DC DEBATE: The politics of diversity
Vikram Sampath Vs Rakesh Sinha
Vikram Sampath: Let’s remain language neutral
The Central government’s focus must lie in preservation and promotion of the multitude of languages and their dying dialects, each of which is key to another chapter of our brilliantly versatile culture.
Should there even be a debate at all on Hindi? In 1956, the States Reorganisation Act ruled that Indian states would be created on the basis of language. What made it to the law books, however, remained starkly at odds with reality. The tussle over a single national language was first triggered in 1937 under Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and the Justice Party in Madras, reaching a head in 1965, a year marked by bloody opposition in the South. Time has helped us forget, why bring shadows back to life?
The issue of a single national language was hotly debated in the Constituent Assembly. Voicing the opinions of the naysayers, T.T. Krishnamachari said: “I disliked it (English) because I was forced to learn Shakespeare and Milton, for which I had no taste at all. If we are going to be compelled to learn Hindi… I would not be willing to do it because of the amount of constraint you put on me.”
In the interim, all efforts were to be made to popularise Hindi and lessen resentment against it, enabling it to become the sole official language by 1965. But southern opposition to Hindi continued and as Pattom A. Thanu Pillai, former chief minister of Kerala remarked: “Hindi is as much alien to us South Indians as English is to all Indians.”
Lal Bahadur Shastri finally subdued the violent agitation, by saying non-Hindi states could use English for as long as they wished. Indira Gandhi then amended the law to guarantee the indefinite use of both Hindi and English as official languages. In 1965, the three-language formula was created. All non-Hindi-speaking states were to learn Hindi, English and the local language, while in Hindi-speaking states one other Indian language other than Hindi and English was to be learnt.
While southern states complied, the Hindi-speaking states couldn’t seem to put their bruised egos aside and show the same magnanimity. Still, it was no greater than a petty prejudice, manifested mostly in slapstick Bollywood films, colloquial jibes made at north- easterners who “look different” and brute stereotyping of South Indians — the dark skinned “Madrasis”!
The Central government is expected to remain language neutral for it deals with a union of states that speak many tongues. Why then does the home ministry’s circular offer cash rewards to officers who operate their social networking sites in Hindi alone and not for using any other Indian language?
The implications are worrying.
Hindi speakers largely believe their language define the “mainstream” while the rest must toe the line without question. All those who don’t fit in with these exaggerated notions — from the bus drivers to maids to bureaucrats — must deal with an unnecessary share of narrow-minded, misplaced pride.
English has already captured the imaginations of the poorer classes, to whom it holds the promise of a better life.
Most urban, upper middle class children grow up speaking the language; they even think in it, slowly pushing ethnic markers further into the depths of history books that will soon be coated in dust.
While this change is inevitable, the Central government’s focus must lie in preservation and promotion of the multitude of languages and their dying dialects, each of which is key to another chapter of our brilliantly versatile culture. Encourage officials who use any Indian language for official communication on social media, it is only fair. Otherwise, it will soon be the deadly weapon our colonisers once used to oppress us.
Vikram Sampath is a Sahitya Akademi Yuva Puraskar-winning author
Rakesh Sinha: We need to expand Hindi’s base
English has its own importance but it cannot be a tool of domination. Why can’t bureaucrats use Hindi to interact with Hindi-speaking people? How is the promotion of Hindi a threat to any of our languages?
Diversities are our strengths as well as unique characteristics, distinguishing India from other nation states. This is equally true of our social system, culture and languages. We are a civilisational nation blessed with hundreds of languages, dozens of scripts and thousands of dialects. The north-eastern part of the country alone has 220 languages! Our tradition is free from linguistic fundamentalism due to our avowed faith in celebrating diversities.
But this should not become the cause of our weakness. Colonial forces tried to convert our merit into demerit by invoking linguistic identity. Indian Marxists, blind to Indian reality, went further and portrayed our linguistic diversities as sub-nationalities. We shouldn’t forget that the Communist Party of India demanded 29 Constituent Assemblies, not one. The nation rejected the prescription of the Communists and the people of India gave mandate to only one Constituent Assembly.
Unfortunately, Independent India never thought of contesting colonial designs, which have been co-opted as linguistic policy by the new elites succeeding the British. The new governing elite dominated the state and politics, using both for their hegemonic impact on our society. The British left, but their linguistic legacy continued and English was imposed on the people. A poor Tamil, Malayali, Bengali, Kannada or Hindi-speaking person was forced to learn English, which became a symbol of prestige and created a social divide. It killed the talents of vernacular youngsters, burdening them with a colonial language. It became a tool to deprive the masses who do not know English. The argument was that since there is no consensual all-India language, English enjoys the privilege of lingua franca.
English has its own importance and should have its own place but cannot be a tool of domination. Why can’t bureaucrats use Hindi to interact with Hindi-speaking people? It is the spread of English that has forced the closure of Marathi-speaking schools, causing disconnect between the new generation and our culture. Hindi and Sanskrit are closer to Tamil, Kannada, Bengali and all our languages. The issue is not one of suppressing any language or mother tongue but of promoting Hindi as a backup against English. Sectarians and English elite have turned into a debate of Hindi versus Indian languages.
Unfortunately, no serious attention was paid after Independence to achieve the goal of replacing English. There is no institution dedicated to translating both classical and contemporary literature of one language to another. Who is guilty? We need to self-introspect. The primacy of mother tongue and local languages is natural, and Hindi should emerge as English’s replacement. This is no hate or contempt of English. If we do not respect our own languages, how do we expect the world to do so? Hindi is the third-highest spoken language in the world, yet doesn’t figure in the five official languages of the United Nations. Have we ever paid heed to this?
Arabic, Russian, Spanish stand at sixth, fifth and fourth positions respectively, but are part of UN’s official languages. Blame also lies on the Hindi-speaking elite for failing to expand Hindi’s base as socially bridging language. An important reminder to the nation — Mahatma Gandhi blessed his son Devdas Gandhi, who was married to Chakravarti Rajagopalachari’s daughter Lakshmi. Blessing the newly-weds, Gandhi asked them to maintain celibacy for three years and spread Hindi in southern India! We have to resurrect that sprit. It’s not domination, but unfolding of our progressive diversities.
Rakesh Sinha is director, India Policy Foundation, and associate professor, Delhi University
