Harvard Wolf Prof Witzel...anti-hindu preaching...

[Guest guest]

>Thanks, Vamadeva for a very powerful statement. The likes of Prof. >Witzel are

not mere jokers, but they are in influential, academic >positions linking up

with Marxists and are bent upon debunking >everything about the heritage of

Bha_rata ra_s.t.ra. > >Prof. Witzel seems to think that Bha_rata of ancient

times was a >total vacuum space which was filled people bent upon 'aculturing'

the >tribals. The civilizing people seem to have come from all directions:

>from South East Asia, from Iran through Afghanistan and so on, >resulting in a

new philology which explains the origin and evolution >of languages such as

Mundarica, Tamil or Bhojpuri. So, read on, >autochtonous history of Bha_rata

which has produced the world's >profound, most ancient text, named the R.gveda,

is bunk as proved by >the new philology. > >Sure, nature abhors vacuum; but why

should vacuum have existed only >in Bha_rata which was not even subject to the

glacial age spreading >across vast continental space with ice sheets? > >Here

is the latest about civilization study gone berserk thanks to a >learned

professor from Harvard: > >Witzel's philology > > >Witzel has removed the

Rigvedic Aryans from all but the corner of >north India according to his

philological conclusions. Though the >Rigveda mentions samudra, the common

Sanskrit term for ocean over 150 >times, as the goal of all rivers, as endless

in extent and as >containing great waves, Witzel will not credit them with

knowing the >ocean because according to him they didn't portray samudra with

the >correct salt content! Though the Rigveda is centred on a great river

>called Sarasvati located between the Yamuna and Sutlej (Shutudri) >that flows

to the sea, Witzel would turn the real Sarasvati into a >small runoff stream in

Afghanistan. That the Indian Sarasvati is the >site of the great majority of

Harappan ruins doesn't count for him >either. > >While Witzel denied that there

was any monsoon mentioned in the >Rigveda, when I showed him references, he

conveniently placed this >Vedic monsoon in the Caspian Sea. He has also located

great Vedic >sages like Vasishta and Agastya in Afghanistan and nearby Iran,

>though people in these regions seem to have no record of them or >their

teachings. > >Vanishing Dravidians > >What does Witzel think happened in

ancient India instead? According >to Witzel, the Harappans were a Para-Munda

people related to the >current aborigines of the country. It was they who

produced the great >cities and the seals of the Indus civilisation, neither

Aryans nor >Dravidians who were both intruders from Central Asia. > >To quote a

long article of his on this subject, "The language of the >pre-Rigvedic Indus

civilisation, at least in the Panjab, was of a >(Para-) Austro-Asiatic nature

(Early Sources for South Asian >Substrate Languages by Michael Witzel, Mother

Tongue, Special Issue, >Oct. 1999, pg. 17)." He further claims that "This means

Haryana and >Uttar Pradesh once had a Para-Munda population that was

acculturated >by the Indo-Aryans" (p.46). Note the former barbaric invading

Aryan >hordes have now been reduced to clever perpetrators of

>`acculturalisation.' > >How does Witzel know all this? Has he produced any

decipherment of >the Indus seals? No, he hasn't dared to. Has he found any

ancient >Munda records of this type? They are no ancient Munda records of any

>type. Are his conclusions based upon skeletal remains? No, it all >based on

his philology. > >As aboriginal people, the Mundas have no written records or

recorded >history. Where they came from and what they spoke in the Harappan era

>is quite speculative. Such problems don't bother Witzel. His >philology can

reconstruct unrecorded languages over a period of five >thousand years and can

override what geology or archaeology might >otherwise indicate. With his Munda

Harappa, Witzel has the Dravidians >entering into Sindh from Iran about the

same period as he has the >Vedic Aryans coming into the Panjab from Afghanistan

(c. 1500 BCE). >Like the Vedic Aryans he deems them to be illiterate semi-

>nomads. "The Dravida entered South Asia from the Iranian highlands. >Their

oldest vocabulary (Southworth and McAlpin) is that of a semi- >nomadic,

pastoral group, not of an agricultural community" (pg. 27). >Later he states,

"Dravidians were not a primary factor in the >population of the Indus

civilisation," and "the Dravidians apparently >were just as foreign to Sindh

and its agriculture as the Indo-Aryans >to the Panjab" (pg. 37, note this

entire section on Dravidian >Immigration). He claims the evidence for this is

all in the >philology, mainly from reconstructing proposed Dravidian and Munda

>loan words in Vedic texts. > >Yes, in the Witzel world it was the aborigines

that produced the >great civilisation of ancient India and both the Aryans and

>Dravidians were later uncivilised immigrants from Central Asia who >conquered

them, stole their culture, replaced their languages and >gave them no credit!

He has the Dravidians supplanting the Harappan >people in Sindh just as the

Aryans supplanted them in Panjab. From >there he has the Dravidians migrate

south, while the Aryans mainly >went east, both remarkably preserving their own

languages and >becoming the dominant peoples of their areas, though originally

just >small groups of illiterate nomadic migrants! > >Not content with one

Aryan invasion/migration, Witzel requires a >second Dravidian

invasion/migration to go along with it! In a non- >published proposal of his,

he even says that the Munda languages also >came to India from S.E. Asia! It

seems that anywhere in the world but >India can produce languages or peoples. >

>While these aborigines produced the great Harappan cities and lost >all

remembrance of their literature and civilisation, he allows the >great Vedic

literature no real civilisation of its own. The >Dravidians fare no better.

Their Sangam literature is later and by >his account even more suspect than the

Vedas. > >Witzel quotes favourably a statement at the beginning of this rather

>long article about India's role as "the cultural diffusion cul-de-sac >of

Asia" (p.1), an idea that has "kept me occupied on and off over >the past few

years." This sums up Witzel's view of Indian >civilisation — it is the cultural

backwater and dead end of Asia, >where wandering nomads can go no further, with

no real civilisation >of its own. > >Not surprisingly Witzel has little

appreciation for the Vedas, >Vedanta, Yoga, Buddhism or anything else India has

produced. His >extensive bibliographies on ancient India seldom refer to any

Indian >scholars, and certainly avoid mentioning any yogis like Aurobindo who

>have different views. You would never find Witzel chanting Om, >practicing

Yoga or in any other way honouring the great traditions of >the region. His

anti-India views reflect those of the colonial era >which he is continuing. For

this reason Witzel is mainly honoured by >Marxists in India whose political

agenda favours rejecting anything >great not only in the Vedas but in Indian

civilisation as a whole, >which many Marxists following Marx himself see as an

invention of the >British. However, no one who really studies and loves the

Vedas will >be fooled by such theatrics. There is much more to the Vedas than

>Witzel's philology. For my more detailed response to Witzel, please >note the

web site, >

> > >------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~--> >4

DVDs Free +s&p Join Now

>http://us.click./pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/0EHolB/TM

>---~-> > >To

from this group, send an email to:

>HinduThought > > > >Your use of is

subject to Chat with friends online, try MSN

Messenger: Click Here