Talk:Periyar/Archive 6

Issues

Self-respect

>> One of the services Periyar did to Tamil society was that he instilled into every Tamilian the sense of self-respect.

Could the author please clarify what he means here by "Tamilian"? Is it a cultural designation, caste-based designation? Is it inclusive or exclusive of Brahmins? To me, it seems to exclude Brahmins as they are mentioned as a seperate-entity than Brahmins. In such cases, kindly use "non-Brahmin Tamils" as the interpretation of who are Tamils and who are not is extremely controversial. The author may not regard Brahmins as Tamils; I have a different opinion, altogether. And I wish that the sentences rely more on factual accuracy than opinions.

—This is part of a comment by Ravichandar84 (of 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

As far as I know Periyar saw Brahmins as Aryans and hence not part of the Tamil community (which is Dravidian). The article itself states Periyar explained that the caste system in south India is, due to Indo-Aryan influence, linked with the arrival of Brahmins from the north. The Self-respect movement by itself was for non-Brahmin Hindu Tamils whereas I have not heard of any instance where caste based stratification of other significant religious minorities in TN were under attack by Periyar. Although I might be guilty here of moving a bit away from the topic, caste based discrimination are also prevalent in those minority religions too. For eg. Dalit Christians in some Churches are not allowed to serve in Mass. Now to indulge in a bit of WP:SYNTH so as to be politically correct, the very phrase every Tamilian would by itself be a personal view of the author cited. The Tamil people included in the author’s definition seem to include what should be around 86% of the TN population. The best way out, in my opinion would be to state According to bladibla one of the services Periyar did to Tamil society was that he instilled into every Tamilian the sense of self-respect. Stating it as a matter of fact could be considered dodgy as this might even confuse a reader who does not know much about Dravidian politics. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

>> He made non-brahmins realize that they are as entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges that a Brahmin enjoys.

What does this sentence mean? What sort of privileges did non-Brahmins lack and which Brahmins had? Is it religious? Or economic? Or political? Or general?

• If the "privileges" are with regard to the amount of power each community had, then you might realize that the Raja of Pudukkottai, Ramnad and Sivaganga were not Brahmins. Of the 50-or-so zamindars in Tirunelveli district in 1879, only one appears to be a Brahmin.

• If we are to understand these "privileges" to be economic, then you might find that most of business and financial magnates of the time such as Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar, Rajah Sir Muthiah Chettiar, Alagappa Chettiar, etc. were not Brahmins.

It would be better that the author clarifies and accordingly modifies the sentence in the article to remove ambiguity. I also find that the claim has been sourced from a particular book by Gopalakrishnan. This raises doubts about the credibility of this particular source as this statement sourced from the book appears to be factually wrong.

—This is part of a comment by Ravichandar84 (of 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

Here I will have to disagree with Ravi. Brahmins who made 3% of the population in Madras state occupied 60 to 79% of the jobs in four major departments and also accounted for 70% of graduates from the University page 189. I reckon this serves for the next point raised too. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To add on to the above, although not much of a privilege, even coffee houses had special dining areas for Brahmins. I reckon Ravi might remember the joke in Sabapathy on such a sign. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that Brahmins tried to dominate religion and bureaucracy. But there were may areas which Brahmins did not dominate. I feel it is more about casteism than Brahmins alone.

I would suggest a rewording as following:

He strived to make people of all castes and creeds realize that they were equal and were entitled to enjoy the same rights and privileges

(or)

He strived to make non-Brahmins realize that they were as much entitled to enjoy the same religious and bureaucratic privileges as the Brahmin

(or)

He strived to make the downtrodden realize that they were as much entitled to enjoy the same rights and privileges as upper castes

I wouldn't say that he "made them realize" as casteism and caste-based discrimination does exist and hasn't been completely eradicated.

As far as separate dining areas for Brahmins are concerned, a few months back I chanced upon a Southern Railways brochure from the year 1926 which advertises that exclusive choultries and dining rooms are available for Europeans, Brahmins and other-caste Hindus. Yeah, I do agree that this was a sort of discrimination; Brahmins probably discriminate as much or a little bit more towards people of other castes as upper-caste non-Brahmins discriminated towards Dalits.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 11:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

>> It was not an easy thing for him to arouse this sense of equality in non-Brahmins. By means of his numerous speeches and articles, he appealed to non-Brahmins to learn and to be self-respecting citizens.

Since the previous sentence over privileges given to Brahmins has some issues over factual accuracy, these sentences appear POV to me.

Suggested rewording:

It was not easy for him to arouse this sense of equality among all Tamils. However, in his speeches, he tried to imbibe in them, a feeling of self-respect

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 12:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

>> These unjust restrictions have been eradicated through the continual condemnations of Periyar and his lieutenants.

Unjust restrictions imposed by Brahmins have been removed; however, those imposed by other castes continue to remain. I feel that there should be a word or two mentioned that Periyar wasn't entirely successful. The two-tumbler system continues to be in vogue in the southern districts. More recently, Dalits in North Tamil Nadu were forced to eat human excreta. Yeah, this article has been largely neutralized. However, I still feel that there are some sections that require attention. This article may be good enough for a GA, but defeinitely work needs to be done before nominating this article for an FA.

I leave it to the authors of this article whether or not to implement the changes I've suggested. However, please bear in mind that the article may not clear FA unless these important issues are addressed.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, if am allowed to linger into a bit of synthesis here, to see Periyar’s ideologies to have succeeded in full scale is over stating it. Indeed his work aided in bringing about a lot of changes, but did not result in a complete eradication of anything. Caste based discrimination is still prevalent in TN (although one has to agree that its not as much most places elsewhere in India). Self-respect marriages are not sought to be the preferred way to get married either. The claim is surely an overstatement and seems more likely to be deemed a POV on a review. It is better removed rather than amending it to read something else. Within this context I remember reading somewhere in one of the books hosted by Google that Periyar himself once said that he did not practice what he preached for when it comes to woman rights with the way he dealt with Nagammai. I tried to quickly fish it out, but couldn’t. Periyar's conflict with Saivism is also worth a mention since people like Maraimalai Adigal who were devout Hindus were propagating non-Brahmin ideas and saw the self-respect movement as a mischief of the Vaishnavites. This book spells out the controversy in detail. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Ravichandar: To sum it up Tamilians are an ethnic group. There are indeed Tamils and other Dravidians that are of the Brahmin community. So, in the article, references with regards to Brahmins (in Tamil Nadu) not being Tamil will be modified. Also, there were special reservations for the Brahmin community with regards to jobs, education, and even religion. Through all these agitations since the 1920s, a lot has changed. For example, a few years ago, Karunanidhi granted a law to allow Dalits to work as temple priests even in the major ones. Lastly, with regards to "Unjust restrictions imposed by Brahmins have been removed", quotations such as these shall not be changed. However, we will add to the article of caste discrimination still in continuance today. Thank you so much for pointing that out. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) I guess we can have something like this:

Sporadic caste-violence and atrocities continue to occur in Tamil Nadu. However, discrimination has largely been eliminated due to Periyar's agitation for removal of caste names, etc, etc, etc

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 11:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Will also put some recent news on caste, as well. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues and Suggestions

• The section on Dravidar Kazhagam, esp. the one on last years of service is too small. The last 30 years make up not more than 5% of the whole article. Almost nothing is mentioned in the article about Periyar's campaigning for the Indian National Congress in the 1950s and 1960s, the Ramnad riots, etc. This particular portion needs expansion.
• I also feel that at places, there has been a bad choice of words and phrases.

The sentence

Those who had a dislike for Periyar accused him of attacking Hinduism and the Brahmin community

could be replaced with

Periyar's opponents accused him of attacking Hinduism and the Brahmin community

There are a few other places where there are errors in sentence formation and grammatical errors. I would recommend a thorough copy-edit.

• There could be more quotes on Periyar than those by Periyar, both in favor of him and against him. The article could also have a bit more objective criticism.

• I suggest that sections be included on "Periyar and Gandhi", "Periyar and Rajaji" and "Periyar and Annadurai" detailing on the agreements and disagreements Periyar had with them. (Each section can have, maybe, some four or five lines) This is entirely my suggestions; maybe, the article is better even without including these sections.

• The section "In popular culture" could be expanded. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I also feel that the article could be moved to Periyar (social reformer). I feel that's more appropriate than "Periyar E. V. Ramasamy". He was either known as "E. V. Ramasamy" or "Periyar"; I don't think he was popularly referred to as "Periyar E. V. Ramasamy". I would like to hear your opinion, though. By the way I've made a request for a copy-edit at WP:IN. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyedited

I have copyedited the article lead a bit; it needs some more work though. I have tried to explain my reasonings in the edit summaries. Please review my edits and correct any errors I may have introduced. I will be busy over the next few days but hopefully will be able to copyedit further towards the end of next week. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Abecedare! :-)-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 17:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare, also, Ravichandar here is a recent rewording of this sentence by me as you suggested. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Couple more edits as per suggestion here and here. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Formation of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

The above section seems to be historically inaccurate. The article spells out that C. N. Annadurai and his followers had differences with Periyar on the Dravida Nadu issue. But in actual matter of fact, the differences in opinion arose between Periyar and CNA’s contingent as a following series of events:

• Periyar decided to boycott the celebrations on India’s independence and announced 15 August 1947 as a black day. Periyar saw that the independence merely meant British colonial masters replaced with North Indians and Brahmins. Annadurai to the contrary believed that independence was an overall achievement of all Indians.

• Later Annadurai walked out of the party’s (DK) conference in 1948 when Periyar announced that the DK would not contest in elections. The major ideological difference between DK and DMK was initially the issue of taking parliamentary politics.

• The differences finally gave way in 1949 when Periyar married Maniammai. While people like Annadurai saw this to be setting a bad example (as spelt out in the article too), people like E. V. K. Sampath were disappointed to see Maniammai to be announced as Periyar’s heir (until them Sampath – Periyar’s nephew – was considered his heir).

It should be noted that DMK carried on the state independence even until 1960s and had to give up only after a new constitutional amendment barring any party with a separatist ideology from contesting in elections. This amendment was made as a consequence of the Sino-Indian War. It should be noted that by this time Periyar himself was close with the Congress party leaders. Congress being a national party the issue of Dravida Nadu being the cause of split doesn’t make sense. You can find the references to the above events here and this book details DMK's stance when it left Dravida Nadu to the backburner. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dravidian"

The racial term "Dravidian" appears to be too vague. I am strongly against the liberal use of the term in this article. Starting the article with "Periyar is a Dravidian social activist" is similar to having something like "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is an Aryan freedom-fighter". I've modified the sentence accordingly. If the usage of "Aryans" and "Dravidians" is based on the definitions given by politicians who follow a particular ideology, please mention that "regarded as Dravidians by so-and-so person" or something like that. The words Aryans and Dravidians should not be used to refer to specific communities in the article unless such racial classification had been supported by genetic research. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, this is getting ridiculous. Dravidians and Aryans are two separate racial groups. One are indigenous aboriginal groups, while the others are of Persian decent. You may be strongly against the term of the racial group Dravidian, but that does not give one the right to remove that or any other racial or ethnic categorization. It is the same as the KKK saying that the mentioning of African Americans in US history is controversial and therefore should be modified or left out. As for genetic research on ethnic or racial groups, the Nazis during WWII have done many with regards to their propaganda. This is now getting out of hand, and now becoming controversial. Wiki Raja (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The concept of Aryan and Dravidian race is still controversial, especially when you regard particular communities as Dravidians and particular communities as non-Dravidian. Anyway, without dwelving into something about genetics which is unrelated to this article, there isn't another instance of the usage of the term "Dravidian politician" or "Dravidian social activist" anywhere in the project. Politicians from Dravidian parties are only mentioned as Tamil politicians. In Periyar's context, it is better to view the term "Dravidian" as a political term than use it in the racial context.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) What is wrong with the term Dravidian? Is it wrong to call someone a Tamil or Kannadiga or Malayali or Telugu? Dravidian only means that the person's mother tongue is one of the Dravidian languages. FYI genetic homogenecity is not seen in any so called racial group. Genetics tells us that there is no race unless you belong to an isolated tribe that had been cut off from the civilised world for centuries. We are all Africans under the skin. Genetics does not question the distiction as Dravidians per se. As a matter of fact genetic studies have shown that Dravidian speaking people should have arived to India before the Aryan language speakers. Although interesting Austro-Asiatic people seem to be the first ones to reach the subcontinent. I agree that Dravidian is also an ideology in politics. The ideology by itself relies on the defenition of Dravidians as a community. Genetic research does not support the existence of pure Greeks. That doesn't stop any of us classifying Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Ethnicity can be defined by languages as far as I can see that. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi did not conceive himself to be working for the upliftment of the Aryans, but Periyar and his followers did. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But articles on M. Karunanidhi, C. N. Annadurai, etc., do not mention them as "Dravidian politicians"; I mean, nowhere else, is the term used in a racial context. A politician from Tamil Nadu is mentioned as a "Tamil politician" and not as a "Dravidian politician"; this is same for people from other South Indian states, too. If we are to change it everywhere, then it's ok.-18:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, articles for other prominent politicians belonging to Dravidian parties do not start this way, which is another reason for concern. We have the habit of identifying people by region, more than a controversial thing as a race-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok. We'll make compromises here. I felt that having something like this would be okay.

"Periyar was a Tamil social activist of the Dravidian Movement".-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC) If you meant that the sentence should clarify that the Dravidian used there denotes Dravidian politics then I would agree with you. Periyar might not be the sole figure in the Dravidian political scenario but one of the key figures. May be the sentence should be rephrased to denote this. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravi's suggested rewording is fine with me. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My point of concern is that articles on other politicians belonging to AIADMK, DMK, PMK, DMDK, MDMK do not use the term "Dravidian politicians". Articles on scientists, etc., too follow the same trend, mentioning them as "Tamil scientist" an not "Dravidian scientist". As far as I know, this, probably appears to be the only article starting in such a manner. I may be wrong here. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you are wrong or logically flawed. But the point being here is the whole Dravidian parties family and hence the Dravidian politics trace its orgins to Periyar's efforts[1] [2]. This makes him a key figure in the Dravidian politics. This is one of the major points about him that needs to be mentioned. Your rewording "Periyar was a Tamil social activist of the Dravidian Movement" seems to capture this better than an ambiguous statement currently in the article. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Telugus, Tamils, Malayalees, and Kannadigas are Dravidians through ethnic and linguistic ties. Periyar was a Kannadiga born in Tamil Nadu who stood up for the Tamil people. Thus, we should either stick with "Dravidian social activist" or remove the Kannadiga script of his name in the first sentence. Wiki Raja (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For those out there who would like to pretend that Dravidians (Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, and Kannadigas) do not exist, the term "Dravidian social activist" can also mean a social activist who engages in activism regarding Dravidian cultural or linguistic issues, instead of being of one being Dravidian. The terms "Dravidian activist", "Dravidian politicians", and "Dravidian tribes" are further used in numerous books and journals. Below are just a few examples.

• Dravidian politicians: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
• Dravidian activists: [14][15][16][17][18][19]
• Dravidian tribes: [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

Here are some sentences which explain that Dravidians are a different race of ethnic groups:

• "When we pass below this Western and Central belt of modified Dravidian tribes, we find the South occupied by almost unmixed Dravidian peoples speaking their own languages.[32]
• "They consist generally of the Dravidian races or those peoples speaking the Kanarese, Telugu, Tamil, and Malayalam languages. [33]
• "Southern India is the habitat of the Dravidian races, the Tamil and Telugu (Telinga) people, whose origin is to be traced to quite a different Asiatic cradle and who reached India in prehistoric times by quite a different route to that followed by the Aryan immigrants of the north. [34] Wiki Raja (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue in the article is not whether Dravidians exist or not. The issue is whether the term "Dravidian" could be used in a racial context to denote specific communities. According to the British, Tamil Brahmins were partly Aryan and partly Dravidian, non-Brahmin Tamils were Dravidians while Dalits were Adi-Dravidas. When the non-Brahmin Movement originated in the province,their leaders generally referred to all Tamils who were not Brahmins as Dravidians and called Brahmins as Aryans. I understand that this article uses the term "Dravidian" in a similar context. While this is indeed the belief of a particular school of thought, it could only be regarded as such and not as an established fact. Now, it is doubtful whether a DNA test of individual communities in Tamil Nadu would confirm this belief. And then some depressed communities in Tamil Nadu like the Narikuravas speak Indo-Aryan languages.

And as far as using the term "Dravidian social-activist" with respect to Periyar is concerned, I haven't found another instance of such a prefix being used with regard to any top leader of the Dravidian movement, in Wikipedia. If it is used in a political context, I feel using the phrase "politician of the Dravidian Movement" or "social activist of the Dravidian movement" would be more appropriate. Anyway, if you feel I am wrong here, fee free to modify the sentence in the lead section. However, wherever the term "Dravidian" is used with regard to particular communities, it needs to be modified to depict it as the belief of a particular school of thought.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input which is respected. The term "Dravidian" is only controversial to Indo-Aryan chauvenists and their quislings (not referring to you). Below are a few examples of the term Dravidian being used to classify a race or family of ethnic groups.

• Dravidian race: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]

• Dravidian ethnic groups: [49][50][51][52][53][54][55]

Wiki Raja (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained a hundred times that the issue is not with regard to Aryan race or Dravidian race but who are Dravidians and who are not-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok! Let me make this simple for you. You have used the term "the non-Brahmin indigenous Dravidian peoples". Kindly establish with the help of reliable sources how Tamil Brahmins were not Dravidians, as you appear to claim here.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 07:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Non-Brahmin indigenous Dravidian peoples are Dravidians who are not Brahmin. There are also Indo-Aryans who are not Brahmins too. Take for example our Bania friends. These people are also non-Brahmin Indo-Aryans, just like there are non-Brahmin Dravidians. Likewise, there are Indo-Aryan Brahmins and Dravidian Brahmins. Tamils are Dravidians, thus there are Tamil Brahmins. Hope that makes sense. It is impressive that you are proud to be a Tamil, now the next step would be to denounce your caste background, like I've done with mine. Before the intrusion of the Indo-Aryan hate culture on the Dravidian civilizations of the Indian sub-continent, there was no caste, Brahmin, Vellalar etc. amongst us Tamils. Let us put aside the practice and recognition of the existence of caste once and for all. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! This particular term, on first look, appeared to contain a great deal of ambiguity and when I interpreted it in a particular way it appeared factually inaccurate. That's why I pointed it out. Thank you very much for clarifying its meaning. The term "Dravidian" and "Aryan" are widely used in political circles these days (with a great deal of controversy) to reap political gains. It is good that you had clarified.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 12:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Raja, I am not speaking for any particular caste or community here. All that I am saying here is that if at all that sentence was used to convey the meaning that Brahmins were not Dravidians, then it is factually wrong.

This what Madras Census Report 1891 has to say on the Brahmins of Madras Presidency:

In the earliest times the caste division was much less rigid than now, and a person of another caste could become a Brahman by attaining the Brahmanical standard of knowledge, and assuming Brahmanical functions. And, when we see Nambudiri Brahmans even at the present day contracting alliances, informal though they be, with the women of the country, it is not difficult to believe that, on their first arrival, such unions were even more common.

And then, it is a well known fact that Ramanuja inducted a number of people from other castes as Sri Vaishnava Brahmins. I do not know about the rest of India, the sources I have in my possession clearly establish that this was true with regard to Tamil Nadu. And by the way, there is a famous saying in Tamil which proves the homogenity of all communities.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think the use of the word indigenous should be avoided when refereing to Dravidian language speakers. All Dravidian languages are indigenous but the people are not. Its best to drop that word in my opinion. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How could the Dravidian languages on the sub-continent be indigenous to the land, while the people who speak them are not? That does not make sense. Then where did the indigenous people who spoke the indigenous Dravidian languages go? Does that mean that today Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees and Kannadigas are not indigenous to their respective mother-states? If that is the case, then were did we come from originally? The Indo-Aryans of North India have everything set in gold where they came from. What about us? Wiki Raja (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, it goes like this. Genetic research as well as its complimentary archeological evidences point that human race originated in Africa. This paper published in June 2008 is the latest of the researches I can fish out. I believe that the paper is open access and in case its not you can find it here in my Sandbox along with a list of few other note worthy papers. I would like to point out parts which are relevant to our discussion here. First would be this section where the author cites several earlier researches that first human settlers of the subcontinent were Austro-Asiatic language speakers. We do not have any evidence either to support or oppose if these people reached peninsular south. This is where the question of what you mean by indigenous crops up first. If the Austro-Asiatic people are the first to reach the subcontinent that makes the Dravidian speaking population as people who overran the preexisting population. But if they did dominate and pushed out the existing Austro-Asiatics is a question as these people could have left India by then and the proto-Dravidian (people who spoke the languages that precedes the contemporary Dravidian languages - in other words mother of Dravidian languages) who brought skills of agriculture found themselves successful in the fertile soil of the subcontinent. By the time the Indo-Aryan speakers reached India the Dravidian speakers were widespread and had already undergone genetic differentiation as explained here. The contemporary Dravidian languages were born out of the proto-Dravidian languages, as per the current hypothesis, and hence these languages are native of India. The theory that Dravidian race origated in the subcontinent is now antiquated. This is why the use of the word indigenous is not exactly right when we talk about the origins of the people, but true within the context of Dravidian languages. I have tried my best not to beat around the bush, but if it still sounds hazy, I really do apologise. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Racially or ethnically, what are we? We most definitely are not related ethnically or racially to the Indo-Aryans. It is like saying that the people of New Guinea are ethnically or racially related to the Japanese. As for the Austro-Asiatic peoples, where did they go, if another group of people came to the sub-continent? If Austro-Asiatic people arrived this area before another group presumably Dravidian, then realistically, there has had to have been many intermarriages between the two groups. That would mean that we are also mixed with Austro-Asian. Some of the answers to our questions have been thrown out by Indian nationalists, as myths. If we look at our own ancient history apart from foreign legends such as that of Ashoka, Brahmi-scripts, and other quacks, some of the answers may be found. I truly believe there was land or patches of land between the Indian and Australian sub-continents which sit on the Indo-Australian plate. This was called Lemuria or Kumari Kandam. Has anyone actually traveled to the outback of Australia to study the languages and anthropology of the indigenous peoples there to see if we are connected with them? It is agreeable that we came from Africa, since due to the Plate Tectonic theory of Pangea, the Indo-Australian plate was not part of Asia at one time, but was connected with Madagascar. Here's a funny story, just like we see how Indian nationalists change their history every ten years, these enthusiasts are now trying to say that India has its own separate tectonic plate called the Indian plate. Now, that's a joke. :) Wiki Raja (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I made myself clear earlier, if not I will be the only person to be blamed. I do not say that Dravidian are genetically identical to Indo-Aryans. I this paper by Spencer Wells it is clearly said that there are spefic genetic markers that are more common in Indo-Aryans than Dravidians. Indo-Aryan speakers reached India much later than Dravidian speakers. If you had followed the links and read the paper you would have realised that the remenents of the Austro-Asiatic people are still in parts of India. The existence of India plate, as far as I know is not a joke. But I will leave that to the geologists to decide. I'm not qualified to talk about it. But please do not blasphem science by painting them with nationalist colours. These are researches done around the world. The researches include not just include Indians but from all over the world. There are several blogspots that say that Aryans and Dravidians are not exactly two different ethnic groups. I am not quoting the later. Those are the maniacs who don't even understand what the science is. There are loads of people working on the genetic relationship between various ethnic groups, including that of South Indians to Australians. Unfortunately there is no archaeological study as far as I know. I do not see what your point is. We have clear scientific proof that Austro-Asiatic people are the first to reach India. Let us not waste any time on going in circles. Are we going to have this article based on updated research or antiquated theories? If you have any recent research evidence to counter the ones I have shown, please feel free. Or else we cannot call Dravidian people as natives of India. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You have made yourself clear. With all due respect, my statements were not made towards your comments, but against those nationalists who try to twist science and history to fulfill their own selfish aspirations. As for the Indian plate being a joke, I was referring to the twisted theory that India is a separate continent of its own and not connected to Australia as shown here. As a matter of fact, the Geography classes taken and books on Geography read, they have always shown it as the Indo-Australian plate here, here, and here. It is agreeable that the Austronesian people have either migrated or were already in the Indian sub-continent. Furthermore, I strongly believe that we Dravidians are Austronesians or at least mixed with Austronesians and East African. Coming back to the issue of who's native and who's not native, would we consider Native Americans (ie. Crow, Sioiux) and Meso-American (ie. Mayan, Xuahacan) as being native/ indigenous to North and South America? History points that most of these groups in the U.S. and Canada have migrated over the Bering Straits from Asia, while other research shows that those from Central and South America came from Asia through ocean travel. Would they then not be considered "indigenous" or "native" to the Americas? Wiki Raja (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To start with, the existence of India plate does not contradict that India and Australia were interconected in the early earth. You might want to check this flash file > go under motion > and move the arrow in the bottom of the page. You will have to remember that India was connected to Australia millions of years ago and human race (or Homo sapiens) arose just about 200,000 years. So the idea of Indians and Australians sharing the same land in ancient times is clearly obsolent. Now getting back to the idea of natives. Where do you draw the line in history that certain people are natives and others are immigrants? There is a wide consensus that the population which existed before the Europeans settled in America to be called as the natives. If we are to apply the same logic here all Indians should be termed as natives! You might also be interested to know that Indo-Aryans reached India almost the same time the Native Americans were settling in their continent. You yourself have agreed on the diverse origins of the Native Americans. Dravidian and Indo Aryans are of diverse origins too. There is one big difference though. Native Americans were almost cut off from the rest of the world, which is not the case with India. So there was a steady genetic inflow throughout. Hope this makes sense. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

True, the Indo-Aryans are native to their respective areas in the North, just as the Dravidians are native to the South and Central parts of the sub-continent. However, Indo-Aryans are not native to the Southern areas of the sub-continent, just like the Scandinavians are not native to the Mediterranean. As for the Natives of the Americas being cut off from the rest of the world, I would have to somewhat disagree. In one of my research papers done quite a while back, there was evidence of contact between the peoples of South and Central America with the people of the South Pacific. Evidences can be seen in the similar weaponry found from Peru all the way to the Marquesas islands, the ceremonial alcoholic drink called Kawi, also known amongst other islanders and Meso-Americans as Kavi, or Kava. Another strong evidence is a collosal stone Olmeca head found in Southern Mexico, with an identical one like it found in Sumatra of Indonesia. With regards to the link you gave, there are some reservations. Over the thousands of years of plate movement, it shows the Sri Lankan island remaining unattached to the Indian sub-continent? Here is a satellite pic showing the shallow waters of the Palk Straits. Several tsunamis ago, there must have been land between the Sri Lankan island and the Indian sub-continent. Also, the Indonesian archipelago was shown (during the animated plate shift) as retaining its islands during those periods. The many tsunamis and volcanic eruptions on the earth have created the islands and archipelagos as well as the submerging of land. Here is a site of the 2004 Asian tsunami showing islands being washed undersea. I would have state that at one time Sri Lanka was connected with the sub-continent, while the Indonesian archipelago may not have been an archipelago. Could it be possible that there are sub-continental plates on top of larger plates? Ex: Indian and Australian sub-continents on top of the Indo-Australian plate, or submerged pieces of landmass? Wiki Raja (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying Dravidians are indigenous to south, I reckon I will have to agree. I think the article should be specific on this regard as it might imply that you are saying Dravidians are the only indigenous people of the subcontinent. I do not mean that you are implying this, but the sentence is a bit ambiguous. The current sentence He opposed the exploitation and marginalization of the non-Brahmin indigenous Dravidian peoples; and the imposition of, what he considered, Indo-Aryan India can be changed to He opposed the exploitation and marginalization of the non-Brahmin indigenous Dravidian peoples of South India and the imposition of, what he considered, Indo-Aryan India. Hope this is OK. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the sentence could be a little misleading. Thus, the sentence will be revised as suggested. Wiki Raja (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As per suggestion, the sentence has been revised here. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My explanation of my revert

Your posting of a fact tag was reverted here since it is already quoted from a reference quote. Please discuss first before modifying content. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I would like some clarification on what the source actually says. As far as I know, I haven't read anywhere that he had Brahmin colleagues in the Self-Respect Movement. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I would suggest that the authors consider neutralizing the article with material from this source. I had earlier found this article at tamilnation.org and did not wish to recommend it as I had doubts about its reliability. But then, the fact the article was reproduced in the site thanthaiperiyar.org which is run by Periyar's followers probably lends it credibility.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8