The Tulu Tribes - III

The various cultural groups that became part of Tulu tribes are;
1. Native tribes - Matriarchal/spirit worshippers - mtDNA M
2. Iranians - Asura worshippers
3. Dravidians - horse mounted warrior worshippers

1. Native tribes:
Most of the anthropologists do not believe that matriarchy ever existed and vote only for matriliny. In my opinion, Tulu tribes might have had a matriarchal society initially even as they made the transition to non-tribal* way of life.

The Pandya connection:
Present day Malayalis consider Chera kingdom as native to the region. I just think that is Tamil imperialism. Also, Tulu speaking region never had any connection with Chera kingdom. Since I believe Tulu and Malayali speaking communities came from the common cultural root I have been hoping for a kingdom that has been part of both of these community legends.

The other day, I came across a passage from Megasthenes' Indika.

But those who live near the sea have no kings.. The Pandaean nation is governed by females, and their first queen is said to have been the daughter of Hercules.

Let's forget all those Greek fantastic legends. I think that Pandya region could have been Kerala. The legend of maMgaLe after whom the city of Mangalore is believed to be named also consists few curious facts. Mangale was said to be the queen from Kerala, the region that was governed by females**.

The Tulu region also has an interesting connection to Pandya and matrilineal tradition. According to the legend of Bhutala Pandya, he (Bhutala Pandya or Jaya Pandya) inherited the kingdom from his maternal uncle Deva Pandya and established matrilineal tradition in the whole kingdom.

The manuscript that contains this legend appeared suddenly in 19th century in Tulu region. As of now, legal experts consider it a forgery/hoax with some ulterior motives(the manuscript also describes the matrilineal inheritance rules and caste rules and initially made the basis for matrilineal judicial laws during British rule). The legend also dates the period of this event around 77 CE. However, kings/chieftains with surname Pandya appeared only in 13-14 century in Tulu region.

Whatever be the authenticity of the manuscript, I find it is interesting that matrilineal tradition is associated with kings named Pandya. There were only few kings with that family name. Why the legend didn't make use of more well known and the longest ruling family like Alupa? Of course, Pandya-s who later ruled Tamil region were patriarchal. There could have been cultural changes by that time.

In my opinion, the region of Tulu and Malayalam were initially matriarchal. When the power passed from females to males the children of the ruling matriarchal houses inherited the throne. The transition from female inheritance to male inheritance of the throne was probably brought about patriarchal interlude in these two regions.

In the case of Tulu region, Kadamba period and in the case of Malayali region Ay, Ezhimalai and Chera period are those interludes. After the downfall of these kingdoms the local chieftainship passed to sons of erstwhile ruling matriarch families. The complete patriarchization was probably prevented as the families in this region did not incorporate marriage rules of patriarchal communities. By this time the native tribes might have been overwhelmed by Dravidian speakers( I believe initially patriarchal) who took up the native tradition and also assimilated Iranians speakers.

2. Iranians:
I believe there could have been some migration by Iranian speakers because of the legend of Asura king Bali. He is revered by both Tulu and Malayali communities. Please check Ravi Mundkur's posts at Tulu Research. They might have migrated along with Dravidian speakers.

3. Dravidians:
In my opinion, Dravidians were originally a pastoral community and worshipped the deity who protected them. A horse mounted deity is very common to lower classes in South India. Even though nowadays the deity is worshipped as an incarnation of Shiva or Vishnu etc... the old depiction is that of a warrior astride the horse. The deity is known by various names.

Maharashtra (herders) -> Khandoba
Andhra Pradesh (herders)-> Mallanna
Karnataka (herders) -> Mailara
Karnataka (Hallaki tribe) -> Bommayya
Karnataka (Tulu region) -> Bermer
Tamil Nadu -> Ayyanar
Kerala -> Sastha

I have not come across any source where it is mentioned that Mallanna in Andhra Pradesh or Mailara in Karnataka is a warrior mounted on the horse. But Khandoba, a pastoral horse mounted deity, has been equated with these two deities.

Probably, the original name of the deity could have been close to Bomm* or Berm* (-ayya and -er are honorifics in Kannada and Tulu respectively) as the Dravidian tribes supposedly inhabited the region close to Semitic tribes. I have already speculated about Abraham and Bermer.

* The tribal matriliny/matriarchy isn't a solid societal structure.

** The female rule phenomenon could be found in epic Mahabharata. However, the region itself had only females. That probably is some kind of fantasy. But in the case of Megasthenes' Pandya-s, he mentioned that kingdom had men and females bore children by the age of six!

Absurdities of caste genetic studies

The population genetic studies on caste population that began truly with Bamshad et al. (2001) study has seen many additions in the last six years. In one of my previous posts I had discussed about total lack of knowledge on part of Geneticists about internal migrations of Indians and the unique political developments in central and eastern India.

Aryan Invasion Theory and Bamshad et al.
The mainstream anthropologists now mostly hold Aryan Migration Theory in place of Aryan Invasion Theory. However, this study conducted thousand miles away from the region of putative Aryan invasion concluded that Aryans indeed invaded and developed the caste system.

The study has following drawbacks:
a. Kshatriya problem
-> It cannot distinguish Y-Hg-R1a1 of so-called Aryans( a misnomer in my opinion) from that of later invaders.
-> East and Central Indian tribes did become Kshatriyas married other ruling families (See my post: Identities - II)
b. Dravidian genes
-> Even today Dravidian genetic composition is unclear. The biggest Indian Y-Haplogroup H is too old in India to be associated with any linguistic family.
c. R1a1 problem
-> The idea behind selecting a South Indian state being north India was too much mixed with the later invaders to retain the purity of original Aryan composition. However, this does not negate the fact that Haplogroup R1a1 is observed in similar frequencies across caste groups in north India. The only problem is zaka (Indo-Scythian) R1a1 as they are thought to be from the region inhabited by older R1a1 migrants. Therefore, their composition might have been similar.
d. Clustering for various castes
-> According to Bamshad et al. upper castes cluster together with East Europeans and lower castes with East Asians(Asian in the study). However, some of the later studies have shown conflicting results on this. One of the studies has found Indians forming genetic continuum from west Asia/East Europe to East Asian/SE Asia. Another has found Indians (upper and lower included) forming their own cluster and being significantly closer to Europeans than to East Asians. Of course, Europeans include West Asians which is rather absurd. However, all these show non-reliability of autosomal analysis. Probably, overemphasis of known markers of European population in the studies might be the reason behind it.

Semitic Introgression Theory(SIT) and Sahoo et al. (2006)
Also, studies can be used to prove some of the other theories too. Let us consider my theory. Keeping Austro-Asiatics and Dravidians out of it, I propose two main migrations that overlapped in the single word Aryan migration.

1. European Migration: Defining haplogroup R1a1. Migratin from European lands to South Asia via Central Asia. Period 5000 BCE to 2000 BCE. These people mostly came as refugees and labourers to present day Iranian and Indian lands. Indologist like Michael Witzel believes there could have been only few Indo-Aryan speaking migrants who spread their languages due to Elite Domination. I think that is only true for western and southern European countries.

Consider Greece. Greeks have R1a1 frequency around 10-15% same as that of Dravidians. That shows Elite Domination is responsible for the spread of an IE language in Greece. However, Indo-Aryan speaking population in north-west India and Pakistan carry this lineage at around 30-40%. That is a huge number. That probably shows European pastorals migrating to South Asia in search of greener pastures spread their language because of sheer numbers. Probably, were helped by IE-ised Aryan migration from west Asia as an elite society in the later stage.

2. Semitic Introgression: Defining haplogroups J2a and G2. Migrants from Iran and Caucasus. Also spoke Indo-Iranian languages. The self identification of these people is 'Arya'. The original language could have been different. However, the huge migration from eastern Europeans to eastern Iran and southern Caucasus changed the linguistic profile. These people heraled Vedic civilization that blended eastern European gods and classes with western Asian purity-pollution rules.

From Norse mythology it is clear that early PIE society had three fold varNa (colour) system or had three classes.
rulers/cheiftain(white)-herders(red)-serfs(black)
Vedic India had four fold varNa system
priests(white)-rulers/chieftains(red)-herders(yellow)-serfs(black)
I have discussed about this in one of my previous post. We have already seen that herders position became low or became equal to that of serfs or zUdra

The Aryan Invasion Theory believes the natives became part of zUdra. However, SIT believes since the caste system with purity and pollution rules has nothing to do with original European society even the other eastern European migrants must have been degenerated into lower castes. It has nothing to do with racial purity of Europeans but rather deals with racial purity of West Asians.

Sahoo et al. (2006) study "Phylogeography of Mitochondrial DNA and Y-Chromosome Haplogroups Reveal Asymmetric Gene Flow in Populations of Eastern India" examines four castes from Orissa.

Brahmins (upper castes)
Karan and Khandayat (middle castes)- scribes(?) and Kshatriya
Gope (lower caste) - herders

The study makes an observation;

Analysis of Y-chromosomes revealed that the average
genetic distance between Orissa Brahmins and Eastern
Europeans (0.066) is relatively less than the distance
between Eastern Europeans and the Karan (0.098), Khandayat
(0.150), or Gope (0.067). Since both upper and lower
caste populations, i.e., the Brahmins and Gope, were
closer to Europeans and Central Asians, than were the
middle caste populations, the Karan and Khandayat, this
indicated that genetic distances have no correlation with
their position in the caste hierarchy. Similar findings were
reported by Bamshad et al. (1998) and Wooding et al.
(2004).

Of course, Bamshad made some other observation after few years. A post at Eurasian Linguistics at yahoo group mentioned that scientists deliberately make controversial statements to attract public interest and funding(especially in population genetics field). Probably, the kind of people they want to attract and who would pour money probably could be gauged from Bamshad et al. (2001) study.


Brahmins and Gopes being close to east Europeans is entirely expected. Interestingly, Khandayat who became Kshatriya are overwhelmingly Y-haplogroup R2. And authors ascribe their origin to tribes.

Identities - II

Unstable identities:
Two main unstable identities in India today are tribal and matrilineal. These unstable identities are characterized by;
1. Illiterate traditions until the modern times
2. Easy to manipulate by the communities with the patriarchal identities
3. The development of a sense inferiority associated with the customs part of that identity as the community become literate*. These customs can be either harmful or beneficial or can even be neutral.

Tribal identity in India:
An ideal society is probably a civilized one with a tribal identity. The tribal identity is generally associated with lack of hierarchy. However, my reading of Dravidian tribes (Koitor or Gond) in Central India sort of gives the opposite picture. A tribal society with a civilized identity (caste hierarchies).

Probably, the tribes of Central India are not meant to remain tribes. The Koitor did make a transition to non-tribal form of government in medieval times. However, the required literate tradition probably was filled by the non-tribals from the surrounding area. This was the case with religious tradition too.The tribal shamanic religious tradition was completely devoid of literate tradition.

This phenomenon, Sanskritization in the words of Anthropologist M N Srinivas, has led to the caste mobility and caste stagnation in the case of Koitor tribes. Instead of Koitor as a whole making a transition to mainstream life only the ruling elites have become Kshatriya and the rest have remained tribal. In my opinion, the tribal hood of Koitor is not their ancestral state but a derived state from caste structure. Though Srinivas coined Sanskritization and extensively used caste mobility in his writings, forgot to coin the terms for degradation for many communities, never part of the caste system, once they become part of caste mainstream. However, Srinivas noticed the absurdity of caste mobility attempts by people by changing the names of their castes or by inventing some mythological greatness/heritage.

This situation is observed, not for good reasons, in Andhra Pradesh too. Here certain families of tribes have become Kshatriya but have not completely lost their tribal identities. But most of them now an endogamous entity themselves. Some of these Kshatriya-s contest in the elections in the seats reserved for tribes. For obvious reasons, Supreme Court of India does not recognize them as tribes and in few instances have disqualified them from continuing as Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly.

Matrilineal identity:
When I started to understand the matrilineal identity of myself three years back, I started with a rather ideal form of life( probably a matriarchal one). Not only I have lost all those ideas (that anthropologists had given up a century back) I am increasingly looking at it as an unstable identity. The fundamentals of such an identity do not protect it from patriarchal over lordship.

Kerala society for most part of the history was under partrilineanl Tamil kings(Ezhimalai, Ay and Chera)** and later under elite society of patrilineal Namboodiri-s. It should be noted here that many rulers where themselves sons of Namboodiri-s. Therefore, the ground reality was ruling class was part of patrilineal society. If a population geneticist comes and does a study of Brahmin-s and Kshatriya-s of Kerala most probably s/he would observe that they make a separate cluster exclusive of other castes of Kerala. I hope that total lack of knowledge of historical accounts that characterized Bamashad et al. (2001) study won't be repeated.

Matrilineal Tuluva society probably because of Jain ruling class(which was also matrilineal) did not show the extreme subservience that characterized the Kerala society in the past.

The society of matrilineal ethnic group, Mosuo, in China probably best illustrates the drawbacks of matrilineal society. This society is very similar to matrilineal Malayali society.

From Wikipedia article:

There is also a very important historical component which is often unknown to (or ignored by) those studying the Mosuo. Historically, the Mosuo actually had a feudal system in which a small “nobility” controlled a larger “peasant” population. The Mosuo nobility practiced a more ‘traditional' patriarchal system, which encouraged marriage (usually within the ‘nobility'), and in which men were the head of the house.

It has been theorized that the “matriarchal” system of the lower classes may have been enforced (or at least encouraged) by the higher classes as a way of preventing threats to their own power. Since leadership was hereditary, and determined through the male family line, it virtually eliminated potential threats to leadership by having the peasant class trace their lineage through the female line. Therefore, attempts to depict the Mosuo culture as some sort of idealized “matriarchal” culture in which women have all the rights, and where everyone has much more freedom, are often based on lack of knowledge of this history; the truth is that for much of their history, the Mosuo ‘peasant' class were subjugated and sometimes treated as little better than slaves.

* "Aliya Santana Kattu", a research work by Shankara Bhat on the judicial laws of matrilineal communities, mentions that Tulu communities felt low and disappointed that their kind of marriage was not considered as a true marriage by other Hindu communities in India. This resulted in rapid changes in marriage customs that more or less conformed with other Hindu marriage customs.

** The transition from patrilineal Tamil kings to matrilineal Malayali chieftains could be observed in the development of local dialect(Malayalam) as the official language. As long as Chera kings ruled that area most of the works that came out were in Tamil.

Two Ridiculous Studies on Obesity

Obesity 'triggers' disease fears

They found, for some people, the sight of obesity sparked strong subconscious reactions, such as disgust.

The Evolution and Human Behaviour study suggests this is part of a deep-seated behavioural reponse designed to help detect and avoid those with infections.

"Our results suggest that it might be ameliorated through interventions that focus on individual's often irrational concerns about infectious disease."

Obesity 'contagious', experts say

Having a friend, sibling or spouse who is overweight raises a person's risk of being obese too, US researchers say.

"Rather, there is a direct, causal relationship. What appears to be happening is that a person becoming obese most likely causes a change of norms about what counts as an appropriate body size."

"People come to think that it is OK to be bigger since those around them are bigger, and this sensibility spreads."

The Origins of Indians: Version 8.0

Coastal Migration Hypothesis and I:
I am rejecting coastal migration hypothesis for the following reasons;
1. The earliest remains of modern humans in South Asia(from Sri Lanka) are dated around 31000BP.
2. There is no proof of Y-Haplogroup D, the fellow traveller of Y-Haplogroup C in the coastal migration out of Africa, in India.
3. As of now, Y-Haplogroup C* clan is mostly observed in tribes that also have F* and H* in high frequencies. Whereas, Y-Haplogroup C5 shows mostly non-tribal distribution. I would consider C* being part of the first major colonization of South Asia along with F* and H*.

Migrations to the subcontinent:
1. The first migration :
Y-C*,F*,H*
mtDNA-M*,U*
around 40000-35000BP
from southern-central Asia
unknown language
2. Austro-Asiatic migration:
Y-O2a
mtDNA - X?
unknown period of migration
unknown place of origin
Munda, Khasi languages
3. Identity less migration:
Y-R2*, R1a1*, J2a*
mtDNA R*, W*, N*
from 20000 to 10000BP
from southern-central Asia
Proto-Sino-Caucasian?
4. IE migration:
Y-R1a1*
mtDNA H*
from 4000BP-500CE
from Kurgan lands

4. Dravidian migration :
Y-J2b*, L1*, K*
mtDNA J*, T*
around 3000 BP
from southern Iran

5. Aryan migration:
Y-J2a*, G2*
mtDNA H*
around 3500 BP
from northern Iran, Afghanistan, southern Caucasus
Originally, Caucasian speakers later Indo-Aryan.

The Origins of Indians: Version 7.0

The migrations that made up India:
1. Y-Hg-C coastal migration: Unknown language/ mtDNA: M*
2. Y-Hg-H migration : Unknown language/ mtDNA: U, R
3. Y-Hg-R2 migration : Unknown language/ mtDNA: ?
4. Y-Hg-O migration : Austro-Asiatic/ mtDNA: X?
5. Dravidian migration : Defining lineages Y-Hg-J2b and Y-Hg-L/ mtDNA: J2, T1
6. Indo-European migration : Defining lineage Y-Hg-R1a1/ mtDNA: H?, W?
7. Aryan migration : Defining lineage Y-Hg-J2a and Y-Hg-G2 (probably Semitics or Caucasian speakers)/ mtDNA: H?, W?

I would consider Indo-European urheimat in Kurgan lands and Aryan urheimat in South Caucasus, Afghanistan.

Arya probably a later identifier for this people once they adopted IE language. Arya as a self-designation is not used by any other IE peoples.

Hart's caste system - III

George L Hart's rather innocuous looking work on "Caste in ancient Tamil society" has too many flaws as I have discussed previously. In this post, I am further exploring menstrual blood concept, an argument used very innovatively by Hart. Hart's whole discussion boils down to;

Shamanic native Dravidian tradition was considered uncontrolled and inauspicious by upper class native Dravidians. They also had the similar notion about menstrual blood. Therefore, Dravidian priestly classes indulged in Shamanic traditions were called 'pulayan' (in Tamil), where the root of the word pol* means 'menstrual blood'. These Pulayans became later day untouchables. In other words, a community that became untouchable was the result of unique Dravidian world view. A world view unrelated to north Indian people like Brahmins.

The drawbacks:
1. The word pole meaning menstrual blood is attested in Kannada, Tulu and Kodava Takk but not in the quintessential Dravidian Tamil language. That does not stop George L Hart from giving credit to Tamils for having such stunning world view without any help from Indo-Europeans and does not even discuss the probability of development such high culture in Karnataka region. An unknown Atlantis in Karnataka before Tamil civilization.

2. The biggest Dravidian speaking region Andhra Pradesh does have an equivalent outcasts though their caste identity is not derived from pole. Of course, the caste system in Andhra region was enforced during Satavahana period whose suzerainty over that region predates Tamil literary period.

3. Vediks did have all the taboos associated with menstrual blood exemplified in Manu smriti. If I remember correctly, Vediks did consider worshipping ghost is inauspicious. Krishna says if somebody worships ghost he will become a ghost in the next life.

Menstruation Belt:
My research takes me to the conclusion that menstrual blood meaning of pole is secondary to the word and most likely conceived by Indo-Aryans who merged with Dravidian speaking population in the South. However, as we have seen, purity and pollution concepts are not really part of European Indo-European culture. There is a strong connection between division of society in Norse society and Indo-Aryan society. Though it should be noted that correspondence exists for Ksatriya(chieftains), Vaisya(common people...herders) and Sudra(slaves/serfs) but not for priests. The Norse caste system is three fold whereas Vedic caste system is four fold with priests at the top.

As I have said, European society did not have extreme taboos associated with menstrual blood. So, obviously, if Indo-Europeans of India had it then they might have absorbed it somewhere beyond India as they migrated from Kurgan lands. I did web research on menstrual blood taboo. I considered a motif of segregating women during their menses.

I found this precise motif among;
1. Arabs (Semitic)
2. Jews (Semitic)
3. Zoroastrians (IE)
4. Kalash (IE)
5. Lambani (IE)
6. Roma (IE)

Indeed, there were speculations of Zoroastrian influence on Semitic traditions. However, in this case it is the other way round.If PIE people had this tradition then it should have observed in Norse society. Since it was not the case we can conclude that IE people absorbed concepts of pollution associated with menstrual blood from West Asian people.

Lambani and Roma may suggest this tradition probably was already part of India and likely that Dravidians might have had it. But Lambanis have Y-Hg-R1b lineage in high frequency. This is not observed among Indians and most probably derived from West Asian lineages. Roma practice of menstrual taboo is a mystery. Probably, as this group IE-ised it absorbed Indo-Aryan tradition of menstrual taboo. However, Roma practice of separate dwelling during menses shows a rather West Asian tradition. I guess Hindu practice was not that severe. Probably, they might have picked up that practice during their stay in West Asia.

It is again tough to find original Dravidian view about menstrual blood. There are many Dravidian tribes where I believe Shamanic tradition is still alive and those people have not been made outcasts. I still do not know much about these tribes' view on menstrual blood. I found this article by Paul Zacharia where he states;

Menstruation is, after all, not such a dread sin for everyone in Kerala. There is even a temple where the devi’s ‘menstrual blood’ is revered.

Okay, that is equally pathetic as fearing menstrual blood. Fear and reverence are two sides of the same coin when it comes to spiritual world. So, I believe it may not be diagonally opposite world view.

Development of Menstrual blood taboo:
The moot point is why West Asian society developed menstrual taboo concepts while Europeans did not. A European member at Quetzalcoatl anthropology forum feels concept of purity-pollution is not for the ultimate machos like Europeans. This is a view that finds an echo in Ahmad ibn Fadlan's writings.

But I believe the society that developed a philosophy before inventing a clothing akin to present day underwear might have come up with menstrual blood taboo and the society that developed philosophy after complete covering did not bother about menstrual blood. As we know West Asian society was the first one to develop a civilization.

Untouchability:
The greatest contribution of George L Hart to the culture of Tamil "race" with irrelevent Brahmins of Indo-European "race" is that they had a distinct world view that discriminated women and created class of people who would become untouchables, as far as I can see. I was trying to find Tamil responses to that. One Tamil propagandist states that Tamils should be proud of their contribution to Indian society both good and bad. Of course, bad is clearly as explained by George L Hart. He too probably believes a distinct Tamil race. Curiously, In one of the forums, he mentions a word sounding similar to pole being used in Nepal associated with blood rituals. And also, mentions about untouchability in Japan. Well, a bird view observation finds common thread in Buddhism. Again, a religion of Indo-Aryan speaking people.

Another Tamil propagandist claims Tamils did have a unique world view as explained by George L Hart but no it did not lead to all those gory things. Does he think uniqueness of Tamils as explained by George L Hart is 'good'? If he accepts it from a neutral point of view then why he is opposing the conclusions drawn with that world view. That makes me to conclude he thinks that world view is 'good'. What a pity!

Web propaganda against EV Ramaswami

I think there is a huge propaganda against EV Ramaswami all over the web. His writings/words are being twisted, are quoted out of context and selectively lifted by few Tamil propagandists for their nefarious designs. Consider this article by Cho. S. Ramaswamy. According to him;

He abused Tamil as the language of barbarians

I could not find those exact words used by EV Ramswami but I found his views about Dravidian languages here.
As expected, he was totally ignorant and irrational about Dravidian languages. This is what he says;

Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada are of Tamil origin only. The Tamil that is spoken in Malabar is called Malayalam; the Tamil that is spoken in Karnataka becomes Kannada; and the Tamil that is spoken in the regions of Andhra becomes Telugu. All the four speak only Tamil.

Some scholars consider that Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada came from the same tongue that is they are the offspring of the same mother. This is only a deception according to me. There is only one a deception according to me. There is only one Dravidian tongue, and she is Tamil. And we call her four different names. Because she is spoken in four different regions, she has four different names. It is only Tamil that is spoken in these four regions.

If he considered Tamil barbarian then from his writings it is obvious that he considered all Dravidian languages, including his mother-tongue Kannada, are barbarian. Probably, he held Infosys founder Narayana Murthy's view, an enlightened and not a parochial view. But Cho. S. Ramaswamy gives it anti-Tamil tone.

Then Cho. S. Ramaswamy goes on and makes more damaging accusation of belittling Tamils.

and ridiculed the Tamil people by claiming that he, a Kannadiga, could become a leader of the Tamils because there was no Tamilian fit to lead them.

Now, let us see EV Ramaswami's exact words on this.

Some even asked me: 'You are a Kannadiga; how can you be a leader of Tamils?' I countered; ' Dear fellow! No Tamil has qualified himself to lead! This is because one Tamil does by no means tolerate the rise of another Tamil to a position of leadership '.

Well, the tone is very emotional. It only talks about Tamil infighting or jealousy(My high school teacher once told me that his distinguished colleague once told him that jealousy is the national character of Indians; Now I see it's a cliched observation).

EV Ramaswami might have made many mistakes. I do not agree with many of his views that I read on that page. But the kind of accuasations against him over the web are very stark and really damaging. All I wonder if those accusations(generally, people quote him) are really true or just a propaganda like that of Cho. S. Ramaswamy.

The origin of Idli

Read "Idli Saga:A study into the origin of the South Indian dish" in the April 28th edition of "The Economic Times". The article basically says iDli or iDDalige originally a Karnataka dish, mentioned in the10th century works, was taken to Indonesia by South Indian traders and there it gave rise to many fermented dishes like kedli. Of course, the author of that column quotes a bit different story from the research work of K T Acharya.

Agriculture in South India - 2

In my previous post on the same topic, I had speculated that tapioca could have been the staple diet of tribal Malayalis. Recently, I came across a propagandist paper written by a Malayali Christian that has details about various crops introduced by the Portuguese in India. Unlike the other content of the paper, I hope that is a fairly accurate account. Of course, tapioca is also one of those crops.

Change in dietary habits:
I read the hilarious studies that talk about how dietary changes affecting modern day Indian population because of so-called western influence. Probably, they have considered the food habits of Indians in early 20th century as something that has remained unchanged for couple of millenniums. Now, let us look into South Indian food habits of the last 500 years after the entry of Portuguese.

List of crops:
Let me list out the crops from South America that have been introduced by Portuguese.

1.Chillis: This is a wellknown import. I always wondered how widespread was the usage of black pepper, a native South Indian crop, that ensured a wholehearted adoption of this spice for that 'heat' or 'pungent' sensation. Nowadays, black pepper has very limited use in South Indian cuisine.

In my opinion, our cuisine might not be very hot 500 years back. I can understand usage of black pepper in non-vegetarian dishes but usage in vegetarian dishes sounds improbable. At least, some of such traditional dishes would have continued to the present day. But I hardly see any. But chile pepper is extensively used in vegetarian dishes. That being said, it appears our popular vegetables are not what they used to be 500 years back.

2. Beans: Another very popular family of vegetables is the Portuguese introduction.

3. Gourds: This is pure propaganda, I believe. Only South American candidate in this family is 'bottle gourd', I suppose. If this is true we have changed our side dishes completely in the last 500 years.

4. Ground nut: The most common oil in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh is extracted from this nut. I wonder what oil these two regions have used 500 years back. And what oil Tamils use?

... the rest of the plants include,
cashew, sapota, yams(popular), cacao, maize(this does have some popularity in North Karnataka), pappaya, guava, sunflower, bread fruit, sweet potato, passion fruit, anona species, pine apple, tobacco along with tapioca.

Non Portuguese introductions:
I think tomato, cauliflower and cabbage were also introduced in the last 500 years.

Then what are our own vegeatables, I mean for the last 2000-3000 years? lady's fingers, probably some of the gourds like bitter gourd*, ash gourd, ridge gourd and snake gourd, gherkin, cucumber, eggplant, few leafy vegetable and few beans like red gram, black gram, horse gram etc...Of course, rice has not been replaced as the preferred cereal grain though I think our ancestors were initially wheat eaters.

Overall, though there are popular old Indian vegetables still in our cuisine(when I started to write this post, I wanted to prove almost 80-90% of the vegetables were introduced in the last 500 years), there is a strong influence of the new world vegeatables in our present cuisine. In fact, only our non-vegetarian dishes have remained unchanged. I have not come across a new animal being added to our plate.

* Bitter gourd is one of the main reasons that I suspect 'gourds' might not be one of the Portuguese introductions. One of my favourite vegetables is also part of Tulu folklore. We Tuluvas have a saying 'kaMcala ittaMDa eMcala uNNOli'. I think explanation/translation needs little background of South Indian food presentation. People have this notion that if you are having a meal then you are having rice. Or rice is the maincourse. The purpose of all other dishes(vegetable or meat) is to enable easy and sensuous intake of rice. So, you can come across statement like "If you have pickle, that is enough. I can have my meal". That Tulu saying essentially says, if bitter gourd is there then you can have your meal.

Update(7-Jun-2007):
I had a bitter dispute about sweet potato with one of the commenters of this blog. I came across this article that claims Polynesians found South America before anybody and introduced chicken there. Now the question is whether Polynesians sailed to India and introduced sweet potato and also whether they sailed to China and introduced peanut. Or is that just one of those studies?