A Sanskrit-Kannada dictionary 'Samskṛta Padagaḷige Kannaḍaddē Padagaḷu', co-authored by Dr D N Shankara Bhat, Y Bharat Kumar and myself was released on the 5th of August. There are several Sanskrit-Kannada dictionaries that are already available. But this dictionary is different from all of those in several ways.
The Kannada synonyms provided in the dictionary are native Kannada words. In other Sanskrit-Kannada dictionaries, one can see mostly Sanskrit words as Kannada equivalents. For example, in one such dictionary, 'buddhi' and 'prajne' are provided as Kannada equivalents of the Sanskrit word 'Dhi'. But interestingly, both these 'Kannada synonyms' are in fact Sanskrit words. Similarly, in providing 'yuvati' for 'taruni' and 'svikara' for 'parigrahana', one can see that the Kannada synonyms provided are actually Sanskrit words.
To an average reader it would be impossible to know which of the synonyms are actually native Kannada words and which ones among them are of Sanskrit origin. This new dictionary will be of great help to such a reader who would want to know native Kannada words.
It is well known that Kannada authors use plenty of loan words, especially those of Sanskrit origin, that are not easily comprehensible to an average Kannada reader. This is particularly true for scientific literature in Kannada. In science and technology, there is always the need to coin new words. Whenever there is such a need to coin a new word to describe a new invention or a new scientific concept, Kannada authors have mostly resorted to Sanskrit. Such a practice has made the scientific vocabulary hard to comprehend.
Such words are not only difficult to understand but also coining such new words to express newer and more advanced concepts becomes increasingly difficult. As a result it affects the overall educational progress of the language community. In other words, using familiar native Kannada words to build vocabulary in any subject will only help increase comprehensibility in general, and gradually improve the levels of education overall.
In fact, there are two schools of thought. One, as mentioned above, believes in resorting to Sanskrit to build new words. The other believes in borrowing vocabulary from English. But to a common Kannada reader or student, both English and Sanskrit are unfamiliar and hence any vocabulary built based on either of these languages will only make the concepts difficult to comprehend. Most of the readers would be forced to rote learn, than understand. Therefore it makes a lot of sense to construct new words in Kannada, which is easily comprehensible.
The book has about twenty five thousand Kannada words, provided with examples of usage in sentences and other word forms. To people interested in using native Kannada words and to those interested in building and coining new words in Kannada, the dictionary will give a good idea on an approach to coin and use native Kannada words.
Hindi academics and writers, a hundred and thirteen of them, from different parts of India have reportedly written a letter to the Prime Minister Narendara Modi and the Home Minister Rajnath Singh urging them not to entertain any requests to add 'Hindi dialects' into the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
A professor who teaches in the Hindi department of the Calcutta University says
Eighth schedule means independent identity of a language. What will remain of Hindi if its key dialects are recognized as separate languages? The only reason Hindi has its status as official language is that it has the highest number of speakers
Well, what can you say of such a statement? Cunningness, lies, falsehoods and falsifications...
Dialects of Hindi?
Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi, Rajasthani, and several more are termed as dialects of Hindi. They are spoken across a vast stretch of landmass across the northern plains and together account for a little more than 40% of all of India's population. But the fundamental question - are they really dialects of Hindi?
To answer this question let us understand what Hindi is. Hindi or Standard Hindi is the modern literary form of Khariboli, which is spoken in the western parts of today's Uttar Pradesh. It was standardized in the 19th century with a heavy borrowing of vocabulary, especially technical and administrative, from Sanskrit. In its spoken form, essentially it is nothing but Khariboli.
Awadhi, which neighbors Khariboli, has been in parallel existence for ages. The famous Ramacharitamanas of Tulsidas, that is now appropriated as ancient Hindi work, is in fact written in Awadhi. Linguists group Awadhi in the Eastern subdivision of Indo-Aryan languages, while Khariboli, is grouped in the Western. How can a language be considered a dialect of another language that belongs to a different linguistic division?
Like Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Magahi, which are often termed as dialects all belong to the Eastern division. In comparison with Khariboli, Rajasthani languages fall under a completely different zone of Indo-European languages, and linguistically are much farther away. Their linguistic proximacy leans more towards Gujarati and Khandeshi - a language spoken in parts of Northern Maharashtra - than towards Hindi.
So, in reality, a large number of northern Indian languages wrongly deemed dialects of Hindi, are distinct languages belonging to different linguistic zones and divisions under the Indo-Aryan language family.
Cooked-up Numbers
We often hear that Hindi is the largest spoken language in India, and that its native speakers number more than 40% of India's population. This huge number becomes possible when many such independent languages are brought under the Hindi hood as its dialects. As per this GoI's website, more than 49 languages were considered as dialects of Hindi in the 2001 census.
Movements in Bihar and Rajasthan, over the past several years, have been demanding their languages, Bhojpuri and Rajasthani respectively, be recognized as independent ones and be included under Schedule Eight. Their demand is well-grounded and it is their right to get their due. So if it is so fair, why are Hindi academics crying foul?
Hindi Fanaticism
The answer lies in Hindi fanaticism. It is this fanaticism that has ensured the declaration of Hindi as the sole official language of the Union, with constitutional sanction to impose the language on all of India's peoples, even if they are unwilling. Constitutional sanction does not only imply that a few academics or a section of people believe in Hindi fanaticism. It also clearly exposes the imperialist attitude of the Delhi establishment.
Fanaticism has also slyly made sure to build a false association of Hindi with Indian nationalism. Such a false association was built on the myth that most of India (read it northern India) speaks Hindi as its native language. As large as 40%. And to add to it, it was propagated that another large portion of the population understands Hindi and it makes all the more sense for the remaining 'minuscule' population to learn and use the language. This way all Indians could communicate freely, and achieve 'national integration'. Sounds Utopian, but reality is far different.
Now that the speakers of Hindi 'dialects' are increasingly becoming aware of their rights the threat to this utopia, built on myths, appear imminent. This is so plainly evident in the professor's statement in which he questions what will be left of Hindi now? Clearly they are threatened by the developments in Bihar and Rajasthan, two prominent states of the Hindi belt.
Language Rights Vital for the Union
To a Hindi fanatic, it is fine to deny the right to identity and recognition to language communities. It is all fine if speakers of these languages are denied their right to education in their language. Denying their right to administrative use of their language is not a serious issue. After all, it is a small sacrifice in return. It is the same logic that is applied on language communities of the South and elsewhere too. Hindi in administration is imposed on them. What else justifies the official language status to Hindi alone in a union where hundreds of languages are spoken?
It is good to see an increased linguistic awareness in people. It is good for the Union of India, as a whole as well. For, we cannot have a stable union with a vast section of the population being denied their basic linguistic human rights for long. It will shatter us some day. So, in the interest of the union and in acceptance of people's linguistic rights, the union should accord them the due recognition. In a democracy people's rights are far more important than Hindi-chauvinistic intentions of the Delhi establishment and people with similar beliefs in the academia.
Ever since independence, the Union has always tried to accumulate more and more power for itself in all subjects of eminence – quietly and gradually cutting down the autonomy of the states. The subject of education is no exception. In fact, education is a key factor for development, growth and governance, and hence exercising control over the matter is key for any authority to hold on to power and accumulate more of it. The Union, time and again, meddles with the subject in such a fashion that it encroaches into the space of the states, one step at a time, seizing more powers with every single move.
Obtrusion through National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) is the Union Government’s latest fiasco. NEET is a common entrance test for admission to MBBS and BDS courses that starting from this year, will replace All India Pre Medical Test (AIPMT) and all entrance examinations to the above courses conducted by state boards and by private institutions. It will be conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
As we will see further in this article, in the long-term this will deteriorate into a situation, in which the Union holds complete sway over education, and controls and dictates all learning, and development opportunities of our children. Needless to say, this is quite anti-democratic in nature. The subject of education should be with the states, to ensure the jurisdiction of education remains much closer to people. It makes little sense to drive the all-important subject of education through a distant establishment completely disconnected from them.
As with any Union Government undertaking, support for languages has been a concern with NEET. When it was introduced back in 2013, students could take it up in eight languages, i.e., Telugu, Tamil, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, Assamese, Hindi and English. But this year, when it is made mandatory across the Union, non-Hindi students do not have the option to take up the phase one of the examination in the language of their choice. They can only choose between Hindi and English.
But the phase two of the test is being considered to be conducted in the above mentioned languages. The choices are still limited. There are already concerns that question papers could leak if they are translated to these many languages. Denying the choice of a language not just shows insensitivity towards non-Hindi peoples but also clearly demonstrates operational inefficiencies that were unwarranted in the first place.
Why is it that the Union, in most of its undertaking, time and again comes up with operational and executional excuses to deny support to other languages but has enough resources and forethought to support Hindi, any time and at any place?
Take the Railways, for instance. The Railways has enough money and resources to use Hindi in announcements, tickets, boards, signage etc in all non-Hindi regions of the Union. But when asked for tickets to be printed in Kannada, it either comes with the excuse of lack of funds or operational inefficiencies. The pattern with NEET is similar.
It would not be a surprise if in the near future, the CBSE board puts its foot down and says no more support for ‘regional languages’ in NEET. We often come across the rubbish argument that Hindi and English being widely spoken languages are generally understood by a majority across the Union and that other languages are either not needed or may be left optional. This has been the devious stratagem of the Union in administration and general policy making. Education is no exception.
Of course, the Union Government has expressed concerns over phase I of the examination being only in two languages, English and Hindi, citing the reason that it will impact students from non-Hindi states and those from non-English medium background. But it appears that the far-term vision is to gradually converge towards Hindi and English, rather than invest in all the languages in building strong higher education systems in them.
That the state governments will lose all authority or control over admission to MBBS and BDS courses in their respective states is crystal clear. Take for example, the Gadinaadu Kannadiga and the Horanaadu Kannadiga quota in Karnataka. Will the Government of Karnataka be able to conduct tests and fill-in admission for these quota? Will the CBSE board or the Union Government allow this? Or can the state government submit a plea if it is not permitted as per rules? We do not know for sure. But the state will no more be able to freely take decisions in the interest of its people.
Also, how will the state governments ensure justice to poor and rural students, who mostly do their schooling in the state syllabi? The syllabi of the states are vastly different from each other and from that of the CBSE board. These students are already disadvantaged owing to lack of coaching and guidance. The introduction of NEET will leave them further handicapped.
The states will also lose out the opportunity at restructuring or remodeling the system with novel methods. If a state, for instance, wants to adopt an advanced method of testing, or introduce a new subject it will not be possible any more.
In the long-run the states also stand to lose authority over primary education. With entrance exams coming under the CBSE board, parents would want their children to take up the CBSE syllabus right from early years of schooling. So, this will ensure that there will be very few takers left for the state boards. And the state boards, with decreasing enrollments, will be forced to align with the CBSE board to remain ‘relevant’ and ‘competitive’.
With more schools moving to CBSE, Hindi will be taught more widely in the non-Hindi states. But these schools will not be bound to teach the states’ languages. While the influence of Hindi will increase, the non-Hindi languages will take a beating as lesser and lesser of the young generation of the non-Hindi peoples will have good reading and writing proficiency in their mother tongues.
States like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh etc., did raise a few objections against NEET. But they have all mostly been related to operational issues. Very few, unfortunately, has been against what is fundamentally wrong with the initiative.
NEET definitely needs to be scrapped. But that is not enough. We should ensure that the Union leave education to the states and not get into running the affairs of the subject. That requires moving the subject, which is now on the Concurrent List back to the State List (education was in the State List, but was moved to the Concurrent List during the time of emergency).
This is what has given the Union powers to override the policies of the states on education. It is unsure if the current wave of protests will stop NEET. Regardless, the states and its peoples should identify this fundamental fallacy and work towards getting education back to the State List.
The Goods and Services Tax is being sold as the best thing that could happen to the system of indirect taxes in the history of the Indian Union. Simplification and streamlining of taxes, uniform taxation across the union, one integrated market, multitude of opportunities to leverage economies of scale, boost to the GDP and significance to the Make in India initiative - the benefits, we are told, are astounding. But what does it mean to the states and their diverse peoples?
A brief history of GST in the Indian Union To begin with, let us look at the history of GST. The proposal was first made in the Union Budget speech of 2006-07. None of the states had asked for it in the first place. The Union Government, nevertheless, wanted to roll out a national-level GST. Meaning, indirect taxes like excise duty, additional excise duty, service tax etc., that fall under the purview of the Union Government, and sales tax, purchase tax, entry tax, entertainment tax etc., that come under the state governments would be subsumed under one national-level tax structure, and that would have no state component. So, the States would get no revenue from goods and services; instead the Union would own and collect all taxes and redistribute among the States.
It was then handed off to the Empowered Committee of Finance Ministers to lay the road-map for its implementation across the Union. Since there was representation of the states in the committee, the idea of national-level GST was opposed. Which state would want to lose its revenues or even the control over its revenues? Finally, a compromise was reached with the dual-GST model, which included a state component too. But as we will see further, the compromise does not necessarily restore control back to the states.
GST - Thrust upon unwilling states
The idea of GST - whether a national level GST, as it was to start with, or a dual GST, as it is being proposed as a compromise now - has come top down from the Union to the States. The States have only agreed to it as a compromise and never wanted such a structure in place. When the States did not want what gave the Union the legitimacy to impose a new taxation structure on them? Note that by legitimacy I do not mean Constitutional legitimacy; I am rather questioning the invasive and imperious attitude of the Union Government in a federal setup comprising several diverse states, each with its unique history, culture, issues and state of socio-economic development.
The AIADMK rightly pointed out the effect the GST Bill will have on the autonomy of the states. In a dissent note the party observed:
..the GST Council, as a constitutional body, impinged on the legislative sovereignty of both Parliament and the State legislature and would jeopardise the autonomy of the States in fiscal matters.
The GST Council will be setup with the passage of the Goods and Services Tax Bill. It will be headed by the Union Finance Minister with the state Finance Ministers as its members. This council will be responsible for the categorization of goods and services, and will decide the tax rates on the same. In matters pertaining to taxes and revenues, all States in the Union should abide by its orders and decisions. What democratic legitimacy and credibility will an elected body retain, when its own matters are decided by a superseding external council that is nominated? The concerns of sovereignty and autonomy of the States, expressed by the AIADMK are absolutely relevant.
No doubt, there is representation of the states in the council. The council, as already stated, will have state Finance Ministers as members. But the weightage given to the states is something to be noted. The Union Government has decided to hold a weightage of one-third of the total votes for itself, and has given two-thirds' weightage to all the states put together. With this, the Union has ensured it has veto power of sorts for itself in the council. The States, needless to say will be dummies. Barring a few exceptional cases in which a majority of States may come to a common agreement, this setup ensures the Union has total control in all matters of indirect taxation in the country.
The GST Council is anti-Federal States that are ruled by the so called 'national' parties, usually have to toe the line of their party high-command, whose agenda is primarily focused on holding the reins of power at Delhi. The interest of the people of the State comes next to this agenda. While this will tilt the balance of power more in favour of the Union Government, those States with less influence in the Union and those ruled by state-level parties will find it much harder to influence any decisions in their favour.
It is also being said that the States can appeal to the council. But a democratically elected government going to a council for matters such as its own taxes and revenues is fundamentally opposed to the idea of democracy and federalism. A legislature elected by the people should hold these powers, not a council or a committee. It also becomes much tougher for the states to come up with and roll out any new or innovative economic policies. They all will have to operate within the limits imposed by this one framework decided by the council.
Who will really benefit from economies of scale?
I also want to address the argument of integrated market and economies of scale. Who does this benefit? It certainly benefits businesses and enterprises that are well established and have large scale inter-state operations. But what if the states want to take a different approach to nurture local entrepreneurship, for example? What autonomy will they be left with to roll-out an economic policy favouring local entrepreneurship when a uniform framework is already decided by and rolled out from a committee sitting in a far-off Delhi?
Do we really need an integrated market? Do we really need economies of scale? Can our people leverage the so-called economies of scale effectively? These are questions that each state and its people should discuss, debate and take decisions on. Rolling out from Delhi, a single policy for diverse peoples, makes little sense. In fact, it comes with the attitude of 'I know what you need better than you do' - violating the fundamentals of free choice, liberty and democracy.
By this I do not want to sound like a conservative opposed to economic progress. In fact, in today's world, free and democratic countries have attained much stable and viable economic progress in comparison to autocratic, dictatorial or less democratic ones. The USA, termed as the epitome of free- market economy does not have a unified, integrated market. The sales taxes vary across states. In states like Alabama, Oregon, New Hampshire etc., there is no sales tax at all. In contrast, California has the highest rate of sales tax. These rates are decided by the States themselves, the Federal Government has little say in it. To add to it, the cities, the counties and other local bodies may levy additional taxes. It is not just sales taxes, the States have their share of income tax as well, which is totally a Union subject in India. The USA has shown that a free market does not necessarily have to compromise on liberty of its people or the autonomy of its states.
Another argument in favour of GST is the ease of doing business in India, as businesses do not have to deal with different tax structures in different states. This argument too does not hold any water, when you look at countries like the United States. Despite different laws and taxation structure across different states, USA is way ahead of the Indian Union in this parameter.
Lot is being said about federalism, particularly co-operative federalism, of late. But the GST in its current form will be disastrous to the autonomy of states and the overall federal setup of the Indian Union. Here is a video recording of a talk on the same subject that I gave at Total Kannada, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, on the 13th of March. In this talk, which is in Kannada, I make the same arguments of democracy, federalism and liberty in purview of the GST bill. Comments / feedback/ discussion welcome.
Goods and Services Tax (GST) has been one of the most debated subjects
in the last several months. The introduction of GST is expected to
streamline levying and collection of indirect taxes on the supply of
goods and services in the Indian Union by being a comprehensive tax that
will subsume several other taxes levied by both the Union and the
states. By reducing the cascading effect of taxes at every stage of
supply, it is expected to reduce the burden of tax, and benefit the
industry as well as the common consumer. While its expected benefits are
still being debated, I would like to explore the much less talked about
implications of the GST: What does GST mean to the federal setup of the
Indian Union? What does it mean to the Union-states relationship? What
does it mean to the fiscal autonomy of the states?
Join me for a
talk on this subject on Sunday, the 13th of March 2016, at Total
Kannada, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. The talk titled 'GST in India's Federal
System' will be in Kannada. The details of the event are here in this
Facebook event invite, please confirm your presence if you are
interested to attend the talk: https://www.facebook.com/events/742957599174859/
In an interview to Vijaya Karnataka, a Kannada daily, last week, renowned Kannada litterateur S L Bhyrappa has advocated knowledge of Sanskrit as a necessary requirement for learning Kannada and for writing quality literature in the language. To justify his claims he not only mentions the examples of the poets of the yore like Pampa, Ranna, Janna and Kumaravyasa, but also cites the examples of the poets of the modern 'Navodaya' literature -who all had good knowledge of Sanskrit. He further goes on to say that Sanskrit grammar is pretty much similar to Kannada grammar and that possessing elementary knowledge of Sanskrit is a must.
This is not the first time that Bhyrappa has made such claims. In fact, just about a month ago, in a programme organized by 'Samskrita Bharati' in Mysuru he had claimed that it is impossible to write top grade Kannada literature without the knowledge of Sanskrit. With all due respects to the litterateur’s contributions to the flied of Kannada literature, it must be said that the above claims are not based on scientific facts.
Consider the languages like Latin, Greek, Persian, Arabic etc. These languages rose in prominence in different periods of history, and evolved mature literary traditions. There is also no dearth of scientific literature of the corresponding ages in these languages. In the same lines, in the modern era, languages like English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean etc have made great progress, be it in the field of literature or science. It should be noted that these languages, be it in the yore or in the modern era, did not require Sanskrit to evolve top quality literature.
If you take the instance of Kannada, it is said that the language came to be written about 2000 years back. It is undisputed that that first pieces of literature in Kannada were heavily influenced by Sanskrit. Kannada poets of those days, not only borrowed plenty of Sanskrit words but followed the Sanskritic poetic tradition too. But prior to this development, Kannada had evolved into a full-fledged language over a period of thousands of years, spoken across a large part of the Deccan. Such development and evolution of the spoken language did not require Sanskrit at all. It is well known and accepted that Kannada and Sanskrit evolved from different roots, and hence linguists classify them under different language families (Dravidan and Indo-European respectively).
Coming back to the subject of literature, by the time Kannada literature blossomed, Sanskrit literature was already at its zenith. So it is natural for the Kannada poets of that time to be heavily influenced by the Sanskritic literary tradition. Had there been another language in place of Sanskrit in those days, the Kannada poets would have undoubtedly been influenced by the poetic tradition of that language.
For example, many European languages have imbibed the literary tradition of Latin and not that of Sanskrit. Needless to say, such influences depend on cultural, geopolitical, commercial and religious factors prevalent in those times and in those territories. Hence the influence of Sanskrit literature on Kannada too should be seen in the light of cultural, geopolitical, commercial and religious factors prevalent in those days in the Kannada speaking regions. Considering Kannada as incapable or incomplete without Sanskrit is a mistake.
Can one consider the Vachana literature that developed at about the twelfth century as lacking in quality just because it developed natively, and did not follow the Sanskritic tradition? That is impossible. There are hundreds of folk songs and epics in Kannada, can they be considered lower rung or not of top quality because they are not in the Sanskritic tradition?
Looking at it scientifically too, any subject that can be expressed in one language can also be expressed equally well in another language. There is no evidence that suggests that one natural language is somehow better than another in expressive power. So, based on Linguistics science, there is no difference between languages that are considered to be classical and languages that are called as tribal.
For example, any subject that can be expressed in a classical language like Latin can also be expressed in a tribal language like Xhosa. One may consider Latin as more refined, but the concept of refinement is quite subjective. Hence one cannot, in absolute terms, consider Latin as somehow more refined than or superior to Xhosa. One can only say that both languages are equally beautiful and that they differ in the forms of beauty.
The advocacy of Sanksrit for learning Kannada, and considering Kannada incapable of superior literary expression without the support of Sanskrit arise from ignorance of the above facts. The beauty of a Kannada expression and the beauty of a Sanskrit expression differ only in kind and not in quality. Both are equally beautiful and one is not superior to the other. But only if one's opinion is heavily prejudiced in favour of Sanskrit, can one come to the conclusion that only Sanskrit is capable of top quality literature and that languages like Kannada require the support of Sanskrit.
Vachana literature has already proved that such opinions as incorrect, several centuries ago. At about the same time that Vachana literature bloomed, i.e., in the twelfth century, a Kannada poet by name Andayya showed that beautiful poetry can be composed without using Sanskrit words by writing 'Kabbigara Kavam'. In the twentieth century, Kolambe Puttanna Gowda's 'Kaaloora Cheluve' and 'Achchagannada Nudivanigalu' are shining examples of the beauty of native Kannada.
It is true that Sanskrit has a great literary tradition and there is a wealth of knowledge in the language. The study of the language and its literature should be, no doubt, encouraged. But words like 'Sanskrit is a necessary requirement for writing quality literature in Kannada' are far from truth and derogatory in nature.
In Karnatique, we have always stood for linguistic rights of all language communities.
The status of a language, with respect to the number of speakers, its
geographical spread, its use in the fields of education, entertainment,
administration etc should be immaterial when considering linguistic
rights.
There are hundreds of languages spoken in the Indian Union. The status
of each of these languages is different and the kind of challenges faced
by each are quite unique. However, there are some challenges that are
common to the language communities of India.
Education, especially higher studies
Violation of the linguistic rights by the Union Government of India
One
of the major challenges is education. While it is possible to receive
school education in many languages, higher education in Indian languages
has still not been achieved. The work of building knowledge bases in
Indian languages has not taken off. In Karnatique, we have always argued
in favour of building higher education systems in the mother tongue and
have discussed its benefits to the society, especially in the context
of globalized knowledge-based economies of today.
Challenges in
the use of languages in commerce and administration are also common
across language communities of India. In the administration the Union
government's language policy is a cause for concern. Article 343 of the
Constitution clearly calls out Hindi, with Devanagari script as the lone
official language of India. Succeeding articles, up till article 351,
prescribe ways and methods to promote the language through law,
administration and Union government controlled institutions - which is
explicitly imperialistic in nature towards non-Hindi peoples.
In
the past, several linguistic communities have protested against the
Union's linguistic imperialism. The voices for linguistic equality in
the Indian Union are being heard even today, and are only getting
stronger. In fact, people belonging to different language communities
are gathering at Delhi on the 21st of February, to demand for upholding of language rights. It is to be noted
that 21st of February is observed across the world as the International
Mother Language Day.
The states and Union Territories of India,
having accepted the Official Languages Rules, and other so called
goodwill schemes, like the three-language formula, have been suffering
Hindi imposition for decades now. After the status quo following the protests in the
sixties, the imposition of Hindi on the entire geography of India has continued to date.
People of various linguistic communities
have not only come to realize the serious nature of such language
issues in India, but have also come to appreciate the need for
collaboration between language communities to fight against them. That
several such initiatives involving multiple language communities across
India have been kick started is proof of this rising awareness.
To
take this further, we need to have a clear picture of the current status
of various Indian languages, the evolution of the Union Government's
language policy, its effect on all the non-Hindi language communities,
and our future course of action to address the issues. This is important
not only for people taking up the cause of language issues but also
will help others understand the issues and better appreciate the efforts
to address them. For this purpose, I, based on suggestions from
friends and like-minded individuals, have decided to author a book on
the subject of "challenges being faced by the languages of India".
But
such a book needs a comprehensive understanding of issues of a large
number of linguistic communities across India. Hence, an involved and
long-term collaboration with all of them is needed for this effort to be
successful.
Currently, I have begun to collate all resources
available online, starting from the debates of the Constituent Assembly
to the latest circulars / orders of the education boards of the state
governments. If you are aware of any resource, document or research
material that you think will help in this regard, request you to kindly
share them.
Also, there may be many issues and incidents that may
be specific to your state or language community and they may not be
known everywhere across the other states. Request you to share such
information as well. Many resources, including very crucial and
informative ones, may not be available on the internet at all. Here too,
your help is needed. Please write to me at sandeepkambiatgmaildotcom.
The last couple of weeks has seen some passionate debate on
Jallikattu and other forms of traditional animal sport in India, including the
Kambala practiced in Karnataka. The row began with the announcement
by the Union Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar that such traditional
practices may be allowed to continue from the beginning of the year, at the
same time making certain that animals are not subjected to any form of cruelty.
After close to two weeks of swithering to make a decision, the Union Government
has finally given a go-ahead,
even as the Tamil Nadu Government has approached the Supreme Court for a review
of the ban.
Many animal rights activists and their supporters have
lashed out at the Union Government for its decision to lift the ban, despite
the Supreme Court order prohibiting bull fights and other forms of animal sport.
But there has also been strong support to lift the ban from many other
quarters, especially those in support of continuing the traditions
Earlier in 2014, the Supreme Court, in what was termed as a
landmark judgement,
had ruled that animals such as bulls could not be used for bull fights, races,
and other such performances. This meant that Kambala of Karnataka, Jallikattu
of Tamila Nadu, bull races held in Maharashtra and elsewhere had to be stopped.
What is interesting is that the Supreme Court order also quashed the Tamil Nadu
Regulation of Jallikattu Act, a state act that permitted Jallikattu.
Are these sports really cruel on the animals? Do they
violate animal rights? We will not get into these questions here. These
questions pertain to the subject of ethics, which are not always universal. Different
cultures and societies have different standards and interpretation of the
subject, and what entails ethical behaviour varies. Laws, framed based on the
foundation of ethics, as a result, also vary across societies, cultures, and
nations.
So, the question we want to address here, is not if
Jallikattu is morally right or wrong. The question is - who should make the
pertinent laws and who should take these decisions?
The Supreme Court order was based on the provisions of The
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which applies to the whole of India,
excepting the state of Jammu and Kashmir. With so many diverse ethnicities and
societies across the Union of India, it is hard to understand as to why a
matter such as animal rights that can be so subjective and at the same time
vehemently contentious is governed by a single overbearing law.
It is impossible to assimilate all the various and often
conflicting interpretation of ethical treatment of animals into a single
homogeneous act or legislation, and an overbearing law such as this will inevitably
impose one cultural interpretation of the subject, on the rest of the states
and its peoples. With respect to people, the states being the more proximate
government entities are more competent and better placed to legislate and take
decisions on such matter. The entities that make a law, interpret it or take
decisions based on a law, should be as close to the people or the society in
question, as possible.
In the case of Jallikattu, the Union Government that enacted
the legislation, and the courts that interpreted it, ordering the sport to be
banned and quashing an act passed by the Tamil Nadu government, are much far
removed from the Tamil people. Hence the decision to hold such events and
festivities should be left to the state governments and the communities
involved, rather than laws and orders coming down all the way up from the Delhi
establishment.
The media, as usual, has made it a ‘national’ debate. With mounting
pressure on the Union Government to permit Jallikattu before the beginning of Pongal
festivities, it has now come up with an alteration to the 2011 notification by
the Ministry of Environment and Forests by granting exemption to such sport. As
per reports, the Animal Welfare Board of India may challenge the order in the
Supreme Court. Whether the ultimate outcome will favour the animal rights
activists or those in support of the tradition is a different matter, but it
still leaves us to the mercy of the Union Government’s laws and its
interpreters.
Eventually, the law, whether in its nature favours the
present case for Jallikattu or otherwise, should be discussed and enacted by
the Tamil Nadu legislature. Similaly, a law on Kambala, irrespective of whether
it approves the practice favouring tradition or bans it considering arguments
of fair treatment of animals, should be tabled, debated and then approved or
rejected in the houses of the Karnataka legislature. A single law for the
entire Union is not only unfair and insensitive to various peoples and
their accepted standards and societal norms, it is also quite impractical.
Renowned
linguist Dr. D. N. Shankara Bhat’s new English-Kannada dictionary titled English-Kannada Padanerake (Kannada: ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಶ್-ಕನ್ನಡ ಪದನೆರಕೆ)was released last Sunday. It has been co-authored by Y Bharath Kumar and Vivek Shankar, both engineers by profession with
interest in the field of linguistics.
While there
are several English-Kannada dictionaries already available in the market, this
work is quite different from the rest in three key aspects –
The
Kannada synonyms of English words provided in the dictionary are all mostly native
Kannada words, with a very minimal number having their roots in other languages
Along with native Kannada words in popular use, it also includes newly coined words, especially those corresponding to the fields of commerce, science, technology, and
other modern fields of study
It
has a sizable number of words coined by commoners and enthusiasts through the Facebook
group Pada Pada Kannada Padane
In all, there
are about 18,000 English words listed in the dictionary, to which, about 45,000
Kannada equivalents have been provided. It also contains several detailed
examples illustrating the use of words in their different shades of meaning.
A good
portion of words contained in most Kannada dictionaries of today are of
Sanskrit origin that are not easily comprehensible to a common Kannada speaker.
This is particularly true of words used in the fields of science and
technology. Such words, owing to their unfamiliarity, appear quite complex and largely
fail to convey the intended meaning.
As of
today, not much work has been done in building science vocabulary in Kannada.
We are mostly reliant on English, which makes learning difficult for commoners.
And whatever new Kannada words that have been coined, especially the terminologies used in
scientific literature, are mostly constructed from Sanskrit root
words. Most of these words, as said above, appear complex and not easily
understandable.
This
dictionary tries to fill the gap by providing words that are easy to comprehend
and use. Kannada equivalents to scientific terms provided in the new dictionary
are very close to native words used in common speech. The use of native words
in coining new terms also has the inherent advantage of making use of native Kannada grammatical rules. Hence, not only is it easy to comprehend a new word and the
associated concept, subject matter experts and common Kannada speakers alike can coin new words all by themselves.
By coining
words that are closer to people’s language, and using them in building content
in science and technology, several issues concerned with learning can be
effectively resolved over a period of time, serving as an enabler to students
studying science in the Kannada medium.
And these
concerns are not just limited to Kannada, but pervasive across many other Indian
languages. Such language communities too should consider coining words in their
own languages to build their word stock, chiefly scientific lexicon, by the use
of well-known and commonly used words.
Needless to
say, the dictionary is just the first step in the long journey of building
corpus in Kannada. It is unprecedented in that excepting a few individual
attempts at coining words in native Kannada no other initiative has yet taken
up the task in such an organized manner and scale.
The
dictionary, released last Sunday, will be available in the market shortly. One
may follow Dr. Bhat’s website for the latest updates.
On
Wednesday last week (October 7 2015), a protest was organized at Parrys Corner
in Chennai demanding the use of Tamil in the Madras High Court. As the protest
began at about 3 PM, twitterati too expressed its support to the cause by
tweeting with the hash tag #TamilInHighCourt. The hash tag was trending in the
afternoon for a while, not only in Chennai, but also notably in Bengaluru. Many
Kannada speakers expressed their support to the protest via twitter.
Earlier, the
issue caught wide attention when lawyers demanding the use of Tamil in the High
Court barged into court rooms stalling proceedings, leading to the arrest of several
of them. While the Chief Justice of India chided the lawyers for their method
of protest, Justice Markadey Katju, former Supreme Court Judge backed
the demand of agitating lawyers and asked Jayalalitha, the Chief
Minister, to make use of the provisions of article 348(2) of the Constitution
to permit the use of Tamil in the High Court.
The demand
of the advocates to use Tamil is legitimate and fair. In fact, all court work
in Tamil Nadu should have long been conducted in Tamil. Similarly, every High
Court in the Indian Union should conduct all its official work and transactions
in the official language of the respective state. Unfortunately, the Constitution
does not permit this!
Yes, this
is true. While a lot is being said about the constitutional provisions for the
use of the states’ official languages in the respective high courts, it is to
be noted that these provisions actually permit the use of the state language
only in proceedings. There is no binding on the courts to use the state
language in order, decrees, judgements or any other internal work. Here is the
full text of article 348(2):
(2)
Notwithstanding anything in sub clause (a) of clause (1), the Governor of a
State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the
Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the
State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal seat in that
State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree
or order passed or made by such High Court
Conducting court proceedings in the state language is
imperative, so is the use of the state language in all internal work of the
courts. Courts are public institutions of paramount significance. And being
public institutions they should function in the language of the public. People
should have the right to use their language in courts, and no government should
restrict such use or force the use of another language.
This view is also supported by UNESCO’s Universal
Declaration of Linguistic Rights. With respect to use of people’s language
in courts, article 20(1) of the declaration says:
“Everyone has the right to use the language historically spoken
in a territory, both orally and in writing, in the Courts of Justice located
within that territory. The Courts of Justice must use the language specific to
the territory in their internal actions and, if on account of the legal system
in force within the state, the proceedings continue elsewhere, the use of the
original language must be maintained.”
What happens if a case moves to the Supreme Court? While the
Constitution provides for the use the state language atleast in the proceedings
of the High Courts no such provision is available in the case of the Supreme
Court. People without the knowledge of English are severely disadvantaged in
India’s justice system.
Coming back to the high courts, apart from limiting the
scope for the use of state’s official language, the provisions of article 348(2)
also lead to a few, more fundamental questions.
What is the need for the Governor to authorize or the
President to consent the use of a language in a high court? Should not the use
of the state’s official language in courts be made mandatory by default? On
what basis is the use of state’s language approved or denied? Why is the
Governor, an appointed nominal head, and not a democratically elected
representative like the chief minister, given the power of authority to
authorize the use of a language?
Whatever may be the answers, there can be no justification
based on principles of democracy.
Another cause of concern is the provision to authorize the
use of Hindi in high courts of non-Hindi states. There is nothing that prevents
the Governor, who is neither an elected representative nor answerable to the
people of the state to authorize the use of Hindi in, let’s say, Karnataka. No
democratic state would permit such forceful imposition of a foreign or a
non-native language on its people. But unfortunately, the laws of the Indian
Union do.
Also, Hindi states like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar and
Uttar Pradesh have already been permitted to use Hindi in the respective high
courts, while no other state high court is permitted the use of the state’s
official language yet. The bias of the Indian Union towards Hindi and its
speakers, and the resulting discrimination against the non-Hindi peoples, is
well known and we have explored this subject in several earlier articles in
Karnatique. So, even in cases where the law permits the use of non-Hindi
languages on par with Hindi, they are either long denied or ignored.
It is evident that the questions and concerns raised above highlight
the lack of basic democratic tenets in some of the provisions of the
Constitution. To be just and fair to all the diverse linguistic communities of
India appropriate constitutional amendments are required so that the principles
of democracy are induced into the functioning of courts and other public
institutions.
It is good to see the lawyers of Tamil Nadu come out in
protest demanding their linguistic rights. Other linguistic communities, majorly
Kannada, Marathi and Bengali speakers, have expressed solidarity with the
lawyers of Tamil Nadu. Such external support goes far in lending strength to
such demands. I hope other linguistic communities too demand the use of their
language in their state high courts. And as people of every state demand the
use of their language in courts, it is important that they support each other.
But this should not be the end. This should be the
beginning. These protests have targeted to implement whatever is permissible
within the circumference of the law. But as we saw in this article, the law
itself possesses some fundamental flaws with respect to democracy and
linguistic rights of non-Hindi peoples. Unless these flaws are fixed, justice
and fairness will remain a far-fetched dream. Hence, in the long-term, all citizens
of India should unite to advocate linguistic equality in the Indian Union with
the ultimate aim of eliminating all discriminatory laws and provisions.
In an
article in scroll.in,
Mohan Guruswamy, columnist and commentator on economic policy and current
affairs, says this about the composition of India as a union of linguistic
states:
India
was never meant to be a union of linguistic states, but a union of well
governed and managed states. Thus, the demand for newer administrative units
will be a continuous one, seeking to bring distant provincial governments in
remote capitals closer to the people.
Talking
further about linguistic states he questions their historical basis:
Similarly,
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat and other linguistic states
have no historical basis. The yearning for linguistic sub-nationalism is a
post-independence phenomenon. Often this linguistic sub-nationalism has been a
fig leaf for secessionism, as we have seen in Tamil Nadu in the past.
Was India not meant to be composed of linguistic states?
On what basis does Mohan Guruswamy claim that India was
never meant to be a union of linguistic states? In the initial years after
India’s independence from British rule many leaders, including Jawaharlal Nehru,
were against the idea of linguistic states for the fear that it may lead to
disintegration of India. It is only because of the pressure of relentless protests
from people of different linguistic groups that the leadership agreed to
constitute a States Reorganization Commission, albeit reluctantly. Be it the
demand for Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka or Punjab, the protests were
so intense that the Indian Union had to give in to widespread protests.
So, in saying “India was never meant to be a union of
linguistic states”, it is obvious that the author merely echoes the thoughts of
some of the leaders of the Indian Union, and does not acknowledge people’s aspirations
as was evident on the ground that witnessed wide-spread protests. Didn’t the Kannadigas,
for example, then spread across several administrative provinces express their
desire to come together under a single state? Didn’t the Marathis and the
Gujaratis express their desire to have their respective states carved out of
the Bombay Presidency?
The demand for linguistic organization of states is not a
post-independence phenomenon
Yes, the demand for linguistic organization of states is not
a post-independence phenomenon, unlike the author's claims.
The state of Odisha (Orissa) was formed in 1936 as a distinct
linguistic province in British India. It involved the merger of Odia speaking
regions of a few princely states and the British ruled Bihar and Madras
presidencies. The movement to unite all the Odia speaking regions, itself began
in 1895. It was at about the same time, ie., the late 19th century
that several such linguistic movements started across India. The demand for a
unified Karnataka, for example, soon gained ground after the establishment of
the Karnataka Vidyavardhaka Sangha, in Dharwad in 1890. Though Karnataka had to
wait till 1956 to unite all the Kannada speaking regions, the movement
continued all through the pre-independence days.
The Congress was instrumental in directing such linguistic
yearning towards strengthening the forces of Indian nationalism fighting
against the British. While the Congress leaders were in favour of linguistic
organization of states before independence, post-independence they feared that
it would lead to balkanization of India. Sankar Ghose, in his book ‘Jawaharlal
Nehru, a Biography’ writes:
While the British favoured multi-lingual provinces in order
to dissipate the forces of nationalism, the Congress reorganized itself on linguistic
basis in the hope of making the party more acceptable to different regions.
This helped, as Nehru claimed, to transform the Congress from a middle-class
assembly to a mass organization; but as the States Reorganization Commission
later commented, ‘the national movement was built up by harnessing the forces
of regionalism’.
As Prime Minister, Nehru favoured the British policy of not
having linguistic states but he hesitated to be firm in the matter because of
the past commitments of the Congress.
Historical Basis of linguistic identities
In the subcontinent, speakers of a language, identifying
themselves as one people and of one nation, despite being spread across several
adjacent kingdoms or administrative units is quite ancient. Such
identification, which Guruswamy disapproves of as ‘sub-nationalism’ is much
more ancient than the idea of Indian nationalism itself.
Take for instance the identification of Kannada speakers as
one people. In the ninth century Kannada work ‘Kavirajamarga’ written under the
patronage of the Rashtrakuta emperor Amoghavarsha Nrupatunga, the boundaries
of Kannada – the naadu (nation) – are defined. The poet defines the
boundaries as the Godavari river to the north and the Kaveri to the south, and identifies
the region between these as the naadu of Kannada people. He describes several
qualities of the Kannada speaking people with immense pride. And this was about
a millennium before the idea of Indian nationalism was seeded.
It should be noted that Kavirajamarga is the earliest fully
available literary text in Kannada. So, the idea of Kannada speakers as one
people must have been much older than what has been recorded in the earliest
available literature, as evinced by several other indicators, like the army of Pulikeshi,
who ruled two centuries before Amoghavarsha, was referred to as ‘Karnata Bala’.
How can such a linguistic identity, known to have long existed in history, be
dismissed as regionalism or sub-nationalism?
Bringing government closer to people
The argument that the state capitals are remote and that
smaller administrative units need to be created to bring provincial governments
closer to people does not hold much ground when you consider the fact that much
of the power is centered in New Delhi, with the state capitals being mere ‘glorified’
municipal bodies that implement the Union Government’s schemes and projects. In
the previous
article in Karnatique we explored the imbalance of power owing to more than
twice the number of subjects that New Delhi has jurisdiction over than what the
state capitals do.
What is more interesting is that the number of subjects in
the state list has gradually reduced from 66 to 61 over the years – these subjects
were moved up to the concurrent and the union lists. And with a strong affinity
towards centralization, the trend is sure to continue. Considering its enormous
physical, linguistic and cultural remoteness from India’s diverse peoples, such
accumulation of disproportionate powers at New Delhi is anything but bringing government
closer to people.
But Guruswamy who is so desirous of bringing government
closer to the people, advocates the idea only in the context of provincial
governments and is deviously silent in the context of the all-powerful Union
Government. As if to support this silence he claims “that the real
concentration of power is not with the Central government but with the State
governments” (we have shown in some of the previous articles in Karnatique that
this is a completely baseless claim and infact the opposite is true: article1,
article2,
article3).
For this reason, when he talks of decentralization, citing
examples from the corporate world, he only mentions decentralization from the
state governments to the districts and further down. No mention is made of the current
situation of the Union’s authority over the states and the need for devolution.
So, his idea of small states seems to be the continuation of the Nehruvian idea
of India, with states as weak administrative units under a strong Centre.
Considering the historical distinctness of linguistic identities,
and the centralized nature of the Indian Union, demand from the states for more
functional autonomy is genuine, and it does not necessarily have to be seen in
the light of individual personalities like J Jayalalitha, Mamata Bannerjee or
Mulayam Singh Yadav. Being leaders of state parties they are more answerable to
the electorate that voted them to power than to a New Delhi high-command – a
highly undemocratic culture prevalent in the so-called national parties, in the
guise of national interests. So, the demands of states for more autonomy cannot
be brushed aside as regional jingoism. It is because of the unfounded fear of disintegration
that the Delhi establishment terms this as regionalism, and hence is less
willing to devolve.
Division of the Telugu people, through undemocratic
display of power and dominance, may have been successfully executed for now. But
refusal to acknowledge genuine linguistic identities and condemning them as
jingoism, and attempting to divide them citing reasons of regional economic
imbalances and better manageability will backfire in the future. Finally,
Guruswamy makes the statement that “small states are a must if we have to keep
the Republic healthy and strong”. Given the surreptitious intentions
behind the idea of smaller states, the claim that it leads to a healthy and
strong republic is fictitious.
We welcome unsolicited submissions to Karnatique. Just send your article to karnatique at gmail dot com. If your articles are in line with our editorial policy, we'll be happy to publish it.
Posts
