Sanskrit – Why Waste People’s Time with It?

Languages grow and die. Get used to it. Latin is the progenitor of modern romance languages. But do you hear of governments shoving it down people’s throats crying “Oh, its’s our culture”? No. To be sure, there are schools that teach Latin, but that is by choice, and not because it’s a legal requirement. Because sensible countries don’t live in the past and they don’t have massive inferiority complexes over their current situation leading them to lust after past glory.

And that’s what this idiocy with Sanskrit is really about. Proponents of “our great culture” like to proclaim that we have no pride and that the lack of Sanskrit in our schools is evidence of low self esteem, when the opposite is true! In reality, it is those who advocate the imposition of Sanskrit in schools who have the inferiority complex. Only a person who feels inferior will need to take refuge in a “golden age” of the past. It is these same guys who you constantly hear bragging about how great Indian culture was even though they personally had nothing to do with it!

Is it a coincidence that these crazies are once again those who talk about how airplanes were invented in India, and how we had nuclear weapons and all that bullshit? No – it’s not a coincidence, but just another symptom of what they guys are really after – an escape into a fantasy past merely so that they can feel good about being “Indian” – as if the present is not enough for them.

For these guys, “facts” don’t matter. They don’t care about the fact that Sanskrit is a dead language. They don’t care that picking up a language by teaching it formally in school is all but impossible if the student is not surrounded by it all the time. They think to themselves – “Oh, just teach kids the rules of Sanskrit grammar and give them exercises and voila! – before you know it they’ll be spouting Sanskrit while playing their friends!” Are they high? Does anyone really believe that?

I’ve been learning a new language for the past 5 months, and I can tell you it’s bloody difficult. You don’t get anywhere by just learning grammar rules and doing exercises. You need to devote all your time and attention to it. You have to talk to yourself. You need to be motivated. You have to want to learn it. Without that, you accomplish nothing. I know students who have been studying a language for years even in college and can’t speak a word of it.

Does anyone really believe that children are going to have such motivation? For what purpose? School is a drudgery – there’s no denying it. No kid in their right mind is going to dedicate the time and brain space necessary to learning a language instead of going and playing. And yes – this means that the German taught to these children is also likely to be useless. But there at least it’s a subject they have chosen. One can have hope at least, that it interests them.

But pushing a dead language onto students who have no interest in it, and who have no way of using it in the modern world? Such a terrible waste of time. And for what? To feed the delusions of lunatics desperately trying to cling onto a past in hopes of dealing with their pitiful feelings of inferiority, inadequacy and powerlessness in the modern world.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (12)
  • You're an asshole (8)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (4)

128 thoughts on “Sanskrit – Why Waste People’s Time with It?”

  1. Absolutely true! This is just to feed their egos. Did you see this? http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/vishwa-hindu-parishad-now-opposes-santa-claus-giving-chocolates-to-kids-during-christmas/articleshow/45280706.cms

    I started learning English at the age 4. But I couldnt speak Eng to save my life until age 14 (and that too only bcz some Northie neighbors moved in and we were forced to speak in English. Also thanks to the new girl in class from Dubai who became my bestie).
    Studied in convent school and they did everything to make us speak in English- fining, caning, scolding, making you stand out etc etc. Nothing worked. It was easier to bear these punishments than speak English. But one year with my English speaking friends could achieve what my convent school couldn’t.

    Reply

    • In reply to Nidaa

      Precisely. Learning a language has to be organic. Otherwise, there’s no point. So if you’re going to force something that’s most likely going to be useless down student’s throats, you might as well give them a choice about what it’s going to be. Perhaps then at least there is a chance of them actually benefiting from it!

      Reply

  2. Have you done even the slightest due diligence into this matter before commenting on it?

    1) Nobody has forced Sanskrit. Absolutely nobody. Kendriya Vidyalayas have been asked to offer as third language ANY one of 23 Indian languages, of which Sanskrit happens to be just one. Sanskrit occupies absolutely no special status out of these 23 languages. Yes…get that? There is literally no issue here. You might as well have accused the government of forcing the whole country to learn Telugu.

    2) This third language policy of any one out of 23 is *exactly* what is written in the National Languages Policy. The MoU signed with Germany was in violation of this policy. As such, the government has merely decided not to renew it.

    Get it? There was no issue here at all. It was a cooked up story. But, yes, there are some lessons to be drawn from the way the liberals made an issue of this.

    The way the language debate has operated in India so far has been thus. The “BJP types” have always called for promotion of Indian languages and the Lutyens types have always sworn by English. In order to justify their stand, the Lutyens types have always made 2 very solid arguments:

    1) India’s linguistic diversity means that English as a link language is indispensable.

    2) English is the global language of business and opportunity.

    The “BJP types” have always said that liberals are just hiding their REAL AGENDA of colonization behind these 2 arguments.

    So, what have we learned from this fracas over German? While the 2 arguments presented above by liberals may be correct, the suspicion of the BJP types is also very true. The liberals never really cared about India’s linguistic diversity or English as a language of opportunity. Their real agenda is to keep the Indian mind colonized. The way liberals are passionately standing up for German has exposed them. Do either of the 2 liberal arguments in favor of English apply to German? Do we need a second link language in India after English? Ha ha…and is there anyone (even in Germany) who seriously believes that …of all languages…German is the language of global business and opportunity. ROTFL!

    If you were standing up for Chinese (Cantonese) or Spanish, you could be forgiven. Maybe even French…. But German? Ha!

    What liberals have shown is that they will stand up for anything as long as its not Indian in origin. The BJP wallahs were right…

    Reply

    • In reply to Abhishek

      Instead of explaining it in this space, here’s a link explaining why the recent order effectively makes Sanskrit mandatory in all KVs especially considering the order passed in 2001.

      http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/german-row-iranis-order-effectively-makes-sanskrit-a-must-for-kvs/

      I would have no issues with Sanskrit being an option as long as students can freely choose something else. Does presenting people with a choice equate to “Keeping the Indian mind colonized”? What does that even mean?

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        @Bhagwad So if in effect since 2011 German was forced down the throat on KV kids , isn’t that right? ( unles 15 or more kids chose a regional language, German was the only option given). If your argument is ‘no kid should be forced to learn any language’ I could agree with you. When the same situation existed for the past few years with German occupying the same spot as Sanskrit you guys had no problem with that and no one talked about German being forced down the throat.Why such animosity towards Sanskrit?
        Out of 70K kids how many kids are going to go to Germany so that learning German is going to benefit them? If someone is going to force the kids to learn a third language let it be a dead Indian language than a living europian language!

        Reply

      • In reply to ceedeeram

        Absolutely. The thing is, I never heard any complaints. If German really was this unwelcome, I would have expected to hear something about it. Since there was none, I didn’t even know the situation existed!

        But I’ll have to disagree – any living language is better than any dead language unless there is a very specific need. There’s no need to get sentimental just because it’s “Indian”. Besides, Sanskrit is no longer an Indian language. It might have been at one time, but since no one speaks it any more, we can hardly call it “Indian”.

        That’s like saying “Latin” is a European language, when everyone knows that dead languages have no nationality!

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “If German really was this unwelcome, I would have expected to hear something about it.”

        This has to be the greatest argument ever :) So, unless the media picks up a fight over a news story, it doesn’t matter :) So, just because we got to hear so much about rapes in Delhi and none in Jharkhand, means that no rapes (or hardly any rapes) are happening in Jharkhand…. ROTFL!

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        But of course. We all need to hear about a problem before we do anything about it no? And we don’t just pick up information out of the air. The media is the way we get our news. And if a story is interesting enough, I expect to hear about it in the media, especially when there’s no conflict of interest.

        What is so unusual about that?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “And if a story is interesting enough, I expect to hear about it in the media, especially when there’s no conflict of interest.”

        So, lets see. So there are no rapes happening in Jharkhand, right? Or the rapes in Jharkhand are not “interesting” enough unlike all those fun, “interesting” rapes in Delhi?

        Ouch! True Lutyens class contempt for Jharkhand! Yes, why do these unfashionable states even exist, right?

        Yaar, when German was introduced, no one cared. No one really cares even now that it has been removed.

        Only the media which has been targeting Smriti Irani cares. It is easy to see why left wing intellectuals who depend on the HRD ministry for favors, hate BJP governments. Just like Sanskrit is “useless”, so are these intellectuals with their political “science” degrees. They would be begging outside railway stations if friendly Congress governments had not paid them money to spout hatred towards Hindu traditions.

        You must have seen the media row over Smriti Irani visiting an astrologer. Next you will tell me she must be the first Indian politician to believe in astrology (LOL), because media did not make an issue of it before!

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        I distinctly remember the media making fun of several politicians for consulting astrologers. I still don’t know what you’re trying to say though. It’s a strange way of writing without getting to the point…

        Do you expect the media to write about every single rape that happens around the country? In fact, when I read about a news story about rape, I don’t even notice the state or the city. For all I know, the media has been talking about rapes in Jharkhand. I wouldn’t know either way – I don’t notice these things.

        Do you have an actual point to make?

        P.S. I don’t know what a “Lutyen” is, why anyone would have “class contempt” for Jharkhand (why not Maharashtra?) what it has to do with Sanskrit, or me. And there are many other things about your post that puzzle me. You’ll have to be more clear if you want me to understand what you’re trying to convey.

        P.P.S. It’s bad enough to have a minister consulting bogus astrology, and there have been lots of news reports about such people already. To have the education minister do it is doubly ridiculous. You should be as ashamed of having someone like that as your education minister as I am.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I actually made my point in my very first comment. You are the one who retorted with the absolutely laughable claim that just because the media did not make an issue out of it in 2011, imposition of German in KVs is not a problem, whereas the removal of German is…simply because this time the media is showing interest.

        Well, you don’t expect the media to report every rape in the headlines, do you? But that doesn’t make one rape any more or less important than another, does it?

        Same with the German story. Just because the media didn’t report the syllabus change in 2011 but is reporting the change now doesn’t mean that one of them is a problem and the other isn’t.

        Get it?

        So if you want to show me how forcing German was ok but giving kids the choice to learn Sanskrit is anti-freedom, give me an actual argument. Don’t tell me that the first was ok because the media did not raise an eyebrow…LOL

        PS: As for astrology, what’s the big deal? Some people believe in astrology. Some people believe in social “sciences” and political “science”. None of them subscribe to the scientific method: but believers in astrology, political science and social sciences all claim that theirs is a valid “science”. What can we do? These are personal superstitions. Let them be.

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        Rape is a tragedy- but obviously not every rape is noteworthy or interesting. The media cannot report every instance of rape in the country. But I would think that the imposition of a foreign language on tens of thousands of unwilling schoolchildren and parents would have been very interesting indeed. Even now after all this, I haven’t heard parents complaining about German “imposition”.

        Of course, it goes without saying that neither should be imposed. I am however, drawing attention to the fact that one language seems more accepted than the other no?

        As for astrology…we can’t compare it to other academic studies. Even economics is not a science in the strict sense of the word. For that matter, there will be those who say that string theory isn’t “science” either because it’s not testable. But the point is that these are fields of study where people try and apply academic rigor. Their assumptions are not exactly laughable.

        There are benign superstitions and harmful ones. A benign superstition is something like having to get out of one side of the bed. Or not wanting to go under a ladder. Astrology however, is a superstition that’s dangerous. How do I know she’s not taking decisions for the country based on what it tells her to do? And like I said, for an education minister to believe in this nonsense is double scary.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “Even now after all this, I haven’t heard parents complaining about German “imposition”.”

        Of course! It wasn’t an issue then and it isnt an issue now. No one is complaining (in substantial numbers) about Sanskrit either. Its only a handful of partisan mediapersons and some left wing intellectuals scared about their future under a BJP government.

        It is absolutely laughable that you propose amount of media noise as a measure of what people are accepting and what they are not.

        Of course you can compare astrology and political “science”. Just because the political “science” wallahs wear fancy suits doesn’t mean theirs is a form of academic inquiry. What are the major discoveries in political “science”? If you go ask astrologers they will tell you their stuff is also a science that one has to learn with great effort and rigor. The fact is there is nothing in political “science” that cannot be done at a Class XII level or below. Try that with string theory…let us see.

        Wonder what the results of a basic calculus competition between Physics PhDs and political “science” PhDs would be… LOL…some “scientists” they are :) If political scientists are scientists, how come they dont know even the most elementary levels of science?

        Political “science”, social “sciences”, journalism…all fake subjects that are intended to console kids who score ~35% in Board Exams that they can be college graduates too…even PhDs! LOL! Exactly like astrology.

        Reply

      • In reply to ABHISHEK BANERJEE

        The word “science” in “Political Science” doesn’t literally mean they claim themselves as a science. Not anymore than “moral science” and “home science” do. That word has gotten stuck to the phrase by accident. I’ve never seen anyone – left, right, or center – claim that “political science” is a real science.

        And the difficulty of a subject is no indication of it’s “science” like qualities. It’s a fact that string theory is untestable and therefore does not qualify strictly as a science. If you want to stick to the literal meaning of “science”, then let’s be consistent about it. String theory is not a science – there is no debate on that.

        Astrology however, does claim to behave like a real science in its ability to make testable predictions (which are no better than chance anyway). Moreover, it’s not a field of academic study since it relies on assumptions that are bogus in the first place. So, let’s really not compare astrology with anything that’s taught in reputable universities.

        You’ve said that the amount of attention that Sanskrit is getting is “just a handful” of people. Do you have a reason or numbers to back that up? All things being equal, the media is drawing attention to the fact that people are objecting to Sanskrit, and they didn’t draw attention to what they were saying about German. What other possible explanation could there be?

        And really – is it so hard to believe? Which parent in their right mind would want their child to waste time learning a useless language instead of one that people actually speak today? And in the middle of the school term, no less!

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I never said the difficulty of a subject is proof of its science like qualities. I said that the fact that political “science” can all be done at a Class XII level or less means that it is not a real academic field of inquiry. Along with that I asked how come political “scientists” are generally scared of the most elementary science taught even at middle school level?

        Clearly, the word science has been added to political “science” in order to try and borrow credibility from the extremely high reputation of real science.

        Oh…..you say the word “science” got stuck by “accident”… ROTFL! Your theories are really something :-) Tomorrow someone will start selling red and white cans of soft drink named “Cola Cola”. Any resemblance to a well known worldwide brand is purely “accidental” :)

        We weren’t born yesterday. They knew exactly what they were doing when they picked the word “science”. Which makes them academic impostors! And copying is taken very seriously in the real sciences.

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        Show me even one professor who claims that “political science” is an actual science. Would you also say next that “home science” pretends to be science?

        Just like the difficulty of a subject is not proof of science (string theory), the ease of a subject is not proof of it not being a science. So I don’t know what 12th standard has to do with any of this. There was no need to bring in 11th and 12th and all. Everyone already knows that political science is not a real science – no one claims otherwise.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “Show me even one professor who claims that “political science” is an actual science.”

        See, this is why I told you to do some due diligence! Did you know that political “science” is even supported by the US National SCIENCE Foundation (NSF)? In fact, the left wing lobby has been extremely vocal in fighting Republican attempts to kick political science out of the NSF…because well it is simply not a science!

        (A partial success was achieved this year with the Coburn amendment which directed the NSF to fund only those political “science” projects that can be shown to directly advance the national interest of the US).

        So…ya… practically the entire political science community is very very sentimental and insistent on their so called academic discipline being considered a science :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        If that’s so, show me one prediction that “political science” has made. Anything that is verifiable. If you can’t give me an example, it means that no predictions were made and regardless of anything else, no one considers it a science.

        Yeah, I know the NSF funds PS, but once again, I have yet to hear the claim that it’s a hard science like physics or chemistry. Or even medicine for that matter. Even the Wikipedia page for PS doesn’t claim that it’s a science, so what exactly is the debate here?

        More importantly, why are we talking about PS?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “If that’s so, show me one prediction that “political science” has made. ”

        I can’t, because it isn’t a science! Its practitioners however have lobbied to get it declared a science by government fiat so that they can get their hands on the NSF booty! That was exactly my point all along!

        So, clearly you are wrong when you say no one is claiming political science to be a science! Otherwise why would they be robbing the National SCIENCE foundation? Clearly, they ARE claiming its a science!

        How can you not get this?

        Now let me remind you why we are talking about PS. Because, as you can see, liberals don’t give a damn when political “science” is declared a science and even gorges on public money from the National SCIENCE foundation. In fact they are fighting tooth and nail to retain it as a science under NSF! Then why not astrology?

        Its obvious what the real problem is. The left doesn’t make a peep when impostors political “science” barge in and robs the public because they know that political “scientists” are mostly left wing hacks. But they will raise hell about astrology, because they suspect that the practitioners wont be on their side. It’s got nothing to do with principle and everything to do with partisanship. So, when you tell me that astrology is a problem but political “science” is not, you are just advancing a partisan line and not speaking from principle!

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        A field of study can be useful even without being a science, which is why the NSF probably funds it. Whether or not they should continue to do so is a matter of debate. But you’re right – PS makes no predictions so it’s not a science. And contrary to what you think, no one really believes it’s a science.

        But guess what? Astrology does make predictions. It’s practitioners do claim that it’s a science! And that right there is the difference.

        No one does something and says “I do this because PS told me so!”. If they did that, then it would be scary. But it happens all the time with astrology. Do you see the difference now?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “A field of study can be useful even without being a science, which is why the NSF probably funds it. ”

        Sure!

        First of all, you should now withdraw your claim that no one calls political science a science! I have shown convincingly that they do and they even collect millions of dollars by insisting on that claim.

        But why fake being a science and ask for money from the National SCIENCE Foundation? In principle, someone who makes fake Picasso paintings might actually be a better painter than Picasso! But you do see why being an impostor destroys your credibility?

        Once you fake it, of course people will assume you have no merit.

        “PS makes no predictions so it’s not a science”

        You’re joking, right? Political scientists make predictions ALL the time! Read this article in which a political “scientist” even admits Nancy Reagan’s astrologer might have made better predictions than political scientists :)

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinion/sunday/political-scientists-are-lousy-forecasters.html?pagewanted=all

        Take that :)

        “No one does something and says “I do this because PS told me so!”.

        Again, you’re joking, right?

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        Sorry, but no. You haven’t shown me the statement of even one person who seriously claims that PS is a “science”. On the other hand, proponents of astrology call it a science. Anyone who does so, doesn’t understand what “science” means.

        I think all you’ve shown is that people better realize that PS is not a science. So what are we arguing about again?

        And let’s remove this false equivalence between PS and astrology. PS is not a science – that is a given. But it attempts to study the field of politics using related elements. It does not examine an unrelated subject to draw conclusions about something else. For example, if PS examined the nature of rocks and then used that information to talk about politics, it would be as absurd as astrology.

        Astrology on the other hand, uses unrelated info (like the stars) to draw conclusions that can’t possibly be guessed from the preceding data. That is why PS while not a science, might at least claim to give us an insight into a complex field of study, whereas astrology – I mean come on. It’s just so bogus, I can’t even believe we’re wasting time over it.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “You haven’t shown me the statement of even one person who seriously claims that PS is a “science”. ”

        Huh?. They put the label “science” in the name itself! They refer to themselves as political “scientists”. They even demand to be get paid by the National SCIENCE Foundation!

        If this does not amount to claiming that something is a science, I have no idea what does!

        LOL

        Oh and what happened to your claim that PS doesn’t make predictions? Withdrawing that one?

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        We’ll just have to disagree. The word “science” here is obviously not literal and no one claims that PS makes predictive testable statements. PS can be an academic field of inquiry, which is probably why it’s being funded. But it’s not science.

        As for the link – I think you’ve shown ample proof that those who try and make predictions with PS fail miserably, thereby highlighting that it’s not a science. Is it useful? Maybe, maybe not. Is it interesting and does it provide insights? Probably. At least those in the field work with facts, and do their best to understand a complicated situation.

        But astrology? The subject matter has no logical connection with its end results. While it’s not a science, it’s not even an academic discipline.

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        So you made me do it! I googled the sentence “Political science is a science” and look what I found:

        “Karl Deutsch, former president of both the American Political Science association and the International Political Science Association argued that “insofar as political science is a science, it is an applied one. It’s tasks are practical and its theories are both challenged and nourished by practice”

        (http://books.google.de/books?id=zDj6Xds51sMC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=%22political+science+is+a+science%22&source=bl&ots=Zjb56zm6bY&sig=aI9MOL7Y3Mc5nuZKDQB3lVYS3CY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6al9VMD4OsHtaJbtgagP&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=%22political%20science%20is%20a%20science%22&f=false)

        See? Political “science” is not just a science, it is an applied one…it even learns from practice and verifies its theories :P

        What now? Still no one really claiming political science is a science? They used the word science in the name, they called themselves scientists, they grabbed money from the National Science Foundation and even said upfront that its a science!

        And still would you say no one claims PS to be a science?

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        I googled that a while back already :) . People who call PS a science clearly don’t understand what “science” means. So when you say that they shouldn’t receive funding from the NSF, I’m with you. At best, the NSF can be accused of funding a non-scientific subject, even though it’s interesting and expands our understanding of the world.

        The problem with your argument is that you’re trying to draw an equivalence between PS – which though not a science is a field of academic inquiry – and astrology, which is neither.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Ha ha! Then you should have first withdrawn this line of yours:

        “Show me even one professor who claims that “political science” is an actual science.””

        This person Karl Deutsch has been a professor of political “science” at MIT, Yale and Harvard and served as president of the American Political Science Association and the International Political Science Association!

        “At best, the NSF can be accused of funding a non-scientific subject. ”

        Except that is not my main complaint. My main complaint is why political science would pretend to be a science and dupe the NSF? You say that PS is still a field of academic inquiry! Is this how genuine academic inquiry operates? By collecting money under a fake name?

        Imagine someone withdrawing money from your bank account by producing fake id. The person gets caught and says: I may have withdrawn money with a fake id, but I swear I was going to use it for an honest business!!! :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        What can I say? Only that he doesn’t use the word “science”, the way he should be using it. In the real sense of the word, at least I have never heard someone claim that PS is a science – unlike astrology.

        PS is not a person that can “pretend” to be anything. A field of inquiry cannot “operate” as anything. You can talk about the people in a specific country pretending to be scientific, but how can you talk about a field of study itself deceiving anyone?

        And I keep coming back to the difference between PS and astrology because if you remember, that is where we first started off. Let’s come back to that issue and wrap this up.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        First you should accept that you were dead wrong when you challenged me to find
        “even one professor” who calls political “science” a science.

        “How can you talk about a field of study itself deceiving anyone?”

        Here’s how:

        1) By referring to themselves as a science when they are not.
        2) By calling themselves scientists when they are not.
        3) By collecting millions of dollars from the National Science Foundation that supports
        a huge bulk of the “research” in their so called “science”.

        Its not just 1 or 2 guys who collect political science money from the NSF…its the whole community.

        So…political science or astrology…both impostors, both pretending to be science when they are not. Just that the left seems to outrage over just one of the two impostors… wonder why :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        I was wrong when I said that they don’t call it a science. But when they say “science”, they don’t mean “science” the way a dictionary defines it. It was that definition of science that I was referring to. And I still say that no one claims that PS is a science as per the dictionary.

        A field of study is just lines on paper. It’s not a person. It cannot refer to “themselves” as a science. You can talk about “people” calling themselves something. Not a field of study! Similarly, a “field of study” cannot collect millions of dollars. Only PEOPLE can do that. That’s obvious no?

        And to answer your final question in the way that I’ve already done so – PS while not a science is a field of academic inquiry and astrology is not. That’s why.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “But when they say “science”, they don’t mean “science” the way a dictionary defines it.”

        :) No no…they are just happy to collect millions of dollars by calling it a science. Tomorrow someone will show up at the bank with an fake id in your name and withdraw all your money. But the question you will ask is whether they really did “mean” to impersonate you the way you define yourself? :)

        Oh, and never mind if someone else collects your money by presenting fake id. So what if its not really you who picked up the money? Just like political “science” is still an academic field (according to you), the person who picked it up is still a human being and might invest that money much more creatively than you could have. So, chill :)

        ROTFL!

        “A field of study is just lines on paper. It’s not a person. It cannot refer to “themselves” as a science. You can talk about “people” calling themselves something. Not a field of study! Similarly, a “field of study” cannot collect millions of dollars. Only PEOPLE can do that. That’s obvious no?”

        Really? These are not random individuals who show up and collect money from NSF! There are formal DEPARTMENTS in political “science”. Professors from these departments get grants from NSF. The Departments will even keep some of the money as royalty! This money collected will go towards training other people to enter the profession of political “science”. Each new person being hired by the department is told to go to the NSF and collect some cash! In fact, they are very likely to get fired (refused tenure) if they cant grab enough cash from the NSF to fund political “science”.

        Now you see what I mean by the whole field collecting money? The fraud is completely institutionalized. This is not random individuals defrauding the public…the entire community of political “scientists” collectively and actively supports and promotes the fraud.

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        But how does that matter? Why is it relevant to the argument? The question is not about the people who practice a subject, but the subject itself. When we started off, we were talking about astrology, not astrologers. So if you want to talk about PS, let’s talk about PS, and not those who study it.

        I really want to bring this topic back. In your last several posts, you haven’t made any mention of astrology. Which makes me wonder what you really want to argue about after all.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “When we started off, we were talking about astrology, not astrologers. So if you want to talk about PS, let’s talk about PS, and not those who study it. ”

        Huh? The field is what its practitioners make of it, what else? I am talking about the political science which is a fake “science” used by people to siphon off cash by being impostors. EXACTLY like astrology….

        Except liberals seem really pissed off about astrology but not political “science”.

        What is really making me curious is why you are ready to make 1000 excuses for political science. The line you are taking right now is similar to a desperate religious apologist saying: “So what if Muslims are massacring people? Islam itself is a religion of peace”. So what if the entire political science community is that of charlatans and impostors? Political science itself is pure and beautiful… LOL

        Political scientists are impostors, astrologers are impostors. I called all of them frauds and said that these “subjects” be left in the realm of personal belief. Why is that bothering you so much?

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        I disagree. I field stands or falls on its own merits regardless of what its practitioners do. So it matters little what the conduct of people is – the central question is this: What does the field itself say?

        You say “political scientists are impostors”. But I’m not interested in political scientists any more than I’m interested in astrologers. I’m interested in the talking about the subjects of PS and astrology.

        Why are you getting confused between these two?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        O well- dead language has no nationality! says who linguistics expert Bhagwad? Though my dad is gone long back, still he is my dad!
        Just because so called media intellectuals make some noise and people like you join the bandwagon it does not become an issue!

        Reply

      • In reply to ceedeeram

        Your dad is a living person. A language is neither a person, nor is it a physical thing. Even more so than a dead language that no one speaks! Which person can claim that Sanskrit is an “Indian” language, today when no one speaks it? Only people desperately trying to cling to a glorious imaginary past.

        Live in the present!

        Reply

  3. Even i had no idea that learninggerman was compulsory at KVs …how much more ludicrous can our education system get ? German, Sanskrit or for that matter any language should be learnt by choice…

    Reply

  4. There are many things wrong, but we should be careful to pick what this is about.

    I don’t like Government having a say on syllabus. This should be privatized. But lets not go down that route. That’s not the problem in discussion.

    I don’t even like 3-language policy. It is severely handicaps students from rural areas and certain parts like South-India, where they don’t have people speaking 2 Indian languages. But that is also not the problem in discussion.

    Assuming all this is taken for granted.

    Every subject taught is forced. I don’t think any parent as the option of not choosing maths, science or economics in school. Optionals are only available later in colleges, in India. So, language is just another subject mandated to be taught to get a CBSE certificate. Parents have a choice of not sending their kids to KV, if they don’t like it.

    What is wrong here (a.) KVs not sticking to a Government policy and keeping parents in the dark on this subject. This is unlawful and unprofessional.
    and (b.) Government punishing students by asking them to learn something midyear. This is bad management, arrogance etc but not unlawful.

    Do we punish gullible property-owners in Adarsh scam for fraud by developers? That is collateral damage. We need to take back the land and raze the building. That is the law.

    Is Sanskrit better or German better for Indian students is a completely different topic. There is no right answer here. Is learning Relativity useful for Physics Graduates, when most leave science after graduation and end up in a way different field. No.. but there will be at least a few who end up as theoretical physicists, while the rest will at least enjoy the movie ‘Interstellar’.

    And Sanskrit isn’t dead like Latin. There are places where people converse in Sanskrit. I don’t want to learn it, I also don’t want to learn painting. But there is value in both.

    I would prefer to give students a basket of languages to choose from. I would prefer giving students at least an year to accommodate for the change. I would prefer to change the policy to accommodate even foreign languages like German/French/Japanese etc.

    Reply

    • In reply to Murali

      I too would prefer to give students a basket of languages to choose from. I don’t think anyone’s claiming that what the government is doing is illegal. We are after all, raising our voices against the move, hoping that the government will change its stand based on the voice of the people. That seems like a very democratic way to go about things.

      The basis for the protest is this: Of course the government has the right to impose subjects. There is an implicit understanding however, that those choices will be dictated by the interests of the students as far as it’s possible to predict these things. It’s implicit that this will not be a political process, but an impartial one.

      The current problem is that there is a strong suspicion that this latest move by the government is political. And personally, I don’t think that suspicion is false. What do you think?

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Aaah… yes.. that is the crux. Is government doing this because it genuinely feels it is the right thing to do.. or is it because it wants to use this as a backdoor entry for its propaganda ?

        The question was never about Sanskrit or German. It is about whether others (not we) are being slowly indoctrinated and the society becoming more intolerant.

        I think the people in power are more ignorant and illogical than perverse and scheming. They seem to sincerely believe in their false narrative, which is sometimes more dangerous than plain old misguidance.

        Yes, the motives are suspect.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “The current problem is that there is a strong suspicion that this latest move by the government is political.”

        See how your tone changes when Sanskrit comes up instead of political science? Even if it is political, why care then? They are only teaching Sanskrit. Are you saying there is something inherent in the Sanskrit language that has political benefits for the current government? Remember…don’t tell me about those who will teach and lobby for Sanskrit, tell me about Sanskrit in itself :)

        Just like with political science, you cared not about what the political scientists do or say, but only political science as it inherently is… :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        I believe the point of my post is that Sanskrit as a subject itself is useless remember? I have so far not said anything about Sanskrit teachers, Sanskrit scholars, or Sanskrit professionals.

        And if you want to talk about PS again, please continue it in the same thread we already have going. I don’t want to mess up the later conversations too…

        Reply

  5. Yes I agree that learning a completely new language is very difficult as I have the experience for the same. I had studied sanskrit as a forth language for 3 years and found it to be the worst part. It so very damn difficult to engulf a new language all of a sudden.

    Reply

  6. Hi!

    1. Personally I’m for minimizing the curricular burden on students. As you pointed out, and is consistent with my own experience, learning a language has to be an “organic” process. I’d like the compulsion of third language itself to be done away with. I’d much prefer course on something like ‘critical thinking’ or may be some life/vocational skill like electrical work, plumbing, cooking and nutrition, etc.

    2. However, if we ‘have to’ live with a third language compulsion I don’t see how Sanskrit is any worse than German. As I see it, had you replaced ‘German’ with ‘Sanskrit’ and only somewhat changed the arguments in your analysis, they would have still remained as valid, or perhaps even more.

    3. I don’t see Sanskrit as totally redundant either. There are still some arts – at least that I’m aware of – that can benefit from knowledge of Sanskrit, e.g., Indian classical music and dance. People do earn their livelihood by teaching them to students (out of the school, of course). Likewise, in my schooldays parents used to send their children for “Veda classes”. Also, I know of people who during religious rituals want to understand the meanings of shlokas recited. But you’ve raised one more valid point: will having Sanskrit as a “third” language in the curriculum enable anyone to reach any degree of proficiency? No, I too don’t think so. But then, the same argument holds true for German or any other third language.

    4. There were concerns that the switch to Sanskrit would be made mid-year, but I think they’ve been specifically addressed, and the switch would happen starting the next academic year.

    5. If logistical issues, as the Express article that you linked puts it, are preventing inclusion of regional third languages, I think those issues always existed and the headline “Smriti Irani’s order” in my opinion is misleading. She just ensured adherence to a policy already in place. [A minor trivia here (because I did not see it mentioned in the thread, blog post or in the linked article): the lectures in all the KVs are supposed to be in perfect sync, so they (supposedly) teach the same thing on the same day for every grade in every KV school. Even this practice should be reviewed, IMO.]

    6. Would you have written almost a similar blog post had German been made “compulsory” after lot of debate in the Indian media? Why or why not? And if you would have disagreed with the decision, why media never drew our attention to making of German compulsory in the first place? Personally I don’t see German as compulsory language as any more enlightened decision that having Sanskrit.

    7. I’d have agreed wholeheartedly had this post been against a compulsory third language. :)

    8. Cheers! :P

    Reply

    • In reply to Ketan

      If German was made compulsory, I would have viewed it as an oddity. I mean there’s no obvious reason for German (of all languages) to be made compulsory. So my first thought would be that there is some other reason that I can’t understand. I can’t believe someone would make a random language compulsory just for fun! I would try and find out what it is.

      With Sanskrit, I don’t really have that problem. The reason for its introduction can’t be utility since even with 100% Sanskrit fluency, students will be no better off in this world. So the only reason I can personally see for Sanskrit is politics. If the challenge is to have a regional language, then just pull one living regional language out of the box and teach it – I mean…anything better than Sanskrit no?

      As far language value…my opinion is that any living language is better than any dead language. I learnt a whole bunch of vedas in school too, and I still remember them! But I neither knew their meanings then, nor do I want to now. If I do feel a need, I’m sure there are some translations out there that will do the job…

      Reply

  7. 1. In fact, my question that you addressed was not even hypothetical, because someone indeed replaced all Indian languages with German and made it compulsory at some point. It’s odd that you’d presume any random language chosen would have relevance. That to me looks like blind faith. Relevance is not merely in time, it has to be in place as well.

    2. Just like how you see politics behind restoring (and mind you, not introducing) a ‘dead’ (irrelevant in time) language into the curriculum, there are others who see politics behind introducing a compulsory ‘foreign’ (irrelevant geographically) language. Media never raised this.

    3. You give personal testimony of how learning Sanskrit didn’t help you at any point in life. Won’t there be students who were made to compulsorily learn German who’d have the same to say about German?

    4. Let’s be clear: Sanskrit as one of the third languages was a national policy before Smriti Irani became HRD Minister, so politics, if any cannot be attributed to her or this government.

    5. For me it’s easy to see why Sanskrit gained prominence among all other Indian languages. The greatest concern has been transfer of parents to other states and the fate of their children (in my understanding), so why would a student domiciled in Maharashtra studying Marathi want mid-term to start learning Bengali at a few days’ notice? Isn’t that the reason the problem highlighted in that Express article “effectively” makes Sanskrit the compulsory language despite there being no compulsion from the Union HRD Ministry? I can see why Sanskrit is seen as a ‘neutral’ language, compulsorily learning which would prove least offensive to maximum number of people.

    6. Media’s projecting this decision as “making Sanskrit compulsory” instead of accurately putting it as “removing German as compulsory language in KVs” reeks of propaganda.

    Reply

    • In reply to Ketan

      I didn’t say that any random language will have relevance. I said that any active language will have more relevance than any dead language. After all, the primary purpose of language is communication – by definition an active language will have more relevance than a dead one no?

      I have difficulty seeing the introduction of German as political, simply because I don’t see any political gains. I mean…are we talking about appeasing the German community in India? That must be a vanishingly small population. I simply cannot believe that any political party is going to take any decision based on the number of German speakers in India. Also, the German speakers are most likely to not be citizens of India in the first place, and so they can’t vote.

      For something to be “political”, it has to have some political gain. I don’t see any demographic in India that will vote for a party because they introduced German!

      You’re right about efficacy in German being as bad as efficacy in Sanskrit. But if we have to force a third language down student’s throats (and I agree with you when you say that we need to get rid of the IIIrd language altogether), I would at least have it be a living language…

      It doesn’t matter to me what living language it is. Or maybe we can have some criteria. We sort all languages in order of their usage. So we should learn Spanish. Or maybe we can even sort languages on the demand for economic benefits. In which case, Japanese would rank somewhere high up. German wouldn’t be too low I’m guessing.

      But certainly all options are better than Sanskrit!

      Reply

  8. First of all: There shouldn’t be the burden of 2nd or 3rd language at all on students. Teach everything in English. In my opinion, English has become the language of science, and dont kill me for saying this. You want to save Indian languages, then learn to read, write, and speak it yourself, and use it. I do with Hindi, Marathi, and so a little extent Urdu(Urdu, because my Locknowee paternal grandfather, Allahabadee maternal grandfather, & my father could read, write, and speak it fluently). My 1st preference is always to speak Hindi with those who can.

    But the harsh reality is there are 3 languages across the boards in India. I know only 2 KV students. Both of them are joyed with Sanskrit replacing German because Sanskrit has much lighter syllabus & easier to pass. Can you see that? That is what language papers are for the students: just another subject to pass! And the politicos think they can save languages by making students rote-learn it! Rote-learning is not learning. And those 2 students too want 3rd language chucked out, though they are comfortable with passing the 2nd language Hindi, their mother tongue

    I asked the father of one of those two if he has any problem with his son’s curriculum. What he said is something I completely agree with. According to him, it is between him and his employers. KVs are schools for govt employee’s kids & grandchildren. What an employer gives his/her employee, should not be of concern to any 3rd person. If the employee feels that the employer’s school is not right for her/his kid, s/he will take out her/his child. I told him that being a tax-payer, I am the indirect employer of govt employees. To this he just said: KV is not subsidized by tax-payer. I dont know if that subsidy claim is true. But I agree with the employee-employer argument.

    You just said that any living language is better than any dead language. I would go a step further in that. An easy scoring language is better than a tough scoring language, with either of them being dead or living. And absence 2nd and 3rd language is better than presence of 2nd and 3rd language. Anything that takes the unnecessary burden off the student’s shoulders, is always better.

    Reply

    • In reply to Abhishek Oza

      I definitely think there’s a good case to be made for any language course being just another subject to pass in school. It just seems like a terrible waste and a very cynical way to think about things! I’m not saying it’s wrong though. Sometimes the cynical way to think about something is the most accurate. I would merely prefer to feel that we’re trying to get some utility out of having the burden of an additional language in school.

      Reply

  9. You know, if Indian liberals want to be “global” so bad by embracing German, lets become like the Germans! Did you know that the coalition of CHRISTIAN Democratic Union and CHRISTIAN Social union has ruled the German Republic for 43 out of the 65 years since it was established?

    Boy…by now these despicable religious fundamentalists must have reduced Germany into a crazy theocracy, right? Maybe the world should help those backward superstitious Germans catch up in science and technology, no? I am sure there is absolutely no way Germany could be the largest economy in Europe and the 4th largest in the world. And I am even more sure there is no way thousands of Muslims flee from their native Islamic nations each year to become refugees in this communal, backward Germany. The whole country of Germany must be a theocratic shithole, with no justice, no civil rights, no free speech, no economy and no science, right?

    Right?

    Or maybe embracing your history and culture is not such a horrible thing after all….

    Reply

    • In reply to Abhishek

      It does’t matter what the name of the government is. What matters is whether or not they choose to enact religious laws. In some countries it happens. In some countries it doesn’t.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “It does’t matter what the name of the government is. What matters is whether or not they choose to enact religious laws.”

        Agreed. That must be the main reason Indian liberals did not raise hell when people of the BJP said that ALL Indians were Hindus in their view. Ya…why would names matter :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        It wouldn’t. The question is one of trust. The people of Germany trust their politicians to not have religion interfere in their decisions. That trust is built up over a long time. The day we Indians have faith in the BJP not to let religion interfere with their decisions, we won’t care about names and all either.

        Unfortunately, there is no shortcut to trust. It has to be earned.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “The people of Germany trust their politicians to not have religion interfere in their decisions. That trust is built up over a long time. The day we Indians have faith in the BJP not to let religion interfere with their decisions, we won’t care about names and all either.”

        ROTFL! How exactly are we Indians supposed to show that we have “faith” in the BJP? Perhaps by giving the BJP the biggest mandate and the only single party mandate in the last 3 decades? Or do you propose that we make you the sole arbiter of when the people have faith in some party :P ?

        FYI, the CDU + CSU coalition ruled the German Republic right from its beginning from 1949 to 1969. Amazing no that right after Hitler…German people found so much “trust” that their government would not impose on free speech, expression, race and religion :)

        You sound exactly like my 78 year old uncle, a die hard loyalist of the British and the Congress :) Recently he was explaining to me, sneeringly about how the British were setting a high standard for civilization by holding a referendum in Scotland. And then he adds…what do we have in our country…a Telugu Desam Party…ha! How will we keep the country together like this?

        When I pointed out that the referendum in Scotland was held at the demand of the “Scottish National party”, which is an exact translation of “Telugu Desam Party” into English with the word Telugu replaced by Scottish, he said it doesn’t matter because they are better anyway.

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        We’ll have faith in the BJP if the BJP doesn’t bring up religion in its policies for even one term. We in India are very forgiving – it doesn’t take much to convince us. Just one term of good behavior is enough to instill faith. Or even less actually. Can’t say for sure.

        Instead of that, we don’t even get 6 months of good behavior.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “We’ll have faith in the BJP if the BJP …. ”

        Who exactly is “We”? Did the BJP come to power without winning the faith of the people?. They won power in a democratic fashion, in fact they are the first party to receive a full majority in 3 decades. People of India have already reposed faith in the BJP.

        Yeah…so who’s “We”? Some kind of special elite who form a ruling class that is above the wishes of the electorate?

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        “We” is:

        1. People who didn’t vote for the BJP
        2. People who voted for the BJP on the plank of development and are now feeling betrayed by non-economic development related stuff.

        You think that is a small percentage of the population?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Then, don’t you think you should have specified that? Why do you say “We in India” as if whole of India is with you? If anything, the official will of “We in India” as expressed through their vote is crystal clear.

        Now lets dissect Group (1) further. This consists of people who did not vote for the BJP. This would consist of 2 subgroups:

        (A) People who voted for a non-NDA party.
        (B) People who did not vote at all or voted NOTA

        In their name, you claim that

        “We’ll have faith in the BJP if the BJP doesn’t bring up religion in its policies for even one term. ”

        Lets examine group (A). So who did these people vote for? Congress? SP? BSP? JDU? RJD? TMC? TRS? MIM? IUML?

        Are you telling me all these parties never don’t bring religion into politics? Which is the party that does not bring religion into politics? LOL! Then, on what basis do you claim that these people will have faith in BJP if BJP doesn’t bring religion into politics?

        May I please have a list of Indian political parties that do not bring religion into politics?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        “But why?”

        Because you claimed that people who did not vote BJP automatically wanted religion out of politics. The vast number of people who voted against BJP/NDA voted for parties like Cong/BSP/SP/JDU/RJD/TMC/TRS/MIM etc.. Then, how can you say those votes were against religion in politics?

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        Just out of curiosity – do you think there is a big part of India that wants religion out of politics?

        As far as I can tell, the Congress brings a lot less religion into politics than the BJP. When did the Congress talk about the Gita? (Or the Koran)? When did the Congress try and rewrite history? When did Congress PMs make references to religious texts?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Ufff…finally managed to drag out the inner Congress supporter :)

        “As far as I can tell, the Congress brings a lot less religion into politics than the BJP. ”

        Hmmm…

        1) Which Indian PM overruled India’s Supreme Court in Shah Bano case by bringing legislation that placed Islamic religious law over the Supreme Court itself? Ans: Rajiv Gandhi.

        2) Which Indian PM said that “Muslims have the first claim on India’s resources”? Ans: Dr. Manmohan Singh.

        3) Which party said that it is okay if Muslims take govt loans and dont pay them back? :Ans: G Parameswara, President, Karnataka Pradesh Cong committee

        4) Which party declared a special govt help of Rs 50,000 for marriages of Muslims only? Ans: K Siddharamaiah, CM, Karnataka

        5) Which party promised reservation of 4.5% for Muslims in its 2014 Lok Sabha manifesto? Ans: Indian National Congress

        6) Which CM wrote a letter to PM Manmohan Singh asking for a constitutional amendment to grant reservations to Muslims nationwide? Ans: Y S Rajasekhara Reddy, CM, Andhra Pradesh.

        7) Which Central govt authored and initiated the Communal Violence Bill, 2013 that punishes only the majority for any communal flare up? Ans: UPA govt.

        But as you once argued, if these things were important, the media would have made a ruckus about it.

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        Oh, please. “Inner Congress supporter”. Drama much? You need to realize that all we have in India is compromises. There is no perfect party. Ideally, the BJP would do only economic development work without the religious bullshit. Instead we have the good with the bad.

        It’s a question of which bad thing you want. Insanity (BJP) vs Incompetence (Congress).

        Now let’s look at your examples. Almost all of them deal not with a specific religion, but the followers of the religion who are considered backward. The government is not pushing an ideology or the Koran. It’s talking about the equivalent of the caste system.

        These are two very different things. It’s a different matter that I don’t agree with these policies, just like I don’t agree with reservations. But to confuse this with “pushing a religion” is a false equivalence.

        I’ll tell you what would have been “pushing a religion”:

        1. Wanting to make the Koran the national book
        2. Asking non-Muslims to leave India

        Let’s start with these two. Have other parties done either? Can you give me even one example of a party that has pushed a religion, rather than talking about the followers from a “caste based” mentality?

        In your examples, parties have simply chosen to use the term “Muslim” as a backward caste. If you don’t see the difference between that and what the BJP is doing…well, I don’t know what to say.

        By the way, talking about “religious law”, keep in mind that this is only with regard to civil matters. Criminal law was, is, and will always remain the same for everyone in India. People often confuse the two. The confusion in the comment is a common one.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        ROTFL! The wrath of a Congress supporter who has been “outed” knows no bounds :)

        Ok, so lets get the backward caste stuff sorted out first. Should I remind you that intellectuals like you usually take great delight in singling out Hindus and bashing them for caste system? Are you then admitting that there is a caste system among Muslims? Never heard a liberal bash Islam over its caste system then :)

        Now, could you please tell me how Sushma Swaraj saying that Gita should be made the national book is any more or less “communal” than Dr. Singh saying that Muslims have “first claim” on India’s resources?

        Should I remind you that you started off by saying that names don’t matter, enacting religious laws does? In light of that, what would you say to the Shah Bano legislation enacted by Rajiv Gandhi?

        What would you say about Communal Violence Bill, 2013 that only punishes majority community for any communal flare up?

        Further, are you seriously going to argue that giving targeted benefits specifically to Muslims does not push Islam? When G Parameswara says that Muslims don’t have to pay back loans, it doesn’t push Islam? When Siddharamaiah declares special marriage gift of Rs 50,000 only to Muslim families, it doesn’t push Islam? Subsidies are the govt’s typical way of pushing things. Governments around the world impose heavy taxes on cigarettes and give huge tax breaks to solar power.

        Oh and here is a specially juicy tidbit for you: In 2013, the Congress government in Kerala issued a circular to all marriage registrars in the state to allow registration of underage marriages for Muslims following the provisions of the “Muslim marriage Act, 1957”. Wonder if this mixes religion with politics…..even at the cost of letting minor girls be raped.

        Oh…and I saved the best for last. There is no Indian law called “Muslim marriage Act, 1957”. The Congress govt just made it up. Still not mixing religion with politics, eh?

        Reply

      • In reply to Abhishek

        Listen if you’re going to get senti and dramatic about this, there’s no point in continuing. A discussion has to based in good faith and mutual respect. Without that, I don’t have any fun. So I urge you to be mature. We are after all, adults no?

        I didn’t say there was a caste system amongst Muslims did I?

        Talking about “Muslims and first claim” refers to a section of people labeled (correctly or incorrectly) as backward. It’s not an ideology. Talking about the Gita being the national book is ideology and not related to any specific people. Do you really not see the difference?

        I’ve already written about my support for a Uniform Civil Code, so I don’t know what else you want me to say on that matter. I don’t agree with the “majority” religion communal bill either. What is so surprising about that?

        “Further, are you seriously going to argue that giving targeted benefits specifically to Muslims does not push Islam?”

        Yup.

        Again, you keep confusing civil law with criminal law. Note how I support a uniform civil code as already mentioned.

        Finally, keep the discussion mature and don’t get personal. I’ve warned you about this before so in your next comment, please don’t mention me again. This is about two ideas being discussed. Just pretend that I don’t exist ok?

        If you persist, I will simply trash your next comment and ban you permanently. Is that clear? I think I’ve shown enough patience with you. Don’t abuse it.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad, you are simply dealing with another of those minority-phobics who have a problem as soon as the word Muslim or Islam appears. Instead of debating a topic based on logic they rely on fanaticism to rebuke the other person instead of discussing something maturely. I’m no supporter of the Congress but I agree with your points about pushing a religious agenda which the BJP obviously does. The thing with these right-wing fanatics is that they just love to be cocky, rude and agrressive to push their point of view. You simply cannot have a calm and sane discussion with them.

        Reply

      • In reply to Manish

        It’s a pity I had to ban him really. It’s sad because he had some good points. He just couldn’t resist the temptation to get personal, which makes me think his agenda wasn’t to have a nice, respectful, clean argument. I’m too old for this bullshit now :(

        Reply

  10. This Blog is typical reflection of today’s indian metality. The mentality that if something doesnt seem immediately usefull then it is useless. These sort of approach is what is termed as non-scientific as science advocates in-depth observations and conclusions of any phenomena. Here the blogger is disrespecting a spirtual and scientific ancient language ( proven by scientists ) by saying that it not used immediately by anyone and hence it is useless and time wasting. The blogger comes to this conclusion without even learning the language himself which is again a non-scientific argument. This suggest bias in the arguments put forward by blogger. For the information of the blogger and other indians who have come to such conclusions let me reiterate few important qualities of sanskrit that make it usefull not only to learn but to speak :
    a. Nearly all modern language have roots to sanskrit ( this includes English and German) . Germany have established an university to learn sanskrit as they think it is root of all ancient science.
    b. Sanskrit is only perfect language amongst all modern language. Maharishi Panini you formulated the sanskrit was the first to discover Backus Naur Form of grammer which is used to develop modern computer programming language . Sanskrit strictly follows BNF so hence can be suitably used to create new programming language whereas English and other modern language are not BNF hence are very limited.
    c. Basic concepts of grammer in sanskrit in is used all modern languages which will make it usefull to grasp new languages quickly.
    d. Ancient works like vedas are written in sanskrit so it is very important for knowledge of ancient science and history of origin of world.

    So please learn sanskrit before you make any opinion about it ( this is a scientific method of observation then conclusion ) . So the government is doing the same , it is trying to give children an idea of sanskrit and maybe it after a few year if kids still dont like learning it then it can be removed from syllabus then.

    And moreover Sanksrit is not a dead language as it is origin of so many language we use today , It will never be dead(only transformed) as it is the origin.

    Reply

Leave a Comment