>India is united just because of English is an absurd logic.
*** It would be absurd only to those who are unable to deal with reality. Had it not been for the British colonial enterprise, there would NOT be any India. And Indians today would not be able to communicate with each other without English, and thus pretend it is a nation. >India is united Heh-heh!!!! At 6:30 PM -0700 9/29/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty wrote: >Rajenda, > What you mean is had Indians been anihilated by >British then English could have been considered as a >Native Language for India ! > >I have no qualms if you consider English as a >foreign/Indian language whatsover but to say that > > just because of English is an absurd >logic. >As far as absorption goes, in current world it is a >universal phenomenon ... even Chinese are now learning >English bigtime. > > >> 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 >> > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >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
