एकचक्षुर्नकाकोSयं बिलमिच्छन्न पन्नग: |
क्षीयते वर्धते चैव न
समुद्रो न चंद्रमा ||
This
was, by some distance, the high point of our Class IX Sanskrit textbook. The
syllabus had recently changed, which meant fresh (and therefore not so
efficiently censored) textbooks. Mistakes were discovered at alarmingly high
frequencies. Whether the inclusion of this shloka in a chapter
comprising of many other riddles (none of which I can recall) was an honest
mistake or there were deeper reasons behind the decision will remain a mystery
and it is not my intention to unravel it.
The
riddle roughly translates as follows: “I am one-eyed, but not a crow. I seek a
hole but I am not a snake. I grow and shrink. I am neither the sea nor the
moon.”
If
the authors expected students to accept the answer given at the end of the
chapter, then they should have thought of one which was at least not as lame as
a ‘needle’!
Languages are
in the public domain. They do not belong to any particular group, especially
languages like Sanskrit which have existed mostly on paper and rarely (if not
never) in sound waves and therefore are immune to bids of ownership. There have
been claims of existence of Sanskrit speaking villages in modern India. But
those are results of modern-day Sanskrit revival movements, rather than ancient
Sanskrit speaking communities existing in seclusion. Because no modern Indian linguistic/religious
group can claim Sanskrit as their own, I find the controversy stirred up by the
CBSE’s decision to celebrate Sanskrit Week rather amusing. Some supporting this move have argued that
most Indian languages are derived from Sanskrit and therefore promoting
Sanskrit is equivalent to preserving our culture. On the other hand, groups opposing this move accuse
the government of trying to impose Hindu traditions on the nation by promoting
a language which is so closely associated with Hindu religious texts. I think,
both stands are equally misinformed.
Sanskrit is
certainly a very old language when compared to most modern Indian languages.
Kalidasa, the most celebrated Sanskrit poet-playwright, is thought to have been
born in the 5th century CE, when Sanskrit literature was probably at
its peak. Marathi, on the other hand, appears only after the 12th
century. Does that mean Marathi descended from Sanskrit in a linear fashion? Not
unlike Latin, Sanskrit was mostly a written language, a symbol class and
education. Ever since its grammar was codified, it has remained in a
permanantly fossilized state with its use being restricted to literature. A
vast majority of the population communicated in the vernacular. These
vernacular or prakrit languages are more likely to be the ancestors of
modern-day languages and Sanskrit could be just another shoot in the tree of
languages rather than being the root.
Religious
texts in Hinduism, Jainism have been written in Sanskrit. Does that make it a
religious language? And does studying Sanskrit imply giving you allegiance to
India’s Hindu Right? Nothing could be further away from the truth. Sanskrit is
too multifaceted, too versatile to be labelled a religious language. (After all,
how could a language which dares to make riddles about male genitals be
just a religious language?) I have had the honour of knowing staunch atheists
who have earned PhDs in Sanskrit literature. Their passion for Sanskrit was
entirely compatible with their dislike of Hindutva politics. Religious texts in
Sanskrit might be well known. But literature that defines the language and
grants it worldwide fame is in the form of poems and plays.
उपमा कालिदासस्य भारवेरर्थगौरवम् |
दंडिन: पदलालित्यम् माघे सन्ति त्रयो गुणा ||
(Kalidasa’s
simile, Bharavi’s depth of meaning, Dandin’s wordplay…Magha has all three of these
qualities.)
And
that is perhaps why three of the most famous Sanskrit writers have been immortalized
in this shloka for their writing ability and not religious philosophy. Therefore,
Sanskrit deserves to be delinked from the religious texts it is so often
associated with and examined as a language in its own right.
Therefore, the
stand taken by the groups opposing the Sanskrit Week Celebrations- by labelling
Sanskrit Week Celebrations a Hindu conspiracy- seems ridiculous. A more
legitimate mode of opposition would have been to argue that no language (whether
it is the mother of all languages or a foreign language) can be forced on students
and that the CBSE need not issue advisories on school activities that are
cultural in nature. After all, CBSE’s objectives are confined to the realm of
conducting examinations and prescribing the syllabus to schools affiliated to itself.
I feel
Sanskrit has been defamed by people belonging to both camps. On the right,
Sanskrit has been made the ‘mother of all languages’, something which it is
not. And on the left, Sanskrit has been tagged a ‘Hindu conspiracy’.
Perhaps we
need more riddles about needles (or human genitalia?) until Sanskrit is freed
from cheap politics.
References:
5.
http://cbse.nic.in/welcome.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment