Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages 9781138662377, 9780415500791

Citation preview

Preface and Acknowledgements . i

Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Preface and Acknowledgements . iii

Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

K. Venkateswarlu

LONDON NEW YORK NEW DELHI

First published 2012 in India by Routledge 912 Tolstoy House, 15–17 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4RN First issued in paperback 2015 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2012 K. Venkateswarlu

Typeset by Star Compugraphics Private Limited 5, CSC, Near City Apartments Vasundhara Enclave Delhi 110 096

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 13: 978-1-138-66237-7 (pbk) ISBN 13: 978-0-415-50079-1 (hbk)

Preface and Acknowledgements . v

To my wife Sarada

Preface and Acknowledgements . vii

Contents Foreword by Thomas R. Trautmann Preface and Acknowledgements 1. The Problem

ix xiii 1

2. Historical Context and Institutional Matrix

21

3. The Dravidian Language Family

56

4. Telugu Grammatical Tradition

119

5. Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family

159

6. Orientalism

188

Bibliography About the Author Index

245 262 263

Preface and Acknowledgements . ix

Foreword I am honoured to have been asked by Professor Venkateswarlu to write the Foreword to this book. We met at the Tamil Nadu State Archives in 2003, he a political scientist, I an historian, drawn by a common interest in F. W. Ellis. Ellis was a civil servant of the East India Company, collector of Madras, chairman of the board overseeing the College of Fort St George, and a scholar of South Indian languages. In 1816 he published the first printed demonstration of the interrelatedness of those languages, which came to be called Dravidian, in a grammar of Telugu for junior civil servants written by his younger colleague, Alexander Campbell. The ‘Dravidian proof ’, as I call it, was a superb work of scholarship, of the first importance both for the history of Indian civilization and for the formation of modern linguistics. It drew upon Ellis’s interactions with Indian scholars on the faculty of the College, especially Vedam Pattabhirama Shastri, his sheristedar at the collectorate, Bommakanti Shankara Shastri or Shankarayya, and the manuscript of a dictionary of Telugu written by Mamidi Venkayya of Masulipatnam. Although the Dravidian proof was written by Ellis and expresses his particular point of view, it had been formed through those interactions with Indian scholars and with the Indian methods of language analysis they embodied and articulated. My meeting with Professor Venkateswarlu was not planned, but it was not entirely fortuitous either, because the Tamil Nadu State Archives is where records of Ellis and the College reside. The role of Ellis and those he worked with had been largely, though not completely, forgotten. I had written a short account of Ellis and the Dravidian proof in a book called Aryans and British India (1997), which Professor Venkateswarlu had read. He in turn drew my attention to the writings of N. Venkata Rao, Professor of Telugu at Madras University, whose assessment of Ellis and the Dravidian proof was excellent and grounded in primary sources in the archive, work which I had not previously known and was happy to learn of. I thank him for this valuable lead, and others he provides in this book. Professor Venkateswarlu’s object is to explain why Telugu was the site at which the Dravidian idea emerged, and he finds the answer in features of the grammars of Telugu that influenced Ellis. The Dravidian proof required two things: a showing that languages of South India

x . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

were not derived from Sanskrit, in spite of a large number of Sanskrit loan words in them, and that they are related to one another. In essence, Professor Venkateswarlu argues that the apparatus of language analysis in the grammars of Telugu showed that the indigenous language of Andhra was independent of Sanskrit, and Ellis gave this a comparative dimension. Readers may imagine from this description that the book before them is a technical study for linguists. But it is much more than that; indeed, the argument it makes is of the widest significance. In my book Languages and Nations: the Dravidian Proof in Colonial Madras (2006) and other writings, I have been arguing that colonial India was a place where the language analysis of India, which had been developed to a very high degree at a very early time, mingled with the language analysis of Europe to form a new language analysis resulting in a number of highly durable results, including the Indo-European concept formed in Calcutta, and the Dravidian concept formed by Ellis and his associates in Madras. Through these successes the Indian language analysis embodied in the grammars of the past have been folded into current language science. Professor Venkateswarlu makes the case that Telugu had a role of critical importance in this process. His book will be of interest for those who love the Telugu language and its literature. But if the argument is successful it shows that, in Ellis (and also in his protégé Alexander Campbell) the tradition of Telugu grammar mingled with the language analysis of Europe, and through this process participated in the formation of cosmopolitan historical linguistics to create new knowledge that was without precedent both in India and in Europe. It demonstrates that in this matter Telugu was not just an object of study, but that the grammatical tradition of Telugu was combined with European traditions of analysis to form a new language analysis, which continues current in the world today. Readers who know the Telugu grammars of the past will be in a position to judge the particulars of the argument. To my mind the book is a fine accomplishment, which brings much new matter to the discussion. As an expert on the history of the civil service in British India, the author brings his special knowledge to the framing the institutional context of the Dravidian proof at the College of Fort St George. I especially appreciate the information he supplies about two remarkable scholars of Telugu: the Komati trader-turned-scholar of Masulipatnam, Mamadi Venkayya, writer of the Telugu dictionary as I have mentioned, and the Brahman Vedam Pattabhirama Shastri, head master for Sanskrit

Preface and Acknowledgements Foreword . xi

and Telugu at the College of Fort St George and the author of a work on linguistic roots (Dhatumala) of Telugu; both these scholars and their writings were essential resources for the Dravidian proof of Ellis. We need to know all we can about such Indian intellectuals of the early colonial period, for they were creating new ways of being intellectuals in India and engaging with the newly-available forms of European knowledge in colonial Madras. The age and their circumstances obliged them to improvise new kinds of scholarly life that continue to this day. Another aspect of this book that deserves notice is that it identifies manuscripts in the Government Oriental Manuscript Library (GOML) at Madras University that are connected with the College of Fort St George and the Dravidian proof. It is to be hoped that others will further this invaluable work of Professor Venkateswarlu, as it is essential for tracking the history of the manuscripts upon which early print editions of classic texts was based. In 1816 the College got the permission of the Madras Government to send two agents to collect copies of manuscripts, one to the north (for Telugu), the other to the south (for Tamil and perhaps other languages). These manuscripts formed a substantial library in the College. After the winding up of the College the library went into storage, and was finally transferred to the GOML, along with the Mackenzie manuscripts on the history of South India which had been mingled with them. Published catalogues do not identify the College manuscripts, and it is to be hoped that scholars of Telugu and Tamil will follow Professor Venkateswarlu’s lead in identifying them. This would provide a solid basis upon which to study the formation of new, printed editions of classic texts in the nineteenth century. These are but a few of the accomplishments of the book. Above all, it enlarges our understanding of the creative fusion of Indian and European intellectual traditions in colonial Madras. It invites readers, by its example, to carry the inquiry further and deeper. I congratulate the author on his achievement, and look forward to the new research and writing it will stimulate in his readers. Thomas R. Trautmann

Preface and Acknowledgements . xiii

Preface and Acknowledgements This

book is a product of an intellectual skid from the legacy of British India’s civil service examination system to the construction of linguistic knowledge in colonial India. It is a new branch of study and learning for me. Several unanticipated difficulties (including spells of ill health) intervened and interrupted the progress of my studies. Yet, I completed this book with the generous help and encouragement of my friends and colleagues. I am deeply indebted to them. Therefore, it is a matter of duty and pleasure for me to acknowledge their help. L. Chakradhara Rao, P. Subba Rao and A. Srinivas favoured me with free access to their valuable personal library collections. Ch. Subramanyam secured for me quite a few library books. Thomas R. Trautmann, K. Paddayya, K. Ravi, M. K. Jagadish, G. Umamaheswara Rao, A. Rajeswara Sarma, K. Venkateswarlu, K. Venkatramaiah, K. Rajani Kanth, V. Venkatappaiah, R. Venkatadri, G. Sujatha, P. Aruna Kumar, M. Bapuji, M. V. S. Koteswara Rao and C. Prasad gave me books, copies of papers and documents. The generous and prompt help of my friends is of inestimable value. G. Koteswara Prasad, B. Krishnam Raju and Y. Lakshmi Prasad verified, corrected and confirmed four reference sources. L. Chakradhara Rao read chapters 1, 3 and 4 and offered stimulating and useful comments. I have consulted him on all important points, and I am immensely benefited by his profound scholarship. M. Nalini read Chapter 6 and corrected some mistakes. Professor G. Koteswara Prasad and Mrs Kantamani Prasad worked hard and wrote a_copy of Mamidi Venkayya’s Preface to his Telugu dictionary entitled Andhra Dīpika, and sent it to me. It is a tedious piece of work which they have executed with meticulous care and attention. I am most grateful to both of them for their kind help. I am deeply grateful to the anonymous peer reviewer of the text for constructive and generous criticism and stimulating suggestions. The staff of Dr V. S. Krishna Memorial Library, Andhra University, specially T. M. K. Gandhi, M. Babu Rao and G. Ayyababu, were helpful to me. Similarly, the staff of the Tamil Nadu State Archives, Chennai; Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras; Connemara Public Library, Chennai; K. Vīre-salingam Library, Rajahmundry; and Oriental Research Institute, Tirupathi, helped me in the provision of books, journals and documents.

xiv . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

I am indebted to the scholars who worked and have been working in this field of study. My thanks are due to N. Venkata Narasimha Sarma, who patiently and cheerfully typed, retyped and incorporated multiple revisions in the text, and prepared the typescript text. I am deeply obliged to Professor Thomas R. Trautmann for his valuable Foreword. The team at Routledge, New Delhi handled carefully and sensitively the process of review and acceptance of the book for publication, and helped identify and correct some mistakes in the text. I am grateful for their interest and help in the production of the book.

The Problem . 1

1 The Problem The central theme of this book is the historical connection and role of the study of Telugu language and its grammatical tradition in the process of formulation of the concept of the Dravidian language family under the auspices of the College of Fort St George (Madras) in the second decade of the nineteenth century, and in the development of comparative linguistics. As a student of political and administrative theory, I am interested in the exploration of Indian experience in the reform of civil service and conduct of written examinations in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and its relevance for institutionalization of the civil service examinations. It is a valuable legacy, though not well known, of British India to the modern world (O’Malley 1931; Miśra 1954: 378). It is a significant topic but not related to my study. As it launched me on this study, a bare outline of it is noted. Several factors, ideas and interests pushed forward the project of reform of administration in British India in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The patronage dispensed by the Directors of the East India Company, and corruption and greed of the Company’s servants and officers (including Indians) in India were notorious features of the early period of colonial rule (Ruthnaswamy 1935: 1–21). Low salaries and rights of private trade of the Company’s servants institutionalized corruption in the administration. The suicide of Robert Clive (1774) and the proceedings of the impeachment of Warren Hastings were only indicators of the decay, corruption and misrule of the period. The people of India as well as the people and polity of England bore the brunt and burden of the corrupt and inefficient order. The British opinion was deeply concerned about the ‘fatal consequences’ for the British government that arose from the ill-gotten wealth of the officers and merchants of the East India Company. It was said that in 1770, ‘the importers of foreign gold have forced their way into the Parliament by such a torrent of private corruption as no private hereditary fortune can resist’ (O’Malley 1941: 708). The early decades of British rule in India witnessed a near total collapse of authority and public order in the territories acquired by the Company. The process of

2 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

reincarnation of the Company from a trading enterprise to a territorial power was imprinted by anarchy, confusion, arbitrary exercise of authority by the selfish and corrupt officers, and the attendant agony and suffering of the people. Therefore, public opinion mounted in England to set right the disorder in India so as to keep up the fair image of the British, and save ‘the second British Empire’ in the East (the first Empire was lost in 1776 in North America). P. J. Marshall’s study of the making and unmaking of empires during the period 1750–83 in India and America, respectively, is a stimulating and instructive account (2005). Furthermore, the British rule in India at the end of eighteenth century assumed a moral tone and purpose of civilizing the Indian people and society. The parliamentary inquiry and subsequent control and reform of Indian administration through the Pitt’s India Act (1784) and the Charter Acts (1793, 1813, 1833, and 1853) were major developments, which led to the slow initiation of Indian civil service examinations in 1829 for those candidates who did not attend Haileybury College (established in 1806 at Hertford Castle and shifted to Haileybury in 1809, for training the East India Company’s civil servants). A limited scheme of competitive public examinations for selection of the best candidate out of the four candidates nominated by the Directors of the Company to each vacancy at Haileybury College was a chief provision of the Charter Act of 1833. Even though it was suspended after two years, this provision was the basis for genesis of the public competitive civil service examinations (Finer 1937: 38). Charles Trevelyan (brotherin-law of Lord T. B. Macaulay, Member, Governor-General’s Council in India) joined Haileybury College in 1820, and held important positions in India from 1826–38. Trevelyan proposed in 1835 that annual public competitive examinations for recruitment of civil servants should be held in important towns of the Presidencies of Bengal and Agra. A Committee headed by Lord Macaulay was appointed in July 1854 to report on the recruitment of the Indian Civil Service, and its report was submitted in November 1854. The recruitment of the Indian Civil Service based on the highest standards of public competitive examination was adapted in 1855. Lord Macaulay and Charles Trevelyan were ‘… the two men most responsible for the open competition …’ civil service recruitment in India (Cohn 1990: 544). Gladstone, Prime Minister of England, appointed a Committee comprising of Charles Trevelyan and Stafford Northcote (son of the only daughter of Thomas Cockburn of the East India Company’s service in India) in 1853 to inquire and suggest the best method to organize

The Problem . 3

Permanent Civil Service in England. Lord Macaulay’s speech, delivered in the House of Commons on 25 June 1853, in support of the adaption of Indian Civil Service Examinations (Charter Act of 1853) was a source of seminal ideas and arguments that commended the idea of public competitive civil service examinations. Charles Grant (another India hand) and Charles Wood (well acquainted with Indian administration and who appointed Lord Macaulay to head the Committee on Indian Civil Service in 1854) supported the idea of civil service examinations. The report of Trevelyan and Northcote (Organisation of Permanent Civil Service) was submitted in November 1853, and formed the basis for civil service examinations in England. A Civil Service Commission was constituted in 1855 to recruit junior officers of the British administration, and its jurisdiction was extended to the recruitment of higher level officers in 1870. Thus, it is clear that India hands and Indian experience in administration, and civil service reforms and examinations exercised determinate influence on the organization of Permanent Civil Service in England (1855). The British Civil Service was a pioneering example that initiated the process of transformation of the nature and character of the State in the modern world. The written examination system is a universal mode and key element for selection in the civil services. Therefore, I looked at the evolution of the system of written examinations. Ancient and medieval societies (except China) were not acquainted with the method and practice of written examinations. Oral examination — questions and answers, interrogation, disputation, defence of propositions or theses and public lectures — were conducted by learned bodies and universities all over the world till the end of the seventeenth century. Practical examinations in medicine and preliminary experiments in the conduct of written examinations were introduced in the eighteenth century in some European and British universities. It is difficult to draw general observations on the mode and status of written examinations in the eighteenth century because of the varied practices followed in different universities. The system of written examinations gradually evolved and developed in the nineteenth century. The Indian experience is a valuable input in this process. Written examinations were conducted by the government of Madras Presidency from 1798 for junior civil servants to test their proficiency in the study of Indian languages for the award of prizes of one thousand star pagodas to each candidate. The College of Fort William (1800) in Calcutta, the East India College (1806) at Hertford Castle in England and the College of Fort St George (1812) in Madras were established to give

4 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

instruction and training in Indian languages (Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, and vernacular languages), native laws and other useful subjects to the young men of England for the Company’s service in India. Examinations were regularly conducted in the College of Fort William from 1801 onwards. Written tests and examinations gradually took shape in these colleges to test the linguistic proficiency and knowledge in other subjects of the young men, and qualify and rank them for service in Indian administration. In the course of the pursuit of development of written examinations in these colleges, I have read some materials on the programme of teaching of Telugu language at the College of Fort St George, Madras (Brown 1817, 1818; Campbell 1816; Ellis 1816; Pattābhirāma Śāstry 1814–15; Venkayya 1806). After piecing together evidence and arguments from several sources, the idea that Telugu language was the site for the genesis of the concept of Dravidian language family in the second decade of the nineteenth century gradually dawned. I have noted that the historical and theoretical significance of such a fundamental concept was not properly analysed in the study of Telugu and Dravidian linguistics. Hence, I ventured on the writing of this book with much reluctance and skepticism. I narrated these facts to explain how and why I started writing this book, but not to justify the venture. The joint study of Telugu language and its grammatical tradition by the British and native scholars at the College of Fort St George, Madras in the second decade of the nineteenth century culminated in the formulation and publication of the concept of the Dravidian language family (1816). N. Venkata Rāo was the first scholar who noted in 1953 the meaning and significance of the project of joint study of British and native scholars and construction of the concept of Dravidian languages. He republished the Dissertation on Telugu language by Francis Whyte Ellis (1953–54: Telugu Section, 1–8, and 1954–55: Telugu Section, 1–35, hereafter cited as Dissertation). He wrote a learned and wellinformed essay on the Dissertation and other works of Ellis (1953–54: Telugu Section, 1–6, separate pagination from the Dissertation of Ellis). His publications (1957: Telugu Section, 16–25, and 1957–58: Telugu Section, 1–14) on the related aspects of the theme are valuable. He observed that the Dissertation of Ellis ‘… marks the emergence of the theory of independent existence of Dravidian languages and their mutual relationships’ (1957: Telugu Section, 16), and Ellis ‘… may be rightly termed as the father of Dravidian philology in general and Telugu in particular …’ (1953–54: Telugu Section, Note 1).

The Problem . 5

T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau have noted in the Preface to their magnum opus, A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary: ‘The Dravidian family of languages was recognized at least as early as 1816 by Francis W. Ellis, in his “Note to the Introduction” of Alexander D. Campbell’s A Grammar of the Teloogoo Language (the Note has separate pagination as pp.1–32)’ (1961: V). They have observed in the Preface to the second edition of the Dictionary (1984: VII.cv.i) that the ‘Note’ of Ellis ‘… was brought to the attention of modern scholars by N. Venkata Rāo in Annals of Oriental Research, University of Madras, 12.1–35 (1954–55)’. The citation did not refer to the first part Ellis’s ‘Note’ or Dissertation (Venkata Rāo 1953–54: Telugu Section, 1–8). Venkata Rāo also established and confirmed the authorship of Āndhra Dhātupāt΄a, also known as Āndhra Dhātumāla, by Vēdam Pattābhirāma Śāstry, Head Sanskrit and Telugu Master at the College of Fort St George (1812–20) and underlined its value for Telugu philology and for the formulation of the concept of Dravidian languages. It is a pioneering work of fundamental value on the roots of Telugu words and verbal forms. Paravastu Chinnaya Sūri (1802–60), the first Headmaster of Telugu, University of Madras and a grammarian of repute, recognized the value of Āndhra Dhātumāla, wrote in his own handwriting a copy and kept it in his personal library. While writing a copy of Āndhra Dhātumāla, Sūri omitted the roots of Telugu words which had originated in colloquial usage and were used in literary works. The Āndhra Sāhitya Parishat (Andhra Literary Academy), Kakinada located the copy of the manuscript text of Āndhra Dhātumāla copied by Sūri, and erroneously designating Sūri the author, published it (1930) in the series of its publications (No. 23). It is significant to note that the publishers explicitly stated that clear evidence was not available to conclusively prove the authorship of Sūri. Karri Śāmbamu- rti Śāstry, who wrote an Introduction, pointed out several points of conflict or disagreement between the grammatical propositions held and advocated by Sūri and the linguistic theories and practices found in Āndhra Dhātumāla. He felt that the internal evidence of Āndhra Dhātumāla did not lend support to the theory of authorship of Sūri (1930: 2–6). Furthermore, the author’s name was not found in the manuscript text copied by Sūri. Therefore, many scholars did not subscribe to the theory of Sūri’s authorship of Āndhra Dhātumāla. Venkata Rāo (1951: 5–13) pointed out the blunder committed by the Āndhra Sāhitya Parishat, and helped in the confirmation and restoration of the authorship of Āndhra Dhātumāla by Pattābhirāma Śāstry (originally published in Trilinga Patrika, 22 May 1950).

6 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Āndhra Dīpika, a two-volume dictionary of Telugu language, was compiled by Māmidi Venkayya in 1806. It is a work of profound scholarship and learning. It is the first dictionary which listed words in alphabetical order of Telugu language. Venkayya’s Preface to Āndhra Dīpika is a brief, stimulating account of the history of Telugu language and grammar, which is a basic document for the construction of the concept of Dravidian languages. The historical role and linguistic value of Āndhra Dīpika in the formulation of the concept of Dravidian languages had been noted and highlighted by Venkata Rāo (1957: Telugu Section, 22–25). Thus, important research materials and the institutional and historical scenario relating to the connection of Telugu language with the birth of the Dravidian language family were brought to the notice of scholars and the public by Venkata Rāo. The republication of Ellis’s Dissertation on Telugu language with focus on its significance for Dravidian and Telugu linguistics may be considered as a milestone on the roadmap of the progress of knowledge in the field. Therefore, it will prove to be a rewarding exercise to review the studies relating to Dravidian and Telugu linguistics in the period preceding and after Rāo brought Ellis’s Dissertation to the notice of scholars. Since my interest is in Telugu language, research materials relating to the studies of Telugu linguistics are reported. H. H. Wilson, in his Introduction to the collection of manuscripts of Colin Mackenzie, noted and endorsed the opinion of Ellis and Campbell that Telugu language along with Tamil and Kannada languages had origins in a common source (other than Sanskrit). He appreciated the historical significance of Ellis’s Dissertation on Telugu language (1828: 17–25). Bishop Robert Caldwell’s classic A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian family of languages was published in 1856. Caldwell wrote in the Preface to the first edition of his celebrated book: ‘The First to break ground in the field was Mr. Ellis, a Madras Civilian, who was profoundly versed in the Tamil language and literature, and whose interesting but very brief comparison, not of the grammatical forms, but only some of the vocables of the three Dravidian dialects, is contained in his introduction to Campbell’s Telugu Grammar’ (1856: IV).

This is a brief but inadequate and less than fair acknowledgement to the contribution of Ellis. The second edition (1875) issued by Caldwell, and the third edition (1913) as well as the revised edition (1961) and currently available print of the book dropped the Preface to the first

The Problem . 7

edition, and do not have any reference to the contribution of Ellis and Campbell to the formulation of the concept of the Dravidian language family. A. C. Burnell published Ellis’s ‘Dissertation on the Malayalam Language’ with editorial notes in The Indian antiquary (1878). He appreciated the significance and value of the two dissertations on Telugu and Malayalam languages by Ellis in a note as follows. The above Dissertation is of remarkable historical interest, for (taken with the essay on Telugu) it proves that before 1816 Mr. Ellis had already foreseen the possibility of comparative philology, not only as regards the so called Aryan tongues, but also in respect of the Dravidian. Now it was not till 1816 (so Burnet says, and I must take his assertion for I cannot refer to the original) that Bopp published his Conjugations System, which was the beginning of comparative philology in Europe. Ellis could (considering the means of intercourse available in those days) hardly have seen or heard of this work at all, for he died early in 1819. He must then, in future, be considered one of the originators of one of the most remarkable advances in science in this century. His unfortunate end — he was poisoned by accident — prevented his doing much, for he was only forty when he died, but he cannot be robbed of his due fame by the success of others more lucky than he was (Ellis 1878).

C. Nārāyana . Rāo, a reputed scholar and author of the well-known History of Āndhra Language (1937), was simply unaware of the contributions of Campbell and Ellis to Telugu linguistics and Dravidian philology. He noted: ‘This problem of the relationship of the South Indian languages and their ultimate affiliation was for the first time tackled by Dr. Caldwell’ (1929: 69). Achyuta C. Mēnon gave an excellent analysis of the crucial role performed by the College of Fort St George in shaping the concept of Dravidian languages. He ably reviewed and reported the plan for the study and advancement of South Indian languages under the auspices of the College (1939: 393–406) and provided a fair and detailed account of the groundwork for the study and promotion of Telugu language at the College (ibid.: 399–401). C. S. Śrīnivāsāchāri presented a good account of the promotion of studies in Telugu language and literature by the Madras Government under the Company rule (1941: 8–18). Naturally, he focused on the role of the College of Fort St George as a centre for the advancement of study of Telugu language. The Board of Superintendence of the College recommended the purchase of copyright of Āndhra Dīpika by the government.

8 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

The College offered and supervised a programme of instruction in native laws for munshis and other natives, who were to be appointed law officers and pleaders in the provincial government after successful completion of the course. He noted: ‘It was Campbell that first pointed the radical and intimate connection that exists between Telugu and other South Indian languages’ (ibid.: 14). K. Vīrabhadra Rāo acknowledged that valuable contributions were made by Campbell and Ellis to the theory of independent origin of Telugu language, and that it was not a descendant of Sanskrit language. Campbell’s account of the distinctive features of Telugu grammar as well as methods of study followed in Ellis’s Dissertation and its conclusions were carefully analysed. He had clearly identified the critical elements in the study of Telugu language at the College. William Brown’s opinion that Sanskrit was not the source of birth for Telugu language had been cited (Vīrabhadra Rāo 1960: 118–22). He cited, in another study, passages that testify the help of Woodiagherry Vencatanarrain Ayah (hereafter, except in citations, the modern spelling Udayagiri Venkata Nārāyanayya is used instead of the archaic spelling used by Campbell) . and Pattābhirāma Śāstry to Campbell in writing his Teloogoo Grammar (Vīrabhadra Rāo 1988: 306–307). He constructed an able account of the contributions made by European missionaries, merchants, travellers, scholars and administrators to the study of Telugu language and literature. He was well versed in the native grammatical tradition of Telugu. He had a crunch with the theme of this study. I fail to explain why he did not take up a full-fledged study of the problem, especially when he was very well equipped to undertake it and well acquainted with the research materials. B. Purushōttam simply listed Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar in the bibliography of his learned and massive work (1969). Challa Rādhākrishn.a Śarma, a reputed scholar, published a short, well founded, informed and learned essay on Ellis and his contributions to the study of South Indian languages at the College of Fort St George (1971: 141–49). Ellis is entitled to be designated the founder of the concept of the Dravidian language family by virtue of the new theory of independent origin of the South Indian languages proposed by him. He took note of the publication of Ellis’s Dissertation by Venkata Rāo,1 and the value of Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s Āndhra Dhātumāla. The essay is 1 The citation of the reference is incomplete. The first part of the publication of Ellis’s Dissertation had not been cited (1953–54; 144).

The Problem . 9

part of a popular series of writings in Telugu language, and is the best account on Ellis and his manifold accomplishments. P. S. Subramaņyam is a renowned scholar in the field of Dravidian linguistics. He referred to the publication of Ellis’ Dissertation by Venkata Rāo, and concluded that Ellis may be regarded the pioneer of comparative Dravidian philology (1977: 65–66). A. Rājēśwara Śarma, an acknowledged authority on Telugu grammatical tradition, briefly outlined the sources, contents and methods of study of Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar. He cited the opinion of Campbell that Telugu will be found to have its origins in a source different from Sanskrit, which was perhaps a common source for the Telugu, superior Tamil and Kannada. He concluded that Campbell should have a place among the founders of the concept of Dravidian language family. Ironically, he cited the statement of Campbell that Ellis supported Campbell’s theory of Dravidian languages, and suggested that Campbell was predecessor to Ellis in the formulation of the Dravidian language family (1977: 383). This is not only an untenable conclusion and misreading of Campbell’s observation, but also a failure to put the historical scenario for the emergence of Dravidian language family in a proper perspective. The acknowledgement of Campbell that he availed of the help and guidance of Udayagiri Venkata Nārāyan.ayya and Pattābhirāma Śāstry in writing Teloogoo Grammar was simply noted, without any comment. Bernard Cohn observed: ‘Ellis, who had a career as judge and collector in South India, was one of the most accomplished and sensitive of the early orientalists’ (1985: 324). He referred to Ellis’s Dissertation on Telugu language and his other works. Norman J. Cutler (1988: 400) noted: ‘The existence of the Dravidian language family was first recognized in the West by Francis W. Ellis in his “Note to the Introduction” of Campbell’s Grammar of the Telugu language (1816).’ Ārudra, a distinguished scholar, author of the monumental History of Andhra Literature and a poet of repute, designated Ellis the founder of the concept of the Dravidian language family (1990: 30). He gave a brief but detailed account of the methodology employed by Ellis in the utilization of Telugu language to conclusively prove the identity and independent origin of Dravidian languages. It is a four-fold approach. First, Ellis took 40 roots of Sanskrit from the common dhātumāla or list of roots (10 root forms from each of the letters: A, C, P, and V of Sanskrit alphabet) and compared with the roots of same letters of

10 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Telugu language. Second, he took from Āndhra Dhātumāla 15 roots of the first vowel and 15 roots of the first consonant of the alphabet of Telugu, and compared in a tabular form with the corresponding roots of the first vowel and first consonant of Tamil and Kannada. Third, a list of 24 de-śya words (current in the Āndhra region) of Telugu were compared in a tabular form with the corresponding words of Tamil and Kannada. Fourth, he analysed and compared the syntax of Telugu, Tamil and Kannada, and also compared the syntax of South Indian languages with the syntax of Sanskrit. The primary importance and value of research materials in Telugu and the role played by native scholars (specially Telugu pandits) in the formation of the concept of the Dravidian language family was fairly recorded (ibid.: 46–47 and 234–37). He emphasized, in particular, the observation of William Brown that Sanskrit was not the mother or source of origin of Telugu language (ibid.: 25). Kamil V. Zvelebil referred to the Dissertation of Ellis and stated that Ellis was founder of Dravidian philology (1990: xviii). He listed the Dissertation of Ellis as the first document in terms of historical evolution of the concept of Dravidian languages (ibid.: 28). Kusulappa Gowda (1990: 140) simply noted the re-publication of the Dissertation of Ellis by Venkata Rāo. The Asian Educational Services (New Delhi) reprinted Campbell’s A Grammar of Teloogoo Language in 1991. The reprint carried author’s ‘Introduction’, which is an important and interesting document, and the Dissertation of Ellis’s ‘Note to the Introduction’. The author’s introduction gives a brief sketch of the history of the Āndhra region and people (perhaps the first historical account of Āndhra) and, more significantly, a short, fascinating and provocative account of Telugu and its grammatical tradition. This account is based on the traditional scholarship and opinions of generations of some Telugu pandits who have been carrying on and representing the living tradition of the hoary past. They maintain that before the king Andhraroyadoo established his residence on the banks of the Godavery, the only Teloogoo words were those peculiar to what is emphatically termed the pure Teloogoo, now generally named the language of the land, which they consider coeval with the people, or as they express it ‘created by the God Brimha’. The followers of this prince say they, for the first time began to adopt Sanscrit terms with Teloogoo terminations, and by degrees corruptions from the Sanscrit crept into the language, from the ignorance of the people respecting the proper pronunciation of the

The Problem . 11 original words. This would imply that the nation still retain some faint remembrance of those times, in which their language existed independent of the Sancrit, and it is certain that every Teloogoo Grammarian, from the days of Nunnia Bhutt to the present period, considers the two languages as derived from sources entirely distinct, … (1991: xvii).

After careful examination of the thesis of William Carey that Telugu was derived from Sanskrit, Campbell concluded: ‘I am inclined, however, to believe that the Teloogoo will be found to have its origin in a source different from the Sanscrit, a source common perhaps to the Teloogoo, with the superior dialects of the Tamil and Karnataca’ (ibid.: xx). This is an embryonic form of the concept of the Dravidian language family. Campbell acknowledged the help and guidance of Udayagiri Venkata Nārāyaņayya and Pattābhirāma Śāstry in writing Teloogoo Grammar. Thomas R. Trautmann presented a full-fledged and authoritative account of the emergence of the Dravidian language family in the second decade of the nineteenth century (1997: 149–54). His arguments and conclusions are based on outstanding scholarship, amazing command over the research materials, logical interpretation and fair judgment, and stimulating theoretical insights drawn from a multidisciplinary approach. He gave a masterly analysis of the historical and linguistic context for the independent origin and identity of Dravidian languages (ibid.: 131–54). He observed that ‘Ellis …, is one of the unknown greats of the British orientalism’ (ibid.:149). While taking a bird’s-eye view of the contributions of Ellis, Trautmann wrote: Much the most interesting to us are three ‘dissertations’ on Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam, printed for the use of the students of the college (College of Fort St.George, Madras). The second of these (Dissertation on Telugu language), which I will examine closely was published in Alexander D. Campbell’s Grammar of the Teloogoo language (1816) as a long ‘note to the introduction’, it is of exceptional importance as the first proof of the Dravidian language family (ibid.: 150).

This definite conclusion was based on a careful and critical study of the research materials. Further, the contextualization of the conclusion in an objective historical discourse on the study and discussion of the role of Sanskrit and the Indo-Āryan languages family vis-à-vis the South Indian languages is an accomplishment of Trautmann’s high acumen and scholarship. The intrinsic value of the analytical category of word classification in the grammatical tradition of Telugu language and its instrumental

12 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

value for identification of the core layer of Telugu have now been clearly analysed. The contributions of Pattābhirāma Śāstry, the valuable role of Māmidi Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika and the help of Udayagiri Venkata Nārāyanayya (Telugu instructor and companion of Campbell . in preparing the text of Teloogoo Grammar) in the formulation of the concept of the Dravidian language family have been fairly reviewed and recorded. The merit and meaning of Campbell’s introduction to his Teloogoo Grammar has been appreciated. Trautmann gave an admirable account of the comparative method followed by Ellis, which established in clear terms the theory of independent origin and cognate mutual relationship of the South Indian languages. Trautmann did not read Venkata Rāo’s essay on the Dissertation of Ellis (1953–54: Telugu Section, 1–6) and related papers (1957: Telugu section, 16–25 and 1957–58: Telugu section, 1–14). I note this fact not in a pejorative spirit, but to point out the merit and extraordinary scholarship of Trautmann.2 His latest book (2006) is an authoritative study of the construction of the concept of the Dravidian language family based on an intensive and critical study and analysis of the vast archival materials. It bears the stamp and scholarship of a classic. K. Venkatrāmaiah brought out the historical significance of the Dissertation of Ellis and Campbell’s Grammar. His book, a work of indefatigable scholarship, is a rich source of data on the Dravidian language family. He appreciated the value of Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s Āndhra Dhātumāla and Māmidi Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika, and concluded that 2 Professor Trautmann had been working on a project, focusing on what he rightly called the Madras School of Orientalism. He was engaged in the study of the role played by the College of Fort St George in the resurgence of the South Indian languages and literature in the first half of the nineteenth century. His project was primarily directed to construct an intellectual portrait of F. W. Ellis. His publications (1999: 53–70; 1999a: 36–54; and 2001: 375–97) covered some aspects of the project. I had the pleasure and benefit of meeting and exchanging ideas with him at the Tamil Nadu State Archives, Chennai during the first and second weeks of February 2003. He was kind enough to give me Xerox copies of his recent publications and I thank him for his generous gesture. Since then, he completed the project and published his book Dravidian Proof (2006). At his instruction, the publishers of the book sent a copy to me. I am deeply obliged to him for this precious gift. He has edited and published a volume titled The Madras School of Orientalism (2009).

The Problem . 13

Ellis and Campbell were the first rays of light on the horizon of the study of Dravidian languages (1998: 148). V. Simmanna referred to Campbell’s Grammar and the ‘Note of Introduction’ by Ellis. He ranked Ellis as the founder of the family of South Indian languages and expounder of the nature of Telugu language (1998: 18–19; 2004: 83–84). Ellis and Campbell specially emphasized the help of Pattābhirāma Śāstry and Venkata Nārāyanayya, and the value of Māmidi Venkayya’s . Āndhra Dīpika and Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s Āndhra Dhātumāla. Easy access to these documents and knowledge relating to the role played by the Telugu grammatical tradition and native pandits in the formation of the concept of the Dravidian language family should have caused seismic shocks in the guild of Telugu linguistics and Dravidian philology. These research materials have not been properly analysed by the concerned scholars. Reputed scholars, authoritative publications on the history of Telugu language and centres of higher learning devoted to the study of Telugu language and literature, it appears, are unaware of and unconcerned about the historical and deeper meaning and significance of these research materials (except for the brief and casual references cited earlier, and the studies of Venkata Rāo, Ārudra and Trautmann). This is undoubtedly a sad scenario and an outline of it is noted in the following pages to contextualize the theme of this book in the academic setting of Telugu linguistics. G. J. Sōmayāji’s Āndhra Bhashā Vikāsamu (1947, 2nd print 1968 and 3rd print 1985, ‘Development of Āndhra Language’) is reputed to be a good piece of research of its time. It has been acclaimed by C. Rāmalingā Reddy (pioneer of modern criticism of Telugu literature) … as a book of outstanding merit in its line. It is a masterly contribution to Dravidian Philology in general and more particularly to the origin and growth of Telugu language. He (the author) possesses the needful historical sense, not very common among the pandits, and penetrating and critical insight. He is read widely and deeply (1947: Foreword, iii).

It had been prescribed and used as a textbook for postgraduate courses in Telugu language and literature for three decades. Its author was Head, Department of Telugu, Āndhra University, which had a slant for the study of Telugu language and linguistics in the academic programme. It is a centre which trained a number of outstanding linguists. Sōmayāji was also the initiator and director of a significant research project: the Telugu Etymological Dictionary Scheme (1957). The most

14 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

interesting point is this: the library of Āndhra University has the volumes of Annals of Oriental Research, which carry the Dissertation of Ellis on Telugu language (1953–54: xi and 1954–55: xii) and the related papers of Venkata Rāo (1957: xiii and 1957–58: xiv). Furthermore, K. Vīrabhadra Rāo (1960), Sōmayāji’s student and doctoral scholar (at Āndhra University till 1961), had read and used the Dissertation of Ellis and Campbell’s Grammar. Yet these documents were not studied, analysed and utilized by Sōmayāji. It appears that he had no knowledge about William Brown’s Telugu Grammar and mistook it for C. P. Brown’s Telugu Grammar (1968: 174). The second print of Sōmayāji’s book was issued by the author in 1968. It does not refer to the research materials on Telugu language cited above. This is a factual account untainted by opinions and comments. Bh. Krishna . Mūrti (a student, research scholar and colleague of Somāyāji at Āndhra University) is a distinguished scholar in Telugu and Dravidian linguistics. No less than C. Rāmā Rāo opined that Krishn.a Mūrti’s name is synonymous with Telugu linguistics in Andhra Pradesh (1972: 34). He said that if it was necessary to demarcate different periods of the history of Telugu linguistics, these be designated pre-Krishn.a Mūrti, Krishna . Mūrti, and post-Krishna . Mūrti eras (ibid.: 39). It is not an easy task to question the judgment of Rāmā Rāo on matters relating to Telugu linguistics. Among the several publications of Krishn.a Mūrti, I refer particularly to the volume of essays Telugu Bhaşā Charitra (History of Telugu Language, 1975, rev. edn 1979) edited by him and published by the Āndhra Pradesh Sāhitya Academy. It is being used as a textbook for MA courses in Telugu language and literature, and as a reference source material for studies on the history of Telugu language. The volume’s contributors are reputed scholars. Krishna . Mūrti did not refer to the Dissertation of Ellis and Campbell’s Grammar even when he discussed the problem of the status and relationship of Telugu language with the Dravidian languages (1975 and 1979: 452–75). Most surprisingly, the bibliography of the volume does not list the research documents under discussion. However, he referred to the Dissertation of Ellis in other studies and observed: ‘As early as 1816, Francis Whyte Ellis of the Indian Civil Service introduced the notion of comparative Dravidian Philology… He produced considerable illustrative material, mainly lexical and some grammatical, from Telugu, Kannada and Tamil in support of his thesis’ (1969: 309–33; 2001: 101–102, 371; 2003: 16–17). These three citations refer to the republication of the Dissertation of Ellis by Venkata Rāo. The Dissertation of Ellis was republished by Venkata Rāo in two parts,

The Problem . 15

and Krishna . Mūrti cited in all the references only the second part (1954–55) and not the first (1953–54). He simply repeated and reproduced over a period of three decades brief references to Ellis and his contribution to Dravidian philology. He did not take into account the stimulating studies and discussions relating to the seminal role of Ellis and the College of Fort St George in the construction of the concept of the Dravidian idea and languages. It appears that he did not grasp the theoretical significance and meaning of the construction of the concept of the Dravidian language family by Ellis and the team of native and British scholars at the College of Fort St George in the second decade of the nineteenth century. This is rather disappointing, because Krishn.a Mūrti is a giant in the field of Dravidian and Telugu linguistics, and he will be the sentinel of Dravidian linguistics for quite some time. He did not carefully analyse the contribution of Campbell, Ellis, Māmidi Venkayya and Pattābhirāma Śāstry for the development of Telugu linguistics. Further, it is ungratifying to note the observations of Krishna . Mūrti regarding Āndhra Dhātumāla in the Indian reprint of his magnum opus, Telugu Verbal Bases: A Comparative and Descriptive Study (originally published by California University Press in 1961). He says: The Telugu Academy of Kākināda . published in 1930, a book entitled Āndhra Dhātumāla (Dh.M), whose authorship was disputed. The book consists of verbal stems, colloquial as well as classical, simple as well as compound, glosses are given first in Sanskrit, followed by Telugu translation. In spite of a number of errors in confusing r/ŕ, etc., and giving sometimes inaccurate glosses, it is a very useful collection, though not exhaustive. A number of the items reported as ‘colloquial’ occur in this book (1972: Preface, viii–ix).

I have given detailed information in this chapter (p. 5) regarding the authorship of Āndhra Dhātumāla and its value for Telugu and Dravidian linguistics. The Dissertation of Ellis is a proof for the authorship and significance of Āndhra Dhātumāla. It is unnecessary to comment on the cavalier observations of Krishna . Mūrti about Āndhra Dhātumāla and its author. C. Rāma Rāo is a reputed scholar and critic of Telugu linguistics and literature. He is an acknowledged authority on the syntax of Telugu language. His book on Telugu sentence (1975b, rev. edn 1999)as well as papers (1972; 1975a) did not even refer to the Dissertation of Ellis and Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar. It is interesting to note in this connection that Ellis analysed the syntax of Telugu language and compared it with the syntax of Tamil, Kannada and Sanskrit languages (1816: 22–31).

16 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Perhaps Ellis was the first scholar who listed the collocation of words in Telugu sentence and pointed out the distinctive features of the syntax and idiom of the Telugu language. Campbell carefully studied the syntax of Telugu and made interesting observations. B. Rādhākrishna, . a student (1950–53) and research scholar (PhD 1965) of Sōmayāji at Āndhra University, is known for incisive analysis and exacting standards of scholarship. He wrote extensively on several aspects of Telugu language (1972, 1975, 1989, 1990). He contributed a chapter titled ‘Debates on the Literary and Spoken Forms of Telugu in Modern Period’ to the volume edited by Bh. Krishna . Murti (1975: 264–94). He noted the contributions of several scholar-administrators of colonial India, who contributed to the development of Telugu language in the modern period, but did not take notice of the Dissertation of Ellis. He cited and relied on K. V. Ramanā . Reddy’s Mahōdayam (1969) for a factual account of some aspects of the development of Telugu language and literature in the first half of the nineteenth century. The appraisal of the theme was rather cursory and was informed by inaccurate facts. He wrote briefly on theories of Telugu grammar and lexicography including the contribution of European scholars (1998). However, he simply repeated earlier views, opinions and mistakes. His book Vyavahārika Bhashā Vikāsamu (Development of Colloquial [Telugu] Language, 1972, rpt 1981, 1992, 1999, 2000) records a factual statement regarding the publication of Campbell’s Grammar in 1816. I have a well-founded basis to conclude that the corpus of the writings of Rādhākrishnā . on Telugu language and literature do not pay even casual attention to the contribution of Ellis, Campbell and their native associates for the development of Telugu linguistics. Bandi Gōpāla Reddy, a maverick and dedicated researcher of modern Telugu literature, firmly believed that the establishment of the College of Fort St George was a landmark in the process of resurgence of South India and particularly of modern Āndhra. The College initiated an institutionalized and systematic method of teaching of the South Indian languages to fulfill the requirements of colonial regime. The British officers and native scholars, who were representatives of different cultures, collaborated and participated in collective work at the College. Therefore, the College is a significant legacy for South India (1977: xiv). Reddy was the first researcher who properly assessed the historical significance of the College for the renaissance of South Indian languages and literature, and of the methods of study followed in the

The Problem . 17

College for construction of knowledge in colonial India. He emphasized the need to study the role played by the College in the development of modern Telugu language and literature. But unfortunately he did not live long enough to undertake the study. He made only a casual reference to Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar. He cited the opinion of Ellis on the rights of mirasidar (ibid.: 143–44), but did not refer to the Dissertation of Ellis. It is very difficult to explain this point. He had a full-blooded vision of the College and its methods of study and teaching, laid his hand on Campbell’s Grammar and knew the work of Ellis on revenue matters. Yet he was silent about the Dissertation of Ellis and its linguistic significance. This is an enigmatic problem for me, because I had intimate association with him and his style of work as a researcher. J. Mangamma cited Campbell’s conclusion that the Dravidian languages did not originate from Sanskrit. She made a brief reference to the Dissertation of Ellis (2001: 46). I do not propose to enlarge the list of authors who did not take notice of the contributions of Ellis and Campbell for the development of Telugu linguistics. I referred to a select group of authors who have exercised and continue to exercise remarkable influence on the study of Telugu linguistics, and who are associated with two important centres of higher studies in Telugu language (Department of Telugu, Āndhra University, Visakhapatnam; and Department of Linguistics, Osmānia University, Hyderabad). These authors are reputed scholars and have made/are making valuable contributions in the advancement of knowledge in the study of Telugu language and literature. But they have adapted a three-fold erroneous stand on the specific theme: the historical association of Telugu language with the process of emergence of the Dravidian language family in the second decade of the nineteenth century. First, they are either unaware of or have failed to grasp the meaning and significance of the Dissertation of Ellis and author’s Introduction to Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar. Further, they do not know the chief elements and processes in the creation of the concept of the Dravidian language family and its implications for the construction of knowledge in colonial India. Second, they maintain (note the slight modification in the opinion of Bh. Krishna . Mu rti) that Rev. Bishop Robert Caldwell is the originator of the concept of the Dravidian language family, which is simply not correct. It is needless to add that Caldwell is a giant in the field of Dravidian philology. But he is not the originator of the concept

18 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

of the Dravidian language family. Third, it appears that they have failed to appreciate the value of the study of the rich grammatical tradition of Telugu language, and probably were unaware of the role played by Telugu pandits — Pattābhirāma Śāstry, Māmidi Venkayya, Udayagiri Venkata Nārāyanayya and others in the making of the concept of . Dravidian language family. This stand of the mainstream writers of Telugu linguistics has not been rectified till today. K. Vīrabhadra Rāo (1960, 1988), Challa Radhākrishna . Śarma (1971), A. Rājēśwara Śarma (1977), P. S. Subramaņyam (1977), Ārudra (1990) and K. Venkatrāmaiah (1998) gave a brief sketch of the genesis of the Dravidian language family. They grouped Ellis, Campbell, Pattābhirāma Śāstry, Māmidi Venkayya and Venkata Nārāyanayya as a team of . linguists who were directly or indirectly associated with the College of Fort St George and shaped the concept of the Dravidian language family. These references are more or less factual accounts and fail to capture the historical and theoretical significance of the contribution of this unique team of British officers and native scholars to Telugu and Dravidian philology. Venkata Rāo was the first scholar who captured the historical and theoretical significance of the Dissertation of Ellis, Māmidi Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika and Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s Āndhra Dhātumāla. He initiated studies (1957, 1957–58) with the aim of bringing out the value of the grammatical tradition of Telugu language as an input for a proper study of Telugu linguistics and Dravidian philology. But he did not pursue the study for reasons we cannot ascertain. Trautmann’s account (1997: 149–54) is systematic and stimulating, and its historical and theoretical perceptions are fascinating. It is a small part of a large theme (Indo-European concept) of his book, and therefore necessarily is a brief account. His book Languages and Nations: The Dravidian Proof in Colonial Madras (2006), is an authoritative and full-scale study of the construction of the Dravidian language family in Madras in 1816 by the British and native scholars under the leadership of Ellis. His approach and argument is based on the larger framework of the Western project of languages and nations (the historical relations of languages constitute the key for relations among nations and people) in the age of European expansion. It is focused on drawing an intellectual portrait of Ellis, the originator of the concept of the Dravidian language family. Tamil — its history and grammatical tradition — is the centrepiece in the process of the formulation of the Dravidian language family by Ellis. This idea of Ellis, the predominance of Tamil vis-à-vis

The Problem . 19

South Indian languages (including Telugu), impinges on and informs the authoritative work of Trautmann. Further, the British Orientalists, who were under the strong influence of Bengali pandits (their tutors) and the Orientalist policy of Warren Hastings (to govern Indians and India according to the norms and laws of Indian culture and tradition), vested the tenet of centrality of Sanskrit language and the tradition of Vyākaran.a Śāstra with undue importance and space in the history of linguistic heritage and analysis in India. This played havoc with the plural vision of the Indian linguistic tradition and the origins, status and role of the dēśībhaās.a (dēśya) tradition in India. The accumulated impact of all these factors impinged on the argument of Trautmann in respect of the appraisal of the nature of Telugu language and grammar, and its role in the formulation of the Dravidian language family. My book is a humble attempt, by an outsider of the guild of Dravidian and Telugu linguistics, to present a full-length study of the problem: how and why Telugu language was the site for construction of the concept of Dravidian language family in the second decade of the nineteenth century. It is not based on new facts. The corpus of source materials for the study has been brought to light by a number of scholars. I have placed and analysed the source materials in the historical context and derived a coherent and logical account of the nature of collaboration between the native and British scholars in the construction of new knowledge; the spirit of the early phase of British rule; Telugu grammatical tradition and its socio-economic background; and the basis and character of Orientalism. The aim of this study is four-fold. First, it proposes to set right the record. Ellis and Campbell and the team of native scholars nursed and shaped the concept of the Dravidian language family in 1816 at the College of Fort St George. Second, it maintains the thesis that the study of Telugu language and its grammatical tradition had been a fundamental category in the genesis of the concept of the Dravidian language family. Third, it gives an outline of the historical knowledge of the Telugu grammatical tradition which helped the formulation of the concept of Dravidian languages. Last, the concept of the Dravidian language family is a seminal idea. It is a ‘heteroglot and dialogic production’ of the collaboration and joint studies of the British and Indian scholars in colonial South India (Irshick 1994: 8). The study seeks to analyse and identify the chief elements, participants and methods of research in the process of construction of the concept of the Dravidian language family. It is hoped that such an exercise will prove

20 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

to be a fruitful opportunity to put down the specifics of the process of dialogic formation of new knowledge. It will also help to generate some general observations which may improve our understanding of the controversial, much debated and contested relationship between colonialism and Orientalism, and the related problems of the dialectics of power and knowledge, cultural representation and the problematic nature of Oriental knowledge.

The Problem . 21

2 Historical Context and Institutional Matrix The emergence of the East India Company as a territorial power in India in the latter half of the eighteenth century was a net product of prolonged interplay or chemistry of complex historical forces, ideas and interests, approximately over a hundred years from the midseventeenth century onwards. The British would prefer or tend to put up an innocent face and look at the Company’s territorial expansion in India as ‘fortuitous’ development and interpret it ‘… less in terms of the push of conquest and more in terms of the pull of chaos’ (Keay 2000: 383). Maybe the territorial acquisitions of the Company were not an outcome of a well-designed political or military strategy (Edwards 1969: 6). Perhaps the Directors of the Company were interested only in trade and profit making. They were apprehensive of the plausible interference and control by the government. Philip Mason observed: ‘The British Governments were determined to beat the French but they were far from decided about ruling India. Traders indeed and nothing more they were till 1756’ ([1974] 1976: 75). Trade and commerce indeed was the tissue which had been metamorphosed into British India. It was the age of European expansion and genesis of the modern world system (Bose 1990; Lach 1965a, 1970, 1977; Lach and Van Kley 1993; Wallerstein 1974). It was a period of intense rivalry and contest among the European companies for trading rights and access to markets (Furber 1976). Inter-Asian trade was a distinct phenomenon prior to the arrival of the European companies on the Asian scene. Arab, Indian, Persian, Turkish, Armenian, Chinese and Japanese merchants and bankers promoted the overland, coastal and overseas trade between and in the Asian countries (Arasaratnam 1986; Chaudhuri 1978, 1985; Ptak and Rothermund 1991; Subrahmanyam 1988, 1990, . 1994; Wink 1990). The East African Coast, Mediterranean region, Persian Gulf, India and its east coast and west coast, Ceylon, SouthEast Asia, Japan, China, and Central Asia were engaged in commercial intercourse through the overseas, coastal and overland trade circuits. The European companies availed of the Asian markets (Furber 1969: 711–21), and the Asian kings (specially the Mughal emperors and other Indian kings) welcomed and valued the European companies as partners in trade and

22 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

commerce in the seventeenth century. Donald F. Lach and Edwin J. Van Kley observed that by 1700, ‘Asia had become part of the international economic community and had begun to change, to profit and to suffer from this tightening relationship’ (1993: Book One, 109). The expansionist drive of the Company was governed by several considerations and forces. First, trade and profit was its chief goal. The Company was deeply interested in obtaining monopoly rights and favourable terms of trade, and reduction of customs duty on its imports from the Mughal and regional rulers. It was perforce involved in regional politics to protect and promote its trading activities and interests. It was noted: ‘The difficulties in which the commerce of the Company found itself in a strange land led often to war and consequent territorial advance. Even towards the end of the seventeenth century the raising of customs duty from 2 to 3 ½ per cent (on the bullion) gave excuse to Sir Josiah Child to raise Company’s head against the Mughal rule’ (Ruthnaswa- my 1935: 4). Second, in contrast to the history of the Company as a business enterprise, Philip Stern emphasized ‘an alternative approach’ to appraise its character and rule. He insisted that there was a need to dislocate … our discussion of the Company’s roots from commerce to politics, but a politics that was not novel but rather endemic to the early modern Eurasian world … we need to see the early East India Company not as a merchant, but as a form of body politic which existed in a world defined by composite, fragmented and hybrid forms of state and sovereignty (2009: 22–23).

The political goals of the British government and political conditions in India nursed and facilitated the expansionist appetite and ambitions of the Company. Stern wrote, The English East India Company was, from its first chartering in 1600, in form like other corporations for trade and plantation in the Atlantic, not to mention a host of municipal governments, universities, and corporate groups on the British Isles — by nature a political organization, with obligation to govern itself and to govern those subject to its command (ibid.: 23).

As early as 1661 (the New Charter), the Crown granted powers to the Company to wage wars and make peace with princes in Asia and to maintain civil and criminal control over its outposts. Stern observed: Though, of course, initially a corporation for conducting Eurasian commerce, by the second half of the seventeenth century, the Company’s operations led it to make claims to governance both over sea lanes as well as

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 23 over incipient city-colonies in India and the South Atlantic, each obtained on rather different jurisprudential foundations (ibid.).

The Company exercised proprietary rights over land under its possession and control, and sovereign authority over the residents (Europeans as well as natives) of its forts and trading centres in matters relating to civil and criminal jurisdiction, levy and collection of taxes and maintenance of military forces. It was zealous with regard to the sovereign nature of its authority over its establishments in India. Third, the Crown approved in 1685 the Company’s decision ‘to carry out maritime reprisals for the harrying of its tiny trading posts on the East and West coasts of India …’ As Orme characteristically puts it, ‘the Company determined to try what condescensions the effect of arms might produce and with the approbation of King James the Second, fitted out two fleet, one of which was ordered to cruise at the bar of Surat, on all vessels belonging to Mogul’s subjects.’ By ‘cruising on’, it should be explained, Orme means attacking, taking, pillaging, blowing out of the water and generally destroying every Indian vessel encountered. ‘And this the Company’s fleet at the bar of Surat duly did’ (Strachey 1962: 13–14). Fourth, the political economy of Britain exercised considerable influence in shaping the expansionist agenda of the Company. P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins rightly brought to the centre of stage ‘… the relationship between the British economy and Britain’s presence abroad’ including India, in the analysis of overseas expansion of Britain (1993: 5). It is appropriate to note here the pattern of political decay in India during this period. The gradual decline of authority of the Mughal Empire and the rise of regional powers was a ubiquitous feature of the Indian political horizon. Rivalry among the regional powers for political supremacy and the consequent endemic warfare and conditions of political instability provided ample opportunities for the rival European Companies, specially the French and English, to dabble in local politics. Further, neither the Mughal Empire nor the regional powers were competent enough to provide safety and security for the goods and personnel of the Company. Burton Stein correctly noted that the Company became a political force to protect its trade, merchants and artisans (1979: 199). In one sense, it was this general decline of political authority in India and some specific events and developments connected with each settlement of the Company that paved the way for the Company’s territorial acquisitions. For example, the territorial acquisitions of the Company in the Carnatic region were the result of

24 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Anglo–French conflict and disintegration of authority in the hinterland (Arasaratnam 1979: 27). As noted earlier, it is equally important, if not more significant, to bear in mind that the political ambition of the Company was largely governed by the political goals of the British government and the interests of the British economy. For example, the Directors of the Company wrote to the Council of Fort St George (Madras) in 1770 in connection with the Carnatic to preserve ‘… a studied uniform neutrality, in the interests of their commerce but only till such a time as our own dignity and interests call upon us to interfere and then a favourable moment should be seized’ (quoted in Ruthnaswamy 1935: 5). This was the sheet anchor for the Company’s policy of territorial expansion in Madras, Bengal and elsewhere in India. The Company was aggressive and seized and availed of every opportunity by fair or foul means to expand its territorial base and exercise sovereign authority over such territories in India. Further, the liquidity of the Company was not comfortable enough in the latter half of the eighteenth century to enable it to finance trade and meet the expenditure of civil and military establishments and of war operations. The restrictions on the import of bullion made the position of Company’s liquidity more vulnerable. The Company resorted to raising land revenue income through territorial expansion by means of war to obviate the financial crisis. The costs of war and acquisition of new territories had to be borne by the older territories. After 1765, the Company decided to set apart ‘… a certain portion of the revenues … for purchase of goods for exportation to England. This was the investment which played a celebrated part in the history of East India’s Company’ (Ruthnaswamy 1935: 4, also Guha 1998: 156). John Strachey observed: What it (Britain) imported from India were above all textiles. Up to the conquest these were paid for in gold and silver. After the conquest of Bengal, … the Company attempted not to pay for them at all, but to raise the money for their purchase by taxation in the province, and in other provinces too as the conquest extended. This ideal of the Company’s ships going out empty and returning laden with free goods was never quite achieved. But it was approached (1962: 69).

Thus, land revenue was a source to finance investment in trade. Territorial expansion through war became a policy tool to raise income from land revenue. This is the process which explains why and how

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 25

the trade and profit motive of the Company explicated in practice as the governing force and process of its territorial expansion in India. The Company’s demand for revenue from the Indian peasants and people had gradually increased, even during the times of famine and hardship. In fact, the Company stepped into the shoes of the indigenous rulers, whom it displaced in matters of revenue extraction from the farmers, and the display and employment of military force to establish and maintain its authority. Further, security considerations led the Company to tread on the path of territorial expansion. It was concerned with ‘internal enemy’ — the fear of discontent of the sepoys and civilian uprising if it was wrested by an Indian kingdom — and the external factor — the Iranian or Afghan invasion coupled with the revolt of Muslims (Yapp 1980). The Company was under the threat of attacks by Tipu Sultan in the south, the Marathas in western and central India and the Sikhs in the north-west. In fact, multiple factors and forces and an ensemble of conditions which could be captured by Eugene Irshick’s felicitous phrase — ‘contingent circumstances’ of historical necessity (1994: 7), including the AngloFrench rivalry in Europe, India and elsewhere; disintegration of central authority and the rise of centrifugal forces in the Indian State; the game of power politics of the local nawabs, regional chiefs, moneylenders, and the British; the ruthless struggle for pelf and profit; competition for monopoly over trade and commerce; the incipient drive of colonial and capitalist interests shaped the advent of the Company as a ruling power in India. It had all the elements of dramatic historical development — ups and downs, surprises and incredible twists and turns of events and fortunes, a labyrinth of espionage and counterespionage, free play of treachery, fraud, forgery and wiliness. In short, it was ‘…. a cat’s cradle of intrigues’ (Edwards 1969: x). Both the British and the Indians were past masters and equally blameworthy in the pursuit of the sordid game of power politics. The British had an upper hand in the historical game. They were well-trained, organized, disciplined, and courageous. What stood them in good stead were the typical attributes of British culture and character — sheer tenacity of purpose, mutual solidarity, loyalty to the cause of the Company and good leadership. The Indians had suffered the loss of the game on account of the recurring features of the civilizational faultline: a crippling inability to step out of the traditional mode of organizational and behavioural patterns; feeble vision of and loyalty to the common good; a low measure of discipline and spirit of unity; the habitual traits of treachery and sabotage; and, above all, decadent leadership in politics and other walks of life.

26 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

In a short but decisive span of seven years from 1757 (Battle of Plassey, 23 June 1757) to 1764 (Battle of Buxar, 23 October 1764), the British emerged as a rising ruling power in India. T. B. Macaulay had this period and locale in mind when he said that in the course of a few years, a handful of his countrymen had subjugated one of the greatest empires of the world. We may add, with the benefit of hindsight, that they laid foundations to a memorable empire that generated and shaped new ideas and institutions of enduring significance in the modern world. A near total collapse of public order and life was witnessed in the territories that came under the sway of the Company. It was a fiasco both for the British as well as the Indians. The British did not anticipate the onerous task of ruling a vast country of continental dimensions with a bewildering ethnic stock and a vast number of languages, land systems and religious and cultural traditions, so they were at sea as regards the call for governance. The Indians did not comprehend the historical scenario which yoked their country to British rule and hegemony for the next two centuries. Both parties were unprepared and ill-equipped for taking charge of the new historical context, but were gifted enough to adapt soon to the changed context. The immediate task for the British was restoration of public order in the territories under their rule. As successors to local nawabs and chiefs and hence the new rulers of the land, the British were called upon to settle disputes relating to proprietorship, customary rights of communities and individuals on land, and administer justice in civil and criminal cases. ‘Colonial magistrates knew virtually nothing about Islamic law’ (Powers 1989: 554), and also about the Hindu law and indigenous customs. Given the vast body of traditional rights and ‘entitlements to various kinds of products and services’ (ibid.: 555) of the people embedded in the land systems, social order, complex legal system, pervasive corruption and anarchy, the British administration faced a hopeless, uphill task. The British officers were not acquainted with the local languages and culture. A modicum of public order could be constructed and maintained on the foundations of indigenous institutions, practices and knowledge. It could be accomplished only with the aid and collaboration of local elite groups. The local elites shrewdly understood the meaning of the changed historical context and willingly joined hands with the British in order to preserve, protect and enlarge their power, status and privileges. They were conscious of the important role which was carried out by them under the new dispensation. The British were pragmatic and wise enough to make a

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 27

correct appraisal of the ground reality and conclude that the assistance and knowledge of the local elite groups was a prerequisite to maintain and expand the dominion in India. Thus, from its very inception, British rule in India was based on a unique and conscious partnership, even though unequal and authoritarian, and mutual interdependence of the rulers and ruled. It was expedient and a historical necessity for the British and Indians to participate in a joint endeavour to shape and operationalize of the new order. The ethos of political institutions and discourse of early British rule in India was grasped and represented by the observation of Bruce Carlisle Robertson that ‘… the terms of legitimacy of the new de facto sarkar were negotiated, not imposed’ (quoted by Paranjpe 2002: 70). While commenting on the spirit, outlook and accomplishments of British rulers in India, Philip Woodruff noted: ‘More important, they (the British) had associated Indians with them in their work and greater part of the administration was carried out by Indians’ (1953: vol.1, 13). Further, the stability of early British colonial establishment in India was far from secure. At home, as mentioned earlier, Hyder Ali and his son Tipu Sultan in the south, the Marathas in the west and centre, and Sikhs in the north-west were serious threats to the British. The British were preoccupied with the consequences of discontent of the sepoys (native soldiers) and the alienation of the Muslims. The revolt of American colonies, the French in Canada, the era of the French Revolution and its ideological implications and the probable invasion of Afghanistan and Iran followed by the rebellion of the Muslims were matters of concern for the British in this external setting. Such a grave and unpredictable historical background exercised direct and indirect influence in shaping the temper and character of the early phase of British rule. Ainslie T. Embree pointed out the significance, potential value and role of the political institutions of the early British rule in India in the following stimulating passage: The image of political institutions of Bengal comes out of the literature that begins to appear in the 1760s. The major accounts are well-known — Bolts, Verelst, Holwell, and the enormous pamphlet literature of the late 18th century centering on the Francis–Hastings–Burke controversies over the nature of the political control that should be established in Bengal. James Grant’s survey of Bengal prior to the permanent settlement should be added to that list. This material is among the most important materials available for the study of the theory of imperialism and for the whole question of the relations of one culture to another (my emphasis). Tracing the history

28 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages of an idea is a complex and tendentious undertaking, but I think it can be shown that the picture of Indian government that emerges in Mill’s history, in Macaulay, in Hegel, in Marx and in Weber, comes essentially from the accounts of the government of Bengal as it existed in the late eighteenth century (1989: 108).

In fact, the formidable task and process of fashioning the political institutions of early British rule in eighteenth-century India was undertaken in the historical context of uncertainties with regard to future developments, contest of ideas and interests in Britain as well as between the Indians and the British and lack of adequate knowledge of India and Indians among the British, and of new rulers among the Indians. Moreover, the British government in India ‘… wrestled with establishing the foundations of a colonial administration while often being at odds, and always fearing it might be at odds, with the home administration of the Company, with Parliament and Crown, and with a growing segment of the British public that took interest in Indian affairs’ (Rocher 1993: 219–20). C. A. Bayly reviewed and analysed the nature, theories and historical context of British rule in India from 1750–1820, and of the Indian resistance and response to it (1998: 238–75). Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India, was the chief architect of the political institutions of the early period of British rule. The Oriental policy initiated by Hastings was grounded on the principle of application of Hindu laws for Hindus and Islamic laws for Muslims, and respect for the customary rights of people in the settlement of land and judicial disputes (Embree 1962: 148; Guha 1990: XXII). In one sense, this was not an original concept. As early as 1512, the Portuguese appointed in each fortress a Hindu and a Muslim to settle disputes, respectively, of the Hindus and Muslims (Woodruff 1953: vol. 1, 30). Rather, the uniqueness and significance of Hastings’s policy rests on its theoretical base, institutional apparatus for implementation and its seminal product — British Orientalism. The origins of the policy lie in the interstices of the chaos and confusion which enveloped BritishIndian territories and the urgent task to restore peace and order, on the one hand, and the approach and accomplishments of Hastings, who ‘… loved the people of India and respected them to a degree no other British ruler has ever equaled’, on the other (Kopf 1969: 21). He was a good Orientalist (learned in Persian language). His Oriental policy was a product of its time and was meant to serve and promote the immediate agenda of the administration. Eric Stokes opined that expediency was a predominant factor of the British administration in India in the early

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 29

period of colonialism (1959: 1). Pragmatic considerations for the very survival, perpetuation and legitimacy of the British hegemony over India and a genuine concern for the appreciation of the values of Indian culture were twin aspects of Hastings’s policy. An objective appraisal of the historical context for the genesis of his policy apportions equal credit to both these aspects. Of course, emphasis on either of these perspectives is a matter of judgment at best or opinion at worst, or a function of theoretical framework of the study. But we should always bear in mind that Hastings was a true protector of British interests and this was the governing principle of his policy. The products of this policy — central ideas and institutions, the construction and weaving of different meanings around them — and their future consequences for Indian society is a complex, long and controversial story. We will examine relevant aspects of it in our study. Hastings’ policy had two aspects at the level of implementation. First, Śāstric learning (scholarship of ancient treatises on law and custom, logic, etc.), was supported and encouraged. The Company employed native scholars — pandits and māvlavīs — as experts, respectively, on Hindu and Islamic law. They assisted the British judges in the application of laws to settle disputes, and produced brief digests of laws for the use of British officers. J. D. M. Derret provided a list of approximately 50 books on Hindu law in Sanskrit produced by the native scholars for the use of British (1968: 270–73). He wrote, The British stimulated the native scholars to give their best and tell their own tale in the fashion intelligible and useful for Europeans ... That they (the British) came to the Hindus not as teachers but as pupils and even colleagues should beg lasting significance, especially in respect of India’s own notions of the standing of their native sciences — which in view of the normal nature of Indian self awareness must be important (ibid.: 225–26).

These perceptive observations on Indo-British relations and procedures for the construction of knowledge during the early phase of the colonial era focus on the epistemic problem of Orientalism and dialectics of power and knowledge. We will discuss some of these ideas in the last chapter. For the present, we deal with the development of Hastings’s policy. Its institutionalization was partly fulfilled by the establishment of Sanskrit College at Benares in 1791. The promotion of Śāstric learning; study of traditional disciplines of Sanskrit (grammar, prosody, sacred lexicography, poetry, theology, ritual, metaphysics, ethics, history, music, arts, mathematics, medicine, mechanics, etc.);

30 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

and training of native scholars for the posts of judge pandits (who assisted British judges in interpretation of laws) were the chief objectives of the Benares College. Second, Warren Hastings’ policy encouraged British officers to study Sanskrit, Persian and vernacular languages of India. The study of these languages was a tool for acquisition of knowledge relating to the laws, local customs and culture, and a useful input for direct communication with the people and effective administrative control. The experience of the British with native scholars (who assisted British judges in the interpretation of laws) was a mixed bag. Some of the pandits were corrupt and their opinions (which were the basis for judgments) were unreliable. It was a matter of serious concern for the legitimacy of the regime (Derret 1968: 232; Rocher 1993: 237–38). The Plan of 1780, which fixed the responsibility of the pandits for the law they reported and for the sentence depending therefrom, and to consult them only on listed subjects of law, was introduced to improve the situation (Derret 1968: 232). Yet, the British were uncertain and unhappy and did not have a firm grasp and hold on the administration. These factors drove the British to take up the study of Indian languages in right earnest. They wrote and published dictionaries, handbooks and grammatical texts of Indian languages with the help of the native pandits. These books were aids for the direct study of Indian languages and acquisition of first-hand knowledge of the laws, customs and problems. This was a response to the urgent and felt needs of the colonial regime. Bernard Cohn’s stimulating and laborious studies of colonial archival materials demonstrate this point. The College of Fort William (Calcutta, 1800), the counterpart of Benares Sanskrit College, was a famous institution and its ground plan for provision of instruction in Indian languages to the junior British officers institutionalized the second aspect of Hastings’s policy. There was another important aspect to these linguistic studies. Trautmann put a sharp focus on the European obsession with the study of languages, ‘… specially, as the sign of national identity …’ (1999: 56). He designated it linguistic ethnology or Mosaic ethnology (1997: 42–57). It embodied the spirit of the European search for linguistic identity after the post-Roman linguistic fragmentation, and the association of language with national politics. It became a powerful idea ‘… in a world made transparent and unitary by European expansion through voyages and discovery, through trade and through colonialism …’ (1999: 54). It has a long and rich history. He argued, ‘… The Mosaic ethnology, this

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 31

tree of nations from the Biblical story of Genesis, constitutes the frame within which all the peoples of the Book — Jews, Christians and Muslims try to make sense of the ethnological diversity of the world down to the eighteenth century and beyond …’ (ibid.: 55). In this framework, ‘… the historical relations of nations were to be revealed by the historical relations among languages, and relations of languages to one another were to be discovered principally by means of the collection and scrutiny of lists of words thought essential to any language in its primitive formulation …’ (ibid.: 53). The European tradition of historical linguistics was brought to British India, and its dialogue or interaction with the Indian science of grammar (Vya-karan.a Śāstra) fundamentally altered the study of linguistics in the modern world. Trautmann’s account of the developments in the study of linguistics is a fine accomplishment of scholarship. He described and defined the perspective of historical linguistics and its impact on historiography, epistemology and Orientalism with a rare sense of objectivity and profound learning. Further, the transition of the East India Company from a trading concern to a colonial regime provided tempting career opportunities in terms of status, authority and remuneration to the Company’s officers. As a consequence, highly educated, talented and well-trained young men of Britain were attracted to the service of the Company in India. Some of the British officers were great minds and were genuinely interested in ‘… the study of India for its own sake’ (Basham 1988: IX). For them, the study of Indian culture and civilization was a matter of intellectual quest and adventure. They had a deep and abiding interest in the study of India, which they believed would contribute in the advancement of human civilization. Thus on the one hand administrative and political necessity, and on the other intellectual quest heralded the birth and cultivation of British Orientalism in colonial India. The Presidency of Bengal became the centre of British India in the aftermath of the Battle of Plassey. Calcutta was the headquarters of the supreme government. Naturally, Calcutta was the base for the origin and development of British Orientalism, both as a policy position and as scholarly study of the Indian languages, history, culture, etc. Its major accomplishments, output of knowledge relating to ancient India and the discovery of similarity of Sanskrit with the Greek, Latin, Gothic, Celtic and old Persian languages and the formation of the Indo-European concept are well-known, and have been ‘… meticulously researched and carefully argued’ (Thapar 1997: XI) by Trautmann (1997). Its unique

32 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

feature is two-fold. First, the knowledge of Europeans about the Orient, in this case especially about India, was based on the study and knowledge of Indian languages. The authenticity of knowledge constructed by British Orientalists was based on linguistic proficiency. This is a hallmark of New Orientalism (Trautmann coined this term, 1997). Second, it was a product of collaborative studies undertaken by the British and native pandits. The partnership of the British and Indians was not equal. The studies were addressed to fulfil the needs of colonial establishment. The British were the paymasters and Indians were at the receiving end, and often, the plight of Indian scholars was not comfortable. The British always had the final say in fixing up the agenda of studies and schedule of work. Yet the process of construction of knowledge was informed by the fact that the British were learners and this ‘should beg lasting significance, especially in respect of India’s own notions of the standing of their native sciences — which in view of the normal nature of Indian self awareness must be important’. Indeed, this was true of the early phase of British colonialism in India. Further, the spirit of intellectual adventure and curiosity of the Europeans in the age of expansion stimulated a few of them to study the Indian civilization or some aspects of it ‘for its own sake’. The studies and discussions, and production of books (dictionaries, texts of grammar and handbooks of Indian languages, digests and translation of laws, literary and philosophical works) were carried out under the aegis of institutions, and the institutional base of New Orientalism was its striking feature. The three-pronged institutional base of New Orientalism enhanced its credibility and endurance. First, Calcutta was the capital of the supreme government of British India. Policy making and execution of policy through programmes was the chief task of the government. The higher-level officers of the government, who were well-educated and concerned with shaping of policy lent support to Orientalism as a policy position. It aimed to rule India in accordance with the norms and customs of Indian culture. Indian cultural tradition could be grasped and appreciated by the study of Indian texts through mastery of Indian languages. Second, the Asiatic Society was formed in 1784 for ‘scientific’ study of Asia under the presidentship of Sir William Jones. For a long time (till 1828), it was an intellectual club of Europeans. The formation of the Indo-European concept and construction of the history of ancient India were based on studies of members of the Society. The intellectual accomplishments and the research conducted under its auspices by the successive

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 33

presidents of the Asiatic Society and others (including Indians) have been well reviewed by O. P. Kejariwal (1988). The study is an excellent intellectual portrait of the Society in the first fifty years of its history and of the four distinguished British scholars (Sir William Jones, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, Horace Hayman Wilson, and James Prinsep) who were presidents of the Society during the period. Third, Marquis Wellesley, Governor-General of India, established the College of Fort William (1800) in Calcutta. It offered a three-year training course in Indian languages, classical (Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic) and modern languages (Hindustani, Bengali, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, and Kannada) and native laws for all the junior British officers. European teachers were appointed from among the members of the Asiatic Society and the Christian Mission in Serampore. Indian teachers were appointed to teach Indian languages. The College produced a large number of books on Indian languages and native laws. David Kopf gave a splendid account of the collective scholarship of the Indian and European teachers at the College and its impact on the modernization of Bengal (1969). British Orientalism studied a vast, mind-boggling range of topics and ideas, and made significant contributions to the advancement of knowledge relating to ancient Indian civilization and allied subjects. The study of Sanskrit language in Calcutta by Europeans under the guidance of native pandits was a landmark in the development of modern linguistics. William Jones, in the third presidential address at the anniversary of the Asiatic Society, analysed the unique features of Sanskrit and reported the discovery of its similarity to the Greek, Latin, Gothic, Celtic, and old Persian (1807: 34–35). The concept of the Indo-European language family was formulated on the basis of a common parental ancient language for Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Celtic and old Persian languages. The Indo-European concept has revolutionized the study of languages through an analysis of the relations of languages and identification of families of languages, on the one hand, and by the derivation and construction of scientific etymology and comparative philology, on the other. Trautmann’s studies provide a magisterial survey of the historical significance and meaning of the Indo-European concept and scientific comparative philology (1997 and 2001: 375–93). There is another aspect to the study of Sanskrit by the Orientalists. The linguistic heterogeneity and ethnological diversity of India were baffling problems to the colonial regime. The European passion for the study of relations of languages as a method to fix up the ethnological

34 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

identity of people was at play in the study of Sanskrit by the Orientalists. Therefore, as Trautmann succinctly put it, the role of Sanskrit at the level of internal ethnology of India ‘… was largely a question of the relation of the existing languages of India to Sanskrit’ (1997: 133). This proposition of the Orientalists was hand-in-glove with the mainstream tradition of the Indian science of grammar that Sanskrit was a perfect and sacred language, and all other languages in the world were either derivatives or apabhramśa (corrupt) forms of Sanskrit. The Gauda Deśa (Bengal) pandits conveyed this mainstream linguistic tradition of India to the European Orientalists. The Orientalists modified and applied it only to the Indian languages in relation to Sanskrit. The native pandits who taught Sanskrit to the Orientalists were largely drawn from Gauda Deśa (Bengal), which was a reputed centre of Sanskrit language. H. T. Colebrooke, the most learned and distinguished Sanskritist, constructed a theory of linguistic unity of India, which concluded that all the modern languages of India in the north as well as south were descendants of Sanskrit through regional (deśi) Prākrit dialects (1801: 199–231). This theory of linguistic unity of India via Sanskrit gained near universal approval. Sanskrit is the mother of all Indian languages and, therefore, it is the fountainhead of Indian culture and civilization. It is one of the central ideas constructed and disseminated by the British Orientalists with the active help and partnership of the Bengali pandits of Calcutta. For the Europeans, it tallies with the intellectual concern of the study of relations of languages as a method to indicate the ethnological identity of people. It foots the bill of colonial rule in providing a basis for the political unity of India. For Indians, it is simply a reiteration of the ancient dictum of the science of grammar and reconfirmation of the perfect structure of Sanskrit. It is such a combination of intellectual perception, pursuits and interests of the British Orientalists and native pandits that led to the formation of the theory of linguistic unity of India via the Sanskrit language and its relations with the other Indian languages. The Madras Presidency was an older settlement and territorial power of the British India. A factory in the port town of Masulipatnam (1623) and the fort at Madras (1639) were constructed by the East India Company. William Dalrymple observed: ‘Masulipatnam had once been the principal trading station of the Coromandel coast, and in the seventeenth century had grown to become a port of international importance, providing access to the rich bazaars of Go-lconda at the peak of its power and influence’ (2002: 441). The Company’s rule in

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 35

Madras town (the fort and adjacent black town) was well organized and established. It had soldiers to defend the fort, property and personnel; exercised authority to punish offenders in civil and criminal cases; and levied and collected taxes from the residents. Masulipatnam Port and its productive hinterland of 5,000 sq. miles, part of the Northern Circars of Āndhra region, had been acquired by the Company in May 1759 from the Niza-m of Hyderabad. This was the earliest or first territorial unit of direct British administration in India. This, the former French area (the French were first involved in the Carnatic wars) was the ‘first Annexation’ of the British in India (Fisher 1993: 12). The Northern Circars, ‘a fertile and rich region’(Mason 1974: 87) of 27,750 sq. miles of coastal Āndhra, was ceded by the Niza-m of Hyderabad in 1766 to the Company. Its port towns and ship-building centres, agricultural and forest wealth, mineral resources, textile industry, and skilled and industrious craftsmen facilitated the growth of the Company’s trade and revenue as well as the private trade of the British. Bayly noted: ‘The Northern Circars had been the scene of some of the English Company’s earliest trading and diplomatic ventures as towns such as Masulipatnam and Vizagpatnam rivalled Bengal in their production of fine cloth and printed designs. The whole tract was highly productive and commercialized’ (1987: 56). The economic prosperity of the region was good enough to attract business men and capital from far of region like Gujarat. It has been noted: ‘… the weavers of this part of the country (Gōdāvary Delta) were very proficient craftsmen whose goods were widely desired for overseas markets’ (Arasaratnam 1979: 34). The Madras jagir was granted to the Company in 1760 by the Nawab of Arcot, but the British leased out to him again, and it was brought under the direct rule of the Company in 1786. The government in the Northern Circars, even though it had an early historical beginning and longer experience, was neither secure nor satisfactory. The negative impact of the dubāshe institution was the chief factor for the poor or unimpressive record of colonial rule. Literally, a dubāshe was a person with knowledge of two languages — the local language and a European language (in this case English). At the early stage, a dubāshe was an agent who fixed up residential accommodation, services, local contacts and arranged loans (if necessary) for the young men who arrived from England to join the service of the Company. The dubāshes had the advantage of acquaintance with the officers of the Company and became indispensable contact men between the English traders and local business community. They helped finalize

36 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

business deals and charged a commission. Local people sought the help of the dubāshe to obtain favours or favourable orders from the government. The dubāshes assisted the officers of the Company in the pursuit and promotion of private trade. These conditions set the stage for the emergence and entrenchment of the institution of dubāshe as a distinctive feature of colonial rule in Madras Presidency in the second half of the eighteenth century. Each high-ranking officer of the Company including the Governor had an official dubāshe, who was paid by the Company. The dubāshes formed the intermediary link between Fort St George and the district administration, and between the government and local society. They had the advantage of the ringside seat and hence were posted with advance information relating to policy decisions of the government. They were members of an informal local network of patronage and influence. Private trade and interests of the officers as against the interests of the Company was the key element that fostered the growth of the dubāshe institution and its hold on the administration (Arasaratnam 1979: 24; Susan 1984: 1–31). Naturally, dubāshes exploited their leverage with the administration for promotion of their own as well as their masters’ selfish interests. Therefore the development of colonial rule in Madras Presidency was rather tardy and stunted till the last decade of the eighteenth century. The Company became the ruling power in Bengal a little later than in Madras. Yet the political developments associated with British rule in Bengal were remarkable. The Bengal government was designated the supreme government of British India with Calcutta as its headquarters, and became a trendsetter for other Presidencies. The basic structure of administrative institutions, including the revenue and police establishments and the Supreme Court, were established. The permanent settlement of the land revenue system was a distinctive feature of the administrative system of Bengal. Orientalism as a policy position, which was a commitment to govern India according to the norms, customs and ethos of Indian culture, became a defining principle of administration. The developments in Bengal spurred the Madras government or some of its key persons to study and analyse the local context and problems, and develop and implement appropriate policies which embodied the distinctive character of the Madras Presidency. The ideas and institutions that bore the stamp of cultural tradition of the Madras Presidency emerged distinctly in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when the Company assumed responsibility to rule the inland districts.

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 37

At the end of the Third Mysore War (1792), the Company took over Baramahal (now Selam) district from Tipu Sultan. Alexander Read and Thomas Munro were selected from the army and sent on a project to survey and settle the Baramahal district.1 As it happened, Munro was the architect of the ryotwari settlement. After the survey and mapping of the land, the rental value of the land was assessed and fixed. An annual agreement between each cultivator and the government would fix the extent of land tilled by the cultivator and its rental value, and the agreement in perpetuity be maintained by the District Collector and administration. The cultivator became pattādar (title holder of land) and could sell, gift, lease, mortgage and pass on the land to his successors, so long as land tax was paid to the government. The system brought the District Collector into very close contact and direct communication with the people. Therefore, knowledge of local language was essential to the District Collector, and soon a regulation was made by the government to this effect. The District Collector was also magistrate, with powers to redress the grievances of people, resolve land disputes and maintain law and order. The system required a large number of Indian subordinate staff for effective implementation. It was put on trial in a phased manner in some districts and evolved over a period of 20 years (1792–1812). Its efficacy was compared with the Permanent Settlement of Bengal and the settlement with the village community in the Madras jāgir (implemented by Lionel Place). Finally, the Fifth Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons approved the adoption of Munro’s ryotwari system. As a result, in Madras Presidency, ‘… a system of administration emerged in many ways markedly different from that established in Bengal’ (Beaglehole 1966: vii). This is the preceding historical background for the development of a distinctive administrative system in Madras Presidency. Quiet apart from the administrative system, Madras Presidency was a core region of cultural tradition with its own personality and heritage. There are deeper historical foundations and significant factors that contributed for its evolution and development as a distinct cultural region. K. A. Nīlakant.a Śāstri gave an able account of the evolution of South India as a core region of Indian civilization (1966). I am only interested in the study of the emergence of Madras Presidency as a distinct region A detailed discussion relating to the ryotwari settlement of land revenue as an aspect of Orientalist policy is reported in the chapter on Orientalism. 1

38 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

in British India in the late eighteenth century and early decades of the nineteenth centuries. Therefore, a brief outline of the ideas and forces that paved the way for the growth of distinctive character of Madras Presidency in British India is noted. First, the experience of the Madras Presidency in the governance of its territories was a source of ideas which shaped some aspects of colonial administration. The official memoranda and reports and the observations and recommendations incorporated therein foreshadowed major policies of colonial rule in the early nineteenth century. James Grant, the Company’s resident in the State of the Nizām of Hyderabad, collected rich data on the social and economic conditions of the Northern Circars. After careful appraisal of the evidence, he concluded that zamīndārs, rājas and local chiefs were only agents of the Nizām for collection of revenue, and they had no legal rights for the land ([1784] 1917: 1–118). Forgery of documents, fraudulent deals and corruption were widely prevalent in the rule of the zamīndārs. The land system of the Northern Circars in pre-British India was not a zamīndāri order. On the basis of information collected through local records and surveys, Ellis concluded that private possession and cultivation of land was a feature of the traditional society in Madras Presidency. Thomas Munro argued that the sovereign had always been the owner of land in India. Therefore, Ellis and Munro held and advocated diametrically opposite views in the debates on revenue administration relating to the efficacy and desirability of the introduction of the ryotwari system of land revenue. Second, the experience of colonial rule in the Northern Circars showed that knowledge of local language was a useful input to cope with the administrative tasks and improve the efficiency of the Company’s rule. Charles White, who held important positions at Fort St George, including the membership of the Board of Revenue, reported that the chief cause for ineffective governance of the Northern Circars was the failure of British officers to acquire knowledge of the local language. He urged the officers of the Company to take up the study of the local language (Telugu) and recommended that persons devoid of knowledge of the local language should not be appointed administrative officers in the Revenue Department ([1793] 1917: 118–40). He forewarned the Company that the study of the local language would become indispensable soon after the establishment of the judicial courts. He pointed out that a simple and useful dictionary of Telugu language was not available. Therefore, he suggested that remunerative prizes be awarded for the production of a dictionary of Telugu.

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 39

Third, the responsibility to govern the interior districts after the third Mysore War (1792) drove the British to take up the study of local languages. Junior civil servants engaged private tutors for the study of Indian languages in addition to the facilities of teaching of native languages available in the madrasa in Fort St George, and appeared for public examinations from 1798 to earn monetary prizes awarded by the Company for linguistic proficiency. This system was in vogue for a long time, but was found to be an unsatisfactory arrangement and a source of corruption. The ryotwari settlement and the accompanying district administrative system required revenue officers with a modicum of knowledge of local languages. White’s recommendation that British officers should study local languages was meant to check and curtail the stranglehold of the dubāshe institution and its corrupt practises in administration, and thus improve the efficiency of administration of the Northern Circars. Knowledge of local languages acquired by British officers under the programme of implementation of ryotwari settlement was not only a device for administrative efficiency but also a means for the promotion of ‘good government’ and an aid to inculcate ‘favourable disposition’ among the rulers towards Indians (Thomas Munro cited in Woodruff 1953: 196). We notice a dramatic change in the perception of the role of knowledge of local languages between the pre-ryotwari settlement and post-ryotwari settlement periods. The former was a substantially negative characterization and the latter was a manifestly positive evaluation. Fourth, Ellis argued that South India followed the Dravida sub-school of mitāks.arā (Hindu law) in matters relating to the inheritance of property. The laws relating to inheritance have profound influence on the family system and social life and relations. The law of inheritance was an aspect of the distinctive character of the Madras Presidency from the Bengal Presidency, which followed the Dāyabhāga School of Hindu law. Ellis emphasized, ‘… the diversity of substantive customary laws in different parts of India’ in ‘actual administration of justice …’ (Davis 2009: 293). Ellis pointed out that customary laws were far more important and relevant for the administration of justice in Madras Presidency than in Bengal Presidency. Fifth, the junior civil servants, who were trained at the College of Fort William (Calcutta) and East India College (Hailebury), joined the Company’s service in the Madras Presidency. They studied Persian, Hindustani and other languages. The administrative experience, especially at the ground level, demonstrated that knowledge of Persian and

40 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Hindustani languages was not useful in Madras Presidency. The teaching of South Indian languages (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam) did not have a proper place in the curriculum of the training programme of the junior civil servants. It was an acute administrative problem. Moreover, it put focus on the identity of Madras Presidency as a separate linguistic area in India. Sixth, Colin Mackenzie’s vast collection on the cultural, geographic, linguistic, and historical heritage of peninsular India gave rise to the separate identity of Madras Presidency in British India, which was a hazy picture in the initial stages, but gradually emerged as a solid entity by the first decade of the nineteenth century. Mackenzie, the first Surveyor General of India, commenced his service in the Company in Madurai and worked in Madras and other centres in the Tamil region of Madras Presidency. He surveyed the region comprising Cudapah and Kurnool districts of Āndhra Pradesh from 1792–99. After the last and Fourth Mysore War (1799) and the death of Tipu Sultan, the Company took hold of the Mysore region. Mackenzie conducted the survey of Mysore region from 1799–1809. His statistical, geographic and historical surveys ‘… differed from all others in their broad range and scholarship’ (Dirks 1993: 282). His collection was a massive data of maps, drawings, water sources, soils and crops, occupational patterns of people and their products, castes, local customs, histories of ruling families, villages, temples, and included manuscripts, stone and copper plate inscriptions, coins, literary documents as well as philosophical and religious manuscript texts in Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, Tamil, Telugu, Kanarese and Malayalam, and other artifacts relating to South Indian history and culture. Kavali Venkata Boriah, a Telugu Brahmin who was proficient in Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu and Kanarese and in deciphering inscriptions, was not only the chief agent of collection, but also of interpretation, translation and explanation of the meaning and message of Mackenzie’s collection for the construction of the history of South India (Ramachandra Rao 1986, 2005). Moreover, the logic of Orientalism as a policy position implied that policies to rule and mould the Indian society ordinarily conform to the norms, customs and traditions of the indigenous culture. Therefore, the British officers should study, understand and appreciate the native culture of India through the medium of Indian languages. In this context, the relevance and importance of South Indian languages was obvious. The high-ranking as well as junior civil servants of the British government in Madras faced directly the task of learning and

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 41

appraising the nature, structure and history of South Indian languages. This brought into focus the identity of Madras Presidency as a distinct linguistic area in India. Madras Presidency, comprising the four major linguistic regions of South India, was an administrative agency of the colonial regime. It was a constitutive entity as well as a springboard for the Dravidian idea. A tentative idea based on tangible evidence — the land systems, languages, ryotwari settlement and district administration, legal tradition relating to inheritance of property, and an outline of the history and culture of South India — that Madras Presidency was a distinctive entity in British India, slowly, but steadily, evolved. Further, the New Orientalism of Calcutta authored and advocated the theory that South Indian languages were descendants of Sanskrit language. Those who were knowledgeable and located in Madras felt uneasy and embarrassed in toeing the line of New Orientalism regarding this relationship of South Indian languages with Sanskrit. They were provoked by the authoritative, but not well-founded and well-informed, theories and opinions of the Calcutta-based Orientalists regarding the origins and nature of South Indian languages. All these factors contributed to the genesis of the Madras School of Orientalism (Trautmann came up with this concept and term in 1999).2 Madras Orientalism was anchored on a three-fold institutional base. First, Madras was the headquarters of the colonial government of Madras Presidency. A team of highly educated and well-trained senior officers of the Company were in charge of the government at Fort St George. They had the authority to make, recommend, amend and approve the policies of the government. Orientalism as a policy position shaped and formulated policies that were in conformity with the norms, values and customs of the native culture. Therefore, the British officers were obliged to study Indian languages in order to understand and appreciate the indigenous culture. The study of South Indian languages (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam) was relevant and significant in Madras Presidency. Moreover, the government Trautmann observed that Mackenzie’s collection was a fundamental source of materials and ideas to the Madras School of Orientalism. Mackenzie was a friend of Ellis, and shared and exchanged ideas with him. Ellis was the architect of the Madras School of Orientalism and the Dravidian language family. Trautmann cited main studies on Mackenzie and pointed out the importance of Mackenzie’s collection for the study of the history of South India (2006: 122n; also see 2009: 1–25). 2

42 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

of Fort St George was the custodian of information relating to South India obtained from the district units, and the findings of reports of surveys and enquiry commissions. Thus, the government was an important agency in the construction of Oriental knowledge through a series of policy formulations and custody of a body of empirical data. Second, a group of British officers and natives, who shared common interest in the literary, cultural and historical discourses, discussions and studies, established the Madras Literary Society in 1812. Lectures and presentation of the findings of studies and investigations relating to the literary, cultural, social, historical and legal heritage of South India were held under the auspices of the Literary Society. Third, the College of Fort St George was established by the government of Madras Presidency in 1812 to plan, organize and conduct a programme of instruction of South Indian languages and native laws to the junior civil servants who arrived from England. The College mounted a systematic and institution-centred instruction in South Indian languages to the brilliant and well-educated junior civil servants. Thus it emerged as a centre of renaissance for the development of South Indian languages and literature. The programme of instruction of South Indian languages was carried out by the learned native scholars/ pandits under the care and supervision of senior British officers, who were proficient in South Indian languages and the European intellectual tradition and scientific methods. The teamwork of native pandits and senior British officers was a unique feature of the College. No wonder the intellectual accomplishment of the College was the construction and publication of the concept of the family of Dravidian languages in 1816. The concept of the Dravidian language family was a product of its time. It was not merely a linguistic accomplishment or advancement of knowledge. Its institutional base and context, partnership of the British and native scholars and dialogue between the European linguistic ethnology or historical linguistics and the Indian tradition of linguistic analysis (Vyākaran.a Śāstra) was a logical as well as structural extension of the sprit and method of work of the early British rule in India. It was a counterpoise to the theory of linguistic unity of India (affiliation of Indian languages to Sanskrit) constructed and popularized by the Calcutta Oriental establishment with the active support of Bengal pandits and the orthodox Indian literary tradition. Ellis, a senior officer of the Company and ‘… The man who knew the position of South India best ...’ (Derret 1968: 258) was the livewire of the three-fold institutional base of the Madras School of Orientalism.

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 43

He had studied Greek and Latin and some of the modern European languages in England. After joining the Company’s service in Madras in 1798, he devoted himself to the study of Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam. Ellis was ‘… one of the most accomplished and sensitive of the early orientalists’ (Cohn 1985: 324). His personal library was a fine collection of scholarly and latest books of its time on linguistic studies (Trautmann 2001: 387, 34n). He was District Judge of Masulipatnam (1806–1809) and Collector of Land Customs in Fort St George (1809–1810). He was appointed Collector of Madras district in 1810, and was chief administrator of Madras and its adjacent rural area. He was a key figure in the making of policies of the government of Madras Presidency. He was fully aware that Madras Presidency had a stamp of historical legacy of distinct character and culture. He felt the need to organize an institutional arrangement for teaching South Indian languages to the junior officers who arrived from England. He submitted a proposal for the establishment of a College in Fort St George; it was founded in 1812; he was a founder-member of and was instrumental in the establishment of the Madras Literary Society in 1812. He was a valuable contributor to the proceedings of the Society and was known for his outstanding scholarship on Hindu law, history, antiquities and languages of South India and Sanskrit studies. Three ideas gained firm ground in the mind of Ellis. First, the history and culture of Madras Presidency had a distinctive tradition. Second, knowledge of South Indian languages was sine qua non to the officers and junior civil servants of the Company for the performance of administrative tasks, and for initiation and implementation of policies of the government. Third, the predominance of the Calcutta Orientalist establishment and its theory that South Indian languages were descendants of Sanskrit was unsatisfactory and not quite acceptable. The message of these ideas clearly indicated the direction of his thinking and programme of action. It is fascinating to note in this context that Trautmann laid his hand on Ellis’s letters to fellow Orientalist William Erskine. After reading these letters and other unpublished papers of Ellis, Trautmann wrote: ‘There is unmistakable evidence in the letters that Ellis had conceived the Dravidian idea well before the formation of the College, and that it structured Ellis’s plan for the College and its curriculum’ (1999b: 48, 42; 2006: 131, 152–53). We have to wait for a while for the fruition of ideas which require institutional and intellectual inputs, organized and well-directed activity and a period of gestation. In this case the period of gestation was long,

44 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

but involved the establishment of its institutional base, assembly of and conversations among the British and Indian scholars under its auspices, collection of relevant and available manuscript and print materials in South Indian languages, and commissioning and production of lexical and grammatical texts of South Indian languages. This is the context of the desire of the British colonial regime for the establishment of the College of Fort St George in Madras. As mentioned above, Ellis submitted a proposal for the establishment of a College in Fort St George to teach South Indian languages to the junior civil servants (Madras Public Consultations, 10 December 1811). The teaching programme was to be carried out by the native pandits and scholars who would be paid moderate salaries. The Board of Superintendence, comprising the official translators of the government and other officers appointed by the Governor-in-Council, was to guide and supervise the pedagogy of the courses and working of the College. The members of the Board were proficient in South Indian languages, and were to hold part-time honorary positions in the College, except the Secretary. A Press for the publication of books with a book depot to market the publications of the College was part of the plan. It was proposed to pay generous remuneration to the authors and acquire copyright of such books that would aid and advance the teaching programme and goals of the College. It was a down-to-earth plan, cost effective, simple and eminently suited to serve the requirements and interests of the colonial regime. Therefore, the proposal was approved by the directors of the Company, and the College of Fort St George was established in 1812. The twin principles of economy and utility constituted the manifest aspect of the plan for the College. Perhaps, under the mask of a simple plan for the promotion of the interests of British rule at a low cost, Ellis pursued his cherished and hidden goal of the Dravidian idea under the auspices of the College. It appears that the concept of Dravidian languages and culture had gradually crystallized in Ellis’s mind during the first decade of the nineteenth century. It is quite appropriate to note in this connection that Trautmann found ‘unmistakable’ and ‘plenty’ of evidence for the Dravidian idea in the letters and unpublished papers of Ellis, well in advance of the establishment of the College. How did Ellis conceive the concept of Dravidian idea earlier than the establishment of the College of Fort St George? Trautmann was competent and well-equipped to give a satisfactory answer to this question. He searched, with the proverbial eagle’s eye, the archival materials (including private

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 45

papers — in particular the papers of William Erskine, which became a part of public archives) in Madras, Bombay, London, Oxford and Edinburgh, and located and read with great care the letters, unpublished papers and official jottings of Ellis, and reports signed, and reports written by Ellis or prepared under his guidance but unsigned by him. He found clear evidence in support of the proposition that the Dravidian idea was formulated by Ellis long before the establishment of the College. It is appropriate to recapitulate the stimulating administrative and cultural environment in Madras Presidency which helped the genesis and development of Ellis’s Dravidian idea. We have noted earlier some ideas and forces which contributed for the growth of Madras Presidency as a distinctive cultural and administrative region. Ellis worked in the Presidency and was deeply impressed and influenced by the cultural tradition of the region. Moreover, he played an important role in marking out as well as shaping the distinctive character of the Presidency via the study of South Indian history and culture, and shaping Orientalism as a policy position. William Brown, a senior officer of the Company, submitted in 1809 a manuscript entitled A Grammar and Vocabulary of Gentoo Language (Telugu language) to the government of Madras for favour of or grant of subsidy for publication. Brown stated that Telugu had independent origin and was not derived from Sanskrit. Surely, Ellis was aware of the opinion of Brown regarding the independent origin of Telugu. Perhaps Ellis had direct access to Brown’s manuscript text. Otherwise, he was informed of the theory of Brown by William Thackeray and William Sanders, who were appointed to examine and report on Brown’s manuscript. Brown worked at Masulipatnam from 1786–94 and his Grammar and Vocabulary ‘was originally constructed’ in Masulipatnam. He wrote: ‘The assistance of this man (Maamedy Venkaiah) in compilation of both grammar and vocabulary, has been of the greatest advantage’ (1817: XIII). Both Brown and Ellis worked in Masulipatnam (1806–1809) and were good friends of Venkayya. Therefore, it is fair to assume that Ellis was informed by Venkayya regarding the theory of Brown about the origin of Telugu language. The disposal of Brown’s request by the government of Madras is a fascinating episode in the linguistic history of South India, and it was narrated by Trautmann (1999: 53–70). Ellis was abreast with the latest trends and developments of linguistic studies in Europe which was the base for his methodology in philological studies. He worked in various positions in Madras and was District Judge of Masulipatnam (1806–1809). This experience provided

46 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

a stimulating opportunity for him to study and compare the regional linguistic and cultural patterns of South India. While he was District Judge, he met and interacted with Venkayya, whose dictionary was completed in 1806; its copyright was purchased by the government in order to print it as one of the early publications of the College. It was not printed by the College Press. Venkayya’s Preface gave an account of Telugu grammatical tradition and a brief history and nature of Telugu language based on some native texts of Telugu grammar written in Sanskrit. The dictionary was one of the primary sources for the construction of the concept of Dravidian languages by Ellis in 1816. In fact, one by sixth of Ellis’s Dissertation was a direct translation from Venkayya’s Preface. Ellis was well-trained, disciplined and had a brilliant mind. His administrative experience and exposure to the social and cultural environment of South India, and his interaction with the British officers and native pandits constituted the base for his sense of the distinct identity of Madras Presidency, and the common or shared features of the South Indian languages. This contributed in the genesis and gradual formulation of the Dravidian idea in Ellis’s mind before the establishment of the College of Fort St George. The idea of family languages ‘called the dialects of Southern India’ or Dravidian languages was adumbrative in the structure and culture of the Madras Presidency. In fact, this chapter is meant to emphasize the umbilical cord that subsisted between the historical and institutional legacy of the Madras Presidency and Ellis’s Dravidian idea. Trautmann found and cited clear evidence in support of the proposition that Ellis had formulated the Dravidian idea quite in advance of the establishment of the College (2006: 112, 125, 131, 152, 153). The following were the constitutive elements of the Dravidian idea of Ellis. First, the Madras Presidency in British India was endowed with its own distinctive character and cultural tradition. So it was different from the Bengal Presidency. But the Calcutta-based Orientalist establishment did not understand and appreciate the unique character of Madras Presidency and its culture including South Indian languages. Second, the European project of languages and nations studied the historical relations of languages as a key to explain the relations of nations or people. Therefore, the study of historical relations of South Indian languages as an interrelated group of languages was a meaningful exercise that would lead to an understanding and appraisal of the general nature, relations and idiom of the south Indian languages. Third, Tamil

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 47

language (specially its higher dialect) and its grammar was pre-eminent among the South Indian languages and was a guide to study them. The study of Sanskrit language and its grammar would prove to be a useful input for the study of South Indian languages. Ellis gradually developed these ideas in the first decade of the nineteenth century. Trautmann’s devoted, objective scholarship gives us a correct portrayal of Ellis’s Dravidian idea. It is the key for the ‘Dravidian Proof ’ constructed by Trautmann (2006). Trautmann wrote: What was the relation of the College to the Dravidian proof, which was published by the College press four years after its founding? When I began this research I supposed that the College was the cause of the Dravidian proof, in the sense that it was the site where a synoptic view of the Dravidian languages became possible and a body of scholars who had the necessary skills for their comparison had assembled. I had in mind a pleasing correspondence between what I imagined to be the physical structure of the College, dispensing instruction in the languages of South India in adjacent classrooms, and by their very juxtaposition giving rise, in the mind of Ellis and his circle, to the Dravidian idea. That is, the need to provide teaching in the languages spoken in the territories under the Government of Madras led to the creation of the College which required collection of the scholars of South Indian languages in a centralized space where their vocables and grammatical structures were exposed and inevitably compared. The conception of a homology between the structure of the College and the structure of the Dravidian idea proved to be correct, but as we see from the Committee’s report dated 20 October 1811, the causal relation is the other way around. The Dravidian idea is already evident in the report that proposed the creation of the College and gave it its structure. The College was not the cause of the Dravidian idea, rather, the Dravidian idea was the cause of the College’s structure from the outset (2006: 130–31).

Trautmann’s conclusion was well-founded, fair and correct. It was based on a careful reading of Ellis’s letters addressed to William Erskine, and the report of the Committee Ellis headed which proposed and commended the establishment of the College. Trautmann derived the following governing principle for the construction of the Dravidian language family from the relationship of the Dravidian idea of Ellis and the College stated above: ‘We need, then to examine the College not so much in its actual, historical functioning during its initial seven years under Ellis’s direct influence but in his plan for the College and the way in which the Dravidian idea is woven into it’ (ibid.: 131).

48 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

What was the plan of Ellis or of the Committee he headed to weave the Dravidian idea into the structure of the College? I quote Trautmann and his citations from the report of the Committee regarding the plan of Ellis: ‘The Committee proposed the formulation of the public course as an arrangement for teaching the junior civil servants once they arrived at Madras.’ Like the plan of the College itself, the Committee’s rationale for the public course was a clear expression of the conception of Dravidian language family. The College would not absolutely interdict students from studying any language they wished (such as Persian or Hindustani), but they would be required to follow a certain course of study, the principal object of which would be, the report again says, the attainment of a knowledge of those general principles of grammar and of the idiom and terms, which are common to all the vernacular dialects of the South of India, so that, in whatsoever province the student might be stationed, he might be enabled to acquire with equal facility the local language, although it might not have previously been the object of his particular attention.

The course of study would follow the nature of and relations among the five cognate dialects: high Tamil, low Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada. The general grammar, idiom, ‘verbal collocation’ (perhaps meaning conjugations) and especially the terms, or vocabulary, in all these languages are the same. Their grammar, idiom and so forth ‘derive wholly from the Tamil’, the vocabulary, ‘with certain dialectic variations’, from Tamil and Sanskrit (Trautmann, Madras Public Consultations, 10 December 1811: para 67). The report goes on to say, ‘Hence it is of little importance in which of these five languages grammar is in the first instance studied, the knowledge of it once obtained is applicable, in its main branches, to all, and dialective variation is the only difficulty remaining to be overcome.’ However, the report urged that the preference should be given to Tamil, not only because it was the only one for which elementary books then existed, but more specially because it was ‘the parent of the rest’ (2006: 152–53). I have quoted long passages from Trautmann’s text for a number of reasons. First, he is a great and fair-minded scholar, with the pursuit of truth his primary professional goal. Second, he is the authority on the history and formulation of the Dravidian language family. Third, I am deeply obliged and indebted to him in various senses. Fourth, I have a nagging doubt in my mind as to whether I have misunderstood the meaning of his conclusions relating to the Dravidian proof. Last,

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 49

Ellis was a great Orientalist and intellectual who devoted his time and resources for the study of South Indian history, culture and languages. It is a formidable task to express a dissenting view or opinion on themes which were studied by Ellis and Trautmann. I have cited long passages from the book of Trautmann, which incorporated passages from the report of the Committee headed by Ellis, in order to state their views in their own words and to avoid any possible misreading by me. I will briefly comment on the following aspects of Ellis’s Dravidian idea, and its projection by Trautmann as the key to the process of the formulation of the Dravidian language family at the College in 1816. The Committee, under the leadership of Ellis, which recommended the establishment of the College, was fully aware and admitted the common or shared nature of the South Indian languages in terms of mutual relations and influence, grammar, vocabulary and common source of origin. It was of the opinion that the question of the grammar of which language had been studied first was of ‘little importance’ because the grammatical knowledge once obtained was applicable, in its main branches, to all languages, and only the problem of dialective variation remained to be resolved. In spite of this observation, the Committee recommended that preference should be given to Tamil, because it was the parent of the rest and the source of grammar, idiom and vocabulary of the South Indian languages. This is the central argument of Ellis’s Dravidian idea which was the basis for his plan of the College. The Committee’s opinion regarding the status of Tamil and its relationship with the South Indian languages is obviously inconsistent, partial and wrong. South Indian languages share the general principles of grammar, vocabulary and idiom by virtue of belonging to a language family. Ipso facto, it is not correct in terms of linguistic theory, laws and logic to say that Tamil is the parent or historical parent of southern dialects. Trautmann said: ‘Clearly the Committee, and Ellis as its leader, tended to inflate the importance of Tamil vis-à-vis the other languages of the South’ (Madras Public Consultations, 10 December 1811: para 68) (2006: 153). Trautmann rightly concluded that Ellis’s Dravidian idea was formulated much earlier than the College and so was the cause for the establishment and structure of the College. But his projection of Ellis’s Dravidian idea as the governing principle for the study of the process of construction of the Dravidian language family, which is based on his argument that we need to examine the College not in its actual, historical working but from the perspective of Ellis’s plan for the College (his Dravidian idea) during its initial seven years under the guidance of

50 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Ellis, is rather far-fetched. It is the method or principle that Trautmann followed in the construction of ‘Dravidian Proof ’ at the College. The implicit logic of his method that led him to conclude: ‘The singularity of Tamil grammar and of Tamil script was crucial to the formulation of the conception of the Dravidian language family in modern times’ (2006: 58). I am puzzled because Trautmann said that the Committee and its leader Ellis inflated the importance of Tamil vis-à-vis the South Indian languages. He gave an excellent and full-fledged account of the actual working of the College during its initial seven years (ibid.: 131–50). He used some of the materials, particularly Āndhra Dhātumāla authored at the College by Pattābhirāma Śāstry, and Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika acquired by the government and scheduled to be one of the early publications of the College, as evidence and critical elements in the formulation of Dravidian Proof. Moreover, he wrote that the public course, which was the life-breath of Ellis’s Dravidian idea, was not taught at the College. He said, ‘But even though it (compulsory course) never came into being as a proper College course of study, it did get implemented, in a concentrated form, in the “dissertation on Telugu” that is to say, in the Dravidian proof ’ (ibid.: 155). He employed Ellis’s plan for the College as the key and primary source material, and the actual working and output of the College as derivative and secondary source material in the study of the construction of proof for Dravidian languages. This is striking in the case of Telugu which is the site for construction of the Dravidian language family at the College. Trautmann admitted this position in the following words: ‘… Ellis had come to the Dravidian concept earlier, and worked it into the design of the curriculum of the College, which he brought into existence and presided over for the students were obliged to study Tamil first, and then to learn Telugu or Kannada as a variant of it’ (2005: 95). There is another dimension to the method followed by Trautmann in the study of the process of construction of Dravidian proof. The report of the Committee under the leadership of Ellis, which was the source for Ellis’s plan of the College, maintained that the vocabulary of the South Indian languages ‘with certain dialectic variations’ was wholly derived from Tamil and Sanskrit (Trautmann 2006: 153). Trautmann approved an analysis of Telugu language as comprising of Tamil and Sanskrit words, and employed it in the interpretation of the utility and value of Telugu words in the construction of proof for the concept of Dravidian languages. This picture of Telugu language is simply a replica of the view of the Committee under the leadership of Ellis relating to

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 51

the status and relations of Tamil and other South Indian languages, which is neither correct nor fair. In this connection, we may recall that the Committee gave inflated importance to Tamil among the South Indian languages. Telugu language was the site for construction of the Dravidian language family at the College. Telugu — its root materials and native terms to convey the needs of society in its infancy — had been treated and used by Trautmann as secondary material to establish the distinction of Tamil from Sanskrit, which according to him was the basis for the Dravidian language family. As a consequence, he did not properly appraise the vitality and unique character of Telugu language and grammar, and its role in the construction of Dravidian proof at the College. This is a general observation, and specific evidence on some aspects of the issue will be cited and analysed at appropriate places in this study. The establishment of the College of Fort St George was a turning point in the modern history of South India. It was a centre for the resurgence of South Indian languages and literature, and culture. Adverting to the wider scope and role of the College, Campbell, a senior officer of the Company and founder Member-Secretary of the Board of Superintendence of the College from 1812–20, wrote: Since the establishment of the College of Fort William by Marquis Wellesley, the labors of many distinguished individuals added much valuable information to the knowledge before possessed of oriental literature, and afforded many facilities to the attainment of an improved acquaintance with the several dialects peculiar to the provinces immediately subject to the Supreme government. A similar Institution (on a modified and less extensive scale) has more recently been established at Fort St. George; and may be expected, in course of time, to produce the same favourable results as regards the languages of South India … (1816: Advertisement, 1).

The following are the ‘many facilities’ which were provided under the auspices of the College of Fort St George. First, a body of the best of the native pandits of South Indian languages, learned British scholaradministrators and well-educated, trained young men or students (Haileybury College, England) were assembled in the College. By any reckoning it was a unique team: the pandits were proficient in the ancient Indian science of grammar (Vyākaran.a Śāstra); the scholaradministrators were rooted in the study of historical linguistics (relations among languages) with a comparative and scientific temper; and the young men were intelligent, curious and industrious. They pursued

52 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

a common goal of the study of South Indian languages and native laws. Interaction, dialogue and discussion among the members of the team were bound to be mutually beneficial and stimulating. Indeed, those at the College of Fort St George were united by a shared goal of the pursuit of knowledge relating to the South Indian languages through joint study and endeavours to find out their nature, source of origin and mutual relations. Never before in the history of South India had such a galaxy of scholars and pupils assembled under one roof for a comparative and scientific study of the South Indian languages. Indeed, it was an unprecedented and novel institutional enterprise for the promotion of linguistic scholarship. It was a colonial institution and its manifest objective was the promotion of British interests. But its origin and short-term goal of colonial utility did not and could not erase or negate the significance and consequence of its objective of the organized and critical study of the South Indian languages. The end product was the construction of unquestionable logical proof and historical evidence for the concept of the Dravidian language family, and the beginnings of the renaissance of the South Indian languages and literature. Second, the course of study was organized in a manner so as to facilitate a comparative analysis and mutual relationships of the South Indian languages. We note that ‘… the acquirement of knowledge of the general grammar and connections of the several languages of Southern India and of some acquaintance with the sources whence they spring is the chief object … of the pedagogy of the College (Madras Public Consultations, 1 May 1812). A compulsory course devoted to the acquaintance of a common vocabulary (including their dialective variations) and to gain knowledge of the scripts of the South Indian languages was proposed. Tamil language and its grammar was the centre-piece of the compulsory course. A preliminary account of the knowledge of Sanskrit grammar was prescribed. But the compulsory course was not taught at the College; it was dropped from the curriculum after Ellis’s demise. There were four courses offered at the College. Naturally, the first course was directed to the study of the scripts used to write the South Indian languages. The second comprised the study of Tamil grammar; Sanskrit grammar to the extent of its utility for learning the South Indian languages; the variations of grammar of Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam languages from Tamil and the influence of Sanskrit on these languages; common terms of these languages and whether they were of Tamil or Sanskrit origin; and the distinctive features of

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 53

each language of South India. The third course dealt with the study of Oriental literature which covered the study of grammar, prosody and rhetoric of Sanskrit, high Tamil, Arabic or Persian and literary works of Telugu and Hindustani. The fourth course was the study of Hindu and Muhammadan law. In addition, students could pursue the study of individual languages through private instruction. The following native pandits were recruited to the teaching faculty of the College: Vēdam Pattābhirāma Śāstry — head master Sanskrit and Telugu; Chidambara Vadiyar — head master Tamil; Udayagiri Venkata Nārāyanayya — acting . head master English; Sayyid Abdul Qader — head Persian munshi; and twenty native teachers in several languages. The Board of Superintendence of the College under the leadership of Ellis (who was senior member and therefore functioned as its chairman) was in charge of the supervision and functioning of the College. It is needless to add that the teaching programme of the College was based on systematic planning, and it was launched after the provision of necessary inputs. Separate courses for teaching of Tamil, Telugu and Kannada languages including grammar were offered to the native students. The natives also studied courses in Hindu and Muhammadan law, and successful candidates in the law examinations were eligible to be appointed in the service of government and to become lawyers. The College was also open to the natives for systematic study of languages and law, and its impact on South Indian society and culture was remarkable. The location of classrooms for teaching South Indian languages in adjacent rooms and conversations among the teachers and students who studied these languages was a significant event in the history of peninsular India, and held promise for a breakthrough in the progress of these languages. Third, a Herculean effort was launched to locate and acquire manuscript and printed copies of the texts of grammar and lexicography, and script and reading materials of the South Indian languages, authored and prepared by (a) native pandits and scholars; and (b) Christian missionaries, merchants and officers of the trading companies of the Portuguese, Dutch, French, and English in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The College acquired an excellent collection of manuscript materials on the grammatical and lexical studies of Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam languages. The library of the College housed these materials and members had access to the documents. The library received approximately 1,100 books from Calcutta. Most of these volumes were texts of grammatical and lexical studies of Sanskrit,

54 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Hindustani, Arabic, Persian, Marathi, and vernacular languages of northern India. The book gift from Calcutta also included some volumes on native laws and the literature of the languages mentioned above. William Carey’s texts of grammatical studies of Sanskrit, Bengali, Marathi, and Telinga were also received by the library. Thus, the College library had a good collection of documents and books to support the linguistic analysis of Indian languages. Fourth, the College Press with a book depot was set up to print and market the publications of the College. It was proposed to encourage authors and pay them generously for the works and acquire copyright of such books. We noted the case of Venkayya’s Telugu dictionary — Āndhra Dīpika. The texts of Tamil grammar and dictionaries authored by the missionaries of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were handy materials to meet the requirements of the courses of the College. The native pandits and British officers of the College were stimulated and supported in writing grammatical and lexical works of Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam languages. Pattābhiramā Śāstry wrote Āndhra Dhātumāla (list of roots of Telugu) and the master of Tamil compiled a list of Tamil roots. Śāstry and Chidambaram Vadiyar authored, respectively, a Telugu grammar in verse form and a simple Tamil grammar for the use of native students at the College. Venkata Nārāyanayya, acting English master on half pay, translated . a Telugu grammar (written in Sanskrit) into English language. The College functioned from the beginning as a centre of research studies for the study of South Indian languages. Many proposals to write grammars and dictionaries of South Indian languages were submitted; these included Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar, and John Mekerrell’s Grammar and Vocabulary of Kannada. Thus, the College Press and the provisions relating to the copyright of books inaugurated a new trend in the publication of books. It is not simply a question of number of books. There was an innovative or modern method of organization of and approach to the content of lexical and grammatical works. The dictionaries were compiled according to the alphabetical order of the script of the concerned language. The derivation and construction of the etymology of words became the central principle of the compilation of dictionaries. The colloquial usage in the language was given due prominence by grammarians. In fact, we notice a deliberate drive on the part of grammarians to search far and wide to enrich the body of colloquial vocabulary and place it on par with the literary usage of each language. The focus of texts and methods of teaching grammar

Historical Context and Institutional Matrix . 55

had been oriented to aid and advance the knowledge of students and learners. The College was the site for a paradigm shift from a pedantic to a student-centred approach in grammatical studies. These new trends of the lexical and grammatical works of the South Indian languages were products of interaction between the British and native scholars under the auspices of the College. Thus, the establishment of the College and the provision of facilities for a systematic study of South Indian languages initiated a process which led to the resurgence of South India.

56 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

3 The Dravidian Language Family The

concept of a ‘distinct family of languages …, which may be appropriately called the dialects of Southern India’ (Ellis 1816: 2–3) or the Dravidian language family was published in 1816 under the auspices of the College of Fort St George. It was published as ‘Note to the Introduction’ by Ellis in Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar (1816) but is better-known as ‘Dissertation on Telugu Language’. Teloogoo Grammar and especially its ‘Introduction’ complements the theory of Ellis. Campbell and Ellis were joint authors of the concept of the Dravidian language family. Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s Āndhra Dhātumāla and Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika were substantial and supportive source materials for this theory. The academic ambience of the College and its facilities constituted a wholesome background for formulation of the concept of Dravidian language family. Pattābhirāma Śāstry, Venkata Nārāyan.ayya and an unnamed Tamil master at the College were members of the team. Rāvipāti Gurumūrti Śāstry, deputy Telugu master at the College; Bommakanti Śankarayya, English master at the College for a short period; and sheristadār (Revenue Officer) at the Madras Collectorate were unnamed participants in the work of the team. As has been noted earlier, Ellis was an accomplished Orientalist and linguist, an authority on South India, maker of the Dravidian idea and author of the plan of the College and its curriculum. His Dissertation was an excellent piece of study both in terms of methodology and content, even though it was a hard nut to crack for the students. Ellis probably had a major say in the recruitment of Pattābhirāma Śāstry to the teaching staff of the College, and in the acquisition of copyright of Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika by the government. The concept of the Dravidian languages was constructed at two levels by Campbell and Ellis, Secretary and Chairman of the Board of Superintendence of the College, respectively. Campbell’s argument was historical or based on native historical materials to ascertain and establish the antiquity and origin of Telugu and its grammatical tradition. It was the base for his theory that Telugu was derived from a source other than Sanskrit, which could perhaps be a common source

The Dravidian Language Family . 57

for Telugu, Tamil and Kannada. Hence, South Indian languages have some common grammatical features and common words expressive of ideas and things of primitive society. Ellis’s exercise was an analytical and comparative exploration which put focus on the roots, form and meaning of some Telugu words. He compared the linguistic categories of Telugu with Sanskrit, on the one hand, and with Tamil and Kannada, on the other. This was meant to prove his theory of Dravidian languages and their cognate relationship. Their approaches to the problem were varied but complementary, and they shared a common interest in shaping the theory of Dravidian languages. Both availed the help of native scholars and utilized indigenous research materials. They were uncomfortable with the authoritative pronouncements and observations of the Calcutta-based Orientalist establishment on the origin and structure of South Indian languages. Therefore, they were partners in shaping the theory of Dravidian languages and questioning the opinion, standing and authority of the Calcutta establishment on issues concerning the South Indian languages. Undoubtedly the role of Ellis, his ideas and methodology were prominent and valuable in the episode. Yet, for the sake of convenient arrangement of materials of this chapter, I begin with the theory and argument of Campbell. Campbell joined the service of the Company in 1808. He developed taste for the study of Telugu language, and pursued it with zeal and care. He was fortunate in securing the services of Udayagiri Venkata Nārāyanayya as Telugu instructor, a good scholar in Telugu and . Sanskrit, who mastered English grammar and was well-versed in Tamil. Campbell won a prize of 1,000 pagodas for proficiency in Telugu in September 1813 (Trautmann 2006: 103). He studied the following texts in the traditional method under the guidance of his Telugu instructor: (a) Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani . (an important grammar of Telugu written in Sanskrit, the authorship of which was ascribed to Nannaya Bhat,1 archetypal poet of Telugu and initiator of the project of translation of the Mahābhārata into Telugu); (b) Ahōbalapandithīyamu (Ahōbalapathi’s learned and authoritative commentary on Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani); . (c) Āndhra Kaumudi (reputed grammar of Telugu written in Sanskrit by M. Lakshmīnarasimhāchāryulu); and (d) Venkayya’s ‘Preface’ to his Āndhra Dīpika. He made copious notes from these textual studies and cultivated a depth of knowledge of Telugu language and grammar. The authorship of Nannaya Bhat is questioned and rejected by learned circles in the twentieth century. 1

58 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Campbell wrote Teloogoo Grammar and submitted to the Government of Madras in 1814. It was reviewed by the Board of Superintendence of the College headed by Ellis. After incorporation of the the Board’s suggestions and revision of the text, the text was published in 1816. Campbell acknowledged the collaboration of native pandits in the writing of the book in the following passage: In examining the principles inculcated by the best native grammarians, I was assisted by my Teloogoo instructor Woodiagherry Vencatanarrain Ayah, a young Brahmin of superior intelligence and remarkable acquirements … He generally sat by me while I write notes from which this grammar has been compiled and I may therefore be said to have availed myself of his aid and advice through the work. I have only further to add that on the intricate points of grammar I have invariably consulted the learned Pundit Putabhi Rama Sastry, Head Sanskrit and Teloogoo master at the College, and where I find native grammarians at variance, have been regulated chiefly by his opinions, in attempting to reconcile their differences, or in selecting that authority to which the preference has been given (1816: ‘Introduction’, XXI).

Campbell dedicated Teloogoo Grammar to Francis Rawdon Hastings, Governor-General of India, and observed: ‘… Teloogoo is one of the most ancient, useful and elegant languages of India …’ Campbell’s introduction to the book is an important document for the study of the history of Āndhra and of Telugu language. He had remarkable knowledge of the traditional source materials (textual and oral tradition) as well as the modern writings of Francis Buchanan, Colin Mackenzie, Mark Wilks, Captain Blunt, William Marsden, and Asiatic Researches (1788–1828). However, the source materials for his study were limited. The utilization of traditional and modern source materials was a hazardous task. Given these constraints, Campbell’s account was an excellent piece for its time. Campbell remarked, ‘… great deference is due by a foreigner to the testimony of Native Authors …’ (1816: vi); this was a guiding principle of his method of study. According to tradition and the best of the native authors, the basin of Godāvary and Krishna . rivers was the homeland of people who spoke Telugu language from ancient times, and was called trilingadēśa (trilinga — three temples of Lord Śiva + dēśa — region = the region of three lingas). He carefully examined the evidence (both traditional and modern) and accurately identified the three lingas (Śrīśailam, Cāl.eśwaram and Draksharāmam temples), landmarks located in three directions of Āndhra region, and from

The Dravidian Language Family . 59

which the designation of trilingadēśa was constructed and applied to Āndhra region. Āndhra Vishtnoo, the founder of Āndhra Kingdom in the ancient period, built a wall connecting Śrīśailam, Bhīmēśwaram (Drākshārāmam) and Cā.leśwaram with the Mahēndra hills. The three lingas were strategic gates on the borders of Āndhra Kingdom and hence from the ancient period the Āndhra region was also known as Trilingam. Ptolemy located Trilinga beyond river Ganges and Pliny described it as an island of the river Ganges. Campbell noted the regional tradition: ‘In the peninsula, each of these rivers (Godāvary and Ganges) is known by the name of Gunga and they are looked upon as sister streams.’ He continued in the footnote: So intimate is the connexion between these two rivers, that those who carry the sacred water of the Ganges to the South of India, when they arrive on the banks of Godavery, invariably replace the water of the Ganges, evaporated on the journey, by water taken from its sister stream the Godavery. The whole is not withstanding considered to be pure water of the Ganges, and this ceremony never omitted (ibid.: v).

The inaccuracies of Ptolemy and Pliny could be reconciled by noting that river Ganges in the traditional usage of colloquial Telugu was called Ganga (water) and the same term was used in popular parlance to designate river Godāvary. This is Campbell’s inference and explanation for the location of Trilinga by Ptolemy and Pliny. C. Nārāyana . Reddy, a reputed poet, affirmed that river Godāvary is called Ganga (water) in popular parlance in Karimnagar district, and his eldest daughter was named Ganga in the trail of popular tradition (2010). This testifies to the authenticity of native tradition noted and reported by Campbell, after approximately two centuries. Tilinga, or commonly written as Telinga, was derived from trilinga. Teloogoo or Tenoogoo, the name of the language, was derived by native authors from Tilinga or Telinga. Thus Teloogoo is the name of the language spoken in Trilingadēśa, and Campbell says ‘… Andhra, which is the name given to Teloogoo by all Sanscrit grammarians who have written respecting it, continues to be the current appellation of the language in many parts of the Country’ (1816: vii). He also noted that from a very early period Trilingadēśa was subdivided into two parts: Āndhra and Calingum. Āndhra, the region south of river Godāvary, was larger and more prominent than Calingum, the region north of the Go-dāvary. This division of Āndhra and Calinga regions was a well-known feature

60 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

of ancient and medieval geography and culture of Telugu-speaking areas. The kingdom of Warangal was mentioned. A chronological list of the rulers of Vidianagara kingdom was prepared with the help of Colin Mackenzie. Campbell says that Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani . explained by the best commentaries ‘… has been my principal guide’ in writing Teloogoo Grammar (1816: viii). Telugu language has two dialects: the superior or literary dialect in which the whole corpus of Telugu literature, mainly poetry, is written; and the colloquial dialect, which is commonly used by all people in daily life, work and business. He declared: ‘I propose to give all the rules of superior dialect, as being that from which the other is derived, but I shall carefully notice the peculiarities of the common dialect’ (ibid.: xiv). The colloquial dialect was the medium for transaction of official business and interaction in daily life and work. Therefore, the British were interested in its study and promotion. Campbell said that the British, who have acquired a knowledge of the Teloogoo language merely with a view to colloquial intercourse with the people, or to the transaction of official business, and have confined their studies exclusively to the inferior dialect, may accuse me of entering on an unprofitable and unnecessary task, in treating of the other, which, in their estimation, may be deemed altogether foreign to the Teloogoo (ibid.: XIV).

The comment was an indirect reference to and criticism of William Brown’s approach to the study of Telugu language. Brown published his Grammar in 1817 and Vocabulary in 1818. He focused on the study of inferior dialect of Telugu language. His works were meant to be simple aids for teaching Telugu language to the British to carry out official transaction and intercourse with the people. They were addressed to serve and promote the short-term interests of the colonial regime. In contrast to this approach, Campbell had a wholesome and clear approach to the study of Telugu language. He stated: An attentive examination of the two [superior and inferior dialects of Teloogoo] may possibly lead to a very different conclusion: at all events, as this work is intended as much to enable the student to understand the rules which regulate the classical compositions of the Natives, as to teach him to speak or write common Teloogoo, I have deemed it my duty to follow the Native Grammarians by tracing the language to its original source in the superior dialect — at the same time, I have not neglected its more useful

The Dravidian Language Family . 61 branches in the inferior dialect, which as being vulgar, Native authors have considered beneath the notice of the learned (1816: xiv).

He carried out textual studies in the company of and in dialogue with native grammarians to trace Telugu language to its ‘original source’ through the study of superior dialect (which was overwhelmed by Sanskrit), without neglecting the inferior dialect. He combined rigorous, high standards of scholarship in the study of literary dialect with the study and promotion of the inferior dialect for the fulfilment of colonial needs, and for building linguistic theory and knowledge for the advancement of common people in the native society. He did not find or feel any conflict between his pursuit of scholarship (Orientalism) and promotion of colonial interests, nor did he find conflict between the study of superior and inferior dialects. He was a typical British Orientalist. The pursuit of scholarship and protection and promotion of colonial interests, on the one hand, and the preservation and enrichment of metalinguistic tradition of elite sections and initiation of programmes for refinement of the run of colloquial tradition of common people of the native society, on the other, marched hand-in-hand in his case. Indeed, this was the case with many other British India Orientalists, at least during the early phase of British colonialism (late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries). Campbell’s goals were crystal clear — to trace Telugu to its ‘original source’, and to promote ‘useful branches in the inferior dialect’. His method of study was simple — to follow the native grammarians in the study of the superior dialect of Telugu, which was highly Sanskritized and unintelligible even to educated persons except through the aid of commentary and explanation. He undertook the arduous task of the study of superior dialect of Telugu with the help of native pandits and delineated the structure and nature of Telugu at its original source. It was an innovative and diligent linguistic exploration to find out the morphology, meaning, verbal forms, alteration of sounds, case-endings and other grammatical features of Telugu words in the body of metalinguistic works of Sanskritized Telugu poetry. It was an exercise to construct a refined form of the inferior dialect of Telugu (primary language) employed in literary works from the mass of Sanskritic linguistic materials, which was secondary or borrowed language that wrapped up Telugu literature. This exercise was the basis for Campbell’s conclusion that Telugu was an independent language and had originated from a source other than Sanskrit, and that perhaps Telugu,

62 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Tamil and Kannada languages had originated from a common source. This was one facet of the concept of the Dravidian language family. William Carey, a missionary in Serampore, Professor at the College of Fort William, reputed scholar of Indian linguistics and prominent Orientalist in Calcutta, published A Grammar of Telinga in 1814, two years before the publication of Campbell’s Grammar. It was natural that Campbell cited Carey’s opinion that Telugu was a descendant of Sanskrit, but greatly differed from it in having a large body of dēśyam words (current in the land or country), the origin and derivation of which is unascertained and uncertain. Campbell goes on: … I regret my sentiments should be entirely at variance with those of so celebrated an orientalist as Dr. Carey ... It is not without much deference, therefore, that I venture publicly to state my inquiries to have led me to contrary conclusion; but I do so with the less hesitation, as I find myself supported by the concurrent evidence of all Native Authors who have ever written on the subject of the Teloogoo language (Campbell 1816: xv).

Campbell’s conclusion was: ‘I am inclined, however, to believe that Teloogoo will be found to have its origin in a source different from the Sanscrit, a source common perhaps to the Teloogoo with superior dialects of Tamil and Karnataca’ (ibid.: xx). Campbell constructed a seven-fold argument to explain how and why he arrived at the commended conclusion with respect to the origin, nature and structure of Telugu. Campbell’s theory is largely presented in his idiom, because it is a blend of traditional mode of thinking of native pandits and the modern European approach to the study of languages. We have the pleasure and advantage of following a unique combination of the mode of thinking of two distinct cultures in Campbell’s argument. I now delineate Campbell’s argument and logic. First, the historical identity of Trilingadēśa (the basin of rivers Godāvary and Krishna) . and its language (Telugu) had ancient origins. According to the native tradition, Āndhra Royoodoo, son of Soochundra, was the founder of the ancient Āndhra Kingdom. He consolidated Trilingadēśa and ruled from his capital Siccacollum, located on the banks of river Krishna. . People deified him as an incarnation of God Vishtnoo, and in which form ‘he is still worshipped at the ancient capital of Siccacollum near Masulipatam’ (Campbell 1816: viii). Telugu language is associated with Āndhra Royoodoo in a manifold sense. It was said that God Brahma constructed pure Telugu (accha or uccha) for Āndhra Vishtnoo. Sage Kanva, who was reckoned as an ancient and . first grammarian of Telugu, wrote Telugu grammar in Sanskrit for

The Dravidian Language Family . 63

Āndhra Royoodoo. After the death of his father, Āndhra Royoodoo migrated to the banks of River Godāvary. The opinion of native pandits was that … before the king Andhra Royadoo established his residence on the banks of the Godavery, the only Teloogoo words were those peculiar to what is emphatically termed the pure Teloogoo, now generally named the language of the land, which they consider coeval with the people, or as they express it, ‘created by the God Brimha’. The followers of this prince, say they, for the first time began to adopt Sanscrit terms with Teloogoo terminations, and by degrees corruptions from the Sanscrit crept into language, from the ignorance of the people respecting the proper pronunciation of the original words. This would imply that the nation still retain some faint remembrance of those times, in which their language existed independent of the Sanscrit, and it is certain that every Teloogoo grammarian, from the days of Nunnia Bhutt to the present period considers the two languages as derived from sources entirely distinct, for each commences his work by classing the words of the language under four separate heads, which they distinguish by the respective names of DĒŚYAMU language of the land, TATSAMAMU Sanscrit derivatives, TADBHAVAMU Sanscrit corruptions and GRĀMYAMU provincial terms. To these, latter authors have added anyadēśyamu foreign words or those from other lands’ (ibid.: XVII–XVIII).

The words dēśyamu, tatsamamu, tadbhavanmu, grāmyamu and anyadēśyamu are printed in Telugu script in Campbell’s Introduction. I have used Roman alphabet to write and spell these words for the convenience of readers. Second, As this arrangement is essential to a proper illustration of the structure of the Teloogoo language, it will be adhered to in the following work. Of the different classes of words specified above, the three first only are mentioned in the Telinga Grammar by Dr. Carey, the first is there stated to comprise ‘words current in the country of which the derivation is uncertain’, a ‘large proportion’ of which are allowed to be included in the language; the second is stated to contain ‘pure sungskrita words’; and the third ‘words derived from the Sungskrita, but written and pronounced differently’. The words included in the first class, which I have denominated the language of the land, are not only a ‘large proportion’ of words, but the most numerous in the language, and the model by which those included in the other classes are modified and altered, from the different languages to which they originally belong. Why the origin of this class of terms is supposed to be unascertained has not been stated, nor can I conceive how erroneous a conclusion could have been adopted, for the name given to them by all Sanscrit Grammarians, by the whole body of people, by Dr. Carey himself, at once points out their derivation. This name is DĒŚYAMU, a noun used either as a substantive or

64 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages an adjective, in the former sense denoting a country or land, in the latter, in which it is here used, implying that which belongs to the country or land; it marks the words in question, not as merely ‘current in the country’, but as the growth and produce of the land; it would be difficult to define more precisely the origin of any words, and to this class must we look for the pure Teloogoo — for the true language of the land (ibid.: xviii).

The second class of words, tatsamamu, Sanskrit derivatives of words, ‘… cannot appear in Teloogoo in their original shape, but invariably assume terminations or undergo changes peculiar to the pure Teloogoo, or the language of the land’ (Campbell 1816: xviii—xix). The third class of words, tadbhavamu, Sanscrit corruptions, … consists of words which have passed into Teloogoo, either directly from the Sanscrit, or through the medium of some of its corrupted dialects, such as Pracrit, and which in order to be assimilated to the language of the land, have undergone radical alterations, by the ellison, insertion, addition, or substraction of letters. These changes have been sometimes carried so far, that it is difficult to trace any connexion between the adulterated word and its original in Sanscrit (ibid.: xix). … the great body of Sanscrit words admitted into the (Teloogoo) language consists of abstract terms, and of words connected with science, religion, or law as is the case, in a great degree, with the Greek and Latin words incorporated with our own tongue: but even such Sanscrit words as are thus introduced into Teloogoo are not allowed to retain their original forms, they undergo changes, and assume terminations and inflections unknown to the Sanscrit, and except as foreign quotations, are never admitted into Teloogoo until they appear in the dress peculiar to the language of the land (ibid.: xix–xx).

This is proof of the independent character and agglutinative structure of Telugu. Third, The reader will find all words denoting the different parts of the human frame, the various sorts of food or utensils in common use among the Natives, the several parts of their dress, the compartments of their dwellings, the degrees of affinity and consanguinity peculiar to them, in short all terms expressive of primitive ideas or of things necessarily named in the earlier stages of society, to belong to the pure Teloogoo or language of the land (ibid.: xix).

Campbell was candid and open-minded and added: ‘It is true (so mixed have the two languages now become) that Sanscrit derivatives or corruptions may, without impropriety, be occasionally used to note some of

The Dravidian Language Family . 65

these’ (ibid.: xix). This is the identity of dēśyamu, the cornerstone of the theory of Dravidian languages. Trautmann argued that Campbell thought he was merely stating the case of native grammarians and plain meaning of dēśya category of Telugu words. He added: ‘But the real source of his argument is the theory underlying the method of the word list and the radical distinction it makes between primitive words and borrowed ones’ (2006: 164). Adharvana . Vyākaran.am, an old Telugu grammar written in Sanskrit by Adharvanāchārya, entitled Trilinga Śabdānu Śāsanam (III. 1–11) . was the source of Campbell’s narration regarding the origin, nature and development of Telugu language. This is the meat of native lore. Campbell cited in his Introduction (1816: ii, viii, xvii) in Telugu script and translated into English the Sanskrit passages of Adharvan.a Vyākaran.am from Venkayya’s Preface to Āndhra Dīpika. Venkayya cited (1806: 2, 6) the said passages from Āndhra Kaumudi (p. 2), a reputed Telugu grammar written in Sanskrit by Manda Lakshmīnarasimhāchāryulu. (These are available at the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras.) Most probably, these were part of the collection of the library of the College of Fort St George, Madras. I have compared and verified the passages cited by Campbell with the textual materials of manuscript texts cited above. Campbell’s version — his citations, translation and interpretation — is accurate and faithful to the original textual materials. The source materials cited by Campbell and the native tradition affirm the independent origin of Telugu language in time (ancient period) and space (the basin of rivers Krishna . and Godāvary). The linguistic usage and intercourse of people is the source of origin and medium through which Telugu language has developed and flourished as a stream (pravāhini). The indigenous tradition maintains that Telugu is the native language of the people of Trilingadēśa. Campbell endorsed and substantially relied on the native tradition. The historicization of Telugu language by Telugu grammarians with the ancient period and the land and people of Trilingadēśa was easily available material for Campbell to study the historical relations of Telugu and Sanskrit languages, and of Telugu and other South Indian languages. It was fertile ground for the application of the European project of study of historical relations of languages as a means for fixing up ethnic or national identity of people. The theorization of Telugu grammarians relating to the origins of Telugu and its historical association with Sanskrit was the source material which facilitated

66 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

the production of analytical categories for the study of historical relations of languages — the regular change of sound and form of words and construction of etymology and etymological meaning of words. This conjunction of indigenous linguistic context and European theory of the study of historical relations of languages, and the long dialogue between the Indian linguistic analysis based on Vyākaran.a Śāstra and its analytical categories and the European comparative method and scientific temper helped the production of new knowledge in British India. Trautmann did not give due consideration to Campbell’s argument and its theoretical and historical context related to Telugu language, and put sole premium on the method of word list and its distinction between primitive and borrowed words. The role played by Campbell and Ellis in shaping the development of Telugu grammatical knowledge in nineteenth-century South India forms the base and context for Lisa Mitchell’s article (2006: 229–49). My work is benefited by reading her careful and critical study of Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar and Ellis’s Dissertation. The professed aim of her article is to trace and establish the linkage between the formulation and dissemination of Telugu grammatical knowledge with a focus on dēśyam and anyadēśyam terms by British scholar-administrators in colonial educational institutions in nineteenth-century South India, on the one hand, and the rise of the linguistic nationalism and social and political movements, on the other. More significantly, Mitchell advances three fundamental ideas relating to the linguistic theory and methods of study and construction of linguistic knowledge in colonial India. First, pre-colonial Indian linguistic theory and analysis is a unique tradition. It comprises of a doctrine of eternal and perfect Sanskrit language and is hence timeless. The linguistic categories — tatsama, tadbhava and de-śya words — are endowed with high and low prestige according to the degree of intelligibility, refinement and usage by the literary elites for various functional callings in multi-layered social order, and in the vast geographical space of India. Second, modern European ‘… comparative historical linguistic analysis is still widely regarded as a universal method of knowledge production, existing outside of any particular linguistic ideology’ (Mitchell 2006: 230). The intervention and incorporation of subtle changes in the Indian linguistic analysis through the method and categories of European historical linguistics altered the character of indigenous linguistic tradition, and had profound social and political consequences. According to Mitchell, this is the net effect of

The Dravidian Language Family . 67

application of European historical linguistic analysis in the study and reformulation of the Indian linguistic tradition. She says, ‘British scholars of South Indian languages frequently adjusted categories to suit their own understandings’ (ibid.: 233). This part of her argument is stimulated by Eivind Kahrs’s interpretation of tadbhava word (1992: 225–49). But Mitchell’s theoretical objective is to offer a context for more carefully historicizing the practices of comparative philology, in order that they might more easily be seen as only one method of approaching and classifying language use — a method that, despite its dramatic implications for the present day construction and politicization of language identities can be contrasted with other language ideologies that have been effaced. In doing so, this essay contributes to the growing body of literature that brings theoretical work on linguistic ideologies … into conversation with analyses of colonial construction of knowledge … (2006: 230).

This is her central objective and contribution of her article for building linguistic theory. Third, the structural Indian linguistic tradition and the European historical linguistic analysis are substantially incompatible. She writes, However, the comparative and historical linguistic theoretical frameworks influenced by Leibniz (1646–1716), Jones (1746–94), Grimm (1785–1863), Rask (1787–1832), Bopp (1791–1867) and others were so compelling that once accepted it was difficult to view the models of analysis that predated them outside of this newly developing model. Thus, scholars like Campbell, Ellis, and Brown (C.P.), influenced as they were by these developing structures of knowledge, found it difficult to view the vyākarana . tradition outside of a historical linguistic framework (ibid.: 238).

Therefore, Trautmann’s proposition that elements of Indian linguistic theory (Vyākaran.a Śāstra) profoundly influenced and imperceptibly merged with modern European historical and comparative linguistics (2006) is not correct. Logically, the concept of dialogic mode of construction of knowledge in colonial India via collaborative or joint studies of the British and native scholars is untenable. This is the explicit or implicit tenor or meaning of Mitchell’s scholarly argument, and her conclusions are qualified by appropriate riders. Yet her argument and conclusions endorse, though unintended, Edward W. Said’s discourse that Orientalism is ‘willed activity’ of Europeans to impose their ideas on the Orient.

68 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

The issues raised by Mitchell are embedded in complex, controversial and overlapping themes, which merit an independent study. These issues have a direct and significant bearing on several aspects of my work. It is neither meaningful nor feasible to discuss these ideas as a set at one point in my study. I follow the criterion of thematic relevance and discuss Mitchell’s ideas in my study. Now I turn to an analysis of her account of Campbell’s role in the making of Telugu grammatical knowledge at the College of Fort St George. Mitchell says that pre-colonial Telugu grammarians used the linguistic category of dēśya to classify and designate the body of nonSanskrit words in Telugu language, which are not derived by application of grammatical rules. Further, Telugu dēśya words are of unknown origin and timeless stock current in the country. She says that ‘this follows’ (2006: 233) Prākrit grammarian Hemachandra’s Dēśīnāmamālā, according to Boddupalli Purushōttam (1996: 103). Purushōttam’s work, The Theories of Telugu Grammar, cited by Mitchell, is an abridged version and English translation of his learned and massive two-volume Tenugu Vyākaran.a Vikāsamu (Development of Tenugu Grammar, 1969). He referred to the opinion of Dandin (reputed Sanskrit scholar of the sixth century AD) author of Kāvyādarśa, the ‘earliest extant Sanskrit text’ which mentions the subdivision of the Prākrit terms tadbhava, tatsama, and dēśi (Kahrs 1992: 227). He also cited Prākrit grammarian Trivikrama and described the attributes and nature of dēśi words in the Prākrit grammatical tradition. He cited the opinions of a few British and native scholars regarding the nature and origin of dēśya words (1969: vol. 1, 159–61). He said that dēśi vocabulary and dēśya words are found, respectively, in Prākrit and Telugu languages, and that Tenugu grammarians followed the Prākrit scheme of classification of words comprising of tatsama, tadbhava and dēśya categories. He designated it Padajātā Vibhāga (Purushōttam 1969, Etymological Classification of Vocabulary, vol. 1, Introduction: 1). He did not say the attributes of dēśi words of the Prākrit grammatical tradition are either applicable to Telugu dēśya words or have been accepted by Telugu grammarians. He wrote that Telugu grammarians (of the Traditional School) accepted Sanskrit and Prākrit as the twin base of Telugu, but maintained the doctrine that the corpus of Telugu dēśya terms was independent in origin and development (1969: vol. 1, 162). I have reported a full-fledged theory regarding the origin, nature and development of Telugu dēśya terms in the next chapter on the Telugu grammatical tradition. Mitchell referred to Purushottam’s citation of Hemachandra’s Dēśīnāmamālā

The Dravidian Language Family . 69

regarding the attributes of Prākrit dēśi words, and used it as the base for interpretation of dēśya words in the Telugu grammatical tradition. She did not cite any Telugu grammarian or text which lent support to her description of Telugu dēśya words. She did not consider the passages in Telugu script cited by Campbell from Adharvana . Vyākaran.am (via Āndhra Dīpika and Āndhra Kaumudi), which were the source materials for Campbell’s interpretation of Telugu dēśya words. Mitchell goes on, yet so powerful was the European emphasis on historical origins that this meaning of unknown origins and timelessness was rejected even when recognized as the clearly stated intention of earlier authors. The colonial administrator Alexander Duncan Campbell, for example, writing in 1816 in response to the universal agreement he identified within Telugu grammars that the origins of dēśya words are unknown, states, why the origin of this class of terms is supposed to be unascertained has not been stated; nor can I conceive how so erroneous a conclusion could have been adopted (1820 (1816): xviii). His obvious bewilderment at the definitions offered by earlier Telugu grammarians should be taken as an indication that precolonial South Indian and European approaches to linguistic categories were not completely commensurable (2006: 233).

Mitchell’s statements and conclusion are not correct. There is neither the ‘clearly stated intention of earlier authors’, nor ‘universal agreement he (A. D. Campbell) identified within Telugu grammars’ regarding the unknown and timeless origin of Telugu dēśya vocabulary. The Prākrit grammatical tradition of dēśi is either confused with or is embossed over Telugu dēśya words. Campbell’s doubt relating to the ‘origin’ and ‘erroneous conclusion’ about Telugu dēśya words is a criticism directed against Carey’s characterization of Telugu dēśya vocabulary, vide Carey’s A Grammar of the Telingana Language (1814), which is a re-statement relating to the Prākrit tradition of dēśi vocabulary. It is not connected with Telugu grammarians and their theories of dēśyam. In fact, Campbell cited the authority of native authors to criticize Carey’s comments on dēśyam. Mitchell misunderstood the context and purport of Campbell’s observations (see pp. 63–64). Mitchell aptly pointed out that Campbell, while citing the authority of Telugu grammarians ‘from the days of Nunnia Bhutt to the present period … has rearranged the order of Telugu words, beginning first with dēśyam, rather than with tatsama and tadbhava. Yet Ellis and Campbell’s citations of local grammarians have never been questioned’ (2006: 234). Why did Campbell change the order of Telugu words? It is easy to guess

70 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Mitchell’s answer to this question. The European historical and comparative linguistic analysis was at play, and Campbell changed the order of Telugu words due to the introduction of European language analysis into the indigenous linguistic tradition. Probably the following reasons had prompted Campbell to rank dēśyam in the first place in the order of Telugu words. Campbell’s study of Telugu language had been directed to find out its ‘original source in the superior dialect’ (1816: xiv). According to him, who followed the letter and spirit of native tradition of Telugu grammar, dēśya vocabulary is the original stock of Telugu language. It is the primary language of the people of Trilingadēśa. Perhaps he ranked dēśyam in the first place in the order of Telugu words to indicate and establish the ‘original source’ of Telugu. He had consciously deviated and introduced changes in Telugu grammar. He said: The text of Nunniah Bhutt, as explained by his best commentators, has been my principal guide in the work, which I now offer to the public but as the illustrations, comparisons, and arrangements of these Authors are borrowed exclusively from the language in which they compose, and from a system of grammar the most artificial perhaps ever invented by human ingenuity, I have adhered to them in these respects, so far as they are calculated to assist an English student. I have often been obliged to deviate from them and in imitation of my guides, to accommodate my illustrations sc.sc. to the grammar of the language in which I write (1816: viii–ix).

He continued: ‘I have not neglected … the inferior dialect, which, as being vulgar, Native authors have considered beneath the notice of the learned’ (ibid.: xiv). These reasons may hold good to explain why Campbell changed the ranking order of Telugu words. Campbell noticed the dominance of Sanskrit and its grammatical formulae over Telugu dēśyam, and the indifferent and disrespectful attitude of native grammarians towards dēśyam. Maybe he thought the ranking of dēśyam in the first place in the order of Telugu words would help to bring it into focus in the study of Telugu grammar. Let us recall that Dandin ranked tadbhava terms in the first place over and above tatsama terms in the subdivision of Prākrit terms (cited by Kahrs 1992: 227). At least, this is Campbell’s perspective. Mitchell says Campbell ‘also glosses dēśyamu as the “language of the land” rather than emphasizing its non-derivation from grammar, as Telugu scholars have done’ (2006: 234). She argues that Campbell’s designation of dēśyamu is simply a European conception of a distinct language, which has been introduced by him into the native linguistic

The Dravidian Language Family . 71

tradition. I doubt whether she is right. Let us note the factors that contributed for the framing of Campbell’s conception of dēśyamu. He cited, translated and utilized source materials from Adharvan.a Vyākaran.am, which was the basis for his theory and designation of dēśyamu. A few Telugu grammarians have described dēśyam as pravāhini, a trickle at its source of origin but becoming a huge, perennial stream of consumable water as other water courses join it. Likewise, Telugu dēśyam — the primary tongue of people in a locality — evolves and develops as the language of the region and its people by absorbing various local dialects into its fold and by freely adopting loan words from other languages. It develops as an effective communication tool to fulfil the requirements of more complex and organized economic and social life. Telugu grammatical tradition nourished and shaped the development of dēśyam via a number of grammatical rules. Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani, . Campbell’s chief guide, enunciated a basic linguistic tenet that people’s usage is the source of origin, evolution and refinement of language (I. 3). Vinnakota Peddana, a prominent Telegu grammarian, said that dēśyam is sahajāndhradēśa bhavamu (a natural endowment of Āndhra region) and it is dēśōdbhavamu (origin of which is located in the region) (1936: XI, poem 11). Appakavi, seventeenth century Telegu grammarian, said the native language of the concerned region is dēśyam for the people of any region, and its nature, structure and meaning could be known through acquaintance with the colloquial and idiomatic usage of people, for its legitimate use in poetical works (1934: I, poem 104). Venkayya wrote: Dēśyamanagā nāndhramu. Adiyē Telugu. Adi Trilingadēśōdhbhavamani, anyadēśōdbhavamani rendu vidhamulu. (1806: Preface, p. 6) Dēśyam means or it is Āndhram. It alone is Telugu. It is of two kinds: that has originated in the region of three Śaiva temples, and that has originated in other region.

Venkayya’s doctrine of dēśyam is based on the authority of Appakavīyam, which is a digest of Telugu grammatical knowledge in the medieval and early modern periods. Campbell and Ellis held Venkayya’s scholarship and his dictionary in high esteem and had used extensively the source materials of Telugu grammar incorporated by Venkayya in the Preface to Āndhra Dīpika. Campbell’s designation of Telugu dēśyam as the ‘language of the land’ is anchored on this native theory and legacy of dēśyam.

72 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Mitchell says Campbell’s ‘next words, however, are even more striking for he states, “To these [the list of Telugu words — Dēśyamu, Tatsamamu, Tadbhavamu and Grāmyamu] later authors have added anyadēśyamu, foreign words or those from other lands’ (1820 [1816]: xvii–xviii). The way in which Campbell defines and frames anyadēśyam is significant, for never before has it been listed as a separate category of analysis. Instead, whenever it is introduced, it is always listed as a subdivision of dēśyam category … Campbell later acknowledged this fact but in a way that dramatically masks the significance of the intervention he is marking … Campbell’s understanding of anyadēśyamu, based as it is on an assumption of an origin located outside the local, makes it difficult for him to accept it as a subcategory within the dēśyam category, especially given his definition of dēśyamu as ‘language of the land’ … Ultimately, with this definition he can only accommodate anyadēśyam by removing it completely from within the category of dēśyam, promoting it to a separate category of its own, and defining it, like dēśyam, in terms of origins. In effect, he has redefined anyadēśyam in opposition to dēśyam rather than including it, as Indian grammarians had done, within the same category (2006: 234).

I will comment on Mitchell’s conclusions after reporting the indigenous tradition relating to anyadēśyam. The linguistic category of anyadēśyam is a well-entrenched and widely used term in pre-colonial Telugu grammatical and literary texts. It means or refers to words that come from the language of other regions (anyadēśāgatam) or belong to other regions. Anyadēśāgatam grāmyam Kavyānarhamalaksanam (Trilinga Śabdānu Śāsanam . I. 74). Words of language that come (āgatam) from other region (anyadēśa) and words of rural usage are not eligible for use in literary works.

It is also said that anyadēśyam, which is merited with poetical aesthetics, could be used in literary works (Adharvana . Kārikāvali. I. 9). Telugu poets of the Śaiva cult and Śiva legends and myths of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and of the Vais.n.ava cult and Vis.n.u lore and myths in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, respectively, used anyadēśyam terms of Karnataka and Tamil regions. Anyadēśyam terms from Mahārāshtra and some regions of northern India were also employed in Telugu literary works. The corpus of literature in distinct regional languages, for example Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Maharashtri,

The Dravidian Language Family . 73

Bengali, Hindi, etc. was a remarkable feature of the literary horizon of pre-colonial and early modern India. Anyadēśyam is found in regional literary works. Anyadēśyam is a problematic issue in pre-colonial Telugu grammar in a two-fold ways. First, what are its salient features? Second, what is the status of anyadēśyam vis-à-vis dēśyam? Appakavīyam, a seventeenthcentury Telugu grammar authored by Kakunuri Appakavi, is a seminal text to construct answers to these questions (1934). It reflects the socio-economic and linguistic evolution of Āndhra region during the medieval and early modern periods. It sums up the intellectual and cultural background of the early modern period, and looks forward to the beginning of the eighteenth century. It embodies the tradition and legacy of the Traditional and Independent Schools of Telugu grammar. Moreover, Campbell and Ellis, on the one hand, and their critic Mitchell, on the other, had extensively cited Appakavīyam to derive and defend their respective remarks and conclusions relating to anyadēśyam. I have noted earlier the observation of Appakavi that dēśyam is the native language of the people of any region, and colloquial and idiomatic usage of the people is source or basis for the construction of its correct form and meaning (1934: I, poem 104). It is not textual authority but people’s usage which qualifies dēśyam for use in poetical works. He says people (praja) always love one’s own culture and language (nija dēśambula vēsa Therefore, poets who have literary . bhāsalu). . flair and appreciation for aesthetic pleasure approve and use one’s own native language (swadēśyam), and do not approve the use of anyadēśyam in pursuit and fulfilment of clear meaning and clarity of literary works (1934: I, poem 60). Dēśyam as well as swadēśyam and anyadēśyam are two sides of the coin of dēśībhās.a (regional language). Dēśyam is the native language of one’s own region and its people, and it is intelligible to all people. Anyadēśyam is the (native) language of other region and its people, and except to its native people, it is not comprehensible. Thus, Appakavi analysed the origin and chief features of dēśyam and anyadēśyam; the distinct identity and functional value of them had been a feature of the Indian linguistic tradition. Telugu is the dēśyam of Āndhra region and its people, and simultaneously it is anyadēśyam for people of other regions. This dual identity and the feature of degree of intelligibility is an inherent and common attribute of regional languages of India. Therefore, dēśyam and anyadēśyam are listed in the linguistic category of the common genre, but their distinct origin,

74 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

identity, intelligibility, prominence and extensive use in specific regions is a clear phenomenon in indigenous linguistic analysis. Appakavi says there are two kinds of āndhradēśyams: śuddhāmdhrambulu (pure Telugu words) and anyadēśajāmdhramulu (Telugu words which have originated in other regions); the former are Telugu words spoken clearly by all people (sakala janam) of Āndhra region (1934: I, poems 105–106), and the latter are Telugu words that have originated in other regions through the usage of Āndhra people who have resided or stayed there and spoken Telugu words in conjunction with dēśya words of the concerned regions — Āndhrulu nānā dēśambulayamdu nilichi Telugule Tattadēśoktulamta balikina āśabdamu lanyadēśajāmdhramu layyen (ibid.: I, poem 108). Anyadēśaja means that which has origins in other regions. For this reason, anyadēśajāmdhrams are phonetically unfamiliar and difficult words in terms of comprehensibility. It is a subspecies of Telugu dēśyam and quite different from anyadēśyam in the body of Appakavi’s linguistic concepts (ibid.: I, poem 60). Anyadēśajāmdhrams and anyadēśyams are distinct linguistic concepts, in spite of similarity in their features of origin and degree of intelligibility. He also refers to accha Tenugu, comprising kevalāmdhrams (śuddhāmdhrams, anyadēśa–jamdhrams and grāmyam) plus tadbhava words, but excludes tatsama words (ibid.: I, poem 110). Appakavi employs the concept of mleccha bhās.a (foreign language). He writes that mleccha words which contribute for the rhythm of poetry should not be avoided in the composition of dēśya literary works (ibid.: I, poem 66). Poets employ mleccha words in the production of glorious literary works in pure and ethnic dēśyam — Khyātiga nija kshmātala bhasākrtula dēśīya JĀTĪYAMBU . (ibid.: I, poem 67). Appakavi’s term jatiyambu refers to Telugu ethnicity in the medieval and early modern periods. It is a clear manifestation of the spirit and rudimentary form of Telugu linguistic ethnicity, and embryonic formation of the concept of linguistic ethnology within the framework of the Indian linguistic tradition. The concepts of swadēśyam (one’s regional native language), jātīyam (ethnicity of Telugu people of Āndhra region), nija bhā.sa (one’s own native language) praja (people), and sakala janam (all people) embodied the genesis, growth and elements of distinct form of Telugu ethnicity, which was not confined to the privileged and minority strata of literary scribes and elites. The colloquial usage, comprehension and appreciation of the people of Āndhra region were the rich base, source and agency for Telugu linguistic ethnicity. It was a landmark development and heralded the beginnings of the modern period in the history of

The Dravidian Language Family . 75

Telugu language. This is not merely a body of abstract grammatical formulae. It is rooted in the interstices of the socio-economic and political transformation of Āndhra region in the medieval and early modern periods. The expansion of the agrarian sector via grant of agrahāra settlements, establishment of new villages and cultivation of forest and virgin lands, and tank-based irrigation contributed for the diversification of crops and increase in agricultural productivity. Trade and commerce flourished in the wake of agricultural prosperity. Trading centres with traits of nascent urbanization were formed. The Persian ruling elites of Go-lconda Sultanate promoted trade with Persia and the Islamic regions of central and SouthEast Asia. Intra- and interAsian land and seaborne trade and markets, and port towns and trading centres had flourished in pre-colonial India. The European trading companies availed indigenous markets and trading networks and enlarged the scope and nature of commercial and business operations. Political order in Āndhra region (Kākatīya polity) adapted innovative organizational forms which facilitated the emergence of a strong central power, and networks of sub-regional centres of authority and influence. Thus, progressive changes in the society promoted formation of diverse, wealthy and cultured groups and elites, who patronized literary scribes and works in Telugu language. Economic prosperity and relative political stability gave rise to religious institutions — temples and temple towns — with a distinct body of literate sections of population and literary scribes. Śaivism and Vais.n.avism — the two main and competitive branches of Hindu religion — patronized the production of Telugu poetical works in parlance of popular dēśya usage to reach the people and earn and enlist their support. The stories, legends and myths relating to Śiva and Vis.n.u, which were major themes of Telugu poetical works, had been diffused and popularized among the people through the medium of a variety of folk art forms. Thus Telugu language and Telugu ethnicity had a wide and popular base and was a well-established entity in pre-colonial Āndhra region. Such a multidimensional transformation of Āndhra region fuelled changes in Telugu language and its use. Velchēru Na-ra-yana . Ra-o, David Shulman and Sanjay Subrahmanyam have documented the rich and varied patterns of change in the use of Telugu in writing and communication of ethno-historical texts in the late medieval and early modern period (2002). Phillip Wagoner focused on the significance of linguistic skills of niyōgi Bra-hmins (who were in the secular profession of record keeping and revenue collection in the village and in administrative service in

76 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

royal establishments) in writing Telugu prose and legal documents in the pre-colonial period (2003). There was a remarkable transformation in Telugu use in form and content in the late medieval and early modern periods. Historical change of Telugu corresponding to the socio-economic growth and political convulsions of Āndhra region is testified to by the variety of linguistic concepts and practices found in Appakavīyam. The doctrine of dēśyam, native language of the region and its people, is based on the theory and practice of the dēśībhās.a tradition, which had been a prominent and integral part of the pan-Indian linguistic tradition. Anyadēśyams are (native) languages of other regions. The two kinds of Telugu language (śuddhamdhrams and anyadēśajamdhrams) are proof enough for the concept of pure Telugu language as well as the historical change of Telugu and the emergence of Telugu ethnicity. The use of anyadēśyams and mleccha words in dēśya literary works is evidence for the historical change of Telugu, and for the innate character and capacity of Telugu to freely borrow and absorb words from other languages. This is the rich tradition of pre-colonial Telugu grammar and literature. This is the stock of complex Telugu linguistic concepts which were studied and analysed by Campbell and Ellis. Being pioneers in the field of Telugu philology, they faced severe hardships in the process of comprehension and translation of native linguistic categories. They had clear knowledge of Vyākaran.a Śāstra (science of grammar) including Prākrit grammar. But the dēśībhās.a tradition comprising of a cluster of regional languages in India was a hard nut to crack for them. Each regional language was dēśyam (native language) for its people, and it was also anyadēśyam (language of other region) for the people of other regions. The dual or Janus face of a regional language at once as dēśyam and anyadēśyam, and the issue of ranking dēśyam and anyadēśyam as linguistic categories was a baffling problem for British scholars. Campbell and Ellis strove to resolve the problem. They used a variety of words — ‘country’ (Campbell 1816: ii and vii; Ellis 1816: 13, 14, 15, and 17), ‘nation’ (Campbell 1816: xvii), ‘province’ (ibid.: ii and vii) and ‘land’ (ibid.: xvii, xviii and xix) — to convey the meaning of the native term and concept of dēśya. Dēśyam was the linguistic endowment of the people of dēśya. It was defined and translated as the native language of dēśya and its people (‘language of the land’, ibid.: xviii, xix and xx; and ‘pure native language of the land’, Ellis 1816: 18). Anyadēśyam was understood and translated as words of foreign language (Campbell 1816: xviii; Ellis

The Dravidian Language Family . 77

1816: 15, 17). It was also described by Campbell as words ‘from other lands’. Campbell and Ellis ranked it as a separate linguistic category in Telugu language, instead of listing it as a subdivision or part of dēśyam which was the age-old and customary practice of Telugu grammar. Mitchell concludes by saying … what we identify today as discrete ‘languages’ — Sanskrit, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, English, Persian — though already present within discourse as recognizable terms and entities were not necessarily the most significant categories in the analysis, organization, and even experience of linguistic knowledge. The categories used by precolonial Telugu Vyākarana . texts do not refer to a discrete and bounded Telugu language but rather, are descriptive catalogs of linguistic practices within a particular territory, used to evaluate the level of codification, appropriateness and intelligibility of particular types of words within literary compositions. Colonial administrators sought to redefine languages in relation to the etymological origins of words and their historical changes over time, rather than in relation to the linguistic practices present in a particular place. For precolonial Indian grammarians of regional linguistic practices, some usages were recognized as more effective than others for particular purposes. All categories of language use — tatsama, tadbhava, desya and gramya — were seen as part of the language of the region. Where they differed was in the extent of their comprehensibility beyond the local. Although precolonial grammarians used these descriptive categories in a prescriptive manner to accept some usages as appropriate in literacy compositions, it was only colonial grammarians who began to define some local usage as Telugu and other usage as ‘not Telugu’ (2006: 241).

She says ‘… precolonial grammarians document a spectrum of available language use by categorizing all known words in relation to their usefulness and prestige rather than in relating to the ethnic identities of those who use them …’ (ibid.: 243, 3n). Mitchell’s arguments and conclusions are coherent and well-grounded. But the linguistic scenario of early modern and early decades of nineteenth century of South India, especially the Āndhra region, calls for a critical appraisal and assessment of her case. It was a period of transition to the modern era, and the evolutionary character and fluidity of indigenous linguistic context and tradition was a clear phenomenon. Appakavīyam and Āndhra Dīpika, important texts of Telugu grammar and lexicography of this period, confirm the emergence of Telugu as a distinct language and its use in the social and economic activity of precolonial Āndhra region. Significant theoretical and empirical concepts

78 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

and changes are noticed and formalized in the Indian linguistic tradition at macro (the Sanskrit- and Prākrit-centred Vyākaran.a Śāstra), and micro levels (regional languages). In fact, Mitchell acknowledges that all aspects of language and its use were not ‘constant’ in medieval and early modern India (2006: 230). Yet, she argues that changes in linguistic knowledge and growth and identity of discrete languages in pre-colonial India ‘were not necessarily the most significant categories in language analysis’ (ibid.: 241), and pre-colonial grammarians had shown ‘little preoccupation with formally documenting the distinctions between one regional language and another, or with identifying “pure” and “foreign” linguistic forms of one group of people vis-à-vis other regional groups, in the ways that colonial and postcolonial scholars have tended to do’ (ibid.: 243, 3n). It may be so. But it does not mean that application of the method and categories of European historical and comparative linguistics by Campbell and Ellis in the study of Telugu language ushered in the ideology of regional languages and linguistic social and political mobilization in South India. As has been noted earlier, the economy, social and cultural dynamics and intellectual background of Āndhra region had changed remarkably in the medieval and early modern period. Āndhra region was on the threshold of modern times. Consequently, the usage of Telugu had grown and diversified in colloquial parlance and in poetical works. Appakavi, seventeenth-century Telugu grammarian; Venkayya (1764–1834), Telugu lexicographer; Pattābhirāma Śāstry (1760–1820), head Sanskrit and Telugu master at the College and author of Āndhra Dhātupāt.a, were forerunners in the modernization of Telugu and constructed linguistic concepts to sanctify and support new forms of Telugu language and its distinct identity. Historical change of Āndhra society and economy during the late medieval and early modern period was the context and cause for their linguistic concepts. They were sensitive to the dynamics of the social and economic growth of Āndhra region and initiated the process of adaption of Telugu language to meet the requirements of modern times and life. They cited old Telugu grammars written in Sanskrit and theorized and formulated grammatical rules and linguistic concepts. They upheld the origin, identity and development of Telugu as distinct native language (dēśyam) of Āndhra region and its people. Their theory of āndhradēśyam was anchored on the principles of the historical origin of Telugu language (accha) in Trilingadēśa, and root-centred (dhātu) etymological derivation of the form and meaning of words. The colloquial usage of language in Āndhra region was the source for the origin and development of Telugu.

The Dravidian Language Family . 79

Appakavi and Venkayya were great Sanskritists and savants of Indian linguistic tradition and analysis. Appakavi said that Prākrit was the spoken language of India in the early phase of development (1934: I, poem 72). Venkayya wrote that Apabhramśa was a proper dialect of Prākrit, but not a corrupted or impure tongue (1806: 6). Further, various dialects of dēśyam in different regions of India in conjunction with dialects of Prākrit language had evolved as vernacular or regional languages. These profound linguistic concepts are based on the dēśībhās.a tradition (eighteen regional and local languages) of classical India, on the one hand, and Buddhist and Jaina systems of linguistic analysis, on the other. Pālī and Ardhamāgadhī were, respectively, languages of the Buddhist cannon and Jaina religious texts. Pālī was considered to be the foundational language (mūla bhās.a). Ardhamāgadhī was deemed to be the language of sages and gods. Historical change and growth of language was governing principle of the linguistic concepts of Appakavi and Venkayya. This was a different perspective from the structural theory of linguistic analysis of Vyākaran.a Śāstra, which enunciates the timelessness, perfection, purity, and high prestige of Sanskrit language. Linguistic traditions and analyses, other than the structural theory of Vyākaran.a Śāstra, had flourished in pre-colonial India. Campbell and Ellis were posted with a full-fledged account of the linguistic concepts of Appakavi and Venkayya. The early phase of British Orientalism in India (1770–1820) was governed by two principles. First, British scholar-administrators were guided by a genuine and keen desire to understand Indian society and culture through the study of Indian languages. This is a cultural trait perhaps unparalleled in human history and in the domain of intercultural dialogue. The causes for and consequences of the patchy record of the British in the comprehension of Indian cultural tradition is a long and different story. Second, British scholar-administrators relied upon indigenous source materials and native scholars, and held native scholarship and knowledge in high esteem. Therefore, Orientalism absorbed and contained a good part of indigenous materials and knowledge. Campbell and Ellis studied Telugu language at the College of Fort St George as a part of the larger project on Orientalism. Quite obviously, what they wrote regarding the origin, nature and structure of Telugu was, in substantial measure, a recapture or recast of native scholarship and knowledge (primarily of Appakavi, Venkayya and Pattābhirāma Śāstry). Campbell and Ellis have recorded due acknowledgement for the help rendered by native scholars, and for the utilization of indigenous source materials.

80 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Mitchell overlooked the developments in the indigenous linguistic tradition, the historical context of the early phase of British rule and Orientalism and the institutional base (College of Fort St George) for the study of Telugu language by Campbell and Ellis. She focused solely on the structural theory of linguistic analysis of Vyākaran.a Śāstra, as though it embodied the pre-colonial Indian linguistic tradition and heritage in entirety. Further, she assumed that the attributes of dēśi terms of Prākrit grammar are transferable and applicable to Telugu dēśyam terms. This is the premise for her critique of Campbell and Ellis, and for her comments and conclusions. She argued that Campbell and Ellis employed European historical and comparative linguistic analysis and emphasized the principles of origin and etymology in the interpretation of dēśyam and anyadēśyam linguistic categories of Telugu grammar, because their historical and comparative linguistic analysis was incompatible with the Indian structural linguistic tradition. Therefore they have … subtly redefined a system of language analysis while attributing it to ‘Native Grammarians’ and ‘Native Authors’ … But by citing local authorities and using local terms and categories in their writings, they managed to make it appear that their own understandings of language had always already been present in the very local texts they used to support their arguments (2006: 233).

She said that Campbell ‘in a way that dramatically masks the significance’ of his intervention (ibid.: 234), and Ellis through ‘a sleight of hand’ (ibid.: 235) radically altered the meanings and use of dēśyam and anyadēśyam categories in indigenous Telugu language analysis. Thus, they have ‘managed’ to impose their (European) conception of discrete language upon the Indian linguistic tradition, and paved the way for a paradigm shift in Telugu grammatical knowledge in the nineteenth century, as well as for the emergence of regional languages and linguistic social and political movements in modern India. According to Mitchell’s implied and suggestive conclusion, colonial construction of linguistic knowledge in early nineteenth-century South India led to an almost complete effacement of indigenous pre-colonial Telugu language analysis and use. This is a severe indictment levelled against Campbell and Ellis who, respectively, traced ‘the original source’ (1816: xiv) and ‘real affiliation’ of Telugu (1816: 1), and who, jointly formulated with unassailable and comprehensive evidence, the concept of the Dravidian language family in 1816, under the auspices of the College of Fort St George.

The Dravidian Language Family . 81

The growth and development of regional languages, and the gradual effacement of pre-colonial Telugu language analysis and its use in South India are distinct linguistic features of the modern period. But these fundamental developments in the linguistic map of South India were neither a function of colonial construction of linguistic knowledge, nor the deliberate handiwork of Campbell and Ellis in the interpretation of Telugu dēśyam and anyadēśyam via the application of the method of European historical and comparative linguistics. The new linguistic developments were products of the logical culmination of Appakavi’s pre-colonial Telugu linguistic concepts (swadēśyam, jātīyam, nija bhās.a, praja and sakala janam) in the historical process of the modern period. British colonial rule was the driving force of the modern age in India, and its early phase (1770–1820) was a unique period and a product of confluence of a few, rather rare, historical forces and developments. It was neither powerful nor secure, as it was said or supposed to be due to a variety of interests and ideas which operated in India, England and the external environment that impinged upon its working. It was solely dependent on the revenues raised in India to meet the cost of civil and military establishments, and finance the trading operations of the East India Company. The British met in India an ancient, well developed and multi-faceted civilization, which offered a counter perspective to Western civilization. Therefore, the British were sincerely interested in the study of Indian society and culture for its intrinsic value, and to accumulate information and knowledge which was useful for promotion of colonial interests and objectives. Hence they sought, and won, the association and cooperation of native scholars and elites, who were custodians of indigenous knowledge and information, in the governance of India according to the norms, laws and values of the Indian society. All these factors (see Chapter 2) largely guided and determined the nature and structure of the British colonial regime. This is the historical context for the establishment of the College of Fort St George in 1812 by the government of Madras Presidency for teaching South Indian languages and native laws to the British junior civil servants. Soon after, native students, who aspired to become teachers at the College and elsewhere, were admitted and taught South Indian languages according to the curriculum of the College. It was managed by a Board of Superintendence comprising British officers. As has been noted earlier, the College had reputed native scholars on its faculty and was equipped with a library, press and book depot for the publication and sale of books. It was an association British scholar-administrators, native scholars and teachers, British junior civil

82 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

servants and trainee students engaged in the teaching, learning and study of South Indian languages. The academic programme and ambience of the College was the dais for mutual consultation, dialogue and exchange of ideas among the scholars and students. The senior native scholars, head masters, were stimulated and encouraged to write books on grammar and other aspects of native languages. Pāttabhirāma Śāstry and Chidambara Vadiyar (head Tamil master) wrote, respectively, dhātumālas (strings of root material) and texts of grammar for Telugu and Tamil. British scholars took up earnestly the study of native languages. Campbell wrote Teloogoo Grammar and Ellis authored ‘Dissertations’ on Telugu, Malayalam and Tamil. Thus, the College was an academic centre from its inception for the promotion of linguistic knowledge concerning South Indian languages. The study of language at the College was focused ‘… on acquiring a grasp of the structure of language, as exemplified in grammar’ (Venkatāchalapathy 2009: 124). The ingrained longing of British Orientalism to study and understand Indian society through a mastery of Indian languages was the cause for a grammar-oriented in-depth study of languages at the College and elsewhere. Such a linguistic exercise initiated a long conversation between the intellectual traditions of Europe and India. Trautmann designated it the Madras School of Orientalism, and its historic accomplishment was construction and publication of the concept of the Dravidian language family by Campbell and Ellis in 1816. Interaction and reciprocal influence between European historical and comparative linguistics and the Indian linguistic tradition was the key for the construction of new linguistic knowledge and concepts in colonial South India in the early decades of the nineteenth century. We will analyse the pattern and dynamics of interaction between these two linguistic traditions later in this chapter. British Orientalism, as a body of Oriental knowledge relating to Indian society constructed via a deep study of Indian languages, and as a policy position of the colonial regime to rule India according to the indigenous cultural practices and values, was the dominant intellectual spirit in the early phase of British rule. The two facets of Orientalism were interlinked and reinforced each other, and served the intellectual quest of the British to understand the Indian society, on the one hand, and promoted colonial interests, on the other. As such, British Orientalism held native scholars, indigenous knowledge and cultural source materials in high esteem. The accomplishments of British scholars and methodology of their scholarly works are demonstrable and well known, as against those of

The Dravidian Language Family . 83

native scholars and indigenous knowledge in the production of new linguistic concepts. Their role could be inferred and constructed on the basis of indirect evidence provided by the acknowledgements of British scholars for their help, and the British scholars’ utilization of materials from their works and source materials of indigenous knowledge. There is much evidence and material in the specific instance of study of Telugu by Campbell and Ellis to portray the critical and constructive role of native scholars. It is proof enough to demonstrate the intellectual traditions and linguistic analysis of Europe and India, which were primary elements in the process of modernization and popularization of Telugu. I have cited such materials in this chapter in extensive passages with exact reference sources, which testify to the following linguistic propositions. The historical origin of Telugu language had been traced back to the Trilingadēśa. Telugu dēśyam was a distinct native language of Āndhra region and its people. Colloquial usage was the source of origin and base for development of Telugu dēśyam. Anyadēśyam were words of languages that came from other regions. The process of derivation of correct structure and meaning of words through the method of root-centred etymology was a well-cultivated and developed part of the Indian linguistic analysis. Native scholars conveyed to Campbell and Ellis the body of pre-colonial Telugu linguistic concepts — their purport, significance and textual sources. This was a critical element in the process of production of new linguistic knowledge at the College. While explaining the complex process of construction of new knowledge at the College, Trautmann observed: ‘The Indian intellectuals of the MSO (Madras School of Orientalism) and the work they did were in a sense its most significant legacy, for it was they who created new careers for Indian modernity and it was they who cast the mould of the past into new moulds and prepared it for a new future’ (2009: 12). Campbell and Ellis sharply focused on the Telugu dēśyam and anyadēśyam linguistic categories of the early modern period and facilitated modernization of Telugu and its extensive use in the nineteenth century. Print technology, production and sale of books, advancement of literacy, growth of transport and communication facilities, economic growth, social mobility and other features of modern society were the base as well as cause for promotion of popular use of Telugu, on the one hand, and for the gradual, but steady, effacement of precolonial Telugu language practice, analysis and use, on the other. Thus, the historical process of onward march of modernization of society,

84 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

and the collaborative studies of the native and British scholars at the College were effective forces for the metamorphosis of Telugu linguistic concepts of the early modern period into a distinct and popular Telugu language, and for the effacement of vestiges of pre-colonial Telugu analysis and its use in the nineteenth century. Campbell and Ellis had introduced minor changes in the ranking system of Telugu words, and in framing and defining dēśyam and anyadēśyam. This was an issue and process of giving added emphasis to the principles of origin and historical change and etymology in the interpretation of Telugu dēśyam and anyadēśyam of the early modern period. It was not a fundamental deviation from the native tradition and legacy of Telugu linguistic concepts. In this sense, Campbell and Ellis were catalyst agents who fostered modernization and popularization of Telugu in the nineteenth century by giving a slant to the interpretation of Telugu dēśyam and anyadēśyam. Campbell’s and Ellis’s study of Telugu language had been guided by the historical and institutional context of the times; the corpus of Telugu linguistic concepts of early modern period; the long conversation between the native and British scholars at the College; and the drive of the modernization process of the society in the nineteenth century. I am afraid Mitchell overlooked the intellectual climate and context of the times in her assessment of the nature and significance of the study of Telugu language by Campbell and Ellis. She has given undue and unwarranted importance to the impact of European historical and comparative linguistics upon the Indian linguistic tradition, and has not noticed the reciprocal influence of the two linguistic traditions on each other. Her conclusion that Campbell and Ellis had ‘managed’ to adjust native Telugu linguistic categories to suit their (European) conception of language by citing native authors and texts, and thus paved the way for effacement of indigenous language analysis, is neither correct nor fair. This is a long but necessary interruption to clarify the complex issues raised by Mitchell, and set a frame of reference to Campbell’s contribution for the advancement of Telugu grammatical knowledge. I will resume the presentation of Campbell’s multi-fold argument related to the concept of Dravidian languages. Fourth, with the exception of a few letters peculiar to Sanscrit words, and evidently taken from Nagree alphabet, the round and flowing characters of Teloogoo bear no resemblance to the square Devanagree, even if the Teloogoo alphabet were found to be derived from the Nagree; it would only prove that the

The Dravidian Language Family . 85 people of Telingana had borrowed the invention of a more civilized nation. The origin of their language might still be as different from that of their alphabet, as the origin of our present Roman characters, from that of our Saxon words (1816: xvi).

Fifth, In the course of this work, it will be obvious to the Sanscrit scholar that the declension of the noun, by particles or words added to it — the use of a plural pronoun (MANAMU — we) applicable to the first and second persons conjointly — the conjugation of the affirmative verb — the existence of a negative aorist, a negative imperative and other negative forms in the verb — the union of the neuter and feminine genders in the singular, and of the masculine and feminine genders in the plural, of the pronouns and verbs — and the whole body of syntax, are entirely unconnected with the Sanscrit; while the Tamil and Karnataca scholar will at once recognize their radical connexion with each of these languages (ibid.: xix).

Undoubtedly, these grammatical formulae which establish the radical separation of the South Indian languages from Sanskrit, and radical connection of these languages with each other were generated in the classrooms of the College. In this case, we find a striking homology between the curriculum of the College and construction of the concept of Dravidian languages. Sixth, Telugu language has two dialects — the superior or literary dialect employed for writing mainly poetry and other literary works, and the colloquial dialect used by all people in day-to-day life, work, business, communication, etc. ‘This peculiarity of two dialects is common to the Teloogoo, with the Tamil and the Karnataca’ (Campbell 1816: xiv). South Indian languages have two dialects — the high or literary dialect and the low or colloquial dialect. Seventh, ‘The Teloogoo is spoken with the greatest purity in the Northern Circars, and with much of its native simplicity by the Ratsawars, Velamawars, and others superior classes in those districts’ (Campbell 1816: xiv). ‘But, with the manners and habits of their ancestors, the Velamawars, Comtees and other Soodra castes, descended from the aborigines of the country, retain a great deal of the original language of Telingana and are more sparing in the use of Sanscrit words than the Bramins’ (ibid.: xv). It has been noticed that, in speaking Teloogoo, the Soodras use very few Sanscrit words: among the superior classes of Vysyus, and pretenders

86 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages to the Rajah caste, Sanscrit terms are used only in proportion to their greater intimacy with the Bramins and their books; and when we find even such Sanscrit words as these classes do adopt, pronounced by them in so improper and rude a manner as to be a common jest to the Bramins, who at the same time, never question their pronunciation of pure Teloogoo words, I think we may fairly infer it to be probable at least that these Sanscrit terms were originally foreign to the language spoken by the great body of people (ibid.: xvi–xvii).

Campbell’s approach was objective, open-ended and moderate. The spirit of his method of study was found in the concluding observations of the Introduction. But the introduction of Sanscrit words into this language must have taken place at so remote a period, as to be now almost beyond the reach of inquiry. With the religion of the Bramins, the people of Telingana could not fail to adopt much of the language of that extraordinary tribe, their constant intercourse with each other for a long series of years has necessarily confirmed this intermixture of language, and it must be admitted that the Teloogoo has been as much improved by adopting an indefinite number of words from the Sanscrit, as our own tongue has been ameliorated by borrowing from more refined languages of Greece and Rome (Campbell 1816: xx).

Campbell’s method of study as well as theory of Telugu language was wholesome and stimulating. He studied Telugu by following the native grammatical tradition. He concluded that Telugu was an ancient and refined Indian language, and that its source of origin was other than Sanskrit. He put forward the proposition of independent origin of Telugu with the support of ‘… concurrent evidence of all Native authors who have ever written on the subject of Teloogoo language’. Dēśyamu is Telugu language — the language of the land and people of the basin of rivers Go-da-vary and Krishna. . It was created by God Brahma. This is the age-old native tradition of Telugu language. Campbell noted and analysed the distinctive features of the grammar and syntax of Telugu. On the basis of such material evidence, he constructed two significant conclusions. First, Telugu was not radically connected with Sanskrit, and it was radically connected with Tamil and Kannada. The disconnection of Telugu with Sanskrit as well as its connection with Tamil and Kannada had been derived from and based on its grammatical principles and features of syntax. Second, Telugu,

The Dravidian Language Family . 87

Tamil and Kannada had originated from a common source or ancestral language. These conclusions of Campbell are fundamental categories that aided and shaped the concept of the Dravidian language family. Campbell’s account of the history, nature and structure of Teloogoo language and its grammatical tradition was coherent and well-argued. I am not aware of any reasoned and sustained analysis and critique of Campbell’s theory of Telugu language by the concerned scholars. We will examine this problem a little later in this chapter as part of the larger issue of lack of attention to the concept of Dravidian languages constructed in 1816. But first we will study the more important aspects of the theory of Dravidian languages found in the Dissertation of Ellis. Ellis’s Dissertation was printed for the use of the students of the College of Fort St George. Perhaps few copies were printed; none in the nineteenth century testified that they either laid hands on it or read it. The internal evidence of the Dissertation does not lend support to the proposition that it was written as ‘Note to the Introduction’ of Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar; it would have otherwise been lost. It neither refers to Campbell’s Grammar and its ‘Introduction’, nor to Campbell as a colleague and friend. Campbell justified the printing of the Dissertation as ‘Note to the Introduction’ of his Grammar in the following words: ‘In support of what I have ventured to advance, in the preceding introduction, on the subject of the structure and derivation of Teloogoo language, it is peculiarly gratifying to be allowed to quote the high authority of my friend Mr. Francis W. Ellis, …’ (Campbell 1816: 1). Campbell was gratified ‘to be allowed to quote’ the Dissertation in support of his ‘Introduction’. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Dissertation of Ellis was printed earlier than Campbell’s Grammar. It was one among a series of five dissertations on the South Indian languages and scripts which Ellis planned to write to meet the requirements of the students of the College and to advance the cause of his conception of Dravidian idea (Trautmann 2006: 108–18). It was out of circulation on account of limited number and its essay format. Trautmann wrote that he did not find a copy of Ellis’s Dissertation at the Tamilnadu State Archives (Madras), Asiatic Society Library (Bombay), British Library (London), Bodleian Library (Oxford) and National Library of Scotland (Edinburgh) (2006: 111). He was responsible for the restoration of Ellis to the centre-stage of the world of Dravidian linguistics, and for explaining the meaning of his Dissertation in the context of conversation of the British and Indian scholars in the second decade of the nineteenth century (1997 and 2006). Rosane Rocher identified unsigned Articles of Alexander Hamilton and pointed out

88 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

the significance of his contributions to Sanskrit studies and the concept of Indo-European languages (1968 and 1970). Trautmann and Rocher thus conducted voyages on the high seas of hidden British intellectual heritage to the modern world and India, and did something like ‘bringing the dead back to life’ (Trautmann 1997: 140). The opening sentence of the Dissertation declared in a moderate tone, ‘The real affiliation of the Telugu language appears not to have known to any writer, by whom the subject has been noticed’ (Ellis 1816: 1). This is a modest but firm opinion regarding the competence of the Calcutta Orientalists who wrote on the Telugu language and an indirect suggestion that we in South India had a mastery over the subject. He carefully reported the opinions of William Carey, Charles Wilkins and H. T. Colebrooke regarding the source of origins and nature of South Indian languages, including Telugu. Carey was of the opinion that South Indian languages have the same origin with the languages of the north, but ‘… greatly differ from them in other respects and especially in having a large proportion of words, the origin of which is unascertained’. Wilkins said the South Indian languages so abound with Sanskrit, ‘… that scarcely a sentence can be expressed in them without its assistance’. Colebrooke ‘… has not given so decided an opinion, yet, by including these (South Indian languages) under the general term Pracrit, appropriate only to the dialects of Sanscrit derivation and construction, and by the tendency of his remarks, appears to favour the received notion of their origin …’ Colebrooke said that Tamil … is written in a character which is greatly corrupted from the present Devangari and that both the ‘Carnata’ and ‘Telingana’ characters are from the same source. In arrangement the two latter, which are nearly the same, certainly follow the Nagari, but in the form of letters, mode of combination, and other particulars, there is no resemblance; and the Tamil is totally different, rejecting all aspirates, and having many sounds which cannot be expressed by any alphabet in which the Sanscrit is written (ibid.: 2).

These passages are cited to demonstrate Ellis’s fair approach and sensitive appreciation of the nuances in the theories of great Oriental scholars of Calcutta. He stated the goal of his study in clear terms, It is the intent of the following observations to shew that the statements contained in the preceding quotations are not correct, that neither the Tamil, the Telugu nor any of their congnate dialects are derivations from the Sanscrit, that the latter, however it may contribute for their polish, is

The Dravidian Language Family . 89 not necessary for their existence, and that they form a distinct family of languages, with which the Sanscrit has, in latter times specially, intermixed, but with which it has no radical connexion’ (ibid.).

He called the members of this family of languages ‘the dialects of Southern India’ (Ellis 1816: 3). The high and low Tamil, Telugu grammatical and vulgar, Carnataca or Cannadi, ancient and modern, Malayalam, which, after Paulinus a St Bartholomeo may be divided into high and common; Tuluva, the native speech of Canara, Codugu, a variant Tuluva spoken in the district of Coorg; and ‘… the language of mountaineers of Rajmahal (in the basin of Ganges river and encircled by the Indo-Aryan languages) abounds in terms common to the Tamil and Telugu’, comprised of a family of languages, ‘which may be appropriately called the dialects of Southern India …’ (ibid.). It was a family of seven languages correctly identified by Ellis. He said the Cingalese, Maha-ra-shtra and Oddiya were influenced by the South Indian languages, though not of the same stock. Further, he observed that The Telugu, to which attention is here more specially directed, is formed from its own roots, which, in general, have no connexion with the Sanscrit, nor with those of any other language, the cognate dialects of Southern India, the Tamil, Cannadi & c. excepted, with which, allowing for the occasional variation of consimilar sounds, they generally agree… (Ellis 1816: 3).

The method of study employed by Ellis was one of the finest examples of the state-of-the-art in linguistic studies in the second decade of the nineteenth century. He followed comparative method at four stages: this involved comparison and critical appraisal of (a) root materials of Sanskrit and Telugu; (b) root materials of Telugu, Kannada and Tamil; (c) native words in Telugu, Kannada and Tamil; and (d) syntax of Telugu, Kannada and Tamil and how far they agree with and differ from the syntax of Sanskrit. The study covered a good body of lexical and grammatical materials. Ellis utilized materials from Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s Āndhra Dhātumālā, Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika and consulted Bommakanti Śankarayya (Sheristadār at the Office of the Collector of Madras and head English master at the College for a brief period), a learned Telugu Brāhmin domiciled in Tamil region. Ellis laid down a general principle: To facilitate comparison of the several languages treated on, each of which has a distinct alphabet, the Roman character is used through out: the orthography is generally that of Sir Wm. Jones, as explained in the

90 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages 1st Volume of the Asiatic Researches, but the grave accent is used instead of the acute, to mark a naturally long syllable when final or formed by Sandhi, and K, is occasionally substituted for C, before i and e in words belonging to the southern dialects only, other variations of trifling importance will be observed (Ellis 1816: 4–5).

The sharp focus on the form of root and word materials, etymology of words that he explained and compared, and the European quest for locating historical relations among languages are striking features of the Dissertation of Ellis. This is a four-layered proof constructed by Ellis to demonstrate the independent origins, existence and identity of the family of dialects of South India. First, he took ten roots of each of the following letters of Sanskrit alphabet: A, C, P, and V from common dhātumāla or list of roots, and compared these with the roots under the same letters of Telugu selected from Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s Āndhra Dhātumāla. This led him to the conclusion that ‘… among the forty Telugu roots, not one agrees with any Sanscrit root’. Therefore, ‘… no radical connexion exists between the Sanscrit and Telugu …’ (Ellis 1816: 4). This is an elementary proof for the theory of independent origin of Telugu language and a critical move adopted by Ellis to take the debate relating to the origin of South Indian languages (in this case Telugu) to a higher level. As mentioned before, the Calcutta Orientalists endorsed the general proposition that the South Indian languages are derived from Sanskrit, but expressed different shades of opinion on several aspects of it. William Brown, who wrote A Grammar and Vocabulary of Gentoo (1809) pointed out the vast qualitative difference between the colloquial and literary dialects of Telugu. He argued that the colloquial dialect had origins in a source other than Sanskrit and it languished due to the preponderance of Sanskrit. These theories are advanced with the support of some evidence and the whole debate was rather unsettled. Ellis’s conclusion substantiated this. Second, he took fifteen roots each under the first vowel and first consonant of Telugu (from Āndhra Dhātumāla), Tamil (from a list of Tamil roots compiled by Chidambara Vadiyar, head Tamil master, at the College, compared with the Sadur Agadi and other dictionaries), and Cannadi (from an old list explained in Sanskrit). He worked out a comparative analysis of the form, meaning, phonology, usage and interrelationship of the roots of Telugu, Tamil and Cannadi languages, and made insightful, constructive observations. For example he noted, ‘it frequently happens, also, that a term occurs which cannot be referred to any root of the tongue to which it belongs,

The Dravidian Language Family . 91

though it is readily traced to a radical in one of the cognate dialects …’ (Ellis 1816: 4). This is one of the central ideas for the concept of the Dravidian language family. Ellis analysed the Telugu compound verb agupadadamu agapadadamu from Āndhra Dhātumāla (1814–15: 31). He could find neither the root for agu or aga nor its meaning in Telugu. Therefore, he searched for the form and meaning of aga and found it in the roots of Tamil. He took the critical step of formulating the concept of cognate or sister languages of a language family with a common and shared source of ancestral language. Pattābhirāma Śāstry classified it (agapadu) as a compound root, and categorized it as a special variety of root forms (viseshyamulu). He had theorized viseshyamulu as Telugu compound roots in which the first linguistic part had no meaning or independent application in language use (ibid.: 26). He concluded that aga of the compound root of agapadu had no separate meaning, use or application in Telugu. He gave a few examples of such compound roots in Telugu. Ellis said ‘… aga or agu has no separate meaning in Telugu …’ (1816: 4). He used the theoretical proposition of Pattābhirāma Śāstry that the first linguistic unit of a special variety of compound roots in Telugu had no separate meaning or application. Neither Pattābhirāma Śāstry nor Ellis would have formulated the concept of cognate languages independently. Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s profound and incisive knowledge of Telugu and Ellis’s knowledge of South Indian languages and his flair for critical and comparative method in linguistic studies were significant inputs in the genesis of the concept of cognate languages; this bespoke their intellectual partnership. Ellis concluded that ‘the actual difference in the three dialects here mentioned is in fact to be found only in the affixes used in the formation of words from the roots, the roots themselves are not similar merely, but the same’ (Ellis 1816: 3). While dilating on the difference among the South Indian languages in the formulation of words from roots, he noted: ‘The roots of the Telugu language, like those of the Sanscrit, are mostly the themes of verbs, but they may often be used in the crude form or with a single affix, as nouns or adjectives, and many of them are used only in the latter acceptation, …’ (ibid.: 3). He gave apt illustrative examples for this practice in Telugu. He observed, ‘In this use of roots, all dialects differ, the root that is used as noun only in Tamil and Telugu may serve as the theme of a verb in Cannadi and vice-versa …’ (ibid.: 4). Examples were given for this varied use of roots in the formation of words. Ellis established the cognate character and relationship of the South Indian languages by the study of the roots of these languages.

92 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Third, in spite of the proven mutual association of the South Indian languages, ‘… their actual connection, as regards terms used for the expression of ideas, may not be intimate and it becomes necessary, therefore, to establish this point, to enter further into detail and compare the words of the three cognate dialects, as well as the roots whence they are derived’ (Ellis 1816: 11). What is the source and nature of the words in the three cognate languages? It is one of the elements for formulation of the concept of Dravidian languages. Ellis held Venkayya’s scholarship in Telugu and Sanskrit and his ‘excellent Telugu Dictionary’ in high esteem. The Preface to Venkayya’s dictionary is a concise history and analysis of Āndhra/Telugu language and its grammar. As enumerated earlier in this chapter, Telugu is composed of four classes of words: tatsamam (Sanskrit words with suffixes of Telugu); tadbhavam (Sanskrit words or derivatives that reach Telugu either directly or via Prākrit dialects, but undergo radical alteration in form); dēśyam words (language of the land/people); and grāmyam words (rustic/rural usage). Venkayya enumerated six Prākrit dialects: Mahārāshtri, Śaurasēni, Māgadhī, Paiśāchi, Chūlica or Chūlicā Paiśāchi and Apabhramśa, which prevailed in different regions of India, and stated that … ‘that each was connected with dēśyam words of various derivations, in conjunction with which they produced spoken languages differing considerably from each other …’ (ibid.: 15). Venkayya’s account of the Prākrit languages was based on Manchella .. Vāsudēva Kavi’s Vaikrta Chandrika (ix), an eighteenth-century Telugu grammar written in Sanskrit. The dēśyam words of Āndhra region (or the spoken language of Telugu) are of two kinds. First, the language which originated, developed and had been in use in Trilingadēśa, which was described in Appakavīyam as follows: All those words which are in use among the several races who are aborigines of the country of Āndhra, which are perfectly clear and free from all obscurity, these shine forth to the world as the pure native speech of Āndhra (Suddha Andhra Dēśyam)’. Second, anyadēśyam is explained in Appakaviyam as: ‘O Cēsava, the natives of Āndhra, having resided in various countries, by using Telugu terms conjointly with those of other countries, these have become Āndhra terms of foreign origin’ (Ellis 1816: 16–17). Ellis said that Venkayya … supported by due authority, teaches, that, rejecting direct and indirect derivatives from the Sanscrit, and words borrowed from foreign languages, what remains is the pure native language of the land: this constitutes the great body of the tongue and is capable of expressing every mental and bodily

The Dravidian Language Family . 93 operation, every possible relation and existent thing; for, with the exception of some religious and technical terms, no words of Sanscrit derivation is necessary to the Telugu. This pure native language of the land, allowing for dialectic differences and variations of termination, is, with the Telugu, common to the Tamil, Cannadi and other dialects of Southern India: this may be demonstrated by comparing the Dēśyam terms contained in the list taken by Vencaya from the Appacavīyam, with the terms expressive of the same ideas in Tamil and Cannadi. It has already been shown that the radicals of these languages, mutatis mutandis, are the same, and this comparison will shew that native terms in general use in each, also correspond. It would have been easy to have selected from the three dialects far greater number of terms, than these, exactly agreeing with each other: but it is considered preferable to follow a work of known authority, and to which no suspicion of bias to any system can attach: the author, though a good Sanscrit scholar, was ignorant of all the dialects of Southern India, his native tongue excepted (Ellis 1816: 18).

Accordingly, Ellis took the list of twenty-four dēśya words of Telugu as given by Venkayya, and carried out a systematic comparison in a tabular form with the corresponding Kannada and Tamil words, which express the same ideas. This exercise was a mini linguistic exploration of the three cognate languages and covered phonology, suffixes, usage, etymology, etc. While closing the discussion on the comparison of terms of the three cognate languages, Ellis made the following observations: With little variation, the composition of the Tamil and Cannadi are the same as the Telugu and the same distinctions, consequently, are made by their grammatical writers. The Telugu and Cannadi both admit of a freer adoption of Tatsama terms than the Tamil: in the two former, in fact, the discretion of the writer is the only limit of their use; in the high dialect of the latter those only can be used, which have been admitted into the dictionaries by which the language has long been fixed, or for which classical authority can be adduced; in the low dialect the use of them is more general- by the Brahmans they are profusely employed, more sparingly by the Sudra tribes. The Cannadi has a greater and the Tamil a less proportion of Tadbhavam terms than the other dialects, but in the latter all Sanscrit words are liable to greater variation than is produced by the mere difference of termination, for, as the alphabet of this language rejects all aspirates, expresses the first and third consonant of each regular series by the same character, and admits of no other combination of consonants than the duplication of mutes or the junction of a nasal and a mute, it is obviously incapable of expressing correctly any but the simplest terms of the Sanscrit; all such, however, in

94 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages this tongue are accounted Tatsamam when the alternation is regular and produced only by the deficiencies of the alphabet (Ellis 1816: 21–22).

Ellis was already wrestling with and shaping the key concepts of comparative philology in 1816: regular alternation of phonetic sounds; etymology of words derived from its root; the root or source of a word not found in the language of its usage but readily traced to the root of a cognate language; the concept of language family; and historical relations of languages. Ellis’s exercise was at an elementary stage. But its direction, thrust and method were clear to all those who were familiar with the development of comparative philology in the first half of the nineteenth century. Based on his comparative analysis of the dēśya words of the three cognate languages, Ellis divided the composition of Telugu language into four branches (mentioned briefly above), … of which the following is the natural order. Dēśyam or Atsu Telugu pure native terms, constituting the basis of this language and, generally, also, of the other dialects of Southern India: Anyadēśyam terms borrowed from other Countries, chiefly of the same derivation as the preceding: Tatsamam, pure Sanscrit terms, the Telugu affixes being substituted for those of the original language: Tadbhavam, Sanskrit derivatives, received into the Telugu, direct, or through one of the six Pra-crits, and in all instances more or less corrupted. The Gra-myam (literally the rustic dialect from Gra-mam Sans. a village) is not a constituent portion of the language, but is formed from the Atsu-Telugu by contraction, or by some permutation of the letters not authorized by the rules of Grammar. The proportion of Atsu-Telugu terms to those derived from every other source is one half; of Anya-dēśyam terms one tenth; of Tatsamam terms in general use three twentieths; and of Tadbhavam terms one quarter (1816: 21).

Here, I will again appraise Lisa Mitchell’s analysis and criticism of the role of Ellis in the making of Telugu grammatical knowledge. Mitchell focused on Ellis’s classification of Telugu words, particularly his definition and ranking of dēśyam and anyadēśyam terms (2006: 235). Mitchell said that Ellis altered the customary order of Telugu words, and equated ‘dēśyam with Telugu language …’ (ibid.). She noted that Ellis heavily relied on his own translation of the Preface of Āndhra Dīpika for the construction of the linguistic concepts cited above. She observed: Venkaya uses the four categories in their customary order: tatsama, tadbhava, dēśyam and gramyam. Ellis intersperses his own comments in between lengthy quotations from Venkaya (rearranged, translated

The Dravidian Language Family . 95

and interpreted by Ellis himself) (ibid.). Mitchell implied that Ellis took liberty in translating Venkayya’s Preface. She said that Ellis, ‘by a sleight of hand’ (ibid.), changed the meaning and mutual relationship of dēśyam and anyadēśyam, and gave tremendous impetus to ethnic politicization of language in nineteenth-century South India. I will present the factual position relating to Mitchell’s criticisms. Ellis translated ‘the substance’ of Venkayya’s ‘concise analysis of Telugu language’ (1816: 11). He commenced his translation and interpretation of Venkayya’s Preface with the citation, ‘The modes of derivation in Āndhra language are four: they are Tatsaman, Tadbhavan, Dēśyam and Gra- myam’ (ibid.). Ellis’s statements are proof enough of his objective approach. He had no hidden agenda to conceal or twist Venkayya’s linguistic categories via translation, rearrangement and interpretation of Venkayya’s Preface. I have compared the ‘substance’ and content of seven translated pages of Ellis’s ‘Note to the Introduction’ with the text of Venkayya’s Preface written in Telugu script. Ellis’s translation is faithful to the letter and spirit of Venkayya’s text. The interpretation of the meaning of dēśyam by Ellis and its implication is on a par with Venkayya’s reading. Venkayya wrote that dēśyam is Āndhram and it alone is Telugu language. I have cited earlier in this chapter relevant passages from Venkayya’s text in transliterated form and translated it. Venkayya equated dēśyam and Telugu. He used both ‘Telugu’ and ‘accha Telugu’ and equated them with dēśyam (1806: 6). His Preface is not only a compendium but also is based on textual citations of the following old Telugu grammars: Adharvana . Vya karan. am, Āndhra Kaumidi, Vaikrta Chandrika, Appakavīyam and S.adbhas. a- Chandrika. Ellis said that dēśyam or atsu–Telugu constituted ‘the basis of Telugu’, which the native grammatical tradition rooted in the textual materials cited above. Āndhra Śabda Chintamani, . a reputed and widely used Telugu grammar and the principal guide of Campbell, enumerated accha Telugu and dēśyam as parts of Telugu, but combined them and designated it dēśyam (I. 15). Ellis’s chief objective was to find out and establish ‘the real affiliation of the Telugu language’ (1816: 1) and the source of its origin, structure and nature. His conclusion, that the basis of Telugu and other Southern dialects was dēśyam and not Sanskrit, was in tune with Venkayya’s linguistic proposition. This was a paradigm shift in the history of Telugu and the South Indian languages. It was an embarrassing position for Ellis to begin the subdivision of Telugu words with tatsama (Sanskrit words). Hence he changed the order in which Telugu words were listed.

96 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Campbell and Ellis equated dēśyam and atsu-Telugu and designated it ‘Déshyumoo or ‘Utsu Déshyumoo, the pure language of land’ (Campbell 1816: 37), and ‘Déśyam or Atsu Telugu pure native terms’ (Ellis 1816: 21). Mitchell said, This effacement of any differences between desya and accha Telugu is a crucial step for both Campbell and Ellis in enabling them to construct a new notion of foreignness within their system of language analysis. And their equation of both terms with ‘pure’ Telugu sets up an inverse relationship between the purity of language, on the one hand, and its foreignness, on the other.

She asked, ‘But was this notion of purity also the concern of pre-colonial South Indian grammarians?’ (2006: 238). The concept of pure (accha) Telugu language, particularly unmixed with Sanskrit, was an ancient precept of Telugu grammar. Trilinga Śabdānu Śāsanam, an old Telugu grammar also called Adhrvana . Vyākaran.am, states that, God Brahma constructed accha Telugu language for Āndhra Vishnu, . the founder of the ancient Āndhra Kingdom (III, 10–11). This particular passage was cited and translated by Campbell (1816: XVII). Āndhra Vishnu . ruled Āndhra Kingdom from his capital Śrīkākul.am, on the banks of river Krishna. . Later, Āndhra Vishnu . shifted to the banks of river Go-dāvary, and after this event, Sanskrit words with Telugu terminations were introduced into Telugu language. Sanskrit words were improperly pronounced and written by native people, who were not acquainted with the phonetics of the language. Thus, impure or corrupted Sanskrit words entered into Telugu. The notion of a pure Telugu language, the native tongue of Trilingade-śa and its people, was an ancient concept in Telugu grammar. It is appropriate to recapture that Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani . merged déśyam and accha Telugu and called it déśyam (I. 15). Vellanki Tatambhattu, author of Kavi Chintāmani, . incorporated atsa-Telugu within déśyamu (I, poem 33). The linguistic concepts of Appakavi; Āndhradēśyam (native language of Āndhra region); nija bhās. a (one’s own language); swadeśīyam (native language); jātīyam (Telugu ethnic identity); sakalajanam (all people), śuddhāndhrambulu (pure Telugu words), anyadeésajāndhrams (Telugu words which have originated in other region); and anyadéśyam constitute a positive answer to the query of Mitchell as to whether precolonial South Indian grammarians understood the notion of ‘purity’ and ‘foreignness’ of language in the sense that Campbell and Ellis constructed and presented it. Campbell and Ellis emphasized the indigenous linguistic concepts of Telugu grammar, and employed them to build new linguistic knowledge.

The Dravidian Language Family . 97

Ellis wrote that ‘Grāmyam … is not a constituent portion of the language, but is formed from the Atsu-Telugu by contraction, or by some permutation of the letters not authorized by the rules of Grammar’ (1816: 21). He deleted grāmyam from the traditional list of Telugu words, and merged it with dēśyam. As correctly pointed out by Mitchell, this was a radical departure from the age-old tradition of Telugu grammar (2006: 235). It may be noted that Vellanki Tatambhattu incorporated grāmyamu within dēśyamu (I, poem 36). Venkayya’s Preface cited as many as eight ancient Telugu grammarians, who called grāmyam terms corrupt words and prohibited their use in poetical works (1806: 8–9). Grammar was the governing principle of linguistic studies at the College (Trautmann 2009: 9; Venkatachalapathy 2009: 119). This was an article of faith for Ellis as author of the plan of the College and its curriculum. Moreover, Ellis was an ideal Orientalist. Perhaps he was uneasy with linguistic categories which could not be derived by the application of rules of grammar. Therefore, we may presume that Ellis merged gramyam, which was the colloquial and living tongue of rural people, with dēśyam. Regarding Ellis’s ranking of dēśyam and anyadēśyam as first and second in the four branches of Telugu, Mitchell said, With this act, he not only reframes but also redefines both dēśyam and anyadēśyam … By equating dēśyam with ‘native’ and opposing it to anyadēśyam, Ellis is for the first time making these categories available for the kind of regional ethnic identifications with language that many today accept as natural … His reading further suggests that we must look carefully in order to understand the different ways in which language, identity and alterity were experienced and perceived prior to the arrival of the British (2006: 235).

Her stimulating observations call for a close examination of the categories of dēśyam and anyadēśyam and their relationship in precolonial Telugu grammar and literature, and how these categories were analysed by Ellis. Anyadēśyam was a baffling problem to Ellis, because of the dual character of dēśyam — a native language for the people and region of its origin, and language of other region for outsiders. Anyadēśyam was ranked by the native tradition as a sub-division of dēśyam, since all regional languages were partners in the Indian linguistic heritage. The translation of native concepts — dēśya, dēśyam and anyadēśyam was a daunting task for Ellis. As already discussed, Ellis relied on Venkayya’s

98 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Preface to interpret dēśyam and anyadēśyam. Venkayya, in his turn, relied on Appakavīyam, which summarized the developments and spirit of the late medieval and early modern period of Āndhra region. Venkayya’s Telugu prose passages correctly described the poetic version of Appakavi’s concept of Andhradēśyam (1806: 6). Strangely, Venkayya’s passage regarding anyadēśyam was inaccurate. Venkayya accepted and cited the definition of Appakavi’s anyadēśajāmdhrams (Telugu words that have originated in other regions when Āndhra people who settled in other region spoke Telugu words in conjunction with native words of other region), a sub-species of Andhradēśyam, but called it anyadēśyam (1806: 7). Venkayya substituted the term anyadēśyam for anyadēśajāmdhram. To further clarify, anyadēśyams mean words or language that come from or belong to other regions, whereas anyadēśajāmdhrams are Telugu words that have originated in other regions. Appakavi employed both these terms as distinct linguistic categories. Venkayya’s faux pas in respect of anyadēśajāmdhram further complicated the problem of anyadēśyam for Ellis. Yet, Mitchell’s implied suggestion that Ellis’s translation of Venkayya’s Preface was distorted or twisted to suit his own (European) language analysis is incorrect. For example, Venkayya wrote: Dēśyamanagā nāndhramu. Adiyē Telugu. Adi Trilingadēśo-dbhavamani anyadesodbhavamani rendu vidhamulu(1806: 6). Andhram nānādēśambulandu nilichina Telugule tattadēśo-ktulato- balikina īśabdambulu anyadēśya śabdambulayyen (1806: 7).

Ellis translated the ‘substance’ of Venkayya’s passages as follows: ‘Dēśyam, in other words Āndhra, or Telugu, is of two kinds; the language which originated in the country of Telingana, and Anya-dēśyam, or the language of foreign countries intermixed with it’ (1816: 15). Mitchell cited it (2006: 235). This is a correct and fair translation of Venkayya’s passages. Mitchell translated verse 108 of Appakavīyam, and commented: ‘Although Ellis interprets this as terms introduced into Telugu from foreign countries’ (1820 [1816] 16), others have understood it differently’ (2006: 237). She cited on the same page the observation of Ellis, ‘The people of Āndhra, otherwise called Trilingam, have, as Appacavi states above, frequented other countries and mixed their language with that of these several countries’ (1820 [1816]:17). In spite of Ellis’s caution ‘as Appacavi states above’, Mitchell set aside the translation of verse 108 of

The Dravidian Language Family . 99

Appakavi by Ellis. He said, ‘The following verse is from Appacavīyam. O Cēśava, the natives of Āndhra having resided in various countries, by using Telugu terms conjointly with those of other countries, these have become Andhra terms of foreign origin’ (1816: 16–17). Ellis translated anyadēśajāmdhrams as ‘Andhra terms of foreign origin’. Mitchell did not translate the category of anyadēśajāmdhrams in her translation of the same verse of Appakavi. I have cited these passages to uphold the point that the translation of Ellis was faithful to the letter and spirit of Venkayya’s Preface to Āndhra Dīpika. The problem of Ellis’s interpretation of anyadēśajāmdhrams was a riddle to Mitchell. Ellis translated anyadēśajāmdhrams as (a) ‘Āndhra terms of foreign origin’, and (b) ‘The people of Andhra, … frequented other countries and mixed their language with that of these several countries’. Why and how did Ellis interpret anyadēśajāmdhrams as ‘terms introduced into Telugu from foreign countries’? This is her problem. Ellis analysed the list of words, which were given as examples of anyadēśyams by Appakavi and Venkayya. Mitchell wrote, It is here that the tensions within Ellis’s translations of dēśyam and anyadēśyam become most problematic, … Upon encountering terms that he believes are inappropriately ranked among what he considers to be terms of ‘foreign’ origin, Ellis might have given pause to reconsider his definition. But instead of modifying his translation to accommodate the examples given; Ellis awkwardly insists on the inappropriateness of their inclusion within the category of ‘foreign’ words … (2006: 235).

The problem is not with Ellis’s translation of dēśyam and anyadēśyam. The problem is with the ‘examples given’ for anyadēśyams by Venkayya, who borrowed some of the words from Appakavīyam. L. Chakradhara Rāo analysed Appakavi’s anyadēśya terms. He concluded that an exercise to elucidate the nature and meaning of anyadēśya terms listed by Appakavi would be futile (1968: 126). The terms designated by Venkayya as anyadēśyam is a jumbled list of anyadēśyams and anyadēśajāmdhrams. It has been noted earlier that Venkayya described anyadēśajāmdhrams of Appakavi as anyadēśo-dbhavams and anyadēśyams, and Ellis ‘heavily’ relied on Venkayya’s Preface. Ellis analysed Venkayya’s list of anyadēśyams. He was uneasy with anyadēśajāmdhrams which were found in Venkayya’s list of anyadēśyams. Therefore, Ellis analysed anyadēśajāmdhrams in Venkayya’s list of anyadēśyams as ‘Andhra terms of foreign origin’, and said that ‘difficult words’ were ‘inappropriately ranked among Anyadēśyam terms’ in Venkayya’s Preface (1816: 17). As such, it is not

100 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

necessary to modify Ellis’s translation of dēśyam and anyadēśyam. In fact, Ellis’s translation as well as his analysis of Venkayya’s list is correct and clear. It seems Mitchell did not notice the erroneous stand of Venkayya in respect of equation of anyadēśajāmdhrams of Appakavi with anyadēśyams, and the designation of mixed bag of words as anyadēśyams. Therefore, her analysis of Ellis’s definition and interpretation of anyadēśyam is far-fetched. Further, regarding the meaning of anyadēśajāmdhrams, Mitchell said, Rather than words of other countries being introduced into Telugu, as we might expect of foreign loan words, Venkaya and Appakavi before him, suggest that changes have occurred to Telugu words introduced into other regions. In other words, Telugu terms have undergone changes as they have traveled, been used elsewhere, and returned. Such an understanding of anyadēśajāmdhrams also helps to account for the examples given by Appakavi (and Venkaya after him), … (2006: 237).

Yes, Telugu words had undergone changes in other regions. How did changes occur in Telugu words? She did not explain. Appakavi and Venkayya said: Andhra people who settled in other regions spoke Telugu words conjointly with dēśyam words of other regions, and helped the formation of anyadēśajāmdhrams. It involved the formation of compound words comprising of Telugu and dēśyam words of other regions. Ellis’s translation and analysis of anyadēśajāmdhrams conveyed such layers of meaning. Anyadēśajāmdhrams could not be analysed as anyadēśyams. Therefore, Ellis found anyadēśajāmdhrams were ‘difficult words’, and were ‘inappropriately ranked among Any-adesyams’ by Venkayya. This was the problem of Ellis, and he resolved it properly within the parameters of the texts and theories of Appakavi and Venkayya. In continuation of her construction of the meaning ofanyadēśajāmdhrams according to Appakavi and Venkayya, Mitchell rightly observed, what Appakavi’s definitions of the two subcategories of dēśyam suggest, then, is an emphasis on clarity and ease of understanding throughout the territory where Telugu is used. However, what Ellis, Campbell and Brown (CP) have emphasized is a concern not with clarity, but with the origins and etymologies of words (2006: 237).

Undoubtedly, this is the usage of Appakavi and Venkayya in respect of the subcategories of dēśyam. As has been noted earlier, Appakavi and Venkayya clearly stated repeatedly that dēśyam had originated

The Dravidian Language Family . 101

and developed in Trilangadēśam, i.e., Trilingadēśo-dbhavam, and anyadēśajāmdhrams (‘ja’ means ‘birth’ or ‘origin’) were Telugu words which originated in other regions, i.e., anyadēśo-dbhavam. An issue related to the theme of ‘origins’ is the ranking of dēśyam and anyadēśyam. Mitchell specially targeted Ellis and said, ‘By equating dēśyam with ‘native’ and opposing it to anyadēśyam, Ellis is for the first time making these categories available for the kind of regional ethnic identifications with language …’ (2006: 235). It may be recalled that Appakavi, a century and a quarter earlier than Ellis, contrasted dēśyam/swadēśīyam and anyadēśyam, and said that janam (people) would appreciate and approve of literary works composed in the idiom of dēśyam and would not approve the use of anyadēśyams. I have presented an analysis of the issue earlier in the context of the development of Telugu linguistic concepts of the early modern period, and in the ideological and institutional background of the early phase of British rule in India and the spirit of modern period. Mitchell’s conclusion on the role of Ellis in the promotion of ‘ethnic identifications with language’ is also an issue of emphasis in tune with the spirit and trend of modern period, rather than initiation of the concept or process via the method of European historical and comparative linguistics. Mitchell’s criticism called for the preceding analysis to explain the standpoint of Ellis in relation to the issues raised by her. Now I will turn to the remaining part of Ellis’s theory of the Dravidian language family. Ellis followed the method of comparative translation to describe, analyse and compare the syntax of the Telugu, Cannadi and Tamil. He also compared the syntax of the three cognate languages with that of Sanskrit. He took five sentences from the section on syntax in Charles Wilkin’s Sanskrit grammar and translated into Telugu, Cannadi and Tamil. The translation of four Sanskrit sentences have been made in ‘Sanscrit dialect of the Southern tongues; the terms employed chiefly from that language …’, and in the translation of the fifth sentence, ‘… the pure native terms of the three dialects are used’ (Ellis 1816: 28). One out of the five sentences was a short sentence. An English sentence was translated in verse form into the three cognate languages and Sanskrit. He listed the collocation of words in Sanskrit sentence and those figures were applied to the sentences in the three cognate languages. He explained in minute detail the principles of grammar followed in the construction of each sentence. The exercise of comparative translation was meant to exemplify the twin objectives of comparing the

102 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

syntax and relationship of the three cognate languages as well as their agreement and difference with the syntax of Sanskrit. Ellis made the following observations which have a direct bearing on the twin objectives of the translation exercise in the Dissertation. The dialects of Southern India ‘… in collocation of words, in syntaxical government, in phrase, and, indeed, in all that is comprehended under the term idiom … are not similar only but the same’ (1816: 22). The relation of the three cognate languages ‘… bear to each other in minuter parts of speech and in casual and temporal terminations’ (ibid.) are manifest in the translated sentences. The construction of a sentence in Telugu and Cannadi ‘is exactly the same’ except for difference in the use of compounds (Ellis 1816: 24) and addition of words for the formation of dative cases (ibid.: 26). The construction of a sentence in Tamil ‘does not differ’ from Telugu except in having a compound in the form of an adjective, and the addition of one word for the formation of dative case (ibid.). These observations are related to the translations made in ‘Sanscrit dialect’ of the South Indian languages. In the translation of a sentence in the ‘pure native terms’ of the three cognate languages, … the difficulty has rather been in the selection of appropriate terms whereby to express the shades of meaning which the verbs, in the original, convey, in general, however, it will be found difficult to express any sentiment clearly and precisely in Telugu or Cannadi, without using Sanscrit words in greater or less proportion, while in Tamil, in the higher dialect (Shen tamiz’h) especially, this may be done with facility (Ellis 1816: 29–30).

This is proof of the vitality of the higher dialect of Tamil (not of the lower dialect) and the dependency of literary dialects of Telugu and Kannada on Sanskrit derivatives to a greater extent than higher Tamil. Regarding the agreement and difference of the three cognate languages with Sanskrit, Ellis noted that in the translation and analysis of the first sentence, ‘… Sanscrit differs in every point from the Southern dialects …’ Whereas in the second sentence ‘… the variation, except in the formation of cases, is not so great’ (ibid.: 25). ‘In the translation of short sentence and all similar constructions Sanscrit agrees exactly with the Southern dialects’ (ibid.: 27). An English sentence was translated in verse form to compare ‘…. The superior dialects of Southern languages with each other, and with Sanscrit …’ (ibid.: 30). His method of analysis and related discussion of the linguistic materials was scientific, transparent, sensitive, and strictly objective. He had an open mind and carried out a magisterial survey of the

The Dravidian Language Family . 103

linguistic problems at hand. Ellis concluded the Dissertation with a pithy observation that ‘… the preceding observations, will sufficiently establish the positions maintained at the commencement of this note, relative to the affiliation of the Telugu’ (1816: 30). He commenced the Dissertation with a two-fold position. First, Telugu is formed from its roots and is not derived from Sanskrit. Second, the Telugu is affiliated to a distinct family of languages, which is called the dialects of Southern India. The Dissertation of Ellis constructed a clear, analytical and scientific proof for the independent origin and identity of the Telugu language and of the Dravidian language family. It is true, technically, he did not use the term ‘Dravidian language family’. But substantially and by any reckoning, he nursed and helped in the formulation of the concept of the Dravidian language family in 1816. The concept of the South Indian languages family embodied rich historical, cultural and linguistic materials. In a fundamental sense, it helped the creation of historical South India as a distinct entity and core centre/region of Indian civilization.

An Appraisal of the Construction of the Dravidian Language Family The account above may convey an impression that the construction of the concept of the Dravidian language family was Ellis’s accomplishment. Undoubtedly, Ellis was a great scholar and played a major role in shaping the concept of Dravidian languages. As has been noted in Chapter 2, the structure of Madras Presidency was the springboard for Ellis’s ideas and action plan, and for the regional manifestation of British Orientalism (Madras School of Orientalism). The College of Fort St George bore the stamp of Madras Presidency in its professed goal, purpose, organization, and working. Its institutional base and environment, curriculum and academic programme, teaching personnel and students, library and press were a multi-fold centre for the crossfertilization of ideas, which led to the formulation of the concept of Dravidian languages. The College was organized according to Ellis’s plan proposals, and it fulfilled the colonial requirements in full measure. But institutions once established gain their own identity and momentum, and develop an autonomous character directed by persons of intellectual zeal and shared interests in the pursuit of ideas and advancement of knowledge, and produce ‘unanticipated consequences’. The College and its team of British and native scholars and

104 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

their collaborative studies under the leadership of Ellis shaped and launched the concept of Dravidian languages. How did this happen? What were those critical analytical moves and mutation of ideas that fostered the advent of the concept of Dravidian languages? The College was the site for creative, mutually beneficial and instructive conversation between the British and native scholars. Their approach to linguistic studies embodied not only distinct schools of thought, but also different methods of study. The British carried with them the European quest for the study of historical relations of languages, and comparative method with scientific analysis. The native scholars upheld the structural theory of language which distinguished classes of words tatsama, tadbhava and dēśya as one of relative prestige from high to low; and ‘… reduced every word into the corresponding root form’ and fixed the exact meaning of every word through the ‘… minutely empirical and analytical …’ method (Nakamura 1971: 153). The advancement of linguistic studies in British India was a product of fruitful interaction between these traditions of diverse cultures, and one of its finest findings was formulation of the concept of the Dravidian language family. I shall display several layers of this scholarly dialogue in terms of content and method. I am interested in the delineation of the respective roles and methods of study followed by the British and native scholars. How did they complement or interrogate each other? How did the synthesis of separate concepts and facts held by the British and native scholars culminate in the formation of new ideas or concepts, which were hitherto unknown or inconceivable? Some elementary propositions and facts put forward or held strongly by the British and native scholars are juxtaposed to construct tentative answers to the above questions. This has been designated the ‘dialogic process’ of the formation of new knowledge in British India. The native scholars traced the history of Telugu and grammatical tradition to the ancient period. Telugu was the native language of the people and land of the basin of the Krishna . and Godāvary rivers. The independent and non-Sanskritic origin of Telugu was an axiom with the native tradition and pandits. On a par with Sanskrit which was designated the language of the gods, it was claimed that God Brahma created Telugu. It had grown and evolved as the lingua franca of Āndhra region through local usage, and flourished for a long time independently and was copious enough to express and convey all the activities and ideas of people. Native pandits recollected a landmark period in historical time which initiated the process of introduction of

The Dravidian Language Family . 105

Sanskrit words into Telugu language. They reported the old vyākaran.a tradition of classification of words into tatsamamu (Sanskrit words with Telugu affixes), tadbhavamu (Sanskrit or its derivatives that reach Telugu via Prākrit dialects, but with radical change in form), dēśyamu (language of the land) and grāmyamu (rural idiom). The classification of words was constructed by tracing each word to its root through empirical and analytical method. They were masters of the corpus of grammatical tradition of Telugu. The historical origin and development of Telugu as an independent language through the usage of people, of course, within the framework of Indian linguistic tradition, was in consonance with the European concept of distinct language and its orientation to the idiom of people. The British scholars interacted with and interrogated the native scholars and their knowledge of Telugu at several levels. The classification of words of Vyākaran.a Śāstra was a transparent body of knowledge which helped in the identification of words that are traced or not traced to Sanskrit. The British put a sharp focus on words that were not traced to Sanskrit and described it as the core layer of Telugu. They took up in earnestness the study of historical relations of Sanskrit and Telugu which was facilitated by the age-old tradition of word classification of Vyākaran.a Śastra. The British scholars compared the roots of Sanskrit and Telugu words in order to find out the agreement and difference of Telugu with Sanskrit, and also of the historical relations between Telugu and Sanskrit. Native scholars supported the linguistic exercise of the British. The British scholars studied Telugu grammar to ascertain the origin, structure and nature of Telugu language. The collaboration of the native pandits, who were custodians of grammatical formulae and its interpretation, was essential for the British in the pursuit of their studies. Campbell listed the distinctive features of Telugu grammar which radically differed from Sanskrit grammar. It was noticed that Sanskrit and its derivative words were admitted into Telugu only with the affixes of Telugu language. The Sanskritized literary dialect of Telugu, which juxtaposed the linguistic features of Sanskrit and Telugu, was a suitable field of study for Campbell to identify the distinctive features of Telugu language and grammar and compare it with Sanskrit. Thus, a well-organized and directed collaborative study of the British and native scholars proved the non-Sanskrit origin and distinct identity of Telugu. This was the first step in the process of formulation of the concept of the Dravidian language family.

106 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

The identification and establishment of cognate relationship between South Indian languages is a key concept in the construction of the concept of Dravidian languages. The native scholars compiled lists of roots and primary vocabulary of the south Indian languages. Venkayya said, ‘Dēśyamu is Telugu. It is of two kinds: the language originated in Trilingadēśa (Trilingadēśo-dhbhavamu) and the language originated in other regions, Anyadēśya (Anyadēśo-dhbhavamu)’ (1806: 6). The people of Telugu region migrated and settled in other regions and spoke Telugu terms conjointly with the dialect of the concerned region. Such Telugu terms were designated anyadēśya terms by Venkayya (ibid.: 7). This meaning and definition of anyadēśya Telugu terms is rather striking and unusual. Anyadēśya terms in general refer to loan words from other regional languages. Perhaps Venkayya’s definition of anyadēśya terms was a stimulus and formed the theoretical basis for the search of the roots of Telugu compound words in the body of the roots of cognate languages. The intellectual partnership of Ellis and Pattābhirāma Śāstry regarding the Telugu compound verb agapadadamu, which led to the formulation of the concept of cognate languages, was one of stimulating dialogue between Indian and European linguistic analysis, which facilitated the construction of new knowledge, and shaped new methods and programmes for language instruction. Again, the British scholars employed the comparative method for an analysis of the roots, words of basic vocabulary and grammatical formulae including the syntax of Telugu, Kannada and Tamil. They studied the mutual historical relations of South Indian languages, and of the relations of these languages with Sanskrit. An incisive examination of the roots, and form and meaning of words and roots of words, and the grammatical tradition of South Indian languages produced materials which provided an unassailable proof for the concept of the Dravidian language family. The roots and words, and the grammatical rules and the idiom of the South Indian languages are almost identical, except for minor variations. The native linguistic tradition of tracing each word to its root, the definition given by Venkayya to anyadēśya terms of Telugu; the method of incisive comparative analysis of words and roots; and the example of compound verb agapadadamu and its explanation, classification and characterization given by Pattābhirāma Śāstry to viśēshyamulu (a special variety of Telugu compound words) in Āndhra Dhātumāla (1814–15: 26, 31); have contributed to the construction of Ellis’s most critical observation that when the root of a word is not found in the language of its usage, the root could be readily traced in one of the cognate languages (1816: 4). This is the central principle of

The Dravidian Language Family . 107

the concept of a language family, and the derivation of etymology of a word by tracing its root. The study of a single language is not enough, and it has to be supplemented or aided by the study of cognate languages. Ellis undertook this kind of study (1816) and showed the method to map/mark out the generic and historical relations of the South Indian languages. Further, the comparative analysis pointed out that the South Indian languages in all respects are not only similar, but are also different from the Sanskrit. Thus the distinctive family of the Southern dialects of India and the cognate relationship between these languages was laid on a firm ground. The theory of the autonomous origins of Telugu (and of South Indian languages) and the concept of cognate languages of South India were constructed at the College by ‘pedagogical innovation’ of the collaborative linguistic studies of ‘grammar-producing’ and teaching native ‘head master-scholars’ and the British scholar-administrators (Bhavani 2009: 218). The research materials and methods of study employed for the construction of the Dravidian language family have made significant contributions to the new discipline of comparative philology, which took shape in the second and third decades of the nineteenth century. The significance of the native linguistic tradition of tracing each word to its root and the construction of etymology has been pointed out by Hajime Nakamura: ‘The Western grammarians adopted abstract concepts such as the stem and the root for the analysis of their languages only after the dawn of modern age when they came into contact with the ancient grammar of India’ ([1964] 1971: 153). The derivation of the etymology of the word from its root is an important component of the Indian Vyākaran.a Śāstra. The British scholars complemented it by the comparative analysis of words and study of historical relations of languages. They developed a principle that when the root of a word was not found in the language where it was used, it was essential to carry out inquiries to find out the root in one of the cognate languages. This was necessary to construct a scientific etymology (derived from the root of the word), which is a salient feature of comparative philology. Ellis gave an example for its practice and method (1816: 4). Caldwell pointed out the strength and weakness of the Indian grammatical tradition in the following words: The natives of India have always shown a great liking for grammatical studies, but they confined themselves to the study of grammars of their own languages without any attempt at comparing their own languages

108 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages with others. Their philology not being comparative has remained unscientific and unprogressive. What the natives have gained in acuteness they have lost in breadth … (1894: 151).

Linguistic studies at the College was the site for mutual dialogue and cross-fertilization of ideas of the ‘acuteness’ of Indian language analysis (for example, Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s knowledge of Telugu), and the ‘breadth’ of European linguistic analysis (for example, Ellis’s knowledge of Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Sanskrit, and modern European languages). This is why the conversation between the Indian and European linguistic traditions, especially at the College of Fort St George, proved to be mutually beneficial and exhilarating, and British India was the site for the genesis of comparative philology. The compilation of a basic vocabulary of dēśyam was an integral part of the native linguistic tradition. These terms constitute the core layer of language ‘… expressive of primitive ideas or of things … in earlier stages of the society …’ (Campbell 1816: XIX). The terms of natural or primitive language are indicative of primary blood relationships, parts of the human body, elementary numbers, natural objects and animals, food and dress, house and household goods, etc. Venkayya’s list of twenty-four dēśya words of Telugu is an example of the core layer of language. It was used by Ellis to demonstrate the cognate relationship of the dialects of Southern India and the precise etymology of words. The European comparative philologists worked out a list of words of natural and primitive significance in order to demonstrate the cognate relationship of Sanskrit with its European cousins and thus prove the concept of the Indo-European family of languages. Campbell and Ellis noted that the identification of the core layer of language or words of natural and primitive significance in the concerned language was a well-developed branch of Vyākaran.a Śāstra. They made a distinction between the core layer and secondary level formation of Telugu, and the latter was comprised of borrowed words from Sanskrit and its derivatives. The scientific etymology was derived from the terms and roots of the core language, and it delineated the generic and historical relationships of the languages which belonged to a family of languages. The distinction between the core layer and secondary level, derivation of scientific etymology of words from the roots of the core layer and generic and historical relations of languages which constitute a family of languages were seminal ideas in shaping the new discipline of comparative philology. Ellis used the data provided by the

The Dravidian Language Family . 109

Vyākaran.a Śāstra (lists of roots and words, and dēśya words of natural and primitive language) and applied the method of comparative analysis to build or generate concepts of linguistic science, which have fundamental significance for the making of comparative philology. A. C. Burnell referred to the conjugation system of Franz Bopp (1816) and the beginnings of comparative philology in Europe, and observed that Ellis must be considered ‘… as one of the originators of one of the most remarkable advances in science in this century’ (1878: 287). The construction of the concept of the Dravidian language family was a watershed in the study of Indian history and linguistics. It radically altered the study and interpretation of Indian civilization. South India, slowly but steadily, emerged as a distinct cultural entity and its imprint on the making of Indian culture was marked out. In fact, the proposition that Indian civilization was a synthesis of diverse sources of cultural heritage gained momentum and legitimacy after the advent of the concept of the Dravidian language family. Further, the relationship of Indian history with world history was located on a broad base with the identification of Dravidian culture and its origins. It has been noted earlier that the materials and methods of study employed for the construction of the concept of the Dravidian languages made a significant contribution in the genesis and development of comparative philology, which altered the character and content of linguistics in the modern world. The concept of the Dravidian languages (1816), till recently, did not receive its due recognition in the world of Dravidian and Telugu philological scholarship in terms of its theoretical, historical and linguistic meaning and significance. Why? This question begs for an answer. There are several reasons for the inadvertent and deliberate neglect of the Dravidian and Telugu philologists (except for the casual and matter of fact references reported in Chapter I) towards the concept of the Dravidian language family (1816). The proximate causes were linked with Ellis’s personality traits and his demise in 1819. William Erskine gave the following character sketch of Ellis: ‘He was very learned and ingenious but shy, irritable, proud and obstinate. His peculiarities were injurious only to himself ’ (cited in Trautmann 1999b: 42). He had very few friends and they had vague notions and knowledge of his academic activities and interests. As a result, appropriate steps were not taken to collect and preserve his papers soon after his demise.

110 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Ellis devoted himself to the study of Sanskrit and South Indian languages and, … determined to publish nothing until he had exhausted every available source of information … when his task was almost completed, he undertook a journey to Madura, the Athens of the South, for the elucidation of some minor details, and resided for some time with Mr. Rous Petre, the Collector of the District. During a short excursion to Ramnad in the same province, he accidentally swallowed some poison and died on March 10th 1819. No one was at hand who understood or cared for his pursuit … all his papers were lost or destroyed (Elliot 1875: 219–21).

It is said that the papers were used for months by the cook of Mr Petre to kindle fire and singe fowls. Ellis died at the early age of forty years and was denied an opportunity to haul up his scholarship and give a definite shape to the Dravidian idea. His death interrupted the advancement of the theory of Dravidian languages and its appraisal by the scholars. The negligent attitude of scholars towards the theory of Dravidian languages constructed by Ellis and Campbell till 1997 (Trautmann 1997: 149–55) is indeed an inscrutable problem. I venture to give a provisional explanation to the problem. The Dissertation of Ellis and Campbell’s ‘Introduction’ were basic documents for the theory of Dravidian languages and were published in Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar (1816). It is reported that the second edition of Campbell’s grammar (1820) became a rare book around 1830, and was not easily accessible to the scholars. Its third edition was issued in 1849. It was eclipsed by Charles Phillip Brown’s A Grammar of the Telugu Language (1840). Brown’s Grammar was an easy and popular text and carried exercise materials to prepare the students for examinations of the College, whereas Campbell’s Grammar was a hard text written in the traditional mould. Though C. P. Brown was a student of Campbell at the College, Brown and Campbell had a conflict of interest in professional matters. Both authored and published texts of Telugu grammar (Brown 1840, 2nd edn 1857; Campbell 1816, 2nd edn 1820, 3rd edn 1849) and Telugu dictionary (Brown 1852; Campbell 1821). Campbell enjoyed official patronage and financial support of the government for his works, and Brown did not receive financial aid or support of the government. Brown observed, ‘The native method is followed by A. D. Campbell, in his Teloogoo Grammar, accurate, though very imperfect work, too intricate to aid the beginner’ (1857: IV). According to Ārudra (1990: 51), Brown wrote

The Dravidian Language Family . 111

the following remarks on a copy of Campbell’s second print of Teloogoo Grammar available at the India Office Library, London: ‘Those who have known Campbell say that he is a suspicious, jealous and confused person, and he cannot properly read and write Telugu language’ (translated from Arudra’s Telugu passage). It is fair to record here that Rāvipāti - Śāstry, successor of Pāttabhirāma Śāstry as head Sanskrit Gurumurti and Telugu master in 1820 and who held the post till 1836 at the College of Fort St George, and author of reputed Tenugu Grammar and pioneer of Telugu prose works, dedicated his Tenugu Grammar to Campbell. He said that Campbell was known in all countries as a scholar with comprehensive knowledge of Telugu (1836: Introduction). Thomas Trautmann wrote: Brown was a product of the College and learned Telugu from A.D.Campbell’s grammar in 1817, while Ellis was still at the helm of the Board of Superintendence … yet he entertained strong feelings of rivalry toward them. But his relations with the College and with Campbell’s work were extremely fraught. Anyone reading Brown’s works soon becomes aware that he was a contrarian with strong views, and that he was quick to criticize and slow to praise anyone whom he considered a rival. This was most emphatically the case with regard to Campbell and his grammar, as we may see from Brown’s furious, obsessive annotations in a copy now available in the British library (0IOC Mss.Eur.D.867).

The feelings about Campbell that are revealed therein are of a kind a clinician would probably label as oedipal. His marginal comments include ‘lost labour’, ‘silly nonsense’, ‘wrong’, ‘rubbish’, ‘useless’. He did grant Campbell merit as a pioneer and for surpassing the grammar of Carey (‘a deplorable affair … wrong in every page, nearly in every sentence’), but for the most part heaped scorn upon the grammar from which he had his first lessons, from a man who, though proud, ‘was a kind man and always treated me with respect’ (ibid.: 23). His greatest satisfaction was that his own grammar (1840, 1857) replaced Campbell’s; he became, by a kind of cannibalism, the ‘new Campbell’ (Trautmann 2006: 209). Brown was rightly considered a demi-god in the literary circles of Telugu language, and his opinion commanded high respect. Brown’s adverse comments and his grammar consigned Campbell’s Grammar to the lumber room of Telugu linguistics in the second half of the nineteenth century. Therefore, Campbell’s Grammar was not properly studied by the scholars.

112 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Brown had personal and professional reasons to look down upon Campbell’s Grammar, and his opinion was not a fair judgment. Such an appraisal of Brown’s role would neither belittle his inestimable and monumental contributions to Telugu language and literature, nor his reputation as a respectable person. It is a reflection of the politics of academia, on the one hand, and minor faults of individuals, on the other. It was pointed out that Campbell (Member-Secretary, Board of Superintendence of the College from 1812–20) was guilty of preventing or suppressing the publication of works of other authors by the College Press in order to promote his own Grammar and Dictionary of Telugu (Mangamma 1975: 161). Ellis and Campbell were less than fair to William Brown (not connected with C.P. Brown in any way) in dealing with and disposing of Brown’s application to the government for the publication of A Grammar and Vocabulary of Gentoo Language (Telugu) (Trautmann 1999a: 53–70). These episodes of professional rivalry and competition testify the observation that humans, however great and accomplished they may be, are vulnerable to petty jealousy, vanity and self-centredness or personal interest. In continuation of the discussion as to why Campbell’s Grammar did not receive due attention from the scholarly circles of Telugu linguistics, it is noted that native pandits wrote and published a number of Telugu grammar texts in Telugu medium specially during the period from 1830–60, and also later on in the nineteenth century. Pudu-ru Sītārāma Śāstry’s Praśno-ttara Vyākaran.amu (1834); Rāvipāti-Gurumurti Śāstry’s Tenugu Vyākaran.amu (1836), which was substantially a Telugu translation of Campbell’s Grammar in content and method; Vēdam Venkataraman.a Śāstry’s Laghu Vyākaran.amu (1856); Udayagiri Śēshayya Śāstry’s Telugu Vyākarana . Samgrahamu (1856); and to crown these texts Paravastu Chinnaya Su-ri’s Bāla Vyākaran. amu (1856), were published. These texts were widely used in the teaching programme of Telugu grammar and pushed Campbell’s Grammar into oblivion. The third edition of Campbell’s Grammar became a rare volume by 1870. It was reprinted only in 1991. All these factors severely restricted access to and circulation of Campbell’s Grammar. This is only a factual and partial explanation to the question as to why the theory of Dravidian languages constructed in 1816 was not properly studied by the scholars. I now turn to explain more important reasons for the marginalization of the theory of Dravidian languages constructed in 1816. The record of scholars of Telugu linguistics on this point has been reviewed in Chapter 1. They failed to assess the significance and meaning

The Dravidian Language Family . 113

of the establishment of the College, its curriculum and the programme of joint studies by the British and native scholars for the development of South Indian languages. They were overawed and spellbound by the predominance of Sanskrit in Telugu, and the Sankrit-centred linguistic tradition of Vyākaran.a Śāstra. They were either unaware of or did not pay due and critical attention to the native tradition of Telugu grammar, which was the cornerstone for Campbell’s Grammar. It seems that they did not carefully study Campbell’s Grammar and Ellis’s Dissertation. They were carried away by the impact of Caldwell’s Grammar on the study of Dravidian linguistics. It has been noted that the ‘… central achievement (of Ellis) was eclipsed by Caldwell’s work …’ (Trautmann 1997: 150). ‘The success of Caldwell’s book — still in print over a century later — has been such that it has tended to blot out the record of what went before. Caldwell himself briefly identifies his predecessors and, although his criticisms of them are quite correct, he does them less than justice in the brevity with which he dismisses their accomplishments’ (ibid.: 145). Further, Trautmann cited (2006: 74) the following passage of acknowledgement from the Preface to the first edition of Caldwell’s Grammar. The first to break ground in the field was Mr. Ellis, a Madras Civilian, who was profoundly versed in the Tamil language and literature, and whose interesting but very brief comparison, not of the grammatical forms, but only of some of the volcables of three Dravidian dialects, is contained in his introduction to Campbell’s Telugu Grammar(1856: iv).

Trautmann noted, ‘Even this inadequate admission of the priority of Ellis in the formulation of Dravidian language family had been dropped in 1913 from Third edition of Caldwell’s work (2006: 75). The second edition of Caldwell’s grammar (1875), which carried a lengthy introduction by Caldwell, dropped the acknowledgement of the first edition relating to the priority Ellis. It seems Caldwell deliberately dropped the acknowledgement to the priority of Ellis in the formulation of the theory of Dravidian languages from the second edition of his grammar. Trautmann cited another passage from the Preface to the first edition of Caldwell’s Grammar. Caldwell avers he was not aware of the contributions of Ellis and Stevenson to Dravidian comparative philology when he began his own work on the subject’, ‘and when at length I made their acquaintance, I felt no desirous

114 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages than before of going forward, for though I had lost the satisfaction of supposing myself to be the discoverer of a new field, yet it now appeared to be certain that greater part of the field still lay not only uncolonized, but unexplored (1856: 4).

Trautmann observed, Thus, grudgingly, he acknowledges the priority of Ellis and Stevenson, while averring that their work did not influence his and magnifying his own accomplishment at the expense of theirs. In the third edition of Caldwell’s work (1913), which is the one currently in print, this preface does not appear at all, and no acknowledgement of Ellis’s priority remains. … Caldwell seems to be telling us that his book is virtually without predecessors, and that what came before was only a history of error. This was not, to be sure, the first or last time an author was less than generous towards opinions other than his own. Because of the well-earned success of Caldwell’s book and absence of reference to Ellis and others in the latest edition, the understanding has become virtually universal that the Dravidian language family was established as a scientific entity by Caldwell in 1856. Very few people today know that it was established in print exactly forty years previous, by Ellis (2006: 75).

At this stage, it is necessary to note the following observations. First, Robert Caldwell’s A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian family of languages (1856) is a classic. It is a detailed and full-fledged study of the Dravidian languages. It established the independent status of the Dravidian language family from the Indo-Aryan and Munda languages. It is well-known as a flagship of the Dravidian language family. Second, Caldwell was a giant in the field of Dravidian linguistics, a good scholar of Tamil, a pious person of saintly character and worked for the moral and material improvement of the downtrodden strata of the Tamil region in the nineteenth century. All references are cited from the second edition (1875) and third edition (1961 reprint) of Caldwell’s Grammar. Caldwell read and cited Campbell’s Grammar and its Introduction on the following points. The Telugu grammarians specified the period in which Sanskrit words were introduced into Telugu language. In the earlier period, pure Telugu language without Sanskrit terms flourished. It was created by God Brahma (1875: 47). Telugu literature was a monopoly of Brāhmins and the non-Brāhmin castes abandoned to the Brāhmins the cultivation of Telugu literature and its grammar (ibid.: 51). The derivation of the term trilingadēśa (1961: 27–28) and description of formation of negative verbal

The Dravidian Language Family . 115

forms in Telugu by Campbell were enumerated (1961: 472). Caldwell was silent on the nature, structure, derivation of Telugu language and its grammar, and basic aspects of the theory of the Dravidian languages elucidated by Campbell. Further, Caldwell was aware of Ellis’s reputation. He referred to the Treatise of Ellis on Mirasi right (1961: 32). He cited Ellis’s opinion on the acquaintance of Tamils with the art of writing much earlier than the arrival of Brāhmins into the Tamil region (ibid.: 125), and the derivation of the Prākrit word for gold (panna) from the Sanskrit suvarn. a (ibid.: 572). He did not refer to the Dissertation of Ellis, its methodology and the concept of the family of dialects of Southern India (except in the Preface to the first edition of his Grammar). This is a simple factual record untainted by opinion and interpretation. Caldwell did not take note of the theory of the Dravidian languages constructed by Campbell and Ellis in 1816 and its legacy for Dravidian philology except for the brief reference to Ellis in the Preface to the first edition of his Grammar. Surely, it is not due to oversight simply because he had read and cited Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar. Therefore, we are compelled to conclude that Caldwell deliberately adopted an attitude of studied indifference towards the contributions of Campbell and Ellis. It is one of those instances when scholars do not acknowledge the contribution of others particularly when the issue at stake is that of fame and reputation of being the founder of a concept. Quite obviously, such an issue was at stake in the case of the concept of the Dravidian languages between Ellis and Campbell, on the one hand, and Caldwell, on the other. Therefore, it seems Caldwell deliberately turned a blind eye to the theory of Campbell and Ellis. In this specific event, such an ordinary course of professional misconduct resorted to by scholars produced an awful, compounded effect. The arrival of Caldwell’s Grammar, which was a work of monumental scholarship, had Big-Bang effect on Dravidian studies. Its reputation and authority is magisterial and unquestionable in the field of Dravidian philology. Scholars and lay-persons tend to identify the origins of the concept of the Dravidian languages with Caldwell and his Grammar, and do not bother to find out the contributions made by his predecessors. In fact, Caldwell’s Grammar became the Bible of Dravidian studies. In effect, his inadequate acknowledgement in the first edition of his Grammar, and studied indifference to the contributions of Campbell and Ellis in the later editions is perhaps the most important factor, though unintended, which pushed the theory of the Dravidian languages of Campbell and Ellis into the dark alley of the history of linguistics for a century and five decades.

116 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

His strong convictions in respect of the anti-Brāhminical standpoint and love for Tamil language also contributed to shape the attitude of Caldwell to the theory of Campbell and Ellis. It is well known that the work and studies of Caldwell were informed by a strong undercurrent of anti-Brāhminism. Nicholas Dirks is of the opinion that Caldwell’s anti-Brāhminism played a role in moulding the anti-Brāhmin movement in the South (cited in Trautmann 1997: 222n). It is also appropriate to note Bernard Cohn’s observation that Caldwell’s Grammar had ‘… considerable indirect effect on the politics of South India’ (1990: 146). A. R. Venkatāchalapathy’s comments relating to linguistic studies at the College and ‘… the ideology of Dravidian nationalists later in the century’ are significant and meaningful. He wrote: Here mention may be made of the College’s stance toward the relationship between Tamil and Sanskrit. … The social profile and ideology of Tamil pandits at the College is revealing, and stands in sharp contrast to Philip Wagoner’s analysis of Mackenzie’s assistants … The different social location of Tamil Pandits could not have been incidental and is unlikely to have been missed by the College and Ellis (2009: 122–23).

He noted, ‘Astonishing is the absence of a single Brāhmin in the fairly long list of Pandits’ (ibid.). He said, Ellis’ understanding of the caste structure of South Indian society and the relationship of caste to knowledge anticipates much of the ideology of Dravidian nationalists later in the century. There is a case for arguing continuity rather than rupture, and it is not entirely in the realm of speculation to suggest that Ellis’ ideas about relationship of Brāhmins to Tamil language, and the antagonistic relationship between Tamil and Sanskrit, were influenced and shared by Tamil pandits of the College (ibid.).

Caldwell noted that the whole corpus of Telugu literature was produced by Brāhmin authors and the Śudra castes of Telugu region abandoned the cultivation of their own language to the Brāhmins. On the contrary, Tamil literature was produced by natives mostly of non-Brāhmin orders (1875: 51, 1961: 47–48). Leslie Orr wrote, ‘The Jains, says Caldwell, were “animated by a national and anti-Brāhmanical feeling of peculiar strength”, and thus were instrumental in creating a Tamil literature distinct from Sanskrit literature, …’ (2009: 274–75). She also noted that Ellis held similar opinion on Jain religion and its impact on Tamil language and literature (ibid.: 273–74). It is appropriate to note here Bhāvani Rāman’s observation that Ellis’s idea of the autonomous origins of Dravidian languages ‘… provided the ideological

The Dravidian Language Family . 117

sustenance to anti-Brāhman Tamil nationalist politics and critiques of the caste system in modern South India’ (2009: 217). It appears that Caldwell identified natives of the Tamil region with the non-Brāhmin strata, and Brāhmins with the Āryans and Sanskrit, who migrated to the south from the north. Even though this proposition of Caldwell is not accepted by scholars, it has a deep popular base in the Tamil region even today. As noted earlier, Caldwell reproduced and relied on Campbell’s opinion in respect of the Brāhmin monopoly over the production of Telugu literary works. Further, Campbell followed the native method (after the model of the Sanskrit grammar) of Brāhmin authors in writing his Teloogoo Grammar. Pattābhirāma Śāstry, - Śāstry and Bommakanti Venkata Nārāyanayya, Venkayya,2 Gurumurti . Śankarayya — the team of native Telugu scholars who collaborated with Campbell and Ellis — were Brāhmins (except Venkayya), and Venkayya was a Vaiśya (merchant) by birth and profession, but a distinguished scholar and author in Telugu and Sanskrit. He led the first wave of non-Brāhmin protests against the exclusive privileges of Brāhmins in the Telugu region in the early decades of the nineteenth century. He desired that Brāhmin priests should perform Vedic rituals with recitation of sacred hymns for the members of the Vaiśya order. When the Brāhmin priests refused to oblige, he donned the role of a priest and performed upanayana (initiation ceremony) for his second son. This led to a physical scuffle between the Brāhmins and Vaiśyas, and the Brāhmins approached the court of law. After a prolonged legal dispute, the matter was settled with compromise formula (Venkata Subbarāya Sharma 1929: 74). Venkayya’s goal was to establish the right of the members of the Vaiśya order to perform the Vedic rituals. This was a protest against the caste discrimination practiced by the Brāhmin priests. It was a protest to establish an equal claim of the Vaiśya order to perform Vedic rituals along with the Brāhmins, but does not constitute rejection of Brāhminism as such. In fact, this is the qualitative difference between the anti-Brāhminism of Caldwell and the Tamil region, on the one hand, and the non-Brāhmin protest movement of the Telugu region, on the other. Again, the cultural trait of the Telugu region to synthesize diverse elements was at play, instead of the rejection of Brāhminical culture of Vedic rituals. A course of action to put an end to the exclusive privileges of Brāhmins was promoted through the concept of eligibility of the non-Brāhmin strata to perform Vedic rituals. Just as Sanskrit words were admitted into Telugu with Telugu case-endings, performance of Vedic rituals of the Brāhminical order was sought to be extended to the non-Brāhminical strata.This exemplifies the inclusive and integrative, but not exclusive, spirit of synthesis of Āndhra culture. 2

118 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

followers of the tradition of Sanskrit grammatical studies. Perhaps the background of Telugu literature and the theory of the Dravidian languages (1816), which were under the spell of Brāhmin authors and the Sanskrit grammatical tradition, ignited Caldwell’s anti-Brāhminical streak and refracted his mind from adapting a fair and open-ended approach towards the contribution of Campbell and Ellis. Perhaps he was a victim of prejudice against Brāhmins. Caldwell wrote: ‘… it appears clear that the Tamil language was of all Dravidian idioms the earliest cultivated, it also appears probable that in the endeavour to ascertain the characteristics of the primitive Dravidian speech, from which the various existing dialects have divaricated, most assistance will be furnished by Tamil’ (1961: 87). This is a correct observation but needs to be qualified in some respects. For Caldwell, Tamil was the cornerstone of the Dravidian language family. Perhaps he was repelled by the proposition that Telugu was the site or medium for the construction of the concept of Dravidian languages. Probably for this reason he did not seriously study the Dissertation of Ellis or Campbell’s Introduction. But such a negative response was uncalled for and he had abundant opportunity to rectify the error in the second edition of his Grammar. He did not correct the mistake. On the other hand, he was simply unaware of the fact that Ellis had similar ideas about Tamil vis-à-vis the concept of Dravidian languages. Ellis noted the rich vocabulary of the higher dialect of Tamil and its capacity to translate the given passage without depending on Sanskrit words, whereas the Telugu and Kannada depend on Sanskrit words to translate the same passage (1816: 30). We have noted earlier that the proposed compulsory course at the College was centred on the teaching of Tamil language and grammar with an orientation to find out to what extent and in which ways the grammars of Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam varied from Tamil grammar. Ellis was a versatile scholar of Tamil and translated kural into English (1955; also see Trautmann 2006: 278). The array of facts and reasons enumerated and analysed above account for the marginalization of the concept of Dravidian languages constructed in 1816. Our problem is the genesis of the concept of the Dravidian language family. Why was Telugu the site for the birth of the concept of the Dravidian language family? The answer to this question is presented in Chapter 5.

The Problem . 119

4 Telugu Grammatical Tradition The main objective of this chapter is the identification and historical and theoretical analysis of some aspects of the Telugu grammatical tradition, which were critical elements in the construction of the concept of the Dravidian language family. It is not a history of Telugu grammar. Nor is it an account of the congruence between the Telugu grammar and of Dravidian languages.1 An attempt to deal with these subjects requires a high order of grammatical knowledge of Telugu and cognate languages, and of Sanskrit. Here, however, I am only interested in demonstrating the organic linkage between Telugu grammar and formation of the concept of the Dravidian language family in 1816. Hence the objective and scope of this chapter is limited. The geography of Āndhra region has substantially shaped the course of its economic, political and cultural development from early times. H. D. Sankalia designated the region comprising of Āndhra Pradesh (except East and West Go-dāvary districts), and the southern districts of 1 Happily, Vajjhala China Sītārāmaswāmi Śāstry, an outstanding scholar in Telugu and Sanskrit and an acknowledged authority on Telugu grammar, presented a masterly analysis of the relationship between the Telugu grammatical tradition and Dravidian languages in a learned and massive two-volume work (1955). He was Telugu pandit on the faculty of Oriental languages (1930–33), University of Madras, and studied Tamil and Kannada grammars under the guidance of eminent scholars. He was pandit in the Department of Telugu (1933–41), Āndhra University, Waltair. He secured Telugu translations of those parts of Caldwell’s Grammar which dealt with Telugu and wrote: Drāvida Bhashā Tattva Pariśīlanamu (Analysis of the Philosophy of Dravidian Languages). It is a mine of knowledge, grammatical and historical, of the Dravidian languages. It supplements, amends and enriches Caldwell’s Grammar in several ways and aspects. It is a classic and an excellent source of research materials relating to Dravidian languages. It is written in Telugu and published by Āndhra University. It is out of print and a reprint of it and its translation into English language, at least in an abridged version, will aid promote the advancement of Dravidian philology and studies.

120 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Tamil Nadu, ‘the classic land of Stone Age man’ (1974). These districts ‘have yielded numerous stone implements of several stone Ages since the last century. These along with Orissa and southern U.P. form the old land-mass of India, older than the Himālayas and the entire Gangetic system, and the coastal plains of the east and west coast (ibid.: 55). It is said, ‘Throughout pre-history the mixed deciduous and scrub forest and grass land of the Deccan was a favourable habitat’ (Maloney 1976: 1). A good part of the Deccan plateau and high lands, rich in mineral wealth and iron ore, is enclosed in Āndhra region. Laterite rocks and quartzite stones, which were in abundant supply, were suitable raw materials for making tools and weapons. Āndhra region is known as the land of rivers and river valleys. In addition to rivers Krishna . and Go-dāvary, approximately 30 tributaries and small rivers flow and flood through the land, leaving alluvium to fertilize the soil. The Krishn.a– Go-dāvary basin and the delta lands of other rivers are fertile and rich soils. It has a long coastline, which is the base for sea-borne trade and maritime contacts with other countries and people. The Eastern Ghats along the coastline, Nallamalai ranges at the centre, highlands and hills of the Deccan plateau and the Erramalai ranges in the south are covered with good forest lands, flora and fauna and wildlife. The region is wellconnected with the neighbourhood regions by natural openings and passes which run along with the river valleys and mountain ranges. Intra-regional communication routes are also naturally formed and developed. Āndhra region had been one of the early centres, if not the earliest, of human habitat in south India. The forest lands of the Deccan plateau were a source of food and other materials, and were hunting grounds. Fishing was pursued by the riverain people at rivers and streams, and by lake dwellers. The availability of food materials and prevalence of favourable physical and climatic conditions for the survival and advancement of human life caused migration of tribal groups to the region. It is said that Nāgās, Aśwakas, Yaksās, Mahishakās, Telugūs, . Gōnds, Kōyās, and other tribal groups settled in different localities and sub-regions of Āndhra. Knowledge regarding the spoken languages and dialects of tribal people is poor. It is believed that they spoke or followed dialects of proto-Dravidian language as also their native languages. It was a long period of coexistence and mutual enrichment of multi-spoken languages and dialects. Ārudra, celebrated historian of Telugu literature, is of the opinion that an analysis of the words of current usage in the languages of Kuī, Gōndī, Parjī, Kolāmī, Bhilli, and

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 121

Naikī (which are listed along with Telugu in the central branch of the Dravidian languages) is the key to construct the meaning of the vocabulary of literary Telugu tradition. He explained the meaning of some words from the current usage of these languages, which have been used in the literary tradition of Telugu (2002: 15–16). Perhaps Telugu was the most effective and prominent proto-Dravidian dialect in the region. We would never know the process of linguistic evolution in the region in the pre-historic period. The end product was that Telugu had consolidated and emerged as the lingua franca among the diverse spoken languages and dialects of the region around 1000 BC. We know very little in respect of the development of Telugu till the historic times. But a reliable picture of the development of diverse patterns of material culture in various sub-regions and localities of the region from the proto-historic to the historic times had been drawn up by archaeologists and historians. The physiographic conditions, ecology and social matrix of the different sub-regions and localities largely shaped the genesis and evolution of the pattern of society and material progress. It was a complex process of development involving social, economic, scientific and political phenomena, which transformed society from a primitive condition to a civilized state. It would have involved movement of people across the region and beyond, exchange of ideas, technology and experience. Undoubtedly language — both as an innate element as well as a social product of work and productivity and relations of people of the region — would have played a vital role in aiding the progress of the society from a savage condition to a civilized state. This context of social development of the region would enable us to understand and problematize the development of Telugu and its penetration into far-off localities. But we do not have evidence to map out the connection between the social development of the region and growth of Telugu. The nexus between Telugu and development of society is a historical process, which has been summed up by Clarence Maloney in the following words: ‘… in Andhra, Telugu diffused before the time of Sātavahanās who were not the agents of its spread’ (1976: 9). Telugu was the language of common people, and Prākrit was the language of rulers (Sātavahanās). Telugu words were written in Brāhmī script with suitable changes to match the phonology and local usage of Telugu. It is said that among the relics of Bhattiprōlu (Buddhist site south of river Krishna, . dated second century BC) ‘… are granite stone relic containers with inscriptions engraved on them. These relic casket inscriptions from Bhattiprōlu are of special significance and

122 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

of fundamental value, for they indicate the origin of Telugu language and the Brāhmī script adopted to the local intonation during the Aśokan period’ (Prasād 1996: 24). According to Brhatkathā of Gunād . . . ya (second century BC), dēśi was a literary language, in addition to or along with Sanskrit and Prākrit. Gunād . . ya had a contest against Śarva Varma (author of Kātantra Sanskrit grammar) on the issue of method and scheme of teaching Sanskrit to a Sātavahanā king. He took an oath that he would not use Sanskrit, Prākrit and dēśi languages as a literary medium for the remainder of his life, if he lost the contest. He lost the contest against Śarva Varma, and wrote Brhatkatha in paiśāchi (demon’s) language, . and burnt it as the king detested the language in which the text was composed. Sātavahanā kings issued bilingual silver coins in Prākrit and dēśi languages scripted in Brāhmī script (Ārudra 2002: 23–24). In this case, dēśi was Telugu language. Telugu was the language of the people of Āndhra region. It had evolved over a long period of 1,500 years prior to historic times. It was independent in origins, a Dravidian dialect. Its development took shape in a multilingual environment of various tribal dialects. Diverse ethnic stock, rich and varied physiographic endowments, ecological factors, the impact of external contacts and linkages and other factors contributed for its growth and advancement. It developed its own identity and became a cultural unifying force or a link for the cultural and economic integration of the people of Āndhra region, which was comprised of the Krishna–Godāvary river valleys including the high. lands of Telangana and the Deccan Plateau, the Kurnool–Cudapah range and the sub-region of Kalinga, north of river Godāvary. Such an impressive development of Telugu took shape in the period before it came into contact with Sanskrit and Prākrit. The autonomous and historical development of Telugu was mystified and mythologized by the authors of Telugu grammars written in Sanskrit. It was said that God Brahma created Telugu for an ancient and legendary king called Āndhra Vishnu, . who ruled Āndhra Dēśa from his capital Śrīkākul.am, on the banks of river Krishna . (nineteen miles south of Masulipatnam port), and Telugu was the language of the land and people of Trilingadēśa (Trilinga Śabdānu Śāsanam: III.10–11). Myth is a protean concept which had been extensively used in Indian tradition to preserve the kernel of historical truth and explain its meaning and significance. In the case of Telugu, the myth testified independent origin and development of Telugu and its cultural value for the land and people of Āndhra region.

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 123

At this stage, a preliminary observation with regard to the nature of Telugu is in order. Telugu is a simple language mostly comprising of words with two letters — one long and one short letters, or three short letters. It is a vowel ending language in general, and especially euphonic language. Its grammar is composed of elementary and brief rules. Telugu words are easy and simple in structure, meaning and phonology. Its syntax is economical and effective. Its prosody is a source of aesthetic pleasure and ecstatic experience. The phonology of Telugu is melodious. It freely borrows and adapts loan words from other languages, both Indian and foreign. Its phonology particularly facilitates acceptance and adaption of words from any language depending upon the contextual need or contingency. Trautmann described and analysed John Leyden’s plan for a comparative study of the structure and genealogy of Indian and SouthEast Asian languages (2006: 91–96 and 175–76). The manuscript versions of Leyden’s project are preserved in the British Library, London. Leyden said that Sanskrit ‘is not the native or indigenous language of the Dekkan’ (BL Add. Mss. 26, 600, ff. 3–4), and Telugu (called Telinga here) is of a more mixed character than Tamil, Malayalam or Kannada and ‘seems to have borrowed freely from all quarters to add to the original stock of its vocables’ (ibid. 27f) (cited in Trautmann 2006: 176). Leyden, a brilliant linguist and Orientalist, noticed as early as the first decade of the nineteenth century ‘the original stock of vocables’ of Telugu, and its structure and spirit which facilitated it to ‘freely’ borrow ‘from all quarters’. This is an accurate and insightful observation relating to the genesis, nature and historical development of Telugu. Never did the term language (bhāsha) carry the meaning of exclusive reference to Telugu (dēśabhāsha) in its grammatical tradition (Gōpalakrishnayya 1974: 105). It has been said, ‘Perhaps Telugu accepts . them (foreign words) more easily than any other Indian language …’ (Haldane 1958). Homefield G. McHeod observed: Telugu language ‘… never suffered from narrow provincialism. It is adaptable, dynamic, absorptive, grammatically simple and euphonically beautiful even when using foreign words’(1958). It means the approach of Telugu to other languages is informed by a spirit of accommodation and absorption. We need to explain why Telugu was endowed with the natural traits noted above. It is also necessary to point out the significance of such features for the development of Telugu, and the role played by these traits in the formulation of the theory of the Dravidian languages.

124 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

We may be able to describe or analyse the features of a language, but it is almost a formidable task to ascertain why such features have become either innate or cultivated attributes of the concerned language. Nakamura argued that language is one of the key concepts to understand the ways of thinking of people. He wrote: Language is basic to the cultural life of a people, so basic that when a special language system comes into being, we may say that a people has come into being. The existence of a common language and culture serves as a criterion for the identification of a people … Forms of linguistic expression become, in the inner consciousness of the people, norms for psychologically ordering in a fixed pattern and carrying to conclusion the operations of thought. Therefore the special forms for developing effectiveness of a given language, especially the grammar of that language and more especially its syntax express the more conscious ways of thinking of people using the language, and what is more, may be said to explicate such ways of thinking … language is a representation in sound, writing or gesture of the concept produced in the operation of thinking ([1964] 1971: 56).

Nakamura’s book is a well-known classic in the field of application of linguistic analysis as a means to construct ways of thinking of people and promote intercultural understanding and cooperation. We will make a preliminary attempt to follow Nakamura’s method to describe the nature and structure of Telugu. Nāgā and Telugu tribes were prominent groups among the inhabitants of the ancient Āndhra region. According to the Buddhist tradition, ancient Āndhra Dēśa, especially the lower valley of river Krishna, . was known as Nagābhoomi (land of Nāgās). Gunādya’s father was a Nāgā ruler and mother a . . Brāhmin (Ārudra 2002: 12). Nāgās and Telugūs were said to be physically strong, hardworking, courageous, and honest. Their approach to and perception of the natural world was substantially empirical and realistic. Their thought process and mode of life was simple. They were hospitable and friendly to other groups of people. These features of their character and spirit were partly innate tendencies, and in part were shaped by the material conditions and opportunities which were available to them for survival and advancement of social life. They had inherited and adapted a part of the vocabulary of the protoDravidian language and constructed and used a primitive spoken language (bhāsha), which had grown and evolved as Telugu. It had gained legitimacy as the lingua franca of the region around 1000 BC. The structure and nature of Telugu, which has been noted earlier, was largely shaped by the thinking process, character and mode of life of

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 125

Nāgās, Telugūs and also of other tribal groups. The distinctive features and attributes of Telugu were products of the inherent qualities of the people and of the material endowments and historical development of the Āndhra region. The sixth century BC was a period of revolutionary developments in the economic, philosophical, political, cultural, and religious life of the mid-Ganges valley of northern India. It was a period of economic expansion; growth of trade and commerce and urban clusters; formation of small republican and monarchical states; intense debate and discourse in the realm of philosophical and religious ideas; and social mobility and change. The convulsions generated by such profound changes drove the non-vedic Āryan Āndhra tribes of northern India to the region of rivers Gōdāvary and Krishna . in the south. The migrant Āndhra tribes from the north settled down in the sparsely populated basin of rivers Gōdāvary and Krishna. . They brought with them material and social culture including the language, which could be Pālī — a Magadhan dialect of Prākrit — with a considerable mix-up of Sanskrit (Rāmachandra 1957: 59–71). Buddhism with its ethical tenets and orientation towards trade and commerce was part of their cultural tradition. An equally momentous development occurred in peninsular India. The Dravidian languages spread over their respective regions in south India about 500 BC (Maloney 1976: 11). The Iron Age culture in south India stimulated the development of agriculture and settled village communities. The expansion of agrarian base and increase of food production, growth of population, rise of craft production, genesis of centres of political control and authority, etc. emerged as a pan-South Indian phenomenon. As a result, the social, economic and cultural relations of Āndhra region with the neighbourhood regions of South India and Mahārāshtra became closer and reached a threshold. These developments had serious implications for Telugu. The problem of communication and relationship with the dialects of language of the migrant Āndhra tribes, on the one hand, and languages of neighbourhood regions of South India, on the other, troubled the people and generated an identity crisis for Telugu. The grammarians constructed ‘special forms for developing effectiveness’ of Telugu and to resolve its identity crisis. First, perhaps at an early period in the history of Telugu when it was in close communication and interaction with the language of Āndhra tribes, the Telugu grammarians realized that the phonetics of Telugu was not precise or fully developed. Some sound forms of language which were

126 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

products of the thought process of the people were not represented in writing. It was noted that the Telugu alphabet had only thirty-six letters. Therefore, the grammarians constructed a formula which facilitated the admission of letters of alphabet or words with the alphabet of other languages into Telugu. The letters of alphabet of other languages could enter and become an integral part of Telugu alphabet by virtue of phonetic value and utility. Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani, . a grammar of Telugu written in Sanskrit, observed: Anyēch Śabdayōgavaśāt praviśanti (I. 5). (Anyēch = remainder of Telugu alphabet other than thirty-six original letters, Śabdayōgavaśāt = by virtue of association with the phonology of Sanskrit words, Praviśanti = enter or become part of the Telugu alphabet). The nineteen additional letters - which entered Telugu alphabet are five vowels ( .r.r.L.L.), . . . ten retro-flex consonants (kh, gh, ch, jh, t, . d., th, dh, ph, bh) and four consonants (ś, s., n, . ñ) (Ahōbalapandithīyamu 1926: 40; Bālasaraswathīyamu 1932: 7; and Vaikrta Chandrika (pp. 2–3). The Telugu grammarians wisely approved and sanctified the practice of borrowing Sanskrit alphabet and words in order to make Telugu phonetics more accurate, scientific and copious, and facilitate communication with the migrant Āndhra tribes. It is a well-acknowledged observation that the alphabet and phonetics of Telugu language after the adaption of nineteen Sanskrit letters is on par with the Sanskrit. Telugu responded to and flourished in the context of multiplicity of tribal dialects and Sankritised Pālī language of Āndhra tribes and of the languages of neighbourhood regions. The common people, who spoke Telugu, borrowed words from other languages and dialects. It was the historical process and context for the development of Telugu. The grammarians provided a theoretical basis for what had actually happened in the historical development of Telugu, which was a product of the propensity of people to adapt words from other languages and dialects, and the flexible and absorptive nature and structure of Telugu. Thus, Telugu grammar is a body of theoretical formulae, which sanctified the linguistic usage and practice of people arising out of their innate character and the requirements of social life in the given historical context of the evolution of society. This is an enduring trait and merit of the Telugu grammatical tradition in the history of Telugu. For example, grāmya words (rural usage or words with incomplete or imperfect phonology) have been listed as a separate category in the word classification scheme or lexicon of Telugu by the grammarians. These are not found in the word classification scheme of Sanskrit and Prākrit.

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 127

Telugu grammarians realized that people’s usage of language based on their common sense, intelligence and experience in the struggle for existence and of the collective social life would be a good source for the enrichment of language. Therefore, grāmya words are designated as a source of the Telugu lexicon. This is a unique feature of Telugu grammar. Modern Telugu grammarians and lexicographers (Pattābhirāma Śāstry and Venkayya) as well as British Orientalists (William Brown, Campbell and Ellis) put premium on the colloquial usage of Telugu found in poetical works, and the construction of roots for such words. In principle, Telugu accepts loan words with or without phonetic changes from other languages. This rule and tradition of Telugu grammar explains the finer division of loan words in Telugu language such as Samskrita Samamulu and Samskrita Bhavamulu (Sanskrit words and Sanskrit derivatives) and Prākrit Samamulu and Prākrit Bhavamulu (Prākrit words and Prākrit derivations). The grammatical principle relating to the admission of some letters of the Sanskrit alphabet was formulated to serve a two-fold objective of improvement of the phonology of Telugu language, and of communication with the migrant Āndhra tribes and neighbourhood regional languages, in a specific historical context. The general tendency to enrich the language as well as the specific context of diglossia of Telugu and the language of Āndhra tribes in the basin of rivers Go-dāvary and Krishna . exercised determinate influence on the nature and structure of Telugu language. It has an open-ended approach to other languages and freely adapts loan words to enrich itself in all branches, and to resolve problems arising out of the need to communicate and interact with other languages in a given historical context. This is one of the fundamental aspects of the nature and structure of Telugu. Second, Telugu grammars (TrilingaŚabdānuŚāsanamandAppakavīyam) and grammarians of Telugu language (Mūlaghatika Kētana, Vinnakōta Peddana, Anantāmātyudu, Vellanki Tātambhattu and Gan.apavarapu Venkatakavi) were conscious that an independent core layer of Telugu language was the native tongue of the people of Āndhra region. They were keen to preserve and uphold the independent origin and character of Telugu. They were also afraid that free adaption of loan words from other languages, particularly Sanskrit, may conceal and ultimately question the validity of the proposition relating to the independent origin and character of Telugu. They were confronted by a cruel dilemma. Sanskrit was essential for the improvement of all branches of Telugu, and its influence on the development of Telugu language and literature

128 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

was overwhelming. The pristine origin and independent character of Telugu was a sacred fact and a matter of faith for Telugu grammarians. It was necessary to find ways and means to welcome,venerate and absorb the rich Sanskrit linguistic heritage into Telugu, and simultaneously to keep up and proclaim the independent origin and character of Telugu. The grammarians constructed an elaborate system of caseendings in Telugu. Case-endings are suffixes of Telugu words which enclose words of other languages in order to adapt them into Telugu. The Sanskrit words are freely accepted and adapted into Telugu with the addition of appropriate suffixes of Telugu. Telugu grammar has prescribed rules and procedures for the addition of Telugu suffixes for admission of words of other languages, particularly Sanskrit and Prākrit words, into Telugu. Therefore, it is easy to distinguish between the native words of Telugu and the borrowed words of Sanskrit and Prākrit in the lexicon of Telugu. This is the point which impressed Campbell, and he followed the method of native grammarians to establish the independent origin and character of Telugu via the study of its literary dialect, which was under the spell of Sanskrit. Telugu is enriched by Sanskrit words, and the native character of Telugu is upheld and perpetuated by incorporating necessary alterations in the form of Sanskrit words which are adapted into Telugu. Third, Telugu is an agglutinative language. Venkata Rāo noted: Agglutination is the process by which two roots coalesce to form a word, the one retaining its radical independence, the other sinking down to a mere termination. It shows the grammatical relations by prefixing, suffixing or infixing sounds and syllables which are no longer independent words and yet are clearly distinguishable from the full words they modify and not inextricably blended with them (1957–58: Part 1 and 2, Telugu Section, 2, FN.1).

The grammarians took note of the agglutinative structure of Telugu and encouraged the formation of conjoint words. Perhaps the colloquial usage of Telugu both in the region of rivers Go-dāvary and Krishn.a as well as in the neighbourhood regions also helped the formation of conjoint words. Further, the easy acceptance and adaption of words of other languages into Telugu should have been a stimulus for the making of motivated words through the methods/techniques of primary derivation, secondary derivation and compounding. The construction of motivated words has been widely practised in, and is a striking element of, Telugu. Constructed by the combination of two or more words of a language or of different languages, such words

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 129

have a transparent morphological structure. Therefore, it is easy to analyse the structure of words by focusing on the morpheme unit. Thus, conjoint words are useful structures to explicate the linguistic elements or components in a given word. Sanskrit and non-Sanskrit elements including Tamil, Kannada, etc. can be identified in a conjoint Telugu word. The identification of the natural affiliation of linguistic elements in a word is carried out by tracing the root base, and it is the basis for the derivation of scientific etymology of a word and its parts. It is clear enough to note the connection between the theory of Dravidian language and comparative philology, on the one hand, and the analytical value of conjoint or compound words in Telugu for the formulation of the concept of cognate languages of the language family, on the other. In fact, Pattābhirāma Śāstry elucidated and explained this theoretical proposition in Āndhra Dhātumāla, and Ellis applied it and derived the concept of cognate languages (through the example of Telugu compound root agapadu) of south India in the Dissertation on Telugu. Campbell demonstrated that the declension of the noun with the addition of particles or words to it, plural pronoun in the case of first and second person, the conjugation of affirmative verb, negative aorist, a negative imperative, negative forms of verb, the union of neuter and feminine genders in the singular, and of the masculine and feminine genders in the plural and of the pronouns and verbs were distinctive features of Telugu grammar. He argued that these grammatical features as well as the syntax of Telugu were not found in the Sanskrit grammar. These were common features of Telugu, Tamil and Kannada (1816: XIX). The geographic location of Āndhra region in the Indian subcontinent has been a significant factor in moulding the cultural and intellectual tradition of Telugu people. It is at the mid-point linking the south and the north; and is the gateway for the route of cultural linkage of north-west and west (through Gujarat and Mahārāshtra) to the south. Its long coastal corridor stretching to the Kalinga sub-region and the parallel sea-board is a natural route for diffusion of the culture of the east and also of the SouthEast Asia to the south. For example, Watabe Tadayo, in his paper on the ‘Origin and Dispersal of Rice in Asia’ (International Symposium on Civilizations Related to Rice Cultivation in Asian Countries, Kyoto, 1983), says: The primary route that cultivated rice followed to the Indian subcontinent must have been from Assam down the Brahmaputra to the present day

130 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages Bangladesh and the Indian State of West Bengal and Bihar. Rice must have dispersed further south on the Indian sub-continent, mainly following the eastern seashore. The Godavari valley, in particular, seems to have been suited for rice cultivation from the earliest times. (cited in Sarkār 1987: 639).

As a mid-path between the north and south and as a link of the east and the south, and the west and the south, Āndhra has been a melting pot of Indian culture and nationalism (Rāmakrishnaiah 1935: 19; Hanumantha . Rāo 2000: 7–8). It is a meeting ground of diverse cultures, namely, the Harappan culture of the Indus Valley and Hellenism of the north-west, the Ganges Valley culture, Buddhism, Jainism and Islamic culture of the north; the Dravidian culture of the south, and the cultural influence of the east and of SouthEast Asia. This juxtaposition of various cultural traditions shaped the character and spirit of Telugu people. More significantly, they have cultivated and developed mental and cultural abilities to synthesize concepts and ideas drawn from different cultural traditions. K. M. Panikkar lucidly explained the spirit of synthesis of Āndhra culture. In a very special sense, the Andhra Desa has been a laboratory of Indian national evolution, where the synthesis between the Aryan and Dravidian culture was worked out through many centuries … Historically this tradition has been a living factor, and it has continued to mould the life and thought of the Andhras … Geography and history have both contributed to it. Standing midway between the North and South, the culture of Andhra country was a natural confluence of all streams. Its history from the time the Andhras first made their appearance on the stage to the end of Viyjayanagar Empire, was a continuous effort towards synthesis. The spirit of exclusion was never there, this is indeed a point of utmost importance to all of us today (1945: 2–3).

The spirit of tolerance and the outgoing nature of the people, appreciation of the culture of other people and the capacity to integrate different concepts of diverse cultural traditions in a harmonious manner and method is an all-pervasive aspect of Āndhra culture. It is the opinion of art historians and critics that the Amaravati sculpture integrated the style of Gandhara sculpture with the native tradition of sculpture, and developed a distinct Āndhra School of art and architecture, which developed ‘…. a strong common denominator of form, style and technique as well as of symbols and themes …’ (Ray 1983: 105). Mahāyāna Buddhism had evolved and flourished in Āndhra with the

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 131

incorporation of local cults, deities and rituals into Buddhist practice and thought. A similar process shaped the doctrine and rituals of Vaishn.avism and Śaivism of the Hindu religious tradition. The same process of integration of the high culture of Indian tradition and regional and local cultures had been at play in other aspects of the life and thought of Āndhra people. The spirit of inclusion and integration is the central motif of Āndhra culture. As I will argue in the following pages, the tradition of integration of the pan-Indian phenomenon with the regional culture is more striking and pronounced in the case of Telugu language in terms of the large-scale adaption of Sanskrit and steadfast preservation of the independent origin, character and identity of Telugu. This ubiquitous feature of Telugu is an integral part of the spirit and character of Āndhra culture. The grammatical formulae which spelled out the character of Telugu is a manifestation of the general character of Āndhra culture, which is rooted in the thought process and pattern of collective life and work of the people. Telugu is one of the ancient languages of India. The structure of its words comprising of two or three letters is simple. Most of the words end with U, I and A vowels. Therefore the euphony of Telugu language is melodious, emotive and mellifluous. Telugu has undergone radical transformation in the course of its historical development. It accepted and adapted words from other languages, especially Sanskrit and Prākrit, and yet retained its original nature, structure and independent identity. The accumulated effect of these developments is rather mindboggling. At one end, Telugu is simple, and at another, it is complex. On the one hand, it keeps up its independent nature and structure, and on the other, Sanskrit overwhelms it. It appears that irreconcilable qualities and forms have been synthesized in the historical development of Telugu. The harmonious integration of the original nature and structure and the ‘special forms for developing effectiveness’ of Telugu and the consequent features of it, is an accomplishment of its grammatical tradition. This is the substance of the nature and structure of Telugu and its grammatical tradition. According to the native tradition Telugu grammar has a hoary past. Sage Kānva . was said to be the first grammarian of Telugu. A Rājēśwara Śarma discussed the historicity and content of Kānva’s grammar written . in Sanskrit. He cited twenty grammatical aphorisms ascribed to Kān.va (1971: 117–23, 1973: Part I, 162–67), and concluded that Kān.va wrote an ancient Telugu grammar which was lost. Further, he carefully and dispassionately examined the claim of native tradition that eighteen

132 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

authors (including Kanva) wrote texts of Telugu grammar in Sanskrit . (Śarma 1973: Part I, 161–96). He concluded that only Kanva, Brhaspati . . (ibid.: 165–78) and Kavibhallatudu (ibid.: 185–88) were authors of Telugu grammar, and their grammatical aphorisms were separated, enumerated and explained. Some of the aphorisms were not clear due to linguistic deficiency. These works were lost. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim of native tradition regarding six authors. In the case of five authors, one or two grammatical aphorisms ascribed to them were cited. One author was not a grammarian and the case of native tradition in respect of three authors is doubtful. It is interesting to note here that all the references to these authors, their works and grammatical aphorisms were cited from the following Telugu grammatical texts written in Sanskrit: (a) Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani . (at best an eleventh-century text, if the authorship of Nannaya Bhat is accepted (most of the scholars do not accept it); otherwise an early seventeenthcentury text); (b) Trilinga Śabdānu Śāsanam by Adharvanudu (thirteenth century), . available at the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, bearing No.D.1245; (c) Adharvana . Kārikāvali. (1955); and (d) Āndhra Kaumudi by Manda Lakshmīnarasimhāchāryulu (seventeenth century), available at the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, bearing No.D.1223. These texts were the principal sources and guides for Campbell. Most probably, their manuscript copies were in the collection of the library of the College of Fort St George. Perhaps they embodied grammatical knowledge which evolved and accumulated since times immemorial, and preserved and carried over by the oral tradition. The nexus between the colloquial usage in the day-to-day life the people and linguistic theory over a long period generated the body of grammatical aphorisms. The written as well as unwritten grammatical aphorisms were concise, often pregnant with implied meaning and not fully stated formulae, and were meant for memorization. The commentary, explanation and derivation or construction of proper linguistic forms by scholars, who were part of ‘a brilliant and enduring tradition of indigenous scholarship’ of India, is the real flesh and blood of grammatical knowledge. Campbell referred to the native tradition, which was a three-fold exercise comprising of the written or

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 133

oral text, commentary and explanation of the text, and application of more than one grammatical aphorism to derive the correct linguistic expression (linguistic practice comparable to mathematical logic in the construction of algebraic theorem). The texts of Telugu grammar were written in Sanskrit and followed the pattern, methods and rules of Sanskrit grammar. This is one school of Telugu grammatical knowledge; no wonder it has been designated the Traditional School. Bālasaraswathīyamu by Elakūchi Bālasaraswathi (early half of the seventeenth century); Appakavīyam by Appakavi (seventeenth century); and Ahōbalapandithīyamu by Ahōbalapathi (end of the seventeenth century and early eighteenth century) are some of the works which provide commentary and explanation for the Sanskrit texts of Telugu grammar. Some of these authors hold the opinion that Sanskrit and Prākrit formed the twin base for the growth and evolution of Telugu. They accept the theory of independent origin and development of the core layer of Telugu. There is another school of Telugu grammatical tradition. The texts of grammar which are associated with this school are written in Telugu. The following is a list of authors and texts with an indication of approximate or generally approved chronology of the authors: (a) Āndhra Bhāshā Bhūshan.amu by Mūlaghatika Kētana (thirteenth century); (b) Kāvyālankāra Chūdāmani . by Vinnakōta Peddana (latter half of the fourteenth century and early half of the fifteenth century); (c) Chandōdarpan.amu by Anantāmātyudu (early half of the fifteenth century); (d) Kavi Chintāmani . by Vellanki Tātambhattu (last quarter of the fifteenth century and early half of the sixteenth century); (e) Kavijana Samjīvani by Muddarāju Rāmabhadrakavi (early half of the seventeenth century); (f ) Āndhra Kaumudi by Ganapavarapu Venkatakavi (seventeenth century); (g) Sarvalakshan.asāra Samgrahamu by Kūchimañchi Timmakavi eighteenth century); and (h) Kavisamśaya Vichchedamu by Ādidamu Sūrakavi (eighteenth century). There are some more authors and works of this order. These authors are firmly of the opinion that Telugu is independent in origins, nature

134 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

and structure. Telugu is an agglutinative language and Sanskrit an inflectional language. Therefore, the Sanskrit grammatical tradition and its rules and practices are not applicable to Telugu. They followed a distinct and different approach in the derivation of grammatical rules for Telugu. Hence this School of Telugu grammar is designated the Independent School (Purushōttam 1976: 38–41). These authors held Sanskrit in high esteem, and appreciated its substantial and valuable contributions for the development of Telugu language and literature. Some of them advocate the view that Telugu is a dialect of Prākrit. They did not blindly follow the pattern of Sanskrit grammar, but modified and altered its rules and practices to help in the preservation of the nature and structure of Telugu. New grammatical formulae and practices were formulated to protect the pristine character of Telugu. The objective was two-fold: enrichment and refinement of Telugu, and enunciation and protection of its independent identity. It was a conscious and deliberate linguistic exercise to absorb the salutary features of Sanskrit grammar into the Telugu grammatical tradition, and at the same time construct independent rules and practices of Telugu grammar to uphold the independent origin, nature and structure of Telugu language. Given the overarching role of Sanskrit in the Indian linguistic scenario, this was a remarkable achievement. This account may convey the impression that the construction of the Telugu linguistic tradition which co-opts and venerates the valuable elements of Sanskrit, and simultaneously exhibits independent spirit and formulates new grammatical rules for the preservation of independent identity of Telugu is an accomplishment of the grammarians. Undoubtedly, the grammarians were the architects of this unique linguistic tradition. But the support base for the genesis, development and upkeep of Telugu linguistic identity is located in the interstices of the socio-cultural, economic and political history of the region. The broad pattern of development of Āndhra region from the ancient period has been conducive and supportive for the cultivation of Telugu linguistic identity. It has been noted earlier that the Telugu grammatical tradition is an integral part of the spirit of synthesis of Āndhra culture. The genesis and evolution of Telugu grammar is also a part of the process of formation and the question of linguistic ethnicity and identity in pre-modern India, which is a complex and controversial theme. I start with the observation of C. A. Bayly, ‘Traditional patriotism had fairly clear Indian homologies. Glorification of the land and people itself was

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 135

deeply rooted in the thought and literature of the subcontinent. The land was, of course, generally represented as female’ (1998: 11). The glorification of land and people has a hoary past in the Indian tradition both as a sign of patriotism and of linguistic identity and ethnicity. But as more sharply pointed out and analysed by Cythia Talbot, More relevant than the question of whether territorially based language communities existed in pre-colonial India is the issue of linguistic allegiance. Certainly the number of people who thought themselves as members of a particular linguistic culture may have been quite small in the pre-colonial period. … Although peasants may not have consciously named the language they spoke, poets and scribes were indisputably aware of their linguistic heritage, as were the wealthy patrons who financed their literary production (1995: 712–13).

She further commented: ‘Because the core elements of medieval regional identity included collective memories of the past, as well as common language and home land, it can be classified as an early form of ethnicity’ (ibid.: 721). Her comments appear to be general observations, but are based on careful and novel study of the formation and nature of Telugu linguistic ethnicity in the medieval period. She says, whether we are speaking of medieval India or modern India, the sense of community evolved through a two-fold process — the distancing of the group from others whose alikeness is highlighted, on the one hand, and the elaboration of a set of common social attributes, on the other. In the development of an ethnicity, earlier myths and images were often appropriated to provide an all-important illusion of continuity with ancient times. By representing themselves as extending far back in time, communities could claim to be natural entities, inherent to the social world. Although the antiquity of many ethnic groups is suspect, in terms of the continuity of actual membership, the symbols that represent the community’s cohesion may indeed possess prior histories. In both pre-modem and modern societies, in other words, the imagining of the past was on-going creative process (ibid.).

Her stimulating comments are useful to visualize the ethnicity and regional identity of Āndhra through the historical period. Sudarshan Seneviratne described and analysed the nature of ‘the pre-state internal developments’ and ‘structural changes by the end phase of proto-historic period’ in Āndhra region (1981: 55–61).

136 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages The emergence of an agrarian base, a demographic expansion, rudimentary craft specialization, a developing exchange network, a degree of social differentiation and the emergence of spheres of political influence could be outlined as the basic internal developments that occurred prior to the subordination of these areas by the metropolitan states (ibid.: 55; also see Parasher 1992: 437–77).

The expansion and penetration of Iron Age culture in historic times led to extensive village settlements and growth of agricultural production. The economy prospered with the rise of urban centres and trade. The sub-regions and localities of Āndhra were endowed with diverse natural resources, ecological patterns and social capabilities of the people. Moreover, the impact of Mauryan rule and Buddhism was uneven in different parts of the region. As a consequence, decentralized and variegated patterns of economic, political and cultural development flourished in the sub-regions. For example, Aloka Parasher Sen highlighted that iron technology contributed in the growth of craft production in Telangana and agricultural expansion in coastal Āndhra (1996: 13). Centres of political control under the collective leadership of clans and tribal chiefs had emerged and gradually extended control over a number of villages in several localities. Many centres of political authority emerged in course of time in the region. The archaeological data collected from several sites lend support to this conclusion. Buddhism was a historical force in Āndhra from the third century BC to the fourth century AD. Its impact on the Āndhra society was manifold. The expansion and penetration of Buddhism in the region from Sālihundam (Śrīkākulam district) in the north-east to Peddachapalle . (Cudapah district) in the south-west, and Amarāvati and Bhattiprolu (Guntur district) in the east to Pāshigam (Nizāmabād district) and Dhūl.ikatta (Karimnagar district) in the north-west, is a clear proof for the cultural and economic integration of Āndhra region. Archaeologists and historians have identified and mapped more than sixty Buddhist sites and centres which were situated on the arteries of long-distance land and sea-borne trade routes (Ray 1989: 437–57), and were wellconnected internally and with other regions. The rise and prominence of new social classes of gahapati (householder) landholders who turned to trade, merchants and artisanal groups (potters, metal smiths, carpenters, lapidaries, weavers, agriculturists, etc.) was a reflection of economic change and growth in terms of agricultural advancement, specialized craft production including textiles, mining activity for metal ores, diamonds and precious stones, exploitation of forest wealth, plant

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 137

products and marine resources. H. Sarkār reported rice cultivation had flourished in the Go-dāvary Valley from the earliest times. He emphasized the role … rice played in the development of culture in Āndhra Pradesh, in maritime trade, and commercial transactions with other regions of India. Perhaps rice cultivation gave a boost to Āndhra’s economy leading to the growth of agrarian townships, some of which developed into commercial centres and international markets. In these developments, political forces, resting ultimately at local levels, remained more or less unchanged (1987: 639).

Trade and commerce flourished in the wake of economic growth, technological advancement and the rise of new social classes, and emergence of towns and ports. Sarkar noted that ‘Kantakassula or Ghantasala was an emporium where foreign goods in the trail of Roman trade found a ready market. It was an international mart …’ (ibid.: 636). Fortified places were built as centres of political control, markets and habitation. Gan.a-rājyās (non-monarchical clan/gosthi-based . polities) and small kingdoms which exercised varied degrees of poltical control and authority had come into existence and functioned in the nādūs . (comprising of some villages and market centres), sub-regions, towns and localities of Āndhra. Thus the historical Buddhist Āndhra was culturally and economically integrated, but politically was a decentralized body. The account of Pliny and other sources describing Āndhra as a land of fortified towns and many villages and of Āndhras as a powerful race would tally well with the Buddhist Āndhra of early historical times (Nīlakant. a Śāstri 1939). But in the absence of centralized political organization, what other factors cemented and maintained the cultural and economic integration of Āndhra region? Telugu played a primary role in the process of promotion and preservation of unity of the region. Telugu is a transparent and simple language in terms of phonology and meaning. Therefore, its diffusion in the region was easy. In due course, it became the spoken language (bhās.a) of the people. Brāhmī script was employed by the scribes of Telugu with necessary modifications to suit its phonology. The linguistic heritage of Buddhism to India is a valuable and vast theme. I will focus here on one aspect of it. Buddha preached his sermons in the local dialect of Pālī of Magadha region. His aim was to reach the people and teach them the doctrines of new faith through the medium of the local dialect, which was the people’s language. Buddhists followed the path of Buddha and employed the local dialects

138 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

to spread their religious ideas and practices. It was a linguistic norm of the Buddhist tradition which utilized the people’s language to preach its message. In Āndhra, Buddhism reached the common people and spread its message through the medium of spoken language of Telugu, while the language of ruling and dominant elites was Prākrit. Pālī was the language of Buddhist canon. Telugu assisted in cultural and economic integration under the aegis of Buddhism. The basin of rivers Krishna . and Godāvary, called Trilingadēśa, was the fulcrum for construction of another aspect of Telegu linguistic ethnicity by the poets and scribes. Certainly, it was constructed much later. Āndhra Vishnu, . founder of Āndhra Kingdom, ruled from Śrīkākul. am situated on the banks of the Krishna . river, nineteen miles south of Masulipatnam. He is worshipped even today in Śrīkākulam. He had . killed a demon called Niśambhu and constructed a wall connecting the three centres in different directions of the borders of Āndhra. Thus he protected and united Āndhra region and its people. Brahma created Telugu for Āndhra Vishnu. . This account is found in Telugu grammars written in Sanskrit, perhaps after the decline of Buddhism, and when Sanskrit became and prevailed as the state language in Āndhra. This myth had wide currency in the past among literary circles, and it is still popular in Āndhra. It embodies all the elements of regional identity and linguistic ethnicity enumerated by Bayly and Talbot — glorification of common homeland, language and collective memories. Therefore, it was a strong base for Telugu linguistic identity. While the oral tradition of Telugu grammar, particularly of the Traditional School, is traced to the ancient period, the written documents are composed during the period from the eleventh century to the eighteenth century. It is a factual record and suggests a strong bond between the medieval historical transformation of Āndhra region and Telugu linguistic identity. Medieval era in India as well as in Āndhra ‘… was a period of progressive change characterized by the extension of agrarian settlement, a rise in number of religious institutions, an expansion of commercial activity and an evolution of political systems and networks’ (Talbot 2001: 2). Land grants to Brāhmins, temples, chiefs of soldiers and administrative personnel and professional groups of people, and the system of agrahāra villages (grant of village to the Brāhmins) initiated a phase of remarkable growth in the agrarian economy of Āndhra through the reclamation of waste and forest lands, and extension of tank- and

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 139

well-based irrigation. A rich order of Brāhmins and a class of rural gentry emerged and flourished in the countryside. Agrarian prosperity was the ground for the expansion of trade and commerce. The volume and value of sea-borne trade with SouthEast Asia and China is testified by the rise of Mōtupalli port (south of River Krishna) . as an important centre for export and import of goods and a significant source of revenue for the rulers (Krishna . Rao 2003: 67–71). Muslim traders with their pan-Islamic connections were active on the Āndhra coast even in the period earlier than the Islamic conquest of Āndhra. A merchant class (mostly Vaiśyās or Telugu Kōmatis) became prominent in the economic and social life. Vaishnava and Śaivite cults built temples at . important centres. The temples were endowed with large land grants, and became custodians of wealth and centres of social and cultural life. A rich priestly order, poets and scholars, professional groups of musicians, dancing girls, painters, architects, sculptors and others emerged and prospered at temples. The new classes of agrarian and commercial sectors and of temple centres patronized Telugu. Vaishn.avism (cult of Vishnu) . and Śaivism (cult of Śiva) were rival religious sects of Hinduism in medieval Āndhra. These cults competed for royal patronage and the people’s following. Telugu was an important vehicle for these cults to win over royal and popular support. Vaishnavism . promoted Sanskritized Telugu poetry in popular literary form and its recitation to diffuse the cult of Vishnu . among the people. Śaivism spread the cult of Śiva through the metre and idiom of songs in Telugu of popular usage, meant for easy memorization. Thus Telugu linguistic identity gained strength and momentum among the poets, rulers and people in medieval Āndhra. Jains, who were prominent in trading and commercial activity, represented a rich linguistic tradition in India. I will briefly comment here on the role of Jains in the promotion of Telugu linguistic identity. They advocated and upheld the concept of linguistic identity of one’s own language. They accorded high respect and status to poets who attained literary excellence in their own language. Native poets were encouraged in writing in Telugu by the Jains’ theory of linguistic identity of one’s own language. The Kākātiya rulers of Warangal were architects of political and cultural unity of Āndhra region. They ruled medieval Āndhra from the mid-twelfth century to the mid-fourteenth century. Large kingdoms in the sub-regions and small kingdoms in several localities prevailed in medieval Āndhra with the administrative and cultural paraphernalia of courts, poets, etc. The Kākātiya rulers, kings in sub-regions and local chiefs patronized Telugu.

140 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Thus Telugu grammatical tradition had grown and evolved from the ancient to early modern period as an integral part of the historical, economic, political, social, cultural and linguistic ethnicity and heritage of Āndhra region. The two schools of Telugu grammar — Traditional and Independent — is a broad brush categorization. The individual authors who were designated to be affiliated to either of the schools generally shared and approved of the approach of the respective schools to Telugu grammar. But some authors appreciated the perspective of the other school on some points and made necessary modifications in their stand. Therefore, the distinction between the two schools is rather blurred. This is true in the case of Appakavi of the Traditional School, and Ganapavarapu Venkata Kavi and Kūchimañchi . Timmakavi of the Independent School. Further, both schools consider the classification of Telugu words as a major branch of grammatical knowledge. Interestingly, both schools hold shared ideas on the theme of the classification of Telugu words in general. But the two schools are poles apart on the question of method of derivation and construction of meaning of dēśya words in Telugu. This is the hub of the theory of Dravidian languages. Nakamura observed that ancient Indians ‘… analysed elaborately the forms of words. The empirical and analytical attitude of the Indian grammarians was stimulated by the fact that Sanskrit has word forms more heterogeneous and differentiated than those of the Western classical languages’ ([1964] 1971: 153). Ancient India was a linguistic laboratory. Several languages and dialects of those languages were in usage in different regions of India. The languages had undergone radical changes due to the anthropological heritage, physical topography, historical development and relations with other languages arising out of social and economic contact. Naturally, ‘… Indian grammar was most advanced in the analysis of words and phrases, …’ in such a linguistic environment (ibid.: 13). According to Vyākaran.a Śāstra (the science of grammar), the analysis of word forms is a two-step process. First, the root of a word is traced and constructed. The stem of a verb is generally the base of a root. Second, correct phonology and meaning of a word is worked out on the criterion of its root. This is the basis for classification of words in a language. Telugu imbibed the theory and practice of the analysis and classification of word forms of Vyākaran.a Śāstra. Therefore, there is a common pattern of classification of words among two schools of Telugu grammar. Telugu comprises of the following categories of words:

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 141

(a) tatsamamu: Sanskrit words with Telugu terminations or suffixes; (b) tadbhavamu: Sanskrit words which are adapted into Telugu via Prākrit or one of the Prākrit dialects, but in an altered form; (c) dēśyamu: words of Telugu speech prevalent in the region called Trilingadēśa; and (d) grāmyamu: imperfect words due to loss of letters or improper pronunciation generally used by the rural people, and marked out as a class of words only by Telugu grammarians. Besides the four categories of words noted above, the Independent School added the following two categories of words. (a) atsa-Telugu: pure Telugu words; and (b) anyadēśyamu: loan words from the languages of other regions. Appakavi defined anyadēśyajāmdhramulu as Telugu words which were conjointly used with dēśya words of the neighbourhood regions (Appakavīyam, I. Poems, pp. 108–109). Appakavi referred in spirit and substance to the conjoint usage of Telugu words with the languages of Tamil and Karnataka regions. Perhaps it was a catalyst agent in the process of formulation of Ellis’s idea that dēśya was a common stock of south India languages (1816: 18). This is a plain meaning of each category of words. We do have an elaborate, learned and sometimes pedantic explanation regarding the definition, derivation of correct linguistic form, identification of words in each category, and mutual relationship of words. Some theories and opinions which have a bearing on our theme will be reported and analysed. Otherwise, we do not pay attention to the corpus of grammatical knowledge and explanation relating to the theme of word classification in Telugu. However, it is desirable to note the actual stand of major authors and texts of Telugu grammar on the classification of Telugu words. Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani . (I. 15–16) and Āndhra Kaumudi by Manda Lakshmīnarasimhāchāryulu (1.58) listed four categories of Telugu words: tatsamam, tadbhavam, dēśyam and grāmyam. Trilinga Śabdānu Śāsanam by Adharvanudu (I. 11–12), Āndhra Bhāshā Bhūshan.amu . by Mūlaghatika Kētana (poem 19), Chandōdarpan.amu by Anantāmātyudu (IV. 105), Kāvyālankāra Chūdāmani . by Vinnakōta Peddana (IX. 11), Āndhra Kaumudi by Gan.apavarapu Venkata Kavi (p. 1) and Sarvalakshanasara Samgrahamu by Kūchimañchi Timma Kavi (I. poem 13)

142 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

enumerated five categories of Telugu words: tatsamamu, tadbhavamu, atsa-Telugu, dēśyamu and grāmyamu. Kavi Chintāmani . by Vellanki Tātambhattu listed three categories of Telugu words: tatsamamu, tadbhavamu and dēśyamu (I. poem 29) and incorporated atsa-Tenugu (I. poem 33), and grāmyamu (I. poem 36) within dēśyamu. As noted earlier, the construction and classification of word forms is a well-cultivated and developed branch of grammatical knowledge. It is based on the scientific method and the body of knowledge is transparent. Words that have Sanskrit origin and the words that are non-Sanskrit in origin can be easily distinguished and established. Such a method and body of knowledge relating to the classification of words is a cornerstone of the theory of Dravidian language. Grāmya (rural usage with imperfect pronunciation) as a separate category of words was introduced by the Telugu grammarians. It is not found in the scheme of classification of words in Vyakaran.a Śāstra, or in Sanskrit and Prākrit. Grāmya in the Telugu grammatical tradition was the colloquial usage of the rural people, and a living tongue capable of continuous innovation, change and evolution. According to Tātambhattu, grāmya usage was an integral part of dēśyamu (Kavi Chintāmani . [I. poem 36]). In this connection, Venkata Rāo observed: The inclusion of this (Grāmya) in the general classification shows the insight of Ketana in Linguistic Science. Grāmya or vulgar speech means the spoken language. Ketana understood the principle that every classical language was originally based upon an everyday spoken language and it is the poet, philosophers and priests that evolve out of it, a more cultivated classical literary language. Ketana gave a specimen of the spoken language as it will not be found in the cultivated language for which Grammar is intended’ (1957–58: Telugu Section, p. 9).

Grāmya vocabulary earned eligibility to be employed in literary works under two conditions. First, according to Appakavi grāmya words (as integral part of dēśyam), correctly derived and constructed by proper comprehension of colloquial usage were worthy to be part of the literary lexicon (Appakavīyam I. poem 104). Second, grāmya words were the appropriate literary idiom to depict and convey the nature and character of some aspects of social life (Adharvana . Karikāvali, . I. 29). The analysis of grāmya as a separate category of words, and as a part of dēśyam and the colloquial language worthy enough to join the literary lexicon is a unique aspect of the Telugu grammatical tradition

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 143

and literary theory. Undoubtedly, it is one of the ‘special forms for the developing electiveness’ of Telugu. The origin and nature of Dēśyam (words of Telugu speech prevalent in Trilingadēśa) is the basis for the concept of Dravidian languages. Both the schools of Telugu grammar accept dēśyam as the source/base of Telugu, and hold similar ideas regarding its origin and nature. Venkata Rāo wrote that Telugu grammarians … were quite aware of the fact, that there is a basic vocabulary in Telugu, quite independent of Sanskrit, and it has gradually developed by bringing into its fold through the process of agglutination, i.e., adding Telugu terminations to Sanskrit words as well as foreign words. Though three fourths of the vocabulary is Sanskrit, they were shrewed enough to conclude that the basic language has an independent existence of its own and justly therefore named the whole language as ‘Telugu’ from the basic vocabulary only, in spite of the preponderous existence of Sanskrit words (1957–58: Telugu Section, p. 2).

According to Rājēśwara Śarma, an authority on Telugu grammar, all Telugu grammarians, more or less, uphold the view that dēśyam vocabulary is self-manifest in the form of prāvahini (1973: Part I. p. 242). However, the two schools of Telugu grammar represented different perspectives regarding the method of derivation and construction of meaning of dēśya words. The point of contention was whether dēśya should be appraised as an integral part of Sanskrit tradition or could be considered as an independent language. Facts and arguments will be advanced in support of both of these perspectives in the last part of this chapter. At this point, I will analyse the origin and nature of dēśyam according to the Telugu grammatical tradition. R. G. Bhandarkar traced the dēśi element of words to the ‘… languages of the aborigines whom the Āryans conquered’ (cited in Purushōttam 1969: vol. I, p. 161). Suniti Kumar Chatterji described dēśi in the following words: The term Dēśi in its present day application embraces a numerous class of words which cannot be traced to Āryan roots and which obviously were derived from the Pre-Āryan languages of the country, Dravidian and Kolame. … The term dēśi words are relics from dialects employed in the land before the masses took up the Āryan speech; the Dravidian and other non-Āryan loans can be described as Dēśi (1970: 191–92).

Dēśyam words are prevalent or found in a region (dēśya). Regional usage or base was the unique feature of dēśabhāsa/dēśībhās . . a. Ancient India

144 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

was known or described as a conglomeration of regions. Each region has its dialect of dēśabhās.a, historical and cultural tradition and anthropological heritage. Telugu is dēśyam or dēśabhās.a of Trilingadēśa. Venkayya cited Appakavi’s opinion and said: ‘Dēśyam means Āndhram (the language of Āndhra region). It alone is Telugu’ (1806: 6). The colloquial usage of people’s tongue/diction was the source of dēśyam (Ahōbalapandithīyamu p. 172; Appakavīyam 1. poem 104; Sarvalakshn.asāra Samgrahamu p 14; Vaikrta . Chandrika p. 1). According to Campbell’s classic statement, the native tradition of Telugu grammar maintained that dēśyam was coeval with the people (1816: xvii). God Brahma created Telugu (Trilinga Śabdnānu Śāsanam III 10–12). It arose and was formed out of people’s usage and was sanctified by Brahma. While explaining the components and origin of Telugu, Kētana stated that a part of Telugu came into being of its own accord, or it was a self-manifested tongue (Āndhra Bhāshā Bhūshan.amu poem 14). According to Kētana, Telugu dēśyam came out of the spoken words of people (ibid., poem 25). He was firmly of the opinion that Telugu had independent origin in the speech of the people and it was dēśyam of Āndhra region. These propositions were based on empirical observation, and at the same time were constructed and advanced by grammarians as theoretical principles to explain the locale and source of dēśyam. In terms of analogy, dēśyam is designated pravāhini (Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani, . I 15; Ahōbalapandithīyamu p. 172; Bāla Saraswathīyamu p. 14; Vaikrta . Chandrika p. I). The comparison of dēśyam with a Pravāhini conveyed several layers of meaning, actual and suggestive, to delineate the nature of dēśyam. First, pravāhini (a perennial stream) is a natural resource of the land and people. Similarly, dēśyam is a natural endowment of people and of a region. It is a living tongue of the people. Second, it is difficult to establish the period and place of the origin of a stream. Likewise, dēśyam’s origin is hazy in terms of specific period and locality. Third, the stream, in the course of its flow and flood through the land, swallows up several water bodies and rivulets, and becomes a perennial and vast body of consumable water. Yet it keeps up its distinct identity. Equally, dēśyam absorbs local dialects, accepts loan words from other languages and emerges as the lingua franca of the region. At the same time, it preserves and perpetuates its independent identity and character through the admission of loan words only with the addition of dēśyam’s affixes and suffixes. It is an easy and useful language for common people in their daily collective life. It is flexible enough to

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 145

adapt to the dynamics of historical change via the colloquial dialect of people. It grows and evolves through the usage of people. Therefore, irrespective of the political and cultural transformations at the transregional and regional level, people loved and used dēśyam. In the Indian tradition, perennial stream is the base for life and culture of the people. The comparison of dēśyam with a perennial stream by Telugu grammarians is apt and exemplifies their allegiance to Telugu. Also, the meaning and phonology of dēśyam words was clear and easy (Āndhra Bhāshā Bhūshan.amu poem 25). People found that it was easy to pronounce correctly dēśyam words which were composed with two or three letters. The melody of euphonic dēśya words was a source of joy (Kāvyālankāra Chūdāmani . IX 16). The Telugu grammatical tradition constructed a comprehensive theory regarding the origin, locale, utility, nature, and structure of dēśya words. The exercise of Telugu grammar regarding the origin and nature of dēśya words had been an integral part of the word classification scheme of the Indian linguistic analysis of Sanskrit and Prākrit grammars. The vyākaran.a tradition of linguistic analysis of Sanskrit was the basis for the system of word classification in Prākrit grammar. It was a literary axiom with Prākrit grammarians that Sanskrit was prākriti (source) for Prākrit languages. The lexicon of Prākrit comprised of tatsama (Sanskrit words), tadbhava (Sanskrit words which had internal change in structure through Prākritisation) and dēśi (regional) words. The dēśi words were different in structure and meaning from Sanskrit, and were not traceable to Sanskrit through the transformational rules of grammar. They were found in the literary languages of Prākrit in various regions. According to Vikrama Deva (Prākrit grammarian), the following attributes are found in dēśi words: ārsancha (patronized by . literary elites); rūdathvāth (well established in literary Prākrit languages) . and swathamthrathvāchcha (flourished independently). Yet because of these attributes, he concluded that dēśi words could be known or understood through sāmpradāyōhi bōdhakah (tradition) (cited in Rājēśwara Śarma 1973: Part I. p. 242). The tradition was the overarching status of Sanskrit in Indian linguistic analysis. This is accepted as a consensus reached by Prākrit grammarians relating to the qualities of dēśi words and the method to ascertain their meaning. The structure, meaning and origin of dēśi lexicon was a problematic issue for the Prākrit grammarians. Their appraisal of the qualities of dēśi and its well-entrenched position and status among the literary Prākrit languages was objective. At this stage, they were in a quandary,

146 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

and landed up in the whirlpool of traditionalism to explain the meaning of dēśi words. Since Sanskrit was the prakriti of Prākrit, it was impossible for them to step out of the tradition. Yet the non-Sanskritic and independent character of dēśi as well as its considerable diffusion was an unresolved issue in Prākrit grammar. It is difficult to explain the approach of Prākrit grammarians to the problem of origin and meaning of the dēśi lexicon. They were familiar with the linguistic heritage of Buddhism and Jainism, had full knowledge relating to the non-conventional grammatical theories of Sanskrit learning, and were participants in the multilingual scenario of the Indian society of their times. They cultivated excellent knowledge in linguistic studies. Thus, they were well-equipped to establish the source of origin of dēśi dialects and resolve the related issues. It appears that their approach to the problem of dēśi was not appropriate. It is more difficult to explain why the Prākrit grammarians had employed tradition as the source to resolve the problem of dēśi in the linguistic context depicted by them. Traditionalism as a mode of thinking and behaviour was strong and deep enough in Indian culture to produce a typical Indian response to the problems of historical change and development. It was a two-fold response. First, Indian tradition was supposed to be efficacious enough to squarely deal with any phenomena in the ongoing process of historical change. Second, new concepts, ideas, knowledge, technology, etc. would be adapted and absorbed into the tradition with necessary modifications and qualifications. The approach of Prākrit grammarians to dēśi was constructed in terms of the first part of traditionalism. As a result, contrived attempts were resorted to by the pandits to work out and find Sanskrit roots for the transparently non-Sanskritic dēśi words. Another typical response of the pandits is this. The currently available knowledge of Sanskrit roots is incomplete. The exploration of hitherto untapped source materials and concordance of the findings of studies in various branches of Sanskrit learning would help in the construction of full-fledged knowledge of Sanskrit roots at a future date to find Sanskrit roots for the dēśi words. The response of Sanskrit tradition to the problem of dēśi is unsatisfactory. It was assumed that the conclusion of Prākrit grammarians related to dēśyam was implicitly applicable or carried over to the Telugu grammatical tradition. This is not a tenable point. Telugu grammarians neither directly nor indirectly approved the conclusion of Prākrit grammarians regarding the problem of dēśyam. Further, the Telugu grammatical tradition developed and enunciated a comprehensive

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 147

theory regarding dēśyam. Appakavi said, ‘For the people of each and any region, the language of the concerned region is dēśyam, and poetical works which are composed with acquaintance of the nature, structure and meaning of dēśyam through the colloquial usage of people would earn approbation of literary circles (Appakavīyam I. poem 104). It is interesting to note that Appakavi meant his grammar to be a commentary and explanation of Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani. . Appakavi’s scholarship in Sanskrit and his admiration for Sanskrit language and literature were well-known. Yet he laid down three fundamental doctrines relating to dēśyam. First, dēśyam is the native language of the people of the concerned region. Therefore, the source for its origin is the native tongue of the people of each region. Second, the colloquial usage of dēśyam by the people is the criterion to understand and construct word forms of it. The primary source for the derivation of proper linguistic forms and explanation of dēśya words is colloquial usage. It is implied that scholarship and texts of word forms and etymology are of secondary rank and value for the explanation of dēśyam. Third, poetical works which are composed with the acquaintance of dēśyam (its form and meaning) through colloquial usage will win the approval of the literary circles. Thus, the source for dēśyam and the means to understand and construct its correct linguistic forms in words worthy enough to be employed by poets in composing poetical works were laid down by Appakavi. This is a remarkable linguistic concept. It is applicable to the corpus of the dēśi lexicon and literature in India; such a vision and construction of the lexicon and literature was a product of the integrative spirit of synthesis of Āndhra culture. Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika had been produced through similar qualities of scholarship and spirit of Āndhra culture. Appakavi divided Telugu/Āndhra dēśyam into two categories. First, śuddha Āndhra dēśyam (pure native Āndhra speech/dēśya) are words in use among several tribes of Āndhra region; these are clear and shine forth as the pure native speech of Āndhra (Appakavīyam I. poems 107–108) (he gave twenty-four words as examples). Ellis took these words from Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika and compared them with Tamil and Kannada words, conclusively proving that Telugu, Tamil and Kannada are cognate languages. Campbell utilized some of these words to identify the core layer of Telugu language. Second, anyadēśajāmdhrams are Telugu words spoken by people of Āndhra region (who migrated and settled in the neighbourhood regions) in conjunction with dēśya words of other regions (I. poems 108–109). Venkayya designated such terms anyadēśyams (1806: 7), which was a misnomer. A bunch of Telugu

148 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

terms were in usage to designate and distinguish the various categories of traders who were stationed at the ports of Mōtupalli and Masulipatnam in the medieval and early modern periods. Terms such as swadēśi (native traders), paradēśi (foreign traders from Persia, China, etc.) ubhayadēśi (traders who were residents in two regions) and nānādēśi (traders of various regions) are found in Telugu vocabulary (Hanumantha Rao 2000: 256). However, Venkayya’s anyadēśyams alias anyadēśajāmdhrams of Appakavi are Telugu compound words consisting of Telugu and dēśyam terms which have originated in other regions. Venkayya’s usage and definition of anyadēśyams is directly connected with the theory of Dravidian languages. Ellis did not find the root for aga or agu in the compound Telugu word agapadu or agupadadamu (enumerated and analysed by Pattābhirāma Śāstry in Āndhra Dhātumāla, (pp. 26, 31). Ellis traced its root to Tamil and derived the correct meaning of the word. He formulated the critical observation that when the root of a word is not found in the language in which it is used, the root of the word may be found in one of the cognate languages. K. Ramakrishnayya, pioneer in the study of words of cognate lan. guages, explained the value of the study of words of Dravidian languages in the following passage. Thus a study of the cognate words in the various languages of the group will be of help to us in various ways, namely, in tracing the history of form and meaning of words in individual languages, in fixing the etymology of words and determining whether a particular word is of indigenous origin or a borrowing from another group of languages, in tracing the historical development of individual languages, as well as the characteristic features of the original language, from which all others have been derived and lastly in tracing the history and civilization of the people who spoke those languages (1944: XVIII).

Campbell and Ellis utilized some of the materials on Telugu/ Āndhra dēśyam and applied scientific and comparative method to construct the concept of the Dravidian language family. Trautmann, while summing up his masterly observations on the construction of the Dravidian language family, shared his doubt about the validity of the proposition that Telugu language had an independent non-Sanskrit origin. He wrote: Campbell and Ellis referred to the learned linguists of South India themselves as authority for their view of the non-Sanskritic origin of Telugu, as if to counter the authority of the Calcutta orientalists by citing their pandits in

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 149 opposition to those of Bengal. It is not clear that they were entirely correct in doing so, for although the non-Sanskritic origin of words identified as dēśya is certainly a tenet of the Indian grammatical tradition, it does not follow, and does not appear to be the case, that non-Sanskritic origin of particular language was a conceptual possibility within that tradition. The whole analytic rests not so much on a conception of language history as on a conception of a calculus of value, whose two poles are the universal (Sanskrit) and the provincial (dēśya, grāmya) (1997: 154).

He added in the footnote: ‘This idea of universal/provincial in ancient Indian scientific discussion of language comes from Deshpande’s fine book (1993).’ Trautmann raised two important questions. First, is it conceptually possible to think of a non-Sanskrit origin of a language within the framework of the Indian linguistic tradition? Second, is Telugu an independent language of non-Sanskritic origins? His answer to both these questions is clearly, but cautiously, negative. These are the most difficult and complicated questions that beg the themes of pre-colonial, specifically, the ancient Indian linguistic tradition, and the colonial construction of it and its continuation into the twenty-first century. I will give an outline of the themes and offer tentative response to the questions raised by Trautmann. Ancient India was a historical linguistic laboratory in which many languages flourished and developed on account of mutual influence and enrichment, and socio-economic and political change in the society. The Indian linguistic tradition comprised of Sanskrit, on the one hand, and Prākrit and regional dialects of dēśābhās.a, on the other. It is graphically referred to in the traditional idiom as marga (universal) and dēśi (regional). The historical relationship of Sanskrit and Prākrit (with its regional dialects of dēśābhās.a), is an open-ended process of mutual influence on each other. It was a multi-lingual environment. The dynamics of political, religious and economic change, across the historical time till the twelfth century AD and the space of several regions of India, provided opportunities for predominance of either Sanskrit or Prākrit. For example, in Āndhra region Prākrit was dominant as official language under Sātavahanā rule, and under the aegis of Buddhism from the third century BC to the third century AD, and Sanskrit was predominant as the language of the royal courts under the rule of sub-regional dynasties and as the religious language of rising cults of Hinduism from the fourth century AD to the tenth century AD. But Telugu dēśi or dēśyam was the language of common people

150 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

throughout this long period. Several dialects of tribal languages and Prākrit also prevailed in the region. It was the ebb and flow of high tide for Sanskrit and Prākrit in the sea of historical change of Indian society. This is a less explored field of study. Even the construction of the historical dictionary of Sanskrit language was not completed. Therefore, we can only note the broad contours of the field of study. There are two schools of linguistic tradition regarding the relationship between the Sanskrit and Prākrit languages. First, Sanskrit is designated nitya (eternal) and siddha (established). It is the language of gods. Sanskrit was prakriti (source) for Prākrit as well as all other Indian languages. As this is a well-known tenet, there is no need to elaborate the proposition. Some of the Indian languages were designated apabrahmśa tongues (corrupt forms of Sanskrit) depending upon the degree of deviation from the refined Sanskrit. Second, there was another linguistic tradition which was quite influential in ancient Indian society, but was pushed into a state of oblivion due to a number of social and historical reasons. It had maintained that Prākrit and its regional dialects of dēśābhās.a were the original languages of the common people (Prākrts) in different regions of India. Sanskrit was constructed in the most perfect form and structure through a long historical process of refinement, experiment with and reform of its orthography, word forms, usage, grammatical rules, etc., and with the deployment of linguistic materials of Prākrit dialects. Therefore, Prākrit was the source of Sanskrit (Ādinārāyan.a Śāstry 1933: 196–223, rpt 1994; Gōplala Krishnayya 1974: 83–102; Sōmayāji 1968: 63–65; Śrīrāmachandrudu 2002: 14–16). This theory was published by P. Ādinārāyan.a Śāstry, distinguished scholar of Sanskrit and Prākrit, and a product of the Kāśi gurukula tradition (Benaras School of Sanskrit learning). Chatterji wrote: ‘The Hināyana Buddhists using Pālī scriptures were taught that Pālī wrongly called Māgadhī was the “Root-language” (mūla-bhāsa) . …’ (1965: 6). The Buddhist tradition considered Pālī to be ‘the supreme original language of all beings including gods’ (Deshpande 1979: 41). It was a principle with Buddhists that dēśībhāsha (regional language) should be employed to spread the new religion among the people. It was a linguistic concept which conferred prestige and status on the people’s tongue. For Jains, Ardhamāgadhī was the language of gods (dēvās) and sages (ārsha) (Sriramachandrudu 2002: V). Mahavīra preached his discourses in Ardhamāgadhī. Jain scriptures were written

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 151

in Ardhamāgadhī. Jains upheld the theory that Ardhamāgadhī was the original Prākrit language and all other languages were its descendants. The literary tradition of Jains had cultivated high respect for dēśībhās. a. This concept gave support to regional languages (Deshpande 1979: 58–62). The Buddhist concept of the people’s language, and the literary criterion of the Jains that a poet should be respected for literary merit in his own language had remarkable influence on the development of dēśībhās. a in the Indian linguistic tradition. Literature in several branches of knowledge was constructed in dēśībhās.a by poets and scholars. As many as eighteen dēśabhās.as flourished in different regions of India, and proficiency in dēśibhās.a was an integral part of traditional Indian knowledge of sixty-four arts and sciences (Ādinārāyan.a Śāstry 1994: 67). A dēśi style and method of recitation of poetical works under the auspices of literary academies (parishats) was prevalent in ancient and medieval India (ibid.). As pointed out by Madhav M. Deshapande, ..we may find that the status of a given language varied with the status of the peoples who spoke that language. The Abhīrās are believed to be a foreign tribe. In Pāninī’s grammar, they are viewed as Śūdras. But in the second . century AD there is a reference to an Abhīrā sēnāpati ‘army commander’. Gradually, the Abhīrās acquired the status of Ksatriyās locally. This shows . the process of upgrading the status of such tribes, which must have led to the upgrading of their languages as well (1979: 61).

Social mobility was an agent for improvement of the status and development of languages in ancient and medieval Indian society. Rājaśēkhara, renowned author of Kāvayamīmāmsa and other works, claimed that ‘Prākrit is the source Sanskrit. This probably means that Sanskrit poetry has Prākrit poetry for its source and not that Sanskrit as a language is derived from the Prākrit language’ (ibid.: 58). Jain authors extolled the qualities of Prākrit and had a low opinion of Sanskrit. Jayavallabha, author of Vijjalaggam (op. cit.: 59), was hostile to Sanskrit. Prākrit was the medium for the production of rich secular and religious literature. Jain and Buddhist religious and philosophical texts and secular literature were written in Prākrit dialects. The decline of Jain and Buddhist religions and ascendant Hinduism marginalized the role of Prākrit in the creation of the Indian linguistic tradition. In fact, the marginalization of Prākrit and the projection of Sanskrit as the essential, immemorial and enduring centre of the linguistic tradition was an interlinked and two-pronged process pursued by

152 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

the reinvigorated Hinduism and the scholars of Sanskrit. As a consequence, the role of Sanskrit was constructed as the centrepiece of the linguistic tradition. The native pandits, who taught Sanskrit to the British Orientalists, were largely drawn from Bengal (Gauda Dēśa), which was a reputed region for Sanskrit learning (Nabadvīpa gurukula tradition). They conveyed to the British scholar-administrators that Sanskrit was the source/ mother for all Indian languages. British Orientalism, as a body of textual knowledge and as a policy position, strongly helped to reiterate. The joint endeavour of the native pandits and British Orientalists constructed a wider, enduring framework of Indian civilization, and the Sanskrit-centred linguistic tradition was the chief agent of its knowledge base as well as an important constituent element of it. Bernard Cohn specially pointed out the role of British Orientalism as a policy position under the rubric of colonial rule in promoting a total alteration of the scenario of the sources of Indian civilization and of the linguistic tradition. He observed: In 1772 Warren Hastings, Governor of Bengal … decided as part of a plan for the governance of this territory that East India Company’s courts would administer Hindu law for Hindus and Muslim law for Muslims. This decision had ramifying consequences which eventually led to the notion that Indian civilization was founded on particular Sanskrit texts. By the middle of the nineteenth century these were conceived to be the very embodiment of an authentic India. The idea of the primacy of the Sanskrit component in Indian Civilization then became the determinant of action, policy and structure, not only for the rulers but for many of the ruled. What had been fluid, complex, even unstructured, became fixed, objective, tangible (1990: 46).

Sheldon Pollock, even though he did not endorse it, accepted the critique of Orientalism in Indian studies as a ‘compelling’ factor for comprehension and appraisal of pre-modern Indian culture and society. He summarized the critique of colonial rule and Orientalism, and wrote ‘… that to a substantial degree it was British colonialism that, in cooperation with orientalism, “traditionalized” society in such a way that it took on a form, a hegemonic Sanskritized form, that it may never really have had’ (1993: 97). It was one of the unintended by-products of the British rule. But it had contributed in the construction of a distorted picture of traditional Indian society. It is also one of the central and contested themes of public discourse in contemporary India. In the words of Romila Thapar, the study of history may be addressed to

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 153

correct or rectify such historically constructed misrepresentation of the past, which has a bearing on the present society in several sectors. If we are to better understand the nature of Indian society today, the history of pre-modern or the pre-colonial has to be analysed in ways different from the analyses developed in colonial times. New analysis have inevitably to draw on a historigraphical understanding of the context of historical concepts, with reference to both early and recent history (1996: 7).

The approach of British Orientalists to the study of languages was informed by the concept that language was a sign of national identity. Therefore, they easily subscribed to the claim of native pandits that Sanskrit was the fountainhead of the Indian linguistic tradition. H. T. Colebrooke constructed the theory of linguistic unity of India via Sanskrit; the vernacular, ‘polished’, Prākrit languages were said to be descendants of Sanskrit (1801: 219). The formulation of the Indo-European language family and the discovery of the similarity of Sanskrit with its European cousins was an accomplishment of William Jones2 and of the Calcutta Oriental establishment. Therefore, the British Orientalists of Calcutta admired Sanskrit and helped diffuse the idea that Sanskrit was the mother of Indian languages. The reprints, reviews and translations of the essays published in Asiatic Researches were widely circulated in Europe. Alexander Hamilton, Max Mueller and other Sanskritists promoted the concept that Sanskrit was the basis for Indian culture and linguistic tradition. A. A. Macdonnel observed: ‘Since the renaissance there has been no event of such world-wide significance in the history of culture as the discovery of Sanskrit Literature in the latter part of the eighteenth century’ (cited in Kejariwal 1988: 1). Thus, the tenet of the premier role of Sanskrit in the making of Indian civilization gained legitimacy in international forums. These studies and publications played a critical role in the making of the new discipline of Comparative Philology in the second and third decades of nineteenth century, and later in determining the central thrust of It is fair to note the analysis of Hindi language by William Jones. He said that nine-tenths of Hindi could be traced back to Sanskrit. But the remaining one-tenth was pure Hindi and the primitive language of north India prior to the arrival of Sanskrit. Perhaps it was the language of nomads from central Asia (1807: 3, pp. 33–34). Jones was objective and sensitive enough to admit the possibility of the existence of pure Hindi as primeval language in north India prior to the arrival of Sanskrit. 2

154 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Indological studies, especially in Germany. These developments confirmed the authority and authenticity of the doctrine that Sanskrit had been the lifeline of Indian civilization and linguistic tradition. These factors converged and pitchforked Sanskrit to the centre-stage of the Indian linguistic tradition, and constructed the theory that all Indian languages were descendants of Sanskrit. Therefore, Sanskrit was the embodiment of marga and other languages constituted dēśi (provincial) in the words of Deshpande and Trautmann. These are the basic components of the Indian linguistic tradition. Further, Sanskrit was the basis of the linguistic unity of India and hence it was the sign of national identity. Therefore, the concept or conceptual possibility of the existence of an independent language either on a par or simultaneously with Sanskrit was not tenable within the framework of the linguistic tradition, which was partly constructed in the post-Buddhist era of ancient India, and was carved into a full-fledged doctrine in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries by the joint studies of native pandits and British Orientalists in Calcutta. It gathered momentum in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and continued into the twenty-first century. The ancient Indian linguistic tradition was rooted in the civilizational perspective of which the cultural significance of language was a basic attribute. People who hailed from several ethnic stock inhabited different regions of India and each group spoke and cultivated a language. They developed dialects of speech in the same language due to the influence of geographical features of the region, social and economic change, influence of external linkages, etc. This fundamental feature of Indian society has been characterized as a multilingual, multi-religious, multi-ethnic and plural cultural tradition. As a result, many languages have originated and flourished in India. Dēśi or dēśabhās.a is a regional tongue with layers of dialects. Sanskrit and Prākrit were pan-Indian languages of the elite strata, political and religious establishments and of literary discourse in different periods of historical time and in several regions. Both Sanskrit and Prākrit enriched and transformed the dēśi languages, and this helped the formation of vernacular languages. Cohn’s felicitous words convey the sprit of Indian linguistic tradition as ‘… fluid, complex, even unstructured …’ (1990: 46). Given this legacy of the Indian linguistic tradition, it appears that the origin, formation and growth of independent languages in the early phase of the development of the society in various regions was a clear possibility. Undoubtedly, Sanskrit exercised determinate influence on dēśi languages in the later stages of the development of society. In fact,

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 155

Campbell and native pandits were on record regarding the overwhelming influence of Sanskrit on Telugu and of inseparable intermixture of Sanskrit and Telugu. The analytic of mārga and dēśi as two poles of the Indian linguistic tradition with the overarching influence of Sanskrit was constructed and maintained by the Sanskrit grammarians and pandits of ancient India in the period that followed Bharata’s Nātya śāstra. The Prākrit authors and the Jain and Buddhist traditions did not endorse it. Some Prākrit grammarians considered apabhrahmśa dialect (imperfect form of Sanskrit) as a language. Therefore, its words were pure, even though Śūdra groups used these words more frequently. Thus the multilingual and ethnological base of Indian society was implicit in the civilizational perspective of the linguistic tradition. It is appropriate to examine the conceptual possibility of the origin and growth of independent languages in ancient India in this historical context. Another aspect of the mārga and dēśya/dēśi relationship in the Indian linguistic tradition deserves to be analysed. It is an aspect of the problem and process of dialectical interaction between the enduring and pervasive Indian civilization and ‘the perennial nuclear regions’ of Indian society and culture (cited in Embree 1989: 9). The issue of regional identity and culture vis-à-vis the enduring and overarching Indian civilization from the ancient to present times is a hazy, complex and contentious problem. It is further compounded by the concept and politics of modern nation-state. The usual and often cited cliché of Vincent Smith that India embodies unity in diversity (1923: IX) is not helpful in improving capacity to deal with the problem either in conceptual or organizational terms. It is convenient to understand the concept of regional culture and ofthe framework of interaction between regional culture and Indian civilization. R. S. Sharma observed: The problem of defining a region is difficult. The geographical and ecological factors can mark out a region. But what really marks it out is the prevalence of its own specific mode of life articulated through its language, art, literature, culture and social practices. Of all these language is considered the crucial factor because it binds the people together. The regional language becomes all the more important when it possesses it own script in which literate people can express and propagate their ideas. … What do we except (expect) of a regional historian? We expect him to bring out not only the specificities of a region in the context of time, space and

156 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages modes of livelihood but also the general trends it shares with the rest of the country. What is common in the country needs to be brought out in conjunction with what is typical of a particular region. Further the elements of typicality in a region have to be identified and explained (1990: 1–2).

The dialogue between mārga and dēśi was a complex and varied process in several regions of India. The main problem is this: How did mārga become a striking and dominant feature of dēśi? Dēśi imitated the linguistic tradition and themes, conventions, style and prosody of mārga. This was a general trend and pan-Indian linguistic pattern. It was simply Sanskritization of the dēśi literary tradition. But another pattern of relationship between mārga and dēśi prevailed and flourished in some regions and for certain periods of historical time due to the impact of socio-economic, political and cultural change. In this model, dēśi sought to preserve its independent character and identity while it adapted and absorbed the chief elements of the linguistic tradition of mārga. Such a trait was a distinct feature of Telugu dēśi vis-à-vis mārga. It was embodied in the following proposition of Telugu dēśi. Mārga should be employed according to the literary idiom of dēśi, or mārga which could not be adapted into the literary tradition of dēśi should be rejected (Gopala Krishnayya 1974: 106). Nanne Choda Deva, a prominent poet of medieval Āndhra, said, ‘Mārgaku mārgamu dēśīya mārgamu’ (Kumara Sambhavamu I. 28). It means the literary idiom and dialect of dēśi is the route of access to mārga (Sanskrit). Telugu dēśi incorporated native literary conventions, style and metre into mārga. This is a striking feature of literary tradition of Telugu dēśi. It had been consciously developed by poets as a literary trait in the poetical works of Sanskritized Telugu as well. A. Murali . argued persuasively the development of the Telugu dēśi literary style was a product of the dynamics of development of material culture of the society in medieval Āndhra in terms of changes in the pattern of ownership of land and agrarian expansion, diversification of professional work with stress on productive labour and material prosperity, and growth of trade and commercial activity. The change in material culture of the society helped the emergence of new elite groups, prosperous social and artisanal classes, and professional groups. The new classes sought social equality and mobility. The traditional social order was rigid and was sanctified by the Sanskritized Telugu literature. Therefore, the new social classes patronized Telugu dēśi literary style, which produced literary works that put premium and value on social equality, productive labour and material progress, under the auspices of Śavism (1994).

Telugu Grammatical Tradition . 157

The prosody of dēśi is qualitatively of a different kind in terms of metre, rhyme, beat (tala), and tune from the prosody of mārga. The former is constructed on the rhymes and tunes of songs. Chatterji observed: ‘Owing to the presence of common words for poetical composition in the Southern Dravidian languages like the Tamil and Malayalam pātt . . u, Telugu pāt. u, Kannada pat. u>hat. u, it would appear that there was doubtless a primitive Dravidian inheritance of verse compositions for all the cultivated South Dravidian languages’ (1965: 67). The literary heritage of verse compositions (oral as well as textual) was dēśi Telugu literature. According to K. Satyanarayana, the form of dēśi literature was ‘mostly in song, ballad and lyric. It is independent of Sanskrit. It is essentially rural in character …. The mother at the cradle, the maids at work, the lovers in the moonlight and the toilers in the fields are some of its themes’ (1975: 362). The common people were its patrons, and the popular and various folk-art forms were its mainstay. The songs of primitive as well as common idiom of rural folk with musical tunes and rhythm are the basis for the composition of a variety of Telugu poems and verses with distinct styles. S. Narasayya demonstrated that the songs of common people have been the basis for such compositions (including Sanskritized Telugu poetical works) and with varied systems of metre and rhyme during the last 1,500 years (1991). It is well acknowledged that the metre of mārga is of a different order from the metre of dēśi. Vedam Venkataraya Śāstry noted: Telugu prosody is distinctly non-Sanskritic in origin and has much in common with Tamil than Kannada, though later verses are all modelled after Sanskrit Vrttas, with alterations to suit Telugu rules of prosody. Yati . and Prāsa are the two distinct features of Telugu versification. Telugu yati, though corresponding to the Sanskrit viśramasthāna, is different from . it … Prāsa is not found in Sanskrit (1975: 9).

Yati and prāsa are, respectively, the central and vertical rhymes of Telugu versification. Telugu language and literature embody the primary language of Āndhra region and its culture, and the borrowed language (Sanskrit) of Indian civilization. It is an entity in which important linguistic elements — alphabet, syntax, prosody, and other grammatical features of both the languages (Telugu and Sanskrit) — are harmoniously blended into a pattern. Telugu exemplifies the observation relating to the unity of India that ‘… one can accept the enduring significance

158 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

of the nuclear regions of historical geography while at the same time asserting the reality of an all-India civilization’ (Embree 1989: 9). The second question raised by Trautmann is related to the possibility of independent origin of Telugu. In spite of the pervasive influence of Sanskrit on Telugu, the native tradition of Telugu grammar steadfastly upheld the doctrine that Telugu language was independent in its origins and in the early phase of its development. Telugu grammarians recall a period in the history of Telugu when it flourished as an independent language. It was a pure, simple language, efficacious enough to convey the physical activities and mental process of cognitive reflection of people. At a later stage, Sanskrit words were introduced into Telugu, and Sanskrit exercised sweeping and profound influence on Telugu. In spite of the tremendous hold of Sanskrit in the Indian linguistic tradition, Telugu maintained its phonetic laws and morphological structure, which were its natural attributes. It kept up its independent spirit and character, and admitted Sanskrit terms with due modifications and alterations according to its morphological structure and rules.

The Problem . 159

5 Telugu Language — Site For Formulation of Dravidian Language Family This chapter is an elucidation of the proposition that Telugu language was the site for formulation of the concept of the Dravidian language family in 1816. I begin with Campbell’s fine sentiment that Telugu is ‘… one of the most ancient, useful and elegant languages of India …’ (1816: Passage of Dedication of Campbell’s Grammar to Francis Rawdon Hastings, Governor-General of India, hereafter cited as Passage of Dedication). These words are pregnant with meaning and have a direct bearing on the theme of this chapter and are a token tribute to Campbell. Campbell’s history of Telugu language and Āndhra region may not be impressive today. But as maiden account of the themes written in 1816 with the constraint of access to limited and unfamiliar source materials, it is a fine accomplishment. Previous chapters have discussed aspects of the antiquity and elegance of Telugu. This chapter will discuss the utility of Telugu for the colonial regime in order to explain why and how Telugu was a tissue for building the theory of the Dravidian languages. Campbell was Member-Secretary of the Board of Superintendence (1812–1820) of the College of Fort St George. He … had frequent opportunities of observing the disadvantages under which the Teloogoo students laboured, from the want of a work on the elements of that language. An attempt to remove this impediment was a duty which the author’s situation in some degree imposed; and actuated by this motive, as well as by a desire to rescue Teloogoo from the undeserved neglect in which its great difficulty involved it, and to extend among his countrymen the knowledge of a language spoken by a large portion of the native subjects of the British government in the South of India (1816: Advertisement), he authored and published Teloogoo Grammer.

Campbell said, ‘acquaintance with the character, customs, and manners of the fine race of ...’ Telugu people through their language, and the diffusion of Telugu language ‘… among the civil and military servants ….’ of the British government will improve its efficiency, and

160 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

secure ‘… the security and happiness of its subjects …’ The chief object of Campbell’s Grammar was ‘the promotion of the interests of the Great Empire …’ and it was designated ‘public utility’ (Passage of Dedication). Ranajit Guha noted that ‘… the word “public”, the first term of a . dictionary hitherto unknown to Indian politics’ was introduced and understood ‘… as an attribute of master’s domain — the domain of the colonial state’ (1998: 158). It is interesting to note that Campbell as a matter of simple and direct observation, and Guha in an interpretative analysis of the nature of British colonialism constructed identical meaning for the term ‘public interest’, but derived and advocated diametrically opposite conclusions. For Campbell, the efficiency of the British government would promote peace, security and prosperity of the native people. For Guha, the domain of the colonial state would enhance the burden of taxation on the colonized people and disrupt their occupational and life pattern. Perhaps Campbell was right in the context of Madras Presidency, and Guha was correct in the scenario of Bengal Presidency. Such was the degree of diversity of the meaning and impact of colonial rule in different regions of India. Or else Oriental knowledge or Orientalism embodied varied shades of meaning and had been and is employed by multiple agents in the pursuit of different agendas. This is one of the problematic aspects of Oriental knowledge which will be elaborated on in Chapter 6. Naturally, the government patronized Campbell’s Grammar, and it was published and marketed by the College Press. Thus, the utility of the study and knowledge of Telugu for the colonial regime had been explicitly acknowledged and recorded. Hence Telugu was ‘useful’ for the promotion of vital interests of British colonialism in its early phase in Madras Presidency. Campbell commenced the history of Telugu and Āndhra region with a description of territorial extent of the Telugu speaking area in south India. It extends … from the Dutch settlement of Publicat on the Coast of Coromandel, inland to the vicinity of Bangalore, stretches northwards, along the coast as far as Chicacole; and in the interior to the sources of Tapti; bounded on the east by the Bay of Bengal, and on the west by an irregular line, passing through the western districts belonging to the Soubahdar of the Deccan, and cutting off the most eastern provinces of the new state of Mysore: …, the greater portion of the Nizam’s extensive territories; … (1816: i).

It is the most prominent area in Madras Presidency as well as in south India. He traced the history of Telugu language and Āndhra region in

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 161

the ancient period based on traditional sources. He availed the help of Colonel McKenzie (Colin Mackenzie), and reported the fall of Warankul (Orukallu or Warangal) in 1323 and the foundation and growth of the trans regional Vizianagara Empire. The political forces and developments of this historical context changed the pattern of economic and social life of the interior regions of the northern Coromandel Coast and exercised determinate influence on the growth of ports and the formation and working of the business communities. The emergence of Bījapur and Go- lconda as regional Islamic kingdoms in Deccan in the fifteenth century helped in the transformation of the social, economic and commercial life of the northern Coromandel, and the rise and development of Masulipatnam port. The Persian connection as well as the pan-Islamic linkages of Go- lconda opened the West Asian, Persian and SouthEast Asian markets for the export of textiles of the northern Coromandel. The Persian merchants were key players in the interAsian trade and commercial network, and Masulipatnam was its centre. Naturally, Masulipatnam became the headquarters of the Northern Circars under the Qutub Shāhi rule of Go- lconda. ‘The great Go- lconda mines’ were ‘… the world’s sole supplies …’ of diamonds ‘from ancient times until the early eighteenth century…’ (Dalrymple 2002: 112). Diamonds were exported to the European market by the English merchants (Mentz 1996). Dalrymple noted that ‘Masulipatnam had once been the principal trading station on Coromandel coast and in the seventeenth century had grown to become a port of international importance, providing access to the rich bazaars of the kingdom of Go- lconda at the peak of its power and importance’ (2002: 41). More significantly, it was the hub of sea-borne trade to Southeast Asia, West Asia and China (Arasaratnam and Ray 1994; and Krishna Rao 2003: 93–97). The cosmopolitan business community of Masulipatnam comprised of merchants from Persia, Armenia, West Asia and European countries and of course the native traders. The Persian merchants operated in Masulipatnam from the latter half of the sixteenth century, and tapped the Persian market for the textile goods of Coromandel (Subrahmanyam 1988: 513; Sudhir and Swarnalatha 1992: 146). The Persian connection cultivated by the Company at Masulipatnam was one of the props that helped it to gain a foothold in the Persian market as well as the Central Asian market. These factors were the basis for the establishment of the Company’s first factory on the Coromandel Coast in Masulipatnam in 1623.

162 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Masulipatnam and its hinterland of 5,000 sq. miles, comprising of Nizampatnam (port on the south of river Krishna) . and its Circar and Kondapally Circar (interior territory on the north of river Krishna), . was the first territorial acquisition of the Company in India from the Niza-m of Hyderabad (14 May 1759). British regime in India commenced in the lower Krishna . valley, the cradle of classical culture of Āndhra region, and of Telugu people and language. The Northern Circars, covering the ‘rich and fertile’ deltaic region of rivers Krishna . and Gōdāvary was acquired by the Company in 1766 (Mason 1974: 87). It has a long coastline with a network of ports: Nizampatnam, Masulipatnam, Narasapur, Jagannadhapuram, Bhimilipatnam, Vizagpatnam and Kalingapatnam, and a number of minor ports. Bayly said: ‘The whole tract was highly productive and commercialized.’ He cited a British report of 1776: ‘… the forests to the west produce teak and other valuable woods; they have mines which might furnish iron for many useful purposes; saltpetre is made on the border of Guntur Circar; the sugar-cane grows luxuriantly in Rajahmundry Circar; and over the whole country are weavers in great numbers’, which testified the economic and commercial value of the region for the Company (1987: 56–57). S. Arasaratnam noted: ‘The weavers of this part of the country were proficient craftsmen whose goods were highly desired for overseas market’ (1979: 34). The region produced fine cotton textiles (dyed and printed designs) and also coarse cloth to the European, Persian and SouthEast Asian markets (Brenning 1986: 333–56; Sudhir and Swarnalatha 1992: 145–69). The region produced chintz — florally printed fabric for export to England and Netherlands. It was an exclusive product of the lower Krishn.a valley (Crill 2007). The textile industry — the production and business of textile goods in the Northern Circars from the latter half of the seventeenth century had a multiplier effect on the agrarian, social, economic and cultural development of the region. The region supplied paddy, a cereal food grain in good demand, to Madras and other centres (Somasekhara Sarma 1959: 523—33). Palakollu, a manufacturing and trading centre in the Gōdāvary delta, was known for its iron foundry and saltpetre works (Kail 1981: 86). The availability of fine varieties of wood, iron straps and nails, and skilled craftsmen and opportunities for overseas export of textiles to SouthEast Asia stimulated boat and ship-building enterprise. Narasapure and Modapallam on the branches of River Gōdāvary ‘… were developed as ship-building centres with the state support (Arasaratnam and Ray 1994: xv; Somasekhara Sarma 1959: 533). Large boats and ships worthy

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 163

of sea voyage were constructed and repaired at some centres and minor ports. For example, ‘Mir Jumla (more precisely Mir Muhammad Said Astarabadi, Mir Jumla) constructed a ship of 800 tons capacity at Narasapur, a port and ship-building centre on the Godavari river in northern Coromandel in 1638’ (Brenning 1977: 325 fn. 10). The region was a centre of intense rivalry between the Portuguese, Dutch, English, and French trading Companies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for trade, rental rights on salt and saltpetre and control over ports. Therefore, ‘The Northern Circars had been the scene of some of the English Company’s earliest trading and diplomatic ventures …’ (Bayly 1987: 56). The Telugu-speaking Northern Circars were very valuable to the Company. The Company’s trade declined after 1750. The private trade of Englishmen in India as well as in the overseas market of SouthEast Asia increased significantly (Furber 1948: 160–206). It was diversified in terms of goods and market networks; Masulipatnam, Injeram, Vizagpatnam and other centres emerged as focal points. The region was a strong base and provided ample opportunities for the expansion of such trade. The colonial government of Madras tacitly supported the growth of private trade in the region. It is needless to add that Telugu was ‘useful’ in the promotion of the commercial interests and objectives of the Company and of private trade. The concept and institution of professional soldiers or battalions of infantry (army) was introduced by the European trading Companies. The goods and men of the Companies required protection at the forts and during the transit passage to the forts. The rival trading Companies dabbled in local politics for the promotion of trading interests and participated in local wars. The participation of well-trained infantry gradually emerged as a regular, significant factor in local politics and wars of south India in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This is a well-known cycle of trade being followed by diplomacy and flag in colonial history. The East India Company’s infantry comprised of men who were properly drilled, disciplined, organized, trained and commanded by officers. The soldiers wore uniform and were paid salary and allowances. These infantry battalions were referred to or called ‘telingas’, ‘… which was the name the English had used of their first Telugu-speaking sepoys in Madras …’ (Mason 1974: 97). The term ‘telinga’ was used to designate the battalions of infantry. For example, Mir Kasim’s best troops, four battalions of infantry, were called ‘telingas’. It had been said the battle of Plassey was won by ‘telingas’, even though there were no Telugu

164 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

soldiers in the Company’s army at Plassey (ibid.: 96–97; Bankimchandra Chatopadhyaya Bankim Rachanavali 2: 337 cited in Guha 1998: 210). It seems Telugu soldiers constituted a substantial part of the infantry of the Company. It is necessary to note Cohn’s significant observation in this connection. ‘“Gentu” or “Telinga” was found in what is Āndhra, but was also widely diffused in South India, reflecting the presence as mercenaries of large number of Telingas in the South Indian armies’ (1985: 299). This phenomenon was a product of the historical development which took shape in Āndhra region. According to Talbot, the thirteenth century was a period of profound structural change in Āndhra society and polity, which exercised far-reaching influence on south Indian history and society from the fourteenth century to the early half of the nineteenth century. Some peasant caste/groups emerged as warrior clans headed by regional chiefs under the patronage of Kākatīya polity and ‘… were elevated to a higher status through incorporation into royal network’ (1994: 284). It was the introduction of the Nayankara system. It was the culture of growing militarism of Telugu warriors of peasant stock, who constituted numerically strong groups. The warrior groups emerged as the ruling class in the countryside of Āndhra in the latter half of the thirteenth and early part of the fourteenth centuries during Kākatīya rule. After the fall of the Kākatīya dynasty in 1323, a few Nāyaka chiefs established themselves and survived as ruling families in some regions of Āndhra. They were well-acquainted with the methods of warfare and campaigns of the Islamic forces. The Muslim conquest of Āndhra dislodged and drove Telugu warrior clans along with their bands of men towards the south (Stein 1979: 190–93). Later they moved far deep into the Tamil region along with the victorious campaigns of Vijayanagara Empire. Campbell noted that Telugu people ‘… are scattered all over Dravida and Carnataca provinces’ deputed by Vijayanagara kings to control their conquests, and ‘occasionally emigrated from telingana to avoid famine or oppression’ (1816: i). This is a strikingly accurate observation. The fall of Vijayanagara Empire in the sixteenth century further intensified the process of movement of Nāyaka chiefs and their men towards the South. As a consequence, there was available a good body of men of Telugu origin who were associated with and willing to join and serve the military service of the European Companies in and around Madras, and other trading and ruling centres in the south. The European Companies as well as the native rulers in the South found it convenient to recruit and train native soldiers from the handy stock of men of telugu origin. This is the historical background

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 165

for ‘… the presence of mercenaries of large number of Telingas in the South Indian armies’. The Company recruited a large number of native sepoys of Telugu origin. This is testified by the following event: ‘In 1706 three companies of “Gentoos” which here means “Hindus”; in Madras it meant “speakers of Telugu” were disbanded for neglect of duty’ (Mason 1974: 31). The visible presence of Telugu sepoys in the Company’s infantry was a compelling historical reality, and its shadow was cast on this problem. Campbell mentioned the value of diffusion of Telugu among the ‘military servants’ of the Company. Even though Persian was the official language of the Company’s army establishment, it was considered that knowledge of Telugu was a valuable input in handling the problems and concerns of a large number of soldiers of Telugu origin in the Company’s infantry battalions. Thus Telugu was ‘useful’ in safeguarding the security and safety of the colonial government in Madras Presidency. We have noticed earlier that Nāyaka chiefs and Telugu warriors migrated to the south in the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Nāyaka chiefs were products of and prominent participants in the shaping and functioning of the Kākatīya political order. Kākatīya polity was known for, among other features, political control over the far-off regions (and their resources) of the kingdom ‘… exercised by kings through their delegated officers …’ (Talbot 1994: 288, 2001). This distinctive feature of Kākatīya rule was further consolidated in the Vijayanagara Empire. Moreover, the Nāyaka chiefs imbibed the practice of the Mughal revenue administration, which secured optimal collection of revenue and control over the resources of the regions of empire. This skeletal account of the historical background is reported to explain the meaning and effects of the penetration of Nāyaka chiefs and Telugu warrior clans deep into the south. The Nāyaka chiefs moved with military, administrative, commercial and cultural paraphernalia into the Tamil region and established kingdoms in Madurai, Tanjore and Jinji and small estates at several centres. Analysing the significance of these developments for south Indian society, Joseph Brenning commented: ‘Telugu warrior chiefs, the Nayakas, established numerous small regional polities which transformed the Tamil country’s political life in subsequent centuries … They were more capable than those who dominated the preceding political system to mobilize the agricultural surplus. New courts and urban centres arose’ (1977: 322). The rise of Nāyaka chiefs as the ruling power in Tamil region led to the migration of diverse groups of Telugu

166 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

people to the South. The warriors, soldiers and others who were connected with the military profession, the kith and kin of Nāyaka chiefs and Balija Chetties (merchants) accompanied Nāyaka chiefs. Kōmaties (Telugu merchants) migrated to the South, settled in various centres and played a significant role in the promotion of trade and related activities in the South (Stein 1979: 193–94). Artisanal groups and those who worked in the service sector settled in centres of political power, trade and cultural patronage. Thus, numerous groups of Telugu people were dispersed and settled in the interior parts of the Tamil region during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Another momentous historical development accelerated the movement of Telugu people of different strata to Madras and its neighbourhood region, Pulicat (headquarters of the Dutch Company) and other trading centres on the southern Coromandel Coast. The arrival of European trading Companies and establishment of nodal points of trade on the southern Coromandel Coast in the seventeenth century stimulated economic activity and enlarged scope for production of goods and trade (Prakash 1998). The trading and commercial operations of the rival European Companies were a determinative force in the social and economic development of the Coromandel Coast and its hinterland. The ruler of Chandragiri (a descendant of Vijayanagara Empire) granted a stretch of land to the East India Company in 1639 and Fort St George was constructed at the place then called Śrī Ranga Rāja Patanam. Later it was known as Chinnapatanam and finally Madraspatanam, the capital of Madras Presidency. The Company’s trade and private trade of Englishmen gradually increased in the seventeenth century and its growth, especially in textile trade, was phenomenal after 1690. The demand for bulk supplies of specific variety cotton textiles and the investment of capital by the European companies stimulated the growth of production and trade. The operationalization of the production process and export trade of textiles was a complex business enterprise. The Companies required agents to book orders for supply of textiles, monitor the progress of production, pay advance credit and deliver yarn to the indigenous traders, maintain quality control of goods, collect and deliver goods at the ports to meet the shipping schedules, etc. The Company appointed ‘chief merchants’ and ‘merchants’ to manage the market operations of production and trade of textiles (Brenning 1977: 321–40).

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 167

It was a vast business network and generated ample opportunities for gainful trade and employment for the natives. Arasaratnam noted that ‘The merchants who were drawn into close relationships with the English came from many castes. The largest number were those of various Chetty sub-castes, the most prominent being Balija Chetties and Kōmaties’ (1979: 20). Balija Chetties and Kōmaties were Telugu people. They were ‘prominent’ groups in the trading community and ‘were drawn into close relationships with the English’. Brenning observed: ‘… Kōmati caste, a large Telugu speaking merchant community spread widely in South India’ in the seventeenth century (1977: 335). They reached out to all centres, including villages, which provided opportunities for trade and related activities. The rise and prosperity of Ko- maties flourished during the period of the Company as a trading firm. It has a direct connection with the problem under study here in the sense that Venkayya, author of Āndhra Dīpika, was a Kōmati. Venkayya and his text played a crucial role in formulation of the concept of the Dravidian language family, which I will discuss a little later. Telugu Brāhmins moved to Madras as dubāshes. Dubāshes were next to merchants in terms of rank and influence. Telugu Brāhmins, specially the niyōgis (those in secular professions), worked as revenue officers and tax farmers in Go-lconda, and as karan.ams (village revenue accountants) in Vijayanagara Empire. Their knowledge relating to land systems and revenue matters and problems, and their skills in writing and interpreting official documents earned them positions of authority in the Company’s government, and in the management of trade. A few emerged as tax farmers. A good number of them joined the ranks of gumasthās (clerks) and worked in government offices, warehouses and in the establishment of private English traders and native merchants. The Company Circar facilitated the ascendancy and advancement of Brāhmins. It is interesting to note that the Company, as a trading and commercial enterprise till 1770, promoted the rise of Kōmatis as partners and key players in trade, whereas the Company’s Circar, after 1770, helped the rise of Brāhmins as the bureaucratic power behind the throne. Fort St George and Madras town required manpower on a considerable scale in the service sector and business-related activities. Telugu people of lower strata were employed in the skilled and semiskilled jobs and service sector. It was noticed by Francis Buchanan that palanquin bearers, earth workers and sweepers in the South were

168 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

invariably Telugu people. Thus the European trade and economic resurgence of the South in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries kept up the momentum of the historical process of migration of Telugu people to the South, who ‘… ever retaining the language of their fore-fathers have diffused a knowledge of it through out the peninsula’ (Campbell 1816: i). This was the historical context for the status of Telugu ‘… spoken by a large portion of the native subjects of the British Government in the South of India …’ (Campbell 1816), and also for the observation of Cohn that ‘Gentu’ (Telugu) ‘… was also widely diffused in South India …’ (1985: 299). It is obvious that Telugu was the most important language in Madras Presidency and in Madras town in the seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Therefore, its study was ‘useful’ to protect and promote the interests of the Company. The transition of the Company from a trading firm to a territorial power in India in the latter half of the eighteenth century involved a major transformation of its interests and nature. I have noted earlier that the trading interests of the Company declined after 1750. Its policies were oriented at the protection and promotion of private trade of English men. The commercial policies of the Company Raj reduced the Indian traders to a subordinate, dependent rank in the domestic trade (Furber 1948: 160–206, 1969: 711–21). The rising tide of private trade of English men marginalized the Indian traders in the overseas market of SouthEast Asia. Slowly but steadily, the economic policies and activities of the colonial government in India were shaped in order to support and sub-serve the nascent capitalist industrial economy of Britain. Land tax was the chief source of revenue for the Company Circar to meet its expenditure of the civil and military establishment, and generate surplus revenue to finance trade and other activities of the Raj. The agrarian sector was moulded and mounted as the pivot of the Raj for its prosperity as well as to lend support for the rising capitalist industrial economy of England. The roots of the image or concept of eternal ‘village India’ and its rural civilization were located in the policy initiatives of early colonial rule. At a later stage of British rule, Charles Metcalfe’s classical description of the village in Indian society was formulated. The shift in the locus of the interests of the Company Raj necessitated the organization and training of bureaucracy at the village, local and regional levels in the agrarian and commercial sectors of colonial India. Further, soon the Company Raj felt the obligation of rulership, and assumed the responsibility to facilitate the progress of the natives. It had been acknowledged that the study and knowledge

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 169

of Telugu was ‘useful’ for the fulfilment of the twin objectives of the Company Raj: the organization and management of the subordinate bureaucracy, and the promotion of ‘… security and happiness of its subjects …’ The nature and distinguishing features of Telugu have been analysed in Chapter 4. The non-Sanskritic origin of Telugu was an age-old faith of the traditional and independent schools of the native grammatical tradition. William Brown wrote his Grammar and Vocabulary by 1809. He acknowledged that ‘The assistance of this man (Maamedy Venkaiah) in the compilation of both grammar and Vocabulary, has been of greatest advantage’. Brown advocated the theory that Telugu had originated independently and was not a descendant of Sanskrit. The debate relating to the origin and nature of Telugu was prominent at least from the first decade of the nineteenth century among the concerned and informed circle of the British and native scholars. Telugu is a mixed language of two elements: the native Telugu words, and the loan words mainly of Sanskrit as well as other languages. The vitality and uniqueness of Telugu lies in the protection and preservation of its independent origin and character, while adopting and absorbing Sanskrit into its fold on a vast scale. We have examined in chapters 3 and 4 the method and scheme of classification of words developed by the Vyākaran.a tradition of ancient Indian linguistic analysis. It is a transparent body of knowledge which facilitated easy identification of non-Sanskrit words of native Telugu by tracing and fixing the root of each word and its morphological changes in form. The structure and etymology of native Telugu words was precisely derived from the root base of each word. The method of root-centred etymology led to the formulation of the concept of the language family. Ellis did not find root for aga (the first linguistic part of Telugu compound verb agapadadamu) in the roots of Telugu, but found in Tamil. In chapters 3 and 4 I elaborated on the intellectual partnership of Ellis and Pattābhirāma Śāstry with specific reference to the usage of the Telugu compound verb agapadadamu. Ellis took the critical step and formulated the concept of cognate languages. Perhaps he was stimulated by Venkayya’s definition of anyadēśya terms as the usage of Telugu words conjointly with the dēśya words of neighbouring regions. Telugu is an agglutinative language. It facilitates the study and analysis of the form of words by focusing on the morpheme unit. Campbell followed the native tradition of Telugu grammar which was highly Sanskritized. His scheme of study gave a prominent place

170 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

to the literary tradition of Telugu. He did not neglect colloquial Telugu with which the short-term interests of the colonial government and British trade were associated. In fact, he pursued the study and refinement of colloquial Telugu via the literary tradition. This was a very interesting approach to the study of Telugu. Given the nature and structure of Telugu, Campbell’s approach was quite appropriate. His method of study put a premium on colloquial usage which was used in poetical works and accepted as standard vocabulary by poets. He was specially interested in the study of grammatical rules and forms which refined the colloquial usage to facilitate its use in poetical works. The origins of Campbell’s method of study of Telugu are found in Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika (1806) and Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s Āndhra Dhātumāla. He acknowledged that he was ‘regulated chiefly by his [Vēdam Pattābhirāma Śāstry] opinions’ in writing Teloogoo Grammar (1816: XXI). In all probability Campbell had an unstated goal in his mind which was clearly expressed by C. P. Brown in the following passage: We are all aware that an Englishman residing in France, Spain or Germany, must become acquainted with the favourite volumes of Rousseau, Calderoan, or Goethe, before he can converse idiomatically or enter into the feelings of those around him. And experience proves that the true key to all those modes of thought and peculiarities of expression which in India occur daily can be found only in the classics of India (1857: VII).

Perhaps Campbell felt that literature was a key to understand the ethos of a people. This is the sum and substance of the intrinsic merit of Telugu. The rules and tradition of Sanskrit grammar were employed to establish the independent origin and identity of native Telugu words. The rules of Sanskrit grammar are not applicable to native Telugu. The prosody of Telugu is based on the unique dēśi tradition. The etymology of native Telugu words led to the formulation of the concept of cognate languages. The conjoint words of Telugu language were apt units to analyse and fix the linguistic affiliation of words. It paved the way for the study of historical relations of languages. The corpus of Telugu literature comprising of poetical works of ornate style with Sanskrit as the dominant element, and native Telugu works of song and poems with dēśi metre and rhythm as its hallmark was ‘… true key to all those modes of thoughts …’ Almost all important works of Sanskrit literature are available in Telugu. Therefore, the terminology or terms of Telugu (Sanskrit terms plus Dravidian idiom) did carry high utility value in

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 171

the construction of the lexicography of Indian languages. This was the elegance of Telugu: to be the site for the formulation of the theory of the Dravidian languages. Chapter 4 has been addressed to demonstrate the organic linkage between the Telugu grammatical tradition and the formulation of the theory of the Dravidian languages. The Telugu grammatical tradition responded appropriately to the dynamics of socio-economic change in Āndhra region and evolved over a long period. It had formulated rules which introduced necessary changes in the structure and style of Telugu in order to make it more efficacious, copious and a living tongue. Trade and commerce, and the establishment of enclaves of European Companies on the Coromandel Coast in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was a major development in the history of South India. It fostered economic diversification, growth and social mobility. The changed scenario and the new practices, ideas and culture contributed in the transformation of the cultural fabric of the society, including the languages and communication pattern. Naturally, Telugu grammarians responded to meet the requirements of socio-economic change generated by the European trade and culture, and initiated the process of introduction of structural change in Telugu. For example, I have noted the specific grammatical formulae initiated and developed by Appakavi and Manchella .. Vāsudēva Kavi. The process of change in the structure and idiomatic expression of Telugu is clearly visible and embodied in Āndhra Dhātumāla and Āndhra Dīpika. These seminal texts and their learned authors deserve credit in full measure for making Telugu the launching pad of the theory of the Dravidian languages. The source materials and analytical propositions concerning Telugu constructed by Pattābhirāma Śāstry and Venkayya were critical inputs in formulation of the concept of the Dravidian language family by Ellis and Compbell in 1816. I believe that the scholarship and knowledge of Pattābhirāma Śāstry and Venkayya, and the companionship of Pattābhirāma Śāstry with Ellis and Campbell substantially contributed in making Telugu the base for the construction of the concept of the Dravidian languages. Chapters 2 and 3 provide specific references to these texts in the process of construction of the theory of the Dravidian languages, as well as an account of the support and advice given by Pattābhirāma Śāstry and Venkayya (as companions and guides) to Ellis and Campbell. I propose to bring out the historical significance of these texts, and the critical role played by Pattābhirāma Śāstry and Venkayya during the period when Telugu was the site for the genesis of the concept of the Dravidian languages.

172 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

It seems that the professional circles of Telugu and Dravidian linguistics are not well acquainted with this aspect of the theory of the Dravidian languages. Trautmann had a full-blooded vision of the issue under discussion. He said that Āndhra Dhātumāla ‘… was an essential ingredient in the Dravidian proof ’ (2006: 105) and ‘… was of special importance to the proof and to the construction of Campbell’s Grammar’ (ibid.: 172); and Āndhra Dīpika ‘… was a key proof of the Dravidian proof ’ (ibid.: 150). Unfortunately, both these texts are not published in the original form. Āndhra Sāhitya Parishat (Kākināda) published Āndhra Dhātumāla in 1930. The printed text deleted the roots for colloquial usage constructed by the author, which constitute the most innovative and significant aspect of the manuscript text. Āndhra Dhātumāla analysed the fine and varied Telugu verb form in the past, present and future tenses based on the root for literary and colloquial usage. The published text does not refer to the Telugu verb form worked out by the author. Trautmann focused on the Telugu verb as presented in the Dhātumāla and its relevance for the construction of the verb form in Tamil and Kannada. He cited an example from the report of the committee appointed by the government to report on the manuscript text of Campbell’s Grammar. It demonstrated Āndhra Dhātumāla’s scheme of derivation of the Telugu verb form and its application in Tamil and Kannada (2006: 173–74). The printed text of Āndhra Sāhitya Parishat attributed the authorship of Āndhra Dhātumāla to the great grammarian P. Chinnaya Sūri. This is a blunder. Venkata Rāo helped in the rectification of the erroneous stand on the authorship of Āndhra Dhātumāla (see p. 5). The manuscript text of Āndhra Dhātumāla is available at the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras (D-1227). This is a copy prepared in 1826 under the direction of C. P. Brown. In his own handwriting Brown wrote: This book is the Analysis of Telugu Roots, drawn up by the celebrated Patabhi Rama Sastri, late Head Master of Sanskrit and Telugu in the College of Madras. The original of this valuable work is in the College, and I am informed that no copy except the present was ever taken.

Āndhra Dīpika was published in 1965 by Śrī Vāsavi Prachuran.a Samithi (Machilipatnam). The Preface to the text written by the author is an important and path-breaking piece of study. It is an interesting and profound account of the history of Telugu grammar based on the texts of native grammarians. Campbell and Ellis used it extensively. The printed text did not carry Venkayya’s Preface, which is the soul

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 173

of the text. The publishers borrowed words from other Telugu dictionaries and indiscriminately mixed those words in Venkayya’s text. As a consequence, it is not possible for the discerning reader to find the words compiled by Venkayya, which included a number of colloquial words that found a place in poetical works. The listing of colloquial words in the Telugu lexicon is a novel feature of Āndhra Dīpika. It is a great contribution of Venkayya. The published text is not helpful in tracing this part of Venkayya’s scholarship and its impact on the modernization of Telugu. Āndhra Dīpika is available at the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras (D-1333). This manuscript text is a copy prepared in 1824 under the direction of C. P. Brown. It is interesting to note that the currently available copies of Āndhra Dhātumāla and Āndhra Dīpika were prepared for Brown, under his direction and at his own cost. While Brown’s monumental service to Telugu literature is well known and established, his contribution to Telugu language by the preservation of these seminal texts is almost unknown in Telugu literary circles. Pattābhirāma Śāstry (1760–1820) was Head Sanskrit and Telugu Master at the College from its inception till 1820. He was a Tamil Brāhmin of Pudūr branch, whose ancestors migrated and settled in Nellore district of Āndhra region. He was an outstanding scholar in Sanskrit, Telugu and Tamil. He was an authority on tarka (logic), vyākaran.a (grammar) and dharma śāstra (digests of Hindu law). Ellis, Campbell and Pattābhirāma Śāstry (substantially Head of the College by virtue of seniority, scholarship and status, but not designated) were members of the inner circle, who looked after the academic and administrative work of the College. Naturally there was a need for close interaction and dialogue between them during the initial phase of the College. They cultivated a fellowship of common goals related to the concerns of the College: the teaching of south Indian languages and native laws to the junior civil servants and native students; and supervision of the working of the College. It was a fellowship of mutually shared interest in the scholarship of linguistic studies, and shaping and running the College to accomplish the projected objectives. Perhaps they met more frequently and interacted on the basis of intellectual equality and personal friendship. Pattābhirāma Śāstry was the first Telugu grammarian who had good knowledge and first-hand experience of Western methods of instruction of grammar and languages, which was centred on the student in the classroom and oriented to the spoken word as well as scripted language of colloquial usage. It would enrich the

174 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

language and stimulate the development of language in tune with the social, economic, technical, and cultural advancement of the society. He appreciated its merits and concern for the promotion of the colloquial idiom of Telugu. The scholarship cultivated at the College fused the salient aspects of the Western and Indian linguistic traditions. Naturally such a dialogue led to the establishment of the theory of the Dravidian languages, and paved the way for the emergence of the discipline of comparative philology. Pattābhirāma Śāstry wrote and completed Āndhra Dhātumāla probably in 1815 in the academic ambience of the College. Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar and Ellis’s Dissertation on Telugu were products of the same intellectual and cultural ethos. Pattābhirāma Śāstry wrote a Telugu grammar titled Āndhra Vyākaran.amu (pub. 1951) in verse form for the use of the students of the College. Its manuscript copy is available at the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras (D-1246). Venkata Rāo is of the opinion that Pattābhirāma Śāstry was the author of an anonymous manuscript of Telugu grammar in prose entitled Āndhra Vyākarana . Samgrahamu (1951: 13). It is available at the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras (D-1246). Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s work on Telugu language and grammar embodied a harmonious blend of the Western and Indian traditions of linguistic analysis. His grammatical texts including Āndhra Dhātumāla were student-centred, and aimed at the goal of enriching the language by the expansion and deployment of colloquial usage. At the same time, his studies were informed by a deep study and knowledge of Telugu and its etymological base. This is a new trend in the study of Telugu. Pattābhirāma Śāstry was a pioneer of this trend of grammatical and linguistic studies. As my focus is on Āndhra Dhātumāla, it is useful to note its contents. The base form of roots and the process of derivation of the form of roots, different forms of suffixes and the varied meanings of roots have been explained in pages 1–30 of the manuscript text. The remainder of the text was devoted to list the roots in the alphabetical order of Telugu. The kernel form and meaning of roots in Telugu and Sanskrit, transitive and intransitive verb forms, the form of suffixes of roots in the present, past and future tenses were constructed with great care and presented in a tabular form. Compound roots (roots which were derived and constructed according to the principles of Vyākaran.a Śāstra) and roots which are endowed with dependent character had been described and defined as special variety of roots (viśēshyamulu). The vocabulary of rural usage and colloquial idiom were particularly

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 175

utilized to derive and construct root forms of Telugu. The author paid special attention to working out the form and meaning of roots of dēśi vocabulary, which had been in vogue in the literary dialect of Telugu. The focus on and employment of dēśi vocabulary, rural and colloquial usage in the derivation and construction of Telugu roots was Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s chief aim and achievement. He was an erudite scholar and adapted an open-ended approach in the analysis of the root materials of Telugu. In fact, he was a pioneer in the construction of roots from colloquial usage as well as its literary usage in poetical works of Telugu. He was one of the most learned and innovative scholars in the history of Telugu philology. Trautmann noted that Pattābhirāma Śāstry’s ‘role in the Dravidian proof was crucial’ (2006: 104), and substantially he meant and referred to the role of Āndhra Dhātumāla. Undoubtedly, it is the first document on the roots of Telugu. It is a key to understand and explain the origin, structure, nature, and verbal base of the language. C. P. Brown opined: ‘It is evidently a work of curiosity and of value to those who take interest in the etymology and affiliation of languages’ (cited in Venkata Rāo 1957: Telugu Section, 23). The attention to root materials as the base for Telugu words, verbs and etymology are its unique feature. It is an original and groundbreaking work in the history of Telugu philology. Its value and utility for formulation of the theory of Dravidian languages has been analysed earlier. Venkayya (1764–1834) was born and brought up in Palakollu (then located in Rājahmundry Circar), which was a trading and manufacturing centre of the Dutch East India Company from 1750–1792. He was a merchant by birth (Kōmati) and profession, and supplied a variety of goods to the European Companies. But he had an inherent, insatiable yearning for learning and scholarship. He was a reputed scholar, author and lexicographer. The Dutch Company reduced its operations after 1770 and finally moved its effects in 1792 from Palakollu and Narasapur. Venkayya was one of the black merchants who submitted a representation in 1787 to Anthony Sadler, Chief Agent of the Company in Masulipatnam. The representation sought a waiver of security for the Company’s advance amount paid to the black merchants in order to ensure production and delivery of textile goods by the weavers (Sudhir and Swarnalatha 1992: 153 44n). Therefore, Venkayya migrated to and settled in Masulipatnam prior to 1787 for professional advancement and cultivation of scholarship. As noted earlier, Masulipatnam was an international port, a centre for culture and administration under the rule of the Company. Venkayya acquired mastery over all branches

176 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

of Sanskrit and Telugu language and literature. His scholarship had two significant aspects. First, he studied Sanskrit and Telugu in the traditional native method, and his scholarship was deeply rooted in the structural theory as well as the dēśibhās.a tradition of Indian linguistic analysis. Second, he had close interaction with the Europeans in Palakollu and Masulipatnam, and the impress of the Western influence on his studies was clear. William Brown worked in Masulipatnam from 1786–94, and Ellis was District Judge of Masulipatnam from November 1806–March 1809. As both of them were interested in the study of Telugu, Venkayya had close interaction and exchanged ideas with them. He was a pioneer of modern lexicography of Telugu. His Āndhra Dīpika listed the words in alphabetical order of Telugu script. According to L. Chakradhara Rāo (Chief Editor, Telugu Etymological Dictionary), it is the first dictionary that adapted the scheme of alphabetical order of words in Indian languages (2009: 25). It gives meanings for Telugu and Sanskrit words found in literary works of Telugu. It was completed on 7 May 1806. Its utility value and profound scholarship was well-known to the British establishment in Madras and Calcutta. The Board of Superintendence of the College (its Secretary, Campbell) corresponded and negotiated with Venkayya through the District Collector of Masulipatnam, and acquired copyright of publication of the dictionary in 1814 on payment of a lifetime monthly allowance to Venkayya and his wife. While the Company had the right to publish the dictionary, Venkayya and his progeny retained the right to make copies and circulate the manuscript text. Āndhra Dīpika was proposed to be one of the early publications of the College Press, but it was not published. The College used Venkayya’s dictionary in its programme of teaching and linguistic studies. Āndhra Dīpika is a classical work and a product of learning and prodigious industry. It had a manifold impact on the development of Telugu and formulation of the theory of the Dravidian languages. But its value and significance in the history of Telugu and Dravidian linguistics is almost unknown. There are some reasons as to why the dictionary did not earn its well-deserved credit in the history of Telugu and Dravidian linguistics. As a manuscript text, it had severely restricted access to scholars. Moreover, Venkayya’s Preface embodied a theory on the origin and nature of Telugu which was based on old Telugu grammars. He argued that Telugu dēśya and grāmya words were derived from a non-Sanskritic source. Telugu was not only independent in origin, but a copious language. It developed and survived for a long

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 177

period unaffected by Sanskrit. Venkayya’s theory was not in tune with the mainstream of Telugu literature, which was highly Sanskritized in form and content. The authors of Sanskritized Telugu poetical works flourished under the patronage of Vizianagara rulers, particularly Śrī Krishna Dēva Rāyalu (1509–30), and under the spell of ascendant Hinduism. They were votaries of Sanskritic tradition, constituted an influential network of literati, and had good standing with wealthy and powerful patrons of literary works. They were a dominant voice in Telugu literary field in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Venkayya’s theory did not find favour with the Sanskritized, entrenched and influential circle of literati. Therefore, they simply neglected or turned a blind eye to his dictionary. Venkayya was the centre stage of the non-Brāhmin protest movement in the early modern period in Āndhra region. He incurred the wrath of the Brāhmin strata on several counts. First, he was a vaiśya (trader) by birth and profession. But he studied Sanskrit language and Vedic lore, especially etymology and lexicography, and was a renowned scholar in Telugu. More significantly, his scholarship of Sanskrit and Telugu was informed and influenced by the dēśibhās.a tradition via the Buddhist and Jaina linguistic heritage. It questioned and interrogated the Sanskrit-centred structural theory of Indian linguistic analysis, and Vyākaran.a Śāstra. The Brāhmins objected and indulged in violent protests against the imprudence of Venkayya in his pursuit of Sanskrit and Ve-dic studies, which was considered to be a caste monopoly of Brāhmins. It is appropriate to note here the following extract from a report cited by Trautmann (2006: 178). He is a very extraordinary man, a banian who in spite of the opposition of the Brahmins who, enraged at the presumption of a man of his cast [sic] in venturing to apply himself to literature, have more than once had his house pulled down, has persevered in his literary pursuits and has compiled two most curious Dictionaries … (MPC, 15 March 1811, para. 20).

Second, Venkayya was an articulate, firm, learned leader of the nonBrāhminical protest movement in modern Āndhra against the caste discrimination and privileged position of Brāhmins. The Kōmaties (merchants) availed of the opportunities for economic advancement provided by the trading and commercial activities of European Companies in South India in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They prospered well and were transformed into a mobile, wealthy, educated and influential strata. They had migrated and settled in urban and

178 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

commercial centres. They constituted a sizable and prominent part of the population of Masulipatnam. These developments stirred up their social status consciousness. They advanced a claim for equal status with the Brāhmins in respect of the performance of rituals and ceremonies in the Vēdic tradition. The Brāhmins contested their claim. Venkayya cited passages from the corpus of Vēdic texts, and argued that the Kōmaties were members of the dwija (twice-born) order by virtue of performance of the upanayanam ritual (initiation ceremony into dwija order). As such, they were entitled to perform rituals in the Vēdic tradition, and the practice of Brāhmin priests to perform rituals in Kōmatie households in the Purānic . tradition was a discrimination, and was not authorized by Vedic texts. It was a hard trial for the Brāhmins to counter the arguments of Venkayya. Hence the Brāhmins nursed a deep grievance against Venkayya. Third, when Brāhmin priests refused to perform rituals in the Vēdic order in Kōmatie households, Venkayya donned the role of a priest and performed upanayanam for his son and also for the son of Namburi Venkata Dasu, a prominent and wealthy Kōmatie. Brāhmins argued that Venkayya’s conduct was an unpardonable offence. His foray into Ve-dic knowledge, study and recitation, an exclusive field of study of Brāhmins, was a grave misconduct. Venkayya’s priestly role in the performance of Vēdic rituals, which was a monopoly of Brāhmins, was fraught with serious consequences. It set a precedent and would encourage other non-Brāhmin groups to have priests drawn from their communities to perform religious rituals, and thus dispense with the services of Brāhmin priests. In fact, Venkayya’s priestly role had an immense impact on the non-Brāhmin protest movements in South India in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Therefore, Brāhmin reaction to Venkayya and the protest movement of Kōmaties was furious and violent. They approached courts of law. It was a long drawn legal and historical conflict between the Kōmaties and Brāhmins in modern Āndhra. Venkayya was the chief leader of social protest and legal dispute against the Brāhminical privileges (see 2n of p. 117). Brāhmin scholars as well as the Brāhmin strata were ranged against Venkayya. As a result, Āndhra Dīpika was deliberately neglected by the Brāhmin scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In one sense, the compilation and fate of Āndhra Dīpika was deeply enmeshed in the social and economic impact of the European Companies on modern Āndhra. Venkayya was partly influenced by the Western linguistic theory in the compilation of the dictionary, and one

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 179

of his objectives was to cater to the needs of British colonial rule. Venkayya’s association with William Brown, Ellis and the acquisition of copyright of Āndhra Dīpika by the government of Madras Presidency are well-established. Rama Sundari Mantena traced the connection of Venkayya to Colin Mackenzie via the correspondence of Venkayya with Kāvali Lakshmayya, principal assistant of Mackenzie. As early as 1804, Venkayya wrote that he was composing a Telugu dictionary and after Completion, he offered to send a copy of it to Mackenzie (2009: 128). The objective outlook of the Age of Enlightenment of Europe stimulated Venkayya to adapt an open-minded approach towards the native linguistic tradition, theory and source materials. The European trading companies provided vast opportunities to the Kōmaties to improve their economic base. The elite strata of the Kōmaties were wealthy and developed association with the European traders and officers. They were keen to claim equal social status with the Brāhmins. They organized and led the first wave of the non-Brāhmin protest in modern Āndhra against Brāhminical privileges. Venkayya was the focal point of the protest of the Kōmaties against Brāhminical caste discrimination (Venkatādri 1995: 1–20). The Brāhmin scholars, who had a sway over literary circles of Telugu, reacted adversely to the role of Venkayya in the non-Brāhmin protest movement, and also to his linguistic theories regarding the non-Sanskritic origins of Telugu and the value of colloquial usage for its development. I think this factor sealed the fate of Āndhra Dīpika in the realm of Telugu philology. Yet Āndhra Dīpika exercised decisive influence on the development of modern Telugu and in formulation of the theory of the Dravidian languages via Ellis and Campbell. It was the first modern dictionary of Telugu language. Its Introduction embodied the pith and substance of the analytical categories of the native grammatical tradition of Telugu. The lexicon of Telugu language was analysed into the following categories: tatsama (Sanskrit words with terminal change); tadbhava (Prākrit words which were originally Sanskrit words but changed in the form due to transmission to Telugu via Prākrit dialects); dēśya (Telugu words of the region); and grāmya (Telugu words of rural usage with local dialects). The origin of dēśya words was a problem for European scholars who studied Indian languages in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Vyākaran.a Śāstra of ancient India identified and classified words by tracing the root of each word. Venkayya concluded with the support of native grammatical knowledge that the corpus of dēśyam and grāmyam words of Telugu constituted words

180 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

non-Sanskrit in origin. Venkayya utilized the analytic of Vyākaran.a Śāstra in order to identify the non-Sanskritic origin of Telugu words and language. It is interesting to note that an analytical category of word classification of Vyākaran.a Śāstra was employed by Venkayya to prove the non-Sanskritic origin of Telugu. Venkayya upheld his theory of Telugu language by virtue of his outstanding scholarship of Sanskrit as well as Telugu. Telugu was a mixed language of Telugu and Sanskrit words. Sanskrit was a dominant element in the literary dialect of Telugu. Telugu words were prominent in its colloquial dialect and dēśi literature. Telugu was an appropriate, perhaps pre-eminent site to construct the theory of the Dravidian languages, simply because it facilitated the juxtaposition of the linguistic elements of roots, nouns, verbal conjugation and principal features of syntax of Telugu and Sanskrit. This is the most transparent and valuable merit of Telugu. Venkayya gave a list of twenty-four dēśya words of Telugu from Appakavīyam. These words facilitated the comparison of linguistic elements of Telugu, Kannada and Tamil. This led to Ellis’s formulation of the concept of cognate languages and of the linguistic family. In all probability, Ellis’s flair for comparative study and analysis of the south Indian languages was stimulated and supported by Venkayya’s meaning of anyadēśya Telugu words as the usage of Telugu terms conjointly with dēśya words of the neighbourhood regions. Venkayya paid special attention to the derivation and construction of words of colloquial Telugu. He focused on the plural linguistic tradition of India. India, comprising of various diverse regional cultural zones, is homeland for a multitude of languages. The preponderance of Sanskrit in the Indian universe of languages was an accepted norm, except in the case of Pālī and Ardhamāgadhī, respectively, of the Buddhists and Jains. Some authors and grammarians of Prākrit did not accept the commanding status of Sanskrit. Language is the most important element of the cultural life a people, and of their mental activity. The bewildering ethnic stocks, who constituted the population of India, constructed innumerable languages as products of their cultural life. The genesis of a language is coeval with the emergence of a people as a cultural entity. Therefore, language is an independent and autonomous cultural phenomenon in a local or regional centre. A large number of languages prevailed and flourished in India. Sanskrit exercised distinct influence on other languages, while it was influenced by other languages in the course of its development. This is plural linguistic tradition of India. Various Prākrit dialects prevailed in different regions of India and

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 181

in conjunction with regional dēśyam dialects, Prākrit languages helped in the formation of modern vernacular languages of India. Apabhramśa was considered to be a form or version of Sanskrit. Venkayya’s forte was etymology or etymological derivation of the form and meaning of Sanskrit and Telugu words. He wrote a learned commentary entitled Viśēshārdha Chintāmani . on Amaram, the standard ancient lexicon of Sanskrit. He was conferred with the title Bālamara (bāla + amara) for his erudite commentary. He compiled a learned Sanskrit dictionary entitled Śabdārdha Kalpataruvu with a focus on the etymological derivation of the form and meaning of words. He offered the Sanskrit dictionary for sale, but the Company declined the offer. C. P. Brown noted: ‘He previously compiled a valuable Sanskrit lexicon called “Sabdhartha Kalpataruvu” which has been used in the admirable Sanskrit dictionary by Professor Wilson’ (cited in Venkata Rāo 1957: Telugu Section, 25; and also Ārudra 1990: 236). H. H. Wilson’s (the first incumbent of Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University) Sanskrit dictionary with its special attention to the etymology of words was widely used in teaching Sanskrit to beginners in Europe. C. P. Brown wrote about the copy of Āndhra Dīpīka that he had commissioned: This copy was prepared under my directions and is very accurate. It was transcribed from the original copy in the author’s own hand writing. To reduce the bulk of the volume, which in the original is a large folio, I omitted the column of etymological definitions which is needles. In other respects the work is complete as the author left it and entirely correct (12 August 1824).

Though it is good that Āndhra Dīpika was saved, the damage suffered by the text on account of the omission of the column of etymological definitions is irreparable. I failed to lay my hand on a copy of the original manuscript (with the column of etymological definitions) in the private libraries of Āndhra region. Hence I can only guess that in all probability the column of etymological definitions was a useful aid in shaping the growth of scientific etymology in the second and third decades of the nineteenth century in British India. As it happened, scientific etymology (derivation of the form and meaning of each word from its root) was the hallmark of comparative philology, in contrast to classical philology, which was concerned with the study of Greek and Latin languages of antiquity, and a full-fledged account of the ancient European civilization. Āndhra Dīpika was an important link in the historical process of the birth and evolution of comparative philology.

182 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

All these propositions of Āndhra Dīpika were based on the corpus of native grammatical knowledge of Telugu. Venkayya put the propositions in a theoretical framework, which was a catalyst in the formulation of the theory of the Dravidian languages in the joint studies of the South Indian languages by the British and native scholars under the auspices of the College. I shall now explain the locus standing of Telugu in the process of formulation of the Dravidian language family. The history, structure, nature and unique grammatical tradition of Telugu and the social and economic history of Āndhra region fostered a balanced, well-rounded, self-confident concern for Telugu linguistic identity. An analysis of these themes has been presented in chapters 3 and 4. A brief summary of the argument is captured here to contextualize the answer to the question as to why Telugu became the site for the construction of the Dravidian language family in 1816 at the College of Fort St George. Telugu is a Dravidian language. It branched off from the protoDravidian language and emerged as the lingua franca of the various tribal communities who inhabited the region that comprised of the Kurnool–Cudapah range, basin of rivers Krishna–Gōdāvary and highlands . of the Deccan plateau and Kalinga region. It was enriched by the tribal dialects, including the dialects of Āndhra tribes. It developed as a polished and well-cultivated language of Āndhra dēśa and its native people. Campbell historicized that Telugu was the language of Trilingadēśa and its people, and that it had evolved and prospered as an independent language prior to its association with Sanskrit. After taking note of the common and shared features of Telugu, Tamil and Kannada, he suggested that these languages had originated from a common source, other than Sanskrit, a correct observation. The non-Sanskritic and independent origin and character of Telugu had been a salient feature of the Telugu grammatical tradition. William Brown vigorously advocated this proposition. Ellis proved that the roots of Telugu dēśya words (via Āndhra Dhātumāla) were not derived and constructed from Sanskrit roots. Telugu is an agglutinative language. It accepts, easily and confidently, loan words from other languages. It is a mixed language of Telugu dēśya words and Sanskrit words, the discrimination between which is a simple, ancient and well-established practice in Telugu grammar through the word classification technique of Vyākaran.a Śāstra. Thus, the core layer of Telugu dēśya words and the secondary layer of

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 183

Sanskrit loan words in Telugu are identified. Vyākaran.a Śāstra has been an integral part of Telugu grammar because of the predominance of Sanskrit in Telugu. Buddhism, Jainism and Prākrit language played a significant role in the social, economic and cultural life, and development of Telugu in ancient and medieval Āndhra. As a consequence, Telugu grammarians shared and endorsed the perspective of plural linguistic tradition of India. The dēśībhās.a tradition exercised remarkable influence on the development of Telugu. Appakavi’s linguistic concepts were shaped under the benign impact of dēśībhās.a heritage. In spite of the striking influence of Sanskrit on Telugu, the theory of Sanskrit origin of the Indian vernacular languages was not accepted in full measure in Āndhra. Manchella .. Vāsudēvakavi proposed that the various dialects of Prākrit in conjunction with the regional dēśya dialects helped the formation and development of the Indian vernacular languages. Venkayya subscribed to and endorsed this theory and incorporated it as a prominent linguistic doctrine in the Preface to Āndhra Dīpika. Campbell and Ellis accepted this theory. Ellis used it as a cornerstone of his Dissertation on Telugu language. Telugu grammar is closely associated with the construction of the concept of cognate or sister languages — the key for the formulation of the Dravidian language family. First, the list of Telugu roots, which were compared by Ellis with Tamil and Kannada roots, were taken from Āndhra Dhātumāla. Again, the list of primitive words of the core layer of Telugu, which were compared by Ellis with the primitive words of Tamil and Kannada, were taken from Āndhra Dīpika, which in turn borrowed those words from Appakavīyam. In carrying out this laborious exercise, Ellis availed of the help of the scheme of Telugu verb form and analysis of linguistic features of Telugu, which were incorporated in Āndhra Dhātumāla. Further, Campbell opined that the verbal conjugations of Telugu were not only entirely different from Sanskrit, but were also radically connected with Tamil and Kannada. Second, Pattābhirāma Śāstry theorized and illustrated in Āndhra Dhātumāla the process of formation of compound Telugu words. He enumerated the Telugu compound verb agapadadamu, and explained the theoretical proposition that the first part of the compound verb aga had no independent meaning and application in Telugu. Ellis cited this particular verb in his Dissertation on Telugu. Moreover, Venkayya’s definition of anyadēśya Telugu words also stimulated the process of

184 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

the formation of the concept of cognate languages. The use of Telugu dēśya words in conjunction with the dēśya words of neighbourhood regions by Telugu people had been designated anyadēśya words. This was a product of the historical migration of telugu people to the neighbourhood regions of Tamil, Kannada, etc., and was also based on the empirical observation of the use of Telugu dēśya words in conjunction with the respective regional dēśya words. Ellis had full knowledge of the linguistic process, materials and definition of Telugu compound words and anyadēśya words. It is this body of knowledge that may have induced Ellis to take the critical step and enunciate the formula: When the root of a word is not found in the language of its usage, it must be searched for in the body of root materials of the cognate or sister languages. This led to the genesis of the concept of cognate languages and of the concept of a family of languages. Venkayya and Pattābhirāma Śāstry cultivated an open-ended approach to the western linguistic analysis and appreciated its merits, and imbibed its method of study. They were partners with Ellis and Campbell in the ‘dialogic’ process of construction of new knowledge: the concept of the Dravidian language family. Āndhra Dīpika and Āndhra Dhātumāla, seminal texts, respectively, of Telugu lexicography and philology, exercised direct influence in the making of the theory of the Dravidian languages. I hope the data and its analysis presented in the preceding pages will validate the conclusion that Telugu was the site for the construction of the concept of the Dravidian language family. I conclude this discussion with an analysis of Trautmann’s ideas. His appraisal of the role of Telugu and its grammatical tradition in the formulation of Dravidian language family in 1816 constitutes a different perspective. In fact, he highlighted the theoretical concepts and data relating to the connection of Telugu with the formulation of the Dravidian language family (2006). I have cited relevant references in this chapter as well as in Chapter 3. Trautmann raised the question: ‘Why did Telugu language provide the site at which the Dravidian proof was first articulated?’ He explained the problem in the following passage. I think it was because the Telugu language is a kind of middle ground between Tamil, whose non-Sanskrit character was far easier to make out, and Sanskrit itself. And Telugu was the second most available Dravidian language in the early nineteenth century Madras city. For these reasons,

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 185 it was the Telugu vocabulary and to a lesser extent the Telugu verbal conjugations, that became the ground upon which the Sanskrit and Dravidian elements could be discriminated by appeal to Vyākarana . and the Tamil nūl. Telugu became the second case by which Tamil’s difference from Sanskrit could be generalized to formulate the idea of a distinct family of languages (1999: 67).

He argued: Sankaraiah’s view that Telugu is a mixture, derivable from roots in Sanskrit and Tamil, was, I venture to think, quiet unprecedented, though it was entirely constructed with the tools of Indian grammatical analysis. What is unprecedented is that it combines the ancient traditions of grammatical analysis of Sanskrit and of Tamil (which are distantly but definitely related in some way) and applies them to a third language, Telugu (2006: 180).

Tamil’s difference from Sanskrit is not the governing principle for the formulation of the idea of a distinct language family. Rather, the issue is centred on the demonstration of the distinct origin, nature and character of the south Indian languages as a bunch. They share common linguistic features because of a common source of origin, historical development and mutual influence on each other; and they are quite different from and independent of Sanskrit. In fact, Ellis started with this proposition; it was evident in his proposal for writing Dissertations on the south Indian languages (Trautmann 2006: 108–11), and the content which he proposed for the compulsory course in the curriculum of the College. This course was not taught at the College. But, as observed byTrautmann, ‘… it did get implemented, in a concentrated form, in the “dissertation on telugu” that is to say in the Dravidian proof ’ (ibid.: 155). What was the meaning and content of Ellis’s Dissertation on Telugu? It established the independent origin and nature and character of the south Indian languages from Sanskrit through the comparison of root materials. It brought out the similarity and shared features of the southern dialects by comparative analysis of root materials. It demonstrated the cognate nature of Southern dialects via the comparison and analysis of primitive words. It proved the common features of the syntax of the southern languages through an exercise of comparative translation, and also of the differences between the syntax of Sanskrit and the Southern dialects. The concepts enclosed and proved in the Dissertation on Telugu constitute the basis for the birth of the Dravidian language family.

186 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Sankarayya, sheristadar (Chief of Staff) of Ellis in Kumbakonam and Madras, thought and argued that the roots of Telugu dēśya words are found in Tamil N _ ūl. The argument was constructed according to the rules and practice of Indian grammatical analysis. But his conclusion that Telugu dēśya words are derived from Tamil, and Telugu was a deviant of Tamil is wrong in terms of linguistic theory and logic. Tamil and Telugu have originated from a common source, and are endowed with similar linguistic features. Therefore, Telugu is not a deviant of Tamil. In this connection, it is appropriate to recapture Campbell’s observation (when he found similar linguistic features in Tamil, Telugu and Kannada) that the languages of South India had origins in a common source, other than Sanskrit. Sir William Jones and William Marsden proposed that shared descent from a common original language was the cause and source for similar linguistic features among languages. Trautmann had full knowledge of the view of Campbell, and the theory of Jones and Marsden regarding mixed features among languages. Further, he said that his study of the Dravidian proof is a book on ‘… Ellis and Dravidian languages …’ (2006: XX). This is indeed true. The book is a classic study on Ellis and his Dravidian concept. According to Ellis, Tamil is the key to the south Indian languages. Trautmann noted: ‘… Ellis’s scholarship deeply centered on Tamil using the most wide-ranging comparison to elucidate Tamil while also considering Tamil the key to elucidating the whole story of languages and nations in South India’ (ibid.: 112). One notices here an unresolved tension in the approach of Ellis to the study of south Indian languages. He planned to study Tamil within the wider framework of south Indian languages because these languages constitute a language family. At the same time, he was of the opinion that Tamil was the ‘parent’ of the rest of the south Indian languages. He also, in effect, endorsed the conclusion of Sankarayya that Telugu is a deviant of Tamil. This was his concept of Dravidian idea, which was the basis for the plan of the College. Trautmann analysed the report of the Committee for Examination of the Junior Civil Servants (20 October 1811), which proposed the plan for the College and its course of study, and observed: ‘Clearly the Committee, and Ellis as its leader, tended to inflate the importance of Tamil vis-à-vis the other languages of the South’ (ibid.: 153). Yet, for Trautmann, Ellis’s plan for the College was the governing principle of the process of construction of the concept of the Dravidian language family at the College in 1816.

Telugu Language — Site for Formulation of Dravidian Language Family . 187

Ellis and his Dravidian concept was the running theme of Trautmann’s studies on Dravidian languages. Ellis indirectly and substantially accepted the view of Sankarayya that Telugu is a deviant of Tamil. Trautmann’s appraisal of the role and utility of Telugu in the process of formulation of the Dravidian language family has been governed by the Dravidian idea of Ellis, and the conclusion of Sankarayya and Ellis that Telugu is a deviant of Tamil. Therefore, the valuable connection and role of Telugu in the process of construction of the Dravidian language family is desideratum in his classic study on the Dravidian Proof (2006).

188 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

6 Orientalism Orientalism is a body of knowledge relating to several aspects of the culture of Eastern countries and people constructed and interpreted by Western scholars and observers. It is an ancient and vast enterprise. Travellers, traders, conquerors, missionaries, scholars, navigators, and laypersons have been participants in the making of Orientalism. Endowed with a variety of talents and skills, they have pursued multiple and often conflicting objectives and interests. Hence Orientalism embodies a bewildering corpus of scholarly textual knowledge; empirical and scientific information and knowledge relating to the physical, economic, social, and cultural phenomenon; and scattered impressionistic and opinionated views and ideas in general. Its long history, coeval with the recorded history of humankind, has been imprinted by many phases and facets, and intertwined with the changing pattern of relations and mutual standing of the Occident and Orient, which ‘… connection calls for critical reflection’ (Van der Veer 1993: 23). Naturally, the objectives and use of Orientalism undergo a sea change in the kaleidoscope of the historical relations between the West and East. Therefore the methods of study, objectives, content and utility of Orientalism constitute a controversial and contested terrain. But scholars, who study Orientalism and its associated problems, have a three-fold task. First, they analyse methods of study, historical context of production, and content of Oriental knowledge. Second, they disentangle Orientalism from the myriad ways of its use and abuse in the ancient, medieval, colonial, and postcolonial world. Third, they bring out the meaning and value of Orientalism for the indigenous societies, the West and humankind. Herodotus, ancient Greek historian, was eager to observe and learn about other cultures and people. He travelled to Egypt, Libya, Babylon, Persia and the Black Sea region, and carefully observed oriental societies in order ‘… to learn your [Greek] culture best only by familiarizing yourself with others. For your culture will best reveal its depth, value and sense only

Orientalism . 189 when you find its mirror reflection in other cultures, as they shed the best and most penetrating light on your own, (Kapuściński 2004: 50).

Further, ‘… he knew that only mutual knowledge of each other makes understanding and connecting possible, as the only way to peace and harmony, cooperation and exchange’ (ibid.: 53). Such a transparent and open-ended method of study and vision of the role and purpose of Oriental knowledge is intelligible only in terms of the spirit of the Greek episteme, relationship of the Occident and Orient in the ancient world, and the personal disposition and accomplishments of Herodotus. Despite the noble vision, catholicity, commitment for factual accuracy and wide learning of Herodotus, we find numerous factual errors, misleading opinions, judgments and conclusions in his observations and analysis of Oriental societies. Why did this happen? How can we explain or understand it? The following account may provide a provisional explanation for the misjudgments and untenable opinions of Herodotus about Oriental societies. First, it is a problem of linguistic barrier. Second, it is a matter of access to authentic and reliable sources of information and knowledge. Third, it is simply an intractable issue of inter-civilizational dialogue and understanding. It is not an easy task to grasp the meaning, truth and significance of the cultural concepts and practices, doctrinal or belief systems, and institutional maze of the social and cultural life and identity of other people. Fourth, the description and analysis of the cultures of Oriental countries is coloured by the cultural ethos and subjective values and ideas of the author/observer. Edward Said had clearly pointed out the problem is at the centre of the methods and processes of construction of Oriental knowledge: … the real issue is whether indeed there can be a true representation of anything, or whether any and all representations, because they are representations, are embedded first in the language and then in the culture, institutions and political ambience of the representer. If the latter alternative is the correct one … then we must be prepared to accept the fact that a representation is eo ipso implicated, intertwined, embedded, interwoven with a great many other things besides the ‘truth’, which is itself a representation (1978: 272).

This is an epistemological issue relating to the intelligibility and understanding of cultural concepts and practices of people. Therefore, Oriental knowledge has been to be an inherently problematic enterprise from its inception.

190 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

For example, Herodotus wrote that Persia was ruled by a despotic monarchy and its people were victims of arbitrary exercise of unchecked power. He went to Persia and directly observed its political life and events. Yet, it is doubtful whether he had adequate linguistic proficiency in the ancient Persian language, and had access to the right sources of knowledge regarding the Persian political culture. Therefore, one wonders whether Herodotus was competent enough to comprehend and judge the ethos of Persian monarchy and the dynamics of exercise of royal authority. He confronted the knotty problem of inter-civilizational communication. We have reasonable ground to assume that his conviction that Greek culture will ‘… reveal its depth, value and sense when you find its mirror reflection in other cultures …’ was at play. The reflection of Greece as the land of law, liberty and citizens had been vividly revealed in depth through the mirror of Persia — the land of despotic monarchy, and arbitrary exercise of unlimited power over its subjects. The circle is full. This has been the Achilles’ heel of Orientalism from the ancient times to the present, even though its vulnerability had varied between high and low levels in historical time, and was almost nil in some periods of East–West relations. Herodotus was a great historian, and had an insatiable desire to observe and study other cultures. It is both wrong and unfair to attribute ill motives to him. But he was hamstrung by the inherent and intractable problems of the enterprise of study and representation of other cultures. This is the core issue of Orientalism. Orientalism of the ancient Greco-Roman world (Majumdar 1960; McCrindle 1927; Nīlakant.a Śāstri 1939); of the Middle Ages (Polo 1903; William of Rubruck 1900); and of the early modern world (Lach 1965a, 1965b, 1970, 1977; Lach and Van Kley J. 1993) was descriptive, curious and often coloured by fantasy, but of a mutually beneficial and stimulant genre. It was informed by a comparative study of the chief traits of Asians and Europeans, and their political institutions. Asians were said to be servile people lacking in spirit and physical strength. They were ruled by despotic political institutions, which perhaps enfeebled them. In contrast, the Greeks and Romans were spirited, strong people. They were governed by rule of law, which helped in the genesis and development of free citizenship. This portrait of the Asians and Europeans was neither true nor fair. But it was merely an exercise in comparative juxtaposition of the East and West, and was approximately free from the agenda of dominance over the East. Nonetheless, the process of

Orientalism . 191

construction and constitution of Oriental knowledge compounded and complicated the concept and content of Orientalism, arising out of the problems of inter-civilizational dialogue and understanding. Orientalism of the modern period marched hand in hand with colonialism, an altogether a new phenomenon quite distinct from the corpus of Orientalism of the ancient, medieval and early modern world. The latter was more like an occasional potshot carried out by individual authors and dealt with either isolated aspects or general and discursive account of Oriental cultures. On the other hand, the Orientalism of the modern age has been an organized, systematic, institution-centred, wellfocused and directed enterprise to study intensively and understand the Orient in order to conquer and rule, and help it to change. The scope and sweep of its study is rather amazing and envelops all aspects of the Orient. More than the literary and other forms of output, quite significant by itself, the empirical and analytical base and content of its knowledge is an impressive accomplishment. This exercise had been carried out under the auspices and direction of colonial institutions to meet the requirements of colonial regime, and legitimize colonial rule via the identity of the Orient. In his Afterword to the 1995 print of Orientalism, Edward Said argued: The construction of identity — for identity, whether of Orient or Occident, France or Britain, while obviously a repository of distinct collective experiences, is finally a construction-involves establishing opposites and ‘others’ whose actuality is always subject to the continuous interpretation and re-interpretation of their differences from ‘us’. Each age and society re-creates its ‘Others’. Far from a static thing then, identity of self or of ‘other’ is a much worked-over historical, social, intellectual and political process that takes place as a contest involving individuals and institutions in all societies … In short, the construction of identity is bound up with the disposition of power and powerlessness in each society, and is therefore anything but mere academic wool-gathering (1995: 332).

The construction of the identity of the Orient — the other of the Occident — is an important aspect of the process and content of Orientalism, as a system of thought and body of knowledge. Orientalism of the early phase of British colonialism in India (1757–1820) is an integral part of the ‘New Orientalism’ (Trautmann coined this phrase in 1997) of the modern world. But it is a sub-species of New Orientalism endowed with a distinct orientation, character and features. The historical context for its origin and development had been a period of ‘… consolidation of European power in India

192 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

1757–1818 …’ (Furber 1948: vii). The British power in India during this period had been under constant threat of internal attacks, revolts (Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, the Marathas, Sikhs, discontent among the sepoys and alienation of Muslims) and external dangers (the intense rivalry of European companies, possible invasions from Afghanistan and Iran coupled with Muslim rebellion, the French in Canada, and the impact of the French and American revolutions). Indeed, this was a formidable historical scenario that hovered around the incipient British colonial establishment in India. The British had no experience in the craft of governance of overseas territories, and faced historical as well as administrative problems of a vast scale and grave complexity, on the one hand, and were not certain regarding the attitude and response of the directors of the Company, of the Parliament and Crown, and of the public opinion in England to Indian problems, on the other. Further, the British were under compulsion to raise resources from territories administered by them to meet the cost of civil and military establishment in India; finance local wars and expeditions for territorial expansion and security; and make ‘investments’ for promotion of trade and commerce of the Company. The British required knowledge regarding the Indian society, economy and natural resources to maximize revenue and secure a firm base for colonial rule. The knowledge of native elites, specially the Brāhmins, relating to the earlier practices, customs and traditions of land revenue and the social entitlements of different groups of people on land, and the help and assistance of the Brāhmins and native chiefs and leaders, were critical inputs for the colonial regime to administer the land and people with minimal cost and least use of coercive authority. Therefore, the British approached the Indians as ‘pupils’ (Derret 1968: 225); and sought and utilized indigenous knowledge and cooperation of the Indians. It was said during this period the British ‘… historiographies [of India] were still dependent on native informants and colonial histories were still unsecured by the political triumphs …’ (Dirks 1993: 280). Rosane Rocher noted: ‘These years [1772–1794] were rife with ambiguities and changing perceptions’ (1993: 216). This was the historical context for the production of Oriental knowledge during the early period of British colonial rule in India. Orientalism had been associated with colonialism and was deeply involved in the promotion and protection of British interests during this period as well. The British Orientalists frankly acknowledged this simple fact. Yet, Orientalism of the early British rule in India was a unique body of knowledge and inscribed by the following features. First, its

Orientalism . 193

origins were located in the study of Indian languages by the British to acquire reliable knowledge about Indian society to protect and advance the interests and objectives of colonial rule. Bernard Cohn’s observation that the study of Indian languages was launched by the British to meet the colonial administrative requirements is based on substantial evidence. But the intellectual disposition to study the languages of the colonized people, and the organization of systematic, deep and institution-centred programmes for the teaching and scientific study of the Indian languages are unparalleled accomplishments in world history. Language is the key to understand and appreciate the mental products and culture of a people. The whole some study of the Indian languages was proof enough for the genuine interest of the British in the appreciation of Indian culture. This is the most significant and enduring aspect of British Orientalism, besides the short-term colonial utility. According to Trautmann, the passionate interest in the study of languages in the modern period was a product of European project of … the linguistic ethnology, to give it a name, unfurled itself in a world made transparent and unitary by European expansion through voyages of discovery, through trade and through colonialism. But though linguistic ethnology deployed itself under colonialism and was enabled by it, colonialism did not create it (1999a: 54, and see his book 2006:1–41 for the project of linguistic ethnology).

Second, the native pandits and people were active participants in the construction of Orientalism. The British were recipients of indigenous knowledge from manuscript texts, and information relating to the Indian economy, society and culture. As active agents in the process of construction of Orientalism, the native pandits helped the preservation of source materials for the recovery of indigenous tradition via Oriental knowledge, and provided theoretical concepts for the interpretation of civilizational materials. In this connection, Trautmann’s insightful observation needs to be repeated here: The Indian intellectuals of the MSO (Madras School of Orientalism) and the work they did were in a sense the most significant legacy, for it was they who created new careers for Indian modernity and it was they who cast the mould of the past into new moulds and prepared it for a new future (2009: 12).

This comment throws a flood of light on the contribution of Pattābhirāma Śāstry, Venkayya, and seventeenth-century Telugu

194 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

grammarian Kakunūri Appakavi in the modernization of Telugu and formulation of the theory of the Dravidian languages. This was yet another distinctive feature of Orientalism of the early phase of British rule in India. Third, the British undertook the study of Indian society and culture as a historical phenomenon. The administrative problems of consolidation of colonial rule compelled the British to understand India historically. Nicholas Dirks persuasively argued that the whole range of problems of the colonial project of conquering and ruling India were predominantly historical questions. Hence the British ‘… felt the need to understand India historically’ (1993: 280–81). The genre of British historical writing on India, prior to the publication of James Mill’s The History of British India (1817), was fundamentally of a different order in tone and purpose. The tone was one of respect for native scholars, sanctity for indigenous materials and love for an open-ended approach to Indian culture, and the purpose had been to understand or explain the Indian cultural phenomena. This is the most sensitive, rewarding and fundamental approach to the problem of intercultural understanding. There is another aspect for the project of the British to understand India historically. The British encountered in India an ancient, well advanced and enduring civilization, which enticed their intellectual concerns and spirit of inquiry. They had the advantage of the availability of well-trained and disciplined native man power and a wealth of source materials. Hence, they launched a multidimensional and full-scale study of Indian culture. Fourth, William Jones, Charles Wilkins, H. T. Colebrooke, H. H. Wilson, Ellis and a host of British Orientalists were savants devoted to the scientific pursuit of knowledge. The British scholar-administrators compiled dictionaries with etymological derivation of the form and meaning of words, and wrote texts of grammar for the Indian languages. Some of them collected and others helped in the collection and preservation of manuscript materials in Sanskrit, Persian and other Indian languages. Those documents are source materials for the study of Indian culture and civilization. They initiated programmes of translation of Sanskrit treatises on law, literature, philosophy, positive sciences and other branches of learning. They implemented all these projects with the help of native scholars, and substantially in terms of indigenous pedagogy. This exercise facilitated the exploration and appreciation of the Indian mode of thinking and culture. Thus, the British Orientalists developed a methodological framework for the

Orientalism . 195

promotion of civilizational dialogue. Further, the study of Sanskrit and the formulation of the concept of the Indo-European language family established that some of the European languages were cousins of Sanskrit. The European passionate interest in the study of historical relations of languages as a key for the study of relations among nations and people unveiled the notion that Indians were cousins of Europeans in the remote past. This vague notion of blood relationship between the Europeans and Indians, lost in historical time but revived in the modern period, stimulated genuine interest and love for Indian culture among the British Orientalists. This link or chain of love, even though it was vague and weak and lasted only for a short period, between the colonizers and the colonized was an interesting aspect of Orientalism of the early phase of British rule in India. It exercised profound influence in shaping the character and content of Oriental knowledge, and its traces continued into the latter or imperial phase of British rule in India. Fifth, British Orientalism was a product of the European Age of Enlightenment. The quest for knowledge, scientific temper and method of the Age of Enlightenment governed the process of construction of Oriental knowledge. The epistemological base of Orientalism was transparent and open for public scrutiny and verification. Therefore, Orientalism is an accurate and authentic body of knowledge in a substantial sense. By virtue of these features, the Oriental knowledge of the early phase of British colonialism in India constituted a unique entity with a distinctive character. It was a product of its time. However, the projects of Orientalism were designed and commissioned to promote the interests of colonial regime. The British Orientalists endorsed it with pride. Orientalism was an ideological position which shaped the policies of the early phase of British colonial rule in India. It advocated the application of Indian laws through the courts. It sought the protection of the Indian religious tradition and culture, and the promotion of native educational heritage and vernacular languages. The Orientalist position on the land settlement problem, including land revenue, was to conform to the indigenous tradition and practices. This partly explained the phenomenon of the emergence of different systems of land settlement and revenue in Bengal, Madras and elsewhere. Orientalism helped the preservation of status quo of the indigenous social order with room for gradual change in socio-economic activities. At the same time, it had promoted the interests and concerns of the British

196 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

colonial order (maximization of income from land revenue, securing the support and loyalty of native elite groups and people for the British rule, consensual governance with low administrative cost and low application of coercive authority, etc.). Thus, for a brief period, Orientalism had reconciled the interests of the colonizers and colonized people. This was the broad picture. However, even during this short period, the conflict between the interests of the colonizers and colonized people had manifested itself. Sporadic protests, violent agitations and spells of rebellious activities were staged by various sections of people and elite groups in different regions against the British colonial rule. The British colonial regime used its heavy hand of coercive authority — the police and military force — and suppressed the agitations. The gradual rise of the ascendant and assertive British colonial order on the horizon of India was a dominant feature during the first and second decades of the nineteenth century. The British colonial authority in India emerged as a well-grounded and secure power on the heels of political triumphs. Domestic compulsions and developments in England (Cain and Hopkins 1993), and experience in the craft of exercise of power and authority in colonial India helped the genesis and growth of the idea of empire and imperial power. It was accompanied by the doctrine that governance of empire was a sacred trust and the rulers were responsible for the promotion of moral and material improvement of the Indian people. Further, Evangelists became an active and powerful voice in Indian affairs. They advocated that Indian civilization was an inferior entity, especially deficient in moral norms and conduct, and British rule in India had a mission to reform Indian society. The post-Napoleonic political settlement of Europe was fertile soil for the rise of Britain as an imperial power. These factors heralded the British Empire in India. The superiority and domination of the British over the Indian people was the hallmark of the ideology of empire and imperial power. Its rise and consolidation reduced the space of Orientalism of the early phase of British rule, and soon Orientalism was marginalized in Indian affairs. Yet the spirit, epistemological base, and some of the important features of Orientalism of the early phase of British colonial rule in India had overlapped with and continued into the process of construction of Oriental knowledge of the latter phase of British colonialism and imperialism. In spite of its association with colonialism, Orientalism of the early phase of British colonialism was a classical body of knowledge, and had universal relevance for facilitating inter-civilizational dialogue and promoting harmony and peace.

Orientalism . 197

The third decade of the nineteenth century witnessed the onset of the imperial phase of British colonialism in India. The method of employing the Orient as a mirror to reflect the vitality of the Occident (after Herodotus) had been a specific feature of Oriental knowledge of the latter phase of British colonialism. James Mills’ The History of British India (1817) is both a point of origin as well as a typical text of the new genre of Oriental knowledge. The Orient is static, devoid of internal dynamism, and known for religious tradition, other-worldliness, and despotic power and authoritarian rule, and solidarity of caste, community, tribal groups, etc. In stark contrast, the Occident is progressive, dynamic, rational, scientific, individualistic, materialistic, secular, home for rule of law, etc. Thus, the Orient is the counter-picture of the Occident. Hence colonial rule of the West was legitimate and salutary. It fostered the process of reform and progress of the East. Logically and also factually, the Orient was the foot-rug of the Occident in the colonial regime, and the Greek imagery of slave’s bondage to the master had been the defining principle of the East–West relationship. This was the burden and message of Oriental knowledge of the latter phase of British colonialism in India. Thus, the problem of Orientalism embroiled with colonial rule and imperial domination of the West over the East in the modern period. The simple fact of colonial intervention and rule is a moral issue and evokes deep emotional response. Holden Furber proved the Orient was a partner in trade and commerce with the European trading companies in the pre-colonial period, and such a relationship had radically altered against the Orient in favour of the Occident under the auspices of colonialism (1948, 1969: 711–21, 1976; also Lach and Van Kley 1993, Vol. III, Book One). The broad division of the world between the rich Occident and poor Orient, and the overwhelming domination of the West over the East are striking features of the postcolonial world. Orientalism or the construction and application of Oriental knowledge in the modern period has been invariably linked with colonialism and Western hegemony. Therefore, Orientalism is embedded in the political world of conflictual perspectives. Naturally, it is a much abused, misunderstood, contested, and emotional theme in the postcolonial world. Therefore, it is a very difficult task to keep up and follow an objective approach with regard to an analysis and appraisal of the problems and issues concerning Orientalism. It is a daunting exercise to get hold of the horns of the dilemma of Orientalism — its umbilical cord with

198 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

colonialism in a manifold sense, on the one hand, and its scientific temper, methodology and knowledge, on the other. It has the potential capacity and pliability to be employed by multiple agents in pursuit of conflicting objectives and interests. Orientalism functioned as a tool of oppression in the hands of colonial rulers. At the same time, it was a catalyst in the promotion of social change in colonized societies by generating critical self-awareness. It provided a base for social reformist ideas and forces in the indigenous societies. Orientalism fulfilled such diametrically opposite twin functions in Oriental societies. Its role is an acutely contested ground in contemporary debate and has specially contributed to make the problem of Orientalism more complex and bewildering. In order to facilitate an objective understanding and appraisal of Orientalism and its associated problems, a brief review of major landmarks in the history of its study is presented at this point. It is a valuable theme for construction of history of ideas. It is a good theoretical and historical backdrop to understand and appreciate the intrinsic worth of British Orientalism, especially of its early phase of colonial rule in India and its relevance to the contemporary world. Anwar Abdel-Malek’s seminal essay initiated critical studies on Orientalism as well as its appraisal (1963). He directly focused on the essential aspects of Orientalism, laying bare the seamy side of Oriental knowledge of colonial rule. The main argument or theme of Malek was two-fold. First, Orientalism appropriated history of and from Orientals with authoritative claim over history. It denied proper history to the Orient and Orientals by depicting them as static and unchanging entities and representing their history and culture in essential modes of metaphysical and non-historical categories. Second, Orientalism was impregnated with the politics of colonialism and its project to conquer and rule the Orient. Malek’s essay is a watershed in the progress of studies on Orientalism. It raised the debate concerning Orientalism to a higher level and, indeed, commenced the phase of full-fledged and critical studies for advancement of knowledge. Said developed Malek’s essay into a full-blown theory. His celebrated book Orientalism (1978) was anchored on a solid, sharp issue, and it earned wide emotional appeal for the simple reason that he touched the right chord of (colonial) historical, institutional and ideological base of Orientalism. His incisive critique of Orientalism was launched in the larger historical scenario and theoretical context of the late 1970s, which comprised of two significant trends. First, the West was

Orientalism . 199

disenchanted with Marxism after the failure of the revolutionary movement of 1968, and the inadequacy of Marxism to offer a full-fledged explanation for the phenomena of colonialism.1 Second, the Western academy welcomed the advent and advancement of the theories of post-structuralism and deconstruction to cope up with the crisis and problems of the postcolonial world. Said mounted an insider’s critique of Orientalism to stir the uneasy, sullied conscience of the Western academy. He clearly stated, For contemporary students of the Orient, from university scholars to policy makers, I have written with two ends in mind; one, to present their intellectual genealogy to them in a way that has not been done; two, to criticize with the hope of stirring discussion — the often unquestioned assumptions on which their work for the most part depends (1978:24).

Therefore, Orientalism recorded an instant and dramatic success, and it caused and continues to cause seismic shocks in the landscape of Afro-Asian academic studies all over the world. Historically, colonialism and Orientalism are Siamese twins in the modern period. It is a blunder to fail to take stock of their mutuality. The delineation of the content, meaning and significance of Orientalism overlooking its colonial origins and sustenance is simply counter-productive. But it is equally an erroneous position to confine and constrict Orientalism within the logical and historical parameters of colonialism, and turn a blind eye to the epistemological base and contributions of Orientalism to the study and appraisal of Oriental societies and for the advancement of knowledge and civilization. In spite of its colonial origins, background and apparatus, the vitality and value of Orientalism lies in the multidimensional project of construction of scientific knowledge relating to Eastern people and societies, which facilitates cross-cultural understanding and cooperation, unity of humankind and enrichment of human civilization. Hence, Orientalism is a body of knowledge which has intrinsic worth beyond and besides the concerns and problems of colonialism. Said’s engagement with Marxism is a long and complicated story and is not relevant to this discussion. I have raised the issue of Marxism to note the historical connection between the launching of Said’s Orientalism and the period when the appeal of Marxism to the Western world was at a low ebb. Similarly, the high tide of the theories of post-structuralism and deconstruction in Western academic circles had contributed for the phenomenal success of Orientalism. 1

200 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Said incorporated Foucault’s concepts of: (a) ‘discourse’; and (b) overarching ‘power’ to construct a devastating critique of Orientalism. For Said, European superiority and hegemony over the East from the late eighteenth century to the end of colonial rule was a discourse — a project to represent the Orient in a specific and predetermined mould in order to undermine its self-confidence and competence, and establish and uphold the supremacy and domination of the West. The Orient had been translated, imaginatively sketched out and depicted by stereotype observations and metaphors. The whole exercise had been deliberately carried out through textual codes and conventions, and strong interconnections with social and political process and institutions of colonial rule. Hence, according to Said, Orientalism is ‘… the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient — dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, settling it, ruling over it’ (1978: iii). In short, the Orient is constructed, depicted and interpreted for Orientals as well as Occidentals. In Said’s usage, there is a single and totalized discourse of Oriental knowledge across historical time, geographical space and all fields of study with a sinister motive — to browbeat the Orient and boost the image and power of the Occident. This presentation of Orientalism is based on a solid point. The history of humankind in the modern age had been imprinted by the institutional and ideological drive of Western colonial and imperial rule and domination over the East. Orientalism aided the project of colonialism. This is the stuff and kernel of truth in Said’s argument. It is neither correct nor fair to reject his position. Yet, we cannot and endorse his argument in full measure; it is partly correct and partly untenable. According to Said, Orientalism was historically an integral part of colonialism. Hence colonial utility underlined the spirit and was the governing principle of the unified framework of Orientalism as a body of knowledge. But Oriental discourse was not monolithic. In fact, the fundamental feature of Orientalism was its discursive formation or construction. The process of formation of Oriental knowledge was located in a specific historical context, which comprised of a number of institutions, forces, ideas, interests and persons in India and England. Therefore, ‘Historical Orientalism had a concrete reality, was complex, internally diverse, changed over time and was never monolithic’ (Kopf 1980: 497). Or else the construction of Oriental knowledge was centred round a problem(s). The analysis of the nature of a problem and choice and implementation of an appropriate policy was a complex

Orientalism . 201

process of debate and contest of principles, ideas, social and economic forces and, above all, struggle for power. Hence Orientalism, which was slowly constructed and accumulated over a long period, was a highly diversified and discrete body of knowledge in terms of disciplinary demarcation, regional identity and historical periodization. It might have been informed and unified by a thread of colonial utility. But the basic nature, spirit, and vital élan of Orientalism was embodied in the process of discursive formation and construction. Said had deliberately set aside the various phases of the history of Orientalism, its regional, intellectual, social and political moorings and argued that Orientalism constituted a single and totalized discourse as an evil minded handmaid of colonialism. Certainly, this is a lopsided account of Orientalism, and failed to take note of its many-sided value and relevance to the colonizers and colonized. Said’s Orientalism ‘… was synchronic in its method losing sight of the evolving history as an objective field of study: it totalised colonial discourse and was deterministic in its presentation of this discourse’ (Nagarajan 2003). James Clifford (1988: 27) and Rocher (1993: 215) aptly remarked that Said resorted to essentialized modes of representation of Oriental knowledge as an aide-de-camp of colonialism. This is a misleading and twisted account of Orientalism. It is a function of Said’s methodological error in a two-fold sense. First, the essentialized mode of representation of any complex theme, more so in the case of Orientalism, because of its historical context nature and scope, is a counter-productive exercise. Second, Foucault’s concepts of ‘discourse’ and ‘power’ were developed in the historical context of the emergence of nation-state in the modern West. Said applied the concepts of Foucault’s epistemology to analyse the nature and interrelationship of Orientalism with colonialism. It proved to be a stimulating exercise and enabled him to generate insightful and constructive ideas in the study of some aspects and directions of the dialectical relationship that subsisted between Orientalism and colonialism. But it is not an effective method to construct a holistic, realistic account of the relationship of Orientalism and colonialism in the colonial and postcolonial periods. Therefore, Said’s depiction of Orientalism as a discourse is not a proper account of historical Orientalism. Yet, Said’s discourse on Orientalism sharply focuses on some hidden and seamy aspects of the relationship of Orientalism with colonialism, which deserves serious consideration. British colonial rule in India was established and maintained by the apparatus of physical and coercive power of the military, police and

202 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

the government. Said employed Foucault’s concept of power to elucidate the nature of Orientalism and its relationship with the colonial regime. According to Foucault, power is all-pervasive in society and has an inherent capacity and tendency to cast the spell of seduction or corruption over people. The primary form of power is coercive and its seductive influence as collaboration with the given power structure in society manifests and operates in myriad forms of cultural ideas and concepts. But all masks of collaboration are proof enough or indicative of the pervasive and compulsive mechanism of coercive power of the State. The alliance of power and knowledge is a universal phenomena and hard fact of social life. Foucault analysed the contiguity of power and knowledge to theorize how knowledge contributed in the transformation of the operations and relations of power in society. Due to the benign impact of knowledge, monolithic power embodied in the State and its institutions had been transformed into a net-like organization, in which power is exercised by individuals who have knowledge. Individuals exercise power and are also objects of subordination to power. They are part of the power structure in society — its agencies of articulation and also its obedient objects (Foucault 1980: 98). Thus power has been de-centred and diffused in the society and has become the lifeline of society. The Foucaldian concept of overarching power and its alliance with knowledge was applied by Said to analyse European colonial rule over the Orient. But Said’s analysis was focused on the exploration and explanation of the influence of power and its logical consequence on the construction and application of knowledge in colonial society. He argued that the complicity of power and knowledge was part of the historical process of the establishment and maintenance of colonial rule. Orientalism was an integral part of the colonial project to conquer and rule India. Dirks pointed out that colonial knowledge ‘… both enabled colonial conquest and was produced by it’ (1992: 3). For Said, the salient feature of Oriental knowledge was its subordinate and supplementary association with colonial power and establishment. Therefore, Orientalism was a degraded and degenerated knowledge in intention, construction and application. Its objective was protection and promotion of colonial interests. Said’s argument is two-fold; first, the nature and application of colonial power, or power relations in colonial India, and second, the influence of power on knowledge. The origin and growth of colonial power was intertwined with a halting and segmented advancement of

Orientalism . 203

colonial territorial expansion in India. It had been largely shaped by the local and regional events and forces, which were ruthlessly manipulated and exploited by the British. The structure and penetration of colonial administration and its impact on society was varied and uneven in different regions. Moreover, colonialism was not a uniform pattern of rule or authority (Dirks 1992: 7). Such a track of historical growth of colonialism could hardly facilitate the organization and operationalization of Foucault’s concept of power. Said had simply applied Foucault’s theory of power to the colonial rule, which failed to grasp and explain the nature of colonial political power and its deployment by the colonial regime. S. Arasaratnam, who made a careful study of the nature and application of political power in Madras, observed: In the first phase of political domination analysed in this paper (1750–1790), political power does not obtrude forcefully but is seen constantly in the background and is used in a moderate and controlled fashion when what are thought vital interests are involved. Monopolistic regulations favourable to the English interests are not issued except under utmost necessity. The Nawab’s authority is generally respected but, when the Presidency Government wants something done, sufficient pressure is used to see that it is done. There is an ambivalent attitude to use political power to secure economic interests. There is a general reluctance to use political power in this way but a willingness to do so when all else has failed (1979: 40).

This is far from a Foucaldian notion of power employed by Said to analyse the nature of colonial political power. The physical and coercive mechanism of the police, military and government was the raw form and base of colonial power. Brutal exercise and demonstration of physical power, whenever necessary, was the hallmark of the colonial regime. Its goal was to establish British domination over Indians and secure their subordination to the colonial rule. The colonial regime was established through the deployment and application of physical power, and shared the universal traits of power: domination and subordination. Hence, ‘… the production of colonial historiography was from the very outset an exercise in dominance and not an act of charity. It is, therefore, not possible to deal with the question of an Indian historiography of India as anything other than a question of power, (Guha 1998: 155). Said and Guha put sharp focus on an important aspect of colonial rule — the physical form of power, its coercive nature and dominating tendency. But they did not take stock of an equally important dimension of the nature and organization of colonial power, especially during

204 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

the early phase of British rule in India. We have analysed (in Chapter 2 and also in an earlier part of this chapter) the historical context in which British colonial rule had originated and evolved. The insecure position of British rule due to internal and external threats and rivalry, and the enervating uncertainties caused by multiple layers of influence and authority (the British government and public opinion in England, the directors of the Company, and the central, presidency, district and local government in India) that pulled in different directions and sometimes worked at cross purposes was unparalleled in colonial history. The British had no experience and were not prepared to govern such a complex overseas territory as India. They were totally dependent on Indian sources of revenue for maintenance of the civil and military establishment, financing local expeditions and wars, and making ‘investments’ for trade and commerce. They had poor knowledge of the Indian economy and society. They were heavily dependent on native elites for acquisition of knowledge about the Indian economy, natural resources and society, which was a prerequisite for making policies to increase the revenues of the Company. The British required the helping hand of the natives to govern Indian territories. The Indians, not only the elites but also the common people, were recruited to administer the territories of British India (the police, military and miscellaneous service sector). On the other hand, the Indian elites grudgingly accepted the political supremacy of the British and reluctantly reconciled to the new order of British rule. But they were imponderably powerful in a manifold sense, and were fully conscious of their indispensable utility for the colonial order. They were keen to preserve their privileged position in society through the good offices and avenues of the British regime. Therefore, they cooperated with the British in the shaping and working of the colonial order. It is in this sense that British colonial rule arose as a development of the novel and productive Indo-British collaboration in the eighteenth century (Bayly 1983). The British and Indians had a complex and intricate historical engagement in the pursuit of respective interests and goals, and were agents in the making of a new order. They shared power, but as unequal partners — the rulers and ruled. The mutual dependence, cooperation and influence of the British and Indians in the early period of colonial rule had blunted the edge of power and qualified power relations. It is interesting to note the argument of Robert Eric Frykenberg: That the Company came to its position of supreme authority in the Carnatic by traditional and indigenous means and that the British emerged as rulers,

Orientalism . 205 in the last analysis, precisely because they adapted themselves to the internal socio-political conditions necessary for the accumulation of power. This thesis argues that the Company became dominant by slowly utilizing its role within the inner logic and dynamics of the traditional structure (1977: 117).

Bayly argued: As Robert Frykenberg put it, the British Indian Empire was ‘Indian’ in a very special sense. A corollary of this position is that Indian resistance to the East India Company can sometimes be reasonably described as anti-British, or even anti-foreign but it would not be very meaningful to call it ‘anticolonial’, since the Company at this time displayed none of the features of a mature colonial regime. The incidence of resistance to, or collaboration with the white invader was determined not so much by the characteristics of the Company as by patterns of indigenous political or economic structure (1998: 239).

It is difficult to grant that Foucault’s concept of power was a governing principle of power relations in the given historical context of the early phase of British colonialism in India, despite the crucial role performed by the physical and coercive mechanism of the colonial power, and the overall domination and dominance of the British over the Indians. The study of the nature and pattern of power relations that subsisted between the British and the Indians in colonial India, which comprises the nature of the Company and its rule and ‘patterns of indigenous political and economic structure’ and their historical encounter, is a more meaningful and daunting task than the identification of the British as the dominant centre of power, an obvious point. For example, ‘The British Military–Fiscal State and Indigenous Resistance, India 1750–1820’, is a stimulating study of power relations in early colonial India as well as theories and approaches to analyse the nature of early British rule or Company’s government in India (Bayly 1998: 238–75). In fact, the predicament of the British and Indian elites in such a historical context drove them to shape and operate rather a unique concept of power and system of power relations. The British employed physical and coercive mechanism of power as well as means and methods of persuasion to control and appease Indians. They respected and upheld Indian tradition and customs in many aspects of governance, and helped in the preservation of socio-economic status quo. The persuasive measures of the British — implementation of Indian laws in the courts; study of Indian languages and respect for Indian

206 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

culture and religious tradition; incorporation of indigenous practices and customs in the survey and settlement of land, etc. — had a long mileage in winning over the confidence and loyalty of the natives. Hence the Indians collaborated with the British in shaping the new order. This collaboration was not a function, in a substantial sense, of the Foucaldian concept of claustrophobic, overarching and omnipresent colonial power. The Indian response to collaboration was accompanied by periodic resistance, struggles and violent revolts against the colonial power. In fact, coercion plus persuasion of the British as well as collaboration plus resistance of the Indians in the dynamics of power relations in early phase of British colonialism in India were constructions of ‘… new ways of thinking resulted from contingent circumstances’ of historical necessity (Irshick 1994: 7). It was also a ‘… heteroglot and dialogic production of all members of any historical situation, though not always in equal measure …’ (ibid.: 204). The British and the Indians were partners, though not equal, in the making of a new order. This was a unique concept of the relations of power in the early phase of British rule. It reconciled and synthesized contrary ideas of coercion and persuasion, on the one hand, and collaboration and resistance, on the other, under the rubric of domination and subordination. Said failed to take note of the intricacies of power relations in colonial rule. Jayant Lele pointed out the consequences of Said’s failure to analyse power relations in colonial rule. Said adopts a structuralist conception of power, instead seeing domination and critique as recurring moments in the history of a society. This decontextualized conception of power both renders the authors of the dominant discourse and those whose discourse capability has been silenced by it irrelevant for a critical analysis of power relations. It encompasses the entire history of the Western enterprise of knowledge production into a fortuitously constructed monolith of power. It becomes a monument, a sculpture to which those silenced by it are linked not in an integral manner but as pieces of rock that have been chipped away. Such a conception merely reaffirms and thus perpetuates the marginal status of the silenced by giving them at best an important moral aura as victims of an unintended conspiracy. By default, it contributes to the entrenchment of the totalizing power of the ruling classes (1993: 46–47).

In his long ‘Afterword’, Said wrote: ‘… I should like to discuss here, reading back into the book that I wrote what others have said in addition to what I myself wrote after Orientalism (eight or nine books plus

Orientalism . 207

many articles)’ ([1978] 1995: 300). He added some riders to the main argument and conclusions of his book, but substantially reiterated in 1995 what he wrote in 1978. Given the context and meaning of his oeuvre, critical reviews of Orientalism and advancement of knowledge in the period under reference, the re-statement of Said’s standpoint is all the more telling. In response to the criticism that he had totalized the discourse on Orientalism, Said argued that his book is ‘… quite nuanced and discriminating in what it says about different people, different periods, and different styles of Orientalism’. So it is ‘both simplistic and wrong’ to derive ‘the same reductive message’ from the book (Said [1978] 1995: 337). At the same time, he asserted that Orientalism … as a system of thought … approaches a heterogeneous, dynamic and complex human reality from an uncritically essentialist standpoint; … Even more important, from my standpoint, it hides the interests of the Orientalist … Orientalism as an accomplice to empire, can never ultimately be detached from the general imperial context that begins its modern global phase with Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 (ibid. 333–34).

He also wrote: ‘… there is a remarkable (but none the less intelligible) parallel between the rise of modern Orientalist scholarship and the acquisition of vast Eastern empires by Britain and France’ (ibid.: 344). He emphasized, ‘… the relationships, affiliations and political tendencies of orientalism’, and its ‘… modern discourse is correctly perceived by many thoughtful non-Westerners as a discourse of power originating in the era of colonialism’ (ibid.: 346–47). He pleaded that multiculturalism was a concern of his Orientalism. It dealt with actualities of social and cultural history, and was ‘a multicultural critique of power using knowledge to advance itself ’ (ibid.: 336). Regarding the criticism of Albert Hourani that he failed to mention ‘numerous scholarly and humanistic achievements’ of Orientalism, Said upheld his standpoint of 1978 with a token gesture of his omission. He wrote that some Orientalists (for example Marshall Hodgson, Claude Cahen and Andre Raymond) ‘should be acknowledged as real contributors to human knowledge’. But he added, in the next sentence, This does not, however, conflict with what I say in Orientalism, with the difference that I do insist on the prevalence in the discourse itself of a structure of attitudes that cannot simply be waved away or discounted. Nowhere do I argue that Orientalism is evil, or sloppy or uniformly the

208 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages same in the work of each and every Orientalist. But I do say that the guild of Orientalists has a specific history of complicity with imperial power, which it would be panglossian to call irrelevant (ibid.: 342).

Further, he dismissed the idea of disinterested scholarship of Orientalism, which had been an integral part of colonialism (ibid.: 334, 342, 345). Said had reviewed the state of the world since 1980 and designated it ‘… ideologically fraught, volatile, tense, changeable and even murderous’ (Said [1978] 1995: 348). The dismemberment of the Soviet Union and the decline of the Non-Aligned Movement had contributed in the perpetuation of domination and dominant power of the West. The world is divided between the rich and powerful North and the poor and powerless South, the modern version of the colonial order. Said expressed grave concern at the rise of ‘… nativist religion and primitive nationalism’ in the Afro-Asian societies (ibid.: 347). The world scene had been dangerous and intellectuals and artists all over world sought to explain and comprehend it. Postcolonial, postmodern, and subaltern studies have emerged and flourished in such a historical context. Therefore, Said addressed the latter half of the ‘Afterword’ to ‘… talk about new trends in scholarship, criticism and interpretation that, although accepting basic premises of my book, I think, that enrich our sense of complexity of historical experience’ (ibid.: 347–48). Said gave a brief resume of the nature of postcolonial, postmodern and subaltern studies, which were centred on ‘… consistent critique of Eurocentrism and patriarchy’ (Said [1978] 1995: 352). Consequently, a … serious rift has opened in public consciousness between the old ideas of Western hegemony (of which the system of Orientalism was a part) on the one hand, and on the other hand, newer ideas that have taken hold among subaltern and disadvantaged communities and among a wider section of intellectuals, academics and artists … There has been a revolution in the consciousness of women, minorities and marginals so powerful as to affect mainstream thinking world-wide (ibid.: 349–50).

The thrust of these new studies is related to problems of ‘emancipation, revisionist attitude to history and culture, a widespread use of recurring theoretical models and styles’ (ibid.: 352). Early studies of the postcolonial ‘… were based on studies of domination and control made from the standpoint of either a completed political independence or an incomplete liberationist project’ (ibid; 351). The initial concern of the studies of post-colonial with problems of ‘domination and control’ had gradually tapered off. Said

Orientalism . 209

cited and endorsed the following observation of Ella Shohat. The prefix ‘post’ in post-colonial suggests not so much the sense of going beyond but rather, ‘continuities and discontinuities; but its emphasis is on the new modes and forms of the old colonialist practices, not on a “beyond’” (Said [1978] 1995: 350). Postmodern or multicultural studies have elucidated and documented the concept that cultures are hybrid and heterogeneous products of shared historical experience of humankind, and have contributed in the enrichment of social and cultural history. But Said wrote that there is, in the studies of the postmodern, a ‘… Eurocentric bias … as well as a preponderance of theoretical and aesthetic emphasis stressing the local and contingent, as well as the almost decorative weightlessness of history; pastiche, and above all consumerism (ibid.: 351). Said stated that the new political and economic order has been described by Harry Magdoff as ‘globalization’, in which according to Masao Miyoshi and Arif Dirlik ‘… colonialism has reappeared in the subservience of the South to the North’. According to Said, ‘Both Miyoshi and Dirlik go on to show how the interest of the Western academics in subjects such as multiculturalism and ‘post-coloniality’ can in fact be a cultural and intellectual retreat from the new realities of global power’ (ibid.: 350–351). Said noted that his Orientalism was read by some critics as legitimizing subaltern status and voice. He held subaltern studies in high esteem, but left it with a cautious warning. He wrote: Perhaps the most brilliant revisionist work was done not in Middle East Studies, but in the field of Indology with the advent of Subaltern Studies, a group of remarkable scholars and researchers led by Ranajit Guha. Their aim was nothing less than a revolution in historiography, the immediate goal being to rescue the writing of Indian history from the domination of the nationalist elite and restore to it the important role of the urban poor and the rural masses. I think it would be wrong to say of such mostly academic work that it was easily cooptable and complicit with ‘transnational’ neocolonialism. We need to record and acknowledge the achievement while warning of the later pitfalls (ibid.: 352).

The strength, relevance, and weakness of Said’s conception of power for the study of colonial rule have now been analysed. The second part of Said’s argument is related to the impact of power on knowledge. I will examine this in the next section, which deals with the construction of Orientalism via the formation of ryotwari land settlement and village India, and the formulation of the Dravidian language family.

210 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

As noted earlier, the historical space and corpus of Orientalism had been enmeshed with varied patterns and politics of relations between the Occident and Orient. Therefore, Orientalism was, and is, imprinted by conflicting perspectives and opinions. According to one perspective, the whole gamut of East–West relations has been one of a strong and dynamic West reaching out the East and casting its spell of dominance in various degrees and forms. The colonial encounter was the most significant, intensive and consequential phase of the two millennial-old relationship of the East and West. We have another perspective on the history and meaning of the relationship between the Orient and Occident. The relationship of the East and West during ancient and medieval times was shaped by considerations of mutual benefit and enrichment in trade and sharing of knowledge. I have noted the opinion of Holden Furber, an acknowledged authority on the European East India companies, that the East and West were partners in trade and scholarship in the pre-colonial period (1948, 1969: 711–22, 1976). Donald F. Lach, in his monumental, multivolume work Asia in the Making of Europe, argued that Europe was engaged in a long drawn process of learning from and appreciation of the striking progress and accomplishments of the Asian civilization in the early modern period from 1500 to 1800 (1965b, 1970, 1977; Lach and Van Kley 1993). The Theosophical Society professes the doctrine that the West is destined to experience a second renaissance under the spell of ancient wisdom of the East. The textual scholarship of Orientalism is one of the avenues to the ancient and secret wisdom, esoteric tradition and its practices. The Theosophical Movement offers a good critique of modernization process and theory. It seeks to redefine and restructure the relationship of humankind with natural world through the concept of spiritual resurgence and regeneration of human beings. It has deeply appreciated, and appropriated some aspects and ideals of Oriental culture for the promotion of universal harmony and peace. Wilhelm Halbfass analysed the reciprocal influence and impact of Indian and European philosophical traditions, ideas and concerns (1988). Thus, we have a rich tradition, which seeks to appraise the East–West relationship on the principle of give and take. Raymond Schwab’s The Oriental Renaissance: Europe’s Rediscovery of India and the East 1680–1880 (1984) is the best study of this perspective of the East–West dialogue and interaction, and a work of fine scholarship. It provides an excellent account of the landmarks, major issues and themes, and fine nuances of Oriental discourse in an admirably objective manner and method.

Orientalism . 211

The corpus of Oriental knowledge is located and centred on different themes and concepts and at different levels of study of these two broad, but mutually exclusive, perspectives on Orientalism. Ronald Inden (1986, 1990) followed the trail set by Said and critiqued the Orientalist construction of the image of India and Indians by focusing on the entangled and many-sided relations of Oriental knowledge with colonial power. He argued that the Orientalist image of India, centred round the institutions of village, caste, Hinduism, divine kingship, spiritual culture, etc., was distorted and wrong. Imagination and fantasy were said to be the dominant forces of Indian society, culture and people. Such a depiction of India and Indians had a devastating effect on the self-confidence and capability of Indians to take charge of their affairs and destiny, and facilitated British hegemony in India. Hence his aim was destruction of Oriental discourse affiliated to the disciplines of Indology, History, Anthropology, Sociology, Economics, Political Science and the concept of the Indian mind and spiritual culture, etc. He also reconstructed the political institutions and culture of pre-colonial India in order to enhance the capacity and morale of Indians. Inden’s Imagining India (1990) is a well-informed and incisive critique of British Orientalism and Orientalists. Cohn’s stimulating and profoundly influential papers on all important aspects of the British rule in India constitute a landmark in the progress of Orientalism/South Asian Studies. He had studied the documents of the colonial archives with great care and insight and contributed significant papers on landed property, administration of justice, the caste system, linguistic studies, recruitment of civil services, the census operations, Victorian authority and so on (1968, 1985, 1990). What makes his seminal papers a homogeneous set and provides an anchor for his spaced and discrete studies is the perspective that Oriental knowledge had always invariably been an important component in the structure of dominant and subordinate relationship which bound the British and Indians in the colonial order. Colonialism generated Oriental knowledge and Orientalism aided the advancement and stability of the colonial regime. In this dialectical process of mutual begetting, becoming and sustenance of colonialism and Orientalism, Cohn traced its lifeline the partnership of knowledge and power. This is a knotty problem of Orientalism — its engagement with the power structure of colonialism. I will analyse and discuss the implications of this problem in the following pages.

212 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

The department of South Asia Regional Studies at the University of Pennsylvania conducted its 44th Annual Seminar on the theme ‘Orientalism and Beyond’ during the academic year 1988–89, and a volume of papers based on the deliberations of the seminar were edited and published by Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer (1993). While the volume derives ‘inspiration’ from Said’s Orientalism, it critically engages Said’s discourse on Orientalism in myriad forms — historical, theoretical and empirical. Important themes such as the colonial origins and background for the development of Oriental knowledge; the ambivalent, yet significant, role of native people in the construction of Orientalism; the alliance between colonial power and knowledge and its implications; the epistemological foundations and nature of Oriental knowledge; and the relevance and meaning of Orientalism to Oriental societies during the nationalist struggle as well as the postcolonial period, constitute the substance of the volume. These issues are addressed with candour, and crucial aspects, problems and dilemmas of studies on Orientalism are carefully analysed. The intrinsic value of Orientalism and its critique of the modernization theory and its relevance for postcolonial societies have been indicated in the volume. The problems relating to Orientalism during the early phase of British colonialism in India have been carefully and sensitively examined. The volume is a critical benchmark in the study of Orientalism and a reference source for further studies. Eugene F. Irshick diligently studied the archival materials of the nineteenth century South India, and initiated a new approach to the study of British colonial history in India. His book, Dialogue and History Constructing South India, 1795–1895 (1994), is a significant contribution in the advancement of knowledge on the colonial regime and its evolution in terms of ideological and institutional framework. He questioned Said’s thesis that Orientalism is a product of hegemonic colonial power imposed on and exercised over the weak and subordinate colonized society. He argued that new historical or ‘contingent circumstances’ of colonial dispensation enveloped the colonial power as well as the colonized society. They were agents of the historical process. The new historical context compelled the colonial power and the colonized society to pursue new ways of thinking and develop new knowledge to solve the problems faced by them and promote their respective interests. The historical context offered rich possibilities. They had varied capabilities, skills and experience, and were motivated by multiple and conflicting objectives. They were

Orientalism . 213

pragmatic enough to appreciate mutual convenience and common interests. Therefore, in spite of the superior and subordinate relationship between the British and Indians under colonial rule, they formulated new ideas and knowledge and shaped new institutions, through joint and cooperative endeavours. Irshick concluded that new ideas and knowledge ‘… are the heteroglot and dialogic production of all members of any historical situation, though not always in equal measure …’ (1994: 204). Thus, Orientalism is a ‘dialogic’ or ‘heteroglot’ formation, and a product of shared and exchanged dialogue between the British and Indians under the colonial rule. Trautmann clearly brought out the implication of Irshick’s conclusion for further studies on Orientalism. As I understand his point, Irshick is proposing that for the Saidian doctrine about colonialism and Orientalism to continue to be fruitful we need to raise the discussion to a new level, and consider the new kinds of knowledge that emerge in the colonial encounter not as the mere imposition of the ideas of Britons upon passive Indians, but as a dialogic formation with many Indian inputs; and one whose outputs were various and subject to contested readings (1999: 69).

This is a brief note on some important studies of Orientalism. I have noted the historical background, problems and issues, methods of study and value of Orientalism. It is hoped that benefit of this background knowledge and related discussion will be useful in drawing specific conclusions on the construction of Orientalism from the process and formulation of the ryotwari settlement (1812) and the Dravidian language family (1816) in Madras. The vitality, authenticity and authority of New Orientalism of the modern period (commencing with the latter half of the eighteenth century) is based on the following attributes. The study and mastery of Oriental languages for acquisition of Oriental knowledge is the hallmark of New Orientalism. Language is the key to understand the process and pattern of thought, mores and culture, and material base of the life of people. Linguistic proficiency, capacity to read and understand documents and converse with the people is both passport and visa to the world of ideas, aesthetics and culture of a people. It has been rightly noted that ‘Scholarly Orientalism, which was based on language study, was an expression of something deeply and specially European’ (Trautmann 1999: 68). I have noted some aspects of the policy and programmes of the systematic study of Indian languages in colonial India (Chapter 2). I will now comment on a few specific dimensions of

214 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

the linguistic studies in Madras Presidency. It is sufficient to note here that unlike the Orientalism of ancient and medieval times, Orientalism of the modern period attested the authenticity of its knowledge through the rigorous and high standards of linguistic studies. The ‘scientific’ study or investigation of the history and culture of Asia was the chief objective of the Asiatic Society (Calcutta, 1784), the premier institute of Orientalism. The term ‘scientific study’, inscribed the spirit of the Enlightenment, was concerned with the epistemological problem. What is the basis for the validity of knowledge? How does one testify that a proposition is true or otherwise? The answer lies in the critical method and procedure of construction of knowledge, and its public scrutiny and appraisal. Orientalism imbibed scientific temper and method in the construction of knowledge under the spell of the Enlightenment. David Ludden finely brought out the implications of the scientific character of Orientalism. But eighteenth-century European expansion in India generated qualitatively new knowledge. Much of it served instrumental functions for capitalist, military and administrative expansion by the English East India Company. Yet methods to produce this knowledge were not specific to India, nor was its substance understood to be dictated by utility. Even the most instrumental knowledge produced to sustain technologies of colonial rule what I will call colonial knowledge — was produced under the Enlightenment rubric of objective science. Additions to knowledge about India were understood as scientific discoveries whose veracity was based on methodologies authorized by the scientific standards of the day. Orientalism as a body of knowledge drew material sustenance from colonialism but became objectified by the ideology of science as a set of actualized statements about a reality that existed and could be known independent of any subjective, colonizing will. Thus detached epistemologically from politics by a culture that objectivized the world as a collection of scientific observations with universal validity, orientalism floated free of its original moorings, it could therefore serve diverse political purposes and receive new sustenance from many quarters (1993:252).

This long passage captures partly the true character, base and potential value of Orientalism. This value may be mapped at two levels. First, Orientalism is a specialized body of knowledge which had been carefully and laboriously constructed by specialists on various aspects of Asian history and civilization. It has been observed: ‘Orientalism is that branch of scholarship which uses Western methods to elucidate problems pertaining to lands lying East of European ecumene …’ (Sinor 1970: XIV).

Orientalism . 215

The Orientalists were highly educated masterminds and votaries of the scientific method of investigation. They were assisted by native scholars or pandits who were rigorously trained in traditional learning and methods. The specialist Oriental knowledge was based on translation and interpretation of texts, linguistic and philological studies, and collection of source materials, artefacts and material objects for the study of history and culture. It was a corpus of primary information, facts, theories and ideas, a storehouse of raw materials for the construction, understanding and interpretation of Indian history and culture. Some of the assumptions, inferences and conclusions of the Orientalists were incorrect and fraught with severe consequences and endemic problems for the Indian society even today. For example, the projection of Sanskrit-based Hinduism as the eternal spring of Indian culture, caste as the chief principle and institution of social life, spiritual bent of mind and life of people, Hindu–Muslim communal divide, rural base of Indian civilization, etc have to be radically revised and qualified. But these concepts are not solely constructed by the Orientalists. The native scholars, who were custodians of indigenous knowledge and its source materials, played a significant role in the making of these concepts. It is prudent to recall the initial observation that the concept of Orientalism is inherently problematic, as well as the historical context and problems faced by the Orientalists. They had no dictionaries, accurate texts and even an authentic oral tradition to understand and portray social and cultural life and its products. They started with few unfamiliar source materials and acquitted themselves well in the task of construction of Oriental knowledge. This is not an apology for scholarly Orientalism. It is a simple statement of facts to recapture the historical background for the production of Oriental knowledge in the early phase of British rule in India. The association of colonialism and Orientalism is a historical phenomenon. The Orientalists were loyal employees of the Company. They explicitly stated that the promotion of British interests in India was their chief objective. The British colonial regime sanctioned projects of Orientalism, and monitored the progress and production of Oriental knowledge. Orientalism was a support base for the British in the project to conquer and rule India. Thus, the birth and baptism of Orientalism is rightly located in the requirements of the colonial regime in the latter half of the eighteenth century to study the Indian languages for administrative convenience and competence, communication with the people, and acquisition of reliable information and knowledge

216 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

about the Indian society to govern it and undertake programmes of territorial expansion. In spite of this transparent colonial base and utility, the following factors (which we have noted earlier) account for the sheen of Orientalism as an inherently valuable and reliable body of knowledge, besides and beyond colonial interests and rule. The scientific method and temper, and the systematic and institution-centred approach for the construction and constitution of knowledge is a worthy feature. Trautmann noted a special feature of the ‘… European intensity of interest in language, specially, as the sign of national identity and the marker of national difference’ (1999: 55). It had contributed in the deep and comparative study of Indian languages by the British Orientalists with the help of Indian pandits. The British Orientalists were under the influence of the Age of Enlightenment and its scientific spirit and pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Oriental knowledge was a project of ‘dialogic’ method and collaboration of the European and Indian scholars, and of the interface between the European and Indian modes of thought and epistemology. Orientalism, which was produced during the first phase of British colonialism, shared the imprint of these features. Moreover, the Orientalists were an influential group in the government during the early phase of British colonial rule. They advocated the cause of Indian culture as the basis for the formulation of colonial policies and administration. They put focus on issues relating to religious tradition, educational heritage and vernacular languages, indigenous practices in land survey and settlement and application of native laws in the courts, etc. Thus, Orientalism was a policy position and a part of the colonial regime. It was comprised of policy debates and discourses, decisions and a vast body of datum and information, which facilitated the colonial project. It was commissioned and approved by the government, legitimized by law and implemented by the executive authority and the coercive power of the State. Thus, it bore the seal and stamp of authority. Therefore, it was endowed with the aura of public sanction and authenticity. The British set the agenda and programmes for collection of data. The native assistants collected and compiled data from the field, and provided inputs and theoretical propositions to help in the interpretation and construction of meaning and significance of the data. Further, it was factual knowledge related to the material (land and occupational pattern), social and cultural tradition and life of the

Orientalism . 217

Indian people. The physical and social geography of India had been surveyed, measured, mapped, enumerated, classified and catalogued. The institutional specification and scientific method of collection of data were its salient features. Thus, the authority of government, institutional specificity, and systematic collection and organization of data attested the credibility and utility value of the empirical body of Oriental knowledge. Arjun Appadurai focused on the many-sided value of the empirical data of Orientalism. The vast ocean of numbers, regarding land, fields, crops, forests, castes, tribes, and so forth, collected under colonial rule from very early in the nineteenth century, was not a utilitarian enterprise in a simple referential manner. Its utilitarianism was part of a complex including informational, justificatory and pedagogical techniques (1993: 316).

It is an impressive body of factual knowledge which provided data for construction of the social, cultural and material foundations and various facets of Indian civilization. By any reckoning it is a fine and useful accomplishment. It has been rightly designated ‘Orientalist Empiricism’ by David Ludden (1993: 250–78). Indian society, with its ethnic, linguistic, religious, social and cultural diversity and ecological variation, stimulated curiosity and the simple desire to know and describe India in the British. This, coupled with the spirit of the Enlightenment Age, drove the British on a mission to discover India, and construct an accurate and verifiable body of knowledge through the methods of enumeration, measurement, cartography, etc. Moreover, during the early phase of colonial rule, land revenue was the most important source, perhaps the only source, for the Company to maintain the civil and military establishments, finance its projects of conquest of India, and provide for ‘investments’ to promote trade and commercial activities. The maximization of land revenue income and its collection was the chief task of the government, and the very survival of the Company was linked with it in a substantial measure. Therefore, survey of the land-covering fields, soils, crops, agricultural productivity, market centres, water sources, forests, etc. had been carried out. The land settlement records comprising of a vast, wellorganized, focused empirical data were the basis for the collection of land revenue. The indigenous practices and customs bearing on the social entitlements of different groups and communities relating to the use-value of the land had also been recorded. The natives manned

218 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

and had run the village bureaucracy, and they also constituted a substantial part of the workforce of the district administration. The British continued the time-tested and pragmatic practices of land revenue collection of the Mughal Empire. Thus, utility was the main objective for the compilation of empirical data relating to the land. But land settlement records and field maps generated an accurate body of empirical data relating to the land and its value. An amazing body of empirical data relating to land was produced and was available as an accurate and authoritative source of information. It was a simple project in its origins, but evolved as a complex enterprise in due course. To begin with, its aim was to discover, know and explain India. During the early period of colonial rule, utility value for the Company was the cornerstone of land surveys. At the same time, empirical data had been employed in support and justification of policy recommendations to the directors of the Company, the British government and the bureaucratic discussions and dialogues on policy matters in India, and finally to legitimize policy decisions. Further, the compilation, organization and analysis of empirical data recorded significant strides and stimulated the advancement of distinct disciplines of knowledge. In fact, the evolution of several disciplinary studies in the nineteenth century had been supported and aided by the impressive and well-organized body of empirical data relating to the Indian society, economy and culture. Thus, the data relating to land fulfilled several functions of the different agencies, and was adumbrative of the disciplinary-centred development of knowledge in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Appadurai succinctly summarized the process which helped the development of disciplinary-based knowledge from the base of empirical data relating to land. In each of these important ways, the prose of cadastral control set the grounds, and constituted a rehearsal, for later discourse concerning human communities and their enumeration. This rehearsal had three components; it set the stage for the widespread use of standardizing enumerative techniques to control on-the-ground material variations, it treated the physical features of the landscape, as well as its productivity and ecological variability, as separable (to some extent) from the complex social rights involved in its use and meaning for rural Indians, and it constituted a pedagogical preparation for the kind of disciplinary regime that would later be required for the human census enumerators and tabulators at all levels. … Colonial rule had a pedagogical and disciplinary function, so that ‘land to teach:’

Orientalism . 219 the measurement and classification of land was the training ground for the culture of number in which statistics became the authorizing discourse of the appendix (giving of indirect weight to the verbal portion of the text) at the same time that it gave higher officials a pedagogical and disciplinary sense of controlling not just the territory over which they sough to rule, but also the native functionaries through which such rule needed to be effected. As far as the native is concerned, the regime of number, as every page of such documents makes clear, is partly there to counteract the mendacity that is seen as constitutional to most natives, both farmers and ‘measurers’ (1993: 325).

But the ground reality of colonial administration at the local and district levels was quite different. The native functionaries of the local and district bureaucracy were recipients of good training in mathematical science in the traditional mode of learning (Ganitha Śāstra, . astronomy, astrology, etc.). They had plenty of opportunities to demonstrate and apply their expert knowledge in the colonial regime. At the ground level, they helped in the making and ushering in of the regime of a number pertaining to the survey and settlement of land. The Persian terminology of land revenue administration (of Mughal vintage) was retained. Nilamani Mukherjee and Robert Eric Frykenberg noted: ‘The traditional social order was too strong to be ignored. Consciously or unconsciously, the Company succumbed to its influence. Officials had to recognize and come to terms with social forces that were often imponderable but immensely powerful’ ([1969] 1979: 238). Further, Frykenberg opined, ‘… local forces were able to blunt the government measures’ ([1969] 1979: 228). The local bureaucrats of rural India had a predominant voice in fixing up the subject headings and other details of the land settlement records. The empirical data relating to land was a product of collaborative work of the British and native functionaries. The place and role of local elite groups — the literate Bra-hmins, landholders and traditional ruling families — in the emerging new order under the dispensation of British, and their relationship with the colonial rule is an interesting and complex theme. The mutual relationship and engagement of the Company and local elite groups in the shaping and working of the new order had been interpreted in the following perspective. … most studies reveal a kind of reverence for the colonial power, and thus they have failed to explore the ways in which colonial diplomacy manipulated and made use of the mechanics of traditional social control to

220 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages govern with minimal political and administrative effort. The ways in which the British helped to bolster traditional authority and administration by their policy of indirect rule need to be explored fully in their sociological perspective (Mencher and Unni Raman 1976: 126).

The British found that the traditional power structure was an effective agency in the pursuit of their goal of governing the land and people with minimal application of coercive authority and low administrative costs and burden. Therefore, they availed its services. The native elites were at ease with the new order for the perpetuation of status quo and accretion of additional authority and opportunities. Thus, the engagement of the British and local elites was anchored on mutual need, dependence and support. However, this engagement of the British and native elites had its share of hiccups of mutual suspicion and lack of trust. This state of uneasy relationship between the British and local bureaucracy had been ingrained in the interstices of the colonial regime. The British were conscious of their dominant position, and the native elites were smothered by their subordinate position. The conflict of interests and aspirations between the colonizers and colonized people had surfaced periodically in many areas of governance, as a matter of principle as well as mundane gain. The British sought to control and discipline the native functionaries through the regime of number, namely, an elaborate machinery of inspectorate, annual reports, statements of accounts, crops, cultivated land, etc. The native functionaries frequently resorted to malpractices via false statement of accounts, annual reports, and tactics of slow response, misinterpretation of rules, etc. The local bureaucrats of the colonial rule frequently hoodwinked the Company as well as native farmers and local chiefs by manipulating records, reports and statements of accounts, and used public funds to line their pockets (Frykenberg 1965). This was the dichotomy between appearance and reality of the Indian administration. Administration was transparent and efficient in the regime of number via the rules, codes, records, documents, inspection reports, etc. The local bureaucracy manipulated records and statements of accounts, forged documents, twisted the application of rules, and corruption and favouritism marked the Company rule under the dispensation of dēśastha bureaucracy (Mahārashtrian Brāhmins domiciled in Telugu-speaking areas). The picture has not improved even today in spite of the decline of hold of the Brāhmins on bureaucracy, especially at the lower levels. Perhaps the non-improvement of the quality of administrative

Orientalism . 221

performance and accountability is a function of induction of the Sanskritization process in the Indian administrative order as well. The Company and natives from the late eighteenth century down to the withdrawal of British rule as well as independent India failed to get rid of corruption and abuse of authority in the Indian bureaucracy. Perhaps pursuit of personal gain at the cost of public well being and order is one of the features of eternal India, and it partly explains the cause for its misery and poverty. The land revenue administration was a micro picture of Orientalism as a policy position and as a body of empirical knowledge. It constituted and exemplified the whole range of problems and dilemmas of Orientalism — the process of its construction, nature, objectives, utility and value. Therefore, an analysis of the ryotwari settlement of Madras Presidency has been presented to portray the concept of Orientalism, and to build some theoretical conclusions. At the end of the Third Mysore War (1792), the Company acquired Baramahal territory (Selam district) from Tipu Sultan. Alexander Read and Thomas Munro were deputed from the army to carry out a land survey and settlement and administer the territory. Read and Munro faced the two-fold task of placing the Company’s rule on a secure and solid foundation, and finding ways and means to increase income from land revenue or tax. The survey and settlement of land would, in a substantial measure, fulfill both the tasks of colonial rule. It was addressed to meet the needs of the colonial regime. As has been noted earlier, land tax or revenue was the central policy as well as administrative problem during the early phase of British colonial rule in India. The Company experimented with different systems of land revenue assessment and collection. Read, Munro and others who dealt with the problem of land revenue were familiar with the working of the Permanent Settlement of Bengal and Village Settlement of Madras jagir. For them, the crucial point at stake was the shaping of a system of land revenue which would serve and promote the twin objectives of establishing a secure base for colonial rule via the tacit consent of the mass of native cultivators and people with minimal discontent; and maximization of land revenue income for the Company by widening tax base and ensuring proper collection of land revenue, and reducing the burden of tax for the farmers by fixing fair and equal rates of tax to land. The task of land survey, settlement and ruling of the Baramahal territory compelled the officers of the Company to take up the study of local

222 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

conditions, customs, laws, economy, culture, and language. Thus, the study of land systems of pre-British India was a historical necessity and an immediate problem for the colonial rulers. The British officers and native assistants ‘… worked and traveled in the country side and absorbed local information and observed local conditions ... created “hard” objective data in surveys and settlements for policy decisions based on facts and political economy’ (Ludden 1993: 262). The knowledge of local language was an aid for acquisition of information relating to the society and economy. People met the officers and submitted oral and written representations regarding the land systems and customary rights of various groups and other problems. It is well-testified that Munro’s camp-tent was more like a tavern than camp-office, and was always crowded. The native elites were active at the camp-office, and provided information relating to the topography and contours of land patterns, soils and crops, flora and fauna, water sources, vocational skills, products, and of course about their privileges and entitlements. Munro was rather skeptical about the pleadings of elites regarding their privileges. But as we will note later, he was helpless in the matter. The local experts (mainly Brāhmins, who were custodians of indigenous knowledge),elites (dominant strata of the society) and the common people narrated local customs and traditions, and their entitlement for due share of the natural resources and products (fishing and grazing rights, free access to clay, timber, leaf, wood, flowers, nuts, fruits and other products of community lands, government lands, jungles and minor forests). Thus, information provided by the local community was an important input for the project of survey and settlement of land. After the survey and settlement of land, and two decades of work experience with and comparative analysis of different systems of land revenue assessment and collection (1792–1812), the government finally opted for and implemented the Ryotwari Settlement. Yet, ‘… it would not be entirely correct to assert that the ryotwari settlement originated with the Company, since land control of the ryotwari kind seems to have existed in ancient South India …’ (Mukherjee and Frykenberg 1979: 239). It was a direct agreement between the government and ryots (cultivators) and excluded intermediary agents. The annual land tax for each field under cultivation was fixed with reference to the type of soils, water supply, crops raised, proximity to the market centres, etc. The cultivator paid the land tax usually in the form of money, and was pattādār (title holder) of the land in perpetuity with proprietary rights. The grounding of the Ryotwari Settlement was said to be a

Orientalism . 223

revolutionary development, which initiated the process of profound transformation of the Indian economy (through the expansion and diversification of agriculture) and society (by the removal of middlemen between the cultivators and government). The Ryotwari Settlement was a good example for the ‘dialogic’ process of construction of knowledge by the joint and collaborative endeavours of the British and natives in colonial India. The colonial regime was the architect and implementing agency of the Ryotwari Settlement. But the ‘ancient origins’ of the system was testified not only by K. A. Nilakanta Sastri and other native historians, but also by James Grant, Ellis2 and other British administrators who were well acquainted with the pre-British South Indian economy and society. As has been noted earlier, Frykenberg is of the considered and well-founded opinion that the indigenous social order and native functionaries were powerful enough to blunt the policies of the government and make the Company to come to terms with it. Further, the local experts, elites and the common people were active participants in providing information and giving orientation to the British officers. Thus, the foundation of the Ryotwari Settlement was as much based on the indigenous society and sources of information as it was deliberately designed and implemented by the colonial regime. 2 Thomas Trautmann, in a path-breaking and well-documented article, analysed the historical context and theoretical meaning and value of Ellis’s Treatise of Mirasi Right (1818) as a product of the Madras School of Orientalism, and a critique and opposite vision of Thomas Munro’s ryotwari system of land revenue (2009: 310–32). Munro’s Ryotwari Settlement was based on the doctrine that the king had always been the owner of land in India, cultivators of the land were tenants, and private property in land was absent in Indian tradition. Ellis had cited textual and inscriptional evidence and argued that hereditary proprietary possession of land or its produce was the mirasi right of landholders, who were the original settlers of agricultural castes in villages, generally in South India, and particularly of the Vellalars of Tondaimandalam. Ellis’s claim was based on textual and inscriptional evidence, constructed with the help of native scholars (scholarly Orientalism), whereas Munro’s claim was based on the customary rights and law reported by the actual tillers and common people to the British Collectors (empirical Orientalism). Trautmann raised and examined a number of important issues related to land tenure in Indian society and history. He rightly claimed that his article would open up ‘a new perspective of Munro and ryotwari system’ (ibid.: 312).

224 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

The Ryotwari Settlement was based on the mutually complementary interests of the British colonial order and indigenous society. Munro’s ‘… political principle of destroying any and all intermediary authority between the Company and the cultivator as the best assurance of the securing of control by the Company over its new dominions’ (Stein 1989: 59–60) was a cornerstone of the Ryotwari Settlement. In fact, the dis-endowment of the political and military authority, and privileges of pōligārs (local chiefs and war-lords) by the Company met the long cherished hope of the people to save themselves from petty harassment and exploitation of the oppressive authority of local chiefs, so they welcomed it. At the same time, it promoted the interests of the cultivators and local elites in the enshrinement of their rights for secure cultivation of land. The local elites were well-entrenched in the indigenous society. Munro was rather skeptical with regard to their claims for customary rights and privileges. But he accommodated and upheld their claims in order to win over their support and loyalty for the newly established authority of the Company. Moreover, they were too powerful to be brushed aside. Therefore, Munro and the Company accepted the claims of the local elites largely due to the pragmatic considerations of securing the consent of traditional social forces for the colonial regime. It protected the customary rights and entitlements of the common people, and fulfilled their aspiration to live in a peaceful society under the dispensation of an orderly authority, which was less arbitrary and exploitative than the one they had known and suffered in pre-British India. The grant of customary rights of people for due share of the use-value of natural resources and products was one of the distinctive features of rural India under British rule, in contrast and comparison with the zamindari territories in which people’s rights over the use-value of natural resources were appropriated by the local chiefs. The British rulers were deeply concerned with the problem of fair and accurate assessment and regular collection of land revenue. Read and Munro proved that the Ryotwari Settlement facilitated collection of more land revenue with lower rates of land tax or reduced burden of land tax on the cultivators, but the cost of collection was high. After prolonged debates in Madras and London, the government adopted the Ryotwari Settlement in 1812. Munro carried home the point on three counts: more land revenue would be collected directly from the cultivators; the burden of land tax on the cultivators would be low; and the support and loyalty of cultivators as a class would provide a secure

Orientalism . 225

base for the British rule in India. The native cultivators longed for secure rights of cultivation of land and standard land tax for the fields under cultivation. The native functionaries of the local and district bureaucracy were gratified with the newly found status, authority and opportunities to keep up and safeguard their privileged position in the community. Thus, the Ryotwari Settlement at the same time served and protected the interests of the Company and indigenous society. The British as well as various groups of the indigenous society, who were motivated by particular interests and objectives and endowed with diverse skills and abilities, participated in the making of the Ryotwari Settlement and its implementation to shape a new order of peasant proprietors and village India. Therefore, the construction of new knowledge was neither solely based on the authority of the colonial regime, nor did it serve or promote only the interests and objectives of colonial establishment. The new order served the interests of the natives in a substantial measure. It is important to note the nature of collaboration between the British and native people in shaping the new order. Even though the native elites were partners in the making and implementation of the Ryotwari System, it was an unequal partnership of the ruling class and ruled subjects. The British set the agenda of surveys and settlement, made authoritative decisions and exercised physical and financial control. The ascendant colonial domination was very clear on the horizon, and undoubtedly the promotion of colonial interests and objectives was the driving force of the new order. As it happened in this case, the colonial interests coalesced with the interests of the ruled, and also quite a few of the British officers were genuinely motivated by a desire to take charge of the material and moral improvement of the Indians. The implementation process of the Ryotwari Settlement in Madras Presidency brought into order an administrative system with distinct features. The British officers had direct relations with the mass of cultivators. They were assisted by a large body of native functionaries. It was incumbent on the part of the British to supervise, guide and control the native functionaries, which was a difficult task given the historical context and proclivities of the local bureaucracy. The District Collector was endowed with magisterial powers and jurisdiction in respect of revenue disputes and public order. Knowledge of the local language was an essential prerequisite for the proper functioning of the administrative system. It was a source for direct access to documents, information, administrative notes, etc. It was also an effective

226 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

aid for the exercise of supervisory and inspectorate functions, and an enabling power to command and direct the local bureaucracy. Therefore, the colonial government launched a project to teach and study the South Indian languages in 1812. It is not symbolic or a mere coincidence that the adaptation of the Ryotwari Settlement and the establishment of the College of Fort St George for the study of South Indian languages took place in 1812. Rather, it is a point of culmination of the colonial historical process, which had its origins in the latter half of the eighteenth century. Even during the early days of colonial rule, the British appreciated the utility of knowledge of the local language for the study of local society and its history, economy, culture, customs, traditions, etc. Thus, utility of the colonial regime was the foundation for the study of Indian languages. The British scholar-administrators wrote and published texts of grammar and dictionaries of Indian languages. They had translated treatises on law and literary and philosophical works from Sanskrit and Persian languages. This was scholarly or literary stream of Oriental knowledge. The project of the study of South Indian languages under the auspices of the College of Fort St George and the birth of the Dravidian language family was one of the landmarks of scholarly Orientalism. A full-scale account and analysis of this project — the origins and historical context of colonial rule; the College of Fort St George; Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar; Ellis’s Dissertation on Telugu language; the value of indigenous linguistic tradition and role of native pandits in this enterprise; the dialogue between the British scholar-administrators and native pandits; and its significance for the discipline of comparative philology, and other related problems — has been reported in chapters 2 and 3. We will comment on two aspects of this linguistic exercise. First, colonial utility initiated the project of the study of the South Indian languages and was its mainstay. But the project had several historical and intellectual components and its own logic and drive, which marched fast the colonial interests and concerns, and contributed in the advancement of knowledge. It is a good example to illustrate the process of construction of new knowledge under colonial rule. A detailed sketch of this project has been presented in chapters 2 and 3. Here, I will briefly discuss the methods of study and active role of native agents in the construction of new knowledge. Second, an examination of new knowledge in this specific case will be useful to assess the nature, objectives and value of Orientalism. It will throw a flood of light on the concept of Orientalism.

Orientalism . 227

The programme of the study of South Indian languages under the auspices of the College of Fort St. George was imprinted by the following features. It was a systematic and well-organized pursuit of linguistic studies. The Company rejected the ‘nuts and bolts’ approach of William Brown for the study of Telugu language (A Grammar and Vocabulary of Gentoo Language 1809, which was published in 1817 and 1818 as two separate books). It was meant to fulfil the colonial needs. The Company mounted a deep, scientific and comparative study of Telugu. It commissioned, (vide its policy of encouragement and monetary payment to the authors of grammatical and lexical works of South Indian languages), paid for and published Campbell’s Teloogoo Grammar (1816), and his Dictionary of Teloogoo (1821). It printed Ellis’s Dissertation on Telugu language. Pattābhirāma Śāstry, Head master, Sanskrit and Telugu at the College, who was ‘stimulated’ by the British scholar-administrators, authored Āndhra Dhātumāla (1814–15), a string of roots of Telugu, and a Telugu grammar in verse form. Venkata Nārāyanayya, acting Head master English at the College, translated . into English a Telugu grammar written in Sanskrit. The Company paid for and acquired copyright for publication of Venkayya’s Āndhra Dīpika, a two-volume Telugu dictionary. Likewise, several significant studies relating to Tamil and Kannada were commissioned and published. Thus the College, from its inception, mounted and pursued a programme of linguistic studies for the fulfilment of colonial needs as well as for advancement of knowledge. The pursuit of this vision of linguistic studies of the College was stimulated and enriched by the European passion for the study of history and relations of languages; the scientific and comparative approach of the modern age; and the quest of the Enlightenment Age to pursue knowledge for its own sake. The native pandits were experts on the history and grammar of Telugu language. They shared and endorsed the plural linguistic tradition of India, and upheld the banner of the concept of a strong and enduring Telugu linguistic identity. It is necessary to recall two unique tenets of the Telugu grammatical tradition. First, Telugu language is coeval with the people of Trilingadēśa since times immemorial. Telugu has been created and sanctified by God Brahma. It is an independent language, and the sources of its origins are traced to the usage of the people of Trilingadēśa and Brahma. Second, Telugu grammarians maintained that dēśyamu are Telugu words. It is of two kinds: dēśyamu (Telugu words spoken and used in Trilingadēśa), and anyadēśajāmdhramulu (telugu words spoken in conjunction with

228 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

the dēśya words of the neighbourhood languages such as Tamil and Kannada). Pattābhirāma Śāstry identified and listed some Telugu compound roots and designated them viśēshyamulu (special variety of root forms) in Āndhra Dhātumāla. The first part of such compound roots has no separate use/application or meaning in Telugu. In fact, the first part in such compound roots had been borrowed from the dēśya words of languages of the neighbourhood regions. As has been noted in the Chapter 3, these principles of Telugu grammar were employed by Ellis to derive and construct the concept of cognate languages, which was a key for the formulation of the Dravidian language family. The Vyākaran.a Śāstra of the Indian linguistic tradition derived fixed or unalterable meaning and origin of each word by tracing and constructing its root. The method of classification of words of a language into two categories: the basic and borrowed or loan words were an ancient and well-developed practice of the vyākaran.a tradition. These are components of the new science of etymology, which is the basis for philological studies and discipline. The College assembled British scholar-administrators and native pandits and provided institution-centred opportunities for sharing and exchanging ideas. They had common goals and objectives in the promotion of the study of South Indian languages. They were partners in joint and collaborative studies with specific reference to the study of Telugu language, in this case. The British scholar-administrators ‘... stimulated the native scholars to give their best and tell their own tale in the fashion intelligible and useful for Europeans’ (Derret 1968: 225). The native scholars imbibed scientific and comparative methods of study of languages and literature. The College was the venue through its curriculum, teaching programme and academic ambience for a long dialogue between the European and Indian linguistic traditions, which complemented each other. Neither the Indian nor the European linguistic tradition would have paved the way for the advent of the Dravidian language family. A sustained mutual interrogation of these two distinct linguistic traditions gradually facilitated the formulation of the Dravidian language family in 1816. The process of construction of Dravidian language family has been analysed in Chapter 3. We may venture to build some theoretical conclusions relating to the nature and value of Orientalism with reference to the Ryotwari Settlement (empirical knowledge) and pursuit of the study of Telugu (scholarly knowledge). The natives were active participants in the construction of Oriental knowledge. They were teachers to the British

Orientalism . 229

and provided expert information and knowledge and cultural concepts and theoretical inputs to organize and interpret the mass of data and information. They conveyed to the British information relating to the agrarian economy and traditional customs and practices of the pre-British South India. Native pandits narrated to Campbell and Ellis an account of traditional history of Telugu language and grammar and the strong and enduring Telugu linguistic identity in the context of the plural Indian linguistic heritage. The British officers and the natives were complementary partners in shaping the new order of agrarian economy of village India. The British Orientalists and native pandits conducted joint studies in the form of a dialogue between the European and Indian linguistic traditions. They were engaged in a long conversation of mutual interrogation and learning. The construction of new knowledge, in this specific case the formulation of the concept of the Dravidian language family, was a ‘heteroglot and dialogic production’. Orientalism is a productive and creative discourse. Orientalism is a storehouse of native traditions, customs and indigenous knowledge. British Orientalists received native traditions and sources of knowledge with due deference. They initiated programmes of action for preservation of a wealth of documents and materials in various forms, which are primary source materials of the Indian tradition and civilization. This approach of the British Orientalists was based on the assumption that indigenous sources and traditions were good guides for construction of Indian history. It was a cardinal principle of Orientalism during the early phase of British colonial rule. In fact, Orientalism (its source materials) is one of the bases for the construction and analysis of the history and culture of the Orient of the pre-modern era. Campbell’s approach for the study of Telugu was rooted in the thesis that foreigners will do well to give deference to the native tradition and pedagogy and history of the language. Ellis substantially endorsed the same opinion, though not as explicitly as Campbell, and followed it in the study of Telugu. The library of the College collected and preserved important manuscript documents related to the Telugu and its grammar. These documents are of fundamental value and indispensable in the construction of the history of Telugu and its grammar. ‘Bangorey’ (Bandi Gopala Reddy), a distinguished research scholar and critique of the modern Telugu literary tradition, is of the considered opinion that the programme of teaching and study of Telugu at the College was a harbinger of renaissance for the development of Telugu (1977: xiv).

230 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

We have noted an account of the process of construction of empirical orientalism relating to the Ryotwari Settlement and village India, and of scholarly Orientalism dealing with the concept of the Dravidian language family. It comprises of an analysis of the historical context, methods of investigation and study, institutional base, architects and active participants and the nature, content, and significance of Orientalism. At this point, it is appropriate to deal with the problem of impact of colonial power on Orientalism, which was a cornerstone of Said’s Orientalism, and an inclusive and underlying principle of Cohn’s studies on colonialism and Orientalism. For Said, the alliance of colonial power and Orientalism was proof enough beyond doubt to demonstrate the degenerate quality and evil nature and character of Orientalism. For Cohn, ‘… the interpenetration of power and knowledge constitutes the very fabric of colonialism’ (Guha 1990: xx). Cohn put focus on the colonial origins and historical background of Orientalism and its meaning and implications for an appraisal of its nature and value. We proceed to examine and discuss the dynamics of relationship of power and knowledge or vice versa with particular reference to colonial power and Orientalism, and of the perspectives of Said and Cohn. For Said, the complicity of colonial power and Orientalism is an article of faith, after Foucault’s overarching concept of power. I have analysed, in this chapter, the historical context and nature of colonial power and of power relations in colonial India. I have noted that the epistemology of Foucalt’s concept of power was located in and derived from the origins and development of the nation-state in the West during the modern period. Therefore, Said’s analogy of colonial power with Foucault’s concept of power is rather inappropriate and tends to mislead. This is a preliminary observation. But the problem raised by Said as regards the impact of colonial power on Orientalism is very significant. It is relevant to the mutual relationship and influence of any form of power and any branch of knowledge as a universal proposition. Power is a seductive force and degrades knowledge. This is truer in the case of Orientalism because of the corporate character and institutional base of the colonial agenda and its project to conquer and rule India. Therefore, Said declared, ‘If the knowledge of orientalism has any meaning, it is in being a reminder of the seductive degradation of knowledge, of any knowledge, anywhere, any time. Now perhaps more than before’ (1978: 328). This is the lesson and value of his Orientalism — that power tends to exercise a corrupting influence on knowledge.

Orientalism . 231

The alliance of colonial power and Orientalism is manifestly evident through the acknowledgements of Orientalists and declarations of the colonial regime. The Orientalists professed that the protection and advancement of colonial interests was their chief objective. The colonial rulers commissioned, directed, paid and monitored the progress of programmes and projects of Orientalism. Oriental knowledge was a product of translation of legal texts and other works from Sanskrit and Persian languages, and of empirical surveys relating to some aspects of Indian society and economy, and collection of oral and written records and material evidence of local history. The contents of these source materials were classified, categorized and used by the British to govern India. Cohn referred to and summed up this process of construction and utilization of Oriental knowledge with a profound observation: ‘The conquest of India was a conquest of knowledge’ (1985: 276). Power relations in any domain of human life and activity primarily involve construction, organization, utilization and manipulation of knowledge. The logic of power (expansion of the base of power and maintenance of status quo of power relations) demands that a suitable corpus of knowledge be generated, shaped and utilized. The politics of knowledge puts a premium on the logic of power. This is a running theme of the history of British colonial rule in India, and also of the relationship of colonial power and Orientalism. This is a general principle or trend. But its actual working was shaped by the historical context and contingent circumstances and other variables. I have provided in this chapter an outline of the historical context of the early phase of the British colonial rule in India. It was insecure due to internal and external threats, and was dependent on the Indians for information and knowledge, and support and manpower. The Indian revenue resources were the only ways and means available for it to finance and manage all the projects. Its power and authority were derived from multiple centres and sources in England and India (including Orientalism as a policy framework). Hence colonial power for a long part of this period was moderately strong, and not strong enough to have a sway over Indian affairs. The conclusion of Anthony Pagden ‘… that some empires were much weaker than was commonly claimed ….’ foots the bill in this case (2005: 46). Indian inputs were agents in the formulation of knowledge. Given this historical scenario, the colonial regime had exercised modest control on the process of construction of knowledge, and its impingement and influence on knowledge was neither always unilateral in the promotion of colonial

232 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

interests nor sinister. The construction of Oriental knowledge was governed by the spirit of the of Enlightenment Age (pursuit of knowledge for its own sake), and scientific temper and methods of investigation. Rocher offered the following instructive and insightful comments on the inappropriateness of Said’s totalized discourse on colonialism and Orientalism: By collapsing the entire history of orientalism into a consistent discourse, it leaves in the shadows the precise relations between the genesis and use of particular forms of knowledge and their immediate historical environments. In doing so, it obscures the more central issue of the intricate dialectics between the pursuit of knowledge and governmental pursuits, an issue that is not restricted to orientalist knowledge and imperial governments, but one that every scholar must face (1993: 215).

British colonial discourse in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was a hermeneutic period for an analysis of the dynamics of power and knowledge. The colonial discourse vis-à-vis the dynamics of power and knowledge carries rather a hazy but indelible picture which is abstract, hard to delineate and grasp. The pursuit of knowledge is a matter of joy for those who are well trained and disciplined. A number of British Orientalists cultivated dedicated scholarship in several branches of learning (far beyond the concerns of the government) for actualization of intellectual faculties and to contribute in the advancement of knowledge. After making a detailed and careful study of the dialectics of knowledge and colonial power and rule in the late eighteenth century India, Rocher concluded: ‘Knowledge and governmental objectives were often, but not always, related, and their relationship was not unidirectional. While a political agenda can corrupt, drive, or even define the production of knowledge, intellectual trends also impinge on government’ (1993: 240–41). Knowledge is autonomous and is capable of exercising influence on human conduct and course of events. The ēlan of the autonomous spirit of knowledge lies in its pursuits including methods of study and investigation, and exploration of hitherto unthought-of interconnectedness among several fields of learning, concepts and ideas. It is the domain of scholars with plentiful opportunities to pursue knowledge for its own sake. Such a spirit has been aided and stimulated by the doctrine of the modern age that the world is knowable and measurable. Oriental knowledge had been constructed in this epistemological background. The government sanctioned and launched

Orientalism . 233

projects of Orientalism. The government of Madras established the College of Fort St George (1812) to teach South Indian languages to the British junior officers. The teaching programme of the College (curriculum, methods and aims of teaching, study of the nature and structure of the South Indian languages, etc.) and its implementation was left to the care of British scholar-administrators and native scholars. It was their intellectual domain which afforded opportunities for free play of critical and creative faculties. The European and Indian linguistic traditions were engaged in a long dialogue at the College through the agency of the British and native scholars, which led to the exploration of the hitherto unthought-of historical and mutual relationship of the South Indian languages. Thus, the process for formulation of the concept and body of the Dravidian language family was facilitated at the College. The theory of the Dravidian language family (1816) is new knowledge. The aim of the government was to provide institutional arrangement for teaching the South Indian languages to the young men who arrived from England to join the service of the Company, and no more. The role of the government in the affairs of the College was confined to the receipt and review of the annual reports, half-yearly reports on the examinations, reports on the training of native teachers and students. The reports were prepared by the Board of Superintendence of the College and provided information on its working. They were documents of the genre of academic audit of the programmes of the College and were of marginal interest and concern to the government in Madras, and the Court of Directors of the Company in London. The findings and observations of the reports did not prompt intervention of the government in the affairs of the College, except for the allocation of annual finances, and occasional comments. The annual or periodical visits of the Governor to the College had more of a ceremonial or symbolic value to the government as well as the College. The autonomous pursuit of knowledge at the College resulted in the production of new knowledge — the Dravidian language family; and publication of texts of grammar and dictionaries of the South Indian languages. The autonomous spirit of knowledge has its own logic and rewards. It drives well-motivated and well-trained scholars to go beyond the concerns and interests of the government, and take part in the adventurous path of construction of new knowledge and ideas. This is the saga of Orientalism, at least partly, in the early phase of British colonial rule in India. It is a well-known adage that ideas have legs; one may add that ideals have wings. Knowledge as

234 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

a body of facts and theories, and ideas and ideals, has strong appeal to the human mind. Some periods of history are seed beds of ideas, and to gifted and noble minds construction of knowledge is as fascinating as the pursuit and exercise of power. It is said that knowledge is power; but the process of utilization of knowledge as a base of power and as means for exercise of power is elusive and uncertain. The factors and conditions that contribute for conversion of knowledge into power are very complex. The institutional base, penetration and efficacy of colonial rule varied in different regions of British India. Therefore, it is difficult to find out in which regions and periods, and to what extent colonial knowledge had been used as a base for colonial power. This is not to reject the proposition that colonial knowledge was one of the pillars of colonial power. In fact, the link between colonial knowledge and the colonial regime and its power was directly admitted by the Orientalists as well as administrators. But it is necessary to qualify the relationship between knowledge and power with the following riders. First, the relationship between knowledge and power represented neither a mechanical process of a uniform pattern across colonial India nor at various levels and divisions of colonial rule. The proposition that colonial knowledge was a base for colonial power is correct, but it is a general observation. It is not useful to find out the employment of knowledge as a base of power either in specific cases or at various levels and spheres of colonial governance of the variegated world of colonial India. The actual relationship of knowledge and power in the process of colonial government waxes between a maximum of correlation and wanes to a minimum of being parallel concepts. My attempt is to study and analyse the maxima and minima of the relationship between colonial power and Oriental knowledge in colonial India. Second, colonial knowledge at some levels and spheres of governance moderated power and exercised benevolent influence on the rulers. Warren Hastings (Governor-General of India) hoped that the knowledge of the Bhagvadgita ‘… imprints on the hearts of our own countrymen the sense and obligations of benevolence …’ towards Indians (1785: 13). Thomas Munro’s (Governor of Madras Presidency) advice to the junior civil servants embodied the value of knowledge and its benign and multi-fold influence on human affairs: … language is but the means, the good government of the people is the great end … the advantage of knowing the country languages is not merely

Orientalism . 235 that it will enable you to carry on the public business ... but that by rendering you more intimately acquainted with the people, it will dispose you to think favourably of them … (Woodruff 1953: vol. 1, p. 196).

Hastings in Bengal and Munro in Madras, separated by a time span of four decades, spoke of the multi-fold and benevolent influence of the two extreme spectrums — one the textual and other empirical — of Oriental knowledge on power. The protection and promotion of British interests was the centre-piece of their programmes, and yet their abiding love and concern for the well-being of the natives was perhaps unparalleled in colonial history. For both of them, Oriental knowledge was a source of colonial power, and was also a perennial source of benevolent influence on colonial rule and power. As noted by Mark Tully, British rule had a long series of members of civil service ‘… who loved India deeply …’ (2003: 52). It is a baffling trait of British colonialism in India which utilized Oriental knowledge as a base of colonial power and policies and also as an agent of benevolent influence on colonial rule and power. Said questioned the validity of representation of cultural concepts and experience on two grounds (1978: 272). First, how to understand cultural concepts and practices, which are formed through and based on the imaginative experience of people and expressed in the literary medium? Second, the representation of cultural concepts is bound to be tainted by the culture and language of the representer. How can we resolve this problem? This is the most substantial issue involved in the process of representation of cultural concepts. Walter Neale argued that even the perception of and response to the natural world and objects is dyed with cultural experience and concepts, and the notion of the objective natural world is untenable. He wrote: The thesis presented here rests upon the proposition that there is no objective natural world for mankind, and in particular for economic historians viewing the ‘natural’ setting of social institutions. Although we think of the terms by which we denote aspects of natural as objective, they have a whole group of connotations derived from our experience of the world — an experience which occurs within a cultural context and which we learn to interpret in terms of our cultural institutions (1979: 3).

Both Said and Neale focused on the most difficult and knotty problem of understanding and representing of culture. This is the core issue of inter-civilization dialogue, and of Orientalism.

236 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

British Orientalism, its approach and methods of study and the outstanding Orientalists of the early phase of colonial rule in India had consciously addressed the problem of inter-cultural dialogue and made fundamental contributions to the advancement of intercivilizational conversation and understanding. They adapted a threepronged approach and wrestled with the problem of inter-civilizational dialogue, and acquitted themselves well. First, they cultivated an attitude of tolerance and a measure of empathy towards Indian culture and civilization. This was a good beginning to understand the culture and traditions of another civilization. Tolerance is a function of simple desire to know unfamiliar and unknown phenomena, and also of respect for cultural and religious diversity. Understanding arises from an attitude of tolerance. It may also be true that the spirit of tolerance of the colonizers towards the culture of colonized people was a historical necessity in the period when the supremacy of colonizers had not been firmly secured. Rocher’s analysis of the character and attitude of the British Orientalists to the Indian culture is both objective and instructive. Those British civil servants who had an intellectual bent were men of the Enlightenment and leaned towards deism … This did not make them free from cultural and other blinders, it did not exempt them from experiencing difficulties in understanding foreign concepts and from interpreting them through the lens of their own culture and of the dominant thought process of their times. Yet the prevailing attitude, the general will among them was one of tolerance and of purposeful, if not always successful, attempt at learning and at understanding (1993: 219).

They appreciated the value of Indian culture and made a steadfast effort to understand it with the aid and advice of indigenous scholars and sources. The Europeans of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and particularly the British, played a sympathetic part in the revival of Hindu learning. … they stimulated the native scholars to give their best and tell their own tale in the fashion intelligible and useful for Europeans (Derret 1968: 225–26). They also helped reconstruct Persian learning (Rocher 1993: 219), tribal linguistic heritage and other aspects of Indian culture. They respected indigenous sources of knowledge and traditions and gave due deference to the native scholars. All these steps constituted a right move in the direction of promotion of intercivilizational dialogue and understanding.

Orientalism . 237

Second, the British Orientalists studied Indian languages in accordance with indigenous mode of learning and acquired mastery over the linguistic tradition of India. They wrote grammatical texts and compiled dictionaries of Indian languages. As noted earlier, the long conversation between the European (historical) and Indian (structuralist) linguistic traditions gave birth to the new linguistic science of philology. They traced the original root form, phonology and meaning of each word. Etymology became the governing principle for the construction of a dictionary. This was a wholesome exercise to correctly appraise and understand the significance of cultural concepts, which were products of imaginary experience and expressed linguistically. The approach and method of the British Orientalists to language, which directly takes up the study of the linguistic root form of each cultural concept, was a dependable process to facilitate inter-cultural dialogue and understanding. Third, ‘In India British encountered not only a great and ancient culture but also a brilliant and enduring tradition of indigenous scholarship’ (Rocher 1993: 234). The British Orientalists were wise enough to not only rely on native scholars in respect of indigenous sources of knowledge, but also to engage them in a long conversation with regard to the basic concepts and theories of Indian culture and society. They interrogated the native scholars and probed deeply the foundations and salient features of Indian culture, and in turn the native scholars imbibed modern methods of study and a scientific outlook. Thus, British India was the site for a long dialogue between the well-founded and brilliant indigenous scholarship and the modern European intellectual tradition, under the leadership of the British Orientalists. It led to the construction of new knowledge in several fields of learning through the ‘dialogic’ method. This was a creative and productive engagement of scholars who were affiliated to different epistemological systems and belief patterns, and interested in mutual cooperation for the promotion of inter-civilizational understanding. The elementary steps of the British Orientalists in the field of inter-cultural understanding — an attitude of tolerance coupled with a desire to learn, study of languages with focus on etymology of words, and partnership with indigenous scholars in the exploration and construction of knowledge — have universal relevance. The cumulative effect of those steps and methods on breaking the ice of inter-cultural studies produced a dramatic and enduring change. This is the only reliable and productive method and approach for the promotion of

238 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

mutual understanding and enrichment of diverse civilizational discourses and traditions. It is hardly necessary to point out the paramount value of the legacy of British Orientalism in the field of inter-civilizational dialogue and understanding to humankind, particularly in the troubled and confused contemporary world. David Kopf has rightly observed: ‘Because Said never explored, in the context of inter-civilizational encounter between the Europeans and the Asian intelligentsia, … he has misunderstood the nature and function of orientalism — certainly in South Asia’ (1980: 505). The early phase of British colonialism in India was a period in which production of Oriental knowledge was pursued simultaneously with the political agenda of the colonial regime. It led to the introduction of structural changes in Indian society through the institutionalization of peasant proprietors and village India; diversification and modernization of social and economic life; and acceleration of the process of modern development of vernacular languages. This was also a period of intensive and extensive contact and interaction between the British and Indians. Tapan Raychaudhuri observed: ‘The contact was a catalyst. It induced mutations in the inherited ways of thinking and conduct, both individual and social, and initiated unprecedented departures from the established patterns of responses even in the most intimate areas of life’ (1988: x). India was the best site and afforded ample opportunities, research materials and well-trained native personnel (who were deeply entrenched in the indigenous tradition of learning and scholarship) for inquisitive and disinterested exploration into new fields of knowledge. No wonder colonial India shaped enduring ideas and institutions in the modern world. British India’s legacy to the modern world encompasses new branches and areas of learning such as comparative philology, comparative religion, mythology, romanticism, political economy (Hailybury College), the organization of an open competitive civil services system, etc. That political use/abuse of Oriental knowledge by the colonial regime had devastating consequences which play havoc with South Asia even today is a separate story. It is neither correct nor fair to blame the Orientalists for the omissions and commissions of the colonial rule during its earlier and latter phases. It has been argued that the structural domination of colonialism was the primary force which drove the projects of Orientalism, and that the good intentions of Oriental scholars or administrators constituted a marginal factor. It is

Orientalism . 239

a substantially valid point and has heuristic value. But the early phase of British colonialism and Orientalism was a phenomenon of the preMarxian era, and the process and logic of structural domination was either unknown or of marginal concern to the British Orientalists. This chapter commenced with a rider that Orientalism is an inherently problematic enterprise due to several factors. Colonialism and imperialism further compounded and complicated the concept in the modern period. Orientalism was tainted by the colonial interests and objectives of conquering and ruling India. Yet with all the shackles, the Promethean Orientalism constitutes an approximately reliable and objective body of information and knowledge. The process of construction of Orientalism was carried out according to the standard techniques and procedures of its times and was open to public scrutiny and debate. The core of Orientalism lies in its scientific temper and approach. It is a carefully compiled body of factual knowledge and well-founded, well-argued theories. Orientalism with its prejudices and defects is still a mine of information and useful guide to study and appraise Oriental cultures. Orientalism is an open and encyclopaedic text. A host of authors and agents with multiple objectives and interests have contributed in its making. Primary source materials — textual as well as empirical and a number of artifacts — constitute the stuff of Orientalism. The interpretative themes and specific interests on which it has been moulded are of secondary value. It is amenable to be pressed in support of rival objectives and claims. It is well-known that British Orientalists cited native source materials in support of the social reformist policies of the colonial regime against some of the social evils and practices, and the indigenous orthodox groups which opposed such policies of colonial rule also utilized materials from Oriental knowledge. The Indian nationalists extensively used materials from the corpus of Orientalism in the struggle for social reform and political independence. Further, Orientalism has tremendous significance and political value in shaping the destiny of the former colonies in the contemporary world. Even though it is a product of colonial rule and times, its long shadow is cast on the postcolonial world. Postcolonial societies face cruel choices and challenges in responding to the legacy and relevance of Orientalism. The historical context of the postcolonial world and the nature of Orientalism account for this rather unmanageable and unenviable situation. Nationalist movements, which heralded the emergence of postcolonial societies,

240 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

were anchored on the twin ideologies of anti-colonialism and antiimperialism, on the one hand, and pristine nativism, on the other. Anticolonialism and nativism are two sides of the coin of nationalism. It is no easy task for postcolonial societies to unload the baggage of anticolonialism, which was historically and figuratively the ante-room of their present dwelling space. The world is precariously divided between the affluent West and the poor East. The dominant, decisive discourse of the Occident in international forums — political, economic, scientific and technical, socio-cultural and other fields — is not only ubiquitous, but also leaves severely limited space for postcolonial societies to pursue an autonomous agenda. Even issues of common and shared concern of humankind, such as environment and global warming, terrorism, programmes of arms reduction and peace, food security and health, etc. are under the deterministic, dominant influence of the West. Moreover globalization, unprecedented and revolutionary advances in technology, worldwide transfer of capital and information and trends for homogenization of world economics and culture are contributing to place the West at the head of the competitive race and the East at the losing end. The stability and survival capacity of the postcolonial societies are threatened. This is an awesome historical context, and postcolonial countries find it hard to disentangle themselves from the anti-colonial heritage, including Orientalism. Furthermore, the anti-colonial or anti-Western position is deliberately used as a cloak to cover up the failures and poor performance of governments of postcolonial societies. Nativism or cultural nationalism is partly an idealized and imagined motif of national identity and cultural alternative to the dominant Western society. It is also in part a romantic construction of the bygone era. It is used by the ruling and dominant sections as a myopic trap to explain away corruption, abuse of power and, above all, failure of the governments. Therefore, it is expedient and convenient for postcolonial societies to harp on the theme of nativism. Anti-colonialism per se has no relevance to postcolonial societies in contemporary times. Nativism, which is not rooted in critical realism, is not a helpful ideology for the development of postcolonial societies. In fact, there is a danger that nativism shaped by the ruling and dominant sections of the indigenous order and driven on the high tide of the anti-Western stand may lead to the emergence of a politics of revivalism of antiquated ideas and practices, which are

Orientalism . 241

meant to uphold the distinctive identity/identities of the formerly colonized people versus the colonizers. Such forms of nativism are totally irrelevant in the modern world. This is a phenomenon which is manifesting in several parts of the globe. Ethnic violence and racist organizations targeting the Afro-Asian diaspora in the metropolitan centres of Western societies is a matter of concern for humankind. There is no one-to-one relationship between the politics of revivalism in postcolonial societies and the racist movements in Western societies. But these forces are raising their ugly heads and feeding on one source: mutual suspicion and lack of tolerance, trust and goodwill among the erstwhile colonized and colonizers. Thus anti-colonialism and nativism, which were regenerative and constructive ideas of the national struggle period, became obstacles to postcolonial societies in their endeavours to negotiate and relocate themselves in the contemporary world. Therefore, it is imperative for postcolonial societies to have a revised and updated view of the meaning and relevance of the ideologies of anti-colonialism and nativism in order to secure their due and just place in the contemporary world. It also implies that postcolonial societies should do good homework and reorder their relationship with and attitude to the Western world. Western societies are neither secure nor happy with a poor and volatile Afro–Asian world dominated by age-old ideas, cultural patterns and practices. It is obligatory on the part of the Western world to work for global security and progress with the cooperation and partnership of postcolonial societies. The global context calls for a transformation of the East–West relationship. We are living in a finite, fragile, interdependent world haunted by perilous problems, which may spell doom for humankind. We owe a duty to ourselves and future generations of humanity to save this planet — the only known and available habitat for human life. A decisive change in the pattern of relationship and mutual understanding and cooperation between the Western world and postcolonial societies is an essential prerequisite for the survival, progress, unity, and peace of humankind. This is, among other issues, a problem of intercivilizational dialogue and understanding. Orientalism, a productive discourse of new knowledge, was a catalyst agent in the transformation and reciprocal influence of the British and Indians. The New Orientalism of the modern period was a long and sustained dialogue and interaction of inter-civilization communication and understanding.

242 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Therefore, it is appropriate to avail of Orientalism as a launchpad of the project to restructure the East–West relationship. The point which is maintained here is that Orientalism or, rather, a re-appraisal of Orientalism by its authors — the colonizers and its subjects and junior authors — the colonized people, will be a source of ideas and historical experience to humankind in shaping and implementing programmes of inter-civilizational understanding and cooperation as a base for a new order of relationship between the East and West. The transformation of the mindset of the erstwhile colonizers (superiority and domination supported by overarching power) and the colonized (subordination and supplication devoid of self-esteem and confidence based on critical self-appraisal) is a precondition for carrying out this task. Holden Furber, in his classic Presidential Address to the Association of Asian Studies, covered a good part of the terrain of transformation of mindset of the former colonizers and the colonized people. He surveyed the relations between the East and West from the pre-colonial to the colonial and postcolonial periods, and suggested the direction of and principles that ought to inform the East–West relations for the security and peace of humankind. While referring to the East–West relationship during the early modern or pre-colonial period, he said: However, Ho wever, it is not only in the world of business that Asians and Europeans met on friendly and cooperative basis. The contacts that should interest us most concern scholars and teachers. The scenes of the European sitting at the feet of his Asian guru outnumber those unhappy ones of Europeans evidencing scorn for Asian learning and condoning such horrors as the destruction of Buddhist relics in the sixteenth century by the Portuguese (1969: 716).

He continued, ‘We have been an association devoted to the scholarly study of Asia, and we should remain so’ (ibid.: 719). He observed about the scholars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: Though not free from the contemporary belief in the superiority of their religion, most of them took the view that they were in Asia to listen and to learn and that they might receive more wisdom than they gave. The liquidation of intellectual imperialism is as imperative as was the liquidation of foreign rule. Surely the keynote to the future should be the partnership — partnership in the progress of modern Asian scholarship with its own values. This demands imagination on the Asians’ side as well as ours. Just as we must earnestly combat our Europe centredness, so our Asian colleagues

Orientalism . 243 must combat a narrow nationalism focusing almost entirely on each new nation–State busily erasing its legacy from imperialism’ (ibid.: 720).

He gave a call to the scholars of the East and West: Let us get on with the work of building a new partnership between West and East, a partnership with all the values of the earlier partnership of which I have spoken and without its defects–collaboration without undertones of superiority on either side and above all, without the military presence of the European, a collaboration some day symbolized perhaps by some future Gandhi born in this unhappy period through which we are passing (ibid.: 721).

Furber’s wholesome advice to the European and Asian scholars has a two-fold objective. First, it offers a basis to build a new order of the East–West relationship to promote universal security, harmony and peace. Second, it has a potential message and utility for the postcolonial societies in combating the endemic problems that arise from the misreading of the legacy of Orientalism. If the negative features of the East–West collaboration in the colonial period are identified and noted and focus is put on ‘Asian values’, the dross that accrued on the corpus of Oriental discourse could be discerned. The West will do well to accept its ruthless exploitation of and domination over the East in the colonial period. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has substantiated this point in the case of India: There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India’s share of world income collapsed from 22.6 percent in 1700, almost equal to Europe’s share of 23.3 percent at that time, to as low as 3.3 percent in 1952 (The Hindu, 10 July 2005).

Therefore, the West should take stock of the colonial historical legacy and work to shape a just, more accommodative international order and inclusive globalization, which will take care of the interests and concerns of the postcolonial societies. The East should put critical focus on its social institutions, ideologies and cultural norms and practices and identify the internal causes for its failure to take charge of its affairs and destiny, rather than blame external forces, mainly colonialism. For example, the leadership of South Asian countries should courageously and with the spirit of critical realism come to terms and address the problems underlying Gunnar Myrdal’s analysis of the social and cultural

244 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

idiom and institutions (1968), which constitute the major ground for their subordination in the colonial period and poor performance in the contemporary times. Such a spirit of introspection on the part of the West as well the East will hopefully make the meaning and relevance of Orientalism less problematic to the postcolonial societies. Orientalism also encourages postcolonial societies to cultivate the spirit of critical realism in the appraisal of native traditions and cultural heritage. The critical layer of Orientalism relating to the indigenous cultural concepts and practices of Oriental societies will be a useful input to postcolonial societies in the cultivation of critical selfawareness, which is the foundation of self-esteem, confidence and capability. The faultlines in the collaboration of the Europeans and Asians in the colonial period should be recognized, admitted and taken care of in the re-appraisal of Orientalism and its relevance and value to the postcolonial societies as well as humankind. Such a method and process of understanding ourselves, our respective roles in the colonial period, and our role in the contemporary world as well as our responsibility to the future generations of humankind may ‘... inaugurate a non-violent revision of colonial history, and that politics may become genuinely more collaborative in times to come’ (Gandhi 1999: 129). Said maintains that his celebrated Orientalism abjures the ‘imperial East–West divide’ and emphasizes historical necessity for promotion of ‘humanistic study’ which ‘ideally … go beyond coercive limitations on thought towards a non-dominative and non-essentialist type of learning’ (1995: 336–37). It is in this sense, while responding to the award of an honorary doctorate by Oxford University, Manmohan Singh said: Indo-British relations set an example for the rest of the world in the way they sought to relate to each other. Both India and Britain had ‘learnt’ from each other and had much to teach the world. This is perhaps the most enduring aspect of the Indo-British encounter (The Hindu, 9 July 2005).

This wise observation is equally valid in the case of British Orientalism.

The Problem . 245

Bibliography Books and documents written in Telugu and Sanskrit are, respectively, indicated by abbreviations of Tel and Skt in brackets after the title. In the case of unpublished manuscript texts, the same indications are provided in the reference. Adharvanāchārya. Trilinga Śabdānu Śāsanam (Skt). Madras: Government . Oriental Manuscripts Library. D.1245. ———. 1955. Adharvana . Kārikāvali. (Skt). Madras: Vavilla Ramaswami Sastrulu and Sons. (Authorship doubtful.) Ādinārāyan.a Śāstry, P. 1933 (1994). ‘Prākrta . Grandhakartalū Prajāsēvanū’, in Volume of Essays presented to G.Venkata Rammūrti on the Seventieth Birth Day (Tel). Hyderabad: Prachee Publications. Ahōbalapathi (Narasayya, Gāli). 1926. Aho-balapandithīyamu (Skt) (2nd print). Eluru: Manjuvani Press. Anantāmātyudu. 1958. Chando-darpan.amu (Tel). Madras: Vavilla Ramaswami Sastrulu and Sons. Āndhra Dhātumāla (Tel). 1930. Kakinada: Āndhra Sāhitya Parishat. Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani . (Skt). 1932. Kakinada: Āndhra Sāhitya Parishat. Appakavi, Kakunūri. 1934. Appakavīyam (Tel). Madras: Vavilla Ramaswami Sastrulu and Sons. Appadurai, Arjun. 1993. ‘Number in the Colonial Imagination’, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer (eds), Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament Perspectives on South Asia, pp. 314–39. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Arasaratnam, S. 1979. ‘Trade and Political Dominion in South India, 1750–1790: Changing British–Indian Relationships’, Modern Asian Studies, 13: 19–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1986. Merchants, Companies and Commerce on the Coromandel Coast, 1650–1740. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Arasaratnam, S. and Aniruddha Ray. 1994. Masulipatnam and Cambay: A History of Two Port Towns. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. Ārudra. 1990. Samagra Āndhra Sāhityam. Thommidava Samputam. Kumphinī . Yugam — 1 (Tel). Vijayawada: Prajasakti Book House. ———. 2002. Samagra Āndhra Sāhityam. Modati Samputamu (Tel). Hyderabad: Telugu Akademi. Asiatic Researches. 1788–1828. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. Bālasaraswathi, Elakūchi. 1932. Bālasaraswathīyamu (Tel). Kakinada: Andhra Sahitya Parishat.

246 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Basham, A. L. 1988. ‘Foreword’, in O. P. Kejariwal, The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past, 1784–1838. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Bayly, C. A. 1983. Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion 1770–1880. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1987. The New Cambridge History of India II.1 Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1998. Origins of Nationality in South Asia Patriotism and Ethical Government in the Making of Modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Beaglehole, T. H. 1966. Thomas Munro and the Development of Administrative Policy in Madras 1792–1818 The Origins of ‘the Munro System’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhavani, Raman. 2009. ‘Tamil Munshis and Kacceri Tamil under the Company’s Document Raj in Early Nineteenth-century Madras’, in Thomas R. Trautmann (ed.), The Madras School of Orientalism Producing Knowledge in Colonial South India, pp. 209–32. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Bhat, Nannaya. 1932. Āndhra Śabda Chintāmani (Skt). Kakinada: Āndhra Sāhitya Parishat. (Authorship doubtful.) Bopp, Franz. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskrit Sprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, persschen und germanishen Sprache. Frankfurt: Andraeäischen Buchhandlung. Bose, Sugata (ed.). 1990. South Asia and World Capitalism. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Breckenridge, Carol A. and Peter, Van der Veer (eds). 1993. Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament Perspectives on South Asia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Brenning, Joseph J. 1977. ‘Chief Merchants and the European Enclaves of Seventeenth-Century Coromandel’, Modern Asian Studies, 11 (3): 321–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1986. ‘Textile Producers and Production in Late Seventeenth-Century Coromandel’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 23 (4): 333–56. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Brown, C. P. 1824. ‘Note to Manuscript Text’, in Māmidi Venkayya, Āndhra Dīpika. Madras: Government Oriental Manuscripts Library. D.1333. ———. 1826. ‘Note to Manuscript Text’, in Vēdam Pattābhirāma Śāstry, Āndhra Dhātupāt. a or Āndhra Dhātumāla. Madras: Government Oriental Manuscripts Library. D.1227. ———. 1840. A Grammar of the Telugu Language. Madras: Vepery Mission Press. ———. 1852. A Dictionary, Telugu and English, Explaining the Colloquial Style Used in Business and the Poetical Dialect, with Explanations in English and Telugu. Madras: CKS Press. ———. 1857. A Grammar of the Telugu Language (2nd edn). Madras: CKS Press.

Bibliography . 247

Brown, William. 1817. A Grammar of the Gentoo Language as it is Understood and Spoken by the Gentoo People; Residing north and north-westward of Madras. By a Civil Servant under the Presidency of Fort St. George, Many Years Resident in the Northern Circars. Madras: The Commercial Press. ———. 1818. A Vocabulary of Gentoo and English, Composed of Words in Current Use, and Illustrated by Examples, Applicable to the Familiar Speech and Writings, Middle Orders and More Elevated Ranks of the Modern Gentoo People. By a Senior Merchant, on the Madras Establishment Many Years Resident in the Northern Circars. Madras: The Commercial Press. Burnell, A. C. 1878. ‘Note’, to F. W. Ellis, ‘Dissertation on the Malayalam Language’, The Indian antiquary, VII: 287. Burrow, T. and M. B. Emeneau. 1961. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1984. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (2nd edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cain, P. J. and A. G. Hopkins. 1993. British Imperialism: Innovation and Expansion 1688–1914. London: Longman. Caldwell, Robert. 1856. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian family of languages. London: Harrison. ———. 1875. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian family of languages (2nd rev. edn). London: Turner and Co. ———. 1894. Reminiscences of Bishop Caldwell. Ed. J. L. Wyatt. Madras: Addison and Co. ———. 1961. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian family of languages (3rd rev. edn). Ed. J. L. Wyatt and T. Ramakrishna Pillai. Madras: University of Madras. ———. 1974. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian family of languages (rpt). New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation. Campbell, Alexander D. 1816. A Grammar of Teloogoo Language, Commonly Termed the Gentoo, Peculiar to the Hindoos inhabiting the North Eastern Provinces of the Indian Peninsula. Madras: College Press. ———. 1820. A Grammar of Teloogoo Language, Commonly Termed the Gentoo, Peculiar to the Hindoos Inhabiting the North Eastern Provinces of the Indian Peninsula (2nd edn). Madras: College Press. ———. 1821. A Dictionary of the Teloogoo Languae, Commonly Termed the Gentoo, Peculiar to the Hindoos of the North Eastern Provinces of the Indian Peninsula. Madras: College Press. ———. 1849. A Grammar of Teloogoo Language, Commonly Termed the Gentoo, Peculiar to the Hindoos Inhabiting the North Eastern Provinces of the Indian Peninsula (3rd edn). Madras: College Press. ———. 1961. A Grammar of Teloogoo Language, Commonly Termed the Gentoo, Peculiar to the Hindoos Inhabiting the North Eastern Provinces of the Indian Peninsula (rpt). New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.

248 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Carey, William. 1814. A Grammar of the Telingana Language. Serampur: Mission Press. Chakradhara Rāo, L. 1968. Bhāshāśāstra Vyāsālu (Tel). Tanuku: L. S. Ramakrishna. ———. 2009. ‘Appendix’, in B. Sītārāmāchāryulu, Śrī Śabdaratnākaramu (Tel), pp. 22–39. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. 1926. Origin and Development of the Bengali Language, vols I and II. Calcutta: Calcutta University. ———. 1965. Dravidian: A Course of Three Lectures on Dravidian Origins and on Modern Dravidian Literature Delivered before the Annamalai University in February, 1963. Annamalainagar: Annamalai University. ———. 1970. Origin and Development of the Bengali Language, vols I and II (repub.). London: George Allen and Unwin. Chaudhuri, K. N. 1978. The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1660–1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1985. Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. China Sītārāmaswāmy Śāstri, Vajjhala. 1955. Drāvida Bhāshā Tattva Pariśīlanamu. Modati Samputamu. Rendava Samputamu (Tel). Waltair: Andhra University. Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography Literature and Art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Cohn, Bernard S. 1968. ‘Notes on the History of Indian Society and Culture’, in Milton Singer and Bernard S. Cohn (eds), Structure and Change in Indian Society, pp. 3–28. Chicago: Aldine. ———. 1985. ‘The Command of Language and the Language of Command’, in Ranajit Guha (ed.), Subaltern Studies IV Writings on South Asian History and Society, pp. 276–329. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 1990. An Anthropologist among Historians and Other Essays. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Colebrooke, H. T. 1801. ‘On the Sanscrit and Pracrit Languages’, Asiatic Researches, 7: 199–231. ———. 1805. A Grammar of the Sanscrit Language, vol. 1. Calcutta: The Honorable Company’s Press. Crill, Rosemary. 2007. Chintz: Indian Textiles for the West. Photography by Ian Thomas. London: V and A Publishing in association with Mapin Publishing. Cutler, Norman J. 1988. ‘Dravidian Languages and Literatures’, in Ainslie T. Embree (Editor-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of Asian History, vol. 1, pp. 399–402. Prepared under the auspices of Asia Society (New York). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Bibliography . 249

Dalrymple, William. 2002. White Mughals: Love and Betrayal in EighteenthCentury India. New Delhi: Viking. Davis, Donald R. 2009. ‘Law in the Mirror of Language: The Madras School of Orientalism on Hindu Law’, in Thomas R. Trautmann (ed.), The Madras School of Orientalism Producing Knowledge in Colonial South India, pp. 288–309. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Derret, J. D. M. 1968. Religion, Law and the State in India. London: Faber and Faber. Deshpande, Madhav M. 1979. Sociolinguistic Attitudes in India: A Historical Reconstruction. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, INC. Dirks, Nicholas B (ed.). 1992. Colonialsim and Culture. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. ———. 1993. ‘Colonial Histories and Native Informants: Biography of an Archive’, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer (eds), Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament Perspectives on South Asia, pp. 279–313. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Edwards, Michael. 1969. Plassey: The Founding of an Empire. London: Hamish Hamilton. Ellis, F. W. 1816. ‘Note to the Introduction’, in A. D. Campbell, A Grammar of Teloogoo Language, pp. 1–31. Madras: College Press. See N. Venkata Rāo 1953–54, Telugu Section: 1–8, and 1954–55, Telugu Section 1–35. See Asian Educational Services 1991: 1–31. Also see Thomas R. Trautmann 2006: 245–75. ———. 1878. ‘Dissertation on the Malayalam Language’, The Indian antiquary, 7: 275–87. ———. 1955. Tirukkural: Ellis’ Commentary. Ed. R. P. Sethu Pillai. Madras: University of Madras. Elliot, Walter. 1875. ‘Mr. F. W. Ellis’, The Indian antiquary, 4: 219–21. ———. 1878. ‘The late F. W. Ellis’s Essays on South Indian Languages’, The Indian antiquary, 7: 274–75. Embree, Ainslie T. 1962. Charles Grant and British Rule in India. London: George Allen and Unwin. Embree, Ainslic To ed. Mark Juergensmeyer. 1989. Imagining India Essays on Indian History. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Fifth Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons. 3 volumes, Walter Kelly Firwinger (ed.). 1812 [1984]. Delhi: Neeraj Publishing House. Finer, Herman. 1937. The British Civil Service. London: Methuen. Fisher, Michael H. (ed.). 1993. The Politics of the British Annexation of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Foucalt, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Ed. and trans. Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books.

250 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Frykenberg, Robert Eric. 1965. Guntur District 1788–1848: A History of Local Influence and Central Authority in South India. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Frykenberg, Robert Eric. 1977. ‘Company Circari1 in the Carnatic2 C. 1799–1859. The Inner Logic of Political System in India’, in Richard G. Fox (ed.), Realm and Region in Traditional India, pp. 117–64. New Delhi: Vikas. ———. (1969) 1979. ‘Traditional Processes of Power in South India an Historical analysis of Local Influence’, in Robert Eric Frykenberg (ed.), Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History (1st rev. Indian edn), pp. 217–36. Delhi: Manohar. Furber, Holden. 1948. John Company at Work A Study of European Expansion in India in the Late Eighteenth Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ———. 1969. ‘Asia and the West as Partners before “Empire” and After’, Journal of Asian Studies, 28 (4): 711–22. ———. 1976. Rival Empires of Trade in the Orient, 1600–1800. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Gandhi, Leela. 1999. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Gōpalakrishnayya, Vadlamūdi. 1953. Pītikākarta Sahāya Sampādakulu to . Āndhra Bhāshā Bhūshanamu. Ketana Kavikrtamu. Vivaranakarta Dēvinēni . . . Sūrayya (Tel). Ponnuru: Kalakrishnula Kavyamala. ———. 1974. Mārga–Dēśi (Tel). Hyderabad: Kalakrishnudu and Progeny. Gopala Reddy, Bandi (‘Bangorey’) (ed.). 1977. Brown Lēkhalu Ādhunikāndhra Sāhitya Śakalālu (Tel). Tirupati: S. V. University. Gowda, Kusulappa K. 1990. ‘Comparative Dravidian Linguistics’, in H. M. Nāyak and B. R. Gopal (eds), South Indian Studies, pp. 139–56. Mysore: Geetha Book House. Grant, James. (1784) 1917. ‘Political Survey of Northern Circars’, printed in The Fifth Report from the Select Committee of House of Commons on the Affairs of the East India Company 1812, vol. III, Appendix 13: 1–118. Ed. The Ven. Walter Kelly Firminger. Calcutta: Cambray and Co. Guha, Ranajit (ed.). 1985. Subaltern Studies IV Writings on South Asian History and Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 1990. ‘Introduction’, in Bernard Cohn, An Anthropologist Among Historians and Other Essays, VII–XXVI. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 1998. Dominance without Hegemony History and Power in Colonial India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Gurumūrti Śāstry, Rāvipāti. 1836. Tenugu Vyākaran.amu(Tel). Madras: Church Mission Press. Halbfass, Wilhelm. 1988. India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany: State University of New York Press. Haldane, J. B. S. 1958. ‘Letters to the Editor’, The Hindu. 27 November. Madras: Kasturi and Sons.

Bibliography . 251

Hanumantha Rao, B. S. L. 2000. Āndhrula Charitra (3rd print) (Tel). Hyderabad: Visalandhra Publishing House. Hastings, Warren. (1785) 1959. ‘Preface’, in The Bhagavat–geeta, or Dialogues of Kreeshna and Arjoon. Trans. Charles Wilkins. Gainesville, Florida: Scholars’ Facsimilies and Reprints. Inden, Ronald B. 1986. ‘Orientalist Constructions of India’, Modern Asian Studies, 20 (3): 401–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1990. Imagining India. Oxford: Blackwell. Irshick, Eugene F. 1994. Dialogue and History: Constructing South India 1795–1895. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Jones, Sir William. 1807. The Works of Sir William Jones with the Life of the Author in Thirteen Volumes by Lord Teignmouth, vol. III. London: John Stockdale, Piccadilly, and John Walker, Paternoster Row. Kahrs, Eivind. 1992. ‘What Is a Tadbhava Word?’ Indo-Iranian Journal 35 (2–3): 225–49. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kail, Owen C. 1981. The Dutch in India. Delhi: Macmillan India. Kapuściński, Ryszard. 2004. ‘Herodotus and the Art of Noticing’, New Perspectives Quarterly, pp. 50–53. Winter. Malden, M. A.: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Inc. Keay, John. 2000. India: A History. London: HarperCollins. Kejariwal, O. P. 1988. The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past, 1784–1838. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Ke-tana, Mu-laghatika. 1953. Āndhra Bhāshā Bhu-shanamu Vivaranakarta De-vine-ni . . Surayya. Pītikākarta Sahāya Sampādakulu Vadlamudi Go pāla Krishn.ayya (Tel). . Ponnuru: Kalakrishnula Kavyamala. Kopf, David. 1969. British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization 1773–1835. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1980. ‘Hermeneutics versus History’, Journal of Asian Studies, 39 (3): 495–506. Krishna . Mūrti, Bh. 1961. Telugu Verbal Bases — A Comparative and Descriptive Study. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1969. ‘Comparative Dravidian Studies’, in T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 5, South Asian Linguistics, pp. 309–33. The Hague: Mouton and Company. Rpt in Comparative Dravidian Linguistics Current Perspectives. 2001: 99–120. ———. 1972. Telugu Verbal Bases — A Comparative and Descriptive Study. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ———. 1975. ‘Simhāvalōkanam’, in Bh. Krishna Murti (ed.), Telugu Bhāshā Charitra, (Tel). pp. 452–75. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academy. ———. 1979. Telugu Bhāshā Charitra (rev. edn) (Tel). Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academy.

252 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Krishna . Mūrti, Bh. 2001. Comparative Dravidian Linguistics: Current Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krishna Rao, B. V. 1923. Prāchīnāndhra Naukājīvana Charitramu(Tel). Rajahmundry: Jatiyasaraswata Nilayamu. ———. 2003. Prāchīnāndhra Naukājīvana Charitramu (rev. edn) (Tel). Secunderabad: Prachee Publications. Lach, Donald F. 1965a. India in the Eyes of Europe. Chicago: Phoenix. ———. 1965b. Asia in the Making of Europe, Vol. I, Two Books. Fifteenth Century. The Century of Discovery. ———. 1970. Vol. II. Book One. Sixteenth Century. A Century of Wonder. ———. 1977. Vol. II. Book Two and Book Three. Lach, Donald F. and Edwin J. Van Kley. 1993. Vol. III. Seventeenth Century: A Century of Advance. Book One: Trade, Missions and Literature; Book Two: South Asia; Book Three: South East Asia; Book Four: East Asia. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lakshmīnarasimhāchāryulu, Manda. ‘Āndhra Kaumudi ’ (Skt). Madras: Government Oriental Manuscripts Library. D1223. Unpublished. Lele, Jayant. 1993. ‘Orientalism and the Social Sciences’, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer (eds), Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament Perspectives on South Asia, pp. 45–75. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ludden, David. 1993. ‘Orientalist Empiricism: Transformations of Colonial Knowledge’, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer (eds), Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament Perspectives on South Asia, pp. 250–77. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Madras Public Consultations (MPC). Chennai: Tamil Nadu State Archives. Majumdar, R. C. (ed.). 1960. Classical Accounts of India. Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay. Malek-Abdel, Anwar. 1963. ‘Orientalism in Crisis’, Diogenes, 44, pp. 103–40. Paris: The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Maloney, Clarence. 1976. ‘Archaeology in South India: Accomplishments and Prospects’, in Burton Stein (ed.), Essays on South India, pp. 1–40. New Delhi: Vikas. Mangamma, J. 1975. Book Printing in India with Special Reference to the Contribution of European Scholars to Telugu (1746–1857). Nellore: Bangorey Books. ———. 2001. Telugulo Achchayina Toli Pustakalu (1745–1856) (Tel). Hyderabad: Sri Potti Sriramulu Telugu Viswavidyalayamu. Mantena, Rama Sundari. 2009. ‘The Ka-vali Brothers: Intellectual Life in Early Colonial Madras’, in Thomas R. Trautmann (ed.), The Madras School

Bibliography . 253

of Orientalism Producing Knowledge in Colonial South India, pp. 126–50. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Marshall, P. J. 2005. The Making and Unmaking of Empires: Britain, India, and America, C. 1750–1783. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mason, Philip. 1974. A Matter of Honour: An Account of the Indian Army, its Officers and Men. London: Jonathan Cape. ———. (1974) 1976. A Matter of Honour: An Account of the Indian Army, its Officers and Men. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. McCrindle J. W. 1927. Ancient India As Described by Ptolemy (rev. edn). Ed. S. N. Majumdar. Calcutta: Chuckerverthy Chatterjee. McHeod, Homefield G. 1958. ‘Letters to the Editor’, The Hindu. 6 July. Madras: Kasturi and Sons. Mencher, Joan P. and Unni K. Raman. 1976. ‘Anthropological and Sociological Research in Kerala: Past, Present and Future Directions’, in Burton Stein (ed.) Essays on South India, pp. 121–48. New Delhi: Vikas. Menon, Achyuta C. 1939. ‘Dravidic Studies in Madras’, The Madras Tercentenary Commemoration Volume, pp. 393–406. Madras: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press. Mentz, Soren. 1996. ‘English Private Trade on the Coromandel Coast 1660–1690: Diamonds and Country Trade’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 33 (2): 155–73. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Mill, James. (1817) 1968. The History of British India. Ed. H. H. Wilson. New York: Chelsea House Publishers. Misra B. B. 1954. The Central Administration of the East India Company 1773–1834. Bombay: Oxford University Press. Mitchell, Lisa. 2006. ‘Making the Local Foreign: Shared Language and History in Southern India’, Journal of Lingusitic Anthropology, 16 (2): 229–48. Mukherjee, Nilamani and Robert Eric Frykenberg. (1969) 1979. ‘The Ryotwari System and Social Organization in the Madras Presidency’, in Robert Eric Frykenberg (ed.), Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History (1st rev. Indian edn), pp. 237–46. Delhi: Manohar. Murali A. 1994. Cultural–Ideological Traditions and Legitimization Process in Andhra: Twelfth to Eighteenth Centuries. Ramachandrapuram: VSM College. Myrdal, Gunnar. 1968. An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations, vols 1, 2, 3. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Nagarjan, M. S. 2003. ‘Literary Review’, The Hindu. 1 June. Madras: Kasturi and Sons. Nakamura, Hajime. (1964) 1971. Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples: India– China–Tibet–Japan (rev. English trans.). Ed. Philip P. Wiener. Honolulu, Hawaii: East–West Center Press. Nanne Chōda Dēva Kavi. 1909. Kumāra Sambhavamu (Tel). Ed. Mānavalli Ramakrishna . Kavi. Chennapattanamu: Mānavalli Ramakrishna . Kavi.

254 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Narasayya, S. 1991. Telugulō Deśi Chandassu Prārambha Vikāsadaśalu (Tel). (Dēśi ‘Indigenous’ Metres in Telugu, its Origin and Evolution). Dharmapuri, Karimnagar District: Anandavardhana Prachuranalu. Narāyana . Rāo, C. 1929. An Introduction to Dravidian Philology. Anantapur: The Sadhana Publishing House. ———. 1937. Andhra Bhāshā Charitramu (Tel) two volumes. (History of Andhra Language). Waltair: Andhra University. Nārāyana . Rāo, Velchēru, David Shulman and Sanjay Subrahmanyam. 2002. Textures of Time: Writing History in South India 1600–1800. New Delhi: Permanent Black. Nārāyana . Reddy, C. 2010. ‘Face to Face Interview’, (Tel) Āndhra Jyōthi. 26 July. Hyderabad: Aamoda Publications. Neale, Walter C. (1969) 1979. ‘Land is to Rule’, in Robert Eric Frykenberg (ed.), Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History, pp. 3–15. Delhi: Manohar. Nīlakant.a Śāstri, K. A. 1939. Foreign Notices of South India from Megasthenes to M.A. HUAN. Madras: University of Madras. ———. 1966. History of South India from Pre-historic Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar (3rd edn). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. O’Malley, L. S. S. 1931. The Indian Civil Service 1601–1930. London: John Murray. ——— (ed.). 1941. Modern India and the West. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Orr, Leslie C. 2009. ‘Orientalists, Missionaries, and Jains The South Indian Story’, in Thomas R. Trautmann (ed.), The Madras School of Orientalism Producing Knowledge in Colonial South India, pp. 263–87. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pagden, Anthony. 2005. ‘Imperialism, Liberalism and the Quest for Perpetual Peace’, Daedalus, 134, 2: 46–57. Cambridge, M.A.: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Panikkar, K. M. 1945. Convocation Address Andhra University. Waltair: Andhra University. Paranjape, Makarand. 2002. India Today p. 70. 30 September. Delhi: Living Media India Ltd. Parasher, Aloka. 1992. ‘Nature of Society and Civilization in Early Deccan’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 29 (4): 437–77. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Parasher Sen, Aloka. 1996. ‘Presidential Address Small Localities and Writing of Regional History’, Proceedings of Andhra Pradesh History Congress, Twentieth Session, 1996, pp. 8–18. Guntur: Andhra Pradesh History Congress. Pattābhirāma Śāstry, Vēdam. 1814–15. Āndhra Dhātupāt.a or Āndhra Dhātumāla (Tel). Madras: Government Oriental Manuscripts Library. Telugu Manuscripts. D.1227. ———. 1951. Āndhra Vyākaranamu Padya Kāvyamu Pattābhirāma Panditīyamu . (Tel). Madras: Vavilla Ramaswami Sastrulu and Sons.

Bibliography . 255

Peddana, Vinnakōta. 1936. Kāvyālankāra Chūdāmani . (Tel). Chennapuri: Chandrika Press. Ptak, Roderich and Rothermund Dietmar (eds). 1991. Emporia, Commodities, and Entrepreneurs in Asian Maritime Trade, C. 1400–1750. Stuttgart: Steine Verlag. Pollock, Sheldon. 1993. ‘Deep Orientalism? Notes on Sanskrit and Power Beyond the Raj’, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer (eds), Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament Perspectives on South Asia, pp. 76–133. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Polo, Marco. 1903. The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian: Concerning the Kingdom and Marvels of the East (3rd edn). 2 vols. Trans. and ed. Sir Henry Yule, revised by Henri Cordier. London: Hakluyt Society. Powers, David S. 1989. ‘Orientalism, Colonialism and Legal History: The Attack on Muslim Family Endowments in Algeria and India’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 31: 535–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prakash, Om. 1998. The New Cambridge History of India II.5 European Commercial Enterprise in Pre-colonial India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prasād, N. R. V. 1996. ‘Nandayapalem — A New Buddhist Site on the East Coast of Andhra Pradesh’, in Proceedings of the Andhra Pradesh History Congress, pp. 24–28. 20th session. Guntur: Andhra Pradesh History Congress. Purushōttam, Boddupalli. 1969. Tenugu Vyākarana . Vikāsamu. Pradhama Samputi. Dvitīya Samputi (Tel). Guntur: Girija Publications. ———. 1976. ‘The Grammatical Schools in Telugu’, in Souvenir: Sixth All India Conference of Dravidian Linguistics, pp. 38–41. Waltair: Andhra University. ———. 1996. The Theories of Telugu Grammar. Thiruvananthapuram: International School of Dravidian Linguistics. Rādhākrishna, . B. 1972. Vyavahārika Bhāshā Vikāsam (rpt 1981, 1992, 1999, 2000) (Tel). Hyderabad: Visalandhra Publishing House. ———. 1975. ‘Ādhunikayugam: Grāndhika Vyavahārika Vādālu’, in Telugu Bhāshā Charitra (Tel), pp. 264–94. Ed. Bh. Krishna Mūrti. Rev. edn 1979. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academy. ———. 1989. ‘Introduction’, in K. V. Lakshmana . Rāo, Telugu Bhāshā Tattvamu (Tel), pp. VI–XII. Hyderabad: Visalandhra Publishing House. ———. 1990. Bhāshāśāstra Vyāsālu (Tel). Hyderabad: Visalandhra Publishing House. ———. 1998. Occasional Papers in Language and Literature. Hyderabad: Prachee Publications. Rādhākrishn.a Śarma, Challa. 1971. Tenugu Vindu (Tel). Madras: The Christian Literature Society. Rājēśwara Śarma, A. 1971. ‘Kānva in N. C. S. Venkatāchāryulu . Vyākaranamu’, . and A. Rājēśwara Śarma (eds), Śāradā Manjīramu (Silver Jubilee Souvenir of Esvaraiah and Company) (Tel), pp. 117–23. Secunderabad.

256 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Rājēśwara Śarma, A. 1973. Āndhra Vyākarana . Vikāsamu. Pradhama Bhāgamu (Tel). Kamareddy: Prachya Vidya Parishattu. ———. 1977. Āndhra Vyākarana . Vikāsamu. Dvitīya Bhāgamu (Tel). Kamareddy: Prachya Vidya Parishattu. Rāmabhadra Kavi, Muddarāju. 1930. Kavijana Samjīvani (Tel). Madras: Vavilla Ramaswami Sastrulu and Sons. Rāmachandra, Tirumala. 1957. Mana Lipi Puttu Poorvo-ttarālu (rpt 1990, 1993, 1999) (Tel). Vijayavada: Visalandhra Publishing House. Rāmachandra Rāo, C. V. 1986 ‘The Life and Work of Kāvali Brothers’, Journal of Historical Research Society, XXXVIII, Part II: 231–46. Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh. ———. 2005. The Kāvali Brothers, Col. Colin Mackenzie and the Reconstruction of South Indian History and Cultural Resurgence in South India. Nellore: Manasa Publications. Rāmakrishnayya, K. 1935. Studies in Dravidian Philology. Madras: University . of Madras. ———. 1944. Dravidian Cognates. Madras: University of Madras. Rāmalingā Reddy, C. 1947. ‘Foreword’, in G. J. Sōmayāj, Āndhra Bhāshā Vikāsamu, pp. iii–iv. Madras: Triveni Publishers. Ramanā . Reddy, K. V. 1969. Mahōdayam (Tel). Vijayawada: Visalandhra Publishing House. Rāmā Rao, C. and P. C. Narasimhā Reddy. 1972. ‘Bhāshā Krishi’, in MAHATI Bhāshā Samīksha (Tel), pp. 32–48. Secunderabad: Yuva Bharati. Rāmā Rāo, C. 1975a. ‘Ādhunika Bhāshā Samgraha Varnanam’, in Bh. Krishna Murti (ed.), Telugu Bhāshā Charitra (Tel), pp. 357–96. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academy. ———. 1975b. Telugu Vākyam Pada Varna . Sahitam (Tel). Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academy. ———. 1999. Telugu Vākyam Pada Varna . Sahitam (2nd enlarged edn) (Tel). Hyderabad: Chirunavvu Books. Ray, Amita. 1983. Life and Art in Early Andhradesa. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. Ray, Himanshu Prabha. 1989. ‘Early Historical Trade: An Overview’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 26 (4): 437–57. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Raychaudhuri, Tapan. 1988. Europe Reconsidered: Perceptions of the West in Nineteenth-century Bengal (2nd edn). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rocher, Rosane. 1968. Alexander Hamilton (1762–1824): A Chapter in the Early History of Sanskrit Philology, American Oriental Series, vol. 51. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

Bibliography . 257

Rocher, Rosane. 1970. ‘New Data for the Biography of the Orientalist Alexander Hamilton’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 90: 426–48. ———. 1993. ‘British Orientalism in the Eighteenth Century: The Dialectics of Knowledge and Government’, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer (eds), Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament Perspectives on South Asia, pp. 215–49. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ruthnaswamy, M. 1935. Some Influences that Made the British Administrative System in India. London: Luzac and Company. Said, Edward W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. ———. (1978) 1995. Orientalism. London: Penguin Books. Sāmbamūrti Śāstry, Karri. 1930. ‘Introduction’, in Āndhra Dhātumāla (Tel), pp. 2–6. Kakinanda: Andhra Sahitya Parishat. Sankalia, H. D. 1974. Prehistory and Protohistory of India and Pakistan. (2nd edn). Poona: Deccan College. Sarkar, H. 1987. ‘Emergece of Urban Centres in Early Historical Andhradesa’, in B. M. Pande and B. D. Chattopadhyaya (eds), Archaeology and History: Essays in Memory of Shri A. Ghosh, pp. 631–41. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan. Satyanārāyana, . K. 1975. A Study of the History and Culture of the Andhras, Volume One, From Stone Age to Feudalism. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House. Schwab, Raymond. 1984. The Oriental Renaissance: Europe’s rediscovery of India and the East 1680–1880. Trans. Gene Patterson-Black and Victor Reinking. New York: Columbia University Press. Seneviratne, Sudarshan. 1981. ‘Kalinga and Andhra: The Process of Secondary State Formation in Early India’, Indian Historical Review, VII (1–2): 54–69. Sharma, R. S. 1990. ‘General President’s Address’, Proceedings of Andhra Pradesh History Congress, 14th Session, pp. 1–8. Warangal: Andhra Pradesh History Congress. Simmanna V. 1998. Telugu Bhāshā Chandrika (Vyāsa Samputi) (Tel). Visakhapatnam: Dalita Sahitya Pitam. ———. 2002. Telugu Bhāshā Charitra (Tel). Visakhapatnam: Dalita Sahitya Pitam. Singh, Manmohan. 2005a. ‘India–UK Ties an Example’, The Hindu. 9 July. Madras: Kasturi and Sons. ———. 2005b. ‘Of and Oxford, Economics, Empire and Freedom’, The Hindu. 10 July. Madras: Kasturi and Sons. Sinor, Denis. 1970. Orientalism and History (2nd edn). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Smith, Vincent A. 1923. Oxford History of India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

258 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Sōmasēkhara Śarma, M. 1959. ‘Varthaka Vyāparamulu’, Telugu Encyclopaedia, vol. 3, Telugu Samskriti (Tel), pp. 523–33. Madras: Telugu Bhasha Samithi. Sōmayāji, G. J. 1947. Āndhra Bhāshā Vikāsamu (2nd print 1968, 3rd print 1985) (Tel). Madras: Triveni Publishers. Śrīnivāsāchāri, C. S. 1941 ‘Promotion of Telugu Studies by the Madras Government in the Company’s Days’, Bhāshōddhāraka V. Venkateśwara Śāstrulu Commemoration Volume, section in English, pp. 8–18. Madras: Vavilla Ramaswami Sastrulu and Sons. Śrirāmachandrudu, P. 2002. Prākrta Bhāshā Vānmaya Charitra (Tel). . Hyderabad: Sri Jayalakshmi Publications. Stein, Burton. (1969) 1979. ‘Integration of the Agrarian System of South India’, in Robert Eric Frykenberg (ed.), Land Control and Social Structure in Indian History (1st rev. Indian edn), pp. 175–216. Delhi: Manohar. ——— (ed.). 1976. Essays on South India. New Delhi: Vikas. ———. 1989. Thomas Munro: The Origins of the Colonial State and His Version of the Empire. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Stern, Philip J. 2009. ‘From the Fringes of History: Tracing the Roots of the English East India Company-state’, in Sameetah Agha and Elizabeth Kolsky (eds), Peoples, Places & Spaces in Colonial India Fringes of Empire, pp. 19–44. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Stokes, Eric. 1959. The English Utilitarians and India. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Strachey, John. 1962. The End of Empire. Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. 1988. ‘Persians, Piligrims and Portuguese: The . Travails of Masulipatnam Shipping in the Western Indian Ocean 1590–1665’, Modern Asian Studies, 22: 503–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1989. The Political Economy of Commerce: South India 1500–1650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (ed.). 1990. Money and the Market in India 1100–1700. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Subramanyam, P. S. 1976. Drāvida Bhāshalu (Tel). Annamalainagar: Satyavathi . Publications. Issued by Sri Potti Sriramulu Telugu Viswavidyalayamu, Hyderabad in 1997, 2000, 2002. Sudhīr, P. and P. Swarnalatha. 1992. ‘Textile Traders and Territorial Imperatives: Masulipatnam, 1750–1850’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 29 (2): 145–69. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Sūra Kavi, Ādidamu. 1954. Kavisamśaya Vichchēdamu (Tel). Madras: Vavilla Ramaswami Sastrulu and Sons.

Bibliography . 259

Susan, Nield-Basu. 1984. ‘The Dubashes of Madras’, Modern Asian Studies, 18: 1–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talbot, Cynthia. 1994a. ‘Political Intermediaries in Kākatīya Āndhra 1175–1325’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 31 (3): 261–89. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Talbot, Cynthia. 1994b. ‘Inscribing the Other, Inscribing the Self: Hindu– Muslim Identities in Pre-colonial India’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 37: 692–722. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2001. Pre-colonial India in Practice: Society, Region and Identity in Medieval Āndhra. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Tātambhattu, Vellanki. ‘Kavi Chintāmani’ . (Tel). Kakinada: Andhra Sahitya Parishat. Manuscript No. 91. Unpublished. Thapar, Romila. 1996. ‘General Presidential Address’, Proceedings of Andhra Pradesh History Congress, 20th Session, pp. 1–7. Guntur: Andhra Pradesh History Congress. ———. 1997. ‘Foreword’, in Thomas R. Trautmann, Aryans and British India, pp. xi–xvi. Delhi: Vistaar Publications. Timmakavi, Kūchimañchi. 1927. Sarvalakshan.asāra Samgrahamu (Tel). Eluru: Manjuvani Press. Trautmann, Thomas R. 1997. Aryans and British India. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 1999a. ‘Hullabaloo about Telugu’, South Asia Research, 19: 53–70. New Delhi: Sage Publications. ———. 1999b. ‘Inventing the History of South India,’ in Daud Ali (ed.), Invoking the Past: The Uses of History in South Asia, pp. 36–54. London: Oxford University Press. ———. 2001. ‘Dr. Johnson and the Pandits: Imagining the Perfect Dictionary in Colonial Madras’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 38 (4): 375–97. New Delhi: Sage Publications. ———. 2005. The Aryan Debate. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. ———. 2006. Languages and Nations: The Dravidian Proof in Colonial Madras. New Delhi: Yoda Press. ———. 2009. The Madras School of Orientalism Producing Knowledge in Colonial South India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Tully, Mark. 2003. ‘Fanny’s Fables: A Memsahib Romps through the Cultural Delights of Early Colonial India’, India Today, pp. 52–53. 16 June. Delhi: Living Media India Limited. Van der Veer, Peter. 1993. ‘The Foreign Hand: Orientalist Discourse in Sociology and Communalism’, in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer (eds), Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament Perspectives on South Asia, pp. 23–44. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

260 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Vāsundēva Kavi, Manchell . . a. Vaikrta Chandrika (Skt). Tirupati: The Oriental Research Institute. Manuscript No. R.239. Venkatādri, Rāvipūdi. 1995. ‘Māmidi Venkayya Mānava Hakkula Pōratam’, in Adugu Jadalu (Tel), pp. 1–20. Chirala: Hema Publications. Venkata Kavi, Ganapavarapu. 1935. Āndhra Kaumudi (Tel). Kakinada: Andhra . Sahitya Parishat. Venkata Rāo, N. 1951. ‘Introduction’, in Vēdam Pattābhirāma Śāstry, Āndhra Vyākaranamu Padya Kāvyamu Pattābhirāma Pandithīyamu, pp. 5–13. . Madras: Vavilla Ramaswami Sastrulu and Sons. ———. 1953–54. ‘Dissertation on the Telugu Language by Ellis (1816)’, Annals of Oriental Research, XI, Part 1 and 2, Telugu Section: 1–6; and ‘Dissertation on the Telugu Language’, pp. 1–8 (separate pagination). Madras: University of Madras. ———. 1954–55. ‘Ellis — Dissertation on the Telugu Language (1816)’, Annals of Oriental Research, XII (contd from prev. issue), Part 1 and 2, Telugu Section: 1–35. Madras: University of Madras. ———. 1957. ‘History of Telugu Linguistics’, Annals of Oriental Research, XIII, Centenary Number, Telugu Section: 16–25. Madras: University of Madras. ———. 1957–58. ‘Word Classification in the Telugu Language’, Annals of Oriental Research, XIV, Part 1 and 2, Telugu Section: 1–14. Madras: University of Madras. Venkatāchalapathy, A. R. 2009. ‘Grammar, the Frame of Language: Tamil Pandits at the College of Fort St. George’, in Thomas R. Trautmann (ed.), The Madras School of Orientalism Producing Knowledge in Colonial South India, pp. 113–25. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Venkatarāya Śāstry, Vēdam. 1975. ‘Influence of Sanskrit on Telugu Language and Literature’, in V. Raghavan (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Sanskrit Conference, 2 (1): 7–18. New Delhi: Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Government of India. Venkata Subbarāya Sharma, Grandhi. 1929. Panditharāya Venkatarāya Jeevitamu (Tel). Guntur: Arya Vysya Printing House. Venkatrāmaiah, K. 1998. Drāvida Bhāshala Charitra (Tel). Visakhapatnam: Maharanipeta, Kolluru Mansions. Venkayya, Māmidi. 1806. Āndhra Dīpika (Tel). Madras: Government Oriental Manuscripts Library. Telugu Manuscripts D.1333. Vīrabhadra Rāo, K. 1960. Telugu Sāhityam Pai English Prabhāvamu (Tel). Secunderabad: Author’s Publication. ———. 1988. C.P. Brown 1798–1884 (Tel). Secunderabad: Chary and Company. Wagoner, Phillip. 2001. ‘Precolonial Intellectuals and the Production of Colonial Knowledge’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 45: 783–814. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography . 261

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press. White, Charles N. (1793) 1917. ‘Extract Proceedings of the Board of Revenue at Fort St. George’, The Fifth Report From the Select Committee of House of Commons on the Affairs of the East India Company 1812, vol. III. Appendix 14: 118–40. Ed. The Ven. Walter Kelly Firminger. Calcutta: R. Cambray and Co. Wilkins, Charles. (1785) 1959. The Bhagvat-geeta, or Dialogues of Kreeshna and Arjoon. Gainesville, Florida: Scholars Facsimiles and Reprints. William of Rubruck. 1900. The Journal of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts, 1253–5, by Himself, with the Accounts of the Earlier Journey of John of Pianda Carpine. Trans. and ed. W. W. Rockhill. London: Hakluyt Society. Wilson, Horace H. 1828. ‘Introduction’, The Mackenzie Collection: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Oriental Manuscripts, and Other Articles. Illustrative of the Literature, History, Statistics and Antiquities of the South India Collected by the late Lieut. Col. Colin Mackenzie, Surveyor General of India. Calcutta and Madras: Higginbothams and Co. Repub. 1882. Wink, Andre. 1990. Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, Vol. I: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam (7th–11th Centuries). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Woodruff, Philip. 1953. The Men Who Ruled India: A Fundamental Contribution to the History of British Imperialism, Volume One: The Founders and Volume Two: The Guardians. London: Jonathan Cape. ———. (1953) 1964. The Men Who Ruled India: A Fundamental Contribution to the History of British Imperialism, Volume One: The Founders and Volume Two: The Guardians (paperback edn). New York: Schocken Books. Yapp, M. E. 1980. Strategies of British India: Britain, Iran and Afghanistan 1798–1850. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Zvelebil, Kamil V. 1990. Dravidian Linguistics: An Introduction. Pondicherry: Institute of Linguistics and Culture.

262 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

About the Author K. Venkateswarlu retired as Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Prior to this, he was Reader and Lecturer at the same university, as well as Reader, University of Mysore, Mysore, Karnataka. His previous book is Indian Democracy at Work (1977).

Index . 263

Index Adhrvan.a-cha-rya, an old Telugu grammarian, 65 Ādina-ra-yana Śa-stry, P., 150–51 Ananta-ma-tyudu, 127, 133, 141 Āndhra Royoodoo, founder of ancient Āndhra Kingdom, 62–63 Apabhramśa, a Pra-krit dialect, 79 Appa-durai, Arjun, 217–19 Appakavi, K., 71, Telugu linguistic concepts and ethnicity 73–74, 76–79; 81, 96, 98–101, 147–48, 183 Arasaratnam, S., 21, 24,35–36, 161, 162, 167, 203 Ardhama-gadhī, 150–51,180 Ārudra, 9–10,18,110–11,120–22,124, 182 Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 10 Asiatic Researches, 58 Asiatic Society of Bengal, 32–33 Basham, A. L., 31 Bayly, C. A., 28, 35, 134–35, 162, 163, 204, 205 Beaglehole, T. H., 37 Bena-res Sanskrit College, 29–30 Bhanda-rkar, R. G., 143 Bhava-ni, Ra-man, 107, 116–17 Bopp, Franz, 109 Boriah Venkata, Ka-vali, 40 Bose, Sugata, 21 Bra-hmī script, 121–22, 137 Brenning, Joseph J., 162, 163, 165, 166, 167 British Orientalism, 28–34, 79, 82, 153–54,192–95,inter-civilizational dialogue, 236–38

Brown, C. P., 110–12, 172–73, 175, 182 Brown, William, 4, 45, 60, 169, 227 Buddhist linguistic heritage, 79, 136–38, 146, 150–51, 155, 177 Burnell, A. C., 7, 109 Burrow, T., 5 Cahen, Claude, 207 Cain, P. J., and Hopkins, A. G., 23 Caldwell, Robert, 6–7, 107–108, 112–18 Campbell, Alexander Duncan, 4, 51, method of study of Telugu, 58–62; sources for study of Telugu 65; 56–87, 110–12, 128, 129, 132–33, 164, 168, 182–83, 227 Carey, William, 54, 62–64, 69, 88 Chakradhara Ra-o, L., 99, 176 Charter Act 1833, 2 Chatterji, Sunītī Kuma-r, 143, 150, 157 Chaudhuri, K. N., 21 China Sīta-ra-maswa- mi Śa-stry, Vajjhala, 119 - P., 5 Chinnaya Suri, Clifford, James, 201 Clive, Robert, 1 Cohn, Bernard S., 9, 30, 43, 116, 152, 164, 168, 193, 211, 230, 231 Colebrooke, H. T., 34, 88, 153 College of Fort William, 3, 4, 30, 33, 62 College of Fort St George, 1, 3; centre for resurgence of South Indian languages 7–8, 17–18, 42, 55; Plan of the College 44, 51–55; Centre for collaborative study of South Indian languages by the

264 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

British and native scholars 1, 42, 51, 55, 103–109, 226–29 Crill, Rosemary, 162 Cutler, Norman J., 9 Dandin, 68 Darlymple, William, 34, 161 Davis, Donald R., 39 Derret, J. D. M., 29–30, 42, 192, 228, 236 De-shpa-nde, Ma-dhav M., 149, 150–51 de-sībha-sa, . 73, 76, 79, 177, 183 Dirks, Nicholas B., 40, 116, 192, 194, 202, 203 East India College, 3, 21–26 East India Company, 21–26, 31, first factory on Coramandel coast, 161, passim Edwards, Michael, x, 21 Elliot, Walter, 110 Ellis, Francis Whyte, 4, 38, 39, 42–51, 56–57, 87–103, 109–10, 112, 118, 129, 147–48, 183, 223, 227, 228 Embree, Ainslie T., 27–28, 155, 157 Emeneau, M. B., 5 Erskine, William, 45, 47, 109 Fifth Report of the Select Committee, 37 Finer, Herman, 2 Fisher, Michael, H., 35 Foucalt, Michael, 202 Frykenberg, Robert Eric, 204–205, 219, 220, 222, 223 Furber, Holden, 21, 163, 168, 191–92, 197, 242–43 Ga-ndhi, Leela, 244 Gopalakrishnayya, V., 123, 150, 156 Go-pa-la Reddy, B. (pen name ‘Bangore’), 16–17, 229

Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, 65 Gowda, Kusulappa, K., 10 Grant, Charles, 3 Grant, James, 38, 223 Guha, Ranajit, 24, 28, 164, 203, 230 - , 122, Gun.a-dya, author of Brhatkatha . . 124 - Śa-stry, Ra-vipa-ti, 56, 111 Gurumurti Haileybury College, 2, 195 Halbfass, Wilhelm, 210 Haldane, J. B. S., 123 Hamilton, Alexander, 153 Hanumantha Ra-o, B. S. L., 148 Hastings, Warren, 1, Orientalist Policy and its historical context 27–30, 152, 234 He-machandra, Pra-krit grammarian, 68 Herodotus, 188–90 Hodgson, Marshall, 207 Inden, Ronald, 211 Investment Policy of the Company, 24 Irshick, Eugene F., 25, 206, 212–13 Jain linguistic heritage, 79, 139, 146, 150–51, 155, 177 Jayavallabha, Pra-krit author, 151 Jones, William 32–33, 153, 186 Kahrs, Eivind G., 67–68, 70 Kail, Owen C., 162 Kanva, . ancient Telugu grammarian, 62–63 Kapuscinski, Ryszard, 188–89 Keay, John, 21 Keja-riwal, O. P., 32–33 Ke-tana, Mu- laghatika, 127, 133, 141–45

Index . 265

Kopf, David, 28, 33, 200, 238 Krishna . Murti, Bh., 14–15 Krishna . Rao, B.V., 139, 161 Lach, Donald F., 21–22, 190, 197, 210 Lakshmayya, Ka-vali, 179 Lakshmīnarasimha-cha-ryulu, Manda, an old Telugu gram-marian, 65, 132, 141 Lele, Jayant, 206 Leyden, John, 123 Ludden, David, 214, 217, 222 Macaulay, T. B., 2, 3, 26 Macdonnel, A. A., 153 Mackenzie, Colin, 40, 60, 179 Madras Public Consultations, 44, 49, 52 Madras School of Orientalism, 12n, 30–31, 38–42, native scholars 81–83, 223 Majumda-r, R. C., 190 Malek-Abdel, Anwar, 198 Maloney, Clarence, 120–21, 125 Mangamma, J., 17, 112 Ma-rga-De-śī, 149, 155–57 Marsden, William, 186 Marshall, P. J., 1 Mason, Philip, 21, 35, 162–64, 165 Max Muller, Friedrich, 153 McHeod, Homefield G., 223 Mencher, Joan P., 219–20 Me-non, Achyuta C., 7 Mentz, Soren, 161 Mill, James, 194 Miśra, B. B., 1 Mitchell, Lisa, 66–84, 87–101 Mukherjee, Nīlamani, . 219, 222 Munro, Thomas, 38, 221–24 Murali, . A., 156 Myrdal, Gunnar, 243–44

Na-gara- jan, M.S., 201 Nakamura, H., 104, 107, 124, 140 Nanne Cho-da De-va, 156 Narasayya, S., 157 Na-ra-yana . Rao, C., 7 - o, Velche-ru, 75 Na-ra-yana Ra . Narayana . Reddy, C., 59 Neale, Walter, 235 Nilakant.a Śa-stri, K. A., 37, 137, 190, 223 Northcote, Stafford, 2–3 Orr, Lesline, C., 116 Orientalism, 188–244, ancient, medieval and pre-modern Orientalism 190–92, 197, 210; modern Orientalism 192–210; passim O’Malley, L. S. S., 1 Pagden, Anthony, 231 Pa-lī, 79, 125, 150, 180 Panikkar, K. M., 130 Para-sher, Aloka, 136 Parasher Sen, Aloka, 136 Patta-bhira-ma Śa-stry, Ve-dam, 4–5, 56, 78–79, 89–91; partnership with Ellis 91, 129, 148; Āndhra Dha-tuma-la 172–75, 227–28, passim Peddana, Vinnako-ta, 71, 127, 133, 141, 145 Pliny, 59 Pollock, Sheldon, 152 Polo, Marco, 190 Powers, David S., 26 Pra-krit, 79, 150, Pra-krit dialects and de-śībha-.sa 79, 92 Prakrit grammar and de-śī, 145–46 Prasa-d, N. R. V., 122 Ptak, Roderich and Dietmar, Rothermund, 21 Ptolemy, 59 Purusho-ttam, B., 8, 68, 134, 143

266 . Colonialism, Orientalism and the Dravidian Languages

Ra-dha-krishna, . B., 16 Ra-dha-krishn.a Śarma, C; 8–9, 18 Ra-jaśe-khara, Pra-krit author, 151 Ra-je-śwara Śarma, A., 9, 18, 143, 145 Ra-mabhadrakavi, Muddara-ju, 133 Ra-machandra, T., 125 Ra-machandra Ra-o, C. V., 40 Ra-makrishnayya, K., 148 . Ra-malinga- Reddy, C., 13 Ra-man, Unni K., 219–20 Ra-ma- Ra-o, C., 14–16 Rama- Sundari, Mantena, 179 Ray, Amita, 130 Ray, Aniruddha, 161–62 Ray, Himanshu Prabha, 136 Raychaudhuri, Tapan, 238 Raymond, Andre, 207 Read, Alexander, 37, 221 Robertson, Bruce Carlisle, 27 Rocher, Rosane, 28, 30, 87–88, 192, 201, 232, 236, 237 Ruthnaswa-my, M., 1, 22, 24 Ryotwari Settlement of Land Revenue, 37, 221–26 Said, Edward S., 67; construction and representation of cultural identity 189–91, 235; Orientalism and colonialism 190–209; dialectics of power and knowledge 230–35; postcolonial studies 208–209; 244 Sa-mbamu- rti Śa-stry, Karri, 5 Sankalia, H. D., 119–20 Śankarayya, Bommakanti, 56, 89, 185–87 Sanskrit, basis for linguistic unity of India 34, passim Sarka-r, H., 130, 137 Śarva Varma, author of Ka-tantra Sanskrit grammar, 122 Satyana-ra-yana, . K., 157

Schwab, Raymond, 210 Seneviratne, Sudarshan, 135–36 Sharma, R. S., 155–56 Shulman, David, 75 Simmanna, V., 13 Singh, Manmo-han, 243–44 Sinor, Denis, 214 Smith, Vincent, 155 Śomaśe- khara Śarm, M., 162 So-maya- ji, G. J., 13–14, 150 Śrīniva-sa-cha-ri, C. S., 7–8 Śrīra-machandrudu, P., 150 Stein, Burton, 23, 164, 166, 224 Stern, Philip J., 22–23 Stokes, Eric, 28–29 Strachey, John, 23, 24 Śrī Krishna . Deva Rayalu , 177 Subrahmanyam, S., 21, 75, 161 . Subramanyam, P.S., 9, 18 . Sudhīr, P., 161, 162, 175 Su-rakavi, Ādidamu, 133 Susan, Nield-Ba-su, 36 Swarnalatha, P., 161, 162, 175 . Tadayo, Watabe, 129 Talbot, Cynthia, 135, 138, 164, 165 Ta-tambhattu, Vellanki, 96–97, 127, 133, 142 Telugu — native language of Āndhra region, pre-historic period, 121; native language of Trilingade-śa, 62, 138; nature and structure, 64, 123, 128–29, 131, 158, 182; core layer and de-śyam, 71, 127, 143–45, 147, 182; schools of grammar, 131–34; special features of grammar, 125–29, 143–44; unique status of gra- mya, 142–43; linguistic ethnicity, 73–74, 135–40, 182; modernization, 75, 78, 171; utility of study for the Company 161–68

Index . 267

Tha-par, Romīla, 31, 152–53 Theosophical Society, 210 Timmakavi, Ku-chimañchi, 133, 141 Trautmann,Thomas R.,11–12,18–19, linguistic ethnology, 30–31; New Orientalism, 32, 34; Madras School of Orientalism, 12n, 38–42, 43–51, 65–67, 83, 87–88, 109, 111, 113–14, 118, 123, 148–49, 154, 172, 177, 184–87, 193, 213, 216, 223 Tully, Mark, 235

Venkata Ra-o, N., 4–6, 12, 18, 127–28, 142–43, 172, 175, 181 Venkayya, Ma-midi, 4, 6, 45, 56–57, 65, Telugu de-śyam, 71; 78–79, 89, 92–95, 98–101, 108, 147–48; role in formulation of the concept of Dravidian languages, 172–73, 175–82, 227 Vikrama De-va, Pra-krit grammarian, 145 Vīrabhadra Ra-o, K., 8, 18

Van der Veer, Peter, 188 Van Kley, Edwin J., 21–22, 190, 197, 210 Va-sude-vakavi, Manchella, .. 92, 183 Venkata-chalapathy, A. R., 82, 116 Venkata-dri, R., 179 Venkatakavi, Ganapavarapu, 127, . 133, 141 Venkatara-ya Śa-stry, Vedam, 157 Venkatra-maiah, K., 12–13, 18 Venkata Na-ra-yanayya, Udayagiri, . 53–54, 56–57, 227

Wagoner, Philip, 75–76 Wallerstein, Immanuel, 21 White, Charles, 38–39 Wilkins, Charles, 88 William of Rubruck, 190 Wilson, H. H., 6, 181 Wink, Andrey, 21 Wood, Charles, 3 Woodruff, Philip, 27, 28, 39, 234 Yapp, M. E., 25 Zvelebil, Kamil V., 10