Saturday, 5 October 2019

The Primarily Dravidian, and Pan-Indian, Nature of Hinduism.

In my previous blog article, "Dravidian Connections with the Rigveda and the Harappan Civilization", I showed how:
1. The Rigveda, the oldest Indo-European as well as the oldest Hindu text in the world, had participation from some Dravidian speaking people from the South, who contributed some very important rishis and words to the text of the Rigveda (a prelude to a larger influx of Dravidian words into Sanskrit and later Indo-Aryan languages in later Vedic and post-Vedic times).
2. These Dravidian rishis and words are found in the New Rigveda before 2000 BCE, nearly two millenniums before the Tamil Sangam Era! And also long before the first appearance of the Mitanni in Syria-Iraq and the Indo-European Iranians (Persians, Parthians, Medians) in Iran!
3. The Vedic-Dravidian relationship is an old and friendly one, and the reverence for Vedic culture in the oldest Dravidian Sangam literature (of the late first millennium BCE) has a long tradition behind it.

But a question arises: was the religion and culture of the Dravidian speaking people of the South in that era (pre-2000 BCE) also a part of, or very similar to, the religion and culture of the Rigveda? Actually, no, it wasn't: the religion and culture of the Rigveda was originally the religion and culture of the Pūru people of Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh. Then what was the religion and culture of the Dravidian South, and what is its role in our heritage? There is usually an extremely Veda-centric and Sanskrit-centric attitude among Hindus in understanding our Hindu religion, culture and identity, so we must understand the true state of affairs if we are to not fall prey to divisive and fissiparous forces..

The Hindu religion is an amalgam of the religious features of all the different parts of India, not all of which are derived from the Vedas or the Vedic religion (which was originally the religion of the Pūrus of Haryana and westernmost Uttar Pradesh, and part of the northwestern Indian religious sphere). To understand the place of all this, let us examine the situation in two parts:
1. The Ancient Indian People in the Harappan=Vedic period.
2. Hinduism.

I. The Ancient Indian People in the Harappan=Vedic period.

The beginnings of Indian history, according to traditional information in the Puranas, begins with a reference to the first king Manu Vaivasvata who ruled over the whole of India, and he was succeeded by his ten sons, who subsequently ruled over the different parts of India. The ten sons, according to the Puranas, were Sudyumna, lkṣvāku, Prāṁṣu, Śaryāti, Dhṛṣṭa, Karuṣa, Nariṣyanta, Pṛṣadhra, Nābhāga and Nabhagodiṣṭa, and these, as per the Puranic traditions, were the ancestral figures for the inhabitants of the different parts of the whole of India.

The actual Puranic data concentrates on the history of the descendants of only two of the reportedly ten sons of Manu: Ikṣvāku (whose descendants are referred to as Aikṣvāku or Ikṣvāku) and Sudyumna (who, on the basis of a mythical story in which, due to a curse, he becomes a woman and then is again reconverted into a man, is also given the masculine name Iḷa and the feminine name Iḷā , and his descendants are consequently referred to as Aiḷa or Iḷa).
The history of the descendants of the other eight sons is not recorded or discernible from the accounts.
The Aiḷas are treated in myth and tradition as members of the Lunar race, and the Ikṣvākus as members of the Solar race.
The Ikṣvākus are located in the eastern half of the northern area: in present-day terms, in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
The Aiḷas, who form the central focus of the Puranic accounts,  are located to the west and south of the Ikṣvākus. However, even here, the Puranic accounts are more-or-less ambiguous (or confused) about the history of the entire Aiḷa lineage, and only concentrate on the history of descendants who are mythically identified as descended from the five sons of an Aiḷa king named Yayāti: Yadu and Turvasu/Turvaṣa, sons by his wife Devayānī , and Druhyu, Anu and Pūru, sons by his wife Śarmiṣṭhā. These are located as follows:
a) To begin with, the Pūrus are located in the Central areas around Kurukṣetra, (Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh), the Anus to their north (Kashmir and the areas to their immediate west in northernmost parts of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan), the Druhyus to the west (present-day northern and central Pakistan), the Yadus to their south (Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra)  and the Turvasus (to the east of the Yadus).
b) A series of battles in the pre-Rigvedic period leads to a realignment in the northwest: the Druhyus are pushed further out into Afghanistan, while a major section of the Anus expands southwards and occupies the major part of the former areas of the Druhyus.
c) The dāśarājña battle in the period of the Old Rigveda leads to a further realignment: the Pūrus expand westwards into the same (northern and central Pakistan) areas and a major section of the Anus expands outwards into Afganistan leading to a further northwards push to the Druhyus who spill out into Central Asia.

By the time of the period of the New Rigveda or the Mature Harappan period, we find the following very complex situation over the whole of India:

1. The Mature Harappan civilization is spread out over the whole area of the Rigveda (from westernmost Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to southern and eastern Afghanistan), and its components are  sections of three tribes with possibly the last remnants of a fourth one:
a) the central Pūrus in the eastern parts (mainly Haryana and eastern Punjab),
b) the eastern Anus and western Pūrus in the western parts (most of northern Pakistan), and
c) the western Yadus in the southern parts (Gujarat, Sind) along with
d) the last remnants of the Druhyus in the westernmost border areas.
They had all developed together as a composite more-or-less Pūru-ized "Indo-Iranian" civilization.
To their north, in the original Puranic area of the Anus, we still find the northern Anus, the ancestors of the Nuristani and Dardic people.
2. To the west of the Mature Harappan = New Rigvedic areas, we have:
a) the central Anus in the major part of Afghanistan (with remnants of Druhyus still in their midst) who had developed into the proto-Iranian, or pre-Avestan and Avestan, civilization.
b) other sections of western Anus further west expanding westwards into Iran: the ancestors of the proto-Armenian, proto-Greek and proto-Albanian speakers later to migrate westwards towards southeastern Europe. They were followed by other sections of the central Anus (proto-Iranian tribes, who spread westwards and northwestwards), and also a section of western Pūrus (the proto-Mitanni Indo-Aryans).

3. To the north in Central Asia, we have the Druhyu people, including:
a) the Uttara-Madras in the west (the proto-Hittites, with sections of them migrating westwards towards the Caspian Sea in their historical movement towards Anatolia),
b) the Uttara-Kurus  in the east (the proto-Tocharians, who remained in the region till they became extinct a thousand or so years ago), and, between the two,
c) remnants of the other Druhyus (ancestral speakers of the proto-Italic, proto-Celtic, proto-Germanic, proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic languages), the main body of whom were already migrating westwards through northern Eurasia on their way towards eastern Europe.
The migrating Druhyus were also accompanied or followed by small sections of Anus and Pūrus who carried Iranian and Indo-Aryan linguistic elements into the Uralic areas (leaving traces of their ancient presence in the present-day Finno-Ugric languages).

4. To the east of the "Indo-Iranian" Harappans within India, were the eastern Pūrus in the major part of western and central Uttar Pradesh. They extended eastwards in the southern parts of Uttar Pradesh perhaps as far as Kashi in the latest parts of the New Rigvedic period. But their culture had evolved differently from the Harappan culture, and was more akin to the culture of the Ikṣvāku culture to their north and east: in northeastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

5. To the south of these northern areas were the areas of the Yadus and, to their east, of the Turvasus: in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh-Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and northern Maharashtra.

6. To the east of these areas, in Jharkhand, Orissa and Bengal and further east (greater Assam) were the areas of the speakers of the Austric languages.

7. To the south, in southern Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana-Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu and Kerala, were the speakers of the Dravidian languages.

8. In the border-areas of India - the Land of the Descendants of Manu - there were three more linguistic groups: the Andamanese people in the Andaman Islands, the Burushaski people in the areas of the northern Anus (in Gilgit in POK), and the Sino-Tibetan speakers in Ladakh, Tibet and the Himalayas.

9. Far out in the west outside the Indian sphere, the Mesopotamians (Sumerians, Akkadians) were having trade relations with the people of the Mature Harappan civilization, and Indus seals have been found at Akkadian sites from 2600 BCE onwards.

This is the picture of ancient India, which, during the Mature Harappan period (= the New Rigvedic period) already had a tradition (long before latter-day Persians and Greeks called them "Hindus") of a unique composite identity as the descendants of a common ancestor to whom the Puranas at least give the name "Manu".

II. Hinduism.

The Hindu religion is an amalgam of the religious features of all the different parts of India, not all of which are derived from the Vedas or the Vedic religion (which was originally only a part of the religion of the first three northwestern areas named above):

1. This northwestern religion is represented in the religion of the Anus (as in Iranian Zoroastrianism), the Druhyus (as in the Druidic religion of the Celts, and the Romuvan religion of the Lithuanians) and the Vedic texts of the Pūrus;  and consisted of (a) worship of the elements, (b) the performance of fire-sacrifices, and (c) the composition and recitation of hymns.
This religion was taken out from India by the emigrating Anus and Druhyus along with the eleven other (than Indo-Aryan) branches of Indo-European languages. The Vedic religion of the Pūrus, being more systematically organized, and having developed a unique and unparalleled technique of recording its sacred hymns by a mnemonic system known as the ghaṇa-pāṭha, spread all over the rest of India in the next few millennia, absorbing, and in fact losing itself in, the diverse religions of the other "descendants of Manu", leading to the formation of modern-day Hinduism: the Parliament of all the religions of all the Descendants of Manu.

2. The religion of the Yadus to their south in particular was more naturalistic, and consisted of the worship of mountains  (e.g. govardhan parvata), forests and groves, trees and animals, etc. This was probably a basic feature of the kind of religion which prevailed over most of the rest of India, especially the areas of the eastern Pūrus.

3. The religion of the Ikṣvākus to the east was more deep or spiritual, based on intuition, thought, logic and debate, and it is in their regions that we find the seeds of most of the philosophical and spiritual aspects of present-day Hinduism, including the Upaniṣads, Buddhism, Jainism, and even materialistic philosophies like the Cārvāka.

4. The areas of the Austric speaking people to the east contributed much of present-day Tantric rites and beliefs, and perhaps even the concept of reincarnation.

5. The areas of the Dravidian speaking people to the south (with perhaps some inputs from the Austric speakers of the east) contributed what is today the most central aspect of Hinduism: idol-worship, with all its accompanying features.

To understand the centrality of idol-worship in Hinduism, note that this includes all the following features:

1. The worship of consecrated idols, whether of:
a) The lingam,
b) "Rude blocks of stone" with eyes painted on them, or
c) Roughly, or finely, carved, or cast, images of stone, metal or some other material.

2. The most popular Hindu deities in every single part of India, including Ayyappa of Kerala, Murugan of Tamilnadu, Balaji of Andhra, Vitthala (originally) of Karnataka (=Vithoba of Maharashtra), Khandoba of Maharashtra, Jagannatha of Orissa, etc., or the myriad forms of the Mother Goddess, with thousands of names, in every nook and corner of India. Also every single local (originally tribal) God and Goddess in every remote corner of India, in the form of the kuladevatās, the gṛhadevatās or the grāmadevatās of local tribes and communities.
[In time, of course, myths were formed nominally associating many of these deities with one or the other of the main Gods and Goddesses of Puranic Hinduism as their manifestations, these Puranic Gods themselves being additions from different parts of India to the Hindu pantheon (or originally Vedic Gods like Vishnu and Rudra with basic characteristics adopted from the other local and tribal deities). But these associations were not an imposition “from above”, they were the result of popular local myth-making and part of the consolidation of the national popularization of the local deities: the deities mostly retained their local names, forms, myths, and special rituals and customs, and became all-India deities, objects of pilgrimages from distant areas].

3.The entire process of idol-worship:
a) Treating the idols as living beings: bathing, dressing and feeding them, putting them to sleep, etc.
b) Performing pūjā by offering flowers (the word, which first appears indirectly in a very late interpolated verse in the Rigveda, is alleged to be derived from the Dravidian pū or "flower"), water, milk, bananas and other fruits, coconuts, clothes and ornaments to the idols.
c) Performing āratī  by waving lights in front of the idols, and ringing bells;
d) Singing with cymbals, and performing music and dance before the idols;
e) Partaking of prasāda, of food offered to the idols.

4. The entire system of idol-temples and pilgrim-centres, with sacred tanks and bathing-ghats, and of temples, and temple-festivals with palanquins and chariot-processions.

Other vital aspects of Hinduism which are missing in the Vedic religion, but were adopted from the other Descendants of Manu, are:

1. The use of ash, kumkuma, sandalpaste, turmeric, etc. for smearing or anointing on the idols, and/or on the foreheads of worshipper. From this follow two very fundamental outward symbols of Hinduism today:
a) The tilak marks (of whatever material) on the forehead.
b) The sacred saffron colour, and, by implication, also the saffron flag.

2. The idea of soul, and the concept of transmigration of souls, and rebirth. [This concept forms a very fundamental aspect of Hindu philosophy, and is the one concept accepted by all the schools of Hindu philosophy including the Buddhist and the Jain (and excepting only the cārvāka and other nāstika schools of thought)].

3. The enumeration of the days by the phases of the moon, the tithis. [The importance of the pañcāṅga (the annual calendar based on the tithis) in ritualistic Hinduism can never be underestimated].

4. Zoomorphic aspects of Hinduism:
a) The worship of certain animals, birds and reptiles.
b) The concept of God coming down to earth in the form of zoomorphic avatāras (Narasiṁha, Kūrma, Matsya, Varāha); and, incidentally, even the very concept of God coming down to earth in the form of avatāras.
c) The concept of every God and Goddess having a "vehicle" or some special animal or bird (Viṣṇu's Garūḍa, Gaṇeśa's mouse, Kārtikeya's peacock, Śiva's bull, Durgā's lion, etc).

5. A host of concepts, and socio-religious rituals, rites, superstitions and taboos (for example, the concept of the "evil eye" and rituals for its removal, or taboos against cutting nails at night, or beliefs in different types of spirits and demons) and important ethical concepts (vegetarianism, adopted from the Jain traditions of a section of the eastern Ikṣvākus).

6. Several sacred cities, rivers, mountains, lakes and tanks, located all over India outside the Vedic area, and ancient myths and legends associated with them (often adapted to Puranic mythology).

7. A very wide range of materia botanica (coconuts, bananas, rice, sandalwood, turmeric, etc.) used in Hindu worship, native to the non-Vedic parts of the country and not referred to in Rigvedic rituals.

NOTE: This spread of the Vedic religion from Haryana to the rest of India was no different from the spread in later times of Buddhism and Jainism from Bihar to the rest of India, and had no elements of "invasion" or "imposition" in it: all these three are component members of modern-day Hinduism. If anything, there was a very much higher degree of acceptance and absorption of religious rituals, concepts, Gods and philosophies in the spread of the Vedic religion. We must keep in mind that except for the Vedic hymns and yajñas, and the Vedic/Sanskrit language, there is little of the Pūru Vedic religion in present-day Hinduism, except as an invisible umbrella layer covering all the different aspects of Hinduism Category One. And even the Vedic rituals are performed in originally non-Pūru religious contexts: in temples and in the worship of idols, all of which were acquired from the Dravidian speakers of the South, and which, as we saw, have today a much more central and dominant role in Hinduism than the original Vedic religious contexts.

Appendix: A Short note on the Three Categories of Hinduism.

What do I mean, above, by Hinduism Category One? I will simply quote here the  put it at the very start of my article on "Are Indian Tribals Hindus?":

"According to the Constitution of India, laws framed for Hindus apply to the following three categories of people:
(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,
(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and
(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.

Thus, according to the constitution, every citizen of India, except a Muslim, a Christian, a Parsi or a Jew, is legally a Hindu. The constitution draws a distinction between three categories of legal Hindus:

(a) Hindus Category One (consisting of all those who can still be categorised as full-fledged Hindus within the Hindu religious fold, including members of sects having antecedents traceable to mainline Hindu religious texts or individuals),

(b) Hindus Category Two (consisting of members of the three sects, namely Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, founded by Hindu individuals, which originated as sects within the Hindu religious fold, but, in the course of history, came to acquire a more distinctive  religious identity), and

(c)  Hindus Category Three (consisting of members of indigenous religious groups native to India, not founded by any particular individual, following ancestral forms of belief or worship not specifically having antecedents traceable to mainline Hindu religious texts or sects).
[Hinduism is a Parliament of all the three categories]

The people who are outside this purview themselves belong to two categories:

(a) ex-Hindus, i.e. Muslims and Christians, who, by and large, are converts from the Hindu fold, and

(b) non-Hindus, i.e. Jews and Parsis, who, in spite of different degrees of intermingling with local people, are by and large historical descendants of non-Hindu refugees or migrants from outside India"].

To put matters in perspective about the three categories of Hinduism, let me quote a larger later section of the same article, "Are Indian Tribals Hindus?":

"Keeping in mind that by tribal religions, we are referring only to the Hindu Category Three religions (Sarna, Donyi Polo, Khasi, Meitei, Garo, and possibly others practiced by more microscopic sections of other isolated tribes), since the other tribals are themselves fully conscious that their religious practices are 'Hindu' (which is why they clearly declare their religion to be 'Hindu' in the census, as accepted even by the Joshua Project), can we say that these Hindu Category Three tribal religions are neutral between Christianity and Hinduism?

The first and most fundamental factor which places Hinduism and these tribal religions in one fundamental category completely distinct from Christianity is the geographical factor. Hinduism Category One, Hinduism Category Two and Hinduism Category Three religions are all Indian religions, as distinct from Christianity which is a foreign import.

This has further automatic implications. It means that the sacred places, the sacred rivers, mountains and groves, the sacred plants, animals and birds, the materials used in religious rituals, etc. of all the three Categories of religions are Indian. India is the stage of activity of the acts and events involving all the historical and mythological characters in the narratives of all these religions. The languages in which the original religious lore, poetry and traditions of all these religions are couched are Indian languages. The traditional religious music, the traditional religious food, the traditional religious costumes, etc. of all these religions are representative of the traditional culture of some part or the other of India. The traditional religious beliefs and rituals of all these religions are derived from their Indian ancestors.              

This geographical factor alone and in itself is so important that Dr Ambedkar placed emphasis not only on the necessity of placing in one legal class the followers of all religions other than those of foreign origin (Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism), but put the matter in even more categorical terms with specific reference to the question of conversion itself: 'If the depressed classes join Islam or Christianity, they not only go out of the Hindu religion, but they also go out of the Hindu culture…What the consequences of conversion will do to the country as a whole is well worth bearing in mind. Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalize the depressed classes' (Dhanajay Keer: 'Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mission', p.279). That conversion to Christianity (or Islam) would 'denationalize' the converted Indians, with adverse 'consequences' for 'the country as a whole' was very clearly a matter of deep concern to him.

But the geographical factor is only the beginning. Quite apart from the fact that there is no form of religious belief or philosophy (from atheism, through agnosticism, to all forms of 'theism', and from the most 'ahimsak' philosophy to the most violent bloody rituals) which is not found in some part or the other of Hinduism, and which therefore, basically makes it almost impossible to point out fundamental opposition between Hinduism and any particular tribal religious system, the fact is that all the tribal religions have features which fit into the most basic accepted definitions of standard Hinduism: idol-worship, totemism, polytheism, pantheism, animism, worship of the elements and of nature, belief in reincarnation, ancestor worship, etc., every single one of which is pure anathema to Christianity. Note that in the Wikipedia entry on the Karbi tribe, quoted earlier, we are told with a straight face that the 'practitioners of traditional worship believe in reincarnation and honour the ancestors'. In fact, almost all these elements, and even most of the local deities in every village and town of India, which are now the core of Hinduism, entered standard Hindu religion from these very local tribal religions in the course of millenniums of mutual interaction and influence; even as every local tribe and community preserved its own religious traditions without interference, a circumstance which would have been impossible in a Christian dominated country.

And by this is not meant only some mediaeval Inquisition-instituting and Crusades-mongering Christian country: see what has been the fate of other Pagan religions which have fallen prey to the Proselytising Armies in the very citadel of the Proselytisers, the U.S.A., which, along with its other white colleague nations (in Europe, Australia and the Americas), is always first and foremost in condemning any curbs on “religious freedom” (read curbs on missionaries) in India, and which prides itself on being the beacon of internal Democracy and Freedom:

From the 1600s European Catholic and Protestant denominations sent missionaries to convert the tribes to Christianity. These efforts intensified during the mid 19th century through mid-20'th as US Government and Christian churches' joint efforts forcibly registered Native Americans as Christians, which caused contemporaneous official government records (and sources that reference these government records) to show 'Christianity' as the majority religion of Native Americans for the past 100 years. These forcible conversions often occurred through US government and Christian church cooperative efforts that forcibly removed Native American children from their families, and forcibly moved those Native children into a Christian-US government operated system of American Indian boarding schools (aka The Residential Schools) where Native children were indoctrinated in European Christian beliefs, mainstream American culture and the English language. This forcible conversion and suppression of Indigenous languages and cultures continued through the 1970s.[1][2][3]
As part of the US government's suppression of traditional Indigenous religions, most ceremonial ways were banned for over 80 years by a series of US Federal laws that banned traditional sweat lodge and sun dance ceremonies, among others.[4] This government persecution and prosecution continued until 1978 with the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA).[5]' (Wikipedia entry on 'Native American Religion')

All this, please note, was being done blatantly and on a war footing in the U.S.A. till 1978. Must we assume there was a sudden magical about turn in that year which miraculously brought about an overwhelming love for the indigenous religions of the native American Indians in the hearts of those who had been carrying on the above mentioned activities so blatantly till then, and that the suppression and persecution completely ceased thereafter?

When those same ruthless forces of Christian Evangelization, who thought nothing of indulging in the above barbarism to destroy the native religions of the U.S.A., send their Proselytizing Armies into India to do the same to the native religions of India (whether Hindu Category One, Two or Three), clearly it is the duty of all the native religions to unite against the common enemy. And clearly it is not only the right of Hindus to protect the tribals (whether Hindu Category One, Two or Three) from the depredations of Christian missionaries, it is their sacred duty to protect their fellow-Indians and fellow-Hindus from these wolves. Anyone who has read beyond the leftist and missionary sponsored articles in the media blaming Hindu organisations, every time there is conflict over conversions in tribal areas, will see that the conflicts are basically between the converted tribals and the non-converted tribals, the latter literally fighting a last-ditch battle for the preservation of their ancestral religions from the Proselytising Armies with their multi-pronged military divisions.

(1) Hinduism Category One itself is basically a Parliament of (Indian) Religions.
(2) If there are some religions born out of mainstream Hinduism (Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism) which have acquired distinctive identities over the centuries, they have still remained part of the Hindu cultural stream (having a common history, a common viewpoint towards life, common religious symbols like Om, respect for Sanskrit as a Sacred language and for the saffron colour as a Sacred colour, vegetarianism as an ideal ethic, similar religious-philosophical terms and institutions, etc., and, as Dr. Ambedkar pointed out: 'The application of the Hindu Code to Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains was a historical development, and it would be too late, sociologically, to object to it. When the Buddha differed from the Vedic Brahmins, he did so only in matters of creed, but left the Hindu legal framework intact. He did not propound a separate law for his followers. The same was the case with Mahavir and the ten Sikh Gurus' (Keer, p.427).)
(3) if some tribal religions have retained or acquired identities with a distinctive name, all these are included within the different Categories of Hinduism (One, Two and Three), which together form a Full Parliament of Indian Religions. In fact, all these Categories of Hinduism fall within a larger Parliament of World Religions, namely Paganism  (which includes all the native religions which existed in the world before the rise of the proselytizing  Abrahamic Religions: Christianity and Islam)".

Friday, 4 October 2019

Dravidian Connections with the Harappan Civilization and the Rigveda.

Is there any Dravidian connection with the Rigveda or with the Harappan civilization in the northwest of India? This is an extremely contentious and controversial issue which arouses passion and rhetoric on all sides. It has been a central political claim of the Dravidianist movement in India that the Harappan Civilization was a Dravidian speaking civilization. This claim was not however initiated by them. It was initiated by western academic scholars and Indologists as a natural corollary of the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) which had "Aryans" (Indo-European speakers) invading  or migrating into India around 1500 BCE. Anything found in India before that date could only be "non-Aryan", and when the Harappan sites were discovered at the beginning of the 20th century and found to be datable to as far back as the fourth millennium BCE with roots going much further back in the area, it automatically became "non-Aryan"; and for many reasons, the Dravidian language family seemed the most logical "non-Aryan" candidate.

The AIT itself was based on what the linguists and Indologists claimed or believed to be a logical interpretation of the linguistic data: that the Indo-European languages had originated in the Steppes. It was not however a genuine interpretation of the actual linguistic data, but an extremely myopic and predetermined analysis and interpretation which selected convenient pieces of data and ignored inconvenient ones, and then force-fitted conclusions which actually went directly opposite to what was shown by even that conveniently selected data! That is an issue which will have to be handled in a separate article to bring together in one place all the linguistic evidence, most of which is scattered over my various books and articles and will require to be brought together (with some new inputs) to show the true linguistic position.

The AIT is now as dead as a dodo, regardless of whether its proponents accept it or not - in time (except for the most die-hard cranks among them) they will be left with no option but to accept it. There are basically only three  scientific disciplines which can help in analyzing and solving the problem of the Original Homeland of the Indo-European language family: Linguistics, Archeology (and related disciplines) and Textual Analysis. The data and evidence in all these three disciplines now irrefutably establishes that the Indo-European Homeland was in North India, and that the migrations of the speakers of the eleven other Indo-European dialects from India took those dialects, which became the eleven known branches, to their historical habitats. All this evidence is given in my books and other articles. Recent desperate attempts to abandon these three scientific disciplines and claim evidence for the AIT on the basis of "genetic" data and evidence has been blown to bits in my recent book "Genetics and the Aryan debate" and my recent blog article "Rakhigarhi and After". So I will not go into or repeat all that again here in this article.

I have proved in full detail in my books and articles that the Mature Harappan civilization is identical with the New Rigvedic civilization, roughly datable from 2600-1700 BCE. Here in this article I will only go into the question of whether or not there is any connection between the Dravidian languages on the one hand and the Harappan Civilization and the Rigveda on the other.
There are allegations of a Dravidian "substrate" in the Rigveda, indicating that the Harappan people of the area originally spoke Dravidian languages until they were supplanted by "Aryan" invaders (who borrowed some words from the Dravidian languages) or were themselves converted to Indo-European speech (retaining some Dravidian words in their adopted language). Here we will only investigate whether there are indeed any Dravidian words in the Rigveda, and if so exactly what they actually indicate.

Three points to keep in mind:

1. When there are two similar-sounding words, with the same or a closely related meaning, in two languages which are not related to each other (and therefore the two words cannot be cognate or related words from a common ancestral source) and which have not borrowed from a common third source or related third sources (e.g. from English or Sanskrit or Arabic, or one from Spanish and the other from Italian), it can mean that the word was originally found in one of the two languages and the other language has received that word from the first language. In such cases, the word is usually an adstrate word (an extraneously  borrowed word).
It can be called a substrate word only in a special circumstance: when the speaker of the second language is known to have come from some other place, and either all the local people who were originally speakers of the first language have completely switched over to the second language and this word is a carryover from the original (i.e. the first) language. When Indians intersperse some  English words in speaking their mother-tongues, or some words from their living mother-tongue in speaking English, these cannot be called substrate words.

2. Sometimes, the similarity in sound and meaning can be deceptive. Take the three following words in Tamil and English as examples:
eṭṭu = eight.
maṇ = mud.
veṭṭri = victory.
Here the concerned Tamil and English words are not related to each other, nor is one borrowed from the other.
Similarity situations of this kind give much scope for manipulation and fake claims, and for extremely selective and convenient acceptance and rejection of the linguistic-cognate principle: thus, for example, Mallory and Adams tell us that one of the four words which prove Semitic influence on Proto-Indo-European in the formative period is the word for the number "seven": "Proto-Indo-European *septṁ 'seven': Proto-Semitic *sab'atum", and that this shows geographical proximity between the two proto-languages in or near West Asia. However, the linguists firmly refuse to even consider the evidence of the similarity of the first four numbers in Proto-Indo-European (*sem, *dwōu/*dwai, *tri and *qwetwor) and Proto-Austronesian (*esa, *dewha, *telu and *pati/*epati) in locating the PIE Homeland in the east: the first four numbers in Malay are sa/satu 'one', dua 'two', tiga 'three', epat 'four'. The dua and tiga need no explanation for an Indo-European speaker; for the other two, we have Tocharian sas/se 'one', Romanian patru 'four', Welsh pedwar 'four'.

3. But the manipulation goes much further. Finding "non-Aryan" names in the Rigveda is vital for perpetuating the narrative of "non-Aryan" natives vs. "Aryan invaders", and therefore hunting out "non-Aryan names" and words in the Rigveda has become a massive cottage industry in the field of Indo-European studies.
In my first two books, in 1993 (pp.266-291) and 2000 (pp.345-362), I have shown the extremely and unbelievably absurd extent to which various AIT-promoting writers can go to in discovering "non-Aryans" (i.e. non-Indo-Europeans) in the Rigveda:
To begin with, the most popular candidates for the "non-Aryan" identity are dāsas, dasyus, asuras, paṇis, yakṣas, piśācas and gandharvas, and the individual demons of the air (Vṛtra, Śuṣṇa, Śambara, Vala, Pipru, Namūci, Cumuri, Dhuni, Varcin, Aurṇavābha, Ahīśuva, Arbuda, Ilībiśa, Kuyava, Mṛgaya, Uraṇa, Paḍgṛbhi, Sṛbinda, Dṛbhīka, Rauhiṇa, Rudhikrās, Śvaśna, etc.).
But Malati Shendge practically goes berserk in identifying "non-Aryans" in the Rigveda. According to her, they include almost all the Vedic Gods except Indra and Viṣṇu (i.e. including Varuṇa, Mitra, Rudra, Sūrya, Savitṛ, Pūṣan, Bhaga, Aṁśa, etc.), all tribes whose names end in -u (including Ikṣvākus, Anus, Druhyus, Yadus, and Pūrus!!), most of the Vedic rishis themselves (including Gṛtsamada, the Saptaṛṣi, Mātariśvan, Aṅgiras, Atharvan, Atri, Kaṇva, Bhṛgu, Tanū Napāt, Apām Napāt, etc.!!). If this sounds incredible, note that three different "scholars", D. D. Kosambi and F.E. Pargiter besides Malati Shendge, classify all the Vedic rishis except the Viśvāmitras as "non-Aryans"! In all this, clearly linguistics has no role to play!              
But it is not just half-baked Indian AIT scholars who go berserk in identifying "non-Aryans" in the Rigveda. Anyone who is able to wade through the muck in Michael Witzel's article "Aryan and non-Aryan names in Vedic India", which claims to be based on linguistic studies, will see how western academic scholars can run amok in a like manner. Suffice it to say, the "non-Aryan" names given by Witzel include, among countless others, Kuśika, Turvaśa, Anu, Yadu, Ikṣvāku and Pūru!
Witzel gets away with recklessly postulating not only Dravidian and Austric (Munda) linguistic identities for most of the words and names, but even confidently ascribes many of them to some mysterious hypothetical Language X and Language Y, of unknown (though of course non-Indo-European) linguistic affiliation, which he claims must have existed in India in the "pre-Aryan" past!

It requires only a genuinely honest disposition and genuine viveka-buddhi to examine this whole issue of "Aryan" vs. "non-Aryan" linguistic identity in the Rigveda dispassionately. As this article is only a preliminary step in this examination, I will try to keep it as brief as possible.

We will examine this issue from two points of view:
1. Dravidian words as an old substrate in the Rigveda.
2. Dravidian words as a new adstrate in the Rigveda.

I. Dravidian words as an old substrate in the Rigveda.

If the scenario postulated by the proponents is right, and the Rigveda was composed after the replacement of an earlier Dravidian population in the Harappan area with speakers of newly arrived Indo-European language speaking "Aryans", then we should find a prominent Dravidian substratum in the oldest parts of the Rigveda. However, as I have shown in detail in my books and blogs, there is absolutely no Dravidian "substratum" in the Old Rigveda (books 6,3,7,4 and 2, minus the Redacted Hymns). And the geographical names (names of Indian rivers, lakes, mountains, places and animals) in the text are all purely Indo-Aryan (= Indo-European). Even scholars like Witzel, who claim that a few geographical names and names of people in the Rigveda are "non-Aryan" cannot locate specifically Dravidian names in the Old Rigveda - which is the only thing we are concerned with in this article - we are not concerned here with the names and words alleged to be Munda or Language X or Language Y.

II. Dravidian words as a new adstrate in the Rigveda.

Are there any Dravidian words at all in the Rigveda? Seeing the geographical location of the Harappan civilization and the known geographical location of the Dravidian languages in the South, it would be rather difficult to see how such interaction could take place in those remote times. The presence of the Brahui language in Baluchistan was originally the most prominent factor cited in claiming that the Harappan area was originally inhabited by Dravidian speaking people, but now it has been accepted that the Brahui language actually migrated to Baluchistan from the South comparatively recently: as Witzel points out, “its presence has now been explained by a late migration that took place within this millennium (Elfenbeim 1987)” (WITZEL 2000a:§1). Likewise, Southworth, even while urging a Dravidian presence in the Harappan areas, admits that: “Hock (1975:87-8), among others, has noted that the current locations of Brahui, Kurux and Malto may be recent” (SOUTHWORTH 1995:272, fn22).

But there are two words in the Rigveda which, however unpalatable it may be to Sanskrit-centric opponents of the AIT, are very definitely linguistically Dravidian words:
1. The verbal root pūj- "to revere, worship, respect, honour (usually an idol, with flowers)", derived from the Dravidian, e.g. Tamil -, "flower", representing a form of worship totally unknown to the Vedic culture, and representing the religion of the South.
2. The word kāṇa, "one-eyed" or "cross-eyed", very clearly derived from the Dravidian, e.g. Tamil kaṇ, "eye".

Secondly, while the culture of the Old Rigveda was a very localized one centered around Haryana, the New Rigveda, which represents the Mature Harappan period, was not an isolated one, isolated from the rest of the world.  It represented a technologically highly evolved civilization and had trade contacts with other civilizations to the west. The main known links of the Mature Harappans with western civilizations are those with the Mesopotamians or Babylonians. It is known that the Harappans traded with Mesopotamia: two words identified as Babylonian words are found in the Rigveda, both in book 8 which is the heart of the New Rigveda, and both have connections with traders. They are:
1. bekanāṭa (money-lender to traders, the Paṇi, who are referred to in the same verse) in VIII.66.10, and
2. manā (a unit of measure which is still used to this day) in VIII.78.2.

Harappan ships travelled not only to the ports of the Gulf, but probably into the Mediterranean Sea as well (see my blog article "The Elephant and the Proto-Indo-European Homeland"). Can it be possible that the areas of the south and east within India itself remained unknown to them, or remained out of the sphere of their contacts?
As we saw, Indian tradition squarely places the Harappan civilization in the areas of the Anus, the western and central Pūrus, and the western Yadus. But it recognizes the relationship of these people with the people and cultures of the other parts of India: the eastern Indo-European speaking people (the Ikṣvākus) as well as the Dravidian speaking people of the South and the Austric speaking people of the East, all of whom are classified as descendants of a mythical common ancestor, whom the Puranas call Manu.
So why is there no reference to these other people to the South or East?

As we saw, the only evidence in the New Rigveda of the rich trade relationship with Mesopotamia is in the shape of just two words, bekanāṭa and manā. So we cannot expect detailed accounts of the South and East in the hymns of the Rigveda in that early period. But surely there must have been some relationship, and this must have left some evidence in the text?

In reaction to the invasionist tendency to hunt for linguistic evidence of "pre-Aryan natives", there is usually a tendency on the part of Indians, as a reflex reaction,  to reject the presence of non-Indo-Aryan, especially Dravidian, elements in the Rigveda. This is also correct in the sense that civilization and culture developed differently in different parts of the country, and the Rigvedic culture of the northwest in its initial stages (i.e. in the Old Rigveda, restricted to Haryana and its immediate environs) need not necessarily show elements from other parts of India. But what about in the period of the Mature Harappan = New Rigvedic civilization with its far-reaching trade contacts and relations?

Eleven years ago, in my 2008 book "The Rigveda and the Avesta - The Final Evidence", I noted the situation as follows: "Witzel’s first linguistic arguments, in section 11.5 (WITZEL 2005:344-346) have to do with what he calls 'Linguistic substrates'. This issue has been discussed in great detail in TALAGERI 2000:293-308 (and earlier in TALAGERI 1993:197-215). We will not repeat all the arguments and counter-arguments here, except for stressing the difference between 'substrate' words and 'adstrate' words (see section 6B of chapter 6 earlier in this book). In fact, let us accept that there may be some adstrate words of Dravidian or Austric origin in 'Indo-Aryan' ― perhaps we protested a bit too much in our earlier books, due to the implications sought to be drawn from such alleged 'non-Indo-Aryan' words in Classical or even Vedic Sanskrit. The word kāṇa 'one-eyed', in the RV, for example, is obviously derived from the Dravidian word kaṇ 'eye'. Other, not implausible suggestions include the words daṇḍa and kuṭa". (p.292).

As a matter of fact, an examination of the actual Rigvedic data shows us that the Rigvedic culture did include some Dravidian elements. These elements were not residual elements of an original Dravidian Harappan civilization invaded and taken over by invading "Aryans", as often suggested, they are new elements imported from the Dravidian South. This is proved by the fact that:
1. They are not found in the Old Rigveda, and the geographical names in the Old Rigveda show that Dravidian speaking people never lived in the Harappan area before or during that period.
2. They are found as incidental elements in the New Rigveda, in a period which shows massive oversea trade contacts even with foreign places like Mesopotamia, and which is the period preceding the Avestan and Mitanni eras: the common elements with the Avesta and the Mitanni are abundantly found in the same texts and hymns which show these incidental Dravidian elements.
3. The Indian traditions and linguistics  unambiguously and very clearly connect the people associated with these elements - actually Rigvedic rishis of Dravidian identity -  with the South. And these people are not inimical to the Rigvedic culture but a part of it.

There seem to be at least two distinct streams of originally Dravidian speaking rishis:

1. As we saw, the Rigveda contains two important words - very important and common in later Sanskrit as well as in modern Indo-Aryan, but found only once each in the Rigveda - of undoubtedly Dravidian origin. These are:
a) The verbal root pūj-.
b) The word kāṇa.
These two words are found (both in the New Rigveda) as follows:
a) pūj- in VIII.17.12, attributed to Irimbiṭhi Kāṇva,
b) kāṇa in X.155.1, attributed to Śirimbiṭha Bhāradvāja.
It cannot be a coincidence that both the words are composed by two different rishis with such strikingly similar, unusual and non-Indo-Aryan names. The rishi-ascriptions in book 10 are very often garbled  -  in my 2000 book "The Rigveda - A historical Analysis", pp.25-26, I had written "Maṇḍala X is a very late Maṇḍala and stands out from the other nine Maṇḍalas in many respects. One of these is the general ambiguity in the ascriptions of the hymns to their composers. In respect of 44 hymns, and 2 other verses, it is virtually impossible to even identify the family of the composer" -  and it is perfectly possible the composer of X.155 is also the same as the composer of VIII.17, i.e. Irimbiṭhi Kāṇva.
The name is clearly Dravidian: in fact, we still have a place in Kerala named Irimbiḷiyam: it is not impossible that this, or a nearby area, is the home-area of this Rigvedic composer - more than 4000 years old!  Note that there are two more words in the same hymn, VIII.17, which have also been identified as Dravidian:
a) -khaṇḍ- in VIII.17.12,
b) kuṇḍa in VIII.17.13,
and, to crown it all, the word muni, found in only 4 hymns in the whole of the Rigveda, and referring to holy men from the non-Vedic areas of the East and South within India, is also found in the next verse: in VIII.17.14. That we should have so many indications in three consecutive verses is incredible but extremely significant.
Very clearly, this rishi Irimbiṭhi is a person from the Dravidian South who, like members of different religious orders in present-day India who are found in parts of India other than their area of origin, migrated to the busy cosmopolitan Mature Harappan = New Rigvedic civilization area from the South and subsequently became a Rigvedic rishi.

2. But Indian tradition has one more, and a very important, rishi who is unanimously and resoundingly associated, in the traditions of both the North and the South, with the South: Agastya. Puranic and Epic tradition tells us that Agastya migrated to the South and settled down there. But here is what Wikipedia has to say:

"Agastya was a revered Vedic sage of Hinduism.[2][3] In the Indian tradition, he is a noted recluse and an influential scholar in diverse languages of the Indian subcontinent. He and his wife Lopamudra are the celebrated authors of hymns 1.165 to 1.191 in the Sanskrit text Rigveda and other Vedic literature.[3][4][5]
Agastya appears in numerous itihasas and puranas including the major Ramayana and Mahabharata.[5][6] He is one of the seven or eight most revered rishis in the Vedic texts,[7] and is revered as one of the Tamil Siddhar in the Shaivism tradition, who invented an early grammar of the Tamil language, Agattiyam, playing a pioneering role in the development of Tampraparniyan medicine and spirituality at Saiva centres in proto-era Sri Lanka and South India. He is also revered in the Puranic literature of Shaktism and Vaishnavism.[8] He is one of the Indian sages found in ancient sculpture and reliefs in Hindu temples of South Asia, and Southeast Asia such as in the early medieval era Shaiva temples on Java Indonesia. He is the principal figure and Guru in the ancient Javanese language text Agastyaparva, whose 11th century version survives.[9][10]
Agastya is traditionally attributed to be the author of many Sanskrit texts such as the Agastya Gita found in Varaha Purana, Agastya Samhita found embedded in Skanda Purana, and the Dvaidha-Nirnaya Tantra text.[5] He is also referred to as Mana, Kalasaja, Kumbhaja, Kumbhayoni and Maitravaruni after his mythical origins."
Even more to the point: "The etymological origin of Agastya has several theories. One theory states that the root […] is derived from a flowering tree called Agati gandiflora, which is endemic to the Indian subcontinent and is called Akatti in Tamil. This theory suggests that Agati evolved into Agastih, and favors Dravidian origins of the Vedic sage".
He is a "non-Aryan Dravidian whose ideas influenced the north […] In Southern sources and the North Indian Devi-Bhagavata Purana, his ashram is based in Tamil Nadu, variously placed in Tirunelveli, Pothiyal hills, or Thanjavur".

Therefore, despite later legends taking him from the North to the South, historically he was probably a Dravidian sage from the South who, or rather whose descendants, migrated northwards and became an important part of the Rigvedic priesthood, being recognized as a separate and independent family of Rigvedic rishis:
a) Tradition shows him to be different from the other Vedic rishis, more of a recluse and a forest-dweller, who prefers to stay away from the glamour and lucre of urban settings and royal patronage.
b) He is totally absent from the major part of the Rigveda, and his descendants have hymns only in the New Rigveda (mainly in book 1, where most of the Dravidian words are found) but tradition not only outside the Rigveda but even within the Rigveda (VII.33.10) consistently portrays him as an ancient Rishi contemporaneous to Vasiṣṭha.
c) The only reference to him, outside the New books 1 and 8 (I.117.11; 170.3; 179.6; 180.8; 184.5; VIII.5.26), is an incidental one in a Redacted Hymn, probably redacted by a descendant, in VII.33.10. And this hymn has a Dravidian word daṇḍa in the next verse VII.33.11.      

3. The arrival of the Irimbiṭhas and Agastyas into the Rigvedic area in the Mature Harappan period seems to have brought in a small stream of Dravidian words, which stream became a small flood in later post-Vedic Classical Sanskrit.
The following is a list of other words allegedly of Dravidian origin, found in the Rigveda: vaila, kiyāmbu, vriś, cal-, bila, lip-, kaṭuka, kuṇḍṛṇācī (?), piṇḍa, mukha, kuṭa, kūṭa, khala, ulūkhala, kāṇuka, sīra, naḍa/naḷa, kulpha, ukha, kuṇāru, kulāya, lāṅgala. They are found only in the New Rigveda and in the Redacted Hymns, except for the occurrence of mukha in IV.39.6, kulāya in VII.50.1, and kulpha in VII.50.2. But note that Arnold (whom Hock cites as an expert on these matters) has classified both these hymns IV.39 and VII.50 also as Redacted Hymns on metrical grounds: so we do not find a single one of these alleged Dravidian words in the Old Rigveda! The references (other than those already mentioned) are found as follows:
Redacted Hymns:
VI. 15.10; 47.23; 75.15.
III. 30.8.
IV. 57.4.
New Rigveda:
I.  11.5; 28.1,6; 29.6; 32.11; 33.1,3,3; 46.4; 97.6,7; 144.5; 162.2,13,15,19; 164.8; 174.10; 191.1,3,4.
VIII. 1.33; 43.10; 77.4.
X. 16.13; 48.7; 81.3; 85.34; 90.11; 97.6; 102.4.

Remember, these Dravidian rishis and words are found in the New Rigveda before 2000 BCE, nearly two millenniums before the Tamil Sangam Era! And also long before the first appearance of the Mitanni in Syria-Iraq and the Indo-European Iranians (Persians, Parthians, Medians) in Iran! So the Vedic-Dravidian relationship is an old and friendly one.

[A few other words, often gratuitously and unwarrantedly - and controversially - sought to be branded as Dravidian words, such as mayūra, phala, bala, gardabha, puṣpa, puṣkara, are rejected by most linguists as Dravidian words:
a) Witzel (although he continues to insist it is a "non-Aryan" word borrowed by Sanskrit, inspite of the fact that the name is a purely onomatopoeic name derived from the Sanskrit root ) rejects mayūra as a Dravidian word in his article "Aryan and non-Aryan names in the Vedic India" (although this is particularly an article in which he goes berserk identifying as non-Aryan even words like Yadu and Pūru!!!).
b) Rendich Franco (in his "comparative Etymological Dictionary of Classical Indo-European languages") gives the PIE roots and cognate forms in Greek and Latin for the word phala, and likewise the PIE root for the words puṣpa and puṣkara.
c) Mallory and Adams (in their "Encyclopaedia of Indo-European culture") point out that bala is derived from PIE *belos, calling it "the strongest etymology containing the very rare PIE *b-", and give cognate forms in Greek, Latin and Old Church Slavic.
d) The word gardabha, though a late word found only in the New Rigveda and Redacted hymns, has a cognate form in Tocharian kercapo, in Central Asia, and in any case, the donkey is native to the northwest and not the south, and cannot be derived from the Tamil kazhutha under any circumstance].

In short, the Vedic-Dravidian relationship goes back to pre-2000 BCE times, and the reverence for Vedic culture in the oldest Dravidian Sangam literature has a long tradition behind it.