|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
MESSAGE BOARD |
|
|
E-mail from readers the world over
'It appears more like a contest between two hip-shooters'
Date:
Sun, 01 Oct 2000, 22:48:55EST -0500 An interesting column. However, from my perspective, it appears more like a contest between two hip-shooters. I did read Rajeev's column and would say that the direct references where rather immature. I would agree with your statements on some of the errors he made in his columns (the ones you pointed out and more). However, with all the mudslinging, some of the more interesting questions he raised have been left unanswered. I wish Reeta Sinha had added one more characteristic to the present Hindi (spoken/written). Unlike the `purer' one, which was more or less a spoken/written version of Sanskrit, the current one is an adaptive language. It has been absorbing aspects from other languages so that it endures in the long run. There is some truth in what Rajeev had written, about the fudging of history by the socialists. To an extent, our past defines the path of our future. That doesn't necessarily mean we should live in the past but rather, we must understand the true genesis of modern India. Venkatesh
Date:
Sun, 01 Oct 2000, 21:55:57EST I agree with what Rajeev Srinivasan has to say. I am not a South Indian and am from Bombay. Although I agree with Reeta Sinha when she says that it is wrong to hate someone who belongs to a different culture and speaks a different language, I find it perfectly okay that an Indian should choose not to converse in Hindi, but in Tamil, or in any other regional langauage, for that matter. The problem is with the myth that Hindi has truly been the national language historically. It is as regional as Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Marathi, Gujarati etc. If people of Tamil Nadu are blamed for being resentful of Hindi, why not blame the people of UP and Bihar of being ignorant of the other regional languages? After all, how many people in the Hindi belt can even enlist all the four South Indian languages? This is not a North-South problem, as may be readily perceived, but more a problem that has to do with regional identity and applies to other states like Gujarat, Maharashtra and Bengal as well. I also agree with the point made that a large chunk of Hindi vocabulary in the Hindi belt up north is composed of Arabic or Persian words, with which it is difficult for an average Hindu to relate. (Just as a Muslim may have problems relating to the chaste, Sanskritised Hindi spoken in the Mahabharata). This is natural and must be taken in one's stride. The fact remains that Sanskrit and Tamil are where most of our linguistic heritage comes from. Ignoring this ammounts to ignoring the commonality our regional languages share. And striving hard to impose Hindi, which is basically is a regional confluence of Persian and Sanskrit, is trying to ignore linguistic pluralism. Pravin Mehta
Date:
Thu, 28 Sep 2000, 12:05:43EST It felt good to go through Reeta Sinha's article. It was a welcome breeze of fresh air that soothened the mind after the shallow, superficial, hate-filled smog of Rajeev Srinivasan's piece. Someone who knows so little about the topic in hand and is only hateful and xenophobic about Hindi/Hindustani/Urdu is not qualified to write about languages. Urdu is bad because it came from Arabic? What kind of logic is that? Kirti
Date:
Thu, 28 Sep 2000, 15:08:49EST +0530 I think Reeta Sinha simply did not understand most of the things Rajeev said. There were a couple of bloomers in what Rajeev wrote, but otherwise it was a fairly logical and cohesive article. The rest of the column (except what she wrote about Rajeev's ignorance about Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani etc) does not make any sense at all. And by the way, Swahili is a language/dialect. Not 'rot'. Ananthram Kota
Date:
Thu, 28 Sep 2000, 02:20:54EST -0500 I am afraid I have to disagree with Sinha. The bottom line is that India is a free country and people have the liberty to talk in whatever language they like. And all of us would prefer it if the central government did not impose any single language on us. Srini
Date:
Wed, 27 Sep 2000, 23:09:30EST -0500 I don't see any difference between Sinha and RS (as she calls him). Language is a medium of communication. Period. I simply don't understand why such a big issue is being made of it. Ganesh
Date:
Wed, 27 Sep 2000, 17:18:41EST -0700 The lady is confused. She doesn't understand where Rajeev comes from. Hers is a typical lefty reaction in accusing somebody of hate when all that person is trying to do is promote excellence. Promotion of Hindustani-Urdu-Hindi as a national link language was the idea of Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress party before Independence when the ideologues and policymakers were trying to promote better co-operation with the very large Muslim population of undivided India. But India today doesn't have to worry about most of those people as they are not Indians anymore. Most of them are India haters, actually. What India needs to worry about today is better communication between the South and the North. And Sanskrit is the only language that can play that role. And as far as I could understand, that was the point Rajeev was trying to make. Pradip Parekh
Date:
Wed, 27 Sep 2000, 19:27:48EST Reeta Sinha's article as a counter argument to another columnist was very interesting. I do not disagree with Reeta's arguments. She, however, mostly responded only to the words and the language used by the other columnist, and failed to respond well to the inherent critical issues raised by the column. She sounded like she was getting carried away with equal passion of opposing anything that is, rightfully or wrongfully, critical to Muslims. Like the communist socialists ruling politicians of yesteryears, she puts the blame on the affluent class that includes NRIs. Her opponent has however, rightfully brought out the following very important aspects of the language issue: 1. The earlier governments had, for selfish reasons, exploited the language issue. This has kept India divided. There should be some corrective measure in this regard. 2. There is strong resistance in South India against Hindi being the only important language for India. 3. South Indians rightfully want India to pay some respect to their literature. 4. It will be good for India to ensure that Urdu does not get any special attention, so that India can pay attention to her native languages. Urdu can only be considered as a competitor to the English language. 5. Sanskrit is a good candidate for becoming a respectful language for South and North India. Dahya Patel
Date:
Wed, 27 Sep 2000, 16:16:24EST I am in complete agreement with Reeta. Though I am originally from the South, I have lived in Bombay for a long time and am very much a Bombayite. I now live in the US. Living in the US, it is very easy for people to choose what they want and RS seems to be doing just that. He says: "After the introduction of English into Madras University, the imperialists then decided to use it -- alas, with less success -- in Ireland and other colonies too." I have lived in Ireland and it is quite the contrary to what he says. The official language of communication in Ireland is English, though every local can speak in Gaelic. RS even forgets that he writes in English too. So what is wrong with English? Most countries where English is not the official language of the country will lose out in the globalisation process. A recent article states that France is having trouble attracting global IT professionals. Why? For obvious reasons. In Part I RS states various reasons why Hindi should not be the national language. One being: "It is not a useful link language with anybody other than Nepal and Pakistan; in India, at least half the population doesn't know Hindi as its primary language." Then in Part II he states that Sanskrit should be declared the national language. But I can give the same argument that 99 per cent of Indians don't know Sanskrit and it is a dead language. Those who do know it have only an academic knowledge of Sanskrit. He does make one good point, make English the national language. But that will not be acceptable to most North Indians. So the stalemate will continue and people like RS can spread hatred among Indians on the basis of language. Nagaraj Prabhu
Date:
Wed, 27 Sep 2000, 10:33:01EST -0700 Reeta Sinha does not elaborate the differences between Hindi, Hindustani and Urdu to an average South Indian like me who knows that the average North Indian has nothing but contempt for people from the South and brands all Southerners as `Madrasis'. What Rajiv speaks about Hindi/Tamil tyranny is true and Reeta doesn't as much as ponder what it might mean to a South Indian with a rich literature/tradition/culture behind him to be tow towing with Biharis and bhaiyyas and trying to pretend that he is in the same league. Please let us know how much of literature you have to show for Hindi other than Tulsidas! Srinivas Murthy
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
MONEY |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL SINGLES | NEWSLINKS | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL BOOKINGS AIR/RAIL | WEATHER | MILLENNIUM | BROADBAND | E-CARDS | EDUCATION HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | CONTESTS | FEEDBACK |
||