I realized five years ago, when the Congress Party came back into power after everyone had seemingly given them up for dead, that Indian politics is way too complicated to try and predict, especially from the outside.
Still, I wonder if readers have been coming across insightful articles or websites that explain what is happening in individual states or regions of the country, or analyze trends in a useful way. If so, could you put your recommendations in the comments below?
Here are two things I’ve read in the past day that I thought were interesting: the New York Times, on Narendra Modi, and Soutik Biswas, at the BBC, on why the 26/11 terrorist attack in Mumbai is not likely to be a national election issue.
This time around, it seems impossible to read too much into what is happening on any given day. Nor does it seems necessary to pay all that much attention to the to and fro between the Congress Leaders, the BJP leaders, and third front leaders. It doesn’t seem particularly consequential in terms of how people vote. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing remotely similar to the glut of daily tracking polls we had in the U.S. with the elections last year, nor are there websites like 538.com, which synthesized all the polling data coming in. (Are there such polls and websites? Have I simply been missing them?)
It does seem clear that the steady, incremental shift from national to regional politics is continuing in the current election. On the one hand, that is bad, because it means that whatever government comes to power at the center will be inherently weak and coalition-based. On the other hand, that weakness at the center can also be a good thing in terms of maintaining overall stability — not always easy in a country with 1 billion people. Even if a far-right or far-left party comes into power next month, they will not be able to do anything too drastic for fear of losing coalition support.
Second, it seems like “Hindutva” has seemingly lost some of its force as a national issue. The BJP and its allies might still prevail, but they’re playing the “nationalism” card more than the communal card.
Third, caste politics seems to be more prevalent than ever. I find that to be one of the most depressing and deadening things about Indian politics.
Fourth, Varun Gandhi is Ram, Shashi Tharoor is on bail, and Sanjay Dutt’s daughter in New York is pissed at him.
Conrad, a few issues with your post.
The effects of demographic and ethnic changes brought about by large scale (illegal) migration from Bangladesh are there for all to see. ULFA is but one manifestation of it. I have lived in Assam for a few years.
1.link 2. link
There are many many places in the world that I have never been to. That is why I read newspapers and magazines, and derive my own conclusions from the multiple independent reports emanating from the ground. That is the function of journalism, I think. For example I believe that the Pak army may or may not be surrendering, but it certainly is not fighting the way a modern, professional force should fight an insurgency. The reason may be that it does not consider the Taliban a threat/ fears rebellion or desertion in it’s ranks/ loss of popular support, or all of the above. link.
Possibly. Neither can Shri Man Mohan Singh, who has been the head of our government for over 4 years.
I think the political fragmentation of India after the decline of the Mughal empire was the reason the East India company was able to colonise India. It is a story of an entity which started as a commercial enterprise, insidiously built it’s power by exploiting local divisions, waited for the right moment, and with the decline of a central power, went for the kill. The doctor in me cannot help but compare it to opportunistic infections in HIV patients.
There is one. I am not going to name it.
Regards, L.S.
Lupus –
1) Illegal infiltration is a problem; however most of these migrants are economic refugees, not terrorists or Islamist ideologues. Refugees are a separate category and mass refugee flows, such as those that will ensue from any environmental disaster will be of a distinct nature from what you are suggesting. Such refugees will be a traumatised and crushed peoples; their integration or rehabilitation will create strains and tensions but not of the sort you imply
2) Of the links you cite only one actually talks about desertions and that too from the Frontier Corps, which is a paramilitary force not the Pakistani army. Like the Assam Rifles or the Special Frontier Forces in India, it is simply staffed by Army officers but is not part of the professional military. Paramilitary forces cannot be expected to maintain the same levels of professionalism that the regular army does; they don’t in our system I see no reason why they should in others like Pakistan. Their level of discipline and unit cohesion will be considerably less.
3) I would agree with you about the Pak army’s behaviour but that is not the point here; I believe a Taliban takeover is not imminent. The bit about reporting is simply that some conflict zones are very difficult to determine exactly what is going unless one has direct access to first-hand information and ideological biases tend to colour reporting. For example, of course we can’t be everywhere but reading the US papers about certain topics like many Middle East conflicts offers a distorted picture. Analysts sitting in New Delhi, will not have the best idea of what exactly is going on in places like the NWFP. I simply believe that without firm evidence one should be cautious of making tall claims.
4) I don’t see the relevance of mentioning Manmohan Singh, like Shourie he is a political lightweight and could only win an election with party backing – he can’t even face a LS election but has to fraudently hide behind a technicality and win indirect elections from an Assam Rajya Sabha seat. He was chosen because of his lack of electoral appeal and base, leaders like Pawar who have a power base and electoral machinery will never be appointed PM because they could threaten the Family.
5) I think that is a dated view of how India became colonised; actually economically the decline of the Mughal empire was accompanied by growth and innovation; since the huge agrarian surplus being siphoned off by the Mughals was in the main being squandered towards the end. There are a number of reasons why the British managed to colonise India; I don’t think lack of unity was necessarily one of them. A unified China was still humiliated by the colonials as was Japan. Other factors were at work.
6) Mate, I am very bad at mind-reading during the best of times, over the internet I have no chance. If there is some identity you are talking about, you had either best come out and say it or else remove it from the discussion, because it serves no purpose otherwise.
Conrad, 1.
I didn’t say anything about terrorism or islamic extremism. I was talking about ethnic and demographic pressures.
2.
The second link was actually about the Pakistan Army’s inability or unwilingness to fight. In any case, these reports are not difficult to find. For eg. link
I don’t think the ongoing taliban advances are tall claims. They were not there a year ago. They are there now. Who knows where they would be in another year’s time? What do you think of the recent violent events in Karachi?
4.
Could you elaborate, please?
China was unified only in a technical sense. And even then by the time the British arrived in China the technology gap was lightyears ahead of what they had when they made their first forays into India. That in addition to the major strategic advantage and source of raw materials you would get from being in control of India makes it comparatively easy to subjugate anyone else afterwards.
Lupus, I know you responded to some of these comments, but just thought I’d take the liberty:
Conrad, I am afraid you are either willfully misrepresenting the facts or are sadly underinformed on these topics: 1. Bangladeshâ€â€See there you go again Conrad, inventing “theories� based upon your “personal observations� when the facts have proven otherwise time and again. I have provided you ample evidence from respected publications. That you willfully ignore them only sheds light on your willingness to objectively analyze what is going on there. Anyone familiar with the recent BDR mutiny knows that the islamists are exceedingly active and are disinclined to simply give up as you proclaimed above. Please Conrad, you may be welcome to be so naïve, but Indian security planners are not. “Economic refugees� are the ones who are already claiming large parts of Assam and W.Bengal in the name of Islam. But as always you’re not going to admit to anything since your “beliefs� and “personal observations� trump all facts…
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume14/Article1.htm http://www.stratfor.com/india_islamization_northeast
Pakistan- Newsflash Conrad, the Frontier Corps is the frontline force against Taliban forces. What do you think will happen if their strength is added to the taliban’s…. And yes, thank you for citing the obvious. I have commented on Zia ad nauseam on these pages, but you are clearly unwilling or unable to grasp the situation here. You’ll notice, I do not follow your example of citing one’s self as an authority. I would invite you to do the same. Regarding rising Islamism and the Pakistani army, here’s one respected in all circles of the International Security community: http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3573376/india-is-in-peril-obama-is-making-it-worse.thtml
China: Yes, the Chinese threat didn’t play much part in war planning…hmm, I guess someone should have told Field Marshall Maneckshaw about that…
Re: Break up of West Pakistan: Yes, “die-hard Pakistani nationalists idiot Indian nationalists� and oh wait, The United States of America…I wonder what choice adjective you have reserved for it….
And no, no one in her cabinet was interested in breaking up Pakistan…oh wait, nevermind
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers21%5Cpaper2061.html
I would say at least have the courtesy to counter with your “secular� historians, but I’m sure you’ll just stick to your time tested strategy of citing yourself as an authority.
APPLAUSE thanks again for yet another neat bit of sophistry. Regarding the unmarried men, the point was about how in an authoritarian system that derives its legitimacy through economic benefit and not through the democratic process, 30 million unmarried, unemployed men are much more likely to take to revolution since the only reason for the state’s authority has dried up. A democratic system derives its legitimacy through its institutions; as such, unemployed and unmarried men are less likely to seek to overthrow the state due to a drying up of economic benefits. Now I know this is poli sci 101 for most people, but then again most of us didn’t have the opportunity to study your eloquent “theories” in college.
4) Gill– http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_101604a.html Enough said. Even Khushwant Singh dubs him a hero, but I suppose he might bow before your superior expertise on the Sikh and Indian Experiences here.
5) Shourie-Then why does his personal electability matter? Brahma Chellaney isn’t an elected representative either, but doesn’t mean that “people of national vision and thinking� cannot be involved in relevant capacities of state administration. But of course, that would involve the application of logic in good faith here, so I suppose we can’t trust you to make that inference. And your little ditty on his views about Ambedkar are, for lack of the a better word, in line with exactly what you accused him of being. Arun Shourie touts views that he believes are in the national interests irrespective of the political consequences. That’s what patriots do. But of course, your ilk is only concerned about not “alienating” minority votebanks, so of course, we must listen to your enlightened opinions on the topic. Instead of you suggesting he get off his soapbox, I politely suggest, given you’re inclination to rely on personal anecdotate and sophistry, that you do the same.
6) There you go again. Internal weakness/division was ONE of the key factors for british colonialism in India. Anyone with anything approaching strategic thinking will notice the crumbling Mughal empire, the divisions within the rising Maratha empire, and various internecine wars that were not suspended to face down the firangis. The british mastered these subcontinental politics of division to divide and conquer. Did you know that the East India Company first Waged “Child’s War” against Aurangzeb’s empire and were utterly defeated? No probably not since you were busy reading Arjun Singh’s NCERT history textbook. So please, no lectures on history when it appears you are clearly in need of one here.
Regarding hindi, there are many reasons for it to serve as the national language. That you would trot out the usual brainless liberal snobbery in dubbing everything you don’t understand as “stupid� doesn’t surprise. What does surprise me is your utter unwillingness to justify your statements with authority other than yourself. If hindi isn’t the national language should we just stick with English or have no national language at all? That’s the point that hindi advocates, which Gandhiji himself was among the ranks, have been making. You need a national language otherwise you have an administrative nightmare, which, newsflash, india has had in the realm of counterterror since multiple police agencies with mutually concerning intelligence have to translate and retranslate said intelligence. So that national language might as well be the one which at least something approaching the majority of Indians (including those rural ones of whom you posit your being the savior) understand. Those of us who don’t speak languages closely related to hindi will have to compromise for the greater good. But of course, that would just be oppressive for all you “enlightened secularists� who would have to speak a vernacular…
That there are regional Indian ethnicities doesn’t mean that an Indian identity does not exist. This is one of the favorite canards you and your buddies trot out. It’s like arguing there must not be a single American identity or Chinese Identity or European Identityâ€â€yeah Sherlock, because they are all civilizations consisting of units (states, provinces, and countries) that have more in common with each other than with external units.
And lastly, regarding the imaginary IR experts of questionable expertise you claim to discuss great issues of state with, what can I say but birds of a feather…
Of course providing development and opportunity all Indians would never really be in the interest of you and your “secularist� bunch, because that would mean an educated electorate that would see through the canards you and your party of choice routinely peddle. Lastly, you’re absolutely right! Claims to sacrifice in national interest sure as “hell� have never worked in unifying countries against common threats. Clearly the American Civil War, the US’s fight against communism, and even the GWOT never caused voters to vote against personal economic interest in the name of national interest…
AV, again the point about political trading on matters of national interest is precisely the issue here. There should be nonpartisan commissions or at least conference, as there are/is in the United States, to evaluate these key questions. Compare that to the Congress Party which shut out the opposition from deal negotiations and did not engage in bi/multi partisanship on foreign policy as is customary.
That we have regional parties such as the NCP, SP, and BSP without a national vision, seeking only regional or personal gain is precisely the problem. If these people have put up their support for national security policies only to the highest bidder when “Supporting” governments, don’t you think they’ll do the same when they Are the government? That’s the problem with regional parties. Everyone from Sharad Pawar and Mulayam Singh Yadav on fashions himself as a PM candidate. What happens when they get that power?
Also, I must point out (politely cause you’ve accorded the same civility to me) that your analogy doesn’t hold. The BJP specifically calls for a fair legal system (UCC) and a vision for India to become a world power.
Those of us who don’t speak languages closely related to hindi will have to compromise for the greater good.
he.he..
I don’t need that greater good. Every tyrant speaks of sacrifices from others for a greater good. 🙂
Really? Have you ever paid taxes? Refrained from littering? Obeyed speed limits?
OH MY GOD SOOOO TYRANNICAL THESE LAWS ARE!
I think Selvan was speaking of language laws that seek to spread Hindi as some sort of Pan-Indian language by subordinating others. Obviously that won’t ever happen. Tamil’s get quite upset at the prospect of it.
Sorry for interrupting, Yoga. You may continue flying off the handle now.
So the national interest is conflated with whoever you say is a patriot, or whatever you say, and anyone who disagrees with his or your views are seditious traitors, etc etc etc
It’s a tired old rhetorical trick, equal parts fallacious sophistry, equal parts slanderous bigotry.
Ponniyin Selvan you are a vile anti-national un-patriot and therefore a subversive destroyer of India by disagreeing with the ‘greater good’ as enunciated by Satyajit Wry and co. Shame, shame, shame on you, vile subversive.
Can you really not tell the difference between what Ponniyin Selvan was talking about, and taxes and speed limits?
Why so hysterical?
I think over time BJP=GOP ; Congress=Democrats and to ensure that both these parties not mess up the local/regional/personal immediate interests in the name of foreign policy, international affairs etc..(some of the so called big issues), the communists and regional parties will be the watchdogs. In spite of the mess I think this is good for a not so homogeneous country like America where the there are more important daily bread-butter issues than gay marriage, abortion, creationism in classroom etc.
Oops I meant…. this is god for a not so homogeneous country unlike America
I understand what you mean about not having an imposed common language, Pooniyin. It is a complex issue, and I think the current arrangement works well enough. I actually feel quite happy when I meet people who have picked up regional languages during their stay outside their home states. We have enough unifying factors, and we should be pragmatic enough to consolidate them instead of focusing on the ones that can potentially divide. If I have to live/work in Chennai, I will certainly pick up some Tamil, as would someone from there pick up Hindi if they live in Delhi. As a Hindi speaker,I want to see more world class literature coming from my language, and from other Indian languages as well. That is something I wish for. English serves as a convenient and very useful link language. It can be used to write an independent,common narrative.
We have enough unifying factors, and we should be pragmatic enough to consolidate them instead of focusing on the ones that can potentially divide. If I have to live/work in Chennai, I will certainly pick up some Tamil, as would someone from there pick up Hindi if they live in Delhi.
Sure, I’m in total agreement.
Really? Have you ever paid taxes? Refrained from littering? Obeyed speed limits? OH MY GOD SOOOO TYRANNICAL THESE LAWS ARE!
What’s your point?.
Can you not see the fallacious reasoning Ponniyin engaged in? It’s essentially Godwin’s law except the word “Hitler” is replaced with “tyrant.” Tyrants like X therefore X is bad.
What exactly is wrong with having a de jure language of state? People are kidding themselves if they think they’re going to be able to maintain a single national identity without having some way to actually talk to each other. Such a language is going to arise out of necessity no matter what and if it’s not Hindi it’s going to be English.
But apparently doing things for the greater good is just distasteful.
And there lies the crux of the matter. Many of the non-Hindi speaking states have no problem with it being English. But they do have a problem with it being Hindi. And yes, it is the national language along with English. The bigger problem these non-Hindi speakers has more to do with the push by some make Hindi even more important, while trying to lessen the prominence of English.
<
blockquote>And yes, it is the national language along with English
I meant official language.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005748.html#comment238362
Ambi, have you read anything by Arun Shourie? Do you know what he has spoken out against? Do you know that he helped bring down Indira Gandhi’s Dictatorial Emergency? That is real tyranny. And fighting against that is true patriotism. But of course, any mention of patriotism reflexively draws out accusations of fascism. Please, since you obviously did not understand my comments the first time, go back and read their context. I said Arun Shourie was a patriot and that Conrad shouldn’t call him an idiot who needs to shut up and go back to his “IIT lecture circuit” because of his “views” (which Conrad conveniently didn’t enumerate) on Ambedkar. So it was Conrad who was seeking to muzzle speech…
But of course, logic has no meaning to you and far better to be a bumptious commentator who is more concerned with slinging invective than actually debating points…so please, do carry on with your “sophistry”
The quote function messed up my post.
I meant official language.
Ponniyin and Lupus,
I’m afraid I respectfully disagree. I have many tamilian friends and I understand their concerns and perceived slights. I absolutely do agree with the point that emigres to Tamil Nadu must learn Tamil, AP….Telugu, Karnataka…kannada etc etc. I do think that the language should also not be “imposed” on the state, but technically, hasn’t english been “imposed” as well? The fact remains that the country does need an administrative language to unify its government–that is a bureaucratic necessity. As I have discussed there are ways to do that without diluting regional identities. Language requirements within all schools (public and private) should mandate the study of the local regional language. And guys, sorry but the current system does have its failing as I mentioned above regarding the intelligence sharing example.
That English should be that national language because it is “neutral” is somewhat silly. I would much rather have the language of state be some indian language with roots in the country rather than a foreign one. The fact that we would rather see a foreign one “imposed” on us rather than one of our own rise up is only emblematic of the attitude that many indians have unfortunately shared over history…And before all our calumnous sophists slither out of the woodwork…please note that this was not a diatribe against english, which obviously should be studied as well given that it is the language of global commerce–but you don’t see the chinese adopting it as a unifying language (they actually imposed mandarin on the rest of the populace). I think we can have hindi approved by all regional assemblies to engender nationwide consent rather than imposition.
I propose that Tamil become the national link language. Like Hindi, it is spoken by a minority of the population and is strongly associated with one region of the country. I think we can have Tamil approved by all regional assemblies to engender nationwide consent rather than imposition. I have many hindi-speaking friends, I know what I’m talking about.
I think you are unnecessarily reducing the concept of India to mimic the tiny nation-state concept of Europe where a nation is defined by a national language. India is doing fine without any “national” language for the last 60 years. It can do fine for the next few centuries without any artificial homogeneity.
Ofcourse English is imposed by the English colonialists and Chinese is probably imposed by their own tyrants. Do you want the same model to be applied in India by its democratically elected government?.
Instead of thinking in terms of “national language, it is better to think about “link” language where English serves as the link between different states and different countries.
Native speakers of Hindi: 500 – 680 million. Secondary language: 120-225 million Native speakers of Tamil: 68 million. 77 million total
Look at me, I’m a glib commentator who is too lazy to actually compare numbers and consider Mahatma Gandhi’s advocacy for Hindi as the national language…so I know what I’m talking about. Oh and let me also ignore the use of hindi as the existing lingua franca of the indian army: “Both Hindi and English are paid attention; hindi as it is the language of the troops, whereas English as it is the medium for international ideas/government communication.” Amused, what can I say, I am bemused by your little performance here…
Ponniyin, again, I’m afraid I respectfully disagree. This is not the reduction of india to the concept of a tiny nation state. “Universal” states can also have common languages because government needs to function. English serves that purpose in the United States, Mandarin in China, and so on.
Also, why rely on a non-indian link language? In that case, why english? Why not Persian which served that purpose during the Mughal/Delhi Sultanate period? Hindi cinema has become the global face of India. It is the cinema that is most identified with Indians abroad. As I pointed out to our nuance-challenged commentator who preceded you, hindi is already the lingua franca in the Indian army. Anyhow, I know this is an emotive issue, so please understand that I discuss this with you with the utmost respect.Thanks.
Because English is the language of power and commerce at present and it makes sense. I think we have crossed the Mughal / Turkish caliphate period and live in the age of internet..
So?. I’d oppose any attempt to reduce multi-lingual India to a single language state.
Army troops from various linguistic groups need a easy common language and Hindi is used now, same as (I think) how Urdu was born as the language of the camp facilitating communications between lower rungs of the Turkish/Persian/Arabic/Afghan/native Indian soldiers during the Muslim period whereas Persian is retained as the official language . That’s the same with Hindi for foot soldiers and English used in the top levels of the Indian army.
A lot of things are non-Indian, railways, telephones, airplanes etc..etc.. We should get over that mentality of English being a non Indian language and figure out what makes sense now and in the future.
I have nothing against any language and think Hindi serves the purpose well as the link language of different groups of people in North India who speak different languages. But the same model cannot be extended everywhere. And that issue has been settled way back in 1965 and it was a sensible move by the leaders of that time.
After Independence when the tempers were running high against English there was actually a move to replace English with Hindi as the sole official language in 1965 and thanks to Tamils that move was shelved. In the hindsight it looks like the best move compared to the scenario we see that played out in Bangladesh and now in Sri lanka.
Ponniyin is absolutely right. Hindi has no place being forced down the throats of people who don’t want to learn it. And no one in Tamil Nadu or other southern states (or even northern states like Gujarat or Punjab for that matter) should be forced to learn it. There is no reason why Hindi should become the beaureacratic language so that native Hindi speakers end up with a huge advantage over non-Hindi speakers. English serves JUST FINE as a link language. It’s absolutely insulting to tell Southern Indians or even non-Hindi speaking Northern Indians that Hindi, which is no more legitimate an Indian language than Punjabi, Gujarati, Tamil etc. should be given some kind of pride of place just because it’s spoken by a plurality (not a majority) of Indians. Ideally, kids growing up in non-Hindi states should learn their own tongue and English; that’s it. Studying Hindi is a waste of time for Gujarati kids just as much as for Tamil kids. The Gujaratis will learn spoken Hindi anyway because the two languages are related and they love to watch Bollywood and Hindi television; the Tamils will not and that should be just fine.
Ponniyin, with all due respect and politeness, actually Chinese is the fastest growing language of commerce and power (and who knows where it will stand after the crisis), so if we extrapolate based upon what you’ve written above, should we then adopt it as a more useful link language within the next two decades? After all, at that point, that would “make sense now and in the future” in terms of global commerce. And I’m sure we’d find passionate advocates in the CPI’s footsoldiers. Or should these decisions be frozen in time as was your argument against Persian? And btw, persian was used by traders and officials as well during the mughal period, not just foot soldiers. It was the court language of the Mughals and the Delhi Sultans and their language of administration (which at many points extended into the deep south of India)
And finally, no one is advocating the reduction of India to a single language state. I am passionately against that myself. But the use of hindi has no more subsumed distinct regional groups no more than hindi cinema has or the use of hindi in the army has. India’s unity is in its diversity. Using hindi as a language of administration does not mean that Indians cannot take pride in the accomplishments of C.V. Raman and Abdul Kalam, the Naval Power of the Imperial Cholas, or the sophistication and beauty of the Bharatanatyam classical dance form. One should also note, that there were many tamilians who also advocated the use of Hindi–Chakravarthi Rajagopalacari being one of them.
Again, the decision in 1965 ultimately has not served us well due to the administrative problems re: terrorism that were pointed out above. But it of course is also a moot point since it’s not really a front burner issue now.
Finally, Ponniyin, whether we like it or not, english is a foreign language to India. It does not have its origins there and was a language imposed by colonial oppressors who looted 10 trillion dollars in wealth from the country, ruthlessly divided and starved our people, and destroyed India’s economy. Why honor them and that legacy? Our continued reliance on that language only lends credence to the idiotic ideas they have peddled about India being their creation and how the English are needed to unify us. Let’s prove them wrong.
Anyhow, my initial arguments were specifically focused against Conrad who brought up the topic and were meant to point out the gaping holes in his logic. Since I know this is a poignant topic for you, perhaps we should just agree to disagree since there are more pressing affairs of state.
Satyajit, I am a Hindi speaker and I am quite proud of my proficiency in the language and it’s dialects. But I would never want to force it on people who do not want to adopt it out of their own free will. A better way, as you had hinted at, would be to create a soft power through movies, literature, pop culture and NGOs that would make Hindi compelling enough for people to want to learn it. I see that happening graduallly. Having had ties with the Indian army, I totally agree that it is a melting pot, and an integrating experience, but we cannot practically have that kind of regimentation for the entire country.When such strong emotions are involved, patience and accommodation are required. English, I don’t see as a foreign language anymore. Sometimes the language as I speak it in India has little resemblance to the one that I speak in England. And I see that as a good thing. Shubh Ratri. Lupus
Amitabh, my family is not a native hindi speaking one, indeed, it is a SOUTH indian one, and frankly, I think your comments are a little over the top to suggest that the mere thought of hindi to non-native speakers is insulting. One could correspondingly argue that english is an unfair advantage to those urban indians who were exposed to it in their ultra-posh private schools or south indians in the madras presidency whose ancestors in the ICS had greater exposure to it and passed that on. Why discriminate against the rural hindi speaker then? Please argue facts and not personal anecdotes. Not every tamilian, south indian, or non-hindi north indian agrees with you.
Lupus, thanks for the comments, but I think the remarks about english as a foreign language stand, after all, persian eventually had its local variations too. Accordingly, I have not advocated the “imposition” of hindi as discussed above, but only pointed out the importance of pursuing an eventual national consensus on its use for administration. I know you have a more close to home cultural connection to hindi, but my arguments in favor of it are functional. India needs a language of administration so that government can function. And although Ponniyin thankfully isn’t among those ranks, there have been many arguments against hindi that have bordered on hate and bigotry, which also should not stand. There is nothing wrong with a hindi national gov formula and regional language state gov formula. We already have that to some degree.
Dude, it’s never gonna happen…the boat sailed on Hindi a long time ago. You can go on and on about this as much as you want, but English is here to stay, and Hindi will be lucky to continue on in its own geographic regions without morphing into Hinglish. And believe me, I’m not a proponent of English in India, as my commenting record on SM shows, but even I’ve realised it’s a reality in the Indian context, which will continue growing. The people are foolishly giving up their own mothertongues (which by the way is a very different issue than having Hindi as a national language) and will only realise it when its too late.
As if India doesn’t have enough problems, it needs to poke the hornets nest that is language. Hindi is no less foreign in the South than English. “India” is 60 years old, stop acting like it’s some prehistoric concept.
I think you are taking the logic and applying it backwards. Seriously, are we debating now using Persian or Chinese?.
All I’m trying to say is that we should use pragmatism and common sense. Sure, English is the coloniser’s language and they forcefully replaced Persian (another imperial language BTW) to enforce their own on Indians. Now you are advocating the same though with Hindi replacing English. For all your claims of Hindi being the local language, it is not for a vast majority of people who would rightly see that as Hindi imperialism.
You are as emotional as the people who debated in the language issue in the Parliament in the 1950s. I read there was some proposal to even replace the numerals with Devanagari (Hindi) numerals. 🙂 Thank goodness it dd not succeed. Even British built railways to move their troops and transport goods. But aren’t we making full use of it now?.
Anyways, even the politicians who touted Hindi have gone silent except Mulayam who I think you have no love for and this issue has been solved for good in 1965.
exactly what i pointed out in my comment above. thanks for pointing out wry’s fallacious comments. but i repeat myself.
Less amused, that is either plain ignorance of a staggering order, or (depending on your nationality) just plain maliciousness.The current borders of India are 62 years old. And even they have shifted in that period. That’s all.
Satyajit, I feel Cricket is similar to the English language. It was invented and imported by the Brits as colonial legacy. While still played by the Brits,it is probably more Indian than British now. It is useful as a unifying force, and we do it better than the Brits themselves.
I feel that the need is to promote our languages, to ensure that they produce writers, dramatists, poets of the highest order. To ensure that a Hindi author can achieve the fame, the readership, and very importantly, the riches of a Rushdie, and the best minds in the country freely express their thoughts and creativity in Indian languages.
Using English as a link language is a compromise that has worked well for us, and it would be very impractical to rock the boat at this stage.
I think what Less Amused is saying is right, taken in the proper context. Of course, there have been cultures and civilizations on the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years, but the modern nation-state of India (which I assume is what Less Amused is referring to) dates from August 15, 1947. Similarly, the modern nation-state of Pakistan dates from 1947, though of course there were civilizations and cultures inhabiting that landmass before then. As far as nations go, India and Pakistan are still very young and thus have many of the problems of identity and coherence that young nations have.
I may be mistaken, but I thought Gandhi advocated Hindustani (Hindu-Muslim neutral) rather than Hindi (Hindu), though naively assumed Hindustani could be written in devanagari without upsetting anyone.
I don’t think English will replace Hindi in India. The two seem to happily coexist. The preeminence of Hindi seems to owe more to Bollywood than to any government policies.
Lupus – There is actually a tongue-in-cheek study of cricket (I can’t remember the author’s name), called the “The Tao of Cricket” which argues that cricket is actually an Indian sport “accidentally discovered” by the British.
Kabir, The ‘sovereign, democratic republic’ of India was declared in 1950. The ‘sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic’ of India was declared in 1976. That doesn’t make India 59 or 33 years old. You can carve a rock into the shape of an idol, and then call the idol x years old. That does not affect the age of the rock.
I think what Less Amused is saying is right, taken in the proper context. Of course, there have been cultures and civilizations on the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years, but the modern nation-state of India (which I assume is what Less Amused is referring to) dates from August 15, 1947. Similarly, the modern nation-state of Pakistan dates from 1947,
No, that is completely wrong, even if you go to by purely semantics of the word “India”, India became a distinct entity when East India Company (by 1856) took major parts of India under its own control, and eventually part of the British Crown, it became a political territory known as India – or British ruled India.
Therefore, on August 14-15, 1947, India was partitioned into Pakistan and India – even Jinnah, Muslim League, Congress, Nehru, Sardar Patel, Gandhi, Mountbatten, and the British Government went through this in great detail, and whether India then in 1947, should inherit the name India.
Either way, there’s no ancient (or not so ancient) link between all the languages/peoples/ethnicities of India that even remotely rationalizes the idea of ‘hindi’ being natural to the region at large or justifies its imposition on same.
Hindi, including it’s dialects, is spoken as a native language by about 41% of the population of India. In India, a political party winning 41% of popular votes can easily achieve the absolute majority. So let’s not talk of ‘no remote rationalisation’. It was an idea that had merit, and was discussed by our founding leaders, and judging the sensitivity of the issue, (and the anti Hindi sentiment in the south) the govt of the day decided to retain both English and Hindi as official languages of the GOI. ‘Imposition’ is a harsh word. It requires harsh actions, and can cause deep divisions, like the Urdu/Bangla rift. That Hindi was not forcibly imposed was a pragmatic step and a credit to our democracy.
So the problems with Hindi as a language of state so far seem to be: 1.) Not everyone speaks it and it unfairly advantages speakers 2.) It has no “deep cultural roots” in the South
So. . . what about Sanskrit?
dons flame retardant suit
Ponniyin
I’m debating both. You’re arguing that Persian shouldn’t be because it was the imperial language that preceded english, but that Chinese shouldn’t be because it’s theoretically a future one. So then why just english since according to what you’re saying we should adapt to practical realities, when practical realities dictate hindi. My point to you is since you advocated a colonial language as a “neutral” option that is also globally practical, those same arguments hold for persian and chinese.
Infrastructure is static, culture obviously isn’t. Again, the british love noting how their language was needed to unify india–I’m afraid you’re just proving your point here with that. As Amitabh pointed out above, people are relinquishing their mother tongues in favor english, rather than hindi. If your argument against hindi is due to cultural imperialism, who now is conquering whom? Tamil is losing out to english not hindi…
Lastly, I am not making my decision here based on emotion, there is a functional argument for hindi in place of english, and I have made that. However, I know for many Tamilians who I am friends with, it is a sensitive issue, that’s the reason why I wanted to treat both you and it with respect in this discussion…and there’s the segue
Ponniyin, Lupus, and Amitabh,
Guys, I obviously have respect for you, but this topic came up due to a false analogy that conrad posited here. The remarks I made were in response to conrad’s. Does that mean I think we should push for that now? No, as I stated and as you all very well know, there are more pressing affairs of state. Does that mean I agree with many or most of you on whether it was a satisfactory resolution–also no. But you are entitled to your opinions, which I respect, and I am entitled to mine. As Ponniyin pointed out, this doesn’t really feature in the current national discourse, so why don’t we return to talking about the elections–which Amardeep has opened a discussion about for our benefit. Good day.
Beoram: Hindi/Hindustani
Close to quarter of a million Indians call English their first language. How are we going to tell them their language is not Indian? Satyajit Wry, I don’t disagree w/ some of your points, but do you see how easily it can become a stealth BJP issue?
We’re going to ignore the merits of issues and fixate instead of who supports or opposes them when deciding what kind of policy to enact?
Well, I guess biting the nose to spite the face is the Indian way. As succinct an explanation of Indian Elections as you will ever find.
Telling a group of Indians that their language and by extension they, are not Indian is deeply troubling. Extremely narrow definition of Indianness has been BJP’s strategy for many years. They are not the only ones. Mulayamsingh Yadav has his own reasons to hate English. S Wry was coming at it from a different and unmalicious angle. The problem is, if you are an English-as-1st-language Indian, all of the above is equally distasteful.
So in the interest of clear communication let’s replace stealth BJP issue with stealth bigot issue. Happy?
Mr. X,
I was kind of hoping we could shift the debate back to a topic more relevant to the current national discourse and this page; however, since you reached out in good faith, i will be happy to oblige:
Please understand that I have nothing but respect for Anglo-Indians, to whom I believe you are referring. After all, any community that gives us Russell Peters and Diana Hayden is a welcome addition to the multi-ethnic quilt that is India ;).
More seriously, I know that there were and are many patriotic Indians who hail from this community and any proposed replacement of english with hindi is not meant to menace or isolate them in any way, but to further unify India through a common language of indigenous origin, which incidentally, has native speakers touching almost 60% of the population. So why then rely on a language that is truly native only to 200,000 when there are 680,000,000 on the other end of the scale? Why discriminate against the rural bihari or up wallah who is already derided and harassed in maharashtra and other parts of the country as it is? Moreover, the vast majority of Indians in her 600,000+ villages, have no connection to english beyond the colonial. Those who ruled their ancestors imposed that language that they now must speak and continue to speak in govt and business, because some secessionists (who incidentally would have been just as eager to impose their mother tongue on 3 other non-tamil speaking states) found it was a useful issue politically.
English is definitely a language that has become commonly used in India, but its origins are not Indian–whatever the parentage of current indians may be. That is an incontrovertible fact. By the same token, we could have advocacy for turkic languages, persian, greek (going back to two thousand years here of course), portuguese, and french since there are indians whose ancestry is linked with those languages. By that logic should we then adopt those languages as well? So no, I don’t think this is meant to be a stealth bjp issue since advocacy for this policy goes back to the Congress Party. And as I’ve discussed already, it certainly isn’t mean to be stealth bigotry either as I am not a “hindiwallah”.
I hope that I’ve now answered your question and ask that we please shift the debate back to the election. Perhaps the mutineers found this thread interesting which is why SM Intern hasn’t appeared to flag us for going off topic, but I think given that the election deals with more pressing matters, like security, I’d suggest we get back on topic. Adieu.