Census dispels Hindi myth, only 25% in India claim Hindi is their mother tongue

Even though the supporters of Hindi are claiming that over 70 per cent of India speaks Hindi, the reality speaks of a different situation. According to 2001 Census figures, just 45 per cent people speak or know Hindi. But, just 25 per cent people in India have declared Hindi as their mother tongue. A little over 25 crore actually speak Hindi, says Census 2001.The remaining people speak variants of Hindi like Bhojpuri, Magadhi, Maithili, Garhwali, Dogri, Rajasthani, Marwari, Haryanvi etc. All put together, the speakers of Hindi and its dialects are about 45 per cent.

It proves that remaining 55 per cent speak non-Hindi languages and the majority people in India don't even know Hindi. According to the 2001 Census, 42 crore people speak or understand Hindi all over India. But, only 25 crore declared Hindi as their mother tongue. 8.5 crore people speak Bengali, 7.5 crore people speak Telugu, 7 crore speak Marathi and 6 crore speak Tamil.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/census-dispels-hindi-myth-only-25-pc-in-india-claim-hindi-is-their-mother-tongue/480525-37-64.html

-> Wonder how many of those 42 crore people that can speak or understand Hindi, can read and write in Hindi at an acceptable level.

ponniyin selvan posted more detailed data about this on sulekha. i am sure the govt has this information for the 2011 census too, but wary about releasing it because they have nehruvian/rajajian/rashmunian hindi agendas.

Making Hindi the national language of India is like making Mandarin the world language.

confuzzled dude wrote:Even though the supporters of Hindi are claiming that over 70 per cent of India speaks Hindi, the reality speaks of a different situation. According to 2001 Census figures, just 45 per cent people speak or know Hindi. But, just 25 per cent people in India have declared Hindi as their mother tongue. A little over 25 crore actually speak Hindi, says Census 2001.The remaining people speak variants of Hindi like Bhojpuri, Magadhi, Maithili, Garhwali, Dogri, Rajasthani, Marwari, Haryanvi etc. All put together, the speakers of Hindi and its dialects are about 45 per cent.

It proves that remaining 55 per cent speak non-Hindi languages and the majority people in India don't even know Hindi. According to the 2001 Census, 42 crore people speak or understand Hindi all over India. But, only 25 crore declared Hindi as their mother tongue. 8.5 crore people speak Bengali, 7.5 crore people speak Telugu, 7 crore speak Marathi and 6 crore speak Tamil.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/census-dispels-hindi-myth-only-25-pc-in-india-claim-hindi-is-their-mother-tongue/480525-37-64.html

-> Wonder how many of those 42 crore people that can speak or understand Hindi, can read and write in Hindi at an acceptable level.

The variants of Hindi like Magadhi, Bhojpuri, etc. are all hindi dialects. I have not yet come across anyone whose mother tongue was some Hindi dialect and who was unable to communicate in Hindustani by which I refer to spoken hindi. By this logic all districts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have different languages since I am informed that almost every district has its own Telugu dialect. ( Some say Ongole Telugu is the most polished Telugu dialect.)

Secondly Urdu and Hindi should be considered the same language at least with respect to verbal communication since there is almost no difference between colloquial hindi and colloquial urdu.

Third, many people have some language other than Hindi as their first language but know hindi as their second language or third language.

Rashmun wrote:
Secondly Urdu and Hindi should be considered the same language at least with respect to verbal communication since there is almost no difference between colloquial hindi and colloquial urdu.

But can the Urdu medium folks read Hindi newspaper & write in Hindi script?

Rashmun wrote:
Third, many people have some language other than Hindi as their first language but know hindi as their second language or third language.

Like I said how many of these can comfortably read and write in Hindi?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Secondly Urdu and Hindi should be considered the same language at least with respect to verbal communication since there is almost no difference between colloquial hindi and colloquial urdu.

But can the Urdu medium folks read Hindi newspaper & write in Hindi script?

Rashmun wrote:
Third, many people have some language other than Hindi as their first language but know hindi as their second language or third language.

Like I said how many of these can comfortably read and write in Hindi?

Let us apply your and Maulana Rashmunullah's concept on Majority to this vexinug problem.

is 45% Majority ?

NO. So, Hindi murdabad

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
Secondly Urdu and Hindi should be considered the same language at least with respect to verbal communication since there is almost no difference between colloquial hindi and colloquial urdu.

But can the Urdu medium folks read Hindi newspaper & write in Hindi script?

Rashmun wrote:
Third, many people have some language other than Hindi as their first language but know hindi as their second language or third language.

Like I said how many of these can comfortably read and write in Hindi?

Linguistic unity is achieved through verbal communication. For instance, when I was in Bangalore there was no need to learn Kannada since everyone I interacted with ( including grocery workers, vegetable and fruit and coconut sellers, auto walahs, etc.) could communicate with me in hindi.

The person who did face language problems in Bangalore was a tamil colleague of mine ( who would also rush to his native place in TN whenever an anti-tamil agitation threatened to break out). This guy knew only tamil and English and would request me to be his translator when he wanted to communicate with the security guard of our office building. The security guard was from Assam and he spoke three languages--Assamese, Bengali, and Hindi.

>> The security guard was from Assam and he spoke three languages--Assamese, Bengali, and Hindi.


So a Kannadiga who knows only mother tongue cannot talk to this foreigner working in the state as security guard. Karnataka should have a law that all who work in Karnataka should know Kannada.

A Comprehensive Programme to Protect Indian Languages (A Bill of Rights for Indian Languages)

See Article 4.2 of that report.

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> The security guard was from Assam and he spoke three languages--Assamese, Bengali, and Hindi.


So a Kannadiga who knows only mother tongue cannot talk to this foreigner working in the state as security guard. Karnataka should have a law that all who work in Karnataka should know Kannada.

A Comprehensive Programme to Protect Indian Languages (A Bill of Rights for Indian Languages)

See Article 4.2 of that report.

What about the Tamilians working in Bangalore ( including all my tamil colleagues who would run to Tamil Nadu whenever any anti-Tamil agitation broke out) ? Should they all be kicked out of Bangalore? Some Tamils born and brought up in Bangalore do not know Kannada as per my information. I think one rationale offered by Tamils in Bangalore ( and perhaps other parts of Karnataka) for not bothering to learn Kannada is that parts of Karnataka ( including Bangalore) used to be a part of Madras State.

All those who work in Karnataka must know Kannada. All who live in Karnataka should teach their children Karnataka.

Kayalvizhi wrote:All those who work in Karnataka must know Kannada. All who live in Karnataka should teach their children Karnataka.

Many Tamils in Karnataka disagree with your view. None of my tamil colleagues in Bangalore could speak Kannada.

How many times I have to tell ytou?

I am the heart and soul of Tamil Nadu. I speak for Tamil Nadu.

Kayalvizhi wrote:How many times I have to tell ytou?

I am the heart and soul of Tamil Nadu. I speak for Tamil Nadu.

No you do not. You are a traitor according to the great Indian nationalist Subramanya Bharati who was a Tamilian.

Kayalvizhi wrote:How many times I have to tell ytou?

I am the heart and soul of Tamil Nadu. I speak for Tamil Nadu.

nenappu much.

i have to admit that you are the best troll on this site. your persistence and consistency are commendable though you seem to be slipping on the language these days. "ho and crey" was a nice touch, the other day.

Rashmun wrote:

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> The security guard was from Assam and he spoke three languages--Assamese, Bengali, and Hindi.


So a Kannadiga who knows only mother tongue cannot talk to this foreigner working in the state as security guard. Karnataka should have a law that all who work in Karnataka should know Kannada.

A Comprehensive Programme to Protect Indian Languages (A Bill of Rights for Indian Languages)

See Article 4.2 of that report.

What about the Tamilians working in Bangalore ( including all my tamil colleagues who would run to Tamil Nadu whenever any anti-Tamil agitation broke out) ? Should they all be kicked out of Bangalore? Some Tamils born and brought up in Bangalore do not know Kannada as per my information. I think one rationale offered by Tamils in Bangalore ( and perhaps other parts of Karnataka) for not bothering to learn Kannada is that parts of Karnataka ( including Bangalore) used to be a part of Madras State.

When was the last time you were in Bangalore? Also, how long were you in Bangalore to make such idiotic claims? I have been in Bangalore for nearly six months now and have been visiting Karnataka every year for over a decade now. Any Tamilian who has been around for a few months can pick up Kannada very easily. Tamil and Kannada, except for the script, have numerous common words and the sentence structure is exactly the same. That cannot be said of Hindi and Kannada. So you are a liar when you generalize that your Tamil colleagues couldn't speak Kannada. I have no difficulty speaking Kannada now. So stop talking crap. You, like most naarthies, were too lazy to learn a southern language when you worked in Bangalore so you had to find fellow Hindi speakers or English speakers to get by in Bangalore.

There is a strong movement in Karnataka now, including Bangalore, to do away with Hindi and promote only Kannada and English, thanks to the recent stunt that Rijiju and BJP pulled. This anti-Hindi-imposition sentiment is speading across non Hindi-speaking areas. So it's time you started learning a southern language before you lecture us on the virtues of knowing Hindi.

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> The security guard was from Assam and he spoke three languages--Assamese, Bengali, and Hindi.

So a Kannadiga who knows only mother tongue cannot talk to this foreigner working in the state as security guard. Karnataka should have a law that all who work in Karnataka should know Kannada.

A Comprehensive Programme to Protect Indian Languages (A Bill of Rights for Indian Languages)

See Article 4.2 of that report.

What about the Tamilians working in Bangalore ( including all my tamil colleagues who would run to Tamil Nadu whenever any anti-Tamil agitation broke out) ? Should they all be kicked out of Bangalore? Some Tamils born and brought up in Bangalore do not know Kannada as per my information. I think one rationale offered by Tamils in Bangalore ( and perhaps other parts of Karnataka) for not bothering to learn Kannada is that parts of Karnataka ( including Bangalore) used to be a part of Madras State.

When was the last time you were in Bangalore? Also, how long were you in Bangalore to make such idiotic claims? I have been in Bangalore for nearly six months now and have been visiting Karnataka every year for over a decade now. Any Tamilian who has been around for a few months can pick up Kannada very easily. Tamil and Kannada, except for the script, have numerous common words and the sentence structure is exactly the same. That cannot be said of Hindi and Kannada. So you are a liar when you generalize that your Tamil colleagues couldn't speak Kannada. I have no difficulty speaking Kannada now. So stop talking crap. You, like most naarthies, were too lazy to learn a southern language when you worked in Bangalore so you had to find fellow Hindi speakers or English speakers to get by in Bangalore.

There is a strong movement in Karnataka now, including Bangalore, to do away with Hindi and promote only Kannada and English, thanks to the recent stunt that Rijiju and BJP pulled. This anti-Hindi-imposition sentiment is speading across non Hindi-speaking areas. So it's time you started learning a southern language before you lecture us on the virtues of knowing Hindi.

Maulana Rashmunullah Al-Akbari eats and talks through his ass and farts through his mouth.

I have scores of cousins - some born in BLR and many moved from TN and they all speak both kannada and Thamizh.

Maulana's conclusions are arrived at by talking to a friend here and colleague there for 2 min while buying a Beedi or using a public pay latrine.

His views and conclusions are not worth even a response. But, one cannot blame him - it is just the knowledge level of people from Useless Pradesh.

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Even though the supporters of Hindi are claiming that over 70 per cent of India speaks Hindi, the reality speaks of a different situation. According to 2001 Census figures, just 45 per cent people speak or know Hindi. But, just 25 per cent people in India have declared Hindi as their mother tongue. A little over 25 crore actually speak Hindi, says Census 2001.The remaining people speak variants of Hindi like Bhojpuri, Magadhi, Maithili, Garhwali, Dogri, Rajasthani, Marwari, Haryanvi etc. All put together, the speakers of Hindi and its dialects are about 45 per cent.

It proves that remaining 55 per cent speak non-Hindi languages and the majority people in India don't even know Hindi. According to the 2001 Census, 42 crore people speak or understand Hindi all over India. But, only 25 crore declared Hindi as their mother tongue. 8.5 crore people speak Bengali, 7.5 crore people speak Telugu, 7 crore speak Marathi and 6 crore speak Tamil.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/census-dispels-hindi-myth-only-25-pc-in-india-claim-hindi-is-their-mother-tongue/480525-37-64.html

-> Wonder how many of those 42 crore people that can speak or understand Hindi, can read and write in Hindi at an acceptable level.

The variants of Hindi like Magadhi, Bhojpuri, etc. are all hindi dialects. I have not yet come across anyone whose mother tongue was some Hindi dialect and who was unable to communicate in Hindustani by which I refer to spoken hindi. By this logic all districts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have different languages since I am informed that almost every district has its own Telugu dialect. ( Some say Ongole Telugu is the most polished Telugu dialect.)

Secondly Urdu and Hindi should be considered the same language at least with respect to verbal communication since there is almost no difference between colloquial hindi and colloquial urdu.

Third, many people have some language other than Hindi as their first language but know hindi as their second language or third language.

It is far easier for a Tamilian to learn Kannada, Telugu or Malayalam than Hindi simply by virtue of them being Dravidian languages. Similarly, it is easier for a Hindian to pick up Punjabi or Gujarathi than any Dravidian language. Hindi is as foreign to a villager in southern india as English is, and given the choice, he'd opt for English over Hindi because of its global advantage, let alone the advantage in using the computer to reach beyond the Hindi belt. It is one thing for you to love Hindi, being your native tongue, but quite another when you make up stories of how all southeners are gravitating towards Hindi.

If Swahili had been pushed by the central government for 50 odd years, many Indians who have other mother tongues would know Swahili as their second or third language.

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Even though the supporters of Hindi are claiming that over 70 per cent of India speaks Hindi, the reality speaks of a different situation. According to 2001 Census figures, just 45 per cent people speak or know Hindi. But, just 25 per cent people in India have declared Hindi as their mother tongue. A little over 25 crore actually speak Hindi, says Census 2001.The remaining people speak variants of Hindi like Bhojpuri, Magadhi, Maithili, Garhwali, Dogri, Rajasthani, Marwari, Haryanvi etc. All put together, the speakers of Hindi and its dialects are about 45 per cent.

It proves that remaining 55 per cent speak non-Hindi languages and the majority people in India don't even know Hindi. According to the 2001 Census, 42 crore people speak or understand Hindi all over India. But, only 25 crore declared Hindi as their mother tongue. 8.5 crore people speak Bengali, 7.5 crore people speak Telugu, 7 crore speak Marathi and 6 crore speak Tamil.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/census-dispels-hindi-myth-only-25-pc-in-india-claim-hindi-is-their-mother-tongue/480525-37-64.html

-> Wonder how many of those 42 crore people that can speak or understand Hindi, can read and write in Hindi at an acceptable level.

The variants of Hindi like Magadhi, Bhojpuri, etc. are all hindi dialects. I have not yet come across anyone whose mother tongue was some Hindi dialect and who was unable to communicate in Hindustani by which I refer to spoken hindi. By this logic all districts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have different languages since I am informed that almost every district has its own Telugu dialect. ( Some say Ongole Telugu is the most polished Telugu dialect.)

Secondly Urdu and Hindi should be considered the same language at least with respect to verbal communication since there is almost no difference between colloquial hindi and colloquial urdu.

Third, many people have some language other than Hindi as their first language but know hindi as their second language or third language.

It is far easier for a Tamilian to learn Kannada, Telugu or Malayalam than Hindi simply by virtue of them being Dravidian languages. Similarly, it is easier for a Hindian to pick up Punjabi or Gujarathi than any Dravidian language. Hindi is as foreign to a villager in southern india as English is, and given the choice, he'd opt for English over Hindi because of its global advantage, let alone the advantage in using the computer to reach beyond the Hindi belt. It is one thing for you to love Hindi, being your native tongue, but quite another when you make up stories of how all southeners are gravitating towards Hindi.

If Swahili had been pushed by the central government for 50 odd years, many Indians who have other mother tongues would know Swahili as their second or third language.

I will first point out that the word 'Hindian' does not exist in reality. It was first found to be used in the Tamil Tribune by Kayal Vizhi and then quickly lapped up by the wannabe Dravidian of the forum--PP. Since you are a tambrahm I will not let u get away with it if u pretend to be a Dravidian.
If u really want to use a word for speakers of Hindi, the correct word is Hindustani. Just as Tamils are people whose first language is tamil, so Hindustanis are people whose first language is Hindi. Hindustani is the hindi spoken in urban India and also the language used in Hindi films. More details on Hindustani people to be found here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_people

Now it is true that there is an ambiguity in calling someone whose first language is Hindi as Hindustani since people all across India can also be referred to by the word Hindustani since Hindustan is another word for India. But this is no reason to try dropping a widely used word and substitute it with an artificial word used by a racist magazine which is not published in print form since nobody in Tamil Nadu wanted to subscribe to it.

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Even though the supporters of Hindi are claiming that over 70 per cent of India speaks Hindi, the reality speaks of a different situation. According to 2001 Census figures, just 45 per cent people speak or know Hindi. But, just 25 per cent people in India have declared Hindi as their mother tongue. A little over 25 crore actually speak Hindi, says Census 2001.The remaining people speak variants of Hindi like Bhojpuri, Magadhi, Maithili, Garhwali, Dogri, Rajasthani, Marwari, Haryanvi etc. All put together, the speakers of Hindi and its dialects are about 45 per cent.

It proves that remaining 55 per cent speak non-Hindi languages and the majority people in India don't even know Hindi. According to the 2001 Census, 42 crore people speak or understand Hindi all over India. But, only 25 crore declared Hindi as their mother tongue. 8.5 crore people speak Bengali, 7.5 crore people speak Telugu, 7 crore speak Marathi and 6 crore speak Tamil.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/census-dispels-hindi-myth-only-25-pc-in-india-claim-hindi-is-their-mother-tongue/480525-37-64.html

-> Wonder how many of those 42 crore people that can speak or understand Hindi, can read and write in Hindi at an acceptable level.

The variants of Hindi like Magadhi, Bhojpuri, etc. are all hindi dialects. I have not yet come across anyone whose mother tongue was some Hindi dialect and who was unable to communicate in Hindustani by which I refer to spoken hindi. By this logic all districts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have different languages since I am informed that almost every district has its own Telugu dialect. ( Some say Ongole Telugu is the most polished Telugu dialect.)

Secondly Urdu and Hindi should be considered the same language at least with respect to verbal communication since there is almost no difference between colloquial hindi and colloquial urdu.

Third, many people have some language other than Hindi as their first language but know hindi as their second language or third language.

It is far easier for a Tamilian to learn Kannada, Telugu or Malayalam than Hindi simply by virtue of them being Dravidian languages. Similarly, it is easier for a Hindian to pick up Punjabi or Gujarathi than any Dravidian language. Hindi is as foreign to a villager in southern india as English is, and given the choice, he'd opt for English over Hindi because of its global advantage, let alone the advantage in using the computer to reach beyond the Hindi belt. It is one thing for you to love Hindi, being your native tongue, but quite another when you make up stories of how all southeners are gravitating towards Hindi.

If Swahili had been pushed by the central government for 50 odd years, many Indians who have other mother tongues would know Swahili as their second or third language.

I will first point out that the word 'Hindian' does not exist in reality. It was first found to be used in the Tamil Tribune by Kayal Vizhi and then quickly lapped up by the wannabe Dravidian of the forum--PP. Since you are a tambrahm I will not let u get away with it if u pretend to be a Dravidian.
If u really want to use a word for speakers of Hindi, the correct word is Hindustani. Just as Tamils are people whose first language is tamil, so Hindustanis are people whose first language is Hindi. Hindustani is the hindi spoken in urban India and also the language used in Hindi films. More details on Hindustani people to be found here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_people

Now it is true that there is an ambiguity in calling someone whose first language is Hindi as Hindustani since people all across India can also be referred to by the word Hindustani since Hindustan is another word for India. But this is no reason to try dropping a widely used word and substitute it with an artificial word used by a racist magazine which is not published in print form since nobody in Tamil Nadu wanted to subscribe to it.

The comments section on this article contain a lively debate in this issue:

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/think-rationally-about-learning-hindi-and-it-will-make-sense/article3942784.ece

Some of the posters support your view and some ( including Tamilians) support my position.

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Even though the supporters of Hindi are claiming that over 70 per cent of India speaks Hindi, the reality speaks of a different situation. According to 2001 Census figures, just 45 per cent people speak or know Hindi. But, just 25 per cent people in India have declared Hindi as their mother tongue. A little over 25 crore actually speak Hindi, says Census 2001.The remaining people speak variants of Hindi like Bhojpuri, Magadhi, Maithili, Garhwali, Dogri, Rajasthani, Marwari, Haryanvi etc. All put together, the speakers of Hindi and its dialects are about 45 per cent.

It proves that remaining 55 per cent speak non-Hindi languages and the majority people in India don't even know Hindi. According to the 2001 Census, 42 crore people speak or understand Hindi all over India. But, only 25 crore declared Hindi as their mother tongue. 8.5 crore people speak Bengali, 7.5 crore people speak Telugu, 7 crore speak Marathi and 6 crore speak Tamil.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/census-dispels-hindi-myth-only-25-pc-in-india-claim-hindi-is-their-mother-tongue/480525-37-64.html

-> Wonder how many of those 42 crore people that can speak or understand Hindi, can read and write in Hindi at an acceptable level.

The variants of Hindi like Magadhi, Bhojpuri, etc. are all hindi dialects. I have not yet come across anyone whose mother tongue was some Hindi dialect and who was unable to communicate in Hindustani by which I refer to spoken hindi. By this logic all districts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have different languages since I am informed that almost every district has its own Telugu dialect. ( Some say Ongole Telugu is the most polished Telugu dialect.)

Secondly Urdu and Hindi should be considered the same language at least with respect to verbal communication since there is almost no difference between colloquial hindi and colloquial urdu.

Third, many people have some language other than Hindi as their first language but know hindi as their second language or third language.

It is far easier for a Tamilian to learn Kannada, Telugu or Malayalam than Hindi simply by virtue of them being Dravidian languages. Similarly, it is easier for a Hindian to pick up Punjabi or Gujarathi than any Dravidian language. Hindi is as foreign to a villager in southern india as English is, and given the choice, he'd opt for English over Hindi because of its global advantage, let alone the advantage in using the computer to reach beyond the Hindi belt. It is one thing for you to love Hindi, being your native tongue, but quite another when you make up stories of how all southeners are gravitating towards Hindi.

If Swahili had been pushed by the central government for 50 odd years, many Indians who have other mother tongues would know Swahili as their second or third language.

I will first point out that the word 'Hindian' does not exist in reality. It was first found to be used in the Tamil Tribune by Kayal Vizhi and then quickly lapped up by the wannabe Dravidian of the forum--PP. Since you are a tambrahm I will not let u get away with it if u pretend to be a Dravidian.
If u really want to use a word for speakers of Hindi, the correct word is Hindustani. Just as Tamils are people whose first language is tamil, so Hindustanis are people whose first language is Hindi. Hindustani is the hindi spoken in urban India and also the language used in Hindi films. More details on Hindustani people to be found here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_people

Now it is true that there is an ambiguity in calling someone whose first language is Hindi as Hindustani since people all across India can also be referred to by the word Hindustani since Hindustan is another word for India. But this is no reason to try dropping a widely used word and substitute it with an artificial word used by a racist magazine which is not published in print form since nobody in Tamil Nadu wanted to subscribe to it.

1. I am a Tambrahm and a Dravidian.
2. If a speaker of Tamil is a Tamilian, a speaker of Hindi is a Hindian. There is no racism involved here. Hindustan refers to all of India so technically Hindustani means all languages spoken in India, not just Hindi. That is my position.

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Even though the supporters of Hindi are claiming that over 70 per cent of India speaks Hindi, the reality speaks of a different situation. According to 2001 Census figures, just 45 per cent people speak or know Hindi. But, just 25 per cent people in India have declared Hindi as their mother tongue. A little over 25 crore actually speak Hindi, says Census 2001.The remaining people speak variants of Hindi like Bhojpuri, Magadhi, Maithili, Garhwali, Dogri, Rajasthani, Marwari, Haryanvi etc. All put together, the speakers of Hindi and its dialects are about 45 per cent.

It proves that remaining 55 per cent speak non-Hindi languages and the majority people in India don't even know Hindi. According to the 2001 Census, 42 crore people speak or understand Hindi all over India. But, only 25 crore declared Hindi as their mother tongue. 8.5 crore people speak Bengali, 7.5 crore people speak Telugu, 7 crore speak Marathi and 6 crore speak Tamil.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/census-dispels-hindi-myth-only-25-pc-in-india-claim-hindi-is-their-mother-tongue/480525-37-64.html

-> Wonder how many of those 42 crore people that can speak or understand Hindi, can read and write in Hindi at an acceptable level.

The variants of Hindi like Magadhi, Bhojpuri, etc. are all hindi dialects. I have not yet come across anyone whose mother tongue was some Hindi dialect and who was unable to communicate in Hindustani by which I refer to spoken hindi. By this logic all districts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have different languages since I am informed that almost every district has its own Telugu dialect. ( Some say Ongole Telugu is the most polished Telugu dialect.)

Secondly Urdu and Hindi should be considered the same language at least with respect to verbal communication since there is almost no difference between colloquial hindi and colloquial urdu.

Third, many people have some language other than Hindi as their first language but know hindi as their second language or third language.

It is far easier for a Tamilian to learn Kannada, Telugu or Malayalam than Hindi simply by virtue of them being Dravidian languages. Similarly, it is easier for a Hindian to pick up Punjabi or Gujarathi than any Dravidian language. Hindi is as foreign to a villager in southern india as English is, and given the choice, he'd opt for English over Hindi because of its global advantage, let alone the advantage in using the computer to reach beyond the Hindi belt. It is one thing for you to love Hindi, being your native tongue, but quite another when you make up stories of how all southeners are gravitating towards Hindi.

If Swahili had been pushed by the central government for 50 odd years, many Indians who have other mother tongues would know Swahili as their second or third language.

I will first point out that the word 'Hindian' does not exist in reality. It was first found to be used in the Tamil Tribune by Kayal Vizhi and then quickly lapped up by the wannabe Dravidian of the forum--PP. Since you are a tambrahm I will not let u get away with it if u pretend to be a Dravidian.
If u really want to use a word for speakers of Hindi, the correct word is Hindustani. Just as Tamils are people whose first language is tamil, so Hindustanis are people whose first language is Hindi. Hindustani is the hindi spoken in urban India and also the language used in Hindi films. More details on Hindustani people to be found here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_people

Now it is true that there is an ambiguity in calling someone whose first language is Hindi as Hindustani since people all across India can also be referred to by the word Hindustani since Hindustan is another word for India. But this is no reason to try dropping a widely used word and substitute it with an artificial word used by a racist magazine which is not published in print form since nobody in Tamil Nadu wanted to subscribe to it.

1. I am a Tambrahm and a Dravidian.
2. If a speaker of Tamil is a Tamilian, a speaker of Hindi is a Hindian. There is no racism involved here. Hindustan refers to all of India so technically Hindustani means all languages spoken in India, not just Hindi. That is my position.

Hindustani is also the hindi spoken in urban India. It is a language and it has a name associated with it which goes back several centuries. A tamil or a Telugu person cannot just come along and say they want to change the name of the Hindustani language or the name for the Hindustani people since these names to back several centuries. The ambiguity in calling someone Hindustani is definitely there, but this is an ambiguity you will have to live with.
Regarding your claim that you are a tamil Brahmin and also a Dravidian I would urge you to read this article:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/We-Are-Like-The-Jews/227027

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

The variants of Hindi like Magadhi, Bhojpuri, etc. are all hindi dialects. I have not yet come across anyone whose mother tongue was some Hindi dialect and who was unable to communicate in Hindustani by which I refer to spoken hindi. By this logic all districts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have different languages since I am informed that almost every district has its own Telugu dialect. ( Some say Ongole Telugu is the most polished Telugu dialect.)

Secondly Urdu and Hindi should be considered the same language at least with respect to verbal communication since there is almost no difference between colloquial hindi and colloquial urdu.

Third, many people have some language other than Hindi as their first language but know hindi as their second language or third language.

It is far easier for a Tamilian to learn Kannada, Telugu or Malayalam than Hindi simply by virtue of them being Dravidian languages. Similarly, it is easier for a Hindian to pick up Punjabi or Gujarathi than any Dravidian language. Hindi is as foreign to a villager in southern india as English is, and given the choice, he'd opt for English over Hindi because of its global advantage, let alone the advantage in using the computer to reach beyond the Hindi belt. It is one thing for you to love Hindi, being your native tongue, but quite another when you make up stories of how all southeners are gravitating towards Hindi.

If Swahili had been pushed by the central government for 50 odd years, many Indians who have other mother tongues would know Swahili as their second or third language.

I will first point out that the word 'Hindian' does not exist in reality. It was first found to be used in the Tamil Tribune by Kayal Vizhi and then quickly lapped up by the wannabe Dravidian of the forum--PP. Since you are a tambrahm I will not let u get away with it if u pretend to be a Dravidian.
If u really want to use a word for speakers of Hindi, the correct word is Hindustani. Just as Tamils are people whose first language is tamil, so Hindustanis are people whose first language is Hindi. Hindustani is the hindi spoken in urban India and also the language used in Hindi films. More details on Hindustani people to be found here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_people

Now it is true that there is an ambiguity in calling someone whose first language is Hindi as Hindustani since people all across India can also be referred to by the word Hindustani since Hindustan is another word for India. But this is no reason to try dropping a widely used word and substitute it with an artificial word used by a racist magazine which is not published in print form since nobody in Tamil Nadu wanted to subscribe to it.

1. I am a Tambrahm and a Dravidian.
2. If a speaker of Tamil is a Tamilian, a speaker of Hindi is a Hindian. There is no racism involved here. Hindustan refers to all of India so technically Hindustani means all languages spoken in India, not just Hindi. That is my position.

Hindustani is also the hindi spoken in urban India. It is a language and it has a name associated with it which goes back several centuries. A tamil or a Telugu person cannot just come along and say they want to change the name of the Hindustani language or the name for the Hindustani people since these names to back several centuries. The ambiguity in calling someone  Hindustani is definitely there, but this is an ambiguity you will have to live with.
Regarding your claim that you are a tamil Brahmin and also a Dravidian I would urge you to read this article:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/We-Are-Like-The-Jews/227027

Hindian makes more sense to call someone who speaks Hindi than Hindustani.

This link is by a Tambrahm telling about his own experience. I grew up in Madurai, the heart of Tamil culture, and I take great pride in calling myself a Tamilian and a Dravidian. If there is a caste perception and prejudices around castes, blame it on the government that continues with the quota system based on castes. Such prejudice is not exclusive to Tambrahms.

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

It is far easier for a Tamilian to learn Kannada, Telugu or Malayalam than Hindi simply by virtue of them being Dravidian languages. Similarly, it is easier for a Hindian to pick up Punjabi or Gujarathi than any Dravidian language. Hindi is as foreign to a villager in southern india as English is, and given the choice, he'd opt for English over Hindi because of its global advantage, let alone the advantage in using the computer to reach beyond the Hindi belt. It is one thing for you to love Hindi, being your native tongue, but quite another when you make up stories of how all southeners are gravitating towards Hindi.

If Swahili had been pushed by the central government for 50 odd years, many Indians who have other mother tongues would know Swahili as their second or third language.

I will first point out that the word 'Hindian' does not exist in reality. It was first found to be used in the Tamil Tribune by Kayal Vizhi and then quickly lapped up by the wannabe Dravidian of the forum--PP. Since you are a tambrahm I will not let u get away with it if u pretend to be a Dravidian.
If u really want to use a word for speakers of Hindi, the correct word is Hindustani. Just as Tamils are people whose first language is tamil, so Hindustanis are people whose first language is Hindi. Hindustani is the hindi spoken in urban India and also the language used in Hindi films. More details on Hindustani people to be found here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_people

Now it is true that there is an ambiguity in calling someone whose first language is Hindi as Hindustani since people all across India can also be referred to by the word Hindustani since Hindustan is another word for India. But this is no reason to try dropping a widely used word and substitute it with an artificial word used by a racist magazine which is not published in print form since nobody in Tamil Nadu wanted to subscribe to it.

1. I am a Tambrahm and a Dravidian.
2. If a speaker of Tamil is a Tamilian, a speaker of Hindi is a Hindian. There is no racism involved here. Hindustan refers to all of India so technically Hindustani means all languages spoken in India, not just Hindi. That is my position.

Hindustani is also the hindi spoken in urban India. It is a language and it has a name associated with it which goes back several centuries. A tamil or a Telugu person cannot just come along and say they want to change the name of the Hindustani language or the name for the Hindustani people since these names to back several centuries. The ambiguity in calling someone  Hindustani is definitely there, but this is an ambiguity you will have to live with.
Regarding your claim that you are a tamil Brahmin and also a Dravidian I would urge you to read this article:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/We-Are-Like-The-Jews/227027

Hindian makes more sense to call someone who speaks Hindi than Hindustani.

This link is by a Tambrahm telling about his own experience. I grew up in Madurai, the heart of Tamil culture, and I take great pride in calling myself a Tamilian and a Dravidian. If there is a caste perception and prejudices around castes, blame it on the government that continues with the quota system based on castes. Such prejudice is not exclusive to Tambrahms.

Like I said it is not for a tamil or Telugu person to come along and try and change the name of the Hindustani language or what people whose first language is Hindustani should be called since these names go back several centuries. Actually the names go back at least a thousand years since the poet Amir Khusrau was composing poems in Hindustani a thousand years ago and he refers to the language as Hindustani.

Regarding the Outlook article, the tamil writer Ashokamitran is saying that people like you should be considered wannabe Dravidians. I quote him:

With the anti-Brahmin movement dictating the terms, the urban Brahmins began to eschew ethnic markers that revealed their identity. They gave up the kudumi (tuft), began to sport moustaches like non-Brahmins, changed the manner in which they spoke Tamil, changed their attire, some even began to eat meat… they did everything so that they are not identified as Brahmins in the public sphere. These were all modes of defence, strategies for survival.

Today, few Brahmins speak the brahminical dialect. Despite all these camouflages, even today 50 percent of the Brahmins stand out in a Dravidian setup. One can easily mark them out physically! They are so obvious! Over the years, it has been fed into their psyche that they are different from the Dravidians. The Dravidian movement always called them vandherigal (immigrants/ outsiders).

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

I will first point out that the word 'Hindian' does not exist in reality. It was first found to be used in the Tamil Tribune by Kayal Vizhi and then quickly lapped up by the wannabe Dravidian of the forum--PP. Since you are a tambrahm I will not let u get away with it if u pretend to be a Dravidian.
If u really want to use a word for speakers of Hindi, the correct word is Hindustani. Just as Tamils are people whose first language is tamil, so Hindustanis are people whose first language is Hindi. Hindustani is the hindi spoken in urban India and also the language used in Hindi films. More details on Hindustani people to be found here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_people

Now it is true that there is an ambiguity in calling someone whose first language is Hindi as Hindustani since people all across India can also be referred to by the word Hindustani since Hindustan is another word for India. But this is no reason to try dropping a widely used word and substitute it with an artificial word used by a racist magazine which is not published in print form since nobody in Tamil Nadu wanted to subscribe to it.

1. I am a Tambrahm and a Dravidian.
2. If a speaker of Tamil is a Tamilian, a speaker of Hindi is a Hindian. There is no racism involved here. Hindustan refers to all of India so technically Hindustani means all languages spoken in India, not just Hindi. That is my position.

Hindustani is also the hindi spoken in urban India. It is a language and it has a name associated with it which goes back several centuries. A tamil or a Telugu person cannot just come along and say they want to change the name of the Hindustani language or the name for the Hindustani people since these names to back several centuries. The ambiguity in calling someone  Hindustani is definitely there, but this is an ambiguity you will have to live with.
Regarding your claim that you are a tamil Brahmin and also a Dravidian I would urge you to read this article:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/We-Are-Like-The-Jews/227027

Hindian makes more sense to call someone who speaks Hindi than Hindustani.

This link is by a Tambrahm telling about his own experience. I grew up in Madurai, the heart of Tamil culture, and I take great pride in calling myself a Tamilian and a Dravidian. If there is a caste perception and prejudices around castes, blame it on the government that continues with the quota system based on castes. Such prejudice is not exclusive to Tambrahms.

Like I said it is not for a tamil or Telugu person to come along and try and change the name of the Hindustani language or what people whose first language is Hindustani should be called since these names go back several centuries. Actually the names go back at least a thousand years since the poet Amir Khusrau was composing poems in Hindustani a thousand years ago and he refers to the language as Hindustani.

Regarding the Outlook article, the tamil writer Ashokamitran is saying that people like you should be considered wannabe Dravidians. I quote him:

With the anti-Brahmin movement dictating the terms, the urban Brahmins began to eschew ethnic markers that revealed their identity. They gave up the kudumi (tuft), began to sport moustaches like non-Brahmins, changed the manner in which they spoke Tamil, changed their attire, some even began to eat meat… they did everything so that they are not identified as Brahmins in the public sphere. These were all modes of defence, strategies for survival.

Today, few Brahmins speak the brahminical dialect. Despite all these camouflages, even today 50 percent of the Brahmins stand out in a Dravidian setup. One can easily mark them out physically! They are so obvious! Over the years, it has been fed into their psyche that they are different from the Dravidians. The Dravidian movement always called them vandherigal (immigrants/ outsiders).

I have more credibility with Carvaka than you who is knowledgeable in both Hindi and the history of Hindustan and who finds it proper to call a Hindi speaker as Hindian, not Hindustani. That's that.

I don't care for some obscure passage you dig up. Having lived in the heart of Tamil culture nobody has ever called me a vanderi.

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

1. I am a Tambrahm and a Dravidian.
2. If a speaker of Tamil is a Tamilian, a speaker of Hindi is a Hindian. There is no racism involved here. Hindustan refers to all of India so technically Hindustani means all languages spoken in India, not just Hindi. That is my position.

Hindustani is also the hindi spoken in urban India. It is a language and it has a name associated with it which goes back several centuries. A tamil or a Telugu person cannot just come along and say they want to change the name of the Hindustani language or the name for the Hindustani people since these names to back several centuries. The ambiguity in calling someone  Hindustani is definitely there, but this is an ambiguity you will have to live with.
Regarding your claim that you are a tamil Brahmin and also a Dravidian I would urge you to read this article:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/We-Are-Like-The-Jews/227027

Hindian makes more sense to call someone who speaks Hindi than Hindustani.

This link is by a Tambrahm telling about his own experience. I grew up in Madurai, the heart of Tamil culture, and I take great pride in calling myself a Tamilian and a Dravidian. If there is a caste perception and prejudices around castes, blame it on the government that continues with the quota system based on castes. Such prejudice is not exclusive to Tambrahms.

Like I said it is not for a tamil or Telugu person to come along and try and change the name of the Hindustani language or what people whose first language is Hindustani should be called since these names go back several centuries. Actually the names go back at least a thousand years since the poet Amir Khusrau was composing poems in Hindustani a thousand years ago and he refers to the language as Hindustani.

Regarding the Outlook article, the tamil writer Ashokamitran is saying that people like you should be considered wannabe Dravidians. I quote him:

With the anti-Brahmin movement dictating the terms, the urban Brahmins began to eschew ethnic markers that revealed their identity. They gave up the kudumi (tuft), began to sport moustaches like non-Brahmins, changed the manner in which they spoke Tamil, changed their attire, some even began to eat meat… they did everything so that they are not identified as Brahmins in the public sphere. These were all modes of defence, strategies for survival.

Today, few Brahmins speak the brahminical dialect. Despite all these camouflages, even today 50 percent of the Brahmins stand out in a Dravidian setup. One can easily mark them out physically! They are so obvious! Over the years, it has been fed into their psyche that they are different from the Dravidians. The Dravidian movement always called them vandherigal (immigrants/ outsiders).

I have more credibility with Carvaka than you who is knowledgeable in both Hindi and the history of Hindustan and who finds it proper to call a Hindi speaker as Hindian, not Hindustani. That's that.

I don't care for some obscure passage you dig up. Having lived in the heart of Tamil culture nobody has ever called me a vanderi.

According to Aristotle: "dear is Plato [Aristotle's teacher], but dearer still is truth". Incidentally, this post of mine was originally written on Sulekha and addressed to Charvaka who was confused about why the Virupaksha temple in Vijayanagar was spared from destruction after the Battle of Talikota:

https://such.forumotion.com/t4532-h-m-synthesis-conquest-of-vijayanagar#36349

This shows that even on South Indian history there are many lacunas in Charvaka's knowledge.

On another occasion, Charvaka had challenged me when I said that one of the two wives of Lord Tirupati is a Muslim woman ( Bibi Nancharamma ), but later backed off when some other telugus supported what I had said.

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> The security guard was from Assam and he spoke three languages--Assamese, Bengali, and Hindi.


So a Kannadiga who knows only mother tongue cannot talk to this foreigner working in the state as security guard. Karnataka should have a law that all who work in Karnataka should know Kannada.

A Comprehensive Programme to Protect Indian Languages (A Bill of Rights for Indian Languages)

See Article 4.2 of that report.

What about the Tamilians working in Bangalore ( including all my tamil colleagues who would run to Tamil Nadu whenever any anti-Tamil agitation broke out) ? Should they all be kicked out of Bangalore? Some Tamils born and brought up in Bangalore do not know Kannada as per my information. I think one rationale offered by Tamils in Bangalore ( and perhaps other parts of Karnataka) for not bothering to learn Kannada is that parts of Karnataka ( including Bangalore) used to be a part of Madras State.

When was the last time you were in Bangalore? Also, how long were you in Bangalore to make such idiotic claims? I have been in Bangalore for nearly six months now and have been visiting Karnataka every year for over a decade now. Any Tamilian who has been around for a few months can pick up Kannada very easily. Tamil and Kannada, except for the script, have numerous common words and the sentence structure is exactly the same. That cannot be said of Hindi and Kannada. So you are a liar when you generalize that your Tamil colleagues couldn't speak Kannada. I have no difficulty speaking Kannada now. So stop talking crap. You, like most naarthies, were too lazy to learn a southern language when you worked in Bangalore so you had to find fellow Hindi speakers or English speakers to get by in Bangalore.

There is a strong movement in Karnataka now, including Bangalore, to do away with Hindi and promote only Kannada and English, thanks to the recent stunt that Rijiju and BJP pulled. This anti-Hindi-imposition sentiment is speading across non Hindi-speaking areas. So it's time you started learning a southern language before you lecture us on the virtues of knowing Hindi.

I lived for around three years in Bangalore up till 2010. I was visiting Bangalore regularly for a few weeks or a few months in connection with my work starting from 2003. It is true that my work colleagues were a mix of North Indians and South Indians. I would talk in English with the South Indians and in a mix of Hindi and English with the North Indians. But the point is that I did not need to learn Kannada because I could talk with the man on the street in Hindi. This included auto walahs. I would often ask auto walahs: "what languages do you speak?" The typical response was Kannada, tamil, Telugu, and hindi. Why not Malayalam? I would ask, and they would reply "it is a very difficult language". Those who knew Malayalam would tell me that there are certain sounds in Malayalam which are difficult for a non-malayali to pronounce. A malayali girl once articulated two different sounds used in Malayalam words and then she showed me how the same sounds were typically distorted by a Tamilian trying to say Malayalam words with those same sounds. Malayalis typically communicate with Tamilians in tamil, I am reliably informed, since Tamils typically do not know malayali but Malayalis know tamil.

Leaving aside autowalahs, I could communicate in Hindi with people selling fruits and vegetables on wooden carts, with grocers, coconut water sellers on the road, barbers, etc. I did not go looking around for a North Indian barber or a North Indian coconut or fruit seller. In fact all of these people with who I was interacting were locals. Some of them were Tamils or telugus and others were Kannada ( I suspect very few people doing this kind of work in Bangalore would be Malayalis) But all of them knew sufficient hindi to communicate with me.

Regarding my work colleagues, one was from Pondicherry and the other from Salem. The Salem guy could not just talk but he could also read and write in Hindi. He told me he learnt hindi out of his own interest. His father was a businessman who did some trade with North Indian businessmen and the common language used by his father and the North Indian businessmen to discuss their business transactions was hindi. I don't remember where the other guys were from. I did ask them though that if u speak Kannada why do u have to flee to TN whenever anti-tamil protests break out? I mean, you can always pretend to be Kannadiga if u speak Kannada. It is not possible to distinguish a Tamilian from a Kannadiga just by his face. The answer was that they did not speak Kannada. I seem to recall them saying that even if they spoke Kannada, they could still be identified (perhaps by the accent/intonation of their spoken Kannada and the fact that they may not be fluent in the language).

Rashmun wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> The security guard was from Assam and he spoke three languages--Assamese, Bengali, and Hindi.


So a Kannadiga who knows only mother tongue cannot talk to this foreigner working in the state as security guard. Karnataka should have a law that all who work in Karnataka should know Kannada.

A Comprehensive Programme to Protect Indian Languages (A Bill of Rights for Indian Languages)

See Article 4.2 of that report.

What about the Tamilians working in Bangalore ( including all my tamil colleagues who would run to Tamil Nadu whenever any anti-Tamil agitation broke out) ? Should they all be kicked out of Bangalore? Some Tamils born and brought up in Bangalore do not know Kannada as per my information. I think one rationale offered by Tamils in Bangalore ( and perhaps other parts of Karnataka) for not bothering to learn Kannada is that parts of Karnataka ( including Bangalore) used to be a part of Madras State.

When was the last time you were in Bangalore? Also, how long were you in Bangalore to make such idiotic claims? I have been in Bangalore for nearly six months now and have been visiting Karnataka every year for over a decade now. Any Tamilian who has been around for a few months can pick up Kannada very easily. Tamil and Kannada, except for the script, have numerous common words and the sentence structure is exactly the same. That cannot be said of Hindi and Kannada. So you are a liar when you generalize that your Tamil colleagues couldn't speak Kannada. I have no difficulty speaking Kannada now. So stop talking crap. You, like most naarthies, were too lazy to learn a southern language when you worked in Bangalore so you had to find fellow Hindi speakers or English speakers to get by in Bangalore.

There is a strong movement in Karnataka now, including Bangalore, to do away with Hindi and promote only Kannada and English, thanks to the recent stunt that Rijiju and BJP pulled. This anti-Hindi-imposition sentiment is speading across non Hindi-speaking areas. So it's time you started learning a southern language before you lecture us on the virtues of knowing Hindi.

I lived for around three years in Bangalore up till 2010. I was visiting Bangalore regularly for a few weeks or a few months in connection with my work starting from 2003. It is true that my work colleagues were a mix of North Indians and South Indians. I would talk in English with the South Indians and in a mix of Hindi and English with the North Indians. But the point is that I did not need to learn Kannada because I could talk with the man on the street in Hindi. This included auto walahs. I would often ask auto walahs: "what languages do you speak?" The typical response was Kannada, tamil, Telugu, and hindi. Why not Malayalam? I would ask, and they would reply "it is a very difficult language". Those who knew Malayalam would tell me that there are certain sounds in Malayalam which are difficult for a non-malayali to pronounce. A malayali girl once articulated two different sounds used in Malayalam words and then she showed me how the same sounds were typically distorted by a Tamilian trying to say Malayalam words with those same sounds. Malayalis typically communicate with Tamilians in tamil, I am reliably informed, since Tamils typically do not know malayali but Malayalis know tamil.

Leaving aside autowalahs, I could communicate in Hindi with people selling fruits and vegetables on wooden carts, with grocers, coconut water sellers on the road, barbers, etc. I did not go looking around for a North Indian barber or a North Indian coconut or fruit seller. In fact all of these people with who I was interacting were locals. Some of them were Tamils or telugus and others were Kannada ( I suspect very few people doing this kind of work in Bangalore would be Malayalis) But all of them knew sufficient hindi to communicate with me.

Regarding my work colleagues, one was from Pondicherry and the other from Salem. The Salem guy could not just talk but he could also read and write in Hindi. He told me he learnt hindi out of his own interest. His father was a businessman who did some trade with North Indian businessmen and the common language used by his father and the North Indian businessmen to discuss their business transactions was hindi. I don't remember where the other guys were from. I did ask them though that if u speak Kannada why do u have to flee to TN whenever anti-tamil protests break out? I mean, you can always pretend to be Kannadiga if u speak Kannada. It is not possible to distinguish a Tamilian from a Kannadiga just by his face. The answer was that they did not speak Kannada. I seem to recall them saying that even if they spoke Kannada, they could still be identified (perhaps by the accent/intonation of their spoken Kannada and the fact that they may not be fluent in the language).

One correction: I am for homogeneity in the work place, as a matter of principle, on the issue of language. Since everyone in the office knew English I would make it a point to talk in English within the office premises. If someone asked me something in Hindi or a mix of Hindi and English I would always reply in English. The reason is that I don't like the formation of language based cliques in the workplace. It is only if I was socializing outside the office with my North Indian colleague(s) that I would talk to them in a mix of Hindi and English.

goodcitizn wrote:
I have more credibility with Carvaka than you who is knowledgeable in both Hindi and the history of Hindustan and who finds it proper to call a Hindi speaker as Hindian, not Hindustani. That's that.

I don't care for some obscure passage you dig up. Having lived in the heart of Tamil culture nobody has ever called me a vanderi.

Hindustani: one who comes from the land of Hindus. Hindi itself is only 400yrs old. But this word hindustani has been around for at least a 1000 years when the iSlamis entered the region and clubbed all the people practicing myriad of reglions and rituals and living east of Indus as hindus and their land as hindustani. It is hard to find the word "hindu" prior to that. So, in a way iSlamis have to be thanked for unifying the 100s of disparate "religions" into hindus.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:
I have more credibility with Carvaka than you who is knowledgeable in both Hindi and the history of Hindustan and who finds it proper to call a Hindi speaker as Hindian, not Hindustani. That's that.

I don't care for some obscure passage you dig up. Having lived in the heart of Tamil culture nobody has ever called me a vanderi.

Hindustani: one who comes from the land of Hindus.  Hindi itself is only 400yrs old.  But this word hindustani has been around for at least a 1000 years when the iSlamis entered the region and clubbed all the people practicing myriad of reglions and rituals and living east of Indus as hindus and their land as hindustani.  It is hard to find the word "hindu" prior to that. So, in a way iSlamis have to be thanked for unifying the 100s of disparate "religions" into hindus.

One of the greatest hindustani poets was around in circa 13th century AD:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khusrow

So hindi is older than 400 years.

Rashmun,
This is what Bharatidasan has to say

காட்டியதாம் கைவரிசை தில்லி,
அதன் சீட்டுக் கிளிந்து போனதென்று சொல்லி

Delhi showed its trick,
say that its dictat has ended.

>> If Swahili had been pushed by the central government for 50 odd years, many Indians who have other mother tongues would know Swahili as their second or third language.

People of Pondicherry learnt French during French rule. How many learn French today?

When Hindian rule ends, people will stop learning Hindi too.

அந்த நன்னாள் விரைவிலே வருவதாகுக.
Let that good day come soon,

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> If Swahili had been pushed by the central government for 50 odd years, many Indians who have other mother tongues would know Swahili as their second or third language.

People of Pondicherry learnt French during French rule. How many learn French today?

When Hindian rule ends, people will stop learning Hindi too.

அந்த நன்னாள் விரைவிலே வருவதாகுக.
Let that good day come soon,

The greatest 20th century tamil poet Subramanya Bharati was pushing for Hindi in Tamil Nadu much before independence since he recognized the utility of Hindi as a common language for all Indians. Bharati personally organized hindi teaching classes in Tamil Nadu.

Rashmun wrote:One can easily mark them out physically! They are so obvious! Over the years, it has been fed into their psyche that they are different from the Dravidians. The Dravidian movement always called them vandherigal (immigrants/ outsiders).
[/i]

imagine this guy without the tuft and the thread. how obvious is it that he is a tamil brahmin?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:One can easily mark them out physically! They are so obvious! Over the years, it has been fed into their psyche that they are different from the Dravidians. The Dravidian movement always called them vandherigal (immigrants/ outsiders).
[/i]

imagine this guy without the tuft and the thread. how obvious is it that he is a tamil brahmin?

He is no Tam-B. He looks more like a Nampoothiri.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:One can easily mark them out physically! They are so obvious! Over the years, it has been fed into their psyche that they are different from the Dravidians. The Dravidian movement always called them vandherigal (immigrants/ outsiders).
[/i]

imagine this guy without the tuft and the thread. how obvious is it that he is a tamil brahmin?

the reason for this is that inter-marriages have taken place between the vandherigals and local tamils--for several centuries of course. because of this we see tamil brahmins who are fair, who are dark, and who are neither fair nor dark.

incidentally i have personally been to the Nataraja temple at Chidambaram. I never saw a Dikshitar who looked remotely liked this guy in the picture (who is supposed to represent a Dikshitar). This guy might be a dikshitar but he is definitely a very atypical looking Dikshitar. i would not be surprised if the guy in the picture was not a dikshitar at all.

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2011/10/worst-racists-on-planet-earth-capt-ajit.html

the tuft looks like a namboodiri, but that's not what i meant. these narratives (often made up by tambrahms and seized upon by other parties like rashmun) like to push the idea that trambrahms are more "aryan" or northindian looking. there are many in the tambrahm community who look quintessentially dravidian -- dark, broad noses, thick lips etc. so this idea that tambrahms standout is totally bogus.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the tuft looks like a namboodiri, but that's not what i meant.  these narratives (often made up by tambrahms and seized upon by other parties like rashmun) like to push the idea that trambrahms are more "aryan" or northindian looking.  there are many in the tambrahm community who look quintessentially dravidian -- dark, broad noses, thick lips etc. so this idea that tambrahms standout is totally bogus.

the writer is saying that only 50% of the brahmins stand out; he is accepting the fact that inter-marriages have taken place between the vandherigals and the locals.

With the anti-Brahmin movement dictating the terms, the urban Brahmins began to eschew ethnic markers that revealed their identity. They gave up the kudumi (tuft), began to sport moustaches like non-Brahmins, changed the manner in which they spoke Tamil, changed their attire, some even began to eat meat… they did everything so that they are not identified as Brahmins in the public sphere. These were all modes of defence, strategies for survival.

Today, few Brahmins speak the brahminical dialect. Despite all these camouflages, even today 50 percent of the Brahmins stand out in a Dravidian setup. One can easily mark them out physically! They are so obvious! Over the years, it has been fed into their psyche that they are different from the Dravidians. The Dravidian movement always called them vandherigal (immigrants/ outsiders).

the tambrahm dialect is very much alive. how does he know it's 50%? can i see his data and convince myself of the rigor of his sampling?

to call the tambrahm experience as being similar to that of the jews is revolting on so many levels to say the least. central to the jewish experience is awareness of the holocaust. there is nothing even remotely similar in the tambrahm experience.

kashmiri pundits and jews, maybe. tambrahms and jews? not even on the same planet.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the tambrahm dialect is very much alive. how does he know it's 50%? can i see his data and convince myself of the rigor of his sampling?

What exactly is this tambrahm dialect, is this very distinct? Even in AP it used to be the case i.e. One could distinguish Brahmins easily by their accent/lingo but not so much these days as they (actually everybody) adapted standardized Telugu

For Rashmun, everyone is the same/united wrt Hindi but not so much when it comes to Brahmins; Dravidians & Brahmins completely different species

confuzzled dude wrote:For Rashmun, everyone is the same/united wrt Hindi but not so much when it comes to Brahmins; Dravidians & Brahmins completely different species

extrapolation and exaggeration. tut tut.

looks like the term hindians has gained quite a bit of currency in other places on the internet. that makes me quite happy.

confuzzled dude wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the tambrahm dialect is very much alive. how does he know it's 50%? can i see his data and convince myself of the rigor of his sampling?

What exactly is this tambrahm dialect, is this very distinct? Even in AP it used to be the case i.e. One could distinguish Brahmins easily by their accent/lingo but not so much these days as they (actually everybody) adapted standardized Telugu

it is different. probably with more liberal use of sanskrit in the case of iyers, and more old tamil especially in food terminology in the case of iyengars. iyengar food terminology is beautifully descriptive tamil.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:looks like the term hindians has gained quite a bit of currency in other places on the internet. that makes me quite happy.

there are also north indians who prefer to refer to all south indians as madrasis. a fightercock would of course delight in this incorrect usage of terms (madrasi for south indians, hindians for those whose first language is some variant of hindi). a wise person would know that it is not a good idea to refer to people by terms which they dislike.

stooping down to the level of some ignorant north indians (who call all south indians madrasis) does not behoove a wise and sophisticated south indian who realizes that he can either be a part of the problem (to antagonize north indians and south indians and drive a wedge between them) or to bring north indians and south indians closer together and ensure harmonious relations between them.

Rashmun wrote:

there are also north indians who prefer to refer to all south indians as madrasis.

that is the opposite of a term like hindian. hindian is a very specific and descriptive term to refer to people whose first langauge is hindi or any other language that is mutually intelligible like urdu etc. madarasi is a very non-descriptive and incorrect term to refer to all people from the south. i wouldn't use hindian to refer to a gujarati. for example i don't think seven here is a hindian, you OTOH are.

i and others like me have started to use this term to sever the incorrect linkage between the term indian and the ability to speak hindi. an indian is anyone who is from india and whose first language is any of the languages extant in india including english. a hindian is a person whose first language is hindi. hindians and tamilians are both indians. see how easy that is?

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:looks like the term hindians has gained quite a bit of currency in other places on the internet. that makes me quite happy.

there are also north indians who prefer to refer to all south indians as madrasis. a fightercock would of course delight in this incorrect usage of terms (madrasi for south indians, hindians for those whose first language is some variant of hindi). a wise person would know that it is not a good idea to refer to people by terms which they dislike.

stooping down to the level of some ignorant north indians (who call all south indians madrasis) does not behoove a wise and sophisticated south indian who realizes that he can either be a part of the problem (to antagonize north indians and south indians and drive a wedge between them) or to bring north indians and south indians closer together and ensure harmonious relations between them.

Tamil + ian = Tamilian

Hindi + ian -> Hindiian -> Hindian (after removing the superfluous i )

Where is the problem ?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

there are also north indians who prefer to refer to all south indians as madrasis.

that is the opposite of a term like hindian. hindian is a very specific and descriptive term to refer to people whose first langauge is hindi or any other language that is mutually intelligible like urdu etc. madarasi is a very non-descriptive and incorrect term to refer to all people from the south. i wouldn't use hindian to refer to a gujarati. for example i don't think seven here is a hindian, you OTOH are.

i and others like me have started to use this term to sever the incorrect linkage between the term indian and the ability to speak hindi. an indian is anyone who is from india and whose first language is any of the languages extant in india including english. a hindian is a person whose first language is hindi. hindians and tamilians are both indians. see how easy that is?

Madrasi is also a very specific and descriptive term. it refers to residents of the erstwhile Madras State. furthermore, there are south indians who prefer to be addressed as Madrasis. For instance:


On Vijyadasami Day in 1923, the first Madrasi Education Association School was established in Simla, with one teacher and one pupil by Shri. P.H.S. Iyer. In January 1924, a primary school was opened in New Delhi. This was given recognition by Education Authority in 1925.

http://www.dteaschools.org/commonwebsite/about-us/briefhistory.html

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:looks like the term hindians has gained quite a bit of currency in other places on the internet. that makes me quite happy.

there are also north indians who prefer to refer to all south indians as madrasis. a fightercock would of course delight in this incorrect usage of terms (madrasi for south indians, hindians for those whose first language is some variant of hindi). a wise person would know that it is not a good idea to refer to people by terms which they dislike.

stooping down to the level of some ignorant north indians (who call all south indians madrasis) does not behoove a wise and sophisticated south indian who realizes that he can either be a part of the problem (to antagonize north indians and south indians and drive a wedge between them) or to bring north indians and south indians closer together and ensure harmonious relations between them.

Tamil + ian = Tamilian

Hindi + ian ->  Hindiian -> Hindian (after removing the superfluous i )

Where is the problem ?

a person whose first language is Tamil can be referred to as a Tamilian, but he can also be referred to as a Tamil person. Likewise a person whose first language is Telugu can be referred to as a Telugu person. So a person whose first language is Hindustani is a Hindustani person. Hindustani is spoken hindi which has a history going back a thousand years. Modern Hindi is sanskritised Hindustani which is *not* the language spoken by the man on the street in hindi speaking states. it is a literary language and it is also an artificial language because it is not the language of the common man. it is also a language less than 200 years old. it was created by the british for the sole objective of dividing hindus and muslims: urdu for muslims, and sanskritised hindi for hindus. whereas earlier there was one language called Hindustani or Hindavi or Rekhta (rekhta = hybrid indicating that it is a language comprising of around 70% sanskrit words and around 30% persian words) which was the common language for all. Hindustani was also referred to as Hindi in medieval times, but this Hindi is not to be confused with modern Hindi. Hindustani is the language spoken by the common man on the streets of Hindi speaking states.

Maulana Azad and others had wanted the language of hindi speaking states to be called Hindustani. But the hindi fanatics insisted on naming it hindi (since the hindi for hindus, urdu for muslims british policy had acquired communal undertones) and had their way. Nehru told Azad that the language spoken by the common man will continue to be Hindustani and so how does the name of the language really matter.