NEXT, P.V. KANE begins to sketch out a mitigation plan and the future course of action to stem the rapid decline in Sanskrit scholarship and learning.
A great desideratum which Indian scholarship must tackle soon is a Dictionary of Sanskrit on historical principles. The great St. Petersburg Sanskrit Dictionary of Bohtlingk and Roth though a monumental work for the time of its appearance is now very much out of date. Its last volume appeared in 1875... During the years that have elapsed since the last volume…hundreds of Sanskrit works have been published and there are literally thousands of Sanskrit works more that are only to be had in the form of Manuscripts. A scientific Dictionary of Sanskrit would be a colossal undertaking… The Oxford English Dictionary had to digest linguistic material extending over 700 years only. Sanskrit literature extends over thousands years. Therefore the work of preparing a thoroughly scientific Sanskrit Dictionary cannot be undertaken light-heartedly. When undertaken, national honour demands that it must be completed at all costs.
Kane’s vision is of cosmic proportions. His precise choice of the term “national honour” in this context shows how he regarded every scholarly endeavour as an offering of flowers at the feet of Bharata-Mata.
After Sanskrit, Kane trains his sights on Indian history, broadly speaking. His visionary exposition in this area is worth its weight in gold. It is highly original, pathbreaking and eye-opening when we read it today. While his senior and junior contemporaries had expressed similar thougths, Kane charts a more comprehensive and singular course.
Some of the former Presidents such as Rai Bahadur Hira Lai and Dr. K.P. Jayaswal emphasized the point that the time had come when a comprehensive history of India should he written by Indian Scholars. It is diflicult even for the most learned and most sympathetic foreigner to correctly evaluate an alien cultural tradition. There is generally a subconscious element which makes him, in spite of his training in critical methods, to detect extraneous influences on Indian culturc where none might exist and to deny any claim to high antiquity… Famous European scholars could not help advancing the theories that the Ramayana was copied from Homer’s Epic, that the Bhagavad Gita was adapted from the Bible, that the art of writing was not known to Panini… Max Mueller merely relied on a rule of thumb and… surmised that the Vedic period should be held to have begun at the earliest about I500 B. C… These examples will illustrate the pitfalls that lie in the way of European scholars.
Kane is equally unsparing of a certain brand of Indian history scholars who go the other extreme. In his own words,
On the other hand we, as Indians, are prone to certain peculiar drawbacks. Most of us are unwilling to admit infusion of foreign influence on our culture and are easily inclined to claim high antiquity and originality for everything Indian. Even highly educated Indian scholars wall still maintain that the Mahabharata was composed just about the time when the Bharata war was fought.
Since Kane’s time, this sort of “history writing” rooted in inferiority complex, has become even more extreme. The late P.N. Oak appears to be its most decorated exponent. With due respect to his patriotism, making unsustainable claims that the black idol in Kaaba was a Shiva-Linga and that the Papacy was originally a Vedic priesthood, does disservice to both history and patriotism. Some of the more outlandish offshoots of this kind of “history” is giving Sanskrit derivations to California as kapilāraṇya, and to Australia as astrālaya. Then there is the other bizarre “proposition” which tries to extrapolate String Theory from a verse (mattaḥ parataraṃ nānyatkiñcidasti dhanañjaya। mayi sarvamidaṃ protaṃ sūtre maṇigaṇā iva ||) in the Bhagavad Gita.
Which is exactly what Kane had warned against when he said:
The discovery of truth is often bitter but then we have the great example of Mahadeva himself who voluntarily drank the lethal hālāhalā. It was only after this that the world received Amrita.
AFTER THIS, P.V. KANE gives us a sweeping and grand picture of the atmosphere of history writing prevailing in his time. It is nearly impossible today to even visualise something like this.
"The project of writing an exhaustive history of Indian culture in all aspects from the most ancient times is a vast one… It appears that the suggestion of a History of India written by Indian scholars has caught the fancy of several quarters with the result that we are now somewhat bewildered by simultaneous announcements about national schemes on the History of India written by Indians. So far the following schemes have been announced:
New History of the Indian People planned by Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Sir Jadunath Sarkar in 20 volumes.
The Scheme of the History Congress in 12 Volumes. Not a single volume has been published.
The Bharatiya Itihasa Samiti scheme in ten volumes under the General Editorship of Dr. R. C. Majumdar. This owes its formation to the inspiration of Mr. K.M.Munshi. [Ed: This is classic History and Culture of the Indian People, arguably the most dependable history of India]
The Aligarh scheme in 20 volumes, two dealing with ancient India, 16 with Muslim India and two with the British period.
A Comprehensive History of the Deccan in three volumes from the earliest period to the 12th century A. D., sponsored by the Nizam of Hyderabad, edited by Dr. G. Yazdani.
An Up-to-date History of the Monuments of India by Sir John Mavshall and Dr. Yazdani."
Kane also offers helpful advice on the necessity of avoiding repetitions given the almost-uniform nature and purpose of these comprehensive histories of India. And so, he suggests amalgamating these disparate “schemes” into a single, all-encompassing work in multiple volumes. More importantly, such a work, in his words, should ensure that it will not “be out of date for one generation at least and that will be looked upon by most scholars as the authentic voice of Indian scholarship on the History of India.”
And then, he gives two mindboggling lists. The first includes the numerous “Institutes and Societies” working in “Oriental Studies.” That number in 1946 was 44. The second list pertains to the journals and publications in this field. This number totals 57 excluding university journals and excluding Government publications like the Epigraphia Indica, ASI Annual Reports, etc.
To be continued
The Dharma Dispatch is now available on Telegram! For original and insightful narratives on Indian Culture and History, subscribe to us on Telegram.
