Monday, July 05, 2004
Unhealthy Linguistic Rivalry
I have always thought that academic rivalries are good for developing scholarly insights, but when you bring in chauvinists into the picture, things turn sour. I am a native Tamil speaker and for various reasons am proud of my language. I was also born in Karnataka, and most people from my mother�s side of the family speak fluent Kannada. Cauvery+ have been such huge headaches these days, that it is unwise to continue any academic debate on this topic as loud parochialisms can take over reasonable moderation, eventually detracting from the truth.
I do not want to judge anything, but from what I know of Tamil literature, Sanskrit literature, spoken Tamil and spoken Kannada, I have come to some understanding (however prejudiced, uninformed or unwise). Classical written Tamil has a large non-Sanskrit vocabulary that is offered as an alternative to the currently heavily Sanskritised versions. (At least the one I speak in Sanskritised to a good extant). But the level of Sanskritisation I find in currently spoken Kannada is equal if not greater.
To say that Tamil (as it is currently classicised, and spoken) alone is the inheritor of a great Dravidian linguistic heritage would not be that convincing a statement either. All the sources of Tamil/South Indian history that I have access to, are in someway related to the Dravidian politics of the past so many decades. Despite Dravidam, being a rather inclusive (only as far as South India is concerned) philosophy, Tamil chauvinism and hegemonial intentions are undeniably and ironically linked to it.
Tamil chauvinism was initially directed against Hindi and thereby at anything north-Indian and related to Sanskrit. The political ideologies associated with it included among other things rationalism, atheism, and left-wing anti-upper caste ideologies. In an interesting conversation I had with a friend in Loyola, I was called a north-Indian simply because I was a Brahmin and my brand of Tamil was impure and Sanskritised. I have always thought that I was a South Indian. But is South Indian equal to Dravidian? Then, I have always thought that I was Dravidian because I speak what I was told is a Dravidian language. The whole South Indian / Dravidian identity issue seems to be too complex and reminds me of a Tamil platitude that goes UzhakkukkuLLa kizhakku MeeRku
The Tamil I am used to, just like the Kannada I am used to, can hardly be called classical. (In another debate, I can argue about how there is more pure Sanskrit in later South Indian languages that in it so-called offshoots in North India.) All I can say now is that I am proud of being Tamil simply for the things that I see in it, and its literature and history. I might even be referring to an impure Tamil and impure history and literature. If there is an unsullied form of a Dravidian language, then it must be classical; but can it be called Tamil? As far as the current status of the South Indian languages are concerned, none of them can be seen as purely Dravidian. Now, is the classical language status accorded to one that is most Dravidian and consequently least Sanskritised? Or is it given on the merits of literature and body of work? Someone with a better understanding can give a better answer. But are there any non-chauvinistic scholars?
Comments to Unhealthy Linguistic Rivalry
hey mdeii. i am still in assam. when you leaving?!!
and the whole blog looks smokin'!
though whose the ugly bloke in the background?
posted by 
v
Dear Anand...your fears as to whether there are any balanced views on this issue of Kannada and Tamil languages being accorded classical status, in particular and relations between the 2 people, in general, are very well founded. This is a complex issue and fraught with tension. If its not handled carefully and solved amicably, it could lead to well entrenched prejudices between the two people. A pity, really. God knows we call ourselves Tamilian/Kannadiga etc not realising we are Indians, first and foremost. So much for 'Thai Manne Vannakkam'! As you might be aware, I'm a Tamilian from Bangalore and have just landed here on account of my job being transferred. Everyone knows there is a sizeable Tamilian population in Bangalore. By and large, relations between the Tamilians and Kannadigas are fraught with mistrust and underlying hatred. Partly, historical reasons can be attributed. One of them being that Tamilians insist that Bangalore is what it is now because of a large-scale migration into Bangalore during the early & mid 1900's, particularly, when PSU's were established. Kannadigas, by nature being gentle and peaceful, resent Tamilians as more aggressive, domineering, given to loud mouthing, disrespectful of local customs and incapable of adapting to local traditions and language (partly true - look at the anger that Hindi, as a language, evokes here). What's my personal take on this? We in Tamil Nadu have to show more growth, development and progress in Chennai as our capital city & the common man in TN before we start chest thumping! And look at the level to which politicians stoop themselves to. I refer to 'prostrates' before Amma and Karunidhi being treated the way he was! As they say, actions & results can speak louder than words! Ravi @ ravikumar.blogdrive.com
posted by 
IMHO, a Language has two uses, 1) to communicate (to speak, to write & to read) & 2) Poetry.
Beyond those, anything is a selfish propaganda in the name of the Language, they claim to glorify.
- hemanth
posted by
Your understanding is really not prejudiced or uniformed. Tamil is independent of Sanskrit. They both existed at the same time.
I don't understand what you mean by "currently heavily Sanskritised versions". Agreed, current Tamil has few words of Sanskrit origin, but no way "heavily sanskritised".
"tamizhan endru sollada!
thalai nimirnthu nillada!"
posted by kvman
Hi Manjunath,
I refer to the Tamil that I speak, which is heavily Sanskritised. Of coure, as you say there is absolutely no denying that the Dravidian group of languages evolved independent of Sanskrit. But what I am not too pleased about is a blind belief in many unsubstantiated claims that blur the truth.
posted by Anand
Are you a literature student?There is no matter in a language war.A language represents the people who lives by it.I am no indicating writers; but those who express their needs through language.They are the authority to tell about it.
how is current literature in tamil?
Have you something read in nowadays?
what is beyond Charu nivedita?
posted by Viju V V
Does a language have to be free of external influences to e classical? Both Sanskrit and Latin contain borrowings from Proto-Dravidian and Greek respectively.
I think a classical language is any language in which there is a sufficient depth of vocabulary to create a literary classic. By such a definition, most Indian languages would qualify.
posted by Kingsley Joseph
Mitochondria: Very interesting observation for a complex protein. :p
What you say is absolutely true, subject to my complete and proper understading of what you've written; and from what I have understood, I agree with the argument about good literature being whatever was spared from the flames, or whatever pleased the powers that were. This is true in the context of a single language and its people.
However, if you take the overall Indian context, Tamil itself takes on a subaltern role. When you take the dominant ideology, linguistic/hegemonial identity of India as being North-Indian, Sanskirt, Aryan, etc (though, as many would say, these are man-made, artificial divisions), anything Tamil, Dravidian etc is in the larger scheme of things, a hitherto unrepresented or underrepresented linguistic/cultural heritage.
This also takes significance when put in the context of recent Tamil political history where there has been a deliberate attempt to identify Tamil and Dravidian as non-Sanskrit. While this is fundamental in providing the "unique identity" (that Ataturk took away from Turkish), on the filpside, this can also go into a denial of any cross-cultural, para-cultural links. So much like communism, in opposing a dogma, another one is created in its place.
This is in the context of Dravidian vs Aryan (entirely arbitrary names) cultural linguistic conflict.
But, as I infer from your points, there are also those intra-linguistic conflicts that create dominant ideas and supressed ideas within one linguistic group. If one were to consider either a Darwinian or a Dialectic arangement in such a situation, one thing that is acknowledged is the sheer inevitability of dominance and hegemony of one group over another.
This being the case, for the sake of the so very cherished notions of justice and democracy, it is convenient, if not justified to selectively alter our range of view to see and encourage the underdog in the larger Indian context.
Smphrewzxt!.. this makes more sense!
posted by Anand
Mitochondria: I have to mostly agree with you on that argument. However, we can also go on and on about it and keep the fire burning.
posted by Anand
Anand: How do you say Tamil is also heavily sanskritized. any examples?. I am not to say that what is spoken now is what was spoken 2000 years ago. but it is still more close to that day. take thirukural for e.g., I guess every one would agree it is 2000 years old.
"karka kasdara kattravai kattrapin
nirka atharku thaga"
karka(learn) kasadu(impure) ara (without, e.g., aravae olikka vaendum) kattravai (learned) kattrapin ( after learned ) nirka (stand) atharkku (for that) thaga (thaguntha maathiri)
in the above kural, all the words are still in common use.
I can give so many examples of old poems, how it can be still understood.
and also pls be aware that what ever brahmins speak is not sanskrtized. in fact I have noted many words spoken by brahmin sect are more pure tamil. e.g., aathula means agathu ullae ( other tamilians call it as veedu, which is sanskrit ?!?! ) ... brahmins call milk sweet as thiratu pal ( thiratiya paal ) others call it as pal kova ( hindi ?!?! ).
just my 10 cents. pls correct me, if you guys any thing wrong with my ideas/facts.
I agree current tamil works are inferior to kannada or malayalam in South India (only racer I know of, we have is Charu Nivedita). I think the post by prof George Hart makes a reasonable argument.
http://tamil.berkeley.edu/Tamil%20Chair/TamilClassicalLanguage/TamilClassicalLgeLtr.html
posted by
Post a Comment
