No Aryan – Dravidian divide. It was one Aryavartha (20)
The water-war has begun in
The claim over cauvery by the two peoples is only a logical conclusion
of what would happen if history is forgotten or mutilated
and allowed to be misused for self interests.
One must remember that until the
the south comprising of Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Kerala was a single unit.
It had been so, for centuries - spread through nearly 5 millennia.
There is enough evidence to this textually and by means of inscriptions.
Culture or civilization as it exists along a waterway is the same
throughout the course of the waterway.
A testimony to this is found in Indus-Saraswathy basin.
The 2000 + archaeological excavations exhibit a similar culture.
Similarly, the civilization along the Cauvery exhibited
and must exhibit a self-same culture.
It was so – until the river course was fragmented into States on linguistic basis.
The worst crime of Post Independence era is to have divided on linguistic lines,
a culture that was unitary in all respects.
It may be argued that disputes over Cauvery existed even in olden times.
There is on record of a war by Chola king RajaRajendra II
when the Hoysala king of
from entering the Cholan territory.
The struggle is about who has more right / or any right at all on the river –
those in the up stream / origin of the river
or those in the lower basin.
This is based on the ownership of the land where the river passes through.
When the entire river basin belonged to a single country or community or culture,
the fight on waters will be absent.
But when division comes in terms of ownership,
then the story is different.
If one were to go by ownership theory,
then the entire Cauvery must belong to Tamils.
Because the river was brought out by a Tamil king!
From the inscriptions on copper plates
unearthed about a century ago in a place called Thiruvaalankaadu,
it is known that the Cholan King by name Chithradhanvan,
desirous of matching Bhageeratha’s feat of having brought the
brought down the river called Kaverikanyaka to his land.
Verse 35 of the inscription says,
“ Having come to know that king Bhagiratha engrossed in penance brought down
(from heaven) the river of gods (i.e.,
brought her (i.e.,
under the name Kaverakanyaka (i.e., Kaveri).”
The Cauvery is only a spring at her source and immediately after springing
she enters the ground and travels underground for nearly 3 kilometers.
She emerges later and it appears from the description in the inscription that
her course was made by human efforts – by the efforts of the Cholan king.
It is known further that this happened in Tretha yuga.
By ownership rights, the Chola is the father of Cauvery
and Tamils, the rightful owners of cauvery.
But is it right to claim like this?
Is this how we say of the
Similarly Cauvery is for all in her course of flow.
The inscriptions not only throw cold water on the chauvinistic claims over the river,
but also shatters the myth of Dravida.
The Tamils have absolutely no right to call themselves as Dravidian, as
all the three kings of Tamil lands had their origins in the so-called Aryan heartland.
The Choals were descendants of Ikshvaku dynasty
and proudly called themselves as belonging to solar dynasty.
Their lineage as found in the inscriptions was the same
until Mandhatha, after whom the deviation occurs.
The lineage had Sibi, Dushyantha and his son Bharatha.
in whose name this country came to be known as Bharatha varsha.
The son of Bharatha was Cholavarman
who came to rule the land
that is now Tamil nadu.
The 5th descendant after him was Chitradhanvan who brought Cauvery from uphills.
(Details of the lineage and Chitradhanvan bringing down Cauvery can be read in the following link.)
There are many verses in PurananUru too
that testify that Cholas descended from Sibi of Solar dynasty.
The Pandyans also had their roots at none other than the lineage of Goddess Parvathy!
The Pandyans of very ancient times – perhaps before they lost their lands to sea,
were known as Panchavas and Gowrias – implying that they came in the lineage of
Paarvathi, known as Gowri and PanchapaaNi.
There is textual proof to this too.
The Cherans were the descendants of none other than the avatar Parashurama!
The early Cherans were known this way and again there is evidence to this
Then what is there of Dravidians?
Nothing but what has existed in the imagination of some foreign translators
and politicians of Tamilnadu who care less to read the history of this land.
But here lies one unanswered question.
The Chearn land became Kerala later.
The Tamils are in other two lands (of Pandyan and Cholas)
Then where do the Kannadigas fit in?
From where did they come or
where were they in all the 1000s of years of history
as revealed by Tamil literature?
This is a question that explains what actually constituted Dravida,
a land forming a semi-circle around the Tamil lands of three kings,
starting from Dharmapuri in Tamil nadu and stretching till
and going southwards along the eastern slopes of westen ghats till Podhigai,
on the west of
There is evidence in scriptures and inscriptions
that a section of population of Dwaraka
was brought by sage Agasthya to the south
who had them settled in the stretch mentioned above.
They came to be known as VeLirs – 18 royals belonging to the lineage of
They were never accepted by the three Tamil kings,
but were praised by the literary fraternity
who found them to be too kind and philanthropic.
They took their place in Tamil literature as the last of 7 philanthropists
“Kadai- yezhu vaLlalgaL”.
One of the Velirs founded the Hoysala dynasty,
as known from Kapila’s verse in PuranaanUru.
The Velirs came to occupy the upper basins of Cauvery
and were never at peace with Tamil kings.
The war on waters was also a war on these immigrants
in those times.
More on this in the next post.
(to be continued)