Author: Nanditha Krishna
Publication: New Indian Express
Date: October 26, 2003
The recent ban on sacrifices by
the Government of Tamil Nadu has resulted in a rash of statements by ill-informed
and motivated politicians on the "Aryanisation" or "Brahminisation" of
Dravidian culture, in which gods, systems of worship and rituals have all
been divided into one or another camp. The British created an Aryan-Dravidian
divide, which became a useful tool for Indian politicians. It is time to
separate truth from falsehood.
The conventional belief is that
the "Dravidians" of the Indus Valley civilisation originally populated
North India. Along came the nomadic Aryan warriors who killed or enslaved
most of the Dravidians, packed off the remainder to the South, destroyed
their cities and imposed their language, religion and culture. How simple,
how easy!
Firstly, we now know that the cities
of the Indus Valley civilisation were destroyed by the environment and
geological changes, not invasion.
Secondly, nobody moved south: The
Indus Valley culture moved eastwards towards the Ganga, as did the Aryans.
Even Tamil literature does not speak of a north-south migration. Then,
there is absolutely no evidence that the Aryans came from any place other
than modern Punjab-Sindh. So we must discard forever the theory of a foreign
origin for the Aryans.
The writers of the Vedas called
themselves Aryas, which meant a "noble person" and not an ethnic group.
Who were the Dravidians? No such word is ever used in Vedic literature,
and is a very late addition, adopted by British historians. There are references
to Dasa, which meant enemy (Persian daha = enemy) and later, as defeated
enemies were enslaved, came to mean slave. No racial differences have been
found in any Harappan archeological site, wiping out theories of different
races.
There is a presumption, created
by British historians, that Aryan and Brahmin are synonymous, and caste
was an Aryan creation. But Aryans included every caste and jati. There
are several non-Aryan Brahmin and non-Brahmin Aryan castes. There is no
mention of caste in the Rig Veda, the oldest and purest Aryan literature:
its first appearance is as late as the Purusha Sukta. So, caste must have
been non-Vedic - or non-Aryan - in origin. Further, people changed their
castes as they migrated. In our times, Pattunool weavers from Saurashtra
became Iyengars in Madurai, Shreshtis (merchants) of ancient India became
Sethis and Seths in northern and western India, Shettys in Karnataka and
Chettys in Tamil Nadu.
All castes and communities who speak
Sanskrit-based languages are presumed to be Aryans, while the speakers
of Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu and Kannada are considered to be Dravidians.
Language is the least reliable of all ethnic characterisations. I speak
and write English -does that make me English? People always adopt the language
that serves them best, for language is, after all, a means of communication.
The Saurashtra Pattunool weaving
community, the Marathas of Thanjavur, and the Telugu-speaking Nayakars
are among the many examples of people who have migrated and adopted the
Tamil language. In the North, scheduled castes and tribes of distinct non-Aryan
origin speak Sanskrit-based languages. India has a long history of migrants
who adopted the local language and customs, like the Parsees who landed
in Gujarat. While Sanskrit and its descendant languages belong to the Indo-European
group (which includes Persian), and Southern languages are grammatically
different, speaking a language does not give you an ethnic identity.
Then there is this fallacy of an
indigenous Dravidian religion and an imposed Aryan religion. The gods of
the Aryans were Indra, Varuna, Mitra, Agni and so on. With the exception
of Agni, the all-consuming and essential fire, all of them lost their pre-eminent
position to Brahma the Creator, Shiva the Destroyer, and vishnu the Preserver,
none of whom are even mentioned in the Rig Veda but are now described as
the face of Aryan religion. These gods are both non-Aryan and Brahmanic.
And what about the vehicles of the
Gods? All this makes the Brahmins the chief promoters of non-Aryan religion!
If Kartikeya or Murugan is now called the "Tamil God", let us not forget
that he owes his origin to the Greek Kshatrapas and Kushanas. The chief
God of the Tamil Silappadikaram is Indran: Does that make the epic "Aryan"?
Sacrificing animals is, we are told,
basic to Dravidian culture: banning sacrifice is "Aryanisation" or "Brahminisation".
Firstly, the earliest instances of animal sacrifice are recorded in Sanskrit
literature, when the Aryans also sacrificed animals. In time, as religion
and people evolved, Brahmins stopped sacrificing animals, thanks to the
preaching of the Upanishadic rishis, the Buddha and Mahavira.
The indigenous Bhakti movement that
originated in the Tamil country and slowly spread over the whole of India,
spoke out against killing animals for food or sacrifice, and took the message
of devotion to a personal God to the common man. One should laud the religious
evolution and abjuring of primitive and cruel practices that was preached
by our saints.
Sacrifice was basic to all ancient
religions, a life for a life, blood for blood. As philosophers and schools
of philosophy developed, the contrast between good and evil, right and
wrong were extended to cover previously accepted practices. Thus slavery,
human sacrifice and the caste system were condemned as crimes against people,
while vegetarianism and condemnation of animal sacrifice were regarded
as respect for all life.
Even those who claim that sacrifice
is essential to "Dravidian" religion - whatever that means - will not eat
meat on Saturdays or on the New Moon (Amavasya) day, nor will they sacrifice
an animal in the pooja rooms of their homes, affirming that non-killing
of animals is the higher goal. The so-called rationalists support animal
sacrifice in the name of "Dravidian" culture and oppose "Brahminisation",
understanding neither and unable to define either, losing in the process,
all rationalism.
Today's Hinduism is an amalgam of
every tradition to be found in this country. The religion has absorbed
and encompassed local traditions and gods. Thus deities like Kamakshi of
Kanchi, Meenakshi of Madurai, the Ashta Vinayak of Maharashtra, Balaji
of Tirumala, Ranganatha of Srirangam and Vaishno Devi of the Himalayan
foothills may not find themselves in any Vedic text, but have more devotees
than the Vedic Gods.
Are they Aryan or Dravidian, or
even local tribal gods? Who knows and, more importantly, who cares?
The only pure Aryan ritual left
is the presence of Agni or Fire, who was essential to Vedic religion. There
are several non-Vedic variations to every ceremony and festival in every
community, such as the mangal sutra or thaali in the wedding ceremony,
the various birth rites and even forms of disposing the dead - from cremation
to burial to cremation-burial. The religion has evolved and adapted over
5000 years. The best example is the festival of Ganesha, who was never
a Vedic God. His worship remained localised for centuries until Lokamanya
Tilak decided to utilise Ganesh Chaturthi to unite Indians to fight for
self-rule. Ganesha came out of the family pooja and into the public arena,
a symbol of resurgent India. Today the festival is probably the largest
pan-Indian celebration after Deepavali. Yet none of these developments
have scriptural sanction, nor are they Aryan or Dravidian.
So it is time politicians stop hoodwinking
people about Aryan and Dravidian, and cease to blame Brahminisation to
score points against each other or cover their own failures. No demarcation
is possible in Hinduism. We should ask ourselves whether a law is good
or bad, and support or oppose it thereafter. And stop politicians from
dividing us over non-existing Aryan and Dravidian differences.