
Revenge of the vernac! Time to mind your angrezi, mister
The comments attracted widespread criticism from the opposition, which accused Shah of pushing the RSS's agenda of cultural domination. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said the BJP-RSS did not want underprivileged children to learn English and make progress to become equal.
So, what does it mean when a powerful politician hints at shaming people for speaking the language of colonial masters? Is it an unpleasant yet necessary process of the much-needed linguistic decolonisation of our minds, as Shah claims?
Credit: Chad Crowe
Or is it clever political messaging meant for the vast majority of aspiring young men and women from small towns and villages who speak in the 'vernacular' and hold an irrational grudge against the English-speaking class living in metropolitan India?
Just to contextualise, the etymology of the word 'vernacular' is interesting: it is derived from the Latin word 'verna', which means a slave born in his master's house. One of the other variants derived from 'verna' is 'vernaculum' — a low-bred person or proletarian.
I was made aware of my 'vernac' identity many years ago when an acquaintance hurled the word at me as an insult. He spoke rather fluent English and kept referring to Hindi speakers as 'vernacs' — a derogatory term to describe those who speak in the vernacular. I, on the other hand, was trying to argue with him in Hindi — the language I am most comfortable in.
But my combative antagonist was not willing to stoop to my level by answering in the language of the general hoi polloi. Around the same time, I was offered a job in an upmarket English-language news magazine. But my excitement came crashing down in the very first editorial meeting.
While colleagues were rattling off story ideas in their clipped accents and perfect diction, peppering their pitch with public school jokes, I forgot my well-rehearsed lines when my turn came, and could only manage to mumble a few words in Hindi.
Suddenly, a thick pall of oppressive silence fell in the editor's room. I could see embarrassed faces all around me; some colleagues looking down at the floor to avoid eye contact. The sacrilege had been committed.
A yokel had sneaked into the 'Exclusive Club of the English-speaking Gentry' and defiled it with his lowbrow 'vernacular', or so I thought. That was my first embarrassing encounter with linguistic shame.
Dr Lori Gallegos, professor of philosophy at Texas State University, defines linguistic shame as something that 'involves feelings of embarrassment, a sense of inferiority, and attitudes of self-reproach that arise in relation to the way one speaks.'
She equates linguicism with other forms of discrimination, like racism and sexism. Apart from direct linguicism, which is still practised in some South Asian convents and public schools, there is another form of discrimination where 'people implicitly view those who do not speak English as uneducated or unintelligent.'
PM Modi himself faces this kind of glottophobia regularly when he is mocked for mispronouncing an English word or phrase. Amit Shah's son, Jay Shah, is also trolled for his lack of fluency in English. Against this backdrop, Shah's unapologetic reverse linguicism — though one is not justifying it — becomes somewhat understandable. Ironically, Shah was echoing the sentiments expressed by the celebrated Kenyan-American Marxist writer Ngugi wa Thiong'o, who died last month.
Thiong'o shunned the English language back in the 1970s and declared that in future, he would only write in his mother tongue, Gikuyu. It was his way of protesting against the imposition of the language of the colonial masters, which he described as a 'cultural bomb'.
So, when the wider Sangh Parivar eulogises India's past, it may appear to be rejecting the effect of the 'cultural bomb' as described by Thiong'o, but there's a big difference between the two.
While Thiong'o sees English and many other European languages as an assault on native African languages, the Hindutva narrative is more selective in its approach. Urdu, an out-and-out Indian language, is as much an anathema to them as English.
A more troubling thought is how such rhetoric could encourage the right wing's vast army of foot soldiers — often drawn from under-educated and poor marginalised castes who resent the English-speaking elite.
Some of them have taken on the role of cow vigilantes who patrol highways. This foot soldier could now potentially have another assignment as a bhasha rakshak dal (defenders of language) vigilante — going from room to room in Delhi Gymkhana or the swanky clubs in South Mumbai, or inspecting seminar halls in universities and the India International Centre to check if the speakers are ashamed enough while delivering a speech in English.
Should that dystopia become a reality, will the angreziwallas be then forced to form secret societies where one could only whisper in a language that shall not be named?
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hindu
13 minutes ago
- The Hindu
House of wars: on Parliament, Operation Sindoor discussion
The government and the Opposition crossed swords in Parliament during a discussion on Operation Sindoor this week. There was unanimity in praising India's armed forces, but there was little common ground beyond that. Operation Sindoor was India's military response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, on April 22, 2025, which claimed 26 lives. The elimination of three terrorists behind the attack, just before the parliamentary debate, helped the government's case. It told Parliament that these terrorists were Lashkar-e-Taiba members from Pakistan. The Narendra Modi government's strident approach seeks to change the behaviour of Pakistan and reassure its domestic audience. The success of this approach is debatable and the Opposition sought to put the government on the spot on both counts. A demonstrated willingness to use force against Pakistan in the event of a terrorism incident is a definitive turn in India's strategy, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) takes pride in that. But there is no evidence yet that it is working though there has been chest thumping around it by the ruling party. The discussion in Parliament barely addressed the implications of this approach, which is being touted as the new normal. The Opposition and the government agreed on the need to punish Pakistan, and also disagreed on who would do it better. The government claimed success in meeting its objectives of launching a military operation and denied that it had acted under pressure in ending the war. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi demanded a pointed response to repeated claims by U.S. President Donald Trump that he mediated the ceasefire but the Prime Minister evaded a direct response on it. The government contradicts itself when it says that the operation was a success, and that it is continuing. It is also exasperating to hear a party that is now in its eleventh year of uninterrupted power, blame people who passed away decades ago for any challenge that India faces now. There was little self-reflection regarding the lapses that led to the terrorism incident, and whether and how the government plans to address them. The government had sent joint teams including several MPs from the Opposition abroad to garner support for India in the aftermath of the operation, but that sign of statesmanship was a short-lived aberration, as it turns out. The world is changing rapidly and India's capacity to navigate those changes will be largely determined by its own character. Questioning the patriotism of political opponents is an easy route to take to evade tough questions, but the BJP must realise that such an approach has diminishing returns.

The Hindu
13 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Delhi court dismisses defamation case filed by AAP's Satyendra Jain against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj
A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Kumar Jain in a defamation case against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Bansuri Swaraj, citing that merely repeating information already in the public domain does not amount to defamation. The court also criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had initially posted on X the information shared by the BJP MP, saying that the central agency holds the responsibility of sharing only accurate and non-misleading information with the public. Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts observed that sufficient ground does not exist for taking cognisance of the offence as defined and punishable under Section 356 of the BNS. The case filed by Mr. Jain is based on 'defamatory' comments about him during a television interview by Ms. Swaraj. The AAP leader stated that during the interview, Ms. Swaraj allegedly claimed that ₹3 crore in cash, 1.8 kilograms of gold, and 133 gold coins were recovered from the AAP leader's house. The ED also shared this information on its social media handle. Mr. Jain alleged that the statement made on TV had damaged his reputation. Mr. Jain had challenged a trial court order that rejected his criminal defamation complaint against the BJP MP earlier this year. In a strongly worded message, the court said that it is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as the ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process. 'Any dissemination of information, including but not limited to official social media platforms, must be accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism,' the court said. 'The presentation of facts in a manner that is misleading, scandalous, or inten to defame or politically prejudice an individual would not only undermine the integrity of the agency but may also amount to an abuse of power and violation of the individual's fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution,' it said. While dismissing the defamation case, the court added that there was no 'willful misrepresentation or malicious intent' of the accused, hence Ms. Swaraj cannot be held liable for the alleged offence of defamation. 'If at all any statement is perceived as defamatory, the liability, if any, would lie with the source agency, i.e., the ED, which originally disseminated the information. The proposed accused, being a secondary communicator of officially released material, cannot be fastened with criminal liability, especially in the absence of intent to harm the reputation of the Complainant,' it added.


Hans India
13 minutes ago
- Hans India
BJP Registers Major Victory in Three-Tier Panchayat Elections
The results of the recently concluded three-tier Panchayat elections in Uttarakhand are steadily being received. According to the latest updates, BJP-supported candidates have been declared victorious on 125 out of a total of 358 district panchayat seats. Meanwhile, Congress-backed candidates have secured 83 seats, receiving significant support from voters. In addition, 150 independent candidates have also emerged victorious in the elections. A majority of these independent winners are seen leaning towards the Bharatiya Janata Party, with several publicly announcing their support for the BJP. As a result, a large portion of the overall winning candidates are considered to be BJP-aligned. The vote-counting process is nearing completion, and the Election Commission is expected to release the final results soon. The electoral process across the state was conducted peacefully and in an orderly manner, with effective cooperation from the administrative and security agencies.