Sanskritization, de-Sanskritization and Colonial Rule

#2 Almost all Urdu writers are available in Devnagri script.

I am glad that I read this article because from its name “Sanskritization” I thought it has something to do with the Sanskritization of Urdu language. While having a conversation with an Indian friend she asked me that she loves Faiz and can I recommend some good translation of his works? I responded that why don’t you read “Nuskha-hai-Wafa” in original Urdu or Hindi? She told me that she cannot read Urdu/Hindi in Arabic script because she can only understand English and Sanskrit alphabet. Then it occurred to me that probably after independence (or before?) the Indian government has changed the alphabet from Arabic to Sanskrit. Majority of the people of India belong to Hindu civilization and they probably want to revive their ancient civilization. Therefore my objection to this change of alphabet will be undemocratic, but from my perspective it’s a pity that most Indians now can’t read the original works of Ghalib and Faiz. Translations can convey the meaning and substance in prose but poetry is mostly about words and if you change the letter, the beauty of words is lost.

i know it is fashionable to blame the British for all our ills in the Subcontinent but arguing that they were responsible for the solidification of the caste system is a bit much! Excuse my ignorance but aren`t the Laws of Manu responsible? The British in fact were the ones who outlawed many of the more obscene aspects of the caste system.

Buddhism developed as a reaction to the caste sytem--how can you cite that as evidence for the flexibility of it before the British came?!

Re: # 1
Actually you should read the article again. By the way Manu Smriti is a Smriti not a Shruti and therefore can be rejected whenever necessary. Of course I would say the same about a Shruti too if I didn`t like it. -)

Secondly it was the English who gave so much importance to the Manu Smriti. Most Brahmanic communities were not even aware of the damn thing.
Don`t get carried away by Deepa Mehta and other types. It takes very little time to implement a dogma. For example Scottish Highlanders never actually considered kilts a ethnic dress.

And even the Manu Smriti is not dogmatic. This bit is from chapter 10 .

``As the son of Shudra can attain the rank of a Brahmin, the son of Brahmin can attain rank of a shudra. Even so with him who is born of a Vaishya or a Kshatriya``

You see it`s all interchangeable. Just us, who like to hang on to power, like to keep the status quo.

I`d like to know where you got your ideas about Buddhism too.

Re: # 4

I`ve read a lot on Buddha and Buddhism including the excellent books of Karen Armstrong and also her biography of Buddha...

If it is so interchangeable why do upper castes still treat the lower castes like shyte?

Re: # 6
Mian Naqshbandi :

Everybody knows Karen Armstrong is the darling of every Muslims nowadays along with Prof. Esposito etc. etc.

I think the former defrocked nun Karen Armstrong is essentially a `coffe table writer`. If you believe that is your limit to understand the depth of Buddhism, stick to her half baked ideas about Buddhism and read more on Quran. You might feel at ease.

Wa Salaam!

Kamath

Re: # 6
Sonny read my reply. Your question is answered therein.

Karen Armstrong is in my opinion a vacillating twit.