The Dravidian Invasion/Migration Theory − If Not the AIT/AMT, Then the DIT/DMT?

 

The Dravidian Invasion/Migration Theory − If Not the AIT/AMT, Then the DIT/DMT?

 Shrikant G. Talageri

 

Yes, blows can be struck at the Indian Hindu identity not only from the western academic side or the anti-Hindu side by way of promoting or supporting the AIT/AMT (Aryan Invasion/(Im)Migration Theory). They can also be struck at the very same Indian Hindu identity from the opposite side (the anti-AIT/AMT side) ostensibly against the prime political regional force in India supporting the AIT/OIT, the Dravidianists: how else but by rejecting the AIT/OIT but supporting the DIT/DMT!

Jijith Nadumuru Ravi has apparently put up the following tweet today:

“Irimbithi and Sirimbithi Dravidian names discovery by Talageri. Same me assert North IVC dominated by the Pancha Janas and Ikswakus. Same me also supports Indus Script encoding Indo Aryan. Refer Image below regarding why Dravidiian in South IVC esp in Gujarat”

He also appends the following map in the tweet:

It may be noted that this tweet contains three points which stand out prominently in their incorrectness:

1. Firstly, he takes this opportunity to repeat the extremely flawed and baseless theory that “North IVC (was) dominated by the Pancha Janas and Ikswakus”, which he had tried to prove in his book “Rivers of Ṛgveda”, where he tried to propagate a combination of the AIT and OIT (AIT from the northwest into India and OIT from the northwest out of India), by trying to drum up a case to show that the textual evidence shows that all the Panchajanas of the Rigveda (The Pūrus, Anus, Druhyus, Yadus and Turvaṣas) as well as the Ikṣvākus, all originated in the Sarasvati valley (IVC) and then spread out to both east and west from there. As I have shown in detail in my review of his book, his book consists of completely imaginary theories and scenarios totally unsupported by, and even sharply opposed to, the data in both the Rigveda as well as the Puranas:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/03/a-review-of-rivers-of-rgveda-by-jijith.html 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/03/rigvedic-vis-vis-epic-puranic-geography.html 

2. Secondly, he suddenly becomes a strong protagonist of the DIT/DMT or the Dravidian Invasion/(Im)Migration Theory, which has even less basis than the AIT/AMT, since, unlike in the case of the Indo-European languages (where over ten of the twelve branches are spoken outside India) there is no Dravidian language found anywhere outside the Indian subcontinent either at present or at any point of time in recorded history. The so-called connections with the Elamite language – which are, however much its supporters may claim them to be proved, are only a matter of theory and conjecture, and any “migration”, even if any connection could be “proved”, in no way stands established as a migration which took place from Elam to South India and not vice versa – are part of the fringe group of theories which link Dravidian tentatively with diverse languages like the Uralic languages of northeastern Europe or with the Korean language of East Asia.

[As noted elsewhere, in many of my earlier articles, the only factor which was used by AIT writers and scholars, to allege an earlier historical presence of Dravidian language speakers in the NW before they “migrated” or were “driven” southwards, is the presence of a Dravidian language, Brahui in Baluchistan. But, ironically, this one and only “clue” to a NW presence for Dravidian is now accepted by almost all prominent (AIT-supporting!) scholars, including Witzel and Hock, as the remnant of a Dravidian speaking group which migrated to the NW from the South!]

So Jijith’s newfound support (at least I am assuming it is newfound) for a Dravidian Homeland in Elam in Iran, and for the theory of an invasion/immigration of Dravidian speakers from there into South India through the NW, is as totally fictional as his discovery of the earliest Ikṣvākus in the Saravati area: both totally unsupported by any kind of textual testimony or traditional beliefs or indeed linguistic evidence.

 

3. He actually refers to the “Irimbithi and Sirimbithi Dravidian names discovery by Talageri”. Then he should be fully aware that this discovery can only be interpreted as the migration of small groups or individuals from among the Dravidian language speakers of the South into the IVC northwest. It cannot be interpreted as a Rigvedic rishi from the northwest, being an individual belonging to a stream of Dravidian immigrants moving from Elam in Iran (through the NW) towards the South, remaining in the NW as part of the IVC/Vedic culture but sending his name southward through proxies to be given to a place on the coast of Kerala!

In my article “Dravidian Connections with the Harappan Civilization and the Rigveda”, this is what I wrote about this Irimbiṭha:

“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.”

 

But the most puzzling question that arises is about the linguistic identity of the original inhabitants of almost the whole of the rest of (i.e. excluding only the northwest, now mostly in Pakistan) India if we are to swallow Jijith’s two theories:

1. That all the Indo-European languages originated in a northwestern part of India around the river Sarasvati, and then spread out over the rest of northern and central India right up to Assam in the east.

2. That all the Dravidian languages originated in Iran and then migrated into India through the NW and then spread out over the whole of South India.

 

I had posed this question to Jijith in my review of his book “Rivers of Ṛgveda”, when his assertions were still restricted only to North India (or the presently Indo-Aryan speaking parts of India): 

“There is one important question I would like to pose to Jijith (the other two writers named above are no more, and cannot answer this question):

If all the Solar and Lunar tribes were on the banks of the Sarasvati before their migrations, then, before they migrated to the East and South, what was the state of inhabitation of the other areas to its east and south (where the Epic-Puranic texts actually locate these tribes) in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh? [I can concede that areas further east and south of these may have been originally mixed border areas with Dravidian and Austric language speakers, mythically descendants of the other eight sons of Manu]:

1. Were these areas completely devoid of human inhabitation?

2, Were they inhabited by other intelligent non-human inhabitants (as in fairy tale scenarios and in all mythologies, including modern ones like Lord of the Rings, etc.)?

3. Were they inhabited by speakers of Dravidian and Austric languages, who were invaded and displaced by the indigenous "Aryans"?

4. Were they inhabited by extremely primitive "uncultured Aryans" with no traditions of their own  who were invaded and displaced by the "cultured Aryans" from the Sarasvati river?”

The question becomes even more striking when we note now that it is not only the IE languages of most of North India, but also the Dravidian languages of South India, which are supposed to be historical intruders into their spaces.

In my earlier articles, I had pointed out that Jijith’s theory represented a combination of AIT/AMT and OIT so far as the Indo-European languages of India are concerned. But now it looks as if Jijith has gone all out in presenting a full-fledged and unqualified DIT/DMT so far as the Dravidian languages are concerned. His earlier theory was at least to be understood as arising from his desire to show that the Sarasvati area alone was the Ultimate PIE Homeland. Is it that same desire which has (in some inexplicable way) given birth to this present DIT/DMT theory?