Arvind Shanbhag: A Sad Story of Study in Sanskrit
158 views
Skip to first unread message
Ramakrishna Upadrasta
Mar 27, 2011, 9:26:16 AM3/27/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
praNAms,
While most of us are part-time sanskrit students, and are engaging
ourselves in study of kaumudi or other sanskrit texts, we should also
remember ourselves of sad state of sanskrit education in India, as a
direct result of Macaulain education or Nehruvian policies.
In particular, the state of people who study sanskrit to engage in it
in full time, and thereby become teachers and so on, seems quite
pitiable.
Here is one such instance from a website I read:
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2011/03/26/arvind-shanbhag/
praNAms
Ramakrishna
shankara
Mar 27, 2011, 12:25:59 PM3/27/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Ramakrishnaji,
Namaste,
A site or forum that will offer career counselling, guidance about job opportunities, etc to Sanskrit students and scholars is a need of the hour. I hope Samskrita Bharati take steps in this direction - it will be easier for SB to do it with their wide network.
In the case of Arvind, Bilhana's Vikramankadeva Charitam is available for free at DLI, ISSc, Bangalore. But, he did not have anyone to guide him. Lest he need not have spent his time, energy and money to go to Ujjain just to get a copy of the Sanskrit text of this book.
regards
shankara
shankara
From: Ramakrishna Upadrasta <uramak...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 27 March 2011 6:56 PM
Subject: [Samskrita] Arvind Shanbhag: A Sad Story of Study in Sanskrit
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
Arvind_Kolhatkar
Mar 27, 2011, 5:27:12 PM3/27/11
to samskrita
Ramakrishna Upadrasta observes:
<…we should also remember ourselves of sad state of Sanskrit education
Sanskrit education in India’, I see no connection to blame Macaulay or
Nehru for it. As far as Macaulay is concerned, as brought out by me
in a recent exchange of postings, he was only trying to explain the
phrase ‘learned natives of India’ as appearing in the Charter Act of
1813 and minuted that it should encompass not only those learned in
the traditional knowledge taught till then but should also include in
its ambit those trained in modern European sciences and liberal arts.
I do not think he ever said that traditional knowledge should be
banished or not taught. He wanted to expand the ambit of ‘knowledge’
and it is not possible to find any fault with him for it. In fact,
because of his Minute, education started being imparted through the
more the more systematic apparatus of schools, colleges and
universities, entities that, by their institutional nature, are far
more substantial than the traditional ‘pathshalas’ centered around
individual scholars and supported by the chance and casual charity of
philanthropically minded individuals. It is also worth keeping in
mind that his system opened the doors of education to the masses,
which doors hitherto were open only to Brahmins and other higher
castes. This is a fact whose importance cannot be underplayed. We
now acknowledge that unless the masses are educated, the country is
not strong. Macaulay was the first one to open the door to it. Let
us not forget that fact.
Imagine what would have happened had the old system of education,
prevalent till that time, had continued beyond 1834. By that time,
all Indian Rajas, Maharajas, Nabobs and sundry other rulers had
themselves become powerless and supplicants before the British
Rulers. Again, it is pointless to ‘blame’ the British for it. The
irresponsible Indian rulers had impoverished India through centuries
of misrule, had not made any efforts to advance knowledge – the useful
variety that is – and had not bothered to cast an eye around the world
to see what was happening elsewhere. Brahmins, the self-appointed
teachers of the society and so-called pursuers of knowledge,
themselves hardly knew what ‘knowledge’ really could mean. They were
more interested in preserving their petty superiority over other
castes. (As an example. refer to the prodigious efforts put in by the
Peshwa Court and leading Brahmins of Poona in the last decades of the
18th century to show to the Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus, another
‘literate’ caste of Maharashtra, how they were really Shudras and
therefore not entitled to ‘Vedokta’ rituals. All this when the
Society really should have been united and should have been aware of
how the British influence was spreading in the country. The same
‘Vedokta’ affair also reared its head in the early 20th century in the
Kolhapur Darbar.) When the self-appointed leaders themselves were
such clueless nincompoops, what else could have happened but that the
British slowly swallowed the whole country. Do not blame the British
for it. Blame yourself!
I do not think that, looking backwards, anyone can say that
introduction of modern education in India was a step in the wrong
direction. That education brought India into the modern word just as
the British brought India, kicking and screaming, into the modern
world. Yes, India paid a price for it through the colonial rule but
imagine where India would have been today without the modern knowledge
and the awareness nationhood that it brought with it to us. I daresay
that, left to drift in the same old way as the pre-19th century days ,
India would have been an amorphous landmass like today’s Africa, riven
into tiny pieces and perpetually mired in violence and disorder. It
is far preferable that India paid the price of colonialism once and
for all and became a united nation run on modern lines. This is the
direct consequence of the Macaulayan system.
Even Sanskrit benefitted from it. Study of Sanskrit became much more
widespread through schools, colleges and universities and many more
educated persons became aware of its wealth than the few handfuls to
whom it was confined till the dawn of the 19th century. The glory of
Ancient India that we so proudly speak of today became known to us
only after western education brought branches of knowledge like
archaeology, numismatics, study of old literature to our notice. Our
learned Brahmins had long forgotten the Brahmi script. Worse still,
these ‘seekers of knowledge’ had never felt the urge to find out what
all those thousands of inscriptions, old coins, old ruins lying
everywhere around them really meant. As an example, it was left to
James Princep to decipher the Brahmi script and make us aware of the
glories of Ancient India and the rule of Ashoka. Let us not forget
what the Macaulayan system has brought to us.
I also do not see why Nehru has been handed a gratuities devaluation.
What did he do to discourage Sanskrit? It has become fashionable
these days to blame the Nehruvian thoughts and policies but I think
his non-alignment and left-of-center approach was the best one for an
impoverished country that had just emerged from the yoke of
colonialism. However, I refrain from expanding this line of
discussion further as it will take us away from Sanskrit.
I do not see any reason for the self-pity perceivable in the so-
labelled ‘sad state of Sanskrit education in India’. The world
economies are becoming more knowledge-driven, knowledge here being the
one that is capable of application to generate wealth and create
jobs. This is a global phenomenon and none can escape it or reverse
it. That is why Sanskrit in India, like Latin and Greek in the
universities in the West, does not enjoy the same pre-eminence that it
had in previous days. Local languages and liberal arts have been
similarly affected. The world having become interconnected through
global commerce, other proud and rich languages like the French are
reeling under the onslaught of English. This is just the March of
Time and nothing is gained by lamenting it. If, henceforth a young
man like Arvind Shanbhag looks to Sanskrit to provide him with a
guaranteed livelihood, he is likely to meet only with frustration. At
the end of the day, the country needs and can use only so many
Sanskrit teachers and professors.
But I do not think that everything is lost. Sanskrit is being saved,
will be saved and will continue to enjoy its reputation of scholarship
through efforts of large numbers of enthusiastic amateurs, such as
members of this Group, who do not depend upon Sanskrit for their daily
bread. A sufficiently large number of such amateurs, with
professional and learned Sanskritists at the core, will keep the flame
burning with sufficient strength for all years to come. This is a
realistic dream we should be chasing, instead of wailing over the ‘sad
state of Sanskrit education’.
There are some diehards who want to go beyond this and they would like
a revival of Sanskrit as a spoken language – if it ever was that. To
them all I can say is ‘good luck’!
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 27, 2011.
<…we should also remember ourselves of sad state of Sanskrit education
in India, as a direct result of Macaulain education or Nehruvian
policies.>
While agreeing, for the sake of argument, about the ‘sad state of
policies.>
Sanskrit education in India’, I see no connection to blame Macaulay or
Nehru for it. As far as Macaulay is concerned, as brought out by me
in a recent exchange of postings, he was only trying to explain the
phrase ‘learned natives of India’ as appearing in the Charter Act of
1813 and minuted that it should encompass not only those learned in
the traditional knowledge taught till then but should also include in
its ambit those trained in modern European sciences and liberal arts.
I do not think he ever said that traditional knowledge should be
banished or not taught. He wanted to expand the ambit of ‘knowledge’
and it is not possible to find any fault with him for it. In fact,
because of his Minute, education started being imparted through the
more the more systematic apparatus of schools, colleges and
universities, entities that, by their institutional nature, are far
more substantial than the traditional ‘pathshalas’ centered around
individual scholars and supported by the chance and casual charity of
philanthropically minded individuals. It is also worth keeping in
mind that his system opened the doors of education to the masses,
which doors hitherto were open only to Brahmins and other higher
castes. This is a fact whose importance cannot be underplayed. We
now acknowledge that unless the masses are educated, the country is
not strong. Macaulay was the first one to open the door to it. Let
us not forget that fact.
Imagine what would have happened had the old system of education,
prevalent till that time, had continued beyond 1834. By that time,
all Indian Rajas, Maharajas, Nabobs and sundry other rulers had
themselves become powerless and supplicants before the British
Rulers. Again, it is pointless to ‘blame’ the British for it. The
irresponsible Indian rulers had impoverished India through centuries
of misrule, had not made any efforts to advance knowledge – the useful
variety that is – and had not bothered to cast an eye around the world
to see what was happening elsewhere. Brahmins, the self-appointed
teachers of the society and so-called pursuers of knowledge,
themselves hardly knew what ‘knowledge’ really could mean. They were
more interested in preserving their petty superiority over other
castes. (As an example. refer to the prodigious efforts put in by the
Peshwa Court and leading Brahmins of Poona in the last decades of the
18th century to show to the Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus, another
‘literate’ caste of Maharashtra, how they were really Shudras and
therefore not entitled to ‘Vedokta’ rituals. All this when the
Society really should have been united and should have been aware of
how the British influence was spreading in the country. The same
‘Vedokta’ affair also reared its head in the early 20th century in the
Kolhapur Darbar.) When the self-appointed leaders themselves were
such clueless nincompoops, what else could have happened but that the
British slowly swallowed the whole country. Do not blame the British
for it. Blame yourself!
I do not think that, looking backwards, anyone can say that
introduction of modern education in India was a step in the wrong
direction. That education brought India into the modern word just as
the British brought India, kicking and screaming, into the modern
world. Yes, India paid a price for it through the colonial rule but
imagine where India would have been today without the modern knowledge
and the awareness nationhood that it brought with it to us. I daresay
that, left to drift in the same old way as the pre-19th century days ,
India would have been an amorphous landmass like today’s Africa, riven
into tiny pieces and perpetually mired in violence and disorder. It
is far preferable that India paid the price of colonialism once and
for all and became a united nation run on modern lines. This is the
direct consequence of the Macaulayan system.
Even Sanskrit benefitted from it. Study of Sanskrit became much more
widespread through schools, colleges and universities and many more
educated persons became aware of its wealth than the few handfuls to
whom it was confined till the dawn of the 19th century. The glory of
Ancient India that we so proudly speak of today became known to us
only after western education brought branches of knowledge like
archaeology, numismatics, study of old literature to our notice. Our
learned Brahmins had long forgotten the Brahmi script. Worse still,
these ‘seekers of knowledge’ had never felt the urge to find out what
all those thousands of inscriptions, old coins, old ruins lying
everywhere around them really meant. As an example, it was left to
James Princep to decipher the Brahmi script and make us aware of the
glories of Ancient India and the rule of Ashoka. Let us not forget
what the Macaulayan system has brought to us.
I also do not see why Nehru has been handed a gratuities devaluation.
What did he do to discourage Sanskrit? It has become fashionable
these days to blame the Nehruvian thoughts and policies but I think
his non-alignment and left-of-center approach was the best one for an
impoverished country that had just emerged from the yoke of
colonialism. However, I refrain from expanding this line of
discussion further as it will take us away from Sanskrit.
I do not see any reason for the self-pity perceivable in the so-
labelled ‘sad state of Sanskrit education in India’. The world
economies are becoming more knowledge-driven, knowledge here being the
one that is capable of application to generate wealth and create
jobs. This is a global phenomenon and none can escape it or reverse
it. That is why Sanskrit in India, like Latin and Greek in the
universities in the West, does not enjoy the same pre-eminence that it
had in previous days. Local languages and liberal arts have been
similarly affected. The world having become interconnected through
global commerce, other proud and rich languages like the French are
reeling under the onslaught of English. This is just the March of
Time and nothing is gained by lamenting it. If, henceforth a young
man like Arvind Shanbhag looks to Sanskrit to provide him with a
guaranteed livelihood, he is likely to meet only with frustration. At
the end of the day, the country needs and can use only so many
Sanskrit teachers and professors.
But I do not think that everything is lost. Sanskrit is being saved,
will be saved and will continue to enjoy its reputation of scholarship
through efforts of large numbers of enthusiastic amateurs, such as
members of this Group, who do not depend upon Sanskrit for their daily
bread. A sufficiently large number of such amateurs, with
professional and learned Sanskritists at the core, will keep the flame
burning with sufficient strength for all years to come. This is a
realistic dream we should be chasing, instead of wailing over the ‘sad
state of Sanskrit education’.
There are some diehards who want to go beyond this and they would like
a revival of Sanskrit as a spoken language – if it ever was that. To
them all I can say is ‘good luck’!
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 27, 2011.
Arvind_Kolhatkar
Mar 27, 2011, 10:15:39 PM3/27/11
to samskrita
Erratum,
In the above post, in place of 'gratuities devaluation' occurring in
the fourth paragraph from the bottom, please read 'gratuitious
devaluation'.
Thanks...
In the above post, in place of 'gratuities devaluation' occurring in
the fourth paragraph from the bottom, please read 'gratuitious
devaluation'.
Thanks...
Jaideep Joshi
Mar 27, 2011, 11:49:23 PM3/27/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Dear Kolhatkarji,
(I originally intended to send this mail personally to Kolhatkarji, but then, I thought everyone should atleast be aware of the works of Dharampal. One is then free to see the facts and then make his opinions himself.)
I respect your analysis and your unbiased opinions. At the same time, this same analysis is based on data and history that is made available to us by the British rulers themselves. But there is another unpublished history, also written by Britishers: When the east india company first made assessments of India's systems, they sent reports and statistics to the king, which are still preserved in British archives. An analysis of these statistics was carried out around 1980 by Dharampal, and shows a picture quite different from what is taught in our history books.
I shall highlight only a few points relevant to this post:
1) Pathashalas, 1 scholar schools, as you mention, were only for teaching of Vedic studies. Other than that, there were schools in every single village, and they admitted everyone, (including Muslim women!). In fact, 27% of the students were Shudras, and only 23% Brahmin (on the average). Dharampal also gives the list of subjects that were taught in these schools in various grades. (all this of course, from the British archives.) There were colleges also. For that matter, the education system was as systematic as any can be. Most importantly, it was totally autonomous. We are all witnesses to the state of Government run schools today. For details, please read his book "The Beautiful Tree".
2) Even upto 17th century, there was significant attitude towards increase of knowledge. Scholars like Neelakantha Somaiyyaji, Bhattoji Diskhita are excellent recent examples. There may have been several Brahmins who were only interested in maintaining superiority, but that does not imply the all society had lost the pursuit of knowledge. For technological achievements of Indians in 18th century, again read Dharampal Collected Writings: Vol. I
3) Whatever "good" the Europeans did, they did it after systematically uprooting the existing systems. Examples being the native education system, native steel furnaces, native vaccination system (yes, there was a vaccination system), native Forest management, native village level governance. Details: Dharampal Collected Writings
4) You mention that People had no urge to find out what the inscriptions etc meant. That is also not true. Kalhana in 11th century and the author of Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta in 16-18th century have made efforts to write history by examining inscriptions and coins.
Finally, I do not want to project that everything was perfect and that Britishers ruined everything: Yes, the Indians are more responsible for their downfall than the Britishers. They came to rule, so what they did was natural. We, on the other hand, for petty gains, let them divide us, let go of our thousand year old wisdom, and fell prey to them. During the last 200 years, indeed, we degraded to a level never seen before!
Sorry for deviating from the Samskritam theme of the group, but I hope I have atleast presented a few facts which are not accountable in conventional history.
praNAmAni,
Jaideep.
(I originally intended to send this mail personally to Kolhatkarji, but then, I thought everyone should atleast be aware of the works of Dharampal. One is then free to see the facts and then make his opinions himself.)
I respect your analysis and your unbiased opinions. At the same time, this same analysis is based on data and history that is made available to us by the British rulers themselves. But there is another unpublished history, also written by Britishers: When the east india company first made assessments of India's systems, they sent reports and statistics to the king, which are still preserved in British archives. An analysis of these statistics was carried out around 1980 by Dharampal, and shows a picture quite different from what is taught in our history books.
I shall highlight only a few points relevant to this post:
1) Pathashalas, 1 scholar schools, as you mention, were only for teaching of Vedic studies. Other than that, there were schools in every single village, and they admitted everyone, (including Muslim women!). In fact, 27% of the students were Shudras, and only 23% Brahmin (on the average). Dharampal also gives the list of subjects that were taught in these schools in various grades. (all this of course, from the British archives.) There were colleges also. For that matter, the education system was as systematic as any can be. Most importantly, it was totally autonomous. We are all witnesses to the state of Government run schools today. For details, please read his book "The Beautiful Tree".
2) Even upto 17th century, there was significant attitude towards increase of knowledge. Scholars like Neelakantha Somaiyyaji, Bhattoji Diskhita are excellent recent examples. There may have been several Brahmins who were only interested in maintaining superiority, but that does not imply the all society had lost the pursuit of knowledge. For technological achievements of Indians in 18th century, again read Dharampal Collected Writings: Vol. I
3) Whatever "good" the Europeans did, they did it after systematically uprooting the existing systems. Examples being the native education system, native steel furnaces, native vaccination system (yes, there was a vaccination system), native Forest management, native village level governance. Details: Dharampal Collected Writings
4) You mention that People had no urge to find out what the inscriptions etc meant. That is also not true. Kalhana in 11th century and the author of Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta in 16-18th century have made efforts to write history by examining inscriptions and coins.
Finally, I do not want to project that everything was perfect and that Britishers ruined everything: Yes, the Indians are more responsible for their downfall than the Britishers. They came to rule, so what they did was natural. We, on the other hand, for petty gains, let them divide us, let go of our thousand year old wisdom, and fell prey to them. During the last 200 years, indeed, we degraded to a level never seen before!
Sorry for deviating from the Samskritam theme of the group, but I hope I have atleast presented a few facts which are not accountable in conventional history.
praNAmAni,
Jaideep.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
venugopal gudimetla
Mar 28, 2011, 12:18:11 AM3/28/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com, Arvind_Kolhatkar
Sir Arvind Mahoday,
Reading your mail reminds us Indians why there is a need to get our history correct or get brainwashed by people who rather have opinions and thrust their opinions as facts. From your post it appears you are a great sympathizer of the British.
By conquering India and subjugating it's people. imposing their religion, their system of learning, their culture and plundering it's riches and thrusting an education system that we didn't ask, they didn't do any favour to us. And calling it a favour is anything but arm twisting facts and subverting them for reasons unknown to me.
When the British came to India, India had the one of the best GDPs in the world and had ~25% share of economy of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29
In India 35% to 50% of village lands were revenue free and that revenue was utilised for running schools, conducting temple festivals, producing medicines, feeding pilgrims, improving irrigation etc. The British in their greed brought down the revenue free lands down to 5%.
In the Round- table conference in 1931, Mahatma Gandhi in one of his speeches said, "The beautiful tree of education was cut down by you British. Therefore today India is far more illiterate than it was 100 years ago." Immediately, Philip Hartog, who was a parliamentarian stood up and said, "Mr.Gandhi, it is we who have educated the masses of India. And therefore you must take back your statement and apologise or prove it." Gandhiji said he would prove it. But the debate did not continue for lack of time. Later one of his followers, Shri Dharampal, went to the British museum and examined the reports and archives. He published a book "The Beautiful Tree" where this matter has been discussed in great detail. By 1820, the British had already destroyed the financial resources that supported our educational system- a destruction that they had been carrying out for nearly twenty years. But still the Indians persisted in continuing with their system of education. So, the British decided to find out the intricacies of this system. Therefore a survey was ordered in 1822 and was conducted by the British district collectors. In the survey it was found that the Bengal presidency had 1 lakh village schools, in Madras there was not a single village without a school, in Bombay, if the village population was near 100, the village had a school. Teachers as well as students of all castes were in these schools. The Brahmins accounted 7% to 48% of the teachers, and the rest of the teachers in any district, came from other castes. Further all children had their education in their mother tongue.
When you talk of spread of "knowledge" by the British, what "knowledge" do you mean? and how did you conclude that "knowledge" taught in the schools of India at that time is any less than that being taught in the western nations?
and regarding much talked about Macaulay :
The British cut down the financial resources and brought in several regulations one after the other- regulations. They invited T.B. Macaulay to decide how to divert the money, what should be the medium of instruction and the mode of educating the Indian. He made English the medium of instruction and diverted the money for English education. G.D.Trevelyan writes in "Life of Lord Macaulay"(vol 1 pg164) "A new India was born in 1835". What Alexander, Ashoka and the western missionaries had failed to do was accomplished by Macualay's educational minutes, decreeing that India was to receive through English education, the language of the West. "The very foundations of her ancient civilization began to rock and sway. Pillar after pillar in the edifice came crashing down." But Macaulay did a more harmful thing, which is not generally known. He adopted the "downward filtration method" for educating the Indians. What is this method? The problem facing Macaulay was that Indians were numerous and The British were a handful. How were they going to educate the Indians? How could this nation be weakened so that in self-forgetfulness it would support the British Raj?
Sir, for understanding an action, we need to understand the intentions behind the action to really understand the action. You stated that :
..I do not think he ever said that traditional knowledge should be banished or not taught. He wanted to expand the ambit of ‘knowledge’
and it is not possible to find any fault with him for it.
IN the above statement, You are claiming that the intention of Macaulay is simply to "educate" an Indian out of his benevolence. Could you please explain to us, on what basis you came to that above conclusion sir?, when he in his letter to his father dated 12th Oct, 1836, states clearly his intention of "expanding the ambit of knowledge " :
"Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully; we find it difficult to provide instruction to all. The effect of this education on Hindus is prodigious. No Hindu who has received an English education ever remains sincerely attached to his religion. It is my firm belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respected classes 30 years hence. And this will be effected without our efforts to proselytize; I heartily rejoice in the prospect'
You state :
"..It is also worth keeping in mind that his system opened the doors of education to the masses, which doors hitherto were open only to Brahmins and other higher castes. This is a fact whose importance cannot be underplayed. We now acknowledge that unless the masses are educated, the country is not strong. Macaulay was the first one to open the door to it. Let us not forget that fact. "
Sir, you mean to say that it was Macaulay who opened the doors to other castes? which was till then limited to only Brahmins and that you seem to have taken it to your heart to hold him in high esteem? He was the one started downward infiltration system and what is this system? and what is the intention of this system? here it is:
The downward filtration method was formulated according to which the forward caste (even this was much later) was given preference in schools. To put it in his own words," But it is impossible for us with our limited means to educate all in English. We must at present do our best to form a class of persons Indian in blood and colour but English in tastes, in opinion, in morals, and in intellect.'
So, to me you seem to state opinions as facts without actually taking the trouble of quoting references to back up your "facts". I pray you please quote us references next time, than passing your opinions as facts.
"Brahmins, the self-appointed teachers of the society"
Sir, you seem to mean that brahmins appointed themselves as teachers? no sir, it is your opinion, not facts, in fact, the Brahmins accounted 7% to 48% of the teachers, and the rest of the
teachers in any district, came from other castes.
"Imagine what would have happened had the old system of education, prevalent till that time, had continued beyond 1834. ...."
The truth is no one knows what would happen if only the British did never come to India and spread there (sic) system on us. One thing seems to be pretty sure though, millions of Indians wouldn't have become illiterate, nor would India be called a third world nation after maintaining one of the best GDPs from 1AD till the coming of the British. And as far as education would have concerned, since we are playing the imagination game, I would say we would have shown the the world the Indian way of learning than the western way...knowledge need not be called thus only if one studies in an university wearing a well pressed jeans or well pressed suit. For that matter Sri Krishna in Gita says, anything what doesn't lead us to truth is no knowledge at all, going by that definition, western education, exactly doesn't fit the bill. So sir, let imagination just be an imagination, one can't conclude which corner history might have turned through ifs and buts. It is only in India that we consider knowledge is true knowledge if it were taught in English, thanks to people who think like you, look at Russians, Japanese, Chinese, who didn't get the Macaulay treatment, yet they have fine institutions, we would have done much better than them if not for Macaulay and his cave men.
"The irresponsible Indian rulers had impoverished India through centuries of misrule, had not made any efforts to advance knowledge – the useful
variety that is"
Sir, could you care to explain what this useful variety is? how and why Indian education system was incompetent? and also when you are at it, please do take time to take a glance at the GDP chart and do some "googling" to know what economic position India enjoyed till the thugs came to rape India.
"Brahmins, the self-appointed teachers of the society and so-called pursuers of knowledge, themselves hardly knew what ‘knowledge’ really could mean. "
Again, you seem to have a pretty good grip about this "knowledge" please educate me what this is real education is and why you think it is has to enjoy an exalted state as you seem to place it.
"The same ‘Vedokta’ affair also reared its head in the early 20th century in the Kolhapur Darbar.) When the self-appointed leaders themselves were
such clueless nincompoops, what else could have happened but that the British slowly swallowed the whole country. Do not blame the British
for it. Blame yourself! "
Sir, even though there were traitors who enabled the fall of Indian civilization, later leading to the plunder of Indian riches and his culture in the name of spreading "a correct variety of knowledge", who can save India, if it's own people propagate "imagined" theories, I would say, intellectual slavery and corruption is of worst kind, for one is damed to be in the darkness. I say that those nincompoops are much better than those who have are intellectually are corrupt.
"I daresay that, left to drift in the same old way as the pre-19th century days, India would have been an amorphous landmass like today’s Africa, riven
into tiny pieces and perpetually mired in violence and disorder. It is far preferable that India paid the price of colonialism once and
for all and became a united nation run on modern lines. This is the direct consequence of the Macaulayan system. "
Sir, as I mentioned above, what do you see common among nations like Japan, China, Russia ? I would say that but for the British thugs, India would have been in even more enviable situation given it's prowess which I am now sure you are not aware off that you unable to fathom it's potential devoid of British way of life. Who needs a system whose intentions are to subjugate, eliminate a way of life? a system which gave birth to people to my surprise can sing eulogies to those thugs who ruined our thriving economy, who ruined our education system, who divided our country in the name of religion? and made it a country of most illiterate, most economically backward nation when they left? and yet you think you are much better under such a system !, am I the only one who is speechless because of your sycophancy?
"Even Sanskrit benefitted from it. Study of Sanskrit became much more widespread through schools, colleges and universities and many more..."
You mean to say that by completely eliminating Sanskrit from Indian education system, by propagating "true knowledge" the way you put it, you say it (english education system) benefited Sanskrit? because what now schools and colleges are able to teach Sanskrit? sir, do you really makes sense? how can one system through elimination benefit that which got eliminated? and if it want to benefit Sanskrit, why eliminate it at all in the first place?
"The glory of Ancient India that we so proudly speak of today became known to us only after western education brought branches of knowledge like archaeology, numismatics, study of old literature to our notice. Our learned Brahmins had long forgotten the Brahmi script.
Sir, "our learned Brahmins had long forgotten the Brahmi script"
because of lack pf patrons, because people like you trash it, because
people like you down play it's importance in the place of some lack
lustre foreign maal.
"Worse still, these ‘seekers of knowledge’ had never felt the urge to find out what all those thousands of inscriptions, old coins, old ruins lying
everywhere around them really meant. As an example, it was left to James Princep to decipher the Brahmi script and make us aware of the
glories of Ancient India and the rule of Ashoka. Let us not forget what the Macaulayan system has brought to us. "
Sir, foolish think that without them, the world can't make a move, do you think without Einstein, no one would have developed General relativity? no one and nothing can stand in the way of knowledge, if you not Einstein someone else, if not James Princep, someone else, just because a certain James Princep deciphered it, you seem to have come to conclusion that Brahmi script wouldn't have been deciphered at all is fallacious at best. Come one sir, you disappoint me in your reasoning yet again. I have read enough for your line of thought that it doesn't motivate me to read it all...I read enough.
Peace.
Venugopal Gudimetla
Reading your mail reminds us Indians why there is a need to get our history correct or get brainwashed by people who rather have opinions and thrust their opinions as facts. From your post it appears you are a great sympathizer of the British.
By conquering India and subjugating it's people. imposing their religion, their system of learning, their culture and plundering it's riches and thrusting an education system that we didn't ask, they didn't do any favour to us. And calling it a favour is anything but arm twisting facts and subverting them for reasons unknown to me.
When the British came to India, India had the one of the best GDPs in the world and had ~25% share of economy of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29
In India 35% to 50% of village lands were revenue free and that revenue was utilised for running schools, conducting temple festivals, producing medicines, feeding pilgrims, improving irrigation etc. The British in their greed brought down the revenue free lands down to 5%.
In the Round- table conference in 1931, Mahatma Gandhi in one of his speeches said, "The beautiful tree of education was cut down by you British. Therefore today India is far more illiterate than it was 100 years ago." Immediately, Philip Hartog, who was a parliamentarian stood up and said, "Mr.Gandhi, it is we who have educated the masses of India. And therefore you must take back your statement and apologise or prove it." Gandhiji said he would prove it. But the debate did not continue for lack of time. Later one of his followers, Shri Dharampal, went to the British museum and examined the reports and archives. He published a book "The Beautiful Tree" where this matter has been discussed in great detail. By 1820, the British had already destroyed the financial resources that supported our educational system- a destruction that they had been carrying out for nearly twenty years. But still the Indians persisted in continuing with their system of education. So, the British decided to find out the intricacies of this system. Therefore a survey was ordered in 1822 and was conducted by the British district collectors. In the survey it was found that the Bengal presidency had 1 lakh village schools, in Madras there was not a single village without a school, in Bombay, if the village population was near 100, the village had a school. Teachers as well as students of all castes were in these schools. The Brahmins accounted 7% to 48% of the teachers, and the rest of the teachers in any district, came from other castes. Further all children had their education in their mother tongue.
When you talk of spread of "knowledge" by the British, what "knowledge" do you mean? and how did you conclude that "knowledge" taught in the schools of India at that time is any less than that being taught in the western nations?
and regarding much talked about Macaulay :
The British cut down the financial resources and brought in several regulations one after the other- regulations. They invited T.B. Macaulay to decide how to divert the money, what should be the medium of instruction and the mode of educating the Indian. He made English the medium of instruction and diverted the money for English education. G.D.Trevelyan writes in "Life of Lord Macaulay"(vol 1 pg164) "A new India was born in 1835". What Alexander, Ashoka and the western missionaries had failed to do was accomplished by Macualay's educational minutes, decreeing that India was to receive through English education, the language of the West. "The very foundations of her ancient civilization began to rock and sway. Pillar after pillar in the edifice came crashing down." But Macaulay did a more harmful thing, which is not generally known. He adopted the "downward filtration method" for educating the Indians. What is this method? The problem facing Macaulay was that Indians were numerous and The British were a handful. How were they going to educate the Indians? How could this nation be weakened so that in self-forgetfulness it would support the British Raj?
Sir, for understanding an action, we need to understand the intentions behind the action to really understand the action. You stated that :
..I do not think he ever said that traditional knowledge should be banished or not taught. He wanted to expand the ambit of ‘knowledge’
and it is not possible to find any fault with him for it.
"Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully; we find it difficult to provide instruction to all. The effect of this education on Hindus is prodigious. No Hindu who has received an English education ever remains sincerely attached to his religion. It is my firm belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respected classes 30 years hence. And this will be effected without our efforts to proselytize; I heartily rejoice in the prospect'
You state :
"..It is also worth keeping in mind that his system opened the doors of education to the masses, which doors hitherto were open only to Brahmins and other higher castes. This is a fact whose importance cannot be underplayed. We now acknowledge that unless the masses are educated, the country is not strong. Macaulay was the first one to open the door to it. Let us not forget that fact. "
Sir, you mean to say that it was Macaulay who opened the doors to other castes? which was till then limited to only Brahmins and that you seem to have taken it to your heart to hold him in high esteem? He was the one started downward infiltration system and what is this system? and what is the intention of this system? here it is:
The downward filtration method was formulated according to which the forward caste (even this was much later) was given preference in schools. To put it in his own words," But it is impossible for us with our limited means to educate all in English. We must at present do our best to form a class of persons Indian in blood and colour but English in tastes, in opinion, in morals, and in intellect.'
So, to me you seem to state opinions as facts without actually taking the trouble of quoting references to back up your "facts". I pray you please quote us references next time, than passing your opinions as facts.
"Brahmins, the self-appointed teachers of the society"
"Imagine what would have happened had the old system of education, prevalent till that time, had continued beyond 1834. ...."
The truth is no one knows what would happen if only the British did never come to India and spread there (sic) system on us. One thing seems to be pretty sure though, millions of Indians wouldn't have become illiterate, nor would India be called a third world nation after maintaining one of the best GDPs from 1AD till the coming of the British. And as far as education would have concerned, since we are playing the imagination game, I would say we would have shown the the world the Indian way of learning than the western way...knowledge need not be called thus only if one studies in an university wearing a well pressed jeans or well pressed suit. For that matter Sri Krishna in Gita says, anything what doesn't lead us to truth is no knowledge at all, going by that definition, western education, exactly doesn't fit the bill. So sir, let imagination just be an imagination, one can't conclude which corner history might have turned through ifs and buts. It is only in India that we consider knowledge is true knowledge if it were taught in English, thanks to people who think like you, look at Russians, Japanese, Chinese, who didn't get the Macaulay treatment, yet they have fine institutions, we would have done much better than them if not for Macaulay and his cave men.
"The irresponsible Indian rulers had impoverished India through centuries of misrule, had not made any efforts to advance knowledge – the useful
variety that is"
"Brahmins, the self-appointed teachers of the society and so-called pursuers of knowledge, themselves hardly knew what ‘knowledge’ really could mean. "
"The same ‘Vedokta’ affair also reared its head in the early 20th century in the Kolhapur Darbar.) When the self-appointed leaders themselves were
such clueless nincompoops, what else could have happened but that the British slowly swallowed the whole country. Do not blame the British
for it. Blame yourself! "
"I daresay that, left to drift in the same old way as the pre-19th century days, India would have been an amorphous landmass like today’s Africa, riven
into tiny pieces and perpetually mired in violence and disorder. It is far preferable that India paid the price of colonialism once and
for all and became a united nation run on modern lines. This is the direct consequence of the Macaulayan system. "
"Even Sanskrit benefitted from it. Study of Sanskrit became much more widespread through schools, colleges and universities and many more..."
You mean to say that by completely eliminating Sanskrit from Indian education system, by propagating "true knowledge" the way you put it, you say it (english education system) benefited Sanskrit? because what now schools and colleges are able to teach Sanskrit? sir, do you really makes sense? how can one system through elimination benefit that which got eliminated? and if it want to benefit Sanskrit, why eliminate it at all in the first place?
"The glory of Ancient India that we so proudly speak of today became known to us only after western education brought branches of knowledge like archaeology, numismatics, study of old literature to our notice. Our learned Brahmins had long forgotten the Brahmi script.
"Worse still, these ‘seekers of knowledge’ had never felt the urge to find out what all those thousands of inscriptions, old coins, old ruins lying
everywhere around them really meant. As an example, it was left to James Princep to decipher the Brahmi script and make us aware of the
glories of Ancient India and the rule of Ashoka. Let us not forget what the Macaulayan system has brought to us. "
Peace.
Venugopal Gudimetla
Shreyas P. Munshi
Mar 28, 2011, 5:08:14 AM3/28/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Respected Arvind-ji,
Ref your reply to respected Ramkrishna Upadrashta. Your reply begins with:
"While agreeing, for the sake of argument, about the ‘sad state of
Sanskrit education in India’, I see no connection to blame Macaulay..." etc etc.
I have been an admirer of your insistence on maintaining an unbiased and objective view while trying to understand Macaulay. In fact, as i've said in my previous mail, your mail virtually woke me up and I am eternally grateful to you for that.
However, I must mention here, that when, in 1949, I was in std VIII in a school in Mumbai, we were taught history of Englan, not of India. We learnt about Alfred the Great, Edgar the Peaceful and other kings of England. Nothing about Indian kings like Vikramaditya, Ashoka and others. I dont know whom we can hold responsible for it. But as it happened (for the better), halfway thru the year, our history syllabus changed to Indian history and the book we started reading was the one by historian Tarachand (in English).
To me it seems that Macaulay was perhaps misunderstood more by the British themselves; and so the educators in charge of India got systematically hell-bent in destroying the 'spiritual and cutural backbone' thinking that that was the recipe recommended by Lord Macaulay! And it was this strayed bunch of educators who perhaps introduced an education system which most Indian believe was the system advocated by Macaulay.
Yes; but i agree, even at a later date, Indians could heve researched and viewed Macaulay in an unbiased manner.It can be done now also, as begun by you.
Regards...Shreyas
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:21:56 +0530 wrote
Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197
Ref your reply to respected Ramkrishna Upadrashta. Your reply begins with:
"While agreeing, for the sake of argument, about the ‘sad state of
I have been an admirer of your insistence on maintaining an unbiased and objective view while trying to understand Macaulay. In fact, as i've said in my previous mail, your mail virtually woke me up and I am eternally grateful to you for that.
However, I must mention here, that when, in 1949, I was in std VIII in a school in Mumbai, we were taught history of Englan, not of India. We learnt about Alfred the Great, Edgar the Peaceful and other kings of England. Nothing about Indian kings like Vikramaditya, Ashoka and others. I dont know whom we can hold responsible for it. But as it happened (for the better), halfway thru the year, our history syllabus changed to Indian history and the book we started reading was the one by historian Tarachand (in English).
To me it seems that Macaulay was perhaps misunderstood more by the British themselves; and so the educators in charge of India got systematically hell-bent in destroying the 'spiritual and cutural backbone' thinking that that was the recipe recommended by Lord Macaulay! And it was this strayed bunch of educators who perhaps introduced an education system which most Indian believe was the system advocated by Macaulay.
Yes; but i agree, even at a later date, Indians could heve researched and viewed Macaulay in an unbiased manner.It can be done now also, as begun by you.
Regards...Shreyas
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:21:56 +0530 wrote
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
____________________________You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197
 |
Krishnamachary
Mar 28, 2011, 8:55:13 AM3/28/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Respected Venugopal ji Hats off to you
Excellent analysis of write up and its rebuttal. There is one Kancha Ilaiah of Osmania Universed who is possesed of Brahmin hating mania and capable interpreting any thing in that light.Amongst my friends too one gentlemen always argue India is made one nation by British only otherwise we would have many nations in this continent."Yath Bhavam Thath Bhavathi".Think positive you are positive but if you think negative you are allways negative.Your arguement of nations like China, Japan ,Russia etc without Maccalay are developped nations clinched the issue.
Please attriculate your swabhimanam ideas more often Mr.V.Krishnamachary
Retired Civil Engineer --- On Sun, 3/27/11, venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote: |
rahul vedi
Mar 28, 2011, 8:34:45 AM3/28/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
| It was Lord Macaulay, who single-handedly transformed the education system of India. The Governor General of the time was evaluating the use of Sanskrit or Pharisee to be used as the official language for governmental business. Lord Macaulay, using the argument to "educate" the masses who could not be educated using any of the local languages - in his opinion, put significant pressure to change the mind of the governor to accept English, in stead. In his minute to the Governor General, recommending the use of English, argued that the entire Sanskrit literature was less than one shelf of an English library. One of his arguments was "How can one consider the Indians as educated if they believe & read about ocean of milk..." He also "threatened" the GG that should his recommendation
be not accepted, he shall resign his service and return to London. The fact that Sanskrit has survived and so many of us (I am the Independent India generation) are able to learn and study Sanskrit is the great tenacity of our grand-fathers and ancestors who kept the tradition of vedic chanting and other literature alive. I am eternally grateful to all those in the generations gone by, that I am now able to find so much to learn about Sanskrit and in Sanskrit. iti sham vardhayantu raahulaH |
|
Jay
Mar 28, 2011, 9:31:43 AM3/28/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Sanskrit was not a language of masses any more by the time
Britishers came.
And it was inductrial revolution, not Macaulay who set us back. If Industrial revolution had started from India, one of the Indian languages would have been in prominent place across the world.
Why did the Industrial revolution not start in India. Jared Diamond (in book named "Guns Germs and Steel") has AN (I would not say THE) explanation. The society respected Dharmikta and Erudition, not innovation. The fruits of invention had little less value at personal level as it would be shared in the whole extended family. The kings were considered great based on how big temple was built, not whose populace had more prosperity.
How do we blame Macaulay for lack of Civic Sense? Dharm and Bhakti are different and society puts more emphasis on second.� As long as I do my� morning Pooja, I am fine and can bribe the policeman during the day for traffic violation, I do not need to learn Sanskrit, and can blame Macaulay.
And it was inductrial revolution, not Macaulay who set us back. If Industrial revolution had started from India, one of the Indian languages would have been in prominent place across the world.
Why did the Industrial revolution not start in India. Jared Diamond (in book named "Guns Germs and Steel") has AN (I would not say THE) explanation. The society respected Dharmikta and Erudition, not innovation. The fruits of invention had little less value at personal level as it would be shared in the whole extended family. The kings were considered great based on how big temple was built, not whose populace had more prosperity.
How do we blame Macaulay for lack of Civic Sense? Dharm and Bhakti are different and society puts more emphasis on second.� As long as I do my� morning Pooja, I am fine and can bribe the policeman during the day for traffic violation, I do not need to learn Sanskrit, and can blame Macaulay.
On 3/28/2011 7:55 AM, Krishnamachary wrote:
Please attriculate your swabhimanam ideas more often
Retired Civil Engineer
--- On Sun, 3/27/11, venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Re: Arvind Shanbhag: A Sad Story of Study in Sanskrit
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Cc: "Arvind_Kolhatkar" <kolhat...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 11:18 PM
Reading your mail reminds us Indians why there is a need to get our history correct or get brainwashed by people who rather have opinions and thrust their opinions as facts. From your post it appears you are a great sympathizer of the British.
By conquering India and subjugating it's people. imposing their religion, their system of learning, their culture and plundering it's riches and thrusting an education system that we didn't ask, they didn't do any favour to us. And calling it a favour is anything but arm twisting facts and subverting them for reasons unknown to me.
When the British came to India, India had the one of the best GDPs in the world and had ~25% share of economy of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29
In India 35% to 50% of village lands were revenue free and that revenue was utilised for running schools, conducting temple festivals, producing medicines, feeding pilgrims, improving irrigation etc. The British in their greed brought down the revenue free lands down to 5%.
In the Round- table conference in 1931, Mahatma Gandhi in one of his speeches said, "The beautiful tree of education was cut down by you British. Therefore today India is far more illiterate than it was 100 years ago." Immediately, Philip Hartog, who was a parliamentarian stood up and said, "Mr.Gandhi, it is we who have educated the masses of India. And therefore you must take back your statement and apologise or prove it." Gandhiji said he would prove it. But the debate did not continue for lack of time. Later one of his followers, Shri Dharampal, went to the British museum and examined the reports and archives. He published a book "The Beautiful Tree" where this matter has been discussed in great detail. By 1820, the British had already destroyed the financial resources that supported our educational system- a destruction that they had been carrying out for nearly twenty years. But still the Indians persisted in continuing with their system of education. So, the British decided to find out the intricacies of this system. Therefore a survey was ordered in 1822 and was conducted by the British district collectors. In the survey it was found that the Bengal presidency had 1 lakh village schools, in Madras there was not a single village without a school, in Bombay, if the village population was near 100, the village had a school. Teachers as well as students of all castes were in these schools. The Brahmins accounted 7% to 48% of the teachers, and the rest of the teachers in any district, came from other castes. Further all children had their education in their mother tongue.
When you talk of spread of "knowledge" by the British, what "knowledge" do you mean? and how did you conclude that "knowledge" taught in the schools of India at that time is any less than that being taught in the western nations?
and regarding much talked about Macaulay :
The British cut down the financial resources and brought in several regulations one after the other- regulations. They invited T.B. Macaulay to decide how to divert the money, what should be the medium of instruction and the mode of educating the Indian. He made English the medium of instruction and diverted the money for English education. G.D.Trevelyan writes in "Life of Lord Macaulay"(vol 1 pg164) "A new India was born in 1835". What Alexander, Ashoka and the western missionaries had failed to do was accomplished by Macualay's educational minutes, decreeing that India was to receive through English education, the language of the West. "The very foundations of her ancient civilization began to rock and sway. Pillar after pillar in the edifice came crashing down." But Macaulay did a more harmful thing, which is not generally known. He adopted the "downward filtration method" for educating the Indians. What is this method? The problem facing Macaulay was that Indians were numerous and The British were a handful. How were they going to educate the Indians? How could this nation be weakened so that in self-forgetfulness it would support the British Raj?
Sir, for understanding an action, we need to understand the intentions behind the action to really understand the action. You stated that :
and it is not possible to find any fault with him for it.
"Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully; we find it difficult to provide instruction to all. The effect of this education on Hindus is prodigious. No Hindu who has received an English education ever remains sincerely attached to his religion. It is my firm belief that if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respected classes 30 years hence. And this will be effected without our efforts to proselytize; I heartily rejoice in the prospect'
You state :
Sir, you mean to say that it was Macaulay who opened the doors to other castes? which was till then limited to only Brahmins and that you seem to have taken it to your heart to hold him in high esteem? He was the one started downward infiltration system and what is this system? and what is the intention of this system? here it is:
The downward filtration method was formulated according to which the forward caste (even this was much later) was given preference in schools. To put it in his own words," But it is impossible for us with our limited means to educate all in English. We must at present do our best to form a class of persons Indian in blood and colour but English in tastes, in opinion, in morals, and in intellect.'
So, to me you seem to state opinions as facts without actually taking the trouble of quoting references to back up your "facts". I pray you please quote us references next time, than passing your opinions as facts.
"Imagine what would have happened had the old system of education, prevalent till that time, had continued beyond 1834. ...."
"The irresponsible Indian rulers had impoverished India through centuries of misrule, had not made any efforts to advance knowledge � the useful
variety that is"
Sir, could you care to explain what this useful variety is? how and why Indian education system was incompetent? and also when you are at it, please do take time to take a glance at the GDP chart and do some "googling" to know what economic position India enjoyed till the thugs came to rape India.
Again, you seem to have a pretty good grip about this "knowledge" please educate me what this is real education is and why you think it is has to enjoy an exalted state as you seem to place it.
such clueless nincompoops, what else could have happened but that the British slowly swallowed the whole country. � Do not blame the British
for it. �Blame yourself! "
Sir, even though there were traitors who enabled the fall of Indian civilization, later leading to the plunder of Indian riches and his culture in the name of� spreading "a correct variety of knowledge", who can save India, if it's own people propagate "imagined" theories, I would say, intellectual slavery and corruption is of worst kind, for one is damed to be in the darkness. I say that those nincompoops are much better than those who have are intellectually are corrupt.
"I daresay that, left to drift in the same old way as the pre-19th century days, India would have been an amorphous landmass like today�s Africa, riven
into tiny pieces and perpetually mired in violence and disorder. �It is far preferable that India paid the price of colonialism once and
for all and became a united nation run on modern lines. �This is the direct consequence of the Macaulayan system. "
You mean to say that by completely eliminating Sanskrit from Indian education system, by propagating "true knowledge" the way you put it, you say it (english education system) benefited Sanskrit? because what now schools and colleges are able to teach Sanskrit? sir, do you really makes sense? how can one system through elimination benefit that which got eliminated? and if it want to benefit Sanskrit, why eliminate it at all in the first place?
Sir, "our learned Brahmins had long forgotten the Brahmi script" because of lack pf patrons, because people like you trash it, because people like you down play it's importance in the place of some lack lustre foreign maal.
"Worse still, these �seekers of knowledge� had never felt the urge to find out what all those thousands of inscriptions, old coins, old ruins lying
everywhere around them really meant. As an example, it was left to James Princep to decipher the Brahmi script and make us aware of the
Sir, foolish think that without them, the world can't make a move, do you think without Einstein, no one would have developed General relativity? no one and nothing can stand in the way of knowledge, if you not Einstein someone else, if not James Princep, someone else, just because a certain James Princep deciphered it, you seem to have come to conclusion that Brahmi script wouldn't have been deciphered at all is fallacious at best. Come one sir, you disappoint me in your reasoning yet again.� I have read enough for your line of thought that it doesn't motivate me to read it all...I read enough.
Peace.
Venugopal Gudimetla
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
Mar 28, 2011, 10:05:32 AM3/28/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 19:01, Jay <zoom...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The society respected Dharmikta and Erudition, not innovation. The fruits of invention had little less value at personal level as it would be shared in the whole extended family.
Do you mean respecting 'Dharmikta' and 'Erudition' is a sin? Or, innovations must be respected trashing these two?
Is everyone innovative now? What character are we possessing even after living according to Macaulay?
Is everyone innovative now? What character are we possessing even after living according to Macaulay?
The kings were considered great based on how big temple was built, not whose populace had more prosperity.
Do you want to say all temples were made by unpropitious kings and against will of people?
How do we blame Macaulay for lack of Civic Sense?
People sitting in parliament do not affect us in any way - do you mean this?
Dharm and Bhakti are different and society puts more emphasis on second.
So, bhakti too is a bad thing !!??? humm...
And they are totally independent too !!! ???
As long as I do my morning Pooja, I am fine and can bribe the policeman during the day for traffic violation, I do not need to learn Sanskrit, and can blame Macaulay.
So, bhakti is not responsible for your bad character. Why are you blaming bhakti? A man who is hesitating to blame Macaulay, should not raise fingers on bhakti, kings, etc.
You can not force anyone to respect anything, be it dharma or invention. You can show its beauty. Love and respect rise on their own depending on the person. So, respecting dharma or invention is personal matter. If one loves dharma more and is not 'progressing', then don't try to force him. He may be knowingly doing that after thinking about gains and losses. Progress 'here' is not so important for all people. Some love to do something to progress in other dimension. Let them do that.
Naresh Cuntoor
Mar 28, 2011, 4:24:51 PM3/28/11
to samskrita
[Mod. note]
This discussion is getting rather personal. I have disallowed several
posts. It is fine to discuss education system and various people's
role in it. But keep it civil, and informative. And avoid posts which
are simply "I agree with X".
Vasuvaj .
Mar 29, 2011, 6:27:10 AM3/29/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Namaste
Sri Arvind_Kolhatkar mahodaysya patraat uddhritam vaakyam:
".......It is also worth keeping in mind that his system opened the doors of education to the masses, which doors hitherto were open only to Brahmins and other higher castes. This is a fact whose importance cannot be underplayed. ....."
Asmin vichaare mama kashchit abhipraaya-bhedah asti.
The Beautiful Tree by Sri Dharampal
Kripaya etat pustakam pattatu.
http://www.gyanpedia.in/Portals/0/Toys%20from%20Trash/Resources/books/beautifultree.pdf
Aangala-shaasanaat-poorvam Bharate kaa sthitih aasiit?
Aangala-janaih eva sarvekshanam kritvaa sankalitaah vishayaah santi. Tebhya patrebhya Sri Dharampal vishayaan sviikritya etat pustakam - The Beautiful Tree' alikhat.
Asmaakam bhramah asti yat 18 shataabdyaam vidyaalayeshu kevalam unnata-jaati-chaatraah aasan.
Parantu tathaa na.
Madras Presidency madhye Chinglepet janapadasya vidyaalayeshu kiidhrashaah chaatraah pattantah aasan iti asmaabhih jnaatum shakyate. Aashcharyasya vishayah yat tathaakathita-adhasthita-chaatraah bahavah aasan.
Aangla-janaanaam aagamanena eva Bhaaratadeshah aadhunikah abhavat iti api mithyaa eva.
China deshe vaa Japan deshe vaa Aangla-shaasanam athavaa anya Europea-deshasya shaasanam na aasiit. Tathaapi adhunaa etau deshau agre stah.
Satyam ---asmaakam samaaje nyunataah aasan. Asmaakam samaajasya bahavah janaah svaarthinah aasan. Tasmaat kaaranaat eva Aangla-shaasanam athavaa tatah poorvam Moghul shaasanam athavaa Tughlaq athavaa Khilji athavaa....anya-videshi-shaasanaani aasan.
Bhaaratadeshasya viseshataa asti yat yadaa yadaa duraachaarah bhavanti, tadaa tadaa mahaapurushaah - raajaanah , samaajika-guruvah , panditaah - pratyakshaah bhootvaa samaajasya navothaanam kurvanti.
Shankaracharyah vaa Chanakyah vaa Jnaaneshwarah vaa Samarth Raamadaasah vaa Chatrapati Shivaji vaa Chatrasal vaa Guru Gobind Simhah vaa Ramakrishna Paramahamsah vaa Rishi Arvindah vaa...... etadrishaanaam mahaapurushaanaam aagamanam sarvadaa bhavati eva.
Tena kaaranena eva yadyapi Bharatadeshe 1000 varshaanaam videshi-shaasanaat param api Samskritam asti.Na kevalam asti, parantu asyaah bhaashaayaah pattanam vardhate.
Pratyaksha-pramaanam asti iyam vaartaa:
http://entertainment.in.msn.com/bollywood/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5088560&pgnew=true&_p=ae0afbfe-cdb1-45e6-bf47-f9970064dfb6&_nwpt=1#uc2Lstae0afbfe-cdb1-45e6-bf47-f9970064dfb6
By Prachi Kadam, DNA-Daily News & Analysis, 29/03/2011
Sanskrit's the buzzword!
India's oldest language is fast entering Bollywood scripts.
One among them is actor Saif Ali Khan who is burning the midnight oil to master the dialect. Says Saif, "I'm learning Sanskrit for my film Aarakshan. I started learning the language and figured that it's really difficult. It's just like learning a new language. I have to admit that Mr Bachchan (Amitabh Bachchan) is extremely fluent in Sanskrit, while I had to struggle quite a bit to get it right." Apparently, Saif used to recite verses in Sanskrit after wrap-up every day to brush up his skills and sound convincing.
Actor Sunny Deol is also learning the language for his upcoming film Mohalla Assi. From threatening villains to humming Sanskrit shlokas, Sunny seems to be loving the change. He says, "I am in love with my look and my role, I have never done this before. Learning Sanskrit is tough, but I'm working hard on it. I play a Sanskrit teacher, so it was important for me to learn the language. My audience associates me with my Punjabi drawl. They relate this 'Jat' image with me. So it was a challenge to break that image. Hence I took it up and worked on the language to get the dialogues right." The language that initially seemed tough has now caught on him so much so that Sunny now spends all his time reading and understanding the country's oldest language.
Given the growing trend, the day may not be too far when composers incorporate Sanskrit lyrics in songs!
-------------------------
Jay
Mar 28, 2011, 5:37:27 PM3/28/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Supposedly told by Panini, starts with Eko Shabdo Suprayukto and means
that "A single word, used rightly, can create an experience of Swarga"
that "A single word, used rightly, can create an experience of Swarga"
Can someone help with this, I heard in a lecture, could not write and lost.
Thanks
Shreyas P. Munshi
Mar 29, 2011, 2:02:26 AM3/29/11
to venugopal gudimetla, sams...@googlegroups.com
Respected Venugopal Sir,
I admire your zeal for Sanskrit and our culture and the Sanatan Dharma. You have brilliantly brought out the causes for the all round downward trend seen in the country today. However, personally I strongly believe that we can be exploited only to the extent we allow ouselves to be exploited; and so, it would be prudent to do some soul searching ourselves.
If we look at our history, long before Macaulay & Co reached India, Sanskrit as a language had stopped to remain the language of the common man (what in the last two hundred years re-kindled interest in Sanskrit is a very good topic
for study by us: were they the Pundits or MaxMueller or Macaulay or some British govt officials who inspired the people?) and Sanatan Dharma as a religion (or as a way of life as we proudly like to say)had stopped being understood and followed by the masses and that is why some enlighttened souls(and they were royal princes!) looked beyond the Vedas, and Buddhism and Jainism were born; and for the day to day communication, languages like Prakrt, ArdhaMaghadi, Pali and others came to be used by the common man. By Almighty's grace (I dont know if there was any other reason), the Shruti tradition helped in preserving our philosophical and poetic scriptures in Vedic and classical Sanskrit.
I think, as Swami Chinmayanand used to say, the need of the hour is to convert Hindus to Hinduism! I think the energies shud be directed towards that single goal, if we believe in the Sanatan Dharmal.That done, perhaps,everything could fall in its proper and rightful place, including Sanskrit.
Submitted in all humility...Shreyas
n Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:29:49 , venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote
Sir, I am a student too. I am much younger than you are. So no respect needed. I do respect you, I apologize for my brashness. The irony is, at one end, the Brits came, with one pretext or another, they razed to the ground well functioning system, then they built schools modeled on European system that they are familiar and are comfortable with, so that they can carry on "civilizing the savage Indians" with ease and without interruption and now we are alarmed that school don't teach Sanskrit anymore. A system that is modeled on Europen system, is not designed to teach Sanskrit in the first place that too after more than a century of carrying on what Macaulay started, now we suddenly woke up to the reality and blame our schools for it? Yes schools too are to be blamed no doubt for it, but things which got started a century back, can't be done away with all of a sudden. If anything it starts with us. If we educate our kids in Sanskrit at home, that certainly is a good beginning. When I was a kid, a nice gentleman used to run Sanskrit classes for free on Sundays'. Even today many Sanskrit schools are coming up in lot of temples in US too.
Taking pot shots at Indian system wouldn't help for anyone...since this is public forum, let's not forget that it is read by many a foreigner, depicting India in bad light, putting ourselves down is nothing but carrying on the baggage of the British era. My angst is that a prejudiced view of the society for the wrongs done centuries back and putting down India, a cradle of civilization is not a good idea, neither it is positive, nor it is based on truth. Such attacks not only are going to divide us further, they sure are going to hijack truth and merely serve to disrepute Sanatana Dharma.
Regards,
Venugopal Gudimetla
I admire your zeal for Sanskrit and our culture and the Sanatan Dharma. You have brilliantly brought out the causes for the all round downward trend seen in the country today. However, personally I strongly believe that we can be exploited only to the extent we allow ouselves to be exploited; and so, it would be prudent to do some soul searching ourselves.
If we look at our history, long before Macaulay & Co reached India, Sanskrit as a language had stopped to remain the language of the common man (what in the last two hundred years re-kindled interest in Sanskrit is a very good topic
for study by us: were they the Pundits or MaxMueller or Macaulay or some British govt officials who inspired the people?) and Sanatan Dharma as a religion (or as a way of life as we proudly like to say)had stopped being understood and followed by the masses and that is why some enlighttened souls(and they were royal princes!) looked beyond the Vedas, and Buddhism and Jainism were born; and for the day to day communication, languages like Prakrt, ArdhaMaghadi, Pali and others came to be used by the common man. By Almighty's grace (I dont know if there was any other reason), the Shruti tradition helped in preserving our philosophical and poetic scriptures in Vedic and classical Sanskrit.
I think, as Swami Chinmayanand used to say, the need of the hour is to convert Hindus to Hinduism! I think the energies shud be directed towards that single goal, if we believe in the Sanatan Dharmal.That done, perhaps,everything could fall in its proper and rightful place, including Sanskrit.
Submitted in all humility...Shreyas
n Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:29:49 , venugopal gudimetla <gudim...@gmail.com> wrote
Sir, I am a student too. I am much younger than you are. So no respect needed. I do respect you, I apologize for my brashness. The irony is, at one end, the Brits came, with one pretext or another, they razed to the ground well functioning system, then they built schools modeled on European system that they are familiar and are comfortable with, so that they can carry on "civilizing the savage Indians" with ease and without interruption and now we are alarmed that school don't teach Sanskrit anymore. A system that is modeled on Europen system, is not designed to teach Sanskrit in the first place that too after more than a century of carrying on what Macaulay started, now we suddenly woke up to the reality and blame our schools for it? Yes schools too are to be blamed no doubt for it, but things which got started a century back, can't be done away with all of a sudden. If anything it starts with us. If we educate our kids in Sanskrit at home, that certainly is a good beginning. When I was a kid, a nice gentleman used to run Sanskrit classes for free on Sundays'. Even today many Sanskrit schools are coming up in lot of temples in US too.
Taking pot shots at Indian system wouldn't help for anyone...since this is public forum, let's not forget that it is read by many a foreigner, depicting India in bad light, putting ourselves down is nothing but carrying on the baggage of the British era. My angst is that a prejudiced view of the society for the wrongs done centuries back and putting down India, a cradle of civilization is not a good idea, neither it is positive, nor it is based on truth. Such attacks not only are going to divide us further, they sure are going to hijack truth and merely serve to disrepute Sanatana Dharma.
Regards,
Venugopal Gudimetla
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Shreyas P. Munshi <shreya...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
Respected Venugopal-ji,
I refer to one line from your mail:Venugopal Sir, I understand very well that this fraternity is concerned about Sanskrit.
"Could you please support your argument why Lord Macaulay should be credited so much?"
And Venugopal Sir, at no place have I have stated that Macaulay should be given any credit. You may kindly re-read. All I have said is that I admired Shri Arvindji's insistence on taking an unbiased view of Macaulay. After examining the case objectively, if Macaulay is found guilty, so be it accepted. I have no problems there.
And why are Sanskrit departments in many Universities closing down? Macaulay cant be blamed. Reasons have to be found. I humbly submit that blaming Macaulay cannot be given the status of "reasoning".
And no, Sir! I admit I have not researched. Here again, if you re-read my mail, I have just said that Arvindji's mail virtually woke me up: that it strongly reminded me that things should be studied in an unbiased way. Is there anything wrong in saying that?
As a probable question mark on Macaulay,I have also stated in my mail that in std VIII in 1949, we were taught history of England, not of India; we were taught about Edgar the Peaceful, Alfred the great and the like but not of Indian kings. And so it would be worth finding out who was the culprit: Macaulay or someone else?
Yes sir. I am a student. I dont imagine and I dont pass judgements. But try to study, surely. Maybe not as well as you!
Regards...Shreyas
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:49:26 +0530 wrote
>Sir,
Stating an imaginative view point and calling that facts doesn't automatically turn them into facts. Could you please support your argument why Lord Macaulay should be credited so much? please also refer to my reply to Mr. Arvind, before you reply. And you state one should research about Macaulay, Did you research sir? could you kindly care to share your research as to why what he had done is so praise worthy? stating view points is alright sir, but have some scholarship and please do care to support your arguments with references at least. Kindly do educate me if you can about his intentions too, may be I confused with his letter to his father dated 12th Oct, 1836.
Regards,
Venugopal Gudimetla
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Shreyas P. Munshi wrote:
Respected Arvind-ji,
Ref your reply to respected Ramkrishna Upadrashta. Your reply begins with:
"While agreeing, for the sake of argument, about the ‘sad state of
Sanskrit education in India’, I see no connection to blame Macaulay..." etc etc.
I have been an admirer of your insistence on maintaining an unbiased and objective view while trying to understand Macaulay. In fact, as i've said in my previous mail, your mail virtually woke me up and I am eternally grateful to you for that.
However, I must mention here, that when, in 1949, I was in std VIII in a school in Mumbai, we were taught history of Englan, not of India. We learnt about Alfred the Great, Edgar the Peaceful and other kings of England. Nothing about Indian kings like Vikramaditya, Ashoka and others. I dont know whom we can hold responsible for it. But as it happened (for the better), halfway thru the year, our history syllabus changed to Indian history and the book we started reading was the one by historian Tarachand (in English).
To me it seems that Macaulay was perhaps misunderstood more by the British themselves; and so the educators in charge of India got systematically hell-bent in destroying the 'spiritual and cutural backbone' thinking that that was the recipe recommended by Lord Macaulay! And it was this strayed bunch of educators who perhaps introduced an education system which most Indian believe was the system advocated by Macaulay.
Yes; but i agree, even at a later date, Indians could heve researched and viewed Macaulay in an unbiased manner.It can be done now also, as begun by you.
Regards...Shreyas
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:21:56 +0530 wrote
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
____________________________
Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
____________________________
Shreyas Munshi
shreya...@rediffmail.com
C202, Mandar Apartments, 120 Ft D P Road,
Seven Bungalows, Versova, Mumbai 400 061
Tel Res: (22) 26364290 Mob: 981 981 8197
hnbhat B.R.
Mar 29, 2011, 9:31:00 AM3/29/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
It is not by Panini, who uses only Sutra-s or aphorisms, but in Mahabhasha of Patanjali:
(पा-६,१.८४.२; अकि-३,५७.७-५८.१७; रो-४,३९९-४०२; भा-५७/५९) एकः शब्दः सम्यक् ज्ञातः शास्त्रान्वितः सुप्रयुक्तः स्वर्गे लोके कामधुक् भवति इति ।
(P_6,1.84.2) KA_III.57.7-58.17 Ro_IV.399-402
tathā śabdasya api jñāne prayoge prayojanam uktam . kim . ekaḥ śabdaḥ samyak jñātaḥ śāstrānvitaḥ suprayuktaḥ svarge loke kāmadhuk bhavati iti . yadi ekaḥ śabdaḥ samyak jñātaḥ śāstrānvitaḥ suprayuktaḥ svarge loke kāmadhuk bhavati kimartham dvitīyaḥ tr̥tīyaḥ ca prayujyate . na vai kāmānām tr̥ptiḥ asti .
--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY
venugopal gudimetla
Mar 29, 2011, 9:27:29 AM3/29/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com, Jay
Respected Jay,
That is so correct, even in Buddhist philosophy, authors like Wei Wu Wei write in parables. He too stresses that, one need not read reams of pages to understand and realize, he says only one word could make you realize the entire meaning of whole universe.
Thanks for sharing the verse.
Regards,
Vneugopal Gudimetla
That is so correct, even in Buddhist philosophy, authors like Wei Wu Wei write in parables. He too stresses that, one need not read reams of pages to understand and realize, he says only one word could make you realize the entire meaning of whole universe.
Thanks for sharing the verse.
Regards,
Vneugopal Gudimetla
Arvind_Kolhatkar
Mar 29, 2011, 10:57:43 AM3/29/11
to samskrita
Dear Vasuraj,
I have downloaded Dharampal’s book and shall certainly go through it
and revert back with my 2-paise worth views in due course of time.
I have also seen Prachi Kadam’s write-up on the supposed love of
Sanskrit that Bollywood is developing. It underscores two facts.
Firstly, the entertainment columns of newspapers have to be filled up
every day and inane gossip serves this need very easily. Such gossip
does not have to be taken very seriously. Secondly. nothing attracts
attention in India unless it has the name of an entertainment star or
cricket star associated with it and the smallest thing done by a star
gets magnified beyond proportion. I do not really know how far Saif
Ali Khan’s or Sunny Deol’s professed love far Sanskrit will last.
Even if they were to become real विदग्ध, it would still be just two
star-lovers of Sanskrit and not the whole Bollywood! One or even two
sparrows do not make a summer.
My disbelief in the around-the-corner love of Bollywood for Sanskrit
comes from the fact that what little Sanskrit is heard in Bollywood
movies, mostly through the type-cast paNDits performing poojas and
conducting marriage rituals, is so bad that it makes the knowledgeable
viewer cringe. Yet, nobody in Bollywood seems to notice this. The
same goes for my mother tongue, Marathi. Names and words that have a
Sanskrit origin are misspelt in credits in movies and TV shows so
often, without regard to ह्रस्व, दीर्घ, अनुस्वार, that I feel sure the
makers of those movies do not know and do not care for the original
Sanskrit.
I will say that Sanskrit has entered the entertainment world if the
Sanskrit film आदि शंकराचार्य can run in cinema theatres for a full
week. When I saw it in 1983 it was not hailed as a commercial
success, though it won the best film award of that year.
I think Bollywood is a bad exemplar for Sanskrit and cheers are not in
order because two stars claim a new-found love for Sanskrit.
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 29, 2011.
I have downloaded Dharampal’s book and shall certainly go through it
and revert back with my 2-paise worth views in due course of time.
I have also seen Prachi Kadam’s write-up on the supposed love of
Sanskrit that Bollywood is developing. It underscores two facts.
Firstly, the entertainment columns of newspapers have to be filled up
every day and inane gossip serves this need very easily. Such gossip
does not have to be taken very seriously. Secondly. nothing attracts
attention in India unless it has the name of an entertainment star or
cricket star associated with it and the smallest thing done by a star
gets magnified beyond proportion. I do not really know how far Saif
Ali Khan’s or Sunny Deol’s professed love far Sanskrit will last.
Even if they were to become real विदग्ध, it would still be just two
star-lovers of Sanskrit and not the whole Bollywood! One or even two
sparrows do not make a summer.
My disbelief in the around-the-corner love of Bollywood for Sanskrit
comes from the fact that what little Sanskrit is heard in Bollywood
movies, mostly through the type-cast paNDits performing poojas and
conducting marriage rituals, is so bad that it makes the knowledgeable
viewer cringe. Yet, nobody in Bollywood seems to notice this. The
same goes for my mother tongue, Marathi. Names and words that have a
Sanskrit origin are misspelt in credits in movies and TV shows so
often, without regard to ह्रस्व, दीर्घ, अनुस्वार, that I feel sure the
makers of those movies do not know and do not care for the original
Sanskrit.
I will say that Sanskrit has entered the entertainment world if the
Sanskrit film आदि शंकराचार्य can run in cinema theatres for a full
week. When I saw it in 1983 it was not hailed as a commercial
success, though it won the best film award of that year.
I think Bollywood is a bad exemplar for Sanskrit and cheers are not in
order because two stars claim a new-found love for Sanskrit.
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 29, 2011.
Jay
Mar 29, 2011, 12:09:28 PM3/29/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Thanks a lot, Bhat Mahoday.
I was more off than I thought. But as I have seen before, no one returns empty handed approaching you.
I was more off than I thought. But as I have seen before, no one returns empty handed approaching you.
venugopal gudimetla
Mar 29, 2011, 8:11:57 PM3/29/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Respected Sri Jay,
You wrote :
>>Sanskrit was not a language of masses any more by the time Britishers came. it was inductrial revolution, not Macaulay who set us back. If Industrial revolution had started from India, one of the Indian languages would have been in prominent place across the world.
Sir, I read Jared Diamond too, Its a nice book. I also watched his documentary. Sir, ever heard of Pythagoras theorem? That dates back to Brahma gupta. There are many examples of Indian innovation and ingenuity which the Arabs and Europeans claim to be their work. We Indians look at innovation as offshoots of Dharmic laws, they are natural outcomes of human thought, we don't look at them as necessities, they are by products of deeper thought processes which don't seek profits, they don't seek human comforts that which need to be capitalized, because of lack just of a zeal among Indians to capitalize on innovations, assuming that we are not innovative is fallacious and very condescending if one thinks about it.
What has building temples, comparing the heights of temples and mud-slinging has to do with Sanskrit getting wiped out from India? If Indian kings are buildings temples, that should have an indirect effect of spreading the arts and languages, how is that they helped Sanskrit getting wiped out? please kindly explain, to me it is a leap of logic. And you state that the subjects of kings were poor? it is not true, if any nation is poor, that would be England in a comparison to India, India's GDP was among the best till the thugs came and raped India, I posed an url to support this, kindly refer to my previous post. And also India;s economy was 25% of the world till the Brits came, so kindly explain why you think the populace was poor and the kings let their subjects to dogs.
Sir you are greatly digressing, what has civic sense has got to do with Sanskrit getting wiped out from India? the present plight of India is result of at least a century of plunder, again, please refer to the link I posted. If a nation is robbed of it's riches, looted out rightly, neglected, what else can you expect? if there is corruption sure there would be, if there is illiteracy, sure there would be, things take time to change. Nation building doesn't happen in a decade, it takes time, that too after a century of plunder. Sir, you could be an atheist or may not be, for a person who performs pooja, it is his birth right, it gives him solace and gives him the confidence to step out and work hard, who are we to sneer? For every bribe taker, there is also a bribe giver. But what has it got to do with Sanskrit? we only take bribes sir, what to do we are a poor nation, atleast we didn't rape women, atleast we didn't plunder or divide a nation, nor did we ruin a civilization. You can't blame everything on Indians and give a clean chit to Macaulay that too when he himself states the reason why he had to introduce a nefarious education system.
Regards,
Venugopal Gudimetla
You wrote :
>>Sanskrit was not a language of masses any more by the time Britishers came. it was inductrial revolution, not Macaulay who set us back. If Industrial revolution had started from India, one of the Indian languages would have been in prominent place across the world.
Sir, Your statement is like saying "the one who pulled the trigger didn't kill, but the gun killed the victim". Your claim that Macaulay has nothing to do with Sanskrit getting completely wiped out from India doesn't hold water that too when the perpetrator himself had to say this, please see attached image.
http://img718.imageshack.us/i/image010p.gif/
Industrial revolution is only a reason, a facade, but that fueled greed, coupled with racism, a notion that they (Europeans) are God's chosen few and that they have the right to rule and "civilize the savages", led to imperialism. It is this reason that led to people like Macaulay to our land. If only Europeans are not guided by greed, if only they are not guided by divine hand to "civilize the savages" so as to spread the "word of God", Sanskrit would have been there in some form, mind you, I didn't say it would have flourished, but it would have been there the way it was before the Brits showed up at least.
Again European languages didn't spread to other nations because they had the potential to just flow our of Europe and descend on nations thousands of miles away separated by seas. The reason they spread is because of imperialism. And what did imperialist do to the nations they "conquered" ? they razed them to ground, Our India, Inca civilization, African nations etc are proof to that. Industrial revolution is just a facade sir, nothing more.
>>Why did the Industrial revolution not start in
India. Jared Diamond (in book named "Guns Germs and Steel") has AN
(I would not say THE) explanation. The society respected Dharmikta
and Erudition, not innovation. The fruits of invention had little
less value at personal level as it would be shared in the whole
extended family. The kings were considered great based on how big
temple was built, not whose populace had more prosperity. How
do we blame Macaulay for lack of Civic Sense? Dharm and Bhakti are different and society puts more emphasis on second. As long as I do my
morning Pooja, I am fine and can bribe the policeman during the
day for traffic violation, I do not need to learn Sanskrit, and can
blame Macaulay.
Sir, I read Jared Diamond too, Its a nice book. I also watched his documentary. Sir, ever heard of Pythagoras theorem? That dates back to Brahma gupta. There are many examples of Indian innovation and ingenuity which the Arabs and Europeans claim to be their work. We Indians look at innovation as offshoots of Dharmic laws, they are natural outcomes of human thought, we don't look at them as necessities, they are by products of deeper thought processes which don't seek profits, they don't seek human comforts that which need to be capitalized, because of lack just of a zeal among Indians to capitalize on innovations, assuming that we are not innovative is fallacious and very condescending if one thinks about it.
What has building temples, comparing the heights of temples and mud-slinging has to do with Sanskrit getting wiped out from India? If Indian kings are buildings temples, that should have an indirect effect of spreading the arts and languages, how is that they helped Sanskrit getting wiped out? please kindly explain, to me it is a leap of logic. And you state that the subjects of kings were poor? it is not true, if any nation is poor, that would be England in a comparison to India, India's GDP was among the best till the thugs came and raped India, I posed an url to support this, kindly refer to my previous post. And also India;s economy was 25% of the world till the Brits came, so kindly explain why you think the populace was poor and the kings let their subjects to dogs.
Sir you are greatly digressing, what has civic sense has got to do with Sanskrit getting wiped out from India? the present plight of India is result of at least a century of plunder, again, please refer to the link I posted. If a nation is robbed of it's riches, looted out rightly, neglected, what else can you expect? if there is corruption sure there would be, if there is illiteracy, sure there would be, things take time to change. Nation building doesn't happen in a decade, it takes time, that too after a century of plunder. Sir, you could be an atheist or may not be, for a person who performs pooja, it is his birth right, it gives him solace and gives him the confidence to step out and work hard, who are we to sneer? For every bribe taker, there is also a bribe giver. But what has it got to do with Sanskrit? we only take bribes sir, what to do we are a poor nation, atleast we didn't rape women, atleast we didn't plunder or divide a nation, nor did we ruin a civilization. You can't blame everything on Indians and give a clean chit to Macaulay that too when he himself states the reason why he had to introduce a nefarious education system.
Regards,
Venugopal Gudimetla
Jay
Mar 29, 2011, 2:38:48 PM3/29/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Before going to how Hebrew was revived, two points about Maculay.
First of all, preservation of traditional methods of learning culture was OUR job, not his.
Secondly, a particular section of society was hit with the same Mr.Maculay. But do not you see many more Madrasas today than Pathshalas?
It is about pursuit and identity, as history of Hebrew revival shows.
Hebrew was revered language of much smaller population, had no home land, dispersed in many countries and facing challenges much much worse for a longer time than we did. How was Hebrew revived?
Jews were true believers of Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah. They had one and only one identity - that of a jew. They were none of - Gujarati, or Shaiva or Konkani or Vadama or Bhojpuri or Brahmin - nothing but Jew and did not face conflict of identity. As a first step, gifting a Torah was given a high place. A printed Torah can not be gifted, it has to be hand written. For some, it became a multi year project, for others a life long. But it was a pursuit which a 6 year old saw in the family and those roots were carried till he himself became a grandfather. We know about Kalpana Chawla who lost life in space shuttle. He had a Jew companion. Does anyone know what he carried to Moon? A hand written Torah presented to him. I know about Marathi Jews with well established businesses who did not know, forget English, but even proper Hindi, left everything and left for Israel. That was power of Identity.
Hebrew became national language of Israel came AFTER 100 years of revivalism, on its own without state support.
First of all, preservation of traditional methods of learning culture was OUR job, not his.
Secondly, a particular section of society was hit with the same Mr.Maculay. But do not you see many more Madrasas today than Pathshalas?
It is about pursuit and identity, as history of Hebrew revival shows.
Hebrew was revered language of much smaller population, had no home land, dispersed in many countries and facing challenges much much worse for a longer time than we did. How was Hebrew revived?
Jews were true believers of Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah. They had one and only one identity - that of a jew. They were none of - Gujarati, or Shaiva or Konkani or Vadama or Bhojpuri or Brahmin - nothing but Jew and did not face conflict of identity. As a first step, gifting a Torah was given a high place. A printed Torah can not be gifted, it has to be hand written. For some, it became a multi year project, for others a life long. But it was a pursuit which a 6 year old saw in the family and those roots were carried till he himself became a grandfather. We know about Kalpana Chawla who lost life in space shuttle. He had a Jew companion. Does anyone know what he carried to Moon? A hand written Torah presented to him. I know about Marathi Jews with well established businesses who did not know, forget English, but even proper Hindi, left everything and left for Israel. That was power of Identity.
Hebrew became national language of Israel came AFTER 100 years of revivalism, on its own without state support.
On 3/29/2011 5:27 AM, Vasuvaj . wrote:
Namaste
Sri Arvind_Kolhatkar mahodaysya patraat uddhritam vaakyam:
".......It is also worth keeping in mind that his system opened the doors of education to the masses, which doors hitherto were open only to Brahmins and other higher castes. �This is a fact whose importance cannot be underplayed. ....."
Asmin vichaare mama kashchit abhipraaya-bhedah asti.
The Beautiful Tree� by Sri Dharampal
Kripaya etat pustakam pattatu.
http://www.gyanpedia.in/Portals/0/Toys%20from%20Trash/Resources/books/beautifultree.pdf
Aangala-shaasanaat-poorvam Bharate kaa sthitih aasiit?
Aangala-janaih eva sarvekshanam kritvaa sankalitaah vishayaah santi. Tebhya patrebhya Sri Dharampal vishayaan sviikritya etat pustakam - The Beautiful Tree' alikhat.
Asmaakam bhramah asti yat 18 shataabdyaam vidyaalayeshu kevalam unnata-jaati-chaatraah aasan.
Parantu tathaa na.
Madras Presidency madhye Chinglepet janapadasya vidyaalayeshu kiidhrashaah chaatraah pattantah aasan iti asmaabhih jnaatum shakyate. Aashcharyasya vishayah yat tathaakathita-adhasthita-chaatraah bahavah aasan.
Aangla-janaanaam aagamanena eva Bhaaratadeshah aadhunikah abhavat iti api mithyaa eva.
China deshe vaa Japan deshe� vaa Aangla-shaasanam� athavaa anya Europea-deshasya shaasanam na aasiit. Tathaapi adhunaa etau deshau agre stah.
Satyam ---asmaakam samaaje nyunataah aasan. Asmaakam samaajasya bahavah janaah svaarthinah aasan. Tasmaat kaaranaat eva Aangla-shaasanam athavaa tatah poorvam Moghul shaasanam athavaa Tughlaq athavaa Khilji athavaa....anya-videshi-shaasanaani aasan.
Bhaaratadeshasya viseshataa asti yat yadaa yadaa duraachaarah bhavanti, tadaa tadaa mahaapurushaah - raajaanah , samaajika-guruvah , panditaah - pratyakshaah bhootvaa samaajasya navothaanam kurvanti.
Shankaracharyah vaa Chanakyah� vaa Jnaaneshwarah vaa Samarth Raamadaasah vaa Chatrapati Shivaji� vaa Chatrasal vaa Guru Gobind Simhah vaa Ramakrishna Paramahamsah vaa Rishi Arvindah vaa...... etadrishaanaam mahaapurushaanaam aagamanam sarvadaa bhavati eva.
Tena kaaranena eva yadyapi Bharatadeshe 1000 varshaanaam videshi-shaasanaat param api Samskritam asti.Na kevalam asti, parantu asyaah bhaashaayaah pattanam vardhate.
Pratyaksha-pramaanam asti iyam vaartaa:
http://entertainment.in.msn.com/bollywood/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5088560&pgnew=true&_p=ae0afbfe-cdb1-45e6-bf47-f9970064dfb6&_nwpt=1#uc2Lstae0afbfe-cdb1-45e6-bf47-f9970064dfb6
By Prachi Kadam, DNA-Daily News & Analysis,�29/03/2011
Sanskrit's the buzzword!
India's oldest language is fast entering Bollywood scripts.
Looks like Sanskrit, popularly known as the language of Gods, is fast becoming a favourite with B-towners. With several Bollywood stars working hard to grasp the Vedic language for their films, Sanskrit is surely the flavour of the season in the Hindi film vocab.
One among them is actor Saif Ali Khan who is burning the midnight oil to master the dialect. Says Saif, "I'm learning Sanskrit for my film Aarakshan. I started learning the language and figured that it's really difficult. It's just like learning a new language. I have to admit that Mr Bachchan (Amitabh Bachchan) is extremely fluent in Sanskrit, while I had to struggle quite a bit to get it right." Apparently, Saif used to recite verses in Sanskrit after wrap-up every day to brush up his skills and sound convincing.
Actor Sunny Deol is also learning the language for his upcoming film Mohalla Assi. From threatening villains to humming Sanskrit shlokas, Sunny seems to be loving the change. He says, "I am in love with my look and my role, I have never done this before. Learning Sanskrit is tough, but I'm working hard on it. I play a Sanskrit teacher, so it was important for me to learn the language. My audience associates me with my Punjabi drawl. They relate this 'Jat' image with me. So it was a challenge to break that image. Hence I took it up and worked on the language to get the dialogues right." The language that initially seemed tough has now caught on him so much so that Sunny now spends all his time reading and understanding the country's oldest language.
Given the growing trend, the day may not be too far when composers incorporate Sanskrit lyrics in songs!
-------------------------
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Arvind_Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ramakrishna Upadrasta observes:
<�we should also remember ourselves of sad state of Sanskrit education
in India, as a direct result of Macaulain education or Nehruvian
policies.>
While agreeing, for the sake of argument, about the �sad state of
Sanskrit education in India�, I see no connection to blame Macaulay or
Nehru for it. �As far as Macaulay is concerned, as brought out by me
in a recent exchange of postings, he was only trying to explain the
phrase �learned natives of India� as appearing in the Charter Act of
1813 and minuted that it should encompass not only those learned in
the traditional knowledge taught till then but should also include in
its ambit those trained in modern European sciences and liberal arts.
I do not think he ever said that traditional knowledge should be
banished or not taught. �He wanted to expand the ambit of �knowledge�
and it is not possible to find any fault with him for it. �In fact,
because of his Minute, education started being imparted through the
more the more systematic apparatus of schools, colleges and
universities, entities that, by their institutional nature, are far
more substantial than the traditional �pathshalas� centered around
individual scholars and supported by the chance and casual charity of
philanthropically minded individuals. �It is also worth keeping in
mind that his system opened the doors of education to the masses,
which doors hitherto were open only to Brahmins and other higher
castes. �This is a fact whose importance cannot be underplayed. �We
now acknowledge that unless the masses are educated, the country is
not strong. �Macaulay was the first one to open the door to it. �Let
us not forget that fact.
Imagine what would have happened had the old system of education,
prevalent till that time, had continued beyond 1834. �By that time,
all Indian Rajas, Maharajas, Nabobs and sundry other rulers had
themselves become powerless and supplicants before the British
Rulers. �Again, it is pointless to �blame� the British for it. �The
irresponsible Indian rulers had impoverished India through centuries
of misrule, had not made any efforts to advance knowledge � the useful
variety that is � and had not bothered to cast an eye around the world
to see what was happening elsewhere. �Brahmins, the self-appointed
teachers of the society and so-called pursuers of knowledge,
themselves hardly knew what �knowledge� really could mean. �They were
more interested in preserving their petty superiority over other
castes. �(As an example. refer to the prodigious efforts put in by the
Peshwa Court and leading Brahmins of Poona in the last decades of the
18th century to show to the Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus, another
�literate� caste of Maharashtra, how they were really Shudras and
therefore not entitled to �Vedokta� rituals. �All this when the
Society really should have been united and should have been aware of
how the British influence was spreading in the country. �The same
�Vedokta� affair also reared its head in the early 20th century in the
Kolhapur Darbar.) �When the self-appointed leaders themselves were
such clueless nincompoops, what else could have happened but that the
British slowly swallowed the whole country. � Do not blame the British
for it. �Blame yourself!
I do not think that, looking backwards, anyone can say that
introduction of modern education in India was a step in the wrong
direction. �That education brought India into the modern word just as
the British brought India, kicking and screaming, into the modern
world. �Yes, India paid a price for it through the colonial rule but
imagine where India would have been today without the modern knowledge
and the awareness nationhood that it brought with it to us. I daresay
that, left to drift in the same old way as the pre-19th century days ,
India would have been an amorphous landmass like today�s Africa, riven
into tiny pieces and perpetually mired in violence and disorder. �It
is far preferable that India paid the price of colonialism once and
for all and became a united nation run on modern lines. �This is the
direct consequence of the Macaulayan system.
Even Sanskrit benefitted from it. �Study of Sanskrit became much more
widespread through schools, colleges and universities and many more
educated persons became aware of its wealth than the few handfuls to
whom it was confined till the dawn of the 19th century. �The glory of
Ancient India that we so proudly speak of today became known to us
only after western education brought branches of knowledge like
archaeology, numismatics, study of old literature to our notice. �Our
learned Brahmins had long forgotten the Brahmi script. �Worse still,
these �seekers of knowledge� had never felt the urge to find out what
all those thousands of inscriptions, old coins, old ruins lying
everywhere around them really meant. As an example, it was left to
James Princep to decipher the Brahmi script and make us aware of the
glories of Ancient India and the rule of Ashoka. �Let us not forget
what the Macaulayan system has brought to us.
I also do not see why Nehru has been handed a gratuities devaluation.
What did he do to discourage Sanskrit? �It has become fashionable
these days to blame the Nehruvian thoughts and policies but I think
his non-alignment and left-of-center approach was the best one for an
impoverished country that had just emerged from the yoke of
colonialism. �However, I refrain from expanding this line of
discussion further as it will take us away from Sanskrit.
I do not see any reason for the self-pity perceivable in the so-
labelled �sad state of Sanskrit education in India�. �The world
economies are becoming more knowledge-driven, knowledge here being the
one that is capable of application to generate wealth and create
jobs. �This is a global phenomenon and none can escape it or reverse
it. �That is why Sanskrit in India, like Latin and Greek in the
universities in the West, does not enjoy the same pre-eminence that it
had in previous days. �Local languages and liberal arts have been
similarly affected. �The world having become interconnected through
global commerce, other proud and rich languages like the French are
reeling under the onslaught of English. �This is just the March of
Time and nothing is gained by lamenting it. �If, henceforth a young
man like Arvind Shanbhag looks to Sanskrit to provide him with a
guaranteed livelihood, he is likely to meet only with frustration. �At
the end of the day, the country needs and can use only so many
Sanskrit teachers and professors.
But I do not think that everything is lost. �Sanskrit is being saved,
will be saved and will continue to enjoy its reputation of scholarship
through efforts of large numbers of enthusiastic amateurs, such as
members of this Group, who do not depend upon Sanskrit for their daily
bread. �A sufficiently large number of such amateurs, with
professional and learned Sanskritists at the core, will keep the flame
burning with sufficient strength for all years to come. � This is a
realistic dream we should be chasing, instead of wailing over the �sad
state of Sanskrit education�.
There are some diehards who want to go beyond this and they would like
a revival of Sanskrit as a spoken language �� if it ever was that. �To
them all I can say is �good luck�!
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 27, 2011.
Vimala Sarma
Mar 29, 2011, 9:46:28 PM3/29/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Dear PaNDitAH
I just want to set the record straight on just one small point, which I am sure about. When William “Oriental” James was Judge at the Supreme Court of (then) Bengal in the very early days of colonialism, Sanskrit was not spoken by the general public nor was it studied by anybody who wished to. In fact Sanskrit was never spoken by the masses, at any time in its history. Sanskrit was kept alive by a small group of Brahmins for sacerdotal purposes only– not because of the intrinsic interest of the language as such. So the Vedas were a closed book – and chanting only was learned by heart for specific purposes –the grammar or knowing meaning was not considered necessary. Women and all other castes were excluded from even hearing the chants, and of course any “profane ears”. I am sure many on this forum can relate to this. This view still prevails in some communities. James had great difficulty finding anyone to teach him Sanskrit and but finally found a couple of paNDits. As a result of this knowledge, James loved the language and became its champion. He started the The Asiatic Society, which had Indian members, and the study of Sanskrit for anyone in the world interested in the language began. This generated widespread interest and the rapid study of many hitherto unknown texts.
I know many Indians want to be believe in a romantic idea of a ‘golden’ past before the British but this is a romance only. There were a lot of undesirable social practises which were promoted by Brahmins (not all of them), which I will not mention here, at that time. Of course in Europe too there were such things. The point is that Sanskrit was never widely spoken, or learnt, nor was education universal (girls were not sent to schools in many parts of the country) so its demise represents current lack of interest in the language. This is the main factor.
Vimala
venugopal gudimetla
Mar 29, 2011, 9:46:51 PM3/29/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
>>First of all, preservation of traditional methods of learning
culture was OUR job, not his.
True sir, and destruction of a system doing well was also none of his business, but he made it his and looking other way and blaming other reasons, for the sake of blaming is barking the wrong tree. What will you do sir, when you are persecuted in the name of religion, when you are forced to convert to another religion with a sword or bayonet to your neck? and with so much insecurity to live with, you now ask why we didn't hold on to our traditions? why not ask the ones who held the sword to the neck, may be they can answer your question better. Your question would have made sense if through our negligence we ruined our culture. A civilization is like a living organism, it needs constant upkeep, it needs care, it needs to be protected as much as an individual needs protection. I am not saying that we didn't have a part to play in it's degradation, but external factors accelerated it, not acknowledging that is shallow thinking.>>Secondly, a particular section of society was hit with the same Mr.Maculay. But do not you see many more Madrasas today than Pathshalas?
Regards,
Venugopal Gudimetla
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Jay <zoom...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Before going to how Hebrew was revived, two points about Maculay.
First of all, preservation of traditional methods of learning culture was OUR job, not his.
Secondly, a particular section of society was hit with the same Mr.Maculay. But do not you see many more Madrasas today than Pathshalas?
It is about pursuit and identity, as history of Hebrew revival shows.
Hebrew was revered language of much smaller population, had no home land, dispersed in many countries and facing challenges much much worse for a longer time than we did. How was Hebrew revived?
Jews were true believers of Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah. They had one and only one identity - that of a jew. They were none of - Gujarati, or Shaiva or Konkani or Vadama or Bhojpuri or Brahmin - nothing but Jew and did not face conflict of identity. As a first step, gifting a Torah was given a high place. A printed Torah can not be gifted, it has to be hand written. For some, it became a multi year project, for others a life long. But it was a pursuit which a 6 year old saw in the family and those roots were carried till he himself became a grandfather. We know about Kalpana Chawla who lost life in space shuttle. He had a Jew companion. Does anyone know what he carried to Moon? A hand written Torah presented to him. I know about Marathi Jews with well established businesses who did not know, forget English, but even proper Hindi, left everything and left for Israel. That was power of Identity.
Hebrew became national language of Israel came AFTER 100 years of revivalism, on its own without state support.
On 3/29/2011 5:27 AM, Vasuvaj . wrote:
Namaste
Sri Arvind_Kolhatkar mahodaysya patraat uddhritam vaakyam:
".......It is also worth keeping in mind that his system opened the doors of education to the masses, which doors hitherto were open only to Brahmins and other higher castes. This is a fact whose importance cannot be underplayed. ....."
Asmin vichaare mama kashchit abhipraaya-bhedah asti.
The Beautiful Tree by Sri Dharampal
Kripaya etat pustakam pattatu.
http://www.gyanpedia.in/Portals/0/Toys%20from%20Trash/Resources/books/beautifultree.pdf
Aangala-shaasanaat-poorvam Bharate kaa sthitih aasiit?
Aangala-janaih eva sarvekshanam kritvaa sankalitaah vishayaah santi. Tebhya patrebhya Sri Dharampal vishayaan sviikritya etat pustakam - The Beautiful Tree' alikhat.
Asmaakam bhramah asti yat 18 shataabdyaam vidyaalayeshu kevalam unnata-jaati-chaatraah aasan.
Parantu tathaa na.
Madras Presidency madhye Chinglepet janapadasya vidyaalayeshu kiidhrashaah chaatraah pattantah aasan iti asmaabhih jnaatum shakyate. Aashcharyasya vishayah yat tathaakathita-adhasthita-chaatraah bahavah aasan.
Aangla-janaanaam aagamanena eva Bhaaratadeshah aadhunikah abhavat iti api mithyaa eva.
China deshe vaa Japan deshe vaa Aangla-shaasanam athavaa anya Europea-deshasya shaasanam na aasiit. Tathaapi adhunaa etau deshau agre stah.
Satyam ---asmaakam samaaje nyunataah aasan. Asmaakam samaajasya bahavah janaah svaarthinah aasan. Tasmaat kaaranaat eva Aangla-shaasanam athavaa tatah poorvam Moghul shaasanam athavaa Tughlaq athavaa Khilji athavaa....anya-videshi-shaasanaani aasan.
Bhaaratadeshasya viseshataa asti yat yadaa yadaa duraachaarah bhavanti, tadaa tadaa mahaapurushaah - raajaanah , samaajika-guruvah , panditaah - pratyakshaah bhootvaa samaajasya navothaanam kurvanti.
Shankaracharyah vaa Chanakyah vaa Jnaaneshwarah vaa Samarth Raamadaasah vaa Chatrapati Shivaji vaa Chatrasal vaa Guru Gobind Simhah vaa Ramakrishna Paramahamsah vaa Rishi Arvindah vaa...... etadrishaanaam mahaapurushaanaam aagamanam sarvadaa bhavati eva.
Tena kaaranena eva yadyapi Bharatadeshe 1000 varshaanaam videshi-shaasanaat param api Samskritam asti.Na kevalam asti, parantu asyaah bhaashaayaah pattanam vardhate.
Pratyaksha-pramaanam asti iyam vaartaa:
http://entertainment.in.msn.com/bollywood/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5088560&pgnew=true&_p=ae0afbfe-cdb1-45e6-bf47-f9970064dfb6&_nwpt=1#uc2Lstae0afbfe-cdb1-45e6-bf47-f9970064dfb6
By Prachi Kadam, DNA-Daily News & Analysis, 29/03/2011
Sanskrit's the buzzword!
India's oldest language is fast entering Bollywood scripts.
Looks like Sanskrit, popularly known as the language of Gods, is fast becoming a favourite with B-towners. With several Bollywood stars working hard to grasp the Vedic language for their films, Sanskrit is surely the flavour of the season in the Hindi film vocab.
One among them is actor Saif Ali Khan who is burning the midnight oil to master the dialect. Says Saif, "I'm learning Sanskrit for my film Aarakshan. I started learning the language and figured that it's really difficult. It's just like learning a new language. I have to admit that Mr Bachchan (Amitabh Bachchan) is extremely fluent in Sanskrit, while I had to struggle quite a bit to get it right." Apparently, Saif used to recite verses in Sanskrit after wrap-up every day to brush up his skills and sound convincing.
Actor Sunny Deol is also learning the language for his upcoming film Mohalla Assi. From threatening villains to humming Sanskrit shlokas, Sunny seems to be loving the change. He says, "I am in love with my look and my role, I have never done this before. Learning Sanskrit is tough, but I'm working hard on it. I play a Sanskrit teacher, so it was important for me to learn the language. My audience associates me with my Punjabi drawl. They relate this 'Jat' image with me. So it was a challenge to break that image. Hence I took it up and worked on the language to get the dialogues right." The language that initially seemed tough has now caught on him so much so that Sunny now spends all his time reading and understanding the country's oldest language.
Given the growing trend, the day may not be too far when composers incorporate Sanskrit lyrics in songs!
-------------------------
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Arvind_Kolhatkar <kolhat...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ramakrishna Upadrasta observes:
<…we should also remember ourselves of sad state of Sanskrit education
in India, as a direct result of Macaulain education or Nehruvian
policies.>
While agreeing, for the sake of argument, about the ‘sad state of
Sanskrit education in India’, I see no connection to blame Macaulay or
Nehru for it. As far as Macaulay is concerned, as brought out by me
in a recent exchange of postings, he was only trying to explain the
phrase ‘learned natives of India’ as appearing in the Charter Act of
1813 and minuted that it should encompass not only those learned in
the traditional knowledge taught till then but should also include in
its ambit those trained in modern European sciences and liberal arts.
I do not think he ever said that traditional knowledge should be
banished or not taught. He wanted to expand the ambit of ‘knowledge’
and it is not possible to find any fault with him for it. In fact,
because of his Minute, education started being imparted through the
more the more systematic apparatus of schools, colleges and
universities, entities that, by their institutional nature, are far
more substantial than the traditional ‘pathshalas’ centered around
individual scholars and supported by the chance and casual charity of
philanthropically minded individuals. It is also worth keeping in
mind that his system opened the doors of education to the masses,
which doors hitherto were open only to Brahmins and other higher
castes. This is a fact whose importance cannot be underplayed. We
now acknowledge that unless the masses are educated, the country is
not strong. Macaulay was the first one to open the door to it. Let
us not forget that fact.
Imagine what would have happened had the old system of education,
prevalent till that time, had continued beyond 1834. By that time,
all Indian Rajas, Maharajas, Nabobs and sundry other rulers had
themselves become powerless and supplicants before the British
Rulers. Again, it is pointless to ‘blame’ the British for it. The
irresponsible Indian rulers had impoverished India through centuries
of misrule, had not made any efforts to advance knowledge – the useful
variety that is – and had not bothered to cast an eye around the world
to see what was happening elsewhere. Brahmins, the self-appointed
teachers of the society and so-called pursuers of knowledge,
themselves hardly knew what ‘knowledge’ really could mean. They were
more interested in preserving their petty superiority over other
castes. (As an example. refer to the prodigious efforts put in by the
Peshwa Court and leading Brahmins of Poona in the last decades of the
18th century to show to the Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhus, another
‘literate’ caste of Maharashtra, how they were really Shudras and
therefore not entitled to ‘Vedokta’ rituals. All this when the
Society really should have been united and should have been aware of
how the British influence was spreading in the country. The same
‘Vedokta’ affair also reared its head in the early 20th century in the
Kolhapur Darbar.) When the self-appointed leaders themselves were
such clueless nincompoops, what else could have happened but that the
British slowly swallowed the whole country. Do not blame the British
for it. Blame yourself!
I do not think that, looking backwards, anyone can say that
introduction of modern education in India was a step in the wrong
direction. That education brought India into the modern word just as
the British brought India, kicking and screaming, into the modern
world. Yes, India paid a price for it through the colonial rule but
imagine where India would have been today without the modern knowledge
and the awareness nationhood that it brought with it to us. I daresay
that, left to drift in the same old way as the pre-19th century days ,
India would have been an amorphous landmass like today’s Africa, riven
into tiny pieces and perpetually mired in violence and disorder. It
is far preferable that India paid the price of colonialism once and
for all and became a united nation run on modern lines. This is the
direct consequence of the Macaulayan system.
Even Sanskrit benefitted from it. Study of Sanskrit became much more
widespread through schools, colleges and universities and many more
educated persons became aware of its wealth than the few handfuls to
whom it was confined till the dawn of the 19th century. The glory of
Ancient India that we so proudly speak of today became known to us
only after western education brought branches of knowledge like
archaeology, numismatics, study of old literature to our notice. Our
learned Brahmins had long forgotten the Brahmi script. Worse still,
these ‘seekers of knowledge’ had never felt the urge to find out what
all those thousands of inscriptions, old coins, old ruins lying
everywhere around them really meant. As an example, it was left to
James Princep to decipher the Brahmi script and make us aware of the
glories of Ancient India and the rule of Ashoka. Let us not forget
what the Macaulayan system has brought to us.
I also do not see why Nehru has been handed a gratuities devaluation.
What did he do to discourage Sanskrit? It has become fashionable
these days to blame the Nehruvian thoughts and policies but I think
his non-alignment and left-of-center approach was the best one for an
impoverished country that had just emerged from the yoke of
colonialism. However, I refrain from expanding this line of
discussion further as it will take us away from Sanskrit.
I do not see any reason for the self-pity perceivable in the so-
labelled ‘sad state of Sanskrit education in India’. The world
economies are becoming more knowledge-driven, knowledge here being the
one that is capable of application to generate wealth and create
jobs. This is a global phenomenon and none can escape it or reverse
it. That is why Sanskrit in India, like Latin and Greek in the
universities in the West, does not enjoy the same pre-eminence that it
had in previous days. Local languages and liberal arts have been
similarly affected. The world having become interconnected through
global commerce, other proud and rich languages like the French are
reeling under the onslaught of English. This is just the March of
Time and nothing is gained by lamenting it. If, henceforth a young
man like Arvind Shanbhag looks to Sanskrit to provide him with a
guaranteed livelihood, he is likely to meet only with frustration. At
the end of the day, the country needs and can use only so many
Sanskrit teachers and professors.
But I do not think that everything is lost. Sanskrit is being saved,
will be saved and will continue to enjoy its reputation of scholarship
through efforts of large numbers of enthusiastic amateurs, such as
members of this Group, who do not depend upon Sanskrit for their daily
bread. A sufficiently large number of such amateurs, with
professional and learned Sanskritists at the core, will keep the flame
burning with sufficient strength for all years to come. This is a
realistic dream we should be chasing, instead of wailing over the ‘sad
state of Sanskrit education’.
There are some diehards who want to go beyond this and they would like
a revival of Sanskrit as a spoken language – if it ever was that. To
them all I can say is ‘good luck’!
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 27, 2011.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
Jaideep Joshi
Mar 30, 2011, 12:54:39 AM3/30/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com, Vimala Sarma
Dear Vimala MahodayA,
Did you mean William Jones?
I would once again request you to read The Beautiful Tree. As for William Jones, his attitude towards Sanskrit Pandits is very well reflected in this marble frieze (worth a thousand words) housed at Oxford: http://www.swaveda.com/articlepicture.php?id=&title=William%20Jones,%20Chapel,%20Oxford%20College&link=images/articles/image_1/william_jones.30102005191131.jpg
A "Golden Past", however romantic you may want to call it and want to neglect it, is a fact in the face, unless you dont believe British records themselves (in all probablity, are themselves underestimates!). I will quote one sentence from Dharampal:
"By 1930, much had been written on [British destruction of extensive Indian Education] in the same manner as had been written on the deliberate destruction of Indian crafts and industry, and the impoverishment of the Indian countryside. However, to many within the expanding strata of westernised Indians -- whether Marxists, Fabians, or capitalist roaders, their views on India and their contempt for it almost equalled that of William Wilberforce, James Mill, or Karl Marx -- such charges seemed farfetched, and even if true, irrelevant." - The Beautiful Tree.
Coming to your points,
[Sanskrit was kept alive by a small group of Brahmins for sacerdotal purposes only– not because of the intrinsic interest of the language as such. So the Vedas were a closed book – and chanting only was learned by heart for specific purposes –the grammar or knowing meaning was not considered necessary]
There were 1000+ higher learning colleges in Madras presidency alone, all of which were Sanskrit medium, and taught Veda (the only branch restricted to Brahmins), Music, Astronomy (Ganita Shastra), Law, Shastras etc. The books used consisted of Vedas, Kalidasa's works, Tarka, Dharmashastra, Nyaya, etc.
[girls were not sent to schools in many parts of the country]
Of course, because they were taught at home, as were many boys also.
Thus, although it may be true that Sanskrit was no longer the language of the masses, this fact in itself is unsupportive of the conclusions drawn from it, and hence irrelevant.
Did you mean William Jones?
I would once again request you to read The Beautiful Tree. As for William Jones, his attitude towards Sanskrit Pandits is very well reflected in this marble frieze (worth a thousand words) housed at Oxford: http://www.swaveda.com/articlepicture.php?id=&title=William%20Jones,%20Chapel,%20Oxford%20College&link=images/articles/image_1/william_jones.30102005191131.jpg
A "Golden Past", however romantic you may want to call it and want to neglect it, is a fact in the face, unless you dont believe British records themselves (in all probablity, are themselves underestimates!). I will quote one sentence from Dharampal:
"By 1930, much had been written on [British destruction of extensive Indian Education] in the same manner as had been written on the deliberate destruction of Indian crafts and industry, and the impoverishment of the Indian countryside. However, to many within the expanding strata of westernised Indians -- whether Marxists, Fabians, or capitalist roaders, their views on India and their contempt for it almost equalled that of William Wilberforce, James Mill, or Karl Marx -- such charges seemed farfetched, and even if true, irrelevant." - The Beautiful Tree.
Coming to your points,
[Sanskrit was kept alive by a small group of Brahmins for sacerdotal purposes only– not because of the intrinsic interest of the language as such. So the Vedas were a closed book – and chanting only was learned by heart for specific purposes –the grammar or knowing meaning was not considered necessary]
There were 1000+ higher learning colleges in Madras presidency alone, all of which were Sanskrit medium, and taught Veda (the only branch restricted to Brahmins), Music, Astronomy (Ganita Shastra), Law, Shastras etc. The books used consisted of Vedas, Kalidasa's works, Tarka, Dharmashastra, Nyaya, etc.
[girls were not sent to schools in many parts of the country]
Of course, because they were taught at home, as were many boys also.
Thus, although it may be true that Sanskrit was no longer the language of the masses, this fact in itself is unsupportive of the conclusions drawn from it, and hence irrelevant.
Vimala Sarma
Mar 30, 2011, 1:27:19 AM3/30/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Yes – sorry for the mistake.
Vimala
Error! Filename not specified.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
--
Vimala Sarma
Mar 30, 2011, 1:37:00 AM3/30/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
Jaideep Mahodaya
I don’t really think the marble frieze says anything about Jones’ attitudes – perhaps it says something about Indian attitudes!
I thought you said there were schools in every village before the British. How does one know what was taught or not taught at home?
These Madras colleges were there in British times – so what is the point you were making?
You are entitled to your opinions.
Vimala
From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaideep Joshi
Sent: Wednesday, 30 March 2011 3:55 PM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Vimala Sarma
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.
--
Jaideep Joshi
Mar 30, 2011, 8:32:45 AM3/30/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com, Vimala Sarma
Dear Vimala MahodayA,
Indeed I did. This was said by William Adam in his first report. Home schooling subjects are same as those in "proper schools", the only difference being that instruction is from parents, relatives or privately hired tutors. For that matter, most higher learning was done at homes of teachers (or in Agraharams). Statistics from Malabar show 21 times as many students in home tution than in schools.
Firstly, these are Indian indigenous schools that are being referred to, not the ones set up by the British. These are surveys made around 1825 and 1885, where a sharp degradation is seen in the schooling system in 1885 compared to 1825. Schools in 1825 were already under the state of decay, being under British rule. So the point is best stated in the words of Dharampal himself:
"...the descriptions of life and society provided by earlier European accounts (i.e. accounts written prior to the onset of European dominance) of different parts of India, and the data on Indian exports relating to this earlier period (notwithstanding the political turmoil in certain parts of India), on the whole leaves an impression of a society which seems relatively prosperous and lively. The conclusion that the decay noticed in the early 19th century and more so in subsequent decades originated with European supremacy in India, therefore, seems inescapable."
You are entitled to your opinions.
Sure, but atleast know the facts first. Read The Beautiful Tree. But if a blind eye is to be stubbornly turned on all these data (as has been done for the past 120 years), I shall not say anything further.
PraNAmAni,
Jaideep
I
thought you said there were schools in every village before the British.
How does one know what was taught or not
taught at home?
These Madras colleges were there in British times – so what is the point you were making?
"...the descriptions of life and society provided by earlier European accounts (i.e. accounts written prior to the onset of European dominance) of different parts of India, and the data on Indian exports relating to this earlier period (notwithstanding the political turmoil in certain parts of India), on the whole leaves an impression of a society which seems relatively prosperous and lively. The conclusion that the decay noticed in the early 19th century and more so in subsequent decades originated with European supremacy in India, therefore, seems inescapable."
You are entitled to your opinions.
PraNAmAni,
Jaideep
Arvind_Kolhatkar
Mar 30, 2011, 1:17:19 PM3/30/11
to samskrita
Dear Group,
A disputation started when I said that Macaulay’s Minute resulted in
the introduction of European Sciences and the English Language into
the school curricula of Indian schools, because he was of the view
that this was called for to properly interpret the Charter Act of
1813.. He wrote in his Minute:
< ...the opinion of some of the gentlemen who compose the Committee of
Public Instruction, that the course which they have hitherto pursued
was strictly prescribed by the British Parliament in 1813,... It does
not appear to me that the Act of Parliament can, by any art of
construction, be made to bear the meaning which has been assigned to
it. It contains nothing about the particular languages or sciences
which are to be studied. A sum is set apart 'for the revival and
promotion of literature and the encouragement of the learned natives
of India, and for the introduction and promotion of a knowledge of the
sciences among the inhabitants of the British territories.' It is
argued, or rather taken for granted, that by literature, the
Parliament can have meant only Arabic and Sanskrit literature, that
they never would have given the honourable appellation of 'a learned
native' to a native who was familiar with the poetry of Milton, the
Metaphysics of Locke, and the Physics of Newton; but that they meant
to designate by that name only such persons as might have studied in
the sacred books of the Hindoos all the uses of cusa-grass, and all
the mysteries of absorption into the Deity. This does not appear to be
a very satisfactory interpretation. >
(For those interested, the whole Minute is available at
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/...
)
It is worth noting that in the whole Minute, despite some derogatory
words about traditional Indian learning, Macaulay has not suggested
anywhere that teaching of traditional Indian knowledge should be
discouraged or banished. He only wanted to expand the scope of the
curriculum to also include European sciences and liberal arts, which –
and we all have to agree with this because it is a matter of fact –
was absent in the traditional Indian learning. What is wrong in
saying this? And why crib about giving credit where it is deserved?
I may mention here that at about the same time a college called
‘Sanskrit College’ was founded in Poona in 1837 under the supervision
of Capt. (later Major) Candy. It became ‘Sanskrit and Vernacular
College ‘in 1851 and still later became the Deccan Arts College in
1857. It has survived into our time as the famous Deccan College,
devoted mainly to research in Linguistics, Indology and similar
subjects. (http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php?title=Poona) Thus, far
from discouraging Sanskrit learning, an institution devoted to
Sanskrit learning was created in the time Macaulay was in India and
that has survived into our time. There is nothing comparable that has
come down to us from pre-British days because, as I had said earlier,
Indian efforts were centered on individual scholars and dependent on
chance generosity. They were not institutionalized and did not enjoy
any official support. I also cannot resist mentioning here that one
of my gg-grandfathers, Mahadeoshastri Kolhatkar, was a student in the
Sanskrit College and later rose to prominence in the Education
Department of the Bombay Presidency. He is today remembered for his
translation of Othello, biography of Columbus and some poetry books he
wrote for schools.
My posting has evoked a few critical responses and hence this rather
lengthy note to set out my thinking in greater detail. I shall also
attempt to answer some notable criticisms.
It has been suggested in one rejoinder to me that Indians themselves
would have acquired all this new knowledge through their own efforts?
When, may I ask? And does the world stand still while we find leisure
to discover this knowledge? From the Dark Ages it took the Europeans
400 years before they reached the state of knowledge of physical
sciences and Mathematics of the early 19th century. Our contribution
to these branches was nil to negligible in 2000 years so why imagine
that it would have come to us through a miracle or an अपौरुषेय
revelation in the next 20 or 30 years?
Examples of Russia, Japan and China have been given to support the
view that indigenous effort is enough to create this knew knowledge.
Let us look at these examples one by one and see whether India of the
early 19th century too could have done so.
In Russia, from the time of Peter the Great, there was awareness that
Europe had a lot that Russia could learn. Peter himself went to
Europe to understand this first hand, travelling incognito, though it
did not take long before his cover was blown. Later, he built a new
capital on the swamps near the Baltic Sea – original St Petersburg,
then Petrograd of the Revolution, then Leningrad and now again St
Petersburg – because he thought that Russia should have its face
towards the West and that land-locked Moscow, too weighed down by
feudalism, too controlled by Boyars and too steeped in old traditions
of the Orthodox Church did not provide it. All manner of European
learned men, artisans, soldiers and others started frequently visiting
Russia and some chose to live there permanently. The Tsarist Russian
Army had a very large presence of German officers. Russian
aristocracy held the French language and culture in very high esteem.
(In Tolstoy’s War and Peace, almost every aristocrat speaks French.)
Russian benefitted very substantially from these influences.
The Chinese had taken to going to the America from very early days,
initially to do menial and labour jobs. By the middle of the 19th
century not only cities on the Western Coast like San Francisco but
even far-away New York has substantial Chinese populations and China
Towns. The Chinese worked on Railway gangs and helped build America’s
rail network. All American movies of the ‘Western’ genre have a
ubiquitous Chinese Laundryman. Large number missionaries worked in
China. Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek were Christians and Pearl Buck
grew up in China as her parents were missionaries. China picked up
its modernity from these and similar close western contacts.
In Japan, after the Meiji Revolution of 1868, international search for
knowledge became a primary goal of the new Japan. (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period) Under the leadership of the
Emperor, Japan realised the need to modernize and took several steps
in that direction, including importation of foreign technicians and
workers to teach new methods to the Japanese and sending young
students to foreign lands on stipend to learn new sciences. The
result was that by 1905, Japan had become sufficiently strong and
modernized to take on and defeat Tsarist Russia in the Russo-Japanese
Conflict.
Which of these things were possible in India? The country already was
enslaved by the British. There was no single ruler left who could take
matters in his hands and give a new direction to it. All Maharajas,
Rajas, Nabobs and sundry potentates were preoccupied with staying in
the good books of the British Rulers and thereby preserving their
petty fiefdoms and lives of ease. Brahmins, another leading group,
were busy ensuring that their perch on the top of the dung heap of the
caste system was secure. There was a total lack of awareness that
India had anything at all to learn from the West. न वदेत् यावनीं
भाषां प्राणै: कण्ठगतैरपि was the resolve and boast of the learned
Brahmin. None had ever visited the West, none had the desire to do so
and none could have done so, upon the pain of excommunication and
losing caste, the worst fate for an Indian, as crossing the oceans was
forbidden. Not eating food cooked by म्लेच्छs and other lowly people
was another self-imposed constraint. So examples of Russia, China and
Japan, fine as they are, were an impossibility in India.
अगच्छन्वैनतेयोऽपि पदमेकं न गच्छति।
It therefore looks certain that India was not equipped at all to
acquire modern knowledge that it sorely lacked? If such knowledge had
not come into India at all, what would have happened?
In these circumstance the concept of political unity of India as one
country would not have been created. Who had this foresight and who
had the moral or military strength to wield India into one country?
The concept of political nationhood would not have arisen at all. All
our history hitherto had been of groups of Indians fighting each
other. This went on right till the dawn of the 19th century. Rajputs
constantly fought among themselves and called it bravery. Upon the
death of an Indian ruler, his sons fought each other. Pindaris were
employed by rulers to harass their opponents and rampaged uncontrolled
over large swathes of the country. Marathas went to the farthest
corners of India to rob the poor peasants and collect by the force of
arms Chouthai (right to ¼ of the revenue) and Sardeshmukhi (1/14th of
the revenue). (One of my ancestors, Bhaskar Ram, or Bhaskar Pandit as
he is known in Bengal to this day, was the representative of the
Nagpur Bhonslas sent to collect these from Bengal and made several
forays there for this purpose. In one of these, he was treacherously
assassinated by Aliverdi Khan. The poor of Bengal had such a dread of
the Maratha looters that the word ‘Bargi’ –for Bargir or Maratha foot-
soldier- has become a part of the Bengali language and is used by
mothers to frighten the children into sleep.) There were deep and
insurmountable divisions between castes. There was a total absence of
pragmatic leadership. It was a case of all-round chaos in which the
British, far better modernized and disciplined, found it easy to
gobble up India. That is why I said, `Do not blame the British for
your becoming slaves, blame yourself.`
In this state of chaos, and whenever the British left (-This they were
bound to do sooner or later as some far-sighted British thinkers were
already predicting. It is an onerous task to govern such a huge
country from a distance of 6,000 miles.-), the country, riven by
several divisions of caste, language, religion, and customs would have
broken down in tiny pieces. It would have been another Africa. And
let me say this though it may anger some – Indian Metaphysics and
Philosophy could not have saved it from such dissolution, just as they
had not saved it in any of the earlier political crises.
At this juncture Macaulay’s Minute put India onto to the path of
modernity by forcing – if that is the word preferred by some – modern
subjects and curricula into the educational system of India. He may
have done it all for the wrong reasons, if that is what some would
think but he did it all the same and we are enjoying its fruits till
this day – or do we deny that too and prefer to celebrate our earlier
benighted state?
When I mentioned en passant that Princep deciphered the Brahmi script
that was forgotten by the self-styled custodians of knowledge and
revealed our own glorious past to us, someone mentioned that if not
Princep, somebody else would have done so. If Einstein had not
thought of Relativity, someone else could have done so. What is so
special about Princep or Einstein?
I cannot speculate as to when, if at all, Brahmi would have been
deciphered, if not by Princep or Relativity thought of, if not by
Einstein. Also, our own record of intellectual curiosity does not
fill me with confidence that one of us could have done it soon
enough. It is not as though a dozen other Indian savants were after
the same pursuit and Princep just pipped them to the post.
The fact is that Princep and Einstein did what they did it and no
amount of carping can take that credit away. Here, in a lighter mood,
I can quote a Marathi proverb: आत्याबाईला मिशा असत्या तर आम्ही तिला
काका म्हटलं असतं. ( If the Aunt had a moustache, we would have called
her ‘Uncle’.) Well, that may be so but the fact remains that the Aunt
does not have a moustache! The Olympic medal is awarded to the sole
runner who runs fastest. Nobody much cares for other runners who, in
the fullness of time, might have been the fastest runners had the real
fastest not run.
This posting has already become quite long so I shall stop here. I
shall give my take on Dharampal’s book in another post.
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 30, 2011.
A disputation started when I said that Macaulay’s Minute resulted in
the introduction of European Sciences and the English Language into
the school curricula of Indian schools, because he was of the view
that this was called for to properly interpret the Charter Act of
1813.. He wrote in his Minute:
< ...the opinion of some of the gentlemen who compose the Committee of
Public Instruction, that the course which they have hitherto pursued
was strictly prescribed by the British Parliament in 1813,... It does
not appear to me that the Act of Parliament can, by any art of
construction, be made to bear the meaning which has been assigned to
it. It contains nothing about the particular languages or sciences
which are to be studied. A sum is set apart 'for the revival and
promotion of literature and the encouragement of the learned natives
of India, and for the introduction and promotion of a knowledge of the
sciences among the inhabitants of the British territories.' It is
argued, or rather taken for granted, that by literature, the
Parliament can have meant only Arabic and Sanskrit literature, that
they never would have given the honourable appellation of 'a learned
native' to a native who was familiar with the poetry of Milton, the
Metaphysics of Locke, and the Physics of Newton; but that they meant
to designate by that name only such persons as might have studied in
the sacred books of the Hindoos all the uses of cusa-grass, and all
the mysteries of absorption into the Deity. This does not appear to be
a very satisfactory interpretation. >
(For those interested, the whole Minute is available at
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/...
)
It is worth noting that in the whole Minute, despite some derogatory
words about traditional Indian learning, Macaulay has not suggested
anywhere that teaching of traditional Indian knowledge should be
discouraged or banished. He only wanted to expand the scope of the
curriculum to also include European sciences and liberal arts, which –
and we all have to agree with this because it is a matter of fact –
was absent in the traditional Indian learning. What is wrong in
saying this? And why crib about giving credit where it is deserved?
I may mention here that at about the same time a college called
‘Sanskrit College’ was founded in Poona in 1837 under the supervision
of Capt. (later Major) Candy. It became ‘Sanskrit and Vernacular
College ‘in 1851 and still later became the Deccan Arts College in
1857. It has survived into our time as the famous Deccan College,
devoted mainly to research in Linguistics, Indology and similar
subjects. (http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php?title=Poona) Thus, far
from discouraging Sanskrit learning, an institution devoted to
Sanskrit learning was created in the time Macaulay was in India and
that has survived into our time. There is nothing comparable that has
come down to us from pre-British days because, as I had said earlier,
Indian efforts were centered on individual scholars and dependent on
chance generosity. They were not institutionalized and did not enjoy
any official support. I also cannot resist mentioning here that one
of my gg-grandfathers, Mahadeoshastri Kolhatkar, was a student in the
Sanskrit College and later rose to prominence in the Education
Department of the Bombay Presidency. He is today remembered for his
translation of Othello, biography of Columbus and some poetry books he
wrote for schools.
My posting has evoked a few critical responses and hence this rather
lengthy note to set out my thinking in greater detail. I shall also
attempt to answer some notable criticisms.
It has been suggested in one rejoinder to me that Indians themselves
would have acquired all this new knowledge through their own efforts?
When, may I ask? And does the world stand still while we find leisure
to discover this knowledge? From the Dark Ages it took the Europeans
400 years before they reached the state of knowledge of physical
sciences and Mathematics of the early 19th century. Our contribution
to these branches was nil to negligible in 2000 years so why imagine
that it would have come to us through a miracle or an अपौरुषेय
revelation in the next 20 or 30 years?
Examples of Russia, Japan and China have been given to support the
view that indigenous effort is enough to create this knew knowledge.
Let us look at these examples one by one and see whether India of the
early 19th century too could have done so.
In Russia, from the time of Peter the Great, there was awareness that
Europe had a lot that Russia could learn. Peter himself went to
Europe to understand this first hand, travelling incognito, though it
did not take long before his cover was blown. Later, he built a new
capital on the swamps near the Baltic Sea – original St Petersburg,
then Petrograd of the Revolution, then Leningrad and now again St
Petersburg – because he thought that Russia should have its face
towards the West and that land-locked Moscow, too weighed down by
feudalism, too controlled by Boyars and too steeped in old traditions
of the Orthodox Church did not provide it. All manner of European
learned men, artisans, soldiers and others started frequently visiting
Russia and some chose to live there permanently. The Tsarist Russian
Army had a very large presence of German officers. Russian
aristocracy held the French language and culture in very high esteem.
(In Tolstoy’s War and Peace, almost every aristocrat speaks French.)
Russian benefitted very substantially from these influences.
The Chinese had taken to going to the America from very early days,
initially to do menial and labour jobs. By the middle of the 19th
century not only cities on the Western Coast like San Francisco but
even far-away New York has substantial Chinese populations and China
Towns. The Chinese worked on Railway gangs and helped build America’s
rail network. All American movies of the ‘Western’ genre have a
ubiquitous Chinese Laundryman. Large number missionaries worked in
China. Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek were Christians and Pearl Buck
grew up in China as her parents were missionaries. China picked up
its modernity from these and similar close western contacts.
In Japan, after the Meiji Revolution of 1868, international search for
knowledge became a primary goal of the new Japan. (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period) Under the leadership of the
Emperor, Japan realised the need to modernize and took several steps
in that direction, including importation of foreign technicians and
workers to teach new methods to the Japanese and sending young
students to foreign lands on stipend to learn new sciences. The
result was that by 1905, Japan had become sufficiently strong and
modernized to take on and defeat Tsarist Russia in the Russo-Japanese
Conflict.
Which of these things were possible in India? The country already was
enslaved by the British. There was no single ruler left who could take
matters in his hands and give a new direction to it. All Maharajas,
Rajas, Nabobs and sundry potentates were preoccupied with staying in
the good books of the British Rulers and thereby preserving their
petty fiefdoms and lives of ease. Brahmins, another leading group,
were busy ensuring that their perch on the top of the dung heap of the
caste system was secure. There was a total lack of awareness that
India had anything at all to learn from the West. न वदेत् यावनीं
भाषां प्राणै: कण्ठगतैरपि was the resolve and boast of the learned
Brahmin. None had ever visited the West, none had the desire to do so
and none could have done so, upon the pain of excommunication and
losing caste, the worst fate for an Indian, as crossing the oceans was
forbidden. Not eating food cooked by म्लेच्छs and other lowly people
was another self-imposed constraint. So examples of Russia, China and
Japan, fine as they are, were an impossibility in India.
अगच्छन्वैनतेयोऽपि पदमेकं न गच्छति।
It therefore looks certain that India was not equipped at all to
acquire modern knowledge that it sorely lacked? If such knowledge had
not come into India at all, what would have happened?
In these circumstance the concept of political unity of India as one
country would not have been created. Who had this foresight and who
had the moral or military strength to wield India into one country?
The concept of political nationhood would not have arisen at all. All
our history hitherto had been of groups of Indians fighting each
other. This went on right till the dawn of the 19th century. Rajputs
constantly fought among themselves and called it bravery. Upon the
death of an Indian ruler, his sons fought each other. Pindaris were
employed by rulers to harass their opponents and rampaged uncontrolled
over large swathes of the country. Marathas went to the farthest
corners of India to rob the poor peasants and collect by the force of
arms Chouthai (right to ¼ of the revenue) and Sardeshmukhi (1/14th of
the revenue). (One of my ancestors, Bhaskar Ram, or Bhaskar Pandit as
he is known in Bengal to this day, was the representative of the
Nagpur Bhonslas sent to collect these from Bengal and made several
forays there for this purpose. In one of these, he was treacherously
assassinated by Aliverdi Khan. The poor of Bengal had such a dread of
the Maratha looters that the word ‘Bargi’ –for Bargir or Maratha foot-
soldier- has become a part of the Bengali language and is used by
mothers to frighten the children into sleep.) There were deep and
insurmountable divisions between castes. There was a total absence of
pragmatic leadership. It was a case of all-round chaos in which the
British, far better modernized and disciplined, found it easy to
gobble up India. That is why I said, `Do not blame the British for
your becoming slaves, blame yourself.`
In this state of chaos, and whenever the British left (-This they were
bound to do sooner or later as some far-sighted British thinkers were
already predicting. It is an onerous task to govern such a huge
country from a distance of 6,000 miles.-), the country, riven by
several divisions of caste, language, religion, and customs would have
broken down in tiny pieces. It would have been another Africa. And
let me say this though it may anger some – Indian Metaphysics and
Philosophy could not have saved it from such dissolution, just as they
had not saved it in any of the earlier political crises.
At this juncture Macaulay’s Minute put India onto to the path of
modernity by forcing – if that is the word preferred by some – modern
subjects and curricula into the educational system of India. He may
have done it all for the wrong reasons, if that is what some would
think but he did it all the same and we are enjoying its fruits till
this day – or do we deny that too and prefer to celebrate our earlier
benighted state?
When I mentioned en passant that Princep deciphered the Brahmi script
that was forgotten by the self-styled custodians of knowledge and
revealed our own glorious past to us, someone mentioned that if not
Princep, somebody else would have done so. If Einstein had not
thought of Relativity, someone else could have done so. What is so
special about Princep or Einstein?
I cannot speculate as to when, if at all, Brahmi would have been
deciphered, if not by Princep or Relativity thought of, if not by
Einstein. Also, our own record of intellectual curiosity does not
fill me with confidence that one of us could have done it soon
enough. It is not as though a dozen other Indian savants were after
the same pursuit and Princep just pipped them to the post.
The fact is that Princep and Einstein did what they did it and no
amount of carping can take that credit away. Here, in a lighter mood,
I can quote a Marathi proverb: आत्याबाईला मिशा असत्या तर आम्ही तिला
काका म्हटलं असतं. ( If the Aunt had a moustache, we would have called
her ‘Uncle’.) Well, that may be so but the fact remains that the Aunt
does not have a moustache! The Olympic medal is awarded to the sole
runner who runs fastest. Nobody much cares for other runners who, in
the fullness of time, might have been the fastest runners had the real
fastest not run.
This posting has already become quite long so I shall stop here. I
shall give my take on Dharampal’s book in another post.
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 30, 2011.
Ramakrishna Upadrasta
Mar 31, 2011, 10:41:47 AM3/31/11
to sams...@googlegroups.com
praNAms,
I am surprised that an offhand remark about made by me has really lead to such discussion, some of it perhaps beyond what I think is the scope of the group. It seemed to be going on and on and the discussion is going strictly into the indology realm IMHO.
First of all, please consider reading this blog of Shantanu, which I had earlier linked, and read the comments for the excellent responses people have given to Shantanu offering help/
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2011/03/26/arvind-shanbhag
The good news is that Shri Vishwas (perhaps the same teacher who appears in the vedios of S.B) and and other kind folk of Samskrita Bharati have offered him some help. (My praNAms to them!)
==
The above good news cannot be more contrasted with the discussion on this group (I am sorry to say) where opinions are being packaged as facts (as people indoctrinated by a reputed university of India usually do), and when some facts are being shown as counter examples to the opinions, then it is leading to a long winded explanation involving seemingly unnecessary details.
In fact, there are posters who seem to be intent on selling their view of varNAshrama-dharma etc, which has too many insinuations on the scholars and social system of that era that it will lead to long winded discussion unless the moderators act. In my opinion, rebutting these mails is fairly easy, but for other commitments.
==
I request everyone to consider recent posting of Shri Naresh and ask themselves if that particular post is really related to the language element of the devabhaasha, which I think this forum is devoted to. If not, kindly re-consider posting it. In this matter, the 'advaitin' yahoo moderators are wise to point out to the excellent verse 17.15 of Bhagavad Gita:
I am surprised that an offhand remark about made by me has really lead to such discussion, some of it perhaps beyond what I think is the scope of the group. It seemed to be going on and on and the discussion is going strictly into the indology realm IMHO.
First of all, please consider reading this blog of Shantanu, which I had earlier linked, and read the comments for the excellent responses people have given to Shantanu offering help/
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2011/03/26/arvind-shanbhag
The good news is that Shri Vishwas (perhaps the same teacher who appears in the vedios of S.B) and and other kind folk of Samskrita Bharati have offered him some help. (My praNAms to them!)
==
The above good news cannot be more contrasted with the discussion on this group (I am sorry to say) where opinions are being packaged as facts (as people indoctrinated by a reputed university of India usually do), and when some facts are being shown as counter examples to the opinions, then it is leading to a long winded explanation involving seemingly unnecessary details.
In fact, there are posters who seem to be intent on selling their view of varNAshrama-dharma etc, which has too many insinuations on the scholars and social system of that era that it will lead to long winded discussion unless the moderators act. In my opinion, rebutting these mails is fairly easy, but for other commitments.
==
I request everyone to consider recent posting of Shri Naresh and ask themselves if that particular post is really related to the language element of the devabhaasha, which I think this forum is devoted to. If not, kindly re-consider posting it. In this matter, the 'advaitin' yahoo moderators are wise to point out to the excellent verse 17.15 of Bhagavad Gita:
anudvegakaraM vAkya.n satyaM priyahita.n cha yat.h
svAdhyAyAbhyasana.n chaiva vAN^mayaM tapa uchyate .. 17.15..
अनुद्वेगकरं वाक्यं सत्यं प्रियहितं च यत्
स्वाध्यायाभ्यसनं चैव वाङ्मयं तप उच्यते ॥ १७।१५॥
I could have sent this mail earlier if I was not busy with work (as I am attending a conference soon) and other personal matters.
namaste
Ramakrishna
svAdhyAyAbhyasana.n chaiva vAN^mayaM tapa uchyate .. 17.15..
अनुद्वेगकरं वाक्यं सत्यं प्रियहितं च यत्
स्वाध्यायाभ्यसनं चैव वाङ्मयं तप उच्यते ॥ १७।१५॥
I could have sent this mail earlier if I was not busy with work (as I am attending a conference soon) and other personal matters.
namaste
Ramakrishna
Arvind_Kolhatkar
Mar 31, 2011, 4:42:18 PM3/31/11
to samskrita
Dear Ramakrishna,
You say:
<I am surprised that an offhand remark about made by me has really
lead to such discussion, some of it perhaps beyond what I think is the
scope of the group. It seemed to be going on and on and the discussion
is going strictly into the indology realm IMHO.
First of all, please consider reading this blog of Shantanu, which I
had earlier linked, and read the comments for the excellent responses
people have given to Shantanu offering help…>
We have, at least I had before responding, already read the referred
The later foray into the discussion about Macaulayan and Nehruvian
influence was occasioned by your remark that the sad state of Sanskrit
was <a direct result of Macaulain education or Nehruvian policies.>
You now express unhappiness about the ensuing (and necessarily long,
since these cannot be compressed into tweets) discussions.
परिहासविजल्पितं सखे परमार्थेन न गृह्यतां वचः is what you now say.
I think we do not gather in this forum to exchange fireside banter
over glasses of sherry – at least I do not – and we take everything
seriously. I felt that I had to challenge the casually delivered and
gratuitous insult to Nehru and also to Macaulay. Also, the
discussion, long or short, is about the so-labelled ‘sad state of
Sanskrit’ and perceived causes leading thereto and very much belongs
to this forum.
To the verse
सुलभाः पुरुषा लोके सततं प्रियवादिनः।
अप्रियस्य च पथ्यस्य वक्ता श्रोता च दुर्लभः।
(अरण्यकाण्ड)
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 31, 2011.
You say:
<I am surprised that an offhand remark about made by me has really
lead to such discussion, some of it perhaps beyond what I think is the
scope of the group. It seemed to be going on and on and the discussion
is going strictly into the indology realm IMHO.
First of all, please consider reading this blog of Shantanu, which I
had earlier linked, and read the comments for the excellent responses
We have, at least I had before responding, already read the referred
blog of Shantanu and that is why, in my response of March 27, I wrote:
<I do not see any reason for the self-pity perceivable in the so-
labelled ‘sad state of Sanskrit education in India’. The world
economies are becoming more knowledge-driven, knowledge here being the
one that is capable of application to generate wealth and create
jobs. This is a global phenomenon and none can escape it or reverse
it. That is why Sanskrit in India, like Latin and Greek in the
universities in the West, does not enjoy the same pre-eminence that it
had in previous days. Local languages and liberal arts have been
similarly affected. The world having become interconnected through
global commerce, other proud and rich languages like the French are
reeling under the onslaught of English. This is just the March of
Time and nothing is gained by lamenting it. If, henceforth a young
man like Arvind Shanbhag looks to Sanskrit to provide him with a
guaranteed livelihood, he is likely to meet only with frustration. At
the end of the day, the country needs and can use only so many
Sanskrit teachers and professors.
But I do not think that everything is lost. Sanskrit is being saved,
will be saved and will continue to enjoy its reputation of scholarship
through efforts of large numbers of enthusiastic amateurs, such as
members of this Group, who do not depend upon Sanskrit for their daily
bread. A sufficiently large number of such amateurs, with
professional and learned Sanskritists at the core, will keep the flame
burning with sufficient strength for all years to come. This is a
<I do not see any reason for the self-pity perceivable in the so-
labelled ‘sad state of Sanskrit education in India’. The world
economies are becoming more knowledge-driven, knowledge here being the
one that is capable of application to generate wealth and create
jobs. This is a global phenomenon and none can escape it or reverse
it. That is why Sanskrit in India, like Latin and Greek in the
universities in the West, does not enjoy the same pre-eminence that it
had in previous days. Local languages and liberal arts have been
similarly affected. The world having become interconnected through
global commerce, other proud and rich languages like the French are
reeling under the onslaught of English. This is just the March of
Time and nothing is gained by lamenting it. If, henceforth a young
man like Arvind Shanbhag looks to Sanskrit to provide him with a
guaranteed livelihood, he is likely to meet only with frustration. At
the end of the day, the country needs and can use only so many
Sanskrit teachers and professors.
But I do not think that everything is lost. Sanskrit is being saved,
will be saved and will continue to enjoy its reputation of scholarship
through efforts of large numbers of enthusiastic amateurs, such as
members of this Group, who do not depend upon Sanskrit for their daily
bread. A sufficiently large number of such amateurs, with
professional and learned Sanskritists at the core, will keep the flame
realistic dream we should be chasing, instead of wailing over the ‘sad
state of Sanskrit education’.>
I am delighted that the Shanbhag story has had a happy conclusion.
state of Sanskrit education’.>
The later foray into the discussion about Macaulayan and Nehruvian
influence was occasioned by your remark that the sad state of Sanskrit
was <a direct result of Macaulain education or Nehruvian policies.>
You now express unhappiness about the ensuing (and necessarily long,
since these cannot be compressed into tweets) discussions.
परिहासविजल्पितं सखे परमार्थेन न गृह्यतां वचः is what you now say.
I think we do not gather in this forum to exchange fireside banter
over glasses of sherry – at least I do not – and we take everything
seriously. I felt that I had to challenge the casually delivered and
gratuitous insult to Nehru and also to Macaulay. Also, the
discussion, long or short, is about the so-labelled ‘sad state of
Sanskrit’ and perceived causes leading thereto and very much belongs
to this forum.
To the verse
अनुद्वेगकरं वाक्यं सत्यं प्रियहितं च यत् |
स्वाध्यायाभ्यसनं चैव वाङ्मयं तप उच्यते||
I may reply by another
स्वाध्यायाभ्यसनं चैव वाङ्मयं तप उच्यते||
सुलभाः पुरुषा लोके सततं प्रियवादिनः।
अप्रियस्य च पथ्यस्य वक्ता श्रोता च दुर्लभः।
(अरण्यकाण्ड)
Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, March 31, 2011.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages