Now I don’t think Panikkar and people like him had/have hatred towards everything Indian/Hindu/Sanskrit. They do have a problem with the Sangh Parivar appropriation of everything Indian/Hindu/Sanskrit though. Let me try to make it clear by just one example. I’m a student of Maths. I’ve a lot of admiration for the quantity and quality of Mathematics that was developed in ancient India. But I have only contempt for the current propaganda on “Vedic Mathematics” based on a book by that title. My contempt stems from the fact that the said book has nothing to do with mathematics, and those who know the Vedas tell me, nothing to do with the Vedas as well. Now if someone says that I’ve hatred towards ancient Indian mathematics, that’s plain wrong.

I wouldn’t squarely put the blame on those of you who attack Panikkar. People like Panikkar, when they attack the Sangh Parivar appropriation of things Indian, need to make it even more clear that they are attacking the appropriation and not “everything Indian”.

>>What all I’m saying is that, I think, his not being a Sanskrit expert is not a disqualification for occupying the post he held…
I generally agree as I indicated, but my personal preference would be to have a Sanskrit expert as the VC of a “purely Sanskrit Univ.” However, the debate generated over Panikar’s appointment was due mainly to his record of pseudo secularism and hatred for everything Indian/Hindu/Sanskrit. You tell me, would you trust your pet rabbit under the care of a lion despite its record/ability of protecting its own cubs? That in the main is my contention.

Also, regarding my SNA post, you need to remember that the SNA is a body to promote the Arts, it’s not a university. Isn’t there a difference?

Well I don’t know whether at all you belong to any party or your political leanings/ideology, etc so it’ll be incorrect on my part to draw conclusions that suit me. But then, that shouldn’t be a bar to carry on a meaningful debate, right?

Please do not misunderstand: I’m not defending Panikkar. In fact I said in an earlier comment: criticise him if he hasn’t done a good job as VC. What all I’m saying is that, I think, his not being a Sanskrit expert is not a disqualification for occupying the post he held. I understand that you differ, and according to you, the VC must have expertise in one of the sub-disciplines of the mega discipline of Sanskrit. It looks good, if it’s that way, at least in the eyes of genuine Sanskrit lovers, and I understand that. But a Sanskritist being at the top need not necessarily result in a better functioning of the University, and I hope you see that point as well. See Sandeep’s post on SNA, for instance. Mansingh, Kavalam, they all have expertise in matters related. Did that help the SNA?

I hope I’m participating in the discussion, and not just telling more about myself! And am I towing any party line here? Plus, I don’t see why I need to change my line, if it so happens that a party has the same line!

There is a story about Romila Thapar. Asked why JNU does not have a Sanskrit studies department she replied “there are so many mutts and pithas where you can study Sanskrit; why here?”. I would not be surprised if the story were true as I am reliably informed that Thapar knows little beyond English. Her howlers are truly terrible - but then she is at least an historian of “ancient India”. If she were appointed the VC of a Sanskrit academy the purists could gnash their teeth but they could console themselves that the person concerned has at least read (or written) about Sanskrit however badly. But Panikkar’s case is different. This is an historian of modern India (who has done most of his ’significant’ work in English) who has never shown any interest in matters of culture and is practically ignorant of anything other than the party line. It definitely is an insult to all lovers of Sanskrit to have someone as him at the helm of a Sanskrit academy.

Let’s explore your reasoning. There are “general universities” and “particular universitie” o(mai)nly in India. As the word suggests universities are places where all learning comes together. As a rule universities outside India study a complete range of disciplines from the arts and sciences thru the performing arts engineering, law, medicine etc., It is only in India that a succession of harebrained schemes have resulted in the creation of narrow universities that in reality are mega departments/schools of study - like technology universities, B-schools, medical universities, music “colleges” and the like. A VC abroad and in India is invariably an academician in one of the disciplines studied at that university. Apart from the occasional IAS misfit at the helm (that I am sure you do not propose) even our ‘particular’ universities have a VC who is a scholar in the discipline of that university. IIM-A has been headed by a sociologist - but then labor studies or OB does exchange ideas with sociology? IIM-Cal has been headed by mathematicians - that’s OK right? What about UICT Bombay? How many IITs have been headed by economists or litterateurs? IITs do have decent humanities departments right?

Now if the Sanskrit university in Kerala were to be considered a visvavidyalaya of Sanskrit; the VC must have expertise in one of the sub-disciplines of the mega discipline of Sanskrit. He need not have studied everything about Sanskrit (which you shd know as a Sanskritist’s son is truly impossible as the grand corpus of Sanskrit manuscripts is estimated conservatively at about 30 times in volume as the entire corpus of classical Greek and Latin put together). He could be an expert in philosophy, language, grammar, meaning, aesthetics, music, dance, drama, religion, science, mathematics, or even medicine all from the point of view of historical Sanskrit writing.

Sandeep questions Panikkar’s credentials based on what he knows about the person which is what most of us janta/public know. That Panikkar hasn’t cared to explain himself after the outcry over his appointment we have as yet no good reason to change our opinion of the man. You could clear up the fuss and put our fears to rest by telling us why you think Panikkar is the right person for the job. Springing to his defence by arguing the analogy with Sandeep tells us about you not anything about Panikkar. Of course you are free to continue the way you are - no problem. There will be many more opportunities to react to posts here - and most of the time with the same choice - tell us more about yourself or help us learn more about what is being discussed.

For goodness sake Indian blogs cannot descend to the level of some of “na(o)tional” newspapers where the party line passes off for commentary.

For a start you could share your views on Karnad that would be interesting.

Sandeep, you either do not know how a university functions, or you pretend not to know. New courses, faculty recruitment, designing the syllabi, all these are done by the subject experts. A good Vice Chancellor wouldn’t interfere in such activities. Also, by your logic, a general university Vice Chancellor should have expertise in all the disciplines covered in that university!

Thanks for pointing out the typo

>>Incidentally, communism was never a dominant ideology in India. And, in Kerala, the communists have encouraged Sanskrit and Vedic studies more than anybody else.
You need to back up these statements with some credible facts. Please read my book review as well as the book itself: Genesis and Growth of Nehruism: Commitment to Communism to understand the extent of Commie influence in India. Also read Arun Shourie’s “The only Fatherland” for more light on the subject. A common Communist refrain happens to concern Sanskrit, the language of the “oppressors,” aka Brahmins. You cannot pick isolated examples: Kerala Marxists encouraging Sanskrit–don’t know how far this is true–and then concluding that I cannot use “Sanskrit” as a stick to beat the Commies. Please check some Indian Communist literature where examples related to Sanskrit abuse abound.

As for the JNU Sanskrit center, please remember that it was established as late as 2001. Exactly. When the NDA was in power. Doesn’t it tell a thing or two?

>>Plus Vice Chancellorship is an administrative post.
Partly. Barring the exceptions you have cited, most VCs in almost all universities have been academicians/professors. And you also need to note that by “administrative post,” a VC’s job doesn’t mean only attending seminars/speeches, signing papers, releasing funds, etc. Moreover, your remark about IAS Officers being VCs only shows the extent of our governments’ cluelessness. Knowledge of Sanskrit is definitely necessary to run a purely Sanskrit university to make decisions on vital aspects such as opening new courses/branches, selecting faculty, and so on. What would a person with no Sanskrit knowledge do if say his/her opinion was sought on the viability of opening a new course in Nyaya Shastra?

And how do you manage info like this? Like Panikkar did not know a word of Sanskrit. (I’m not saying that he knew Sanskrit, I simply do not know.)

Plus Vice Chancellorship is an administrative post. Knowledge of Sanskrit is neither necessary nor sufficient to run a Sanskrit University. Criticise him if he hasn’t done a good job as VC. (I must add that the non-commie govt had an IAS officer, and later a college Philosophy lecturer, as the Vice Chancellors.)

Kerala’s erstwhile commie government rewarded KN Panikkar — full-time party ideologue and part-time ‘historian’ — with a comfy post-retirement job as the VC of a Sanskrit university at Kaladi. Not only did he not know a word of sanskrit, he used the usual marxist diatribe against the langauge as the langauge of ‘oppressors’. Of course, no ideological considerations come in the way of grabbing government (read tax-payer) doles, so Panikkar was one happy VC of an oppresor-language university for several years.

Incidentally, communism was never a dominant ideology in India. And, in Kerala, the communists have encouraged Sanskrit and Vedic studies more than anybody else. In the former Soviet Union and many other “communist” nations, Sanskrit and Indology got a lot of boost. You may know about these facts more than me. You may beat the communists as much as you like, but, perhaps not in the name of Sanskrit!