ARYAN INVASION IS A CONCOCTED MYTH

A Civilization Around River Sarasvati

The great sage Vyasa dictated the Mahabharata to Ganesha, on the banks of the River Sarasvati. While dictating, the sage asked the river goddess to flow more gently. She didn't listen and that is when Ganesha cursed her that she will one day completely vanish. Thus, the disappearance of the river is also there in Hindu scriptures. 

Sarasvati originated amid the Aravalli mountain range in Rajasthan, as a tributary of the Alaknanda River, which has an origination point near Badrinath in Uttarakhand. The river passed through Patan and Sidhpur before merging with the Rann of Kutch. The remains of the river are there in the Mana village, the last village on the Ind0-Tibetan border in the Chameli district, located around 4.4km from Badrinath. The river Sarasvati is mentioned in both the Rig Veda and Manusmriti, and it is important for India to prove the Aryan invasion theory is just humbug.

In the year 1886, Moniere Williams made the process of translating Sanskrit to English easier by the publication of Sanskrit to English and English to Sanskrit dictionaries. Earlier, William Jones had "discovered" that Sanskrit was similar to many other European languages and almost "founded" comparative linguistics. In 1786, in his address to the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Jones said: "The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is a wonderful structure, more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin and more exquisitely refined than either: yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident". Thus, a diabolic design to invent the "Aryan invasion and civilization" was born. (1) 

In 1794, after the Manusmriti  (Law Code of Manu) was "discovered" and translated by Jones, the Rig Veda, the most ancient work of Indian philosophy that predated Manusmriti, was translated by Max Muller in 1856. (2) Both texts open the doors to ancient India.  

Both the Rig Veda nor Manusmriti had not been written down when they were composed. The people of ancient India did not use a writing system to preserve the texts or ancient compositions. They never wrote on paper or wood or another medium, in the heat of tropical India. Though many wooden boats were constructed by the people living in ancient India, none has survived until today or yet been found by archaeologists excavating the remains of the cities of ancient India. (3)

Maybe they wanted to control the flow of information for political or religious reasons. A different method of preserving knowledge was invented- memorization. Certain individuals dedicated their life to memorising long passages of information: a type of poetry or hymn was easy to memorise if chanted to a particular rhythm. There are individuals in India today who memorise many of these hymns, especially Rig Veda, recite them every day and teach them.  

Geography of Rig Veda

Whether for ignorance or because of the colonial psyche, the British rulers created a theory that the native people of India did not invent the sophisticated language of Sanskrit and the Manusmriti, and did not compose the spiritual Rig Veda, but all of it came from civilizations outside of India. They ruled that the uncivilised native population of India was forced to submit to these sophisticated invaders, inter-marry and be overtaken by the invading army's agenda.

The Europeans found some support for their theories, in the Rig Veda itself: In the Rig Veda, there are many references to battles between forces, especially the "Arya versus the Dasyu." But, several scholars of today point out that it was not a battle between the white and the black, but a reference to a never-ending fight between good and evil, since the Veda is a spiritual text.

The Aryan invasion theory, developed by many European scholars said that powerful warriors called "Aryans" from outside of the northwest of India, perhaps southern Russia, invaded India in about 1500 BCE, developed the Sanskrit language and compiled the Rig-Veda in 1200 BCE. Though the sophistication of Sanskrit shows that it took many years to develop, the  '"Aryan invasion theory" said that no other type of modernism was developed in ancient India until Alexander came with his army in about 326 BCE. Now, in light of scientific discoveries, we are certain that the Aryan invasion theory is a myth.

It is difficult to believe that mighty warriors who had travelled thousands of miles and conquered India would suddenly tum their swords into ploughshares and switch from war to spirituality. It is also difficult to believe that these "linguistically sophisticated warriors" would never mention in their (?) compositions like the Rig Veda their nativity or native language prior to their supposed invasion of India. There is no mention of how they easily developed the complicated Sanskrit. There is no mention of how they pressurised the native population to learn complicated Sanskrit, giving up their native one, recruiting large numbers of uncivilised native people to dedicate their lives to learning, memorizing, reciting and teaching the difficult foreign language.  

Though the Rig Veda doesn't contain the word Aryan, (it has only Arya), the European evangelists called the invaders '"Aryan" and their native enemies "Dasa" or '"Dasyu".  The enemies of the Vedic king, Sudas, are described in the Rig-Veda as being both Aryas and Dasas. Why not the Aryan Invasion theorists found this confusing? Dasyus are sometimes described as dark-skinned, and this came in handy for the  Aryan invasion theorists. They were quick to reason that if the enemies were "dark", that could refer to the native population of India. Conversely, the Europeans in India claimed to be more directly related to the white "Aryan civilised invaders".

It is evident that the Rig Veda never meant skin colour. The darkness of Dasyus and the lightness of Arya in the Rig Veda speak of a symbolic battle between light and darkness, good and bad. (4) 

The word, Arya is defined by Monier-Williams in his Sanskrit to English dictionary as: "a respectable or honourable or faithful man, an inhabitant of Aryavarta; one who is faithful to the religion of his country; Name of the race which immigrated from Central Asia into Aryavarta (opposed to {anArya}, {dasyu}, {dAsa} .. a man highly esteemed, a respectable, honourable man... a master, an owner; a friend...of a good family; excellent; wise... [see Old German {era}; Mod(ern) Germ(an) {Ehre}; Irish {Erin}.]  (5)

Thus, Williams invented a meaning for Arya, a "politically-correct" invention, designed to drive a wedge between the people of India, the upper and lower rungs of society, to divide and rule, or divide and destroy. So, what does Arya really mean?

Each Sanskrit letter actually is a root sound (dathu) that makes up simple words and the roots of more complicated words. In the case of Arya, it comes from the following Sanskrit letters (there are two possibilities for spellings using one of two different "R" sounds): (6)

A-a ... prefix of verbs, near, near to, towards 

R-...in heaven, to go, move, rise, tend upwards (or) 

ra- acquiring...giving...fire, heat, love, brightness, splendour

ya- joining, restraining... attaining  

Taken together, the roots indicate: "one who is near towards acquiring and joining splendour or is rising upwards to attain heaven", which could mean spiritual or special or "heaven-oriented" people. It will never mean white foreign warriors. 

 The composers of Rig Veda often referred to themselves as "Arya". The Westerners took it as "Aryan" and translated the word as being "white-skinned",  just because in Rig Veda, the enemies of the Aryas were sometimes described as "dark". As we have seen, the names of the "dark" enemies of the "Aryas" were "Daasas" or "Dasyus". After World War II, Western scholars found scholars from India, like Sri Aurobindo, more credible- he believed that Daasas were not human beings at all, but "dark" spirits versus spirits of light; even the British Indologists Arthur MacDonnell and Arthur Keith said that the word "Dasyu" is applied to "superhuman enemies" and that the word "Daasa sometimes denotes enemies of a demoniac character in the Rig Veda". (7)  In Rig Veda, the god of fire, "Agni", is often portrayed as a bringer of the Light, one who killed the Dasyus, the dark (spirits). (8) Rig Veda, Book V, Chapter 14, Verse 4, says: "Agni (the god of fire) shone brightly when born, with light killing the Dasyus and the dark. (9)

Vedic Rivers

Max Muller in 1881 suggested that the term "Arya" may have evolved from the term "iraa", earth; in historical times it was being used in the sense of "sir" in English. (10) For instance, a character in the Rig Veda, Trasadasyu, was dark-skinned or syaava ("zyAva"), even though he was an Arya. (11) Monier-Williams also defines the word in the Rig Veda, syaava ("zyAva"), to be "brown, dark-coloured, dark". (12) 

In Rig Veda 1.96.3, the term "aria" is used, not "Arya", it is "viza ArIrAhutam", even though it is translated in English as "Aryan": "Praise him, ye Aryan folk"; the correct word should be "aindra", which means "belonging to or sacred to (the Vedic god) Indra, coming or proceeding from Indra. (13) Monier Williams defines "ari" as "attached to faithful; a faithful or devoted or pious man" and "ArI" as "to pour, let drop, to trickle or flow upon; to flow over." This is very different from "light-skinned" or "white-skinned" invaders called Aryans.  

In 1919-1920, two extremely old archaeological sites were found by R D Banerji of the Archaeological Survey of India and excavated by a team led by K N Dikshit during 1924-1925, and John Marshal during 1925-1926, in northwest India, the ancient cities of Mohenjodaro and Harappa near the Indus River. The civilization was called the Indus or Harappa Civilization or (14) Indus/Harappa Civilization and was dated to about 2500 BCE or about 4500 years ago. This was a setback for the Aryan invasion theorists. They no longer could claim that the native population of India was uncivilised in 2500 BCE. There was conclusive proof of carefully planned out cities with streets that ran according to directions, North-South and East-West, with bathrooms in every house and advanced waterways and drainage systems. Such drainage systems did not come again for another 2000 years until the time of Roman urban planners.

After the cities of Mohenjodaro and Harappa were '"discovered", the Aryan invasion theory was changed: these cities were constructed by some other prior invaders who built the cities, and then either left or were defeated by outsiders!  

Now, after careful study for a century, there is no evidence of the Aryan invasion or any other such invasion. The Indus/Harappa Civilization died out from over-use of the land, earthquakes which dried up the large river next to the Indus River, the River Sarasvati, and a drop in foreign trade. (15 )

The duties of Aryas are described in Manusmriti. They are not worldly but spiritually-oriented individuals. They are not foreign fighters:  

Manusmriti, Chapter 2, verse 108: "Let an Arya who has been initiated, (daily) offer fuel in the sacred fire, beg food, sleep on the ground and do what is beneficial to this teacher, until (he performs the ceremony of) Samavartana (on returning home).   Chapter 2, verse 165: An Arya must study the whole Veda together with the Rahasyas, performing at the same time various kinds of austerities and the vows prescribed by the rules (of the Veda). (16)  

River Sarasvati

Both the Rigveda and Manusmriti hint at a cradle of civilization, on the banks of the River Saraswati.

The term "Cradle of civilization" means the first location and time in human history where nomadic hunter-gatherers switched to farming and produced sufficient crops to allow some members of the society to work on developing a civilization. The hunter-gatherers noticed wild grains growing without human help, usually on the fertile land of a large river that regularly overflowed, depositing soil rich in nutrients for wild grains, near the river. The seeds of wild grains were deposited on this rich and fertile soil by birds picking up the seeds in their beaks, flying to the fertile ground and dropping the seeds to be planted without human intervention to grow "naturally". The wind also performed this task, thus enabling the wild grains to sprout in the fertile land and grow.  

At several places throughout the world, at different times, the switch to farming came next, when the people gradually stopped hunting-gathering to picking wild grains and planting them in the fertile soil. After some period of time, there were sufficient excess food crops to allow some of the members of the farming community to tum their attention to other pursuits, such as trading excess food crops. This was followed by the development of towns and cities, the division of labour and the beginning of "civilization".

The phrase "fertile crescent" means the crescent-moon-shaped area in the Middle East that incorporated ancient Mesopotamia (mostly modern-day Iraq), the Levant, and in some cases, ancient Egypt. But, there existed other large rivers in the world that regularly overflowed and had a type of crescent shape, a "fertile crescent" or a "past fertile crescent". These were the sites of ancient farming communities, some of which later became towns, cities and later civilizations, in China and India, two areas other than what Westerners called the "cradle of civilization" in the Middle East. The one pre-1900 BCE surrounding the Sarasvati River in northwest India, the Indus/Harappa civilization is a fertile crescent.  

The route of Sarasvati

The River "Sarasvati" in India is also a historical marker. Both the Rig Veda and Manusmriti refer to the Sarasvati River as a "great and mighty river" in the present tense. Rig Veda says, it "flowed from the mountains to the sea". It is evident that both the Rig Veda and Manusmriti were composed before the Sarasvati River dried up in 1900 BC; So, Manusmriti was composed prior to 1900 BC and therefore is the oldest law code in the world.  

The Nadistuti hymn in the Rig Veda (10.75) mentions the Sarasvati between the Yamuna in the east and the Sutlej in the west, while hymn 7.95.1-2, describes the Sarasvati as flowing to the Samudra, a word now usually translated as 'ocean', but which could also mean "lake." (17) Later Vedic texts such as the Tandya Brahmana and the Jaiminiya Brahmana, as well as the Mahabharata, mention that the Sarasvati dried up in a desert.

In the seventh "mandala" (chapter), of Rig Veda, Hymn 95, verses 1 and 2, the River Sarasvati is spoken of as "surpassing...all other waters...pure in her course from mountains to the ocean...(18) 

The Sarasvati river was revered and considered important for Hindus because it is said that it was on this river's banks, along with its tributary Drishadwati, in the Vedic state of Brahmavarta, that Vedic Sanskrit had its genesis, (19) and important Vedic scriptures like initial part of Rig Veda and several Upanishads were supposed to have been composed by Vedic seers. In the Manusmriti, Brahmavarta is portrayed as the "pure" centre of Vedic culture.

In the 1970s, space satellite pictures of the earth showed the dried-up path of the River Sarasvati, which flowed in ancient India from the "mountains to the sea". Sarasvati, due to earthquakes, got completely dried up by about 1900 BCE.  The river was structurally controlled by en echelon faults; hence, even minor tectonic movements caused big changes in the configuration of the palaeo-channels. (20) The term 'en echelon' in Geology refers to closely-spaced, parallel or subparallel, overlapping or step-like minor structural features in rock (faults, tension fractures), which lie oblique to the overall structural trend. Extensional stresses create fractures that can infill with calcite. When rocks deform in a brittle manner, the fracture pore can subsequently infill with some form of cement, such as calcite. Typically, crystals will nucleate on the fracture wall and grow into the opening.

Mehrgarh, the cradle of civilization

The change in perception that was brought out by the excavations of Mohenjodaro and Harappa, was made more pronounced by the discovery and excavation of the even-more-ancient city of Mehrgarh. Mehrgarh was located in ancient India not too far from the Indus/Harappa Civilization city of Mohenjodaro (present-day Pakistan), and archaeologists dated Mehrgarh to about 8500 BCE. Merhgarh changed the idea of the grand and exquisite civilization that existed in the Indian subcontinent. Mehrgarh is now called the "Cradle of Civilization". According to Asko Parpola, the culture migrated into the Indus Valley and became the Indus Valley Civilization of the Bronze Age. (21)

Mehrgarh is a Neolithic archaeological site situated on the Kacchi Plain of Balochistan in Pakistan. It is located near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River and between the modern-day Pakistani cities of Quetta, Kalat and Sibi. The site was discovered in 1974 by a team led by the French archaeologist Jean-François Jarrige and his wife, Catherine Jarrige. Mehrgarh was excavated continuously between 1974 and 1986, and again from 1997 to 2000. Archaeological material has been found in six mounds, and about 32,000 artefacts have been collected from the site. The earliest settlement at Mehrgarh—located in the northeast corner of the 495-acre site—was a small farming village dated between 7000 BCE and 5500 BCE.

Evidence of the world's first dental drilling of tooth decay, approximately 7,000 to 9,000 years ago, has been found in Mehrgarh (22), as well as the first use of cotton fibre (6th millennium BC). (23) 

It was in 2001, archaeologists studying the remains of nine men from Mehrgarh discovered that the people of this civilization knew proto-dentistry. In April 2006, it was announced in the scientific journal Nature that the oldest (and first early Neolithic) evidence for the drilling of human teeth in a living person was found in Mehrgarh. According to the authors, their discoveries point to a tradition of proto-dentistry in the early farming cultures of that region. "Here we describe eleven drilled molar crowns from nine adults discovered in a Neolithic graveyard in Pakistan that dates from 7,500 to 9,000 years ago. These findings provide evidence for a long tradition of a type of proto-dentistry in early farming culture." (24)

The oldest known example of the lost-wax technique comes from a 6,000-year-old wheel-shaped copper amulet found at Mehrgarh. The amulet was made from unalloyed copper, an unusual innovation that was later abandoned. (25) The oldest ceramic figurines in South Asia were found at Mehrgarh. Many of the female figurines are holding babies, and were interpreted as depictions of the "mother goddess". However, due to some difficulties in conclusively identifying these figurines with the "mother goddess", some scholars prefer using the term "female figurines with likely cultic significance". (26)

Merhgarh was found to have sophisticated artefacts that were sophisticated, and there is enough evidence of long-distance trading. 

Mehgarh painted pottery, 3000-2500 BCE

International trade and investment began in India thousands of years ago because of foreign objects found in India and Pakistan and Indus/ Harappa Civilization remains found in Egypt and Iraq. Mehrgarh shows evidence of being a large city of about 30,000 people. Foreign objects found in Mehrgarh are dated even prior to that of the Indus/Harappa Civilization of 4300 - 3200 BCE in the Indus/Harappa chalcolithic period (Copper Age). There exist ceramic similarities (clay pots and other vessels) in Mehrgarh and the Indus/Harappa Civilization with southern Turkmenistan and northern Iran, which suggest considerable mobility and trade. River Sarasvati was an often-used transportation route for shipping Indus/Harappa Civilization goods internationally to Egypt and Mesopotamia.  

Archaeologists have found the remains of stone anchors from shipwrecks that relate to ancient India (Indus/Harappa Civilization) in the Gulf States, such as in Bahrain. One type is the "ring-stone" anchor, which is a large stone shaped like a doughnut. These anchors have also been found off the coast of India and in the sister city of Harappa, Mohenjo-daro.

Ancient India (Indus/Harappa Civilization) was famous for its boats and international trade. One boat was called the Dhow, a popular boat in ancient India. The Dhow was originally built in India, with the wood used for the making of the boat cultivated and grown in India. (27) Later on, some of the wood grown in India was exported to Mesopotamia and Egypt and the boats were made there. The Dhow is actually a "sewn boat", that is, the planks of wood are actually sewn or lashed together, not nailed, even though nails were available at that time. After the River Sarasvatii dried up in 1900 BCE, international trade originating in India also fell off for more than 1500 years. The Dhow then became associated with Arab traders. (28)

Procopius, a Greek historian writing in the sixth century CE, recorded that ships used in the Indian Seas are not covered with pitch or any substance, and the planks are fastened together, not with nails but with cords.  

Other indications of international trade by Ancient India (Indus/Harappa Civilization) involve "weights and measures". Weights and measures of ancient India were either derived from other parts of the then-known world or given to other parts, and were a direct product of the international trade of India. Two different sets of weights have been found at some Indus/Harappa Civilization sites, one set for trade within the Indus/Harappa Civilization and one set for international trade, outside the Civilization. It appears that the weights from the Manusmriti were similar.

It is in the southern part of the Indus/Harappa Civilization, in the current Indian state of Gujarat, that the now dried-up Sarasvatii River ran into the sea. One of the ancient places where an important port city of the Indus/Harappa Civilization was found in Gujarat, is now called Lothal. In the Indus/Harappa museum in Lothal, there are ancient stone cubes of standard weights. Lothal was one of the Indus/Harappa Civilization sites that had another series of weights conforming to the heavy Assyrian standard for international trade.

Mother goddess, Mehrgarh, 3000-2500 BCE

This is evidence that the Indus/Harappa Civilization conducted international trade. William Jones was of the view that the Hindus must have been navigators in the age of composing Manusmriti because it mentions bottomry, the lending of money for marine insurance.

When Alexander invaded India in 326 BCE, he took along historians who documented in writing his campaigns. Since the Westerners relied on those writings, it is no surprise that they believed that India had no civilization prior to the campaign of Alexander. (29)  But now, scholars realize that the "Indus/Harappa Civilization" made substantial contributions to the progress of man in the material and perhaps, spiritual fields.  

The sparsely written script of that civilization is not yet completely deciphered. When William Jones translated Manusmriti,   followed by the translation of the older work, the Rig Veda, the Western scholars coined a term, Vedic Culture, to describe the Rig Vedic civilization. At first, the Vedic Culture was praised by many Europeans who postulated that India was the original cradle of civilization; then, colonial interests advanced the Aryan invasion theory, which now has become discredited. (30)

Max Muller, who translated Rig Veda first, made a guess that the age of Rig Veda was 1200 BCE. This was partly based on the discovery by Western scholars that the Buddha was born in approximately 600 BCE. Soon after, many people in India took up Buddhism and therefore, Rig Veda must have been written before. Muller died in 1900. Near the end of his life, he admitted that no one knew if the Rig Veda or other Vedic hymns were composed in 1000, 2000 or 3000 BCE! (31)

Less than 25 years later, the Indus/Harappa Civilization would be "discovered" and it would shatter the colonial mindset. Soon after the Indus/ Harappa civilization cities of Mohenjodaro and Harappa were "discovered", a slightly different  Aryan invasion theory was crafted and made popular by Westerners in Germany prior to World War II. But the theory of "Aryan superiority" lost credibility, after Germany lost the War. Now, most scholars agree that probably the Indus/ Harappa Civilization died out from over-use of the land, the earthquakes which dried up the River Sarasvati and a corresponding drop in foreign trade. (32)  

Thus, there is no direct evidence of an Aryan invasion of India. The "Aryan invasion theory" is not recorded in any written document and is archaeologically invalid. (33)  

______________________

1. Handa, Devendra, Vedic vis-a-vis Harappan Culture: Some Thoughts, n. 14, p. 75.8, in In Search of Vedic-Harappan Relationship, ed. Ashvini Agrawal, Aryan Books, 2005

2. Griffith, Ralph TH, Hymns of the Rigveda, (1889) Munishiram Manoharlal (1999)

3. Naegele, Charles J, History and Influence of Law Code of Manu, Golden Gate University of Law, California, 2008, p 6

4. Sethna, KD, The Problem of Aryan Origins, S&S Publishers (1980) p. 104, Aditya Prakashan Delhi

5. Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, n. 7

6. Naegele, Charles J,  p 11

7. Sethna, KD, The Problem of Aryan Origins, p.104

8. ibid, p 109

9. Buehler, G., Laws of Manu, p 3

10. Singh, Bhagwan, The Vedic Harappans, Aditya Prakashan (1996) p. 27-29

11. Dhavalikar, MK, The Aryans Myth and Archaeology, Munshiram Manoharlal (2007) p. 46

12. Monier-Williams, n. 8

13. Shendge, Malati, The Aryas: Facts Without Fancy and Fiction, Abhinav Publications (1996) p. 26

14. Griffith, Ralph TH, Hymns of the Rigveda, (1889) Munishiram Manoharlal (1999)

15. Lal, BB, in Agrawal (editor), In Search of Vedic-Harappan Relationship, Aryan Books International (2005) p. 3

16. Buehler, G., n. 3

17. Bhargava, M.L. (1964). The Geography of Rigvedic India. Lucknow. p. 5.

18. (1) This stream Sarasvati with fostering current comes forth, our sure defence, our fort of iron. As on a car, the flood flows on, surpassing in majesty and might all other waters. 

(2) Pure in her course from mountains to the ocean, alone of streams Sarasvati hath listened.

19. Olivelle, Patrick, ed. The Law Code of Manu.2004. Oxford University Press. p. 24

20. Lal, BB, The Sarasvati Flows On,  Aryan, (2002), p. 14

21. Parpola, Asko, The Roots of Hinduism, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 17

22. Possehl GL (1999) Indus Age: The Beginnings. Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press

23. Jarrige JF (2008) Mehrgarh Neolithic. Pragdhara 18: 136–154
24. Coppa, A. et al. 2006. "Early Neolithic tradition of dentistry: Flint tips were surprisingly effective for drilling tooth enamel in a prehistoric population." Nature. Volume 440. 6 April 2006.

25. Thoury, M.; et al. (2016). "High spatial dynamics-photoluminescence imaging reveals the metallurgy of the earliest lost-wax cast object". Nature Communications. 7: 13356.

26. Upinder Singh (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Dorling Kindersley, 2008, pp. 130

27. Naegele, Charles J, p 19-20

28. Himanshu Prabha, The Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia, p. 80-81, Cambridge University Press (2003)

29. Lal, BB, The Sarasvati Flows On, n. 16, p. 25

30. Singh, Shivaji, Vedic Culture and its Continuity Paradigm and Dimensions, in Dube, Sita Ram, Editor, Vedic Culture and Its Continuity, Pratibha Prakashan (2006) p. 22-23

31. Lal, BB, Search for Vedic-Harappan Relationship, n. 14, p. 1

32. Sethna, KD, Karpasa in Prehistoric India, n. 26, p. 7

33. ibid.

© Ramachandran 

 

 

ELLIS ATTACKS MILL AND THE EUROPEAN MINDSET

He Targetted James Mill

It was not Caldwell, but Francis Whyte Ellis (1777–1819) who classified the Dravidian languages as a separate language family, first. (1) Becoming a writer (junior clerk) in the East India Company's service at Madras in 1796, Ellis scaled heights as an assistant undersecretary, deputy-secretary, and secretary to the board of revenue, till 1802. Four years later, he was appointed judge of Machilipatnam and the collector of land customs in the Madras presidency in 1809, and he became the collector of Madras in 1810. He died at Ramnad mysteriously on 10 March 1819. (2)

Robert Caldwell, who is often credited as the first scholar to propose a separate language family for South Indian languages, acknowledges Ellis's contribution, in  his preface to the first edition of A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages: (3)

"The first to break ground in the field was Mr Ellis, a Madras civilian, who was profoundly versed in the Tamil language and literature, and who interesting but very brief comparison, not of the grammatical forms, but only of some of the vocables of three Dravidian dialects, is contained in his introduction to Campbell's Telugu Grammar."

Ellis first published his notion about the South Indian languages forming a separate language family in a Note to Introduction for his protege Alexandar Duncan Campbell's Telugu Grammar in 1816. (4) 

Alexander Duncan Campbell (1786/1789-1857) was a British (Scottish) Civil Servant in India, who was interested in Telugu. He joined in Madras Civil Service in 1806, was a member of the Board of Superintendence for College of Fort St. George (1816), and became the Collector and Magistrate in Bellary (1821), then in Tanjore (1827), and remained in India at least until 1835, when his son, the future Major-General Alexander C. was born in Madras. Later probably retired, and his will is written in Middlesex. His grammar was written for the young I.C.S. recruits learning Telugu at College Fort St. George.

Ellis

He wrote three books: A Grammar of the Teloogoo Language, Commonly Termed the Gentoo (1816),  A Dictionary of the Teloogoo Language, Commonly Termed the Gentoo, Peculiar to the Hindoos of the North Eastern Provinces of the Indian Peninsula  (1821), and two papers, “On the state of Slavery in Southern India”, MJLS 1, 1834, 243-255; and “On the state of Education of the Natives in Southern India”, MJLS 1, 1834, 350-359.

Ellis was a member of the Madras Literary Society and the founder of the College of Fort St. George at Madras - an institution which had both British and Indian members. (5) Pattabirama Shastri, Muthusami Pillai, Udayagiri Venkatanarayanayya, Chidambara Vadhyar and Syed Abdul Khadar were among the Indian scholars who worked in the college. The college was founded in 1812 and the next year Ellis also helped set up the College Press by supplying it with a printing press and Tamil types. Telugu types, printing ink and labour for the venture was supplied by the Superintendent of Government Press at Egmore. The Madras Government supplied the paper. The press commenced publishing in 1813, and its first work was Constanzo Beschi's (Veeramamunivar) Tamil grammar Kodum Tamil. Before Ellis's death in 1819, the press published a Tamil grammar primer Ilakkana Surukkam, a Tamil translation of Uttara Kandam of Ramayana (both by Chitthambala Desikar), Ellis' own translation and commentary of Thirukkural and five Telugu works - Campbell's grammar (with Ellis' Dravidian Proof), Tales of Vikkirama, a translation of Panchatantra and two more grammars. The press continued publishing books into the 1830s including works in Kannada, Malayalam and Arabic. (6)

Ellis and his friends William Erskine and John Leyden were oriental scholars interested in learning the various aspects of Indian life and publishing works on Indian languages. Ellis maintained a good relationship with the Indians, even adopting their customs and way of dressing. 

Among Ellis's contributions to oriental scholarship are his works on South Indian property ownership, Hindu law, and commentary on Thirukkural. In 1814, he wrote an account of the Mirasi land proprietary system of South India with the help of his Sheristadar (chief of staff), the Indian scholar Shankarayya. (7)

As his reputation for oriental scholarship grew, he was requested by Alexander Johnston to research the origins of a French work titled Ezour Vedam, which was claimed as a translation of a Sanskrit work and a Veda by Jesuits. Ellis proved that the "Vedam" was not a translation but an original work of the Jesuit priest Roberto de Nobili, written in 1621 for converting Hindus to Christianity. His monograph on the Ezour Vedam was published posthumously in the Asiatic Journal in 1822. (8) 

He delivered a series of lectures on Hindu law at the Madras Literary Society, which was published after his death. Enchanted by Tamil poet-saint Tiruvalluvar and his Thirukkural, (9)  translated 18 chapters of the Aratthupaal, one division of Thirukkural dealing with law and virtue, into English in a non-metrical verse. Thirteen chapters were published by the College press during Ellis' lifetime. (10) 

Ellis was also the first scholar to decipher and explain the first century CE "Cochin Grants" given to the Anjuuvannam Jewish community in Cochin. (11) The Jewish copper plates of Cochin, also known as Cochin plates of Bhaskara Ravi-varman, is a royal charter issued by the Chera Perumal king of Kerala, south India to Joseph Rabban, a Jewish merchant magnate of Kodungallur. (12) The charter shows the status and importance of the Jewish colony in Kodungallur (Cranganore) near Cochin on the Malabar Coast. The charter is engraved in Vattezhuthu script with additional Grantha characters in the vernacular of medieval Kerala on three sides of two copper plates -28 lines. (13) It records a grant by king Bhaskara Ravi Varma (Malayalam: Parkaran Iravivanman) to Joseph/Yusuf Rabban (Malayalam: Issuppu Irappan) of the rights of merchant guild Anjuman (Malayalam: anjuvannam) along with several other rights and privileges. (14) Rabban is exempted from all payments made by other settlers in the city of Muyirikkode (at the same time extending to him all the rights of the other settlers). These rights and privileges are given perpetuity to all his descendants. The document is attested by several chieftains from southern and northern Kerala. (15)

Anjuvannam, the old Malayalam form of Hanjamana/Anjuman was a south Indian merchant guild organised by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic merchants from West Asian countries. (16) The document is dated by historians to c. 1000 CE. (17) It is also evident from the tone of the copper plates that the Jews were not newcomers to the Malabar Coast at the time of its decree. (18) The plates are carefully preserved in an iron box, known as the Pandeal, within the Paradesi Synagogue at Mattancherry (Cochin). (19)

In addition to the "Dravidian Proof", Ellis wrote three dissertations - in Tamil, (20) Telugu, and Malayalam. (21)

It has been suggested that Ellis worked with others to promote vaccinations to prevent smallpox. To reduce resistance from Indians, he is thought to have helped craft a Sanskrit verse that was then claimed to have been discovered and described, showing that the European form of vaccination was in fact just a modification of something known in ancient India. The publication of the letter first inserted into the Madras Courier, (22) in 1819 under the pseudonym "Calvi Virumbom" was widely propagated. (23)

When Ellis died in Ramnad, he left some of his papers — philological and political — to Sir Walter Elliot, on whose death they passed to G. U. Pope, who had them placed in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. According to Sir Walter, many of Ellis' unpublished works were lost when they were burned by the cook of the Madurai collector Rous Petrie. (24) Ellis did not publish them earlier because he wanted to do so only after becoming a "ripened scholar at forty years". (25) As an administrator, Ellis was well-liked by his Indian subjects. (26) His grave at Dindigal bears two inscriptions - one in English and the other in Tamil. (27) The English inscription reads:

"Uniting activity of mind with the versatility of genius, he displayed the same ardour and happy sufficiency on whatever his varied talents were employed. Conversant with the Hindoo languages and Literature of the Peninsula, he was loved and esteemed by the Natives of India, with whom he associated intimately. "(28)

While stationed at Madras, Ellis became interested in the history and languages of India   The event which outlined in motion the writing of the "Dravidian Proof" of Ellis, was the report of the Committee of Examination of Junior Civil Servants issued in 1811. The committee, chaired by Ellis, wanted the civil service officers to learn the basic structure of the South Indian languages so that they can function effectively wherever they were stationed in South India. It noted the common features of five South Indian "dialects" - High Tamil, Low Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu and Kannada and recommended the teaching of Tamil as a representative of all five. The College of Fort St. George in Calcutta and its press were given the task of creating grammar and other textbooks for language training. As a part of this effort, Campbell, then the secretary to the Board of Superintendents of the college, prepared a work on Telugu grammar in 1816. Two years before, another work of Telugu grammar had been published by William Carey, an orientalist missionary from Calcutta, at the Serampore press, in which he described Sanskrit as the source of all South Indian languages. In his grammar, Campbell set out to disprove Carey and other Calcutta orientalists like Charles Wilkins and Henry Thomas Colebrooke, proponents of the "all Indian languages are derived from Sanskrit" school of thought. Ellis wrote a note to introduction for Campbell's book in which he offered his "Dravidian Proof". (29)

Ellis' Dravidian Proof is a step-by-step attempt to establish the non-Sanskritic origins of Telugu. Ellis first compared the roots of Sanskrit and Telugu. Parallel columns of the roots were presented to show the difference between the two languages. For Sanskrit, the roots were taken from Dhatupatha and for Telugu, they were taken from a list compiled by Pattabhirama Shastri. In the second step, Ellis used a more complex comparative table of Tamil, Telugu and Kannada roots to show that the languages shared cognate roots. In the third and final step, Ellis used a comparative table of words made from the roots of the three languages to show their relationship as well. Ellis made use of Telugu scholar Mamadi Venkayya's Andhradipaka as a source for different types of Telugu words. In conclusion, Ellis disproved the prevailing theory that though roots and words might be common to South Indian languages, the difference in their idioms was great. He accomplished this by translating the same passages from Sanskrit and English into Tamil, Telugu and Kannada and analysing the sentence structures of the translations. (30)

Jewish copper plate of Cochin

Around 1800, Ellis delivered a lecture on Hindu Law, at the Madras Literary Society: (31) 

He began the speech by attacking the European mindset, as it reflected by East India Company historian, James Mill, who wrote History of British India. Ellis said: "One of the greatest, but not the most obvious defect of human reason, is the incapacity of regarding things from more than one point of view. Enlightened as the European now is, severe as is his reasoning, accurate generally as is his judgment, this is a defect which strongly marks his character, and may even be attributed, perhaps, to that which ought to have corrected it, the extent of his acquirements; for, knowing the value of these, he is well content not to look beyond them, and holds others in contempt, because he has never taken pains duly to appreciate their qualities, and cannot, therefore, he acquainted with the motives which actuate them". 

He attacked Mill, and William Jones, who translated Manusmriti:

"In the eyes of those who are the objects of this contumely, and who are not infrequently actuated by a similar spirit, it has the appearance of envy, a wish to depreciate from the despair of excelling; this however is an inaccurate judgment of it, for it certainly proceeds, concerning the European, simply from that confidence in himself and his attainments which, in great actions, is often overweening, and sometimes degenerates to arrogance and even to insolence. The supercilious spirit proceedings from this mental imperfection led the egoistic Greeks to the use of the word Barbarians (?) which they liberally bestowed on all nations but their own. In this, little worthy of praise as it is, we have not been backwards imitating them, and we now constantly apply the term barbarian to all usage differing from our own, seldom deigning to enquire, provided they are strange, whether they are founded in right reason or not.

"A striking instance of this blot in the escutcheon of our race, nobly emblazoned as it is, is afforded by a recent work which had I then seen it I should have particularly noticed at the commencement of these readings. I allude to Mill's "History of British India". Endowed with great powers of reasoning, and, to judge from the information he has accumulated from a variety of sources with great assiduity of research, the abilities and the usefulness of this writer are neutralised by the supercilious contempt he invariably manifests towards everything for which he cannot find a criterion in his own mind, or which he cannot reconcile to some customary standard of thought.

"He has subjected the Hindu system to a comparison with an abstract standard of his own erection, and, as might have been expected, has condemned it as being found wanting. It is possible that his ideas of perfection are not the most correct, but admitting them to be such, the comparison is not fair. No work of man can be or is expected to be absolute, though it may be relatively perfect; and this process, therefore, is more tyrannical than the bed of Procrustes. But let the legal system of the Hindu be compared, as we have compared some parts of it, and as in justice it ought to be, not with the theories or it may be with the reveries of ultraperfectionists, but with the practical codes of other nations, and it will not be found wanting. It is to this comparison I should challenge Mr Mill... There are no doubt many points in the Hindu law which, to the preconception of a European, appear exceptionable; many there are also, for its authors were men, that are really so, and for which better provisions have been made by other legislators ancient and modern, but where is the code to which similar imperfection may not be imputed. To our own, we are attached from habit, and prepossession, therefore, makes us overlook many that perhaps exist, and we endure many that are apparent for the sake of the whole. Mr Mill's microscopic eye, however, overlooks none of them, for he seems to entertain at least as bad an opinion of the English as of the Hindu Law."

Then, Willis went on to deduce from Mill's Indian history, a few instances of the short-sightedness of mill's mind, and of the wide distance nature he has interposed between fact and speculation.

First Instance: A contemplation of the Hindu government.  As the powers of government consist (ie, according to European notions) of three great branches, the legislature, the judiciary and the administrative, it is requisite to enquire in what hands these several powers are deposited, and by what circumstances their exercise is controlled and modified. As the Hindu believes that a complete and perfect system of instruction which admits of no addition or change, was conveyed to him from the beginning by the divine being for the regulation of his public as well as private affairs, he acknowledges no laws but those which are contained in the sacred books. From this, it is evident that the only scope which remains for legislation is confined within the limits of the interpretations which may be given to the holy text. 

"The Brahmans however enjoy the undisputed prerogative of interpreting the divine oracles, for though it is allowed to the two classes in the degree to give advice to the king in the administration of justice, they must, in no case, presume to depart from the sense which it has pleased the Brahmans to impart upon the sacred text. The power of legislation therefore exclusively belongs to the priesthood. The exclusive right also of interpreting the laws necessarily confers upon them in the same unlimited manner as the judicial powers of government. The king, though the ostensibly supreme judge, is commanded always to employ Brahmans as councillors and assistants in the administration of justice, and whatever construction they put upon the law, to that his sentence must conform. A decision of the king contrary to the opinion of the Brahmans would be absolutely void; the members of his own family would refuse its obedience. Whenever the king in person discharges not the office of judge, it is a Brahman, if possible who must occupy his place; the king, therefore, is no far from possessing the judicative power, that he is rather the executive officer by whom the decisions of the Brahmans are carried into effect.

Ellis said the interpretation of exemption to Brahmans from capital punishment in Hindu law, by   Europeans is founded on a misconception. Ellis recorded that this is one of the innumerable misconceptions of their situation in Hindu society which has been obtained among foreign nations from the earliest times. He explained:

"Not the least gross of these is that which ascribes to the whole body a sacerdotal character, and which Sir William Jones has unaccountably countenanced by translating in the institutes of Manu the words used to designate an individual of the fist caste Brahmanah and Viprah, priest, and the feminine of them Brahmin and Vipra, priestess; the latter mistake is particularly remarkable, as the wives of Brahmans, though they assist in the private devotion of their family, not only never officiate as priestesses, but have no part in the public ceremonies of religion, except as spectators. The truth is, the first caste of Hindus, though from their birth eligible to the priesthood, are not priests ipso facto; the conduct of religious ceremonies, though the first, is only one of their many duties; they are also professionally, the savants or men of letters, to whom the interests of science and literature are committed in all its branches; the hereditary teachers of the other classes, both in sacred and profane learning and especially, the lawyers. To these different occupations and their subordinate divisions they applied themselves as to so many distinct professions the respective members of which never interfered with each other, any more than our divines do with our physicians, or either of them with our jurists. And hence has proceeded the several distinctions actually obtaining among the Brahmans in southern India: there are first Vaidica Brahmana sub-divided into Sastrias, men of science; Acharya, teachers; and Pujarie, priests; the two formers of these may perform the higher offices of religion in the solemn sacrifices &c. or act as Purohita, domestic chaplains etc. but the last only conduct the public worship in the temples, and are considered an inferior class. Secondly, Lougica or Niyogi Brahmana, secular Brahmanas, gain their livelihood through the several worldly occupations permitted to the caste. These distinctions now become hereditary, but as this, if founded solely on custom, and not on law, the restriction is more nominal than real as any Niyogi family may become Vaidica if the head of it qualifies himself by the study of the sciences, and vice Versa any Vaidica may betake himself to worldly pursuits, sinking thereby perhaps in the estimation of his fellows, but not forfeiting his privileges and distinctions as a Brahman."

After delineating the various courts provided for the administration of justice by the Hindu laws, the respective jurisdiction of these courts and the precision with which the powers of the king or presiding magistrate and the assessors or judges are distinguished, Ellis turns to another passage in Mill's work, to show a second instance of misconception about Hindus. Ellis continues:

"After the care of protecting the nations from foreign aggression or from internal tumult, the distribution of justice was the next duty of the king. In the first stage of society, the leader in war is also the judge in peace, and the legal and judicial functions are united in the same person. Various circumstances tend to produce this arrangement. In the first place, there are hardly any laws; and he alone is entitled to judge who is entitled to legislate since he must make a law for every occasion; in the next place, rude people, unused to obedience would hardly respect inferior authority. In the third place, the business of judicature is so badly performed as to interrupt but little the business or pleasures of the king, and a decision is rather an exercise of arbitrary will and power, than the result of an accurate investigation. In the fourth place, the people are so accustomed to terminating their own disputes, by their own cunning or force, that the number of applications for judicature is comparatively small. As society advances, a set of circumstances, opposite to them, are gradually introduced; laws are made which the judge has nothing to do but apply, the people learn the advantage of submitting to inferior authority, a more accurate administration of justice is demanded, and cannot be performed without a great application both of attention and of time; the people learn that it is for the good of the community that they should not terminate and that they should not be allowed to terminate either by force or fraud, their own disputes. The administration of justice becomes then too laborious to be either agreeable to the king or consistent with the other services which he is expected to render and the exercise of judicature becomes a separate employment, the exclusive function of a particular order of men.

James Mill

"To this pitch of civilisation, the Hindu had not attained. The administration of justice by the King in person stands in the sacred books as a leading principle of their jurisprudence, and the revolution of ages has introduced no change in the primaeval process."

The text of Brihaspati, as quoted in the Madhavaviyam, respects the four superior courts, the authorities there cited relative to the fifteen inferior courts of the Hindus. Legal definitions are also there. "These", Ellis says, "are to be sought in the Siddhanta of the Digests and commentators, where it is as perfect as human reason can make them. Mr Mill, ignorant of this, and careless as ignorant, ventures on this subject".

Then, Ellis exposes the third instance of dishonesty in Mill:

"Concerning definitions, the Hindu Law is in a state which requires a few words of elucidation. Before the art of writing, laws can have little accuracy of definition; because, when words are not written, they are seldom exactly remembered; and a definition whose words are constantly varying is not, for the purpose of the law, a definition at all. Notwithstanding the necessity of writing to produce fixed and accurate definitions in law, the nations of modern Europe have allowed a great proportion of their laws to continue in the unwritten, that is, the traditionary state, the state in which they lay before the art of writing was known. Of these nations, none have kept in that barbarous condition so great a proportion of their law as the English. From the opinion of the Hindus that the Divine Being dictated all their laws, they acknowledge nothing as law but what is found in some one or other of their sacred books. In one sense, therefore, all their laws are written. But as the passages which can be collected from these books leave many parts of the field of law untouched, in these parts the defect must be supplied either by custom or the momentary will of the judges. 

"Again, as the passages which are collected from these books, even where they touch upon parts of the field of law, do so in expressions to the highest degree vague and indeterminate, they commonly admit of any of several meanings and very frequently are contradicted and opposed by one another. When the words in which laws are couched are, to a certain degree, imperfect, it makes but little difference whether they are written or not; adhering to the same words is without advantage when these words secure no sameness in the things which they are made to signify. Further, in modern Europe, the uncertainty adhering to all unwritten laws, that is, laws the words of which have no certainty, is to some degree, though still a very imperfect one, circumscribed and limited, by the writing down of decisions. When, on any particular part of the field, several judges have all, with public approbation, decided in one way; and when these decisions are recorded and made known, the judge who comes after them has strong motives, both of fear and hope, not to depart from their example. The degree of certainty, arising from the regard for uniformity, which may thus be produced, is, from its very nature, infinitely inferior to that which is the necessary result of good definitions rendered unalterable by writing; but such as it is, the Hindus are entirely deprived of it. Among them, the strength of the human mind has never been sufficient to recommend effectually the preservation, by writing, of the memory of judicial decisions. It has never been sufficient to create such public regard for uniformity, as to constitute a material motive to a judge; and as kings, and their great deputies, exercised the principal functions of judicature, they were too powerful to be restrained by a regard to what others had done before them. What judicature would pronounce was, therefore, almost always uncertain, almost always arbitrary."

Ellis correctly points out that the Institutes of Manu, in the actual administration of Hindu jurisprudence, especially in later times, had never ranked higher than a mere textbook, which the Indian jurists considered of little authority unless accompanied by some commentary, or incorporated into some Digest. Then Ellis points out:

"The definitions of the Hindu Law are not to seek in the textbooks from which chiefly Mr Mill would seem to have derived his notion of them, his references in this part of his work being confined to Manu and "Halhead's Gentoo Code", which is scarcely anything more than a collection of texts. These it may be conceded to him leave many parts of the field of law untouched, "which however, are neither supplied by customs nor the momentary will of the judge" but by the conclusions or decisions of a succession of writers, ancient and modern, belonging to various schools as deduced, not from the ordinances only, but the principles of the textbooks, by reasoning, and which varied by the tenets of their respective schools, have become the actual definitions of practical law. Further, Mr Mill prefers written definition to the concurrent authority of previous decisions, the degree of certainty concerning them being, he says, infinitely inferior to that which is the necessary result of good definition rendered unalterable by writing; and he adds, "but such as it is, the Hindus are entirely deprived of it. Among them, the strength of the human mind has never been sufficient to recommend effectually the preservation by the writing of the memory of judicial decisions. 

"Indeed, the Hindus do not at present possess the advantage of the record of previous judicial decisions, nor is this to be wondered at, for, admitting it to be possible that the operation of the courts in Westminster Hall was suspended for two centuries what, notwithstanding all that has been written on the subject, would become of the nicer distinctions and minuter definitions, now well known and observed in practice, but which are to be found in the head of the sound lawyer, rather than in any written record? What would really become of them may be inferred from the doubts and difficulties that attended the proceedings when the obsolete mode of trial by judicial combat was lately about to be restored in the appeal of murder against Richard Ashton. But though the Hindus have not now the advantage of recorded judicial decisions, they must, in a certain degree have had it when their courts were in full operation; and with them, as with us, it must in many respects have from its nature been oral rather than written; and they actually have that to which the author states this to be infinitely inferior, they have "good definitions rendered unalterable by writing." 

Ellis then declares that there are innumerable instances in Hindu laws that prove his position. This means the kinds of James Mill and Colebrooke were ignorant manipulators.

___________________________

1. Trautmann, Thomas. R. (2006). Languages and nations: the Dravidian proof in colonial Madras. Yoda Press, pp 75-76

2. The Dictionary of National Biography mentions Cholera as the cause of his death. But Trautmann writes he died of accidental self-poisoning.(Trautmann 2006, p. 76). An obituary published in the London Literary Gazette and Journal in 1820 says "a fatal accident terminated his life."

3. Trautmann 2006, p. 74

4. Blackburn, Stuart (2006). Print, folklore, and nationalism in colonial South India. Orient Blackswan. pp. 92–95.

5. Trautmann 2006, p. 73

6. Blackburn, Stuart (2006). Print, folklore, and nationalism in colonial South India. Orient Blackswan. pp. 92–95

7. Trautmann, Thomas. R. (2006). Languages and nations: the Dravidian proof in colonial Madras. Yoda Press, pp 151-170

8. Rocher, Ludo (1984). Ezourvedam: a French Veda of the eighteenth century. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 18–20

9. A stone inscription found on the walls of a well at the Periya Palayathamman temple at Royapettai indicates Ellis' regard for Thiruvalluvar. It is one of the 27 wells dug on the orders of Ellis in 1818 when Madras suffered a severe drinking water shortage. In the long inscription, Ellis praises Thiruvalluvar and uses a couplet from Thirukkural to explain his actions during the drought. When he was in charge of the Madras treasury and mint, he also issued a gold coin bearing Thiruvalluvar's image. The Tamil inscription on his grave makes note of his commentary on Thirukkural.Mahadevan, Iravatham. "The Golden coin depicting Thiruvalluvar -2". Varalaaru.com (in Tamil).

10.  Zvelebil, Kamil (1992). Companion studies to the history of Tamil literature. Brill. p. 3.

11. Narayanan, M. G. S., "Further Studies in the Jewish Copper Plates of Cochin." Indian Historical Review, Vol. 29, no. 1–2, Jan. 2002, pp. 66–76.

12. Noburu Karashmia (ed.), A Concise History of South India: Issues and Interpretations. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2014. 136, 144. Narayanan, M. G. S. (2013), Perumāḷs of Kerala. Thrissur (Kerala): CosmoBooks, pp 451-52

13.Fischel, Walter J. (1967). "The Exploration of the Jewish Antiquities of Cochin on the Malabar Coast". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 87 (3): 230–248

14.Narayanan, M. G. S., "Further Studies in the Jewish Copper Plates of Cochin." Indian Historical Review, Vol. 29, no. 1–2, Jan. 2002, pp. 66–76.

15. ibid

16. Noburu Karashmia (ed.), A Concise History of South India: Issues and Interpretations. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2014. p. 139

17. ibid, 146-47

18. M.G.S. Narayanan (2002), Further Studies in the Jewish Copper Plates of Cochin, Indian Historical Review, Volume XXIX, Number 1-2 (January and July 2002), pp. 67–68

19. Fischel, Walter J. (1967). "The Exploration of the Jewish Antiquities of Cochin on the Malabar Coast". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 87 (3): 230–248.

20. Burnell, Arthur Coke (2008). Elements of South-Indian Palabography. BiblioBazaar. p. 35.

21. Trautmann 2006, p. 156

22.  Mahadevan, Iravatham. "The Golden coin depicting Thiruvalluvar -2". Varalaaru.com (in Tamil)

23. Wujastyk, Dominik (1987). "A pious fraud: the Indian claims for pre-Jennerian smallpox vaccination.". In G J Meulenbeld; D Wujastyk (eds.). Studies on Indian medical history. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. pp. 131–167

24. Trautmann 2006, pp. 80–81

25. The Asiatic journal and monthly register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia Vol 26. Parbury, Allen, and Co. 1828. p. 155.

26.  The London literary gazette and journal of belles lettres, arts, sciences, etc. The London Literary Gazette. 1820. pp. 12.

27.  Mahadevan, Iravatham. "The Golden coin depicting Thiruvalluvar -2". Varalaaru.com (in Tamil).

28. Burnell, Arthur Coke (2008). Elements of South-Indian Palabography. BiblioBazaar. p. 35

29. Trautmann 2006, pp. 151–170

30. ibid

31. From Lecture on Hindu Law by Francis W Ellis Esq. IOR: MSS European D 31: Indian Jurisprudence and Revenue, Dharampal, compiled, Sanskrit and Christianization and Ellis on Hindu Law, Ashram Prathishtan, Sevagram, 2000, pp 30-36

© Ramachandran 

CALDWELL INVENTS A FAKE DRAVIDIAN RACE

Ramblings of a Confused Mind

The damage wrought by Bishop Robert Caldwell (1814-1891) on Indian History is immense, as his Dravidian race theory came as a counterpoint to the discredited Aryan race theory. Both constructs are equally damaging and have been proven false. The “Dravidians,” the theory of Caldwell goes, were the original inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent and were driven to southern India by the invading, lighter skinned and racially different “Aryans.”

Caldwell came from a poor family of Scottish Presbyterian parents in Ireland and had a miserable childhood. He was unable to find a quality education or a job. The family moved to Glasgow where he started working at the age of nine. Mostly self-taught, he returned to Ireland age of 15, living with an older brother in Dublin while studying art between 1829 and 1833. He then returned to Glasgow, probably as a consequence of a crisis of faith, and he became active in the Congregational church. (1)

Caldwell won a scholarship to Balliol College, Oxford only to find it rescinded when the authorities discovered that he had been born in Ireland. He responded by joining the London Missionary Society, which sent him to the University of Glasgow for training. There Caldwell came under the influence of Daniel Keyte Sandford, a professor of Greek and promoter of Anglicanism whose innovative research encouraged Caldwell's liking for comparative philology and also theology. Caldwell left university with a distinction and was ordained as a Congregationalist minister. (2)

He came to India to eke out a living and ultimately settled by marrying the daughter of his patron. At 24, Caldwell arrived in Madras on 8 January 1838 as a missionary of the London Missionary Society and later joined the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Mission (SPG). To further his missionary objectives, Caldwell realized that he had to be proficient in Tamil to proselytize the masses and he began a systematic study of the language. He was consecrated Bishop of Tirunelveli in 1877. In 1844, Caldwell married Eliza Mault (1822–99) in Nagercoil, (3) with whom he had seven children. Eliza Mault, born in Nagercoil, was the younger daughter of the veteran Travancore missionary, Reverend Charles Mault (1791–1858) of the London Missionary Society. For more than forty years, Eliza worked in Idaiyangudi and Tirunelveli proselytizing the people, especially Tamil-speaking women. (4)

Robert Caldwell

His studies of the vernacular languages led him to author A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian family of Languages, in 1856. A reading of this shoddy work and a quick look into the index is enough to understand the uselessness of the book. Almost 40% of the book's content is unrelated to the subject matter. Then, 15% of it is completely unrelated, and this was expanded to 28% in the next version which came a year later. 

In his book, Caldwell proposed that there are Dravidian words in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, the archaic Greek language, and the places named by Ptolemy. (5) In the book Caldwell wrote, he identified south Indian Brahmins with Indo-Europeans, which was partly based on his belief that the Indo-Europeans had "higher mental gifts and higher capacity for civilisation". (6) Caldwell asserted that the low-caste Chanar were not merely Tamil speakers but an "indigenous Dravidian" people, distinct ethnically and, most critically for him, religiously, from their high-caste oppressors, whom he referred to as "Brahmanical Aryans" (in this case "Aryan" as an ethnic signifier for foreign and "Brahmanical" to signify the "Hinduism" of the high-caste). (7) These wildly speculative claims, well outside the scope of linguistics, were intended "to develop a history which asserted that the indigenous Dravidians had been subdued and colonized by the Brahmanical Aryans". However, the first edition of Caldwell's grammar was "met with firm resistance" by the Chanars precisely because they "did not like the idea of being divorced from Brahmanical civilization", the very division Caldwell was hoping to exploit. (8)

While serving as Bishop of Tirunelveli, alongside Edward Sargent, Caldwell, who was not a trained archaeologist, did much original research on the history of Tirunelveli. He studied palm leaf manuscripts and Sangam literature in his search, and made several excavations, finding the foundations of ancient buildings, sepulchral urns and coins with the fish emblem of the Pandyan Kingdom. This work resulted in his book, A Political and General History of the District of Tinnevely (1881), published by the Government of the Madras Presidency.

Caldwell’s mission lasted more than fifty years. The publication of his propaganda into both the languages and the history of the region, coupled with his position in both Indian and English society, gave stimulus to the revival of the Non-Brahmin movement. (9) Meanwhile, on the difficult ground for evangelism, Caldwell achieved Christian conversion among the lower castes. He had adopted some of the methods of the Lutheran missionaries of earlier times, having learned German purely to study their practices. (10)

His book has been described as being on occasion "pejorative, outrageous, and somewhat paternalistic". (11) An in-depth reading of what he wrote will reveal to us that he was inventing a theory to convert the Dravidians to Christianity. While evangelists like Moniere Williams demanded that English missionaries learn Sanskrit as the link language, Caldwell found that the lower castes in South India have nothing to do with Sanskrit. So, he tried to falsely establish that the tribal demographic entities don't have any religion. Since they don't have any religion, they are welcome to embrace Christianity and thus have a religion!

He writes in the book: (12)

"Sanscrit, though it never was the vernacular language of any district of the country in the South, is in every district read and to some extent understood by the majority of the Brahmans,—the descendants of those Brahmanical colonists of early times to whom the Dravidians are indebted for the higher arts of life and the first elements of literary culture.

Without evidence, he hints not just at colonization but at forced conversion to the Brahminical religion:

"Neither English, however, nor any other foreign tongue, has the slightest chance of becoming the vernacular speech of any portion of the inhabitants of Southern India. The indigenous Dravidian languages, which have maintained their ground for more than two thousand years against Sanscrit, the language of a numerous, powerful, and venerated sacerdotal race, may be expected successfully to resist the encroachments of every other tongue."

He claims to have invented the expression Dravidian Languages, though he says, before, they were called Tamulian Languages by some authors. His argument is: "This family which I style Dravidian has been styled ‘Tamulian’ by some recent writers; but though the Tamil is the oldest and most highly cultivated member of the family, and that which contains the largest proportion of the family property of forms and roots, yet as it is one dialect out of many, and does not claim to be the original speech from which the other dialects have been derived; as it is also desirable to reserve the terms ‘ Tamil’ and ‘ Tamilian ’ (or as it is generally but erroneously written ‘Tamulian') to denote the Tamil language itself and the people by whom it is spoken, I have preferred to designate this entire family by a term which is capable of a wider application. The word I have chosen is ‘Dravidian,’ a word which has already been used as the generic appellation of this family of tongues by the Sanscrit geographers."

And, as part of the diabolical design, he declares that the geographical connotation of Dravida is not geographic but linguistic, and the Indians are wrong to declare Maratha and Gujarata as Dravida! But in a quick turn, he transforms Dravida into a geographical entity:

"Properly speaking, the term ‘Dravida’ denotes the Tamil country alone (including Malayalam), and Tamil Brahmans have usually styled ‘Dravida Brahmans.’ ‘Dravida’ means the ‘country of the Dravidas and a Dravida is defined in the Sanscrit lexicons to be a man of an outcast tribe, descended from a degraded Kshatriya. This name was doubtless applied by the Brahmanical inhabitants of Northern India to the aborigines of the extreme South before the introduction amongst them of Brahmanical civilisation and is evidence of the low estimation in which they were originally held. In the Maha-Bharata, in which the Dravidas are distinguished from the Cholas, or Tanjore Tamilians, the term is still further restricted to the Pandiyas of Madura, doubtless on account of the advanced civilisation and early celebrity of the Pandiya kingdom. The term ‘ Dravidian’ is thus in itself as restricted as that of ‘ Tamilian, but it has the advantage of being remoter’ from ordinary usage, and somewhat vaguer, and the further and more special advantage of being the term already adopted by Sanscrit writers to designate the southern family of languages. Consequently, by the adoption of this more generic terra, the word “ Tamilian’’ has been left to signify that which is distinctively Tamil. The word “ Tamilian’’ has been left to signify that which is distinctively Tamil. The word “ Tamilian’’ has been left to signify that which is distinctively Tamil, and the further and more special advantage of being the term already adopted by Sanscrit writers to designate the southern family of languages. Consequently, by the adoption of this more generic terra, the word “ Tamilian’’ has been left to signify that which is distinctively Tamil. 

"The five Dravidas or Draviras, according to the Pandits, are “the Telinga, the Karnataka, the Maratha, the Gurjara, and the Dravira,” or Tamil proper. The Maratha and Gurjara are erroneously included in this enumeration. The Marathi indeed contains a small admixture of Dravidian roots and idioms, as might be expected from its local proximity to the Telugu and the Canarese; and both it and the Gurjara, or Gujarathi, possess certain features of resemblance to the languages of the South, which are possibly derived from the same or a similar source; but, notwithstanding the existence of a few analogies of this nature, those two languages differ from the Dravidian family so widely and radically, and are so closely allied to the northern group, that there cannot be any hesitation in transferring them to that class."

He has not cited the source of the pandits, who are said to have included Gujaratis and Maratis, among the Dravidas. He says, "Dravida is defined in the Sanscrit lexicons to be a man of an outcast tribe, descended from a degraded Kshatriya." Again, what is the source? Caldwell is misleading the people with evil intentions. The origin of the Sanskrit word drāviḍa is not Sanskrit, but it is Tamil. (13)

 

In Prakrit, words such as "Damela", "Dameda", "Dhamila" and "Damila", which later evolved from "Tamila", could have been used to denote an ethnic identity. (14) In the Sanskrit tradition, the word drāviḍa was also used to denote the geographical region of South India. (15) Epigraphic evidence of an ethnic group termed as such is found in ancient India where several inscriptions have come to light datable from the 6th to the 5th century BCE mentioning Damela or Dameda persons. The Hathigumpha inscription of the Kalinga ruler Kharavela refers to a T(ra)mira samghata (Confederacy of Tamil rulers) dated to 150 BCE. It also mentions that the league of Tamil kingdoms had been in existence for 113 years by that time. In Amaravati in present-day Andhra Pradesh, there is an inscription referring to a Dhamila-vaniya (Tamil trader) datable to the 3rd century CE. (16) Another inscription of about the same time in Nagarjunakonda seems to refer to a Damila. A third inscription in Kanheri Caves refers to a Dhamila-gharini (Tamil householder). In the Buddhist Jataka story known as Akiti Jataka, there is a mention of Damila-rattha (Tamil dynasty).

While the English word Dravidian was first employed by Robert Caldwell in his book of comparative Dravidian grammar based on the usage of the Sanskrit word drāviḍa in the work Tantravārttika by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, (17) the word drāviḍa in Sanskrit has been historically used to denote geographical regions of southern India as whole. Some theories concern the direction of derivation between tamiẓ and drāviḍa; such linguists as Zvelebil assert that the direction is from tamiẓ to drāviḍa. (18)

Caldwell further states that Indian scholars were incapable enough of parallel philology. If so, where would he place Tenali Rama, a scholar in nine languages or Rana Kumbha who was able to speak even Telugu?

Caldwell further writes:

"No term belonging to the Dravidian languages themselves has ever been used to designate all the members of this family, nor are the native Tamil or Telugu grammarians, though deeply skilled in the grammar of their own tongues, sufficiently acquainted with comparative grammar to have arrived at the conclusion that all these idioms have a common origin and require to be designated by a common term. Some European scholars who have confined their attention to the study of some Dravidian idioms to the neglect of others have fallen into the same error of supposing these languages independent one of another. The Sanscrit Pandits had a clearer perception of grammatical affinities and differences than the Dravidian grammarians; and, though their generalisation was not perfectly correct, it has furnished us with the only common terms which we possess for denoting the northern and southern families of languages respectively."

Thus, Caldwell's philology is all about how Dravidian languages are not related to Sanskrit and are related to Scythian Languages. His arguments in support of this theory are: 

• The Non-Sanskrit part of Dravidian languages is more than the Sanskritic part while in North Indian languages, Sanskrit is in excess.
• Pronouns and numerals, verbal and nominal inflexions, and syntactic arrangement of words are not the same as in Sanskrit.
• The philologists assumed that the Sanskritic words in these languages as a part of the native language though the native scholars made a demarcation.
• The philologists were unaware of the “uncultivated” languages of the Dravidian Family and their language grasp wasn’t able to distinguish between necessities and linguistic “luxuries”.
• Based on comparative grammar, Dravidian Languages should be equated with Scythian Languages and not Sanskritic Languages.
• The oldest language in Dravidian Family is not Shen-Tamil but Old Canarese and Ku(Khond)

According to him, the Non-Sanskritic part of North Indian Languages is Scythian (?) but the South Indian language is Dravidian. At the same time, the examples he has quoted prove exactly the opposite. Clearly, the only difference here is replacing ma with na.

Caldwell segregates between something called Shen-Tamil and the modern Tamil saying Shen-Tamil is devoid of Sanskrit:

"The ancient or classical dialect of the Tamil language, called the ‘Shen-Tamil,’ or correct Tamil, in which nearly all the literature has been written, contains exceedingly little Sanscrit; and differs from the colloquial dialect, or the language of prose, chiefly in the sedulous and jealous care with which it has rejected the use of Sanscrit derivatives and characters, and restricted itself to pure Dravidian sounds, forms, and roots. So completely has this jealousy of Sanscrit pervaded the minds of the educated classes amongst the Tamilians, that a Tamil composition is regarded as refined, by good taste, and worthy of being called classical, not in proportion to the amount of Sanscrit which it contains, as would be the case in some other dialects, but in proportion to its freedom from Sanscrit!"

Caldwell then cites the Ten Commandments as an example, trying to mislead the people. The Ten Commandments are not sentences or long paragraphs, they are isolated phrases. He writes:

"Let us, for example, compare the amount of Sanscrit which is contained in the Tamil translation of the Ten Commandments (Prayer Book version) with the amount of Latin which is contained in the English version of the same formula, and which has found its way into it, either directly, from Ecclesiastical Latin, or indirectly, through the medium of the Norman-French. Of forty-three nouns and adjectives in the English version twenty-nine are Anglo-Saxon, fourteen are Latin: of fifty-three nouns and adjectives in the Tamil (the difference in idiom causes this difference in the number) thirty-two are Dravidian, twenty-one Sanscrit. Of twenty verbs in English, thirteen are Anglo-Saxon, seven are Latin: of thirty-four verbs in Tamil, twenty-seven are Dravidian, and only seven are Sanscrit. Of the five numerals which are found in English, either in their cardinal or their ordinal shape, all are Anglo-Saxon; of the six numerals found in Tamil, five are Dravidian, one (‘thousand’) is probably Sanscrit. Putting all these numbers together, to ascertain the percentage, I find that in the department of nouns, numerals and verbs, the amount of the foreign element is in both instances the same, viz, as nearly as possible forty-five per cent. In both instances, also, all the pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions, as all the inflexional forms and connecting particles are the property of the native tongue. 

"I find that in the department of nouns, numerals and verbs, the amount of the foreign element is in both instances the same, viz, as nearly as possible forty-five per cent. In both instances, also, all the pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions, as all the inflexional forms and connecting particles are the property of the native tongue. I find that in the department of nouns, numerals and verbs, the amount of the foreign element is in both instances the same, viz, as nearly as possible forty-five per cent. In both instances, also, all the pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions, as all the inflexional forms and connecting particles are the property of the native tongue.

"I find that in the department of nouns, numerals and verbs, the amount of the foreign element is in both instances the same, viz, as nearly as possible forty-five per cent. In both instances, also, all the pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions, as all the inflexional forms and connecting particles are the property of the native tongue."I find that in the department of nouns, numerals and verbs, the amount of the foreign element is in both instances the same, viz, as nearly as possible forty-five per cent. In both instances, also, all the pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions, as all the inflexional forms and connecting particles are the property of the native tongue."

And then, in the next paragraph, he misses the evil design. He tries to compare English with Latin, and not Sanskrit. After all, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin are derived from the same root, for him:

"Trench’s expressions respecting the character of the contributions which our mother English has received from Anglo-Saxon and from Latin respectively are exactly applicable to the relation and proportion which the native Dravidian element bears to the Sanscrit contained in the Tamil."

He assumes that English has a great history as a language. English doesn't have a history at all since the number of works written in Old English is negligible, while the corpus of Sanskrit or Tamil literature can never be compared with anything Europe has produced, except in Latin and Greek, before 1500 CE. The total works produced in Tamil before 1500 CE surpasses everything Europe has produced outside Latin And Greek. A Britisher writer could be called a writer, only if he knew Latin. John Milton is an example. But Caldwell shares an absurdity with his readers:

"Though the proportion of Sanscrit which we find to be contained in the Tamil version of the Ten Commandments happens to correspond exactly to the proportion of Latin which is contained in the English version, it would be an error to conclude that the Tamil language is as deeply indebted to the Sanscrit as the English are to the Latin.

"The Tamil can readily dispense with the greater part or the whole of its Sanscrit, and by dispensing with it rises to a purer and more refined style; whereas the English cannot abandon its Latin without abandoning perspicuity. Such is the poverty of the Anglo-Saxon that it has no synonyms of its own for many of the words which it has borrowed from the Latin; so that if it were obliged to dispense with them, it would, in most cases, be under the necessity of using a very awkward periphrasis instead of a single word. Tamil, on the other hand, is peculiarly rich in synonyms; and generally, it is not through any real necessity, but from choice and the fashion of the age, that it makes use of Sanscrit. If the Ten Commandments were expressed in the speech of the lower classes of the Tamil people, or in the language of everyday life, the proportion of Sanscrit would be very greatly diminished; and if we wished to raise the style of the translation to a refined and classical pitch, Sanscrit would almost entirely disappear."

Then Caldwell scales the heights of absurdity and bigotry by declaring,

"Of the entire number of words which are contained in this formula, there is only one which could not be expressed with faultless propriety and poetic elegance in equivalents of pure Dravidian origin: that word is ‘graven image’ or ‘idol’! Both word and thing are foreign to primitive Tamil usages and habits of thought; and were introduced into the Tamil country by the Brahmans, with the Puranic system of religion and the worship of idols." This means, Caldwell just wants the lower caste people of Tamil Nadu, to remove and destroy the idols.

Further, while discussing the Behustin Tablets of Darius (Scythian Part), in three pages, Caldwell declares that the phonetics ṭ, ḍ and ṇ, though they exist in Sanskrit, they are imported into Sanskrit from Dravidian languages. The whole discussion stretching over three pages is just dishonest linguistic gymnastics. He concludes the discussion in complete nonsense:

"From the discovery of these analogies, we are enabled to conclude that the Dravidian race, though resident in India from a period long before the commencement of history, originated in the central tracts of Asia—the seed plot of nations; and that from thence, after parting company with the rest of the Ugro-Turanian horde, and leaving a colony in Beluchistan, they entered India by way of the Indus.

"How remarkable that the closest and most distinct affinities to the speech of the Dravidians of inter-tropical India should be those that are discovered in the languages of the Finns and Lapps of Northern Europe, and of the Ostiaks and other Ugrians of Siberia! and, consequently, that the Pre-Aryan inhabitants of the Dekhan should be proved by their language alone, in the silence of history, in the absence of all ordinary probabilities, to be allied to the tribes that appear to have overspread Europe before the arrival of the Goths and the Pelasgi, and even before the arrival of the Celts! What a confirmation of the statement that ‘God hath made of one blood all nations of men, to dwell upon the face of the whole earth."

Thus his Dravidian theory crumbles as a confused ramble of contradictions.

Another idiotic sample on numerals:

Not only do the numerals of every Scythian family differ so widely from those of every other as to present few points of connection, but even the numerals of any two dialects of the same family are found to differ very widely. Whilst the Sanscrit and the Gaelic agree in eight numerals out of ten, and differ in two only (one and five ); the Magyar and the Finnish, though as closely allied in point of grammatical structure as the Gaelic and the Welsh, have now only the first four numerals in common, and perfectly coincide in two numerals only, owe and four So great indeed is the diversity existing amongst the Scythian tongues, that, whilst the Indo-European idioms form but one family, the Scythian tongues are not so much a family as a group of families.

"At the very outset of my own inquiries I observed those Indo-European analogies myself; and, rejecting affinities which are unreal and which disappear on the investigation—(such as the connection of the Tamil numerals ‘ondru’ or ‘onnu’ one; ‘anju’ five; ‘ ettu’ eight; with ‘un-us’, ‘Pancha’ and ‘ ashta—a connection which looks very plausible, but is illusory."

On Hebrew, Caldwell has this nonsense to offer: "Though the majority of Hebrew roots have been proven to be allied to the Sanscrit, the Hebrew language does not cease to be regarded as Semitic rather than Indo-European." Suddenly he finds Semitic analogies in Tamil:

"It is a remarkable circumstance, that in the vocabulary of the Dravidian languages, especially in that of the Tamil, a few Semitic analogies may also be discovered. In some instances, the analogous roots are found in the Indo-European family, as well as in Hebrew, though the Hebrew form of the root is more closely analogous…In addition, however, to such general analogies as pervade several families of tongues, including the Dravidian, there are roots discoverable both in the Dravidian languages and in the Hebrew, to which I am not aware of the existence of any resemblance in any language of the Indo-European family… The Semitic analogies observable, in the Tamil are neither so numerous nor so important as the Indo-European, nor do they carry with them such convincing evidence; but taking them in connexion with that more numerous and important class of analogous roots which are found in the Indo-European languages, as well as in the Hebrew, but of which the Hebrew form is more closely allied to the Dravidian, these analogies, such as they are, constitute an additional element of interest in the problem of the origin and pre-historical connections of the Dravidian race."

He then links Dravidian languages with Australian tribal languages: "It seems proper here to notice the remarkable general resemblance which exists between the Dravidian pronouns and those of the aboriginal tribes of Southern and Western Australia."

Caldwell theorizes thus that while Tamil can borrow from Semiticism and Australia, it can never borrow anything from Sanskrit. While his linguistic theory is a mess, his political theory is equally deplorable. He theorizes that even the Dravidians are imported property, the Scythians. See this gem:

"The arrival of the Dravidians in India was undoubtedly anterior to the arrival of the Aryans, but there is some difficulty in determining whether the Dravidians were identical with the Scythian aborigines whom the Aryans found in possession of the northern provinces, and to whom the vernacular languages of Northern India are indebted for their Un-Sanscrit element, or whether they were a distinct and more ancient race. The question may be put thus: Were the Dravidians identical with the ‘Dasyus’ and ‘Mlechchas,’ by whom the progress of the Aryans was disputed, and who were finally subdued and incorporated with the Aryan race as their ‘ Sudras’ or serfs and dependents? or were they a race unknown to the Aryans of the first age, and which had already been expelled from Northern India, and driven southwards towards the extremity of the Peninsula before the Aryans arrived?

Caldwell lived here

"This question of the relation of the Dravidians to the primitive Sudras, or Aryanised Mlechchas, of Northern India, is confessedly involved in obscurity and can be settled only by a more thorough investigation than any that has yet been made of the relation of the Dravidian languages to the Un-Sanscrit element contained in the northern vernaculars. We may, indeed, confidently regard the Dravidians as the earliest inhabitants of India, or at least as the earliest race that entered from the North-West, or crossed the Indus; but it is not so easy to determine whether they were the people whom the Aryans found in possession, or whether they had already been expelled from the northern provinces by the pre-historic irruption of another Scythian race. Some recent inquirers hold the identity of the Dravidians with the primitive Sudras, and much may be said in support of this hypothesis, I am not competent to pronounce a decided opinion on a point which lies so far beyond my own province, but the differences which appear to exist between the Dravidian languages and the Scythian under-stratum of the northern vernaculars induce me to incline to the supposition that the Dravidian idioms belong to an older period of the Scythian speech—the period of the predominance of the Ugro-Finnish languages in Central and Higher Asia, anterior to the westward migration of the Turks and Mongolians. If this supposition is correct, it seems to follow that the progenitors of the Scythian portion of the Sudras and mixed classes now inhabiting the northern and western provinces must have made their way into India subsequently to the Dravidians, and also that they must have thrust out the Dravidians from the greater part of Northern India, before they were in their turn subdued by a new race of invaders.

"By whomsoever, the Dravidians were expelled from Northern India, and through whatever causes soever they were induced to migrate southward, I feel persuaded that it was not by the Aryans that they were expelled. Neither the subjugation of the Cholas, Pandiyas, and other Dravidians by the Aryans, nor the expulsion from Northern India of the races who afterwards became celebrated in the South, as Pandiyas, Cholas, Keralas, Calingas, Andhras, etc., is recognised by any Sanscrit authority, or any Dravidian tradition. Looking at the question from a purely Dravidian point of view, I am convinced that the Dravidians never had any relations with the primitive Aryans but those of a peaceable and friendly character; and that if they were expelled from Northern India, and forced to take refuge in Gondwana and Dandakaranya, the great Dravidian forest, before the dawn of their civilisation, the tribes that subdued and thrust them southwards must have been Pre-Aryans.

"Those Pre-Aryan Scythians, by whom I have been supposing the Dravidians to have been expelled from the northern provinces, are not to be confounded with the Koles, Sontals, Bhills, Doms, and other aboriginal tribes of the North. Possibly these tribes had fled into the forests from the Dravidians before the Pre-Aryan invasion, just as the British had taken refuge in Wales before the Norman conquest. It is also possible that the tribes referred to had never crossed the Indus at all, or occupied Northern India, but had entered it, like the Bhut tribes, by the North-East, and had passed from the jungles and swamps of Lower Bengal to their present abodes,—taking care always to keep on the outside of the boundary line of civilisation. At all events, we cannot suppose that it was through an irruption of those forest tribes that the Dravidians were driven southwards; nor does the Un-Sanscrit element which is contained in the northern vernaculars appear to accord in any degree with the peculiar structure of the Kole languages. 

"The tribes of Northern India whom the Aryans gradually incorporated into their community, as Sudras, whosoever they were, must have been an organized and formidable race. They were probably identical with the ‘Ethiopians from the East,’ who, according to Herodotus, were brigaded with other Indians in the army of Xerxes, and who differed from other Ethiopians in being ‘straight-haired.’The tribes of Northern India whom the Aryans gradually incorporated into their community, as Sudras, whosoever they were, must have been an organized and formidable race. They were probably identical with the ‘Ethiopians from the East,’ who, according to Herodotus, were brigaded with other Indians in the army of Xerxes, and who differed from other Ethiopians in being ‘straight-haired.’The tribes of Northern India whom the Aryans gradually incorporated into their community, as Sudras, whosoever they were, must have been an organized and formidable race. They were probably identical with the ‘Ethiopians from the East,’ who, according to Herodotus, were brigaded with other Indians in the army of Xerxes, and who differed from other Ethiopians in being ‘straight-haired.’

"I admit that there is a difficulty in supposing that the Dravidians, who have proved themselves greatly superior to the Aryanised Sudras of Northern India in mental power, independence, and patriotic feeling, should have been expelled from their original possessions by an irruption of the ancestors of those very Sudras. It is to be remembered, however, that the lapse of time may have effected a great change in the warlike, hungry, Scythian hordes that rushed down upon the first Dravidian settlements. It is also to be remembered that the dependent and almost servile position to which this secondary race of Scythians was early reduced by the Aryans, whilst the more distant Dravidians were enjoying freedom and independence, may have materially altered their original character. 

"It is not therefore so improbable as it might, at first sight,appear, that after the Dravidians had been driven across the Vindhyas into the Dekhan by a newer race of Scythians, this new race, conquered in its turn by the Aryans and reduced to a dependent position, soon sank beneath the level of the tribes which it had expelled; whilst the Dravidians, retaining their independence in the southern forests into which they were driven, and submitting eventually to the Aryans not as conquerors, but as colonists and instructors, gradually rose in the social scale, and formed communities and states in the Dekhan, rivalling those of the Aryans in the north.whilst the Dravidians, retaining their independence in the southern forests into which they were driven, and submitting eventually to the Aryans not as conquerors, but as colonists and instructors, gradually rose in the social scale, and formed communities and states in the Dekhan, rivalling those of the Aryans in the north.whilst the Dravidians, retaining their independence in the southern forests into which they were driven, and submitting eventually to the Aryans not as conquerors, but as colonists and instructors, gradually rose in the social scale, and formed communities and states in the Dekhan, rivalling those of the Aryans in the north.

"Mr Curzon (Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 16) recently attempted to meet the difficulty which I have stated by supposing that the Tamilians were never in possession of Arya-Varta, or Northern India, at all; but that they were connected with the Malay race, and came to Southern India by sea, from the opposite coast of the Bay of Bengal, or from Ceylon. This theory seems, however, perfectly gratuitous; for it has been proved that the languages of the Gonds and Kus are Dravidian, equally with the Tamil itself; that the Rajmahal is also substantially Dravidian; and that the Brahui partakes so largely of the same character (not to speak of the language of the Scythic tablets of Behistun), as to establish a connection between the Dravidians and the ancient races west of the Indus. It has also been shown that in the time of Ptolemy, when every part of India had long ago been settled and civilised, the Dravidians were in quiet possession, not only of the south-eastern coast but of the whole of the Peninsula, up nearly to the mouths of the Ganges."

The Scythians were civilized

Caldwell's mad rambling goes on like this throughout the book. His theory is unscientific, politically divisive and built only on absurdities, with a devilish design to convert the lower castes. While the Eurocentric mind brings to Indian history Scythians, describing them as uncivilized people, the fact is the reverse, the Scythians were culturally advanced.

The Scythians were a nomadic people, originally of Iranian stock, known from as early as the 9th century BCE who migrated westward from Central Asia to southern Russia and Ukraine in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. They founded a powerful empire centred on what is now Crimea, and it survived for several centuries before succumbing to the Sarmatians during the period from the 4th century BCE to the 2nd century CE.

Until the 20th century, most of what was known of the history of the Scythians came from the account of them by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who visited their territory. In modern times that record has been expanded chiefly by Russian and other anthropologists excavating kurgans in Tyva and Kazakhstan.

Cldwell statue at Marina beach

The Scythians were admired for their prowess in war and, in particular, for their horsemanship. The migration of the Scythians from Asia eventually brought them into the territory of the Cimmerians, who had traditionally controlled the Caucasus and the plains north of the Black Sea. In a war that lasted 30 years, the Scythians destroyed the Cimmerians and set themselves up as rulers of an empire stretching from west Persia through Syria and Judaea to the borders of Egypt. The Medes, who ruled Persia, attacked them and drove them out of Anatolia, leaving them finally in control of lands which stretched from the Persian border north through the Kuban and into southern Russia.

The Scythians were remarkable for the complex culture they produced. They developed a class of wealthy aristocrats who left elaborate graves—such as the kurgans in the Valley of the Tsars (or Kings) near Arzhan, 40 miles (60 km) from Kyzyl, Tyva—filled with richly worked articles of gold, as well as beads of turquoise, carnelian, and amber, and many other valuable objects. This class of chieftains, the Royal Scyths, finally established themselves as rulers of the southern Russian and Crimean territories. It is there that the richest, oldest, and most-numerous relics of Scythian civilization have been found. Their power was sufficient to repel an invasion by the Persian king Darius I in about 513 BCE.

The Royal Scyths were headed by a sovereign whose authority was transmitted to his son. Eventually, about the time of Herodotus, the royal family intermarried with the Greeks. In 339 the ruler Ateas was killed at age 90 while fighting Philip II of Macedonia. The community was eventually destroyed in the 2nd century BCE, Palakus being the last sovereign whose name is preserved in history.

The Scythian army was made up of freemen who received no wage other than food and clothing but who could share in booty on the presentation of the head of a slain enemy. Many warriors wore Greek-style bronze helmets and chain-mail jerkins. Their principal weapon was a double-curved bow and trefoil-shaped arrows; their swords were of the Persian type. Every Scythian had at least one personal mount, but the wealthy owned large herds of horses, chiefly Mongolian ponies. Burial customs were elaborate and called for the sacrifice of members of the dead man’s household, including wives, servants, and several horses.

Despite these characteristics, their many exquisite grave goods, notably the animal-style gold artefacts, reveal that the Scythians were also culturally advanced. Further, some gold ornaments thought to have been created by Greeks for the Scythians were shown to have predated their contact with Greek civilization. Thus, the Dravidians cannot have any relation to the Scythians.

Hence, while the only place for the book of Caldwell book is the dustbin of history, in south India, a new identity called Dravidian Christianity is being constructed. It is an opportunistic combination of two myths: the “Dravidian race” and another that purports that early Christianity shaped the major Hindu classics! The Aryan/Dravidian constructs are mutually dependent and have been very successfully used to generate conflict, including violence, as in Sri Lanka in recent years.

The Dravidian race theory of Caldwell and others originated when colonial and evangelical interests used linguistics and ethnic studies to formulate imaginary histories and races. While European scholars like Moniere Williams and Horace Wilson were busy appropriating the Sanskrit classics and exporting Sanskrit manuscripts to England as the heritage of Europeans, British linguists Francis Ellis and Alexander Campbell worked in India to theorize that the south Indian languages belong to a different family than the north Indian ones. Another colonial scholar, Brian Houghton Hodgson, was promoting the term “Tamulian” as a racial construct, describing the so-called aborigines of India as primitive and uncivilized compared to the “foreign Aryans.”

To the colonial interests, Anglican Bishop Caldwell contributed what now flourishes as the “Dravidian” identity. He argued that the south Indian mind was structurally different from the Sanskrit mind. Linguistic speculations were turned into a race theory. He characterized the Dravidians as “ignorant and dense,” accusing the Brahmins — the cunning Aryan agents — of keeping them in shackles through the imposition of Sanskrit and its religion.

His successor, another prolific missionary, Bishop G.U. Pope, started to glorify the Tamil classics era, insisting that its underpinnings were Christianity, not Hinduism. The idea was successfully planted that Hinduism had corrupted the “originally pure” Tamil culture by adding Sanskrit and pagan ideas. It was fed by the theory that in the Indian Ocean there once existed a lost continent called Lemuria, the original homeland of the Dravidians. Accounts glorifying Lemuria were taught as historical facts under British rule because it exacerbated the regional faultlines.

A new religion called “Dravidian Christianity” has been invented through a sudden upsurge of writings designed to “discover” the existence of quasi-Christianity in Tamil history before the coming of the “Aryan” Brahmins. The project is to co-opt Tamil culture, language and literature and systematically cleanse them of Hinduism. Christian interpretations and substitutes are being injected into the most cherished symbols, artefacts and literary works of Tamil Hindu culture.

The preposterous claim is that Tamil classical literature originated in early Christianity. The Tamil classical tradition consists of two great components: an ethical treatise called Thirukural, authored by the great sage Thiruvalluvar, and a sophisticated Vedanta philosophical system called Saiva Siddhanta, which traces its origins to the Vedas and was nurtured by many Tamil savants over the centuries. Dravidian Christianity appropriates both these foundational works, attributing them to Christian influence.

The narrative used is that St. Thomas, the apostle, visited south India and taught Christianity to Thiruvalluvar, who was inspired by Christianity but did not capture St. Thomas’ message accurately. This is often portrayed in fake paintings showing the Thiruvalluvar sitting at the feet of St. Thomas, taking notes. The Indian church has announced archaeological “discoveries” to back the visit of St. Thomas to south India, but it has been confirmed that St Thomas has never been to India. Even the famous Jesuit archaeologist, Father Henry Heras, dismissed the so-called discovery of Thomas’ tomb in Chennai.

Thus, in breaking India, an influential nexus of Christian-funded institutions and scholars, often supported by western governments, are indulging in large-scale manipulations similar to those in colonial times. Sadly, a statue of the eccentric Bishop Robert Caldwell has been erected at Marina beach, by the Church. Now, for some, he is the icon who gave the Tamil people their “true history.”

___________________________

1. Frykenberg, Robert Eric (2004), "Caldwell, Robert (1814–1891)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press

2. ibid

3. "Faith and Family in South India: Robert Caldwell and his Missionary Dynasty", https://www.britishempire.co.uk/article/faithandfamily/elizacaldwell.htm

4. ibid

5. Robert Caldwell (1856). A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Or South-Indian Family of Languages. Asian Educational Services (Reprint of 1913 3rd edition revised by Reverend J.L. Wyatt and T Ramakrishna Pillai). pp. 88–105

6. Suvira Jaiswal (1974) [1958]. "Studies in the Social Structure of the Early Tamils". In R. S. Sharma (ed.). Indian Society: Historical Probings in memory of D. D. Kosambi. Indian Council of Historical Research / People's Publishing House. p. 126.

7. Daughrity, Dyron B. (2005). "Hinduisms, Christian Missions, and the Tinnevelly Shanars: A Study of Colonial Missions in 19th Century India". Alberta: University of Calgary. pp. 4, 7

8. ibid

9. Kumaradoss, Y. Vincent (2007), Robert Caldwell: A Scholar-Missionary in Colonial South India, Delhi: ISPCK

10. ibid, pp. 23

11. Daughrity, Dyron B. (2005). "Hinduisms, Christian Missions, and the Tinnevelly Shanars: A Study of Colonial Missions in 19th Century India". Alberta: University of Calgary. pp. 4, 7

12.  Robert Caldwell (1856). A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Or South-Indian Family of Languages. Asian Educational Services (Reprint of 1913 3rd edition revised by Reverend J.L. Wyatt and T Ramakrishna Pillai). All quotes from this edition.

13. Shulman, David. Tamil, A Biography (2016). Harvard University Press.

14. Indrapala, K The Evolution of an ethnic identity: The Tamils of Sri Lanka, pp.155–156

15.Zvelebil, Kamil (1990). Dravidian Linguistics: An Introduction. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.

16. Indrapala, K The Evolution of an ethnic identity: The Tamils of Sri Lanka, pp.155–156

17. Zvelebil 1990, p. xx

18. Zvelebil 1990, p. xx

© Ramachandran