Does language have a religion?

Firoz Khan, Prof of Sanskrit

Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, the great son of India—patriot, freedom-fighter, educationist, social reformer, journalist, lawyer, parliamentarian and above all, a statesman—must have turned in his grave when the students of Banaras Hindu University, the university he lovingly established in cooperation with Annie Besant, protested the appointment of a Muslim scholar as an assistant professor in the Department of Sanskrit. In their wisdom, a non-Hindu cannot teach them Sanskrit, which is the medium in which Hindu rituals and religious philosophy were traditionally transmitted.

But Sanskrit is merely a language, the primary purpose of a language being to facilitate communication from one person to another. That’s why Sanskrit scholars of many nationalities, religions and regions have translated many works of drama, poetry and religious texts into several other languages worldwide over the centuries. Popular dramas, stories and poems such as Panchatantra, Hitopadesha, Mrichakatika, Dashakumaracharitra Mudrarakshasa, Nagananda, Priyadarsika, Mattavilasa Prashasana, Baital Pachisi, Singhasan Battisi, and the many plays of Kalidasa, including Meghaduta, or the romantic novel of Kadambari, not to mention the Vedas and Upanishads, have been widely translated by people of many faiths and nationalities.

At best, Sanskrit is to Hinduism as Hebrew, Aramaic or Koenic Greek are to the Bible, or what classic Arabic is to Quran. Can it be anyone’s case that a non-Christian ought not to be a Professor of Biblical languages, or that a non-Muslim cannot be a Professor of Arabic? Would it not be a dangerously divided world if we were to go down that path? Moreover, history testifies that exclusivity of language invariably inhibits broader transmission and grasp of any knowledge, as it excludes common people from access to that knowledge, making for the stranglehold of one small set of people over the masses. The very fact that the Ramayana, over the centuries, has been re-conceived, translated, adapted, and reproduced into so many languages is proof that there is no one-to-one correspondence between language and religious texts.

And what would be the stance of these protesting worthies if someone were to translate Ramayana or the ancient Vedas and Upanishads into Arabic?

And what about an atheist? By the logic of the BHU students, can an atheist teach Sanskrit, Hebrew or Arabic considering all three languages are associated with religious texts?

Besides, a scholar, apart from teaching, also undertakes research, translations, applications (say, as in, application of Sanskrit in machine language) and institutional development. Teaching, especially in this day and age of MOOC and MOC courses galore, is perhaps the least important of a scholar’s portfolio of pursuits.

One wonders, how many of the protesting students have actually taken a class with Prof Firoz Khan to be able to comment on his teaching, say, the precepts of the Gita? Is it their case that any Hindu teacher of Sanskrit would make a better Sanskrit teacher than any non-Hindu one? If so, they ought to realize that there are few Sanskrit scholars, Hindu or non-Hindu, alive today who can hold a candle to Max Mueller, the German Indologist and Sanskrit scholar, who in his spiritual, romantic and philosophical quest traced the common roots of Indo-European civilizations to the ancient Vedic culture of India?

I have myself never read the full text of the Gita; at least not in the original. So why would I be a lesser Hindu to learn some of the nuances of this great text from say, coursera.com, where the teacher concerned could well be a Muslim scholar? So then, why should I not take classes from such a one directly at the BHU?

So, exactly what’s this protest all about? Why have the BHU students been asking for the appointment of the professor to be cancelled? Or the VC to resign? Or calling for a CBI investigation into the appointment of the professor? Why has the central government so readily given in to this absurd demand?

In any case, whatever happened to Hinduism not being a religion, but a way of life? Am I not a Hindu whether or not I worship a particular god? Am I not a Hindu whether or not I read a particular holy scripture? Am I not a Hindu whether or not I follow a particular set of rituals? Why would my Hinduism lessons be any less effective because I am taught Sanskrit by a non-Hindu – a Muslim, Christian or a Confucian?

The social reformer that he was, Malaviya’s untiring social works included working for the abolition of widow-remarriage and untouchability, and it is hardly conceivable that such a son of India as he would even for a fraction of a second have had second thoughts about who could or could not teach Sanskrit and Hindu rituals, as long as he or she was a genuine scholar and the student a genuine learner.

Interestingly, in 2015, the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, launched a scheme called Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya National Mission on Teachers and Teaching. The Mission was expected to “address comprehensively all issues related to teachers, teaching, teacher preparation and professional development…” The Centre giving in to the demand for a CBI enquiry into the appointment of Prof Khan takes away from the spirit of the above mission.

It may also be said that Satyameva Jayate was a slogan first chanted by Malaviya at the 1918 session of the Indian National Congress, when he was its president. And is there any larger Satya than true knowledge? To initiate a CBI enquiry against the appointment in the very university that Malaviya founded and served as Vice Chancellor for two decades seems like a travesty of the highest Satya—namely academic values.

To my mind, the objection to a non-Hindu teaching Sanskrit is clearly an objection born of petty minds, trying to ride the Hindutva slant in the air in some parts of the country.

(The writer is Director, Schulich School of Business, India Programme)