America was founded by the Europeans. When they came they brought not only the European languages but also the European religions and cultures. Thus Christianity as well as Englsih and all other European languages are brought from Europe which make the big Western culture now. Red Indian culture has been wiped out for all practical purposes. Thus it is irrelevant to say that English language and Christianity are foreign to America. Because these were there from day one of American modern history. In America it is the mother tongue of the huge majority population. It is true that in America both Christianity as well as the English language had undergone much change. It is often said that America and England are two countries separated by one language.
In case of India, it is a different ball game. The English people did not establish the Indian culture. A foreign language, English, was given to the Indians only about a hundred years ago. No Indians had any roots in English language. The British left but the Indians stuck to their language and many other English items (like Cricket, Democracy, our dress, educational institutions, civic laws etc). It is true that we are trying our best to Indianise the language so much so that it is often called Hindlish and not English. Even now there is a strong section of Indians who are opposed to Hindlish. (as well as the others). Even now English is considered a foreign language by a strong section of the Indian population. I would say in another hundred years probably Hindlish will penetrate more to the Indian culture. But I donot think it will ever go the Indian lower class; it will remain a middle class language of communication. It is probably now 20/30% Indians who speak Hindlish. May be in another hundred years, it will be 30/40% may be. But it will never be the mother tongue of any sizable section of Indians. The very fact that you, Ram and others feel offended when I point out, like a sizable section of Indians, that English is a foreign language goes to prove how much we Indians depend on Hindlish, how we Indians love Hindlish. Probably Ram and you are right. Probably, we can say of Hindlish, like the game of Cricket, is an Indian item. But we should be ready to admit that these are imported items given to us by the British. We should feel bad about it. In fact one great quality of us the Indians, unlike the Chinese, is the quality to absorb foreign things like sponge absorbs water. In the ancient times also, we absorbed many foreign elements, like idol worship, astrology etc. Rajen Barua ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <assam@assamnet.org> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:09 AM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajenda, going by your logic, English is a foreign language in US too which was brought in by Europeans. That unlike India Native languages have been killed in US is a different topic. >>>Opinions are never debatable! >>>Facts are. Thanks Barua ----- Original Message ----- From: Ram Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy >BTW I am not looking for an response on this from you. I think this is a waste of >time even to debate on this issue. It truely is a colossal waste. Just to let you know, I didn't say what I said just because I felt like it, there were very valid reasons, and your "foreign" comment only triggered it..... and nothing more. This is a hot topic in India today. If you are interested, you might want to look into the New York Times articles from yesterday (Sept. 28th) and also about Mulayam Singh Yadav and his comments. Anyway --- I have totally lost interest in the topic by now. Thanks --Ram On 9/28/07, Rajen & Ajanta Barua <barua25 at hotmail.com> wrote: Ram: If you insist to know my views: English is a foreign language in India because: 1) It is not rooted in India. 2) There is nothing Indian about it except the fact the middle class Indians use it to overcome the difficulty of their too many languages. 3) It was never a language in India during the last 5000 years of India's history except during the British colonial rule. 4) We even cannot say that we have been using this language for 100 years even by the middle class. 5) It can be compared only to Persian language which was also at one time imposed as a court language in India during the Moghol rules and which is dead in India now. 6) Even today, even after 100 years, it is spoken in India by only 1.5% of Indians (quoted from email net - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it-KC.) 7) Nobody in India, even the majority of middle class Indians like you, would consider English as an Indian language. and many more. Indians always need something 'foreign' to rule themselves: the Aryans, the Rajputs, the Afghans, the Moghuls, the British, and now the English language. BTW I am not looking for an response on this from you. I think this is a waste of time even to debate on this issue. Thanks Barua ----- Original Message ----- From: Ram Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy >We can start with a definition of the word 'foreign' looking at a dictionary Why look into a dictionary? I think most of us know what "foreign" and what "native" means? The dictionary is not going to tell me anything different. >and see if we can call 'English' a foreign language or a native language. You were the one who claimed it is a "foreign language". So, before we put this into a plebicite of sorts, I wanted to know why you call it "foreign". I said it is not a foreign language in India, and I gave netters a few reasons. There are many more. I hope you will provide us some reasons why you claim it is foreign. Once you are able to do that, we can go from there.:) --Ram On 9/28/07, Rajen & Ajanta Barua <barua25 at hotmail.com > wrote: We can start with a definition of the word 'foreign' looking at a dictionary and see if we can call 'English' a foreign language or a native language. Next we can take the opinions of the general Indian public in India whether general Indians think English language is foreign or not.. Those will be my two starting points. What do you say? Barua ----- Original Message ----- From: Ram Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Barua, I will let Alpana put forth her own defenses :), and just to make it clear this is not a husband-wife tag team ::) >Ram's weak defense as English not being a foregn language also falls >pathetically into the same catagory. Why do you think my defense is weak and can you cite a few reasons why English is foreign, and we will go from there. --Ram On 9/28/07, Rajen & Ajanta Barua <barua25 at hotmail.com > wrote: A/ What you are trying to say is this: "Although what you are saying seems to be true, but I am not going to acknowledge it as truth, because if I remember you said somthing in the past in some other context which I did not like. As such without checking your past words, I cannot acknowledge it as truth although it may be a truth." In Indian culture we have been taught to stand up for the truth irrespective of the speaker. You aeem to be doing just the opposite. It does not matter what I said in the past in some other context. A truth must acknolwedged as a truth. Otherwise we will be always walking on quick sands. Ram's weak defense as English not being a foregn language also falls pathetically into the same catagory. Barua ----- Original Message ----- From: Alpana B. Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy >Can people just stand for the truth without any qualm? Yes, they can. Absolutely! :) It is just that I remember your suggesting that something was a justified cause for Assam's asking for sovereignty, No? If you did, to remind you, it will take me some time to dig into the emails again to find the exact words though. In the mean time, please don't let that bot.her you. Thank you. - A. "In order to make spiritual progress you must be patient like a tree and humble like a blade of grass" - Lakshmana ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: barua25 at hotmail.com To: assam at assamnet.org Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:22:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy A/- Why do you think I have any qualm at all? I am just statiung the facts for people to acknowledge. In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to get into the elite. Now it is English. Is this a fact or not? Can people just stand for the truth without any qualm? Barua ----- Original Message ----- From: Alpana B. Sarangapani To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Hi Barua: I didn't quite understand. Your qualm is against which - Hindi, English, or India's being a united country. What do you suggest as a solution? All states should balkanize and use their regional language as the official language? Fine. What will be the official language for Assam then? Assamese or Bodo or any other language that are spoken in different parts of the state? Even for Assamese, would it be the upper-Assamese or the lower-Assamese version of it? Trust all is well with you all. Regards, -Alpana "In order to make spiritual progress you must be patient like a tree and humble like a blade of grass" - Lakshmana ------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:50:21 -0700 From: pseude at yahoo.com To: assam at assamnet.org Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy First you said - "to get into the elite, one must learn english". I gave you the example of Laloo. There are many others like him. Next you said - "indian unity is because of english". In India, more than 30% are native speakers of Hindi and a total of between 65 and 75% read, write and understand/speak the language. That includes many southern speakers as well . Compare that to English - less than 1.5% of the population actually have proficiency in it. English is there not because it is necessary to enforce unity but because it helps us get business and do business with most of the outside world. How you apply it is upto you. Remember I mentioned "business" and "admin". "Admin" doesnt necessarily mean government administration only. So how can I aggree with your conclusions?? Rgds, SD ----- Original Message ---- From: barua25 < barua25 at hotmail.com> To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world <assam at assamnet.org > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31:36 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy >now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Thanks for supporting my point. I was not referring to any demand to learn English but it is a situation demand in India to learn English today. In the ancient India, it was also a situational demand to learn Sanskrit to get into the elite. Now it is English. That was my point. So you should start by saying, 'I agree' instead. Thanks Barua ----- Original Message ----- From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I disaggee - Earlier it could have been a problem of compulsion but now it is a situational demand. With 14+ official languages, English is naturally the language of choice for business and admin. Also it depends if you really are insistent on defining "elite" in the manner you do. Taking the earlier example of Laloo - he is not exceptionally good with English but he is still in the elite class by virtue of being minister. His recent successes in reforming IR have now made him unofficial management consultant as well. Hope that makes sense. Rgds, Sandip ----- Original Message ---- From: barua25 < barua25 at hotmail.com> To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world <assam at assamnet.org > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:37:37 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy >I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However >after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. If the guy knows good English, it actually proves my original point that in India in ancient when one had to learn Sanskrit to be in the elite class, now one has to be good in English to be in the elite class. Barua ----- Original Message ----- From: SANDIP DUTTA To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rather than coming to conclusions about whether this attributes to dictatorship - why not involve someone from that state in this discussion to see if he concurs with this view. Ditto for IAS/IPS officers coming from vernacular mediums. Contrary to belief, such officers actually have very good (if not excellent) knowledge of English and at times local languages wherever they are posted. I myself know an IRS officer now posted in Coorg district of Karnataka. He is from UP and from a very lower middle class background. However after 15 years in the services, his english is as good as anyone else's and he has good working knowledge of Kannada. No wonder we see most of the demands for sovereignity and seperation from foreign settled people who have got disconnected with the way this country works (and still works). Rgds, Sandip ----- Original Message ---- From: barua25 < barua25 at hotmail.com> To: umesh.sh05 at post.harvard.edu; A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world < assam at assamnet.org> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:00:10 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy >a nexus prevents anyone from voting against the "party" or else face ex-communication a-la erstwhile Pope's rule in Europe in medieval times ->as per a Bengali researcher This is in fact what is called 'elected dictatorship' going on in West bengal in name of democracy. Rajenda ----- Original Message ----- From: umesh sharma To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy Rajen-da Good example of India-Shining rhetoric. But just becos there is peace (despite armed militancy in 25% of India's districts- NE, Kashmir, Bihar, Central India, LTTE South India etc etc) and not many are dying of starvation and voting not by reading election manifestos but by recognizing cartoons (election symbols) of political parties . Even democratically elected communist govt (an anamoly) of West Bengal is allegedly in power for past 25 years non-stop since a nexus prevents anyone from voting against the "party" or else face ex-communication a-la erstwhile Pope's rule in Europe in medieval times -as per a Bengali researcher But ofcourse noone can deny that despite is shortcomings the India that is Bharat is growing - despite spoofs like Hollywood's "Borat" movie (Bharat ??) from Kazakhstan (Rajasthan???) Umesh Rajen & Ajanta Barua <barua25 at hotmail.com> wrote: Following may be added from another review about the book: India is the country that was never expected to ever be a country. In the late 19th century, Sir John Strachey, a senior British official, grandly opined that the territory's diverse states simply could not possess any sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious. Strachey, clearly, was wrong: India today is a unified entity and a rising global power. Even so, it continues to defy explanation. India's existence, says Guha, an internationally known scholar ( Environmentalism: A Global History), has also been an anomaly for academic political science, according to whose axioms cultural heterogeneity and poverty do not make a nation, still less a democratic one. Yet India continues to exist. Guha's aim in this startlingly ambitious political, cultural and social survey is to explain why and how. He cheerfully concludes that India's continuing existence results from its unique diversity and its refusal to be pigeonholed into such conventional political models as Anglo-American liberalism, French republicanism, atheistic communism or Islamist theocracy. India is proudly sui generis, and with August 15, 2007, being the 60th anniversary of Indian independence, Guha's magisterial history of India since that day comes not a moment too soon. 32 pages of b&w illus., 8 maps. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rajen & Ajanta Barua To: assam at assamnet.org Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 10:42 PM Subject: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi Good review of a grand 900 page book on India recently published: India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy by Ramachandra Guha From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com Reviewed by George Perkovich A toast to India on its 60th birthday: No country has more heroically pursued the promise of democracy. Against the odds of staggering poverty, conflicting religious passions, linguistic pluralism, regional separatism, caste injustice and natural resource scarcity, Indians have lifted themselves largely by their own sandal straps to become a stalwart democracy and emerging global power. India has risen with epic drama -- a nonviolent struggle for independence followed by mass mayhem and bloodletting, dynastic succession and assassination, military victory and defeat, starvation succeeded by green revolution, political leaders as saints, sinners and sexual ascetics. And yet, the Indian story rarely has been told and is practically unknown to Americans. India After Gandhi masterfully fills the void. India needs a wise and judicious narrator to convey its scale, diversity and chaos -- to describe the whirlwind without getting lost in it. It needs a biographer neither besotted by love nor enraged by disappointment. Ramachandra Guha, a historian who has taught at Stanford and Yale and now lives in Bangalore, has given democratic India the rich, well-paced history it deserves. Much will be new to American readers. Large-scale conflicts in India's northeast between tribal groups and the center have been as enduring, and in some ways as important, as the more familiar violence in Kashmir. The framing of India's constitution from 1946 through 1949 should induce awe, especially in light of Iraq's post-Saddam experience. In the midst of Hindu-Muslim bloodshed, a flood of 8 million refugees, starvation, and other profound conflicts, Indian representatives worked out constitutional provisions to protect minorities, keep religion out of state power, correct thousands of years of caste discrimination and redistribute power and wealth accumulated by still-regnant princely states. This was done with no external guidance or pressure. The drafting committee was chaired by an "untouchable," B.R. Ambedkar -- analogies are inexact, but imagine if James Madison at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention had been a freed slave. Specialists will quicken over insights from the private papers of Indira Gandhi's confidant, P.N. Haksar, who gave his papers to Guha. These documents reveal, among other things, that it was the Soviet Union that proposed the 1971 treaty of cooperation and friendship between the two countries, and that suspicion of China motivated both nations more than was appreciated at the time. Miniature biographies of grassroots leaders and movements also enliven Guha's storytelling. Jay Aprakash Narayan -- "JP" -- plays a leading role. A onetime friend of Nehru who became the bĂȘte noir of his daughter, Indira Gandhi, JP led a massive movement for radical governmental reform in 1974-75, which moved Indira Gandhi to declare a national emergency and suspend democracy. Some themes go under-explored: For example, why has the Indian Army abstained from interfering in politics, unlike the military in many other developing countries? And why has India given short shrift to primary education, even as it has developed technological institutes that rival M.I.T? Many chapters begin or end with India's future in doubt. "India is almost infinitely depressing," Aldous Huxley wrote in 1961, "for there seems to be no solution to its problems in any way that any of us [in the West] regard as acceptable." He predicted that "when Nehru goes, the government will become a military dictatorship." Guha records that "ever since the country was formed there have also been many Indians who have seen the survival of India as being on the line, some (the patriots) speaking or writing in fear, others (the secessionists or revolutionaries) with anticipation." Yet, marvelously, India's survival as a democracy seems more assured than ever. Less clear is the nature of its relationship with America. Since 2005, the U.S. and Indian governments have moved toward nuclear cooperation, reversing 30 years of U.S. policy against nuclear assistance to countries that refuse to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Washington clearly views India as a counterbalance to China's strategic power. But Guha records an important historical parallel. In 1962, China crossed disputed boundaries in the northwest and northeast of India. A shocked Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru abandoned nonalignment and pleaded for emergency U.S. military assistance. Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith wrote to President Kennedy: "The only Asian country which really stands in [China's] way is India and pari passu the only Western country that is assuming responsibility is the United States. . . We should expect to make use of India's political position, geographical position, political power and manpower or anyhow ask." Four decades later, another Harvard professor-cum-American ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, championed the proposed nuclear deal with similar reasoning. As different as the presidents they served, Blackwill and Galbraith were tempted by strategic abstraction and a desire to raise "their" country -- India -- in American priorities. Yet supplying arms to India in 1962 did not make India any more deferential to U.S. foreign policy. Washington will delude itself again if it thinks that nuclear India will be a pliant instrument in its geostrategy. As long as India is a democracy, it will go its own way. To comprehend India's achievement, imagine if Mexico became the 51st of the United States, followed by Brazil, Argentina and the rest of Central and South America. Add Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to give this union the Sunni-Shia mix of India. The population then represented in Congress would still be smaller and less diverse linguistically, religiously, culturally and economically than India's. If such a state could democratically manage the interests and conflicts swirling within it, and not threaten its neighbors, the world should ask little else from it. If we were such a state, we would feel that our humane progress contributes so much to global well-being that smaller, richer, easier-to-manage states should not presume to tell us what to do. Sixty years after Gandhi, India has earned greater appreciation than we give it. _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam at assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam at assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org Umesh Sharma Washington D.C. 1-202-215-4328 [Cell] Ed.M. - International Education Policy Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Class of 2005 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org