THE ARIYAN QUESTION

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

THE ARIYAN QUESTION

I have slightly touched about Ariyan meaning in my earlier postings in ‘Tamil is elder than Sanskrit thread’.

The word Ariyan plays major role in Indian history and has been misunderstood by many people as separate race invaded through Kyber –Bolan passages of Afkhanistan to India, thrashed out the inhabitant dravidians from north of india and produced Vedhic hymns & Vedhic culture and often is refered as Brahmanas of modern India.

The purpose of this topic is to prove the above is wrong concept with adequate historical evidances.

Nowhere in ancient cultures – Greece,Turky, Asiria, Egypt, Sumeria, Babylonia. Meditaranean – The word Aryan race Exist /their cultures exists. No single proof at all.

In Persia, The Persian Emperor Taurius I (522 BCE) called himself “I am the son of persian and the son of Ariyan” (1). He was born North western India in Trading community and was considered by the people of Persia as foreigner but elevated himself to kingship when indigenious wars and confusion were going on in Persia and to defend this he called himself as that he was belonging to the son of ruler dynasty. Here the word Ariyan was used to specify ‘King’.Kantharam, Sinthu, &Punjab were also under his rule. (2) This is only reference of Ariyan ,that too not as a race, out of India.

And almost all the references of ‘Ariyan’ were only in India. In Rig Vedha 33 times the word ‘Arya’ is found.(3) In tamil Third Sankam literature 9 times ‘Ariyan’ is refered. In Bakthi literature 12 times the word is refered.

Western minds about India :
1.Oriental Depotism and Anarchy : This theory was created between 1750 to 1810 CE. Alexandar Dow,Robert Orm, John Scott Waring, James Grant, Mark Wilks & John Bruce researched Mughals rule and formulated this theory. According to that Indian subcontinent had lot of temporary empires and human violations were the order. Ariyan invasions also had taken place to further contribute this temporariness. (4)

2. Panchayats and Castes : This theory was created between 1810 to 1857 CE. Charles Metcalf was the initiator. According to that Hindostan was a country of village panchayats and the people never participated with General country events. Lot of invasions happened. But Panchayats remained same uninterrupted. These panchayats were slaves of whoever came & ruled India.(5)

3. Jamindarism :

This theory was created between 1860 to 1910 CE. According to that India was land of ‘Jameens’ and Kings were being temporary.(6)

4.Ariyan – Dravidian Ideology :

This theory came into being during 1910 CE. Ruling Britishers neglected mistakenly the real history of India. They red and researched indian history on religious basis as Hindu, Muslim, Buddhists, Jains, Persian, & Christian. At last they taught Hindu religion is Brahminism. During this time Ariyan forefathers like Maxmuller & Will durant created Aryan Invasion theory. According to that Ariyans invaded India, demolished dravidians,made four varna system and turned as Brahmins of modern India.(7)

I mention the above theories of Western minds because these theories are based on the concept that Indian culture was fully effected by foreign invasions which is fundamentally wrong.

Who are dravidians ?

It is clearly identified that Pahrare Chempian and Azhagu Nanthan (Chola dynasty) ruled all over India during pre-historic period. Sinthu Valley civilization was their creation. Historic messages in puranas show this. Pahrare Chempian- Pageerathan- Bharathan- Bharat ( India) named after him.(8)

Tamils were called as Thermili & thermilai in Egypt,Greece & Turky.(9) During Maurian Empire they were called Thramila. This thramila turned Thravida-Dravida.

Kalinga Karavelan Haathikumba Inscriptions (155 BCE) specifies that Karavelan put an end to the secret treaty among dravida nation (Dravida desa sankavattam). I.e. Chera,Chola & pandiya nations.(10) Dravida is refered in Sanskrit literature like Mahabharata after christian Era.(10A) Ray cholas who ruled Royalseema were called themselves as ‘thravidas’ migrated from Thiruchi Uraiyur.(11) Chola Kangar who ruled Orissa and constructed Puri temple were called Thravida kings(12). For the purpose of identity Dr.Calduwell calls all South Indian languages as Dravida languages eventhough dravida is directly implies Tamil.(13)

Modern research in Geneology done by Dr. Mayyappan of Madurai Kamarajar University proves that Virumandi Thevar of Usilampatti Geneology directly relates to South African tribes.(14)

Hence, Dravida/ Tamils means an Austro African Indian inhabitants / Race which constitutes 80 percent of present people all over India.

Who are Ariyans ?

The tamil word ‘Arayar’ turned as Ariyar (15).The same word turned ‘Rayar’ in vaduka –kannada & Telugu. In Bengal it is as ‘Rai’. Ariyan was used in the meaning of king. Arai+ar- Arai means part / pakuthi. Thus the ruling class which ruled that part was called Arayar. Arasar / Arasu are also from this root.

In indian history the Mahathan kings (600 BCE) firstly called themselves as Ariyans. Chandra Gupta Maurian who won Mahathan army and created Maurian dynasty and then all Maurians called themselves as Ariyans. Here, King Ashoka, the son in law of Chandra Gupta was the follower of Jain religion. After Kalinga war he turned into fanatic Buddha. Asokan Governors were called as ‘Kumarar’ & Ariya puththirar.

Since Buddha was also a king Sanskrit literature refers him as Ariyar & Ariya puththirar. In Anthra Allur, Amaravathi, Naagarchuna konda parts Buddha sankam members were called as Ayira / Arya.(16). Following this traditions Vedhic Hothas also called themselves as Ariyas. Kings were specified as Thassuys in Rig Vedha. Other three Vedhas do not contain the word Arya.

When Chera, Chola , Pandiyan Empires were in tamilnadu and Kerala, Maurian empire extended till Kalinga. During this time Vaduka kannadigas were Buffer stock in between these empires. While they were battlers of tamil kingdoms in 22 passages of tamils northern border, they were also battlers of Maurian Army. When Asoka turned buddhist monk his stronghold in south deteriorated. During this time,Near Bellari Vaduka kanndigas created Anthra Empire. They also called themselves as Ariyar.(17)

Dr. K . Appathurai says, “Eventhough Kangai & Anthra Empires called themselves as ‘Ariyans’ this word was not based on the race. During third Sankam period King Asoka, Buddhists & Jains were the main cause for references of Ariyan in tamil literature” (18)

A battle between Tamil Chola and Vadukas in ‘Vallam’ and the victory of chola is mentioned Pavai Kottilar’s Marutham Poetry of Akanaanuru 336: 19-22.

…….. Venvel
Maari Yambin Mazhithol CHOLAR
Villeendu Kurumbin Vallaththu Puramilai
ARIYAR padayin udaika…….

In Nattrinai 170 : 6-8 the battle in Mullur where malayaman Thirumudik kaari won Aryar.Here also the opponents were vadukaas.

ARIYAR Thuvantriya Perisai MULLURP

Oruverku Odi Yanku…

But In Akanaanuru 396 : 16-19 & 398 : 18-19,

ARIYAR Alarath thakkip Per isai
Thontru muthir VADAVARAI Vankuvil Poriththu’

ARIYAR Ponpadu NEDUVARAI puraiyum’

Where Vadavarai and Neduvarai specify the Himalayan and so both Ariyars refered are Mahathan army.

To differentiate Vaduka Ariyans from Mathan ariyans Silappathikaram specifically says, ‘VADA ARIYAR’.

“VADA ARIYAR padai kadanthu
Then thamilnadu Orungu Kana”- Silappathikaram 23-24 : 13-15

Anthra, Kalinga & Mahatham were called ‘Mukkalingam’. These Three empires were from Vaduka dynasty. They all called themselves as Ariyans.

Kabilar’s Kurinchippattu in Paththuppattu was written to inform the goodwill of tamil to Ariyan king Prahathathan who was a Vaduka king.

Vaduku dance artists (kazhi Kooththu Aadi) – Thombar – called themselves as Ariyars.

In Kurunthokai this is specified.

ARIYAR Kayiradu Parayil” –Kurunthokai 7 : 3-4.

Hence, The above and the messages like above conforms that Ariyar never came through Kyber & Bolan passages, they were forumlated within India & they were called so as kings / ruling class. ARIYAR means only ruling class

Mahathan was dravidian/tamilian empire. Maurians used Prakritham. The beauty is both called themselves as Ariyans. Hence, Dravidar is Ariyar / Ariyar is a branch of Dravidians. They belong to same race.

Who are Brahmins ?

Unlike in present preached history, Brahminism travelled from South India to North India. Tamil Thokappiam’s Occupational divisions made into archestrated birth wise divisions in Sanskrit. Manu,the creater of Birth divisions was a dravidian(Tamil) king. This is mentioned in ‘Sathpatha Brahmanam’ & Viyasar’s Mahabharatham. Brahminical life and Big temple worship started its journey in South Kerala. The creater was Parasuraman. He was a Vaduka Kannadiga born in the banks of Narmatha river and reached southern kerala.(20)

Manu Nool (600 CE) was written & published in Chalukkiya king Pulikesi II ‘s court and was imported into Tamil Nadu by medieval Cholas. Occupational castes were transformed into Birthwise castes in tamil Nadu. (20 A)

The another version of Tamil Poosariyam is Brahminism. Since Vaduka ruling class created this culture, this can be called Vaduka Poosariyam / Brahminism.

Parasuraman announced that he was always enemy of shatriyas.

A story in Manimekalai 22 : 25-39 :

Parasuraman vowed to kill 24 king dynasties. He travelled to Puhar (Kaveri poompattinam) to kill chola king Kanthan. But Kanthan gave the throne to sukantha and instructed him that till Tamil Priest Akaththiyan tells him to return, to look after the throne and then escaped.

Like Parasuraman, Anthran empire kings (Vaduka kannadikas) also showed much hatred towards ‘Shaththiriyas’ –they meaned to say this word- and these shaththiriyas were Tamil kings. This further proves that Vaduka Kanndigas created ‘Brahminism’ in India.

Telugu Scheduled Caste ‘Madikans’ call themselves as sons of god Maathanki. The story of Maathanki : Maathanki gave shelter to Ellamma( Renuga) who was the mother of Parasuraman when Parasuraman roamed to kill her. Parasuraman cut Maathanki’s nose. But Renuga gave her nose.

Another story : Parasuraman’s father Samathkkini munivan cut Renuga and Mathanki’s Heads. Parasuraman requested him to give back heads. Munivan brought back Renuga’s head to Mathanki and vice versa.

Present Vaduka madikars are different from tamil pulayar and kannada olayar.

The above stories further proves parasuraman is a Vaduka.

Dr. Ambetkar ascertained that Out of four varnas in Brahminical system other varnas got diluted due to social development except Brahmins. Even Shatthriyas could not sustain with their varnas because if they got defeat they were put into sudras. Hence there was a competition between Brahmins and Shatriyas to capture the first order. Sometimes The shatriyas called themselves as Prama-shattriyar.(21)

In support of Dr.Ambetkar’s view history gives proofs.

Pallava’s (East Vadukas- Telukus) called themselves as belonging to ‘Bharathuvasak Koththiram’. Simmavarman II (435 – 65) CE, Pallankoil ‘Cheppdukal’ (Cu) specifies that pallavas were Bramha Shaththiriyar. Thaala kunda inscriptions shows that pallavas were called as pallava Shaththiriyar.

Present Pelgam,thaaravadu districts of karnataka were ruled by Kadambas and they called themselves as ‘Maanaviya Koththiram-Brahmins’

Medievial Tamil cholas mixed with Kannada Chalukkiyas and this Brahminism came into being in Tamil Nadu.

In Rig Vedha(100 CE), in last para (10 th division 90 : 12),an insertion made regarding four Varnas, later period the word Brahmin was included and the meaning never coincides with existing passages of Rig Vedha. (22)
Indian central India particularly Thungapathira river valley (North Karnataka) was the place where Brahminical system got its growth.(23)

Ariyan verses Brahminism :

Ariyan is not a life / social system and it refered only the ruling class. Brahminism is a social system archestrated.

Ariyan kings transformation occurred North to South. Brahminism transformed South to North.

Mahathans who called themselves as Ariyans were condemned by Brahmin Puranas. They were also called ‘Vratyas’ & Sudras.

“Sarva ksattrantakonrpah tatah prabhrti rajano bhavisyah SUDRA yonayah ckarat sa mahapadma ekacchatrah” (24)

Maurians – Ariyans followed Jains & Buddha for whom ‘Thramila’ (Tamilan) Chanakkiyan, a tamil paarpan was chief Minister. King Asoka hated Brahminism.(25)

SANSKRIT ORIGIN:

Indian literary languages(Min. 1000 Years) origin shall be as follows :

Tamil – Paichachi – Paly - Prakrid

Tamil – Koduntamil – Koduntamil + Pragrid=vaduku

Vaduku – West Vaduku – Kannada, East Vaduku-Telugu

East Vaduku+ paly – Oriya, Oriya + Paly + prakrid = Bengali

Prakrit – Sanskrit

Tamil+ Prakrit= Malayalam

West Vaduku + Prakrid = Marathi, Gujarathi

Sanskrit originated in Southern Kerala. Its literature collected and organised in Kanchipuram.,Tamil Nadu(26). Kasi, Kashmir and Thiruvanthapuram Prakrid / Sanskrit pandits also helped to do this.

Tamil Krantha(means kattuthal / Parththal in tamil) script originated in Tamil Nadu. ‘Karanthai’ which means ‘clear appearance’ turned Krantha in Sanskrit. Preliminary Sanskrit literature were written only on Krantha Script. All Sanskrit Akamas were written in tamil Krantha script during early Pallavas (300 CE)(27)

Nagari script originated in North India. During 800 CE Sanskrit literature was written in Nagari.

Hence, Tamil culture and literature certainly influenced the whole Sanskrit literature much and I may write about this in someother relevant thread.

Conclusion :

1.Indian Ancient history and the subsequent ramifications rely only on Tamil.
2.Ariyans were Northern kings with respect to Tamil Nadu irrespective of they followed Brahminism / not followed Brahminism
3.Ariyans are not Brahmins. Brahminical system originated in south India.
4.Sanskrit originated in South.
5.If anyform of renaisance in indian culture i.e., between goodwill and bad is tamil culture & Sanskrit Vedhic culture respectively.

References :

(1) The Story of Civlilization – Will Durant
(2) The feeders of Indian Culture- B. S. Upaththiyaya- page 35-36.
(3) Life in Ancient India- P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar-Page 12
(4) A Dissertation of the Origin and Nature of Despotism in Hindostan – Alexandar Dow
(5) ,(6),(7) African Models and Indian Histories in Realm and Region in Traditional India- Bernard S. Cohen
(8) Valluvaththin Veezhchi – Thiru. Guna,Tamil research centre, Bangalore
(9) The Ancient History of near East- H.R. Hall , page 520
(10)A History of South India- K.A. Neelakanda Sastri, Page 88
(10A)Turnour, Mahawanso. Page 21,quoted by P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar- History of Tamils, page 325mi.
(11),(20 A)Valangai Chantrorum Cholarum Page 44
(12) Puri temple inscriptions.
(13) A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian family of Languages, Foreword.-Rt.Rev.Robert Caldwell
(14) The Hindu Column dated 30.03.2002
(15)Tamilar Varalaru –Page 204, Kna.Thevaneyan,
(16)Early History of the Andhra Country, University of Madras, Page 124, Dr. K. Gopalachar.
(17) Pre historic Ancient Hindu India- R.D.Banerji Page 117
(18)Thennatup Porkalangal – Ka.Appaththurai , page 43
(19) Tamil Nattu Varalatril Ilakkiya Aatharangal- P. Suriya Narayanan, page 49
(20) Vedhic India – Ragozine page 341-346
(20 A) See (11)
(21) Annihilation of Caste – Dr. Ambetkar
(22)Tamilar Matham – Maraimalai Adikal Page 38
(23)History of Sanskrit Literature – A.A. Macdonell page 160
(24) Dynasties of Kali Age, Pargiter, Quoted by P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar. History of Tamils
(25)Prehistoric Ancient and Hindu India, page 92
(26) Thenmozhi Essays, by Ka. Appaththuraiyar. (1956) page 142-44
(27)Koyilkalil Chentamil, Samaskritham (Katturai) , Thinamani , 28.11.1998.

f.s.gandhi

[Lambretta]

Hmm......interesting.....but hope this is not goin2 divulge into the old AI theory wich is out of bounds here!

[NEHA1222]

most of the time these americans/ nonindianas like to trace something similar notice i say similar and in other places and they give them the credit. that is stupid because it does not prove the origin it just shows similarity. for example now americans are saying that the samosa did not orignate from india it orginated from persia because somthing similar was made there, yes it might be similar but the samosa is truly indian, just pie is american!

[bis_mala]

FSG, you have done an excellent write-up.

Keep up the good work.

[a.ratchasi]

It has been a while since I read a good piece of work with proper credentials given.

Thanks, FSG!

[dsath]

THE ARIYAN QUESTION

Modern research in Geneology done by Dr. Mayyappan of Madurai Kamarajar University proves that Virumandi Thevar of Usilampatti Geneology directly relates to South African tribes.(14)

Hi FSG,
One aspect of your write up linking the people living in Madurai with South African tribes is intriguing.
I saw a documentary some time back in BBC called Tribes done by Bruce Parry. In that program he travels across the world in search of some unique and remote tribes and lives with them for a couple of weeks. One series was about the Suri tribe in Ethiopia (In Sudan border).

What interested me was that the tribal people had their ear elongated and wore earrings in a style similar to the women in Madurai and Triunelveli districts (no one does it now of course). Even the ornament they wore was remarkably similar.
Another one was a stick fight called Donga. It is a central feature of the tribe and one tribesman said “Donga is what makes us Suri”. This Donga is similar to Silambatam (I am not sure if I have got the word right…..it was similar to the stick fight in TamilNadu).

Its too much of a similarity to call it coincidence.

Do you know which of the Tribes in South Africa are related to Virumandi Thevar?


Also I certainly agree with Australian aboriginal link to TamilNadu. They happen to practice the system of Intermarriage within cousins (which for me is one of the unique feature of South India). The Kamilaroi tribe in Australia is seen as a possible link.

Thanks
DSath.

[dsath]

THE ARIYAN QUESTION
Modern research in Geneology done by Dr. Mayyappan of Madurai Kamarajar University proves that Virumandi Thevar of Usilampatti Geneology directly relates to South African tribes.(14)

(14) The Hindu Column dated 30.03.2002

Hi FSG,
I searched the Hindu archives on the date you mentioned and couldn't find any column with the stated research by Dr Mayyappan.
Could you please specify the link please?
Thanks
DSath

[dsath]

THE ARIYAN QUESTION

Nowhere in ancient cultures – Greece,Turky, Asiria, Egypt, Sumeria, Babylonia. Meditaranean – The word Aryan race Exist /their cultures exists. No single proof at all.

In Persia, The Persian Emperor Taurius I (522 BCE) called himself “I am the son of persian and the son of Ariyan” (1). He was born North western India in Trading community and was considered by the people of Persia as foreigner but elevated himself to kingship when indigenious wars and confusion were going on in Persia and to defend this he called himself as that he was belonging to the son of ruler dynasty. Here the word Ariyan was used to specify ‘King’.Kantharam, Sinthu, &Punjab were also under his rule. (2) This is only reference of Ariyan ,that too not as a race, out of India.

It is popularly believed in the history circles that the word Iran is derived from Aryan and that the Iranians called themselves Aryans (meaning nobel i think).
I am not sure if Rig Veda is dated before or after Darius I, but surely reference to the word Aryan can be found in Persia, in fact the script that Darius I proposed in his times was called Aryan script and Old Persian language is generally termed as Aryan language.

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

THE ARIYAN QUESTION
Modern research in Geneology done by Dr. Mayyappan of Madurai Kamarajar University proves that Virumandi Thevar of Usilampatti Geneology directly relates to South African tribes.(14)

(14) The Hindu Column dated 30.03.2002

Hi FSG,
I searched the Hindu archives on the date you mentioned and couldn't find any column with the stated research by Dr Mayyappan.
Could you please specify the link please?
Thanks
DSath

You cannot find it in The hindu Website. I quoted it from Newspaper.

However, Kindly Check the following link to get that message. Only correction is Dr. Pitchappan and not Dr. Mayyappan.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/archeological_discoveries_of_2003.htm

Under the heading 'Archeological Discoveries of 2003' you can find in the second message of the following.

1. Ancient Cities in Tamil Nadu May Be Over 7,000 Years Old.
2. The Ancient Gene Pool of Tamil Nadu.

Here, I reproduce that message.

2. The Ancient Gene Pool of Tamil Nadu.
CHENNAI, INDIA, January 5, 2003: India's East Coast, especially along Tamil Nadu, is increasingly drawing the attention of archaeologists and anthropologists from across the world for its evolutionary and historical secrets. The focus has sharpened after genetic scientist Spencer Wells found strains of genes in some communities of Tamil Nadu that were present in the early man of Africa. In the "Journey of Man" aired by the National Geographic channel, Wells says the first wave of migration of early man from Africa took place 60,000 years ago along the continent's east coast to India. Genetic mapping of local populations provided the evidence. R.M. Pitchappan, a professor of Madurai Kamaraj University in Tamil Nadu, helped Wells collect the gene evidence from Tamil Nadu's Piramalai Kallar people, inhabiting the Madurai and Usilampatti areas 500 km south of Chennai. The community was once quite strong and independent. Their genes have the amino acid bands found in the gene map of the original man from Africa, and similar to bands in the Australian aborigines. Says Pitchappan, "The ancestors of the Kallar community may have come into India from the Middle East." Wells believes there were three waves of migration that early man undertook. According to Mr. Wells and his Indian collaborator, early man went from Africa to the Middle East, on to Kutch on India's west coast, all around to the peninsula's east coast and then on to Australia. "These gene pools are unique and very accurately map the path a population has taken, leaving behind original communities to grow into independent groups but with a common ancestor," explains Pitchappan. More information is found at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...0900020001.htm

I think the hindu Website removed that message. The above is from hindustan times. In Hindustan times also it is removed.

The only thing here we have to note that The above researchers don't know about Kumari Kandam.

Thanks for your informations & supportives.

f.s.gandhi

[dsath]

Spencer’s Wells research has triggered some interest in the archeological community. I recently saw the documentary in which he proposes the Human immigration theory of 60,000 before now.

But I think the whole problem of anyone wanting to do some sort of research in Indian archeology cannot look beyond the Aryan-Dravidian divide. The whole Aryan-Dravidian thing is a very Euro centric approach. I think we should start clean and fresh, if we want to find out about our real history. The major difference between other early civilizations and Indian is that we have continuity and hence political implications are a by product. For example no one follows Egyptian culture as it was practiced ages ago and so it was relatively easier to find the truth(of course the wealth buried with the mummies was a motivator), compared to India.
Just take the case of Indus civilization. The saffron brigade wants to see it as predecessor of Vedic culture, while the Dravidian brigade wants to claim it as a proto-Dravidian culture. It’s really hard under the present circumstances to find out what really happened to the Indus civilization. Even realties will be masked by disputes. It’s a sad fact. I think the Aryan thing also suffers a similar fate.

Sad but true.