Arise Bharat

Author : Jyoti Kothari

The Aryan–Dravidian divide is a theory that emerged during the colonial era, suggesting a significant racial and cultural distinction between the ‘Aryan peoples of northern India and the ‘Dravidian’ populations of the south. This concept was largely developed and propagated by British colonial scholars and administrators in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It was used to reinforce ideas of racial superiority, legitimize colonial rule, and later, influence identity politics in postcolonial India.

Robert Caldwell (1814–1891) was a British missionary and linguist. He authored A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages in 1856. In this work, he classified Dravidian languages as a distinct linguistic family separate from Indo-Aryan languages. Caldwell extended this classification to propose that South Indian Brahmins were of Indo-European origin, attributing to them “higher mental gifts,” while portraying non-Brahmin Dravidians as subjugated indigenous peoples. These claims laid the foundation for a racialized interpretation of Indian history.

Herbert Hope Risley (1851–1911), a British colonial ethnologist, further developed this narrative in The People of India (1908). He introduced anthropometric methods such as the nasal index to classify Indians into racial categories, suggesting that social hierarchy was linked to physical traits. He famously declared, “The social position of a caste varies inversely as its nasal index,” cementing a pseudo-scientific justification for social inequality.

Theories of Indo-Aryan migration and invasion suggested that light-skinned Aryans from Central Asia entered India around 1500 BCE, subjugating the darker-skinned indigenous Dravidian populations and driving them southward. These theories, based on misinterpretations of texts like the Rigveda and archaeological findings from Mohenjo-daro, have been largely discredited. Contemporary studies argue that these interpretations are simplistic and unsupported by robust evidence.

Modern scholarship critiques these colonial narratives. Genetic research by Harvard and Indian scientists shows a deeply intermixed ancestry among Indians, disproving the notion of two distinct racial groups. Cultural and linguistic evidence also reveals continuous interaction and shared development across regions, rather than civilizational rupture.

Indian scholars such as Dr. Prashant Barthwal argue that the Aryan–Dravidian divide was strategically deployed to fracture India’s cultural unity. He emphasizes the need to restore the concept of Akhand Bharat through the shared heritage of Sanatan Dharma, countering the divisive legacy of colonial historiography.

This broader reevaluation leads us to examine indigenous textual traditions, particularly Jain scriptures, which contain powerful testimonies that challenge the idea of an Arya-Dravida dichotomy. One of the most compelling of these is the story of Dravid and Varikhill.

The Story of Dravid and Varikhill: A Jain Refutation of Civilizational Divide

Among the hundred sons of Bhagwan Rishabhadeva, the first Tirthankara and Chakravartin of Bharatavarsha, the most celebrated are Bharata and Bahubali. However, Jain scriptures also describe ninety-eight other sons, along with two daughters, Brahmi and Sundari. Among those sons, Dravid and Varikhill play a significant role.

Before renouncing worldly life, Rishabhadeva divided his vast kingdom among his sons. The southern territories were assigned to Dravid, from whom the Dravidian lineage or tradition is believed to have emerged. This division is recorded in the Ādipurāṇa by Acharya Jinasena:

“द्राविडाञ्चापि देशं तमधिपत्यं ददौ नृपः” “To Dravid, too, the king gave sovereignty over the southern land.” (Ādipurāṇa, Parva 22)

Later, when Rishabhadeva attained Kevalajñāna (omniscience), he preached the path of renunciation. Upon hearing his discourse, Dravid, Varikhill, and the other ninety-eight sons renounced their kingdoms, accepted dikshā (initiation), and practiced asceticism. As a result of their austerities, they attained Kevalajñāna and ultimately liberation (moksha).

The Shatrunjaya Mahatmya describes this event:

“द्राविडो वारिखिल्लश्च पुत्रौ ऋषभपुंगवः। शत्रुंजयगिरौ रम्ये मुक्तिं प्रापतुरुत्तमाम।” 

“Dravid and Varikhill, sons of the noble Ṛṣabha, attained liberation at the beautiful Shatrunjaya mountain.” (Shatrunjaya Mahatmya, Chapter 5)

Acharya Hemachandra also affirms in Trishashti Shalaka Purusha Charitra:

“तत्रैव द्राविडो नाम पुत्रो’भूदृषभस्य च। स वारिखिल्ल इत्याख्यः पुत्रो’न्यस्तस्य धीमतः।” 

“There was a son named Dravid and another called Varikhill, both sons of the wise Rishabha.” (Trishashti Shalaka Purusha Charitra, Parva 1)

This story demonstrates that Dravid, from whom the southern tradition is believed to descend, was the son of the same enlightened patriarch as Bharata, thereby debunking the idea of separate civilizational origins.

Another compelling example of cultural unity is found in the Sakala Tirtha Namaskara Stotra, a Sanskrit Jain hymn that offers veneration to sacred Jain sites across the three worlds. This includes not only the north and central Indian tirthas but also the southern regions. Importantly, the lines referencing South Indian tirthas are spread across different verses of the stotra and not in a single shloka:

“कर्णाटे हेमकूटे …….” “सिंहले केरले वा …….” “सत्प्रयागे तिलंगे …….” “वरतर द्रविड़े …….”

These lines, though drawn from separate gāthās, clearly demonstrate that regions like Karnataka (Hemakuta, i.e., Hampi), Kerala, Telangana (Tilanga), and Dravida from the southern region, as well as Sri Lanka (Sinhala), were revered in Jain tradition as spiritual centers—alongside pilgrimage centers from the north, east, and west of India. This further confirms the deep cultural integration across regions and demonstrates how Jain spirituality unified the land, transcending any Arya–Dravida division.

Dravid Was an Ārya: Righteousness, Not Race

Understanding “Draviḍa” in Jain Tradition

The term “Draviḍa” (द्रविड) in ancient Jain literature refers to both a geographic region in southern India and a cultural-linguistic identity that predates modern Dravidianism. It is consistently used across Jain texts like the Ādipurāṇa, Tiloyapaṇṇatti, Harivamśa Purāṇa, and Trishashti Shalākā Puruṣa Charitra to denote southern territories allocated to Rishabhadeva’s sons or associated with key tīrthas.

In Jain cosmology and tīrtha geography:

• Draviḍa is not seen as separate or opposed to Bharata but as an integral part of it.
• Tīrthas like Madurai, Kanchipuram, Shravanabelagola, and Hampi lie within this Draviḍa region and are frequently referenced with reverence.
• The Draviḍa Janapada is also mentioned in Jain political narratives as a major center of dharma.

Etymologically, the word “Draviḍa” is used descriptively—much like “Ārya”—and not racially. It is simply one of the historic names for the southern zone of Bhāratavarṣa, deeply connected with Jain religious activity, temples, and tīrtha tradition.

Evidence from Jain Canonical Texts

Bhagavatī Sūtra (Vyākhyāprajñapti, Śvetāmbara Āgama): Mentions 25 Ārya deśas — sacred regions where the path of dharma, Śramaṇa tradition, and right conduct are prevalent. Draviḍa is explicitly included among these, along with Māgadha, Kosala, Avanti, Malava, Lāṭa, Kāśī, etc.

Nandī Sūtra and Anuyogadvāra Sūtra (Śvetāmbara): Reiterate the list of Ārya regions, and Draviḍa is named as a land of spiritual presence and tīrthas.

Tiloyapaṇṇatti (Digambara): While presenting Jain cosmography and tīrtha kṣetras, it also acknowledges Draviḍa as a sacred land within Bharata Kṣetra where the tīrtha tradition flourishes.

In Vedic, Jain, and Buddhist traditions, the term Ārya (आर्य) refers not to a race or ethnicity, but to a person of noble character, virtue, and spiritual elevation. Ārya is a qualitative adjective, applied to those who uphold dharma, regardless of region or appearance.

In the Vedic tradition, Ārya described those who were spiritually evolved, truthful, and disciplined (cf. Rigveda 7.33.3). In Buddhism, it referred to beings who had attained higher paths (e.g., “Arya-satya” or Noble Truths; cf. Dhammapada 270). In Jainism, the term is reserved for souls devoted to non-violence, truth, celibacy, and liberation (cf. Uttarādhyayana Sūtra 29.17).

Thus, King Dravid, son of Rshabhadeva, the first Jain Tirthankara, was by all definitions an Ārya. He renounced his kingdom, practiced asceticism, attained omniscience, and was liberated at a sacred Jain tirtha. He exemplified all the qualities of an Ārya. The term has nothing to do with skin color, caste, or regional identity.

Recognizing this overturns the colonial narrative of a racial Aryan–Dravidian divide. It affirms instead the unity of ancient Indian civilization, where nobility was measured by character, not by bloodline. The Jain narrative of Dravid and Varikhill serves as a powerful counterpoint to centuries of artificially constructed division.

Addendum: The Legacy of Colonial Politics

The Aryan–Dravidian divide was not confined to colonial scholarship. It was later politicized in independent India, especially in the south, where Dravidian movements mobilized around a perceived racial-cultural difference. This misuse of colonial theory fostered regional polarization and weakened India’s shared spiritual foundations.

Scientific Evidence: Genetic Disproof

Modern genetics, including studies by Reich et al. (2009 and Narasimhan et al. (2019, published in Cell), show that Indians share deeply mixed ancestry. These studies refute the invasion model and suggest gradual cultural integration, not racial replacement. This scientific lens confirms what ancient traditions always upheld: a civilizational continuum.

Migration and the Jain Cultural Bridge

The narrative of unity between North and South is further affirmed by the historical migration of Jain monks during the time of Acharya Bhadrabāhu, the last Śrutakevalī, approximately 170 years after Mahāvīra. A severe famine in Magadha led to a mass movement of monks, who traveled through Kalinga, Andhra, and Telangana, ultimately settling in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Some extended further to Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, Sindh, etc, while others remained in the Gangetic heartland (Bihar, Bengal, Uttar Pradesh).

This monastic movement, rooted in renunciation and ethical discipline, wove a spiritual thread across Bhāratavarṣa, linking Jain tirthas, teachings, and literary traditions from Draviḍa to Āryāvarta. It provides concrete historical support to the Jain spiritual narrative of cultural unity, as seen in the story of Draviḍ and Vārikhill.

Concluding Reflection

This chapter demonstrates how both textual and geographic evidence from Jain tradition dismantles the colonial Aryan–Dravidian construct. Rather than two separate civilizational entities, the spiritual lineage of Rishabhadeva and the veneration of tīrthas across all directions reveal a shared dhārmic heritage that transcends fabricated boundaries.

References and Citations

• Caldwell, Robert. A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages, 1856.
• Risley, Herbert Hope. The People of India, 1908.
• Bhagavatī Sūtra (Śvetāmbara Canon)
• Nandī Sūtra and Anuyogadvāra Sūtra (Śvetāmbara Canon)
• Tiloyapaṇṇatti (Digambara Canon)
• Ādipurāṇa by Acharya Jinasena
• Trishashti Shalākā Puruṣa Charitra by Acharya Hemachandra
• Shatrunjaya Māhātmya (various editions)
• Sakala Tīrtha Namaskāra Stotra (Traditional hymn)
• Reich, David et al., 2009. “Reconstructing Indian Population History.” Nature
• Narasimhan, Vagheesh et al., 2019. “The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia.” Cell
• Dhammapada (Verse 270)
• Rigveda 7.33.3
• Uttarādhyayana Sūtra 29.17
• Organiser Magazine: “The False Aryan–Dravidian Divide”
• Times of India: “Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study”
• AryaSamajBangalore.in, WisdomLibrary.org, Dharmapedia.in

Source