An unexpected accusation
The Vedic people were not only illiterate but also opposed to literacy - this is what Michael Witzel opines in a recent (2011) paper: ‘Gandhara and the formation of the Vedic and Zoroastrian cannons’ (freely accessible through DASH).
The stand that the art of writing was unknown in the Vedic period is not a new one. Many others have held this view before Witzel although it has been proved to be untenable time and again and most emphatically very recently. Vide the link:
But, no, the Harvard professor is not bereft of ‘originality’ characteristic to him! His stand is really novel - a stand taken by nobody else before him. According to the professor, the Vedic people opposed literacy and they did so at least partly for petty personal gains.
Well, being illiterate is no sin, no offence at least. But how can one be pardoned for opposing literacy and that too for personal benefits? The charge is serious indeed! But, let us be patient, and see how Witzel argues his case.
According to him, the Vedic texts were transmitted ‘only by rote repetition’ till the times of the Persian emperors when Armaic came to be introduced and Kharoshthi script invented. This created a possibility of the texts being written which alerted the ‘Brahmins’, the repositories of the oral texts. And, he clearly states on page 10 of his paper (under the subheading The Brahmins and orality):
“We can well imagine what kind of reaction the sudden possibility of written Veda texts – even in imperfect form – might have had: certainly a sort of democratization that meant, loss of status and, at a minimum, loss of income for the ritualistic Brahmins. That threat may have inspired some Brahmins to resist attempts to encode texts in writing, and to intensify mnemonic canonization, … … … .”
What a silly reasoning! One may ask Witzel: Isn’t it a fact that history records the maximum donation to priests in early Medieval India, the period renowned simultaneously for maximum number of Sanskrit manuscripts? In fact, the importance and income of priests supervising Vedic rituals have not decreased the least even today when Vedic texts are printed in abundance mechanically as well as electronically?
In support of his contention Witzel quotes the Mahabharata (13.24.70): “those who write the Vedas, these surely go to hell”. The aversion to put the Vedic mantras in writing is still shared by priests and pundits who are aware of the nuances and delicacies in pronouncing mantras. This is because of the genuine feeling that the notations and diacritics known to writing or printing are too limited to cope with those nuances and delicacies. And it is feared that ill-recited mantras might have evil effects. When such is the condition at present, one may imagine the situation thousands of years before when the Mahabharata line under reference was composed. Writing, though known, was a really difficult job then. The injunctions forbidding the writing of mantras have nothing to do with income or dakshina of ‘Brahmins’ for their ritualistic performances.
It must also be kept in mind that Vedic rituals needed Sutras and Paddadhatis (oral or written), not Vedic Samhitas, and writing of the Sutras and Paddhatis have never been forbidden. The painstaking efforts at mnemonic canonization too was directly related to, and a necessary consequence of underdeveloped writing methods and scarcity of writing materials.
Likes of Witzel must know that those days are gone far behind when Vedic and Harappan cultures were taken to be two totally different cultures and the history of India was considered to start with the invasion of alien and semi-barbarous Vedic Aryans on Harappan city-dwellers of the country. Today, Vedic-Harappan relationships are under serious consideration and majority view is tilting towards Vedic-Harappan identity. It is the right time for them to get rid of the now discredited Vedic-Harappan dichotomy syndrome.
The earlier image of culturally backward and warlike Vedic Aryans persisted for long but is considered no more valid today. In fact, it has drastically changed. The assertion of R. S. Sharma in 1983 that ‘till at least the composition of the family books of the Rigveda, the Aryans were largely nomadic pastoralists ignorant of settled agriculturists life’ may be cited as one of the last examples of upholding the old view. For only some six years later R. N. Nandi, one of Sharma’s own students (nay, a disciple), contradicted him. “Not much exercise is needed”, said he, “to show that permanent dwellings, which together with fertile fields constitute the nuclei of sedentary life, already dominate the family portions of the Rigveda” (Nandi 1989-90:45). About four years later came yet another emphatic statement. “Rigveda”, asserted Bhagwan Singh, “is agog with mercantile activities undertaken by its traders against all conceivable odds” (Singh 1993:192). These examples are sufficient enough to show how researches have gradually but quickly and decisively changed the perverted colonial notions about the culture of Early Vedic Aryans. All the three scholars quoted here, it may incidentally be noted, are Marxists which clearly shows that research findings, not a difference in ideology, has brought about this change in perception. The contempt towards Vedic people was rooted in their earlier barbarous image. But, now, when that image is totally transformed, can Witzel be justified for his continued contemptuous attitude towards Vedic Aryans?
Witzel must accept the Vedic historical reality. Replacing labels (invasion to migration to trickling-in, etc.) won’t suffice. Shifting context of discussions from Aryan invasion/migration to Vedic canonization and all such other efforts at sophistication will not succeed. Garbing the issues in a new jargon and cosmetic surgeries like the ones aimed at portraying literate Harappans as illiterate Harappans or Dravidian-speaking Harappans as Proto-Munda-speaking Harappans will be fruitless. Academic honesty demands us to be brave enough to accept reality even though it might generate a feeling of melancholy that, alas, best part of our lives were spent running after mirages.
But, then, that colloquial saying comes to my mind: ‘you can awake a person who is sleeping, not a person pretending to sleep’!
References
Nandi, R. N. 1989-90. Archaeology and the Rigveda. The Indian Historical Review 16(1-2): 35-79.
Sharma, R. S. 1983. Material Culture and Social Formations in ancient India.Madras: Macmillan India.
Singh, Bhagwan 1993. Trade and commerce in the Vedic age. In S. B. Deo and Suryanath Kamath (eds.): The Aryan Problem, pp. 192-210. Pune: Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Samiti.
Prof. Shivaji Singh
July 22, 2013
Note: This post and assemblages of links expose and refute the motivated statements made by Witzel wearing an academic garb (burqa) to debunk Hindu civilization and traditions.
July 22, 2013
Note: This post and assemblages of links expose and refute the motivated statements made by Witzel wearing an academic garb (burqa) to debunk Hindu civilization and traditions.
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/07/srotriya-brahmana-and-oralwritten.html Śrotriya brāhmaṇa and oral/written preservation of the Veda
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/07/were-vedic-people-illiterate-and-did.html Were Vedic people illiterate and did they oppose literacy? A riposte to the canard spread by a Harvard Professor.
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/07/taksat-vak-incised-speech-evidence-of.html Takṣat vāk, ‘incised speech’ -- Evidence of Indus writing of Meluhha language in Ancient Near East (S. Kalyanaraman, July 2013)
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/07/chandas-pingala-bhasa-limits-of-writing.html
Chandas (Pingala), bhāṣā, limits of writing systems to encode Veda chants or mathematics of poetry and music