106 comments

1. Raghavendra
   16. July 2009 - 3:45 PM

   Who said Sanskrit is dead? People who say so will die one day but their wish will never come true.

   Sanskrit is so rich in literature and most revered all over world among scholars. And the likes of Vyasa , Valmiki and Kalidasa will ensure its existence for long time.

   What are these “Veera Kanadigas” upto? Take up any Kannada works from Pampa,KuraVyasa to Kuvempu, all of them is rich in Sanskrit.

   Nobody knows how Kannada was originated, but one cannot deny the fact that Kannada borrows rich vocabulary and grammar from Sanskrit.

   Kannada cannot divorce from Sanskrit,she will die as Sumangali but never as widow.

   HaLegannada is completely different from Nadugannada,and HaLegannada is dead now, but its not the case with classic Sanskrit.

   “Veera Kannadigas” Beware! if Kannada has to live a happy long life, she should be allowed to live with her Husband(Sanskrit).

   -Raghu

2. larissa
   16. July 2009 - 5:25 PM

   People do not realize that India’s intellectual heritage is encapsulated in the Sanskrit language. Without it, the culture of India would have been no better than that of sub-saharan Africa.

3. larissa
   16. July 2009 - 5:34 PM

   The Western world is proud of its Greek and Latin languages. It is a mark of a learned man in the West to know the classics. But in India? Lose your heritage and you will have none–i.e. will have to adopt other peoples( which I think the liberals yearn to do) –I think most liberals in India don’t even understand that their liberalism is borrowed copy of a copy and that they barely understand what it entails…
   Even the Chinese after destroying a lot during the cultural revolution are now beginning to massively protect all cultural sites such as monasteries and such…The Chinese government might be Communist but it is big on preserving all of its cultural heritage–

4. harish
   16. July 2009 - 6:20 PM

   Sandeep,
   Great post as usual. But can you also write what can we do to revive Sanskrit, or atleast have people respect the mother of all languages in India?

5. dark lord
   16. July 2009 - 6:28 PM

   >>Realistically, how many regional languages are used in everyday business?

   A lot. Check Andhra Pradesh and Maharastra (other than their respective state capitals). Also, pretty sure Tamil is used a lot in TN. And most people are interested in regional languages due to their everyday business rather than some utopian literary pursuit.

   >>The latest variation of this theory is that we need languages that generate employment and Sanskrit doesn’t qualify for this.

   I believe that you are confusing two issues. We need languages that generate employment and it is quite true. The argument stands. At the same time, it is also a non-zero sum game. A sanskrit University would be beneficial to those who are interested in the same as well as Indian culture.

   Overall, I support setting up a sanskrit university but unwilling to support grads of the same through the state.

6. Aryan
   16. July 2009 - 8:12 PM

   Sanskrit is a beautiful language. Just hearing somebody chanting in sanskrit is beautiful. It is disappointing to see most online translations, most translations period of Indian works are done by Goras. We need more Sanskrit Universities all over India so we can read the true essence of Sanskrit Classics without the racist bias of the likes of Doniger and Witzel.

7. Bhavananda
   16. July 2009 - 8:12 PM

   Raghavendra has said it right. I only want to add that Sanskrit is the root language, and most Indian languages derive its words, directly (tatsam) or indirectly (tatbhav) from that. For those who says sanskrit is dead, let them know as well that regional languages are also dying in the race with english. The only way to sustain, enrich and grow regional languages is to nourish the mother language, sanskrit; just like the flower can blossom only by drawing nutrition from the roots. The stupid, Bengali Marxists are in the forefront to kill sanskrit, knowing little that they are only destroying the language they have claimed to fight for, i.e. Bengali.

   PS – English is not only substituting regional languges as the official lingua; its more pervasive in our lives than most realize. Today, even a havildar in a shopping mall would great you in English!

8. Palahalli
   16. July 2009 - 8:31 PM

   Harish, there are spoken Sanskrit classes held by “Aksharam”, headquartered in Girinagar, Bangalore. They have a website you can check out.

   It’s also super great that Sandeep has done away with that “pseudo” non-term and simply used *secular* where secularists are concerned.

   We must divest secularism of its high pedestal and throw it in the dustbin of history.

9. Psudo
   16. July 2009 - 9:48 PM

   I dont know but i feel the reason for opposing Sanskrit in India is same as opposing “Vande Matram”. We would rather make the song which was sang in praise of British Monarch as our National Anthem then accept the one in which we parise our country as mother?

10. dharmvir
    16. July 2009 - 10:06 PM

    Only way to revive sanskrit is to make it an everyday langauge. Sanskrit Bharti is doing wonderful work in that direction. I can tell from my own experince, I was able to converse in sanskrit just after taking a three month weekend course (3 hours each day). During past months I have motivated my wife also to learn sanskrit. Though her progress is slow but she is catching up. If you guys are really intrested in preserving it, then you must also start learning it. Just FYI sanskrit bharti has started basic course in around 30 places in bangalore starting this week.To find out your nearest centre contact sanskrit bharti. you can find contact information from their website.

11. larissa
    16. July 2009 - 10:18 PM

    Also it would help if Hindus give money to causes that promote the preservation and learning of Sanskrit–which is India’s national heritage. One can learn from the Jewish peoples–look at how they revived a dead language! It is a matter of will and determination of a peoples–
    The government won’t do much–its up to private individuals to set up funds and institutions that seek to preserve and promote Sanskrit just as they build temples–

12. Kedar
    17. July 2009 - 12:07 AM

    Sandeep,

    I had posted a comment that I had hyperlinks and it is held up for moderation. Please check this..

13. Sandeep
    17. July 2009 - 12:15 AM

    Kedar,

    I don’t see anything in my moderation queue.

14. anonymous coward
    17. July 2009 - 2:28 AM

    @dharmvir: If this is the site you were referring to, I cannot find any information: http://www.samskritabharati.org/. Could you please post the link ?

15. Bhavananda
    17. July 2009 - 3:12 AM

    @Palahalli:
    “We must divest secularism of its high pedestal and throw it in the dustbin of history.”

    I fully agree with you. However, the job has become much more difficult by a more recent twist being given by secularists – that secularism in India is different from that in Europe, where it stands for “not religious”. They say, in India, secularism simply means “equality to all religions” or “pluralism” or something to that effect.

    It also seems to me, from recent electoral results, that Advani’s coining of the term pseudo-secularism has severely backfired and that most Indians have now started in believing that secularism stands for equality of religions. Unlike the seculars who speak in one voice, attempts by every Tom-Dick-and-Harry leaders in BJP to define Hindutva in TV news panels have only confused more people than exposing the game of the secularists.

16. ramji
    17. July 2009 - 7:34 AM

    Sandeep
    Tamil language, like all other Indian languages, has lot of Sanskrit words, contrary to what the rabid anti Hindu Dk/Dmk leaders say. Readers who can read Tamil, please visit
    http://www.tamilhindu.com/2009/07/sanskrit-few-questions/
    This article proves the closeness of these two graet languages. There is nothing called pure Tamil.

17. Atlantean
    17. July 2009 - 10:14 AM

    Satyameva Jayate!

    No Marxist fucker can class struggle out of that eternal truth.

18. Vishwa
    17. July 2009 - 10:17 AM

    http://www.outlookindia.com/fullprint.asp?choice=2&fodname=20090706&fname=Sanskrit+is+cool+(F)&sid=1

    If the article is indeed anywhere near to be true then it is a good development.

    Also I have heard so called “pro-kannada” people saying the job of the Govt of Karnataka is to revive and encourage kannada and not spend money of the kannada tax-payer on sanskrit which has nothing to offer to the present day.
    http://karnatique.blogspot.com/2008/11/sanskrit-univ-bjps-facade-of.html

    Such people don’t know about kannada let alone about sanskrit. they claim this “Really, there is nothing of any consequence which still remains un-researched in Sanskrit” As of today hundreds of sanskrit works have not been yet found. We only know of them because of references in other works. But confused and dishonest people like the above bloggers take the conclusion which are only worth of their lack of information.
    One of the greatest work like Kautilya’s arthashastra was found as recently as 100 years back. Around 3000 years since it was written. Moreover we just don’t know how many of our ancient scriptures were burnt down in the nalanda library.

19. Raghavendra
    17. July 2009 - 1:09 PM

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-end-of-ideology/489390/0

20. Raghavendra
    17. July 2009 - 1:18 PM

    Masterpiece by Arun Shorie

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-end-of-ideology/489390/0

21. Palahalli
    17. July 2009 - 1:37 PM

    Perhaps this is not so much a deviation from this topic;

    Bhavananda – Secular deceit will never work with Hindu nationalists if we keep in mind one fact. That is that secularism in any of its numerous manifestations *must* remain an enemy of any Majority aka National Society.

    Therefore secularism in the US must become an enemy of it’s White Christian Majority. Same in the case of Europe and most other parts of the world where secularism rules the establishment.

    This scenario becomes all the more pronounced when countries with secular establishments are or become Multi-Cultural; ie when multiple cultures exist in the same country in reasonable numbers. So the effects are the same. It’s in the very nature of secularism to behave this way.

    The effect of Advani’s ideological hara-kiri (although at the time most all Hindu nationalists had bought his line, including me; and that before I became a liberal-secularist..etc etc) was to give credence to something called *good* or *true* secularism.

    It’s like this – When a Hindu Hriday Samrat talks of true secularism, there must be a false secularism he is fighting against. So in effect, secularism can be corrupted and so must be retrieved.

    True secularism according to the “anti-pseudo” school means “equality of all religions” or “equidistance from all religions”. I don’t see any difference between the two and so your diagnosis of the existing confusion is correct.

    I would prefer we simply call ourselves Hindu traditionalists or even Hindu conservatives. Let us also accept that there is no one way to gauge Hindu conservatism except for the fact that respective traditions must be preserved and nurtured because there are Hindus who have since historical times, been practicing them and have a right to do so into the future.

    That is where this links to the Sanskrit University issue.

22. dharmvir
    17. July 2009 - 7:49 PM

    @anonymous coward
    They have not put info about sanskrit classes on webpage. you need to call them to find out nearest place to you where classes are held. for bangalore you can call on the numbers below to find more
    (080)-2672 1052 / 2672 2576

23. Aryan
    17. July 2009 - 9:32 PM

    Sanskrit Chanting and Complete translation of Bhavagad Gita on Youtube with an appeal to donate to Dharmic causes by yours truly

    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=86DB20F143153812

24. Raghavendra
    17. July 2009 - 10:14 PM

    Sorry for being out of context , but you all will like this articles. Read it in the same order.

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-end-of-ideology/489390/

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/how-the-party-withers-away/489889/

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ring-out-the-old-ring-in-the-new/490631/

25. harish
    17. July 2009 - 10:45 PM

    Pala,
    I guess the only way to take on the seculars is “deceit”. One surely cannot erase the great damage done that they have done to the Indian mindset in a few years . We all have an example in Shivaji , who wasn’t just valorous he was indeed intelligent. He exactly knew when to hurt and how to hurt his rivals. Unfortunately we don’t see that intelligence in the Hindutva brigade. Some are valorous in their conduct but utter stupid and insecure.

26. anonymous coward
    17. July 2009 - 10:54 PM

    @dharmvir : thanks. will call those people up.

27. Ramesh
    18. July 2009 - 6:43 PM

    “Give a dog a bad name and hang it” all outfits other than the BJP and the Shiv Sena are busy doing it. It seems these outfits will not rest till Hindustan is destroyed.

28. Druva
    18. July 2009 - 8:01 PM

    hey, has anybody read the Arun Shourie’s 3 part series column in Indian express(last 3 days) ? I haven’t seen people discussing that. It’s an eye opening piece about the leader.

29. Vasuki H A
    19. July 2009 - 1:07 AM

    @dark lord,

    Your comment interests me for your subtle but sly attempt at trivializing the study of Sanskrit literature or any literature for that matter. That you pick 2 innocuous lines from the whole article is proof enough that you dont have much to go by. Anyway, you havent done a clean job there too.

    >>And most people are interested in regional languages due to their everyday business rather than some utopian literary pursuit.
    Does people being interested in regional languages for their everyday business prevent them from having a taste for the literature in that language? Any proof that you can come up with?
    Assuming only a few people are interested in literary pursuits, does that make them Utopian? The people who are pushing the frontiers of science and technology by ways of futuristic research(which have no use in “everyday business”; might never have)are always small in number. But I am yet to find someone calling them Utopian. But if someone pursues pure literary pursuits, it becomes Utopian. Of course, the people calling names cannot fathom that language has its own science and aesthetics and creative literature is the only way through which it can bloom.

    >>”I believe that you are confusing two issues. We need languages that generate employment and it is quite true. The argument stands.”
    I have had many people telling me that this argument stands but nobody has been able to show me where the legs are. In reality, we only need skills that generate employment. Why is it that carpenters from as far as Bihar and Rajasthan thrive in Bangalore? Why is it that majority of construction labourers in Bangalore are from TN? It is only the skills and willingness to work. Has the fact that they know little or no Kannada hurt their chances of employment? And you say Sandeep is confused!!!
    Most of the heroines in Kannada movies these days are from outside the state. Local people lend voices to them. How is it that nobody protests against that? I guess you know that Kannada movies are subsidised by the government. That is how you get tickets at a cheaper rate compared to other language movies. So, in a way the state is paying for these non-Kannada actresses. Nobody has found a problem with that till date. But you have a problem with the state supporting the grads of the Sanskrit University. One of the most vocal opponents of the Sanskrit University, Chandrashekar Kambaara, a supposed-to-be Kannada scholar, dishes out similar crap. He wants people to develop software in Kannada, whatever that means. The guy doesnt know Sanskrit for sure; is certainly far from being the best in Kannada and has no idea about software. And this guy has acted in a Kannada movie recently, where, if I remember right, the heroine was from outside Karnataka. He has never found a problem in general with that trend. Or even the naming of Kannada movies. These are areas where people can use Kannada/Kannada-speaking people without any economic/global compulsions. Still they dont. And people like Kambaara do not have a problem with that. But, a Sanskrit University is a strict no-no.

    Finally,
    >>”Overall, I support setting up a sanskrit university but unwilling to support grads of the same through the state.”
    This is similar to what U R Ananthamurthy had once said
    “Gandhi would have approved of computers but not approved of IT”. But i guess it is because the grads would have studies only “utopian” stuff!

    This kind of language is eerily similar to what a certain “banavaasi baLaga” uses. This is a group based in Bangalore and made up of mostly misguided software professionals who are out to “save” Kannada and Karnataka. To make a case for Karnataka, they negate/severe all that is Indian saying India never had any political unity. To make a case for Kannada, they find it compulsive to negate/severe its links with Sanskrit saying Kannada had its own tradition independent of Sanskrit. Of course, it need not be told how incompetent/malicious they are to arrive at the conclusions they have arrived at. Here is a typical example

    http://karnatique.blogspot.com/search/label/Ramayana

    The verse they are quoting does not even belong to Ramayana. Yet it is “evidence” to nail the devil in a rather innocuous statement of Golwalker!!

    Here is another crappy post from the same guys.

    http://karnatique.blogspot.com/2009/05/mistake-which-both-gandhi-and-golwalkar.html

    Reader Vishwa has already posted their views on the Sanskrit University in this very thread.

    Sorry for going off-topic a bit. Just wanted to let people know about such groups and their divisive agendas.

30. larissa
    19. July 2009 - 5:52 PM

    @Palahalli
    Therefore secularism in the US must become an enemy of it’s White Christian Majority. Same in the case of Europe and most other parts of the world where secularism rules the establishment.

    This is nonsense. For example, while the US is a Christian nation, the Constitution was built on separation of church and State. Why this interest in Western liberalism? Most Western Europeans are agnostic and are not religious in the sense that HIndus are. LIberalism in Western Europe evolved our of its own institutions–and means something entirely different than in India. Secularism in the West is not an enemy of its majority but specific flawed governmental policies might be…Many Americans are conservative politically (as it concerns their finances) but very liberal as private individuals…
    In India, that is not the case–secularism was imported artificially by Nehru and means something different for India. Unlike the West whose Greco-Roman civilization was replaced by Christianity, this is not the case for India. Culture and religion are the same in India–you cannot have India culture without the native religions of India.
    So while conservatives might have similarities everywhere in the sense that conservatism is to be grounded in rootedness to a place, it is fallacious to try to think that Indian conservatives want the same thing as Western ones, and very fallacious to think that HIndu conservatives are the same as right wing Christians in the West. This analogy is misleading and fallacious.

31. larissa
    19. July 2009 - 6:13 PM

    @Druva

    I find it generally depressing to read Arun Shourie because he generally speaks the truth–However, while his insights regarding political parties is correct in those three series of articles, losing elections was a result of other issues as well. Congress won because it makes it appear as if it is pro-poor (when it is not so in reality) and spends government money on schemes that really do not benefit anyone but middlemen–The large masses of Indian voters are not literate and will vote for those who literally “buy” their votes–in the case of Congress through government schemes which do not work. That is the reality of politics in India. And if you were a poor farmer who would you vote for? I think the large masses of voters in India are easily manipulated by political parties like Congress which in reality do nothing for them. Bjp is no godsend but a better alternative to Congress. But it was not successful in doing what it needed to do to win the majority votes…

32. Raghavendra
    19. July 2009 - 11:11 PM

    Vasuki,

    Nice one, you should start writing articles of your own.

    We need more (true)intellectuals…

33. sanskrit compulsory
    20. July 2009 - 1:02 PM

    http://delhilive.in/dlive_fullstory.php?id=14720302&cid=14462920

    this is singapore school running compulsory sanskrit class and compulsory mahatma gandhi class. this is way to go

34. also gandhi compulsory
    20. July 2009 - 1:06 PM

    same school where gandhi and sanskrit is compulsory

    http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/a-school-chain-which-takes-sanskrit-shlokas-gandhi-to-the-world_10073634.html

35. Palahalli
    20. July 2009 - 1:29 PM

    Larissa – Why do you say its nonsense?

    Firstly, I am still talking about the secular establishment’s impulses that must remain anti-majority. In the case of the US and the West (White Christian Majorities), there is little doubt that it is.

    Secondly, even if the US’ establishment is “Christian” and thereby reflecting it’s Christian nation, I find that these are in the mold of our establishment being “Hindu” reflecting a Hindu nation.

    The interest in Western Liberalism is there for the simple reason that Indian liberals have borrowed Western Liberal premises to bolster their arguments. They are winning so far only because our Indian political establishment is similar to such establishments in the West.

    I have said before that these premises are based on the following -

    1. Individual rights

    2. The notion that all cultures are equal and so cannot be discriminated against.

    3. Multi-Culturalism is good and needs to be encouraged.

    I can understand that “liberalism” in India means something different *when* viewed from Hindu lenses. Not when viewed from Western lenses. In this case I would rather not call Hindu “liberalism” as such. I will simply call it the Hindu way..or even Hindu traditionalism.

    I find it strange when defenders of secularism don’t like to blame secularism for the perversions it engenders. This is like not blaming communism but certain “flaws” in implementing it.

    My argument against secularism and liberalism is that they are innately inhuman. That they are against traditional human evolutionary phases. That they wish to impose on human society, notions that traditional human society otherwise would reject or take time to evaluate through its human experiences.

    Let’s take this agnosticism. My argument against agnosticism is not that it’s anti-God; because that’s an old debate, but because it uproots society from it’s moorings without leaving any comparable alternative in place. Is there any wonder that White Christians in Europe find themselves at sea in the face of existential dangers? Can their agnosticism help them? Is there any wonder that Geert Wilders is doing so well? So is the BNP.

    Liberalism in the West, like Secularism, evolved out of a particular Western milieu, yes. But that milieu no longer exists. This is where Western Liberalism and Secularism become a stranglehold instead.

    The fact that these “virtues” were grafted onto the Hindu body politic makes them worse.

36. Palahalli
    20. July 2009 - 2:44 PM

    Btw Larissa, most US conservatives are closely related to our BJP leaders.

    Since you are in the US, please check for their views on the following -

    1. Immigration (Legal & Illegal)

    2. Islam

    3. Multi-Culturalism

37. Ashwani Aheer
    20. July 2009 - 7:31 PM

    Congress thrives on muslim votes so it very often greases the palms of mulla-moulavis and islamists.Before this elections congress had made a deal underhand that it will give them many facilities and money to strengthen islam and soft-jihad for thier votes. Well before ellections dummy P.M started speaking repeatedly that in this country muslims have the first right upon its resources. Now F.M anounced Rs 2000 crores and many hunderds of acers land to open five branches of Alighar Muslim University in India at differnt places attached to one maderessa with each.
    Congress will fulfil many such promises made underhand with mullas-moulavees-islamists for the ellection victory.
    And Hindus will see as usual thier slow and steady destruction and slipping away thier b’full lovely country in the hands of muslims-xtians-marxists.

38. larissa
    20. July 2009 - 8:25 PM

    “Btw Larissa, most US conservatives are closely related to our BJP leaders.”
    There are several varieties of conservatives in the US. The neo-cons (the kind that wanted war in Iraq), the paleocons, and others as well. The views you take up are mostly echoed by paleocons.
    In the US, those who vote “Republican” are mostly at the higher end of the income scale (this is a broad generalization)–But this varies across States. In the East and West coast, the higher you are on the income scale, you are more liberal, and hence, Democrats are increasingly winning these states . In the South like in Texas, people who are richer are also more religious, less liberal and more conservative. Also 1% of Americans pay 40% of taxes so being conservative means wanting less governmental interference in business and less government spending on wasteful schemes that do not benefit the public.
    Not all conservatives in the US are Christian conservatives, as I said many conservatives are very liberal in their private lives, and do not want much to do with religion.
    The conservatives in India have justified grievances as do conservatives everywhere. Actually it is very easy for BJP to have a good image internationally if they want–they are fighting for some good causes like uniform civil code, protection of borders etc., etc. But conservatism in India cannot be comapred to the conservatism of the Christian right in Western countires. This is what I am trying to say.

39. Palahalli
    20. July 2009 - 8:44 PM

    Larissa, I’m talking social conservatism.

    All of the 3 points I listed earlier has to do with society and not necessarily with finance per se although financial impacts arise from mis-managing these 3 factors.

    In the US, a social conservative would have to be a Christian conservative no? And so I do not completely understand your saying, “But conservatism in India cannot be compared to the conservatism of the Christian right in Western countries.”

    Take away Christian evangelism and you have very little dispute with what they want for America and what Hindus want for India. Rootedness.

40. larissa
    20. July 2009 - 9:18 PM

    Well that is correct in a way. For example what Putin did in Russia was correct–he declared Russia is a Orthodox Christian country firmly. What has Russia got apart from its Christian heritage?
    Conservatives everywhere have similarities–but it is incorrect to compare Hindu conservatives to Chtistian ones–because the two religions are different.

41. larissa
    20. July 2009 - 10:05 PM

    Well I think that for every nation there has to be a guiding civilizational ethos, but this need not be the same for all countries. For the West it is its European, Christian heritage. For India that is composed of the native religions of India. When a society loses its dominant civilizational ethos, it can be dangerous when you have sets of competing voices who do not agree with each other and who do not trust each other. So in America, most sensible immigrants respect the dominant culture and disappear in the culture becoming Americans–.

42. larissa
    20. July 2009 - 10:14 PM

    I recently came across some Indian Christians who were affiliated with the Church. They ancestors perhaps had become Christians to escape their caste it seemed to me. But they were not completely at ease in their congregations and complained of discrimination by Westerners on account of what they looked like.
    It was then that I realized that if HIndus had been smart, they would have brought such people into the religious fold so they need not have converted…
    I read of how Kashmiri Muslims who had been forced to convert at one time wanted to come back to Hinduism but some Orthodox Brahmins were against it. Hindus have also made a lot of mistakes when it comes to alienating people from Hinduism. If they were wise, they would outdo the Christian in helping their own people who are marginalized though social services and bringing them to the majority fold…

43. Bhavananda
    22. July 2009 - 8:05 AM

    This may be slightly off-topic but very, very important:
    Looks like the Harvard elite, Michael Witzel, has been caught with his pants down (figuratively).
    http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=715
    Whats worse, is that he has been defanged by a *Marxist scholar* … funny, very … very funny.

    Its increasing looking that we are having another elite sanskrit scholar, just like the Max Mueller, who became famous Indologist, South Asia expert, Vedic scholar, etc without actually knowing much about it (just read the article where Dr. Singh points out that Witzel may not have read Book IV on which he gave some expert comments).

    Sandeep, it would be a great service if you can look into it and write a bold post on the exploits of Witzel. Call it “Witzel trivia”

44. Kaushik
    23. July 2009 - 4:35 AM

    Sandeep,
    Excellent article. I’ve been a fan of your blog for quite a while, first time I’m commenting.
    Talk of coincidence, I wanted to know your views on the comments on this post (http://www.sastwingees.org/2008/01/27/gond-australian-aborigine-connection/) and here you were, writing an article quite related to the topic in the comments. The comments make for more interesting reading than the post, incidentally.

45. Vijay
    23. July 2009 - 5:45 PM

    i am awaiting your next post!!!

46. N Shah
    23. July 2009 - 6:27 PM

    I believe they are taking the slogan, “Karnatakadalli kannadave aadalita baashe’ a little too seriously. Sanskrit forms the foundation all most Indian languages and if an institution were to enhance an understanding of that language there isnt a reason to make a hue and cry.

    The question in the p-sec mind is whethere this will be secular or communal. You’ll know that if you say yes to a Centre for the study of the Urdu language.

47. Chrysalis
    24. July 2009 - 9:01 AM

    Love the post. It is a co incidence that I wrote a post protesting some group of bloggers indifference and ridicule for Sanskrit, which is more than a ‘dying’ once upon a time language. It is a our legacy and national treasure. It is a shame that it is seen as adefunct language. But in a yug where the pursuit of money is above all, is it a surprise?

48. K. Harapriya
    2. August 2009 - 1:05 AM

    The reason secularists and communists (aren’t they the same in India) attack Sanskrit is that it is quintessentially Hindu. One cannot delink Sanskrit from Hinduism the way the West has delinked Yoga from Hinduism and how our locals are trying to delink Classical Indian arts (e.g Bharata Natyam –which is now taught in Christian format at the Kalai Kaveri Univesity) from Hinduism. To study Sanskrit literature is to study Hindu religious scriptures and epics (which are also religious in nature).

    Only in India would the root language of its civilization cause so much controversy while our secular progressives regularly eulogize Urdu.

49. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    11. August 2009 - 11:35 PM

    I am responding to this thread because of references to our blog “Karnatique” in the discussions. I am the secretary of Banavasi Balaga which runs this blog.

    I would like to let you know that we do not oppose Sanskrit in the way you think we do. Sanskrit has its place in the lives of Kannadigas (and also the speakers of other languages).

    The question is – what exactly that place is, where its utility begins, and where it ends. It is in these details that we seem to differ.

    I am myself a very fond lover of Sanskrit – but my love is not blind. Sanskrit has taught me things which no other language can. I learnt Sanskrit out of my own interest – driven by an urge to understand the Bhagavadgita and the Upanishads. Thanks to the circumstances which life exposed me to and the Sanskrit language, I can say that I have a decent understanding of the Bhagavadgita and the Upanishads. I do believe I am living by the messages contained in them – as much as any Gruhastha of any age or clime ever has.

    Let us sit together (I’d be happy to meet physically – if you can arrange it anywhere in Bengaluru) and discuss further.

    We have many common interests – at Balaga, we have discussed many a time about ways of working together. We need to talk. A few years of not sitting together and discussing has painted a wrong picture of us in your minds. As for what image of yours we carry – suffice it to say that we have seniors at Banavasi Balaga who have been in the RSS for more number of years than you can imagine.

    So in summary, we’re not an opponent you’re used to! We’re indeed an opponent – but not in the way you think we are. We have some common interests. There is no doubt that each of us can benefit from the other if only we sit together and discuss.

    My question is – can I hope to have the pleasure of meeting the right people on this forum?

50. Sandeep
    12. August 2009 - 12:09 AM

    Ba Ra Kirana,

    Thanks for your elaborate comment. Let me make some things clear at the outset:

    1. This is not a forum (like a discussion/bulletin board). It is a personal blog, run by an individual: me. I reserve all rights on this blog.

    2. I’m not affiliated to any organization/institution/political party.

    3. I open my comment space for readers to share their views. Those are their own views.

    4. I normally don’t respond to comments unless they’re addressed directly to me.

    With that background, I’d say you could’ve researched this blog a bit before saying:
    >>I would like to let you know that we do not oppose Sanskrit in the way you think we do.
    I had no idea that you guys existed until you posted your comment here. Thus, the question of me thinking about you guys “opposing” anything or otherwise doesn’t arise.

    Sure, I’m ok to meet in person but before that I need to research your work, your positions on issues, etc.

    >> As for what image of yours we carry – suffice it to say that we have seniors at Banavasi Balaga who have been in the RSS for more number of years than you can imagine.
    I’m not sure if I should feel flattered that you already carry an “image” of me! Also I have no clue why you choose to mention the RSS in the context of talking about my “image.”

    >>..we’re not an opponent you’re used to! We’re indeed an opponent – but not in the way you think we are.
    I repeat, I’ve never heard of you before so I’m a little intrigued what made you conclude that I consider you my “opponent.”

    >>We have some common interests.
    Again, I don’t know what your interests are so it’s kind of funny if I agree with you on this line.

    Sure, we can sit together and discuss but for that you need to lay all your cards on the table.

51. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 7:05 AM

    Sandeep,

    Thanks for your reply. I do understand that this is a personal blog and you reserve all rights. Sometimes, personal blogs can go beyond their intended purposes!

    Let me clarify. My comment was not directed at you – it was directed at those who have commented here. It is they who have mentioned about Karnatique.

    Vishwa, Vasuki and others here know very well why I have used words such as “opponent” and “RSS”. I don’t expect them to be equally dazed at my comment.

    Thanks!

52. Sandeep
    12. August 2009 - 7:27 AM

    Ba Ra

    if your comment wasn’t directed at me, what’s the meaning of calling for the responsible person “of this forum” to talk to me?

    You couldve directly addressed the commenters inquestion.

53. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 7:44 AM

    Sandeep,

    This is what I had said: “My question is – can I hope to have the pleasure of meeting the right people on this forum?”

    Not – ‘responsible person of “this forum”‘. You quote me wrongly.

    I agree you don’t consider this as a forum, but I perceive it as one – which I hope is not a serious error.

    I agree I should have addressed it directly to the commenters in question. My bad.

54. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 8:48 AM

    Now that I’m here, let me comment on your article, Sandeep. Yes, this one is directed at you (:-)).

    The arguments against the setting up of a Sanskrit university in Karnataka are rooted in Marxist opposition to any effort to preserve and revive India’s cultural heritage

    Welcome to the entity called Banavasi Balaga. We oppose the setting up of a Sanskrit University in Karnataka, but our arguments are not rooted in “Marxist opposition to preserve and revive India’s cultural heritage”. One of the commenters here has posted the link to our article in the Karnatique which contains our argument.

    In what might come as a surprise to you, we believe that setting up of a Sanskrit University is a move tangential to preserving and reviving India’s cultural heritage. I’m not saying it’s against it, only tangential.

    According to this theory, Sanskrit is supposedly associated to Brahmins because it was the language of priests during the Vedic times.

    I need not comment on this because I’ve clarified that our theory is not “this theory” which you refer to, but I’d like to support your argument. Yes, Sanskrit was not the language of Brahmins alone – wherever it was the language of anybody.

    However, there is no proof that Sanskrit was the language of anybody in Karnataka during the “Vedic period”. Kannada belongs to a family of languages called Dravidian (and I know this hurts some of our friends here, but it’s a fact), which has little to no similarity with Indo-European languages such as Sanskrit.

    Realistically, how many regional languages are used in everyday business?

    All. Yes, all.

    You need to expand your understanding of “everyday business” to the real India which doesn’t mostly work in AC rooms in polluted metropolises. Every Indian farmer, every Indian weaver – etc – does business in the regional languages of India.

    What these purity proponents don’t realise is that you cannot preserve Indian languages by severing their inextricable link with Sanskrit. The vocabulary and grammar of most Indian languages are derived from Sanskrit.

    We are not “purity proponents”, so I don’t need to reply to this. But I’d like to introduce to “pronouncability proponents” – you’ll figure what that means – which is what we are.

    Languages are complex human systems. When you say “Indian language” (say Kannada), you need to be clear about whether you’re referring to written or spoken; if spoken, where it is spoken, by which class of people, etc. For e.g., you need to appreciate the fact that vocabulary of the Kannada spoken by the farmers and weavers in the villages (whom you just seem to have forgotten) is not “inextricably linked” to Sanskrit as is linked most Kannada literature. The fact that the latter variety gets the Jnanapitha awards need not bias our definition of “Kannada”.

    Now, the grammar of Kannada (of either variety) is not derived from Sanskrit, although Kannada Grammarians subscribed to the mistake of deriving it therefrom. This is a long discussion. Please read “Kannadakke beku Kannadadde Vyakarana” by Dr. D N Shankar Bhat for an introduction to the “extricable link” between the two grammars.

    Also, is it a mere coincidence that the script of most major Indian languages (barring all South Indian languages) is a variant of Devanagari, the script of Sanskrit?

    You make a factual error. Even South Indian scripts are derivatives of Brahmi – from which Devanagari is also derived.

    Sanskrit is what gives identity to the Indian civilisation as we know it.

    Yes, “as you know it”. You who do not “know” the farmer in the villages, the weaver in the rural-est of rural areas. If it were worded as a proposal as in “Let us use Sanskrit to give an Identity to Indian civilization” – we can discuss. Worded as an assumption, I have to disagree.

    The real reason for opposing the founding of a Sanskrit university in Karnataka is starkly political than anything noble. It reeks of the tired old rhetoric of Brahmins-are-the-root-of-all-evil-in-India. Those opposing the move have exactly zero accomplishment in promoting the cause of Kannada. Besides, the other overarching factor is that there’s a BJP Government in Karnataka.

    Again, I’m commenting on this not because I believe you’ve referred to us (that would be too flattering!), but because I want to put forth a fresh point of view.

    The real reason for our opposing the founding of a Sanskrit university in Karnataka is starkly noble than anything political. We certainly do not subscribe to the Brahmin bashing that you talk about. We oppose the Sanskrit university simply because that money is better spent on research in Kannada, its true Grammar, its history (in the last two of which you have yourself demonstrated sufficient and common lack of understanding). You can read more on Karnatique (search for “Sanskrit University”).

    Or is Kannada (or Telugu or Bengali) that fragile that it can’t withstand Sanskrit’s influence? History shows that Indian regional languages were actually enriched by close contact with Sanskrit and vice versa.

    All languages are enriched by close contact with other languages. That doesn’t mean we should build universities of all those languages in Karnataka. The existing, welcome influence of Sanskrit on Kannada (in various degrees depending on which variety you’re talking about) didn’t come about because of a Sanskrit University in Karnataka, did it? It came about without such a University!

    Again – the money is better spent on the study of Kannada – about whose structure, grammar and history there is widespread ignorance (much of which is displayed by your article as well as its other commentators).

    There’s a reason why regional languages are struggling for survival. The Nehruvian state’s removal of Sanskrit from the education system robbed these languages of their original richness.

    There certainly is a reason. But it’s not the reason you give. It is this – popular Indian languages (I refuse to call them “regional”) – have till now not been considered as fit vehicles of Knowledge. Either English or Sanskrit or Persian has been considered so – and this by definition makes the Kannadas and Telugus struggle for survival.

    The Karnataka Government’s move is more than welcome. If the Sanskrit university revives the defining language of India, it will create a generation of self-aware and proud Indians who will (hopefully) rediscover the genius of India and Sanskrit.

    From our point of view, the move is unwelcome – it is tangential to the development of most Indian states (definitely of Karnataka). Assuming Sanskrit to be the “defining language” of India admits too much ignorance of the nature of most Indian languages (certainly of Kannada). We could look at defining an Indian identity based on the richness of Sanskrit literature as a proposal, but refuse to accept it as an assumption.

    Indians must rediscover the languages that are being spoken by the tens of millions today – the Kannadas and Gujaratis and Tamils and Telugus and Hindis – rediscover them as fit vehicles for carrying knowledge. Such a rediscovery will pave the way for poverty alleviation and prosperity – which is more basic than self-awareness and pride of the variety you refer to.

55. Vasuki H A
    12. August 2009 - 10:46 AM

    @Ba Ra Kirana

    >>Vishwa, Vasuki and others here know very well why I have used words such as “opponent” and “RSS”. I don’t expect them to be equally dazed at my comment.
    I am not at all dazed. Anyone who knows your group’s modus operandi and average intellect wont be.
    I know very well that you need “RSS” to make a case for your baLaga being an entity that is “not-RSS”.
    I also know you need Sanskrit to make a case for Kannada being something that is “not-Sanskrit”.
    I also know that you need bhArata to make a case for Karnataka being something that is “not-bhArata”
    This is how you create “opponents”, albeit imaginary and thrive on it. On a personal front, I find it an insult to be considered an “opponent” by you. You are not that good. Not on the basis of your blogs atleast.
    Instead of talking random stuff, you could have told me why you have employed a verse not belonging to the Ramayana to “prove” Golwalker “wrong”. I have provided the link in a comment above. For starters, you can try to be intellectually honest. I am not “dazed” if you dont.

    Despite all this, you claim this –
    >>Thanks to the circumstances which life exposed me to and the Sanskrit language, I can say that I have a decent understanding of the Bhagavadgita and the Upanishads. I do believe I am living by the messages contained in them – as much as any Gruhastha of any age or clime ever has.
    Ah!! No wonder ! A guy quoting a non-existent verse as “evidence” to further a sly motive is certainly living by the Bhagavadgita and Upanishads!! I expect nothing better from the secretary of banavaasi baLaga

    Sometimes, it is good to encounter people like you. It makes me realize what a big virtue having a bit of shame is.

    Now, bring on your next truckload of trash!

56. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 11:09 AM

    @ Vasuki H A

    Please do not use such language. I know that you write this with the best of intentions in your mind.

    I invite you – or anybody here – to call me on my mobile number: 98454-66738. Let’s discuss with an open mind instead of imagining ghosts at the other end of the internet.

    I am getting a glimpse of how wrongly you have pictured Banavasi Balaga. Give me a chance to explain our stance on the issues you have raised.

57. Raghavendra
    12. August 2009 - 12:07 PM

    Good! at last someone from Balaga is ready to listen, I hope its a honest call.

    Missionary zeal of “Banavasi Balaga” will die one day with Aryan invasion theory, day is not too far when AIT will be shunned universally.

    Missionaries of Christian and Islam are insecure because their religion is false,likewise your Balaga is also insecure,thats why your missionaries are zealous,its just facade to falsehood.

58. Ba Ra Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 12:25 PM

    @ Raghavendra,

    Here’s a surprise for you: Banavasi Balaga rejects the AIT. While the Dravidian and Indo-European language families are provably different, there is no proof of two different “races” as proposed by some.

    What we stress on is the fact that – in the (missionary!) zeal to oppose the proponents of AIT, one should not forget or obscure the linguistic differences and claim for Sanskrit a role in Kannada and Karnataka which it does not play in reality. Why do we stress on it? Because therein – in the correct understanding and application of our languages lies the seed of India’s development.

    Again, I invite you also to come to the discussion table. We differ on only some issues – and it is my solid belief that even those differences are because of lack of sincere and mutually-respecting dialogue. You have my mobile number.

    @ Vasuki,

    I’m expecing you’ll call. I’ll wait for another 48 hours before resigning myself to the disappointment that many like you have been the source of. Don’t let that happen. I know your intentions are noble, while you don’t trust mine to be. A discussion will help settle things.

59. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 1:11 PM

    @ Raghavendra,

    Banavasi Balaga has always been open to discussions with anybody with an open mind. We are well aware that the task we have set for ourselves can be accomplished only with the cooperation of the best minds around.

    Here’s a surprise for you: We at Banavasi Balaga reject the AIT. Yes, you heard that right.

    While the Dravidian and Indo-European language families are provably different, there is no proof of two different “races” as proposed by some.

    What we stress on is the fact that – in the (missionary!) zeal to oppose the proponents of AIT, one should not forget or obscure linguistic differences and claim for Sanskrit a role in Kannada and Karnataka which it does not play in reality. Why do we stress on it? Because in the correct understanding and application of our languages lies the seed of India’s development.

    Again, I invite you also to come to the discussion table. We differ on only some issues – and it is my solid belief that even those differences are because of lack of sincere and mutually-respecting dialogue and thinking. You have my mobile number.

    @ Vasuki,

    I’m expecing you’ll call. I’ll wait for another 48 hours before resigning myself to the disappointment that many before you have been the source of. Don’t let that happen. I know your intentions are noble, while you don’t trust mine to be. A good discussion will help.

    Besides, I think Sandeep is getting irritated about all these discussions unrelated to his post in The Pioneer

60. Raghavendra
    12. August 2009 - 1:38 PM

    Why argue with me? I’m a novice. Well if you are honest and open for discussion, I shall take you to Dr Shatavadi R Ganesh, a poet and scholar an authority in Many Indian languages.

    If you are interested call me on 9731100551.

61. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 3:20 PM

    @ Raghavendra,

    Thanks for talking over phone. I hope I have answered atleast some of your queries, atleast to some level of satisfaction. I know we cannot agree fully on everything, but that is the nature of any intellectual pursuit.

    I have told you where I respect Dr. Ganesh’s views and where I do not (Note: this is not about respecting him as a person. Read carefully!). I know him very well and have met him and discussed many things with him. He too will be able to tell you about me and all my “sins”!

    Unfortunately, you are asking me to talk to him about those areas where I believe his experience is nil but claim is high. For starters, is not a linguist. Knowing to speak Kannada well and writing poetry in Kannada is different from being a linguist. Hence, there is no point in talking to him about issues related to linguistics. He lacks an open mind in this regard.

    Any way, thanks to Sandeep for providing a “forum” for us to discuss these things.

    May what is better for mankind win. If it is what I’m saying, well and good. If it is not what I’m saying, may I face the consequences for temporarily derailing the betterment of mankind. Good bye, and good luck.

    @ Vasuki

    I’m still waiting.

62. Sandeep
    12. August 2009 - 3:44 PM

    Ba Ra Kirana,

    I admire your patience at typing out such a lengthy comment but it leaves me flummoxed. Seriously.

    Your comment reflects an absolute lack of clarity in thought. Instead of posting a line-by-line response, it’d be good if you can sum up your position in a few, well-worded, clear sentences.

    If these are all the cards you have, I feel let down. Especially after you made your presence felt on my blog with a bang.

63. Raghavendra
    12. August 2009 - 3:58 PM

    Thank you for the call. Time is the best judge, let it decide the fate of your Balaga.

    Again,

    I’m not a follower of DRG or anyone, he is my friend and I have high regards for him for what he is, and also he is like a guru to me in so many aspects,but sometimes we too have differences,we too have arguments, which always end in happy note. In our hearts we share common goal,and that’s what keeps us together.

    Let truth prevail….

64. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 4:10 PM

    Sandeep,

    Bah! You want me to write again? Okay, let me summarize:

    1. There can exist opposition to the setting up of a Sanskrit University which is non-left – and ours is an example.

    2. In our viewpoint, it is better for the Karnataka govt. to set up a new Kannada university or fund Kannada departments in existing ones – from the point of view of researching on the history, grammar and application of Kannada – about which there is widespread misinformation and disinformation.

    3. The definition of business should involve all economic pursuits, of which farming, weaving, etc are examples. These are conducted in Indian languages (not “regional”). Your article assumes a narrower definition of “business” and comes to the wrong conclusion that no business is done in Indian languages (and that therefore they are dead).

    4. The original richness of some Indian languages such as Kannada is not derived from Sanskrit, nor do they possess “inextricable links” with it.

    5. The reason why Indian languages are struggling to survive is not because of Nehru-this-or-that, but because nobody is realizing their importance in the development of India.

    6. Hence, it makes more sense to study Kannada more and more deeply than to study Sanskrit – the two languages are linguistically non-proximate. The argument that a Sanskrit University is required in order to borrow Sanskrit words to Kannada is baseless because such borrowing has happened without any such Sanskrit University. Hence, any funds diverted from Kannada to Sanskrit is a mistake which should be avoided.

    By the way – this is a small point – I have also pointed out a factual error in your article regarding the origin of South Indian scripts.

65. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 4:13 PM

    May you acquire the ability to reciprocate courtesies. Now that you have failed, I’m forced to say: let time decide the fate of your RSS-ideology.

66. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 4:14 PM

    The last comment was for Raghavendra.

67. Raghavendra
    12. August 2009 - 4:19 PM

    Your RSS-idealogy?

    Hahaha! when people failed to counter SL byrappa they branded him communal, you too are trying to brand as RSS just to defend yourself.

    Its an old trick my dear friend.

68. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 4:31 PM

    @ Raghavendra,

    You missed the courtesy level comment, again.

    While I had said “let the better ideology win”, you said “let time decide the face of your balaga” – you failed to reciprocate my courtesy.

69. Raghavendra
    12. August 2009 - 4:32 PM

    And one more thing, as long I feel I’m honest I don’t care for courtesy. Courtesy is good to have but not necessary aspect,it can never be a replacement for honesty.

70. Raghavendra
    12. August 2009 - 4:33 PM

    What Ideology are you talking?? I don’t care for any ideology.

71. Raghavendra
    12. August 2009 - 4:49 PM

    Kappage irorele krishna alla , Samskrutha ista idorella RSS navaralla.

    So think twice before you brand someone……

72. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 4:49 PM

    ?????? ????? ????? ??????????? ???????? |
    ??????????? ?????????? ????? ????? ??: ????||

    vidyA dadAti vinayaM vinayAdyAti pAtratAM |
    pAtratvAt dhanamApnOti dhanAt dharmaM tataH sukhaM ||

73. harish
    12. August 2009 - 5:12 PM

    These banavasi balaga people have no logical understanding of sanskrit. By setting up kannada university they think poverty can be alleviated.The demand for kannada university is fair, but the demand to not have a sanskrit university is utter ridiculous and bull shit. Who ll research the humongous amounts of texts that are in sanskrit, Germans???

    This particular blog item is enough to expose the balaga on the depth of their understanding
    http://karnatique.blogspot.com/2009/05/mistake-which-both-gandhi-and-golwalkar.html

74. harish
    12. August 2009 - 5:14 PM

    Ha ha ,
    The balaga is taking refuge in sanskrit. Yaake kannadalli equivalent gaade siklilva???

75. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 5:20 PM

    I am leaving this site disgusted, since you guys have yet to graduate to talking above the belt. It’s a pity Sanskrit hasn’t taught you Sanskritists what it has taught me.

    Good bye.

76. Sandeep
    12. August 2009 - 5:59 PM

    Ba Ra,

    Thanks for summarizing your position. And btw “bah” indicates impatience, not a virtue in an argument/debate.

    >>In our viewpoint, it is better for the Karnataka govt. to set up a new Kannada university or fund Kannada departments in existing ones – from the point of view of researching on the history, grammar and application of Kannada – about which there is widespread misinformation and disinformation.
    Our universities/govt-funded Kannada institutions have been doing exactly this for decades but you want them to now focus on history, grammar, etc “about which there is widespread misinformation and disinformation?” That’s a bold statement to make. However, do you have verifiable, documented, scientifically-proven instances of this misinformation etc?

    >>Your article assumes a narrower definition of “business” and comes to the wrong conclusion that no business is done in Indian languages (and that therefore they are dead).
    Does it? In that case, why are so many “Learn English Overnight” centers sprouting up all over the country? Don’t even try to deny the existence of the English=Success/Money/Power/Glory/Fame perception. The point is not what language farmers, weavers, etc speak but what is the economic value of such languages on a global scale. Why is there so much demand for translations into Japanese & European languages from English? Don’t walk the language-as-business route: it’s a slippery slope. In case you don’t know what slippery slope is, look this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope. A shy girl in Gulbarga/Rohtak/Indore pays 20000 to learn English at one of those centers. I leave it to your intelligence to decipher the economic force behind her decision.

    >>The original richness of some Indian languages such as Kannada is not derived from Sanskrit, nor do they possess “inextricable links” with it.
    I suppose you agree to the following principles:
    1. When you make a statement, you better have a convincing, verifiable proof.
    2. It’s good to define the terms you use before using them.

    Thus, what is original richness? If you establish this, we can talk about whether it is derived from Sanskrit or no.

    >>The reason why Indian languages are struggling to survive is not because of Nehru-this-or-that, but because nobody is realizing their importance in the development of India.
    Congratulations for realizing this importance. Again, you might want to spend a few words on the said importance.

    >>Hence, it makes more sense to study Kannada more and more deeply than to study Sanskrit – the two languages are linguistically non-proximate.
    This conclusion is amazing because:
    a) You did NOT define any premises for your argument.
    b) Technically, your conclusion is a classic example of what is called a non-sequitur fallacy in formal logic.

    I’ll take up the non-proximate issue only AFTER you’ve stated your definitions and premises clearly.

    >>The argument that a Sanskrit University is required in order to borrow Sanskrit words to Kannada is baseless because such borrowing has happened without any such Sanskrit University.
    Is this some kind of a joke? If this is your rhetoric please tell me outright because I’ll stop right here. I can’t waste my time arguing with rhetoricians.

    However, I’ll still indulge you because I believe you commented here in good faith.

    Has it ever occurred to you that mutual give and take (it’s also called “cooperation”, a healthy sign of a vibrant society) can only benefit both parties? By your “borrowing” token, we need to eliminate most languages in the world including English. Why are you hellbent on looking at Sanskrit as an enemy of Kannada?

    >>Hence, any funds diverted from Kannada to Sanskrit is a mistake which should be avoided.
    Yay! You combine TWO logical fallacies in a single sentence! Non sequitur + argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument or appeal to ignorance).

    Do you have any proof that funds are being “diverted from Kannada to Sanskrit?” Hearsay/rumours don’t count as proof.

    Siigh!

    THIS is EXACTLY why I asked you formulate your position CLEARLY. You claim your organization is dedicated to promote, preserve, protect, enrich Kannada and eradicate misconceptions about it. With such lofty goals, isn’t it reasonable to at least have SOME intellectual clarity?

    Or is that too much to ask?

77. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 6:42 PM

    Sandeep,

    I have realized by now that nobody wins in this debate – where you have not the slightest respect for the opponent, and even come to the discussion pouring abuse and foul, under-the-belt language. It’s a pity you too – of The Pioneer fame – are party to it.

    I will not answer your post even at the risk of being branded as a party which ran away from the debate. I do not need your attestation for our ideology.

    Time will prove what is right.

    And the time starts now.

    Goodbye, and good luck.

78. Sandeep
    12. August 2009 - 6:54 PM

    Ba Ra,

    Awww…you disappoint me:(

    Respect for the opponent? Where have I disrespected you or used under-the-belt language? I haven’t called you names/abused you. I merely responded to your assertions and questioned your logic.

    If I have, I’m truly sorry: will that make you rejoin the discussion?

    And no, I’m a huge believer in free speech and democratic rights. I won’t brand you as anything if you choose to discontinue this discussion.

    Please come back.

79. Pinks
    12. August 2009 - 6:58 PM

    Harish falls to the category of people who can not defend their ideologies and start branding their opponents.
    Grow up Harish.
    Its sad that people with access to internet can not think openly.

80. Vasuki H A
    12. August 2009 - 11:04 PM

    @Ba Ra Kirana,

    I fail to understand why you make such a big deal about waiting for my reply. You are the one is asking me to indulge you and not the other way around. So, you have to wait till i respond. And if you are disappointed by any of my actions, it is your own botheration. I have nowhere said I will entertain you.

    >>I know your intentions are noble, while you don’t trust mine to be.
    I dont feel flattered by the first part and I have no regret over the second part. I had mentioned about your post where you quote a verse that is not present in the Ramayana and use it to “nail” the “devil” in a rather innocuous statement of Golwalker. I have raised it with other people of your baLaga in other forums. Nobody takes up the question. You are no different. Anyway, I dont expect anything better too. After all, in the comment section of that same post, you guys say,

    “editor, KARNATIQUE said…

    @ Jayant,

    Your comment has not been approved because you need to provide solid evidence that the shloka is not part of Valmiki Ramayana. Your saying so does not suffice. As far as we know, that shloka is part of the Valmiki Ramayana – but we may be wrong.

    If it’s not part of Valmiki Ramayana but is part of another Ramayana, it doesn’t harm our argument even in the slightest way. In any case, that shloka is popularly known as one uttered by Lord Rama.

    We are more than happy to admit if we have erred on the exact source of the shloka – but the point remains that Mr. Golwalkar was aggrandizing his idea of India to include Sri Lanka which really never was part of that India which Mr. Golwalkar calls as Matrubhoomi.”

    Now notice the beauty. The reader has to provide proof for the verse you guys quote! Isnt that great?
    And despite getting the evidence wholly wrong, your “point remains”!!
    And still you are as good a Gruhastha as any living by the message of the Bhagavadgita and Upanishats!!!!

    This is what makes me doubt your intent and credibility. If you indeed want to talk to me, on phone or by meeting in person, prove to me that the verse concerned is from Ramayana. Or else, post a general notice on your blog retracting the concerned post. It wont bother me if you dont. But since you talk lofty stuff(as good a Gruhastha…), you shouldnt find it too inconvenient to establish your own credibility. Dont bother me till then.

    There is another thing that intrigues me. You are telling all and sundry here that they are talking below the belt. Now, let me just quote some comments from your own blog. There is a guy called “Jockey” who comments regularly on your blog. He has pretty much taken it upon himself to be the bulldog of your group. Some of his comments on the same post go like this…

    >>”Try to read before you blurt out nonsense…….”

    >>”Now shut up and cut your crap – because the “mother land of Kannadas” is not the topic of this article. Read before you blurt out your nonsense…….”

    >>”Oh fool, the point is not whether things in the Ramayana are scientifically provable…..”

    >>”Who said Manusmruthi is not sexist, not discriminative, very moral? And why the !@#$ are you talking about this here?………”

    These are all comments which have been accepted by your own group. Do these qualify as “pouring abuse and foul, under-the-belt language”? Or is it that only others are not supposed to use it?

    More examples in another post – the one on the Sanskrit University…
    http://karnatique.blogspot.com/2008/11/sanskrit-univ-bjps-facade-of.html

    >>”Bloody hell, Sanskrit is so underdeveloped that there are no speakers of that language!…..”

    >>”Show that you’ve got real stuff in between your ears by coming up with a list of topics which exist in Sanskrit literature, but which haven’t been already researched on.
    …”

    And despite all this, you come here and cry foul about the way people talk. But let your bulldog bark mindlessly at dissenting commentators on your blog. And still, you are
    as good a Grihastha as anyone belonging to any age or clime living by the messages of the Gita and Upanishats!!

    And you expect me to call you!!!!

81. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 11:09 PM

    Sandeep,

    Thanks for rising above the below-the-belt shooters. Now we can talk.

    You wanted to know where you shot below the belt, here it is, together with reasons why they are below the belt and suggestions for uplifting each statement to above-the-belt levels (:-)) —

    In case you don’t know what slippery slope is, look this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope..
    Do not assume your opponent to be ignorant of anything to begin with. It is basic courtesy to omit sentences such as this.

    I leave it to your intelligence to decipher the economic force behind her decision.
    Do not make statements which tend on proclaiming without proof that your opponent lacks a certain intelligence. I’d reword it as – “Acc. to you, what is the economic force behind her decision?”

    Congratulations for realizing this importance.
    Again, a statement which stems from utter contempt. Instead, a good debater who both respects the opponent and is interested in furthering the debate would simply ask – “why do you think this is important?”.

    Is this some kind of a joke? If this is your rhetoric please tell me outright because I’ll stop right here. I can’t waste my time arguing with rhetoricians.
    Do not assume that your opponent is simply wasting his time, or even cracking jokes. Expect your opponent to be a good opponent to begin with. Also, don’t jump to the conclusion that your opponent is a “rhetorician”. Understand him before you make up your mind.

    Has it ever occurred to you that mutual give and take (it’s also called “cooperation”, a healthy sign of a vibrant society) can only benefit both parties?
    Again, “has it ever occurred to you” is best avoided. The reference to “cooperation” is best avoided too. I’d just reword it as – “shouldn’t the two languages cooperate?” or something like that. I actually miss your point here because of below-the-belt distractions.

    Hearsay/rumours don’t count as proof.
    Best avoided. Expect your opponent to know this before concluding that he does not know it.

    With such lofty goals, isn’t it reasonable to at least have SOME intellectual clarity? Or is that too much to ask?
    Even before any debate has taken place, you are questioning whether there is any intellectual clarity in your opponent. A healthy debate – and not your preconceived notions – should decide whether your opponent has any intellectual clarity. Also, don’t assume that your opponent thinks it’s too much to ask.

    And lastly – admit your follies. You have not acknowledged till now that you have made a mistake w.r.t. South Indian scripts. Again, this is basic courtesy and curtailing one’s ego – central to any spiritual pursuit.

    I could have commented similarly on the behaviour of some others who have commented on me or Karnatique or Banavasi Balaga in even lighter and below-er-the-belt language – but suffice it to say that what I have said here applies to them, too.

    I will expect you to re-word your questions to me based on my suggestions above – even if it looks like an imposition – before I answer them. My friend, this is the first thing that is expected in any debate. This is the first lesson in any religion – and I quote here the words of Basavanna who has put it very clearly:

    kaLa beDa kola beDa husiya nuDiyalu beDa
    thanna baNNisabeDa, idira haLiyalu beDa
    muniya beDa, anyarige asahya paDabeDa
    ide antharanga shuddhi, ide bahiranga shuddhi
    ide koodala sangamanolisuva pari

82. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    12. August 2009 - 11:37 PM

    @ Vasuki

    Check out Pg. 23, ?r? Ved?nta De?ika By Mudumby Narasimhachary, S?hitya Ak?dem?. Scholars do not even concur on whether the Chandogya Upanishad says “tat tvam asi” or “atat tvam asi”. One picks that which is taught by one’s school of philosophy. I wouldn’t be surprised if similar controversies exist about the shloka in question.

    As to why bad language was allowed on Karnatique – I suspect the reason to be similar to why Sandeep is allowing it here.

83. Raghavendra
    12. August 2009 - 11:44 PM

    Ba ra,

    You are answerable to what Vasuki have highlighted on what you considered below the belt.

    you are exhibiting the attitude of our minorities, they bully us in street fights,but when they claim reservation they show off as oppressed class.

    When you are on the receiving side you complain about usage of our language,but when you are in comfortable position amongst Balaga you have no problem with same language.

    O my lord please show us the mercy and answer what Vasuki have raised for the good of mankind (Do I pass the test of courtesy here??)

    I will tell my definition of what below and above the belt is (in Kannada).

    Above the belt -> Aggi, thatha.

    below the belt -> Akka , Amma.

    I’m not calling you names, I’m only defining my standards here. You need not be disturbed by my comments, please continue the argument with Vasuki and Sandeep. Don’t make me culprit for you running away once again.

    God bless you….

84. Raghavendra
    12. August 2009 - 11:48 PM

    Ba ra,

    >>As to why bad language was allowed on Karnatique – I suspect the reason to be similar to why Sandeep is allowing it here.

    If so ,then you did you complain about in place???

    Sir,

    Please be consistent, Anakulasidu agabedi namma URA thraha…

85. Raghavendra
    12. August 2009 - 11:50 PM

    Ba ra,

    >>As to why bad language was allowed on Karnatique – I suspect the reason to be similar to why Sandeep is allowing it here.

    If so ,then you did you complain about it in first place???

    Sir,

    Please be consistent, Anakulasidu agabedi namma URA thraha…

86. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    13. August 2009 - 12:11 AM

    If so ,then you did you complain about it in first place???

    I am complaining about bad language here basically because I am being asked to participate in a discussion, and I too am interested in having one. A good discussion is impossible in the presence of baseless animosity or lack of courtesy between the two parties.

    As a matter of fact, anybody who wants to have a decent discussion on Karnatique should complain to the editor of that blog about foul-language-users. Why did that not happen? Foul-language-users shy away from decent discussions – often focusing on topics which are not central to the debate. Such people exist everywhere. With such people around, good debates cannot happen.

    I never claimed good debates happen on all Karnatique articles. Comment approval is often a thankless job – and mistakes can happen. This is what I meant by referring to Sandeep in this context – nothing else.

87. Sandeep
    13. August 2009 - 12:12 AM

    DEAR Ba Ra,

    I realized you come from the polite school of debate. Although I’m not obliged to adhere to your definition of politness, etc, I’ll still go by your rules. Hope that gives you sufficient confidence that we can continue this.

    Sure, I acknowledge that Kannada is a derivative of the Brahmi script. Are we clear on this now? Hope this victory you scored over me gives you sufficient delight although if I were you, I wouldn’t use the word “follies.” You see, the English dictionary gives the following meanings to the word “folly:”

    The trait of acting stupidly or rashly
    A stupid mistake
    The quality of being rash and foolish
    Foolish or senseless behaviour

    “Folly” has the following synonymns among others:

    Craziness
    Foolery
    Foolishness
    Imbecility
    Lunacy
    Madness

    Thus, by using the word “follies” upon me, you have called me crazy, foolish, imbecile, a lunatic and mad. And further therefore, you have exhibited EXACTLY the same behaviour you accused me of: hitting below the belt. Please ask your conscience whether it is ok to apply one standard for yourself and different standards for other people?

    I’m truly heartbroken.

    In your response to Vasuki, you have said:

    >>As to why bad language was allowed on Karnatique – I suspect the reason to be similar to why Sandeep is allowing it here.

    I have some questions to you about this statement:

    1. What was the necessity for you to bring my name in a response to some commenter here?
    2. What was the reason for you to compare/equate my blog to Karnatique?
    3. Do you know the reason why I allow bad language in my comments section?
    4. If you do know the reason why I allow bad language here, please tell me how you know it? I’m sure I haven’t told you the reason.
    5. Because you really don’t know why I allow bad language here, is it acceptable to guess the reason on my behalf?

    Will you please set this record straight before we can proceed further?

    Does this comment satisfy your need for respect, politeness, and above-the-belt style of debating? Lastly, am I now following your “imposition?”

88. Vasuki H A
    13. August 2009 - 12:22 AM

    @Ba Ra Kirana,

    
    So, now the author and source both change!!
    From Ramayana to something else…From Valmiki to Mudumby Narasimhahary….And you give yourself an escape route saying “I wouldn’t be surprised if similar controversies exist about the shloka in question”. Nice!!
    For argument sake, even if i agree with what you say, why didnt you put this disclaimer in your post in the first place? You are quite professional in your hypocrisy. When asked to name the source, you start questioning the validity of the sources citing controversies!!
    Dude, FYI, I have read the Ramayana from cover to cover. So, tell me where exactly this verse appears. In other words, which edition? which kaaMDa? which sarga? You have claimed original source in the blog. So present that as evidence.

    You can always take the easier way out and run away and i would feel none the worse for it.

89. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    13. August 2009 - 12:25 AM

    Friends,

    In the interest of time – we all have other things to do – I request serious debaters here to not poison-coat their statements since that distracts participants from the main thread of the debate.

    Nobody means any harm to anything here. I guess this is not sufficiently proven about me to everybody (e.g. Vasuki) but that assumption has to be made by those who wish to continue the debate. I have never questioned this about my opponents here.

    From now on on this thread, I will reply to only to them whose comments are entirely free of poison-quoted statements. And yes, also, only to those comments which bear a direct relevance to the establishment of a Sanskrit University. Everything else just dilutes the discussion and wastes the time of everybody involved.

    As things stand now, only Sandeep has put forth comments which come closest to passing these two criteria. I request others to restrict their comments to these two criteria, too, if they have any interest in continuing the debate.

90. Raghavendra
    13. August 2009 - 12:40 AM

    Angry father asks his son on why did he lied to his mother, should son answer his father only if asked politely?

    Great! this way you have escaped from falling into the feet of Mr Vasuki.

    Politeness have saved you from shame…..

    I will stop commenting now, will just watch the fun

91. Vasuki H A
    13. August 2009 - 12:50 AM

    @Ba Ra Kirana,

    
    

    I can understand your position. It is alright if you dont answer my points. My purpose is served in raising the questions. You are not the first one from banavaasi baLaga who is ending up in this position.
    But to just help you with your short-term memory loss, I need to say YOU were the one who engaged me in this debate. I never came searching for you. So it is kinda funny when you start placing conditions for me to follow

92. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    13. August 2009 - 12:57 AM

    Sandeep, you have not followed the ‘imposition’ – you may want to re-read what I described as imposition-ish. And, I see you just shattered my faith in your ‘passing the two criteria’ as I was typing that you do pass them. My offer to answer relevant comments remains.

93. Sandeep
    13. August 2009 - 1:02 AM

    Ba Ra,

    >>As things stand now, only Sandeep has put forth comments which come closest to passing these two criteria.
    I haven’t even begun yet

    Let me know if you want to back out right now. I’m saying this in the most polite and above-the-belt tone: I don’t want you to tell me later that I’m being unfair to you if I begin calling your logical fallacies.

    Remember, facts and logic are crucial in a debate as you yourself agreed. With this in mind,

    One, I will dig up stuff from Karnatique and your Banavasi Balaga in my argument.

    Two, I’m rigorously trained in pure logic and other systems of logic.

    Three, THIS is not a religious/spiritual/Veda/Vedanta/Bhagavad Gita debate.

    Four, if you cannot respond logically or provide evidence to your claims/assertions, I will tell you on your face with extreme politeness. At that point, you cannot fall back to being “insulted/hurt” or accuse me of being rude.

    Five, you agree to all of these preceding four points. I’m sure they meet your standards of a debate. In other words, to give an analogy, I am playing the game for which you have set the rules.

    If you agree to these, let’s begin. For starters, please see my previous comment and respond to each of my questions there.

    The other, simpler way is to back out right now.

94. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    13. August 2009 - 1:26 AM

    Sandeep,

    Let’s begin.

    Logically, your previous comment does not have anything which conforms to the two criteria I laid out. You probably mean to refer to your comment two comments before the last one. That too does not conform to the two criteria I laid out. Cleanse them and ask your questions in such a way as to conform to the two criteria I laid out. Use my non-conformance analysis if that can be of any help.

95. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    13. August 2009 - 1:27 AM

    I will not utter a word from now on if there is any further non-compliance.

96. Ba, Ra. Kirana
    13. August 2009 - 3:00 AM

    Some further rules of the game (“rules” differentiated from “Criteria” referred to earlier) inspired by the discussions we have had till now:

    0. All negotiations about the non-zero-numbered rules outlined herein, together with any extra rule-proposals must be pointed out in the first comment posted by each prospective debater, and must end in two comments of that debater plus two comments of mine (per debater) following the first. If negotiations fail under these constrants, the game is closed and considered not possible between the parties for the next 365 days. This zeroth rule is not negotiable. If this is not acceptable, the game is closed and considered not possible between the parties for the next 365 days.

    1. Nobody other than me is present in the debate-room right now. To obtain entry, start by making a comment conforming to the two criteria laid out by me. This applies to you, too, Sandeep. Remember that the entire comment needs to be conformant – not just parts thereof.

    2. If anyone does not receive a reply from me for any comment, it is either because there is a non-compliance (to my two criteria), or because I haven’t found the time to comment.

    3. I do not promise to comment at the same frequency as I have been commenting today. To get me to comment frequently from now on, you need to keep me interested in continuing the debate (I will specify why I am interested right now, presently). Conformance is necessary but not sufficient.

    4. The first non-compliance by any debater serves as an exit from the debate. Such exits will not be acknowledged or announced by me. This permanency of the exit can be relaxed if sufficient reason is provided for re-entry. I decide the sufficiency of all such reasons, and all such decisions can be contested in a maximum of 2 comments per contester.

    5. My invitation to have a phone-call remains open to both those who are in the debate and out of it for whatever reason.

    6. I am interested in this debate in order to (a) explain Banavasi Balaga’s point of view with respect to the setting up of a Sanskrit University in Karnataka, (b) to seek feedback on that point of view – since we do not want to make a mistake, and (c) to together arrive at what is best for Kannada, Kannadiga, and Karnataka.

    7. I will exit this debate if (a) my interests either get fulfilled or (b) seem un-fulfillable on this forum or (c) clash with the interests of any prospective debater. I will announce any such decision to exit. Any objections to my stated interests must be raised in the very first comment of each prospective debater – failing which such debaters lose the right to object. Objections raised after the first comment serve as non-compliance, and such debaters are considered ‘Out’.

    8. Statements made about me or Karnatique or Banavasi Balaga when I have exited the debate are null and void. I may be re-invited to the debate by email or phone quoting sufficient reasons, which invitations may or may not be accepted by me.

    9. All prospective debaters must state their own interests in having this debate as part of the first comment. Failure to state those interests results in an exit of that debater from the debate. Debaters whose interests conflict with mine shall be considered as ‘out’ of the debate – basically because a debate with that person is not useful to both parties, and because there may be others who would like to continue ‘the debate’.

    Good luck.

97. harish
    13. August 2009 - 3:27 AM

    Pinks,
    I did not even profess an ideology. Guess you need to grow up. Regarding refuting Ba Ra’s ideology I am quite having fun reading what Sandeep, Vasuki and Raghavendra and doing and I will make my views clear if I dont concur to what they say.
    I remember posting a comment on that Golwalkar, gandhi post and the utterly nonsensical rant on “political unity” in India, they didnt publish that for reasons best known to them .

    Its quite unfortunate that Ba Ra is not complying to the norms of debate. He is acting like an emotional fool, trying to act soft so that he can divert the attention from the topic to his “Mandasmita” character and the feeling of hurt.

    BTW Ba Ra,
    We havent used the language that the Halli haidas and farmers use, against you. Remember every sentence is embedded with a ****maga, **** maga in their general colloqy:) Halli sobagu sir, adannu nimma Karnatique pasarisokke prayatna madtiraa enu??

    Why then do you get so damn offended sir? Naataka Saaku, Vishyakke banni.

98. Vasuki H A
    13. August 2009 - 9:25 AM

    @Ba Ra Kirana,

    
    

    ROTFL!!!

    What an elaborate exit strategy

    Anyway, thanks for dropping by this blog and giving such a glowing account of yourself and your banavAsi baLaga

99. Madhu Bhat
    13. August 2009 - 12:45 PM

    Looks like this debate started somewhere and ending somewhere else. Lets keep our debate to whether we need Sanskrit Univ or not.

    IMHO, No….

    Now don’t brand me as a RED or an Anti Brahmin.

    Thats my intro, now coming back to topic.

    Few same old skool arguments which cant i buy,

    * All languages are derived from Sanskrit.
    * Sanskrit is one of the most scientific language.
    * All scripts in India are derived from Devanagiri.
    * Summarization of Sanskrit = HINDU, HINDU=HINDUSTHAN, anyone opposes this is a either a traitor or a chinku agent( aka RED).

    * All epics and vedas/upanishads are in Sanskrit, hence we need to give respect to our language
    * All our gods used sasnskrit as a communication lang( geervana bhasha) ,hence opposing Sanskrit is an atheist act.

    Why i oppose sanskrit univ in Karnataka ?

    * I don’t see the purpose of the same, i would opposed even if its initiated by Cong-I.

    * We have so many sanskrit univesities across India, why do we need new one ?

    * Why need to waste Kannadigas money on a DEAD LANGUAGE**.

    * I dont see kannadiga/karnataka will benefit from this in either way.

    * In one par, we are fighting to get 15 crore grant for kannada as part of Classical lang. On the another, we just spending 100 crores on Sanskrit.

    We can use this 100 crores, for next 6 years without seeking center grant.isnt it ?

    * If we go by old school of thought, lets cherish and spend on the living language not on the dead.Since all languages are derived from sanskrit, lets spend it to on regional , which invariably spent on sanskrit.

    I have seen santanti arguments which try to claim every other single discovery as Vedic Science; They invented wheel and then forgeiner claimed it.

    Thousand years back, we had aeroplane, internet, advance medicine,rockets, missiles, submarine what not. West took away atharmanaveda and reinvented everything from the scratch.Please note all these nobel science was written SANSKRIT..

    To summarize,we dont want Govt to waste 100 crores tax payers money on DEAD LANGUAGE.

100. Sandeep
     13. August 2009 - 1:13 PM

     Ba Ra,

     Isn’t it funny how when I give you an inch you take a mile and when I give you a mile you take more and so on? This line really charmed me:

     >>Nobody other than me is present in the debate-room right now. To obtain entry, start by making a comment conforming to the two criteria laid out by me. This applies to you, too, Sandeep.
     YOU come to MY blog and dictate terms to ME? Are you for real or do you get a kick of doing this stuff?

     When I “agreed” to your fake notions of politeness, etc it was merely to confirm my suspicions about your integrity. And I was right. What I read on your banavasi balaga web site and enguru and other blogs was completely at odds with the tone and tenor of your comment here. I’ve researched you guys–on your group Web sites–quite thoroughly before I make the following observations:

     Your Banavasi Balaga group of websites seem to have a singleminded pursuit of chucking logic, and good sense to push your concocted ideology. Anybody who disagrees with you is automatically branded as an “opponent?”

     You want to “save” Kannada? What are you guys, Gods or something? What’s with your sense of entitlement? Did the Kannada Goddess appear before you and ask you to save her?

     Your level of “debating” is an insult to even a primary school student. Anyone who is critical of your writings/position meets with this response:

     >>Statements made about me or Karnatique or Banavasi Balaga when I have exited the debate are null and void.
     I mean, how does one even respond to this! By this logic, nobody should talk about any evil or misdeeds committed in the past. What gives you the gumption to say something like this dude? Do you really THINK this way?

     >>I am interested in this debate in order to (a) explain Banavasi Balaga’s point of view with respect to the setting up of a Sanskrit University in Karnataka, (b) to seek feedback on that point of view – since we do not want to make a mistake, and (c) to together arrive at what is best for Kannada, Kannadiga, and Karnataka.
     Do you really have a point of view apart from meaningless ranting? You’re really not interested in “seeking feedback” : you basically want people to AGREE TO YOU UNCRITICALLY. Further, no ONE person or institution can decide what’s “best” for a language. This will probably go beyond your ideology-infested brain, nevertheless: a language evolves and grows organically and nobody can “direct” that evolution.

     You are alone in the debating room? Stay that way. I’ll lock it from outside and throw the keys away. There’s enough carbon footprint already. You’ll do the world a favour by staying put inside.

     Finally, you are like that uninvited guest who pompously arrives, abuses the courtesy of the host and his home, and when castigated, turns around and declares that the house is his. This is MY blog and I will upbraid you if you go on a defecation spree here.

101. Sandeep
     13. August 2009 - 1:16 PM

     Madhu Bhat!

     Welcome. You provided the much-needed comic relief.

102. Raghavendra
     13. August 2009 - 2:20 PM

     MR BLUE,

     LOL…

     You missed one more thing, Vedas have preventive medicine for even swine flu.

     If only we had Sanskrit university today it would be available in Laboratories

     Didn’t want to comment on you, but couldn’t control my temptation

103. Vasuki H A
     13. August 2009 - 2:34 PM

     @Madhu Bhat

     You could have just said you subscribe to the views of banavAsi baLaga
     But i guess it is difficult for anyone to own up to banavAsi baLaga when it has received such a drubbing on this forum. So, that is alright.

     BTW,
     Are you the only one paying tax? How could you talk on behalf of tax-payers in general? I will be interested to know your “new skool” views on this issue
     And, how much of Sanskrit do you know to call it names? Can we have a debate in Sanskrit? Or is it that the “new skool” instructs its adherents to call Sanskrit names without even knowing it?
     And what are the Sanskrit names used for rockets, missiles, internet and submarine in those Sanskrit sources that you so proudly quote? Please be precise about the names employed in those Sanskrit sources. I hope your knowledge of primary sources is better than that of ba. ra. Kirana.

     you can take the easier way out and not answer any of these questions by saying they are not related to the setting up of the Sanskrit University
     I will always condone such an exit of yours on humanitarian grounds.

     @Sandeep

     Dont you think you are being unfair to ba ra kirana? He was no less comical and he sustained it longer

104. Raghavendra
     13. August 2009 - 2:46 PM

     Same feeling here! I had best of entertainment from Ba Ra, I accuse you (Sandeep)of being partial to your commenter’s

105. Vijay Nag
     15. August 2009 - 9:43 PM

     After going through all the 104 comments, i feel Ba Ra’s claim is high but knowledge is nil

106. KL
     23. September 2009 - 5:08 PM

     Dear Sandeep,
     Please bear with some of my remarks.I am a tamil brahmin from chennai.
     1)To deny that Kannada is a dravidian language seems impossile.Kannada like Tamil devoliped from proto-dravidian dialects.Look at words like thai,thanthe,nila,neeru basic words.So many words like haalu,haali where ‘pa’ is replaced by ‘ha’.
     2)The earliest Kannada literature is Jain.Hindus came later,ie their contribution came latter.The Veerashaivas and Dasas came later.The Dasas were limked inextricably to madhva theology.The Smarthas had a high and mighty attitude.The Srivaishnavas loyalty was to azhwars.
     3)Tamil literature and hence tamil nationalism is very robust.The tamils(kongas) are organised enough to have a tiruvalluvar statue in Cantonment.Noble souls like Ba ra are trying to give kannada its natural and deserved place in Karnataka.Please do not paint him as anti-hindu and anti-sanskrit.
     4)In Tamilnadu,the saivites and vaishnavites have a certain contempt for sanskrit.Advaita is looked down as anti-tamil.There is hatred among educated people towards kannada,sanskrit etc.How will karnataka face the konga threat without going to the roots.
     5)Let each state really go to the roots and discover the message of the Vedas,Upanishads and Gita?

1 trackback/pingback

1. pingback by Indian History Carnival – 20 | DesiPundit
   Saturday, 15. August 2009 - 21:02

Leave a comment

Name (required)

E-mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

You can use the following tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>