The Dravidian Problem

I have read the posting completely.

I find the members have purposely diverted the issue instead of tackling the issue.

We Dravidians oppose the interpretation of K. V. Ramakrishna Rao. I doubt that he might be an �Aryan� and therefore, we understand that he interprets Tamil literature in that way. Do think that I am bringing racial factor, when people identify themselves and others, we have to follow the same.

There have been thousands of books written by many reputed historians explaining the difference between Aryans and Dravidians. Dravidians have unique culture. Non can claim over such Dravidian culture.

I find the points raised by sunswing1983 have not been answered.

But, kindly note who has suggestred?

I am only trying out the historical possibility.

Mentioning the people of Bharat / ancient India as Tamils, etc., creates problem or makes one misunderstand and even misinterpret.

We talk about the events of whatever nature happened 2500-3000 YBP or more.

What Pathani has mentioned about people of Kashmir and Tamizhagam could have been slip of tongue or he wanted to say some other thing, we do not know.

If we go by the hypothesis that Tamils were ruling entire India and even beyond north-west and north-east, the Tamil-protagonists would be more happy to consider.

Interestingly, important maritime / naval technology words have closeness to the words in Tamil and as well as Sanskrit. Of corse, both have many similarities.

Scientifically, one cannot be sure to what extent people could be exactly identified with any factor - chromosome etc.

Ironically, at one side, we go on ague all human beings are one, Universal brotherhood (anybody talks about Universal Sisterhood) and so on. Why then divide people like this?

The movement of people from the south to north in India and thereafter has not been studied properly. I think, here scholars have to concentrate. the Tsunami-studies might reveal more about such exigencies.

You say all appear morphologically alike after miscegenation?

Or you change your stand as posted earlier?

I have noted the endogamous and exogamous claims of certain clans / groups.

Geographical and climatic factors affect morphological elements, which cannot be taken as finality of deciding anything.

Change in such factors along with miscegenation could bring more changes during the course.

Ayway purity of any factor claimed in such exclusive manner would lead to complication only.

i am not sure if aryans existed in india or not. but one thing is for sure today north india has a lot of foriegn blood. ( for example punjabis look so different from tamils)

Irrespective of being white Caucasians you can differentiate a Polish with a German and a Russian with an English on above basis. The same applies for the People of Indian subcontient. Moreover, "A civilization that prolonged for much longer period will naturally produce diversified outputs"