Open your eyes, Sanskrit is thriving
Each of the 22 languages included in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian
Constitution has an associated national day to celebrate its historical and
cultural significance. Few of these days evoke any controversy, especially
from the non-speakers of that language. However, Sanskrit is an exception.
The critics of the ancient language resurface every year on National
Sanskrit Day with two distinct arguments stating: (1) Sanskrit is dead and
(2) Sanskrit should be dead.
Priyadarshi Dutta largely falls in the first camp, revisiting a
variety of well-known arguments to show that Sanskrit is dead or, at the
very best, dying. To an observer, this must seem strange, as Sanskrit is
the only Indian language whose death is fervently proclaimed year after
year. Surely, a language that has been dead for several centuries should
have been forgotten by now, with little need for an annual funerary rite.
In such a case, National Sanskrit Day should be seen as Sanskrit’s
puṇyatithi or death anniversary – a day to celebrate Sanskrit’s past,
perhaps even to lament its demise, but certainly not to perform another
autopsy on its long-decayed corpse to demonstrate that it continues to be
dead.
The first incision in Dutta’s autopsy of Sanskrit is the claim that
Sanskrit enjoys little presence outside academic institutions. In
particular, Dutta asserts that “there is no presence of Sanskrit in
journalism, modern literature, the film and music industries, advertising
or public relations.” This claim is plainly false — to the extent that it
undermines Dutta’s entire argument. Every day, there are numerous
newspapers, magazines, journals, and e-newsletters published in Sanskrit
across the country, with hundreds of contributors participating from
abroad. While Sudharma and Sambhashana Sandesha (Samskrita Bharati’s
newsletter) are widely known, there are many other, smaller outlets that
cater to thousands of readers in total — numbers that remain enviable for
several non-scheduled Indian languages.
Where traditional print media in Sanskrit has struggled, digital media
has filled the gap. The 2020-22 pandemic period represented an inflection
point in Sanskrit learning, due to the explosion of free, online resources
in Sanskrit. Produced by traditional scholars as well as amateur
enthusiasts, online Sanskrit content now spans not only lectures and web
seminars but also bites on music, culture, spirituality, health and
well-being. One of the most successful of these outlets is The Sanskrit
Channel which boasts 1.2 million subscribers on Youtube. There are dozens
of similar Sanskrit-related channels on YouTube, with more than a million
subscribers in total. Similarly, Sanskrit-related pages and groups on
Facebook boast more than a million combined followers and members.
In fact, the current generation is likely to be the most
“Sanskritized” since India’s independence, measured by the total hours of
Sanskrit-related content consumed, primarily due to the unprecedented
exposure to this content.
When it comes to modern literature, Sanskrit is one of the richest
Indian languages. Several attempts have been made to catalogue the vast
literature published in Sanskrit since the 20th century. In 2002, Dr.
Rajendra Mishra produced one such catalogue of modern Sanskrit literature
spanning poetry, prose, plays, translations, and research publications. An
updated survey was compiled by Dr. Radhavallabh Tripathi for the Sahitya
Akademi in 2016. An index produced by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (now
Central Sanskrit University) in 2009 counts 38 prominent Sanskrit authors
over the past century just in the state of Karnataka! Numerous anthologies
of modern Sanskrit writings are also published every year. Unlike most
other Indian languages, works in Sanskrit are truly pan-Indian, as authors
hail from all corners of the country. However, any such catalogue or
anthology is bound to be limited due to the voluminous nature of new
literature produced in Sanskrit every year.
Over the last decade, more than 20 Sanskrit movies have been released –
a massive increase over the 1980s and 90s which saw the release of only a
handful of Sanskrit movies. With further democratisation of movie
production, this number is expected to shoot up. Similarly, the realm of
Sanskrit music has been revolutionised by artists such as Kuldeep M. Pai,
whose work has been viewed more than 1.2 billion times on YouTube alone.
The recent success of the play Bhagavadajjukam in India and abroad is a
further testament to the growing interest in Sanskrit theatre. To claim
that Sanskrit is “more about the past than the future” betrays complete
ignorance of this vibrant world of creativity in Sanskrit.
Closely following Dutta’s ignorance are his double standards. He claims
that “most accomplished Sanskrit scholars” seek teaching positions and
therefore define the promotion of Sanskrit as the creation of more such
positions. However, this is an empirically untested and potentially
untestable claim. Even if the claim were true, it would be applicable to
several other languages. Do most accomplished scholars of Bengali not seek
teaching positions? What are the major non-academic avenues of employment
for the scholars of Hindi or Tamil? It is not inconceivable for language
scholars to gravitate towards academia and advocate for the expansion of
academic positions as a part of the promotion of their language.
Preparing for the final incision in his autopsy, Dutta provides a
brief survey of Sanskrit’s glorious past. He cites the Buddha for preaching
in a language other than Sanskrit and the Bhakti poets for creating their
compositions in local languages. However, a preference for local languages
did not mean that the significance of Sanskrit declined. Even during the
mediaeval era, when the political circumstances did not always favour
Sanskrit, the scholarly output produced in Sanskrit remained unparalleled.
Besides commentaries on past texts (such as the famous commentary of Sayana
on the Vedas), numerous original works on grammar, literary theory,
philosophy, law, arts, mathematics, and the sciences were composed in this
period. Students of Sanskrit routinely refer to these mediaeval works and
hold them in high esteem.
Dutta contends that the dominance of Sanskrit was challenged by local
languages in the realm of literature during the mediaeval period. However,
he does not realise that the Indian subcontinent always had two distinct
but intertwined literary traditions in Sanskrit and Prakrit. Kabir and
Tulsi are representatives of this tradition of Prakrit poetry, which
borrowed heavily from (and in turn influenced) Sanskrit literature.
After his survey of Sanskrit in the mediaeval era, Dutta shifts gears to
the British colonial period. He claims, without basis, that Lord Macaulay
did not impose English on India with “ulterior motives.” This claim can be
debunked by Macaulay’s own words, which betray a deep prejudice against
Sanskrit:
“[T]o encourage the study of Sanskrit literature, admitted to be of small
intrinsic value, only because that literature inculcated the most serious
errors on the most important subjects, is a course hardly reconcilable with
reason, with morality, or even with that very neutrality which ought, as we
all agree, to be sacredly preserved…It is confirmed that a language
(Sanskrit) is barren of useful knowledge. We are to teach it because it is
fruitful of monstrous superstitions. We are to teach false history, false
astronomy, false medicine, because we find them in company with a false
religion…And while we act thus, can we reasonably or decently bribe men,
out of the revenues of the State to waste their youth in learning how they
are to purify themselves after touching an ass or what texts of the Vedas
they are to repeat to expiate the crime of killing a goat?” (Macaulay’s
Minute on Education, February 2, 1835)
After dismantling the indigenous system of Sanskrit-based learning, the
British set up a handful of Sanskrit colleges, primarily to further the
colonial project of understanding and governing the natives according to
their laws and traditions. Although a few British orientalists appreciated
the value of Sanskrit, powerful officials such as Macaulay wanted to close
down Sanskrit colleges. Sanskrit learning was revived despite (and not
because of) the colonial state by enterprising Hindu leaders and scholars
such as Swami Shraddhanand and Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya. Dutta states that
these leaders “naturally used English, not Sanskrit.” This is again not
true as both are known to have delivered speeches in Sanskrit and local
languages, when addressing non-British audiences. Similarly, Swami
Dayananda Saraswati composed his works in both Sanskrit and Hindi to reach
different audiences.
Dutta is also under a misconception that Sanskritists failed to
experiment with new literary forms, such as novels, short stories, essays
and travelogues. In fact, these literary forms have always existed in
Sanskrit and continue to be explored in our times. Who can forget
Banabhatta’s Kadambari, the stories included in the Panchatantra,
Hitopadesha, Kathasaritsagara, and Purusha Pariksha, and the numerous
standalone literary tracts and essays in Sanskrit? Furthermore, the surveys
of contemporary Sanskrit literature cited above show that these literary
forms continue to be popular among modern Sanskrit writers.
Despite limited government patronage and apathy from the
Macaulay-influenced intellectual class, Sanskrit continues to produce men
and women of high scholarship and literary merit. They continue to flourish
in a world of intense “competition” (to choose Dutta’s terminology), as
Sanskritists have thrived over the last two millennia, alongside a variety
of Indian languages. They also interact with world languages, exchanging
words and ideas, as they did with Greek and Persian in the past. They
continue to blend the Loka and Veda, the regional and the classical, like
their great predecessors who learnt and borrowed from all sections of the
society. And despite being accused of Brahmanical bias, they continue to
preserve Pali and Prakrit, as they did in the past.
Imbued with a deep reverence for tradition, modern Sanskritists hesitate
to compare themselves with the stalwarts of the past. However, to the
extent that English continues to produce new Shakespeares and Miltons,
Sanskrit also continues to produce its new Kalidasas and Bhavabhutis. We
simply need to open our eyes.
Regards,
Kushagra Aniket
Economist and Management Consultant
Columbia University'21
Cornell University'15
New York, NY, U.S.A.
[email protected] K Rajaram IRS 26824 27824
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorFVUTO1QJjKFV5pV%2B4XTx%3DbyjnxdV5UsG8cLA_405L5A%40mail.gmail.com.
