Conversation with hindutva ideologist - his views on Tamil, Sanskrit and Arabic

A few days ago, I posted the following on Facebook.
First, I would like to apologise because there is one factual mistake in this. There is one sanskrit inscription that seems to predate the Rundraman inscriptions by 25–50 years. It is dated 112 A.D. Please read about it in the link below.
I added a note to the original post in Facebook because I had been countered with myth and legends, been called names earlier for stating facts. So did not want encounter that this time.
However, out comes the hindutva ideologist and then on the conversation loses sight of its purpose.
I will only interpret portions of it but will share the post in full as pictures.
Part 1:
As you can see the conversation begins casually. He mentions Barabar caves. I mention it has Prakrit-Brahmi inscriptions. He mentions something else in the next line. I don't understand it. So I ask for clarification.
He seems to claim the Mauryan inscriptions from Barabar caves (3rd century BC - 1st century BC) are Devanagari because he has seen them. Anyone familiar with the development of scripts will know that Devanagari came much later. Before I can clarify that, he begins asking if I was saying Tamil Nadu is the only habitable place in ancient India. I had made no such claims as can be seen.
Then begins the name calling - I became a donkey and a separatist. I’m fine with people calling me names, but his tone and manner were disgraceful to the Tamil language as well.
He seems to believe that by stating facts I was alienating myself from India. He seems to imply that I will have to assume the identity of India as he perceives it. Knowing him, I know what he meant and countered it.
He finally admits that hindutvas have an agenda. He calls it minimum common agenda. And it is very apparent. Nothing other than Hindus, Hindi and Sanskrit have a place in India. Accept us and live long. Lose you identity and become us. That's the agenda.
Part 2:
Then he begins to rant on Abrahamic religions and Arabic. He goes on to call it "junk". He seems to perceive that all ills of modern day India are simply related to followers of Abrahamic religions and the religions themselves. He argues that if Islam becomes the dominant religion of TamilNadu, they wouldn’t recognise Tamil at all. I and my friend counter him with the fact that it was the orthodox hindus (not all though) force sanskrit on us. He has no argument. He also claims Arabic "junk" killed the Sarada script.
Part 3:
In this part, he begins claiming humanity prevails in India only because of hinduism has the most followers. Then comes the very interesting parts.
He claims everyone except the people of Tamil Nadu and Kerala have accepted Sanskrit, hindi and hinduism. His tone and manner seem to indicate that he thinks everyone other than "true hindus" (people who have embraced sanskrit, hindi and hinduism) are inferior to him and his gang. By accepting to be part of the hindutva movement, some inferiors have been elevated to his status while we are still inferior.
He also theorises that If Tamil Nadu were to become an Islamic state, the people of Islam will not recognise the antiquity of Tamil. When I ask him if he as a hindu accepts the antiquity, he still wouldn't. He would only accept sanskrit. So, what is the difference between Hindutva movement and the ISIS? Neither of them heed to facts. Neither of them empathise. Neither of them has a heart.
People might ask me why am I generalising? That is because whenever I post facts on languages, they are ones to jump up and down, crying out loud that Sanskrit is the mother of all languages. There is NO evidence to prove that. This is the problem with hindutva. They will trample upon languages and cultures on their way towards "glory".
Now that I see a hindutva wave (to some extent) in Tamil Nadu, I wonder what will be the fate of Tamil.
Hindutva (not to be mistaken with hinduism) will destroy all other languages of India.
- From a Hindu

Comments

raka said…
Genealogy of kings from 50,000 BC. Are you sure??? You would like to check that figure.hope you are talking about real kings not mythological entities.
Anonymous said…
Kings need not mean Emperors ruling massive empires but can also mean local tribal chiefs. King here is used to refer to popular rulers

Popular posts from this blog

The ninety-four shades of E.V. Ramasamy "Periyar" Naidu

Forbidden history: V.O. Chidambaram Pillai

Forbidden history: Vanchinathan, the young freedom fighter