#TamilInHighCourt: A Demand for Democratic Rights

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.

That Linguistic States Donot Have a Historical Basis is a Lie

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 19^th 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.

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.