This is so blatantly false. I am from South and a Kannadiga and I can tell you with conviction that in my lifetime I have never had anyone impose Hindi on me.
This frenzy of Hindi imposition exists only in the states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala (and a little in Karnataka but has since died down once people became more aware). I blame the excessive regionalism in part but major part of the blame lies with the regional political parties and media that is under their control. Too much misinformation is spread and negativity created to make it sound like the Centre is deliberately trying to impose Hindi. Since I am from the South and know the languages (Tamil and Kannada) and follow the local media, I can tell you with conviction that malicious misinformation is indeed being spread. Until this is stopped, the southern states will remain balkanized.
> federated Indian Union that could eventually make way for Bangaladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Nepal to become member states
This can never happen. It has been tried since Ancient times (the concept of Akhanda Bharat) and even though it succeeded for a few centuries it eventually failed. Even though we are culturally similar, the differences arise because of religious intolerance. The European member states have always had their own identity maintained irrespective of invasions. Hence why they can exist as a Union (even that Union is showing signs of crumbling after the Brexit but that is a different matter). Indian identity was split right in the middle and was done on religious lines. That is a deep scar that cannot be recovered from easily. Those who initiated that division are suffering today. And to bring it back into a Union is impossible. Why would India bear the burden of member states that are economically weak? A Union can only be of equals. Else you'll have a situation like Brexit happen sooner or later.
> This is so blatantly false. I am from South and a Kannadiga and I can tell you with conviction that in my lifetime I have never had anyone impose Hindi on me.
May be. I only think this because I've been so this by many people from South India and I'd rather take their word over the state's. Also, even if it is just a perception, it means such things were definitely attempted by the center. Perceptions don't just form out of nowhere.
> This can never happen....
I tend to disagree. You are implying a loosely bound union of many nations cannot exist because of religious differences. That means a tightly integrated and mostly centrally controlled state cannot function either if there are multiple religions identities present in the country which by extension means that the state of J&K has no place in present day India. I think it is definitely possible for such a "weak" union to exist. After all, people of this region have so so much in common. Plus, in such a union each "nation" would retain it's identity while having extremely close ties to other "nations of the union" e.g, free trade, travel, etc.
I agree that it's not probable for this to happen but it definitely is very much possible IMO.
Anyway, the original thought was not a proposal or even a prediction that this would happen but that this wouldn't be the worst thing to happen in case it did.
> That means a tightly integrated and mostly centrally controlled state cannot function either if there are multiple religions identities present in the country which by extension means that the state of J&K has no place in present day India.
It doesn't. That is the reason why you see so much bloodshed with one side trying to overpower the other. J&K is not homogenous. The Jammu part is majority Hindu and Kashmir part is majority Muslim dominated (it had a minority Hindu population too called Kashmiri Pandits but they were raped, murdered and eventually driven out by the majority. Read up on "Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus). The Muslim dominated part wants to break away from the "Union" and form its own Country. Do you see what I have been hinting at? The religious division that was created when India was partitioned continues to plague Indian society even to this day. Now you want the Indian society to somehow forget and forgive all these issues and just join into a bigger Union with states that were created with diametrically opposite ideas? That is impossible! Why would Indian taxpayer want to carry the burden of states that have a hatred for Indians?
> After all, people of this region have so so much in common. Plus, in such a union each "nation" would retain it's identity while having extremely close ties to other "nations of the union" e.g, free trade, travel, etc.
I appreciate your desire for unification on a common ground and I wish for it too. But that is not a probability because of religious intolerance. You can bury your head in the sand and choose to look the other way but that is the reality. Until you have religions that believe that theirs is the "true path" and the rest will go to "Hell" there is no way we can achieve any sort of common ground. Reformation should happen first. Some sticking points that exist in each religious denomination should be discarded as being irrelevant for today's day and age. Now that is very much possible. Hinduism has undergone various reformations over the ages and continues to do so. Sati system was abolished. Caste system that discriminated has been upended by a Reservation system that uplifts the socially deprived. Sure it is not perfect yet but it shows positive intent. But these reformations cannot be a one-way street. If such similar reformations happen in all other religions then you would automatically have unification. If you are only looking at economic/political advantages then that is a poor solution that is bound to fail. Unification should only be on mutual-respect for culture, tradition, religion, creed etc. Things that have real social value. Not money or politics. The former will cement the Union, the latter (example: EU) is a weak foundation that will eventually crumble.
In 1983 when Farooq Abdullah wanted to use J and K’s autonomy to repatriate Jammu Muslims (comparable to if not greater in number than Pandits), Indira Gandhi came in and campaigned on the issue as ‘infiltration’ and her son left the Pandits to twist in the wind in the resulting backlash. In 1978, she sponsored the Sant Nirankari sect in Punjab while giving Bhindranwale a free hand to attack these ‘heretics’ at the same time. My grandfather fled his birthplace of Gulbarga in 1948 after watching Indian Army kill civilians. Please tell me more about Nehru-Gandhi secularism.
I see your opinion is that it's literally impossible for such a union to exist. Sorry for judging and writing up a comment personally targeted at you but I also sense some level of prejudice in your comments. May be (and I hope) I misjudged.
> Indian identity was split right in the middle and was done on religious lines
India and Pakistan also each have their own major river system (Ganges for India, Indus for Pakistan) which is important for food supply and low transport costs. This helps each country remain functionally independent from the other.
Exactly! We can leave the unionising of the Indian subcontinent to a future generation that has risen above language, religious and ethnic divides and embraced common culture. Until then, it would be futile and foolish to unite diametrically opposed states into one entity. The unity should come from the people and not from political masters. That is when the Union would be able to function effectively.
> Indian identity was split right in the middle and was done on religious lines
Religion is only one factor. People also derive their group identity along cultural, caste and social lines.
This is not specific to India. Although religion is less emphasized in America, other factors (cultural, social, racial, economical, etc.) still continue play its role in forming the identity of its denizens.
--
Response to below comment inline, due to moderator comment limit:
> When was Indian identity split on cultural, caste or social lines?
And not everything has to be seen from the exclusive lens of politics and religion.
--
> I am talking about splitting Indian identity on religious lines.
What do you think the word "identity" refers to?
> Last I checked, Tamil Nadu is still a part of India. Karnataka is still a part of India. Kerala is still a part of India. They haven't "split" out of India. Makes sense?
Although Kerala for instance is still politically situated in India, that is besides the point, as the word "identity" does not exclusively refer to one's political identity.
Generally, the political distinction of states, as you repeatedly bring here, has no relevance whatsover to the subject of identity which, as stated above, can be based on several factors (not just religion). Just to state a few (in general terms, for the benefit of non-Indian readers):
1. A vocational identity as ‘employee’/‘employer’, ‘worker’/‘pensioner’, ‘junior/‘senior’ and so on.
2. A national identity as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’ and etcetera.
3. A racial identity as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’ or whatever.
4. A religious/spiritual identity as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum.
5. A ideological identity as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and etcetera.
6. A political identity as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest.
7. A family identity as ‘son’/‘daughter’, ‘brother’/‘sister’, ‘father’/‘mother’ and the whole raft of relatives.
8. A gender identity as ‘boy’/‘girl’, ‘man’/‘woman’.
--
> Sigh! I can't believe someone will have such a big problem understanding such a simple thing. [...] I spoke about Indian identity being divided on religious lines.
You keep bringing this up as if division/ splitting is the central issue, when I acknowledged no such thing. Really, my comment is exclusively to do with identity itself. I'd suggest a re-read of my comment, from top to the bottom.
> What was once a homogenous Indian identity was split into a Pakistani identity, a Bangladeshi identity and a smaller Indian identity.
There was never a "homogenous" Indian identity in the first place. People think this because they do not fully acknowledge the various identities they themselves personally harbour. It is one thing to talk about something in abstract, and another thing entirely to intuitively feel it out for themselves.
> You are so wrong here. The creation of States was done on linguistic/ethnic/regional lines.
As I never said anything about creation of states -- only that the the political distinction of (Indian) states has no relevance whatsoever to the (general) subject of identity -- you might just as well go for a re-read of my comment?
> People also derive their group identity along cultural, caste and social lines.
You are missing the point I made. I said Indian identity was split on religious lines. When was Indian identity split on cultural, caste or social lines? Last I checked, Tamil Nadu is still a part of India. Karnataka is still a part of India. Kerala is still a part of India. They haven't "split" out of India. Makes sense?
Sigh! I can't believe someone will have such a big problem understanding such a simple thing. I have a feeling you are deliberately nitpicking my comments just to prove some non-existent point. I don't understand why you think I have no idea about what "identity" means. That is besides the point mate. I never spoke about "identity" by itself or the definition of "identity". I spoke about Indian identity being divided on religious lines.
Since you are finding it so difficult to understand, I'll make it even simpler for you. Let me take your own definition of identity and explain my statement:
You stated a few factors for "identity" right? Namely: Vocational Identity, National Identity, Racial Identity, Religious Identity, Ideological Identity, Political Identity, Family Identity, Gender Identity etc etc.
Now can we just say that all the above identities reasonably define the Indian identity? If yes, then out of all those identities, only the "religious identity" was used as a tool to split Indian identity. What was once a homogenous Indian identity was split into a Pakistani identity, a Bangladeshi identity and a smaller Indian identity. Each of these are now independent identities.
> Generally, the political distinction of states, as you repeatedly bring here, has no relevance whatsover to the subject of identity which, as stated above, can be based on several factors (not just religion). Just to state a few (in general terms, for the benefit of non-Indian readers)
You are so wrong here. The creation of States was done on linguistic/ethnic/regional lines. It is not "political distinction" but a "linguistic/ethnic/regional distinction". If you do not understand that basic thing about India then you are doing a big disservice to not just yourself but to also those who will be reading your comment mate.
Here you crossed into breaking the site guidelines by becoming personally abrasive if not abusive. Please don't do that. "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
Gosh this is getting ridiculous! You do not seem to have a good understanding of what I wrote in the first place. I am talking about splitting Indian identity on religious lines. I never said Indian identity is only based on "religion". How hard is it for you to understand that? Pakistan was created on religious lines. Pakistan did not take language, caste or social issues with it! Those remained in India. Makes sense?
> This is because several fellow south Indians gave up their lives to ensure that north Indian language bigots would not have their way.
I know everything about these agitations. There is a huge difference between what happened in 1940s and what is happening today. You are just extrapolating your fears needlessly.
When I talk about "my lifetime" I talk about 30 years of my life. I was not born in the 1940s so there is no point talking about this period. If I have never had Hindi imposed on me should I lie about it just to please your political end-goals? Or are you one of those who loves to only dwell in the past and not accept any positive changes that have happened since?
The Centre today is not talking about "imposing Hindi". It is talking about a draft proposal of making a third language compulsory for all students in India. You should be welcoming that move. If I were you, instead of protesting against Hindi, I would be asking the Centre to ensure a Dravidian language is taught as a third language in the Northern Hindi belt. Now that is a constructive! That would unite the Country rather than balkanize it! But we have bigots on both sides who believe in their own language being superior!
This is way different from the C. Rajagopalachari order of imposing Hindi as the only common language across the Nation. If you are unable to differentiate between the two then no one can help you!
The right solution is to leave it to parents and students to decide what languages they want to study in and what languages they choose to learn.
Hindi is gradually becoming universally understood all over the country precisely because it was not imposed on linguistic minorities. When people don't feel that their culture is threatened they are open to learning Hindi. Bollywood and television has done more to promote Hindi than all the academic language bigots making decisions from Delhi.
I am sorry but I have to disagree with you here. What you are saying isn't happening universally and I am a witness to it myself. I am from Karnataka (Kannadiga) and I can travel around Karnataka and speak in Hindi or English and I am not discriminated against. Heck people here speak Tamil as well to those Tamilians who do not know Kannada.
However, I travelled to Trichy, Kumbakonam and Chennai and the atmosphere is sadly totally opposite to what you claim. Unless you know Tamil no one is going to respond positively. My driver (who doesn't speak Tamil) had trouble asking for directions as the locals knew that he was not a Tamilian and guided him incorrectly. Only after I involved was I able to get the correct directions.
I noticed the same issue in Kerala when I visited Palakkad and Guruvayur (Thrissur). Unless you know Malayalam it is really hard to find your way around. You speak Hindi and you get a stare down so English is the only way to converse. And let me tell you, these are people who know Hindi and other languages. They just don't want to speak it.
These are anecdotes and may not be reflective of the entire state but nevertheless left a really bad taste in my mouth. I never experienced this sort of discrimination anywhere else in the Country (and I have travelled a lot). And that says a lot coming from a South Indian!
I never understood the sensibility of the notion of imposing Hindi to others in the country. It is like say Germany imposing German to be the de facto language all across Europe!
And I do appreciate that we have one common language, English, which is tremendously useful in practical sense (not even including politics in here).
--
I'm going to post my response here as HN moderators have put a limit on my account (I think it is silly but whatever):
It is a bad analogy only in political sense. Not everything has to be seen in political light.
And my appreciation of being able to converse in English, as a neutral common language, has naught to do with the capability of people of the Indian origin in learning other languages, and more to do with not having to learn the native language(s) of fellow Indians. I'm more than happy, for instance, to merrily be able to converse with people from Karnataka or Kerala in English, instead of having to learn their languages (or them having to learn Tamil) first.
And I have no baggage whatsoever with English, as one another commenter indicated in this thread.
--
> Then don't give such analogies.
Given that not everyone sees the issue of, for instance, being forced to learn a language in political sense like you, then telling them not to give their perspective on this matter is rather myopic.
> It talks about third-language being made compulsory.
I'd not even care to have a second-language being made compulsory. And this is not an exclusive issue of politics; my parents made me learn Hindi (I passed till Praveen Uttarardh) for economics reasons; yet because I wasn't enthusiastic about speaking Hindi, my fate became that of Canadians who learned French during that 4 years or so in school.
> I don't think you have actually encountered ground reality [...] an agitation against Tamilians in Bangalore in the 90s
What has that got to do with not having to learn another language when both parties can understand and speak English?
--
> If I can accept Hindi and enjoy the language without any sort of prejudice anyone can. There is no justification for the hatred being shown to Hindi apart from regional linguistic pride. Nothing you say will change my opinion on that.
It seems you are making a big issue out of language learning, which is more of a practical matter, such as taking not being able to fully comprehend a local's driving directions (from your other comment) to be discrimination/ hatred. It might pay you to explore this issue (a commenter here called it "baggage") within you.
> You have an ego that is coming in the way of learning/appreciating the language that is all.
If anything my ego -- and I'm using the word in its psychological sense -- actually has aided me in learning a new language (French), moving to a part of the world with over 90% locals speaking it, and being successful in interacting with them in their language.
> It has a tinge of racism
Everybody is racist/classist/casteist/etc. to an extent. Do you see that in yourself as well (in regards to your driver not being able to comprehend the driving directions given by a local)? If so you might well be on your way to understanding what the word "identity" means ... B-)
--
> You know when you start saying stuff like 'a commenter here called it "baggage"' it sounds like those fascist dictators who couldn't say "me" or "I" but would in a convoluted manner refer to themselves in third-person.
Ha, given that you easily see discrimination in the simple event of being given wrong instructions (for whatever reasons), it doesn't surprise me that you see me as some "fascist dictator" now (before "racist"). Be that as it may, there is in fact a commenter (not me) who did use that word. You can use the search function of your browser to find it.
> You can throw away that ego you have in the bin where it belongs and just say "I said I have no baggage".
As I have far more intimate knowledge of the word "identity" and the word "ego" than you, I know very well that it is impossible to throw away ego (as if there is an disembodied entity throwing another entity out), be it in the bin or elsewhere. And it does not require the presence or absence of ego to be able to acknowledge, as I've done before (which apparently have eluded your attention), that I have no baggage whatsoever with English (and it is a simple matter of fact acknowledgement involving no egoistic feelings; it is just a delight to be virtually freed of one's nationalistic identity)
> You have a huge difficulty in comprehending the simple English that I am speaking. Where did I say we had difficulty comprehending local's driving directions? We caught the locals giving wrong directions because I understand and speak Tamil. So I knew that they were fooling us and when I spoke in Tamil their giggled and gave the right directions.
I see, okay. Yes, it was my error that I had overlooked your reporting of knowing Tamil. Regardless, there is no evidence (in your story) that their "giggling" automatically meant hatred and discrimination.
> I see you have absolutely zero comprehension skills because you thought my driver could not comprehend when I clearly mentioned that the local gave the wrong directions and he was caught red-handed.
Given that there are more than a few people who would rather impute malice in place of ignorance, it is not unreasonable to make that assumption. However, my overlooking your speaking Tamil still does not invalidate that assumption (as stated above).
> You are prejudiced, a racist and couple that with ego and we now have a recipe for disaster.
Everybody is racist/classist/casteist/prejudiced/etc. to an extent. And everybody harbours egoistic feelings to whatever extent. Do you see that in yourself as well (in regards to your imputing group-wide hatred and discrimination without clear evidence)? If so you might well be on your way to understanding what the word "identity" means ... B-)
> It seems you are making a big issue out of language learning, which is more of a practical matter, such as taking not being able to fully comprehend a local's driving directions to be discrimination. It might pay you to explore this issue (a commenter here called it "baggage") within you.
You know when you start saying stuff like 'a commenter here called it "baggage"' it sounds like those fascist dictators who couldn't say "me" or "I" but would in a convoluted manner refer to themselves in third-person. You can throw away that ego you have in the bin where it belongs and just say "I said I have no baggage".
> not being able to fully comprehend a local's driving directions to be discrimination.
You have a huge difficulty in comprehending the simple English that I am speaking. Where did I say we had difficulty comprehending local's driving directions? We caught the locals giving wrong directions because I understand and speak Tamil. So I knew that they were fooling us and when I spoke in Tamil they giggled and gave the right directions. If you are going to justify this sort of maliciousness with your logics then go ahead. You are only doing a great disservice to your people.
> Everybody is racist/classist/casteist/etc. to an extent. Do you see that in yourself as well (in regards to your driver not being able to comprehend the driving directions given by a local)? If so you might well be on your way to understanding what the word "identity" means ... B-)
I see you have absolutely zero comprehension skills because you thought my driver could not comprehend when I clearly mentioned that the local gave the wrong directions and he was caught red-handed. You are prejudiced, a racist and couple that with ego and we now have a recipe for disaster.
> It is a bad analogy only in political sense. Not everything has to be seen in political light.
Then don't give such analogies. Analogies are made to shed light on your argument. Not to convolute it further. And analogies have to have some sense to the topic at hand. The analogy you gave doesn't make sense even if you take it non-politically.
> instead of having to learn their languages (or them having to learn Tamil) first.
I don't think you have actually encountered ground reality. In Bangalore's private companies it was a trend for Tamilians to only hire Tamilians. It got to a point where if a Kannadiga spoke to a Tamilian in Kannada the colleague would reply back in Tamil. This led to an agitation against Tamilians in Bangalore in the 90s especially after the Kaveri verdict which was the tipping point. So when you say stuff like this I just can't take it seriously.
That is a really bad analogy. Germany is a country. Europe is a continent. Germany is part of Europe not the other way round.
India is a country. Tamil Nadu is a state inside the country called India. Tamil Nadu is not greater than India. No state in India is greater than India. Tamilians cannot dictate to India what is and what is not allowed just like Germany cannot dictate to Europe what is and what is not allowed.
Legally, India has all rights to impose a single language on all states in India. Deal with it! The founding fathers of Modern India empowered the Centre to make sweeping changes to the Constitution. All it requires is an Amendment to the Constitution and the Centre has all powers to do so. Yet it is not imposing any language. It is not making Hindi the only language for all states. It has not moved any such Amendment. To insinuate it is doing so when it is not showing any such intentions is ignorance at best and malicious at worst!
Germany does not have any legal jurisdiction over rest of Europe. Hence, even if it wants to impose it can't impose German on the rest of Europe. Makes sense?
You are comparing Apples to Oranges.
Now, can we just appreciate the simple fact that the Centre, even with all its powers (now that it has near absolute majority), is not imposing Hindi on all states? The proposal is pretty clear. It talks about third-language being made compulsory. I don't understand what the fuss is all about! Are you saying we Indians have the capacity to learn Maths, Science and all the complicated topics in the World but are incapable of learning one extra Indian language? Are we that weak?
> And I do appreciate that we have one common language, English, which is tremendously useful in practical sense (not even including politics in here).
I don't understand why would you need to compare Indian languages with English? Are you saying that we Indians are incapable of learning more languages? What are you hinting at?
This is so blatantly false. I am from South and a Kannadiga and I can tell you with conviction that in my lifetime I have never had anyone impose Hindi on me.
This frenzy of Hindi imposition exists only in the states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala (and a little in Karnataka but has since died down once people became more aware). I blame the excessive regionalism in part but major part of the blame lies with the regional political parties and media that is under their control. Too much misinformation is spread and negativity created to make it sound like the Centre is deliberately trying to impose Hindi. Since I am from the South and know the languages (Tamil and Kannada) and follow the local media, I can tell you with conviction that malicious misinformation is indeed being spread. Until this is stopped, the southern states will remain balkanized.
> federated Indian Union that could eventually make way for Bangaladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Nepal to become member states
This can never happen. It has been tried since Ancient times (the concept of Akhanda Bharat) and even though it succeeded for a few centuries it eventually failed. Even though we are culturally similar, the differences arise because of religious intolerance. The European member states have always had their own identity maintained irrespective of invasions. Hence why they can exist as a Union (even that Union is showing signs of crumbling after the Brexit but that is a different matter). Indian identity was split right in the middle and was done on religious lines. That is a deep scar that cannot be recovered from easily. Those who initiated that division are suffering today. And to bring it back into a Union is impossible. Why would India bear the burden of member states that are economically weak? A Union can only be of equals. Else you'll have a situation like Brexit happen sooner or later.