The Battle For Sanskrit: Is Sanskrit
political or sacred? Oppressive or Liberating? Dead or Alive? by Rajiv Malhotra
(2016 HarperCollins India)
Reviewed by Shrinivas Tilak*
I Introduction
Why The Battle For Sanskrit matters
In
chapter one of The Battle for Sanskrit the
author Rajiv Malhotra succinctly explains his purpose (prayojana) in writing this book: Sanskrit has been the
heartbeat of Indian civilization (sanskriti) for several thousand years.
It could even be said that bharateeya sanskriti has Sanskrit embedded in
its DNA. Put differently, Sanskrit provides the vocabulary with which Indian
civilization is encoded. Even those who do not explicitly use Sanskrit often
draw upon knowledge stored in Sanskrit texts—Shruti, Smriti, and epics (mahakavyas)
such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. One would think,
continues Rajiv Malhotra (hereafter RM) that a major takeover of Sanskrit
studies by Western scholars would not go unnoticed in India particularly when their works discount or undermine the core values
of Sanskrit and sanskriti.
In the United States it
is Sheldon Pollock (Arvind Raghunathan, Professor of South Asian Studies,
Columbia University, New York) who leads and shapes the anti-Sanskrit/sanskriti brigade. After acquiring his Ph.D. in Sanskrit
Studies from Harvard under the famous Indologist, Daniel Ingalls, Pollock spent
the next four decades working diligently on a variety of Sanskrit texts. His
publications cover a vast canvas of topics in Sanskrit studies. Chapter two of The
Battle for Sanskrit (hereafter TBFS) provides a detailed account of
Pollock’s activism. A leading Sanskrit scholar, Pollock is regarded as a hero
by many fellow academics and leftists in the USA and in India. He has trained
and inspired an army of young American and Indian scholars, popular writers,
and other opinion-shapers to use his interpretations of Sanskrit for a
completely new analysis of Indian society. The new breed of intellectual
leaders groomed under his aegis includes a number of young scholars across the
world who portend to claim newly earned authority on Sanskrit history, social
structures, and their political implications.
Patrick McCartney, a PhD candidate in the School of Culture,
History and Language at the Australian National University, is one such aspiring
(‘good cop’) scholar inspired by Pollock writing his dissertation on a benign,
innocuous sounding topic: ‘Shanti Mandir:
Authenticity, Emotion and Economy in a Yoga Ashram’ located in Melbourne,
Australia. The title of his proposed post-doc research, however, is more
ominous: ‘Imagining Sanskrit Land: A Sociolinguistic Study of Sanskrit Language
Nests and the Hindu Rāṣṭra.’
McCartney (the ‘bad cop’) intends to explain ‘how the symbolic capital of
Sanskrit is utilized by the Hindu nationalists groups, i.e. the Sangh Parivar,
as a way to usher in their ultimate goal of overthrowing the world’s largest
secular democracy and replace it with a Hindu theocratic state. Due to its
religious symbolism, McCartney speculates, ‘Sanskrit is the preferred
linguistic vehicle that is apparently able to purify and sanitize space, right
the historical wrongs of the Mughal and Colonial periods, and assist with the
creation of a new social and moral order’ (see McCartney Post-doc
Research Proposal n.d.).
Elsewhere McCartney challenges the mandate of Samskrita Bharati (an organization of
dedicated volunteers who strive for the popularization of Sanskrit, Sanskriti
and the Knowledge Traditions of India): to undertake the ‘Revival
of Samskrit as a mass communication language (janabhasha) and facilitation of common man’s access to its vast
knowledge treasure.’ Samskrita Bharati,
McCartney warns us, is a part of the Sangh
Parivar, the collection of nationalist, political, social, paramilitary,
religious and cultural organizations devoted to the furthering of its
particular version of ‘patriotic’ Hinduism. The Sangh would like to see an ideal utopian Hindu nation and world
with Sanskrit as its lingua franca.
Samskrita Bharati’s role in this movement is linguistic and cultural; however,
it is enmeshed in the political, religious, and para-military preoccupations of
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS),
respectively. Sanskrit is a symbolic vehicle for the ideology and practices of
the Sangh Parivar (McCartney 2014).
(Editor’s Note: One cannot miss the paranoid discoloration
resulting from McCartney’s jaundiced eyes exaggerating the ultimate xenophobic
view of brown colored Hindus one day aspiring to rule the world and impose
Sanskrit as the replacement for English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, French and
Japanese as the world language for trade and commerce. Also, underlying this
accusatory statement is a presumption that Hindu nation and culture is antithetical
to cultural pluralism, secularism, and religious freedom limited to practising
ones religious and spiritual path, though it might resist aggressive
proselytization with deceit, allurement and coercion, a version of religious
neo-colonization with decimation of older cultures as is historically evidenced
by the mass conversions of world populations undertaken by the Christians and
Muslims over the last two millennia).
Approvingly citing Sheldon Pollock, McCartney claims (Editor’s
note: further evidence of extreme paranoia) that speaking in Sanskrit was
restricted or prohibited regardless of an individual’s linguistic inheritance.
Punishments to prevent further transgressions included pouring molten tin and
lac into the ears of women or non-twice-born males who dared listen to Sanskrit
mantras, according to the ancient legal text Manava Dharma Shastra. The punishment for a non-dvija learning or teaching Sanskrit was
for their bodies to be hacked to pieces (McCartney 2014). The use of Sanskrit
is deeply connected to the nationalistic patriotism of Hindutva ideology. In a sense, the Hindu right has appropriated
Sanskrit for their own moral and political agenda, and is implementing it as
part of their cultural hegemonic aims. For national unity and world peace, a Brahminical ideology and practice should
be established under a Hindu kingdom with a hyper-masculinized Rama as its semiticized, monotheistic
figurehead (see McCartney 2014).
Following his mentor Pollock, McCartney concludes that Samskrita Bharati represents a
monolingual and mono-cultural hegemony bereft of sympathy for or interest in
South-Asian cultural, linguistic and religious diversity. The imposition of
their ‘tolerant’ and ‘harmonious’ goals result from adopting the Sangh’s moral
and linguistic initiatives whose symbolic power comes through the sanitizing
effects of Sanskrit. Therefore, the type of person found speaking Sanskrit
generally seems to hold conservative and intolerant views towards
multiculturalism and modernity, and is rooted in the ideology of Hindutva. This is problematic for the
99.99875 percent of India’s population who don’t [sic] speak Sanskrit and also,
perhaps, don’t want to be sanitized in the way the Sangh would like them to be. The ‘intangible heritage’ found within
the Sanskrit literary canon is a valuable body of knowledge that UNESCO
believes should not be lost to humanity. It belongs to all of us, not just
fascist ideologues with an agenda (see McCartney 2014).
No
doubt, at some future date McCartney’s publications will be prescribed as
required reading in Western universities where Sanskrit and Indian culture are
taught. Like McCartney, several bright young Indians are being trained in
Sanskrit studies who are then encouraged to occupy key posts in India and
elsewhere. They control many journals, conferences, dissertation committees,
and other forums (fora) that shape
the approach to Sanskrit and sanskriti.
The prestigious Murty Classics Library, which plans to translate five hundred
volumes of Indian language works into English, is an example of the enormous
power controlled directly by this group of US and India based Sanskritists and
Indologists. The translations it is producing bear the ideological stamp of the
very overbearing and bullying acamp whose fundamental positions RM targets in
this book.
RM laments that Indians
in general (and Hindus in particular) are blissfully unaware of the fact that
studies in Sanskrit and sanskriti have been and being hijacked by
Western (particularly American) Sanskritists and Indologists with a specific
political agenda (as discernible in McCartney’s Post-doc proposal). Prominent
leaders of the USA-based Sanskrit studies movement like Pollock occupy powerful
academic positions in a number of fields in Indology from where they (1) control
the editing and authoring of many influential works in and on Sanskrit and (2) initiate
or support petitions that attack Hindu institutions and leaders. They also
lobby in Indian political circles, exerting influence through the media. Alarmed
by the increasing hostility among Western Indologista and Sanskritists toward
Sanskrit and sanskriti RM has initiated an ongoing debate with them. The raison d’ȇtre of TBFS is to discuss in
depth some of these politically active scholars led by Sheldon Pollock.
The long tradition of debates/verbal
battles
In India, controversial philosophical
and religious doctrines have been debated and verbally battled in public
discussions from the earliest times. Debates (Sanskrit samvāda =
dialogue) featured different schools of thought covering such areas as
philosophy, jurisprudence, literature, and medicine. One reads about arguments
in which important teachers advocated their opinions fearlessly and defeated (or
lost to) opponents in verbal debates. One early Indian thinker, Kautsa, so far as went on to assert the
meaninglessness of the Vedas, and was taken to task by the famous etymologist Yaska for it. Yaska nevertheless retained this dissenting opinion as well as many
others in his dictionary of Vedic terms the Nirukta.
In the Upanishads there are dramatic scenes of men and women ascetics, kings
and brahmins regularly debating and
disputing over the ultimate nature of
brahman, the transcendent reality. This they did publicly before an equally
erudite audience in rounds of challenge and counter-challenge. The famous
debate where Gargi challenges her
sage husband Yajnavalkya on the
nature of the self (atman) is one
such instance.
Over time, a distinct discipline of Vadashastra (science of debate and
dialogues) emerged with set conventions about how such debates were to be held,
which rules were to be followed to conduct the debates and when a debater could
be declared the winner in a verbal contest. Unfortunately, manuals on debating per
se from ancient India have not survived. Nevertheless, two sources--the Carakasamhita
(Vimanasthana 3:8) and the Nyayasutra
(chapters one and five) with Pakshilatirtha’s
commentary Nyayabhashya, provide an adequate account of the rules that
were to be observed in actual arguments and an indication of what handbooks or
manuals of debate may have contained.
Samvada
(sambhasha in Carakasamhita) can mean dialoguing in a variety of modes including ‘face
to face,’ and ‘confrontation between two adversaries presided over by a referee.’
Many suktas in the Rigveda featuring such debates are called ‘samvada suktas.’ The Bhagavad Gita too styles itself as samvada—(sambhashana) between Shrikrishna and Arjuna about the nature of
ultimate reality and how to attain it. The
Mahabharata uses the term samvada
to describe harmonious exchange, say, between Draupadi and Krishna's wife, Satyabhama,
or the more contentious one between Draupadi
and Yudhishthira before they set for the
forest.
Generally, a debate proceeded in three
stages—Purva paksha, Uttara paksha,
and Siddhanta. Purva paksha refers to the faithful depiction and critical
examination of the views (mata) held prima
facie by one’s opponent concerning a key idea about a major precept or
practice in philosophy, jurisprudence, or medicine (pariksha). Uttara paksha
involved critical assessment and subsequent refutation of the point of view of
the opponent on the subject under scrutiny (nirnaya
= decision). Siddhanta meant putting forth of a
‘provisional’ conclusion (i.e. a conclusion subject to revision after subsequent
round/s of debate).
Debates regularly took place among the
leading scholars of the six philosophical systems (darshanas meaning philosophical visions or views about different
aspects of reality) over the merits and demerits of each system. Typically, the
losing scholar would renounce his lineage to join the winner’s school. The
losing scholar’s disciples were expected to follow him. This is how Mandana Mishra, the leader of the Mimamsa School, had to join the Vedanta School led by Shankaracharya after losing in one such
debate.
II Opposing camps on the battlefield
The outsider and the insider
RM refers to the two antagonists in the
debate/verbal battle over Sanskrit as Outsiders and Insiders. It was Kenneth L. Pike who coined the new terminology of ‘etic’ and ‘emic’ to refer to
the ‘outsider’ and ‘insider’ respectively. While etic refers to a detached,
trained observer’s perception of the un-interpreted ‘raw’ data; emic refers to
how those data are interpreted by an ‘insider’ to the system. An emic
unit is a physical or mental item or system treated by insiders as relevant to
their system of behavior in terms of the context (Pike 1967). Thus, in the etic
perspective, the color ‘white’ is perceived as equal presence of light of all
wave-lengths by an average human eye. In the emic perspective, white is the
color of festivity and joy in Western cultures. In India it denotes the notion
of purity and auspiciousness; while in China it is the color of mourning. On
the whole, therefore, the distinction between the etic and emic views parallels
the distinction between the outsider and insider and the absolute and the relative
respectively.
The outsider allegedly brings with
him/her a detached observer’s view, which is one window on the world. The view
of the local scene through the eyes of a native participant is a different window.
Either view by itself is restricted in scope and may lead to distortion. The
‘Outsider’ looks at Sanskrit from an Orientalist and Social/anthropological
studies point of view; while the ‘Insider’ camp holds a traditional Indic view
of Sanskrit and tries to
understand a culture the way the insiders see it.
Two important caveats may be entered here:
(1) RM is categorical in stating that the ‘Outsider’ vs ‘Insider’ division is
not based on race, ethnicity, or nationality. Thus, while in general the Western
view looks at Sanskrit and sanskriti with an Orientalist lens, any
Westerner holding the traditional viewpoint on Sanskrit would be called an
‘Insider.’ By the same token Indians holding an exclusively Social/anthropological
science point of view while denying the traditional view would come under the
‘Outsider’ camp; (2) RM’s battle for Sanskrit is not physical but verbal and metaphysical.
The structure of his overall argument developed in TBFS--attack, defense, and
counter-attack is verbal and intellectual; not physical.
The camp opposing
Pollock’s is led by RM. It wants to see Sanskrit regain and retain its power as
a living language driving sanskriti and dharma. Rather than dismiss Sanskrit as
a dead language, Hindus celebrate Sanskrit as a living language for its
enduring sacredness, aesthetic powers, metaphysical acuity, and ability to
generate and support knowledge in many domains (Malhotra 2016: 30). Unfortunately,
advocates of the inside view are dispersed and not
well-resourced. They are for the most part practitioners of one or the other form
(pantha) of Hinduism and tend to
cluster in small groups where they feel safe as they relate to one another. Many
of them are ignorant of the battle at hand and hence unwittingly become complicit
in the agenda pushed by Pollock and his troops.
III Purva paksha
RM’s TBFS, which ‘provides a careful
survey of the ongoing contentious debate over Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma,
provides a worthy continuity to that illustrious line of debating tradition of
India by challenging Professor Pollock and his school. Initially, skirmishes
took place at various seminars, public lectures, and on line followed by a
meeting between RM and Pollock in latter’s office at Princeton University.
After cordial exchange of views the two decided to meet again after TBFS was
published. TBFS narrates the history of how RM built his Purva paksha around four key propositions put forth by Pollock:
I : Decoupling
Sanskrit from the Vedas by removing the mystic aura surrounding it. Scholars
then must direct their gaze through the window of Sanskrit into the history of
India to expose the toxic role Sanskrit has had in social oppression as claimed
by select historians.
II: Secularizing the Sanskrit kavya tradition (particularly the
Ramayana) by peeling away its paramarthika
(transcendental) dimension
III: Interpreting
the Ramayana as a social and political weapon of oppression against women,
shudras, and Muslims as claimed by some select historians
IV: Declaring
the death of Sanskrit and the rise of vernaculars (Pollock’s term for languages
derived from Prakrit). Per Pollock,
Sanskrit was dead as a living language by about the twelfth century. The cause
of its death was the structures of abuse that were built into it and Hindu
kings accelerated that process. Pollock absolves Muslim invaders and British
colonizers from any hand in the death of Sanskrit.
Pollock’s posse
RM charges that over the past few
decades a group of ideologically and politically motivated American Sanskrit
scholars with commitment to Marxism have successfully fused expertize of
Sanskrit into the leftist lens on India. This fusion, led by Pollock, is at the
heart of what RM calls ‘American Orientalism phenomenon.’ It is important to
note that the deep and systematic study of Sanskrit carried out by Pollock and
his posse is not being driven by any kind of respect or attachment for Sanskrit
as a language of an ancient civilization. Rather, it is motivated by a
political agenda as several chapters of TBFS explain in detail (Malhotra 2016: 61ff).
RM charges that Pollock and his posse (many of them being Hindu scholar
recruits) (editor’s note : these are called “sepoys” or corrupted scholars) have
set up for themselves the task to exhume, isolate, analyze, and theorize about
the modalities of domination rooted in Sanskrit as the medium of brahminical
ideology of power and domination. RM’s Purva
paksha (i.e. scrutiny = pariksha) occupies the first half of
TBFS under the following six fields: (1) Sanskrit pariksha; (2) Shruti
pariksha; (3) Kavya pariksha (4) Shastra pariksha; (5) Sanskriti pariksha; and (6) Orientalism
pariksha.
IV Uttara paksha
RM submits
that TBFS attempts to formulate the terms of the Purva paksha and Uttara paksha
concerning the bone of contention among Indologists and Sanskritists--
Is Sanskrit dead or alive,
oppressive or liberating, political or sacred? Well, RM has eminently succeeded
in this endeavor! There is ample evidence that he has carefully and diligently
studied the principal writings of Pollock and his henchmen/women displaying for
all to see their assumptions, detailed arguments, and conclusions. In
sum, through his masterly presentation of the Purva paksha, RM has exposed Pollock’s etically derived agenda--to divide Hindus and fracture their
composite sociocultural identity by artificially decoupling Sanskrit from the
Vedas on the one hand, and from the ‘vernaculars’ on the other. (Editor’s note: It is like saying (1) there is enmity between Spanish and Latin, or between Italian and Latin even though knowing Latin does help one to learn one’s mother language—Spanish or Italian and (2) that Latin (also Greek or Hebrew) continued to oppress vernacular speakers until the clergy began to offer and perform some of the rituals in vernacular languages).
Malhotra, the musketeer: lone defender
of Sanskrit and sanskriti
RM modestly claims that the Purva paksha component of this book is more important than the Uttara paksha. I beg to differ. His Uttara paksha is as important as the Purva paksha because it is destined to awaken
Hindu intellectuals and instill in them the urge to provide their own versions
of spirited and creative Uttara paksha
in response to the gauntlet thrown by Pollock as revealed by RM in his own Purva paksha. RM’s energetic Uttara paksha (albeit not as elaborate
as his Purva paksha) is carried out
in terms of the following six nirnayas—verdicts
or decisions delivered on points of order raised in the Purva paksha of Pollock’s thesis that Sanskrit is dead, oppressive,
and politically motivated: (i)
Nirnaya on Sanskrit and Prakrit, (ii)
Nirnaya on Shruti, (iii) Nirnaya on Kavya and Shastra, (iv), Nirnaya on Sanskrit,
(v) Nirnaya on Sanskriti, and (vi)
Nirnaya on Orientalism.
V Siddhanta
Every tradition faces existential challenges
from time to time, and its adherents must consider and develop ways to maintain
its viability as they enter new epochs and eras. On the whole, this is a
healthy process of maintaining dynamic equilibrium. A tipping point, however,
comes when opponents begin to dominate the discourse from the outside so
overwhelmingly that the defenders of the tradition from within simply
capitulate. Sanskrit and sanskriti are
facing this challenge and plight right now. In order to ensure the revival and
survival of Sanskrit and sanskriti
Indians need to assemble what RM calls a ‘home team’ to represent their views collectively
in debates with Pollock and others over Sanskrit and sanskriti. RM reached this
crucial conclusion (siddhanta) after
waging a lonely battle against Pollock and his posse for over two
decades.
Building the ‘Home Team’ of musketeers
The ‘home team’ of RM’s dream would
consist of those who would work toward seeing Sanskrit flourish as a living
language, and as a pathway into the transcendent realms of experience and the knowledge systems based on them. He suggests
setting up training academies that are on par with those built upon vast
research and educational apparatus controlled by the opposite side. They will
sponsor academic conferences and journals, not for regurgitating old materials
but for generating new ones. The context and institutions within which Sanskrit
is taught today will have to be entirely revamped and re-envisioned. There, the
traditional web of sanskriti could
be approached critically, using a wide range of tools--from philology and
social science to metaphysics and cosmology. All this would be approached from
within the traditional cosmology and be lived as the ‘lifestyle’ issuing out of
it.
From the mouse clicker to the musketeer
= Intellectual kshatriya
Another major conclusion (siddhanta) of TBFS that I found most inspiring
is RM’s endorsement of the traditional adage—a true scholar is he who acts on
his convictions (yah kriyāvān sa paņḑitaḩ). Indeed, RM’s latest book is concerned to transform
mouse clicking armchair Hindu of today into an intellectual Kshatriya (musketeer
activist) in the cause of Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma. It would be instructive to learn how RM himself came to
acquire the adhikara to lead the
mission he took upon himself two decades ago. At the age of forty-four, RM
heard a call from within to serve his homeland and his people. Before
long, he had summoned enough courage to come out of his cushy, comfort zone and
take voluntary retirement from the lucrative business he had been operating
quite successfully in the United States taking enormous personal and financial
risks in the process--continuing to support and bear the responsibility of his
homemaker wife with two young children aged thirteen and ten.
He next put himself totally in the
hands of the guru he had chosen. This is how his true tapasya (ascetic practice) started and continues. His tapasya involved internal meditation +
ascetic practices (tapas), self-initiated
and guided studying (svadhyaya) and devotion
to God (ishavara-pranidhana). Initially, his guru did not allow RM to go public with
his experiments or experiences or saying anything about what he was doing
explaining it would only inflate his ego. When his guru realized that RM had
cultivated the necessary adhikara, he was allowed to go on the
mission that he had chosen for himself—battling for Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma.
Ethos, pathos, and logos in TBFS
RM’s experience in community service,
his tireless commitment to the wellbeing of his people, and his willingness to
reach across the aisle and cooperate with the opposition have made him an ideal
pandit to lead (1) the battle for
Sanskrit and (2) to mobilize the masses through his writings. It is instructive
to study how he deploys a three-fold strategy based on the traditional concepts
of adhikara, sahrdayata, and samjna (roughly equivalent to Aristotle’s
ethos, pathos, and logos respectively) in order to mobilize his readers to accept
and act on his abiding message.
Ethos (adhikara)
Adhikara
(ethos; Greek for 'character') refers to how trustworthy,
credible, and qualified (i.e. has adhikara)
the writer/speaker is and how knowledgeable s/he is concerning a subject. Since
the reader is familiar with RM as the writer, his reputation is relevant and
important to the message he is sending through TBFS. Ethos is often conveyed
through tone and style of the message and through the way the writer refers to
differing views and voices. Persuasion from ethos involves the appeal from the
author’s acknowledged life contributions within a community. Ethos is conveyed
through tone and style of the message. It can also be affected by the writer's
reputation as it exists independently from the message—his/her expertise in the
field, previous record or integrity, and so forth.
Readers are naturally more likely to be
persuaded by a writer who, they think, has personal warmth, consideration of
others, a good mind, and solid learning. RM’s potential readers already know
something of his adhikara ahead of
time thanks to the availability of dozens of videos and audio tapes in which he
has developed the basic argument in defense of Sanskrit. His experience and
previous performances eminently qualify RM to speak on the various issues pertaining
to Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma.
RM’s authoritative voice marshals other
qualified voices in a conversation with his readers by the device of direct and
indirect quotation. In TBFS, the
quotation marks signal that someone else's words are erupting into the text, replacing
temporarily his lead voice. Carefully creating a proper perspective and context
for the material he is quoting, RM makes sure how the reader will interpret the
quoted passage while retaining control over the message being delivered. Since through
indirect quotations the writer can exert even more control over the other voice
than in direct quotation, RM extensively uses a large amount of indirect
quotations as well as paraphrasing a large number paragraphs where warranted.
In representing his argument or story
in particular ways RM, the activist promoting Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma energetically (i.e. in the spirit of an
intellectual Kshatriya), portrays the
voices expressing the need to preserve Sanskrit exposing the voice of Pollock
and his supporters as short-sighted and socially irresponsible.
Pathos (sahridayata)
Sahridayata
is an abstract noun made by fixing the Sanskrit
prefix ‘sa’ meaning ‘similar or together’ to hridaya = heart. Sahridayata
is the state of common orientation, commonality or oneness, (Editor’s note:
Concordance) and sahridaya is one
that has attained this state wherein the heart of the ‘communicator’ and the
heart of the ‘receiver’ of communication have become ‘one.’ Vedic teaching “Be
humane and humanize others” (Rigveda 10:53.6) is significant for understanding sahridayata: all should be mutually
bound with each other; each one affectionately attracting the other, the way a
cow showers her love and affection for her new-born calf” (Atharvaveda 3:30.1).
Everyone should look upon each other with a friend’s eye (Yajurveda 36:18). The
Samanjasya Sukta (Atharvaveda 6.64)
conveys a similar message: Live in harmony, in accord with each other,
understanding each other, suffused with each other, with your hearts
co-mingling.
Kalidasa in his Abhijnana
Shakuntalam describes a sahridaya person
as paryutsuk, that is, someone who
was ensconced in his/her genial environment (or comfort zone as RM would have
it) but has now become edgy and restless and filled with angst as a
result of the call and the pull of the message received (Misra 2008: 94). Thus,
it is sanskriti that provides the
basis for sahridayata; however it is
not an elitist notion because one does not have to be an intellectual to imbibe
that quality.
Like pathos, sahridayata is an appeal that draws upon
the reader’s emotions, sympathies, interests, and/or imagination. With an
appeal to pathos, the reader is encouraged to identify with the author – to
feel and experience what the author feels. As the meaning of pathos implies,
the reader ‘suffers,’ (in the realm of the imagination that is--) what the
author suffers. An appeal to sahrdayata
(bandhuta) causes the reader not only
just to respond emotionally but to identify with the author’s worldview and
voice--to feel what the author feels.
Logos (Greek for 'word') refers to the internal consistency of the message or argument--the clarity of the claim, the logic of its reasons, and the effectiveness of its supporting evidence (sapramanata). RM’s logic is impeccable and TBFS (as well as his other publications) is a testimony to it. Consider, for instance, the following exchange from TBFS--During RM’s meeting with Pollock in his office in Princeton, the latter cited an impressive list of his publications and awards received and asked RM: ‘How could you think I hate Hinduism when I have spent my entire life studying the Sanskrit tradition?’(Malhotra 2016: 13). This logic, observes RM, would certainly have worked with the vast majority of Indians. The mere fact that a famous Westerner is working so hard to study Hinduism would be enough to bring awe into the minds of most Indians. In reply RM said “…there are scholars in many disciplines who study some phenomenon for the purpose of undermining ‘(emphasis added) it, not because they love it. People study crime in order to fight it. There are experts on corruption who want to expose it, not because they love corruption. There are public health specialists who study a disease with the intention of being able to defeat it.” It was fallacious, concluded RM, to assume that merely studying Sanskrit made Pollock a lover of Sanskrit and sanskriti (Malhotra 2016: 14).
VI Concluding comments
RM concludes TBFS with the hope that
the world has much to learn from the long Hindu tradition of critical learning
from debate and dialogue. Many of the ancient debates were about deeply felt,
controversial matters particularly in philosophy and literature. Since the two
camps hold widely different views on Sanskrit
and sanskriti, and dharma each
can profit from a dialogue with the other and appreciate both the uniqueness
and commonalities of each side.
Dialogues (whether performed in public
or written down) have been an indelible feature of Hinduism because its voice
is multi-vocal and multi-lingual. Its doctrines, practices, and institutions
have not had only one voice of authority. In almost every region of India,
dialogue has been embedded in Hinduism through texts, doctrines, histories,
rituals, ceremonies and in architecture and art. For thousands of years, Hindus
have been debating over gods and deities, how best to represent them, and what
their true nature is. Thus dialogue and debate, and critical thinking too has
been a defining feature of Hindu traditional texts, rituals, and practices.
Kenneth Pike saw the outsider (etic)
and insider (emic) approaches as complementary, rather than conflicting ways of
achieving an understanding. In order to apply comparative concepts
appropriately, therefore, it is necessary to follow the research carried out
from an etic perspective by an emic one. Pike draws our attention to the two
perspectives that are present in a stereographic picture. Superficially they
look alike, on closer inspection they are notably different, but taken together
the added perspective is startlingly novel because the same data have been
presented through a bi-focal vision (see Pike 1967: 41).
RM believes that a dialogue carried out
in a ‘stereographic’ manner would not only uncover commonalities as may exist
but also creatively develop them bringing the two camps closer in a spirit of
mutual respect. An inclusive framework might then emerge that will draw upon
the synergy existing between emic and etic approaches generating a balanced perspective
on Sanskrit, sanskriti, and dharma.
A harmonious sharing of a common
cultural space and labor between Sanskrit
and Prakrit based languages existed in the past. Available epigraphic
evidence suggests that while the genealogical account in many inscriptions is
in Sanskrit, the 'business' portion (i.e. details of the land grant etc) are in
the regional language. Today, while Sanskrit would be used to interpret,
supplement, and re-describe the constitutional and legal reality; in the
pragmatic day-to-day affairs regional vernacular languages would prevail. Sanskrit
phobia will evaporate in thin air as soon as Indic scholars find a place of
honor in Sanskrit and Indic studies.
Bharunda: Bird with two heads
RM might consider adding to his
debating points the urgent need to persuade those Hindu scholars that have joined
the Pollock camp to return home (ghar
wapasi). The purport of the following story from the Panchatantra may be used to impress upon them that in unity lives
the wellbeing of the duality of Sanskrit and Prakrit, Kavya and Shastra,
Sanskrit and Sanskriti:
Once upon a time, there lived a strange
bird named Bharunda, on the banks of a lake. It was strange because he had two
heads fused on to the same body. One day, as the bird was wandering, it found a
delicious looking golden fruit. One of the heads started eating the fruit with
pleasure. The other head requested, "Oh dear, please let me taste too the
fruit that you are so praising." The first head just laughed and said,
"We share the same stomach. Whichever mouth between us may eat the fruit,
it goes to the same stomach. Moreover, since I am the one who found this fruit
in the first place, I have the right to eat it myself.” This selfishness of the
first head hurt the second head very much.
Few days later, as they were wandering
the second head spotted a poisonous tree laden with fruit. It declared to the
first head, "The other day you did not share with me the delicious fruit.
Now I am going to eat this fruit without sharing it with you. The first head
pleaded in desperation, "Please don't eat this fruit; it is poisonous. We
share the same stomach. If you eat it, we will both die." The second head
replied in a mocking tone, "Since I am the one who found this fruit in the
first place, I have the right to eat it." Knowing what would happen, the
first head began to cry. The second head ate the poisonous fruit regardless. As
a consequence of this action the bird died with both the heads coming out
losers. The wise indeed say: Union is strength
(http://www.talesofpanchatantra.com/shortstories_bharunda_bird_two_heads.php.;
accessed on Oct 20, 2015).
References
Acharya, Poromesh. 1996. Indigenous
education and Brahminical hegemony in Bengal. In The Transmission of
Knowledge in South Asia: Essays on Education, Religion, History, and Politics
edited by Nigel Crook, 98-118, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bagchi, Shrabonti. 2014. Indian
tradition of debate, dialogue has much to teach us, America's Indologist says:
Interview with Laurie L. Patton. Times of India, April 14, 2014.
Henning, Martha L. Friendly Persuasion:
Classical Rhetoric--Now! Draft Manuscript. August, 1998. http://www.millikin.edu/wcenter/workshop7b.html; accessed on
October 27, 2015.
McCartney Patrick. 2014. The
sanitising power of spoken Sanskrit. 27 February 2014 Himal: Southasian
(http://himalmag.com/sanitising-power-spoken-sanskrit/;
accessed on Feb 15, 2016).
McCartney Patrick. n. d. Post-doc
Research Proposal. https://www.academia.edu/19566419/Post-doc_Research_Proposal;
accessed on February 21, 2016.
Misra, V. N. 2008. Foundations of
Indian aesthetics. Gurgaon, Haryana: Shubhi Publications.
Patton, Laurie L. 2014. The Biggest Loser in the
Doniger Controversy? Indian Traditions of Debate. Posted on Huffington Post
Blog. 02/26/2014; accessed Oct 25, 2015. Pike, Kenneth L. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior [1954]. The Hague: Mouton.
Pollock, Sheldon. 1993. Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and Power Beyond the Raj. In Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South Asia edited by Carol A. Beckenridge and Peter van der Veer, Sheldon, 76-133, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
___________.1996. ‘The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, 300-1300: Transculturation,Vernacularization, and the Question of Ideology.’ Ideology and Status of Sanskrit. Contributions to the history of the Sanskrit language edited by Jan E.M. Houben, Leiden: E.J. Brill, pp. 197-247.
——, 2006. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture, and Power in Premodern India. Berkeley: University of California Press.
* Shrinivas Tilak (Ph.D. History of Religions, McGill University, Montreal, Canada) is based in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. His publications include The Myth of Sarvodaya: A study in Vinoba's concept (New Delhi: Breakthrough Communications 1984); Religion and Aging in the Indian Tradition (Albany, N. Y.: State University of New York Press, 1989), Understanding karma in light of Paul Ricoeur's philosophical anthropology and hermeneutics (Charleston, SC: BookSurge, revised, paperback edition, 2007). Contact <shrinivas.tilak@gmail.com>
