http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com/2012/01/hyperborean-dravidian-homeland-and.html
An exchange of my views with him on this topic is being shared in 2 posts. The first has been posted in his website which can be read here:-
http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com/2012/01/jayasree-on-arctic-vedas-and-dravidians.html
Now begins the article:-
The author of the book "Arctic Home in the Vedas" is known in India only for his patriotism and not for his views in this book or in the other book, 'The Orion' in which he had misinterpreted the notion of Equinox of the Hindu astrological texts. The reason for the non-popularity of these books is just that they are not true. I am constrained to say that a book written 100 years ago, under the influence of Aryan invasion theory promoted by the likes of Max Muller has found a rebirth in this blog. The book and its contents are redundant and carry no value in the light of many new inventions that reassert the original history as told by Ramayana and Mahabharata.
I will write the scriptural views on the issues in a question- answer form.
- 1. Where did the Devas live?
In the regions where the day extends for 6 months and night for 6 months. Today such a condition exists near both the North and South poles. It depends on the tilt of the earth and other variables connected to the earth's path around the sun. There might have existed times when more parts of the Northern hemisphere experienced long days and nights – but not today, nor even in the recent 10,000 years.
Those who lived in the North were called Devas and those who lived in the South were called Asuras. Asura is the opposite of Sura which means illuminating. Sura is a synonym for Deva. Therefore Suras lived near North pole and Asuras lived near the South pole. However it is told in some places in Puranas that Devas had lived near the South pole also. It automatically presupposes that Asuras lived near the North pole at that time!
There is no way to ascertain the time period of these populations as there are no instances and inputs other than a mention of fights between the Devas and Asuras. Such fights are described as philosophical (as between light and darkness and between goodness and evil) than real. Where we can see them as real, the fights were described to have taken place near northern or southern regions of 6 month day / night where other beings of the world were not involved.
There is another kind of description in many Puranas of the fight between Devas and Asuras for Vedas! In all those instances the Asuras were described as having stolen the Vedas. Finally Brahma or Vishnu would have recovered the Vedas . This is allegorical to the present times according to people like me as we think that the Vedas have been stolen by non-Vedic people and mis-interpreted a lot thereby leading to a downfall in Vedic system. The Vedas must be restored to those who chant them in the prescribed methods and not dissected by those who have no idea of what Vedas stand for.
In the story of Deva-Asura fighting, the Vedas were restored to Devas; in practical terms, this refers to those people in the Northern Hemisphere who cherished Vedas in the way it must be cherished. Today such people are in India or they are the people related to Hindu Thought (wherever they may be) but not in the Arctic region.
- 2. Does it not mean that Devas – the people who inhabited the North pole once, were the custodians and originators of Vedas? Does this not mean that Vedas came from the North pole?
Today there are 4 branches of Vedas. These were made into 4 branches some 5000 years ago by Vyasa, who has authored Mahabharata. At that time 1000s of Vedas were in existence. Vyasa selected a few which he thought would be useful in the ensuing Age (kaliyuga) and compiled them into 4 categories. What we have today is these 4 compiled versions. The categorization does not follow any chronological order, meaning that some of them may be too old and others relatively of later origin. One does not know whether any of them were made by Devas of yore. Most of what we have are attributed to sages who lived in India in a discernable past.
The exception is Lopamudra who is connected to Uttarakuru ( a region south of Deva territory and north of Himalayas) in some narrations. Another exception is a Rik Vedic hymn of Puraravas on Urvashi, a dancer in Indra's court. This gives rise to a probability that there did exist hymns on or by beings of Uttar kuru or a region farther north of it, but they had become redundant by 5000 years ago.
In the period between 5000 to 10,000 years ago, people from the Indian mainland had traveled to the so-called Deva land which was mostly confined to Uttarakuru by then. But only elites / kings had the privilege to go there. By and large that region of Uttarakuru remained inaccessible to mankind in general - deliberately under the diktat of the inhabitants of Uttarakuru. That period was better known for pleasure life in Uttarakuru, thereby making me deduce that the Devas as told in Puaranas were not of that time but of a much older time – before the last glaciations set in. At that time they might have developed Vedas – (Vedas are conceived in meditation and not composed like poems) – but none of them exist today and none of them were transferred to the people in India. So no question of migration from Arctic region to India.
- 3. Were Devas, Aryans?
No. Deva is a noun whereas Arya is an adjective. Nowhere in the Puranic scriptures, the Devas were ever described as Aryas or as having Aryan quality. They have erred on many occasions on sensory issues. The Devas were known for weakness in sex. The best among them is the one who would have overcome that weakness. Indra, their king himself had been accused of having seduced married women and have had intercourse with them. Ahalya of Ramayana was one such victim. This single issue of seducing other man's wife is non Aryan. Before explaining it let me tell how this word Arya is used in Hindu texts and in ancient Bharat.
The Aryan quality is basically defined as 'being noble' . Anyone can be an Aryan. Even a bird or an animal can become an Aryan. In Ramayana, the Monkey King, Vaali was described as an Aryan. His wife, Tara was described as Aryaa, the female word for Arya. Both Rama and Ravana have been mentioned as Aryans.
In Mahabharata, the sage Viswamitra was chided by a person when he was caught red handed by him stealing the dog meat, as to why the sage gave up his Aryan nature. It happened in a time of severe famine when the sage was in the verge of dying from hunger. Stealing and eating meat and forbidden food were non- Aryan tendencies. Can the people living near the cold Polar Regions ever follow such a strict rule for Aryan-ness?
Aryan-ness means not doing forbidden things. The Pandavas called themselves Anarya,
(The opposite of Arya is not Dravida, it is Anarya.) when they killed their teacher in
the war. Killing the teacher, a woman, father, mother and cow are considered as
heinous crimes from which one can not get any salvation. You will find this mentioned
in most of the 1000s of stone inscriptions written until a century ago and unearthed in
many places in India. The one who indulges in even one of them will be considered
as Anarya.
Now let us take a brief look at the location of Aryavartha. The region to the north of Vindhyas and south of Himalayas, from Saraswathy in the West to Ganges in the East was called as Arya vartha (the place where Aryan-ness sprouts).
This description of Aryavartha or the land of Arya is not found with reference to any other region of the world.
In the above illustration, the extent of Aryavartha is shown. What Max Muller and others saw as Aryan – Dravidian war was actually a war for the throne among 5 siblings. Their father Yayati, who was connected to Rama's lineage as per Valmiki Ramayana, and who lived a few generations before Rama wanted to give his kingdom to his youngest son Puru. This angered the other sons who went on war with Puru to get the kingdom for themselves. In the end, Anu and Druhyu were defeated and sent out of Aryavartha.
Puru retained the kingdom which was on the banks of river Sarasvathy. The river is shown as a blue line in the picture. Other brothers Yadu and Turvasu went to today's Gujarat and Bengal respectively and founded their own kingdoms. Krishna came in the lineage of Yadu and therefore called as Yadava. This is the real story of Aryavartha and Aryas.
But Aryan-ness as a quality has survived across India among various people. It was very much the soul of Tamils of Tamilnadu. In the Tamil text Silappadhikaram of 2nd century AD, there comes mention of 'Aryaangana' – a feminine word for Arya that describes a woman who renounces worldly pleasures even while she lives with her husband. Such women were worshiped as deities after their death. There are hundreds of temples of such Aryanganas called as Esakki amman in Tamilnadu even today.
Now coming to the issue of Aryan-ness in the context of women (told in the first para of this part), it is Anarya to violate the modesty of a married woman or an unwilling woman. When Dushasana disrobed Darupadi, the wife of the Pandavas, he was called as Anarya.
Ravana could not be fixed on any count but only when he kidnapped the already married Sita. Even then the anarya deed was not said to be done until he lifted her up by her hair after killing Jatayu, the bird who challenged him for taking away Sita. In the Aryan custom, the woman's hair is supposed to be a sacred symbol of modesty and of married status. When Ravana touched it, it was considered as a fit cause for Rama to finish Ravana – so says Valmiki Ramayana.
The rationale is that a person should respect another man's wife and not violate her modesty. If he does that, it is Anaryam. Devas and more importantly Indra had indulged in such Anarya deeds. That is why we do not have a reference to Devas as Aryas in Hindu texts.
The ultimate meaning of Aryan-ness is maintaining one's balance in any situation. This is expressed in many ways by Krishna in Bhagavad Gita. Not being perturbed by happiness and sadness, by profits and losses, by successes and failures etc is what makes one Arya. This can be best understood by a traditional dance form in India which is called as Arya- dance in Tamilnadu! (of all the places).
This is nothing but balancing a walk on a rope and dancing to the beats of a drum.
This dance is called as "Arya-k-kooththu" (Arya dance) because this is similar to Aryan nature of balancing oneself in spite of any distraction and yet doing one's duty. This is expressed in a proverb in Tamil "Arya-k-kooththaadinaalum, aariyaththil kaN" (concentrate on the work at hand even if you do Aryan dance). This concentration on work without any disturbance of mind is Krishna's ultimate teaching in Bhagavad Gita. Viewed in this perspective, we can even call Gita as Aryan literature. No other work is dedicated to this Aryan-ness as Gita does.
This Aryan-ness of balance of mind is expressed by Thirukkural, a famous literary work in Tamil. The corresponding Tamil word for Arya is "Saandron" which is explained in Thirukkural in 10 verses, all dealing with the above described Aryan qualities. The same qualities are found applicable to Tamil kings in Sangam literature.
- 4. Then who is a Dravida?
Dravida is explained in n Manu smrithi, as one belonging to the 7th generation in the lineage of Kshatriyas (warrior) who have given up their interest in warrior tendencies. A Kshatriya (one having warrior tendency) is one who has the urge to fight, harm others in the course of which is ready to harm oneself 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. 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.
The names of 7 generations are,
Ghalla,
Malla
Likkhivi,
Nata
Karana
Khasa
Dravida.
The verse from Manu smruthi is
" From a Vratya (of the) Kshatriya (caste), the Ghalla, the Malla, the Likkhivi, the Nata, the Karana, the Khasa, and the Dravida." (10-22)
Once a person becomes a Dravida, he ceases to be a warrior. His off springs also will be called as Dravida. But a Dravida can become a warrior and become Kshatriya again. Such a migration was possible in the system because, these classifications were done on the basis of one's nature depending on which one contributed to the society through a job that was suitable for his nature. That is why we find a Dravida Raja (king) by name Indrani Gupta. He wrote a famous Sanskrit play Mricchakatika. This shows that though one becomes a Dravida owing to giving up warrior hood for generations, one can show his warrior tendencies and become a ruler of a country (Kshatriya).
Dravida – a Sanskrit term – can be interpreted in 2 ways. It could mean one who has run away (run away from the duty of protection of the country). It could also mean that which runs – meaning water or the one who knows the passage of water. The Dravida mentioned in the 11th century Kashmiri work called Raja Tarangini was one who knew the underground water routes.
The earliest Dravida king was none other than Vaivasvatha Manu who escaped a flood and entered the Saraswathy. The sages who accompanied him were largely responsible for the Vedic culture in India. They gave the Rik Vedas.
Vaivasvatha Manu is called as Dravideswara, (the lord of land of Dravida) in none other than a sacred book of Hindus (Aryans) called Srimad Bhagavatham ( 9-1,2 & 3). So Dravidas were not alien to or hated by "Aryans". What makes one an Arya is different from what makes one a Dravida. A Dravida can be an Arya and an Arya can be a Dravida (from the above descriptions of Hindu texts)!!
The land of Dravida (of Dravideswara Manu) is identified in south west India by Varahamihira in his book Brihad samhita.
The regions of land and sea coming in the South west within the orange coloured box in the above pic is the region where Dravida is identified along with other regions of the South west by Varaha mihira.
Based on his data, I have zeroed in on this and identified Dravida within curved region as shown below.
This fits in the inundation map of Graham Hancock that shows the early places to have sunk after the end of Ica age.
In the picture below, Manu and others have escaped the floods and entered through the Sarasvathy river into North Indian main land. The entry point was Dwaraka (now submerged) which literally means Door way. (The entry point Dwaraka - estuary of Saraswati could have been in South of Gujarat facing Gulf of Khambhat)
Now the question of Dravida language.
Manu spoke early Tamil. Because he and his people were a branch that came from Deep South and settled in locations in Arabian sea during the Ice age.
- 
(The movement of man starting from East Africa. Many groups entered India (black arrows). One group that went through the Arabian sea entered through Sarasvathy and spread all over India. These are shown as red arrow marks in the above pic. There is a possibility of another branch entering through the Persian Gulf and to Middle east. )
All these will take many articles to cover – which is what I am doing in my Tamil blog. So I am going ahead with saying that a people of same culture and language, settled in the above mentioned Dravida and entered North India about 12,000 years ago. People may call their language as Proto Tamil, but there is a word in Tamil literature for it as – 'kodum Tamil'. It is non- grammatical Tamil. That is why we find remnants of it in many places near Sarasvathy river (eg - Brahui)
Grammatical Tamil was formed around 12,000 years ago in Pandyan kingdom in deep South (Perhaps in Sundaland) and spread to today's Tamilnadu. At that time people of rest of India were also speaking Tamil (kodum Tamil) a corrupt and old form of Tamil. One strong reason to back up this claim, is that the so-called Indo-Aryan north Indian languages such as Hindi and Marati were formed from an olden language called 'Apabrahmsa'. Apabrahmsa was the language spoken by Abhiras and others who were settled in Sarasvathy region but given up Vedic life. When a person gives up Vedic life, it means he ceases to learn Sanskrit. He is left with only his language of daily life. The Abhiras started solely speaking this daily language which came to be called as Apabrahmsa. (The Dravida king mentioned above by name Indrani Gupta was a Abhira.)
The interesting news is that Apabrahmsa has 70% words belonging to Tamil. These are corrupt or un grammatical forms of Tamil! Hindi got developed from this Apabrahmsa about 1000 years ago!
Another information that linguistic researchers give us is that even Marathi, the language of Maharashtra has 70 % of Apabrahmsa thereby making it take up words that were originally Tamil! All the North Indian languages with variation in Hindi, thus has Tamil connection.
It is therefore not right to say that only the South Indian languages belong to a same group. Even the North Indian languages looked similar to Tamil about 1000 – 2000 years ago as they were developed from Tamil. This means all the researches linking North Indian languages in to a separate language class is flawed. This also shows why and how the Tamil impression is present in languages of Northwest India and in Middle east too.
