WESTERN INDOLOGY & ITS QUEST FOR POWER: Proceedings of the Swadeshi Indology Conference Series.

................................................................................................

WESTERN INDOLOGY & ITS QUEST FOR POWER:

Proceedings of the Swadeshi Indology Conference Series

by K.S. Kannan, K. Gopinath, Ashay Naik, Koenraad Elst,

Naresh P. Cuntoor, Satyanarayana Dasa,

Jayaraman Mahadevan, H.R. Meera, more…

................................................................................................

Looking at the introduction of this work, one is baffled - why are anyone, much less more than one, people of non Indian origin, that too those born and brought up in U.S., bothering to attack ancient culture and language of India that are still very living? Why aren't they happy with their own country, culture, and progress of the times? Why attack those that aren't bothering you?

Then towards the end of reading the volume editorial, a light goes on and dark corners of their minds are visible. Its not just that they wish to destroy the living treasure of ancient knowledge that's a treasure in continuity from antiquity, to feed their dying faith on the carcass after they butcher it - for their religion has been dying since inquisition wasn't enough to terrorise the flock, and Galileo saw moons of Jupiter, which his being forced to recant didn't help - but also that, U.S. and U.K. having let loose jihadist terror on the world by U.K. creating the terrorist factory in name of a nation (just so West could freely use military bases against Russia), and subsequently U.S. having paid hundreds of billions of dollars into the factory to destroy USSR, now the genie won't go back into the bottle, days of travel being a pleasure or normal life being safe from terrorist attacks in West are past, and West is kowtowing to jihadists - and their top agenda, along with a takeover of the West, is war on India.

So the fraud being responded to in this volume, Pollack, is one of the donkeys useful for the jihadist petrodollar paymasters and could, after all, not have found anything useful to do with his life, so has found a living by attacking India.

................................................................................................

In part II, they address Pollock's assertions about Sanskrit being dead. Pollock seems to extrapolate this on basis of history and status of Greek and Latin languages in Europe.

But even there, the reality isn't so different from that in India, only less so in that Sanskrit is alive in more than the sense of being the mother of most indigenous languages of India. Greek of course lives, however different from Greek of Homer, and as for Latin its modern forms the latin languages live on.

Authors in part II quote a great deal of nonsense from Pollock, mostly made up by West along with Aryan invasion theory lie, and based on a fraudulent history that's partly extrapolated from Europe and largely dominated by church, bible et al. Thus "Vedic literature" is asserted as from first millennium b.c., without taking into account any indigenous history of India and instead making up stuff based on beliefs and faiths from Europe, based on theory of superiority of Europe.

But legends of India assert accounts of Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean, which have since been proven correct, long after India's own kniwledge was branded "myth" by West; and Vedas predate this history of Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean.

One is reminded of a conversation we had with a German, when we explained that Sanskrit was in this sense like the central tree of a Watavriksha complex where it can grow to well over a mile in diameter of the complex with trees circling the central one connected by their roots springing down from branches of the central one. The said German had never heard of such a thing, or of Ajanta and Ellora and what's great about them, for that matter.

Like most Germans or most in West for that matter, including Pollock, she too was brought up in the doctrine of supremacy of so called "white" race (as if any humans can be white! animals, birds, yes, but not humans, who are pale at worst), which is really extrapolated from domination and genocides perpetrated against others by Europe and descendants of migrants thereof.

Does it make any sense discussing it if someone claims that not all triangles have their angles add up to 180 degrees, and it's only a power domination by mathematicians over humanities which don't believe in such assertions? It's equally futile to give importance enough to stupid assertions by Pollock, when clearly, Sanskrit isn't dead.

A dead language is Prussian, once spoken in Prussia, by the Prussians who weren't German- until the crusades were conveniently given a short cut by Germans, who were too lazy to go war in Jerusalem, and argued that it was just as good to do it closer to Germany - and perpetrated genocide wiping out the people of Prussia, taking over the land for free, and thereafter making everyone forget Prussia was once not German.

Islam is attempting that with India, having succeeded in Egypt and Persia but failed so far in wiping out culture of India. And church joined in this attempt with era of European colonial times.

................................................................................................

Pollack, it seems, is blaming Nazi atrocities on India, her ancient culture, and Sanskrit language!

Funny, didn't anyone notice that Jews were treated well in India by Hindus for centuries in that they had freedom of worship and freedom from fear? And there were Parsees, too (- still are, both, although Jews have had an option since 1948 to go to a homeland lost for two millennia, and Parsees don't have it). So surely, if Germany paid any attention to their study of India, this would be noticed? Surely that woukd wipe out the racism, especially antisemitism, if at all Germany were influenced by India?

No, his goal is to find new Jews to target, and India and Hindus seem a convenient target, being a rich treasure of knowledge, to pour hatred and fraudulent accusations for years, and possibly commit massacres of; after all, holocaust has made it less than respected to continue targeting Jews as Rome - and her new cloak, the church - did for well over two millennia. Rome moreover set the trend by fraudulently blaming jews for the murder of their king perpetrated by Rome, and Pollack is stretching it by attempting to blame India for holocaust, equally fraudulently.

One could do without the verbiage and see that Pollack is council of Nicea set to destroy India as the new target.

" ... He outlines the various restrictions imposed on the śūdra-s in the dharma-śāstra-s, including denial of Vedic knowledge, as an instrumental use of knowledge for the purpose of domination."

By that logic, isn't the extreme of orientalism actually the inquisition by church of Rome, to impose it's hegemony over not only knowledge but thought, mind and spirit of all Europe, claiming that any lack of conformity was sin punishable by hell and burning people at stake to terrorise those not thus burnt?

India had nothing to compare with any of it, and whats more, debates were a tradition, honoured by all. This spirit of enquiry and argument is a tad visible in Judaism, but not in the other two, later, abrahmic faiths. Okay, so Sanskrit is bad because evil nazis were German and some handful Germans had studied Sanskrit, as per Pollack logic.

By his logic, using toothbrush must be pure evil, since all nazis used it - or did they specifically glories in avoiding it, as Bavarian (as they brag to Indian colleagues) pride themselves in "Germany being so clean that they need neither a shower nor a chance of underwear more than once a month"?

Or take something even nazis couldn't avoid, if Pollack claims they didn't use toothbrush - how about being born of European ancestry? Surely that's one thing all nazis had in common, which by Pollack logic must then be the cause of evil? And surely that's one thing all African ancestry related citizens of U.S. must agree?

................................................................................................

Excerpts from Volume Editorial -

"Infinity Foundation India conducted two conferences in the recent past (in July 2016 and February 2017) which examined the impact of some of the writings of Prof. Sheldon Pollock of Columbia University. While the first conference had four themes, the second had six more; and all these ten topics pertained to the interpretations proffered by Pollock.

"While there is no intention of, or point in, targeting particular individuals, the focus on Pollock was due to the fact that he is the most formidable of the American Orientalists today, and his views and interpretations appear to Hindus to be most pernicious, nevertheless most pervasive in influence: a good many contemporary scholars, especially in the West build on his pet ideas."

"A conspectus of the various papers in this volume is quite in order here. This volume presents eight papers in two parts – three on what is perceived by the ilks of Pollock as the diabolical influence that Sanskrit and the Śāstra-s have had, directly or indirectly, on Nazism; and five on the vile theme of the putative death of Sanskrit.

"Part 1 of the book is devoted to the treatment of the supposed Sanskrit springs of the Nazi holocaust: the weird and convoluted links Pollock belabours to manufacture between the two stand exposed here."

"The first paper authored by K Gopinath (Ch. 1) exposes the propagandist designs evidenced in Pollock’s 1993 paper “Deep Orientalism: Notes on Sanskrit and Power beyond the Raj”. ... "

"The second paper by Ashay Naik (Ch. 2) makes a pūrva-pakṣa of Pollock’s 2001 paper “Deep Orientalism?”. Pollock endeavours to establish therein a link between German Indology and the notorious Nazi ideology. The Nazis indulged in the worst of horrors, and linking Sanskrit with the Nazis can easily make Sanskrit culpable: is not an abettor a partaker of crime, after all? Naik organises his paper under the four labels of Orientalism viz. the British, the German, the Sanskrit, and the American. Pollock has sought to implicate Sanskrit knowledge as a factor in the development of Nazi ideology. Equipped with pertinent facts and cogent logic, Ashay shows how Pollock’s comparative morphology of domination, for all its polemic, remains untenable.

"The third paper by Koenraad Elst (Ch. 3) closely considers the claims of Pollock only to find them “surprisingly weak or simply wrong”; Pollock is not, of course, the first person to exploit the links between racism, Nazism, and the study of Indo-European culture on the one hand, and Sanskrit on the other. The counterpoint viz. Adolf Hitler’s contempt for Hinduism, though well known, is cautiously concealed by Pollock, and blatant lies are made use of so as to subserve his own polemical writings. While there is, of course, a general animus against Hinduism in American academe, Pollock’s deliberate and concocted links between Hinduism and National Socialism suggest “a rare animosity against Hinduism”. Again, Western Indologists spare no efforts to depict the Indian caste-system as slavery and racism, for which they invoke the discredited yet handy AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory), and fantasize a Nazi parallel, notwithstanding the fact that nowhere in the long history of India do we find even a faint hint of genocide in connection with the varṇa system. He who makes public allegations, and cannot prove them, is guilty of slander, which Pollock patently is. The author of the paper asks the rhetorical question, finally, as to whether Pollock is at all fit to be trusted to preside over the publication of Indian classics.

"Part 2 of the book is devoted to the projection of the “death” of Sanskrit. The discovery non pareil of Pollock is that Sanskrit has died multiple times, even though it was still-born (his own naive fancy, again!) Fallacies galore of Pollockian polemics are well laid bare here."

"The third paper by Jayaraman Mahadevan (Ch. 6) deals with the classic inane statement by Pollock viz. “Government feeding tubes and oxygen tanks may try to preserve the language [Sanskrit] in a state of quasi-animation .... Sanskrit is dead”. The paper sets forth pertinent information in abundance from one of the most important documents of the Government of India (which Pollock knows cannot claim ignorance of) viz. the Report of the First Sanskrit Commission constituted by the Government of India in 1956 with Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji as its Chairman; Chatterji, by the way, was by no means known for his sympathies with any “Hindutva” philosophy that Pollock is so fidgety about. This was in fact at a time when no “Hindutva force” worth the name was even heard of, much less had been shaping things, and, to speak the truth, it was during the very reign of the government headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, “secularism” incarnate, euphemism for allergy to Hinduism, which called all the shots.

"The Report was prepared covering a cross-section of India - (the then) 14 states of India, at 56 centres, and interviewing over 1100 persons – thus representing various shades of opinion. A perusal of the Report shows that the Britishers paid Sanskrit teachers half the salary they paid others, and worse, the hypocritical Nehru Government unabashedly perpetuated it! It was the response from the public – from Maharajas to the ordinary folk including non-Brahmins - that sustained Sanskrit in these adverse times. The paper has ably bleached the p(f)igments of Pollock’s political imagination."

" ... Pollock is aghast that Hindutva propagandists have sought to show – what is an elementary fact, after all – that Sanskrit is indigenous to India. Revival of Sanskrit is to him a mere “exercise in nostalgia”. From the vast canvas of several millennia of the history of Sanskrit, Pollock picks (read cherry-picks) just four tricky points of time - to delineate the degeneration/disappearance of Sanskrit. Pollock indeed “sees things” that few others can: viz. that it is the benign Muslim kings that tried to patronize and protect Sanskrit (and not jettison and jeopardize Sanskrit), while Hindu kings were apathetic towards it! Pollock does not even attempt to camouflage his intense Islamophilia (matched only by his high Hinduphobia) when he makes light of the atrocious burning of libraries in Kashmir as but “fire accidents” – in lieu of speaking of the wanton destruction by the Muslim marauders, which no chronicler has ever made any secret of. ... "

"The fifth (and the last) paper by Manogna Sastry (Ch. 8) also deals with Pollock’s “Death of Sanskrit” paper of 2001. Starting with Sri Aurobindo’s note on India’s distinctness from the Occident, Ms. Sastry notes how there is a vast continuum of Western critics – from Sister Nivedita and Romain Rolland, sympathetic and understanding towards the Indian heritage at one end of the spectrum, and, at the other, the pompous and belligerent critics exemplified by Doniger and Pollock. American Orientalism has only spawned a plethora of scholars of the latter type. The facile and puerile assertion of Pollock that Sanskrit is championed just by promoters of Hindutva, is easily repudiated by her by way of citing the numerous independent attempts in support of Sanskrit, of several individuals and organizations that are totally independent of or utterly unaware of the Hindutva movement. And to no small effect has been related by her the research of Hanneder, to show how Pollock is eminently capable of interpreting all evidence to fit just his own pet theses, and by whatever means. Summoning “anecdotal factoids” to suppress key facts staring in the face, or again, reinforcing devious attempts so as to drive a wedge between Sanskrit and vernaculars (which many European Indologists have carefully and consistently cultivated for long) - are all no small feats of Pollock. Very telling are her words towards the conclusion of the paper that the opus of Pollock is not all in vain in that it has actually provided the clarion call to Indians – to resume the stewardship of the creation and organization of their own cultural instruments."

................................................................................................

Chapter 1

German Indology, Sanskrit and Nazi ideology –

K. Gopinath

................................................................................................

"Sheldon Pollock’s work on the question of “German Indology, Sanskrit and Nazi ideology” is instructive in how certain questions are posed, extraneous elements subtly brought in, and selected evidence then marshalled to deduce or suggest certain desired conclusions. This is in essence how propaganda systems work and in this paper we attempt to show that it is indeed the case with Pollock's selective use of historical materials. ... "

Author discusses Pollack omitting consideration of other disciplines when discussing relationship between academia and nazis, restricting his targeting to study of India related topics in Germany.

"Unscientifically, Pollock does not consider other disciplines and check whether practitioners in those fields had any such sympathy for Nazis. For example, Martin Heidegger (a celebrated philosopher) and Werner Heisenberg (a celebrated physicist), to quote just 2 names, have also been suspected to have Nazi sympathies. Indeed, from the 1920’s, there was a “Deutsch Physik” movement led by two Nobel laureates (Philippe Lenard and Johannes Stark) that rejected the (Jewish) physics of Einstein (relativity theory, the inadmissibility of ether, etc). During WWII many famous German scientists participated in the German atomic bomb project (e.g., Hans Geiger, Walter Gerlach, Otto Hahn, Werner Heisenberg, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker). Another example is the discipline of anatomy; Sabine Hildebrandt (2016) discusses (in the “front matter” of the book) the

"“anatomists’ involvement in racial hygiene as the leading science of NS ideology” and that their “complicity with the Nazi state went beyond the merely ideological. They progressed through gradual stages of ethical transgression, turning increasingly to victims of the regime for body procurement, as the traditional model of working with bodies of the deceased gave way, in some cases, to a new paradigm of experimentation with the ‘future dead.’ ”

"(The involvement of anatomists will be discussed further in connection with the genocide in Namibia and later during WWII.) In disciplines such as anthropology and genetics, racial theories were de rigueur not just in Germany but widespread in Europe and America till the end of WWII."

"Without comparative data of Nazi sympathies in other disciplines, Pollock’s thesis on the role of German Indology in the holocaust is a house of cards; so too, his preposterous claim of Sanskrit’s culpability."

"The next step for Pollock is to conflate the native meritocratic system (Aryan vs non-Aryan) with racism though the word ārya was never used in the racial sense in India. It is surprising that even after notions of “Aryan race” have been debunked repeatedly, Pollock resuscitates it; note his almost casual way of posing it below without any supporting evidence with respect to “race”"

"If race is really involved, how does Pollock explain the phenomenon of a saṁnyāsin's “non-caste”hood as they can be initially from any varṇa (see, for example, how Buddha phrases this in Aggañña Sutta); no racial system in the world, that I am aware of, would allow such a change. Similarly, Dharampal (1971:preface) reports, while travelling in the late 50’s, that “there was no jati on a yatra” (ie. during long pilgrimages, many normative practices do not obtain). The Indic tradition also has many examples of kṣatriya-s (such as Viśvāmitra) becoming brāhmaṇa-s; the Peshwa Baji Rao I could be considered as a recent example in the opposite direction. There was upward mobility too; example can be given of Shivaji who categorised himself as a Kṣatriya using the flexibility in the system itself. ... "

What's more, intermarriages between castes were not only not forbidden, they were very prevalent, and power equations were quite opposite to the droit de seigneur prevalent in Europe - extremely opposite, in fact. This is clear even just from two examples.

One, that of Satyavatie, known as Matsyagandhaa, who was a lowly and poor fisherwoman making her living by plying a boat taking passengers across river. When a highly respected sage desires her, he asks, and gives her not only boons but makes her son by him a great sage and author respected for ever for the greatest epic ever written. Next, the all powerful king of the realm falls in love with her. Does he simply have her picked up and brought to him as any landlord, much less a king, would in Europe, or anywhere outside India? No, he asks her poor father for the daughter's hand in marriage. Is the fisherman afraid, honoured, delighted? No, he refuses, clearly stating that her son wouldn't be the heir, because the king already has a son who is revered and loved by all for his qualities. Does the king prevail? No, he returns, despondent, because there's no arguing the point. It's the said son who discovers, goes to the fisherman and promises to not only give up his claim but never marry, never procreate, and use all his power to protect her progeny, before the fisherman designs to allow the poor daughter to accept the king.

Even better example, the most revered Raamaayana where the most Aryan - and definitely not white, hes explicitly described as dark - beloved prince marries the orphan daughter adopted by another king, a girl of unknown parents. Nobody has ever wondered, much less questioned, this. She's revered along with the deified Raama so much, the most regular mutual greeting in his home province still involves their names, after several millennia without count.

"Interestingly, the native varṇa-jāti system was misconstrued into an inflexible “caste” system by the British/Europeans based on their own social regimentation prevailing in Europe/Americas since at least the 15th century with, for example, castas, mestizos, and mulattos in the Americas. Furthermore, the “one-drop” rule in US statutes and elsewhere all the way into the beginning of the 20th century made even a “drop” of black or Native American blood made them the inferior race; even Thomas Jefferson’s children through his mixed race concubine were born into slavery, with some of them having to “escape” to become free! ... "

And this is beyond the English caste system, just as inflexible, where property and titles are below royalty, trade and professions still lower, education of much less account, and one may not rise in society or profession except by titles bestowed by royalty and age thereof. And yet, frauds such as Pollack continue lying about India.

""With the racism angle thus brought in without any justification whatsoever, now one could argue that Nazis were only continuing the race discrimination that Indians were doing all along!"

I'd challenge anybody to stand at the entrance if the Churchgate or even better, C.S.T. terminus at, say, five thirty p.m. on a weekday, and bet a billion dollars to be paid immediately if wrong, on castes of passing males hurrying to catch the train. One would be lucky to not look like a complete fool even if this were done in a relaxed place such as a well lit middle class restaurant in Mumbai, Fort area, at lunch. For his racist attacks against India, there's no better way to pay Pollack than by making him do this.

"In the quote cited above, Pollock also mentions linguistic hierarchy. This is surprising to me at least as many regional languages were in a ‘give and take’ relationship with Sanskrit; for example, almost all the well known poets of Telugu between 10th century and 16th century were also Sanskrit pandits. While prejudiced opinions are to be expected in any subjective enterprise (such as affinity for a language), to elevate them to notions of domination or superiority seem inappropriate. In the last 2 centuries, given the official neglect of Sanskrit and motivated writings of European or American Oriental scholars, such harmful ideas have gained prominence, especially in Tamil Nadu (for example, Dravidian linguistic “separatism”). One can also use Pollock’s own argument against his own writing - that his use of “high” and convoluted English language in his articles is a source of oppression and domination over others."

"But does Pollock also weigh in other fields of knowledge, their histories and their objects? For a start, religious thought that permitted slaving societies in Arabia or of Spain/Portugal/England/US, or the Christian models of understanding that resulted in burning down Alexandria and its libraries, or the Islamic ones that caused Nalanda's libraries to be burnt or Bamiyan to be destroyed recently, or the European/Machiavellian and racial systems of thinking in the 19th century that finally resulted in the British and other European powers to burn down the summer palace in Beijing along with its valuable artefacts in the late 19th century? Their role in creating the ground for later holocausts is not even hinted at. ... "

Of course not. Pollack isn't an academic in his soul, he's a butcher murdering and chopping up those he can. Vicious beasts he respects. His level of evolution is still not beyond that of third Avataara.

" ... It is not clear why Sanskrit alone of the classical languages is a major vehicle of discourse of power. One could argue that Latin, still used in Vatican liturgy, could fit the bill. The Roman empire after all was a large empire for 6 to 7 centuries with a large war machine; it would not give any quarter to an enemy that would not fall in, a good example being how Carthage was annihilated to the last “man”. Given that Vatican is widely believed to have cooperated (see below) with Fascism and Nazism, Latin is a far stronger contender, using a similar logic of argumentation, for inducing genocidal tendencies in Nazis."

Not to forget the later cloak of Roman empire, church, and inquisition.

Author gives a few examples of similarity of decrees by church with Nazi laws, such as Jews being not allowed to eat with, marry or seen with the church folk.

"Given the extensive and detailed prohibitions on the Jews by the Church, one can easily surmise that deep-seated prejudices became established in the Church as well as internalized by the church-goers during the approximately two millennia, as admitted by no less than a recent Pope (Pope Benedict XVI, once a “Hitler Youth” himself2) “... it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians.”3 For example, Matthew 23:31-33, says of Pharisees (“lower class” Jews), “... You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?”"

Author points out intentional mischievous use of the word "shaastra" instead of the true source, synod, of the restrictions against Jews.

There is extensive literature on the subject of Catholic (Vatican), Protestant and Lutheran complicity and a good summary can be found in an “occasional” paper by Ericksen4. To quote just one relevant, though longish, passage (2009:13–14):

"“Gerhard Kittel [a well known German Protestant theologian during the Nazi years] assessed Adolf Hitler quite accurately and liked what he saw. That would explain why Kittel’s antisemitism grew more intemperate between 1933 and 1944 and why he never apologized after 1945, but energetically defended his own harsh attacks upon Jews. He claimed that his antisemitism had been entirely consistent with his Christian faith and no harsher than the antisemitism of Jesus or Paul[47]. His only concession was to acknowledge the obvious, that the death camps could not be defended. I think this understanding best explains Kittel but also helps us understand those many other church leaders, pastors, theologians, and lay people who applauded Hitler, who called 1933 a year of rebirth, and, in the words of Paul Althaus, considered Hitler “a gift and miracle from God”[48]. The problem was not that they misunderstood Hitler, but that they so readily reconciled their consciences and their Christian identities to the harshness of the Nazi state.”"

"2. European Role in Genocides

"Just before WWI Second, another likely explanation comes from the extensive experience of conducting regular genocides by Europeans on the hapless natives of many countries in the 18th to early 20th century itself. Benjamin Madley writes about how expertise in genocide travelled from German campaigns in South West Africa to Auschwitz and suggests how this experience incubated ideas and methods adopted and developed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe (Madley 2005:429-464):

"“The German terms Lebensraum and Konzentrationslager, both widely known because of their use by the Nazis, were not coined by the Hitler regime. These terms were minted many years earlier in reference to German South West Africa, now Namibia, during the first decade of the twentieth century, when Germans colonized the land and committed genocide against the local Herero and Nama peoples. Later use of these borrowed words suggests an important question: did Wilhelmine [German Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II, 1888-1918] colonization and genocide in Namibia influence Nazi plans to conquer and settle Eastern Europe, enslave and murder millions of Slavs and exterminate Gypsies and Jews? This article argues that the German experience in Namibia was a crucial precursor to Nazi colonialism and genocide and that personal connections, literature, and public debates served as conduits for communicating colonialist and genocidal ideas and methods from the colony to Germany."

It goes further back, to the lazy German participation in crusades, where they decided it was too strenuous and risky to travel to fight infidels in Holy Land, and instead turned East and butchered Prussians, wiping out the language - so total was that genocide.

"Note that the genocidal campaigns against the Jews were started barely 2 decades later. ... In 1884, Bismarck’s Berlin conference allotted spheres of influence in Africa amongst the colonial powers; Germany now had the 3rd largest area after Britain/France. During 1885-1904, there was intense competition between Hereros, Namas in Namibia and German outsiders for land/cattle; there were minor battles with multiple realignments amongst the contenders. Just as in US with respect to Native Americans, Germans wilfully broke signed treaties, stole land, and abused natives economically, racially, sexually etc. During the early part of this phase (1885-90), Heinrich Goering (father of the Nazi leader) was the Imperial Commissioner of South W Africa. In 1904, there was a major Herero rebellion aided by Nama (the latter had realized by this time that Germans were a bigger danger). Gen van Trotha, the Commander in Chief of German colonial forces (who incidentally was earlier part of 8 nation alliance that suppressed the Boxer rebellion in China), instituted a systematic policy of extermination (murder, dehydration, poisoning wells); there were also medical experiments on the victims. The Germans also borrowed the concept of concentration camps from the British (from Lord Kitchener's camps for Boers and Africans).

"The German colonization of Namibia had the unfortunate effect of making racism and eugenics fashionable at the academic, social and political levels in Germany; US was already advanced in this area given that they had to either dispossess the Native Americans, subjugate blacks or provide legitimation for such acts, with as many as 23 US states (such as Indiana, California, Washington) having the earliest compulsory sterilization programs in the world legally, inspired by the “scientific” discipline of “eugenics”, from 1907 onwards (See Reilly 1987:153-170)5. The direct academic roots of Nazi racism can be said to be through the tutelage of the German professor of medicine, anthropology and eugenics Eugen Fischer who organized experiments on African victims of Heroro revolt (including on body parts, with organized export of skulls, etc). Due to the widespread sexual exploitation of the Namibians by the Germans, there was widespread alarm in Germany about mixed blood; his eugenics program therefore advocated “improvement of society by preventing birth of inferior races and encouraging birth of superior races”. He authored a book on mixed children of European men and Hottentot (a derogatory term for Namibians) women in German southwest Africa. His recommendations that mixed descendants be not allowed to reproduce were followed and by 1912 interracial marriage was prohibited throughout the German colonies (note the later Nazi regulations on Jews). Note that California was already much ahead in “thinking” on eugenics by the turn of the 20th century; by 1933, California state had subjected more people to forceful sterilization than all other U.S. states combined (the latter number a total of 65,000) (Kevles 1994:18). The forced sterilization program later engineered by the Nazis was partly inspired by California’s laws and initially had even support from Rockefeller Foundation!

"Eugen Fischer also wrote an influential book on “principles of heredity” in 1921, the German title being closer to “Foundations of Human Hereditary Teaching and Racial Hygiene”, along with two others (Baur and Lenz). Fischer’s part in the book concentrated on the different racial groups on earth while Lenz’s part on the topic of racial hygiene. The second edition of this book was read by Hitler when he was in prison (1923) and the ideas in this book seem to have formed the core of racial ideas in Mein Kampf (published Oct 1924); a search of this book shows complete absence of any Indic thinking other than the use of words Aryan or Swastika but with much discussion of racial theories common in Europe in connection with Jews, blacks and Hottentots (Namibians), including also the widely prevalent European notion that British rule is “beneficial” for India. In 1927, Fischer became the Director of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology and in 1933 started teaching racial hygiene to SS doctors responsible to guard “purity of race”, the same year Adolf Hitler appointed him rector of the Frederick William University of Berlin (now Humboldt University). In 1935, he conducted experiments on racially mixed children in Rhine (born of German women and Asian/African soldiers during the Rhineland occupation) and enforced their sterilization. In 1943, his protégé’s student Mengele conducted infamous experiments on Jewish/Roma twins/dwarves. Surprisingly, in 1952, he was appointed Hon. President of Anthropology Society! (now “denazified”)."

" ... In 2004, Germany’s ambassador to Namibia apologized for the gruesome genocide but rejected any possibility of reparations; some medical exhibits (skulls, etc) of the victims were returned though."

Well, Germany did not make reparations to France and pleaded poverty, despite simultaneously spending quantities of gold marks to spread lies in France so as to cause unrest and havoc; so paying poor Namibia is only likely if Namibia is more forceful than France in making Germany pay.

" ... Genocidal campaigns were conducted in Canada, Australia resulting in the native populations totally wiped out (e.g., Tasmanians. See “Colonial Genocides”) or reduced to very small populations that were forced out into inhospitable areas. Extremely brutal regimes were common with colonialists from Netherlands and Belgium."

"One instructive case is that of the Native American extermination in US. In American Holocaust, David Stannard shows connection between American (“Columbus”) holocaust, Nazi holocaust and also the Church, with the dead estimated in the 100s of millions (Stannard 1993). He writes that “wherever Europeans or white Americans went, the native people were caught between imported plagues and barbarous atrocities, typically resulting in the annihilation of 95 percent of their populations.” What kind of people, Stannard asks, do such horrendous things to others? His highly “provocative” answer: Christians. “Digging deeply into ancient European and Christian attitudes toward sex, race, and war, the cultural ground was well prepared by the end of the Middle Ages for the centuries-long genocide campaign that Europeans and their descendants launched–and in places continue to wage–against the New World's original inhabitants” (of interest to us: also against Indic systems). Stannard contends that the perpetrators of the American Holocaust drew on the same ideological wellsprings as did the later architects of the Nazi Holocaust."

Author describes extensive genocide of natives in California.

"Surprisingly, no obvious entity was held responsible in standard accounts till about 4-5 decades back; least of all the Church or Western powers. Columbus was widely praised as discoverer of the Americas, with resistance to observing Columbus Day formally starting in US only in 1992 in Davis, CA. Also Rajiv Malhotra (2009) writes:

"“The greatest episodes of ethnic cleansing and genocide of Native Americans occurred in the period following independence that was dominated by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson ... Because of the popular demonology of Native Americans and pseudo-scientific research to show their innate inferiority, ironically enough, the only defenders remaining were missionaries claiming that although Native Americans were presently savages they could be rescued by converting them to Christianity. Further physical genocide could be prevented by completing the cultural genocide. Sadly, freedom loving Americans explained away their genocide of Native Americans as the natives’ inability to adapt to civilization:

"“As American hopes of creating a policy based on Enlightenment ideas of human equality failed, and as it relentlessly drove the Indians from all areas desired by the whites, Americans transferred their own failure to the Indians and condemned the Indians racially” (Horsman 1981, p. 207).” –(Malhotra 2009:184,195)"

Author notes that Pollack falsely holds up Sanskrit as enforced, whereas in reality pollack never experiended being firced to learn another language, while india is familiarwith English being forced on populace. Moreover,

"The British engineered famines systematically, by levying and mindlessly enforcing unsustainable rates of taxes on land or exporting foodstuffs out even when famines were raging, in India and Ireland (Davis 2001)6, and fought (along with other European and American powers) with China no less than 3 “opium wars” to be able to drug the hapless Chinese. Mike Davis (2001) concludes that between 12 and 29 million Indians died in the 1876-78 famine alone and this happened when there was a surplus of grains in 1876; he holds British state policy responsible for the large scale murder. Lytton Strachey (the godfather of the eponymic Bloomsbury bohemian intellectual) was the viceroy of British India at that time and he was busy organizing, during this horrific famine, the most colossal and expensive meal in world history for 68,000 officials, satraps and maharajas to celebrate “Kaiser-i-Hind” Victoria (Davis (2001), chapter 1). Furthermore, in 1879, Viceroy Lytton “actually overruled his entire council to accommodate Lancashire’s lobby (the Association) by removing all import duties on British-made cotton, despite India’s desperate need for more revenue in a year of widespread famine and tragic loss of life throughout Maharashtra” (Wolpert, 1989:248).” Due to lack of space we cannot go into further details but we will summarize some of the other insights: China and India, previous to European penetration/colonization, had historically managed food shortages much better; for example, “there was no mass mortality from either starvation or disease from the 1743-44 climatic catastrophe” (— “the spring monsoon failed two years in a row, devastating winter wheat in Zhili (Hubei) and northern Shandong; scorching winds withered crops and farmers dropped dead in their fields from sunstroke”); relief was sufficiently well organized that many deaths were avoided (Davis 2001:280). Similarly, Bajaj and Srinivas (1996) document in their book Annaṁ Bahukurvīta how the dharmic ecosystem over the millennia functioned during emergencies for relief, valorising the act of giving food as a solemn vow (tad vratam) rather than expecting free market to work well during shortages. Shockingly, in contrast, Lytton's Anti-Charitable Contributions Act 1877 forbade, on pain of imprisonment, private relief donations that interfered with free market setting of prices during the famine. Furthermore,

"“in contrast to the rigidity and dogmatism of British land-and-revenue settlements, both the Mughals and Marathas flexibly tailored their rule to take account of the crucial ecological relationships and unpredictable climate fluctuations of the subcontinent’s drought-prone regions. The Mughals had “laws of leather,” wrote journalist Vaughan Nash during the famine of 1899, in contrast to the British “laws of iron” (Nash 1900:92). Although the British insisted that they had rescued India from “timeless hunger,” more than one district official was jolted when Indian nationalists quoted from a 1878 study published in the prestigious Journal of the Statistical Society that contrasted 31 serious famines in 120 years of British rule against only 17 recorded famines in the entire previous two millennia (Walford, 1878: 434–42).” (ibid)."

"To effect “balance of payments” of European powers (esp. British due to their massive war machine: “military expenditures never comprised less than 25 percent (34 percent including police) of [British] India’s annual budget”; compare with typical 3–5% defence budgets now), recourse was also taken to effect financial exchange rate manipulations that pauperized the Chinese and Indian people as China and India were on silver standard: the move to gold standard by major European powers (for eg, Germany in 1871), then by US, Japan caused silver to depreciate. It is said that “the gold standard stole one quarter of the purchasing power of India’s silver ornaments (Nash 1900:88)” (ibid.) this especially calamitous during the 4 major famines between 1875-1900. Taking just the Berar region, “during the famine of 1899–1900, when 143,000 Beraris died directly from starvation, the province exported not only thousands of bales of cotton but an incredible 747,000 bushels of grain (Satya 1994:148, 281–2, 296). Despite heavy labor immigration into Berari in the 1890s, the population fell by five percent and “life expectation at birth” twice dipped into the 15-years range before finally falling to less than ten years during the “extremely bad year” of 1900 (Dyson 1989:181–82).” Across British India, “in the age of Kipling - that “glorious imperial half century” from 1872 to 1921 - the life expectancy of ordinary Indians fell by a staggering 20 percent, a deterioration in human biology probably without precedent in the subcontinent’s long history (Davis 1951:8).”

"More recent are the Bengal famine during WWII (see, e.g., Mukerjee (2011) that details the extraordinary racism of Winston Churchill that resulted in the death of as many as 3 million Bengalis during WWII; for example, official records show that Churchill ensured that surplus grain in New Zealand would not be diverted to Calcutta during the famine but sent to godowns in Canada in spite of pressing entreaties of officials) and the 1971 genocide by Pakistan Army (deaths estimated to be between 1.5 to 3 million, a substantial number being Indic persons) in the now Bangladesh abetted by US/UK (US and British navies made a threatening pincer against India in December 1971 with nuclear submarines) and some European powers as they were busy looking elsewhere. As Pollock and his followers casually implicate Sanskrit's deep structure and Mīmāṁsaka-s for genocide, it may be of interest to know that many in Germany looked up to the obvious and demonstrated skills, for at least 1 century, of the British on how to “pacify” native populations. For example, use of Maxim machine guns post 1880's turned British imperial conquest into a genocidal murder of a number of colonized groups of people in Africa. The German genocide in Namibia through mass starvation, dehydration and plain unconscionable murder during 1904-14 was an example of how well the “German student” had learnt the lessons from the “English teacher". No wonder the Nazi Germans did not need much research into how to conduct a holocaust barely two decades later."

"Pollock quotes a part of Gītā 2.63 at the beginning of his article:

"(smṛti-bhraṁśād buddhi-nāśaḥ)

"“When memory is destroyed, intelligence is lost.”

"This is an apt quote: when memory of Namibia and other genocides (either by Europeans or by Americans) or that of the Christian anti-Jewish attitudes in history are erased, intelligent reasoning is a casualty."

"So what is the explanation for Pollock's writings? The only explanation that I can advance is that many of us, not excluding Pollock, are consciously or unconsciously embedded in powerful propaganda systems, and Pollock’s writings, I believe, can only be explained on such a model. Consider the following feature that I came across in The “Hindu” newspaper in 2012 (Basu 2012).

"Here a very favourable report is given of a German woman, whose father was admittedly a Nazi soldier but she now is an Indian convener of the National Alliance of People's Movements, and working in Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary, Madurai (having first come to India with her husband on a two-year study programme at the Christian Institute for Study of Religion and Society, Bangalore). She researches Dalit atrocities, issues affecting farm workers, tobacco workers, fisherfolk and construction labourers, women activists, and “has put her stamp on every movement radiating an uncomplicated spirit of affability”.

"What is surprising is her locus of work. When a massive tremor (Nazism) has struck Germany and one's own immediate father is involved (but “we were not aware of what was happening”), the most convenient thing is to study someone else's misdeeds, even if they are not on the same scale (compare with 50-80 million deaths in WWII). It sure makes you feel better! Not just that; there is livelihood available through the same complicit (worldwide) organization! While one is not arguing that she cannot do research on any topic of her choice, what is interesting is the choice made: a “concerned” person who escapes from family’s Nazi involvement and points fingers at others. It would have behooved her to do research and/or teach, say, on how Nazis came to power, or how the Vatican helped Hitler to assume dictatorial power etc (note that if the Catholic Centre party had voted no or even abstained on the Enabling (“dictatorship”) Act, Hitler would have been defeated but their leader Ludwig Kaas, a close friend and advisor to Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, endorsed the Enabling Act7) or even how Lutheran Church funds conversions, etc in India resulting in severe social stress in rural and semi-urban communities and how foreign money supports the powerful Church establishment in South India (Malhotra et al 2011), etc."

" ... If an obvious truth has to be made to recede into the background, non-issues that cloud one's thinking has to be casually introduced, then carefully nurtured and repeated by others so that in a few decades non-issues can take centre stage. A good example can be seen in the demonization of Modi since 2002; even if careful research shows the hand of vested or complicit interests (Congress Party, for example), the manufactured “facts” take a life of their own. This is a specific instance of a more general anti-Indic (or anti-BJP) propaganda. Madhu Kishwar in her book Modi, Muslims and Media documents these carefully but the propagandistic system present in the country does not yet allow for a careful examination of the truth (Kishwar 2013). It is interesting to know that Modi’s visit to US when he was the CM of Gujarat was thwarted by a collaboration between evangelical Christian Right in the US, the Indian (expat) Left and the Islamic interests even when not a single FIR was filed against him (and till today not filed) (Janmohamed 2013). Pollock was one of the signatories to this petition8; the surprise here is that, without evaluating the proper situation on the ground and going by prejudices, he seems to accept that a “genocide” has taken place in Gujarat, while at the same time deflecting attention from the complicity of major genocidal actors such as Europeans/Americans or the Church with respect to what happened in Americas, Europe or Australia by targeting Sanskrit as a contributing factor. Modi was then and now is possibly seen as a threat as he is a symbol of a self-respecting nation and has proved many detractors wrong by his measured moves and hard work. When Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati in Orissa was killed, it was again a surprising collaboration between Maoists and evangelical Christians. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (which is dominated by evangelical Christians) strangely concluded in 2009 that India and Afghanistan are in the same category (“watch list of countries of particular concern”) when it comes to religious freedom (and that Pakistan is actually better)."

................................................................................................

................................................

December 24, 2021 - December 24, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 2

A pūrva-pakṣa of “Deep Orientalism?”

–Ashay Naik

................................................................................................

Nail discusses work of an orientalist and definitions of orientalism.

"It is hegemony, or rather the result of cultural hegemony at work, that gives Orientalism the durability and the strength... Orientalism is never far from... the idea of Europe, a collective notion identifying “us” Europeans against all “those” non-Europeans, and indeed it can be argued that the major component in European culture is precisely what made that culture hegemonic both in and outside Europe: the idea of European identity as a superior one in comparison with all the non-European peoples and cultures. There is in addition the hegemony of European ideas about the Orient, themselves reiterating European superiority over Oriental backwardness.

"–(Said 1978:7)"

" ... Pollock (1993) has understood Orientalism only in terms of its third meaning given above i.e. as a process of knowledge-production necessarily connected with colonialism. He has therefore felt it necessary to make adjustments to this concept so that it can include German Orientalism and Sanskrit knowledge, neither of which were involved in colonialism. In the case of the former, he suggests that its vector should be conceived as directed inwards “towards the colonization and domination of Europe itself” (Pollock 1993:77) while, to accommodate the latter, Orientalism should be understood simply as a “discourse of power that divides the world into ‘betters and lessers’ and thus facilitates the domination... of any group” (ibid). Having thus over-generalized (and consequently trivialized) the scope of Orientalism to include knowledge produced in the service of any and every kind of domination, he suggests that “Orientalist constructions in the service of colonial domination may be only a specific historical instance of a larger, transhistorical, albeit locally inflected, interaction of knowledge and power” (Pollock 1993:76)."

" ... The Anglo-French colonialism was only a local inflection (to borrow Pollock’s term), a historical moment when the sense of domination inherent in Orientalism came into contact with real domination in the form of colonialism. But what Said is telling us is that the sense of domination over the Orient was always there right from the time when Europe conceived of itself as different and as superior to the Orient. ... "

That would include Roman subjugation of Israel and Judea, including all crucifixions and other executions of Jews by Rome.

" ... When Germans began their study of the Orient, they did it in the same Orientalist way as the English and the French. They also objectified an ‘Orient’ and asserted their superiority over it by claiming their ‘knowledge’ of it as authoritative. This is what, according to Said, makes their scholarship Orientalist (in the polemical sense)."

This is about as real as a male claiming authority in gynaecology and conducting a class informing young pre-pubescent girls on what to expect in terms of their lives as women. Or the reverse, I.e., next door grandmother lecturing little boy about physical aspects of becoming a man.

"Sheldon Pollock’s argument in his essay “Deep Orientalism” that some of the racism in the term “Arya” was already imbedded in ancient Indian texts has been modified by Bryant and Trautmann, who have shown just how much “reading in” was necessary to wrench a racial contest between higher, lighter people, and lower, darker ones out of the ancient Indian texts”

"–(Marchand 2009:128). "

Where exactly in Raamaayana or Mahaabharata does one find any such racial descriptions? On the contrary, the topmost and deified, worshipped Aarya are often not only dark, but either described explicitly as epitome of beauty - Raama, Draupadie - or held as the most enchanting - Krishna - apart from brave, fearless and wise.

"On the other hand, antisemitism has been a characteristic feature of European culture since ancient times. What we find in the modern period is only the rationalist and racist variety of an antisemitism which had prevailed in Europe in the Christian and pagan times as well. The roots of modern antisemitism lie not in German Indology but in the views of Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire, whose ire against Judaism was a subset of his antipathy towards the Church and it is this dissatisfaction with Semitic religion which led to his projection of Vedic thought as a viable alternative and of the mythic Aryan Brahmin as its ideal practitioner, who was a foil against both the “plagiarist” Jew and the “degenerate” Indian (Figuera 2002:10ff). While Christianity was denounced, antisemitism survived because its pagan variant was recalled through the discovery of Greco-Roman knowledge."

"By bringing classical antisemitism into the post-Christian rationalist thought of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Voltaire enabled it to be grafted on to medieval Christian stereotypes, providing a new, international, secular anti-Jewish rhetoric in the name of European culture.

"–(Hellig 2003:271)"

Well, Shakespeare did a good job of keeping it up when England severed herself from Rome and could have forgotten antisemitism.

"The French theologian Ernest Renan divested Jesus of his Jewishness and made him an Aryan figure. He declared himself to be the first at having recognized the superiority of the Indo-European over the Semite race (Hellig 2003:276). Another Frenchman, Gobineau contributed significantly to the development of race theory but was not himself anti-Jewish. His work, however, proved influential to the promotion of German antisemitism through Richard Wagner and Houston Chamberlain. Likewise, with “the publication of Darwin’s ideas in 1859... the biologist Ernst Haeckel became Germany’s chief apostle of social Darwinism popularizing Darwin’s ideas by applying them to the development of civilization” (Hellig 2003:280-1). Thus, we find that in the nineteenth century German Indology was only one of diverse fields – nationalism, race theory, Christian historical criticism, Darwinism – which were developing independently all over Europe and nourishing German antisemitism in their own way. Further, German Indologists were not the only “bad” guys: “contributions to racist antisemitism came from many sources – professors, journalists, clergymen, statesmen, philosophers – and in Germany the antisemitic movement took to the streets, reaching a climax in 1881” (Hellig 2003:271)."

"Pollock mentions in passing that the dichotomization between Indo-German Aryan and Semite was “called into being by the social and economic emancipation of Jews” (Pollock 1993:82) but immediately suggests that it was “Orientalist” knowledge which made it possible. Thus, he ignores the problems relating to Jewish emancipation as the cause of antisemitism. Jewish emancipation refers to the process of integrating Jews into the wider Christian society which occurred in light of the egalitarian ideals of Enlightenment. Previously, they held the status of tolerated aliens living on the fringes of society as self-governing communities. But emancipation carried the cost of relinquishing their Jewish particularities and adopting the cultural norms of Enlightenment society (Hellig 2003:256ff). While the Jews did enter into public life and began to occupy prominent positions as equal citizens, they were unwilling or unable to cease being a distinctive community unto themselves – a nation within a nation – which was unacceptable, especially in Germany where nationalism came to be shaped not through fulfilment of rational obligations, but through participation in the Romantic ideals of the inner spirit of the Volk. The theorization of a racial divide between Indo-German Aryans and Semites in this period was problematic not so much for the “Orientalist” inferiorization of the latter – since in European history the Jews have always been an inferiorized people. It is only when this inferiorization took on a racial colour i.e. when the inferior qualities attributed to the Jews came to be seen as their immutable racial traits that it became evident that emancipation could locate them within German society as equal citizens but never integrate them as such. These two limitations – adherence to their unique cultural identity on the part of the Jews and racial antisemitism on the part of the Germans – made their expulsion from the body politic seem necessary to Germans such as Hitler; and when no nation showed willingness to grant them refuge6, total annihilation became the final solution of the Jewish question. One way to understand this problem of Jewish emancipation is to note that the earlier – Christian – understanding of the Jews, instituted a division between “betters and lessers”; and this, preposterous as it may sound, would have to be read as a kind of “Orientalism,” if we follow Pollock’s definition of the term. On the other hand, Jewish emancipation was an attempt to make them a “better”7 people; and what we discern is that such betterment comes at a steep cultural cost, which, if one is not willing to fully pay, transforms one from a tolerated, albeit inferiorized, outsider into an “abject” insider8; one who therefore comes to be seen as so dangerous as to be considered deserving of total annihilation. These are the kind of complexities involved in the inter-relationships of human groups which get glossed over by Pollock’s ridiculous adaptation of Orientalism."

"Pollock has referred to “the legitimation of genocide” as the “ultimate ‘Orientalist’ project” (Pollock 1993:96) but as the foregoing paragraphs show “Orientalism” cannot even be regarded as a primary factor in the rise of modern antisemitism, which in turn cannot be regarded as a sufficient condition for the Holocaust. ... "

"Matters get even more complicated as precedents to Nazi atrocities can be found not only in the pogroms of the Soviet kulaks and the Armenians, but in the Herero and Nama genocides (1904–07) perpetrated by Germany itself in its South-West African colonies. There is, first of all, the controversy known as Historikerstreit about whether the Nazi period (1933–45) should be cordoned off as a unique event in German history lest its historicization leads to the normalization and trivialization of the Holocaust, or whether it should be viewed as the end product of a way of modernization that was unique (Sonderweg9) to Germany and different from other European nations. There is further controversy on whether the German colonial genocide is to be causally connected with the Holocaust or not and whether this connection, if accepted, should be treated as supporting the Sonderweg thesis or not. Needless to say, in none of these historiographies does German Orientalism figure anywhere at all. Fitzpatrick (2008) who has done an excellent survey of these various positions, concludes that European colonialism produced initially a hierarchical racism based on socio-political differences but as miscegenation tended to blur the difference between ruler and ruled, a biological racism arose in the colonial milieu which treated the Mischlinge (mixed blood) as the abject entity which polluted the self. It was this biological racism, which developed in the context of colonialism, which was exported back to Europe. While all European colonial nations were equally affected by this problem, the German case was peculiar – not necessarily due to Sonderweg – but because its defeat in the first World War brought its colonial adventure to an abrupt halt:

"With colonialism suppressed by the victorious French and British, it was transformed into a vehicle for a hypertrophic expansionist nationalism that sought internal as well as external grounds for the catastrophic failure of the German nation-state to maintain parity with or hegemony over other European powers... Upon its return to Europe, expansionism predicated on racial difference was fundamentally altered, with “inner,” biological categories of difference inferred in a colonial discourse tailored for Europe, where external markers of racial difference were not apparent and would therefore not serve the purpose of imperial social stratification. New biological categories were consolidated – a biologically inferior alterity – the “Asiatic” Slav, and an abject, polluting, debased German self, the biologically deficient but nonetheless assimilated “Germanic Jew”... One was to be conquered and ruled, even at the risk of a war of annihilation. The other was simply to be eliminated ruthlessly, expelled from the body politic –(Fitzpatrick 2008:500-1)."

Well, to be fair, German occupational forces weren't exactly kind or fair to Europe, whether France or Scandinavia or Netherlands or Belgium, but they were especially brutal in east from Poland to Russia, including Ukraine and Byelorussia; in the last three, civilians were massacred to the tune of several millions, often whole villages burnt alive. Was this racism? Can one look at a person and immediately tell if he's or she's German or Russian?

One may safely wager that family members in India can look to racist West to seem to be from completely different races, while in reality being products of arranged marriages for several centuries, within communities! One may equally safely bet a racist from West that he or she couldn't look at an Indian male hurrying to catch a train in Mumbai after work at five thirty p.m., and tell what caste he is, by racial profiling - and someone as stupid and arrogant could lose not only his home but his clothes, too!

"This is exactly the same as the inward vector of German domination specified by Pollock but the various scholars whose views Fitzpatrick has summarized – Jürgen Zimmerer, Isabel Hull, Benjamin Madley, Pascal Grosse, Hannah Arendt, and others – have traced the problem to German colonialism and its military competition with other European powers, rather than to German Orientalism. What becomes evident from the foregoing is that the history of modern Germany which forms the overarching context of German Indology is a highly complex subject and a myriad factors have contributed to the rise of Nazi Germany and its agenda of war and genocide. By completely ignoring this context and fixating upon German Indology alone and the collaboration between some German Indologists and the Nazi regime, Pollock misleads his readers into ascribing it an exaggerated role in the history of Nazism. But maybe that is his goal – not so much to incriminate German Indology itself as the Sanskrit knowledge which was its object of study."

"This denunciation of objective scholarship and the corresponding valorisation of a “morally sensitive scholarship” shows that for Pollock it is not so much important for research to be evidence-based as it should be engaged in the politics of the underdog such as “giving priority to what has hitherto been marginal, invisible and unheard” (Pollock 1993:114). This view, which suggests that knowledge is ineluctably political, and therefore necessarily biased, as a result of which morality demands that it should be employed to favour the weak, explains the motivation behind some of his other works such as ‘political philology’ as well as points to the fundamental weakness in his overall scholarship.

"First of all, there is the contrary opinion that knowledge is not necessarily political – passionately articulated by Marchand (2009: xxvi) as stated above. Secondly, and more importantly, in the specific context of Wissenschaft, Pollock’s remonstrations against objective scholarship make no sense at all. Romanticism, which arose out of a sense of alienation and loss, prioritized emotion or will over reason, which was advocated by the Enlightenment. Objective scholarship essentially means that reason should be independent of will. If reason became subservient to will under the Nazi regime, as is evident from its promotion of “pseudo”-science aimed towards the achievement of preconceived results, it was not because reason was not aware of the power of will, as Pollock suggests, but because it was self-consciously brought into subservience of the will by the Nazi regime. Hitler belaboured that the German antipathy towards the Jews was emotional and needed to be understood scientifically. Accordingly, he advocated a “scientific antisemitism” or an “antisemitism of reason” (Steinweis 2006:7). To put simply, Hitler’s point was that “will” remains ineffective unless reason serves as its instrument. It is interesting to note that Pollock is making the same point albeit on the ground that knowledge is ineluctably political i.e. to say, reason is necessarily subservient to will and so should not pretend to take an independent stand. Furthermore, Hitler too would claim that he was advocating a “morally-sensitive scholarship” since, from his perspective, he was only trying to save Germany from being destroyed from within by the “Jewish bacillus” (Fitzpatrick, 2008:477).

"In conclusion, the superficial manner in which Pollock has dealt with the subject of German Indology and the Nazi regime – raising the issue of an allegedly objective scholarship and lengthy pronouncements by some Indologists sympathetic to the Nazi cause – suggests to me that he is not genuinely interested in understanding this complex and tragic chapter in German history whose many dimensions I have sought to outline above. Instead, it appears that the objective is to use German Orientalism as a bridge between British and Sanskrit Orientalism whose affinities are otherwise not at all sensible given that the former was engaged in the study of colonized people for the purpose of colonial rule, while the latter was nothing of the kind. The aim of projecting German Orientalism as knowledge sponsored by a state for the domination, oppression and extermination of its own citizens, facilitates the conception of Sanskrit knowledge along similar lines and thus makes it amenable to a theorization as an epistemological tool meant for political ends."

Or one could do without the verbiage and see that Pollack is council of Nicea set to destroy India as the new target.

"In order to theorize Sanskrit knowledge as a form of “pre-Orientalist Orientalism” collaborating with a “pre-colonial colonialism,” Pollock (1993:96 ff.) disputes the post-colonialist view that Brahmanical texts were elevated to a legal authority under colonial rule and their formulations thus acquired an unprecedented hegemonic form. His contention is that such a transformation had already occurred in the production of the commentaries and digests on the dharma-śāstra-s – the dharma-nibandha genre – during the eleventh and twelfth centuries CE. He specifically points out the Hindu rulers of this period who sponsored these works and refers to their authors as Indian “Orientalists” (Pollock 1993:98). He attempts to rationalize this cultural production by suggesting that it occurred as a “special reaffirmation of dharma” in response to the Turkish invasion. He outlines the various restrictions imposed on the śūdra-s in the dharma-śāstra-s, including denial of Vedic knowledge, as an instrumental use of knowledge for the purpose of domination."

"As mentioned above, in order to offer a precedent for the changes which occurred in Hindu Law in the colonial period, Pollock refers to the composition of the dharma-nibandha-s as a sort of “pre-Oriental Orientalism” in the face of the Turkish invasion. However, systematization of the dharma-śāstra texts in the form of commentaries and digests began in the ninth century with the famous gloss of Medhātithi on the Manusmṛti and not in response to any foreign invasion10. According to Lingat (1973:143-4) it was probably an attempt at rediscovery after a hiatus had passed since the composition of the last dharma-śāstra-s."

"There is also the audacity of interventionism to consider here as if there is a mandate for Western scholars to meddle in the internal issues of “third-world” cultures. It is not clear if such a mandate is entrusted to Western intelligentsia in general with regards to all cultures, or if this is a prerogative merely of Western Indologists with regards to Sanskrit culture. What is, however, most alarming in this point is the advocacy of a prima facie approach towards “tradition” as an “empire of oppression” rather than seeking to understand how it facilitates the maintenance of a decent society. On the other hand, we have seen in the previous point how the Indologist is exhorted by Pollock to highlight the modernistic impulses in Indian history, notwithstanding the fact that the most widespread and horrific instances of oppression in the last three centuries are to be found in modernity."

" ... What is ironical is that by drawing a comparison between Nazi Germany and Sanskrit culture, he accomplishes the very travesty he seeks to avoid – of normalizing and trivialising the crimes of Nazism. After all, at the core of Historikerstreit lay precisely “the question of moral equivalence – the notion that by comparing atrocities and genocides, the Holocaust is diminished through its linkage with other ‘lesser’ events” (Fitzpatrick, 2008:483).

"Furthermore, it is hypocritical that Pollock does not find it problematic to historicize British colonialism by tracing its form of domination to a “pre-colonial colonialism.” In this matter, he willingly “jeopardizes the heuristic historical specificity of the very concept [of Orientalism]” on the pretext that “we may lose something still greater if not doing so constrains our understanding of the two other historical phenomenon [i.e. German Indology and Sanskrit knowledge]” (Pollock 1993:78).Yet elsewhere, in the process of criticizing the pursuit of objectivity in scholarship, he deplores “the decontextualization and dehistoricization of the scholarly act” pointing out that it “enabled some of the most politically deformed scholarship in history... to come into existence” (Pollock 1993:86-87).It thus appears that determining which historical events, concepts and texts should or should not be historicized, contextualized or, for that matter, “nuanced,” constitutes the very essence of the politics of knowledge production."

................................................................................................

................................................

December 24, 2021 - December 26, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 3

Sheldon Pollock’s Idea of a “National-Socialist Indology”

–Koenraad Elst

................................................................................................

"Sheldon Pollock is by no means the first one to build on the mythology that has overgrown the factual core of a link between racism in general, National-Socialism in particular, and the study of Indo-European and Sanskrit. In his case, the alleged National-Socialist connection of Sanskrit is heavily over-interpreted and emphatically taken to be causal, as if the interest in Sanskrit has caused the Holocaust. We verify the claims on which he erects this thesis one by one, and find them surprisingly weak or simply wrong. ... "

"Pollock’s attempt to even link the Out-of-India Theory with the Nazi worldview is the diametrical opposite of the truth; it was the rivalling Aryan Invasion Theory (which Pollock himself upholds) that formed the cornerstone and perfect illustration of the Nazi worldview. This linking could only pass peer review because of the general animus against Hinduism and Indo-European indigenism in American academe. The whole forced attempt to associate Hinduism with National-Socialism suggests a rare animosity against Hinduism."

" ... As it happens, in this case, there is simply no context that could possibly render Pollock’s position harmless, for it is the single worst allegation possible in contemporary Western culture, viz. responsibility for the Nazi Holocaust ... "

"A somewhat frivolous element from the immediate context was that NS Germany was hosting Indian freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose. (“Jana Gana Mana, independent India’s national anthem, was first performed in an imposing celebration at the inauguration of the Deutsch-Indische Gesellschaft in Hamburg on 11 September 1942, for Bose had chosen it as free India’s national anthem”. (Hartog 2001:iv)) But that context can perhaps best be left undiscussed, for the regiment that Bose had formed, was anything but Hindu traditionalist. Far from inspiring caste hierarchy into their NS hosts, Bose’s soldiers were not organized by caste, unlike those in the British-Indian army. Bose was a socialist, a progressive, on the same anti-caste wavelength as Pollock; but the Nazis never held that against him. So let us see what Pollock himself chooses to focus on."

"According to Pollock (1993:83), Germany practised its own Orientalism in an attempt to solve its “problem of identity”, and more consequentially, “to colonize Europe, and Germany itself, from within”, in a “German allomorph of British imperialism”. And here we see, with a big stretch, the connection between the proverbial German scholarship of the 19th century and the Nazi project of empire. Just as British Orientalism was evil by being a concoction in the service of empire-building, German Orientalism was evil by its connection with hyper-nationalism and genocide. That, at least, is Pollock’s message."

Okay, so Sanskrit is bad because evil nazis were German and some handful Germans had studied Sanskrit, as per Pollack logic.

"“In German Indology of the NS era, a largely nonscholarly mystical nativism deriving ultimately from a mixture of romanticism and protonationalism merged with that objectivism of Wissenschaft earlier described, and together they fostered the ultimate ‘orientalist’ project, the legitimation of genocide.”

"–(Pollock 1993:96)"

Notice that there's no connection between the cause and result here connected at "And together", except that of one being subsequent to other; Pollock does not prove causation, does not give demonstration or evidence, and assumes that the reader will swallow his claim; why? It's about as logically valid as stating Pythagoras theorem and claiming that this proves Fermat's Last Theorem.

If anyone did that in mathematics, audience would walk away without designing a condescending look. Why does so called indologist get away with such fraud? Is it because their colleagues are in on it? Is it because they're simply racist and need a new antisemitism since old one is unsafe post WWII, and have picked India as a target? Or is it more, specifically, that various antisemitic institutions of yore, from church to jihadists, are paying so called intellectual academics to target India?

"The allegation is extremely serious. Yet, he never quotes any of those Indologists as actually declaring they want genocide; or that the aim of their professional choice is genocide. Since, moreover, genocide is somehow declared to be the ultimate finality of Orientalism, this seems also to indict the French and British Orientalists. Alright, he fails to prove that rather unlikely point; but what does he prove?

"He claims a “substantial increase in the investment on the part of the NS state in Indology and ‘Indo-Germanistik.’ Both [Heinrich] Himmler and [Alfred] Rosenberg sponsored institutes centrally concerned with ‘Indo-Germanische Geistesgeschichte’.” (Pollock 1993:95) Note the sly cursory shift from Indology to “Indo-Germanistik”: the former deals with India and, as we shall see, received no increased interest from the NS regime at all; while the latter deals with Europe and especially Germany, the putative racial heir of the Indo-Europeans, and became the centre of NS attention.

"In fact, the proof he himself adduces, proves something else than an increased German interest in Indology. He compares a total of 26 full professors of "Aryan" orientalism in Germany with just 4 in England, the colonial metropole – but for the year 1903 (detailed in Rhys-Davids 1904). This had nothing to do with a NS penchant for India, for this special German interest in the Orient existed since long before (and incidentally, makes mincemeat of Said’s linking Orientalism with the colonial entreprise).

"In support, Pollock refers to a primary source, the Minerva Jahrbücher, an annuary with academic data. But after thoroughly checking these, the contemporary German Indologist from Göttingen, Reinhold Grünendahl (2012:95), shows these data to confirm an uneventful continuity with pre-NS days:

"“As was the case with the 1933/34 volume and Rhys Davids’s paper of 1904, none serve to corroborate Pollock’s presumptions. The same holds for recent evidence-based studies that in any way pertain to such issues [...], all of which confirm that Pollock’s deep ruminations on ‘the political economy of Indology in Germany in the period 1800–1945’ (1993: 118n5) are entirely unfounded. Nevertheless, his attendant admonition that this is an `important question’ awaiting `serious analysis’ (118n5) has become a kind of gospel, recited by others [...] with increasing confidence, but with very little to show as yet in terms of substantiation. Yet, all this while, dozens of ‘histories of German Indology’ are built on the—still unfulfilled—promises of that gospel.”

"In his researches, Grünendahl (2012:194) has checked Rhys-Davids’ writings and discovered a telling example of how the racialist “NS” worldview was already present in Britain earlier:

"“However, a more important factor seems to me to be Rhys Davids’s racialist—or more precisely Aryanist—bias, documented, for example, in statements to the effect that Gautama Buddha ‘was the only man of our own race, the only Aryan, who can rank as the founder of a great religion’ and that therefore ‘the whole intellectual and religious development of which Buddhism is the final outcome was distinctively Aryan, and Buddhism is the one essentially Aryan faith’ (1896:185), which ‘took its rise among an advancing and conquering people full of pride in their colour and their race... ‘(1896:187).”

"Pollock gives the impression of a rather shaky grasp on NS history. It is, after all, not his field. Rather than properly delving into it in preparation of this ambitious paper, he seems to have gone by the received wisdom prevalent in his own liberal circles. The charitable explanation is that, not being a historian of WW2, he simply overstepped the boundaries of his competence. The alternative is that he deliberately forged this claim about Indology and National-Socialism as a weapon, in this case against the Sanskrit tradition. Some popular writers (e.g. Pennick 1981) have indeed done something similar, often after classifying Hindu ideas like reincarnation in the “occult” category. They have correctly sensed the windfall of benefits, whether political or commercial, guaranteed to whomever manages to instrumentalize references to National-Socialism."

"Strictly speaking, Hindus have no reason to defend these Indologists, for none of them was Hindu, and they projected a non-Hindu NS framework onto Hindu texts. Given the complexity of the reasons for a man’s inclinations, their interest in the Sanskrit traditions implies nothing at all about the Sanskrit tradition itself. Nevertheless, it is worth observing that even if these scholars were party members, this does not mean they supported genocide, for that item was not on the party programme. Anti-Semitism is bad (and of that, they can certainly be held guilty) but genocide is something else again. Even when it was later decided upon, it was still carried out in secrecy because the top Nazis knew that it would offend the German population including many party members.

"Today, no historian worth his salt takes this intentionalism serious anymore, though it lives on in Hollywood stereotyping. Apart from being unsupported by facts, intentionalism also sins against the reigning postmodernist canon by being “essentialist”, i.e. positing an irreducible unchanging nature to NS ideology; when even that turns out to be historical and changeble under the impact of circumstances. The “functionalist” hypothesis has won the day, viz. that the idea of genocide only came about in a chain of unforeseen decisions under war circumstances in 1940-41. Even then it was carried out in secrecy: as late as 1943, Jewish Councils in occupied countries co-operated in the deportation of their own community, thinking Auschwitz was merely a labour camp. You could be a NS party member and support the idea of a Jew-free Europe (through emigration, as had happened in the 1930s) yet not support nor even know about genocide. To be sure, ethnic cleansing is reprehensible too, but it is not genocide. Scholars ought to exercise a sense of proportion."

"Now, if Vedic literature ever enjoined (not even just recounted, but actually enjoined) genocide, there is no doubt that the Dalit movement, the missionaries, the “secularists”, the Khalistanis, the many anti-Hindu India-watchers, and perhaps Pollock himself, would gleefully quote it. Not that they ever quote the instances of genocide in the Bible or in the traditions about Mohammed, but for Hinduism they would not be that polite. Indeed, it would have been logical to quote it very prominently in this very paper, as it would prove its entire point. But it seems not to exist."

" ... While Pollock takes as a matter of course that to the Nazis, “Aryan” was the opposite of “Semitic”, he doesn’t furnish any fact or quote at all that would meaningfully link this with the Sanskrit tradition."

"There was nothing in the Vedas themselves that suggested anti-Semitism, it was entirely in the eye of the beholder. Anti-Semitism existed in Europe ever since the people became convinced, through Christianity, that the Jews had been responsible for Jesus’ death. Modern nationalism added an ideal of homogenization, so that Jews were wished away as an obstacle to this ideal. By contrast, Vedic literature doesn’t know of Jews at all, and Hindu history has only shown a pluralistic hospitality for the Jewish communities on the Malabar coast, complete with their distinctive traditions."

"Moreover, Nietzsche’s account doesn’t fit the neat scheme given by Pollock. Nietzsche recognized that in some ways, Jews do not fit the dirty and submissive stereotype of outcastes at all, and have been characterized by Aryan traits ever since their entry into history. They ennobled themselves by becoming warriors and conquering their “promised land”. They are stereotypically very money-savvy, like the trader caste, and their obsessive purity rules and book-orientedness remind one of the Brahmin caste. Whereas Untouchables do the dirty work at funerals, Jewish priests or Kohanim are expected to stay away from corpses. Jews were demonized by the Nazis, but not as low-castes.

"Unlike the stereotype of Caṇḍālas (more applicable to the Gypsies, known to descend from Indian low-castes and despised by the Nazis), the Jews were considered as rich, powerful, manipulative and extremely clever. Jews definitely did not relate to Germans the way Hindu low-castes relate to the upper castes. And anyway, the NS policy regarding the Jews was not based on this Nietzsche quote."

"The official birth of Indo-European linguistics by William Jones’s famous Kolkata speech in 1786 (set on a scientific footing by Franz Bopp in 1816, as recognized by Pollock 1993:84) set in motion the search for the original homeland of this language family. The initial favourite was India, as famously stated by Friedrich von Schlegel (cited by Pollock 1993:85). In the present context, it might be a significant detail that Schlegel “married the daughter of the Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn”, for which he was reproached as “missing racial instinct”. (Poliakov 1971:217) Many other scholars from this period can be cited to the same effect, e.g. in 1810, Jakob-Joseph Görres had Abraham come from Kashmir. (Poliakov 1971:219)

"In the next decades, the putative homeland was relocated westwards, but Pollock (1993:77) claims that the Germans “continued, however subliminally, to hold the nineteenth-century conviction that the origin of European civilization was to be found in India (or at least that India constituted a genetically related sibling)”.

"This insinuates that the Nazis still believed in an Indian homeland whereas the British and their allies had long converted to the idea of a more westerly homeland. This much is true, that the NS state was intensely interested in the question of Indo-European origins: Communist states “employ myths of utopia, while fascist systems employ myths of origins”. (Pollock 1993:85) But then, Pollock artfully smuggles in a continuity between the earlier Out-of-India hypothesis and the preferred NS location of the homeland. ... "

"Note that in all Pollock’s quotations from NS Indologists, only one Hindu is mentioned by name, repeatedly: the Buddha. He tries to make the Mīmāṁsā thinkers with their chiseling of Śāstra law into an inspiration to the Nazis (as if they needed Mīmāṁsā to conceive of inequality), but never manages to find a Nazi quote about them. None, for example, about the 12th-century Śāstra commentator Bhaṭṭa Lakṣmīdhara, whom he himself drags in frequently as justifying societal hierarchy. On the other hand he presents the Buddha as an antidote to Vedic inequality, yet that same Buddha turns out to be very popular among the Nazis."

Elst gives a succinct summary of the Nordic-homeland-Aryan invasion theory, in which nazis concurred emphatically, but which was originally a British invention.

"In the first years of the renewed debate on the Indo-European homeland, it was a common confusion that the Out-of-India theory, disappeared after Schlegel but now back in strength, had something NS about it, e.g. Zydenbos 1993. This confusion was deliberately fostered by some Indian “secularists” trying to criminalize the Indian homeland hypothesis, e.g. Sikand 1993. In reality, the NS theorists as well as the NS textbooks emphasized and highlighted the putative European homeland and concomitant invasion into India. Zydenbos and Sikand themselves were in Hitler’s camp."

"But the objective finality of Pollock’s thesis is more specific, viz. to blacken the Indian homeland hypothesis by associating it with National-Socialism. Reality, however, is just the opposite: more even than other Europeans, the Nazis espoused and upheld a westerly homeland and the invasion hypothesis. ... "

"Two factors of a seeming connection between Hinduism and NS Germany are unavoidable: the swastika and the term ārya. About the swastika, the matter is simple: it does not come from India. It is a more widespread symbol, very prominent e.g. in Troy, excavated by a German, and part of Greek history which was a decisive inspiration to Germany’s academic culture. It was also very common in the Baltic area, where German army veterans formed Freikorps militias to defeat the Bolsheviks in 1918-20. When they came home, often to join nationalist parties, they brought the swastika with them. ... "

Elst is incorrect about the " it does not come from India" insistence, for the simple reason that, were it of any other origin, it would not carry on its Sanskrit name in Germany. That the symbol might have proliferated through the world, as did similar other occult symbols (such as six point star and five point star), is completely understandable. But each has a local name, usually, unlike Swastik(a), which retains the Sanskrit name even though being defamed due to its misuse by nazis. Whatever other names Elst uses, could have been, but were not, used by nazis - because Hitler received it as occult help from Tibetan monks, and this symbol, along with Buddhism and much, much more, comes to Tibet from India, long before Tibet was migrated to by Mongolians.

"As for Aryan: “The term ārya itself merits intellectual-historical study (and I mean diachronic analysis, not static etymology) for premodern India at least of the sort Arier has received for modern Europe.” (Pollock 1993:107) True, Hindus too might learn a lot from realizing that this term is historical, that it has gone through changes, and that the classical meaning “noble” (a meaning unattested in the Ŗg-Veda) has mundane roots too. ... "

This view from anyone unfamiliar with Sanskrit language is merely racist; from anyone whose academic credentials are in Sanskrit, it merely proves an incompetence and worse on top of racism. Why? Because the Sanskrit language is mathenati9precise and one can go to the roots of almost every word, including Aarya(n), which relates to Light, and literally means enlightened, in the sense of cultured, civilised, in one's whole being, mind, soul and behaviour.

Whereas the racist meaning ascribed to the word in Europe amounts merely to physical characteristics, caused by several millennia of ancestry in dark Nordic latitudes, forcing nature to bestow on skin of the descendants of such ancestors an inability to tan.

" ... However, inequality is a nearly equally distributed good, and for that value, the Nazis could have found inspiration in other societies, if they needed any at all, such as the Arab or colonial slave systems."

"In the process of disinformation, an idea is first launched and argued in high-brow papers like the New York Review or the Economic and Political Weekly; subsequently it is presented as the received wisdom in more general media, like the Washington Post or the Times of India; but the final stage is when the idea is presented as a matter of course, and conveyed through popular media, women’s magazines etc. That is what completes the instilling of false ideas in the popular mind.

"Similarly, to promote an idea intended to become a fixture in our worldview, it is useful to repeat it, first as a topical proposal to be proven, then as a theorem deemed to have been proven, finally as a truism on which other proposals can safely be built.

"Yet, we don’t hold Pollock as an individual guilty of this disinformation. Though his authoritative voice does its bit to determine the Zeitgeist, he was mainly surfing on an already-existing Zeitgeist.

"Firstly, the tendency to project the Nazi episode onto something morbid and unique in the more distant German past, and particularly the exoticization of 19th-century Germany’s supposed self-doubt and search for an identity, was already very common in the preceding decades (e.g. Poliakov 1971), and still is to some extent.

"Secondly, the link between Hinduism (as well as Lamaism) and Nazi culture had already been proposed by a number of writers. Moreover, it converges with a widespread revulsion among Westerners against the caste system, which they liken to slavery and identify, through the Aryan invasion hypothesis, with racism. This misses the warlike element in National-Socialism, but that is slightly made up for by all the stories about Hindu riots and by the symmetry fallacy whenever Muslim violence comes in the news: “Ah, but all religions do it; Hinduism must have a similar terrorism.” Even then, it still doesn’t have the element of “genocide”, but Pollock remains determined to read that into it."

"The situation with allegations is simple: either you prove them, or you yourself are guilty of slander. This then can be held against Pollock: he has made a grave allegation, yet has failed to buttress it with proof, though not for lack of trying."

................................................................................................

................................................

December 26, 2021 - December 26, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Part II “Death” of Sanskrit

................................................................................................

Chapter 4 –Naresh P. Cuntoor

................................................................................................

Author gives a good description of verbal sleight of hand repeatedly practiced by Pollock.

" ... Pollock’s arguments have quickly become accepted theory (notwithstanding a few critical academic reviews). The theory never makes a pretense of being a hypothesis that needs to be justified and vetted by knowledgeable peers. (Hypotheses are subject to empirical scrutiny. Those that withstand scrutiny become theories. Hypotheses that are contradicted by data are discarded. This norm seems to have been completely ignored in the present case)."

Basically, Pollock's whole argument falls flat on two continental divides that he's ignoring - they're so huge it's as silly to call them gaps as it's to call Andes a hill - one, the Aryan invasion theory, including the false use of the term Aarya (n) for a race; and two, ascribing racial characters to castes in Indian caste system, even those of antiquity, and connecting any of it with antisemitism.

"No single local source can be traced as the original home of Sanskrit, neither can any military-political or military-religious force be said to be responsible for its spread (Pollock 2006:262). Further, when Medieval Latin faced a precipitous decline in literary production, no such fall can be detected in Sanskrit literature. Poets, philosophers and scientists continued to use Sanskrit in the second millennium. So, clearly, a straightforward equivalence between Sanskrit and Latin is non-existent, and no attempt at establishing such equivalence is made in Pollock (2006). ... "

Author quotes a great deal of nonsense from Pollock, mostly made up by West along with Aryan invasion theory lie, and based on a fraudulent history that's partly extrapolated from Europe and largely dominated by church, bible et al. Thus "Vedic literature" is asserted as from first millennium b.c., without taking into account any indigenous history of India and instead making up stuff based on beliefs and faiths from Europe, based on theory of superiority of Europe.

Author mentions Buddhists as outsiders, and it's unclear if he's quoting Pollock, who can be as ignorant as West generally is due to racist mindset precluding learning of facts, but if he isnt quoting pollock the ignirance behind this falsehood is shocking. Presumably he's quoting, since this is the first part of his presentation in the Indian style, while later half consists of refutation.

Next, Pollock surpasses his usual idiotic worst - he denies importance of other literature, dealing with science, mathematics et al.

"2.4.10 Knowledge systems such as mathematics and science in Sanskrit

"Literary knowledge begins and ends with kāvya and praśasti according to Pollock (2006). Surely śāstra literature is a valid form of literature too. Varāha-mihira is briefly mentioned in Pollock (2006). But long traditions of maths literature, their contributions and impact is largely ignored. For example, the Kerala school of mathematics itself had a long tradition that spanned several centuries during the middle ages. The influence of science and maths is arguably quite important when one considers the longevity and sustainability of societies and civilization. In fact, one could argue that access to scientific and technological texts and practices could be beneficial to a king.

"Pollock (2006) does not discuss scientific literature in any detail as it may apply to creation and consolidation of power."

Is that due to his hatred of his betters, who could work in those disciplines and he couldn't, so he picked Sanskrit thinking no One would know if he was bad, due to Indian brilliant academics being put down by racist employers?

But he can be lazy even in humanities.

"2.4.12 Early Indonesian kingdoms

"In the discussion of Sanskrit’s interaction with Southeast Asian languages, a historical account of kingdoms of the region and their relation to the ancient world is missing. Just as the historical account (e.g., Thapar’s account discussed at various points here) can add additional clarity in the Indian context, it is reasonable to expect historical analysis to better illuminate the status of languages and their relationship in Southeast Asia."

"Ancient Indians’ concept of geography shows some degree of diversity, but some boundaries like the Himalayas recur (Pollock 2006:191). Apart from Indians who self-identified as a people of a common land (despite living in different kingdoms), foreign visitors such as the Greeks and Chinese too, recognize this common identity. Literary sources ranging from the Mahābhārata to Kāmasūtra display an awareness of cultural unity and diversity across the country. The image of the Kāvyapuruṣa which recognizes the holistic nature of different styles and media by giving it an anthropomorphic form is described in detail (Pollock 2006:202-3). While it readily recognizes the universal nature of the Kāvyapuruṣa depiction, Pollock (2006) considers it to be “finite” and limiting in the sense that “no other exists outside it.” This description is reminiscent of the “limited and bounded” characterization of Sanskrit intellectuals (section 2.1)."

Basically Pollock is discrediting India for being oblivious to other lands outside indian influence and range of Mahaabhaarata, but by that logic everything of church and most of Europe's discourse must be branded by the same labels he attaches to India - they were hardly aware of Indian knowledge, and when they did have a chance of changing that, merely scoffed at it for sake of power, as per Macaulay policy. That also shows stupidity of an arrogance.

Here's a shocking example of an out and out lie by Pollock, expecting to get away with it due to racism.

"arthasya puruṣo dāso dāsas tvartho na kasyacit |

iti satyaṁ mahārāja baddho'smy arthēna kauravaiḥ|| 6.41.36 ||"

"Pollock (2006:225) translates the first line as “man is slave to power, but power is slave to no one.”"

"In short, Pollock seems to use a line from the Mahābhārata and attributes a meaning that is textually and contextually difficult to sustain."

Does Pollock realise he's being called a liar, in polite language, and being given more courtesy than a ten year old Indian student of Sanskrit would, only because India expects no better than stupidity, arrogance and fraud, when it comes to outsiders?

Pollock isn't merely an ignorant and malevolent racist joining in the quest for a new target for antisemitism by attacking India, but worse - he's even lazy and incompetent at his own job and in his own academic discipline! He not only mistranslates words to suit his purpose, but makes up historical lies instead of attempting to discover facts. One case is that of the very name Hastinaapura, which he seems to think is about elephants.

"Incidentally, Hastināpura is translated by Pollock as the “City of Elephants” (Pollock 2006:362). Sources such as the Śabdakalpadruma explain the word (using an aluk-samāsa) as a city founded by Hastin, a king of the Candravaṁśa lineage. This shows, again, lazy character, not attempting to research to verify his primitive guess, or even ask an Indian if this translation of his is likely correct. "

Next, he tackles other Indian languages, but sticks to Kannada for some reason.

"While he admits the tatsama-tadbhava relationship between Sanskrit and Kannada, it seeks to portray a much more strident break between the two languages in the emergence of Kannada literature. To that end, borrowing “metrical species” born from Sanskrit counterparts allows for a dramatic break which the older translation in which “languages born” from the three and a half languages, do not. The self-conscious note with which Kannada creates its own position is then further explained using the examples of Kavirājamārga and Śabdamaṇidarpaṇa (SMD). Here the self-aggrandizing statement of the SMD is treated seriously, just as praśasti statements are."

"Further, Sanskrit’s power in Vijayanagara is extolled. Though Kannada and Telugu were used extensively for administrative purposes (in their respective areas of usage), Pollock (2006) says that the Vijayanagara kings promoted Sanskrit literature and not Kannada literature. Now it is true, many works of Sanskrit were produced in that period - no less than the Sāyaṇabhāṣya of the Vedas themselves. But Kannada literary works seem to be ignored (Desai 1936) - e.g., Timmanna’s Kṛṣṇarāya Bhāratakathāmañjarī (which is considered a landmark work of Kannada pride), Vīraśaiva poets Mallaṇṇārya (Vīraśaivapurāṇa), Virūparāja (Tribhuvanatilaka), Nanjarāju (Kumāravyāsana kathe). Sanskrit is thus presented as the dominant power in the cosmopolis, the power which stifled literary production in vernacular languages."

Pollock's agenda is exposed when he faces Sanskrit reducing in importance in a region of Islamic invasions driving out, massacring and converting local population, but refuses to consider the cause and effect that it has of course been historically. He might have reflected on loss of Persian script and literacy within a century of Islamic onslaught, Arabs having burnt all libraries in Persia apart from the usual and habitual massacres, gang rapes st al - but he sticks to giving jihadists a clean chit.

"In Kashmir, it is said that Sanskrit effectively died in the 12th c. CE, and failed to find a strong voice again, despite the efforts of Zain-ul-'abidin in the 15th c. CE. The possible influence of Islamic invasions is not considered seriously. However, the historical account in Thapar’s book tells a different story where Mahmud Ghazni is described as the “champion iconoclast looted the richest temples at an unprecedented scale” (Thapar 2015:427). Mahmud Ghuri followed in his footsteps in the 12th c. CE not to plunder, but to establish a potential kingdom.

"Pollock (2006) briefly mentions the possible influence and accepts a southward shift in reaction to Islam development in the north. However, even if Islam rulers occupied power (the word invaders is not used in Pollock (2006) in this context), Pollock (2006) does not expect any adverse impact on traditional Sanskrit pundits. The strong learning tradition it is argued, should have persisted in literary endeavors."

And Pollock sticks to heaping discredit on Hindus and Sanskrit, with no worry about how fraudulent he's exposing himself to be, or how much exposed his agenda of targeting India is due to his lazy shortcuts.

"In the case of Vijayanagara, Pollock (2006) and Pollock (2001) do not consider any Sanskrit works of this era to be original work, but merely reproductive in nature. Moreover, “the Vijayanagara cultural world seems to have produced few if any Sanskrit works” that transcended time or geography (Pollock 2001:401). Here the discussion seems a bit unclear. First, it is said that a large body of Vijayanagara literature is yet to see the light of day - because they are available only in unpublished manuscripts. Pollock (2006) echoes a wish for a change in this state of affairs and the publication of manuscripts. At the same time, Pollock (2001) asserts that Vijayanagara has not produced Sanskrit works that have stood the test of time. As a means of substantiating this line of reasoning, examples of Kannada and Telugu manuscripts that have survived since their creation during the Vijayanagara period are given. In the absence of a record of similar manuscripts in Sanskrit, it is said that literary production of Sanskrit during the Vijayanagara period was not especially impactful. The main thrust of the argument relies on three factors: availability, publishing and subjective assessment of manuscripts."

But this is more than merely arrogant, it's stupid. By this definition, no literature existed anywhere before the printing press! So Shakespeare was an author only post Gutenberg? How stupid can Pollock get in his arrogance!

Besides, even manuscripts count only halfway in India, where Brahmin tradition was to know what they studied, and this continued for ever, from Vedic era - several millennia older than Pollock can face, more ancient than Himaalayan ranges rising out of the ocean, which is part of India's knowledge - to well past Islamic era, which is why culture of India survived unlike Egypt and Persia, which suffered far more due to Christianity and Islam, with their libraries destroyed.

" ... Third, Pollock (2006) quotes extensively from Hegel. It is not difficult to see Hegel’s ideas resonating in Pollock (2006) and other Pollock’s writings on aesthetics (not discussed here). Hegel considered the “chief defect” of ancient Indians was that “they cannot grasp either the meanings themselves in their clarity, or existing reality in its own proper shape and significance.” This idea is further expanded in denying any possibility of Indian knowledge in Pollock (2006) and elsewhere. Moreover Hegel thinks the Indians “refer each and everything back to the sheerly Absolute and Divine, and to contemplate in the commonest and most sensuous things a fancifully created presence and actuality of Gods” (Pollock 2006:352-3).

"Thus, Pollock (2006) argues that a series of important events occurred in geographically distinct areas such as Kashmir and Vijayanagara, which led to the death of Sanskrit across the country, despite the attempts of Muslim kings of Kashmir and the Mughals in preventing it. In 17th c. CE, with the last Sanskrit poet Jagannātha, Sanskrit’s death was sealed."

"Despite"???!!!!

Who's he kidding!

Islamic repressions were not just forced conversions at point of sword accompanied by abductions and rapes of women, there was the deadly taxation of all nonmuslims too, continued by the congress which was in power fir for most of seven decades of independent India, to the loss of all others, chiefly Hindus, whose temples were taken over while muslim pilgrimages abroad were financed by taxpayers, as were the madarsas that taught hatred of all non muslims and creed of murder of all others.

Pollock should know. Tarek Fateh has been informing the world on reality of jihadist agenda, paki role therein, and the Friday prayers in mosques everywhere, including in West. Pollock is either too lazy to be informed or thinks he and his are safe as long as he accepts servitude for thirty pieces of silver and offers them India on a platter. Did he learn nothing from wtc two decades ago? Afghanistan was the canary in the mine.

Cuntoor is excessively polite in his conclusion, indicating that Pollock's assertion need discussion. This is polite paraphrasing of calling him an out and out demented liar and India hater, but we've learned to decipher Humphrey-speak, and if we forgot after independence, the BBC reminded us all.

................................................................................................

................................................

December 26, 2021 - December 27, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 5

Sanskrit is Not Dead

–Satyanarayana Dasa

................................................................................................

"First, we argue that language cannot be divorced from its socio-political context, so whether or not Sanskrit is being deployed as a political instrument is not germane to the vitality of the language. Second, Pollock makes bold assertions about the elementary level Sanskrit education, but he does not define the terms of his rhetoric, provide statistical evidence, nor any references for his claims. Third, in referencing the first six Sanskrit awards from the Sahitya Akademi, Pollock argues Sanskrit’s contemporary literary potency is near extinction; we contend that while not a star performer amongst Indian languages, Sanskrit is performing adequately. Fourth, Pollock claims Sanskrit literature experienced a “momentous rupture” after a vibrant period from 1550-1750, but we point to the statistics of Sanskrit authors and literary works indicating this assertion as overstated. Finally, we analyze some of the problems of Pollock’s vague terminology to raise doubts about his conclusion that Sanskrit is dead. An important consequence of more clearly defining language death, using Pollock’s own metrics, allows us to think of living language as a vehicle of novel thought and imagination."

He's missing the most obvious. Pollock wishes Sanskrit were dead so that India could be hunted as Jews were for more than two millennia, and carcass divided between church and islamic jihadists. India and her culture lives on because of the wellspring that is Sanskrit, and had it been dead India would have been converted long ago. Instead she's a vibrant living culture in continuation from antiquity. So Pollock claims India is stupid and Sanskrit dead, exactly the way opposition in India post 2014 makes various absurd claims about people of India, despite the latter having clearly given them no mandate.

"Our case study begins by applying a popular Sanskrit maxim from Nyāya to suggest that existence of particulars point to the existence of universals—a method to show that if Sanskrit is not dead in Vraja or the Gauḍīya tradition, more specifically, then it can be inferred that Sanskrit is not dead. The crux of our paper then focuses on what Pollock claims to be a gap in the intellectual history of Sanskrit from the 16-18th century, in order to prove that Sanskrit literature in Vraja was making history, demonstrating vitality, and producing novel—dare we say radical—thought. We specifically reference the new ideas and associated literary production of the Gosvāmin-s of Vrindāvan, with some additional attention to a selection of their contemporaries and successors. Our focus then shifts to contemporary Sanskrit education and ritual performance in Vraja. These mediums intersect through the innovated ritual of Bhāgavata kathā, (stories from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa), a driver of cultural animation and social imagination. Finally, we examine Gauḍīya Sanskrit literary production since 1800 by identifying a selection of major scholars and their works. We conclude that there is sufficient doubt in Pollock’s argument – in order to refute his claim that Sanskrit is dead."

"Pollock opens his paper by locating Sanskrit in the Indian political climate since the 1990s, stating that Sanskrit is central to the rhetoric of the contemporary Indian political right, specifically the BJP and VHP. He refers to political propaganda citing Sanskrit’s role as a “source and preserver of world culture” and the evidence for Sanskrit’s 4000-5000 year existence to be the seals from the Indus Valley civilization (Pollock 2001:392). ... Regardless of the degree to which one agrees with the argument that Sanskrit is being deployed as an instrument of Hindu identity politics, Pollock’s suggestion that Sanskrit’s relevance is limited to this sphere—as rhetorical political currency—is overreaching."

Author is being polite as one would to a congenial idiot, only because Pollock is of West. But the first part exposes his, Pollock's, agenda. It's obviously political, anti Indian and viciously anti Hindu.

"First, he addresses Sanskrit’s status as an official language of India and its associated funding benefits, specifically at colleges and universities. Yet in the discussion of the original fifteen, now eighteen, official languages of democratic India, Pollock seems to be suggesting Sanskrit’s inclusion is based largely on statecraft rather than merit. He curiously propounds this view without any references or statistics: “with few exceptions, however, the Sanskrit pedagogy and scholarship at these institutions have shown a precipitous decline from pre-Independence quality and standards, almost in inverse proportion to the amount of funding they receive.” (Pollock 2001:392)

"Pollock neglects to define the metrics he has deployed for all of the categories supporting this unsubstantiated assertion: pedagogy, scholarship, quality, and standards. He neither provides further qualitative explanation to the difference between the pre-Independence and post-Independence context. However, perhaps most problematic is the absence of funding data to support his assertion of an inverse relationship between input and output. There is an additional curiosity in Pollock’s claim: to which time period exactly does “pre-Independence” refer? Pollock claims that Sanskrit’s pre-modern decline was so significant that “by 1800, the capacity of Sanskrit thought to make history had vanished” (Pollock 2001:394). He also quotes the Gujarati poet, Dalpatrām Dahyabhai, who in 1857 indicated that Sanskrit was dead (Pollock 2001:394). So if Sanskrit was already dead or nearly dead for more than a century before India’s Independence, how could it have shown a “precipitous” decline in the 70 years since? There would have been no cliff from which to fall."

" ... Based on the metric of literary achievement proposed by Pollock, Sanskrit is performing within the top two thirds of Indian official languages and hence possesses a moderate degree of language vitality in this context. If Sanskrit were in fact dead, it likely would not be winning awards at this level and frequency."

Especially so while the government at centre wasn't friendly to Sanskrit, as it was most of the decades after independence.

"An analysis of Karl H. Potter’s first volume of the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy seems to dispute Pollock’s claim regarding the rapid decline of Sanskrit literary production by 1800, in terms of quantity of unique Sanskrit authors and works. Potter’s bibliography contains lists of authors and their works related to Indian schools of philosophy, ... "

" ... The total number of Sanskrit publications did decline during the 18th century but a 37% decline from the highly productive previous century can hardly be considered a “momentous rupture”. As one of “the most innovative epochs of Sanskrit systematic thought” extended into the middle of the 18th century, it is not surprising that production dropped by nearly 25% in the nineteenth century. If Sanskrit were in such a death spiral, one would expect a decrease in production in the 20th century. But instead, we see a 19% increase. And, perhaps even more noteworthy, 20th century production is 90% of that of the eighteenth century, fifty years of which represented a golden period of production."

" ... However, a seemingly stronger argument would emphasize the extraordinary level of production of Sanskrit authors during the 17th century, totaling over eleven works per author! This level of production is uncanny in the context of the modern and post-modern eras. The production of two to four works per author, in the 18th through 20th centuries, is not an output indicative of a dead language. While the social impact of the literary work during these periods is not necessarily directly proportional to production, it is difficult to support Pollock’s argument of a “momentous rupture” to the point of death in light of the data presented above."

"Pollock claims that “most observers would agree that, in some crucial way, Sanskrit is dead” (2001:393). In order to respond to his bold assertion, it is important to define the two important categories Pollock introduces, particularly because he does not define them himself: who are the observers in agreement and how do we define language death? In analyzing the vague category of “most observers”, is Pollock referring to himself and his colleagues of South Asian Studies in the United States and perhaps Western Europe? Or Indian scholars? Or trans-continental scholastic consensus? Or is Pollock referring to popular opinion? And if so, popular opinion in the United States, or India, or South Asia, or the global population at large? Or someone else altogether? The vagueness of this characterization of “most observers” is problematic."

" ... Amongst Indian scholars, however, many observers would not agree with Pollock’s assertion. For example, hundreds of scholars are actively engaged in regular dialogue concerning Sanskrit language through the well known forum of Sanskrit scholars, known as Bhāratīya Vidvat Pariṣat. Through the forum, there are daily questions and interactions amongst scholars concerning Sanskrit literary verse interpretations and references, amongst other topics. Most of the scholars on Bhāratīya Vidvat Pariṣat are Indian or of Indian origin. This level of engagement and collaboration suggests Sanskrit is not dead amongst this audience.

"The activities of the International Association of Sanskrit Studies also suggests a level of scholastic engagement. The professional association has consistently held World Sanskrit Conferences every three years since its inauguration in 1972. The 16th Conference, hosted in Bangkok, Thailand, was organized into twenty-one fields where scholars presented papers followed by discussions (Sharma 2015:2). The distinct fields included: “Veda and Vedic Literature, Epics, Purāṇas, Āgama and Tantra, Linguistics, Grammar, Poetry, Drama and Aesthetics, Buddhist and Jaina Studies, Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism, History of Religions and Ritual Studies, Sanskrit in Southeast Asia, Philosophy, History, Art and Architecture, Epigraphy, Sanskrit in Relation with Regional Languages and Literatures, Sanskrit, Science and Scientific Literature, Sanskrit Pedagogy and Contemporary Sanskrit Writing, Sanskrit in the IT World, Yoga and Āyurveda, Sūtra, Smṛti and Śāstra, and Manuscriptology” (Sharma 2015:2). In addition to the considerable breadth of topics which may indicate a certain level of vitality within the Sanskrit medium, the field titled Sanskrit Pedagogy and Contemporary Sanskrit Writing seems to further suggest that Sanskrit is not dead.

"There does not seem to be trans-continental scholastic agreement that Sanskrit is dead. Even if the unproven and hypothetical inference of agreement amongst Western scholars were in fact substantiated, the use of the unquantified “most” raises concerns in the light of the above."

"While Pollock utilizes the term “dead” to refer to Sanskrit, he does so in a normative way, recognizing that the “metaphor is misleading, suggesting biologistic or evolutionary beliefs about cultural change that are deeply flawed” (Pollock 2001:393). He further problematizes the category in suggesting that some may argue that “all written languages are learned and learnèd, and therefore in some sense frozen in time (“dead”)” (2001:393). Pollock’s nuanced framing of language death is useful in avoiding the potential liabilities he suggests, but it also leaves us without a clear picture of what exactly he means in pronouncing “Sanskrit is dead”. The strongest indication Pollock provides for a definition of language death is being “frozen in time”, which he uses specifically as a synonym."

"Salikoko Mufwene, Professor of Linguistics at University of Chicago, states, “language death is likewise a protracted change of state used to describe community level loss of competence in a language, it denotes a process that does not affect all speakers at the same time nor to the same extent. Under one conception of the process, it has to do with the statistical assessment of the maintenance versus loss of competence in a language variety among its speakers. Total death is declared when there are no speakers left of a particular language variety in a population that had used it" (2004:204).

"By Mufwene’s definition, no one would argue that Sanskrit has experienced a “total death” as the 2001 Indian census refers to over 14,000 Sanskrit speakers and Pollock references “Sanskrit periodicals and journals, feature films and daily newscasts on All India Radio, school plays” (Pollock 2001:393; 2001 India Census). ... "

" ... In refutation of Pollock’s claim that Sanskrit is dead or was “stillborn”, we use the popular Sanskrit maxim of the “rice in the cooking-pot”, sthāli-pulāka nyāya. According to Colonel G. A. Jacob, the maxim means, “In a cooking-pot all the grains are equally moistened by the heated water, such that when one grain is found to be well cooked, the same may be inferred with regard to the other grains. So the maxim is used when the condition of the whole class is inferred from that of a part” (Jacob 1900:40). In the present study, the grain is analogized to the life of Sanskrit in the Vraja area and the cooking-pot is equated to the whole country of India. In Vraja, we primarily focus on the vibrant life of Sanskrit related to the school of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism, which had its inception in the first quarter of the sixteenth century and continues to flourish in the present day. If it is proven that Sanskrit was alive and continues to be so in Vraja, then one can infer, using the above-mentioned maxim, that it is also so in the rest of India.

"Here one may object to the use of the cooking-pot example, because there is no such cultural uniformity in India that is analogous to the uniform condition of heat in the pot. It is partly true. But, if we recognize the fact that India’s majority population accepts Hindu dharma, which is rooted primarily in Sanskrit literature and depends on it for its daily religious performance, then it can be compared to a big cooking pot of Hindu culture with different varieties of grains in it in the form of various Hindu traditions. Moreover, Vraja sustained a severe attack under the Moghul rule of Aurangzeb beginning in 1669, which had a considerable impact. Monika Horstmann describes, “Govindadevjī was removed from Vrindavan together with his consort and Vṛndādevī when Aurangzeb displayed an increasing intolerance towards the Hindus. The contemporary historian Sāqī Musta’idd Khān reported that on 8 April 1669, the Emperor had issued orders to demolish Hindu schools and temples and to restrain the practice of the Hindu religion” (Horstmann 1999:8)2 If Sanskrit could survive and flourish under these conditions, then there may be reason to believe it could perform better in Indian areas of relative peace. It is like testing the hardest grain in the cooking-pot. If the hardest grain is cooked, then the softer ones would surely be cooked (Miśra 1978:35)3 ... "

"The Vraja case study is instructive in additional ways also. First, it contributes to the larger tapestry of understanding India’s intellectual history between the 16th and 18th centuries, which history, Pollock has argued elsewhere, “remains to be written, since these [Sanskrit] texts have yet to be accessed, read, and analyzed” (Pollock 2005:78-79). Pollock’s expresses concern about a gap in Indian intellectual history, “We have no clear understanding of whether, and if so, when, Sanskrit culture ceased to make history, whether, and if so, why, it proved incapable of preserving into the present the creative vitality it displayed in earlier epochs, and what this loss of effectivity might reveal about those factors within the wider world of society and polity that had kept it vital” (Pollock 2001:393). The Vraja case can play a small part in unraveling this larger and more complex question by showing that Sanskrit culture showed a historical continuity and vitality."

"We demonstrate that new, perhaps radically new, Sanskrit content emerged from this period. S.K De explains, “it was the inspiration and teaching of the six pious and scholarly Gosvāmin-s which came to determine finally the doctrinal trend of Bengal Vaiṣṇavism which, however modified and supplemented in later times, dominated throughout its subsequent history” (De 1986:118). These new Sanskrit texts produced from early Gauḍīya scholars were the foundation of a new religious tradition and identity.

"One of the most remarkable features of the Caitanya movement is its extraordinary literary activity, the power and vitality of its inspiration being evidenced by the vast literature which it produced both in the learned classical tongue and in the living language of the province. It enriched the field of Sanskrit scholarship by its more solid and laborious productions in theology, philosophy, ritualism, and Rasa-śāstra, so on the other, it poured itself out lavishly in song and story, almost creating as it did a new literary epoch –(De 1986:556)."

"Vraja consists of about 84 square miles making up the district of Mathura in the state of UP, parts of Faridabad district in the state of Haryana, and part of Bharatpur district in the state of Rajasthan. In the 16-17th centuries, it was exceptionally fertile ground for literary production and novel concepts, most specifically directed to the exposition of Kṛṣṇa bhakti. David Haberman (2003) describes,

"Other groups besides the Gauḍīyas were also actively involved in developing the region of Vraja as a new center of Kṛṣṇa worship: all these seem to have worked in an atmosphere of mutual influence. Vallabhācārya, a Tailang brāhmaṇa whose family came from what is now Andhra Pradesh, arrived in Vraja in the early years of sixteenth century, and there began what was to become the Puṣṭi Mārga, one of the most popular of the Vaiṣṇava lineages (sampradāya) centered in Vraja. Rūpa Gosvāmin refers to Vallabha’s teachings directly in the Bhaktirasāmṛtasindhu. A local Vraja saint by the name of Hita Harivaṁśa established the Rādhāvallabha temple in Vṛndāvana in the year 1534, and composed (italics mine) passionate poems about the love-affairs of Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa that still inspire members of a small but influential sampradāya known as the Rādhāvallabhīs. Another poet-saint who took residence in Vṛndāvana at this time was Svāmī Haridāsa, who established the temple image of Kuñjabihārī or Banke Bihārī. Svāmī Haridāsa is said to have been the teacher of Tansen, the legendary musician of Akabar’s court. Although the Vaiṣṇava saint Nimbārka was most likely born in the thirteenth century, the sampradāya, he founded also played an active role in the establishment of the new form of worship in Vraja that focused on the love affair of Rādhā Kṛṣṇa. Another key figure involved in the establishment of the new form of worship in Vraja is Mādhavendra Pūrī. It is not clear whether Mādhavendra Pūrī came from Bengal or from southern India, nonetheless all Vraja sources portray him as having a vital role in establishing the important Kṛṣṇa shrine on top of Mount Govardhana. The works of the creative leaders of the new religion centered in Vraja were then carried by others throughout northern India, thus insuring the lasting influence of the poetry, texts, and religious culture that were produced during the creative years of the early sixteenth century. For example, the works of Rūpa Gosvāmin were carried back to Bengal by such disciples as Narottama Dāsa Thākura, Narottama Dāsa and Śrīnivāsa Ācārya, and were incorporated into the widely popular Caitanya Caritāmṛta of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, thereby creating a wide popular and long-lasting audience. The Vaiṣṇava culture that began in Vraja in the sixteenth century is still vitally alive, and Vṛndāvana continues to be a major center for temple and pilgrimage activities today. The picture that emerges during the first half of the sixteenth century is an explosion of lively and imaginative activity initiated by various scholars, poets, and saints, and focused on Kṛṣṇa as the fully manifest form of ultimate reality in the guise of a passionate Vraja cowherd –(Haberman 2003:xxxiv-xxxv).

"This was a novel literary period in terms of both content and style, and one that encompassed a number of different genres. And while vernacular also contributed to this portrait, most of the scholars and poets mentioned by Haberman wrote primarily in Sanskrit, the only exception being Svāmī Haridāsa who wrote only in Braja-bhāṣā. Many different scholars and poets contributed to this literary explosion, but perhaps the greatest inspiration was drawn from Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

"Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, the founder of the Gauḍīya (also referred to as Caitanya or Bengal) Vaiṣṇava school, was born at Navadvip, Bengal, in 1486 CE. He made his residence at Jagannath Puri, Orrisa, at the age of 24 after entering into the renounced order of life. From there he visited Vrindāvan in the fall of 1515 for about a month. After returning to Puri, he sent some of his erudite Bengali followers, headed by Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmin and Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmin, to settle in Vraja. They were assigned three main jobs: first, to discover the various places related to Kṛṣṇa’s līlā-s or divine play; second, to establish temples of Kṛṣṇa worship; and third, to compose literary works delineating the path of devotion, bhakti-yoga, as taught by the Śrī Caitanya. Tony Stewart (2010) confirms the role of Gosvāmin-s, “they were more than religious archaeologists, they were scholars who had been deputed to gather and compose texts so they might better explain the religious devotion, bhakti, that Caitanya had revealed” (Stewart 2010:4). These followers took the instructions of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu to heart and successfully fulfilled the instructions of their teacher. S.K De refers to the Gosvāmin-s, “it was indeed their eminence and influence which gave a marked primacy to the Bengal school over other rival schools in the holy city associated with the name of Kṛṣṇa”(De 1986:118). The scope of this paper will focus on the third instruction of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu: composing works delineating the path of Bhakti-yoga."

"The Gosvāmin-s mainly wrote in Sanskrit, which may suggest the language’s prominence at the time, rather than writing in the Braja-bhāṣā, the vernacular of Vraja, or in Bengali or Oriya5 While the definitive dates of their literary production is difficult to discern, “we can approximately fix the period of their literary activity” from the onset of the 16th century (De 1986:160)6. What is definitive is they produced an immense body of literature. Edward C. Dimock illustrates,

"“Rūpa and Sanātana, and their nephew Jīva, were brilliant men, learned in the śāstras and every conceivable category of learning from esthetics to grammar. Jīva was perhaps the most brilliant of all, and he has more than twenty Sanskrit works covering grammar, poetry, poetics, ritual, theology, and philosophy to his credit, including the monumental ṣaṭ-sandarbha, which is the first full treatment of the theology of the Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism” –(Dimock 1999:24).

"Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmin wrote six Sanskrit texts, the most noteworthy of which is the the Śrī-bṛhad-bhāgavtāmṛtam 7 The text utilizes a Puranic narrative style and its principle theme is the theology of Kṛṣṇa bhakti. It is divided into two parts, the first of which charts the story of sage Nārada’s quest to locate the greatest of Kṛṣṇa devotees, thereby facilitating an explanation of the characteristics of an ideal devotee and “the different stages of devotional attainment, ending in the Madhura or erotic attitude of the Gopī-s to Kṛṣṇa” (De 1986:235). A principal and novel theme of the Gauḍīya literary tradition is the representation of the Vraja cowherd girls (gopī-s) as the paradigmatic bhakta-s. The second part of the text “reverses the process described in the first part” and focuses on “Kṛṣṇa’s mode of manifesting himself to His Bhakta” (De 1986:235). Kṛṣṇa’s reciprocation of love for his bhakta-s is another point of theological emphasis for the Gauḍīya tradition. The second part of Sanātana’s Gosvāmin’s text concludes that “Vṛndāvana is the real paradise of Kṛṣṇa where the unmanifest eternal sport of Kṛṣṇa becomes manifest to him alone who is blessed with real Bhakti for the deity” (De 1986:238). Sanātana thus establishes Vṛndāvana as the intersection between the phenomenal and noumenal worlds for the bhakta."

"Despite the significant literary contributions of his uncles, Sanātana and Rūpa, Edward Dimock suggests, “Jīva may have been the most brilliant of all” the Gosvāmins due to the breadth and depth of his literary work (24). S.K. De seems to arrive at a similar conclusion: “Jīva became the highest court of appeal in doctrinal matters so long as he lived” (1986:150). Jīva’s magnum opus is the Ṣaṭ Sandarbha, a six-part systematic analysis of the Gauḍīya school, which has been reified as the authoritative doctrine of the tradition9. The Sandarbhas quote heavily from the Bhāgavata Purāṇa in addition to drawing from the Upaniṣads and other Puranas, but it is “considerably original in its outlook and presentation…ideas and methods” (De 1986:256). The Sandarbhas represent perhaps the greatest novel literary achievement of the Gauḍīya tradition.

"Śrī Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmin’s most famous work is Haribhakti-vilāsa, which is an erudite and “authoritative exposition of most of the compulsory rites and ceremonies…that is now regarded to be the highest authority of the Bengal school of Vaiṣṇavism” (De 1986:408-9)10. Consistent with the innovative nature of the Gauḍīya tradition, it largely departs from the orthodox Smṛti tradition and instead “evolves a Sṃrti of its own” based on its own canonical scriptures and influences from Bengali Tantra (De 1986:409).

"Śrī Raghunātha Dāsa Gosvāmin’s principal literary contribution is poetry titled, Muktācaritam11 The Muktācaritam is written in the Campū style combining prose and verse, and it focuses on Kṛṣṇa’s Vraja līla-s. In reference to Kṛṣṇa, the text demonstrates “the superiority of his free love for Radhā over his wedded love for Satyabhāmā” (De 1986:123). The theme of prioritizing spontaneous love generated by the heart over that which is socially bound is a fundamental theme of the Gauḍīya tradition, and one of its novel literary and theological contributions. Raghunāth Bhaṭṭa seems to have assisted the others in their literary works; no works are directly ascribed to him. He is most renowned for singing Bhagāvata Purāṇa in a vast range of different melodies."

"As David Haberman clarified earlier, there were numerous exemplary personalities, who were Vraja contemporaries of the Gosvāmin-s, who wrote profusely in Sanskrit. Two of the most prominent examples include Śrī Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī and Śrī Nārayaṇa Bhaṭṭa. One of the most noteworthy works of Śrī Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī is Caitanya-candrāmṛta, a devotional and poetic hagiography of Caitanya12. The text is novel in its Sanskrit presentation of Caitanya as an avatāra, specifically, an incarnation of both Kṛṣṇa and Radhā. While this particular conception of Caitanya’s divinity does not seem to be explicitly endorsed by the Vraja Gosvāmin-s, it did have traction in the movement’s Bengali literature and eventually came to be incorporated into the Gauḍīya doctrine. S.K. De describes Caitanya-candrāmṛta, “the poem undoubtedly reflects what is called the Gaura-pāramya attitude of his Navadvīpa devotees, which is not explicit in the works of the Gosvāminns, but which regards Caitanya in himself, and not as an image of Kṛṣṇa, as the highest reality or Parama Tattva” (1986:130).

"Śrī Nārayaṇa Bhaṭṭa was a prolific Sanskrit author who made several novel contributions of continuous impact on the social imagination of the the tradition13. He identified and explained the various holy places surrounding the twelve forests of Vraja, which became the basis for the one month Vraja parikrama (circumambulation) that remains a vibrant and popular annual ritual, drawing pilgrims from all parts of India. He also propagated the integration of rāsa līlā into Vraja dramas, which also are central to Vraja cultural life. Lastly, he founded the Śrigi temple in Rādha’s town of Varśana, a primary pilgrimage site.

"There were numerous scholars who wrote in Sanskrit in the immediate wake of the Gosvāmin-s, but we will focus on three of them: Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravarti, and Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhuṣaṇa14. Śrī Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja “is the only figure in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava history known to have studied with all six of the original Gosvāmin-s of Vṛndāvana” (Stewart 190). He wrote a mahākāvya (great poetry) about the daily activities of Kṛṣṇa and gopī-s in Vṛndāvana called Śrī-govinda-līlāmṛtam, but his most famous work is Caitanya-caritāmṛta, the sacred biography of Caitanya’s life which has become canonized by the tradition15. While largely written in Bengali, the interspersion of Sanskrit is so prolific that Tārāpada Mukhyopadādhyāya contends “the ‘real’ Caitanya-caritāmṛta was this Sanskrit skeleton that was fleshed out by the Bengali text” (Stewart 243). Tony Stewart seems to endorse Mukhyopadādhyāya’s argument that it is more accurate to define it as a “Sanskrit sūtra with Bengali commentary serving to unpack the terse statements” (246). Regardless, we can consider Caitanya-caritāmṛta as a “mixed text” with its “three thousand verses of Sanskrit quotation embraced by nearly twenty thousand verses of Bengali— for it was the Sanskrit that structured the text” (Stewart 246, 21)."

"Contemporary Sanskrit Education

"Today Sanskrit education is abundant in Vraja and is transmitted in three primary ways: through government institutions, specifically universities, through private institutions, and through the traditional guru-śiṣya relationship. There are a considerable number of Sanskrit schools operating in Vraja and thirty of the most well-known schools can be found in Appendix C. In the institutional context, there are two primary levels following the completion of uttara madhyamā, the approximate equivalent of a high school degree. The Śastrī or Tīrtha degree is awarded after the successful completion of annual written and oral examinations over a three-year period. The Śastrī or Tīrtha degree is equivalent to a bachelor’s degree. The Ācārya degree is equivalent to a master’s degree and requires an additional two years of course work and annual examinations following the Śāstrī/Tīrtha degree. In terms of pedagogy, students of Sanskrit grammar typically memorize the sutras, notably those of Pāṇīni. But grammar is not the only subject taught in Sanskrit, one can study a wide range of subjects including but not limited to: Sāhitya, Pūraṇa, Itihāsa, Jyautiśa, Vedas,, Vedānta, etc. In addition to these formal educational institutions, there are hundreds of āśrama-s in Vṛnḍāvana where teachers— guru-s and ācārya-s— teach to their students/disciples in a traditional manner. While not as widely prevalent as the pre-modern era, this method of knowledge transmission still exists. By traditional manner, there is no formal school and admission. The interested student approaches a particular guru and studies under him. I personally studied in this manner in addition to completing a Sanskrit PhD degree from Agra University. Specifically, I studied the Ṣaṭ Sandarbha, from Śri Haridāsa Śastrī Mahārāja and Nyāya from Śri Śyāmāśaraṇa Mahārāja. For a more current example, at Jīva Institute, there are four such teachers, including myself, who teach students on request. At present, I am teaching a six- month course in Sanskrit and darśana-s to about 50 students from different parts of the world. The traditional transmission of Sanskrit knowledge is still actively functioning.

"Ritual Use Of Sanskrit

" ... As Sanskrit is deeply embedded within the foundation of the tradition, the language continues to play an indispensable role in its living transmission.

"The continuity of Sanskrit education thus impacts the performance of rituals, where the use and understanding of the classical language is still considered vital. While these various rituals do not contribute to new literary production, they play critical roles as catalysts of cultural animation and novel production of social imagination. As Pollock himself underscores, “the communication of new imagination, for example, is hardly less valuable in itself than the communication of new information. In fact, a language’s capacity to function as a vehicle for such imagination is one crucial measure of its social energy” (Pollock 2001:394). Sanskrit makes considerable contemporary contributions to cultural vitality through ritual."

"Bhāgavata Vidyālaya-s are specialized schools where students exclusively study the Bhāgavata Purāṇa with Sanskrit commentaries through a one-year course. Although the classes are taught in Hindi, basic Sanskrit grammar is a pre-requisite since the primary text is written in Sanskrit. These students are prepared to become professional speakers of Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which is very popular in northern India. Performers of Bhāgavata kathā, as the recitation of the narrative is referred to, speak on portions of the text from memory over a period of seven days. Although the primary discourse in spoken in Hindi, it includes the recitation of an abundance of Sanskrit verses from the primary text. There are hundreds of Bhāgavata kathā performers coming through Vraja, and the most popular ones, such as Krishna Chandra Sastri, Mṛdula Krishna Sastri, Devakinānda Thakur, and Pundrik Gosvami, draw tens of thousands of participants to a single recitation. Kathā takes place all year round, and popular performers may deliver one or two performances per month.

"Sometimes 108 or even 1008 reciters sit together and sing Bhāgavata Purāṇa collectively. Bhāgavata kathā, which is underpinned by and interspersed with Sanskrit, is one of the most popular and colorful forms of contemporary religious activity igniting social activity.

"Not as publically oriented as Bhāgavata kathā, Hindu religious ceremonies called saṁskāra-s are recited in Sanskrit and continue to play an important role in family life. They are most commonly performed during rites of human passage such as birth, marriage, and death, but there are many more including the first tonsure of a baby, first eating of grains, beginning of education, etc. The first saṁskāra is ideally performed on the day the child is conceived and the last one is done after death. While the observation of saṁskāra-s varies and some Hindus do not observe them at all, they remain a relevant aspect of traditional cultural life in Vraja, and of contemporary India more generally.

"The saṁskāra-s are performed under the guidance of a priest who is trained in ceremonial rituals and the recitation of Sanskrit mantra-s. Even if the priest is not a Sanskrit scholar, he must know basic rules of Sanskrit pronunciation. The priest may not even have gone to a Sanskrit school, but he would have learned the mantra-s from his father, or senior family member, or member of the community. Ceremonial knowledge has been preserved in India for centuries through this type of oral transmission.

"An additional Vedic inspired ritual, though diminishing, is chanting of the Gāyatrī mantra at twilight time, twice per day. While historically applicable to the three dvija varna-s, it is primarily only applicable for brāhmaṇa-s in the present context for fulfillment of Hindu dharma. After receiving the sacred thread at the yajñopavīta ceremony, one is expected to perform the ceremony, called sandhyā-vandana, twice per day. The mantra is typically transmitted through a family lineage of brāhmaṇa-s and the particulars of ceremonial performance varies depending on the branch of the Veda in which the family tradition is rooted.

"A more commonplace ritual and one that is inclusive of a wider audience is the regular chanting of Sanskrit mantra-s and stotra-s, prayers. There is significant variety of content, and mantra-s often reference Kṛṣṇa, Viṣṇu, Śiva, Durgā, or Ganeśa, though Kṛṣṇa is most prevalent in Vraja. Several common sources of chanting include: Vaidika Sūkta-s, Śānti-pāṭha, Bhagavad Gītā, Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma, Durgā-saptaśatī, Śiva-mahimnas-stotra, Gajendra-stuti, Gopāla-sahasra-nāma, Rādhā-kṛpā-kaṭākṣa-stotra, Gopī-gīta, prayers to one’s iṣṭadevatā and guru."

"Temples are abundant in Vraja, even in the smallest of the villages in rural areas. Vṛndāvan is a town of temples. There are approximately 5000 temples— some big and some small— in Vṛndāvan alone, and every temple has a deity. When a new temple is built, which is not uncommon, the deity is first installed through a ceremony called prāṇa-pratiṣṭhā in order to prepare it to invoke divine presence in the deity. This is an elaborate process involving an abundance of Sanskrit mantra recitation. After the installation, the deity must be worshiped at least twice a day in order to maintain its divine presence. Thus every temple has at least one priest, pūjāri or an arcaka. The process of deity worship involves recitation of mantra-s and prayers called stotra-s, which are mostly in Sanskrit.

"Lastly, Vṛndāvana has a class of priests, paṇḍa-s, who guide pilgrims and perform worship for them. On the pilgrim’s behalf, a paṇḍa will recite Sanskrit mantra-s to deities or holy places, like the Yamuna river. The pilgrim is believed to receive the spiritual benefit performed by the paṇḍa, and the latter typically receives compensation for the services performed."

"In discussing the Gauḍīya literary corpus, specifically that which relates to Sanskrit and vernacular biographies of Caitanya, Tony Stewart confirms “the enormity of this textual tradition” (2010:xi). Stewart highlights that the Gauḍīya tradition, like other textual traditions, “depend on what I call ‘living texts’ that are routinely modified to suit the immediate needs, rather than privileging some kind of original or Ur-text” (2010:xi). Stewart underscores the vitality inherent in these texts within their traditional context. They are by his definition “living” through the continuity of their popular engagement and scholarly revision. Because Sanskrit plays a central role in this living textual tradition, it is not dead.

"The continuous role of Sanskrit in the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava sampradāya cannot be underestimated. Like many of the medieval bhakti movements, the use of the vernacular in various literary forms has ensured the spread of Krishna bhakti to all strata of society. However, the Gauḍīya-s have maintained an active commitment to Sanskrit engagement. In addition to the production of new texts, the fluid scholastic interpretation of the Sanskrit canon based on time, place, and circumstance catalyzes the creation of new imagination for devotees and defines the tradition as living. ... "

"The 19th century saw the study of Sanskrit introduced in the Fort William school for British and East India Company bureaucrats as a necessity for understanding the new crown jewel of the British Empire. British scholars and researchers, along with their Indian counterparts, embarked on a search for manuscripts that had been lost or had never achieved wide fame. This development was of special interest to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava-s and by the end of the century, there were numerous efforts to find rare books and to bring them to publication. Perhaps the most important development was the publication of Rajendralal Mitra's (1824-1891) Notices, which lists hundreds of texts held in mostly private collections, many written by reputed authors. Rajendralal Mitra was one of the first modern Indologists of Indian origin, and his contribution triggered the publication of many literary works and the attention of the Vaiṣṇava community (Kapoor 2002:3527).

"The Radharaman Press of Berhampore (Murshidabad), funded by Raja Manindra Chandra Nandy of Cossim Bazaar and edited by Rām Nārāyan Vidyaratna, published many of the books identified through Notices along with their Bengali translations, making them available to a wide audience for the first time. Notices identified a large number of commentaries that had been written by unknown authors; these filled an important role for understanding the original texts, which often had no earlier commentaries.

"The availability of books in printed form also led to the writing of new commentaries or inspired new compositions. Take for example Vīracandra Gosvāmin's commentary on the Gopāla-campū, or that of Vaṁśīdhara on the Bhāgavatam (Bhāvārtha-dīpikā-prakāśa), which were actually written in the 19th century. Kedaranath Datta Bhaktivinoda (1834-1914) wrote original Sanskrit hymns and sūtra texts with Bengali translations and commentary to make them available to a wider audience, but he was not alone. Nitya Svarūpa Brahmacārī of the Devakinandan Press in Vrindavan at the beginning of the 20th century is also worthy of mention.

"Bhaktivinoda was a voluminous writer who produced over 100 literary works in Sanskrit, Bengali, and English from 1849-1907, approximately twenty of which were original18. Kṛṣṇa-saṁhitā is perhaps Bhaktivinoda’s most innovative work, both in terms of content and style. This three-part volume of history and theology combines Sanskrit verse and Bengali commentary. Furthermore, it applies modern scholastic methodology to its traditional insider theological perspective in an effort to reconcile both approaches (Dasa 1999:2,9). Shukavak Dasa explains, “He offered a plausible date for the Bhāgavata according to internal and extra-textual evidence; he pointed out corruptions in the text, and he brought attention to the human weakness of its author…Bhaktivinoda was showing that it was indeed possible to take a critical look at one’s own tradition, and at that same time maintain a deep and abiding faith within that tradition” (2). In addition to the originality of the text content and hybridized language style, Bhaktivinoda’s synthesized perspective was a novel literary contribution.

"Bhaktvinoda also utilized his hybrid language style in Śri-gaurāṅga-līlā-smaraṇa-stotram, although this time coupling Sanskrit with English. The collection of Sanskrit verses describing Caitanya’s teachings and the theology emerging from them was prefaced by forty-seven pages of introduction written in English (Dasa 1999:91). The vitality of this text can be expressed by the extent of its circulation beyond Bengali scholastic, popular, or expatriate circles. “The work was sent to various universities and intellectuals in different parts of the world and eventually found its way onto the book shelves of McGill University in Montreal, the University of Sydney in Australia and the Royal Asiatic Society of London (Dasa 1999:91). One could perhaps contend that despite the volume of literary work produced by Bhaktvinoda, the limited geographical scope of its audience demonstrates the limited vitality of Sanskrit. However, the international and scholastic audience of the Śri-gaurāṅga-līlā-smaraṇa-stotram, disputes this potential objection and thereby demonstrates the vitality of Bhaktvinoda’s Sanskrit literature."

" ... Perhaps, Bhaktivinoda’s greatest achievement was his synthesis of innovation and tradition to facilitate the Gauḍīya movement’s transition into modernity. As Sanskrit was one of his primary tools in achieving this end, it is difficult to imagine how Sanskrit could be dead."

................................................................................................

................................................

December 27, 2021 - December , 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 6

On “Feeding Tubes and Oxygen Tanks” for Sanskrit: In the light of the First Sanskrit Commission Report (1956–57)

–Jayaraman Mahadevan

................................................................................................

"Firstly – he implies that without the sponsorship of the Government, even the perceived ‘quasi-animate’ state of Sanskrit would not have been possible. Secondly – that the public and non-governmental players did not have any role at all in safe-guarding Sanskrit as Sanskrit has been never the language of the masses.

"The First Sanskrit Commission report, hereafter, the Commission, assumes significance in this context. The Commission was constituted by the Government of India in 1956 with Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterji as its chairman. Seven other scholars of repute from various parts of the country were its members. The Commission crisscrossed the length and breadth of the country. In the words of the Commission’s report “…to consider the question of the present state of Sanskrit Education in all its aspects” (Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:1). What does the study of the Sanskrit Commission’s detailed report reveal? Nearly five decades prior to the statement of Pollock in question (and its implications), one finds well researched facts and observations that render Pollock’s statement redundant, or rather, ridiculous. It is also interesting to note that Pollock has taken care not mention this report in his paper. Thus, this paper endeavors to juxtapose various observations from the overlooked First Sanskrit Commission Report, that fly in the face of Pollock’s aforementioned statement, and allow the readers to see for themselves the flaws and blemishes of Pollock’s understanding of the status of Sanskrit."

"“Government feeding tubes and oxygen tanks may try to preserve the language in a state of quasi-animation, but most observers would agree that, in some crucial way, Sanskrit is dead.” –(Pollock 2001:393)

"This statement is found in the third paragraph of the said article. Why just one statement and why this statement? To answer this straightaway - firstly, it has to be noted that the paper “Death of Sanskrit” appears in the year 2001. In the beginning of the paper Pollock states–

"“The state’s anxiety both about Sanskrit’s role in shaping the historical identity of the Hindu nation and about its contemporary vitality has manifested itself in substantial new funding for Sanskrit education, and in the declaration of 1999–2000 as the “Year of Sanskrit,” with plans for conversation camps, debate and essay competitions, drama festivals, and the like.” –(Pollock 2001:392)

"Though aimed at throwing light on the anxiety of the State, eventually unease in the mind of Pollock gets exposed caused by the apparent spike in funding for Sanskrit and related activities in 1999–2000. And soon after, this triggered Pollock to conceptualize and eventually pen this paper in the year 2001. As can be observed, the above “Government feeding tubes oxygen tank” statement, directly indicates that trigger, which is at the root of the paper."

So that's what made Pollock boil over with hatred! Did bush siphoning millions of dollars from US taxpayers' money, to pour into converting India, have much to do with this boiling, either by funding Pollock to step up attacks against India, or by making him envious he wasn't getting either source to buy him a new Gulfstream?

Incidentally - if government funding implies that the object is dead, wouldn't state of US defence be critical?

"A study of the Sanskrit Commission’s report reveals that nearly five decades before Pollock’s statement in question already, the First Sanskrit Commission’s report effectively presents appropriate “responses” to this statement and its implications. It is highly improbable that he is unaware of this report of 1957. In fact he mentions the year 1949 regarding the inclusion of Sanskrit in the Eight Schedule of the Constitution. He also makes a note of the awardees of the Sahitya Akademi since its inception in the year 1955. But conspicuously missing in this article is the mention of the Sanskrit Commission’s report of 1957 which is an important and unique document regarding the status of Sanskrit in India. Our paper endeavors to juxtapose various observations from the First Sanskrit Commission’s report and help the readers see for themselves the flaw in Pollock’s understanding of the status of Sanskrit."

"Pollock’s statement is analyzed in its two parts in this paper.

"Part 1: “Government feeding tubes and oxygen tanks may try to preserve the language in a state of quasi-animation…

"Part 2: “...but most observers would agree that, in some crucial way, Sanskrit is dead.”

"There are two clear implications for the first part of the statement. Firstly – he implies that without the sponsorship of the Government, even the perceived ‘quasi-animate’ state of Sanskrit would not have been possible either. Secondly – that the public and non-governmental players did not have any role at all in safeguarding Sanskrit, as Sanskrit, has been never the language of the masses.

"The second part of the statement is very plain and is discussed as such."

"“This Commission, in the course of its tours, could see a feeling of regret and disappointment among the people that, while no positive steps had been taken for helping Sanskrit, the measures undertaken in respect of other languages have had adverse repercussions on it. The ultimate result of this has been that Sanskrit has not been allowed to enjoy even the status and facilities it had under the British Raj.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:7)"

"Further, it is important to note the fact that the Commission also makes it clear that the step-motherly attitude of the Government towards Sanskrit does not necessarily reflect the feelings of the people at large towards Sanskrit. It states –

"“On the one hand, Sanskrit scholars, members of the public, educationists and authorities were keenly alive to the importance of Sanskrit studies; and, on the other, there was one kind or another of official and administrative difficulty or lack of practical assistance which produced a sense of frustration.” –(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:9)

"Has the Government’s indifference towards Sanskrit undergone any change now - five decades after the first Sanskrit Commission? The answer is an unfortunate no. It is evidenced by the following statement from the committee set up by Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, recently (2016) to evolve a “Vision and Roadmap for the Development of Sanskrit – Ten year Perspective Plan" –

"“It is a fact that during the British period salary of Sanskrit teachers was half the salary of the salary of the teachers of other subjects due to which Sanskrit was looked down upon for long. Even today, in most of the states Sanskrit teachers who teach at Secondary and Higher Secondary level Vidyalayas are given Primary level teachers’ salary, teachers who teach at UG and PG level Sanskrit Mahavidyalayas are given the salary of Secondary grade teachers’. Hence these Vidyalayas and Mahavidyalayas do not attract the talented teachers and students” –(Vision and Road Map for the Development of Sanskrit: Report: 2016:5)

"Wantonly or unwittingly, successive Governments in independent India trod the path of the erstwhile British masters. This observation of the committee puts in perspective the role of government in regard to the protection and promotion of Sanskrit.

"As revealed by the above statements from the Sanskrit Commission report, the motive behind the minimal support to Sanskrit by successive governments has been brought to light. When the Governmental support has such motives as that of making Sanskrit appearing sick (though it might not be so), it leads us to the inevitable conclusion that governmental support or the lack of it cannot be taken as a correct indicator of the real status of Sanskrit. Hence it can be safely stated that Pollock has, on the basis of his above statement, allowed himself to be misled into assessing the real status of Sanskrit through the t(a)inted glasses of Governmental support.

"This brings us to the second and more serious aspect as to the role of people and agencies other than the government in supporting and continuing the unbroken tradition of Sanskrit learning in the country."

"The Sanskrit Commission’s report states that Sanskrit is associated with the ‘cultural consciousness’ (Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:67) of the country and that the love of Sanskrit is “next only to that of patriotism towards Mother India” (Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:p.65). ... “About the enthusiasm of the people of India as a whole for Sanskrit, we have received,..., the most convincing evidence.” (Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957: ii)

"Following are the non-governmental players and factors that can be identified from the report of the First Sanskrit Commission–

"a. The Maharajas of the Princely States

"b. Hindu religious institutions

"c. People belonging to non-Brahmin castes and other religions

"d. Individual Traditional Pandits

"e. Nationalistic Spirit

"f. Role of voluntary Academies and

"g. Organizations People in General

"The list pertains to the Pre-independent as well as post-independent eras. It is to be noted that the seeds sown in the pre-independent era have sprouted later. For example, the role of the kings is a pre-independent era factor, but it would be seen in the words of the Commission itself as to how those pre-independence traditions helped in the preservation of Sanskrit in the post-independence era.

"Apart from honouring Sanskrit Pandits and musicians in their Darbars and on occasions of domestic celebrations, and national festivals, the Maharajas did two important pieces of service to Sanskrit studies - one, the organization into libraries of their Palace collections of Sanskrit manuscripts, and two, the setting up of Sanskrit colleges.

'–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:22)"

"“Darbhanga, Vizianagaram, Baroda, Nagpur, Jaipur, Indore, Gwalior, Mysore, Travancore, Kapurthala, Patiala, Jammu and Kashmir - to mention only the more prominent States - started their Sanskrit Colleges.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:22)

"When one looks at the above list of princely states, it becomes evident that since the pre-independence era, even while under the British Raj, it is these princes and kings who truly supported Sanskrit studies. Pre independence British Government was indifferent, and the attitude of post-independence governments has already been pointed out.

"The role of the Maharajas in fostering Sanskrit education inspired other wealthy individuals too. The Commission records - “Inspired by the example of the Princes, the Zamindars and smaller landlords and merchants also founded Sanskrit Colleges.” (Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:22)

"It is the Sanskrit organizations set up by the kings which were later converted into Government Sanskrit Colleges and Government manuscript repositories."

"“Maths, temples and other religious institutions established similar Colleges; and affluent individuals and public leaders and associations also followed, founding their own Sanskrit Colleges, or, by administrative direction, helping old religious and cultural endowments to start such colleges.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:22)"

" ... But the Commission’s report makes it clear that even Muslims and Christians in certain parts of the country actively participated in the learning of Sanskrit. Nor was it the case that the Brahmin community alone was learning and preserving Sanskrit. Cutting across the barriers of caste and religion, Sanskrit was embraced by all people in India. Neither was gender a barrier in learning Sanskrit. ... "

"“That Sanskrit does not belong to any particular community is proved by Andhra and Kerala where the entire non-Brahman classes are imbued with Sanskrit, and speak a language highly saturated with Sanskrit. In Kerala, even Izhavas, Thiyas, Moplas and Christians read Sanskrit. In Madhya Pradesh, we were told, a paper in Sanskrit was compulsory at the School Final Examination and even 66 Muslims took it. In a Lucknow Intermediate College, there are Muslim girls studying Sanskrit; in Gujarat, Parsis study it; in Panjab, there are several Sikhs among Sanskrit students and teachers, and Sastris and research scholars in Sanskrit. The Director of Public Instruction of Madhya Pradesh, who is a Christian, told us that he advised the Anglo-Indian students also to read Sanskrit. It was necessary that, as future citizens of India, they gained an insight into the mind and the culture of the bulk of the Indian people. And this, he added, was possible only through the study of Sanskrit.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:64)"

"“This aspect of Sanskrit, that it was not exclusively religious, was appreciated even by some of the Muslim rulers of India, who patronised Sanskrit literature, and, in some cases (as in Bengal and Gujarat), had their epigraphic records inscribed in Sanskrit. It was the scientific and secular aspect of Sanskrit literature that made the Arabs welcome Indian scholars to Baghdad to discourse on sciences like Medicine and Astronomy, and to translate books in these subjects into Arabic. The Ayurveda system of medicine, until recently, was the truly National Indian System, which was practised everywhere, and access to this was through Sanskrit books, which even Muslim practitioners of the Ayurveda in Bengal studied.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:79)"

"“In the course of our tours in South India, we interviewed several non-Brahmans in high position and active in public life, business, etc., and we found them all favourable to Sanskrit. In Madras City itself, we found that, both in the recognised schools and private classes, non-Brahmans, and even a few Muslims and Christians, studied Sanskrit. In one of the High Schools of Chidambaram, a Muslim student was reported to have stood first in Sanskrit; and in another School, there were Harijans among the Sanskrit students. In Chidambaram we were glad to find a group of leading non-Brahman merchants of the town who appeared before us for interview as staunch supporters of Sanskrit education and culture.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:65)"

"“In Tanjore also, we were told by the Headmasters and Sanskrit teachers of local schools that non-Brahmans, Muslims and Christians freely took Sanskrit. It was again the non-Brahmans, particularly the great benefactors belonging to the Chettiar community, who had, in the recent past, endowed many Pathasalas for Veda and Sanskrit.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:66)

"Thus it becomes evident from the above excerpts that all religious groups and caste groups patronized Sanskrit. Moreover, it also becomes evident that there is also no north-south divide in promoting Sanskrit."

"From the Commission’s report it was shown that cutting across religious, caste divisions people learn and love Sanskrit. It is very educative to note, when we see the Sanskrit Commission state that, even in the creation of Sanskrit literature over the ages, it was not the case that it was just one community was involved. The Commission notes –

"“It must be further pointed out that the large mass of literature in Sanskrit was not produced by any particular community. Several instances can be quoted of non-Brahman and non-Hindu authors who have made significant contributions to Sanskrit literature. It is definitely wrong to assume that Sanskrit represents only the religious literature of the Hindus.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:79)"

"“In addition to these two agencies, namely, the Government-organised Sanskrit Colleges, such as the Banaras and Calcutta Colleges, and the different Colleges of the Princely States and the private and religious agencies, there was also the third channel through which the Sanskrit tradition continued to flow, namely, the one-Pandit schools. In fact, this tradition of one-Pandit schools was alive in all regions of India in a greater or lesser degree, according to the past history of each place. The tempo of modernisation had not fully swept away the Pandit of the traditional type and his institutions.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:22)"

"Further, in the context of revival of Non-formal Śāstra Learning System the recent 2016 MHRD Committee states the following -

"“Under this stream, Gurukula system will be revived and the expertise of traditional scholars who still adhere to their traditions and do not leave their place of residence will be utilized. Each such traditional Scholar of Shastric excellence will teach traditional Shastras in a traditional way maintaining their way of living and transmitting such knowledge”.

"–(Vision and Road Map for the Development of Sanskrit: Report: 2016:26)"

"“We also found that the Sanskrit Muse was still an inspiration and that the Pandits everywhere wrote poems and plays in Sanskrit. Of course, Sanskrit was very freely used as a means of communication and for the expression of all current ideas. We actually met some Pandits who could employ Sanskrit with eloquence and oratorical effect.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:45)"

"On the question of how the pandits maintain their level of scholarship and even refine it amidst the gloom of discouragement all around, the Commission states that– “Among the activities, which keep up the scholarly interest of the Pandits and also afford them some encouragement and help, are the Sabhas or the Sadas (learned gatherings), which are held from time to time by rulers, Zamindars, rich men, Acharyas and public associations. The former Princely States used to hold such gatherings once a year on the occasion of some festival, like the Dasara. The religious Teachers, Acharyas, still hold such gatherings of Pandits; also whenever any Pandit from a different part of the country visits an Acharya, he is engaged in a Sastrartha or is asked to lecture, and is honoured with presents and cash-gifts. There are also some private endowments which arrange for such Pandit Sadas, once a year, on Rama-navami, Krishna-jayanti, and similar occasions. In some of the temples, Pandits are similarly invited to give expositions and are honoured. In fact, it was these public debates in Sastras which had been the main inspiration for the growth of the thought and literature in the field of Sanskrit. And it would be by their resuscitation that the old intensity of Sastra-learning could be retained and promoted.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:45)"

"Just as many of the replies to the Questionnaire received by the Commission were in Sanskrit, quite a number of interviews also took place in Sanskrit. It was not the Pandits alone who gave their evidence in Sanskrit; many Sanskritists of the modern type also freely discussed with the Commission through the medium of Sanskrit. This once again proved that Sanskrit still continued to be the lingua franca of Sanskrit scholars of this country, irrespective of the different regions to which they belonged.

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:9)"

"The Commission states that– “it is possible for an Indian or a foreigner knowing no other language than Sanskrit to be able to find throughout the whole of India some persons everywhere who can communicate with him in Sanskrit”.

'–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:81)"

"“Generally speaking, the people of India love and venerate Sanskrit with a feeling which is next only to that of patriotism towards Mother India. This feeling permeates the common man, the litterateur and the educationist, the businessman, the administrator and the politician. Everybody realises its cultural importance and knows that whatever one cherishes as the best and the noblest in things Indian is embedded in Sanskrit.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:66)"

"“After Independence, the Constituent Assembly decided that the official language of India was to be Hindi written in Devanagari script, and this was put in the Constitution. But the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly on this question were anything but smooth, and though there was a tacit agreement in this matter, Sanskrit never ceased to loom in the background. A general feeling was there that if the binding force of Sanskrit was taken away, the people of India would cease to feel that they were parts of a single culture and a single nation. The readiness with which Hindi received the support of a large section of the Indian people was because Hindi appeared to make a stand for Sanskrit. The support of Hindi in a way meant laying stress on the unity of India through Sanskrit, even if it were through the intermediacy of Hindi. The aspirations of a free Indian people, it was thought, could be best expressed through Sanskrit, functioning through the Modern Indian Languages.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:70)"

" ... The second half of the statement of Pollock reads –“…but most observers would agree that, in some crucial way, Sanskrit is dead”. (Pollock 2001: 393)."

"At the outset, it is obvious that the highly qualified members of Sanskrit Commission are not part of the team of Pollock’s brand of ‘observers’. It is to be noted that the members of Sanskrit Commission were not mere scholars, but they were ‘observers’ too, but in a real sense. As has been stated in the introduction, the members of the Commission travelled the length and breadth of the country. The itinerary of the various scholars, by the day and by the hour even, is available as official documents. In the course of their work, they keenly “observed” not only the state of Sanskrit but also the stature of Sanskrit. Further they clearly indicate that Sanskrit is not dead. Hence there is no question of its revival. ... "

" ... The place of Sanskrit in Indian life and in the Indian set-up was taken for granted by the nationalist workers before Independence. When Bankim Chandra Chatterji composed his National Song Vande Mataram about the year 1880, he could not have foreseen what an importance this song would later on acquire in the national movement, of which the two words, Vande Mataram, practically became the basic mantra, the Rastra-Gayatri, if we may say so. He composed this song in Sanskrit (with a few Bengali sentences within) as the most natural thing. The place of Sanskrit was so obvious that no one gave any special thought to it.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:69)"

"“Even at the present day Sanskrit is very very living, because a large number of people use Sanskrit in their conversation, when they come from different parts of the country, and composition in Sanskrit, in both prose and verse, goes on almost unabated. It has been possible to write a history of recent Sanskrit literature as it has developed, say, during the last century and a half. Entire conferences are conducted wholly or at least to a very large extent through the medium of Sanskrit. In the popular Purana recitations, the reciters who have all the art of telling a story dramatically use by preference a highly Sanskritised Bengali, Telugu, Oriya, Kannada or Panjabi, which is largely understood even by the unlettered masses. It is not uncommon to find religious lecturers giving discourses in simple Sanskrit, and they are generally understood by people possessing a slight education in their own mother-tongues. And above all, there is a tremendous love, which is something very close to veneration, for Sanskrit. And when Sanskrit is now being used even to express modern scientific or political ideas in essays or discourses on various modern subjects, it cannot be said to have closed the door to further development - it has still life in it. All these things would go to establish that Sanskrit is still a living force in Indian life. It would be almost suicidal to neglect and gradually to relegate into oblivion as something dead and useless this very vital source of national culture and solidarity.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:88-89)"

"Interestingly, even Jawaharlal Nehru does not agree that Sanskrit is dead. The Commission quotes independent India’s first prime minister in this regard. It states–

"“When Jawaharlal Nehru made the following observations about the importance of Sanskrit in India, he only reiterated the general belief of the Indian people, and the considered views which have been expressed not only by the greatest thinkers and leaders of India, but also by foreign scholars and specialists in Indian history and civilisation who are in a position to appraise objectively the value of Sanskrit: “If I was asked what is the greatest treasure which India possesses and what is her finest heritage, I would answer unhesitatingly it is the Sanskrit language and literature, and all that it contains. This is a magnificent inheritance, and so long as this endures and influences the life of our people, so long the basic genius of India will continue".”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:71-72)

"The Commission’s report also brings in another quote from the Jawaharlal Nehru to imply that Sanskrit is not only alive, but it is the language that has the potential to even out the balance in education which is leaning towards only the sciences. The report reads –

"“And specially in modern times when a sort of dangerous over-weightage is being given to Sciences and Technology, the Humanities in Sanskrit will prove greatly helpful in restoring the proper balance. It is, indeed, highly significant that, as Prime Minister Shri Nehru told this Commission, Professor Oppenheimer, the great American atomic scientist, spends considerable time in reading Sanskrit and Pali.”

"–(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:76)"

"It seems that even (most) Western Universities and its academia are not part of “the observers” of Pollock who declared Sanskrit as dead. The Commission’s report states - “...the West knows India as “Sanskrit India”, and whenever an Indian University celebrates its jubilee, a Western University normally sends its felicitations in a Sanskrit address...”

"(Sanskrit Commission of India Report 1957:89)

"Adding a contemporary dimension to this, even in 2007 when the then president of India APJ Abdul Kalam visited Greece he was greeted by his Greece counterpart Karolos Papoulias in Sanskrit. A news report on this states –

"“It was a pleasant surprise for President A P J Abdul Kalam when his Greek counterpart Karolos Papoulias greeted him in Sanskrit at the banquet ceremony hosted in honour of the visiting dignitary. “Rashtrapati Mahabhaga, Suswagatam Yavana deshe Bhawatam (Mr President, welcome you in Greece)", thus began the Greek President his speech at the banquet hosted at the Presidential palace on Thursday night much to the delight of the Indian delegation”

"–(Times of India, Apr 27, 2007)"

................................................................................................

................................................

December 27, 2021 - December 28, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 7

Sanskrit: the Phoenix Phenomenon

–K S Kannan and H R Meera

................................................................................................

Authors here give extensive quotes and some brief summaries from the work of Pollock, heavily abusive of India and seeking to kill her culture by pronouncing Sanskrit language dead, before proceeding to refute it

Most of his criticism, when reduced to the kernel, is applicable all literature in every language that can be considered not current; as a character pointed out to another in a science fiction story, what's history? Most people think Rome, Greece, Pompeii, carthage; but past begins a fraction of a second ago, in your own surroundings wherever that be. So if Sanskrit is dead, so's Shakespeare's work, for example, or anything preceding, say, Michael Jackson.

But the worst of Pollock is that he refuses to consider the persecution brought in by Islamic invaders which included not only forced conversions but massacres and genocides, enslavement of large numbers of Indians, rapes and abductions on such a scale that traditions of North India changed for ever, and even more, forced closure of all institutions of education by Hindus, allowing only schools that gave instructions in Islamic studies. In Kashmir where Pollock pronounces Sanskrit dead and more, universities and there libraries were destroyed completely, with hundreds of scholars massacred. It wasn't Sanskrit that died, it was living humans.

Pollock refuses to admit it, giving support to doubt of his integrity - if his work and his person is supported, directly or otherwise, by antisemitic religious institutions of abrahmic roots of faith, that would explain the hatred filled and fraudulent diatribe he pours against India.

"If we consider in general the destruction caused by Islamic invasion from the perspective of the literary activities of any period, the greatest would be the destruction of libraries even though the loss of the life of the scholars is no less tragic. The former, however, would mean the loss of generations of cumulative learning and creation.

'Just taking one instance in the same Rājataraṅgiṇī of Śrīvara, we come across the following verse (1.5.75):

"sekandhara-dharānātho yavanaiḥ preritaḥ purā |

"pustakāni ca sarvāṇi tṛṇāny agir ivādahat ||

"[Translation (our own): Instigated earlier by yavana-s (Muslims), Sikandar, the sultan, burnt down all the books - just as fire would burn down grass.]

"The period being talked about is that of Sikandar But-shikhan (which means ‘Sikandar the Destroyer of Idols’) (1389-1413 CE), regarding whom Śrīvara wrote (ref. Syed et al. 2011:282).

"However, each of the ‘not-very-likely’ reasons that he has listed must have caused a great deal of instability in the normal life, which would undoubtedly affect any scholarly output that might have been possible at the time. Also, of the fires “that engulfed the capital” of Kashmir, one must of necessity ask - what was their cause? That was the period of the beginning of Islamic occupation - isn’t it then a part of the conflict and invasion? Śrīvara himself talks of the literature in deśa-bhāṣā which is Persian rather than Kashmiri; doesn’t this point to a large-scale conversion? These are some of the questions that arise in the light of the claims made by Pollock. More work would be required if we are to find further/clearer answers.

"In the case of Vijayanagara (1.2.4 above) too, the result of an Islamic invasion is downplayed considerably as in the case of Kashmir (1.1.3 above). The destruction that Vijayanagara saw after the battle of Talikota in 1565 marks a civilizational break (ref. Eaton 2005:100). Sewell writes that the fallen capital was ruthlessly pillaged and destroyed for five months (Sewell 1962:200)."

"Taking specific geographic locations in Bhārata in order to arrive at the life (or death) of a pan-Bhārata language is not logically sound, unless it is established a priori that the sample he is considering is truly representative of the whole (via sthālī-pulāka-nyāya).

"One basic problem that we see in the anecdotal samples that are analysed to arrive at the conclusions in the paper, is the inherent contradiction between - (i) considering Sanskrit on the one hand as having pan-Indian (or pan-South Asian) reach and (ii) not considering the entire area of Greater India or rather Bhāratavarṣa, at the four specific time periods that are being considered7. If one focuses on a particular geographic area where conditions may or may not be conducive for cultural life to thrive (as in the case of Kashmir during the invasion of Islamic forces, or the case of Vijayanagara after the Battle of Talikota in 1565), one is bound to see such ‘deaths’. On the contrary, if one looks at the entire Bhāratavarṣa as the locus of literary activity, we can see how Sanskrit is alive rather than being ‘dead’.

"After all, it was a common practice for scholars to move from kingdom to kingdom. (svadeśe pūjyate rājā; vidvān sarvatra pūjyate, as the adage goes). Pollock himself mentions the ease with which Jagannātha moved from court to court, “from Andhra to Jaipur to Delhi and from Udaipur to Assam in a kind of vast “circumambulation of the quarters”” (Pollock 2001:404). To see Bhāratavarṣa as merely a collection of pieces of land that were kingdoms or janapada-s, and nothing more, would be a grave injustice to the land which is truly the cradle of an ancient and steady civilization."

"There are problems in choosing and considering specific slivers of time, in the long history of a language to gauge such a thing as its vitality. Such a situation obtains especially against a “problem” which is rather exclusive to the Indian civilization viz. one of the tendency for self-effacement. As Coomaraswamy (2004:175) points out, the artist is usually anonymous and it is always what is said, and not who said it, that mattered.

"While this is an excellent philosophy, it does make things extremely difficult in a scenario such as we face in the present age, where historicity of all aspects of literature matters, what with the history-centricity that is being thrust on us. (The reason for the emphasis is not hard to fathom – since the secularism which finds wide currency in today’s scholarship has its roots in the Abrahamic tradition which is deeply or rather essentially history-centric) (ref. Malhotra 2011, Ch.2) . In our eventful several millennia of history, forget the absolute dating of a poet/philosopher (to locate him/her, to wit, in the grid of a linear timeline) and locating him/her in a probable geography - even relatively placing them sees too many difficulties more often than not. Commonly, it is the mention of the reigning king that helps in placing the scholar on the time line (though even that is fraught with difficulties since there can be disputes in dating the king himself, as there can be several namesakes of a king in different periods/ages). A lot of different kinds of internal evidences will have to be consulted in the absence of external evidences, in order to deduce a possible time range. For instance, in the case of Kālidāsa, assignments of date ranges from 1 century BCE to 8th century CE, and with no definite idea about his place. What is worse, confusion gets confounded with multiple scholars or poets bearing the same name."

"kati kavayaḥ, kati kṛtayaḥ, kati luptāḥ, kati caranti, kati śithilāḥ |

"tad api pravartayati māṁ nigamoktākhyāna-saṁvidhāne hā ||

"If we consider the number of works produced (encompassing all genres of writing from kāvya to bhāṣya to independent works on the various sciences) , only a fraction probably were reproduced in the manuscript form – due to various reasons such as lessening interest in the subject, natural calamities, invasions, economic conditions etc. The major reason for the losses of the ones actually created is actually destruction of libraries. Of even that fraction, it is only a further fraction that survives till date – thanks to the tropical weather, ignorance in the families where they are preserved etc. Hundreds of Sanskrit texts are available only in Tibetan translation. Of the surviving ones, even if we have some information of more than half of them, there are according to the census, over 30 million manuscripts.

"Sanskrit is the primary culture-bearing language of India, with a continuous production of literature in all fields of human endeavor over the course of four millennia. Preceded by a strong oral tradition of knowledge transmission, records of written Sanskrit remain in the form of inscriptions dating back to the first century B.C.E. Extant manuscripts in Sanskrit number over 30 million - one hundred times those in Greek and Latin combined - constituting the largest cultural heritage that any civilization has produced prior to the invention of the printing press. Sanskrit works include extensive epics, subtle and intricate philosophical, mathematical, and scientific treatises, and imaginative and rich literary, poetic, and dramatic texts.

"–(Goyal et al 2012:1012)

'The number of surviving manuscripts being that large, it is difficult to imagine the size of the corpus had all the works survived.

"When we look at only one particular genre such as kāvya8, if the numbers we are considering are even a third, hypothetically, of the total corpus available now considering the profusion of kāvya literature that has been produced, there are still so many in that number which haven’t even seen the light of the day9. There would then be 10 million of the kāvya manuscripts. If even a fourth of all the manuscripts ever produced have survived till date, the total number of manuscripts originally produced would be 4 times 30million, i.e. 120 million (another hypothetical number). Even if one factors in the repetitions (50 mss for each kāvya), it would come to 5 lakh kāvya-s. If this number is to be representative of the corpus that was originally produced, one sees the difficulty of extending a deduction or a conclusion from this fraction to the original whole.

"We are also aware, to but a very small extent, of the losses. Many anthologies have eulogising verses that mention poets by name. In a play of Kālidāsa we find the mention of Bhāsa, Saumilla and Kaviputra10. For centuries together, scholars had merely heard of Bhāsa, with none of his works being available. It was only in the beginning of the 20th century that Bhāsa’s works were traced (see Sastri 1925). And we still do not have any inkling as to who Saumilla was or what Kaviputra wrote. Likewise there are so many poetesses who are known only by the appearance of their muktaka-s in anthologies. Same is the case even of great writers in śāstra-s such as Bhaṭṭa Tauta (the guru of Abhinavagupta, and the author of Kāvya-kautuka-vivaraṇa which has not been traced) and Kauṭalya (a.k.a Cāṇakya, the author of Arthaśāstra, which was discovered only in the early 20th century)."

"In this section we try to recognize certain patterns of reasoning that emerge from reading (between the lines as well) the article of Pollock.

"a. Choosing a narrow definition to determine the vitality of a tradition/language:

"Choosing only that kāvya-genre which according to Pollock is representative of ‘creative vitality’, he completely neglects the other genres of literature produced, including (a) the very substantial glosses by giants of scholars like Sāyaṇa, (b) stotra literature, and (c) scientific literature (ref. Hanneder 2002:298-99), to list but three.

"b. Selecting data to fit a theory:

"He cites Jonarāja’s listing of no poets, no good works in the period of 140 years. He mentions that the presence of Turks as insignificant. However, he fails to mention the havoc wreaked by Sikandar Butshikhan who is mentioned by Śrīvara (see Kaul 2001:231,233 and Haig 1918:454,455). Such cherry-picking of facts can only lead to a distorted picture.

"c. Selective playing-up and playing-down:

"We find instances of his playing down the great genocides, invasions etc that happened with the coming of the Muslim invaders (see 1.1.3, 1.2.4 above). He plays up the rare good things e.g. the donation that was given by a Muslim to a temple here, a scholar supported there, and a good Sultan somewhere else – in order to project a picture of a very benevolent rule (e.g. the rule of Zain-ul-'abidin) while not citing the enormous destruction caused (e.g. libraries burnt by Sikandar). His general claim is that Muslim rulers tried to save the language and were benevolent (Pollock 2001:416) which is contradicted by other records (ref. Bostom 2008:458-460). On the contrary, every case of a ‘bad’ Hindu ruler is projected as though it is a representative sample of ‘bad’ Hindu rule, while not choosing to look at the benevolent Hindu rulers and their contributions. This can be summed up with a new rule – meyādhīnā mānasiddhiḥ (Let us choose such tools and measures as suit the conclusions we want to portray!)

"d. Using various terms/frameworks of social science, modern psychology, anthropology, Biblical studies etc to superimpose on traditional Indian thought.

"The traditional scholars who are ignorant of other modern fields and the various theories therein are completely confounded and awed into submission to Pollock's methodology. There are inherent problems of using vocabulary and frameworks of fields of study completely alien to Sanskrit studies. (For instance, Wirkungsgeschichte (See Pollock 2001:393) is a term in Biblical studies coined by Gadamer for the hermeneutic principle of “history of effects”. It means that a text is understood by taking account the effects it has produced in history, by inserting oneself in this history and dialoguing with it. See Eberhard 2004:90)

"e. List and dismiss:

"Enumerating the possible causes for a particular event (lest an opponent point out that all causes were not considered) but dismissing them without really giving even as much as substantial reason, saying no more than that they are ‘not very likely’. We see this in 1.1.3 and 1.2.4, to give but two examples. Divida et impera: Though trying to deduce the fate of a pan-Bhārata language, his focus is on specific kingdoms and janapada-s and not Bhāratavarṣa, in order to declare its death in each case. To show an apparent conflict between Sanskrit and vernaculars, he pits the production and popularity of vernacular literature against that of Sanskrit literature, drawing conclusions, and colouring them with politics."

"For a language which has supposedly ‘died’ so many times, Sanskrit definitely has a way of returning to life – a veritable phoenix that it is! However, rather than qualifying the low points in its history as ‘death’, one can term it renewal or reconfiguration. This is because, unlike the other ‘dead’ languages, Sanskrit has a very dynamic and close relationship with the vernaculars which are in currency."

................................................................................................

................................................

December 28, 2021 - December 29, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Chapter 8

On “Death of Sanskrit”

–Manogna Sastry

................................................................................................

"‘The Death of Sanskrit’ – the essay published under this rather astonishing title by the Indologist Sheldon Pollock (Pollock 2001) bids us to a dynamic re-examination and a defense of our invaluable literary instrument. The most august, venerable and determinative creations of the Indian race have been written in Sanskrit, and pronouncing death upon the language is tantamount to an inability in understanding the true role of this divine tongue. Pollock’s essay merits a clear understanding of the burden of his song. The motives for the author’s position and the method of his reasoning are studied here in order to understand why he would see efforts to promote the language as a politically biased “exercise in nostalgia”. The distinction the author makes between living and dead languages and his attempts at placing Sanskrit in the latter category are closely examined. The four major questions the author considers as a part of his analysis in proclaiming death upon the language consist of the impact of the vernaculars upon Sanskrit, the political, social and spiritual components that played a role in the decline of the language and the factors he considers necessary for consolidating the language in today’s times. Pollock cites four specific historical instances that apparently illustrate his stance and these are critically examined."

"India of the ages is not dead nor has she spoken her last creative word; she lives and has still something to do for herself and the human peoples. And that which must seek now to awake is not an anglicised Oriental people, docile pupil of the West and doomed to repeat the cycle of the Occident's success and failure, but still the ancient immemorable Shakti recovering her deepest self, lifting her head higher towards the supreme source of light and strength and turning to discover the complete meaning and a vaster form of her Dharma.

"–Sri Aurobindo"

" ... At this juncture, it may prove helpful to have insights from an outsider to better one’s reflection. For the outsider too, there are ways of perceiving an alien culture. There is, firstly, the sympathetic viewer and there are several foreigners who have embraced Indian culture and contributed enormously to its value, from Sister Nivedita to Romain Rolland. Then, there is the impartial and objective critic, who, without any prejudice in objective, balances the worth against the weakness and whose objective criticism must be welcomed to balance one’s own study. The third is the belligerent critic, whose motives need to be carefully studied as well as his methods. And Sheldon Pollock lends himself to this third type. His overcharging declaration of the ‘death’ of Sanskrit summons a vigorous analysis and re-statement of the role of the language in present day India."

" ... Pollock’s bias against the recent attempts at revitalising Sanskrit is revealed through his disdain for efforts by the Indian government as well as private organizations here for promoting the language. He holds the rise of Hindutva and the election of the Bharatiya Janata Party to power at the central levels of government responsible for reviving a nationalistic culture. Efforts to promote the language independent of the Hindutva association that have been carried out in post independent India by several individuals and organizations are not given any credit. Pollock believes that this revival is driven by political motivations, and in the process, “distorted images of India’s past” are being created including the viewpoint that Sanskrit is native to India and that it existed during the Indus Valley Civilization. He sets aside prevailing debates about the origin and geographical indigenousness of the language as well as discussions of the forms of Sanskrit during the latter part of the Harappan civilsation. Pollock further betrays his lack of recognition of the true role of Sanskrit in defining the identity of the Indian soul when he scorns any championing of the language by nationalistic elements, calling them “farcical repetition of Romantic myths of primevality”.

"Indeed, it is vitally important for a nation to be cautious in ensuring that exaggerated claims about its past are not made a part of its national narrative. Yet, the process of rediscovery and reinterpretation of the Indian identity that is currently taking place, in the context of globalised and liberalised policies at all levels of the State, finds the Indian of today looking back at his history without the coloured glasses of subjection that his colonial oppressor forced him to wear. ... The number of people for whom Sanskrit is associated with the very template of the cultural fabric of India is far too big; and to dismiss this section by labeling and associating the campaign with only ultra-nationalistic elements amounts to closing the debate for the majority of the section. And Pollock assails this process of reinterpretation and growth, which is marked by a feature of self-assertive power, by calling it ‘the State’s anxiety’ and condemns any effort that has gone into the preservation and propagation of the language as a part of a ‘melancholic history.’ Had this condemnation arisen from a lesser mind, it would have been forgivable. For a critic of Pollock’s caliber, then, to question efforts in post independent India for the preservation and sharpening of the instrument in which the greatest canons of the land have been written, is but a pointer to the dubious and hostile motives of the man.

"Pollock goes on to enlist the efforts that have gone into popularising Sanskrit since independence, and states that there have been hardly any results for all the funds and resources that have been allocated for the development of the language. While Pollock speaks about the political checks that he sees as being placed in this ‘revisionism’, he seems to be speaking of only one face of it. He makes no mention at all of how during the decades before the rise of the ‘Hindutva’, Sanskrit had to contend with the active State and governmental neglect. In 1994, attempts were made under the P V Narasimha Rao government to remove Sanskrit from the CBSE syllabus. It was the intervention of the Supreme Court that ended the Government’s foolish move. The role played by these political and judicial checks in post independent India are not even discussed by Pollock while he maintains that any effort to revive the language is futile.

"Having expressed his derision and disdain for the work done in promoting the language, especially as a spoken one, Pollock finally states the crux of his essay – “Government feeding tubes and oxygen tanks may try to preserve the language in a state of quasi-animation, but most observers would agree that, in some crucial way, Sanskrit is dead” (p. 393). ... While admitting the influence of Sanskrit across Asia, he maintains that there have not been any theories on “whether and if so, when, Sanskrit culture ceased to make history”, and why the language could not remain creatively vital.

"A further study of the paper reveals that Pollock’s definition of the ‘death’ of Sanskrit is primarily a reference to the dearth of production of creative works, especially in the domain of kāvya, over the last millennium. His method consists of singling out particular instances - over different periods of time spread over a thousand years and geographically scattered across the land - to support his thesis and overlooking those that invalidate it, pointing thus to a manner of biased scholarship. His consideration, of phases when emphasis was laid on documentation and “reinscription and restatement” as periods of decline and decay of the language, is debatable; and while doing so, Pollock conveniently casts away vitally important canons from these periods which readily disprove his thesis. Thus, Pollock’s method of arbitrary selection drives his thesis from two major angles – (a) his exclusive focus on the genre of kāvya (excluding even stotra-s) as the only measure of the vitality of the language, and (b) his very small set of four instances spread over a millennium across the country during which the language declined.

"In his study of the “history of Sanskrit knowledge systems,” Pollock (2001:393) remarks that “the two centuries before European colonialism decisively established itself in the sub continent around 1750 constitute one of the most innovative epochs of Sanskrit systematic thought”. Sanskrit thrived in India until then, according to him, with massive creative output in every major genre of the language. He does not make any reference at all to the effects of the Islamic invasion on the social and cultural fabric of the land and particularly on the linguistic scene. Yet, by 1800, the creative ability has disappeared from the land. Thus, according to Pollock, Sanskrit was alive enough to withstand all the shocks and turmoil the land had faced in the first half of the millennium to lead to the Navya movement but was dead within the next fifty years, by 1800. Calling this a momentous rupture, he admits the analysis of this sudden change is complex but himself selects only the genre of kāvya to study the decline in the language, quoting the Gujarati poet Dalpatrām Dahyabhai’s work in 1857 as further evidence and highlights his case throughout the essay.

"Without any analysis of the various roles Sanskrit has played in expressing the very psyche and mind of the Indian; without any recognition of the central role it has played in formulating some of the most profound spiritual, philosophical, intellectual and emotional conceptions of not just the Indian but of the human race; and by further not considering the various genres in which Sanskrit has continued to survive and thrive in India, Pollock’s proclaiming death on the language on account of its no longer being the first language of the majority population in the country is contrived and purposeful overcharging. His carefully chosen examples that purportedly demonstrate the death of the language over the millennium consist of: (1) “The disappearance of Sanskrit literature in Kashmir,” (2) “its diminished power in sixteenth century Vijayanagara,” (3) “its short-lived moment of modernity at the Mughal court,” and (4) “its ghostly existence in Bengal on the eve of colonialism.” The four cases are duly considered in the following sections."

"Pollock begins his case by considering the scene in the valley during 1140, a time during which Kashmir served as a celebrated and revered seat for the learning of the language. Alaṅkāra holds a gathering in honour of his brother Maṅkha, the author of the epic Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. The assembly hosts some of the greatest names in the field, from Ruyyaka, Maṅkha’s mentor, to Trailokya and Jinduka. Kalhaṇa, whose work Rājataraṅgiṇī is considered the most noteworthy historical poem of the language, is present in this august gathering as well. Every major branch of the language is represented through its best exponent in this exalted congregation, establishing the premier position held by Kashmir during the time. Not only is the assembly playing host to literary titans, but also to the leading names in the fields of physicians, philosophers and architects who were present at the gathering.

"Pollock builds a strong case to highlight that, the period of 1140CE represented the zenith of the intellectual development attained by Kashmir. He is right in highlighting the remarkable lineage the place boasted of since the seventh century. ... "

"Yet, within fifty years from 1140CE, the literary landscape has changed beyond recognition. Pollock highlights that production of new creations in all the major genres of the language has come to a standstill. From being a focal point of learning, Kashmir has become barren. Fifteenth century is the next age during which significant compositions emerge again. The royal patronage issued to Sanskrit by the Sultan Zain-ul-'abidin created the necessary conditions for the revival, says Pollock. Jonarāja was the chief scholar at the Sultan’s court and he continued Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī. The gap in the narrative of the rulers of the land in the epic poem highlights the political and cultural transformations that have swept through the valley. Śrīvara’s anthology, Subhāṣitāvalī, enlists more than 350 poets of the land, and Pollock (2001:397) asserts that even though the large number of poets enlisted can be construed to indicate that the period since 1140 did indeed produce several works in the language, the anthology does not produce any proof that works of significance were created.

"Pollock then inquires into the reasons for such rupture in the creative output from the literary scene of Kashmir. He mentions that works could have been lost in the various calamities that befell the land, including frequent fires in the capital. He touches very briefly on the Mongol invasion of 1320, but makes no note at all of the remarkable transformations that took place in the social, religious and cultural fabric of the land during the reigns of Sultan Zain-ul-'abidin’s predecessors, especially Sikander Shāh Mīr (ref. Kaw 2004:108), who went on a spree of destroying idols, temples and Hindu culture in every village of the valley, as documented by Jonarāja in Rājataraṅgiṇī as well. He points out that, even though Kashmir had faced a similar breakdown during the late ninth century, it was able to recover and bounce back to produce some of the finest works in the language through Abhinavagupta, Kuntaka and Mahimabhaṭṭa But, he believes the twelfth century is different as the deterioration could never be reversed. Very briefly admitting that “the possibility exists that this picture of literary collapse is an artifact of our data,” (Pollock 2001:397) and that, the loss of works in the various calamities that befell the state could paint a different picture, Pollock sets it aside to present his interpretation of the decline. One thus clearly observes a pattern of the author to mention in passing probable causes for the decline but peremptorily dismisses all of them except the one he chooses to focus upon."

" ... At this juncture, one must wonder why Pollock conveniently leaves out the patronage given by Harṣa’s predecessors in the Lohara dynasty to Sanskrit. 1286 is a significant year in the history of the land as complete anarchy broke out during the time. The attack by Rinchana, the Tibetan ruler who plundered the capital Srinagar, the calamity that befell the whole land as well as the decisive victories of the Turks over the Hindus, all occurring during the thirteenth century and the first three decades of the fourteenth century find no account in Pollock’s work. Having ignored these momentous changes as critical causes for the breakdown of socio-political structures in the place, and only mentioning the later invasion of 1320 in a single line, Pollock states, “But none of these possibilities seem very likely.” This is a highly contentious statement from the author. On the one hand, he ignores the most savage and formidable challenges Hindu culture as a whole faced during the Islamic invasion in Kashmir, and on the other, he emphatically places the blame on the “breakdown of the courtly-civic ethos of Kashmir” during the rule of the Hindu kings.

"The stark contrast in the manner in which Pollock absolves the Turkish kings of any responsibility for the blows faced by Sanskrit literary culture is illustrated through the manner in which he condones Sultan Zain-ul-'abidin’s destruction of the idol of Goddess Śāradā. Pollock’s double standards and duplicity in calling the Sultan a “pious devotee”, and describing the act of destruction as something the goddess made him do, “the goddess ‘made him smash to pieces her very own image’” is very revealing of Pollock’s methods of analysis where he casts no light at all on any observation, or even the historical evidence that challenges and counters his tenuously built analysis.

"Further highlighting his case, Pollock maintains that Sanskrit literature historically propagated out of Kashmir and the lack of any such spread post twelfth century is seen as validation of his argument that the language had significantly declined in quality and quantity during the period. ... Pollock states that, as what was lost during the period was the more principal element of creating original work in literature, Sanskrit has disappeared from its once hallowed seat, viz. Kashmir. He does not mention even in passing the revival of the language in 1857 under the reign of Raṇavīra Singh, who is said to have commissioned more than 30 works in all genres of Sanskrit literature. The king’s courtly poets including Pandit Sahibram, Viśveśvara generated great keenness for the language once again in the valley (Majumdar 2001a:165) and this finds no account in Pollock’s work."

"If the first case had at its heart the role played by the breakdown of the “courtly-civic ethos” and the “debauchery of the Hindu kings”, the second case has at its crux the “complicated politics of literary language and far sharper competition among literary cultures” in Vijayanagara (Pollock 2001:400), one of the greatest empires ever built in southern India. In holding the rise of the vernaculars responsible for the decline in Sanskrit, Pollock brings a dubious critical eye to the multilingual nature of life in the empire. In spite of Kṛṣṇadevarāya being a Kannada king, Pollock argues that he did little to champion Kannada at the court. Timmaṇṇa was the only court poet of the language while the Dāsa tradition flourished in the empire. Sanskrit in the state saw no new creations but then, Pollock admits that scholarship in the language reached its zenith during the period. The governors of the state too were very well versed in the language and were learned men but, of “only reproductive and not original learning,” he states. As J Hanneder analyses in his response ‘On “The Death of Sanskrit” to Pollock’s paper, “to state this of scholars like Vidyāraṇya and Sāyaṇa who were crucial figures in establishing through their literary activities what came to be considered the fundamental canon of Hindu religious tenets is totally unconvincing.” (Hanneder 2002:307)

"In a further analysis, especially in literature that was produced in Vijayanagara, Pollock laments that the quality of kāvya written was poor and wonders how and why the works from the court survived at all (Pollock 2001:401), after the empire was destroyed in 1565. He believes that the dynamism and spirit seen in the works of Kannada and Telugu are absent in Sanskrit. Thus, in this multilingual empire, he believes Kannada was poorly represented in the court, Sanskrit was only used for State purposes and Telugu was the main medium in which even Kṛṣṇadevarāya composed. Using words such as “conflict” and “competition” between the vernaculars on the one hand and Sanskrit on the other, Pollock seems inclined to build for the reader an image that perpetuates a sharp dichotomy between the two. The scenario - where the vernaculars and Sanskrit thrived, and creative energies flowed mutually between them as against a fight for power -is not given even a slight consideration by the author, thus bringing his motives under scrutiny.

" ... Having ignored stotra-s and religious works as significant examples of literary activity earlier in the essay, Pollock now points out that the vernaculars were more active in propagating religious sentiments in Vijayanagara and Sanskrit was only reserved for official state purposes. Thus, it is not the absence of works in Sanskrit that establish its decline during the period but, the nature of the works that Pollock questions, using standards that are arbitrary."

" ... Repeatedly, one finds Pollock’s method - of dismissing the negative impact of the Islamic invasions on the creation, preservation and restoration of the Sanskrit language in India – as a characteristic attribute of his work."

" ... Pollock reduces all the transformations taking place in the language - including his own admission in the earlier part of the essay viz. that this period corresponded with some of the most innovative departures that took place in Sanskrit - to the statement that the outcome of the literary era is an inert unresponsiveness and resistance. This is indeed a very dismissive and contemptuous position Pollock elects to take."

" ... Pollock’s mode of analysis is not only questionable but his conclusions and inferences in each of these instances of study are labored and factitious. Thus, the highlight of the literary analysis of Sanskrit in the seventeenth century that Pollock makes, pivots on the role played by Jagannātha’s marriage to a Muslim woman. It is indeed startling that this is the conclusion the acclaimed Indologist makes."

"Pollock begins the last case by recounting the surveys commissioned during the British Rāj, of the state of Sanskrit learning in the Bengal and Madras presidencies. Despite Pollock’s insistence that Sanskrit as a language had lost the vital force to spread and survive, he admits that the surveys provided information to the contrary picture. Discussing the statistics from the ‘Third Report’, the survey commissioned by William Adam in the 1830s in five districts in the Bengal presidency, one finds that there were 353 Sanskrit schools with over 2500 students in them. ... "

"Numerous newer and interesting works came up during the period : works such as those of Rāghava Āpa Khanḍekar in Maharashtra who wrote a lexicon Kośāvataṁsa, a book on astronomy Kheṭakṛti and the literary work Kṛṣṇavilāsa; other writers such as Achyutarāya Modak, Gaṅgādhara of Nagpur; writers from the Kashmir seat of learning such as Śivaśaṅkara, Vāsudeva, Ganeśa and Lāla Paṇḍita; and writers from the southern regions such as Rāmasvāmi Śāstri and Sundara Rāja; all these and more importantly, he ignores the changing trends that found their expression through the publication of short stories and journals through the influence of Western style, and goes on to state, “In terms of both the subjects considered acceptable and the audience it was prepared to address, Sanskrit had chosen to make itself irrelevant to the new world.” One wonders why the critic is so determined to set aside any evidence that is contrary to his position."Taking the example of Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Pollock (2001:414) asserts, “Sanskrit intellectuals seemed able to respond, or were interested in responding, only to a challenge made on their own terrain – that is, in Sanskrit.” Furthermore, “Sanskrit had ceased to function as the vehicle for living thought, thought that supplemented and not simply duplicated reality.” (2001:414). If this is indeed the state of affairs in the country, as suggested by Pollock, one must question how a song like Vande Mātaram - written in simple Sanskrit with a sprinkling of Bengali words, as a part of Ānandmaṭh by Bankim Chandra Chaṭṭopādhyay - spread throughout the length and breadth of the nation, and indeed became a call for galvanizing energy during the Swadeshi movement; it was as well a call for fight for freedom, calling upon the people to take up the fight, the ones who had been oppressed by centuries of economic, political and social bondage. It was among the very first attempts at forging an identity of Motherland; and in the process, the song has given an entire people a timeless conception of one’s nation as a living force, and in a language they have seen as the mother of all their native languages.

"In this context, as Pollock sounds the death-knell for Sanskrit, during this latest period in his analysis, one feels Hanneder’s statement (Hanneder 2002:308) holds true:

"“It would be possible to add instances, where Pollock has interpreted the evidence to fit his thesis without considering other options. But let us briefly mention two examples of, if one wishes, innovations: The first is the development of a particular brand of Campū from tenth century onwards. The other is the recent adaptation in Sanskrit literature of new genres like that of the modern short story. One, in my view, particularly impressive synthesis of classical Sanskrit style and the modern social – critical short story is found in Kṣamā Rao’s works. It would not be surprising to find more of this sort in the Sanskrit literature of 19th and 20th century. One should also not forget that the transformation of the Sanskrit Pandits who came in contact with or were under the influence of the British education system in India, are not examples for the power of ‘Sanskritic culture’ to adapt and interact with modernity; this innovation was even a necessary condition for the emergence of Indology itself.”

"Pollock goes on to suggest “Perhaps those who are not inheritors of a two-thousand year long tradition cannot possibly know its weight – the weight of all the generations of the dead who remain contemporary and exigent” (2001:414). Firstly, the tradition is much older than the two thousand years that Pollock mentions. Secondly, it appears that Pollock is responding to William Adam, who conducted the survey in Bengal presidency in 1830, as a man who loves the language, but having made such a biased case for declaring Sanskrit dead, Pollock now takes the stand of a duplicitously benevolent critic. ... "

"Pollock is only right when he states “It is no straightforward manner to configure these four moments of Sanskrit literary culture into a single, plausible historical narrative.” (2001:414). The reason for this difficulty is that there is no naturally connecting thread that runs between them; and Pollock is trying to laboriously and synthetically create a case for the death of the entire Sanskrit language by highlighting disconnected moments in the genre of literary activity alone in a perpetually changing scenario over a millennium of India. He asserts his particulars, often “anecdotal factoids,” as Rajiv Malhotra rightly calls them, and sometimes outright untrue statements, in such an assertive manner even while consciously ignoring evidence contrary to his claims. Thus,

"“ ... in Kashmir after the thirteenth century, Sanskrit literature ceased almost entirely to be produced; in Vijayanagara, not a single Sanskrit literary work entered into transregional circulation, an achievement that signaled excellence in earlier periods; in seventeenth century Delhi, remarkable innovations found no continuation, leaving nineteenth century Sanskrit literary culture utterly unable to perpetuate itself into modernity.”

"–Pollock (2001:414)"

" ... With Pollock’s own examples, one can witness the resilience and indomitability of the Sanskrit language - to have withstood shocks, assault, negligence and attempts to actively destroy it over a millennium; and what is more, it continues to survive and rediscover itself even in our own day and age.

"In comparison with Latin, Pollock (2001:415) considers the later period of the language and says “Both died slowly, and earliest as a vehicle of literary expression.” “Politics of translocal aspiration” have ‘forced’ attempts at renewal, he says, brushing into this ‘forced attempts’ all the remarkable literary work that was carried out in the courts of the Peshwas and the Wodeyars in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. “Both came to be ever more exclusively associated with narrow forms of religion and priestcraft, despite centuries of a secular aesthetic.” (2001:415). While Pollock associates this insular characteristic to the language, one is reminded of recent efforts to study Sanskrit even by scientists at NASA for its grammatical structure and the manner in which it lends itself naturally to artificial intelligence (see Briggs 1985). It is also important to consider here the words of J Hanneder (2002:309) in his paper responding to Pollock on the matter,

"“Perhaps the parallel with the decline of Latin leads him to take the production of religious literature as less indicative of an alive Sanskrit culture, while the religious Stotra is for this reason not a valid genre for him! ... And I imagine that not only Sanskrit poets would have protested against the notion that the real indicators of intellectual activity are the professional critic and the professor of literature, rather than the poet.”

"Pollock then mentions the differences between the two languages viz. Sanskrit and Latin, with the first being the role of communicative expertise that has been a part of Sanskritic culture throughout its history until the time of the British, when Macaulay famously introduced his system of education (see Macaulay 1835) with the explicit aim of ending learning and communication in Sanskrit. While both Europe and India have seen vernacularisation over the last millennium, the two situations differ in their nature. Pollock acknowledges that “the intellectuals who promoted the transformation, certainly in its most consequential phases, were themselves learned in Sanskrit”, and this, as against the situation with Latin in Europe. His assessment that those who could read vernacular poetry in India were also well versed in Sanskrit is valid and true.

"In his search for the causes of the “death” of Sanskrit, Pollock emphatically sets aside, without any consideration of unbiased evidence, any impact by the Islamic invasion on the state of the language. He maintains, “The evidence adduced here shows this to be historically untenable,” (Pollock 2001:416), and has presented carefully selected instances that support his claim, while consciously discounting the works of so many writers who have written contrary to it. He further continues, “It was not ‘alien rule unsympathetic to kāvya’ and a ‘desperate struggle with barbarous invaders’ that sapped the strength of Sanskrit literature. In fact, it was often the barbarous invader who sought to revive Sanskrit.” (2001:416). It becomes impossible to attach credibility to Pollock’s conclusions when one reads accounts of the manner in which the culture of the land, with its unparalleled structures of learning including its vast libraries, was massacred under the invasions of Muhammed Ghazni, Muhammed Ghori, and their cultural successors until Aurangzeb four centuries ago. ... "

" ... By describing Sanskrit as “the idiom of a cosmopolitan literature,” Pollock attempts to present a nonexistent divide between the Vernaculars and Sanskrit. India has always been a land of multiplicity; and having both the vernaculars and Sanskrit existing simultaneously, with constant flow of ideas and energies between the two - is an unacceptable scenario to Pollock."

" ... Pollock again repeats his assertion that the ethos “had more or less fully succumbed by the thirteenth century, long before consolidation of the Turkish power in the Valley.” (2001:416). One certainly hopes that a lie repeated a thousand times does not become truth. Pointing out that Sanskrit had no establishments and structures to help it adapt, disseminate and percolate the changes more intensely into the social fabric of the land, Pollock believes that the traditional networks and collective efforts went into fighting limited and temporary goals. Once again, this position of Pollock seems conflicting with the idea expressed by many historians and critics that there was, indeed, a proliferation of publishing material towards the later parts of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries with the introduction of the printing press to India."

" ... Pollock ends his essay with a further belabouring of the same statement - “At all events, the fact remains that well before the consolidation of colonialism, before even the establishment of the Islamicate political order, the mastery of tradition had become an end it itself for Sanskrit literary culture, and reproduction, rather than revitalization, the overriding concern.” (2001:418).

"The analysis Rajiv Malhotra has performed of this particular theme of Pollock’s work in his book The Battle for Sanskrit (2016) has been invaluable for its preciseness and clarity. ... "

................................................................................................

................................................

December 29, 2021 - December 30, 2021.

................................................

................................................................................................

Our Contributors

(in alphabetical order of last names)

Naresh Prakash Cuntoor

Dr. Naresh Prakash Cuntoor is a Senior Research Scientist, Intelligent Automation Inc., Rockville, MD, US. He has an M.S. and PhD from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Maryland. His research interests include human activity recognition, scene understanding, perceptual organization and computer vision for robotics applications. He pursues Sanskrit with keen interest and is a volunteer for Samskrita Bharati USA.

Satyanarayana Das

Satyanarayana Dasa is a BTech from IIT(Delhi) in Mechanical Engineering and MTech from the same institution in Industrial Engineering. After working in this line for a while in Mumbai and then in the US, he gave up that career in favour of a quest for his spiritual roots. He took up Sanskrit studies and studied the entire literature of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition under the tutelage of Guru Haridasa Shastri Maharaj and completed his PhD in Sanskrit from Agra University. Dr. Dasa is the founder of the Jiva Institute of Vedic Studies in Vrindavan.

Koenraad Elst

Dr. Elst is a scholar of Philosophy, Chinese and Indo-Iranian Studies and is well-known for this several books and articles on various India-centric issues such as the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi issue and the Aryan question as well as those reflecting a deep study of Nazism amongst other things. Amongst the books he has penned are The Saffron Swastika, Ayodhya and After: Issues before Hindu Society, Negationism in India – Concealing the Record of Islam and Psychology of Prophetism – a Secular look at the Bible.

K Gopinath

Prof. Gopinath is currently employed as Professor at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore in the Computer Science and Automation Department. He has a doctorate from Stanford, Master’s from UW Madison, BTech from IITM and has worked at AMD and Sun Microsystems Labs.

K S Kannan

Prof. K S Kannan is a Visiting Professor at the Centre for Ancient History and Culture, Jain University, Bengaluru, and is the Academic Director of the Swadeshi Indology Conference Series. He is a Former Director, Karnataka Sanskrit University and has a PhD in Sanskrit. His pursuits include research into Sanskrit literature and Indian Philosophy, and he is the author of about 20 books, prominent among them being Theoretical Foundations of Āyurveda published by FRLHT, Bengaluru in 2007 and Virūpākṣa Vasantotsava Campū, Annotated Edition, published by Kannada Vishvavidyalaya, Hampi, Karnataka in 2001. He is also the co-translator of Vibhinnate, the translation into Kannada (2016), of the seminal work in English Being Different written by Rajiv Malhotra.

Jayaraman Mahadevan

Dr. Jayaraman Mahadevan is currently serving as Director, Research Department, Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram, Chennai, Scientific Industrial Research Organisation. He has a PhD in Sanskrit from the Department of Sanskrit, University of Madras, His thesis was titled The Doctrine of Tantrayukti – A Study. He has presented 20 papers in various National and International conferences and has given talks in universities, colleges and institutions of national eminence. He has also written books, organised seminars, funded projects and been the guide for students pursuing their PhD. His areas of interest are Yoga, Tantrayukti, Vedanta, Sanskrit Poetic Literature and Manuscript Studies.

H R Meera

H R Meera is an engineer graduate with BE degree from BMS College of Engineering, Bangalore. After serving as a consultant and software engineer for several years, she yearned to connect to her roots and pursued study of Sanskrit, procuring an MA. She is currently doing her PhD in interdisciplinary work at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore. She is the co-translator of Vibhinnate, the Kannada translation of Rajiv Malhotra’s Being Different.

Ashay Deepak Naik

Ashay Naik is a software developer at Matific Ltd. and has just released his first book Natural Enmity: Reflections on the Niti and Rasa of the Panchatantra [Book 1]. He has a Masters in Information Technology from the Queensland University of Technology, Australia and an Honours in Sanskrit from the University of Sydney, Australia.

Manogna H Sastry

Manogna H Sastry is Chief Operations Officer as well as Mentor and Research Associate at the Centre for Fundamental Research and Creative Education, Bengaluru http://www.cfrce.com/manognahshastry.htm. Manogna has an M.S. from the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru, where her thesis was on Inflationary Cosmology. She is a keen student of Sanskrit literature and Indic studies, a passionate environmentalist and gardener.

................................................................................................

................................................

December 23, 2021 - December 30, 2021.

Purchased December 05, 2021.

Kindle Edition, 288 pages

Published January 5th 2018

by INFINITY FOUNDATION INDIA

ASIN:- B078VCNTBR

................................................

................................................................................................

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4406971387

................................................................................................

Reviews - Books I Read - DRJG

Sunday, December 26, 2021

WESTERN INDOLOGY & ITS QUEST FOR POWER: Proceedings of the Swadeshi Indology Conference Series.

Light Explodes Across Heavens

Blog Archive

Serene, Reflecting

Contributors

Followers

My Shelfari Bookshelf