Hyderabad is deeply divided

Looks like that is the general feeling in the city. Common Telanganite wants common Andhrite to leave Hyderabad. Hope this is temporary not deep-seated.

confuzzled dude wrote:Looks like that is the general feeling in the city. Common Telanganite wants common Andhrite to leave Hyderabad. Hope this is temporary not deep-seated.

I am in touch with young Andhrans and Telengans, and as a Thamizhan it is fun to needle them and see their confusion and dilemma on every issue.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Looks like that is the general feeling in the city. Common Telanganite wants common Andhrite to leave Hyderabad. Hope this is temporary not deep-seated.

I am in touch with young Andhrans and Telengans, and as  a Thamizhan it is fun to needle them and see their confusion and dilemma on every issue.

you can state your opinions on various things, that will be confusing enough.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Looks like that is the general feeling in the city. Common Telanganite wants common Andhrite to leave Hyderabad. Hope this is temporary not deep-seated.

I am in touch with young Andhrans and Telengans, and as  a Thamizhan it is fun to needle them and see their confusion and dilemma on every issue.

you can state your opinions on various things, that will be confusing enough.

yes..yes...you do have a point there.

confuzzled dude wrote:Looks like that is the general feeling in the city. Common Telanganite wants common Andhrite to leave Hyderabad. Hope this is temporary not deep-seated.

This will only get worse. T-politicians will have difficulty in supporting SA people working in Hyderabad when there are T people looking for jobs.

Mt relatives, who have been living in Hyderabad since 1960's, are facing snide remarks from T-people already. Interestingly, the family is not against separation. Their only crime is - they still speak SA Telugu.

This reminds me of a Punjabi gentleman who used to commute with me on the train. His family was from Lahore. They came to India in 1947. He used to talk about - snide remarks, tongawalah demanding 5 rupees for 12 anna ride, and if they tried to bargain, he raising hsi voice and calling them Hindu lalahs, them giving muslim names when challenged by BaluChi policemen (Mohd. Sarwar was one of them), Muslim street gangs accusing them of disrespecting Islam, etc. Hope Telanganites would be little more circumspect toward who they label as SA "settlers" (valasa-daarulu).

hindus should be united in hyderabad .

if hindu unity breaks down then the advantage in any future communal confrontation will go to the muslims who are 40 percent of hyderabad's population .


....and hyd is a communally polarised city .

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Mt relatives, who have been living in Hyderabad since 1960's, are facing snide remarks from T-people already. Interestingly, the family is not against separation. Their only crime is - they still speak SA Telugu.

LOL I believe that was genuine typo, your mind was thinking "My" but your fingers typed "MT [Mata]" anyway

Back to OP, I heard this from a friend of mine who's born in Hyd and lived all his life in Hyd but from SA origin. I was surprised to hear this from him because I always thought he would be the last person to say such a thing as 90% of his friends are of "T" origin.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Mt relatives, who have been living in Hyderabad since 1960's, are facing snide remarks from T-people already. Interestingly, the family is not against separation. Their only crime is - they still speak SA Telugu.

LOL I believe that was genuine typo, your mind was thinking "My" but your fingers typed "MT [Mata]" anyway

Back to OP, I heard this from a friend of mine who's born in Hyd and lived all his life in Hyd but from SA origin. I was surprised to hear this from him because I always thought he would be the last person to say such a thing as 90% of his friends are of "T" origin.

 Mt - LOL. Looks like she is going through some difficult times (Vadra).

confuzzled dude wrote:

Back to OP, I heard this from a friend of mine who's born in Hyd and lived all his life in Hyd but from SA origin. I was surprised to hear this from him because I always thought he would be the last person to say such a thing as 90% of his friends are of "T" origin.

 Sounds like Kuwait. They have Palestinians living in Kuwait for several generations. They are still considered foreigners, and are not allowed citizenship (a citizen in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia is taken care of by the govt. from the cradle to grave).

If you see a Hyderabadi is the street, how can you figure out (without asking) whether he is a Telanganite or an Andhraite?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:If you see a Hyderabadi is the street, how can you figure out (without asking) whether he is a Telanganite or an Andhraite?

 big T sign. kinda like the L they use on bikes and cars sometimes

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Mt relatives, who have been living in Hyderabad since 1960's, are facing snide remarks from T-people already. Interestingly, the family is not against separation. Their only crime is - they still speak SA Telugu.

This is true of many of my relatives who moved in the '50s. They are not opposed to bifurcation, and a few of them actively support it. This is why it is critical for cooler heads in Telangana to prevail over the bigotry and hatred that KCR and his gang like to preach.

Most of my family members who have SA origin but grew up in Hyderabad can also speak the Telangana dialect and Hyderabadi. They speak their own dialect at home, but tend to speak the local dialect with friends. I speak a Krishna/Guntur dialect with that side of the family, and a Nallagonda dialect with the rest. And this is not unique to my family; guruvu-gaaru has mentioned that his nephews speak the local dialect as well. I can't imagine how the neighbors of these assimilated people would really distinguish them as people of SA origin. It is not like a village where everybody knows everybody's extended family history well. A small minority of SAs, who actively went out of their way in the past to insult the locals, will be known to the locals as SAs. The rest are hard to pin down as Telangana or Seemandhra people, given the extensive intermarriages and such between the regions. Given these longstanding family connections, I hope cooler heads prevail and this does not escalate beyond snide remarks.

A friend of my mom from Hyderabad was visiting her in Bangalore so I ended up chitchatting a bit. I was curious about her views on Telangana. She made a few comments that I am paraphrasing. Of course, she is 80+ so her views might not be representative of today's generation.
 
1. Politicians from Delhi have no business messing up the lives of people in AP. There has been noise about Telangana for years so why do they act on it now? A good state is being divided for politics, not for the benefit of the people.
2. She hails from Vijayawada but her children grew up in Hyderabad and work there. Her children don't seem to be particularly concerned because they feel aligned with Telangana. Only she feels miserable. There is already so much hatred developing that she might be considered a foreigner in her own state.
3. Everyone contributed to Hyderabad. It doesn't belong only to Telangana. This division will cause economic and social problems for those who are from elsewhere.
4. More states will now ask for divisions. This is bad for India.
5. She said some unsavory things about MIM. I have no clue about what this organization does.

goodcitizn wrote:5. She said some unsavory things about MIM. I have no clue about what this organization does.

Of all the political parties in Andhra Pradesh, MIM is by far the most dangerous. You can read more of my take on the party here.

Idéfix wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:5. She said some unsavory things about MIM. I have no clue about what this organization does.

Of all the political parties in Andhra Pradesh, MIM is by far the most dangerous. You can read more of my take on the party here.

Did you get approval from Maulana Rashmunullah and Maulana Merlot before posting the above link? All posts by PiSS Members and ISP members should be cleared by your high command.

Idéfix wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:5. She said some unsavory things about MIM. I have no clue about what this organization does.

Of all the political parties in Andhra Pradesh, MIM is by far the most dangerous. You can read more of my take on the party here.

Thanks, Car. It took me a full 10-minutes to read and digest the content. I had no idea about the history of MIM or the influence of Owaisis in Hyderabad. It does raise questions about how Pakistan could have a play in this region. Scary.
P.S. I wonder who went about giving negative votes to your writeup. Is Rashmun browsing and not posting?

goodcitizn wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:5. She said some unsavory things about MIM. I have no clue about what this organization does.

Of all the political parties in Andhra Pradesh, MIM is by far the most dangerous. You can read more of my take on the party here.

Thanks, Car. It took me a full 10-minutes to read and digest the content. I had no idea about the history of MIM or the influence of Owaisis in Hyderabad. It does raise questions about how Pakistan could have a play in this region. Scary.
P.S. I wonder who went about giving negative votes to your writeup. Is Rashmun browsing and not posting?

ISI is quite active in Hyderabad, and I won't be surprised if there are links between MIM and ISI. The last time MIM was in power in Hyderabad, it  transferred public funds to the bank account of Pakistan, which was fighting India at the time (in 1948 over Kashmir). Those sympathies have not disappeared.

Idéfix wrote:ISI is quite active in Hyderabad, and I won't be surprised if there are links between MIM and ISI. The last time MIM was in power in Hyderabad, it  transferred public funds money to the bank account of Pakistan, which was fighting India at the time (in 1948 over Kashmir). Those sympathies have not disappeared.

Wonder why there hasn't been more press on this. Are they that intimidating over the media?
I also want to know if my mother's friend is a minority on her views about Telangana.

goodcitizn wrote:

Idéfix wrote:ISI is quite active in Hyderabad, and I won't be surprised if there are links between MIM and ISI. The last time MIM was in power in Hyderabad, it  transferred public funds money to the bank account of Pakistan, which was fighting India at the time (in 1948 over Kashmir). Those sympathies have not disappeared.

Wonder why there hasn't been more press on this. Are they that intimidating over the media?
I also want to know if my mother's friend is a minority on her views about Telangana.

In my opinion, her views are representative of the views of Seemandhra people who live in Seemandhra, or moved to Hyderabad in the last 50 years. People of SA origin born and raised in Hyderabad tend to be less opposed to bifurcation. Her views are in opposition to the views of a large majority of Telangana people, and a large fraction of the people of Hyderabad.

Idéfix wrote:Most of my family members who have SA origin but grew up in Hyderabad can also speak the Telangana dialect and Hyderabadi. They speak their own dialect at home, but tend to speak the local dialect with friends. I speak a Krishna/Guntur dialect with that side of the family, and a Nallagonda dialect with the rest. And this is not unique to my family; guruvu-gaaru has mentioned that his nephews speak the local dialect as well. I can't imagine how the neighbors of these assimilated people would really distinguish them as people of SA origin. It is not like a village where everybody knows everybody's extended family history well. A small minority of SAs, who actively went out of their way in the past to insult the locals, will be known to the locals as SAs. The rest are hard to pin down as Telangana or Seemandhra people, given the extensive intermarriages and such between the regions. Given these longstanding family connections, I hope cooler heads prevail and this does not escalate beyond snide remarks.

I hope so too. I think current situation in conjunction with enormous success of Seemandhra strike & protests must be ruffling feathers of many ordinary 'T' folks

The war words usually ends in bad situation. Current political needs prevent local t leaders taking. An aggressive posture.
However hyd is a tinder box. An unrelated accident could cause a nasty situation.

Idéfix wrote:Most of my family members who have SA origin but grew up in Hyderabad can also speak the Telangana dialect and Hyderabadi. They speak their own dialect at home, but tend to speak the local dialect with friends. I speak a Krishna/Guntur dialect with that side of the family, and a Nallagonda dialect with the rest. And this is not unique to my family; guruvu-gaaru has mentioned that his nephews speak the local dialect as well. I can't imagine how the neighbors of these assimilated people would really distinguish them as people of SA origin. It is not like a village where everybody knows everybody's extended family history well. A small minority of SAs, who actively went out of their way in the past to insult the locals, will be known to the locals as SAs. The rest are hard to pin down as Telangana or Seemandhra people, given the extensive intermarriages and such between the regions. Given these longstanding family connections, I hope cooler heads prevail and this does not escalate beyond snide remarks.

 Yeah, my nephews are like you. They can speak both. My sister and BIL still speak in SA (BIL could speak Hyderabadi with T colleagues). We have T relatives and have no problems between us. The snide remarks by strangers that I mentioned, apparently, happened when my sister and other relatives were at Indira park and were talking to each other in SA. My other sister's husband was born in Hyd. He can speak both (his parents were from Guntur dist). He worked in Nalla Konda for a few years.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Looks like that is the general feeling in the city. Common Telanganite wants common Andhrite to leave Hyderabad. Hope this is temporary not deep-seated.

I am in touch with young Andhrans and Telengans, and as  a Thamizhan it is fun to needle them and see their confusion and dilemma on every issue.

Sounds like the entertainment we get from your fear of Muslims.

confuzzled dude wrote:Looks like that is the general feeling in the city. Common Telanganite wants common Andhrite to leave Hyderabad. Hope this is temporary not deep-seated.

The genie of tribalism let loose by the linguistic reorganization of states is now coming back to haunt us. It was languages then. It is dialects now. Until now, I didn't even know that the Guntur dialect is different from the Hyderabad dialect and the Vizag dialect.

Going by the AP precedent, Karnataka is ripe for splitting into five parts: North Karnataka, Malnad, Bangalore-Mysore, Coorg and the Canaras. Culturally, these regions have nothing in common.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Looks like that is the general feeling in the city. Common Telanganite wants common Andhrite to leave Hyderabad. Hope this is temporary not deep-seated.

The genie of tribalism let loose by the linguistic reorganization of states is now coming back to haunt us. It was languages then. It is dialects now. Until now, I didn't even know that the Guntur dialect is different from the Hyderabad dialect and the Vizag dialect.

Going by the AP precedent, Karnataka is ripe for splitting into five parts: North Karnataka, Malnad, Bangalore-Mysore, Coorg and the Canaras. Culturally, these regions have nothing in common.

there is no genie of tribalism let loose by languages and dialects. there was no other way to organize the country given our diversity.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Looks like that is the general feeling in the city. Common Telanganite wants common Andhrite to leave Hyderabad. Hope this is temporary not deep-seated.

The genie of tribalism let loose by the linguistic reorganization of states is now coming back to haunt us. It was languages then. It is dialects now. Until now, I didn't even know that the Guntur dialect is different from the Hyderabad dialect and the Vizag dialect.

Going by the AP precedent, Karnataka is ripe for splitting into five parts: North Karnataka, Malnad, Bangalore-Mysore, Coorg and the Canaras. Culturally, these regions have nothing in common.

there is no genie of tribalism let loose by languages and dialects. there was no other way to organize the country given our diversity.

Regions were administered quite effectively for millenia before local language suddenly assumed paramount importance and became the basis for delineation of state boundaries. What difference does it make to a Kodava-speaker in Madikeri whether his district is administered as part of a larger "Kannada" state or a "Malayali" state?? What administrative efficiencies did we gain??

On the other hand, the competitive linguistic chauvinism has curtailed mobility of labor across the country and caused terrible inconveniences to non-locals. Step into a police station in Mumbai, the haha Shanghai of India, and everything is in Marathi. The signs are in Marathi. The rules and regulations are in Marathi. Even the FIR is registered in Marathi, so the victim has absolutely no idea if the cop has recorded the description of the crime accurately. Same situation in Chennai, Bangalore and any place you go in India. It's a patchwork of fiefdoms masquerading as a nation.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Looks like that is the general feeling in the city. Common Telanganite wants common Andhrite to leave Hyderabad. Hope this is temporary not deep-seated.

The genie of tribalism let loose by the linguistic reorganization of states is now coming back to haunt us. It was languages then. It is dialects now. Until now, I didn't even know that the Guntur dialect is different from the Hyderabad dialect and the Vizag dialect.

Going by the AP precedent, Karnataka is ripe for splitting into five parts: North Karnataka, Malnad, Bangalore-Mysore, Coorg and the Canaras. Culturally, these regions have nothing in common.

there is no genie of tribalism let loose by languages and dialects. there was no other way to organize the country given our diversity.

Regions were administered quite effectively for millenia before local language suddenly assumed paramount importance and became the basis for delineation of state boundaries. What difference does it make to a Kodava-speaker in Madikeri whether his district is administered as part of a larger "Kannada" state or a "Malayali" state?? What administrative efficiencies did we gain??

On the other hand, the competitive linguistic chauvinism has curtailed mobility of labor across the country and caused terrible inconveniences to non-locals. Step into a police station in Mumbai, the haha Shanghai of India, and everything is in Marathi. The signs are in Marathi. The rules and regulations are in Marathi. Even the FIR is registered in Marathi, so the victim has absolutely no idea if the cop has recorded the description of the crime accurately. Same situation in Chennai, Bangalore and any place you go in India. It's a patchwork of fiefdoms masquerading as a nation.

+1

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Regions were administered quite effectively for millenia before local language suddenly assumed paramount importance and became the basis for delineation of state boundaries. What difference does it make to a Kodava-speaker in Madikeri whether his district is administered as part of a larger "Kannada" state or a "Malayali" state?? What administrative efficiencies did we gain??

Unfortunately, there is no other way to divide. What criteria would you suggest?

The basis was/is that you will be ruled by one of "your own" Division of a country has always been based on lanugage, religion or ethnicity - with the exception of US.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Regions were administered quite effectively for millenia before local language suddenly assumed paramount importance and became the basis for delineation of state boundaries. What difference does it make to a Kodava-speaker in Madikeri whether his district is administered as part of a larger "Kannada" state or a "Malayali" state?? What administrative efficiencies did we gain??

Unfortunately, there is no other way to divide. What criteria would you suggest?

The basis was/is that you will be ruled by one of "your own" Division of a country has always been based on lanugage, religion or ethnicity - with the exception of US.

Delineation of districts and states should be by population size. Wherever possible, rivers should be used as natural delineators to enable fair sharing of riverine resources and minimize water disputes.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
On the other hand, the competitive linguistic chauvinism has curtailed mobility of labor across the country and caused terrible inconveniences to non-locals.

Hold it! Wake not a sleeping Lion, don't think we're ready for another round of discussion(s) on the benefits of Hindi medium.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
On the other hand, the competitive linguistic chauvinism has curtailed mobility of labor across the country and caused terrible inconveniences to non-locals.

Hold it! Wake not a sleeping Lion, don't think we're ready for another round of discussion(s) on the benefits of Hindi medium.

what! don't tell me you aren't missing the cut-and-paste-vomitry on the benefits of suckini.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
On the other hand, the competitive linguistic chauvinism has curtailed mobility of labor across the country and caused terrible inconveniences to non-locals.

Hold it! Wake not a sleeping Lionparrot, don't think we're ready for another round of discussion(s) on the benefits of Hindi medium.

what! don't tell me you aren't missing the cut-and-paste-vomitry on the benefits of suckini.

*Fixed*

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Regions were administered quite effectively for millenia before local language suddenly assumed paramount importance and became the basis for delineation of state boundaries.

Not really. At independence, India was a patchwork of a handful of very large states, a few tiny states, and over 500 princely states. When they were all brought into the union, the framers of the constitution could not even agree on what a state should be. So they came up with a highly elaborate and complex definition of statehood, with four different types of states:

• Part A states that were large provinces of British India
  
• Part B states that were cobbled together from the former princely states, and included an unholy mess of enclaves and exclaves in the neighboring part A states, and
  
• Part C states that were small states made up of territory from British India that were governed by a Chief Commissioner (not a Governor and a Chief Minister)
  
• One Part D state in Andaman and Nicobar that had its own unique constitutional status owing to its definition as a Part D state
  

Below is a political map of India before linguistic reorganization. Observe the messy boundaries full of enclaves; in particular, look at PEPSU and its six non-contiguous pieces embedded within Punjab, HP divided into two non-contiguous pieces, the three small pieces of Bombay state embedded within Saurashtra state, the piece of Rajasthan on the far side of Madhya Bharat, the piece of Madras embedded in Hyderabad, and the broken Vindhya Pradesh.


Map source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/India_Administrative_Divisions_1951.svg

Merlot Daruwala wrote:What difference does it make to a Kodava-speaker in Madikeri whether his district is administered as part of a larger "Kannada" state or a "Malayali" state?? What administrative efficiencies did we gain??

We eliminated the patchwork of enclaves and exclaves of states, and organized contiguous states. We also avoided perpetuating the division between British India and princely states. That division is purely an accident of history, but had a big impact on socioeconomic indicators around independence. By integrating adjacent territories governed by the princes and directly by the British, some of the gaps between those regions were reduced. Andhra Pradesh is an excellent case in point; integration brought the two regions closer in terms of socioeconomic indicators.

Perhaps a more important outcome of linguistic states is that they provided an avenue for linguistic identities to be expressed and nurtured in India within its constitutional framework and without threatening its national integrity. India today is the only large, truly multilingual country in the world. It wasn't the only one in 1955. The Soviet Union took a very different approach to linguistic identity: it sought to suppress it by actively encouraging large groups to migrate into other regions, arbitrarily transferring territory between different administrative zones, and treating any non-Russian linguistic identity as a threat to the unity of the USSR, thereby depriving people of a way to express their linguistic identity within the framework of a united Soviet nation. Through linguistic states, India coopted a potentially divisive factor that might have threatened its integrity, and turned it into a factor that increases cohesion and identification with the state among its people.

This point is best illustrated by looking at what happened to the Assam state of 1951. Since independence, there have always been at least two, sometimes as many as five, serious separatist movements in the northeast. Allowing ethno-linguistic states in the region has been a large part of the solution to that upheaval. Creation of Nagaland and Mizoram as states helped address important grievances of the local people, and has dissipated the separatism some, by peeling away the support of the more moderate segments of the population.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:On the other hand, the competitive linguistic chauvinism has curtailed mobility of labor across the country and caused terrible inconveniences to non-locals. Step into a police station in Mumbai, the haha Shanghai of India, and everything is in Marathi. The signs are in Marathi. The rules and regulations are in Marathi. Even the FIR is registered in Marathi, so the victim has absolutely no idea if the cop has recorded the description of the crime accurately. Same situation in Chennai, Bangalore and any place you go in India. It's a patchwork of fiefdoms masquerading as a nation.

If you want to see what a patchwork of fiefdoms really looks like, consult the map up above. India is a union of states, and there will be differences between states, the complaints of English-educated elites notwithstanding. The question is whether you serve the vast majority of people in their native language, or you cater to the English-educated elites. The US is a one-language country for the most part (for now at least), but each state has its own laws, and you can make a right turn on red in some jurisdictions and you can't in others. You can pump your own gas at the gas station in some jurisdictions, and you can't in others. That doesn't mean that having states be in charge of those issues hurts the US.

Idéfix wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:What difference does it make to a Kodava-speaker in Madikeri whether his district is administered as part of a larger "Kannada" state or a "Malayali" state?? What administrative efficiencies did we gain??

We eliminated the patchwork of enclaves and exclaves of states, and organized contiguous states. We also avoided perpetuating the division between British India and princely states.

Congratulations. But surely such rationalization could very well have taken place without necessarily perpetuating lingustic balkanization. And even now, we have large, unwieldy states like MP, Maharashtra and UP and tiny ones. We still have linguistic enclaves within these supposedly linguistically homogeneous states.

Idéfix wrote:Perhaps a more important outcome of linguistic states is that they provided an avenue for linguistic identities to be expressed and nurtured in India within its constitutional framework and without threatening its national integrity.

Language was never the basis for nationalistic pride in India over the millenia. Each kingdom had a court language for administrative purposes but its territories were home to all kinds of languages which coexisted without ever threatening territorial integrity. But once states were divvied by language, that actually made the local language a politically significant tribal identity. So it's quite ironic you see the linguistic balkanization as having enhanced national integrity.

Idéfix wrote:The Soviet Union took a very different approach to linguistic identity: it sought to suppress it by actively encouraging large groups to migrate into other regions, arbitrarily transferring territory between different administrative zones, and treating any non-Russian linguistic identity as a threat to the unity of the USSR, thereby depriving people of a way to express their linguistic identity within the framework of a united Soviet nation.

The USSR is a bad example. It conflates ethnic and linguistic identities. An Azerbaijani has nothing in common with a Ukrainian or a Russian. The differences in India are more complex and are starker by caste than by language. A Puneri Brahmin has more in common with a Tambrahm from Mylapore than a Gabit from Gadchiroli.

Idéfix wrote:Through linguistic states, India coopted a potentially divisive factor that might have threatened its integrity, and turned it into a factor that increases cohesion and identification with the state among its people.

True, true. The cohesion and mutual love displayed by Telangana and SA is there for all to see and admire.

Idéfix wrote:This point is best illustrated by looking at what happened to the Assam state of 1951. Since independence, there have always been at least two, sometimes as many as five, serious separatist movements in the northeast. Allowing ethno-linguistic states in the region has been a large part of the solution to that upheaval.

How did the creation of an Ahom state solve the problem of Bodo tribalism in Assam? In fact, carving out Assam enabled Assamese separatism.

Idéfix wrote:Creation of Nagaland and Mizoram as states helped address important grievances of the local people, and has dissipated the separatism some, by peeling away the support of the more moderate segments of the population.

The carving out of Nagaland out of Assam was on the basis of the Naga ethnic identity. Language is incidental. Each tribe in Nagaland speaks a different dialect, adding up to some 20 dialects. As if to underline how incidental language is, they wisely made English the state language. This could have been a template for the rest of India, but for that silly notion of English being an elite language.

Idéfix wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:On the other hand, the competitive linguistic chauvinism has curtailed mobility of labor across the country and caused terrible inconveniences to non-locals. Step into a police station in Mumbai, the haha Shanghai of India, and everything is in Marathi. The signs are in Marathi. The rules and regulations are in Marathi. Even the FIR is registered in Marathi, so the victim has absolutely no idea if the cop has recorded the description of the crime accurately. Same situation in Chennai, Bangalore and any place you go in India. It's a patchwork of fiefdoms masquerading as a nation.

If you want to see what a patchwork of fiefdoms really looks like, consult the map up above. India is a union of states, and there will be differences between states, the complaints of English-educated elites notwithstanding. The question is whether you serve the vast majority of people in their native language, or you cater to the English-educated elites.

The great bogey of elitism has been used to politicize education and thrust vernacular medium of instruction on generations of youngsters. The poor, forever at the mercy of local governments, are taught through out in the local language and when they try to pursue higher education or seek better careers outside their region, find themselves at a severe disadvantage. Language becomes a great barrier to these victims of linguistic authoritarianism, coming in the way of their quest to realize their potential.

It's not as if this forcible education in vernacular has resulted in some glorious literary renaissance in all these languages. Whatever literature there is, is because of the talent of individual writers and not because of state patronage. The latter has merely resulted in the pouring of taxpayer money into grand seminars and conferences and the printing of thousands of books that nobody reads and is then forcibly sent to all the state libraries.

On the other hand, the price paid by individuals thwarted in their ambitions is heartbreaking. My maid's daughter, educated through out in Marathi-medium, showed much promise in science and math and got into a well-known engineering college in Mumbai last year on some quota. She is now struggling to keep up in class because the courses are in English. She now wants to drop out. How sad is that?

I recall your own posts about how you overcame the challenges of Telugu medium education before you went on to achieve everything you did. So it is particularly unfortunate that you continue to support this class injustice.

Idéfix wrote:The US is a one-language country for the most part (for now at least), but each state has its own laws, and you can make a right turn on red in some jurisdictions and you can't in others. You can pump your own gas at the gas station in some jurisdictions, and you can't in others. That doesn't mean that having states be in charge of those issues hurts the US.

Irrelevant. I'm not arguing for dilution of state powers. All I'm questioning is the needless creation of yet another divisive identity in an already diverse society, without any administrative benefit or efficiency to show for it.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Language was never the basis for nationalistic pride in India over the millenia. Each kingdom had a court language for administrative purposes but its territories were home to all kinds of languages which coexisted without ever threatening territorial integrity. But once states were divvied by language, that actually made the local language a politically significant tribal identity. So it's quite ironic you see the linguistic balkanization as having enhanced national integrity.

This is simply not true about modern times. Bengali identity was strong enough in 1905 for a resistance to dividing up the province. In the 1920s, the Indian National Congress passed a resolution in favor of linguistic provinces, because linguistic identity was very much a reality. Orissa and Sindh were created as provinces in the decades before independence, out of the large Bengal and Bombay provinces, precisely for this reason.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:True, true. The cohesion and mutual love displayed by Telangana and SA is there for all to see and admire.

The Telangana-Seemandhra acrimony is a perfect example of how the Indian Union has coopted the potential threat from linguistic identity to national unity, and defused it enough so that people of a linguistic state are asking for a division of their state! If what you say about linguistic balkanization was true, the people of Andhra Pradesh ought to be agitating for a separate country for Telugu people, not dividing Telugu lands into two states. There hasn't been a single state that was carved out on linguistic grounds where there was no pre-existing nationalist/separatist movement where such a movement has gotten started and gained strength. So your claim of balkanization is not based on observed facts.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:It's not as if this forcible education in vernacular has resulted in some glorious literary renaissance in all these languages.

For the vast majority of the people, this is not forcible education in the vernacular at all! It is education in the language they know. Teaching an illiterate kid a new language, and then getting them literate in that language is a lot harder than getting them literate in a language they already know. The incremental value from knowing English is lower than the incremental value from gaining literacy. In a country with millions of illiterate people and scarce resources, public policy ought to be weighted towards delivering that higher value at lower cost first, before seeking to educate everyone in English.

Idéfix wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Language was never the basis for nationalistic pride in India over the millenia. Each kingdom had a court language for administrative purposes but its territories were home to all kinds of languages which coexisted without ever threatening territorial integrity. But once states were divvied by language, that actually made the local language a politically significant tribal identity. So it's quite ironic you see the linguistic balkanization as having enhanced national integrity.

This is simply not true about modern times. Bengali identity was strong enough in 1905 for a resistance to dividing up the province. In the 1920s, the Indian National Congress passed a resolution in favor of linguistic provinces, because linguistic identity was very much a reality. Orissa and Sindh were created as provinces in the decades before independence, out of the large Bengal and Bombay provinces, precisely for this reason.

Yeah, trust politicians to engage in this kind of gerrymandering. What better way to create and nurture a votebank than to create yet another element of tribal identity and invest much emotion into it?? Ok, so the INC has been at it since the 20s. So what? It doesn't imbue the idea with any special sanctity or rationality.

Idéfix wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:True, true. The cohesion and mutual love displayed by Telangana and SA is there for all to see and admire.

The Telangana-Seemandhra acrimony is a perfect example of how the Indian Union has coopted the potential threat from linguistic identity to national unity, and defused it enough so that people of a linguistic state are asking for a division of their state!

The acrimony would not have come up in the first place if language had not been made the basis for nationalism. The bogey of separatism by language lines is disingenuous - that too would never have arisen if linguistic tribalism had not been awakened by the states reorganization.

Idéfix wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:It's not as if this forcible education in vernacular has resulted in some glorious literary renaissance in all these languages.

For the vast majority of the people, this is not forcible education in the vernacular at all! It is education in the language they know. Teaching an illiterate kid a new language, and then getting them literate in that language is a lot harder than getting them literate in a language they already know. The incremental value from knowing English is lower than the incremental value from gaining literacy. In a country with millions of illiterate people and scarce resources, public policy ought to be weighted towards delivering that higher value at lower cost first, before seeking to educate everyone in English.

All children are born illiterate. Yet, the children of the affluent get educated in English without any apparent ill-effects and they go on to accomplish great things and surpass their parents' affluence, while the children of the poor who have no choice but go to the government schools are taught in their mother-tongue (since the government knows what is best for them), are forever condemned to the class of their birth (with notable exceptions). Little wonder the Dalits view this whole education-in-vernacular as an upper caste conspiracy to keep them subjugated, and view that oh-so-elite English you disdain so much as their path to socio-economic salvation.

"The acrimony would not have come up in the first place if language had not been made the basis for nationalism. The bogey of separatism by language lines is disingenuous - that too would never have arisen if linguistic tribalism had not been awakened by the states reorganization."   Merlot

>>> Are you trying to point a finger at Nehru-ji and Congress Merlot? I always had suspicions about your chaddi identity and hindutva agenda.

Haha..you are too sharp Seva Unkil. Nobody can pull wool on your eyes for sure.

I did not read all of the posts above. Andhra and t divide has both a linguistic and cultural factors to back up primary reason of economic divide nizam's rule created a situation like twins being raised by two different families. Ram aur shyam.

The more recent reason is political opportunism of kcr, ysr, Mt and yes cbn.
,

Merlot Daruwala

"The acrimony would not have come up in the first place if language had not been made the basis for nationalism. The bogey of separatism by language lines is disingenuous - that too would never have arisen if linguistic tribalism had not been awakened by the states reorganization."  

Well I guess Telugus, especially Andhraites are paying for what they have started 60+ years ago

Based on what has transpired in A.P, one can argue that without linguistic separation, every state would be suffering from A.P syndrome i.e. infighting would've been prevalent in all the states, (language) minorities would be complaining about injustices suffered akin to what Telanganaites grouse about.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The acrimony would not have come up in the first place if language had not been made the basis for nationalism. The bogey of separatism by language lines is disingenuous - that too would never have arisen if linguistic tribalism had not been awakened by the states reorganization.

Since the invention of the nation-state a few centuries ago, language has been the primary basis for nationhood. Prior to the invention of this concept, European kings ruled multilingual kingdoms, exactly like Indian kings. The kings of France and England fought a Hundred Years War on both sides of the channel. The Habsburgs ruled Spain, the Netherlands, parts of Italy, and Austria-Hungary. But once nationalism arose a couple of centuries ago, language was its primary driver. Our own neighbors' example illustrates this rather well. Pakistan arose as a religion-based state, but split up because of  heavy-handed attempts to not accommodate multiple languages within the constitutional framework. Far from awakening linguistic tribalism, states reorganization gave the existing tribalism a safe and healthy outlet within the constitutional framework of India.

Idéfix wrote:All children are born illiterate. Yet, the children of the affluent get educated in English without any apparent ill-effects and they go on to accomplish great things and surpass their parents' affluence, while the children of the poor who have no choice but go to the government schools are taught in their mother-tongue (since the government knows what is best for them), are forever condemned to the class of their birth (with notable exceptions).

The children of the affluent get more than just school education in English; those private resources are not available to the poor. In my own experience, most English teachers in government schools cannot speak fluent English. Most parents of kids in government schools do not speak English. In that environment, attempting to teach all subjects in English medium severely erodes the ability of children to learn. They resort to learning by rote things they do not understand. Teaching concepts in the native language, OTOH, can be more effective at fostering understanding. English should be taught from an early age to all Indian students, but the medium of education in publicly-funded schools ought to be the native language.