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