Latest revision as of 21:01, 25 June 2025

[edit] Origins

[edit] A

ROHAN MANOJ, May 30, 2025: The Indian Express

In India, the 15th-century Manipravalam grammar, Lilatilakam, hewed a little closer to the truth in its speculation: The author groups the languages of the Kerala, Pandya and Chola regions under the name “Dramida”, but rejects the inclusion of the “Karnata” and “Andhra” tongues as they were too distant from the language of the “Tamil Veda”, that is, the Tiruvaymozhi. He does admit, however, that others would include the latter two languages in the category; who these others were, and what exactly they thought, is lost to time. Such passing references offer us tantalising glimpses of a vanished world of Brahminical scholarship, of historical-linguistic imaginations that by far antedated Robert Caldwell’s “discovery” of the Dravidian language family.

Let’s set this against another piece of historical evidence: A mediaeval prashasti, or praise-poem, from Venadu, a kingdom that controlled parts of southern Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which later became Travancore. Dating to the early 1100s, it praises a king of Venadu for his defeat of a Pandya lord, Rajasimha, who is described as “Tamil”, implying that his rival was in some sense not Tamil. Perhaps it’s a question of Tamil versus Malayalam, as the former had split off from Early Middle Tamil a few centuries prior. However, this particular poem is not in Old Malayalam but in standard literary Tamil. Malayalis would also continue to call even their own increasingly distinct language “Tamil” for centuries to come. It’s a reminder that questions of language on the one hand, and ethnic identity on the other, have long been complex matters in “Dravidian” South India.

Amid the brouhaha over actor Kamal Haasan’s statement that Kannada “was born out of Tamil”, it’s important to set a few things straight. Although there are still yawning chasms in scholarship on the Dravidian family, and more work is urgently needed, the taxonomy of at least the literary South Dravidian languages is broadly established. The split between Kannada and Tamil is older than any of the surviving literary or epigraphic evidence. Their common ancestor, itself a descendant of Proto-South-Dravidian, is conventionally termed Proto-Tamil-Kannada, but we don’t know what its own speakers called it. Both branched off from this unattested language; it is meaningless to say that Kannada came from Tamil or Tamil from Kannada. In general, it’s also meaningless to say that any natural language (with some exceptions such as sign languages) is “older” than any other, as ancestral forms of both would have been spoken at any given point in time.

The surviving corpus of Tamil literature is likely older than its Kannada counterpart, dating to the last few centuries BCE or first few centuries CE, despite revisionist attempts to cast the Sangam poems as an elaborate faux-historical forgery created at the court of the early mediaeval Pandyas; such claims fly in the face of all logic and plausibility. That still doesn’t say anything about the age of the languages themselves. Another claim is that Tamil is more conservative than related languages, preserving older forms, but counterexamples are easy to find (even ignoring the advantage Tamil has by dint of being attested in earlier forms):

The Tamil word for “ear” is cevi, whereas Kannada has kivi, preserving the older Dravidian *k (reconstructed form).

That said, several mysteries remain in the classification of the Dravidian languages, the best known being the debate over the origins of Brahui, spoken largely in Pakistan and to an extent in Afghanistan and Iran. The question is whether Brahui arrived in this region in mediaeval times or it descended from a language that was present there thousands of years ago, when Dravidian languages were far more widely spoken. The answer could, perhaps, tie into the origins of the Dravidian family itself, and whether it was spoken in the Indus Valley Civilisation. The classification of the common ancestor, Proto-Dravidian, is another open question, with theories such as the one positing a connection to Elamite, spoken in Iran before it was Iran, having found little support.

The controversy over Haasan’s comments reveals the minefield of competing ethno-linguistic claims that any appeal to Dravidian brotherhood must navigate to be successful. To rise above it would require a politics of regional aspiration and counter-hegemony that is shorn of chauvinism and claims of historical priority, leaving the linguistics to the linguists.

[edit] Details

Adrija Roychowdhury, June 13, 2025: The Indian Express

Historians have noted that long before any available palaeographic evidence of Kannada script in the region where it is predominantly spoken today, it was Prakrit and Sanskrit that were the languages of the elite and the powerful.

When does Kannada begin? Actor Kamal Haasan’s controversial remark that “Kannada was born out of Tamil” has raised this much-debated question. Scholars of languages would say that it is nearly impossible to pinpoint exactly when a language originates. There is sufficient evidence, though, to support the ancientness of Kannada and its political and cultural significance since at least the ninth century.

The earliest evidence of Kannada

The language we know as Kannada today emerged from a group of languages often referred to as Proto-South Dravidian. This part of language development, say scholars, is a matter of conjecture, for it is impossible to know exactly when a language is born. The oldest material evidence of any language is in its written form, or when it transitions into becoming a script. In the case of Kannada, a stone inscription at Halmidi in Hassan district, dating to 450 CE, is largely understood to be the earliest available evidence of the script.

In more recent years, however, researchers have pointed to older evidence of the Kannada script. In 2008, for instance, Mysore-based epigraphist MG Manjunath concluded that an inscription found on the Chandragiri hill at Shravanabelagola is older than the Halmidi inscription by 50-100 years. Later in 2013, a study conducted by the noted Kannada scholar, S Shettar, claims to have found inscriptions which are much older than the one at Halmidi. One of them is the inscription found at Tagarthi in Shimoga district, which dates back to 350 CE.

The evidence of the script, however, is no indication of the date of the language. In an interview with indianexpress.com, linguist GN Devy explains, “For a language to be written down, it has to have existed for at least a few centuries before that.” The evidence of the script dated to the fourth or fifth centuries CE means that by then Kannada had grown and developed as a language that could be used in public documents like an inscription.

Yet another evidence we have of the language’s antiquity is the presence of words identified as Kannada in ancient Greek plays, points out Professor Rajendra Chenni, Director, Manasa Centre for Cultural Studies, and author of several books in Kannada and English.

How and when a language develops into a script is simply a matter of incident rather than a reflection of its superiority or inferiority. “Scholars of languages would tell you that Kannada derived its script earlier than Tamil. However, Tamil is an older language,” explains Chenni.

The birth of the Kannada script and the shift to vernaculars

Historians have noted that long before any available palaeographic evidence of Kannada script in the region where it is predominantly spoken today, it was Prakrit and Sanskrit that were the languages of the elite and the powerful. Language scholar Sheldon Pollock, in his book Languages of the Gods in the World of Men (2006), writes that all ruling lineages expressed their political will first in Prakrit and then dramatically shifted to Sanskrit. Among the most important political texts of the time were the third-century Ashokan edicts written in Prakrit, using the local Brahmi script. Professor Chenni asserts that the Kannada script emerged from the Brahmi script being used in the edicts, and therefore was heavily influenced by the Prakrit language.

Professor MG Hegde, who has authored the book Kannada Literature from the 11th century through the 19th century (2021), in an email interview, says that “The Kannada script, like many South Asian scripts, evolved through a complex interplay of linguistic, cultural, and political influences, including the literary and administrative use of Prakrit and Sanskrit.” He goes on to explain that even though its original model was derived from Southern Brahmi, the Kannada script has travelled a considerable distance from its source. Under the rule of dynasties such as the Satavahanas, Kadambas, Gangas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Hoysalas, and their successors, it underwent numerous significant changes in orthographic conventions.

Like any neighbouring language, Kannada shares familial ties with other Dravidian languages such as Tamil and Telugu. However, as Hegde suggests, “Although the Kannada and Telugu scripts are similar in appearance, Kannada may have experienced greater influence and interaction with Sanskrit and Prakrit than any other Dravidian language.”

The use of Kannada grew slowly and tentatively from the fourth century onwards. Pollock writes that from the time of the Badami Chalukyas (6th century), the number of inscriptions issued by or within royal power that were wholly or partially in Kannada rose significantly in comparison to those in Sanskrit. Under the succeeding Kalyana Chalukyas, for instance, nearly 90 per cent of the epigraphs are in Kannada. Pollock argues that the increasing shift to the vernacular in the region was in keeping with similar changes taking place in the rest of the subcontinent and was a “quasi-global” phenomenon. “New literatures were about to be called into existence nearly everywhere,” he writes.

Political patronage under the Rashtrakutas

This gradual move towards Kannada reached its peak under the rule of the Rashtrakutas of the ninth century, particularly with the coming to power of King Nrupatunga Amoghavarsha in 815 CE. “In common parlance, his reign is often referred to as the Kannada empire,” says Chenni.

“Nrupatunga was himself a scholar and writer, deeply interested in literature and philosophy. His court became a major centre of literary and cultural activity in the Deccan,” suggests Hegde.

It was during Nrupatunga’s reign that one of the most important Kannada texts was produced — the Kavirajamarga, which translates as “the way of the king of poets” — and was written by a poet in the king’s court called Sri Vijaya. The text is known to be the earliest and the most definitive description of the Kannada language. Chenni explains that Sri Vijaya, on several occasions in the text, has asserted that it was dedicated to the king and was approved by him. Consequently, many people also believe that Nrupatunga was a co-author of the text.

Pollock places the publication of Kavirajamarga as a turning point in the history of the Kannada language. He suggests that the text “may have been the first text in world culture to theorise a vernacular poetics.” He notes that the prologue to the text first salutes the greatest of the Sanskrit prose stylists and then moves on to praise the Kannada prose writers Vimalodaya, Nagarjuna, Jayabandhu, and Durvinita. Similarly, it first provides a list of the most respected among the Sanskrit poets and then follows it with names of the Kannada writers of verse. Pollock argues that while almost nothing is known about the Kannada writers mentioned, they were, in all probability, living in the same period as the publication of the text or perhaps part of the literary circle of the king.

That the shift to the vernacular tradition was a new venture of the time is made known by the acknowledgement by the Kavirajamarga itself about the difficulties faced by the writer in locating literary models in Kannada for its prescriptive project, while emphasising that it was much easier to find Sanskrit and Prakrit works in abundance. At the same time, the text also recognises the existence of ‘pallagannada’ or ‘old Kannada’. However, other scholars suggest that it would be wrong to assume that literature in Kannada did not exist or had a very scant existence before the publication of Kavirajamarga.

Scholar of Kannada Hampa Nagarajaiah, better known as Hampana, points to a sizable corpus of Kannada literature produced by Jain poets, patriarchs and pontiffs before the emergence of Kavirajamarga. In a 2019 essay critiquing Pollock’s work, Hampana writes about Tumbaluracharya, who in the 6th-7th century wrote a voluminous work called ‘Cudamani’ which consisted of around 84,000 verses in the Kannada language. Yet another important piece of literature he points out is the Vaḍḍārādhane, believed to be the earliest existing prose work in Kannada and published around 800 CE.

Hampana argues that the “vernacularisation project was initiated and promoted by the champions of the religious movement.” Jains and Buddhists resisted Sanskrit’s dominance and opted for the local languages. Consequently, Jain writers, he says, who were trained in Prakrit and Sanskrit, played a big role in the transformation of Kannada into a language for expressive discourse. “Key components of literary textuality like grammar, lexicon, metrics and theme were suitably appropriated from Prakrit and localised,” writes Hampana.

Nonetheless, the rule of Nrupatunga was a watershed moment in the development of Kannada. It is under him that several other Kannada writers began prospering. “You have more or less a continuous literary tradition after Kavirajamarga,” suggests Chenni.

By the 10th century, we see the emergence of Pampa, regarded to be one of the greatest Kannada writers, best known for his epics Vikramarjuna Vijaya and the Adi Purana. He is soon followed by other notable writers such as Ponna and Ranna. Together, they are considered the three gems of Kannada literature. As suggested by Pollock, they continued with the tradition that began with the Kavirajamarga, that of producing vernacular texts in two main genres: political and religious.

Kannada in modern literature

In the modern literary landscape, Kannada has continued to produce some of the richest works of poetry, prose, drama, and more. Beginning with the Kannada renaissance of the early 20th century, some of the greatest names to have emerged include Kuvempu, Masti Venkatesh Iyengar, Gopalakrishna Adiga, KS Narasimhaswamy, and P Lankesh. At present, Kannada literature is enriched by the works of people like Devanoora Mahadeva, Vaidehi, Pratibha Nandakumar, and Banu Mushtaq.

In the last few decades, eight Kannada authors have been awarded the Jnanpith award, while the Sahitya Akademi Award has been conferred upon Kannada authors 50 times. Earlier this year, Banu Mushtaq’s collection of short stories, ‘Heart Lamp’, which is translated from Kannada, won the International Booker Prize.