Primary Red at the Secular Right blog posts (a translation of) one of my favourite Subashitas. I’ve reproduced it here.
Armlets do not embellish a man,
Nor necklaces bright as the moon,
Nor a bath, nor ointment, nor flowers,
Nor well-adorned hair.
Only perfectly cultivated speech
Thoroughly adorns a man.
All adornments fade away always.
Adornment of speech is the real adornment.
And asks probing questions:
Why don’t Indians author such translations of Sanskrit classics? Or perhaps they do — but are not as well publicized.
The answer, at the risk of oversimplification, lies in the intellectual climate of post-independence India; where everything we as a nation ought rightly to be proud of began to be systematically uprooted. Sanskrit was the first victim. A most telling evidence: most freedom fighters–Tilak, Bankim, Gokhale, Aurobindo–had considerable mastery over Sanskrit as well as English. In a direct contrast, how many post-independence Sanskrit scholars can we name? The entire classical literature of India was denigrated as primitive, regressive, and of little value to “modern ideals” whatever the latter was defined to be. I cannot wholly discount the other observation: perhaps they are not as well publicized. When Communism was the dominant ideology, those pursuing Sanskrit/Vedic studies had little if nought opportunity to show their prowess. The converse–perverse is a more apt word–consequence was that people with superficial or no knowledge of Indian classics twisted them to suit the prevalent dominant ideology: my main thrust of the (still unfinished) Karnad series. It is the result of this intellectual climate that made Nani Palkhivala say that Indians are like “donkeys carrying a sack of gold on its back.”
Literally, Subhashita means Good speech. Subhashitas cannot be straitjacketed into a specific “category” of literature: they’re merely a collection of wise sayings, mostly in verse. The authorship does not rest with a single person. However, the celebrated collection of Subashitas is the one authored by Bhartuhari, the Shataka (Shataka=100) trilogy: Neeti Shataka, Shrungara Shataka, and Vairagya Shataka. Subhashitas are drawn from real life observations, a sympathetic understanding of human impulses and behaviour, and some generally reflect the state of affairs of the society at the time they were composed. As such, they generally hold good–and true “till eternity.” The greatest value of Subhashitas is their ability to provide comfort and hope in difficult times. No copious reading of self-help books will, it is my conviction, convey the requisite wisdom contained in these priceless verses. Self-help books do not contain wisdom: they’re a collection of “specific strategies (sic)” to overcome this or that problem or to deal better with people or boost your self-esteem…. You therefore have a user manual for every conceivable situation/subject/topic under the sun. Ask a person who has read these user manuals to what extent his/her life has “dramatically improved” as a result. Self-help books are like drugs: the high lasts as long as you’re hooked to the pages. I find it hilarious to read the numerous “praises” received for each such book: beyond a commercial enterprise, these books offer nothing. Somebody decides that men were born (?) on Mars, the other sees man as a “caveman, dangerous entity,” and still another PHD (author) sees women as “instinctively craving for protection, which the caveman provides” … Here’s a simple proposal: read several of these take-control-of-your-life books, make notes and then deduce: what’s the bet that you’ll not find contradictory solutions to the same problem?
If anything, the sheer number of these books churned out day after day is a symptom of what we’ve lost out, which in Eliot’s words is:
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
And this wisdom is what Subhashitaas give you bountiful. I still remember the very first Subhashita I learnt at school, which translates as follows:
The Experience of Good Speech (Subhashita); and
The Company of Learned/Wise Men
One theme that is recurrent not just in Subhashitaas but in most of the ancient Indian tradition is the emphasis on Vaak, or speech. The man endowed with good speech–not mere erudition or scholarship–was highly honoured in those times: Krishna, Hanuman, Kalidasa, Bhartruhari all come to mind. Kalidasa immortalized the importance of Vaak in his beautiful
Jagath Pitarau Vande Parvati Parameshwaram
As a word and its meaning are inseperable,
So are the Parents of this world, Parvati and Parameshwara, whom I salute
How can you use a word without ascribing and/or thinking about its meaning to it? How can you say one without saying the other? Which is why Bhartuhari has said that there’s nothing in this world which cannot be explained using language. Incidentally, Kalidasa’s sloka also brings out a very lofty definition for a marriage: togetherness, inseperable like a word and its meaning.
The Sanskrit sloka for Primary Red’s translation reads as follows:
Haaraa na Chandrojwalaa
Na snaanam na Vilepanam
Na kusumam naalankrutaa Moordhajaah
Vaanyekaa sam alankaroti Purusham
Yaa sanskrutaa Dhaaryate
Ksheeyante khalu bhushanaani Satatam
Vaagbhushanam Bhushanam
And my all-time favourite
Lakshmih samaavishatu gacchatu vaa yatheshtam
Adyaiva vaa maranam astu yugaantare vaa
Nyaayat pathah pravichalanti padam na dheeraah
Which means
Lakshmi (wealth) may choose to stay with you ar leave or do whatever she likes;
Death may be as near as today or as far away as the next eon;
The Brave/Courageous and Resolute (people) do not deviate from their path of justice and morality.
Pity that such gems from the Nectar of Life are rarely heard of amidst the shrill political rhetoric of today.
Just pointing out a typo: Keyuraa na Vibhushayanti Purusham
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!
When a Sanskrit center was sought to be established at JNU, the entrenched sarkari marxists opposed it tooth and nail. JNU already had several centers in foreign languages, including Arabic, Russian, German etc.
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.
ABC — JNU has a Sanskrit center, a special center in fact. Can you name those “entrenched sarkari marxists” who opposed it? I don’t know of any.
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.)
Anand,
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?
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?
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!
Ananda Locana,
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.
Shiva — My main point was that knowledge of Sanskrit is neither necessary nor sufficient to run a Sanskrit University. According to Sandeep, 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, and I have explained why I do not think so. I agree that “general/particular” is mainly an Indian thing, and, like you, I’m not a great fan of these “particular” institutions. You are right, usually, even our ‘particular’ universities have a VC who is a scholar in the discipline of that university”. And this is true with Panikkar. The Sanskrit University at Kalady has many other disciplines just as IITs have humanities etc. In particular History is one of those disciplines.
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!
Anand,
>>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?
Sandeep — As I understand this lion didn’t do much harm to the rabbit in his four years. His term wasn’t truly excellent or anything, but then I guess no vice-chancellorship was truly excellent, at least in Kerala. From what I have heard, the Sanskrit university performed relatively better than other univs in Kerala in terms of academic seminars etc in Panikkar’s tenure. He wasn’t sent there as the VC to wind up the institution or anything. In fact Panikkar could accelerate several formalities that the univ had to go through like UGC grants etc. I think his clout in Delhi and his stature did help. At least many in the university think so.
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”.
the indefinite curfew and ban on demonstrations imposed by the government on Monday night. The opposition party being mentioned here is the CPI(M) and the Dilli daur refers to the Karat - Bhattari meeting. Sandeep has a post covering thePrakash Karat - Baburam Bhattarai meet in depth.
Update:Resident Non-Indian and former ’senior’ editor of The Times of India, Prafool Bidwai does his part in a Pakistani paper whining about the nuclear deal.
I believe we have much to gain from the deep knowledge of Indian culture that you have as well as the modern scientific approach that people likeProf Abinandan bring to bear on their subject. Unfortunately Indian education is such an uprooting process that our intellectual history becomes a mere home fable leaving the mind open to be filled by various degrees of disinterest/disdain/ignorance etc.
Please can any one tell me where can I find all the work by author Bhartuhari. I would appreciate if any one can give me full book names and where I can look for it.