Why Hindi should be India's national language

The adoption of Hindi as a national language has been resisted by some regions of India for about 60 years now. While I always knew that some of these "resistors" have a hatred for Hindi, I was recently surprised by the intense level of that hatred harbored by a citizen - Rajeev Srinivasan. His hate for Hindi has spilled over to a hatred of the people of the Hindi speaking belt, and as such he is an embodiment of an "anti-Indian". These are 2 articles written by him on the oft debated subject.

www.rediff.com/news/2000/oct/05rajeev.htm

www.rediff.com/news/2000/oct/04rajeev.htm?zcc=rl

Rajeev Srinivasan went rabid with these articles. He tries to garb his hate with weak reasoning and ridiculous logic. He goes to the extent of blaming north Indians for enslaving India, and tries to ridicule their struggle against invaders and the British. This is my attempt to unmask his hate and also make a case for Hindi as a national language. I sent him this essay via email, and I haven't heard back. If you have time and the inclination to read his articles before you get to my essay, it might help in setting the context for you. It isn't necessary though, since I quote from his writings quite liberally. -----------------------------------------------------------------

Rajeev Srinivasan,

I agree that disliking Hindi in itself is not evidence enough to label you “anti-Indian”. The rest of your article however, provides ample such evidence and I will show you how exactly. However, there is one other possibility. That you are a rabid, virulent person with a severe inferiority complex, and that you find solace and purpose in voicing caustic opinion. That’s better than being anti Indian I suppose. Take your pick and read on.

There are two parts to this essay. The first is a countering of Rajeev’s fallacies on a factual level. The second is a presentation of my case for Hindi as a national language.

Let’s start with a factual examination of the article.

Bullshit: India has no single "National Language". There are two "Official Languages", Hindi and English.” Kindly read that lovely document, the Indian Constitution. Even the Nehruvian Stalinists couldn't get Hindi to be declared the National Language.

Fact: There is only ONE official language – Hindi. I took your advice and read that lovely document called the constitution. Excerpt:

Article 343. Official language of the Union.
(1) The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.
The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement:

(And yeah, I’ve been through the amendments as well. No elevation of English to the status of Official language has transpired since.)

English was included in the Official language chapter as a “side-kick” if you will. A 12th man in cricketing terms. The authors of the constitution clearly had the phasing out of English and the promotion of Hindi on their minds. Now I’m sure you will be quick to point out that you don’t really subscribe to their ideas, but you should have thought of that before you put you foot in your mouth by holding up the constitution as a pillar of your argument.

If there is any doubt, let’s makes clear what the constitution suggests.

Article 344 speaks of a commission that needs to be appointed to do the following:

(a) the progressive use of the Hindi language for the official purposes of the Union;
(b) restrictions on the use of the English language for all or any of the official purposes of the Union;

And yes, there is Article 351

351. Directive for development of the Hindi language. It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating without interfering with its genius, the forms, style and expressions used in Hindustani and in the other languages of India specified in the Eighth Schedule, and by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages.

So basically, the constitution doesn’t exactly sing like you said it does, does it?

Moving on,

Bullshit: How many Northern states -- if I remember right, education is a state subject -- implemented the three-language formula? Answer: zero. They have had the formula where it is Hindi, English (Hinglish?) and Hindi as regional language, not a regional language from the South or West or East as the intent was.

(Rajeev is complaining that the dravidian states have the burden of an alien 3rd language and the northern kids have a cake walk.)

Fact: Dude, you were probably on crack when you wrote this, or assumed that the people who read stuff off the internet, are severely retarded. “Zero!” screams the Rajeev man. How much time has he spent checking his facts? Exactly. Zero!!

Ok, which state qualifies as northern to you? How about J&K? There children must choose between Urdu (including writing in the Urdu/Arabic script), Dogri, Sanskrit, or in some schools, a hip foreign language like French, as the third language. Delhi offers Sanskrit and French as the third language. And these are the state boards I speak of, not CBSE. You want me to bring you course details from Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra etc? Or were you referring to Tibet when you spoke of Northern states? Sorry dude, it isn’t part of India. Being the son of a military officer, I have studied in schools in 4 different states, including Kerala and J&K. I know what I’m talking about.

You speak of the need to incorporate a regional language from the South or West into the syllabus in North India, in keeping with the “Intent” of the 3 language formula. Wrong again!! The intent was for kids to learn “their mother tongue” in addition to Hindi and English, not for Assamese kids to speak Marathi. In the case where the mother tongue happens to be Hindi, Sanskrit is most often the third language used.

Bullshit: My poor parents had to read a hindi time table in Trivandrum

Oh Please! I’ve lived in Cochin for 2 years and I know what the odds are to find a Hindi speaking soul there let alone railway time tables. Ok, if I stretch my imagination, it is possible that the Malayalam/English tables were sold out/used up, and all what was left were the unwanted Hindi ones. Couple that with the ability to mangle a half truth and add a dash of sympathy and authenticity by throwing in parents instead of a “friend” or a “colleague”, and you have a nice tale.

And the prize winning Bullshit is: Hindis needed to revolt, as they were the slaves of the British, not the rest of us. quick look at a map of British India will confirm that 50 per cent of the country was under British rule and the rest under Indian rule (not exhaustive lists):
1. British provinces: Sind, part of Baluchistan, the Punjab, United Provinces, Central Provinces, Bihar, Bengal, Assam, Bombay, Madras.
2. Indian provinces: NWFP, Kashmir, Rajputana, Patiala, Kutch, Junagadh, Baroda, Rewa, Manipur, Sikkim, Cooch-Behar, Tripura, Kalahandi, Bastar, Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore-Cochin
The entire Hindi belt, with the honorable exception of Rajputana, was enslaved by the British. Half the South, that is the large states of Hyderabad, Mysore and Travancore-Cochin, was under Indian rule. Naturally, those under Indian rule didn't need to revolt, but the others did. This meant Sikhs, Bengalis, Marathas, Tamils and Hindis.

Fact: Now this one deserves an award. An award for the singular most nonsensical piece of journalism. EVER. For starters, India was divided into states that were DIRECTLY under British rule, and states that were INDIRECTLY under British rule. There was no such thing as an Independent Indian province. The Indian provinces listed by Rajeev were Princely states where puppet rulers sat on ceremonious thrones and who willingly lifted their skirts to be anally abused every time a British Governor visited them for taxes. Case in point – Hyderabad. Their last resistor – Tipu Sultan was killed by the British in 1799 and replaced with a puppet ruling family that paid obeisance to the queen. Cochin in 1791 and Travancore in 1795, both accepted British suzerainty. Again, puppet governments that jumped and danced when the British band played, and in return retained a “title” to append to their name.

So that’s your idea of Indian rule huh? And that’s why the south did not need to fight back? And do you know why most of the British provinces you list, were under Direct British rule? Because they fought!! Against the odds and against the most powerful army in the world at the time (well, almost). If they were content with puppet rulers, you would still salute the union jack, just like your “Indian Rulers” did.

I am not advocating reckless endangerment of life by revolting when you can stay alive by being diplomatic instead. It’s justifiable, as long as the intent to fight when the time is right, stays alive. But, the idea of portraying a “continual, meek, surrendering diplomacy” as your triumph in life, and the zealous fight of the underdog who preferred death to surrender as stupidity, can only stem from a malignant mind.

Bullshit: But even if Hindis contributed, I could argue it was the Hindis who got India enslaved in the first place. Who failed to build the Great Wall of India at the Khyber Pass? Who lost again and again at Panipat? Who let Ghori walk away from the First Battle of Tarain? Who allowed Aurangazeb to murder the gentle Dara Shukoh? (If Dara had lived, the Mughals would have stayed on in power, and they were less odious than the loathsome British.) Who screwed up the First War of Independence in 1857? Who caused Partition? Do the names Mir Jafar and Jaichand mean anything to you? It has always been the Indo-Gangetic Plain dweller. People in glass houses and all that.

Fact: Feel lucky that the people of North India fought when they did. Even if they lost, the damage done to the enemy army and the geographic expanse of India, kept South India safe. And what is your point anyway? That the Malayalee army was extremely macho and capable and would have done a better job by hurling cauldrons of Rasam at the enemy? Then how did Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan ravage Kerala in the 18thcentury?

I’m not trying to play a holier than thou game here. I’m trying to show you that most of India was a pacifist nation, ill prepared to face Islamic and British Invasion. Had the Dravidian belt been in the north, they would have faced the brunt. So just feel lucky and don’t look down at the guy who took the bullet that could have just as easily taken you.

There is more bullshit in that article that can be refuted at a factual level, but I will move on to presenting my case for a national language and then speak of why the choice should be Hindi.

What is a national language?

- Ideally it is a medium of conversation and literature that the whole country can understand and indulge in.

Why do we need a national language?

- A language binds its users by an invisible thread. As a diverse nation, we need to have a bond bred by commonality to tie together various ethnicities and communities. A natural choice would be to use language as the medium.

What will happen if we have no national language?

- What we see in India today is what will continue to happen. There still is prejudice, mistrust, hate and resentment for other communities. How is this to disappear if we can’t even speak a common language? Even Rajeev agrees that we need a common language.

Which languages are the contenders?

- To establish a national language in a country that speaks hundreds, is no easy task. Theoretically, we could hunker down and invent a new language and spread it far and wide to a billion people. Or, we could be practical, and pick one of the popular ones and minimize the effort needed to propagate it. Enter the contenders – Hindi and English.

Why Hindi and not English?

- English is the global language of choice and good English education is easily available in India. It’s useful, no doubt. So let’s make it the “Utility Language” of India or some such thing. Nothing more. It is a foreign language and a will never shake off that status. A “National” language has to be home grown. Or else we might as well hand out the Bharat Bhushan to David Beckham.

Is the choice of language open for Debate?

- Sure it is. Imposing of Hindi on the nation against the will of a sizeable population is undemocratic. There needs to be rational debate with the motive being – doing what’s best for the unity of the country. Should it make logical sense for Telugu to be declared the national language, I will accept it willingly and learn it too. The reality though is that the only language that makes logical sense right now is Hindi, and a large part of South India has refused to accept that. My hypothesis for the reason behind this is that they felt disenfranchised when Hindi was declared the official language without consulting them. This ego blow transformed into a hatred for Hindi which passed down from generation to generation. Once you hate a language, there is a very real risk of hating the people who speak it. This is what needs to change if the South Indians are to influence and stir national debate on this topic. I repeat - democratic debate is most welcome. But not when you have strong prejudices! Right now, voices like Rajeev’s are too laced with hatred and bitterness to be heard objectively.

Coming back to you Rajeev, there was a pervasive element of divisiveness in your email. You resent the North Indians, period. Your reasons are yours alone to know, but know this – ideologies such as yours are extremely dangerous to the fabric of my country. No, I am not referring to your resentment to Hindi alone. That topic is open for debate and rational thoughts are welcome everywhere. It’s the caustic resentment against north Indians that you have, that manifests itself all over your article, which makes you a dangerous person. Bear in mind, there is a north Indian posted at the Military Base in Cochin, and in a hypothetical world, should there be a LTTE insurgency affecting Kerala, he will not cower under his desk just because Kerala isn’t his state. It is his state. And similarly many south Indian soldiers are ‘Indian’ while manning outposts in the North East. If however, it were YOU posted at the border in Banihal, Kashmir, and taken captive, something tells me that you will be explaining to the enemy why South India isn’t responsible for the animosity between the nations. I pity people like you.