Pura nanuru tells about the king IrungoVel whom he says was the 49th king in the lineage of Dhrusdhyumna.
Thus many cross references are there in Tamil texts.
My understanding is that Brahmins had exited throughout Aryavartha, including the Tamil lands. But the Drmila question is something different. On the Dramila issue, we can not say that all Nambhoothiris were from dwaraka.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the info.

jayasree said...

A correction to "My understanding is that Brahmins had exited throughout Aryavartha, including the Tamil lands."

It is 'existed'
"My understanding is that Brahmins had existed throughout Aryavartha, including the Tamil lands."

Tejaswini Vemburia said...

Please go through k.p.ramakrishna rao's where the issue has been analysed and completely shattered and smashed Aryo - Dravidian theory

jayasree said...

A detailed series on this topic is being done by me in my Tamil blog
using internal evidence from Ithihasas and Tamil texts.