language in india3

8/7/2019 Language in India3

1/49

LANGUAGE IN INDIA

Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow

Volume 4 : 10 October 2004

Editor: M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.

Associate Editors: B. Mallikarjun, Ph.D.

Sam Mohanlal, Ph.D.

B. A. S harada, Ph.D.

A. R. Fatihi, Ph.D.

HOME PAGE

AN APPEAL FOR SUPPORT

We are in need of support to

meet expenses relating to

some new and essential

software, formatting of articles

and books, maintaining and

running the journal through

hosting, correrspondences,

etc. If you wish to support this

voluntary effort, please send

your contributions toM. S. Thirumalai

6820 Auto Club Road Suite

C

FIXING THE LANGUAGE,

FIXING THE NATION

Nandita Ghosh, Ph.D.

1. With the eruption of local and regional

separatist movements, the decade of

the 1980s in India was a period of

violence that questioned its viability as

a nation. Language conflicts between

communities became one of the central

issues under debate. In these debates,

journalists, writers, and fictional

characters bemoan the many futile

attempts of Indian leaders to promote

one national language that will imagine

a unified community of speakers who

will perhaps articulate the nation. Theirdiscussions revealed the way in which

such attempts get embroiled in what

might be called the language fix: the

national language, a unifying language

of state, must be technologically

developed andauthentically Indian. A

paradox emerges in these debates with

the supposed need for technology and

authenticity: although many Indianlanguages have developed a scientific

vocabulary, none can significantly

displace the power of English in its

privileged relations with technology. At

Send your articles

as an attachmentto your e-mail to

[email protected].

28/11/2010 Language in India

languageinindia.com//fixinglanguage1 1/49


2/49

MN 55438, USA.

Also please use the

AMAZON link to buy your

books. Even the smallest

contribution will go a long way

in supporting this journal.

Thank you. Thirumalai, Editor.

BOOKS FOR YOU TO READ

AND DOWNLOAD

A LINGUISTIC STUDY

OF ENGLISH

LANGUAGE

CURRICULUM AT THE

SECONDARY LEVEL IN

BANGLADESH - A

COMMUNICATIVE

APPROACH TO

CURRICULUM

DEVELOPMENTby

Kamrul Hasan, Ph.D.

COMMUNICATION VIA

EYE AND FACE in

Indian Contexts by

M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.

COMMUNICATION

VIA GESTURE: A

STUDY OF INDIAN

CONTEXTS by M. S.

Thirumalai, Ph.D.

CIEFL Occasional

Papers in Linguistics,

Vol. 1

Language, Thought

and Disorder - Some

the same time, as a British import,

English is often perceived to be

inauthentic. I examine a body of fiction

and journalism from the 1980s that

engages in this paradox.

2. These works critique the governments

attempts to resolve this paradox byconstructing a unified formula of

translation through the Three-

Language Formula. This formula

mandated that those in educational

institutions, media, industry, and

administration learn English and Hindi

as the two official languages; it also

provided for the optional learning of

Sanskrit, Urdu, or another regional

language. This formula was still

unsatisfactory because regional

communities perceived their language

to be in third place to English and

Hindi in importance and market value.

The fictional and journalistic narratives

I discuss accuse the government of

creating this formula to control

linguistic conflicts and to pay lip

service to multilingualism. Whatbecomes evident through these

narratives is that after failing to

standardize a national language, the

government attempts to standardize a

linguistic practice of translation by

trying to control the way in which

translation is to occur between

communities and to fix the value of

each linking language. Easytranslations, after all, would

consolidate the power of the ruling

middle class.

3. The idea of an unproblematic

translation lies at the heart of middle-

class ideology. Within the discursive

realms of received paradigms and

categories of substantiated analysis,

Antonio Gramsci and Partha

Chatterjee both provide insightful

analyses of the rise of middle-class

power in the twentieth century.




3/49

ass c os ons y

M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.

English in India:

Loyalty and Attitudes

by Annika Hohenthal

Language In Science

by M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.

Vocabulary Education

by B. Mallikarjun, Ph.D.

A CONTRASTIVE

ANALYSIS OF HINDI

AND MALAYALAM

by V. Geethakumary, Ph.D.

LANGUAGE OF

ADVERTISEMENTS

IN TAMIL

by Sandhya Nayak, Ph.D.

An Introduction to

TESOL:

Methods of Teaching

English

to Speakers of OtherLanguages

by M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.

Transformation of

Natural Language

into Indexing Language:

Kannada - A Case Study

by B. A. Sharada, Ph.D.

How to LearnAnother Language?

by M.S.Thirumalai, Ph.D.

Verbal Communication

with CP Children

by Shyamala Chengappa,

Ph.D.

and M.S.Thirumalai, Ph.D.

Bringing Order

to Linguistic Diversity

- Language Planning in

the British Raj by

Gramsci explains the relations between

intellectuals, bourgeois (middle-class)

hegemony, and the State. In his

opinion, the intellectuals "are the

dominant groups deputies" enabling

"the spontaneous consent given by

the masses" to their dominance and

disciplining those who resist (SPN12).Partha Chatterjee is greatly influenced

by Gramsci in his own formulations

about a British-created, subordinate,

Indian middle class (Nation and its

Fragments 35).[1] In his opinion, this

class facilitated colonial rule by acting

as buffer between the British and the

masses; its middleness was crucial to

the nationalist project. As Chatterjeepoints out, it is true that this

intermediary class, predominantly

urban and upper-caste, inherited

power from the British. It attempted to

move between differing linguistic-

cultural spaces through a link language

in order to establish its own hegemony.

English frequently functions as one of

the primary link languages for the ruling

middle class because of its colonial

history, global currency, and

predominance in technology,

administration, and communications.

4. By the mid-eighties, the Indian middle

class expanded to include new groups

and attempted to consolidate its

position within the nation. This

expanding class provided a largernational audience for Indian writers in

English. It is during this time that the

English-language novel acquired a

distinct identity. A number of writers

living within India or in various

diasporas were published by foreign

presses and consequently enjoyed

metropolitan, global audiences. Anita

Desais In Custody (pub. 1984) isperhaps the most visible internationally.

Partap Sharmas Days of the Turban

(pub. 1986) and Upamanyu

Chatterjees English August: An




4/49

Ranjit Singh Rangila,

M. S. Thirumalai,

and B. Mallikarjun

REFERENCE MATERIAL

Lord Macaulay and

His Minute on

Indian Education

In Defense of

Indian Vernaculars

Against

Lord Macaulay's Minute

By A Contemporary of

Lord Macaulay

Languages of India,

Census of India 1991

The Constitution of India:

Provisions Relating to

Languages

The Official

Languages Act, 1963

(As Amended 1967)

Mother Tongues of India,

According to

1961 Census of India

BACK ISSUES

FROM MARCH 2001

FROM JANUARY 2002

INDEX OF ARTICLES

FROM MARCH, 2001

- SEPTEMBER 2004

INDEX OF AUTHORS

AND THEIR ARTICLES

FROM MARCH, 2001

- SEPTEMBER 2004

E-mail your articles and book-

length reports to

[email protected] , or

Indian Story (pub. 1988) circulate

within a predominantly European and

Indian market. Mahasweta Devis

Imaginary Maps (Bengali pub. 1989,

English pub. 1995) has a special

status. It has been translated into

English by Gayatri Spivak and studied

in most North American universities.

5. These novelists appropriate the

tradition of literary realism in their

fiction, a tradition that evolved in the

18th and 19th centuries in Britain with

the rise of the middle class. In

accordance with this tradition, which

makes truth claims in its representation

of contemporary society, these

narratives are organized around

middle-class experiences that are

presented as quintessentially Indian.

The protagonists assume that their

middleness can enable them to speak

for every group of the nation, an

assumption that gets disproved when

they confront marginalized men and

women from other communities. What

we see in the journalistic narratives issimilar to the fiction. Since these

novels, newspaper reports, and journal

articles are written in English, the

language often fails as the master code;

instead of linking different regions, it

reveals missing links in

communication.[2] Some of these

writers, journalists, and fictional

characters participate in consolidatingmiddle-class power by universalizing

its worldview against a context of

secessionist violence, while others

expose and deconstruct the hegemony

of this class.[3] These writers,

journalists, and fictional characters are

then recipients of the bourgeois values

associated with the liberal humanist

vision of a modern nation. Each workof fiction and journalism, therefore,

refracts through its medium the

process by which this vision of the

nation and a certain kind of middle-




5/49

send your floppy disk

(preferably in Microsoft

Word) by regular mail to:

M. S. Thirumalai

6820 Auto Club Road, Suite

C.,

Bloomington, MN 55438

USA.

Contributors from South Asia

may send their articles to

B. Mallikarjun,

Central Institute of Indian

Languages,

Manasagangotri,

Mysore 570006, India or e-

mail to

[email protected]

Your articles and booklength

reports should be written

following the MLA, LSA, or

IJDL Stylesheet.

The Editorial Board has the

right to accept, reject, or

suggest modifications to the

articles submitted for

publication, and to make

suitable stylistic adjustments.

High quality, academic

integrity, ethics and morals are

expected from the authors and

discussants.

Copyright 2004M. S. Thirumalai

class authority get challenged in the

1980s through the discursive field of

contested and conflicting languages.

This article then seeks to explore the

language fix by examining, in separate

sections of this paper, the paradox

inherent in the desire for a

technologically developed linguisticcode that will also be authentically

national. This paradox leads to the

creation of a linguistic formula that fails

in its attempts to render each national

context perfectly transparent. This

failure makes visible subaltern subjects

that refuse to be inscribed within the

middle-class discourse of the nation

and present their own narratives.

6. One of the arenas in which missing

links in the link language and the

precariousness of middle-class

authority get revealed is media debates

over the need for a technologically

developed language. In these debates,

most journalists support government

policy, which, in their opinion, has

been guided by the idea that a nationallanguage possessing a technical

vocabulary can provide scientific

information which will facilitate rural

and urban development.[4] Practically

all of them either comment upon or

bemoan the fact that this need for

technology places English at an

advantage over all other Indian

languages.[5] In their opinion, Hindicannot compete with English. It lacks

sufficient publications dispensing

advanced scientific and educational

information. Technically qualified

Indians read and write predominantly

in English. Efforts at developing a

technical vocabulary have ignored

word resources in dialects, created

"lifeless and impractical" words, andinefficiently coordinated these between

various Hindi-speaking regions

(Mishra 23). As a result, "different

states use different words for the same




6/49

English word. Lack of uniformity in

usage is a bewildering fact of the Hindi

world" (Mishra 24). It is for such

reasons that these journalists declare

Hindi to be unable to face the multiple

challenges of modernity: " . . . it must

be emphasized that being able to buy

oranges on the railway platform [inHindi] does not equip one to . . .

cope with the modern world --

although such coping is theoretically

certainly possible in Hindi" (Masica

11). This is because "knowledge of the

kind of Hindi necessary for serious

discourse" is not being imparted in

India (Masica 10). They argue that

English can no longer be wiped out ofIndia. English-speaking Indians

"constitute the third largest pool of

trained, scientific manpower in the

world" (Masica 13).

7. The story of English in India is indeed

connected to the story of

modernization, technological change,

and middle-class power. Since the

industrial revolution in Britain, Englishhas had a privileged relationship with

science and technology. With the

expansion and consolidation of the

British empire in the two previous

centuries and America's position in the

world market in this century, English

has become the global language of

communication. British imperialism

exposed the subcontinent to thetechnological discoveries wrought by

the industrial revolution and the

capitalist market economy. The British,

who used these technologies for

colonial governance, built much of the

modernizing infrastructure. Anticolonial

resistance and the national government

used the same technologies for

purposes of creating and controllingmodern India. English, associated with

such infrastructure and technology, has

been an integral part of Indian life since

1947. It is obvious from their




7/49

assumptions that these journalists

uphold Nehru's vision of technology,

industrialization, and scientific research

as tools for modernizing and

restructuring the nation. They see an

increased English usage as an indelible

part of such changes.

8. Lachman Khubchandani, a participant

in and metacommentator on these

debates, characterizes this modernizing

impulse within the journalists and the

nationalist bourgeoisie as a desire to

have their speech globally recognized

as technologically developed. In his

opinion, this desire arises from their

perceptions that indigenous languages

are deficient communications systems

not historically linked with technology

precisely because they feel their nation

is disadvantaged as a newcomer to the

global market (International Social

Science Journal 169). As part of the

ruling middle class in India, these

journalists certainly desire to compete

and survive in the global market. In

their desire to modernize and globalize,they encounter English as the only

feasible language for modernization

because of its globally utilized,

technologically developed vocabulary;

yet, since the upper-middle class has

more access to English than do lower

classes, promoting English only

promotes their class interests. These

news/journal articles of the eightiesconsciously or unconsciously reveal

these class interests at work in

consolidating power.

9. The novels also show English as the

global language of modernization and

technology at national and international

levels. In In Custody, Hindi is not a

well-funded, marketable subject at the

Lala Ram Lal College as compared to

biochemistry. Deven, the Hindi

lecturer, makes less money than his

former colleague Vijay Sud, who had




8/49

won a scholarship to study

biochemistry in Indiana, USA. In

Mirpur, Sud is the epitome of success,

"teaching in a state university, earning a

big salary, having a big house, doing

well" (185). Most other Hindi lecturers

in Deven's department feel that they

"took up the wrong subject" instead oftaking "something scientific, something

American" like physics, chemistry,

microbiology, or computer technology

with which they could "have a future"

(186). All of these subjects are

equated with the scientific and the

technological, capable of inducing

modernizing transformations in society.

It is not an accident that these subjectsare taught primarily in English, while

Hindi is not perceived in this novel to

be participatory in nation-building

activities.

10. However, by comparison to the

news/journal articles of the eighties, the

fictional works reveal deeper

contradictions in the phenomena

regarding the relations of English withother Indian languages and technology.

Although English is indeed more

deeply entrenched in India and more

globally dominant than ever before, it

is also displaced at local and regional

levels by other languages. Such

displacements question the journalistic

assumptions discussed earlier in this

section about Englishs specialrelations with technology.By 1989,

most Indian languages develop their

technical vocabularies at local and

regional levels; commercial, media-

based, communicational, educational,

and industrial exchanges were

happening increasingly in the relevant

local language. The fictional texts

reveal some of these complexities.

11. In Imaginary Maps, certain English

words commonly used by most

Indians refer to the ways in which




9/49

everyday life has been transformed by

the technological innovation of the

railway system: "train," "junction,"

"billboard," "engine," "station," "driver,"

etc. These words have been

appropriated by the local languages of

Seora, Kuruda, and Pirtha villages

through a process of rewritten spellingsand vernacularized pronunciations.

Such words, borrowings from English,

also become part of the languages that

appropriate them. This is one of the

methods by which Indian languages

acquire a technical vocabulary to cope

with modernization. Similar

appropriations are evident in Days of

the Turban. In Jagtara, Balbir'svillage, the official business of banking,

finance, and administration is

conducted in multiple exchanges

between English, Hindi, and Punjabi.

No one language has an especially

developed technological vocabulary

that can adequately convey the

complex requirements of modernity to

this rural community. Therefore, there

are missing links in all of these

languages. For example, the green

revolution in agriculture happens

through scientific farming, knowledge

of which is primarily available through

the English language. In Jagtara,

however, most farmers are either

illiterate or literate Punjabi speakers,

with some knowledge of Hindi and

little fluency in English. Informationabout farm technology is available to

varying extents in Punjabi and Hindi;

both languages either create new

vocabularies to convey this information

or borrow and appropriate words

from English. In their conversations,

these farmers translate between

Punjabi, Hindi, and English; their

translations frequently break downcausing confusions in meaning. Perfect

links between cultures and languages

are not possible, nor is it possible to

have English link all regions through its




10/49

access to technology.

12. Under such conditions, the adivasi

subaltern is exploited because of a

complex of reasons. In "Pterodactyl,

Pirtha, and Puran Sahay" (Imaginary

Maps), the adivasis at Pirtha die of

food poisoning caused by thecontamination of herbs and roots with

insecticides. Harisharan, a government

official in Pirtha, reports to Puran, a

journalist, "We have not brought

scientific health care to the tribals. If

something happens beyond the limits

of their knowledge they think of

mysterious reasons, divine rage, the

witch's glance, and so on" (123).

Adivasis are unable to help themselves

because they do not know what

causes their deaths -- an ignorance

based on their inability to access a

language containing scientific

information. Scientific, legal, and

technological information is available to

some extent in most Indian languages

as well as English. Their own language

is not officially patronized in the sameway and therefore is subalternized not

only by English but also by Hindi and

other regional languages. Being

poverty stricken and lower caste, most

adivasis cannot afford an education in

any of these languages because it is

expensive. Class exclusions are

reinforced by language exclusions;

each feeds off the other.Theirexclusion from mainstream languages

incapacitates them from representing

their interests to government officials

and bargaining for the funds set aside

for their welfare.

13. It is not possible to argue that English

has a privileged relationship with

technology because it is inherently

techno-friendly or that it is the only

possible language for modernization.

Modernization has affected all Indian

languages in uneven and chaotic ways.




11/49

Most regional languages have

developed their own technical

vocabulary and are used by the local

media, industry, education systems,

and administration. English retains its

power because of its historical and

colonial positioning. However, each

language displaces and is displaced bythe other at every level of exchange in

the nation. Each displacement reveals

the missing links in the link languages;

neither English, nor Hindi or any other

language can completely represent

every communication between

different regions and locations. In these

missing links, middle-class power

fluctuates and middle-class pretentionsof speaking for the nation get ruptured.

14. The middle classes often perceive the

need for a national language to be

technologically developed, a

perception that makes them think of

English as the only suitable language

for modernization. This perception

contradicts their desire for authenticity

because, for many members of thisclass, English is foreign and therefore

inauthentic. This contradiction allows

no single language to meet the

paradoxical requirements for

technology and authenticity. Conflicts,

premised upon this desire for

authenticity, have arisen over English,

Hindi, Urdu, and other languages in the

years following independence.[6] TheThree Language Formula, created by

the government to resolve these

conflicts, moves away from the idea of

a single national language to

acknowledge the multilingualism of

India. However, it also attempts to

predetermine the nature of translations

between linguistic contexts. These

attempts are fueled by an uneasymiddle-class ideology that assumes its

middleness can enable it to speak for

every context within the nation.

However, any link language used by




12/49

the ruling middle class debunks all

claims for authenticity while operating

between contexts because it becomes

at once authentic or inauthentic in these

translations.

15. The inherent contradictions in all

concerns for authenticity are wellillustrated by Homi Bhabha's concept

of hybridity. [7] Bhabha discusses the

deconstructive implications of spaces

outside of a pedagogical knowledge

that constructs itself as authentic,

rational, and universal. These hybrid

spaces exist between unequal,

antagonistic sites without clear cut

boundaries. In his opinion, any

utterance from such a space focuses

attention on the particular time and

place of a speaking subject, challenges

principles of rationality, revises settled

hierarchies, and institutes a dialogic

process that reveals how power is

constructed and the subaltern

marginalized. All languages operate

within this Bhabhaesque hybrid space

in India. They enter unequal,antagonistic, identity-defining, dialogic

relationships with each other.

16. Indian English embodies such hybridity

because it is simultaneously

deconstructive and maintaining of

status quo. It is not quite foreign nor

quite indigenous. It is difficult to

eradicate because of its connectionwith global capital and pan-Indian,

upper-middle-class power. Because of

its technological value, unifying-

fragmenting effects, and authentic-

inauthentic quality, it is the impossible

national language. Yet it is frequently

constructed as the only possible

language for modernity. English in

India disorients the authenticating

claims of every other language. It

reveals the powermongering desires

behind such claims. For example, the

second half ofEnglish August's title




13/49

refers to "an Indian story": "District

administration in India is largely a

British creation, like the railways and

the English language, another complex

and unwieldy bequest of the Raj. But

Indianization (of a method of

administration, or of a language) is

integral to the Indian story" (10). Thisstory is constituted by the prominence

of English existing in complex and

combative relations to other languages.

These novels and news/journal articles

attempt to talk about local and regional

experiences through the apparently

pan-Indian medium of English. Yet in

the act of translation, they confront the

untranslateable. English as themastercode is inadequate in conveying

local and regional cultures. This

untranslatability of English becomes a

topic of discussion for journalism as

well as a motivating problem for the

fiction.

17. In English August, the official national

discourse on the validity of English as a

link language in India is presented bySrivastav, Agastya's boss. Srivastav, a

civil servant educated in Hindi, asserts

that English in India is not only useful

as an administrative tool but also

authentic by virtue of its usefulness. As

part of an expanding middle class, he

desires to use English to administer the

country, broker power, and share the

class privileges enjoyed by Englishspeakers: "the English we speak is not

the English we read in English books. .

. . Our English should be just a vehicle

of communication . . . how we speak

should not matter as long as we get the

idea across" (59). He desires that this

administrative language should be

absolutely transparent in order to

facilitate interegional translations ofculture, information, and resources.

Srivastav therefore upholds the validity

of Indian English because it represents

the hybrid influences that shape identity




14/49

politics in India within the postcolonial

context: "You are what you are, just as

English here too is what it is, an

unavoidable leftover. We can't be

ashamed of our past, no, because that

is to be ashamed of our present" (60).

He would like to accept the presence

of Indian English as an indelible part ofcolonization without dwelling on the

complexities of its hybridity in order

that he can use English to link different

regions. However complete

transparency is impossible because

English is fractured from within; not

everyone speaks the same English.

18. The novel presents many instances

when English fails to link different

contexts. Agastya, the protagonist,

goes to St. Stephens College, a

colonial institution, where he studies

English literature. He and his friends

are the "English type[s]," or Indians " .

. . who speak English more fluently

than [they] speak any Indian language"

(23). When he is posted as a

government officer to Madna, a smalltown in Central India, he is unable to

communicate intellectually with fellow

officers, who speak a different English

with a heavier vernacular accent.

Agastya's English professor, Dr.

Upadhyay, experiences a similar

redundancy; he complains of having to

teach Shakespeare and Conrad in

Hindi to uncomprehending students.Dr. Upadhyay reacts to their

incomprehension by opining that

"English in India is burlesque" (24)

because it only poorly mimics an

authentic British English. He is unable

to accept the different kinds of English

his students speak. He homogenizes

the many Englishes spoken by different

classes in Britain. He is also unawarethat language at all times can only be a

mimicry of itself.[8] In contrast to

Agastya and Dr. Upadhyay, the

inhabitants of Madna, mostly farmers,




15/49

adivasis, local merchants, and

politicians, speak the "occasional tell

tale . . . English phrase" creating a

hybrid language that reshapes English

(18). In these acts, they challenge the

hegemony of Agastya's class power

and inhabit an in-between

Bhabhaesque space created by theirencounter with the modernizing effects

of postcolonial bureaucracy,

technology, and communication.

19. What is interesting about such

encounters is that these challenges do

not only occur between the middle and

the working class but within the middle

class itself. Agastya, Dr. Upadhyay,

Srivastav, and even some of the

Madnaites would broadly fall within

the middle class. This class is

obviously divided by differences in

lifestyles caused by income, rural and

urban contexts, and access to English.

Srivastava, Agastya, and Dr.

Upadhyay desire complete

transparency in English when

communicating outside their immediatecontexts because they feel paralyzed

by its failure as a link language;

questions of authenticity can only arise

within the context of missing links in

the link language. This hybridization of

English is therefore threatening.

Agastya characterizes this hybridity as

an "amazing mix . . . Hazaar fucked.

Urdu and American, a thousandfucked, really fucked . . . nowhere else

could languages be mixed and spoken

with such ease" (1). Perhaps what is

truly "fucked" about such hybridization

is that it reveals what Spivak terms

"the deconstructive embrace of a

postcolonial identity" which unsettles

the hegemony of a certain section of

the English-speaking ruling class(Imaginary Maps, xxxi). In contrast,

the "pure" idiom affected by the latter

through either a Sankritized Hindi or

the "purified" English that Upadhyay




16/49

desires reveals neocolonialist

exploitation in the middle-class desire

to appropriate resources to safeguard

power.

20. This fractured nature of identity politics

surrounding hybridity is also evident in

the journalistic discourse of theeighties. For some journalists writing at

the time, the idea of an Indianized

English is desirable because English

helps them translate their cultural

capital across the country. Shyam

Ratna Gupta lists the different forms of

English: "kitchen-butler English" as

used by domestic servants; the school

or college version replete with regional

overtones, sloppy grammar, and a

debased curricula; professional English

which is jargonized but communicates

effectively; and literary English which is

competitive and influenced by

advances in print technology

(Hindustan Times 9). N.

Krishnamurthy provides a narrative of

the progressive appropriation of

English in India, making it unique andvalid.[9] Khushwant Singh celebrates

how Hindustani and English borrowed

words from each other, which were

"pressed into shape to form Indian

English" (Hindustan Times 9). Singh

provides examples of Indian poets like

Gieve Patel, Keki N. Daruwallah, and

Nissim Ezekiel who use this fusion of

languages in their poetry. Similarly,K.D. Sethna argues that the native

tongue cannot always be defined in

terms of nationality (Mother India

651-71).[10] He claims that Indians

can successfully write in English

because "The English language is the

most composite in the world. . . . It

has the capacity to assimilate

everything, it can take any hue ofthought, shade of suggestion, glow of

feeling, pattern of experience and turn

them into truly English effects -- that is,

effects achieved with perfect adequacy




17/49

by English words" (659). When he

promotes the concept of the essential

adaptability of English to any culture to

justify its validity in India, he ignores

the fact that all languages are

adaptable and that English is a global

language because of British and U.S.

imperialism. Raja asserts: "If we canuse English with some confidence why

should we not speak in English? If we

feel that we are at home in English,

why should we not write in English?"

(Mother India 374) Gupta,

Krishnamurthy, Raja, and Sethna write

for different newspapers. Khushwant

Singh is also a novelist in English who

has helped the nationalistreconstruction of English as an Indian

product. These middle-class journalists

write for different sections of the

middle class but share each other's

assumptions about the process of

Indianization of English.

21. This process can best be explained

through Bakhtin's idea of "the dialogic

orientation of a word among otherwords" (The Dialogic Imagination

275). According to Bakhtin, any

linguistic utterance takes "meaning and

shape at a particular historical moment

in a socially specific environment"

(276). In Bakhtin's terms, the word in

any language exists in a "difficult to

penetrate" "elastic environment" made

up of other, alien words (276). Whenany word is used to express an idea or

describe an object, it encounters other

words about the same idea or object,

which then become "overlain with

heteroglot social opinion," "charged

with value," and "open to dispute." In

this dialogic interaction with this

tension-filled environment, the word

gets into "complex interrelationships"with other words, "merges with some,"

and "recoils from others." The word

and utterance in any language shape

themselves in this dialogic process. In




18/49

colonial and postcolonial India, English

words and phrases became part of

other Indian languages precisely

through this dialogic interaction. The

process was creative, inventing a new

form of English and reinfusing Indian

languages with new vocabulary and

meaning.

22. This Bakhtinian process of hybridity is

also filled with violence and

displacements between languages,

causing misgivings among other

journalists of the eighties. A. Naseer

Khan considers English to be a foreign

import for it is not widely spoken by a

majority of Indians and cannot "pull

out [from] under our feet the carpet of

our past heritage, particularly the

carpet of a composite culture"

(Seminar, 34). He is supported by

R.G.K., who declares that English

damages the psyche, hinders progress,

and creates a hybrid culture that is

derivative in nature (Times of India

/Sunday Review, V). Both Khan and

R.G.K. are obviously influenced by thenotion that English not only creates

class distinctions among Indians but

also represents impure western values

that threaten to corrupt and erase an

authentic Indian self. They feel that

non-English speakers are unable to

translate themselves outside of their

contexts; hence, such a language

prevents them from competingadequately for the resources of the

nation. Khan and R.G.K. attempt to

construct a monolithic idea of

Indianness that is defined against

foreign domination. However, this

image gets fractured at several levels:

first, when confronted with the hybrid

Anglo-Indian identity, created by the

interaction between British and Indianculture; second, when confronted with

the Muslim identity, created through

Islamic invasions of the Middle Ages;

and third, when confronted with




19/49

scheduled castes and tribes who are

not considered to have pure Aryan

ancestry.

23. In the novel English August,

Agastya's hybridity makes visible the

fractured nature of identity politics in

which these journalists get embroiled.His mother is Goanese, a culture once

colonized by Portugal and now

associated with a non-Hindu, minority

Christian identity much like Anglo-

Indians. Agastya's name is Sanskrit,

based on a forest-dwelling sage in the

Hindu epics Ramayana and

Mahabharata. However his friends

change his name to August because

they discover his secret wish that he

were an "Anglo-Indian, that he had

Keith or Alan for a name, that he

spoke English with their accent. From

that day his friends had more new

names for him, he became the schools

last Englishman, or just hey English

(his friends meant hey Anglo but

didn't dare) and sometimes even

Hello Mother Tongue"(2). As amother tongue connotes the essentialist

desire to claim a language as belonging

to one's ethnic identity, so also with

Agastya's Sanskrit name. Such a

desire is parodied and displaced by

August's desire for Anglo-Indian

identity.

24. As with English, the conflict over Urduor Hindi is also rooted in a desire for

authenticity. In the novel In Custody,

the condition of the Urdu department

is even worse than that of the Hindi

department. It is small and precarious,

"there on sufferance merely" (103). It

is linked with "Muslim ideas" and

"Muslim toadies" (145). Nur, the

Muslim Urdu poet, mocks Deven, the

Hindu Hindi lecturer, in a fit of rage at

the condition of Urdu in post-

independence India.




20/49

What is the matter?

Forgotten your Urdu?

Forgotten my verse?

Perhaps it is better if you

go back to your college

and teach your students

the . . . safe, simple Hindi

language, safecomfortable ideas of cow

worship and caste and

worship of Krishna. . . .

Why such treatment for

Urdu, my friends?

Because Urdu is

supposed to have died, in

1947. . . . But Hindi --

oh Hindi is a field ofgreens, all flourishing. . . .

(56)

Hindi is obviously associated with the

Hindu god Krishna, also the mythical

hero of the epic Mahabharata, as

well as with the Hindu tradition of

vegetarianism associated with cow-

worship and eschewing beef-eating.

These associations are further tied upwith Sanskrit, the classical language of

Aryans, also constructed as the

repository of Indian culture. Desai's

novel reveals how Urdu is nostalgically

associated with the courts of nawabs

during Muslim rule of the Middle Ages

in India.

25. Such fictional revelations have theircounterpart in the 19th- and 20th-

century Hindu nationalist

historiography, which frequently

narrativized the Middle Ages as the

time of foreign invasions and

categorized Muslims as foreigners.

According to Partha Chatterjee, Indian

nationalists in the late 19th and early

20th centuries needed "to claim for the

Indian nation the historical agency for

completing the project of modernity.

To make that claim, ancient India had

to become the classical source of




21/49

Indian modernity, while the Muslim

period would become the night of

medieval darkness" (The Nation and

its Fragments 102). The politics of

religious identities create linguistic

identities; Urdu is Arabized to be

primarily associated with Muslims even

though linguistic differences betweenHindi and Urdu are minute. [11] In the

novel, we see the impact of such

divisive politics in the

postindependence Urdu community;

most Urdu speakers are poor, living in

run-down neighborhoods, and easy

targets of violence. Nur, the Urdu

poet, dejectedly states, "The defeat of

the Mughals by the British threw anoose over its [Urdu's] head, and the

defeat of the British by the Hindi-

wallahs tightened it" (42). This

metaphor of death by hanging and the

extended conceit of detention and

sentence expresses Nur's frustration at

his marginalization in India. The Urdu

department in Deven's college is

poorly funded; his request for money

to tape Urdu poetry is met with

hostility by the administration. Murad,

the publisher of an Urdu journal,

complains of his inability to pay

printers' and distributors' bills and of

shrinking readership and subscriptions.

Deven has to teach Hindi to pay bills.

Clearly, Urdu suffers in the novel

because it is linked with an Islamic

culture associated with the MiddleAges, especially since Urdu is not as

old as Sanskrit.

26. The idea that what is older is more

authentic is based on a search for

origins, which, according to Benedict

Anderson, is a typical yet

contradictory quality of nationalism.

He states that most nations createimmemorial and somewhat arbitrary

pasts, which validate present

conditions of belonging and settled

relationships (Imagined Communities




22/49

14). In this sense, claiming the past

and searching for origins are modern

phenomena. Dating India's past back

to the mythological histories of Aryans

is to the advantage of Hindi speakers,

many of whom are upper-caste,

middle-class Hindus. Hindi, with its

roots in Sanskrit, is constructed as themost authentic language. Urdu,

connected to Muslim culture, is

constructed as less authentic and more

foreign. English, introduced only in the

last two centuries by the British is, in

comparison to Hindi or Urdu, the least

authentic and most foreign. Any search

for origins claiming and constructing

the past also makes distinctionsbetween the foreign and the

indigenous.[12] In the 19th century,

middle-class nationalists deliberately

homogenized internal differentiations

among Indians in order to organize

anticolonial resistance. Similarly, such

internal differences post independence

are deliberately essentialized to

enhance upper-caste, middle-class

Hindu power and alienate Muslim

group identity. Tensions between Urdu

and Hindi refract the contending

dialogic forms of discourse shaping

India-as-nation.

27. In Custody reveals these contending

dialogic forms of discourse in the

national bourgeoisie's deliberate

attempts to separate Urdu from Hindiand to authenticate the latter at the

expense of the former; these actions

expose their attempts to fix the ways in

which the two languages will interrelate

and be utilized by the national

community. Yet the fictional text also

reveals other ways in which these

languages relate and are used by their

communities of speakers. Muradassures Deven that Urdu has future

prospects with its international

audience in countries like Russia, Iran,

Iraq, Malaysia, and Sweden. This




23/49

audience creates a demand for Nur's

poetry, which is submitted for the

Nobel Prize in literature. We can see

how this future is already a part of the

present when lines of ethnic/religious

identity get crossed in the teaching,

reading, composing, and publishing

activities that take place both in Urduand Hindi. Deven is a Hindu lover of

Urdu poetry. Both he and Siddiqui

collaborate from the Hindi and Urdu

departments to record Nur's poetry.

Deven becomes the custodian of Nur's

unpublished work: "he had imagined he

was taking Nur's poetry into safe

custody, and not realized that if he was

to be the custodian of Nur's genius,then Nur would become his custodian

and place him in custody too. This

alliance could be considered an

unendurable -- or else a shining honor.

Both demanded an equal strength"

(203). At the end of the novel, Deven

and Nur share a reciprocal relationship

that shows Hindi and Urdu speakers

relate in multiple ways outside the

parameters established by nationalist

discourse. These relationships

challenge the boundaries set by the

government-sponsored Three

Language Formula, which, through the

discourse on authenticity, seeks to

standardize and subordinate plural

linguistic identities under upper-caste,

middle-class Hindu power.

28. Some of the commentators in the

eighties deliberately uncloak the

premises of such power when they

present a narrative of Hindi's and

Urdu's shared history.[13] They refer

to a time in Indian history when

differences between the two languages

were minimal, when these languages

were utilized equally by Hindus,Muslims, and other religious

communities, and when they were not

as politically charged as they have

been since the 1950s. These scholars




24/49

assert that these languages became

contested territories after partition,

representing specific communities

which were struggling to define their

positions within India. Urdu was

delinked from other Indian languages.

They feel that these distinctions

between languages are unhistorical andinexpressive of living speech. They

point out that Sanskrit is not the root

of every linguistic community in India

unless it rediscovers its mixed roots

with Urdu. These scholars contribute

to debates on authenticity by

problematizing relatively recent

constructions of Hindi as

authentic/Hindu/Indian and Urdu asinauthentic/Muslim/ foreign. They

reveal how the desire for essentialized

identities ignores the ambivalent nature

of language and how vocabulary is

built over time in response to cultural

needs and in relation to other

languages.[14] Both Hindi and Urdu

have evolved by molding themselves to

each other and to the culture; the

relations between the two languages

once again defy the sterile possibilities

laid out by the Three-Language

Formula.

29. Ultimately, all arguments favoring

authenticity, whether it is that of

English or Hindi, promote the idea of a

single national language or a unified

linguistic formula of translation that willtie the nation together. Whether

English functions as the de facto

language of power or Sanskritized

Hindi is chosen as the official language,

these languages work to legitimize

upper-caste, middle-class Hindu

power within India. It is this class that

has the most access to English and

also claims Sanskrit, the classicallanguage of Aryans, as its heritage. It is

also this class that inherited power

from the British. Distinctions between

what is indigenous/authentic and




25/49

foreign/inauthentic are constructed as

part of the "fix" into which language

debates have frozen and have

contributed to the fundamentalist

rhetoric of the BJP and the

secessionist violence of the 1980s.

Yet, if one reasons within this

framework, it is possible to find mostlanguages, including Sanskrit, foreign

and therefore inauthentic since they

were introduced to the subcontinent

through foreign invasions at some point

in Indian history. Only the Austric and

Dravidian languages, spoken by tribal

populations, date back to the earliest

indigenous inhabitants. These

languages, however, lack prestige,receive no funding, and are spoken by

only the most subaltern communities.

The language "fix" then attempts a

solution that makes a fixture of the

problem.

30. Since the 19th century, Indian leaders

have perceived a national language to

be a unifying mechanism against the

potentially divisive linguistic pluralismof India and a homogenizing tool

enhancing development where

heterogeneity signals

underdevelopment.[15] However, in

multilingual India, promoting any

language over others aggravates inter-

community tensions.[16] The

government formulated the Three-

Language Formula to control linguisticconflicts and pay lip service to

multilingualism. With this formula, it

attempted to standardize a linguistic

practice of translation by attempting to

control the way in which translation

was to occur between different

communities and fix the value of each

linking language. Easy translations

would consolidate and centralize Statepower. However, the novels and

news/journal articles under discussion

reveal the failures of such translations.

No one language is completely able to




26/49

express the other. Not one, but several

hierarchies have emerged in which

different languages compete for power

with, displace, and are displaced by

each other in differing regions.

Recalling the title of Desais novel,

while the language formula attempts to

safeguard the rights of each languageby acting as a custodian, the languages

take each other into custody by

holding each other hostage in an

attempt to safeguard their own power.

Power fluctuates between different

speakers and listeners; middle-class

protagonists often find themselves to

be relatively powerless. New alliances

are formed between newly visiblesubjects.

31. The novels reveal how all languages in

India are combative and create divisive

linguistic groups. Since 1947, Hindi

has been the official national language.

By the 1980s, many official documents

and broadcasts in the national media

are in Hindi. Hindi is used by different

classes in most North,West, andCentral Indian homes. The Hindi film

industry in Bombay enjoys a pan-

Indian audience; in fact, Desai's

English novel, In Custody, is filmed in

Hindi. In Desai's novel, Hindi is the

"vegetarian monster" displacing Urdu

from its pre-independent position as

official language (55). Urdu, despite

not being regionally concentrated,cannot function as a unifying official

language. Its demonization by Hindi

speakers divides Mirpur, the town in

which Deven lives, into warring

factions. Celebrations of Moharram (a

Muslim festival) and Holi (a Hindu

festival) often cause riots that are

solemnly reported in local newspapers

as evidence of the inability of bothcommunities to live within a national,

secular culture. With such factionalism,

Hindi cannot unify the nation. Neither

can it completely displace the currency




27/49


28/49

manual labor -- values he wishes to

market for a privileged urban lifestyle.

In these instances, English divides its

speakers from the non-speakers into

disparate worlds of wealth and

poverty.

33. In the fiction, the underclass may bebrutalized by its inability to access the

power available through English, but it

also becomes visible in the gaps

established by the inability of the

English language to translate its

experiences. In fact, no language can

adequately translate meanings from

another. In the miscommunication that

follows, power fluctuates between

established groups of speakers. The

adivasis of Jompanna (English

August), Seora, Pirtha, and Kuruda

(Imaginary Maps) can speak mostly

only in their own dialect. When

communicating, these residents

pressure visitors and administrative

personnel to learn the local language.

Srivastava, a high-ranking official in

Madna, tells Agastya, a BlockDevelopment Officer in Jompanna,

"Yes, you'll face the problem of

language in Madna. They [the local

inhabitants] can't even speak Hindi

properly. . . . You see, in North India

and Bengal and other places, everyone

can follow Hindi. . . . And now

everything from the State government

comes in the regional language" (15-16). But Agastya is an urban, upper-

class Indian who can speak English

and Bengali fluently and Hindi haltingly;

he needs interpreters to help him

understand the adivasis. In these acts

of translation, no one is precisely able

to understand the other; urban,

middle-class power gets decentered

and hitherto marginalized subjectsbecome visible. For example, Puran, a

journalist who travels to Pirtha, is

stunned by the fact that adivasis have

no word in the Ho language for




29/49

exploitation because nothing within

their societies remotely resembles the

indignities they suffer from mainstream

culture. This lack represents meanings

that cannot be recovered; Puran is

confronted by the dilemma of the

untranslatable. At best his report

reveals the residues of translation, theexcess that cannot be communicated in

English, Hindi, or Bengali. In

Imaginary Maps, Mahasweta Devi

debunks the patronizing arrogance of

officials towards local dialects by

deliberately interspersing the latter with

formal Bengali in the style of a political

harangue. Educated Bengali is spoken

by middle-class urban dwellers whoare in league with the seats of power in

central government. Devi's technique

not only reveals how formal Bengali

oppresses local dialects but also

indicates local resistance to such

power. Devi's readers are also middle-

class intellectuals and artists who she

hopes will transcend class interests to

bond with the oppressed. It is obvious

that neither Hindi nor English can

successfully displace the currency of a

regional language in a specific region.

34. As these novels show, languages are

divisive not only because they are

combative but also because they are

internally fragmented. In English

August, Srivastav -- a civil servant

educated in Hindi who is part of anexpanding middle class -- desires to

use English to administer the country,

broker power, and share the class

privileges enjoyed by Agastya: "the

English we speak is not the English we

read in English books. . . . Our English

should be just a vehicle of

communication . . . how we speak

should not matter as long as we get theidea across" (59). Srivastav desires

that the administrative language be

different from the literary and

journalistic language with which




30/49

Agastya has fluency. Srivastava wants

this language to be absolutely

transparent in order to facilitate

interregional translations of culture,

information, and resources. However

complete transparency is impossible

because English is fractured from

within; not everyone speaks the sameEnglish. His English is different from

and has less market value than

Agastya's because Srivastav speaks

with a heavier vernacular accent. So

diction, accent, and fluency determine

class privileges. Fragmentation

happens within every language,

creating warring groups who cannot

communicate. Hindi, the other officiallanguage, also divides the country.

Agastya's Hindi in English Augustis

less fluent than that of his fellow Hindi-

speaking officers. Also, the adivasis

speak a broken Hindi quite different

from Agastya's because it is inflected

by the syntactical structure of the Ho

language. These differences cause a

clash of cultures resulting in the

psychological violence of governmental

authority, Agastya's alienation, and his

consequent withdrawal from his work

environment.

35. The combative relations between

languages are also evident in the

discord between journalists in the

1980s. Several news and journal

reports assert that English functions asthe de facto national language because

it affects law courts, communications,

government documents, and higher

education.[17] These reports note that

English is widespread and deeply

entrenched: its words and phrases

exist independently in most Indian

languages; English-educated Indians

form a powerful national middle classwith international influence; and "The

trend . . . of sending one's child to an

English medium school has become a

veritable stampede" (Masica 9). In




31/49

short, they believe, it is difficult to live

without the mediation of English. But it

is this very entrenchment that makes

other journalists assert that English

does not unify the country as the lingua

franca but divides it into the privileged

and underprivileged: "the continued

ascendancy of English divides thenation into elites, who possess the

authority to make laws, and those who

are subjects of these laws" (Handa

13).[18] This faction claims that

English is dominant in India only

because it is the property of the elite;

through advertisements, the English

media present an urban lifestyle

inaccessible to most of the country.English-language newspapers are

relied upon to bring international news

their readers, who are treated

differently than Hindi language readers.

36. Journalists who espouse the cause of

Hindi bemoan its lack of funding and

shrinking publications as well as anti-

Hindi agitation by non-Hindi

speakers.[19] They declare that mostnewspaper owners' attitude to Hindi is

non-serious, unlike their attitude to

English journalism:

A majority of the Hindi

dailies in the Capital are

run by the business

houses whose first

commitment lieselsewhere and not to the

publication of

newspapers. . . . Hindi,

for them, is merely an

obligation, a burden, and

is to be discharged rather

unwillingly or indifferently

depending on the mood

of the ruling party.

Despite wider circulation

and better financial

performance, the same

management would deny




32/49

the facilities,

remuneration, pages, and

manpower to Hindi

journals, which would

place them at par with

the English publication

from the same house.

(Yadav 41)

As a result of these institutional

problems, they suggest, Hindi

journalism suffers from a diffused

readership, an absence of a cultural

pivot, indifferent political leadership,

and poor editing skills. Most pro-Hindi

agitators themselves lapse into English,

strengthening its persistent hegemony.

These journalists express anxiety and

nostalgia because, as Hindi-speakers,

they experience themselves as second-

class citizens. They write in English out

of necessity in order to reach a

powerful middle-class audience.

However, they are also members of

the English-speaking middle class; their

critique of the hegemony of English

becomes ironic because it is facilitatedthrough the medium of English. These

journalists all belong to the middle

class, write in English, and benefit from

the privileges of an English education.

They do not argue for extending the

privileges of English among the lower

classes nor are they able to suggest

practical viable alternatives to the

hegemony of English.

37. However, English is not the only

language that is hegemonic. Several

articles in Volume 332 ofSeminar,

Link (Khullar 37-38), Advance

(Khullar 20-27), and Economic and

Political Weekly (1410)[20]

elaborate on how Urdu has suffered

with the promotion of Hindi as the

national language: decreased funding;

disappearing schools; declining number

of teachers; poor printing facilities;

curricula that drop Urdu, the




33/49

governments decision in 1958 to

declare Urdu a dialect of Hindi; its

linkage with the Muslim community,

even though all Muslims do not speak

Urdu, and with predominantly poor,

illiterate or semi-literate speakers, who

cannot promote the language. They

point out how the pro-Hindi lobbywithin the government prevents the

promotion of Urdu.[21] From their

underlying assumptions, it is apparent

that Urdus association with Islam and

the demonization of Indian Muslims

complicates Urdu-Hindi relations. The

government's failure to promote Urdu

has been quoted, in the 1980s, as an

instance of its pro-Hindu sentiments byIslamic parties in Kashmir demanding

secession from India. Such demands

are paralleled by a corresponding

Hindu fundamentalism, demonizing

Indian Muslims, with the rise of the

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

38. The tension between Indian languages

can be clarified in terms of Bakhtin's

idea of the centripetal and centrifugalforces within language (The Dialogic

Imagination 259-272).[22]

Centripetal forces are the historical

processes of centralization and

unification, resulting in a unitary

language, while the centrifugal,

heteroglossic forces of decentralization

stratify language into dialects and

socio-ideological groups in everyepoch, community, or nation. The

desire within the national leadership for

a unifying national language or at least

a uniform method of translation, such

as the Three Language Formula, can

be seen as a product of centripetal

forces. But a unitary language does not

exist within India; Hindi, the official

language, would claim such privileges ifit were not displaced by English. Both

Hindi and English are further displaced

by and displace regional languages in a

phenomenon that Bakhtin terms




34/49

heteroglossia. These heteroglossic or

centrifugal forces of decentralization

not only create hierarchies between

languages but stratify these from

within, causing each language to

fragment. In these mutual acts of

displacement and stratification,

different socio-ideological groups enterinto combative relations to acquire and

safeguard power. These combative

interactions merely highlight the

contradiction inherent in desiring a

unifying language or language formula.

39. Decolonization not only involves the

creation of imagined communities

through the workings of print

capitalism, as Benedict Anderson has

suggested, but also through the

appropriation of a common language

to lend passion and purpose to the

community so imagined. The dissent

over which language is to be so

selected points to the existence of

multiple imagined communities, each of

which engage in combative interactions

with one another in an attempt to stakea claim on the nation. The different

class factions are engaged in a

symbolic struggle, one aimed at

imposing the definition of the social

world that is best suited to their

interests. Symbols, according to Pierre

Bourdieu, are instruments of

knowledge that make possible a

consensus on the meaning of the socialworld, which contributes to the

reproduction of the social order (166).

Language belongs to the symbolic

field; the choice of a national language

becomes a crucial issue when the

dominant middle class, whose power

rests on economic capital, aims to

impose the legitimacy of its dominance

through the continued currency ofEnglish in India. The statutory choice

of Hindi further complicates the

problem because it ostensibly

empowers the Hindi-speaking North




35/49

and Central Indian states that then

dominate the legislative process. A

large part of the middle class comes

from these regions. The further

subordination of Urdu, regional, and

tribal languages creates a hierarchy,

which becomes a site for the struggle

for dominance and control ofresources and power in India. The

novels and the news reports under

discussion reveal how the language

"fix" is a part of the problem causing

tensions between communities in the

eighties. Combative interactions

between linguistic communities assist

the democratic process by unsettling

the sites of middle-class power,ultimately creating more space for

minority and marginalized discourses

to emerge.

Notes

1. Chatterjee calls this class the petit

bourgeoisie, stretching from clerks to

lawyers, doctors, and landowners.

Back

2. The status ofImaginary Maps as a

work of translation is relevant in light

of this dialogic interaction between

languages. Originally written in Bengali,

it was translated into English by Spivak

and read worldwide. The deliberate

experiments Spivak makes withEnglish in representing the Bengali

dialect are creative and valid in their

own terms, much like Indianized

English. The translated text takes on its

own identity independent of the

Bengali original. Back

3. This article, written as it is by an

English-educated member of this class,

also falls under the same constellation

of ideological features but seeks to

investigate the premises of middle-

class power. Back




36/49

4. These journalists assumptions are

supported by the prevailing

international scholarly opinion. For

example, Ayo Bamgbose, the African

theorist, states that an increased flow

of information in developing nations in

Asia and Africa makes expert

knowledge available where needed

and provides a forum for leadership

and decision making (Language and

the Nation 39). Bamgbose surveys

the relationship between language and

national development in several

multilingual African countries to show

how language facilitates literacy and

communication, which impacts directly

on the socio-economic development ofa nation. Back

5. Sharada Venkataraman (Hindu 24),

Shyam Ratna Gupta (Hindustan

Times 9), Colin Masica (CIEFL

Bulletin 13), Lachman M.

Khubchandani (International Social

Science Journal 169), K.K. Mishra

(Link23-24), "Not by DemandAlone" (8). Back

6. This desire for an authentic language

that will encapsulate the national

identity is shared by the leadership of

many nations in the late 19th and 20th

centuries. According to Joshua

Fishman, the "essence of nationality is

reflected in the continuous use of

language over a period of time," whichhe terms the "vernacular" (45). The

vernacular is used by the "protoelites"

of a nation as an "authenticating tool

for modernization, political

consolidation, and mass consensus at

social change" (42-43). Fishman

writes that in order to satisfy demands

for authenticity, the national leadership

of a developing nation will often selecta particular language, as the

vernacular, for official use. This

becomes "an intrinsic part of the birth

of national consciousness among the




37/49

populace" (57). Back

7. See Bhabha's article "Postcolonial

Authority and Postmodern Guilt"

(Location of Culture 56-68). Back

8. Of particular relevance to my argument

is Homi Bhabha's article "Of Mimicry

and Man: The Ambivalence of

Colonial Discourse." Bhabha argues

that colonial discourse seeks to stamp

its own image on the colonized, to

create a reformed, recognizable Other.

This image is almost but not quite the

same as the colonizing power; the

colonized other mimics the colonizing

self with a difference within the

sameness. This mimicry becomes a

mockery of the colonizer, exposing the

double standards inherent in colonial

rule. The effect of this mimicry is

disturbing for in "normalizing" the

colonial subject, colonial authority

alienates its own language of liberty

and produces another knowledge of its

norms. The discourse of post

Enlightenment English colonialismtherefore cannot be anything other than

a mimicry of itself. Dr. Upadhyay, the

colonized other, educated in the

"civilizing" culture of his colonial

masters, can only hanker for a

language that can unproblematically

reflect its own authenticity. He is

unaware that he himself becomes a site

for the splitting of colonial discourse;his nostalgia becomes a sign of his split

desire. Back

9. This is an extract from his article,

"Growth of Inglish in India" published

in Hindu on December 3, 1985. He

formulates the four stages through

which English became "Inglish," that is,

increasingly popular and Indianized.

The first is the transportation phase

(1600-1800) covering the power

struggle between British and Indian

rulers for control over land,




38/49

commerce, and communications.

English was introduced for training civil

servants to spread British culture.

During this period, only the upper class

had access to it. However, domestic

servants working in upper class

households picked up some

rudimentary terms. The second stage isbetween 1850 to 1900, when English

was Indianized. During this time, all

Indian universities used English as a

medium of instruction. Poets, writers,

and activists like Tagore and Gandhi

used English with an Indian flavor.

English was institutionalized during the

third phase (1900-1950) when it was

frequently used by the Swadeshimovement to communicate with the

rest of the country, British officials, and

other parts of the world. The identity

stage (1950 and after) was the final

stage in the appropriation of English in

India when, according to

Krishnamurthy, the need for building a

modern nation has led to the use of

Indian words, expressions, accents,

tones, and cultural values in the English

spoken by Indians. This brand of

"Inglish" has flourished with the growth

of newspapers and magazines in India

(19). Back

10. Sethna is the editor ofMother India, a

journal published on a monthly basis

from 1960 onwards in Bombay and

funded by the Sri Aurobindo AshramTrust. The title of this journal is

significant because it is based on an

Indian mystic, Sri Aurobindo's vision

of India as a mother. This vision also

ties in with the nationalist construction

of India as the motherland demanding

devotion, loyalty, and self sacrifice of

its citizens/children. This idea of the

mother is also essentialist in naturewhere India is often seen as an

embodiment of the mystical east as

opposed to the material west,

assumptions that inform Sethnas




39/49

orientalist ideas of English in India.

Back

11. The theorist Itamar Even-Zohar

asserts that the linguistic diversity

between the two languages has been

invented by concerned communities of

speakers since independence in orderto effect this difference (Nationalism

and Modernity: A Mediterranean

Perspective 130-131). Even-Zohar

argues that language conflict occurs

only when there is an ideological

conflict among different groups, such

as Hindus and Muslims, within a

nation. Then everything linguistic

becomes a burning issue for the

conflicting parties, including the most

minute details of language structure

that would otherwise have interested

only a small group of specialists. In the

case of Hindi or Urdu, spelling,

pronunciation, grammatical

declinations, word order, and

vocabulary may all become semiotic

carriers of identity promoted or

rejected by different groups (127).Back

12. Chatterjee claims that even before

independence, the national imaginary

asserted its freedom from colonial

domination by distinguishing between

the outer/foreign and inner/indigenous

domains of the nation (The Nation

and its Fragments 6-11). Since1947, distinctions between the outside

and inside became internal

differentiations with certain kinds of

Indians (Hindu, majority, upper-caste)

on the inside and others (non-Hindu,

minority, lower-caste) on the outside.

However, Chatterjee is incorrect in

assuming that precolonial identity was

not as internally differentiated as

postcolonial identities. Back

13. "Kaif" (Research Bulletin Arts

Punjab University 114), Iqbal Khan




40/49

(Times of India 5-6), Mohammed

Peer (Guru Nanak Journal of

Sociology 138-149), K. K. Khullar

(Advance 20-27), and Amrit Rai (A

House Divided285-289). They agree

that both languages evolved around

1000 AD during the Prakrit-

Apabhransa stage with theestablishment of the first Muslim

dynasty in India. Spoken in the

bazaars of Delhi, these scholars

believe Hindi/Urdu was at first one

language which developed initially in

Golconda and Bijapore, in the Deccan

Plateau, before it came to North India.

This common language was variously

called Dakani, Gurjari, Khari Boli, andHindavi, and contained a mixture of

Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian, and Brij

Bhasha. It grew as a response to the

need for communication between

Persian conquerors and their Indian

subjects for 600 years, when both

Hindu and Muslim poets and

preachers wrote in this language. Rai,

Peer, Khan, and Khullar state that this

mixed language, now called

Hindustani, split into Urdu and Hindi

since the 17th and 18th centuries with

the breakup of the Mughal empire,

when Muslims and Hindus became

concerned about preserving their

separate identities. The British used

these divisions to maintain their power

by polarizing the Hindus and Muslims -

a polarization accentuated by thecommunal politics of Jinnah and the

Muslim League that split the Indian

subcontinent into India and Pakistan.

Back

14. I am using this word with particular

reference to Homi Bhabha's

introduction to Nation and Narration

where he focuses on this turbulent andambivalent nature of language and

connects it to a similar quality within

the nation(1-7). He believes that

nations are ambivalent in their




41/49

transitional histories and conceptual

indeterminacy. This ambivalence is

reflected in national boundaries which

determine those included and excluded

- a process producing unpredictable

forces of political antagonism. Bhabha

asserts that like national discourse,

language is also ambivalent. Thisquality in language enables us to

understand how the nation when

narrated can turn boundaries into in-

between spaces through which the

meanings of cultural and political

authority are negotiated; the "other" is

therefore never outside the nation but

emerges forcefully within indigenous

cultural discourse. Bhabha's insightsare valuable for understanding the

language problem in India where much

of the mutual demonizing of Urdu,

Hindi, and English speakers emerges

from this in-between space within the

nation in which all ambiguously

experience themselves as self and

other. Back

15. This choice seems to endorse PierreBourdieus argument that these needs

for a unifying language of state "create

specific conditions of language use,"

generating a "conflict-ridden historical

process" from which a "particular set

of linguistic practices emerges as

dominant" (Language and Symbolic

Power5). However, not all of

Bourdieu's ideas apply to India. If, ashe says, the process of state formation

creates conditions for a "unified

linguistic market dominated by the

official language," this language would

be the most privileged (48). Back

16. Nehru was unable to retain Hindi as

the only official language as per the

Official Languages Act in 1963; he

had to amend it in 1967 to retain

English as the associate official

language. He also linguistically

reorganized states and discouraged




42/49

any demand for special languages

unless these had popular support.

Nehru's policies proved to be

unpopular. Language riots broke out in

Madras in 1950, and in Andhra

Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, and

Punjab through the 60s and 70s, which

partly fueled the rise of militantseparatist movements in the 1980s.The

Nagpur Conference of 1920 , the

Nehru Committee in 1923, the

Calcutta Congress in 1937, and the

Congress Party manifesto in 1945-46

provided the groundwork for Nehru's

policies. See Suman (Seminar on

National Integration and

Communal Harmony 165-167).Back

17. Shyam Ratna Gupta (Hindustan

Times 9), Sharada Venkataraman

(Hindu 24), Colin Masica (CIEFL

Bulletin 7-14) and Raja (Mother

India 374-76). While Gupta, Raja,

and Venkataraman openly espouse

English as an extension of their class

privileges, Masica adopts the stance ofa disinterested scholar without an

agenda. Back

18. Anjuli Gupta (Hindustan Times 9)

and R.L. Handa (Missing Links in the

Link Language 13). They seem to

take recourse to a nationalist discourse

that sets itself up against foreign

influences, which they construct asantinational and undemocratic. Back

19. Rajendra Yadav (Link40-42), M.K.

Tikku (Hindustan Times 9), and

K.K. Mishra (Link23-24). Back

20. This volume ofSeminar, a monthly

magazine, published several articles by

A. Naseer Khan (30-34), Khaliq

Anjum (35-36), Raj Bahadur Gaur (),Akhilesh Mithal (), Mohammed Hasan

(14-16), Hasan Abdullah (17-19),

Gopi Chand Narang (22-25), and I.K.




43/49

Gujral(26-29). Back

21. These journalists list the number of

activities undertaken by the

government to ostensibly promote

Urdu: creation of Urdu professorships,

awarding of prizes to Urdu writers, its

inclusion as an Indian language underSchedule VIII of the Constitution, the

holding of two All India Conferences,

and the conducting of several signature

campaigns and official commissions. In

their opinion, despite these activities,

the government discourages large scale

institutionalization of Urdu at primary

and secondary school levels. Attempts

to promote Urdu as a second official

language in the 1970s b

language in india3

Documents