Is Sanskrit an Original Language?

R.S. Tiwary

(A)

The question posed in the title bristles with difficulties. The general enunciation of Sanskrit being the original language rules the minds of an overwhelming section of Indian scholars and in the University circles. The postulate is firmly established. Very often, however, in the course of my Sanskrit writing, the question has agitated my mind.

That Sanskrit is regarded as the Language of Gods, “Devavani” traditionally amongst us, points to a different assumption. These “gods”, frankly speaking, had not descended on the murky earth from their parnassian heights or from “Indrapuri” in the super-ethereal regions. They symbolised a certain level of culture and purity of thought and living, immune from the taints of the mortal flesh. Thus they were certainly earthly beings, distinguished from the common run of humanity by virtue of their extra-ordinary cultural and metaphysical achievements. They spoke Sanskrit which was also distinguished in some way or the other from the common popular parlance.

Let us examine the etymology of the term “Sanskrit”. This word is derived from the root “Kri”, preceded by the prefix “Sam” and succeeded by the suffix “Kta”, and thus denotes a language which has been “Sanskarita” or “refined”, “purged from oddities” et cetera. In this wise, this “Deva­vani” is a product of the refinement of an original tongue, used by the commonalty of the people in the prehistoric times of antiquity. The scholars of the West, too, have recognized Sanskrit as the earliest, the oldest language prevalent among mankind. But, then, too, the postulate cannot be refuted any reasonably that it is the Offspring of a tongue, used by the populace at large in some hoary antiquity with which we are not acquainted today.

The earliest verbal model of Sanskrit is available in the Vedas which contain the institutional knowledge of the “Rishis”, the Seers, who articulated their feelings and aspirations in the Vedic hymns which partook both of a mundane and extra-mundane character. None can be rashly bold enough to assert that the language of the Vedic “Richas” is the common tongue of the common people. The Vedic Seers belonged to an enlightened section of humanity and speak an enlightened language, purged from the oddities of the original tongue and that was Sanskrit.

This original tongue was “Prakrita”. The word “Prakrita” is derived from “Prakriti” which denotes “naturalness”, unvarnished and unpolished. “Prakrita” has been defined by a certain scholar as: “Natural use of utterance unmodified by rules of grammar etc., is “Prakriti”; from this “Prakriti” is born the language called ‘Prakrita’”. That is to say, the language Prakrita is the original language, and when it underwent a sort of purging or clarification, cricumscribed by definite rules and norms, it became Sanskrit or to use Valmiki, the author of the celebrated Epic, The Ramayana, “Sanskrita” (in the feminine gender) -- “Sanskrit” being the Neuter gender.

(B)

It should be borne in mind that changes take place in the structure of a tongue with passage of time and accordingly, even “Prakrita”, the untrammelled tongue of the people at large, undergoes changes. That gives rise to a variety of “Prakritas”. And concurrently, the purified language, “Sanskrit”, too, undergoes changes in a parallel fashion. Just as the race of the masses continues from age to age, so also the limited clan of the enlightened continues from age to age. To use a Biblical expression, “the hewers of wood and drawers of water” take on different complexions in the whirligig of time and their tongues undergo changes with the change of their environs. But, the basic postulate remains unimpaired, namely, that the tongue of the common populace keeps always being purged and clarified. That explains the marked and pronounced dichotomy between the Vedic Sanskrit and the secular Sanskrit in which the holy Epic, The Ramayana, was composed by Valmiki, celebrated as the “Adi-Kavi”, the Original Poet. Let it be clearly understood that Valmiki is glorified as the Original poet in relation to the secular Sanskrit, not the Vedic Sanskrit. The grammars of the two systems of Sanskrit differ from each other though the vocabularies of the two varieties do not register any violent divergence.

(C)

The majority of the scholars, subscribing to the view of Sanskrit being the original language, have enunciated the evolution of the languages, Pali, Prakrit and Apabhransha from the last the modem Languages, namely Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi etc., having sprung up. Here, the same initial question arises: Is Sanskrit the original language? And, the etymological significance rules out this postulate. Another related question needs to be spotlighted in this context. Almost all languages, ancient or modem, are christened after the regions where they are and were spoken and used in everyday transactions. For example, Greek was the language of the ancient Greeks; Latin was the language of a district of Rome, called Latinum; French the language of France and so on. But, Sanskrit has no such regional associations. Pali, the first descendant of Sanskrit, according to this category of scholars, through which Lord Buddha, the Enlightened One, preached his new religion, has a regional nomenclature. Coming to Prakrita, also we have different varieties of Prakritas, styled as Shauraseni, Maaharashtri etc., that is, they have acquired regional associations.

In this regard, let us affirm that the earliest users of Sanskrit, the cultured and educated sections of the Aryans, regarded the polished and purified tongue as of universal application and significance and simply deemed it proper to distinguish their medium of expression from the tongue of the common rabble by desisgnating it “Sanskrit”. Even Pali has no regional association since it was used by the Enlightened One (The Buddha) for the spiritual betterment of the people who were given to killing animals in the “Yajnas” (sacrifices).

That is to say, Pali was oriented to the psychic amelioration of all mankind which stood in the way of its being regionally christened.

Coming to the Prakritas, their users had proliferated throughout the entire northern part of the country, and the religious savour having by now evaporated, different varieties of Prakrit were recognised and christened according to the regions where they were spoken as a rule.

It should be borne in mind, however, that these later ramifications in the domain of language had all developed and evolved from the original “Prakrit”, that is, the natural medium of exchange of views, hopes and apprehensions, used by the masses. It is a wrong perspective to view them as having sprung up from Sanskrit. As said earlier, the tongues of the people at large kept on changing, yielding place to newer and newer linguistic textures and compositions even as the Vedic Sanskrit, the refined language of the Vedic Seers, kept changing with passage of centuries until it yielded place to the secular Sanskrit. This latter Sanskrit, since it was the language of the cultured, enlightened elite did not register rapid changes in its texture until Panini, the world-famed researcher in the realms of language, collected models of syntax prevalent among the educated elite in diverse parts of the country, devoting special attention to the “roots” (the “Dhatus”. He has enumerated around four thousand roots in his “Ashtadhyayi”; has classified them into ten groups, known as “ganas”, thus investing Sanskrit with a halo of its own, and also blocking the road of its further progress.

The point sought to be driven home is that Prakrit, the original tongue of the masses from the Vedic times downwards, underwent stages in plurality of transformation while Sanskrit, the refined language of the elite, remained relatively fixed, moored to its basic roots. Which explains how or why the area of Secular Sanskrit - Sanskrit as it is learnt and used by us today remained undivided multifariously.

Vararuchi, the eminent scholar of the Sanskrit language, holds that Sanskrit is “Prakritih” (nature); from that springs “Prakritam”. How a tongue which is “refined”, purged of impurities, can be regarded as “Prakritam” – which is Nature, untutored medium of expression, passes comprehension. Only one explanation bids fair to be adduced: Vararuchi is alluding to the language of the elite. Being himself a respectable member of the elitist community: considers the verbal vehicle of expression, obtaining in his own minority sector of the larger Indian society, as “Prakritih”, the natural mode of speech.

The time-division of the languages, starting from Sanskrit and reaching down to modem Aryan languages, according to which “Apabhranshas”, the immediate predecessors of the modem languages of North India, such as, Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, et cetera, are propounded to have come and continued into existence, that is, from 500 A.D. to 1000 A.D. (vide ‘Hindi- Sahitya ka Itihas’, edited by Dr. Nagendra), is falsified by an allusion in the “Kavya-mimansa” of Acharya Rajshekhara of the ninth-tenth century A.D. In the tenth chapter of truncated copy available today of “Kavya-mimansa’, the writer has described the “Raja-sabhas” (Royal assemblies) in which poets of the different languages recited their poems and were awarded prizes and distinctions. In his account concerned, he has given details of the seating arrangements for the poets of the different languages. There he alludes to allocation of seats to the poets vis-­a-vis the royal throne, and he mentions poets of Sanskrit, Prakrit and Apabhransha together. That means that Prakrit, Apabhranaha and “Bhutabhasha” - all co-existed and were used as vehicles of literary expression. Therefore, how can Prakrit be said to have yielded place to Apabhransha towards the beginning of the sixth century A.D.?

To sum up, the very premise that Sanskrit is the original language is wrong and ill-founded. Prakrit is and remains the original language, its texture changing with the passage of centuries, giving rise to manifold Prakritas, to wit, modes of speech coming to be “naturalised” and spoken and used for intra-social communication simultaneously-Sanskrit always remaining the language of the elitist minority, which continued diminishing in strength by reason of its stereo-typed parameters of grammar which came to be studied as an altogether distinct “Shastra”, branch of learning, with the result that today, the Sanskrit­knowing section of Indian society has been drastically reduced in size and proportion.

Let us hope a second thought will be bestowed on the question of Sanskrit being the original language.