DEEPAK SIDDANANJA wants me to comment on the linked video of Subramanian Swamy. Since Swamys unscientific and politically motivated claims are too numerous to fit into one post, I will spread it over several posts. This is the first one. Subramanian Swamy claims that the British created, fostered and financed the Dravidian movement. He says they made sure through English education that you didnt know Dravidian is a Sanskrit word and that it was invented/first publicized by Adi Shankara. Shankara is also said to have announced himself as a Dravida shishu and explained to Mandana Mishra that Dravida is tra+vid = where the three coasts/oceans meet. Well, if the British were so much for it, why didnt they divide India into two and grant Periyar what he wanted? Where is the proof in history that the British created, fostered and financed the movement? In fact, all the available evidence suggests that the British had completely left it to the Indian National Congress to do what it wants with India. Its funny how Swamy says the British didnt want people to know that the word Dravidian is a Sanskrit word. First of all, there is no dearth of people who claim every word in the world is a Sanskrit word, so its not surprising that Swamy is claiming this. Secondly, its wrong that the British didnt want Indians to know about the link between this word and Sanskrit. Robert Caldwell, the linguist who coined the word Dravidian, lists the following references to the word Dravida in Sanskrit texts: (1) Dravida as in Andhra-Dravida-Bhasha (2) The Dravidas, a people referred to in the Manusmriti (x 43,44). (3) The Mahabharata where the Dravidas are listed as a set of degraded people (4) Satyavrata is described as the Lord of Dravida in the Bhagavatha Purana (5) Varahamihira (404 AD) used the term Dravida By this, Subramanian Swamys claim that Adi Shankara was the one to invent this word (he later changed it to first to publicize this word) is proven to be false. Besides, serious researchers cannot take Mr Swamys word for the claim that it was first used by Shankara. If Mr Swamy had cared to read up anything, he would have realized that the word was in use much before Adi Shankara (8th Century AD). It is also proven that the British (Caldwell, to be precise) did not have any intention to hide the fact that the word was in use in Sanskrit. It is only that some Indian scholars have no intention to read what was un-hidden by them. Swamys claim that Shankara had to explain to Mandana Mishra the meaning of the word Dravida is absolute rubbish. It was in vogue from a long time before, and if Mandana Mishra really had any command over Sanskrit (which one can hardly doubt) he should have understood the word Dravida, if it is true that Shankara announced himself as a Dravida shishu. Also, the breaking up of Dravida as tra + vid is what is called goropism - ad-hoc and funny etymology cooked up to stick to the idea that ones favorite language is the oldest of all. Swamys etymology fails to explain the ta->da and da -> Da transformations from Travida to Dravida. Also, it is not Tra but Tri which means three in Sanskrit. Also, Swamy needs to give a reference to the meaning coast/ocean for the word vid in a popular Sanskrit dictionary. In short, every claim made by Swamy here can be safely thrown into the dustbin. https://youtube/watch?v=051i7-MmlSU
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:28:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015