Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
S Anand
2053
2054
2055
2056
that connotes power, despite the difficulties that surround such an effort. We are
more concerned about the social, cultural,
economic and intellectual weight that a
statement made in English (like Ilaiahs
Why I am Not a Hindu) carries and how
the same statement in a bhasha, even if
made more intelligibly, fails to make much
headway. And for this very reason, the
stance taken earlier in this article we may
make much of the fact that our Constitution has been written in English; such a
work could not have been written in
Sanskrit stands.
Today, if someone like Kancha Ilaiah
is being reckoned with, despite typical
dismissals of his being unscholarly, it is
because for the first time after Ambedkar
a dalit writer is being packaged and sold
in English, if not with the kind of hype
that surrounds Arundhati Roy and Salman
Rushdie at least with a fair degree of
savviness. This underscores two things:
the importance of speaking in English, a
language that has been monopolised by
the brahmanical elite and denied to dalits;
and secondly, that it is a myth that dalits
resist English/ modernity. To give another
example, the pan-Indian popularity of a
journal like Dalit Voice owes to the fact
of its being published in English.
In such a scenario, the atavistic gesture
of saying that Sanskrit academies will be
opened up, universities set up, the dev
bhasha will be popularised all this
hopefully without hidden caste riders
will not mean a thing as far as empowering
people is concerned. The learning of
Sanskrit today is not going to materially
help anybody irrespective of caste. The
brahmanical classes, who know this best,
have taken to English and monopolised
it. At such a time, making Sanskrit available to all (irrespective of caste, unlike in
the inglorious ancient times) might sound
like a symbolic progressive move. However, it is clearly at least a good 2,000
years late in coming. And even if a new
government comes to power, it cannot
roll back the declaration of 1999 as the
Year of Sanskrit.
Notes
1 William Shakespeares play The Tempest
anticipates the colonial paradigm where the
duke-in-exile, Prospero, ends up in an island
that belongs to Sycorax, who is made out to
be a witch-figure whose magic Prospero
learns, only to use the same to colonise the
island and enslave Sycoraxs son Caliban, an
indigenous inhabitant who is animalised in the
play (he smells like a fish) and referred to
as a misshapen monster having no language,
no culture, despite which he (Caliban) insists:
This island is mine.... Parallel and in contrast
to Caliban, who does not mind swearing at
Prospero and his daughter Miranda in the
language he learnt from them, is Ariel, a fairylike creature, also a native of the island, who
is glad to serve Prospero though he too wants
to be set free one day. The Ariel-Caliban
contrast had engaged, fascinated and angered
the intelligentsia of other (post)-colonial
contexts, especially in Latin America, resulting
in intellectuals like Retamar and Memmis
brilliant use of this paradigm, literally and
metaphorically, to understand their own
situations. More recently, Caribbean poet Derek
Walcott reverses The Tempest paradigm in his
Pantomime. However, English departments in
India centres dominated by a brahmanical
crowd even as they swear by Shakespeare
and his universal greatness never seriously
discuss the colonial paradigm of The Tempest,
though it seems that given our immediate
history of British colonialism such a discussion
and engagement with the text would be
politically most meaningful. Rather, English
department personalities like C D Narsimhaiah
congratulate themselves over their outright
rejection of Caliban. Without the slightest
self-consciousness of intellectual poverty it is
announced that even In the worst days of our
national struggle no Indian patriot who
incidentally knew his Shakespeare better than
some professors of English, brought himself
to mouth Calibans You taught me language
and my profit ont is I know how to curse you.
On the contrary he pined with Miranda
[Prosperos daughter] for the brave new world
and our little life is rounded with sleep
(1990, 174). This assertion, even as late as in
1990, best captures the spirit of brahmanisation
that has overseen the trajectory of English in
India.
2 It must be made clear that we are limiting our
discussion here to the non-literary use of
English in India; the use of English for
discursive purposes as distinct from
literature (as defined in the conventional
English department sense of the term). For his
assessment of the literary output by Indians
in English, we are totally with Dasguptas
brilliant demolition of this much hyped and
celebrated body of writing that goes under the
guise of Indo-Anglian writing or Indian writing
in English. See chapter 3 of his The Otherness
of English, particularly, pp 111-44, which
makes a case for the non-substantiality of
Indian English.
References:
Dasgupta, P (1993): The Otherness of English:
Indias Auntie Tongue Syndrome, Sage, Delhi.
Ilaiah, K (1996): Why I am Not a Hindu, Samya,
Calcutta.
Lal, P (ed) (1969): Modern Indian Poetry in
English : An Anthology and Credo, Writers
Workshop, Calcutta.
Narasimhaiah, C D (1990): The Indian Critical
Scene: Controversial Essays, B R Publishing,
New Delhi.
Nehru, J (1974): Discovery of India, Bombay.
Ramanujan, A K (1990): Is There an Indian Way
of Thinking?, in M Marriot (ed), India
Through Hindu Categories, Sage, New Delhi.
Shakespeare, W (1980): The Tempest in Complete
Works of Shakespeare, Oxford and IBH, New
Delhi pp 1-26.