THE ARIYAN QUESTION

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

INDO- EUROPEAN HUMBUG

Thanks for every hubber who put their views here ! It is welcoming sign that Most of you have given the views that Aryan never exist !

But one more side effect from this view that has been put forward is the same sort of perception equating Aryan to Indo-European. The credibility the scholars show is language group similarities though the differences among them are much more than the resemblances which are very few that they show. Moreover the root words of similarities is of wrong perception while the pattern of language entirely / squarely different among each other in indo-european group of languages.

This means Scholars deny purposefully the other causes for the similarities as well as the differences among this group though they had chance of knowing the truth through scholars like Burrow and Robert Calduwell.

How far Aryan / Aryan race is imaginable and wrong and to that extent, in the same way The word Indo – European / race is equally wrong and imaginable.

In 1583-1588 ACE Flarantine Businessman ‘Philiposasati’ who resided in Gova firstly announced that European languages had similarities with Sanskrit.(1)

In 1786 ACE Sir William Jones in Bangal Asian congress firstly declared that Greek, Latin, Kothian, Chelthian, Samskritham, Persian came from same root and this could be Aryan. (2) Then the people who spoke the above languages were grouped as Indo- Ariyan / Indo –European.

In 1859 ACE Maxmuller conformed that Aryan is not a human race but It is a language group. He further conformed that the homeland of Aryan is too difficult to be defined. It must be somewhere in Central Asia (3)

But, Indian Scholars like K.M.Munshi & Professor Srikandar say that Aryans homeland is present Punjab since some geological references of Vedhic hyms signify this.(4)

Both Maxmuller & Indian Scholars search homeland of Aryans never existed. While North Indian / North indianised scholars say Sanskrit is the mother of Indo-European group the West Scholars are pointing towards either Greek / Latin.

Maxmuller proved similarities in the languages of Indo-European group. The rules and phonetical base that he explains are scientific. The mistake done by Maxmuller is that he did research in artificial language Sanskrit and did not have the chance / time to do research in natural language like tamil though cotemporary scholar Galduwell wrote several letters to Maxmuller.

Maxmuller, after 30 years of research in Sanskrit, came to know his unsolved problems in root words research solved by tamil roots and molecules.(5)

Prof. Wincent Smith who wrote his book ‘Indian Ancient History’ came to know the truth that Ancient Indian history should be started from south of India and not from north while only during writing his foreword for his book ! All his research guided by north based views became futile !(6)

In his book ‘ Dravidian Grammar’- Page 66, Dr. Galduwell showed that peacock feathers- Thokai-tamil is the root for Thuki in Bible old Testament. He also showed Sankrit ‘Sikkin’ never be the root. Prof. Gundard did research in Dravidian languages several years and he also conformed this.

Quoting the above two (in his later years) father of Sanskrit-Maxmuller says,” if this is true this could be the conformation of Antiquity of Tamil before Aryans entered India”. (7)

Here, We can see simple samples out of lot of root words researched by Maxmuller, remained unsolvable and unexplainable by himself.

I.‘Imna’- Greek, ‘Mina’-Latin, Akkadian- ‘Mana’, Babylonian ‘Minas’, Hebrew ‘Mana’, Egyptian ‘Mina’& Vedhic Sanskrit ‘Mana’ shares common meaning for mind. But Jent ‘Minu’, Greek ‘Mannos’ & Latin ‘Monil’ means ‘necklace’ -do not share the root with Sanskrit.

II.Latin ‘Marae’ Kothik ‘Mari’ Lithuvanian ‘Marae’, Irish ‘Miyur’ and Greek Ambi-maris which means ‘sea’ do not share common root with Sanskrit. The same is in the case of ‘Meen’- fish.

III.All domestic animals like cow,Goat,Dog,Horse do not have common root in Indo-European group.

IV.All Forest Animals like Lion, Elephant, Monkey, Tiger, Camel(desert) do not have common roots in Indo-European group.

I have given the above to specify the basical ancient situations of one language group that used to have same roots formation. If the indo-european group do not share common elements in these basical aspects how can they be one group? How can they be grouped as one family of languages with other negligible similarities?

Maxmuller could not find the solutions. If he would have chances to know the tamil roots he could have been solved this.

The similarities as well as the root of differences among indo-european group can be comfortably explained by tamil roots. Tamil ‘Manam’ for mind (Tholkappiam word) and ‘Mani’ for necklace and ‘Vari’ or ‘Vaari’ for sea are the roots for indo-european group. Similarly the roots for domestic as well as forest animals of indo-european group have roots in tamil. This conforms tamil is the root language for all indo-european group.(8)

Present North Indian languages including Hindustani / Hindi did not evolve from Sanskrit. Because the words & sentence pattern of North Indian languages resembles only tamil.(9)

The concept of Aryan / Indo European is not well-conceived one but based on haste conclusions(10)

Prof. Elliot Smith & Prof. W.J.Beri say that Egypt and Akkadian had direct relationship with tamil(11)

How self-styled scholars guiding foreign scholars to 100 ACE – artificial language Sanskrit to do research on ancient indian history has now turned Its worst proportion and unsolved problems continue in their research. Whereas tamil based studies give conforming results.

Panini was tamil influenced Grammarian. His timeline is 50 BCE. He/She wrote Grammar neither in Sanskrit nor for Sanskrit.(12) He/She wrote for how a language should be. Because so many unorganized languages were there in North India and West Asia. In order to make them organized he copied from Tholkappiam to do a Grammar for a language.

Based on that, after 150 years Prahritham was organized as Sanskrit. This was done in TamilNadu Kanchipuram.

Ku. Meenatchi who wrote research work on topic “ Tholkappiam And Astadhyayi” clearly specifies that Tholkappiam was written for Tamil but Astadhyayi was neither written for Sanskrit nor in Sanskrit. It was written for a unspecified language.(13) For Prahritham,Panini rules were applied. Even Aramaic (Jesus Christ spoke this language only not Hebrew) mother of present Arabic was also organized based on this. Ultimately, name of the rules were copied from Tholkappiam as it is. Pakuthi and Vikuthi of Tamil is as Pahruthi and Vikruthi and so on in Astadhyayi.

Maxmuller shows the root of Ariyan as Greek root ‘Ar’ which means ‘Ploughing tool’. He did not know about tamil root ‘Aer’ which means the same ploughing tool.(14).But Ploughing cannot be the root for Ariyan. Ariyan / Indo-European forefathers how badly created this meager history !


‘PRAHUI’ PROBLEM

Indo-european forefathers could not explain why the tamilian language ‘Prahui’ prevails presently in Paluchistan of present Pakistan. They could only wonder how could it happen. Present flash news is this Paluchistan (Dravidian tribes) people are fighting against Pakistan central government. This ‘ Parama Kukan (sivan)’ language is one of the remains of ‘Sinthu Valley’ which was created by tamil chola ‘Pahrare Chempian’(Bharathan) of Porunai Valley Civlilization. We must note that language of demon ‘paichasi’ (pichasu) also prevailed all over India.

World language group should be regrouped based on tamil roots. It shall be the real history of ancient world.


References :

(1) ,(2) The History and Culture of the Indina People, The Vedhic Age , page 205, R.G. Majumdar
(3) Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryans (AES, 1987) Page 80-127
(4) Same as (1) Page 220
(5) quoted by Dr.Robert Caldwell, A comparative Grammar of the Dravidian / South Indian Family of languages. PP. 90-91.
(6) Oppian Mozhi Nool, Page 1-2, Kna. Thevaneyan (Pavanar)
(7) Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol. I Page 233- foot note.
(8) Ariyan Varalaru, Part I by Sothi Prahasam, quoting several examples.
(9)History of Tamil page 2 P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar.
(10)Dravidian India-T.R.Sesha Iyengar Preface.
(11)ibid, page 25-32
(12) Thenmozhi, page 142, K. Appaththuraiyar.
(13) Tolkappiam And Astadhyayi, Ku. Meenatchi, page 7 & 257.
(14)Biographies of Words and The Home of The Aryans, F. Maxmuller – page 150

f.s.gandhi