In contemporary society, as the one we are confronted with in Shillong today, a great deal of consideration, of tact and forbearance, of good natured respect for the rights of others, even for the claims of others, is quite widespread; even more, a certain benevolent instinctive estimation of human value in general, has found expression in truthfulness and credit of all kinds. Respect for everyone in society, from street hawkers to hookers, and not only to the virtuous ones, is perhaps what divides a democratic society from a theocratic or an oligarchic one.
It seems peculiar these days, with the solid belief in democracy and the rights of every individual that when we hear political dictates preached the preacher renders himself to a lower standing in the eyes of the people and an awkward, almost comical, stare is cast upon him for the simple reason that he dared to dictate. This liberality of defying dictates is one of the best signs of our age, and when we see it lacking, we immediately regard the situation as a sick one and with the rise of greater liberty the rise in defiance of set standards, defiance of elders, defiance of the law, defiance of the authorities, etc gains momentum. If anything can reconcile us to our age, it is the great amount of defiance it permits itself without thinking any the worse of itself.
On the contrary, what constitutes the growth of culture over “uncultured?”…One thing alone…the great amount of admitted defiance. From this it follows that the heights of human progress or to be more specific, the progress of any society is represented in taking risks – being defiant – even defying the people by using one’s position to corrupt so long as power and authority is assured in the process.
Society needs a little fresh air and in this pursuit the contenders make a challenge. As to how long this absurd situation will continue is anyone’s guess – it’s happening globally. Is there any idea what is behind this freedom to defy? What value lies ahead when everything points to an even greater breakdown in law and order?
Whatever kind of bizarre ideal one may follow, and as I see in the case of the attempted ideal of the imposition that everyone must learn to read, write, speak, and understand Hindi, is something one should not demand that it be the ideal, and that exactly is what is happening in many parts of India today: because in doing so one is taking away the desire, if there is any desire to be taken, from learning it – Hindi loses its privileged character if one is forced to learn it.
Take for example the situation here in Shillong; the local people speak Khasi and the non Khasis also speak a strange form of Khasi without having been taught Khasi or having it imposed upon them. What they display is that they want to learn the language. One should want to learn it in order to distinguish oneself or to simultaneously level oneself to that of others. Those that desire that Hindi should become the “official and the national” language should understand that people should first desire to learn it because desire only magnifies desire; and as long as it is not fulfilled the desire grows in the individual.
The more our desire for a thing grows, the more value we ascribe to it but the moment it is imposed its value is lost for the simple reason that the people suspect a sinister attempt to rid a culture that is inherently theirs. This being so, the government should do everything it can to avoid encouraging all too crude misunderstandings; and having done so build an edifice to encourage Hindi which would require working tirelessly until there is no longer any need of the edifice.
Everyone understands that knowing another language adds to knowledge and opens opportunities for business and development which is everyone’s ambition, I mean the ability to speak with others naturally improves one’s business prospects. The last thing that any sensible person would want is that it should be forced upon the people, whether they like it or not. With this episode in the Assembly on Monday (19th March 2023), there is no doubt that the imposition of Hindi in Meghalaya has received its greatest setback.
The very obscure and arbitrary idea that the people in India must accept and embrace the task to learn something that is foreign to them because of the belief that a larger portion of the population are moving towards speaking Hindi is still a very young idea and is yet to establish itself as a fixed idea and if attempts to force it on the people is adopted I believe there will be a complete boycott of it.
The fact is that the people of India are yet to develop themselves into a homogenous population like the British are. We have been and we still are an inextricable multiplicity of languages, dress, religions, culture processes, etc, certainly not like a human – a far more simple process, one that progresses from childhood to maturity followed by old age – that is not the case with a language.
The demand to make us similar in the way we speak and behave (which quite naively believes that speaking Hindi makes us Indian) is a hypocritical pretense because behind the pretense is a definite person, or a definite group that seek to attain domination: to be more precise, a quite definite instinct to create homogeneity when all along we have been inculcated to believe that our greatest strength as Indians, as a nation, is that we are united in our diversity – “Unity in Diversity.”
One should defend practical Indian unity from those who preach it – the truth is they are its worst enemies. They are the ones who believe that they alone can teach what virtue is and is not, that they are the ones who believe they have the scales by which everyone can be tested to determine the standard of virtue of the individual, whereas they are the ones who take from virtue the charm of rareness, inimitableness, exceptionality without which virtue and vice have no meaning.
Without diversity India, or any country for that matter, would lose its uniqueness and this is precisely what the protagonists of diversity are fighting to maintain. Unity in the language we speak would make society a petty mediocrity that knows nothing of the mighty motivation of an individual destined for strength and wisdom and leadership in the interest of the nation.
There is nothing evil or malicious in the entire process but when one is being compelled to listen, or learn, or when one is being tacitly forced to study a language that is foreign to him just because the majority speak that language humanity considers that as a racial infraction, a racist attitude, and racism is now universally condemned as anti humanity. If left to natural forces the Khasis would pick up the language of their neighbours – they have no alternative; it follows necessity for in knowing a language one is simply regenerating oneself in order to assimilate with others and thereby create a superabundance of opportunities for the self.
Hence we must make a benevolent distinction between the impulse to force and the impulse to willingly submit, and ask whether it is the “outsider” that wants to transform the spoken language of a place from what it is to another language or the “insider” who willingly tries, in short accepts it normally. The two processes actually arrive at the same destination, the only difference being that one resorts to force while in the other the people do so willingly.
Ask yourself who of the two is the more reasonable, more humane and more sensible approach, naturally the latter and that is where the entire matter should end, but human nature is such that in some bigoted individuals there is this pleasure in forcing others to comply instead. There are those that need to understand that life is not about arguing and quarreling with one another, we make errors because the conditions of life are such.
We cannot help but admit that the politics of language is a great threat to the culture of the people and though it has taught political skepticism very trenchantly and effectively to its detractors, yet its proponents persist untiringly, cunningly telling the individual that improvement and a betterment are available in relationships that can be cultivated beyond the confines of the society into which the individual was born even using unfair means to get politicians to discreetly implement their schemes.
Today, those engaging in politics, or to put it plainly, politicians believe they are superior because of the secret insights and oversights they believe is theirs alone and the common man tends to feel as embarrassed as a child talking before an old man when talking with them. It is high time that we the people became more conversant with politics and with politicians and develop the ability to describe them for what they truly are because very few politicians of the old faith are still around.
(The writer is a spokesperson of Meghalaya BJP)
