Is Sanskrit not meant for non Hindus?

There is a vehement opposition in some quarters whenever there is a proposal to introduce or teach sanskrit at a school level. Some say its a dead language and there is no point in pursuing it further, others view it as a sinister attempt to impose upon non Hindus a legacy that is rooted in Hinduism. Still others say that it is too difficult for modern students. Others say that it has no practical value. And there are some who would interprete this as a political gameplan to deliberately make minorities feel unsafe and alienated.

The question is, is it such a bad idea to revive a language which was long noted for its beauty and in which every other important language of the world finds some distant echo? Also from a pure utilitarian perspective, isn't it worth an attempt to see what jewels are there in store in our ancient and medieval literature most of which are infact written in sanskrit, rather than reading the vastly changed and often wrong English translations and therefore deriving only a second hand idea of our own culture, tradition and roots? After all, if we do not know our roots and traditions, what glory, of what achievements can we boast of? How are we to feel pride in our nationhood when we know nothing about the thousands and thousands of years over which our civilization thrived and prospered? Granted that Sanskrit probably was not a language of masses, at least not since the period of Buddha. Buddha himself chose Pali and Prakrit to propagate his teachings. But what of that? Some of the best literature were in Sanksrit- Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti, Sudrak and many other ancient writes wrote their masterpieces in this language. We have no qualms in reading their half baked translations, if at all we read them, but are not ready to explore them in their original language. Thus we are totally deprived of the beauty of these compositions. We disdainfully avoid Vedas, Upanishads, Ramayana and Mahabharata, although we are glued to the TV sets when these epics are represented there. We thereby miss the fantastic poetry, the beautiful verses and the greatest and grandest teachings that would help us lead one of the best lives in the world, if followed properly. 

The assertion is Sanskrit is dead is ridiculous. It is the lack of interest that renders a language dead, not the language itself. Even Greek and Latin are so called dead languages but there are many ardent students of these languages, simply because they want to explore the hidden jewels. The argument that it is difficult is too naive. Like any other language, once we know the grammatical constructions and once we give some serious attempts to understand it, it is easy. Are we to say that our ancestors were far more intelligent than us to understand and speak in a language which we won't be able to understand? The utility of Sanskrit lies in understanding our great legacy and to take it forward in a more meaningful way. We can derive more utilities as we unravel its mystery more and more.

Now coming to the last and most serious of the assertions. Is Sanskrit really not meant for non Hindus? Can learning Sanskrit be synonymous with learning Hinduism, or worse, being a part of it? Aren't non Hindus Indians as well? Isn't the legacy of fathers and forefathers shared among the sons, whatever be their individual dispositions? If Sanskrit language and literature belongs to India, it belongs to every son and daughter of India irrespective of caste, creed, community and religious affiliation. Just because Sanskrit was the language of ancient India, would it automatically become a language associated with one particular religion? And if so, what is the harm there in learning a new language? Isn't Bible translated from original Hebrew? are all the Christians then Jews just because Bible is derived from Judaism and is based on Hebrew? By learning Greek or Roman are the Christians becoming pagans?

It is therefore a point worth pondering. Are the non Hindus going to lose or gain by learning sanskrit and by learning about their own culture and tradition? Are they so insecure about their religion, that learning their own ancient legacy will uproot their own culture which is mostly a derived one? After all most of them are converts from their original religion and hence the ancient tradition and culture run in their blood. Is it such a bad idea for instance for a non Hindu to study Upanishada or Mahabharata or Kalidasa for the sake of enjoying the beauty of it, just as a Hindu would enjoy Shakespeare or Keats or Wordsworth or for that matter Old and New Testament? Or are these assertions a mere assertion of ego, that we'll not learn because it is "us" vs "them" and we do not want to know about "them"? Or the entire debate is merely a political froth backed by intolerance for whatever is perceived to be not conducive to certain vested interests?