Why didn't Dravidian separatism ever take off in British India?

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,865
India
:) And they are all written differently. That creates a problem.That is a long-haul but certainly commendable. That will free us from the problem of many scripts. Perhaps that will bring different languages closer. At the moment what is written in one language is Greek to the person of some other language. Take for example Hindi, Marathi and Gujarati. We can have at least some idea of what is written even if it is not in our own language.Yeah, I agree that they are working out nicely.
I think Roman Script is doing these thing today. Kannada and Telugu script almost identical actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aupmanyav
Apr 2019
410
India
So, are you implying that North Indians are to be blamed for not accepting Urdu. Urdu is the Indian heritage but doesn't mean that others have to suck to it to show their secular credentials. If the Muslim elites of that time had problem with Hindus preferring Sanskritized Khariboli, then it was their problem, a small minority can't impose their wish on the majority.

Beside, a typical Indian leftist would talk about everything caste system, European exploitation of India but would start name calling when they talk about Persecution of Hindus by Muslims or Christians.
It is not even question of minority or majority but the truth. The truth is India needs Sanskritized language to bring people from different states like UP, Bihar, WB, Orissa, Gujrat, MP, Maharashtra, Andhra, Kerala, Karnataka etc closer. It will also be helpful for kids to read and understand ancient texts. Sanskrit was lingua franca of Inda. We don't need to get closer to Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran or Arabia at all. Urdu is already a scheduled language of India and it's duty of it's native speakers to preserve it. Sanskritized Hindi is already ridiculed in popular media and Bollywood movies.

Since the separatism advocated first by E.Ramaswamy Naicker, the founder of Dravida Kazhagam has petered out altogether by now, there's no point in having a common script for all the Indian languages. Things are working out fine,as they are.
My suggestion was not out of fear at all but for convenience. It will make every Indian language more accessible to the readers. It will help us reading sign boards in every state. It will give us a sense of unity.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
Dravidian ideology has no taker among Telugus, Kannadigas and Malayalis, Dravidian ideology consider Tamil as a mother civilization. .. Dravidian ideology also have a strong anti-Hindu pitch, that's too wasn't successful.
Ah yes, whichever Dravidian party gets power in Tamilnadu, it has to align with one or the other National party at Center.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,865
India
Ah yes, whichever Dravidian party gets power in Tamilnadu, it has to align with one or the other National party at Center.
Internal politics of Tamil Nadu is not pro to any national parties and its high unlikely any national party going to get space in recent future. While other south Indian states show no resemble with Dravidian politics of Tamil Nadu. Kerala is communist leaning, politics in Karnataka is far identical to North India and pro-Hindu leaning.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,865
India
It is not even question of minority or majority but the truth. The truth is India needs Sanskritized language to bring people from different states like UP, Bihar, WB, Orissa, Gujrat, MP, Maharashtra, Andhra, Kerala, Karnataka etc closer. It will also be helpful for kids to read and understand ancient texts. Sanskrit was lingua franca of Inda. We don't need to get closer to Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran or Arabia at all. Urdu is already a scheduled language of India and it's duty of it's native speakers to preserve it. Sanskritized Hindi is already ridiculed in popular media and Bollywood movies.
You are right, Kannada and Telugu shows far closer resemblance to North Indian languages due to their Sanskritized vocabulary, if you know Sanskrit you can pick these two languages extremely fast.

Urdu was an invented language, the pidgin of Khariboli and Persian was experimented during Shah Jahan time for entertainment purpose and initially used by dancers and musicians, poets of Mughal, it didn't develop in market place or Bazaar. Even Amir Khusrou poem has negligible Persian words and sounds identical to Hindi we speak today.

As a native Hindi speaker I can tell the kind of Persian loaded Hindi that is used in bollywood sounds quite unnatural. Although in recent years, Bollywood and even TV soaps are switching towards different local variations of Hindi from UP, Bihar, MP, Rajasthan and Haryana, listening to them looks far more satisfying than listening to Persian loaded un natural Hindi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rvsakhadeo

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,795
SoCal
these hindutvas dont actually know a lot of indian history, their views are mainly from hindu nationalist POV from RSS, they understand what RSS tells them to believe.

actually the pashtuns or the KPK had a long history with the NW indian regions, and a synchronized culture, even thousands of years ago, it was hub of gandhara civilization, after that the region was dominated by hindu shahi kingdoms, and then the muslims and then sikhs or ranjeet singh empire or the durrani empire, the region always remained under one dominion one way or another.

balochistan too was mostly under the indian influence, the parata rajas of central asia used brahmi script in their coins, the sindhis ruled parts of it under the chachs, until the arabs came and ruled the entire region, balochistan had no sparate history until probably the end of mughal period when they became independent, the east balochistan history was always tied with the sindh region.

balochistan and few parts of sistan were always considered frontier regions of indian subcontinent, and these were confirmed by chinese traveller accounts like xuanzhang, arab accounts as well.

the north east india though was a different story, majority of which had nothing to do with india upuntil the british conquest, the nagaland, mizoram etc had esp no history with india, only tripura, manipur had hindu missionaries running around in the seventeenth or eightenth century but thats about it, sikkim as well was probably tibetan area which was conquered by the brits, the only land in NE india which might be minutely related to india would be assam, and even assam was conquered by th e british from sino tibetan ahom rulers which were ruling it for atleast six hundred years.

regards
What about Afghanistan? Was it historically perceived as being historically and culturally connected with India?
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
i cannot speak for afghanistan only the part still with pakistan, afghanistan was also not a homogenous country, its western, northern most parts are mostly non pashtun

but present day KPK, was always connected to india, including kabul valley and cities like kandahar etc

regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,795
SoCal
i cannot speak for afghanistan only the part still with pakistan, afghanistan was also not a homogenous country, its western, northern most parts are mostly non pashtun

but present day KPK, was always connected to india, including kabul valley and cities like kandahar etc

regards
What does KPK stand for?