#StopHindiImposition Protests [ Only for Tammys ] !!!

[Real McCoy]

30 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

You didn't take credit away from Bollywood for Johnny Lever. He is from the South too! He is from Andhra/Telangana.

Recently I came across the comic tour de force that is Peecha Karo. Watch it if you find the time. Hilarious.

I will watch but I don't think Lever is that funny. But from what I saw, his comedy is atleast clean. Not like the BC MC comedy of these days

[coffee_rules]

7 hours ago, ash said:

 

There is actual archeological evidence to prove that Tamil is the oldest language in India. We all know who is trying to "find" ways to prove the other language is the oldest in the universe and was a devabasha, without any evidence. 

 

By all means , let people prove that sanskrit is older, but until it is proven, people should stop trying to hijack the conversation everytime Tamil is mentioned, out of pure jealousy.

 

That archelogical debate is coming from zealots in TNAD. ASI excavations in Keezadi was dating artifacts to 300 BCE with some Tamil Brahmi script. This was in 2015-16, then the ASI backed out because of severe backlash from Tamizhian political groups who were feeding on the Tamil pride. Excavations were stopped and now armed by SC decree TNAD continues the excavations with some recent findings. TN Govt and people are very encouraged by vested interests in Keezadi and it has become a political ground to a scientific based areas of linguistics and archeology.   There are also veeragallus (Hero-stones) in Tamil Brahmi script that is still being deciphered. But these vested interests have a rossetta stone guide developed to connect IVC script to Tamizhi (Tamil Brahmi) script and connecting the dots of IVC being a dravidian civilization and thus proving AIT. Read this article for better understand of Keezadi findings.

 

https://www.asiaville.in/article/keezhadi-charcoal-and-tamil-brahmi-16157

 

”””””

While Tamil zealots celebrated the TNAD’s announcement that the Tamil Brahmi could now be dated to 580 BCE on the basis of the dating of a charcoal sample to that date, scholars in Tamil Brahmi are sceptical about the claim. The announcement was music to the ears of the Tamil enthusiasts because they argued that Tamil Brahmi had evolved independently of the Asokan Brahmi and that it was pre-Asokan. But sceptical scholars argued that “multiple carbon dates” were needed to establish that Tamil-Brahmi’s origin could be pushed back to 6th century BCE. What led them to raise questions was that the report and another colourful 60-page booklet prepared by the TNAD on Keezhadi did not mention whether the charcoal sample and two Tamil Brahmi potsherds in question occurred in the same  sedimentary layer or stratigraphy in the same trench. Top TNAD officials were cagey when specialists in Tamil Brahmi script and journalists asked them whether the charcoal piece and the two potsherds with the Tamil Brahmi script occurred in the same layer.  After this writer made repeated inquiries with several TNAD officials, two of them said two potsherds, each with two Tamil Brahmi letters, occurred in the same layer as that of the charcoal piece.  One of the potsherds carried the letters “thi tha.” The TNAD officials did not remember what the Tamil Brahmi letters were on the second potsherd. One of them said while one of the two potsherds was found at a depth of 300 cm, the charcoal piece was located at a depth of 353 cm. But they were in the same layer, he claimed.  

 

“””””

There are no archelogical evidences to prove the antiquity of Sanskrit. Pali scropts of Asokan era is in a script that has been translated by linguists / Indologists in the 19th century have written the History of India. Sanskrit was written in many scripts and also leading to Brahmi scipts. The manuscripts are only about 1500 years old, but much of the vedas were transmitted orally across  generations. The best example is the scriptures found in Iran dating back to 1700 BCE with names of kings which are Vedic. Indo-Iranians migrating westwards is already mentioned in Rigveda. With that evidence, it can be proven that age of Rigveda is about 5000 years old. 

 

Listen to this discussion by Shrikane Talageri who has written 3 books on this subject. It was Max Mueller who decided to date Rigveda to 1500 BC based on linguistics. This was based on grammer and words used in contemporary times that matches the verses. He just added randomly 200 years from the date of Upanishads for the 4 vedas and claimed Rigveda to be 1500 BC . All linguists and historians are stuck to this timeline with no evidence historical/archoelogical otherwise. There are ways to connect archeological findings (hence dating) to languages. It is an approximation, but in case of Sanskrit it is considered so dated that differnent scripts are used at different times.  There is no selfie available to show Valmiki writing the Ramayana with date showing 1900 BC, if you are looking for one.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

8 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

There is that name again. The poster you were responding to didn't bring that up. So why bring that up unless you have a fixation with everything Tamil. this topic was dead for all this while. You just want to revive this old thread. Did you search it in the search bar with "stophindiimposition". That's really pathetic you've been doing this for a long time so its not even funny anymore. so I have to agree with @Vilander of his perspective about you. 

PM is appealing to the normal Tamils not the lemurian types unless you changed your definition of lemurains to mean all Tamils. where is your gujju friend ghoda. he must have a hard on on this topics just like you.

I am too lazy to open new threads. I would have bumped "TN Elections" , but you guys have got it closed for some reason. So, I include all such discussion in this thread. 

[Real McCoy]

58 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

I am too lazy to open new threads. I would have bumped "TN Elections" , but you guys have got it closed for some reason. So, I include all such discussion in this thread. 

Why don't you discuss things that are wrong in Ktk for a change I've never seen you do that in my time here in ICF. But you are ready for TN. yow poviya 

[Real McCoy]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

 

That archelogical debate is coming from zealots in TNAD. ASI excavations in Keezadi was dating artifacts to 300 BCE with some Tamil Brahmi script. This was in 2015-16, then the ASI backed out because of severe backlash from Tamizhian political groups who were feeding on the Tamil pride. Excavations were stopped and now armed by SC decree TNAD continues the excavations with some recent findings. TN Govt and people are very encouraged by vested interests in Keezadi and it has become a political ground to a scientific based areas of linguistics and archeology.   There are also veeragallus (Hero-stones) in Tamil Brahmi script that is still being deciphered. But these vested interests have a rossetta stone guide developed to connect IVC script to Tamizhi (Tamil Brahmi) script and connecting the dots of IVC being a dravidian civilization and thus proving AIT. Read this article for better understand of Keezadi findings.

 

https://www.asiaville.in/article/keezhadi-charcoal-and-tamil-brahmi-16157

 

”””””

While Tamil zealots celebrated the TNAD’s announcement that the Tamil Brahmi could now be dated to 580 BCE on the basis of the dating of a charcoal sample to that date, scholars in Tamil Brahmi are sceptical about the claim. The announcement was music to the ears of the Tamil enthusiasts because they argued that Tamil Brahmi had evolved independently of the Asokan Brahmi and that it was pre-Asokan. But sceptical scholars argued that “multiple carbon dates” were needed to establish that Tamil-Brahmi’s origin could be pushed back to 6th century BCE. What led them to raise questions was that the report and another colourful 60-page booklet prepared by the TNAD on Keezhadi did not mention whether the charcoal sample and two Tamil Brahmi potsherds in question occurred in the same  sedimentary layer or stratigraphy in the same trench. Top TNAD officials were cagey when specialists in Tamil Brahmi script and journalists asked them whether the charcoal piece and the two potsherds with the Tamil Brahmi script occurred in the same layer.  After this writer made repeated inquiries with several TNAD officials, two of them said two potsherds, each with two Tamil Brahmi letters, occurred in the same layer as that of the charcoal piece.  One of the potsherds carried the letters “thi tha.” The TNAD officials did not remember what the Tamil Brahmi letters were on the second potsherd. One of them said while one of the two potsherds was found at a depth of 300 cm, the charcoal piece was located at a depth of 353 cm. But they were in the same layer, he claimed.  

 

“””””

There are no archelogical evidences to prove the antiquity of Sanskrit. Pali scropts of Asokan era is in a script that has been translated by linguists / Indologists in the 19th century have written the History of India. Sanskrit was written in many scripts and also leading to Brahmi scipts. The manuscripts are only about 1500 years old, but much of the vedas were transmitted orally across  generations. The best example is the scriptures found in Iran dating back to 1700 BCE with names of kings which are Vedic. Indo-Iranians migrating westwards is already mentioned in Rigveda. With that evidence, it can be proven that age of Rigveda is about 5000 years old. 

 

Listen to this discussion by Shrikane Talageri who has written 3 books on this subject. It was Max Mueller who decided to date Rigveda to 1500 BC based on linguistics. This was based on grammer and words used in contemporary times that matches the verses. He just added randomly 200 years from the date of Upanishads for the 4 vedas and claimed Rigveda to be 1500 BC . All linguists and historians are stuck to this timeline with no evidence historical/archoelogical otherwise. There are ways to connect archeological findings (hence dating) to languages. It is an approximation, but in case of Sanskrit it is considered so dated that differnent scripts are used at different times.  There is no selfie available to show Valmiki writing the Ramayana with date showing 1900 BC, if you are looking for one.

 

 

you just wanted a fight between you and that communist friend of yours because this fight never ends and you want it that way. not reading the wall of text of yours. lets just say that Sanskrit and Tamil are very old languages and its moot to figure which one is oldest. This is like determining which tennis player out of the big 3 is the best.

[ash]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

 

That archelogical debate is coming from zealots in TNAD. ASI excavations in Keezadi was dating artifacts to 300 BCE with some Tamil Brahmi script. This was in 2015-16, then the ASI backed out because of severe backlash from Tamizhian political groups who were feeding on the Tamil pride. Excavations were stopped and now armed by SC decree TNAD continues the excavations with some recent findings. TN Govt and people are very encouraged by vested interests in Keezadi and it has become a political ground to a scientific based areas of linguistics and archeology.   There are also veeragallus (Hero-stones) in Tamil Brahmi script that is still being deciphered. But these vested interests have a rossetta stone guide developed to connect IVC script to Tamizhi (Tamil Brahmi) script and connecting the dots of IVC being a dravidian civilization and thus proving AIT. Read this article for better understand of Keezadi findings.

 

https://www.asiaville.in/article/keezhadi-charcoal-and-tamil-brahmi-16157

 

”””””

While Tamil zealots celebrated the TNAD’s announcement that the Tamil Brahmi could now be dated to 580 BCE on the basis of the dating of a charcoal sample to that date, scholars in Tamil Brahmi are sceptical about the claim. The announcement was music to the ears of the Tamil enthusiasts because they argued that Tamil Brahmi had evolved independently of the Asokan Brahmi and that it was pre-Asokan. But sceptical scholars argued that “multiple carbon dates” were needed to establish that Tamil-Brahmi’s origin could be pushed back to 6th century BCE. What led them to raise questions was that the report and another colourful 60-page booklet prepared by the TNAD on Keezhadi did not mention whether the charcoal sample and two Tamil Brahmi potsherds in question occurred in the same  sedimentary layer or stratigraphy in the same trench. Top TNAD officials were cagey when specialists in Tamil Brahmi script and journalists asked them whether the charcoal piece and the two potsherds with the Tamil Brahmi script occurred in the same layer.  After this writer made repeated inquiries with several TNAD officials, two of them said two potsherds, each with two Tamil Brahmi letters, occurred in the same layer as that of the charcoal piece.  One of the potsherds carried the letters “thi tha.” The TNAD officials did not remember what the Tamil Brahmi letters were on the second potsherd. One of them said while one of the two potsherds was found at a depth of 300 cm, the charcoal piece was located at a depth of 353 cm. But they were in the same layer, he claimed.  

 

“””””

There are no archelogical evidences to prove the antiquity of Sanskrit. Pali scropts of Asokan era is in a script that has been translated by linguists / Indologists in the 19th century have written the History of India. Sanskrit was written in many scripts and also leading to Brahmi scipts. The manuscripts are only about 1500 years old, but much of the vedas were transmitted orally across  generations. The best example is the scriptures found in Iran dating back to 1700 BCE with names of kings which are Vedic. Indo-Iranians migrating westwards is already mentioned in Rigveda. With that evidence, it can be proven that age of Rigveda is about 5000 years old. 

 

Listen to this discussion by Shrikane Talageri who has written 3 books on this subject. It was Max Mueller who decided to date Rigveda to 1500 BC based on linguistics. This was based on grammer and words used in contemporary times that matches the verses. He just added randomly 200 years from the date of Upanishads for the 4 vedas and claimed Rigveda to be 1500 BC . All linguists and historians are stuck to this timeline with no evidence historical/archoelogical otherwise. There are ways to connect archeological findings (hence dating) to languages. It is an approximation, but in case of Sanskrit it is considered so dated that differnent scripts are used at different times.  There is no selfie available to show Valmiki writing the Ramayana with date showing 1900 BC, if you are looking for one.

 

 

I have read both his work and Tony Joseph's Early Indians. While Tony Joesph tries to prove his point logically, talegeris book seems lika an old man's rant. 

 

Consider this, Talegeris whole point to prove Rigveda's timeline is some obscure text in Iran with Vedic names.. But he did not answer logically  if the names came from Iran to India or Vice versa. He never tried to disprove the genetics angle, even accepting it's authenticity in some places. And most important of them all, there is no explanation on why there is absolutely no mention of the Vedas or the vedic lifestyle in Indus valley civilization.

 

Indus script is considered by many to be Proto Dravidian. There are symbols from Keezhadi which match the script from the Indus valley ruins. The Keezhadi architecture is also similar to the Indus valley ruins.

 

The logical conclusion is the Indus valley civilization migrated south after its demise around 2000 BC, which is clear from the similarity with Keezhadi. And the early settlers wrote Rigveda around 1500 BC. Whether they met or not, whether the Indo Aryans drove the Indus valley Dravidians to the south, no one knows. 

 

So unless we find some more evidence, the CURRENT archeological finding places Tamil to be older than sanskrit. If it changes in the future, I am happy to change my stand. 

[ash]

14 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

you just wanted a fight between you and that communist friend of yours because this fight never ends and you want it that way. not reading the wall of text of yours. lets just say that Sanskrit and Tamil are very old languages and its moot to figure which one is oldest. This is like determining which tennis player out of the big 3 is the best.

This imbecile has a very valid point. There is no pure race as such. Even if someone claims to be a pure Brahmin now, 10 generations back his ancestors might be Muslims. Or Vice Versa.

 

India is a multicultural place with centuries of mixing of cultures. No one can be a pure Aryan or Dravidian now. So unless we get a clear proof on which is correct, out of India or Aryan invasion theory, there is no point in arguing further. 

[Real McCoy]

5 minutes ago, ash said:

This imbecile has a very valid point. There is no pure race as such. Even if someone claims to be a pure Brahmin now, 10 generations back his ancestors might be Muslims. Or Vice Versa.

 

India is a multicultural place with centuries of mixing of cultures. No one can be a pure Aryan or Dravidian now. So unless we get a clear proof on which is correct, out of India or Aryan invasion theory, there is no point in arguing further. 

oh you are claiming that you are some intellectual If you had any brains, communism and reservation has benefited nobody. you talk about aryan dravidian. there was no such thing before the english. arya means a noble person. dravida is a sanskrit name to denote those living in the peninsula. you trust the english at your peril. english have a superiority mindset which is not even common among other europeans. see how they treated the Irish and had a fratricidal war against the Germans out of jealousy. the higher up you go in the english heirarchy, they have their ties to egypt and the one place in the middle east that must not be mentioned. Lets just say they believe they are chosen by their God to conquer the whole world. again your head must be spinning. take it easy and lie down and stop running your mouth

[ash]

23 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

oh you are claiming that you are some intellectual If you had any brains, communism and reservation has benefited nobody. you talk about aryan dravidian. there was no such thing before the english. arya means a noble person. dravida is a sanskrit name to denote those living in the peninsula. you trust the english at your peril. english have a superiority mindset which is not even common among other europeans. see how they treated the Irish and had a fratricidal war against the Germans out of jealousy. the higher up you go in the english heirarchy, they have their ties to egypt and the one place in the middle east that must not be mentioned. Lets just say they believe they are chosen by their God to conquer the whole world. again your head must be spinning. take it easy and lie down and stop running your mouth

Lol. So easy to trigger you.  It's like showing biscuit to a rabid dog. Continue

[Real McCoy]

1 minute ago, ash said:

Lol. So easy to trigger you.  It's like showing biscuit to a rabid dog. Continue

I'm calm as a cucumber. Your tamas is making you deluded child

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, ash said:

This imbecile has a very valid point. There is no pure race as such. Even if someone claims to be a pure Brahmin now, 10 generations back his ancestors might be Muslims. Or Vice Versa.

 

India is a multicultural place with centuries of mixing of cultures. No one can be a pure Aryan or Dravidian now. So unless we get a clear proof on which is correct, out of India or Aryan invasion theory, there is no point in arguing further. 

If you convert out of Islam in our ancestors times, we would not be living. From medieval times till this age, people coming out of Islam, don’t have a guarantee on their existence (don’t give me anecdotal evidence ). So having a narrative of Brahmin ancestors could be Muslims is a communist or a woke/progressive one.

 

You used a word -Aryan! Do you believe a sect of people in Central Asia rode out and created a system to deprive indefensible indigenous people right to existence? 

[Real McCoy]

13 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

If you convert out of Islam in our ancestors times, we would not be living. From medieval times till this age, people coming out of Islam, don’t have a guarantee on their existence (don’t give me anecdotal evidence ). So having a narrative of Brahmin ancestors could be Muslims is a communist or a woke/progressive one.

 

You used a word -Aryan! Do you believe a sect of people in Central Asia rode out and created a system to deprive indefensible indigenous people right to existence? 

I knew a bangladeshi atheist in US who got harangued by the local muslim leaders to come back to their fold. You can imagine the plight of being an atheist let alone changing to a different religion from muslim to others in medieval times. Here is woke logic for you. on the one hand, muslims were so peaceful in medieval times to give natives freedom of religion and were ok with changing from muslim to hindu but evil aryans rode out from the caucasus mountains and deprived the natives of their own religious choices. Hinduism has its failings too and current muslims are not that bad as the media would have you believe but we need to call BS on these commie pushers. I'm actually ok with any religion just not the communists/hardcore atheists

Edited September 13, 2021 by Real McCoy

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, ash said:

I have read both his work and Tony Joseph's Early Indians. While Tony Joesph tries to prove his point logically, talegeris book seems lika an old man's rant. 

 

Consider this, Talegeris whole point to prove Rigveda's timeline is some obscure text in Iran with Vedic names.. But he did not answer logically  if the names came from Iran to India or Vice versa. He never tried to disprove the genetics angle, even accepting it's authenticity in some places. And most important of them all, there is no explanation on why there is absolutely no mention of the Vedas or the vedic lifestyle in Indus valley civilization.

 

Indus script is considered by many to be Proto Dravidian. There are symbols from Keezhadi which match the script from the Indus valley ruins. The Keezhadi architecture is also similar to the Indus valley ruins.

 

The logical conclusion is the Indus valley civilization migrated south after its demise around 2000 BC, which is clear from the similarity with Keezhadi. And the early settlers wrote Rigveda around 1500 BC. Whether they met or not, whether the Indo Aryans drove the Indus valley Dravidians to the south, no one knows. 

 

So unless we find some more evidence, the CURRENT archeological finding places Tamil to be older than sanskrit. If it changes in the future, I am happy to change my stand. 

You are ranting with no proof or links to debate on. What is the current archeological finding that proves Tamil is older than Sanskrit ? Let’s break it down.

 

Panini Ashradhyaayi and Rigveda itself is proving it is older than 570bce. What is the 3200/4500 IVC link to Tamil Bramhi, it is a fantasy dream as Lemurian. Show me some serious evidence rather TNAD report or TN Govt funded research.

 

Avesta is dated at 1700bce, there is no proof of eastward movement from that era only after CE. Eastward movement is a AIT construct with no archeological or literary evidence. Westward movement has reference in Rigveda and also archeological evidences 

Tony Joseph’s  fantasy interpretation of David Reich’s genetics research paper (still debatable and not established facts) as Bible showing how Aryans rode on horses and plundered villages along the way and established endogamist caste system is comical. You know he is a journalist? You will call Shrikant Telegiri as a rant. When he has the backing of linguists of IE knowledge. 

[Real McCoy]

4 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

You are ranting with no proof or links to debate on. What is the current archeological finding that proves Tamil is older than Sanskrit ? Let’s break it down.

 

Panini Ashradhyaayi and Rigveda itself is proving it is older than 570bce. What is the 3200/4500 IVC link to Tamil Bramhi, it is a fantasy dream as Lemurian. Show me some serious evidence rather TNAD report or TN Govt funded research.

 

Avesta is dated at 1700bce, there is no proof of eastward movement from that era only after CE. Eastward movement is a AIT construct with no archeological or literary evidence. Westward movement has reference in Rigveda and also archeological evidences 

Tony Joseph’s  fantasy interpretation of David Reich’s genetics research paper (still debatable and not established facts) as Bible showing how Aryans rode on horses and plundered villages along the way and established endogamist caste system is comical. You know he is a journalist? You will call Shrikant Telegiri as a rant. When he has the backing of linguists of IE knowledge. 

I gave a decent reply to him and all he came back with was a smug reply. This guy lacks the brain power to do actual research or atleast do any critical thinking of his own. All he can come up with is that we are some mixed race with no heritage and need more mixing to dilute every class boundaries. That's classic commie philosophy. I have no inclination to read tony mctony's work but I bet its somewhere along those lines. That's how the English thought about the Irish and our situation is far worse.

Even EVR claimed Tamil as a kaatumirandi bashai (wild man's tongue). Ask this commie about it. He will disappear from this scene. For a mutt with no heritage, less rights are given and the English used this as a moral right to rule us as like pets and animals. Hence the divine right to rule philosophy of the British. This is a tribe that uses cunning as a compliment when they are the ones doing it to divide and conquer. Shows how divine they are Respect to the normal English as I don't want to sound like a bigot because some of them genuinely cared about us and a lot of them do as any human will. But these things have to be said regarding the British higher ups and their minions.

[coffee_rules]

Sanskrit antiquity is an established linguistic , archeological and Dharmic (remember I didn’t use the word theology which is an Abrahamic word) pursuit. . Most of them align to 1500bce to 3000bce as the timeline for Sanskrit. I say linguist because of 19th century European and missionary Indologists in pursuit of a homeland for their languages saw the similarity in European languages and Sanskrit. That is where the AIT was born.

 

I am interested in any paper that establishes Sanskrit that it is old as only 5bce. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

Today is Hindi Divas. 
 

 

[Vilander]

21 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

There is that name again. The poster you were responding to didn't bring that up. So why bring that up unless you have a fixation with everything Tamil. this topic was dead for all this while. You just want to revive this old thread. Did you search it in the search bar with "stophindiimposition". That's really pathetic you've been doing this for a long time so its not even funny anymore. so I have to agree with @Vilander of his perspective about you. 

PM is appealing to the normal Tamils not the lemurian types unless you changed your definition of lemurains to mean all Tamils. where is your gujju friend ghoda. he must have a hard on on this topics just like you.

 

Hey man to coffee and all dumb fcuks on here you be like... 

 

 

 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

And we are a secular country. HC advocating how to pray in temples. Laanat hain. Now HC wants to StopSanskritImposition. Judicial overreach 

I don’t believe in the Devabhaasha tag to Sanskrit., that has caused the language to become inaccessible to common folk

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

Kannada organisations stage protests against 'Hindi imposition' - on Hindi Divas day

[ash]

3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Kannada organisations stage protests against 'Hindi imposition' - on Hindi Divas day

Nice to see Kannadiga brothers waking up atlast. What's happening in Bengaluru is shocking.