My Tamil blog entirely devoted to the question of whether Tamils are Dravidians can be accessed here:-
The attempts at decipherment of Indus culture that is happening for a longtime looks like a case of scholarship wasted!
The modus operandi makes me state this serious allegation. The mounting evidence on a nonexistent Aryan invasion also tells that the plan of analysis is flawed.
The basic flaw or the Mother of all Flaws is to take Rig Vedas as the source of knowing past history.
Before going on to analyze Rig Vedas, the researchers must have studied the usage and purpose of the Vedas as it has been for all these times.
This can not be done without consulting the people who have preserved the Vedas and passed on from generation after generation.
They will tell that the utility of Vedas is for Homas and not for reading its meaning and from that the history of the past.
They will also tell that the Vedic knowledge is known not form Vedas but from Upanishads
If someone wants to know the history of this country and its people, he / she must look at the Puranas and Ithihasas and not at Vedas.
In many Upanishads one comes across the verse "Yevam Veda. IthUpanishad"
It means 'Veda is One - this is Upanishad' – Upanishad is the knowledge acquired 'sitting close to' – close to what or whom?
Close to the teacher – through him close to the Vedas – and through Vedas, close to The Lord revealed by the Vedas. So the Vedas reveal the Lord – the One Lord – and not the past history of this country.
The Vedas were many – in thousands. Veda Vyasa gathered some of them in 4 parts. They are what we have today.
So whatever dating one does from Vedas that are available with us today is not in chorological order. Some of them might have been from the period of Vyasa and some from a remote past.
Even the 4 vedas are not in chronological order. The ordering is guided by the purpose – for use in Homas (Rig & Yajur) and for praises (Sama). Atharvana veda was not considered for learning by one engaged in Spiritual practice. Only Trivedas (3 vedas) were given importance. Atharvana veda was for those who want to attain material prosperity. So, all the 4 types have existed simultaneously and not were given one after the other in chronological time scale.
Vyasa picked up from different sages and compiled them in 4 compartments. Any dating of Indian past based on the Vedas will therefore be deceptive. The only area where dating will make sense is in Ithihasas – which are 'told as happened'.
When you do the dating of Ithihasas, particularly Mahabharata – strong evidences have emerged from submerged Dwaraka and in the astronomical dating of Mahabharata war showing the period as 5000 years ago. This confirms with the continuing tradition we have of keeping record from Kali yuga (especially), cross checked from various sources such as Aryabhatta, Varahamihira and the sankalp sloka told in every Vedic action, which keeps track of time.
When we have such a strong evidence of keeping track of time for the past 5000 years, the western notions of Age classification has no relevance in the Indian situation.
The history of the North as chronicled in Mahabharata and proved from Dwaraka excavations is matched with history of the South from Tamil texts. The so many claims by these researchers that Dravidas were made up of Tamils primarily, settled in North or migrated from Iran to North and then driven to South – all these sound rubbish. One must not analyze the past of North India without analyzing the Ithihasas. Similarly one must not analyze the past of South India without analyzing the Tamil's past and culture as told in Tamil scriptures.
There is no single word 'Dravidian' in the Tamil texts of the past. Thamizh / Thamizh kudi – is the word they described about themselves.
The introduction by Tholkaapiyar in his Grammar work itself puts in perspective who the Tamils were, where they lived and what connection they have with Vedas.
வட வேங்கடம் தென் குமரி
ஆயிடைத்
தமிழ் கூறும் நல் உலகத்து
வழக்கும் செய்யுளும் ஆயிரு முதலின்
எழுத்தும் சொல்லும் பொருளும் நாடிச்
ஆயிடைத்
தமிழ் கூறும் நல் உலகத்து
வழக்கும் செய்யுளும் ஆயிரு முதலின்
எழுத்தும் சொல்லும் பொருளும் நாடிச்
5
செந்தமிழ் இயற்கை சிவணிய நிலத்தொடு
முந்து நூல் கண்டு முறைப்பட எண்ணிப்
புலம் தொகுத்தோனே போக்கு அறு பனுவல்
நிலம் தரு திருவின் பாண்டியன் அவையத்து
அறம் கரை நாவின் நான்மறை முற்றிய
முந்து நூல் கண்டு முறைப்பட எண்ணிப்
புலம் தொகுத்தோனே போக்கு அறு பனுவல்
நிலம் தரு திருவின் பாண்டியன் அவையத்து
அறம் கரை நாவின் நான்மறை முற்றிய
10
அதங்கோட்டு ஆசாற்கு அரில் தபத் தெரிந்து
மயங்கா மரபின் எழுத்து முறை காட்டி
மல்கு நீர் வரைப்பின் ஐந்திரம் நிறைந்த
தொல்காப்பியன் எனத் தன் பெயர் தோற்றிப்
பல் புகழ் நிறுத்த படிமையோனே.
மயங்கா மரபின் எழுத்து முறை காட்டி
மல்கு நீர் வரைப்பின் ஐந்திரம் நிறைந்த
தொல்காப்பியன் எனத் தன் பெயர் தோற்றிப்
பல் புகழ் நிறுத்த படிமையோனே.
The Tamils had their area between Venkatam (Thiruppathy / Thirmala) in the North and Kumari in the South.
It is 'Thmaizh koorum nal ulagam' – there is no Draavidam.
Their Aadhaaram – or pivot – is Pandyan.
Tholkaapiyar's teacher was one who excelled in the 4 vedas!
This information told by Tholkaapiyar reveals that Tholkaapiyar also had some grasp of the 4 Vedas.
It also reveals that the Vedas were not alien to Tamils.
It most importantly reveals that the culture of the North and South were united – acquisition of Vedic wisdom was common everywhere in Bharat while the regional languages also flourished simultaneously as happened with Tamil.
When we go through the texts like Silappadhikaram, it is revealed that the Pandyans lived Deep South in areas which became submerged and lost the lands to the seas for 3 times in the past. The boundary that Tholkaapiyar mentions is the boundary that became defined after the last or 3rd submergence.
ஊழிதொ றூழிதொ றுலகங் காக்க
அடியிற் றன்னள வரசர்க் குணர்த்தி
வடிவேல் எறிந்த வான்பகை பொறாது
ப·றுளி யாற்றுடன் பன்மலை யடுக்கத்துக்
குமரிக் கோடுங் கொடுங்கடல் கொள்ள 20
வடதிசைக் கங்கையும் இமயமுங் கொண்டு
தென்றிசை யாண்ட தென்னவன் வாழி
(சிலப்பதிகாரம் - மதுரைக் காண்டம் - 11. காடுகாண் காதை)
In Brihad Samihita there comes a chapter (14) on all the nations around Bharat, explained as Kurma charka. It lists the countries direction-wise. In that, countries / places such as Kanchi, Simhala, Velluru, dandaka forest, river TamraparaNi, Kaveri, Mahendra mountain etc are clubbed together as found in the Southern direction along with "countries of Tamingilasana" (countries of Tamils, Cholas, Cherans and Pandyans?)
Dravida gets a mention separately among the courtiers in South west not south. Dravida comes after 'Hemagiri, Sindhukalaka, RAivataka, Suraashtra and BAdara.
This traces the connection of the displaced people of Dwaraka ( click Excavations at Sanganakallu and Kupgal – were they migrants from Dwaraka?) from Saurashtra to 'Dravida' which include places of present day Karnataka in Bellary (where Singana deva of Yadava lineage of Dwaraka ruled) and Kudremukh where the VeLirs ruled. (Migration from Dwaraka to Tamilnadu.)
The decipherment of Indus scripts reveals a connection to early "Kannada- Tamil". (http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2009/11/the-indus-script-analysis/)
This confirms my contention that the people of Indus and of Karnataka are from same background – in Saurashtra / Dwaraka.
After the deluge in Dwaraka, people left in 2 groups. The group that went northward along a river is mentioned in Mahabharata.
They settled enroute and formed what is now known as Indus valley civilization.
The other group headed by sage Agasthya came to South. This is told in Tamil texts. (refer the links given above)
They came along the east of western ghats and many of them settled en route while a major part of them settled down in the area north west and west of Tamil lands which is now Karnataka and parts of Kerala. Some of them merged in Tamil lands too (Refer songs on Aai Andiran and by Kapilar on IrumkovEL in Purananuru). I have written these in many blogs earlier. The Velirs – all of whom were regarded as the "Kadai yezhu vaLLalgaL' or the 3 rd group of Philanthropists or Patrons were Velir kings only. They occupied Kudremukh and parts starting from Dharma puri (Adhiyamaan) and stretching upto Kerala through Karnataka.
These people were part of Dwarakans who separated from those who left for North and settled as far as Kashmir.
Those in the North had called them as Dramila – those 'who ran away'. This became Dravida! The first mention of Dravida comes in Kashmiri literature – Rajatharangini only. They did not mean the Tamils. They meant those who left them long ago ( or ran away) and spread over south.
Adhi Sankara called himself as 'Dramila sishu'. Perhaps the Nambhoothiris were the descendants of the displaced Dwarakans.
The Dramilas were so wide spread- some of them even merged with local populations that it became difficult to identify a specific geographic region for them and hence referred to most regions of the South including Tamil nadu where they settled.
The language of displaced Dwarakans (Sanskrit including) merged with Tamil (as they were mostly settled in Tamil nadu and interacted with Tamils) that resulted in development of Kannada.
When analsyed from this angle, we can get answers for all riddles of Indus valley culture –particularly the 'Dravidan' (read as Tamil by these researchers) presence in Indus. The People of Indus and Dravidans (Settlers in South who are now mostly concentrated in Karnataka) are from same origin and lineage. The culture (Vedic) was the same. Tamils also shared the same Vedic culture (read Tholkaappiyar) but were never regarded as Dravidans or 'run away' people. They did run away but from Deep south to the present Tamil lands which were ruled by Cherans and Cholans in those days. The movement of Tamils is from south to North in present day Tamilnadu – not from Northern Indus to South!
************
Related posts:-Please search for "Dravida" for the many articles on this topic.
Sample ones :-
Who is Dravida? - Shun the Dravidan identity.
No Aryan and no Dravidian either!
The articles that prompted me to write this post:-
http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2009/11/the-indus-script-introduction/
http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2009/11/the-indus-script-analysis/
