 |
 |
Prof. Hoole
I refer to the article titled Sanskritization of Shri Lanka by Prof. S. Ratnajeevan
H. Hoole.
Prof. Hoole has displayed a deep sense of prejudice and ignorance against
Sanskrit. He fails to realize that both Tamil and Sinhala have long been
Sanskritized languages.
Tamil and Sanskrit have been closely intertwined for centuries. It is impossible
to separate them. The two ancient languages share a large vocabulary. In fact,
without Sanskrit, Tamil would be rendered meaningless.
Therefore, his attempt to achieve linguistic purity by expunging`A0Sanskrit from
Tamil is a futile cause. Prof. Hoole expressed a similar sentiment in his book
CW Thamotharampillai, Tamil Revivalist: The Man Behind the Legend of Tamil
Nationalism. His argument sounds eerily like the arguments for racial purity.
The basic problem with ethnic identity in Sri Lanka (as in the rest of South Asia)
is that the society has been intoxicated by this bogus Aryan/Dravidian theory.
That is why so many Sinhalese and Tamils, particularly those from the Iyer,
Karava, and Salagama communities, are enamored by the Varna classification.
As Prof. Hoole correctly points out, many Karava, Salagama and Durawa (KSD)
Sinhalese will go to any length to deny their South Indian origins.
At the forefront of this denial is the great historian whom Prof. Hoole refers to -
Prof. Kingsley Muthumuni de Silva. Like many other members of the Salagama
community, Prof de Silva is uncomfortable with his South Indian origins
I wonder whether Prof. Hoole is aware that the Aryan invasion of India`A0is
being increasing discredited by historians. The Aryan/Dravidian theory may be
useful as a linguistic theory, but it should not be confused with culture and race.
Even as a linguistic theory, it is limited. There is so much Sanskrit in Kannada,
Tamil and Telugu. Also, Gujarati, Sinhalese and Oriya have strong "Dravidian"
characteristics. Also, recent research by Iravatham Mahadevan on the origins
of scripts of Indian languages (including Sinhala) argue that they have a
common origins in the Brahmi script.
So, the North Indian scripts (such as Devanagari, Bengali, Gujarati) have the
same origin as the South Indian scripts (such as Kannada, Tamil, Telugu). Prof
Hoole will be well served to refer to Aryans and North India by Trautman (1997),
which questions the basic tenets of Aryan/Dravidian theory.
Perhaps, like Prof. Kingsley Muthumuni de Silva, Prof. Hoole has a complex of
his own. Prof. Hoole's ancestors changed their names and religion to ape the
colonial masters.
By doing so they turned their back on the Sanskrit/Vedanta tradition. Prof.
Hoole will be well-served to avoid repeating the discredited Aryan/Dravidian
theory.
It is a curious irony that many Dravidianists ranging from Prof S. Ratnajeevan
H. Hoole, DMK leader Karunidhi and LTTE leader Prabhakaran all have
Sanskrit names!
Rifat Halim
Colombo
of Shri Lanka
By Prof. Ratnajeevan H.
Hoole
from Prof.
Hoole
I thank Rifat Halim for his reply, but he seems to have missed the point.
I have no quarrel with a language growing into greater expressiveness as all
useful languages do. I would be the first to concede as I have in my piece that
the earliest known Tamil text is already Sanskritized. Indeed, my children do
have ancestral, Tamil, Sanskrit, and Christian names as I do. My objections,
rather than being linguistic, are sociological and observations anthropological.
What I object to, as a discerning reading of my piece would show, is thinking
the borrowed version of a word to be superior to the older word. I do object to
people hiding their names that parents proudly gave them, particularly when it
is to hide their Tamil roots. I am ashamed of those who think that sh psh
sounds are somehow superior to those from the natural rules of ones own
language. I really snigger at those who, for example, borrow the English word
bulb without change in speaking Tamil but laugh at the villager who correctly
adapts the word to say palip in accordance with the rules of Tamil. What flows
from this is the attitude of inferiority where for sexual intercourse the Tamil word
ole is filthy but the Sanskrit-based word punarthal is clean and scientific, fit for
print. Similarly for the word vagina, the Tamil word pundai is dirty and used only
by men in their drunkenness but the Sanskrit yoni is clean enough for religious
and school texts. With this blind inexorable adaptation, as I have shown, the
child-friendly characteristics of our culture have gone out. Sexism against
women has been increased. We have been cowed into feeling so inferior as to
call a child at once by several very loving private names in the privacy of our
homes (such as the equivalents of pet, small-one, little king, parrot, kid, king,
queen, princess, beauty, etc.) and some artificial name outside whose meaning
has to be explained to most of our own people. Let us borrow and adapt
language as we must, but without feeling that the older and natural forms are
dirty and inferior.
And, indeed, I have no problems with my ancestors changing religion and name
either. They simply followed in all aspects what they perceived as the divine
command to "to put off the old man with His deeds, and put on the new man
who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him."
Prof. S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole
Colombo
 |
 |