 |
 |
 |
| State, 'Non-State' & Human Rights |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Domination and Subjugation: Linguistic Politics in India
‘The limit to my language is the limit of my world’ One of the problems that has plagued India after independence is the question of a common language for communication, which has generated resistance from smaller speech communities. Sensitivity associated with linguistic identity and the fear of being linguistically subjugated by the dominant communities are the most important factors that trigger social movements among various speech communities in India.(1) The demand of a new State by Telugu speaking communities in the Madras Province led to the formation of the state of Andhra Pradesh in 1953. Subsequently, similar demands from other linguistic groups multiplied. These demands were endorsed by some of the nationalist leaders in order to appropriate powers in the new states. As a result, today, many linguistic groups have their own states, such as Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Punjab, Orissa, etc. The reorganisation of states on the basis of language has encouraged assertion of linguistic identities. But it has still denied various other groups belonging to subaltern tribal communities, who inhabit their own homelands, the right to nurture and promote their languages. As against the principle of linguistic basis of state formation, the states in Northeast India were constituted on the basis of tribal identity and ethnicity. The formation of the states of Mizoram, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, etc. can be traced to the fear of being linguistically subjugated by bigger ethnic communities. The Assamese demanded the recognition of the Assamese language as not only the medium of instruction in the primary and high school but also in the university. This had damaging consequences to the healthy growth of broader Assamese nationality. It directly created a sense of alienation among the tribal groups whose mother tongues are not Assamese. With the growth of the middle class among these tribes, alienation developed in the form of ‘anti-Assamese’ feeling, which became stronger with time and finally led to the creation of tribal states of Meghalaya, Mizoram, etc.(2) Therefore, the state formation in Northeast India was not based on the linguistic basis. According to the 1961 Census, there are 574 Indo-Aryan, 153 Dravidian, 65 Austro-Asiatic, and 266 Tibeto-Chinese languages in India.(3) The speakers of the latter two linguistic families are mainly drawn from the tribes. Except for the Assamese, all the communities inhabiting the Northeastern region commonly called ‘Seven Sisters’ also belong to these two linguistic families. However, none of the languages of these two families had been given Constitutional status till 1990. Most of the subaltern tribal communities are being denied the opportunity to use their mother tongues either because (a) their size is very small, or (b) they are not ‘developed’ (argued in terms of absence of scripts, inadequacy of vocabulary, etc).(4) But neither of these arguments is appropriate, given the fact that several such languages have developed their own scripts. For instance, the Meiteis have been denied for long the use of their own language and scripts for administrative purposes. Further, those communities who do not have their own scripts have adopted one of the existing scripts such as Roman, Devnagari, or Bengali. It is also often the case that the number of speakers of many such deprived languages often exceed a million. Given the above perspective, the rationality of any or all of the criteria cited above for the selective recognition of some languages as scheduled language cannot but be seen as seriously flawed.5 The result is the formation of hierarchy among various linguistic communities not only at the national level but also at the regional level. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Linguistic Policy and Hierarchy of Language: In order to resolve the problem flowing from the ‘doctrine of one national language’ in a multi-language state, the Government of India adopted the Three-Language-Formula (TLF) in August 1961. Apart from recognition of Hindi as the ‘national’ language, every state is given the option of adopting two other languages as ‘regional’ and ‘local’. However, the TLF has not been able to solve the issues/problems related with language in any state where there are many speech communities. A particular consequence of the linguistic policy of Independent India is the creation of a hierarchical structure of language. This policy not only divides all the languages as ‘scheduled’ and ‘non-scheduled’, but it serves as an important factor for building a hierarchical structure of different speech communities. This may be compared to some extent with caste hierarchy. At the apex of the structure, Hindi is used as the ‘national’ language. In the middle, there are ‘regional’ languages—either languages of those speech communities which hold political power in a particular geographical region or those languages which are perceived to be a part of ancient Indian civilizational heritage. This leads to the Tibeto-Burman and Austro-Asiatic languages, which do not belong to the ancient Indian heritage, being delegitimised officially as dialects. These languages are further pushed down to the bottom of the hierarchical structure of modern Indian languages. Moreover, strong efforts are also made by the government to stigmatise these languages. There is also resistance against the so called ‘Hindi imperialism’6 by the regional linguistic groups. However, linguistic imperialism is replicated at the regional level against the languages of smaller speech communities, though the form may differ. This chain of action often leads to the subjugation of the languages and identities of the smaller communities. The consequence is continuation of cultural hegemony of the dominant linguistic groups at both the national and regional levels. Differences and hierarchy that exist among various languages and their categorization as ‘national’ and ‘regional’, or as ‘scheduled’ and ‘non-scheduled’, or ‘language’ and ‘dialect’, are the products of conservative and restrictive politics that prevailed in India since 1950s. However, sustaining the linguistic pluralism with due recognition of all the languages is the only option to check the ongoing process of domination. The need is premised on the following four factors. First, ‘diversity’ is India’s essence, which ought to be celebrated and not cursed. Second, language expresses one’s identity and thus should serve as the basic human right. Third, languages are the repositories of history. And fourth, human interaction is meaningful only when communicated through a medium called ‘language’. Keeping the above imperatives in mind, it is necessary to identify the factors that resist equal recognition of every language. Based on the existing evidences and politics, we can identify few conditions that engender hierarchy among different languages. Most of the subaltern tribal communities and ethnic groups, which have not been assimilated culturally as well as linguistically to the larger communities, are being denied the right to use their mother tongues on the ground that they are numerically very small. This denial is justified on the ground that they are not properly ‘developed’. This has led to denial of the right to use mother tongues for administrative purposes to a large number of population in the Northeast. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Language and Linguistic Policy: A Paradox: The present linguistic policy suffers from a serious paradox. The stratification of languages and linguistic communities on the basis of ‘scheduled language’ and ‘non-scheduled language’ contradicts the policies for the development of minorities. The classification of the ‘scheduled’ and the ‘non-scheduled’ is based on a particular mindset of the dominant communities from whose perspective the classification is framed. A development paradigm set from such a perspective will inherently put the minority linguistic communities into an subservient mould. The linguistic identity of the smaller communities is denied of a self-evolving character, instead has solely been externally predicated. Consequently, the idea of development remains a cliche. Further, the classification of scheduled languages on the basis of ‘national’ and ‘regional’ also contradicts the various other aspects of language development. While only 18 out of several languages(7) in the country are recognised by the Constitution, the state-owned communication agency, All India Radio, uses as many as 190 languages/dialects for broadcasting.(8) Similarly, several literary and film awards are given by government instituted agencies to the written works or films produced in several languages which are not listed in the Eight Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Such languages are also used for the purpose of elementary education. If all these practices are officially accepted, why is the government still denying equal constitutional status to all the languages in India? This shows a contradiction between official policies and practice that, in turn, reflects the conservative and restrictive policies of the government towards the languages of smaller communities. It is due to such contradictions that we witness a fractured form of development in the northeastern part of India. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Linguistic Problem in Manipur: Apart from the Meitei language, there are 29 other officially recognised languages in Manipur. Those are Aimol, Anal, Angami, Ao, Gangte, Hmar, Kabui, Koirao (Thangal), Koireng, Kom, Lamkang, Liangmei, Mao, Maram, Maring, Mizo (Lushei), Monsang, Paite, Purum, Ralte, Rongmei, Sema, Simte, Tangkhul, Thadou, Vaiphei, Zeimei and Zou. Hinduism came to Manipur in its various forms (sects) by the beginning of 18th century. Since most of the sects came from Bengal, it was quite evident that Bengali script was associated with the practice and propagation of the religiuos doctrines. The scripts (Bengali) was latter enforced by the Meitei King as the State-owned-script that replaced the earliar Meitei script (after the burning of all the pre-Hindu religious texts called Puya). This marks the Hindu dominance in the socio-cultural and religious life of the people.(10) Consequently, Meiteis have been discarding the use of their own scripts for more than 250 years. However, at present there is a desire among the populace for reviving their old script and to introduce the same in the schools to eventually replace the Bengali script. This new movement for the revival of their own script can be traced back to 1930s when a socio-religious organisation called ‘Meitei Marup’ started a movement to revive their culture, religion and script.(11) Subsequently, many educated youths also started to initiate the movement for reviving and developing the Meitei script. At the same time, they also wanted to replace the Bengali script by the Meitei script. They emphasised research in various areas of ancient history and other literatures of the Meiteis. This was followed by the demand for acquiring constitutional recognition of Meitei script in the Eight Schedule of the Indian constitution, and to introduce it as the medium of instruction in both primary and higher education in Manipur.(12) Through these demands and efforts, the Meitei Marup projected their political goals and objectives. It is a part of their efforts to establish a distinct Meitei identity in modern time. They also believe that the revival of the script will help the Meiteis to preserve their distinct identity. It has been ideologically highlighted that one’s own language enables one to communicate effectively with one’s fellow beings. Further, the demand for recognition of the language in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution and introduction of the same in school is another effort of the Meiteis towards the development of their society. The belief is that if compulsory primary education is imparted through the mother tongue, it will substantially contribute to the eradication of illiteracy, and would lead to more efficient communication thereby accelerating the process of development. The Meiteis also believe that ‘language is father and script is mother’, and that script is part and parcel of a particular culture. Lack of knowledge of the script will deprive the younger generation from understanding the traditional texts (Puya) and the underlying philosophy therein.(13) The movement has faced several challenges from different corners, both from within and outside. From within, the controversy over the actual numbers of alphabets has arisen. One of the schools of thought claims that the Meitei script has only 18 alphabets whereas another school claims that it has 27 alphabets. Yet the third school claims of 35 alphabets.(14) To provide a solution to this internal crisis, different research committees were formed at various levels. Some of them are ‘Kangleipak Eyek Kanba Phamthon Lup’ (1958), ‘Mayek Luptin Committee’ (1958), ‘Lon Amasung Mayek Neinaba Apunba Marup’ (1968), etc. The main objective of these committees is to find out the actual number of alphabets. On the 16th November 1978, the organisation ‘Kangleipak Eyek Kanba Phamthon Lup’ in collaboration with ‘All Manipur Students Union’ (AMSU) formed a ‘Meitei Mayek Expert Committee’ (MMEC). The committee, after analyzing some of the Meitei scriptures and Puyas, finally approved 27 alphabets consisting of 18 major alphabets and 9 derivatives called ‘Lom Eyeks’.(15) In pursuance of the policies of the organisation, the Government of Manipur passed ‘The Manipur Official Language Bill’ on 12th April 1979 declaring ‘Manipuri Language’ to be the language for official purposes.(16) The Government of Manipur approved the script (recommended by the MMEC) and listed it in the Manipur Gazette dated April 22, 1980.(17) Accordingly, Meiteilon became the medium of instruction not only in the primary level of education but also in the High School.(18) Finally, on the demand of the people, the Central government also recognised the Manipuri language (Meitei language) in the Eight Schedule of the Constitution in 1992.(19) The movement also received challenges from the hill community on the State government’s sympathy to the Meitei language and apathy towards the 29 tribal languages. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intra-State Linguistic Puzzle: The language dynamics in the state has created intra linguistic conflict and complexity. Different layers in the usage of ligua franca among different tribes and sub-tribes highlights the complexity in identification and association of languages/dialects among these communities. The case of Tangkhul Naga tribe can be cited as a case. Tangkhuls in the Ukhrul district, irrespective of their sub-tribes, speak Tangkhul language; but each village has its own dialect. When the communication takes place between villages, Ukhrul ‘tangkhullon’ or Manipuri (Meiteilon) are used as medium of communication. In sharp contrast to Naga tribes, the Kuki-Chin tribes do not have such problems.(20) Among them, languages play a great role particularly in forging unity and establishing social relationships among various sub-tribes. In fact, the dialects of different sub-tribes under the Kuki-Chin group are so close to one another that minor differences become insignificant. The extreme case of language similarity can be witnessed among the Kuki-Chin group. The Thadou and their cognate groups speak in one and the same language popularly known as the ‘Thadou language’. Both the Thadou and cognate groups accept the term without complaint till the dawn of independence in India. But now the cognate groups claim that they speak different mother tongues, which is not true as they all belong to one group, linguistically. It is mainly due to the result of imperfect linguistic policies of India, which put many speech communities in hierarchical order. The linguistic policy, instead of accepting all the tribal dialects, encourages only one tribal dialect in a particular region having more than one such group. In 1977 the Government of Manipur introduced the Thadou language in schools up to primary stage, especially in the areas of Kuki-Chin groups. The justification for such situation is that the language has been known as ‘Thadou language’ since time immemorial. On the other hand, the Thadou cognates claim that the language is not the exclusive possession of the Thadou tribe alone. It is as much theirs, and, therefore, should be called ‘Kuki language’.(21) In the wake of the counterclaims made by other groups, the Government of Manipur issued another order in 1981, which replaced the term ‘Thadou’ by ‘Kuki’. But ‘Kuki’ encompasses a number of kindred tribes, of which Thadou is but one. The term ‘Thadou’ must not be treated as synonymous to the term ‘Kuki’, which is a political nomenclature having a far larger meaning and more inclusive than the term ‘Thadou’.(22) Hence, the linguistic policies that create hierarchy among the same speech communities destroyed the healthy social and harmonious relationship among the kindred tribes. After analysing the above conditions, it should be emphasised that the policy of recognition of one language as regional language creates a serious problem in a multi-lingual society of the |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Conclusion: The development of every language should be constitutionally guaranteed. However, apart from constitutional recognition, the utmost challenge is the creation of smooth socio-cultural ground where every language is properly nurtured. A language can survive only if a speech community interacts with adequate frequency and intensity. In fact, languages in India have served as important basis, for people have established their identities and also have drawn social boundaries for defining their in-group and the out-group. The Meitei’s demand for the constitutional recognition of Meiteilon bears strong justification. But some other communities in the region, whose mother tongue is not Meiteilon, view the demand as reflection of Meitei chauvinism. This has not only jeopardised harmonious relationship among different ethnic groups, but also has brought damaging consequences to the creation of broader Manipuri identity. The demand and subsequent recognition of Meiteilon in the 8th Schedule of the constitution has been a source of alienation among various tribal groups in the surrounding hills of the state. With the emergence of tribal middle class, alienation has developed into an anti-Meitei feeling that became stronger and finally turned into an issue of conflict between the hill and valley people. Similar is the case with Kuki-Chin languages, where the government prioritises the Thadou language over and above other languages within the linguistic family. Thus language creates problems such as ethnic tensions, not only at the national level, but also at the regional as well as local levels. Meitei’s demand for recognition of their language and scripts should not contradict their efforts to bring a better and closer socio-cultural and political relationship with the hill tribes whose mother tongue is not Meiteilon. Therefore, while struggling for their own language, they also should exercise equal concern for the languages or dialects of smaller groups in the hill areas. Otherwise, like in Assam, it may produce damaging consequences so far as the healthy growth of broader Manipuri nationality and her territory is concerned. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes & References
: 4. Oomen, 1992, p. 16. 5. Ibid. pp. 16–17. 6. Complaints against the adoption of Hindi are not new phenomena in Independent India. Many linguistic communities, especially the Dravidian and Tibeto-Burman families, whose languages do not have any affinity with Hindi, felt the adoption of Hindi as the national language a form of linguistic subjection by the North Indians. The complaint by the Manipuris against Hindi, and their resistance in the form of banning Hindi films and music in the state are part of their protest against the cultural and linguistic domination. 7. Initially there were only 15 scheduled languages in India. At present there are eighteen after Manipuri, Nepali and Konkani were newly listed in the Eight Schedule of the Indian Constitution in 1992. 8. Oomen, 1992, p. 22. 9. Grierson, 1905, p. 6. 12. Kabui, 1992, p. 103. 13. Das, 1982, p. 120. 14.Devi, 1991, pp. 99–113. Also see Yashawanta Singh, 2001, pp. 133–46. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bibliography
: 4. Gangte, T.S. 1993. The Kukis of Manipur: A Historical Analysis. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House. 5.Grierson, G.A. 1905. Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. 3. Part 3. Calcutta: Government Publication. 6. Kabui, Gangmumei. 1991. ‘Socio-religious Reform Movement and Christian Proselytism’ in Lal Dena (ed.) History of Modern Manipur (1826-1949). New Delhi: Orbit Publishers–Distributors. 7. Kangjia, N. Gopal. 1978. History of Kanglei Eyeks. Imphal. 8. Manipur Gazette (Extraordinary) No.33, Imphal, Tuesday, April 22, 1980. 9. Narahari, (Lt. Gen.) N.S. 2002. Security Threat to North East India: The Socio-Ethnic Tension. Delhi: Manas Publications. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
