20 ms·

IIRC English - Indian English, not British or American - is the second language of the most people in India. Otherwise, they have so many local languages they w

IIRC English - Indian English, not British or American - is the second language of the most people in India. Otherwise, they have so many local languages they would be mutually incomprehensible. But everyone learns English, and so they can talk and do business.

orblivion 5y ago
And IIRC Hindi is supposed to do that but it doesn't always work out in the south (local nationalism among other things?).
- bettysdiagnose 5y ago
  Well Hindi is just as alien linguistically to the south as English is. English and Hindi have more in common with each other. I guess English is a neutral second langauge.
  - Arnavion 5y ago
    It's not even a North vs South thing. The so-called Hindi belt is a tiny part of North India, and even then plenty of people that live in it don't speak it.
mindcrime 5y ago
I had two Indian co-workers once, and we got into talking about languages. I was a bit surprised at the time to find out that the only language they shared in common was English. One spoke English, Tamil, and a regional dialect, and the other spoke English, Hindi, and a (different) regional dialect. I later came to find that this is actually quite common in India. And I understand English is still widely taught there, as a legacy of British colonialism, and so many (most?) Indian people - especially in urban areas - do speak English to some extent.
- Aloha 5y ago
  English is the lingua franca in India for a reason, one of the things I found interesting about the British Raj, is, the english sowed the seeds of tools of their own exit - Railways, English and Civil Society (specifically the Indian Civil Service and some vague ideals of Democracy). Those three things took the area that comprised British India, from a bunch of loosely connected nation-states, each with their own cultures, languages, and religions - while still having much in common, but not something that was easily unifiable, to something much more cohesive, to something that could be united. Then leaders came along who were educated in Britain, filled with British democratic ideals who learned how to subvert to colonial system from within. Who then did so, they wrestled what was considered the crown jewel of the empire from the British, with the tools the British gave them. It's still a brilliant feat, because it used colonialism to subvert and ultimately defeat colonialism. None of this should be construed as a defense of the Raj, or to imply that India could not have unified itself without those tools, but it turned an impossibly gargantuan task into a merely very hard one, because those tools allowed (at least temporarily) for people to overcome sectarian differences, and work together as one people towards a common goal with a common understanding. I wish people knew more about partition however, partition is the greatest humanitarian crisis the world knows nearly nothing about, it rivals even the holocaust in size, and it didn't have to happen, but for a lack of trust between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. I believe that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would be stronger today if it was one nation rather than three.
  - u801e 5y ago
    > I believe that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would be stronger today if it was one nation rather than three. There are many culteral differences and even different languages that are not mutually intelligible between different states and provinces. Europe is a union, but not a single country. Perhaps India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and other nations in South Asia could be part of a union, but I don't really think that it would work out as a single country. In fact, present day Myanmar/Burma was also governed by the British prior to World War II, but it didn't become part of India (mainly due to the British separating it from India in the late 1930s). Would Nepal want to be part of the single country, given that it was never colonized by the British?
alex_smart 5y ago
>IIRC English - Indian English, not British or American - is the second language of the most people in India It isn't. According to 2011 census, 11% people in India can speak English (I suspect that the actual number is much lower). Hindi on the other hand is spoken by 57%. English is the language of elitism in India.
- Taniwha 5y ago
  I think the important idea is that with the British gone English is a neutral language not owned by any one group within India
  - alex_smart 5y ago
    Except it is absolutely owned by people who can send their children to the very few good, usually private, usually expensive schools.
- guiltygods 5y ago
  > English is the language of elitism in India. English is lingua franca regardless of social or economic status. Every child gets to learn 3 languages : one local language, One regional elective (or Hindi), and English. English is now pervasive enough that transliterated words are common in all languages and are being used natively. People use English words and idioms without even realizing they are speaking English. You will find even in remotest corners someone who will understand and converse in rudimentary English (especially the youngsters).
  - alex_smart 5y ago
    >regardless of social or economic status Absolute nonsense. Only 11% of Indians spoke English according to 2011 census. The ability to speak fluent English is the biggest marker of social and economic status after caste in India. This is not really some deep insight. Everybody in India knows this, especially the 89% who don't speak English. There are even bollywood movies even based on the concept (see Hindi Medium, English Vinglish). >Every child gets to learn 3 languages The quality of teaching of English in government schools especially state boards is abysmal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_KVFZPofQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_KVFZPofQU [Govt school teachers fail to identify nouns in a sentence] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42xxu5HdJzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42xxu5HdJzc [Govt school teacher fails to read a primary school textbook] I also technically got to "learn" Sanskrit as my 3rd language in school. How many sentences of Sanskrit do you think I can utter now?

orblivion 5y ago

And IIRC Hindi is supposed to do that but it doesn't always work out in the south (local nationalism among other things?).

bettysdiagnose 5y ago
Well Hindi is just as alien linguistically to the south as English is. English and Hindi have more in common with each other. I guess English is a neutral second langauge.
- Arnavion 5y ago
  It's not even a North vs South thing. The so-called Hindi belt is a tiny part of North India, and even then plenty of people that live in it don't speak it.

mindcrime 5y ago

I had two Indian co-workers once, and we got into talking about languages. I was a bit surprised at the time to find out that the only language they shared in common was English. One spoke English, Tamil, and a regional dialect, and the other spoke English, Hindi, and a (different) regional dialect. I later came to find that this is actually quite common in India. And I understand English is still widely taught there, as a legacy of British colonialism, and so many (most?) Indian people - especially in urban areas - do speak English to some extent.

Aloha 5y ago
English is the lingua franca in India for a reason, one of the things I found interesting about the British Raj, is, the english sowed the seeds of tools of their own exit - Railways, English and Civil Society (specifically the Indian Civil Service and some vague ideals of Democracy). Those three things took the area that comprised British India, from a bunch of loosely connected nation-states, each with their own cultures, languages, and religions - while still having much in common, but not something that was easily unifiable, to something much more cohesive, to something that could be united. Then leaders came along who were educated in Britain, filled with British democratic ideals who learned how to subvert to colonial system from within. Who then did so, they wrestled what was considered the crown jewel of the empire from the British, with the tools the British gave them. It's still a brilliant feat, because it used colonialism to subvert and ultimately defeat colonialism. None of this should be construed as a defense of the Raj, or to imply that India could not have unified itself without those tools, but it turned an impossibly gargantuan task into a merely very hard one, because those tools allowed (at least temporarily) for people to overcome sectarian differences, and work together as one people towards a common goal with a common understanding. I wish people knew more about partition however, partition is the greatest humanitarian crisis the world knows nearly nothing about, it rivals even the holocaust in size, and it didn't have to happen, but for a lack of trust between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. I believe that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would be stronger today if it was one nation rather than three.
- u801e 5y ago
  > I believe that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would be stronger today if it was one nation rather than three. There are many culteral differences and even different languages that are not mutually intelligible between different states and provinces. Europe is a union, but not a single country. Perhaps India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and other nations in South Asia could be part of a union, but I don't really think that it would work out as a single country. In fact, present day Myanmar/Burma was also governed by the British prior to World War II, but it didn't become part of India (mainly due to the British separating it from India in the late 1930s). Would Nepal want to be part of the single country, given that it was never colonized by the British?

alex_smart 5y ago

>IIRC English - Indian English, not British or American - is the second language of the most people in India It isn't. According to 2011 census, 11% people in India can speak English (I suspect that the actual number is much lower). Hindi on the other hand is spoken by 57%. English is the language of elitism in India.

Taniwha 5y ago
I think the important idea is that with the British gone English is a neutral language not owned by any one group within India
- alex_smart 5y ago
  Except it is absolutely owned by people who can send their children to the very few good, usually private, usually expensive schools.
guiltygods 5y ago
> English is the language of elitism in India. English is lingua franca regardless of social or economic status. Every child gets to learn 3 languages : one local language, One regional elective (or Hindi), and English. English is now pervasive enough that transliterated words are common in all languages and are being used natively. People use English words and idioms without even realizing they are speaking English. You will find even in remotest corners someone who will understand and converse in rudimentary English (especially the youngsters).
- alex_smart 5y ago
  >regardless of social or economic status Absolute nonsense. Only 11% of Indians spoke English according to 2011 census. The ability to speak fluent English is the biggest marker of social and economic status after caste in India. This is not really some deep insight. Everybody in India knows this, especially the 89% who don't speak English. There are even bollywood movies even based on the concept (see Hindi Medium, English Vinglish). >Every child gets to learn 3 languages The quality of teaching of English in government schools especially state boards is abysmal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_KVFZPofQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_KVFZPofQU [Govt school teachers fail to identify nouns in a sentence] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42xxu5HdJzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42xxu5HdJzc [Govt school teacher fails to read a primary school textbook] I also technically got to "learn" Sanskrit as my 3rd language in school. How many sentences of Sanskrit do you think I can utter now?