Re: Hindu noise-makers, Elst and OIT -- a review

Dear Shivraj,

Thanks your message.

Now, about salient points in ur message:

1) There is no genetic divide between north and south indians. Consequently there is no genetic basis for a north Indian Aryan tongue and a south Indian Dravidian tongue.

2) If you were to read the earliest Tamil Grammar, the Tolkappiyar, you will notice the author has based it entirely on Panini's system. There is no argument for Dravidian as a separate language group in Tolkappiyar. This is a very important but very overlooked point.

Over the last 10 millenium, Asia has been the staging ground for a number of populations speaking a variety of dialects. Among these the language groups Elamo-Dravidian and Indo-Hittite assumed cultural status over other dialects that were current in the Indian sub-continent. The Elamo-Dravidian is an older strata agglutinative (similiar to Sumerian and Vasco) language family and differs from the Indo-Hittite language family. If language is an indication of culture we are speaking of different cultural populations which immigrated into India over a time span covering 6 to 8 millennia BP. Allthough genetic variation exist , some populations are closer genetically than others. This is an agreement by consensus on acceptable limits of variation.

2) If Tolkappiyar was based on Panini´s system, perhaps it would be wise to research further to ensure that the similiarities are wrt grammatical procedures. This does not indicate that Tamil and Paninian Sanskrit are the same language. You state that there is no argument for Dravidian as a separate language group in Tolkappiyar- I do not wish to dispute your statement because Tolkappiyar´s grammar need not be the deciding issue for Elamo-Dravidian as a separate language group. Another major factor to be taken into consideration is that both Panini and Tolkappiyar are historical age figures. Proto Vedic dialects are an entirely different issue and the struggle to interpret the Rgveda still continues. We should also bear in mind that Elamo Dravidian speakers and Indo Hittite speakers have been in contact for millennia.

Considering the current state of our knowledge it would be wiser to pursue the origin of the Elamo-Dravidian , Indo-Hittite and other language/dialectical groups, along with archeology, as there is still much to be discovered in the Indian sub-continent.

Rajan

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 5:23 AM, <shivkhokra@...> wrote:

Dear Rajan,
   Thanks for the reference. If you were to read the latest genetic research papers some salient points are emerging which refute the older research:
1) There is no genetic divide between north and south indians. Consequently there is no genetic basis for a north Indian Aryan tongue and a south Indian Dravidian tongue.

2) If you were to read the earliest Tamil Grammar, the Tolkappiyar, you will notice the author has based it entirely on Panini's system. There is no argument for Dravidian as a separate language group in Tolkappiyar. This is a very important but very overlooked point.

3) Christian Missionaries who came to spread Christianity by conversion in southern India, invented Dravidian as a separate language group. This was done to "harvest the souls of poor south Indians".

Here is some data on this:
A) Christian missionaries started breaking Hindu temples in South India.
I quote:
"For the missionaries, conversion included the strict proscription of demonolatric practices among the converts, as well as the systematic destruction of `devil temples' (Tam. pēy kōvil) and other places of worship in those cases where whole village communities converted to Christianity. The destruction of temples– along with the confiscation or destruction of `idols' and `images' – or their conversion into places of Christian worship was frequently used by the missionaries as an indicator of their success. George Uglow Pope, who superintended the Sawyerpuram District of the SPG Mission, reported in 1845:
""I may also mention that since my appointment here 9 devil temples in this divi- sion of the district, have either been destroyed or converted into Christian prayer- houses, and that of the 22 villages in connexion with the mission, the whole of the most respectable and influential inhabitants are under instruction.""

So you see Dr GU Pope had 9 Hindu temples (called Devil temples!) broken till he wrote the above piece.

B) In response to such acts the communal tension between Hindus and Christians rose. Local resistance from Hindu organisations, like the Vibuthi Sangam and the Sadur Veda Siddhanta Sabha, which counter- acted by destroying prayer houses and persecuting new Christians.

C) The Hindu elite of South India approached the Madras courts and filed a case with the contention that British monarchy and east India company was actively abetting such blatant destruction of Hindu temples. This further led to heated debates in Madras newspapers about the question of mission and conversion. Hindus had no hope of winning the case. Hindus labelled Tirunelveli as the the "emporium of missionaryism, flourishing under the auspice of the public servants of the Company".

D) The missionaries, which included Caldwell, from Tirunelveli did not remain silent, but published a lengthy reply that disapproved of the allegation of interfering with `devil-worship' by the deliberate destruction of "Peycoils".

All the points A) B) C) and D) from: Religion, Kaste und Ritual: Christliche Mission und tamilischer Hinduismus in Südindien im 19. Jahrhundert. Neue Hallesche Berichte vol. 8. Halle (Saale), Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen

E) Caldwell's quote from his Dravidian Grammar book:
"I have always endeavoured, not merely to teach the mechanical art of reading, but to teach the children to think, to supply them with right principles of action, and teach them to act from right motives to pour the light of truth into their minds to win them to Christ to train them up for usefulness on earth,and for happiness in heaven...."

It does make you wonder how, Caldwell, an Aurangzeb like figure, who was party to destruction of numerous Hindu temples, who invented Dravidian language for the conversions of South Indian Hindus, is supposedly the greatest scholar of Dravidian language!

Regards,
Shivraj

---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Dear Shivraj,

Princeton University Press edition 1994. There has been more genetic research after this work. My focus was on the linguistic issue which is still pretty sound. The genetic links of the Oraons has undergone more research. Being a north Indian Elamo-Dravidian linguistic family has brought about more research on their genetic links to the Bhils (Indo-Hittite linguistic family).

L.Mishra , a list member has cast doubts on the linguistic group assigned to the Oraons. I would be obliged if list members could provide links to research data.

Best regards,

Rajan

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:32 PM, <shivkhokra@...> wrote:

Dear Rajan,
    What year was Cavalli's paper published in? Has there been newer research on this topic since Cavalli's paper?

   Usually one has to go with the latest research on genetics related topics because newer research is working with a much wider data set in comparison to researchers of yore.

     Regards,
-Shivraj

[Excessive quoting snipped. -BMS]