Sanskrit and Tamil -- Which one is older?

[TatTvamAsi]

I have been reading a little on the origin of the languages and it seems to me that the undeciphered script from the Indus Valley Civilization is apparently a 'Dravidian' script which means it was an early form of Tamil (?).

The archeological findings in the IVC show that the language used then was some Dravidian language and not Sanskrit. This is one of the major weapons the anti-Hindu/anti-Indian 'scholars' (i.e.Witzel) use to insist that Sanskrit was not indigenous to geographical 'India'; and therefore validating the Aryan Invasion Theory. Sanskrit was obviously a major part of Aryavarta and although that may have included regions currently outside geographical 'India', it was still an integral part of the Subcontinent.

The current explanations and 'scholarly' works are so inadequate and rather marred with blatant eurocentricity that getting a definitive answer seems out of the question. They (western 'scholars') link Sanskrit to some "indo-european" (how convenient) family of languages that apparently pre-dates Sanskrit. Some sources claim that the earliest written source of Sanskrit was ~1500 BCE.

This is the date given to the Rig Veda which seems absolutely ridiculous! Now I've read that Sage Agastya codified both Sanskrit and Tamil and since both share no direct relation to each other, it is quite interesting to probe into their origins. Also, the Sumerian script seems to be closely related to the (early) Tamil script so perhaps there was some connection (?) between the civilizations.

Anyway, do the scriptures talk about the origins of either language? If so, what do they say (infer)? The dating of anything to do with the History of Aryavarta is so aggravating since they never kept any records; or those records were destroyed by the marauding muslims and christians. Tamil Nadu is the only state where education in Hindi is not enforced. In fact, the Tamil Nadu govt., run by dalits, is so anti-Sanskrit that they wanted the priests in the temples to recite the shlokas in tamil! Of course, that was out of the question but it certainly is interesting that both Tamil & Sanskrit gave birth to all the other languages in India.

The question of ages comes into concern here and has always bugged me. According to the scriptures, the first Manvantara of Svayambhuva Manu is supposed to have existed almost 2 BILLION (solar) years ago! Is that even remotely true/possible? That human beings, quite advanced I might add, existed on earth almost 2 billion years ago? And they must have spoken Sanskrit because they had the Vedas etc. Any further speculation on this?

As some of my Tamil friends used to say, "Agastya codified Tamil in the morning and Sanskrit in the evening; thus Tamil is superior"! HAHAHAH.

Subham.

[soham3]

Sanskrit is timeless. Tamil is 10,000 years old. All the languages on the earth & in the universe are daughters of sanskrit. Sanskrit is the mother language.

[sarabhanga]

saMskRtam descended from heaven, whereas prAkRta rose up from the earth.

saMskRtam developed on the northern face of himAla, while prAkRta developed on the southern face of himAla.

And since the dAsharAjñam confluence (c. 2,000 BC) the two sides of this linguistic coin have been continuously reflecting one another.

[karun]

hello
we cannot find out which language ist older, you can only proof which piece of paper or palmleafe is older. and why is it so important to you?this body might talk tamil and wants to be proud about it. as hindus we know, that we are not this mind-body, but parabrahma. pure consciousness. the source of all languages. you are not the doer, the talker, but the devine source.

seen from the historical side:
if you find an old paper or stone it only proves, that the people using it had some troubles in keeping the message in the mind. do not forget, that the vedas have been passed from generation to generation thoughout ages just by oral tradition. being the first to write could also mean: being first in need of a peace of paper.

regards
karun

[Arjuna]

Sanskrit is timeless. Tamil is 10,000 years old. All the languages on the earth & in the universe are daughters of sanskrit. Sanskrit is the mother language.

There is no one Sanskrit. The language of the Vedic Shruti is very different from the language of Agamas or Smriti. And while Vedic mantras are considered direct form of Paravak, divine speech, it isn't the case with other Hindu scriptures. (There are few exceptions though.)
So assuming fundamentalist point of view we may say that Vedic Sanskrit is timeless. And not classical :D

P. S. 10000 years is rather fantastic dating of Tamil i think :)

[devotee]

1. Let's assume Sanskrit is older than Tamil. This gives North Indians a feeling of superiority over their dravidian brethren.

2. May be the first assumption is not true & we found out that Tamil is older than Sanskrit. This brings a sense of superiority in the mind of Tamil speaking Indians over the rest of Indians.

...........

So, where does either result lead us to ? Division of Indians on the liguistic lines. Mother India is already suffering from the wounds inflicted on her by the British & the present politicians with their Divide & Rule policy .... why rub salt on her wounds ??

[Arjuna]

2 Devotee:

How many north indian who are SPEAKING Sanskrit have U seen? And are U sure there are less south indians speaking it?
Again, nowadays Sanskrit is not at all the ancient language of the Vedas. And modern Tamil is also very far from the original...

[devotee]

2 Devotee:

How many north indian who are SPEAKING Sanskrit have U seen? And are U sure there are less south indians speaking it?
Again, nowadays Sanskrit is not at all the ancient language of the Vedas. And modern Tamil is also very far from the original...

Namaste Arjuna,

Sanskrit is not spoken ( for exchange of views & not for prayer or chanting Mantras ... neither by North Indians nor by the South Indians) today but it is the mother of all North Indian languages. Similarly. Tamil is the origin of the Dravidian languages. No language can remain original ... in fact, it is not desirable. If a language really remains Orginal, it will be so much lacking in words to express exact "things" that it would die its own death in the changing socio-economic environment. So, if Tamil has changed, it is for good & it has certainly enriched Tamil. That is true for any language for that matter.

OM

[Arjuna]

Well, there are people who can *speak* Sanskrit, but they are few. What i wanted to say is that antiquity of Vedic Sanskrit doesn't provide any special reason for being proud for northern indians.

[devotee]

Namaste Arjuna,


What i wanted to say is that antiquity of Vedic Sanskrit doesn't provide any special reason for being proud for northern indians.

I agree. The problem is that human mind is designed in such a way that it has a strong tendency to play the unholy mind-game, " Mine is better than yours !" ... and the problem starts from here. Though there is no "mine" here in the first place but who cares as long it serves a few people's interests & who actively fuel such sentiments ?

We really don't own any language, region or a particular race or for that matter any tradition ... but we tend to "think" that way & feel possessive about it & create unnecesary avoidable boundaries. There is a necessity to preserve old traditions but that should not be at the cost of socio-economic-scientific-cultural-spiritual development or unity of the people.

OM

[rahul]

both Sanskrit and Tamil are almost contempory languages. In south India, Tamil and and in rest India, Sanskrit existed.Tamil widely spreaded in singapore, kambodia and other west asian countries.Sanskrit was mainly spreaded in rest india and in those places were todays nepal,afganistan exist.Also langauages like telugu, kananda, malayalam,bengali,hindi, all are derived from sanskrit. Also tamil, which is claimed to be purely different from Sanskrit, has comman words. Its mother of almost all the language in india except tamil.Even english and latin has comman words with sanskrit. Both of the language can 10,000 plus years old

[bhargavsai]

Sanskrit is the language of Vedas and Scriptures. But Tamil also is a great language and they have their own great literature. But there is something that is binding both Sanskrit and Tamil, and that is Sanatana Dharma. Sanatana Dharma binds both languages.

There are common beliefs, and common thought processes in both Tamil World and Sanskrit world, why? Because our Sanatana Dharma is just not limited to language, it is a path which encompasses and includes people of all languages and races. Therefore let us view our Sanatana Dharma separate from all worldly things like language, race etc etc. Let us compare it with only something Transcendental.

Pranams

[Sudarshan]

The question of ages comes into concern here and has always bugged me. According to the scriptures, the first Manvantara of Svayambhuva Manu is supposed to have existed almost 2 BILLION (solar) years ago! Is that even remotely true/possible? That human beings, quite advanced I might add, existed on earth almost 2 billion years ago? And they must have spoken Sanskrit because they had the Vedas etc. Any further speculation on this?

As some of my Tamil friends used to say, "Agastya codified Tamil in the morning and Sanskrit in the evening; thus Tamil is superior"! HAHAHAH.

Subham.

I think the concepts of these yugas are spiritual in nature and not periods of times. There is no arhaeological or genetic findings that demonstrate that mankind has lived on earth for more than 500,000 years. Advanced civilization is very new probably less than 6000 years old.

Both archeology and genetic engineering studies point to an 'out of Africa' theory. There is so much objective evidence to these findings and if anyone is interested these could be discussed on this forum ( subject to avail of time for me).

I have been a traditionalist for a long time but in the last few years my views have undergone a rapid transition and all my own understanding and research actually convince me that there is very little literal truth in the purANic accounts. The philosopher who rests in the armchair quoting from some unverifiable scripture is making tall claims against the painstaking research of many modern historians, archeologists, biologists who travel all over the world collecting fossils, specimens etc to provide objective evidence.

All languages are man made and that includes sanskrit too. Vedic Sanskrit is very similar to the language that was spoken in Persia ( iran) in olden days and there is no reason to hold that it was exclusive to India. Linguistic analysis shows that sanskrit and other similar languages have a common parent.( which maybe dead now).

God is above languages, nations, races, cultures etc - there is no point in fighting for any of these reasons. Tamil is likely to be older than sanskrit because it is a simpler language. It might be more reasonable to say that more complex languages evolved from simpler languages. This is not always true though because English is simpler than its paent languages such as Latin. So thr answer is no one really knows.

[soham3]

Sanskrit is born of intuition & spirit. Tamil is born of intelligence & mind.

[Sagefrakrobatik]

MaMma Namma Deepak. Thats what I remeber in India. Our professor took us to this university were someone taught us some sanskrit words and how to count to 10. It was hard enough trying to utlize the few malyam words i could remember.

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Sanskrit is born of intuition & spirit. Tamil is born of intelligence & mind.
I'm not Tamilian, but still...
Aren't you tired by now claiming Sanskrith as original primordial language????

I want to remind you that all sounds have come from Aum-kara and so are all languages.

You remind me of a past part of me, when I thought Sanskrith was the oldest, but then I came across some particular peculiar words in Tamil.

For example, the word 'Amma' of Tamil, came from 'Ambaa' or 'Ambika' of older Tamil. I thought over it, it is way different from Matha. Right?
But then again, I've always heard calves saying words like 'Ambaa', 'Emmaa', 'Ummaaa (Uma Maheshwari)', 'Umbaa (u sounding as U in Uganda)'
, 'Uwwaaa', 'Awwaaa' and other words, I was utterly dumbfounded! Most of them sounded like Amma and Amba. I don't was to say which is the oldest or suggest anything, but saying which is first brings a huge gap between North and south India.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-dYVEBtfM&feature=related Cows mooing :p

There is one possibility, that Sanskrith and Tamil were dielects of an older language of ancient Humans in Africa, which later evolved to 2 different languages. The Ma-karic sound is common in Sanskrith and Tamil words for mother.

Finally Soham, I'd like to comment that you should comment with some gathered information.

Even today I don't know which language came first.

@ Rahul: Many South Indian scholars believe their languages are of Dravila (ancient Tamil origin). I thought it to be Sanskrith, I asked my Kannada teacher, he said its Dravila, the Prakrith language which is the origin of Kannada.

I'm not saying most of these things out of the plain mid air, or fiction, I've thought and gone through opinions of different people by media.

Its easy to prove which language is older (No one has yet proved). It is easier to assume which language is older(Be it Sanskrith or Tamil). But, it is hard to unite Indians, if they get divided again. It is very difficult to deal with people. Both Languages are great in my opinion, both the oldest, the parent languages of the world.
Usually there are two parents right? :crazy:

[Believer]

Namaste "devotee",


1. Let's assume Sanskrit is older than Tamil. This gives North Indians a feeling of superiority over their dravidian brethren.

2. May be the first assumption is not true & we found out that Tamil is older than Sanskrit. This brings a sense of superiority in the mind of Tamil speaking Indians over the rest of Indians.

...........

So, where does either result lead us to ? Division of Indians on the linguistic lines. Mother India is already suffering from the wounds inflicted on her by the British & the present politicians with their Divide & Rule policy .... why rub salt on her wounds ??

We really don't own any language, region or a particular race or for that matter any tradition ... but we tend to "think" that way & feel possessive about it & create unnecesary avoidable boundaries. There is a necessity to preserve old traditions but that should not be at the cost of socio-economic-scientific-cultural-spiritual development or unity of the people.




Truer words have not been spoken in this forum.
How I wish there were more focused people like you here!

Bowing with reverence to the "devotee"....

[Kumar_Das]

Sanskrit is timeless. Tamil is 10,000 years old. All the languages on the earth & in the universe are daughters of sanskrit. Sanskrit is the mother language.

Father language! Sanskrit is a brutal language to be executed with a deep masculine voice with force.

[Kumar_Das]

1. Let's assume Sanskrit is older than Tamil. This gives North Indians a feeling of superiority over their dravidian brethren.

2. May be the first assumption is not true & we found out that Tamil is older than Sanskrit. This brings a sense of superiority in the mind of Tamil speaking Indians over the rest of Indians.

...........

So, where does either result lead us to ? Division of Indians on the liguistic lines. Mother India is already suffering from the wounds inflicted on her by the British & the present politicians with their Divide & Rule policy .... why rub salt on her wounds ??

Your "North Indian" languages arent anything special.

Sanskrit = language of Sanathana Dharma

Period.

I'm "North Indian" and Sanskrit means as much jack sh*t to my "North Indian" heritage as Tamil to Kannadigas, Malayalees and Telugu; which is absolutely zero.

Last time I checked Hindi like all things "Hindustani" is contaminated with islam, like "ra'aba", "ishq", "sahib", "mehboob", "zindagi", "sa'far", "tauba" thanks to the millenia of muslim rule.

Sanskrit is THE MOST superior language. Its highly scientific, philosophical and spiritual.

Its the Father of all "Indo European" languages.

[kallol]

Let me put some facts :

1. There is no Aryan or Dravidian : Check out - It was the figment of imagination of Max Mueller based on the Missionary knowledge of Bible. This theory was trashed (by him also) after Indus Valley civilization discovery

2. The movement of the Indians have been from south to north through scattered dwelling in south (the off peninsular coast is a gold mine yet to be unearthed) to saraswati valley in gujrat to indus valley and to ganges valley.

3. Check out the discovery off gulf of cambay in 2000 - going to 12000 BC - same type as harappa. The part of saraswati civilization. Subsea archeology is a big area where we lack penetration and expertise other wise the peninsular south India would be a delight for archiologists.

4. Recent dna mapping indicates - inhabition of India (south) in about 100000 BC then moving to north. Another branch from afrika came from north - around 50000 bc. A branch went out to central asia, another toward North east towards kamchakta penisula and another through bengal to south east. Andaman - 65000 yrs

5. We need to understand that the original Hinduism knowldege was much beyond sanskrit and was in form of sruti only as scripts were not there still. Sanskrit is a fully developed language which cannot evolve suddenly.

6. Old form of Tamil is a language with rudimentary script and as the language travelled towards north it evolved. The influx from outside also helped evolve into further refined language.

7. Tamil adapted a few alphabets from sanskrit later on (ha and ja). Other wise it has the first line and the last line. whereas the other languages have all the five lines.

By logic a language developed later cannot have rudimentary script.

Now you tell me by logic which should be older.

Who knows perhaps the seeds of the great knowledge of SD was from the south. Agyasta muni and many others are from south. Out of 100000 years of the human stay in India we hardly know anything !!!!

Love and best wishes

[Believer]

Now you tell me by logic which should be older.

Love and best wishes

If it ignites passions and pits one Indian against another, do we really need to talk about it? In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?

In the name of your "Love and best wishes", can we make this into a non-issue?

[kallol]

If it ignites passions and pits one Indian against another, do we really need to talk about it? In the grand scheme of things, does it matter?

In the name of your "Love and best wishes", can we make this into a non-issue?


Thanks Believer,

Yes this is a non issue for today.

Unfortunately this theory of "non issue" prevents us to know ourselves better. Thus we become dependent of other's version of our history. And without history, we lose our spiritual base, which has been the strength of India.

Neither I am from south nor from north. But as a scientist I see it from common sense and the discoveries.

Anyway I would not extend my views in this thread.

Love and best wishes

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: The Sinhalese and Tamils have been debating "Who got to this island first?" for a long time, and look at that outcome. Of course, neither is correct, as the Veddas were the aboriginals.

Such arguments aren't at all necessary or wise.

Aum namasivaya

[renuka]

The eternal word is AUM and creation came into being.
what more we need to say.
see the very fact that we Hindus of any origin right from Kashmir to Kanyakumari are showered with Sanskrit words right from conception till death shows that Sanskrit is in our very breath(incidently even our breath SOHAM is made up of Sa and Aham) Sa(He) Aham(I)
Anyway for those who disagree on the status of Sanskrit being the Jaganmata of languages..just remember that in the Sound of Silence is the Voice of God.
So no language needed.

[Rationalist]

I have been reading a little on the origin of the languages and it seems to me that the undeciphered script from the Indus Valley Civilization is apparently a 'Dravidian' script which means it was an early form of Tamil (?).

The archeological findings in the IVC show that the language used then was some Dravidian language and not Sanskrit. This is one of the major weapons the anti-Hindu/anti-Indian 'scholars' (i.e.Witzel) use to insist that Sanskrit was not indigenous to geographical 'India'; and therefore validating the Aryan Invasion Theory. Sanskrit was obviously a major part of Aryavarta and although that may have included regions currently outside geographical 'India', it was still an integral part of the Subcontinent.

The current explanations and 'scholarly' works are so inadequate and rather marred with blatant eurocentricity that getting a definitive answer seems out of the question. They (western 'scholars') link Sanskrit to some "indo-european" (how convenient) family of languages that apparently pre-dates Sanskrit. Some sources claim that the earliest written source of Sanskrit was ~1500 BCE.

This is the date given to the Rig Veda which seems absolutely ridiculous! Now I've read that Sage Agastya codified both Sanskrit and Tamil and since both share no direct relation to each other, it is quite interesting to probe into their origins. Also, the Sumerian script seems to be closely related to the (early) Tamil script so perhaps there was some connection (?) between the civilizations.

Anyway, do the scriptures talk about the origins of either language? If so, what do they say (infer)? The dating of anything to do with the History of Aryavarta is so aggravating since they never kept any records; or those records were destroyed by the marauding muslims and christians. Tamil Nadu is the only state where education in Hindi is not enforced. In fact, the Tamil Nadu govt., run by dalits, is so anti-Sanskrit that they wanted the priests in the temples to recite the shlokas in tamil! Of course, that was out of the question but it certainly is interesting that both Tamil & Sanskrit gave birth to all the other languages in India.

The question of ages comes into concern here and has always bugged me. According to the scriptures, the first Manvantara of Svayambhuva Manu is supposed to have existed almost 2 BILLION (solar) years ago! Is that even remotely true/possible? That human beings, quite advanced I might add, existed on earth almost 2 billion years ago? And they must have spoken Sanskrit because they had the Vedas etc. Any further speculation on this?

As some of my Tamil friends used to say, "Agastya codified Tamil in the morning and Sanskrit in the evening; thus Tamil is superior"! HAHAHAH.

Subham.

Who cares about what is older? Its all Indian and we should be proud that regardless of whether Sanskrit or Tamil are proven to be older than the other.

[realdemigod]

Tamil is one of the oldest languages for sure but it can't be compared to Sanskrit. The theory of Proto-Dravidian language which gave birth to all Dravidian languages and became obsolete..is a rational way of thinking but unless disproved nobody can claim the supremacy of one Dravidian language over others. If early kings of South India chose to patron Tamil while ignoring other languages and made that language official doesn't mean it's the oldest language which gave birth to all languages..and it is sheer foolishness to think so. I even had arguments with some of my Tamil friends who made up their mind that Sanskrit evolved from Tamil.

Sanskrit is timeless as most advanced studies related to science, cosmos were done in Sanskrit but not Tamil but as it comes down to one's ego.. most Tamil people will always be of the opinion that their language is superior of all.

[Sahasranama]

The self proclaimed dalits from TN can be really arrogant about Tamil supremacy and even go as far as burning themselves on the stake to protest against Hindi/Sanskrit. The Tamils have been very manipulative in extorting the government to recognise their language as "classical," even before that honour was given to Sanskrit. This has only caused government funds to be pulled away from promoting and researching Sanskrit and Hindi. I agree with Tamil politician Subramaniam Swamy from the Janata Party that Hindi in its highly Sanskritised form should be the national language of India, otherwise English is the only realistic alternative for Indians to talk to each other.

[realdemigod]

The self proclaimed dalits from TN can be really arrogant about Tamil supremacy and even go as far as burning themselves on the stake to protest against Hindi/Sanskrit. The Tamils have been very manipulative in extorting the government to recognise their language as "classical," even before that honour was given to Sanskrit. This has only caused government funds to be pulled away from promoting and researching Sanskrit and Hindi. I agree with Tamil politician Subramaniam Swamy from the Janata Party that Hindi in its highly Sanskritised form should be the national language of India, otherwise English is the only realistic alternative for Indians to talk to each other.


I totally agree but most people including my flatmate who have had bad experiences when lived in North India..having encountered rude people..vehemently hates Hindi and support Tamil..just being emotional rather than being rational. Also I have noticed when you open Hindu Chennai edition it's quite often someone or other of course a Tamil archaeologist or historian will come up with something new showing the supremacy of their language.

People don't realise that when you are onto something to prove you will do everything possible even concoct new stories as history hates vacuum rather than looking at point of view of others (non Tamil historians or archaeologists).

[TatTvamAsi]

The self proclaimed dalits from TN can be really arrogant about Tamil supremacy and even go as far as burning themselves on the stake to protest against Hindi/Sanskrit. The Tamils have been very manipulative in extorting the government to recognise their language as "classical," even before that honour was given to Sanskrit. This has only caused government funds to be pulled away from promoting and researching Sanskrit and Hindi. I agree with Tamil politician Subramaniam Swamy from the Janata Party that Hindi in its highly Sanskritised form should be the national language of India, otherwise English is the only realistic alternative for Indians to talk to each other.

This is absolute bunk.

Although there were agitations against Hindi being imposed on Tamils in the 1930s and 1960s, Tamil Nadu did not "manipulate" the government to declare it a classical language. Tamil is an ancient language that has very strong literature dating back thousands of years.

Of course, as Hindus, we consider Sanskrit devabASyA so that is not of question and Tamil dalits etc. hate Hindus so they discredit Sanskrit.

But Hindi? You must be joking. Hindi is an amalgam of many different languages and has several mleccha influences (farsi, arabic etc.). It is also a MUCH younger language than Tamil. That is why there was resistance to adopting it as a "national" language. Hindi is analogous to English; a mishmash of so many languages that although it is spoken by a lot of people (only 43% of Indians speak Hindi btw), it in no way can be considered a classical language.

Sanskrit should be declared the national language and gives everyone an opportunity to connect with the ancient heritage of India. Declaring Sanskrit as the national language will make Indians more united anyway. Of course, dalits, muslims, christians, and jews will howl but who cares about them anyway? ;)

This is the kind of arrogance that Tamil people agitated against. Hindi is a "chota" language compared to Tamil. The grammar of Tamil is highly developed and is only eclipsed by that of Sanskrit.

[Believer]

Namaste,

When a person is in the EIBF (Emotion Induced Brain Freeze) mode, all common sense goes out the door.

First of all, Hindi is not a mish-mash of 'things'. Hindustani, the street version of Hindi is a mish-mash. So, let us use the correct terminology.

Secondly, for unity, commonality has to be found and established as the rule. For language, that commonality is Hindi. Granted that there are other ancient and more respectable languages like Tamil and Sanskrit and Bengali and.... But you can't re-educate the entire population with a new language. It is just not practical. Every time I hear some well educated, smart people recommending Sanskrit as the national language, I have to search their heads. And the answer is always - if it can't be my native tongue, then I will not vote for Hindi either, so we will just pull this dream out of the air and propose Sanskrit. Guys, why don't you face the fact that Hindi, by virtue of it being the most spoken language, is the only choice. Having reservations about Hindi, or having outright hatred towards it, is couched in glowing terms as love for Sanskrit, and out pops the mantra, 'Sanskrit should be national language'. If we dismiss this pipe dream and look at the reality, there is no alternative to Hindi to unite the country. Of course, Tamil dalits would keep showing their hatred towards it, and the Tamil brahmins would oppose it because of their "love" for Tamil. It is okay to have love for ones native tongue. But that should not become hatred for everything else. Anti Hindi-ism is the only thing that brings together, the otherwise adversaries, that the Tamil brahmins and the Tamil dalits are.

Why can't educated people do some soul searching?
Why can't the smart people use common sense and realize what is practical, rather than suggesting some outlandish, non-implementable non-sense?
Why is this hatred against Hindi couched in flowery accolades for Sanskrit?
Why do we tend to think with our brains frozen?
How in the world are you going to teach Sanskrit to one billion plus people, and who would pay for that? Does economics ever enter your heads?
Are the Tamil dalits going to roll over and play dead when Sanskrit is imposed on them?

I could care less if India has a national language or not; or if it does which one is given that status, but for god's sake, shed your hatred and be practical.

Pranam.

PS This is all off-topic, as the thread was for Sanskrit/Tamil antiquity. My apologies.

[Viraja]

Tamil brahmins would oppose it because of their "love" for Tamil.


As much as I have observed, the above situation is untrue. I have noticed Tamil brahmins give 'preference' in communicating through Hindi when possible even to fellow Tamilians... even when there are 'Hindi illiterate' folks like me around as part of the group!!! (Hindi has been given so much propaganda and priority EVERYWHERE it is a 'Status symbol' in my opinion to converse and show-off one's fluency in it!! And that is why people like me dislike it somewhat!).

No offence meant.

[Seeker]

These kind of arguments could be divisive.

I like Tamil Nadu for its ancient temples . I like Sanskrit for what it has offered for humanity.

[Believer]

Namaste,

These kind of arguments could be divisive.

I like Tamil Nadu for its ancient temples . I like Sanskrit for what it has offered for humanity.
+1

It is divisive and I would rather see this thread closed, but some people get the itch to revive this thread from time to time. The ancient temples exist only in the South, the Northern ones having been pulverized by the Islamic invaders.


No offence meant.
None was taken. I am sorry that everyone gets to read whatever is posted, even though it is meant only as a rebuttal to whatever the previous posters wrote. And yes, I should not be extrapolating facts and applying to the entire Tamil population. The thread became dormant and was revived by someone on Jul 9, with a "I think......." statement. Such things are ill advised, as 'I think' is a meaningless expression unless backed by some solid proof. It brings out nothing but acrimony. It was just a thoughtless thing to do.

Pranam.

[realdemigod]

As much as I have observed, the above situation is untrue. I have noticed Tamil brahmins give 'preference' in communicating through Hindi when possible even to fellow Tamilians... even when there are 'Hindi illiterate' folks like me around as part of the group!!! (Hindi has been given so much propaganda and priority EVERYWHERE it is a 'Status symbol' in my opinion to converse and show-off one's fluency in it!! And that is why people like me dislike it somewhat!).

No offence meant.

Now that's a situation I would like to be in tamilians talking to fellow tamilians in Hindi.

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste Believer,

I did not mean to offend as I am not a Hindi speaker so I cannot claim what Hindi exactly is. My sister is fluent in Hindi as are my relatives (cousin married Punjabi Hindu etc. etc.). I was under the impression that Hindi does indeed have strong influences of Farsi and Arabic and has several elements of other north Indian languages (?). Is this not correct?

Although it is strongly connected to Sanskrit through DevanAgari and its vocabulary, the grammar, diction, and usage is starkly different, no?

Anyhow, what SahasranAma said about the Tamil Nadu govt., despite being extremely anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmin, did not manipulate the government to make Tamil a classic; it would have been a futile exercise.

Now, Telugu and Kannada did do that in their respective states since Tamil and Sanskrit are considered classical languages. Saidevo pointed out that even the first slOkA of the Tirukkural is mostly Sanskrit and that Sanskrit may have influenced Tamil more than Tamils would like to admit.

Either way, I still stand by my statement that Sanskrit should be made the national language of India for several reasons. It also levels the playing field as most people are not fluent in Sanskrit even though we recite slOkAs everyday.


Namaste,

When a person is in the EIBF (Emotion Induced Brain Freeze) mode, all common sense goes out the door.

First of all, Hindi is not a mish-mash of 'things'. Hindustani, the street version of Hindi is a mish-mash. So, let us use the correct terminology.

Secondly, for unity, commonality has to be found and established as the rule. For language, that commonality is Hindi. Granted that there are other ancient and more respectable languages like Tamil and Sanskrit and Bengali and.... But you can't re-educate the entire population with a new language. It is just not practical. Every time I hear some well educated, smart people recommending Sanskrit as the national language, I have to search their heads. And the answer is always - if it can't be my native tongue, then I will not vote for Hindi either, so we will just pull this dream out of the air and propose Sanskrit. Guys, why don't you face the fact that Hindi, by virtue of it being the most spoken language, is the only choice. Having reservations about Hindi, or having outright hatred towards it, is couched in glowing terms as love for Sanskrit, and out pops the mantra, 'Sanskrit should be national language'. If we dismiss this pipe dream and look at the reality, there is no alternative to Hindi to unite the country. Of course, Tamil dalits would keep showing their hatred towards it, and the Tamil brahmins would oppose it because of their "love" for Tamil. It is okay to have love for ones native tongue. But that should not become hatred for everything else. Anti Hindi-ism is the only thing that brings together, the otherwise adversaries, that the Tamil brahmins and the Tamil dalits are.

Why can't educated people do some soul searching?
Why can't the smart people use common sense and realize what is practical, rather than suggesting some outlandish, non-implementable non-sense?
Why is this hatred against Hindi couched in flowery accolades for Sanskrit?
Why do we tend to think with our brains frozen?
How in the world are you going to teach Sanskrit to one billion plus people, and who would pay for that? Does economics ever enter your heads?
Are the Tamil dalits going to roll over and play dead when Sanskrit is imposed on them?

I could care less if India has a national language or not; or if it does which one is given that status, but for god's sake, shed your hatred and be practical.

Pranam.

PS This is all off-topic, as the thread was for Sanskrit/Tamil antiquity. My apologies.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Either way, I still stand by my statement that Sanskrit should be made the national language of India for several reasons. It also levels the playing field as most people are not fluent in Sanskrit even though we recite slOkAs everyday.
Time has passed Sanskrit, the Dev-Bhasha, by. The chances of its ever gaining its old glory and becoming the national language are non-existent. We both know that, but one of us is having trouble making peace with that fact. Mine or your wishful thinking is not what will be implemented, but what is best for the masses. This "level playing" field, which I have heard a million times before, is just anti-Hindi-ism in disguise. Life moves forward, not backwards. We are not going to press the RESET button and then expect everyone to learn a new language. We have to build on what exists today. If about 50% of the population is fluent in Hindi, the rest will have to fall in line. Is that disadvantageous to some? Yes, but then life itself is not fair at all times to all people. If the Tamils had been able to get this through their heads since the birth of the nation, everyone in the current generation would have had a working knowledge of Hindi. But, the first thing that the dalit Govt. did when it came to power in the early 60s was to discontinue offering Hindi/Sanskrit in schools, and overnight there were tens of thousands of brahmins out of a job. They considered brahmins to be agents of the Northerners and wanted them to leave TN. There is a price to be paid for the national identity. It involves learning Hindi without demanding or dreaming about that 'never to come' level playing field, and hitting the RESET button is not an option. So, we will agree to disagree and end the debate.

Pranam.

PS. No offense was taken about your unfamiliarity with or comments on Hindi. I am not a worshiper of Hindi, just a realistic observer.
And I apologize for bringing up some of the historical facts about TN, which might be like open wounds for you, with you and your family having survived those tough times.
-

[realdemigod]

I strongly believe Sanskrit should be made national language for only reason that there is wealth of knowledge hidden in that language and our country's future generations can benefit from that. But it is not going to be easy for sure with Tamil people objecting that making Sanksrit national language would give superiority to Hindi speaking people. On the other hand I don't see why Tamil should be made national language (as we all know Karunanidhi has been trying for this for really long now) just because it's one of the oldest languages? Either language will bring out snobs from both northern and southern parts belitting other languages and behaving rudely with people of other states. I hope this remains an eternal problem as I see only problems by making either Sanskrit/Hindi or Tamil as national language.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: I did interview a Sanskritologist many years ago. He said there were only a handful of people who could use it as a conversational language, and another handful who put it as their mother tongue on a census.

Here in Canada we have a microcosm of the 'problem' with just one language besides English feeling left out and alone. So far there has been no civil war, although separation has been on the agenda at times, less so these days.

Aum namasivaya