"North Indians and Brahmins are Aryans different from Dravids." The propounder of this thesis is :

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 3:

The correct option is **E. V. Ramaswami Nayakar**, popularly known as Periyar. Periyar was the foremost figure in the Dravidian Movement in South India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, during the 20th century. His entire political and social philosophy, which began with the Self-Respect Movement (1925) and later evolved into the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK), was built upon the fundamental thesis of an Aryan-Dravidian divide. This thesis claimed that the people of South India (Dravids) were the original inhabitants of the subcontinent, possessing a distinct culture and identity. The thesis further asserted that Brahmins and, by extension, North Indians, were Aryans who migrated later, imposing their Sanskrit-based language, Vedic religion, and the hierarchical caste system (especially Brahminical dominance) upon the indigenous Dravidian population. The core purpose of Periyar's movement was the rejection of Brahminism, Hinduism (as he perceived it), and the North Indian cultural and political influence, which he believed perpetuated social injustice and inequality against non-Brahmins and Dalits. His argument was a powerful ideological tool used to reclaim cultural pride and demand social and political self-determination for Dravidians, cementing him as the key propounder of this specific thesis of racial and cultural difference.

The incorrect option is 1:

**B. R. Ambedkar** was a towering figure in Indian political history, known as the chief architect of the Indian Constitution and a champion of Dalit rights. While Ambedkar was fiercely critical of the caste system and Brahminical hegemony, and he certainly engaged with the Aryan Invasion Theory and its social implications, his primary focus was the abolition of the caste system and untouchability from a legal, political, and religious perspective. In his scholarly work, *Who Were the Shudras?* and *The Untouchables*, Ambedkar refuted the popular racial interpretation of the caste system and Aryan theory. Specifically, he argued that the Untouchables were not a different race but were originally broken men of the indigenous tribes who were excluded from the Aryan fold. Therefore, while he criticized the social dominance of Brahmins, he did not rely on the simple "North Indians and Brahmins are Aryans different from Dravids" thesis as the central ideological pillar of his reform movement, unlike Periyar.

The incorrect option is 2:

**E. M. S. Namboodripad** was a prominent Marxist ideologue and a central leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), serving as the first Chief Minister of Kerala. Namboodripad's political analysis was rooted in historical materialism and class struggle, not primarily in the Dravidian identity thesis. His criticism of social and economic inequality was framed in terms of feudal exploitation and capitalist structures. While he acknowledged caste issues within the Marxist framework and was a Namboodiri Brahmin himself who sought to dismantle the system, his approach did not prioritize the Aryan-Dravidian racial theory as the basis for political mobilization or social theory. His focus remained on uniting the working class and peasantry across linguistic and regional lines, which diverged significantly from the ethno-cultural nationalism of the Dravidian Movement.

The incorrect option is 4:

**Cho Ramaswamy** was a notable figure in Tamil Nadu primarily recognized as a lawyer, journalist, political commentator, actor, and playwright. He was the founder and editor of the popular magazine *Thuglak*. Unlike Periyar, Ramaswamy was politically aligned with centrist and right-of-center parties, and often served as a fierce critic of the Dravidian political parties (like the DMK and AIADMK) that succeeded Periyar’s movement. He was known for his satirical and conservative views and generally opposed the Dravidian movement's anti-Brahmin and anti-Hindi rhetoric. His intellectual contribution was in political commentary and critiquing contemporary governance, rather than formulating or championing the historical-racial thesis regarding Aryans and Dravids. He was a commentator on, and often a critic of, the political landscape shaped by this very thesis, but he was certainly not its propounder.