Comments on: Sanskrit, a synonym for Communalism

By: Harish Duggirala

Harish Duggirala — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:45:02 +0000

Punjabi stop speaking for others you moron and speak for yourself.

Anonymous go check a dictionary on what “genocide” means, 750 Muslims and 250 Hindus killed in a two sided riot started by the community which follows the religion of “peace” does not equal genocide or “holocaust” as u clowns claim, if there was any genocide in India it was against Kashmiri Pandits where an entire cultural community is being wiped out thanks to the younger generations losing the language while living in refugee camps.

I think people like Punjabi and Anonymous suffer from mental retardation or something.

By: Chandra

Chandra — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:37:21 +0000

It’s not surprising Anonymous would pick and choose based on his buying to the definition of Hinduism and Hindu way of life from Britannica – those “lower” Hindus wanting to be “higher” Hindus. Laughable. And of course the genocide that killed 800 people (Hindus deserved to be killed and don’t count). One wonders what the population of Muslim “race” is the country. He obviously has no clue what he’s talking about.

By: JK

JK — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:37:28 +0000

Anonymous,

There is no ambiguity in what Modi did. He should be held responsible for the death of people in Godhra and the 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims who were killed in those riots.

When the word ‘Sanskritization’ was invented Godhra and Gujarat Riots had not happened. So you need to pick a meaning, Good or Bad for it. As Vinod said, we cannot be pinging you to see what is the present meaning of the word.

By: Vinod

Vinod — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:30:26 +0000

Anonymous,

Great going indeed. So when the word as invented Sanskritization meant “bad”. After Gujarat Riots, it means “good”, so if Narendra Modi finds Unified Field Theory it will be bad again? So we have to check with you to see the present meaning of the word.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:34:25 +0000

If one were to concede to the assumption that Mr.Modi is complicit in the Guajarat Riots – which amounts almost to genocide – there is a way in which the original author’s use of the term is cogently concievable. One would then reasonably expect Mr.Modi’s life to be one of banishment from public sphere and political life if not spending the rest of his life behind the bars. Quite surprisingly, what we are witnessing is a slow process of exoneration and insidious rise to the stature of a political consultant. So he is essentially getting absolved, whitewashed, and sanskritized. The process of sanskritization, I find, has a ‘positive sense’ in the usage by the original author and he is correct given you agree with the assumption I posed in the first sentence.
End of the story.
Regards, Good going.

By: JK

JK — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:01:50 +0000

Narendra Modi has often promoted vegetarianism as a lifestyle essential for purity of thought and action and this apparently is one of the factors in Sanskritization. But this word was used, as Sandeep noted, to imply contempt of the Sanskrit theological ideas. I see this attitude behind the implication that teaching Sanskrit would not be secular. My post was against this contempt and attempts to imply that Sanskritization and learning Sanskrit are bad/communal.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:33:26 +0000

Again, sadly, you fail to see the crux of the matter, and the author of the cited article for that matter. The current Britannica aticle on Hinduism has a portion named “The Process of sanskritization” which goes like:
The development of Hinduism can be interpreted as a constant interaction between the religion of the upper social groups, represented by the Brahmans (priests and teachers), and the religion of other groups. This has developed from the desire of lower-class groups to rise on the social ladder by adopting the ways and beliefs of the higher castes. This process, sometimes called â��Sanskritization,â�� began in Vedic times when non-Aryan chieftains accepted the ministrations of Brahmans and thus achieved social status for themselves and their subjects. Sanskritization still continues in the form of the conversion of tribal groups, and it is reflected by the persistent tendency of low-caste Hindus to try to raise their status by adopting high-caste customs, such as wearing the sacred cord and becoming vegetarians..[...]
Now if you question the original author as to how Mr.Modi can actually be sanskritized, that would have been a tenable argument, logically and metaphorically. And it would have exposed the unsustainability of the original proposition and the author’s arriere-pensee. Well,reason is doomed to pander will. No qualms.
As regards to the use of the term itself in cultural discourse, it follows from the simple reason that once a term of this nature is floated, exotic phrase hungry cutltural pundits and jargon mongers would never let it be devoured by oblivion. So the phrase is there all over. If you are very particular on getting some references from me, here you go:

1. Sanskritization vs. Ethnicization in India – Asian Survey,(Sep. – Oct., 2000)
2. ‘Thumri’: A Discussion of the Female Voice of Hindustani Music : Lalita Du Perron Source: Modern Asian Studies(Feb., 2002)

That is only a sample.

Regards, Good going.

By: JK

JK — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:02:48 +0000

Anonymous, I have not seen the word Sanskritization used in recent cultural discourses. It would be great if you could point me to some recent usages of it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:27:00 +0000

Hello,
Isn’t your reasoning and the subsequent gamut of seemingly logical propositions you construct out of it flawed? To state “Now Seema Chisthi is taking us two decades back, once again to imply that Sanskrit = Communal” is to suggest your apparent misunderstanding of the term “sanskritization” itself. Your deduction here has two inherent errors. In the first place the term “sanskritization” is a cultural one and not a strictly linguistic one. True, it alludes to how the language itself was used as a means of keeping a group of people marginalized. But the relation ends there.
In the second place, to say that the term is brought back after two decades is plain wrong. It is in vogue in cultural discourse.(Not just in Wiki.)
Having said this I must admit that how Modi can be “sanskritized” because I don’t know to which caste/culture he belongs to. That is not my point anyway.
Your protracted write up on sanskrit teaching and stuff does not proceed from the premiss you started with.
Regards.

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:25:29 +0000

JK, I missed this…Great post…I will probably carry excerpts on my blog…

This is a snide attempt and deserves wider attention…

Thanks