Sei sulla pagina 1di 2


Let us look at the whole question from the standpoint of the chronological sequence that the Aryan invasion theorists offer us and compare all events in that light in order to hazard a guess as to what would have precisely happened. Greek Literature had made its first ever appearance around 800 BC., while that in Latin began to appear since 240 BC. The Buddha was born in the 5th century, while it was more or less a millenium since Sanskrit fell into disuse and became a dead language though it continued to be used by learned gentry in India for literary and liturgical purposes. The common populace was, however, no more in a position to make sense of the language, and it was for this specific reason that the Buddha had to employ Pali, a derivative of Sanskrit for propagating his doctrines. Therefore it follows that Greek and Latin are contemporary to the corrupt dialects derived from Sanskrit but not contemporary to Sanskrit itself. No one even in Europe had ever heard of the very names of Greek and Latin in an epoch when Sanskrit was still a vibrant living speech in India. So, both these classical languages of Europe must have been the daughters of Sanskrit but not the sisters of her own age-group like it is now being trumpeted by the champions of the Proto Indo-European hypothesis. But it still remains an unravelled secret as to at what point in history and for what reason the classical languages of India and Europe are connected. At this juncture, I think it may not be entirely out of context to note that it is difficult to examine the language question in its totality without factoring in the history of the ethnic populations who first spoke it as their mother tongue. The Indus valley civilization collapsed around 2000 BC. As I have already stated elsewhere, there are a few compelleing reasons to believe that the Indus people were a Sanskrit-speaking nation. Hence, my deep-seated, yet admittedly unconfirmed suspicion is, that the modern white Europeans could be none other than the descendants of the Indus people who might have migrated westwards in huge droves after their civilization was ravaged by a decades -long drought. As of now, I can not lay over-emphasis on this postulation as it is open to further investigation and debate. Today, we are in possession of scant evidence to be sure about exactly how many Harappans took recourse to this measure and why all of them had to choose exclusively the westward path for their migratory journey. I remember reading somewhere that our populations increased approximately 15-fold in 800 years. At this rate, the probable number of the ProtoGermanic people whom I guess to be the earliest migrants from the Indus valley to Europe should be in the region of 12 million souls, because their net population in Europe at present stands at a notch below 180 million. Considering the distance (3,300 kms) between the Indus valley and the heart of Europe (say, from Karachi to Berlin), I guess it was not impossible to cover the same within 1 - 2 years at the rate of 10 - 20 kilometres per day on foot, physical limitations of women, children, the old and infirm as well as their occasional sojourns - all taken into account. One plausible explanation for this preference for the westward migration could be that the entire sub-continent, not just the Indus valley, was reeling under an extreme form of drought at that time, thereby precluding an alternative route. The then Europe might be largely desolate or a land with sporadic human habitation. Owing to their wide-ranging trade contacts, the Indus people can be assumed to be in the know of the information about different parts of the world and the circumstances there. Also, the migration would have taken place not for once or in a year, and not even in a single decade but spanned over several in separate waves of migration, as rainfall in the

Indus valley at that time was probably erratic and insufficient, but not absent altogether, thereby temporarily offering the people some faint hope to stay on there for some more time. Subsequently, the territory was perhaps abandoned for good once the residents realized that situation was showing few signs of improvement. So, different European languages now exhibit varying degrees of proximity to Sanskrit, the closest being Latin and Greek and the farthest being the Germanic sub-family, depending on when they (the first speakers of the present linguistic sub-families) migrated. The dialects of those who migrated very early had moved farther from Sanskrit in their structure and the dialects of those who did later, retained most features of their Indian parent. From this angle, the Germanic sub-family historically precedes Latin and Greek, though this possibility runs contrary to the popular belief prevailing in Europe, for obviously it was the latter which had traditionally influenced the former. One reason for this paradox could be that the earliest Germanic speakers were, in course of their long travails of migration, stripped of all the intellectual advantage from their civilized past. They were busy braving the unfamiliar climatic and other local conditions in Europe and learning to rebuild a civilization from scratch for long upon their arrival from the Indus valley. In contrast, the ancestors of the Hellenic and Roman people (a latter wave of migrants) were fortunate to boast of a double civilizational edge in the form of their memoirs and knowledge about their just abandoned ancestral home as well as their newly adopted home Europe, which was already turned somewhat habitable, thanks to generations of hard work put in by the early birds, the Proto-Germanic people. To me, however, there is nothing surprising in all this, for throughout the course of the history of mankind, we find that it is always the late-born nations who are more powerful and superior to the rest in matters of civilization and military might while the old-timers are condemned to decay and pay obeisance to them in every respect. -TADEPALLI LALITHA BALA SUBRAHMANYAM In his Roots of Civilization March 2014