Explosive development in the National Herald case : Swamy produces key IT documents in Court (Read the full txt of IT document)

January 20, 2018

So much speculation on who gave the documents in National Herald.

If you fight corruption courageously like he does, enough Nationalist Indians exist, who send documents, as know he will not compromise.


Income Tax Dept’s findings in the National Herald case and how they implicate the Gandhis


Subramanian Swamy’s “nuclear bomb‘” in the National Herald case is finally out. Swamy today produced in court was an Income Tax assessment order against the Gandhi family owned company Young Indian. The 105 page order dated 27th December says Congress claim of Rs. 90 Crore loan to AJL was “bogus”. It orders Young Indian to pay tax for concealed income of Rs. 414 crore.

The order which was passed on 27.12.2017, has a section which summarizes the “findings of fact” as per the Income Tax officer, arising via the assessment. This section deeply implicates the Gandhi’s as the findings are damaging. The Income Tax Department makes the following claims:

1. Associated Journals Limited (AJL), owner of the National Herald newspaper which was established by Jawaharlal Nehru, decided to close down the business of publishing the newspaper in 2008, with the “oblique purpose” of making commercial use of the properties owned by AJL. The order also notes that these properties were obtained by AJL from Central and State Governments at “ridiculously low prices”.

2. To avoid making payment to AJL and also payment of tax, a “scheme was devised”. The order states that this scheme was devised by Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes of AICC. Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes also represented AJL. The scheme involved “artificial and fraudulent steps” to takeover AJL

3. The scheme was put into force on 23.11.2010 when Young Indian (YI), the company was incorporated and within 3 months i.e. by 26.02.2011 the scheme had been completed. In this time, 99% shares of AJL were allotted to YI. The order also claims that such a transfer violated the norms of the Companies Act as it existed on that day.

4. The scheme, the order says, involved the “purchase of a non-existent loan of Rs 90.21 cr, by AICC to AJL, for a paltry sum of Rs 50 lacs”. The loan, the order claims, was in fact a book entry to transfer ownership of AJL.

5. Next, the order claims that to arrange funds to but the non-existent loan as above, YI “had taken accommodation entries” of Rs 1 crore from a hawala entry operator in Kolkata. The order elaborates the nature of this “accommodation entry”. YI had claimed it had taken a Rs 1 cr loan from a M/s Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd. This, the Income Tax Department has deemed as an “accommodation entry” has deemed the commission of Rs 1 lac paid for the above, as “unexplained expenditure”.

6. The order states that although YI had been registered as a charitable company, it had not carried out activities in line with its stated objects, hence the tax exemption of YI was cancelled.

7. The order states that by the above “scheme” YI “benefit had accrued to it in real terms” and as per the Fair Market Value, was valued at Rs 413.40 crores.

8. The order also mentions that 44 opportunities to be heard were given to YI, over a period of 890 days, but YI and its representatives showed “non-cooperative attitude”  in furnishing information and “challenged the authority” of the officer to collect information in the case.

The order thus makes it amply clear that the entire transaction was a sham and as engineered to transfer assets from AJL to YI without the need to pay tax. And Sonia and Rahul Gandhi each reportedly hold a 38% stake in YI. The findings are therefore broadly in sync with what Dr Swamy has been alleging from day one.

The order also makes a new point, that of YI having dealt with a hawala operator. The loan from the company M/s Dotex Merchandise Pvt Ltd. is in the eye of the storm and this thread itself may open up a different can of worms.

Following is the first page and the last 3 pages of the assessment order :

It needs to be seen what stand the court takes in this matter now.


Explosive development in the National Herald case : Swamy produces key IT documents in Court

Journalist J Gopikrishnan claims that the “nuclear bomb” that Swamy produced in court today was an Income Tax assessment order against the Rahul Gandhi-Sonia Gandhi firm Young Indian. The 105 page order dated 27th December says Congress claim of Rs. 90 Crore loan to AJL was “bogus”. It orders Young Indian to pay tax for concealed income of Rs. 414 crore. The order termed the deal as fraudulent.

It is being claimed that Income Tax Department gave 44 opportunities to Congress over a period of 890 days. Vora kept saying that this is political vendetta.

The Congress lawyer insisted that Swamy be issued a notice for producing these documents.

It is also being claimed that while the Congress lawyers kept objecting, Swamy said that these are the exact documents that he wanted for this case, and that either Sonia Gandhi should certify these documents or face perjury charges.

When Congress lawyer demanded that the veracity of these documents be checked, Swamy reportedly said that Congress lawyers’ clients (Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi among others) had already received these documents.

While the proceedings are still on, it remains to be seen what course of action the court would take considering the new information that has come to light. This is a developing story.



Overflowing pot on tens of Ancient Near East artifacts, an Indus Script hypertext signifies production of metal implements

January 19, 2018



That the hieroglyph of pot/vase overflowing with water is a recurring theme can be seen from other cylinder seals, including Ibni-Sharrum cylinder seal. Such an imagery also occurs on a fragment of a stele, showing part of a lion and vases.

காண்டம்² kāṇṭam, n. < காண்டம்² kāṇṭam n. < kāṇḍa. 1. Water; sacred water; நீர். துருத்திவா யதுக்கிய குங்குமக் காண் டமும் (கல்லா. 49, 16).. 1. Water; sacred water; நீர். துருத்திவா யதுக்கிய குங்குமக் காண் டமும் (கல்லா. 49, 16) (Tamil) Rebus: khāṇḍa ‘tools, weapons, vessels’ (Marathi) [Note: On some of the Ancient Near East cylinder seal representations, the flowing water, overflowing pot are augmented by swimming fish, suggesting that ‘fish’ hieroglyph should also be taken as part of the message: ayo, aya ‘fish’ rebus: aya ‘iron’ ayas ‘metal’]

m1656 Mohenjodro Pectoral. Carnelian. kanda kanka ‘rim of pot’ (Santali) rebus: kanda ‘fire-altar’khaNDa ‘implements’ PLUS karNaka ‘rim of jar’ rebus: karNi ‘Supercargo, scribe’ PLUS semantic determinant: kANDa ‘water’ rebus: khaNDa ‘implements’. In the context of semantics of karNi ‘supercargo’, it is possible to decipher the standard device sangaDa ‘lathe’ rebus: jangada ‘double-canoe’ as a seafaring merchant vessel. The suffix -karnika signifies a ‘maker’. Kāraṇika [der. fr. prec.] the meaning ought to be “one who is under a certain obligation” or “one who dispenses certain obligations.” In usu˚ S ii.257 however used simply in the sense of making: arrow — maker, fletcher (Pali). kāraṇika m. ʻ teacher ʼ MBh., ʻ judge ʼ Pañcat. [kā- raṇa — ]Pa. usu — kāraṇika — m. ʻ arrow — maker ʼ; Pk. kāraṇiya — m. ʻ teacher of Nyāya ʼ; S. kāriṇī m. ʻ guardian, heir ʼ; N. kārani ʻ abettor in crime ʼ; M. kārṇī m. ʻ prime minister, supercargo of a ship ʼ, kul — karṇī m. ʻ village accountant ʼ.

(CDIAL 3058) “Fletching (also known as a flight or feather) is the aerodynamic stabilization of arrows or darts with materials such as feathers, each piece of which is referred to as a fletch. A fletcher is a person who attaches the fletching.The word is related to the French word flèche, meaning “arrow”, via Old French; the ultimate root is Frankish fliukka.”
Perhaps the reading should be ˚kāraka. (Pali) Similarly, khaNDa Kāraṇika can be semantically explained as ‘implements maker’. The pectoral thus signifies the profession of an implements-maker and a supercargo, merchant’s representative on the merchant vessel taking charge of the cargo and the trade of the cargo.

Hieroglyph: sãghāṛɔ ‘lathe’.(Gujarati).Rebus:  Vajra Sanghāta ‘binding together’ (Varahamihira) *saṁgaḍha ʻ collection of forts ʼ. [*gaḍha — ]L. sãgaṛh m. ʻ line of entrenchments, stone walls for defence ʼ.(CDIAL 12845). సంగడము (p. 1279) [ saṅgaḍamu ]  A raft or boat made of two canoes fastened side by side. రెండుతాటి. బొండులు జతగాకట్టినతెప్ప சங்கடம்² caṅkaṭam, n. < Port. jangada. Ferry-boat of two canoes with a platform thereon; இரட்டைத்தோணி. (J.) G. sãghāṛɔ m. ʻ lathe ʼ; M. sãgaḍ f. ʻ a body formed of two or more fruits or animals or men &c. linked together, part of a turner’s apparatus ʼ, m.f. ʻ float made of two canoes joined together ʼsaṁghāṭa m. ʻ fitting and joining of timber ʼ R. [√ghaṭ] LM 417 compares saggarai at Limurike in the Periplus, Tam. śaṅgaḍam, Tu. jaṅgala ʻ double — canoe ʼ),sã̄gāḍā m. ʻ frame of a building ʼ, °ḍī f. ʻ lathe ʼ; Si. san̆gaḷa ʻ pair ʼ, han̆guḷaan̆g° ʻ double canoe, raft ʼ.(CDIAL 12859) Cangavāra [cp. Tamil canguvaḍa a dhoney, Anglo– Ind. ḍoni, a canoe hollowed from a log, see also doṇi] a hollow vessel, a bowl, cask M i.142; J v.186 (Pali)


Hieroglyph: खोंड (p. 216) [khōṇḍam A young bull, a bullcalf; खोंडा [ khōṇḍā ] m A कांबळा of which one end is formed into a cowl or hood. खोंडरूं [ khōṇḍarūṃ ] n A contemptuous form of खोंडा in the sense of कांबळा-cowl (Marathi. Molesworth); kōḍe dūḍa bull calf (Telugu); kōṛe ‘young bullock’ (Konda)Rebus: kõdā ‘to turn in a lathe’ (Bengali) Rebus: 

 kundaṇa pure gold (Tulu)

kāṇḍam காண்டம்² kāṇṭam, n. < kāṇḍa. 1. Water; sacred water; நீர். துருத்திவா யதுக்கிய குங்குமக் காண் டமும் (கல்லா. 49, 16). Rebus: khāṇḍā ‘metal tools, pots and pans’ (Marathi) (B) {V} “(pot, etc.) to ^overflow”. See `to be left over’. @B24310. #20851. Re(B) {V} “(pot, etc.) to ^overflow”. See`to be left over’. (Munda ) Rebus: loh ‘copper’ (Hindi) The hieroglyph clearly refers to the metal tools, pots and pans of copper. 
Some examples of ‘overflowing pot’ metaphors on Ancient Near East artifacts, cylinder seals:
I suggest that together with the adaptation of Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Indus Script hypertexts were also adapted and absorbed into Ancient Near East glyptics to signify wealth creation by metalwork of Meluhha artisans.
Fig. 11.4 shows both on a Syrian dynastic seal and on a Syrian seal signifying a Canaanite goddess a common hieroglyph: an ankh (/ˈæŋk/ or /ˈɑːŋk/; Egyptian ˁnḫ), also known as crux ansata (the Latin for “cross with a handle”) is an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic ideograph symbolizing “life”.  It should be noted that the Syrian seal which shows the ankh upside down also includes two Indus Script hypertext hieroglyphs: 1. twisted rope at the bottom rgister of the seal; 2. overflowing water pot. These two hieroglyphs are read rebus in Indus Script cipher:
1. Twisted rope: मेढा [ mēḍhā ] ‘a curl or snarl; twist in thread’ rebus:  med ‘iron’ med ‘copper’ (Slavic) medhā ‘dhana, yajña’.
2. Overflowing water pot: lo ‘overfowing pot’ rebus: loh ‘copper’ PLUS kāṇḍa ‘water’ rebus: kāṇḍā ‘implements’ Thus, together the expression is lokhaṇḍa ‘ metal implements’.

Chlorite vessel found at Khafajeh: Ht 11.5 cm. 2,600 BCE, Khafajeh, north-east of Baghdad (Photo from pg. 69 of D. Collon’s 1995 Ancient Near Eastern Art).

Impression of seal on tablets from Kanesh (After Larsen, Mogens Trolle and Moller Eva, Five old Assyrian texts, in: D. Charpin – Joannès F. (ed.), Marchands, Diplomates et Empereurs. Études sur la civilization Mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli (Éditions research sur les Civilisations), Paris, 1991, pp. 214-245: figs. 5,6 and 10.)

Timber and exotic stones to decorate the temples were brought from the distant lands of Magan and Meluhha (possibly to be identified as Oman and the Indus Valley).
Gudea Basin. Water overflowing from vases. : The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler … By Claudia E. Suter “The standing statue N (Fig. 5) holds a vase from which four streams of water flow down on each side of the dress into identical vases depicted on the pedestal, which are equally overflowing with water. Little fish swim up the streams to the vase held by Gudea. This statue evidently shows the ruler in possession of prosperity symbolized by the overflowing vase.” (p.58)ayo ‘fish’ (Munda) Rebus: ayo ‘iron’ (Gujarati); ayas‘metal’ (Skt.) Together with lo, ‘overflow’, the compound word can be read as loh+ayas. The compound lohāyas is attested in ancient Indian texts, contrasted withkṛṣṇāyas, distinguishing red alloy metal (bronze) from black alloy metal (iron alloy). ayaskāḍa is a compound attested in Pāṇini; the word may be semantically explained as ‘metal tools, pots and pans’ or as alloyed metal.
Workers from Elam, Susa, Magan and Meluhha were deployed by Gudea, the ruler of Lagaṣ, to build The Eninnu, the main temple of Girsu, c. 2125 BCE. We are dealing with Indian sprachbundwhen we refer to Meluhha. This sprachbund has a remarkable lexeme which is used to signify a smithy, as also a temple: Kota. kole·l smithy, temple in Kota village. Toda. kwala·l Kota smithy Ta. kol working in iron, blacksmith; kollaṉ blacksmith. Ma. kollan blacksmith, artificer; Ka.kolime, kolume, kulame, kulime, kulume, kulme fire-pit, furnace; (Bell.; U.P.U.) konimi blacksmith; (Gowda) kolla id. Koḍ. kollë blacksmith. Te. kolimi furnace. Go.(SR.) kollusānā to mend implements; (Ph.) kolstānā, kulsānā to forge; (Tr.) kōlstānā to repair (of ploughshares); (SR.) kolmi smithy (Voc. 948). Kuwi (F.) kolhali to forge. (DEDR 2133).
Gudea Basin. Water overflowing from vases. : The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler … By Claudia E. Suter “The standing statue N (Fig. 5) holds a vase from which four streams of water flow down on each side of the dress into identical vases depicted on the pedestal, which are equally overflowing with water. Little fish swim up the streams to the vase held by Gudea. This statue evidently shows the ruler in possession of prosperity symbolized by the overflowing vase.” (p.58)ayo ‘fish’ (Munda) Rebus: ayo ‘iron’ (Gujarati); ayas‘metal’ (Skt.) Together with lo, ‘overflow’, the compound word can be read as loh+ayas. The compound lohāyas is attested in ancient Indian texts, contrasted withkṛṣṇāyas, distinguishing red alloy metal (bronze) from black alloy metal (iron alloy). ayaskāḍa is a compound attested in Pāṇini; the word may be semantically explained as ‘metal tools, pots and pans’ or as alloyed metal.

Cylinder seal explained as Enki seated on a throne with a flowing stream full of fish, ca. 2250 BCE

(BM 103317).British Museum.

meḍha ‘polar star’ (Marathi). meḍ ‘iron’ (Ho.Mu.)

2605 (#KJ Roach’s thesis). Sealed tablet. Susa. Illituram, son of Il-mishar, servant of Pala-isshan

#KJ Roach M9 Mesopotamia

#Roach 2168 Cream limestone. Susa.

A person with a vase with overflowing water; sun sign. C. 18th cent. BCE. [E. Porada,1971, Remarks on seals found in the Gulf states, Artibus Asiae, 33, 31-7

See: http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/06/ancient-near-east-evidence-for-mleccha.html

The seal of Gudea:  Gudea, with shaven head, is accompanied by a minor female diety.  He is led by his personal god, Ningishzida, into the presence of Enlil, the chief Sumerian god. Wind pours forth from of the jars held by Enlil, signifying that he is the god of the winds. The winged leopard (griffin) is a mythological creature associated with Ningishzida, The horned helmets, worn even by the griffins, indicates divine status (the more horns the higher the rank). The writing in the background translates as: “Gudea, Ensi [ruler], of Lagash”. lōī f., lo m.2. Pr. ẓūwī  ʻfoxʼ (Western Pahari)(CDIAL 11140-2). Rebus: loh ‘copper’ (Hindi). Te. eṟaka, ṟekka, rekka, neṟaka, neṟi id. (DEDR 2591). Rebus: eraka, eaka = any metal infusion (Ka.Tu.); urukku (Ta.); urukka melting; urukku what is melted; fused metal (Ma.); urukku (Ta.Ma.); eragu = to melt; molten state, fusion; erakaddu = any cast thng; erake hoyi = to pour meltted metal into a mould, to cast (Kannada)

Gudea’s link with Meluhha is clear from the elaborate texts on the two cylinders describing the construction of the Ninĝirsu temple in Lagash. An excerpt: 1143-1154. Along with copper, tin, slabs of lapis lazuli, refined silver and pure Meluḫa cornelian, he set up (?) huge copper cauldrons, huge …… of copper, shining copper goblets and shining copper jars worthy of An, for laying (?) a holy table in the open air …… at the place of regular offerings (?). Ninĝirsu gave his city, Lagaš 

Location.Current Repository

Musee du LouvreInventory NoAO 22126 ca. 2120 BCE Neo-Sumerian from the city-state of Lagashhttp://contentdm.unl.edu/ah_copyright.html

 gud. ‘ ea guda ‘ ea warrior ‘ emphasis/the best “The best warrior”. http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ling_sumerian.htm

Inscription on base of skirt- God commands him to build house. Gudea is holding plans. Gudea depicted as strong, peaceful ruler. Vessel flowing with life-giving water w/ fish. Text on garment dedicates himself,  the statue, and its temple to the goddess Geshtinanna.

According to the inscription this statue was made by Gudea, ruler of Lagash (c. 2100 BCE) for the temple of the goddess Geshtinanna. Gudea refurbished the temples of Girsu and 11 statues of him have been found in excavations at the site. Nine others including this one were sold on the art market. It has been suggested that this statue is a forgery. Unlike the hard diorite of the excavated statues, it is made of soft calcite, and shows a ruler with a flowing vase which elsewhere in Mesopotamian art is only held by gods. It also differs stylistically from the excavated statues. On the other hand, the Sumerian inscription appears to be genuine and would be very difficult to fake. Statues of Gudea show him standing or sitting. Ine one, he rests on his knee a plan of the temple he is building. On some statues Gudea has a shaven head, while on others like this one he wears a headdress covered with spirals, probably indicating that it was made out of fur. Height 61 cm. The overflowing water from the vase is a hieroglyph comparable to the pectoral of Mohenjo-daro showing an overflowing pot together with a one-horned young bull and standard device in front. The diorite from Magan (Oman), and timber from Dilmun (Bahrain) obtained by Gudea could have come from Meluhha.

“The goddess Geshtinanna was known as “chief scribe” (Lambert 1990, 298– 299) and probably was a patron of scribes, as was Nidaba/Nisaba (Micha-lowski 2002). ” http://www.academia.edu/2360254/Temple_Sacred_Prostitution_in_Ancient_Mesopotamia_Revisited

Gudea Statue D Colum IV refers to Magan, Gubi and reads (Records of the Past, 2nd series, Vol. II, ed. by A. H. Sayce, [1888], at sacred-texts.com) http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/rp/rp202/rp20221.htm:

  1. he has constructed.
  2. By the power of the goddessNinâ,
  3. by the power of the godNin-girsu,
  4. to Gudea
  5. who has endowed with the sceptre
  6. the godNin-girsu,
  7. the country ofMâgan, 1
  1. the country ofMelughgha,
  2. the country ofGubi, 2
  3. and the country ofNituk, 3
  4. which possess every kind of tree,
  5. vessels laden with trees of all sorts
  6. intoShirpurla
  7. have sent.
  8. From the mountains of the land ofMâgan
  9. a rare stone he has caused to come;
  10. for his statue
  11. http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/rp/rp202/rp20221.htm#fr_228

Sumerian sign for the term ZAG ‘purified precious’. The ingot had a hole running through its length Perhaps a carrying rod was inserted through this hole.

Glyph: ḍhol ‘a drum beaten on one end by a stick and on the other by the hand’ (Santali); ḍhol ‘drum’ (Nahali); dhol (Kurku); ḍhol (Hi.) dhol a drum (G.)(CDIAL 5608) డోలు [ḍōlu ] [Tel.] n. A drum. Rebus: dul ‘to cast in a mould’; dul mẽṛhẽt, dul meṛeḍ, dul; koṭe meṛeḍ ‘forged iron’ (Santali) WPah.kṭg. (kc.) ḍhōˋḷ m. ʻstoneʼ, kṭg. ḍhòḷṭɔ m. ʻbig stone or boulderʼ, ḍhòḷṭu ʻsmall id.ʼ Him.I 87.(CDIAL 5536).

Or. kāṇḍa, kã̄ṛ ʻstalk, arrow ʼ(CDIAL 3023). Rebus: khāṇḍā ‘tools, pots and pans, metal-ware’. ayaskāṇḍa ‘a quantity of iron, excellent iron’ (Pāṇ.gaṇ)

Cylinder seal with kneeling nude heroes, ca. 2220–2159 b.c.; Akkadian  Mesopotamia Red jasper H. 1 1/8 in. (2.8 cm), Diam. 5/8 in. (1.6 cm)  Metropolitan Museum of Art – USA

Four flag-posts(reeds) with rings on top held by the kneeling persons define the four components of the iron smithy/forge.  This is an announcement of four shops, पेढी (Gujarati. Marathi). पेंढें ‘rings’ Rebus: पेढी ‘shop’.āra ‘serpent’ Rebus; āra ‘brass’. karaḍa ‘double-drum’ Rebus: karaḍa ‘hard alloy’.

Specific materials offered for sale/exchange in the shop are: hard alloy brass metal (ayo, fish); lokhaṇḍ (overflowing pot) ‘metal tools, pots and pans, metalware’; arka/erka   ‘copper’; kammaṭa (a portable furnace for melting precious metals) ‘coiner, mint’  Thus, the four shops are: 1. brass alloys, 2. metalware, 3. copper and 4. mint (services).

erãguḍu bowing, salutation (Telugu) iṟai (-v-, -nt-) to bow before (as in salutation), worship (Tamil)(DEDR 516). Rebus: eraka, eṟaka any metal infusion (Kannada.Tulu) eruvai ‘copper’ (Tamil); ere dark red (Kannada)(DEDR 446).

puṭa Anything folded or doubled so as to form a cup or concavity; crucible. Alternative: ḍhālako = a large metal ingot (G.) ḍhālakī = a metal heated and poured into a mould; a solid piece of metal; an ingot (Gujarati)

Allograph: ढाल [ ḍhāla ] f (S through H) The grand flag of an army directing its march and encampments: also the standard or banner of a chieftain: also a flag flying on forts &c. ढालकाठी [ ḍhālakāṭhī ] f ढालखांब m A flagstaff; esp.the pole for a grand flag or standard. 2 fig. The leading and sustaining member of a household or other commonwealth. 5583 ḍhāla n. ʻ shield ʼ lex. 2. *ḍhāllā — . 1. Tir. (Leech) “dàl” ʻ shield ʼ, Bshk. ḍāl, Ku. ḍhāl, gng. ḍhāw, N. A. B. ḍhāl, Or. ḍhāḷa, Mth. H. ḍhāl m.2. Sh. ḍal (pl. °le̯) f., K. ḍāl f., S. ḍhāla, L. ḍhāl (pl. °lã) f., P. ḍhāl f., G. M. ḍhāl f. WPah.kṭg. (kc.) ḍhāˋl f. (obl. — a) ʻ shield ʼ (a word used in salutation), J. ḍhāl f. (CDIAL 5583).

They are four Glyphs: paṭākā ‘flag’ Rebus: pāṭaka, four quarters of the village.

kã̄ḍ reed Rebus: kāṇḍa ‘tools, pots and pans, metal-ware’.

  1. Pk. kamaḍha— , °aya— m. ʻ bamboo ʼ; Bhoj. kōro ʻ bamboo poles ʼ. 2. N. kāmro ʻ bamboo, lath, piece of wood ʼ, OAw.  kāṁvari ʻ bamboo pole with slings at each end for carrying things ʼ, H. kã̄waṛ°arkāwaṛ°ar f., G. kāvaṛf., M. kāvaḍ f.; — deriv. Pk. kāvaḍia — , kavvāḍia — m. ʻ one who carries a yoke ʼ, H. kã̄waṛī°ṛiyā m., G. kāvaṛiyɔ m. 3. S. kāvāṭhī f. ʻ carrying pole ʼ, kāvāṭhyo m. ʻ the man who carries it ʼ. 4. Or. kāmaṛā°muṛā ʻ rafters of a thatched house ʼ; G. kāmṛũ n., °ṛī f. ʻ chip of bamboo ʼ, kāmaṛ — koṭiyũ n. ʻ bamboo hut ʼ. 5. B. kāmṭhā ʻ bow ʼ, G. kāmṭhũ n., °ṭhī f. ʻ bow ʼ; M. kamṭhā°ṭā m. ʻ bow of bamboo or horn ʼ; — deriv. G. kāmṭhiyɔ m. ʻ archer ʼ. 6. A. kabāri ʻ flat piece of bamboo used in smoothing an earthen image ʼ. 7. kã̄bīṭ°baṭ°bṭī,  kāmīṭ°maṭ°mṭī,  kāmṭhīkāmāṭhī f. ʻ split piece of bamboo &c., lath ʼ.(CDIAL 2760). kambi f. ʻ branch or shoot of bamboo ʼ lex. Pk. kaṁbi — , °bī — , °bā — f. ʻ stick, twig ʼ, OG. kāṁba; M. kã̄b f. ʻ longitudinal division of a bamboo &c., bar of iron or other metal ʼ. (CDIAL 2774). कंबडी [ kambaḍī ] f A slip or split piece (of a bamboo &c.)(Marathi)

The rings atop the reed standard: पेंढें [ pēṇḍhēṃ ] पेंडकें [ pēṇḍakēṃ ] n Weaver’s term. A cord-loop or metal ring (as attached to the गुलडा of the बैली and to certain other fixtures). पेंडें [ pēṇḍēṃ ] n (पेड) A necklace composed of strings of pearls. 2 A loop or ring. Rebus: पेढी (Gujaráthí word.) A shop (Marathi) Alternative: koṭiyum [koṭ, koṭī  neck] a wooden circle put round the neck of an animal (Gujarati) Rebus: ācāri koṭṭya = forge, kammārasāle (Tulu)

The four hieroglyphs define the four quarters of the village smithy/forge: alloy, metalware, turner’s lathe-work, cruble (or, ingot).

ayo ‘fish’ Rebus: ayo ‘metal, alloy’

కాండము [ kāṇḍamu ] kānḍamu. [Skt.] n. Water. నీళ్లు (Telugu) kaṇṭhá — : (b) ʻ water — channel ʼ: Paš. kaṭāˊ ʻ irrigation channel ʼ, Shum. xãṭṭä. (CDIAL 14349).

lokhãḍ ‘overflowing pot’ Rebus:  ʻtools, iron, ironwareʼ (Gujarati)

arká1 m. ʻ flash, ray, sun ʼ RV. [√arc] Pa. Pk. akka — m. ʻ sun ʼ, Mth. āk; Si. aka ʻ lightning ʼ, inscr. vid — äki ʻ lightning flash ʼ.(CDIAL 624) அருக்கன் arukkaṉ, n. < arka. Sun; சூரி யன். அருக்க னணிநிறமுங் கண்டேன் (திவ். இயற். 3, 1).(Tamil) agasāle ‘goldsmithy’ (Kannada) అగసాలి [ agasāli ] or అగసాలెవాడు agasāli. n. A goldsmith. కంసాలివాడు. (Telugu) erka = ekke (Tbh. of arka) aka (Tbh. of arka) copper (metal); crystal (Kannada) cf. eruvai = copper (Tamil) eraka, er-aka = any metal infusion (Ka.Tu.); erako molten cast (Tulu) Rebus: eraka = copper (Ka.) eruvai = copper (Ta.); ere – a dark-red colour (Ka.)(DEDR 817). eraka, era, er-a = syn. erka, copper, weapons (Ka.) erka = ekke (Tbh. of arka) aka (Tbh. of arka) copper (metal); crystal (Kannada) akka, aka (Tadbhava of arka) metal; akka metal (Te.) arka = copper (Skt.) erako molten cast (Tulu)

Alternative: kunda ‘jasmine flower’ Rebus: kunda ʻa turner’s latheʼ. kundaṇa pure gold.

The image could denote a crucible or a portable furnace: kammaṭa ‘coiner, mint, a portable furnace for melting precious metals (Telugu) On some cylinder seals, this image is shown held aloft on a stick, comparable to the bottom register of the ‘standard device’ normally shown in front of a one-horned young bull. Alternatives: puṭa Anything folded or doubled so as to form a cup or concavity; crucible. Ta. kuvai, kukai crucible.  Ma. kuva id.  Ka. kōve  id. Tu. kōvè id., mould. (DEDR 1816). Alternative: Shape of ingot: దళము [daḷamu] daḷamu. [Skt.] n. A leaf. ఆకు. A petal. A part, భాగము.  dala n. ʻ leaf, petal ʼ MBh. Pa. Pk. dala — n. ʻ leaf, petal ʼ, G. M. daḷ n.(CDIAL 6214). <DaLO>(MP)  {N} “^branch, ^twig”.  *Kh.<DaoRa>(D) `dry leaves when fallen’, ~<daura>, ~<dauRa> `twig’, Sa.<DAr>, Mu.<Dar>, ~<Dara> `big branch of a tree’, ~<DauRa> `a twig or small branch with fresh leaves on it’, So.<kOn-da:ra:-n> `branch’, H.<DalA>, B.<DalO>, O.<DaLO>, Pk.<DAlA>.  %7811.  #7741.(Munda etyma) Rebus: ḍhālako = a large metal ingot (G.) ḍhālakī = a metal heated and poured into a mould; a solid piece of metal; an ingot (Gujarati).

A baked-clay plaque from Ur, Iraq, portraying a goddess; she holds a vase overflowing with water (‘hé-gál’ or ‘hegallu’) is a symbol of abundance and prosperity. (Beijing World Art Museum)  Fish in water on statue, on viewer’s right. Gudea’s Temple Building “The goddesses with overflowing vases. (Fig.8). The large limestone basin (SV.7) restored by Unger from twenty-six fragments is carved in relief on its outside. It shows a row of goddesses walking on a stream of water. Between them they are holding vases from which water flows down into the stream. These, in turn, are fed with water poured from vases which are held by smaller-scale goddesses hovering above. All goddesses wear long pleated dresses, and crowns with a single horn pair. There are remains of at least six standing and four hovering goddesses. Considering the importance the number seven plays in Gudea’s inscriptions, Unger’s reconstruction of seven goddesses of each type is credible. The inscription on the basin, which relates its fashioning, designates it as a large S’IM, a relatively rare and only vagueely understood term, perhaps to be read agarinX. The fashioning of one or more S’IM is also related in the Cylinder inscriptions, and the finished artifact is mentioned again in the description of the temple…Since the metaphor paraphrasing the basin refers to th ceaseless flow of water, it is possible that the basin(s) mentioned in the account of Eninnu’s construction is (are) identical with the fragmentary remains of the one (perhaps two?) actually found within the area of Gudea’s Eninnu, as Unger presumed. Several similar and somewhat intuitive identifications of the goddesses with the overflowing vases have been proposed: Heuzey saw personifications of the Euphrates and Tigris; Unger saw personifications of sources and rain clouds that form the Tigris and identified them with Ningirsu and Baba’s seven daughters; van Buren saw personifications of higher white clouds and lower rain clouds whom she assigned to Ea’s circle. Neither are the seven (not fourteen!) daughters of Ningirsu and Baba ever associated with water, nor can fourteen personified clouds be made out in Ea’s circle…The clue must be the overflowing vase which van Buren correctly interpreted as a symbol of abundance and prosperity. This interpretation is corroborated by the Gottertsypentext which states that the images of Kulullu is blessing with one hand (ikarrab) and holding abundance (HE.GAL) in the other.  The protective spirit Kulullu is usually associated with abundance and divine benevolence, and may be reminiscent of the god bestowing the overflowing vase upon a human petititioner in much earlier presentation scenes. The narrative context in which the goddess with the overflowing vase occurs is confined to presentations of a human petititioner to a deity. The Akkadian seal fo the scribe Ili-Es’tar shows her accompanying the petitioner, not unlike a Lamma.

Enki walks out of the water to the land attended by his messenger, Isimud

who is readily identifiable by his two faces looking in opposite directions (duality).

M177. Kidin-Marduk, son of Sha-ilima-damqa, the sha reshi official of Burnaburiash, king of the world Untash-Napirisha

Cylinder seal image. The water-god in his sea house (Abzu) (ea. 2200 B.C.). On the extreme right is Enki, the water-god, enthroned in his sea house. To the left is Utu, the sun-god, with his rays and saw. The middle deity is unidentified. (British Museum)

Gypsum statuette. “A Gypsum statuette of a priestess or goddess from the Sumerian Dynastic period, most likely Inanna. …She holds a sacred vessel from which the life-giving waters flow in two streams. Several gods and goddesses are shown thus with running water, including Inanna, and it speaks of their life-giving powers as only water brings life to the barren earth of Sumeria. The two streams of water are thought to stand for the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. This is the earliest of the group of statues and dates to c. 2600-2300 B.C. 150 mm tall.” http://www.aliraqi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=53773&page=2

These images are explained in terms of associated sacredness of Enki, who in Sumerian mythology

(Enki and Ninhursag) is associated with Abzu where he lives with the source sweet waters.

खांडा [ khāṇḍā ] m A kind of sword, straight, broad-bladed, two-edged, and round-ended (Marathi) M. lokhãḍ n. ʻironʼ(Marthi) yields the clue to the early semantics of khāṇḍā  which should have referred to tools, pots and pans (of metal). Kumaoni has semantics: lokhaṛ  ʻiron tools’. लोहोलोखंड [ lōhōlōkhaṇḍa ] n (लोह & लोखंड) Iron tools, vessels, or articles in general (Marathi).

Thus lohakāṇḍā would have referred to copper tools. The overflowing vase on the hands of Gudea would have referred to this compound, represented by the hieroglyphs and rendered rebus.

lokhar ʻ bag in which a barber keeps his tools ʼ; H. lokhar m. ʻ iron tools, pots and pans ʼ; — X lauhabhāṇḍa — : Ku. lokhaṛ ʻ iron tools ʼ; H. lokhaṇḍ m. ʻ iron tools, pots and pans ʼ; G. lokhãḍ n. ʻ tools, iron, ironware ʼ; M. lokhãḍ n. ʻ iron ʼ (LM 400 < — khaṇḍa — )(CDIAL 11171). lōhitaka ʻ reddish ʼ Āpast., n. ʻ calx of brass, bell- metal ʼ lex. [lṓhita — ]K. lŏy f. ʻ white copper, bell — metal ʼ. (CDIAL 11166). lōhá ʻ red, copper — coloured ʼ ŚrS., ʻ made of copper ʼ ŚBr., m.n. ʻ copper ʼ VS., ʻ iron ʼ MBh. [*rudh — ] Pa. lōha — m. ʻ metal, esp. copper or bronze ʼ; Pk. lōha — m. ʻ iron ʼ, Gy. pal. li°lihi, obl. elhás, as. loa JGLS new ser. ii 258; Wg. (Lumsden) “loa” ʻ steel ʼ; Kho. loh ʻ copper ʼ; S. lohu m. ʻ iron ʼ, L. lohā m., awāṇ.lōˋā, P. lohā m. (→ K.rām. ḍoḍ. lohā), WPah.bhad. lɔ̃u n., bhal. lòtilde; n., pāḍ. jaun. lōh, paṅ. luhā, cur. cam. lohā, Ku. luwā, N. lohu°hā, A. lo, B. lono, Or. lohāluhā, Mth. loh, Bhoj. lohā, Aw.lakh. lōh, H.lohlohā m., G. M. loh n.; Si. loho ʻ metal, ore, iron ʼ; Md. ratu — lō ʻ copper ʼ.(CDIAL 11158).  lōhakāra m. ʻ iron — worker ʼ, °rī — f., °raka — m. lex., lauhakāra — m. Hit. [lōhá — , kāra — 1] Pa. lōhakāra — m. ʻ coppersmith, ironsmith ʼ; Pk. lōhāra — m. ʻ blacksmith ʼ, S. luhā̆ru m., L. lohār m., °rī f., awāṇ. luhār, P. WPah.khaś. bhal. luhār m., Ku. lwār, N. B. lohār, Or. lohaḷa, Bi.Bhoj.  Aw.lakh. lohār, H. lohārluh° m., G. lavār m., M. lohār m.; Si. lōvaru ʻ coppersmith ʼ. Addenda: lōhakāra — : WPah.kṭg. (kc.) lhwāˋr m. ʻ blacksmith ʼ, lhwàri f. ʻ his wife ʼ, Garh. lwār m.(CDIAL 11159). lōhahala 11161 lōhala ʻ made of iron ʼ W. [lōhá — ](CDIAL 11161). Bi. lohrā°rī ʻ small iron pan ʼ(CDIAL 11160). Bi. lohsārī ʻ smithy ʼ(CDIAL 11162). P.ludh. lōhṭiyā m. ʻ ironmonger ʼ.(CDIAL 11163). लोहोलोखंड [ lōhōlōkhaṇḍa ] n (लोह & लोखंड) Iron tools, vessels, or articles in general.रुपेशाई लोखंड [ rupēśāī lōkhaṇḍa ] n A kind of iron. It is of inferior quality to शिक्केशाई. लोखंड [ lōkhaṇḍa ] n (लोह S) Iron. लोखंडाचे चणे खावविणें or चारणें To oppress grievously. लोखंडकाम [ lōkhaṇḍakāma ] n Iron work; that portion (of a building, machine &c.) which consists of iron. 2 The business of an ironsmith. लोखंडी [ lōkhaṇḍī ] a (लोखंड) Composed of iron; relating to iron. 2 fig. Hardy or hard–a constitution or a frame of body, one’s हाड or natal bone or parental stock. 3 Close and hard;–used of kinds of wood. 4 Ardent and unyielding–a fever. 5 लोखंडी, in the sense Hard and coarse or in the sense Strong or enduring, is freely applied as a term of distinction or designation. Examples follow. लोखंडी [ lōkhaṇḍī ] f (लोखंड) An iron boiler or other vessel. लोखंडी जर [ lōkhaṇḍī jara ] m (लोखंड & जर) False brocade or lace; lace &c. made of iron.लोखंडी रस्ता [ lōkhaṇḍī rastā ] m लोखंडी सडक f (Iron-road.) A railroad. लोह [ lōha ] n S Iron, crude or wrought. 2 m Abridged from लोहभस्म. A medicinal preparation from rust of iron.लोहकार [ lōhakāra ] m (S) A smelter of iron or a worker in iron.लोहकिट्ट [ lōhakiṭṭa ] n (S) Scoriæ or rust of iron, klinker.लोहंगी or लोहंगी काठी [ lōhaṅgī or lōhaṅgī kāṭhī ] f (लोह & अंग) A club set round with iron clamps and rings, a sort of bludgeon.लोहार [ lōhāra ] m ( H or लोहकार S) A caste or an individual of it. They are smiths or workers in iron. लोहारकाम [ lōhārakāma ] n Iron-work, work proper to the blacksmith.लोहारकी [ lōhārakī ] f (लोहार) The business of the blacksmith.लोहारडा [ lōhāraḍā ] m A contemptuous form of the word लोहार.लोहारसाळ [ lōhārasāḷa ] f A smithy.

Loha (nt.) [Cp. Vedic loha, of Idg. *(e)reudh “red”; see also rohita & lohita] metal, esp. copper, brass or bronze. It is often used as a general term & the individual application is not always sharply defined. Its comprehensiveness is evident from the classification of loha at VbhA 63, where it is said lohan ti jātilohaŋ, vijāti˚, kittima˚, pisāca˚ or natural metal, produced metal, artificial (i. e. alloys), & metal from the Pisāca district. Each is subdivided as follows: jāti˚=ayo, sajjhaŋ, suvaṇṇaŋ, tipu, sīsaŋ, tambalohaŋ, vekantakalohaŋ; vijāti˚=nāga — nāsika˚; kittima˚=kaŋsalohaŋ, vaṭṭa˚, ārakūṭaŋ; pisāca˚=morakkhakaŋ, puthukaŋ, malinakaŋ, capalakaŋ, selakaŋ, āṭakaŋ, bhallakaŋ, dūsilohaŋ. The description ends “Tesu pañca jātilohāni pāḷiyaŋ visuŋ vuttān’ eva (i. e. the first category are severally spoken of in the Canon). Tambalohaŋ vekantakan ti imehi pana dvīhi jātilohehi saddhiŋ sesaŋ sabbam pi idha lohan ti veditabbaŋ.” — On loha in similes see J.P.T.S. 1907, 131. Cp. A iii.16=S v.92 (five alloys of gold: ayo, loha, tipu, sīsaŋ, sajjhaŋ); J v.45 (asi˚); Miln 161 (suvaṇṇam pi jātivantaŋ lohena bhijjati); PvA 44, 95 (tamba˚=loha), 221 (tatta — loha — secanaŋ pouring out of boiling metal, one of the five ordeals in Niraya).    — kaṭāha a copper (brass) receptacle Vin ii.170. — kāra a metal worker, coppersmith, blacksmith Miln 331. — kumbhī an iron cauldron Vin ii.170. Also N. of a purgatory J iii.22, 43; iv.493; v.268; SnA 59, 480; Sdhp 195. — guḷa an iron (or metal) ball A iv.131; Dh 371 (mā ˚ŋ gilī pamatto; cp. DhA iv.109). — jāla a copper (i. e. wire) netting PvA 153. — thālaka a copper bowl Nd1 226. — thāli a bronze kettle DhA i.126. — pāsāda“copper terrace,” brazen palace, N. of a famous monastery at Anurādhapura in Ceylon Vism 97; DA i.131; Mhvs passim. — piṇḍa an iron ball SnA 225. — bhaṇḍa copper (brass) ware Vin ii.135. — maya made of copper, brazen Sn 670; Pv ii.64. — māsa a copper bean Nd1 448 (suvaṇṇa — channa). — māsaka a small copper coin KhA 37 (jatu — māsaka, dāru — māsaka+); DhsA 318. — rūpa a bronze statue Mhvs 36, 31. — salākā a bronze gong — stick Vism 283. Lohatā (f.) [abstr. fr. loha] being a metal, in (suvaṇṇassa) aggalohatā the fact of gold being the best metal VvA 13. (Pali) agga- is explained: erka = ekke (Tbh. of arka) aka (Tbh. of arka) copper (metal); crystal (Kannada) eraka, er-aka = any metal infusion (Ka.Tu.); erako molten cast (Tulu) agasāle, agasāli, agasālavāḍu = a goldsmith (Telugu) cf. eruvai = copper (Tamil)

Thus loha in aggalohatā gets the semantics ‘metal’.

“Sumerian words with a pre-Sumerian origin are:

professional names such as simug ‘blacksmith’ and tibira ‘copper smith’, ‘metal-manufacturer’ are not in origin Sumerian words.

Agricultural terms, like engar ‘farmer’, apin ‘plow’ and absin ‘furrow’, are neither of Sumerian origin.

Craftsman like nangar ‘carpenter’, agab ‘leather worker’

Religious terms like sanga ‘priest’

Some of the most ancient cities, like Kish, have names that are not Sumerian in origin.

These words must have been loan words from a substrate language. The words show how far the division in labor had progressed even before the Sumerians arrived.”

(http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/meso/meso.htm &#8211; No longer available)


The rebus readings are:

కాండము [ kāṇḍamu ] kānamu. [Skt.] n. Water. నీళ్లు (Telugu) kaṇṭhá — : (b) ʻ water — channel ʼ: Paš. kaāˊ ʻ irrigation channel ʼ, Shum. xãṭṭä. (CDIAL 14349). ṇḍ‘flowing water’ Rebus: ṇḍā ‘metalware, tools, pots and pans’. lokhaṇḍ (overflowing pot) ‘metal tools, pots and pans, metalware’ lokhã overflowing pot’ Rebus:  ʻtools, iron, ironwareʼ (Gujarati) Rebus: लोखंड lokhaṇḍ Iron tools, vessels, or articles in general. lo ‘pot to overflow’. Gu<loRa>(D)  {} “^flowing strongly”.


கொட்டம்¹ koṭṭam  Flowing, pouring; நீர் முதலியன ஒழுகுகை. கொடுங்காற் குண்டிகைக் கொட்ட மேய்ப்ப (பெருங். உஞ்சைக். 43, 130) கொட்டம் koṭṭam < ṣṭha. Cattle- shed (Tamil)

koṭṭam flowing, pouring (Tamil). Ma. koṭṭuka to shoot out, empty a sack. ? Te. koṭṭukonipōv.


Sarasvati Research Center

January 19, 2018

Kubera’s metalwork wealth categories, five Indus Script hypertext bull variants

September 21, 2017

The great faceless man

February 2, 2017

In the late Yajurvaidika upaniṣat, the Śvetāśvatara, which is the foundational text of the śaiva-śāsana, the god Rudra is described thus: na tasya pratimā asti yasya nāma mahad yaśaḥ। There is no o…

Source: The great faceless man

Mistry move to register FIR on dubious money deals in AirAsia provoked Tata

January 5, 2017

Did the AirAsia board resolution to move against ex-CEO provoke the firing of Mistry?

ītihāso vedaḥ so’yamiti –itihāsa is the veda: this it is, Veda & āgama

January 4, 2017
Access to Ritual & Knowledge in Hinduism: The case of veda and āgama

This essay will provide some insight into the particular traditions within the larger dharma framework and how these various systems gave access to one and all, as long as they were sincere aspirants.


Raids dig up empire of PC’s son — J Gopikrishnan, Daily Pioneer

January 4, 2017

Monday, 29 February 2016 | J Gopikrishnan | New Delhi

Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram’s son Karti has built a huge empire for himself in different parts of the world by making investment in real estates and engaging in other business activities in London, Dubai, South Africa, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, British Virgin Island, France, USA, Switzerland, Greece and Spain. This came to light from the documents recovered during the recent joint raids of the Enforcement Directorate and Investigation Wing of Income Tax in the Aircel-Maxis scam.

The investigation team got the details of Karti’s wealth following raids on his company, Advantage Strategic Consulting, which is involved in the Aircel-Maxis deal for financial transactions with telecom beneficiaries.

Most of the transaction and purchases of properties and acquisition by Karti was executed through Advantage’s Singapore-based subsidiary Advantage Strategic Consulting Singapore Pte Ltd. According to the investigators, the ED and I-T (Investigation Wing) are expected to contact their international counterparts to get more details from the 14 countries as per the United Nation’s Convention on prevention of money laundering.

The 2G Court had already issued Letter Rogatory to Singapore for getting transaction details of the Karti-controlled company in Singapore.

The probe details coming out of the recent raids expose massive wealth acquired by Karti during 2006 to 2014 when his father was Finance Minister and Home Minister at the Centre. Karti’s Singapore firm acquired 88 acres in September 2011 at Surridge Farm in Somerset in the UK for one million Pounds. The deal comprises four land titles, which were seized by joint probe team of ED and I-T. Karti’s company in Singapore also has investments in Artevea Digital Limited in Cambridge and has transactions with another London-based company Oppenheimer Investments (UK) Limited.

According to the details unearthed by investigators, Karti’s Singapore-based firm had acquired majority shares of a big resort in Sri Lanka, known as Lanka Fortune Residencies. This company owns the prestigious resorts ‘The Waterfront’, ‘Weligama Bay Resort’ and Emerald Bay Hotel. During the raid, the tax sleuths unearthed the acquisition agreement papers between Karti’s Singapore company and share holders of the Sri Lankan firm. Document of money trail of investments made in a Sri Lanka with a Lanka-based financial firm, Union Development & Investment Company Private Limited, were also seized in the December raids.

The probe details how Karti’s Singapore firm routed money via Dubai to acquire three farms and vineyards in South Africa, identified as Rowey Farm in Grabouw, Cape Orchards and Vineyards Private Limited, and Zandvliet Enterprises, a wine and stud farm in Ashton. The Karti-controlled Singapore firm also had money transactions with Nicholls Steyn and Associates in South Africa.

The Dubai-based Desert Dunes Properties Ltd has also investment in Karti’s Singapore-based company Advantage. The sleuths have unearthed a money trail of 1.7 million Singapore Dollars between these firms. Another Dubai-based company, Pearl Dubai FX LLC, also had financial transaction with the Advantage.

The Advantage’s Singapore subsidiary had entered into joint ventures with the Philippines-based companies to obtain a franchise team of International Premier Tennis League (Asia). The Philippine firms, which were engaged in joint ventures with the Karti-controlled company, are SM Arena Complex Corporation, Sports Entertainment Events Management Inc and two persons from Philippines – Juna Kevin and Haresh C Hiranand.

The Advantage had also had financial transactions with another real estate company in Singapore known as Real Beyond Pte Ltd having three subsidiaries in Malaysia. The investigation has unearthed that these transactions led to 16 land purchases in Thailand.

The Advantage’s Singapore unit has set up a firm in British Virgin Island (BVI), namely Somerset Surridge Ltd. The Advantage also invested 400,000 Singapore dollars in another BVI firm known as Full Innovations Ltd. It also has financial dealing with Geben Trading Limited in BVI and offices in Switzerland. This firm’s major transactions were through the famous Swiss Bank, namely UBS. The investigators got proofs of transactions in Dollars and Euro. The Advantage also has transaction of five million Singapore dollars with another firm in Singapore, namely Unison Global Investment Ltd.

The Karti-controlled company in Singapore has also entered into joint ventures with Gravitas Investments, Match Point International Tennis Events to buy a franchise Tennis team called ‘Manila Mavericks’.

The investigators unearthed that this deal was worth of 12 million US dollars and the money was paid in 10 installments.

The Advantage had also acquired a residential flat in Malaysia worth 1.9 million Malaysian Ringgits from a firm called Peninsular Smart. The probe team also found that the Advantage holds franchisees of Café’ Coffee Day in some areas of Malaysia. The investigators have found several transactions to Karti’s Singapore firm with Malaysian companies. Malaysia is the head quarters of telecom giant Maxis which acquired Aircel in 2006. The raids have seized some payment details amounting to more than Rs.30 crore in foreign currencies.

The Advantage in Singapore also opened a subsidiary firm in Barcelona in Spain known as Advantage Estrategia Esportiva SLU in August 2012. This is a sports academy having four acres with seven tennis courts. Karti-linked Singapore firm has also one million US dollar investments in a company in France known as Pampelonn Organisation. The Advantage also has transactions with a Greek firm known as Pisani John Sakellarios in Athens.

Karti’s Singapore company has also transferred 50,000 dollars to a Bank of America account in the name of “Chennai Reserve – Business Advantage Checking” and the beneficiary of this transaction was one company called Kitchen Inc, a Delaware Corporation company in New York engaged in issuance of Convertible Promissory Notes.

The Chennai-based Advantage also has transactions with Aircel Televenutres, DCB Client, Diageo Scotland Limited, Katra Group, Sri Lanka Export Development Board, Unifi Wealth Management Ltd, VST Tillers Tractors, Carlton Trading Company, Claris Life Sciences’, ITC Centre, Best Land Realty Limited, Essar Steel Limited, Gokul Builders and Estates, S Kumar, INX Media, Reflections, Thiagarajar Mills Private Limited, Sak Soft, EL Forge Limited.

All these massive investments, transactions, acquisition of companies and properties abroad were executed by the Advantage after the Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006. It is learned that ED and IT has dispatched all these information to Supreme Court, which is monitoring the probe on Aircel-Maxis scam in a sealed cover and also shared with their counterparts in CBI. Both CBI and the ED had said in their chargesheets that FIPB clearance given by then Finance Minister Chidambaram to Maxis to acquire Aircel was totally illegal.


अयस् ayas, अंशुः aṃśuḥ as iron pyrites of Sarasvati civilization & Veda ādhyātmikā tradition — tantra yukti principles in metalwork thesis explained: pratinidhi ‘substitution’ and apamiśraṇa ‘adulterant’

January 4, 2017


Mirror: http://tinyurl.com/j9ldrnn

The monograph is presented in the following sections to track the validating parallels in Veda texts for metalwork evidenced in Sarasvati civilization as Veda tradition continuum (cf. Binjor a अष्टाश्रि yupa having eight corners). Examples of metalwork catalogues in two inscriptions of Harppa Script (out of over 8000 inscriptions) authenticate the metalwork thesis explaining the tantra yukti principles of pratinidhi ‘substitution’ and apamiśraṇa ‘adulterant’.

Section A. Ruśama evidence in Rigveda and in Sarasvati River Basin

Section B. RV. 10.177 Māyābheda

Section C. अयस् ayas, अंशुः aṃśuḥ  in Proto-Indo-European,Rigveda, and Meluhha Harappa Script hieroglyphs/hypertexts

Section D. Vedic vocabulary related to Māyābheda

Annex. The mayAbheda sUkta: a discursion (courtesy: Manasataramgini)

I gratefully acknowledge Manasataramgini for the elucidation of RV 10.177 which I cite in full for ready reference.


“The mineral pyrite, or iron pyrite, also known as fool’s gold, is an iron sulfide with the chemical formula FeS2. This mineral’s metallic luster and pale brass-yellow hue give it a superficial resemblance to gold, hence the well-known nickname of fool’s gold. The color has also led to the nicknames brassbrazzle, and Brazil, primarily used to refer to pyrite found in coal” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrite

Vedic & Indo-European studies, Fallacies of Proto-Indo-European — Nicholas Kazanas

January 3, 2017

Book Review: Vedic and Indo-European Studies by Nicholas Kazanas


The book under review is a volume of erudite essays from the pen of Dr Nicholas Kazanas, the Director of Omilos Meleton Cultural Institute in Athens, Greece, on Vedic and Indo-European subjects.


Fallacies of Proto-Indo-European
Kazanas, December 2016
0.There was a P(roto)I(ndo-)E(uropean) language 10.000 years ago. Its reconstruction is impossible now despite enormous efforts by fanciful scholars. The closest extant language is (old) Sanskrit.
  1. I do not belong to the small circle of sanskritists, classicists and others who reject the existence of PIE. Admittedly there is no hard evidence for this language – no texts, no fragments anywhere. But the astonishing similarities that unmistakably exist between Sanskrit, Old Greek, Latin and other languages cannot be dismissed as chance events or borrowing or wave-influences. The languages involved starting in the East and moving westward are chiefly these: Sanskrit (or Vedic or Old Indic), Avestan (or Iranian in Ancient Persia/Iran), Tocharian (in Central Asia), Armenian, Hittite (Luvian, Palaic and few others in what is today Turkey), Slavic (branches in Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Czechoslovakia, Poland and few other areas), Albanian, Greek, Latin (and few other dialects in today’s Italy, Spain, France and Rumania), Celtic (Old Irish/Welsh), Germanic (the largest family with Gothic, Old High German, Old Icelandic etc) and Baltic (=Latvian, Lithuanian and Old Prussian).
From these ancient languages various scholars have over almost two centuries now, starting around 1800, “reconstructed”, so they claim, the ancient PIE. I shall not cite any of these reconstructions, except on rare occasions as absurd examples, because they are all imaginary, having no true basis in reality, since no trace of PIE itself has survived. Some laws of change and interrelation between (some of) the extant languages are valid since they are based on actual lexemes (=forms of words). But as soon as one moves out of these few oases of rationality, one wallows in uncertainty and conjecture.
  1. Let me start by giving some examples of close similarities. I leave out Avestan (or Iranian) because in most case the lexeme is very similar to Sanskrit. But I deal with some Indo-Iranian affinities in §8, below.
belly : S(anskrit) udara , Gk hoderos, L(atin) (venter?) uterus, B(altic) vēderas .
flesh : S māṃsa, Toch(arian) misa, Arm(enian) mis, Sl(avic) mesa, Alb(anian) mish, G(er)m(anic) mimz/mensā, B mesa.
knee : S jānu , Gk gonu , L genu , Gm kniw.
molar(tooth): jamba, Toch keme, Sl zebn, Alb(anian) dhëmb, Gk gomphos.
Some human relations.
father : S pitṛ/pitar , Gk patēr, L pater, C athir (Celtic lost |p| almost everywhere), Gm fadar .
mother : is found in various forms in all except H(ittite)
son : sūnu , Toch soy, Sl synǔ, Gk hui-, Gm sunu(s), B sūnus.
Natural phenomena
dawn : S uṣās ,  Gk ēōs, L au[s]rora, Gm eostre, B  aušra.
fire : S agni , H agnis, Sl ognǔ, L ignis , B ugnis.
rainwater : S abhra, Arm amb, Gk ombro, L imber.
star : S star- , Toch śreñ/ścirye, Arm astl-, Gk astēr , L stella , C sterenn , Gm stairnō .
Man-made objects
awl : S ārā , Gm al/āla , Old Prussian ylo , B yla .
butter : S sarpis , Toch sälyp-e, Alb gjalp, Gk helpos, Gm salba.
house :  S dhāma, Sl domǔ, Gk dom-a/-o, L domus.
wheel :  S cakra , Toch kukäl, Gk kuklo-, Gm hwēol.
Some verbs
be : S asti, Gk esti, Gm ist etc etc.
beget : S jan-, Gk gen-, Lt gen-, C gen-a/i.
grab : S grabh, H karp, Sl grabi-, Gm gre(i)pan, B grābt.
put : S dhā- , Toch täs/tēs, H dai, Sl dĕ-ti,  Gk ti-thē-, C do-di, B détí.
think : S man, Sl mǐnĕ-, Gk mna-/main-, L me-min-, C de-moin-, Gm mun, B many.
There are hundreds more. But enough examples have been given to show that far too many lexemes have close resemblance to assume anything other than a genetic relation. That is to say, the languages mentioned descended from one original mother tongue and each retained many or few aspects according to the influences it received once they had split, when groups of people speaking the original PIE began to diverge and move to different distant areas.
  1. Apart from lexemes there are similarities in the declension of nouns and conjugation of verbs and in syntax. Moreover, there are similarities in themes and motifs in mythology and in several customs, laws and social practices.
Below are the 1st Sing, 1st and 3rd Plural persons of the verb to be:
  Sanskrit Hittite Greek Germanic(Gothic)
sing 1 asmi ēšmi eimi im
pl 1 smas ––– e-smen sijum
pl 3 santi ašanzi eisi/enti sind
Except for the Gothic sijum ‘we are’ the resemblances are so close as to need no further comment.
I shall close this section with one of the many mythologems that are common to three or more IE cultures. Versions of this are found in the Sanskrit, Greek, Celtic and Germanic (Scandinavian) cultures.
In the Vedic literature we find Saraṇyu, daughter of creator god Tvaṣṭṛ, marrying the Sungod Vivasvat. But soon afterward she disappeared leaving behind her a shadowy likeness and assumed the form of a mare. Vivasvat located her, assumed the form of a stallion and mated with her. As a result the twin horse deities Aśvins were born.
In Greece, goddess Demeter disappeared to escape the sexual harassment of seagod Poseidon. She assumed the form of a mare. Poseidon located her with the aid of Sungod, became a stallion and mated with her. As a result was born a noble horse Areion and a girl. Then the goddess was worshipped in Arcadia as Demeter Erinus (=Saraṇyu: a sure cognation).
In Scandinavia the gods asked a giant-mason to build for them a huge wall within a certain date and would win a goddess as reward. With the help of his horse Svadilfari, the mason worked very fast and would win the bet with the gods. So they sought the help of Loki, god of tricks and transformations. He became a mare and kept distracting the mason’s horse. Thus the gods won their bet as the mason was unable to finish on time. The mare became pregnant and bore the eight-legged horse Sleipnir, the fastest ever. This was given to kinggod Odin.
Again the similarities are quite extraordinary when one considers how far apart the three traditions were and how none of the intermediate IE or non-IE cultures had this legend. But the element of sex with a mare is found in other legends and the Irish should be mentioned here. In one tribe in Ulster, the future king had to mount a white mare before his coronation. Then the mare was slaughtered and cooked and all people involved in the ritual partook of the mare’s meat.
In some IE countries bestiality was forbidden except for mares and in some cases cows. Wherever Christianity was established all bestiality was  prohibited.
  1. It is an established fact that we scholars love conjectures, models, suppositions, theories, about all subjects. When the similar IE languages were discovered and explored in the 19th cent, the desire arose naturally to find the mother tongue PIE. This was not forthcoming and it is unlikely that it will be discovered. So linguists specialising in this area, comparativists, began to contrive this PIE on the basis of the facts in these extant languages. They thought then, and now many of them are certain, that PIE could be “reconstructed”. The early attempts in the 20th cent were not very satisfactory and one generation after another “improved”, as they thought, on the work of the previous. By the 1990’s they felt confident that their methods had been refined and become very exact and scientific. And soon thereafter followed several studies presenting the last word on comparative IE philology and the reconstructed mother tongue PIE. (E.g. B. Fortson 2004, N. Ritt 2004, J. Clackson 2006.)
The first fallacy is that the comparative method is “scientific” and can offer predictions.   And the comparativists are very proud of their “science” – although there are some few who dissent and consider all this a waste of time (e.g. Leach 1990; Angela Marcantonio 2009, 2013).
There are in fact no predictions outside observable phenomena in the fairly rich documentation of comparatively early languages like Sanskrit, Avestan, Greek and Latin. For instance, Sanskrit |ś| appears in Greek most frequently as |k|, as in S daśa = Gk deka for the number 10, and S śăta = Gk he-kato for the number 100. But S /ś/ appears in Greek as |p| also, as in S aśva = Gk hippos for horse. When Mycenaean Greek was deciphered in mid-20th cent., it was discovered that it had iqo-/iqe- for horse. So the equation S |ś| = Gk |k| held true if |k| = |q|.
This discovery is, of course, no prediction at all. Because the other Greek dialects do not conform to this rule and the causes for the disparity are totally unknown.
In any event, the scientific predictions and reconstructions should concern the PIE itself. But this cannot be verified. Thus we are asked to accept the results of a “scientific” method that can in no way be verified. And this proposition comes from scholars who are regarded as mature, serious and well-educated. Yet they disregard one of the most basic conditions of scientific investigation: the results must be amenable to independent verification.
  1. Closely related to the previous fallacy, is the fallacy that PIE can be reconstructed.
It cannot. Apart from the impossibility of verifying the reconstructions since we have no genuine, original PIE linguistic facts, the data available from the various IE extant tongues contain many variations and contradictions. It is acknowledged by the more sober, older scholars that the extant languages descend not from the PIE itself but from dialects that had descended from it.
  1. Burrow who wrote a study of Sanskrit (1955, revised 1973), that still remains a standard text, wrote: “In the case of Indo-European it is certain that there was no such unitary language which can be reached by means of comparison… In fact detailed comparison makes it clear that the Indo-European that we can reach… was already deeply split up into a series of varying dialects” (11: 1973).
  2. Szemerényi, an eminent comparativist in his day but now out of favour and fashion, writes on one page that “the first task of the Indo-Euroepanist is … the fullest possible reconstruction of the Indo-European” to be used as “a starting-point for the interpretation of the system and its prehistory” but on another page writes that we need the reconstructed forms for easier reference (one form rather that the many in the diverse IE tongues) and elsewhere cites other scholars who assert that “complete forms cannot be reconstructed at all” (1996: 33)!
Like Szemerényi and others, I think all indoeuropeanist comparativists are aware of the absurd side of the matter, that is of reconstructing a language that cannot be verified, that is spoken by nobody and has no texts whatever! Don Ringe also, a respected contemporary comparativist, mentions the difficulties of reconstruction (2004: 1117). Yet the indoeuropeanists continue their “scientific” reconstructions degrading every sense of science and scientific investigation. In 2000 Calvert Watkins published The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots , while others publish textbooks for students!!!
It is customary to place an asterisk initially on every reconstructed lexeme (e.g. *deiwos = S devas ‘god’) but Watkins has put no stars on his roots: anɘ ‘breathe’ (PIE *h2en-?!!?) = S angnō ‘know’= S jñā ; mē ‘measure’ = S  mā ;  stā ‘stand’ = S sthāyag ‘worship’ = S yaj ‘sacrifice’; etc. So readers uninformed in the subject may well think that these concoctions are actual roots of an actual language. This is a minor difficulty. Watkins indulges at length in misleading everybody by not providing adequate information or by providing only secondary inessential facts. E.g. root anɘ : he refers to L anima ‘soul’ and derivatives, to Gk anemo ‘wind’ and derivatives and the name ‘Enid’ from Welsh eneit ‘soul’. But he does not say that only S has the root (dhātu) itself √an and the conjugation of the verb ‘to breathe’!
The epidemic with proto-languages has spread to linguistic studies of other groups of languages, like Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian, Finno-Ugric, Kurtvelian etc. Even within IE family, the comparativists deal with Proto-Germanic, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Italic (i.e. Latin etc) and so on. R. Woodward edited, with the help of numerous other comparativists, in 2004, the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages (Cambridge, Britain). Chapter 17, incidentally, describes briefly in 14 pages and in “scientific” terms, the IE Protolanguage admitting that it is not attested but “reconstructed”.
However, the mentality behind this reconstructed PIE is not all that different from the belief, current in St Augustine’s time in the 4th cent CE that all languages descended from Hebrew. It was Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) who first challenged this mainstream inane notion.
  1. Another fallacy is very subtle: it is the tacit assumption that the reconstructed forms are actual and experts in this imaginary field discuss and argue among themselves as if they are realities.
If by some miracle a tablet should be discovered from say 10 000 BCE with a genuine (fragment of a) text of PIE, these experts would not recognise it as such because, I am sure, it would be vastly different from their reconstructions. I shall explain the reasons for my certitude below (§§ 7-11).
In an effort to convince others of the validity of the reconstructions, the IEnists use two analogies: one is the depiction of an animal, a drawing, in a biology textbook which is according to J. Clackson, “an idealised depiction”: the drawing corresponds to the creature (cat or caterpillar) but it is not the same as it (2013:270). Obviously the learned comparativist does not see the frightful fallacy here. The cat or caterpillar is drawn from real life; they are existing entities and the artist, or photographer in our days, has actually seen the animal itself and has not “reconstructed” it from scattered pieces, here and there, as philologists do!
The second analogy is the “map” of the sky and “constellations” like the Orion. These are presented in two dimensions whereas the actual positions of stars differ in depth and distance in space: some lie further away from earth than others (Clackson 2013:271). Here too our comparativist falls into the same fallacy. Sky-maps and constellations are real objects seen and photographed, not a concoction of pieces from different constellations in different areas of heaven as seen by us. The PIE tongue is not seen or photographed from real PIE elements: it is a new formation “reconstructed” with entities from different languages and projected as “real”. What has actual existence are the extant languages; the PIE is an imaginary collage, a conjectural projection without any real existence except in the linguistic books!
  1. The development of reconstruction has not been a straight line. At first Sanskrit was given prominence. Eventually a more “democratic” approach prevailed but one that regards Hittite as an older and closer descendant of the PIE. And since Hittite has a sound that came to be designated “laryngeal”, i.e. |h̯|, gradually this sound and variants were introduced to fill many gaps and solve difficulties met in comparisons. At one time these laryngeals were 10, now they have been reduced to 3. But they are wilfully introduced even in languages that do not have them, like Sanskrit and Avestan!
Sanskrit is not given the attention it deserves because it is regarded as more “modern” than Hittite, Iranian (=Avestan) etc.
This is due to the wretched AIT, the Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory. This states that the Indoaryans (=ancient Indians/Aryans) came from Iran into N-W India c 1700 after spending some time in Iran with the Iranians and speaking a common Indo-Iranian protolanguage. They spread southward and eastward into the Gangetic plain driving the old natives south into the Dravidian area of India, or reducing them into the servile class.
This absurd Theory, like so many others, has become mainstream doctrine. It ignores glaring facts. The Avestan hymns say that the Iranians themselves wandered much before settling into South Iran and the first place they passed from was the Land of the Seven Rivers (in N-W India and Pakistan). A Sanskrit text, again, Baudhāyana’s Śrautasūtra (18.14) says that there was the Āmāvasa migration from Saptasindhu (Land of 7 rivers) westward and the Ṛgveda hymn 6.61.9,12 says that the 5 Aryan tribes spread beyond the seven sister-rivers!
However, I leave this fallacious theory as I have deconstructed it in my Vedic and Indo-European Studies (N. Delhi, 2015) and in numerous other publications.
According to my reading of anthropological, archaeological, genetic, linguistic and literary data, all expounded in detail in my two books (2009, 2015), the original IE homeland was in the larger area of Saptasindhu and covering Bactria. From there the various IE-speakers radiated to their northern and north-western and western migrations. The Avestan speakers are the last to leave and for this reason their tongue Old Iranian bears the greatest resemblance to Old Indic.
Baudhāyana’s ŚrautaSūtra 18.14 mentions two migrations: one eastward, the Āyava; one westward, the Āmāvasa producing the Gāndhāris, Parśus (=Persians) and Arāttas (=of Urartu and/or Ararat on the Caucausus).
  1. Another fallacy is the notion of uniform phonological change in the selfsame environment.
This does sound most reasonable. In fact, it is quite otherwise in the actual world of the texts. I shall take only one example from Sanskrit and Avestan, since they are such close relatives and neighbours, the sonorant vowel ||, which is by full consensus held to be PIE.
Observe please that this ||, remains in fact in all the Sanskrit words but changes variously in the corresponding Avestan!
S ṛṣṭi ‘spear’; amṛta ‘immortal’; vṛka ‘wolf’; vṛkṣa ‘tree’; ākṛti ‘form’
A aršti ;  amǝša ; vǝhrka ; varǝša ; ākǝrǝti
There are, in fact, more variations in Avestan – ōrǝ , ar , ra …
Writing on Kurylowitz’s ‘laws of change’, Heinrich Hock, one of the most eminent IE comparativists stated – “a prediction of when a change will or must occur is impossible” (1991:211).
  1. Another fallacy is the division into satem and centum languages: satem being Sanskrit, Avestan, Baltic etc; centum being Tocharian, Greek, Latin etc. As is generally known, the distinction is due to the appearance of palatals in satem (from Avestan ‘one hundred’ = S śata) and of velars (gutturals) in the centum (from L ‘one hundred’). However, this distinction is not so absolute as one might think. Palatals are found in some places in centum tongues and velars in satem.
The Baltic languages are three: Old Prussian, Latvian and Lithuanian. Well, in Lithuanian we find god Perkunas (and variants = Sl Perenu) who is cognate with S Parjanya. Thus S has the palatal |j| as is proper for satem but Lithuanian has the velar |k| which is proper to centum languages.
  1. The biggest fallacy and central to any discussion regarding the Protolanguage in IE studies is exposed by the presence of roots or more correctly dhātus ‘lexical seedforms’ in Sanskrit. When all the paraphernalia of PIE reconstructions are laid aside the investigator finds that, in plain fact, only Sanskrit and Avestan (to a much lesser degree) have roots! The other IE languages have verbs and nouns etc but not roots, as such, from which verbs and nouns etc are derived. Even Sanskrit has many words that cannot be analysed or traced back to a dhātu (apart from borrowed words): e.g. kakud ‘peak’, nṛ/nara ‘man’, putra ‘child/son’, balakṣa ‘white’, śūdra ‘servile’ etc. But it has 2000 dhātus all told and about 700 fully active in the early language.
In his Dictionary Walkins gives 5 roots ser, and of these he connects number 2 with S ̦√sṛ > sarati/sisarti ‘moves/flows/runs’ and then gets lost in the labyrinth of IE complexities. This |sṛ| is not found as an independent word noun or adjective, but is found in S as stem in sṛ-t ‘running’, sṛ-ta ‘having gone/passed’, sṛti ‘way’ etc. Then there are sara saraṇasaritsārasārin etc. This is found also in a cognate form in Tocharian salate, in Gk hallomai and L salio, all meaning ‘leap/rush’, but only as verbs, not as roots and with very few derivatives. The most curious fact is that its derivative saras ‘eddy, whirl, wave, lake’ is in the name of the ancient river saras-vatī. This is cognate with Avestan haraxvaiti, also a river’s name; but there is no root nor other word connected with this harah in Iranian, so it stands alone! The mainstream theory, that wants the common Indo-Iranian tongue and culture in Iran, says that the Indoaryans went to Saptasindhu and there gave their version of the name to a river to remind them of their former country. This of course is utter, wilful nonsense, because saras has a rich family of lexemes and a dhātu but the Iranian haraḥ is a lonely orphan! So the movement must have been the other way round and the Iranians just lost dhātu and derivatives retaining only the name and memory of the river in Saptasindhu. (See§7-8.) Otherwise, it is impossible that the Indoaryans left Iran with only harah/saras and once in their new habitat started developing other lexemes and the dhātu √sṛ.
  1. Of the 700 dhātus in the early Vedic texts, 200 are found in the root-form as nouns or adjectives and also stems for verbs. Thus Vedic has √īś (m) ‘lord’ and verb īś-e ‘I reign’; but also derivatives īśa, īśinīśvara etc. Similarly √ruc > ruc (f) ‘lustre’ and á-ru-ruc-at ‘one shone’ (in a past tense, called reduplicated aorist); but also derivatives ruk-maruca-karucinrocana etc. Similarly √sad > sad (adj) ‘sitting’ and verb á-sad-at (aorist) ‘one sat’. 200 such dhātus with their families of derivatives (nouns and verbs etc) form a very rich inheritance – considering that no other IE language has anything. Tatiana Elizarenkova, the renowned Russian vedicist, put it like this: “the verb-root [=dhātu] is basic to both inflexion and derivation…it is irrelevant that for some root as such nouns are not attested”(1995: 50). Sanskrit has organic coherence.
The most telling aspect for the antiquity and significance of Sanskrit is precisely this organic coherence arising from roots generating verbs, nouns etc. This functions with the regular use of suffixes, verbal and nominal. I shall give only two examples, but the instances are hundreds.
S has the stems pad/pād- (weak/strong) ‘foot’ and √pad > vb padyate ‘befalls, falls’. Since the foot is the bodily part that in movement constantly rises and “falls” we see semantic as well as phonetic agreement. Gk has pous (Gen podos) and L pes (Gen pedis); Armenian, Hittite and Tocharian have similar cognates for ‘foot’. But none has a cognate verb like S √pad- ! Gm does have ge-fetan ‘to fall’ (Old English) and has cognates fôt/fuoz ‘foot’. Slavic also has pada/pasti ‘falls’ but no other nominal cognates. Lithuanian has the verb peduoti but its padas is ‘sandal, shoe’ (not foot).
The IE cognates for “daughter” present a similar case. S duhitṛ for daughter is the √duh and the suffixes i-tṛ, as in pitṛ ‘father’, aritṛ ‘rower’, aśitṛ ‘eater’ etc. The verb is duḥ- > dogdhi ‘extracts, milks’ (hence duhitṛ = milkmaid!). Gk thugatēr, Gmc tohter, Sl dušti and Oscan (old Italic) futir , have no other plausible cognates in their total diction. Surprisingly neither Latin nor Hittite have any cognations for IE daughter! The others have the noun but not the verb.
  1. I could give dozens of more cases which show this organic coherence in Sanskrit, which is totally absent in other IE tongues (See my 2015: ch 2). In another paper, “Rigvedic All-comprehensiveness”, I show that most of the significant cultural and linguistic IE features common in the other IE cultures are found in the Ṛgveda. All other branches show enormous losses in all respects – except erosion.
Is this aspect known and studied in depth by IEean comparativists? Perhaps. But they do not draw the natural conclusion that Sanskrit alone should be the basis for PIE. The other languages are made up of highly eroded and fragmented materials. In my view all the mainstream academic publications on the subject of reconstructing PIE are worthless.
Edmund Leach, provost of King’s College Cambridge, wrote many years ago: “Because of their commitment to a unilateral segmentary history of language development that needed to be mapped onto the ground, the philologists took it for granted that proto-Indo-Iranian was a language that had originated outside India or Iran…. From this we derived the myth of the Aryan invasions”. But he went further: “Indo-European scholars should have scrapped their historical reconstructions and started again from scratch. But this is not what happened. Vested interests and academic posts were involved” (Leach 1990:238).
I am afraid that the edifice of IE linguistics and reconstructions continues to be based on those “vested interests”.
Burrow T.                 1973  The Sanskrit Language, London, Faber & Faber.
Clackson J.               2007  Indo-European Linguistics, Cambridge (Brit), CUP.
2013  The Origin of the Indic Languages… The Indo-European Model, in Marcantonio (ed) 2013, ch9.
Fortson B.                2004  Indo-European Language & Culture Oxford, Blackwell.
Hock H.                      1991 Principles of Historical Linguistics 2nd ed, Berlin, NY, de Gruyter.
Kazanas N.                 2009 Indo-Aryan Origins… N. Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.
2015 Vedic & Indo-European Studies N. Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.
Leach E .                    1990 “Aryan invasions over four millennia” in Culture through Time (ed) E. Ohnuki-Tierney, Stanford, Stanford University (227-245).
Marcantonio A.       2009  (ed) The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its Status Washington, Journal of IE Studies Monograph Series No 55. «Most reconstructions are artefacts».
2013 (ed with Girish Nath Jha) Perspectives on the Origin of Indian Civilisation N. Delhi, D.K. Printworld; Center for Indic Studies, Univ. of Massachussets, Dartmouth (MA).
Ringe Don               2004 in Woodword R. (ed) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, Cambridge (Brit), CUP.
Ritt N.                     2004  Selfish Sounds & Linguistics… Cambridge (Brit), CUP
Szemerényi O.        1996  Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics (1990 transl from German) Oxford, OUP.
Watkins C.              2000  The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots Boston/NY, H. Mifflin Co.

Book Review: Harappa Script & Language by S. Kalyanaraman (2016) — Dr. Shrinivas Tilak

January 2, 2017

‘Harappa’ is an inclusive and integrative approach providing a comprehensive account of the major concerns surrounding the Harappa script and language within the wide expanse of Indic civilization.


In a speech organized by the Indian Council for Historical Research and delivered in Delhi on November 11, 2016, Professor Shivaji Singh referred to the prevalence, until recent times, of two separate versions of the early history of India. One based on literary sources (primarily the Ŗgveda) talks about the Ārya and non-Ārya (Dāsa) peoples. The other, based on archaeological record, throws light on mainly the material culture of various communities and groups of communities distinguished as the Harappans, Hakrans, the Kot Dijians, etc. No one-to-one correspondence between these two versions of history was entertained even though they relate to one and the same peoples within broadly the same space-time contexts (see Singh 2016).

Since the Harappan Civilization was thought to precede the Vedic Civilization, the history books described it first and the Vedic Civilization afterwards in different subsequent chapters. Professor Singh went on to observe that thanks to the scholarship of Professor B. B. Lal, an internationally recognized archaeologist, many scholars, who earlier believed in Vedic-Harappan dichotomy and shared the view of Aryan arrival in India from outside, now, accept Vedic-Harappan identity. Later, in a private communication to Dr Kalyanaraman, Professor Singh acknowledged that he considered the latter’s work “extremely important” because Dr Kalyanaraman had “broken the myth that Bharatiya tradition has downgraded the status of the artisans and placed them with the Shudras. In fact, it is this myth on which the entire structure of Subaltern history is based” (Kalyanaraman 2016A: 65).

I wish Professor Singh had publicly recognized the sterling contribution of Dr Kalyanaraman (hereafter K) to the field of Vedic civilization (also known as Indus/Harappa/Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization). In a previous review of K’s works, I have discussed at length what the reader stands to learn from his more than twenty published monographs about the remarkable treasure-house of jñāna discovered/recovered from the Harappa script corpora in many fields and disciplines ranging from art and music to mathematics and metallurgy. Equally important is K’s recovery of the significant contributions made to that treasure-house by simple Meluhha artisans whose descendants today follow Khandoba, Vithoba, and other popular folk deities and who today are consigned to the so-named ‘backward and deprived classes’(anusūcita janajātis)(see Tilak 2014).

The hypothesis of “Harappa Script & Language: Data mining of Corpora, tantra yukti & knowledge discovery of a civilization,” (hereafter ‘Harappa’), is premised on the definition of Mleccha (Meluhha) as the spoken forms of ‘Pre-Sanskrit’ or ‘Proto-Indo-European’ (PIE) language that may have been spoken as a single language (before divergence began) around 3500 BCE. Borrowings have occurred among Dravidian, Munda and IE language-families making India a Sprachbund (language union or linguistic area) from the Bronze Age where the people of India speaking over twenty five distinct languages have continued to absorb language features from one another and making them their own.

In ‘Harappa’ K continues his life-long mission of decoding the Harappa script and language that have remained an enigma to scholars, academics, archaeologists, and historians. Claims of decipherment number in hundreds, though none has found consensus or acceptance among scholars. In 1996, Gregory L. Poesshl, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania, surveyed over thirty extant claims and concluded that the script is likely to remain undeciphered. But K does not share in Poesshl’s pessimism. Back in 1822, Jean Francois Champollion had deciphered the Egyptian writing system (hieroglyphs) as a combination of phonetic and ideographic glyphs. Then, John Hubert Marshall, who was Director-General of Archaeological Survey of India from 1902 to 1908 indicated that the Indus inscriptions resemble the Egyptian hieroglyphs far more than they do the Sumerian linear and cuneiform system. Taking his cue from Champollion and Marshall, K began his studies in the assumption that a solution to the Indus script puzzle is to be found in the trade and commercial activities of the Harappan people, their script, and their language.

Since the days of Marshall in 1920s, archaeologists have identified over two thousand archaeological sites on the Sarasvati River Basin. Explorations and excavations in about twenty other sites have now taken the Harappa script corpora to over eight thousand inscriptions that have constituted K’s research base for his cryptographic analyses and delineation of the courses of the River Sarasvati in North-western India.

K’s analysis of the data led him to argue that the Harappans, who produced the seals, were mostly artisans of all sorts, from lapidaries (workers in gem stones), masons, miners, to smiths, who worked on stones, ivory, shell, minerals, metals, and alloys of metals. They created the Indus script and writing system in order to record the details of their professional activities. They used a code and a code key (known as the rebus) to transform and transfer information and messages that were deliberately obscured so that the messages could not be read or understood even if they were intercepted. A cipher is a secret language invented to conceal the meaning of a message. Artisans and traders of the Indus area created the cipher and included it with the goods that were shipped (like including a font that you may have used to generate a file?). Their trade associates in other parts of the world who received the messages were able to securely decipher the text of the coded message by performing an inverse substitution using the code keys (rebus; see Tilak 2010 for more details).

I Harappa script corpora

‘Harappa’ features the story of a civilization documenting the nature of work performed as people moved from rural to urban living coping with the industrial society formed in the wake of the Bronze Age Revolution and conduct of guilds as incipient economic forms of states that were known as janapadas. Will Durant observed that history is “an industry, an art and a philosophy — a search for perspective and enlightenment.” ‘Harappa’ similarly is a search for a civilization enfolding in two domains of knowledge: (1) Archaeo-metallurgical advances made during the Bronze Age Revolution; and (2) Invention of a writing system to document, in Meluhha (Harappan) language these advances required. Another objective of this treatise is to unravel the semantics of Dharma saṁjñā to be recovered through hieroglyphs using a method of data mining of Harappa script corpora numbering over eight thousand inscriptions based on the principles of tantra yukti, which provides a scientific basis for reconstructing the lexis of an ancient Bharata language that K insists was Meluhha (Mleccha). K hopes that his narrated history will inspire the youth to regain the high status in the world that India (that is Bharat) enjoyed in ancient times (Kalyanaraman 2016: 3).

II Data mining of corpora: rebus and tantrayukti too


An abiding feature of K’s scholarship on the Harappa script and language has been his constant upgrading/updating of the methodology used in his scholarly pursuit. K pioneered the use of the rebus method to decipher the Harappa script. His inspiration for deciphering the Harappa script originated in the well-known dictum of Tolkappiyam (a work on the grammar of the Tamil language): all words are semantic indicators (ellaac collum porul kur-ittanave), which led him to incorporate elements of the method known as the Rebus. Rebus (in Latin ablative plural of res = things) means ‘of or by things’ and by extension ‘not by words, but by things. In ‘Harappa,’ he has also added the more traditional method known as tantrayukti to make his analyses of data more comprehensive.
K initially employed the Rebus method that had already been in practice with Egyptian hieroglyphs using existing symbols (such as pictograms) for their sounds regardless of their meaning to represent new words. The rebus method uses existing well known symbols, such as pictograms, purely for their sounds (regardless of their meaning) to represent new words. Many ancient writing systems used the Rebus principle to represent abstract words, which otherwise would be hard to be represented by pictures (pictograms). An example that illustrates the Rebus principle is the representation of the sentence “I can see you” by using the sequence of pictures “eye—can—sea—ewe.” Rebus also uses words pronounced alike (homophones) but having different meanings: the word ‘club’ for instance, which may have the meaning of a weapon or a group depending upon the context. Similarly, wavy lines may be drawn suggesting the motif of ‘sea’ for writing the word ‘see.’ Some linguists believe that the Chinese developed their writing system according to the rebus principle.
In Rebus method used today, it is common to find the use of the numeral 8 to stand for the verbal form ‘ate’ or a syllable with that sound; the numeral 4 as a stand in for ‘for;’ and the numeral 2 for ‘to or too.’ So, we can have: gr + 8 = great; 4 + T = fort; 2 + L = tool. The ancient rebus method, to that extent, has some common ground with the contemporary texting language known as ‘txt’ or ‘txtspk.’
K argues that almost every single glyph or glyphic element of the Meluhha script may be read rebus using the repertoire of artisans (lapidaries working with precious shell, ivory, stones, and terracotta, mine workers, metal smiths working with a variety of minerals, furnaces, and other tools), who created the inscribed objects and used many of them to authenticate their trade transactions. Many of the inscribed objects were used as calling cards of the professional artisans, listing their professional skills and/or repertoire of karni, supercargo for a boat shipment (Kalyanaraman 2016: 86).

Rebus reinterpretation of a man seated in a yoga like posture

An Indus seal showing a horned male person seated in yoga like posture figures in many text books assigned to courses on Indian religions, history, and civilization. A three-leaved branch of the Pipal tree appears on his crown with a star on either side. Two stars adorn the curved buffalo horns of the seated person who wears a scarf on pigtail. Seven bangles are depicted on the left arm and six on the right, with the hands resting on the knees. The heels are pressed together under the groin and the feet project beyond the edge of the throne (see figure below). In the considered opinion of the scholarly community, the person in the seal represents (a) a yogi or an ascetic practicing meditation or engaged in austerities or penance; (b) a proto-Rudra/Śiva or (c) Agni, the god of fire.


Without disputing this line of interpretation, K has attempted a Rebus reinterpretation of this pictograph on a seal. He suggests that the seal may have additional information to communicate regarding the field of metallurgy. The word in Prakrit for penance is kamandha, which is homonymous with the Tamil word kampattam meaning ‘mint. The word for large horns with sweeping upward curve as applied to buffalos is dabe in Santali. The words dab, dhimba, dhombo meaning a lump (clot) are homonyms for dabe. The word for twig in the Atharvaveda (5:19.12) is kudi. A Santali word kuthi meaning ‘smelting furnace’ would be a homonym for kudi. Another Santali word kote meaning ‘forged’ [metal] is also relevant here. After analyzing other glyptic elements on the seal, K concludes that the person on the seal is a lapidary scribe working in a mint (Kalyanaraman 2016: 432-433; also based on personal communication with Dr Kalyanaraman).

Tantra yukti

In a welcome gesture, K has introduced in ‘Harappa’ the traditional method of documenting and presenting research called tantrayukti (also known as yuktibhāṣā in the context of mathematical and astronomical researches). The Sanskrit compound ‘tantrayukti’ is made of two words –’tantra’ and ‘yukti’ where ‘tan’ (to spread) is the verbal root in ‘tantra,’ which means science (śāstra) and yukti is a derivative of the verbal root ‘yuj’ (to unite/concentrate). Tantra then can be understood as that which discusses and details subjects and concepts and yukti is that which removes blemishes like impropriety, contradiction, etc. from the intended meaning and efficiently joins such meanings together. The expression tantrayukti thus denotes those devices that aid the composition of a text in a systematic manner to convey intended ideas clearly. Cakrapāṇi in his commentary on the Carakasamhita lists forty such distinct devices of tantra, many of which are exemplified in the treatises of Suśruta, Caraka, Vāgbhaṭa, Kauţilya, and Pāņini on knowledge domains of Āyurveda, Arthaśāstra, and Sanskrit grammar, respectively (Kalyanaraman 2016: 63). Select items from the forty or so strong repertoire of tantrayukti, accordingly, were habitually employed in the tradition while composing a treatise.

Mlecchita vikalpa and tantrayukti

The term ‘mlecchita’ means ‘made by Mleccha’ and the expression Mlecchita vikalpa refers to a distinct or specific option or alternative (vikalpa) associated with the Mlecchas. Mlecchita vikalpa is an expression used as the fifty-second item in the list of sixty-four arts to be learnt by youth in Vātsyāyana’s Kāmasūtra (Chapter 3, Part 1). Translators of the Kāmasūtra (including Richard Burton, Bhagavanlal Indrajit, and Shivaram Parashuram Bhide) explain the expression Mlecchita vikalpa as ‘the art of understanding writing in cipher’ or cryptography or, simply, encryption. In ‘Harappa,’ K argues that Mlecchita vikalpa recognizes the usefulness of tantrayukti possibly because of its ‘sūtra’ style of composition. Since a characteristic feature of the structure and form of Harappa script similarly is crispness of expression, K speculates that this feature may have been governed by the cardinal principle of tantrayukti (the average number of ‘text signs’ being five with or without pictorial motifs or field symbols on seals and tablets). Additionally, crispness of an expression is not obliterated by verbosity, nor is the depth of meaning that is intended to be conveyed compromised (to attain crispness).

Some typical tantrayukti devices that K proposes to use in the narratives of Harappa script corpora include: upamāna (or dŗşţānta = analogy), vākyaviśeşa (completion of a sentence meaningfully even in the absence of a word which is implied), pūrvapakṣa (objections, prima facie or provisional view), uttarapakṣa (correct view or answers), hetvārtha ((extension of argument), vidhāna (right interpretation), nirvacana (definition or derivation or etymology of terms (Kalyanaraman 2016: 5-10). K also reasons that tantrayukti doctrine would be useful in linguistic analyses and in delineating the origin and formation of ancient languages of India. To that extent it would be more directly relevant to increasing the knowledge base of Indology than the ‘Aryan Invasion Theory’ (AIT), which is more an article of faith subjected to polemics than theory. AIT has been treated as a ‘linguistic doctrine’ by many linguists and researchers of the civilization of India though it has yielded limited or no success in deciphering the Harappa Script.

III Knowledge discovery

K’s preliminary decipherment of Harappa script cipher as metalwork catalogues recorded in Meluhha language(s) resulted in two unique discoveries: (1) A three-sided tablet with Harappa script inscription showing a boat loaded with ox-hide ingots found in Mohenjodaro and (2) three pure tin ingots found with Harappa Script inscriptions from a shipwreck in Haifa, Israel. They also signified the Bronze Age Revolution that was brought about via (1) Cire perdue lost-wax technique for creating metal sculptures of exquisite beauty and artistry (e.g. dancing girl bronze statue of Mohenjodaro); (2) Techniques of alloying of minerals to create hard alloys necessary to forge useful tools, implements, weapons, pots and pans; and (3) Organization of guilds of artisans and merchants as corporate forms to control the works-in-process (e.g. circular platforms of Harappa) and shipment of cargo of metalwork merchandise using dhows, seafaring vessels.

The discovery of another object, described as ‘Susa pot’ containing metal implements, confirmed for K the function of the Harappa script: documenting trade transactions related to metalwork of Meluhha artisans. On this basis K further speculates that these three discoveries also point to the contributions made by seafaring merchants from ancient India for transactions in tin trade that stretched from Hanoi in present Vietnam to Haifa in Israel. Since the world’s major source of tin is the Mekong River delta of Ancient Far East, K hypothesizes existence of a Maritime Tin Route from Hanoi to Haifa that predated the more famous ‘Silk Route’(Kalynaraman 2016: 61-62).

K subsequently extended ‘data mining techniques’ he had developed over decades of research to almost eight thousand inscriptions of the Harappa script corpora that revealed literary/ritual and the trade and commercial activities of Harappans, who called themselves Bhāratam Janam (i.e. metal caster folk = Mleccha/Meluhha) and who catalogued their life-activities in (1) ten thousand eight hundred richas compiled in the Ŗgveda and (2) in Harappa script corpora, which now number about eight thousand inscriptions of cipher text (Kalyanaraman 2016: 60). Interestingly, K informs us, they were also poets and philosophers of sacred fire (agni) as well as workers in smithy and forge and these two activities were conveyed by one and same word (kole.l). Harappa/Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization, accordingly, produced creative works that employed recurring (1) literary and rhetorical devices (chanda = prosody) as well as (2) pictorial motifs that were linked to spoken forms of Mleccha/Meluhha language words. K posits that these constitute two sides of the trope: one is literary/musical side that used the prosody; the other is life-activity side (mlechhita vikalpa) which used the ‘metalwork catalogues’ to create the Harappa script corpora.

Annex B of ‘Harappa’ discusses the Harappa script as a knowledge system with reference to a number of stoneware ceramic bangles that were found at Harappa and that K describes as ‘dharma samjñā, ‘badges of responsibility.’ Socio-cultural framework of a workshop (smithy-forge as a temple) for a cluster of Vedic villages unravels organization of artisanal-seafaring merchant society as a corporation with ancient guilds.’ K further adds:

‘[E]ach functionary in the guild had a recognizable paṭa ‘badge’ (Corporate badge of dharma, of responsibility assigned in a socio-cultural organization of the samajam).’ A Bronze Age village of Bhāratam Janam or a cluster of such villages was a janapada, a Corporation of artisan guilds.’ This active life-doctrine provides a significant lesson of history of a civilization: work results in creation of wealth and a person’s conduct changes in relation to the Supreme Divinity, metaphorized as Naţarāja: the Cosmic Dancer. The imperative of trade necessitated the invention of a writing system preserved in the seals that K deems to be ‘tokens of dharma-dhamma saṁjñā – Corporate badges of responsibility.’ They served, K explains, as veritable reminders of the wearer’s responsibilities for abhyudaya, ‘social welfare’ coupled with his or her own life imperative moving from being to becoming, to attain nihsreyas, union of aatman with paramaatman (Kalyanaraman 2016: 3, KalyanaramanA 2016: 305ff).

Only a reader seeped deeply in the ‘Bharatiya samskriti’ or a reader, who is familiar with K’s previous monographs, will be able to understand this somewhat ambiguous and disconcerting passage as well as the subject matter of Annex B in general. Hopefully, in the next edition of ‘Harappa’, K will revise the above passage as well as Annex B so that its contents and the subject matter become clearer to the average reader.

Concluding observations

K’s choice of using a dozen or so Annexes (from A to L) instead of individual chapters to cover the most important topics and questions concerning the Harappa script and language is unusual. On the other hand, his addition of the explanatory tool of tantrayukti to bring the narrative of Harappan civilization, philosophy, and spirituality to the reader in a more efficient and comprehensive manner warrants further investigation. He offers timely and useful articulations (though prolix on some occasions) of the core dynamics at play in the debates surrounding the Harappa script corpora. Many of K’s strengths and merits as a scholar were discussed at length in my previous reviews of his published monographs (see Tilak 2010, 2014A, and 2014B). Here, I would merely reiterate that ‘Harappa’ has an appropriate blend of description and analysis and is philosophically and philologically sophisticated.

Professor Singh’s advice to the historians of ancient India to keep the Veda in one hand and the [digging] shovel in the other is consistent with the vision of integrated history and culture of India that Dr. Kalyanaraman, too, frames on the Veda and Archaeology (or rather, archaeo-metallurgy). More recently (in April 2015), K’s integrative vision has been dramatically endorsed by a discovery reported by the Students of the Institute of Archaeology, New Delhi of a yajña kuņḑa [sacrificial altar] and an octagonal yūpa [sacrificial post], which were found in Binjor together with a Harappa Script Seal. The decipherment has shown that a ‘Soma Saṁstha Yāga’ was performed, which is relevant in establishing the Vedic culture continuum in the Sarasvati Basin (see Kalyanaraman 2016 A: 66).

My only concern with ‘Harappa’ has to do with K’s choice and assertion of tantrayukti as a distinct methodology and its presence in the title of the monograph under review. In fact however, his application of yukti is rather sketchy and ambivalent to support its presence in the title. After a brief discussion in the introductory section that stretches to about two hundred pages, yukti does not figure in the remaining five hundred pages of ‘Harappa.’ Caraka himself equates inference and yukti at a different point and Cakrapāņi (commentator of the Carakasaṁhitā) questions the status of yukti as a separate means of attaining knowledge. He argues that it is properly subsumed under the more general case of inference (see Carakasaṁhitā Vimāna sthāna 4:4).

Leaving this concern aside, K’s ‘Harappa’ is a sterling example of an inclusive and integrative approach providing a comprehensive account of the major concerns, debates, and philosophical positions surrounding the Harappa script and language within the wide expanse of Indic civilization and Sprachbund. As befitting the work of a scholar with the comfortable authority born of deep, lasting familiarity with the subject, ‘Harappa’ is—and this should be underscored—very persuasive. This is a rarity for scholarly literature on Indic civilization, science, and spirituality.


Kalyanaraman, S. 2016. Harappa Script & Language: Data mining of Corpora, tantra yukti & knowledge discovery of a civilization.

Kalyanaraman, S. 2016A. Harappa Script – background, methodology, decipherment and significance. Accessed December 11, 2016.

Singh, Shivaji. 2016. With Veda in One Hand and Spade in the Other: Writing Early History of India Afresh. 9th Maulana Azad Memorial Lecture delivered in New Delhi on November 11, 2016.

Tilak, Shrinivas. 2010. http://tilak.sulekha.com/blog/post/2010/09/solving-the-indus-script-puzzle.htm

Tilak, Shrinivas. 2014. A http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.ca/2014/06/philosophy-of-symbolic-forms-in-meluhha.html

Tilak, Shrinivas. 2014. B https://www.academia.edu/9643316/A_review_of_Dr_S._Kalyanaraman_s_trilogy_by_Dr_Shrinivas_Tilak

Dr Shrinivas Tilak (Ph.D. History of religions, McGill University, Montreal, Canada) is an independent researcher based in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. His publications include The Myth of Sarvodaya: A study in Vinoba’s concept (New Delhi: Breakthrough Communications 1984); Religion and Aging in the Indian Tradition (Albany, N. Y.: State University of New York Press, 1989), Understanding karma in light of Paul Ricoeur’s philosophical anthropology and hermeneutics (Charleston, SC: BookSurge, revised, paperback edition, 2007), and Reawakening to a secular Hindu nation: M. S. Golwalkar’s vision of a Dharmasāpekşa Hindurāşţra (Charleston, SC: BookSurge, 2009).