Though there are strong evidences that Sanskrit was once a widely spoken language, at least until Panini wrote his famous Ashtadhyayi, it is not clearly known why it lost that position and the regional languages overpowered it. Could it be the indifference of the people who spoke it? Or was it because the constructs were too open for interpretations? (See Freedom - Beauty or Challenge? and Sanskrit - Is it a language?) Or just as all great things tend to go out of vogue (to preserve their sanctity?) Sanskrit also disappeared?
Whatever the reason, it would be logical to say that the sheen of Sanskrit was in decline when Paniniya method of study was abandoned and alternate methods like Siddhanta Koumudi and Laghu Siddhanta Koumudi (LSK) were written and adopted by the masses. Panini's Ashtadhyayi goes about presenting the rules of grammar (sutras) in a sequence which seems to be natural for the people who were already familiar with and spoke the language. And we hear that people in those times used to memorise the entire Ashtadhyayi. LSK rearranges the same rules in Ashtadhyayi and organizes them in related chapters like sandhis, nouns, verbs etc. This is a major difference indicating the lost grip of Sanskrit as a native language. The study methods followed thereafter and practised even today are LSK-based and seems practical in today's world. Though some schools claim to follow Paniniya method, it is not purely Ashtadhyayi sequence, because it is almost not possible to comprehend the rules if the original sequence is followed.
In the centuries that followed, as the local languages took root, Sanskrit remained as a link-language - a means of communication between people of different regions - somewhat like English today. Even in Valimiki Ramayana there are references to a language (other than Sanskrit or at least a dialect) spoken in Sita's Mithila, and Hanuman pondering whether he should talk to Sita in a style of Sanskrit used by dwijatis (brahmana, kshatriya etc.). Over the years, Sanskrit played a key role in preserving the culture of the Indian subcontinent and binding different factions spread across it. Ashtadhyayi, LSK and other supporting works of various grammarians provided a solid framework which is essential for a link-language. The structure and the constructs of the language, which had already a strong scientific base, were well-defined with logical treatises.
The immense amount of literary works that was created in Sanskrit largely complies with the well-defined grammatical structures. However, in Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata and works of many later scholars like Kalidasa, Dandi etc. there are rare cases of word-usages that seem to deviate from the traditional grammar rules. How are these deviations to be justified? In case of Vedas, that would be easy, as one could argue that they are not man-written, but God's message to the sages. Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed by great sages, so those rare deviations found in those works and similar ones are termed as "arsha" (made by or related to sages). Therefore they are acceptable. What about the poets like Kalidasa and Dandi? Deviation such eminent figures is termed "shishta prayoga" (practice by eminent people).
Here comes the the problem. Citing these rare deviations by famous poets and personalities, some later writers might repeat them in their works. Whether such deviated usages were accepted in speech is questionable (as Sanskrit's position at those times itself is obscure). Students and veterans of Sanskrit (especially today) take fancy to such rare usages and justify such usages by themselves. But this practice needs a second thought. "Arsha" was sagely composition. Are we sages of that stature? Many sages have done strange things in their lives albeit rarely. That does not mean the general population is supposed to follow those rare examples. And poets like Kalidasa, Dandi etc. might have resorted to deviations for various reasons - like to fit the words into metres, to bring out the poetic meaning, or just by sheer ignorance. Many scholars criticise a bunch of grammatical errors in Kalidasa's works. Incorrect usages in population can be generally attributed to the so-called "experts" who happily and painstakingly find such non-compliant usages from the ocean of literary works, and then publish them to the masses, giving it a shade of acceptance.
One or two non-compliant usages + publish by "researcher" = mass acceptance
If we keep justifying modern incorrect usages citing such rare occurrences, it is like choosing to imitate one bad deed of a great person who otherwise lived perfect his entire life (Mahatma Gandhi stole and lied, me too!).
No comments:
Post a Comment