So what is it about Sanskrit that makes the Hindu apologist hordes go into a fit of ad homenic frothing at the mouth

I sort of apologize for taking liberties with the usage of the 'ad hominem' for the characterization of some of the scurrilous comments and barbs at one of the most insightful articles, "The story of my Sanskrit" written about the dynamics of Sanskrit, by Ananya Vajpeyi as an opinion-piece in the columns of 'The Hindu'. But I am not sure if there should be a more distasteful description of the kind of personal attacks and character assassination of the author and a very thought provoking article on Sanskrit and its divisive cultural and sociopolitical legacy from mostly ignorant and lazy readers.

There is very little civility in the comment-spaces and no amount of moderation and editing can work when ignorance and zealotry can work itself into a frenzy and rage with everything seen through the lens of  Left vs Right or Liberal vs Conservative or Pseudo vs Real kind of limited and narrow perspectives. It is very sad to see and read so much of hostility among 'The Hindu' readership against learned and articulate intellectuals just because they express their individual opinions that seem to prick the fragile sensibilities of a religious or cultural identity or affiliation.

It was hard to come across any comments out of the 433 or more comments, that were considerate or appreciative of the pain and efforts of the author in understanding and analyzing a complex language like Sanskrit or the very incisive observations about the historical and sociopolitical context of Sanskrit that lends it the image and reputation of obscurantism and elitism.

Before I come to my impression and analysis of  the sanctimoniousness inspired by Sanskrit among Indian and Hindu zealots, let me paraphrase some of the observations of Anaya Vajpevi that touched the raw nerves of  Hindu sensibilities.

Dinanath Batra's scheme for Indianization, Source: Hindustan Times

Her admonition of the ignorance and idiocy of  a Hindutva cheerleader by the name Dinanath Batra did not obviously go down very well with the Hindu apologist hordes on the comment-trails. This character claims to be a scholar and historian, educationist and what not. But his clout seems to come from what appears to be doing the role of a cultural hatchet man for the RSS. The author's citing of his proximity to the current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi appears to have provoked Modi supporters into a wholesale personal attack on her.

Her concern about this guy's proposed Kangaroo court  on Indian educational reform called the NGEC as a case of meddling of the conservative and orthodox fundamentalists into a secular subject is quite valid too, as is her fear that some of the liberal and reasonable educationists that she is familiar with, risk getting pulled into the vortex of BJP/NDA's 2nd innings of misguided Hindu revivalism. 

From what is known about Batra, he hardly has any credentials to advise on any educational reform agenda, let alone head or lead any authority or panel to examine these issues and suggest measures for change. But with BJP/NDA having many masters and sectarian agendas, it is not surprising that extra-constitutional sources of power and influence rear their ugly heads in any BJP/NDA political ventures.

At least in the previous NDA rule, a BJP HRD minister was spearheading the revivalist effort and one could identify and hold accountable the ideological enemy. But with the Modi government firing from the shoulders of assorted unaccountable figures from the Hindu revivalist fringe, the strategy of opposition and resistance could be rendered more difficult.

Gujarat is not just Modi's political and 'leadership' laboratory, but if the prevalence of Batra's Hindutva pulp fiction as school books is anything to go by, we may be witnessing the beginnings of a disastrous experiment with primary education and character building becoming the laboratory of neo-hindutva fundamentalism. To make things worse, Gujarat has Rajasthan for company with Madhya Pradesh and then the entire cowbelt to join in this cultural revivalist madness.

Despite the concerns of the author about the consequences of this fundamentalist project, she is quite generous, gracious and effusive in her praise of Sanskrit. Despite her insights on the problematic legacy of Sanskrit, she has stopped short of calling out Sanskrit for what it is, a dead language for all practical purposes.For all its glory, grandeur  and greatness, it is still fit or destined only for the archives or the museum. I have in some of my earlier posts been completely scathing in my assessment of the legacy of Sanskrit as a tool and handmaiden of elitists, obscurantists and plutocrats, who ensured that it would be headed for extinction after it had served their purposes.

The world has no use for a language where  even "I love you" cannot be expressed with a straight face and can be interpreted, misinterpreted and retrofitted to mean anything from a medical formula to a magic incantation to a prayer to a geometric theorem to a theory of consciousness!. I am all for Sanskrit as long it is in a restored and preserved parchment, bay leaf, bark or peacock feather in a museum or culture center glass encasement and nowhere else.

In a subsequent post, I will hopefully resuming my skewering of Sanskrit and it legacy and what is so antediluvian  about all this apologist outrage at any examination or critique of Sanskrit.