
India wasn't the first place Sanskrit was recorded – it was Syria - Thevet
https://scroll.in/article/737715/fact-check-india-wasnt-the-first-place-sanskrit-was-recorded-it-was-syria
======
jaldhar
This is a really dumb argument. First of all Sanskrit has a precise definition
in Indian culture. It is Sanskrit ("perfected" or perhaps more appropriately
"systemized") as opposed to Prakrit ("natural") language because it is
described in a descriptive grammar, the Ashtadhyayi ("eight chapters") of
Panini. Paninis work was emended in some places by Katyayana in his Vartika
and as both of these are in the terse, sutra format, they were explained more
thoroughly by Patanjali in the Mahabhashya ("Great commentary.") These three
works are the formal definition of Sanskrit. Today Brahmanas like me mostly do
not study these but a 15th century reorganization called Siddhanta Kaumudi
("Moonlight of the Correct Principles") by Bhattoji Dikshita (or abridged
versions thereof.) but nevertheless the formal grammar set by muni traya
("three sages") Panini, Katyayana, and Patanjali define what is Sanskrit.

So there is no such thing as Rgvedic Sanskrit and proto-Indo-European is
certainly not Sanskrit even though they are obviously antecedents of it.

As an analogy take COBOL where you can have English-sounding text such as "ADD
1000000 TO BANK-ACCOUNT." Yet you would not sound very smart if you said "The
first use of COBOL is in the Canterbury Tales." If you needed to lookup COBOL
syntax you would not consult Shakespeare despite the fact that probably all of
the words in COBOL already exist in early English literature.

An ironic thing the author could have pointed out is that Panini's birthplace
was near Lahore. So in "cultural nationalist" terms one could say Sanskrit is
a Pakistani language! But this is really about politics not scholarship and
unfortunately politics makes otherwise intelligent people deranged.

------
Arun2009
Here is a rebuttal to the article: [http://all-about-
sanskrit.blogspot.in/2015/06/my-response-to...](http://all-about-
sanskrit.blogspot.in/2015/06/my-response-to-shoaib-daniyals-article.html) .
Note that the article itself is from 2015.

Major points I could gather from the rebuttal:

\- The recorded language was not "Sanskrit". There are a few Sanskrit-sounding
words and a some names of seemingly Vedic-deities mentioned (along with
several other non-Vedic deities).

\- Some scholars even contest whether PIE was an actual language and is not
just an artificial construct.

All in all, it seems to me that the writer's claim that

> Amazingly, Rigvedic Sanskrit was first recorded in inscriptions found not on
> the plains of India but in in what is now northern Syria.

is quite a bit far fetched. I tried locating a paper referring to the Mitanni
treaties ([http://sci-hub.io/10.2307/595878](http://sci-
hub.io/10.2307/595878)), but it doesn't include the text of the treaty itself
(which anyway I wouldn't have been able to understand, seeing as it is not
even Sanskrit). At any rate, what the HindutvavAdis seek to resurrect is
mostly classical Sanskrit, which most definitely is Indian, just as English
itself is, well, English, any external influences and contributions
notwithstanding.

I also find these kinds of strained attacks on Hindutva extremely disingenuous
and ultimately counterproductive. You want the other party to listen to you,
not to shut down and shout their positions even louder, marking you as an
enemy. We could begin by acknowledging some of the valid points they raise.

I for one think that there is some truth to the allegation that we (Indians)
are not aware of our own intellectual traditions. I myself hadn't heard of the
likes of Nagarjuna, Dharmakirti, Prabhakara, Bhartrhari, and Abhinavagupta
until very recently, and I understand their theories still less.

------
reallymental
Not very surprising, it had to come from somewhere. The Indus Valley
Civilization is quite well known amongst[0] Indians, and it does predate these
Mittani's mentioned in this article.

All that aside, its very interesting. Also incredibly sad to see an entire
nation wearing a language as a golden cloak, with a dagger hidden beneath it
for the people it deems unworthy of it.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation)

~~~
jaldhar
Using language to centralize power or even create a nation-state where one did
not exist is the rule rather than the exception I would say. See Italy,
Greece, France, Germany and Great Britain for recent Western examples.

~~~
reallymental
I understand that, but language that doesn't really exisit within the
population anymore? Sigh.

Perhaps it's analogous to Latin I that case.

~~~
jaldhar
Is a language only a language if it is spoken? Sanskrit has a lot of cultural
significance to Indians and it forms the basis of the vocabulary of the modern
Indian languages (even the Dravidian ones.)

So it is somewhat like Latin but perhaps a better analogy for what the Indian
nationalists want from it is Hebrew. That was also a language no one except
specialists spoke. Until they did.

~~~
reallymental
Apologies for the late reply, I was driving.

> "Is a language only a language if it is spoken?" \--Certainly not, like you
> point out.

> "Sanskrit has a lot of cultural significance to Indians and it forms the
> basis of the vocabulary of the modern Indian languages (even the Dravidian
> ones.)"

Why do you measure the significance of a language by the effect it has as the
basis of current languages, or even by the effect it has on the culture of
those people? I find it quite the opposite.

I would argue the significance of the language has been lost due to its
evolution into different, better versions of itself.

"Thy truth, then, be thy dower" \-- nobody speaks like that anymore, because
it's more tedious to do so, and I have no time to express my thoughts in such
a vague manner. It's evolved, its significance has been lost to its more
friendlier, quicker and (controversially) easier version.

I would argue that the culture shapes language, rather than the other way
round. Texting on my phone doesn't look like full sentences, for instance. I
speak better here than I do on Reddit, where my chats can be reduced to "lol"
and bad puns.

If I followed your [language -->(leads to)-->culture] statement,

I would have to ask the question, who's culture?I know, it's quite well woven
into the culture of the practising Hindu's (I cannot find any numbers on
practising vs non-practising to argue further into it), I know that the most
Muslims in India have literate knowledge Arabic/Urdu that extends as a tangent
to their culture(none into Sanskrit for sure)... I don't know enough about the
roots of Christianity in India to speak about it publicly (I suspect the
British certainly had some hand in it).

But again the population ratios are heavily skewed towards Hindu's so you can
argue that their momentum drives the culture. But I think my first point
stands, the language has been dragged through the mud to appease convoluted
political interests, and this language serves no more modern purpose.

> "perhaps a better analogy for what the Indian nationalists want from it is
> Hebrew. That was also a language no one except specialists spoke. Until they
> did."

Ah the Hindu Nationalists, how many remember how they ran through the streets
cutting the Muslims up[0]. It instantly normalised all religious thoughts in
my head. We're all just disguising our issues into a "My Dad is much stronger
than Your Dad" fight. Nobody is better.

It took a world war for the Israeli's to get their own land, and they guard
their's almost too fiercely. These Nationalists have their land (Hindustan),
and yet they incite violence and stir the pot, under the pretence of being the
white blood cells of the country.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_riots)

PS: Thank you for bringing up such good points btw, It's been a while since a
thread made me stay up late to reply to. It's not often I think about these
subjects, it was a good change of thought.

------
clear_facts
The real objectives of such sites and authors is not to actually educate or
provide facts, data, verifiable data, but to convey a message, in a subtle but
sarcastic way, most people will not bother to actually click and verify the
hyperlinks, but will just read the initial paragraph.

The message conveyed is in the headlines and in first paragraph.

" so sacred that lower castes (more than 75% of modern Hindus) weren’t even
allowed to listen to it being recited."

He provides NO data, facts, to support this claim, but wants the readers to
actually believe this.

------
clear_facts
I would rather read wikipedia.

Let us debunk the this article, point by point, step by step.

1 - >Sanskrit is the liturgical language of Hinduism, so sacred that lower
castes (more than 75% of modern Hindus) weren’t even allowed to listen to it
being recited.

Dog barking, no source or authenticity of the claim.

2 - > The earliest form of Sanskrit is that used in the Rig Veda

Again, no source for this claim ?

3 - > a dynasty called the Mitanni ruled over the upper Euphrates-Tigris
basin, ...............

Hers is the wiki link

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni)

Here is the wiki link for

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian_language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrian_language)

Here is when the author writes like the edgy teens .

"magine that: the irritating, snot-nosed Subandhu from school shares his name
with an ancient Middle Eastern prince. Goosebumps. (Sorry, Subandhu)."

This is the problem with such authors, instead of posting, exact point by
point details, they pump in their own opinions.

Here is when the author starts attacking others,

>;Were PN Oak and his kooky Hindutva histories right?;

Here is when the author starts making up facts and building upon facts he has
not proven yet.

>;Popular national myths in India urgently paint Sanskrit as completely
indigenous to India.;

Again, he is debunking something the opposite of which he has not been able to
prove yet.

>;, has not a shred of supporting evidence, either linguistic or
archeological”;

Why would I read website which constantly publishes fake news and provocative
headlines?

This website constantly abuses and produces fake headlines.

Here are examples.

Please watch out for yourself.

[http://www.opindia.com/tag/scroll/](http://www.opindia.com/tag/scroll/)

------
TheArcane
This is gonna ruffle some feathers in BJP and RSS.

~~~
jaldhar
You don't know many BJP and RSS people do you? This "shocking revelation" was
known by nationalist historians long ago and only "proves" that Indian culture
is the most ancient and once ruled the world.

------
umeshunni
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni-
Aryan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni-Aryan)

------
morekozhambu
> Imagine that: the irritating, snot-nosed Subandhu from school shares his
> name with an ancient Middle Eastern prince. Goosebumps. (Sorry, Subandhu).

That is an insult and stereotyping.

------
rajadigopula
Nice piece of fiction by SHOAIB DANIYAL! SHOAIB - common muslim name, DANIYAL
- common christian name. No wonder why the article is full of crap.

~~~
indogooner
Actually your comment is crap and comes out as Xenophobic outburst. Rather
than critiquing the article you resort to belittling someone's name and
religion which is deplorable.

~~~
rajadigopula
I am critiquing the article. The author of article is doing exactly that,
belittling the base of Hindus beliefs with personal agenda. I see no other
explanation other than that. This has became a common theme by non-Hindus in
India to come up with crappy evidences to attack the roots of Hinduism in
disguise of decent looking articles like this one and fool the intellects
which should be stopped.

~~~
exhilaration
It's very hard to see how you're critiquing the article by starting with an
analysis of the author's name.

~~~
rajadigopula
It's actually simple, no one wastes so much time on digging a 2000 to 3000 bc
evidence to attack the roots of Hindu beliefs other than the one who has a
personal agenda attached to it. Did the author actually an archaeologist and
dug the proof himself? Or he's merely mentioning some remote to unknown
evidence only he magically came across when the whole world is believing the
opposite till now?1

~~~
jalayir
In the article, the author clearly provides clickable references in the form
of hyperlinked text. I don't think he claims "he dug the proof himself".

~~~
rajadigopula
He also did link to his old article on same topic -
[https://scroll.in/article/732899/video-an-animated-map-
which...](https://scroll.in/article/732899/video-an-animated-map-which-
explains-how-the-aryans-bought-sanskrit-to-india)

\- in which the last paragraphs clearly highlights his intentions.

~~~
astrodust
That's called academic skepticism. Maybe you're unfamiliar with it.

~~~
rajadigopula
I understand that & I did that too for my dissertation, but the author made
some sarcastic and furious wording in the last paragraphs in his old article
giving a unambiguous peeking into his actual intentions on his view of people
whose beliefs he's attacking.

~~~
astrodust
I think you're reading way too much into this. If the author has an opinion on
the subject that doesn't mean they're wrong. You can be completely correct and
also a dick.

