Aryan-Dravidian theory validity: Madras High Court refrains from expressing any opinion

Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy say court is not an expert on the history of origin of races

Observing that courts are not experts on the history of origin of races, the Madras High Court has refrained from expressing any opinion on the genuineness or otherwise of the two race theory of Aryans and Dravidians with the former having been portrayed as invaders into the Indian subcontinent.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy refused to issue a direction to the Centre as well as the Tamil Nadu Government to stop propagating the Aryan-Dravidian theory, particularly among school students, and also to tender a public apology.

The orders were passed while disposing of a public interest litigation petition filed by Mahalingam Balaji of Bengaluru in Karnataka. Arguing his case in person, the litigant claimed the Aryan-Dravidian theory was completely false and that its propagation was promoting divisiveness among people.

Relying upon writings of various scholars, the petitioner contended that the propagation of the “false” theory through National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) textbooks was causing substantial harm to impressionable minds.

Overcoming the Aryan-Dravidian divide

Additional Advocate General (AAG) J. Ravindran, representing the Tamil Nadu School Education Department, told the court that it was an issue to be dealt with by a committee constituted for the purpose of framing the school syllabus after taking necessary inputs from the experts in various fields.

He said, the petitioner could submit a representation in this regard to the SCERT which would consider the issue and dispose of the plea within a reasonable time limit. Deputy Solicitor General Rajesh Vivekananthan said a similar representation could be made to the NCERT too for its consideration.

After recording their submissions, the judges wrote: “The court is not an expert in history or the origin of races. The relief requested for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this court without examining and deciding whether the two-race theory, which the petitioner claims to be false, is valid or invalid. It is appropriate that this determination be made by experts in the field, and not by the court.”

How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate

Without examining or making any observations on the merits of the assertions made in the PIL petition, the Division Bench directed the NCERT and SCERT to treat the affidavit filed in support of the PIL petition itself as a representation made to them.

“Respondents 2 (NCERT) and 5 (SCERT) shall consider the grievance ventilated by the petitioner in the writ petition and dispose of the same within 12 weeks, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including by way of personal hearing,” the Bench concluded.

Published - October 27, 2024 12:32 pm IST