As is customary in India, every 3 or so years, the language debate is brought again before the marketplace of ideas. Some say Hindi should be the national language of India; some suggest English and some oppose the idea of a national language altogether.
Yet others like our esteemed intellectual Kangana Ranaut suggest Sanskrit as the new national language. I for one fully support her in her campaign and suggest she release her next film in the devabhasha.
Although the language debate in India is as long as the Republic itself, the arguments for each side have rarely changed much over the years. This article will try to offer an alternate perspective of the entire debate.
Lost In Translation
“Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical consciousness that exists also for other men, and for that reason alone it really exists for me personally as well; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men.” – The German Ideology, Marx-Engels.
Regardless of whether one is conscious of it or not, the entire cultural, political, social and intellectual life of a human being revolves around language.
I interact with the physical world around me via the medium of language. When I look at an apple, I think “apple”. Regardless of whether I enunciate it or not, the apple is imprinted in my consciousness as a word—as language.
Everything that exists either has a word or a word can be assigned to it. There is nothing that is unnameable. If I see or think of something unfamiliar to me, I will just assign it a name or refer to it by its adjectives.
And not only can I interact with the world, I can interact with it socially. As language is something the community around me shares, we can communicate and share ideas about the environment around us.
As such, language is what separates man from the lower beasts. Language is a true revolution in consciousness. It allows us to interact with the world in more complex ways and, more importantly, interact socially.
Whatever limited consciousness an ape may have, it will never be able to communicate and share its perspective with fellow members of its species.
But here, we speak in the abstract. In practice, we have many languages and many “environments” around us. Different groups of people have grown up in different parts of the world, and as such, their languages (and their consciousness) have grown to make sense of their different lands and all its challenges.
Language is a reflection of the physical environment around it and, as such, is tailor-made to make sense of the region and culture in which it developed.
The Natural Evolution Of Languages
In India, there is often a crude debate about what the oldest language is. The biggest contenders usually being Tamil and Sanskrit. This is an absurd debate. As language is as old as consciousness as we know it, the “oldest language” cannot be 5,000 to 10,000 years old.
The “first language” was likely some sort of crude sign language or just short primitive vocalisations. Languages are not “invented” or “discovered” one fine day to put a simple date on it. It is highly unlikely a bored caveman one fine day decided to invent Sanskrit or Bengali or Nagamese Creole or Bhojpuri or whatever is being suggested as the new oldest language by chauvinists.
Instead of being invented, languages simply slowly evolve over time. With enough time, becoming unintelligible from its ancestor.
While modern-day Tamils with some training may be able to understand Sangam poetry, it is highly doubtful a Sangam poet transported to the 21st century would understand Malaysian Tamil slang of “Ay macha, why you being pundai dai?” simply because of the natural evolution of the language.
Languages evolve for a multitude of reasons. But the main ones are geographic isolation of some subtribes from one mother tribe that spoke one language leading to drifting apart from speaking one language to a dialect to eventually a whole new language.
Another reason is that as language is simply a reflection of the material world, as the material world changes, so must language to make sense of it.
Even when new words are incorporated into the language’s vocabulary, we can trace the development of the culture that speaks it by analysing the etymology of the words in question. By breaking down its root words, we can see the roots of the culture.
One of the words for war in Sanskrit, “gavisti”, can be broken down into “go” (cow) and “isti” (desire), Showing how the early nomadic Aryan’s social life revolved around cattle.
A nation’s entire culture is baked into its language. And here, by nation, I mean a group of people that share a common homeland, culture and language. And by culture, I mean one’s entire political, social, artistic and intellectual life.
An example of how one’s culture is shown in one’s language is how India’s highly hierarchical social structure based on respect and ritual purity is reflected in many Indian languages having multiple words for “you” based on one’s rank in the social hierarchy and age.
Similarly, as many people in India have strong ties with their family with little distinction between the “inner” and “outer” family circle, many Indian languages don’t have a word for cousin. Just referring to cousins as brothers or sisters, depending on the gender, showcasing the close bond between relatives.
The Question Of Linguistic Imposition
Often, the first task taken by fledgling democratic republics is standardising and enforcing one language upon the entire state—more often than not, using the dialect of the ruling class.
The reason for this is fairly simple. To create a strong developed modern centralised state, it is necessary that people communicate with each other. Especially so in the market, where trade is much more efficient when there is a unifying lingua franca—something that was unnecessary in pre-capitalist feudal states where trade was limited and localities were largely autonomous and self-sufficient.
The first republics that followed this model were nation-states, by and large, populated by just one ethnicity—such as in the French Republic. This formula got more complicated in multinational states.
In Europe, multinational states were more of a historical accident—unnatural products of circumstances that were often destined for failure. In such states, there was usually one dominant nationality that imposed its linguistic and cultural identity on the other nationalities, triggering a lot of internal conflicts.
In the colonies such as India, the situation was a bit different. The various nationalities more or less came to a voluntary union to take on the common enemy of imperialism. British domination unwittingly armed its own slaves with the weapons that would be used to sewer its master—for the first time in history, a common language.
Imperialism created a class of indigenous intelligentsia from various nationalities within India that all spoke a common language of English. Thus, opening the avenues for closer collaboration and solidarity against the common enemy of imperialism.
Regardless, the linguistic question was back on the table as soon as independence was achieved. British illogical border drawing with little regard for local customs or language had to be corrected. There was concern in the south of Hindi speaking northerners imposing their language on them.
Eventually, a compromise was arrived at where Hindi would not be the national language; rather, Hindi and English would both be the official languages of the new Republic, meaning, among other things, only these two languages could be spoken in parliament.
In truth, no one was entirely happy with this arrangement. The status quo was constantly under threat of again being tilted in favour of Hindi, especially now with the BJP in power pushing for a “Hindi Hindu Hindustan”.
A Case For Linguistic Autonomy
As shown earlier, a language is not just funny sounds coming out of someone’s mouth but rather their entire mode of thinking—social, political, artistic and intellectual mode of expression, their medium for interacting with the world around and sharing their thoughts and observations with those around.
Every dictator in history, knowing this, has tried their utmost to manipulate language. Either by imposing one language on all or by stifling dissent by banning certain artistic expressions. They do this to cripple a nation’s social, intellectual and political development.
Taking a person’s language is reducing them to a mere beast—the goal of every tyrant.
For an extreme example of this, we may just look at our southern neighbour of Sri Lanka, where civil war in the name of language raged.
One of the major catalysts was the burning of the Jaffna library by Sinhalese ultranationalists with government backing—housing books chronicling centuries of Tamil history in a blatant attempt to humiliate and cripple the Tamil people’s cultural development.
As we have demonstrated before, a certain language spoken by a certain people in a certain region is practically tailor-made to make sense of that particular region, that particular culture and the people inhabiting it.
Imposing a foreign language simply retards centuries of progress made by that nation’s people in cultural, artistic, intellectual and political development. It is the imposing from above of a foreign consciousness unsuitable for the temperament of the people and the environment around them.
It is obvious that it is often very difficult to translate some things in a language; nuances in meaning are lost. While guru may be translated to teacher, does the word teacher really encapsulate the important social role played by a guru in Indian society?
This loss in translation is again due to the differing paths taken by different nationalities in cultural development based on their environment.
With modern technology, a lingua franca for governance is not even necessary. Ever since World War II, live translations have become the norm for large international meetings. There is absolutely no reason why this cannot be used in parliament as well, where everyone can speak the language they are most comfortable with.
Is it not obvious that one can express themselves best in their mother tongue, whereas if forced to speak in a language they are not comfortable in, they may not be able to express everything on their mind? Something which is absolutely necessary for free and fair criticism—the cornerstone of democracy.
But we must not stop there. We must not just leave a nationality to speak the language of its choosing. We must actively encourage their further cultural development via education.
The establishment of education institutions up to the college level in local languages is absolutely necessary to strengthen the local intelligentsia—who are often the leaders of social and political movements for the betterment of their community.
Linguistic chauvinism of all kinds must be condemned. No language or nationality is superior to any other and it is important to develop a comradely spirit among the various nationalities.
We often see Hindi speakers in the south refusing to learn the local languages; instead, they expect the locals to learn Hindi to communicate with them. Learning the local language of the place one resides is absolutely necessary to truly understand the land and the people that live there. One must never expect the locals to conform to one’s personal comfort.
On the other hand, we often see linguistic minorities who move to the north holding steadfast to their linguistic identity and refusing to integrate into the larger local community. While some are quick to condemn this as well, we must remember that this is ultimately a reaction against the threat of their cultural identity being eroded by majoritarianism.
Ensuring complete national and linguistic autonomy will alleviate these fears and allow greater integration.
It is important to note that support for linguistic autonomy does not mean support for linguistic purism. As language is a reflection of the world around us, and as the world changes, so must our language.
Some people, out of a misplaced sense of preserving the sanctity of grammar, oppose adding new words into the vocabulary that aim to replace words that were previously used to mock disadvantaged communities.
One must understand where and why this brand new drive for linguistic imposition is coming from. The ruling party has already pushed itself into a corner with its slogan of “Hindu nationalism“.
What on earth is a Hindu nation? Does a beef-eating Malayali Hindu have more in common with his Malayali Christian compatriot or with a vegetarian Gujarati Hindu? Hindu nationalism is an absurdity for the simple fact that Hinduism is not a nation.
One would think after the independence of Bangladesh, the two-nation theory endorsed by the British imperialists would enjoy its long rest on the dunghill of history where it belongs, but the ruling party seems determined to keep it alive, subservient as they remain to their western masters.
Lacking the expected pan-Indian support for their so-called “Hindu nationalism”, they tear down the façade and practically admit their real goal of national oppression and tyranny for all minorities—be they of any faith.
India claims to be a voluntary union of nations with equal fraternal rights. Coercion, linguistic chauvinism and national oppression negate the very premise of the Republic and calls into question the authority of the entire state. Negation of the sanctity of the constitution reduces it to a mere piece of paper.
If India is an equal union of fraternal nations, what is beneficial for the nationalities is beneficial for India itself, and thus, we must work for national autonomy for all.