South Indian<>Dravidian
EAS...@purccvm.bitnet
Let me explain.
When Selvakumar started this thread a few months back, I sent a personal
mail to him requesting him not to continue. I told him that I thought
any discussion on the net could only degenerate and that it would
eventually hurt the sensibilities of a lot of people. We see the rot
now. And it is time someone told him to stop.
Another , and actually more important reason is the 'STEREOTYPING' of an
---------------------
average South Indian by the rest of India if this thread continues.
I THINK DRAVIDIAN SUPPORTERS NEED A REALITY CHECK. It is time these
people paused and took a stock of what they have achieved.
CLAIM 1 : A majority of Non-Tamil south Indians do not believe in the
Dravidian Stuff.
In my discussions with a lot of non-tamil southies, I found this to be
true.
A simple way to test this hypothesis is to conduct a poll on the nets
and I challenge the Pro-Dravidians to do so. Until then, you ask the
---------
next South Indian (Non-Tamil) you meet and verify for yourself.
CLAIM 2 : WE RESPECT AND WORSHIP LORD RAM.
This, I believe, is the acid test. An average South Indian does not
denigrate Ram. He does not condone those who burn Lord Ram's effigy on
Ramlila (in retaliation to burning of Ravan in the north).
IN FACT, HE SHUDDERS AT THE BLASPHEMY. Being the tolerant soul he is, he
ignores them.
Claim 3 : Dravidianism can only lead to further divisions in an already
fragmented society.
The caste system is based on the following propositions which apply
equally well to Dravidianism. For example;
1. A man is born in a Brahmin/Shudra (Aryan/Dravidian).
2. People belonging to different Brahmin and Shudra castes { read
Dravidian and Aryan races} are, SOMEHOW, different.
3. If two castes(races) are different, then they can be compared in
terms of value/worth, somehow defined.
4. Thus,one caste (race) will be superior to another.
{ No particular order is intended above}.
The rest of South India ( Non- Dravidians) can see this connection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, they do not support Dravidianism, fully comprehending the
repurcussions.
CLAIM 4 : { This is STRONG stuff, with some unparlimentary language.
Sensitive Readers may avoid this}
CLAIM 4:PISSING INTO A TENT YOU DON'T LIVE IN IS WRONG.
You have no right to criticize my country in a destructive way from
outside. As long as you are a part of India, you will suffer from the
consequences, and hence that automatically forces you to be pragmatic.
In other words, you will not piss inside the tent when you are living in
it, because you too will have to live with the stink. Don't piss on my
country from outside, you may be raising an issue we can very well do
without.
CLAIM 6 : RIGHTING HISTORICAL WRONGS IS DANGEROUS.
This should be self-evident. This is what Hitler did and RSS says it is
doing. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past.
**************************************************************************
GROW UP, THE WORLD IS PASSING YOU BY. Nyshadham
**************************************************************************
ks...@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu
>NOT ALL SOUTH INDIANS GO WITH DRAVIDIAN THEORY.
>
>Let me explain.
>
>When Selvakumar started this thread a few months back, I sent a personal
>mail to him requesting him not to continue. I told him that I thought
>any discussion on the net could only degenerate and that it would
>eventually hurt the sensibilities of a lot of people. We see the rot
>now. And it is time someone told him to stop.
>
Whose sensibilities are hurt when Prof Selvakumar quotes from researches
that our 'preconceived' idea that Aryan speaking persons (note: not race)
civilized whole of India which was barbarian - the same way that 'tellavadu'
(white man) came and civilzed the heathens. I can give you references of a
number of books written by well respected Indians and published by Bharateeya
Vidya Bhavan which show the general premise of Prof. Selvakumar to be the right
one.
>Another , and actually more important reason is the 'STEREOTYPING' of an
> ---------------------
>average South Indian by the rest of India if this thread continues.
>
You seem to be the person stereotyping - by equating Dravidians with South
Indians and Aryans with North Indians. In fact the whole of India is an
intermixture of all races - the persons who spoke Aryan languages and came to
India at a later time and the people who spoke Dravidian languages and came a
thousand or more years earlier. Aryan speaking people encountered Dravidians
and others in Gangetic plains, fought wars with them, intermarried and later
synthesized their cultures to evolve Hinduism. They (Aryans) gave up most of
their beliefs and embraced the philosophical outlook. Thus arose the Aranyakas
and Vedanta. To say that Dravidians were in South India and Aryans (as you seem
to symbolize Rama with) went south and destroyed or vanquished Dravidians (as
symbolized by Ravanaetc) is utter nonsense. Ramayana was a mixture of a number
of legends and the Aryan conquest of South India was not a part of it at all. I
will be posting an article later on the history of Ramayana (not the story of
Ramayana)
>I THINK DRAVIDIAN SUPPORTERS NEED A REALITY CHECK. It is time these
>people paused and took a stock of what they have achieved.
>
>
>CLAIM 1 : A majority of Non-Tamil south Indians do not believe in the
>Dravidian Stuff.
>
I do not know what you mean by Dravidian stuff.
>In my discussions with a lot of non-tamil southies, I found this to be
>true.
>
>A simple way to test this hypothesis is to conduct a poll on the nets
>and I challenge the Pro-Dravidians to do so. Until then, you ask the
> ---------
>next South Indian (Non-Tamil) you meet and verify for yourself.
>
I am a non-Tamil Southie and do read a lot about ancient Indian history.
>
>CLAIM 2 : WE RESPECT AND WORSHIP LORD RAM.
>
>This, I believe, is the acid test. An average South Indian does not
>denigrate Ram. He does not condone those who burn Lord Ram's effigy on
>Ramlila (in retaliation to burning of Ravan in the north).
>
When did your article get out of hand? Did Prof Selvakumar ever burn Ram's
effigy or did he advocate doing so?
>IN FACT, HE SHUDDERS AT THE BLASPHEMY. Being the tolerant soul he is, he
>ignores them.
>
>
>Claim 3 : Dravidianism can only lead to further divisions in an already
>fragmented society.
>
What is 'Dravidianism'? Is that a new religion which oppses the 'true'
indianism?
K. Sankara Rao e-mail ks...@power.eee.ndsu.nodak.edu
Department of Electrical Engineering
North Dakota State University
Fargo, ND 58105 USA
Phone: (701)237-7217 (o)
(701)235-9912 (h)
u v babu srinivas
=> When Selvakumar started this thread a few months back, I sent a personal
=> mail to him requesting him not to continue. I told him that I thought
=> any discussion on the net could only degenerate and that it would
=> eventually hurt the sensibilities of a lot of people. We see the rot
=> now. And it is time someone told him to stop.
selvakumar posts what he interprets from the studies he has been
doing. he is convinced that there is a gross misrepresentation
going on, and he is presenting evidence/facts to support his claim.
if people get hurt because something is being said that doesn't
agree with what they have been taught or what they believe, then
it's the people who have to change, not him. if they can't take
it, they shouldn't. if you or they can prove he is wrong, do so.
don't whine.
(EAS...@PURCCVM.BITNET) goes on to say that this --
=> [this leads to] 'STEREOTYPING' of an average South Indian by rest of India
I don't see how this could be done. and if someone does the stereotyping,
it is not his fault. ask them to stop, not him.
=> A simple way to test this hypothesis is to conduct a poll on the nets
=> and I CHALLENGE the Pro-Dravidians to do so. Until then, you ask the
=> next South Indian (Non-Tamil) you meet and verify for yourself.
science is not democracy. the truth of a proposition is not evaluated
by taking a popular vote. I can't believe that an educated person could
come out with a statement as the one above.
=> You have no right to criticize my country in a destructive way from
=> outside. As long as you are a part of India, you will suffer from the
it's not destructive. it's his country.
=> CLAIM 6 : RIGHTING HISTORICAL WRONGS IS DANGEROUS.
=>
=> This should be self-evident. This is what Hitler did and RSS says it is
=> doing. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past.
I don't see any relation between these two. attempt to right the
[what he percieves as] scientific mis-beliefs is what I see.
listen without prejudice.
-- srinivas
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kuram T Narayana
>In article <92322.150...@PURCCVM.BITNET>, EAS...@PURCCVM.BITNET writes:
>>NOT ALL SOUTH INDIANS GO WITH DRAVIDIAN THEORY.
>>
>>Let me explain.
>>
>>When Selvakumar started this thread a few months back, I sent a personal
>>mail to him requesting him not to continue. I told him that I thought
>>any discussion on the net could only degenerate and that it would
>>eventually hurt the sensibilities of a lot of people. We see the rot
>>now. And it is time someone told him to stop.
>>
>
> Whose sensibilities are hurt when Prof Selvakumar quotes from researches
>that our 'preconceived' idea that Aryan speaking persons (note: not race)
>civilized whole of India which was barbarian - the same way that 'tellavadu'
>(white man) came and civilzed the heathens. I can give you references of a
>number of books written by well respected Indians and published by Bharateeya
>Vidya Bhavan which show the general premise of Prof. Selvakumar to be the right
>one.
Can you get me something! Selvakumar's posts were not on who civilized whom
in the metaphysical arena. Or have I read him wrong. Can you just show me
where he brought this out. His postings sought to report on certain etymological
aspects of Tamil and Sanskrit, though the source that he uses for the same
has been questioned. Are you trying to generalize the postings even further.
If that is so, then in the aspects of religion, there have been
early influences of native races (not necessarily aboriginal Tamils)
on the conceptualization of thought. However there is no clear cut, repeat
clear cut, evidence to support the same. Whenever I read (and whereever I read)
of Hindu philosophy (from the times of prehistory), authors have made
very conservative assessments of this cross polination. You seem to have
found some definite evidence to support the view that these conservative
assessments are concretizable into more specific forms. If you have some
supporting evidence, I would like to know. Please when you present such an
evidence, do us a favour. Test the hypothesis so that it can stand scrutiny
The reason is as follows. You know well and I also know well that history
often gets misrepresented, because people are unable to detach from their
own situations. If you can try to detach yourself, read the same, and present
us those aspects that are worthwhile to know (for they will stand as
unalterable results for any future), I would like to know.
...kt
(lots of stuff deleted ...)
Chandrasekhar Kambhampati
ks...@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu writes:
> Whose sensibilities are hurt when Prof Selvakumar quotes from researches
<....lines of the same para deleted....>
>Vidya Bhavan which show the general premise of Prof. Selvakumar to be the right
^^^^
>one.
<...somes lines of a previous post, and KSRao's post deleted....>
> When did your article get out of hand? Did Prof Selvakumar ever burn Ram's
^^^^
I find it rather amusing, that people have started using their titles
(or others title) in their posts. Mr Selvakumar has never called himself
Prof. Soandso. So whats the purpose of using this ...... is it a
sobriquet.....if so than it is better throw some brickbats also!
Just because someone is a prof somewhere, his word (on a subject in
which he has no specialisation whatsoever) need not be gods gift to
mankind!
Now coming to the earnest Professor's discourses - at times they are
diatribes verging on fantasy and (if I didnot have a sense of humor that
is) racist. At time I am left wondering if I am reading LTTE propanganda
There is an hidden agenda here. Where Mr Vishnu failed, the sophistry of
Mr Selvakumar seems to be suceeding.
The hidden agenda here is to try and justify the silly squables in SL.
And to develop a silly sense of cultural superiority! For the
Sri-Lankans, whose mother tongue is Sinhala, think themselves of Aryans;
and the other lot i.e the tamil speaking Sri-Lankans as a result think
themselves as the repository of all that is Dravidian.
The other aspect, I suspect, of this hidden agenda is to show that the current
lack of support for the terrorists in India is an aryan conspiracy.
Waterloo seems to be full of these wraped minds - perhaps they have had full
frontal lobotomies!
For it is really useless to argue who or what is the oldest or ancient -
the only two exceptions being - one if the interest is purely curiousity
or if the interest is one of inciting/fomenting trouble. And Mr
Selvakumar seems to fall somewhere in between. Perhaps the dravidian
protagonists are more prone to whistling in the dark! and need a reality
check from time to time. Reading RRSuresh's recent blabbering on this
subject shows that the LTTE propanganda wing needs a reality check - for
they are in that unenviable position of beleiving their own version of
the past!
Finally, on a note which seems to be becoming popular, in telugu there
is a saying - mokaalluki bodigunduki mudi veyyadam (think that is what
it is - and I do apologise for the poor transliteration) and Mr
Selvakumar seems rather adept at it - nay he is a past master!
regards
chandrasekhar
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>ks...@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu writes:
>> Whose sensibilities are hurt when Prof Selvakumar quotes from researches
><....lines of the same para deleted....>
>>Vidya Bhavan which show the general premise of Prof. Selvakumar to be the right
> ^^^^
>>one.
><...somes lines of a previous post, and KSRao's post deleted....>
>> When did your article get out of hand? Did Prof Selvakumar ever burn Ram's
> ^^^^
>I find it rather amusing, that people have started using their titles
>(or others title) in their posts. Mr Selvakumar has never called himself
>Prof. Soandso. So whats the purpose of using this ...... is it a
>sobriquet.....if so than it is better throw some brickbats also!
>Just because someone is a prof somewhere, his word (on a subject in
>which he has no specialisation whatsoever) need not be gods gift to
>mankind!
Dr Selva did not claim the above.
>Now coming to the earnest Professor's discourses - at times they are
>diatribes verging on fantasy and (if I didnot have a sense of humor that
>is) racist. At time I am left wondering if I am reading LTTE propanganda
>There is an hidden agenda here. Where Mr Vishnu failed, the sophistry of
>Mr Selvakumar seems to be suceeding.
>The hidden agenda here is to try and justify the silly squables in SL.
>And to develop a silly sense of cultural superiority! For the
>Sri-Lankans, whose mother tongue is Sinhala, think themselves of Aryans;
>and the other lot i.e the tamil speaking Sri-Lankans as a result think
>themselves as the repository of all that is Dravidian.
Dr. Selvakumar has only tried to put facts into the net and set an
environment for healthy exchange of ideas. But I am afraid kuram and
you cannot argue healthily and now have connected LTTE to some
cultural discussion.
>regards
>chandrasekhar
Regards,
Kathiravan
Virendra Verma
In article <92322.150...@PURCCVM.BITNET>, <EAS...@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes...
>NOT ALL SOUTH INDIANS GO WITH DRAVIDIAN THEORY.
>
>Let me explain.
Stuff deleted.
Excellent Nyshadham. Thanks for posting your views. I whole
heartedly agree with you. Dravidianism was a tool of the Brits
to divide India. Brits are gone so should Dravidianism.
How about every one believing the descendent of an Aryan? To
homogenize you have a choice - either demote or promote. Why not
promote.
Srikant Sridevan
In article <1992Nov18....@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, ve...@pfeast.enet.dec.com (Virendra Verma) writes:
|> Xref: taco soc.culture.indian:2495 soc.culture.tamil:3685 soc.culture.indian.telugu:993
|> Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.tamil,soc.culture.indian.telugu
|> Path: taco!gatech!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!think.com!ames!sun-barr!decwrl!pa.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!pfeast.enet.dec.com!verma
|> From: ve...@pfeast.enet.dec.com (Virendra Verma)
|> Subject: Re: South Indian<>Dravidian
|> Message-ID: <1992Nov18....@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
|> Sender: ne...@ryn.mro4.dec.com (USENET News System)
|> Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
|> Date: 18 NOV 92 12:05:40
|> Lines: 15
Srikant
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
If one is interested in *truly* rising s/he will become more
honest and then one can see that Indias culture is mostly
dravidianoids. Tamil culture is probably a component-culture of
dravidian culture ( or one in the ensemble of dravidianoid
cultures) and these are not decendent of aryan culture although
several elements of aryan culture might have been assimilated.
It is worthwhile in trying to "homogenize" in seeking truth and
being and practising honesty. Will believeing as decendent
of Aryan be a promotion ( =advancement) or trying to understand
truth will be ? The autochthonous culture of india was and is
dravidianoid if you care to examine. If you want to imagine
that it is a 'promotion' to consider yourself as a decendent of
'Aryan" , go ahead 'promote' yourself since you seem to need a
'promotion' ! :-) We are all evolving and we should continue to
strive hard for achieving the progress. If you think some aspects of
Aryan culture are great it is certainly worthwhile absorbing it.
Why should one imagine to be a decendent of Aryan to do that ?
Regards
Selva Selvakumar
M. P. Krishna Raj
>
>ks...@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu writes:
>
>> Whose sensibilities are hurt when Prof Selvakumar quotes from researches
>
>I find it rather amusing, that people have started using their titles
>(or others title) in their posts. Mr Selvakumar has never called himself
>Prof. Soandso. So whats the purpose of using this ...... is it a
>sobriquet.....if so than it is better throw some brickbats also!
>
>Just because someone is a prof somewhere, his word (on a subject in
>which he has no specialisation whatsoever) need not be gods gift to
>mankind!
>
>
>Finally, on a note which seems to be becoming popular, in telugu there
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is a saying - mokaalluki bodigunduki mudi veyyadam (think that is what
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it is - and I do apologise for the poor transliteration) and Mr
>Selvakumar seems rather adept at it - nay he is a past master!
>
>regards
>chandrasekhar
Here is your emails to me. Let everyone read it. Now everyone
can understand what I meant at that time.
Raj
The following are two emails to me. I posted as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------
From c...@rosemary.cs.reading.ac.uk Thu Aug 20 10:08:03 1992
To: r...@news.cs.odu.edu
Subject: Re: 100 follow up articles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil,alt.culture.tamil
In soc.culture.tamil you write:
>Before threading a article please think twice who had posted that.
>There are few people who unfortunately act like tamil while
>they are posting article. Their names or inaccurate facts
>show that they are not Tamils.
Mr Raj, how the fuck can you say someone is a tamilian or not from his
name. Your effing name suggest that you are tiger piss sniweeling joker
from sri-lanka. if that is the case than you are not a tamilian.
you are a sri-lankan, with a penchant for terrorism. Hope this gets you
made. For your silly generalisation shows the sort of ass you are?
>There are three kinds of posting that stirred the SCT.
>1.The Postings about Periyar :
>We don't need this. Somebody will post about another female
>leader because she is a also a leader. At the end stadard of
>SCT will plummet.
Whynot? Your tiger shit loving friend -Vishnu can post shit on the net.
But others cannot do the same. You hypocrit!
ANyway who the hell appointed you net.soc.culture.tamil.thought.police?
regards
chandraekharan
----------------------------------
From c...@rosemary.cs.reading.ac.uk Thu Aug 20 10:00:33 1992
To: r...@aelle.cs.odu.edu
Subject: Re: Why are TAMILS hated ? (SOME ANSWERS !!)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
In soc.culture.tamil you write::
>In article <1992Aug16....@wam.umd.edu> ra...@wam.umd.edu (Ravi Kuchimanchi) writes:
>>I am posting this for a friend. Please dont email this account.
>> -Ravi
>It will be better, if you introduce your friend. He/She need not hide
>in initials. If they want to hide themselves they need post on the net.
ATLEAST RAVI KUCHIMANCHI had the grace to sign the article himself. This
is in marked contrast to the tiger loving sls (those cynaide dangling
terrorists) who send mail without signing their name or using a false
identity.
ANyway who the fuck are you? Get back to that stone you crawled out from
under dimwitted geek?
>This is wild accusation. Talk to the point. Why are bringing political
>parties here.
And sure those those SL-killers calling themselves tigers can offload
their shit on the net. You hypocrit!
>Sunstantiate
>a)Existence of Sind and Sindhis at about 3000 B.C
>Your are hiding your childishness under linguistic jargon.
No Mr Raj ( are you a tiger shit licking asshole (judging from your
name it appears to be so), it is not 'linguistic jargon'....it is semantics! You
moron!
regards
chandrasekharan
Virendra Verma
In article <By0zw...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes...
>In article <1992Nov18....@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, ve...@pfeast.enet.dec.com (Virendra Verma) writes:
>>
>> In article <92322.150...@PURCCVM.BITNET>, <EAS...@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes...
>> >NOT ALL SOUTH INDIANS GO WITH DRAVIDIAN THEORY.
>> >
>> homogenize you have a choice - either demote or promote. Why not
>> promote.
>
>
> If one is interested in *truly* rising s/he will become more
> honest and then one can see that Indias culture is mostly
> dravidianoids. Tamil culture is probably a component-culture of
> dravidian culture ( or one in the ensemble of dravidianoid
> cultures) and these are not decendent of aryan culture although
> several elements of aryan culture might have been assimilated.
> It is worthwhile in trying to "homogenize" in seeking truth and
> being and practising honesty. Will believeing as decendent
> of Aryan be a promotion ( =advancement) or trying to understand
> truth will be ? The autochthonous culture of india was and is
> dravidianoid if you care to examine. If you want to imagine
> that it is a 'promotion' to consider yourself as a decendent of
> 'Aryan" , go ahead 'promote' yourself since you seem to need a
> 'promotion' ! :-) We are all evolving and we should continue to
> strive hard for achieving the progress. If you think some aspects of
> Aryan culture are great it is certainly worthwhile absorbing it.
> Why should one imagine to be a decendent of Aryan to do that ?
>
>
> Regards
> Selva Selvakumar
>
I did not use the word 'Aryan' in the sense of race because I
don't think it is a race. It is the 'noble' nature of being. What
I am simply saying is that let every Indian believe that their
ancestors were 'noble' as depicted by our scritures. This notion
of homogeneity will unite all Indians. If we can admit that notion,
only then we can eridicate our differences and proceed to the path
of progress.
Drivadianism is simply racism. It is the creation of inavders to
divide Indians. By embaracing Dravidianism, even though there is
no truth to it, we are simply nourishing outsiders to further
divide us. When you find a concrete evidence to support your
thesis, we can talk about it. You have not produced any convincing
evidence. Linguistic proof is a hoax as I mentioned earlier. Also
our scriptures, which are simply mythology in your eyes, cannot
be used against our culture. If you really want to use these scriptures,
you have to fully understand the mentality of the time when these
works were conceived by humanity.
-- Virendra
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>this posting of mine. I am sorry that the likes of one Mr Gunnasekaran
>(who posted a threatening e-mail to me), Mr Kathivaran etc seems to have
>lost their sense of humour! They are being too earnest!
>regards
>chandrasekhar
>
>regards
>chandrasekhar
Yes. I don't know anything other than speaking from heart. You write
and call names. You are the unhealthy person who sent indecent mails
to Mr Krishna Raj.
Kathiravan
RI...@cunyvm.bitnet
-
-Is it going to make any difference to an American employer (when an Indian
-student goes into the job market ) whether he/she is an Aryan/Dravidian ?,
-Brahmin/shudra ?,Kamma/Reddy ?,Bihari/Malayalee/Gujju etc?,
While I agree with many of the sentiments expressed, I WOULD be grateful
if people from Guajarat are referred to in the proper (and polite) way
as: Gujaratis.
Thanks,
Rohit Parikh
RI...@cunyvm.bitnet
-Subject: Re: South Indian<>Dravidian
-
-Virendra,
->>I did not use the word 'Aryan' in the sense of race because I
->>don't think it is a race. It is the 'noble' nature of being.
-
-What a JOKE! I see you difitely a racist. You are now defining that the Aryan
-race means "NOBLE". HOW DARE YOU CALL OTHERS A RACIST?
-
I think that while the word `Aryan' has been used as a racial term by
the Nazis (who have no right to it at all) and has at least a tribal
sense in the Rigveda, it does in fact have an ethical sense through most
of Indian literature. When you assume that `Aryan' means `Aryan race' you
are in fact assuming that Westerners have a right to define what `Aryan'
means and since THEY have made it a racial term, it IS a racial term. But
Westerners have no business calling themselves Aryans or with the word at
all. We Indians have allowed them that right, with horrible results for the
Jews.
->
- Drivadianism is simply racism. It is the creation of inavders to
- divide Indians.
I am afraid I also have to disagre with this. Dravidianism is a reaction
to many centuries of being made to feel like second class citizens in their
own country. We may reject the more extreme statements made by Salvakumar,
but he is our fellow Indian and hence our brother. We have to feel his
pain and anger as our own. We can disagree with what he or some other
Dravidian advocate says. Some of it IS nonsense. But we have to say, "we
sympathise with how you feel".
Rohit Parikh
Annoyed@netter
Stop the fucking topic you morans.
alok.vijayvargia
> I think the evidences so far given are sufficient to prove that Dravidian
> race is also as widespread and as great as the Aryan.
>
> Balu
Let us accept this and let us move forward.
Alok
Ranjith Ravindiran Suresh
>sympathise with how you feel".
You've said it. It has come to a such a stage that we are entitled to
'sympathies' from you. I hope the time would come when people like your
would be in need of 'sympathy' from us. 'Us' here refers to Tamils from
Eelam and Tamil Nadu. Yaalpanam and Madthurai will be united one day.
Till that day, you are entitled to feel 'sympathy.' What a load of poor
nonsense!
-thambi
Kris Balasubramanian
>
>In article <1992Nov24.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com>, kbal...@sparcle.oracle.com (Kris Balasubramanian) writes...
>>
>>Virendra,
>>>>I did not use the word 'Aryan' in the sense of race because I
>>
>
> noble is racist, let God save us from your irrational arguments.
> The nature of being noble is not a birth or ancestral issue. Even
> though Pandus and Kauravas, for example, were related by blood, there
> was lot of difference in their thinking and behavior. Also, if
> there is no realization of nobleness as an independent attribute
> (as to be affected by only individual action or karma), there cannot
>
Are you trying to say that "Kauravas were not Aryans(OR Arya puthras)?" because
they were not noble. Or Pandus were not noble because they gambled and lost?
be a motivation for development and progress. Based on your argument,
> only your ancestor need be noble and rest of the descendents will
> take a free ride. What a junk argument and thinking!!!
>>
I have no argument for "RACISM". I saw both postings, yours as well as Selva. You accused him as a racist. But your definition of Aryans uncovered your racist attitudes.
That is all I can see as an unbiased on looker!
>>I think the evidences so far given are sufficient to prove that Dravidian race is
>>also as widespread and as great as the Aryan.
>
> Could you please narrate these arguments?
This is what you have been asking all along against a million evidences. You must be
saving these mails. Take a look again.
>
>>So forget your "PROMOTION" and
>>"DEMOTION" crap and let us accept and atleast try to give some deserving
>credit
>>to people who are trying to enlighten the Indian community, and take the COVER
>>of ARYAN racism and castism..
>>
>>Balu
>
> Progress (bold thinking, going beyond reason, thinking beyond racism)
> to me is promotion. Thinking in terms of race itself is demotion.
Selvas articles were the embodiment of "bold thinking, going beyond reason, thinking beyond racism". Probably you need to lightenup and read all the mails without
emotions and prejudice. I hope you will agree with me.
> What is wrong with this argument?
>
> If there was a Dravidian race, I will definitely give credit to its
> achievements. But, there was no such entity before Britishers
> came to India. There was no north vs south rift. Sankara of South
> equally bashed the ignorants of the North not on the basis that
> they were Aryans. Kapila, from north and the father of Hindu
> philosophy, settled in the South. If there were a fued, how could
> that have happened? If Ramayana is a war between Rama (northern)
> and Ravana (from South), how could you explain Mahabharat on the
> basis of your mentality. The truth is that the wickedness or
> nobleness have not barrier of race - among two brothers, one
> could be noble and other could be wicked. Is this racism?
>
> The Aryavrata of the Rig-Veda is not a racist circle but a center
> (vrata) of noble people (learned ones). It is like MITvrata, IITvrata.
> There is no racism in it. This piece of land was chosen because it
> was environmentally superior to any piece of land on earth.
>
>-- Virendra
If you are what you said "bold thinking, going beyond reason, thinking beyond racism"
then atleast give a hypothetical chance for Darvidian race and start believing
that the world is not FLAT after all!
Balu
Virendra Verma
In article <1992Nov30....@oracle.us.oracle.com>, kbal...@sparcle.oracle.com (Kris Balasubramanian) writes...
>In article 23...@ryn.mro4.dec.com, ve...@pfeast.enet.dec.com (Virendra Verma) writes:
>>
>>>Virendra,
>>>>>I did not use the word 'Aryan' in the sense of race because I
>>
>> noble is racist, let God save us from your irrational arguments.
>they were not noble. Or Pandus were not noble because they gambled and lost?
You got it this time, buddy.
>I have no argument for "RACISM". I saw both postings,
yours as well as Selva. You accused him as a racist. But your
definition of Aryans uncovered your racist attitudes.
>That is all I can see as an unbiased on looker!
Aryan nature is not a result of race. Can you get this into your
head please? Pandavas were Aryans but not Duryodhana.
>
>>>I think the evidences so far given are sufficient to prove that Dravidian race is
>>>also as widespread and as great as the Aryan.
>>
>> Could you please narrate these arguments?
>This is what you have been asking all along against a million evidences. You must be
>saving these mails. Take a look again.
I don't save junk articles.
>>
>> Progress (bold thinking, going beyond reason, thinking beyond racism)
>> to me is promotion. Thinking in terms of race itself is demotion.
>Selvas articles were the embodiment of "bold thinking, going beyond
reason, thinking beyond racism". Probably you need to lightenup and read
all the mails without
>emotions and prejudice. I hope you will agree with me.
No I don't. Why did Selva and you wake up so called Dravidian
cause after British_and_Europeans mucking up with our history.
>
>If you are what you said "bold thinking, going beyond reason, thinking
beyond racism" then atleast give a hypothetical chance for Darvidian
>race and start believing that the world is not FLAT after all!
>
>Balu
>
>
Is giving chance to falsehood a bold thinking? This is a deliberate
crime (anti-social or propaganda in plain terms) according to our
scriptures. Anti-vedic arguments are based entirely on
mis-interpretation of Vedic literature. Can you find
any evidence of so called Dravidian culture in those literatures?
I am wondering why anti-vedic arguments/interpretations are based
only on vedic literature. Tamil literature must talk more about
this anti-vedic feelings than the vedic literature about anti-vedic
feeling.
Vedas are not emotional documents. If a "fool is a fool, Vedas tells
that it is fool". You call that kind of expression as racist. I don't.
If I am a positve thinker, and I know that I am a fool, that is
the best gift I can get from Vedas. Vedas tell at the same time that
you can work your way out from this foolishness. They don't teach
that if you are not a son or daughter of Brahmin, there is no way
out for you to rise above your foolishness. That is called Brahminism.
Please don't mix Brahminism with Vedic knowledge.
-- Virendra
RI...@cunyvm.bitnet
`Dravidian vs. Aryan', `Ancient Indian History', etc. etc. Sometimes
people get acrimonious and call each other racists etc. This seems to
be un-necessary. I have not actually seen any postings that would really
qualify for the term `racist'. At worst they are confused or over-stated,
or angry.
Look, it seems that important parts of Ancient Indian History are still in
a somewhat (very?) unsettled state. Did the Aryans come in 1500 BC?
Were they always in India? Did the Dravidians come AFTER the Aryans or
before, or were THEY always here too? As Indians it would be unreasonable
to ask us to restrain our curiosity. Most of us would LIKE to know. But we
might not know vey soon, and in the meanwhile, can we please act in a polite
way to each other? How about it?
Thanks,
Rohit Parikh
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
I entirely agree with waht you say in the above. Also, there is
no need to get emotional. I don't understand what one gains by
calling names merely because someone is
saying things different from the usual. I had shared what I
understood and I had NOT called any nettor names or said anything
disgraceful. But instead of countering my points, I found
many quoted me out of context, quoted me incorrectly causing
much misunderstanding for the readers, branded me variously.
Also, many ( Virendra,
Alok, Kurum Narayana) used languages which in my opinion
lacked basic civility. Examples of Narayana's words were
'chest beating' 'dravidian racist' etc. A few times I tried to
brush those less civil remarks aside with either light hearted
remarks or simply ignoring. I felt that if we are to merely exchange
words without gaining greater understanding of each others points of
view or perspectives, it would be a great waste of time and effort,
thus I wanted
to reflect more on what had been said already than to respond to
every opposing nettor.
But due to time constraints, I am unable to say more now..
( I'll be coming back later though !)
However, it is truly sad that so called educated people who talk
of philosophy, religion etc. in this net don't show the rudiments
decency. One fellow talks of 'pissing war' ( Alok) ! Anything can be
said ! ThiruvaLLuvar says 'one should say a word only after considering
well and knowing that there is not another that will be better than
the selected word'. I know SCI or other nets are not places where
this kind of 'thoughts' will weigh much but I don't understand
why it should not be.
Regards
Selva Selvakumar
Kuram T Narayana
This is bullshit. You are the one who called vedas as racist. You are
the one who said that if I support Manusmuthi, I am a serious racist
(I resonded to this with the words, I don't know if I am serious racist,
normal racist, or nonracist.). You called Girish Bonde a racist
for his posting of an article about the vedic find. And now you come and
plead innocence. Ofcourse the tone and the content of the material that
you posted were racist. Ofcourse you did do chest beating.
So, there is no point in trying to look civil, when the content of your
posts were not. Civility is something that SCT skinheads have first
to learn; prostitute sermanizing on chasitity is what I call it.
I have reprimanded you precisely for the racist content of your
articles; that is a correct step to take.
So don't act innocent, especially some of the folks from SCT.
...kt
annoyed@netter
re:_south_indian<>dravidian
Stop the fucking topic you morans.
Stop the fucking topic you morans.
Stop the fucking topic you morans.
Sundara Pandian
>(C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>> I have seen a fair amount of controversy on this net under headings like
>>> `Dravidian vs. Aryan', `Ancient Indian History', etc. etc. Sometimes
>>> people get acrimonious and call each other racists etc. This seems to
>>> be un-necessary. I have not actually seen any postings that would really
>>> qualify for the term `racist'. At worst they are confused or over-stated,
>>> or angry.
--------
>>>
>>> Look, it seems that important parts of Ancient Indian History are still in
>>> a somewhat (very?) unsettled state. Did the Aryans come in 1500 BC?
>>> Were they always in India? Did the Dravidians come AFTER the Aryans or
>>> before, or were THEY always here too? As Indians it would be unreasonable
>>> to ask us to restrain our curiosity. Most of us would LIKE to know. But we
>>> might not know vey soon, and in the meanwhile, can we please act in a polite
>>> way to each other? How about it?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rohit Parikh
>>
> I entirely agree with waht you say in the above. Also, there is
> no need to get emotional. I don't understand what one gains by
> calling names merely because someone is
>> saying things different from the usual. I had shared what I
>> understood and I had NOT called any nettor names or said anything
>> disgraceful. But instead of countering my points, I found
>> many quoted me out of context, quoted me incorrectly causing
>> much misunderstanding for the readers, branded me variously.
>> Also, many ( Virendra
--------
>> Alok, Kurum Narayana) used languages which in my opinion
>> lacked basic civility. Examples of Narayana's words were
>> 'chest beating' 'dravidian racist' etc. A few times I tried to
>> brush those less civil remarks aside with either light hearted
>This is bullshit. You are the one who called vedas as racist. You are
-@$*&-^#
>the one who said that if I support Manusmrthi, I am a serious racist
----------------------------------------------
>(I resonded to this with the words, I don't know if I am serious racist,
>normal racist, or nonracist.). You called Girish Bonde a racist
>for his posting of an article about the vedic find. And now you come and
----------------
>plead innocence. Ofcourse the tone and the content of the material that
---------------
>you posted were racist. Ofcourse you did do chest beating.
#%%#~~~^^%@###
>So, there is no point in trying to look civil, when the content of your
^#@~!!!@@&^%&^^%$###!@@~~~~~^&*$##&*****#
>posts were not. Civility is something that SCT skinheads have first
^^^%%#**^^%#$@@!&^^$%#@~`&*%----%$##&*#@@^&%$@@^&$#
>to learn; prostitute sermanizing on chasitity is what I call it.
&&^$@@^&*^%$@!!!~~&*&%-%%%##@!$$*--~~~&#@!%&^$##*&^%@!~~~&%$$@_@
>I have reprimanded you precisely for the racist content of your
-----------
>articles; that is a correct step to take.
------------
>So don't act innocent, especially some of the folks from SCT.
>...kt
"jO garajthE hai, vE barasthE nahi." :-)
- SP
Virendra Verma
In article <Byn6y...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes...
Selva!! Please don't take it personal. You yourself must believe
(according to your writings which agree those historians who
claim that Aryans were barbarious people) that Aryans were
barbarians, that idea should be enough to give you a consolation
about our so called 'uncivilized behavior' (ALTHOUGH I DO NOT BELIVE
IN THIS STUPID IDEA OF YOURS OR THOSE OF HISTORIANS).
For records, I never said that you are a racist. I simply said
that Dravidianism is racism. Since you percieve yourself to be
permanently associated with this mythical concept, that is the
cause of your pain. If you want to take up a sensitive issue, get
yourself a stronger heart, not just tearful one. I am sure you
can do it. It needs little practice - listening, talking and
writing (but please be brief). That will help a lot.
-- Virendra
PS. These are my personal views. My company is not accountable for these
ideas.
Suresh Doki
>
>Stop the fucking topic you morans
>
you scared man??? oops you surely must be a woman....
--
************************************************************************
*mujhe is raaste mein khoon hi khon nazar aa rahaa hain *
* - Amitabh Bachchan in kasme vaade *
************************************************************************
alok.vijayvargia
> I had shared what I
> understood and I had NOT called any nettor names or said anything
> disgraceful.
I have all your mails and I shall now be broadcasting the name calling
you engaged in.
> But instead of countering my points, I found
They were hardly points but venom and hate.
> many quoted me out of context, quoted me incorrectly causing
> much misunderstanding for the readers, branded me variously.
Poor you !
> Also, many ( Virendra, Alok, Kurum Narayana) used languages
> which in my opinion lacked basic civility.
I have merely posted 2-3 posts on the subject and I don't think I went
over the limit of normal civility. I challenge you to quote me.
> Examples of Narayana's words were
> 'chest beating' 'dravidian racist' etc. A few times I tried to
> brush those less civil remarks aside with either light hearted
> remarks or simply ignoring. I felt that if we are to merely exchange
> words without gaining greater understanding of each others points of
> view or perspectives, it would be a great waste of time and effort,
> thus I wanted
> to reflect more on what had been said already than to respond to
> every opposing nettor.
If I remember correctly, you also called Narayana with very hateful words.
Wait till I publish your accounts...
> However, it is truly sad that so called educated people who talk
> of philosophy, religion etc. in this net don't show the rudiments
> decency. One fellow talks of 'pissing war' ( Alok) ! Anything can be
Do you know what the slang 'pissing war' means ? It means a futile or toxic
venomous war. The refrerence was to your 2 month long hundred line long
discussions with Narayana, Virendra and others. Some of these discussion were
so futile and merely venom throwing on each other. More often than not,
it is you who initiated such venomous attacks.
> said ! ThiruvaLLuvar says 'one should say a word only after considering
> well and knowing that there is not another that will be better than
> the selected word'. I know SCI or other nets are not places where
> this kind of 'thoughts' will weigh much but I don't understand
> why it should not be.
I think your discussions on the net so far deserved that word. Because
that is what you were doing: "pissing on the net, pissing on the Aryans,
pissing on Narayana etc". When somebody pissed on you, you start
quoting ThiruvaLLuvar ...
There is nothing wrong in stating the truth. Sometimes truth is bitter.
What is so undescent about pissing ? Everybody pisses somewhere. It is only
distasteful when it is done in public or on somebody. This is exactly
what you did on SCI, Aryans, and some specific people. Now you have the
guts to object to the truth about pissing you engaged in. I came into this
'pissing war' only after 2 months and that also when it was going totally
awful. Even then I gave you a fair chance. I credited you with some things.
All I said was that I don't want to engage in a 'pissing match' with you.
But you ask for it. Again and again. And now you are going to get it from
me too. I had posted some good words for you.
You are one of those who does not appreciate good words and only
focuses on the negative. Even Kuram had posted several good words. So did
Virendra but you focused only on negatives, initiated venom and provocative
attacks not to mention outrageous and absurd claims without much substance.
Alok
vbe...@vax1.umkc.edu
>
> Stop the fucking topic you morans
>
>
>
Mind your language sir, lest you might be branded in accordance with what
you say.
----- Vijay Bekkem.