Author: S L Sastry
Publication: Organiser
Date: September 8, 2002
Introduction: Harappan v. Vedic
Civilisation
The "Open page" debate in The Hindu
on Harappan vs. Vedic Civilisations is attracting the attention of the
serious readers. The conclusions of Dr. Michael Witzel (Mar. 5) separating
Harappan civilisation from the Vedic culture on the main ground that while
horses were abundantly discussed in Rig Veda, there was no trace of them
in Harappa, were contested by Dr. R. Nagaswamy, ex-director of Archaeology,
Tamil Nadu (Mar. 12) on the contention that horses' bones were found and
were also subjected to carbon dating at Harappa. Dr. Witzel scoffed at
this contending that as advised by his colleague at Harvard Dr. Meadows
who was an archaeologist as also an Archaeozoologist, and certain other
scientists, the bones could have been those of an onager, or a donkey's
or a camel's or they might have found their way into the deposits due to
erosions (May 21). Inter alia, Dr. Witzel ridiculed Kautilya and his popular
work Arthasastra and also the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India for having
given respect to it. He also sneered at what he called an "ethnic-centred
rewriting craze" of ancient history which, according to him, began with
Dayanand Saraswati. He mocked at the rejection by Dr. N.S. Rajaram of the
offer of chairmanship of the ICHR alleging that it was due to disapproval
by the Indian press, passing also a contemptuous remark that such an appointment
would have opened the "door to Rama Rajya fantasies galore" a political
dig at the Government of India.
While this debate was going on,
David Frawley of "American Institute of Vedic studies" had written (June
16) that the recent discoveries in the Gulf of Cambay, etc., proved that
the image of samudra (ocean or sea) pervades throughout Rig Veda. He also
supported Nagaswamy's contention. He was surprised that in spite of material
evidence such as the Saraswati river and also evidence of Vedic literature,
certain Western scholars like Dr. Witzel still tried to separate Vedic
culture from India and attribute it to an illiterate nomadic tribe coming
from somewhere; and also smack at India's antiquity even though Magasthenes
recorded in around 300 B.C. that 153 Hindu kings ruled Bactria from 6400
years before Alexander.
In his article on June 25, Dr. Witzel
strongly disputed Rigveda having any maritime knowledge. Sarcastically
referring to Frawley's assumed Hindu name of Vamadeva Shastri, Dr. Witzel
accused him of bad philology and asserted that the correct Vedic interpretation
of samudra was simply a collection of waters such as the confluence of
rivers or ponds or the celestial waters (antariksha) but not sea or ocean.
While rejecting Dr. Witzel's argument
(of May 21) that the bones found in Harappa could be camel's or donkey's
Dr. Nagaswamy took note of his political bias in criticising India's political
set up as of Hindutva leanings.
Reacting to the comments of Dr.
Witzel of the 25th June, David Frawley defended his contention of maritime
knowledge in Vedic times and suggested that the real reason behind Dr.
Witzel's statements was that maritime nature of Vedic culture refutes his
interpretation of Rig Veda as a product of migrants from Central Asia.
He further averred that if one interprets Pig-Veda in Witzel sense ignoring
the obvious and logical meaning of terms, then there would be no telling
of what the Vedas could be turned into.
While these discussions were going
on, Shri. Sudhansu Ranade wrote in two installments (June 20 and July 7)
about the present erroneous history being taught and how the present eminent
historians. Mrs. Romela Thaper and her ilk have been perpetrating the fabricated
history ignoring our recorded literature viz. the Puranas and the Epics,
depending upon unreliable and questionable evidence adding their own imagination.
He urges that literature should be the first consideration for writing
ancient history.
In the 'open page' of July 9th,
Dr. Patrizia Norelli Bachelet Director, Aeon Centre of Cosmology added
"the third premises" to the discussion. He expressed that while history
is recorded in the Puranas and the Epics, one has to use correct cosmic
formulas, keeping in mind that the ancients were not at all concerned with
keeping records for posterity as we do today.
The latest (Open page - 6th and
13th Aug.) is the reply of Dr. Witzel to Frawley in two parts. In part
I he states that peer examination based 'on all sciences and comparison
with neighbouring texts and other contemporary witness should be made,
and that the aim should be to respect what the authors of the texts thought.
He adds that some grammatical forms (of the Vedas) had disappeared which
Panini or Sayana did not know. In the absence of the peer examination enunciated
by him, the interpretations of Sayana, Max Muller, Aravindo, etc., are
of no validity. Inter alia, he denounces as 'touted' the 'adhikari defence'
(which meant that only traditionally educated persons of Indian descent
could understand ancient texts. Part II is nothing but throwing mud on
Frawley's interpretation of RigVeda - samudra in particular.
The debate commenced on the question
whether Harappa civilisation had Vedic link. Nagaswamy's proposition in
favour was vehemently contested by Witzel quoting his colleagues in Harward
and other European scholars, in support. In the process he spoke contemptuously
about Kautilya's Arthasastra and about Defence Ministry for approving a
study of it. He alleged an "ethnic-centred craze" in India for re-writing
History. These, as pointed out by Nagaswamy, exhibit his political bias
against India and bring to mind what Max Mueller had written about his
experience about literary controversies between native and European Sanskrit
scholars. "I have watched them (native scholars)", he wrote, "carrying
on such controversies themselves and with certain European scholars and
I feel bound to say that with hardly one exception they have displayed
a greater respect for truth, a far more manly and generous spirit that
we are accustomed to even in Europe or America. They have shown strength
but no rudeness, nay, I know that nothing has surprised them as much as
the coarse invective to which certain (European) Sanskrit scholars have
condescended, rudeness of speech being, according to their view of human
nature, a safe sign of not only of bad breeding, but of want of knowledge.
There have been, with few exceptions, no quibbling, no special pleading,
no untruthfulness on their part, certainly none of that low cunning of
the scholar who writes down and publishes what he knows perfectly well
to be false and snaps his fingers at those who still value truth and self-respect
more highly than victory of applause at any price." (What India can teach
us- P.63). Another factor that comes to mind is the Sanskrit scholarship
introduced in the Oxford university in the year 1807 with the donation
of Lt. Col. Joseph Bodin of East India Coy, for its British scholars to
go to India, misrepresent Hindu scriptures and epics, destroy the faith
placed in them by the educated Indians and convert them to Christianity.
Decrying Panini (who refined Vedic
grammar) and Sayana (who wrote commentaries on Vedas hundreds of years
before Witzel was born), that they did not know many aspects of the Vedic
grammar, discrediting the interpretations given from time to time by various
seers right from the Vedic period which include sages like Parasara, Yagnyavalka,
Bharadwaja, Garga, etc., and the more recent ones such as Swami Dayanand
Saraswati, Arabindo, Vivekananda, and Sankaracharyas just because those
interpretations did not, in his view, conform to his mantra of Philology
- do not speak well of his character. In fact, it is only those seers who
knew the thoughts of the authors of the texts, which were, as well known,
not written but passed by mouth from the teacher to the pupil. This is
what Max Mueller has to say: 'A boy who is to be brought up as a student
of Rig Veda has to 'spend eight years in the house of his teacher. He has
to learn ten books - first the Hymns of Rig Veda, then ... and lastly six
treatises on pronunciation, grammar, etymology, metre, astronomy, and ceremonial'.
It is clear from the above that not only interpretation but all aspects
of the Vedas were known to all scholars from the ancient times and were
original - the exact thoughts of their authors not corrupted by the modern
"scientific" methods such as the much extolled Philology which helps more
to misrepresent than to present the "thoughts of the authors" correctly.
This is where the need for 'adhikari defence' arises. By arrogating himself
with the knowledge of the thoughts of the authors of RigVeda, Dr. Witzel
perhaps thinks that he is the collective incarnation of all the sages who
authored it. He should remember that he himself is a student of an adhikarik
teacher or his pupils.
In regard to Dr. Witzel's sarcastic
comment that "one grand claim follows another" about India's antiquity,
it is true, as pointed out by Dr. Nagaswamy, that it is a reaction to the
Western tradition. It is well known that when Warren Hastings in the year
1794 AD entrusted the job of writing Indian History to Sir William Jones,
he (Sir William Jones) came to know that India had a long past, the details
of which were recorded in the Puranas. He had also, with him, 'Dabristan
documents' from which he knew that 153 Hindu kings ruled Bactria for 6400
years before Alexander. But he dismissed the history prior to the advent
of Kaliyuga (3102 BC) as mythical and accepted the validity of the later
history from the Puranas, reducing it even there arbitrarily to 2000 years.
This was because, as per the Holy Bible, the world was born only 4000 years
before Christ and hence it would be a sacrilege to accept that any history
could exist earlier. In fact, an assembly of the Archbishops of Europe
held in the year 1649 AD under the chairmanship of Rev. Usher of Ireland,
declared that the world was born in the year 4004 BC on the 23rd October
at 9 a.m. and any one objecting to this would be treated as a heretic.
Sir, William Jones did not want to be a heretic; and no Indian could defy
him. In order to reduce the antiquity of India's history and culture, he
took recourse to consulting Greek records and wrongly identified Chandragupta
Mourya of 1534 BC as Megasthenes's Samdrokottus of 324 BC, while it was
actually Chandra Gupta of the Guptan Era. On this score alone, 1200 years
of Indian History was cut short and a false history was fabricated which
was perpetrated by the Boden scholars and their lethargic brain children
going brash as eminent scholars. Even as per the recent indologist Vincent
Smith, native traditions and contemporarily recorded native literature
should form the basis for historiology Now, coming to the question of Samudra,
Dr. Witzel is right that it means a collection of waters. It can be a lake
or a sea or an ocean, but not a flowing river or a confluence of rivers.
It could also be a celestial ocean but not a celestial river. There could
be other meanings by application such as an ocean of knowledge, an ocean
of wisdom, etc. Similarly Varuna also has plenty of identifications. The
correct meaning intended should' be arrived at with reference to the context.
As regards Sh. Sudhendu Ranade's
articles, I agree with him that recorded literature (Puranas, Kavyas, etc.)
should form the basis for writing ancient history and the facts might be
verified to the extent archaeology could help. It should not be -based
on broken mud-pot-pieces. In fact, Archaeology, including Marine Archaeology,
has confirmed a lot of history recorded in Puranas such as Buddha, Asoka,
Andhra Satavahanas, sinking of Dwaraka etc. Our children are informed of
their true history and the inferiority thrust on them by the colonial masters
is wiped out.
