group. He called these languages of South India Dravidian and the people speaking them Dravidians. His extension of the word as a generic term for the South Indian group of languages is convenient and has been accepted. Linguistic evidence alone, however, cannot be sufficient, and by itself is unreliable to establish any theory about the origins of castes or the ethnic affinity of peoples. Thus the application of the name Dravidian or Dravida to all tribes, Brahman as well as non-Brahman, inhabiting the extreme south of the Peninsula is unwarranted, inaccurate and misleading.
The derivation of the word Dravida is doubtful. It is purely of Sanskrit origin and may be a compound of two roots dra, to run, and vid, a piece (of land). It might mean a place to which one runs as a place of retreat, the extreme south of the peninsula being the last place to which any race could betake itself when driven by a stronger race from the north of India. This is only a plausible suggestion. Sanskrit pandits, however, think Dravida is a corruption or Sanskritised form of Tamil. But whether this bold derivation could be supported by any linguistic processes known to philology seems doubtful.
The origin of the word Tamil is not very clear, and native grammarians are silent on this point. Agreeing with certain Tamil and Sanskrit pandits, Dr. Caldwell derives it from Sanskrit Dravida. Mr. Dâmodaram Pillai, however, questions the correctness of this etymology and asks—Is it possible for a
