I remember the imprudence of a political critic who once remarked that India was a nation without a national language. This unfortunate canard is current in total disregard of the existence of a timeless language called Sanskrit, the copious vocabulary of which finds a ready and spontaneous flow in the mouth of every Indian from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. Nothing but Sanskrit had been the most visible of all the cultural bonds commonly shared by all Indians well before the emergence of the Republic of the Indian Union. It is also our historical link with the nations and sub-nations across Asia including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia and Indonesia.
THE DEAD LANGUAGE TAG - HOW JUSTIFIED ?
I don't like to join issue with anybody over the present official language of the country, but only wish to point out that direct use of Sanskrit is far more preferrable to that of an out and out Sanskritized Hindi. Further, it has the unrivalled potential to appeal to India's different linguistic races and weld them into a single nation with no prejudice to their self-esteem or cultural interests, for Sanskrit runs deep in their veins. It is one more language apart from their own in which they can express themselves better, provided they are given a brief training and opportunity.
But unfortunately the much-deserved official status was denied to Sanskrit on the premise that it is no more spoken and therefore remains a 'dead language'. It prompts us to spare a thought or two for the definition of a dead language.
Late Prof. Friedrich Max Muller (19th century) of the Sacred Books of the East fame once said : "It has been said that Sanskrit is a dead language...it is still the very life-spring of their faith, their feelings and prejudices...the language of literature, law and religion is still the classical Sanskrit."
(Nirad C.Chaudhuri, Scholar Extraordinary, Orient Paperbacks, pp.183)
Stressing that no langugae ultimately becomes dead, he concluded in a different context : "If we call Italian the daughter of Latin, we do not mean to ascribe to Italian a new vital principle. Not a single radical element was newly created for the formation of Italian. The names, mother and daughter only mark different periods in the growth of a language substantially the same. To speak of Latin dying in giving birth to her offspring is again pure mythology and it would be easy to prove that Latin was a living language long after Italian had learnt to run alone." (Ibid)
Scientists discovered that the language first learnt by man gets recorded permanently in a part of the brain called the Brocas Area which has no room for more than one language. Therefore the languages received later are recorded in other parts of the brain. In other words whatever language gets recorded in the Brocas Area can be termed as one's mother tongue. It may not necessarily be the mother tongue of one's parents. From this fact, it can also be inferred that man can have only one mother tongue for life alongside a number of acquired languages, regardless of his outstanding degree of fluency or erudition with respect to different languages. It equally follows that there is no way man can completely escape the primary impact of his mother tongue throughout his life. (To be continued)