[Reader-list] The Myth of Hindi Pradesh(Posting 5)

[himanshu ranjan]

The Myth of Hindi Pradesh (Posting 5)
 
     Nationalism together with the preceding 19th century renaissance which it grew out of, is such a complex phenomenon with so many layers, contradictory notions and intricacies that nothing safe and sound, rather of straightforwardly order, can be derived from it.Today,when the whole discourse of nationalism has turned into a platform of deep-rooted introspection, making diverse interpretations and reinterpretations,covering many untouched aspects and exploring new dimentions, it is very difficult to stick on any one constituent and doing justice to it or to the whole discourse. Language has been regarded a major constituent of nationality, nation or nationalism in both the liberal and marxist thoughts.Marxism as an ideology came up very late in cultural introspection and analysis and being a very minor group in the nationalist movement, the leftists could not assert much in shaping the things either. The Hindi-Urdu belt, termed both as the cowbelt and the Hindi heartland, was in
 a position to lead the anti imperialist war in 1857 and particularly the nationalist movement in the first half of the twentieth century, but the language movement remained isolated and fractured throughout. Orientalism, revivalism and communalism as a political instrument of power-struggle were the three main trends which engulfed the whole process and made severe deviations in the nationalist movement. Language itself could not do much beyond those deviations.
     Starting with the cow protection movement and Nagari-Hindi movement centred on Benaras and Allahabad. Madan Mohan Malviya, to quote from Gyanendra Pandey, 'became a symbol of the national movement in this area until the arrival of Gandhi (and, with him, the Nehrus)' Allahabad witnesed both the currents simultaneously - one associated with the 'secular' Motilal Nehru and the other with the 'Hindu' Madan Mohan Malviya. The division existed,but as far as the language was concerned, Gandhi made it a point to develop Hindi as a link language and utilized it in expanding his nationalist politices,and thus gave it a national stature. And at this very juncture, there emerged the territoriality factor in nationalism, both on the political level and that of the language constituent too. The institutions like the Indian Press and the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, which supported the mission of Gandhi and the Congress, also started to construct a glorious and strong Indian 'past' through
 conventions and their publications in humanities and particularly the history of the Hindu-Hindi language and literature. Gandhi's politics, due to its own religious strategies of mass mobilisation, was not in a position to check this revivalist and communalist agenda. Now the Hindi leaders went ahead to explore and demarcate a long history and a broad teritorial space that could be big enough to dominate the whole country, irrespective of the existing greater nationalities and provincial languages. Hindi, as a link-language, served much and made a significant contribution to nationalism and the making of a strong nation-state, but at the same time, this thirst for capturing the whole sky and maximising the territorial space, gave it an imperialist character in itself. All the eighteen to twenty languages of this cowbelt were declared to be mere dialects, so that Hindi could claim the biggest territorial space and the stature of the biggest nationality of India. I think, this is one
 of the factors that led to emergence of the second phase of minority movement, the two nation theory and ultimately the partition of the country. Urdu was declared the Muslim nationality language and banished from its homeland on the one hand, and the small nationality languages, some of them having very rich literary traditions, were cut to size and subordinated on the other. The dominating character of Hindi leaders also antagonised the speakers of other provincial languages. This three fold language controversy can not be solved without adopting the democratic process and behaviour.
     Explaining the territorial factor in detail is a deliberate move. The main architects of this teritorial space and its historiography are Dhirendra Verma and Rahul Sankrityayan, the latter being at least honest enough to democratise the matter, though very mechanically. But Verma's thesis of 'Hindi Rashtra or Hindustani Suba' or more specifically the 'Madhyadesh' laid a foundation of Hindi imperialism, which was later developed and advocated more vehemently by Ram Vilas Sharma. Sharma was a marxist thinker, literary critic and linguist. He tackled the nationality problem exhaustively. In marxist paradigm language nationality has a dominating place, but other factors are not the least discarded. Sharma was not ignorant of the intricacies, but he could not disassociate himself from misinterpretation and false glorification of the Indian past. History itself can not avoid historic erors, what to say of Marxist historiography! Rahul was also a Marxist, senior to Sharma, and his
 contribution is no less important. All the three scholars deserve patient reading and more patient confrontation, they can not be set aside with mere remarks.
                                                                        Himanshu Ranjan
                                                               An Independent CSDS Fellow



Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partneronline.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20050526/47b4ff5d/attachment.html