TG edu panel’s stand on Sanskrit questioned
Scholars point to Sanskrit’s central role in Ayurveda, wellness & research
Hyderabad: Serious questions are being raised over the credibility and fairness of the Telangana Education Commission’s recent take on language education, particularly its recommendations concerning Sanskrit.
While the Commission has strongly advocated the introduction of English learning from kindergarten to post‑graduation, citing research in brain sciences, critics argue that its conclusions on Sanskrit appear selective, dismissive, and inadequately reasoned.
According to the Commission’s report, early and sustained exposure to English is essential for cognitive development, employability, and global competitiveness. To support this position, it claims to have relied extensively on contemporary research in neuroscience and language acquisition, quoting research in brain sciences.
However, T Muralidharan, a Sanskrit faculty from Mysore, points out that such sweeping conclusions are not found in the recommendations by a similar exercise in Karnataka. He pointed out that there is also research conducted in India and abroad which discusses the cognitive, linguistic, and memory‑enhancing benefits of classical language learning, including Sanskrit - aspects that the report allegedly fails to acknowledge.
The Commission’s report pointed out that Sanskrit has only around 20,000 speakers in the country and is “not useful” to society. Based on this premise, the report reportedly recommends discouraging Sanskrit learning as a general state policy. Critics say sweeping conclusions are selective by ignoring both academic realities and ground‑level educational practices.
K Pardhasaradhi, a post graduate in physics, who works as a consultant for a software company and explores the relevance of Sanskrit in the contemporary tech landscape, says, “Sanskrit cannot be measured merely by the number of conversational speakers,” adding, “Thousands of students, research scholars, and faculty members across India and abroad are actively engaged in disciplines such as Ayurveda, naturopathy, yoga, wellness studies, Indian philosophy, linguistics, and ancient sciences. The primary sources for all these fields are in Sanskrit.” Further, several IITs like IIT Mandi, IIT-Madras have launched exclusive centres for Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS).
How the commission failed to take note of these latest developments in the country, he asked.
Experts argue that discouraging Sanskrit learning could have serious implications for these disciplines, which rely heavily on original texts rather than translations. They also point out that Sanskrit continues to be a compulsory or elective subject in several higher education and research programmes, and remains relevant in interdisciplinary studies, including computational linguistics and cognitive science.
Another concern raised is the Commission’s apparent contradiction in invoking inclusivity while sidelining a language that forms the intellectual foundation of several indigenous knowledge systems. “If the goal is holistic education, policy recommendations have to be balanced,” said Srinivasan, a research scholar from Amrutha University. He said, “Promoting English for global access is important, but it should not come at the cost of delegitimising other knowledge traditions.”
Critics also question the methodology adopted by the Commission in arriving at its conclusions. They argue that selective citation of research and broad generalisations about social utility undermine the objectivity expected from a statutory education body.
