"Hindi is our National language" - Ajay Devgan - Page 10

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

where do you find multi lingualism- france, germany, japan, china, norway, america? (Yes they speak english in norway, but they still fall back on norwegian for most of their work.)

so how did you find a correlation between multilingualism and economic growth. In fact, the US has had english- pretty much as the national language. And they have done exceptionally well... even without the various foreign languages these days. In fact, one can argue that some of these languages have just served to ghettoize people, rather than integrate them into the bigger economy. It's all a hypothesis of course, but I dont think we'll find any conclusive stat proof either way.

I have no skin in the game here other than a curiosity to analyze what logically works for India and what doesn’t.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Birdie, I was not the one who found a correlation between multilingualism and economic growth; it was the world economic forum. Do I put a lot of stock in such data? Probably not! But some data from a somewhat reputable source is better than a scintillating hypothesis followed by a blank thesis with no original dissertation.

I have no skin in the game here other than a curiosity to analyze what logically works for India and what doesn’t.

some truths are self-evident my friend.

i found a couple of odd-ball articles from authors unknown that seem to drive the perception of multilingualism and growth, as you brought up. Turns out they are talking about countries being able to export more if they know more languages. Of course that would be true when we are looking across national boundaries and are trying to reach new markets. That's simple marketing! Even so, the scale of increased exports is miniscule at 10% on average. And the costs have not been mentioned. One so-called researcher even mentioned the UK loses 3.5% of their GDP because of one language. Is this guy a serious researcher? Western economies by and large have not even had 3-4% growth for long periods even in the best of times... and the guy is talking about 3.5%? Almost seems like some of these guys pushing their own political agenda.

Apart from that, within the context of one country, the export aspect is not applicable. Besides, people recognize their gutkha powder and their tambaku within India no matter what the packaging is. 😆But where such repackaging/ language relabeling is needed, the costs of doing so for different regional markets is not insignificant. Imposes a huge burden on manufacturers to tailor to different languages. Again, self-evident. So appreciate the link you had, but its not exactly a stellar piece.

Birdie, you spoke of US doing exceptionally well with English as "pretty much the national language". As you know, English is not even the official language of US let alone be labeled as a national language. But I do understand that you mean to say that an overwhelming majority of people in the United States speak English so no argument there.

Economically why US did exceptionally well (or is doing exceptionally well) is debatable of course. I am a computer science guy and not an economist but I am capable of differentiating capitalist economies from socialist ones as well as capable of appreciating the role of efficient markets, the richness of natural resources, the quality of labor, innovations etc., that play into the growth of an economy.

When comparing and contrasting economies in order to determine how much emphasis any one factor should be given, all the contributing factors to the success of an economy would have to be brought up which can make analyzing the macro and micro very complicated. You may take a shot at it if you would like.

On a separate note, people could also have a debate on the "best" language of all, one when used in a communication maximizes efficiency and accuracy while minimizing ambiguity and redundancy? Like, say, math!

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Birdie, you spoke of US doing exceptionally well with English as "pretty much the national language". As you know, English is not even the official language of US let alone be labeled as a national language. But I do understand that you mean to say that an overwhelming majority of people in the United States speak English so no argument there.

Economically why US did exceptionally well (or is doing exceptionally well) is debatable of course. I am a computer science guy and not an economist but I am capable of differentiating capitalist economies from socialist ones as well as capable of appreciating the role of efficient markets, the richness of natural resources, the quality of labor, innovations etc., that play into the growth of an economy.

When comparing and contrasting economies in order to determine how much emphasis any one factor should be given, all the contributing factors to the success of an economy would have to be brought up which can make analyzing the macro and micro very complicated. You may take a shot at it if you would like.

On a separate note, people could also have a debate on the "best" language of all, one when used in a communication maximizes efficiency and accuracy while minimizing ambiguity and redundancy? Like, say, math!

technically true regarding english not being the national language...

for all practical purposes, the west is where it is because it has a system of rules that are enforced....But what takes the US to the next level even within the west is embodied in the sense that one can drive pretty much anywhere across america and feel at home to a large extent. A common language (english) has a lot to do with that. That common language across states has contributed to a sense of one nation, common market, common culture (music, sports, events), product branding, large economies of scale that rival the size of trade blocs ex-US. As for other languages, the contribution to the economy has been confined to their adherents and narrow communities.... not much to show for all the costs trying to assimilate their language requirements etc.

an observation that should buttress my argument- the whole experiment with ECU and EU has been precisely to unify the fragmented european markets into a larger whole that has economies of scale. They recognized the benefits everyone could have with increased integration. They however still did not achieve efficiencies on the scale of the US because language and cultural differences impose additional costs. Just my opinion. But given that they pretty much have the same rules-based system as us, and are in a lot of respects culturally very similar to americans, i dont see what else explains their relative underperformance.

personally, i feel its important in business and in other spheres of life to be exposed to different viewpoints. But one can have that without the barriers erected by different language requirements.

as for math, i am not sure its not very "natural" as in NLP. They also require abstract notations and algebra when precision is required for complex settings. Let alone abstract math, people have trouble mastering even simple math concepts.

just my opinion.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

where do you find multi lingualism- france, germany, japan, china, norway, america? (Yes they speak english in norway, but they still fall back on norwegian for most of their work.)

so how did you find a correlation between multilingualism and economic growth. In fact, the US has had english- pretty much as the national language. And they have done exceptionally well... even without the various foreign languages these days. In fact, one can argue that some of these languages have just served to ghettoize people, rather than integrate them into the bigger economy. It's all a hypothesis of course, but I dont think we'll find any conclusive stat proof either way.

India is called as a subcontinent for a reason. We have states as big as or bigger than Japan, Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Spain or Italy.
We have states with same or larger population as those countries.

If you consider each state as a country, then we (individual state) also speak one language only. Each state’s language (Tamil, Kannada) has literature dating back to centuries comparable to German, French or English. We also have bigger movie industries than them. Comparing India to a tiny country like Belgium does not do justice to our diversity.

If British had not ruled us, probably we also would have been tiny independent nations. Bring in a union is helpful. We can have a combined military/economy (common currency). It helps us. That is why European nations also have made a union (EU). Also states like Bengal / Kashmir are rich in natural resources. They offer coal/hydro power. Western and southern states have stronger economy.

Having said, we need cultural independence. Having a link language in India is as effective as entire Europe having a common language. It might be rosy, but not practical. Can France accept German because German has more speakers than French (equivalent to Hindi)? Or can entire Europe revive Latin (equivalent to Sanskrit) ? Instead of all this, if a person goes to France, he will learn French. If a person goes to Spain, he will learn Spanish. Similarly if a person goes to Bangalore, why can’t he learn Kannada? It is that simple.

Without a link language, this country cannot be united is another false notion. Our ancestors from Tamilnad, Kerala (Acharya Shankara) have been visiting Kashi/Kashmir for thousands of years, even when India did not have any link language. Ramayana/Mahabharata have spread through every corner of India, for thousands of years. Even an illiterate in a remote village would know. They did not need a common language to be culturally united. What is the need now?

Once Nehru has already burnt his hand trying to impose Hindi on South Indian states. It was good that he did not push too much and gave up soon. West Pakistan tried too much to impose Urdu on East Pakistan and ended up loosing Bangladesh. If BJP tries to impose Hindi again, it will be a foolish move.

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

India is called as a subcontinent for a reason. We have states as big as or bigger than Japan, Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Spain or Italy.
We have states with same or larger population as those countries.

If you consider each state as a country, then we (individual state) also speak one language only. Each state’s language (Tamil, Kannada) has literature dating back to centuries comparable to German, French or English. We also have bigger movie industries than them. Comparing India to a tiny country like Belgium does not do justice to our diversity.

If British had not ruled us, probably we also would have been tiny independent nations. Bring in a union is helpful. We can have a combined military/economy (common currency). It helps us. That is why European nations also have made a union (EU). Also states like Bengal / Kashmir are rich in natural resources. They offer coal/hydro power. Western and southern states have stronger economy.

Having said, we need cultural independence. Having a link language in India is as effective as entire Europe having a common language. It might be rosy, but not practical. Can France accept German because German has more speakers than French (equivalent to Hindi)? Or can entire Europe revive Latin (equivalent to Sanskrit) ? Instead of all this, if a person goes to France, he will learn French. If a person goes to Spain, he will learn Spanish. Similarly if a person goes to Bangalore, why can’t he learn Kannada? It is that simple.

Without a link language, this country cannot be united is another false notion. Our ancestors from Tamilnad, Kerala (Acharya Shankara) have been visiting Kashi/Kashmir for thousands of years, even when India did not have any link language. Ramayana/Mahabharata have spread through every corner of India, for thousands of years. Even an illiterate in a remote village would know. They did not need a common language to be culturally united. What is the need now?

Once Nehru has already burnt his hand trying to impose Hindi on South Indian states. It was good that he did not push too much and gave up soon. West Pakistan tried too much to impose Urdu on East Pakistan and ended up loosing Bangladesh. If BJP tries to impose Hindi again, it will be a foolish move.

the example you cited of an acharya visiting kashmir is small sample. How many southerners will be able to do that today?

i also think your example of WPak trying to impose urdu on EPak is not relevant. Both regions and languages were about equal in terms of size and population. That's not the case when it comes to hindi versus the regional languages down south which are each spoken by only a tiny percentage of the entire population. Sounds more like a small minority trying to do their own thing... to the detriment of the greater good.

for your europe example, yes it would have made sense for them to have a common language if there was one major language across the continent. They dont. Again the various countries and languages there are about equal sized.

as for all that secession threat, no offense but the tamils could not get their way even in a banana republic of a country like Sri Lanka, could they? Their LTTE guy got hunted down and killed. And here you are talking about India as if its a joke. Yes one will have agitations for a while, but then when dont we have agitations- whether its CAA or farmer bills etc. Comes from all that diversity bs one keeps touting.

i actually think the different language and weird ravan-worshipping customs has tended to increase the isolation of people down south. And it is not as if it has gained anything culturally. On the contrary, it is even losing the ancient identity it once had... with conversions to other religions. So dont know what it is you think it is holding on to any more.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

the example you cited of an acharya visiting kashmir is small sample. How many southerners will be able to do that today?

…

i actually think the different language and weird ravan-worshipping customs has tended to increase the isolation of people down south.

If you think Shankara is an isolated example, then you are not aware of India’s cultural unity. For thousands of years, Kashi has been the holiest place for Hindus that, they have to visit once in a life time and pray for their ancestors. People from every corner of India visit Kashi, even if they were from different kingdoms. My great grandparents down south, who were no graduates, who did not know Hindi/Sanskrit/English had gone in train alone. This is as far as my knowledge goes. People before them too would have gone. Later my grand parents went in a package tour (with other pilgrims). People from every state, from every corner can give such examples. Every major temple of Shiva in so many towns bear the name Dakshina Kashi. That is the place of Kashi/Ganga in our hearts.

If you think, entire South India has weird Ravan worshiping customs, your knowledge is as good as that left scholar, who brings Krishnasur. In fact, south India has preserved the cultural heritage better than north India (including temples in Tamilnad). Cholas were strong Shaivas. We don’t have temples matching Tamilnad in north India.

Yes, south faced less invasions. But even after invasion, we rebuilt ourselves. After Tughlaq invaded Hoysala empire and sacked temples, we came up with Vijaynagar. When Vijaynagar was sacked, Wodeyar dynasty rose.

If you think, Hindi opposition is from tiny minority of Ravan worshippers in Tamilnad, you are wrong. I am not a Tamil, not a Ravan worshipper. But still I oppose. All south states were together in anti Hindi movement, even though no state shared Periyar’s (AIT induced Ravan worship) ideology. Even today, CM of Karnataka (who is from BJP) is against using Hindi as official language in his state. You probably don’t know the history of Telugu Desam Party. When central Congress (under Rajiv Gandhi) tried to micro manage the state by changing CMs every year, a popular actor built a party month before election, "Telugu Desam". Called it as a symbol of Telugu people’s pride. Afterwards, Congress was out of power for 30 years. Yes. They were the same people, who desperately wanted to join independent India during Nizam's rule. Shivasena’s burst over Hindi speaking people in Mumbai is well known. Today’s Shivsena may be pathetic. But earlier, it was a party with extreme Hindutva. Despite all this, they identified themselves with Marathis.
Hinduism and Hindi are not equivalent.

Lastly, "If Patel was there, he would have put everyone in their place"(read earlier somewhere). I am sorry. That statement reeks of arrogance. Your intent might be good. But you are not realising your subconscious bias for Hindi. (That cannot be realised when pointed out. That awareness should come within).
Patel is an icon. He was admired because he understood people’s sentiments. Telugu people were willing to join India and he felicitated them. He liberated those states. He did not impose. If he had tried to impose anything, he would have got a very different response to what he got.

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

If you think Shankara is an isolated example, then you are not aware of India’s cultural unity. For thousands of years, Kashi has been the holiest place for Hindus that, they have to visit once in a life time and pray for their ancestors. People from every corner of India visit Kashi, even if they were from different kingdoms. My great grandparents down south, who were no graduates, who did not know Hindi/Sanskrit/English had gone in train alone. This is as far as my knowledge goes. People before them too would have gone. Later my grand parents went in a package tour (with other pilgrims). People from every state, from every corner can give such examples. Every major temple of Shiva in so many towns bear the name Dakshina Kashi. That is the place of Kashi/Ganga in our hearts.

If you think, entire South India has weird Ravan worshiping customs, your knowledge is as good as that left scholar, who brings Krishnasur. In fact, south India has preserved the cultural heritage better than north India (including temples in Tamilnad). Cholas were strong Shaivas. We don’t have temples matching Tamilnad in north India.

Yes, south faced less invasions. But even after invasion, we rebuilt ourselves. After Tughlaq invaded Hoysala empire and sacked temples, we came up with Vijaynagar. When Vijaynagar was sacked, Wodeyar dynasty rose.

If you think, Hindi opposition is from tiny minority of Ravan worshippers in Tamilnad, you are wrong. I am not a Tamil, not a Ravan worshipper. But still I oppose. All south states were together in anti Hindi movement, even though no state shared Periyar’s (AIT induced Ravan worship) ideology. Even today, CM of Karnataka (who is from BJP) is against using Hindi as official language in his state. You probably don’t know the history of Telugu Desam Party. When central Congress (under Rajiv Gandhi) tried to micro manage the state by changing CMs every year, a popular actor built a party month before election, "Telugu Desam". Called it as a symbol of Telugu people’s pride. Afterwards, Congress was out of power for 30 years. Yes. They were the same people, who desperately wanted to join independent India during Nizam's rule. Shivasena’s burst over Hindi speaking people in Mumbai is well known. Today’s Shivsena may be pathetic. But earlier, it was a party with extreme Hindutva. Despite all this, they identified themselves with Marathis.
Hinduism and Hindi are not equivalent.

Lastly, "If Patel was there, he would have put everyone in their place"(read earlier somewhere). I am sorry. That statement reeks of arrogance. Your intent might be good. But you are not realising your subconscious bias for Hindi. (That cannot be realised when pointed out. That awareness should come within).
Patel is an icon. He was admired because he understood people’s sentiments. Telugu people were willing to join India and he felicitated them. He liberated those states. He did not impose. If he had tried to impose anything, he would have got a very different response to what he got.

i did not say that entire south has ravan-worshipping customs. That's something brought up by others from the south.... and even if its some people, that's still a lot and still weird. So please take it up with them. I just found it very amusing to see the need to worship ravan in whatever numbers just to create a distinct dravidian identity.

as for people "willing to join the union", that would have happened irrespective whether they liked it or not. From a practical perspective, the choice was whether to go with pak or India. Patel just ensured he did it to the extent possible without ruffling feathers.

basically, your argument seems to be that people will not like it and will create trouble, so we should not do it. Basically, there are always selfish people. They created trouble even when we tried to enact sensible laws (land acquisition, the farm bills), important for the country's growth.... Given that, i would focus more on principle and go with the merit of the case than on selfish opposition.

Birdie babu, so riddle me this…why are some folks from these places worshiping Ravana?

Bisrakh, Uttar Pradesh, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh

Didn’t think a link is necessary since anyone could Google so my question to you is, what gives and more importantly how would you fix this weirdness with your “Hindi as a national language for the grand unification of India” theory? And if speaking Hindi and Ravan worship are unrelated, clearly from the states mentioned above, could we dispense away with the trivial stuff and answer in all seriousness “why Hindi?” ?😊

P.S: if, say, Tamilians start procreating like crazy to become a majority in India, hypothetically, would the “let’s all speak in Tamil because majority are Tamilians” argument work then too?

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

i did not say that entire south has ravan-worshipping customs. That's something brought up by others from the south.... and even if its some people, that's still a lot and still weird. So please take it up with them. I just found it very amusing to see the need to worship ravan in whatever numbers just to create a distinct dravidian identity.

as for people "willing to join the union", that would have happened irrespective whether they liked it or not. From a practical perspective, the choice was whether to go with pak or India. Patel just ensured he did it to the extent possible without ruffling feathers.

basically, your argument seems to be that people will not like it and will create trouble, so we should not do it. Basically, there are always selfish people. They created trouble even when we tried to enact sensible laws (land acquisition, the farm bills), important for the country's growth.... Given that, i would focus more on principle and go with the merit of the case than on selfish opposition.

Ravan worship was not a South Indian thing. It was invented by Periyaar, who extrapolated AIT and made Ravan as hero. That does not mean entire Tamilnad or South India are his followers. Similarly todays Left is creating Ravan God in other parts of India. But no one is bothered. Just like north India does not care about weirdos, south also does not care. If you are so concerned, you can fix your home first.

First you introduce hierarchy by calling one language more important than the others for whatever reason. Then when those at the bottom of hierarchy protest, call them selfish. What logic? Stubbornness is not an action. It is a reaction towards ego.

Today because of Urdu domination, Pakistani Punjabis feel inferior about their own mother tongue. They call it as a language of “gali galoch”. Why? It is a land of famous folklores and music. We don’t want our languages to be reduced like that.

A North Indian comes to Bangalore or Hyderabad, not because of magnanimity to unite India. It is simply because, he does not have enough job opportunities in his home state. That’s fine. India is one. Next, he wants his host state to learn his language. If the host state does not want to learn, they are selfish.

Hindi speaking people’s tantrum in South is no better than some Muslim’s tantrums in India. Both do not want to adapt to the native culture. They want everyone to act according to them. (If not, others are intolerant). They are experts in creating enemies out of friends. (This is how “Go to Pakistan” or “Bangalore is for Kannadigas” arguments stem). It is not that Hindus hate Muslims or South Indians hate Hindi. They simply don’t want their good will to be taken advantage of.

May be UP people have some inherent nature of imposing. Tarekh Fatah says, Muslims who went from UP imposed their Uudu on Punjabis and Sindhis. Here, they want to impose Hindi on non Hindi speakers. Why? Why can’t these guys just mind their own business? If someone wants to speak Hindi only, let them search for a job in their respective state. If they need to go to another state to earn their livelihood, let them have humbleness to learn native language, be it Gujarati, Marathi, Kannada, Telugu or Tamil.