Prakrits vernaculars, desi, Sanskrit And Samskriti Of Bhratam Janam

Prakrits (vernaculars, des'i), Sanskrit and Samskriti of Bhratam Janam Vernaculars and Sanskrit S. Kalyanaraman1, Ph.D. (March 2006 Why did Robert Goldman and Sheldon Pollock co-sign the Witzel letter of Nov. 8, 2005 addressed CA State Board of Education? Because of their negative contributions presented in this critical review The compilation of articles are related to the contributions made by two professors: Sheldon Pollock and Robert Goldman who consider themselves experts in Sanskrit and a rejoinder by Rajiv Malhotra are presented in a separate document titled: " Distorting the contributions of Sanskrit and Prakrit (vernacular) languages to the evolution of Bharatiya society and samskriti " (Feb. 2006).

Prakrits (vernaculars, des'i), Sanskrit and Samskriti of Bhratam Janam

Vernaculars and Sanskrit

S. Kalyanaraman¹, Ph.D. (March 2006)

Why did Robert Goldman and Sheldon Pollock co-sign the Witzel letter of Nov. 8, 2005 addressed CA State Board of Education? Because of their negative contributions presented in this critical review

The compilation of articles are related to the contributions made by two professors: Sheldon Pollock and Robert Goldman who consider themselves experts in Sanskrit and a rejoinder by Rajiv Malhotra are presented in a separate document titled: " Distorting the contributions of Sanskrit and Prakrit (vernacular) languages to the evolution of Bharatiya society and samskriti " (Feb. 2006).                                                                                               

Sheldon Pollock, The Death of Sanskrit (2001)

Rajiv Malhotra, Geopolitics and Sanskrit Phobia (2005)

Sumathi Ramaswamy,   Sanskrit for the Nation (1999)

Sanskrit knowledge systems on the eve of colonialism : National Endowment for the Humanties Proposal (2003) [Sheldon  Pollock is a participant and Rober Goldman is a discussant.]

The objective of this note is to critically review the contributions of Sheldon Pollock and Robert Goldman (also Sally Sutherland Goldman).

General remarks on research orientation

Both Sheldon Pollock and the Goldmans have contributed to presenting a distorted picture of the contributions of Sanskrit language and literature to Bharatiya society and samskriti.

The claim to notoriety of Sheldon Pollock and Robert Goldman comes from the fact that they (together with Sally Sutherland Goldman, wife of Robert Goldman and teaching Sanskrit in Univ. of California, Berkeley) were co-signatories of a letter which Michael Witzel of Harvard University wrote on Harvard University letterhead.

  The uniqueness of the signatures (of Witzel + 46 other signatories who proclaimed themselves to be 'international academics') is that they were affixed to a letter opposing edits to a set of sixth grade textbooks in California Department of Education school system. The opposition was expressed vociferously without any indication that the signatories had ever read the textbooks or the edits under review since August 2005. So much for academic honesty and integrity of 'international academics'.

[quote] In fact, at a public meeting at Harvard University on 3^rd February 2006, Professor Witzel was specifically asked whether he had seen the edits before the letter was sent out in November. He declined to comment giving the excuse that the matter is in courts. This excuse seems odd, considering that Witzel has been giving press interviews and what not on this entire controversy for the last 15 weeks?Considering that the petition was cobbled up within a day using people from Japan to Europe to the United States residing in different time zones, it seems very unlikely that the 47 signatories (or even a significant proportion of them) actually got a chance to read these proposed Hindu edits. If this guess is true, we can conclude that these signatories bluffed in the letter, and thereby displayed dishonest behavior?The disputed textbooks are not in print (except for Kenoyer's) and are available only with the Board, and at select County Education offices within California. Clearly then, there was no way that Witzel in Boston (let alone scholars from outside the United States) could have had an opportunity to peruse the textbooks before sending their petition. To conclude then, we have one more reason in my opinion to suppose that the petition was written out of ignorance and malice? 12. Robert Goldman: Professor at University of California at Berkeley. Lead the English translation of the critical edition of Ramayana. Notorious for distorting Hindu beliefs by derogatory and demeaning application (scroll-down at this website) of kitsch-psychoanalysis to Hindu society.  He serves on the executive committee of the World Association for Vedic Studies (WAVES), an organization that has been called 'Hindutva' by Marxists and other detractors. So either Goldman is Hindutva follower (or a 'Mischlinge'?), or WAVES is not a Hindutva organization! ?27. Sheldon Pollock: Professor of Indian Studies at Columbia University (New York). A few years ago, he wrote an article arguing that in medieval India, Ramayana was used by Hindu leaders to fight against the Islamic rule, leading Indian Marxists to allege that he is promoting Hindu communalism! He has been making amends since then, writing against Hindu communalism (directly or indirectly) in sensational papers such as 'The Death of Sanskrit" etc., or writing in Indian Leftist publications. ..36. Sally Sutherland Goldman , Ph.D. Senior Lecturer in Sanskrit, University of California at Berkeley. Wife of Robert Goldman. People who have attended her lectures on Ramayana etc., inform me that she presents an obsessively negative view of Hindu epics.  [ unquote] One of the signatories, Kalpana Desai of India Heritage Center retracted her signature.  It is clear that Goldmans, and Pollock are just part the Harvard University Hate Groups who would not hesitate to tar Hindu organizations with their preconceived notions of the 'community' of Bharatam Janam.

With such demonstration of academic integrity, it is difficult to repose faith in the contributions of Robert Goldman and Sheldon Pollock, in particular in relation to their opinions about the importance of Sanskrit language in defining the samskriti (culture) of Bharatam Janam.

Attacks on  Sanskrit language in terms of domination and discrimination in Bharatiya polity

In an incisive article, Rajiv Malhotra exposes the distortions presented by Sheldon Pollock and Robert Goldman. " Western Indologists, such as Sheldon Pollock and Robert Goldman, and their Indian counterparts have embarked on the task to exhume, isolate, analyze, and theorize about the modalities of domination rooted in Sanskrit as the basis of Brahmanical ideology of power and domination. They assume that Sanskrit and the classical culture based on it have radically silenced and screened out of history entire groups and communities of disadvantaged persons. They therefore seek to construct new perspectives that accords priority to what has hitherto been "marginal, invisible, and unheard" people and their (non-Sanskrit) languages? Sheldon Pollock, one of the foremost Sanskritists of today, appears to agree with Edward Said in the need to reclaim "traditions, histories, and cultures from imperialism" (Said 1989: 219). He nevertheless insists that we must not forget that most of the traditions and cultures in question [ India is obviously included in this] have been empires of oppression in their own right - against women and also against other domestic communities (Pollock 1993: 116). The Western Sanskritist, he says, feels this most acutely, given that Sanskrit was the principal discursive instrument of domination in premodern India. Thus Pollock deftly turns Said's attack on imperialism into nonsense by insisting that the subjugated Indians are themselves imperialists, as much as the conquering Europeans. In Pollock's view, the trend continues today, and Sanskrit is being continuously reappropriated by many of the most reactionary and communalist sectors of the population (Pollock 1993: 116). Needless to say, this line of imagining invites many Indian mimics who make their careers as India-bashers in order to prove their usefulness to the Western institutions they serve? This trend started with the mimicry of the 19th century Orientalist critique of Sanskrit as the language of hegemony and domination, which was based on the normative Western European experience being projected upon others. Not surprisingly, the title of an unpublished paper of Robert Goldman is "The Communalization of Sanskrit and Sanskritisation of Communalism." Lele similarly advises jettisoning of Sanskrit from its position of power, prestige and profit in favour of vernacular languages. The critical, subaltern school champions the local, the indigenous, and the autochthonous seeking the continuity and specificity of 'native' culture. The emphasis is on recuperating cultural authenticity of the subaltern from Sanskritic hegemony. These attacks against Sanskrit are grounded in the following beliefs:

There has been no connection between Sanskrit and Prakrit (and/or other vernacular languages of South Asia. This is because Sanskrit was entirely elitist and was never a spoken language and there were never any native speakers of it.

Sanskrit has been an effective instrument of creating a civilization (Sanskriti) built on Brahmanical hegemony and domination of the subaltern classes.

Sanskrit is a language of rites and rituals that are devoid of philosophical merit.

Sanskrit does not have the expressive spirit and temper of science and technology. Hence, to make Indians modern they must abandon it.

Sanskrit has no value to non-Hindu traditions. It would compromise secularism.

As a dead language, Sanskrit has no future in the world culture."

These attacks of Sheldon Pollock and Robert Goldman are variants of the attacks on Sanskrit and vernaculars launched by Macaulay when he introduced English education in the early years of the British colonial regime in Bharat. The terminology used is borrowed from two sources: 1. marxists' attack on the 'hegemony' of ruling classes in a universal explanation of history as a class struggle; and 2. christist proselytizers' attack on social discriminations targeting the so-called 'dalit' communities for conversions.

The dishonest nature of the attacks may be seen from the fact that both Sheldon Pollock and Robert Goldman indulge in suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. They suppress the fact that both Vyasa who is the author of the Mahabharata and Valmiki who is the author of the Ramayana are not Brahmins and hence cannot be accused of brahminical hegemony. Vyasa was the son of a fisherwoman. Valmiki was a hunter. Tiruvalluvar who wrote the Tirukkural in Tamil was   of Paraiya jaati. These jaati affiliations have not prevented the Hindu samajam from venerating these great savants who have contributed such defining literary texts which define the very identity of Hindu civilization. As Kalavai Venkat notes: " When you think of the great Saiva and Vaishnava Bhakti saints, the Nayanmars and Azhwars, the names of many celebrated Harijan saints such as Tiru Panazhwar, Tirumazhisai Azhwar, Enati Nayanar, Kannappa Nayanar, Atipattar Nayanar, Anayar Nayanar, Kaliar Nayanar, Tirukkurippu Tondar Nayanar, Tiru Nilakanta Nayanar, Tiru Nilakanta Yazhpanar and Nantanar Nayanar come to mind? The word Harijan was originally coined by the 13 ^th century Muslim-born Hindu saint, Kabir, who used that word to denote realized souls that have transcended the pulls of worldly lust: "kam kahar aswar hai, sab ko mare dhaye koi eka Harijan ubhare, jaka Ram sahaya"  [A few children of Hari transcend the push and pull of lust by His grace] Tulasidas, the great medieval saint, who rendered the Ramacharitamanas, used those words for the exalted devotees of God [Bala Khanda , Chaupai 273]: "sur mahisur harijan aru gayi hamare kul in par na surayin!" [Our clan does not show its valor against devas, Brahmins, devotees and cows!] Narasimha Mehta, a great social reformer, who worked to eradicate untouchability, used that word to collectively refer to those peoples, who had been treated as untouchables. Mahatma Gandhi popularized it [Gandhi, M.K.: Removal of Untouchability, p. 13.].   Pallars of Tamilnadu renamed themselves Devendra kula Vellala; the Tiyas have renamed themselves Ezhavas; the Chanars have renamed themselves Nadars. " http://www.india-forum.com/articles/66/1/Hindus-fight-discrimination-in-California-textbooks----3

The instances of suggestion falsi are a failure to refer to the fact that the early Sanskrit inscriptions in Brahmi/Siddhamatrika scripts are found in south-east asian epigraphs ? a region referred to as Hinduised States of Southeast Asia by George Coedes, the French epigraphist.

This reality should make us pause. Isn't it remarkable that early inscriptions in Bharat are in Prakrit/Pali/Ardhamagadhi while the early inscriptions in Southeast Asia are in Sanskrit?

The nature of the relationships between Bharatiya languages and Sanskrit has not been fully studied. The nature of the substratum languages which have contributed to the Vedic have not been fully analysed. The evolution of the vernaculars and a rich corpus of literature in early years related to the translation of Sanskrit literary works into vernaculars. Thus, manuscripts of Mahabharata are found all over Bharatam (in fact, the critical edition of Mahabharata by the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute used over 40 manuscripts obtained from all parts of Bharatam) and the story of Ramayana is found in many versions in all regions of Southeast Asia, transcending the language barriers.

When the Bhakti movement during the mediaeval period arose, first in southern Bharat, the movement spread all over Bbharatam and became truly a pan-bharatiya response to the onslaughts launched by intolerant faiths which directed their attacks on Hindu Dharma and Hindu pantha-s, including Bauddham and Jaina which are a continuum of Sanatana Dharma. Gautama the Buddha called it esha dhammo sanantano and Mahavira Jaina called it ariya (noble) dhamma. The ease with which profound philosophical and aadhyaatmika inquiries could be communicated in Pali/Prakrit/Ardhamagadhi by Buddha bhikkus and Jaina Arahants across the length and breadth of the Indian Ocean Rim states and also the hinterland of China and even Korea and Japan is a clear testimony of the vernacular languages as developed enough to convey profound thoughts, while the foundational vedic texts were in Vedic or later itihaasa, purana, kaavya and naatyas'aastra in Sanskrit. The co-existence and absorption of features from vernaculars into Sanskrit and vice versa are attested eloquently in Bharata's Natyas'astra and in literary texts such as Mr.cchakat.ika and Kiratarjuniya.

Even in the Rigveda, there is an emphatic reference to two streams of metaphors: 1. yajna and 2. vrata. The mahaavrata is an event preceding the agnis.t.oma as described in the Aitareya Aranyaka. Eka vratya rudra is an atithi evoked in Atharvaveda. The vrata, vra_ta, vra_tya tradition and the use of mleccha language in the conversation between Yudhishthira and Vidura described in the Adi Parvan of Mahabharata point to a linguistic area with artisans engaged in mlecchita vikalpa (cipher writing), mleccha who are metal workers [mleccha-mukha 'copper' (Skt.); melukka 'copper' (Pali)]. This points to the need to break away from the hypothetical postulates of an Indo-European language by a vikalpa (alternative) explanation of Proto-vedic Continuity of Bharatiya languages, analogous to the Palaeolithic Continuity Theory for European languages proposed by Alinei. This is analysed in a separate document at http://protovedic.blogspot.com In such a perspective, the origins of Sanskrit can be hypothesized as a grammatically correct (refined, samyak krutam) written language compared to the lingua franca of spoken languages referred to as vernaculars (prakrits or des'I or mleccha).

The vis'vakarma traditions of architecture and science/technology have not been detailed fully in the context of the indigenous origin and evolution of Hindu civilization. It is increasingly realized that the cultural metaphors of today are a continuum from Sarasvati civilization. http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati (cf. S. Kalyanaraman, 2004, Sarasvati, a 7 Volume encyclopaedic work, Bababasaheb Apte Smarak Samiti, Bangalore) and decipherment of Sarasvati hieroglyphs outlined at: http://spaces.msn.com/members/sarasvati97

As noted by Rajjiv Malhotra in another context, it should be underscored that the largest Vishnu mandiram of the world is NOT in Bharatm but is in Angkor Wat (Nagara Vatika), Cambodia. The expansion of the cultural metaphors into the Indian Ocean Rim states which has been superbly documented by French savants have not been absorbed by the indologists such as Pollock and Goldman.

The itihaasa of Bharatam Janam (a phrase first used by Vis'vamitra Gathina in RV 3.53.12) has yet to be written, documenting the contributions made by kula, jaati and janajaati to defining the Hindu civilizational metaphors such as those of: vrata, of festivals, of tirthasthanas, of water management systems exemplified by wav's, of sculptures in stone, exquisite architectures of man-made caves and the magnificence of Ellora, the metallurgical traditions which reach their pinnacle in the creation of the non-rusting Vidisha iron pillar (now in Delhi), irrigation systems with reservoirs in Dholavira or Vidisha or Grand Anicut (kallanai) on River Kaveri, agricultural techniques of Krishi Paraasara, the alchemical traditions, the ayurvedic health, herbal and metallic formulations of medicines and surgical traditions of Caraka, Sus'ruta, Madhava, the evolution of astronomical sciences and records of observed events. It is clear that over 150 astronomical references contained in the Mahabharata are NOT computed events but observed events which make the epic the most accurately dated historical document in the history of human civilization. The contributions made by Hindu mathematicians to the History of Mathematics is still being unraveled with the identification of binary systems in Pingala's Chandas s'astra and Aryabhat.a's algorithms in computational sciences. Democratic traditions and systems of logic (nyaaya) in Bharatam pre-date the western innovations. (Steve Muhlberger, 1998, Democracy in Ancient India, http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/HISTDEM/INDIADEM.HTM )

  It is a sad commentary on the pathetic state of indological contributions that psychoanalytical works are used to denigrate Bharatiya traditions be it Jeffery J Kripal's work on Ramakrishna Paramahamsa or Courtright's work on Ganesha or Wendy Doniger's work on Ramayana or Bhagavad Gita or Laine's work on Shivaji or the essay of Pollock on Sanskrit or Goldman's psychoanalytical essays/lectures on Ramayana. Many of these works are written by those who are not familiar with the Bharatiya languages and traditions, resulting in distortions. Traditions which are sacred in Hindu culture cannot be reduced to a farce by treating sacred texts as literature subjected to fraudulent Freudian psychoanalysis (which has been conclusively discredited as non-falsifiable by Karl Popper). The negation of science by such indologists results in an inevitable question on their credibility and consequently on their motives in indulging in scurrilous and irresponsible analyses of Bharatiya samajam. Traditions are metaphors unique to a civilization and cannot be allowed to be irresponsibly psycho-analysed or chronological markers sought using words as weapons, using words such as 'tribes', 'ethnicity', 'myths', 'caste' (a word alien to Bharatiya tradition, a word derived from the Portuguese word, 'casta' meaning 'race'). Such uses of words as weapons result in either a Eurocentric view of the itihaasa of Bharatam Janam or a perverted indologists' view of the 'other', using the prism of a revealed faith to unravel a scientific quest, veda (from root, vid 'to know') of the yoga of the aatman with the paramaatman. The samskriti has to be understood through Sanskrit which is the fountain from which the the streams of vernaculars of Bharatam have drawn inspiration and also contributed to the development of Sanskrit itself as an exquisite repertoire of cultural idiom to a continuously sustained Hindu civilization, sustained for over 8,500 years in a continuum unparalleled in the story of civilization

What can be done?

Kapil Kapoor provides some insights: " Colonization is a contact situation and this contact is of two kinds - one motivated by food and the other by profit. By food, I mean settlements, migrations, people in search of livelihood. We had a settlement history of India and we have a settlement history of Indians going outside. Even today, there are large segments of Indian population in the U.S.A., in Europe and so on. This is one kind of contact. The other kind of contact begins with trade and commerce and ends up with political and military subjugation. Generally speaking, we have a Valmiki followed by Rama. We can think of a third type of contact - which is of the Buddhist monks going all over Asia or the Christian missionaries going all over the world. There is, however a difference - incidentally, there is no history that Buddhist monks were followed by the Mauryan armies. There is in effect no such history. But Buddhist monks went all over Asia and this brought about contact between Indian thought, Asian thought and therefore Buddhism has become a thinking language of a large number of Asians and the name of Asoka as H.G. Wells informs us a 'by-word' in the central Asian, Eurasian and other parts of the world - 'from the Volga to the Ganga'. So this is the least problematic contact where there is a purely intellectual influence and India has had the good fortune of being a donor intellectual tradition for centuries? But we are told by Sri Krishna that nothing liberates like knowledge, that there is no greater purifier than knowledge. So ours is a knowledge-centered civilization. This is evidenced by another fact. We know the history of the destruction of manuscripts in India and still, it is remarkable that there are more than a million manuscripts, if not more. Compare it to how many manuscripts elsewhere you may find. The fact that there exist one million manuscripts speaks of a very learned civilization. It is a proof that knowledge has been highly valued. So it has happened again and again - this loss and recovery. " (Decolonizing the Indian Mind, 2001).

http://www.multiworld.org/m_versity/articles/kapil.htm

In the context of the development of vernaculars to convey scientific concepts, MS Thirumalai notes: " Had the native vernaculars been used to express the concepts of modern science right from the beginning of the introduction of these concepts into the educational system of the Indian subcontinent, the vernaculars might have perhaps attained a status similar to that of several European: languages and Japanese. " http://languageinindia.com/jan2003/languageinscience.html This failure is being considerably remedied with the importance given to vernaculars after the Linguistic reorganization of states and most of the subjects are being taught in the vernaculars, the 'mother tongue'. (MS Thirumkalai, 2003, Language in Science). There was a debate between Princep and Macaulay on the relative roles of vernaculars and English. Prinsep wrote in his diary as follows February 15, 1835: 'When the subject came under consideration in Council, there was a very hot argument between myself and Mr. Macaulay. The issue was the resolution that was published not abolishing existing colleges, but requiring them to teach English as well as native literature and making the former obligatory, also giving some encouragement to vernacular studies, but declaring that all Government pecuniary aid in future should be given exclusively to promote the study of European science through the medium of the English language? The study of Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian is, in consequence, less cultivated than heretofore, but none of the old institutions have been altogether abolished (Sharp, H. (ed.). 1920. Selections from Educational Records, Part I (1781-1839). Superintendent, Govt. Printing, Calcutta. ' http://languageinindia.com/april2003/macaulay.html

These contacts have resulted in the interactions among Prakrits (Ardhamagadhi,   Pali, vernaculars, des'i, mleccha), Sanskrit and many languages of Southeast Asia. All the languages have become the richer because of the contacts.

What can be done to undo the mischief caused by misdirected and dishonest indologists? The first step is to bring out a popular comparative dictionary of mutual contributions between Sanskrit and vernaculars. A nucleus exists with the comparative multi-lingual lexicon for over 25 ancient Indian languages organized in 8000+ semantic clusters. This can be updated with the new terms added from various languages to cope with the scientific/technological advancements. http://hindunet.org/saraswati/html/indlexmain.htm http://hindunet.org/saraswati/dictionary/0000intro.htm

The next step is to write a true Itihaasa of Bharatam Janam, documenting the contributions made by kula, jaati and janajaati to Hindu ethos, traditions, culture and civilization. This should be a true riposte to the bigoted, skewed versions in the works of Marxist historians which have so far been treated as the mainstream works together with some works of indologists inspired by Dubois.and Creationism.

With such contributions to language and historical studies, the indologists like Pollock and Goldman will be reduced to irrelevance and discarded into footnotes of historiography. Theirs are certainly not literary studies but polemical statements, expressions of opinions paraded as facts by mere repetition.

The opinions indologists who parade their pet theories based on Creationism, euro-centrism and the imperative of 'civilizing' the 'natives', should be discarded. The vernaculars, des'i, Pali, Prakrit based vernaculars, Nahali, Austro-Asiatic language families should become the subject of study to understand the evolution of samskriti in Indian Ocean Rim states to lay the language and cultural foundations for an Indian Ocean Community which will rival the multi-lingual European Community. Such a community will help redefine future studies of languages and cultures and the interactions between languages and cultures.

A hypothesis for further elucidation will be: Sanskrit is refined Prakrits; Samskriti is expressed in Sanskrit-Prakrit interactions founded on cultural contacts. Such a framework may help achieve renaissance among the vernaculars and the rediscovery of Sanskrit as the defining medium for samskriti. The traditions are not imbibed by learning Sanskrit in exclusion of the vernacular mother tongue; the traditions are imbibed and sustained by cherishing samskriti. Samskriti may be defined as an automatic patter of refined behavior, which is the hall-mark of all cultures of all civilizations of all climes and regions expressed in the metaphors of samskara's, a perpetual process of realizing one's identity from the contributions made by ancestors, pitr.-s and purifying the hearts and minds to achieve the purushartha, the goal of life. To delink the study of languages from samskriti is like studying a skeleton without realizing the contributions that skeleton made to the samajam, the society.