Sirs:
I read with dismay that Kannada is to be recognized as a classical language. Like French, English, and German, Kannada is a rich and worthy language. But India has only two true indigenous classical languages -- Sanskrit and Tamil, each of which is considerably older than the other Indian languages and has an independent literary tradition. Tamil, not known as well as it should be in the rest of India, has an early literature that is entirely independent of Sanskrit, both in its literary forms and its vocabulary. This is not true of Kannada, whose earliest writings are deeply indebted to and imitative of Sanskrit. The earliest work in the language is Kaviraajamaarga, whose title and content are entirely based on Sanskrit. Kannada does not satisfy two of the criteria listed by the Government of India for a classical language. First, it is not 1500 years old. The fact that a Kannada dialect may have possibly influenced some Tamil form hardly means it has texts 1500 years old. Nor is it possible to claim that its literary tradition is original. Unlike that of Tamil, which is genuinely original, the Kannada tradition follows Sanskrit quite faithfully. It is not original by any stretch of the imagination. A comparison of Kavirajamarga with the Tolkappiyam would make this point perfectly clear. The Kannada scholars feel they have achieved a victory, no doubt, but in reality all they have accomplished is to foist on the world and on Kannada speakers themselves a myth. To ignore the true richness of one's language and to base one's appreciation of it on a falsehood does no one any good. The study of language and literature in India is highly political -- Kannada is hardly the only language that suffers from this situation.
Sincerely,
George Hart,
Professor of Tamil,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA, USA
Sirs:
I read with dismay that Telugu will be recognized as a classical language. Like French, English, and German, Telugu is a rich and worthy language. But India has only two true indigenous classical languages -- Sanskrit and Tamil, each of which is considerably older than the other Indian languages and has an independent literary tradition. Tamil, not known as well as it should be in the rest of India, has an early literature that is entirely independent of Sanskrit, both in its literary forms and its vocabulary. This is not true of Telugu, whose earliest writings are deeply indebted to and imitative of Sanskrit. The same can be said of Kannada. The rush to label languages as classical that are nothing of the sort can do nothing but harm those languages. I could claim English, my own native language, as classical (with at least as much justification as the Telugu scholars have for claiming their language is classical), but I would only succeed in detracting attention from the true worth of the language while propagating a myth. Telugu and Kannada are not, by any rational criterion, classical languages. That its scholars insist on what is patently false seems bizarre, for it is utterly unwarranted by the great literary traditions that they study. This rush to mythologize language suggests to me that the study of literature in India is still immature. No English or French scholar in the West would question the classical status of Greek or rush to give the same status to their own language. Rather, scholars study Greek in order to better understand their own literatures. If only scholars of modern Indian languages had such an unbiased view! If Telugu and Kannada scholars would study Tamil, they would find their understanding of their own traditions multiplied many times. The same is true of Tamil scholars, who often eschew the study of Sanskrit and of other Indian languages. The study of Sanskrit will broaden the understanding of Tamil just as the study of Tamil will benefit Sanskrit scholars. I find myself at a loss to understand why scholars of Indian languages must be so parochial. To claim one's language is something it is not, or to fail to study other languages and traditions that throw light on one's own, are, to my mind, marks of a scholarly culture that is still undeveloped and immature.
Sincerely,
George Hart,
Professor of Tamil,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA, USA
I read with dismay that Kannada is to be recognized as a classical language. Like French, English, and German, Kannada is a rich and worthy language. But India has only two true indigenous classical languages -- Sanskrit and Tamil, each of which is considerably older than the other Indian languages and has an independent literary tradition. Tamil, not known as well as it should be in the rest of India, has an early literature that is entirely independent of Sanskrit, both in its literary forms and its vocabulary. This is not true of Kannada, whose earliest writings are deeply indebted to and imitative of Sanskrit. The earliest work in the language is Kaviraajamaarga, whose title and content are entirely based on Sanskrit. Kannada does not satisfy two of the criteria listed by the Government of India for a classical language. First, it is not 1500 years old. The fact that a Kannada dialect may have possibly influenced some Tamil form hardly means it has texts 1500 years old. Nor is it possible to claim that its literary tradition is original. Unlike that of Tamil, which is genuinely original, the Kannada tradition follows Sanskrit quite faithfully. It is not original by any stretch of the imagination. A comparison of Kavirajamarga with the Tolkappiyam would make this point perfectly clear. The Kannada scholars feel they have achieved a victory, no doubt, but in reality all they have accomplished is to foist on the world and on Kannada speakers themselves a myth. To ignore the true richness of one's language and to base one's appreciation of it on a falsehood does no one any good. The study of language and literature in India is highly political -- Kannada is hardly the only language that suffers from this situation.
Sincerely,
George Hart,
Professor of Tamil,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA, USA
Sirs:
I read with dismay that Telugu will be recognized as a classical language. Like French, English, and German, Telugu is a rich and worthy language. But India has only two true indigenous classical languages -- Sanskrit and Tamil, each of which is considerably older than the other Indian languages and has an independent literary tradition. Tamil, not known as well as it should be in the rest of India, has an early literature that is entirely independent of Sanskrit, both in its literary forms and its vocabulary. This is not true of Telugu, whose earliest writings are deeply indebted to and imitative of Sanskrit. The same can be said of Kannada. The rush to label languages as classical that are nothing of the sort can do nothing but harm those languages. I could claim English, my own native language, as classical (with at least as much justification as the Telugu scholars have for claiming their language is classical), but I would only succeed in detracting attention from the true worth of the language while propagating a myth. Telugu and Kannada are not, by any rational criterion, classical languages. That its scholars insist on what is patently false seems bizarre, for it is utterly unwarranted by the great literary traditions that they study. This rush to mythologize language suggests to me that the study of literature in India is still immature. No English or French scholar in the West would question the classical status of Greek or rush to give the same status to their own language. Rather, scholars study Greek in order to better understand their own literatures. If only scholars of modern Indian languages had such an unbiased view! If Telugu and Kannada scholars would study Tamil, they would find their understanding of their own traditions multiplied many times. The same is true of Tamil scholars, who often eschew the study of Sanskrit and of other Indian languages. The study of Sanskrit will broaden the understanding of Tamil just as the study of Tamil will benefit Sanskrit scholars. I find myself at a loss to understand why scholars of Indian languages must be so parochial. To claim one's language is something it is not, or to fail to study other languages and traditions that throw light on one's own, are, to my mind, marks of a scholarly culture that is still undeveloped and immature.
Sincerely,
George Hart,
Professor of Tamil,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA, USA
