One of the greatest historical stories about India that has been doing the rounds since ages is about the famous Aryan-Dravidian divide. Now, this debacle has been taken up by numerous historians who cite different opinions (sometimes culturally and racially discriminable) to sustain their views. Let’s look at some of the theories doing the rounds—
6. The Language Barrier
According to some historians, the language barrier between North Indians and South Indians is suggestive of the Aryan-Dravidian divide. This notion was based on the great German historian, Max Mueller’s
assumption. However, this theory had been, and is still now, being questioned by many modern as well as Vedic scholars. According to many historians, like Mr. S. Kalyanaraman, there are numerous similarities between the aboriginal languages of India, like Munda, and Sanskrit. Even the great Vedic scholar Sri Aurobindo was of the same view and suggested that this similarity can happen only if they had a common mother language. Now, many people say that one culture cannot produce two different set of languages, but we have to keep in mind that the sages, who were the pioneers of Hinduism and Culture, could’ve had different dialects which may have transformed, over the uncountable years, into a different set of language all together. Besides, topography also impinges its dominance over the language of an area. Keeping in mind these debates, one cannot just pinpoint at this theory and prove it as a reason for the Aryan-Dravidian debacle.
5. Cultural Difference
According to another set of historians, there is apparently a huge rift between the Dravidian and Aryan Culture. But, this theory too has come under much speculation. According to the Vedic history, Tamil is the oldest Dravidian dialect which owes its inception to Agasthya Muni who is regarded as one of the most powerful sages in the Rid Veda. In fact, on many occasions, we have seen Dravidian kings depicting themselves as Aryans and have even traced their descent till Manu, who himself has been referred as a South Indian king in the Matsya Purana
. Besides, both the South and North Indians, or the “Aryans” and the “Dravidians” share a singular religion and, perhaps, a single mother language too.
4. The Shaivite Culture
It is said predominantly that the Dravidians follow a Vaishav Culture
as opposed to the Shaivite and Brahminical Culture of the Aryans. However, looking at the great many temples of Lord Shiva in South India, and North India being the birth place of Lord Krishna (an “avatar” of Vishnu), we can only term this division as a part of the complex theological structure than Hinduism is steeped in.
3. The Preservers of Indian Culture
Although it’s the North Indians who are the flag bearers of Aryan culture and civilization in India, it is a renowned fact that the numerous major Vedic pundits of India have been Dravidians, and it is the Dravidians who have been able to secure the entire Vedic Culture and have also been the preservers of all the major customs, rituals and traditions propounded by the Vedic alias the “Aryan” culture. On the other hand, the Aryan culture is always on a decline among the “original” Aryans—the North Indians.
2. The Racial Difference
The Aryans have always been referred to as the descendents of the Europeans whereas the Indians were a mere conglomeration of aboriginal tribes. On the lines of racial analysis, the Aryans were segregated from the Dravidians by numerous historians. But, if we closely and practically look at the topography of India, we would be able to point out at the basis of this division—we cannot really expect a Kashmiri to be dark skinned as we cannot expect a person residing near the hot and humid climate of Chennai to be exceptionally fair skinned.
1. A Post-Modern Study
According to a recent study by Kumaraswamy Thangarajan, a Senior Scientist with the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology
, it has been proved, after analyzing the genetic structures of numerous people all over India, across numerous tribes and social classes, that the genetics across all the sections of Indian society weren’t systematically different, and hence, it was impossible to account for any North-South divide.