83.HINDIGENISATION:
INTENSIFYING HINDI IMPERIALISM
Imperialism is a politically charged word. The freedom movement in India and the leftists generally brought the word into common usage.
Political and non-political
What is imperialism? The Oxford dictionary defined it as:
"a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means".
However, it is a much broader concept. While political aspect or form is the most common, and easily felt or seen, there are other aspects. The leftists invariably associate it with capitalism, but we have seen that Soviet Russia, National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy were no less imperialist, than England or France.The Muslims under Ottoman Empire which lasted from 13th to early 20th century were big imperial powers. But in modern history, it is British imperialism that is remembered. Indians would particularly remember Rudyard Kipling who spoke of civilising the others as "the white man's burden". And we have that businessman and mining magnate Cecil Rhodes who created a country in Africa in his name: Rhodesia (named so in 1895), now split into Zimbabwe and Zambia. He said that he would colonise even the planets!
The USA was born in rebellion against imperialism, but in the late 19th and 20th centuries, it too has become nakedly imperialist.It is of course flexing its military muscle, as we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places, but it is the subtle and not so subtle use of "other means" that has become more menacing in the long run for the world at large.
Citizens of New York city uprooting the statue of King George III after the Declaration of Independence. A painting of 1859.
Wikimedia commons.
What is called "globalization", enforced through international institutions like World Bank, IMF, and WTO is nothing but disguised US imperialism. Its other soft arm is the spread of commercial, consumerist culture as a uniform expression of the modern way of life. This is more insidious if less openly offensive.
Wikimedia commons.
What is called "globalization", enforced through international institutions like World Bank, IMF, and WTO is nothing but disguised US imperialism. Its other soft arm is the spread of commercial, consumerist culture as a uniform expression of the modern way of life. This is more insidious if less openly offensive.
Imperialism and culture
It was Edward Said, the Palestinian- American intellectual who first clearly explained how Imperialism worked in the cultural sphere. Western scholars started interpreting the literature and culture of others (in this case people of the Middle East) on their own terms, with the hidden agenda of showing the colonisers and their way of life as superior. Their studies gained currency and an aura of respectability through the academic system which the colonial powers controlled. Through the influence of the growing colonial education, the native people themselves started believing in such interpretations!
In Orientalism, Said contended that much Western study of Islamic civilization was political intellectualism meant for self-affirmation, rather than for objective intellectual inquiry and academic study. Thus, Oriental studies functioned as a practical method of cultural discrimination and imperialist domination; i.e., the Western Orientalist knows more about the Orient than do the Orientals.
His two books "Orientalism" (1978) and "Culture and Imperialism" (1993) are important sources for understanding this subject. Western scholars have, not unexpectedly, picked holes in his arguments and have even questioned his sources and scholarship. . But we in India can fully understand the general run of his argument and analysis.
Cover of the first edition shown here for purely educational purposes.
Indology- a bastard pretence of science
Indology is the branch of western studies on Indian subjects. It has fully followed the pattern explained and exposed by Said. The study of Sanskrit language and literature truly impressed the early pioneers and their discovery was akin to their discovery of ancient Greek literature. But soon, the colonial powers understood the implications: to accept the grandeur of the philosophical and cultural ideas of the Hindus would undermine their status as the ruling powers! They as rulers had to show Hindus the ruled as inferior in all possible ways. So they set to work to destroy that base. By the one stroke of introducing his education scheme, Macaulay ensured that young Indians would grow up without touch with the springs of their own culture! By linking English education to jobs, they made studies of Indian subjects and languages practically useless! Even Indian history was written and interpreted to suit the foreigner. Knowledge of English and following the customs and manners of foreigners were considered signs of superior culture or modernism! This trend continues with even greater intensity today.
The study of Indian religion, philosophy and cultural aspects has fallen largely into the hands of foreign academic "scholars" who interpret them without any practical experience or genuine understanding in reality! They have neither sympathy with the subject nor genuine love. There are some learned Indians reacting, [ eg.N.S.Rajaram, Vamsi Juluri, Rajiv Malhotra] but I do not know of any serious and sustained attempt by Indians to produce a scholarly tome like that of Edward Said, except Rajiv Malhotra.Nor is any Indian institution devoted to this mission. Today, it is the foreign academics and their Indian imitators, who are not practising Hindus, who interpret and expound on Indian religious and philosophical themes in English, and generally write about our culture. Unfortunately, what they say becomes the default position.
Imperialism within India: states and Centre
This is one aspect of cultural imperialism, international in scope. But there is another which is internal. This relates to one group, dominant politically or otherwise, imposing its way on others. Thus in India after the creation of linguistic states, the dominant language group is imposing its way on the linguistic minorities. This has happened in Tamil Nadu too! All the so called Constitutional guarantees for linguistic minorities vanish into thin air!
Hindi as the national language? Nonsense!
At the national level, that happens with the imposition of Hindi as the national and official language of India. Is it the national language or the official language? There is confusion. In a judgement in 2010, the Gujarat High Court held :
The court said that the Constituent Assembly while discussing the Language Formula noticed the recommendation of the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights, which recommended the formula as per which, “Hindustani, written either in Devanagari or the Persian script at the option of the citizen, shall, as the national language, be the first official language of the Union. English shall be the second official language for such period as the Union may, by law, determine.”
However, in the constitution, Hindi was declared as an official language and not a national language.
The court in its order said Part XVII of the Constitution deals with Official Language. Under Article 343, official language of the Union has been prescribed, which includes Hindi in Devanagari script and English.
Report in The Hindu, 25 January, 2010.
Notice the subtle but vital changes. Hindustani becomes Hindi. Devanagari or Persian script becomes sole Devanagari script! And Hindi becomes the prime language, English is only temporary, and its continuation depends on specific legislation!
The position is stated precisely in Wikipedia thus:
The Constitution of India designates the official language of the Government of India as Hindi written in the Devanagari script, as well as English.
There is no national language as declared by the Constitution of India.
Hindi and English are used for official purposes such as parliamentary proceedings, judiciary, communications between the Central Government and a State Government.[1] States within India have the liberty and powers to specify their own official language(s) through legislation and therefore there are 22 officially recognized languages in India. The number of native Hindi speakers range between 14.5 and 24.5% in total Indian population, however, other dialects of Hindi termed as Hindi languages are spoken by nearly 45% of Indians, mostly accounted from the states falling under the Hindi belt. Other Indian languages are each spoken by around 10% or less of the population.
But here too the mischief may be seen. To show Hindi as the numerically largest group, the advocates of Hindi are slowly grouping other dialects under Hindi! This is done by showing other languages like Rajasthani, Awadh, Brajbasha , Maithili, etc under Hindi through successive census exercises. This is thus official deception.
Yet, Hindi is not the language spoken by the majority of Indians!
Lest we forget
The points to remember here are:
- Hindi is not the sole national language of India. There are 22 national languages, as recognised in the Constitution. But even this is an artificial number, deliberately restricted by the Hindi advocates. A genuine peoples' Constitution must recognise all languages spoken in the country as national languages and cannot arbitrarily restrict the number.
- Hindi is NOT the sole official language of India. English shall continue as long as the non-Hindi people want it. Hindi speakers cannot impose their time lines.
- English is NOT a foreign language. Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland have English as their official language.
- In the matter of language actually spoken, absolute numbers have no force. No democratic Constitution can impose a different language on people speaking a particular language. If a Constitution does it, it is DEMONIC, not democratic.
- If Hindi is accepted as the sole official language, it will reduce non-Hindi people [ whose native language is not Hindi] to second-class citizenship. No one who learns Hindi as the second or third language can attain mastery or natural felicity or natural fluency like a native speaker.
- Hindi is NOT the language of the majority in India. The Hindi promoted by its fanatical advocates is obtained by suppressing major North Indian dialects like Brajbasha, Awadh, Maithili, etc under Hindi and thus doing them great injustice.
- The distinction between a dialect and language is artificial and superficial. Languages could be written in many scripts and the lack of a script is not a deficiency. it could be a deliberate choice to make the language more flexible!Thus Tulu can be written in Kannada, Devanagari or Arabic scripts.Does it mean it is not a language?
After the BJP has assumed power, it is intensifying efforts to impose Hindi in all possible ways. Not that Congress was less aggressive, but it was more subtle! BJP is crude.
Hindi imperialism must be opposed intelligently!
Common misgivings
Many people feel:
The linguistic map of Switzerland,2016.
By Tschubby, translation by Lesqual CC BY-SA 3.0 creativecommons via Wikimedia commons.
The USSR
The USSR on the contrary had more than 20 languages. Though it started with saying that everyone should learn his mother tongue and Russian, gradually it resorted to forcing Russian on everyone- called RUSSIFICATION. In 1975, president Brezhnev said:
There were 21 language groups other than Russian and they were fully 50% of the population. But the processes of Russification gradually engulfed them. Within 15 years after Brezhnev made the statement, the USSR disintegrated and all the 21 languages regained their full independent status in different countries!
Canada
In Canada, there is the tussle between English 50% and French 30% but there are 20% others speaking other languages-either immigrant or aboriginal languages. The Official Language Act of 1969 does not please every one.
from:www.slideshare.net
Children are lovely, whatever language they speak! Every language spoken by children is lovely,too!
The European Union
In the European Union too,which is a voluntary association of mature, cultured nations, there is a problem of language!
from:slideplayer.com.
To say a country must have one language is a sign of utter idiocy. It is against the historical experience of civilized humanity.
INDIA IS NOT JUST A COUNTRY BUT A SUBCONTINENT WITH HUNDREDS OF LANGUAGES.
TO SAY THAT HINDI ALONE WILL RULE HERE IS THE HEIGHT OF FOOLISHNESS. AND POLITICAL ARROGANCE. Even dictatorships have not been able to sustain and enforce that stand for long.
Real linguistic map of India. It will explode the myth that Hindi is the majority language.
Hindigenisation must be resisted and fought back. We will be placing our children under great disability if we fail in this. It will be embracing slavery and subordination.
But care must be taken to ensure that we do not hate any language or language group as such. All deserve our love and respect. It is just linguistic imperialism that we oppose.
Straight thinking on language
Hindi imperialism must be opposed intelligently!
In the early 60s, when the originally fixed 15 year period for English was to expire, and Hindi fanatics were flexing their muscles, there was big agitation in Tamil Nadu which led to the unseating of the Congress. The Congress has not recovered even after half a century! Though the agenda was eventually hijacked by the regional politicians, there were many others who voiced their opposition to Hindi imposition. Statesmen like Rajaji and linguists like Suniti Kumar Chatterji gave us arguments, more than empty rhetoric. But once the Dravidian party came to enjoy the loaves and fishes of office, it lost its head, momentum and initiative on the issue. Its actions became phoney and increasingly ridiculous. It lacked sincerity and any intellectual pretence. How long will slogans fool the people?
From a report in the London The Guardian dated 6 January 1958 !The Madras demonstrations which ended in riots were held in protest against Mr Nehru's "unwarranted, uncharitable, and insulting remarks about eminent sons of South India for expressing their views on problems of the day." Curiously enough, these eminent sons of the South are two full-blooded Brahmins - Mr Rajagopalachari and Sir C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar. Until yesterday the Kazhagam was opposing them furiously, but on the issue of English versus Hindi Kazhagam and Brahmins are all Southerners together.
An impression has been created that Hindi is the national language [which it is not] and that it is the majority language [which it is not- it may be the largest group, but that does not make it a majority]. There has been no effort on the part of the leaders [so called] to contact other non-Hindi leaders and build a common base.
Common misgivings
Many people feel:
- south Indians have to go to North for work and Hindi would be necessary.
But how does Hindi help when one has to go to Odissa, Bengal or Arunachal Pradesh? Those who go on work somewhere learn what is necessary without compulsion. Hindi is not absolutely essential.
If we happen to go to Gujarat or Maharashtra for long residence, we can learn Gujarati or Marathi. But now, we manage with Hindi.Thus Hindi is already eroding the domain of Gujarati and Marathi. This is easily seen in how Hindi films, produced in Mumbai, have not allowed Marathi or Gujarathi films to flourish.[In fact, the language of so called Hindi films is Hindusthani, not Hindi.]
But how does Hindi help when one has to go to Odissa, Bengal or Arunachal Pradesh? Those who go on work somewhere learn what is necessary without compulsion. Hindi is not absolutely essential.
If we happen to go to Gujarat or Maharashtra for long residence, we can learn Gujarati or Marathi. But now, we manage with Hindi.Thus Hindi is already eroding the domain of Gujarati and Marathi. This is easily seen in how Hindi films, produced in Mumbai, have not allowed Marathi or Gujarathi films to flourish.[In fact, the language of so called Hindi films is Hindusthani, not Hindi.]
-it is in the Constitution; the central govt is powerful.
What can we do?
Central govt may be big but it may be fanatical and foolish. Our strength may not be in numbers today, but a valid idea will gain its day. Constitution was written by men; it can be rewritten.
What can we do?
Central govt may be big but it may be fanatical and foolish. Our strength may not be in numbers today, but a valid idea will gain its day. Constitution was written by men; it can be rewritten.
- a country must have a national language.
Well, this is one of the most idiotic views, the product of looney heads and crooked minds. Where is the rule that a country must have one language ? Who made it? God or Satan? A small country with a compact population like England or Japan- may have one language but most countries have more than one.
However, even the United Kingdom has other languages besides English. Welsh which is an official language in Wales and Scots are distinct languages, as is Irish.There are many others.
A street sign in Ballywalter in Northern Ireland. The language is Ulster Scots besides English.
By Albert Bridge CC BY-SA 2.0 creativecommons via Wikimedia commons.
Switzerland
Well, this is one of the most idiotic views, the product of looney heads and crooked minds. Where is the rule that a country must have one language ? Who made it? God or Satan? A small country with a compact population like England or Japan- may have one language but most countries have more than one.
However, even the United Kingdom has other languages besides English. Welsh which is an official language in Wales and Scots are distinct languages, as is Irish.There are many others.
A street sign in Ballywalter in Northern Ireland. The language is Ulster Scots besides English.
By Albert Bridge CC BY-SA 2.0 creativecommons via Wikimedia commons.
Switzerland
Switzerland has 4 languages- German, 64%, French 23%, Italian 8% and Romansh 1% All four are national languages, while the first three are official languages. Each of these languages is spoken in distinct regions which are surrounded by countries which speak those languages!
But Switzerland has a population of just under 84 lakhs [8.4 million]- less than that of any metropolitan city of India! This cannot be a valid basis of comparison.
But Switzerland has a population of just under 84 lakhs [8.4 million]- less than that of any metropolitan city of India! This cannot be a valid basis of comparison.
The linguistic map of Switzerland,2016.
By Tschubby, translation by Lesqual CC BY-SA 3.0 creativecommons via Wikimedia commons.
The USSR
The USSR on the contrary had more than 20 languages. Though it started with saying that everyone should learn his mother tongue and Russian, gradually it resorted to forcing Russian on everyone- called RUSSIFICATION. In 1975, president Brezhnev said:
"under developed socialism, when the economies in our country have melted together in a coherent economic complex; when there is a new historical concept—the Soviet people—it is an objective growth in the Russian language's role as the language of international communications when one builds Communism, in the education of the new man! Together with one's own mother tongue one will speak fluent Russian, which the Soviet people have voluntarily accepted as a common historical heritage and contributes to a further stabilization of the political, economic and spiritual unity of the Soviet people."
There were 21 language groups other than Russian and they were fully 50% of the population. But the processes of Russification gradually engulfed them. Within 15 years after Brezhnev made the statement, the USSR disintegrated and all the 21 languages regained their full independent status in different countries!
Canada
In Canada, there is the tussle between English 50% and French 30% but there are 20% others speaking other languages-either immigrant or aboriginal languages. The Official Language Act of 1969 does not please every one.
Children are lovely, whatever language they speak! Every language spoken by children is lovely,too!
Canada's Official Languages Commissioner (the federal government official charged with monitoring the two languages) has stated, "[I]n the same way that race is at the core of what it means to be American and at the core of an American experience and class is at the core of British experience, I think that language is at the core of Canadian experience."[9]from Wikipedia.
The European Union
In the European Union too,which is a voluntary association of mature, cultured nations, there is a problem of language!
from:slideplayer.com.
To say a country must have one language is a sign of utter idiocy. It is against the historical experience of civilized humanity.
INDIA IS NOT JUST A COUNTRY BUT A SUBCONTINENT WITH HUNDREDS OF LANGUAGES.
TO SAY THAT HINDI ALONE WILL RULE HERE IS THE HEIGHT OF FOOLISHNESS. AND POLITICAL ARROGANCE. Even dictatorships have not been able to sustain and enforce that stand for long.
All non-Hindi speaking people must unite against this conspiracy of the Hindiwallas to impose their language on all India.
Hindigenisation must be resisted and fought back. We will be placing our children under great disability if we fail in this. It will be embracing slavery and subordination.
But care must be taken to ensure that we do not hate any language or language group as such. All deserve our love and respect. It is just linguistic imperialism that we oppose.
Straight thinking on language
No one can or should give up his/her mother tongue- whatever it may be.
Everyone's mother tongue spoken in India is a National language. A Constitution- a man-made political document- cannot challenge or change or arbitrarily restrict that.
No native Indian language is today capable of dealing with the explosion of knowledge in all the subjects.
English has been with us for over 200 years. It is the language we have for serious learning in modern subjects.
MOTHER TONGUE+ENGLISH WILL SUFFICE FOR INDIANS FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES. [ Beyond that anyone can learn any/ any number of languages one likes.]
MOTHER TONGUE+ENGLISH MAKE ALL INDIANS ABSOLUTELY EQUAL.
No comments:
Post a Comment