Should our texts be called "Classical" and hence assumed dead like Greek/Latin Classics?
This post has also been blogged here.
After a Change.org petition titled “Removal of Sheldon Pollock as mentor and Chief editor of Murty classical library” dated Feb 26, 2016, initiated by 132 human beings from diverse walks of life (including academicians from fields of Sanskrit, Science, Mathematics and others), with 15993 signatories (as of Mar 10 0830 hrs (GMT +5:30)), many popular media houses had carried a response, apparently from Rohan Murthy, which includes the following:
"
It is quite rich to sit in the peanut gallery, pass comments and throw empty shells at those who are actually rolling their sleeves up and working on the ground...I want to hear in which book we have published, in which line or page there is a problem, and in what context, and why."
Since what Rohan Murthy is purported to have said includes his generous consideration to hear “...in which line or page there is a problem, and in what context, and why”, here are two lines (one from the website and one from all of the books):
- The Line 1 of MCLI’s 'Our mission': “To present the greatest literary works of India from the past two millennia to the largest readership in the world is the mission of the Murty Classical Library of India."
- The name of the library: “Murty Classical Library of India”
What is the problem and in what context?
1. In Line 1 of the mission statement, usage of the word “Greatest” in the first line of “Our Mission” (without qualification of what constitutes “Greatest” and therefore presumably in the general sense of the word), especially in context of Sheldon Pollock’s introduction to the series “Why a Classical Library of India?” and more specifically, in context of the ‘nuance’ ascribed to the word “Classical”
by Sheldon Pollock
2. In the name of the Library, usage of the word “Classical” without including a * (or any other symbol) after the word or without adding something visual to indicate upfront, the highly nuanced (almost antonymic-to-itself, counter-intuitive. alternative) usage of the word “Classical”
Why is it a problem?
Is it not a problem (of misleading "the greatest readership in the world", for one) to go ahead and make a claim (with the weight of credibility such as that of Sheldon Pollock and the Murthys), of presenting the “Greatest” literary works of India, as part of a Library that includes the word “Classical” in its title, where what is implied by “Classical” is nuanced to such a degree by the General Editor (and author of “The death of Sanskrit”) Sheldon Pollock, that the word “Classical" becomes, in some strategically crucial way, an antonym of itself, both in the general sense of the word in every day life and in academia.
To better understand the implications of what is at stake in using “Greatest” and “Classical” in the same sentence (where one seems to mean what it generally means and where one deliberately defined to mean, in some ways, its own opposite), let us start by revisiting the meaning of the word “Classical”, in the general sense of the word (Oxford definition).
clas·si·cal
[ˈklasək(ə)l] ADJECTIVE
1. of or relating to ancient Greek or Latin literature, art, or culture:
"classical mythology" synonyms:
ancient Greek ·
Hellenic ·
Attic ·
Latin · ancient Roman
2. (typically of a form of art) regarded as representing an exemplary standard; traditional and long-established in form or style:
synonyms:
traditional ·
long-established ·
serious ·
highbrow
3. of or relating to the first significant period of an area of study:
"classical mechanics”
In light of the above, the literature of Rig Veda (in Sanskrit), I opine, will be considered (by hundreds of millions in India and the world) “Classical”, on 2 out of 3 “Oxford" expansions above (second and third, to be specific), i.e., 'exemplary standard, traditional and long-established in form or style, of or relating the first significant period of an area of study', and certainly “Greatest", to hundreds of millions of Indians (particularly Hindus who believe in Vedanta)
Now, before getting to the rationale, included in Sheldon Pollock’s introduction, on what makes MCLI "a library of “classical” literature" and what makes "Indian literature “classic”", it might not be out of place to revisit:
> what the Minister of Tourism & Culture Ambika Soni told the Rajya Sabha as the criteria laid down to determine the eligibility of languages to be considered for classification as a "Classical Language” by Government of India, namely:
"
High antiquity of its early texts/recorded history over a period of 1500–2000 years; a body of ancient literature/texts, which is considered a valuable heritage by generations of speakers; the literary tradition be original and not borrowed from another speech community; the classical language and literature being distinct from modern, there may also be a discontinuity between the classical language and its later forms or its offshoots."
> the languages declared "classical language" by Government of India (GOI), till date: Tamil (in 2004), Sanskrit (in 2005), Kannada (in 2008), Telugu (in 2008), Malayalam (in 2013) and Odia (in 2014)
Though the above criteria from GOI is for Languages and not for Literature, this was included above to facilitate each reader to quickly assess for oneself, whether or not GOI’s interpretation of the word classical is by and large in keeping with its general import.
As for Sheldon Pollock’s “Classical”, let us read first read an excerpt from his introduction in the MCLI website:
"The transformation of Indian languages in the modern period and the ever-increasing gap in knowledge of their premodern varieties explain MCLI’s cutoff point of 1800. But what makes this a library of “classical” literature? The word itself has its origins in a tradition very distant from India, namely Latin, and thinkers as diverse as C.-A. Sainte-Beuve, T. S. Eliot, and Frank Kermode who have tried to gauge the meaning of that term for our era have used the Western tradition as their touchstone. The key characteristics of their “classic,” namely “universality” and “perpetual contemporaneity,” turn out, unsurprisingly, to be Western, and hence not so universal or contemporary after all.
What do we think makes Indian works “classic”? It might in fact be their very resistance to contemporaneity and universality, that is, their capacity to communicate the vast variety of the human past.”
In his “brief reflection of the ideas of “Classic” itself, Pollock writes (see
Crisis in the Classics) “I follow an entirely different logic, abandoning the “normative significance” of “classical” and the subjectivism and illegitimate generalization of the present that such normativity always smuggles in.”
In the same article, he goes on to add: “We may unhesitatingly grant the premise that classical culture, Sanskrit for example, offers at one and the same time a record of civilization and a record of barbarism, of extraordinary inequality and other social poisons. Once we all agree on the toxicity of this discourse, however, there will be contestation over how to overcome it.”
He then makes his position clear by stating “
In my view, you do not transcend inequality, to the degree it is a conceptual category taking some of its force from traditional discourse, by outlawing the authors and burning the discourses, or indeed by trying to forget them; you transcend inequality by mastering and overmastering those discourses through study and critique. You cannot simply go around a tradition to overcome it, if that is what you wish to do; you must go through it. You only transform a dominant culture by outsmarting it. That, I believe, is precisely what some of India’s most disruptive thinkers, such as Dr. Ambedkar, sought to do, though they were not as successful as they might have been had they had access to all the tools of a critical philology necessary to the
task. “
Let us now refresh how we got to all this in the first place: Rohan Murthy asking “in which line or page there is a problem, and in what context, and why” and the response articulated at the top of this piece (reproduced immediately below to help reader avoid going back and forth):
What is the problem and in what context?
1. In Line 1 of the mission statement, usage of the word “Greatest” in the first line of “Our Mission” (without qualification of what constitutes “Greatest” and presumably in the general sense of the word), especially in context of Sheldon Pollock’s introduction to the series “Why a Classical Library of India?” and more specifically, in context of the ‘nuance’ ascribed to the word “Classical” by Sheldon Pollock
2. In name of the Library, usage of the word “Classical” without including a * (or any other symbol) after the word or without adding something visual to indicate upfront, the highly nuanced (almost antonymic-to-itself, counter-intuitive, alterative) usage of the word “Classical”
Why is it a problem?
Is it not a problem (of misleading "the greatest readership in the world", for one) to go ahead and make a claim (with the weight of credibility such as that of Sheldon Pollock and the Murthys), of presenting the “Greatest” literary works of India, as part of a Library that includes the word “Classical” in its title, where what is implied by “Classical” is nuanced to such a degree by the General Editor (and author of “The death of Sanskrit”) Sheldon Pollock, that the word “Classical" becomes, in some strategically crucial way, an antonym of itself, both in the general sense of the word in every day life and in academia.
Perhaps the solution/clue to the problem of usage of “Classical” in MCLI’s title, lies in the one word that is common in two other titles - Wendy Doniger’s book “The Hindus: An Alternative History” and Sheldon Pollock’s paper “
The alternative classicism of classical India” – the common word being: “Alternative”!
In avoiding the word “Alternative” in the website yet using the word “Classical” in the title of the Library, but cleverly changing its import to mean almost the opposite of itself (and implying “Alternative”); and even more cleverly legitimizing the need to change the import on the pretext of not applying a “Western” lens to an Indian context (to earn credibility), is perhaps where lies the root of the problem of “Murty Classical Library of India” using the word “Classical” as-is in its title and claiming to present “the
greatest literary works of India”
In view of all the above, let us look at one serious implication – the existential crisis of the
Rig Veda (in Sanskrit), in the MCLI world.
If Rig Veda is deemed ineligible to be part of the MCLI world, in light of the “alternative” import ascribed to the word “Classical” by Pollock, will not:
- “The largest readership in the world” be deprived of top-notch translation of what UNESCO has considered “memory of the world”?
- MCLI be seen as “misleading” by millions, in usage of the word “Greatest” in its mission statement and the word “Classical” in its title without qualification?
If Rig Veda (in Sanskrit) is included eventually in MCLI, will not MCLI be subtly imposing the “dominant” chronology and force-fitting Rig Veda into the “…last two millennia” when the chronology from many of the traditionalists may vary?
In view of the existential criteria of a “memory of the world” Rig Veda in the MCLI world, and the political identity and purport that Professor Pollock has induced into some of the “Classical” literature by nuancing the word “Classical”, are the four questions raised by in the petition not legitimate?
1. How will certain Sanskrit words that are non-translatable be treated?
2. What will be the posture adopted towards the “Foreign Aryan Theory” and other such controversial theories including chronologies?
3. What will be assumed concerning the links between ancient texts and present-day social and political problems?
4. Will the theoretical methods developed in Europe in the context of the history of ancient Europe, be used to interpret Indian texts, or will there first be open discussions with Indians on the use of Indian systems of interpretations?
The petition begins with “We the undersigned would like to convey our deep appreciation for your good intentions and financial commitment to establish the Murty Classical Library of India, a landmark project to translate 500 volumes of traditional Indian literature into English. We appreciate the motives of making our civilization’s great literature available to the modern youth who are educated in English, and who are unfortunately not trained in Indian languages.” and the petition ends with “We urge you to invite critics of Sheldon Pollock and the approaches being followed in his project, for open and frank discussions. We are convinced that this would lead to a dramatic improvement in your project and also avoid any adverse outcome.”
Rohan asked to hear “in which line or page there is a problem, and in what context, and why”: One answer is – the “Title” itself (for the as-is usage of “Classical”), and the first line of the Mission statement (for the usage “Greatest” and “Classical”). How about starting with “Classical”, Rohan? Should texts still being used in every day lives be called “Classical” at all?
