Vir Sanghvi takes an (un)welcome break from his culinary columns and embarks on a noble mission of educating fellow Indians about the virtues of secularism in the tenor we are familiar with. The occasion is rather fitting: December 6, the 17th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition. His heartwarming approach actually melted my heart. Really. For all your characterization of this blog as full of hate-spewing “right-wing” writing, I must confess that this singular piece by Vir Sanghvi converted me. December 6, Ayodhya for dummies, made me realize what a dummy I have been all these years.
Vir Sanghvi is the Guru I have been looking for. And in the true spirit of the Indian tradition, I must present my Guru Dakshina, my debt of gratitude to Vir Sanghvi.
Presenting, December 8, Vir Sanghvi for Dummies.
1. Was there the concept of temples in India to begin with?
A: Hard to say but we can trace the origins of temples to the Aryans. The Aryans were nomadic tribes who wandered into India, massacred and drove away the native population. Once they were well-settled in India, they began to enslave those of the natives that were left. They invented animist rituals, which eventually became a tool for the priestly class to oppress the weaker sections of the society. Temples were a later growth of this, originally, priestly phenomenon. They needed Gods to embed superstition and fear firmly into the minds of the lower classes. They kept the knowledge of these rituals and mantras to themselves and thereby exerted enormous influence over kings and businessmen who contributed generously to these temples.
2. Whatever, but how does this justify Muslim invaders destroying temples?
A: Like I said, Muslim invaders destroyed temples to loot their riches and also for religious reasons. Justification of their act is not relevant here. Again, like I said, they lived in different times and their primary aim was money. You see, all religions are equal and as I have shown, nobody’s hands are entirely clean in this matter.
3. So are you willing to admit that Islam is intolerant?
A: No. What I’m saying merely is that all religions are inherently intolerant.
4. But I have read somewhere that more than most of the mosques today stand on sites of or were built using the materials of the temples Muslim invaders destroyed?
A: Yes and no. Much of this is disputed. When there are ideological differences among archaeologists, the less said about historians, the better.
5. Let’s assume that the Kaba was destroyed and the Hindus wanted to build a Rama temple on that site. Isn’t this is the same phenomenon?
A: There’s a difference. It is yet to be proven that Rama was actually a historical figure while it is beyond doubt that Mohammed is a historical figure. Besides, the followers of every religion have a right to decide on matters concerning their religion.
6. But that means you’re granting different principles to different religions.
A: No. In case of Mohammed, he has the weight of history behind him while Rama is mostly a mythological figure. Moreover, as I said, there are many birthplaces of Rama.
7. How about all those destroyed temples, which have no such controversies?
A: Point taken. But you forget that we’ve not resolved just one controversy. Who knows what issues will crop up when we examine them! Which is why I said it’s best to bury these frivolous topics.
8. Fine but your reasoning doesn’t make sense. How does historicity matter? We’re talking about applying a uniform principle in dealing with such matters.
A: It’s not that simple. It takes a secular bent of mind to understand the historical, religious, and societal complexities involved in such matters. The fact that you’re asking this question shows that your understanding is tinged with the motivation of avenging historical wrongs.
9. If you say it’s a question of avenging historical wrongs, doesn’t it also imply that the Muslims of today are somehow responsible for the wrongs committed by their forefathers?
A: Oh! I see I have been talking to a communalist!
Related posts:
You are an amazing storyteller. I am laughing my ass off!!
Well, I did not agree to the part where he is doubting Ayodhya as Lord Rama’s birth place. He should go to Kashi/Haridwar/Mathura/Dwarka and ask the Brahmin kids learning Vedas or their parents who have maintained Vedas by orally passing on to thousands of generations and know our history very precisely and uncut…..Re-installing the pride of Hinduism is MUST at every cost. Don’t Christians and Muslims maintain Rome and Mecca-Madina respectively at every cost ? Where is the center of Hindu religion? THERE IS NONE as IT HAS BEEN DESTROYED. It is our moral,ethical,religious and national duty re-instate our Lord Rama’s Temple. After all whether BJP/Advani is right or not, fact of the matter is, we Hindus only have one single nation on this planet earth we can call “ours” and live peacefully on….It is sad we don’t take such issues seriously until they are resolved. We start strong, leave unfinished. Sadly that’s how we Hindus are.
Vir Sanghvi does it again on PVNR
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Praising+PV+in+order+to+damn+Sonia&artid=s/L1SXjanFk=&SectionID=d16Fdk4iJhE=&MainSectionID=HuSUEmcGnyc=&SectionName=aVlZZy44Xq0bJKAA84nwcg==&SEO=
Hey, hey…RC, Palahalli — why digress into a totally unrelated area? And such a
protracted debate, wow! Of course, I do appreciate your willingness to discuss rather than pick up an axe
Rajiv C – Any unfair attribution is unintended. My apologies rightaway.
1. To put it simply, we need to address the points of divergence and not exclusivity in itself. In other words, what is it that makes something divisive? Let’s address that.
Smaller states do not mean multi-lingual states. Divided UP and Bihar will still have Hindi or local dominant dialects ruling.
2. I maintain this – Linguistic states was not a British idea. They did not use it themselves to organize Hindusthan.
Trivia – Fabian Socialism – http://www.answers.com/fabian%20socialism
3. I’m afraid it is this blindness that has made matters worse. Thought excercise for you –
# Please gather some data on how many Southern migrants speaking their own languages with locals – in the North
# Please gather some data on how many Northern migrants speaking their own languages with locals – in the South
# Now try to reason where you think would arise “chauvinists” and why?
# Try also to gather data about how “numbers” in parliament can help the most “important” states to manoeuvre policy in their favor.
“Difficult and unviable” – Ludicrous is not the term strong enough to describe such reasoning. Sorry.
3a. Your examples of Kerala and Tamil Nadu – minus Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh; are classic. Kerala never did attract the kind of migration other Southern states did. I’d say Tamil Nadu’s headstrongness saved the South from ever more Northern dominance. Of course one has to learn Tamil if they want to live there.
So, are at least Malayalam and Tamil more viable and less difficult to learn for the Northerners?
4. Hindi is the Official Language (whatever that means) of Hindusthan with English as the link (official?)language for administrative reasons.
Hindusthan has multiples of what may be termed, National languages.
Whilst it may be more relevant for the Himachali in Himachal Pradesh to learn Punjabi than Kannada – it is very relevant for this Himachali to learn Kannada in Karnataka. That’s the point I’m making and being opposed for it, so assiduously.
Btw, perhaps you can help – You studied in the North. How many Southern languages were studied in school? If none, why not? A rational answer is possible to give. I’ll let you give it.
I studied in Delhi. Not one Northern student was conversant nor knew any language from the South.
The three language formula is a huge failure in the North wrt Southern Languages. I really wonder why considering the flow of migrants.
Hindi is not the dominant language in the South.
All the rest of your argument will succeed in doing is to sell English much better in the South.
I’m sorry I was away so long – There’s been only work and some twitter for me these past few days, that’s all
Siddharth,
1a. I get the feeling your argument around language does not have fixed goals – they seem to be moving always. Here’s my final attempt – There are of course non-language attributes that go into state-formation, however, the “dominant language” rule cannot be discarded whatsoever. A state in Hindusthan must have only one administrative language. This language would be the dominant language of the people residing in that state. Without this sorted out – no state.
1b. Siddharth, it becomes very difficult when you relate my factual complaints with your plain facts. Naturally I tend to think they are complaints too
# Is there no difference between 61% and 35%?
There are two things to consider –
Migrants who do not learn and speak the local language
Migrants that do
If the trend was the latter, we would not have a problem
In case you continue to believe that since “migrants bring in money” there is no cause for grouse – your wrong
1c. I’d like you to please state why the North or the Non-South, refuses the three language formula. Right now, I’m inclined to believe your avoiding this issue.
There is no claim “for reason to beat up people”. There is certainly the accusation of arrogance against migrants. They are being inconsiderate.
If you think every such matter should be addressed to the Supreme Court or “billed” in Parliament then I fear for any kind of possible positive social dynamic.
1d. So what do you think? Are you saying there is no substance in the charge – without a Supreme Court judgement saying there is?
It’s a fact that people are frustrated beyond measure. Two things, in such cases, cause this frustration – 1. The inability of the migrants to listen and acknowledge local concerns 2. The insensitivity of the system.
Let me add for good measure that the only reason I do not support Raj Thackeray is because he’s without credibility. Not because his arguments are wrong.
2. I get the feeling you do not understand the problem yet.
3. “Those who fought for it, believed that the identity they had and the identity they were fighting for do not have any inherent conflict.”
- Absolutely. Because their respective identities were never threatened quite unlike now. That’s the reason why Hindus did not refuse states based on language
5. I’m sorry. I’d much rather go by merits of each case.
6. Please re-read my quoted points and you will know your deduction is fallacious.
Political identity and Cultural identity – How are these different? They cannot be, at least not in a healthy polity. In a liberal polity, yes.
My simple point was if the soldiers knew their cultural identity is threatened – they would not fight with their heart. Only the threat of a firing squad would make them fight under such circumstances.
Any political identity must per force be married to a cultural identity for it to have substance. Else it becomes an empty shell.
On a lighter note – I commented on Vir Sanghvi’s article “Ayodhya for dummies” and renamed it
“Ayodhya by dummies”
but another commentator beat me to it when she renamed his article
“Ayodhya for Dhimmies”
Palahalli
I think you are being quite unfair in your attribution of mistakes to me. I shall clarify these here.
1. “Could Hindusthan have done without language?”…
Nobody questions the importance or the validity of languages here – it is an erroneous extrapolation on your part to imply the same . What is being argued is that identities need not necessarily coalesce around languages – and language though important is just one of the various ways in which people may identify themselves. Not too long ago and even now – religion was an extremely divisive identitiy. The point being that all identities can be divisive if they become exclusive. Linguistic states by thier nature are exclusive entities for reasons explained earlier. And hence most states based on language (UP/Bihar included) – wherever possible – must be broken into smaller states to accomodate other cultural identities.
2. “Btw, linguistic states in Hindusthan are not a British idea”..
Our beaureocracy, our legislative bodies, our apparent historical inheritence, our cultural self-perceptions, our ideas of caste, creed, color etc, our perceptions of public and private moraility etc, are all so heavily influenced (read warped) by inherited western ideas – we do not even question that. We claim that Nehru, Gandhi and several other leaders were products of a western system – more western than indian. Our nation spent fifty years wallowing in warped ideas of society, economy and nation state primarily based on these borrowed western ideas. From this Is it really such a leap of faith to understand that our leaders who demanded linguistic states drew inspiration from the same source viz, western ideas of state and identity ? Well, application of fabian socialism too wasnt done by the british – but didnt we adopt it ?
3 “English, dear Sir, is seen as a far lesser evil than Hindi, in the South. ” / “Languages are by themselves not evil or bad”
Don’t you think the above statements are contradictory ? I dont think any south indian language is seen at all as evil in the north – just difficult to learn and unviable. So dont you think based on your own statement there is an obivious demonization – for whatever reason ? I understand that there are hindi chauvinists in the north – but in my view they form a miniscule minority – whose appeal and ideas find no purchase amongst the general public (hence my assertion that there has never been a case of violence directed at linguistic minorities in the north) . However a persistent campaign against hindi and hindi speakers (a la Raj Thackerey) in other regions may just scratch that itch – and we may manage to unleash a larger demon of linguistic conflicts. Therefore my plea that we need to be very careful of how we proceed on these issues.
3. “Why should Northern Hindus not learn a Southern language? Why should they not learn and speak it when they are born and brought up in a Southern town?”
These are generalization to which I will briefly answer – but will strictly NOT dwell on henceforth – as they do not contribute to the discussion and introduce an unecessary emotive element. I have known UP-wallahs and Bengalis born and brought up in Kerala who speak better malayalam than I do. Similarly I know a paanwaallah from Sitamarhi (Bihar) in Chennai who learnt to speak Tamil in one year and is more fluent than many expat Tamilians I know – ditto an autodriver in Chennai. So per me the assertion that northerners dont learn south indian languages is wrong. Of course these are convenient generalizations that bypass substantive issues. Discussing along these lines leads nowhere. In any case people learn languages per thier needs, not because the state plays big brother and dictates what they should learn. States dictating such terms leads exactly to the case of linguistic exclusiveness i mentioned earlier. When a state is formed with language as its basis – it becomes the business of the state to be a custodian of that language and thereon determine/promote/dictate its use. Look at Tamil Nadu where the state has been actively trying to invent an ostensibly ‘unadulterated’ Tamil – free of Sanskritic influences – for the past 30~40 years. We can well imagine where such tendencies would lead our nation – were they to become widespread.
4. “Three Language Formula”
There are far wider issues concerning implementation of the three language formula than linguistic parochialism. Problems with language policies exist in almost all other nations – EU, Sri Lanka, Singapore. Only place where it does not exist is perhaps China – where the non-han languages have been practically driven to extinction in the past 50 years. Language policies generally have to accomodate identity, relevance, requirements for governance, and economic utility etc. States in India were formed to accomodate linguistic identities, for a person from himachal pradesh it might be relevant to learn punjabi but not malayalam or kannada, use of hindi as an official language eases requirements of governance over large swathes of india, english the link language is still used because of its economic utility.
Before we proceed to discuss the ‘Three language formula’ let me cite that article 343 of the constitution and the official languages act say that official language of the union will be Hindi. This makes sense too since hindi is spoken as first language by 490 million people and as second language by 120-225 million making it percentage wise the language with far numerous following and reach than any other language – individual or combined. By your own hypothesis of dominant languages should not HIndi be spoken by every Indian and all business transacted in Hindi ? I (along with a lot of people in India) do not agree with the dominant language theme which is why for the last 60 years we have not acted on making Hindi the defacto pan-indian language – which is how it should be – sections of populace seeking to maintain a degree of autonomy should be allowed to do so. Tamil Nadu’s objections to imposition of Hindi (which unfortunately some hindi-chauvinists stridently sought) was not grounded as much on the fear of hindi replacing tamil as on the then dominant dravidian paradigm. The objectives of this movement – otherwise grounded on false history and divisive ideas – was and is divisive and exclusivist. It is following these objections that the three-language formula was setup as a compromize and not as a replacement for hindi as national language. Furthermore the three language formula makes it only optional because as per this formula ” National Policy on Education 1986 provides Hindi, English and modern Indian language (preferably one of the southern languages) in the Hindi speaking states and Hindi. English and the Regional language in the non-Hindi speaking States”. So evidently 3-language formula is not a panacea for the apparent northern domination that you refer to. I thought all norhtern states have implemented this – please cite examples of states that have not.
My personal view of the matter is that the 3-language solution is hackneyed and overloads the educational system with unrealistic burdens. The reason people from other states migrate to states with jobs and growth is seperate from the language question. Again we see that only english-speaking people seem to get the best jobs best education etc. Is this not harmful to the local culture / language etc ? If people did not need an additional layer language (english) to gain higher education ie if states were able to provide the higher education to all levels in the local language not only would it spark indegenous agency by making education, knowledge, skill available and accessible in local language – but it would also make education cheap and less exclusivist. Then of course we would need only a single language to act as a link as well as national language which could be either hindi or sanskrit (more preferable). Let me clost by quoting a very valid observation on this debate by Harold Schiffman (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/540/handouts/indiapol/indic2.html)
“What is lacking from the current policy is the `unity at the top’ levels that I mentioned earlier; the three-language formula does not make it clear what is at the top, and this is perhaps its fatal flaw. Perhaps the best that could be achieved would be to enshrine Sanskrit as India’s national language, and then go ahead and use any other language at the instrumental level, with no claims to sanctity, purity, antiquity, or whatever that seem to be inherent in the current quest for a language that fills the bill. What seems to have gotten lost is the symbolic function that special languages often have in various polities; India lacks a candidate for the symbolic function, though Sanskrit used to suffice. Now individual languages such as Hindi and Tamil have taken on symbolic functions, and the instrumental value of either language is diminished;”
“But Hindus are also sometimes to blame when they try to argue that Ram was a historical figure and thus display their own ignorance–”
So, when pope argues that Jesus Christ was a historical figure, was he also displaying his ignorance? I do not know whether Rama was historical figure or not, but, to us, he is as important as that mythical man of peace to you or that dude in white robe living in Vatican City.
No that not what I am saying–they bring into debate whether or not Ram was an actual historical figure and by doing so detract from the ‘real” debate, namely that the issue is a civilizational one and is not a question of whether someone was a historical figure, and argue like Christians and detract from the essential issues making themselves laughable just like Christians. And I am not Christian. My point is simply that there are foolish Hindus who make themselves ridiculous like foolish Christians. That is all. Please read before commenting. Its annoying when people are slow to comprehend what you are saying.
@Palahalli,
1a. “….but if they created states for themselves, their states would fail because of a lack of various other factors…” – There you go. So you agree that language is not the ONLY factor. I rest this case here.
1b. “Pray what else must they conduct their business in in Karnataka? ” “Please start reading my comments accurately. Stop using your imagination. ” – The first quote indicates the awesome accuracy you are displaying in reading my post. I just stated a fact, not a complaint. This is very similar to your understanding of the sarcastic comment I made in my earlier post.
The article in your given link states: “Such disconnect between a state and its capital (country and town) is not unique to Karnataka;”. The stat is from 1991. The same stat also shows that Kannada speakers represent 61% of the population then. This information makes me think – early nineties when the survey is carried out, Bangalore was not a boom town and hence not much filled with “outsiders”. So there was non-kannada speaker Karnatakis in the city. I have not heard about grievances then. So if there was no threat to Kannada language and culture then why would it be now?
1c. “Can we now agree that students in Karnataka will study Kannada, English and (optional)Sanskrit? ” – I am yet to understand where I ever disagreed with the position? Everybody should study their own language, one second language (given the options in the present scenario, I do not see any substitute to English) and an optional third language (may be Sanskrit). “That’s still one more language than what the North studies. ” – I do not know about schools in North, so I can not comment. Rajiv studied there, he can tell better.
“You have been very sensitive to the situation.” – When there is a claim of having a reason to beat up a group of innocent people, one needs to be sensitive about such claims.
1d. There are thousand articles like that on net. If there was a validity in the claim (i.e. a logical basis, not rhetoric) why would not Raj T go to supreme court to challenge Railways recruitment? Challenges like that are an essential part of governance based on discussions and common agreement. Since when beating up people became a good way to express your frustration? It is the logic of eighties blockbusters.
Palahalli, if I loose my job and then send my neighbor to emergency ward bed because his existence increases the population and hence my employer has other choices than me, what sort of good logic is that?
2. “What? Where?” – Every jingoism leaves a trail of blood and misery. Latest example is Islamic jingoism. The latest example of linguistic or sectarian jingoism is the rise of ULFA in Assam. That too is now dying it’s natural death. Raj T’s movement is another example in making and if he fails to make it a cause of national concern, congress would make sure that it becomes such.
3. “Your talking about Hindus?” – Yes. “Please realize that no one opposed linguistic identities. ” – That was not the point. Those who fought for it, believed that the identity they had and the identity they were fighting for do not have any inherent conflict.
5. “……nor are their keepers in the NGOs.” – That is what is very disturbing. Gays or their acceptance no longer matters in the fight. However, I still do not see any reason for all of us to align ourselves with Abrahamic radicals. These radicals are much more harmful than a bunch of gays asking for marriage.
6. “Please show me where I have said or alluded to such a thing. ”
Your first response in this regard:
“I’m not sure how many Kannadiga soldiers would agree with the loss of cultural and linguistic space in the name of a larger good”
to my following point related to army:
“X brigade did not think that because their brigade has disproportionate number of X speaking people, they do not need to fight for people speaking Y.”
Nowhere I have asked soldiers to forget their cultural identity. All I wanted to say that mixing political identity with cultural identity would weaken us all and elaborated. When that is your response, I have to assume that you know people in the army who believe opposite is the case.
”
“If culture and identity of every community is ravaged, then consensus can not be successful”
- I rest my case.
”
Indian, the political identity, neither requires people to forget their cultural identity, nor it proposes to ravage cultures. The only time Indian state came closer to do anything like it is when congress government proposed to make Hindi national language in the sixties. If they were successful, the life of Indian state would be shortened. But they had to back out.
I agree with Pala on this one at least.
Even while being a Maharashtrian living in Hyderabad, my grandfather, my father, and myself included, have done every single possible thing to integrate ourselves into the Hyderabadi society–my father got married to a lady from telangana, I was educated with Telugu as my first language, and I got married to a lady from telangana as well. Today, telangana people would identify us as one of them without a hint of doubt… regardless of my first and family name.
That is a satisfying feeling.
This is from the link I pasted above, I’d like to end with this warning coming from a Tamilian living in Mumbai –
“You can blame the soft-hearted, decent Maharashtrian for meekly standing by while the rest of us made the most of the opportunities in the City of Gold if it soothes your conscience, but the fact is the rest of us have misused and abused the hospitality and warmth shown by the Maharashtrians to us. I am not sure how much longer he will remain a mute spectator.
And when that happens, we will have it brought upon ourselves by consistently downgrading Marathi, denying Mumbai its Maharashtrian heart, and being terrible citizens in a great city.”
Anyday the Kannadiga “chauvinist” will agree with that.
Thank you
Sidharth – Please start reading my comments accurately. Stop using your imagination.
1a. – The principle of dominance is what works at all times. Tulu and Kodava speaking people might assert, but if they created states for themselves, their states would fail because of a lack of various other factors. However, the reverse condition (available resources but more than one dominant language)is not possible to acheive in our scenario.
So the various new demands arise and live on or fizzle out based on feasability. Language is constant.
1b. Facts – http://www.thehindu.com/2007/08/21/stories/2007082152810400.htm
Ref. to the stats in that link.
“The entire administration speaks Kannada.” – Pray what else must they conduct their business in in Karnataka?
1c. You have been very sensitive to the situation. Can we now agree that students in Karnataka will study Kannada, English and (optional)Sanskrit? That’s still one more language than what the North studies.
As for the multiple Southern languages, they can always have a choice of one of them. Is that difficult?
1d. I’m not sure if Marathi “chauvinists” have been faulted on merits yet. Why not look up Railway recruitment figures? Also see these two good links –
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/28sai.htm
http://retributions.nationalinterest.in/globalization-and-marathi-manoos/
2. “But by consequence, I meant the blood shed, loss of lives.” – What? Where?
3. “Indians instead of British subjects”?? Really? What about Pakistan? Your talking about Hindus? Please realize that no one opposed linguistic identities.
5. Please read what I have written. The HC decision has a logic of it’s own that is now lying strangulated. The homosexuals are not happy nor are their keepers in the NGOs. Those who opposed the move are also not happy because they know only too well what the logical conclusion is, of this misadventure; when it picks up again. The matter has not ended yet.
I suggest you read Ashok Row Kavi and what he thinks about where it should end.
6. “Answer the question: do you know any Indian soldier who thinks that his cultural and linguistic rights are taken away after joining the Indian army?”
- Please show me where I have said or alluded to such a thing.
“If culture and identity of every community is ravaged, then consensus can not be successful”
- I rest my case.
Rajiv,
Your point is taken. But what are the choices if we avoid English?
For example, Tamils would not speak Hindi, Palahalli would like every Indian to speak Kannada, Raj Thackarey would like you to refer yourself as “mi” and there is no denial that there are people in my own communities who are inclined to see every marwari in Barrobajar in Kolkata to speak in Bengali.
@Palahalli,
1a. “So my point is simple –” – no, it is not. Your first few poists led us to believe that you supported creation of state based on languages. Now you would like us to see that from point of view of “dominant” languages. Who would decide what is dominant? Dominance can be decided based on a selected area, but if area is chosen with certain result in mind, the dominant languages change quickly. For example, in the plains of Bengal, Bengali is dominant. In the hills, a mix of Nepali and Hindi is dominant. If you call the hills a separate area (or state), dominant language would be different. The basic idea that ONLY language defines the state is a gross over-simplification of the complex array of attributes of Indian society. Thus it is not acceptable.
1b. “At the moment, Kannada speakers in Bangalore have become a minority. ” – Prove it with a statistics. For your other examples, I have seen counter-examples. The entire administration speaks Kannada.
1c. I did not know that was called a three-language formula. But I have studied Sanskrit as a third language. I have never studied in North India, so I have no idea whether they study a third language or not and if they do, what language.
In stead of a third language, do you want students to study third/fourth/fifth/sixth language? Because the variety of languages is overwhelmingly high in south. Sanskrit, being the third language, is good enough.
1d. All disputes over migrants is made-up problem. Do you have the data that proves migrants are a problem in Mumbai? This is what that started the debate.
2. “It’s still Hindi and Punjabi dominated – just like it’s always been. ” – Yes. But by consequence, I meant the blood shed, loss of lives.
3. “The usage of “Indian” by Muslims is strategy. Why is that so difficult to follow? ” – I do not care what their strategy was. Those jihadists are a bunch of dangerous morons. But this is hardly the point. If, in your mind, you think “Indian” is only a strategic word placed by Islamists and their sympathizers, then please do remember that thousands died not so long ago in there desire to be known as Indians instead of British subjects. This would not have happened if “Indian” was a strategic label.
5. Why can not you answer this simple question: Why were you guys screaming when the law was interpreted by the judges as something that can not persecute gays? After all, you do not want “homos to be locked up”. Does the campaign against high court’s decision reflect your opinion? If you claim to be indifferent about gays, you would not write big web posts against the high court decision, would you?
About gays, I guess our personal respective opinions are not going to change any soon.
6. Answer the question: do you know any Indian soldier who thinks that his cultural and linguistic rights are taken away after joining the Indian army? If so, how? I am struggling to understand how could that happen. There are cousins and friends who are in the army. This is the first time I am hearing such a claim.
Forget army, is there any other Indian institution, that has forced various communities to abandon their cultural and linguistic rights?
You yourself stated that you are “tired” of this Indian army “myth”. So why do not you debunk it? Why this detour of proving that army tries to take away cultural and linguistic rights? I myself never said so.
Law or not, a community is found on a set of agreements that are created based on certain expectations of all Individuals in the community. I do not care what liberals wish, but merely calling the points a liberal wish would not cut. If you do not agree to what I wrote about communities, do provide your reason on why I am wrong. Your current response is as good as Vishnu Som’s effort to label everybody who did not agree with him.
If tradition is the only rule, then a nation would never change. For example, when Ram Mohan Roy went against Sati pratha, Sati pratha was believed to be a part of the tradition at that point of time. Because there was a legal framework available and the framework worked on basis of discussion , it was possible to remove that stupid tradition despite extreme opposition. Compare this to Saudi Arabia, where legal frameworks are not solid and despicable traditions like slavery continue till today.
Artificial it may be, “rule-of-law” help a nation to come together and promote the discussion to reach agreement about common good. Adopting the law and making it a part of life is what tradition does over time. Rule of law is not a replacement of tradition, it is complimentary to tradition. To build a nation, one needs both.
But then you do not believe in Indian nation at all. This gap between your and my belief system is pretty much irreconcilable.
“….likes of Ceaser, Napoleon and Hitler failed in the same endeavor.” – They failed because they never tried to assimilate everyone. If culture and identity of every community is ravaged, then consensus can not be successful. EU avoids such an approach.
It is possible to create organizations of communities without destroying individual attributes of the community. That is why political identity of India, the bigger organization, is important. It is also important to recognize that such a political identity is not in disagreement with individual cultural identities. In fact, such a political identity provides political support for protecting the right of individuals to retain cultural identity.
Any time, you speak against hindi-centrism, I am with you. But what you are proposing is jingoism that would eventually weaken us, our political identities. If you believe Kannadiga (or Marathi) culture is under attack, go to parliament and get a bill passed that would make it mandatory for people arriving at Banaglore airport to take a Kannada test. Beating up people never solved anything. At best, it would give people like Mr. Thackarey some political mileage.
Rajiv C – You are making some very basic mistakes.
But first, I was only making the point clearer on socio-political organization. Btw, it proves how important language is as a component of organic society.
1. Could Hindusthan have done without language? Why is language being pushed to the background needlessly?
What does the example of the Maratha empire prove? Only that there was no imposition of Marathi? Even this is somewhat disputed by historians but I can live with the point.
I strongly dispute the “foreign” construct on Hindusthan’s language based states. I’d make a simple point and say that Hindusthan has never witnessed similar kind of organization or political set-up in it’s history before. So when the time did come to think about organizing; it naturally fell upon certain categories, of which language was seen to be defining. Btw, linguistic states in Hindusthan are not a British idea. It was first mooted by the Congress under Gandhi and then the logic was followed up post independence and gained momentum particularly after Potti Sriramulu’s death.
2. Your argueing on a false premise and therefore you see such identity as bad. My assertion is that even in Hindusthan of yore, a local identity, if threatened, would never have been tolerated in the nebulous name of some larger common good.
Can one imagine what would have happened if some Northern Hindu had thrust, say, Bhojpuri on Vijayanagara in the name of common nationalism??
The so called Kannada chauvinists are no less Hindu nationalist – is a point that is simply not recognized. Why?
3. Let’s settle this question first.
Otherwise don’t we all know how and why Tamil Nadu, that had one of the most number of Tamilians learning Hindi in the pre and early post independence era – turned fanatically anti-Hindi?
English, dear Sir, is seen as a far lesser evil than Hindi, in the South.
Languages are by themselves not evil or bad. It’s the people’s attitude that’s resisted.
I’d like you to start speaking only in Malayalam or Tamil or Kannada or Telugu in the Northern city you live in (with locals there) and encourage fellow Southerners to do likewise and then we can discuss feedback.
Kindly explain, if you can, why the three language formula is not an all Hindusthan phenomena? Why should Northern Hindus not learn a Southern language? Why should they not learn and speak it when they are born and brought up in a Southern town?
Please tell me of a rare Southern Hindu born and brought up in the North who does not know and speak in Hindi?! Even the mere thought is laughable isn’t it?
And we are accused of demonization.
Note – I think this debate can progress from emotion to reason only when the point of three language formula is addressed by Rajiv and Siddharth. Until then, it will be seen as obfuscation of the core issue at hand – that is, Northern domination of the South.
>> “would it be correct to say that there was common language in the royal court and common language at individual grama panchayat levels?”
Yes that is generally true. And I never denied it.
I would like to summarize my position :
1.India has never had a tradition of states coalescing strictly around the identity of language. Language may have been a functional necessity for, or purely incidental to, the process of state formation in the pre-british past – but never a defining presentiment.
eg : marathas may bave created a state to protect thier ethnic interests, they may have spoken marathi or maharashtri – but they didnt define thier state as a state for the marathi in exclusion of every other identity. Thier state consisted of different communities which were usually left alone – and not forced to conform.
Todays linguistic states are not like that – thier defining rationale is language. The idea itself is somewhat exclusivist. It does not adequately address concerns of bi-lingual or multilingual communities, linguistic minorities, different and non-standard dialects, immigrants, migrants etc. Todays linguistic states (with thier mechanism of governance in strictly one language) implicitly demand conformance and compliance to certain monolithic ideas about language and identity. These ideals are actually borrowed from the European experience – and thier language based nation states. This borrowed assumption may be misplaced.
2. This has also generated an artificial and latent linguistic nationalism – which has had a profound impact on the psyche of the Indian people. So there are people who would otherwise not have thought so – thinking in terms of cultural seperateness and exclusivism, xenophobia, linguistic purity, geographical integrity, demographic integrity etc all on the basis of language-based identity. In is this process of linguistic nationalism all grievances are easily moulded and defined in terms of insider-outsider syndrome.
3. While discussing the apparent threats from north-indians etc we miss the real problem. Currently there is not a single Indian language in which one can pursue higher education in sciences, medicine, etc. Even to become an administrator or a clerk one has to learn English. Our metropolitan cities, including bangalore and Mumbai try to culturally mimic the west. Our middle class, our media and entire swathes of our society has inculcated the same aspirations as well. English is thier vehicle of choice for fulfilling these aspirations. Very few people even see this as unnatural. The world over, India seems to be the only significant nation that conducts its national discourse, higher education, governance legal functions etc all in a foriegn language. Ever other region – Russia, China, Germany, France, Japan conducts it’s affairs in thier own language. So while english (and western culture) encroach into our physcial and phsychological space we are busy bickering over our own linguistic inheritance. Then we complain about how alien culture is encroaching into our space – all the while conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room – namely english.
4. Ethnically I am southerner but was born and brought up in the north. I find the linguistic bashing of northerners – and hindi speaking people – particularly appalling. I can state that as a general rule (in spite of juvenile jibes and name calling) southerners are highly respected in northern india. I am yet to see a single instance of the kind of demonization directed towards other linguistic group identities in the north. instances of which we see now quite frequently south of the Vindhyas – like dravidianism, thackeray-ism etc – which is quite shameful.
Siddharth –
1a. Was Gorkhali also used in the Bengal Assembly? I guess not, because Bengali is the dominant language.
So my point is simple – You cannot proceed with organizing or re-organizing states without first starting from language. Of course “viability” is very important too, but if more than one language in a proposed state is dominant, then that state becomes non-viable from the word – Go; no matter what it’s other advantages are.
1b. Non-Kannadigas (particularly Northern Hindus and to a lesser extent Tamilians) who are born and brought up in Bangalore do not learn and speak the local language. This phenomenon is unique to the state of Karnataka and it’s urban areas. This same never happens in Tamil Nadu – I wonder why? Because in TN the locals will not speak another language than Tamil, even if they know another.
I have folks in office who have bought property in the state and plan on settling down permanently but exert zero effort to learn and communicate in the local language.
At the moment, Kannada speakers in Bangalore have become a minority.
1c. May I then suggest that you please start getting some basics straight?
The three language formula is in force in schools in Karnataka and I suspect all of the South. This stipulates a third language that a student must learn in addition to the state language and English – These can be either Hindi or Sanskrit. This in itself is tragic because Sanskrit is made an unnecessary scapegoat and brackets it like it was a North Indian language.
However, the rule to learn a third language remains.
My question is what prevents the North or the Non-South from adopting a third South Indian language? Why cannot these students learn Telugu, or Kannada or Tamil or Malayalam? This will help them communicate with South Indians in the North, surely just like the reverse happens in Karnataka.
1d. I won’t debate this point anymore. The figures show which places attract more migrants. As for Mumbai, there is already a problem with migrants there. I’d like to know the ratio in Ahmedabad. Would you have the data?
2. What were the consequences? It’s still Hindi and Punjabi dominated – just like it’s always been.
3. Names given to identities are nothing but labels. We are debating the content and how the labels themselves are used strategically to position content in the market. The usage of “Indian” by Muslims is strategy. Why is that so difficult to follow?
5. Marriage and adoption are logical consequences to “legalization” or a general withdrawal of specified deterrent legislation. You need to think about this more. There was never any *legislation* for or against homosexuality in Hindu tradition of whatever kind. Behavior was regulated by tradition and culture. Therefore it was contra tradition for homosexuals to marry and adopt. Society, including homosexuals understood this clearly.
When a *anti* legislation was brought in – it automatically became a purely legal issue and went out of the sphere of societal regulation. The law stipulated specific do’s and don’ts. Now, when the law is reversed, the opposite becomes true. If the law previously said homosexual acts and legal marriage is unlawful, logically it should now say these are lawful.
That is the reason why this question is not settled yet. That is also the reason why the Union govt passes the ball to the courts for their final decision.
I believe these legal eagles were smoking something strong when they decided to “decriminalize” instead of merely withdrawing all legislation on the subject and allowing for a social consensus to form.
This could have been easily done through a referendum or by making it a poll issue in the next election – state or Union.
6. I guess your totally confused here. A political identity does not work in a vacuum. That’s the first reality liberals must grasp thoroughly. A political identity is always built upon a socio-cultural identity. To make sense of the former, you must grasp the essentials of the latter.
To answer you straight – No Kannadiga Hindu soldier would enlist in a Hindusthan Army if he thought he would have to give up his language and culture and adopt something else.
Can you find me one soldier who would, from anywhere in this country? Just one?
In the following write-up you sort of try to divorce socio-cultural identity from “community” and marry it(the community) to “rule-of-law”. Again a hollow liberal wish. It doesn’t work that way in real life. This liberal thought process is also the main cause for so much of our current problems.
Please try to remember that “rule-of-law” is like artificial life-support. Culture and tradition is life itself. The veritable soul of the living being. You cannot extinguish this soul and place “community” under life-support of rule-of-law without killing the community eventually.
I have my thoughts on the EU and those are not the ones that can be printed here. Suffice to say the day the nations of Europe give in to EU’s diktat totally, is the day Europe dies.
Such a monster as this has been brought into being only after the likes of Ceaser, Napoleon and Hitler failed in the same endeavor.
Many people do not identify with Hindi language. A language is associated with a culture. I would like my kids to speak the Pahari dialect I know or Kashmiri like my husband speaks. I don’t like Hindi–so its easy to see how someone in the south might not like it either.