Language is a means of communication, and each language has a unique set of phonological patterns that make up its grammar. It becomes concerning when we attempt to comprehend the essence of a philosophy by translating it into a tongue that is entirely foreign to it, from one of the oldest languages to one of the newest, emerging, and evolving languages.

It is widely believed that the principles of Sanatana Dharma, known to the West as Hinduism, based on Shruti Literature and Smriti Literature such i.e. Manusmriti and Yagyavalkya smriti, along with customary practices, are the foundation of the Hindu Jurisprudence; for instance, Saptapadi in Section – 7(2) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

We often see western scholars committing blunders in their attempts to translate ‘Hindu Scriptures’, predominantly available in Sanskrit, into English. The biggest paradox is, that it is not only western scholars who do so; but Indian Eurocentric scholars also suffer from the same malady. Indian Historians who have authored Ancient History and Medieval Books have no understanding of Ancient Languages.

To substantiate the stand, here is an excerpt from Tarik-Al-Hind, Chapter -1, Para – 2, by Alberuni:

“If you want to conquer this difficulty (i.e. to learn Sanskrit), you will not find it easy, because the language is of an enormous range, both in words and inflections, something like Arabic, calling one and the same thing by various names, both original and derived, and using one and the same word for a variety of subjects, which, in order to be properly understood, must be distinguished from each other by various qualifying epithets. For nobody can distinguish between the various meanings of a word unless he understands the context in which it occurs and its relation both to the following and the preceding parts of the sentence. Our tongue and uvula could scarcely manage to correctly pronounce them, nor our ears in hearing to distinguish them from similar sounds, nor could we transliterate them with our characters.”

Our colonial-minded academics and historians still struggle to comprehend what Iranian scholars did in 1017–18 AD. In his account of Sanskrit, Alberuni writes:

“Nobody could distinguish between the various meanings of a word unless he understood the context in which it occurs.”

However, it would be unreasonable to expect the British to understand the context in which words were used in ancient texts in indigenous languages while also accounting for personal biases.

Hindi is a language derived from Sanskrit. Hindi has 108 synonyms for Sun, 18 synonyms for Water, and 28 synonyms for Cloud and each is used differently in a different context.

Loose translation leads to absurd results – for example, Dharma is often translated as ‘religion’; however, the word doesn’t quite capture the essence. The closest words in the English Language could be ‘righteous behaviour’, ‘duty’ or ‘moral obligation’; though none quite capture the meaning. Dharma is derived from the Sanskrit root dhri which means ‘to support’ or ‘to sustain’; dharma thus means ‘that which supports or upholds the world and its beings’. Dharma is completely a Hindu Concept and has no similar word in any language. The Buddhist philosophy of ‘dhamma’ is influenced by the Dharma of Hinduism.

Another example of essence being lost in translation is the word Samskara. Samskaras are the many purificatory practices carried out to purify and refine a person’s body, mind, and intellect. There are 16 samskaras in the Hindu way of life. The word has spiritual connotations. Loosely translated by western scholars as ‘Ritual or Ceremonies’, the word loses its depth.
Examples of rituals and ceremonies that have no religious significance and are secular in character include the flag ceremony that is customary in most nations, and taking the oath of office. Given that these are merely ceremonies that lack a basis in spiritual meaning, these cannot be termed samskaras.

In modern times, Paapa is often translated as ‘sin’ in English. However, it is far from the concept of Sin defined in Christianity. Christianity also does not have an understanding or a word for the concept of Punya, which is the antithesis of Paapa. The English language, for lack of an apt word for it, translates it as “good or saintly deeds”.

The word Guru is often translated as Teacher, thus trivialising the meaning. Guru is derived from two words Gu and Ru, Gu means Ignorance and Ru means Remover. Guru is the guiding light who dispels ignorance; whereas, a teacher is one who teaches for remuneration. In the present context the word Guru is being used loosely, without consideration of its depth, any professional with expertise in a certain field gets labelled a Guru.

The word ‘artha’, generally understood as ‘meaning’, also means “material gains”, and “objective” in some contexts. Shradha is not Faith, Hanumana is not Monkey God, Bhramachari is not Celibate, Sanskriti is not Culture, Dasa is not Slave, Paapa is not sin, Punya is not Saintly Deed, Niti is not Policy, Aatman is not the soul, Varna is not Caste, Shakti, is not Power, Arya is not Race, Agama is not Ritual Text, Yajna is not Sacrifice, Seva is not Service, Murti is not Idol.

Over the course of thousands of years, words in every language either lose their original meanings or acquire new ones and linguists are aware of it. However, when it comes to Indian terminology, they are resolute and keep to one meaning from the start because it works wonders in classifying Indians according to their personal biases and suits their agenda.

It’s a paradox that every attempt is made to substitute indigenous words with English words, whereas while writing English, Latin phrases are written as is. Latin phrases such as per se, de facto, de jure, qua, etc. are still found in common parlance.

Another significant difference is that Indian languages are largely verb-based unlike Western languages, which are noun based. This significant difference adds to the non-translatability of certain Sanskrit terms and the spectrum of meanings that a word in Sanskrit connotes in the English language.

It has often been seen that in an attempt to translate the very essence of the word is dismantled.
Western scholars still hold the mistaken belief that is summed up in this quote by Thomas Babington Macaulay:

“One shelf of English literature is more worth than all the literature of India combined”

In the words of Max Muller:

“India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again, and that second conquest should be a conquest by education.“

It is now time to rectify the wrongs of history. Our civic and legal literature should, instead of giving emphasis to Latin, use indigenous language. Continuing with English and Latin imposition in public correspondence only reinforces our subjugation. The ideals of governing a society in a just manner can only be best expressed in Sanskrit; even the nearest translation in another language subverts the essence.