Thread by @shrikanth_krish

Language wars are a constant feature of Indian public life. Twitter being no exception

But amidst the language squabbles, we tend to reflect less on the root cause of all this

The rise of the Vernacular. A relatively recent phenomenon in Indian history

Back in 1000CE, Sanskrit reigned supreme as the primary literary tongue of India

There was some Prakrit literature yes
And yes, considerable literature in some of the older Southern languages - Tamil/Kannada, but for the most part Vernaculars had a position secondary to Sanskrit

The language of prestige and literary expression was undoubtedly Sanskrit, though it was hardly the mother tongue for a large % of Indians

Vernaculars reigned at home, and in common speech. Yet in an age of limited literacy, they never competed with Sanskrit for "prestige"

And this was very much the case not just in India, but in much of the western world as well

In Europe, as late as 15th century, 70% of the printed literature was in Latin! This was the age that saw the birth of the printing press, mind you

Now Latin was far from being the mother tongue of Europeans at the time, yet it was the preferred mode for intellectual expression

Francis Bacon, a contemporary of Shakespeare, wrote chiefly in Latin.

So did Descartes
So did Isaac Newton, few decades later

Newton may have been a good Englishman.
He lived a good half a century after the age of Shakespeare in the 17th century

Yet even at that very late date, the language he preferred to write his "Principia Mathematica" in was Latin.

Not English.

Ofcourse his other work "Opticks" was in English, but even that book had a Latin translation.

And I presume his readers in mainland Europe preferred the Latin version. Not English.

Let's come back to India.

As already discussed, the reign of Sanskrit and the secondary status of vernacular was not an Indian anomaly. It was consistent with the state of affairs in Europe

The great Indian philosopher Adi Shankara, who purportedly lived in 8th century in Southern India, wrote his work not in whatever was the language spoken around him, but in Sanskrit.

All his works without exception were authored in Sanskrit

Some 3 centuries later, another great Vedantin Shri Ramanuja, lived in the Tamil country, a land that is in our times perceived to be hostile to high culture and Sanskrit

Yet Shri Ramanuja wrote ALL his work in Sanskrit. There is not a single work of his in Tamil that survives

This is not to suggest that literature in the vernacular was non existent in say 1000 CE

It very much existed. Perhaps a little more so down South which had already seen the flowering of Bhakti literature in the Tamil country long before that date

In Karnataka, during the Rashtrakuta period, we did see the composition of some Kannada works. Like the emperor Amoghavarsha's Kavirajamarga.

But nevertheless the dominant language for literary expression was v much Sanskrit

If we check the works of mathematicians and men of intellect throughout the 1st millennium, be it VarAhamihira in the North west, or the two Bhaskaras, or for that matter Aryabhata, they were essentially in Sanskrit

Not in the Prakrit tongues

Even as late as 12th century, the great mathematician Bhaskara II who lived somewhere in what is Northern Karnataka today, wrote his work Siddhanta Shiromani, in Sanskrit.

Not in Kannada or Maharashtrian Prakrit

Nevertheless Prakrit tongues did feature in some Sanskrit plays, especially as the language used by women, and by common folk. Even Kalidasa uses Prakrit on occasion in his plays

But there was no sense of insecurity about the Prakrit tongues. Sanskrit's status was not grudged

It is only well into the second millennium that the Prakrits start asserting themselves as literary media, in North India

One early figure is Vibudha Shridhara, an Agrawal writer in whose Apabrahmsha work has the earliest historical reference to Delhi

हरियाणए देसे असंखगाम, गामियण जणि अणवरथ काम|परचक्क विहट्टणु सिरिसंघट्टणु, जो सुरव इणा परिगणियं|रिउ रुहिरावट्टणु बिउलु पवट्टणु, ढिल्ली नामेण जि भणियं|

Translation:

"There are countless villages in Haryana country. The villagers there work hard. They don't accept domination of others, and are experts in making the blood of their enemies flow. Indra himself praises this country. The capital of this country is Dhilli"

So as one can note, unlike Sanskrit which has an unchanging quality, the Prakrit here only bears a v tenuous link to the Prakrits today

Because Prakrit is not meant to be standardized. It is meant to change with time

There is a reason we don't queue up to read Geoffrey Chaucer or Vibudha Sridhara today

Unlike Latin works of say a Cicero or a Thomas Aquinas, or the Sanskrit works of Kalidasa or Vedanta Desika, which speak for eternity, having been authored in a "prestige" low entropy language

Even as late as 16th century, Sanskrit enjoyed a huge edge over vernaculars. Both in North and South India

The works of the supposedly populist Gaudiya Sampradaya in 16th century Bengal , were in Sanskrit. Be it Jiva Goswami or Rupe Goswami

Not in Bengali

In the Vijayanagara Empire down south, Telugu literature no doubt flourished

Yet the works of that age that speak to us the most are the theological treatises of Madhva men like Vyasatirtha, and Vadiraja

They didn't write in Telugu. Or Kannada.

But in Sanskrit

The point I am trying to make is that right up to 17th century, the language of intellectual expression was the classical tongue
(be it Sanskrit in India or Latin in Europe)

So it is not as though the ascendance of Vernacular is a 1000 year story

But rather a 200-300 year one

And this had political implications too. In an age before the rise of the vernacular, the Empire was the primary form of political organization. And regional nationalisms were v much at bay.

The Holy Roman Empire reigned supreme over much of mainland Europe.

With the rise of the vernacular, there emerged regional nationalisms.

And what suffered was the notion of a united Christendom. Something that was v much within the realm of reality even as late as 1500 CE

Even in our times, the biggest threat to the idea of a single civilizationally united India is very much the politics around the Vernacular languages, and the regional nationalisms they engender

But this is in some respect a price we have paid for modernity.

The rise of the vernacular is inextricably linked to the urge to be accessible, to be popular, to be democratic

Tulsidas created a revolution when he authored the Ramayana in the vernacular.

Something that had not been attempted on that scale till then in Northern India.

And it very much stemmed from this urge to reach out.

The 19th century in Europe will go down as the century that is somewhat analogues to the 17th/18th century in Europe

It witnessed the decline of the classical language (Sanskrit), and the big big boom in vernacular literature

The vernacular boom especially in late 19th / early 20th century, spanned across regions

It was the age of UV Swaminatha Aiyar, the age of Bharatenduh, the age of Premchand

The common theme was to create "prestige" dialects among the many prakrits that existed.

In Tamil Nadu, it was perhaps the Central Tamil dialect of the Tanjore region

In the North, it was the language spoken in and around Delhi - the Khariboli dialect

So now the vernaculars sought "status". "Respectability"

They sought to be bounded by grammars (though Vernacular grammars do predate 19th century in many cases).

They sought to attain "prestige"
Unlike in the past when they were content playing second fiddle to Sanskrit

Has this been a good thing?

I am not sure.

What have we gained by the Vernacular revolution?
A difficult politically incorrect question that ought to be asked

The intellectual life in this country is now conducted for the most part in the English language, which has supplanted Sanskrit as the language of the elite

So the function played by the Vernacular in the main is to fan regional passions

Sanskrit remains. We call it English now

This is not to say I grudge the many fine works of literature that have been authored in the various vernacular languages over the past 200 years

Premchand
Kuvempu
Kalki
One can go on..

But has it been worth it?

To be honest, I don't think so

The costs have outweighed the benefits

One argument is -

Hey...vernaculars enable better instruction to kids.

In their Mother tongue...

Oh yes, the Mother tongue angle, which is impressed upon us so v often

But much of this instruction is terrible

The people who run this country are the ones who learnt their trade in Sanskrit (i.e. English) :)

Vernaculars exist to cater to regional vanity

To my mind, Sanskrit (i.e English) will continue to dominate the intellectual life of this country, exactly as it has for 2000+ years

Vernaculars cannot compete with it.

But yes, they can definitely help break the Indian nation. That's one thing the vernaculars can succeed at

Post-script :

Just got reminded of a point that helps drive home how vernacular limits one's intellectual appeal

Let's take two mathematical texts -

(Contd..)

Aryabhatta's Aryabhatiya: Widely studied throughout Indian history. In Sanskrit

Jyeshtadeva's Yuktibhasa (16th cen)- authored in Malayalam - v limited appeal, almost grossly neglected until past few decades

The language sort of influenced the relative appeal of the two books