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 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. 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 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 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 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].
“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 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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment