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.

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/aryan-invasion-history.html

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?

No.

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 32^nd 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 6^th 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