The Untruth of an Indian Majority

Rakesh

[[Just because some can speak a little bit, doesn`t make Hindi the national language. It just goes to show that people will learn to speak Hindi if it provides them added economic opportunities. And since money and power have been concentrated in Hindi-speaking areas historically, people have found it essential to learn this language. They don`t do it out of choice.. or even any love for Hindi. ]]

When people make a decision to learn Hindi because of acquiring money and power they do it out of choice. Nobody is coercing them. Coercion is when you are forcibly made to learn Hindi for every job in the private and public sector in all parts of India. The same can be said for any language. I have seen Sikhs and Parsis in Ernakulam speak fluent Malayalam, and Gujaratis in Coimbatore speak impeccable Tamil. If you deem it necessary, you will learn.

Do we need a national language? I don`t know. We need a link language though. Otherise we will have people like Mulayam Singh Yadav who sent K Karunakaran a communication in Hindi. Karunakaran responded by sending a reply in Malayalam. I don`t know if this is true. But I`ve heard it told and I do not find it difficult to believe.

End of digression.

einsteinwallah:

I`m digressing from the main point of this article.. this is mostly about religion and not language..

How do you define a national language? You cannot define it as the language of native speakers of that language when their number exceeds 50 percent. But it should be properly be defined as the language which would be understood by majority even though many of them are not native speakers of that language. Most of us who have earned a higher degree in any field in India in English medium can speak very good English even though this English may be full of errors. Among educated class English is lingua franka. Among rest, Hindi is lingua franka. Trust me Hindi *is* national language. Locals may be offended if spoken to in Hindi because of their misplaced insistence that every outsider who comes to their region should learn local language. They may feign ignorance of Hindi but most of non-hindi people understand Hindi.

I think you are wrong here.. the statement above (bolded) does not make any sense. `National` language is not needed for a diverse country like India. We need a link language and English serves fine.. And your assumption about ``Hindi`` serving as ``lingua franca`` for uneducated makes no sense.. I think you are talking about the North Indians whose languages closely resemble Hindi. If you look at the census figures of the southern Indian states for the people`s knowledge of Hindi you would be surprised..

Re: # 121

Sir,

I`m pretty surprised with your observations of Hindi in Chennai. I`m originally from Chennai and if there`s anything to be said about the Tamilians feelings about Hindi... it was made pretty obvious during the anti-Hindi riots. The Tamils, especially, are fiercely proud of their language and heritage.

Just because some can speak a little bit, doesn`t make Hindi the national language. It just goes to show that people will learn to speak Hindi if it provides them added economic opportunities. And since money and power have been concentrated in Hindi-speaking areas historically, people have found it essential to learn this language. They don`t do it out of choice.. or even any love for Hindi.

#130 majumdar

Ashoka`s Edicts on Religion (300BC):

[quote]
Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds.[22] But Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this -- that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions.[23] Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one`s own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one`s own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one`s own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought ``Let me glorify my own religion,`` only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good.[24] One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

Those who are content with their own religion should be told this: Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. And to this end many are working -- Dhamma Mahamatras, Mahamatras in charge of the women`s quarters, officers in charge of outlying areas, and other such officers. And the fruit of this is that one`s own religion grows and the Dhamma is illuminated also.

[quote]

Re: # 132

DM ji,

Please disregard the first part of my interact. Thanks a lot for your perspective on future,

- Avkrishna

harimau #113, {``Hey Muslims, take your women out of burqas. And you Christians, shut up about the Saviour. We don`t want to be saved. We are pagans, we intend to have a good time on earth with wine, women and song.``}

Harimau,
Amen, brother, amen! Jizakullah and Ma`ashallah. I am in total agreement with your comment. You could also say ``Live and let live. If you can`t do that, then at least have the decency to die without killing others.`` Thank you.

I am utterly amazed when I see declarations from Pak gentlemen that they are scholars on Arthashastra and Chanakya. No one in India is talking about them. After seeing these names in History books, the only place I see them are Pak media, and in Pak news paper columns every other day.


Is Shireen Mazaari burning midnight oil at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute trying to understand the intricacies of Arthashastra? Does this explain the glorious strategic and military victories strewn in the path of Pak from 1947 to 2006?


Do you guys study these in Pak ideology studies, or Islamiyat studies at home? Perhaps getting tested on these at school:

1.Essay Question (15 marks)
Describe the Hindu baniya manipulative tactics as outlined in Arthashastra.


2.Short notes( 5 marks)
Cunning Chanakiya and his relevance to present day Pakistan.

majumdar/dost-mittar/anyone else: while hopefully ijaz gul (who has obviously studied the matter in some depth) will provide some feedback, in the meantime i would appreciate any light you can shed on the questions i raise in #129.

Re: # 135
Ijaz_Gul

I should have quoted you. The exact phrase should be ``reflection of the Indian Military Mind``. Why?

Re: # 123
Ijaz_Gul
I do not think Kautilya is all that forgotten in India. There are a lot of people who have read the Arthashastra. Even those of us who cannot read the language it was written in, have Penguin`s English translation to delve into. It is frightening book though. Far more so than Machiavelli`s Prince.

I am curious to know why you consider the Hindutva/Saffron brigade a creation of the Indian Military Mind. I have seen nothing in it to suggest such a conclusion.

MY dear friends.

The matter is not as easy as it seems. We all have our own beliefs, and thus we put forth our own theories. My 2 paise worth here. We have sung the ``MantraPushpanjali`` in all our Pagan Pooja rituals. And it has lines that state ``Pruthivyai Samudra Paryantaya Ek-rad eti`` whioch means one nation from the mountains of himalayas to the shores of Indian ocean. That I think puts the Indian Nation since ages in right perspective. All the things in the mythology point to that. Had we not been one nation, the Shankaracharya from down south wouldnt have travelled to Himalayas to attain supreme knowledge, nor would the people of North travel to Rameshwaram. Nor would a south Indian name himself as Ramaswamy, neither would a north indian girl be named Kamakshi. It all points to one single tradition.
Leave all aside. if we have to be a nation that is powerfull and respects all and allows for freedom for all, then we have to unite under one roof and forget rather stop pointing to differences amongst ourselves. That my dear friends will only facilitate the enemy. And , by enemy, i dont mean Pakis. They are welcome to live their own lives. But their beliefs tell them something else.They can rest assured, we will never attack them first. We have always been reactionary, and thats remains true here. if only they stop fearing that we will eat at their basic beliefs. They fear us because if they stop thinking of us as an enemy, they will all find simillarities between the two sets, and thus the separate existance will vanish.
The only disimilarity is the arabic import in pakistan. If they drop the arabic part, they are no different.
So we can always think of a pan-subcontinent union, with free trade and all.
We need to drop the differences first.
So I urge all of you, rather than pointing fingers, lets all point tio the simillarities. we can accede that Paki`s are a nation, and they should accede that they are not going to take any more bites out of our land.
That should bring about peace.
If not then, we have the usual self destruct routine.
enjoy. We are a typical animal race that is moving fast towards a what you call apocalypse. Who will survive this is a question. So gfriends, so quarelling, make peace.
Amen.

Ijaz_gul#123:
``Pathetically, because of his cantekrous reputation, people avoid admiring him and most damage has been done by Indians themselves. He became a comic character and even Nehru in his book, `Discovery of India` does not do full justice to his stature.``

I am afraid most Indians won`t agree with this statement. Kautalya is a highly admired, figure in India and not a comical figure at all. There was even a reverential TV serial on him. I have, however, seen comical references to him in the Pakistani media.

Majumdar#130:
``It is interesting that the three great Mauryan emperors- CGM, Bindusara and Ashoka all died as members of different faiths- CGM died a Jain, Bindusara a Hindu, Ashoka- a Buddhist. No one was called an apostate and threatened with the death punishment, nor did the emperors try to convert the rest of the world to their faith. All desis can be proud of this.``

Very astute observation. But not really surprising. In pre-islamic India, religion was not a big deal; it was more like the modern day affliation to a political party where one could change one`s membership of the party without a traumatic change in one`s identity, one did not have to be ashamed of one`s past or repudiate it when changing one`s faith.

Bharath#108:

``Irrespective of whether you are a Hindu or Muslim what a pity Sir. Our civilization, our heritage are several thousand years older``

You are preaching to the coir, Bharath saheb!

But the issue is the Hindu political identity and not Indian civilization.

Jang#110:
The pre-partition alliance and the post-partition behaviour are not unrelated. If you go through the deliberations of the constituent assembly, you would find that several minority representatives, including Muslims, were against any special treatment for minorities in the constitution. However, the Congresss felt loyalty bound to cater to the leaders of the Jamiat-ul-ulema-e-Hind who had steadfastly stood with the Congress against Jinnah and Pakistan.

Ijaz_gul#111:
``Hindu identity existed withinin diversity for a very long time. Barring South India of antiquity which was not considered part of the Indian empire, Hindism was able to absorb the influences of Buddism and Jainism, reason why so few Buddists and Jains are left in what was the origins of these religions.``

I think that you are talking here about two different things. Hinduism or more accurately, Brahminism, was able to absorb the influence of Buddhism and Jainism by incorporating some of their tenets within itself, but all these could really be called Indic philosophies which is why they were all classified in the catch-all categories of Hindus by the outsiders; I think that the differentiation of Jains or Buddhists and even Sikhs from Hindus is a relatively recent phenomenon, even though Guru Nanak, I believe, did once say that he is neither Hindu nor Mussalmaan.

I do not see any evidence of a Hindu political identity before the 19th century. Harimou has pointed out to the congregation of Hindus at relgious places such as Haridwar, Gaya and Kashi. I have two comments on that: one, as far as I can tell, these congregations and rituals were limited to upper caste Hindus which would exclude the majority of Hindus from them; secondly, I do not know how old these practices are - I do not recall any references to them even in the more recent Hindu literature such as Ramayan and Mahabharat, although there are references to such identities as Arya, Asura, Vaanar or Bheel [I admit that my recollection may be faulty!].


avkrishna#115:
``Towards the end, you have explained how the minorities can minimize this reactionary Hindutva force.

Can you also share your thoughts on what`s likely to happen ?``

Let`s not blame the minorities. It is not the minorities that are to be blamed but the mainly Hindu leaders who find it more convenient to pander to the Mullahs.

My prognosis is not very optimistic. I think that Indian political parties whether of a secularist, leftist or saffron hue, do not think beyond the next election or even by-election. So, they would continue to play the vote-bank politics, with the BJP increasingly trying to cultivate its Hindu vote bank. The success of the Modi experiment in Gujarat and the failure of the Vajpayee experiment at the Centre in terms of electoral success are not very happy portents. There seems to be a convergence of interests between the anti-american and anti-globalist leftists and the anti-american Mullahs, which is likely to drive educated Hindus even more towards the BJP. Another possiblity is that Hindutva-vadis might gain strength within the Congress itself.

izaj_gul shows the essence of the pakistani mind in his thesis.

kautilya is india political mind: code word ..hindu baniya mentality -- A grade.
hindutva is indian military mind: code word bagal mein churi -- A grade.

thesis becomes a text at military academy.
LOL

harimau and avkrishna, while i think its perfectly fine to politically unite on the basis of hinduism, i just dont see it happen EXCEPT in reaction, nothing organic. e.g. can a hindu political party rise with the promise of abolition of caste (a patently hindu issue)? it can rise to ``check mate`` rise of other community fundamentalism. hindus are relatively confident that india is theirs and are busy with human endevour without the baggage of it being hindu endevour. their is however an innate understanding that success of the indian nation is success of a ``hindu rashrta`` after ``1000 years of slavery``. this feeling is not an overt political expression, its in the essence..kinda conceited ..born out of facing, absorbing, transforming so many foreign challenges (some brutal) and yet surviving the original thought.

Tahmed sahib,

It is interesting that the three great Mauryan emperors- CGM, Bindusara and Ashoka all died as members of different faiths- CGM died a Jain, Bindusara a Hindu, Ashoka- a Buddhist. No one was called an apostate and threatened with the death punishment, nor did the emperors try to convert the rest of the world to their faith. All desis can be proud of this. I can`t think of a similar case anywhere else in the world.

Regards

ijaz gul #126 : your Msc thesis was on Arthashastra!! What was your the main thrust of the thesis? To what extent were the detailed rules for running a kingdom as provided by A. reflected in the Mauryan empire? I ask this question because my impression is that so little is known of the day to day running of the Mauryan empire that it is not clear to what extent the Arthashastra rules were embodied in the running of the empire. Indeed given that the Mauryan empire, despite its extensive extent, was relatively short-lived (three generations, namely Chandragupta, his son Bindusara and then his grandson Asoka) - it would be seem that this embodiment was in fact quite limited.

Also, to what extent do you think was the Arthashastra complemented by Chandragupta`s observations of Alexander`s military tactics while a student at Taxila University, and to what extent did he employ these tactics to defeat the Nandas and subsequently extent his empire? To what extent did the Arthashastra you think contribute to Chandragupta`s embrace of buddhism and jainism to the extent of ``retiring`` from emperorship to live out his remaining days as a jain?

I would appreciate any light you could throw on these questions.

PS: while you would be right in saying that the Rawalpindi-Islamabad area was the birthplace of the Mauryan empire (since Chandragupta Maurya received his training and initial political assignments here, under the tutelege of Kautliya who was a son of the Rawalpindi soil), the capital of the empire seems to have in fact been Pataliputra (today`s Patna). But Rawalpindi can no doubt legitimately claim to have been the birthplace of the Mauryan empire (as indeed this area can legitimately claim to have been the birthplace of the Mughal empire whose administrative structure was carried over from Sher Shah who was another native of the Rawalpindi-Lahore soil along with his pathan heritage - but that is another story).