Talk:Yakshagana

---

Hi It is great that I find the description of Yakshagana and Hulivesha etc,. It would be nice to know when and where the performance is? or e-mail address to the groups to find out their performance schedule. Thanks bjr

Image

I am adding the same image I found in Mangalore page. If anyone have better image please post it. --Shivu 08:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Dravidian topics template

It is pointless to remove the Dravidian topics template for personal reasons and I know why you removed it. Wikipedia is not for one person, but for everybody. It would be up to Administration to decide whether or not to remove this. Removing the template and stating that Yakshagana has lot of things in common with "North Indian" topics too is like removing a Khmer topics template for a Cambodian dance and stating that it has a lot of things in common with Chinese dance even though its roots are Khmer. Now I have personally created a Yakshagana page without knowing there was already one created. I have even went to the library to check out a book on Yakshagana to add to Wikipedia. It was a wonderful learning experience to discover that the Kannadigas have a classical dance since not much is heard about it, as well as the rest of Southern India. I notice that the cultures, arts, and languages of India are presented to the world in a false manner. Rewriting history, deletion of items, and moving towards a generic mix and match culture is not the way to go. It is the reason why that India still remains a mystery to the rest of the world, since people keep changing their culture trying to impress the world. People may detest Periyar Ramaswamy of the Self-respect movement, but please let me quote him by saying, "It is when we get rid of superiority and inferiority feelings we establish self-respect for ourselves."

Wiki Raja 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the term "Dravidian" needs to sorted out in that template. What does "Dravidian" stand for? Dravidian group of languages? Yakshagana was performed based on Sanskrit dramas till recently. Don't try to push your viewpoints in whatever articles you wish. I appreciate your concern and hard work in knowing about Yakshagana, thanks for that. But confining Yakshagana as "Dravidian" is simply not acceptable.Gnanapiti 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not know how many times I have given the definition for Dravidian. Many times Gnanapiti. So many times I have been asked the same questions, and I have given the same answer for the repetitive questions asked. Dravidian is a family of related ethnicities and languages. Just like Indo-Aryan is a family of related ethnicities and languages. I have even provided a referenced source for that. For one, you did not have a problem having Yakshagana posted as a link on the Dravidian topics template, until an anonymous user came on and stated that we put Tamil Eelam on the template. I would dislike (I do not believe in using the word hate, by the way) for Yakshagana or any other Kannada related material to be taken off the Dravidian topics template since we are all ethnicities whose mother tongues are of a commanality - Dravidian. Indo-Aryan ideas may have influenced some of our cultures, but that does not change us from being Dravidian. Let me give you an example, the early Pallavas and Cholas have travelled frequently into Southeast Asia introducing the Tamil version of the Ramayana by Kambar (which came from the Sanskrit version of the Ramayana by Valmiki). Bali, Cambodia, and Thailand, for example, demonstrate the Ramayana in their dances and martial arts. Does that make them non-Malay, non-Khmer, or non-Thai? Does that make them Dravidian or Indo-Aryan? We have certain dances in Tamil Nadu, one of them which portrays the Mahabharata (Mahaparatam in Tamil). It is a Dravidian styled dance form to an Indo-Aryan story. Anyways, I am not against you and strongly feel that you are an asset to this group. Everybody is welcome, and most definitely you. We all just have to learn about each other to understand our differences. Kind regards. Wiki Raja 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think more than anything else, there is a disconnect here. I get the feeling that all the parties mentioned in the above discussion mean well but really need to get down to discussing some important issues. Why dont we invite a larger audience to participate. One thing that we need to keep in mind is not all facets of Kannada culture is Dravidian. Kannada language I know originates from a proto-dravidian source and is undoubtedly dravidian. But Yakshagana is a different issue. Just because it is practiced and popularised by Kannada / Tulu people, it does not make it a dravidian art. It is an art form that has found expression among southerners who speak a dravidian tongue. It is hard for me to believe that people of coastal Karnataka would consider themselves dravidian. So lets first sort out what is "dravidian", what is "inherited by dravidans" and what is clearly not dravidian in Kannada culture. Edting warring and reverting is not going to establish anything. Please refrain from edit wars.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment : The problem here stems from a confused understanding of what the term "Dravidian" means. Dravidian is a term that has many meanings depending on the context -

1. Dravidian - This was coined by Caldwell, a linguist in the 19th century to describe a group of languages(not 'ethnicities').
2. Dravidian 'race' - Periyar, the father and Godfather of almost all major Tamil Nadu political parties was a proponent of this theory.
3. "Dravida" in literature - There are sporadic instances where the word "Dravida" has been used in Sanskrit literature and maybe in Tamil literature. I dont know of any instance where this word has been used in any of the other Dravidian or Indo Aryan languages.
4. 'Dravidian political parties' - These are political parties that follow(or claim to follow) Periyar's ideologies and all of them are mostly confined to TN.

Now, the two most important points that that we have to observe is -

• 1,2 and 3 above have nothing to do with each other.
• Except no.1, none of the others have any takers among serious scholars.

The Dravidian 'race' for example, was purely a concoction of Tamil Nadu politics of the mid 20th century. It has no takers anywhere else in India or the world. Periyar probably took over where Hitler left off. Be that as it may, no scholar who studies human 'races' recognises a 'Dravidian' race.

As for the mentions of "Dravida" in literature, the point to be noted is that in each instance where it is used, the meanings vary or many times, nobody knows for sure what it means. For example, "Dravida shishu" appears in the Soundarya lahari" but nobody knows for sure what it means and it is open to speculation. It is said that the Manu Smriti mentions a certain "Dravida" tribe. But that doesnt mean that the tribe spoke a "Dravidian" language or even that they lived where Dravidian language speakers live today.

So that leaves us with only one connotation that is defined in black and white. ie., Caldwell's definition.

So if Wikiraja can explain which of the above 3 meanings(or maybe something else) he is using, it will clear many misgivings that people have here. I hope he is not using all the 3 or more meanings in the same sentence/context. Sarvagnya 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message for User:SameerKhan who I believe is a an expert on linguistics. He will be able to provide more info on this issue. If anyone knowns an expert on "race" please communicate with him/her to help solve this issue.Dineshkannambadi 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, in regards to Yakshagana I am interested in promoting the dance since we never hear of a classical dance from Karnataka. In general we hear of the classical dances of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andra Pradesh, but we never hear of a classical dance from Karnataka. My purpose of all this is to promote cultures and their arts which are rarely heard of. Secondly, Sarvagnya's statement that Periyar probably took over where Hitler left off. What connections does Periyar have with Hitler? Periyar was against the caste system and was for the upliftment of the Dravidian civilizations. Is caste system bad or good? Is discrimination against people of lower and backwards castes bad or good? Is fascist nationalism bad or good? Is religious intolerance bad or good? I suppose that the answers to my questions can be sought on the following links:

• "Hitler, the Supremo" – Miami Herald
• In Modi’s Gujurat, Hitler is a textbook hero – Times of India
• 'Nazi' row over Indian textbooks - BBC
• All’s in a name, if it’s Hitler’s Cross: Jews frown on restaurant gimmick – Telegraph India
• The Return of Hitler As Hero: The World Through Cracked Lenses – Zmag

Enough said for now. Wiki Raja 04:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As usual Wiki Raja continues to paste totally unrelated and irrelevant links. As I've said before, the connotation for the term "Dravidian" need to be sorted out in the template itself. I hope Wiki Raja answers my questions in the template talk page. Thanks. Gnanapiti 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikiraja, seems to me like you misunderstood my comment on Periyar. I'll explain it in more detail some other time. But for now, will you please clarify as to what your understanding of the word is. Is it 1,2,3 or something else? Please explain or this is going nowhere. And again, I didnt bother clicking on any of your links above. Just so you know. Thanks. Sarvagnya 05:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That is because truth hurts. Wiki Raja 05:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok I will clarify the meaning of the word Dravidian. Hey, wait a minute, didn't I just clarify it four times on Template talk:Dravidian topics on the following links below?

• 10:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• 10:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• 11:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• 23:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's one on your page Sarvagina:

• 10:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's 2 on the Talk:Dravidian people page:

• 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And here's a whopping 1 on the Talk:Tamil people page:

• 10:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright people, I am going to set the record breaker here for the last time:

The term Dravidian is a family of related ethnicities and languages. It does not connotate to a single language or ethnicity.

It does not mean a certain race since, there is only one race, which is the human race. Either my writing is incomprehensive, or it is a deliberation (factor of denial) which is causing some users to repeat their questions. I will not be wasting my time here giving lessons on how to read and comprehend simple English. Wiki Raja 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot, here is another site I have found which could probably be the reason why there is so much rucuss and uproar in regards to posting anything positive on Dravidian civilizations:

• Hitler "cool" in India.

Wiki Raja 05:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is this crazy person and why is he pasting spam all over wikipedia? India Rising 06:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if my opinion will really clarify anything, but here's what I can say as a linguist. Some languages are related to each other; some aren't. That doesn't always mean the people who speak related languages are actually genetically related. It is true that some isolated cases of genetic research have shown, for example, that the Basques of Spain and France not only speak a language unrelated to Spanish or French, but are also genetically distinguishable from Spanish and French people. However, in the vast majority of cases, language, culture, race, and genetics are not connected so clearly. There are several examples to show this: take the Turks - they speak a Turkic language, but their culture is most strongly influenced by Mediterranean, Persian, and Arab societies, they do not look like other Turkic language speakers (Kazakhs, Turkmens, Uzbeks etc), and they are considered genetically most similar to other Mediterranean peoples (e.g. the Greeks). So what are they? One likely theory: they are historically Mediterranean people, who later assimilated with migrating Turkic speakers from the east, who brought with them Turkic and Persian culture along with a Turkic language, then later adopted Arab and Islamic culture, and even later, aspects of European culture. So does a Turkish dance count as a "Turkic concept", just because their language is Turkic? Or is it a "Mediterranean concept", because they are historically Mediterraneans? Why does this matter?

Let's return to the Dravidian issue. All we know for sure is that there are four major (and many more minor) South Asian languages that are closely related to each other but not related to the Indo-European family that spans most of the Indian Subcontinent. These were given the name "Dravidian". Now, while claims have been made that the speakers of these languages are also "racially" or "genetically" distinct from the speakers of Indo-European languages, there is no real scientific evidence for this. The genetic diversity seen in Indo-European speakers in India (as far as I have read) is just as varied as that seen in Dravidian speakers. The cultures of North and South India may have differences, but not always along linguistic lines. Sri Lanka is linguistically divided into Dravidian and Indo-European languages, but the cultural differences inside Sri Lanka are not as great as the cultural differences between Nepalis and Pakistanis, even though many of the languages of Nepal and Pakistan are Indo-European. Linguistic classification does not equal cultural classification. And about the genetics - people will always say things like "Dravidians are darker than North Indians, so they are genetically different." This is nonsense. I've seen people of all colors in Bangladesh, from white to dark, but they're all Bengali speakers (and thus Indo-European speakers). Clearly, there is genetic diversity but little linguistic diversity. Genetic classification does not equate linguistic classification. And if color really correlated with race and linguistics, then why are most Indians (even the Indo-European speakers) so much darker than, say, Germanic people, when they are linguistically related? Linguistic classification does not equate genetic classification.

Let's be realistic: like much of the world, the Indian Subcontinent has always been diverse - racially, ethnically, tribally, religiously, culturally, linguistically - the most likely situation is that there have always been many racial groups in the Subcontinent - ones whose languages are long gone. Successive migrations of people from all parts of the world have changed the culture, language, and physical characteristics of the inhabitants, but not in a uniform way. While there are people of all shades of skin color all across the Subcontinent, the languages that developed in each region were not based on the color of people's skin, but due to many other factors. Thus, white, brown, and black people of the same region would end up speaking, say, Telugu, or Assamese, regardless of what their genetic makeup might be. Compare this to the situation in the US, where people of many different ethnicities and races have come to one country, and for the most part, they speak Indo-European languages. Whether they are white, black, brown, yellow, red, whatever color... the majority speaks English or Spanish. India has always been this way - many different people from different origins come and end up assimilating.... some ended up adopting local Indo-European languages and others Dravidian ones, but not because they were genetically or racially one way or another.

So I'm not going to be able to take a side, but that's my (educated - at least on the linguistic side) opinion. --SameerKhan 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that skin color is not the issue. I have seen black, brown, and olive complected Tamils. It is ridiculous to base ethnicity on skin color. However, differences in physical features (ie. facial features) are a factor amongst different ethnicities, some more than others. As for the term Dravidian, it does not denote a single language, nor does it denote a single ethnicity. As I have been repeatedly stating, the term Dravidian is a family of related ethnicities and languages. Just like Indo-Aryan is a family of related ethnicities and languages. On can also say that India is like Europe, where we have in the North Scandinavians and in the South Medditeraneans. Wiki Raja 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot SameerKhan for your learned input. I really appreciate your concern. Now, Wiki Raja, I had asked you some questions in the template talk page. I'm repeating them here, just so you know.

• Please prove that there is something called "dravidian race" or "dravidian ethnicity" which is different from rest of India.
• Please prove that so called "Dravidian culture" is all the way different from rest of India.
• Please prove that Kannadigas belong to your "Dravidian race".
• Prove that Kannadigas are more "ethnically related" to Tamilians or "Dravidians" for that matter, than to Marathas or "Indo Aryans".

As far as your interest towards articles on South India is concerned, I really appreciate your work. But the term "Dravidian" as used by you, is not acceptable on all articles.Gnanapiti 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking me the same questions I keep answering? As per request I will repeat it again with a source:

"Dravidian has avenerable history as a label, and given that in modern times it has been employed in studies of Indian phenomena as diverse as language and temple architecture, literature and systems of land tenure, religion and race.” It can also be said that Central India including parts of Northern Karnataka and Andra Pradesh were a Frontier zone of some sort thus allowing certain fusions of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan cultures in some aspects."

I am not saying that the term Dravidian is a single ethnicity, or a single language. I am not saying that Tamils and Kannadigas are the same. All I am saying is that the term Dravidian is a family of related ethnicities and languages. Within this family, some ethncities and languages may be closely related, while others may not be so closely related. Now, you admit that you are repeating your questions. This will be my last time repeating my answers. Either there is some kind of misunderstanding or miscomprehension going on here, or this is a deliberate ploy to tantalize me to post something not so polite (which I would not stoop to that level, unlike others). Lastly, I do not know why you keep using the term race. Race is equivalent to species. The species that we all belong to are called Homo-sapiens. Therefore, there is only one race which is the human race.

Kind Regards. Wiki Raja 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The term Dravida specifically refers to Tamils and tamil nadu, in fact the word tamil itself is derived from the word dravida. Dravida as a identity for the other languages of the same family is only generic. Prof Caldwell didnt have a better name so he named these as dravidian languages. Kannada and Telugus dont consider themselves dravidian even though they accept that their languages have dravidian origins. It smacks of racial prejudice. Enough of your crappy one race philosophies. 59.92.32.86 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiraja's dubious reference

"Dravidian has avenerable history as a label, and given that in modern times it has been employed in studies of Indian phenomena as diverse as language and temple architecture, literature and systems of land tenure, religion and race.”
Ok. So what this Deshpande guy is saying is not different from what I am saying. The word "Dravida" has different meanings depending on context. For example a temple can be built in Dravidian style regardless of the mother tongue of the guy building it.

"It can also be said that Central India including parts of Northern Karnataka and Andra Pradesh were a Frontier zone of some sort..."
What sort?

"...thus allowing certain fusions of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan cultures in some aspects."
Ok. So?

'And finally where does this reference support your claim that Dravidian is a family of related 'ethnicities(whatever the hell that is supposed to mean).

Like the editor above says, all mentions of 'Dravida' earlier than Caldwell only seem to(even that is not conclusive) refer to Tamilians. No other people anywhere in the world have used it to describe themselves. Stop your Tamil revisionist crap.

It is thanks to people like you that millions of kids born in TN are still taught that 'Tamil is the mother of all languages', 'Tamil is the oldest language'(for God's sakes, even the WP page on Tamil had this BS until recently!!) and stupidly parrot that crap wherever they go much to the amusement and irritation of others.

It is thanks to people like you that many from TN believe that Tamil and Tamil 'culture' is the be all and end all of everything. No wonder then, that you hadnt heard of Yakshagana. No wonder then, that you still think Carnatic music and Bharatnatya were inventions of Tamil people.

If you hadnt heard of Yakshagana, dont blame 'Indo-Aryans' for it. Blame yourself and the likes of your Periyar for it. It is a crying shame that being from neighbouring TN, you hadnt even heard of Yakshagana. Stop blaming others for your ignorance.

Thank people like us on WP who've been fighting this systemic bias that people like you bring to WP. But for people like us(not just kannadigas on wp - i must commend Tamil editors like srkris, arvind and a few others too), you would probably never have heard of Yakshagana and continued to bask in your own ignorance.

As for Periyar, it is no secret that his actions against Brahmins was motivated more by some sort of dementia than any real concern for the 'downtrodden'. It is no secret that his own Naiker caste(and other so called non brahmin upper castes of TN) did and continues to play its role in perpetuating the caste wars in TN.

Can anybody from TN honestly deny these accusations? Stop even trying to defend Periyar's theories. Periyar's theory of a Dravidian race was motivated by cheap politics and nothing else. Hitler concocted his own Aryan race out of thin air and left the field open for Periyar to conveniently conjure up a 'Dravidian' race. Little wonder, that people outside TN havent even heard of these crappy theories. Yes 'crappy' is the kindest word I can use for Periyar's race theories.

And coming back to the point, your reference proves nothing. Stop concocting a 'Dravidian ethnicity ' to suit your convenience. Sarvagnya 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)