Decline of Sanskrit

[1983-2011]

There are a number of sociolinguistic studies of spoken Sanskrit which strongly suggest that oral use of Sanskrit is limited, with its development having ceased sometime in the past. Accordingly, says Pollock (2001), "most observers would agree that, in some crucial way, Sanskrit is dead". He describes it in comparison with the "dead" language of Latin: Both died slowly, and earliest as a vehicle of literary expression, while much longer retaining significance for learned discourse with its universalist claims. Both were subject to periodic renewals or forced rebirths, sometimes in connection with a politics of translocal aspiration… At the same time… both came to be ever more exclusively associated with narrow forms of religion and priestcraft, despite centuries of a secular aesthetic. The decline of Sanskrit use in literary and political circles was likely due to a weakening of the political institutions that supported it, and to heightened competition with vernacular languages seeking literary-cultural dignity. There was regional variation in the forcefulness of these vernacular movements and Sanskrit declined in different ways across the Indian subcontinent. For example, in Kashmir, Kashmiri was used alongside Sanskrit as the language of literature after the 13th century. Sanskrit works from the Vijayanagara Empire failed to circulate outside their place and time of composition. By contrast, works in Kannada and Telugu flourished. Despite this presumed "death" of Sanskrit and the literary use of vernacular languages, Sanskrit continued to be used in literary cultures in India, and those who could read vernacular languages could also read Sanskrit. It did mean that Sanskrit was not used to express changing forms of subjectivity and sociality embodied and conceptualized in the modern age. Instead, it was reduced to "reinscription and restatements" of ideas already explored, and any creativity in Sanskrit was restricted to religious hymns and verses. Hanneder (2002) and Hatcher (2007) contest Pollock's characterization, pointing out that modern works continue to be produced in Sanskrit: On a more public level the statement that Sanskrit is a dead language is misleading, for Sanskrit is quite obviously not as dead as other dead languages and the fact that it is spoken, written and read will probably convince most people that it cannot be a dead language in the most common usage of the term. Pollock’s notion of the “death of Sanskrit†remains in this unclear realm between academia and public opinion when he says that “most observers would agree that, in some crucial way, Sanskrit is dead†—Hanneder (2002:294) Hanneder (2009) argues that modern works in Sanskrit are either ignored or their "modernity" contested. The Sahitya Akademi has had, since 1967, an award for the best creative work written that year in Sanskrit. In 2009, Satyavrat Shastri became the first Sanskrit author to win the Jnanpith Award, India's highest literary award.

What are the reasons for the decline in Sanskrit and how are the sacred texts of Hinduism understood by the practicing Hindus?

[punjabi_khota]

Why is it dead ? Because its impractical for everyday conversation. How do hindus understand sacred texts ? Same way christian's dont need to learn hebrew and pakis dont know arabic :hehe:

[ganeshran]

Sanskrit is way too complicated to be used for daily conversation. Even in its heyday, it wasnt the language of choice of the masses

[Aaku]

I had language sanskrit fr 4years school mein :beee: Aham coolum asti. Pkay gajah asti. :D

[ganeshran]

Phalam Phaley Phalani Sanskrit kabhi na aani. Aani toh phir bhool jaani, Aur masterji se maar khaani :D

[Sir john]

i too had it in my school for 3 years,always got passing marks in it. sanskrit sandhi always trouble me. :wall:

[Sid]

I also studied Sanskrit for 4 years from class 5th to 8th :D

[akshayxyz]

IMO. It was never suitable for masses. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics#Oral_tradition