THE OTHERSIDE of

Indian History

N.Nandhivarman

General Secretary Dravida Peravai

1
 1.Hidden history unmasks …… Nehru
Quite some time since my series of blogs on Aurobindo Ghose
stopped 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 Gandhi’s 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 governing
the 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 them think for
themselves 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
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 for
Vyasa, 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 of

Dr.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 died
and was not replaced. One was away in America and his place was
not filled up and another person was engaged in State Affairs and
there 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 having achieved this task in a manner which is
undoubtedly commendable”

3
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 on
the 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 Nehru’s response to Dr.Ambedkar’s

request to buy 500 copies of his book for libraries ?

A: Ambedkar thought Jawaharlal Nehru will buy atleast 500

copies for libraries and distribution to scholars who would be
attending the Buddha’s 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
2.CHINA : THORN TO INDIA’s EXISTENCE
India’s foreign policy makers must watch the Chinese moves in
each 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 China
obtaining 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 of
Bengal. 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 the
Financial 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 China’s share of fewer than 4 percent.” Hence China

5
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 SDR’s 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 2
trillion are held in dollar asset. The SDR exchange rate is a
weighted average of exchange rates of the major convertible
currencies. Accordingly under Zhou’s proposals, China and other
countries could convert their reserves from dollars to SDR’s 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 which
has 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 to

the territorial integrity of India or is China, the aggressor who

6
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 Srilanka’s 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
Buddha’s 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 India’s 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 nation’s 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 time
a colony of China will only get conduct certificates from
Communist parties and not from Indians with common sense

7
Borders and Boundaries: Follies galore
India must publish maps showing Tibet as independent country
under 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 India’s 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 naïve student of
cartography 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 of
the 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 Chou–en-lai made it clear in April 1955

during Bandung Conference, that China’s borders with
neighbouring countries had not yet been fixed.

8
BANGLADESH BORDERS:

The legacy of past not only haunts India and China, it also hurts
India 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 Harisingh’s clan[ Dr.Karan Singh ] till today enjoys
patronage 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 Jawaharlal
Nehru consented for army intervention in Hyderabad, which fell
for Indian arm in a day, hesitated to give his consent with regard

9
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 paid
heavy price for Nehru’s 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 goods
without 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.

Hon’ble 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 Pakistan’s
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
Illegally handed over to China by Pakistan:
42,735 square kilometers

Illegal occupation of China and Pakistan:

120,849 square kilometers

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 Pakistan’s 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 the
Ministry 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 Bermuda’s triangle in our earth’s oceans do we have a
Bermuda’s 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
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 illegal
occupation of Pakistan, 5280 square kilometers illegally handed
over by Pakistan to China and 37,555 square kilometers illegally
occupied by China “

12
THE OTHERSIDE

3.PRINCES & PARTITION: PEEP INTO PAST

Q: 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. Wellesley’s policy of
subsidiary 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 Secretariat
of 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
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 June
1946 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, even
in 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
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 was
made 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 Gandhiji’s 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
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, Hon’ble Comrade Indrajit Gupta M.P, Hon’ble Comrade
Somnath Chatterjee and Hon’ble 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 and
Research published in 1977 by Aurobindo Ashram Trust,
Pondicherry.

Documents in the Life of Aurobindo: Birth: 1.Aurobindo’s 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 of
birth is 5.16 AM local time or 4.52 AM Indian Standard Time.

16
A note from the files of Nolini Kanta Gupta :

Footnote: The exact time of Aurobindo’s birth is not known. He

writes 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
Aurobindo’s 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 exact
time 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 Srijut
Nolinikanta 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 father’s 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
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 Ghose
not 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
2. The Ballard’s 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 that
place. 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 be
associated 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 nun’s school in
Darjeeling 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 his
birth place and are instrumental in getting Aurobindo Memorial
Act 1972 passed. The same coterie propped up by the Pondicherry

19
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,
General Secretary Dravida Peravai

THE TIMES OF India Calcutta in a report by Sudha G.Tilak dated

13.06.1999 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
THE OTHERSIDE

5. CONGRESS CULTURE BREEDS

CORRUPT 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 party
came 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 the
Government. They refused to listen to Mr. Gandhi’s 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. Since
Mahatama Gandhi condemned strongly Mr.T.Prakasam handed
over the money collected into the coffers of the Congress party.

21
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 who
brought 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 Gandhi’s puppets governing
India 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 Accounts
Committee 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 Minister
Mr.T.T.Krishnamachariar and he had to resign, and while
accepting his resignation Jawaharlal Nehru gave TTK a conduct

22
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 into
archives, which resulted in all political leaders inducted
by subsequent enquiry commissions getting away
without punishment.

Hence Mahatma Gandhi’s timely warning to disband Congress as

soon as independence was attained assumes significance.

Q: Nira Radia is now famous, Win Chadha was lobbyist in Bofors

deal, 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
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 want
any 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 20th 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 the
decision to buy Bofors gun on that occasion.

Q: Rajiv Gandhi cautiously avoided Indian agents but under

Manmohan Singh’s 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, dealer’s 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
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 these
countries 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 whereas
consumer, the citizen, so called Supreme power in a democracy is
burdened. That is why Sunday Indian’s Editor Arindham Choudry
says ours is not democracy but demonocracy. American President
Obama had said what exists in America is not people’s 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
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 27
per 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 Singh’s 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 for
low/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 citizen’s 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
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

dravidaperavai@gmail.com

27
DRAVIDIANS ARE NOT SON’S
OF SOIL :JUDGES SPIT
VENOM

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, aged
25 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
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 in
Supreme 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 in
Parliament 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 would
not 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
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 Ambedkar’s 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 lesser
extent 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 times
beyond 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 planet
taking blood samples from every part of the world. We worked
backwards through elimination and matching and it was the strain

30
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 in
Africa 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 carnivorous
lizards that reached Flores, perhaps on natural rafts became giant
sized and still survive although now they are confined mostly to

31
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 from
the 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 have
been 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
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 [the
orthodox 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 are

shaken 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 is
ancestors of the present tribals or adivasis [ scheduled tribes].

33
“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 markers
identical 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 people
proves 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 by
them into Australia millennia ago has now diversified into more
than 200 languages scholars like R.M.W.Dixon [ The languages of

34
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 other
language 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 was
then 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 thought
that 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
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 adopt
a 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 wherein

they 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

General Secretary Dravida Peravai

36