Justifying teaching of Skt? of Indology?

[aklujkar at unixg.ubc.ca]

 Satyanad Kichenassamy writes: "It is interesting that the initial
question, regarding the
need to include indology in university curricula seems to have
shifted to the need for the teaching of Sanskrit. "

No. Prof. Hueckstedt's question of 22 July *was* about justifying the
teaching of Sanskrit. It had "justifying the teaching of Sanskrit" as its
subject heading. Its relevant part read as follows: " I have been asked to
contribute an essay to a volume that will be 
entitled _Classics and the Modern Curriculum_. The word "classics" there 
is used in its broadest sense. The study of Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, 
Persian, Chinese, etc. will be all represented. I am one of two people 
who have been asked to hold up the Indic side of the project. ... The
classical languages of South Asia I define as Sanskrit, Prakrit, Old 
Dravidian, and Persian. We could maybe also include Apabhramsha and other 
Middle Indic languages. So, given such a definition of classics in South 
Asia, I am already feeling inadequate to the task. It's impossible for me 
to read all those languages, and even just within Sanskrit, I am not, nor 
can any one person be, a master of all the disciplines in which 
literature in Sanskrit has played an important part in the history of
ideas.
Nevertheless, here is my basic plan. I hope to show what a university 
misses by not having at least one Sanskritist on its faculty and Sanskrit 
offered in its curriculum. "

If Prof. Hueckstedt  indicates that he would like to receive help in making
a case for "Old Dravidian,"  those who know that area of scholarship well
should, of course, feel free to offer him help with respect to Tamil etc. I
offered him help in the only area I think I  know a little bit about.

Satyanad Kichenassamy further writes: "division among indologists is not
desirable, especially in today's environment." I cannot imagine any
responsible subscriber to INDOLOGY disagreeing with that. 

In all the remarks I have made or quoted the importance of Tamil or Old
Dravidian has been explicitly stated or suggested. In my understanding,
Indology  does not  become complete without a study of India's/South Asia's
non-Sanskritic (whatever the problems in defining this may be) heritage.

I would like to conclude by re-utilizing a part of what I wrote earlier. We
should make" a collection of remarkable observations regarding why Sanskrit
should be taught (and, perhaps, regarding why it should not be taught). As
there is a huge body of literature out there on this subject and [as] it is
as repetitive as the writings on ;Sa:nkara's Advaita Vedaanta, we should
restrict ourselves to insightful, original (or original-sounding) and /or
charmingly expressed observations.  Add 'scholarly" or "coming from
specialists" to the list of qualification. 

I would personally very much welcome a collection of observations with
respect to Tamil or Old Dravidian conforming to the expectations expressed
above. 

ashok aklujkar