Media tell us that, Students protesting against the appointment of Mr. Khan as an assistant professor in the Sanskrit department, but it’s not true. We all believe that Sanskrit can be learned and taught by any person belonging to any religion and cast. So why they are protesting? Let me tell you the complete picture.
BHU has two different department, One is ‘Department Of Sanskrit’ and another is ‘Sanskrit Vidya Dharma Vijnan-Sankaya’. Both have different work and vision for Sanskrit.
According to BHU official website.
The Department Of Sanskrit was established in 1919 with the vision of preservation and enrichment of oriental learning, culture, philosophy and thought by virtue of deep studies and research of both Vedic and Classical Sanskrit Literature.
Sanskrit-Vidya-Dharma-Vijnan-Sankaya was established in 1918 by the great founder Pt. Madan Mohan Malviyaji in order to materialize the chief goal of this University i.e. to preserve and promote the studies of Ancient Indian Shastras, Sanskrit language and literature with the intention to bring about a fruitful dialogue between the East and the West.
Mr khan is appointed in Sanskrit-Vidya-Dharma-Vijnan-Sankaya not in the Department Of Sanskrit. The protesters say that If he wants to teach Sanskrit then he can join the Sanskrit department for that. It’s similar to the decision of SP government to appoint Azam khan was appointed as kumbh prabhari or appoint Hindu pandit in church.
The SVDVS is not just for teaching the sanskriti.
We all aware of what Max Müller and Thomas Babington Macaulay done in the past. May be Mr khan is not one of them but why we are taking risk for that. Can AMU appoint any hindu for as a head of Urdu department? I think never. UP government should look in this matter and shift the appointment to the dept of sanskrit. He is talented in sanskrit no doubt in this and he must allow to teach Sanskrit but not the department of SVDVS.
To understand this, we have to read the following points carefully:
In 1832, the Sanskrit Chair was introduced at Oxford University. In this, Maxmüller was entrusted with the translation of Sanskrit texts, especially the Vedas. When this news reached Maharishi Dayanand, he protested against it and wrote — “यस्मिन् देशे द्रुमो नास्ति तत्रैरण्डोऽपि द्रुमायते” means that in countries where there are no huge trees, people consider castor bushes to be trees. It was also opposed by the then great revolutionary and lawyer Shyamji Krishna Varma. Modi ji often keeps referring to Shyamji Krishna Varma.
There was no result of the protest. Many verses from the Vedas to Manusmriti have been performed by the British and the German people. They had the same understanding that they understood our scriptures in the same way and then the same half-baked knowledge was fed to us through schools and colleges.
The biggest lie that these British scholars have made is that Sanskrit is the language of Brahmins.
It was the whey that was put in the root of Sanskrit, the result of which is that the language is on the verge of extinction. This lie was also coined by Max Müller that the people of the ‘low caste’ who heard the Vedas were asked to pour the melted glass. If this is the case then how did people like Valmiki, Dwaipayan Vyas become great sages?
British scholars proved that half of the Dalits have been insulted in Sanskrit scriptures without understanding the context.
Scholars like Max Müller could not understand that the ‘Brahma’ spoken of in the Upanishads and Brahmins are different.
In Ishavasya Upanishad, ritualistic Brahmins have been called even asuras. So should the Upanishads be called the antithesis of Brahmins?
Max Müller has written in many places that “Vedas are songs of ancient Indian shepherds”. We accepted it as that. This half-baked translation of the Vedas and Upanishads formed the basis of the division of Aryans and Dravidians. This game of Max Müller and Macaulay against Indian culture was envisioned by the Mahamana Madan Mohan Malviya of Kashi Hindu University.
He knew that fundamental research on ancient Indian knowledge is necessary, so the faculty he created for this work also banned the entry of people of non-eternal religions.
According to many people, if Malaviya ji was a bigot, he could have imposed the same ban in the entire BHU.
If any Feroze Khan is being given the responsibility of teaching Hinduism, should it not be asked what will happen to Malaviya ji’s order?
The religion from which Feroz Khan belongs to, considers Hindus to be Kafirs and rational slaughters. If they continue to teach religion to Hindus while remaining in Islam, then what guarantee is there that there will be no prejudice and adulteration in their education?
Hinduism is a burn of Macaulay and Maxmuller, so Feroze Khan should be drunk. Read Rajiv Malhotra’s book ‘The Battle for Sanskrit’ for detailed information on this subject. Eyes will open up as to how big a cultural attack we are as a society.