<div dir="ltr"><h1 itemprop="headline">Language Politics</h1>
<h2 itemprop="description" class="">An article in the
Organiser discusses the failure of the reservation policy in India.
According to it, instead of reducing the number of reserved castes, the
policy has caused their count to increase.</h2>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<span class=""></span>
<span class=""></span>
<span class=""></span>
</div></div>
</div>
<p>An editorial in Panchjanya criticises English-speaking
Indians who oppose Hindi and create “enmity” between Indian languages.
Noting that the English language cannot challenge Hindi in India, the
editorial says that pro-English strategists are trying to divide Indian
languages, on the lines of the divide and rule policy.</p>
<p>According to the editorial, it’s fallacious to claim that the
designation and usage of Hindi as the national language jeopardises
other languages. “How can Hindi be an opponent of Tamil, Kannada,
Malayalam or Bengali?” and “how can the Ganges have hostility towards
the Yamuna, Kaveri, Godavari or Teesta?” it asks.</p>
<p>Hindi has incorporated words of Gujarati, Bengali and Marathi and
“defeated English on every count”, be it in news, advertisements or
politics. Foreign companies cannot penetrate Indian markets without
Hindi, and anglicised leaders have lost badly on the political front,
according to the editorial.</p>
<p>The editorial also says that while Hindi is “ruling everywhere”,
English thrives only “in the dens” created by British rule; be it the
proceedings of the Supreme Court, file notings of bureaucrats or the
policy discourse, English is embedded in crucial places.</p>
<p>But, according to the editorial, strengthening Hindi will strengthen
the nation, and making place in the policy discourse for Hindi will
instil confidence in non-English speakers.</p>
<p><strong>Caste and Parivar</strong><br>
An article in the Organiser discusses the failure of the reservation
policy in India. According to it, instead of reducing the number of
reserved castes, the policy has caused their count to increase.</p>
<p>The article challenges the argument that historical discrimination
towards lower castes is justification for reservation, and blames the
British for pushing many castes into backwardness. The British education
system made it difficult for lower castes to get educated as the caste
system became legally rigid during the Raj. It also criticises the upper
castes who became rigid and “forgot their moorings and [the] intrinsic
spirit of our scriptures”. In support of its argument, the article
points out that “all castes stood by each other to fight the invaders
over the centuries”.</p>
<p>It then highlights the flawed implementation of the reservation
policy, which has caused the number of Scheduled Castes to increase from
1,208 in 1950 to 1,241 in 2011, the number of Scheduled Tribes from 664
to 705 and OBCs from 1,257 to 5,013. The fact that more castes are
fighting for reservation confirms “that these communities are being
further impoverished by government policies or there is a rush to fall
backwards”.</p>
<p>The article asserts that Hindus have always aspired towards higher
virtues and “never believed in living at the mercy of others”. Urging
backward communities to relinquish their reservation benefits, it says
that many have given them up as “it is for the communities to decide how
long these privileges should continue”.</p>
<p><strong>Victory Lap</strong><br>
An article in the Organiser challenges the notion that the 1965 war was
“inconclusive”, and applauds the Central government for changing this
perception, declaring the war “a victory” and celebrating it. It quotes
several armymen in order to assert that the war “was a decisive military
victory of an ill-prepared, impoverished and fatigued nation over a
well-equipped adversary”.</p>
<p>It quotes former US diplomat Dennis Kux that “Although both sides
lost heavily in men and material, Bharat had the better of the war.
Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan’s attempt to seize <a href="http://indianexpress.com/tag/kashmir/">Kashmir</a>
by force.” English historian John Keay noted that “Bharatiya tanks
advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but
Bharat had most to celebrate.”</p><p>Indianexpress.com/article/opinion/language-politics/<a href="http://ndianexpress.com/article/opinion/language-politics/">ndianexpress.com/article/opinion/language-politics/</a><br></p><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">**************************************<br>N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its members<br>and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message. A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)<br><br>For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to <a href="https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/" target="_blank">https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/</a><br>listinfo/lgpolicy-list<br>*******************************************</div>
</div>