Devolution Should Begin from New Delhi

In a recent article in Business Standard, columnist Mihir Sharma has expressed concerns over growing ‘parochial attitudes’ in major Indian cities like Mumbai. What is surprising in the article is, the author considering India’s diversity as a barrier, and the author’s definition of parochialism in this regard. The author questions -

Why is it that so many of India’s cities, which could be locations for the dissolution of the many barriers that divide us, instead replicate and strengthen them?

What are these barriers that the author is talking about? It is evident that he is referring to linguistic, cultural, ethnic, religious, regional, and many other differences. But are they really barriers?

The world is naturally pluralistic and several diverse peoples, have co-existed for several millennia. So, when does diversity become a barrier or even appear as one? When one wants to force juxtaposition of different peoples, does diversity appear like a barrier. But then, diversity is only natural. The topic of forced juxtaposition has been discussed previously in Karnatique. There is no “natural antipathy” between any two given culturally or linguistically different groups, and when there is need for interfacing between the two they organically evolve methods of mutual cooperation. But forced juxtaposition is what creates unease and friction.

Major cities of today’s India are laboratories of forced juxtaposition. In the past when people moved to a region that was culturally or linguistically different they would integrate into the host society, first by picking up the language of the land. In fact, even to this day, many developed nations, such as those of the European Union encourage migrants to learn the local language as a policy. Unfortunately, independent India has dumped this policy of multilingualism. With English available as a language of administration and official communication across all states of India, and with the gradual promotion of Hindi as a pan-India language, the natives and migrants are expected to use these two languages for mutual interfacing, with special emphasis on Hindi. Any talk of encouraging the native languages is immediately condemned as chauvinistic or parochial.

Massive migration to major cities has resulted in forced juxtaposition, and a policy of mono-lingualism and the attitude of condemning anything native as parochial have been detrimental to any possibility of integration.

While calling Mumbai as parochial, Mihir Sharma also adds that Delhi is free of the ‘poisonous’ natives-vs-migrants politics. But this is not a coincidence or not an unusually tolerant character of the city.

The promotion of Hindi use through administration and legislation by the Union Government of India, as a pan-India language, coupled with little encouragement to multilingualism, has worked in favour of Delhi, which is part of the Hindi heartland. Migrants, whether they are from UP and Bihar, or from the non-Hindi states eventually learn the vehicular language of Delhi and integrate.

The same kind of integration is absent in Mumbai or Bengaluru. State patronage to Hindi means that the natives are expected to speak to migrants in Hindi, and the migrants shall never be expected to learn the native tongue. This attitude is considered liberal, and any attempts to protect the linguistic rights of the natives are immediately condemned as parochial or chauvinistic by voices of the Delhi establishment.

Referring to the ‘parochial politics’ of Mumbai, Mihir Sharma says that this model if replicated across the Indian Union, “would doom the emergence of more liberal, inclusive and prosperous India”. But the chauvinistic and patronizing attitude of the Union is the root of all language chauvinism, which the Delhi establishment has hardly acknowledged.

The columnist also accuses the state and its politicians for the lack of improvement or development in Mumbai. He says:

It has become ever more subservient to the state that it nominally rules. No state government or politician can afford to let Mumbai improve; as it stands, it is too powerful a source of funds and power. Mantralaya’s restrictions and regulations strangle the city and its amenities, but are exactly what the state’s politicians need.

The state of Maharashtra is the top contributor to the Union Government’s revenues, with direct taxes from Maharashtra alone amounting to a whopping Rs. 40 lac crore a year. The city of Mumbai contributes a major chunk of this revenue but only a fraction of this revenue makes its way back to Maharashtra, let alone Mumbai. Much of these funds are used to fund the special packages for other states and the centrally sponsored schemes. Why not return a major chunk of the revenue to the state or even let the state collect and manage the revenue all by itself? It is not the state of Maharashtra and its politicians that are holding back development in Mumbai, but it is the Union Government by taking away the city’s and the state’s major chunk of revenue.

The author advocates decentralization to the urban bodies, but keeps mum on the much bigger need to decentralize from the Union to the states.

Consider the subjects that the states and the Union have jurisdiction over. There are about sixty six subjects on the state list, whereas the concurrent and the union list together number a hundred and forty seven. The states do share the concurrent list with the Union but the ruling of the Union can override the legislation or orders of the state in those subjects. So, in effect, the Union holds jurisdiction over more than twice the number of subjects that the states do.

Frequent meddling with the state subjects by the Union Government through centrally sponsored schemes further impinges on the powers of the states. Considering the many diverse linguistic and ethnic groups across India, such over-centralization of power at New Delhi robs them off democratic empowerment. Hence the Union Government should be a much thinner entity retaining only the portfolios of common interests like external affairs and defence, and devolve the rest to the states. Why is the columnist who calls Aam Admi Party’s “idea of radical decentralization” as a “real political innovation” silent on the devolution of powers to the states?

The Union should devolve as many subjects as possible to the states, and should retain the ones like foreign affairs and defence. The states shall decide on devolution of powers to municipal bodies. As each state is different, the devolution model shall be different. There cannot be a single model of devolution of power from states to municipal bodies across India.  

India Does Not Need a Single Language to Unite

Outlook India reports that an editorial published recently, to coincide with the Hindi Diwas celebrations, in the RSS organ Panchajanya says "Hindi has the potential to unite the country". The organization’s strong position to have Hindi, especially Sanskritized Hindi, as a single linguistic unifying factor for the whole of the Indian Union is quite well known. Ofcourse not everyone approves of the organization’s stance. Often, there are questions raised asking if Hindi is really the right choice for a link language or a ‘unifying language’ for India. As someone, who also disagrees with RSS’s stance I would want to address a more fundamental question here: does India really need a single language to unite?

What makes people think that India is not united now and that there is a need of a monotony to bind this vast landmass of one plus billion people together? Obviously, there is a ton of linguistic diversity, and one may argue that such linguistic and cultural differences may lead to eventual disintegration unless there is a single bond that ties them all together. But it is not as simple as it appears on the surface. Inducing a common language, and promoting its use extensively through education, administration, employment, financial services etc., will lead to that language acquiring a superior status over native languages. As this language becomes more powerful and begins occupying the registers of the native languages, those native languages will be severely restricted in use, especially in the public domain. Native language speakers will certainly raise objections to their language being gradually side-lined and this will inevitably lead to frictions. 

The editorial talks of how ‘efforts’ were made by some to create a rift between Hindi and ‘regional’ languages thus affecting the growth of Hindi. But when native language speakers face the loss of several registers to Hindi and realize their mother tongue being gradually pushed to a second grade status, resistance is expected. In fact it is the imposition of Hindi that has created an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust leading to opposition. It is not a deliberate attempt to manufacture dissent, not an impression created by pro-English language elements, nor is it a myth that is being perpetuated, as claimed by the editorial.

I am reminded of a statement in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights that talks about the factors affecting or leading to the violation of linguistic rights of peoples across the globe. The document first mentions the following as one of very critical factors from which linguistic communities need to be protected.

The age-old unifying tendency of the majority of states to reduce diversity and foster attitudes opposed to cultural plurality and linguistic pluralism.

States that perceive linguistic plurality or diversity as divisiveness will try to introduce a common linguistic factor so that it serves as an icon that all peoples of the entire state can associate with. Presumably, this induced common feature should help them transgress the pettiness of associating with ‘divisive’ factors. But as we have learnt from history such moves have only backfired. Pushing an alien tongue down the throats of an unsuspecting or unwilling people will lead to ill will and confrontations. On the other hand, promoting mutual respect towards one another’s languages and helping each language community use and develop their language without any sort of external meddling or interferences offer more opportunities to foster an environment of harmony and unity among language communities.

So, promoting Hindi as “"the symbol of Bharat” is a bad idea with respect to the integrity of the Indian Union. One language can never be the linguistic emblem of India. If there is one then it is linguistic diversity. More it is respected and fostered, stronger and more integrated will the Indian Union be.

With regards to the use of English still being prevalent in India the editorial says “English is not a language of our preference. It was imposed on us by British.” It is true that excepting a fraction of English educated people, most of India cannot speak or communicate in English effectively. Truly, it is not a language of India’s preference. But Hindi is not a language of India’s preference either. Except in states and regions where the language is spoken it is alien to most of India. The British imposed English. And now the Indian Union has been imposing Hindi for over six decades. To a non-Hindi speaker, both are imperialist in nature and not much different. Only that English is found to be a lesser evil owing to its usage in administration by the British for a few centuries in the past, its continued use today in India, and the emergence of English as a business language with the promise of better employment opportunities globally. In any case, given the options, a non-Hindi speaker would neither prefer English nor Hindi but would rather prefer his own mother tongue.

Strengthening Hindi will strengthen the Hindi speaking community. It does not necessarily strengthen the whole of India. One needs to strengthen each language equally, so that each strengthened language community will collectively lead to a strong India. And strengthening Hindi alone will inevitably tilt the balance of power in favour of Hindi speakers. This will have its repercussions too. Many native language communities have expressed opposition to the state of Hindi hegemony resulting from this tilt of balance of power. Unfortunately, their voices have always been suppressed calling them ‘parochial’, ‘chauvinistic’, ‘hate-mongering’, ‘fringe’ and what not.

Talking about the overall authority of English in the domain of law the editorial says “English is entrenched deeply in the Supreme Court functioning, file notings of bureaucracy and conduct of policy discussions, which is very dangerous”. True, this is not just a cause of inconvenience to Indians but in many cases may even result in denial of justice to common people who have poor or no knowledge of English. But imagine English being replaced with Hindi. What will this mean to a Kannadiga or a Tamilian or a Bengali? Needless to say, it is a worse off situation to non-Hindi speakers. It also raises the fundamental question of who the Indian Union really represents. The Indian Union should represent a Kannada speaker equally as it does a Hindi speaker. So, as a representative of Kannada speakers it is duty-bound to get the Supreme Court or any other public institution function in Kannada. And not just in Kannada, in all the widely spoken languages. That would be a fair representation.

Also, the editorial’s support to make Hindi as one of the official languages of the United Nations smacks of hypocrisy. When it wants Hindi to have an upper hand in the whole of India and makes no mention of granting official status to any of the other scheduled languages, how does it justify itself to support the official status to Hindi in the United Nations? Doesn’t this expose major fallacies in the organization’s idea of India, in which all of linguistic identities, except one, find themselves in a subordinated position? Why should non-Hindi speakers support such a hypocritical stance of the RSS? Why should they accept a lower-ranking position for themselves? 

In the past, many freedom fighters, considered the founding fathers of India, did back Hindi to be accorded the status of the national language, which would serve as a common link across India’s diverse linguistic landscape. Though India has time and again faced opposition from a few linguistic groups with respect to having Hindi as a common link language, it has been able to maintain a popular narrative that such a common language is indeed necessary for the purposes of ‘national integration’. But as observed by UNESCO itself, such attitudes not just undermine diversity but will also be counter-productive in achieving the desired result of integration. It is time the Indian Union, and outfits like the RSS, stop considering linguistic diversity as a bane to Indian unity. They should understand and appreciate linguistic diversity, and endorse provision of equal status and rights to all languages and its speakers, regardless of their numbers, territory, or influence.

World Hindi Conference: The Tyranny of Linguistic Imperialism Continues

The Prime Minister Narendra Modi will inaugurate the tenth World Hindi Conference today, in Bhopal. The three-day event themed 'Hindi Jagat: Vistar evam sambhavnai' (World of Hindi: Expansion and Scope) is organized by the Ministry of External Affairs in partnership with the Government of Madhya Pradesh. So, what does it mean to an average Indian? At a time when India has begun to assert itself internationally, it is certainly quite exciting to witness the country come together to discuss the promotion and the possibilities of its own language at the global level, isn't it? Sign of a nation that is on the path to shrug off things colonial or non-native, and rediscover and strengthen its true identity!

Yes, this is how many Indians, especially Hindi speakers, will look at it. But to all the non-Hindi peoples, it is business as usual. After all, we are used to the linguistic imperialism of the Indian Union on a daily basis. It has been happening for decades now. A conference held somewhere in the Hindi heartland is not a big deal and does not surprise us. We very well understand that many topics of discussion in the conference will have scant respect for our linguistic rights. Infact they are aimed at impinging on our rights, consciously or otherwise. The imperialists and their apologists will cheer at how this will help increase India's influence abroad and re-inforce 'national integration'. While we will continue to silently suffer the humiliation of losing our self-respect and identities.

'What is wrong with a Hindi conference?', one may ask. After all, don't the other languages too have their own literature 'sammelanas'? Yes, it is true. There is nothing wrong in organizing a conference for Hindi. But the question is, how justified is the Government of India in organizing an event like this for Hindi alone? External Affairs Ministry or any arm of the Indian Union does not organize such an event for Kannada or Marathi or Assamese. Are these languages any less Indian? The Union Government is a representative of all linguistic peoples, not Hindi speakers alone. If the Ministry of External Affairs promotes Hindi globally, to be fair and just, should it not promote all the other languages of India, at least the widely spoken ones, with equal zeal? Why is public money that belongs to peoples of all linguistic groups being used to promote the interests of a single language community? To be fair the Union Government should promote all languages equally or none.

Let us also take a look at the topics of discussion at the conference, and see how they do not comply with the conventions for linguistic rights that are internationally accepted. One of the main topics is the use of Hindi in external affairs. Again, it is the same question that arises. Why this preferential treatment to Hindi alone? Does Hindi represent all of India? One may argue that it is better to have one of 'our' languages represent India globally. To the non-Hindi peoples, Hindi may fall within the Indian border but that does not mean they can call it 'ours'. In fact, Hindi and English are equally foreign to us, and Hindi does not in any way represent us better than does English. The Gujarat High Court verdict declaring Hindi as foreign to Gujaratis is to be noted here.

Also, it is ironic that India is seeking 129 votes from the United Nations' member states to recognize Hindi as one of official languages there. While the Indian Union itself aims to have only Hindi as its official language (as per the Constitution Hindi should be the sole official language, and English to continue on a temporary basis till the time Hindi becomes acceptable everywhere), and refuses to grant official status to any other for the fear of 'repercussions'. How hypocritical can it get?

Promotion of Hindi among the Indian diaspora is also a subject of discussion. There is also a proposal to engage educational institutes in foreign countries through the Indian missions to encourage and promote teaching of Hindi. Does Indian diaspora only mean Hindi speaking people? If you take the example of Gulf countries, there is a large number of Indians from Kerala and other states of southern India. Why should Hindi be promoted among those non-Hindi speaking peoples? People of different linguistic communities of India have settled in various parts of the world. Is it fair to make use of their presence to promote Hindi there in the name of Indianness? A Malayalee settled in the Gulf, for example, would want his kids to learn Malayalam and not Hindi. In all fairness, the Indian Government should provide for facilities to learn and promote Malayalam there. Promoting Hindi alone is not fair to non-Hindi Indians.

Hindi in Administration is another topic in the theme. It surely benefits the people in the Hindi speaking areas, but as mentioned earlier, we non-Hindis have suffered the imposition of Hindi through administration for several decades now. Though this topic has been covered in depth in Karnatique, and elsewhere, I will take one example to highlight the daily plight of the non-Hindis. In many nationalized banks, most printed material are made available in Hindi and English. While the RBI rules do state that such forms should also be made available in 'regional' languages, they are usually not found or are very small in number. When you question the bank officials, they usually cite the lack of supply from the head office/ branch. With a common bank examination offered only in Hindi and English, many people with no knowledge of the local languages are posted as bank officers. Imagine the plight of a non-Hindi native, who has to not only deal with an alien language on printed material but also in the mouths of unhelpful bank officials and executives. While a Hindi speaker can conduct all his transactions with ease even in non-Hindi regions.

Banks, insurance, national highways, railways, various citizen services - the list is endless. Name the subject that falls under the jurisdiction of the Union Government, Hindi is imposed unabated there. It comes as no surprise that spreading of Hindi in north-eastern and southern states will also be considered in the conference. Has any other Indian language community discussed or debated about spreading their language in a state where that language is not native, with the objective of coaxing the natives to adopt it for daily use?

It is true that India is seeking to expand its influence globally as a powerful state that is also democratic and honourable. As the state grows and matures, not just economically but also in human values, it is important that it re-evaluate some of its founding principles from the perspective of linguistic equality. In the past, states sought to artificially introduce uniformity owing to concerns of balkanization. Abuse of ethnic and linguistic rights, covertly or overtly, became necessary. But as we have seen, such states have eventually disintegrated. Respect for each language is more likely to help achieve integration than promoting a single language. Also, mature democracies have evolved to respect linguistic rights as a matter of principle. If India is to emerge as a mature and honourable state, it should reconsider its official language law.

(Image: vishwahindisammelan.gov.in)

What India Needs Today Is Linguistic Equality, Not Another Link Language

A news report published recently in The Hindustan Times, reports that the Samskrita Bharati, a non-profit organization associated with the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, will launch an outreach drive to propagate the use of Sanskrit throughout India.

Does a nation require a common link language?

The report states that the organization’s one-day campaign called 'Graham Graham Samskritam' (Sanskrit in every home) is aimed at establishing Sanskrit as the 'rajbhasha', a pan-India medium of spoken and written language. While the idea of having a single common language as a means of communication still has many takers in India it is so old-school that many advanced nations have abandoned such policies in favour of providing equal rights and privileges to all linguistic communities. So, how long are we going to continue to fool ourselves that the Indian Union needs a 'link language' that will serve as some kind of a unifying factor?

It seems natural that nations, which are linguistically diverse should promote a link language to help facilitate communication across all its regions and also to serve as a national unifying factor. But as we have learnt from history, in the instances of Bangladesh, USSR etc., such attempts have mostly been counter-productive leading to frictions between linguistic groups and ethnicities, and have often resulted in disintegration of nations. On the other hand promoting different languages can enhance mutual trust between language groups and help achieve unity that national governments strive for. This can be seen in several countries in Europe like Belgium and Finland, where all languages are treated on par and the rights of its speakers are protected as a state policy. The European Union actively encourages fostering of linguistic and cultural diversities, as a way to promote integration between its member states.

How pragmatic is the promotion of Sanskrit in this age?

Questions of pragmatism and practical sense also arise. Sanskrit may have been used as a liturgical language by the learned few for more than two millennia in India but as linguists and historians attest, it (proto Sanskrit) evolved into various Prakrits more than two thousand years ago. These Prakrits evolved into the various languages and dialects spoken across the northern part of India today. What is the point in bringing back to speech (to whatever possible extent) a language that has already evolved into various languages and dialects? As we know it, speech is constantly under flux. So, even if one succeeded in bringing Sanskrit back to speech in a few groups and regions, it will inevitably change and evolve into different dialects in decades and centuries to come. Should one take up the Sanskrit campaign again then? This is not only so unnecessary and inefficient but also counter-productive. 

Instead, it makes a lot more sense to promote various languages spoken across the country in education, administration and in all other possible spheres of life. It will not only help literacy and education, but also help people obtain citizen services and official government communication in the language they are most comfortable with. Often, some people argue that promotion of Sanskrit will enrich the other Indian languages too, but linguistically speaking this is a false argument. Also, why is Sanskrit being taken to every home? Don’t these homes already speak their mother tongues? What is the need to oblige them to speak Sanskrit in place of their respective mother tongues?

How good is Sanskrit as the medium of instruction?

The organization has also submitted a proposal to the Union government, says the report, to continue to use the mother tongue as the medium of instruction between class 1 and 8 and move to the Sanskrit medium from class 9 onwards. It is scientifically proven that for a child there is no better medium of instruction than his/ her mother tongue. In this respect the organization's proposal to use the mother tongue in the primary education is right. But its suggestion to switch to Sanskrit medium from class 9 is not justified. The decision to use a particular language or languages of instruction in schools should, at the most, be left to respective linguistic communities. Linguistic communities may work with their respective state governments towards an acceptable resolution on the medium of instruction if needed. Recommending Sanskrit medium to the children of several hundreds of different linguistic communities across a vast landmass of a billion plus population, without the consultation of the communities themselves is not correct.

In Karnatique, we have always supported the mother tongue as the medium of instruction, for scientific reasons. Not just primary education, even offering higher education in the mother tongue will benefit the respective linguistic communities. For their own benefit, linguistic communities should work towards that goal. But trying to promote a different language, be it English, Hindi or even Sanskrit as medium of instruction will be counter-productive. It should be noted that no country has ever progressed by using a language other than people’s language in education.

Such proposals to the Union Government too are inappropriate as the Union represents all linguistic communities and not just one or two. Private organizations are free to promote any language but they should not go to the extent of violating linguistic rights of other linguistic communities. Encouraging people to learn Sanskrit and teaching the language through private institutes and classes are all fine, but promoting it with the intent of making it a pan-India language, especially by using one’s influence in the Union Government, in order to serve as a language of official use throughout the country or introducing it as a medium of instruction in education on various other unsuspecting linguistic groups is a mistake.

All Indian Languages Ought to Be Promoted in Fields of Science

Pic source: indiandiasporaclub.com

As per this report that appeared in the Economic Times dated 25th of August, world Hindi conference will be organized at the city of Bhopal in the month of September. The whole event is being sponsored and organized by the Government of India.Apart from its focus on literary activities in Hindi, strategies to promote the Hindi language in the fields of science and technology, foreign affairs, Information Technology and etc., will be debated in the event, says the report.

Promoting the usage of Hindi in the several fields of science is certainly good for Hindi, and its speakers. However, shouldn't the Union Government of India, which is a representative of all the linguistic communities of India, be equally concerned about other Indian languages? Why does the Union Government fund and organize events related to Hindi language alone? Shouldn't all Indian languages be used in science and technology? Why are non-Hindi languages of India not treated at par with Hindi?

These are the questions we all need to ponder!

Why ‘One Nation One Road Tax’ is Against Federal Principles

There has been a lot of buzz about the 'Drive Without Borders' initiative in the social media for quite some time now. The initiative has also got some coverage in the mainstream media. It all started with the Government of Karnataka’s decision to crackdown on vehicles registered outside the state but were plying on the roads of Karnataka and were evading paying of taxes. There has been quite a bit of discussion on why this crackdown is bad for a section of people traveling in or moving into Karnataka from other states, so I am not going to discuss the same stuff here again. The focus of this post will be to analyse the 'Drive Without Borders' initiative, from the perspective of the federal setup of the Indian Union.

One of the primary demands of the initiative is to have a uniform road tax across India. On the surface, uniformity is appealing, but in reality the world is diverse, non-uniform and colourful. So, what does a uniform road tax mean to the states? As each state of the Indian union is different, revenues and expenditures vary greatly from state to state. It is the responsibility of the state governments to generate revenues as per their planned or required expenditure, including spends on primary healthcare and education, year on year. Apart from fuel, alcohol etc., road tax is one of those few avenues from which the states generate their taxes. So, any attempt to bring in a uniform tax system will badly affect their revenues.

Let us say, state A, as of today, stipulates 15% as the road tax to be paid. And let us assume, this is overruled by the Indian Union’s uniform road tax of, let us say, 10%. Now, this is will be a huge loss to the state's exchequer. This will have a direct impact on many of the development activities that the state may have planned to implement. Since such a state will be short of money to fund its planned development activities and other expenditure like those on education and health care, it is forced to look for other options to raise revenue. Only way is to squeeze more from whatever options that are left. 

The Indian Union, often referred to as a quasi-federal setup, has always had a heavy tilt of power towards the Centre. States are usually at the receiving end, and will have to operate in the limited space and revenue avenues available to them. There lies the root of the problem. The more you take away from them, the more they are forced to squeeze from the available opportunities. Instead, let states have their say in more subjects. This will only give them more space to plan out their respective expenditures well.

This is not just about revenue and expenditure but also about governance. A state with heavy vehicle density, for example, may want to stipulate a higher road tax to disincentivize individual vehicle buyers, encourage them to use public transport and thus reduce congestion. If road tax were made uniform, states will no longer be able to take such measures whenever the situation demands. 

There are other issues that ‘Drive Without Borders’ have brought forth. Like, the refunds from many of the state RTOs are tough to obtain. Also, many people think that imposing a life time tax if the vehicles are in the state for a mere 30-day period, is too much. These concerns are quite valid and should be taken up with the respective state governments, as roads are a state subject.

A letter written to the Transport Commissioner of Karnataka by the ‘Drive Without Borders’ team dated 28th April 2015, which the author could get a copy of, highlights the plight of people visiting the state for a short stay, and provides a few suggestions to the Government to rectify the situation. They have also added that they are with the Government of Karnataka to help curb the ‘menace’ of Pondicherry registered luxury vehicles that are evading the tax. 

Working with the state government is the right approach, and helps the cause that ‘Drive Without Borders’ team is working towards. However, trying to build a narrative to take away states’ power to levy road tax will only work against the cause.

 

Many, as expressed in some social media platforms, think it is discrimination to have different laws and rules in a single nation. Some have even gone ahead to call the different laws as racism. If that were the case, the most liberal and democratic countries, especially in the West, will have to be termed racist. For example, the USA has a much stronger federal structure and road transport related laws vary from state to state. 

 

In a country of one billion plus population and so much diversity, it simply does not make sense to have centralized laws throughout. The many ills that we see today are rooted in the centralized nature in which the Indian Union operates. Centralizing further will only worsen the situation.

 

(Image source: The Hindu)

Weird Language Policy in Namma Metro

- by Vallish Kumar

Pic source:indiarailonline.com

In the year 2011, Bengaluru got its first metro train, also called as 'Namma Metro'. From its inception, 'Namma Metro' has followed a weird language policy. It welcomes its passengers with sign boards and announcements in Kannada, English and Hindi. On close examination it becomes clear that the language policy of ‘Namma Metro’ is actually not driven with intentions to make navigation easy for the masses. Let us see how.

Flawed understanding of Cosmopolitanism
To justify the use of Hindi in Namma Metro, there are arguments that Bengaluru is a cosmopolitan city and hence, the use of Kannada and English is not sufficient. What such an argument fails to consider is that the cities like Dubai, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur which are much more cosmopolitan than Bengaluru, have only two languages used in their Metros. Language of the land and English, being the two languages used in metros there. The recently inaugurated Chennai metro has adopted two language policy, Tamil and English. Even the Delhi Metro operates only in two languages, Hindi and English. Does this fact make the city of Delhi any less cosmopolitan?

Language Policy Adopted in Namma Metro
When an RTI query was filed with Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, seeking details on the language policy adopted in Namma Metro, the reply received was shocking. As per the response to the RTI query, BMRCL has framed its own language policy and has decided to include Hindi. There is no directive either from GOK or GOI to compulsorily use Hindi in Bengaluru Metro. With that understanding, let us ponder over two other questions.

1. Is including Hindi language in 'Namma Metro' a people-friendly move, as a few claim it to be?
2. Even if this language policy was formed internally by BMRCL, why was Hindi included?

More deserving languages than Hindi
Going by the population census, after Kannadigas, the next most populous linguistic communities in Bengaluru are Telugu, Urdu and Tamil speakers in that order. None of their languages has been used in ‘Namma Metro’.

Indian Readership Survey data of 2011 reveals that Kannada dailies, with a readership of 16.2 lakhs and English dailies, with a readership of 9.5 lakhs, dominate the list of top ten 'most read' newspapers in Bengaluru. Kannada dailies Vijaya Karnataka and Prajavani were the most read newspapers in the year 2011, followed by the English daily The Times of India. In the list of top 10 newspapers of Bengaluru, apart from Kannada and English dailies, only the Tamil newspaper 'daily thanthi' has found the eighth slot with 88,000 readers. There is not a single Hindi daily in the Bengaluru's top 10 newspapers' list. 

This data is enough to say that Kannada and English reach the masses in Bengaluru. It is unfair and illogical to give prominence to a language like Hindi, which ranks probably sixth or seventh in terms of the number of speakers in Bengaluru. Especially when the third, fourth and the fifth largest linguistic communities are ignored, just to accommodate Hindi. This leads us to the question, why does Hindi get importance always ahead of other much deserving Indian languages?

Language Policy of the Union Government breeds inequality
Answer to this question is in the flawed language policy adopted by the Union Government of India, ever since the current political India was formed. The constitution of India has made it the job of the Union Government to work towards making Hindi more and more acceptable across the geography of the Indian Union. The prolonged special treatment to Hindi by the Union Government of India, is what has caused the perception that everything related to Union Government must have Hindi in it. Such a perception has ensured that Hindi made its way even to ‘Namma Metro’, while the more deserving languages were pushed aside.
The three language policy that was supposed to be adopted in schools, seems to have found its way into every establishment that is associated with the Union Government one way or the other. Even the Kannada Development Authority, in a recent letter to BMRCL, has asked the BMRCL to ensure that the three language policy is followed. While there is no constitutional obligation on BMRCL to follow the three-language policy, the Kannada Development Authority insisting on three-language policy’s usage shows the awareness levels regarding the three-language policy. This lack of awareness displayed by the Kannada Development Authority is a different debate altogether.

End to discrimination
This preference to Hindi is nothing but discrimination against the several other linguistic groups that are part of the Indian Union. The only solution to this glaring discrimination is, to bring in linguistic equality in the Union of India. Linguistic equality can be achieved by declaring all the 22 languages in the eighth schedule of the constitution of India as the official languages of the Union Government. Only then, Hindi will stop taking place of other 'more deserving' languages, under the guise of being people-friendly.

Is There a 'Right' Kannada?

“Kannadigas themselves do not speak Kannada properly”, “Many Kannadigas do not know the right way of pronouncing Kannada words”, “We Kannadigas have spoilt our language because of our lack of understanding of the right pronunciation of Kannada words”. If you are a Kannadiga, chances are that you have heard such statements quite often. There is also a lot of ridiculing of such 'incorrect' pronunciations that you may have heard of. For example, pronouncing the word 'dhana' (ಧನ - meaning wealth in Sanskrit) as 'dana' (ದನ - meaning cattle in Kannada) by dropping the mahaprana (aspirate) is often mocked at. In reality, we know that most Kannadigas pronounce it as 'dana', including those who mock, unless they are speaking in a formal setting and are quite self-conscious.

But how can one claim that most native speakers of a language do not speak it properly or often mispronounce its words? It seems quite strange, and to understand this situation we need to understand what really defines a language, and what indeed is the 'right' pronunciation of a language's words. Since I am taking this subject up in the Kannada context, I will keep the whole discussion mostly around Kannada, though the arguments may be applicable to any language in a similar situation.

We see languages in two forms, spoken and written. Most often we think that the written variety to be the 'right' one and all spoken forms are assumed to be corruptions of this variety. So, is the written variety or the one that is used in formal contexts, the 'right' version of a given language?

Languages came into being in the form of speech, several thousands of years ago. But the written form is a relatively recent invention. It only came into being only a few thousand years ago, and till recent times in history, only a small fraction of the world's population used writing. Many languages, to this day, are not written.
 
Also, as speech changes and evolves, the written variety too changes accordingly. For example, the written variety of Kannada today is not the same as that in the tenth century. As spoken Kannada changed over time, the written variety too has changed along with it.

So, it is clear that for a language, speech is the ultimate source of truth. A language may have no writing but may be very vibrant and alive. On the other hand languages like Latin, may still be used in writing, but as they have no speakers, for all practical purposes they are dead. Languages have several varieties and dialects. Even if the dialects are mutually intelligible, having to read all the different dialects in the written form is cumbersome for readers. Writing, inevitably requires standardization, so, there is usually a single variety or dialect of the language adopted as a standard for writing. That is how standardization in writing evolved.

So, one should see the written form just as one of several forms of the language, and not as a superior or the 'right' variety. So, the dialect spoken by a backward community, for instance, and the dialect spoken by learned people, are simply two different varieties of the same language. Neither one is superior to the other or is the right variety of the language.

Now, let us look at the history of standard varieties used in Kannada writing. During the times of Halegannada (Old Kannada) it is said that the Jainas of Coastal Karnataka were the first to begin writing in Kannada. So, it is quite obvious that they used their dialect in writing which later became the standard. Writing in Nadugannada (Middle Kannada) is said to have been begun by the Lingayaths of northern Karnataka, and needless to say their dialect was adopted as the standard. Literature in Hosagannada (New Kannada) was started by the Brahmins of Mysuru. As a result, it is their dialect that forms the standard variety across Karnataka today.

Now that we have a writing standard that is accepted across Karnataka, should we take this standard as close to all the dialects as possible or should we take it farther and make it much tougher to the Kannada speakers? The answer is obviously the former; have the written form as much close to the spoken varieties as possible. But there are a few practices in Kannada writing that has kept the standard variety as far away as possible from the spoken varieties when there is much scope to bring it closer. Simple changes can help address the issues.

Take for instance the word for earth 'boomi' (ಬೂಮಿ). Many argue that it should be pronounced as 'bhoomi' (ಭೂಮಿ) - the first letter should be a mahaprana (aspirate). In reality, Kannadigas do not utter or use mahapranas in regular speech. Even those who argue that mahapranas are a must, do not use it in regular speech. So, mahaprana consonants in loan words (native Kannada words do not have mahapranas), become non-mahaprana consonants, as in ಸ್ತಾನ (staana), ದೀರ್ಗ(deerga),  ಸಂಸ್ತೆ (samste), ಸುಕ (suka), ಅನುಬವ (anubava) etc, in regular speech.
 
There is a misconception that this phenomenon is only seen in the southern districts of Karnataka, especially in and around Mysuru, and that the mahapranas are prevalent in the northern parts, and the coastal regions. But this is a myth, mahapranas do not appear in the spoken varieties of Kannada across all regions. Given this, should such loan words be written as they are pronounced or as they are ought to be pronounced?

Needless to say, writing them as they are pronounced should be the right approach. So, dropping mahapranas out of the alphabet will benefit the masses. It reduces quite a lot of confusion and makes learning so much easier. There is a similar problem with letters like ಋ, ಷ, and ಅಃ. They are not there in Kannada speech, and forcing to retain them in writing creates unnecessary confusion and people inevitably make mistakes. And a small minority that is good at these make fun of the vast majority that make mistakes.

When we talk of getting the written form as much closer to speech as possible, there are many who intentionally misinterpret it. Take the word 'ಹೊರಡು' (horadu - Kannada for 'leave' or 'exit'). It is pronounced differently in different dialects, like 'ಒರಡು' (oradu), 'ವೊರಡು' (voradu), 'ವೊರ್ಡು' (vordu), 'ವೊಳ್ಡು' (voldu) etc. They not only make fun of such pronunciations but also ask if all these various 'uncultured' pronunciations be incorporated into writing, and in that case what would happen to standardization.

Making fun of people and their dialects is uncalled for, but the question of standardization is definitely a valid one. But in our effort to get writing "as much close to spoken forms" as possible we do not have to give up on standardization. "ಹೊರಡು" is a standard form that has been accepted and can be retained as it is. Instead, one may avoid the usage of words like 'ನಿರ್ಗಮಿಸು' (nirgamisu), which do not exist in any spoken forms of Kannada. This is how you get closer to people.

Why should it be a problem if a few such loan words are used, one may ask? Borrowing from other languages will only help our vocabulary, won't it? It appears so on the surface, but Kannada writing, especially science literature, is filled with so many unknown and unfamiliar borrowings and 'coined' terms that it is literally impossible to read and make sense out of them. Take for example, these words I found in the eighth class Science text book (Government of Karnataka): 'ಲವಣ' (lavana), 'ಸಸ್ಯ' (sasya), 'ವನ್ಯಜೀವಿ' (vanyajeevi), 'ಶೈವಲ' (shaivala). These can be easily replaced by familiar words like 'ಉಪ್ಪು' (uppu), 'ಗಿಡ' (gida), 'ಕಾಡುಜೀವಿ' (kaadujeevi), and 'ಪಾಚಿ'(paachi). There are tons of such words in textbooks and there is no way any student or even teachers can make sense out of them, let alone learn science.

Considering the scope to reduce the gap between spoken and written forms of Kannada, two steps need to be taken. One, we need to get the Kannada script inline with the phonetics of the language. As discussed above, there are several extraneous letters in the alphabet which can be removed. Two, in usage of words and coining new ones, we need to ensure they are not alien to Kannada speakers. While there is no need to remove well-known loan words, there is also no need to borrow unknown or unfamiliar ones. Known Kannada words can be used in their place. And finally, we need to understand that there is no dialect or a language that is superior to another. All languages and all their dialects are equally capable of expressing human thought. Let us respect them all and treat them and their speakers with dignity. 

(Image: ecml.at)

Indian Union Can Become Antifragile Only by Decentralizing

Pic source: www.canadianbusiness.com

Nassim Nicolas Taleb is a Lebanese-American essayist, scholar and statistician, who shot to fame by his book Fooled by Randomness. The book dealt with human fallibility and was ranked as one of the 75 smartest books of all time by Fortune. He is also well known to have publicly criticized the risk management methods used by finance industry; when financial crisis occured in late-2000, he is said to have profited from it.

Mr. Taleb has been making a career out of understanding and dealing with randomness – his keen area of interest. His business has been to safeguard investors against crises by reaping rewards from rare and less-understood events. In his latest book, titled Antifragile, Mr. Taleb explores the fragility of systems. As the world we live in is random, volatile and disorderly, any system that cannot withstand the random events, Mr. Taleb calls them as fragile. Any system that thrives on such randomness has been classified as antifragile. One thing that is highlighted in all the famous books of Mr. Taleb (Fooled by randomness, Black Swan and Antifragile) is, randomness that is faced by humans daily since their living in wilderness hasn’t changed much even in the current world. In other words, randomness is as natural as rain.

What kind of systems are fragile and what are antifragile?
Based on his observation and research, Mr. Taleb has classified couple of systems as fragile and few as antifragile. The banking system based in New York is classified as fragile, while fail fast startup businesses of silicon valley are classified as antifragile.
As nimble startups of silicon valley encourage mistakes and thrive on them, an idea that cannot continue is cornered sooner and gets scrapped. At the same time, any idea that can continue gets validated sooner and goes on to be a winner; Google or Facebook for instance.
The investment banking system in New York cannot afford many mistakes. Hence, the system grows fragile as days pass. Even the ideas that cannot continue are covered up, and are allowed to exist. Such fragile systems yield to unforeseen random events and collapse; Lehman brothers for example.

How has Mr. Taleb classified the political systems?
In his book Antifragile, Mr. Taleb has called the centralized political system as fragile. He has also called the decentralized political system as antifragile. If one looks to history for centralized political system, the Soviet union is the one to hit the eye first. USSR came into existence in 1922, and was considered one of the world-leaders till the eighties. The centralized system of functioning did provide many results and USSR’s military might was respected around the world. However, as with every centralized political system, Soviet Union was fragile too. The fragility took the better of USSR in 1991, resulting in disintegration.
The American union is much decentralized when compared to the USSR. Since the American civil war that ended in 1865, the united states of America has been a world-leader in many fronts. This observation of the USSR and the USA goes onto validate Mr. Taleb’s thesis that more centralized a political system is, more fragile it is.

Is the Indian union Fragile? 
A centralized political system is what Jawaharlal Nehru envisioned for the Indian union. It is said that Mr. Nehru was very much impressed with the USSR’s centralized planning  and governance. That explains why Mr. Nehru favored setting up planning commission and initiated five-year plans, much like the USSR. This centralized political system continues to exist in the Indian union even today. With only one-third of subjects under the state list in Schedule 7, rest being in the centre-list or the concurrent list, majority of power and say is concentrated at the centre. That makes the Indian union very fragile. Being fragile, the Indian union is vulnerable to random events that will continue to occur in future as well. To make the Indian union antifragile, so that it thrives under randomness and grows strong, decentralization is the right step.

Otherwise, sooner or later, we all will be fooled by randomness.

(This piece had originally appeared in thefedetalist.in)

Undemocratic Amendments to the Constitution during the Emergency

Pic source: indiatoday.intoday.in

On 25th of June this year, the 40th year of the Union Government imposed state of emergency was remembered. There have been many discussions around the misdoings of the Union Government during the 21 months' long period of emergency. Several web portals ran stories highlighting what the citizens of present day India can learn from the period of emergency. What went missing in much of these articles/discussions were the changes to the constitution of India that were made during the emergency, and how these changes undermined the fabric of the constitution of India. Not only were the fundamental rights of the people compromised, powers of the states of the union were also taken away by moving some important subjects from the state list to the concurrent/union list. Education was one such major subject that was moved from the state list to the concurrent list, quite understandably without any debate. At Karnatique, we have always argued that education must be a state list, and in this article too a special emphasis has been laid to highlight the movement of education from state list to concurrent list.

Education in state list, as the constituent assembly had wanted
The constituent assembly chaired by B. R. Ambedkar had kept education in the state list. In the meetings of the constituent assembly, a member by name Purnima Banerjee had moved an amendment seeking to move education to the Union list. This move was supported by another member of the constituent assembly Brajeshwar Prasad. But, the move was countered strongly by another member by name Rohini Kumar Chaudhury. The move was finally not accepted by B. R. Ambedkar, and hence education remained in the state list. Rohini Kumar Chaudhury made a strong speech in the constituent assembly insisting that education be maintained in the state list, and a part of the same speech has been quoted below.

Sir, it seems to me to be an age since I spoke last. It is not that my tongue does not reach so long, but I loathe to speak in this House lest I impede the progress of the work here, but today the heart-throbbing speech of my honourable Friend Shrimati Purnima Banerji has aroused me from my slumbers. I come here not to appreciate the speech of my honourable Friend Shrimati Purnima Banerji but to oppose it with all the might that I posses. Sir, we have come nearly to the end of these Lists, I, II and III and what do we find ? What we find is that the position of the States are no longer States or Provinces, but they have been reduced to the position of municipal and other local bodies. All the powers have been taken away either in List I or List No. 3. It reminds me of the words in the Upanishad:

Poornasya Poornamadaya

Poornamevavasishyate. 

     After having taken out everything the same fullness remains : it is as if it is a full Moon. We are taking slices of the full Moon and yet the full Moon still continues as before. That is the position to which we have arrived after going through all these lists.' No power is left to the Provinces and the full Moon remains a full Moon as before.

The 42nd amendment
The 42nd amendment to the constitution of India was brought about during the days of the emergency. It is regarded as the most controversial of the amendments to the constitution, in India's history. Apart from editing the preamble of the constitution and attempting to reduce the powers of the Supreme court and the high courts of India, the 42nd amendment brought such sweeping changes to the constitution that many described the amendment as a mini-constitution. As part of this amendment, education was moved to concurrent list from the state list. It is nothing but a mockery of democracy that such sweeping amendments, ones that curtailed the powers of the courts and reduced the powers of the states, were made during the emergency period without any debate whatsoever among the representatives of the people of India.

The run up to the 42nd amendment
The constitution of India, as drafted by the members of the constituent assembly, had not let so much of power reside at the hands of one person. If the same form of the constitution had continued till 1975, the sweeping changes introduced as part of the 42nd amendment would have been impossible to make. The 24th amendment is what tilted the constitution from the original form towards the current form. If not for the changes made to the constitution as part of the 24th amendment, the 42nd amendment wouldn't have been possible, As part of the 24th amendment, the parliament was enabled to dilute the fundamental rights, yes, the fundamental rights of the people of India. Also, the courts were prevented from doing any review of the future amendments to the constitution that impact the fundamental rights of the people.
When the 24th amendment was made, those members of the constituent assembly who were alive at that time, came out and opposed the amendment. Several of the legal experts had called the 24th amendment as slaughter of the constitution.

Interestingly, both the 24th and the 48th amendments were made when the union of India was in a state of emergency. The 24th amendment was made in the year 1971, at a time when the Bangla Liberation War was going on and the relations between India and Pakistan were tense. The 48th amendment was introduced during the period of imposed emergency, in 1976.

There seems to be larger agreement that the imposition of 21 month long emergency, starting in the year 1975, was detrimental. There is also widespread disapproval of the 42nd amendment to the constitution. The present Union Government of India has made special efforts to highlight the excesses of the emergency period.

To undo the damages done to the constitution during the emergency, what remedial actions is the current Union Government planning, is not very clear. Honest attempts to correct those excesses will have to start from moving education back to the state list from the concurrent list. With that, all the centralization efforts in the field of education will also have to stop. The power to meddle with the fundamental rights of the people, needs to be taken away from the parliament. All the talk about emergency is good, but the remedial actions need to speak too.