“Mother India and Modern India” – Krishen Kak
I am grateful to Sh Krishen Kak for giving me permission to publish his article titled, “MOTHER INDIA and MODERN INDIA – The Mother Tongues or a National Language?”. The article first appeared in Eternal India (India First Foundation), June 2010:77-90. This is a slightly revised version. Please read on and share widely (emphasis mine).
*** CAUTION: Long Post ***
MOTHER INDIA and MODERN INDIA: the Mother Tongues or English? by Krishen Kak
Each and every window in the house of language opens to a different landscape and temporality, to a different segmentation in the spectrum of perceived and classified experience. It is the multiplicity of spoken languages which has been ‘the enabling condition of men and women’s freedom to perceive, to articulate, to redraft the existential world in manifold freedoms’ (Shelley Walia quoting Francis George Steiner, http://beta.thehindu.com/arts/books/article102709.ece).
In two earlier essays in this journal, it has been my thesis that “India divides; BhÄrat unitesâ€. The first essay interpreted “the idea of India†(Nov 2008), the second examined pilgrimage in the construction of BhÄrat (Feb 2010), this third essay explores language and nation-building.
A “mother tongue” is quite literally the language of the speaker’s mother. However, a child is not born with knowledge of this language nor is it something which is genetically transmitted. According to linguists, children can learn easily whichever languages they are exposed to till around the age of twelve. Few children are formally taught the mother tongue. They pick it up mainly through imitation, and it is environmental influence rather than heredity that determines their linguistic performance. For instance, a child of Hindi-speaking parents brought up by a Tamil-speaking family in Chennai is likely to know Tamil far better than its “mother tongue” Hindi (which it may not know at all). But such instances are relatively rare. In the Indian context, for other than an elite (but growing) minority in which mothers choose to speak in English to their children, the overwhelming majority of Indian mothers still communicate with their children in an indigenous language or dialect (Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/columnists/swaminathan-s-a-aiyar/What-does-the-mother-tongue-mean/articleshow/5529727.cms).
Therefore, for the overwhelming majority of Indians brought up in environments congenial to learning our mother tongue, our language is still not only of great cultural importance and sentimental value to us, but it also provides a community identity that protects us from the anomie so characteristic of modern society.
The creation of a modern society appears to be our national objective. Our models for a modern society are the so-called advanced societies of the West, especially the UK earlier and the USA now. It is well-established that to achieve modernity, mass literacy is a requisite. It is equally well-established that for the achievement of mass literacy the mother tongue is the appropriate first medium.[1]
In India, according to George Grierson’s 1903-1928 linguistic survey and according to the Report of the Official Languages Commission 1956, there are 179 languages and 544 dialects. According to the 1951 Census of India, there are 845 languages or dialects spoken in India. The 1962 Census of India reported 1,652 “mother tongues” including 103 foreign ones. Shashi Tharoor claims 35 languages, each with over a million speakers, and over 22,000 dialects (http://tharoor.in/articles/celebrating-indias-linguistic-diversity/). In other words, there can be said to be in India at least 723 mother tongues, if not more than 22,000!
Conventional wisdom echoes Madame Bhikaiji Cama about the role of language in nation-building as a medium for maintaining the political unity of the country: “India must be free/ India must be a Republic/ India must remain united/ India must have a common language/ And India must have a common script”.
The assumption, as reflected in Article 351 of the Constitution, is that only a single language can both politically and culturally hold India together. This view is clearly contrary to historical indigenous reality – the people of our subcontinent as BhÄratis evolved a common civilizational consciousness that was well-established by the time of the Mahabharata, about 5000 years ago. They did this through different ways, including through pilgrimage, and through many languages with scripts connected mainly to one language and its script (Sanskrit – or Prakrit from which Sanskrit is claimed to have evolved – and brahmi).
Unfortunately, India’s Founding Fathers, in their well-intentioned zeal to model our polity on Westminster-style democracy (rather than on, say, principles of ramrajya, pitched even today in electioneering), strongly espoused the Western perspective which has been carried forward by our government and its language and education advisors, and by our macaulayan elite. Differences are mainly over the relative importance to be given to an exoglossic language (English) over endoglossic ones, and of one endoglossic language over the others as the Union’s “official†language (Hindi – Art. 342.1). However, English is also by law an “official†language, and the States can and do have their own “official†languages, often more than one in a State.
It is the view typified in the relegation of BhÄrat to one single (and parenthetical) mention in the entire English text of the Constitution of India. The authoritative original text of the Constitution of India is the English text, as also are the authoritative original texts of all laws of the Republic of India.[2]
In retrospect, the development of a dominant common Indian language for Modern India hasn’t quite worked the way Madame Cama or the Founding Fathers envisaged. Modern India requires one tongue, Mother India has many. Linguistically, from a Western perspective, and from the perspective of our macaulayan elite such as Shashi Tharoor[3], what is today the Republic of India is an unfragmented, multilingual, part-exoglossic, multinational State.  This means that it is a bounded territory comprising more than three largely entire speech communities, with the status of a national official language being awarded to an imported language as well as to an indigenous one.  India being “multinationalâ€, this means that one language could very well be “foreign” for the others, and so (just as English at one time was resented as an imposition) Hindi becomes an imposition for, say, Tamil speakers. As one consequence, Mother India experienced the tragedy of language riots and Tamils burning themselves in defence of their mother tongue against “Hindi imperialism”.
Continued below…
Image courtesy: ERCTrust.org
Western political scientists draw a distinction between nationalism and nationism. The former is a sociocultural manifestation, the latter a politico-geographical one, and they need not necessarily coincide. A nationality may acquire its own nation (Israel) or a nation may compress many nationalities (again, from both a Western and macaulayan perspective, India). Our language policy arose in nationism but continues to be modified because of nationalism (e.g., the formation of linguistic provinces and acceptance of minority group claims for self-governance based on linguistic autonomy). At the popular political level, while nationalistic forces press for the official use of indigenous languages, global forces successfully promote a demand for English, resulting in the rapidly increasing spread of mixed speech – khichri bhasha – such as Hinglish and Tamlish, especially through our media and through both State and private primary schools.  JS Rajput in this journal noted the strong State-sponsored, actually deracinating, push for English as our first language even as China, Russia and Japan have prospered with their own languages as their first language (“No Alternative to Mother-Tongue in Primaryâ€, Feb 2010, http://www.indiafirstfoundation.org/publications/events/Eternal-India/Volumes/v/V_2_n5.jpg). One consequence of this is the growing number of young Indians who can speak, read and write correctly neither their mother tongue nor English.
Another consequence is the aggravating of the class divisiveness between those who can communicate in English, even if it is slangy and ungrammatical and ill-spelled, and those who cannot.
And a third consequence is the rise of a class of young Indians who are like the dhobi’s dog – na ghar ka na ghat ka, na des ka na pardes ka (e.g., amongst our English-educated elite, “Tweeny Boppersâ€, http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/96368/Living/Tweeny+Boppers.html).
It is, in DN Mishra’s telling label, “Macaulay Part II†(editorial, April 2010, http://www.indiafirstfoundation.org/publications/events/Eternal-India/Volumes/v/v_2_N7.jpg).
Given that various Indian “nationalities” must be melded to make a modern Indian nation of the Western type, it is instructive to see whether there are other linguistically comparable States whose example can educate us. The cases of the so-called advanced States can be ruled out not only because their politico-linguistic evolution has been different from ours but also because in none is the triple combination of unfragmented-multilingual-“multinational†so complex. As an analogy, what would be the common language for a Republic of Europe?
The politico-linguistic evolution of the so-called developing States has been heavily influenced by colonialism, so that nation-building sees a tension between what in the jargon are called architectural forces and what are called organismic forces, that is, between the process of conscious integration and that of conscious differentiation. The closest linguistic examples to ours are of Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, undivided Pakistan, and the erstwhile Soviet Union.
In Indonesia the language of a small minority was successfully imposed as the national language because of weak political competition for national status by the regional languages. This is probably unworkable in India though a strong case can be argued for Sanskrit. Â In Malaysia, unlike in India, linguistic and religious divisions coincide, and the national official language is that of the religious and linguistic majority. This is unworkable in India because the “religious” majority speaks many languages unless, again, a case is argued for Sanskrit. Â Sri Lanka experienced civil war between its two major nationalities. In both Pakistan and the Soviet Union, forces of nationalism overcame the force of nationism to create Bangladesh and the Commonwealth of Independent States respectively.
Therefore, the lesson for India should be clear — in a multilingual, “multinational†State, imposition of a national/official/link/common (call it what you will) language is counter-productive to modern nation-building of the Western type. In words of one syllable, it did not work, it does not work, it can not work, it will not work.
Such an objective and its strategy are divisive, and yet Indian policymakers continue not just to subscribe to but also to expand it. R Vaidyanathan in this journal noted our “colonial genes†(“Foreign Universities Bill: Gifting India to the Westâ€, April 2010, http://www.indiafirstfoundation.org/publications/events/Eternal-India/Volumes/v/v_2_N7.jpg). These genes that we inherited from our British rulers are dominant in the Indian phenotype, but it is not just that we are “gifting India to the West a second timeâ€, it is also that, in obedience to Western design for us, we continue to fission India to do so.
What should be even clearer is that this Western perspective and its labels, that still condition us, are completely inappropriate for us. We cannot forge ourselves into “Modern India†in imitation of Western models whose history and experience and civilization is in sharp contradiction to ours.  At least for the last 2000 years (and the root goes back farther), their guiding ethos has been from their predatory death-dealing monotheism, and Western understanding of its constructions of “nationism†and “nationalism†and so on cannot be divorced from its monotheism that does not have a territorial “homeâ€. Its monotheism is a “homeless religionâ€, and historically it has sought to legitimize itself through omnipotence, through global conquest, through making the entire world its “home†by decimating and exterminating those it considers the Other as well as their worldview (this, in fact, is so for all the monotheisms, including communism that for Deity substitutes a deified human).
So, do we have an alternative?
Consider the bhÄratiya perspective, and the picture becomes very different. S Kalyanaraman (“Rashtram: Hindu History in Indian Ocean Communityâ€, http://www.scribd.com/doc/30924739/Rashtram) has an enlightening description – the rashtram is feminine (rashtrii) in the Rig Veda and is personified as the divine, nurturing mother –
â€Rashtrii, rashtram have to be distinguished from the commonly used term, ‘nation’, as distinct from ‘state’ which is a grouping for governance.
‘Nation’ is a concept still unresolved….But, rashtram is founded on adhyatmika foundations from the Rigveda and is governed by the active terms, samgam, samgamanii – united movements of people towards abhyudayam. Thus, rashtram is not a restricted construct related to a common language or territory but a common zeal to achieve welfare of people through united actions……The key to rashtram is personification as mother, devi, the representation of shakti or power of the people, impelled by a common purpose, transcending language and united by the life-giving waters. Hence, the personification of rashtram as rashtrii, genitrix, the biological mother of a child.â€
“There cannot be a more emphatic and precise definition of the rashtram which was founded on dharma…..â€
The Rig Veda goes back at least 6000 years. And therefore this understanding of rashtra that infuses the bhÄratiya consciousness goes back unbrokenly at least 6000 years.  And it is totally the opposite of the one that informs “Indiaâ€.
In conclusion, consider the following:
First, the need for modern-nation building on the Western model as appropriate remains generally assumed. Â Unilingualism underpins nationism.
Secondly, the favoured medium for successfully achieving mass literacy can only be the mother tongues. Â But multilingualism nourishes nationalism.
Thirdly, experience shows that this antagonism between nationalism and nationism exacerbates in the absence of community-accepted means of conflict resolution.
Fourthly, local and regional eruptions are partly a reaction to an elitist, foreign-derived construction of a highly centralised nationism, including the imposition of a locally exoglossic language.
Fifthly, neuroscience establishes for children a distinct cognitive advantage both in learning the mother tongue before learning English (Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/entry/don-t-teach-english-to) and in learning the devanagari script before learning the roman script (Das, Kumar, Bapi, Padakannaya and Singh, “Neural Representation of an Alphasyllabary – the story of Devanagariâ€, http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct102009/1033.pdf).
Sixthly, a layered cultural consciousness — “a certain unified coherence” to borrow Sunil Khilnani’s words — transcending the multilingualism and “multinationalismâ€, evolved and pre-dates by millennia the construction of the “modern†Republic of India.
Seventhly, the plurality of the mother tongues in India is at the heart of the pluralism of our civilization. A mother tongue provides linguistic and psychological identity and security, and our plurality of mother tongues provided thousands of people and communities with their own linguistic and psychological identity under the overarching linguistic and cultural umbrella of Sanskrit. Their very diversity is part of the bhÄratiya genius, is part of the uniqueness of bhÄratiya eclecticism. In the jargon, such a civilizational quality or rasa is expressive, that is, archetypically feminine. The rasa of modern Western civilization is its instrumentality, that is, archetypical masculinity of a Western construct.
Finally, the clear evidence is that it is forcing the pace of nationism that in fact dismembers it into its nationalities. In the United Kingdom, even after hundreds of years, the Scots and Welsh still press for their place in the sun. The Quebecois in Canada and the Hispanics in the United States assert their linguistic identities. There must be space and time for organismic evolution. This was well-recognised by MK Gandhi who opined that a common Indian language must emerge from among the people themselves, unifying them as it grows, mobilising them socially and politically, and connecting them to successively higher levels of social and political authority.[4]   If indeed this is the appropriate way, then the world’s history and our own teach that it must be a very gradual and patient way. But the Republic of India, legatee of the missionary-colonial ideology of divide-and-rule and of its macaulayan educational system that furthers this ideology, is increasingly being riven by political and sociolinguistic dissension (e.g., linguistic identity and “sons of the soil†politics).
Futurologists describe global civilizational transformations in terms of waves. The first wave, perhaps 10,000 years long, crested on sources of renewable energy and is usually described as agricultural. The second, industrial, wave, about 400 years long, exploded up on non-renewable energy sources and raged through mass slavery and colonial plunder and exterminations, world wars, genocides, and religious and class annihilations.  Millions upon millions died, and millions remain to die. A second wave modern world of the Western type arises only by engulfing the first wave traditional world. It is put succinctly in the commonplace saying that 20% of the earth’s population consumes 80% of its resources. In our zeal to transform ourselves as the West has done, thoughtlessly we choose to follow their bloody path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule ; http://indian-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/british_india_divide_and_rule_tactic)  even though there is little to suggest that the Western principles on which the first Indian Republic is modeled are holding it together.  Already the writ of the Republic does not run over vast tracts of our country that are controlled by different monotheisms. There are real fears of a second Partition. There is mainstream talk of letting Kashmir go.   We willingly succumb to “external aggression†(para 38, Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India, http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Supreme-Court-repeals-IMDT-Act,-Assam-1.aspx), and the Republic, instead of repelling these aggressors, all of a particular monotheism, uses Census 2011 to invite them to entrench themselves firmly in our land, in the “largest ever regularisation of illegal immigrants anywhere in the world…..so – post this census – lakhs [actually, crores] of illegal infiltrators will morph into Indian `nationals’†(https://satyameva-jayate.org/2010/05/14/census-illegal-immigrants/).[5]
Our subcontinent is witness simultaneously to all three waves; the ebb of the first, the relentless surge of the second, and the new ripples of the third. This third, informational, wave will flow on a sustainable energy base. The data suggest striking structural similarities between the agricultural and informational waves, and the very strong opportunity open to still first-wave societies such as ours of surfing directly to the third wave. Â But not if we continue to ape the West.[6]
Ours is the world’s oldest continuous civilization. Outlasting all the empires that extended over our subcontinent has been the cultural consciousness of Mother India – BhÄrat Mata.  Ordinary endoglossic conversations declare our existentially significant perception of energy as a female principle, a perception that in fact goes back unbrokenly to our pre-historic past.  Heinrich Zimmer reminds us that it is “the Mother Goddess through whom the Absolute moves into creation”, and in the Rig Veda she is addressed as prajanam bhavasi mata – ‘Thou art the mother of created beings’.
Atharva Veda 12.1.12 has “The Earth is mother; I am son of Earth”, and it is entirely unsurprising that our land is personified as Dharti Mata, Mother Earth, and our country as BhÄrat Mata, and so jananijanmabhoomischa swargataapi gariyasi – ‘Mother and Motherland are both above the heavens’. Â Francis Hsu and Alan Roland describe the psychological and structural centrality of the mother in our tradition. It is the mother who gives us birth, nurtures us, teaches us, and grows us up. If our world is indeed to be a family – vasudhaiva kutumbakam – then it is the mother who can hold us together. She is, as Alan Roland shows, the pivot of the generations and, as woman, “keeper of the culture”. It is her archetypical attributes, her archetypical strengths that are third wave attributes, third wave strengths.
The mother tongue has a sanctity that goes back through the ages — Rig Veda 10.125 is the Vagambhrni Sukta, a hymn to the Mother Goddess as Vak or Speech. The psychocultural significance of the mother and the polysemic richness of the mother tongues are an enormous conceptual resource for our third wave. Mother India through her many tongues speaks a profuse diversity of local wisdoms; a treasure of information and experience on which to build. It remains for us, her children, to recognize the matricidal nature of the second wave, and the generative character of the third.
The mother tongues are the roots of the vatavriksha, the banyan tree, of our civilization. If they flourish, this tree will flourish. Without them, this tree will die. They are what keep BhÄrat Mata alive.
***
Three caveats – Not for a moment do I suggest that BhÄratis should not learn English or other foreign languages. Of course we must. And learn them well. But we must study and acquire fluency in them as foreign languages. First we must acquire fluency in our own mother tongue. There are concepts in our own languages that simply have no counterpart in English.
For example, consider dharma, the very basis of our civilization. In “Hinduism: The Eternal Traditionâ€, David Frawley’s lucid introduction to the sanatana dharma, the author prefers “religion†as his translation of dharma, though in the title he translates it “traditionâ€.  In English, the conventional understanding of “religion†is abrahamic – recognition of, obedience to, and worship of an exclusive creator “Godâ€. This has no counterpart in any Indian language, since “God†– let alone an exclusive one – is not essential in the dharma (e.g., Hindu “atheistsâ€). In expanding “religion†to mean dharma, Frawley includes in it natural law(s), spiritualism, culture, tradition, right living, and our many indigenous “religionsâ€. There is no such confusion in the Indian languages. Anyone thinking in an Indian language will, from the context, readily understand dharma and its nuances. It really is much simpler – and accurate – to call the dharma “dharmaâ€, and to note that the words we have closest to “religion” (yet still essentially different because they are non-exclusionary) are pantha (a way, a path) and sampradaya (a spiritual lineage or tradition). Thus, Christians were “ishupanthis†and Muslims “mohammadpanthis†till the missionary-colonial translation into English of dharma as “religionâ€. Indians now reverse-translate the abrahamisms as “isai dharma†and “mussalman dharma†(and, for example, so also Sikhs in BhÄrat were “nanakpanthis†but India has made Sikh belief a separate religion). We have now not just accepted in English this procrustean reduction of dharma to “religion†but, as English-educated Indians with English as our first language, we learn of no other meaning and, therefore, we are ignorant of the foundation of our own civilization. I can testify to this from my own experience over the years with b-school students.[7]
The second caveat. I certainly do not suggest we not “modernize†but we must evolve our own interpretation of what it is to be “modern†and not mimic the Western, specifically the American, one.  Thus, must “development†and “progress†consider the individual as the unit of society (as in the West), or the group (as in BhÄrat)?  As just one example, consider the remarkable effectiveness of indigenous community-based water conservation systems that are being revived in different parts of our country.  Certainly our polity has problems – many of considerable severity – but in blindly seeking a White solution to Brown problems, the remedy can be worse than the disease, and we seek it at our peril (Krishen Kak, “The White solution to Brown problemsâ€, Vicharamala 68, http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=300&Itemid=55).
The third caveat.  I use “India†and “BhÄrat†as conceptual and historical categories. In khichri bhasha and in popular discourse in English, “India†is the conventional usage for both. While we are reverting to indigenous names at the local level (Mumbai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, Pune) and these have eased their way into English usage (notwithstanding English-speaking elitist brouhaha against “Mumbaiâ€), it will require very strong political will to revert to our proper name formally at the national level – and of such political will there is no evidence so far.
Notes
1. “Countries like Norway are mandated to provide instruction in the language of the child even if the language is that of a remote African tribe†– Nandana Reddy, “Learning the Lohia Wayâ€, http://theradicalhumanist.com/index.php?option=com_radical&controller=article&cid=138&Itemid=56.
2. “We must do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, words and intellect” – TB Macaulay (http://india_resource.tripod.com/britishedu.htm).
3. “I have often argued that we are all minorities in India….. The idea of India is not based on language†(Tharoor, op.cit.). The idea of India may not be based on language alone, but certainly it was a language – Sanskrit – that made an essential contribution towards creating the “idea of Indiaâ€.
4. Agencies such as Samskrita Bharati quietly (perhaps too quietly in India; its official website is more informative about its presence in North America) are making the effort of “bringing Sanskrit back to mainstream by making it a widely spoken language once again†(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samskrita_Bharati).
5. Â See also S Gurumurthy, http://expressbuzz.com/biography/(n)pr-a-fraud-anti-national-venture/172091.html and http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/columnists/national-pride-or-shame/171022.html.
6. The UK was in colonial times the world’s superpower (“Britannia rules the waves†and “The sun never sets on the British Empireâ€); today it is derided as “America’s poodle†or as “America’s lapdogâ€. The USA peaked to superpowerdom with WW2 and then again with the collapse of the USSR. Today it is the world’s largest debtor economy (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) and it is heavily in hock to China and Japan (http://www.mit-aa.com/docs/heart/MAJOR%20FOREIGN%20HOLDERS%20OF%20TREASURY%20SECURITIES.pdf). Considerably briefer than the British Century, the American Century has run its course. â€The axis of power has shifted and the West is in terminal decline or monotonically declining for those who are mathematically not challenged. When the West is in decline on all fronts and when its weltanschauung or world view is not [worth] being bothered about, what is the necessity for India to try and adapt to their…system. [Their educational system] is broke from financial point of view as well as philosophical point of view. Their models have not worked, their family system is broke their community system is broke their social security system is broke their church is broke…and they are just broke…..Let us understand that India is a civilization and not just a market…..do not measure the quality of our life by the retail footfalls or soda consumption†(Vaidyanathan, op. cit.).  The West and the monotheisms have reduced the human to a commodity to be acquired by purchase or possessed by force, not a sentient being to be liberated.
7. “The Radhakrishnan Commission said in their Report (1950); `one of the serious complaints against the system of education which has prevailed in this country for over a century is that it neglected India’s past, that it did not provide the Indian students with a knowledge of their own culture. It had produced in some cases the feeling that we are without roots, and what is worse, that our roots bind us to a world very different from that which surrounds us’” (italics added, http://india_resource.tripod.com/britishedu.htm).
1) Languages evolve. So calling Hinglish a “khichadi” would be an insult to all the many great hybrid languages that have evolved over the many years (Hindi and Urdu too are hybrid languages). So Hinglish has its own beauty and it could very well be the most used language in India in the next century.
2) Nevertheless, a tireless case for “mother-tongue” made in a “foreign” language! My schooling has been in my “mother-tongue”, Marathi, and I also studied Hindi and Sanskrit as second languages. I would encourage the author to make his case in any of these languages and if he could do so, I will probably take him more seriously!
http://www.samanvaya.com/dharampal/
http://www.samanvaya.com/dharampal/ Go to published works on left hand side. Read the Beautiful tree — a long document – a masterpiece, Great work.
Shantanu, I had earlier posted about Dr BR Ambedkar’s effort to make Sanskrit a official language in 1949 by a bill. Do you want me to post it again?. The bill of BRA was defeated in 1949. I feel it has relevance to this article.
I’m proud of India and love the fact that it has so many languages. I admire its diversity.
But of course, we need to have a single language for spanning states. Take the examples of courts. Judgments need to be in a language that all other state courts and the supreme court can understand for future reference. Translating a lengthy judgment into other languages is a waste of time and resources.
Such a language has to be neutral and cannot belong to any single group – since that will give the feeling that that group is dominating over the others. English is a very nice alternative. It doesn’t play favorites and no one minds.
English is also the language of those who have no other language by birth. For example as a mother tongue, my native language is English. My mother is a parsi and my father is a christian. I spoke nothing but english throughout my childhood, but I also speak hindi since I grew up in MP. I had no “Inherited” language. For people like me, English is the best middle ground and the best alternative.
For me, a language is a language is a language. It’s a means to an end, not an end in itself. So I find it amusing when people start getting emotionally obsessed with things such as language. Let people use whichever language they are comfortable with and let’s not get into this whole ‘mother/father/sister’-tongue thingy!
It’s silly to say the least. Besides, no language is superior than other. I speak 3 languages and have a working knowledge of a few more and I find them all equally beautiful.
On my part, I am willing to speak any language as long as the person who I am talking to understands what I am saying!
=>
“2) Nevertheless, a tireless case for “mother-tongue†made in a “foreign†language! My schooling has been in my “mother-tongueâ€, Marathi, and I also studied Hindi and Sanskrit as second languages. I would encourage the author to make his case in any of these languages and if he could do so, I will probably take him more seriously!”
=>
Perhaps the language used was done keeping in mind the target audience and who most need to be cognizant of such ideas as expressed by Shri Kak, no?
=>
“For me, a language is a language is a language. It’s a means to an end, not an end in itself. So I find it amusing when people start getting emotionally obsessed with things such as language. Let people use whichever language they are comfortable with and let’s not get into this whole ‘mother/father/sister’-tongue thingy!”
=>
That is certainly one way of looking at the issue, but certainly not the only one. Why are you so intolerant of anyone who shows some emotion regarding mother-tongue? Just because you don’t attach any emotion to it, does that mean everyone else should do the same? Or is it your ideology that decides over what issues we all should be emotive about and what issues not? For someone who thinks Ayn Rand and her ideas are important, you sure display a lot of anti-Hindu thinking and intolerance of any ideas that happen to be different from yours, instead of laissez-faire.
@Kaffir
I agree with you that no one has a right to tell others what’s important. What I notice however, is that language has become yet another dividing factor amongst us in addition to religion and ethnicity. As if we didn’t have enough!
There’s already so much hate going around based on what a person’s religion is, that I feel we really don’t need another way to divide people.
I love diversity and I enjoy telling Americans that in India we have more dialects than they have burgers on a menu! But let’s not change a good thing into a bad thing. Diversity is great. Attacking one another over it can’t be a good thing.
@Kaffir
Did I say people should not be emotional about their mother-tongues? Shouldn’t I even feel amused because YOU feel emotional about it? Who’s intolerant here?
I think you are more obsessed with Ayn Rand than I am! She’s totally irrelevant to this whole discussion. So is Hinduism!
Can’t you discuss any issue without somehow bringing it back to religion?
@ ashish : You seem to missing a point. The point of the writer is not just the erosion of the purity of the language. Language develops concepts that are core to the culture. Like in contemporary hindi, the words “jugaad” and “farzi” mean not just their translations but even involve a concept that is lost in translation …
When we have a word that is as important as “dharma”or “raastra”, it is important and (even very easy) to understand it when we read it in our native languages.
A somewhat meandering, fuzzy and confused piece, in my view, on the issue of language. Is it a case for teaching children their mother tongues and/or perhaps having Sanskrit as the link language?
Some observations:
i) Children in rural schools are schooled in their mother tongues and are also taught English. The issue however is of quality not the medium of instruction. There’s an increasing clamour for English language schooling for obvious professional reasons.
Can one imagine the situation in India if say, the Norwegian model were to be followed in an Indian school! How many teachers per average class per average Indian school would be required to teach each child in its mother tongue?! Norway can afford to have such a policy because it is homogenous.
ii) Pavan Varma, author of the wonderful “Becoming Indian”, talks of the same bastardization of English that plagues India – grammar, syntax and vocabulary are the casualties! He makes a weak case for having Hindi as the national language without explaining why a native rural Tamil speaker will not butcher Hindi in much the same way he butchers English. Yet, Pavan Varma’s sense of India, his awareness of his Indian identity, history and his sensitivity to corrosive effects of colonialism are rather remarkable. And he considers himself to be an English speaker alone. So how does one reconcile this with the author’s claims?
iii) Dalits are aggressively championing English as the language of emancipation. So how does this get reconciled?
iv) China has aggressively pushed for and ensured that Mandarin is the language all children learn (China too has a bewildering array of dialects and languages). Japanese is the most studied foreign language in China (because of colonial reasons) but will get overtaken by English soon.
v) What is important is not so much the language but an appreciation and understanding of the culture, history, traditions and so on. For example, how does a Kannadiga read the literature of Malayalam? A Punjabi read about the literature and traditions of the Assamese? Quality translations are therefore necessary. Think tanks, research institutions and the like are crucial in this regard. Consider this:
NRN Murthy’s $5.2m endowment for a classical library is a huge step in this regard (http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/may/06/murty-grant-for-harvard-indian-classics-series.htm).
Here’s a great article on the crisis in our classics (from where tradition, history, meaning and sense of self derive) http://casi.ssc.upenn.edu/iit/vajpeyi. Strongly recommended reading.
vi) Here’s an interesting article on the The rise and fall of the Bilingual Intellectual by Ramachandra Guha – worth reading:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag/2004/11/07/stories/2004110700460300.htm
Sanjay
Jingositic language chauvinism can only go so far.
I lived in Tamil Nadu, Madras to be precise now Chennai for some yrs of my life. My mother tongue is Marathi. When I lived in TN , the Dravidian movement came into full force. Those days , I used to think this is madness , chauvinism etcetra. Down the years , it is almost 4 decades since the Dravidian party has been in power. They have zeolously kept the Tamil language intact , with a Tamil University etc. Now I have great admiration for them keeping the Tamil language alive and vibrant. Of course the intentions was to show that Sanskrit and Tamil are different. I live not go into the details of this controversy as this is a huge area of study ( You will have start from Max Muller and end with the definitive genetics of Stephen Oppeinheimers Out of Africa theory). But in this passionate goal , one Indian language Tamil has survived and is in full flow. With the advances in information technology, my Tamil friends say ” it is easy to learn Tamil and with the innumerable fonts being created”
This great effort for the evolution and preservation of Tamil has to be congratulated.
I wrote about Tamil language, specifically,as it is as old as the hills , meaning ancient language.
Sri Kak,
A over-all good article with few things that may not be so acceptable.
India was not a nation as per the political definition of the term. It never was. Even British could not do it, they had to depend on the political loyalties of around 600 royal families and Maculite elites to keep the empire intact. The goal to define a monolithic political entity that would be known as India would be full of struggle. We have already started on the wrong foot with a jealously centralized administrative system when respecting diversity would require the elites to give states more power and clearly demarcate the boundaries of central power. In the current system, central government can not govern but they will not let the power that they can not use go. In other words, we need to re-think the structure of this democracy if we want to save it. When Manipur was under blockade for full two months and no-one in the media or government bothered, I felt like if center can not govern they should let the state go free and take care of themselves.
About your note 6, about China’s rise, I can not agree. The objective of globalization is finally being achieved in the nightmarish relationship of debt, imported products and outsourced jobs. China holds a lot of US debt, but the moment they want to call the debt, US economy would go further down depriving them of the very market that was the lifeline of their economy. Economic superpower is the term of one of those days when going alone, not globalization was the order of the day. With the current situation, US would probably loose some bargain powers but in current environment everyone including US is a dependent economy. In the longer term it may change the nature of international relationship.
@Ashish (#1),
1. Yes languages evolve. But no one learns Urdu and claims that they know Arabic. That is the author’s point. People are learning Hinglish (which at best illustrates the sincerity of the students in learning both the languages) and believing that they know Hindi and English. I shudder to think a person who claims to know Hindi can not understand a Premchand novel or people who claims to know English can not comprehend the humour of PG Wodehouse novels. I see my subordinates passing me serious official communications with wrong spellings and when questioned, try to shrug off on the basis of informality of e-mail communications. Seriously depressing.
2. A case for native languages can be illustrated in any foreign language. His point was not that people should learn only the native language, he pointed out an insincere attempt at learning both the languages and the misconception that such insincere attempts can result into education.
May be, if you were not trying to read this article with certain pre-conceived notions, you could have understood these yourself.
=>
There’s already so much hate going around based on what a person’s religion is, that I feel we really don’t need another way to divide people.
I love diversity and I enjoy telling Americans that in India we have more dialects than they have burgers on a menu! But let’s not change a good thing into a bad thing. Diversity is great. Attacking one another over it can’t be a good thing.
=>
BJP, you are contradicting yourself. Diversity comes from some differences, be it religion, language, dress, food, customs. So, if there is diversity, there are bound to be some differences.
And who is attacking another over diversity? Not sure who is being referred here.
Ashish, I see you didn’t respond to the first point I raised.
As for the second point, let me ask you a simple and straight question – please answer it in Yes/No. Do Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy play a (major) role in your world-view? If you answer “No” (without splitting hairs over any word in my question), then I apologize and take back my previous comment that referenced Rand.
@Sid, Flawsophy
I don’t think I am missing the point. As a matter of fact, I am now fairly confused given your two different interpretations of what the author is trying to say. In that context, I agree with Sanjay that it’s a very confused and hazy point the author is trying to make!
@Flawsophy
I think I understood the author’s point pretty much as you did! And that’s why I said let people talk in languages they are most comfortable in. In fact, in my business, I keep telling my multinational clients to *think* vernacular and not British or American English (even that’s vernacular language for some in India!). Now Hinglish is as vernacular as Hindi or Tamil or Marathi is!
@Sid, we don’t know what Hinglish could turn into. It could well become a hybrid (and very stylish) language or it could be the very future of either Hindi or English. It’s not the insincerity of the speakers, far from it!
Dyaneshwar, a 13th century saint from Maharashtra, wrote a commentary on Bhagwat Gita in Marathi. He did so because he wanted the layman to understand the Gita! Now his Marathi is almost alien to me. Not because I don’t know Marathi or because I am insincere in my usage of Marathi but because the language has changed so much in the last 7-8 centuries that Dyaneshwari Marathi is practically irrelevant in contemporary Maharashtra. Hence, people now translate Dyaneshwari to present day Marathi!
The same goes for Shakespearean English. Who speaks that form of English any more? That doesn’t mean that the English speakers are insincere; it simply means that the language has changed drastically.
So, tis cud b tomm’s eng 4 al v knw & v hv 2 acpt it!
Therefore, before scolding your subordinates for wrong spellings, Sid, try and understand if those spellings are commonly used in society now? Which of the following is right? program, programme or prgrm?
@Kaffir
In reply to your point # 16
1) “Perhaps the language used was done keeping in mind the target audience and who most need to be cognizant of such ideas as expressed by Shri Kak, no?”
I am assuming the target audience here are people who have a certain “mother-tongue” separate from a “foreign” language and they PREFER to talk in that foreign language, not “DON’T UNDERSTAND” their mother-tongue. So if I had to talk to them about their mother-tongue that they understand, I don’t see why I shouldn’t speak in their mother-tongue!
2) Thanks for making this easy for both of us. The answer to your question is NO.
My world view was formed much before I came across Ayn Rand. In fact, it’s very difficult to say who influenced my world view. I think no one did and almost everyone did at the same time!
I agree with a lot of what Ayn Rand says but that’s because she reflects my world view, not the other way round. I have also been sufficiently influenced by Paulo Coelho, Harper Lee, Richard Bach, Hemmingway and many others (literally hundreds of them!)
But this is not relevant to our discussion. If you are interested in literature, we could discuss it in another thread. Let’s please stick to the given topic here.
Dear All: Thanks for an engaging discussion…I will not have any time to respond to this before Sunday (at the earliest) but am following the debate closely.
Gajanan (@#3): Pl do share the link on this thread too…You are right. It is relevant to this discussion. Thanks.
A very important discussion, however I think some very important points needs to be discussed.
What is the role of social Identity ?
Whether narrow or wide Social identity is base for creation of sense of belongingness and sense of ownership. Strong sense of belongingness and strong sense of ownership are instrumental to make an individual sacrifice his personal interests in the interests of the society. And if you do not have an identity then you very likely to pursue only personal interests even at the cost of society..
Social identity comes from a. Shared History, b. Language c. Religion d. ethnicity and in the same order of importance. When this identity is associated with political power it is called a Nationality.
Social identity is particularly important in times of trouble, because in good times every one is good to each other but in times of trouble people help only those whom they consider their own..
Also, when a person is in alien land, given a chance, he is MORE LIKELY to engage in corrupt practices. That is why non-local businessmen are more involved in corrupting activities. Same is the case with non-local government servants.
Why English is detrimental to India and Indians ?
English speaking young generation of today find it easier to connect with other english speaking societies than rural population in India. As their national sense is already diluted they are unlikely sacrifice their personal interests for the society, this is one of the reason for deterioration of quality of people in social fields, politics and media.
We Indians have confused ourselves by professing high principle which we ourselves are not able to practice or which are not practical, or we have engaged in serving self interests under the guise of high principles. Also that is one of the reasons for continuous deterioration of our legislature, judiciary, administration, media and education.. And present situation of ANARCHY is the result of this confusion.
*** COMMENT TRUNCATED slightly ***
Mr.Krishen Kak has articulated the usual politically correct thesis which appeals to our culture chauvinists;—the often repeated claim proclaiming the supremacy of mother-tongues ; -in contrast to English [derided as the language of the elite !] ;— of course the other broader theme [that Indian culture /civilization is par-excellence and superior to Western Civilization] is obvious in every line of KK’s message..( needless to add, I notice that this is an often repeated meme in the various articles and postings on “Satyameva Jayate…â€.)
My position is diametrically opposite : “English alone can and should be our national/link language if we are to remain united as India, ie Bharat ! Of course anyone is welcome to study, glorify, and promote his/her mother-tongue and/or any other language. [at his own personal expense;-not mine !] .
And since I’am a proponent/advocate of “laissez faire†(Ayn Rand / Objectivism !)-[had noticed the comments/discussions referring to her;–cannot see much relevance to KK’s article !]; let me make a forecast: Market forces are at work;-the “demand†for English will increase at exponential rates;– other languages are destined for anthropologists & philology departments in our Universities !
In my website article of Jan-2005, I had written as follows on the paramount importance of English: [The full statement(19 pages), which is a call for the “Mordernisation / Westernisation of India†can be read here : http://www.scitechfuture.com/sk_keynote_statement.html?p= ]
Refer Page 5,Para 6=
English Language: Your gateway to Western Civilisation.
The English language (along with other British/Western institutions such as democracy, jurisprudence, banking and corporate institutions etc) is probably the greatest legacy which India received from the British. This language,- as a communication and thinking tool, is a sine qua non for human progress; and I myself can be considered as an illustration,-par excellence of its potential as the language of the future. Sans English, my cognitive evolution would not have been worthy of mention; I would not have written these pages, nor would I have created this web-site!!.[ The language of my parents is Malayalam ( I can of course claim that I’am able to communicate in Malayalam, even better than ‘Malayalam only’ chauvinists), and I’am also reasonably fluent in Hindi and Tamil,- two other Indian languages;——- however my own intellectual process operates in the English language,-which was the medium of instruction throughout my academic career and in my non-academic intellectual pursuits; i.e. the English language is my language by choice.-Thanks are due to Lord Macaulay, Governor General of British India ,who initiated English education during the 1830’s, and also to the Jesuits and other European missionaries who set up educational institutions modeled on British schools and colleges. India owes a huge debt of gratitude to the British, not only for the English language, but also for the legacy of other British/Western institutions that integrated us into a nation,— of course I’am aware that this will raise Cain among the language chauvinists and nationalists of India and that this would be a politically incorrect statement to expound. But face it and accept the truth:–Without the English language, and without our British past, the Indian Republic would not have existed;—- we would have been a balkanized group of states, each at pitiable levels of development, comparable with some of the basket cases of the African continent. The current generation may well remember that it is our command over the English language that makes us successful as immigrants in USA, UK and even in the Middle East and Africa. And that is the same reason for US corporate organizations such as Microsoft, Intel, Sun Micro, etc to set up off-shore units in India. (BPO-business process outsourcing).
Another and the more important reason for emphasizing upon the English language is the fact that English has become (whether you like it or not) the lingua franca of mathematics, science, engineering and technology and international commerce; and above all, -by accident or design it has become the core language of computer science and the internet; (let anyone try to operate a PC or use the internet without a basic knowledge of English!!.)
…
I predict that within a few decades English will become the universal language of earth; and many of our existing languages are destined for philology-anthropology researchers.
====================
Have a nice day ! ;Sasy Kumar [5-Aug-2010]
@Ashish,
I don’t think I am missing the point.Then,As a matter of fact, I am now fairly confused ...So you are not missing any point but you are fairly confused !!! Good ones, keep them coming.
we don’t know what Hinglish could turn into.If Hinglish wants to be known as a different language, let it be but that is clearly not the case.
Each language and the need to learn it exist because such languages provide one of the (or sometimes only) mode(s) of communication to a group of people who speak the language. People learn English mainly to speak to people who use English daily (Indian or western). Similarly, we learn Hindi to speak to North Indians (Hindi belt) mainly. Hinglish, if this is an independent language, is only understood by those who speak in it and they speak in it because they have not got enough understanding of either Hindi or English. Both groups who speak Hindi or English only would never understand what those Hinglish speakers are trying to convey. Such Hinglish habits manifest in the business meetings in ways such as “What is your good name?” (this prompted an indignant British in a would-be client site to demand, “what is wrong with my name?”). Future of Hindi or English? I would dare Ram Gopal Verma or Ramsays to make a movie that would be more horrible than this statement.
The problem with an westernized mindset is that they would feel any western influence on a native or indigenous cultural aspect is a good thing. Your effort to show justification of what is a bastardization of two legitimate languages is more confusion than consistent argument. But then you may not know the difference, for confusion may be the future of arguments to you.
@Sasy Kumar,
English Language: Your gateway to Western Civilisation.So choose your gateway and stay in the west. Your position is no different than who says that Hindi should be the only language in India.
@Sid
Clearly, you can read English words but can’t interpret an English sentence. So let me dumb down my statement for your benefit:
1) The author can’t make a point succinctly
2) You don’t get what he wants to say
3) As a result, you cause further confusion by (mis)interpreting the author’s argument
“Hinglish, if this is an independent language, is only understood by those who speak in it and they speak in it because they have not got enough understanding of either Hindi or English. ”
By that logic, I am sure we could conclude that those who spoke Hindi didn’t understand sanskrit, khari boli and arabic and hence came up with Hindi. That makes Hindi just another “bastard” language, doesn’t it?
“Both groups who speak Hindi or English only would never understand what those Hinglish speakers are trying to convey.”
You probably don’t understand it, or don’t want to understand it, because you are not ready to change. That doesn’t mean others don’t/won’t. I understand Hindi, English, Marathi and Hinglish and I am comfortable speaking in any language!
“Future of Hindi or English? I would dare Ram Gopal Verma or Ramsays to make a movie that would be more horrible than this statement.”
By that time, neither you or I would be alive. So let’s leave it to those who will speak whichever language a few centuries down the line. As I said, I don’t know what Hinglish would turn into! It might go out of usage just like a fad or it might replace Hindi as we know it today in the future. It’s anybody’s guess.
What’s certain is this. What you and I speak today will almost certainly not be spoken a few centuries down the line. There’s no point in holding on to broken strings. As they say, change is the only constant. Let’s accept it and appreciate the beauty of this evolution.
And by the way, if you have such a big problem with the western civilization, get the hell out of the west and spare us all your hypocrisy.
Ashish, thanks – that clarifies things somewhat. As for making things easy for you, I have no intention otherwise. 🙂
@Sid
Why this demonization of the west? I like some things and don’t like others with regard to western lifestyle. Toilet paper being an example of the latter 🙂
But please stop labeling people who speak English as “western” because it’s a meaningless and inaccurate label. If you think otherwise, perhaps you can explain to me what exactly “western” means…?
@Sasy Kumar
Whats your point? First make a list how many countries has official language other than English. French, Spanish, Mandarin, Italian….. Are they ready to abandon their mother tongue? French, Greek and Italian prefers not to act like English man! Think out of the box! and don’t be ashamed of your tradition and culture. It is Gateway to civilized society if taken seriously and scientifically!
Bhagwad Park
This sounds BP, which has caused havoc to coastal line in Lousiana and even Florida where you stay. So change to Jal Park. Jal I presume is a Parsi name. Jal Mistry was a Parsi cameraman , who used to film DevSaabs films. It would be fitting tribute to the Parsi community in India, a community which mixed with Indian society like sugar in milk. The Parsis have done so much for India, without any labels which no community can match.
BP ka JP ho jaye.
Krishen Kak , wrote as a Bharatiya on the importance of Language and its vibrancy on the development of a culture. Language, culture and religion are closely intertwined and words like Dharma, Karma, Vedanta have no equivalent in English. A child who has no grounding in Bharatiya languages has a much poorer education.
So, I think the author is making a case for at least bilingual education. This is widely followed in Europe, where French, Germans, Swedes, Dutch and etc have a well grounded education in their Mother tongue and they also learn English. Perhaps that is why I never met deracinated, mongrelized German or French unlike Indians. Japanese are well grounded in their language too, Lack of knowledge of English did not stop Akira Kurosava from being a genious.
So, the choice is ours to make, do we want to be an original or a pale imitation. Should we be satisfied with BPO jobs or should be aspire to design the next cutting edge product?
Sasy Kumar, Indians are not getting jobs in silicon valley for yapping in English. It is for their technical skills. For the same reason Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Bulgarians and some British get jobs there. Here I am not talking about low skilled low paid BPO jobs.
I thank the writer for this timely piece.
Initially, constant effort is required to speak Indian languages on a daily basis; after some time it becomes second nature.
Those with commitment should persevere in the right direction.
Mental resistance can be easily overcome.
I have tried and succeeded myself.
Shantanu, you told me to post the link, but it has been removed on BRA. I would be highly grataful if you educate me on this. I had earlier posted this in your blog on a different posting long time ago. Is that the reason? I asked for your permission, precisely for that. Fortunately I have a copy as a file.
Is it the reason?
http://tilak.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/08/bheemayanam-a-biography-of-dr-ambedkar-in-sanskrit.htm
A dispatch of the Press Trust of India (PTI) dated September 10, 1949 states that Ambedkar was among those who sponsored an amendment making Sanskrit as the official language of the Indian Union in place of Hindi. Most newspapers carried the news the next day, i.e., on September 11, 1949 (see the issue of Sambhashan Sandeshah, a Sanskrit monthly published from Delhi , June 2003: 4-6).
Other dignitaries who supported Dr Ambedkar’s initiative included Dr B.V. Keskar, then the Deputy Minister for External Affairs and Professor Naziruddin Ahmed. The amendment dealt with Article 310 and read: 1.The official language of the Union shall be Sanskrit. 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 1 of this article, for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for the official purposes of the union for which it was being used at such commencement: provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise for any of the official purposes of the union the use of Sanskrit in addition to the English language . But the amendment was defeated in the Constituent Assembly due to the opposition of the ruling Congress Party and other lobbyists.
If Ambedkar had succeeded, the renewed interaction between Sanskrit as the national language and speakers of other languages would have initiated a sociological process of upward and downward mobility. While rulers, pilgrim centres, and temple complexes used to be the traditional agents of such interaction, the state operated broadcasting agencies, school textbooks, and the film and music industry would have emerged as new agents facilitating that interaction.
http://venetiaansell.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/the-modernity-of-sanskrit-reviewed/
This above web site is to confirm BRA wanted Sanskrit as official language.
Here is the extract from the web site
This somewhat sweeping approach, notably highlighted in the book’s blurbs, may attract an audience more interested in polemics than the language itself. But, to carry conviction, it also needs mention of the purvapaksha, that is the other side, in such a discussion on the politics of Sanskrit. This is missing, as are some other relevant points. For example, while the author dwells on the exchanges between Gandhi and Ambedkar on caste and reservation, she omits any notice of Ambedkar’s proposal in the Constituent Assembly to make Sanskrit the official language of the Indian Union. Nor does she note the rich tribute to Sanskrit paid by Nehru, the acclaimed symbol of India’s modernity.
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/indic_colloq/papers/paper_rosser.pdf
From the above web site
Page 2 , scroll and look down in the page and read.
“However, it is ironic to note, that though JNU offers advanced degrees in Indian history it does not offer classes in Sanskrit, even though there have all along been degrees available in both classical and modern Arabic and classical and modern Persian at JNU. It has been proposed
several times in the past, certainly prior to the BJP’s ascent to power, that Sanskrit be added to the available classical languages students can take at JNU, thereby facilitating the analysis of ancient texts in the study of Indian historyâ€
Then in the same web site.
Page 3 , right at the start.
“When I questioned Romila Thapar5, a well know historian from JNU, about this issue during July 2000, she explained that if students want to learn Sanskrit, “there are so many Maths and Piths around where they can goâ€.6 She added that most of the regional colleges have some kind of Sanskrit program. However, the fact remains that the primary tool to study ancient India, namely the
Sanskrit language, has not, in all these years, been available to students attending JNU. At India’s premier academic institution–famous for its cutting edge Social Science excellence– students are not offered courses in Sanskrit, the root language of Indian culture. And significantly, implementing the study of this quintessential part of Hindu tradition was time and again vehemently opposed by the facultyâ€.
BR Ambedkar , who rose like a phoenix from the ashes, did have a genuine greivance against the upper caste for treating his communiity badly and denying them a lot of good things. But one must at the same time appreciate BRA’s great gesture in 1949 to make Sanskrit a national language. The reply of Prof Romila Thapar to Yvette Rosser that Sanskrit is available in Mutts and Piths and they can go there. She then says that regional colleges have some Sanskrit program. The reply looks that the study of Sanskrit should not come to the mainstream.
Now BRA did not want Sankrit to remain in the realm of Mutts and Pitts. He wanted to bring Sanskrit into the realm intellectual and educational discourse and not just remain in religious discourse. This was a remarkable idea for man denied to learn Sanskrit when he was young.
Readers should just compare the reply of Romila Thapar to Yvetter Rosser and BRA’s exemplary effort. In 1949, there were eminent personalities who could recite verses in Sanskrit. None of these personalities supported BRA in his effort. The Bill was never passed. 61 yrs have passed. If the bill had been passed , probably , there would have been great insights given to Sanskrit language in the portals of India’s leading universities.
http://www.indiawest.com/readmore.aspx?id=953&Sid=8
Please search the archives for Prof Bryant’s article
Edwin Bryant, an associate professor of religion at Rutgers University and the author of two books on the Aryan invasion, went to the heart of either argument in his presentation of the “Intellectual History of the Debate.†[ My comment, BRA opposed AD theory tooth and nail. More of this later.]
The issue was one of the most hotly contested debates throughout the 1990s. “The debate has died down in Western academic circles somewhat recently, not because it has necessarily been resolved decisively in the minds of everyone, but in part because scholars became exhausted with the polemical and emotional tenor of the discussion and the missionary zeal which the opposing views were pursued,†he stated.
To determine the origin and culture of the earliest inhabitants, the philological method was applied to Sanskrit text. “We must recall that the equation of language with race was rarely brought into question until relatively recently,†he pointed out.
Most of the arguments raised by the detractors of the Indo-Aryan migration theory rely on archeological evidence “partly due to the fact that there has been so little opportunity available for the study of historical linguistics in India,†Bryant noted.
In India, there are only three institutions devoted to the study of Indo-European linguistics, “and this whole issue is a linguistic issue, and it’s a shame (there are not more institutions), because Indians with their knowledge of Vedic have a head start in this whole field,†Bryant contended.
“It would be nice if at least that point was somehow stressed in conferences such as this, that somehow encouragement be given to Indian academic institutions to establish departments of historical linguistics.â€
Now to start department historical linguistics as said by Prof E Bryant, one must have Universities with Sanskrit depts, which is not there and he admits that Indians have head start in Vedas as everyone agrees that Sanskrit is the language of the Vedas. He also says that it is a shame that there are only three institutes devoted to study of Indo-European languages. Prof Ed Bryant is neutral when it comes to the AIT or OIT theory. His lament now , was the vision of Dr Ambedkar. So long, they give a communal color to the study of Sanskrit in India, it would be difficult to transfer the study of Sanskrit from relgious discourse to a rigorous intellectual tour de force.
Now in ref 10 it is posted that an endowment is given to Harvard for Sanskrit studies. Good , must be appreciated. But if one reads Prof Bryants following comment “that Indians have head start in Vedas as everyone agrees that Sanskrit is the language of the Vedas”. Then why only at Harvard ? Why not in India , so that one can collaborate and corroborate. Both ways would have established an equilibrium of ideas and insights.
The bill of BRA should have been passed in 1949. Mother tongue and English would have gone hand in hand as many Indian languages are based on Sanskrit. Tamil may have some variants.
By now, we would have many Indians in India counteracting to the barbs of dismal interpretations of Sanskrit both in India and the West.
@Suhas
🙂
It’s strange, but I always write “Bhagwad Jal Park” in the name box. I wonder why I missed the middle in the last reply.
@Malavika
We shouldn’t try and be anything too hard – even Indian. We should just be ourselves. Nationalism is admirable, but even that can be taken too far. We’re humans first, then Indians. So even if some people speak poor English, it doesn’t matter if they’re happy. Who are we to judge?
@Gajanan
I agree with you to the extent that Sanskrit should offered in mainstream schools and colleges and I know for sure that, at least in Maharashtra, Sanskrit IS offered in schools. I don’t know whether universities have Sanskrit departments or not and will have to find that out.
So yes, Sanskrit is a very beautiful, ancient language of India and educational institutions should be encouraged (not forced) to offer to teach the language to its students. We should leave the rest to the forces of demand and supply. If enough people want to learn Sanskrit, then the departments will generate revenue, attract talent and flourish. If not, they will shift their focus to any other stream of academics that’s more in demand. It’s as simple as that.
But from the Dyaneshwar example (as a Marathi, you will probably understand it) I gave in my previous comment, we could tell that Sanskrit hasn’t been the mainstream language for at least the last 7-8 centuries. That’s even pre-Islamic era I am talking about (must mention it so that certain people can’t blame Islamic invasions for the fall of Sanskrit). It means that Sanskrit has run its course and has made way to simpler, more practical languages (the evolution of languages I talked about).
In that light, I don’t see the practicality of bringing Sanskrit back into mainstream. English is a very well established language in the country, and as Sasy noted, perhaps the only language that binds India, we could easily build on that.
But again, I agree that Sanskrit should be offered in schools and colleges. Who knows, people may pick it up again, it might become fashionable again and potentially become the world’s preferred language 2-3 centuries down the line!
@Ashish (#24),
So let me dumb down my statement for your benefit:– One may wonder how is it possible to dumb down a group of dumb statements?1) The author can’t make a point succinctly– Just because you can not understand his points does not make him incapable of making his points2) You don’t get what he wants to say– So if he can not make a point and then it would be safe to say that you have not got his points yet you are convinced that I have not got what he said.3) As a result, you cause further confusion by (mis)interpreting the author’s argument– If he could not make a point, then his argument is not established, so how do you know that I am mis-interpretinghis argument? Also, if according to second point I did not get what he said, how can I mis-interpret it? May be in your quasi-liberal world, it is possible to equate mis-understanding with non-understanding. But FYI, that is logically inconsistent in real world.By that logic, I am sure we could conclude that those who spoke Hindi didn’t understand sanskrit, khari boli and arabic and hence came up with Hindi. That makes Hindi just another “bastard†language, doesn’t it?– So, according to you those who can not understand Sanskrit/Khari Boli/Arabic invented Hindi !!! I would be glad to know the history of Hindi that would force a reader to draw such conclusions. Hindi has a mixed ancestry, but it can not be misunderstood for Arabic (or Khari Boli or Sanskrit). Similarly, Hinglish can not be a substitute for Hindi or English.You probably don’t understand it, or don’t want to understand it, because you are not ready to change. That doesn’t mean others don’t/won’t. I understand Hindi, English, Marathi and Hinglish and I am comfortable speaking in any language!– I do understand all of these languages and a few more. But just because you do it does not mean that everyone in the world will be able to understand Hinglish. Unlike what you are told, earth does not revolve around you, it revolves around the Sun. Try Hinglish in a village in UP or in Heathrow airport and let us know the outcome of the experiment.As I said, I don’t know what Hinglish would turn into!– Ooopsss, but Hinglish is the future that would replace Hindi and English, no? If you do not understand how it would change then how do you know that it would replace Hindi or English?What you and I speak today will almost certainly not be spoken a few centuries down the line.– Agreed. But,There’s no point in holding on to broken strings.– What is broken string? Current dialects of Hindi and English?As they say, change is the only constant. Let’s accept it and appreciate the beauty of this evolution.– I am not sure if incompetence of few students who are unwilling to invest their time in learning a language in it’s communicable form can be attributed asevolutionor not. There are thousands across the world who learns English (and a thousand other languages) fully without mixing it up. According to you, those students are missing the evolution and they should sign up for a Hinglish course? Wherever English has gone, there are few native words got contributed into it’s vast vocabulary. That did not change English into some other language.And by the way, if you have such a big problem with the western civilization, get the hell out of the west and spare us all your hypocrisy.– I do not have problem with western civilization. I have a problem with native minds bedazzled with lights of western civilization. Westerners are self-confident, well grounded in their own concepts and culture, a pleasure to talk to. Westernized minds with a native shell and arrogance of ignorance are a disaster.When someone talks in Hinglish, they exactly sound like that, a disaster.
@Sid
I thought I managed to shut you up but you are beyond any sense of logical argument. But I guess argument for you is basically sarcastic mind-numbing babble without any understanding of the issues being discussed.
I am beginning to wonder if you are more of a sore loser in life or someone with loads of time on hand without any great sense of purpose!
I promised myself many a times in the past not to engage with you but I keep falling in the trap of your silly provocations. Never again though. Never again!
@Bhagbad Park (#26),
I would like you to show me where I have “demonized” west. I know Bengali, Hindi and some Sanskrit, and not counting Japanese I know same number of western languages. I also spent better part of my career working in the west. Wherever I have worked I picked up the language, cooking and some history. This, however, did not give me any inspiration to hate my native tradition or denigrate them anyway.
Time and again, I noted people who go to west (and sometimes they do not have to, they just watch American soap operas in Indian TV) are so impressed with west, they fail to judge what is right and wrong with western culture. They believe whatever they have seen is right and anything that is different is wrong. They also believe that copying everything from west blindly would turn the native culture into western civilization.
I have zero tolerance for such coconuts. Lee Iacocca once commented that a strong spine is what separates men from boys. I have respect for men, not boys.
@Sid
I would encourage you to translate your last reply to me in Hindi/Sanskrit and post it here. Don’t think it should take you more than 10 mins to do that. If you can’t, stop demanding that people learn that language. Go back, learn it, excel in it and then advocate it to others.
And by the way, those who have an unrealistic, bloated sense of superiority complex are the ones who are less confident with themselves. That’s why they shout at the top of their voice about their “great” credentials.
If you have lived in the west for many years of your life and still don’t find anything that we could learn from here, then I must say you’ve wasted all those years of your life.
@Sid
I apologize if I got you wrong. What I wanted to say was that just like there are some who feel that everything western is right, there are those who feel that everything western is wrong. They feel that Indian culture is the absolute best and the “west” is full of degenerate morally bankrupt people.
There must be a balance. Moreover, what one person may find good about the west, another might not. For example, I like the fact that a person is less a part of society in the west. There are many who feel that it’s not a good thing. So one needs to pick and choose what they want to become.
Because I like the idea of being myself, not linked to any society or religion, that is what I practice myself. On the other hand, there are things about the US for example that I absolutely hate – and I’ve written a lot about that too on my blog.
So let’s come to an understanding. Neither culture is perfect. There are good things and bad things. No point hanging onto something just because it’s Indian or western. And that goes for language as well.
After all, I’m part of humanity. I’m human first and an Indian later. I share my humanity with those in the west and so when I see some good things in them, I take it just like I take some good things from all other cultures.
@Ashish (#36),
I thought I managed to shut you up ... you is basically sarcastic mind-numbing babble ... you are more of a sore loser in life or someone with loads of time on hand without any great sense of purpose!Thank you is the best I can answer. This, however, does not surprise me. It shows your ability to reason and the strength of your arguments. I just wish that your reasoning is as strong as your often-expressed need for self-congratulation. You are not the first internet debater I know who is more interested in shutting up an opposing point-of-view than continuing discussion in logical manner.
I promised myself many a times in the past not to engage with you but I keep falling in the trap of your silly provocations. Never again though. Never again!Now that is ultimate entertainment. I wanted to say this before but did not because it extended the fun. Here it is: you are damn predictable. You are too easy to infuriate, your oversize ego is too fragile to withstand a point-of-view that is not in agreement with you. Try however you want, but I can bring out your response any time I want. But I have a question: how does it feel to be manipulated so easy? Now I am predicting that you would not want to respond to this question. 🙂
@Sid
Let’s make it easier for you.
Translate your last comment in Sanskrit/Hindi and post it back for us. It’s a lot shorter than your previous comment and you still get 10 mins.
Let’s see how well you manage to do that. Meanwhile, I will listen to a couple of good John Lennon songs and revisit this thread after that.
Go on then son. Show us your competence in the great languages of the “dharma” and “rashtra”.
@Sid
Main dhanyawad ke alawa aur kuch nahi keh sakta. Lekin aapke is uttar se muze koi aashcharya nahi hua. Balki ye keval aapki tark-vitark ki kaamjori he dikhata hai. Kash aapke tar-vitark aapke swabhinandan ke barabar hote. Vaise aap aantarjal pe muze mile hue pehele vivadi nahi hai jo ki keval dusron ko chup karane mein jyada utsah dikhate hai.
All: Pl take it easy and please try and stick to the topic on hand. Thanks.
@Bhagwad Jal Park (#39),
I agree with the need to achieve balance and I also agree that the sense of balance is very much part of the individual view. This caught my eye:
So let’s come to an understanding. Neither culture is perfect. There are good things and bad things.– Yes, I agree.No point hanging onto something just because it’s Indian or western. And that goes for language as well.– You know what? Comparing cultures are like comparing apples to oranges. Some very high level attributes are comparable only. So is the case of language. I would stay away from calling any Indian or western language better or worse than another.After all, I’m part of humanity. I’m human first and an Indian later. I share my humanity with those in the west and so when I see some good things in them, I take it just like I take some good things from all other cultures.– I am afraid that is over-simplification. Sure I am a human, so is any western. Human, however, is a very wide definition for a group of animals sharing common anatomical, social and behavioral traits. It included characters such as Hitler in one spectrum and it included characters such as Lord Buddha in another. In between there exists an extra-ordinary collection of different attributes that allows humans to be classified along various dimensions such as race, ethnicity, language, religion etc. So the identity of an individual in Human class is sum of all these attributes he has. My skin color or ethnicity or religion or humanity – all are part of my identity, none more important than the others. An attack on one part of that identity is an attack on the entire identity. A religious fanatic claims that the religious part of his/her identity is most important, a humanist claims that humanity is the most important. So how is the claim of a humanist more righteous than the claim of a religious fanatic?@Ashish,
First,
Never again though. Never again!Second,
Let’s make it easier for you ... Go on then son ... Show us your competence in the great languages of the “dharma†and “rashtraâ€.What happened to
Never again? Your comment ofgreat languagesshows your understanding of “dharma” and “rastra”. Hindi was never the language for “Dharma” and “Rastra”, Sanskrit was. My Hindi-speaking friends know how much Hindi I can write, I really do not have to give a test to a coconut who calls everyone hypocrite and then adheres to a personal atheism but social secularism. 🙂@Sid
Chalo then. My understanding of the great Indian culture is wrong. Sanskrit toh sanskrit. Let’s see how much gyan you have of Sanskrit. Mind translating any of your comments in Sanskrit, Mr. Bharat?
I don’t care what your friends know and don’t know. If you are so enthusiastically advocating a certain language, I want to know how much you know it yourself.
You advocate an organization that you are not part of. You live in a country which culture and ideology you don’t approve of. How am I to take your word for your proficiency in Hindi/Sanskrit?
(Hinglish intended!)
Sorry Shantanu. This is not off-topic. People like Sid bring more embarrassment to India and its culture than anyone else. These are the people with half-baked knowledge and a highly misplaced sense of identity who go unleash themselves on the world and beat the drums of Indian-ness. When these people are around, I feel ashamed to call myself an Indian!
These people are advised to learn a bit about what they advocate to save themselves some face and not humiliate us in the wider world.
=>
BJP wrote:
“Because I like the idea of being myself, not linked to any society or religion, that is what I practice myself. On the other hand, there are things about the US for example that I absolutely hate – and I’ve written a lot about that too on my blog.”
=>
BJP:
Yet you have a blog where you communicate with others and ostensibly share ideas.
Yet you comment here and express what’s on your mind.
If that is not because of a link, then I’m not sure what it is. If you are an individual and that’s all that matters (no links to any society, religion – and by extension, no links to people in that society or people of religion), then you should have reached a zen state where whatever happens around you and whatever views people express, has no effect on you. That is a rational and logical conclusion.
Yet you continue to comment – possibly to influence other people’s views and opinions about society and religion and various issues, with the base that your view of things is the best. Which would make you a part of that society whether you like to admit it or not. 🙂
@Asish,
How am I to take your word for your proficiency in Hindi/Sanskrit?– How do I know that you are Ashish Deodhar? You do not have to take my proficiency at anything. I am not here to arrange relationship with you.I am very inclined to throw whatever Sanskrit I know to you. But it is one thing to discuss on current topic and it is another to challenge and test some one’s language skill. The first one is sign of a matured attitude, the second is psycho-babble of a wounded ego.
In my native culture, not letting my ego running wild is an important aspect of growing up because it is part of sara-ripu (do you know the meaning of it). I believe in it. Therefore, to help you, I would stop feeding your enemy.
BJP, and I’ll go so far as to say that you comment on blogs that are either written by, or frequented by Indians. Why deny that connection? If you were indeed human and only human, and that was the only identity that mattered to you – that is, you didn’t care for national identities or any other identities that are not “human” first, I challenge you to make a list of blogs that you
1. read frequently
2. comment frequently on
If it is your “humanness” that is your identity, then logically and rationally, one would not see any pattern in 1. & 2., i.e. you would read and/or comment on blogs written by people of different nationalities, different religions, different foo, since they all are, according to you, humans first and that’s the only identity that matters.
Here’s the thing – the only conflict between
a. being a Hindu or being an Indian, and
b. being a human
exists only in the minds of so-called liberals who are likely ashamed of, or uncomfortable with expressing their national or religious identity. Please note, I wrote “expressing” not “being chauvinistic of” – there’s a huge difference.
=>
“People like Sid bring more embarrassment to India and its culture than anyone else. These are the people with half-baked knowledge and a highly misplaced sense of identity who go unleash themselves on the world and beat the drums of Indian-ness. When these people are around, I feel ashamed to call myself an Indian!”
=>
Hoo boy, at the first sign of disagreement, there goes the much-vaunted diversity down the drain. 🙂
@Sid
“But it is one thing to discuss on current topic and it is another to challenge and test some one’s language skill. The first one is sign of a matured attitude, the second is psycho-babble of a wounded ego.”
Ah ic. So not knowing what you advocate is mature attitude (not matured attitude, by the way. Wrong English!) and asking whether you know what you advocate or not is psycho-babble! In which world, Mr. Manoj Kumar?
“I am very inclined to throw whatever Sanskrit I know to you.”
I didn’t ask you to throw whatever Sanskrit you know at me, you genius. I asked you to translate a specific comment of yours to Sanskrit. But I wouldn’t push that any more. Because I know that YOU DON’T KNOW SANSKRIT!
And since you don’t know Sanskrit, you also don’t understand the meaning of “dharma” and “rashtra” (according to the author, not me!). Which means that you throw a few “dharma”, “sharma”, “verma” around and call yourself a nationalist!
Frankly, with nationalists like you, the “Muslim terrorists” and “Christian missionaries” don’t really need to destroy Hinduism. You are doing a great job yourself!
@Ashish,
Go on. Nice entertainment. More insults you throw at me, more you show your true self to the world. The more abuse you throw at others, more disrespect it creates for anything that you stand for. Go on.
Indian culture is too vast for anyone to know it fully, but I would like to how many of the people writing comment in this blog like to believe that throwing abuse at the person who disagrees with you is part of our culture.
@Sid
Got a taste of your own medicine now? Now next time when we discuss anything, curb your sarcasm (I had told this to you earlier as well) and indulge in an well-informed, sensible discussion. I am very good at sarcasm (and very bitter sarcasm at that!) and you wouldn’t get anywhere trying yours on me.
Now as a final point to you – just because one drums up Hinduism, “dharma” etc., slays western thinking and ideas, mocks at genuinely liberal-minded people doesn’t make one more patriotic than others.
If you give people respect, you shall get respect. You can shout down mellow people like Bhagwad and Sasy but it’s just a matter of time before you cross paths with someone like me!
@Sid
“So the identity of an individual in Human class is sum of all these attributes he has”
No. I believe one creates their own identity. For example, I refuse to be defined by the length of my nose – even though it’s an attribute of mine. I choose what’s an important attribute. It’s not decided for me.
“My skin color or ethnicity or religion or humanity – all are part of my identity, none more important than the others.”
I have to disagree. Some attributes are less important than others. The importance of a classification depends on how essential that attribute is to who we are.
For example, we can classify people on the color of their eyes. Say we make two groups – black and non black. Why don’t we have color based racism depending on eye color? Why only skin color? Because no one thinks that eye color is important. The moment they do, then eye color based discrimination will also occur.
I prefer classifications that unite instead of divide. Which is why even more important than my humanity is the fact that I share life with every creature on this planet. And beyond that, I am first and foremost a part of the universe – living and non living. I prefer to see unity instead of differences.
Where there are differences, I only care about those that directly affect me. So I couldn’t care less about what language a person speaks as long as I can communicate with them. I couldn’t really care less about a person’s religion unless they try and intrude their religion onto me. I don’t care how old a person is unless it has an impact on my relations with them.
In the same way, I really don’t care if a religious fanatic claims that religion is the most important attribute per se. But I will start caring a great deal if they try and interfere with my life. Those like me who say that humanity is the most important aspect generally don’t interfere in other people’s lives – except to protect someone else. Basically do what you want as long as you don’t harm another.
Doesn’t that seem fair to you?
@Sasy @all
“English Language: Your gateway to Western Civilisation.
The English language (along with other British/Western institutions such as democracy, jurisprudence, banking and corporate institutions etc) is probably the greatest legacy which India received from the British. This language,- as a communication and thinking tool, is a sine qua non for human progress; and I myself can be considered as an illustration,-par excellence of its potential as the language of the future. Sans English, my cognitive evolution would not have been worthy of mention; I would not have written these pages, nor would I have created this web-site!!.[ The language of my parents is Malayalam ( I can of course claim that I’am able to communicate in Malayalam, even better than ‘Malayalam only’ chauvinists), and I’am also reasonably fluent in Hindi and Tamil,- two other Indian languages;——- however my own intellectual process operates in the English language,-which was the medium of instruction throughout my academic career and in my non-academic intellectual pursuits; i.e. the English language is my language by choice.-Thanks are due to Lord Macaulay, Governor General of British India ,who initiated English education during the 1830’s, and also to the Jesuits and other European missionaries who set up educational institutions modeled on British schools and colleges. India owes a huge debt of gratitude to the British, not only for the English language, but also for the legacy of other British/Western institutions that integrated us into a nation,— of course I’am aware that this will raise Cain among the language chauvinists and nationalists of India and that this would be a politically incorrect statement to expound. But face it and accept the truth:–Without the English language, and without our British past, the Indian Republic would not have existed;—- we would have been a balkanized group of states, each at pitiable levels of development, comparable with some of the basket cases of the African continent. The current generation may well remember that it is our command over the English language that makes us successful as immigrants in USA, UK and even in the Middle East and Africa. And that is the same reason for US corporate organizations such as Microsoft, Intel, Sun Micro, etc to set up off-shore units in India. (BPO-business process outsourcing).
Another and the more important reason for emphasizing upon the English language is the fact that English has become (whether you like it or not) the lingua franca of mathematics, science, engineering and technology and international commerce; and above all, -by accident or design it has become the core language of computer science and the internet; (let anyone try to operate a PC or use the internet without a basic knowledge of English!!.)”
Please explain the progress of China, Japan and let’s also add Germany, France to it. Just FYI, Japanese are not good in English and
there are no missionary schools there to teach English, yet they are a democracy.
Success of few million NRI and software and BPO should not and can not overshadow the misery of almost a billion. Indians at TCS and Infosys are learning Japanese, German and Cantonese as well to get a pie of software market in these countries.
To all,
Any time you go to an Engineering and Medical college there are lot of students who struggle to understand what’s going on because their high school education was either in Hindi or Local language medium. I have seen their struggle and always wondered that some of these bright students could go so far only if they were taught in the language they had good command in. I think that our failure to provide higher education in Hindi and local languages has benefited few and deprived a lot of people( millions ). It has killed innovation and creativity in millions because instead of spending their time to understand the advanced concepts of Maths and Science at these institutes, students have spent time coping up with a medium of teaching which they are not used to.
Not to mention that people who can not speak English are looked down in India and have to deal with low self esteem. Creating a market for Rapidex and other millions of similar initiatives. Tata Sky also has something similar, I saw the Ad on TV where a housewife brags about her English skills and how she corrects other people’s pronunciations. How is this different from the controversial Fair and Lovely Ads?
@Kaffir
no links to any society, religion – and by extension, no links to people in that society or people of religion
I didn’t say I don’t have links to people. I have links with some people. Society means all people including those I have never met.
In fact, there’s isn’t any such thing as “society.” We made it up.
Your argument is a straw man.
@Anupam
Slightly digressing from your point but I have a certain opinion on the fairness creams controversy and have written about it at http://www.ashishdeodhar.com (sorry for the shameless self-promotion 🙂
I agree with you that many other countries have progressed without a good knowledge of English. But their history is a little different from ours. India was ruled by the English and they screwed the English language in our society. Over the last 100-odd years, generations have grown up speaking English, and given the lack of a single common language across the country, it became a language of convenience. This is largely not the case with the Japanese, Chinese, French or Germans. So I think the comparison is slightly unfair.
Having said that, most of the rural India has vernacular language colleges. Having completed my schooling in Marathi, I had the option of choosing a Marathi language college. But I chose not to partly because I was very poor in English and I wanted to learn that language and partly because it is the international language and I wanted to learn one.
Now the blessing in disguise is that English is spoken widely in the world and we have a head start in that. Agreed, the Japanese and the Chinese have progressed despite English but having studied alongside them here in the UK, I have seen how tough it gets for them to comprehend any spoken or written English.
My opinion is that we capitalize on our English language proficiency wherever we can and allow those who are not good at it, or choose not to learn it, to learn their choice of subjects in their choice of languages, which *I think* we already do!
@Ashish,
I will read the post, I looked at it but haven;t read it yet, was traveling this week.
“Over the last 100-odd years, generations have grown up speaking English, and given the lack of a single common language across the country, it became a language of convenience. This is largely not the case with the Japanese, Chinese, French or Germans. So I think the comparison is slightly unfair.”
I agree to the most part except the use of word generations, but yes quite a few of us speak English now.
“Having said that, most of the rural India has vernacular language colleges. Having completed my schooling in Marathi, I had the option of choosing a Marathi language college. But I chose not to partly because I was very poor in English and I wanted to learn that language and partly because it is the international language and I wanted to learn one.”
I have not see a single Engineering or Medical college where medisum of teaching is not English. Stress on the word I, there could be colleges I am not aware of.
“My opinion is that we capitalize on our English language proficiency wherever we can and allow those who are not good at it, or choose not to learn it, to learn their choice of subjects in their choice of languages, which *I think* we already do!”
Agree, but going back to my point above, I don’t think we have any good engineering, medical or say IIT, IISC AIIMS teaching in Hindi or any vernacular languages. Would be very happy if I am wrong.
@Malavika
well said!
@Bhagwad Jal park
I think you misunderstood Malavika’s comment!
@Sid
Enjoyed all your comment!… character such as Hitler and Buddha, both were human! Very true!
“Slightly digressing from your point but I have a certain opinion on the fairness creams controversy and have written about it at http://www.ashishdeodhar.com (sorry for the shameless self-promotion :)”
Read your post, while I agree with your dissection of the issues, and have nothing against Fair and Lovely and Rapidex English Speaking course or Tata Sky. I am against the people who look down on people who can not speak English. I understand if you are learning English if you are going to England for some time or how people learn little Spanish when going on a vacation to Spain or to communicate with spanish speaknig Clientele. But it’s wrong if you have to learn English just to increase your social standing and fault doesn’t lie with the people who are learning.
@Anupam
“I have not see a single Engineering or Medical college where medisum of teaching is not English. Stress on the word I, there could be colleges I am not aware of.”
Well they are in Maharashtra. So I will retract my statement that “most of the rural India” has them. I have only seen rural Maharashtra and Marathi villages and even Taluka places almost only have Marathi colleges. So if you aren’t from Maharashtra, and if your state doesn’t have vernacular colleges, then you could very well be right.
Also, I agree with you that we don’t have vernacular Engg and Medical colleges anywhere near the quality of the English language colleges. I have always been very hopeful that we would get some very good quality Marathi colleges and there have been a few institutions (mostly in Baramati and western Maharashtra) that have taken a lead in that area. But yes, we need some more high quality vernacular institutions.
“I am against the people who look down on people who can not speak English.”
I despise such people myself. My parents can’t speak very fluent English and I don’t look down upon them. I feel sorry for those who do don’t appreciate the beauty of the languages they mock. We’ve seen this problem in Maharashtra. If you speak Marathi, you are immediately branded a ‘ghati’. I think that’s wholly unnecessary. I make it a point that when I am in Mumbai, I speak Marathi. Don’t have anything against any other language but I just want to assert to those who try to make fun of it.
=>
“I didn’t say I don’t have links to people. I have links with some people. Society means all people including those I have never met.”
=>
And what of it? Just because you haven’t met people in your society, doesn’t mean their actions do not affect you, and vice versa. Your above comment doesn’t answer the question I asked.
=>
“In fact, there’s isn’t any such thing as “society.†We made it up.”
=>
You’re contradicting yourself once again. If “we” made it up, then there is such a thing as society – whether “we” like to acknowledge it or not. If you are trying to say that a society wasn’t there when the universe was formed or when the earth was formed, or that a society is not “natural”, then yes, I’ll agree – but the significance of that fact is lost on me, and that seems to be tangential to the discussion.
“We” also made a computers, roads, houses, clothes etc. Does that mean there aren’t any things like computer, roads, houses and clothes? Do you abhor the use of all such man-made things? Does everything man-made has to be non-existent? Which side of the road to drive on is also man-made, not some universal, unifying mandate from the heavens. Yet, you obey that man-made law according to the country you are in.
=>
“Your argument is a straw man.”
=>
If it is, you haven’t really shown it to be such.
@Kaffir
“Just because you haven’t met people in your society, doesn’t mean their actions do not affect you, and vice versa”
Yes. That’s why I’m worried about intolerant people in general. One day I’m they might go bonkers and I will be affected.
“Your above comment doesn’t answer the question I asked”
Which is?
“We made it up.”
As in – we made it up. Like we made up the bogeyman and santa claus.
@Bhagwad Jal Park,
No. I believe one creates their own identity. For example, I refuse to be defined by the length of my nose – even though it’s an attribute of mine. I choose what’s an important attribute. It’s not decided for me.Your long/short nose does not define you, but when some one refers to you in persons or by way of photo, they can not help but see (but not make a note of ) your nose. Likewise, you may not like certain traits to be associated with you, but you do not have a choice. If you want to highlight your humanity as your only defining attribute then by similar logic Babu Bajrangi would say that he would use his religious identity as his only defining attribute and then you have to accept that he is right. I do not like either of these biases, I want to accept all of thse attributes as same and want to work towards correcting whatever of these attributes are creating imbalances.
I have to disagree. Some attributes are less important than others. The importance of a classification depends on how essential that attribute is to who we are.– How exactly do you determine what is important? Do you deny that your bias of attaching importance has something to do with your education, the cultural influences that you passed through and your intellect which is developed by both nature and nurture? None of these is your choice, yet they shape you, they influence your choices. It is only later you identify other modes of education, expose your mind to other cultures, have the option of choosing different kind of intellectual nourishment. But these choices are heavily influenced by the choices nature made for you earlier and the random chances that shows you paths that you did not venture into before. For example, a child brought up in an athiest household where the idea of God is taguht to be a stupid idea would grow up to believe so. When he becomes a man he would continue to find athiesm his comfort zone until random chance would force him to examine the paradigm nature has chosen for him. Thus a good part of our choices are influenced by nature.For example, we can classify people on the color of their eyes. Say we make two groups – black and non black. Why don’t we have color based racism depending on eye color? Why only skin color? Because no one thinks that eye color is important. The moment they do, then eye color based discrimination will also occur.– Why do not someone thinks that eye color is not more important than skin color? Because it is less visible, thus less obvious. Yet again, today, considerable people chooses to ignore the importance of skin color. Why? Because we know it does not impact the intellectual or physical capabilities of a man/woman. Yet, rest assured, blackness of my skin is a part of my identity, acceptance would be a natural reaction, downplaying or upholding it for any demand for benefit/vindication would eventually result into either racism or reverse-racism.I prefer classifications that unite instead of divide.– yes, I know. Why is that preference? Because you like unification more than division. So attaching importance (or preference) is a personal choice, is not it? Thus determining what is right based on your preferences is a one-way street because like preferences, determining what is right based on personal preferences would be highly subjective.Where there are differences, I only care about those that directly affect me.– How do you determine so? For example, if your neighbor’s house is in fire, would you care? If you do, then why? It does not directly effect you. You do because if you can not extinguish the fire in his house, your house in the same neighborhood may be impacted. Similarly, unless you choose to see all of your attributes in the same light, you will never be able to see what impacts you.Doesn’t that seem fair to you?– No. Because, if I have to determine fairness, I can not factor in my own bias. Let us assume that I do not agree to you or the man whom you are identifying as fanatic. Now you want your idea of humanity to be judged as the most important idenity. The “fanatic” wants his religious identity be declared as central. What is the basis upon which I would stand and decide who is fair? A fanatic would base all his fanaticism based on what he thinks central to his identity. However, he would not instigate violence if he considers humanity to be as important as the his religious identity. Similarly, there is nothing that would stop a humanist if he is convinced that destroying some of the other identities would save the humanity. History has ample examples where people with apparent good intentions committed grand crimes. For example, take a look at life of American Abolitionist John Brown. Or the vegan group who attempted to murder a judge who denied restriction on meat packing industry or people’s revolutionary parties that murdered millions in Eastern Europe in an effort to save them.=>
“As in – we made it up. Like we made up the bogeyman and santa claus.”
=>
Well, I didn’t grow up listening about bogeyman or the santa claus – or believing about them, so I have no idea about it being made up or not. I’m not sure that a society can be thrown into the same category as santa claus or the bogeyman, in the sense you mean it.
=>
“Yes. That’s why I’m worried about intolerant people in general. One day I’m they might go bonkers and I will be affected.”
=>
But in your previous comment, you said that society is
1. similar to a bogeyman or santa claus,
2. doesn’t exist, and
3. is man-made.
So, why worry about intolerant people? Since everyone is an individual, other people’s actions shouldn’t affect you. Heck, according to you, society doesn’t even exist.
If you are worried about intolerant people – and you are choosing to focus only on a select few intolerant people, not some random intolerant people living in, say, Somalia, even though, according to you, we’re all humans and it follows that intolerant people anywhere on the planet are the same and deserve the same attention – then there has to be some basis, some factor that makes you focus on the few intolerant people that you are choosing to focus on. What is that factor? Is that factor a function of geography? Shared culture? If so, then you have just defined your society.
@Ashish (#53),
Got a taste of your own medicine now?– So you were trying your hand at sarcasm? I thought you at least knew what you were doing, but boy, thanks for the clarification.Now next time when we discuss anything, curb your sarcasm (I had told this to you earlier as well)– I know your excellency does not like it. But, sir, I would. I had so much fun with you. It has been a long time I saw someone so easy to be played.I am very good at sarcasm (and very bitter sarcasm at that!) and ...– I agree. After all, calling someone sore loser and telling him to shut up are the innovative brand of sarcasm world is yet to see. By the way, do not forget the medicine doctor suggested if that urge of self-congratulation gets out of hand.... you wouldn’t get anywhere trying yours on me.– 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 it is called over-compensation.Now as a final point to you ––Final, ehhh?
.
.
.
Pakka, naah?
.
.
.
I mean seriously?
.
.
.
Come on man, whom are you kidding?
... just because one drums up Hinduism, “dharma†etc.,– Get a court order, I can not see a reason to stop.... slays western thinking and ideas,– yes, how dare I? Those are so sacred.... mocks at genuinely liberal-minded people– liberal-minded? Who? oh..aah, “genuinely liberal-minded”, must be a sub species to Homo Liberalis.... doesn’t make one more patriotic than others.I thought one is patriotic or not. It is, however, quiet possible that more-patriots and less-patriots are sub groups of Homo Liberalis.If you give people respect, you shall get respect.– So respect is a currency, heh !!! Or is it that new brand of sarcasm you are planning to market? Man, that is why I fear Homo Liberalis so much, they are full of ideas. It is just they fall short of expressing them.You can shout down mellow people like Bhagwad and Sasy– Hey Bhagwad, are you shouted down, dude? But hang on a second, I thought shout-down (or shut down) is that new brand of sarcasm of yours. Trust me, I even did not know that that was sarcasm. I had no plans to infringe on the copyright of your sarcasm, I have not tried to compete with you on that copyright. I mean seriously.... but it’s just a matter of time before you cross paths with someone like me!– Come on, get real. Did I not know the towering intellectual you are !!! Also, that skill building exercise of yours, I mean acquiring that new brand of sarcasm, awesome man!!! Kaun panga lega tumse yaar. It is like Mamata-di’s famous intellectual expression in parliament: “Haamse jo takrayega woh churchur ho jayega!!” Dude, just take care of yourself while walking the “path”, who knows what happens if you forget to take that medicine for handling self-congratulatory urges before you begin that journey.@Kaffir
“Since everyone is an individual, other people’s actions shouldn’t affect you.”
Could you perhaps explain this brilliant piece of logic?
“then there has to be some basis, some factor that makes you focus on the few intolerant people that you are choosing to focus on”
There’s a much bigger chance that intolerant people in India will affect me more than in somalia. So naturally I address the greatest threat first.
And when I can, I react to intolerant people everywhere – but I first give me attention to those who are most likely to affect me.
BJP:
=>
““Since everyone is an individual, other people’s actions shouldn’t affect you.â€
Could you perhaps explain this brilliant piece of logic?”
=>
That followed from your logic which stated that there’s no such thing as society, and society is like bogeyman. I’m glad to see that you have come around 180° and accepted that society does exist.
=>
“There’s a much bigger chance that intolerant people in India will affect me more than in somalia. So naturally I address the greatest threat first.”
=>
Two points:
1. But isn’t “India” man-made, applying your same logic re: society to it? So, according to your logic, just like society, it shouldn’t exist. Again, you are contradicting yourself.
2. Since you live in the US, there’s a much bigger chance – and this is not contestable – that actions of someone like Adnan Shukrijumah or a group called Al-Qaeda are a greater threat to your way of living there (even if you don’t live in a city like NYC), rather than someone in India being a greater threat.
@Sid
😀
Go learn some Sanskrit first. You know how to spell it? S.A.N.S.K.R.I.T
😀
@Kaffir
Sure it can. There’s no such thing as society in any meaningful sense of the word. If you disagree, perhaps you can tell me what society is and why it’s important?
“That followed from your logic which stated that there’s no such thing as society, and society is like bogeyman”
I’m sorry. I think we disagree on how logic works. Perhaps I’m too slow to understand. To help me out, could you please go step by step and show me how what I said leads to your conclusion?
“But isn’t “India†man-made
Yes. So?
“Just like society, it shouldn’t exist”
No. There are actual boundaries, airports, geographic features, police and governments that define India. Though it’s man made, India is real. Society is not.
“There’s a much bigger chance – and this is not contestable – that actions of someone like Adnan Shukrijumah or a group called Al-Qaeda are a greater threat to your way of living there”
Actually, there’s a greater chance of me being hit by lightning than a random act of terror. I’m not afraid of terrorism. I’m afraid of politically accepted intolerance which gets media and camera attention which is a much greater threat to me.
Finally, what exactly are you disagreeing with me about?
@Sid
I think I’ve lost track what we’re disagreeing with actually 🙂
In a nutshell, I believe I have a right to do as I wish provided I harm no one else. Is this what we’re disagreeing on?
@Bhagwad Jal Park,
think I’ve lost track what we’re disagreeing with actuallyUnfortunate.
In a nutshell, I believe I have a right to do as I wish provided I harm no one else– This sentence is too generalized to disagree with. The trouble is, rarely you will find situation where it gets applied.Your excellency,
I would wait till you finish marketing your brand of “very bitter” sarcasm, specially the “sore loser” variety. Behavior of a disturbed Homo Liberalis leaves a lot of room to have fun at his expense.
Besides, it is not Sanskrit, it is Sanskritam. Looking at your pathetic attempt to divert a discussion you already lost, you would be better advised to stick to calling your opponents “sore loser”. You have already done so and I believe that behavior fit you better than trying to put your empty arguments to test and get infuriated when someone finds mile-wide gap in them.
If you are still interested to continue this discussion, let us know how your future of Hindi and English i.e. Hinglish is being picked up among other Hindi-speaking and English-speaking groups.
It finds application in a lot of places. Mostly it finds an application when guardians of moral culture tell people how to live their lives, which languages to speak in and what clothes to wear.
The inability to follow this principle is also why honor killings take place. So you see, it’s actually a question of life and death and not a theoretical principle at all.
=>
“Actually, there’s a greater chance of me being hit by lightning than a random act of terror. “
=>
Which does not negate what I wrote. Though I don’t think that pre-planned acts of terror can be characterized as “random”.
=>
“I’m not afraid of terrorism. “
=>
Good for you!! Shabaash mere bahadur lefty liberal!!
=>“I’m afraid of politically accepted intolerance which gets media and camera attention which is a much greater threat to me.”
=>
If you die in a “random” act of terror, there won’t be any need to be afraid of “politically accepted intolerance.”
=>
“No. There are actual boundaries, airports, geographic features, police and governments that define India. Though it’s man made, India is real. Society is not.”
=>
And the same applies to societies too. Societies are formed by groups of people who live within that country you just defined. I think you’re just being silly and intentionally dense, and I call it quits on splitting hairs over something so obvious as the existence of societies.
Bhagwad Jal Park (#75),
It finds application in a lot of places. Mostly it finds an application when guardians of moral culture tell people how to live their lives, which languages to speak in and what clothes to wearWhat is a
moral culture? Also please elaborate what the"guardians of moral culture"has to do with"I believe I have a right to do as I wish provided I harm no one else".The inability to follow this principle is also why honor killings take place.– That is a pretty wide leap of logic you are taking there. Care to show the steps for those who can not jump that long?BJP:
(As an aside, I love that the initials of your name are that of a right-wing saffron fascist party which you love to hate!! Oh the irony. 😀 )
I’d left a comment for you here – when you get a chance, please respond.
@Ashish, Sid: We are now getting seriously off-topic. I am requesting both of you to stop this here.
Let us agree to disagree…No more personal remarks please. I value the thought-provoking ideas that are shared on these forums. Let us not get personal…I hope you will cooperate with me. Thank you.
P.S. I might delete several of the off-topic comments at some point today.
Asish, I agree with Dnyaneshwari Marathi lingua, but then we have the ” “Tuka Mahane” Marathi which has stayed very long. You will be surprised to know that, during my visits to Chennai last year , Tamilians singing Marathi Abhangs , to a huge crowd of listeners. I do not know whether all understood the Marathi, but all were so immersed , it made me say that Sant Tukaram’s Marathi has come to stay. People may say all sorts of things, it is Warkati etc but the fact that it has caught the imagination of the South, esp Tamil Nadu is commendable. Late Dilip Chitres soul will be happy.
English has come to stay, I agree, but you see , Indians may be very eloquent in speech , flowery in English , very good in writing software, but the language which gives identity is the mother tongue.
You have Japan and China. Japan has maximum number of patents commercialized after USA.They have not given up Japanese at all. They have developed excellent transliterators from Japanese to English. China also is one up on this. They just press their transliterator software into action.
I am not against English at all. Just shooting some flowery words is not enough. The Japanese and Chinese while retaining their identity thru language have shown that all is possible with mother tongue and English. Chinese are the largest solar panel manufacturers in the world with large number of patents in English. Just invite a Chinese from China to give a lecture demo , he will come with an interpretor and with his power presentation transliterated.
In this respect , I salute BR Ambedkar who wanted English with Sanskrit and the mother tongues. He did kow tow to westerners they way his contemporaries did. He knew identity is langauge and is important and that is the Indian one.
@Gajanan
Yes I agree with all of what you said. I am not against mother-tongue. In fact, if you see my comments #57 and #61, I insist on speaking in Marathi wherever I can (or wherever I should!:))
But as I also said in comment #57, a blessing in disguise for us is that English is a preferred international language and we have a head-start in it. We could make most of that instead of trying to re-invent an almost extinct language and try to make it part of the mainstream. That’s a lot harder to do!
But yes, I agree with you that however well I speak English, I am a Marathi and my language contributes in a big way to that identity. But being Marathi also means that I have inherited a great culture that is hugely open and extrovert (hey vishwachi maze ghar) and I can’t defy that culture by holding on to just one of the many great languages of this ‘vishwa’.
So I love Marathi and I am happy to welcome any language that contributes to its evolution. Remember, that’s how English became a global language. You would be surprised to know that the “Tory English” (Macaulay English as we know it) is spoken by a very small majority even in England!
Dear All: I have moved around a dozen extraneous comments (based on my own judgement) to this new thread. I should have perhaps moved a few more but I simply do not have the time. Thank you for bearing me with me through this.
Open Thread to discuss “this, that and the otherâ€
Pl continue the discussion related to previous comment # 80 onwards on this new thread unless your remarks are specific to this post. The earlier comments have been moved to the new thread.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
——-Western India’s first daily Sanskrit newspaper ‘Sanskrit Vartaman Patram’ in Vadodara on Sunday in presence of Sanskrit students from MS University and Somnath University —–
It will have glossary for those who are willing to learn it while reading.
What about other part of India?.. because they said western India’s first means it is available in other part of India.
I think there were a lot of interesting points made in this discussion. Too bad I’m jumping in late, but better late than never. My 2 paise:
1. “We need a common language to be able to communicate across India!†This is true, but most often what is demanded is not just a language for bare communication. English and Hindi are proposed as primary languages that everyone must have a full 12 year education in, become expert at, read the literature in and so on — not just learn well enough to communicate.
2. “National integration is only possible if everyone is made to learn Hindi!†Actually, I think forcing everybody to learn Hindi is one of the most divisive factors in India today. I think basic communication between people of different states is done more in English than Hindi (unless of course you’re talking between Hindi speaking states). I don’t think Tamil Nadu and Orissa communicate in Hindi, and neither do Assam and Meghalaya. I’ve seen anti-Hindi sentiment in at least two states, but never seen, say, anti-Gujrati sentiment. This is because no one imposes Gujrati on a non-Gujrati population.
3. I think this emphasis on Hindi and English is at the cost of all other Indian languages. I’ve heard people saying this isn’t true, but I can’t see a valid justification for that. Only a few states, like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal (and lately Maharashtra — but in a bad way), are holding out.
4. We may say that no one is forcing anyone else, but force comes in several forms. When the resources devoted to English and Hindi are greater than the resources given to all other Indian languages combined (I’m not sure about this, but it certainly seems so) it is, de facto, force.
5. I think this English-Hindi emphasis is a form of chauvinism and is dangerous. History teaches us that Indian languages are quite fragile because we traditionally lack institutions that work to preserve them. The historical model for language development in India was patronage, which has mostly died out. In the 19th century Telugu was close to dying out, its literature scattered and about to be lost, until an Englishman began collecting and cataloging it. If we don’t rescue our languages from second class status they will become untenable soon.
6. I think most Indian subcultures have already lost vigour because of lack of language support. The languages are still carrying on, but there is very little significant new literature or music or language-defined art styles. When surrounded by a flagging culture, it is natural to look towards an alternative culture that is robustly selling itself, evolving and advancing all the time. I think this is a large part of the reason why Indians are “West-crazy†— not just language-wise but also culture-wise.
7. We may say “let market forces decideâ€, but that’s not necessarily optimal. I find myself wishing I’d learned Sanskrit in school, so I could read the primary sources myself to understand various debating points. I would guess many others are in the same boat. There is a demand for Sanskrit which surfaces about 10 years after people are done with their career-defining years (ages 13 to 25 in India). The problem is only immediate concerns are used in deciding education. Additionally, by insisting on specific languages like English and Hindi, we are modifying those market forces in favour of those languages.
8. Bottom line: I think we should drop the idea of Hindi as a unifying Indian language. From a practical point of view I don’t think we can do the same to English, though it should be demoted somewhat in importance. Resources should be given to various local languages to help them develop.
Without a unifying national language the sense of nationalism gets weak. The question is not only of the language; it brings with it it’s ethos, culture, assumptions, prejudices, trends, and biases.
We cannot treat a language as ‘just’ a means of communication. The language is much more than a tool.
During national struggle, on the call of Gandhi Ji, many people adopted Hindi as a their medium of communication. Hindi was the language which was associated with the ‘National Pride’. I know of Hindi writers, who took up Hindi from scratch. They actually learned it on their own and then started writing, and went on to become great writers. My contention is only that a sentiment of national pride was associated with Hindi.
At that time Hindi was a new language. Yet people took to it out of pride.
It could well have carried on without any prejudices had it been implemented in a serious way. But we all know that English was given the status of official language. The kind of patronage that was given to English was not given to Hindi.
It is a fact that any language will wither away without some kind of support system. A great Hindi literature flourished for a few decades, and then it started going down.
Now, coming back to the ‘pride’ – with English comes a kind of elite thinking. It is a language of the convent schools or public schools where children of the elite go to study. Please read ‘elite’ in a relative sense, considering that majority of the population still lives in villages. Due to this very reason, Hindi got to be associated with the ‘backwardness’.
Hindi is for the ‘common man’, and English for the ‘Elite’.
I believe that without own national language, there cannot be a clear nationalist thinking.
Just the fact that we speak in a foreign language, gives us a tendency to look westwards for ‘their’ opinion. We start to imitate ‘them’ even in trends from which ‘they’ themselves want to break away – like youths’ fascination for western values (living in, pre-marital sex, etc.) These are the trends even the West is worried about; we take them up, accepting them as ‘in’ and ‘trendy’.
It creates a chasm between the ‘English speaking’ and ‘non English speaking’. Not very good for creating nationalist sentiment.
Simultaneously, the same applies on the local languages. Hindi cannot act as ‘elite’ there.
Some system should be there that children learn one local language along with Hindi. And English might be learned at some later stage.
Somebody above was talking about resistance to Hindi. It was there in 1 or 2 Southern states. But, with the advent of Cable TV, even that has gone, but for the pitch queered by politicians. Now South is familiar not only with Hindi, but also Punjabi. 🙂
The role of media is important in this, which can be creatively utilized for the purpose.
@GyanP
“Without a unifying national language the sense of nationalism gets weak.”
This statement is repeated often, but where is the evidence? At the time of independence, people in India didn’t know each others’ languages. Hindi became common only after independence. Yet there was a great deal of nationalism everywhere at that time. Bengal was a great engine of nationalism even though they didn’t speak Hindi. And similarly, Urdu nationalists worked together with non-Urdu members of the Congress (until that relationship was poisoned). It is quite easy to see that people who spoke different languages came together for the cause of India without having to force their language on each other.
“Hindi is for the ‘common man’, and English for the ‘Elite’.”
This is only true in the Hindi Belt. Everywhere else it takes just as many resources to teach Hindi as to teach English. Indeed, this notion of elite versus commoner is obsolete and the so-called commoners are nowadays eager for their children to learn English. My point is NOT that English should be taught at the expense of other languages, but that this argument for the necessity of Hindi is incorrect.
“Just the fact that we speak in a foreign language, gives us a tendency to look westwards for ‘their’ opinion. We start to imitate ‘them’”
I think knowing English only allows us to become aware of Western ideas. It is not the reason for choosing them. Cutting off our awareness of Western ideas by reducing English education is not the solution. The reason for choosing Western ideas is that many of our local cultures are sagging and non-vital. In Bengal and Tamil Nadu, people take pride in their language. These states still have cultural vitality. The languages of most other states do not seem to have the same kind of following. Unfortunately Hindi seems unable to provide the kind of vibrant art/literature culture that attracts the youth. This is in spite of huge resources being dedicated to Hindi.
“Somebody above was talking about resistance to Hindi. It was there in 1 or 2 Southern states. But, with the advent of Cable TV, even that has gone, but for the pitch queered by politicians. Now South is familiar not only with Hindi, but also Punjabi.”
You say this without apparent irony. The problem with the above statement is it assumes a hegemonistic viewpoint in which “South” needs to be familiar with Hindi and Punjabi. But are you equally eager that Punjabis get familiar with Tamil and Kannada?
The centralized imposition of one language on people of other languages flies in the face of liberalism. The only reason it is successful in India is the tyranny of the majority.
National language as a unifying force
During struggle for freedom people from all over India came together, who spoke different languages. At that time the unifying force was the sentiment to get freedom from foreign rule. But see, how much time it took to make people realize that they should come together for this struggle. More than 1000 years!
Indian civilization would not have fallen prey to foreigners had it been united early on. This has been the bane of India – everybody considers himself different from everybody. Person from UP likes to be with a UP person only. A Bengali feels comfortable with only a Bengali. A Keralite only Keralite. A Punjabi only a Punjabi. And so on. This is true for all the states.
Now, if you look at it closely, all these people share a common culture. Mostly a common religion, common traditions, belief etc. What is the difference there? Mostly, it is language. I think this diversity is at the core of the weakness.
In other countries, there is a unifying language. You can see it in Europe and America. Even though the countries are very small, yet they share one common language. I think their common language is a great strength that they have.
Unfortunately, the language only divides in India.
You take out the language – there are so many common things that can unite us. That is why I feel that a common language will unite India.
Hindi Vs. English
English is very much an elite language every where – North, South East or West.
You say -“so-called commoners are nowadays eager for their children to learn English”.
That is precisely the point. They want to teach English because they want their children to enter that Elite category. This only proves the point.
“My point is NOT that English should be taught at the expense of other languages, but that this argument for the necessity of Hindi is incorrect.”
I have not tried to say that Hindi is necessary. But in the natural course of events, Hindi has become the language of the common man across the length and breadth of the country. Even though it has been given a step motherly treatment by the government. Only lip service is shown for promoting Hindi. The language that is actually promoted is English – since the time of Nehru.
I also feel that the way Hindi was tried to be imposed on all and sundry by the government has only antagonized some non-Hindi speaking states, as it made it look as if their (states’) own language was being looked down upon.
Now what has happened has been through the spread of popular culture – in the shape of movies, TV channels, songs , pop songs – Hindi has been been more or less accepted by everybody. What could not be achieved by the half-hearted (and wrong) methods of the government has happened in due course of its own , without anybody trying to convince anybody. — This also covers the point regarding the hegemony of North over South – if there is really such a thing.
Hindi is not my mother tongue also. People understand Hindi because it has entered popular culture. Nobody has thrust it down anybody’s throat.
Similar is the case with Punjabi – of all languages. It has entered popular mindset through music. Just like Spanish has done all over the world.
You say –
“I think knowing English only allows us to become aware of Western ideas. It is not the reason for choosing them. Cutting off our awareness of Western ideas by reducing English education is not the solution.”
I agree with this. English will be require for communicating with the world.
You say-
“The reason for choosing Western ideas is that many of our local cultures are sagging and non-vital. In Bengal and Tamil Nadu, people take pride in their language. These states still have cultural vitality. The languages of most other states do not seem to have the same kind of following. Unfortunately Hindi seems unable to provide the kind of vibrant art/literature culture that attracts the youth. This is in spite of huge resources being dedicated to Hindi.”
You have assumed many things here, which my friend only shows your non-familiarity with those ‘other’ North Indian languages. Hindi, Punjabi, Marathi, Urdu, Gujarati – all have very strong and throbbing literary traditions. Trying to prove this will take another complete post. Suffice it to say, that most of the Indian languages – from North to South, from East to West – are producing literature that is capable of being placed along with any literature being produced anywhere else in the world.
You say-
“The centralized imposition of one language on people of other languages flies in the face of liberalism. The only reason it is successful in India is the tyranny of the majority.”
I agree with you. But, in a country with so many languages, one language is needed for communication. English will never take a place that any given Indian language can take.
And, I think Hindi has de facto taken that place. You may accept it today. Or after 50 years.
@GyanP
Apologies in advance for the long comment. I’ll try to keep it shorter from the next one on.
“But see, how much time it took to make people realize that they should come together for this struggle. More than 1000 years!”
I think the connection between this and language is very far-fetched. It actually took about 30 to 50 years to bring about national unity. No one was trying to bring about national unity for 1000 years. This was political and had little to do with language. Even though most of the North spoke similar languages — similar enough to understand each other — the North was still totally divided when the British came to power. Similar stories can be found in other states. Some Rajputs were allied with the Mughals rather than other Rajputs who spoke their own language. And so on.
“A Bengali feels comfortable with only a Bengali. A Keralite only Keralite. A Punjabi only a Punjabi. And so on. This is true for all the states.”
Certainly a Bengali feels more comfortable with a Bengali and a Punjabi with a Punjabi. That is perfectly natural and normal. It is a function of culture rather than language alone. However it is wrong to say that a Bengali feels comfortable only with a Bengali. From personal experience I think Indians of all languages usually get along just fine.
“Now, if you look at it closely, all these people share a common culture. Mostly a common religion, common traditions, belief etc. What is the difference there? Mostly, it is language. I think this diversity is at the core of the weakness.”
I think diversity is a weakness only if we view it as a weakness. We could have turned it into a strength, but didn’t. The line “all these people share a common culture” needs careful interpretation. There is some commonality. But there is also huge diversity in culture. The food, observances, and cultural attitudes change drastically not only from state to state, but from caste to caste and community to community. For example, most Hindus will bow to Ganesh, but Ganesh Chaturthi is not huge in Bengal. Similarly Durga Puja (Dusshera) is not as huge in Maharashtra as it is in Bengal.
Going from “there are commonalities” to “the cultures are similar” is too huge a leap. To me a vision of cultural uniformity is something we should oppose.
“In other countries, there is a unifying language. You can see it in Europe and America.”
America has a unifying language, but they go out of their way to encourage Spanish. (There is some opposition to this. But disproportionately large resources are devoted to Spanish.) Diversity is a mantra in the US. They have lotteries for people across the world to become US citizens just so they can have more diversity.
As for Europe, it would be more profitable to compare India to Europe as a whole than to one country in Europe. Europeans make sure their children travel to other parts of Europe so they get exposure to different cultures. The culture of every single country seems to be vibrant, and is appreciated and celebrated by other countries in Europe. Europe’s greatest strength is its diversity. This increase of diversity, and a respect for different cultures, is something we should pick up.
“…in the natural course of events, Hindi has become the language of the common man across the length and breadth of the country.”
I don’t understand how you are getting this impression. Hindi is commonly spoken mainly by people in the Hindi belt (and of course some places like Mumbai). In most other states people understand Hindi and speak to a very limited extent. That is enough for communication. I have never heard the “common man” conversing in Hindi outside the Hindi belt. I have not been to Gujarat but know a lot of Gujaratis. They tend to talk in Gujarati (although it is easy for them to switch to Hindi). I can speak from first hand experience of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Bengal. Daily-wage workers moving from state to state pick up a smattering of 5-6 languages. This is precisely because they need to, because not everyone speaks Hindi. I’m talking about workers moving around the Bihar-WB-Orissa-Andhra-TN belt.
“You have assumed many things here, which my friend only shows your non-familiarity with those ‘other’ North Indian languages.”
This is a topic which easily gives offense. My intent here is to point out that we need to infuse vitality into these cultures. If they are indeed as vital as you say, I stand corrected. Admittedly my knowledge of Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and Gujarati literature is derived purely from the mainstream media: English print, English+Hindi electronic. What I find is that news of literary events in Bengal, TN and Karnataka trickles into the these media, but there’s very little about Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and Gujarati literary events. Perhaps it’s not a good sample given that I currently live in the USA.
My conclusion can only be that the cultural output of Bengal, Karnataka and TN is very high, per-capita, compared to that of the Hindi belt. Bengal seems to be showing signs of decline as well.
Certainly if you compare with English, I would guess that the cultural output (literature, performing arts, music — NOT films which I think have different dynamics) is much higher per capita than any Indian language. It appears as if Bengali, Kannda and Tamil can compete with English in their respective states. Other languages don’t seem strong enough.
On a tangent, a few months ago I spent some time searching online for quality Hindi authors written recently. Only one name turned up: Narendra Kohli. (Haven’t been able to grab any of his books yet.) I’d be glad if anyone could point out other Hindi authors who have say the intellectual scope and verbal ability of an Amitav Ghosh or a Samit Basu (who write in English).
“Nobody has thrust it [Hindi] down anybody’s throat.”
Well, not literally. But if you’re required to pass a Hindi exam for government jobs, if the centre insists on writing to states in Hindi even for states like TN, if national TV provides thousands of hours of Hindi programming and zero hours of any other language, and so on, it’s hard to escape it. I saw a clip of the show “India’s Got Talent” in which there was a contestant from Tamil Nadu who explained in (broken) English that he doesn’t understand Hindi. The three judges, who were completely fluent in English, then talked to him in Hindi for about 3 minutes! It was obvious he didn’t understand a word they said. Those who do know Hindi tend to be offended that someone else doesn’t, and are usually not afraid to express this. If that’s not coercion, I don’t know what is.
“Even though it has been given a step motherly treatment by the government. Only lip service is shown for promoting Hindi.”
You have said this before too, but I just don’t get it. The government devotes more resources to Hindi than all other Indian languages put together. What more would you have them do? In any case, why should it be the government’s job to promote Hindi?
“But, in a country with so many languages, one language is needed for communication.”
Agreed. For anyone who wants to come into the mainstream (what you call “elite”) English is this language. Hindi doesn’t give them a way to plug into the new economy. Currently a non-Hindi person would learn Hindi mainly for government jobs (and to follow Hindi movies). For most economic opportunities, it’s all English.
I think it’s valid to propose that people should learn enough Hindi to communicate with their fellow citizens in other states. But this should be left up to them. What we should be careful about is Hindi wiping out other cultures. Unfortunately this happened with the Bengali film industry, which once produced the finest films in India.
==>
“What we should be careful about is Hindi wiping out other cultures. Unfortunately this happened with the Bengali film industry, which once produced the finest films in India.”
==>
Armchair Guy, your comment was well-written and you raised excellent points. Though, the part above caught my eye – and not to go off-topic, but – are you implying a causation here?
@Kaffir
Yes, I do believe there is a causal link. I don’t know very much about this topic, and I’m sure there were other factors, but I think the better-funded, easily-digested Bollywood fare had something to do with the demise of the more intellectually oriented Bengali cinema.
I will not like to go into a lengthy debate here. To keep it short-
1. You start with “I think the connection between this and language is very far-fetched.”
It is indeed. I am also not implying that only Hindi brought people together. I just said that unifying factors were absent. Later on Hindi became one such factor, out of many.
1. You are ready to accept a foreign language, but are not open to an Indian language as a common medium of communication. English IS an Elite language, the language of the privileged. It is another example of a typical Indian mindset, which still divides our country.
You say “Currently a non-Hindi person would learn Hindi mainly for government jobs (and to follow Hindi movies). For most economic opportunities, it’s all English.”
You are just proving my points.
(i) People are eager to follow Hindi movies – a proof of a vibrant language.
(ii) Economic reasons attract people to English. Such is not the case with Hindi. That is precisely because of the ‘step motherly’ treatment given to Hindi. Hindi has only been given a lip service, the language which was actually promoted by the government, starting from Nehru, was and is English.
Just a rejoinder – Hindi is not compulsory even for government jobs, maybe it is for a very few jobs, in some states only.
You say –
“On a tangent, a few months ago I spent some time searching online for quality Hindi authors written recently. Only one name turned up: Narendra Kohli. (Haven’t been able to grab any of his books yet.) I’d be glad if anyone could point out other Hindi authors who have say the intellectual scope and verbal ability of an Amitav Ghosh or a Samit Basu (who write in English).”
Whatever you say above only goes on to prove my point. I will take it one by one-
(i) You could not find anything online regarding Hindi literature– How could you? There is next to nothing! Hindi is a poor man’s language, they don’t have so much resources. It is not supported by the big media houses. Even I don’t find much online. Only recvently I have started seeing some beginnings of Hindi literature coming online. The quantity is still pitifully small.
On the other hand English, belonging to the Elite class does instantly makes it to the media, including the internet, even if it is crap.
(ii)By comparing Hindi and other Indian language’s great authors to Amitavs and Basus, you just insulted our Indian languages’ authors, or just shown your ignorance, take any which way you like it. The quality and the depth that you can find in the finest Indian authors are nowhere to be seen where you are trying to see it currently.
That is precisely the problem with those fed on English – their world is limited to English only. A few years back Salman Rushdie, whose own literary skills I am not too fond of (now don’t quote Booker prize, even that Arundhati got it; his Midnight’s Children was found out to be the most unread book on people’s shelves, in one survey. Only one of his books the MC, and that too the first half, has some quality. Ditto about his other books.), hinted something on the lines – that Indian literature began with English and ends with English.
I just cannot react to such nonsensical utterance. This shows our total, complete ignorance and disrespect for one’s own culture, and a near total broken down of self esteem, another bane of we Indians! Everything belonging to Gora Saab is great!
And, I refuse to reply to this any further. But please don’t compare our authors with Amitav and all. Please don’t do this! By the way, ‘Narendra Kohli’ is not a very good specimen of Hindi literature.(If you are really serious about knowing Hindi literature, ask it again on my blog. I will tell you!)You don’t know what you are missing!
Your, or anybody else’s, not knowing about Hindi, or Bengali, or Punjabi, or Gujrati literature, does not do any harm to them. They are too great for that. It only shows your own ignorance.
Lastly, I completely support your feelings about the diversity. I do not want to kill it either. I respect it. But, take whatever I am saying, in its present context – how to find some unifying thread in this diversity.
Lastly –
(1) Everybody does not speak Hindi. But Hindi is the language most commonly used as a common medium of communication between people from different states. Hindi is most popular in populist culture – movies, songs, etc.
(2) English wallas always look down upon native languages. This is one of the reasons I am against the use of too much English. It tends to erode our self respect. We see it everywhere – even in your reply above, excuse me for that.
You also say – “But this should be left up to them. What we should be careful about is Hindi wiping out other cultures. ”
Sorry Sir, English is doing this to ALL Indian languages. Hindi itself is in dire need of Oxygen!
Just in parting –
Sanskrit could have been adopted as the national language. I think then nobody would have gone defensive. But then, our leaders were not very farsighted, were they?
(Hope I kept it short)
🙂
@GyanP, Armchair Guy, All: A gentle request: Pl try and keep your comments short and to the point
Thanks.
@Moderator
Will do.
@ GyanP
I think we are getting into needless acrimony here.
Certainly I am interested in finding out more on Hindi lit. It wasn’t an idle question. I’ll post a question on your blog. Or if you don’t mind sharing your knowledge here, you could do so.
My question, which you seem to have misunderstood, is about current Hindi authors — contemporary in writing style — who write at the level of Ghosh and Basu. (If there are authors who soar higher, that’s even better. I am not trying to imply that there never were Hindi authors better than Ghosh and Basu.) I didn’t propose Rushdie because I think it’s hard to reach his level.
Although it is off-topic, I feel compelled to respond to your criticism of Ghosh, Basu and Rushdie. I think Rushdie is a great author and Midnight’s Children is a masterpiece. Ghosh does a good amount of research to try to breathe life into Indian history — something we need a lot more of, because we have no cultural memory of those years. Basu has a great knack for taking India’s ethos and mythology and weaving it into a cosmopolitan humour. All three have done India a service. They are not Tagores or Premchands, but that is no reason to belittle their work.
I agree that most Indian languages, including Hindi, “are in dire need of oxygen”. I disagree that English is causing the problem. Nobody imposed English on us, certainly not to the extent that Hindi has been imposed. I think one generation allowed Indian languages and culture to lapse. We didn’t teach our kids about Indian music or art or literature — or even science. We taught them only to study for engineering and medicine. English then came in simply to fill the vacuum that had already been created.
@Moderator
Your advice is well taken.
@Armchair Guy
Great writers in Hindi or some other languages reached such heights that it is unjust even to try and compare these authors with them. I will leave the matter here.
Now the question about English.
It is a foreign language, devoid of our cultural, moral, religious, and folk historical experiences. When you write creatively each and every word carries many echoes from the past as well as the current life. That gives it a character and wavelength that is only possible with your own language. When you start writing in a language, something dies. I think everybody will agree with me here.
Presently, it is true Hindi is in the need of Oxygen, because all those people who would have written in Hindi, or some other Indian have started doing so in English. That is the loss for Hindi as well as for the country. Mainly because they are after name, fame and money.
When somebody writes in her mother language then many a times the motives are benign: many Indian authors left a flourishing career elsewhere just to be able to write in their language and be able to speak the emotions of their soil. And they had to spend a life of penury. But as writers they were great!
I completely agree with you on your last point. We have ourselves let our languages and culture die down. Because we are all after money. But, don’t forget that this situation has been caused by the country’s administration so that it has come to pass that money is where English is.
As a corollary, I endorse your sentiments about the current status of Hindi, so far as I know.
I will reply to your comment on my blog.
Thanks, it has been a very interesting discussion.
@Moderator
I hope I was not (completely) off topic here. 🙂
(Received via email)
Does Your Language Shape How You Think?
A really fascinating essay on the importance of the child’s first language. Simply written and makes an essential point. Well worth a read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html – Does Your Language Shape How You Think?
The late AK Ramanujan’s brilliant essay “Is There an Indian Way of Thinking?” makes the very clear point that our way is context-sensitive (as opposed to context-free) (cf. individual vs group as the unit of society) – and ties in with the theme of the NYT essay ( I cdn’t find a copy on the web, but here is its reference – http://fore.research.yale.edu/forebib/412.shtml )
The last link is not working.
*** NOTE by MODERATOR ***
Now fixed. Thanks.