Vetti Post-2

(This post loads well in IE)

Since I don't have the kind of time to write anything new I'll just post my response to a mail that I got from my friend. He forwarded this post, and asked me what I thought. It's the usual run-of-the-mill 'anti-Brahmin' nonsense. There used to be days when I engaged with 'those types' in attempts to expose the vacuousness of their "rationality." After a point, as with many who try it, I realized that their heads are too far up their butts for any reasonable conversation. It's one of the reasons I stay away from the 'Tamil blogosphere'. They just can't keep off the 'Dravidians were the first to use toilet paper - that's how far advanced our civilization was' rhetoric. But I think I'll use this post to state my stance, though vaguely, on this topic.

It's a big pile of bullshit, that's what it is. And this guy isn't the first one. Ever since forumhub days of mid 90s this group has been spitting utter lies about "Tamil History." The whole theory of an "Aryan invasion" is highly dubious on account of DNA evidence. The whole of the Indian subcontinent, at least racially, were the same people till all 'real invasions' took place (Dravidians or Aryans or edho elavu). There are strong cultural influences from what is now West-Central Asia and Eastern Europe (in terms of bronze age records). But then again, this could be the other way (that is we influenced them, hence the similarties in language patterns etc.). Whatever the case is, the existing 'Aryan-Dravidian split' in many public discourses is false. Check this page.

It's funny that the word Dravidian actually originated from Sanskrit. How ironic is that? It's true. None of the past works of Tamil literature mentions the word 'Dravidan'. Not in Thirukkural, not in Puranaanooru or Agananooru, not in Pathitrupathu or any pre-modern literary work you can think of. Nada. But still these idiots keep talking about Tamils being 'Dravidan'.

Most of these are hypotheses with ostensible assertions. One cannot come to a concrete conclusion based on existing historical findings. But for a critical thinker, the so called Tamil culture will still sound ridiculous. It's just as bad, if not worse, as the "Aryan" culture. Their points can be attacked on an entirely different--conceptual--basis.

How did the people who were mere shepherds gain the capability to defeat a whole race of indigenous people? Did they get 'inside support' from the indigenous people? If they did, I'm sure it was a good number -- more than a few selective "dhrogigal". If huge number of this race were traitors who is he feeling proud about? A race that had a good number of traitors? (more here: "அதன் பிறகு தெற்கே வாழ்ந்த சில தமிழ் மன்னர்களை தம் பக்கம் சேர்த்துக் கொண்ட இராமன் தமிழர்களின் தலைநகரமாக இருந்த இலங்கைக்கு படையெடுத்துச் சென்றான்.")

Hasn't he heard of the saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"? How many times and how many people fooled the Tamils? So we were just bellicose fools who couldn't fight the "cunning"? And this guy is feeling proud about that "race"? Is that even a good excuse? That "we got cheated"?

And note the part where he proudly argues that, "இராவணன் ஒரு போரில் இராமனை வெற்றி கொண்டு அன்றைய வழக்கப்படி வெற்றியின் அடையாளமாக இராமனுடைய மனைவியை கவர்ந்து சென்றான்.எனினும் இராமனின் மனைவியை ஏதும் செய்யாது கண்ணியம் காத்தான்." What the hell is he talking about? If Raavanan was such a deejuntu fellow why even abduct Sita? And what kind of "culture" makes 'wife stealing' a symbol of victory? It's as bad as patriarchy can get. And this man is feeling proud about that "race"?

I'm not sure if I've got all my 'facts' right. But I think the second part of the mail doesn't need any factual basis. It's out there to be torn apart. It's a shame that these self proclaimed rational thinkers (pagutharivu pannadaigal) find such pride in saying "we were the first patriarchal assholes", i.e. 'Tamil civilization', in India.

* - I've made small changes to the actual email -- cleared a few typos and added some links. Tamil words quoted directly appear better in IE.


murthy said...

//Dravidians were the first to use toilet paper - that's how far advanced our civilization was//
//If Raavanan was such a deejuntu fellow why even abduct Sita?//

both these lines got me rolling on the floor laughing. simple and straight questions, wonderful write up.

i think you should do a podcast on this, you can rant a lot.

Anonymous said...

>>If they did, I'm sure it was a good number
Suresh, probably the number was huge. But, the issue is not that. The all-important question is this: Did they mate with the shepherds?

>>If Raavanan was such a deejuntu fellow why even abduct Sita?
Now, this is silly. How else would he prove that he is actually decent? How else but by abducting a femme fatale who had the most composed of men rolling down in lust? By doing nothing? Isn't that, umm, rather lame?

Suresh said...

@ Murthy - Thanks. I'll probably do a podcast on this. It's been quite sometime since I published anything under 'engum arasiyal'.

@ Zero

Point 1: Oh no! No way. Given the "civilized" nature of the 'Dravidians' ("karpu", "olukkam" etc.), mating with the 'shepherds' is totally out of question.

Point 2: 'adhu seri', you got me there! :p

Anonymous said...

Suresh, I agree with most of what you say. But did you to have to be so harsh in the usage of your words?
I see that you are not singling out Tamil civilization. So, are you accusing all civilzations of being patriarchal?

Nilu's Admirer said...


I dont see where Suresh was "harsh". If you want to read a "harsh" opinion masqueraded as sarcasm, read the India's best blogger NILU. Suresh is just being elaborate and going out of his way to sound reasonable rather than arrogant. You can notice that in his podcasts where he places unnecessary disclaimers. Yeah, but that is Suresh's way of saying things and he is not definitely harsh.

Suresh said...

@ Anon

I didn't mean to be harsh. Even if I was - I was just 'attacking' the conception of a "Dravidian” king that 'they' are trying to glorify. I think there's little to be "proud" about one's ancient past (for anyone in the world). And yes, I do think that most civilizations were patriarchal (especially the ones in India). Even if they weren't, it's inherently racist (and flawed) to feel proud about what your ancestors did - that you're probably carrying genes of someone who did something a few thousand years ago.

These "Dravidians" vehemently oppose the 'Brahministic' notion that one becomes superior or inferior by birth. But they want to hold on to their "Dravidian" ancestors who did some rather "marvelous" things. Would they feel proud about the apes and monkeys and the myriad creatures that our genes share an ancestry with? It's irrational and hypocritical.

@ NA - Thanks.

Anonymous said...

There are numerous ocassions in history where a small army had sucessfully overrun greater armies. Rome fell to a bunch of barbarians. South America fell to a few bunch of conquistadors and there are million other examples. I suppose you have completely ignored the concept of assymetric warfare.
Besides, I don't champion AIT. AMT seems more plausible. Though, it is quite possible for there to have been small squirmishes between the Aryans and the inhabitands ( who could have been Munda or Dravidian). ALso, it is impossible to derive any of the Dravidian languages from IE group, though the other way has not been declared impossible.

Suresh said...


I didn't "ignore" asymmetric warfare, I just didn't talk about it. Because it is not relevant to my point (neither is the similarities between so called Dravidian languages and IE or Indo-Iranian languages). Essentially, all their lifestyles were patriarchal and racist. It doesn't matter who was the "first". I don't see the necessity to prove that point (assuming that it can be proved at all).

Post a Comment

©2009 english-tamil