When I joined the Indian Administrative Service in 1965 (Madhya Pradesh cadre), there was very little English used by the administration. Hindi being the main language of the state, it was in letter and spirit also the official language. I had done my MA in English Literature from St Stephen’s College but till my BA had studied in the Hindi medium. I served in MP for nearly 27 years, specialising in education and culture. At no point did I feel that a civil servant not knowing English was at a great disadvantage. Even ICS officers did their official work in Hindi and adapted themselves comfortably, as did the numerous other civil servants from other linguistic regions of the country. In those days, most civil servants came from the humanities background though there were some bright ones with technical education like medical or engineering. Every time things got translated into Hindi from English, the language would be unidiomatic, incomprehensible and needlessly cumbersome but what was written and thought originally in Hindi was perfectly comprehensible. Hindi was also the language in which the state legislature conducted its business. I do not recall any MLA even speaking English in the Vidhan Sabha. This must have been true in almost all the states except perhaps those which had cosmopolitan cities dominated by the English-speaking elite. Knowing English helps but it is not an essential requirement for good and efficient governance in a pluralistic democracy. Indian languages are a powerful tool for administering India, both for understanding and communication and also as a humane form of governance. The Indian civilisational enterprise is among the few that is rooted in and sustained by the plurality of languages, religious beliefs, cuisines for millennia. The so-called global modernity should not be allowed to undermine this unique plurality.
The problem that the UPSC paper has highlighted is not about English but about the prejudice in certain top bureaucratic quarters against Indian languages. They have an arrogant and unsubstantiated belief that knowledge, precision and exactitude are impossible in the Indian languages. They seem to believe that analytical skills, the knack of problem-solving etc is only possible in English. They have no idea that a lot of significant material is being produced in the spheres of social services, history etc in many Indian languages. Bengali, Marathi, Kannada, Malayalam and Hindi have a rich repertoire in this regard. Inept, incomprehensible translation isn’t the issue here, the problem lies in the belief that such questions and testing skills can neither be thought of nor articulated originally in any non-English Indian language.
Administration and governance in a democratic polity has elements of management but it cannot be reduced to just that. The pressures on civil servants are of a much varied nature and their skills at responding to, anticipating and empathising need a framework that cares for others, delivers on time and appears just and firm. Only a small percentage of civil servants make it to the Centre. The rest spend their entire career in the states. It is a strange irony that politics, media and a lot of marketing etc take place predominantly in the Indian languages but administration is expected to be possible only in English!
Languages are an inexhaustible storehouse of our cultural memories, indigenous knowledge, imagination and local resonances. If all these are unnecessary for administration, it needs no arguing that administration would then be feudal, dictatorial and deeply undemocratic. Languages do not survive or subsist on state patronage; they are born in and sustained by communities. Similarly, the state is a creation of society and must care for its valuable assets and surely language, even a small tribal language, is an important asset.
(Ashok Vajpeyi is a renowned Hindi poet and critic.)
Apparently hailing from a Hindi-speaking region and with Hindi as his mother tongue, it is but natural that Ashok Vajpeyi's knowledge of Hindi was a boon to him during his stint in Madhya Pradesh (Lost in Articulation). This is not so elsewhere in India where languages other than Hindi are the norm and where Hindi may not even be understood. The issue does not have to be about language but about providing a level playing field, which English provides to people from non-Hindi-speaking regions. To term upsc as an Upper Class Public Service Commission is a misnomer. Given the percentage of reservations/affirmative action programmes, many deserving ‘upper class’ aspirants are not even in the race.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Language should not be a barrier for those aspiring to serve the country better than the current set of looters.
However, for the newly formed bigotted Modi sarkar, 'language' only means 'hindi'. And this is just one of the problems. The otherbeing the inability of the aspirants to grasp the nuances of a commonly used language - in itself a failure academically.
The Civil Services exams are held only in English and Hindi. Is this not discriminatory against Indians who have studied in other Indian languages? If the vast majority of Indians are willing to learn English, if only to be able to crack the Civil Service exams, why cannot the Hidni belt be expected to learn some English?
English has proved its utility. So should our other languages. Without being overly judgmental, there are strong parochial currents flowing through our land, most recently in Telengana. We should assess carefully which are the forces we wish to strengthen, which to gradually phase out.
Ashok Vajpayee >> The administration’s language must be local, English dehumanises it
If Administration's Language should be local, where do the Linguistic Minorities (in every local-ity) go when they need the help of administration?
Multilingualism is the necessity of India and no one can do away with it. People see Modi Sarkar as being Hindi Biased but Today's BJP is a far cry from the Jan sangh of 1970s and 1980s, in that the key leadership has a large presence of non native Hindi speakers (modi and shah are gujjus, dont forget that).
Let us accept English and Hindi and the principal languages all needed to run this nation and yes local language must be asserted but at same time bring laws to treat Linguistic minorities in every local-ity as a special category that needs extra help. A Tamil Speaking upper caste Hindu in Mumbai needs special assistance of the government since he is more disadvantaged than a Hindi Speaking Muslim in Mumbai.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT