Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
Good try, C'da. Now I forgot what was the original point for this discussion.
>ut what does that all mean? I mean Tamils taking to Hindi by the droves ( as
>you and Sandip and Krishnendu imply)? That the subcontinent will go Hindi
>pretty soon, and it will be good >or them, bound together by the Hindu gods
>and Hindi?
You also said:
>>"*** And to extend the logic, will one have to learn Hindi to get ahead in
>>India pretty soon, unless it is already so?"
Yes, as you suggested, it helps them to get ahead - makes it easier for them to
learn to co-exist and to live a civilized life.
“In order to make spiritual progress you must be patient like a tree and humble
like a blade of grass”
- Lakshmana
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:11:12 -0500To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
>Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion of USA to that too.
*** I am glad to A. In fact Hollywood too has gotten into the act, as you saw
in You Tube the other day ; Sanjay Gere and Sari Sarandon's classy performance
:-). The other day a Nigerian Taxicab driver went on an about how much he
loves Hindi movies. Of course I felt sorry for the poor fellow.
> But that is the fact.
But what does that all mean? I mean Tamils taking to Hindi by the droves ( as
you and Sandip and Krishnendu imply)? That the subcontinent will go Hindi
pretty soon, and it will be good for them, bound together by the Hindu gods
and Hindi?
A few of my relatives speak Hindi too. Better than me anyway. Does it mean they
have turned Hindustani ? Lot of Oxomiya Bongalis also speak Oxomiya quite well
and does that mean they have turned Kharkhowa? Arunachalis near the Assam
borders no longer speak any Oxomiya, only Hindi. Does it mean they are now
true Hindians?
At 10:01 AM -0500 9/30/07, Alpana B. Sarangapani wrote:
Hi C'da:
Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion of USA to that too. As opposed
to your cynical comment as ever on the topic, I also do not think that Hindi
would be the 2nd language in these contries. But that is the fact. In fact, i
hear several 'phoren' movies in 'Aamerika' now have music from Hindi movies on
the background.But I do think Spanish would be. In Chennai etc., many of our
Tamil relatives - nephews and nieces (even old aunts and uncles) speak fluent
Hindi - English is a must for college educated people there, of course. But I
get the feeling that Hindi is not only convenient if they go for training etc.
into the north, but also is considered "elite". Regards,- Alpana.
"In order to make spiritual progress you must be patient like a tree and humble
like a blade of grass"
- Lakshmana
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:44:13 -0500To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary.ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass
dl, .ExternalClass ul, .ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li
{padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
Hindi movies are very popular in Abu Dhabi, Egypt and Albania too.
Putting two and two together, like the desi knowledge brigade so clearly
project, we can fairly assume that pretty soon the whole world will change
over to Hindi.
At 3:55 AM -0700 9/30/07, SANDIP DUTTA wrote:
Hindi movies are equally popular in Karnataka and Andhra. In TN also the
situation is changing. I have two-three tamil colleaugues who speak pretty good
Hindi though they never stepped out of TN before getting a job. They say they
learnt voluntarily from Hindi Pracharak Samitis.
Rgds,
Sandip
- Original Message From: biswajeet saikia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: A
Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:59:15 PMSubject: Re:
[Assam] Indian Political BoundaryI hope when people discuss such types of
things, it is better to verify various linguistic survey where district wise
data has given. We need need to imagin anything for argument.Dilip/Dil Deka
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a federalistic system, the state decides how it wants to run its business --
right?
In a few years states like Texas, Florida and Arizona will see Hispanic
population as the majority, with Spanish used as the other language for running
official business definitely, and may be other businesses too if they turn out
to be import/export only. If the majority in a state decides to use Spanish for
its business, won't the citizens of that state need Spanish to get ahead?
In India, Hindi is spoken by more and more Indians. When I lived in India it
was rare to find a person in the South speaking Hindi. When I interact with
Indians working with us on global projects, I find even Indians from the South
speak fluent Hindi. Where they learnt I don't know and I don't know if they
were forced to learn.
DilipChan Mahanta &
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
I am NOT concerned about whether the movies are popular in the below mentioned regions. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 8:14:13 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Hindi movies are very popular in Abu Dhabi, Egypt and Albania too. Putting two and two together, like the desi knowledge brigade so clearly project, we can fairly assume that pretty soon the whole world will change over to Hindi. At 3:55 AM -0700 9/30/07, SANDIP DUTTA wrote: Hindi movies are equally popular in Karnataka and Andhra. In TN also the situation is changing. I have two-three tamil colleaugues who speak pretty good Hindi though they never stepped out of TN before getting a job. They say they learnt voluntarily from Hindi Pracharak Samitis. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: biswajeet saikia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:59:15 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary I hope when people discuss such types of things, it is better to verify various linguistic survey where district wise data has given. We need need to imagin anything for argument. Dilip/Dil Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In a federalistic system, the state decides how it wants to run its business -- right? In a few years states like Texas, Florida and Arizona will see Hispanic population as the majority, with Spanish used as the other language for running official business definitely, and may be other businesses too if they turn out to be import/export only. If the majority in a state decides to use Spanish for its business, won't the citizens of that state need Spanish to get ahead? In India, Hindi is spoken by more and more Indians. When I lived in India it was rare to find a person in the South speaking Hindi. When I interact with Indians working with us on global projects, I find even Indians from the South speak fluent Hindi. Where they learnt I don't know and I don't know if they were forced to learn. Dilip Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. *** Does that mean that unless an American learns Spanish, she might not be able to get ahead when that time arrives? *** And to extend the logic, will one have to learn Hindi to get ahead in India pretty soon, unless it is already so? At 12:39 PM -0700 9/28/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote: If you leave out the Hispanics, you can say it is one language in USA. As we all know, USA will have to face the issue of two rival languages very soon. Also USA does not have an official language. The reign of English as the language is due to the fact that all immigrants had to learn the language to get ahead. It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. Dilip barua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is all one mother tongue, one language here. Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" To: Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajen-da >>First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Applying this logic, even US should be termed as a country that was never expected to ever be a country. Apart from European colonization the wars, grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniards continued till late 19th century (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers). Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia). >>>>> First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. * The map I see in wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) shows that almost entire south barring present TN and Kerala was under Mauryas. Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had a very close tie with rest of India ... reference Mahabharat. Culturally too, think about Krishna -- Kalika Purana mentions that the last of the Naraka-bhauma rulers, Narak, was slained by Krishna. As for never being ruled by any Indian King, the argument is same as I mentioned for US or Canada or many other countries. >>>>>> The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. * This is a very new argument ... never
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
FYI this from the GOI website India, also known as Bharat, is a Union of States. It is a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic with a parliamentary system of government. The Republic is governed in terms of the Constitution of India which was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26th November 1949 and came into force on 26 th January 1950. --Ram da On 9/30/07, Ram Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, KC, I have heard "Hindustan" referred many a time, but have always > thought that "Bharat" was the official version. > > Forgive my ignorance, but who is Iqbal, a poet?. I think Khayyam also > referred India as "Hindustan". > But that is OK, and I don't see a problem when individuals, poets and > authors use it. But countries should use the officially given name - which I > think is Bharat or India (in English). > > --Ram da > > > On 9/30/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ram-da > > -- Sare jahan se achha , Hindustan Hamara was > > written by Iqbal ... a Muslim. > > > > > > >>Just a tiny interjection: > > > > >They are already Hindustani irrespective of how good > > hindi they speak .. > > >>I always thought India is known as Bharat. Only > > Pakis refer to India a > > "Hindustan". I think that way, they want to emphasize > > that India is > > controlled ONLY by Hindus. > > But, as we all know India is controlled by people of > > all religions. > > > > --Ram > > > > > > > > On 9/30/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty > yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>> it will be good for > > > them, bound together by the Hindu gods and Hindi? > > > > > > *** Heh-heh looks like you are moving too fast. > > Hindi > > > is a Language , Hindu is a Religion they way > > you > > > were born to a Hindu Family (you mentioned in a > > > posting) but do not speak Hindi. BTW, Krishna, > > > Kamakhya (considered a part of Sati), Shiva > > > (Bashistha, Umananda) are all Hindu Gods. > > > > > > >>>A few of my relatives speak Hindi too. Better > > > than me anyway. Does it mean they have turned > > > Hindustani ? > > > > > > They are already Hindustani irrespective of how > > > good hindi they speak ... since they are Indian > > > (citizens of Hindustan)... however same is naturally > > > not aplicable to you even if you master Hindi. > > > And BTW, why did your reelatives learn Hindi .. > > > someone did not force I guess > > > > > > > > > > > > >Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion of > > USA > > > to that too. > > > > > > >>> > > > >>>*** I am glad to A. In fact Hollywood too has > > > gotten into the act, as you saw in You Tube the > > > other day ; Sanjay Gere and Sari Sarandon's > > > classy performance :-). The other day a Nigerian > > > Taxicab driver went on an about how much he > > > loves Hindi movies. Of course I felt sorry for > > > the poor fellow. > > > > > > > But that is the fact. > > > > > > >>>But what does that all mean? I mean Tamils > > > taking to Hindi by the droves ( as you and Sandip > > > and Krishnendu imply)? That the subcontinent will > > > go Hindi pretty soon, and it will be good for > > > them, bound together by the Hindu gods and Hindi? > > > > > > >>>A few of my relatives speak Hindi too. Better > > > than me anyway. Does it mean they have turned > > > Hindustani ? Lot of Oxomiya Bongalis also speak > > > Oxomiya quite well and does that mean they have > > > turned Kharkhowa? Arunachalis near the Assam > > > borders no longer speak any Oxomiya, only Hindi. > > > Does it mean they are now true Hindians? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:01 AM -0500 9/30/07, Alpana B. Sarangapani > > > wrote: > > > >Hi C'da: > > > > > > > >Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion > > > >of USA to that too. As opposed to your cynical > > > >comment as ever on the topic, I also do not > > > >think that Hindi would be the 2nd language in > > > >these contries. But that is the fact. In fact, i > > > >hear s
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
Well, KC, I have heard "Hindustan" referred many a time, but have always thought that "Bharat" was the official version. Forgive my ignorance, but who is Iqbal, a poet?. I think Khayyam also referred India as "Hindustan". But that is OK, and I don't see a problem when individuals, poets and authors use it. But countries should use the officially given name - which I think is Bharat or India (in English). --Ram da On 9/30/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ram-da > -- Sare jahan se achha , Hindustan Hamara was > written by Iqbal ... a Muslim. > > > >>Just a tiny interjection: > > >They are already Hindustani irrespective of how good > hindi they speak .. > >>I always thought India is known as Bharat. Only > Pakis refer to India a > "Hindustan". I think that way, they want to emphasize > that India is > controlled ONLY by Hindus. > But, as we all know India is controlled by people of > all religions. > > --Ram > > > > On 9/30/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >>> it will be good for > > them, bound together by the Hindu gods and Hindi? > > > > *** Heh-heh looks like you are moving too fast. > Hindi > > is a Language , Hindu is a Religion they way > you > > were born to a Hindu Family (you mentioned in a > > posting) but do not speak Hindi. BTW, Krishna, > > Kamakhya (considered a part of Sati), Shiva > > (Bashistha, Umananda) are all Hindu Gods. > > > > >>>A few of my relatives speak Hindi too. Better > > than me anyway. Does it mean they have turned > > Hindustani ? > > > > They are already Hindustani irrespective of how > > good hindi they speak ... since they are Indian > > (citizens of Hindustan)... however same is naturally > > not aplicable to you even if you master Hindi. > > And BTW, why did your reelatives learn Hindi .. > > someone did not force I guess > > > > > > > > >Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion of > USA > > to that too. > > > > >>> > > >>>*** I am glad to A. In fact Hollywood too has > > gotten into the act, as you saw in You Tube the > > other day ; Sanjay Gere and Sari Sarandon's > > classy performance :-). The other day a Nigerian > > Taxicab driver went on an about how much he > > loves Hindi movies. Of course I felt sorry for > > the poor fellow. > > > > > But that is the fact. > > > > >>>But what does that all mean? I mean Tamils > > taking to Hindi by the droves ( as you and Sandip > > and Krishnendu imply)? That the subcontinent will > > go Hindi pretty soon, and it will be good for > > them, bound together by the Hindu gods and Hindi? > > > > >>>A few of my relatives speak Hindi too. Better > > than me anyway. Does it mean they have turned > > Hindustani ? Lot of Oxomiya Bongalis also speak > > Oxomiya quite well and does that mean they have > > turned Kharkhowa? Arunachalis near the Assam > > borders no longer speak any Oxomiya, only Hindi. > > Does it mean they are now true Hindians? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:01 AM -0500 9/30/07, Alpana B. Sarangapani > > wrote: > > >Hi C'da: > > > > > >Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion > > >of USA to that too. As opposed to your cynical > > >comment as ever on the topic, I also do not > > >think that Hindi would be the 2nd language in > > >these contries. But that is the fact. In fact, i > > >hear several 'phoren' movies in 'Aamerika' now > > >have music from Hindi movies on the background. > > >But I do think Spanish would be. > > > > > >In Chennai etc., many of our Tamil relatives - > > >nephews and nieces (even old aunts and > > >uncles) speak fluent Hindi - English is a must > > >for college educated people there, of course. > > >But I get the feeling that Hindi is not only > > >convenient if they go for training etc. into the > > >north, but also is considered "elite". > > > > > >Regards, > > >- Alpana. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"In order to make spiritual progress you must be > > >patient like a tree and humble like a blade of > > >grass" > > > > >
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
Just a tiny interjection:
>They are already Hindustani irrespective of how good hindi they speak ..
I always thought India is known as Bharat. Only Pakis refer to India a
"Hindustan". I think that way, they want to emphasize that India is
controlled ONLY by Hindus.
But, as we all know India is controlled by people of all religions.
--Ram
On 9/30/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> it will be good for
> them, bound together by the Hindu gods and Hindi?
>
> *** Heh-heh looks like you are moving too fast. Hindi
> is a Language , Hindu is a Religion they way you
> were born to a Hindu Family (you mentioned in a
> posting) but do not speak Hindi. BTW, Krishna,
> Kamakhya (considered a part of Sati), Shiva
> (Bashistha, Umananda) are all Hindu Gods.
>
> >>>A few of my relatives speak Hindi too. Better
> than me anyway. Does it mean they have turned
> Hindustani ?
>
> They are already Hindustani irrespective of how
> good hindi they speak ... since they are Indian
> (citizens of Hindustan)... however same is naturally
> not aplicable to you even if you master Hindi.
> And BTW, why did your reelatives learn Hindi ..
> someone did not force I guess
>
>
>
> >Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion of USA
> to that too.
>
> >>>
> >>>*** I am glad to A. In fact Hollywood too has
> gotten into the act, as you saw in You Tube the
> other day ; Sanjay Gere and Sari Sarandon's
> classy performance :-). The other day a Nigerian
> Taxicab driver went on an about how much he
> loves Hindi movies. Of course I felt sorry for
> the poor fellow.
>
> > But that is the fact.
>
> >>>But what does that all mean? I mean Tamils
> taking to Hindi by the droves ( as you and Sandip
> and Krishnendu imply)? That the subcontinent will
> go Hindi pretty soon, and it will be good for
> them, bound together by the Hindu gods and Hindi?
>
> >>>A few of my relatives speak Hindi too. Better
> than me anyway. Does it mean they have turned
> Hindustani ? Lot of Oxomiya Bongalis also speak
> Oxomiya quite well and does that mean they have
> turned Kharkhowa? Arunachalis near the Assam
> borders no longer speak any Oxomiya, only Hindi.
> Does it mean they are now true Hindians?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 10:01 AM -0500 9/30/07, Alpana B. Sarangapani
> wrote:
> >Hi C'da:
> >
> >Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion
> >of USA to that too. As opposed to your cynical
> >comment as ever on the topic, I also do not
> >think that Hindi would be the 2nd language in
> >these contries. But that is the fact. In fact, i
> >hear several 'phoren' movies in 'Aamerika' now
> >have music from Hindi movies on the background.
> >But I do think Spanish would be.
> >
> >In Chennai etc., many of our Tamil relatives -
> >nephews and nieces (even old aunts and
> >uncles) speak fluent Hindi - English is a must
> >for college educated people there, of course.
> >But I get the feeling that Hindi is not only
> >convenient if they go for training etc. into the
> >north, but also is considered "elite".
> >
> >Regards,
> >- Alpana.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"In order to make spiritual progress you must be
> >patient like a tree and humble like a blade of
> >grass"
> >
> >- Lakshmana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:44:13 -0500
> >To: assam at assamnet.org
> >From: cmahanta at charter.net
> >Subject: Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
> >
> >.ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl,
> >.ExternalClass ul, .ExternalClass ol,
> >.ExternalClass li
> >{padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
> >
> >Hindi movies are very popular in Abu Dhabi, Egypt and
> Albania too.
> >
> >Putting two and two together, like the desi
> >knowledge brigade so clearly project, we can
> >fairly assume that pretty soon the whole world
> >will change over to Hindi.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >At 3:55 AM -0700 9/30/07, SANDIP DUTTA wrote:
> >
> >Hindi movies are equally popular in Karnataka
> >and Andhra. In TN also the situation is
> >changing. I have two-three tamil colleaugues who
> >speak pretty good Hindi though they never
> >stepped out of TN before getting a job. They say
> >they learnt voluntarily from Hindi Pracharak
&g
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion of USA to that too.
*** I am glad to A. In fact Hollywood too has
gotten into the act, as you saw in You Tube the
other day ; Sanjay Gere and Sari Sarandon's
classy performance :-). The other day a Nigerian
Taxicab driver went on an about how much he
loves Hindi movies. Of course I felt sorry for
the poor fellow.
But that is the fact.
But what does that all mean? I mean Tamils
taking to Hindi by the droves ( as you and Sandip
and Krishnendu imply)? That the subcontinent will
go Hindi pretty soon, and it will be good for
them, bound together by the Hindu gods and Hindi?
A few of my relatives speak Hindi too. Better
than me anyway. Does it mean they have turned
Hindustani ? Lot of Oxomiya Bongalis also speak
Oxomiya quite well and does that mean they have
turned Kharkhowa? Arunachalis near the Assam
borders no longer speak any Oxomiya, only Hindi.
Does it mean they are now true Hindians?
At 10:01 AM -0500 9/30/07, Alpana B. Sarangapani wrote:
Hi C'da:
Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion
of USA to that too. As opposed to your cynical
comment as ever on the topic, I also do not
think that Hindi would be the 2nd language in
these contries. But that is the fact. In fact, i
hear several 'phoren' movies in 'Aamerika' now
have music from Hindi movies on the background.
But I do think Spanish would be.
In Chennai etc., many of our Tamil relatives -
nephews and nieces (even old aunts and
uncles) speak fluent Hindi - English is a must
for college educated people there, of course.
But I get the feeling that Hindi is not only
convenient if they go for training etc. into the
north, but also is considered "elite".
Regards,
- Alpana.
"In order to make spiritual progress you must be
patient like a tree and humble like a blade of
grass"
- Lakshmana
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:44:13 -0500
To: assam@assamnet.org
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
.ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl,
.ExternalClass ul, .ExternalClass ol,
.ExternalClass li
{padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
Hindi movies are very popular in Abu Dhabi, Egypt and Albania too.
Putting two and two together, like the desi
knowledge brigade so clearly project, we can
fairly assume that pretty soon the whole world
will change over to Hindi.
At 3:55 AM -0700 9/30/07, SANDIP DUTTA wrote:
Hindi movies are equally popular in Karnataka
and Andhra. In TN also the situation is
changing. I have two-three tamil colleaugues who
speak pretty good Hindi though they never
stepped out of TN before getting a job. They say
they learnt voluntarily from Hindi Pracharak
Samitis.
Rgds,
Sandip
- Original Message
From: biswajeet saikia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: A Mailing list for people interested in
Assam from around the world
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:59:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
I hope when people discuss such types of things,
it is better to verify various linguistic
survey where district wise data has given. We
need need to imagin anything for argument.
Dilip/Dil Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a federalistic system, the state decides how
it wants to run its business -- right?
In a few years states like Texas, Florida and
Arizona will see Hispanic population as the
majority, with Spanish used as the other
language for running official business
definitely, and may be other businesses too if
they turn out to be import/export only. If the
majority in a state decides to use Spanish for
its business, won't the citizens of that state
need Spanish to get ahead?
In India, Hindi is spoken by more and more
Indians. When I lived in India it was rare to
find a person in the South speaking Hindi. When
I interact with Indians working with us on
global projects, I find even Indians from the
South speak fluent Hindi. Where they learnt I
don't know and I don't know if they were forced
to learn.
Dilip
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen.
*** Does that mean that unless an American
learns Spanish, she might not be able to get
ahead when that time arrives?
*** And to extend the logic, will one have to
learn Hindi to get ahead in India pretty soon,
unless it is already so?
At 12:39 PM -0700 9/28/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
If you leave out the Hispanics, you can say it
is one language in USA. As we all know, USA will
have to face the issue of two rival languages
very soon.
Also USA does not have an official language. The
reign of English as the language is due to the
fact that all immigrants had to learn the
language to get ahead. It is slowly changing and
clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen.
Dilip
barua2
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
Hi C'da: Add Russia, China, UK, Canada and some portion of USA to that too. As opposed to your cynical comment as ever on the topic, I also do not think that Hindi would be the 2nd language in these contries. But that is the fact. In fact, i hear several 'phoren' movies in 'Aamerika' now have music from Hindi movies on the background. But I do think Spanish would be. In Chennai etc., many of our Tamil relatives - nephews and nieces (even old aunts and uncles) speak fluent Hindi - English is a must for college educated people there, of course. But I get the feeling that Hindi is not only convenient if they go for training etc. into the north, but also is considered "elite". Regards, - Alpana. “In order to make spiritual progress you must be patient like a tree and humble like a blade of grass” - Lakshmana Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:44:13 -0500To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Hindi movies are very popular in Abu Dhabi, Egypt and Albania too. Putting two and two together, like the desi knowledge brigade so clearly project, we can fairly assume that pretty soon the whole world will change over to Hindi. At 3:55 AM -0700 9/30/07, SANDIP DUTTA wrote: Hindi movies are equally popular in Karnataka and Andhra. In TN also the situation is changing. I have two-three tamil colleaugues who speak pretty good Hindi though they never stepped out of TN before getting a job. They say they learnt voluntarily from Hindi Pracharak Samitis. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: biswajeet saikia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:59:15 PMSubject: Re: [Assam] Indian Political BoundaryI hope when people discuss such types of things, it is better to verify various linguistic survey where district wise data has given. We need need to imagin anything for argument.Dilip/Dil Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In a federalistic system, the state decides how it wants to run its business -- right? In a few years states like Texas, Florida and Arizona will see Hispanic population as the majority, with Spanish used as the other language for running official business definitely, and may be other businesses too if they turn out to be import/export only. If the majority in a state decides to use Spanish for its business, won't the citizens of that state need Spanish to get ahead? In India, Hindi is spoken by more and more Indians. When I lived in India it was rare to find a person in the South speaking Hindi. When I interact with Indians working with us on global projects, I find even Indians from the South speak fluent Hindi. Where they learnt I don't know and I don't know if they were forced to learn. DilipChan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. *** Does that mean that unless an American learns Spanish, she might not be able to get ahead when that time arrives? *** And to extend the logic, will one have to learn Hindi to get ahead in India pretty soon, unless it is already so? At 12:39 PM -0700 9/28/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote: If you leave out the Hispanics, you can say it is one language in USA. As we all know, USA will have to face the issue of two rival languages very soon. Also USA does not have an official language. The reign of English as the language is due to the fact that all immigrants had to learn the language to get ahead. It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. Dilipbarua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is all one mother tongue, one language here.Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English.Barua- Original Message -From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty"To:Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AMSubject: [Assam] Indian Political BoundaryRajen-da>>First India was never such a big united country asit is now. Applying this logic, even US should be termed asa country that was never expected to ever be acountry. Apart from European colonization the wars,grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniardscontinued till late 19th century (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers).Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia).>>>>> First India was never such a big united countryas it is now.Even during the British Raj, there were many manyindependepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsentIndia is.Second, the South was never under any Indian kingsexcept to some extent under the Moghols.* The map I see in wiki(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) showsthat almost entire south barring present TN and Keralawas under Mauryas. Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had avery close ti
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
Hindi movies are very popular in Abu Dhabi, Egypt and Albania too. Putting two and two together, like the desi knowledge brigade so clearly project, we can fairly assume that pretty soon the whole world will change over to Hindi. At 3:55 AM -0700 9/30/07, SANDIP DUTTA wrote: Hindi movies are equally popular in Karnataka and Andhra. In TN also the situation is changing. I have two-three tamil colleaugues who speak pretty good Hindi though they never stepped out of TN before getting a job. They say they learnt voluntarily from Hindi Pracharak Samitis. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: biswajeet saikia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:59:15 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary I hope when people discuss such types of things, it is better to verify various linguistic survey where district wise data has given. We need need to imagin anything for argument. Dilip/Dil Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In a federalistic system, the state decides how it wants to run its business -- right? In a few years states like Texas, Florida and Arizona will see Hispanic population as the majority, with Spanish used as the other language for running official business definitely, and may be other businesses too if they turn out to be import/export only. If the majority in a state decides to use Spanish for its business, won't the citizens of that state need Spanish to get ahead? In India, Hindi is spoken by more and more Indians. When I lived in India it was rare to find a person in the South speaking Hindi. When I interact with Indians working with us on global projects, I find even Indians from the South speak fluent Hindi. Where they learnt I don't know and I don't know if they were forced to learn. Dilip Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. *** Does that mean that unless an American learns Spanish, she might not be able to get ahead when that time arrives? *** And to extend the logic, will one have to learn Hindi to get ahead in India pretty soon, unless it is already so? At 12:39 PM -0700 9/28/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote: If you leave out the Hispanics, you can say it is one language in USA. As we all know, USA will have to face the issue of two rival languages very soon. Also USA does not have an official language. The reign of English as the language is due to the fact that all immigrants had to learn the language to get ahead. It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. Dilip barua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is all one mother tongue, one language here. Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" To: Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajen-da First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Applying this logic, even US should be termed as a country that was never expected to ever be a country. Apart from European colonization the wars, grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniards continued till late 19th century (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers). Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia). First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. * The map I see in wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) shows that almost entire south barring present TN and Kerala was under Mauryas. Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had a very close tie with rest of India ... reference Mahabharat. Culturally too, think about Krishna -- Kalika Purana mentions that the last of the Naraka-bhauma rulers, Narak, was slained by Krishna. As for never being ruled by any Indian King, the argument is same as I mentioned for US or Canada or many other countries. The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. * This is a very new argument ... never heard this argument earlier! How many people in villages of India do you think can speak English ... I am not talking about proficient but at least Pigin English? A guess will be less then half of Indian Population speaks English. People adapt languages because of convenience. Imagine, had you been a villager of Assam, would you care to learn English? Or say if you spend most of your l
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
Hindi movies are equally popular in Karnataka and Andhra. In TN also the situation is changing. I have two-three tamil colleaugues who speak pretty good Hindi though they never stepped out of TN before getting a job. They say they learnt voluntarily from Hindi Pracharak Samitis. Rgds, Sandip - Original Message From: biswajeet saikia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:59:15 PM Subject: Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary I hope when people discuss such types of things, it is better to verify various linguistic survey where district wise data has given. We need need to imagin anything for argument. Dilip/Dil Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In a federalistic system, the state decides how it wants to run its business -- right? In a few years states like Texas, Florida and Arizona will see Hispanic population as the majority, with Spanish used as the other language for running official business definitely, and may be other businesses too if they turn out to be import/export only. If the majority in a state decides to use Spanish for its business, won't the citizens of that state need Spanish to get ahead? In India, Hindi is spoken by more and more Indians. When I lived in India it was rare to find a person in the South speaking Hindi. When I interact with Indians working with us on global projects, I find even Indians from the South speak fluent Hindi. Where they learnt I don't know and I don't know if they were forced to learn. Dilip Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. *** Does that mean that unless an American learns Spanish, she might not be able to get ahead when that time arrives? *** And to extend the logic, will one have to learn Hindi to get ahead in India pretty soon, unless it is already so? At 12:39 PM -0700 9/28/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote: If you leave out the Hispanics, you can say it is one language in USA. As we all know, USA will have to face the issue of two rival languages very soon. Also USA does not have an official language. The reign of English as the language is due to the fact that all immigrants had to learn the language to get ahead. It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. Dilip barua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is all one mother tongue, one language here. Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" To: Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajen-da >>First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Applying this logic, even US should be termed as a country that was never expected to ever be a country. Apart from European colonization the wars, grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniards continued till late 19th century (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers). Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia). >>>>> First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. * The map I see in wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) shows that almost entire south barring present TN and Kerala was under Mauryas. Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had a very close tie with rest of India ... reference Mahabharat. Culturally too, think about Krishna -- Kalika Purana mentions that the last of the Naraka-bhauma rulers, Narak, was slained by Krishna. As for never being ruled by any Indian King, the argument is same as I mentioned for US or Canada or many other countries. >>>>>> The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. * This is a very new argument ... never heard this argument earlier! How many people in villages of India do you think can speak English ... I am not talking about proficient but at least Pigin English? A guess will be less then half of Indian Population speaks English. People adapt languages because of convenience. Imagine, had you been a villager of Assam, would you care to learn English? Or say if you spend most of your life in Delhi or UP, can you avoid learnig Hindi even though you might be a Hindi hater? >>>>>The issue under discussion is : "India is the country that was never expected to ever be a country". The above point which some historians a
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
I hope when people discuss such types of things, it is better to verify various linguistic survey where district wise data has given. We need need to imagin anything for argument. Dilip/Dil Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In a federalistic system, the state decides how it wants to run its business -- right? In a few years states like Texas, Florida and Arizona will see Hispanic population as the majority, with Spanish used as the other language for running official business definitely, and may be other businesses too if they turn out to be import/export only. If the majority in a state decides to use Spanish for its business, won't the citizens of that state need Spanish to get ahead? In India, Hindi is spoken by more and more Indians. When I lived in India it was rare to find a person in the South speaking Hindi. When I interact with Indians working with us on global projects, I find even Indians from the South speak fluent Hindi. Where they learnt I don't know and I don't know if they were forced to learn. Dilip Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. *** Does that mean that unless an American learns Spanish, she might not be able to get ahead when that time arrives? *** And to extend the logic, will one have to learn Hindi to get ahead in India pretty soon, unless it is already so? At 12:39 PM -0700 9/28/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote: If you leave out the Hispanics, you can say it is one language in USA. As we all know, USA will have to face the issue of two rival languages very soon. Also USA does not have an official language. The reign of English as the language is due to the fact that all immigrants had to learn the language to get ahead. It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. Dilip barua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is all one mother tongue, one language here. Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" To: Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajen-da >>First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Applying this logic, even US should be termed as a country that was never expected to ever be a country. Apart from European colonization the wars, grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniards continued till late 19th century (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers). Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia). > First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. * The map I see in wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) shows that almost entire south barring present TN and Kerala was under Mauryas. Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had a very close tie with rest of India ... reference Mahabharat. Culturally too, think about Krishna -- Kalika Purana mentions that the last of the Naraka-bhauma rulers, Narak, was slained by Krishna. As for never being ruled by any Indian King, the argument is same as I mentioned for US or Canada or many other countries. >> The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. * This is a very new argument ... never heard this argument earlier! How many people in villages of India do you think can speak English ... I am not talking about proficient but at least Pigin English? A guess will be less then half of Indian Population speaks English. People adapt languages because of convenience. Imagine, had you been a villager of Assam, would you care to learn English? Or say if you spend most of your life in Delhi or UP, can you avoid learnig Hindi even though you might be a Hindi hater? >The issue under discussion is : "India is the country that was never expected to ever be a country". The above point which some historians are trying to make is this. First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. Then the Marathas were also out. Old Kamrup, that is present Assam and NE were never under any Indian kings, nor under Ashok, nor under the Guptas, nor under the Moghols. This came under India only under the British. Today India is one country not because of any unity but because of its diversity
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
In a federalistic system, the state decides how it wants to run its business -- right? In a few years states like Texas, Florida and Arizona will see Hispanic population as the majority, with Spanish used as the other language for running official business definitely, and may be other businesses too if they turn out to be import/export only. If the majority in a state decides to use Spanish for its business, won't the citizens of that state need Spanish to get ahead? In India, Hindi is spoken by more and more Indians. When I lived in India it was rare to find a person in the South speaking Hindi. When I interact with Indians working with us on global projects, I find even Indians from the South speak fluent Hindi. Where they learnt I don't know and I don't know if they were forced to learn. Dilip Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. *** Does that mean that unless an American learns Spanish, she might not be able to get ahead when that time arrives? *** And to extend the logic, will one have to learn Hindi to get ahead in India pretty soon, unless it is already so? At 12:39 PM -0700 9/28/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote: If you leave out the Hispanics, you can say it is one language in USA. As we all know, USA will have to face the issue of two rival languages very soon. Also USA does not have an official language. The reign of English as the language is due to the fact that all immigrants had to learn the language to get ahead. It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. Dilip barua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is all one mother tongue, one language here. Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" To: Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajen-da >>First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Applying this logic, even US should be termed as a country that was never expected to ever be a country. Apart from European colonization the wars, grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniards continued till late 19th century (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers). Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia). > First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. * The map I see in wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) shows that almost entire south barring present TN and Kerala was under Mauryas. Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had a very close tie with rest of India ... reference Mahabharat. Culturally too, think about Krishna -- Kalika Purana mentions that the last of the Naraka-bhauma rulers, Narak, was slained by Krishna. As for never being ruled by any Indian King, the argument is same as I mentioned for US or Canada or many other countries. >> The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. * This is a very new argument ... never heard this argument earlier! How many people in villages of India do you think can speak English ... I am not talking about proficient but at least Pigin English? A guess will be less then half of Indian Population speaks English. People adapt languages because of convenience. Imagine, had you been a villager of Assam, would you care to learn English? Or say if you spend most of your life in Delhi or UP, can you avoid learnig Hindi even though you might be a Hindi hater? >The issue under discussion is : "India is the country that was never expected to ever be a country". The above point which some historians are trying to make is this. First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. Then the Marathas were also out. Old Kamrup, that is present Assam and NE were never under any Indian kings, nor under Ashok, nor under the Guptas, nor under the Moghols. This came under India only under the British. Today India is one country not because of any unity but because of its diversity which cannot be defined under any political science. Imagnice Europe under one country because of one foreign language (say) Hindi. Can one imagine? The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. *** Does that mean that unless an American learns Spanish, she might not be able to get ahead when that time arrives? *** And to extend the logic, will one have to learn Hindi to get ahead in India pretty soon, unless it is already so? At 12:39 PM -0700 9/28/07, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote: If you leave out the Hispanics, you can say it is one language in USA. As we all know, USA will have to face the issue of two rival languages very soon. Also USA does not have an official language. The reign of English as the language is due to the fact that all immigrants had to learn the language to get ahead. It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. Dilip barua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is all one mother tongue, one language here. Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" To: Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajen-da First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Applying this logic, even US should be termed as a country that was never expected to ever be a country. Apart from European colonization the wars, grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniards continued till late 19th century (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers). Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia). First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. * The map I see in wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) shows that almost entire south barring present TN and Kerala was under Mauryas. Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had a very close tie with rest of India ... reference Mahabharat. Culturally too, think about Krishna -- Kalika Purana mentions that the last of the Naraka-bhauma rulers, Narak, was slained by Krishna. As for never being ruled by any Indian King, the argument is same as I mentioned for US or Canada or many other countries. The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. * This is a very new argument ... never heard this argument earlier! How many people in villages of India do you think can speak English ... I am not talking about proficient but at least Pigin English? A guess will be less then half of Indian Population speaks English. People adapt languages because of convenience. Imagine, had you been a villager of Assam, would you care to learn English? Or say if you spend most of your life in Delhi or UP, can you avoid learnig Hindi even though you might be a Hindi hater? The issue under discussion is : "India is the country that was never expected to ever be a country". The above point which some historians are trying to make is this. First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. Then the Marathas were also out. Old Kamrup, that is present Assam and NE were never under any Indian kings, nor under Ashok, nor under the Guptas, nor under the Moghols. This came under India only under the British. Today India is one country not because of any unity but because of its diversity which cannot be defined under any political science. Imagnice Europe under one country because of one foreign language (say) Hindi. Can one imagine? The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. That is the point. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" yahoo.com> To: Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:45 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajenda What can be the point here. I see from Wiki that the Maurya India is close to today's India This was followed by Invasions by Greeks, Sakas etc when it again got disintegrated. That is because they historians and thought leaders. This is a good topic one can debate long. I think they have their points. Barua - Original Message - From: "Rajib Das" To: "A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world" ; post.harvard.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I fail to underst
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
If you leave out the Hispanics, you can say it is one language in USA. As we all know, USA will have to face the issue of two rival languages very soon. Also USA does not have an official language. The reign of English as the language is due to the fact that all immigrants had to learn the language to get ahead. It is slowly changing and clash of linguistic groups is bound to happen. Dilip barua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is all one mother tongue, one language here. Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" To: Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajen-da >>First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Applying this logic, even US should be termed as a country that was never expected to ever be a country. Apart from European colonization the wars, grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniards continued till late 19th century (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers). Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia). > First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. * The map I see in wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) shows that almost entire south barring present TN and Kerala was under Mauryas. Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had a very close tie with rest of India ... reference Mahabharat. Culturally too, think about Krishna -- Kalika Purana mentions that the last of the Naraka-bhauma rulers, Narak, was slained by Krishna. As for never being ruled by any Indian King, the argument is same as I mentioned for US or Canada or many other countries. >> The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. * This is a very new argument ... never heard this argument earlier! How many people in villages of India do you think can speak English ... I am not talking about proficient but at least Pigin English? A guess will be less then half of Indian Population speaks English. People adapt languages because of convenience. Imagine, had you been a villager of Assam, would you care to learn English? Or say if you spend most of your life in Delhi or UP, can you avoid learnig Hindi even though you might be a Hindi hater? >The issue under discussion is : "India is the country that was never expected to ever be a country". The above point which some historians are trying to make is this. First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. Then the Marathas were also out. Old Kamrup, that is present Assam and NE were never under any Indian kings, nor under Ashok, nor under the Guptas, nor under the Moghols. This came under India only under the British. Today India is one country not because of any unity but because of its diversity which cannot be defined under any political science. Imagnice Europe under one country because of one foreign language (say) Hindi. Can one imagine? The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. That is the point. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" yahoo.com> To: Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:45 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajenda What can be the point here. I see from Wiki that the Maurya India is close to today's India This was followed by Invasions by Greeks, Sakas etc when it again got disintegrated. >>>That is because they historians and thought leaders. This is a good topic one can debate long. I think they have their points. Barua - Original Message - From: "Rajib Das" To: "A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world" ; post.harvard.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I fail to understand why SOME historians (and thought leaders) continue to insist that India is a country that was never meant to be. The exact political boundaries are new (as in 60 years old) - but there is enough political thought through the course of history - before the Brits came in or even before the Islamic invasion of India - to warrant the idea of India. --- Ra
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
IMHO, I VIEW English as an Indian language. This notion that English is a foreign language does not hold much water. Here are my reasons: The kind of English spoken/written in India is very much Indian. The accent, many words and often even the grammar is very much Indian. It is also the mother tongue for some Indians - the Anglo-Indians. Yes, they form a very small percent of India, nevertherless, it is their mother tongue India is the only country that still speaks something close to Victorian English (this is not true even in London). Today, with the increase in American business in India, Indian English has also incorporated American English. The English spoken in the US is American. In the US nobody refers to English as a "foreign language". There are many more reasons, and I find it rather odd that English in India can still be considered foreign. There are also people who still think Sonia Gandhi or Mother Theresa. Often politics or inclinations may get in the way of facts, but the truth is Sonia Gandhi and Mother Theresa are Indians (at least more than many NRA/NRIs), and English is an Indian language, just like Hindi, Assamese or Gujarati. I don't see any difference. --Ram On 9/28/07, barua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is all one mother tongue, one language here. > Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English. > Barua > > - Original Message - > From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AM > Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary > > > Rajen-da > >>First India was never such a big united country as > it is now. > > Applying this logic, even US should be termed as > a country that was never expected to ever be a > country. Apart from European colonization the wars, > grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniards > continued till late 19th century (source: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers). > Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia). > > > > First India was never such a big united country > as it is now. > Even during the British Raj, there were many many > independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent > India is. > Second, the South was never under any Indian kings > except to some extent under the Moghols. > > * The map I see in wiki > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) shows > that almost entire south barring present TN and Kerala > was under Mauryas. > > Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had a > very close tie with rest of India ... reference > Mahabharat. Culturally too, think about Krishna -- > Kalika Purana mentions that the last of the > Naraka-bhauma rulers, Narak, was slained by Krishna. > > As for never being ruled by any Indian King, the > argument is same as I mentioned for US or Canada or > many other countries. > > > >> The Indian situation is same. It is one > country because of one foreign language: English. Thus > the historians have a point. Today, take away the > English language fron India, the Indian democracy will > collapese overnight. > > * This is a very new argument ... never heard > this argument earlier! How many people in villages of > India do you think can speak English ... I am not > talking about proficient but at least Pigin English? > A guess will be less then half of Indian Population > speaks English. People adapt languages because of > convenience. Imagine, had you been a villager of > Assam, would you care to learn English? Or say if you > spend most of your life in Delhi or UP, can you avoid > learnig Hindi even though you might be a Hindi hater? > > > > > > >The issue under discussion is : "India is the > country that was never expected to ever be a country". > > The above point which some historians are trying to > make is this. > First India was never such a big united country as it > is now. > Even during the British Raj, there were many many > independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent > India is. > Second, the South was never under any Indian kings > except to some extent under the Moghols. > Then the Marathas were also out. > Old Kamrup, that is present Assam and NE were never > under any Indian kings, nor under Ashok, nor under the > Guptas, nor under the Moghols. This came under India > only under the British. > > Today India is one country not because of any unity > but because of its diversity which cannot be defined > under any political science. > > Imagnice Europe under one country because of one > foreign language (say) Hindi. Can one imagine? The > Indian situation is same. It is one country because > of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians > have a point. Today, take away the English language > fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese > overnight. > That is the point. > Barua > > - Original Message - > From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" yahoo.com> > To: > Sent: Th
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
It is all one mother tongue, one language here. Not like India as a whole administered by a foreign language: English. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajen-da >>First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Applying this logic, even US should be termed as a country that was never expected to ever be a country. Apart from European colonization the wars, grabbing of land from Native Americans and Speniards continued till late 19th century (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Native_Americans_and_European_settlers). Same goes true for Canada (even may be Australia). > First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. * The map I see in wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_dynasty) shows that almost entire south barring present TN and Kerala was under Mauryas. Coming to point of Assam, Kamrup historically had a very close tie with rest of India ... reference Mahabharat. Culturally too, think about Krishna -- Kalika Purana mentions that the last of the Naraka-bhauma rulers, Narak, was slained by Krishna. As for never being ruled by any Indian King, the argument is same as I mentioned for US or Canada or many other countries. >> The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. * This is a very new argument ... never heard this argument earlier! How many people in villages of India do you think can speak English ... I am not talking about proficient but at least Pigin English? A guess will be less then half of Indian Population speaks English. People adapt languages because of convenience. Imagine, had you been a villager of Assam, would you care to learn English? Or say if you spend most of your life in Delhi or UP, can you avoid learnig Hindi even though you might be a Hindi hater? >The issue under discussion is : "India is the country that was never expected to ever be a country". The above point which some historians are trying to make is this. First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. Then the Marathas were also out. Old Kamrup, that is present Assam and NE were never under any Indian kings, nor under Ashok, nor under the Guptas, nor under the Moghols. This came under India only under the British. Today India is one country not because of any unity but because of its diversity which cannot be defined under any political science. Imagnice Europe under one country because of one foreign language (say) Hindi. Can one imagine? The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. That is the point. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" To: Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:45 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajenda What can be the point here. I see from Wiki that the Maurya India is close to today's India This was followed by Invasions by Greeks, Sakas etc when it again got disintegrated. >>>That is because they historians and thought leaders. This is a good topic one can debate long. I think they have their points. Barua - Original Message - From: "Rajib Das" To: "A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world" ; Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I fail to understand why SOME historians (and thought leaders) continue to insist that India is a country that was never meant to be. The exact political boundaries are new (as in 60 years old) - but there is enough political thought through the course of history - before the Brits came in or even before the Islamic invasion of India - to warrant the idea of India. --- Rajen & Ajanta Barua wrote: > Umesh: > India is best described as 'an elected > dictatorship'. > 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. > Bu
Re: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary
The issue under discussion is : "India is the country that was never expected to ever be a country". The above point which some historians are trying to make is this. First India was never such a big united country as it is now. Even during the British Raj, there were many many independepdent states ruled by Maharajas, where prsent India is. Second, the South was never under any Indian kings except to some extent under the Moghols. Then the Marathas were also out. Old Kamrup, that is present Assam and NE were never under any Indian kings, nor under Ashok, nor under the Guptas, nor under the Moghols. This came under India only under the British. Today India is one country not because of any unity but because of its diversity which cannot be defined under any political science. Imagnice Europe under one country because of one foreign language (say) Hindi. Can one imagine? The Indian situation is same. It is one country because of one foreign language: English. Thus the historians have a point. Today, take away the English language fron India, the Indian democracy will collapese overnight. That is the point. Barua - Original Message - From: "Krishnendu Chakraborty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:45 AM Subject: [Assam] Indian Political Boundary Rajenda What can be the point here. I see from Wiki that the Maurya India is close to today's India This was followed by Invasions by Greeks, Sakas etc when it again got disintegrated. >>>That is because they historians and thought leaders. This is a good topic one can debate long. I think they have their points. Barua - Original Message - From: "Rajib Das" To: "A Mailing list for people interested in Assam from around the world" ; Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [Assam] Book review : India After Gandhi- Bengal democracy I fail to understand why SOME historians (and thought leaders) continue to insist that India is a country that was never meant to be. The exact political boundaries are new (as in 60 years old) - but there is enough political thought through the course of history - before the Brits came in or even before the Islamic invasion of India - to warrant the idea of India. --- Rajen & Ajanta Barua wrote: > Umesh: > India is best described as 'an elected > dictatorship'. > 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 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.
