S.K. Arun Murthi 
The controversy over Sanskrit has resurfaced again and this time it is in the Parliament. A few days back, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP Dayanidhi Maran had sharp exchanges with the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on the issue of including Sanskrit in the list of languages for which simultaneous interpretation was being made available in the Parliament. It was Maran’s contention that Sanskrit was not a “communicable” language and, therefore, it was a waste of taxpayers’ money to provide for such an interpretation.
A few years back, on the birth anniversary of B.R. Ambedkar, former Chief Justice of India Sharat Bobde had said that Ambedkar had proposed Sanskrit as the “official national language” of India. Of course, he was vague by being not able to recall whether the same was tabled in the Constituent Assembly (CA). Later, Madras High Court Justice G.R. Swaminathan also made the same point that “Ambedkar wanted Sanskrit as the national language”.
There was indeed a debate in the CA that took place between September 12 and 14, 1949, on the issue of India’s official and national language. However, there is no record from the proceedings of the CA debates of Ambedkar’s participation on this issue to tie him up with it.
Justice Bobde clubbed both the words ‘official’ and ‘national’ but it should be borne in mind that as per the conclusion of the CA, Hindi was adopted only as an official language (enshrined in Article 343 of the constitution) and, contrary to the general perception, it is not a national language. It is a different matter that during the course of the debate there were some members arguing for the national language status also for Hindi.
In the face of Ambedkar’s strong resistance to Brahminical elitism that is expressed in his writings and speeches, this claim of Justice Bobde and Justice Swaminathan should be viewed with some skepticism. This skepticism can be justified by:
- the way Sanskrit was looked upon as an exclusive language of the elites for scholastic purposes in the past, and
- the CA debate on it which reveals its unsuitability as an official language
A discussion of both the above points carries some significance in assessing whether Justice Bobde and Justice Swaminathan’s claim is consistent with the ideas that Ambedkar stood for. The discussion will also help us appraise the appropriateness of Birla’s response to Maran when he (Birla) defended its inclusion in the list. In his response, Birla claimed, rather forcefully, that Sanskrit is the primary language of “Bharat”.
This discussion is also important to understand how much of official transactions can be conducted in Sanskrit, though Uttarakhand (in 2010) and Himachal Pradesh (in 2019) are the two states to have Sanskrit as a second official language. If we are unable to conduct any official transactions in this language, why should it be thought of as an official language?
Use of Sanskrit in the past
It was in the Valmiki Ramayana that the word ‘Sanskrit’ is used for the first time to refer to the language. Before that, the word Samskrutam meant cultured, purified or refined or anything that is well formed. Until the Ramayana was written, the language of the Vedas did not carry a name. Even Panini, the Sanskrit grammarian, does not use the word Samkrutam to describe the language of which he writes the grammar. He uses the word bhasha to mean the ordinary spoken language (not Sanskrit) and distinguishes it from chandasi, the sacred literature, particularly, the Vedas. Chandasi thus was the indirect way of referring to the language of Vedas at least till the Ramayana.
In the Ramayana, there are two different contexts in which the verses clearly reveal that this was the language of the Brahmins. In one of the stories, demon Ilvala disguises as a Brahmin and speaks Sanskrit, and in the other, when Hanuman goes to Lanka, he is in doubt whether to speak to Sita in Sanskrit or the ordinary human speech i.e. the vernacular.
The specific verse relating to Ilvala is in the Aranyakanda (3.11.56) is roughly translated as follows:
“Disguising as a Brahmin and speaking in Sanskrit, Ilvala used to invite Brahmins for the purpose of ceremonies, where they are fed after the usual ceremony to appease their manes.”
The three verses that capture Hanuman’s thought are as follows from Sundarakanda (5.30.17-19), where he says:
“However, I am very small in stature, particularly as a monkey and can speak now Sanskrit, but in the human language too.” (5.30.17)
“If I use Sanskrit language like a Brahmin, Seetha will get frightened, thinking me as Ravana. Especially, how can a monkey speak it?” (5.30.18, italics mine)
“The human language alone, which will convey my meaning, needs to be used” (5.30.19).
The association of Sanskrit language with the Brahmins is significant to observe. It has to be noted that, both in verse 5.30.17 and 5.30.19, a distinction is made between Sanskrit and ordinary human language.
George Cardona, a Sanskritist and scholar of Panini, referring to the above verses of Ramayana contrasts ordinary human speech or the vernacular from Sanskrit speech. The followers of Panini, Cardono claims, consider the users of this refined language of literature as belonging to the social elite.
It is very clear from these verses that Sanskrit belonged to a very refined, pure and cultured set of people, in other words, as referred to during the early times, the Brahmins or the social elites. In the verse where Hanuman’s thought is captured, the poet uses the term Maanushim Vakyam (human language). It refers to the vernacular which carries just literal meanings as in the everyday use of a language.
A distinction is made here between Sanskrit and vernacular. Sanskrit, according to Cardona, “was the major vehicle of learned discourse and ritual in use among members of a community”. This community was a “linguistic and social elite”. The not-so-elite, or the common man, used the vernaculars in “less formal circumstances”. These circumstances refer to the transactions of everyday life.
Constituent Assembly debates on Sanskrit
Considering this is how Ramayana – the orthodox text of the Hindus – views Sanskrit as the language of the Brahmins, the social elite, it would be interesting to review the debate on the official language in the Constituent Assembly.
Unsurprisingly, a similar picture of Sanskrit is also reflected in the debate.
It was Pundit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra who made a very strong and passionate plea for making Sanskrit as the official and the national language of India. His long speech can be characterised as filled up with familiar platitudes of the value of our rich cultural heritage as expressed in Sanskrit literature, philosophy and dialectics. This, he claimed, is our strength that needs to be spread across the world.
Lest other members should point out that Sanskrit is a scholarly language he was also quick to suggest that this language can also be used in a very simple way. An example of this simplicity he gave, was not of a simple statement of day-to-day function but of a simple poetry. In fact, Maitra tried his best to dispel the idea of Sanskrit being a language of abstract dialectics and poetic literature.
Also read: A Country Where Sanskrit Deserves Preservation, But Urdu Doesn’t
He makes a passionate effort to portray Sanskrit as the purest and complete language product with an inherent superiority compared to other languages that India has been blessed with. Having offered no reasons as to how it can be used for judicial, legislative or administrative purposes, questions regarding the practicality of making it operational remained a major concern.
When Pundit Maitra was waxing eloquent about the flexibility of the Sanskrit language, there was another member who intervened and asked him whether he can speak in Sanskrit where all the members can understand. Maitra, in his response, betrayed that Sanskrit is essentially a language of the scholars and one that cannot be understood by everyone. These were his words:
“I am not here to parade my knowledge of Sanskrit. I am not going to commit the blunder of some of my friends, who, in their zeal – despite the request of others to speak in English so that they might be understood by everybody – persisted in the language of their bobby. I am not going to do that. I want to make myself understood by every single honourable Member in this House.” (italics mine)
Therefore, Maitra acknowledged, albeit indirectly, that Sanskrit is not something that is understood by everyone, not even by the present day Brahmins. Further, he referred to an experience when he visited temples in the southern part of India such as Madurai, Rameshwaram and Tirupati. Unable to communicate with the priests in Hindi, it seems, he was easily understood in Sanskrit.
Was not the honourable member contradicting himself when he said he wants himself to be understood and thereby was not speaking in Sanskrit, whereas he felt he could be understood by the priests of temples in Southern India when he spoke in Sanskrit? A critical review of his speech makes it amply clear that he found it extremely difficult to persuade others.
Granted that Sanskrit language has a rich literature and all discourses on complex theological issues were conducted in the past in this language but is that sufficient ground for making it an official language?
The official language is one that is used by the government in conducting its affairs in administration, legislature and the judiciary. Further, what is important is it should enable the common men to carry on with the day to day functions and transactions in a manner in which everyone can understand and meaningfully communicate with each other.
Sanskrit with all the technicalities of grammar cannot be one such language. And, it is reasonable to assume that the architect of the constitution as well as other honourable members who refuted this proposal would have been well aware of this. Though visiting a temple and communicating with the priest may be of some significance for the conservative – which honourable Maitra indeed was) – certainly, the importance and frequency of such an occurrence is insignificant.
Ambedkar-Sanskrit controversy
Given this Brahminical elite status attached to Sanskrit, can one associate Ambedkar with being part of the idea of sponsoring its proposal as the official language?
Murli Manohar Joshi, former BJP president and former Minister of Human Resource Development, had written about it by tying Ambedkar to this idea in an opinion piece much before Justice Bobde and Justice Swaminathan. Joshi made the claim that Ambedkar sponsored the proposal. His claim was based on the Report of Sanskrit Commission 1956-57 and a news report in The Sunday Hindustan Standard, dated September 11, 1949.
Kancha Illaiah, writer and Dalit rights activist, responds to Joshi’s opinion piece and similarly does Jairam Ramesh, Congress MP, to Justice Bobde and Justice Swaminathan’s claim on this point. Surprisingly, both Illaiah and Ramesh, known for their anti Hindutva stance, admit that Ambedkar did support this move to make Sanskrit as national language, and then go on to give a defensive reason as to why he did it.
Responding to Joshi’s article, Ilaiah notes, “In fact, it was well-known that in the CA, Ambedkar supported Sanskrit as national language…” He further claims that Ambedkar may have supported the move of Pundit L.K. Maitra only as a tactic “knowing fully well that it is not a workable solution” and that finally it is either Hindi or English that is going to be accepted as an official language.
Ramesh, in his article, admits it as a fact. He writes, “It is true that on September 10, 1949, B.R. Ambedkar submitted an amendment in the Constituent Assembly that proposed Sanskrit as ‘the official language of the Union’”. There is even a hyperlink marked “on September 10, 1949” in the article. Surprisingly, if one goes through this seventy-nine page hyperlinked document we find that the matter discussed here is on Article 24 – dealing with property laws – and has got nothing to do with official language or Sanskrit. In fact, if one runs a search on this document for the word ‘Ambedkar’ and ‘Sanskrit’, it returns with only one mention of ‘Ambedkar’ and zero for ‘Sanskrit’.
It is not clear what the sources for all these claims are but there appears to be some confusion that needs to be cleared.
The confusion seems to have arisen from a news report that appeared on September 11, 1949, making this point and a PTI message dated September 10, 1949 that mentioned the names of Ambedkar and others as “supporters of the amendment sponsoring Sanskrit as the Official Language”.
Sanskrit commission, whose report Joshi was referring to, was constituted in October 1956 under the chairmanship of Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, a linguist. The report, in a footnote, refers to this PTI message. However, there is no evidence to be found in the CA debates itself about Ambedkar’s support for such a proposal.
A legal researcher, in this article, also has suggested that there is only wide reporting (or is it misreporting?) of this case in the newspapers of September 11, 1949 but without any evidence from CA debates. It is this reporting that seems to have given rise to the claims.
Ambedkar had studied the scriptures and he was certain that it was Brahminical elitism with its obnoxious practices that had led to the oppression of the weaker sections of the society in the country. If Sanskrit gets associated with Brahminical elitism then it would be far-fetched to even speculate that Ambedkar would have supported such a proposal, unless as a political tactic, as Ilaiah claims. This, only if one assumes that he supported an amendment to this effect, which from the proceedings of CA debates it doesn’t appear so.
Sanskrit and day-to-day communication
When we speak a language to communicate our day-to-day transactions – whether in English or any vernacular – there is a natural way that we absorb specific grammatical rules by usage. However, this would not be the case with Sanskrit, perhaps, because the language was or has never been used for communicating day-to-day transactions and functions. As a result, it has fallen into desuetude.
One has to be always alert about the complex rules of declination of nouns and conjugation of verbs. To communicate and conduct such functions with such complex rules of grammar involved is to impose an unnecessary burden on the common man and even for the administrative machinery. It is this quality of complexity inherent in the language that makes it denaturalised.
It is this aspect of the language that does not provide strong support for considering it as the official language through which one can conduct official transactions and functions.
In a hard-hitting essay titled The Death of Sanskrit, Sheldon Pollock, a scholar of Sanskrit and intellectual history, shows how in spite of government’s attempts to bring Sanskrit to life, by different means, the efforts have not yielded “cultural outcomes”. However, the political drive by the present ruling dispensation to make this language serviceable as part of an agenda of cultural nationalism continues unabated.
Pollock gives a list of examples of “political inputs” provided by the government, to which may also be added the present act of the government to make Sanskrit available as the language of interpretation of Lok Sabha proceedings. He says there are “disparities between political inputs and cultural outcomes” and states that it “may be too obvious to mention: that Sanskrit as a communicative medium in contemporary India is completely denaturalized”.
“Government feeding tubes and oxygen tanks,” observes Pollock, “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”.
Maran is, in a way, voicing in the floor of the Parliament Pollock’s appropriate observation.
S.K. Arun Murthi taught Philosophy at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali.
The author acknowledges with thanks Dr. Rajesh Venkatasubramanian, history teacher, for his valuable inputs during my discussions with him on this issue.