Topic started by Mani (@ spider-wc041.proxy.aol.com) on Thu Nov 9 19:21:56 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

Let us discuss the warriors, kings, etc.

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: Goyikama (@ cache-mtc-ah06.proxy.aol.com) on: Sun Jul 6 13:48:26 EDT 2003
  
  Yes, Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu (mentioned as Dravidas) are all mentioned in the Mahabharata.
  
  The earliest mention of Andhras is in the Aitareya Braahmana
  
  
• From: Sepala Illangakone (@ 203.115.31.44) on: Tue Jul 8 01:43:54 EDT 2003
  
  Dravida means also Panchadravida Brahmanas who lived south of Narmada.
  It also meant just any person living in south india.All Dravidas are implied in Puranas and 2 great Epics like later addition to Hinduism as speaking in Prakrit or Sanskrit like language.They were not Mlechchas who spoke an unintelligible language.
  
  
• From: Anup (@ tc03.lib.sunysb.edu) on: Fri Oct 22 17:15:25
  
  I believe I am posting in this forum after more than a year since the last post and so reviving it. Anyway, I wanted to mention a couple of points wrt to what has been posted by R Sri Hari. I feel a distinct line has to be drawn between what is the realm of earlier ages and civilizations pre-3500 to 3100 BC and the present that developed after that period. The Mahabharatha was at the very fag end of the latter around 3200 to 3100 BC, literally scores of theoretical eveidences prove - like astronomical ones.
  
  Though practically things are so bleak and vague rather than conclusive in India, once we go beyond 3000 BC. So while theres a paucity of evidence in favour, there is also a lack of counter evidence. The most original versions of the Mahabharatha that are very few, do mention the Cheras, Pandyas and Cholas, but not the Andhras, Karnatakas, Hunas, Kushanas and Greeks -none of these people who either developed indigenously or came into the India only in the last few centuries are mentioned in several of the versions - incl the most original ones.
  
  One cannot discount the very obvious possibility that these and many other such names were introduced into the Epic over the millinia by various writers, poets and all sorts of people. So its a sort of Khichdi that we are talking of here. If one were to look up other versions of the Epic, one would come across many new tribes as also not see many of the hitherto mentioned ones.
  
  But I know that the most traditional versions of the Epic do mention the three Dravidas and also that they were the only three dynasties not to participate in the War, instead looking after the food arrangements of both the Armies. Even the Ramayana mentions the Cheras, Pandyas and Cholas besides Ravana as the Dravidas, who then seemed way more advanced than the non-Dravida people outside the South.
  
  
• From: davie (@ ctise4) on: Tue Oct 26 03:43:01 EDT 2004
  
  DRAVIDIANS WERE KINGS
  I CAN MENTION MANY DRAVIDIAN KINGS
  NAIKERS RULED THE SOUTH
  PALLAVAS RULED THE SOUTN
  
  So, dravidians were also kshatrias coz regarding south dravidians are the kings. We will be always.
  ha.
  
  
• From: Nedunchezhiyan (@ ac9456d6.ipt.aol.com) on: Wed Oct 27 09:22:44 EDT 2004
  
  Thamizhans ruled many countries. Thamizh civilizations were established in Lemuria (Kumarikkandam) and in Chinthu Valley. Then after the Aryan Invasions, Thamizhans formed three Dynasties namingly, Chera, Chozha, Paandy. Then After Thamizh Academy Times the Thamizh Nadu fell in the hand of Pallavars but Paandy Naadu was still in the hand of Thamizhars. Then Chozhars rose again and defeated pallavars and united TN and then defeated most of the places in so called India. They even defeated the Chalukiyars and made a big war with Kalingam and captured South East Asian countries like Malysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, Sumatra, Phillipines, Singapore and so on. They also captured Eezham (Sri Lanka and Thamizheezham) and the Chozha Empire remained for 200 years before the Paandyars and Chozhars had an inside fight which ended up collapsing the whole Empire.
  
  
• From: Nedunchezhiyan (@ ac9456d6.ipt.aol.com) on: Wed Oct 27 09:24:11 EDT 2004
  
  Then Chozha Empire started to shrink in size and then remained until it became extinct up until 200-300 more years. Then Thamizh Nadu became slaved to Nayakkars after small Thamizh Kings gave their power to 'Vijaya Nagar' King to join and defeat Islam Invasion. Then after Nayakkar the British came in rule and then Thamizh Nadu was united in the so called Indian Union and was handed to the hindis rule. The Thamizheezham was given to Singhalese by British. Then there were agitations in Thamizh Nadu but it didn't get big since Thamizhans there have a little power of state to dream of, the people also have to worry about their family and things so Rebellion couldn't rise. Then in Thamizheezham it had to since Thamizhans were totured in all ways. First it became as a political agitation then to arm struggle and now with 70% of Thamizheezham under the hand of LTT. We are almost near to gaining an Independant country for Thamizhans in the land of Thamizh and Thamizhars.
  
  
• From: davie (@ tandon-lpt) on: Fri Nov 19 04:36:55
  
  
  
  
• From: davie (@ e228-013.ecc.utep.edu) on: Fri Nov 19 06:05:57 EST 2004
  
  south indian kings respected sanskrit and tamil equally
  different castes in india represent different groups.
  So called SC STs and categorization of castes was done while framing indian costitution. Brahmi9ns should
  
  not be rated as FC. They are not superior. Similarly vanniars should not be classified as SC. coz
  
  vanniars are just like any other caste in TN. These are errors while framing new indian constitution
  
  Shudras are business men
  Brahmins are priests
  Khastrias are warriors
  vaishyas are business men
  caste was not based on color
  
  only because of this brahmins in south india look exactly the same as non brahmins
  
  

Want to post a response?