e f leh{kk g h The Language of the Gods in the World of Men The Language of the Gods in the World of Men-Sanskrit, Culture and Power in Premodern India-Sheldon Pollock, Permanent Black, New Delhi 2006 In The Language of the Gods in the World of Men, Sheldon Pollock attempts a reassessment of the cultural and literary history of ‘pre-modern’ India, covering two millenniums. Pollock in a sense also creates a history by this. To quote his own words ‘doing History cannot and should not be separated from making history’ (p. 570) The book is a first of its kind, in the sense that it makes a post- modern analysis of the pre-modern world, focussing upon the growth of Indian literature with reference to what Pollock calls Sanskrit cosmopolitanism and vernacularization. References and views from Bakhtin, Heidegger, Gramschi to R.C. Majumadar, Ranjit Guha are cited, and also criticised to redefine the processes of 'culturation'. European colonialism has been termed as globalization in its harshest form (p. 578), and elements of European modernity in Indian pre- modernity have been unearthed, and the process how they provided stimulus to modernity is hinted upon. Knowledge and language are two things that have been most emphasised over in this book. Pollock quotes ƒa×karÈcÈrya³šTwo persons may perform the same act, both the one who understands and the one who does not. But understanding and ignorance are different, and what one performs with understanding becomes far stronger than what one performs in ignorance.› What difference does knowledge make? This book itself provides a right answer - knowledge stands as a caution and warning to erring humanity. This is exactly what Pollock does after writing about 600 pages of his enormous work - he sends a note of warning and caution to India and the western world with regards to their understanding of civilisations and history. 230 laLÑr&foe'kZ% Alongside history, Pollock recreates geography by recounting how Sanskrit cosmopolitism created their own world of cartogram for Indian masses through their concepts of the V‚ttis, Prav‚ttis, KÈvya- puru–a etc. The concept of TÏrtha however is significantly missing from this account. But the judgement pronounced on the western understanding is absolutely unerring³šTo claim then, as it is so often claimed, that geographical unity of India is creation of the British mapping of their empire, is historically shallow as it is conceptually naive› (p. 557). How different is this statement from the postulaion of Indian intellectuals who still believe that despite many evils of British Raj, it gave us a geographical unity which had been missing in premodern India. The tools and concepts through which history of India is being studied have been questioned. šThe notion of legitimation, along with Sanskritisation, ethnicity, linguism, and cultural naturalism are not only obstacles, that modem western theory places in the way of understanding pre-modern India. Two other analytical frameworks are even more obstructive, the one that frames India as the civilisation it always was, and the other that frames it as the nation it never could be.› (p. 524) It is a warning and a call for India to look within once again and understand herself, a millennium of cosmopolitanism through which India made a world history and then another millennium of vernacularization through which we discovered regional identities and new aesthetics - both these have now culminated into a narrow world; a very narrow and vitiated concept of hindutva on one hand, and even more dangerous concept of regional identities on the other.³šhindutva is a perversion of India's great cosmopolitan past› says Pollock. On the other hand an entirely different, and very aggressive vernacularism is rising up in Assam and other parts. Pollock shows here how language creates History. For the fIrst time we have a fascinating and authentic account of history being made through language and its aesthetics, imbibing the 'essentialisation of literature' and the primacy granted to writing (p.5) in India, so that we can also find a post-modern attestation of what RÈja„ekhara says in his KÈvyamÏmÈ£sÈ kavivacanÈyattÈ ca l÷kayÈtrÈ, saiva niÌ„reyasamÊlam The world depends on the speech of the poet and that is the base for salvation. Review 231 The work is a unique elaboration of ‘trans-regional culture- power sphere of Sanskrit.’ Sanskrit never sought to theorise its own universality. There was something central in it that made it cosmopolitan. It was thus a šuniversalism that never objectified, let alone enforced, its universalism› (p. 12). Pollock furnishes a convincing account of the process of emergence of ‘a linguistically homogeneous and conceptually standardised form of Sanskrit political poetry' (p. 122) all across the subcontinent. This emergence, a startling phenomena, led to the development of a common culture throughout South East Asia amongst the people belonging to diverse societies, speaking different languages and living different life styles. This transformation occurred without enforcement of military power, without any pressure of an administrative or legal apparatus. It was the conquest of Sanskrit thought and Sanskrit culture - uniform throughout the vast peninsula, and it is unparalleled in history. Sanskrit Cosmopolis cast an ever lasting impact and dominated the socio-political and cultural scenario in South East Asia for more than a millennium. The ruling elites found it a vibrant medium for propagation of their power. Sanskrit was never adopted for day to day use, it was used to articulate a form of political consciousness, it became a tool for celebration of 'aesthetic power' unravelling 'an important chapter in the story of human thought and action' (p. 30). The transculturation of South East Asia was never a work of colonisers and invaders, it was carried upon by monks, traders and adventurers, and also it was never imposed upon, because 'those who participated in Sanskrit culture chose to do so, and could choose to do so' p. 571 Pollock examines the interrelationships of religion, literature, culture and power through these two millenniums. He demolishes the structure of prevalent notions. Religion did not really legitimise the power, it merely invested power with a ritualistic or ceremonial status. Culture could create 'aethetisation of power', playing a positive role towards ennobling the political life. Literature, along with these, became a vehicle of cosmopolitanism. The concept of CakravartÏ K–etra is adopted in rhetorics and Ala×kÈra„Èstra to define RÏtis, V‚ttis, and Prav‚ttis. On the other hand KÈvya provides a stimulus to the rulership and the governance. In this way, during a millenium of history, Sanskrit transformed itself to 232 laLÑr&foe'kZ% transform the social life of large part of the world, and this transformation 'constitutes one of the most momentous events in the history of culture and power in Asia. It is also one of the least discussed and unsurprisingly, the least understood' (p. 39). By the whole analysis Pollock presents a fine definition of culture itself - `all culture is transculture' He also demolishes the idea of little traditions and local cultures, as envisaged in modem Anthropology. Pollock presents excellent critique of French philologists; they failed to understand the process by which Sanskrit culture was being inculcated through the form of panegyric; and they found the vast mass of inscriptional literature in Sanskrit from South East Asia empty of historical material and rich in matter devoid of interest for them. (p. 147). However Sanskrit culture never became a tool for polity. It defined and regulated polity. The whole thesis of Pollock is an exposition of this fact. For the first time the book establishes the idea of 'inscriptional aesthetics' (p. 249) where epic and history go along together, locality and transregionality join hands. History is presented in terms of metaphor. V.S. Pathak in his thesis on Ancient Indian Historians had already presented the indian view of History as reflected in the Historical epics. The King is uplifted from spacio-temporal constraints, so that history becomes 'ItihÈsa' To Pollock, Sanskrit seems to have been born transregional 'it was at home everywhere and perhaps in a sense at home nowhere'. (p. 262). It also adopted ideas from european culture, texts from Greek were translated in Sanskrit. (p. 265) Sanskrit became culture, what were its' tenets? Pollock enumerates them as trans-locality, transethnicity, expressive power and aesthetic resources as well as dignity and stability conferred by grammar. (pp 254-55) The aetheticization of political power stands in sharp contrast with modem notions of Walter Benjamin. (p. 258) Inscriptional and epigraphical records are cited here to prove that grants were made by kings for recitation of MahÈbhÈrata. Modem pundits and scholars who wrote histories of Sanskrit have not paid attention to most amazing facts of the history of Sanskrit language - for example, its appropriation by the ƒakas - for public political purposes. This is a charisma to Pollock, which does not have a prehistory. Review 233 A major part of the book is devoted to the most important treatment of vernacularization that heralds beginning around tenth century. The whole exercise is done in comparison to the movements all over the globe and with gleanings from the history of world literature. Pollocks's studies here assume a unique character because of this comparative perspective. Latin imperialism posed a threat, tended to eradicate dialects and multilinguality, and vernacular paranoia arose in a desperate attempt for survival. On the other hand in India, vernacular cultures were invented even by those who were adept in Sanskrit learning. Also those who were writing in vernaculars could as well write in Sanskrit, but they chose a regional language for distinct vernacular aesthetics. In V chapter, Pollcok turns to the inter-cultural dialogue between Sanskrit and vernaculars.