Today marked the 50th anniversary of the formation of the State of Maharashtra. The golden jubilee of the Marathi State. There were mesmerizing celebrations all over the state. The government was also too keen on cashing in on one of the most important occasions in the history of the state. Major political parties had organized various cultural events to mark the occasion. The so called Marathi nationalist parties were eager to demonstrate their love for Marathi and Maharashtra. In doing so, they were busy attracting famous Marathi personalities and celebrities into their camps. But I wonder if celebrations alone can save the language and the state in a situation were fighting for your linguistic rights and your state is considered to be anti-national and treason.
Two contrary incidents occur on the same as Maharashtra marks its golden jubilee. Amid the celebrations which took place all over the state there were also few incidents of anti-Maharashtra protesters who were agitating for a separate state of Vidarbh. They observed Black day on this occasion and waived black flags at Maharashtra day celebrations. However, the support for the formation of Vidarbh is open to debate.
On the other hand, the representatives of the people of Belgaum went to meet the President of the country. They want presidential rule to be declared in the Marathi speaking areas of Karnataka until the issue of unification of the Marathi speaking areas with Maharashtra, is resolved. They also demonstrated in support of Maharashtra in Belgaum and many other Marathi speaking areas of Karnataka.
When I look back at our history I find various things which trouble me a lot. What was the problem in the grating a unified Marathi state? What was the problem in giving Mumbai to Maharashtra when it is geographically and culturally Marathi land? As far as I know, the problem is that, Marathi Manaus had to fight for everything which he needed. He had to fight even for the very things which were rightfully his. I know that he will always have to fight in order fulfill even his basic needs.
We are never given anything without a fight. We are supposed to fight for everything from the inclusion of Mumbai in Maharashtra to making Marathi compulsory in schools. I cannot understand, how can one oppose the a law which makes Marathi compulsory in the very state which was established on that language. This can only happen in Maharashtra. The martyrdom of the 106 innocent lives is in vein. Nowadays, our youth has no concern for our language or the future of our state. We are already on the brink of losing Mumbai. It won't be long until we lose our entire state.
We Marathis are so used to Outside Rule that we can never think of us ruling ourselves. We always want someone or the other to rule over us. Why is it so? We are strong enough and we can also be able to sustain ourselves without anyone's help. However, even the idea of liberation is feared of. Why? Know that you are self-sustainable. Know that you can rule your nation on your own. Most important of all, know that you are Marathi First before being anything else.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Why did Bangladesh secede from Pakistan?
In August 1947, the Partition of British India gave birth to two new states; a secular state named India and an Islamic state named Pakistan. But Pakistan comprised two geographically and culturally separate areas to the east and the west of India. The western zone was popularly (and for a period of time, also officially) termed West Pakistan and the eastern zone (modern-day Bangladesh) was initially termed East Bengal and later, East Pakistan. Although the population of the two zones was close to equal, political power was concentrated in West Pakistan and it was widely perceived that East Pakistan was being exploited economically, leading to many grievances.
In 1948, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's first Governor-General, declared in Dhaka that "Urdu, and only Urdu" would be the sole official language for all of Pakistan. This proved highly controversial, since Urdu was a language that was only spoken in the West by Muhajirs and in the East by Biharis. The majority groups in West Pakistan spoke Punjabi, while the Bengali language was spoken by the vast majority of East Pakistanis. The language controversy eventually reached a point where East Pakistan revolted. Several students and civilians lost their lives in a police crackdown on 21 February 1952.
Although East Pakistan accounted for a slight majority of the country's population, political power remained firmly in the hands of West Pakistanis. Since a straightforward system of representation based on population would have concentrated political power in East Pakistan, the West Pakistani establishment came up with the "One Unit" scheme, where all of West Pakistan was considered one province. This was solely to counterbalance the East wing's votes. East Pakistanis noticed that whenever one of them, such as Khawaja Nazimuddin, Muhammad Ali Bogra, or Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy were elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, they were swiftly deposed by the largely West Pakistani establishment.
The situation reached a climax when in 1970 the Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a Sindhi), the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Instead, he proposed the idea of having two Prime Ministers, one for each wing. The proposal elicited outrage in the east wing, already chafing under the other constitutional innovation, the "one unit scheme".
A planned military pacification carried out by the Pakistan Army — codenamed Operation Searchlight — started on 25 March to curb the Bengali nationalist movement by taking control of the major cities on 26 March, and then eliminating all opposition, political or military, within one month. Before the beginning of the operation, all foreign journalists were systematically deported from East Pakistan. The main phase of Operation Searchlight ended with the fall of the last major town in Bengali hands in mid-May. The operation also began the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. These systematic killings served only to enrage the Bengalis, which ultimately resulted in the secession of East Pakistan later in the same year. The international media and reference books in English have published casualty figures which vary greatly, from 5,000–35,000 in Dhaka, and 200,000–3,000,000 for Bangladesh as a whole.
Hindu areas suffered particularly heavy blows. By midnight, Dhaka was literally burning, especially the Hindu dominated eastern part of the city. Time magazine reported on 2 August 1971, "The Hindus, who account for three-fourths of the refugees and a majority of the dead, have borne the brunt of the Pakistani military hatred." Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was arrested by the Pakistani Army. General Yahya Khan appointed Brigadier (later General) Rahimuddin Khan to preside over a special tribunal prosecuting Mujib with multiple charges. The tribunal's sentence was never made public, but Yahya caused the verdict to be held in abeyance in any case. Other Awami League leaders were arrested as well, while a few fled Dhaka to avoid arrest. The Awami League was banned by General Yahya Khan.
The violence unleashed by the Pakistani forces on 25 March 1971, proved the last straw to the efforts to negotiate a settlement. Following these outrages, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman signed an official declaration that read:
Today Bangladesh is a sovereign and independent country. On Thursday night, West Pakistani armed forces suddenly attacked the police barracks at Razarbagh and the EPR headquarters at Pilkhana in Dhaka. Many innocent and unarmed have been killed in Dhaka city and other places of Bangladesh. Violent clashes between E.P.R. and Police on the one hand and the armed forces of Pakistan on the other, are going on. The Bengalis are fighting the enemy with great courage for an independent Bangladesh. May Allah aid us in our fight for freedom. Joy Bangla.
Wary of the growing involvement of India, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) launched a preemptive strike on India. The attack was modeled on the Israeli Air Force's Operation Focus during the Six-Day War. However, the plan failed to achieve the desired success and was seen as an open act of unprovoked aggression against the Indians. Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi declared war on Pakistan and in aid of the Mukti Bahini, then ordered the immediate mobilization of troops and launched the full-scale invasion. This marked the official start of the Indo-Pakistani War. India's external intelligence agency, the RAW, played a crucial role in providing logistic support to the Mukti Bahini during the initial stages of the war. RAW's operations, in then-East Pakistan, was the largest covert operation in the history of South Asia.
On 16 December 1971, Lt. Gen A. A. K. Niazi, Commanding Officer of Pakistan Army forces located in East Pakistan signed the instrument of surrender. At the time of surrender only a few countries had provided diplomatic recognition to the new nation. Over 90,000 Pakistani troops surrendered to the Indian forces making it largest surrender since World War II. Bangladesh sought admission in the UN with most voting in its favor, but China vetoed this as Pakistan was its key ally. The United States, also a key ally of Pakistan, was one of the last nations to accord Bangladesh recognition.
To ensure a smooth transition, in 1972 the Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan. The treaty ensured that Pakistan recognized the independence of Bangladesh in exchange for the return of the Pakistani PoWs. India treated all the PoWs in strict accordance with the Geneva Convention, rule 1925. It released more than 90,000 Pakistani PoWs in five months.
This shows us that though the nation of Pakistan was founded on the basis of religion, it could not sustain itself as a nation just on the grounds of Religion alone. Language is indeed the most important aspect of one's cultural identity. Belgium and Bangladesh have laid down excellent examples for us to comprehend the linguistics strides which persist in India. These were a few examples depicting the notion of Religion versus Language as a basis of foundation of a state.
In 1948, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's first Governor-General, declared in Dhaka that "Urdu, and only Urdu" would be the sole official language for all of Pakistan. This proved highly controversial, since Urdu was a language that was only spoken in the West by Muhajirs and in the East by Biharis. The majority groups in West Pakistan spoke Punjabi, while the Bengali language was spoken by the vast majority of East Pakistanis. The language controversy eventually reached a point where East Pakistan revolted. Several students and civilians lost their lives in a police crackdown on 21 February 1952.
Although East Pakistan accounted for a slight majority of the country's population, political power remained firmly in the hands of West Pakistanis. Since a straightforward system of representation based on population would have concentrated political power in East Pakistan, the West Pakistani establishment came up with the "One Unit" scheme, where all of West Pakistan was considered one province. This was solely to counterbalance the East wing's votes. East Pakistanis noticed that whenever one of them, such as Khawaja Nazimuddin, Muhammad Ali Bogra, or Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy were elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, they were swiftly deposed by the largely West Pakistani establishment.
The situation reached a climax when in 1970 the Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a Sindhi), the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Instead, he proposed the idea of having two Prime Ministers, one for each wing. The proposal elicited outrage in the east wing, already chafing under the other constitutional innovation, the "one unit scheme".
A planned military pacification carried out by the Pakistan Army — codenamed Operation Searchlight — started on 25 March to curb the Bengali nationalist movement by taking control of the major cities on 26 March, and then eliminating all opposition, political or military, within one month. Before the beginning of the operation, all foreign journalists were systematically deported from East Pakistan. The main phase of Operation Searchlight ended with the fall of the last major town in Bengali hands in mid-May. The operation also began the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities. These systematic killings served only to enrage the Bengalis, which ultimately resulted in the secession of East Pakistan later in the same year. The international media and reference books in English have published casualty figures which vary greatly, from 5,000–35,000 in Dhaka, and 200,000–3,000,000 for Bangladesh as a whole.
Hindu areas suffered particularly heavy blows. By midnight, Dhaka was literally burning, especially the Hindu dominated eastern part of the city. Time magazine reported on 2 August 1971, "The Hindus, who account for three-fourths of the refugees and a majority of the dead, have borne the brunt of the Pakistani military hatred." Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was arrested by the Pakistani Army. General Yahya Khan appointed Brigadier (later General) Rahimuddin Khan to preside over a special tribunal prosecuting Mujib with multiple charges. The tribunal's sentence was never made public, but Yahya caused the verdict to be held in abeyance in any case. Other Awami League leaders were arrested as well, while a few fled Dhaka to avoid arrest. The Awami League was banned by General Yahya Khan.
The violence unleashed by the Pakistani forces on 25 March 1971, proved the last straw to the efforts to negotiate a settlement. Following these outrages, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman signed an official declaration that read:
Today Bangladesh is a sovereign and independent country. On Thursday night, West Pakistani armed forces suddenly attacked the police barracks at Razarbagh and the EPR headquarters at Pilkhana in Dhaka. Many innocent and unarmed have been killed in Dhaka city and other places of Bangladesh. Violent clashes between E.P.R. and Police on the one hand and the armed forces of Pakistan on the other, are going on. The Bengalis are fighting the enemy with great courage for an independent Bangladesh. May Allah aid us in our fight for freedom. Joy Bangla.
Wary of the growing involvement of India, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) launched a preemptive strike on India. The attack was modeled on the Israeli Air Force's Operation Focus during the Six-Day War. However, the plan failed to achieve the desired success and was seen as an open act of unprovoked aggression against the Indians. Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi declared war on Pakistan and in aid of the Mukti Bahini, then ordered the immediate mobilization of troops and launched the full-scale invasion. This marked the official start of the Indo-Pakistani War. India's external intelligence agency, the RAW, played a crucial role in providing logistic support to the Mukti Bahini during the initial stages of the war. RAW's operations, in then-East Pakistan, was the largest covert operation in the history of South Asia.
On 16 December 1971, Lt. Gen A. A. K. Niazi, Commanding Officer of Pakistan Army forces located in East Pakistan signed the instrument of surrender. At the time of surrender only a few countries had provided diplomatic recognition to the new nation. Over 90,000 Pakistani troops surrendered to the Indian forces making it largest surrender since World War II. Bangladesh sought admission in the UN with most voting in its favor, but China vetoed this as Pakistan was its key ally. The United States, also a key ally of Pakistan, was one of the last nations to accord Bangladesh recognition.
To ensure a smooth transition, in 1972 the Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan. The treaty ensured that Pakistan recognized the independence of Bangladesh in exchange for the return of the Pakistani PoWs. India treated all the PoWs in strict accordance with the Geneva Convention, rule 1925. It released more than 90,000 Pakistani PoWs in five months.
This shows us that though the nation of Pakistan was founded on the basis of religion, it could not sustain itself as a nation just on the grounds of Religion alone. Language is indeed the most important aspect of one's cultural identity. Belgium and Bangladesh have laid down excellent examples for us to comprehend the linguistics strides which persist in India. These were a few examples depicting the notion of Religion versus Language as a basis of foundation of a state.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Is Language Politics bound to India alone?
As far as I know, that is not the truth. Language politics has been there for ages and in every part of the world. When somebody talks about protecting his language in India, he is said to barbaric. However, the Indian media forgets that Identity Politics has plagued Europe since centuries, moreover so in the past few centuries.
One of the best examples of language politics, is that of Belgium. First we will have to have a look at the history of Belgium to understand the situation there. Before independence, Belgium was a part of Netherlands. The present day Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg were part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. The northern part (Netherlands) of the Kingdom was mostly Protestant and the southern part (Belgium) was predominantly Catholic.
Due to the religious differences, a revolution broke out in the southern provinces of the Kingdom in 1830. Thus, Belgium gained its independence on the basis of religion. The people did not want themselves to be ruled by a protestant monarch in the north. However, language was also a part of the cause of the revolution. The Protestant majority spoke Dutch and the Catholic minority spoke French. (The dialect of Dutch in Belgium is called as Flemish and that of French is called as Walloon)
After independence, the ruling class of Belgium was primarily French speaking. Even the elite were French. The Belgian masses identified themselves more and more with France and French (The reason being the Catholic religion of France) than with their Protestant neighbor in the north. The hatred towards Netherlands was so much that a movement was started to Frenchify Belgium (Though there were significant numbers of Dutch speaking Catholics) . The use of the Dutch language was discouraged because it was the language of Protestant Netherlands (and supposedly of the protestants in the north) and the use of French was encouraged as it was the language of Catholic France. Dutch was not taught in schools and was not used for any official purpose whatsoever.
Now, the situation in Belgium is evolving from bad to worst. Suddenly, after 130 years of Belgian independence, in 1960, the number of Dutch speaking Belgians surpassed that of French speakers. That was the time when the Dutch speakers of Belgium took to the streets to demand equal rights and protection of their language (Till this time, Dutch was invisible in Belgium, except in the houses of Dutch Catholics). Due to the protests of the Dutch speaker, the government was forced to give in to their demands. New language border was drawn in Belgium and the country was divided on linguistic lines. The Dutch speaking region in the north became the Flemish (Dutch) Region and the French speaking region in the south became the Walloon Region (It also includes the German speaking territory of Eupen). The capital city of Brussels was declared a Bilingual Region.
Now, since the Dutch speakers are greater in number and their political and economic power is greater than that of the French speakers, the government has revised the political structure of the country. The country now has a Federal government. Though the Flemish region has a higher number of inhabitants (60%-40%), its representation in the Belgian Parliament is equal to that of the Walloon region. Both regions have 50-50% of seats in the Parliament. This is injustice, as this system make a French vote more important than that of a Flemish. This challenges the democratic principal of the will of the majority.
Though the Dutch and French speaker are Catholic by religion, they are bitterly at war with each other. The Dutch speaker are demanding independence for their region. The fight for Flemish (Dutch) Independence is now at its zenith. Parties like the Vlaams Belang and N-VA are one of the staunch supporters of Flemish Independence. Belgium is also called as the Battle Ground of Europe. Due to the political differences between the Flemish and Walloon parties, it is becoming more and more difficult to form a stable government in Belgium. Last time it took 196 days to form a government.
This shows us that though the Belgian nation was formed on the basis of religion, it could not sustain itself so. Language is an integral part of one's identity and it cannot be denied. Though Belgium is an overwhelmingly Catholic nation, the use of language as a means of identification is having its repercussions on the political and cultural landscape of the nation. Language is in fact a very important part of one's cultural identity.
According to me, following one's religion is a matter of choice but this is not the case with one's language. As soon as one is born, his parents and everyone around him communicates with him in his mother tongue (Most likely scenario). When the child starts speaking, he speaks in his mother tongue. He only follow his religion when he actually performs his religious obligations. However, in the case of language, he just speaks it. That is why I feel that language is something more important than religion. We have also seen it in the case of Belgium and East Pakistan (Bangladesh). (I will shed light on the issue of Bangladesh as soon as I can)
One of the best examples of language politics, is that of Belgium. First we will have to have a look at the history of Belgium to understand the situation there. Before independence, Belgium was a part of Netherlands. The present day Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg were part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. The northern part (Netherlands) of the Kingdom was mostly Protestant and the southern part (Belgium) was predominantly Catholic.
Due to the religious differences, a revolution broke out in the southern provinces of the Kingdom in 1830. Thus, Belgium gained its independence on the basis of religion. The people did not want themselves to be ruled by a protestant monarch in the north. However, language was also a part of the cause of the revolution. The Protestant majority spoke Dutch and the Catholic minority spoke French. (The dialect of Dutch in Belgium is called as Flemish and that of French is called as Walloon)
After independence, the ruling class of Belgium was primarily French speaking. Even the elite were French. The Belgian masses identified themselves more and more with France and French (The reason being the Catholic religion of France) than with their Protestant neighbor in the north. The hatred towards Netherlands was so much that a movement was started to Frenchify Belgium (Though there were significant numbers of Dutch speaking Catholics) . The use of the Dutch language was discouraged because it was the language of Protestant Netherlands (and supposedly of the protestants in the north) and the use of French was encouraged as it was the language of Catholic France. Dutch was not taught in schools and was not used for any official purpose whatsoever.
Now, the situation in Belgium is evolving from bad to worst. Suddenly, after 130 years of Belgian independence, in 1960, the number of Dutch speaking Belgians surpassed that of French speakers. That was the time when the Dutch speakers of Belgium took to the streets to demand equal rights and protection of their language (Till this time, Dutch was invisible in Belgium, except in the houses of Dutch Catholics). Due to the protests of the Dutch speaker, the government was forced to give in to their demands. New language border was drawn in Belgium and the country was divided on linguistic lines. The Dutch speaking region in the north became the Flemish (Dutch) Region and the French speaking region in the south became the Walloon Region (It also includes the German speaking territory of Eupen). The capital city of Brussels was declared a Bilingual Region.
Now, since the Dutch speakers are greater in number and their political and economic power is greater than that of the French speakers, the government has revised the political structure of the country. The country now has a Federal government. Though the Flemish region has a higher number of inhabitants (60%-40%), its representation in the Belgian Parliament is equal to that of the Walloon region. Both regions have 50-50% of seats in the Parliament. This is injustice, as this system make a French vote more important than that of a Flemish. This challenges the democratic principal of the will of the majority.
Though the Dutch and French speaker are Catholic by religion, they are bitterly at war with each other. The Dutch speaker are demanding independence for their region. The fight for Flemish (Dutch) Independence is now at its zenith. Parties like the Vlaams Belang and N-VA are one of the staunch supporters of Flemish Independence. Belgium is also called as the Battle Ground of Europe. Due to the political differences between the Flemish and Walloon parties, it is becoming more and more difficult to form a stable government in Belgium. Last time it took 196 days to form a government.
This shows us that though the Belgian nation was formed on the basis of religion, it could not sustain itself so. Language is an integral part of one's identity and it cannot be denied. Though Belgium is an overwhelmingly Catholic nation, the use of language as a means of identification is having its repercussions on the political and cultural landscape of the nation. Language is in fact a very important part of one's cultural identity.
According to me, following one's religion is a matter of choice but this is not the case with one's language. As soon as one is born, his parents and everyone around him communicates with him in his mother tongue (Most likely scenario). When the child starts speaking, he speaks in his mother tongue. He only follow his religion when he actually performs his religious obligations. However, in the case of language, he just speaks it. That is why I feel that language is something more important than religion. We have also seen it in the case of Belgium and East Pakistan (Bangladesh). (I will shed light on the issue of Bangladesh as soon as I can)
Monday, January 25, 2010
Why don't the Marathi people speak in Marathi themselves?
This is the biggest problem which the language is facing now. I don't understand what is the problem with the Marathi Manus. Why doesn't the Marathi Manus speak in Marathi. Marathi has a history of 1200 years and is very prosperous language. However, when a Marathi Manus is supposed to talk with anyone on the street, he will always talk in Hindi. If it is an official situation, he will talk in English. Are they ashamed of their language.
Moreover, the Marathi youth is least concerned about anything regarding his language or state. I do not wish to criticize anybody, but I cannot stand anybody insulting my language and culture. If somebody is the culprit for that, I will surely mock him. Just because of some fools, I cannot allow my language to be insulted.
Don't you ever think that when you go to some other state, nobody there will speak in your mother tongue. The people with whom you speak in Hind are Hindi speakers. However, Marathi is not known in the entire country. Use Marathi, because if you don't, nobody will. Think that when you go to Tamil Nadu to work, nobody there will speak in Hindi let alone Marathi. Keep in mind that, when you respect yourself, only then do others respect you. So when you don't speak in Marathi, why will others speak in Marathi.
Moreover, the Marathi youth is least concerned about anything regarding his language or state. I do not wish to criticize anybody, but I cannot stand anybody insulting my language and culture. If somebody is the culprit for that, I will surely mock him. Just because of some fools, I cannot allow my language to be insulted.
Don't you ever think that when you go to some other state, nobody there will speak in your mother tongue. The people with whom you speak in Hind are Hindi speakers. However, Marathi is not known in the entire country. Use Marathi, because if you don't, nobody will. Think that when you go to Tamil Nadu to work, nobody there will speak in Hindi let alone Marathi. Keep in mind that, when you respect yourself, only then do others respect you. So when you don't speak in Marathi, why will others speak in Marathi.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Can a person living in Maharashtra refuse to learn or speak Marathi?
Many migrants would say that they cannot be told to learn or speak Marathi because they already speak Hindi which is the so called national language. There are people who are living in Maharashtra since the past 20-40 years but still are unable to speak in Marathi. They give the excuse that they can understand Marathi but find it difficult to speak it rightly. I would ask them, what did they do for the last 20-40 years? Even after studying Marathi for 10 years why can't they speak in Marathi?
For me, everyone who is a domicile of Maharashtra is a Maharashtrian. However, only the person who speaks Marathi as his mother tongue is Marathi. It is very disappointing to see that Marathi is being rejected in the very state which was formed on basis of this language. How can anyone protest against a law which benefits the Marathi language in Maharashtra. Nobody is asking to speak in Marathi outside of Maharashtra. The irony of the situation is that, the Marathi Manus himself is not concerned about his language and culture.
For me, everyone who is a domicile of Maharashtra is a Maharashtrian. However, only the person who speaks Marathi as his mother tongue is Marathi. It is very disappointing to see that Marathi is being rejected in the very state which was formed on basis of this language. How can anyone protest against a law which benefits the Marathi language in Maharashtra. Nobody is asking to speak in Marathi outside of Maharashtra. The irony of the situation is that, the Marathi Manus himself is not concerned about his language and culture.
Is Hindi really the ''National Language'' of India?
I am looking into the matter with a neutral perspective but even then the conclusion is the same. What has been told is not the complete truth. I will not tell it right away, because no one will believe it until it is proved to be so. So here you have your proof. Buy a copy of the Constitution of India.
The Constitution of India states as follows:
===========================================
PART XVII
OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
CHAPTER I.- LANGUAGE OF THE UNION
343. Official language of the Union.
1. The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script. The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.
2. Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement: Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devanagari form of numerals in addition to the international form of Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union.
3. Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may by law provide for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of-
4.
1. the English language, or
2. the Devanagari form of numerals, for such purposes as may be specified in the law.
===========================================
Did you notice the bold characters. They are not written by me. It is the real and authentic text of the constitution. It says that Hindi is the ''Official Language of India''. Its is not the National Language. One has no right to interpret the word 'official' as 'national'. If it were to be the national language, it would have been mentioned as such, in the constitution. The notion of Hindi being the national language can be easily challenged.
So Hindi is nothing great from any other language in India. It has the same status as all other official languages. Even I accept that Hindi is the official language of India. I have no objection to learn Hindi or to speak it. However, nobody can force me to speak in Hindi, I stay in Maharashtra and the native language here is Marathi.
The Constitution of India states as follows:
===========================================
PART XVII
OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
CHAPTER I.- LANGUAGE OF THE UNION
343. Official language of the Union.
1. The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script. The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.
2. Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before such commencement: Provided that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the Devanagari form of numerals in addition to the international form of Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union.
3. Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may by law provide for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of-
4.
1. the English language, or
2. the Devanagari form of numerals, for such purposes as may be specified in the law.
===========================================
Did you notice the bold characters. They are not written by me. It is the real and authentic text of the constitution. It says that Hindi is the ''Official Language of India''. Its is not the National Language. One has no right to interpret the word 'official' as 'national'. If it were to be the national language, it would have been mentioned as such, in the constitution. The notion of Hindi being the national language can be easily challenged.
So Hindi is nothing great from any other language in India. It has the same status as all other official languages. Even I accept that Hindi is the official language of India. I have no objection to learn Hindi or to speak it. However, nobody can force me to speak in Hindi, I stay in Maharashtra and the native language here is Marathi.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Indentity Politics
Now a days 'Identity Politics' has become a very important issue. Many people think that it is useless, but nobody wants to examine the reason behind the rise of Identity Politics. The core issue of identity is now seen as national pride versus regional (linguistic) identity. To understand it we should analyze the situation rightly.
Everything goes back to history. Regional (linguistic) Identity is a universal issue. It not bound to India alone. In India, when somebody talks about Regional Identity, he is called as a traitor. People say that he is creating a problem for Unity of the country. However, they do not understand that protecting our language does not mean hatred towards other languages. The Indian media (Hindi & English) is to be blamed for the false image of the Marathi cause. When somebody talks about Tamil, he protecting his culture but when somebody talks about Marathi, he is dividing the country.
Others are more possessive about Mumbai than the Marathi people themselves. They forget that we had to sacrifice 105 lives for gaining the state of Maharashtra with Mumbai as its capital city. The blood of 105 martyrs (Hutatma) lies in the soil of Mumbai which we cannot forget. I would compare their martyrdom with that of those who died in Jalianwalabaug Massacre. The only difference I see in it is that the ones who died in Jalianwalabaug were killed by foreigners but those who died in Mumbai, died at the hands of Our Own People. The irony of the situation is that, those who died at Hutatama Chowk are not even remembered by the Marathi people for whom the laid down their lives.
At the end I have just a few questions.
Why were peaceful demonstrators shot upon?
Why did the Indian government object to the formation of united Maharashtra with Mumbai as its capital city?
Why do we have to fight for our rights again and again?
Why is it so that we have to think a hundred times before making Marathi compulsory in Maharashtra? Isn't this the same state, which was found on the basis of the Marathi language?
Then why can't we protect our language in our own state?
Why is it so hard to accept Marathi, when you live in Maharashtra from years?
Why is it that, people who live in Maharashtra for more than 20 years can't speak in Marathi?
Please don't right any thing offensive.
This is just a discussion point.
Everything goes back to history. Regional (linguistic) Identity is a universal issue. It not bound to India alone. In India, when somebody talks about Regional Identity, he is called as a traitor. People say that he is creating a problem for Unity of the country. However, they do not understand that protecting our language does not mean hatred towards other languages. The Indian media (Hindi & English) is to be blamed for the false image of the Marathi cause. When somebody talks about Tamil, he protecting his culture but when somebody talks about Marathi, he is dividing the country.
Others are more possessive about Mumbai than the Marathi people themselves. They forget that we had to sacrifice 105 lives for gaining the state of Maharashtra with Mumbai as its capital city. The blood of 105 martyrs (Hutatma) lies in the soil of Mumbai which we cannot forget. I would compare their martyrdom with that of those who died in Jalianwalabaug Massacre. The only difference I see in it is that the ones who died in Jalianwalabaug were killed by foreigners but those who died in Mumbai, died at the hands of Our Own People. The irony of the situation is that, those who died at Hutatama Chowk are not even remembered by the Marathi people for whom the laid down their lives.
At the end I have just a few questions.
Why were peaceful demonstrators shot upon?
Why did the Indian government object to the formation of united Maharashtra with Mumbai as its capital city?
Why do we have to fight for our rights again and again?
Why is it so that we have to think a hundred times before making Marathi compulsory in Maharashtra? Isn't this the same state, which was found on the basis of the Marathi language?
Then why can't we protect our language in our own state?
Why is it so hard to accept Marathi, when you live in Maharashtra from years?
Why is it that, people who live in Maharashtra for more than 20 years can't speak in Marathi?
Please don't right any thing offensive.
This is just a discussion point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)