Jump to content

sikh nation


sumra

Recommended Posts

There is no such thing as Indian race and culture. Prior to 1947 there never was an Indian civilisation.

Lets compare Punjabis of Punjab who form the most nothern state of India to Tamil Nadu to in South India. I have met Tamils and I have to either ocnverse with them in English or some other language that is common to both of us. I do not understand a single word of Tamil nor do I understand their language or culture.

The same goes for many other British invesntions ie Pakistan, Palestine, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.....They are all nationalities and not race or culture.

Jahan, are you the same Punjabi Nationalist at FFI? You must be, your posts about Punjab is as usual enlightening. Please share with us more about Punjab buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jamuka,

Trust me man the best way to learn about Punjab's history, people and cultures is through books and to then discuss with other knowledgeable and like-minded people. The internet is limited and gives mostly inaccurate and distorted information...

Do a search on Amazon.com for "Punjab" books and you will find almost 4000 available. I am still waiting for a history book i ordered. Once that arrives i intend to begin collecting a wide variety of books on Punjab (sociological, history, stories..)

I've never been a reader. But better 'late than never'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Indic civilisation is based on the idea that Sanskrit is the common cultural reference which means that the Indic world expanded from Aghanistan, Tibet to Sri Lanka and Indonesia and Cambodia.

The fact that a Tamil and a Panjab cannot communicate with their modern languages is no proof that there isn't an Indic civilisation or group of cultures. Both Panjab and Tamil Nad remain Sanskritik in culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

It's not the term Hindu but the concept of Hinduism that was created by Western Orientalist scholars.

The term Hindu since the Islamic rule in India meant 1. Indian 2. non-Muslim but it never referred to one single religious group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the term Hindu but the concept of Hinduism that was created by Western Orientalist scholars.

The term Hindu since the Islamic rule in India meant 1. Indian 2. non-Muslim but it never referred to one single religious group.

Strange, is Guruji saying I am neither Indian ( or non-Muslim ) or Muslim?

If there was no such thing as a Hindu in the way we see it today then why didn't Guruji use words such as Saivite, Vaishnavite, Nath in order to claim not to belong to the Hindus as we know them

If Hindu meant Indian, then why would Guruji say that he was not when it is clear that he were Indian?

If Hindu meant non-Muslim then why claim not to non-Muslim when he clearly was not a Muslim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good questions.

It is a fact that the word "Hindu" had been given by the Muslims of West/Central Asia. Most likely the word "Hindu" did refer to people of certain religious beliefs and traditions.

However, lalleshvari is not wrong in stating that 'Hinduism' as a single religion/religious philosophy did not exist prior to the British rule in South Asia.

Hindus freely admit that Hinduism is ever changing and evolving. The recent concepts of 'one Hindu dharm' and 'one Hindu nation' are examples of changes made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indic civilisation is based on the idea that Sanskrit is the common cultural reference which means that the Indic world expanded from Aghanistan, Tibet to Sri Lanka and Indonesia and Cambodia.

The fact that a Tamil and a Panjab cannot communicate with their modern languages is no proof that there isn't an Indic civilisation or group of cultures. Both Panjab and Tamil Nad remain Sanskritik in culture.

What a load of crock from a fool who is hell bent at wanting to be correct all the time even at the expense of the truth.

The AIT theorists believe that the Sanskrit language belonged to these Aryan invaders of the north. People of Tamil Nadu belong to the Dravidian stock. Their language is totally different from Aryan based languages and this is a fact I know personally. I have actually tired learning Tamil and it was no easy feat as the structure is totally different from Punjabi.

This is what I learnt from my class titled Central History during my Uni days; All European languages along with other Central Asian languages have one common ancestry and all Arab languages along with African have a different ancestry. For example, the Persian word 'Barothar' means brother in English. The structure too plays a part. Arab is written from left to right.

BTW do you realise that langauge is the crux of any culture? What is culture without language?

Can you please elaborate on 'Sanskrit culture'? I suspect you have never met a single Tamil nor do you know anything about their culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jamuka

Your spot on! I had a Tamil friend at school and for a Panjabi learning it is difficult as hell. Each sentence is like learning a new tongue twister. I've always read that Tamil and other south Indian languages belong to a separate language group than Sanskrit. I think the language scholars should re-write all their books in the light of Lalleshvari's views

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Have I ever said that Tamil derived from Sanskrit? NO!

Just in case let's all re-read my post together:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indic civilisation is based on the idea that Sanskrit is the common cultural reference which means that the Indic world expanded from Aghanistan, Tibet to Sri Lanka and Indonesia and Cambodia.

The fact that a Tamil and a Panjab cannot communicate with their modern languages is no proof that there isn't an Indic civilisation or group of cultures. Both Panjab and Tamil Nad remain Sanskritik in culture.

Now can I just ask why Jamuka and Sikh Princess just assume that I meant that Tamil derived from Sanskrit? I mean I do write clear English so where does this assumption come from!

Everyone knows that Tamil and malayam are not indo-aryan languages! even a baby would know that!!!

I just said that Sanskrit was a cultural reference: not the linguistic origin of Tamil!

I do have Tamil friends and students. Fact is that most of the religious high literature of Tamil Nad (apart from the Sangam, the poems of the ARvars and the compositions of Mannikavasagar and other medieval poets) is written in Sanskrit. Had you visted any South Indian temple you would realise that Sanskrit is the liturgical language! Shaiva Siddhanta literature of Tamil Nad and kerala is written in Sanskrit and Chennai still remains one of the best centres for the study of Sanskrit with Benares. So please don't tell me that Sanskrit is not a cultural reference. You might also have noticed that the upper-class Tamil is heavily Sanskritised, words like aravinda for lotus for example derive from the Sanskrit ravindra (who has teh sun as his/her lord). It is interesting to see that the Tamil version of the Sanskrit word has integrated the Sanskrit vocabulary in the form of aravinda thus showing that Sanskrit was well established in Tamil Nad. The earliest parts of the Bhagavatapurana are of South Indian origin and a famous passage (the journey of Bhakti from South to North) in it confirms it.

Of course Tamil does not dervive from Sanskrit but fact remains that Sanskrit has remained the cultural reference and has had an impact on Tamil and vice versa. Even in Tibet Sanskrit has remained the cultural references because of the Buddhist texts that form the basis of classical Tibetan civilisation. Tibetan may be a Tibeto-Burmese language but Sanskrit still remains the cultural reference.

Please read my posts carefully before you just assume things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few native civilizations have existed in the sub-continent, infact i can only think of one which could be classed as a true 'civilization', that being of the Indus Valley.

You are all aware of the fact that Sanskrit itself has changed and over the years became contaminated with Dravidian words. The Sanskrit of today is not the original Vedic Sanskrit of the Aryan tribes who swept over Punjab and later into northern India... Even the script Sanskrit usues today (Devanagri) is not the original.

Indian civilization (read 'Hindu' civilization) is as fraudulent as the NCERT school text books published under the BJP led government of India. You know, those history text books which claimed such ludicrous and offensive material such as Jesus Christ travelling to India to learn from the Hindus, Hindus building the Pyramids in Egypt, Guru Gobind Sing being a reincarnation of Krishna etc etc,

Like how India is a conglomerate of many distinct races, cultures and languages lumped into a single country, the 'Indian culture' is a recent combination (read rip-off) of the many cultures which exist in India, then branded with a saffron-colored 'Hindi/Hindu/Hindustani' stamp.

I dont buy this mother "Sanskrit" hokus pokus claiming to link the peoples of Afghanistan to Burma, and from Kashmir to Sri Lanka one bit!

A number of scholars and historians on Panjabi from Pakistan and India are now even debating whether or not Panjabi even developed from Vedic Sanskrit or whether Panjabi is just as old, if not older.

Panjabi is the word we use now because this was given by the Persians who have thousands of years relationship with Punjab. What was Panjabi called before? It certainly existed and of all the so-called 'modern' Indic languages is closet to the original Vedic Sanskrit.

We (Punjabis) are a people for the past 150 odd years have had our history re-written for us by the British and Bhaiyaas of Hindustan. Our language was denied to us under British rule and this legacy has continued on in "independent" Pakistan and India. In India it took 20 years after independence for us to have our language recognized, and this did not come without a price. For our language to be recognized as distinct and separate from the 'Cow-belt' we saw our territory shrink to something like only 20% of what was once Punjab (The land bounded by the rivers Indus and Yamuna).

Our history has been written ignoring the many West Asian, Central Asian and Chinese sources. Instead the Indians have saffronized everything in an attempt to hegemonize the sub-continent.

We our our own people, second to no one. We are not a sub-branch or sub-culture of anyone else, especially not Bhaiyaas of Hindustan who if anything, are a sub-branch of us since it is them who rip-off anything and everything that is Punjabi with no shame or holding back..

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now can I just ask why Jamuka and Sikh Princess just assume that I meant that Tamil derived from Sanskrit? I mean I do write clear English so where does this assumption come from!

I have no 'bone' to pick with you Lalleshwari but for the sake of clarity let me reprint what you said earlier.

Indic civilisation is based on the idea that Sanskrit is the common cultural reference which means that the Indic world expanded from Aghanistan, Tibet to Sri Lanka and Indonesia and Cambodia.

There is no such thing as 'Indic civilisation' and Sanskrit is a language and not a connotation that denotes culture, people or race. The people of Cambodia and Indonesia are actually a Polenysian people whereas Afghanistanis are of Central Asian origin or Indo Aryans. The people of Afghanistan are different to people of Camboda and Indonesia as Westerners are to Africans.

The Sanskrit language belong to the Indo Aryans who migrated to North India. Yes it is true that in todays Indonesian and even Malaysian vocabulary there are many Sanskrit words or of Sanskrit origin used ie Mej, Dunia, Kismat, Takdir....but that is not because they one people with one culture. It is so because of the interaction between the North of India and South and eventually South India (Chola Kingdom) to Indonesia and Malaysia. Have you heard of ancient Hindu Kingdoms in South East Asia called Ganga Negara, Majapahit, Lanka Suka...? Anyway, various other races using Sanskrit words do not denote that they are of one race and people. Today even the English language uses many words of Subcontinent origin ie Karma, Bungalow, Dungarees....so does that mean that Caucasians also belong to this fictitious 'Indic civilisation' and Sankrit culture?

Your contention that Sanskrit is the 'common cultural reference' is a misnomer because Sanskrit is a language and not culture. Although language is the backbone of any culture, sharing of words between different cultures is not indicative that they now belong to one culture.

The fact that a Tamil and a Panjab cannot communicate with their modern languages is no proof that there isn't an Indic civilisation or group of cultures. Both Panjab and Tamil Nad remain Sanskritik in culture.

Wow! Are you rewriting history? All the books and classes I have attended are of no use then! I don't know where you are getting your information from but here is what I have been taught and learnt so far, Southern Indian languages like Tamil are not Sankrit based and have a different origin to Northen Indian languages like Punjabi. Tamil today may contain many Sanskrit words as Jahan pointed out but that is because of centuries of interaction between the North and the South and not because they are part of one fictitious 'Indic culture'. There is no such thing.

There is no such thing as Sankritic culture or Indic 'group' of cultures for that matter.

As I said in my earlier post, Punjabi and other Northen Indian languages are of Central Asian origin which is of the same origin of European languages. Their structure is the same.This is not the case for African and Arab based languages. My professor claimed thats why Punjabis, Persians, Afghanis are able to pick up languages like English and Spanish really quick becasue their structure is the same. This is not true if ones' mother tongue is of Central Asian origin and tries to learn Arabic, they would find it very hard as the structure is different. At first I did not believe him but then I remembered I took Arabic classes when I was young and I could never learn the dang language and now I know why. When I was in the US I was picking up Spanish really quick from my Chicano friends. I believe there must be some truth to what my professors contention.

Like how India is a conglomerate of many distinct races, cultures and languages lumped into a single country, the 'Indian culture' is a recent combination (read rip-off) of the many cultures which exist in India, then branded with a saffron-colored 'Hindi/Hindu/Hindustani' stamp.

You don't have to be scholar to figure that out. Go hang out with Tamils and you'll note we literally have nothing in common with them. Here is one example; Punjabis will not marry their kin to another family of same surname believing they are family whereas among Tamils a 'mama' is allowed to marry his sisters daughter!

I will end my post by stainth this, there is no such thing as an Indian race or culture. It is just a nationality that have confused many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

There is a difference between 1947's India and Indian culture as such!

1. Sanskrit is written in many scripts not just devanagari

2.Sanskrit was the language of communication and court language from Afghanistan to Indonesia.

3. I never claimed Sanskrit was the origin of Tamil.

4. Greek was spoken as a koine around the Mediterranian by all kinds of races and people. It was the language of cultural reference even for Romans. Would you deny that there was a Greek civilisation?

5. To Jahan there are no Panjabi documents contemporary to the Vedas. Panjabi derives from Sanskrit and this is a fact! Follow any elementary course in Indo-Iranian philology and you'll know why!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between 1947's India and Indian culture as such!

Id like to hear your opinion on that.

1. Sanskrit is written in many scripts not just devanagari

True. Over the course of history the script has changed (Like it has for Punjabi) but today Sanskrit is written in Devanagri. The spoken language itself has changed...

2.Sanskrit was the language of communication and court language from Afghanistan to Indonesia.

I find this very to be a interesting comment. In what books/lectures were taught this?

(Ps i am not trying to put you down but just discuss things)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Dear Jahan,

1. One has to leave the whole notion of nation as it is understood today for it is mainly an end of 18th century construct that arose in Germany with movement such as Junge Deutschland. We are talking here about civilisation and this means that many ethnic groups and religious groups can be placed in that larger definition without losing their identity. Nation and state are two different things:

a. there never was a unified South Asia yet there has always been a notion of Indianity. The early Greek and Chinese travellers clearly refer to that fact.

b. this Indianity was not based on religion (Hinduism is a 19th century concept and please remember Hindu and Hinduism are different words)

c. this Indianity wasn't based on a unity of languages. grosso modo the Indian world includes Indo-Aryan languages derived from Sanskrit (Panjabi, Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Marathi) or from Iranian dialects such as the Dardic languages; the Dravidian languages (tamil, malayam) and Tibeto Burmese (dzongpa etc..)

d. this indianity was based on the common acceptance of Sanskrit as a cultural reference.

2.For references to Sanskrit used in Sout East Asia see:

I6976 - Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar - US$44.00

RECHERCES SUR LE VOCABULAIRE DES INSCRIPTIONS SANSKRITES DU CAMBODGE

(Paris, 1991)

99 pp., 195 x 280 mm, pbk.

R7228 - Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar & Mireille Benisti - US$31.00

SUPPLEMENT AUX RECHERCHES SUR LE VOCABULAIRE DES INSCRIPTIONS SANSKRITES DU CAMBODGE, NOTE D'ICONOGRAPHIE KHMERE, NOTE SUR LA TRANSLITTERATION DU CAMBODGIEN

BEFEO. Tome. 55/1969

(Paris, 1969)

28 pp., 4 pp.illus, 190 x 280 mm, new binding

R7264 - Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar - US$24.00

SUPPLEMENT AUX RECHERCHES SUR LE VOCABULAIRE DES INSCRIPTIONS SANSKRTES

BEFEO. Tome. 53/1966

(Paris, 1966)

36 pp., 190 x 280 mm, new binding

R5236 - Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar - US$7.50

SUR UNE STANCE D'UNE INSCRIPTION SANSKRITE DU CAMBODGE

Extract of Journal Asiatique

(Paris, 1965)

3 pp., 145 x 230 mm, stapled

Sorry but it the French who did most work on this. Go to Bali and you will see this confirmed again.

Notions of kingship in all these areas are based on Sanskritic sources. Even today the king of Thailand is initiated by Brahmins and even in Islamic Indonesia Islamic kings were initiated by Brahmins!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to leave the whole notion of nation as it is understood today for it is mainly an end of 18th century construct that arose in Germany with movement such as Junge Deutschland.

Yes i agree with that. I believe the 'notion' of Punjabiyat and a single Punjabi nation also arose sometime in the 19th century continuing all the way up until resignation of Khizr Tiwana in 1947 (Last Premier of undivided Punjab).

We are talking here about civilisation and this means that many ethnic groups and religious groups can be placed in that larger definition without losing their identity. Nation and state are two different things:

You earlier mentioned the Greeks as a civilization, yes they were. The Greeks had attained cultural heights and an advanced system of social development leaving much of the World decades behind. This is how a people/culture attain this status of being a 'civilization'. They were way ahead of their time. In the subcontinent, what people attained this level of development other than the people of the Indus Valley?

a. there never was a unified South Asia yet there has always been a notion of Indianity. The early Greek and Chinese travellers clearly refer to that fact.

From the view-point of some of those living outside the subcontinent it may have appeared so, and also from the point of view of the orthodox Brahmin classes of the Ganges basin who saw it as a taboo to cross the Indus. But what of the local peoples themselves and some of the non-South Asian peoples? Persians had long viewed Punjab as their territory and we have examples of ancient rulers of Punjab who sided with those coming down the Khyber pass over other South Asian rulers. Babur had considered the Punjab as Central Asian territory and distinctly different to Hindustan (Modern day Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkand..)

d. this indianity was based on the common acceptance of Sanskrit as a cultural reference.

You will have to explain then why only the Brahmins were taught Sanskrit?

Regarding Panjabi being as old as Vedic Sanskrit, i did not say that this was a fact but this is something being debated among certain scholoars and historians.

For example, something being argued is that it is possible Panjabi did not develop from Sanskrit but both developed from a common source (Prakirit) and Prakirit II was called by Persians as Panjabi. (I believe the guy who supports this view is called Dr Devinder Singh Chahal)

Panjabi has undergone stages of evolution itself though the structure and root language has remained intact. (It has been influenced by Persians and other post-Aryan settlers in Punjab)

Because written documentation has not been found or did not survive does not automatically suggest the spoken language did not exist.

You will note that not too long ago Persian was claimed as the 'mother-language' of Panjabi and Panjabi was considered an Indo-Aryan language of the Iranian branch. Now Panjabi is classed as belonging to the 'Outer band' of the Indic branch.

More research done brings in new results and findings as we can see from the above (classification of Panjabi). I would not dismiss anything so quickly just yet...

Ps, thank you for the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

No descent scholar properly trained in Indo-Iranian philology would come up with the idea that Prakrit is older than Sanskrit. It's just like saying that English is older than Saxonic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? I have come across charts and language tables displaying Sanskrit and Prakrit as existing at the same time.

We do not know for a fact whether Vedic Sanskrit was brought to Punjab by the Aryan tribes or whether the language developed once these migratory peoples had settled down.

Also note that the Aryan peoples came in waves and may not have all been linguistically homogenous.

You should not dismiss anything until it has been comprehensively proven otherwise. I gave you the example of Panjabi previously classed as an Iranian language, now it is classed on the 'Outer band' of the Indic branch.

New research brings in new results...

peoplesandl2.GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Javanmard

Not as simple my friend. I know this theory but the fact is that Panjabi still has characteristics that only Vedic Sanskrit has. Also the chart is mistaken in placing Sanskrit where it is. It is true that Panini's grammar was fixed around that time but Sanskrit existed well before (rg Veda being the best example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not going to reject any theory but that is the most commonly accepted at present (That Panjabi later developed from Vedic Sanskrit).

I dont think the chart is so wrong though. Sanskrit of today is not the same as the original Vedic Sanskrit. Sanskrit itself changed and became contaminated with Dravidian words.

It should not also be assumed that Prakrit came after Sanskrit since there is no proof that the Aryan tribes were linguistically homogenous. Perhaps language of Vedas had a written form but the other languages of the Aryans were only spoken dialects at that time...

In any case Veer, this is another debate that should end here since we are going in circles again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...