-

RESEARCH PAPER

Name – Manish Kumar

College – Hansraj College
Roll No – 17059518051
E-mail – manishofficial8686@gmail.com
Mob No – 8376069621

Question:
Critically examine impact of colonialism and
modernity on pre-modern linguistic and epistemic situation
in South Asia.
INTRODUCTION
The advent of colonialism and modernity in the south eastern
region had profound impact over linguistic and epistemic
situations during pre-modern era.
As observed by Sumit Guha, the late 20th century nationalism,
multiculturalism and globalization has created a need for
reconsidering the concept of cosmopolitanism, more
specifically, the cosmopolitan nature of language. The pre-
modern languages- Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian, etc.
– had developed self-conscious literary cultures, which
extended beyond regional or imperial frontiers. In this
context, the study of premodern language order becomes
significant.
However, “the study of literary cultures has all too often
succumbed to the self-validating assumptions of national
territorial frameworks, focusing upon the pure roots of
modern languages, and ignoring the multilingual milieus in
which they had historically functioned” ------SHELDON
POLLOCK.
As a result, the Indian nationalists identified all locations
around the islands of south-east Asia, which yielded Sanskrit
manuscripts, as “Hindu colonies”.
In Benedict Anderson’s views, the nationalist in the pre-
modern India transformed language into symbols and
instruments of new national states.
Sheldon Pollock found out that the language order in pre-
modern south Asia was largely dominated by Sanskrit. For
very long, Sanskrit served the purpose of communicative
medium. Interestingly, it was socially respected too. The
advocates of this language controlled who all could make use
of it in terms of communication, and for what purpose it
could be used. The association of language existed only with
the upper caste of the society who would use it around the
Vedic ritual performance, and allied knowledge systems such
as grammar, phonetics, and metrics. The application based of
this language got broadened over the next ten century,
starting from the first century A.D, when it was allowed to be
used in kavya and prasasti, courtly literature and royal praise
poetry.
This development in turn responded with the creation of
culture power formation. This formation further solidified the
restrictions put over major chunk of population. The earliest
resistance to the domination of Sanskrit language can be
traced back to the language used by the Buddhist. Pali as a
medium sought to appropriate redefined and transformed
the very elements of the late vaidika conceptual order. Where
Dharma in the Vedic concept was closest to animal sacrifices,
the Buddhist dharma (or dhamma in Pali canonical texts) was
the life moral Buddhism was trying to preach.
Early Buddhism, thus, sought to annex and redefine the term
that expressed what Buddhism most fundamentally rejected.
Scholars have defined the Buddhist approaches and use of
technologies as an attempt to describe their parallel position
to that of the brahmins. The word “Sutta” used by the
Buddhist spiritual order to refer their discourses has a striking
resemblance with the Sanskrit “Sukta” meaning a Vedic
hymn. Such evidences suggest that Buddhism sought to turn
the old Vedic world upside down by using Sanskrit itself.
However, till the coming of the second century A.D, even the
Buddhists had turned to Sanskrit for the transmissions of the
word of buddha. A mix of Pali and Sanskrit (also called
Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit) was in use prior to the complete
adoption of Sanskrit , which was not much of a success. Only
the peninsular India could retain the modest Pali presence,
and for all the other venues, Sanskrit became the new
medium. To understand abandonment of hostility various
interpretations are common and recurrent, but none is
entirely persuasive. One of the simplest reason being that
Sanskrit was the “language of learning”, to which everyone
had to eventually conform. Another reasons points out the
inferior linguistic complexity which led the monks to emulate
the brahmin practices in order to the keep the community
prestige high.
Etinnie Lamotte assumes that Sanskrit has a natural
communicative superiority that made it irresistible. On the
contrary, a few scholars are of the opinion that many of the
Sanskrit Buddhism’s major teachers were converted
brahmins.
In the administrative affairs or in the affairs of the royal court,
the earliest written inscriptions we get are that of the
mauryans. Almost everything, right from edicts on rock or
pillars, or any other court writings were done in the Brahmi
script (imitating Achaemenid practices). No where we get to
secure any Sanskrit written record.
However, this order could
not sustain itself much and gave up to the Sanskrit
domination, that was to come in the near future. The earliest
Sanskrit order we get to witness comes from the court of the
Sunga dynasty (the dynasty which succeeded the mauryas in
the north). Later, almost every dynasty in the sub-continent
regardless of how Vedic it was, willing and able to use
Sanskrit.
Sheldon Pollock’s understanding of the language order
conceptualise a power formation associated with the
language of prominent use, in south Asia’s case, Sanskrit.
From a certain point in the early centuries C.E. “Power in
India now had a Sanskrit voice.” Pollock raises the question,
“why is it that the state formation in south Asia is so
intimately bound up with Sanskrit?” Contrary to the
WEBERIAN framework, that give “legitimation” as the answer
to this question, Pollock termed “language care” as the
primary political force in case of India. He speaks of
philosophy as a “pre-condition for power” and of “the power
of grammar and the grammar of power as mutually
constituting forces”.
The new political culture and the cultural politics embodied in
the public expression of power in Sanskrit spread across
southern Asia with remarkable speed. With a mere two
centuries, Sanskrit became the way of speaking and
expression of political power. It’s reaches stretched from
Kashmir to Champa (central Vietnam), Prambanam in central
java, islands of Indonesia, from Kathmandu Valley in the
north, upto the southern most points of peninsular India, and
sometimes Sri Lanka. Interesting here is to notice absolute
absence of any breakthrough event which could have led to
such massive spread and adoption of the language.
There was absolutely no event of conquest where any prior
existing Sanskrit polity had attacked sub-continent. No model
of romanisation can be applied to this case, neither had any
religious revolution taken place at that time nor was there
any trans regional movement or any institution to propagate
this language. What seems most likely could have been some
cultural process of imitation and borrowing, some impulse
towards trans cultivation that made it sensible, even
desirable, to adopt the new Sanskrit cultural political as an
act of pure free will.
When Sanskrit was making widespread presence over the
south India witnessed intense regionalization in the literary
realm which went hand in hand with the highly Innovative
Sanskritization. There were tensions, rivalries, and all kinds of
exotic Combinations, many of them internal to the emerging
Vernaculars themselves ,but far from contributing to demise
of Sanskrit as powerful imaginative vehicle. These very
tensions provide acute evidence of its continuous cultural
vitality. What was actually decisive in the context of
widespread Sanskritization was the nature of the creative
impulse itself, the expressive ranges available to the poets,
and in a fundamental way with what is meant by the word
Sanskrit itself.
In the ideas of Ramkand Agnihotri, the constituent assembly,
while decoding the question of language of the nation, did
ignore the multilingual and multicultural ethos of the Indian
society. The prime concern for the makers of the constitution
was to contain the minority linguistic rights remained largely
ignored. The dominance presence of the elite class within the
constituent assembly passed all of its wills in the name of
national interest. Although the debates and approaches are
criticized for being casual and careless, nonetheless the
decision of having no national language was reached after a
democratic process. Similarly, with great precision it was
decided to hold Hindi the official language of the nation and
give English special status.
The members of the constituent assembly brought a high
level of seriousness and integrity to every subject that was
brought to debate.
Naziruddin Ahmed , on the other hand, advocated for the
continuance of English until any of the Indian languages were
prepared enough to take the charge. He was conscious about
the voices of non-hindi speaking areas, and thus believed
that recognition of the language is a matter of acceptance,
and mere generosity must not guide the path to conclusion.
Although Gandhi himself advocated Hindustani to be
language of the Union, the Hindi faction led by S.V.K Rao tried
to supress those voices. Rao readily accepted all languages
spoken in India as the national language, but gave Hindi an
additional distinction of being a common language spoken by
almost thirty percent of national population. Still, he
confessed the shortcoming inherent in Hindi vocab at the
same time realised opinion of the assembly to help hindi
reach that stage.
Another matter debate put forward in the assembly was to
adopt Sanskrit as a national language. For many inside the
assembly, their opinions were inspired and driven by religious
myths, and fantasies. For them Sanskrit was a goddess, pure,
eternal, and predating humanity. They conveniently ignored
the fact that human societies give rise to languages and not
vice-versa.
Still there existed voices of sanity and wisdom within the
assembly. For Nehru, language makes us aware of our
neighbour, our society and other societies. He was equally
aware that if language loses its connection with the masses, it
will die. He still tried to hold the fort for Hindustani, knowing
that having English word a must. He proposed that English
must become a part of our multi-lingual culture, though the
work of the nation must be carried out in Indian language.
Falling long debates, Hindi in the Devanagari script was made
the official language of the Union. Constitution provided for
English for the next 15 years for all the official purposes. Rest
all other languages (majors) were given collective token
recognition within the eight schedules of the constitution.
Witnessing the south Indian roots against special status given
to Hindi, retaining English in the official capacity became
must.
Assuming the utility of European knowledge in the
perpetuation of the empire, the vernacularists verbalised
serious concern about it. They were dubious about the
availability of sufficient teachers of English.
It is not that court of directors
was opposed to the idea of patronizing indigenous education
system in India. In the early decades of the 19th century, they
admired Sanskrit literature and the precolonial regimes which
patronized them. Linguistic modernization of the Sanskrit
college entailed many shifts in the teaching of language. The
changed situation demanded anglicization as well as
vernacularisation of the college and enhancing its utility and
efficiency.
Kumkum Sangari has rightly pointed out that British
orientalists rediscovery of Indian culture was the ideological
counterpart of Warren Hastings’ project of rule after 1772.
The British orientalists discovery of Indian culture remained
very vital to the revival and institutionalization of Sanskrit.
Romila Thapar has rightly argued that the search for or
discovery of the Indian past resulted in a number of
interpretations of the past.

CONCLUSION:
The colonial rule, which provides constant historical backdrop
to the post-colonial development, produced “dependent and
servile attitude”, which post independent India found difficult
to shake-off. The study of Sanskrit college and Elphinstone
college, which reflected conglomeration of interests and
differentiated language policy, continues to be relevant today
as reverberations of this policy can be heard and seen in the
contemporary times. Thus, colonial policies and rule
massively transformed the epistemic conditions of south Asia
by infusion of the western concept of intellectual precepts,
ideological progression, and oppressive dominant policies.
Which later certainly brought about steady but
fundamentally long lasting linguistic and epistemic changes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1.Perspectives of mutual encounters in South Asian history [1760-
1860], Jamal Malik

2.Sahibs and munshis, Sisir Kumar Das

3.Politics of Patronage(essay), Dilip Chavan
4.Language Politics, Elites and the Public Sphere, Veena Naregal
5.An Empire of Books, Urike Strikes
6.An Uncertain Coming of the Book, Anindita
Ghosh
7. Notes on the History of the Study of Indian Society and Culture,
Bernard Cohn