Debate: Ramachandra Guha argues with PP on the Telangana issue
Page 1 of 1
Debate: Ramachandra Guha argues with PP on the Telangana issue
Scroll down to read Ramachandra Guha's response to PP's article. Here is an extract:
Mr. Prabhakar puts the case for ‘Visalandhra’ spiritedly and passionately. My response, like my original essay, may be dispassionate in comparison, since I have, as it were, no dog in this fight. Whether Andhra stays as it is or is divided into two or three states will not affect the way I live or work.
That said, there are a number of logical and historical fallacies in Mr. Prabhakar’s case. Here is the central one. If, as he claims, the “Telugu people” were “together” for “two-and-a-half millenia,” why were the best Telugu musicians in the Tamil country, so many great Tamil and Kannada writers in chiefdoms run by Telugus? The fact is that language as a constitutive feature of political identity is a very modern phenomenon. It originates in the late 18th century in Europe — where it led to the creation of nation-states based on a single language. In mid-20th century India we saw a further innovation — the creation of linguistic provinces.
Mr. Prabhakar could also consider the implications of his claim. If people who speak one language must necessarily be consolidated in a single political unit, as he suggests, why don’t we think then of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand, Haryana, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh merging now into Uttar Pradesh, so that the Hindi-speakers can feel together and secure?
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/form-small-states-create-bigger-problems/article4375561.ece
Mr. Prabhakar puts the case for ‘Visalandhra’ spiritedly and passionately. My response, like my original essay, may be dispassionate in comparison, since I have, as it were, no dog in this fight. Whether Andhra stays as it is or is divided into two or three states will not affect the way I live or work.
That said, there are a number of logical and historical fallacies in Mr. Prabhakar’s case. Here is the central one. If, as he claims, the “Telugu people” were “together” for “two-and-a-half millenia,” why were the best Telugu musicians in the Tamil country, so many great Tamil and Kannada writers in chiefdoms run by Telugus? The fact is that language as a constitutive feature of political identity is a very modern phenomenon. It originates in the late 18th century in Europe — where it led to the creation of nation-states based on a single language. In mid-20th century India we saw a further innovation — the creation of linguistic provinces.
Mr. Prabhakar could also consider the implications of his claim. If people who speak one language must necessarily be consolidated in a single political unit, as he suggests, why don’t we think then of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand, Haryana, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh merging now into Uttar Pradesh, so that the Hindi-speakers can feel together and secure?
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/form-small-states-create-bigger-problems/article4375561.ece
Guest- Guest
Similar topics
» Ramachandra Guha
» Ramachandra Guha is a UPwalah
» Ramachandra Guha is wrong
» ramachandra guha: why tendulkar must retire now
» Ramachandra Guha on BJP, RSS, and Hindu Fundamentalism
» Ramachandra Guha is a UPwalah
» Ramachandra Guha is wrong
» ramachandra guha: why tendulkar must retire now
» Ramachandra Guha on BJP, RSS, and Hindu Fundamentalism
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum