1*As already stated, it is the opinion of this Commission, that a good grounding in Sanskrit is necessary for the study of Hindi.

107

Sanskrit being made a compulsory subject in Secondary, Schools had been generally accepted. In many parts of the country it was brought to our notice that, though there was nothing against Sanskrit as a subject in the University curriculum or the Secondary School curriculum, and though, theoretically, whoever wished to take Sanskrit might take it, for all practical purposes, there was frequently a very great difficulty for students, who wished to read Sanskrit, to obtain instruction in the language. For a variety of reasons, mostly non- academic, schools are not providing teachers for Sanskrit. This is found even in Government schools, and the result is that a number of students who do desire to study Sanskrit are being turned away. There are certain conditions imposed in some areas, such as that unless a suitable number of Sanskrit students-say 45-are available in a school, provision for a Sanskrit teacher cannot or need not be made. This acts as a vicious circle : on the plea that there are not, enough students offering Sanskrit, provision for teaching Sanskrit is abolished ; and because such provision is abolished, students are not able to take Sanskrit. This is a matter which must be rectified at once. There should be a general provision in all schools, Government or private, for the teaching of Sanskrit. The argument of financial burden should not be advanced against the compulsory provision in schools for the teaching of such an essential subject as Sanskrit. Failure to provide for the teaching of Sanskrit In a school in India whether as a compulsory subject or as an optional subject is something unthinkable, and no excuse can be accepted for this. This kind of attitude to Sanskrit, which is overtly apathetic but may be covertly hostile, needs to be put a stop to immediately.

33. It was further brought to the notice of the Commission that, in some States, there were various technical difficulties in the way of a student who wished to take Sanskrit as an optional subject. For instance, students selecting a particular course or a particular combination of subjects are automatically prevented from' taking up Sanskrit as one of their subjects. The Commission recommends that no student should be barred for any reason, from offering Sanskrit as one of his subjects.

2. Two Systems of Sanskrit Education

34. In India there exist today two distinct patterns of specialised study of Sanskrit. There are, on the one hand, the Pathasalas in which Sanskrit is taught and learnt more or less according to the ageold traditional methods; and, on the other, there are the Universities and Colleges of Western type where Sanskrit is studied as a special subject along modem lines. This state of things regarding higher classical studies is peculiar to India.' For, in Western countries, higher classical studies generally form an integral part of the University education and hardly have any place outside the Universities. The dual system of Sanskrit education in India is, in a sense, a legacy of the British rule. As has been pointed out in Chapter 11, originally, Sanskrit was studied only in the Pathasalas. Even the institutes of higher studies, which were first founded under the auspices of the

108

East India Company, were of the nature of Pathasalas, where Sanskrit was studied exclusively, and that too in the traditional way. When, however, the educational policy of the Company came to be re- orientated in the light of the new ideal of "Western Knowledge through English", and when, in consequence of this, English Schools and Colleges-and ultimately the three Universities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madrascame to be established, Sanskrit began to be regarded as one of the several subjects prescribed for study and examination. Of course, the Universities and Colleges did provide for Sanskrit being chosen by students as their special subject of study, but the instruction in that subject used to be given along lines similar to those obtaining in English Universities with regard to the Classics. Thus the Pathasalas where Sanskrit was studied exclusively and in the traditional way, and the Universities and Colleges where Sanskrit could be taken as a special subject and was studied along modern lines-both existed side by side.

35. There can be no doubt that both these systems of Sanskrit education have their merits and defects. The traditional method of Sanskrit education has retained many of the good points of the educational system in ancient India. By and large, ancient Indian education may be said to have had a threefold aim : acquisition of knowledge, preparation for shouldering the prospective social responsibilities, and, above all, formation of character. To begin with the last aim. As we have seen, ancient Indian education was essentially personal and religious. The remarkably close contact between the teacher and the pupil, which was a special feature of ancient Indian education and which had been, to a large extent, preserved also in later Pathasalas, went a long way in inculcating in the pupil a sound moral character. Education was a kind of religious initiation; and the teacher's function was not merely to stuff the pupil's mind with the knowledge concerning a variety of subjects, but he had to act as a true spiritual guru of the pupil-as a veritable guide, friend and philosopher. For him, example was far more important than precept. It has been well said that, according to the ancient Indian educational system, man taught man, while, in modern times, a method teaches a mass. Personal devotion and attachment to an individual teacher worked in ancient times as a far more potent influence in the life of a student than a general loyalty to an institution as at present. This guru-sisya-bhava (teacher-pupil relationship) was certainly a strong point of the Pathasalas. As regards acquisition of knowledge, the atmosphere of the Pathasalas was generally quite conducive to it. In an ideal Pathasala, there was no rigidity regarding time-table and curriculum. Deep and intensive study of a particular sastra was what was aimed at. and this mainly involved a very thorough understanding of the basic texts of that sastra. Naturally, the teaching of the texts was never done in a superficial or haphazard manner. Ample scope was thus afforded to a pupil to know almost everything of something. He learnt it all by heart (kanthagata vidya) and was always ready with whatever he had learnt (upasthiti), without having had to refer to any texts, notes or commentaries.

109

36. A person, who had successfully completed his training in a Pathasala, became sufficiently well equipped for fulfilling his obligations to the community, primarily as teacher, preacher and priest. In return, he commanded the greatest respect from the community and could always earn, through grants of land, other gifts and daksina, enough for a comfortable living. The Pathasala, training must, accordingly, be said to have been in, no way deficient even in respect of the second aim of education.

37. It must, however, be remembered that what has been said above is pertinent only as regards an ideal Pathasala. Such Pathasalas had long become a thing of the past, and the so-called traditional pattern of Sanskrit education which has been in vogue in the recent times has departed considerably from the age-old ideal. And this was, indeed, quite inevitable in view of the economic, social and political conditions in the country which had been changing fast and fundamentally. It was but natural that the ancient Pathasala ideal should find it difficult to adjust itself to the new context. The traditional system of education began to prove quite inadequate in many respects. In this connection, it must be pointed out that there was nothing inherently defective in that system. Indeed, what were regarded 'as merits under a particular set of circumstances came to be looked upon as defects under another set of circumstances.

38. Perhaps the chief defect of the Pathasala system was its lack of adaptability to the changing situation. It remained static and stereotyped. The followers of that system seemed to live and work in a kind of academic isolation. The Pathasalas. continued to encourage the same old tendency towards specialisation only in one particular sastra, to the exclusion of other sastras. A student, who went through such training, was often required to cram things without discriminating between what was essential and what was not. What was perhaps worse, he invariably pursued an isolated line of thought. This resulted in the knowledge, acquired by him in a Pathasala, becoming mechanical and lopsided.

39. Moreover, even in the course of the study of the, particular sastra in which a student desired to specialise, he did not go beyond some set text-books. And, therefore, what he actually achieved was a mastery over a kind of fixed phraseology relating to that sastra rather than an intelligent understanding of its contents. He started his study in a spirit of acceptance rather than of inquiry. He was rarely taught to approach a subject from critical, historical and comparative points of view. On 'the other hand, it was impressed on his mind that everything that was worth knowing in a particular subject had already been set forth in the ancient traditional text- books, and that there was no possibility of any new knowledge on that subject coming to light.*1

110

The most serious consequence of all this was that the Pathasala system soon became "barren"-it failed to encourage any conceptual advance, which is so very essential for academic progress. The Pathalsalas rarely promoted any original investigation, and the creative activity of Sanskrit Pandits, with few exceptions, had ceased long ago. Under these circumstances, it was but natural that the product of a Pathasala should suffer from a kind of academic imbalance, that his knowledge should have depth without any breadth, that it should be thorough in a restricted sense but generally uncritical and unfruitful.

40. The product of the Pathasala system, with his peculiar background and training, found it difficult to change with the times. His training in the Pathasala was such as could not, obviously, be expected to equip him properly to cope with the new situation which be had to face. The preacher and the priest no longer commanded the respect which was once theirs, and a Pathasala Pandit was less in demand as a teacher in the new educational set-up. The learning or Vidya, which a student acquired in a Pathasala, was not materially profitable (arthakari); nor did it ensure his being honoured and respected (pratistha or puja) in society. A Sanskrit Pandit grew, so to say, in an atmosphere of segregation, both academic and social; he remained irresponsive to the impact of new knowledge and social prog- ress.

41. The type of Sanskrit study in vogue in modem Colleges and Universities has also its merits and drawbacks. There is no doubt that the Sanskrit student at the University has a much broader perspective than the Pathasala student, and his mind is more responsive. He is prepared to welcome new ideas and can entertain and examine dispassionately points of view different from his own. His is a critical mind, at once alert and adventurous. Equipped with all the information at his disposal and armed with the modem methods. the Universitytrained Sanskritist has made great advances in research. He studies a few texts in a special way, a large number of others in a general way, and covers the rest of the literature in a historical survey. Original texts and contributions of particular masters and schools of thought are studied in the space-time context, and this enables him to evolve an over-all picture of the antiquity, variety, scope and richness- of the whole process of Indian thought. This inter-related study of his has vitalised Sanskrit studies and has helped to bring about the Modern Renaissance in India. It is well- known that the better type of minds have been gradually drawn to University education. Any new advancement in Sanskrit or Indian thought that has been achieved recently has been the work of the Universities. By pursuing Sanskrit as part of general education, the University Sanskritist has been able to bring whatever is of value in Sanskrit into the corpus of modem knowledge. Particularly in the realm of thought and sociology, he has tried to understand the Indian pattern in relation to Western developments, and to interpret the Indian contribution to the outside world. At the same time, he has also thrown on the body of Indian notions the light of modem reason and science, and has, by and large,

111

deepened and strengthened the stream of Indian thought. The recovery of the past which has made the Indian freedom movement a Search for or a re-discovery of India's soul has largely been due to him.

42. While these great merits are obvious, the defects are no less obvious. Reference has already been made to the intimate personal relationship obtaining between the teacher and the pupil in the ancient tradition, and its retention in the Pathasalas. The modem system is impersonal and somewhat mechanical. For the Pathasalas, education is part of a living religious tradition. In the University, education is carried on in a secular atmosphere. The chief drawback of University Sanskrit Education, from our point of view, is that, as Sanskrit is cultivated there along with a number of other subjects, intense and sustained study of the texts is not generally possible. While the historical and critical approach is commendable, the content of University Sanskrit Education turns out to be somewhat thin, transient and circumstantial. In a good many cases, the knowledge obtained by the University student is secondhand. The very historical method, which is claimed to be a characteristic feature of University Sanskrit Education, is liable to degenerate into a superficial antiquarian attitude; religious and philosophical texts come to be studied as relics of the past. The intrinsic truth and validity of the ideas and ideals is likely to be lost sight of. And it is precisely for its intrinsic value and relevance to our own life and ideals that a scriptural or philosophical text or a literary piece is read and understood. Thus the University student is apt to become estranged from his heritage, an uneasy sojourner in the domain of his own native culture.

43. We have analysed at some length the merits and defects of the two systems of Sanskrit Education obtaining in the country. There is no serious anxiety about the welfare of the University system. It is part of the living stream of modem life and shares its progress to a great extent. The anxiety is really about the Pathasala system of Sanskrit Education. Owing to a variety of reasons, this latter system has been working under very unfavourable circumstances continuously for a considerable period of time, and has been suffering from poor and failing health.

44. It might be asked: Is the traditional mode of Sanskrit Education at all worth preserving ? Can the Universities or other modern institutions (Research Centres and Indological Institutes) not be the proper substitutes in the modem age ? While we should not belittle the work done by the Universities and Research Institutes in advancing the cause of Sanskrit Education and decry their method as superficial in quality and meagre in influence, we should also not commit the opposite wrong of condemning the Pathasala mode of Sanskrit Education as outworn, uncritical, obscurantist or retrograde. It is not because of sentimental reasons of attachment to the past and on grounds of religious or national pride that we would like the traditional type of learning to be preserved. There should be more solid and intrinsic

112

reasons, if it is to survive and to play its essential part in the life of the nation. It is not possible to undo the historical circumstances which brought into existence the dual system of Sanskrit study pursued respectively in the Pathasalas and the Universities. With the lapse of a century, they now appear unconnected and apparently divergent. It is no longer a question of ending or mending either of the two systems, nor even of blending. Both have their defects and merits, but we have to accept the systems as accomplished historical facts. A rapprochement may be attempted, eliminating the defects and appropriating the merits, taking care not to destroy the essential characteristics of either.

45. Some witnesses frankly expressed themselves against the continuance of the traditional system of the Pathasalas. Some others, while admitting the desirability of preserving it, were sceptical about its ability to survive in the modern technological age. However, the great majority of witnesses (nearly 90%) were definitely for retaining and improving the Pathasalas. For, they were convinced of their indispensability for our cultural and spiritual well-being. As a Commission charged with the duty of ascertaining the nature and extent of informed public opinion in the country on this vital issue, we urge upon the Government this popular verdict in favour of the preservation of the Pathasalas. It may be added that out of those who categorically expressed themselves in favour of the retention of the Pathasalas, only a few were really opposed to any kind of reformation of the old traditional system.

46. We have time and again pointed out that the relation of Sanskrit to Indian Languages and to Indian culture is not that of a past historical antecedent to its successor; it is that of a continuing perennial source to its tributory streams. Sanskrit has been supplying the literary and cultural norms down the ages. An intimate knowledge of Sanskrit is essential for understanding, the systems of philosophy and religion which constitute the pride of Indian achievement. Without a considerable body of scholars of different types exclusively devoted to the study of the varied branches of Sanskrit Literature, Philosophy and Religion, most of the Sanskrit works, in which are enshrined some of the exalted,thoughts of humanity, would soon become sealed books.

47. The study of Sanskrit in the Universities cannot, for several reasons, be of such deep and sustained character, as in the Pathasalas. The student at the College and the University reads several modem subjects, besides Sanskrit, and his general equipment is vastly greater. As compared to the student of the Pathasalas, he necessarily devotes fewer years to the cultivation of Sanskrit and any of its special branches. Methods employed there are largely historical, comparative and critical. They do enlarge the vision and give a correct perspective. But however important modern methods and researches may be. they should not make us forget the heart of the matter, which is

113

the direct and profound understanding of the texts. Sanskrit teaching in the Universities cannot, therefore, be expected to take the place of the Pathasalas, at least not in their present form.'

48. The converse is no less true. We can no longer ignore the application of historical, comparative and critical methods developed in modern times, nor fail to take into account the discovery of new facts or of new relations of old facts made possible thereby. It is really unnecessary to underrate the value as much of modern scholarship on the one hand, as of traditional learning on the other. The traditional method is our own, but the importance of the modern methods cannot be' set aside. In the sphere of learning there is room for all. Rightly conceived, the systems are complementary rather than competitive. It follows, therefore, that while the modern method and outlook are not only inevitable but also imperatively desirable for a strengthening of Sanskrit studies, the stupendous learning of the old, wherever it exists, should not be allowed to perish.