How Sanskrit should be taught

IF ONE assumes that Sanskrit should be taught, as indicated by some recent moves by the government, then the question arises: how should it be taught?

It is an axiom in some schools of Indian philosophy that a question can be fully addressed only if it is approached negatively as well as positively. This means then that a consideration of how Sanskrit should not be taught is integral to a discussion of how it should be.

My experience suggests that Sanskrit should not be taught as it is traditionally taught either in India or the West, when instruction in it is extended to the general curriculum. In the traditional mode of teaching Sanskrit in India, grammatical (Panini) and lexical (Amarakosa) learning precede its actual deployment in conversation (if ever). It is taught as an `eternal' language rather than as a contemporary language. By contrast, in the West, it is traditionally taught as a ``dead'' language rendering posthumous service to historical linguistics, rather than as a living language. But treating Sanskrit as an eternal or a dead language is really just two ways of killing it!

A living language

However, I hear the reader object — is Sanskrit a living language to be treated as such? I offer three responses to this question: (1) that Sanskrit is a living language inasmuch as it is recorded as such by the Indian census. It is true that only a few thousands cite it as their mother tongue — but the fact remains that some tribal languages, considered living, have even fewer speakers. (2) More significantly, Sanskrit lives through the regional languages whose vocabularies, in varying degrees, overlap with Sanskrit. This means that the teaching of Sanskrit should proceed in tandem with that of the regional languages. (3) Just as by treating a language as a dead language one can kill it, by treating it as a living language one can bring it back to full life. The resurrection of Hebrew is a case in point. It may be hard to believe but even as one reads this somebody is actually reading a Sanskrit newspaper, listening to a Sanskrit news broadcast and making one's first acquaintance with another Indian in Sanskrit. This has happened to me twice within the last week when I met an engineer from Haryana and a social worker from Kerala through the medium of this language here in the U.S.

In the matter of Sanskrit then the assumption cannot be divorced from the outcome.

Sanskrit should be taught as a living language and not merely as a classical or historical language. Instruction in its grammar and vocabulary should succeed and not precede its active use by students. Numerous initiatives have demonstrated the viability of this approach, e.g. www.samskrita.bharati.org. Volunteers from such organisations might even enable the government to minimise its outlay on such a programme.

Liberal elements of culture

What should be taught is also a crucial part of how Sanskrit should be taught. The liberal elements of Sanskritic culture should constitute the examples and the exercises in the curriculum. Unlikely as it might seem on the face of it, Sanskrit can spark a social revolution through what is taught. One problem this culture faces is the negative stereotyping of the position of women and lower castes in its presentation. I provide below some samples in English translation of the kind of material which could form part of the textbook, and which could undo such unfortunate portrayal:

A high caste male should emulate the praiseworthy conduct of a woman or a person of low caste.

(Manusmriti II.223)

One should obtain knowledge of supreme dharma even from a dalit.

(Manusmriti II.238)

All the four yugas result from the conduct of the ruler. The ruler is (the shaper of the) age.

(Manusmriti IX.301)

Sudras of good conduct are entitled to the Sacred Thread.

(Paraskara Grihya Sutra 2.6)

Women should study the Vedic texts.

(Gobhila Grihya Sutra 1.2)

That spiritual knowledge which nervous men take a year to acquire confident women acquire in twelve days.

(Jayadratha's Commentary on Abhinavagupta's Tantraloka)

There is no differentiation beyond the human race.

(Bhavishya Purana 1.40.21)

Other citations with a contemporary application could be added on such themes as terrorism (``One terrorist can intimidate a hundred intellectuals'', Chandogya Upanishad VII. 8.1) and charity (``Beings crowd around the fire sacrifice like hungry children around the mother'', V.24.5)

This is also true of other reading materials such as stories. People who read the Mahabharata will realise how empowering it can be for women. In it, not only does Savitri choose her own husband Swayamvara style, Sakuntala virtually gives herself away in marriage!

Indic tradition

One final thought. The question of how Sanskrit should be taught is also intimately related to who teaches it. Instruction in Sanskrit should be imparted by women and by men belonging to all the castes and communities in equal measure. The Indic tradition has suffered by functioning in a situation in which knowledge of Sanskrit tended to get confined to an elite circle of first male members of the higher varnas and then to a priestly circle of Brahmins who made ritual use of it. The last two aphorisms of the Apastamba Dharma Sutra identify two constituencies by whom the tradition may be shaped: (1) by male members of the three higher varnas or (2) by all the members of the community, male and female.

The Indic tradition has sometimes erred in the past in choosing the first option. It is now time to try the second, and what could be a more effective way of doing this than by drawing Sanskrit instructors from all communities, including all their male and female members. In this way the Sanskrit language, which is often perceived as an impediment to social progress, will become its greatest stimulant.

ARVIND SHARMA

Birks Professor of Comparative

Religion, McGill University

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Contribution of preceptors: A rejoinder
Next     : Teaching science