Karunanidhi is back with a bang. These days noone listens to him on any issue on which he airs his opinion. He has almost become a museum item. Perhaps to attract attention to himself or to divert attention from the troubles in his party and family, he reverted back to his once pet theme of Dravida naadu . His Brahmin baiting continues as usual and would never get weaned as long as Jayalalithaa continues to be a force to reckon with in his political game.
The best judgment of Karunanidhi's forays into Dravidian talks has come from none other the one who occupied the apex position in Tamil Research studies. It was Prof Noboru Karashima who said that the Dravidian movement has an anti-intellectual tendency. (1). The world has seen a lot of development since the days of Caldwell and Max Muller. With the development of multi disciplinary and cross disciplinary approach, it has been shown that Dravida and Arya are not races. The huge corpus of Tamil literature also does not identify the Tamils as Dravidas. But Karunanidhi does not seem to know these developments and continues to live in his own world without realizing that such talks would never receive respect among the intellectuals and scholars. What he wants is that the people must nod like cattle at whatever he says and that they must glorify him.
The irony of it is that, with all his hatred for Sanskrit he keeps sticking to a Sanskrit word for the identity of Tamils. While Thamizh (தமிழ்) is a pure Tamil word, Dravida is a Sanskrit word. Tamil means nectar (madhu) or sweetness where as Dravida means 'running away'. From the root words 'dra' or 'drau' which means running, the word Dravida is derived. This word indeed refers to the people who have run away – from fighting in the battlefield. Can Karunanidhi say that any Tamil king ran away from the battle field? Is there any mention in any Tamil texts of a king or any Tamil of having run away from the battle field or abandoned the war? Could anyone have told the ancient Tamil kings on their face that they had run away from the battle and therefore got a name "Dravida"? If a person had said so to a Tamil King, would he not be beheaded the next moment? Such was the strong sentiment of the Tamils and Tamil kings on valour (வீரம்) exhibited in the war front.
Without realizing what he is talking and what Dravida means, Karunanidhi has made a laughable talk that the "Dravidians have the tradition of defeating the suppressers and it will be repeated too," (2) Dravidians were called so because they had run away. By calling Tamils as Dravidians he is doing an injustice to the valour of Tamils as exposed in Sangam texts.
To know about the meaning and origin of the word Dravida, one must go to Manu Smruthi which defines the names of many people. Of them Dravida is one. Dravida is the name given to persons born in the 7th generation and thereafter of a Kshatriya(3)
Manu smruthi says that Dravida is the 7th generation person of the Kshatriya lineage that has given up fighting and has become mute. To understand this we must know who a Kshatriya is. A Kshatriya (one having warrior tendency) is one who has the urge to fight or harm others in the course of which he does not bother to harm himself and bear physical injuries. The person having this tendency by nature is a Kshatriya and will be fit to join army or in the protection of people or land. Karunanidhi must recall that sangam texts talk about kings who had a natural death and not died of battle wounds, would have their body cut by the sword before cremation. Their anxiety was such that they wanted to live as a kshatriya and die as a kshatriya. But a Dravida was not such a person. He might have come in the lineage of Kashtriyas but he would have failed to live and die like a kshatriya.
If for some reason a person is not showing these tendencies either by nature or due to renouncing the job which he is expected to do, it is said his off-spring also will not show up such a tendency to the fullest extent. If he too gives up warrior-hood, his off-spring would show much less interest and capability in warring instincts. Like this, the tendency gets depleted in 7 generations. People of the 7th generation of that lineage was called Dravida and he would not possess any valour and vigour to fight.
The names of 7 generations are,
Ghalla,
Malla
Likkhivi,
Nata
Karana
Khasa
Dravida.
From the 7th generation onwards these people would be totally different from the 1 st generation warrior and hence completely become scared to fight.
India has seen warriors having become Dravidas in the past. The Mahabharata mentions the word "Dravida" for 13 times. In one place it confirms Manu smruthi definition of Dravida. It says some people became the Dravidas because they gave up Kshatriya-hood for fear of Parasurama.(4).
Kartaviryarjuna of Haihaya dynasty ruling from Mahishmathi on the banks of Narmada river had killed Jamadagni, the father of Parasurama. Parasurama killed Kartaviryarjuna and attacked other Kshatriyas for 21 times, as a revenge for the death of his father. Unable to bear the attack of Parasurama, most kings and warriors living in the north of Vindhyas (North India of today) fled and lived as ordinary persons by not taking up arms. In course of time they forgot their valour and came to be known as Dravidas.
The point is that none of the Dravidas came to Tamilnadu. They spread in North India and even went as far as Central Europe. The research on Dravida takes us to unravel many unknown facts of history, but this man (Karunanidhi) is diverting the attention of people from real and serious research. For instance Mahabharata also talks about Dravidas as mlechhas (Non vedic people) who lived outside Bharat in the North west. There is evidence to say that those who fled Parasurama's fury went to a place called as Georgia today. This country is neighbored by Turkey, Russia and Black sea. The ethnic stories of Georgia tell about their first people as "Kartvelebi" originating from "Kartlos" and speaking a language called "Kartuli". All these sound similar to Kartavirya who was killed by Parasurama. The survivors of his clan must have fled and gone as far as Georgia. This is supported by many other names appearing in Georgia.
Georgia was originally called as Gujaristhan or Gorjesthan (5). This is related to the names Gurjars or Gujjars who were many and wide spread in north India and in whose name we have a state called Gujarat. The Haihayas at the time of Parasurama were also many in number as different groups and one among them seemed to have gone to central Europe and founded Gorjesthan which became Georgia in course of time.
This is supported by the prevalence of names of places in Georgia as Gurjarni, Gujari Pil, Gujreti etc. The spillover of people with this name is seen in adjoining areas of Iran where there are places called Jurja, Jurjar, Gurjar and Jesur which is an Arabic name for Gurj. Samarqand has Chapak Gujar, and Chusak Gujar. Places called Gujar-i-Pam, Gujar-i-Dam, Gurjistan and Gujar-i-Hisar are found in Afghanistan whereas a stream by the name Gujari flows in Balauchistan. In Pakistan also Gujarat, Gujar Khan, Gujaranwala etc have been named after Gujjars only. (6)
Thus we find a spread of people in North west India going upto Georgia. The Dravidas mentioned as mlechas by Mahabharata lived in places as far as Caspian sea near river Amudarya.
They must have been the people who had fled the battlefield from Bharat. We have to think about the situation in those days. The kings of the countries of Bharat were on war with each other on many times in the past, just for the sake of establishing their kshatriya supremacy. Even the three kings of Tamilnadu were not at peace with each other. Their idea of Kshatriya hood was never to rest until all the surrounding lands are brought under their control. This idea was prevalent throughout Bharat. This throws up a situation when many kings and warriors had to take shelter in places outside Bharat and continue their life. Pahlavas, Madras,Yavanas, Pundras, Daradas etc were some people who formed their own kingdoms outside Bhar
There were people who fled from the war scene and lived as non khstriyas within Bharat itself. Mahabharata gives us the list of the people who escaped from Parasurama and lived secret lives – with some of them becoming Dravida after 7 generations and some coming back to rule their countries after the fear of Parasurama died down (7)
From the narration in Mahabharata it is seen that none of them had any connection with Tamil nadu or Tamil people. Moreover the threat from Parasurama was confined to North India and there is no record of a Tamil king having faced the wrath of Parasurama. This also means that there was no case of any Tamil or Tamil king facing a situation of giving up kshatriyahood and become a Dravida. None from the then Tamil lands were challenged by Parasurama.
In Mahabharat war, Dravidas have fought on both the sides. But their names as Dravidas appear as separate entities from Tamil kings, that is, they are mentioned along with other kings including Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas and not as a substitute for these Tamil Kings. (8)
There is absolutely no mention of a Dravida having run away and taken a living in Tamil lands.
There were Dravidas who settled outside Bharat but were in interaction with kings of Bharat. Though they were degraded kshatriyas, they have developed fighting prowess in course of time. There even existed a Dravida king in 2nd century BC – not in Tamil lands but in Ujjain. He wrote a Sanskrit drama named "Mricchakatika" which was very popular for many centuries. This king's original name was Indrani Gupta but he took up a pen name "Shudraka"!! That is, he has called himself as a Shudra and had no qualms about it. No one despised him for that. We come to know from the foreword to the commentary to this drama written by Prithvidhara that this author of Mricchakatika was an Abhira and a chandala who was the "Dravida Raja"!!
Abhiras were also degraded kshatriyas who changed their life style due to fear of Parasurama. Further degradation made them be called as Shudras! There was a place called Shudra in North India according to Mahabharata. Places called Abhiras and Shudra were there where the river Sarasvati once flowed. These Shudras had no connection with Tamilnadu. But the Shudras had their own kingdom and there were Shudra kings ruling them. This confirms the view that there was no separate varna called shudra. Satapada Brahmana and Taittriyam tell about only 3 varnas. All the people were categorized within these three. But when they slipped from the varna characteristics, those who slipped from Kshatriyahood came to be called as Shudras later. The author of Mricchakatika came in the lineage of a degraded Abhira – Shudra. However this king had a kingdom for himself and ruled it thereby getting a name Dravida Raja! This shows that status and opportunities were available to everyone and it was possible for one to even rule a kingdom though his lineage had lost the fighting spirit sometime in the past.
Apart from these, we come across some individuals connected to Dravidian identify. Interestingly they were all Brahmins.
Adhi Shankara called himself as "Dravida sisu". (9)
Raja Tarangini, the 11th century book on Kashmiri Kings, tells about 10 types of Brahmins, the 5 Gauda Brahmins who lived North of Vindhyas and 5 Dravida Brahmins who lived South of Vindhyas.
In this illustration their locations are given. The numbered regions showed where they lived.
1. Sarasvathas
2. Kanyakubjas
3. Gaudas
4. Uthkalas
5. Maithili
6. Karnatakas
7. Thailangas
8. Dravidas
9. Maharashtras
10. Gurjjaras.
The last 5 were known as Pancha Dravidas that had given rise to the confusion of linking Dravidas to Tamils. But these names were attached to Brahmins only. The verse on these 10 people given by Raja Tarangini seems to have existed in use until a century ago, because these names were used by Tagore in the National Anthem. The names of Pancha Dravidas appear in the order starting from Karnatakas in the south upto Gujarat in the north. Dravida appears south of Maharashtra.
Dravida as a region had existed about 1400 years ago in this part of India. This is known from Brihad Samhitha written by Varahamihira. He had divided Bharat along with the neighbouring countries in Asia and Europe in the form of a Tortoise (Kurma) for the purpose making predictions in mundane astrology. In that Dravida appears in South west India in a region close to the shore of Arabian sea near Maharashtra.
In this region, Varahamihira lists down the order of places from Indus to Maharashtra along the coast of Arabian sea. He starts from Hemagiri (at the confluence of river Indus), Sindhukalaka (again near Indus or the region on the shore where a grass type called Kalaka grew – perhaps the place where the Vrishnis destroyed each other with the giant grass reeds), Raivathaka ( a mountain near Dwaraka as per Mahabharata) , Saurashtra (the Penninsular part of Gujarat), Badara, Dravida and Maharnava (some where near the tributary of river Narmada which is also known by the name Maharnava) .
This region mentioned by Varahamira as above is located within the curved region near the shore in the picture below.
The Dravida must have existed in the extended land that is now submerged. Manu, most hated by Karunanidhi and his clan must have lived here at the time of Ice age 13000 years ago. He was called as Dravideswara, the lord of dravida.(10).
His name as Dravideswara makes it know that he was perhaps the first known Vratya of Kshatriyahood. That is, he must have run away from a battle field at a time prior to 13000 years ago. I mention this period based on the sea map and habitation map of that time. The Indian ocean was 120 metres lower than now at that time. The bottom of Arabian sea is higher than Indian ocean. Therefore most of high regions of the mountain range in the Arabian Sea and the West coast were high lands at that time.
It is known form marine research that habitation had been there 9000 years BP near the Kutch. In that region an extended land form Maharashtra can be seen as a suitable place for living some 13000 years ago.
Manu and many others must have lived at that place. Manu must have fled from a previous place in the south and hence was known as Dravideswara.
When the first meltdown happened after the end of Ice age, the ocean levels had risen suddenly and Arabian sea also had faced sudden flash floods. In that Manu who was in a prepared state expecting a flood had escaped in his boat / ship. The story of Manu escaping the floods tell about him reaching the Himalayas finally and anchoring his ship by which that place came to be called as Naubhandan. There are only 2 waysof reaching Himalayas from an ocean – one on the east through Ganges and the other on the west through Indus. The Ganges did not flow then. It came down only during the times of Bhageeratha, a descendant of Manu. So the only possibility exists in the Arabian sea. At that time river Sarasvathi had flown down as a mighty river fed by the waters of the melting Himalayas at the end of Ice age. Only if the flood water is surging from Indian Ocean to Arabian sea to the North of it, could they be carried away by the flood waters through the sarasvati towards its starting region in the Himalayas. The place where entered sarasvathi came to be called as Dwaraka – the door. The rest of the story is known to all.
The point I want to express is that Manu's Dravida was on the way the flood waters were surging. The picture shows the submergence of that place through years, that must have been the Dravida which the Brahmins who accompanied him revered as an unforgettable ancestral region and hence clung to its name and place.
In Mahabharata Krishna and Pandavas undertook a theertha yatra in which they went to Godhavari river first and then reached the shores of Dravida land. The conducted austeries there and reached Surparaka (Sopore – the place where Parasurama did penance). From there they reached the final spot in their tour namely Prabhasa. This route does not touch Tamil nadu if we assume that Tamil nadu was called as Dravida. The route is like this (11)
1- Godhavari
2- Dravida
3- Surparaka
4- Prabhasa
Until 5000 years ago, that is Mahabharata times, parts of Dravda region were there. But they were all gone after that. Prabhas was the place where the first Jyothilinga was consecrated. In any event of unusual death, worship of Rudra will be done at that location. Rameswaran was one such location where Sagaras sons died an unnatural death. But that event happened later than Manu's arrival at mainland of Bharat. Prabhas (Somanth) was the first place where Manu and others must have conducted last rites for the departed ones in the fury of flood. Seen from there, their previous land was seen until Mahabharata times. But after that even that was completely submerged. Perhaps as a remembrance of the lost land, the arrow pillar was established showing that there was no land in that direction upto South pole.
Arrow pillar at Somnath temple
There is no need to set up that Pillar unless it had some meaning to the people who established it. In the picture below, the line from Prabhas cuts through the Dravida that is now submerged. That line might also indicate the previous route that Manu and others had taken, coming from south to the Dravida we indicated. Tracing the previous route is another task we will do later. In this post I want to justify the location of Dravida in the region close to the present day Maharashtra but now completely submerged in waters.
Since this Dravida land had a meaning connected to an earlier era, people had gone there on pilgrimage. The entry point of Dwaraka was retrieved every time it was lost into the seas. The present Dwaraka is the 7th one! Knowing very well that it is likely to be lost into the seas, our ancestors have been adamant in reclaiming it. They would not have done that unless it has some very big meaning to their lives.
When the lands along the west coast was reclaimed, the Sarswad Brahmins had settled there – due to their early memory of an attachment to Dravida of Manu. The closer-to-sea areas must have been called as Dravida. The Brahmins who settled there called themselves as Dravida Brahmins. Adhi Shankara belonged to that group and hence called himself as Dravida sisu.
The Brahmins from that place were brought by the king of Thondai naadu, having Kancheepuram as its capital. The Brahmins who settled at Kanchi did not want to lose their Dravida identity. In course of time Kancheepuram acquired the name Dravida province owing to the presence of Dravida Brahmins. The Brahmins from here when migrated to other parts of Tamilnadu did not give up their Dravida name. (There existed Brahmins in other parts of Tamilnadu who were not related to Dravida Brahmins). The Kona seema Dravida Brahmins, who migrated from Kumbakonam to Venky naadu near Godhavari basin, must have been originally from Kancheepuram and Dravida before that. Their early origin goes to Sarasvathi river basin and before that the Dravida of Manu.
This can be depicted as follows: The yellow line traces the movement from Dravida in the sea (13,000 years ago), into the Saravarthi basin, then back to the fringe region of Dravida (Pancha Dravida) and then to Kancheepuram.
Kancheepuram was a Vedic centre in those days. People from all over India came to learn Vedas and Dharma sastras from the Dravida Brahmins settled in Kancheepuram. These Brahmins spoke Tamil at home but taught Sanskrit at the Patashala. It was only too natural for any student to assume that the Tamil spoken by the teachers was the Dravida Brahmin Bhasha or Dravida Bhasha. Kumarila Battar thought so and mentioned it in Tantra varthika. That was picked up Caldwell and became an object of History's worst blunder which Karunanidhi continues to use for making political capital.
Thus what was originally Dravida – a name for degraded kshatriyas came to be identified with Manu, the earliest man still remembered in India. The place he originally occupied was called as Dravida desa. The Brahmins – of all the people were fond of old memories of Dravida and hence resurrected that memory by occupying regions close to the lost Dravida. A group of them moved to Kancheepuram – which was not a part of Tamil lands of Chola or Pandya or Chera but was occupied by those who once again had earlier connections to Dwaraka as they were VeLir who migrated from Dwaraka to the South when Bet Dwaraka was submerged.(12) This link of Dravida Brahmins was transferred to the language they spoke.
Such a complex past exist behind Dravida. There is an important question asto how Dravida Brahmins of Kanchi spoke in Tamil. Not only them, but a vast number of people had known and spoken Tamil even during the sangam times. From Gujarath to Kerala, people had spoken Kodum tamil (un-grammatical Tamil) while the people of Tamil nadu proper region were speaking Grammatical Tamil. From the route of Manu, it can be known that Manu and others must have spoken some form of proto Tamil which was spread throughout North India (Aryavartha) in course of time. The traces of Tamil in almost all the Indian languages became possible due to this. While the North Indian languages fused with Sanskrit in course of time, the south Indian Tamil made a strong presence in south Indian regions. In this way it is more proper to call all the Indian languages as Tamil- Sanskrit language group and not as Dravidian group of South India and Indo European language group of North India. A fresh look into the language growth in India is needed. More will be written in future posts. For the present I want to highlight that Karunanidhi's Dravida talk is nothing but rubbish and a lot more history is hidden behind the Dravida.
In an irony of sorts, Karunanidhi is owning up Dravida identity while it was Brahmins who originally identified themselves as Dravida Brahmins. Karunanidhi had upped the ante against the Brahmins as those who had suppressed other communities. We will see the truth of it in the next post.
************
References:-
(1) (1) http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2010/12/dravidian-movement-had-anti.html
(2) (2) http://ibnlive.in.com/news/karunanidhi-chants-dravida-naadu-mantra/234413-60-118.html
(3) (3) Manu Smruthi 10-22
(4) MBh 14.29 – " Dravid and Abhiras and Pundras together with the Savaras, became fallen to low status, though those men who had Kshatriya duties assigned to them in consequence of their birth, falling away from those duties due to the fear of Bhargava Rama"
(5) Stephen M. Lyon. "Gujars and Gujarism: simple quaum versus network activism". University of Kent at Canterbury. Retrieved 2007-05-31.
(6) http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99may13/j&k.htm#1
(7) Mahabharata, Shanthi parva- 49
(8) Mahabharata 8-12.
(9) Soundarya Lahiri 75
(10)Srimad Bhagavatham 9-1,2&3
(11)Mahabharata, 3-118
