Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The debate about the ‘National Language’ of India is once again making the headlines. This has been a legacy debate that is going on since the days of constituent assembly. After an intense discussion in the constituent assembly, ‘Munshi-Ayyangar‘ formula was evolved and accepted since the majority of the Indians at that time didn’t have Hindi as their mother tongue. The formula stated that for a period of 15 years, English would continue to be used for all official purposes. However, post 1965, the use of English was continued till the time all non-Hindi speakers do not agree on designating Hindi as the national language.
India, therefore since its inception in 1947 had no national language. This is contrary to what we are taught in the schools usually. To delve further into the issue we need to understand how the concept of nation and national language evolved over the past few centuries to reach its current form where it is now an emotive issue for every other person.
The concept of modern nation states evolved post ‘Treaty of Westphalia’ signed between different European powers in the 17th century in order to ensure their peaceful coexistence. However the founding pillar of it was the linguistic homogeneity within different regions of Europe; France for French speaking people, Germany for German speaking people and so on. Such was the dominance of Europe in the world order during those centuries that Europeans started painting every other territory (colonised or non-colonised) in terms of their concept of ‘nation state’.
India was never a linguistic state unlike European nations. The concept of India was based on the union of different regions, cultures and other diversities with the promise of peaceful coexistence. It’s the civilisational nature of the Indian state that made the compartmentalization in terms of the language even more difficult.
Civilisational states, by nature, evolve to be diverse in terms of culture, language, traditions, etc. Every civilization in the subcontinent (Indus Valley, Gangetic, Dravidian, etc.) had its own set of culture, beliefs and values, yet they have existed peacefully and adopted many practices out of each other’s traditions.
In India, it first became an issue during the 1950s when different State Reorganization commissions were formed and Indian states were divided on the basis of language. Many commentators at that time predicted the collapse of India as a state within a few years. India, not only survived but also emerged stronger. All thanks to the constitution makers and the Indian people.
With the advent of LPG reforms, further cosmopolitanisation of different regions and the number of people that can speak and understand Hindi went up considerably over the last 3 decades.
Census 2011 data revealed that 44% of Indians can speak Hindi whereas only 26% Indians reported it as their mother tongue followed by Bengali and Marathi at 8.03% and 6.86% respectively. Further Hindi in itself is not a monolith, rather a set of 56 different languages that ecompases majority of dialects and languages of the north and central subcontinent. Thus, imposition of Hindi in a country as populous and diverse as India would be a perfect recipe of pro-balkanization forces.
In my opinion, a utilitarian based approach for promotion of languages is the need of the hour along with preservation of culture. One of the reasons Bengaluru has been able to become the Silicon Valley of India is due to the linguistic freedom and use of link languages like English. States with prominent link languages like English are observed to have high Human Development Indicators as well.
It’s thus the time we stop imposition of one language and respect the diversity of the nation. Indians are considered the best minds in the world today not only because of our cognitive abilities but also because of how easily we are able to adapt and present ourselves in different languages within different cultures. Thus, we should stop comparisons with other linguistic nations as not from distant past we have an example of Pakistan where the linguistic imposition led to creation of Bangladesh.
– Kshitij Tiwari
The famous Houston Hug between PM Modi and President Trump in 2019 shocked the World Press and completely changed the narrative on India from that day forward. Neither the Western Press nor the elite English-speaking Indian intellectuals could tolerate that hug. For Indian elites, a non-English speaking Chaiwalla from Gujarat did not fit their narrative of India. For the Western Press, anyone and anything that touched Trump is pariah and unacceptable. When Modi hugged Trump, Indian elite intellectuals and the Western Press found a common cause. From that day forward, PM Modi has been portrayed as an autocrat, religious fundamentalist, and uninformed. From that day forward, India has been portrayed as poor, sick, and hopeless. From that day forward, Indians are portrayed as nationalists, divisive, non-secular, and oppressive. From that day forward, every incident small and large is blamed on Modi and the Hindus.
The hatred towards Modi is so deep that these liberals forget that India has a robust economy, decentralized power structure, independent judiciary, an independent election commission, and a free press. None of these matters anymore. Strong economic growth doesn’t fit their narrative and, therefore, the news headline: “IMF Cuts India’s Growth” [IMF cut India’s growth rate for 2022-23 from 8.7% to 8.2%, literally accurate, but significantly lower compared to China and the U.S.]. Similarly, you see headlines such as “India Bans Hijab” [hijab was banned in high school and pre-university class rooms], “Muslim Family Thrashed in UP”. [Muslim family was beaten up for supporting the BJP]. Asking the liberal media for data and evidence is reported as harassment and undermining free press. The liberal writers know very well that news headings drive the public opinions, and they deliberately make up headings that suits their purpose. Also, they conveniently leave out crucial details or include them as footnotes.
It was not always like this. Prior to the Houston Hug, PM Modi had visited the U.S. in 2014 and 2016. In 2014 he was hailed as a hero and a testament to how democracy works for the poor. Much was written about how a lower caste Tea vendor from Gujarat rose to become the head of the largest democracy in
the world. NYT published an op-ed column written jointly by Modi and Obama. In 2016, The U.S. Congress gave a standing ovation to a dynamic leader who is about to liberate India out of poverty. Modi was the champion of downtrodden and can do nothing wrong.
Then came the 2019 Houston Hug. There is also an interesting backdrop to the Houston Howdy Modi gala. Initially, President Trump was not on the guest list. When President Trump found out that the venue for the gala has been shifted from a basketball stadium to a football stadium to accommodate a large crowd, he invited himself to the party. Trump joined the party and the left mind imploded.
A cursory review of New York Times and Washington Post newspapers post Houston Hug reveals that their reporting on India flipped and turned very negative. Certain columnists of Indian origin wrote hate filled articles about Modi and India. Certain anchors on MSNBC and BBC spewed hate on India and Indians. The Economist magazine even made a case that Indian Brahmins have taken over several major fortune 500 companies. The Economist even forgot that the idea of America is attracting the best from around the world.
Looking back at it now, I wonder what would have happened if Modi were to hug Melania instead of Trump. Perhaps, Melania would have divorced Trump and married Modi. India would have had a beautiful first lady and India be the Be Best. Modi would be the savior of mankind, if only the gala had stayed in the Basketball stadium. Perhaps.
– Shiva S Makki
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.