Latest news with #Apoorvanand
Scroll.in
16-07-2025
- General
- Scroll.in
How Hindi emerged as the lingua franca of the ‘Hindi Heartland' at the cost of other languages
Ironically, Hindi, the language that gives the region its name, is its least unifying factor. After all, it was not the first, and certainly not the only language, of the people who are colloquially referred to as Hindi-bhashi or Hindi-speakers. Sadanand Shahi, who taught Hindi literature at the Banaras Hindu University, minces no words in describing this unique linguistic phenomenon: 'Hindi is nobody's mother tongue. We gave up our own languages to create a national language.' Adds Apoorvanand, who teaches Hindi literature at the University of Delhi, 'Once the British linked Hindi with employment, people surrendered their languages.' Hence, just as the evolution of Hindi as the main language of this region was a political movement, the people's identification with it as their principal language is also a political statement, as we shall see. But first, let's look at the languages of the Hindi belt. In Rajasthan, the traditional languages used to be Marwari and Rajasthani, both of which had a rich oral tradition. The well-known Rajasthani writer Vijaydan Detha, recipient of the Padma Shri and the Sahitya Akademi Award, insisted that even though his script may have been Devanagari, in which present-day Hindi is written (more on this later), his language was Rajasthani. Weighing in on this, Manvendra Singh says, 'The classical name for the Rajasthani language was Dingal, and within this, there were several dialects, spoken in different parts of the state.' According to him, Dingal, like Marwari, used to be written in the Mahajani script (not Devanagari), though writing was not so widespread. Madhya Pradesh also had several languages spread across its expanse, from Bundelkhandi to Gondi, with Bagheli, Malvi, Katli, and so on. In Uttar Pradesh, the spoken languages ranged from Braj, Awadhi, Banarasi, Khari Boli, and Bhojpuri to Bundelkhandi, Garhwali, and Kumaoni. Further east, in Bihar, Bhojpuri was complemented by Magadhi, Magahi, Maithili, Kuduk, and Santhali. Yet, to an outsider, they all sounded rather alike. Travelling from Allahabad (now Prayagraj) in 1869, Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of Aligarh Muslim University, observed, 'All the way from Allahabad to Bombay, in villages and marketplaces and trains, with government officials and peons of all departments and coolies everywhere, I conversed in Urdu – and everywhere people understood and replied in Urdu itself. With some words there was a need to explain the meaning or sometimes to state one's meaning more simply. But there is no doubt that everywhere in Hindustan the Urdu language is understood and spoken…' A similar observation was made by British linguist GA Grierson after a 30-year survey of the Indian languages, which was published in 1928. He wrote, 'It is thus commonly said, and believed, that throughout the Gangetic Valley, between Bengal and Punjab, there is one and only one language – Hindi, with its numerous dialects.' In 1937, author Rahul Sankrityayan added a nuance to what he referred to as a common language which, he wrote, 'incorporates all the languages which emerged after the eighth century AD in 'Suba Hindustan'' – the region that is bounded by the Himalayas, and by all the regions associated with the Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati, Marathi, Telugu, Oriya and Bangla languages. Its older form is called Magahi, Maithili, Braj Bhasha, etc. Its modern form may be considered under two aspects: a widely disseminated form called Khari Boli (which when written in Persian characters and with an excess of Arabic and Persian words is called Urdu), and the various local languages which are spoken in different places: Magahi, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Banarasi, Avadhi, Kannauji, Brajmandali, etc… Hence, the emergence of Hindi was the consequence of three factors. One, a desire to find unity in diversity, and a historic uninterrupted tradition of a 'national' language which could be a worthy alternative to English. Therefore, nationalist Indians converged on Hindi as a mother language with multiple 'dialects'. After all, Grierson had also validated this position. Two, a broad intelligibility among all north Indian languages, as seen above; and three, the growing Hindu–Muslim divide after 1857, which led to religious ownership of the language – Hindi for Hindus and Urdu for Muslims. These perspectives were partly correct, only because by the time these people experienced the commonality of the language, there existed linguistic syncretism in the Hindi heartland. But this was a consequence of several centuries of coexisting and collaborating. Says Apoorvanand, 'All languages spoken in the wider region of the Indo-Gangetic plains have a degree of intelligibility, but to say that they are sub-languages, or subsects of Hindi is wrong. All these languages had their own vocabulary and grammar.' In fact, 'Some of these languages – Maithili, Avadhi, Braj Bhasha and Khari Boli – have literary traditions of several centuries while others – Bhojpuri and Magahi – have rich oral folk literatures… Villagers use these to talk with merchants in nearby trading centres and with villagers from other areas. Small town residents use them as their mother tongue, while both educated and uneducated city dwellers use them at home or among friends,' writes Christopher R King. The intelligibility among the languages was the consequence of two factors. One, they all belonged to the Indo-Aryan group of languages with some commonality of vocabulary and grammar, points out author and linguist Peggy Mohan. The only exceptions here were the few tribal languages such as Gondi, Santhali, and Kuduk which were preserved by the itinerant tribes, though they did not belong to this region. Most of them traced their origin to the Dravidian lingual traditions. For instance, Neetisha Khalko, who belongs to the Kudukhar sub-tribe within the Oraon family, says her language Kuduk belongs to the Dravidian tradition. She says, 'Kuduk is similar to the language spoken in parts of the central Konkan region.' Two, as Mrinal Pande points out, 'The Hindi belt has been India's most mobile and colonised area with countless horizontal layers of linguistic cultures that the latest migrants/invaders brought. [Hence], there has been much linguistic give and take mostly through oral sources, among adjacent states.' Talking about the evolution of languages, she says, 'Language normally doesn't flood large areas it flows through. Like a slow-moving river, it keeps depositing new sediments over the old constantly along its path.' Getting into the nuances of the traditional north Indian languages, Mohan says that contrary to popular belief, the modern (regional) languages are 'not like Sanskrit and the Prakrits, though they adopted words from local Prakrits.' Consequently, she writes, 'Is it a step down for our language to be a mixed language, not really different from a creole? Shouldn't highly evolved people like us be speaking a language that is … pure?' Creole languages emerge over time by the assimilation of two or more languages. Answering her own question, Mohan further writes, 'Languages are living things, and they live in ecosystems; they are highly responsive to signals from the environment… Languages that refuse to adapt, languages that hide from the light, tend to go extinct… Finding these mixed languages blooming around us, then, is a cause for celebration.'
The Wire
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Petition in Supreme Court Against Order to Display Eatery Owners' Names During Kanwar Yatra
The Wire Staff 19 minutes ago The state governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand have also asked to display QR codes which would reveal the names of the owners of the restaurants. This would lead to 'discriminatory profiling that was previously stayed by the Supreme Court', the petition contended. New Delhi: Delhi University professor Apoorvanand and rights defender Aakar Patel have filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the directives issued by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand state governments asking restaurant and dhaba owners to display their names at prominent places if their shops were on routes to be taken by kanwariyas on their annual yatra. The state governments have also asked to display QR codes which would reveal the names of the owners of the restaurants. This would lead to 'discriminatory profiling that was previously stayed by the Supreme Court', the petition contended. According to The Tribune the matter is likely to be heard on July 15. Bar and Bench reports that it is likely to be heard by a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. Singh this week. Apoorvanand's petition says that the orders of the two state governments were violative of several constitutional provisions as well as an earlier order of the Supreme Court had passed on July 22, 2024. The court had granted interim stay on the enforcement of such directives, observing that "the display of personal identity was neither backed by law nor necessary for the stated purpose of public order or food safety compliance." Apoorvanand and Patel, along with Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, had been petitioners of the 2024 case as well. The petition stated that in an earlier order the apex court had stated that state actions impacting privacy and dignity must satisfy the test of legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, and proportionality. The petitioner contended that the directives of both the governments fail all these principles. Nor do they fall under any statue, and they will be discriminatory and stigmatising The petitioner said such a directive was a breach of privacy rights. 'The requisite license is a self-contained certificate, which although reveals the name of the owner, is displayed inside the premises at a place where it may be accessed. Equating this requirement to display a normal-sized license with the directive to display name of owner, manager and other employees on billboards outside, or to not give eateries names which do not reflect the religious identity of the owner are de hors [outside the context of ] the license requirements,' the petition says. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Scroll.in
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Plea filed in SC against UP, Uttarakhand's orders to display names on shops along Kanwar Yatra route
A plea was filed before the Supreme Court on Thursday challenging the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments' directives requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage route to display quick response codes with the names and identities of their owners. The petition, filed by Delhi University Professor Apoorvanand, argues that the mandate violates an 2024 interim order of court that prohibited forcing vendors to disclose their identities. However, the QR codes, now being made mandatory for all food stalls and eateries along the pilgrimage route, would enable pilgrims and others to access personal details of business owners. During the Kanwar Yatra, devotees, called Kanwariyas, walk hundreds of kilometres to collect water from the Ganga near Haridwar and carry it back to their home states to offer at temples. The devotees mainly come from Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. This year's Kanwar Yatra started on Saturday and will conclude on August 9. The petition contends that this not only undermines the spirit of the Supreme Court's stay but also risks discriminatory profiling, particularly of vendors from minority communities, under the guise of public safety and licensing requirements. The plea claims that the governments' orders were a digital workaround to continue the identity-disclosure practice that had been stayed by the court. It warns that the orders could heighten the risk of 'communal profiling and intimidation' and violate the fundamental right to privacy and dignity. The plea points out that while vendors are legally required to display licenses, those are meant to be posted inside their premises, not put up prominently outside or through public QR codes. The 'vague and overbroad directives deliberately mix up the licensing requirements with the other unlawful demand to display religious identity, and leave scope for violent enforcement of such a manifestly arbitrary demand both by vigilante groups and by authorities on the ground,' the plea further adds. The petitioner urged the court to direct Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand to immediately withdraw the orders and restrain authorities from implementing any further measures that could lead to religious profiling. 'There is a grave and imminent risk of irreparable injury to the fundamental rights of affected vendors, particularly from minority communities,' the plea said. The petitioner also requested that the court should ask the respondents to submit affidavits explaining how the new mandates do not breach the court's earlier stay or constitutional protections. The matter will be heard by the court on July 15.
The Wire
07-07-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
The Word ‘Secularism' in the Constitution's Preamble is a Thorn In the BJP's Side
Apoorvanand 2 minutes ago Would Indians, especially Hindus, want that the countries of Europe or America should not remain secular? The concept or the idea of secularism is under attack. This time the 50th anniversary of the Emergency became the occasion for this assault. The sequence of events started with a senior functionary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – the parent organisation of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – saying that the time has come to remove words such as secularism and socialism which were added to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution through the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency. Thereafter, the Vice President of India, using even harsher words, called these words "a festering wound which are sacrilage to sanatan". Union minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma also lambasted the description of India as secular. The argument that secularism and socialism were added to the Preamble during 'dictatorship' According to all of them, since the words socialism and secularism were added to the Preamble during the Emergency i.e. dictatorship, it is not appropriate to allow them to remain in democratic India. In response to this attack on secularism, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has said that this is actually a conspiracy to bring the law of Manusmriti in place of the Constitution. Gandhi and other opposition leaders are reminding the people that the RSS had opposed the Indian Constitution and proposed Manusmriti in its place. But the BJP and the RSS claim that by removing these words, they are restoring the Constitution to its original form which was made by Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar and whose preamble did not have the words socialism and secularism. Is it about restoring the original Constitution? Then we will have to, or should do away with all the amendments made during these 75 years. Even if we limit ourselves to the Preamble, we need to ask if this debate is only about correcting the 'distortion' created in the Constitution by a dictator during the Emergency. Is this a matter only about restoring the Preamble of the Constitution to its original form? If so, then why are only these two words being talked about and sought to be removed? A third word was also added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency. In the Constitution's 'original' form, the Preamble read: 'We, the People Of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic' that would secure to all its citizens 'Justice… Equality… Liberty… and Fraternity'. The 42nd Amendment in 1976 changed this to '…Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic…' and added the expression 'integrity' after unity , which now reads 'assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…'. The BJP is not talking about this third word 'Integrity'. If the objection is about the distortion of the original form of the Constitution during the Emergency, will the BJP remove all three words, i.e. socialist, secular and integrity? We know the answer to this. Moreover, the 42 amendment also brought in a section on fundamental duties. Would the BJP and RSS also remove it? In fact they have been chiding the people that for the last 75 years they have been clamouring for rights and it is high time they started performing their duties towards the nation. So, the section on duties is not being questioned. Was it not brought by a dictator? This means that the objection is not about the change in the preamble or the Constitution by a dictator which needs correction, but about the two words, socialism and secularism. We should think about why the BJP has an objection to these words. Vandita Mishra has rightly written in the Indian Express that although there is talk of removing both the words socialism and secularism, the real target is secularism. That is because socialism is an economic ideology. And there has not been much difference in the economic policy of all the governments that have come after the Emergency. Why the BJP never talks about better distribution of resources among the people The Congress claims that Manmohan Singh and Narasimha Rao initiated neo-liberal policies. It repeatedly claims that the BJP is not doing anything new, it is only copying its policies. For the BJP, Rao almost belongs to their pantheon. Yet the word socialism remains in the Preamble. It has been allowed to remain, just as the BJP has allowed Gandhi and Ambedkar to remain, even after making them completely irrelevant in state policies. But perhaps the matter is not so simple. The economic policies of the Congress and the BJP have not been exactly the same. The Congress does talk about better distribution of resources or wealth among the people of India, which the BJP never does. It wants to turn people beneficiaries by giving them food grains and some money to survive. On the contrary Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly reiterated the intention of better distribution of resources in recent times. We can say that for the Congress, socialism is the same as it was for Dr. Martin Luther King. Zohran Mamdani, who recently won the Democratic Party's nomination for the mayor of New York, quoted Dr. King: "' Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God's children. ' The question is not just about better distribution of resources among all the children of God. It is also whether the natural resources or public good will be handed over to the capitalists for their profiteering or will all the children of God have a right over them? There is a difference between BJP and Congress in this matter. There is a difference in the views of both of them regarding the use of water, forest and land. That is why Medha Patkar is an 'urban naxal' for BJP as she talks about the right of the people or natural resources. US President Donald Trump attacked Mamdani by saying that he is a 100% crazy communist. BJP leaders have been calling Rahul Gandhi an urban Naxal or Maoist. It is also not less important that the corporate world of India has almost adopted BJP as their own party. They do not give donations to the BJP only out of fear, they give because it is the best guard of their interests. Ratan Tata was the first to see the potential of Narendra Modi to become the Prime Minister. The capitalists want changes in the laws made by the Congress-led government after 2004 to be able to plunder natural resources unhindered. There is a difference in their approach towards the environment. Therefore, the word socialism also has some meaning left. It is a response to the question: whether government or state policies will be made for the wider society or for a few capitalists? BJP wants to end socialism even in this limited sense. The real intention is to remove secularism itself from the constitution At this juncture, it is prudent to ask the question: Is the matter merely aesthetic? Is it just a matter of erasing every touch and mark of two years of dictator Indira Gandhi because it smells of dictatorship? Will the matter be limited to restoring it to its original structure and original form? We know that the real intention is to remove secularism itself from the Constitution. And that is not just from the Preamble. From all state policies. We may recall the speech of the BJP's supreme leader Narendra Modi after the party's victory in the 2019 elections. Modi boasted in front of his MPs that between 2014 and 2019 the entire secular group has completely stopped using the word secular. He was not wrong. Those who used to call themselves secular, started hesitating in using the word secularism. Hardly any opposition leader has spoken about this word or even uttered it in these years. Everyone has been busy proving themselves to be true, tolerant Hindus. In these 11 years, secularism has been repeatedly despised as a western concept. The governor of Tamil Nadu said some time ago that it is not in keeping with the Indian ethos. The question is not of Indian and Western. Would Indians, especially Hindus, want that the countries of Europe or America should not remain secular? Why were they reminding Bangladesh recently that it should remain secular? Why do they consider Pakistan inferior to themselves? Is it not because it is not secular? We think that Islam should not be the source of state policies in Pakistan. Be it Hindus or Sikhs or Christians, everyone should have equal rights. Do we want Pakistan to turn secular because there is something inherently bad about Islam as a source of state policies? Or is it the principle that the way of life or social conduct of any one religion should not be imposed on all others? That religion could be Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism. The question is not whether a religion is good or bad. The question is whether or not to impose the lifestyle and ways of the followers of a particular religion on other people, only because that they happen to be in majority in that geographical area. How can a Hindu Rishi Sunak become the Prime Minister of the UK if it does not follow the principle of secularism? Or how can the Indian-origin Mamdani contest the New York Mayoral election if America refuses to be secular? Or how can a Sikh or Hindu become a minister in Canada or even become a candidate for the post of Prime Minister if it were not a secular country? If secularism is good for all these countries, then how has it become bad for us? Many intellectuals have been arguing that it is a western concept and hence not suitable for us. So will geography, or place of origin decide which idea to adopt and which not? Till a few days back, BJP and RSS people used to say that India is secular because Hindus are in majority here. Then what about the countries of Europe or America or Africa? Are they secular because the majority of the people there are Christians? Many believe what Loknath Mishra, a member of the Constituent Assembly said, that India's secularism is the result of the generosity of Hindus. Even if we accept that, are Hindus now fed up of this quality and want to be narrow and brute like the Zionists of Israel? The people of BJP and its supporters should honestly ask themselves whether they want to remove the word secularism from the Preamble or do they want to end the secular character of the Constitution itself. Their real intention was revealed when the Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar attacked the Supreme Court a few days ago saying how can it call the basic structure of the Constitution immutable. Parliament cannot make laws that violate the basic structure of the Constitution In the Kesavananda Bharati case and many other cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that Parliament cannot make laws that violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Secularism is an essential part of that basic structure. No law can be made that compromises it. The Vice President has a real problem with this. Does he represent the view of the BJP? The scholars of the Constitution have said that even though it is not mentioned in the preamble, the entire character of the Constitution is secular. The Constitution prohibits discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion, language or any other basis. The Constituent Assembly adopted Articles 25, 26 and 27 only to fulfill the objective of secularism. At the time of making the Constitution, there was a general consensus that India had to become a democratic republic. Real democracy means equality of all kinds. How is that possible without secularism? After all, secularism did not mean mere separation between church and state, but it was a policy to prevent the imposition of the social order of any one religion or ethnicity on the entire population. As a state policy, this was necessary because there is always the danger that we may make laws guided by our own prejudices. And the fact is that majority of law makers would come from the majority community. They will have their own prejudices and preferences. Understanding this harsh reality about human nature, Nehru explained the value of secularism: 'It is an ideal which we aim to adopt and each one of us, whether Hindu or Muslim, Sikh or Christian, whoever we may be, none of us can say in his heart that he has no prejudice or any stain of communalism in his mind or heart.' The individual may or may not be free themselves from this prejudice but the way to protect the state and other people from this prejudice is the principle of secularism. Nehru argued for adopting it, 'We have done what every country does, except a few misguided and backward countries.' Very often we quote Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose, Ambedkar to support the idea of secularism. That is a bad method. What they said cannot be the basis for choosing our direction. We should use our discretion and choose our principles. Despite secularism being in the Preamble of the Constitution, discriminatory laws are gradually being made in India. Laws prohibiting the consumption of beef and its sale and purchase are in force in many states. Laws have been made regarding inter-community marriage which are used against Muslims and Christians. Laws related to conversion are also applied only on Muslims and Christians. Despite secularism being in the preamble of the Constitution, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) was also passed. And in the name of providing justice to Muslim women, the Triple Talaq law was passed which is clearly against Muslim men. No such law has been made for those Hindu men who break off relations with their wives without due process. You cannot file a case against them under any law because they have not taken any divorce! The makers of the Constitution had faith in the wisdom of future generations All this has intensified in the last 11 years. Despite that, for the BJP, the word secularism is like a thorn in its side. The parent organisation of the BJP, the RSS, took oath on the Indian Constitution under the pressure of Sardar Patel and for getting the ban lifted from itself, but did not give up its goal of making India a Hindu nation. Today, the state machinery is completely in its control. With its help, it can remove this word from the Preamble. Whatever BJP does, the question before us is whether there is any other path other than secularism following which we can become a good, noble or decent society? If there is a better alternative to secularism, then it must be adopted, leaving aside the worry about what path our ancestors had chosen for themselves 75 years ago. What Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose, Ambedkar said cannot be the basis for us to choose our direction. They were choosing their path. We should use our discretion and choose our principle. That principle will be our guide. Like Nehru, Ambedkar had also refrained from putting Secularism in the Preamble as Prof K.T. Shah had wanted. He said, "What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself because that is destroying democracy altogether.' The makers of the Constitution had faith in the wisdom of future generations. Today we must decide how to organise our social and economic aspects and justify their faith in us. Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
