http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Dravidian_peoples Origins of Dravidian people are informed by various theories proposed by linguists, anthropologists, geneticist and historians. According to geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza in the book The History and Geography of Human Genes, the Dravidians were preceded in the subcontinent by an Austro-Asiatic people, and were followed by Indo-European-speaking migrants sometime later. The geneticist L.L. Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford, based on work done in the 1980s, classified Indians as being genetically Caucasian. Cavalli-Sforza found that Indians are about three times closer to West Europeans than to East Asians. More recently, other geneticists, such as Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, demonstrated that South Indians are genetic intermediaries between Europeans and East Asians. Nevertheless, Indians are classified by modern anthropologists as belonging to one of four different morphological or ethno-racial subtypes, although these generally overlap because of admixture: Caucasoid (concentrated in the north), Mongoloid (concentrated in the north), Australoid (concentrated in the south), and Negrito (located in the Andaman Islands). Because of admixture between Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid racial groups, one cannot speak of a biologically separate "Dravidian race" distinct from non-Dravidians on the Indian subcontinent. However, northern Indians have more in common genetically with Central Asian/West Eurasian populations than southern Indian or Dravidian populations, who are more similar to East Asians, further demonstrating that there still exist significant genetic differences between Indo-European- and Dravidian-speaking populations. In a 2009 study of 132 individuals, 560,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 25 different Indian groups were analyzed, providing strong evidence in support of the notion that modern Indians (both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian groups) are a hybrid population descending from two postNeolithic, genetically divergent populations referred to as the 'Ancestral North Indians' and the 'Ancestral South Indians'. According to the study, Andamanese are an ASI-related group without ANI ancestry, showing that the peopling of the islands must have occurred before ANI-ASI gene flow on the mainland. ANI-ASI admixture happened some 1,200-3,500 years ago, which roughly coincides with the Indo-Aryan conquest of the Indian subcontinent. -----------http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/are-se-asians-australoids/ Some things came from other things a long time, but the existing things of today are not the things that they transitioned from long ago, nor are they part of what they used to be. Instead, they are whole new things, moving from one existence and creation to a new creation all of their own. I am not my ancestors, nor am I even part of my ancestors. But they are part of the creation story that is me and my kin, and that is a wonderful trail of a tale all on its own. -------------http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100214090614AAsH1N5 The original dravidians came from the mediterranean area, and looked something like an Afghani or italian person. but once they came into southern India, the climate was drastically hotter and alot of them mixed in with austroloids, ---------------http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090323092817AAtL6jT

The historical Aryans were the common ancestors of the Iranians and the Sanskrit-speaking Indians. They were a seminomadic patrilinear people and arrived in India about 3.5 millenia ago. They composed the Vedas and set up the caste system. In the course of time they were absorbed in the local populace (including Dravidians) and came to be known as the Indo-Aryans. Dravidians came to India much before the Aryans did. Their origins are uncertain. According to Tamil legend, the Dravidians came to India from the lost island of Kumari Khandam. It is possible that the residents of the lost Indus Valley civilisation may have been Dravidians. Indo-Aryans and Dravidians are not different races, because the genetic difference between the two is negligible. One must understand the difference between the PHENOTYPE (external appearence) and GENOTYPE (genetic makeup). Classification gives more importance to difference in Genotype (eg. Bengal & Siberian tiger) than difference in Phenotype (eg. Poodle & Bulldog). The only major difference is between Aryan & Dravidian Languages and to a certain extent their morphologies. //////////// Recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome microsatellite DNA, and mitochondrial DNA in India have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt for a biological Dravidian "race" distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent. The only distinct ethnic groups present in South Asia, according to genetic analysis, are the Balochi, Brahui, Burusho, Hazara, Kalash, Pathan and Sindhi peoples, the vast majority of whom are found in today's Pakistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_races_in_India ------------http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090821133808AAhd5Mo Physical trait similarities does not always equal closer relation Those black (black looking) populations in Austrilasia and Asia and Black Africans are the two most distantly related peoples even though they can look very similar. Black Africans are more closely related to South Asian & Europeans even though they dont look similar. Native Americans & East Asians are the most closest related two groups Central Africans & Australasians (Aborigines) are the most distantly related two groups all others lay in between. --------------http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090821133808AAhd5Mo Hey the dravidians are those who lived in the indus valley civilization. Among many reasons for the disappearance of indus valley civilization, the following is one of the reason. The aryans came from the north and chased the indus valley civilization people , this led to the disappearance of indus valley civilization and dravidians fled to south india because of the threat from the aryans in the north.. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT TAMILS FOLLOWS...

I have read the english version of one of the book written by a tamil author. the book's name is "WE TAMILS". In the book it is specified that the tamils are living for the past 16,000 years and is the first language originated. u might have heard of the lemuria continent which has submerged into the indian ocean.... the tamil country was very big which included the current tamilnadu,srilanka and the submerged land in indian ocean. The tamils are living in this same land for the past 16,000 years and they haven't migrated to india from any part of the world. The author of the book has made many shocking revelations of the tamils being the first civilized people to have lived in this proof. he has given various proofs for this. and also said that tamil is the language from which the other south indian languages telugu,kannada,malayalam,tulu originated... sanskrit brought to india by the aryans... but it doesn't mean that the aryans only were the hindus..... the tamils have been worshipping the hindu gods from there origin.Hinduism actually originated in India which is been followed by the aryans and dravidians... http://www.tamilnation.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_people http://nabataea.net/sindia.html ----------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_South_Indians It has been found that the ancestral node of the phylogenetic tree of all the mtDNA types typically found in Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe are also to be found in South Asia at relatively high frequencies. The inferred divergence of this common ancestral node is estimated to have occurred slightly less than 50,000 years ago. In India the major maternal lineages, or mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups, are M, R and U, whose coalescence times have been approximated to 50,000 BP. The major paternal lineages represented by Y chromosomes are haplogroups R1a, R2, H, L and J2. Many researchers have argued that Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a1 (M17) is of autochthonous Indian origin. However, proposals for a Central Asian origin for R1a1 are also quite common. -------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid Huxley's original model included populations in India. Some scholars still use the term Australoid denote the small populations, mainly in south India and Sri Lanka, usually associated with Veddas. The American Journal of Physical Anthropology (1996, p. 382) by American Association of Physical Anthropologists. L. L. (Luigi Luca) Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza in their text, The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994, P. 241) both use the term. Balgir (2004) designates tribes as Australoid or Proto-Australoid according to language family:

It may be mentioned here that the major scheduled tribes of Orissa belong to three linguistic groups, namely, Indo-Aryan or Indo-Europeans, i.e. Non-Australoid, Austro-Asiatic (Mundari) speakers, i.e. Proto-Australoid, and Dravidian (Gondi or Kuvi) speakers, i.e. Australoid. ProtoAustraloid racial group includes Bhumiz, Gadaba, Juang, Kharia, Koda, Kolha, Mahali, Mirdha, Munda, Santal and Saora tribes. Tribes like Bathudi, Bhatra, Binjhal, Bhuyan, Lodha and Saunti belong to non-Australoid racial stock while Australoid racial stock is represented by Gond, Kondh, Kissan, Oraon, Paraja and Pentia Halva tribes. Kashyap (2006) designates 23 out of 54 Indian populations studied as Australoid, of which one speaks an Indo-European language (Dhangar of Maharashtra), 4 speak Austro-Asiatic languages (Kurmi of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar Kurmi of Bihar, and Juang and Saora of Orissa), and 18 speak Dravidian languages. 7 populations were designated as Mongoloid, and the remaining 24 as Caucasoid. No Proto-Australoid category was used. Physical features Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says that Australoids have the largest brow ridges "with moderate to large supraorbital arches".Caucasoids have the second largest brow ridges with "moderate supraorbital ridges". Negroids have the third largest brow ridges with an "undulating supraorbital ridge". Mongoloids are "absent browridges", so they have the smallest brow ridges. ---------------http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090703095512AACQ76z Indians from India(or Indian decent), pakistan, and also many bangladeshis are Caucasians. It's a fact and also its pretty much easy to understand why. Their features are the same as Europeans and most Middle Easterners(those without African ancestry). The only difference would be their skin colour for the most part which is attributed to the climate. It's no different from southern Europeans who are darker mainly due to their geographic location. Skin colour has a smaller role to play when speaking of race than actual features such as the nose, lips and general facial structure. Eg. Many Chinese are very light skinned but they're not Caucasian. If you ask why, their facial structure and the eyes to name just two differences. Indians on the other hand have no real difference when it comes to those features. Africans have very different facial features from Indian, Middle Easterners and Europeans. Africans are a race that is different from Caucasians (Europeans, Indians, and Mid E.). Same goes for Asians. Indians are Asians based on location not by race. Remember that it's just an imaginary line. Features such as eyes, nose, lips and hair play a very crucial part when defining race. Indians are a sub-race of Caucasian, just like Europeans and Mid. E. Africans and Asians(Mongoloids) do not fall into the same race as the others. Look at their features, it tells alot. Take into consideration that the blacks that live in countries like the U.S and other former slave nations have European ancestry due to many reasons, one being rape by slave masters. Also know that blacks cannot grow hair like Europeans, Indians and Mid.E. Most black women that you see use hair extensions. Their hair would grow similar to their male counterparts which would resemble a microphone cover for the most part. They spend hours trying to make themselves seem like they have hair(like caucasians), and many wear wigs. Asians also have hair that is different from Indians, Europeans and Mid. E, again reflecting the differences in the actual race. Also note that many people who live in southern India have ancestry that is similar to the Sri Lankans due to mixing and of course they've settled there for centuries. Those would not be considered Caucasians since theyre roots are similar to the Australian aborogines. Basically, these southern Indians with such ancestry are like most Sri Lankans.

Remember that all 'whites/europeans' are caucasian but not all caucasians are white. 'White' is based on skin colour and its not actually a race or specific ethnic background. Europe is comprosed of many different sub races with a wide variety of cultures from Swedish to Spanish to Serbian. These 3 that I mentioned are all considered European but look differently and have different culture but to most people they will be just called 'white' which is only based on skin colour. BOTH caucasians and indians have: Thin lips Projecting chin Flat forehead high nasal bridge Projecting nose Orthognathy(Straight profile) Compressed cheekbones The negroids have: A low nasal bride Receding chin A round forehead Flat noses Pronounced cheekbones Prognathy(Protruding jaws) -------------Ancient Aryans http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xFAMPQaO5TM Ancient Aryan settlement discovered http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U5PIZHqXOfs --------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_language The Lithuanian language is believed to be the most conservative living Indo-European language, retaining many features of Proto-Indo-European now lost in other Indo-European languages. Lithuanian still retains many of the original features of the nominal morphology found in some ancient Indo-European languages like Sanskrit and Latin, and has therefore been the focus of much study in the area of Indo-European linguistics. Studies in the field of comparative linguistics have shown it to be the most conservative living Indo-European language. --------------The Aryan Invasion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyZRhG5QQK4 Similarities between Sanskrit and Lithuanian (Indo-European languages): Sanskrit sunus (son)- Lith. sunus; Sanskrit avis (sheep)- Lith. avis; Sanskrit dhumas (smoke)- Lith. dumas; Sanskrit viras (man)- Lith. vyras;

Sanskrit padas (sole)- Lith. padas; Sanskrit vrkas (wolf)- Lith. vilkas; Sanskrit aswa (horse)- Lith. asva; Sanskrit antaras (second)- Lith. antras; We can be safe in asserting that these Lithuanian words have not changes in their forms for the last five thousand years. -Perzië - Parsa - Farsi. -Sanskrit - Arya - Iran - Aryan. -Iran, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Europa etc. - Indo-European. -Indo-European - Central-Asia - Caucasus. -Indo-Europeans - Arya (Noble) Aryans (Indo-Europeans). -------------Best evidence yet that a single gene can affect IQ: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428613.900-best-evidence-yet-that-a-single-gene-canaffect-iq.html Tiny gene change affects brain size, IQ: http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/qatar/191070-genes-related-to-human-head-sizeidentified.html Tiny gene change affects brain size, IQ: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h7gYRMF5mYp-vUbSUIwAjx03IOdw -------------THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL BRAIN. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1250110/pdf/janat00617-0036.pdf A quantitative study of Australian aboriginal and Caucasian brains. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1261675/ ''The brain volumes of 8 male Australian Aborigines and 11 male Caucasians were determined. Total brain volume was significantly smaller for Aborigines (1199 +/- 84 ml) compared to Caucasians (1386 +/- 98 ml). Significantly smaller volumes were also found for cerebellum, prosencephalon-mesencephalon unit, cerebral cortex, frontal cortex, parieto-occipitotemporal cortex, and hippocampus. Volumes of ponsmedulla oblongata unit (21 +/- 3 ml for Aborigines and 22 +/- 3 ml for Caucasians) and visual cortex (14.9 ml +/- 2.6 ml and 14.6 +/- 2.2 ml, respectively) did not differ significantly. The striate cortex extended further onto the lateral surface of the occipital lobe in Aboriginal brains. The frontal portion of cerebral cortex was larger in Aboriginal than in Caucasian brains. According to the specific growth periods for the areas studied, these differences could be explained by the higher incidence of malnutrition and infectious diseases for Aboriginals during the development of the brain in early childhood, especially after the 6th postnatal month. However, genetic influences cannot be excluded. The results for the visual cortex of Aborigines might represent an adaptation to living conditions in the bush and desert regions of Australia.'' --------------

Race Differences in Intelligence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlQBWdGjH4U&feature=g-all-lik Race, Genes And Intelligence. http://rense.com/general79/dut.htm ---------------http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html All Non-Africans have 1-4 % Neanderthaler DNA in him/her. All main races and sub-races independently developed, mutaded by environments, diseases and mixtures with other (sub)races etc. ----------------Dark skinned Caucasians http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=225913 The people of South India are Caucasian just like the Northern Indians. Dravidian Mediterraneans arrived in India and became dominant but mixed with the tribal Austro-Asiatic peoples that were already in India. This group now makes up large parts of today's South India. The people of South East Asia (like Burma, Thailand, etc) can also trace their ancestry to the Austro-Asiatics. The people of South India also have Mongol in their DNA because of intermixing over thousands of years. The people of Northern India are also a second wave of Caucasian (more modern looking Caucasians than the first wave) from Central Asia. The Indians in the North have a varying degree of Mongol in them too, particualrly Tibeto Mongol to the East. The Mongol DNA in the West and far North Indian are more likely to be less Tibeto Mongol but rather the Mongols of Central Asia. Even the the Punjabis, who are among the most Caucasian looking of all Indians have 14% Mongol in their DNA. There was DNA test showing Indians of India also have Native American in their DNA. This may sound absurd at first, but when you relaise that Native Americans crossed over from Serbia, it is very plausible they also dispersed into other parts of the world like Central Asia and later on to India from there hence the Central Asian Mongol in the DNA of Indians in teh West and far North. The father's side of Indians make up the bulk of the Caucasian genes as the Mongol side is more pronounced on the mothers side, more so than the father's side at least. And contrary to some belief, India does not have Negrotis in their DNA . The people of the Andaman Islands are Negrotis but they remained as tribals and did not mix with mainland Indians (there is also the Siddi community brought over as slaves by Arabs that liuve in mainland India in Gujarat and Karnataka, though these communities are very small). The Negrotis and AustroAsiatic are more different to each than blacks are to Europeans, even if that's difficult to believe form visual aspect. Blacks and Austro-Asiatics have no relations. So, Indians are effectively made up of three races: the Caucasian is the dominant feature in all Indians but Indians have varying degree of Mongol and Austro-Asiatic in the genetic make-up. How much Mongol and Austro-Asiatic depends on part of the country. For example, the people of Eastern India have a higher degree of Mongol in them than the Western India who have higher Caucasian percentage. I doubt you will find any Indian that is 100% Caucasian in their DNA. As for the people of North East India either are primarily Mongol (East Asian) or have large Mongol admixture.

--------------http://www.topix.com/forum/world/india/T60FQPSC5LCPBR911 This is due to a random genetic variation relative to skin color, its a somewhat complex genetic principle, but yes Indians are in all senses genetically and skeletally Caucasian and white, even the 8% tribal population is genetically caucasian although due to the expression of ancient genes these tribals are skeletally australoid and look like aboriginees who some stupid people think are black, but aboriginees are far from being genetically related to blacks. All Indians are genetically caucasian however, and most 92% appear white caucasian looking, just many have medditerranean olive/tan(olive tans easily) to dark brown skin, a few look nordic white actually. I wish more people knew Indians were white, but then again not so long ago Irish and Italians were called nonwhites, so hopefully someday people will realize indians are not only white caucasians, but also aryans, they speak an indoeuropean language like europeans and iranians. They is scientific report out on the orgins of Indians, try to look at the most recent genetic report on India, it show recently caucasian indians have been leaning sligthly mongoloid, but this is a very small amount and is likely due to mongol invasions, similar mongoid genetic markers would probably be found in the middle east and east europe which the mongols controlled for a long time, intermixing, obvously 1000s of years passed now, and all of that is diluted, everyone in southcentral asia and east europe now would look caucasian again, maybe a few mongolid looking ones but very few with some features. Indians are genetically closest to Iranians, and Eastern Europeans with a general phenotype closest to medditerranean south/southeast europeans. North, particually Northwest India(especially Punjab/Pakistan(not Balochistan)) is the closest part of india pheno/genotypically close to europeans/iranians some people in this region may have also been recent immigrants from surther west a few 1000 years ago even before the ancestral north indians and Ancestral south indians, the caste sytem kept most of these people seperate, but India in the end is Caucsian and hence white. /////////////// Whilst I agree most Indians are skeletally Caucasoid, their facial features vary from region to region and even within the same region. India has had historical populations that have been Austroloid, Proto-Mongoloid, Dravidian, and most recently the Iranian type, or Aryan as some people call them. Some Dravidians are clearly a mixture of Dravidian and Mongoloid (their eye shapes are a dead giveaway) while some people in the North in places like Bengal, Orissa have Tibetan and Burman (i.e. Mongoloid) admixture. The Mughal (Central Asian Turkic) influence on the DNA wouldn't have been substantial and much of it would have been confined to Pakistan, Northwest Indian and a few other Northern areas like Utter Pradesh. A substantial Indian maternal DNA is closer to Asian than it is to European. I have read this on various scientific research papers. Indians have such varied eye shapes, an indicator of varied racial makeup of the people of the Subcontinent. Very few Indians are pure Caucasoid because of the historical mixing that took place. Most of India's tribals are Austro-Asiatic. //////////////// Scientifically proven evidence that Indians are genetically Caucasian and skeletally 92% Caucasian, only 8% are skeletally Australoid and some of those people are not even Australoid,

but a mix of Australoid/Caucasian(Tamil) or Mongoloids, these people are isolated tribals and are are still genetically Caucasian (according to the latest genetic reasearch studies) and just because negritos and some tribals like the Andamans resmable Africans does not make them African since they are genetically very distant form Africas even more so than Arabs and europeans, east asians/pacific islanders are the most distant! Dravidians are just darker Caucasians none except tribals who are not dravdian or aryan and make up only 8% of India and are still genetically caucasian are australoids, only andamanese isolated on the interior of an indian controlled island off the coast of southeast asia are genetically australoid and still they are not African more like aboriginees who are genetically very distant form blacks! Plus, long ago everyone was australoid when they left Africa and gradually became Caucasian and Mongoloid then several invasions changed features, but the fact remains modern day Indians are 100% white medditeeranean Caucasian genetically( with some more noric ones like some pashtuns/punjabis etc.) and 92% Caucasian, and 8% australoid due to the expression of ancient genes similar to what causes Hypertrichosis. In fact those with caucasian and other race's features are even found in Africa like soem Ethiopians, or the mongolid saami of SWEDEN, or australoids of Madagsacar. Plus, Indo-Euopean languages came from india as did the swastika, the caucasina race, and the term and culture aryan. Here are genetic maps proving my argument: http://heritageofjapan.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/mtdna-map-world.jpg http://dchero.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/y-haplogroups-1500ad-world-map.gif Here is the most recent genetic evidence: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/11/6/994.full.pdf+html?sid=097a62e6-5f98-4746-8ac5b49dbee28141 And Here is even more evidence: http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/the-peopling-of-india/ ---------------The Caste-system (Dutch). http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastenstelsel Kastenstelsel, (in devanagari वणारशम varna-ashrama) is in zijn oorspronkelijke vorm verdeling en codificatie van de maatschappij, die gebaseerd is op de geestelijke verscheidenheid en karma, in vier groepen. Deze verdeling is voor het eerst vermeld in Rig Veda (1500 - 1000 v.Chr.) als vier delen (mond, armen, dijen en voeten) van de eeuwige Purusha. In de latere, verklarende werken Manu Smriti en Bhagavad gita (800 - 200 v.Chr.) zijn deze vier lichaamsdelen op de maatschappij geprojecteerd, gebaseerd op de uitspraken in Upanishads (800 - 400 v.Chr.), dat Brahma, de schepper, van deze vier delen, vier groepen mensen heeft geschapen: 1. brahmanen, (de priesterlijke en geleerde klasse), 2. Kshatriya's (de strijders en de heersers), 3. Vaishya's (de landbouwers en de handelaars) en 4. Shudra's (de dienaren en arbeiders). Ashrama verwijst naar de vier stadia van het individuele leven: 1. brahmacharya – 25 jaar leven met de leraar, 2. grhastha – 25 jaar leven in een familie, 3. vanaprastha – 25 jaar leven in de afzondering en 4. sannjasa – 25 jaar leven in celibaat. Deze verdeling is in het latere hindoeïsme een onderdeel van het dagelijkse leven geworden en is in de verschillende modificaties in India tot op heden bewaard gebleven. Het oorspronkelijke kastenstelsel (varna-ashrama) wordt heel vaak verward met de hiërarchische klassenverdeling naar geslacht of erfelijke herkomst. Deze verkeerde interpretatie van de oorspronkelijke verdeling volgens de geestelijke ontwikkeling en karma is ontstaan tijdens de koloniale overheersing van India door de Portugezen in de 16de eeuw. Die hebben het Sanskriet woord varna met het Portugese woord "casta" vertaald wat "stam", "soort", "geslacht of herkomst" betekent en de vertaling is van het Sanskriet woord jati. Het is zonder enige twijfel dat alle Vedische geschriften iedere erfelijke superioriteit uitsluiten en nergens in de Vedische geschriften

is de verdeling naar jati te vinden. Nergens anders is het kastensysteem zo ingewikkeld en systematisch uitgewerkt als in India. De Indiase term voor kaste is jati. Een kaste kan uit een handvol mensen tot vele duizenden variëren. Er zijn duizenden dergelijke jati's, en elk heeft zijn distinctieve regels. De term Varna (= kleur) verwijst naar de oude en enigszins geïdealiseerde viervoudige onderverdeling van de hindoeïstische maatschappij: 1: Brahmanen, de priesterlijke en geleerde klasse; 2: Kshatriya's, de strijders en de heersers; 3: Vaishya's, de landbouwers en de handelaars; 4: Shudra's, de burgers en arbeiders.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful