The colonial period in India was marked by political control, economic exploitation, and a concerted attempt to reshape the nation’s cultural and social fabric. Among the many methods employed by colonial powers to consolidate their dominance, the ‘divide and rule’ strategy stands out as particularly insidious.
This strategy involved creating divisions within Indian society along religious, ethnic, and linguistic lines, thereby weakening its unity and making it easier for the British to exert control. One of the most controversial outcomes of this policy was the invention of a so-called “Dravidian race”, a concept that has had lasting ramifications on the Indian psyche and continues to influence regional politics today.
The idea of a Dravidian identity distinct from the so-called “Aryan” culture was largely the brainchild of colonial administrator and missionary Bishop Robert Caldwell. Caldwell’s theory proposed that Dravidians were the original inhabitants of India, displaced by the Aryan invaders who later dominated North India.
This narrative, while seemingly an academic linguistic theory, was deeply rooted in the colonial agenda of division, serving both political and evangelical purposes. By fostering a division between the north and south of India, the British could sow discord and prevent the emergence of a unified nationalist movement. Simultaneously, it paved the way for Christian evangelists to target the Dravidian population by painting them as separate from the rest of Hindu India and thus more amenable to conversion.
Caldwell’s Legacy and the Dravidian-Aryan Divide
Bishop Caldwell’s contributions to the construction of a Dravidian identity were immense. In his seminal work, A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages (1856), Caldwell asserted that the Dravidian languages (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam) were linguistically distinct from Sanskrit and the Indo-Aryan languages of North India. More controversially, he went further to claim that this linguistic difference reflected a racial and cultural divide, with the Dravidians portrayed as an entirely separate race that had been subdued by the invading Aryans.
The theory dovetailed neatly with the British colonial ideology, which often emphasized racial hierarchies. The Aryans were conveniently presented as superior, noble, and more civilized – a narrative that was entirely in line with colonial depictions of their own superiority over the “natives”. The Dravidians, by contrast, were portrayed as primitive and backward, in need of external salvation, which evangelists like Caldwell believed could only come through Christianity. This racial hierarchy provided an intellectual justification for British rule, reinforcing the notion that Indian society was fractured and incapable of self-governance without British intervention.
What made Caldwell’s theory particularly dangerous was its manipulation of historical and linguistic evidence to suit a political agenda. The claim of an “Aryan invasion” displacing Dravidians was itself a distortion. Modern genetic and archaeological research has called into question the simplistic Aryan invasion theory, suggesting instead a more complex pattern of migration and cultural assimilation across millennia. However, in Caldwell’s time, these theories were used to foster an imagined conflict between the two groups, creating a wedge that missionaries could exploit.
Evangelical Motives: Targeting the Dravidian “Souls”
The invention of the Dravidian identity also served as a vehicle for Christian evangelization. The idea that the Dravidians were separate from the Aryans helped missionaries argue that South Indians, especially the Tamil-speaking population, should be liberated from the Aryan influence of Sanskrit and Hinduism. By portraying Dravidians as victims of Aryan domination, the missionaries could position Christianity as a liberating force, providing a way out of their alleged subjugation.
Caldwell and others like him, including G.U. Pope, began to propagate the idea that Dravidian culture was somehow inherently closer to Christianity. They claimed that the Dravidian languages, particularly Tamil, were influenced by Semitic languages like Hebrew and Arabic, thereby suggesting a natural affinity between South Indians and Christianity. Such claims were completely unfounded, as Tamil and Telugu have no significant linguistic connection to Semitic languages. However, the purpose of these theories was not to promote rigorous academic discourse but rather to serve a broader evangelical strategy.
Missionaries also targeted key Tamil literary works, attempting to reinterpret them through a Christian lens. For example, Tirukkural, one of the most revered texts in Tamil literature, was claimed to have been influenced by Christian values. Evangelists argued that its ethical teachings aligned with Christian doctrine, despite the fact that Tirukkural predates the arrival of Christianity in India by centuries.
Even more audaciously, some evangelists tried to link the text to the apostle St. Thomas, claiming that Thomas had brought Christianity to South India in the first century CE. This theory, known as the ‘Thomas myth’, has been thoroughly debunked, with even Pope Benedict XVI affirming that there is no evidence to suggest that St. Thomas ever travelled beyond West Asia.
Debunking the Evangelical Appropriation of Tamil Literature
The attempts by missionaries to appropriate Tamil literature for their evangelical agenda were fraught with contradictions. The Tirukkural is a case in point. The text is firmly rooted in Hindu philosophy, particularly the concept of the four Purusharthas – Dharma (righteousness), Artha (wealth), Kama (desire), and Moksha (liberation). The third book of the Tirukkural, which deals with Kama, stands in direct contrast to the puritanical values espoused by Protestant missionaries like G.U. Pope. Furthermore, the text frequently references Hindu deities like Indra, which directly contradicts the claim of a Christian influence.
Even the Jain influence on Tirukkural, which some scholars have posited, can be questioned. For instance, Jain philosophy emphasizes ahimsa (non-violence), yet Tirukkural includes verses that support agriculture and the use of force by a king to maintain law and order, both of which would be at odds with strict Jain beliefs. These contradictions reveal the superficial nature of the evangelical arguments, which sought to twist Tamil literature to fit their own ideological framework, regardless of the actual content of the texts.
The missionary agenda extended beyond literary appropriation. Caldwell and others promoted the idea that Tamil religious traditions, particularly Saiva Siddhanta, were in fact “diluted forms” of Christianity. They claimed that Tamil devotional literature, which had a pan-Indian appeal and referenced Hindu holy sites like the Himalayas, was evidence of an inherent Christian influence on Tamil spirituality. This was a deliberate attempt to weaken the connection between South Indian religious traditions and the broader Hindu cultural framework, making it easier for missionaries to present Christianity as the “true” spiritual path.
The Legacy of Divide and Rule: The Ongoing Impact of Dravidian Identity Politics
The colonial creation of a Dravidian identity distinct from the so-called Aryan culture has had long-lasting repercussions. In the 20th century, this theory was adopted and expanded by the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu, which championed Tamil pride and sought to distance itself from North Indian (and particularly Brahminical) influences. The movement found political expression in the rise of Dravidian political parties, which continue to wield significant power in Tamil Nadu today. The legacy of Caldwell’s work, therefore, is not just a matter of historical curiosity but has shaped the cultural and political landscape of modern India.
Ironically, while Caldwell and his fellow missionaries promoted the idea of Dravidian inferiority to further their evangelical goals, modern Dravidian movements have flipped the narrative, celebrating Dravidian culture as superior and rejecting the influence of North Indian, Sanskrit-based traditions. The Dravidian identity, once a colonial construct designed to divide, has become a powerful force of political mobilization, albeit divorced from its original missionary intent.
The Modern ‘Modus Operandi’ of the Evangelical Authorities
The process of absorbing Hindu traditions into a fictional ‘Dravidian’ Christianity began with the myth of St. Thomas preaching in South India and claims of Christian influence in Tamil literature. This narrative faded over time, as no historical evidence supported such a story, nor was there any sign of Christian influence in ancient Tamil works. However, the myth saw a resurgence in the 1970s when zealot M. Deivanayagam twisted Tamil classical texts to superimpose Christian interpretations.
Dravidian political groups and organizations, including the Madras University, promoted these dubious theories. A bizarre claim that the Tamil poet-saint Thiruvalluvar met St. Thomas and that the Tirukkural bore Christian influence might have been dismissed as junk, but it gained traction with support from the pro-Dravidian DMK party, whose chief minister even praised the book Was Thiruvalluvar a Christian?
The Church has a history of creating hoaxes to back these claims. One of the most infamous instances involves Archbishop Arulappa’s attempt to create false historical records of Christianity in India, a project that was exposed in court. Similarly, in the Nilakkal incident near Sabarimala, a cross allegedly linked to St. Thomas was ‘mysteriously’ discovered, but when Hindu activists demanded that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) independently verify the find, the perpetrators of the fraud withdrew.
In their rush to claim St. Thomas’ legacy, the Roman Catholic Church opened a museum, filled with inconsistent imagery and sculptures. One such exhibit supposedly depicts a Mylapore king as Gondophares, the first Indo-Parthian ruler of Kabul, who lived a thousand miles away and reigned in the first century BCE – centuries before St. Thomas’ arrival in India. Another sculpture portrays St. Thomas holding a book, ignoring the fact that the New Testament was compiled centuries later, in the fourth century CE.
A painting allegedly brought to India by Thomas is, in reality, a work of the Italian Renaissance. Additionally, the legend of Thomas being killed by Brahmins is a modern invention, not mentioned by Marco Polo, clearly fabricated to serve evangelical aims. According to the Vatican, the remains of St. Thomas were transferred to Edessa in Mesopotamia.
Intriguingly, archaeological research by the Government of India indicates that the Portuguese built the church in Mylapore over the ruins of a Hindu temple, most likely the Kapaleeswara Temple. These independent reports have been suppressed, while false narratives continue to be propagated, even in Tamil Nadu’s school textbooks.
This appropriation is part of the broader strategy to create a false divide between North and South India through the Aryan-Dravidian conflict narrative. Evangelical-supported organizations have made absurd claims, including that Shiva and Nataraja, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, were ‘Dravidian’ deities. They ignore the rich history of Shaivism in the Indus Valley Civilization, Mount Kailash in Tibet (Shiva’s mythical abode), his association with the Ganga, the Amarnath caves, and Rudra’s presence in the Rig Veda. Even the popular Hindu deity Skanda (Murugan) has been appropriated into a distorted Christian framework.
The Jesuit missionary Robert de Nobili, infamous for disguising himself as a Brahmin, committed the fraud of creating a ‘Fifth Veda’ by adapting Christian teachings to Indian traditions. This fraud was exposed, and the text is still archived as Exhibit No. 452 in the Nouvelles Acquisitions Françaises. However, missionaries in Tamil Nadu’s southern districts continue to refer to everything Christian as ‘Vedic’ – Christianity is called Vetham, churches are termed Vetha-Koil, and the Bible is labelled the Vetha-puthakam. Many Hindus, unaware of the fraud, still use these terms.
The ongoing efforts to ‘Christianize’ Hindu popular culture have become more overt in recent times. During the Vijayadashami festival, celebrated after Navaratri (or Dussehra in North India), South Indian Hindus traditionally initiate children into literacy. In 2008, the Church imitated this Hindu tradition by conducting a parallel Christian ceremony. They even replaced Hindu gods like Saraswati and Lakshmi with Christian saints such as Paul and Sebastian. Similarly, attempts have been made to reframe Maha Shivaratri as ‘Messiah Night’.
Dance, deeply linked to Hindu traditions, has also been a target of Christian appropriation. The devadasi system, which once supported temple dancing, was attacked by missionaries, although the art form was later revived by figures like Rukmini Devi Arundale (1904-86) and institutions such as Kalakshetra (founded in 1936).
After Bharatanatyam’s revival and global acclaim, missionaries sought to infiltrate the dance form by introducing Christian symbols and mudras. This mirrors the phenomenon of ‘Christian Yoga’ and ‘Jewish Yoga’ practised by Westerners. Institutions like Kalai Kaveri College of Fine Arts and Kalairani Natya Saalai in the USA openly promote the Christianization of Bharatanatyam, despite the Bible’s negative depiction of dance as sinful.
One recent case of missionary influence infiltrating a revered Hindu institution involves Kalakshetra, the dance school founded by Rukmini Devi Arundale. Under the directorship of Leela Samson, a known Christian evangelist, the institution’s Hindu affiliations were gradually eroded. Samson removed idols from the campus, stopped Hindu prayers, and even attempted to remove the emblem of Shiva from student certificates. She denigrated Hindu texts like the Gita Govinda, contrary to the vision of the institution’s founders. However, after facing criminal charges of embezzlement, Samson was eventually removed from her position.
These efforts to appropriate Hindu symbols and culture into a Christian framework are ongoing, driven by a clear agenda of distorting and digesting Hinduism into a Western or Christian context. By propagating false theories and fabricating historical narratives, these evangelists continue their mission of undermining the rich spiritual traditions of Hinduism, in particular by creating artificial divisions and promoting Christian supremacy within the cultural landscape of South India.
Conclusion: Uniting Against Neo-Colonial Narratives
The invention of the Dravidian identity by colonial administrators like Caldwell was part of a broader strategy of divide and rule that sought to weaken Indian unity and facilitate Christian evangelization. The distortion of historical and linguistic evidence to create a racial divide between Dravidians and Aryans served both political and religious purposes. Today, it is essential to critically re-examine these colonial-era narratives, not only to understand their original agenda but also to foster a more unified understanding of India’s diverse cultural heritage.
India’s strength lies in its ability to embrace diversity while maintaining unity. By acknowledging the shared cultural and spiritual heritage that transcends regional and linguistic differences, Indians can resist attempts – both past and present – to divide and weaken the nation.