Warring said docuseries should be banned as it was trying to defame Punjab. He said Bishnoi was from Rajasthan, not Punjab, and using word 'Punjab' in title was Centre's campaign to malign Punjab.
Virudhunagar factory blast that killed 23 people triggers political sparring ahead of voting day. AIADMK blames Stalin govt for not taking effective safety measures.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi recused himself from a case filed by BJP worker Vignesh Shishir seeking FIR against LoP Rahul Gandhi for allegedly holding British citizenship.
OPS has been representing Bodinayakanur since 2011. His switch to DMK has flipped the scenario in this AIADMK bastion that sent Jayalalithaa to assembly for first time in 1989.
The home of 2-year-old Guru Vishnu, stampede's youngest victim, stands as a quiet reminder. His family, which has now moved homes, did not wish to speak on the politics or 'Vijay factor'.
Though Trinamool did not officially confirm shutdown of the agency, it reiterated, in a press conference Monday, that all I-PAC employees will be taken care of.
Pakistan would be itching to do an Iran on us and China would be planning to execute an air campaign without allowing us asymmetrical escalation. India has no choice but to transform.
Increase in employment subsidy, Rs 500 crore for estate revamp, new townships in pipeline—but land cost, power breakdowns and inspector raj top among key worries for industry leaders.
CDS Anil Chauhan says future space capability will not be built by government agencies alone. ‘It will be co-developed with industry, start-ups, and technology innovators’.
American objectives are unmet. They neither have muscle nor motivation to resume the war. As for Iran, the regime didn’t just survive, it’s now led by more radical individuals.
Let us be a bit braver here.
Bharatiya languages coexisted for centuries, never saw feuds like this.
Then, two things happened:
(1) Urdu was born as a direct consequence of Rasulullah (SAWS)’s OG two-nation theory – believers being supposed to differentiate themselves from non-believers in every aspect (including language). You can see this in Urdu, e.g. Urdu people will set themselves apart form Hindi-speakers by even things as petty as minor pronunciation differences (e.g. prārthanā –> prāthnā , parvat –> parbat, etc.), and of course the entire Perso-Arabicisation that is obvious at a first glance.
Significance: This is the beginning of the idea of language as a marker of communal identity, separate from and antithetical to that in the immediate environment (I am not pro-homogenisation, so I reject the idea of “one” mainstream – but the difference here is intended to set oneself apart, or really stick out [like a sore thumb sometimes] from one’s immediate surroundings).
(2) The advent of English which came with a clear hierarchy, where all languages of the uncivilised “orient” were inferior, rustic, backward, and not worth studying or using in education, science, official purposes etc.
Significance: Combined with the rise of British power, the capture of education by missionary and colonialist forces over a couple of centuries gradually led to the internalisation of the hierarchy of world languages, where English is at the top, and other western languages a close second, with Bharatiya languages being good-for-nothing at best or often even a mark of shame.
Thus, we internalised two different notions from these historical experiences: (1) Urdu imperialism taught us that language is a marker of identity (it is, no doubt) – BUT “identity” is perverted into a separatist/adversarial sense. Then, (2) taught us that there is a hierarchy of languages, superior and inferior, a view we did not hold before (as an example, consider the rich exchange of vocabulary between Thamizh and Sanskrit, and how both nourished and enriched the other Bharatiya languages in their spheres of influence).
Let us be a bit braver here.
Bharatiya languages coexisted for centuries, never saw feuds like this.
Then, two things happened:
(1) Urdu was born as a direct consequence of Rasulullah (SAWS)’s OG two-nation theory – believers being supposed to differentiate themselves from non-believers in every aspect (including language). You can see this in Urdu, e.g. Urdu people will set themselves apart form Hindi-speakers by even things as petty as minor pronunciation differences (e.g. prārthanā –> prāthnā , parvat –> parbat, etc.), and of course the entire Perso-Arabicisation that is obvious at a first glance.
Significance: This is the beginning of the idea of language as a marker of communal identity, separate from and antithetical to that in the immediate environment (I am not pro-homogenisation, so I reject the idea of “one” mainstream – but the difference here is intended to set oneself apart, or really stick out [like a sore thumb sometimes] from one’s immediate surroundings).
(2) The advent of English which came with a clear hierarchy, where all languages of the uncivilised “orient” were inferior, rustic, backward, and not worth studying or using in education, science, official purposes etc.
Significance: Combined with the rise of British power, the capture of education by missionary and colonialist forces over a couple of centuries gradually led to the internalisation of the hierarchy of world languages, where English is at the top, and other western languages a close second, with Bharatiya languages being good-for-nothing at best or often even a mark of shame.
Thus, we internalised two different notions from these historical experiences: (1) Urdu imperialism taught us that language is a marker of identity (it is, no doubt) – BUT “identity” is perverted into a separatist/adversarial sense. Then, (2) taught us that there is a hierarchy of languages, superior and inferior, a view we did not hold before (as an example, consider the rich exchange of vocabulary between Thamizh and Sanskrit, and how both nourished and enriched the other Bharatiya languages in their spheres of influence).