eleven in telugu is padakondu - padi (10) + ondu(1), twelve is pannendu - padi + rendu(2); thirteen - padi + mudu; 14 - padnalugu - padi + nalugu(4). It is sort of merger from 11 - 19 not entirely new words but derived from 1 -10 only and merged in pronunciation. So can be categorised stage two.
This was by far the best talk in the entire series. Sounds like Talageri was listening to me after all. I definitely enjoyed the part on arguments on PIE. I need to watch it again, as it was very long and heavy for me to digest it and respond to it better. However, I have a suggestion for you Kaushal, why don't you invite Nicholas Kaznas who I have been speaking on behalf, but let the man speak for himself. I am glad Talageri mention him respectfully and acknowledges his research and arguments, even though they are bitter rivals. However,, Kaznas is definitely Talageris senior and knows the subject of linguistics professionally. The chief disagreement is on PIE. Talageri mostly accepts PIE as the Western linguists have constructed it(and only rejects certain parts of it when they are inconvenient to him, such as Indo-Iranian being the source of Iranian and Indo-Aryan) but Kaznas rejects PIE, because PIE is so old, maybe even older than 10,000 years, that it is impossible to reconstruct PIE from languages attested today(our oldest attested language Hittite is 2000BCE) but a point that he is vehemently assertive on, and archaeologists support him on this, the Rig Veda is DEFINTELY pre-Harapan. There is no doubt about it Kushal, the words for bricks, urban cities, seals, perforated jars, cotton, silver, writing which are ubiquitous throughout Harapan cuture are TOTALY absent in the Rig Veda. They are only present in Post-Vedic texts. This means it is not Hittite but Vedic Sanskrit which is the oldest attested IE language, older tan Hittite by 2000 years min.
@DEVVRAT MISHRA Sure, so there you go, it only occurs in the new books which shows you the old books are Pre Harrapan. It then occurs regularly in the Brahmanas and the post-Vedic books.
@DEVVRAT MISHRA Absolutely. I have worked out based on the material culture described in the Rig Veda, the Puranic relative chronology, the astronomical references that the Rig Veda is between 4000-4500BCE.
@DEVVRAT MISHRA This by the way is based on the assumption that the Rig Veda is a book of the Bharata Purus and not just the Purus. The Purus go back perhaps another 1000-2000 years and if they they most definitely spoke a different kind of Sanskrit, maybe PIE. I doubt that it is the PIE the West have reconstructed. The IE migrations took place at the beginning of Purus.
Kushal has got it wrong about why Anti-AIT proponents disregard Monier-Willams. Its not because of 'dislike' for the persons, it is based on the fact that a huge number of Sanskrit words do not have like-for-like meaning in English, or in other words are non-translatable. By giving the nearest possible English meaning for a Sanskrit word, Monier-Williams has made an approximation which when used in translations creates major misrepresentations.
Monier Williams dictionary was created for missionaries. We are not its target audience. He created it to help missionaries, we can use it to spread sanskrit while still disrespecting him.
1. Will Durant, American historian: "India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all". 2. Mark Twain, American author: "India is, the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only." 3. Albert Einstein, American scientist: "We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." 4. Max Mueller, German scholar: If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered on the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions, I should point to India. 5. Romain Rolland, French scholar : "If there is one place on the face of earth where all the dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India." 6. Henry David Thoreau, American Thinker & Author: Whenever I have read any part of the Vedas, I have felt that some unearthly and unknown light illuminated me. In the great teaching of the Vedas, there is no touch of sectarianism. It is of all ages, climbs, and nationalities and is the royal road for the attainment of the Great Knowledge. When I read it, I feel that I am under the spangled heavens of a summer night. 7. R.W. Emerson, American Author: In the great books of India, an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence, which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the questions that exercise us. European house mice supposed to have their DNA marker from India & we know where caravans of people go their animal's & mice follow! ❤✌
There are numerous places in this almost 6-hour long presentation where the evidence presented is aha! But there are also places unnecessary digression and quibbling goes on. The narrative is a stream of consciousness. What is needed is a linear narrative with a nomological network approach where the interelated evidence chips away at AIT bit by bit. I suppose for that what is needed is strong editing. I hope Kushal Mehra jointly writes a book with Shri Talagiri-ji summing up his years of work published in all his books and blogs. All the quibbling and digression can be taken to end notes.
I request the Charvak Podcast authority to invite Dr.N.Kazanas for a detailed discussion on the AIT myth from a linguistic standpoint just like Shri Shrikant G.Talageri ji. Please consider my request sympathetically.
Number system is Malayalam is Stage 2. Pls request a native speaker and mathematician to clarify the construct. Also, pls review Tantrasangraha and Yuktibhāṣā in the context of languages in Dravidian Kerala. I’m not quite sure why it is so but it may constitute an interesting footnote in later language development/usage.
Hi Kushal. A really great series. I highly appreciate you giving a platform to Shrikant Talageri Ji. Please also get him to do his work on the early wars in the Rig Veda and spread of the tribes into the broader region.
Mr. Talegiri, excellent presentation once again. Seems like some people do not even believe in evolution and initial migration out of Africa, if they think Vedic Sanskrit started it all. We should thank Charles Darwin for enlightening us about evolution and the key insight he had, apparently from watching geological wonders, is that over millions of years small changes can cause unbelievable results. I think same holds for languages. We underestimate how long it takes for a language to develop and how it might borrow from neighbors and existing dialects. So, Sanskrit or proto indian borrowed from Munda languages is most likely a given. Finally, I want to point out that the skeleton analyzed at Rakhigari has been found to share maximal genes with locals of current Rakhigari population and not Munda. So this should shut up Witzel.
In view of the proposition of an east Indian culture coinciding with IVC, which contributed to classical Sansktit after merging with Rig Vedic Sanskrit, can one justify the traditional belief of Ramayana preceeding Mahabharata, which is against the view of AIT
In ancient times, languages/dialect spoken would change within a few miles since there was not much of travel between regions. Community (a group of people) in the region would strive for differentiation in the langue/dialect they spoke. Over a period of time, when civilization emerged and trade began, the dominant (most developed or most powerful) language established itself. In that context, the Proto-Vedic-Eastern language should be the oldest developed language.
1:46:41 Unfortunately not everyone adopts the local languages & many in India (both on the so called "Secular" & so called "Hindutva" sides) do insist that in the name of one nation the locals should learn their chosen language rather than they themselves learning the local language. This keeps me away from voting that type of parties. 1:01:13 You should start a new series of videos _Book Reviews_ on all the books you've read.
Great discussion. Talageri ji is one of my favourite scholars.Time and again,he has proved his capability by providing us a logical and detailed analysis of the Aryan Problem.He has refuted the arguments of the AIT scholars quite convincingly.Thank you Talageri ji.Thank you Charvak.
Also thank you interjecting against Talageri when he calls all OIT-walas skepticism of PIE as people who reject PIE altogether. There are three classes of us: 1) Those who reject such a thing as IE language family exists at all 2) Those who reject PIE and say Sanskrit is the mother of all IE languages and 3) Those who accept Sanskrit is not PIE, but the PIE the West have reconstructed is false and Sanskrit is oldest IE language. I agree (1) are uneducated and religious in their rejection. It is obvious to anybody that Sanskrit belongs to Indo-European language family (2) Is an understandable position, and one needs knowledge in linguistics in order to know why this is not possible i.e, we cannot derive the phonology of other IE languages from it and 3) Is the position educated OITists like myself and Kaznas take. We have very good reasons to reject the PIE the Western linguists have reconstructed. But what Talageri does not realize it is not just OIT people, but even Western linguists themselves are divided on it. There are two camps 1) Realists and 2) Fictionalists. The fictionalists say PIE may not not reflect any real linguistic reality, that it is purely abstract, hypothetical, such as Pulgram(1959) has said PIE reconstructions are "just a set of reconstructed formula, that do not represent any reality" The founding fathers like Sauserre and Brugman back in the 19th century also expressed doubts whether any reconstructions have validity. Recent Kaznas has been the most vocal critic, "The first fallacy is that the comparative method is “scientific” and can offer predictions" and "Another fallacy is very subtle: it is the tacit assumption that the reconstructed forms are actual and experts in this imaginary field discuss and argue among themselves as if they are realities" The realists agree by consensus that what they are doing is valid and is telling us about PIE. In fact, it is likely at least some of their guesses are going to be correct about PIE, but it is also likely they are going to be horribly wrong about many things. As a Charvaka, a skeptic, we should be skeptical because PIE is not a theory that is scientific, it does not use the scientific method, and it cannot be tested and falsified. It is a scholastic exercise, based on educated guess work, opinions and subjective conjecturing. The fact that AIT is based on nothing but guess work is enough grounds for us all Indians to reject it.
@DEVVRAT MISHRA No, Hittite and Mittani Sanskrit and Mycenaean Greek is according to Western linguistics. However, attestation does not make a difference to Western linguists because despite Sanskrit being among the oldest among the attested, all the European languages which are attested as late as the medieval are still older.
@DEVVRAT MISHRA I accept your logic. Yes 4000BCE is the most conservative date for the Rig Veda, but still too late I think, I think another 500 years makes sense. I think Talageri will realize this and push his date which is only 1000-1500 years off lol Mittani Sanskrit shows signs that not only is it a very late form of Vedic Sanskrit, it has been undergone a lot of changes due to Hurrian influence. So it is already chronologically very distant from Vedic.
I have to disagree with Shrikant Talageri that "Proto Indo-European" is a neutral word and therefore using it as the most ancient language is appropriate. A neutral word (50:50) implies a shared origin, which in case of Proto-Indo European (as a meaning) is not possible since India and Europe are not in proximity. Instead, one can use Steppe-Vedic or the best word is Proto-Vedic given that AIT has been proven as incorrect and that the most ancient language originated from North Western india.
I agree with Talageriji's arguments. But I have one question. Talageriji says Old rig veda was composed during 3rd to early 2nd millennium BCE. I didn't get proper explanation as to what is key factor or evidence which made him to come to conclusion that Old rig veda was mainly composed in 3rd to 2nd millennium BCE only. Wether is it the natural event(like earthquake, sealevel analysis, river bed analysis, etc.), or through some literary works which are scientifically analyzed like through carbon dating of other civilisations like Sumerian, Akkadian, Egypt, etc which have some data related to Vedic civilisation. If he gives this presentation, every AIT/AMT researchers have no way other than accepting OIT.
Please see his other talks where he is dating old and new rigveda in comparision with mittani text, mittani text are carbon dated around 1800 bc,the language of new rigveda is closer to mittani which means old rigveda is older than 2000 bc at least.
This is the weakest point in his theory and I have made him aware of it, and hes attacked me by calling me a "Hindu fundamentalist" for it. He doesn't have the skills to date the Rig Veda. He has been called out on his dates many times, both by AIT and OIT scholars, and I just wish he would listen. Indian scholars have already agreed Rig Veda is DEFINITELY Pre-Harrapan. Min date is 4000BCE and max is 8000BCE,
@@1981kakhiladi This is fine, but he ignores all other evidence. The astronomical references in the Rig Veda, the total absence of words in Rig Veda that match with Harapan culture, the fact that the Saraswati river was already starting to dry up in 3000BCE(as noted in Mahabharata) and the fact our own Indian chronology places the post-Vedic phase in 3000BCE and indeed the words in the Post-Vedic texts match with the Harrapa 100%(e.g., word for bricks)
@@RajSingh-xn8qd Two comments on above msg. 1) Astronomical evidences are typically weaker than archaeological for two reasons. i) Most use "interpretations" instead of explicit mentions. ii) By nature of it, they end up dating the "phenomena" rather than the text. Those mentions of astronomical phenomena could very well be old memories. 2) Archaeologically, Saraswati's drying was ~1850BC but those believing some of the astronomical dating of MBh will have a date of 3000BC.
@@sudarshanhs I agree with you: Archaeological and genetic evidence trumps all. However, what you will find that no matte what the the evidence, archaeological, genetic, textual, astronomical, geological, linguistic, they all paint the same picture. There were IE migrations out of India starting 8000BCE. There is even older evidence to suggest PIE is 10,000 BCE. I am about to publish a personal university level dissertation and I will prove exactly what I just said above. I will let you know when published. Consider OIT proven.
Why can't Dravidian come from outside and borrowed from Sanskrit. Anyway there exists elamo dravidian hypothesis. Sumerian and sanskrit appears to be closer to each other. Dravidian has certain similarities to akkadian. Akkadian was later than Sumerian. That would make dravidian invaders to IVC. Dravidian invasion theory.
1:41 Recent research considering Sumerian writing has revealed strong evidence for Indus Valley Civilization being Dravidian, or having Dravidian language. Regarding Rigvedic people, at least the early Rigvedic people lived along the banks of Helmand river in present Afghanistan, which they called Saraswati.
The research paper you are talking about makes some interesting claims. However, the root of the words pilu, pallu, pillai and related words cannot be certainly said to be derived from Dravidian. That is a claim made by the author of the paper. The word pilu also occurs in the Sanskrit lexicon provided by Panini as a synonym of ivory. If Shrikant Talageri's work is right, then the word 'pilu' will enter the Sanskrit lexicon before it enters Dravidian. Moreover, the word pilu has cognates in many Iranian as well as Armenian languages (for example, pirush in Old Persian) which cannot be explained if pilu is derived from Dravidian, as there is little to no evidence of trade between the Persians and South India in that period. All this can only be explained if the word "pilu" entered the Sanskrit lexicon when the Indo Iranians were together in the Indo-European homeland
As for the Helmand being Saraswati, how can you explain the verses in the Rigveda which explicitly describe the Saraswati as being between the Sutlej and Yamuna, and also the suktas which clearly hint towards the flora and fauna of North India?
Since Deshpande concludes that the r and l dialect speakers pre-dated the Rig Vedic dialect, which means that the Proto Indo-European language being the oldest falls flat on its face; instead it is Proto-Vedic-Eastern language which is most likely the oldest.
Original Rigveda time should be dated ....don't make that confusingly. Why there is no mention of Indusvalley people, their cities, farms, business seals etc, till Britishers discovered it?? Vedas, ithihas, puranas are never be dated exactly, these have to go extinct by atheism only....no other way
There were so many Indian cities mentioned in our scriptures and Itihās, they can easily be the cities found in SSVC (IVC), India is under continous civilisation, not easy to find old settlements when your villages have houses on top of it
In the whole section from 1:33:10 Shrikant Talagiri has revealed what could be the true agenda for giving his theories i.e. to in some way glorify India and make us Indians feel proud of it in the ethno-centric sense, while considering only the present boundaries of India, that even incorrectly, and completely ignoring the fact that the present boundaries of India were not the same in past times. The diversity that he mentioned, including people of Andaman and North-East and Ladakh, were very different from the mainstream Indo-Aryan and Dravidian Indians, and the only reason why we are able to claim India as including them is because of the present boundaries of India, which for present proposes is all fine but while studying the past we must keep in mind that the modern boundaries of India are modern and not cultural. He later claims that we can't search for 'purpose' while studying history, but his very approach to history seems to be based on a purpose.
Somewhere around 1:36 he said that we can't ask 'why' because there was no purpose. Right, but we can ask 'why' in the sense of the causes or the factors that led to a particular circumstance or event, which is after all the objective of history! This has totally been ignored by this so-called historian.
Malayalam language (sanskritised version of tamil), a mixture of tamil and sanskrit was not evolved by mixing of sanskrit and tamil speaking population in the neighbourhood. But was created by arya bramins 700 years ago to divide the dravidian/tamil society as was created kannada and telugu 2000 years ago. No sanskrit speaking people were around here to claim evolving or mixture of language. It was a political one not linguistic evolution. The dravidians who were the original inhabitants of this country(harappan civilisation) were invaded and pushed to south. The creation of other languages (in india) by doping sanskrit with tamil the oldest language in the country then was a conscious political one by the invaders (read rig veda for proof of invasion by the arya bramins) but was not evolved ones by mixing of people of different languages as claimed by Talageri. In order to wipe out the native language, culture, religion etc., (as a whole-identity) the invaders like in many other parts of the world, continue to oppress with concious political motive. Literally speaking, there were no sankrit speaking population ever lived in this country to evolve so many sanskritised languages in the country by mixture. ALL WERE CREATED POLITICALLY BY OPPRESSING THE NATIVES POLITICALLY, SOCIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, EDUCATIONALLY AND BY PREVENTING FORMAL EDUCATION IN ORDER TO INFUSE THEIR NARATIVES IN THIS CAPTURED COUNTRY. IT IS EVIDENT TO THIS DAY IN THE NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY THROUGH HINDI IMPOSITION. MOST INDIAN LANGUAGES WERE CREATED BY THE INVADERS DURING THESE 3500 YEARS DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY. SO, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGES BY MIXTURE IN THIS COUNTRY IS NOT CORRECT.
History of my land- that's Punjab- has been deliberately distorted to suit the Hindutva narrative in India. Exceptions are there like Prof Malti. In Pakistan history has been suppressed to suit the official ideological narrative of the state. 'Great scholars' across the divide cannot even decipher the stuff in the Rig Veda which appear in a mythopoeic manner. Some are so blind that they even refuse the accept the archeological evidence unearthed that tells a tale of two different peoples.
Out Of India theory for the origin of Indo-European languages as originating in India is completely false and refuted. There is evidence of migration of Indo-Iranians from western Asia. Anyone propagating the theory that Indo-European languages originated in India, whether or not it is motivated by any agenda, it is a false claim.
You can find evidence of people in western Asia... if they went west. Maybe listen to what he has to say before droning on from your NCERT textbooks and claiming "recent evidence" which you fail to cite.
@@yjvyas Text-books are created by referring to peer reviewed research papers by the academic community. If you believe in this false Out of India theory you should consider what experts say about it. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryanism
If it is a fase claim, then why do the "eminent historians" deliberately ignore Shrikant Talageri's work? Only Michael Witzel had the guts to publicly respond to him but he too, turned his face away when Shrikant Talageri refuted the counter evidence provided by him on the basis of what he only said. Except a few email wars, you won't be able to find instances when the AIT/AMT cadre has interacted with him. Also, the Wikipedia link given by you fails to mention that archaeologists, both Indian and western, are revolted by the idea of a migration occuring in the 2nd millennium BC due to the cultural continuity in the archaeological record.
@@abhimanyugaur7327 Cultural continuity in the archaeological record may be there for reasons other than linguistic continuity. Conclusions in historical research are derived not from e-mail discussions but peer-reviewed journals.
@@yashagrawal88 That is what I am saying. If the eminent historians are so convinced of their claims and if they are backed with evidence, why haven't they been able to counter Shrikant Talageri and refute his work? Also, any kind of change, especially in that of language and religion, should be attested by the historical record. It should also come to notice that archaeological excavations in West Asia and Europe have demonstrated the appearance of new pottery and cultural elements coinciding with the Indo-European migration. Why, then, there is a lack of new cultural elements that indicates a migration only in India?
Malayalam language (sanskritised version of tamil), a mixture of tamil and sanskrit was not evolved by mixing of sanskrit and tamil speaking population in the neighbourhood. But was created by arya bramins 700 years ago to divide the dravidian/tamil society as was created kannada and telugu 2000 years ago. No sanskrit speaking people were around here to claim evolving or mixture of language. It was a political one not linguistic evolution. The dravidians who were the original inhabitants of this country(harappan civilisation) were invaded and pushed to south. The creation of other languages (in india) by doping sanskrit with tamil the oldest language in the country then was a conscious political one by the invaders (read rig veda for proof of invasion by the arya bramins) but was not evolved ones by mixing of people of different languages as claimed by Talageri. In order to wipe out the native language, culture, religion etc., (as a whole-identity) the invaders like in many other parts of the world, continue to oppress with concious political motive. Literally speaking, there were no sankrit speaking population ever lived in this country to evolve so many sanskritised languages in the country by mixture. ALL WERE CREATED POLITICALLY BY OPPRESSING THE NATIVES POLITICALLY, SOCIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, EDUCATIONALLY AND BY PREVENTING FORMAL EDUCATION IN ORDER TO INFUSE THEIR NARATIVES IN THIS CAPTURED COUNTRY. IT IS EVIDENT TO THIS DAY IN THE NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY THROUGH HINDI IMPOSITION. MOST INDIAN LANGUAGES WERE CREATED BY THE INVADERS DURING THESE 3500 YEARS DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY. SO, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGES BY MIXTURE IN THIS COUNTRY IS NOT CORRECT.
Awesome work done by Taligeri sir 🙏🏼
Bharat Ratna for Srikanth Talageri sir
Thanks! It was a wonderful 3 series podcast. So much information.
Talageri is a genius. Deserves a Padma.
eleven in telugu is padakondu - padi (10) + ondu(1), twelve is pannendu - padi + rendu(2); thirteen - padi + mudu; 14 - padnalugu - padi + nalugu(4). It is sort of merger from 11 - 19 not entirely new words but derived from 1 -10 only and merged in pronunciation. So can be categorised stage two.
True. But he wants to show Sanskrit is older than all other languages
EXCELLENT
Fantastic. True intellectual honesty.
This was by far the best talk in the entire series. Sounds like Talageri was listening to me after all. I definitely enjoyed the part on arguments on PIE. I need to watch it again, as it was very long and heavy for me to digest it and respond to it better. However, I have a suggestion for you Kaushal, why don't you invite Nicholas Kaznas who I have been speaking on behalf, but let the man speak for himself. I am glad Talageri mention him respectfully and acknowledges his research and arguments, even though they are bitter rivals. However,, Kaznas is definitely Talageris senior and knows the subject of linguistics professionally. The chief disagreement is on PIE. Talageri mostly accepts PIE as the Western linguists have constructed it(and only rejects certain parts of it when they are inconvenient to him, such as Indo-Iranian being the source of Iranian and Indo-Aryan) but Kaznas rejects PIE, because PIE is so old, maybe even older than 10,000 years, that it is impossible to reconstruct PIE from languages attested today(our oldest attested language Hittite is 2000BCE) but a point that he is vehemently assertive on, and archaeologists support him on this, the Rig Veda is DEFINTELY pre-Harapan. There is no doubt about it Kushal, the words for bricks, urban cities, seals, perforated jars, cotton, silver, writing which are ubiquitous throughout Harapan cuture are TOTALY absent in the Rig Veda. They are only present in Post-Vedic texts. This means it is not Hittite but Vedic Sanskrit which is the oldest attested IE language, older tan Hittite by 2000 years min.
Interesting. I can buy that. Based on todays presentation i just ordered Nicholas’s book indo-aryan origins.
@@charanjitsingh1151 Great stuff. I am doing the same. He has plenty of free academic articles on his website to read.
@DEVVRAT MISHRA Sure, so there you go, it only occurs in the new books which shows you the old books are Pre Harrapan. It then occurs regularly in the Brahmanas and the post-Vedic books.
@DEVVRAT MISHRA Absolutely. I have worked out based on the material culture described in the Rig Veda, the Puranic relative chronology, the astronomical references that the Rig Veda is between 4000-4500BCE.
@DEVVRAT MISHRA This by the way is based on the assumption that the Rig Veda is a book of the Bharata Purus and not just the Purus. The Purus go back perhaps another 1000-2000 years and if they they most definitely spoke a different kind of Sanskrit, maybe PIE. I doubt that it is the PIE the West have reconstructed. The IE migrations took place at the beginning of Purus.
Kushal has got it wrong about why Anti-AIT proponents disregard Monier-Willams. Its not because of 'dislike' for the persons, it is based on the fact that a huge number of Sanskrit words do not have like-for-like meaning in English, or in other words are non-translatable. By giving the nearest possible English meaning for a Sanskrit word, Monier-Williams has made an approximation which when used in translations creates major misrepresentations.
Monier Williams dictionary was created for missionaries. We are not its target audience.
He created it to help missionaries, we can use it to spread sanskrit while still disrespecting him.
1. Will Durant, American historian: "India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all".
2. Mark Twain, American author: "India is, the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grand mother of tradition. our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only."
3. Albert Einstein, American scientist: "We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made."
4. Max Mueller, German scholar: If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered on the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions, I should point to India.
5. Romain Rolland, French scholar : "If there is one place on the face of earth where all the dreams of living men have found a home from the very earliest days when man began the dream of existence, it is India."
6. Henry David Thoreau, American Thinker & Author: Whenever I have read any part of the Vedas, I have felt that some unearthly and unknown light illuminated me. In the great teaching of the Vedas, there is no touch of sectarianism. It is of all ages, climbs, and nationalities and is the royal road for the attainment of the Great Knowledge. When I read it, I feel that I am under the spangled heavens of a summer night.
7. R.W. Emerson, American Author: In the great books of India, an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence, which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the questions that exercise us.
European house mice supposed to have their DNA marker from India & we know where caravans of people go their animal's & mice follow! ❤✌
All of that is well and good....but why do you need an outsiders validation.....have some self worth
There are numerous places in this almost 6-hour long presentation where the evidence presented is aha! But there are also places unnecessary digression and quibbling goes on. The narrative is a stream of consciousness. What is needed is a linear narrative with a nomological network approach where the interelated evidence chips away at AIT bit by bit. I suppose for that what is needed is strong editing. I hope Kushal Mehra jointly writes a book with Shri Talagiri-ji summing up his years of work published in all his books and blogs. All the quibbling and digression can be taken to end notes.
Good Morning, that's what a 'Podcast' is
Very very nice of Shrikant Talagiri to attribute his achievements to the values he inculcated from his parents, both father and mother.
I request the Charvak Podcast authority to invite Dr.N.Kazanas for a detailed discussion on the AIT myth from a linguistic standpoint just like Shri Shrikant G.Talageri ji. Please consider my request sympathetically.
Looking for patterns is a survival mechanism which helps identify predators
Number system is Malayalam is Stage 2. Pls request a native speaker and mathematician to clarify the construct.
Also, pls review Tantrasangraha and Yuktibhāṣā in the context of languages in Dravidian Kerala. I’m not quite sure why it is so but it may constitute an interesting footnote in later language development/usage.
True in Telugu also. But he wants to Show that Sanskrit is older than Dravidian languages
Hi Kushal. A really great series. I highly appreciate you giving a platform to Shrikant Talageri Ji.
Please also get him to do his work on the early wars in the Rig Veda and spread of the tribes into the broader region.
Good job Kushal Mehra
Interesting how Indian 'linguists' are the only proponents of the out-of-India hypothesis 😂
Mr. Talegiri, excellent presentation once again. Seems like some people do not even believe in evolution and initial migration out of Africa, if they think Vedic Sanskrit started it all. We should thank Charles Darwin for enlightening us about evolution and the key insight he had, apparently from watching geological wonders, is that over millions of years small changes can cause unbelievable results. I think same holds for languages. We underestimate how long it takes for a language to develop and how it might borrow from neighbors and existing dialects. So, Sanskrit or proto indian borrowed from Munda languages is most likely a given. Finally, I want to point out that the skeleton analyzed at Rakhigari has been found to share maximal genes with locals of current Rakhigari population and not Munda. So this should shut up Witzel.
In view of the proposition of an east Indian culture coinciding with IVC, which contributed to classical Sansktit after merging with Rig Vedic Sanskrit, can one justify the traditional belief of Ramayana preceeding Mahabharata, which is against the view of AIT
In ancient times, languages/dialect spoken would change within a few miles since there was not much of travel between regions. Community (a group of people) in the region would strive for differentiation in the langue/dialect they spoke. Over a period of time, when civilization emerged and trade began, the dominant (most developed or most powerful) language established itself. In that context, the Proto-Vedic-Eastern language should be the oldest developed language.
1:46:41 Unfortunately not everyone adopts the local languages & many in India (both on the so called "Secular" & so called "Hindutva" sides) do insist that in the name of one nation the locals should learn their chosen language rather than they themselves learning the local language. This keeps me away from voting that type of parties.
1:01:13 You should start a new series of videos _Book Reviews_ on all the books you've read.
Great discussion. Talageri ji is one of my favourite scholars.Time and again,he has proved his capability by providing us a logical and detailed analysis of the Aryan Problem.He has refuted the arguments of the AIT scholars quite convincingly.Thank you Talageri ji.Thank you Charvak.
IVC script why different from written sanskrit?
Also thank you interjecting against Talageri when he calls all OIT-walas skepticism of PIE as people who reject PIE altogether. There are three classes of us: 1) Those who reject such a thing as IE language family exists at all 2) Those who reject PIE and say Sanskrit is the mother of all IE languages and 3) Those who accept Sanskrit is not PIE, but the PIE the West have reconstructed is false and Sanskrit is oldest IE language. I agree (1) are uneducated and religious in their rejection. It is obvious to anybody that Sanskrit belongs to Indo-European language family (2) Is an understandable position, and one needs knowledge in linguistics in order to know why this is not possible i.e, we cannot derive the phonology of other IE languages from it and 3) Is the position educated OITists like myself and Kaznas take.
We have very good reasons to reject the PIE the Western linguists have reconstructed. But what Talageri does not realize it is not just OIT people, but even Western linguists themselves are divided on it. There are two camps 1) Realists and 2) Fictionalists. The fictionalists say PIE may not not reflect any real linguistic reality, that it is purely abstract, hypothetical, such as Pulgram(1959) has said PIE reconstructions are "just a set of reconstructed formula, that do not represent any reality" The founding fathers like Sauserre and Brugman back in the 19th century also expressed doubts whether any reconstructions have validity. Recent Kaznas has been the most vocal critic, "The first fallacy is that the comparative method is “scientific” and can offer predictions" and "Another fallacy is very subtle: it is the tacit assumption that the reconstructed forms are actual and experts in this imaginary field discuss and argue among themselves as if they are realities"
The realists agree by consensus that what they are doing is valid and is telling us about PIE. In fact, it is likely at least some of their guesses are going to be correct about PIE, but it is also likely they are going to be horribly wrong about many things. As a Charvaka, a skeptic, we should be skeptical because PIE is not a theory that is scientific, it does not use the scientific method, and it cannot be tested and falsified. It is a scholastic exercise, based on educated guess work, opinions and subjective conjecturing.
The fact that AIT is based on nothing but guess work is enough grounds for us all Indians to reject it.
@DEVVRAT MISHRA No, Hittite and Mittani Sanskrit and Mycenaean Greek is according to Western linguistics. However, attestation does not make a difference to Western linguists because despite Sanskrit being among the oldest among the attested, all the European languages which are attested as late as the medieval are still older.
@DEVVRAT MISHRA I accept your logic. Yes 4000BCE is the most conservative date for the Rig Veda, but still too late I think, I think another 500 years makes sense. I think Talageri will realize this and push his date which is only 1000-1500 years off lol
Mittani Sanskrit shows signs that not only is it a very late form of Vedic Sanskrit, it has been undergone a lot of changes due to Hurrian influence. So it is already chronologically very distant from Vedic.
could someone share the name of the intro song?
Can Kushal Mehra find out the date of birth of Carvaka or is he just a myth?
I have to disagree with Shrikant Talageri that "Proto Indo-European" is a neutral word and therefore using it as the most ancient language is appropriate. A neutral word (50:50) implies a shared origin, which in case of Proto-Indo European (as a meaning) is not possible since India and Europe are not in proximity. Instead, one can use Steppe-Vedic or the best word is Proto-Vedic given that AIT has been proven as incorrect and that the most ancient language originated from North Western india.
Greek for water is nero. just like dravidian neer.
Arya bharat desh ka nehi he
Bhumija bhasa or mundari bhasa se santal bhasa bana huya he
I agree with Talageriji's arguments. But I have one question. Talageriji says Old rig veda was composed during 3rd to early 2nd millennium BCE. I didn't get proper explanation as to what is key factor or evidence which made him to come to conclusion that Old rig veda was mainly composed in 3rd to 2nd millennium BCE only. Wether is it the natural event(like earthquake, sealevel analysis, river bed analysis, etc.), or through some literary works which are scientifically analyzed like through carbon dating of other civilisations like Sumerian, Akkadian, Egypt, etc which have some data related to Vedic civilisation. If he gives this presentation, every AIT/AMT researchers have no way other than accepting OIT.
Please see his other talks where he is dating old and new rigveda in comparision with mittani text, mittani text are carbon dated around 1800 bc,the language of new rigveda is closer to mittani which means old rigveda is older than 2000 bc at least.
This is the weakest point in his theory and I have made him aware of it, and hes attacked me by calling me a "Hindu fundamentalist" for it. He doesn't have the skills to date the Rig Veda. He has been called out on his dates many times, both by AIT and OIT scholars, and I just wish he would listen. Indian scholars have already agreed Rig Veda is DEFINITELY Pre-Harrapan. Min date is 4000BCE and max is 8000BCE,
@@1981kakhiladi This is fine, but he ignores all other evidence. The astronomical references in the Rig Veda, the total absence of words in Rig Veda that match with Harapan culture, the fact that the Saraswati river was already starting to dry up in 3000BCE(as noted in Mahabharata) and the fact our own Indian chronology places the post-Vedic phase in 3000BCE and indeed the words in the Post-Vedic texts match with the Harrapa 100%(e.g., word for bricks)
@@RajSingh-xn8qd Two comments on above msg.
1) Astronomical evidences are typically weaker than archaeological for two reasons. i) Most use "interpretations" instead of explicit mentions. ii) By nature of it, they end up dating the "phenomena" rather than the text. Those mentions of astronomical phenomena could very well be old memories.
2) Archaeologically, Saraswati's drying was ~1850BC but those believing some of the astronomical dating of MBh will have a date of 3000BC.
@@sudarshanhs I agree with you: Archaeological and genetic evidence trumps all. However, what you will find that no matte what the the evidence, archaeological, genetic, textual, astronomical, geological, linguistic, they all paint the same picture. There were IE migrations out of India starting 8000BCE. There is even older evidence to suggest PIE is 10,000 BCE.
I am about to publish a personal university level dissertation and I will prove exactly what I just said above. I will let you know when published. Consider OIT proven.
All controversy and monopoly is: the word " Aryan" and brahmins owning the this word
Keep crying, dumeel
Why can't Dravidian come from outside and borrowed from Sanskrit. Anyway there exists elamo dravidian hypothesis.
Sumerian and sanskrit appears to be closer to each other. Dravidian has certain similarities to akkadian. Akkadian was later than Sumerian. That would make dravidian invaders to IVC. Dravidian invasion theory.
Nope both IE and Dravidian originated in India
@@themaskedman5954 Indo-European originated outside present day India.
Sumerian has no relation to Sanskrit; it is not of the Indo-European language family.
@@yashagrawal88 Nope Indo-European originated in India
@@yashagrawal88 I know sumerian snd sanskrit belong to different families
1:41 Recent research considering Sumerian writing has revealed strong evidence for Indus Valley Civilization being Dravidian, or having Dravidian language. Regarding Rigvedic people, at least the early Rigvedic people lived along the banks of Helmand river in present Afghanistan, which they called Saraswati.
Did you even listen to anything he said, or read any of his work, before copy-pasting nonsense like a zombie?
@Altaf Hussain So where are they natives of?
The research paper you are talking about makes some interesting claims. However, the root of the words pilu, pallu, pillai and related words cannot be certainly said to be derived from Dravidian. That is a claim made by the author of the paper. The word pilu also occurs in the Sanskrit lexicon provided by Panini as a synonym of ivory. If Shrikant Talageri's work is right, then the word 'pilu' will enter the Sanskrit lexicon before it enters Dravidian. Moreover, the word pilu has cognates in many Iranian as well as Armenian languages (for example, pirush in Old Persian) which cannot be explained if pilu is derived from Dravidian, as there is little to no evidence of trade between the Persians and South India in that period. All this can only be explained if the word "pilu" entered the Sanskrit lexicon when the Indo Iranians were together in the Indo-European homeland
As for the Helmand being Saraswati, how can you explain the verses in the Rigveda which explicitly describe the Saraswati as being between the Sutlej and Yamuna, and also the suktas which clearly hint towards the flora and fauna of North India?
Since Deshpande concludes that the r and l dialect speakers pre-dated the Rig Vedic dialect, which means that the Proto Indo-European language being the oldest falls flat on its face; instead it is Proto-Vedic-Eastern language which is most likely the oldest.
False.
@@yashagrawal88 - Is that an order or a judgement, my Lord?
Original Rigveda time should be dated ....don't make that confusingly. Why there is no mention of Indusvalley people, their cities, farms, business seals etc, till Britishers discovered it?? Vedas, ithihas, puranas are never be dated exactly, these have to go extinct by atheism only....no other way
There were so many Indian cities mentioned in our scriptures and Itihās, they can easily be the cities found in SSVC (IVC), India is under continous civilisation, not easy to find old settlements when your villages have houses on top of it
In the whole section from 1:33:10 Shrikant Talagiri has revealed what could be the true agenda for giving his theories i.e. to in some way glorify India and make us Indians feel proud of it in the ethno-centric sense, while considering only the present boundaries of India, that even incorrectly, and completely ignoring the fact that the present boundaries of India were not the same in past times. The diversity that he mentioned, including people of Andaman and North-East and Ladakh, were very different from the mainstream Indo-Aryan and Dravidian Indians, and the only reason why we are able to claim India as including them is because of the present boundaries of India, which for present proposes is all fine but while studying the past we must keep in mind that the modern boundaries of India are modern and not cultural. He later claims that we can't search for 'purpose' while studying history, but his very approach to history seems to be based on a purpose.
Somewhere around 1:36 he said that we can't ask 'why' because there was no purpose. Right, but we can ask 'why' in the sense of the causes or the factors that led to a particular circumstance or event, which is after all the objective of history! This has totally been ignored by this so-called historian.
Malayalam language (sanskritised version of tamil), a mixture of tamil and sanskrit was not evolved by mixing of sanskrit and tamil speaking population in the neighbourhood.
But was created by arya bramins 700 years ago to divide the dravidian/tamil society as was created kannada and telugu 2000 years ago. No sanskrit speaking people were around here to claim evolving or mixture of language.
It was a political one not linguistic evolution. The dravidians who were the original inhabitants of this country(harappan civilisation) were invaded and pushed to south.
The creation of other languages (in india) by doping sanskrit with tamil the oldest language in the country then was a conscious political one by the invaders (read rig veda for proof of invasion by the arya bramins) but was not evolved ones by mixing of people of different languages as claimed by Talageri.
In order to wipe out the native language, culture, religion etc., (as a whole-identity) the invaders like in many other parts of the world, continue to oppress with concious political motive.
Literally speaking, there were no sankrit speaking population ever lived in this country to evolve so many sanskritised languages in the country by mixture.
ALL WERE CREATED POLITICALLY BY OPPRESSING THE NATIVES POLITICALLY, SOCIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, EDUCATIONALLY AND BY PREVENTING FORMAL EDUCATION IN ORDER TO INFUSE THEIR NARATIVES IN THIS CAPTURED COUNTRY.
IT IS EVIDENT TO THIS DAY IN THE NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY THROUGH HINDI IMPOSITION.
MOST INDIAN LANGUAGES WERE CREATED BY THE INVADERS DURING THESE 3500 YEARS DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY.
SO, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGES BY MIXTURE IN THIS COUNTRY IS NOT CORRECT.
Your opinions doesn't matter,converted rice bag.
History of my land- that's Punjab- has been deliberately distorted to suit the Hindutva narrative in India. Exceptions are there like Prof Malti. In Pakistan history has been suppressed to suit the official ideological narrative of the state. 'Great scholars' across the divide cannot even decipher the stuff in the Rig Veda which appear in a mythopoeic manner. Some are so blind that they even refuse the accept the archeological evidence unearthed that tells a tale of two different peoples.
Out Of India theory for the origin of Indo-European languages as originating in India is completely false and refuted. There is evidence of migration of Indo-Iranians from western Asia. Anyone propagating the theory that Indo-European languages originated in India, whether or not it is motivated by any agenda, it is a false claim.
You can find evidence of people in western Asia... if they went west. Maybe listen to what he has to say before droning on from your NCERT textbooks and claiming "recent evidence" which you fail to cite.
@@yjvyas Text-books are created by referring to peer reviewed research papers by the academic community. If you believe in this false Out of India theory you should consider what experts say about it. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryanism
If it is a fase claim, then why do the "eminent historians" deliberately ignore Shrikant Talageri's work? Only Michael Witzel had the guts to publicly respond to him but he too, turned his face away when Shrikant Talageri refuted the counter evidence provided by him on the basis of what he only said. Except a few email wars, you won't be able to find instances when the AIT/AMT cadre has interacted with him. Also, the Wikipedia link given by you fails to mention that archaeologists, both Indian and western, are revolted by the idea of a migration occuring in the 2nd millennium BC due to the cultural continuity in the archaeological record.
@@abhimanyugaur7327 Cultural continuity in the archaeological record may be there for reasons other than linguistic continuity.
Conclusions in historical research are derived not from e-mail discussions but peer-reviewed journals.
@@yashagrawal88 That is what I am saying. If the eminent historians are so convinced of their claims and if they are backed with evidence, why haven't they been able to counter Shrikant Talageri and refute his work? Also, any kind of change, especially in that of language and religion, should be attested by the historical record. It should also come to notice that archaeological excavations in West Asia and Europe have demonstrated the appearance of new pottery and cultural elements coinciding with the Indo-European migration. Why, then, there is a lack of new cultural elements that indicates a migration only in India?
Malayalam language (sanskritised version of tamil), a mixture of tamil and sanskrit was not evolved by mixing of sanskrit and tamil speaking population in the neighbourhood.
But was created by arya bramins 700 years ago to divide the dravidian/tamil society as was created kannada and telugu 2000 years ago. No sanskrit speaking people were around here to claim evolving or mixture of language.
It was a political one not linguistic evolution. The dravidians who were the original inhabitants of this country(harappan civilisation) were invaded and pushed to south.
The creation of other languages (in india) by doping sanskrit with tamil the oldest language in the country then was a conscious political one by the invaders (read rig veda for proof of invasion by the arya bramins) but was not evolved ones by mixing of people of different languages as claimed by Talageri.
In order to wipe out the native language, culture, religion etc., (as a whole-identity) the invaders like in many other parts of the world, continue to oppress with concious political motive.
Literally speaking, there were no sankrit speaking population ever lived in this country to evolve so many sanskritised languages in the country by mixture.
ALL WERE CREATED POLITICALLY BY OPPRESSING THE NATIVES POLITICALLY, SOCIALLY, ECONOMICALLY, EDUCATIONALLY AND BY PREVENTING FORMAL EDUCATION IN ORDER TO INFUSE THEIR NARATIVES IN THIS CAPTURED COUNTRY.
IT IS EVIDENT TO THIS DAY IN THE NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY THROUGH HINDI IMPOSITION.
MOST INDIAN LANGUAGES WERE CREATED BY THE INVADERS DURING THESE 3500 YEARS DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY.
SO, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGES BY MIXTURE IN THIS COUNTRY IS NOT CORRECT.