4 ms·

It would be nice if you could expand on what the actual controversies are.

foogoo1 14y ago
for one, the language of Tamil did not even get a passing mention in that article, even though it is a classical language just like Sanskrit, and its influence on ancient India, especially developments in South India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language#cite_note-richestClassical-7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language#cite_note-riches...
wtn 14y ago
At a meta level, he's saying that Sanskrit has a legitimate claim of Universalism. The linked speech states that "the foundation of India culture is based on the Sanskrit language." If you speak an Indian language that is not descended from Sanskrit, you might disagree with that statement! India is a very diverse country with many languages and complicated ethnic politics. English would be a convenient national language, but is untenable for obvious historical political reasons. Some people in India feel the same way about Hindi. This person is arguing for Sanskrit as a neutral alternative, but language is political in India. (By contrast, Latin and Ancient Greek aren't things anyone argues about in Europe today.)
- gioele 14y ago
  > (By contrast, Latin and Ancient Greek aren't things anyone argues about in Europe today.) Not that true. There is a growing political problem with the use of English in EU, also at the technical level (XML element names, for examples). At the same time, using any of the other national languages is a no-go. One of the proposed solutions is to use Latin for technical details and leave national languages for the documentation and other user-facing documents. An example of Latin-as-neutral-language is LexDania, an old Danish XML format for laws; in LexDania you have _arca_, not container, _linea_, not paragraph.
- sdqali 14y ago
  As an Indian whose mother tongue did not originate from Sanskrit, I find the attempt to project Sanskrit as a national language disturbing. Independent India has already gone through this once. The original constitution mandated that Hindi should be made the national language. For obvious cultural and political reasons, when the time came to implement it, there was a backlash from states where Hindi is not spoken. This is especially true in Tamil Nadu, where the pro-Tamil movement altered the political landscape for ever. Congress, the largest political party in India has never won an election in Tamil Nadu after the pro-Tamil movement. in 1963, the constitution was amended to make it explicit that English and Hindi could be used for communication between state and central governments. I think the status-quo works out well for everyone. I see no reason to impose a langage on people who does not speak or identify with it.
narendranag 14y ago
There is broad idealogical/political movement in India along the following lines: "India" was an extremely advanced civilization that suffered under the Mughals and the British. Before these "foreign invaders" arrived, there existed a body of knowledge that remains unsurpassed. -- This is a revisionist version of history based on cultural supremacy. It has become a compelling political argument, since it contains truisms that are either difficult to test, or jingoism that's hard to resist. The controversy stems from the truisms, many of which are repeated in Justice Katju's speech. At it's heart however is this idea of India as an ancient nation. The modern nation state as we know it today was stitched together from multiple nations by the British. Before them, the Mughals also ruled a vast area, but the ruling classes were completely separate (culturally, linguistically etc.) from the people they ruled. And the Mughals never ruled the south, where the Tamils continue to represent one of the last surviving classic (comparable to the Greek etc.) civilizations in the world. There are those who choose to pick a particular culture as the dominant culture and present that as "India". However, that isn't necessarily true.
- sdqali 14y ago
  Thanks for making the point about the modern nation state. Whenever I make this point to others, I encounter a lot of anger. A lot of people seem unable to comprehend the fact that the modern nation state was stitched together, and they demand that we should have a monolithic state that speaks the same language.
elangoc 14y ago
The Indus Valley Civilization is the indigenous civilization in the region of India, Pakistan, and parts of Afghanistan and Iran. It traded with Ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, and Rome. For its time, it was the largest ancient civilization, and it was highly impressive (they had uniform brick buildings, perpendicular grid streets, covered sewers, a base-10 system of standardized weights, etc. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Mature_Harappan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Matur...) The IVC collapsed before Greece and Rome reached their peaks, but in the absence of more research, we can only surmise its legacy (e.g., Indian sarees, white waistcloths and sandals may have been mimicked as togas). I think more research needs to be done to flesh out all of the loose ends of inquiry, and lots of interesting research is happening currently. I'm sure more facts will continue to emerge about the IVC that shift our understanding of the world's history. The prevailing theory is that the IVC bequeathed culture (religion, customs, knowledge, architecture, etc.) to all parts of the region. It is believed that the IVC inhabitants spread east and southwards to fill all parts of India. The IVC collapsed (1900 BCE), and around 1000 years afterwards (1000 BCE), a branch of proto-Indo European language speakers is believed to have moved south from the Caucuses into Iran/India. The language they spoke (Sanskrit) is believed to have taken on influences by the indigenous language taken hold in the northern parts of India, but considering their much fewer numbers and nomadic lifestyle at the time of their arrival, their genetic contribution is thought to be minimal. After the British colonial scholar Robert Caldwell, a scholar in Sanskrit, noticed the difference between the languages of north India (Indo-European > Sanskrit derived) and southern India (a distinct language family, of which Tamil has the least influence of Sanskrit), he used the term "Aryan" to describe the northern languages and "Dravidian" to describe the southern languages. (side note: Caldwell was opposed to and upset with attempts by people to project the terms Aryan and Dravidian for the purposes of racism and hegemony; he personally believed in the opposite) It is also believed that at the time of arrival of the Sanskrit speakers to India from the north, the existing indigenous culture (i.e., of the people from IVC) heavily influenced that of the arriving people. Among the first writings in Sanskrit (Veda scriptures), the earliest shows the most indigenous influence (e.g., water-based imagery), and the later Veda writings show a diminishing influence towards a more Sanskritic one (e.g., fire-based imagery). In light of all of this, scholars say that pretty much the only evidence we have that "Aryans", as a distinct group, existed is their language. It is widely believed that the language of the IVC is most closely related to Dravidian languages, and the best attempts to decipher their writing comes from using Tamil as the starting point. An interesting, recent paper from last year puts forward a very compelling advancement in interpreting the script, and in the process, it further fleshes out the relationship between IVC, the culture of Indian peoples, Sanskrit writings and Dravidian languages: http://harappa.drupalgardens.com/content/indus-fish-swam-great-bath http://harappa.drupalgardens.com/content/indus-fish-swam-gre... Because of Caldwell's linguistic analysis and the convenient role it played in political maneuvering for accruing power in British colonial India (by the British, and by people in India regionally and caste-wise), the division along "Aryan"/"Dravidian" lines became seen as a racial one. (If there is a difference genetically today, it may be from the occasional invasion by empires from the Middle East in the north of India over the millennia, from which the south was largely insulated by the Deccan Plateau). As the idea of this racial divide survives while India is now divided into states based on language (and the southern states are a minority), and given the roughly 90/10 split of Hindus and Muslims, chauvinism along religious, geographic, and linguistic lines has gradually coalesced. It's to the point where some Indians want to portray the IVC as Sanskritic/Aryan (and Sanskrit-speakers as the originators of Hinduism because the oldest known Hindu writings are in Sanskrit), even if they have to blatantly distort facts: http://safarmer.com/frontline/horseplay.pdf http://safarmer.com/frontline/horseplay.pdf But more commonly, you'll find resistance among such people from accepting a proto-Dravidian language hypothesis of the IVC in favor of interpreting the IVC in a Sanskritic light: http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/induscivilization.html http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/induscivilization...

for one, the language of Tamil did not even get a passing mention in that article, even though it is a classical language just like Sanskrit, and its influence on ancient India, especially developments in South India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language#cite_note-richestClassical-7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_language#cite_note-riches...

wtn 14y ago

At a meta level, he's saying that Sanskrit has a legitimate claim of Universalism. The linked speech states that "the foundation of India culture is based on the Sanskrit language." If you speak an Indian language that is not descended from Sanskrit, you might disagree with that statement! India is a very diverse country with many languages and complicated ethnic politics. English would be a convenient national language, but is untenable for obvious historical political reasons. Some people in India feel the same way about Hindi. This person is arguing for Sanskrit as a neutral alternative, but language is political in India. (By contrast, Latin and Ancient Greek aren't things anyone argues about in Europe today.)

gioele 14y ago
> (By contrast, Latin and Ancient Greek aren't things anyone argues about in Europe today.) Not that true. There is a growing political problem with the use of English in EU, also at the technical level (XML element names, for examples). At the same time, using any of the other national languages is a no-go. One of the proposed solutions is to use Latin for technical details and leave national languages for the documentation and other user-facing documents. An example of Latin-as-neutral-language is LexDania, an old Danish XML format for laws; in LexDania you have _arca_, not container, _linea_, not paragraph.
sdqali 14y ago
As an Indian whose mother tongue did not originate from Sanskrit, I find the attempt to project Sanskrit as a national language disturbing. Independent India has already gone through this once. The original constitution mandated that Hindi should be made the national language. For obvious cultural and political reasons, when the time came to implement it, there was a backlash from states where Hindi is not spoken. This is especially true in Tamil Nadu, where the pro-Tamil movement altered the political landscape for ever. Congress, the largest political party in India has never won an election in Tamil Nadu after the pro-Tamil movement. in 1963, the constitution was amended to make it explicit that English and Hindi could be used for communication between state and central governments. I think the status-quo works out well for everyone. I see no reason to impose a langage on people who does not speak or identify with it.

narendranag 14y ago

There is broad idealogical/political movement in India along the following lines: "India" was an extremely advanced civilization that suffered under the Mughals and the British. Before these "foreign invaders" arrived, there existed a body of knowledge that remains unsurpassed. -- This is a revisionist version of history based on cultural supremacy. It has become a compelling political argument, since it contains truisms that are either difficult to test, or jingoism that's hard to resist. The controversy stems from the truisms, many of which are repeated in Justice Katju's speech. At it's heart however is this idea of India as an ancient nation. The modern nation state as we know it today was stitched together from multiple nations by the British. Before them, the Mughals also ruled a vast area, but the ruling classes were completely separate (culturally, linguistically etc.) from the people they ruled. And the Mughals never ruled the south, where the Tamils continue to represent one of the last surviving classic (comparable to the Greek etc.) civilizations in the world. There are those who choose to pick a particular culture as the dominant culture and present that as "India". However, that isn't necessarily true.

sdqali 14y ago
Thanks for making the point about the modern nation state. Whenever I make this point to others, I encounter a lot of anger. A lot of people seem unable to comprehend the fact that the modern nation state was stitched together, and they demand that we should have a monolithic state that speaks the same language.

elangoc 14y ago

The Indus Valley Civilization is the indigenous civilization in the region of India, Pakistan, and parts of Afghanistan and Iran. It traded with Ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, and Rome. For its time, it was the largest ancient civilization, and it was highly impressive (they had uniform brick buildings, perpendicular grid streets, covered sewers, a base-10 system of standardized weights, etc. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Mature_Harappan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Matur...) The IVC collapsed before Greece and Rome reached their peaks, but in the absence of more research, we can only surmise its legacy (e.g., Indian sarees, white waistcloths and sandals may have been mimicked as togas). I think more research needs to be done to flesh out all of the loose ends of inquiry, and lots of interesting research is happening currently. I'm sure more facts will continue to emerge about the IVC that shift our understanding of the world's history. The prevailing theory is that the IVC bequeathed culture (religion, customs, knowledge, architecture, etc.) to all parts of the region. It is believed that the IVC inhabitants spread east and southwards to fill all parts of India. The IVC collapsed (1900 BCE), and around 1000 years afterwards (1000 BCE), a branch of proto-Indo European language speakers is believed to have moved south from the Caucuses into Iran/India. The language they spoke (Sanskrit) is believed to have taken on influences by the indigenous language taken hold in the northern parts of India, but considering their much fewer numbers and nomadic lifestyle at the time of their arrival, their genetic contribution is thought to be minimal. After the British colonial scholar Robert Caldwell, a scholar in Sanskrit, noticed the difference between the languages of north India (Indo-European > Sanskrit derived) and southern India (a distinct language family, of which Tamil has the least influence of Sanskrit), he used the term "Aryan" to describe the northern languages and "Dravidian" to describe the southern languages. (side note: Caldwell was opposed to and upset with attempts by people to project the terms Aryan and Dravidian for the purposes of racism and hegemony; he personally believed in the opposite) It is also believed that at the time of arrival of the Sanskrit speakers to India from the north, the existing indigenous culture (i.e., of the people from IVC) heavily influenced that of the arriving people. Among the first writings in Sanskrit (Veda scriptures), the earliest shows the most indigenous influence (e.g., water-based imagery), and the later Veda writings show a diminishing influence towards a more Sanskritic one (e.g., fire-based imagery). In light of all of this, scholars say that pretty much the only evidence we have that "Aryans", as a distinct group, existed is their language. It is widely believed that the language of the IVC is most closely related to Dravidian languages, and the best attempts to decipher their writing comes from using Tamil as the starting point. An interesting, recent paper from last year puts forward a very compelling advancement in interpreting the script, and in the process, it further fleshes out the relationship between IVC, the culture of Indian peoples, Sanskrit writings and Dravidian languages: http://harappa.drupalgardens.com/content/indus-fish-swam-great-bath http://harappa.drupalgardens.com/content/indus-fish-swam-gre... Because of Caldwell's linguistic analysis and the convenient role it played in political maneuvering for accruing power in British colonial India (by the British, and by people in India regionally and caste-wise), the division along "Aryan"/"Dravidian" lines became seen as a racial one. (If there is a difference genetically today, it may be from the occasional invasion by empires from the Middle East in the north of India over the millennia, from which the south was largely insulated by the Deccan Plateau). As the idea of this racial divide survives while India is now divided into states based on language (and the southern states are a minority), and given the roughly 90/10 split of Hindus and Muslims, chauvinism along religious, geographic, and linguistic lines has gradually coalesced. It's to the point where some Indians want to portray the IVC as Sanskritic/Aryan (and Sanskrit-speakers as the originators of Hinduism because the oldest known Hindu writings are in Sanskrit), even if they have to blatantly distort facts: http://safarmer.com/frontline/horseplay.pdf http://safarmer.com/frontline/horseplay.pdf But more commonly, you'll find resistance among such people from accepting a proto-Dravidian language hypothesis of the IVC in favor of interpreting the IVC in a Sanskritic light: http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/induscivilization.html http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/induscivilization...