Re: Partition from India OR Independence from British Legacy??
Abhiman/Ssingh:
I can understand how sensitive these issues can be to you being nationalist Hindus/Indians, but try to think rationally instead of being emotional.
Again, just because some languages (Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Bengali, etc.) in north India are derived from ancient Sanskrit does not make these distinct languages/nations as one people. I gave you the example of Spanish-speaking Guatemala and Italian-speaking Italy whose languages are derived from ancient Latin yet both nations/languages are very different. Italian and Spanish are not ancient Latin in the same way Hindi, Gujarati, Punjabi, etc. are not ancient Sanskrit. Guatemalans and Italians are not the same people in the same way Hindi-speakers, Gujaratis, Punjabis, Bengalis, etc. are not the same people. Furthermore, while there are partial traces of Sanskrit ancestory in today's Indo-Aryan language, their direct ancestor are ancient Prakrit languages. Sanskrit was never the language of the masses, it were the different Prakrits.
Sanskrit is a dead language in the sense that it is not the mother-tongue of any present-day ethnic group. An ancient language being taught in some universities or learnt for religious/scholarly purposes does not make that language a living language, nor does a small village's recent adoption of this language. There is not a single ethnic group in the world whose language is Sanskrit (including the Dravidian Kannada-speaking Karnataka).
We all know how Dravidian languages (including Tamil) have nothing to do with Sanskrit and Indo-Aryan languages. Then Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in northeast India like Manipuri, Naga, Bodo, Adi, Mizo, Tripuri, etc. have no relationship with Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages. Nor does the Austro-Asiatic languages spoken in parts of central/east India such as Khasi, Korku, Koraput Munda, Kharia-Juang, etc. have any relationship with them.
Now coming back to Sanskrit, this language (Sanskrit, Vedic) was native to Pakistan region and was later on spread to India. Panini, the father of Sanskrit grammar also belonged to Pakistan region, not India. So Hindus/Indians should thank the ancestors of Pakistanis for spreading their language to them. For example, according to Kausitaki-Brahmana 7.6, "In the northern region (Pakistan), speech is spoken particularly distinct. People (Indians) go to the north to learn speech. Or if someone comes from there they like to hear/ learn from him ... For this is known as the region of speech."
As far as Brahmi script is concerned, there is no doubt that it has a Semitic origin. For instance, the symbol for a resembles Semitic letter alif. Similarly, dha, tha, la, and ra all appear quite close to their Semitic counterparts. The Aramaic alphabet was the prototype of the Brahmi script. The transmission took place in the seventh century BC through trade between South Asia and Middle East. Adapting the Aramaic script to the tongue of South Asia was by no means simple or straightforward. The shapes of many Brahmi letters show clear Semitic influence. The Brahmi script was, moreover, originally written from right to left.
Dravidians (South Indians) are descendents of aborigine Australoids mixed with proto- eastern Mediterranean migrants (Megalithic era). However, there are some tribes in south and central India who are purely Australoid. By the way, there is no proof whatsover on the identity of Harappans nor did they migrate to south India. As long as the Harappan script remains undeciphered we will not know the linguistic identity of Harappans. There are all kinds of theories such as them being Indo-European, Dravidian, Semitic, Altaic, or even an isolate like Sumerian. Based on genetic and skeletal evidence, Harappans were a multi-racial people whose closest descendents are people of Punjab, Sindh, and its bordering regions.
Pakistanis are descendents of a blend from their Harappan, Rig Vedic Aryan, Persian, Greek, Scythian, Parthian, Kushan, Hephthalite, Arab, Turkic, etc. ancestory. It does not matter that Pakistanis are now mostly Muslim. Their non-Muslim past is still their heritage. You Hindus can consider my ancestor's works as "holy" but they still are my heritage not yours. Nor did my ancestors follow any religion similar to your Hinduism despite your claims: geocities.com/pak_history/nonhindu.html Today Greeks and Italians take pride at their non-Christian Hellenic and Roman past, and so can Pakistanis take pride at their non-Muslim Harappan and RigVedic Aryan past.
At least you agree that Hindustani is more popular in India. Yet this Hindustani language is labelled by most people as Hindi.
More later...