Sanskrit - 2

[acharya]

|| Satyameva Jayate ||
Do Not Copy
The ridiculous extremes of pseudo-secularism
Posted on June 17, 2008 by B Shantanu

Fellow blogger Varnam recently wrote two posts on how learning Sanskrit is now considered to be a “communal” activity and something that might put you at odds with the “secular” brigade.

In the first one, he pointed out:

Usually you see the word saffronization associated with the Hindutva folks, not Sanskritization…the revival (of this word) is with mischievous intent. Now the name of a language has become a synonym for communal politics.

In fact this attempt to brand Sanskrit as a non-secular entity happened once before, believe it or not - by the Central Board of Secondary Education. It was an attempt to pull the rug off India’s cultural heritage and history by branding an entire language as not-secular.

…The Supreme Court in a landmark verdict rejected the accusation that teaching Sanskrit was against secularism.

…the Court wrote that Sanskrit was the language in which Indian minds expressed the noblest ideas. It was also the language in which our culture, which includes the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, the teachings of Sankaracharya to Vallabhacharya and classics of Kalidasa to Banabhatta were expressed. Without understanding Sanskrit, the Court wrote, you cannot understand Indian philosophy on which our culture is based.

In a follow-up, he wrote:

This January, the Indian Govt. cut funding for a Sanskrit program because it is now a sin to learn an ancient language and the reason: India has a large Muslim population. :-(

When the Supreme Court of India writes judgements admiring the language in which Indian minds expressed noblest ideas, it takes the UPA Govt. to accuse that it is communal.

JK suggests (and I fully endorse): Instead of whining about the Govt. the best course of action would be to organize a Samskrita Bharati camp in your area.

Fellow blogger Sandeep has also commented on this issue:

…Sanskritisation, a noun used as a verb form is a strange creature that really defies definition. Interestingly, Seema uses this without defining it, an act similar to her boss Sonia Gandhi who wields power without responsibility but alludes to M.N. Srinivas who coined it.

…Sanskritisation, however, you want to define it, has no factual basis in Indian history or tradition or society–unless you equate Sanskritisation with Brahminisation (ugh and sic!).