"Hindi is our National language" - Ajay Devgan - Page 9

Originally posted by: Justice4Samosa

The main reason why most of the Hindi speaking members here are not getting why people down South or other parts of India speak about this language debate is because they don't live in South or other parts of India.

No one dislikes Hindi the language, people down South dislike the people who speak Hindi because of their condescending nature where they won't make an effort to learn say even basic Tamil or Kannada, etc and instead act like the locals need to speak in Hindi. I won't mince words here but there IS a huge section of people from North India who have this supremacist attitude when they work down South and think their dadagiri will work around and that India revolves only around North India. A big example would be a city like Bangalore. First you come from your home city to another looking for work and job opportunities that your home city doesn't provide, then cry crib about people there not speaking your language 'Hindi', make fun of the locals, their language and their practices and then expect them to respect you back for your shitty attitude?

The reason why the language debate is becoming bigger day by day is because people in rest of the country is just fed up with this constant supremacist attitude by many Hindi speakers residing in other parts of the country, mainly Delhi. And the constant attempt through ages to distort history and to single out Hindi as this great language because they speak that in northern part of the country. I mean we all have studied in our school that Hindi is our national language thanks to these education boards setttled in Delhi only to know later that Hindi is just ONE of the many national languages of India. 🤡

I mean all Sudeep said in an event is "You said that a pan India film was made in Kannada. I’d like to make a small correction. Hindi is no more a national language. They (Bollywood) are doing pan-India films today. They are struggling (to find success) by dubbing in Telugu and Tamil, but it’s not happening. Today, we are making films that are going everywhere and this is all it took to ruffle the feather of these supremacist Hindi speakers like Ajay who couldn't gulp down the fact that Hindi is no more getting the 'special status' that people like them have been trying to give since ages to push down their language and ideologies.

It's this attitude among a particular group of Hindi speakers that people hate and dislike and it's rampant especially down in South India.

appreciate your point. Some observations-

1. I dont think anyone should say that Hindi is a superior language to the many others. Its just the most spoken. So i cant see that driving the hateful supremacist attitudes you are talking about. It probably has to do with the mindset that looks down upon people with color, certain physical aspects. Wrong and perhaps not very PC to say, but probably the case. Many people are racists that way. So its ironic that we take it out on hindi.

2. I think south just happens to be a huge market for movies these days and regional movies start with an advantage given they are made in those languages. Even without needing to sell in northern markets, they can do well. Meanwhile, there is more competition for hindi movies.. between OTT and screen.... but that does not mean Hindi (or its close derivatives) is not the language spoken by most number of Indians. It is. he point about regional movies from the south doing well is almost irrelevant to the language debate imo.

3. countries that have progressed have found a way to unify- whether its language, or currency, or trading bloc. Without that, its a ghetto mentality where we all lose because we don't integrate.

4. if economy/ money is the yardstick (and we want to use the example of which movies are doing well), then germany, france, japan, are all larger economies than India. And they have done well having just one unifying language in each case. Yes they are smaller geographies but its revealing that they could attain greater economic success in spite of the "lack of diversity" that we keep touting as India's strength.

ps- i dont care what language is used as the national... just that i think it would help with national and social cohesion if there were one (in addition to whatever other languages one wants to speak).

Originally posted by: prerna4rishav

Ran popularity test where ? It’ll not win in South States, in Bengal or Orissa that I can guarantee.

Who told you the later divides people and not integrates ? Which India are you talking about ? I’d rather prefer people read the original History and then Constitution of India first before wanting a change so that they can evaluate their demand is aligned with the basic core of India or not.

come on, this is getting too basic. Of course it would not win in specific regions. And that's not even the point. The BJP does not win everywhere, yet it is the national party ruling the country.... because it has MORE people going for it than other parties do. Keyword is MORE. COMPARATIVE statement. Once again, MORE. MORE popular. We understand MORE, yes?😆

as for the constitution of India, it's not infallible. Never was. Thats why we have had so many amendments. Not all of them have been good... but i would still argue that we need to be able to change instead of become ossified like one of those medieval religions that refuse to change and that refuse to come to terms with science and the modern world. Get the point?

Birdie, you have convinced yourself that an ADDED "national" language is somehow beneficial to the economy and that a "unifying language" is a contributing factor to some larger economies of the world but offer no specifics whatsoever as to how.

Speaking of economy, if you rank all the Indian states by their nominal GDP, all the 5 southern states of India feature in the top 10. If you rank by zonal councils or administrative regions, Southern region tops with USD $860 billion nominal GDP, followed by the Western region with USD $610 billion nominal GDP. Your unified, cohesive, Hindi speaking Northern region is ranked 3rd at USD $500 billion. And you also know that the Southern region itself doesn't have one spoken language but multiple spoken languages. How do you then explain the economic success of the Southern region in the context of a language?

To recap: there is data to illustrate the advantages of multilingualism not just in economy but also when it comes to cognitive functions. There is data to show that a region (Southern to be specific) tops the nominal GDP list in the absence of a "unifying" language. You lose on both counts.

As for loftier ambitions of "bringing people together", look, whether it was Andhra separating from the state of Madras in 1953 or the state of Bombay bifurcating to create the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra in 1960, language was used as the criteria for the division of most states after we gained independence. That's how important language is/was to the 1.3 plus billion people of India; they demanded separation on the basis of the language that they speak. I am not sure how you assumed that a language will bring them together.

English is the standard medium of education across the world, especially in the scientific field. If you are of the opinion, like many do, that the global economy is interdependent and interconnected, then maybe you should push English to the masses. Maybe.

I don't see any impediments to the way people across India are currently communicating so if it isn’t broke, why (attempt to) fix it? What "problem" is a proposed national language even addressing? Why would, say, a Tamilian, whose language is as ancient as 5000 years, welcome the ADDITION of Hindi as a national language now when they vehemently agitated against any such impositions multiple times in the past?

IMO, well-meaning Indians should give this topic a rest.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Birdie, you have convinced yourself that an ADDED "national" language is somehow beneficial to the economy and that a "unifying language" is a contributing factor to some larger economies of the world but offer no specifics whatsoever as to how.

Speaking of economy, if you rank all the Indian states by their nominal GDP, all the 5 southern states of India feature in the top 10. If you rank by zonal councils or administrative regions, Southern region tops with USD $860 billion nominal GDP, followed by the Western region with USD $610 billion nominal GDP. Your unified, cohesive, Hindi speaking Northern region is ranked 3rd at USD $500 billion. And you also know that the Southern region itself doesn't have one spoken language but multiple spoken languages. How do you then explain the economic success of the Southern region in the context of a language?

To recap: there is data to illustrate the advantages of multilingualism not just in economy but also when it comes to cognitive functions. There is data to show that a region (Southern to be specific) tops the nominal GDP list in the absence of a "unifying" language. You lose on both counts.

As for loftier ambitions of "bringing people together", look, whether it was Andhra separating from the state of Madras in 1953 or the state of Bombay bifurcating to create the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra in 1960, language was used as the criteria for the division of most states after we gained independence. That's how important language is/was to the 1.3 plus billion people of India; they demanded separation on the basis of the language that they speak. I am not sure how you assumed that a language will bring them together.

English is the standard medium of education across the world, especially in the scientific field. If you are of the opinion, like many do, that the global economy is interdependent and interconnected, then maybe you should push English to the masses. Maybe.

I don't see any impediments to the way people across India are currently communicating so if it isn’t broke, why (attempt to) fix it? What "problem" is a proposed national language even addressing? Why would, say, a Tamilian, whose language is as ancient as 5000 years, welcome the ADDITION of Hindi as a national language now when they vehemently agitated against any such impositions multiple times in the past?

IMO, well-meaning Indians should give this topic a rest.

thats because the north bore the brunt of the assaults from the invaders who brought in their medieval ways. Its changing. India has also been at a very low base. So putting up the car industry in say tamil nadu skewed the results. Lets see where it'll be once we reach a more middle-income status.... And if track record is anything to go by, we will have the gujaratis and the punjabis lead like they've done elsewhere in the world because of their brains and brawns. Even music is something the bengalis and the maharashtrians tout as their thing. But if we look at bollywood songs, its mostly from the north. Staring with rafi and before. Madan Mohan etc. (Sorry Lata and Asha who we all adore)

and english being the scientific language across the world, come on. Good to pretend one knows all, not good to make it all up. Ever been to norway, to germany, to france, to japan, to china?😆

i gave you the example of countries that are larger than India... and you pick some regional disparities at a stage of India's development to generalize. Would have expected better, my friend❤️

^^ Birdie, from your above post, if I separate the"wheat from the chaff", the only point worthy of note is your relevant but flawed causal "analysis". You cited a few developed nations and abruptly jumped to the conclusion that A (language) caused B (development).

I don't even see a correlation let alone a causation in what you said.

Therefore, the only thing I am interested in hearing from you is a deep dive of how you logically arrived at that conclusion, supported of course by facts and figures. Otherwise I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss brainy Gujaratis and brawny Sardarjis.

Please also Google for “the official language of science“ and let me know what you find out…

Originally posted by: Justice4Samosa

Wrong. The reason Jana Gana Mana was adopted from Bharata Bhagya Bidhata was because the original song was popular pre independence and was sung at various places including the night of India gaining independence. It became our national anthem only because the original song played a huge part in the azaadi movement and was hugely popular throughout the country. You can read up on the history of the song, Tagore and it's effects on Pre-independence India for more information of the same.

So nope it HAS been more popular before it was adopted as the national anthem. I mean that's the whole reason why this song was adopted as the national anthem.

Also nope, the Jana Gana Mana we sing is not in Hindi. It's Sanskritized Bengali . No one has translated the song in Hindi. We sing exactly what was written by Tagore. The only translation done of the anthem is English which has been translated by Tagore himself.

lol lemme do a few nopes better.😆

While the anthem was composed originally in bengali as you have claimed (high form of bengali sanskrit), it was adopted in its hindi version by the constiutuent assembly of India in 1950. IN HINDI. Do read up! The bangla words like Jono Gono etc were changed to make it hindi. To suggest it is still bengali is like saying some of those choice punjabi words are Hindi.😆

so nope, we don't see it exactly the way the it was written. nope.

see i get people trying to act on their regional pride and push their beliefs, but cant be making up facts. Nope. Cant do. Nope.😆

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

^^ Birdie, from your above post, if I separate the"wheat from the chaff", the only point worthy of note is your relevant but flawed causal "analysis". You cited a few developed nations and abruptly jumped to the conclusion that A (language) caused B (development).

I don't even see a correlation let alone a causation in what you said.

Therefore, the only thing I am interested in hearing from you is a deep dive of how you logically arrived at that conclusion, supported of course by facts and figures. Otherwise I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss brainy Gujaratis and brawny Sardarjis.

that's cute. Didn't you jump to conclusions yourself, the same thing you're suggesting I did? let's face it. Your fancy charts prove no causal relationship between language and development. So how if you do a bigger dive yourself?😆

here's the other difference. You picked small-economy Indian states to make your point. I picked large-economies. Now unless you believe the small state economies are all we should aspire to, you should really be wanting to look at the common unifying themes that have helped make those economies such power houses and have created greater social cohesion. Not good to always have the head stuck in the sand.😆

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

that's cute. Didn't you jump to conclusions yourself, the same thing you're suggesting I did? let's face it. Your fancy charts prove no causal relationship between language and development. So how if you do a bigger dive yourself?😆

here's the other difference. You picked small-economy Indian states to make your point. I picked large-economies. Now unless you believe the small state economies are all we should aspire to, you should really be wanting to look at the common unifying themes that have helped make those economies such power houses and have created greater social cohesion. Not good to always have the head stuck in the sand.😆

You are willfully misrepresenting my position 😊

You said a national language is good for the economy. I said, while also citing data, that multilingualism was shown to boost economic growth but it can't be conflated with the notion that one "unifying" national language would also boost economic growth. Yet you insisted that a "unifying" language is great for the economy and is working out for a few developed nations and I refuted that assertion by a) pointing out more data which invalidates the assumption that more people speaking the same language end up contributing the most to the GDP in a country which is the crux of this debate and b) asking you to furnish data that a national language is a contributor to the GDP of developed nations.

At which point you digressed into invaders, rulers, and sketchy stereotypes vis-à-vis a cross-section of the Indian population and I had to forcibly wean you away from self-combusting and bring you back to the table with the hope we could have a fruitful discussion.

That's where things stand.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

You are willfully misrepresenting my position 😊

You said a national language is good for the economy. I said, while also citing data, that multilingualism was shown to boost economic growth but it can't be conflated with the notion that one "unifying" national language would also boost economic growth. Yet you insisted that a "unifying" language is great for the economy and is working out for a few developed nations and I refuted that assertion by a) pointing out more data which invalidates the assumption that more people speaking the same language end up contributing the most to the GDP in a country which is the crux of this debate and b) asking you to furnish data that a national language is a contributor to the GDP of developed nations.

At which point you digressed into invaders, rulers, and sketchy stereotypes vis-à-vis a cross-section of the Indian population and I had to forcibly wean you away from self-combusting and bring you back to the table with the hope we could have a fruitful discussion.

That's where things stand.

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.