other side of indian history

8/7/2019 Other Side of Indian History

1/36

THE OTHERSIDE of

Indian History

N.Nandhivarman

General Secretary Dravida Peravai

1


2/36

1.Hidden history unmasks Nehru

Quite some time since my series of blogs on Aurobindo Ghosestopped for temporary reprieve , many friends suggested to me to

write on the other-side of the historical spectrum and views held

by personalities in conflict. As a democrat groomed by Aringnar

Anna, I felt I must place for public consumption historical

moments in India.

Q: Describe the views of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar on the day of

Mahatma Gandhis assassination ?

A: Great men are of great service to their country but they also,

after certain time, a great hindrance to the progress of their

country. There is one incident in Roman history which comes to

my mind on this occasion. When Caesar was done to death and the

matter was reported to Cicero, Cicero said to the messengers : Tell

the Romans that your hour of liberty has come. While one regrets

the assassination of Mr.Gandhi and one cannot help finding in his

heart the echo of the sentiments expressed by Cicero on the

assassination of Cicero.

Mr.Gandhi had become a positive danger to this country. He had

choked all free thought. He was holding together the Congress

which is a combination of all the bad and self seeking elements in

society who were agreed on no social or moral principle governingthe life of society except the one praising and flattering

Mr.Gandhi. Such a body is unfit to govern the country. As the

Bible says that sometimes good cometh out of evil so also I think

that good will come out of the death of Mr.Gandhi. It will release

people from bondage to a superman , it will make themthink forthemselves and it will compel them to stand on their own

merits..Ambedkar

Q: How come Dr.Ambedkar was entrusted with the task of

Drafting the Constitution of India ?

2


3/36

A: In his book Reminiscences of Nehru Age by M.O.Mathai page

24, the words of Ambedker on accomplishment of the task is

mentioned thus : The Hindus wanted Vedas, and they sent forVyasa, who was not a caste Hindu. The Hindus wanted an epic ,

and they sent for Valmiki, who was an untouchable. The Hindus

wanted a Constitution and they have sent for me. Ambedkar.

Q:Mahatma Gandhi only strongly recommended Dr.B.R.

Ambedkar to draft the Constitution of India , is it so ?

A: In his thesis titled Socio and Political philosophy ofDr.Ambedkar [page 50] P.V.Rathnam states Jawaharlal Nehru

and Sardar Patel wanted to invite Sir Ivor Jennings , an

internationally known constitutional expert, who had drafted the

Constitution of many Asian countries. Mahatma Gandhi, however

advised them not to look for a foreigner when they had within

India an outstanding legal constitutional expert

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. Thus the task was entrusted to Dr.Ambedkar.

Yes Gandhiji recommended Dr.Ambedkar.

Q; Is it true that Dr.Ambedkar single handedly drafted the

Constitution of India ?

A: Yes, let me quote from the Constitution Assembly Debate dated

November 5 of 1948 wherein T.T.Krishnamachari narrates The

House is perhaps aware that of the seven members nominated by

you, one had resigned from the House and was replaced. One diedand was not replaced. One was away in America and his place was

not filledup and another person was engaged in State Affairs andthere was void to that extent. One or two people were away from

Delhi, and perhaps reasons of health does not permit them to

attend. So it happened ultimately that the burden of drafting the

Constitution fell on Dr.Ambedkar and I have no doubt we are

grateful to him for havingachieved this task in amanner which isundoubtedly commendable

3


4/36

Q: Is it true that Dr.Ambedkar found it difficult to print his book

Buddha and His Dhamma ?

A: Yes it took 5 years for him to write the book. He sought

financial help from the Trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust,

Bombay. On March 17 of 1956 writing to the Chairman of Tata

Industries Limited Mr.M.R.Masani Mr.Tata must have returned

by now and so there could be no difficulty in your communicating

his mind. I am dreadfully in a hurry and if Mr.Tata refuse my

request I like to go with my bowl to another door. On May 1st of

1956 Trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust informed that the book onthe life and teaching of Buddha will land them in trouble and

controversy, hence sanctioned a donation of Rs 3000 towards

publication of the book.

Q: What was Jawaharlal Nehrus response to Dr.Ambedkars

request to buy 500 copies of his book for libraries ?

A: Ambedkar thought Jawaharlal Nehru will buy atleast 500copies for libraries and distribution to scholars who would be

attending the Buddhas 2500 th anniversary celebration. He wrote

to Nehru I know your interest in Buddhism. That is why I am

writing to you. I hope you will render some help in the matter.

The Great Prime Minister of India replied on September 15th of

1956. It will be impossible for us to buy a large number of copies

of your book as suggested by you. We had set aside a certain sum

for publication on the occasion of the Buddha Jayanti. That sum

has been exhausted and in fact exceeded.

4


5/36

2.CHINA : THORN TO INDIAs EXISTENCE

Indias foreign policy makers must watch the Chinese moves ineach and every issue in international arena. China had been for

years scheming to become the sole Super Power of Asia. Nothing

wrong in any nation to aspire for higher status, but that status

when it tends to downsize India, it is our duty to counter Chinese

dragon.

The handing over of Coco island by the Indian foreign policy

experts of seventies to Myanmar had paved way for Chinaobtaining it in lease from Myanmar and to build a harbour apart

from installing Russian made radars and satellites to spy on

Indian Missile programme operated from Orissa, a state of India

just facing Coco islands in the west of the Bay of Bengal. Sitting

entrenched in Eastern side of Bay of Bengal that too just 40

nautical miles away from Indian Territory of Andaman Nicobar

islands, China had established its access and control over Bay ofBengal. The intelligent foreign policy experts who had no broad

vision had opened the gateway of Bay of Bengal to the Chinese

dragon.

But the threats from China are not only in our border but

everywhere. Unless India watches every move of China, we will fail

in our patriotic duty to preserve our nation and its status among

comity of nations. India and China are now members of theFinancial Stability Board, the apex institution to monitor global

risks of financial crisis. Their voting shares in the International

Monetary Fund will also be slightly increased through an

accelerated quota reform process. However post-reform the USA

will retain its de-facto veto power with a 17 percent share and the

US, EU and Japan will control 53 percent of IMF shares.

Individually the shares of US, UK, France and Japan will still be

larger than Chinas share of fewer than 4 percent. Hence China

5


6/36

had planned a new offensive according to Professor of National

Institute of Public Finance and Policy Mr.Sudipto Mundle.

Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the Chinese Central Bank had in

past suggested that dollar should be replaced with SDRs as the

new reserve currency. The huge dollar reserves held by Central

Banks and other global investors would be severely eroded if the

dollar were to suddenly depreciate. Yet these investors cannot

easily diversify away from the dollar since this itself would trigger

dollar depreciation. The Chinese are particularly concerned, an

estimated 1 trillion dollars of their total reserves of around 2trillion are held in dollar asset. The SDR exchange rate is a

weighted average of exchange rates of the major convertible

currencies. Accordingly under Zhous proposals, China and other

countries could convert their reserves from dollars to SDRs at

current exchange rates without any erosion in their value.

Implementing such a proposal would also mark the end of the

dollar as reserve currency. This is the game plan of China whichhas let the cat out of its bag.

If China launches SDR missiles to strike at the Dollar regime,

India had to toe Chinese line, if Indo-China-Srilanka partnership

to ethnic cleansing of Tamils is a forerunner to such cooperation.

USA realizing the Chinese designs had been urging India to sign

End-use Monitoring Agreement, Communications Interoperability

and Security Memorandum agreement, and Logistics Support

Agreement. China causes grave concern for USA, hence USA urges

India to sign these pacts. China had become emboldened to say to

USA to concentrate on western Pacific and China will look after

eastern Pacific. Pacific Command Chief Admiral Timothy J

Keating had recently exposed this game.

Are we with USA or are we with China? Is USA a grave danger tothe territorial integrity of India or is China, the aggressor who

6


7/36

claims our Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh will be a threat with

high magnitude?

China had encircled India with tie-ups starting from Myanmar to

Srilanka, Maldives to Pakistan and Bangladesh. With harbours in

all these countries carefully built from 1990, China had acquired a

might India cannot challenge. If China could suggest to USA to

divide Pacific Ocean as eastern zone and western zone between

them, will it not say to India confine to your coast in Bay of Bengal

and from Myanmar China will control half of Bay of Bengal.

Will not China with harbours in Pakistan and Maldives suffocate

Indian presence in Arabic Ocean? Sitting in Srilankas southern tip

China could block passage to Bay of Bengal and from Myanmar

control Malacca Straits. Each and every step China plans is to

establish it as Super power of Asia. It is the neo-colonial power

which will colonize Myanmar and Srilanka. In Indian state of

Bihar, the influx of Chinese women to marry Indians born in

Buddhas land is silently establishing a Chino-Indian population

like early Anglo-Indians.

Our foreign policy must be debated in Indian Parliament. Few

individuals should not decide the foreign policy of a continent like

India with 100 crore population. Ours is Indian Union, though it

became unitary due to the trauma of partition, it must be borne

that Indian States have a right to shape Indias foreign policy.

Consensus can emerge in our National Integration Council,

debates in Parliament can offer constructive course corrections,

and Cabinet should not be bypassed, few people should not be

shouldered with crafting nations foreign policy, however super

brains they may be. But seeing how China had outwitted us by

encircling India, and within India opening a Red corridor from

Nepal to Andhra Pradesh where Maoists rule the roost, it becomes

evident that China wants India again to become a colony, this timea colony of China will only get conduct certificates from

Communist parties and not from Indians with common sense

7


8/36

Borders and Boundaries: Follies galore

India must publish maps showing Tibet as independent countryunder occupation of Chinese. Only then Chinese maps on Jammu

and Kashmir could be countered effectively. There is a Tibetan

Government in exile within Indian soil and we are within our right

to declare Tibet as disputed area which belong to Tibetan people.

Having said the way to counter Chinese moves, as impassionate

observer of history let me share my thoughts with readers and

invite a debate.

The maps of 1930 show Indian border in North East sector, which

is McMahon line between Indias Assam and Tibet region as

Boundary Un-demarcated. In Northwest, North sectors [from

Kashmir Ladakh to Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh it was

inscribed as boundary undefined. Miss Dorothy Woodman in her

book Himalayan Frontiers in 1969 wrote, The innumerable

discrepancies on maps might lead to the most nave student ofcartography to the view that the devil can quote maps to serve its

own purpose. The discrepancies in maps are a disease infecting

both sides. Both countries based their claims on erroneous maps.

In Indian side as per eminent parliamentarian and scholar Kuldip

Nayyar The Government itself with drew several official maps

and books which did not indicate meticulously a curve here or a

bend there or which left the boundary undefined. Many maps ofthe Survey of India and the books of Publications Division were

withdrawn, and there was a circular sent to return all such

materials [Between the Lines p 137-138].

Similarly Chinese Premier Chouen-lai made it clear in April 1955

during Bandung Conference, that Chinas borders with

neighbouring countries had not yet been fixed.

8


9/36

BANGLADESH BORDERS:

The legacy of past not only haunts India and China, it also hurtsIndia and Bangladesh. There are 111 Indian enclaves in

Bangladesh and 51 Bangladesh enclaves in India. The legacy of

high stake card games between two kings, rulers of Cooch Bihar

and Rangpur within old Bengal State centuries ago where they

used estates as stakes when they ran out of cash, resulted in our

nation having Bangladesh enclaves and Bangladesh having our

enclaves. This is an issue, which had not been sorted out yet; it

applies to the Indo China border dispute.

The sudden raking up of a claim over Arunachal Pradesh by China

had created heartburns amidst Indian people. Indian people did

not expect that Chinese would go on digging a past, a creation of

colonialism, to put roadblocks to normalcy between two great

civilizations and countries. But whatever China does aims to cut

India down to size and to dwarf India as super power, eating into

its geo-political spheres of influence.

BUREAUCRATIC BLUNDERS

India had spent crores of public money to safeguard our borders;

thousands of our brave men have given their lives to secure our

borders. The War with our neighbour is not a footnote in history,

but a chapter of sacrifice made by our army men. The cat on the

wall Maharaja Harisinghs clan[ Dr.Karan Singh ] till today enjoyspatronage from the ruling establishment as reward for bartering

their loyalty to India. The Indian Army only needed a nod from

Indian Prime Minister at a crucial period of Indian history to drive

Pakistan out of Kashmir. The Indian Home Minister Sardar

Vallabai Patel was urging Indian Prime Minister to give green

signal to our Army Chief Major General Kariappa to secure

Hyderabad and Kashmir at one go. While Pandit JawaharlalNehru consented for army intervention in Hyderabad, which fell

for Indian arm in a day, hesitated to give his consent with regard

9


10/36

to Kashmir. This indecision resulted in ever bleeding never-ending

Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. It is not treason to

look back at history. This today BJP claims that nation had paidheavy price for Nehrus folly.

Similarly it is not a sin to pin point the blunders committed by our

bureaucrats. Only politicians are portrayed as villains but

bureaucrats enjoy immunity. This is bad practice. While workforce

of the country, the real masters in a democracy are subjected a

hire and fire policy, why not hire and fire policy be framed for

bureaucrats and only such a whip will make them deliver goodswithout delay to the people.

I reproduce a letter addressed by me to then Indian Prime

Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on 5.1.2004. His government did

not act norI hope any government by bureaucrats and for

bureaucrats will punish the guilty. But people of the country, the

supreme power in a democracy have the right to know where and

how it went wrong.

Honble Prime Minister of India Thiru.Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Respected Atalji

Subject: A white paper sought on the Kashmir issue to evolve

national consensus and fix responsibility for faulty maps

All Indians will echo your feelings with regards to the Pakistans

bartering away of Kashmiri territory to China, our neighbour. At

the moment out of the total area of 222.336 square kilometers of

Kashmiri state the possession is as follows:

Area of Jammu and Kashmir in possession of India:

101,387 square kilometers.

Illegally occupied by Pakistan:

78,114 square kilometers

10


11/36

Illegally handed over to China by Pakistan:


Illegal occupation of China and Pakistan:


All this is shown as total area of Jammu and Kashmir 222,336

square kilometers. This figure is shown from 1988/89 to 1999 in

all manuals brought out by the Ministry of information and

Broadcasting.

So while with spirit of nationalism and patriotism we are ready to

share your feeling of hurt for Pakistans handing over an area of

42,735 square kilometers to China. But let me request your office

to trace out my letter-dated 24.8.1999 in which I had complained

first about the following grave mistake.

I humbly submit that from the Source of INDIA: A REFERENCE

MANUAL 1953 brought out by the Publications Division of theMinistry of Information and Broadcasting in page 1. THE AREA

OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE WAS GIVEN AS 92,780

square miles which is equivalent to 240,300.20 square kilometers.

How could this become 222.336 square kilometers in 1988?

Pakistan holds 78,114 square kilometers. China owns 42,735

square kilometers. India owns 101,387 square kilometers. By

mistakes committed by our bureaucracy in preparing faulty maps,we have lost 18,036.20 square kilometers. Are we to take it for

granted that 18.036.20 square kilometers vanished into thin air?

Like Bermudas triangle in our earths oceans do we have a

Bermudas triangle in our Ministries, which had swallowed

18,036.20 square kilometers? Who is responsible for this? Who is

going to be held accountable for this? Are we going to find

scapegoats? Or whether The National Democratic Alliance

Government has the moral guts to fix the responsibility on the

11


12/36

Congress governments that caused this national loss to our

country?

While 1953 Manual says 92,780 square miles equivalent to

240.300.20 square kilometers, in 1960 Edition the area becomes

86,024 square miles equivalent to 222.802.16 square kilometers.

Official reference journal published by a Ministry of the

Government of India in 1960 at page 24-25, a district wise break

up of the area of Jammu And Kashmir State is given. The total of

this area arrives at a figure of 84,476 square miles, which is

equivalent to 218,792.84 square kilometers.

In 1964 Edition page 7 has a different story to tell. It contains two

different figures. In the column area figure a) shows 86,023

square miles equivalent to 222.799.57 square kilometers. Figure

(b) shows 56665 square miles, which is under Indian possession.

This amounts to 146,762.25 square kilometers? In 1965 Edition

page 7 changes over to 222.896.78 square kilometers? In 1966

Edition page 7 Area of Jammu and Kashmir once again changed to

222,800 square kilometers? In 1968 Edition page 8 area of

Jammu and Kashmir once again changed to 222,870 square

kilometers .In 1988-89 edition the area of Jammu and Kashmir

was shown as 222.236 square kilometers. In the very same edition

in a different page693, the area of Jammu and Kashmir was shown

as 222.236 square kilometers and a note inserted which stated

That this area includes 78,114 square kilometers under illegaloccupation of Pakistan, 5280 square kilometers illegally handed

over by Pakistan to China and 37,555 square kilometers illegally

occupied by China

12


13/36

THE OTHERSIDE

3.PRINCES & PARTITION: PEEP INTO PASTQ: Concept of Paramountcy and how Princely India came under

British umbrella ?

A:Lord Wellesley was Governor General of India between 1797 and

1805. In that eight years he concluded almost 100 treaties with

Indian princes. The concept of paramountcy led to the

establishment of Princely order in India. Wellesleys policy ofsubsidiary alliances was an umbrella thought brought princely

states in the defensive alliance and mutual guarantee. So when

India awaited Independence in August 15th of 1947, it had to break

its head over 564 princely states.

Q: When British Prime Minister Atlee announced the policy

decision on 20th February 1947 to withdraw from India by June

1948, what was the scenario in India ?

A: Let me quote The Times London Muslim separatism is

deriving encouragement from the language of the white paper.

The Princes started dreaming of Third Dominion. Winston

Churchill named it as Princestan. The Chancellor of the Chamber

of Princes Nawab of Bhopal asked the Princes not to immediately

decide joining Indian Constituent Assembly but to wait and watch.

Nawab of Bhopal inducted pro-Pakistani officials in the Secretariatof the Chamber. He made a Pakistani Mohammed Zafrullah as his

constitutional adviser. Indore was with Bhopal, Jodhpur too

joined the bandwagon.

With the blessings of Jinnah and with the backing of the Secretary

of the Political Department Sir Conrad Cornfield it seems Princely

India will be separate entity once India got independence.

13


14/36

Q: Among the princely states who declared independence first,

and who changed his colours like chameleon and headed a

committee to ban political parties that sought separatism ?

A: Diwan of Travancore Sir C.P.Ramasamy Iyer declared on May

9th of 1947 that on the lapse of Paramountcy on August 15th

simultaneously with the transfer of power to India, Travancore

would declare herself a free and independent State. The wily

Brahmin was arrogant that in Delhi he even declined the invitation

for lunch extended by Sardar Patel. Sardar Patel directly spoke to

the Maharaja over telephone in commanding tone. The question,who is standing in your way ? made the Maharaja shiver in fear

and he conveyed his decision to accede to India.

Q: How all the princely states were brought into the Indian

umbrella ? To whom the credit should go ?

A: Definitely not to Nehru. The credit to make 562 princely states

accede to India rests on the shoulders of Sardar Patel. In June1946 Patel spelt his policy: The time has arrived when it is

necessary for Indian people to deal with the States problem on the

basis of collective approach to the Princes as a whole and not to

fritter away their energies in isolated battles. Mountbatten too

facilitated by declaring separate negotiations with each and every

princely state is ruled out.

Q:Plundering natural resources and land scams are not new, evenin British India such things happened, and even in independent

India it continues, especially in naxal infected Bastar. Tell about

this ?

A: In September 1946, Bastar had a Raja who was a minor and

weakling and a foreigner as its Prime Minister. Bastar had and has

rich mineral resources. Then it was mortgaged to Hyderabad State

for a long lease. Patel took up the issue with the Political

Department of the British. He was told that as the guardian of the

14


15/36

minor prince, foreigner Prime Minister can enter into mortgaging

a whole state. Patel saw the Prince of Bastar and said I felt it was

a sin to make him sign such agreement. It was then that I wasmade fully conscious of the extent to which our interests were

prejudiced in every way by the machinations of the Political

Department and came to the conclusion the sooner we were rid of

these people the better. Their main aim was to further their

interests and to cause much damage to India as possible. I came to

the conclusion that the best course was to drive out foreigners

even at the cost of partition of the country.It was also then that I

felt that there was only one way to make the country safe and

strong.. and that was unification of rest of India.

Q: What did Dr.B.R.Ambedkar suggest when Partition became

inevitable ? What happened during partition ? What did

Ambedkar think on Gandhijis attitude at that time ?

A: Dr.Ambedkar proposed partition with complete transfer of the

population of the Hindus and Muslims from their respective zones

to avert blood shed. As he feared partition brought unprecedented

blood shed with mass exodus of 7.30 million Hindu and Sikh

refugees to India. Ambedkar felt why did Gandhi never went to

fast to prevent Partition, in spite of saying again and again that

India can be partitioned only over his dead body ?

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai

15


16/36

4. AUROBINDO BIRTH PLACE

CONTROVERSY

Archives of Dravida Peravai

Dravida Peravai N.Nandhivarman went to Calcutta in 1999 and

there presented a memorandum to then Chief Minister Jyothi

Basu dated 3rd June of 1999. Copies were marked to Comrade

Budhadeb Bhattacharya, Home, Information and Cultural Affairs

Minister, Honble Comrade Indrajit Gupta M.P, Honble Comrade

Somnath Chatterjee and Honble Comrade Debabrata Biswas M.P.

The letter in verbatim follows:

You might be aware that Calcutta High Court on 10th May 1999 has

passed an interim injunction in the writ petition No: 1035 of 1999

at the Court of Kalyan Jyothi Sengupta till next hearing in June in

the writ petition filed by Dr.Barin De against Sri Aurobindo

Bhavan.

Our party had the opportunity to go through the archival materials

with regard to the documents in the life and found that the

trustees of Aurobindo Ashram Pondicherry and their appointees in

the Aurobindo Bhavan at Calcutta have all along misled the West

Bengal Government and the followers of Aurobindo over the birth

place of Aurobindo. Before seeking a Government probe we are

reproducing from the Volume 1 of the Aurobindo Archives andResearch published in 1977 by Aurobindo Ashram Trust,

Pondicherry.

Documents in the Life of Aurobindo: Birth: 1.Aurobindos birth

date and time

15th August 1872, 24 minutes [ one danda= one ghatika] before sun

rise at Calcutta, with sun rise calculated at 5.40 AM, the time ofbirth is 5.16 AM local time or 4.52 AM Indian Standard Time.

16


17/36

A note from the files of Nolini Kanta Gupta :

Footnote: The exact time of Aurobindos birth is not known. Hewrites in About Astrology [Cent.Vol.17.page 288] of inability to

fix the precise moment of my birth. The above computations were

apparently made on the basis of recollection of a member of

Aurobindos family that he was born one danda before sunrise on

15th August 1872.

The above statement of the Americans in charge of the archives

department indicates that the Trustees are not aware of the exacttime of his birth. Similarly the following letters and proceedings of

the meeting of the sub-committee of the Aurobindo Centenary

committee also clearly reveal that the Trustees are not aware of the

exact birth place of Aurobindo. Let me quote all those letters and

proceedings:

2.When attention was drawn to several press enquiries

particularly in Bengal as to exact birth place of Aurobindo SrijutNolinikanta Gupta , Secretary of Aurobindo Ghose told PTI

Aurobindo was born in the house of Late Barrister Manmohan

Ghose , a close friend of his father Dr.Krishna Dhan Ghose. The

house was in the Theatre Road and the number being most

probably 4, we are not aware whether that house still exists or not.

A press release dated 2nd September 1949

Aurobindo Ghose was born in my fathers house at 237, Lower

Circular Road. In about 1879 my father moved to 4 Theatre Road.

Subsequently Mr.Byomkesh Chakraborti, Bar-at-Law occupied

237 Lower Circular Road and I believe it was purchased by him.

Later on Late Nalini Ranjan Sirkar purchased the property and put

up the new structure after demolishing the old. It is now occupied

by the Chinese Consul General.

17


18/36

Letter of Showlata Das [Mrs.Banbihari Das] youngest daughter of

Manmohan Ghose dated 11th June 1956.

4. Proceedings of the Meeting of the Sub-Committee of the

Aurobindo Centenary Committee held at 10.30 AM on Saturday

January 30 of 1971 at National Library, Belvdere, Calcutta-27.

The following members were present: 1.Surendra Mohan Ghose,

Chairman 2.Dr.Niharranjan Roy 3.Devi Prasad Bhaduri

4.K.N.Mukerjee 5.A.K.Ghose 6. Mrs. D.G.Keshwani 7.H.K.Niyogi

8.Kanti Chaudri, Member-Secretary

1. After long discussion on the various suggestions in regard to the

house in which Aurobindo was supposed to have been born, it was

decided as follows.

A] Arguments in favor of the present 237 Lower Circular Road

could not be sustained since this was originally 12 Lower Circular

Road, which came to be occupied by the Late Manmohan Ghosenot earlier than 1876.

B] According to the Bengal Directory 0f 1871 and 1872 , Late

Manmohan Ghose is shown as resident of 48, Chowringhee which

was part of then Ballard Building facing Theatre Road. It was

therefore; very likely that Aurobindo was born at this house which

on August 15th of 1872 was shown as the residence of the Late

Manmohan Ghose.

C] In 1872, according to Bengal Directory [Street Directory] No: 14

Lower Circular Road is also shown against the Late Manmohan

Ghose. But in the alphabetical list of residents of the same year

Manmohan Ghose is shown as a resident of 48, Chowringhee.

D] According to the same directory of 1873, the Late Manmohan

Ghose is shown as resident of 14.Lower Circular Road and not 12,Lower Circular Road which is now 237, Lower Circular Road.

18


19/36

2. The Ballards Building consisting of numbers 47, 48, 49 and 50

at the corner of Chowringhee and Theatre Road does no longer

exist, in fact a multi-storied building is under construction at thatplace. The question of acquisition of this property does not,

therefore arise.

3. But in 1879, the Late Manmohan Ghose rented No: 4 Theatre

Road [now No: 8, Theatre Road and continued to live there for

about fifteen years. It was in this house that Aurobindo passed a

number of his boyhood years from time to time; indeed it is the

only house on Theatre Road with which Aurobindo could beassociated for a considerable period of time. The committee

therefore requests the Government of India and the Government

of West Bengal who are now owners of No: 8, Theatre Road to

make over and dedicate this property to the nation in the name of

Aurobindo.

It is needless to reproduce entire proceeding but we have chosen

to reproduce in entirety because we want to establish that persons

connected with the Bhavan and the Trust in Pondicherry are

basing their claims on their assumption that from 1879 Aurobindo

lived in that house. Unfortunately to the Trustees, Aurobindo

himself in the book Aurobindo on himself and on the Mother

published by Aurobindo Ashram in 1953 in page 9 under the title

Early Life in England states while in India they were sent for

the beginning of their education to an Irish nuns school inDarjeeling and in 1879 he took his three sons to England.

It is thus crystal clear that Aurobindo had left to England on 1879

as per his own words and how come the sub-committee says that

he lived in this house from 1879. Based on this untruth the

committee and the trustees of the Bhavan and their parental trust

in Pondicherry had misled the West Bengal Government and are

responsible for waste of public money to proclaim a building as hisbirth place and are instrumental in getting Aurobindo Memorial

Act 1972 passed. The same coterie propped up by the Pondicherry

19


20/36

based Trust are aware of the truth and that may be the reason for

these groups to offer Aurobindo Bhavan for construction of a

commercial complex.

Our party urges the West Bengal Government to probe this matter

further and fix responsibility on those who have misled the West

Bengal Government and committed a fraud on the Government

and followers of Aurobindo Yours sincerely N.Nandhivarman,


THE TIMES OF India Calcutta in a report by Sudha G.Tilak dated13.06.1999 carried this news under the title FRESH DISPUTE

OVER AUROBINDO ABODE with due rebuttal by Himanshu

Niyogi , a senior member of Aurobindo Samiti who said such

controversies are raked by vested interests now and then.

20


21/36

THE OTHERSIDE

5. CONGRESS CULTURE BREEDSCORRUPT VULTURES

Indian Congress founded in 1886 was dilly dallying between

Dominion status, which meant independence with a common king

and independence with no such binding to a titular head. Only in

1930 it ended its vacillation and proclaimed independence as its

goal. After independence the purpose for which Congress partycame to the scene had successfully accomplished. Dr.Ambedkar

said Congress was like an army recruited not for the purpose of

carrying on Parliamentary democracy, but for the purpose of

carrying on political warfare against a foreign government. Seeing

this Mr. Gandhi very wisely suggested that the Congress be

dissolved and new political parties on party lines are formed for

conducting the Government. But leaders of the party were ready in

their tents with their clothes to take in their hands the reins of theGovernment. They refused to listen to Mr. Gandhis advice.

Q: Why Gandhi wanted the dissolution of the Congress once India

obtained independence? What made Gandhi suggest the

dissolution of the Congress party?

A: Andhra leader T.Prakasam went on collecting donations from

people and in many meetings purse was handed over to him,which became a debatable topic in the media. Mahatma Gandhi

without naming anyone in general wrote against the practice of

receiving purses from people in his magazine Harijan. Sardar

Vallababhai Patel wrote angrily to Mr.T.Prakasam and sought

explanation. Patel wrote it will set a bad precedent.

Mr.T.Prakasam replied that people willfully contributed to

compensate his sacrifices during freedom movement. SinceMahatama Gandhi condemned strongly Mr.T.Prakasam handed

over the money collected into the coffers of the Congress party.

21


22/36

Mahatma Gandhi wanted to write calling for expulsion of

Mr.T.Prakasam but was persuaded to drop that idea by Jawaharlal

Nehru and Patel. Konda Subba Rao, the whistle blower whobrought out this corrupt practice also wrote to Congress President

Rajendra Prasad. Congress President asked Congress Secretary

Shankar Rao Dev to probe the charges against Former Chief

Minister T.Prakasam and then Chief Minister Kumarasamy Raja.

Since he could not decide the matter it was handed over to a three

member committee comprising Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra

Prasad and Sardar Patel, who exonerated Mr.T.Prakasam and let

off other Ministers since they were not in office and thus closed

the chapter in February of 1950.

This one case itself justified the suggestion of Mahatma Gandhi

that Congress should be disbanded. Corruption was a matter

for party to decide and exonerate. This golden rule

enunciated by Nehruvian years was sincerely followed till SG scam

era. Sorry 2G scam era under Sonia Gandhis puppets governingIndia is what led to SG scam, Sonia Gandhi scams.

The Public Accounts Committee which unearthed the Jeep Scam

of then Defense Minister Krishna Menon, in its 9th report , told the

matter must be handed over to a single or plural judge and the

Nehru led Government of the day wrote on 1954 December 18 to

the Public Accounts Committee and urged to reconsider its

suggestion for judicial probe. When the Public AccountsCommittee stood firm, the Government of the day closed that file.

Thus Congress set another bad precedent by throwing

the Report of the Public Accounts Committee into

dustbin and made mockery of Parliamentary democracy.

In the famous Mundra scam, the enquiry commission headed by

Justice Chagla indicted Finance MinisterMr.T.T.Krishnamachariar and he had to resign, and while

accepting his resignation Jawaharlal Nehru gave TTK a conduct

22


23/36

certificate hailing his cleanliness, thus brushing aside a Report of

an Enquiry Commission. Thus Congress set up a third

precedent to throw enquiry commission reports intoarchives, which resulted in all political leaders inducted

by subsequent enquiry commissions getting away

without punishment.

Hence Mahatma Gandhis timely warning to disband Congress as

soon as independence was attained assumes significance.

Q: Nira Radia is now famous, Win Chadha was lobbyist in Boforsdeal, and the role of lobbyists wont end, Bofors story has lesions to

recall how it was clinched. Tell what happened in Bofors era,

keeping aside 2G era for few minutes away from your memory?

A: Let me quote with due thanks to legal luminary Ram

Jethmalani {Deccan Chronicle 8th June 2005]: Defence Secretary

Bhatnagar had several meetings, the first of which was on June 7,

1984. There were 4 competing suppliers in the field Sweden,United Kingdom, France and Austria. Naturally all these suppliers

could not be present in person to participate in the negotiations

with the Government of India. All of them acted through one

or the other agent. Only the British Government was

negotiating through its High Commission.

These countries had Consulate, Embassy or High Commission,

then why did they engage agents, you need not break your head,Congress culture of governance needs greasing so many

palms, and to do that dirty job agents were chosen, who

are capable of exploiting all the weaknesses of our

bureaucrats from lowest to the top echelons. It took a

heroine like Nirra Radia to expose this kind of governance.

Offers were invited in sealed covers by July 23 of 1984. After

negotiating committee held 14 meetings only by February 28 of

1985, final decision could be arrived. On that day Army short

23


24/36

listed French Sofma gun and Swedish Bofors gun. On May 1985

Defence Secretary Bhatnagar summoned the representatives of the

4 suppliers and told them that Government of India does not wantany Indian agents to be involved in the negotiations, and whatever

amounts are being paid to Indian agents by the supplier should be

reflected in the reduced prices. Till that time Bofors was

represented by their Indian agent Mr. Win Chadha, originally an

accused, but who died during the proceedings. No decision was

taken even up to the 18th meeting of the negotiating committee

which took place on December 1985. However the Army on

February 18th of 1986 informed the negotiating committee its

technical opinion in favor of Bofors gun. At the 20 th meeting of the

negotiating committee letter of intent was issued to Bofors on

March 14 of 1986. Few days before that on March 10th of 1986 in a

confirmation letter stated We hereby confirm that we do not have

any representative / agent specially employed in India for this

project. Indian Prime Minister Mr.Rajiv Gandhi who attended

the funeral of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme announced thedecision to buy Bofors gun on that occasion.

Q: Rajiv Gandhi cautiously avoided Indian agents but under

Manmohan Singhs rule lobbyists thrive, and his government taps

conversation, makes selective leaks to gain bargaining power for

electoral alliances, and works for corporate welfare, how do you

substantiate?

A: The basic price of Petrol is only Rs 28.93, whereas excise duty

of Rs 14.35, plus education tax of 0.43, dealers commission of

Rs.1.05, customs duty for crude oil Rs 1.1, VAT Rs 5.5, and

customs duty on petrol Rs.1.54, Transport Rs 6.00 makes up the

figure of Rs 58.90 per litre in India. In 2008 when petrol was sold

at Rs 50.64, in Australia equivalent of Rs Rs.31.99, Canada Rs

31.42, Pakistan Rs 36.09, in USA Rs 17.57, Malaysia Rs 30.12,

Saudi Arabia Rs 5.71, UAE Rs 15.95,New Zealand Rs 32.28, Qatar

Rs 9.82, Bahrain Rs 9.57 were the prices of per litre of petrol.

24


25/36

In 2010 Malaysia reduces petrol price from Rs.30.12 per litre to

Rs.20.99 and our neigbour Pakistan reduces from Rs 36.09 to Rs

31.43. The incompetent unintelligent Finance Ministers of thesecountries are reducing the burden on the consumer and Indian

Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee in this year imposed import

duty and excise duty, further thrown out petroleum prices from

government control to the play of market prices. This had hiked

petrol price, is one side of the story.

Comparing to other countries corporates in India pay less to

government to plunder natural resources like gas whereasconsumer, the citizen, so called Supreme power in a democracy is

burdened. That is why Sunday Indians Editor Arindham Choudry

says ours is not democracy but demonocracy. American President

Obama had said what exists in America is not peoples democracy

but corporate democracy.

After 2G scam of so called 1.76,000 crore unruly scenes were

witnessed in Orissa Assembly over 3, 00,000 crore mining scam.

Supreme Court raised the issue of how out of 341 mines 215 are

without valid lease or rights are operating in Orissa. Union

Government headed by Manmohan Singh and managed by Pranab

Mukerjee cannot brush this 3, 00,000 crore mining scam as that

happened under Biju Janata Dal rule.

As per government estimates there are 15,000 mines

operating illegally in various states of India with only

8700 legally functioning mines. The loot out of these

mines yet to be computed, and in our country .By illegal

mining corporates mint millions whereas consumers bear the

brunt of price rise. If these looters were taxed and if those

taxes are in proportion to their earning we need not hike

petrol prices or other essentials.

The iron ore exported by the year 2000-2001 was around Rs 358

crores whereas by 2008-2009 it went up to 21,725 crores. One ton

25


26/36

of iron ore was exported from 6000 to 7000 depending upon its

grade. The Lok Ayuktha of Karnataka Justice Santhosh Hegde

found out that government was getting royalty of Rs 16 to Rs 27per ton. In 2004, low grade iron ore per ton royalty to Karnataka

Government was Rs 4, high grade ore fetched Rs 27 per ton. As per

Karnataka government estimates extraction of per ton iron ore

costs Rs 150. Even if transport of Rs 250 is added plus royalty of

Rs 27, at port the price per ton was Rs 427, whereas export price

was equal to Rs 7000. Government was only getting Rs 27 per ton

allowing Reddy brothers to pocket huge profits. Santhosh Hegde

brought this out. The Planning Commission of India woke up to

this loot in 2005 and suggested that at least 10 percent of export

price should be taxed. The Manmohan Singhs clean government

waited for 3 years thinking how to subvert this suggestion of the

Planning Commission. The Ministry accepted the proposal mooted

by Planning Commission in 2009 August, but with a tactic.

Government appointed Indian Bureau of Mines to fix the export

price in order to calculate taxable royalty. Those officials fixed forlow/high grades export price at Rs 1760 and 1949, when actual

exports were ranging between 6000 to 7000. To fix 10 percent of

royalty for Rs 1760 and 1949 super brain of Pranab Mukerjee got

immense satisfaction. Even a child knows that exports are made

under Letters of Credit and once loaded in ship, the bill of lading is

given and these documents are produced in banks to negotiate

bills. If an idiot like me was Finance Minister, I would have

ordered for 10 percent deduction for royalty when banks negotiate

bills. Ordinary citizens taxes could be deducted, but how can

corporate be deducted, this government may argue. There is no

export duty for minerals but import duty for petroleum products.

If this being the case petrol prices have to go up, onion prices

should have wings to fly in sky, and our economist Manmohan

Singh will be proud of his governance.

26


27/36

Gandhi a prophet wanted Congress to be dismantled, and we are

paying the price since his own party had become a puppet of

plunderers and profiteers in the corporate world.

N.Nandhivarman, General Secretary, Dravida Peravai

www.dravidaperavai.org.in

53 b, Calve Subburayar Street

Puducherry 605001

[email protected]

27
http://www.dravidaperavai.org.in/mailto:[email protected]://www.dravidaperavai.org.in/mailto:[email protected]


28/36

DRAVIDIANS ARE NOT SONS

OF SOIL :JUDGES SPITVENOM

A criminal appeal No 11 of 2011 arising out of Special Leave

petition No 10367 of 2010 in Kailas and others versus State of

Maharashtra TR.Taluka P.S came up before Supreme Court Bench

comprising Justice Markandey Kutju and Justice Gyan Sudha

Mishra on 5 th January 2011. It relates to one Nandha Bhai, aged25 of Bhil scheduled tribe of Maharashtra who was beaten, kicked,

stripped and paraded naked in village road over an illicit

relationship with an upper-caste man. Four people were sentenced

to rigorous imprisonment of six months, one year and three

months in three instances and to pay a fine in each by Additional

Sessions Judge, Ahamadnagar under various provisions of Indian

Penal Code and under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribes[ Prevention of Atrocities Act] 1989.But in High Court they

were let off from the hook of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

28


29/36

Tribes [ Prevention of Atrocities Act] 1989 but confirmed

conviction under Indian Penal Code to enable them to pay fine of

Rs 5000 each to the victim. This matter came up for appeal inSupreme Court before the bench of Learned Judges, who instead

of limiting their judgment over legal issues had become historians

to declare that India is largely a country of immigrants. The Hindu

in its center page quotes these overnight historians and proclaims

A Supreme Court Judgment projects the historical thesis that

India is largely a country of old immigrants and that pre-

Dravidian aborigines, ancestors of present Adivasis, rather than

Dravidians were the original inhabitants of India. Dravidian

movement that rules Tamilnadu must debate this in the

Legislative Assembly and pass resolution condemning the

unnecessary attack uncalled for to denigrate the Dravidian history.

At least scholars should have ventured to criticize this part of the

judgment. If this goes unchallenged the Aryans would exploit this

as gospel.

Hindu law was not uniform for all Hindus and as such

codification was the only solution and necessity as it aimed at

consolidation of Hindu society felt Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. He strongly

felt that the present Hindu law was inconsistent with the

provisions of the article 15 of Constitution that birth shall not

discriminate any citizen on ground of birth. Hence his futile

attempt to introduce the Hindu Code Bill which was opposed by

Rajendra Prasad. Speaking in clause by clause discussion inParliament Ambedkar said The fact is that in this country

although religions have changed the law has remained one. As

early as 1930 the Privy Council in its judgment had lain down that

Sikhs were governed by Hindu Law. The application of the code to

Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains was a historical development to which

they could not give any answer. They could only change the law to

make it equitable whenever it went wrong. Dr.Ambedkar wouldnot agree to exclude Punjab from the purview of the Bill. I would

have the Code apply to whole of India or not at all he thundered.

29


30/36

Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru informed Ambedkar that

there is opposition both inside and outside to the bill, and the

Cabinet would discuss the matter in beginning of September 1951.Dr.Ambedkar was keen to pilot the bill before 1952 General

Elections. After passing 4 clauses of the Bill further consideration

of the Bill was dropped. So after 4 years I month and 26 days in

Cabinet, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar submitted his resignation as Law

Minister on 27th September of 1951. If Ambedkars vision of a

Uniform Code had been realized different Courts interpreting laws

in different manner and sympathizing with offenders of the

modesty of a woman would not have have happened.

Point 1 : While North America [ USA and Canada] has new

immigrants who came mainly from Europe over the last four or

five centuries, India is a country of old immigrants in which people

have been coming in over last ten thousand years or so. Probably

92 percent of the people living in India today are descendents of

immigrants who came mainly from the North-West and to a lesserextent from North-East. Since this is a point of great importance

for the understanding of our country, it is necessary to go into it in

some detail, opines Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan

Sudha Mishra.

The learned judges have based their opinion on wrong

foundations. They say of migrations over last ten thousand years

without extending their vision of human migrations from timesbeyond that.

African origins: Genetic Studies by geneticists most prominent

among them being Spencer Wells, author of Journey of Man claim

to have uncovered evidence based on blood samples taken across

the globe that all men who live today are descendents of a man

who lived in Africa 60,000 years ago. How did he arrive at such a

conclusion ? We started mapping the family tree of entire planettaking blood samples from every part of the world. We worked

backwards through elimination and matching and it was the strain

30


31/36

of Sangene that was most common across the planet. During the

worst period of Ice Age 60,000 years ago when the worlds

moisture was locked in giant glaciers causing intense draught inAfrica the first batch of Africans moved out.

www.bradshawfoundation.com website displays pictorial

explanation of human migration from Africa.

This theory says whole world migrated from Africa, and the claim

by learned judges that India had aborigines before migrations took

place stands demolished.

Gene markers from Trans-Pacific Nations : A genetic-

anthropological study by University of Madras jointly with

Madurai Kamaraj University aims at identifying genetic

polymorphisms among select populations to explain biological and

cultural aspects of ancient human migration and establish the

antecedents of communities in South India, the second continent

to be populated by man next to Africa.

Homo Floresiensis : Nature magazine in 2004 reported that on a

tropical island between Asia and Australia a race of people with

three and half foot height lived, and these new human species

were named Homo-Floresiensis. Nicholas Wade in his report

states: The little floresians lived on the island until at least 13,000

years ago, but they were not pygmy form of modern humans. They

were a downsized version of homo-erectus the eastern cousin of

Neanderthals of Europe who disappeared 33,000 thousand years

ago. Their discovery means that archaic humans who left Africa 1.5

million years earlier than modern people survived for longer into

recent times than was previously thought. The Indonesian island

of Flores is isolated and before modern times was inhabited by a

select group of animals that managed to reach it. These then

became subject to unusual evolutionary forces that propelled some

to giant size and reduced the size of others. The carnivorouslizards that reached Flores, perhaps on natural rafts became giant

sized and still survive although now they are confined mostly to

31
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/


32/36

the nearby island of Komodo- they are called Komodo dragons.

Elephants because of their buoyancy are surprisingly good

swimmers and those that reached Flores evolved to dwarfs fromthe size of ox. Previous excavations by M.J.Morewood a member

of the team that found little Floresians showed that homo erectus

arrived on Flores about 8,40,000 years ago as was evident from

crude stone tools. Presumably the descendents of the homo

erectus became subject to the same evolutionary forces that

reduced the size of elephants. The first little Floresian, an adult

female was found in September 2003 buried under the 20 feet of

silt that coats the floor of Liang Bua Cave in Flores. A team of

experts identified the skeleton which was not fossilized as a very

small but otherwise normal individual similar to homo erectus,

reports New York Times drawing substance from Nature

magazine.

Neanderthals and Homo erectus disappeared just before modern

humans arrived, and now findings point out to homo-floresiensis.Who is the immigrant who is not the immigrant, how can learned

judges debate and decide, when evolutionary history is still

shrouded in mystery. This makes us think why they chose to grant

immigrant status to Dravidians ? It is not a hidden secret.

The book Hidden History of Human Race pushes back the

horizons of our amnesia not just 12,000 or 20,000 years , but

millions of years into the past and showing everything we havebeen taught to believe about the origins of evolution of our species

rests on the shaky foundation of academic opinion and on a highly

selective sampling of research results. Cremo and Thompson, the

two authors of this book then set about putting the record straight

by showing all other research results that have been edited out of

record during the past two centuries not because there was

anything wrong or bogus about the results themselves but simply

because they did not fit with prevailing academic opinion.

Anomalous and out of place discoveries reported by Cremo and

32


33/36

Thompson in the Hidden history of Human Race include

convincing evidence that anatomically modern humans may have

been present on the Earth not just for 1,00,000 years or less [theorthodox view] but for millions of years and that metal objects of

advance design may have been in use at equally early periods.

Moreover although sensational claims have been made before

about out of place artifacts, they have never been supported by

such overwhelming and utterly convincing documentation as

Cremo and Thompson, writes Graham Hancock in his preface.

So on a question of human evolution when accepted theories areshaken by new discoveries, when human spread due to continental

drift had yet to be explained beyond an iota of doubt, learned

judges want to restrict historical enquiry to 10,000 years only and

confer immigrant status on Dravidians in order to hide the 1500

year old immigrants, so called Aryans.

If all continents had once been a super continent of Pangaea, all of

us should be immigrants. If Pangaea split into two super

continents, we should be immigrants from Gondwanaland. This

Tamil literature speaks as submerged continent of Kumari and in

locating that continent confusing theories existed. Now it is crystal

clear that submerged lands extend up to Pacific Ocean and gene

markers establish the continuity from South India to Australia and

Pacific ocean islands.

Point 2 : Learned Judges who learnt law , raised an unnecessary,

irrelevant question to the case they were dealing with, and

examined who were the original inhabitants of India ? as if it is

vested upon them to deliver their judgment. At one time it was

believed that the Dravidians were the original inhabitants.

However this view has been considerably modified subsequently

and now the generally accepted belief is that the original

inhabitants of India were the pre-dravidian aborigines , that isancestors of the present tribals or adivasis [ scheduled tribes].

33


34/36

Blood samples from three South Indian populations , the

Piranmalai Kallars, Yadhavas and Saurastrians all of whom live in

Madurai, the Azhagiri land, have showed up genetic markersidentical to those found in 10 percent of Malaysians, 15 percent of

New Guineans, and 60 percent of Australian aborigines evidence

which had not been obtained by archaeology so far says Professor

R.M.Pitchaiappan Head of the Department of Immunology ,

School of Biological Sciences. Madurai Kamaraj University. These

blood samples were collected from hill, coastal and plain based

communities like Piranmalai Kallars,Yadhavas, Saurastrians,

Moolakurumbas, Kurumbas, Irulas, Paniyas, Kotas, Thodas,

Kanikars, and Paravars. What has come as a surprise is nearly 50

percent of a 30,000 year old gene marker among Piranmalai

Kallars. The Yadhavas and Saurastrians possessed a 10,000 year

old gene marker. So instead of trying to look for immigrants from

North West, wherefrom Aryans came, the learned judges must

look for immigration from Pacific and Indian Ocean lands of

submergence. The gene markers of South Indian Dravidian peopleproves to be 30,000 year old and disproves the theory propounded

by learned judges that they are immigrants and not aborigines.

Now let us quote from passages of renowned scholars, which

speak Dravidians migrated to Australia .

Elkin [1938] : The available evidence points to Southern India as

their [ Australian aboriginals] hiving off ground.

Lockwood [ 1963] All Australian aborigines are supposed to be

descended from Dravidians who migrated about 15000 years

[ later research has pushed back this date to beyond 40,000 years

ago from India and Ceylon.

Aboriginal Australians have been in that continent for more than

40,000 years and though proto-australian language brought bythem into Australia millennia ago has now diversified into more

than 200 languages scholars like R.M.W.Dixon [ The languages of

34


35/36

Australia , Cambridge University Press, 1980] agree that all of

them still retain features of their original genetic unity. Dixon

points out that as regards of affinity of Proto-Australian with otherlanguage families of the world only the Dravidian suggestion

deserves to be taken seriously.

P.Ramanathan in his research paper raises a pertinent question to

which learned judges have to blink without proper reply. When

the Australian aborigines entered Australian continent more than

40,000 years ago the sea level was 400 to 600 feet lower than

now. The continental shelf now lying submerged under the sea wasthen part of the land mass and land areas of all continents were

larger, Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania were all comprised in

one big continent. Only a few miles of sea would have separated

Timor from that big continent. It is considered the ancestors of all

Australian aborigines entered Australia by catamarans and other

mode from Timor and Indonesian islands after crossing the

narrow sea in few hours. Once they entered Australia it is thoughtthat they were able to spread throughout Australia and Tasmania

within about 500 years as established by the archaeological

records. By 15000 B.C sea level rose about 200 feet. It further rose

and reached present levels by 6000 B.C. Thus Australia had been a

separate island continent for about 8000 years whose inhabitants

i.e aboriginals have had no contact with the peoples of anyother

continent since then. This was the position till Europeans

discovered the continent in 18th century.

If as assumed under the model of Dravidian Descent the proto-

Dravidians had left the near-east by 3000 B.C, and reached

Tamilnadu by 1000 B.C how could there be such remarkable

genetic similarities between Tamil on the one hand and the

Australian aboriginal languages on the other hand spoken by

people who were cut off from rest of mankind for 8000 years ?

asks P.Ramanathan.

35


36/36

So Dravidians migrated towards East, they are not immigrants

from East. If scholars establish that even Australian aboriginals

have descended from Dravidians, how come learned judges adopta policy to show Indian aboriginals as not belonging to Dravidian

family. May be the Aryan mind is disturbed over the fact they are

immigrants and wants to thrust that status on Dravidians and find

sadistic satisfaction. I could see neither logic nor legal compulsion

in judges choosing to interpret Indian history in a case which has

no relevance to this question.

Dravida Peravai condemns this portion of their judgment whereinthey have tried to heap insult to Dravidian history, and we thank

The Hindu dated January 12 of 2011 for having brought this fact to

light, for whatever reasons, and provoked the Dravidian spirit.

N.Nandhivarman
