Politicians muddy the language waters

Politicians destroy and debase language more effectively than globalisers and imperialists can ever hope to do. This is an issue that linguists in the country have not dared to explore because they feel that it is the political struggle of each linguistic group that has helped to prop the language. It is a lie, which needs to be nailed. If anything, the linguistic fanatics who used language as a political weapon are the very people who debased it. For example, the many Dravidian parties — DK, DMK, AIADMK et al — have been a curse and a disaster for Tamil.

Excepting Tamil Nadu chief minister Karunanidhi, who is an acknowledged litterateur in his own right, all the others have tried to choke the language with mindless linguistic antiquarianism. They tried to purge the language of Sanskrit words. It is the kind of a blinkered movement witnessed in the English language, when some poets and writers wanted to write in English which did not have any Latin words and who tried to revive the long-dead Anglo-Saxon words and phrases. The other example of fanatics wanting to misappropriate a language is that of the Shiv Sena. Cultivated as well as simple Marathi speakers will not endorse the language used in the Sena mouthpiece, Saamna. Thankfully, creative writers in Marathi have been much too distinct and powerful to fall in line with the crass quality of the Marathi used by the political vendors. Compare this with the Dalit literature in Marathi. They minted the language afresh in the foundry of protest and creativity.

Politicians pretend to be lovers of their respective languages but their inarticulateness in it is embarrassing and depressing. It is no wonder then that Indian languages flourished without political patronage. Marathi again provides a good example. The foundations of Marathi language starting with the wondrous writings of Jnaneshwari in the 12th century was laid hundreds of years before Marathas became politically dominant during the 17th and 18th centuries marked by the rise of Shivaji followed by the rule of the Peshwas.

Similarly, the variants of Hindi in northern India were nourished by Kabir, Surdas, Tulsi and Mira and other saint-poets, far away from the Turkish courts and the official Persian used there.

India provides the classic example of a country where languages endorsed by political masters could not outlast languages of the people. Roughly, there have been three influential, dominant languages in India's history — Sanskrit, Persian and English corresponding to the so-called ancient, medieval and modern periods in the country.

While Sanskrit has almost become a comatose language in the last 200 years, it has managed to impact and influence other languages over the last two thousand years. To a lesser extent, Persian too has percolated most of the languages in the country though this has not been documented in detail. The same is true of English. At the present moment, it is the media including cinema, and not the politicians, who are keeping the languages alive in the face of globalisation. The TV entertainment channels in each language go to show that English is indeed the marginalised language.

It is then worth asking the question as to whether the linguistic re-organisation of states in the 1950s was such a great idea. Of course, cosmopolitan Nehru opposed it but for the wrong reasons. He thought that this would weaken the pan-Indian identity. Gandhi who had an ear to the ground most of the time thought that use of peoples' language was one way of empowering the weak, the poor and the majority politically. He should not have worried. People negotiate political power not necessarily through language alone. Indians, including Gandhi, fought and edged out the British through the English language. Politics is not needed to boost language. Politicians can only muddy the waters.