| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Case for Sanskrit as India’s
National Language |
Makarand Paranjape |
| |
Prof. Makarand Paranjape
is a professor of English, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
a prolific author, a well-known cultural exponent, and
the editor of Evam: Forum on Indian Representations.
This paper discusses in depth the role and the potential
of Sanskrit in India’s cultural and national landscape.
Reproduced with the author’s permission, it has
been published in Sanskrit and Other Indian Languages,
ed. Shashiprabha Kumar (New Delhi: D. K. Printworld,
2007), pp. 173-200.
|
|
| |
|
“Sanskrit is the thread on which the pearls
of the necklace of Indian culture are strung; break
the thread and all the pearls will be scattered, even
lost forever.”
|
|
| |
|
Dr. Lokesh Chandra
|
|
|
Introduction
I had first heard from my friends in the Sri Aurobindo Ashram,
Pondicherry, that the Mother wanted Sanskrit to be made the
national language of India. Indeed, Sanskrit is taught from
childhood not only in the ashram schools, but also at Auroville,
the community that the Mother founded. On 11th November 1967,
the Mother said: “Sanskrit! Everyone should
learn that. Especially everyone who works here should learn
that….”1
Because some degree of confusion persisted over the Mother’s
and Sri Aurobindo’s views on the topic, a more direct
question was put to the former on 4 October 1971:
|
| |
On certain issues
where You and Sri Aurobindo have given direct answers,
we [Sri Aurobindo's Action] are also specific, as for
instance... on the language issue where You have said
for the country that (1) the regional language should
be the medium of instruction, (2) Sanskrit should be
the national language, and (3) English should be the
international language.
Are we correct in giving these replies to such questions?
Yes. Blessings.2
|
|
|
When asked by a disciple on what basis she had said that
Sanskrit should be the national language of India, the Mother
replied, “I said Sanskrit because Sri Aurobindo had
told me so.”3
Actually, Sri Aurobindo’s views on Sanskrit were well
thought out and forcefully formulated. For instance, in
his “Preface on a National Education” (November
1920), he said:
|
| |
A language, Sanskrit
or another, should be acquired by whatever method is
most natural, efficient and stimulating to the mind
and we need not cling there to any past or present manner
of teaching: but the vital question is how we are to
learn and make use of Sanskrit and the indigenous languages
so as to get to the heart and intimate sense of our
own culture and establish a vivid continuity between
the still living power of our past and the yet uncreated
power of our future, and how we are to learn and use
English or any other foreign tongue so as to know helpfully
the life, ideas and culture of other countries and establish
our right relations with the world around us. This is
the aim and principle of a true national education,
not, certainly, to ignore modern truth and knowledge,
but to take our foundation on our own being, our own
mind, our own spirit.... |
|
|
|
While he does not advocate its use as a national language,
it is clear that he wishes for its continuation and popularization.
It is likely therefore that it is the Mother who re-articulated
the case for Sanskrit as India’s national language,
the credit for which must go to her.
When I first heard of these views, I found them commendable
but was doubtful of their practicality. To me, it seemed
that to make Sanskrit the national language would require
more than just an administrative will. First of all, to
get any Government to make such a policy decision would
be next to impossible, with all sorts of obstacles and political
pressures put up by various interest groups. There would
be opposition probably from Tamil-wallas and Urdu-wallas,
but most of all from the “secular” Hindu ruling
elite, who would see this as some sort of ploy by the Hindutva
lobby. Even if an order to this effect were promulgated,
it would be so difficult to implement all over the country.
That is why I had then thought of the idea of making Sanskrit
India’s national language as noble but impractical.
However, during the Sanskrit week held last year at JNU’s
Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies, it suddenly occurred
to me that we need not think of a “national”
language in narrow or restricted terms, but in the broadest
and most effective way. Also, that an idea was not less
or more valid either because it was impractical or hard
to implement. That is how I began to reflect on what it
means to have a national language, especially in India,
and how such a national language might be safeguarded and
promoted.
The key to unlocking the difficult question of whether Sanskrit
should be India’s national language or not is in clarity
over the meaning of the word “national.” This
is lacking even in the Aurobindonian circles which, even
while they advocate making Sanskrit the national language
of India, do not define clearly what they mean by “national.”
One reason for writing this essay is precisely to bring
about such clarity. To my mind, a national language, in
the Indian context, need not mean the official language.
Indeed, such a distinction is implicit in the Constitution
of India itself. Clearly, the aim is not to make Sanskrit
the official language of India, that is, the language of
the Government, of the judiciary, of business, politics,
and public affairs. In monolingual countries, official and
national languages may be identical, but this is not the
case in India. In India we not only have several languages,
but also need certain languages to play special roles. Both
Hindi and English are such languages, as the Constitution
clearly recognizes. By national language, in the present
context, is meant a language that is the source of our identity,
a language that unites us, a language that links us with
our past, a language that is the repository of our sacred
texts, a language in which so much knowledge and learning
from the past is stored. In one word, “national,”
here means a heritage language. Once the confusion over
the word “national” is removed, the argument
in favour of Sanskrit can be articulated more forcefully.
|
|
| |
The Status of Sanskrit
in Post-Independence India
In this Section, I wish to examine some instances
of how Sanskrit has been treated in post-Independence India.
Perhaps, the best starting point would the Constituent Assembly
which promulgated our Constitution. When I began to do some
research on this subject, I realized that the Mother’s
pronouncements weren’t the first in this regard, though
what makes them weighty and special is that she made them
at a time when the case for Sanskrit was quite weak. The idea
of making Sanskrit not only India’s national language,
but also India’s official language can be traced back
to none other that India’s first law minister and the
Dalit leader, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Following the Independence
of India in August 1947, the Constituent Assembly of India
had debated the language question extensively. After months
of debate, Hindi, with the Devanagari script, was clearly
emerging as the favourite. The was a draft provision to this
effect, with the proviso to continue using English for official
purposes for a period of an additional fifteen year. It was
in this context that in September 1949, the then law minister,
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, moved an amendment to substitute Hindi
with Sanskrit so as to make Sanskrit the official language
of India. Not only were there prominent politicians and public
figures from Tamil Nadu among the signatories, but also a
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed, from West Bengal, a member of the Muslim
League. The latter said, “I offer you a language which
is the grandest and the greatest, and it is impartially difficult,
equally difficult for all to learn.”4
In the end, though Hindi emerged as the “winner”
of the official languages sweepstakes, it was not only in
the Devanagari script, but also a Hindi which the Constitution
itself declared would use Sanskrit as the main source of enrichment
and increasing vocabulary.5
It would be salutary to examine the views of the first Prime
Minister of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru, on the subject
of Sanskrit. Around the time that India’s language policy
was being debated in the Constituent Assembly, Nehru was reported
on the 13th of February 1949 in The Hindu as declaring:
|
| |
If I was asked what
is the greatest treasure which India possesses and what
is her finest heritage, I would answer unhesitatingly—it
is the Sanskrit language and literature, and all that
it contains. This is a magnificent inheritance, and
so long as this endures and influences the life of our
people, so long the basic genius of India will continue.6 |
|
|
|
This is one of the strongest endorsements of Sanskrit
by anyone. Nehru’s words are quoted often, especially
in environs when Sanskrit needs to be defended by well-meaning,
if misguided, secularists. Nehru’s support for Sanskrit
would have been important in those controversy-fraught times.
|
Nehru added later, in the Azad Memorial Address:
|
| |
India built up a magnificent language, Sanskrit,
and through this language, and its art and architecture,
it sent its vibrant message to far away countries.
It produced the Upanishads, the Gita
and the Buddha. Hardly any language in the world has
probably played as vital a part in the history of
a race as Sanskrit has. It was not only the vehicle
of the highest thought and some of the finest literature,
but it became the uniting bond for India, even though
there were political divisions. The Ramayana
and the Mahabharata were woven into the texture
of millions of lives in every generation for a thousand
years. I have often wondered if our race forgot the
Buddha, the Upanishads and the great epics,
what then would it be like?7
|
|
|
|
Moving from the Constituent Assembly to the actual Constitution
itself, we notice that at present it does not designate
any language to be India’s national language. Article
343 of the constitution considers Hindi in the Devanagari
script as the official language of India. It also
allows for the continued use of English for official purposes.
Article 345 also allows for any of the ‘national languages’
of the union to be adopted by the state legislature as the
official language of that state. Until 1967, before the
21st amendment to the constitution, fourteen regional languages
were recognized. Subsequently the number has grown to twenty
two. The Sahitya Academy gives away annual awards in two
additional languages. This means that currently twenty four
languages in India enjoy official recognition. This account
suggests that as far as the constitution is concerned all
of India’s languages, especially the twenty two recognized
by the constitution thus far, are national languages. At
its weakest then, the case for Sanskrit as the national
language in India does not require any further elucidation
if Sanskrit is considered only one amongst the many national
languages in India.
After the Constitution, the next and perhaps most important
document to examine would be the Report of the Sanskrit
Commission set up by the Government of India in 1956 under
the Chairmanship of Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee. An examination
of the Report of this Commission shows that the status of
Sanskrit in contemporary India has a lot to do with both
the politics and policies of the State. It was this Commission’s
report, along with Report of the Official Language Commission
of the Government of India that led to Sanskrit being one
of the languages taught in Indian schools all over the country.
According to the three-language formula, which still works
at least up to the 10th Standard in Indian secondary schools,
each student has to learn three languages, the mother tongue,
Hindi or another Indian language, and English. To this day,
in many school, Sanskrit is the third language, taken in
addition to English and Hindi. The Report of the Commission
is probably the most extensive and impressive argument in
favour of Sanskrit education in independent India. The Commission
actually recommended that Sanskrit be made “an additional
official language” of India:
|
| |
While for all administrative and ordinary day-to-day
purposes, some pan-Indian form of Hindi may be used,
it appears inevitable that, in course of time, the
prospective All-India Language — Bharati
Bhasa — at least in its written norm, which
would be acceptable to all regions of India, especially
in the higher reaches of education and literary activity,
will be a form of simple and modernised Sanskrit.8
|
|
|
Though this recommendation was not accepted, many of the
Report’s findings have shaped the manner in which
the Indian state treated Sanskrit.
One of the most remarkable chapters in the Sanskrit Commission
Report is “Sanskrit and the Aspirations of Independent
India”9
in which a defence and justification of Sanskrit is offered.
The authors point to the role of Sanskrit in the national
awakening of India, especially in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s
song, Vande Mataram, which became the “Rashtra
Gayatri.” This song is entirely in Sanskrit except
for a few sentences in Bangla10.
Though English contributed to the growth of political consciousness
in India, only an Indian language could help create political
unity. This language would have been Sanskrit, but in 1921
Mahatma Gandhi accepted Hindi or Hindustani with the Devanagari
script, because, according to the Commission, Hindi in this
case stood for Sanskrit:11
“Sanskritised Hindi seemed to be the fitting representative
for all the modern languages of India, and was looked upon
as the most suitable national speech for a resurgent India….
Sanskritised Hindi alone can be easily understood in all
non-Hindi-speaking areas. … The support of Hindi in
a way meant laying stress on the unity of India through
Sanskrit, even if it were through the intermediacy of Hindi.”12
In other words, the choice of Hindi as India’s official
language was, according to the Commission, itself an endorsement
and acknowledgement of the value of Sanskrit.
The Commission also refers to the adoption of the Upanishadic
dictum “Satyamevajayate” as the national
motto of India, the Sanskritized “Jana Gana Mana”
as the national anthem, the motto of the Lok Sabha “Dhamachakraprvartnaya,”
of All India Radio (Akashvani), “Bahujan hitaya
bahujana sukhaya,” of the Life Insurance Corporation,
“Yogaksemamvahamyaham.” The practice
of using Shri and Shrimati instead of Mr. and Mrs, and so
on, also show how important Sanskrit is in our national
life.13
Sir William Jones in 1786 called Sanskrit a language “more
perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin, and more exquisitely
refined than either.”14
The long and unbroken continuity of Sanskrit is lauded.
The Commission considers Sanskrit to be “in the broad
sense of the term … the entire linguistic development
of the Aryan speech in India,”15
from classical Sanskrit to the medieval Prakrits. We may
extend this to include the modern Indian languages too.
Sanskrit is thus “the linguistic and literary expression
of that great Cultural Synthesis which is identical with
Bharata-Dharma, the Spirit of India, or Indianism, as it
has been sometimes described.”16
Sanskrit, moreover, is of our link with the larger world
we inhabit, both West and East:
|
| |
Sanskrit is our great mental and spiritual link
with the Indo-European and Aryan-speaking world to
the West of India — with Iran, with Armenia,
with Europe. Sanskrit is the elder sister of Greek
and Latin, of Gothic and Old Irish, and of Old Slav.
The modern North-Indian Aryan languages and the Indo-European
languages outside India — Hindi, Bengali, Marathi
and the rest on one hand, and English, French, Russian
and the rest on the other — are cousins belonging
to the same family. The very large and indispensable
Sanskrit element in the cultivated Dravidian languages
of South India, Telugu, Kannada, Tamil and Malayalam,
is a cultural link of great value between these and
the Indo-European languages of Europe. … But
it has been no less a potent bond of union for India
with the lands of Asia — with Serindia or Central
Asia of ancient and mediaeval times where the cultures
of China and India had a common meeting place; with
Tibet; with China and the lands within the orbit of
Chinese civilisation —Korea and Japan and Vietnam;
and above all, with the lands of Farther India —
Burma and Siam, Pathet Lao and Cambodia, and Cochin
China or Champa, and the area of Malaya and Indonesia.
Ceylon is of course a historical and cultural projection
of India. In all these lands, Sanskrit found a home
for itself as the vehicle of Indian thought and civilisation
which flowed out into them as a peaceful cultural
extension....17
|
|
|
If we think of all the literature available in this linguistic
system, it would be a vast treasury useful not only to India,
but to the whole world: from the Vedas, the Vedangas, the
Epics, the Kavya literature, drama, science, philosophy,
aesthetics, indeed the endless knowledge in nearly all branches
of human endeavour available in Sanskrit makes it a unique
repository, the world’s heritage language. In fact,
Sanskrit is conducive to all the four purusharthas or cardinal
aims of life, Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha, with its
vast repositories of knowledge and guidance in each of these
realms.18
Without Sanskrit, the fullest development
of the human mind is almost impossible.19
Sanskrit is also the “great unifying force”
in India, knitting a vast subcontinent from Kashmir to Kanyakumari,
Saurashtra to Kamarupa. Pointing out how the Chinese system
of writing and modern Hebrew served to unify the newly formed
nations of China and Israel respectively, the Commission
asked why Sanskrit could not be expected to play a similar
role in India.20
It was only Sanskrit that could play the role of unifying
India: “This great inheritance of Sanskrit is the
golden link joining up all the various provincial languages
and literatures and cultures, and it should not be allowed
to be neglected and to go waste.”21
The Commission next turned its attention to the role that
Sanskrit had played and can play in the “Formation
of Character.” Not just information, Sanskrit could
also influence the formation of the mind, especially in
shaping and expressing India’s unique contribution
to the rest of humanity. Sanskrit worked “as a great
stabilising force in life — as a moral anchor”
in the lives of Indians22
through its uplifting moral teachings. Even the sound of
the language is special: “Sanskrit is a language which
through its sonority and mellifluousness, has the power
to lift us up above ourselves — the message of Sanskrit
read or chanted is that of sursum corda — “lift
up your hearts” — and this forms one of its
most subtle aesthetic and dynamic values.”23
The Commission also emphasized the importance of Sanskrit
in contributing towards “The Intellectual Renaissance
of Free India.” Here a most interesting case is advanced
for the retention of Sanskrit for the development of modern
Indian languages. Just as a study of Sanskrit is necessary
to understand Tamil, Sanskrit was necessary for the proper
development of modern Indian languages, the intellectual
registers of which would be derived from Sanskrit. Quoting
Sivajnanamunivar’s commentary on the Tolkappiyam,
the oldest grammar of Tamil, “the nature of Tamil
will not be clear to those who have not learnt Sanskrit
(vadanul unarndarkkanrit-Tamil iyalpu vilangadu: I Eluttalikaram,
sutra 1),”24
the Commission makes a very persuasive argument in favour
of “the retention, cultivation and development of
Sanskrit, for the sake of all Modern Indian Languages.”25
Word-building, enriching of technical vocabulary, and standardization
of key terms across several modern Indian languages would
be only some of the numerous benefits of Sanskrit’s
contribution to the growth and enrichment of modern Indian
languages. This Chapter of the Commission’s Report
ends with a fervent plea to make Sanskrit “the symbol
of the national life India” and to accord a special
place to it in the educational system.26
Some of the arguments of the Commission revisited those
made by the Orientalists more than 150 years ago. Those
opposed to the nationalizing of Sanskrit or of making Sanskrit
a reason of state have written disparagingly about the Commission’s
claims, labelling them as “quaint, even absurd.”27
The third instance I wish to examine is the landmark Judgment
of 4th October 1994 of the Supreme Court on Sanskrit. This
shows how all was not well or smooth sailing for the teaching
of Sanskrit as a part of the Indian school curriculum. The
attack against Sanskrit went as far as an appeal against
teaching it in the Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE) on the grounds that it was against secularism. It
needed a Judgment of the Supreme Court of India to refute
the absurd proposition that it was not against secularism
to teach Sanskrit in our schools.28
The Court quoted the earlier policy statements of the Government
of India on Sanskrit in 1968 and 1986 respectively:
|
| |
Considering the special importance of Sanskrit to
the growth and development of Indian languages and
its unique contribution to the cultural unity of the
country, facilities for its teaching at the school
and university stages should be offered on more liberal
basis. Development of new methods of teaching the
language should be encouraged, and the possibility
explored of including the study of Sanskrit in those
courses (such as modern Indian philosophy) at the
first and second degree stages, where such knowledge
is useful. (1968)
|
|
|
And the 1986 statement: |
| |
Research in Indology, the humanities and Social
Sciences will receive adequate support. To fulfil
the need for the synthesis of knowledge, inter-disciplinary
research will be encouraged. Efforts will be made
to delve into India’s ancient fund of knowledge
and to relate it to contemporary reality. This effort
will imply the development of facilities for the intensive
study of Sanskrit.
|
|
|
|
The Court completely refuted the claims that teaching
Sanskrit was against secularism because Arabic or Persian
were not accorded a similar status in the educational system.
The Court said that “a secular state is not hostile
to religion but holds itself neutral in matters of religion”
(para 16). It quoted from the Sanskrit Commission’s
Report to show that Sanskrit was a binding and unifying
force in India. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment spelt
out the views of the Court in no uncertain terms:
|
| |
19. From what has been stated above, we entertain
no doubt in our mind that teaching of Sanskrit alone
as an elective subject can in no way be regarded as
against secularism. Indeed, our constitution requires
giving of fillip to Sanskrit because of what has been
stated in Article 351, in which while dealing with
the duty of the Union to promote the spread of Hindi,
it has been provided that, it would draw, whenever
necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily
on Sanskrit. Encouragement to Sanskrit is also necessary
because of it being one of the languages included
in the Eighth Schedule.
|
|
| |
20. We, therefore, conclude by saying that in view
of importance of Sanskrit for nurturing our cultural
heritage, because of which even the official education
policy has highlighted the need of study of Sanskrit,
making of Sanskrit alone as an elective subject, while
not conceding this status to Arabic and/or Persian,
would not in any way militate against the basic tenet
of secularism.
|
|
|
|
This verdict was delivered by Justice Kuldip Singh and
Justice B. L. Hansaria in response to a write petition filed
by Shri Santosh Kumar and others in 1989 against the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India.
The next notable instance of the state’s addressing
the issue of Sanskrit is the setting up of the National
Mission for Manuscripts by the NDA Government in 2003. The
decline of Sanskrit in India was a direct consequence of
colonial rule. The position of Sanskrit as India’s
pre-eminent intellectual language was dislodged by English
as a direct consequence of imperial policy. It might have
been expected therefore that sufficient resources and attention
would be devoted to the study and revival of Sanskrit in
independent India. However, B. Bhattacharya in his book
Sanskrit Culture in a Changing World writes that
at the time of writing the book there were at least one
million manuscripts in public and private libraries in India
and abroad. 95% of these manuscripts are languishing unread
and untranslated. Today many of these treasures belonging
not only to India but also to the world have probably been
lost. The Government’s efforts to change this situation
of neglect are only recent as in the establishment of the
National Missions for Manuscripts in 2003. According to
the mission statement of NMM:
|
| |
The National Mission for Manuscripts was launched
in February 2003 by the Ministry of Culture, Government
of India, to save this most valuable but less visible
of our cultural inheritances.
An ambitious five-year project, the Mission seeks
not merely to locate, catalogue and preserve India's
manuscripts, but also to enhance access, spread awareness
and encourage their use for educational purposes.
Working with specially identified Manuscript Resource
Centres (MRCs) and Manuscript Conservation Centres
(MCCs) in states all over the country, the Mission
has collected data on manuscripts located in a variety
of places, from universities and libraries to temples,
mathas, madrasas, monasteries and private collections.29
|
|
|
|
Interestingly, the mission statement does not use the
word Sanskrit anywhere. But since the majority of the rarest
of Indian manuscripts are in Sanskrit, it is assumed that
the work will concentrate on Sanskrit. However, the fact
that this is nowhere openly stated shows, once again, the
ambivalence of our “secular” culture towards
our identity and heritage. Interestingly, contrary to what
is popularly thought, the Government recognized Sanskrit
as a classical language only as recently as 27th October
2005. Tamil, in fact, had been recognized as a classical
language before Sanskrit.
|
|
| |
The Case for Sanskrit |
|
In this final section of the paper, I offer some arguments
in favour of Sanskrit as India’s national language.
By no means are all these arguments new or original; some
have been around for several decades, if not centuries.
However, India as a state is itself only sixty years old.
So the present case is in relation to India as we know and
understand it today. The destinies of languages are intimately
tied up with those of states. As someone put it, a living
language is one in which you can make a living. By that
token, aside from Sanskrit, a number of other Indian languages
too are endangered. English is India’s dominant language,
so much so that this argument in favour of Sanskrit is being
made in English. It is erroneous to regard the support of
language by a state as mere patronage. In the case of Sanskrit,
it will be wise for the state and its machinery to invest
in Sanskrit. This investment will be matched or supported
by private enterprise too.
Together, Sanskrit and sanskriti, which is the
culture of India, will be strengthened. We have to begin
to understand why such an investment in Sanskrit will not
only be profitable, but is necessary.
To understand the case for Sanskrit, I shall first rehearse
arguments already prevalent. Many of these have their origins
in the Constituent Assembly debates. Since the proposal
to make Sanskrit the national language of India originated
persisted, as has been pointed out, in Aurobindonian circles,
it is to be expected that the reasons for advancing such
a case should also be reiterated the same source. In an
impressive book called The Wonder That is Sanskrit (2002)
the authors Sampad and Vijay devote a chapter to “Sanskrit
as the national language of India,” in which some
of the earlier arguments in favour of Sanskrit are repeated
and stated more coherently.
I have identified at least seven arguments in favour of
Sanskrit as a national language of India in this book:
|
| |
1. Only a language that is native to a country,
that is, a language that has taken birth and developed
in a particular country, can be the national language
of that country. Thus no mater how widely spread English
is, since it is a foreign language, it should not
be considered for the position of India’s national
language. “The national language of India has
to be a language of and from India.”30
|
|
| |
2. The national language of a culture must be a
language that is the repository of the best, highest,
and noblest aspirations of that culture. This language,
for India, is Sanskrit. If, on the other hand, a language
that is alien to a culture is used to describe, understand
or represent that culture then many distortions are
bound to creep in. That is why Sanskrit rather than
English is more suited to be the national language
of India. “It will not be an exaggeration to
say that if India has to rise, Sanskrit will have
to rise once again.”31
|
|
| |
3. As is obvious, the first two arguments are against
English more than in favour of Sanskrit. This is because
the next argument shows how Sanskrit like English
cannot be identified with any particular region of
the country and is therefore “national.”
In other words, only a non-regional language can be
a national language. “Sanskrit is alone non-regional.
No province or state or people can claim it as its
own.”32
|
|
| |
4. Sanskrit has been since ancient times the link
language of the whole subcontinent. Therefore Sanskrit
has been a binding force throughout the history of
India. Again, like English, Sanskrit is India’s
link language, but unlike English it is both native
to India and co-extensive with the entire civilizational
trajectory of the subcontinent.
|
|
| |
5. Again, in contradistinction to English, Sanskrit
is the “mother” of most Indian tongues.
All these including Tamil have a large percentage
of words derived from Sanskrit. Sanskrit through the
well known processes of Tatsam (words borrowed as
they are from Sanskrit) and Tadbhava (words derived
from Sanskrit but modified), it is estimated that
almost 70% of the words of most modern Indian languages
are from Sanskrit.33
That is why it is possible for people in India from
different parts of India to understand each other
even if they speak different languages. After all,
there is a common vocabulary not to speak of a great
deal of similarities in syntax. Unlike what more recent
ideologically informed arguments, influenced by proponents
of Dravidianism have claimed, even Tamil shows a very
close relationship with Sanskrit.34
|
|
| |
6. Sanskrit is capable of changing with the times,
especially in its capacity to produce an infinite
variety of new words. Actually these words deriving
from Sanskrit, also feed the other modern Indian languages.
If so, then why shouldn’t the source of this
vitality, Sanskrit, itself not be the national language
of India?
|
|
| |
7. Sanskrit as a source of unity and pride is a
major reason to make it India’s national language.
This reason, it would seem, subsumes all the others:
Through Sanskrit every Indian can feel a oneness and
belonging with every other Indian and every part of
India. We can feel proud of a great and magnificent
heritage, which can compare with the best in the world
in every field and to which every region of India
has contributed. We can also look to the future with
the confidence that this mighty nation will rise again
and attain a glory far greater than ever attained
in the past, and in which every Indian has a role
to play.35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The next chapter of The Wonder That is Sanskrit
also tries to refute some charges against Sanskrit, especially
the charge that Sanskrit is a Hindu language and that it
is a dead and difficult language.36
Though it does not do so, there is also a need to refute
the idea that Sanskrit is the language only of Brahmins.
Whatever it may have been in the past, certainly in today’s
India, this is no longer the case. Access to Sanskrit is
open to all.
In a more intensely polemical and well-documented defence
of Sanskrit, Rajiv Malhotra, following a similar strategy
of defence combined with offence, offers the following framework
in his case in favour of Sanskrit. His essay entitled “Geopolitics
and Sanskrit Phobia” was first delivered as a lecture
at Silpakorn University in Thailand in 2005, and is now
posted on the net in his blog Sulekha.com network. Malhotra
sees Sanskrit as the site for a civilizational clash, with
those attempting to suppress the language being enemies
of India. He argues that:
|
| |
1. Sanskrit is more than a language. Like all languages,
its structures and categories contain a built-in framework
for representing specific worldviews. Sanskriti is
the name of the culture and civilization that embodies
this framework. One may say that Sanskriti is the
term for what has recently become known as Indic Civilization,
a civilization that goes well beyond the borders of
modern India to encompass South Asia and much of Southeast
Asia. At one time, it included much of Asia.
|
|
| |
2. Interactions among different regions of Asia
helped to develop and exchange this pan-Asian Sanskriti.
Numerous examples involving India, Southeast Asia
and China are given.
|
|
| |
3. Sanskrit started to decline after the West Asian
invasions of the Indian subcontinent. This had a devastating
impact on Sanskriti, as many world-famous centres
of learning were destroyed, and no single major university
was built for many centuries by the conquerors.
|
|
| |
4. Besides Asia, Sanskrit and Sanskriti influenced
Europe's modernity, and Sanskrit Studies became a
large-scale formal activity in most European universities.
These influences shaped many intellectual disciplines
that are (falsely) classified as “Western.”
But the “discovery” of Sanskrit by Europe
also had the negative influence of fuelling European
racism since the 19th century.
|
|
| |
5. Meanwhile, in colonial India, the education system
was de-Sanskritized and replaced by an English based
education. This served to train clerks and low level
employees to administer the Empire, and to start the
process of self-denigration among Indians, a trend
that continues today. Many prominent Indians achieved
fame and success as middlemen serving the Empire,
and Gandhi's famous 1908 monograph, “Hind
Swaraj,” discusses this phenomenon.
|
|
| |
6. After India's independence, there was a broad
based Nehruvian love affair with Sanskrit as an important
nation-building vehicle. However, successive generations
of Indian intellectuals have replaced this with what
this paper terms “Sanskrit Phobia,” i.e.
a body of beliefs now widely disseminated according
to which Sanskrit and Sanskriti are blamed for all
sorts of social, economic and political problems facing
India's underprivileged classes. This section illustrates
such phobia among prominent Western Indologists and
among trendy Indians involved in South Asian Studies
who learn about Sanskrit and Sanskriti according to
Western frameworks and biases.
|
|
| |
7. The clash of civilizations among the West, China
and Islam is used as a lens to discuss the future
of Sanskriti across South and Southeast Asia.
|
|
| |
8. Some concrete suggestions are made for further
consideration to revitalize Sanskrit as a living language
that has potential for future knowledge development
and empowerment of humanity.
|
|
|
|
Malhotra, more than any of his predecessors, spends a
considerable degree of energy in refuting the oppositions
to Sanskrit. He quotes heavily from Kapil Kapoor’s
earlier essay “Eleven Objections to Sanskrit Literary
Theory: A Rejoinder,” which employed a similar strategy
and is worth reading in its own right as a spirited defence
on Sanskrit poetics and literary theory:
|
| |
|
|
| |
Sanskrit-Phobic
Arguments |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
There has been no connection between Sanskrit
and Prakrit (and/or other South Asian vernacular
languages).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Linguistic evidence suggests that Sanskrit
is related to Prakrit languages and that exchanges
occurred in both directions.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Sanskrit has been the instrument of creating
a civilization built on Brahmanical hegemony
and domination of the subaltern.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
This is missionary/colonial lens imposing
Western social models to a very different Indian
social structure and denies the vital role of
Sanskrit in shaping and fulfilling, thriving
and vibrant culture that benefited many.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Sanskrit is only a language of rites and rituals
that are devoid of philosophical merit.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
The depth and breadth of Sanskrit literature
covers many non-religious disciplines. Besides,
the rites and rituals are often deeply poetic
and reflect a plurality of philosophies of life.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Sanskrit does not have the expressive spirit
and temper of science and technology.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
The depth and breadth of Sanskrit thought
encompasses many scientific and technical fields
such as mathematics and metallurgy. Abstract
thought, open inquiry and logic are key hallmarks
of Sanskrit learning.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Sanskrit has no value to non-Hindu traditions.
It would compromise secularism.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Numerous Jain and Buddhist scriptures are
composed in Sanskrit. Sikh scholars went to
Benares to learn Sanskrit.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
As a dead language, Sanskrit has no use to
world culture.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Sanskrit, just as it contributed to Western
thought, has the potential to contribute towards
a renaissance of thought in Southeast Asia and
India.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Malhotra also offers the following diagrammatic representation
of the broader Western and self-hating Indophobic’s
strategy to suppress Sanskrit and Sanskriti:
|
|
| |
|
Whether or not we agree with all his assumptions, methods,
or conclusions, Malhotra’s essay has done great service
to the cause of Sanskrit in fearlessly exposing the conspiracy
against both the language and the culture that it embodies.
|
In addition to these arguments already expounded
and known I would add the following: |
| |
1. A nation, people, and a language are deeply interlinked.
Investment in any aspect of culture especially language
is bound to pay off in terms of the benefits of “soft
power.” In other words what makes countries
great in a competitive global world is not just military
might but cultural depth and resources. To destroy
or deny the source of one’s cultural potency
would be tantamount to a self-emasculation. Only a
culture with a deeply internalised sense of contempt
and shame for itself will commit such cultural hara-kiri.
India with its history of colonization is close to
this perilous state of self-loathing but better wisdom
should prevail. Cultural self-enhancement and self
empowerment are essential for Svaraj. Sanskrit, not
exclusively, but in addition to other Indian languages
can contribute greatly to such self-enhancement.
|
|
| |
2. Sanskrit is one of the markers of India’s
distinctiveness. Though at one time this language
spread far and wide in India’s region of influence,
being widely used in Malaysia, Cambodia, and Vietnam,
Sanskrit is one of India’s unique contributions
and gifts to human civilization, especially after
it has shrunk back to its source country, India. That
is why it is the one of the features that makes us
ourselves. Sanskrit, which is the source of our identity,
also needs to be nurtured for what it gave us and
will continue to give us. Like an aged parent whom
we need to care for, we must look after Sanskrit.
|
|
| |
3. In other words, Sanskrit is now India’s
responsibility. After the partition of India “the
burden” of Sanskrit rests securely, almost exclusively
on India’s shoulders. It may continue to be
a language of Orientalist study and antiquarian curiosity
especially in the more prosperous countries of the
world, but the responsibility for Sanskrit must be
owned up by India.
|
|
| |
4. Sanskrit is not so much a Deva Bhasha
(a language of the Gods) but a language that shows
us the way to the Gods — or to what is Godly
or Divine. The Gods here do not necessarily imply
supernatural beings but signify an order of things,
a moral, an ethical norm, a way of living that we
have called Dharma in this part of the world. Sanskrit
helps us not so much to know our world but to know
our selves. To that extent it is the language which
contributed to our emancipation and enhancement. We
must not forsake Sanskrit because it helps us to remain
Dharmic in our approach to life. To that extent Sanskrit
is our link between this world and a higher world,
glimpses which we see and experience from time to
time.
|
|
| |
5. The danger of losing Sanskrit is no less than
losing our past, our history, our identity and our
self knowledge. In other words Sanskrit as a medium
or carrier of Sanskriti, or culture refinement and
definition is indispensable to India. Sanskrit is
not merely a language but a larger system of ideas,
thought and cultural practices. In that sense this
larger system includes not just Sanskrit but Pali,
the Prakrits, even the modern Indian languages, a
part of which must include English nowadays. In other
words even Indian English, not to speak of other Indian
languages, is incomplete without Sanskrit as is Sanskrit
is incomplete without Pali, the Prakrits, the modern
Indian languages, and Indian English. The cultural
landscape of India is a diversity in unity not a unity
in diversity. Interestingly it was Sri Aurobindo who
advocated the former and Jawaharlal Nehru the latter.
Unity in India cannot come from diversity. Rather
diversity is derived from unity. Therefore Sanskrit
is not to be seen in opposition but in a continuum
with other Indian languages. It is this continuum
with Sanskrit as the indispensable bedrock that constitutes
the national heritage of India.
|
|
|
|
| |
Conclusion |
|
In this paper I have tried to argue that the idea of Sanskrit
as India’s national language begins to make sense
when we distinguish between national language and official
language. “Official language” may be used for
day to day tasks as well as the activities of the government.
Clearly Sanskrit cannot be expected to perform that role
at least not in the present circumstances. But if by “national
language” is meant a language which is important to
national identity, a language that unifies, a language that
is a source of pride, a language that defines and contributes
to a peoples identity, a language moreover that is neither
sectarian nor exclusive to any particular group, then Sanskrit
fits the bill. When we consider national to mean the source
of ones heritage, then Sanskrit surely qualifies as India’s
major if not foremost national language. All Indian languages
are our national languages, but this does not mean that
Sanskrit should be excluded from this list. On the contrary,
though all Indian languages are national languages Sanskrit
is national in a very special sense of the word and it is
this that I have tried to establish in this paper.
From this standpoint, calling Sanskrit the national language
does not go against the interests of any other language.
Even if all the other languages may be considered national
languages, Sanskrit retains its own a special place. It
is the case for making Sanskrit a national language in this
special sense that this essay has tried to elaborate.
Sanskrit is a language that all Indians need to learn in
order to have a better understanding of their identity.
It is the language that it is necessary for an appreciation
of who we are. While other languages, including one’s
mother tongue, are also identity languages, Sanskrit is
singular in that it provides the sources of the deeper self
of India such as no other language does effectively.
While nearly all the major languages of India have a state
to protect and promote them, Sanskrit has no one state.
Therefore, it is the turn of all these languages and all
the states of India wherein they flourish to learn and support
Sanskrit, the real “mother tongue” of Indians.
We may provide exceptions to some states, which have had
no historical contact with Sanskrit, but even these may
wish to study it in order to understand India. The same
reason for learning Sanskrit may be given to those for whom
it is neither a sacred language nor a primary language of
culture.
This essay has been a plea to renew the call to make Sanskrit
our national language, once again to invite the people of
this country to embrace Sanskrit and give it her rightful
place in large family of India’s languages.
I cannot resist the temptation of ending with a memorable
quotation from our current President of India, Dr. A. P.
J. Abdul Kalam. This is not the place to speak of the religion
of the President, but it needs to be noted that he is neither
Brahmin by caste or Hindu by birth. His example shows how
we might leave sectarian considerations aside in order to
consider the case of Sanskrit from an objective standpoint.
Interacting with the students of the Sree Gurusarvabhouma
Sanskrit Vidyapeetam, Mantralayam, on 1st February 2007,
he said:
|
| |
Though I am not an expert in Sanskrit, I have many
friends who are proficient in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is
a beautiful language. It has enriched our society
from time immemorial. Today many nations are trying
to research Sanskrit writings which are there in our
ancient scriptures. I understand that there is a wealth
of knowledge available in Sanskrit which scientists
and technologists are finding today.37
|
|
|
The full text of his speech,
which is quoted on the President’s official website,
is a source of inspiration to all of us, particularly the
devotees of Sanskrit and Sanskriti. |
|
| |
Works Cited |
| |
Aurobindo, Sri. India’s
Rebirth. Paris and Mysore: Institut de Recherches Evolutives
and Mira Aditi, 1993. |
Bhattacharyya, B. Sanskrit Culture in
a Changing World. Baroda: Good Companions, 1950.
|
|
|
Ramaswamy, Sumati. “Sanskrit for the
Nation,” Modern Asian Studies 33.2 (1999):
339-381.
|
Report of the Official Language
Commission. New Delhi: Government of India, 1957. |
| |
Sampad and Vijay. The Wonder
that Was Sanskrit. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Society
in Association with Mapin, Ahmedabad, 2002. |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
4
Constituent Assembly Debates 1334, quoted in Ramaswamy,
354-355. (Back
to text)
|
|
6
Jawaharlal Nehru, quoted in Sanskrit Commission Report
“The Importance of Sanskrit in Indian History and Culture,”
72. (Back
to text) |
7
Jawaharlal Nehru, Azad Memorial Address, cited in The
Wonder that Was Sanskrit 160. (Back
to text) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
The Wonder That is Sanskrit, 134. (Back
to text) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
