11 ms·

India's right wing government under Modi is trying to impose Hindi on Indians who belong to different ethnicity and speak diverse set of languages. A sure shot

by anuraj 7y ago

India's right wing government under Modi is trying to impose Hindi on Indians who belong to different ethnicity and speak diverse set of languages. A sure shot recipe for balkanization of a young nation.

owaislone 7y ago
While it is true they are trying to do it, it's not anything new as Delhi has for decades tried to impose Hindi on all states and the southern ones don't take it well. That said, I don't think this can result in balkanization of India as generally India is way more united in-spite of issues like Delhi seen as having way too much control over the states (which is true in my opinion). Also, IMO, balkanization of the India sub-continent might not be the worst thing to happen. I've seen how proud and patriotic Indian hate this idea but IMO it could be actually quite good for the whole region. I'd actually like to a more federated Indian Union that could eventually make way for Bangaladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Nepal to become member states. Something like the EU perhaps. While I don't think anything like this has any real chance of happening, it would be a sure shot way to bringing peace to the whole sub-continent IMHO.
- shripadk 7y ago
  > impose Hindi on all states This is so blatantly false. I am from South and a Kannadiga and I can tell you with conviction that in my lifetime I have never had anyone impose Hindi on me. This frenzy of Hindi imposition exists only in the states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala (and a little in Karnataka but has since died down once people became more aware). I blame the excessive regionalism in part but major part of the blame lies with the regional political parties and media that is under their control. Too much misinformation is spread and negativity created to make it sound like the Centre is deliberately trying to impose Hindi. Since I am from the South and know the languages (Tamil and Kannada) and follow the local media, I can tell you with conviction that malicious misinformation is indeed being spread. Until this is stopped, the southern states will remain balkanized. > federated Indian Union that could eventually make way for Bangaladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Nepal to become member states This can never happen. It has been tried since Ancient times (the concept of Akhanda Bharat) and even though it succeeded for a few centuries it eventually failed. Even though we are culturally similar, the differences arise because of religious intolerance. The European member states have always had their own identity maintained irrespective of invasions. Hence why they can exist as a Union (even that Union is showing signs of crumbling after the Brexit but that is a different matter). Indian identity was split right in the middle and was done on religious lines. That is a deep scar that cannot be recovered from easily. Those who initiated that division are suffering today. And to bring it back into a Union is impossible. Why would India bear the burden of member states that are economically weak? A Union can only be of equals. Else you'll have a situation like Brexit happen sooner or later.
  - viewtransform 7y ago
    "I can tell you with conviction that in my lifetime I have never had anyone impose Hindi on me." This is because several fellow south Indians gave up their lives to ensure that north Indian language bigots would not have their way. Read your history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hindi_agitations_of_Tamil_Nadu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hindi_agitations_of_Tamil...
    - shripadk 7y ago
      > This is because several fellow south Indians gave up their lives to ensure that north Indian language bigots would not have their way. I know everything about these agitations. There is a huge difference between what happened in 1940s and what is happening today. You are just extrapolating your fears needlessly. When I talk about "my lifetime" I talk about 30 years of my life. I was not born in the 1940s so there is no point talking about this period. If I have never had Hindi imposed on me should I lie about it just to please your political end-goals? Or are you one of those who loves to only dwell in the past and not accept any positive changes that have happened since? The Centre today is not talking about "imposing Hindi". It is talking about a draft proposal of making a third language compulsory for all students in India. You should be welcoming that move. If I were you, instead of protesting against Hindi, I would be asking the Centre to ensure a Dravidian language is taught as a third language in the Northern Hindi belt. Now that is a constructive! That would unite the Country rather than balkanize it! But we have bigots on both sides who believe in their own language being superior! This is way different from the C. Rajagopalachari order of imposing Hindi as the only common language across the Nation. If you are unable to differentiate between the two then no one can help you!
      - sridca 7y ago
        I never understood the sensibility of the notion of imposing Hindi to others in the country. It is like say Germany imposing German to be the de facto language all across Europe! And I do appreciate that we have one common language, English, which is tremendously useful in practical sense (not even including politics in here). -- I'm going to post my response here as HN moderators have put a limit on my account (I think it is silly but whatever): It is a bad analogy only in political sense. Not everything has to be seen in political light. And my appreciation of being able to converse in English, as a neutral common language, has naught to do with the capability of people of the Indian origin in learning other languages, and more to do with not having to learn the native language(s) of fellow Indians. I'm more than happy, for instance, to merrily be able to converse with people from Karnataka or Kerala in English, instead of having to learn their languages (or them having to learn Tamil) first. And I have no baggage whatsoever with English, as one another commenter indicated in this thread. -- > Then don't give such analogies. Given that not everyone sees the issue of, for instance, being forced to learn a language in political sense like you, then telling them not to give their perspective on this matter is rather myopic. > It talks about third-language being made compulsory. I'd not even care to have a second-language being made compulsory. And this is not an exclusive issue of politics; my parents made me learn Hindi (I passed till Praveen Uttarardh) for economics reasons; yet because I wasn't enthusiastic about speaking Hindi, my fate became that of Canadians who learned French during that 4 years or so in school. > I don't think you have actually encountered ground reality [...] an agitation against Tamilians in Bangalore in the 90s What has that got to do with not having to learn another language when both parties can understand and speak English? -- > If I can accept Hindi and enjoy the language without any sort of prejudice anyone can. There is no justification for the hatred being shown to Hindi apart from regional linguistic pride. Nothing you say will change my opinion on that. It seems you are making a big issue out of language learning, which is more of a practical matter, such as taking not being able to fully comprehend a local's driving directions (from your other comment) to be discrimination/ hatred. It might pay you to explore this issue (a commenter here called it "baggage") within you. > You have an ego that is coming in the way of learning/appreciating the language that is all. If anything my ego -- and I'm using the word in its psychological sense -- actually has aided me in learning a new language (French), moving to a part of the world with over 90% locals speaking it, and being successful in interacting with them in their language. > It has a tinge of racism Everybody is racist/classist/casteist/etc. to an extent. Do you see that in yourself as well (in regards to your driver not being able to comprehend the driving directions given by a local)? If so you might well be on your way to understanding what the word "identity" means ... B-) -- > You know when you start saying stuff like 'a commenter here called it "baggage"' it sounds like those fascist dictators who couldn't say "me" or "I" but would in a convoluted manner refer to themselves in third-person. Ha, given that you easily see discrimination in the simple event of being given wrong instructions (for whatever reasons), it doesn't surprise me that you see me as some "fascist dictator" now (before "racist"). Be that as it may, there is in fact a commenter (not me) who did use that word. You can use the search function of your browser to find it. > You can throw away that ego you have in the bin where it belongs and just say "I said I have no baggage". As I have far more intimate knowledge of the word "identity" and the word "ego" than you, I know very well that it is impossible to throw away ego (as if there is an disembodied entity throwing another entity out), be it in the bin or elsewhere. And it does not require the presence or absence of ego to be able to acknowledge, as I've done before (which apparently have eluded your attention), that I have no baggage whatsoever with English (and it is a simple matter of fact acknowledgement involving no egoistic feelings; it is just a delight to be virtually freed of one's nationalistic identity) > You have a huge difficulty in comprehending the simple English that I am speaking. Where did I say we had difficulty comprehending local's driving directions? We caught the locals giving wrong directions because I understand and speak Tamil. So I knew that they were fooling us and when I spoke in Tamil their giggled and gave the right directions. I see, okay. Yes, it was my error that I had overlooked your reporting of knowing Tamil. Regardless, there is no evidence (in your story) that their "giggling" automatically meant hatred and discrimination. > I see you have absolutely zero comprehension skills because you thought my driver could not comprehend when I clearly mentioned that the local gave the wrong directions and he was caught red-handed. Given that there are more than a few people who would rather impute malice in place of ignorance, it is not unreasonable to make that assumption. However, my overlooking your speaking Tamil still does not invalidate that assumption (as stated above). > You are prejudiced, a racist and couple that with ego and we now have a recipe for disaster. Everybody is racist/classist/casteist/prejudiced/etc. to an extent. And everybody harbours egoistic feelings to whatever extent. Do you see that in yourself as well (in regards to your imputing group-wide hatred and discrimination without clear evidence)? If so you might well be on your way to understanding what the word "identity" means ... B-) Ain't life grand!
- dharmach 7y ago
  That would surely help Islamize the 'Hindu' land.
- Heckwhynot 7y ago
  The only ones that would benefit would be the nations you mentioned. 70 odd years of building a republic with the inherent ups and downs would be laid waste. It just won't happen.
shripadk 7y ago
> trying to impose Hindi on Indians That turned out to be a big hoax. This is the second time such a frenzy was created for no apparent reason. There is no such "imposition" done by the Centre. A proposal is in draft which makes third-language compulsory for students. That does not mean Hindi would be imposed. The student can choose whichever language s/he wants to learn. The third language thing is implemented in quite a few states already but it is not Nationwide. This should be encouraged as it would allow students from Hindi belt and Dravidian states to learn a different third language. > speak diverse set of languages I disagree completely. I am from South and I can tell you that we have too much pride in our languages. So much so that we would rather speak English with our fellow Indians but not learn a different Indian language. Balkanization has already happened. What we need to do is try to unite by shedding this arrogance of language superiority. It doesn't matter which language came "first" or which is the most "ancient". A language is means of communication. That is it! There is no need for all this frenzy around it.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > A language is means of communication. That is it! As any sociolinguist will tell you, languages are partly a means of communication, partly a signal of group identity. The latter trait of human language is why some demographics intentionally take the common language and attempt to make it difficult to understand by outsiders by adding in-group slang and cant. It is why many peoples determine that a person is no longer a member of their community when he/she switches to entirely speaking an outside language. If you see language merely as a means of communication, a lot of sociographic and inter-ethnic phenomena are going to elude you.
  - shripadk 7y ago
    What does that have to do with the topic at hand? I am talking about irrational hatred for a language. Not about how a language can be misused. The misuse of language is secondary. What is the point of knowing about slang and cant if you aren't even going to learn the language in the first place?
    - 7y ago
navinsylvester 7y ago
I can say for sure - the right wing government want to impose a common identity across the nation which is a very bad idea. Not just the languages - we have vast differences but find unity in diversity. Inclusiveness is what makes India tick. As a Tamilian i don't think we will ever allow Hindi to be enforced on us. But our first Identity is more of an Indian than a Tamilian. India is quite a fabric and we should cherish the diversity.
- sbmthakur 7y ago
  > I can say for sure - the right wing government want to impose a common identity across the nation which is a very bad idea. Strengthening national identity is the job of any national government. And this doesn't mean it has to come at the cost of regional identity. I am an Indian and a Maharashtrian at the same time. I don't see the national government harming regional identity anyway.

by anuraj 7y ago

owaislone 7y ago

While it is true they are trying to do it, it's not anything new as Delhi has for decades tried to impose Hindi on all states and the southern ones don't take it well. That said, I don't think this can result in balkanization of India as generally India is way more united in-spite of issues like Delhi seen as having way too much control over the states (which is true in my opinion). Also, IMO, balkanization of the India sub-continent might not be the worst thing to happen. I've seen how proud and patriotic Indian hate this idea but IMO it could be actually quite good for the whole region. I'd actually like to a more federated Indian Union that could eventually make way for Bangaladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Nepal to become member states. Something like the EU perhaps. While I don't think anything like this has any real chance of happening, it would be a sure shot way to bringing peace to the whole sub-continent IMHO.

shripadk 7y ago
> impose Hindi on all states This is so blatantly false. I am from South and a Kannadiga and I can tell you with conviction that in my lifetime I have never had anyone impose Hindi on me. This frenzy of Hindi imposition exists only in the states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala (and a little in Karnataka but has since died down once people became more aware). I blame the excessive regionalism in part but major part of the blame lies with the regional political parties and media that is under their control. Too much misinformation is spread and negativity created to make it sound like the Centre is deliberately trying to impose Hindi. Since I am from the South and know the languages (Tamil and Kannada) and follow the local media, I can tell you with conviction that malicious misinformation is indeed being spread. Until this is stopped, the southern states will remain balkanized. > federated Indian Union that could eventually make way for Bangaladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Nepal to become member states This can never happen. It has been tried since Ancient times (the concept of Akhanda Bharat) and even though it succeeded for a few centuries it eventually failed. Even though we are culturally similar, the differences arise because of religious intolerance. The European member states have always had their own identity maintained irrespective of invasions. Hence why they can exist as a Union (even that Union is showing signs of crumbling after the Brexit but that is a different matter). Indian identity was split right in the middle and was done on religious lines. That is a deep scar that cannot be recovered from easily. Those who initiated that division are suffering today. And to bring it back into a Union is impossible. Why would India bear the burden of member states that are economically weak? A Union can only be of equals. Else you'll have a situation like Brexit happen sooner or later.
- viewtransform 7y ago
  "I can tell you with conviction that in my lifetime I have never had anyone impose Hindi on me." This is because several fellow south Indians gave up their lives to ensure that north Indian language bigots would not have their way. Read your history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hindi_agitations_of_Tamil_Nadu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hindi_agitations_of_Tamil...
  - shripadk 7y ago
    > This is because several fellow south Indians gave up their lives to ensure that north Indian language bigots would not have their way. I know everything about these agitations. There is a huge difference between what happened in 1940s and what is happening today. You are just extrapolating your fears needlessly. When I talk about "my lifetime" I talk about 30 years of my life. I was not born in the 1940s so there is no point talking about this period. If I have never had Hindi imposed on me should I lie about it just to please your political end-goals? Or are you one of those who loves to only dwell in the past and not accept any positive changes that have happened since? The Centre today is not talking about "imposing Hindi". It is talking about a draft proposal of making a third language compulsory for all students in India. You should be welcoming that move. If I were you, instead of protesting against Hindi, I would be asking the Centre to ensure a Dravidian language is taught as a third language in the Northern Hindi belt. Now that is a constructive! That would unite the Country rather than balkanize it! But we have bigots on both sides who believe in their own language being superior! This is way different from the C. Rajagopalachari order of imposing Hindi as the only common language across the Nation. If you are unable to differentiate between the two then no one can help you!
    - sridca 7y ago
      I never understood the sensibility of the notion of imposing Hindi to others in the country. It is like say Germany imposing German to be the de facto language all across Europe! And I do appreciate that we have one common language, English, which is tremendously useful in practical sense (not even including politics in here). -- I'm going to post my response here as HN moderators have put a limit on my account (I think it is silly but whatever): It is a bad analogy only in political sense. Not everything has to be seen in political light. And my appreciation of being able to converse in English, as a neutral common language, has naught to do with the capability of people of the Indian origin in learning other languages, and more to do with not having to learn the native language(s) of fellow Indians. I'm more than happy, for instance, to merrily be able to converse with people from Karnataka or Kerala in English, instead of having to learn their languages (or them having to learn Tamil) first. And I have no baggage whatsoever with English, as one another commenter indicated in this thread. -- > Then don't give such analogies. Given that not everyone sees the issue of, for instance, being forced to learn a language in political sense like you, then telling them not to give their perspective on this matter is rather myopic. > It talks about third-language being made compulsory. I'd not even care to have a second-language being made compulsory. And this is not an exclusive issue of politics; my parents made me learn Hindi (I passed till Praveen Uttarardh) for economics reasons; yet because I wasn't enthusiastic about speaking Hindi, my fate became that of Canadians who learned French during that 4 years or so in school. > I don't think you have actually encountered ground reality [...] an agitation against Tamilians in Bangalore in the 90s What has that got to do with not having to learn another language when both parties can understand and speak English? -- > If I can accept Hindi and enjoy the language without any sort of prejudice anyone can. There is no justification for the hatred being shown to Hindi apart from regional linguistic pride. Nothing you say will change my opinion on that. It seems you are making a big issue out of language learning, which is more of a practical matter, such as taking not being able to fully comprehend a local's driving directions (from your other comment) to be discrimination/ hatred. It might pay you to explore this issue (a commenter here called it "baggage") within you. > You have an ego that is coming in the way of learning/appreciating the language that is all. If anything my ego -- and I'm using the word in its psychological sense -- actually has aided me in learning a new language (French), moving to a part of the world with over 90% locals speaking it, and being successful in interacting with them in their language. > It has a tinge of racism Everybody is racist/classist/casteist/etc. to an extent. Do you see that in yourself as well (in regards to your driver not being able to comprehend the driving directions given by a local)? If so you might well be on your way to understanding what the word "identity" means ... B-) -- > You know when you start saying stuff like 'a commenter here called it "baggage"' it sounds like those fascist dictators who couldn't say "me" or "I" but would in a convoluted manner refer to themselves in third-person. Ha, given that you easily see discrimination in the simple event of being given wrong instructions (for whatever reasons), it doesn't surprise me that you see me as some "fascist dictator" now (before "racist"). Be that as it may, there is in fact a commenter (not me) who did use that word. You can use the search function of your browser to find it. > You can throw away that ego you have in the bin where it belongs and just say "I said I have no baggage". As I have far more intimate knowledge of the word "identity" and the word "ego" than you, I know very well that it is impossible to throw away ego (as if there is an disembodied entity throwing another entity out), be it in the bin or elsewhere. And it does not require the presence or absence of ego to be able to acknowledge, as I've done before (which apparently have eluded your attention), that I have no baggage whatsoever with English (and it is a simple matter of fact acknowledgement involving no egoistic feelings; it is just a delight to be virtually freed of one's nationalistic identity) > You have a huge difficulty in comprehending the simple English that I am speaking. Where did I say we had difficulty comprehending local's driving directions? We caught the locals giving wrong directions because I understand and speak Tamil. So I knew that they were fooling us and when I spoke in Tamil their giggled and gave the right directions. I see, okay. Yes, it was my error that I had overlooked your reporting of knowing Tamil. Regardless, there is no evidence (in your story) that their "giggling" automatically meant hatred and discrimination. > I see you have absolutely zero comprehension skills because you thought my driver could not comprehend when I clearly mentioned that the local gave the wrong directions and he was caught red-handed. Given that there are more than a few people who would rather impute malice in place of ignorance, it is not unreasonable to make that assumption. However, my overlooking your speaking Tamil still does not invalidate that assumption (as stated above). > You are prejudiced, a racist and couple that with ego and we now have a recipe for disaster. Everybody is racist/classist/casteist/prejudiced/etc. to an extent. And everybody harbours egoistic feelings to whatever extent. Do you see that in yourself as well (in regards to your imputing group-wide hatred and discrimination without clear evidence)? If so you might well be on your way to understanding what the word "identity" means ... B-) Ain't life grand!
dharmach 7y ago
That would surely help Islamize the 'Hindu' land.
Heckwhynot 7y ago
The only ones that would benefit would be the nations you mentioned. 70 odd years of building a republic with the inherent ups and downs would be laid waste. It just won't happen.

shripadk 7y ago

> trying to impose Hindi on Indians That turned out to be a big hoax. This is the second time such a frenzy was created for no apparent reason. There is no such "imposition" done by the Centre. A proposal is in draft which makes third-language compulsory for students. That does not mean Hindi would be imposed. The student can choose whichever language s/he wants to learn. The third language thing is implemented in quite a few states already but it is not Nationwide. This should be encouraged as it would allow students from Hindi belt and Dravidian states to learn a different third language. > speak diverse set of languages I disagree completely. I am from South and I can tell you that we have too much pride in our languages. So much so that we would rather speak English with our fellow Indians but not learn a different Indian language. Balkanization has already happened. What we need to do is try to unite by shedding this arrogance of language superiority. It doesn't matter which language came "first" or which is the most "ancient". A language is means of communication. That is it! There is no need for all this frenzy around it.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> A language is means of communication. That is it! As any sociolinguist will tell you, languages are partly a means of communication, partly a signal of group identity. The latter trait of human language is why some demographics intentionally take the common language and attempt to make it difficult to understand by outsiders by adding in-group slang and cant. It is why many peoples determine that a person is no longer a member of their community when he/she switches to entirely speaking an outside language. If you see language merely as a means of communication, a lot of sociographic and inter-ethnic phenomena are going to elude you.
- shripadk 7y ago
  What does that have to do with the topic at hand? I am talking about irrational hatred for a language. Not about how a language can be misused. The misuse of language is secondary. What is the point of knowing about slang and cant if you aren't even going to learn the language in the first place?
  - 7y ago

navinsylvester 7y ago

I can say for sure - the right wing government want to impose a common identity across the nation which is a very bad idea. Not just the languages - we have vast differences but find unity in diversity. Inclusiveness is what makes India tick. As a Tamilian i don't think we will ever allow Hindi to be enforced on us. But our first Identity is more of an Indian than a Tamilian. India is quite a fabric and we should cherish the diversity.

sbmthakur 7y ago
> I can say for sure - the right wing government want to impose a common identity across the nation which is a very bad idea. Strengthening national identity is the job of any national government. And this doesn't mean it has to come at the cost of regional identity. I am an Indian and a Maharashtrian at the same time. I don't see the national government harming regional identity anyway.