Dharma

The Great Tamil Deception: How Dravidians Buried Vedic Truth

Mukundh Kannan

20 May 2025 — 18 min read

The Dravidian movement, led by self-proclaimed “revolutionaries” like E.V. Ramasamy (Periyar) and C.N. Annadurai has long positioned itself as the champion of Tamil identity, social justice, and self-respect. Yet beneath this facade of liberation and anti-Brahminism lies a more insidious agenda: the calculated whitewashing of Tamil’s deep Vedic heritage. What Periyar and his followers orchestrated wasn’t merely a political movement—it was a deliberate attempt to sever the Tamil people from their ancient roots, twisting history to fit their narrow, anti-Hindu narrative.

By reducing Tamil history to a simplistic “Dravidian vs. Aryan” conflict, they crafted an artificial, separatist identity that blatantly ignores the profound Vedic influence ingrained in Tamil culture.

How many of us know that in the 1920s and 1930s, Periyar—once hailed as the “defender” of Tamil identity—referred to Tamil as a "demonic" language and advocated for the imposition of English in Tamil Nadu, claiming it was more “practical,” “rational,” and “modern”?

Yet Periyar severely underestimated the Tamil people's deep connection to their language. In a tactical shift, he turned this very love for Tamil into his strongest weapon, sowing division and discord that persist more than 50 years after his death. This is the same man who, under the guise of wealth inheritance, married his adopted daughter—a reflection of his long history of deception.

The “Dravidian” Version of Tamil History

The Dravidian movement has meticulously crafted its own version of Tamil history, one that outright rejects the region's deep connections to Vedic traditions and Hindu philosophy.

According to the Dravidian narrative, Tamil society was historically distinct from the so-called “Aryan” North, and was dominated by egalitarian, secular, and rationalist values long before the imposition of Vedic or Brahminical influence. This version of history paints a past where Tamil people lived in a separate cultural and religious sphere, free from “caste divisions” and oppressive Hindu rituals.

At the heart of this narrative is the theory of Aryan invasion or migration, which claims that Vedic culture was imposed on the Dravidian South by invading Brahminical forces from the North. This theory not only serves as the foundation of the Dravidian ideology but also fuels the false dichotomy between North and South India—an “us vs. them” mentality that conveniently ignores the shared spiritual and cultural heritage of the Indian subcontinent.

In this revisionist version of history, Tamil kings are stripped of their Vedic connections, and the contributions of Tamil saints, poets, and scholars to the broader Hindu tradition are either erased or minimised. The movement focuses on the idea of a "pure" Tamil identity, disconnected from the Vedic roots that actually shaped much of Tamil language, art, and religious practice.

Even the rich Bhakti movement, which saw Tamil saints like the Azhvars and Nayanmars singing the praises of Vishnu and Shiva, is downplayed in favour of promoting a narrative of oppression and cultural colonisation.

This distorted version of history has been promoted aggressively, not only through political rhetoric but also through the education system, media, and popular culture. The result is a new generation of Tamils who are increasingly alienated from their Vedic heritage, while being encouraged to view themselves through a lens of victimhood and regionalism.

In the Dravidian narrative, anything associated with Vedic tradition—be it Hindu deities, rituals, or cultural practices—is portrayed as "foreign" or imposed, while the so-called "Dravidian" identity is recast as something purely indigenous and wholly separate from the rest of India.

This simplistic, binary narrative ignores the complexity of Tamil history, which is rich with Vedic thought, Sanskritic literature, and pan-Indian spiritual traditions. The erasure of this shared heritage is not just an act of historical revisionism, but a deliberate political tool to foster division and consolidate power.

Aseevagam : Religion or Invention?

In their pursuit of an alternative narrative to Tamil's deep Vedic roots, the Dravidian ideologues not only rewrote history but also invented a religion—Aseevagam. This so-called “ancient Tamil religion” is often portrayed by Dravidian historians as a purely indigenous belief system, free from any influence of the “oppressive” Vedic or Brahminical traditions.

According to this revisionist account, Aseevagam was the original faith of the Tamil people before the imposition of Aryan rituals, with its philosophy rooted in secularism, rationalism, and agnosticism.

However, a closer examination reveals that the idea of Aseevagam is little more than a modern invention—a product of the Dravidian agenda to sever Tamil Nadu's ties to the Vedic traditions. The lack of any historical, literary, or archaeological evidence of Aseevagam's existence in ancient Tamil history highlights its artificiality.

This “religion” was crafted as a counter-narrative to Vedic influence, not based on any authentic pre-Vedic Tamil belief system but on a politically motivated desire to distance Tamil culture from its Hindu roots.

According to Dravidian “historians”, Aseevagam was the belief/worship of nature and one God, propounded by the Siddha saints. This involved local deities like Mariamman, Ayyanar and Muneeswarar.

However Siddha saints themselves credit their teachings to divine inspiration from Shiva, in the form of Adi Siddhar. Even if we allow the logical fallacy that Shiva was part of the Aseevagam tradition, there is another, equally huge roadblock.

Shiva is not a Tamil word : it is a Sanskrit/Vedic word that has been accepted into Tamil.

The first mention of Shiva is in the Rig Veda in his form as Rudra, and later in the Yajur Veda as Shiva.

In Tamil, He is always known by his carrier, The One who rides a bull (ஏற்றான்), or referred to as the One with the Ganges in his locks (ஆறு சடையான்).

As for the worship of local gods like Mariamman, Ayyanar and Muneeswarar, they are all extensions of the Vedic gods. All forms of Amman are forms of the Mother Goddess, Kaali.

In Tamil tradition, Ayyanar is believed to be the same Sastha, ஐயப்பன், worshipped in Sabarimala. He is a son of the Vedic gods Shiva and Vishnu (in the form of Mohini). Another interesting point to note is that while Dravidian “historians” use Ayyanar to reject claims of Vedic culture, Ayyanar and Iyappan are often portrayed wearing the sacred thread of the Brahmins!

Muneeswarar is a combination of the two words “முனிவர்” (sage) and “ஈஸ்வரர்”(Shiva), which in fact reaffirms the Vedic interpretation of Shiva as the great sage.

Now, this worship of deities endemic to a certain locale is not new to Hindu or Vedic tradition. Rajasthan has one such local god, Khatu Shyamji, the son of Ghatotkacha. Bhima, one of the five Pandavas, is worshipped as a god amongst the tribes of Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. There are many such local deities spread throughout the land of India, yet not one of them claims to be independent of Hindu religion!

Another equally ludicrous claim made is that of Murugan being an exclusively Tamil god, when in fact he is first mentioned in the Vedic texts as Skanda. His story is later fleshed out in later Sanskrit texts as the son of Shiva and Parvati, who assumed command of the Devas and killed the asura Surapadman. The great poet Kalidasa makes a poem of this epic, further elaborating on his birth and deeds.

If those who perpetrate Aseevagam also want to claim Murugan as the son of Shiva who killed Surapadman and became the divine warlord of the Devas, then they have to acknowledge that he is then not native to Tamil Nadu either, as the above story is also exclusive to Vedic texts. The Tamil version of this legend appears only around the 14th century C.E.

So this means one of two things : Either the so-called “Aryan invasion” theory was true and Sanskrit was imposed on Tamils.

Or the Tamils naturally accepted Vedic culture and were a part of it.

We will debunk the Aryan invasion theory in the next portion. For now, we will expand on the creation of Aseevagam by Dravidian “scholars”.

The invention of Aseevagam served two key purposes:

Promoting Secularism Over Spirituality: By positioning Aseevagam as a rationalist, agnostic tradition, the Dravidian movement aimed to erase Tamil Nadu's deep spiritual connection to the Vedic texts, rituals, and deities. This allowed them to align their agenda with secular, anti-religious ideals while undermining the religious sentiments of the Tamil people, especially their devotion to Shiva, Vishnu, and other deities central to the Bhakti movement.
Subverting Tamil's Vedic Legacy: The creation of Aseevagam conveniently obscures the historical contributions of Tamil saints, poets, and kings to the Vedic tradition. By claiming that the Tamils had their own indigenous religion, the Dravidian movement sought to delegitimize the notion that Tamil culture was integrally linked to the broader Hindu spiritual framework. This, in turn, bolstered their claim that the so-called “Aryan invasion” imposed a foreign culture on the Dravidian South, a narrative that helped fuel their separatist ideology.

Yet, when we examine Tamil literature, especially the Sangam works and post-Sangam texts, we find no references to Aseevagam. Instead, we see constant reverence for gods like Shiva, Murugan, Vishnu, and Indra. The Azhvars and Nayanmars, key figures in Tamil devotional literature, dedicated their lives to the praise of Vedic deities, and their works form the bedrock of Tamil spirituality. The very idea that Aseevagam existed as a parallel, indigenous tradition is contradicted by these extensive historical records.

The elevation of Aseevagam, therefore, is not a rediscovery of ancient Tamil heritage, but a deliberate attempt to rewrite Tamil history to serve modern political ends. By claiming that Vedic traditions were imposed from the outside, the Dravidian movement tried to create a false dichotomy between Tamil culture and the rest of India. This approach not only distorts Tamil's true past but also alienates its people from their spiritual and cultural legacy.

Archaeological Evidence that Counters “Dravidian” Tamil History

Now, let us assume that the Dravidian claim of “Aryans” invading India, specifically South India, and imposing Vedic culture is true.

The supposed Aryan invasion occurred circa 1500 BCE. The earliest Tamil settlements, Keezhadi and Adichanallur, are dated to 600 and 1000 BCE respectively.

Let us, for the sake of argument, again assume that the “Aryans” were just dawdling about in North India for 500 years, having no curiosity about the land that lay to their south. And one fine day, 500 years later, they decided to raise their banners and invade Dravidian land.

By this time, both Adichanallur and Keezhadi had developed into highly urban societies, with archaeological evidence of advanced construction capabilities, drainage systems, and even sea trade with the Greeks.

Such an advanced society would, quite obviously, have an equally capable military. War between invaders and the early Tamil settlements would have resulted in heavy losses on both sides and long sieges, which in turn would have resulted in mass funerals and weapons of war being left behind and/or buried.

The buildings in settlements themselves would also have suffered some sort of structural damage from the war, especially if the invasion was successful, as the Dravidian “historians” claim.

Now, here’s the thing : There is absolutely no archaeological evidence for any of the above.

No bones, no weapons, no structural damage to any buildings in either settlement.

In fact, there is no archaeological evidence anywhere in Tamil Nadu dating to that time period that suggests a large scale, or even a small scale conflict.

To the contrary, this was a normal period for Tamils and Tamil settlements, with Greek pottery shards in Keezhadi and metal works in Adichanallur pointing to a relatively prosperous society.

So, what is the source of the claim that Tamils did not follow Vedic customs and religion? Tamil texts?

Tamil Literary Evidence

To understand the Tamil literary evidence directly contradicting the Dravidian claims of Aryan invasion, we need to first understand the origins of Tamil, which is invariably linked to the origin of Sanskrit.

According to Hindu tradition, it was the sage Agastya who learnt Tamil and Sanskrit from Shiva and his son Kartikeyan (Murugan), bringing it to the people of Bharatavarsha.

Later on, the first Tamil Sangam held in Madurai was also officiated by Shiva and Murugan. But since the Dravidian movement refutes the existence of gods, let us conveniently ignore this and move on.

The Dravidian “historians” and “linguists” claim Sanskrit was primarily used in the North, and Tamil in the South. But did this mean the two languages were mutually exclusive? No.

Both Sanskrit and Tamil share a rich variety of words, with some even being interchanged between the two languages.The first evidence of the same comes directly from the Tholkappiam itself, the oldest book in the Sangam Tamil corpus.

The பாயிரம் (preface) of the Tholkappiam, written by Panamparanar, a contemporary of Tholkappiar, begins as follows :

வடவேங்கடம் தென்குமரி ஆயிடைத்

தமிழ் கூறு நல்லுலகத்து

வழக்கும் செய்யுளும் ஆயிரு முதலின்

எழுத்தும் சொல்லும் பொருளும் நாடி

செந்தமிழ் இயற்கை சிவணிய நிலத்தொடு

முந்துநூல் கண்டு முறைப்பட எணணிப்

புலம் தொகுத்தோனே போக்குறு பனுவல்

நிலந்தரு திருவிற் பாண்டியன் அவையத்து

அறங்கறை நாவின் நான்மறை முற்றிய

அதங்கோட்டு ஆசாற்கு அரிதபத் தெரிந்து

மயங்கா மரபின் எழுத்துமுறை காட்டி

மல்குநீர் வரைப்பின் ஐந்திரம் நிறைந்த

தொல்காப்பியன் எனத் தன்பெயர் தோற்றிப்

பல்புகழ் நிறுத்த படிமையோனே

“ In the virtuous Tamil-speaking land That extends from Venkatam in the north And Kumari in the south, He has treated units of sound and word And semantic content as well.

Rooted as he remained In traditions of common speech and literary idiom; Conversant he was of his predecessors' works (predecessor’s work - Agaththiyam)

That were in vogue and use on the soil Which marked the cultivated idiom of the Tamil language, He examined them in order

And has made a well-wrought work; He presented this classic In the assembly of Nilantarutiruvin Pandian, (nilantaruvin - one who gave land/ one who was charitable in nature, understood to be Pandiyan Nedunchezhiyan)

Where at the head was Athangodu Aasan (one of the disciples of Agastya), Endowed with a tongue of virtuous words

And in the wisdom of the four vedas rooted; He expounded in terms irreproachable The structure unambiguous of the language.

And thereby, The sage of the man that he was And of renown exceeding marked, Established in the sea-girt world His name Tolkappiyan, Versed in the treatise Aintiram.”

The very introduction to the Tholkappiam completely demolishes the premise of “Aseevagam” being the dominant belief system in Sangam-era Tamilagam.

Here, we see Tholkappiar and his contemporaries extol their fluency in the 4 Vedas (நான்மறை - called மறை due to their hidden meanings), and the Aindra school of Sanskrit grammar!

Not to mention that the poem also marks down the boundaries of ancient Tamilagam as extending from Kanyakumari in the south to Tirupati in the north!

How do we know this? Note வட வேங்கடம் ( Vengadam in the North). Tirupati is referred to as வேங்கடம் in Tamil literature due to it being the abode of Venkateshwara swami (வேங்கடம் - வெங்கடேஸ்வரன் இருக்கும் இடம்). This also serves to reinforce the antiquity of the Tirumala Tirupati temple, while also debunking allegations that the temple was originally dedicated to Buddha or Mahavira !

Historical records tell us of native Sanskrit speakers who knew Tamil, and vice-versa. Agastya is an example for the former, and Tholkappiar, the author of the Tamil text Tholkappiam, is an example of the latter.

But was this interchange of language limited only to learned men who fell under the Varnic category of “Brahmins”?

No, as the early Pandya kings were students of Agastya, and learnt both languages and the Vedas from him. This knowledge was passed down through generations, and the Pandya kings followed Vedic customs.

Purananuru 15 states : புரையில்

நற் பனுவல் நால் வேதத்து

அருஞ் சீர்த்திப் பெருங் கண்ணுறை

நெய்ம் மலி ஆவுதி பொங்கப், பன்மாண்

வீயாச் சிறப்பின் வேள்வி முற்றி,

யூபம் நட்ட வியன்களம் பலகொல்?

The literal translation is as follows :
“King Peruvazhudhi (Pandyan), who faithfully followed the four Vedas and upheld their esteemed traditions, offered ghee into the sacrificial fire with great respect and devotion. The grandeur of his Vedic sacrifices and his substantial contributions are well acknowledged. But despite all this, how many truly understand and appreciate the depth of his contributions?"

The same Purananuru also states in Puram 2 : பெருஞ்சோற்று மிகுபதம் வரையாது கொடுத்தோய்

பாஅல் புளிப்பினும் பகலிருளினும்

நாஅல் வேத நெறி திரியினும்

திரியாச் சுற்றமொடு முழுதுசேண் விளங்கி

நடுக்கின்றி நிலியரோ வத்தை யடுக்கத்து.

Translation :
You(King Uthiyan Cheralathan) , who generously gave beyond measure!
Even if milk turns sour, even if day becomes night,
Even if the path of the four Vedas strays,
Dharma, shining alongside the Sutras,
Shall remain unshaken and firm in this lineage.

This deals the death blow to the Dravidian “history” that Vedic culture was imposed by the so-called Aryans! Here, we see a Pandya king, from one of the three great Tamil dynasties, voluntarily follow the four Vedas!

Now let us look at the gods worshipped by the so-called “Dravidian” Tamils, as mentioned in the Tholkappiam.

மாயோன் மேய காடுறை உலகமும்

சேயோன் மேய மைவரை உலகமும்

வேந்தன் மேய தீம்புனல் உலகமும்

வருணன் மேய பெருமணல் உலகமும்

முல்லை குறிஞ்சி மருதம் நெய்தல் எனச்

சொல்லிய முறையான் சொல்லவும் படுமே.

Translation :
"Maayon (Vishnu) presides over the forests (Katturai Ulagam), Seyon (Murugan/Kartikeya) presides over the hills (Maivarai Ulagam), the king (Indra) presides over the rainy lands (Theembunal Ulagam), and Varunan (the god of the oceans) presides over the sandy areas or beaches (Perumanal Ulagam)."

A far cry from the so called “Aseevagam” practised by ancient Tamils !

Now, some will claim that the ancient Tamils were pure Shaivites and did not worship Narayana, or his avatars. This, too, is refuted by the Purananuru in Puram 56, where the worship of Shiva, Vishnu and Murugan is mentioned.

கடல் வளர் புரிவளை புரையும் மேனி,

அடல் வெந் நாஞ்சில், பனைக்கொடி யோனும்;

மண் ணுறு திருமணி புரையும் மேனி,

விண்ணுயர் புல்கொடி, விறல்வெய் யொனும்,

“Balarama, with a complexion as white as the conch, carries the Palmyra leaf as his flag; Krishna, whose complexion is as blue as the sapphires mined from the earth, bears the eagle pennant."

Similarly, the Agananuru, in Agam 70, states : வென்வேற் கவுரியர் தொன்முது கோடி

முழங்கிரும் பௌவ மிரங்கு முன்றுறை

வெல்போ ரிராம னருமறைக் கவித்த

பல்வீ ழாலம் போல யொலியவிந் தன்றிவ்

வழுங்க லூரே.

Translation :

“As was silenced the banyan tree with many aerial roots (the sound of whose birds disturbed) the thoughts of victorious Rama near the shore of the roaring sea at the ancient Kodi (Dhanuskodi) which belongs to the Pandyas of the conquering spear.”

Purananooru 378 states :

தென் பரதவர் மிடல் சாய, வட வடுகர் வாள் ஓட்டிய தொடையமை கண்ணித் திருந்துவேல் தடக்கைக் கடுமா கடைஇய விடுபரி வடிம்பின், நற்றார்க் கள்ளின், சோழன் கோயில்,

புதுப்பிறை யன்ன சுதைசெய் மாடத்துப், பனிக்கயத் தன்ன நீள்நகர் நின்று, என் அரிக்கூடு மாக்கிணை இரிய ஒற்றி, எஞ்சா மரபின் வஞ்சி பாட, எமக்கென வகுத்த அல்ல, மிகப்பல

மேம்படு சிறப்பின் அருங்கல வெறுக்கை தாங்காது பொழிதந் தோனே; அதுகண்டு, இலம்பாடு உழந்தஎன் இரும்பேர் ஒக்கல். விரல்செறி மரபின செவித்தொடக் குநரும், செவித்தொடர் மரபின விரற்செறிக் குநரும்,

அரைக்கமை மரபின மிடற்றியாக் குநரும், மிடற்றமை மரபின அரைக்குயாக் குநரும், கடுந்தெறல் இராமன் உடன்புணர் சீதையை வலித்தகை அரக்கன் வௌவிய ஞான்றை, நிலஞ்சேர் மதர் அணி கண்ட குரங்கின்

செம்முகப் பெருங்கிளை இழைப்பொலிந் தாஅங்கு, அறாஅ அருநகை இனிதுபெற் றிகுமே இருங்கிளைத் தலைமை எய்தி, அரும்படர் எவ்வம் உழந்ததன் தலையே.

“So that the mischief of the southern Parathavars may be curbed and subdued, and the disasters brought upon Tamilagam by the northern Vadugar's sword may be undone — it was he who rose above and suppressed them!

In the grand city of this Chola, in the courtyard of a white-plastered mansion, I stood and played my Kinai, singing praises of the glorious lineage of the Chola, who belonged to an unbroken heritage.

He, though a king, gave me numerous fine ornaments — ones that are not typically made for people like us, but only for royalty. I took those and gave them to my relatives. They were astounded on seeing them.

Rings meant for fingers were worn on ears, earrings on fingers, waist ornaments around the neck, and necklaces around the waist — they wore them in every which way.

The scene resembled the one from the Ramayana, where it is said the monkey horde adorned themselves with Sita’s jewels found in the forest!

The poverty of my kin vanished then and there. And on my face, a smile blossomed!”

Showing that the Ramayana was well known amongst Sangam era Tamils.

Agam 59 also states : தண்கயத் தமன்ற வண்டுபடு துணை மலர்ப்

பெருந்தகை யிழந்த கண்ணினை பெரிதும்

வருந்தினை வாழியர் நீயே வடாஅது

வண்புனற் றொழுநை வார்மண லகன்றுறை

யண்டர் மகளிர் தண்டழை யுடீயர்

மரஞ்செல மிதித்த மாஅல் போலப்

Describing Krishna’s rasleela with the Gopis of Vrindavan.

The Silappathikaram also talks about the temple of Ranganatha situated in Srirangam.

“நீல மேகம் நெடும்பொற் குன்றத்துப்

பால்விரிந் தகலாது படிந்தது போல

ஆயிரம் விரித்தெழு தலையுடை அருந்திறற்

பாயற் பள்ளிப் பலர்தொழு தேத்த

விரிதிரைக் காவிரி வியன்பெருந் துருத்தித்

திருவமர் மார்பன் கிடந்த வண்ணமும்”

“Like a dark blue cloud lying on a vast golden hill —
like milk that has spread evenly without spilling,
resembling the quality of gently spreading without overflowing on either side
thus lies He (Thirumal) on the divine serpent-bed with a thousand wide-raised hoods,the powerful Ananta, whose strength is immense and rare.

Many worship and praise Him,
many bow down and glorify Him.
by the wide-waved river Kaveri,
within the embrace of the vast, billowing river —
there lies Bhagwan with the chest where Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, lovingly resides, Sri Vishnu with the chest adored by Lakshmi.”

What about the 33 Devatas of Vedic culture ?

Paripadal 3 states : திருமாலிடமிருந்து தோன்றிய பரந்த பொருள்கள்

மா அயோயே! மாஅயோயே!

மறு பிறப்பு அறுக்கும் மாசு இல் சேவடி

மணி திகழ் உருபின் மா அயோயே!

தீ வளி விசும்பு நிலன் நீர் ஐந்தும்,

ஞாயிறும், திங்களும், அறனும், ஐவரும்,

திதியின் சிறாரும், விதியின் மக்களும்,

மாசு இல் எண்மரும், பதினொரு கபிலரும்,

தா மா இருவரும், தருமனும், மடங்கலும்,

மூ-ஏழ் உலகமும், உலகினுள் மன்பதும்,

மாயோய்! நின்வயின் பரந்தவை உரைத்தேம்

Translation :

Oh! the One whose thinking and actions others cannot comprehend! Whose unreachable and blemishless (without expectation) feet (the conviction that He is , the one who completely makes us act, think, speak) removes the cycle of births( based on karma),Who has attractive limbs! We say that you have spread through the following: Sun, moon, Shiva, the five elements: land, water, fire, air, sky or ether, Dhaithyas called asuras, children of Brahma (prajapatis), eleven kapilas or Rudras, twin Aswini devathas, Yama, 3×7 worlds, those who and which are attached to the world.

This poem credits Vishnu with the creation of the universe and the 33 devatas of the Vedas, presenting an existing Vaishnavite view in Tamil that predates the Bhakti movement !

Why the emphasis on the Pandya acceptance of Vedic culture?

There is a common misconception that it was the Cholas who were responsible for the growth and continuity of Tamil. While it is true that the Cholas spread Tamil overseas, it was under Pandya patronage that the great Sangam epics were written. The Tamil Sangams themselves occurred in Madurai, the capital city of the Pandya rulers.

This is not to say Cholas and Cheras refuted Vedic religion, either. The Cholas constructed great temples to both Shiva and Vishnu.

Archaeological evidence, and the poems of the Azhvars, show us that the Chola kings constructed the Naachiyar (Lakshmi) temple at Thirunaraiyur, with kings like Kulotunga I sponsoring the festivals held at the Ranganathaswamy temple in Srirangam and the Saranathaswamy temple in Thirucherai.

The Cheras, too, have a rich history of Vedic culture, with the Chera King Kulasekhara Varman even abdicating his throne to sing the praises of Narayana. The Anantha Padmanabhaswamy temple, also alluded to in Sangam literature, was built under Chera patronage.

The Purananooru in Puram 2 talks about Uthiyan Cheralathan, also called Perum Chotthu Uthiyan and Vanavar Anban (Beloved of the Devas), who arranged a great feast for both the Kauravas and the Pandavas before the Kurukshetra war. Cheran Senguttuvan also begins his expeditions into the North of Bharatavarsha with a customary prayer to Narayana and Rudra.

Sanskrit literary evidence :

Now, we have talked at length about the Tamil scriptures identifying themselves with Vedic traditions and religion.

But what do the Sanskrit texts themselves say?

The Silappathikaram talks of the Chera king Senguttuvan, who took his widowed mother on a pilgrimage to North India, more specifically the Ganges river basin, where they could perform his departed father’s Shraddha ceremonies (another indicator of Vedic rituals being adhered to by Tamils). This journey continued up until they had reached the Himalayas.

The same text states that on his way, he faced resistance from surrounding kingdoms, who viewed this pilgrimage as an easy opportunity to kill a powerful monarch and possibly take over his lands. He easily defeated them and even sent a messenger to the kings in the North, warning them against such misadventures.

However, on the way to the Himalayas, he was assaulted by the foreign kings of modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan, referred to as Shakas, Yavanas and Pahlavas.

Now, Senguttuva Cheran was a close friend of a Satavahana king named Gautamiputra Satakarni, referred to in Tamil as “நூற்றுவர் கண்ணார்”. He provided the boats that ferried the Chera king’s armies through the Ganga.

A cross reference comes from the Nashik inscription, written in Sanskrit by the Satavahanas of Western India, on the mother of Gautamiputra Satakarni that her son (Satakarni) subdued Yavanas too besides Shakas and Pahlavas. There is no other reference to when and how he made this happen. But just 2 lines from Silappathikaram on the Cheran king’s victory over Yavanas give a complete picture of what happened.

In fact, the Silappathikaram even explains the reason for the conflict, saying that the Yavanas hurled abuses at the Chera king and his companion.

This is not all, as the great playwright Kalidasa, in his Raghu Vamsa, states that a Pandya king attended the swayamvara of Indhumati. She was the mother of Dasaratha, and the grandmother of Rama.

If early Tamils viewed themselves as a separate entity who did not conform to the Vedas and Shastras, the Pandya kings would not have been allowed to attend such a grand event. They would have been included in the list of mlecchas, alongside the Yavanas, Shakas and Paulavas.

Another inscription, unearthed in modern-day Sinnamanur in Theni, has accounts of the Pandya kings written on it, both in Sanskrit and Tamil (another instance of Pandyas exhorting Vedic culture and Sanskrit). It states that an earlier Pandya king had bargained to buy peace from the ten-headed rakshasa king, Ravana.

It states, in Sanskrit, "दशानन संधीपा रक्षकारः". In Tamil the same is written as "தசவதானன் சாற்பாகச் சந்து செய்தும்".

Both of which state a treaty with the ten-headed Rakshasa, i.e Ravana.

The same copper plate also references a Pandya king having won a battle against the legendary Arjuna, and having performed Vedic sacrifices like the Rajasuya and Asvamedha!

Mahabharata 7-23 speaks of a Pandya king Sarangadwaja, who harboured ill will towards Bhagavan Shri Krishna but was however dissuaded from fighting him by his advisors and friends.

Another chapter in Mahabharata is dedicated to the valorous fight put up by a Pandyan king by name Malayadwaja Pandya against the Kauravas (Mahabharata 8-20). He was killed by Ashwatthama in the war.

From the above, it is crystal clear that the Sanskrit texts too, saw Tamils and Tamil Nadu as an integral part of Bharatavarsha.

Conclusion :

In the ongoing debate about Tamil history and identity, the Dravidian movement's revisionist narrative has sought to erase centuries of Vedic influence from Tamil culture, painting it as an alien imposition rather than an intrinsic part of its heritage. By creating a simplistic dichotomy of Dravidian versus Aryan, the movement has succeeded in distorting our history, reducing Tamil civilization to a narrow, exclusionary ideology that rejects its own past.

Yet, the evidence is overwhelming and unequivocal. From the grand inscriptions of Tamil kings who adhered to Vedic practices to the literary treasures that reflect deep engagements with Vedic and Sanskrit traditions, Tamil history is inextricably linked with the broader cultural and spiritual landscape of ancient India. The archaeological findings from sites like Keezhadi and Adichanallur, which highlight the sophistication and continuity of Tamil civilization, stand as a testament to the region's complex and multifaceted heritage—one that is neither the victim of invasion nor isolated from the Vedic world.

Periyar and his followers may have sought to sever these ancient ties, but the truth remains resilient. The contributions of Tamil kings, poets, and scholars to the Vedic tradition are not just historical footnotes but are embedded in the very fabric of Tamil culture. The vibrant legacy of the Azhvars and Nayanmars, the Vedic sacrifices of the Pandya kings, and the intricate carvings of temples dedicated to Vishnu and Shiva all serve as enduring proofs of this shared heritage.

Critics of “blind faith” and “andh bhakts” should also recognize the extensive facade constructed by Periyarism and Dravidianism, which has obscured Tamil history and its true heritage.

To truly honour Tamil heritage, we must embrace its entire spectrum, recognizing that the story of Tamil Nadu is not one of division but of a rich, intertwined legacy that has always been a part of the broader Indian and Vedic tradition. In doing so, we not only correct the historical record but also build a more unified and enlightened future, free from the constraints of divisive ideologies.

Citations and Credits

Sinnamanur Copper Plates - Epigraphia Indica. Vol. XVII, Archaeological Survey of India, 1924.
Nashik Inscriptions - Mirashi, Vasudev Vishnu. The History and Inscriptions of the Satavahanas and the Western Kshatrapas. Maharashtra State Board for Literature and Culture, 1981.
Mahabharata (Pandya Kings) - The Mahabharata, Book 8: Karna Parva, Section 20. Sacred Texts.
Paripadal - Paripadal. Tamil Virtual University.
Agananuru - Agananuru. Tamil Virtual Academy.
Purananuru - Purananuru. Tamil Virtual University.
Silappathigaram - Ilango Adigal. Silappathigaram. Tamil Virtual University.
Tholkappiam - Tholkappiyar. Tholkappiam. Tamil Virtual University.
Keezhadi excavation images
Adichanallur idols

Acknowledgment:

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Dr. M. S. Rangachari for his valuable contributions in identifying mentions of Vedic religion in Tamil texts and translating them into English, which greatly enriched this work.