Education
Politics
Language
Culture
Linguistics
Cultural Criticism
Academia
cultural identity
Language Preservation
The notion of Sanskrit being a dead language is actually the pet-hypothesis of Sheldon Pollock. In his article 'Death of Sanskrit' published in 2001, he makes it clear that one of the reasons why he was so angry to reach on that conclusion was 'current nationalistic statements +
about Sanskrit' and 'new attempts of Resanskritization'. To provide evidence for his hypothesis, he primarily relies on two assertions: 1. Reduced literary output in Sanskrit in volume 2. Declining quality of the output. There are other convoluted arguments as well.
But everything which he does is essentially cherry picking. He makes it clear that he is really livid with these 'Hindoos' trying to use Sanskrit for Hindu nationalist purpose. It seems baffling why Koenraad Elst would support such position which is essentially a political one.
There have been Indologists like Keith who declared that the quality of Sanskrit literature reduced after Kalidasa but it required a Pollock to declare it a dead language. Sanskrit is not dead; will never be as long as Hinduism is alive.
Loading suggestions...