Topic started by Arjun (@ 194.75.128.2) on Mon Oct 16 06:55:38 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

The Tigalas of Karnataka who originally were from Tanjavur worship Yudhishtira or Dharamaraja and Draupadi.
Some even call them as the descendents of Pandavas.
Is this true and if true can it be concluded that Pandavas were actually Dravidians and the Kauravas were North Indians?.
The traits of North Indians matches more or less with the Kauravas.
Any inputs?

Responses:

• From: Arjun (@ 194.75.128.2) on: Mon Oct 16 07:44:10 EDT 2000
  
  Sorrry my mind was slightly disturbed when I posted this.
  APOLOGY .
  
  
• From: Srinivasan (@ hse-toronto-ppp185930.sympatico.ca) on: Sat Sep 14 18:09:19
  
  Hai!
  
  This response is from me and your question on Panadavas and Kauvravas
  
  A very ineresting question
  
  One can trace the history from Kandhari the blind man's wife. She was the princess of Kandhari, a place that is still famous today on account of Daliban in Afganistan. I need not to explain their relationships to each other. All Hindus are to understand it. Kauvravas were from today Afgainstan and even most of our north Indians brothers are their descendants with people from Iran, Iraqis and Turgs plus little European orgins. Whereas the Pandavas were the local people. Mahabharatha was a stupid example on war between locals and infiltrating from outsiders like Kauvravas. During that time the marriages took place between these two peoples- i.e immigrants and locals.My advise is that donot take everything what are written in M/Bharat were true and factfull. On the other hand that it may reveal little truth about the war between locals and immigrants when there was no concept of India or Bharath as a country. The concept of Bharath was established in Hindu epics like Mahabharath and the concept of India was contributed by English.Whatever written in Hindu epics were not all true .People were living in the regions of today pakistan, Afganistan and Panjab at the time of M/B war where there was nothing mentioned in other parts of the world and their connections.This was same with the the Ramayan. It was an idleal example on war -literary war between locals and immigrants. When Rama came to southern part of India he didnot find not even honourable human kinds equalto him. How was that possible that he didnot find humans. If you traces the histories of civilization, the human settlements were took place on the shores of seven ocean. If that was the fact that how was that there was no people in southern India when Rama came there. This was an calculated attack by the then immigrants on locals. If you take Lord Krishna, Rama that they were appearing with dark skinned person. It meant that they were locals with dark skin.In the same way the Pandavas. They were all locals whereas the Kauvravas were the immigrants from central Asia. If you call them Arya, Left to you. The story of Ramayana took place just before 1 or 2 centuaries before the Arrival of Alexander. Even there was nothing mentioned and evidence during the period of Ashokas. Even that time there was no caste and communities was too important. There was nothing mentioned about Hinduisms. What was mentioned in ourHindu religious holy books were about the diffrence of people between immigrants and locals and they were trying to shown us in the form of Hindu epics. The term Arya was indicating that they were all once an immigrant called Mahajans in India or Mahajirs in Pakistan . Likewise the term Dravidas were the locals with skin color of balck or brown or blueish yellow of mangolian orgins or Indian Aborgins. Since the distinctively colored new immigrant came to live to a prosperous land from an arid areas, they did not like to mingle with the locals and wanted to show the importance of their colored skins. Whether you are colored or non colored or blue or yellow colored person, what was indicated was about their orgins. In the same way Pandavas were locals and the Kauv were immigrant groups who wanted to suppress the locals. My advise is that donot take the lineancy of these two. Both were the faulse propaganda. What is to understand was that there was two set of people. If you are proud of mentioning like Aryas, you feel after reading this bad. Because most of the Aryans and their homeland is todays Iran, Iraq and Afganistan but they were trying to claim that they are all descendant of Europeans.There was no evident fo this claim. Rather they were more evidence for later case. Likewise Dravidians, they were senior to Aryans in the land mass of India came from all walk of life and earth to this great land mass and they established that they were the real locals and Aryans were the immigrants. Lord Krishna, Rama, Budha whomever you called they were all localstribes who were all distinctive from Aryans.For an example if the middle east countries offering citizenships to working mass, what will happen after few years. Immigine that loval Arabs become minority and the Indian become majority and they will say that they were all originals of Arab land. In the same way it took place that Aryan became the land owners of India since the influx of Aryans was too high. I mean immigrants from Afgan, Turg, Iran, Iraqis, etc. My answer to you is that Pandavas were the locals and the Kauv were the immigrants. Our most of the north Indians were the descendants of these immigrants.
  
  Contact me if you find difference of oppinions
  
  Yours
  
  SRinivasan
  Email: mulsen51@hotmail.com
  
  
• From: Ashok (@ 12-226-20-115.client.attbi.com) on: Sun Sep 15 04:20:26
  
  Kauravas and pandavas were cousins (dad's side) how does that have anything to do with two different "groups". Gandhari was never depicted as an evil person neithr was dasharat, only the kauravas were therefore it was not a war between any two different kinds of people. they were the same family. (this is if you go by mythology), which is what you are goign by when you bring this whole thing up. The mahabharat war is ntohing between "dravidians" and "aryans" (quotes because none such distinction exists.
  
  
• From: Ashok (@ 12-226-20-115.client.attbi.com) on: Sun Sep 15 14:45:27
  
  >>neithr was dasharat<<
  
  oops should have read dhritharashtra
  
  
• From: Shankar (@ globalc27.citicorp.com) on: Thu Sep 19 12:08:29
  
  Dear Mul Sen,
  
  Just a point to note: I want to argue only intellectually. I am not interested in abusing anybody nor would like others abuse me. Let us use this forum for some meaningful discussion and get clarity on our ideas.
  
  Thanks
  
  
  
  1) It is wrong to say that nothing was mentioned about other regions. In fact, almost all the major kingdoms including South-east asian kingdoms, Tamil kingdoms, Roman emperors etc have been mentioned in MB.
  
  
  2) Just because, Gandhari is from Afghanistan, it does not mean that Kauravas are from Afghan state. In any case it is wrong to compare the interactions across kingdoms with the current state of geographical map. In those days, the three Tamil kingdoms & the Pallavas were always fighting with each other and there was considerable animosity between them. Now we cannot apply the same attitude towards each other.
  
  
  3) Don't confuse Mahajans with Mohajirs. Mohajirs are actually refugees who migrated from India to Pakistan at the time of partion. It would be complete foolishness to identify as one and same.
  
  
  4) Pandavas are supposed to be begotten by Kunti with the help of 5 Super Devas (actually not a taboo those days). I am not sure if dravidians are ilegitimate children.
  
  
  5) Aryans don't claim to be Europeans. They are actually later migrant groups from Central Asia. The original migrants into India were the Dravidians who moved from the same central Asia.
  
  
  6) How is it that you calculated the Epic events happened just couple of centuries before Alexander came to India. But exacavations in Dwaraka seem to suggest that the City was submerged by Sea almost 2800 before alexander came. Pls. note that this event is recorded in the epic MB.
  
  
  7) Color was not the demarcating factor. But it was basically the occupation which divided the classes.
  
  
  8) It could be true that Ashoka's edicts does not talk about Hinduism. But the religion he followed namely Buddism, has many scripts dating before Ashok that argue with the hindu philosophy in an intellectual fashion.
  
  
  my email id is shankar_subbu@indiatimes.com
  
  

Want to post a response?