Ambedkar on Sanskrit: Chief Justice Misleads People
When the Chief Justice of India is set to address an audience on the occasion that marks the birth anniversary of Dr. BR Ambedkar, the chief architect of the constitution of this most diverse country in the world, people are sure to have certain expectations from the CJI.
The expectations could be that the Chief Justice would speak about the need to establish equality, eradication of casteism, emancipation of Dalits, and such other issues that were close to Ambedkar’s heart. When the Chief Justice who is the gate keeper of the Constitution talks about Ambedkar, one would expect a review of the extent to which the dreams of Ambedkar have been realized.
Not only that, he should recall the contributions of Ambedkar in shaping the Constitution and provide guidance on how the challenges before the Constitution today can be addressed. Ironically, keeping all these issues aside, the Chief Justice of India in his address on Ambedkar Jayanthi earlier this week took up for discussion how Ambedkar wanted to make Sanskrit a national language, an issue that has no relevance and is not helpful for the country in the present day. When conspiracies are being hatched to make Hindi the country’s national language, Chief Justice Bobde went a step ahead and indirectly demanded that Sanskrit be made the national language.
It is not a small crime for the Chief Justice to misuse the name of Ambedkar to mislead people and impose RSS agenda in an indirect way. It is therefore today’s necessity to convince the people of the country about the veracity of Bobde’s statement.
What has Ambedkar got to do with Sanskrit? How much has Sanskrit helped in molding Ambedkar’s personality and organizing Dalits, the downtrodden, and the exploited, and get them justice? What is the contribution of Sanskrit to the rise of Ambedkar? Would Ambedkar have remained immortal today in our midst in the absence of English education? The answers we find for these questions prove how irrelevant Bobde’s demand is. Sanskrit has not contributed anything for the uplift of the country’s exploited communities.
Instead, it treated these communities as untouchables. Manu announced in Sanskrit that Shudhras and Dalits are not qualified to be educated. Because it has stayed irrelevant to a majority of the people in the country, Sanskrit is being called a dead language. The language is neither being used by the people as a medium of communication in their daily lives nor is it being used by upper classes. Chief Justice Bobde is attempting to make a language that is on the verge of extinction as the national language which is similar to terming as a national animal an animal that is extinct.
If a language has to be conferred the status of a national language, the people of the entire country should be able to communicate with each other through that language. There are no possibilities before us to make a language that is restricted to hymns chanted by priests as a national language viable to be used in banks, government offices, or in the daily lives of people. South Indians are not willing to accept Hindi that has taken over the entire North India. What is the need for the imposition of Hindi, ask South Indians? A non-Hindi state such as Kerala is ahead in the areas of health, development, and literacy in the country. No North Indian state has achieved as much as Karnataka and Andhra in IT sector. Tamil Nadu is renowned in the world for the creativity of its people.
All these were achieved by adopting both regional languages and English. Hindi speaking states such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Haryana are backward in development and education sectors. All these states should consider South India as a model and the Centre must make it compulsory for them to learn one South Indian language. When Hindi finds itself in such a state, what are the reasons for imposing Sanskrit on the country? What will India accomplish by learning Sanskrit?
“Ambedkar had demanded that Sanskrit should be made a national language. He wanted to submit an appeal about this. Leaders of all communities had supported this and had signed it,” Bobde said in his speech. He was not sure however, whether the demand was actually submitted or not. When a Chief Justice raises a serious issue in the name of Ambedkar, it is important that he is aware of all the details.
When a Chief Justice makes a public speech based on a lie floated by pandits trained in the RSS University, to what extent can we expect justice to be provided in matters that relate to the country’s wellbeing? It was Lakshmikanth Maitra who had submitted a correction before the committee framing the Constitution about making Sanskrit the official, national language. But nobody officially supported this.
On the contrary, several leaders offered their opinions. In the ensuing discussion in the meeting, Durgabai suggested that Hindustani mixed with Persian and Roman numerals should be made a part of the country’s language instead of Hindi. Jan Sangh founder Shamaprasad Mukherjee had expressed his opinion that no language should be made an official national language. Another Hindutva leader Purushotham Das Tandon argued that “it is not possible to make Sanskrit an official language of the country. It will fail when it is implemented practically.”
At the end of the discussion, Lakshmikanth Maitra withdrew his suggestion. It is true that Ambedkar was in favour of making Hindi a national language. Similarly, Ambedkar had studied Sanskrit in depth. But he was aware of the damage that Sanskrit had caused to the people. On Ambedkar Jayanthi, the increasing atrocities against Dalits must be discussed. The judges must speak about the challenges before the Constitution but they are not interested in such discussions. For this reason, Bobde made a futile attempt to reignite an old debate that has been consigned to the dust bin and to highlight it in public in the name of Ambedkar.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
