I
am not on facebook, twitter or any of the other loquacious forms of social
media - in fact, as I refuse to have a mobile phone, I am not on whatsapp
either. Recently, however, someone sent me a screenshot of a tweet by Devdutt
Pattanaik:
There
was apparently quite a guessing game among his fans, followers and critics to
guess the answers to his riddle. Many names were suggested for both categories,
and apparently my name was one of those suggested for the second category: the
"Indian Hindu who did not know Sanskrit". As Pattanaik did not
bother, so far as I know, to reveal the solution to his riddle, I did not
bother to respond or react in any way to his tweet. In any case, there was no
need for me to automatically assume that he meant me; and he couldn't have
meant me anyway, since, whether he likes it or not, it is my name which rises
first to the mind of anyone (who is aware of the subject) when the question of the OIT comes up: I am the only one who
has presented a full-fledged OIT case which no-one dares to challenge directly.
So I would not say I "remain unrecognized". In fact, it is clearly
caution, wisdom or fear which motivates those in this (AIT-OIT) debate who fail
to take my name: as someone is supposed to have said recently, I am the
Voldemort in this debate: He Who Must Not Be Named.
But
today, someone sent me a screenshot of this tweet, a few hours ago (20/10/2019)
where Pattanaik does mention me by name:
Well,
I have no intentions of getting into the quagmire of social media in order to
reply to anything. But the point that Pattanaik raises, or insinuates, here is
one which I have faced many times in my twenty-seven years of writing in this
field, whether from AIT-supporting Witzel or OIT-supporting Kazanas. As I have
never lied, or seen any need to lie, about anything, let me start out by
clarifying this question once and for all:
No
I do not speak Sanskrit (although in these twenty-seven years I have studied
and learnt a great many things about Sanskrit which people knowing Sanskrit may
not know or even be aware of).
In
my school, St. Xaviers' High School, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai, my batch of students (the
1974-1975 batch, the last batch of the old 11th standard SSC) was the only one
in the history of the school which was not taught either Sanskrit or French.
Before our batch, the students had a choice between Sanskrit and French. After
our batch, they had a choice between French and Marathi! So I never learnt
Sanskrit in school, After I wrote my first book, I was urged by many people to
acquire a certificate in Sanskrit so as to be able to shut the mouths of people
who would try to corner me by pointing out that I did not know Sanskrit. But I
have never seen the need to resort to pretentious labels and fake subterfuges
or to be hypocritical on such matters.
Apart
from the suggested entertainment value of seeing people talk in Sanskrit, what
is the bigger unspoken insinuation behind this question about whether or not I
can speak Sanskrit?
Obviously,
what is being insinuated is that since I cannot speak Sanskrit I must not speak
on the Rigveda or Vedic history, or imagine myself to be able to counter people
who do know Sanskrit.
I'm
sorry, but this is totally unacceptable. People who want to escape from dealing
with the data, facts and evidence presented by me can use this spurious
argument as a fig leaf to cover their inability to deal with the Truth. But if
they expect me to feel abashed and fade into the background, sorry! Yes,
I cannot speak Sanskrit! So what! Does it mean that they
have replied to my case? Or that it is not necessary for them to do so since my
case is automatically annulled by my lack of a Sanskrit-speaking pedigree?
Well, whoever wants to use this excuse to get out of the debate can grab at
this straw and escape, but the winner of the debate will still be the OIT case
presented by me.
There
is really no need to go deeply into these diversions. But some points for these
intellectual cowards (I am not yet including Pattanaik in this category because
he has still not, to my knowledge, directly claimed that my non-expertise in
Sanskrit automatically annuls my case without there being any need to examine
that case) to ponder over:
1.
If a professor of Mathematics claims 2+2 is not equal to 4, and a child argues
against him that it is equal to 4, is the professor automatically right
and the child wrong because of their relative status in the academic field of
Mathematics? The whole AIT-OIT debate has to be based on discussion of the
data, facts and evidence, and not the academic qualifications of the
representatives of the two opposing sides.
2.
If this criterion is accepted, every Sanskrit-knowing (or Vedic-Sanskrit
knowing) person in the world automatically becomes an authority on historical
analysis of the Rigveda simply because he can speak Sanskrit.
Further,
are all Sanskrit-speaking people automatically speakers of the Vedic-Sanskrit
language also? That is, is Pattanaik himself (assuming he knows and speaks
Sanskrit) also a speaker of Vedic Sanskrit, which is distinctly different from
Classical Sanskrit?
3.
I have not relied on my own whimsical interpretations of the Rigveda, as anyone
familiar with my work will know. I have everywhere quoted from the studies of
three centuries of Indological and Vedic scholarship, from experts in the
field. I have only shown how their conclusions contradict their own analyses
and the data on which they have based their analysis. I have only cleared the air
and brought things into perspective. Is it the claim, of people who are curious
to investigate my Sanskrit-speaking skills, that if I had learnt to speak
Sanskrit (as literally lakhs and lakhs of people all over India are doing in
Sanskrit classes which are springing up in every corner of the country, apart
from the Sanskrit taught in schools and colleges), my analysis based on my own
learning of Sanskrit would have been more acceptable than my analysis based on
the analyses of three centuries of Indological and Vedic scholarship? To the
extent that my analysis based on three centuries of Vedic scholars becomes automatically
worthless?
4.
My analysis of the data is basically that: logical analysis of the data. It is
not fanciful literary analysis of the grammatical and poetical nuances of Rigvedic
poetry, where I can give any fanciful meanings and interpretations to the
verses and words in the Rigveda.
It
is based on solid words (such as names of people, rivers, animals, etc.) and
even more specifically the exact occurrence of those words in the Rigveda. It
does not require a Sanskrit-speaking Pattanaik (or anyone else) or a
Sanskrit-non-speaking Talageri to understand the basic facts.
For
example, I have shown, from the occurrences of all these words in the Rigveda
(the geographical words, and the common Rigvedic-Avestan-Mitanni words) that (I
am quoting here from my recent book "Genetics and the Aryan Debate"):
To
sum up the chronological data only in the Old Rigveda and the New
Rigveda respectively, leaving aside as a distraction the Redacted Hymns
(Old hymns edited during the New period), we get an absolutely
uni-directional picture:
TOTAL
HYMNS AND VERSES:
1.
Old Rigveda Books 2,3,4,6,7: 280
Hymns, 2351 verses.
2.
New Rigveda Books 1,5,8,9,10: 686
Hymns, 7311 verses.
COMMON
RIGVEDIC-AVESTAN-MITANNI NAME TYPES IN COMPOSER NAMES:
1.
Old Rigveda Books 2,3,4,6,7: 0
Hymns, 0 verses.
2.
New Rigveda Books 1,5,8,9,10: 309
Hymns, 3389 verses.
COMMON
RIGVEDIC-AVESTAN-MITANNI NAME TYPES AND WORDS WITHIN THE HYMNS:
1.
Old Rigveda Books 2,3,4,6,7: 0
Hymns, 0 verses.
2.
New Rigveda Books 1,5,8,9,10: 225
Hymns, 434 verses.
COMMON
RIGVEDIC-AVESTAN NEW DIMETRIC METERS:
1.
Old Rigveda Books 2,3,4,6,7: 0 Hymns, 0 verses.
2.
New Rigveda Books 1,5,8,9,10: 50
Hymns, 255 verses.
To
sum up the geographical data in the Rigveda:
1.
The names of the eastern places, lake and animals are found abundantly
in every single one of the ten books of the Rigveda (Old and New).
But
the names of the western places, lake, mountains and animals (and the central
place) are found only in the New Rigveda in the non-family books
(1,8,9,10), and are completely missing in all the six
older books: i.e. in the Old Rigveda (books 6,3,7,4,2) as well as
in the New family book 5.
2.
The rivers of the Rigveda appear in the text from east-to-west:
the following is a graphic presentation of the order of appearance of the river
names in the ten books of the Rigveda:
All
this does not depend on my being, or not being, a Sanskrit speaker. All these
names and words are there in the Rigveda in their respective positions. They do
not change depending on whether or not I know Sanskrit. Anyone who wants to
challenge the evidence must challenge the evidence - my personal
status and position, and my language-speaking skills and academic
qualifications, have nothing to do with
the debate.
Speaking
on Pattanaik himself, I first came to know about Devdutt Pattanaik when my
cousin lent me his book "Jaya - An Illustrated Retelling of the
Mahabharata", and I was fascinated. The style of writing, the facts
narrated, and the superb illustrations (which I was told were done by himself)
fascinated me, and this was probably one of the two or three books that I have
ever actually ordered and paid for from Amazon.
However,
as I came up against his later talks and articles, I became more and more
confused. Was this man a leftist or a Hindu obscurantist? Later, reading about
his close bonhomie with genuinely Hindu-hating western academicians and writers
like Wendy Doniger, I was further confused. Most recently, reading about some
of his abusive tweets on twitter, reading his repeated mindless parroting of
AIT cliches (while firmly refusing to examine the OIT evidence with honesty)
and camouflaged presentations of leftist views on Hindu texts and society, and
finally some of his recent videos on youtube which seem to cater to a largely
obscurantist Hindu religious audience who are thrilled by his papering over the
rough edges in Hindu myths, I am even more confused.
[By
this last, I refer to a recent video of his on youtube, entitled "Why
Lord Rama had to abandon Mata Sita" which has got ecstatic comments
from a huge mass following of Hindu enthusiasts, where he presents things in a
way which bears no connections at all - whatever his own claimed expertise in
Sanskrit - with the events as narrated in the original Sanskrit Valmiki
Ramayana, and where what could be described as doormat-behaviour attributed to Sita in the Valmiki Ramayana is glorified as her strength of character].
Whatever
his other activities, if he wishes to question my OIT hypothesis, I would
request Pattanaik to first deal with the evidence from my books, at least
starting with the crucial evidence of the geographical data and the
Rigvedic-Avestan-Mitanni common vocabulary, as summarized above, rather than
indulging in personal innuendo.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think his comments are not targeting you . He is targeting Hindu people come together. When Rajiv Malhotra attacked him for his knowledge of Sanskrit. He is in search of people who worked with Rajiv and does not know Sanskrit.
ReplyDeleteSir I wanted to know what is Ayas metal in rig ved is it bronze
ReplyDeleteSir I have a point on the proofs you gave about Old Rigvedic books not containing similarities with Mitanni and Avestan in contrast to the New Rigvedic books :== The Old Rigveda existed unadulterated but there was a later wave of migration which brought in the Mitanni and Avestan elements in the New Rigveda
ReplyDeleteThat will still disprove Aryans Invasion Theory. As Sanskrit is existing in early part, all later editions will not qualify for Invasion Theory.
DeleteNo there was no "later migrations" that brought in Rig Vedic or Avestan elements. There is zero evidence in the archeological or genetic record as was pointed by him several times and the book evidence clearly pin points to an east to west migration which no has been able to disprove.
ReplyDeleteThe near east and Central Asia regions are barren underpopulated wasteland regions to this day and could not support high population loads to create new genomic diversity post ice age and during ice age period. This is why the Persian empire had to capture and expand into foreign fertile regions (like Iraq/Sumer or Egypt regions etc etc) because most of their terrain empire consisted of barren wasteland regions that could not support high density population centers while the Southern Asia region could. This completely destroys any notion of AMT into ancient India and this is not considering the fact that geographical barriers like the Sahara desert blocked and contained human movement for millennia and Alexander the great could not fully bypass or get past deserts like the Gedrosian or Thar deserts outside outside help completely negating idiotic Aryan migration theory.
You indiot cooliss have to seriously stop parroting lies and suspending logic to push your idiotic worldview b/c it's becoming unoriginal!
Those who don't rigveda or study rigveda carefully blabber. Devdutt Patnaik is another traitor among hindus with no idea of Vedic Sanskrit or even Rigveda. Just don't understand why traitor Hindus backstab their own brethern. I fully support Shrikant Talageri in his analysis of Rigveda, Avesta and Mittani. Myself had studied sanskrit for years and his analysis of Rigveda clearly gives us historical perspective of Rigveda rather than Rigveda being treated just as religious texts.
ReplyDeleteSir, is there any relationship between polytheistic ancient Semitic religions/Judaism and the religion of Yazidis with Vedic Indo Aryans or Aryans of post Rig Vedic era. I understand that monotheistic Judaism is a later development. Please throw some light.
ReplyDeletePretty hypocritical of Pattanaik given that nor can he and relies heavily on works of other Indologists. I actually lean towards AIT, but the attitude of anti-OIT writers remains rather disgusting.
ReplyDelete