Paninika Evam Sanskrut Me Dwivachan

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Paninika evam Sanskrut me Dwivachan" by Udayveer Shastri, focusing on its arguments regarding the origin of dual number in Sanskrit:

The article begins by referencing recent lectures by Dr. Parpola, a Finnish scholar, who claimed to have deciphered the Mohenjo-daro and Harappan scripts and languages. Dr. Parpola asserted that these ancient Indian languages are related to Dravidian languages, not Indo-Aryan ones. He posited that Indo-Aryans arrived in India between 1700 and 1300 BCE, displacing the indigenous Dravidians. A key piece of evidence for his theory, according to Dr. Parpola, was the use of the dual number in ancient Dravidian inscriptions. He claimed that the dual number is absent in other Indo-Aryan languages except Sanskrit, suggesting that Sanskrit borrowed it from Dravidian languages after the arrival of Aryans in India.

The author, Udayveer Shastri, then critically examines Dr. Parpola's claims, particularly the argument about the dual number.

Critique of the Dravidian Dual Number Claim:

• Scarcity of Evidence: Shastri points out that Dr. B.B. Lal, Director of the Archaeological Survey of India, had already commented that the evidence for the dual number in Dravidian inscriptions is very weak. Out of approximately 42 available Dravidian inscriptions, only one clearly shows the dual, and another shows it unclearly. Shastri argues that such minimal usage doesn't necessarily prove the dual number was an original feature of Dravidian languages; it could have been borrowed from elsewhere.

Arguments for the Indigenous Origin of Dual Number in Sanskrit:

The core of Shastri's argument revolves around establishing the period of Panini and the nature of Sanskrit usage during his time.

1. Panini's Grammar (Ashtadhyayi) as Evidence: Shastri considers Panini's Ashtadhyayi to be the most complete and authoritative Sanskrit grammar. He believes that the language used in Panini's grammatical rules provides crucial insights into his era.

2. Sanskrit as a Spoken Language in Panini's Time: Shastri argues that Panini composed his grammar at a time when Sanskrit was the vernacular language of the common people, including the uneducated, in North and Northwest India. He supports this by citing numerous examples from Ashtadhyayi where Panini validates grammatical forms used in everyday life by ordinary people:

   • Market Transactions: Terms related to selling produce, like "malakpanah, shakpanah, dhanyakpanah," were used by vegetable vendors, indicating their inclusion in Sanskrit parlance.
   • Culinary and Agricultural Terms: Panini validates terms for prepared food ("dadhikam, audarivatkam"), soups ("lavanah soupah"), and fields for growing specific grains ("preyangavinam, baiheyam, yavyam, tailinam, tillyam").
   • Dyeing and Coloring Terms: Terms used by dyers, like "majishtham, kashayam, lakshikam, rochanikam," were also validated.
   • Geographical and Dialectal Variations: Panini's rules address variations in pronunciation between people living north and south of the Vipasha (Beas) river, as evidenced by different accentuations, indicating a deep engagement with the spoken language of the region.
   • Grammatical Flexibility: Panini's allowance for both singular and plural usage for collective nouns, such as "yavah sampannah" and "yavah sampannah," reflects the flexibility of spoken language, mirroring modern agricultural parlance.

3. Revisiting Panini's Time: Shastri challenges the conventional dating of Panini to the 5th or 6th century BCE. He argues that if this were true, then Sanskrit would have been the common language in Buddha's time. However, he points out that in Buddha's era, the vernacular language was Pali or Prakrit, not Sanskrit. Therefore, Panini's time must be significantly earlier.

4. The Evolution of Prakrit: Shastri states that Prakrit languages are corrupted forms of earlier Sanskrit. He estimates that it took at least 1000-1200 years for Sanskrit to evolve into the Prakrit of Buddha's time. This suggests that if Buddha's time was around the 5th-6th century BCE, then Panini's time should be placed at least 1000-1200 years earlier, around 1800 BCE.

5. Challenging the Aryan Migration Theory's Timeline: Shastri connects this revised dating of Panini to Dr. Parpola's proposed Aryan migration period (1300-1700 BCE). He finds it illogical to suggest that Sanskrit, the language of these supposed migrants, immediately became the common language of North India upon their arrival. He questions how the Aryans could have taught Sanskrit to the entire population so quickly.

6. The Indigenous Origin of Aryans and Sanskrit: Shastri firmly asserts that Aryans did not migrate to India from elsewhere; they have always been indigenous. He claims that until the end of the Dwapara Yuga (approximately 5000 years ago), the entire population of India spoke Sanskrit. He believes that the decline of Sanskrit as a universal language began after the Mahabharata war due to subsequent calamities and the absence of prominent figures.

7. Panini's Role in Preserving Sanskrit: According to Shastri, Panini emerged about 150-200 years after this period of decline. Recognizing the rapid changes occurring in spoken language and the lack of connection with scholarly circles, Panini meticulously structured and stabilized Sanskrit through his grammar. This effort was crucial, as evidenced by the need for Katyayana to later compose Varttikas to address further changes and variations, thereby preserving Sanskrit.

8. Sanskrit's Independent Evolution: Shastri emphasizes that Sanskrit was never influenced by Dravidian languages in its structure. He asserts that its form is original and independent. While it's natural for languages to borrow words over time, he maintains that the core structure and the use of the dual number in Sanskrit are not borrowed or imitated.

9. The Philosophical Basis of Dual Number: Shastri believes that the basis for the use of the dual number in Sanskrit is well-thought-out, scientific, and philosophical, although he doesn't delve into its specifics in this article.

10. Conclusion: The article concludes by reiterating that the use of the dual number in Sanskrit by the Indian populace five thousand years ago was an original feature. It dismisses claims about the Mohenjo-daro inscriptions as speculative due to the lack of complete understanding and calls them a misrepresentation of true knowledge. The path of effort remains open for further exploration.