Thread by @maidros78

The worst part of this supposed popularisation of Sanskrit is bringing in a series of problems, not to mention a supremacist attitude towards other languages. Frankly speaking, this is worrisome [saying this as a native Sanskrit speaker, who reads and writes Sanskrit routinely].

The Samskrita Bharati crowd graduates are useless at anything beyond a token few Sanskrit words. Listen to their supposed Sanskrit conversations - Corporation-taha, chayam - these are the `generous contributions' of this bunch of semi-literates towards butchering Sanskrit.

The second problem is their focus on `simplification'. What this means in practice is that they not only write in extremely childish language [the way a five year old would write], but they develop a huge resistance towards anything more mature, which is horrible.

The third problem is the attitudes they are developing towards other languages. Unsure if this is a direct consequence of the teaching, or if it is a side-effect of the emphasis on Sanskrit, but they develop quite a contemptuous attitude towards non-Hindi, non-Sanskrit languages.

Sanskrit is the `mother language', other Indian languages are just vulgarised forms of Sanskrit, learning Sanskrit is enough, and since Sanskrit is too hard, `Sanskritised Hindi [what is that, BTW?], is a first step towards building Sanskrit as a link language in India.

While few of them can even string a few sentences together, they just have imbibed ridiculous myths about Sanskrit.
So, let us get the myths out of the way.
a) Sanskrit and [various forms of] Prakrit all grew together. They borrowed from each other happily. Only one difference.

Sanskrit was standardised, while the various Prakrits were not standardised. The Prakrits were the main colloquial forms, used by everyone. Classical, post-Panini Sanskrit was used for written work, where standardisation was essential. In an age where literacy itself was the+

+province of the elites, Sanskritised got standardised, and that is why it is the same everywhere, from Afghanistan to SE Asia. They were and continue to remain focussed on written work. Colloquial usage invariably makes a language diversified and unfit for standardisation.

`Learning Sanskrit is enough' - This nonsense can be nailed by the number of examples wherein the regional Prakrits [there were multiple Prakrits, most probably not even mutually intelligible] are held in extremely high esteem. Let us turn to Kashmir, practical home of Sanskrit.

Bilhana in his Vikramaankadevacharitam says that Kashmiris [both men and women] were educated from childhood in both Sanskrit and [their version of] Prakrit and they wore this as a badge of honour. Knowledge of Prakrit was as valued as knowledge of Sanskrit.

Jayanaka, in his Prithviraajavijaya, says proudly that he was a master of six languages, which included Sanskrit and various Prakrits. Mammata, in his Kaavyaprakaasha, takes many examples from the northern Prakrit to explain virtues of poetry. Prakrit was poetry honoured.

Sanskrit was not considered superior, nor Sanskrit supremacism around. The whole `we know Sanskrit and don't need anything else' is a modern abomination.

1) Now, coming to the present, is Sanskrit useful? Very much so, since most Indian languages share vocabulary with it.

2) Can you read other Indian/Tibetan/SE Asian languages if you know Sanskrit? No, since most languages have a lot of words which are not in Sanskrit. However, in general, your learning curve of these languages will be easier, since you know a lot of words to start with.

3) Was Sanskrit the `link language'? It was the link language between the educated elites of India, SE Asia, and possibly even Tibet, but it was not the link language between the common folk. It was a courtly/scholarly language, since it is ideally suited for poetry and music.

4) Should Sanskrit be taught compulsorily in school? I am against any compulsion beyond the mother tongue in school. Let it be offered as an elective in school, beyond say - fifth standard or may be high school. Let people who want learn it. And if taught, don't butcher it.

5) Sanskrit can be made easy. It can be learnt in a few days/weeks.
False. This is a big scam being run these days. Sanskrit is a difficult language. It takes years to master. Peter Norvig pointed out that it takes 10K hours to master any subject. Sanskrit fits the description.

6) `We will teach you simplified Sanskrit.'
There is nothing called `simplified Sanskrit'. What they mean by `simplified Sanskrit' is something that will leave you crippled and unable to progress. `Simplified Sanskrit' ensures you can't read even simple texts like Panchatantra.

7) `Sanskritised Hindi is simple Sanskrit'
Another falsehood. There is nothing called `Sanskritised Hindi'. The language of authors like Jayashankar Prasad, etc, has many Sanskrit words, but it is still very far from being Sanskrit. In fact `Sanskritised Bangla/Kannada/Telugu'+

+[which, BTW, are also fictions - they are just Bangla/Kannada/Telugu with a higher proportion of Sanskrit words] are probably more `Sanskritised' than `Sanskritised Hindi' since the proportion of Sanskrit words is often greater. This is a nonsensical argument'

A variant of the above argument is `shuddh Hindi is more Sanskritised than <insert language here>'. Which is again nonsense. Shuddh Hindi can include many Sanskrit words, but it is not Sanskrit.