The Aryan-Dravidian Divide
The word Aryan was forged by Europeans from the Hindu (Sanskrit) word arya meaning “noble”. Apparently the word does not occur in anything other than in its adjective form (”arya”); that is, hardly does it occur in the sense of the proper noun “Aryan” (as in to describe a certain group or race of people). Europeans not only forged a new word, but took it further by creating an artificial race – the Aryan race, describing it as the “pure race”.
When the British discovered how far advanced India was in terms of language, culture, sciences, mathematics, commerce,… and when they encountered Sanskrit (with an advanced grammar and so many words cognate to English), they found it hard to believe, that a non-white race could be so advanced. Max Mueller, the infamous Indologist, was appointed to create a theory that would discredit what they considered as “brown-skinned niggers”. In short, the theory, “The Aryan Invasion Theory”, constructed an artificial race called Aryans supposedly from Eastern Europe who supposedly invaded India and supposedly bought to them Sanskrit, science, culture, religion, etc. This has been shown today to be ridiculous and without any basis [1].
The British used this pseudo-theory to put into effect their well tested divide-and-conqueror strategy on India. They stipulated that the Brahmins of India are of the same descendants as Europeans – i.e. of Aryan descent. Many dissenting Brahmins were allured by the prospects of power and privileges that came with simply identifying themselves with the same race as their white masters.
Obviously if there are “Aryans” they had to create “anti-Aryans”, and thus was introduced another fabrication – the “Dravidian”. The word Aryan or Dravidian apparently does not occur anywhere in Sanskrit literature as a proper noun. One would think when all our literature so explicitly mentions so many peoples of different regions and kingdoms (never failing to leave out any details) that they would at least mention of “Aryans” and “Dravidians”.
The British were experts at ruling by divide-and-conquer. The splitting of India into two races caused a serious rift between Brahmins (who were led to identify themselves as of the Aryan race) and non-Brahmins (who were led to identify themselves as of the Dravidian race), and on a third axis were the Muslims (who were led by the British to feel they shouldn’t be “subservient” to Hindus). This fatal triangle paved way for the British to have stranglehold on India for over 400 years. The rift still exists today in the Indian political system.
Even the Indian National Anthem has not been spared of the propaganda. In the Indian National Anthem, all the various regions that make up India are described by names of mountains and rivers – except that when coming to the south, the whole of the south is described by the word “Dravida”. It’s like describing the USA by the Rocky Mountains, Appalachians, Grand Canyon,… and then suddenly referring to the whole of the south as the land of Blacks, red-necks, or hill-bellies. I don’t mind being referred to by a cultural label (Dravidian, Aryan, Hindu, geek, whatever), but it should be uniformly applied.
Modern science has shown that there is insufficient genetic markers to even remotely distinguish between North and South Indians as distinct races. It is akin to saying Scandinavians are of a different race from Mediterraneans. Or like categorizing people in Europe based on hair color – red, black, blonde (which Hitler partly succeeded – claiming blondes belonged to a superior race called “Aryans” in his Nazi campaign). That is, one can determine if a DNA belongs to an Indian, an African, or a Caucasian, but cannot determine whether it is from a North or South Indian. Modern science shows that race is much less a genetic phenomenon, but more of a social and cultural phenomenon, hence today it is referred more to as one’s ethnicity than “race”.