↧
Jhanvi answers Kanhaiya. Jeevema s'aradah s'atam, Jhanvi.
↧
Communalisation of nationalism -- Sandhya Jain. NaMo, nationalise kaalaadhan.
THE ARRIVAL OF A NEW PROLETARIAN MESSIAH
Tuesday, 08 March 2016 | Sandhya Jain
Rate : 4/5 Like : 0
The most dangerous aspect of the controversies rocking universities is the communalisation of nationalism. Leftists have overlooked the fact that each idol being juxtaposed against the nation hails from one community
The most dangerous and unheeded aspect of the recent controversies rocking universities across the country is the communalisation of nationalism. The radical Leftist elements, mostly deracinated Hindus clamouring for freedom to lionise convicted seditionists and terrorists (even if that itself is not sedition) have overlooked the fact that each idol being juxtaposed against the nation hails from one community. In the nationwide ferment over India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, triggered by this dispute, there is a danger that an entire community could be tarnished.
Saner elements in the Muslim community have either not realised this or perhaps hope that this aspect of the radicalism backed by the Congress, the Communist Party of India, and the Communist Party of India(Marxist), will escape the notice of the general public. Perhaps they feel that a discrete silence is the wiser course to adopt at a time when the international environment is vitiated by terrorism in large parts of the globe, which has been further complicated by unwarranted US and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation-backed interference in some Muslim countries.
It is true that some of the State-funded ‘inquilabis’ have invoked solidarity between Muslims and Scheduled Castes (they use the missionary term ‘Dalit’ and call themselves Ambedkarites), but the fact remains that men like Bhimrao Ambedkar helped frame the Constitution of free India. Hardly any eminent Scheduled Caste personality has attacked the unity of India; this group has always sought accommodation and honour within the constitutional framework.
Hence, there is no dodging the fact that the campus radicalism at Hyderabad University and Jawaharlal Nehru University (with echoes in Jadavpur University), has been exclusively about supporting those who have attacked the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. Maqbool Bhat, co-founder of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, was convicted and sentenced to death for an act of terror. Yakub Memon was convicted and executed for involvement in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts in which nearly 166 persons died and many more were injured. Afzal Guru was convicted and hung for his role in the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001.
So when JNU students’ union president Kanhaiya Kumar, granted conditional bail with some strictures by the Delhi High Court, tries to be cute and says that Afzal Guru is not his hero, but Rohith Vemula is, none can miss the fact that the raging controversy around Vemula pertained to his group’s role in idolising Yakub Memon.
Sadly, Vemula did not spell out the reasons for his disillusionment with the varsity’s Ambedkar Students Association, which doubtless played a role in his tragic suicide. His sharp observations about some political parties and leaders have since come to light.
What is pertinent here is that out of the trio of Bhat, Memon and Guru, two were associated with violent conspiracies to separate Kashmir from India, but Memon was associated with a wider communal polarisation that resists giving the country’s civilisational ethos its due eminence as the nation’s foundational ethos. Kanhaiya Kumar, who was admittedly present at Umar Khalid’s illegal function to protest the “Indian occupation” of Kashmir and the “judicial killing” of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat on the JNU campus, seems to have switched effortlessly to a larger and potentially more lethal platform of instigating communal polarisation in the country. Clearly, he is being mentored by some very astute persons.
Now, as the adept rhetorician travels to help the beleaguered communist parties in the elections in West Bengal and Kerala, the Election Commission would do well to monitor his speeches. Journalists who have been swooning over Kumar’s speech after being released on bail — actually just a string of one-liners bound in an overarching narrative of hostility towards the Government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi — must already be feeling the deflation that follows a hangover as the Congress, angered at the realisation that the ‘cult of Kanhaiya Kumar’ has pushed Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi’s popular rankings further down, will ensure that he remains a communist mascot. This is bound to affect the internal coherence of current attempts at Opposition unity.
It would be in order to note that while granting interim bail to Kanhaiya Kumar in the sedition case against him, Justice Pratibha Rani observed that JNU students, faculty members and authorities need to explain why peace eludes this prestigious institution. The February 9 function, touted as a ‘poetry reading’, was revealed by posters to be something else, which compelled the authorities to withdraw permission. Interestingly, this permission was sought on February 8, the same day former Delhi University lecturer SAR Geelani booked the Press Club of India premises for his anti-India celebration of February 10. It seems difficult to believe that this is a coincidence.
Citing some of the objectionable slogans raised at JNU, the presence of persons with faces covered, and Kanhaiya Kumar’s claim to enjoy freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution, the judge observed that freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions and the student community needs to introspect about the posters of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt, which are visible in photographs of the incident. In a thinly veiled reprimand, she said the JNU faculty has to play a role in guiding students to the right path. In advice that will rankle long after this event is over and done, she said the faculty must discern the reason behind the anti-national views in the minds of students and find remedial measures so that such an incident does not recur.
In a stern indictment of the university and its faculty, the judgment asserts that the thoughts reflected in the slogans raised by some of the students of JNU who organised and participated in the February 9 programme, cannot claim protection under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. On the contrary, the judge said, “I consider this as a kind of infection from which such students are suffering which needs to be controlled /cured before it becomes an epidemic”.
Forced to give an undertaking that he would not participate actively or passively in any anti-national activity and, as president of JNUSU, would make all efforts to control anti-national activities on the campus, the adroit All India Students Federation activist has reinvented his nationalism as a thinly-veiled mockery of Indian democracy and the freedom of expression. It is this derisive scorn of the court, the Constitution, and the nation that has won such rapturous applause from the armies of fellow travellers that emerged from every nook and cranny to anoint the new proletarian messiah.
↧
↧
Book announcement Samskrta Bharati: Indus Script Dictionary, Epigraphia Mlecchita Vikalpa, 'Meluhha cipher' (S Kalyanaraman, 2016)
Samskrta Bhāratīसंस्कृतभारती is a tribute to Bharatam Janam who have contributed significantly to the evolution of an industrial revolution demonstrated by the metallurgical excellence of artisans, lapidaries and metalcaster people.
Bhāratī (vāk) is the language, lingua franca (common language, vehicular language) of Bharatam Janam, an expression used in Rigveda by Rishi Visvamitra signifying metalcaster people.
This Bhāratī (vāk) is derived from Samskrtam which is par excellence reconstruction of the lingua franca of Bharatam Janam. This reconstruction of Samskrta Bhāratīसंस्कृतभारती is a cultural reality, unparalleled in the annals of civilization and is documented in over one million manuscripts constituting a monumental body of literary resources of nighantus, धातुपाठ dhātupātha . The catalogus catalogorum includes complementary works of unsurpassed brilliance of Panini, Hemacandra, Bharata, Yaska, Patanjali, Bhartrhari, Tolkappiyan, Kautilya, Pingala, Nagarjuna and thousands of savants who have devoted their life-times to the study and veneration of Bhāratī (vāk) as brahman, a divine dispensation of paramātman, as vāgdevi derived from [√vac].
The recognition of [√vac]vāk as central to the enquiries in knowledge systems leads to the personification of this expression as a Divinity, resulting in the Rigveda Sukta venerating राष्ट्री rASTrI, the feminine form of राष्ट्रं बाहुबलाश्रितम् Ms.9.255, ‘dependent on’. She is (वाग्देवता, वाग्देवी), she is saṅgamanī vasūnām‘the path for moving/transporting wealth’.
The samskrti of Bharatam finds expression in this metaphor of राष्ट्री
Bhāratī (vāk) is राष्ट्री because, every phenomenon in the universe is explained by s’abdabrahman. A civilization which was wonderstruck by the phenomena of mere earth and stone –dagoba or dhAtugarbha -- getting transformed into metal of utility value through the messenger (purohitam) of fire and intervention by the artificers, results in chandas, a musical, prosodic inquiry into the cosmic dance, the ताण्डवनृत्यम् as a metaphor for that चषाल, that octagonal brick embellished with सुदर्शनचक्र signifying the transformation processes from Being to Becoming. The multi-layered metaphors of rudra-s’iva and sudars’ana fuse into paramAtman and the inquiry becomes a quest to unite the Atman with the paramAtman. This is the Samskriti, exemplified in langue expression as Samskrtam, the weltanschuaang elaborated in ancient texts, starting with Indus Script Corpora and iconographic metaphors in utsava beraउत्सवबेर. This is Bharata Nidhi, the treasure of Bharatam Janam. Archaeometallurgical enquiries have resulted in an understanding of the transformation processes involved in hardening soft metals – the processes of pyrolysis and carburization. चषाल, that octagonal brick is a metaphor which explains this process of infusing carbon through smoke from godhUma, wheat chaff into soft metal (e.g. mRdu‘wrought iron’) to produce ductile, but hard metal for sharp instruments such as blades, swords, sickles, axes, pots and pans, and other metallic objects of utility and exchange value.
धातु--गर्भ [p= 513,3]m. (with Buddh..) is a receptacle for ashes or relics, a Dagaba or Dagoba (Sinhalese corruption of पालि Dhatu-gabbha) MWB. Xxxv (Monier-Williams). The stupa is a dhatu-gabbha and hence, venerated by the worshippers.
धातु--पाठ [p= 514,1] m. " recital of grammatical roots " N. of an ancient list of roots ascribed to पाणिनि. dhātuḥ धातुः-पाठः a list of roots arranged according to Pāṇini's grammatical system (the most important of these lists called धातुपाठ being supposed to be the work of Pāṇini himself, as supplementary to his Sūtras).
Decipherment of Indus Script (mlecchita vikalpa) is धातुपाठ, with rebus reading of the word dhAtu (element, ore, mineral) using Indus Script cipher of rebus mleccha, early Prakrtam, identifying early speech forms of meaningful words or sememes signified by hieroglyphs.
Such veneration of dagoba, dhAtugarbha is evidenced by the Sit Samshi bronze, morning libations to Sun divinity, as Meluhha metalwork with Indus writing hieroglyphs transmitted along the Tin Road of Antiquity. The morning libations occur in front of a dagoba, a ziggurat. The shape is comparable to the shape of yupa found in Kalibangan fire-altar or yajna kunda.Maquette d'un lieu de culte, dite le Sit-shamshi ou "(cérémonie du) lever du soleil" XIIe siècle avant J.-C. Suse, Tell de l'Acropole Bronze Fouilles J. de Morgan 1904 - 1905 Département des Antiquités orientales Sb 2743 Plateau de bronze représentant un haut lieu comparable à ceux qu'utilisaient les Cananéens. A côté des prêtres accoupis sont dressés des stèles, des bassins et un bosquet sacré. http://louvre.suzie.fr/pages/sb2743.html I suggest that this bronze model signifies through Indus Script hieroglyphs the सन्ध्यावन्दनम् sandhyAvandanam to Sun divinity by Bharatam Janam, metalaster people
Pointing to this photograph of an object, Gian Pietro Basello quizzes: "Do you know this object? I hope so. It is perhaps the most stimulating object found in the entire Ancient Near East, even if handbooks on Mesopotamian art do not talk much about it. It is a three-dimensional bronze model whose base measures about 60X40 cm, excavated in the 1904-1905 campaign by the French mission at Susa. The scene is focused on two squatted human figures: one stretches its hands out, the other seems to be pouring water over them from a jug. Around them, there are possibly some kinds of altars, a large vessel, two basins, a stela and three trunks of trees. This act, perhaps a cultic scene which took place in the second half of the 12th century BCE, was fixed for eternity by will of Silhak-Insusinak (1140-1120 BCE), king of Ansan and Susa, according to the short inscription in a corner of the base."http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/01/sit-shamshi-bronze-morning-libations-to.html
The expression is derived from भारतीN. of a deity (in RV. often invoked among the आप्री deities and esp. together with इला and सरस्वती accord. to Nir. viii , 13 a daughter of आदित्य ; later identified with सरस्वती , the divinity of speech) RV. &c; speech , voice , word , eloquence , literary composition , dramatic art or recitation MBh.Ka1v. &c; the Samskrta speech of an actor L. Classifying language as divine, the Rigveda presents an extraordinary sukta rendered as a soliloquy by Vagdevi, the divinity of speech. भारती-इतिहासः, -कथा the story of the Bhāratas (महाभारत). -मण्डलम्, -वर्षम् India (Apte. Samskrtam) .
The objective of this work is to correct the distortions caused by a false hypothesis which emerged as a ‘linguistic doctrine’ that the explanation for the formation and evolution of Samskrta Bhāratīसंस्कृतभारती can be explained by ‘Aryan invasion’. There are alternative explanations possible to explain the formation and evolution of Samskrta Bhāratīसंस्कृतभारती as a kaleidoscope of vāk or parole. In Bhartiya tradition vāk is divine, sacred and venerated in the worship of Sarasvati on two days every year: 1. on vasanta pancami day and 2. on ayudhapuja day during Navaratri (Dusserah). This pan-bharatiya cultural reality celebrated in kumbhamela every 12 years as the sangamam (confluence) of Rivers Ganga, Yamuna and Sarasvati, provides a framework for further studies in the cultural history of Bharatam Janam, complementing the stellar work done in understanding the reality of Vedic River Sarasvati which had protected and nurtured Sarasvati’s children, the Bharatam Janam.
Another historical distortion relates to the linguistic evaluation of ‘classical Sanskrit’ as ‘regulated by the grammarians but may be conveniently used more widely as equivalent to Old Indo-Aryan’. (Burrow, Thomas., 1955, Sanskrit Language, London, Faber & Faber, p.2) This arbitrary invention of linguistic categories of Pre-classical or Vedic language or Old Indo-Aryan, Middle Indo-Aryan (Prakrtam) and Modern Indian languages has led to lopsided studies missing the reality of Indian sprachbund. Burrow’s work assumed that there was linguistic history in this land only for 3000 years, wrongly classifying Prakrtam as a post-Indo-European language phenomenon, governed by the false premise of ‘aryan invasion’ as a ‘linguistic doctrine’.This work demonstrates that Prakrtam lexis is a repository which documents the formation and evolution of all languages of Bharatam Janam. An example of such a demonstration is provided by Jules Bloch’s Formation of Marathi language. The evidence of over 7000 inscriptions of Indus Script as metalwork catalogs provides a firm foundation for a Prakrtam metalwork lexis (vocabulary) which was part of the lingua franca of the civilization for millennia.
I suggest that the term Indo-Aryan in language categories should be replaced by the term ‘Prakrtam’ which is defined as the lingua franca or parole, to identify cognate lexis with dhātupātha derived from Vedic prosody, chandas and to signify a composite Samskrti of Bharatam Janam.
The significance of Prakrtam metalwork lexis as documentary evidence of an industrial revolution of the bronze age (with brilliant inventions of alloys, metal casting techniques including lost-wax cire perdue) is best exemplified by a painting which adorns the Institute of Steel Authority of India, Ranchi. The painting shows Purushottama presenting a steel sword to Alexander on the banks of Jhelum (Vitasta, one of tht pencanada which constituted the glacial drainage system of Vedic River Sarasvati). The wootz or urukku or ukku steel also called the Damascus sword is an indicator of the journeys of artisans among Bharatam Janam who had travelled the Maritime Tin Route from Hanoi (Vietnam) to Haifa (Israel). These journeys of seafaring merchants and artisans may provide an alternative to the linguistic doctrine that ther were contact areas which stretched along the Tin road which preced the Silk Road by two millennia. These contacts explain the reason why the Samskrtam word mRdu ‘soft iron’ finds expression as meḍ 'iron, copper'; med ‘copper’ (Munda. Slavic. Ho. Santali) mẽṛhẽt, meD 'iron' (Mu.Ho.Santali). Another example of the spread of metallurgical products is the word poLa ‘magnetite’ which finds cognate in polad ‘steel’ (Russian). It has been demonstrated that the pyrolysis or carburization of wrought iron (by infusing ![]()
carbon into molten metal, resulting in hardening of metals/alloys) was achieved by the processes of caSAla as explained in Rigveda, Taittiriya Samhita and Satapatha Brahmana and celebrated in the sculptural splendor of caSAla, snout of a boar in Varaha temple of Khajuraho, Eran and other sites.
carbon into molten metal, resulting in hardening of metals/alloys) was achieved by the processes of caSAla as explained in Rigveda, Taittiriya Samhita and Satapatha Brahmana and celebrated in the sculptural splendor of caSAla, snout of a boar in Varaha temple of Khajuraho, Eran and other sites. The ancient texts note that an octagonal yupa is a signifier of a Soma yaga. Such an octagonal yupa as a brick has been discovered in a yajna kunda (fire altar) at Binjor on the banks of Vedic River Sarasvati close to Anupgarh where the river forks into two channels, one flowing southwards to Jaisalmer and another westwards to Ganweriwala, Bahawalpur Province, Chilistan.
Binjor. Yajna kunda with octagonal brick.
Binjor seal. Documents metalwork. The ‘fish’ hieroglyph-multiplex signifies aya ‘fish’ rebus: aya ‘iron’ ayas‘metal’ PLUS khambhaṛā m. ʻfinʼ rebus: Ta. kampaṭṭam coinage, coin. Ma. kammaṭṭam, kammiṭṭam coinage, mint. Ka. kammaṭa id.; kammaṭi a coiner(DEDR 1236). The circumscript of fourt short strokes: gaNDa ‘four’ rebus: kanda ‘fire atar’. koD ‘flag’ rebus: koDa ‘workshop’ baTa ‘quail’ rebus: bhaTa ‘furnace’. The one-horned young bull PLUS standard device denote engraver, joinery work. sangaDa ‘lathe’ rebus: sangAtha ‘vajra, adamantine metal glue’. dulo ‘hole’ rebus: dul ‘cast metal’ pota ‘hole’ rebus: potR, potti purifier’; पोतदार [pōtadāra] m ( P) An officer under the native governments. His business was to assay all money paid into the treasury. He was also the village-silversmith (Marathi).
King Purushottama (Porus) presents Indian ukku (wootz) steel sword to Alexander in the battle on River Hydaspes (Jhelum, Vitasta) Painting in SAIL, Ranchi. khaNDa 'sword' Rebus: kanda 'fire-altar'; khanda
'implements'.
Focus on the 'frog' and ‘heron’ hieroglyphs on a Dong Son bronze drums. Includes also cire perdue crafted tympanum to signify kanka 'heron' rebus: kanga 'brazier'. The depiction of frogs on the Dong Son drums is significant. I suggest that it is a hieroglyph signifying metal ingot: Kur. mūxā frog. Malt. múqe id.mūkaka- id. (Samskrtam)
(DEDR 5023) Rebus: mū̃h ‘ingot’. Muha. The quantity of iron produced at one time in a native smelting furnace. (Santali) Hieroglyph: maraka 'peacock' (Santali. Mu.) Rebus: मारक loha 'a kind of calcining metal' (Samskritam) Kariba ‘trunk of elephant’ ibha ‘elephant’ rebus: karba ‘iron’ ib ‘iron’.
Illustrated London News 1936 - November 21st
Chanhudaro. Sheffield of Ancient Near East. Metalware catalog in London News Illustrated, November 21, 1936.A 'Sheffield of Ancient India: Chanhu-Daro's metal working industry 10 X photos of copper knives, spears, razors, axes and dishes. The words used in the lingua francaof such tin-processing families constitute the words invented to denote the Bronze Age products and artifacts such as tin or zinc or the array of metalware discovered in the Sheffied of the Ancient East, Chanhu-daro as reported in the London News Illustrated by Ernest Mackay.
Depiction of torana, or gateway, of stupa, a fragment of a Jaina stupa railing, Kankali Tila, near Mathura (Government Museum, Lucknow). dām 'rope, string, garland' rebus: dhāu 'ore'. The artisans producing alloys are dhā̆vaḍ m. ʻa caste of iron smeltersʼ, dhāvḍī ʻcomposed of or relating to ironʼ)(CDIAL 6773).. ![]()
Sanchi Stupa. Northern Gateway Toraṇa, 'row of hieroglyphs on the top architrave.
This is a proclamation of mintwork, engraver work, metalwork by sippi ‘artificers’. sippi‘snail’ ‘date palm spathe’ rebus: sippi‘artisan, sculptor’ aya ‘fish’ rebus: aya ‘iron’ ayas‘metal’ PLUS khambhaṛā m. ʻfinʼ rebus: Ta. kampaṭṭamcoinage, coin. Ma. kammaṭṭam, kammiṭṭam coinage, mint. Ka. kammaṭa id.; kammaṭi a coiner.(DEDR 1236). tAmarasa ‘lotus’ (Prakrtam) rebus: tAmra‘copper’.kariba‘trunk of elephant’ ibha‘elephant’ rebus: karba‘iron’ (Kannada) ib‘iron’ (Santali) eraka‘nave of wheel’ rebus: eraka‘moltencast copper’; arka‘copper, gold’ agasAle ‘goldsmith’ (Kannada).
This work is a preface to this effort, based on two landmark developments: 1. decipherment of Indus Script Corpora as metalwork catalogues; and 2. compilation of comparative dictionary of all 25+ ancient Bharatiya languages reinforcing Indian sprachbund (language union) of the Bronze Age and earlier eras. We now have a continuous linguistic history recorded in over 7000 Indus Script Corpora inscriptions. The idiom of these inscriptions spread over the entire Ancient Near East and Ancient Far East, exemplified by the seal of Bogazhkoy and by the Hinduised States of the Far East (pace George Coedes). This spread has resulted in the formation and evolution in various languages now spoken in Bharatam, in Austro-Asiatic zone and in Indo-European zone extending westwards from Tocharian in Central Asia. The earliest available document to unravel this spread is the Rgveda from which the Vagdevi Sukta and Ganapati SUkta will be cited and explained. The language of the Rgveda is the source from which all language developments in the contact zones of Bharatam Janam have arisen. Pre-history of Chandas (Prosody, the language of Rgveda) is for linguists an extraordinary challenge which can be met by further studies of (1) comparison of Prakrtam lexis with the dhātupātha derived from Rgveda; (2) comparison of Prakrtam and Austro-Asiatic, Iranian, Tocharian and other Indo-European languages. It is a moot question if ‘the original language’ or even the ‘urheimat’ can ever be reconstructed even in general outlines with the available documents. Exemplary efforts have resulted in the comparison of Vedic Samskrtam with Avesta attesting to the latter as a derivative from Rgveda. Scores of Nighantus which document lexis of flora and fauna can be compared with the words in vogue in contact areas of the Vedic civilization as a general framework for History of Medicine. It is notable that about 70% of British Pharmacoepia of the nineteenth century (1865), was founded on ancient Bharatiya herbals identified in the Nighantus.
Bogazkoy seal impression with 'twisted rope' hieroglyph *skambha2 ʻ shoulder -- blade, wing, plumage ʼ. [Cf. *skapa -- s.v. *khavaka -- ]S. khambhu, °bho m. ʻ plumage ʼ, khambhuṛi f. ʻ wing ʼ; L. khabbh m., mult. khambh m. ʻ shoulder -- blade, wing, feather ʼ, khet. khamb ʻ wing ʼ, mult. khambhaṛā m. ʻ fin ʼ; P. khambhm. ʻ wing, feather ʼ; G. khā̆m f., khabhɔ m. ʻ shoulder ʼ.(CDIAL 13640) khambh ‘wing’ rebus: Ta. kampaṭṭam coinage, coin. Ma. kammaṭṭam, kammiṭṭam coinage, mint. Ka. kammaṭa id.; kammaṭi a coiner. (DEDR 1236)eruvai 'kite' dula 'pair' eraka 'wing' Rebus: eruvai dul 'copper cast metal' eraka 'moltencast' PLUS dhāu 'strand of rope' Rebus: dhāv 'red ore' (ferrite) ti-dhāu 'three strands' Rebus: ti-dhāv 'three ferrite ores: magnetite, hematite, laterite'.
The seal thus describes a mint with a smelter for three ferrite ores and copper.
The findspot of this seal is Bogazkoy where a treaty was also found attesting to the presence of Samskrtam speakers. Bogazkoy texts also include horsemanship manual (written by a Mitanni called Kikkuli, c. 1400 BCE) which contained Samskrtam words to describe the technical details of training horses (aika (one), tera (tri, three), panza (panca, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (round). A treaty between Mitanni and Hittites (Shattiwaza and Suppiluliuma), c. 1380 BCE mentions Vedic divinities Mitra, Varuna, Indra and Nasatya (Asvins).
Samskrta Bhāratīसंस्कृतभारती is the language which unified Prakrtam (vernacular) of Bharatiya sprachbund (language union), which had many phonetic variants in an extensive area from Assam to Gujarat, from Kashmir to Sri Lanka. This is treasure, nidhi, heritage of Bharatam. The variations in pronunciation were identified as mleccha (mis-pronunciations or ungrammatical forms) and were sought to be corrected through a touchstone, the medium of studies in Samskrtam grammar. The word mleccha has a cognate in meluhha used in cuneiform Akkadian texts and on a cylinder seal showing an Akkadian translator in front of a Meluhha merchant carrying a goat (as a phonetic/semantic determinant: mlekh ‘goat’ rebus: milakkhu, mleccha-mukha, meluhha ‘copper’) and his female companion carrying a kamandalu (cf. ranku ‘liquid measure’ rebus: ranku ‘tin’)..
(After Frits Staal)
Samskrtam is a structured reconstitution of the semantics, syntax, morphology and phonetics of Prakrtam. This reconstruction is documented in ancient texts such as Yaska’s Niruktam, Bhartrhari’s Vakyapadiya, Panini’s Ashtadhyayi, Tolkappiyam, Patanjali’s Mahabhashya, Bharata’s Natya Sastra, various Nighantus, Hemacandra’s Desinamamala, and scores of other literary evidences. These basic texts have provided the resources for scholarly studies defining Bharatam as a Linguistic Area (Indian sprachbund or language union). Ancient scripts were called Brahmi, Kharoshthi attesting the divine dispensation of Vakdevi and speech forms from the lips of artisans (khar ‘smith’ osti ‘lip’) This discovery of the language of a civilization provides a foundation for further civilization studies including a re-assessment of general semantics, the formation and evolution of all Bharatiya language forms and cultural contacts with neighbouring cultural regions of Eurasia for nearly 8 millennia. The word Samskriti relatable to Samskrtam is the weltanschauung defining both the material resources and adhyatmika foundations for the mores of people of a vibrant region of the globe with a civilizational foundation which dates back to more than 8 millennia.Importance given to the study of spoken forms of language may be seen from two Ajmer epigraphs and one Dhar epigraph on stone with tables of two Samskrtam plays. Also at Dhar, the pillars of Bhojashala which is an ancient grammar school, ca. 1150, provide charts engraved in stone as sarpabandha, of 1. the Samskrtam alphabet and 2. Verbal terminations from the Katantra.
Varṇanāga-
kṛipāṇikā ‘dagger of
Samskrtam grammar
rules’
Selected epigraphical inscriptions of 12th century from Bharat detail ancient methods of teaching Samskrtam language and the grammar rules of the language to school-children. The methods documented in epigraphs include details of forms and use of ancient Samskrtam syllabaries and verbal roots, called dhātuḥ.
S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Centre
March 8, 2016
Shop at Amazon.com!
↧
Mody's agony aunts -- Ravinar
MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2016
Modi's Agony Aunts
Kid is adventurous in school. Principal tells him “You’ll either end up in prison or end up a billionaire”. He was 15 and spotty and started a school-boy type news magazine. He interviewed well-known rockstars. Then he gets into selling records. Sure enough, he starts everything as a virgin – paper, crime, business. Smart as he is, he sells records locally and shows them as exports to avoid taxes. Police raid him. As predicted by his Principal he ends up in jail. Fortunately, his mom bails him out after one night in jail and he has learned the most important lesson of his life. Few years later he does become a billionaire as estimated by his Principal. A short book written by him about his life is “Screw it, Let’s do it”. We will get back to this story in a bit.
It’s nearly two years since ModiSarkar took charge at the centre. Though he doesn’t use the same words he follows that line “Screw it, let’s do it”. He has been busy repairing Indian economy, instrastructure and all that. Not once…. Not once I have heard him or any of his ministers talk about any discriminatory or divisive policy or action. Not once I have I seen discrimination against any religious community or caste. Yet, from the fake “Christians under attack” campaign to the current JNU ruckus the govt’s opponents have been engineering one imaginary crisis after another. To his credit Modi has stood steadfast and kept his focus on his work and that of his govt.
Even events happening in other states, like the Dadri incident or the Rohit Vemulasuicide are attributed to ModiSarkar. The Commie Pigs are good at inventing words – Award Wapsi, Intolerance and such stuff to malign not only the govt but the entire Hindu community in India and abroad. Never mind all that. It all came undone with the stunning but unsurprising revelations in the Ishrat Jehan case. The story is all over that P. Chidambaram “fixed” the second affidavit on the encounter to target Narendra Modi and Amit Shah and consequently four police officers of Gujarat spent some eight years in jail. This shocked all the Agony Aunts and they ran helter-skelter trying to figure out how to defend the LIES they peddled for all these years on behalf of their Bosserina – Sonia Gandhi. There’s no doubt in any serious observer’s mind that Ishrat & Co. were assigned to attempt to kill Modi or create havoc. And over the NatHerald scam it is Sonia that is whining that the Gandhis are being targeted. Lord almighty –how do they even target the daughter in law of Indira Gandhi? Eh? A Twitter friend explained it brilliantly:
Fact: The Congress-Commie gang never in their worst nightmares thought that Modi would lead the BJP to a full majority. They hoped (and probably prayed) that somehow they could either cobble another UPA or another corrupt govt with outside support by Congress which will help wipe the footprints of their crimes. The Marans would have hoped so. Karti PC would have hoped so. Most of all, SoniaG would have hoped so. The best laid plans can sometimes go wrong. Thus, from the fake Christians under attack campaign to the current JNU ruckus, the Agony Aunts have been ranting and raving like their house was on fire. Here’s a montage of some prominent Rudaalis put up by someone on Twitter:
Of course, it is hard to include all of them in this – there are others like Shobha De or Indira Jaising (that millionaire NGO-lawyer who is under investigation) and many more. Once the Ishrat conspiracy saw the light of day there were other Agony Aunts who tried to jiggle and wiggle with theories. Here’s one of them:
So now that there is little doubt Ishrat was part of a terrorist group, they now ask “so what”? Should it justify fake encounters? Well.. well… sweethearts the idea of it being a “fake encounter” was created by the same poisonous concoction to the courts that certified Ishrat NOT being an LeT operative. I have little doubt that a massive conspiracy was hatched to eliminate Modi or screw him in fake cases. It didn’t work. As usual, the other Agony Aunt is the Chief Monkey-Balancer of the Indian Media. Whenever he finds his darling Congress or AAP is in trouble he will pose bogus questions to the BJP to “balance” his own follies of the past:
I won’t bother going into the stupid campaign run by Sreenivasan Jain and his NDTV with his “black-beard, white-beard” crap or his “Chota-mota blasts” justification. He is another Agony Aunt who is struggling now to justify his past moronery. These slaves of the Congress did nothing to investigate but peddled reports “breast-fed” to them either by the Congress or the then Caged-Parrot called CBI. Even the normally politcally-correct Arun Jaitley did not hestitate to call the Congress-UPA a national security threat.
Earlier, there was this case about Rohit Vemula who committed suicide at the Hyderabad University. Agony Aunts Kejriwal, RahulG, Derek O’Brien and some more rushed to the site to scavange on his death. Death of any young man is tragic but Vemula was no angel either. He aspired to be Carl Sagan but had a heart full of hatred for Hindus and was in regular conflict with outfits like ABVP. Again, the Agony Aunts pointed fingers at Modi and particularly at Smriti Irani as if they had killed Vemula. Let me put it bluntly – For a guy who was also an activist, often in conflicts to be committing suicide for merely being thrown out of the University hostel is nothing short of cowardice. In the years prior, there were at least 9 similar suicides at this University, nary a whine was raised by any of these Aunties. They did not say “Sonia govt intolerant”. Let’s get some more:
In 2006 some four Dalits were brutally murdered in Kherlanji in Maharashtra. The media didn’t even cover it initially till there were riots in Nagpur. It is only then that the story came out. Not one of these Aunties protested or called Sonia or Congress Anti-Dalit. None of the Agony Aunts in media raised even a whimper. There is nothing that ModiSarkar has done that can in any way be implied as Anti-Dalit or Anti-Any community, yet the scoundrels in media and Opposition have been running a relentless campaign of malice not just to tar him but to tar India herself. That brings us to the latest joker in the pack called Kanhaiya Kumar of JNU.
There was some “poetic” gathering of morons at JNU on February 9 where anti-India slogans were shouted. Some of these slogans were extremely vicious and hate-filled. Filthy Commie pigs claimed that criticising govt is not sedition. They camouflaged the anti-India tirade as anti-govt when it was not. They claimed it’sFoE, prominent among them usual suspects like Barkha, Sagarika, Rajdeep – The Aap-Cong gang. These scumbags at JNU were not exactly criticising ModiSarkar on some policy or scheme. They were severely trashing India. This Kanhaiya Kumar (along with some more) is picked up by police and sedition charges slapped against him. I strongly support the govt on cracking down on such anti-India, terrorrist-supporting hooligans.
Whatever the merits of the case he was released on bail. The bail conditions are very stringent and it is rare to see a bail order running into 23 pages. So what happens? Our little lady divine, Barkha rushes to join in the fun at JNU and then does an on-site interview with this guy and again another one in NDTV studios. Some of the dumbest things this Kanhaiya has blabbered simply reflect the mind of an absolute, brain-washed Commie retard. Some samples:
First Kanhaiya trashed the govt, he trashed Modi and he didn’t even spare the army. He then goes on to say “Nationalism is a western concept and not Indian”. Who’s gonna tell this moron that Communism was not invented in India byJawaharlal Marx nor was it invented by Karl Yadav in a village in Bihar (as someone on Twitter put it). Such stupidity is glorified as the second coming of Jesus, the new messiah that will shake the govt and over-throw Modi. In another interview he equates Naxal deaths with the death of our soldiers and claims Naxals are as much martyrs as soldiers who defend us. This filthy mind is applauded by Barkha, Rajdeep, Vikramchandra and all and sundry as their new hope for India. Such is their frustration with the failure of RahulG and lack of any other hero they will even accept a garlanded donkey as their new messiah. All this because they hate Modi and they have lost the comfortable, corrupt lives they could gladly lead under the Congress. And then they talk about “Intolerance” and FoE. Here’s the classic hypocrite Barkha Dutt and her grand idea of Tolerance:
These Agony Aunts have long believed that people are fools and that their monopoly over public discourse wouldn’t be hindered because they seriously believed Modi would NEVER win a full majority and become PM. This fact still boils them every single day and night. All it takes is one major strike to show them their pygmy size and place. This is exactly what Anupam Kher did on March 5 at a debate organised by The Telegraph (I am putting up this video only because it seems it has been taken off Youtube). Watch (9.56 mins):
Anupam Kher did a fine job of slamming in the face of Sickular hate-mongers what ordinary people on SM have been doing for a while. This frequent fake dramas and fake campaigns by Modi-haters and Hindu-haters is now inviting a severe backlash. The fools don’t realise that instead of battling Modi with real issues they are driving more and more people to support him with their stupid Nautankis. And Modi knows this all too well – He has experienced this for a dozen years in Gujarat.
Technically, Agony Aunts are those who listen to sob-stories and problems and offer casual consel. But here, by Agony Aunts I simply mean that these stupid Aunties are actually Agonising mindlessly over Modi. He doesn’t give a damn about their stupidity and people have seen through them as well.
Tailpiece: As with the other Aunties, this one has a serious problem on which way to jump. In November 2015 he said India is “Intolerant” and that his wife suggested they should leave India. After people slammed him, Snapdeal dropped him from their campaign. He was also dropped from the Incredible India campaign. Now he says this:
I couldn’t help thinking of the loveable Mehmood in “Padosan” who chides Bhola in frustration and asks him to stick to one theme. Enjoy!
Note: The story I narrated in the first para is of none other than Richard Branson. That one night in jail dramatically changed him. He did become a billionaire as his principal predicted. He founded Virgin Records, Virgin Airlines and many other “virgin” businesses. In contrast, 2 weeks in jail has turned Kanhaiya all the more vicious in his rants and he shows glimpses of becoming a thoroughbred Commie. At 28 years and 13 years at JNU, Kanhaiya is a natural Commie who scrounges on taxpayer money and talks Azaadi. Commies have done NOTHING for this country. Nothing at all, except mouthing nonsense.
Shop at Amazon.com!
↧
Kanhaiya Kumar & Azadi -- Aman Lekhi's blog
NOT the Devil's Advocate, just a Social Gadfly
KANHAIYA KUMAR & AZADI
How long can one remain a “student”? How good is an institution if a student cannot pass out of it? And who is qualified to lecture on life or the country?
I was curious to know about the student Kanhaiya Kumar. It seems, according to his Wikipedia page, he finished school in 2002 which should make him atleast 31 years old today. The Page mentions that thereafter “he moved to Patna and joined College of Commerce” without mentioning the year of joining or completion. I came across an article in Telegraph (February, 19,2016) which mentioned that he was an undergraduate student at the college between 2003-2007. I will ignore the gap of one year between finishing school and commencing the undergraduate course and also its completion taking a year longer but his Wikipedia Page says “he moved to Delhi and joined JNU” without mentioning the year he so did but mentions “he became President in 2015”.
It has been nine years since he finished graduation (which was after a break of a year and took a year longer than usual) and he is nowhere near completing his PhD. It was in the eight year of his undertaking the PhD course – three years more than the maximum it should take to complete the PhD – that he became the President of the Student Union perhaps because he found studying pointless by then. The PhD itself, incidentally, is not Centre for Political Studies (which deals with subjects of multiculturalism, federalism and social justice) but “African Studies”! The JNU site of Centre for African Studies says that it provides funding support to faculty for field visits to Africa and supports academic activities like research seminars, and publications. It is not known whether Kanhaiya ever visited Africa or he organised any seminars on African studies but the Delhi High Court Order releasing him on interim bail records that he resented cancellation of a program “Against the judicial killing of Afzal Guru & Maqbool Bhatt’ the permission for which was applied by Umar Khalid on the proforma (believe it or not) for ‘Poetry Reading – The Country Without A Post Office.’
In his speech on release Kanhaiya is reported to have said, “Let me just say it is not easy to get admission in JNU neither it is easy to silence those in JNU.” What he omitted to mention was the fact those admitted do not find it easy to leave the institute much like Kanhaiya who stays there in his ninth year, remaining a student in his thirty first year trying to complete a course with which he has shown no affinity (despite the “difficulty” in getting admission) even four years beyond the maximum time taken to complete it.
Bravado in a place of comfort (he chooses not to leave JNU) without proven accomplishment in the discipline undertaken (he has proven incapacity in African Studies) and an abject failure to make an honest living (not every Indian enjoys the luxury of an indefinite education and most need to settle soon into a livelihood to sustain themselves) shows only an empty pursuit of ambition and a selfish misuse of position making not only a mockery of education but entailing in addition the lampooning of livelihood something which will not behove any responsible individual.
Kanhaiya is least competent to lecture anyone on life or country. It is not the best way to live life if one inexplicably remains a “student” till 31. And such a person definitely does not live like an ordinary honest Indian (education for whom is an opportunity which is respected) whose cause he claims to espouse. It is easy to advocate action. It is deliberation that is difficult. Before lecturing us did he deliberate on his condition – a thirty one year old student! And while mentioning the targeting of JNU did he wonder why so prestigious a university could not make him complete his course in time?
And then ofcourse the stirring love for country. Azadi “within” the country is battle cry. Who but Kanhaiya will know about it. It is the freedom to remain a student for ever, the freedom never to leave the University, the freedom not to complete courses but spend time making speeches, the freedom never to work, the freedom to merely speak, the freedom to be a demagogue or a soap-box orator, the freedom to rouse emotions and stir hysteria and the freedom to denounce punishments lawfully administered as “judicial killings” under the guise of “poetry reading”, the freedom to replace Kanhaiyaism for all other isms!
Kanhaiya is definitely not the role model for the bearer of national standards and in fact epitomises the very wrongs in the system which are stymieing it.
↧
↧
JNU professor Makarand Paranjape slams Kanhaiya Kumar on his 'azadi' speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSirVsO0JU8
JNU professor Makarand Paranjape slams Kanhaiya Kumar on his 'azadi' speech Published on Mar 7, 2016
JNU professor Makarand Paranjape slams Kanhaiya Kumar on his 'azadi' speech Published on Mar 7, 2016JNU professor Makarand Paranjape took on JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar for quoting wrong facts while delivering the 'azadi' speech in JNU campus after getting bail from Tihar Jail.
JNU professor Makarand Paranjape took on JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar for quoting wrong facts while delivering the 'azadi' speech in JNU campus after getting bail from Tihar Jail.
Is JNU a democratic or a Left hegemonic space: Professor Makarand Paranjape
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) English Professor Makarand Paranjape on Monday questioned if JNU was a “democratic space”, as was being projected, or a “Left hegemonic space”. He also questioned why Leftists had trouble accepting the “legitimacy of the Indian state”.Delivering the 15th nationalism lecture, “India’s Uncivil Wars. Tagore, Gandhi — JNU and what is ‘Left’ of the nation”, Paranjape also targeted JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar and the speech he made on the day of his return to campus. Paranjape had earlier said the February 9 event on Afzal Guru in JNU was held under a “false pretext”.“Why is it so difficult to accept the legitimacy of the Indian state for many people in the established Left? Forget about the Maoists. They believe in armed revolution and we know that DSU (Democratic Students’ Union) is an offshoot of this Maoist party,” he said, even as the crowd shook heads in disagreement.“Look at the letter of resignation that Umar Khalid and Anirban wrote from DSU. You know what they said? We are resigning because there is no scope for dissent, there is no democracy in DSU. Look at the irony of these situations,” he added.Paranjape also questioned the democracy within the Left in general, and in JNU in particular.“When we consider ourselves to be a democratic space, we should ask ourselves if this is entirely true. Isn’t it possible that it is a Left hegemonic space, where if you disagree you are silenced, you are boycotted, you are browbeaten, or sometimes you’re brainwashed,” he said.He also said Kanhaiya’s speech had factual errors, “You said M S Golwalkar met Mussolini; but did you check your facts? It was B S Moonje who met Mussolini… I am not saying they were not impressed with the fascists, they were. They thought it was very good to have an authoritarian system. But please let us agree on what is factual and what is not,” he said.Paranjape also questioned why there were no solidarity statements from China or North Korea. “We have so many statements from everywhere. Can you show me a statement from North Korea or even from China? I have met many Chinese intellectuals… they will tell you how bad things are but ask them to take out a morcha, they can’t,” he said. However, a Chinese student countered him saying there were protests in China, just like in any other country.http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/jnu-row-kanhaiya-kumar-nationalism-class-is-jnu-a-democratic-or-a-left-hegemonic-space-prof-paranjape/
JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar.Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) English Professor Makarand Paranjape on Monday questioned if JNU was a “democratic space”, as was being projected, or a “Left hegemonic space”. He also questioned why Leftists had trouble accepting the “legitimacy of the Indian state”.
Delivering the 15th nationalism lecture, “India’s Uncivil Wars. Tagore, Gandhi — JNU and what is ‘Left’ of the nation”, Paranjape also targeted JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar and the speech he made on the day of his return to campus. Paranjape had earlier said the February 9 event on Afzal Guru in JNU was held under a “false pretext”.
“Why is it so difficult to accept the legitimacy of the Indian state for many people in the established Left? Forget about the Maoists. They believe in armed revolution and we know that DSU (Democratic Students’ Union) is an offshoot of this Maoist party,” he said, even as the crowd shook heads in disagreement.
“Look at the letter of resignation that Umar Khalid and Anirban wrote from DSU. You know what they said? We are resigning because there is no scope for dissent, there is no democracy in DSU. Look at the irony of these situations,” he added.
Paranjape also questioned the democracy within the Left in general, and in JNU in particular.
“When we consider ourselves to be a democratic space, we should ask ourselves if this is entirely true. Isn’t it possible that it is a Left hegemonic space, where if you disagree you are silenced, you are boycotted, you are browbeaten, or sometimes you’re brainwashed,” he said.
He also said Kanhaiya’s speech had factual errors, “You said M S Golwalkar met Mussolini; but did you check your facts? It was B S Moonje who met Mussolini… I am not saying they were not impressed with the fascists, they were. They thought it was very good to have an authoritarian system. But please let us agree on what is factual and what is not,” he said.
Paranjape also questioned why there were no solidarity statements from China or North Korea. “We have so many statements from everywhere. Can you show me a statement from North Korea or even from China? I have met many Chinese intellectuals… they will tell you how bad things are but ask them to take out a morcha, they can’t,” he said. However, a Chinese student countered him saying there were protests in China, just like in any other country.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/jnu-row-kanhaiya-kumar-nationalism-class-is-jnu-a-democratic-or-a-left-hegemonic-space-prof-paranjape/↧
SC to stop Vijay Mallya? But, he's already left India. NaMo, nationalise kaalaadhan.
13 banks move SC to stop Vijay Mallya, but he's already left India
Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN | Mar 9, 2016, 05.10 AM ISTNEW DELHI: A consortium of 13 banks led by State Bank of India approached the Supreme Court on Tuesday to prevent controversial tycoon Vijay Mallya from leaving the country, but they may have left it for too late. Mallya is believed to have left for a foreign destination a few days ago.
The banks urged the court to stop him from going abroad as they claimed he owed them over Rs 9,000 crore. The banks were represented by attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, indicating the government was backing the petitioners against Mallya, who recently said he wished to settle in London.
Mallya's spokesperson said she had no information about his whereabouts and that he was communicating only through email. A consortium of 13 banks on Tuesday approached the SC, a day after a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) restrained Mallya from disbursing in any manner Rs 515 crore paid to him by liquor major Diageo for exiting United Spirits. But the tribunal refused an interim order to freeze Mallya's passport.
Mallya has reportedly expressed a desire to settle in London following the Rs 515 crore deal with Diageo, the banks said through attorney general Mukul Rohatgi.
Rohatgi told a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and U U Lalit that there was every chance of Mallya slipping out of the country as he had told the media that Diageo would be paying him Rs 515 crore in London as fee for exiting United Spirits.
This is the reason why the petitioners moved the DRT for freezing Mallya's passport, is suance of arrest warrant against him, restraining him from disbursing Rs 515 crore ($75 million) and to seek a direction to Mallya to disclose his entire assets on oath.
The AG said the DRT restrained him from disbursing the amount due from Diageo but did not order freezing of his passport as it failed to appreciate the magnitude of the debt and the possibility of Mallya fleeing the country. The banks then approached the Karnataka High Court for the same relief but did not get any interim order.
After the AG sought an urgent hearing, the CJI posted the petition for hearing on Wednesday. The petitioner banks are SBI, Bank of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India, Indian Overseas Bank, Punjab and Sind Bank, Axis Bank, Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank and IDBI Bank.
The banks said, "The HC failed to protect the interest of the petitioner banks who are yet to recover an amount in excess of Rs 9,000 crore from Kingfisher Airlines, United Breweries Ltd, Vijay Mallya and Kingfisher Finvest (India) Ltd. "Petitioner banks individually advanced to Kingfisher Airlines loans of thousands of crores of rupees. By way of a Master Debt Recast Agreement (MDRA) of December 21, 2010 and other related documents, the existing lands were restructured and treated as a single facility. United Breweries and Mallya have on December 21, 2010 executed both corporate guarantee and personal guarantee promising repayment of the entire amount due to the banks." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/13-banks-move-SC-to-stop-Vijay-Mallya-but-hes-already-left-India/articleshow/51320121.cms
The AG said the DRT restrained him from disbursing the amount due from Diageo but did not order freezing of his passport as it failed to appreciate the magnitude of the debt and the possibility of Mallya fleeing the country. The banks then approached the Karnataka High Court for the same relief but did not get any interim order.
Top Comment
He cheated all most public sector banks using his beer and political connectionsAfter the AG sought an urgent hearing, the CJI posted the petition for hearing on Wednesday. The petitioner banks are SBI, Bank of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank, United Bank of India, Indian Overseas Bank, Punjab and Sind Bank, Axis Bank, Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank and IDBI Bank.
The banks said, "The HC failed to protect the interest of the petitioner banks who are yet to recover an amount in excess of Rs 9,000 crore from Kingfisher Airlines, United Breweries Ltd, Vijay Mallya and Kingfisher Finvest (India) Ltd. "Petitioner banks individually advanced to Kingfisher Airlines loans of thousands of crores of rupees. By way of a Master Debt Recast Agreement (MDRA) of December 21, 2010 and other related documents, the existing lands were restructured and treated as a single facility. United Breweries and Mallya have on December 21, 2010 executed both corporate guarantee and personal guarantee promising repayment of the entire amount due to the banks." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/13-banks-move-SC-to-stop-Vijay-Mallya-but-hes-already-left-India/articleshow/51320121.cms
↧
Kanhaiya Kumar goes berserk
Kanhaiya shows his true worth.
Kanhaiya is very tolerant. Thats why he didnt beat up Makrand Paranjpe ? Just booed him n disturbed his speech.
8 March 2016
SNAPSHOT
English professor’s speech was interrupted by sloganeering by Kanhaiya Kumar. He was also booed by some students in the audience.
“We don’t beat the people we disagree with,” professor said. Attacking the Left politics, the professor asked the audience as to why it is so difficult to accept the legitimacy of the Indian state.
JNU students’ union leader Kanhaiya Kumar does not respect his teacher. He also does not like to give space to any opinion other than his or of that propagated by the Leftists. The student leader already faces charges of sedition. On Monday he shouted down Makarand Paranjape, poet and professor of English at a JNU event.
Paranjape’s speech was interrupted by sloganeering by Kanhaiya Kumar. He was also booed by some students in the audience. Paranjape was then made to face questions from the audience, again led by Kumar.
Speaking on the topic “Uncivil Wars: Tagore, Gandhi, JNU and What’s Left of the Nation?” Paranjape said: “When we (JNU) consider ourselves to be a democratic space we should also ask ourselves if this is entirely true.
“Isn’t it possible that this is a Left hegemonic space, where if you disagree you are silenced, you are boycotted, you are brow beaten, or ... (at this point he was shouted at, before Shehla Rashid, JNUSU VP had to stand up to ask the students to maintain order) but I love JNU too.
“We don’t beat the people we disagree with,” he said. Attacking Left politics, the professor asked the audience as to why it is so difficult to accept the legitimacy of the Indian state.
Stating that the present discourse in JNU in particular and in the country in general has destroyed the middle ground, he said that the people left are only at the extremes.
He said by “Left of the Nation” in his topic he wants to bring out what Left ideology in India has been with respect to nationalism.
“My friend Kanhaiya said ours is the oldest organization and we have fought a lot for independence. I want to ask him what about the flip flop that happened by the Communist Party of India when they suddenly declared that the imperialist war was a people’s war.
“The Community Party of India wrote to the British that we will not agitate when you are fighting, we will cooperate with you.
“When he said we fought for the Independence of India, I want to know the evidences. We have too many statements from everywhere here, can you show me a statement from North Korea, or even from China.
“I have met many Chinese intellectuals in a cafe, over a drink they will tell you how bad certain things are. But ask them to take out a morcha and they can’t. So who is democratic and who is not we have to deeply ask ourselves,” he said.
Speaking amidst a gathering which was either neutral or pro-Left, Paranjape pointed out “misrepresentations” in the speech Kumar made after his release from jail post the interim-bail.
“Kanhaiya said in his celebrated speech Golwalkar met Mussolini. Did you check your facts, it was Moonje who met Mussolini,” Paranjape said.
“I am not saying they were not impressed by the fascist, they were. They thought it is a very good idea to have an authoritarian system. Please let us agree on what is factual and what is not,” he said.
“Fascism stands for anti-democratic position and so does Stalinism.”
“I am proud to belong to a country where one so-called judicial murder created such a huge ruckus,” he said, asking whether they know how many judicial murders were committed from 1920 to 1950s in Stalin’s USSR.
“Seven hundred and seventy nine, ninety nine thousand five hundred and fifty three. Almost a million and how many people were executed for criminal and civil charges? Only 34,000,” he added.
↧
First batch of women fighter pilots. Jeevema s'aradah s'atam. Kudos to Manohar Parrikar & ACM Arup Raha
Published: March 8, 2016 19:30 IST | Updated: March 9, 2016 04:38 IST NEW DELHI, March 8, 2016
IAF to get first batch of women fighter pilots in June
PTI
The cadets who will be inducted into the IAF on June 18 as fighter pilots.On June 18, India will in all likelihood get its first women fighter pilots.
On June 18, India will in all likelihood get its first women fighter pilots.
Bhawna Kanth, Avani Chaturvedi and Mohana Singh are likely to create history as India’s first women fighter pilots if they put on the wings and are inducted into the IAF fighter stream. Who among the three, or all of them, make the final cut depends on them clearing the advanced stage training.
This was announced by the Chief of the Indian Air Force Air Chief Marshal (ACM) Arup Raha on Tuesday while speaking on the occasion of the International Women’s Day.
“I must thank the Defence Minister for having approved the IAF’s proposal to induct women as fighter pilots and very soon on June 18 this year, Indian Air Force will get its first woman fighter pilot,” Mr. Raha said addressing a seminar on the role of women in the Army’s Medical Corps.
The three women trainees have volunteered to join the fighter stream. “They are under the second phase of their training. Once they complete their training and are on par with their male colleagues and the passing out parade is scheduled on June 18,” ACM Raha added.
In October the Defence Ministry, in a much welcomed decision, had announced that women will for the first time be allowed in combat roles beginning with the Air Force. Soon the Navy followed suit saying that women pilots would be inducted except where staying overnight on board was involved.
However Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh clarified in a written reply in the Parliament later that “government has accorded the approval to entry of women into the fighter stream of IAF on experimental basis for a period of five years.”
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar recently clarified that the induction of women in various combat roles would be done only in a “phased manner” as necessary facilities for accommodation and training need to be created.
While this is the case contrary to the efforts of the government to promote more women in defence services, the number of women officers joining the forces shows a steep drop in intake last year compared to the last three years, a government reply to the Parliament has revealed.
↧
↧
Uaising morality of Lawyers collective about foreign funding, FCRA returns 2009-11. NaMo, nationalise kaalaadhan.
Kartikeya TannaIn 98, @IJaising morality about foreign funding https://twitter.com/rupasubramanya/status/667747227465482241 …. Here's FCRA return for 2009-10 & 2010-11
In 98, @IJaising morality about foreign funding https://twitter.com/rupasubramanya/status/667747227465482241 …. Here's FCRA return for 2009-10 & 2010-11
And, the third page of the 2011 FCRA return (first 2 pages in above tweet).. Similar receipts in 2012 and 2013..
↧
Yagna for Stalin.Time for Amma to outperform and declare AIADMK Hindu party
S Gurumurthy 
↧
Prayers in temples, churches, mosques, Total solar eclipse in Indonesia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp4OVon0DbQ
Tens of thousands watch as solar eclipse sweeps across Singapore and the region
1 of 6
A combination image showing the sequence of the solar eclipse in Singapore on March 9, 2016 from start to finish.ST PHOTO: MARK CHEONG March 9, 2016 SINGAPORE/BELITUNG (Indonesia) - With their heads tilted back and eyes transfixed on the sky, thousands of people in Singapore and the region watched as a solar eclipse took over the morning sky on Wednesday (March 9).
The spectacle started at around 7.20am Singapore time, peaking at 8.23am where 87 per cent of the sun was obscured. That revealed a bright orange crescent, and produced a shadow that shrouded the island - momentarily turning morning to evening. The phenomenon ended at around 9.30am.
A chorus of 'oohs' and 'ahhs' broke out at Paya Lebar Methodist Girls' School (Secondary) (PLMGS) as the eclipse took place.
Over 300 students and staff observed the sun through the 11 solar telescopes set up in the school's sky garden, led by vice-principal Alfred Tan, an amateur astronomer.
"It's really beautiful and it's so cool. I've been super excited since this morning," Secondary Two student Chantal Aw told The Straits Times.
Mr Richard Quek, a technical support officer from PLMGS said he was thankful for the fine weather.
"There was very clear visibility and we were able to see the eclipse very well."
A live feed from a telescope at PLMGS was also beamed to more than 100 schools.
Elsewhere in Singapore, thousands of people turned up at Science Centre and Labrador Park to view the uncommon event.
From 7am, visitors started streaming into the Science Centre and were provided with solar glasses for safe viewing of the eclipse.
Viewing a solar eclipse for the first time was housewife Vera Cheng, 36, who was there with her husband and three young children.
"We wanted to do it for the experience and get the kids interested in nature," said Ms Cheng.
When asked why viewing the solar eclipse was important to her, Ms Qori Qurrota Aini, 21, said: "It gives you a sense of consciousness, that out there is a moon, and we're beings on Earth."
"I might be a little late (for my morning class) but it's okay," added the undergraduate from the National University of Singapore.
At Labrador Park, 200 gathered for an event organised by the Astronomical Society of Singapore (Tasos), where members of the public were able to view the solar eclipse safely through solar-filtered telescopes set up by the society.
Among them was American Jim Kilmer. The 39-year-old, who is in Singapore on a business trip, made a pinhole camera out of two pieces of paper specially for the occasion.
"Where I live in Ohio is really far from the equator so it's rare to be able to see this," he said.
Another spectator, Ms Eliza Tay, 49, was spotted with her 2-1/2-month-old baby. The member of the astronomical society said she woke up at 4am to prepare for the event.
Solar eclipses occur when the moon crosses between the sun and the earth, forming a shadow on the earth's surface. Partial eclipses, as seen in Singapore, occur when a portion of the sun is obscured by the moon.
A total of 146 eclipses have been or will be seen in Singapore between the year 1700 and 2100. The last eclipse happened in January 2009, while the next solar eclipse, an annular one, will occur on Dec 26, 2019.
In Malaysia, the partial eclipse started around 7.24am and saw a maximum overlapping of up to 87 per cent in the southern parts of Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak, according to the National Planetarium's website.
In Indonesia, at least 100,000 foreign tourists were gathered at a dozen hot spots across the country to catch a rare total solar eclipse. A total eclipse occurs when the sun is completely covered by the moon when viewed from the earth's surface, exposing a circular rim of light.
The last time a total solar eclipse passed over Indonesia was two decades ago on Oct 24, 1995. The next solar eclipse will be on April 20, 2023.
On the island of Belitung, off the east coast of Sumatra, some 7,000 locals and tourists gathered to catch what has been touted as the country's biggest tourism highlight of the year.
Clouds initially threatened to mar the special occasion for Indonesians and tourists alike. But the sky cleared up for the spectacle.
"It was always a gamble, but it came through," said Mr Locky Peters, 25, a bar attendant from Melbourne. "That was the first total solar eclipse that I've seen. It was amazing."
Indonesian accountant Sheilla Anastasia, 40, said: "Seeing the ring is a one time experience. It's out of this world."
Production supervisor Irene Simatupang, 24, who was at the Tanjung Kelayang beach with her father, 56-year-old Jonker Simatupang, said: "It's so awesome as this is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. It's like National Geographic come alive."
Total eclipse: Indonesia witnesses totality as Sun is blocked by the Moon
- 19 minutes ago
- Science & Environment
ReutersMillions of people across Indonesia and the Pacific have experienced a total solar eclipse, with parts of the region falling into complete darkness.
The eclipse began at 06:19 local time (23:19 GMT Tuesday) as the Moon started to pass directly in front of the Sun.
As the eclipse reached totality, the Moon blocked all direct sunlight, turning day into night.
In Indonesia's Belitung province, a crowd gathered on a beach and witnesses spoke of a "magical" experience.
The eclipse was total in Indonesia and the Central Pacific, while parts of Australia and east Asia experienced a partial one.
Astronomers reiterated advice not to look directly at the Sun with the naked eye, or through a telescope. Experts recommended using either a professional solar filter in front of a telescope or camera, or special eclipse-viewing glasses.
The total eclipse began at 00:15 GMT, with the moment of maximum shadow at 01:59 GMT. The celestial event will end at sunset, local time, north of Hawaii (04:34 GMT).
What was the eclipse like? Ging Ginanjar, BBC Indonesian
Belitung, Indonesia, was one of the best places to view the total solar eclipse.
From before dawn, about 200 people gathered at Olivia beach to watch. About 30 foreigners were in the crowd, travelling from Australia and Europe to see it.
One of them was Wilma from Holland, who is a solar eclipse hunter and has seen the solar eclipse five times. She said that when the eclipse started an overwhelming feeling of peace came over her and she heard no sounds. It was a magical experience she said.
When the solar eclipse started the crowd cheered and then went silent in awe. People were taking photos while others just watched in amazement. Then when it finished people clapped quietly. It was an incredible experience, our correspondent said.
Across the island other people prayed in mosques, churches and temples.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35756955
↧
Protecting the stable after the horse has fled. SC told. NaMo, nationalise kaalaadhan.
Rs 269 crore already paid to Mallya in February: Diageo
- Kalyan Subramani, Hindustan Times, Bengaluru |
- Updated: Mar 09, 2016 18:32 IST
Mallya, under probe for defaulting on loans, was paid Rs 269 crore at the time of signing the agreement in February. (Reuters)
British liquor giant Diageo Plc said on Wednesday it had already paid industrialist Vijay Mallya Rs 269 crore of a RS 515 crore settlement plan on a day the Centre revealed the embattled tycoon had left India despite massive outstanding loans.
A spokesperson of Diageo, the world’s largest spirits maker, said in Mumbai the first tranche was paid to Mallya at the time of signing the agreement in February and that the next round of payments was due in 2017.
The revelation came a day after a consortium of 17 banks moved the Supreme Court to stop Mallya from leaving India, worried the fate of their loans worth thousands of crores given to the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines headed by the tycoon.
On Monday, the Enforcement Directorate registered a money laundering case against Mallya while a tribunal said he cannot touch the Rs 515 crore.
The ED case was based on a CBI probe into alleged “wilful default” by the high-flying tycoon on a Rs 900-crore loan in conspiracy with IDBI Bank representatives.
The United Spirits’ board last year asked Mallya to resign after an internal investigation spearheaded by Diageo found he diverted funds to other companies under his control, charges that he denies.
Banks owed money by Kingfisher Airlines have demanded “first right” to the Diageo cash, arguing that they were left with unpaid debts worth Rs 7,000 crore when the company collapsed more than three years ago.
The State Bank of India, which leads the consortium of lenders, declared Mallya— once known as “The King of Good Times” for his flashy lifestyle and lavish parties— a wilful defaulter last month. A wilful defaulter is one who has the ability to pay a loan but has not.
On Feb 25, when Diageo and Mallya announced the settlement that also saw his resignation as chairman of United Spirits, the UK-based liquor company had said, “Diageo will pay $40 million of this amount immediately with the balance being payable in equal instalments over five years. Diageo’s payment obligations are subject to Dr Mallya’s ongoing compliance with the terms of today’s agreement.”
Published: March 9, 2016 15:10 IST | Updated: March 9, 2016 15:24 IST NEW DELHI, March 9, 2016
Vijay Mallya has left India, Centre informs SC
PTI
Vijay Mallya.Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the banks, revealed this when asked by the apex court about the whereabouts of Mr. Mallya.
Industrialist Vijay Mallya left the country the day public sector banks, to whom he owed over Rs. 9000 crore in loans, moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on March 2, 2016 against him.
Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for consortium of banks, revealed this when asked by the apex court about the whereabouts of Mr. Mallya.
Mr. Rohatgi told a Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman that he asked the CBI about Mr. Mallya, and in turn was informed that the Rajya Sabha MP had left Indian shores on March 2, the very day the banks approached the DRT.
Incidentally, the banks are before the Supreme Court with a plea to restrain him from leaving the country by ordering the seizure of his passport.
"There seems to be very little left for us," Justice Nariman remarked.
"This is the information CBI gave me," Mr. Rohatgi responded.
Mr. Rohatgi said the apex court to pass an order now directing Mr. Mallya to appear before this Bench, passport in hand.
"We are not behind his blood. We want to sit across him and get back our money. We want to settle the loans," Mr. Rohatgi said.
Mr. Rohatgi said the "only information" is on social media sites, which show that most of his assets are abroad. "Only a fraction is in India... may be one-fifth".
"Then how did you give these loans. Was there no secured assets on these loans?" Justice Kurian asked.
Mr. Rohatgi replied that at the time of the loans, Kingfisher Airlines was a brand at its peak, which had assets worth some thousand crores, and then "it crashed".
"We had some assets (as security) for the loans advanced," Mr. Rohatgi said.
The Bench then issued notice to Mr. Mallya through his company United Breweries Holdings Limited, his counsel, the Indian High Commissioner at the U.K. and via his official Rajya Sabha email address.
The court sought a reply in two weeks and fixed the hearing for March 30.
When Justice Kurian asked Mr. Rohatgi what guarantee was there that Mr. Mallya would be in the U.K. to receive notice, Mr. Rohatgi replied, "He has tremendous assets there. We know he would be there... most likely".
Debts case: Vijay Mallya has left India, Centre informs SC
New Delhi, Mar 9, 2016, (PTI)
Liquor baron Vijay Mallya, who is facing legal proceedings for allegedly defaulting loans of over Rs 9,000 crores from various banks, has left the country a week back, government today informed the Supreme Court.
"I spoke to the CBI little while ago and it told me that on March 2 he (Mallya) left the country," Attorney General(AG) Mukul Rohatgi told the bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman.
The bench issued notice to Mallya and sought his response within two weeks on pleas filed by a consortium of banks seeking direction for freezing his passport and his presence before the apex court.
Since the court was informed that Mallya has already left the country, probably to UK, the bench allowed the plea of AG that the notice to him can be served through his official Rajya Sabha Email ID, Indian High Commission at London and also through counsel representing him before various high courts, Debt Recovery Tribunal and also through his Company.
During the brief hearing, the AG said that amount of more than Rs 9,000 crore was due to various banks and on one or the other pretext Mallya avoided to settle them.
There have been various proceedings going on against him in debt recovery tribunals in Bangalore and Goa, he said.
When the bench wanted to know what was the petitioner seeking, the AG said there was a need for a garnishee order and there was also a need for disclosure on behalf of Mallya.
Rohatgi said the banks were seeking an order that Mallya should appear in person before this court and also sought a direction for freezing his passport.
The AG said that Mallya has assets, both movable and immovable, abroad which are far excessive to loans secured by him here.
At this, the bench wanted to know how the banks have granted him loan under such circumstances.
The AG said the loans were granted keeping in mind that Kingfisher Airlines had a fleet of aircraft as well as brand value and loans were given also on the basis of the logo and the aircraft were attached to the third party.
"I spoke to the CBI little while ago and it told me that on March 2 he (Mallya) left the country," Attorney General(AG) Mukul Rohatgi told the bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman.
The bench issued notice to Mallya and sought his response within two weeks on pleas filed by a consortium of banks seeking direction for freezing his passport and his presence before the apex court.
Since the court was informed that Mallya has already left the country, probably to UK, the bench allowed the plea of AG that the notice to him can be served through his official Rajya Sabha Email ID, Indian High Commission at London and also through counsel representing him before various high courts, Debt Recovery Tribunal and also through his Company.
During the brief hearing, the AG said that amount of more than Rs 9,000 crore was due to various banks and on one or the other pretext Mallya avoided to settle them.
There have been various proceedings going on against him in debt recovery tribunals in Bangalore and Goa, he said.
When the bench wanted to know what was the petitioner seeking, the AG said there was a need for a garnishee order and there was also a need for disclosure on behalf of Mallya.
Rohatgi said the banks were seeking an order that Mallya should appear in person before this court and also sought a direction for freezing his passport.
The AG said that Mallya has assets, both movable and immovable, abroad which are far excessive to loans secured by him here.
At this, the bench wanted to know how the banks have granted him loan under such circumstances.
The AG said the loans were granted keeping in mind that Kingfisher Airlines had a fleet of aircraft as well as brand value and loans were given also on the basis of the logo and the aircraft were attached to the third party.
The AG said, "Today I submit he (Mallya) should appear before you (SC). We want disclosure. We want to recover money, which is public money."
After this submission the bench concluded the hearing and dictated the order by issuing notice to Mallya saying, "if he is already out of the country, we will permit you to serve the notice through Indian High Commission at London and also through his official email ID of Rajya Sabha, of which he is a member."
The consortium of banks, in their appeal, have assailed the March 4 order of the Karnataka High Court refusing an "ex- parte ad interim" order against Mallya, England-based Diageo Plc and United Spirits Limited.
The banks said that the High Court should have passed an interim order, securing their financial interests, without hearing the industrialist and others including debtor firm Kingfisher Airlines Limited.
Prior to moving the High Court, the banks had filed four pleas in the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Bengaluru seeking reliefs like freezing of Mallya's passport, arrest warrant against him and issuance of a "garnishee order against Respondent Nos. 10 (Diageo Plc) and 11 (United Spirits Limited) from disbursing USD 75 million".
They had also sought a direction to Mallya that he should disclose his assets on oath. The banks had moved the DRT in the backdrop of Mallya's recent resignation from the chairmanship of United Spirits.
Diageo Plc, the current owner of the liquor company, has agreed to pay USD 75 million (approx. Rs 515 crore) to Mallya as severance package.
Besides SBI, other banks which have moved the SC are: Axis Bank Limited, Bank of Baroda, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank Limited, IDBI Bank Limited, Indian Overseas Bank, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, Punjab and Sind Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, UCO Bank and United Bank of India.
The banks have also sought a direction to Mallya to "furnish suitable security for his appearance before the DRT" during the pendency of banks' original applications for recovering debts.
The banks have also arraigned firms like Kingfisher Airlines Ltd, United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd, Kingfisher Finvest (India) Ltd, SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd as parties.
The plea said the banks "individually" had advanced loans to Kingfisher Airlines Limited and by way of a Master Debts Recast Agreement (MDRA), executed on December 21, 2010, and related documents ("Financing Documents"), the existing loans were restructured and was treated as a single facility.
Mallya has flown, SC told (as it hears banks looking to get Rs 9000cr back) |
| New Delhi, Mar 9. (Agencies): Liquor baron Vijay Mallya has left the country, the government’s top legal adviser informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday as it was hearing a plea by Mallya’s creditor banks to make him show up. “I spoke to the CBI a little while ago, and it told me that on March 2, he (Mallya) left the country,” Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told a bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman, referring to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Upon this, the Court said notice should be served to Mallya at his official Rajya Sabha email ID, through the Indian high commission in London, counsel representing him before various courts, and through his company. Mallya had last month stepped down from the chairman’s post at United Spirits Ltd, the company he sold to UK-based Diageo Plc in 2012, and was supposed to get around $75 million over five years as a settlement. He had recently proposed to spend more time in London. However, a clutch of government banks say Mallya and his companies, especially the now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines, owe them nearly Rs 9000 crore. The AG said Mallya has been avoiding settling the dues on one pretext or the other. Mallya has been given two weeks to reply to the petition filed by a consortium of 11 banks led by State Bank of India, the country’s largest lender. There have been various proceedings going on against him in debt recovery tribunals in Bangalore and Goa, Rohatgi said. On Monday, the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore had blocked the Diageo settlement, acting on the banks’ petition that they have first right to the cash. When the Supreme Court bench wanted to know what the petitioner wanted, the AG said there was a need for a garnishee order and there was also a need for disclosure on behalf of Mallya. Rohatgi said the banks were seeking an order that Mallya appear in person before this court and also sought a direction for freezing his passport. The AG said that Mallya has assets, both movable and immovable, abroad that are far in excess of the loans secured by him here. The bench then wanted to know how the banks have granted him loan under such circumstances. The AG said the loans were granted keeping in mind that Kingfisher Airlines had a fleet of aircraft as well as brand value and loans were given also on the basis of the logo and the aircraft were attached to the third party.. |
↧
↧
Bharhut, Sanchi torana hieroglyph hypertexts are abiding continuum of Prakrtam of Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization Indus Script Corpora
Tatsama and tadbhava establish the reality of Bharatiya sprachbund. It appears mlecchita vikalpa was based on a metalwork lexis of Prakrtam (i.e., vAk, spoken form of Samskrtam).
I was stunned by the Bharhut and Sanchi torana hieroglyphs recognizable as Indus Script hieroglyph-multiplexes.
1. tAmarasa 'lotus' (tAmra); sippi 'palm spathe, mollusc' (s'ilpi); eraka (arka); aya 'fish' (aya, ayas 'iron') khambhaṛā ʻfinʼ (kammaTa 'coiner, coinage, mint (Kannada); kariba 'trunk of elephant' ibha 'elephant' (ib 'iron' karba 'iron' (Kannada). Hence the proclamation as an advertisement hoardings by the Begram dantakara (ivory carvers) who moved to Bhilsa topes. There is an epigraph in Sanchi stupa which records the donations of dantakara to the dhAtugarbha (dagoba, stupa).
khambhaṛā ʻfinʼ (kammaTa 'coiner, coinage, mint (Kannada): the Prakrtam word for 'fin' khambhaṛā has related phonemes and allographs:
*skambha
S. khambhu, °bho m. ʻ plumage ʼ, khambhuṛi f. ʻ wing ʼ; L. khabbh m., mult. khambh m. ʻ shoulder -- blade, wing, feather ʼ, khet. khamb ʻ wing ʼ, mult. khambhaṛā m. ʻ fin ʼ; P. khambh m. ʻ wing, feather ʼ; G. khā̆m f., khabhɔ m. ʻ shoulder ʼ.(CDIAL 13640).
skambhá1 m. ʻ prop, pillar ʼ RV. 2. ʻ *pit ʼ (semant. cf. kūˊpa -- 1 ). [√skambh ]
1. Pa. khambha -- m. ʻ prop ʼ; Pk. khaṁbha -- m. ʻ post, pillar ʼ; Pr. iškyöp, üšköb ʻ bridge ʼ NTS xv 251; L. (Ju.) khabbā m., mult. khambbā m. ʻ stake forming fulcrum for oar ʼ; P. khambh, khambhā,khammhā m. ʻ wooden prop, post ʼ; WPah.bhal. kham m. ʻ a part of the yoke of a plough ʼ, (Joshi) khāmbā m. ʻ beam, pier ʼ; Ku. khāmo ʻ a support ʼ, gng. khām ʻ pillar (of wood or bricks) ʼ; N. khã̄bo ʻ pillar, post ʼ, B. khām, khāmbā; Or. khamba ʻ post, stake ʼ; Bi. khāmā ʻ post of brick -- crushing machine ʼ, khāmhī ʻ support of betel -- cage roof ʼ, khamhiyā ʻ wooden pillar supporting roof ʼ; Mth. khāmh, khāmhī ʻ pillar, post ʼ, khamhā ʻ rudder -- post ʼ; Bhoj. khambhā ʻ pillar ʼ, khambhiyā ʻ prop ʼ; OAw. khāṁbhe m. pl. ʻ pillars ʼ, lakh. khambhā; H. khām m. ʻ post, pillar, mast ʼ, khambh f. ʻ pillar, pole ʼ; G. khām m. ʻ pillar ʼ, khã̄bhi , °bi f. ʻ post ʼ, M. khã̄b m., Ko. khāmbho, °bo, Si. kap (< *kab); -- X gambhīra -- , sthāṇú -- , sthūˊṇā -- qq.v.
2. K. khambü rü f. ʻ hollow left in a heap of grain when some is removed ʼ; Or. khamā ʻ long pit, hole in the earth ʼ, khamiā ʻ small hole ʼ; Marw. khã̄baṛo ʻ hole ʼ; G. khã̄bhũ n. ʻ pit for sweepings and manure (CDIAL 13639).
1. Pa. khambha -- m. ʻ prop ʼ; Pk. khaṁbha -- m. ʻ post, pillar ʼ; Pr. iškyöp, üšköb ʻ bridge ʼ NTS xv 251; L. (Ju.) khabbā m., mult. khambbā m. ʻ stake forming fulcrum for oar ʼ; P. khambh, khambhā,khammhā m. ʻ wooden prop, post ʼ; WPah.bhal. kham m. ʻ a part of the yoke of a plough ʼ, (Joshi) khāmbā m. ʻ beam, pier ʼ; Ku. khāmo ʻ a support ʼ, gng. khām ʻ pillar (of wood or bricks) ʼ; N. khã̄bo ʻ pillar, post ʼ, B. khām, khāmbā; Or. khamba ʻ post, stake ʼ; Bi. khāmā ʻ post of brick -- crushing machine ʼ, khāmhī ʻ support of betel -- cage roof ʼ, khamhiyā ʻ wooden pillar supporting roof ʼ; Mth. khāmh, khāmhī ʻ pillar, post ʼ, khamhā ʻ rudder -- post ʼ; Bhoj. khambhā ʻ pillar ʼ, khambhiyā ʻ prop ʼ; OAw. khāṁbhe m. pl. ʻ pillars ʼ, lakh. khambhā; H. khām m. ʻ post, pillar, mast ʼ, khambh f. ʻ pillar, pole ʼ; G. khām m. ʻ pillar ʼ, khã̄bh
2. K. khamb
These semantic clusters indicate that the skambha 'pillar' and skambha 'wing' are also hieroglyphs and so depicted in Indus Script Corpora. This leads to a reasonable inference that the Atharva Veda SkambhaSukta (AV X.7) -- an extraordinary philosophical enquiry into the Ruda hieroglyph as linga, s'ivalinga is also embellished with a caSAla (wheatchaff godhUma, snout of boar, varAha) is an intervention to explain the phenomenon of pyrolysis (thermachemical decomposition) and carburization which infuse carbon into soft metal (e.g. wrought iron) to create hard metal. The snout of boar is also called pota, evoking the potR 'purifier' of Rigveda and hence the abiding metaphor of Bharatiya tradition venerating varAha as yagna purusha personifying the Veda.
Namaskaram. hence, Samskrta Bharati evolved from ca. 8th millennium BCE with Bharatam Janam. Indus Script Cipher is metalwork catalogue in Prakrtam (Samskrta Bharati united in the sprachbund the variant pronunciations of mleccha/meluhha). QED. Hence, the s'ilpi statue as a semantic-phonetic determinant adjoining the Sanchi hieroglyph-multiplex.
Henc, Samskrta Bharati (fifth volume of the quintet on Indus Script).
S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Center
March 9, 2016
↧
NGT Order on World Cultural Festival. Tribunal activism Tuglaqui farmans denting a cultural event
NGT couldnt AOL prog in law. It couldnt allow it because of secular blackmail. It did an illegal panchayat. This is the state of rule of law
- Those against Sri Sri are TDK driven Christian forces such as Opus Dei. TDK made Vatican earlier to scuttle his Nobel Prize nomination
- Namo Govt get tough with critics of SriSri'. In 2005 TDK made Def Min give crook Benny Hinns to hold a fraud meet in Blr on Airforce land.
Subramanian Swamy - 5/n Disgraceful last minute opposition to AOL international festival on spurious environmental grounds likely to be politically motivated.
- 3/n NGT failed to stop pouring of sewage & industrial pollutants into Yamuna but creating mayhem with high prestige international festival
- 2/n Manushi is challenging NGT tuglaqui farman banning eco friendly cycle rickshaws & hawkers on bizarre charge of causing air pollution
- NGTissuing Tuglaqi farmans.Not so learned NGT judges banned street vendors & cycle rickshaws from markets saying they cause pollution! 1/n
Madhu Kishwar 5/n Disgraceful last minute opposition to AOL international festival on spurious environmental grounds likely to be politically motivated.
3/n NGT failed to stop pouring of sewage & industrial pollutants into Yamuna but creating mayhem with high prestige international festival
2/n Manushi is challenging NGT tuglaqui farman banning eco friendly cycle rickshaws & hawkers on bizarre charge of causing air pollution
NGTissuing Tuglaqi farmans.Not so learned NGT judges banned street vendors & cycle rickshaws from markets saying they cause pollution! 1/n
Full text of NGT judgment on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s World
Culture Festival
This Tribunal is primarily dealing with the ecological, environmental and biodiversity damage done to the river and the flood plains by the activity of the Foundation and the environmental consequences of holding such an event.
By: Express News Desk | New Delhi | Updated: March 9, 2016 6:58 pm -
The arguments in the case have just concluded. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the urgency involved in the lis, it is required of the Tribunal to pass a short order giving its conclusions, reasons for which would be provided by a detailed judgment subsequently.Having heard the parties at length, perusing the records produced, the three Reports submitted by the Principal Committee constituted by the Tribunal in the main Yamuna matter, Prof. A.K. Gosain and MoEF respectively as well as the pleadings of the parties, we pass the following order recording our conclusions:-
1. For the reason of delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal and for the reason of fait accompli capable of restoration and restitution, we are unable to grant the prayer of prohibitory order and a mandatory direction for removal of construction and restoration of the area in question to the applicant at this stage.
The principles, as stated in the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of India and Ors. (2015) ALL (I) NGT Reporter (2) (Delhi) 170, can be squarely applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We may notice that the interim stay against the said judgment of the Tribunal has been declined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 23rd November, 2015 in that case. The applicant had written to the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 11th December, 2015 but filed the present application only on 8th February, 2016. In the meanwhile, the Vyakti Vikas Kendra – India (the ‘Foundation’) had substantially completed the construction work on the flood plains and allied areas which would squarely fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
2. It needs to be stated that the Applicant has not raised any challenge to the permission dated 30th June, 2015 granted by DDA and letters of other Authorities stating that no permission was required by the Foundation from them, although they had been placed on record and relied upon during the course of hearing. This factor would place the Applicant at some disadvantage though his application would not be liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.3. This Tribunal is primarily dealing with the ecological, environmental and biodiversity damage done to the river and the flood plains by the activity of the Foundation and the environmental consequences of holding such an event. We are not strictly concerned with the cultural event that is proposed to be held from 11th to 13th March, 2016.
The Board has failed toexercise due diligence and in fact it has exercised its authority improperly in taking a stand that no orders were called from the Board in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, we impose costs of Rs. 1 lakh on DPCC.
5. The Foundation has submitted its application to various authorities for obtaining permission for holding the event. It has not obtained any permission as yet from the Police Department, Fire Department and from the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, which undisputedly, in terms of the Notification dated 31st July, 2014 is the Authority responsible for conservation, development, management and control of water pollution of River Yamuna. All these authorities have failed to exercise due diligence in fulfilment of their public duties.
We also state here that the information provided by the applicant was incomplete, vague and uncertain since it did not provide any specific data, supporting documents, comprehensive plan with regard to carrying on of such a huge construction, levelling activity and also construction of other approach roads, pontoon bridges, ramps, parking and a huge stage admeasuring 40 ft. high, 1000 ft. long and 200 ft. wide to any of the Authorities. This must lead to drawing of adverse inference against the Foundation. We would have expected the Foundation to disclose its entire project besides holding of the cultural activity to all the concerned authorities. Even on that count, the Foundation would be liable to pay compensation.
6. Certain material deficiencies/discrepancies have been pointed out by the Police Department of Delhi in its letter dated 01st March, 2016 and letter of PWD dated 08th March, 2016. We direct the Foundation to comply with the safety, construction stability and other requirements of all the concerned authorities as well as obtain permission
from the Police Department, Fire Department and also fulfil other requirements stated in the letter of the Police Department. We also do not accept the contention of the MoEF&CC that it was not required for the Foundation to seek Environmental Clearance for the project relating to all matters of construction etc. as afore-referred. The stand of MoEF&CC is contrary to the Notification, particularly with respect to development of an area of more than 50 ha. as contained in the EIA Notification, 2006
from the Police Department, Fire Department and also fulfil other requirements stated in the letter of the Police Department. We also do not accept the contention of the MoEF&CC that it was not required for the Foundation to seek Environmental Clearance for the project relating to all matters of construction etc. as afore-referred. The stand of MoEF&CC is contrary to the Notification, particularly with respect to development of an area of more than 50 ha. as contained in the EIA Notification, 2006
7. It is the consistent view of the Experts and is sufficiently evident from the documents placed on record that the flood plains have been drastically tampered with while destroying the natural flow of the river, reeds, grasses, natural vegetation on the river bed. It has further disturbed the aquatic life of the river and destroyed water bodies and wet lands on the flood plains, which were in existence, as noticed in our judgment in the case of Manoj Misra vs. Union of India and Ors., OA No.6 of 2012 decided on 13th January, 2015. Furthermore, they have constructed ramps, roads, compaction of earth, pontoon bridges and other semi-permanent or temporary structures etc. even without the permission of the concerned authorities including Ministry of Water Resources. The permission granted by Government of NCT of Delhi is of no consequence as it is not the competent authority for rights over the river and in any case, it was a permission for only flood situation as is evident from the bare reading of the permission. In fact, that is the stand of Government of NCT of Delhi itself before the Tribunal.
For the damage caused to the environment, ecology, biodiversity and aquatic life of the river, the Foundation should be held liable for its restoration in all respects. In that regard and in exercise of our powers under Sections 15 and 17 of the NGT Act, 2010 we impose an Environmental Compensation, initially of Rs. 5 crores. This amount would be paid by the Foundation prior to the commencement of the event. This amount would be adjusted towards the final compensation determined to be paid by the Foundation for restoration work. We hereby direct the Principal Committee constituted under the judgment, to submit a report within four weeks from today, in relation to the steps
required to be taken for restoration, restitution and rejuvenation of the flood plains to its original status. It will also state the approximate cost that would have to be incurred for such restoration and restitution. We further direct that the entire area in question shall be developed as a biodiversity park in terms of our judgment in the case of Manoj Mishra (supra).
required to be taken for restoration, restitution and rejuvenation of the flood plains to its original status. It will also state the approximate cost that would have to be incurred for such restoration and restitution. We further direct that the entire area in question shall be developed as a biodiversity park in terms of our judgment in the case of Manoj Mishra (supra).
The cost thereof shall be paid by the Foundation and DDA in the proportion as would be directed by the Tribunal finally. The Foundation shall, by tomorrow, file an undertaking before the Tribunal that it would, within two weeks from date of demand by DDA, pay the balance amount for restoration, as directed by the Tribunal. The Principal Committee would be entitled to engage such other experts as it needs to assess the cost factor.
We also constitute a Committee of the representatives of DPCC, MoEF&CC and Member Secretary, CPCB, who shall
immediately inspect the site and issue directions by tomorrow in relation to the source of water, collection and disposal of the Municipal Solid Waste and sewerage generated during the event and also issue directions to ensure that there is no further environmental degradation or adverse impact on public health.
immediately inspect the site and issue directions by tomorrow in relation to the source of water, collection and disposal of the Municipal Solid Waste and sewerage generated during the event and also issue directions to ensure that there is no further environmental degradation or adverse impact on public health.
They shall also issue directions with regard to the source of water and source of power and its utilization thereof. These would be treated as directions issued under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 6 of the Environmental
(Protection) Act, 1986 and would be binding upon the Foundation and all public authorities involved in the case.
(Protection) Act, 1986 and would be binding upon the Foundation and all public authorities involved in the case.
8. The permission granted by the DDA dated 30th June, 2015 is a vague permission, which, in fact, is the very basis of the case of the Foundation. However, irrespective of that, we find that the said permission is not in consonance with the orders of the NGT and in fact is in excess of the powers vested in DDA which runs contrary to the spirit of
the judgment of the Tribunal. This cannot be termed as a recreational activity simplicitor.
the judgment of the Tribunal. This cannot be termed as a recreational activity simplicitor.
Cultural activity could be recreational but the entire construction of ramps, roads, accumulation of debris, alteration of the natural topography and removal of natural vegetation from the flood plains, cannot be said to be recreational. It is a complete project in itself and the DDA ought to have applied its mind. Strangely, it has neither conducted inspection of the site prior to the grant of permission nor during operation or subsequent thereto. Consequently, we impose a cost of Rs.5 lacs on DDA for its defaults and non-performance of its statutory functions.
9. We also direct that the DDA shall not, in future, issue such permission and any permission issued by the DDA or any State/Authority in relation to flood plain of River Yamuna, shall be subject to the orders of the Tribunal.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the Foundation has given an undertaking to the Tribunal that it will not release any kind of Enzymes into River Yamuna, its tributaries or any water bodies henceforth without obtaining due permission of CPCB and DPCC. The amount stated above shall be deposited with DDA and shall be maintained in a separate account.
The above directions are issued, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs, for which the detailed reasons, as already stated, shall follow.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/ngt-sri-sri-ravi-shankar-world-culture-festival/#sthash.ew2LO0kr.dpuf
↧
Non-Performing Assets: Banker’s Heist? -- M.G.Devasahayam. NaMo, nationalise kaalaadhan.
Non-Performing Assets: Banker’s Heist?
In economic and commercial parlance banking is a kind of business different from others. In general terms it is accepting and safeguarding money owned by other individuals and entities, and then lending out this money in order to earn a profit. Banking institutions therefore should judiciously combine two distinctly different functions-one of public trustee and the other a profit-making business entity. At the core of its function is the management of its assets in a prudent and profitable meaner.
The way they are managing their assets, India’s public sector banks (PSBs) are failing in both functions. In the event, Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) of these banks has become the talk of the town. According to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) estimates, the top thirty loan defaulters alone currently account for one-third of the total gross NPAs of PSBs. NPAs of eleven major PSBs is revealing:
The way they are managing their assets, India’s public sector banks (PSBs) are failing in both functions. In the event, Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) of these banks has become the talk of the town. According to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) estimates, the top thirty loan defaulters alone currently account for one-third of the total gross NPAs of PSBs. NPAs of eleven major PSBs is revealing:
Bank | Gross NPA (Rs. Crores) | % of Loan | |||
State Bank of India | 72,792 | 5.1 | |||
Bank of Baroda | 38,934 | 9.7 | |||
Bank of India | 36,519 | 9.2 | |||
Punjab National Bank | 34,338 | 8.5 | |||
Indian Overseas Bank | 22,672 | 12.6 | |||
IBBI Bank | 19, 615 | 8.9 | |||
Central Bank of India | 17,564 | 9 | |||
UCO Bank | 14, 932 | 11 | |||
Bank of Maharashtra | 8,302 | 8 | |||
Dena Bank | 7,916 | 9.9 | |||
United Bank | 6,722 | 9.6 | |||
Total | 280,306 | ||||
Current debt-burden of just 10 corporate entities amount to a staggering Rs.7.8 lakh crore: Anil Ambani led Reliance Group-Rs 1.25 lakh crore; Vedanta Group-Rs 1.03 lakh crore; Essar Group-Rs 1.01 lakh crore; Adani Group-Rs 96,031 crore; Jaypee Group-Rs 75,163 crore; JSW group-Rs.58,171 crore; GMR Group-Rs 47,976 crore; Lanco Group-Rs 47,102 crore; Videocon Group-Rs 45,405 crore and GVK Reddy-Rs.33,933 crore.
Though Finance Minister has reportedly set aside Rs 70, 000 crores this year to ‘service’ corporate NPA’s it is not known how much of these big-gun’s dues fall in that category. It is because banks, RBI and government are very reluctant to declare the details of biggest defaulters. They willingly take shelter under Section45E (1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 which stipulates that any credit information contained in any statement submitted by a banking company shall be treated as confidential and shall not be published or otherwise disclosed.
In an order passed in 2011 Central Information Commission directed the RBI to reveal publicly the names of the top 100 industrialists who had defaulted on loan repayments to PSBs with a view to “put pressure on such persons to pay their dues.” The RBI moved the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of this order on grounds that it went against “the cardinal common law principle of bankers’ duty of confidentiality and against the basic tenets of banking.”
But this ‘common law principle’ does not seem to apply to small defaulters. About four years back, when rumblings of the raging bad-loan saga was just beginning to surface some PSB’s placed advertisement in daily newspapers with photographs of individual defaulters alongside a stern warning that if they failed to respond, photographs of their guarantors would also be published. SBI, India’s largest bank with a present NPA of Rs. 72,792 crores targeted a woman with a petty outstanding loan of Rs 52, 264/- Other banks followed suit. But none of them touched the ‘big-guns’!
The methods these banks adopt to recover small NPAs far surpasses that of the legendary Shylock of Merchant of Venice. Referring to this phenomenon RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan had this to say: “Law becomes more draconian in an attempt to force payment. The SARFAESI Act of 2002 is very pro-creditor as it is written….Its full force is felt by the small entrepreneur who does not have the wherewithal to hire expensive lawyers or move the courts, even while the influential promoter once again escapes its rigour. The small entrepreneur’s assets are repossessed quickly and sold, extinguishing many a promising business that could do with a little support from bankers.”
Here is a real-life narrative of a Small Scale Industry (SSI) near Chennai to substantiate what RBI Governor said. Term loan was received by the company from Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC). A PSB provided working capital/bill discounting assistance of Rs. 15 lakhs in 1988 against the hypothecation of raw materials, stock-in-process and finished goods. As additional security Bank surreptitiously retained the title deed of the residential house belonging to the guarantor.
The fully set-up factory commenced production in February 1989 as captive unit of a large industry manufacturing commercial vehicles and engines and a major supplier to Defence Forces. However the captive business of about Rs.50 lakhs per annum unexpectedly collapsed due to severe budgetary cuts imposed in the Defence Ministry. PSB was immediately put on notice and proposal for diversifying manufacturing activity was submitted with request to enhance working capital limits. Had those proposals been sanctioned SSI would have diversified the product range, marketed the products and become viable and profitable. No support whatsoever came and the SSI was extinguished.
After killing the SSI, in September 1998 PSB filed application in Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions, 1990 (RDDBFI Act) claiming a sum of Rs.97, 33, 574/- seeking its recovery by attaching and selling the residential house. This property was coveted by certain senior bank officials who had expressed it openly.
So, when RBI issued guidelines on 27-07-2000 for One Time Settlement (OTS) of dues from SSIs, this PSB was not really interested in complying with it. After several letters Bank intimated an arbitrary figure of Rs. 38.68 lakhs. On its review by a special recovery group comprising of two General Managers and Zonal Manager in December 2001 dues were brought down to the correct amount of Rs. 20.05 lakhs as per RBI’s OTS norms. Rs.5 lakh was immediately paid as down payment with a request for early confirmation. The confirmation never came because senior bank managers were not propitiated with bribes!
PSB turned Shylock on 25-09-2004 and issued Notice under Section 13 (2) of the draconian Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) claiming a massive sum of Rs. 3.27 crores as dues to be paid within 60 days. Bank got the residential house attached, put up a notice of possession and another for ‘Tender Sale’ naming and shaming the entrepreneur. Prospective bidders went and inspected the house. DRT prevented this foul game in time by issuing a stay order. On 20-12-2006, the Tribunal quashed all coercive actions of the Bank under SARFAESI Act as invalid and illegal.
On 03-08-2007, DRT passed final orders on PSB’s application to determine the dues. Despite ‘discovery of documents’ ordered by DRT, bank concealed the settlement at Rs. 20.05 lakhs. Even the oft-repeated settlement at Rs. 38.68 lakhs was denied by PSB. But DRT had proof and therefore decreed this amount as due with PLR of interest at 8% recording the undertaking given by the Bank’s counsel to this effect. Entrepreneur deposited Rs. 51.14 lakhs in DRT. This should have given a quietus to the whole matter allowing the entrepreneur to breathe easy.
Not to be. After immediately appropriating the full amount, PSB went on appeal before DRAT Chennai with all kind of falsehood intentionally giving the wrong address for service to the entrepreneur. Bank retracted from the undertaking given by its counsel before the DRT. Appellate Tribunal set aside the DRT order on 28-01-2009 by relying on a totally irrelevant Supreme Court judgment. Copy of this order was released after four months, just a day before the Presiding Officer retired. Immediately thereafter the Bank moved application before DRT for Recovery Certificate for the full decreed amount with further interest and costs i.e. Rs. 1,68,49,192/-. Behind the back of the borrower DRT issued Recovery Certificate for this amount.
DRT’s RO immediately issued Demand Notice for the amount on 07-07-2009 summoning the entrepreneur on 24-07-2009 at 11.30 AM to initiate the recovery procedure. Fortuitously WP in the Madras High Court (HC), against the DRAT order came up for hearing on the same date and a stay was obtained at 11.00 AM. Shylock sought revenge by activating the SARFAESI Notice of 07-05-2007 claiming Rs. 5.07 crores as dues and appointed an ‘Authorised Officer’ to take ‘possession’ of and sell the residential house.
This would have happened but for HC rendering its judgment setting aside the DRAT order and castigating the Bank and its officials. HC Order Copy was released on 09-04-2010. The 90 days limitation for PSB to file SLP in the Supreme Court expired on 08-07-2010. HC order was clear and there was no scope for any appeal. Senior Counsels of the Bank had given their opinion against filing SLP. But bank’s senior managers overruled these opinions and filed SLP after a delay of 24 days.
Despite this grievous flaw SC condoned the delay entertained the SLP and issued Notice to the entrepreneur. After 12 listings, 28 adjournments and over four years of anguish SLP was finally disposed of by SC on 14-10-2014 with a crisp two-line Order: “Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material. We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.” Thus came the closure of the case after near two decades of hostile and frivolous litigation by the PSB. Perjury was the Bank’s practice in the Tribunals, High Court and Supreme Court. All these happened with the full knowledge and connivance of senior managers including a former CMD.
Under the Banking Regulation Act RBI can intervene and remedy the situation. But this is only on paper. Desperate and repeated pleadings to the RBI Governor fell on deaf ears. Response from Ministry of Finance and Chief Vigilance Commissioner were no different.
There are far worse victims of PSBs than this entrepreneur. One is reminded ofShakespeare’s Shylock, notorious for greed and usury. India’s modern day Shylockshave far exceeded this character in greed, cruelty and deceit. They not only want a ‘pound-of-flesh’ but also the blood that flows. This carnal demand is from small entrepreneurs who had staked everything to establish a business and live in ‘dignity’. These ‘Shylocks’ do not care a damn if the person who had borrowed the money or had stood guarantee lose all dignity and perish in the process. For they have the laws, the State and the judicial system to propitiate, protect and pander them.
Let us see how this happens. When an entity or an individual borrows money from the bank and delays repaying the borrowed money, banks classify them as defaulters and initiate actions for recovery of loans. The special enactments empowering banks and financial institutions to proceed against the defaulters areRDDBFI Act and SARFAESI Act.
These were enacted to facilitate easy recovery of loans due to banks, the former with the help of adjudicating authorities and the latter an arbitrary suo motoprocedure with powers to attach collateral/mortgaged properties and sell them. These are co-existing remedies, meaning banks can resort to both at the same time. This is where there is huge corruption by bank managers. Most of the genuine commercial/residential properties mortgaged to the banks become high-value over a period of time. SARFAESI Act gives sweeping powers to bank managers to summarily take possession of these properties once a loan is declared as NPA. If the borrower bribes the bank managers heavily they settle the dues without charging interest at borrowed amount or even lower and release the property. If not the properties are sold through brokers at prices much below market rates and the booty is shared. The hapless borrower, deprived of livelihood is thrown on the streets. It is largely with this view that NPAs are ‘manufactured’ for truly secured loans.
A more insidious way of corruption is to sanction huge loans without proper due diligence and accepting fake or low-quality properties as security. Though counted as ‘secured’ these are actually unsecured loans. It is in these loans large default takes place and invoking SARFAESI Act is not of use to the banks. So they move the DRT under RDDBFI Act so that banks can hunt for properties of borrower and his family not given as collateral. This is cumbersome process consuming years of litigation and counter-litigation. In the meanwhile NPAs keep mounting and skyrocketing as is happening now.
Despite draconian powers under SARFAESI Act and vast powers underRDDBFI Act banks are unable to prevent NPAs or recover them quickly largely because of inefficiency, corruption or political skullduggery. Tribunals and courts where bank’s actions are challenged are not always obliging. Bankers want this impediment to be removed and are seeking more arbitrary powers that cannot be challenged. They are already prosecutor, jury and judge as far as borrowers are concerned. Now they want to be executioners as well so that nothing comes between them and the hapless borrowers. Despite its Governor blowing hot and cold, RBI is yielding. Its December, 2014 guidelines allow banks to classify any defaulting borrower as non-cooperative and then a willful defaulter.
A non-cooperative borrower “is one who does not engage constructively with his lender by defaulting in timely repayment of dues while having ability to pay, thwarting lenders’ efforts for recovery of their dues by not providing necessary information sought, denying access to assets financed/collateral securities, obstructing sale of securities, etc. In effect, a non-cooperative borrower is a defaulter who deliberately stone walls legitimate efforts of the lenders to recover their dues.”
The definition encompasses all borrowers within its scope and leaves very little room for him to raise voice or stand for his rights. Any legitimate attempt to do so or any attempt not to succumb to the demands of the banks, would lead to a borrower being classified as non-cooperative and then proceed to declare him as ‘willful defaulter’. Following up, RBI in January 2015 revised its willful defaulter guidelines which not only notifies a borrower as “willful” but also declare him a defaulter for life time. Going a step further SEBI has proposed to completely bar the willful defaulters from any access to equity and debt markets.
The scenario is such that SARFAESI Act, a subordinated legislation devoid of natural justice will now be the rule of law with respect to defaulters. For example, if the bank resorts to action under section 13(4) of SARFAESI, appealing against it would make the borrower ‘non–cooperative’. This, not only empowers the bank to decide upon the fate of the borrower, but also denying him right to appeal. Once classified as non-cooperative, it is just a matter of time to classify him as willful defaulter; and once a willful defaulter what awaits is banishment of life time-completely choking all avenues of financial assistance.
With these harsh regulations on loan recovery and NPA, the new mantra seems to be “the Bank is always right”. Gone are the days of customer-friendly banking. Now a borrower will have to obey what his banker says else his fate is sealed! Tragically, because of rank crony-capitalism being practiced by government and its instruments it is the small fries who face the gallows while the big-whales keep laughing all the way to their banks!
These Banks are the axis of ‘Make in India’ juggernaut propelled by the big-whales. Ideal ground for ‘Banker’s Heist’ promoted by UPA and now perpetrated by NDA!!
↧
Opposition sees amendment through in Rajya Sabha, again
Published: March 9, 2016 16:35 IST | Updated: March 10, 2016 01:45 IST New Delhi, March 9, 2016
Opposition sees amendment through in Rajya Sabha, again
PTI
Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaks in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.President faulted for not addressing curbs imposed for panchayat polls.
In what is a major embarrassment to the government in the Rajya Sabha, the Opposition got an amendment passed to the President’s address, the second time in a row for the government and the fifth time in independent India’s parliamentary history.
This despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi appealing to the Opposition not to move the amendment, when he began his speech, responding to the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address.
Referring to the 300 amendments moved by the Opposition, he said: “I would appeal to you to withdraw the amendments and pass the motion unanimously to preserve the dignity of that office.” After the hour-long speech, in which Mr. Modi took potshots at the Congress, the Opposition did not relent.
The amendment regretted that the President’s address did not support the rights of citizens to contest in panchayat elections, in the backdrop of restrictions imposed in Haryana and Rajasthan, both ruled by the BJP.
Leader of the Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad moved the amendment, which was carried with 94 votes in favour and 61 against.
Before the vote, in a speech peppered with mockery and poetry, in equal measure, Mr. Modi targeted the Congress.
“Just as we blame the cause of death for taking away a life and not death itself, so it is for the Congress. If I say something about Sharad Yadavji or even the Bahujan Samaj Party, they are individually referred to by the media, but when this is directed at the Congress, it is said the entire Opposition got attacked.”
Uncharacteristically, he quoted Urdu poet Nida Fazli, asking for cooperation from the Opposition. Safar main dhoop toh hogi, jo chal sako to chalo, sabhi hain bheed main, tum bhi nikal sako toh chalo… [the sun’s harsh rays will be there, if you can, walk beside me, others are there too in the crowd, if you can come, walk beside me],” he said.
He dared Mr. Azad, referring to the amendment, to give one-third of Congress seats in polls to illiterate people. He quoted the former Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, as saying: “There are some people who do the work, others who take the credit, let us strive to be the former,” in a jibe at Congress president Rahul Gandhi who claimed credit on Tuesday for the roll-back of the budget plan on EPF tax.
After the Prime Minister’s speech, the Opposition sought clarifications. Vice-president Hamid Ansari said there was only one precedent for such a clarification. Mr. Ansari demitted the chair to vice-chairperson P.J. Kurien. By this time, Mr. Modi also left the House.
When the Opposition moved the amendment, Leader of the House Arun Jaitley argued that the amendment could not be moved as it referred to an issue that was a State subject. “If we put this to vote, every State will have the right to move a resolution criticising the decisions made by Parliament,” he said.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister M. Venkaiah Naidu also pointed out that the right to contest elections was not a fundamental right, unlike the right to vote. He said the Centre had no role in the decision.
Despite the government’s attempts, Mr. Kurien permitted the amendment as it did not refer to any State.
“There is no mention of any State legislature. If there was a direct mention, we could have considered it in a different way,” he said, deciding to put the amendment to vote.
↧
↧
Shallow Sheldon Pollock -- Ashay. Peanut RohanMurty & Pollock should read George Coedes' magnum opus: Hinduised ancient states of the Far East (Tr. French)
Thursday, March 3, 2016
The Shallowness of Pollock's "Deep Orientalism"
Pollock concludes in his essay "Deep Orientalism":
About Wüst, Pollock (p. 89) says that he wrote “the programmatic article "German Antiquity and the History of Aryan Thought"… after the National Socialists took power … a model for what was to come.” Wüst interpreted that “the ancient aryas of India were those who felt themselves to be the "privileged, the legitimate"… because they established the superiority of their race, their culture, their religion, and their worldview in the course of struggle with host populations.” Pollock does nothing to debunk this interpretation. Rather, he affirms it in his essay by explaining that the aryas achieved it through monopolization of Sanskrit language and knowledge.
If these are not connections forged by Pollock between Sanskrit and Nazism, if this is not an attempt to blame Sanskrit for Nazism, I don’t know what can be. Yet people are not convinced and think that Pollock is engaged merely in a comparative analysis of the "morphology of domination." Anyone who has read Pollock carefully would know that in his view all knowledge is political in nature and is ultimately about politics. Therefore, while he continues to engage in politics through knowledge, naive intellectuals assume that he is on some great intellectual quest.
In this blog, I will walk you through his essay "Deep Orientalism" to show how it provides a step-by-step guide to blame India in general & Sanskrit in particular for Nazism. The outline is as follows:
Step 1: Trans-historicize the idea of Orientalism
Step 2: Show that “Orientalist” German Indology contributed to Nazism
Step 3: Show existence of pre-colonial “Orientalism” in Sanskrit thought
Step 4: Show that British Indology was a continuity of pre-colonial “Orientalism”
Step 5: Show Nazism is continuity of Sanskrit thought
Before we dive into the details, there is a caveat … My burden is only to explain the process by which Pollock attempts to blame the Sanskrit hoi oligoi thought for Nazism. I am not at all suggesting that his arguments are valid and one who knows better would clearly see that the conclusion does not follow from them. That Pollock intends such a conclusion is evident from the passage of his essay quoted above. All I can explain further is the half-baked process that allegedly leads to it but which is flawed right from the get-go.
Some may hold in good faith that Sanskrit thought cannot be held responsible for Nazism and so assume that people of deep erudition such as Pollock cannot possibly commit such a travesty. But that is what we must find out by reflecting upon their writings and hence this post.
Orientalism suggests that “European scholarship of Asia” and “colonial domination of Asia” are “mutually constitutive” (76). But Pollock claims this understanding of Orientalism is “maybe too narrow” because it cannot accommodate either German Indology or precolonial forms of domination in South Asia. Therefore, he over-stretches the concept of Orientalism as a process of colonization and domination that might also be conceived as potentially directed inwards, and 'disclosed as a species of a larger discourse of power that divides the world into "betters and lessers" and thus facilitates the domination (or "orientalization" or ''colonization") of any group' (77).
Now, it is plain to see that Pollock has all but destroyed the very concept of Orientalism and reduced it to the simplistic idea of domination itself. He is, of course, aware of the problem and he responds: “To a degree this criticism is valid, yet I think we may lose something still greater if not doing so constrains our understanding of the two other historical phenomena” (78). This sets the tone not only of the essay but Pollock’s work in general, in my view: “may be too narrow,” “might conceive as potentially directed inwards,” “we may lose something still greater” … in other words only rhetorical devices, no logical arguments.
What is the “still greater” thing that we may lose? It is the study of Sanskrit culture as an indigenous discourse of power. The standard concept of Orientalism, however, suggests that the valorization of Sanskrit culture was itself an outcome of Orientalism. Therefore, devalorization of Sanskrit culture becomes integral to an Orientalist critique. But this is something Pollock does not want. He wants to study Sanskrit culture as an indigenous discourse of power. It is for this “still greater” thing that he seeks to destroy the standard concept of Orientalism by reducing it to domination plain and simple.
And so Pollock insists that the Indology associated with the British colonization of India is only “a specific historical instance of a larger, transhistorical, albeit locally inflected, interaction of knowledge and power” (76). I really love this sentence. Next time someone charges you with being “ahistorical” throw this on their face. Tell them that their historical contextualization “may be too narrow” and “we may lose something still greater” if we do not seek the “larger, trans-historical interaction of knowledge and power” which gets “locally inflected” in “specific historical instances.” When you have this command over the English language, you can get away without making any rational argument.
Finally, let us note what Orientalism is really about. I will use Balagangadhara as an authority on Said and quote some insights from his Reconceptualizing India Studies (n.b. some of the following include quotes from Said’s Orientalism as well).
In light of the foregoing, it should be evident that the Nazi oppression of the Jews or the Brahmanical oppression of the shudras cannot be considered Orientalist because they do not involve the aforementioned processes. Nonetheless, they are forms of domination and can be studied as such. So why the fuss about attempting to designate them as Orientalist? Because that way you can connect them to each other and show them as equivalents, which you cannot do if you were to study them independently. It also facilitates lazy, arm-chair intellectualism, for all the research that has already been done in Nazism can be simply transferred to the Indian situation. As Pollock has so eloquently put it, “we may lose something still greater …”
As an Indian, this step is not very important for me. I am sure it would be so for German Indologists such as Grunendahl who have criticized Pollock’s essay but I am not overly concerned. There are, however, facets in this section of Pollock’s essay to which we must pay attention. German Indology is, of course, vital for Pollock’s project because it is a serious lacuna in Said’s Orientalism which connects knowledge with colonial domination.
As we have noted earlier, Orientalism is primarily an epistemological problem. When Indian thought is viewed through a Eurocentric, Christocentric lens, it will appear as it does, with or without colonialism. Colonialism cannot produce such knowledge, it can only finance it, make it authoritative and abet its internalization by the host population. But Pollock has made it primarily a problem of power and wherever power can be implicated in an “othering” found in knowledge, that is Orientalism for him. While colonialism is not central to Said’s Orientalism, Pollock has first assumed it to be so and then used German Indology to show that it need not be so (since Germany was not a colonial power) and used that as an excuse to suggest that Orientalism can take a variety of directions, inwards in case of Nazi Germany, and a variety of forms, such as monopolization of knowledge, in case of Brahmanical India.
Even if we may not be interested on the debate between the influence of German Indology on Nazism, what is of interest to us here is how Pollock has cleverly connected the process with the Indian situation. One of the first important insights we glean from this section of the essay is the interesting reference to Indian shastras: “an internal colonization of Europe began to be, so to speak, shastrically codified, within two months of the National Socialists' capturing power” (86, italics mine). Is this not already setting the stage, sending subliminal signals, that shastric codes in precolonial India should be seen as parallels to Nazi laws?
In the same way, we are also told: “For some [Nazis], linguistic activity should have been included [among the activities regulated for excluding Jews and other minorities]” (86-87). Call for such regulation of linguistic activity in Nazi Germany has been emphatically pointed out by Pollock, and he has included with it a racist manifesto by some Guntert, obviously not because it was of great significance in the scheme of things in Nazi Germany, but because he is going to show later that linguistic monopolization of Sanskrit was the primary form of pre-colonial Orientalism in India. This is all preparation for what is to follow.
Perhaps the most important takeaway from this section, not for this essay in particular, but Pollock’s scholarship in general, is his emphasis on the problem of Wissenschaft. He takes great pain to show how the German scholarship of the Nazi era, while deeply implicated in politics and contributing towards the Nazi cause, remained utterly oblivious of it and boastfully presented itself as scientific and objective. I am sure German scholars will vehemently disagree but these contesting narratives do not concern us. Rather, we must note what Pollock is trying to do here. He is basically suggesting that no scholarship is really scientific or objective, no matter how much it tries to pretend otherwise, and by implication, therefore, scholarship should be unabashedly political because it simply cannot be otherwise. It does not matter how valid are your arguments but whose side are you on – the Dalits, the poor, the oppressed? Then what you say is automatically valid because your cause is good. On the other hand, if you claim to be on a quest for genuine knowledge and without a political cause, then you are unwittingly on the side of the upper castes, the rich, the oppressors, as the German scholars were inadvertently supporting the Nazis. If scholarship in the humanities has descended into rottenness today, you can blame this kind of thinking for it. It is not just Pollock; this anti-intellectual principle that the righteousness of one’s cause permits one to play truant with the facts, has polluted the very intellectual climate in which we live.
Apart from this, this section of the essay rambles on and on about the construction of Aryan identity, the “othering” of the Jews, the complicity of German Indology with Nazi politics, and so on, where Pollock, as usual, puts on display his vast erudition, whether relevant or irrelevant to the subject at hand, whose only purpose can be the intimidation of the reader.
We conclude by noting again Pollock’s contention that “German Indology has to be accommodated in any adequate theorization of orientalism” (96). But why it “has to be” is never explained. Couldn’t we just say that Orientalism is a flawed theory as so many have done? On the other hand, because it “has to be” so “orientalism, thought of as knowledge serving to create and marginalize degraded communities – even members of one's own community – and thus to sustain relations of domination over them, reveals itself as a subset of ideological discourse as such.” Thus “British use of forms of orientalist knowledge for domination within India … help us theorize the German use of comparable forms for domination within Germany … [which] help us theorize how Indian forms of knowledge serve in the exercise of domination in India.” And so the stage is set for the study of high Sanskrit culture as a “precolonial colonialism” and a “pre-orientalist orientalism.”
Let us begin with a reminder, yet again, that Pollock has given us something that can best be called as neo-Orientalism. Remember Hacker’s claim that Neo-Hinduism was emptying out Sanskrit words of their original meaning and refilling them with Western meanings? Well, since Pollock has emptied the original concept of Orientalism as the study of a conquered people as “pale and erring variants” of the conqueror, and refilled it with the new meaning of any “dichotomized essentialism” we can read his interpretation as a neo-Orientalism, instead of “Deep Orientalism.” Alternatively, those charged with propagating neo-Hinduism can defend themselves by claiming to be engaged in “Deep Hinduism.”
The morphology of domination in ancient India lay, according to Pollock, in the denial of access to shudras to Vedic learning and the Sanskrit language in which the authoritative discourse of dharma was articulated. It is evident that Pollock’s main concern is that the Orientalist critique obscures the role played by Sanskrit texts in pre-colonial forms of domination. Even more so, the Orientalist critique suggests that textuality itself may not have played a role in pre-colonial forms of domination (more on this in the next step). I think it is precisely Pollock’s attempt to show that textuality matters which leads him to point out that the pre-colonial form of domination consisted in the main of denying access to texts and the language of the texts. But this is a circular argument. If the role of textuality in pre-colonial forms of domination is itself not clear, what does it matter whether people had access to those texts or not? Only after it is established that textuality played a central role in pre-colonial forms of domination, as it did in the colonial period, that the denial of access to the dharmashastras and so on, can be established as a form of domination.
As per his literary style, Pollock rambles on and on, but two insights in this section of the essay deserve our attention:
(1) Although the dharmashastras and their commentaries have been produced throughout Indian history, out of that vast corpus the essay focuses specially on the nibandhas (digests) composed from 12th century CE. Why so? Because, as Pollock claims, they were produced in response to the Muslim invasions. Why is that important? Because, these nibandhas can be understood as a way in which the Indians defined themselves as a “tradition” against the alien “other.” The implication is straightforward. There is nothing extra-ordinary if during the colonial period in the 19th century, an Orientalist “tradition” was produced. Indians, it would appear, have always done it. They did it in response to the Muslim invasion (oooh, I must be careful … Pollock says “Central Asian Turks” not “Muslim”) as they did it in response to the British invasion. This is excellent sophistry in my view and segues neatly to the fourth step which contends that British Indology was not an innovation at all but a continuity of an Orientalizing tradition that always existed in Sanskritic India.
(2) The term “arya” and its distinction from the “non-arya” occurs frequently in this discussion. This “binary overarches the world of traditional Indian inequality” (107) but what does the term mean? Pollock says that the term “merits intellectual-historical study … for premodern India” (ibid) which means we do not know yet but Pollock gives us the valuable hint that the term is deserving of the attention “at least of the sort Arier has received for modern Europe” (ibid). And so it is evident, especially in light of the role that Aryan identity played in Nazi Germany, discussed at length earlier in the essay, that arya means something similar. And if there is yet any doubt that arya may have meant something else in pre-colonial India, such as “noble” for example, instead of a racial stock, such doubt is foreclosed by the clarification that “from such factors as the semantic realm of the distinction arya/anarya … it may seem warranted to speak about a "pre-form of racism" in early India, especially in a discussion of indigenous "orientalism," since in both its classic colonial and its National Socialist form orientalism is inseparable from racism” (ibid).
And so there we have it: Sanskrit culture, British colonialism and Nazism. All three are racisms. All three are orientalisms. And Sanskrit culture is the “pre-form”. Pollock does not explain what this term means but evidently it is some kind of a “proto” state awaiting maturity. This also suggests why it is difficult to pin it down unlike British colonialism and Nazism which manifested their evil so blatantly during their heyday. And it also suggests that the maturity could be realized in the future, say, once a certain "Hindutva" party seizes power in India. I should emphasize that Pollock has not said any of this explicitly. He has only said “pre-form” and laid down the parallels and continuities between Sanskrit culture, British colonialism and Nazism, but this is enough for the readers to do the math themselves.
The critique of Orientalism holds that “it was British colonialism that, in cooperation with orientalism, "traditionalized'' society in such a way that it took on a form, a hegemonic Sanskritized form, that it may never really have had” (97). Pollock raises a two-fold objection to this critique. Firstly, British colonialism did not produce its form of domination tout court (which, I assume, should be interpreted as “without its precedent in the native culture”). Secondly, this critique does not take into account the history of pre-colonial domination (without which it cannot say with confidence that colonial forms of domination were innovative). These objections are explained with two examples.
As a first example, Pollock alludes to Stein’s view that “[Brahmanical] texts … received a new life lease and legitimacy at the hands of European orientalists who [based on them] constructed … a social theory allegedly pertinent … to pre-modern societies of South Asia, where it can have at best a partial validity (and that to be demonstrated). (98)” In objecting to this view, Pollock refers to the composition of the dharma nibandhas in the 12th century as “a kind of pre-modern "traditionalization" of” the social order. But Pollock does not explain how these two events – the production of the dharma-nibandhas and the production of Indological works – in different times and under radically different circumstances, and in fact authored by different people – the Indians in the first case and the Europeans in the latter – can be comparable. True, both involved scriptural study and validation, and both were sponsored by powers ruling in India, but that is only a superficial comparison. In the 19th century, we know that Eurocentric and Christocentric frameworks were used in the study of Indian scriptures for the purpose of colonization and proselytization. And that Indian laws were instituted on the basis of such study. But what was the point of the dharma-nibandha compositions? Pollock is right to say that “such vast intellectual output surely needs to be theorized in some way” (98) but European Orientalist Indology is hardly the model to achieve this theorization.
In the second example mentioned by Pollock, he contests the essay “Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India” by Lata Mani who contends that as an effect of the colonial discourse, Brahmanical scripture came to be privileged and constituted as the authentic cultural tradition of India. Pollock complains that in order to prove this point, the author does not “proceed to the logically prior question, "whether brahmanic texts [have] always been prioritized as the source of law" (a good, though conceptually and historically complex, question), but to "a careful reading of the Parliamentary Papers"… [and thus] we never leave the colonial arena in pursuit of these goals” (99 ff).
Before we proceed further, it is worth noting that Pollock himself has not asked the “good, though conceptual and historically complex, question” though it is required of his own project of depicting Sanskrit texts as the locus of pre-colonial form of domination. Rather, he appears to have gone down the different track of demanding that we take seriously the ideals of varna system found in the shastras and kavya (such as the varna-related verses in the Ramayana, of which he gives an example in his essay, see p. 102) as bearing upon social reality. He laments that reflections concerning the social effect of “the dream of power” as found in Sanskrit texts, in constituting the reality on the ground, have not been brought to bear on the Indological problem (102-103). This, of course, would take us in the realm of mere speculation but I don’t think that matters to Pollock – we have already noted his disdain for the “scientific and objective” scholarship of the German Indologists. All knowledge is political, so why not hoist speculation as a form of knowledge if it is for a good cause? Indeed, Pollock’s whole essay seeks nothing more than a return to Orientalism. Of course, he cannot say this openly and so the garden path in the form of this murky essay. Indological texts were complicit with the power which sponsored them, but then so were the Sanskrit texts which Indology studied. If the former are to be critiqued as Orientalist, why should the latter be spared the same treatment? This is the petulant refrain which runs throughout Pollock's essay.
Returning to Pollock’s critique of Mani, we note that he does not consider the fact that the reason why Mani does not find it necessary to leave the “colonial arena” is that the evidence she is looking for is covered in the texts of the colonial period where she discerns a change in the depositions made by the pundits. “While officials treated vyawasthas (the written responses of pundits to questions put to them by colonial officials on various aspects of sati) as truthful exegeses of the scriptures in an absolute sense, it is clear from reading the vyawasthas that the pundits issuing them believed them to be interpretive” (Mani, 133).
As Mani explains, the Parliamentary Papers show that the vyawasthas were tentative which would imply that the pundits issuing them were being called upon to interpret scripture in altogether different ways and for unprecedented purposes: “in the beginning at least, the responses of pundits appointed to the court did not reflect the kind of authority that colonial officials had assumed, both for the texts and the pundits” (ibid, 149). “By contrast there is nothing tentative about the 1830 orthodox petition; there are no qualifiers prefacing textual excerpts … [and the petition was noted as being] ‘accompanied by legal documents’. Here the equation between law and scripture is complete” (150). What Mani’s research of the Parliamentary Papers reveals is how Indians adapted themselves as they began to understand what could and could not pass muster in the new regime as legally admissible and gradually started prioritizing scripture in their legal petitions as they realized it would prove most effective with their colonial masters. It is evident from Mani’s essay that apart from Brahmanical scripture, there were other sources of law such as caste councils and customary usages, which were ignored by the colonial administrators as corruptions of the pristine sources.
But for Pollock this colonial discourse of seeking scriptural validity in legal matters is connected with and possibly derived from similar attempts made by the dharma-nibandha scholars. He completely ignores the fact that pundits in the colonial period were responding to the demands of their new rulers whose sensibilities in this regard obviously emerged from the Protestant reformation which valorized scripture over the Catholic tradition. It would be absurd to imagine that dharma-nibandha scholars and their patrons, who were obviously indifferent to such sensibilities, were engaged in a similar pursuit. If it appears doubtful that a great scholar such as Pollock could have made such a crazy insinuation, here is the full quote: “In fact, much of the discourse as we find it in the nineteenth-century Raj could easily have derived, and may have actually derived, from a text like the twelfth-century digest …” (100). I have already shown how Pollock has attempted to portray these twelfth-century digests – the dharma-nibandhas – as manifestations of a pre-colonial “Orientalism” and here we have covered how he seeks to establish that British Indology was continuous with it.
Let us recap the path down which Pollock has led us. First, the concept of Orientalism was redefined to make it purely a political problem and its epistemological aspect was ignored. Second, the contribution of German Indology to Nazism was highlighted. Third, the Sanskrit culture was depicted as a pre-colonial colonialism or a pre-oriental Orientalism. Fourth, British Indology was presented as contiguous with it. Now the math is simple. If British Indology was contiguous with Sanskrit thought then why not German Indology which emerged and functioned together with it? In fact, as Pollock suggests, British Indology did the foundational work for German Indology:
We must note, however, that there is nothing to suggest in Pollock’s essay that its purpose is to trace the origins of Nazism to Sanskrit thought. But this aetiology is easily suggested by the essay and Pollock has made no effort to warn against making such an interpretation, if that was not his intent. While respectful of the erudition contained in the Sanskrit shastras, it is evident that he finds them just as toxic and oppressive as the Nazi texts.
He ensures that the reader does not miss the connection between the two by referring to the latter as shastric codifications and focusing on the arya/anarya dichotomy in the former, to be read as analogous to the Arier distinctiveness contained in the Nazi texts. Similarly, the reference to the connection between language and race in Nazi rhetoric is a strategic inclusion considering that in Pollock’s view linguistic restriction was the main form which pre-colonial domination took in India.
Of course, Pollock regards the shastras as important even today, and as displaying great erudition … but to what end? As mere discourses of power, evident from the following passage:
But what if one objects that Pollock is merely engaging in a "comparative morphology of domination" and does not seek to establish a link between Sanskrit texts and Nazism, or to insinuate that the ideas contained in the former led to the latter? In response to this objection, we note firstly the striking parallels between the two, which Pollock has taken pains to establish. But even more than that, it is the very process of seeking “a comparative morphology of domination” which establishes the connection between the two. Sanskrit culture, British colonialism and Nazism cannot be established simply as independent streams, separate forms of domination, because of the Orientalist critique that the dominance of a Sanskrit cultural tradition was itself established by British and German Indology.
If this is wrong, as Pollock suggests, then British and German Indology were simply reproducing the toxic and oppressive forms of domination which they discovered in Sanskrit texts, the only difference being that the vector of British Indology was directed outwards – to colonialism in India – and the vector of German Indology was directed inwards – to Europe and Germany itself. We have already noted that Orientalism, in Pollock’s view, should be regarded as multi-directional. The only way to break the connection between the toxicity and oppressiveness of Sanskrit culture, and that of British and German Indology, is to admit that the two Indologies had misinterpreted and misrepresented the ideas contained in the Sanskrit texts. But if that is admitted, then Sanskrit culture cannot be regarded as toxic and oppressive in an Orientalist sense at all. Hence, I say that it is the very process of producing “a comparative morphology of domination” between Sanskrit culture, British colonialism and Nazism which requires that Sanskrit culture was a factor in both British colonialism and Nazism.
And he has, in fact, admitted as such:
Note that Pollock does not say that British and German Indology exploited Sanskrit texts to consolidate and sustain programs of domination, as orientalism is commonly understood, but that Sanskrit and Indian studies have themselves contributed directly towards this goal. It was anorthogenetic development, a recapitulation of an indigenous discourse of power for which Sanskrit has been one major vehicle. That is deep orientalism: blame Sanskrit, save Indology.
The future of Indology as Pollock envisages it also becomes evident here. Thus far Sanskrit has used the British and German Indologists to spread its evil in the world. The powers with which these Indologies colluded – the Raj and the Nazis – become, in Pollock’s reading, simply innocent carriers of this poison. But now it is time to turn the tables on Sanskrit – to expose and contain the evil that festers in its heart. That is the future of Indology.
“From its colonial origins in Justice Sir William to its consummation in SS Obersturmführer [a senior rank in the Nazi party] Wüst, Sanskrit and Indian studies have contributed directly to consolidating and sustaining programs of domination. In this (noteworthy orthogenesis) these studies have recapitulated the character of their subject, that indigenous discourse of power for which Sanskrit has been one major vehicle and which has shown a notable longevity and resilience.” (pg. 111 Deep Orientalism, italics mine)
About Wüst, Pollock (p. 89) says that he wrote “the programmatic article "German Antiquity and the History of Aryan Thought"… after the National Socialists took power … a model for what was to come.” Wüst interpreted that “the ancient aryas of India were those who felt themselves to be the "privileged, the legitimate"… because they established the superiority of their race, their culture, their religion, and their worldview in the course of struggle with host populations.” Pollock does nothing to debunk this interpretation. Rather, he affirms it in his essay by explaining that the aryas achieved it through monopolization of Sanskrit language and knowledge.
If these are not connections forged by Pollock between Sanskrit and Nazism, if this is not an attempt to blame Sanskrit for Nazism, I don’t know what can be. Yet people are not convinced and think that Pollock is engaged merely in a comparative analysis of the "morphology of domination." Anyone who has read Pollock carefully would know that in his view all knowledge is political in nature and is ultimately about politics. Therefore, while he continues to engage in politics through knowledge, naive intellectuals assume that he is on some great intellectual quest.
In this blog, I will walk you through his essay "Deep Orientalism" to show how it provides a step-by-step guide to blame India in general & Sanskrit in particular for Nazism. The outline is as follows:
Step 1: Trans-historicize the idea of Orientalism
Step 2: Show that “Orientalist” German Indology contributed to Nazism
Step 3: Show existence of pre-colonial “Orientalism” in Sanskrit thought
Step 4: Show that British Indology was a continuity of pre-colonial “Orientalism”
Step 5: Show Nazism is continuity of Sanskrit thought
Before we dive into the details, there is a caveat … My burden is only to explain the process by which Pollock attempts to blame the Sanskrit hoi oligoi thought for Nazism. I am not at all suggesting that his arguments are valid and one who knows better would clearly see that the conclusion does not follow from them. That Pollock intends such a conclusion is evident from the passage of his essay quoted above. All I can explain further is the half-baked process that allegedly leads to it but which is flawed right from the get-go.
Some may hold in good faith that Sanskrit thought cannot be held responsible for Nazism and so assume that people of deep erudition such as Pollock cannot possibly commit such a travesty. But that is what we must find out by reflecting upon their writings and hence this post.
Step 1: Trans-historicize the idea of Orientalism
Orientalism suggests that “European scholarship of Asia” and “colonial domination of Asia” are “mutually constitutive” (76). But Pollock claims this understanding of Orientalism is “maybe too narrow” because it cannot accommodate either German Indology or precolonial forms of domination in South Asia. Therefore, he over-stretches the concept of Orientalism as a process of colonization and domination that might also be conceived as potentially directed inwards, and 'disclosed as a species of a larger discourse of power that divides the world into "betters and lessers" and thus facilitates the domination (or "orientalization" or ''colonization") of any group' (77).
Now, it is plain to see that Pollock has all but destroyed the very concept of Orientalism and reduced it to the simplistic idea of domination itself. He is, of course, aware of the problem and he responds: “To a degree this criticism is valid, yet I think we may lose something still greater if not doing so constrains our understanding of the two other historical phenomena” (78). This sets the tone not only of the essay but Pollock’s work in general, in my view: “may be too narrow,” “might conceive as potentially directed inwards,” “we may lose something still greater” … in other words only rhetorical devices, no logical arguments.
What is the “still greater” thing that we may lose? It is the study of Sanskrit culture as an indigenous discourse of power. The standard concept of Orientalism, however, suggests that the valorization of Sanskrit culture was itself an outcome of Orientalism. Therefore, devalorization of Sanskrit culture becomes integral to an Orientalist critique. But this is something Pollock does not want. He wants to study Sanskrit culture as an indigenous discourse of power. It is for this “still greater” thing that he seeks to destroy the standard concept of Orientalism by reducing it to domination plain and simple.
And so Pollock insists that the Indology associated with the British colonization of India is only “a specific historical instance of a larger, transhistorical, albeit locally inflected, interaction of knowledge and power” (76). I really love this sentence. Next time someone charges you with being “ahistorical” throw this on their face. Tell them that their historical contextualization “may be too narrow” and “we may lose something still greater” if we do not seek the “larger, trans-historical interaction of knowledge and power” which gets “locally inflected” in “specific historical instances.” When you have this command over the English language, you can get away without making any rational argument.
Finally, let us note what Orientalism is really about. I will use Balagangadhara as an authority on Said and quote some insights from his Reconceptualizing India Studies (n.b. some of the following include quotes from Said’s Orientalism as well).
“As Said said repeatedly, ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, and ‘imperialist’ vocabulary does not transform something into an ‘Orientalist’ discourse, any more than the use of ‘dichotomizing essentialism’ does.” (39, italics mine)
“Orientalism is better grasped as a set of constraints upon and limitations of thought than it is simply as a positive doctrine.” (ibid)
“It is a particular way of thinking. What kind of constraints transforms human thinking into Orientalist thinking? … The Orient and the Oriental … become repetitious pseudo-incarnations of some great original (Christ, Europe, the West) they are supposed to have been imitating… To the Westerner, however, the Oriental was always like some aspect of the West” (40, italics original)
“In Western descriptions of other cultures, the ‘otherness’ of the latter has disappeared; the West is the great original; others are but the pale imitations.” (ibid)
“Orientalism describes non-Western cultures in a way that effaces differences; a limited vocabulary and imagery are the consequences of this constraint.” (ibid)In Pollock’s view, on the other hand, Orientalism is a form of “othering” that can be extended to any situation involving dominance. Pollock’s understanding of Orientalism is limited to begin with and he has flattened it out for the sake of his project. If other scholars are rightly condemned for such errors, why is Pollock spared? Because he advocates a “morally sensitive scholarship” (79)? That makes it self-righteous but it does not make it any more intellectual.
In light of the foregoing, it should be evident that the Nazi oppression of the Jews or the Brahmanical oppression of the shudras cannot be considered Orientalist because they do not involve the aforementioned processes. Nonetheless, they are forms of domination and can be studied as such. So why the fuss about attempting to designate them as Orientalist? Because that way you can connect them to each other and show them as equivalents, which you cannot do if you were to study them independently. It also facilitates lazy, arm-chair intellectualism, for all the research that has already been done in Nazism can be simply transferred to the Indian situation. As Pollock has so eloquently put it, “we may lose something still greater …”
Step 2: Show that “Orientalist” German Indology contributed to Nazism
As an Indian, this step is not very important for me. I am sure it would be so for German Indologists such as Grunendahl who have criticized Pollock’s essay but I am not overly concerned. There are, however, facets in this section of Pollock’s essay to which we must pay attention. German Indology is, of course, vital for Pollock’s project because it is a serious lacuna in Said’s Orientalism which connects knowledge with colonial domination.
As we have noted earlier, Orientalism is primarily an epistemological problem. When Indian thought is viewed through a Eurocentric, Christocentric lens, it will appear as it does, with or without colonialism. Colonialism cannot produce such knowledge, it can only finance it, make it authoritative and abet its internalization by the host population. But Pollock has made it primarily a problem of power and wherever power can be implicated in an “othering” found in knowledge, that is Orientalism for him. While colonialism is not central to Said’s Orientalism, Pollock has first assumed it to be so and then used German Indology to show that it need not be so (since Germany was not a colonial power) and used that as an excuse to suggest that Orientalism can take a variety of directions, inwards in case of Nazi Germany, and a variety of forms, such as monopolization of knowledge, in case of Brahmanical India.
Even if we may not be interested on the debate between the influence of German Indology on Nazism, what is of interest to us here is how Pollock has cleverly connected the process with the Indian situation. One of the first important insights we glean from this section of the essay is the interesting reference to Indian shastras: “an internal colonization of Europe began to be, so to speak, shastrically codified, within two months of the National Socialists' capturing power” (86, italics mine). Is this not already setting the stage, sending subliminal signals, that shastric codes in precolonial India should be seen as parallels to Nazi laws?
In the same way, we are also told: “For some [Nazis], linguistic activity should have been included [among the activities regulated for excluding Jews and other minorities]” (86-87). Call for such regulation of linguistic activity in Nazi Germany has been emphatically pointed out by Pollock, and he has included with it a racist manifesto by some Guntert, obviously not because it was of great significance in the scheme of things in Nazi Germany, but because he is going to show later that linguistic monopolization of Sanskrit was the primary form of pre-colonial Orientalism in India. This is all preparation for what is to follow.
Perhaps the most important takeaway from this section, not for this essay in particular, but Pollock’s scholarship in general, is his emphasis on the problem of Wissenschaft. He takes great pain to show how the German scholarship of the Nazi era, while deeply implicated in politics and contributing towards the Nazi cause, remained utterly oblivious of it and boastfully presented itself as scientific and objective. I am sure German scholars will vehemently disagree but these contesting narratives do not concern us. Rather, we must note what Pollock is trying to do here. He is basically suggesting that no scholarship is really scientific or objective, no matter how much it tries to pretend otherwise, and by implication, therefore, scholarship should be unabashedly political because it simply cannot be otherwise. It does not matter how valid are your arguments but whose side are you on – the Dalits, the poor, the oppressed? Then what you say is automatically valid because your cause is good. On the other hand, if you claim to be on a quest for genuine knowledge and without a political cause, then you are unwittingly on the side of the upper castes, the rich, the oppressors, as the German scholars were inadvertently supporting the Nazis. If scholarship in the humanities has descended into rottenness today, you can blame this kind of thinking for it. It is not just Pollock; this anti-intellectual principle that the righteousness of one’s cause permits one to play truant with the facts, has polluted the very intellectual climate in which we live.
Apart from this, this section of the essay rambles on and on about the construction of Aryan identity, the “othering” of the Jews, the complicity of German Indology with Nazi politics, and so on, where Pollock, as usual, puts on display his vast erudition, whether relevant or irrelevant to the subject at hand, whose only purpose can be the intimidation of the reader.
We conclude by noting again Pollock’s contention that “German Indology has to be accommodated in any adequate theorization of orientalism” (96). But why it “has to be” is never explained. Couldn’t we just say that Orientalism is a flawed theory as so many have done? On the other hand, because it “has to be” so “orientalism, thought of as knowledge serving to create and marginalize degraded communities – even members of one's own community – and thus to sustain relations of domination over them, reveals itself as a subset of ideological discourse as such.” Thus “British use of forms of orientalist knowledge for domination within India … help us theorize the German use of comparable forms for domination within Germany … [which] help us theorize how Indian forms of knowledge serve in the exercise of domination in India.” And so the stage is set for the study of high Sanskrit culture as a “precolonial colonialism” and a “pre-orientalist orientalism.”
Step 3: Show existence of pre-colonial Orientalism in Sanskrit thought
Let us begin with a reminder, yet again, that Pollock has given us something that can best be called as neo-Orientalism. Remember Hacker’s claim that Neo-Hinduism was emptying out Sanskrit words of their original meaning and refilling them with Western meanings? Well, since Pollock has emptied the original concept of Orientalism as the study of a conquered people as “pale and erring variants” of the conqueror, and refilled it with the new meaning of any “dichotomized essentialism” we can read his interpretation as a neo-Orientalism, instead of “Deep Orientalism.” Alternatively, those charged with propagating neo-Hinduism can defend themselves by claiming to be engaged in “Deep Hinduism.”
The morphology of domination in ancient India lay, according to Pollock, in the denial of access to shudras to Vedic learning and the Sanskrit language in which the authoritative discourse of dharma was articulated. It is evident that Pollock’s main concern is that the Orientalist critique obscures the role played by Sanskrit texts in pre-colonial forms of domination. Even more so, the Orientalist critique suggests that textuality itself may not have played a role in pre-colonial forms of domination (more on this in the next step). I think it is precisely Pollock’s attempt to show that textuality matters which leads him to point out that the pre-colonial form of domination consisted in the main of denying access to texts and the language of the texts. But this is a circular argument. If the role of textuality in pre-colonial forms of domination is itself not clear, what does it matter whether people had access to those texts or not? Only after it is established that textuality played a central role in pre-colonial forms of domination, as it did in the colonial period, that the denial of access to the dharmashastras and so on, can be established as a form of domination.
As per his literary style, Pollock rambles on and on, but two insights in this section of the essay deserve our attention:
(1) Although the dharmashastras and their commentaries have been produced throughout Indian history, out of that vast corpus the essay focuses specially on the nibandhas (digests) composed from 12th century CE. Why so? Because, as Pollock claims, they were produced in response to the Muslim invasions. Why is that important? Because, these nibandhas can be understood as a way in which the Indians defined themselves as a “tradition” against the alien “other.” The implication is straightforward. There is nothing extra-ordinary if during the colonial period in the 19th century, an Orientalist “tradition” was produced. Indians, it would appear, have always done it. They did it in response to the Muslim invasion (oooh, I must be careful … Pollock says “Central Asian Turks” not “Muslim”) as they did it in response to the British invasion. This is excellent sophistry in my view and segues neatly to the fourth step which contends that British Indology was not an innovation at all but a continuity of an Orientalizing tradition that always existed in Sanskritic India.
(2) The term “arya” and its distinction from the “non-arya” occurs frequently in this discussion. This “binary overarches the world of traditional Indian inequality” (107) but what does the term mean? Pollock says that the term “merits intellectual-historical study … for premodern India” (ibid) which means we do not know yet but Pollock gives us the valuable hint that the term is deserving of the attention “at least of the sort Arier has received for modern Europe” (ibid). And so it is evident, especially in light of the role that Aryan identity played in Nazi Germany, discussed at length earlier in the essay, that arya means something similar. And if there is yet any doubt that arya may have meant something else in pre-colonial India, such as “noble” for example, instead of a racial stock, such doubt is foreclosed by the clarification that “from such factors as the semantic realm of the distinction arya/anarya … it may seem warranted to speak about a "pre-form of racism" in early India, especially in a discussion of indigenous "orientalism," since in both its classic colonial and its National Socialist form orientalism is inseparable from racism” (ibid).
And so there we have it: Sanskrit culture, British colonialism and Nazism. All three are racisms. All three are orientalisms. And Sanskrit culture is the “pre-form”. Pollock does not explain what this term means but evidently it is some kind of a “proto” state awaiting maturity. This also suggests why it is difficult to pin it down unlike British colonialism and Nazism which manifested their evil so blatantly during their heyday. And it also suggests that the maturity could be realized in the future, say, once a certain "Hindutva" party seizes power in India. I should emphasize that Pollock has not said any of this explicitly. He has only said “pre-form” and laid down the parallels and continuities between Sanskrit culture, British colonialism and Nazism, but this is enough for the readers to do the math themselves.
Step 4: Show that British Indology was a continuity of pre-colonial “Orientalism”
The critique of Orientalism holds that “it was British colonialism that, in cooperation with orientalism, "traditionalized'' society in such a way that it took on a form, a hegemonic Sanskritized form, that it may never really have had” (97). Pollock raises a two-fold objection to this critique. Firstly, British colonialism did not produce its form of domination tout court (which, I assume, should be interpreted as “without its precedent in the native culture”). Secondly, this critique does not take into account the history of pre-colonial domination (without which it cannot say with confidence that colonial forms of domination were innovative). These objections are explained with two examples.
As a first example, Pollock alludes to Stein’s view that “[Brahmanical] texts … received a new life lease and legitimacy at the hands of European orientalists who [based on them] constructed … a social theory allegedly pertinent … to pre-modern societies of South Asia, where it can have at best a partial validity (and that to be demonstrated). (98)” In objecting to this view, Pollock refers to the composition of the dharma nibandhas in the 12th century as “a kind of pre-modern "traditionalization" of” the social order. But Pollock does not explain how these two events – the production of the dharma-nibandhas and the production of Indological works – in different times and under radically different circumstances, and in fact authored by different people – the Indians in the first case and the Europeans in the latter – can be comparable. True, both involved scriptural study and validation, and both were sponsored by powers ruling in India, but that is only a superficial comparison. In the 19th century, we know that Eurocentric and Christocentric frameworks were used in the study of Indian scriptures for the purpose of colonization and proselytization. And that Indian laws were instituted on the basis of such study. But what was the point of the dharma-nibandha compositions? Pollock is right to say that “such vast intellectual output surely needs to be theorized in some way” (98) but European Orientalist Indology is hardly the model to achieve this theorization.
In the second example mentioned by Pollock, he contests the essay “Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India” by Lata Mani who contends that as an effect of the colonial discourse, Brahmanical scripture came to be privileged and constituted as the authentic cultural tradition of India. Pollock complains that in order to prove this point, the author does not “proceed to the logically prior question, "whether brahmanic texts [have] always been prioritized as the source of law" (a good, though conceptually and historically complex, question), but to "a careful reading of the Parliamentary Papers"… [and thus] we never leave the colonial arena in pursuit of these goals” (99 ff).
Before we proceed further, it is worth noting that Pollock himself has not asked the “good, though conceptual and historically complex, question” though it is required of his own project of depicting Sanskrit texts as the locus of pre-colonial form of domination. Rather, he appears to have gone down the different track of demanding that we take seriously the ideals of varna system found in the shastras and kavya (such as the varna-related verses in the Ramayana, of which he gives an example in his essay, see p. 102) as bearing upon social reality. He laments that reflections concerning the social effect of “the dream of power” as found in Sanskrit texts, in constituting the reality on the ground, have not been brought to bear on the Indological problem (102-103). This, of course, would take us in the realm of mere speculation but I don’t think that matters to Pollock – we have already noted his disdain for the “scientific and objective” scholarship of the German Indologists. All knowledge is political, so why not hoist speculation as a form of knowledge if it is for a good cause? Indeed, Pollock’s whole essay seeks nothing more than a return to Orientalism. Of course, he cannot say this openly and so the garden path in the form of this murky essay. Indological texts were complicit with the power which sponsored them, but then so were the Sanskrit texts which Indology studied. If the former are to be critiqued as Orientalist, why should the latter be spared the same treatment? This is the petulant refrain which runs throughout Pollock's essay.
Returning to Pollock’s critique of Mani, we note that he does not consider the fact that the reason why Mani does not find it necessary to leave the “colonial arena” is that the evidence she is looking for is covered in the texts of the colonial period where she discerns a change in the depositions made by the pundits. “While officials treated vyawasthas (the written responses of pundits to questions put to them by colonial officials on various aspects of sati) as truthful exegeses of the scriptures in an absolute sense, it is clear from reading the vyawasthas that the pundits issuing them believed them to be interpretive” (Mani, 133).
As Mani explains, the Parliamentary Papers show that the vyawasthas were tentative which would imply that the pundits issuing them were being called upon to interpret scripture in altogether different ways and for unprecedented purposes: “in the beginning at least, the responses of pundits appointed to the court did not reflect the kind of authority that colonial officials had assumed, both for the texts and the pundits” (ibid, 149). “By contrast there is nothing tentative about the 1830 orthodox petition; there are no qualifiers prefacing textual excerpts … [and the petition was noted as being] ‘accompanied by legal documents’. Here the equation between law and scripture is complete” (150). What Mani’s research of the Parliamentary Papers reveals is how Indians adapted themselves as they began to understand what could and could not pass muster in the new regime as legally admissible and gradually started prioritizing scripture in their legal petitions as they realized it would prove most effective with their colonial masters. It is evident from Mani’s essay that apart from Brahmanical scripture, there were other sources of law such as caste councils and customary usages, which were ignored by the colonial administrators as corruptions of the pristine sources.
But for Pollock this colonial discourse of seeking scriptural validity in legal matters is connected with and possibly derived from similar attempts made by the dharma-nibandha scholars. He completely ignores the fact that pundits in the colonial period were responding to the demands of their new rulers whose sensibilities in this regard obviously emerged from the Protestant reformation which valorized scripture over the Catholic tradition. It would be absurd to imagine that dharma-nibandha scholars and their patrons, who were obviously indifferent to such sensibilities, were engaged in a similar pursuit. If it appears doubtful that a great scholar such as Pollock could have made such a crazy insinuation, here is the full quote: “In fact, much of the discourse as we find it in the nineteenth-century Raj could easily have derived, and may have actually derived, from a text like the twelfth-century digest …” (100). I have already shown how Pollock has attempted to portray these twelfth-century digests – the dharma-nibandhas – as manifestations of a pre-colonial “Orientalism” and here we have covered how he seeks to establish that British Indology was continuous with it.
Step 5: Show Nazism is continuity of Sanskrit Thought
Let us recap the path down which Pollock has led us. First, the concept of Orientalism was redefined to make it purely a political problem and its epistemological aspect was ignored. Second, the contribution of German Indology to Nazism was highlighted. Third, the Sanskrit culture was depicted as a pre-colonial colonialism or a pre-oriental Orientalism. Fourth, British Indology was presented as contiguous with it. Now the math is simple. If British Indology was contiguous with Sanskrit thought then why not German Indology which emerged and functioned together with it? In fact, as Pollock suggests, British Indology did the foundational work for German Indology:
"The discourse on Aryanism that this orientalist knowledge generated was, to a degree not often realized, available to the Germans already largely formulated for them at the hands of British scholarship by the middle of the nineteenth century" (83, italics mine).And so if German Indology can also be regarded as contiguous with Sanskrit thought then surely Sanskrit thought must be held responsible for what German Indology contributed to, namely, Nazism.
We must note, however, that there is nothing to suggest in Pollock’s essay that its purpose is to trace the origins of Nazism to Sanskrit thought. But this aetiology is easily suggested by the essay and Pollock has made no effort to warn against making such an interpretation, if that was not his intent. While respectful of the erudition contained in the Sanskrit shastras, it is evident that he finds them just as toxic and oppressive as the Nazi texts.
He ensures that the reader does not miss the connection between the two by referring to the latter as shastric codifications and focusing on the arya/anarya dichotomy in the former, to be read as analogous to the Arier distinctiveness contained in the Nazi texts. Similarly, the reference to the connection between language and race in Nazi rhetoric is a strategic inclusion considering that in Pollock’s view linguistic restriction was the main form which pre-colonial domination took in India.
Of course, Pollock regards the shastras as important even today, and as displaying great erudition … but to what end? As mere discourses of power, evident from the following passage:
“Traditional domination as coded in Sanskrit is not "past history" in India … Partly by reason of the stored energy of an insufficiently critiqued and thus untranscended past, it survives in various harsh forms … When, for example, we are told by a contemporary Indian woman that she submits to the economic, social, and emotional violence of Indian widowhood because, in her words, "According to the shastras I had to do it"; when we read in a recent Dalit manifesto that "The first and foremost object of this [cultural revolution] should be to free every man and woman from the thraldom of the Shastras," we catch a glimpse not only of the actualization in consciousness of Sanskrit discourses of power, but of their continued vigor” (116-7).This, then, is the relevance of the study of Sanskrit shastras for today. If there is any other kind of learning to be derived from them, he does not say anything about it at all.
But what if one objects that Pollock is merely engaging in a "comparative morphology of domination" and does not seek to establish a link between Sanskrit texts and Nazism, or to insinuate that the ideas contained in the former led to the latter? In response to this objection, we note firstly the striking parallels between the two, which Pollock has taken pains to establish. But even more than that, it is the very process of seeking “a comparative morphology of domination” which establishes the connection between the two. Sanskrit culture, British colonialism and Nazism cannot be established simply as independent streams, separate forms of domination, because of the Orientalist critique that the dominance of a Sanskrit cultural tradition was itself established by British and German Indology.
If this is wrong, as Pollock suggests, then British and German Indology were simply reproducing the toxic and oppressive forms of domination which they discovered in Sanskrit texts, the only difference being that the vector of British Indology was directed outwards – to colonialism in India – and the vector of German Indology was directed inwards – to Europe and Germany itself. We have already noted that Orientalism, in Pollock’s view, should be regarded as multi-directional. The only way to break the connection between the toxicity and oppressiveness of Sanskrit culture, and that of British and German Indology, is to admit that the two Indologies had misinterpreted and misrepresented the ideas contained in the Sanskrit texts. But if that is admitted, then Sanskrit culture cannot be regarded as toxic and oppressive in an Orientalist sense at all. Hence, I say that it is the very process of producing “a comparative morphology of domination” between Sanskrit culture, British colonialism and Nazism which requires that Sanskrit culture was a factor in both British colonialism and Nazism.
And he has, in fact, admitted as such:
“From its colonial origins in Justice Sir William to its consummation in SS Obersturmführer Wüst, Sanskrit and Indian studies have contributed directly to consolidating and sustaining programs of domination. In this (noteworthy orthogenesis) these studies have recapitulated the character of their subject, that indigenous discourse of power for which Sanskrit has been one major vehicle and which has shown a notable longevity and resilience.” (111, italics mine).
Note that Pollock does not say that British and German Indology exploited Sanskrit texts to consolidate and sustain programs of domination, as orientalism is commonly understood, but that Sanskrit and Indian studies have themselves contributed directly towards this goal. It was anorthogenetic development, a recapitulation of an indigenous discourse of power for which Sanskrit has been one major vehicle. That is deep orientalism: blame Sanskrit, save Indology.
The future of Indology as Pollock envisages it also becomes evident here. Thus far Sanskrit has used the British and German Indologists to spread its evil in the world. The powers with which these Indologies colluded – the Raj and the Nazis – become, in Pollock’s reading, simply innocent carriers of this poison. But now it is time to turn the tables on Sanskrit – to expose and contain the evil that festers in its heart. That is the future of Indology.
1 comment:
- Nice analysis; enjoyed reading it. To summarize, the earlier orientalism was:"The British invented the Aryan invasion theory to say to Indians that look, just as the Aryans invaded you and imposed the Vedas and Sanskrit, the Muslims invaded you and imposed Islam and Arabic, and now we have invaded you and imposed English and general civilization. Nothing wrong with being colonized, you have always been colonized."Deep orientalism now says that the Muslims and the British learnt how to colonize and oppress after they rather innocently wandered into India and met Brahmins and learnt Sanskrit. The Germans also learnt this but oppressed Europe.
↧
Plea to translate into Bharatiya languages Coedes' History of Hinduised ancient states of the Far East
Making available this work by the eminent epigraphist George Coedes in Hindi and in all Bharatiya Bhasha will be a significant contribution to ICHR to promote dharma-dhamma dialogue and the formation of a United Indian Ocean States as a Hindumahasagar and Himalay Parivar.
I would like to highlight two facts about the spread of Hindu dharma-dhamma in the region: 1. All 19 yupa inscriptions are in Samskrtam including 5 in East Borneo of Mulavarman; 2,.Many of the earliest Samskrtam inscriptions are found in the region (as brilliantly documented by Coedes). Since many higher educational institutions have discontinued the study of Greater India, it is essential to make available this resource to academics and general public to create a true understanding of Bharatiya heritage and spread of dharma-dhamma.
In the course of my work on decipherment of Indus Script, a significant presence of Indus script hieroglyphs and iconographs of Hindu tradition of dharma-dhamma have been found in the extended Indian Ocean Community. Some examples are s'ivalinga (skambha) in octagonal shapes (aSTAsri mentioned in Taittiriya Samhita and Satapatha Brahmana), dancing Ganesha in Candi Sukuh, Dong Son bronze drums, bronze age artifacts including beads and Yupa inscriptions of Mulavarman (which are comparable to those found in Rajasthan, Allahabad and other sites of Bharatam) including an octagonal brick (skambha) found in a yajnakunda in Binjor, near Anupgarh dated ca. 2500 BCE (Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization) on the banks of Vedic River Sarasvati.
The heritage and traditions are abiding. Malaysia issues Gazette notifications as Seri Paduka Dhuli in memory of Paduka Pattabhishekam in Ramayana. The coronation of the Sultan of Brunei takes place after venerating Seri Paduka. Thailand celebrates the coronation of King Rama reciting the ancient poems of Tiruppavai and Tiruvembavai. Angkor Wat in Cambodia is the largest Vishnumandiram in the globe. Scores of Vinayaka murti and s'ivalingas have been found all over the Indian Ocean Region. Mahabharata is celebrated as Bhimaswarga in Indonesia. On the sculptures of Parambanan (Brahmavana) in Indonesia, friezes depict scenes from Ramayana and Mahabharata.
Resuming daily pujas in this temple in accordance with the prescriptions detailed in ancient inscriptions (Maheshwara Samhita, Pancaratra Agama) will be a signal memory marker of the heritage. Bharatam should promote this in close consultation with the Indian Ocean Community nations.
Samuramanthanam sculpture. Bangkok Suvannaphom Airport.
Arjuna vijaya statue in front of Central Bank, Jakarta
Gold chariot gifted from Khmer to a Chola King (12th cent.), Kalachakra Museum, Singapore.
S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Centre
March 10, 2016
↧
Indus Script in Warka (Uruk), Susa, Bharhut, Sanchi with common hieroglyphs which signify smelter- &metal-work
Mirror: https://www.academia.edu/s/e97c56ac7b
Indus Script on 1. Torana (gateway) proclamations of Bharhut and Sanchi, 2. Warka vase, 3. Susa limestone basin, bitumen base, tablet, two cylinder seals have common hieroglyphs which are catalogs of metalwork.
I was stunned by the Bharhut and Sanchi toranas. The hieroglyphs which constituted proclamations on the gateways are recognizable as Indus Script hieroglyph-multiplexes (hypertexts).
, n. prob. šilpin. Artisan; சிற்பி. சிற்பர் ciṟpar, n. < šilpa. Mechanics, artisans, stone-cutters; சிற்பிகள். (W .) சிற்பி ciṟpi, n. < šilpin. Mechanic, artisan, stone-cutter; கம்மியன். (சூடா.)
*skambha2 ʻ shoulder -- blade, wing, plumage ʼ. [Cf. *skapa -- s.v. *khavaka -- ]
S. khambhu, °bho m. ʻ plumage ʼ, khambhuṛi f. ʻ wing ʼ; L. khabbh m., mult. khambh m. ʻ shoulder -- blade, wing, feather ʼ, khet. khamb ʻ wing ʼ, mult. khambhaṛā m. ʻ fin ʼ; P. khambh m. ʻ wing, feather ʼ; G. khā̆m f., khabhɔ m. ʻ shoulder ʼ.(CDIAL 13640).
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Detail of the Susa ritual basin http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/spr03/422/January-March/86.JPG
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Molluscs on Susa ritual basin compared with Molluscs on Sanchi Monument Stupa II Huntington Scan Number 0010873 (See more examples in: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13267649/Resources-Hieroglyphs-Ancient-Indian-Tradition).![]()
![]()
Acropole mound, Susa. Old Elamite period, ca. 2500 – 2400 BCE. Clay. H 201/4 in. (51 cm) Paris. Musee du Louvre. Sb 2723. aya 'fish' rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'metal'. Thus, the fish hieroglyph on the pot is a semantic proclamation of the contents of the pot: meal implements, tools, weapons, pots and pans. baTa 'quail' rebus: bhaTa 'furnace' kANDa 'water' rebus: kANDa 'implements'.
![]()
Hieroglyph: spathe "A spathe is a large bract that forms a sheath to enclose the flower cluster of certain plants such as palms, arums, Iris and dayflowers. In many arums (Araceae family), the spathe is petal-like, attracting pollinators to the flowers arranged on a type of spike called a spadix." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bract#Spathe): Kashmiri. gab m. ʻ womb, sprout of a plant ʼ; gāb(h)ā ʻspathe of a plant (Bengali)(CDIAL 4055) Rebus: gābhā m. ʻ heart, core ʼ (Marathi) gāb(h)ā'foetus' dhātugarbha (Samskritam), dhātu gabbhā (Pali) (Sinhalese dāgoba. The expression is equivalent to dhātu relics+garbha womb, inside. Thus, dāgoba is a dome-shaped shrine containing
relics of the Buddha or a Bauddham arhant.
Hieroglyph: mollusc: śāṅkhika ʻ relating to a shell ʼ W. 2. *śāṅkhinī -- (śaṅkhinī -- f. ʻ mother -- of -- pearl ʼ Bālar.). [śaṅkhá -- 1] 1. K. hāngi ʻ snail ʼ; B. sã̄khī ʻ possessing or made of shells ʼ. 2. K. hö̃giñ f. ʻ pearl oyster shell, shell of any aquatic mollusc ʼ (CDIAL 12380). Rebus: sangha [fr. saŋ+hṛ; lit. "comprising." The quâsi pop. etym. at VvA 233 is "diṭṭhi -- sīla -- sāmaññena sanghāṭabhāvena sangha"] 1. multitude, assemblage Miln 403 (kāka˚); J i.52 (sakuṇa˚); Sn 589 (ñāti˚); 680 (deva˚); D iii.23 (miga˚); Vv 55 (accharā˚=samūha VvA 37).Sanghin (adj.) [fr. sangha] having a crowd (of followers), the head of an order D i.47, 116; S i.68; Miln 4; DA i 143. -- sanghâsanghī (pl.) in crowds, with crowds (redupl. cpd.!), with gaṇi -- bhūtā "crowd upon crowd" at D i.112, 128; ii.317; DA i.280.
Hieroglyph: dhāˊvati2 ʻ rinses, washes, polishes ʼ RV. 2. dhāvayati2 ʻ washes ʼ Mn. 3. dhāvita -- ʻ purified ʼ MBh. [√ dhāv 2 ]1. Pa. dhāvati ʻ cleans, washes ʼ, Pk. dhāvaï; Gy. pal. dáuăr ʻ washes ʼ; S. dhã̄vaṇu ʻ to wash one's body ʼ; L. dhã̄vaṇ ʻ to wash oneself, bathe ʼ (whence caus.dhavāvaṇ), awāṇ. dhāvuṇ; WPah.bhal. dhɔ̈̄ṇū ʻ to wash ʼ; H. dhonā -- dhānā ʻ to wash thoroughly ʼ.2. S. dhã̄iṇu ʻ to bathe, wash ʼ.3. N. Or. dhoi -- dhāi ʻ thorough washing ʼ.(CDIAL 6803) dhāvana2 n. ʻ washing ʼ MBh. [√dhāv 2 ]Pa. dhāvana -- n. ʻ washing ʼ, Pk. dhāvaṇa -- n.; Gy. pal. dáuni ʻ soap ʼ; P. dhauṇ m. ʻ water that has been used for washing ʼ; H. dhaun m. ʻ water in which rice has been washed ʼ.(CDIAL 6805) धावन [ dhāvana ] n Washing, cleaning, purifying. (Marathi)
Rebus: धवड [ dhavaḍa ] m (Orधावड ) A class or an individual of it. They are smelters of iron. धावड [ dhāvaḍa ] m A class or an individual of it. They are smelters of iron.धावडी [ dhāvaḍī ] a Relating to the class धावड . Hence 2 Composed of or relating to iron. (Marathi)
![]()
Indus Script on 1. Torana (gateway) proclamations of Bharhut and Sanchi, 2. Warka vase, 3. Susa limestone basin, bitumen base, tablet, two cylinder seals have common hieroglyphs which are catalogs of metalwork.
I was stunned by the Bharhut and Sanchi toranas. The hieroglyphs which constituted proclamations on the gateways are recognizable as Indus Script hieroglyph-multiplexes (hypertexts).
Tatsama and tadbhava words in a comparative lexicon of Bharatiya languages (e.g. Indian Lexicon), establish the reality of Bharatiya sprachbund. It appears mlecchita vikalpa wass based on a artificer-lapidary-metalwork lexis of Prakrtam (i.e., vAk, spoken form of Samskrtam).
1. tAmarasa 'lotus' (tAmra); sippi 'palm spathe, mollusc' (s'ilpi 'sculptor'); eraka (arka 'copper, gold'); aya 'fish' (aya, ayas 'iron') khambhaṛā ʻfinʼ (kammaTa 'coiner, coinage, mint (Kannada); kariba 'trunk of elephant' ibha 'elephant' (ib 'iron' karba 'iron' (Kannada). Hence the proclamation as an advertisement hoardings by the Begram dantakara (ivory carvers) who moved to Bhilsa topes. There is an epigraph in Sanchi stupa which records the donations of dantakara to the dhAtugarbha (dagoba, stupa).
śilpin ʻ skilled in art ʼ, m. ʻ artificer ʼ Gaut., śilpika<-> ʻ skilled ʼ MBh. [śílpa -- ]
Pa. sippika -- m. ʻ craftsman ʼ, NiDoc. śilpiǵa, Pk. sippi -- , °ia -- m.; A. xipini ʻ woman clever at spinning and weaving ʼ; OAw. sīpī m. ʻ artizan ʼ; M. śĩpī m. ʻ a caste of tailors ʼ; Si. sipi -- yā ʻ craftsman ʼ.(CDIAL 12471) शिल्प [ śilpa ] n (S) A manual or mechanical art, any handicraft.
Pa. sippika -- m. ʻ craftsman ʼ, NiDoc. śilpiǵa, Pk. sippi -- , °ia -- m.; A. xipini ʻ woman clever at spinning and weaving ʼ; OAw. sīpī m. ʻ artizan ʼ; M. śĩpī m. ʻ a caste of tailors ʼ; Si. sipi -- yā ʻ craftsman ʼ.(CDIAL 12471) शिल्प [ śilpa ] n (S) A manual or mechanical art, any handicraft.
शिल्पकर्म [ śilpakarma ] n (S) Mechanical or manual business, artisanship. शिल्पकार [ śilpakāra ] m or शिल्पी m (S) An artisan, artificer, mechanic. शिल्पविद्या [ śilpavidyā ] f (S) Handicraft or art: as disting. from science. शिल्पशाला [ śilpaśālā ] f (S) A manufactory or workshop. शिल्पशास्त्र [ śilpaśāstra ] n (S) A treatise on mechanics or any handicraft. शिल्पी [ śilpī ] a (S) Relating to a mechanical profession or art.(Marathi) శిల్పము [ śilpamu ] ṣilpamu. [Skt.] n. An art, any manual or mechanical art. చిత్తరువు వ్రాయడము మొదలైనపని . శిల్పి or శిల్పకారుడు ṣilpi. n. An artist, artisan, artificer, mechanic, handicraftsman. పనివాడు . A painter, ముచ్చి . A carpenter, వడ్లంగి . A weaver, సాలెవాడు . (Usually) a stonecutter, a sculptor, కాసెవాడు . శిల్పిశాస్త్రము ṣilpi-ṣāstramu. n. A mechanical science; the science of Architecture. చిత్రాదికర్మలను గురించిన విధానము .(Telugu) சிப்பம்³ cippam, n. < šilpa. Architecture, statuary art, artistic fancy work; சிற்பம். கடி மலர்ச் சிப்பமும் (பெருங். உஞ்சைக். 34, 167).சிப்பியன் cippiyaṉ
,n. < šilpin. [T. cippevāḍu, K. cippiga, Tu. cippige.] 1. Fancy- worker, engraver; கம்மியன். (W .) 2. Tailor; தையற்காரன். (யாழ். அக.)சில்பி šilpi , n. < šilpin. See சிற்பி.சிலாவி³ cilāvi
khambhaṛā ʻfinʼ (kammaTa 'coiner, coinage, mint (Kannada): the Prakrtam word for 'fin' khambhaṛā has related phonemes and allographs:
*skambha
S. khambhu, °bho m. ʻ plumage ʼ, khambhuṛi f. ʻ wing ʼ; L. khabbh m., mult. khambh m. ʻ shoulder -- blade, wing, feather ʼ, khet. khamb ʻ wing ʼ, mult. khambhaṛā m. ʻ fin ʼ; P. khambh m. ʻ wing, feather ʼ; G. khā̆m f., khabhɔ m. ʻ shoulder ʼ.(CDIAL 13640).
skambhá1 m. ʻ prop, pillar ʼ RV. 2. ʻ *pit ʼ (semant. cf. kūˊpa -- 1 ). [√skambh ]
1. Pa. khambha -- m. ʻ prop ʼ; Pk. khaṁbha -- m. ʻ post, pillar ʼ; Pr. iškyöp, üšköb ʻ bridge ʼ NTS xv 251; L. (Ju.) khabbā m., mult. khambbā m. ʻ stake forming fulcrum for oar ʼ; P. khambh, khambhā,khammhā m. ʻ wooden prop, post ʼ; WPah.bhal. kham m. ʻ a part of the yoke of a plough ʼ, (Joshi) khāmbā m. ʻ beam, pier ʼ; Ku. khāmo ʻ a support ʼ, gng. khām ʻ pillar (of wood or bricks) ʼ; N. khã̄bo ʻ pillar, post ʼ, B. khām, khāmbā; Or. khamba ʻ post, stake ʼ; Bi. khāmā ʻ post of brick -- crushing machine ʼ, khāmhī ʻ support of betel -- cage roof ʼ, khamhiyā ʻ wooden pillar supporting roof ʼ; Mth. khāmh, khāmhī ʻ pillar, post ʼ, khamhā ʻ rudder -- post ʼ; Bhoj. khambhā ʻ pillar ʼ, khambhiyā ʻ prop ʼ; OAw. khāṁbhe m. pl. ʻ pillars ʼ, lakh. khambhā; H. khām m. ʻ post, pillar, mast ʼ, khambh f. ʻ pillar, pole ʼ; G. khām m. ʻ pillar ʼ, khã̄bhi , °bi f. ʻ post ʼ, M. khã̄b m., Ko. khāmbho, °bo, Si. kap (< *kab); -- X gambhīra -- , sthāṇú -- , sthūˊṇā -- qq.v.2. K. khambü rü f. ʻ hollow left in a heap of grain when some is removed ʼ; Or. khamā ʻ long pit, hole in the earth ʼ, khamiā ʻ small hole ʼ; Marw. khã̄baṛo ʻ hole ʼ; G. khã̄bhũ n. ʻ pit for sweepings and manure (CDIAL 13639).
1. Pa. khambha -- m. ʻ prop ʼ; Pk. khaṁbha -- m. ʻ post, pillar ʼ; Pr. iškyöp, üšköb ʻ bridge ʼ NTS xv 251; L. (Ju.) khabbā m., mult. khambbā m. ʻ stake forming fulcrum for oar ʼ; P. khambh, khambhā,khammhā m. ʻ wooden prop, post ʼ; WPah.bhal. kham m. ʻ a part of the yoke of a plough ʼ, (Joshi) khāmbā m. ʻ beam, pier ʼ; Ku. khāmo ʻ a support ʼ, gng. khām ʻ pillar (of wood or bricks) ʼ; N. khã̄bo ʻ pillar, post ʼ, B. khām, khāmbā; Or. khamba ʻ post, stake ʼ; Bi. khāmā ʻ post of brick -- crushing machine ʼ, khāmhī ʻ support of betel -- cage roof ʼ, khamhiyā ʻ wooden pillar supporting roof ʼ; Mth. khāmh, khāmhī ʻ pillar, post ʼ, khamhā ʻ rudder -- post ʼ; Bhoj. khambhā ʻ pillar ʼ, khambhiyā ʻ prop ʼ; OAw. khāṁbhe m. pl. ʻ pillars ʼ, lakh. khambhā; H. khām m. ʻ post, pillar, mast ʼ, khambh f. ʻ pillar, pole ʼ; G. khām m. ʻ pillar ʼ, khã̄bh
These semantic clusters indicate that the skambha 'pillar' and skambha 'wing' are also hieroglyphs and so depicted in Indus Script Corpora. This leads to a reasonable inference that the Atharva Veda SkambhaSukta (AV X.7) -- an extraordinary philosophical enquiry into the Ruda hieroglyph as linga, s'ivalinga is also embellished with a caSAla (wheatchaff godhUma, snout of boar, varAha) is an intervention to explain the phenomenon of pyrolysis (thermachemical decomposition) and carburization which infuse carbon into soft metal (e.g. wrought iron) to create hard metal. The snout of boar is also called pota, evoking the potR 'purifier' of Rigveda and hence the abiding metaphor of Bharatiya tradition venerating varAha as yagna purusha personifying the Veda.
Hence, Samskrta Bharati evolved from ca. 8th millennium BCE with Bharatam Janam. Indus Script Cipher is metalwork catalogue in Prakrtam (Samskrta Bharati united in the sprachbund the variant pronunciations of mleccha/meluhha). QED. Hence, the s'ilpi statue as a semantic-phonetic determinant adjoining the Sanchi hieroglyph-multiplex.
Hence, Samskrta Bharati (fifth volume of the quintet on Indus Script).
Susa ritual basin dates from 13th or 12th cent. BCE. The rim of the limestone basin is decorated with a single repeated motif: two goatfish figures, on either side of a stylized palm tree, reedposts, spathes, molluscs. Jacques de Morgan excavations, 1904-05 Sb 19 Loure Museum. "The upper part of the basin is decorated with an intertwining pattern resembling flowing water. The inside of the basin consists of a series of squared steps leading down to the bottom of the dish. Traces of an inscription, too worn to be read, indicate that there was originally a text along the edges of the basin. (Herbin Nancie)"
http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/ritual-basin-decorated-goatfish-figures H. 62.8 cm, W. 92 cm.
Molluscs on Susa ritual basin compared with Molluscs on Sanchi Monument Stupa II Huntington Scan Number 0010873 (See more examples in: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13267649/Resources-Hieroglyphs-Ancient-Indian-Tradition).
BEgram ivory. Hackin 1954, p.169, figs.18 Ivory? Size: 10.6 x 15.8 x 0.4 cm Rectangular plaque depicting three palmettos with curled-up ends, held together by rings made up of lotus petals. Between the palmettos elongated fruit is shown . This scene is bordered by a band depicting a series of four-leaved flowers set in a square frame.
Acropole mound, Susa. Old Elamite period, ca. 2500 – 2400 BCE. Clay. H 201/4 in. (51 cm) Paris. Musee du Louvre. Sb 2723. aya 'fish' rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'metal'. Thus, the fish hieroglyph on the pot is a semantic proclamation of the contents of the pot: meal implements, tools, weapons, pots and pans. baTa 'quail' rebus: bhaTa 'furnace' kANDa 'water' rebus: kANDa 'implements'.
An ancient Roman banded brown and white agate intaglio depicting (British Museum) https://www.pinterest.com/astrologyy/capricorn/
tamar, ‘palm tree, date palm’ the rebus reading would be: tam(b)ra, ‘copper’ (Pkt.)
sippi 'palm spathe, mollusc' Rebus: s'ilpi 'sculptor'.
khambhaṛā ʻfinʼ (kammaTa 'coiner, coinage, mint (Kannada) PLUS aya 'fish' rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'metal' PLUS mlekh 'goat' rebus: milakkhu 'copper'. Thus the goat-fish-fin hieroglyph-multiplex signifies copper, iron mint, coinage.
kANDa 'water' rebus: kANDa 'implements'.
dhāvita ʻpurifiedʼ (perhaps, the basin was used for washing crucible metals)(Samskrtam) rebus: धावड [dhāvaḍa] 'smelter of iron'.
Thus, the hieroglyphs on the Susa limestone stone is a catalog of smelter and mintwork.
Tin and iron ingots delivered to the temple with ligatured ‘reed-scarf’ standard:
tagara 'antelope' Rebus: tagara 'tin' + kola 'tiger' Rebus: kol 'iron'.
Kannada. mēke she-goat; mē the bleating of sheep or goats. Te. mē̃ka, mēka goat. Kol. me·ke id. Nk. mēke id. Pa. mēva, (S.) mēya she-goat. Ga. (Oll.) mēge, (S.) mēge goat. Go. (M) mekā, (Ko.) mēka id. ? Kur. mēxnā (mīxyas) to call, call after loudly, hail. Malt. méqe to bleat. [Te. mr̤ēka (so correct) is of unknown meaning. Br. mēḻẖ is without etymology; see MBE 1980a.] / Cf. Skt. (lex.) meka- goat (Monier-Williams lex.) mlekh ‘goat’ (Br.); meḷh ‘goat’ (Br. mr̤eka (Te.); mēṭam (Ta.); meṣam (Samskritam) Te. mr̤eka (DEDR 5087) (DEDR 5087) Rebus: meluh.h.a (Akkadian) mleccha (Samskritam) milakkhu 'copper' (Pali)
aya 'fish' Rebus: aya 'iron' (Gujarati) ayas 'metal' (Rigveda) meḷh ‘goat’ (Br. mr̤eka (Te.); mēṭam (Ta.); meṣam (Samskritam) Te. mr̤eka (DEDR 5087) (DEDR 5087) Rebus: meluh.h.a (Akkadian) mleccha (Samskritam) milakkhu 'copper' (Pali)
Hieroglyph-multiplex or Susa ritual basin has hieroglyph components: reeds, spathe, mollusc (snail). Rebus Meluhha readings in Indus Script cipher signify this to be Hieroglyph: eruva dhatugarbha śāṅkhika,'reed, spathe, mollusc (snail)' Rebus: eruva dagoba sangha.'copper mineral core assemblage'.
Hieroglyhph: eruva 'reed' Rebus: eruva 'copper'
Hieroglyph: śāṅkhika 'relating to a shell' hö̃giñ 'shell of a mollusc' Rebus: sangha 'assemblage'
Hieroglyph: spathe "A spathe is a large bract that forms a sheath to enclose the flower cluster of certain plants such as palms, arums, Iris and dayflowers. In many arums (Araceae family), the spathe is petal-like, attracting pollinators to the flowers arranged on a type of spike called a spadix." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bract#Spathe): Kashmiri. gab m. ʻ womb, sprout of a plant ʼ; gāb(h)ā ʻspathe of a plant (Bengali)(CDIAL 4055) Rebus: gābhā m. ʻ heart, core ʼ (Marathi) gāb(h)ā'foetus' dhātugarbha (Samskritam), dhātu gabbhā (Pali) (Sinhalese dāgoba. The expression is equivalent to dhātu relics+garbha womb, inside. Thus, dāgoba is a dome-shaped shrine containing
relics of the Buddha or a Bauddham arhant.
Hieroglyph: mollusc: śāṅkhika ʻ relating to a shell ʼ W. 2. *śāṅkhinī -- (śaṅkhinī -- f. ʻ mother -- of -- pearl ʼ Bālar.). [śaṅkhá -- 1] 1. K. hāngi ʻ snail ʼ; B. sã̄khī ʻ possessing or made of shells ʼ. 2. K. hö̃giñ f. ʻ pearl oyster shell, shell of any aquatic mollusc ʼ (CDIAL 12380). Rebus: sangha [fr. saŋ+hṛ; lit. "comprising." The quâsi pop. etym. at VvA 233 is "diṭṭhi -- sīla -- sāmaññena sanghāṭabhāvena sangha"] 1. multitude, assemblage Miln 403 (kāka˚); J i.52 (sakuṇa˚); Sn 589 (ñāti˚); 680 (deva˚); D iii.23 (miga˚); Vv 55 (accharā˚=samūha VvA 37).Sanghin (adj.) [fr. sangha] having a crowd (of followers), the head of an order D i.47, 116; S i.68; Miln 4; DA i 143. -- sanghâsanghī (pl.) in crowds, with crowds (redupl. cpd.!), with gaṇi -- bhūtā "crowd upon crowd" at D i.112, 128; ii.317; DA i.280.
Hieroglyph: dhāˊvati
Rebus: धवड [ dhavaḍa ] m (Or
Ht. 10 feet.Alabaster relief in the Louvre. Drawing by Saint-Elme Gautier. Illustration for A History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria by Georges Perrot and Charles Chipiez (Chapman and Hall, 1884) The winged person, whose helmet has three sets of horns holds a raphia farinifera cone on his right palm. The person (perhaps a Meluhha) with antelope on his left arm appears to be holding a date cluster on his right hand; he is followed by a person holding a pomegrante cluster.
The relief presents a trade deal involving exchange of sharp metal tools with copper metal ingots from Meluhha.
mlekh 'goat' carried by him denotes the Meluhha merchant (dealing in) milakkhu 'copper'. The twig or sprig on his right hand: ḍhāḷā m. ʻsprig' meṛh 'merchant's assistant' carries a cluster of pomegranates: ḍ̠āṛhū̃ 'pomegranate' (Sindhi) Rebus: ḍhālako 'a large metal ingot' (Gujarati)
ḍāla1 m. ʻ branch ʼ Śīl. 2. *ṭhāla -- . 3. *ḍāḍha -- . [Poss. same as *dāla -- 1 and dāra -- 1: √dal, √d&rcirclemacr;. But variation of form supports PMWS 64 ← Mu.]1. Pk. ḍāla -- n. ʻ branch ʼ; S. ḍ̠āru m. ʻ large branch ʼ, ḍ̠ārī f. ʻ branch ʼ; P. ḍāl m. ʻ branch ʼ, °lā m. ʻ large do. ʼ, °lī f. ʻ twig ʼ; WPah. bhal. ḍā m. ʻ branch ʼ; Ku. ḍālo m. ʻ tree ʼ; N. ḍālo ʻ branch ʼ, A. B. ḍāl, Or. ḍāḷa; Mth. ḍār ʻ branch ʼ, °ri ʻ twig ʼ; Aw. lakh. ḍār ʻ branch ʼ, H. ḍāl, °lā m., G. ḍāḷi, °ḷīf., °ḷũ n.2. A. ṭhāl ʻ branch ʼ, °li ʻ twig ʼ; H. ṭhāl, °lā m. ʻ leafy branch (esp. one lopped off) ʼ.3. Bhoj. ḍāṛhī ʻ branch ʼ; M. ḍāhaḷ m. ʻ loppings of trees ʼ, ḍāhḷā m. ʻ leafy branch ʼ, °ḷī f. ʻ twig ʼ, ḍhāḷā m. ʻ sprig ʼ, °ḷī f. ʻ branch ʼ.(CDIAL 5546). Rebus: ḍhāla n. ʻ shield ʼ lex. 2. *ḍhāllā -- .1. Tir. (Leech) "dàl"ʻ shield ʼ, Bshk. ḍāl, Ku. ḍhāl, gng. ḍhāw, N. A. B.ḍhāl, Or. ḍhāḷa, Mth. H. ḍhāl m.2. Sh. ḍal (pl. °le̯) f., K. ḍāl f., S. ḍhāla, L. ḍhāl (pl. °lã) f., P. ḍhāl f., G. M. ḍhāl f.. *ḍhāllā -- : WPah.kṭg. (kc.) ḍhāˋl f. (obl. -- a) ʻ shield ʼ (a word used in salutation), J. ḍhāl f. (CDIAL 5583).
dalim 'the fruit of pomegranate, punica granatum, Linn.' (Santali) S. ḍ̠āṛhū̃ 'pomegranate'(CDIAL 6254). Gy. eur. darav ʻ pomegranate ʼ (GWZS 440).(CDIAL 14598). dāḍima m. ʻ pomegranate tree ʼ MBh., n. ʻ its fruit ʼ Suśr., dālima -- m. Amar., ḍālima -- lex. 1. Pa. dālima -- m., NiDoc. daḍ'ima, Pk. dāḍima -- , dālima -- n., dāḍimī -- f. ʻ the tree ʼ, Dm. dā̤ŕim, Shum. Gaw. dāˊṛim,Kal. dā̤ŕəm, Kho. dáḷum, Phal. dhe_ṛum, S. ḍ̠āṛhū̃ m., P. dāṛū̃, °ṛū, °ṛam m., kgr. dariūṇ (= dariū̃?) m.; WPah.bhiḍ. de_ṛũ n. ʻ sour pomegranate ʼ; (Joshi) dāṛū, OAw. dārivaṁ m., H. poet. dāriũ m., OG. dāḍimi f. ʻ the tree ʼ, G. dāṛam n., dāṛem f. ʻ the tree ʼ, Si. deḷum.2. WPah.jaun. dāṛim, Ku. dā̆ṛim, dālim, dālimo, N. dārim, A. ḍālim, B. dāṛim, dālim, Or. dāḷimba, °ima, dāṛima,
mlekh 'goat' carried by him denotes the Meluhha merchant (dealing in) milakkhu 'copper'. The twig or sprig on his right hand: ḍhāḷā m. ʻsprig' meṛh 'merchant's assistant' carries a cluster of pomegranates: ḍ̠āṛhū̃ 'pomegranate' (Sindhi) Rebus: ḍhālako 'a large metal ingot' (Gujarati)
ḍāla1 m. ʻ branch ʼ Śīl. 2. *ṭhāla -- . 3. *ḍāḍha -- . [Poss. same as *dāla -- 1 and dāra -- 1: √dal, √d&rcirclemacr;. But variation of form supports PMWS 64 ← Mu.]1. Pk. ḍāla -- n. ʻ branch ʼ; S. ḍ̠āru m. ʻ large branch ʼ, ḍ̠ārī f. ʻ branch ʼ; P. ḍāl m. ʻ branch ʼ, °lā m. ʻ large do. ʼ, °lī f. ʻ twig ʼ; WPah. bhal. ḍā m. ʻ branch ʼ; Ku. ḍālo m. ʻ tree ʼ; N. ḍālo ʻ branch ʼ, A. B. ḍāl, Or. ḍāḷa; Mth. ḍār ʻ branch ʼ, °ri ʻ twig ʼ; Aw. lakh. ḍār ʻ branch ʼ, H. ḍāl, °lā m., G. ḍāḷi, °ḷīf., °ḷũ n.2. A. ṭhāl ʻ branch ʼ, °li ʻ twig ʼ; H. ṭhāl, °lā m. ʻ leafy branch (esp. one lopped off) ʼ.3. Bhoj. ḍāṛhī ʻ branch ʼ; M. ḍāhaḷ m. ʻ loppings of trees ʼ, ḍāhḷā m. ʻ leafy branch ʼ, °ḷī f. ʻ twig ʼ, ḍhāḷā m. ʻ sprig ʼ, °ḷī f. ʻ branch ʼ.(CDIAL 5546). Rebus: ḍhāla n. ʻ shield ʼ lex. 2. *ḍhāllā -- .1. Tir. (Leech) "dàl"ʻ shield ʼ, Bshk. ḍāl, Ku. ḍhāl, gng. ḍhāw, N. A. B.ḍhāl, Or. ḍhāḷa, Mth. H. ḍhāl m.2. Sh. ḍal (pl. °le̯) f., K. ḍāl f., S. ḍhāla, L. ḍhāl (pl. °lã) f., P. ḍhāl f., G. M. ḍhāl f.. *ḍhāllā -- : WPah.kṭg. (kc.) ḍhāˋl f. (obl. -- a) ʻ shield ʼ (a word used in salutation), J. ḍhāl f. (CDIAL 5583).
dalim 'the fruit of pomegranate, punica granatum, Linn.' (Santali) S. ḍ̠āṛhū̃ 'pomegranate'(CDIAL 6254). Gy. eur. darav ʻ pomegranate ʼ (GWZS 440).(CDIAL 14598). dāḍima m. ʻ pomegranate tree ʼ MBh., n. ʻ its fruit ʼ Suśr., dālima -- m. Amar., ḍālima -- lex. 1. Pa. dālima -- m., NiDoc. daḍ'ima, Pk. dāḍima -- , dālima -- n., dāḍimī -- f. ʻ the tree ʼ, Dm. dā̤ŕim, Shum. Gaw. dāˊṛim,Kal. dā̤ŕəm, Kho. dáḷum, Phal. dhe_ṛum, S. ḍ̠āṛhū̃ m., P. dāṛū̃, °ṛū, °ṛam m., kgr. dariūṇ (= dariū̃?) m.; WPah.bhiḍ. de_ṛũ n. ʻ sour pomegranate ʼ; (Joshi) dāṛū, OAw. dārivaṁ m., H. poet. dāriũ m., OG. dāḍimi f. ʻ the tree ʼ, G. dāṛam n., dāṛem f. ʻ the tree ʼ, Si. deḷum.2. WPah.jaun. dāṛim, Ku. dā̆ṛim, dālim, dālimo, N. dārim, A. ḍālim, B. dāṛim, dālim, Or. dāḷimba, °ima, dāṛima,
ḍāḷimba,ḍarami ʻ tree and fruit ʼ; Mth. dāṛim ʻ pomegranate ʼ, daṛimī ʻ dried mango ʼ; H. dāṛimb, °im, dālim, ḍāṛim, ḍār°, ḍāl° m., M.dāḷĩb, °ḷīm, ḍāḷĩb n. ʻ the fruit ʼ, f. ʻ the tree ʼ.3. Sh.gil. daṇū m. ʻ pomegranate ʼ, daṇúi f. ʻ the tree ʼ, jij. ḍ*lṇə́i, K. dönü m., P. dānū m.
dāḍima -- . 2. dāḍimba -- : Garh. dāḷimu ʻ pomegranate ʼ, A. ḍālim (phonet. d -- ).(CDIAL 6254).Ta. mātaḷai, mātuḷai, mātuḷam pomegranate. Ma. mātaḷam id. (DEDR 4809).
தாதுமாதுளை tātu-mātuḷai, n. < id. +. Pomegranate, s. tr., Punica granatum; பூ மாதுளை. (யாழ். அக.)
தாதுமாதுளை tātu-mātuḷai, n. < id. +. Pomegranate, s. tr., Punica granatum; பூ மாதுளை. (யாழ். அக.)
Rebus: ḍhālako = a large metal ingot (G.) ḍhālakī = a metal heated and poured into a mould; a solid piece of metal; an ingot (Gujarati)
Goat, kid
करडूं or करडें [ karaḍū or ṅkaraḍēṃ ] n A kid. (Marathi) Rebus: karaḍā 'hard alloy'. aya 'fish' Rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'metal' (Rigveda) Thus the hieroglyph-multiplex of goat-kid-fish reads: aya करडें 'fish kid' Rebus: ayaskaraḍā 'metal alloy' (comparable to ayaskANda mentioned by Panini for excellent metal implements. khaNDa 'implements' (Santali)
Reed
![]()
Reeds on Susa ritual basin. Compare with the reed posts PLUS scarves of Warka vase eruvai 'reed' + dhatu 'scarf' + dula 'pair' Rebus: eruvai 'copper' + dhatu 'mineral' + dul 'cast metal'.![]()
Hieroglyph: eruvai 'European reed'
Spathe (palm)
Hieroglyph: गाभा (p. 233) [ gābhā ] m (गर्भ S) The heart, core, pith, interior substance (of wood, stalks, roots &c.) 2 The spadix or fruit-receptacle (of the Palm or Plantain) whilst yet unevolved. 3 The crop or bush (of a Palm). 4 A cloth or a smaller turban worn under the turban. (Marathi) gárbha m. ʻ womb, foetus, offspring ʼ RV., ʻ inside, middle ʼ MBh. Pa. Pk. gabbha -- m. ʻ womb, foetus, interior ʼ; NiDoc. garbha ʻ foetus ʼ; K. gab m. ʻ womb, sprout of a plant ʼ; S. g̠abhu m. ʻ foetus, kernel, pith ʼ; L. gabbhā m. ʻ young calf ʼ, (Ju.) g̠abh m. ʻ foetus ʼ; P. gabbh m. ʻ foetus ʼ, gabbhā m. ʻ vulva, interior ʼ; Ku. gāb ʻ foetus ʼ, gng. ʻ sprout ʼ; N. gābh ʻ secret ʼ, gābho ʻ core, inside (e.g. of a fruit) ʼ; B. gāb ʻ foetus ʼ, gāb(h)ā ʻ foetus, spathe of a plant, river -- bed ʼ; Mth. gābh ʻ womb (of animals) ʼ; H. gābh m. ʻ pregnancy (esp. of animals) ʼ, gābhā m. ʻ new leaf springing from centre of plaintain tree ʼ, gāb m. ʻ pulp, pith ʼ; G. gābh, ghāb m. ʻ foetus (of animals) ʼ, gābhɔ, ghābɔ m. ʻ any filling of a hollow, pulp ʼ; M. gābh m. ʻ foetus, recess among the hills ʼ, gābhā m. ʻ heart, core ʼ; Ko. gābu ʻ foetus (of animals) ʼ, gābbo ʻ inner core of plaintain stem ʼ; Si. gäba, gaba ʻ womb ʼ. -- Deriv. K. gọ̆bu ʻ heavy ʼ; N. gābhinu ʻ to conceive (of cattle) ʼ; A. gabhiyā ʻ one who lives with his wife's family ʼ; Or. gābhil ʻ with young (of animals) ʼ; Si. gäm̆bili ʻ pregnant ʼ H. Smith JA 1950, 196. -- X *gudda -- : N. gubho ʻ core ʼ; H. gubhīlā ʻ lumpy ʼ. -- X *gudda -- or kukṣí -- : L. gubbh f. ʻ pot -- belly ʼ.Addenda: gárbha -- : A. gāb ʻ pregnancy ʼ AFD 214. (CDIAL 4055)
Dagoba is the Sinhalese name for the Buddhist Stupa, a mound-like structure with relics, used by Buddhist monks to meditate. This is a compound comprising: dhatu + garbha 'mineral core''containing dhatu, mineral'. dhAtugarbha m. (with Buddh.) receptacle for ashes or relics , a Dagaba or Dagoba (Sinhalese corruption of Pali Dhatu-gabbha) MWB. xxxv {-kumbha} m. a relic-urn Hcar. http://www.sumscorp.com/new_models_of_culture/terms/?object_id=150959
Rebus: गर्भारा (p. 227) [ garbhārā ] m (गर्भ S) The innermost apartment of a temple; penetralia, adytum, sanctuary.(Marathi) *garbhaghara ʻ inner room ʼ. [Cf. garbhagr̥ha -- , -- gēha -- n. ʻ inner sleeping room ʼ MBh. -- gárbha -- , ghara -- ]Pk. gabbhahara -- n. ʻ inner room ʼ.(CDIAL 4056) cf. 594 ará m. ʻ spoke of a wheel ʼ RV. 2. āra -- 2 MBh. v.l. [√r̥ ]1. Pa. ara -- m., Pk. ara -- , °ga -- , °ya -- m.; S. aro m. ʻ spoke, cog ʼ; P. arm. ʻ one of the crosspieces in a cartwheel ʼ; Or. ara ʻ felloe of a wheel ʼ; Si. ara ʻ spoke ʼ.
2. Or. āra ʻ spoke ʼ; Bi. ārā ʻ first pair of spokes in a cartwheel ʼ; H. ārā m. ʻ spoke ʼ, G. ārɔ m.(CDIAL 594)
गर्भा (p. 227) [ garbhā ] m (गर्भ Womb.) A rite amongst Gujaráthí women and girls, pregnant and hopeful of pregnancy, in propitiation of Deví. It consists in running round in a ring vociferously singing; and it is observed from the light tenth to the day of full moon of आश्विन . Also the piece sung on the occasion. Also similar merry worship performed and the merry piece sung during the नवरात्र of आश्विन , or through the whole of the bright fortnight of आश्विन . (Marathi)
Gabbha [Vedic garbha, either to *gelbh, as in Lat. galba, Goth. kalbo, Ohg. kalba, E. calf, or *gṷe bh, as in Gr. delfu/s womb, adelfo/s sharing the womb, brother, de/lfac young pig; cp. *gelt in Goth. kilpei womb. Ags. cild, Ger. kind, E. child. Meaning: a cavity, a hollow, or, seen from its outside, a swelling] 1. interior, cavity (loc. gabbhe in the midst of: angāra˚ J iii. 55); an inner room, private chamber, bedroom, cell. Of a Vihāra: Vin ii. 303; iii. 119; iv. 45; VvA 188; 220; -- J i. 90 (siri˚ royal chamber); iii. 276; Vv 785 (=ovaraka VvA 304); DhA i. 397; Miln 10, 295. See also anto˚. <-> 2. the swelling of the (pregnant) womb, the womb (cp. kucchi). ˚ŋ upeti to be born Dh 325=Th 1, 17= Nett 34, 129; ˚ŋ upapajjati to be born again Dh 126; gabbhā gabbhaŋ . . . dukkaŋ nigacchanti from womb to womb (i. e. from birth to birth) Sn 278; gabbhato paṭṭhāya from the time of birth J i. 290, 293. As a symbol of defilement g. is an ep. of kāma A iv. 289, etc. -- 3. the contents of the womb, i. e. the embryo, foetus: dasa māse ˚ŋ kucchinā pariharitvā having nourished the foetus in the womb for 10 months D ii 14; dibbā gabbhā D i. 229; on g. as contained in kucchi, foetus in utero, see J i. 50 (kucchimhi patiṭṭhito) 134; ii. 2; iv. 482; M i. 265; Miln 123 (gabbhassa avakkanti); DhA i. 3, 47; ii. 261. -- Pv i. 67 ; PvA 31; gabbho vuṭṭhāsi the child was delivered Vin ii. 278; itthi -- gabbho & purisa˚ female & male child J i. 51; gabbhaŋ pāteti to destroy the foetus Vin ii. 268; apagatagabbhā (adj.) having had a miscarriage Vin ii. 129; mūḷha -- gabbhā id. M ii. 102 (+visatā˚); paripuṇṇa -- gabbhā ready to be delivered J i. 52; PvA 86; saññi˚ a conscious foetus D i. 54=M i. 518=Siii. 212; sannisinna -- gabbhā having conceived Vin ii. 278.-- avakkanti (gabbhe okkanti Nd2 3041 ) conception D iii. 103, 231; Vism 499, 500 (˚okkanti); this is followed by gabbhe ṭhiti & gabbhe vuṭṭhāna, see Nd2 ; -- āsaya the impurities of childbirth Pv iii. 53 (=˚mala); -- karaṇa effecting a conception Sn 927; -- gata leaving the womb, in putte gabbhagate when the child was born PvA 112; -- dvāra the door of the bed -- chamber J i. 62; -- pariharaṇa=next Vism 500; -- parihāra "the protection of the embryo," a ceremony performed when a woman became pregnant J ii. 2; DhA i. 4; -- pātana the destruction of the embryo, abortion, an abortive preparation Vin iii. 83 sq.; Pv i. 66 (akariŋ); PvA 31 (dāpesi); DhA i. 47 (˚bhesajja); -- mala the uncleanness of delivery, i. e. all accompanying dirty matter PvA 80, 173 (as food for Petas), 198; DhA iv. 215; -- vīsa in ahañc' amhi gabbhavīso "I am 20 years, counting from my conception" Vin i. 93; -- vuṭṭhāna (nt.) childbirth, delivery J i. 52; DhA i. 399; ii. 261; -- seyyā (f.) the womb; only in expressions relating to reincarnation, as: na punar eti (or upeti) gabbhaseyyaŋ "he does not go into another womb," of an Arahant Sn 29, 152, 535; Vv 5324 ; and gabbhaseyyaka (adj.) one who enters another womb Vbh 413 sq.; Vism 272, 559, 560; Bdhd 77, 78. Gabbhara (nt.) [Derivation uncertain. Cp. Sk. gahvara] a cavern Sn 416 (giri˚); Vv 635 (giri˚). (Pali)
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Base for a ritual offering, carved with animals Elamite period, mid-3rd millennium BC Tell of the Acropolis, Susa, Iran Bituminous rock H. 19 cm; Diam. 11 cm Jacques de Morgan excavations, 1908 Lions and gazelles passant; eagles protecting their young Sb 2725![]()
Hieroglyphs and rebus readings are: markhor, rice-plant, numeral three.
Tor. miṇḍāˊl ʻmarkhorʼ. Rebus: med 'copper'
kolmo 'rice-plant', kolom 'three' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge'.![]()
(After Fig 35 in Prudence O Harper et al, opcit.) The hieroglyphs painted on this pot are: fish, quail and water (stream) and have been deciphered based on Indus Script Cipher underscoring definitive trade links of Susa with Meluhha which are also attested on cuneiform texts.
![]()
Susa cylinder seal impression
![]()
![]()
Hieroglyphs and rebus readings are: markhor, antelope, twigs. On the top register, between the two antelopes, a tiger is also signified.
Tor. miṇḍāˊl ʻmarkhorʼ. Rebus: med 'copper'
ranku 'antelope' Rebus: ranku 'tin'
kola 'tiger' Rebus: kol 'working in iron' kolle 'blacsmith'
kuṭhI 'bunch of twigs' Rebus: kuṭhi 'iron smelter'.
करडूं or करडें [ karaḍū or ṅkaraḍēṃ ] n A kid. (Marathi) Rebus: karaḍā 'hard alloy'. aya 'fish' Rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'metal' (Rigveda) Thus the hieroglyph-multiplex of goat-kid-fish reads: aya करडें 'fish kid' Rebus: ayaskaraḍā 'metal alloy' (comparable to ayaskANda mentioned by Panini for excellent metal implements. khaNDa 'implements' (Santali)
Reed
Reeds on Susa ritual basin. Compare with the reed posts PLUS scarves of Warka vase eruvai 'reed' + dhatu 'scarf' + dula 'pair' Rebus: eruvai 'copper' + dhatu 'mineral' + dul 'cast metal'.Rebus: eruva 'copper' எருவை eruvai Copper; செம்பு. எருவை யுருக்கினா லன்ன குருதி (கம்பரா. கும்பக. 248).
Dagoba is the Sinhalese name for the Buddhist Stupa, a mound-like structure with relics, used by Buddhist monks to meditate. This is a compound comprising: dhatu + garbha 'mineral core''containing dhatu, mineral'. dhAtugarbha m. (with Buddh.) receptacle for ashes or relics , a Dagaba or Dagoba (Sinhalese corruption of Pali Dhatu-gabbha) MWB. xxxv {-kumbha} m. a relic-urn Hcar. http://www.sumscorp.com/new_models_of_culture/terms/?object_id=150959
2. Or. āra ʻ spoke ʼ; Bi. ārā ʻ first pair of spokes in a cartwheel ʼ; H. ārā m. ʻ spoke ʼ, G. ārɔ m.(CDIAL 594)
Animals in procession: Two gazelles (antelopes?), stalks, two tigers
Two eagles, sprout between
Base for a ritual offering, carved with animals Elamite period, mid-3rd millennium BC Tell of the Acropolis, Susa, Iran Bituminous rock H. 19 cm; Diam. 11 cm Jacques de Morgan excavations, 1908 Lions and gazelles passant; eagles protecting their young Sb 2725Allograph: எருவை eruvai
A kind of kite, a kite whose head is white
and whose
body
is brown; தலைவெளுத்து உடல்சிவந்திருக்கும் பருந்து. விசும்பா டெருவை பசுந்தடி தடுப்ப (புறநா. 64, 4). 4. Eagle; கழுகு. எருவை குருதி பிணங்க வருந் தோற்றம் (களவழி. 20). 5. eraka 'eagle' Rebus: erako 'moltencast copper'
Tablet with seal impression of a horned animal and a plant. Clay. H. 2 ½ in. (6.4 cm); W. 1 ¾ in. (4.5 cm) Proto-Elamite period, ca 3100-2900 BCE Sb 4841. Excavated by Morgan (
cf. Amiet, Pierre, 1972, Glyptique susienne: Des origins a l’epoque des Perses achemenides. MDP 43
Based on MDP 16 (1921), pl. 8, no. 125, Holly Pittman notes about this seal impression: “This tablet is inscribed with Proto-Elamite script and impressed by a seal…The seal would have had one caprid and a plant engraved on its surface, but because of multiple rollings there are repeated impressions of the animal. As is obvious from this example, seals were applied to the still-soft tablets first and the inscriptions added afterwards.” The ‘inscription’ added afterwards on this tablet is a hieroglyph of ‘three linear strokes’ which is a common Indus Script hieroglyph.
Tor. miṇḍāˊl ʻmarkhorʼ. Rebus: med 'copper'
kolmo 'rice-plant', kolom 'three' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge'.
(After Fig 35 in Prudence O Harper et al, opcit.) The hieroglyphs painted on this pot are: fish, quail and water (stream) and have been deciphered based on Indus Script Cipher underscoring definitive trade links of Susa with Meluhha which are also attested on cuneiform texts.Reference to figure is after the Metropolitan Museum publication: Prudence O. Harper, Joan Aruz, Francoise Tallon (Ed.), 1993, The Royal city of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern treasures in the Louvre, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art
Heulandite. H. 1 3/8 in. (3.4 cm); dia. 1 in. (2.4 cm) Proto-Elamite period, ca 3100-2900 BCE Sb 2675
dula 'pair, two' Rebus: dul 'cast metal'
Thus, together, loh 'copper' PLUS dul 'cast metal' PLUS kuṭhi '(copper)metal smelter'
Similarly, two antelopes signify by rebus-metonymy layer: dul 'cast metal' PLUS milakkhu 'copper' ORranku 'tin'.
Similarly, two wild goats signify by rebus-metonymy layer: dul 'cast metal' PLUS mẽṛhẽt, meḍ ‘iron’ (Mu.Ho.) OR med 'copper' (Slavic languages).
Медь [Med'] (Russian, Slavic) 'copper' gloss is cognate with mē̃ḍ 'iron' (Munda) meḍ 'iron' (Ho.) . The early semantics of the Meluhha word meḍ is likely to be 'copper metal'. Rebus: मेढ meḍh 'helper of merchant'. Seafaring merchants of Meluhha !
Miedź, med' (Northern Slavic). Corruptions from the German "Schmied", "Geschmeide" = jewelry.
Used in most of the Slavic and Altaic languages.
Bakar Bosnian
Медзь [medz'] Belarusian
Měď Czech
Bakar Croatian
Kòper Kashubian
Бакар [Bakar] Macedonian
Miedź Polish
Медь [Med'] Russian
Meď Slovak
Baker Slovenian
Бакар [Bakar] Serbian
Мідь [mid'] Ukrainian
http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Cu
![]()
This hieroglyph-multiplex has three hieroglyph components: mountain, two bunches of twigs, ficus glomerata leaf (NOT a tree).
I suggest that two types of caprids are orthographically delineated: Section A. a wild goat (say, markhor) with curved horns and Section B. a goat or antelope.
Section A. Wild goat: Tor. miṇḍāˊl
ʻmarkhorʼ. Rebus: med 'copper' (Slavic languages)
![]()
British Museum 120466 Proto-Elamite administrative tablet (4.4x5.7x1.8 cm) with a cylinder seal impression cf. Walker, CBF, 1980, Elamite Inscriptions in the British Museum in: Iran Vol. 18 (1980), pp. 75-81. Indus Script hieroglyphs on this seal impression are: markhor, ficus glomerata, twig.
With the emphasis on curled, curved horns, the semantics are related to the set of glosses: *mēṇḍhī ʻ lock of hair, curl ʼ. [Cf. *mēṇḍha --1 s.v. *miḍḍa -- ]S. mī˜ḍhī f., °ḍho m. ʻ braid in a woman's hair ʼ, L. mē̃ḍhī f.; G. mĩḍlɔ, miḍ° m. ʻ braid of hair on a girl's forehead ʼ; M. meḍhā m. ʻ curl, snarl, twist or tangle in cord or thread ʼ.(CDIAL 10312)
Rebus: mẽṛhẽt, meḍ ‘iron’ (Mu.Ho.)
kanda 'fire-altar'
![]()
This hieroglyph is signified three times on the cylinder seal. kolom 'three' Rebus: kolimi'smithy, forge' kole.l 'smithy, temple'. Holly Pittman notes: “The cross, shown three times in the upper field, is a sign belonging to the Proto-Elamite script.” (Prudence O. Harper et al, opcit., p.74).
Substantive message:
Pe. kanda fire trench. Kui kanda small trench for fireplace. Malt. kandri a pit. Tu. kandůka, kandaka ditch, trench. Te. kandakamu id. Konḍa kanda trench made as a fireplace during weddings.(DEDR 1214)
An expression लोखंड [lōkhaṇḍa ] 'metal implements' gets
signified by adding in hypertext, the following hieroglyphs:
a ficus glomerata (loa)
AND a mountain (kaNDa).
WPah.kṭg. (kc.) kaṇḍɔ m. ʻ thorn, mountain peak ʼ(CDIAL 2668)Pk. kaṁṭī -- f. ʻ space near a village, ground near a mountain, neighbourhood ʼ(CDIAL 2669) Pk. kaṁṭha -- m. ʻ border, edge ʼ; L. awāṇ. kaḍḍhā ʻ bank ʼ; P. kaṇḍhā m. ʻ bank, shore ʼ, °ḍhī f. ʻ land bordering on a mountain ʼ; WPah. cam. kaṇḍhā ʻ edge, border ʼ; N. kānlo, kã̄llo ʻ boundary line of stones dividing two fields ʼ, kã̄ṭh ʻ outskirts of a town ʼ ← a Mth. or H. dial.; H. kã̄ṭhā ʻ near ʼ; OMarw. kāṭha m. (= kã̄°?) ʻ bank of a river ʼ; G. kã̄ṭhɔ m. ʻ bank, coast, limit, margin of a well ʼ; M. kāṭh, kã̄ṭh, °ṭhā m. ʻ coast, edge, border ʼ, kã̄ṭhẽ n. ʻ arable land near the edge of a hill. ʼ -- L. P. kaṇḍh f. ʻ wall ʼ perh. infl. in meaning bykanthā (CDIAL 2680)
loa ‘ficus glomerata’ Rebus: loh ‘iron, copper’ (Sanskrit) PLUS
unique ligatures: लोखंड [lōkhaṇḍa ] n (लोह S) Iron. लोखंडाचे चणे
खावविणें or चारणें To oppress grievously.लोखंडकाम [ lōkhaṇḍakāma
] n Iron work; that portion (of a building, machine &c.) which
consists of iron. The business of an ironsmith.लोखंडी [ lōkhaṇḍī
] a (लोखंड) Composed of iron; relating to iron. (Marathi)
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/07/indus-script-deciphered-mlecchita.html
Section B. Goat or antelope: Set 1: mr̤ēka, mēḻẖ 'goat' Set 2: ranku 'antelope' Rebus: milakkhu, mleccha-mukha 'copper'; ranku 'tin'
[Te. mr̤ēka (so correct) is of unknown meaning. Br. mēḻẖ is without etymology; see MBE 1980a.]Ka. mēke she-goat; mē the bleating of sheep or goats. Te. mē̃ka,mēka goat. Kol. me·ke id.
Nk. mēke id. Pa. mēva, (S.) mēya she goat. Ga. (Oll.) mēge
(S.)mēge goat. Go. (M) mekā, (Ko.) mēka id. ? Kur. mēxnā (mīxyas) to call, call after loudly, hail. Malt. méqe to bleat. / Cf. Skt. (lex.) meka- goat.(DEDR 5087)
raṅku m. ʻ a species of deer ʼ Vās., °uka -- m. Śrīkaṇṭh.(CDIAL 10559); ranku 'antelope' (Santali)
ranku 'tin' (Santali) raṅga3 n. ʻ tin ʼ lex. [Cf. nāga -- 2 , vaṅga -- 1 ]Pk. raṁga -- n. ʻ tin ʼ; P. rã̄g f., rã̄gā m. ʻ pewter, tin ʼ (← H.); Ku. rāṅ ʻ tin, solder ʼ, gng. rã̄k; N. rāṅ, rāṅo ʻ tin, solder ʼ, A. B. rāṅ; Or. rāṅga ʻ tin ʼ, rāṅgā ʻ solder, spelter ʼ, Bi. Mth. rã̄gā, OAw. rāṁga; H. rã̄g f., rã̄gā m. ʻ tin, pewter ʼ; Si. ran̆ga ʻ tin ʼ.(CDIAL 10562)
On this cylinder seal, there are two message segments composed of Indus Script hieroglyph-multiplexes.
1. mountain, ficus glomerata, two wild goats, two +hieroglyphs (fire-altar)
1. mountain, ficus glomerata, two wild goats, two +hieroglyphs (fire-altar)
dula 'pair, two' Rebus: dul 'cast metal'
Thus, together, loh 'copper' PLUS dul 'cast metal' PLUS kuṭhi '(copper)metal smelter'
Similarly, two antelopes signify by rebus-metonymy layer: dul 'cast metal' PLUS milakkhu 'copper' ORranku 'tin'.
Similarly, two wild goats signify by rebus-metonymy layer: dul 'cast metal' PLUS mẽṛhẽt, meḍ ‘iron’ (Mu.Ho.) OR med 'copper' (Slavic languages).
Медь [Med'] (Russian, Slavic) 'copper' gloss is cognate with mē̃ḍ 'iron' (Munda) meḍ 'iron' (Ho.) . The early semantics of the Meluhha word meḍ is likely to be 'copper metal'. Rebus: मेढ meḍh 'helper of merchant'. Seafaring merchants of Meluhha !
Used in most of the Slavic and Altaic languages.
— Slavic
Мед [Med] BulgarianBakar Bosnian
Медзь [medz'] Belarusian
Měď Czech
Bakar Croatian
Kòper Kashubian
Бакар [Bakar] Macedonian
Miedź Polish
Медь [Med'] Russian
Meď Slovak
Baker Slovenian
Бакар [Bakar] Serbian
Мідь [mid'] Ukrainian
This hieroglyph-multiplex has three hieroglyph components: mountain, two bunches of twigs, ficus glomerata leaf (NOT a tree).Hieroglyph: bunch of twigs: कूटी [p= 299,3] v.l. for कूद्/ई. कूदी [p= 300,1] f. a bunch of twigs , bunch (v.l. कूट्/ई) AV. v , 19 , 12 Kaus3.accord. to Kaus3. , Sch. = बदरी, "Christ's thorn". (Samskritam)
Rebus:kuṭhi ‘a furnace for smelting iron ore, to smelt iron’;koṭe ‘forged (metal)(Santali) kuṭhi ‘a furnace for smelting iron ore to smelt iron’; kolheko kuṭhieda koles smelt iron (Santali) kuṭhi, kuṭi (Or.; Sad. koṭhi) (1) the smelting furnace of the blacksmith; kuṭire bica duljad.ko talkena, they were feeding the furnace with ore; (2) the name of ēkuṭi has been given to the fire which, in lac factories, warms the water bath for softening the lac so that it can be spread into sheets; to make a smelting furnace; kuṭhi-o of a smelting furnace, to be made; the smelting furnace of the blacksmith is made of mud, cone-shaped, 2’ 6” dia. At the base and 1’ 6” at the top. The hole in the centre, into which the mixture of charcoal and iron ore is poured, is about 6” to 7” in dia. At the base it has two holes, a smaller one into which the nozzle of the bellow is inserted, as seen in fig. 1, and a larger one on the opposite side through which the molten iron flows out into a cavity (Mundari) kuṭhi = a factory; lil kuṭhi = an indigo factory (koṭhi - Hindi) (Santali.Bodding) kuṭhi = an earthen furnace for smelting iron; make do., smelt iron; kolheko do kuṭhi benaokate baliko dhukana, the Kolhes build an earthen furnace and smelt iron-ore, blowing the bellows; tehen:ko kuṭhi yet kana, they are working (or building) the furnace to-day (H. koṭhī ) (Santali. Bodding) kuṭṭhita = hot, sweltering; molten (of tamba, cp. uttatta)(Pali.lex.) uttatta (ut + tapta) = heated, of metals: molten, refined; shining, splendid, pure (Pali.lex.) kuṭṭakam, kuṭṭukam = cauldron (Ma.); kuṭṭuva = big copper pot for heating water (Kod.)(DEDR 1668). gudgā to blaze; gud.va flame (Man.d); gudva, gūdūvwa, guduwa id. (Kuwi)(DEDR 1715). dāntar-kuṭha = fireplace (Sv.); kōti wooden vessel for mixing yeast (Sh.); kōlhā house with mud roof and walls, granary (P.); kuṭhī factory (A.); koṭhābrick-built house (B.); kuṭhī bank, granary (B.); koṭho jar in which indigo is stored, warehouse (G.); koṭhīlare earthen jar, factory (G.); kuṭhī granary, factory (M.)(CDIAL 3546). koṭho = a warehouse; a revenue office, in which dues are paid and collected; koṭhī a store-room; a factory (Gujarat) koḍ = the place where artisans work (Gujarati)
I suggest that two types of caprids are orthographically delineated: Section A. a wild goat (say, markhor) with curved horns and Section B. a goat or antelope.
Section A. Wild goat: Tor. miṇḍāˊl
ʻmarkhorʼ. Rebus: med 'copper' (Slavic languages)
With the emphasis on curled, curved horns, the semantics are related to the set of glosses: *mēṇḍhī ʻ lock of hair, curl ʼ. [Cf. *mēṇḍha --
Rebus: mẽṛhẽt, meḍ ‘iron’ (Mu.Ho.)
kanda 'fire-altar'
This hieroglyph is signified three times on the cylinder seal. kolom 'three' Rebus: kolimi'smithy, forge' kole.l 'smithy, temple'. Holly Pittman notes: “The cross, shown three times in the upper field, is a sign belonging to the Proto-Elamite script.” (Prudence O. Harper et al, opcit., p.74). Since Proto-Elamite has NOT so far been deciphered, I have no comment to make on the possible decipherment of this sign in Proto-Elamite texts. There is a possibility that the sign may have been read as a Meluhha word, 'kanda' meaning 'smelter or furnace' as a continuum of the Meluhha metalwork tradition in Elam. (See appended not on Elam).
Orthographically, this is a fire-french with four distinct arms of four pits (four is a semantic determinative or reinforcement of the substantive message): gaNDa 'four' Rebus: kanda 'fire-trench'.
Pe. kanda fire trench. Kui kanda small trench for fireplace. Malt. kandri a pit. Tu. kandůka, kandaka ditch, trench. Te. kandakamu id. Konḍa kanda trench made as a fireplace during weddings.(DEDR 1214)
An expression लोखंड [lōkhaṇḍa ] 'metal implements' gets
signified by adding in hypertext, the following hieroglyphs:
a ficus glomerata (loa)
AND a mountain (kaNDa).
WPah.kṭg. (kc.) kaṇḍɔ m. ʻ thorn, mountain peak ʼ(CDIAL 2668)Pk. kaṁṭī -- f. ʻ space near a village, ground near a mountain, neighbourhood ʼ(CDIAL 2669) Pk. kaṁṭha -- m. ʻ border, edge ʼ; L. awāṇ. kaḍḍhā ʻ bank ʼ; P. kaṇḍhā m. ʻ bank, shore ʼ, °ḍhī f. ʻ land bordering on a mountain ʼ; WPah. cam. kaṇḍhā ʻ edge, border ʼ; N. kānlo, kã̄llo ʻ boundary line of stones dividing two fields ʼ, kã̄ṭh ʻ outskirts of a town ʼ ← a Mth. or H. dial.; H. kã̄ṭhā ʻ near ʼ; OMarw. kāṭha m. (= kã̄°?) ʻ bank of a river ʼ; G. kã̄ṭhɔ m. ʻ bank, coast, limit, margin of a well ʼ; M. kāṭh, kã̄ṭh, °ṭhā m. ʻ coast, edge, border ʼ, kã̄ṭhẽ n. ʻ arable land near the edge of a hill. ʼ -- L. P. kaṇḍh f. ʻ wall ʼ perh. infl. in meaning by
loa ‘ficus glomerata’ Rebus: loh ‘iron, copper’ (Sanskrit) PLUS
unique ligatures: लोखंड [lōkhaṇḍa ] n (लोह S) Iron. लोखंडाचे चणे
खावविणें or चारणें To oppress grievously.लोखंडकाम [ lōkhaṇḍakāma
] n Iron work; that portion (of a building, machine &c.) which
consists of iron. The business of an ironsmith.लोखंडी [ lōkhaṇḍī
] a (लोखंड) Composed of iron; relating to iron. (Marathi)
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/07/indus-script-deciphered-mlecchita.html
Section B. Goat or antelope: Set 1: mr̤ēka, mēḻẖ 'goat' Set 2: ranku 'antelope' Rebus: milakkhu, mleccha-mukha 'copper'; ranku 'tin'
[Te. mr̤ēka (so correct) is of unknown meaning. Br. mēḻẖ is without etymology; see MBE 1980a.]Ka. mēke she-goat; mē the bleating of sheep or goats. Te. mē̃ka,mēka goat. Kol. me·ke id.
Nk. mēke id. Pa. mēva, (S.) mēya she goat. Ga. (Oll.) mēge
(S.)mēge goat. Go. (M) mekā, (Ko.) mēka id. ? Kur. mēxnā (mīxyas) to call, call after loudly, hail. Malt. méqe to bleat. / Cf. Skt. (lex.) meka- goat.(DEDR 5087)
raṅku m. ʻ a species of deer ʼ Vās., °uka -- m. Śrīkaṇṭh.(CDIAL 10559); ranku 'antelope' (Santali)
ranku 'tin' (Santali) raṅga
*margā ʻ wild goat ʼ. 2. *marjikā -- . [Cf. Wkh. me rg f. ʻ ibex ʼ. -- mr̥gá -- ]1. Ash. mlaṅ f. ʻ mountain goat ʼ, Wg. mŕaṅ, mraṅ; Kt. mŕoṅ ʻ female ibex ʼ (→ Kal.urt. mroṅ); Pr. mā̆ṅgə, mā̆ṅg ʻ female markhor ʼ, maṅċū̃ ʻ markhor kid ʼ, Paš.kuṛ.loṅ f. ʻ markhor ʼ, Gaw. blaṅ; -- Dm. mraṅ m. ʻ markhor ʼ (~ maži f. below).
2. Dm. maži ʻ female markhor ʼ, Kal. muṣ, Kho. mažḗg .(CDIAL 9885) mr̥gá m. ʻ wild animal, deer ʼ RV. Pa. migī -- f. ʻ doe ʼ, Pk. migī -- , maī -- f.; Paš.kch. lē f. ʻ mountain goat ʼ, ar. bleaṭo ʻ ibex or markhor ʼ.Kal.rumb. mū̃ru ʻ female ibex ʼ; Kho. múru f. ʻ mountain goat ʼ. (CDIAL 10264)WPah.bhal. me\ i f. ʻ wild goat ʼ; H. meh m. ʻ ram ʼ. mēṣá m. ʻ ram ʼ, °ṣīˊ -- f. ʻ ewe ʼ RV. (CDIAL 10334)
2. Dm. maži ʻ female markhor ʼ, Kal. muṣ, Kho. mažḗ
Tor. miṇḍāˊl ʻ markhor ʼ: mẽḍhā 'ram' mēṇḍha2 m. ʻ ram ʼ, °aka -- , mēṇḍa -- 4 , miṇḍha -- 2 , °aka -- , mēṭha -- 2 , mēṇḍhra -- , mēḍhra -- 2 , °aka -- m. lex. 2. *mēṇṭha- (mēṭha -- m. lex.). 3. *mējjha -- . [r -- forms (which are not attested in NIA.) are due to further sanskritization of a loan -- word prob. of Austro -- as. origin (EWA ii 682 with lit.) and perh. related to the group s.v. bhēḍra -- ]1. Pa. meṇḍa -- m. ʻ ram ʼ, °aka -- ʻ made of a ram's horn (e.g. a bow) ʼ; Pk. meḍḍha -- , meṁḍha -- (°ḍhī -- f.), °ṁḍa -- , miṁḍha -- (°dhiā -- f.), °aga -- m. ʻ ram ʼ, Dm. Gaw. miṇ Kal.rumb. amŕ n/aŕə ʻ sheep ʼ (a -- ?); Bshk. mināˊl ʻ ram ʼ; Tor. miṇḍ ʻ ram ʼ, miṇḍāˊl ʻ markhor ʼ; Chil. mindh*l l ʻ ram ʼ AO xviii 244 (dh!), Sv.yēṛo -- miṇ; Phal. miṇḍ, miṇ ʻ ram ʼ, miṇḍṓl m. ʻ yearling lamb, gimmer ʼ; P. mẽḍhā m., °ḍhī f., ludh. mīḍḍhā, mī˜ḍhā m.; N. meṛho, meṛo ʻ ram for sacrifice ʼ; A.mersāg ʻ ram ʼ ( -- sāg < *chāgya -- ?), B. meṛā m., °ṛi f., Or. meṇḍhā, °ḍā m., °ḍhi f., H. meṛh, meṛhā, mẽḍhā m., G. mẽḍhɔ, M. mẽḍhā m., Si. mäḍayā.2. Pk. meṁṭhī -- f. ʻ sheep ʼ; H. meṭhā m. ʻ ram ʼ.3. H. mejhukā m. ʻ ram ʼ.*mēṇḍharūpa -- , mēḍhraśr̥ṅgī -- .Addenda: mēṇḍha -- 2 : A. also mer (phonet. me r) ʻ ram ʼ AFD 235.(CDIAL 10210)
Susa cylinder seal impression
Unpierced cylindere seal with horned animals. Heulandite H. 1 7/8 in. (4.9 cm); dia. 1 1/8 in. (3 cm) Proto-Elamite period, ca. 3100-2900 BCE. Sb 2429 Holly Pittman notes: “The two files of creatures on this beautiful seal (Delaporte, 1920, pl. 26:7) include two types of horned mountain animals, probably goats, and mountain sheep, walking in a field of flowers.” (After Fig. 43, Prudence O. Harper et al, opcit., p.73).
Hieroglyphs and rebus readings are: markhor, antelope, twigs. On the top register, between the two antelopes, a tiger is also signified.
Tor. miṇḍāˊl ʻmarkhorʼ. Rebus: med 'copper'
ranku 'antelope' Rebus: ranku 'tin'
kola 'tiger' Rebus: kol 'working in iron' kolle 'blacsmith'
kuṭhI 'bunch of twigs' Rebus: kuṭhi 'iron smelter'.
S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Center
March 10, 2016
↧
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply