‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census

e-ISSN 2785-5953 Bhasha Vol. 1 – Issue 1 – April 2022 ‘Sanskrit‑Speaking’ Villages, Faith‑Based Development and the Indian Census Patrick S.D. McCartney Nanzan University Anthropological Institute, Nagoya Abstract  Over three sections, the 2001 and 2011 Indian censuses are scrutinised to locate, down to the sub‑district administrative and village levels, where L1‑L3 (first to third language) Sanskrit tokens were returned during census enumeration. First, there is a theo‑political discussion of Sanskrit’s imaginative power for faith‑based development. This includes a discussion on how ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ villages signify an ambition toward cultural renaissance. Next, Sanskrit’s national‑level enumeration is discussed. Finally, closer scrutiny is paid to the top four states (Maharashtra, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh). On average, more Sanskrit tokens were returned by men than women; 92% of L2‑Sanskrit tokens are linked to L1‑Hindi; most L1‑L3‑Sanskrit tokens cluster with Hindi, English, and/or the State Official Language; most Sanskrit tokens are Urban, as opposed to Rural; and most tokens are found across the Hindi Belt of north India. Keywords  ‘Sanskrit‑Speaking’ villages. Hindu nationalism. Linguistic utopia. Social imaginary. Mother tongue. Summary  1 Introduction. – 2 Sanskrit, Theo‑Politics, and Faith‑Based Development. – 3 Comparing 2001 and 2011 Census Results. – 4 An Explication of Census Data in Several States. – 4.1 Maharashtra. – 4.2 Bihar. – 4.3 Madhya Pradesh. – 4.4 Uttar Pradesh. – 5 Concluding Remarks. Peer review Submitted 2021-12-10 Edizioni Accepted 2022-03-02 Ca’Foscari Published 2022-04-29 Open access © 2022 | bc Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License Citation  McCartney, P.S.D. (2022). “‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census”. Bhasha, 1(1), 77-110. DOI 10.30687/bhasha/2785-5953/2022/01/007 77  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census 1 Introduction bhāṣā saṃskṛtāpabhraṃśaḥ bhāṣāpabhraṃśastu vibhāṣā | sātattaddeśa eva gahvaravāsināṃca prakṛtavāsināṃca || Abhinavabharati 17.49 The corruption of Sanskrit is bhāṣā, and the corruption of bhāṣā is vibhāṣā. It is the language of the same countries of forest dwellers and of rustic people. (Kavi 1934, 376) This paper is part of the Imagining Sanskritland project, which fo‑ cuses on locating and documenting how, where, and why the Middle Indo‑Aryan language, Sanskrit, is spoken in the twenty‑first centu‑ ry. This builds on the previous work of Nakamura (1973), Hock and Pandaripande (1976), Hock (1991), Aralikatti (1989; 1991), Aklujkar (1996), Hastings (2004; 2008), and Deshpande (2011; unpublished). Generally, this project expands beyond linguistic analysis of sen‑ tence structure to document the aspirations, ideologies, and moral horizons inherent in identifying as a speaker, as well as document‑ ing second‑language acquisition through a focus on imperfect learn‑ ing, substrate interference, and bilingualism. The project first focused on code‑switching between Hindi and Sanskrit and the transubstantiation of symbolic capital in a resi‑ dential Sanskrit college/yoga ashram in Gujarat, India (McCartney 2011; 2014a; 2017a; 2018a). Another focus was the two‑week intensive speaking course in New Delhi (McCartney 2014b). The focus pivoted to include a relatively famous ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ village in Madhya Pradesh, India (McCartney 2015; 2016a; 2016b; 2016c; 2017b; 2017c; 2017d; 2018b), which includes discussion of language revival and hy‑ bridisation (McCartney, Zuckermann 2019). This combines with ana‑ lysing the theo‑politics of Sanskrit’s imaginative consumption within the transglobal wellness industry and the topic of ‘yoga fundamental‑ ism’, which maps out the distanced and banal ways that consumption of yoga lifestyles can potentiate tacit and unwitting support of Hindu supremacism (McCartney 2017e; 2017f; 2017g; 2019a; 2019b; 2020). More recently, the project has pivoted to cover matters related to Sanskrit’s soft power potential within the context of faith‑based, sus‑ tainable development and competitive diplomacy. This involves envi‑ ronmental impact assessments of yoga lifestyle brands and the culti‑ vation of nostalgic moods predicated by Neo‑Romanticism, mystical holism, and dark green religion (McCartney 2021a; 2021b; 2021c). Informed by Deumert’s (2009) and Posel and Zeller’s (2015) de‑ mographic analyses of census data related to language shift and bi‑ lingualism in South Africa, this project pivots to look for Sanskrit I would like to thank Andrey Klebanov for helping with particular issues in develop‑ ing this paper. 78 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census (‘speakers’) in the Indian census data. An initial result, upon which this present paper directly builds, is McCartney (unpublished). The policy of India’s census enumeration states that if the number of speakers of any language drops below 10,000 then it will no long‑ er be reported as a separate language (Goswami 2012).1 If Sanskrit were to dip below the threshold, this would have unintended con‑ sequences for its soft power deployment. Therefore, the politics of census enumeration for the purposes of state building are relevant. Simply looking for Sanskrit speakers is something of a fool’s errand. Sanskrit is a post‑vernacular language in a perpetual state of acqui‑ sition. The media only reports the perceived success of Sanskrit’s re‑ vival (Indian Yug 2020). In short, India’s 2011 census results clearly demonstrate that San‑ skrit ‘speakers’ are overwhelmingly found in urban areas spread across the ‘Hindi heartland’,2 which is only a part of India’s complex linguistic ecology and “linguistic area” (Emeneau 1956). What this paper does is use the Indian government’s census data to geograph‑ ically locate where people who identify as speakers of Sanskrit were at the time of census enumeration. For now, this is as good as it gets, as the data presented below are not capable of verifying the fluen‑ cy of people who claim to speak Sanskrit. Discussion of several is‑ sues relating to this are found across the project’s publications men‑ tioned above. The outcomes from this present paper include future research being more strategic. Even though some consider Sanskrit to be the “language of the ru‑ ral masses” (Deopujari 2009) and the “language of future India” (Mo‑ han 2020), it is also thought that “Sanskrit is the forgotten language of urban India” (Indian Eagle 2020) and that “NASA believes San‑ 1  This is one reason why the RSS (Rashṭriya Svayamsevak Sangh, ‘National Volun‑ teer Corps’) “wants citizens to voluntarily register Sanskrit as their second language in the census. The RSS feels that if people register the language, the final census da‑ ta would reflect higher literacy of Sanskrit, which will force the government to take measures to preserve the language” (Tare 2010). 2  Compare the notion of the “Vedic God” by Hebden (2011). The geographic focus of this paper is the ‘Hindi Heartland’ or ‘Hindi Belt’, which covers most of the plains of north India, where Sanskrit’s close relatives – Hindi and its related languages – are spo‑ ken. This is pertinent because, as is discussed below, this is the linguistic area where the census results indicate most of the ‘Sanskrit speakers’ live. As is evident, below, the link between people who identify as Sanskrit speakers with both Hindi and Eng‑ lish is immense. By way of example, the state of Bihar’s Sanskrit areas is discussed be‑ low. This paper expands upon Jha’s (2017) explanation of how studies of language poli‑ tics in north India tend to focus on the Hindi‑Urdu debate. This debate builds on a cen‑ turies‑old development of language order in premodern India (Ollet 2017), taking on communalist narratives. This culminated in the nineteenth century around which of these mutually intelligible languages – Hindu and Urdu, which derive from Hindustani, but use different scripts, respectively, Devanāgarī दे व नागरी and Nastaʾlīq ‫ – نستعلیق‬should become the national language. Currently, India does not have a national language. In‑ stead, it has two official languages, Hindi and English (Dasgupta 1995). 79 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census skrit is a scientific language for programming” (TNN 2019). More‑ over, Sanskrit is thought to be a “gift of India for [the] entire hu‑ manity” (India Education Diary Bureau 2020) and that the “Sanskrit effect” is caused by “chanting Sanskrit”, which “increases brain cog‑ nitive areas” (Sanskriti 2018). The benefits of chanting are predicted to extend beyond humans, as “Cows will talk in Tamil and Sanskrit” (Patherpanchali 2018). Back down on the ground, it is difficult to lo‑ cate Sanskrit speakers because the available information are unre‑ liable factoids mentioned on the internet,3 copied and pasted from 3  Yet, these lofty ambitions have humble origins amongst the mythical villages, whose inhabitants are meant to be grateful that Sanskrit’s perceived civilising power will fi‑ nally reach them, even if this ideological benevolence is soaked in a neo‑colonial San‑ skritisation impetus that is made explicit in ways, such as “Saṃskṛtaṃ sarveṣāṃ kṛte… sarvadā; Sanskrit for everyone… forever” (Amaravāṇi 2020). Strength, it seems, is not found in linguistic diversity. Amara‑vāṇī (immortal‑language) is ultimately a part of Samskrita Bharati, which itself is the linguistic node of the more prominent Hindu na‑ tionalist parent organisation, the Rashṭriya Svayamsevak Sangh (RSS). It is through its international branch, the Hindu Svayamsevak Sangh (HSS), that Samskrita Bharati operates at an international level. It mostly services the Indian diaspora through cul‑ tural and linguistic events, which can be an opportunity for the collapsing of the ‘big’ versus ‘little’ tradition binary (Vertovec 1994), such as a potential muddling of San‑ skrit as it goes through its interlanguage stage of acquisition. However, the expan‑ sion beyond the imagined borders, especially through extending into cyberspace, re‑ quires a recalibration of relations, especially to the puṇya bhūmī (‘sacred land’) of the Hindutvavādins imagination, within the context of transnational development and mul‑ tiple modernities (Jaffrelot 2017). After all, “Sanskrit is a gift of India for entire hu‑ manity”. At least, that is what India’s HRD Minister, Ramesh Pokhriyal, asserted just after the Central Sanskrit Universities Bill, 2020 was passed by India’s upper house of parliament to upgrade three Deemed Sanskrit Universities to Central University status (India Education Diary Bureau 2020). Amaravāṇī promotes Sanskrit through songs. One example is the song Viśva‑bhāṣā Saṃskṛtam (‘The Universal‑Language is Sanskrit’). Information on the song’s page, on Amaravāṇī’s website, also claims, that “There are many villages in India where the entire population speaks solely and fluent‑ ly in Saṃskṛtam!” (Amaravāṇi 2020). Such truth claims are a curious thing. I am re‑ minded of one verse from a seventh century Ayurvedic text, which discusses poor vi‑ sion resulting from false perception: “Dūrāntikasthaṃ rūpañca viparyāsena manyate | doṣe maṇḍalasaṃsthāne maṇḍalānīva paśyati || AS.Utt.15.4 ||” “Due to false perception (viparyāsa), a patient perceives a thing located far away, as close by, and things located close by, as far away” (Aṣṭhāṅgasaṅgraha, Uttarasthānam, 15.4 [Vāgbhaṭa 2020]). In a topsy‑turvy way, viparyāsa refers to the act of imagining something to be real and true, when it is false. The term niścaya can mean both correct perception and enquiry. We find in the Vaiśṇava tradition encouragement to cultivate niścaya (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.26.30), which is recommended for both soteriological aspirations and mundane mat‑ ters. This concept is similar to that of Nāgārjuna (c. 150 CE-c. 250 CE), who discussed, in the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, the concept of pratītyasamutpāda. This refers to the “basic principle of thought that no two contradictory judgements can hold good in re‑ gard to the same thing in the same respect” (Ramanan 1987, 167). In other words, ‘San‑ skrit‑speaking’ villages either are true and do exist or they do not. There is very lit‑ tle available evidence, be it documentary, direct, real, circumstantial or testimonial. Furthermore, what percentage of a village’s population and to what degree of fluency and ordinal ranking of usage, considering frequency of code‑switching, domains and topics, might be the minimum requirements to satisfy claims of any village being one that is ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’? 80 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census other websites lacking accurate details. Nonetheless, these factoids are enough for people to believe that ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ villages exist.4 People rely on this meme to provide emotional reinforcement for deeply held religious beliefs hoping it will re‑enchant the world to provide profound meaning in one’s life. ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ villag‑ es endow the world with a perceived sense of divinity, meaning, and significance. As an empty signifier, the village is remote enough to remain perceived as an infallible closed circuit. Similarly, Olshan‑ sky, Peaslee and Landrum (2020) provide insight into the cognitive defence mechanisms of flat earthers, which include motivated rea‑ soning to dilute cognitive dissonance and maintain cognitive consist‑ ency. Having visited several of these so‑called ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ villages, I became increasingly frustrated, as most of these villages contain hardly anyone who can hold a casual conversation across gen‑ eral domains and topics or utter increasingly complex sentence pat‑ terns, and include more complicated use of tense, aspect, or mood. Nonetheless, throughout the last decade, my primary question has been: “Where are the Sanskrit speakers?”.5 Jhirī is a village in Madhya Pradesh that I have paid more atten‑ tion to (McCartney 2015; 2016a; 2016b; 2016c; 2017b; 2017c; 2017d; 2018b) where apparently everyone speaks Sanskrit (Samskrit101 2009). Oblivious to issues of linguistic human rights (Skutnabb‑kan‑ gas 2012), Ghosh (2008) celebrates how the residents “hardly speak the local dialect, Malvi, any longer. Ten years have been enough for the sanskritization of life here”. A potent claim that “even those who don’t know the technicalities of the language still speak fluent San‑ skrit” (Hindutvainus 2011) is demonstrably false. For instance, while conducting fieldwork in Jhiri, one of the residents repeatedly claimed that everyone in village fluently spoke Sanskrit. Beaming with pride, he often emphatically asserted, “Bhoḥ, asmin grāme iva sarve janāḥ saṃskṛtaṃ vadituṃ śakyante khalu [Sir, in this village everyone can speak Sanskrit!]”. However, this was easily disproven by speaking to 4  My term, laukika‑saṃskṛta‑bhāṣā‑aviparyāsa‑ābhāsa‑samanveṣaṇam, refers to the at‑ tempt to look everywhere (samanveṣaṇa) for the semblance (ābhāsa) and distorted per‑ ception (aviparyāsa) of vernacular (laukika) variants, or regional dialects, of Sanskrit (saṃskṛta), as a spoken language. This includes its mention in yoga‑related outlets (Di‑ zon 2016; Bedewi 2020). By first identifying the ‘pseudo‑perception’ (pratyakṣa‑ābhāsa) found in discourse (vyavahāra), the process moves to falsifying (dūṣayati) fallacies (hetvābhāṣa) related to the enduring claims about ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ villages, which are legion. 5  In logic, ābhāsa takes the meaning of ‘erroneous though plausible argument’. These rumours act as a buffer warding off existential anxiety. At least it is potentially com‑ forting to know that a ‘real’ and ‘true’ India still exists and that “India’s own Jurassic Park” is found in rural Madhya Pradesh, in a village that “is a lost world that has been recreated carefully and painstakingly, but lives a precarious existence, cut off from the compelling realities of the world outside” (Ghosh 2008). The village holds an ambigu‑ ously utopian relation to future India (Nandy 2001; Mohan 2012). 81 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census anyone within arm’s reach, who would require prompts from others as they could not reply to simple sentences, such as “Bhavataḥ nāma kiṃ [What is your name?]” or “Mitram, kutra gacchasi [Friend, where do you go?]”, let alone pass sentence repetition tests. Yet, these ru‑ mours become factoids and bloom into unassailable facts in support of “core Indian values” (Prabhu 2014). One potent example is the use of spoken Sanskrit to sell a motorbike, which uses a ‘Sanskrit‑speak‑ ing’ village as the backdrop (Sharma 2009). One issue with validating the returned Sanskrit tokens in the cen‑ sus data is that they are self‑reported. Another issue is that census enumerators are bound by law not to question the maximum three languages given. Therefore, if someone believes they speak Sanskrit (or any other language) and identify as a speaker of Sanskrit then it becomes a demographic fact.6 Simply put, one token refers to one individual instance of someone claiming to be either a L1 (‘moth‑ er tongue’), L2 (second‑language), or L3 (third language) speaker.7 These epistemic methodological issues have been discussed at eve‑ ry census (Office of the Registrar General 2020). All of the data are publicly available in downloadable spreadsheets (Office of the Registrar General 2020). The 2011 data come from the relevant C‑16 (‘mother tongue’)8 and C‑17 (bi‑/tri‑lingualism) tables, which only became available in late 2018. Multiple versions of these 6  India, like many nations, has used different and equally ambiguous terminology to capture the primary language(s) used by their citizens. There are actually three lan‑ guage ‘situations’ that can be captured by censuses: (a) the language first used by the respondent; (b) the language most commonly used by the respondent at the time of the census; and (c) the knowledge of particular official language(s) by the respondent (Arel 2004). The Indian census does not appear to achieve this tertiary system, simply be‑ cause it does not ask the necessary questions. Is this due to either pragmatic expedien‑ cy, ideology, or both? Building upon Foucault 2007, Duchêne, Humbert, Coray 2018 ex‑ plain the consequences of reducing real world complexities through statistics to quan‑ tifiable categories. These can become tools of governance for national solutions. This, after all, is probably the point. Yet, if there is an ideological component, it then becomes more challenging, particularly when added to the epistemic relativism of self‑report‑ ing, to gather meaningful data to implement productive policy. 7  This present study does not have the capacity to verify whether these tokens trans‑ late into real‑world pragmatic abilities to communicate in Sanskrit. 8  A ‘mother tongue’, is defined in the Indian Census guidelines (3.1) as, a “the lan‑ guage spoken in childhood by the person’s mother to the person. If the mother died in infancy, the language mainly spoken in the person’s home in childhood will be the moth‑ er tongue. In the case of infants and deaf mutes, the language usually spoken by the mother should be recorded. In case of doubt, the language mainly spoken in the house‑ hold may be recorded” (Office of the Registrar General 2020). Section 3.2.a‑d stipu‑ lates that an ‘enumerator’ is “Bound to record the language as returned by the person as her/his mother tongue”; and that they must record the “mother tongue in full, what‑ ever is the name of the language returned by the respondent and do not use abbre‑ viations”. Collectors are not expected to determine if a “language returned by a per‑ son is a dialect of another language”; and, if there is any “relationship between moth‑ er tongue and religion” (Office of the Registrar General 2020). This gets complicated 82 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census tables exist, as each state has a separate C‑16/‑17 table. Having col‑ lected and sorted millions of data points, each table was filtered us‑ ing excel data analytic functions. The subsequent aggregate token amounts were then cross‑analysed over several levels of administra‑ tion. These levels include the national, state, district, sub‑district lev‑ els, as well as rural and urban zones and sex ratios. A key finding demonstrates high levels of affinity between the tri‑ une of Sanskrit (S), Hindi (H), and English (E), which is also nuanced by each state’s official language (SOL). This means that people who identify as L1‑L3 speakers of Sanskrit are overwhelmingly clustered within a specific set of L1‑L3 languages, which more often than not includes Hindi and English.9 Therefore, the statistically relevant iden‑ tity of the typical ‘Sanskrit speaker’ is an educated, middle‑class ur‑ banite who lives in north India.10 Based on 2011’s C‑16 table, the total nation‑wide number of L1‑San‑ skrit Persons amounts to 24,821 (tokens); [fig. 1] shows the totals for all states and union territories. when Hindu nationalist groups urge people to list Sanskrit as their L1 in the lead up to each census (Tare 2010). 9  This has much to do with India’s language planning policy, which prefers a Sanskri‑ tised Hindi as the official language (see Articles 343 and 351 of India’s constitution). For example, L1‑S_L2‑H_L3‑E would mean an individual’s languages are L1‑Sanskrit, L2‑Hindi, and L3‑English. The following formula S=(L1α_L2β_L3γ)(SOL) is an attempt to articulate the ways in which Sanskrit can be found within complex linguistic ecolo‑ gies and the influence of the state language in modifying the triadic SHE. For instance, across the language area of Maharashtra, the state language, Marathi, competes, as it were, for space on, like different taste buds, on the tongues of the state’s citizens. 10  In the post‑Independence era, studies related to contemporaneous spoken San‑ skrit were initiated first by the Sanskrit Commission (Azad 1957), which laid down sev‑ eral recommendations for preserving and promoting Sanskrit as a spoken language, some of which have been successfully introduced. Deshpande (2011) explains how, due to the changes in the three‑language educational policy, Sanskrit has fared better in the Hindi speaking states than in the non‑Hindi speaking states, where a dramatic re‑ duction in students studying Sanskrit occurred once it became optional in 1968 (see Azad 1957, 99). This does not stop activists from trying to install Sanskrit as the nation‑ al language (rāṣṭra‑bhāṣā) and global lingua franca (viśva‑bhāṣā) (Ramaswamy 1999). As well, these language politics have long encoded Hindi as a hegemonic language yet raise the status of Sanskrit. Complementing this, Babu (2017, 113) explains that in In‑ dia Sanskrit sits atop the linguistic hierarchy and caste system by invoking the notion of catur‑varṇa (‘four‑classes’) by positing Sanskrit as occupying a privileged position and English (which is a rank outsider in the constitutional scheme), as a language with emancipatory capacity due to its positioning outside the legitimised hierarchy. 83 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Figure 1  2011 India: States L1‑Sanskrit. (India 2020) A deeper historical review of Sanskrit’s enumeration across all 15 censuses occurs in [tab. 1], which provides a cursory glance at San‑ skrit’s India‑wide total Persons’ results from 1881 to 2011. Table 1  Total Persons L1‑Sanskrit returns, 1881‑201111 Year Total Sanskrit Total population % 1881 1,308 224,000,000 0.0006 1891 308 287,000,000 0.0001 11  The Sanskrit data at each census is located in Plowden 1883, 132; Baines 1893, 144; Risley, Gait 1903, 164, 174; Gait 1913, 106; Marten 1923, 96; Hutton 1933, 492; Yeats 1943, 9; Mitra 1994; Office of the Registrar General 1954, 7; Mallikarjun 2002; Breton 1976, 304; Office of the Registrar General 2020. Yeats explains that “The lan‑ guage and script questions have not been tabulated and I make now a recommendation to the Government of India that they be not tabulated even if the suspended operations are resumed” (1943, 9). Mitra (1994, 3207) explains that war, communal tensions, and Yeat’s transition to self‑enumeration from household enumeration resulted in a com‑ pletely botched census that produced incoherent results left unpublished. Mallikarjun (2002) shows that of the 2,554, one person identifies as a speaker of ‘Vedic’ Sanskrit and another as a speaker of VedPali, while 93 and 5 people respectively claim to speak Pali and Prakrit. Breton (1976, 304‑8) provides a good overview of the 1961 census. 84 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Year Total Sanskrit Total population % 1901 716 238,396,327 0.0003 1911 360 252,093,390 0.0001 1921 356 251,321,213 0.0001 1931 1,181 278,977,238 0.0004 1941 N/A 318,660, 580 N/A 1951 555 361,088,090 0.0001 1961 2,554 439,234,771 0.0006 1971 2,212 548,159,652 0.0004 1981 6,106 683,329,097 0.0009 1991 49,736 846,427,039 0.006 2001 14,135 1,028,737,436 0.001 2011 24,821 1,210,854,977 0.002 This paper has three main sections. The first (§ 2) discusses key theo‑political points related to Sanskrit’s imaginative power. § 3 ex‑ plicates Sanskrit’s national‑level enumeration comparing the 2011 and 2001 censuses. § 4 burrows down to the lowest administrative levels of four states to show which districts, sub‑districts (tehsil/ta‑ luk, or taluq), and in some cases, blocks, returned the highest num‑ bers of L1‑L3 Sanskrit tokens. 2 Sanskrit, Theo‑Politics, and Faith‑Based Development Inspection of faith‑based competitive diplomacy, in relation to Yoga and Sanskrit, is sparse.12 The ways in which Sanskrit is imbricated is often under appreciated. While for some, Sanskrit might be a dead language and a symbol for millennia of oppression, for others it is a treasure trove of untapped knowledge that might just save humanity and a heritage language one might like to speak (McCartney 2021a). Sanskrit helps define and chart one’s path toward a moral horizon. This speaks more about temporalities of becoming rather than be‑ ing (Fahy 2020). It helps an individual link to an archaic modernity or futured‑past and potentially return to an imagined Vedic ‘Golden Age’ fuelled by re‑enchanting, eco‑sustainable, neo‑Romantic, mys‑ tical holism (Hebden 2011; Subramaniam 2019). However, Sanskrit’s reclamation and acquisition are indelibly constrained by substrate 12  The most closely related is Jacobs’ documentation (2016) of the world’s largest vol‑ unteer‑based charity, the Art of Living Foundation, that originates from India. Watanabe (2019) explores a Japanese organisation’s operations in south‑east Asia. Haynes’s (2021) edited volume explores international relations across several religions. Nelson (2021), however, provides the most comprehensive account of faith‑based NGOs as non‑state political and moral actors. 85 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census interference from the L1s influencing how it, as a L2, is spoken. One of the key assets used to justify Sanskrit’s role as a tool for develop‑ ment is its perceived linguistic purity. It is argued that only a ‘pure’ Sanskrit can deliver the utopian world it inspires. What, exactly, might a pure Sanskrit sound like and how might it power anything? Answering this question is a particularly vexing matter, especially when considering that the earliest layers of the Vedic corpus contain hundreds of loan words from other Indo‑European and non‑Indo‑Eu‑ ropean languages.13 During the post‑Vedic Period (c. 500 BCE), ver‑ nacular Sanskrit, otherwise known as bhāṣā, was referred to as the language of the conquerors (Burrow 1965). Burrow showed through a study of the morphology of Classical Sanskrit how the diversity of forms prevalent in the earlier Vedic language reduced significant‑ ly, even though it did become the language of Vedic and later Hin‑ du texts, commentaries, rituals, and literature (Subbarao 2008). In the contemporary revival movement, this simplification has contin‑ ued to the point where vernacular Sanskrit can be feasibly equated with a Sanskritised form of Hindi (Deshpande 2011; unpublished). The production, reception, and consumption of the ‘Sanskrit‑speak‑ ing’ village narratives across various media appear to function in a similar way to phalaśruti paratexts. The phalaśruti is the textual com‑ ponent listing the benefits of hearing or reciting the particular text. Taylor (2012, 94‑5) explains that these “fruits of hearing” texts of‑ ten include potential punishments and dangers listed along with the promise of heavenly rewards and that this “is a way of enabling the discourse to function as ‘true’ and is at least partly driven by a dis‑ tinctly earthly agenda”. Another similarity between Taylor’s discus‑ sion of paratexts and the ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ village discourse is the way in which quantifiable and qualifiable measurements seem illu‑ sive. Nonetheless, the ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ village boots this signal. Consider the example of this faith‑based development narrative that has evolved over the past decade in the state of Uttarakhand, which, in 2010, voted in Sanskrit as its second official language (Trivedi 2010; McCartney 2021c). Even though this project was implemented a decade ago, and has endured changing governments and allegations of corruption, by 2013 ₹21 crore (USD 275 million) had already been spent on promoting Sanskrit education in Uttarakhand. Regrettably, there is very little to show for it (Singh 2015). Recently, however, an updated policy has increased this imposition of language shift toward the target language, Sanskrit (Ahmad 2020). This new policy aims to 13  Historical linguistics demonstrates that the oldest intangible artefact of the San‑ skrit canon, the Ṛgveda (c. 1600‑1100 BCE), contains approximately two percent non‑Ar‑ yan vocabulary, idiomatic expressions and phonemic influences, which are derived from the Dravidian language family, the Bactria‑Margiana Archaeological Complex, and the Harappan Kubhā‑Vipāś Substrate (see Witzel 2010). 86 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census create a Sanskrit village in every ‘block’ (an administrative division often confused with sub‑districts) of Uttarakhand (News Desk 2020; Upadhyay 2020). The state of Uttarakhand consists of two Divisions, 13 Districts, 79 Sub‑districts, and 97 Blocks. One wonders how much more investment might be needed to transform 97 villages scattered across the Himalayas into saṃskṛta‑grāmāḥ (‘Sanskrit‑villages’). Af‑ ter all this investment not one L1‑Sanskrit token comes from any vil‑ lage or rural area.14 While 70% of the state’s total population live in rural areas, 100% of the state’s total (n=246) L1‑Sanskrit tokens are linked to urban areas. The ideology behind this top‑down development project aims to reverse engineer India and the world through implementing a ‘dhar‑ mic’ lifestyle predicated by Sanskrit and Yoga. It aims to reform so‑ ciety toward an imagined Sanskritland, where just like the follow‑ ing song that attendees at Samskrita Bharati language camps learn, the aspiration is that Sanskrit will be spoken “gṛhe gṛhe [in eve‑ ry home], grāme grāme [in every village], nagare nagare [in every city], and deśe deśe [in every country]”. This might seem terribly banal and optimistically utopian, yet it is part of a yoga‑oriented, faith‑based, competitive diplomatic, soft power initiative. Evidence of this includes propositions such that Yoga and Sanskrit can solve cli‑ mate change (Chauhan 2015; King 2015; Jacobs 2016; United Nations India 2019; Miller 2020). The final aspiration of Samskrita Bharati, however, is evidenced through its road map, which aims to build on simple Sanskrit (saṃskṛtaṃ saralam) utterances toward it being spo‑ ken all the time (saṃskṛtaṃ sarveṣām). This potentially leads to an 14  Sanskrit and Yoga are used to brand the nation (McCartney 2021a). The produc‑ tion of legitimacy and authority in diplomatic and economic arenas involves interweav‑ ing narratives involving a product, a place, and a nation (Aroncyzk 2013) through which nations work to control their own images by implementing strategic communication strategies (Ermann, Hermanik 2018). This narrative is only a few clicks away from con‑ firming one’s bias. The following quote, from Soumitra Mohan (2020), encapsulates the sentiment around its didactic potential: “The language deserves to be treated much better than it has been so far, more so when it has been called the best ‘computerable’ language. Sanskrit’s credentials to be a language of future India are definitely better and greater than we have realised so far. Its revival will not only renew and revive the pride in our own cultural heritage but will also bring about spiritualism and the con‑ cept of a meaningful society and polity, thereby bringing order and peace all across the country, a desideratum for any developed society”. A similar sentiment comes from Sampūrṇānanda Saṁskṛta Viśvavidyālaya (SSV)’s homepage (2019) (https://ssvv. ac.in/brief‑history). SSV is one of India’s best‑known Sanskrit universities, which is located in Benares, Uttar Pradesh. SSV explains on its homepage that “Sanskrit is the most ancient and perfect among the languages of the World. Its storehouse of knowl‑ edge is an unsurpassed and the most invaluable treasure of the world. This language is a symbol of peculiar Indian tradition and thought, which has exhibited full freedom in the search of truth, has shown complete tolerance towards spiritual and other kind of experiences of mankind, and has shown catholicity towards universal truth. This language contains not only a rich fund of knowledge for people of India, but it is also an unparalleled way to acquire knowledge and is thus significant for the whole World”. 87 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census unavoidable critical mass (saṃskṛtaṃ anivāryam), which will inev‑ itably lead to a language shift (saṃskṛta sarvatra), and adoption of the new global lingua franca (viśva bhāṣā) (McCartney 2017e). The perceived net‑positive outcome (abhyudaya) has India positioned as the next global superpower and paragon of moral virtue, its ultimate dispenser (viśva‑guru) (Bharati 2014; Singh R.K. 2014; Press Trust India 2018; 2019). 3 Comparing 2001 and 2011 Census Results Now, it is time for some bookkeeping (pusta pālana). This section pro‑ vides a straightforward analysis of the 2001 and 2011 census results. The Persons category is further disambiguated by two binaries, Ru‑ ral/Urban and Males/Females. In the 2011 result (n = 24,821), fewer L1‑Sanskrit tokens were returned from Rural areas (10,908), as op‑ posed to Urban areas (13,913). This gives a ratio of 44:56. However, Bi‑ har completely reverses this with an 89:11 ratio in favour of rural are‑ as. See [tab. 2] for a comparison of the 2011 top ten Rural:Urban states. Table 2  Rural and Urban Top Ten States, 2011 (Office of the Registrar General 2020) 2011 Urban Top 10 2011 Rural Top 10 Bihar 3,041 Maharashtra 3,555 Rajasthan 1,461 Uttar Pradesh 1,668 Uttar Pradesh 1,394 Madhya Pradesh 1,020 West Bengal 1,066 Karnataka 1,016 Himachal Pradesh 857 Rajasthan 914 Madhya Pradesh 851 Tamil Nadu 743 Goa 385 Gujarat 680 Odisha 306 Goa 670 Jharkhand 264 NCT of Delhi 594 Maharashtra 247 Jharkand 589 The sex difference splits 55:45. A total of 13,636 Μale tokens were returned compared to 11,185 Female tokens. Every state/union ter‑ ritory has more Males to Females at a 60:40 average. However, Ta‑ mil Nadu has a 50:50 split and Puducherry (Pondicherry) is the on‑ ly instance where Males are fewer than Females at 29:71 (Office of the Registrar General 2020); table 3 compares the L1‑L3 (total) ‘San‑ skrit speakers’ between the 2001 and 2011 censuses [tab. 3]. Self‑re‑ ported L1 speakers increased from 14,135 to 24,821; the L2 figure has stayed almost the same, while the L3 figure has dropped by 48%. 88 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Table 3  2001‑2011 Sanskrit L1‑L3 (Office of the Registrar General 2020) L1 L2 L3 2001 14,135 1,234,931 3,742,223 2011 24,821 1,134,362 1,963,640 % change 43 % ‑9 % ‑48 % We can still use these data to locate sub‑district administrative zones which have the highest numbers. Table 4 elaborates on the previous table, demonstrating that even though the total number of L1 rose between 2001‑11 the total L3 has almost halved [tab. 4]. This sug‑ gests that the total number of L1‑L3 for 2011 decreased by 37%, even though the 2011 L1 increased by 76%. Table 4  L1‑L3 Sanskrit 2001 and 2011 (Office of the Registrar General 2020) 2001 Total 2001 Total % Change L1 14,135 24,821 43% L2 1,234,931 1,134,362 ‑8% L3 3,742,223 1,963,640 ‑48% L1‑L3 4,991,289 3,122,823 ‑37% Male L1 8,189 13,636 67% L2 875,107 713,772 ‑18% L3 2,751,121 1,266,098 ‑54% L1‑L3 3,634,417 1,993,506 ‑45% Female L1 5,946 11,185 47% L2 359,824 420,590 14% L3 991,102 697,542 ‑30% L1‑L3 1,356,872 1,129,317 ‑17% Another significant point relevant across the L1‑L3 range relates to the relationship between Hindi, English and Sanskrit. The reason the L2‑Sanskrit figures are different between table 4 and table 5 is due to table 4 consisting of all the L2‑Sanskrit speakers [tab. 4]. In contrast, table 5 shows only the L1‑Hindi_L2–Sanskrit and L1‑Hindi_L2‑English figures [tab. 5]. This figure is significant, as 95% of L2‑Sanskrit speak‑ ers are L1‑Hindi speakers (1,174,019 / 1,234,931).15 This locates the L2‑Sanskrit phenomenon within an exceptionally Hindi‑centric con‑ 15  The Hindi language category consists of 57 sub‑languages and dialects (Office of the Registrar General 2020). 89 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census text. This is similar to Breton’s (1976, 304) observation based on the 1961 census, that “Le centre de la connaissance du sanskrit à notre époque est de loin la plaine gangétique (Uttar Pradesh: 79,000, Bi‑ har: 29,000, Punjab et Haryana: 20,000, Delhi: 9,000)”. However, it is important to appreciate that this group only comprises 0.3% of the total number of L1‑Hindi speakers. The Male figures for both L2‑San‑ skrit and L2‑English have fallen (24 and 11%) while the Female fig‑ ures have increased (6 and 19%). The Totals have respectively de‑ creased 15 and 1.2%. Table 5  L1‑Hindi_L2‑Sanskrit/English between 2001 and 2011 (Office of the Registrar General 2020) L TOTAL Male Female 2001 Sanskrit 1,174,019 830,827 343,192 English 32,399,287 21,931,407 10,467,880 2011 Sanskrit 994,863 631,099 363,764 English 32,018,890 19,592,236 12,426,654 Table 6 begins with the 2011 Total Persons figures for L1‑Sanskrit [tab. 6]. Below, in the next part of the table the L1‑Sanskrit_L2‑Hin‑ di_English combination equates to 69% of the total L1‑Sanskrit_L2‑α figure. In the bottom part of the table the combined L1‑Sanskrit_ L2‑α_L3‑Hindi_English portion is 77%. These data show the intimate relations that Hindi and English have with Sanskrit. Table 6  2011 L1‑Sanskrit_L2‑[Hindi‑English]_L3[English‑Hindi] (Office of the Registrar General 2020) TOTAL Male Female L1‑Sanskrit 24,821 13,636 11,185 L2 19,712 11,075 8,637 L2 Hindi 12,221 6,960 5,261 L2 English 1,347 727 620 H+E Total 13,568 7,687 5,881 H+E % 69 69 68 L3 7,910 4,600 3,310 L3 Hindi 2,267 1,327 940 L3 English 3,796 2,211 1,585 H+E Total 6,063 3,538 2,525 H+E % 77 77 76 90 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Table 7 below presents data related to L1‑Sanskrit_L2‑α [tab. 7]. It shows Hindi’s clear L1‑Sanskrit_L2‑α majority with 62% of the L2 category.16 While Hindi is one of India’s official languages (along‑ side English, which also ranks high), the data show the intimate re‑ lation with the Hindi heartland. Notice that Female L2‑Odia tokens were higher than Male (180:132), as well as Konkani (39:37), and Others (83:76). Table 7 L1‑Sanskrit/L2‑α rankings, 2011 (Office of the Registrar General 2020) L2 TOTAL Male Female Hindi 12,221 6,960 5,261 Marathi 1,934 1,071 863 English 1,347 727 620 Bengali 900 462 438 Kannada 839 502 337 Tamil 551 281 270 Gujarati 365 254 111 Urdu 325 193 132 Odia 318 138 180 Telegu 271 150 121 Malayalam 163 86 77 Konkani 159 76 83 Others 76 37 39 Table 8 shows the fluctuations between the dominant Sanskrit states by comparing the results from the 2011 and 2001 censuses [tab. 8]. What might explain Uttar Pradesh’s fewer speakers and Maharash‑ tra’s increase? Table 8  2011 and 2001 State‑level L1‑Sanskrit Census Results (Office of the Registrar General 2020) 2001 2011 % change Maharashtra 408 3,802 832 Bihar 754 3,388 349 Uttar Pradesh 7,048 3,062 ‑57 Rajasthan 989 2,375 140 Madhya Pradesh 381 883 132 Karnataka 830 1,218 47 16  Note: this list is only a portion of the total. 91 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Did all the speakers from Uttar Pradesh move to Mumbai? How can the dramatic rise in states like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Kar‑ nataka be explained? These data show that the Sanskrit‑speaking sentiment predominates in the Hindi belt. Having provided some na‑ tional level statistics, what follows is a closer look at these top‑rank‑ ing states, pinpointing L1‑L3 Sanskrit tokens down to district and sub‑district administrative levels. This begins in Maharashtra. 4 An Explication of Census Data in Several States 4.1 Maharashtra Table 9 shows the top ten districts in the state [tab. 9]. Making sense of all the data is challenging because there is an overwhelming amount of overlap between tables. For ease of comprehension, table 9 is a modified version of the original. Several columns have been delet‑ ed.17 Respectively, both Pune District (28%) and Pune City Sub‑dis‑ trict (22%) represent the highest L1‑Sanskrit administrative zones in their category for the state. It is clear from the Urban 3554:Ru‑ ral 145 ratio that 96% of Maharashtra’s Sanskrit tokens are locat‑ ed in urban areas. Table 9  2011 Maharashtra C‑16 Sanskrit–Top 10 Districts (Office of the Registrar General 2020) C‑16 POPULATION BY MOTHER TONGUE State Code – 27 / Mother Tongue Code – 17 / Mother Tongue Name – Sanskrit District code Area name Total Rural Urban P M F P M F P M F 000 MAHARASHTRA 3,802 1,984 1,818 247 145 102 3,555 1,839 1,716 521 Pune 1,091 567 524 51 33 18 1,040 534 506 17  As an example, before the token numbers are given, on the right of each table, the complete line for Pune District would read, C0116 (table code, denotes that these da‑ ta are from the C‑16 ‘mother tongue’ table), 027 (state code), 521 (district code), 0000 (sub‑district code), Pune (area name), 017000 (mother tongue code), Sanskrit (mother tongue name). This would look like the following, C0116‑027‑521‑0000‑Pune‑017000‑ Sanskrit. Where it gets confusing is when districts, sub‑districts, and towns have the same or similar names and coding. For example, the district of Pune (27‑521‑00000) is similar to its sub‑district constituent, Pune City (27‑521‑04194). The same logic applies to every other district/sub‑district across the entire suite of census tables. Another ex‑ ample is Nashik District (27‑516‑00000), which has a similarly named sub‑district, Na‑ shik (27‑516‑04152). This raises some methodological issues. We can use these fields to find all sub‑districts in each state and rank them. We can also filter just the districts and rank them in the same way. 92 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census C‑16 POPULATION BY MOTHER TONGUE State Code – 27 / Mother Tongue Code – 17 / Mother Tongue Name – Sanskrit District code Area name Total Rural Urban 517 Thane 710 385 325 14 9 5 696 376 320 518 Mumbai Suburban 556 263 293 0 0 0 556 263 293 516 Nashik 442 239 203 21 12 9 421 227 194 505 Nagpur 195 98 97 6 6 0 189 92 97 519 Mumbai 109 54 55 0 0 0 109 54 55 511 Nanded 61 30 31 5 2 3 56 28 28 515 Aurangabad 55 29 26 5 3 2 50 26 24 514 Jalna 51 27 24 47 24 23 4 3 1 504 Wardha 42 21 21 22 10 12 20 11 9 Table 10 shows the L1‑L3 relations found in the C‑17 tables [tab. 10]. In particular, the relations between the state language, Marathi, with Hindi, English, and Sanskrit are located. While Sanskrit clusters with Hindi and English, at the state level it becomes a bit more complicat‑ ed since it is important to consider the relevant state language in this clustering. Hindi and English, however, still have an overwhelming presence. The left column shows L1‑Marathi at the national level,18 the middle column shows how many of these returned L2‑Hindi, while the right column shows the figures for L3‑Sanskrit. This repeats for each line demonstrating the L1‑Marathi_L2‑α_L3‑β scenarios. Using the same formula, the second part of the table zooms in to the state level figures. L1‑Marathi_L2‑Hindi_L3‑α equates to 42% of the L2 cat‑ egory. The final part of this table focuses on L1‑Sanskrit_L2‑α_L3‑β. Table 10  2011 Maharashtra C‑17 Bi‑/Trilingualism (Office of the Registrar General 2020) Marathi across India L1 L2 L3 Marathi 83,026,680 Hindi 34,650,142 Sanskrit 57,070 Kannada 1,468,221 Sanskrit 559 English 1,395,659 Hindi 870,985 Kannada 26,907 Sanskrit 13,142 Gujarati 361,327 Sanskrit 238 Khandeshi 292,555 Sanskrit 124 Konkani 98,318 Sanskrit 168 18  Notice C17‑0000_2011 compared to C17‑2700 in the middle and right panels, re‑ spectively. The state code for Maharashtra is 2700 and the national code is 0000. 93 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Sanskrit 56,360 Hindi 22,477 English 19,780 L1‑Marathi in Maharashtra L1 L2 L3 Marathi77,461,172 Hindi 32,660,911 Sanskrit 54,500 English 1,202,810 Sanskrit 12,673 Kannada 512,117 Sanskrit 471 Khandeshi 292,035 Sanskrit 124 Telegu 150,921 Hindi 31,881 Sanskrit 38 Gujarati 60,552 Sanskrit 142 Sanskrit 54,100 Hindi 21,474 English 19,415 L1‑Sanskrit in Maharashtra L1 L2 L3 Sanskrit3,802 Hindi 1,782 English 888 Marathi 365 Marathi 1,259 Hindi 598 English 306 English 334 Marathi 49 This demonstrates that the L1‑SOL_L2_L3 cluster with Hindi_English is a predictor for the relative number of L2 and L3 Sanskrit speakers. This is consistent across every national and state‑level enumeration. If we reverse the order (right panel) and begin with L1‑Sanskrit, the numbers for L2_L3 also follow a similar order, with the State Offi‑ cial Language (SOL), Hindi, and English in superior positions com‑ pared to other possibilities. Figure 2  2011 Maharashtra: Districts L1‑Sanskrit. (India 2020) 94 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Figure 2 demonstrates the 2011 District‑level L1‑Sanskrit figures for Maharashtra [fig. 2]. The top five districts are Pune 1091, Thane 710, Mumbai Suburban 555, Nashik 442, and Nagpur 195. Figure 3  2011 Maharashtra: Sub‑districts L1‑Sanskrit. (India 2020) Figure 3 zooms down to the sub‑district level to show the top five districts in more detail [fig. 3]. Notice how Nagpur District has been superimposed in the red box. Next, we move onto the state of Bihar. 4.2 Bihar In Bihar, the highest number of L1‑Sanskrit tokens are located in the eastern administrative area of Kishanganj District (210). The top five districts are listed in [tab. 11]. Table 11  2011 Top 5 Districts: Bihar (Office of the Registrar General 2020) C‑16 POPULATION BY MOTHER TONGUE State Code – 10 / Mother Tongue Code – 17 / Mother Tongue Name – Sanskrit District code Area name Total Rural Urban P M F P M F P M F 000 BIHAR 3,388 1,845 1543 3,041 1,654 1387 347 191 156 210 Kishanganj 1,028 543 485 962 507 455 66 36 30 212 Katihar 604 324 280 598 321 277 6 3 3 211 Purnia 574 326 248 544 309 235 30 17 13 209 Araria 383 220 163 381 219 162 2 1 1 230 Patna 119 67 52 4 3 1 115 64 51 95 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census From within these districts, Bihar’s top ten sub‑districts are Dighal‑ bank 558 (Kishanganj District), Terhagachh 307 (Kishanganj Dis‑ trict), Baisi 246 (Purnia District), Azamnagar 154 (Katihar District), Sikti 120 (Araria District), Dagarua 108 (Purnia District), Palasi 105 (Araria District), Falka 92 (Katihar District), Thakurganj 83 (Kis‑ hanganj District), and Patna Rural 82 (Patna District). In [figs 4‑5] no‑ tice the clustering in the far east of the state across four districts. Figure 4  2011 Bihar: Districts L1‑Sanskrit (India 2020) Figure 5  2011 Bihar: Sub‑districts L1‑Sanskrit (India 2020) Unlike Maharashtra, 90% of Bihar’s L1‑Sanskrit tokens are Rural. Where might they be located? The ‘village‑level’ C‑16 tables are not available. One cumbersome triangulation method requires scrutinis‑ 96 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census ing other tables. The state’s highest returning district is Kishanganj. Beginning with the ‘town level’ C‑16 table for Bihar, we learn that Kishanganj Nagar lists 66 Urban L1‑Sanskrit tokens (Office of the Registrar General 2020). We can combine this with the Village Di‑ rectory of Kishanganj District, Bihar (Office of the Registrar Gener‑ al 2020).19 The relevant code for Dighalbank’s Block is 002. We can sort and filter all the listed towns and villages with this code and then sort further for all the places with a population under 5,000 inhabit‑ ants (the town/village population boundary). While we currently are unable to locate with more accuracy, we are, nonetheless, left with a list of ‘rural villages’ from which Bihar’s highest L1‑Sanskrit sub‑dis‑ trict is potentially comprised of. Let us move on to Madhya Pradesh. 4.3 Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh returned more L1‑Sanskrit Urban tokens (54%) [Ru‑ ral 851 (451 M/400 F) and Urban 1020 (537 M/483 F)]. This further complicates the fabled ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ village narrative. How‑ ever, the highest‑ranking sub‑district, Pipariya, accounts for 96% (Rural 485/Urban 5) of Hoshangabad District’s total 524 (496 Ru‑ ral/28 Urban) (Office of the Registrar General 2020). Compared to the state Rural total, Pipariya Sub‑district equates to 57% of all the 367 sub‑districts in Madhya Pradesh and 26% of the state’s total. At the village level this can be narrowed down to 114 villages in Pipari‑ ya Sub‑district (Office of the Registrar General 2020). If this sub‑district does have such a high number of Sanskrit speak‑ ers it is certainly unclear as to why these places are not as famous as the three so‑called ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ villages (Jhiri, Sarangpur Sub‑district, Rajgarh District; Mohad, Gadawara Sub‑district, Narsim‑ hapur District; and Baghuwar, Kareli Sub‑district, Narsimhapur Dis‑ trict). What is more curious is the fact that the districts these three ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ villages are located in barely returned any L1‑San‑ skrit tokens. The internet contains countless sites that assert that eve‑ ryone, or nearly everyone, in these villages speaks Sanskrit. The dis‑ trict and sub‑district L1‑Sanskrit tokens are represented in [figs 6‑7]. 19  Kishanganj District is comprised of seven ‘blocks’, which is the same number of sub‑districts. The difference between a block and a sub‑district is its function. A block is a geographical unit for rural development, whereas a sub‑district (tehsil) is a geo‑ graphical unit for revenue collection (Maheshwari 1984). 97 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Figure 6  2011 Madhya Pradesh: Districts L1‑Sanskrit. (India 2020) Figure 7  2011 Madhya Pradesh: Sub‑districts L1‑Sanskrit. (India 2020) Like Bihar, filtering through the village/town lists for Pipariya Sub‑district the towns with 5,000+ inhabitants can be removed. The result is 142 villages, ranging in size from 4,767 (Khapar Khe‑ da) down to two (Pathi Thekredri) inhabitants. It is this list that the majority of Madhya Pradesh’s Sanskrit tokens come from (Office of the Registrar General 2020). The ST‑15 (Scheduled Tribes) table is a subset of the C‑16 tables relating to Scheduled Tribes’ mother tongues. These are available at the state/district levels. 6.7% of the L1‑Sanskrit state total (149/1871) is comprised of people who identify as members of Scheduled Tribes. Of this, 126 tokens are from Hoshangabad District (Office of the Reg‑ istrar General 2020). 98 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Table 12  2011 and 2001 Madhya Pradesh L1‑Sanskrit (Office of the Registrar General 2020) Total Persons – Sanskrit L1 L2 L3 2011 1,871 246,940 454,245 2001 381 210,400 960,176 % change 391 17 ‑53 Table 12 scratches beneath the surface to show the changes between 2001 and 2011 across the L1‑L3‑Sanskrit range [tab. 12]. This figure reflects the national data. As we have discussed, the L1 change is aspirational. It really makes not much sense, otherwise. How could a 391% increase have occurred in just one decade? The L2 figure is more feasible, however the L3 decline of 53% is a worrying predic‑ tor for the vitality of Sanskrit. Could it be that all the Sanskrit village mythology circulating might be harming Sanskrit’s role? In relation to the Hindi/English/Sanskrit trinity, in Madhya Pradesh L1‑H_L2‑E_ L3‑S comprises 98% of all the L3‑Sanskrit possibilities. This decline is also considerable among the Scheduled Tribes of Madhya Pradesh. Table 13 highlights the changes of L1‑Bhili/Bhilodi_ and L1‑Gondi_ L2‑α_L3‑Sanskrit [tab. 13]. Both have declined dramatically between 2001 and 2011. Table 13  2011 and 2001 Madhya Pradesh L1‑ST_L2‑α_L3‑Sanskrit (Office of the Registrar General 2020) 2011 2001 % change L1‑Bhili/Bhilodi_L2‑α_L3‑Sanskrit 779 1,677 ‑54 L1‑Gondi_L2‑α_L3‑Sanskrit 661 889 ‑26 Madhya Pradesh’s 2011 L2‑Sanskrit total is 246,940. This is com‑ prised of the Scheduled Tribes’ total of 13,540 (5% of state total). This 13,540 is predominated by 84% Rural tokens. Of this Scheduled Tribes’ total 52% come from a group of 60 ST‑L1 languages, including Gond, Arakh, and Agaria (prevalent in Hoshangabad District). The next group of languages include Bhil and Bhilala (15%), and Kol (10%) (Office of the Registrar General 2020). Having located the districts and sub‑districts within Madhya Pradesh where L1‑L3 Sanskrit to‑ kens were returned, a clearer image of where future fieldwork could be directed emerges. The final state is Uttar Pradesh. 99 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census 4.4 Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh is India’s most populous state with 199,581,477 people (Office of the Registrar General 2020). While Uttar Pradesh experi‑ enced a 57% decrease in L1‑Sanskrit tokens, in comparison, the total nationwide increase for L1‑Sanskrit is 76% (Government of Office of the Registrar General 2020). What has caused Uttar Pradesh to de‑ crease when other states witnessed large increases? Three districts are worthy of closer scrutiny because of how they changed dramat‑ ically between 2001 and 2011. The state capital, Lucknow, reduced by ‑82%, while Unnao reduced by ‑95%, and Gorakhpur, the elector‑ ate of UP’s Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath, decreased by ‑99% (Of‑ fice of the Registrar General 2020). The top ten districts are Kanpur Nagar 932, Sitapur 722, Sultanpur 323, Ghaziabad 128, Saharanpur 85, Ballia 79, Lucknow 55, Varanasi 55, Bijnor 50, and Agra 41 (Of‑ fice of the Registrar General 2020); figure 8 provides the total Per‑ son numbers for each district [fig. 8]. Figure 8  2011 Uttar Pradesh: Districts L1‑Sanskrit. (India 2020) Figure 8 shows the numbers for each district in which L1‑Sanskrit to‑ kens were returned. In Uttar Pradesh, 1,697 Male L1‑Sanskrit tokens were returned compared to 1,365 Female. Like Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, the Urban L1‑Sanskrit (1668) token count is slightly higher than the Rural equivalent (1394). The urban area of Varanasi (Benares), which is considered one of the holiest cities of Hinduism, which is home to the famous Sanskrit university, Sampūrṇānanda Saṁskṛta Viśvavidyālaya (SSV), only returned 54 tokens (36 M/18 F). Similarly, Breton (1976, 306) wonders why the famous tradition‑ al seats of Sanskrit learning have fewer speakers of Sanskrit. No‑ tice that Kanpur is the city with the highest number of returned 100 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census L1‑Sanskrit tokens (Office of the Registrar General 2020). The top ten sub‑districts are Kanpur 931, Mahmudabad 482, Lambhua 310, Gha‑ ziabad 127, Sidhauli 94, Biswan 83, Ballia 62, Varanasi 55, Deoband 51, and Bijnor 50 (Office of the Registrar General 2020). Kanpur is also the highest ranked town. Zooming in, figure 9 shows the unique L1‑Sanskrit results for each of the six tehsils in Sitapur District [fig. 9]. Figure 9  2011 Sitapur District within Uttar Pradesh. (India 2020) In 2001, Sitapur District, Uttar Pradesh (430 kilometres east of New Delhi), reportedly had the highest number of all the districts in the country, at 558 (Priyanka 2014). The 2011 total of 722 (M 378/F 344) is a 28% increase. Sitapur District also represents 24% of the state’s total. It splits Rural 1275 (M 676/F 599) and Urban 73 (M 33/F 40). This means that the district of Sitapur provides 46% of Uttar Pradesh’s L1‑Sanskrit tokens, which, itself, is comprised of 90% Ru‑ ral from across the district’s six tehsils (Office of the Registrar Gen‑ eral 2020). When compared with the 2001 results for the same the district the fluctuations are quite remarkable. Where did 2,604 San‑ skrit ‘speakers’ from Biswan tehsil go? Sitapur District has the sec‑ ond highest L1‑Sanskrit number in Uttar Pradesh. 101 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Figure 10  2001 and 2011 Sitapur District: Sub‑districts L1‑Sanskrit. (India 2020) Figure 10 shows the 2011 figures for each tehsil of Sitapur District, which indicates that Mahmudabad Tehsil has the most with 482 (M 258/F 224) [fig. 10]; table 14 displays the top five sub‑districts [tab. 14]. Three of the list are located in Sitapur Tehsil and Biswan Town is the sixth‑highest ranked in the state, as well as the fifth‑high‑ est ranked tehsil. Both Biswan and Sidhauli tehsils return more Fe‑ male than Male tokens. While Lambua returns the same number for both sexes. Table 14  2011 Top 5 Rural Tehsils (Office of the Registrar General 2020) Tehsil Total Male Female Mahmudabad 482 258 224 Lambhua 310 155 155 Sidhauli 94 49 45 Ballia 62 32 30 Biswan 83 39 44 In contrast to Kanpur, Mahmudabad Tehsil (Rural) is the second high‑ est tehsil in the state with 482 (258 M/224 F). If all the L1‑Sanskrit ‘speakers’ do not live in towns then is it safe to assume they live in villages? Mahmudabad Tehsil has 341 villages (Office of the Regis‑ trar General 2020). The question is, in which villages are L1‑San‑ skrit ‘speakers’ living? 102 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Table 15  2011 Religious‑Political affiliations and Literacy‑Sex ratio comparisons (Office of the Registrar General 2020) State Tehsil name Population Literacy Sex ratio Political preference Hindu % MP Pipariya 181, 261 63.8 896 BJP 95 MP Sarangpur 186,082 56.4 950 BJP 84 UP Kanpur 3,470,334 72.8 860 BJP 83 MP Indore 2,389,511 73.6 925 BJP 74 UP Mahmudabad 596,252 47.1 884 Samajawada 74 MP Huzur 2,107,523 72 920 BJP 72 Finally, table 15 lists some of the main tehsils mentioned above [tab. 15]. They are ranked, first, by the percentage‑age of Hindus in each tehsil. Most display a preference for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), regardless of the size of the Hindu majority. The curious thing is that some of the highest L1‑Sanskrit tehsils in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh return literacy and sex ratios well below national and state averages. What does this tell us about the ability of Sanskrit to ‘transform lives’ and the development grand narrative it serves? 5 Concluding Remarks This paper compares the 2001 and 2011 Sanskrit census results pay‑ ing closer attention to the top‑ranking states Maharashtra, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. However, the results of this study are unexpected. Further analysis across the remaining states will be released in forthcoming articles. Still, we are able to deter‑ mine that Maharashtra returned the highest number for L1‑Sanskrit; that most of the L1‑Sanskrit speakers live in urban areas; that the ‘Sanskrit‑speaking’ village is an aspirational myth not borne out in the government data; that more men claim to speak Sanskrit; that the overwhelming majority also speak Hindi and English, regard‑ less of L1‑L3 combinations; that the L1‑Hindi/L2‑Sanskrit combina‑ tion amounts for 92% of the total L2‑Sanskrit speakers; and that, re‑ gardless of the rhetorical and ideological bluster, Sanskrit continues to fall short of its alleged capacity for attaining the #Sanskrit4Cli‑ mateAction goals related to key indicators, such as sex, literacy, and health development. Sanskrit, alongside Yoga, is a key instrument for branding the nation. This is a domestic as well as international project that has a symbiot‑ ic relation to the global wellness and leisure markets, which is fertile ground for cultivating banal nationalism. From a language acquisition perspective, the media’s preference to provide pithy and inaccurate da‑ ta from the census seems counterproductive, if not misplaced. While 103 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census moods certainly lift with hearing the L1 level rose between 2001 to 2011, the more interesting categories relate to L2 and L3 levels, both of which have reduced, however the L3 level fell by almost 90%. With this finer‑grained analysis, a clearer map of where people who have an affinity to identify as L1‑L3‑Sanskrit speakers were lo‑ cated at the last census. Regardless of whether they do in fact speak Sanskrit, these data will aid future research related to in‑country field work, enabling strategic sorties down to the sub‑district tehsil level. Finally, the 2021 Indian census will the first digitised cen‑ sus the nation will embark on. Hopefully, this allows for data to be enumerated, rationalised, and published much sooner than the sev‑ en‑year lag that occurred at the last census. Unlike the botched 1941 census, which first introduced self‑reporting of data, it is anticipated that this new age of demography in India will not suffer the same fate. From a linguistic perspective, building on demographic data potenti‑ ates future exploration of various aspects of language revitalisation and second‑language acquisition through in‑depth study of particu‑ lar linguistic features related to substrate interference and imper‑ fect learning of the target language. Bibliography Ahmad, R. (2020). “Why Must the Uttarakhand Govt Undermine Urdu to Pro- mote Sanskrit?”. The Wire. https://thewire.in/communalism/san‑ skrit‑urdu‑uttarakhand. Aklujkar, A. (1996). “The Early History of Sanskrit as Supreme Language”. Hou- ben, J.E. (ed.), Ideology and Status of Sanskrit. Contributions to the History of the Sanskrit Language. Leiden: Brill, 59‑85. Amaravāṇī (2020). “Amaravāṇi. Saṃskṛtam for All… forever”. https://amar‑ avaani.org/visvabha%E1%B9%A3a‑sa%E1%B9%83sk%E1%B9%9Btam. Aralikatti, R.N. (1989). Spoken Sanskrit in India. A Study of Sentence Patterns. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha. Aralikatti, R.N. (1991). “A Note on the Word Order in Modern Spoken Sanskrit and Some Positive Constraints”. Hock, H.H. (ed.), Studies in Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas, 13‑17. Arel, D. (2004). “Language Categories in Censuses. Backward‑ or Forward‑look- ing?”. Kertzer, D.I.; Arel, D. (eds), Census and Identity. The Politics of Race, Eth‑ nicity, and Language in National Censuses. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 92‑120. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511606045.005. Aroncyzk, M. (2013). Branding the Nation. The Global Business of National Brand‑ ing. New York: Oxford University Press. Azad, M.A.K. (1957). Report of the Sanskrit Commission 1956‑1957. Ministry of Ed- ucation and Culture. Poona: Government of India. http://www.wilbourh‑ all.org/sansknet/general/reportonsanskritcommission/S_ comm2.htm. Babu, H. (2017). “Breaking the Chaturvarna System of Languages The Need to Overhaul the Language Policy”. Economic and Political Weekly, 7(23), 112‑19. 104 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census https://m.epw.in/journal/2017/23/special‑articles/break‑ ing‑chaturvarna‑system‑languages.html. Baines, J.A. (1893). General Report of the Census of India, 1891. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. Bedewi, J. (2020). “10 Sanskrit Phrases You Often Hear in a Yoga Class (& What They Mean)”. TheTalko. https://www.thetalko.com/sanskrit‑phras‑ es‑hear‑yoga‑class‑meaning. Bharati, S. “Our Mission & Vision”. https://samskritabharatiusa.org/ index.php/about/our‑mission‑vision. Breton, R.J.‑L. (1976). Atlas géographique de langues et des ethnies de l’Inde et du Subcontinent. Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Népal, Bhoutan, Sikkim. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Burrow, T. (1965). The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber & Faber. Chatterjee, M. (2020). “The Evolution of the Yajurvedic Words in Yaska’s View”. International Journal of Sanskrit Research, 6(3), 93‑5. Chauhan, R. (2015). “Modi and Buddhism. Between Cultural and Faith‑Based Diplomacy”. Observer Research Foundation, 77, 1‑18. Dasgupta, P. (1995). “Sanskrit and Indian English. Some Linguistic Considera- tions”. Singh, R.; Dasgupta, P.; Lee, J.K. (eds), Explorations in Indian Sociolin‑ guistics. Language and Development. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 160‑75. Deopujari, S. (2009). “Sanskrit Can Become the Language of the Masses in Ru- ral Areas”. Organiser. https://organiser.org/2009/09/06/41332/un‑ categorized/rc0668762/. Deshpande, M.M. (2011). “Efforts to Vernacularize Sanskrit. Degree of Success and Failure”. Fishman, J. (ed.), Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. The Success‑Failure Continuum in Language and Ethnic Identity Efforts. Ox- ford: Oxford University Press, 218‑19. Deshpande, M.M. (2013). “Aryan Origins. Brief History of Linguistic Arguments”. Thapar, R. (ed.), India. Historical Beginnings and the Concept of the Aryan. Delhi: National Book Trust, 98‑156. Deshpande, M.M. (unpublished). “Scope of Early Sanskrit Usage. A Wider Ap- proach”. Paper presented at the 17th World Sanskrit Conference (Vancou- ver, 9‑13 July 2018). Deumert, A. (2009). “Tracking the Demographics of (Urban) Language Shift. An Analysis of South African Census Data”. Journal of Multi‑ lingual & Multicultural Development, 31(1), 13‑35. https://doi. org/10.1080/01434630903215125. Dizon, J. (2016). “Remote Indian Village Leading Sanskrit Language Revival”. World Yoga News. https://web.archive.org/web/20161130174015/ http://w w w.worldyoganews.com:80/remote‑indian‑vil‑ lage‑leading‑sanskrit‑language‑revival. Duchêne, A.; Humbert, P.N.; Coray, R. (2018). “How to Ask Questions on Lan- guage? Ideological Struggles in the Making of a State Survey.” Interna‑ tional Journal of the Sociology of Language, 252, 45‑72. https://doi. org/10.1515/ijsl‑2018‑0014. Emeneau, M.B. (1956). “India as a Linguistic Area”. Language, 32(1), 3‑16. Ermann, U.; Hermanik, K.‑J. (2018). Branding the Nation, the Place, the Product. London; New York: Routledge. Fahy, J. (2020). Becoming Vaishnava in an Ideal Vedic City. New York: Berghahn. 105 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977‑1978. Transl. by G. Burchell. Ed. by M. Senellart, F. Ewald, A. Fontana. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gait, E.A. (1913). Census of India, 1911. Vol. 1, Part 2, Tables. Calcutta: Superin- tendent of Government Printing. Ghosh, A. (2008). “Sanskrit Boulevard”. Hindustan Times. https://www.hin‑ dustantimes.com/india/sanskrit‑boulevard/story‑u8M0ylD‑ 1druUeSPAd404hN.html. Goswami, H. (2012). “Mother Language ‘Sanskrit’ Needs Urgent Protection”. GoI Monitor. http://goimonitor.com/story/mother‑language‑san‑ skrit‑needs‑urgent‑protection. Hastings, A.M. (2004). Past Perfect, Future Perfect. Sanskrit Revival and the Hin‑ du Nation in Contemporary India [PhD dissertation]. Chicago: University of Chicago. Hastings, A.M. (2008). “Licked by the Mother Tongue. Imagining Everyday San- skrit at the Home and in the World”. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 18(1), 24‑45. Haynes, J. (ed.) (2021). Handbook on Religion and International Relations. Chel- tenham (UK): Edward Elgar. Hebden, K. (2011). Dalit Theology and Christian Anarchism. Farnham (UK): Ashgate. Hindutvainus (2011). “Sanskrit Village. Jhiri, Madhya Pradesh”. YouTube. htt‑ ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHLIy‑WHDew. Hock, H.H. (1991). “Review. R.N. Aralikatti. Spoken Sanskrit in India. A Study of Sentence Patterns”. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 21(1), 161‑5. Hock, H.H.; Pandaripande, R. (1976). “The Sociolinguistics Position of San- skrit in Pre‑Muslim South Asia”. Studies in Language Learning, 1(2), 106‑38. Hutton, J.H. (1933). Census of India, 1931. Vol. 1, India, Part 2, Imperial Tables. Delhi: Manager of Publications. India Education Diary Bureau (2020). “Sanskrit Is a Gift of India for Entire Hu- manity. Ramesh Pokhriyal ‘Nishank’”. India Education Diary. https://in‑ diaeducationdiary.in/sanskrit‑is‑a‑gift‑of‑india‑for‑en‑ tire‑humanity‑ramesh‑pokhriyal‑nishank. Indian Eagle (2020). “Sanskrit. Language of Knowledge, Love and Peace in India”. Indian Eagle. https://www.indianeagle.com/travelbeats/ facts‑of‑sanskrit‑in‑india. Indian Yug (2020). “Amazing Facts About the Sanskrit Language that You Didn’t Know”. Indian Yug. https://indianyug.com/amazing‑facts‑san‑ skrit‑language/#comment‑38307. Jacobs, S. (2016). The Art of Living. Spirituality and Wellbeing in the Global Con‑ text. London: Routledge. Jaffrelot, Ch. (2017). “From Holy Sites to Web Sites. Hindu Nationalism, from Sacred Territory to Diasporic Ethnicity”. Michael, P.; Possamai, A.; Turner, B.S. (eds), Religions, Nations, and Transnationalism in Multiple Modernities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 154‑74. Jha, M.K. (2017). Language, Politics and Public Sphere in North India: Making of the Maithili Movement. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. King, E. (2015). “Narendra Modi. Yoga can Help the Fight Against Climate Change”. Climate Home News. https://bit.ly/3l65OrB. Kavi, M.R. (1934). Nāṭyaśāstra. With the Commentary of Abhinavagupta. Baro- da: Oriental Institute. 106 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Mallikarjun, B. (2002). “Mother Tongues of India According to the 1961 Census”. Language in India, 2. http://www.languageinindia.com/aug2002/in‑ dianmothertongues1961aug2002.html. Maheshwari, S. (1984). “Administering the Planning System”. The Indian Jour‑ nal of Public Administration, 30(3), 603‑12. Marten, J.T. (1923). Census of India, 1921. Vol. 1, India, Part 2, Tables. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing. McCartney, P. (2011). “Spoken Sanskrit in a Gujarat Ashram”. The Journal of the Oriental Society of Australia, 43, 61‑82. McCartney, P. (2014a). “Ek Din Hamaare Ashram mein. A Day in Our Ashram”. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZHJVkhVBPc. McCartney, P. (2014b). “The Sanitising Power of Spoken Sanskrit”. Himāl South‑ asian. http://himalmag.com/sanitising‑power‑spoken‑sanskrit. McCartney, P. (2015). “Episode 3: Jalam ≠ Chillum”. YouTube. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=cLZeuCT_mwQ. McCartney, P. (2016a). “Episode 1: Imagining Sanskrit Land”. YouTube. htt‑ ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMi7tkPBbJ4. McCartney, P. (2016b). “Episode 2: Total‑am”. YouTube. https://www.you‑ tube.com/watch?v=7tAp8m9RHPU. McCartney, P. (2016c). “Episode 4: It’s Time to get Married”. YouTube. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B3un7aHEAc. McCartney, P. (2017a). “Suggesting Śāntarasa in Shanti Mandir’s Satsaṅga. Ritu- al, Performativity and Ethnography in Yogaland”. Ethnologia Actualis, 17(2), 81‑122. https://doi.org/10.2478/eas‑2018‑0005. McCartney, P. (2017b). “Jhirī. A ‘Sanskrit‑Speaking’ Village in Madhya Pradesh”. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 4(2), 167‑209. https:// doi.org/10.1515/jsall‑2017‑0007. McCartney, P. (2017c). “Speaking of the Little Traditions. Agency and Imposi- tion in ‘Sanskrit‑Speaking’ Villages in North India”. den Boer, L.; Cuneo, D. (eds), Puṣpikā. Tracing Ancient India Through Text and Traditions. Philadel- phia: Oxbow Books, 62‑88. McCartney, P. (2017d). “Imagining Sanskrit Land”. UTNE Reader. https://www. utne.com/politics/imagining‑sanskrit‑land‑zm0z17fzcmar. McCartney, P. (2017e). “Yoga Practitioners and the Unspoken Global Aspira- tions of Indian Ethno‑Nationalism”. Political Theology Today. https://bit. ly/3sxRMDx. McCartney, P. (2017f). “Is the Global Prestige of Sanskrit Aiding and Abetting Hindu Nationalists and Supremacists?”. Political Theology Today. https:// bit.ly/3MhYzcb. McCartney, P. (2017g). “Politics beyond the Yoga Mat. Yoga Fundamental- ism and the ‘Vedic Way of Life’”. Global Ethnographic, 4, 1‑18. https:// oicd.net/ge/wp‑content/uploads/Politics‑byond‑the‑Yo‑ ga‑Mat‑P.‑McCartney.pdf. McCartney, P. (2018a). “Śāntamūrti. The Legitimate Disposition(s) of the ‘Tem- ple of Peace’ Social Network”. Bulletin of the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture, 8, 65‑104. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4MP3K. McCartney, P. (2018b). “Notes from the Field. Reflections on the Imagining San- skrit Land Project”. Global Ethnographic, 4, 2‑9. https://bit.ly/3la6Gf8. McCartney, P. (2019a). “Spiritual Bypass and Entanglement in Yogaland (योगस्तान). How Neoliberalism, Soft Hindutva and Banal Nationalism Facil- 107 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census itate Yoga Fundamentalism”. Politics and Religion Journal, 13(1), 137‑75. https://doi.org/10.54561/prj1301137m. McCartney, P. (2019b). “When Cows Can Speak Sanskrit. Yoga, Cultural Reviv- al, and Animal Testing Ethics”. Medium. https://psdmccartney.medi‑ um.com/when‑cows‑can‑speak‑sanskrit‑yoga‑cultural‑reviv‑ al‑and‑animal‑testing‑ethics‑22afb0c7ae86. McCartney, P. (unpublished). “Sustainably‑Speaking Yoga. Comparing Sanskrit in the 2001 and 2011 Indian Censuses”. Paper presented at The Conference on Asian Linguistic Anthropology (Siem Reap, Cambodia, 23‑6 January 2019). McCartney, P. (2020). “Yoga‑Scapes, Embodiment and Imagined Spiritual Tour- ism”. Palmer, C.; Andrews, H. (eds), Tourism and Embodiment. London: Rout- ledge, 86‑106. McCartney, P. (2021a). “The not So United States of Yogaland. Post‑National- ism, Environmentalism, and Applied + Yoga’s Sustainable Development”. Keaney, T.J. (ed.), Nationalism. Past, Present, and Future. New York: Nova, 1‑122. McCartney, P. (2021b). “The Abuse of Yoga and Proposition YSB. Herd Immuni- ty for Troubling Times”. Abuse in Yoga and Beyond. Cultural Logics and Path‑ ways for the Future (Yoga and Abuse). https://sacredmattersmaga‑ zine.com/special‑issue‑yoga‑abuse. McCartney, P. (2021c). “Where Does India Stand When It Comes to Yoga Tour- ism?”. The Wire. https://thewire.in/culture/india‑yoga‑tour‑ ism‑uttarakhand. McCartney, P.; Zuckermann, G. (eds) (2019). “Unsanitizable Yoga. Revivalistics and Hybridic Reclaimed Sanskrit”. Mentalities Journal, 33(1), 1‑48. htt‑ ps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4GFN5. Miller, Ch.P. (2020). “Soft Power and Biopower. Narendra Modi’s ‘Double Dis- course’ Concerning Yoga for Climate Change and Self‑Care”. Journal of Dharma Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42240‑020‑00068‑w. Mitra, A. (1994). “Census 1961. New Pathways”. Economic and Political Week‑ ly, 29(51‑2), 3207‑21. Mohan, A. (2012). Utopia and the Village in South Asian Literatures. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mohan, S. (2020). “Revival of Sanskrit”. Eleven Myanmar. https://elevenmy‑ anmar.com/news/opinion‑revival‑of‑sanskrit. Nakamura, H. (1973). A Companion to Contemporary Sanskrit. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas. Nandy, A. (2001). An Ambiguous Journey to the City. The Village and Other Odd Ruins of the Self in the Indian Imagination. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Nelson, P.J. (2021). Religious Voices in the Politics of International Develop‑ ment. Faith‑Based NGOs as Non‑state Political and Moral Actors. Cham (CH): Springer Nature. News Desk (2020). “Initiative. A Sanskrit Village Will Be Built in Every Block of Utt- arakhand, People Will Be Taught the Language”. Amar Ujālā. https://www. amarujala.com/dehradun/sanskrit‑village‑will‑made‑in‑eve‑ ry‑block‑in‑uttarakhand. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India (2020). “Census India”. Ministry of Home Affairs. http://censusindia.gov.in. 108 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India (1954). “Cen- sus of India. Paper no. 1. Languages. 1951 Census”. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs. Ollet, A. (2017). Language of the Snakes. Prakrit, Sanskrit and the Language Or‑ der of Premodern India. Oakland (CA): University of California Press. Olshansky, A.; Peaslee, R.M.; Landrum, A.R. (2020). “Flat‑Smacked! Converting to Flat Eartherism”. Journal of Media and Religion, 19(2), 46‑59. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2020.1774257. Patherpanchali (2018). “Cows Will Talk in Tamil, Sanskrit Nithyananda Claims”. Infovision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmYi_wNqR5s. Plowden, W.C. (1883). Indian Empire Census of 1881. Statistics of Population, vol. 2. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing India. Posel, D.; Zeller, J. (2015). “Language Shift or Increased Bilingualism in South Africa. Evidence from Census Data”. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultur‑ al Development, 37(4), 357‑70. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2 015.1072206. Prabhu, J. (2014). “Here’s Why Sanskrit Is not a Dead Language and Should Be at the Core of School Curricula”. DNA. https://bit.ly/3FLYGu3. Priyanka (2014). “Where Are the Sanskrit Speakers?”. Gurumavin. http://gu‑ rumavin.com/where‑are‑the‑sanskrit‑speakers [2020‑07‑12]. Press Trust India (2018). “India Is on the Path of Becoming ‘Vishwa Guru’. Un- ion Minister Harsh Vardhan”. Hindustan Times. https://bit.ly/3l8Oz9g. Press Trust India (2019). “India on Way to Become ‘Vishwa Guru’ Under Pm Nar- endra Modi. Amit Shah”. The Indian Express. https://bit.ly/3wK48d5. Ramanan, K.V. (1987). Nāgārjuna’s Philosophy. As Presented in the Mahā Prajñāpāramitā Śāstra. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas. Ramaswamy, S. (1999). “Sanskrit for the Nation”. Modern Asian Studies, 33(2), 339‑81. Risley, H.H.; Gait, E.A. (1903). Census of India, 1901. Vol. 1‑A, Part 2, Tables. Cal- cutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing. Samskrit101 (2009). “Samskrita Bharati ITV Interview Sri Chamu Krishna Shastry and Sowmya Joisa”. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=VhpRKY4a3ds. Sanskriti (2018). “Chanting Sanskrit Increases Brain Cognitive Areas. ‘Sanskrit Effect’”. Sanskriti. https://bit.ly/3MsvVFz. Sharma, G. (2009). “Bajaj Discover Advertisement in Sanskrit”. YouTube. htt‑ ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FTVGNdDp2o. Singh, R.K. (2014). “India Can Be a Vishwa Guru”. The Pioneer. http://www. dailypioneer.com/todays‑newspaper/india‑can‑be‑vish‑ wa‑guru.html. Singh, S. (2015). “New Life, Old Death for Sanskrit in Uttara- khand”. Archive. http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/ new‑life‑old‑death‑for‑sanskrit‑in‑uttarakhand/1126773. Skutnabb‑kangas, T. (2012). “Linguistic Human Rights”. Solan, L.M.; Tiersma, P.M. (eds), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. https://www.doi. org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0017. Subbarao, K.V. (2008). “Typological Characteristics of South Asian Languag- es”. Language in South Asia. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 49‑78. Subramaniam, B. (2019). Holy Science: The Biopolitics of Hindu Nationalism. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. 109 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110  Patrick S.D. McCartney ‘Sanskrit-Speaking’ Villages, Faith-Based Development and the Indian Census Tare, K. (2010). “RSS Wants Sanskrit Registered in Census”. DNA. http:// www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report‑rss‑wants‑sanskrit‑reg‑ istered‑in‑census‑1387878. Taylor, M. (2012). “Heavenly Carrots and Earthly Sticks. How Phalaśruti Para- texts Empower Purāṇic Discourse”. Journal of Hindu Studies, 5, 92‑111. htt‑ ps://doi.org/10.1093/jhs/his012. TNN (2019). “NASA Believes Sanskrit is Scientific Language for Programming”. The Times of India. https://bit.ly/3w905HU. Trivedi, A. (2010). “Sanskrit is Second Official Language in Uttarakhand”. Hin‑ dustan Times. https://bit.ly/3LgevKG. United Nations India (2019). “Yoga Is Force for Fighting Climate Change, Fos- tering Global Harmony: United Nations”. Hindustan Times. https://bit. ly/39iAza8. Upadhyay, V. (2020). “Uttarakhand to Soon Have ‘Sanskrit Speaking’ Villages”. The New Indian Express. https://bit.ly/3wa7syK. Vāgbhaṭa (2020). “Aṣṭāṅgasaṅgraha By Vṛddhavāgbhaṭa.” SARIT. https:// bit.ly/3sxYgSE. Vertovec, S. (1994). “‘Official’ and ‘Popular’ Hinduism in Diaspora. His- torical and Contemporary Trends in Surinam, Trinidad and Guy- ana”. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 28(1), 123‑47. https://doi. org/10.1177/006996694028001005. Watanabe, C. (2019). Becoming One. Religion, Development, and Environmen‑ talism in a Japanese NGO in Myanmar. Manoa: University of Hawai’i Press. Witzel, M. (2010). “Gandhāra and the Formation of the Vedic and Zoroastrian Canons”. Rotaru, F. (ed.), The International Symposium. The Book. Bucha- rest: Bucharest Library, 490‑534. Yeats, M.W.M. (1943). Census of India, 1941. Vol. 1, India; Part 1, Tables. Delhi: Manager of Publications. 110 Bhasha e-ISSN 2785-5953 1, 1, 2022, 77-110