Sanskrit is Tamil and NOT Indo-European

The colonial construction of Aryan Invasion Theory where it also talked of Dravidian folks, identified as the Dashus of Rig Veda, who  were conquered by the invading Aryans and pushed to the South and forth, was based on the wrong classification of Sanskrit as Indo-European allied to the Greek, Latin and such other European languages. 

What I challenged is this basic assumption, by denying it and claiming that Sanskrit, seen as a variant of SumeruTamil is also Dravidian as much as Tamil and so many other Indian languages. I also claimed the same goes for Pali and hence suggested that possibly all Indian languages are Tamil in essence and hence the construct of Indo-European or Indo-Aryan family of languages quite vacuous, 

Here what I want to describe is the story behind it all, on how I came to this conclusion that goes counter to the widespread view of the Indologists both European and Indian that led to the marginalization of the Tamil contributions in shaping the essences of Indian languages and culture with disastrous political repercussions as well.

Now when I started my SumeruTamil studies in the seventies, I became aware of the fact that many Sumerian words are better retained in Sanskrit than in C.Tamil. A good example is Su.merian ji; meaning life, soul etc and which is Sanskrit jiwa rendered ciivan in Tamil. I also noticed that many words actually Pure Tamil are wrongly attributed to Sanskrit even by Tamil scholars. 

A good example of such words is “karma’ where it is derived from the Sumerian root ‘garu: to set up,  to do etc”. This word that is philosophically so important and present in almost all Indian languages is actually ultimately SumeruTamil.

Such observations made think of a common origin for both C.Tamil and Sanskrit where later I also included Pali.

The Early Sanskrit Texts I Studied

Even as a young man in the sixties, still an undergraduate student, over and above my mathematical courses, I also attended philosophy course which the university ( University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand) allowed. 

The course was mainly on Western philosophies and in order to compare them I also collected books on Indian philosophies which included the Ten Upanishads translated and transliterated into English by Prof. S. Radhakrishnan himself. Later after returning to Malaysia I also collected many other texts in Sanskrit. Now it was in the eighties that I collected the Vedas specially the whole of Rig Veda, translated and transliterated into English by Swani Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidhyasankar and published by Veda Pratisthana, New Delhi. 

Using these and many other texts including of course the quite easily available Bagavath Gita,  I began, comparing the lexicon and grammar of Rigkrit and Sanskrit with SumeruTamil and convinced myself that there is a linkage but the nature of which I was not clear.

It was then that I had rudiments of Evolutionary Linguistics forming in my mind and on the basis of which I began to articulate that while C.Tamil is a direct evolute of SumeruTamil,  Rigkirit is not so  because such a direct recognizability was lacking. However I described the relationship that Rigkrit has SumeruTamil as its base language and where the original meanings of the Rig Veda slokas can be recovered only by recovering the SumeruTamil BASE.

The Publications

I did not rush into publications on this discovery and so far I have not published any major paper on this as I have dome on SumuruTamil. However having convinced myself over several years of thinking, I began publishing these findings only in the Cyber Space, around the year 2000 in the various egroups I created and had access to. This is how it stands to this day where I am in the hope  of a future generation of Linguists will take up such studies and discover more and more of the linkages Sanskrit has with SumeruTamil.

I took Rig Veda as my source of Rigkrit and Bagath Gita as my source of Sanskrit language. I did not use many of the dictionaries as I wanted to analyse the whole sentences and not isolated words as available in the dictionaries. Consistent with the basic principles of Evolutionary Linguistics the basic unit of analysis is the sentence and not the words. In this way I also avoided the pitfalls of  seeking the protoforms of Constructive Historical Linguistics of the West where they can easily construct protoforms by comparing a collection of similar etymas and claim language family identities. Taking the sentence as the basic unit of analysis, it was not necessary for me to construct protoforms and so forth. Having taken a sentence in Rig Veda or Bagavath Gita, what I did was to construct the Base Form and which is a sentence in SumeruTamil, possibly that by transforming which the sentences in Rig Veda and Bagavath Gita were produced.

Evolutionary Linguistics

I believe that Aurobindo initiated Evolutionary Linguistics where he does not talk of Protoforms but rather embryonic forms because he was quite unhappy with the quite unfounded claims of the Western scholars with their Constructive Historical linguistics where they can easily be mistaken about the root words. The protoforms are not the ROOTS and hence such studies cannot help out in identifying  the language from which a certain word could have  originated and spread through diffusion to many other languages.

I believe the enormous influence of Sumerian in the formation of ancient European languages and the fact that Rigkirit (Sanskrit) has SumeruTamil as its base language, may account for the lexical correspondences between these languages. They constructed the notion of Indo-European family of languages only because they failed to notice the COMMON origins of most of these words from Sumerian.

Thus the evolutionary view into Historical Linguistics and the common origin of both C.Tamil and Sanskrit explains why there are many similarities and parallels between both languages so much so that both can be said to be from the same family of languages viz, Tamil.

Prayoga Viveekam

It is here that I came across the 17th cent AD Pirayoga Viveekam in Tamil where the author takes up a comparative study of the grammatical features of both Tamil and Sanskrit and concludes that the differences are very little so much that in modern parlance both languages can be classified as belonging to the same family of languages, a concept that was not available at that time. 

Loganathan @ Ullaganar