Read on Twitter
Some opposition to promotion of Sanskrit comes from a notion that Brahmins restricted Sanskrit learning and kept it to themselves. So following is some textual evidence (from ancient times to the 19th century CE) against that. 1/n
It has been unanimously accepted by all ancient law books of India (smritis, dharmashastras and dharmasutras) that not just Brahmins, but even the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas need to study the Veda and other shastras after undergoing the Upanayana ceremony. 2/n
Then, there's an upper time limit to do that (manusmriti 2.38), and if they don't do it within that limit, they become Vratyas (manusmriti 2.39) who're seen as lowly humans in the society. Not just that, the Brahmin is not to be with them either for 3/n
giving knowledge or for conducting any of duties usually binding on the brahmin (manusmriti 2.40). So, for Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, not studying Vedas and other Shastras (which are in Sanskrit) has been made some kind of an offence. 4/n
Now, if you ask about the Shudras, as per Manusmriti 3.69-71, it is binding on the householders of all varnas (Shudras included) to conduct Brahmayajna (studying and teaching). Hence, not studying is to be seen as a bad thing for even the Shudras. 5/n
As per Manusmriti 10.116, in the times when one cannot earn his living through the assigned jobs, there are 10 options out of which one can choose his profession. One of them is Vidya, to which it is said by commentators of Manusmriti that it excludes the Veda, and includes 6/n
all the Shastras. So, even a Shudra can take up studying (and maybe even teaching) of Shastra/s (which are in Sanskrit), except for the Veda. As per Kashyapasamhita (vimanasthana 1), Ayurveda is to be studied by Shudras as well. 7/n
Similar is said by Sushrutasamhita (sutrasthana 2.5). Then comes Ashvaghosha, a buddhist of around 1st or 2nd century CE, who in his text Vajrasuchi (around the first few passages of the text), while challenging the brahmins' superiority, gives a passing reference that 8/n
at some places, even Shudras are seen who are experts in Vedas, vyakarana, the philosophical texts, etc.(all texts in Sanskrit). Why he says that? It is for disproving a notion that Brahmins are Brahmins because of studying such texts. 9/n
He says that if that were the case, those Shudras would be called Brahmins, but they aren't called so. 10/n
As G. W. Leitner mentions in his book 'History of Indigenous Education in Punjab', published in 1882; (section on Sanscrit teaching, page 80) 'To teach law and philosophy to non-Brahmin Hindus still meets with opposition from some of the best Pandits, these being 11/n
professional caste-subjects of study, which ensure Brahminical ascendancy over the rest of the community. As for grammar, lexicology, rhetoric, the drama and all other secular literature (not law or philosophy) the Sudras were ever allowed to study these subjects.' 12/n
Leitner's comment regarding the 19th century Punjab agrees with the statements of both Vajrasuchi and Manusmriti, where the non-Brahmins including the Shudras, are not stopped from studying Sanskrit. Leave aside the merely studying Sanskrit, 13/n
the non-Brahmins studied proper technical texts written in Sanskrit. (the end)
cc : @subhash_kak
