When the United
Nations was established in 1945,750 million people almost a third of the
world's population-lived in territories that were non-self-governing, dependent
on colonial powers. By early 2004, fewer than 2 million people live in such
territories. Also, from its founding in 1945 through today, the number of
"member states" of the United Nations ballooned from the original
fifty-one to its current membership of one hundred ninety-one states.
(See: www.un.or2l0verview/2t.owth.htm)
This among others,
illustrates the dramatic reshaping of the world's political geography, ushering
out the era of empire and inaugurating globalization of the nation-form, in
just fifty-some years. A similar change in epistemology took place as well:
Gone would be the prominent role of core disciplines linked to empire, such as
privileged philological traditions and the study of classical cosmopolitan
languages-Sanskrit and Persian, for example. The new nation-states each
declared new national languages and undertook new programs of language
modernization and development to effect their national usage. A similar break
can be seen in the rise of modem language / area studies departments in the
United States from 1945 forward. After 1958, modern languages became the
appropriate linguistic vehicles for the new area studies programs necessary to
apprehend security. related developments in the world outside the United
States. See Alyssa Ayres, "Disconnected Networks: notes toward a different
approach to filling the South Asia expert gap," India Review 2, no. 2
(2003): 72-4.
If the age of empire,
required the command of language and the language of command to effect
dominance of a very few over the very many, a different understanding of the
relationship between language and polity emerged from the decolonization wave
namely, the necessity of an entire population sharing a national language in
order to demonstrate national unity. Doubtless, the age of empire produced
certain types of official languages: in British India and the Dutch East
Indies, for example, Hindustani and babel-Malaisch
were clearly products of the colonial encounter, languages which accommodated a
certain kind of transregional communication, nearly entirely urban, not
entirely possible through Bengali, Tamil, or Javanese. (See also Bernard S.
Cohn, "The Command of Language and the Language of Command." in
Subaltern Studies IV, ed. Ranajit Guha (Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1985).
But at the same time,
the abrupt epistemic break with decolonization resulted in nationalists
themselves declaring emphatically that a single language would be the way
forward to forge a real nation, even with the knowledge that to create such a
situation would require enormous work. This would initiate a brand-new
industry, that of language planning, to mediate that relationship. The world of
nation-states thus coincided with new epistemologies of science and progress:
modernization theory, "political development," the discourse of
nation-building, and the new hybrid policy science of language planning that
nestled within all three largest "new states" to have emerged from
colonial rule (India, Indonesia, and Pakistan), emerged as the post-facto result
of state-instantiated logics of language standardization and educational
regimentation rather than as the natural environmentally-determined fertile
soil that launched nationalist enthusiasm. Though this may appear obvious-and
it is the standard view of Western social science-it actually reverses the
logical order in popular understandings of nationalism. Of course, some
scholars of nationalism have remarked on this oddity: for example, the
trenchant observation of Gooff Ely and Ronald Grigor Suny in their introduction to Becoming National:
. . .creative
political action is required to transform a segmented and disunited population
into a coherent nationality.. ..One of the best examples ofsuch
creativity, because in the past it provided the commonest "objective"
rationale for the existence of a nation, has been the adoption of national
languages, which were very far from simply choosing themselves as the natural
expression of majority usage Language is less a prior determinant of
nationality than part of a complex process of cultural innovation, involving
hard ideological labor, careful propaganda, and a creative imagination.
(Becoming National, Oxford University Press, 1996, p.7.)
With the case of
Indonesia, India, and Pakistan, however, language as the central subject of
historical inquiry remained underexplored to date (spring 2005), yet by
acknowledging the produced nature of the national language, it allows us to
better explain the otherwise puzzling persistence of attachment to more
regional or local languages that one might have expected to fall into desuetude
if nationalist enthusiasm were in fact the result of (rather than the
precondition for) widespread monolingualism, print-capitalism,
industrialization, the Mamlukization of society, and
the emergence of a stable national space-time subscribed to by
citizen-subjects. If these historical experiences of India, Indonesia and
Pakistan alone (one-quarter of the world's population) do not offer a
sufficiently convincing rationale for reconsidering the theoretical linkage of
language and nationalism, consider this: Even a cursory look at the history of
France points to a much weaker causal link between language and national
consciousness than has been presupposed by key theories of nationalism.
As Eugene Weber noted
with reference to France, "The Third Republic found a France in which
French was a foreign language for half the citizens. (Weber, Peasants into
Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870-1914, Stanford University
Press, 1976, p.70.)
However we bring a
second argument, namely that the spread (or ‘success’) of a national language
in countries seeking to forge one is intimately related to the symbolic
ideologies with which it is invested. This is no mere symbol manipulation,
however; it is linked to emphases on literary and religious traditions, oral as
well as written, traditions with histories and internal narratives of their
own.
Let us recall at the
outset, that "language ideology," a concept developed by linguistic
anthropologists, refers in its emphasis on the social construction of language
to "the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationship,
together with their loading of moral and political interests. ("When Talk
Isn't Cheap: Language and Political Economy," in American Ethnologist 16,
255. Cited in Woolard, "Introduction: language ideology as a field of
inquiry" p. 4.)
This formulation, one
predicated on belief rather than industrialization or print-capitalism, better
captures the disjuncture we need to explain the "ardent populism" of
"linguistic European nationalism" as it spread modularly, alongside
the peculiar "Russifying policy-orientation" necessary to effect
"official nationalism.( Anderson. Imagined Communities, p.113.)
The cases of Pakistan
and Indonesia however are particularly revealing when read alongside each
other. The emblematic role of Urdu as a formal mark of Muslim-ness during the
Pakistan movement was one important way the Muslim League could press their
case against what appeared to be a quickly emerging popular Hindi-language
public sphere with great majority support, and political demands of its own.8
But this was true only in the Gangetic plain regions.
When the Pakistani
nation-state sought to present Urdu as the natural and exclusive emblem of the
Muslim nation of the Indian subcontinent, investing the idea of the language
with a peculiar religious sacredness, this claim would pragmatically dissociate
the literary traditions central to Pakistan's regional languages from the realm
of faith. (See Rai, Hindi Nationalism, Rai, A House Divided, Robinson,
Separatism among Indian Muslims: the politics of the United Provinces' Muslims,
1860-1923.)
In sharp contrast,
Indonesia's national language planners explicitly crafted Bahasa Indonesia as a
uniquely modem instrument of expression, one without a deep past, literally
"constructed" (pembangun) as one might
build a gleaming skyscraper to signal an ascendant national modernization. One
was a religion, the other a science. That the former policy contributed
substantially to East Bengal's 1971 secession, the effect of which was one of
the worst genocides of the twentieth century (estimates of those killed in 1971
range from one to three million).
Whereas the latter
policy produced a language widely described as a sort of national glue against
which protests have been "surprisingly rare".(See Webb Keane,
"Public Speaking: On Indonesian As the Language of the Nation,"
Public Culture 15, no. 3, 2003: p.505.)
New States, National Languages, and Language Planning
At the moment of
decolonization, a desire to collapse - regions of intense multilinguality
into a new national zone of monolingualism became politically exigent. This
shift appears to be an automatic and inevitable outcome in nationalism, regardless
of empirical realities and historical evidence of deep multilinguality.
In South Asia, for example, it had been possible under precolonial and colonial
regimes-however undemocratic those may have been-for various languages to
coexist in an unremarkable way.
If the Mughals, for
example, chose to employ Persian as the language of state, it was also true
that the early rulers spoke Turkish and enjoyed its poetry; Hindu was a
regional language with appreciated merits and semi-official state recognition;
and though illiterate, Akbar maintained a library of texts to be read out to
him in Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Greek, and Kashmiri.
With British
colonization in the Indian subcontinent (and more or less the same in the case
of Dutch colonization of the East Indies), the age of empire did not coincide
with a notion that mass populations should be re-engineered to speak in one
tongue. Certainly some Indians acquired an education in English and the
regional-specific Indian language deemed necessary by the British Raj: Bengali,
Hindustani, and Tamil. And surely the colonial encounter with Indian languages,
one-would produce new forms of those languages, resulting in the case of
Hindustani in the idea that Hindus and Muslims had different languages; this
same colonial encounter produced a new kind of Bengali language as well.
On Bengali's new
beginnings through the colonial intervention, see Sudipta
Kaviraj, "The Two Histories of Literary Culture
in Bengal," in Literary Cultures in History, ed. Sheldon Pollock
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2003). Kaviraj notes in particular the "peculiar relation of
transaction with both Sanskrit and English" that determined the shape of
modern Bengali (542). Kaviraj references in a note
some early efforts to develop a "Muslim Bangia,"
one not fully realized after the Pakistani state's efforts to promote Urdu in
East Bengal provoked a backlash (541).
Yet surely this form
of presenting a language-menu for the purposes of administration again suggests
a far different effort that an initiative to propagate a single language
throughout a region of millions in order to fully achieve becoming national.
This represents a transformative break in ideas about the uses of language.
Borrowing the method
of juxtaposition used by Kittler in Discourse
Networks, I want to briefly contrast practices of language and administration
first under empire and then in the postcolonial state to highlight how they
differ. (Friedrich A. Kittler, Discourse Networks
1800/1900, Stanford University Press, 1990).
For some of the most
important early administrators were literary scholar-statesmen, practicing
philologists, men who perceived as necessary for a ‘command of language’ the
thorough exploration of literatures. An illustrative list of leading texts of
the period 1770-85, underscores their preoccupation with language
learning and translation of literatures see for example: Alexander Dow, The
History of Hindostan, 1770; Sir William Jones, A
Grammar of the Persian Language, 1771; George Hadley, The Practical and Vulgar
Dialect of the Indostan Language Commonly Called
Moors, 1772; N.B. Halhed, A Code of Gentoo Laws, or,
Ordinations of the Pundits, 1776, and A Grammar of the Bengal Language, 1778;
John Richardson, A Dictionary of English, Persian and Arabic, 1780; William
Davy, Institutes Political and Military of Tmour,
1783; Francis Balfour, The Forms of the Herkern,
1781; Charles Wilkins, The Bhagvat Geeta, 1785;
William Kirkpatrick, A Vocabulary, Persian, Arabic and English; Containing Such
words as have been Adopted from the Two Former Languages and Incorporated into
the Hindvi, 1785; Francis Gladwin, Ayeen I Akberry or the Institutes
of the Emperor Akbar, 1783-6; John A. Gilchrist, A Dictionary English and
Hindustani, Part I, 1787.14
The emphasis on
language and literary study as a necessary dimension of knowledge for
administering this imperial polity did not end in1785. Sir William Jones
(1746-94), to take a prominent example, was sent to India as a judge in 1783,
and supplemented his study of the "c1assicallanguages" (Arabic,
Hebrew, Persian) with Sanskrit. In addition to his Persian dictionary listed
above, he published an English translation of Kalidasa's
Sanskrit drama Sakuntala in 1789, which apparently
was so successful throughout Europe it was reprinted four more times;
astounding both Herder and Goethe with its beauty. A copy of this original
translation is held by the University of Chicago's Rare Books collection: Sir
William Jones, Sacontata; or, Thefatal
ring: an Indian drama. By Calidds. Translatedfrom the original Sanscrit
and Pracrit. (London: Printed for Edwards by J.
Cooper, 1790). See also, William Crawley, "Sir William Jones: A Vision of
Orientalism," Asian Affairs 27, no. 2 (1996).
Jones became a prominent
advocate for the study of "Asiatic" literatures as part of a global
cultural heritage. He founded the Asiatick Society
(now the Asiatic Society) in 1784; his writings on the remarkable similarity
between Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit changed the era's scientific wisdom about
the origins and relationship between languages (and indeed, of peoples).
Fort William College,
founded in 1800 in Calcutta. trained functionaries of the British Raj in
various contemporary as well as classical languages-Persian, Arabic, Sanskrit,
Bengali, and Hindustani-and its analogue in the south, the Company's College at
Fort St. George (in today's Chennai), provided training in South Indian
languages as well as Hindu and Muslim law. (See also Frances W. Pritchett,
"Introduction to Excerpts from Ab-e-Hayat," Urdu Studies 13 ,1998:
39.)
Some sixty-four years
later, after the British acquisition of the Punjab from the Sikhs, the founding
of Government College in Lahore provided a similar training for administrative
elite; its first principal, G.W. Leitner, founded the Anjuman-e-Punjab
a year later, and presided over readings and translations.
An analogue in the
Dutch East Indies was the colonial creation of Balai
Pustaka, a publishing house, which brought out "educational" stories
in Javanese, Sundanese, and of course Bahasa Melayu-indeed
a Dutch colonial language project itself. Balai
Pustaka by the way remains alive today as the primary national
sales/distribution outlet for stateproduced
publications relating to language, culture, dictionaries for various Indonesian
regional languages, and translation projects which would not likely find a
large market otherwise. Unfortunately it appears to have very limited
distributional muscle, particularly in comparison to private-sector bookstores
such as Gramedia.
Whatever else we
might say about these early practices of translation and language-learning-for
it is certainly true that these were an effort to repackage Asian knowledge as
European products, in service to European power-the fact remains that the
intellectual climate was one that placed enormous emphasis on literature and
the wisdom contained within it, as well as an engagement with contemporary
spoken language traditions. Even this brief sketch shows an ethos in which the
concept of knowledge was heavily informed by an idea that administering a
polity requires familiarity with those traditions, conceptualized as
multilingual, and that the present was a product of the heritage of the past.
In fact, to take a closer look at the heritage of the past, specifically in the
South Asian region, we find a history of participation in multiple language
communities. This is no small feature. Rather, it marks an ongoing social
communicative relationship with language and literature radically different
from what we now understand as the reductive or "nationalist" Herderian philosophy of language nations.
In sharp contrast, the
twentieth-century world of the nation-state brings along with it a valorization
of the national language as a vehicle of national unification as well as the
evidentiary basis for national existence. If the nation-form spread modularly,
so too did a near-religious belief in the singularity of language as proof of
nationality. Recall Jinnah's proclamations that Urdu and only Urdu was the
language of the Muslim nation of the Indian subcontinent; Gandhi's idea that a
national language of Hindustani must be cultivated for the soon-to-be
independent India. These two stances mark a very different understanding of
polity and language than the fuzzy boundaries of colonial and precolonial
(indeed, premodern) evidence suggests. (See also Kaviraj,
"Writing, Speaking, Being: Language and the Historical Formation of
Identities in India.)
What I think this
ethos shows is a radical break from an approach to knowledge as something to be
gleaned from older texts, thus necessitating sustained textual study, to an
idea that the challenges of modernity can best be answered through greater
regimentation and emphasis on technologies of modernization-including new
policy approaches to instituting a national ideology and a national language as
social engineering, a sort of production line model of shaping citizens. It is
within this spirit of modernization that we find the production and
reproduction of legitimate language. Or as Pierre Bourdieu explained;...only
when the making of the 'nation', an entirely abstract group based on law,
creates new usages and functions does it become indispensable to forge a
standard language, impersonal and anonymous like the official uses it has to
serve, and by the same token to undertake the work of normalizing the products
of the linguistic habitus.( Bourdieu, "The Production and Reproduction of
Legitimate Language," in Language and Symbolic Power , Harvard University
Press, 1991, p. 48.)
Of course, this new
infatuation with modernization was not unique to Pakistan; in fact, it
exemplifies a worldwide high-modernist vision of ‘thin simplifications,’ the
precise opposite of metis, or practical knowledge. If
metis implies an intuitive sense of knowledge
acquired through direct familiarity, the thin simplification approach posits
ideal-type social reforms, reforms to better the world through increasing
uniformity and legibility. For example James C. Scott presented these state
simplifications in the realms of architecture, urban planning, forest
management, and Soviet collective fanning, providing rich detail and specific
case studies. (See ''Thin Simplifications and Practical Knowledge: Metis"
(as well as the rest of) James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain
Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, Yale Agrarian Studies, Yale
University Press, 1998,309-41.)
Here Scott engages
the question of the standardized official language, suggesting that it
"may be the most powerful" of all state simplifications, the
"precondition of many other[s]." In particular, Scott briefly
outlines two phases of national or official language propagation: first, the
desire for "legibility of local practice" (a notion of increasing
administrative ease, and doing so by replacing local forms with those of the
center); and second, the rise of a "cultural project," the
"implicit logic" of which will "define a hierarchy of cultures,
relegating local languages and their regional cultural to, at best, a quaint
provincialism. Though Scott spends only two pages on the question of language,
and does not further develop the thought beyond what I have cited here, his
intuition is correct. What this implies for our purposes is a
super-functionalist approach to education planning, an approach in which the
state bears down upon the irremediably teeming Tower of Babel in the hopes of
transforming it into a sleek Eiffel Tower instead.
This, then, is the
difference between approaches to knowledge exemplified by the science of
philology versus the science of language planning. One seeks answers in
understanding what already exists; the other seeks to shape what exists to
better suit administrative convenience. This context of privileging
administrative convenience appears so widespread by the middle of the twentieth
century that it would have been extremely difficult for the new states to have
somehow resisted the homogenizing tendency of the nation-form and the idea of a
singular language as necessary to evidence national unity. This scientific
"rationalization" approach places a heavy burden on the acquiescence
of national citizen-subjects if it is to succeed. That such an exercise in
large-scale social engineering has not worked smoothly in many salient
cases-but has in
others-is my next
query. For the emergence of language planning as an administrative science and
a quasi discipline in the middle of the twentieth
century parallels the massive increase in new nation-states emerging from
decolonization. Where political science formed the disciplinary site of
knowledge-production concerning democratization-what was then (and perhaps
still is) conceptualized as the natural telos of "political development,
for these new states-the political dimensions of language choices were taken up
by the science of language planning. (For a critique of the career of
''political development" as a concept, see Fred W. Riggs, "The Rise
and Fall of 'Political Development'," in The Handbook of Political
Behavior, Vol. 4, ed., New York:, 1989. Notably, Riggs concludes that the term
is best thought of as an "autonym"-a word which generates its own meaning.)
This science, as with
most prescriptive social sciences of the era, was confident that its
recommendations would produce national unity and a better way of life for the
states in which its advice was deployed. Observe, for instance, this under-historicized
assertion from perhaps the most widely-cited edited volume in the entire field:
The more intensive
communication in modernizing societies puts a premium on linguistic unity and
distinctiveness: nation-states have been most securely founded where all
nationals speak the same language, and preferably a language all their own.( Dankwart A. Rustow,
"Language, Modernization, and Nationhood--An Attempt at Typology," in
Language Problems of Developing Nations, ed. Joshua A. Fishman, Charles A.
Ferguson, and Jyotirindra Das Gupta , John Wiley
& Sons, 1968,87.)
As Pakistan's
national twin, separated at birth, the kinds of decisions India made about
language policy seem a natural point of historical comparison, though India's
size makes that comparison more than asymmetric. Still, in the sense that India
dwarfs Pakistan not just in population but as well in number of languages, the
lessons can be useful, for the challenges were always more numerous and on a
larger scale. Yet by the end of the twentieth century, language conflict had
for the most part ceased in India, though to be sure some areas of
conflagration remain, notably Assam.
For a country that
was wracked by language riots in its early decades, this outcome marks a
significant reversal of affairs. The sheer scale of linguistic diversity in
India, in terms of both spoken language and established literary traditions as
well, had long worried policymakers in independent India. The worries
encompassed two significant policy dilemmas: one, the question of what could be
the national language; and two, whether language should serve as the primary
criterion of differentiation in redesigning administrative boundaries at the
state level. (See also ''Cultural Politics of Language, Subnationalism,
and Pan-Indianism" in Baruah, India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics
of Nationality, 69-90.)
Given that no single
language group (according to contemporary census data) could claim a simple
majority, the question of choosing a national language was the point of most
vigorous debate. Despite being the language of only a very small percentage of
elite educated in colonial institutions, English was the one language that
could claim some kind of pan-Indian cosmopolitan spread. See also Das Gupta, lAnguage Conflict and National Development, Hans Raj Dua, Language Planning in India (New Delhi: Harnam Publications, 1985). A more recent and shorter piece
by Das Gupta is in a new edited volume: Jyotirindra
Das Gupta, "Language Policy and National Development in India," in Fighting
Words: Language Policy and Ethnic Relations in Asia, ed. Michael E. Brown and Sumit Ganguly (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 2003). Brass, Language, Religion and Politics in North India. provides
an excellent historical overview on the question of language and political
consciousness, particularly looking at UP, Bihar, and Punjab (though, as I
argued earlier, perhaps too instrumental in his approach). For a game-theoretic
explanation ofIndia's stable language equilibrium of
3:!:1, see David D. Laitin, "Language policy and
political strategy in India," Policy Sciences 22, no. 4 (1989).
But could it serve as
the national language? In the first decades of India's independence, English,
as the language of the colonizer, was perceived as a foreign imposition, something
which could never nourish the national genius of Indians and which should be
expelled as soon as possible. The riddle then became what indigenous language
could serve as a national, official language.
While census data on
Hindi speakers showed it to be the most widely spoken language in India, it
could never claim more than forty percent of the population, and even this
claim might well have been an artifact of the practice of census-taking and
language nominalization-for the process would collapse speakers of many
different speech-forms (dialects or languages) into the category of Hindi. In
addition to Hindi, twelve other modem languages with extensive literary
traditions and millions of speakers posed something of a hurdle to any
presumptive declaration of Hindi as a national language in the singular. This
begs the question of what precisely comprises a language, since many languages
(Bhojpuri, Maithili, for example) with their own poetic traditions did not make
the legal grade for language policy purposes-a significant question, but one I
do not address for reasons of space. Jyotirindra Das
Gupta notes that changing definitions of Hindi have led to changing percentages
of the population reporting it as their primary language; he states that the 1961
census, with a narrow definition of Hindi, reported thirty percent of the popuiation as speakers-but then with a broader definition
in subsequent censuses, its share increased to 38-40 percent! See Das Gupta,
"Language Policy and National Development in India," 26-7. On the
important idea of the census as the creator of rather than transparent vehicle
for reporting social categories already in existence, see Bernard S. Cohn,
"The Census, Social Structure, and Objectification in South Asia," in
An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays (New De)hi: Oxford
India, 1987). See also Arjun Appadurai, "Number in the Colonial
Imagination," in Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament, ed. Carol A
Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer (philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1993).
What the constitution
makers chose as a compromise formulation was a sort of three-tier amendement: legally, Hindi in the Devanagari script"was enshrined as the official language, with a
safety-valve provisions for the use of English until Hindi could be properly
‘developed’ to assume all official and link functions after a period of fifteen
years. But this was a decision reached only after significant debate, and only
by the thinnest of margins according to the testimony of the chairman of the
constitution drafting committee, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:
It may now not be a
breach of a secret if I reveal to the public what happened in the Congress
Party meeting when the Draft Constitution of India was being considered, on the
issue of adopting Hindi as the national language. There was no article which
proved more controversial than Article 115 which deals with the question. No
article produced more opposition. No article, more heat. After a prolonged
discussion when the question was put, the vote was 78 against 78. The tie could
not be resolved. After a long time when the question was put to the Party
meeting the result was 77 against 78 for Hindi. Hindi won its place as a
national language by one vote. (B.R. Ambedkar, Thoughts on Linguistic States,
reprint ed., Aligarh: Anand Sahitya Sadan, 1989,20.)
For the
Constitutional articles relating to language, see indiacode.nic.inlcoiweb/coifiles/pI7.htm
In addition to this
Hindi-with-an-English-understudy structure, another legal category of
"national languages" was created, in which a total of fourteen
languages achieved constitutional status as national. The Eighth Schedule of
the Indian Constitution [Articles344(1) and 351], finalized in 1949, originally
contained the following fourteen "national languages"; Assamese,
Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya,
Punjabi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu. Two later amendments added first Sindhi
(1967), then Konkani, Manipuri, and Nepali (1992) to this list.3s The idea was
that these national languages could be the languages of state for those states
which chose them, but ideally Hindi (or English if the state did not or could
not use Hindi) would be the language of communication from the states to the
center and between states.
Despite the original
intent of the constitution as well as the recommendations of the Official
Language Commission five years later, the "phase-out" provisions for
English in fact never took place. For the Eighth Schedule. see indiacode.nic.inlcoiweb/welcome.html
First, the corridors
of power (i.e., the extensive bureaucracy) did not abandon the use of English,
and it remained a prestige language in terms of social distinction, science and
bureaucratic power. Laitin refers to the bureaucracy's
nominal enthusiasm for Hindi but pragmatic adherence to English as "Formal
compliance... [which] hid practical subversion." Laitin,
"Language policy and strategy," 419. On science policy and language,
see Hans Raj Dua, Science Policy, Education, and lAnguage Planning (Mysore: Yashoda Publications, 2001). (He
argues for instituting regional languages in science).
But secondly, it
turned out that some regions had vehement objections to the implementation of
Hindi as the sole official language. By the time the first fifteen years of
constitutionally-permitted English use were about to expire, unexpectedly
violent protest against Hindi took place. This resistance was strongest in
Madras state, where in 1964 and 1965.several young men spectacularly killed
themselves (by self-immolation and drinking poison) in protest against Hindi
and in devotion to Tamil. 38 Such objections were not limited to Tamil speakers
alone; Bengal and Mysore states, and the then-autonomous Government of Kashmir
had serious reservations about Hindi assuming sole status of official language.
See the dissenting notes (essays, really) to the Official Language Commission
report authored by Suniti Kumar Chatterji
and P. Subbarayan Kher,
"Report of the Official Language Commission," 275-330.
The argument against
Hindi as the sole official language, should English be de-certified as an
acceptable alternative, was that although the Hindi speakers presented the
question as simply a matter of national expediency, in all cases where Hindi was
closely in competition with another language (Urdu and Punjabi, notably), the
Hindi lobby displayed its rampant chauvinism and attempted to impose itself as
if by right.
Worse yet, many
of the most active pro-Hindi organizations explicitly identified themselves as
Aryan precisely during the decades of a growing pro-Dravidian consciousness and
"anti-Brahminism in the south. The Hindi language advocates such as the
Arya Samaj, Arya Sanskriti,
Arya Bhasha and Arya Upi alienated Muslims and Sikhs
in the North, their co-religionists in the south-by virtue of the south's own
growing Dravidian pride-could hardly be willing supporters either.
So the official
language compromise with English perdured, conceptualized as perenially supposed-to-be-superceded-by
the more ‘Indian’ Hindi, though the hindsight of more than fifty years suggests
that will never come to pass, not to mention the fact that Indian literature in
English and the dramatic rise in global prominence of Indian science (conducted
and published virtually entirely in English) has very effectively established
the language's national bona fides. At the same time, early planners' concern
that Hindiwas not yet suitably developed for modem
life has surely been answered; the language has undergone something of a
wholesale transformation since Independence, having been endowed with a highly
Sanskritic vocabulary for the lexicon of modern life. The Constitution
explicitly caUed for the development of Hindi
"by drawing, wherever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary,
primarily on Sanskrit and secondarily on other languages." See Article
351, "Directive for the Development of the Hindi Language," via indiacode.nic.inlcoiweblcoitiles/oI7.htm On the
standardization and nationalization process of Hindi, see especially ''Roads to
the Present," Chapter 7 ofRai, Hindi
Nationalism, 106-22. On literary development and Sanskritization of Hindi as
the nation fostered its role of official language, see Trivedi, "Hindi and
the Nation."
This compromise
formulation of the official language being Hindi in the Devanagari script
supported by English has, over time, proved to be a solution that appears to
least offend-though notably not the unitary national language that had
originally been imagined.
Aside from the matter
of official language was the dilemma of ‘linguistic provinces.’ This was a
question of political administration debated long before Independence; the
solution would in fact replicate the decision the Indian National Congress had
taken to facilitate its anti-colonial struggle. Under Gandhi's leadership, the
Congress had long championed Hindi-Hindustani as the emblematic all-India
language, in both Devanagari and Persian script forms. But the Congress as well
recognized that in terms of organization and political expediency, it could
better function through a regional-language architecture:
Since 1921 the
Congress has discarded British administrative provinces for its work and has
created province, many of which are more of less linguistic...In 1928 the Nehru
Report fully endorsed the Congress view and strongly empbasised
the desirability of creating these linguistic Provinces. And since then tbe Congress bas included in its election manifesto the
formation of linguistic provinces as one item of its programme..(
Government of India Constituent Assembly of India, "Report of the
Linguistic Provinces Commission," (New Delhi: Government of India Press,
1948, 1.)
After Independence,
the Constituent Assembly appointed the Linguistic Provinces Committee to study
the issue. No easy compromise could be found; to be sure, the committee
recognized that there was considerable demand for the redrawing of provincial
boundaries, and that administering education, public life, and legislatures
would be expedited if they could be organized into more homogenous linguistic
units. But they were concerned above all about whether the formation of new
boundaries along linguistic lines would bring new subnationalisms
into existence, and further what the impact might be in terms of creating new
relations of majority-minority dynamics. For example, should a new
Kannada-speaking state be carved out of Madras and Mysore states, a significant
minority of Marathi-speakers would find themselves in a new subordinate
position.
Within the south, in what
was then-Madras state, agitations emerged for a separate state of Telugu
speakers as well as a partitioning of Marathi and Kannada speakers. Gujarati
speakers in Bombay State argued for a separate Gujarati-speaking state;
Marathi-speakers wanted a Maharashtra. Punjabi-speakers sought to rescue
themselves from a minority status in a Punjab that had suddenly become
primarily Hindi speaking as a result of Partition and the exodus of millions of
Punjabi-speaking Muslims to Pakistan. The question of linguistic provinces
became a serious matter of public debate, with the biggest names in Indian
political life issuing reports either recommending a linguistic provinces
reorganization (Ambedkar, for example) or against it (Patel, Sitaramayya, and Nehru). Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya. and
Jawaharlal Nehru, Report of the Linguistic Provinces Committee appointed by the
Jaipur Congress (Dec. 1948) (New Delhi: Indian National Congress. 1953 [1949]).
The argument in favor
of linguistic provinces ran generally along Herderian
lines, the benefits of life immersed in an environment of one's own national
genius. The argument against raised the specter of imminent Balkanization,
invoking the recent trauma of Partition and the necessity for the Indian Union
to foster great unity rather than further divisions, exemplified by this
sentence from the Patel, Sitaramayya, and Nehru
report: "The context demands, above everything, the consolidation of India
and her freedom...the promotion of unity in India It demands further stem
discouragement of communalism, provincialism, and all other separatist and
disruptive tendencies.'(Patel, Sitaramayya, and
Nehru, Report of the Linguistic Provinces Committee, 4.)
Despite this, a
massive reorganization of state boundaries did indeed take place, in shifts,
absolutely along linguistic lines, and through a process of combining princely
states and carving up the huge British-organized presidencies. First, the 1953
Andhra State Act carved a Telugu-speaking state of Andhra out of Madras. Chandemagore was folded into West Bengal in 1954. Then the
1956 states reorganization produced the ‘new’ states of Andhra Pradesh (by
adding more territory to Andhra), Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu; it
also redesigned the borders of Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam, Bihar, and
the various Union territories. The 1959 Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh Transfer
of Territories Act reapportioned land to each; the 1960 Bombay Reorganisation Act created Gujarat and Maharashtra; the
1962 Nagaland Act created Nagaland; the 1966 Punjab Reorganisation
Act forged a new Hindi-speaking Haryana and created majority Punjabi-speaking
Punjab. The 1968 Andhra Pradesh and Mysore Transfer of Territory act created
Kannada-speaking Karnataka, and finally the 1971 North-eastem
States Reorganisation Act threw up Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Tripura, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh. The clearest way to see the
chronological development of linguistic reorganization is to examine the First
Schedule of the Constitution, which lists all the states of the Union and gives
dates as well as the precise acts which brought them into their present forms.
See Darliamentofindia.nic.inlconstlshedOl.htm
Quite obviously, the
primary analytic principle for all these reorganizations was linguistic. Nearly
fifty years after the major states reorganization of 1956, most contemporary
observers judge the administrative organization to have been a policy success,
for language conflict is now relatively rare (again, Assam the salient
exception) and language riots practically non-existent.
So did the creation
of more homogenous administrative territories produce new sub-nationalisms?
From the perspective of the center, the answer appears to be broadly no.
Language conflict in Bangalore, for example, has involved anti-Tamil
demonstrations in 1990, and protests against attempts in 1994 to broadcast
Urdu-language news on local (state-operated) television Bangalore, resulting in
protests. See Asghar All Engineer, "Bangalore Violence: Linguistic or
Communal?," Economic and Political Weekly, October 29, 1994, Janaki Nair,
"Kannada and Politics of State Protection," Economic and Political
Weekly, October 29, 1994.
See also Hans Raj Dua, language Use, Attitudes and Identity Among linguistic
Minorities (A Case Study of Dakkhini Urdu Speakers in
Mysore), ed. D.P. Pattanayak, vol. 8, CIIL
Sociolinguistics Series (Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages (CIIL),
1986).
Yet if we ask this
same question from another vantage point, that of speakers of a minority
language within the linguistically demarcated states, we do find that the
majoritarian language hegemony Patel, Sitaramaya, and
Nehru worried about has come to pass. Two points should be noted in this
regard.
First, for minority language
speakers within states-using Dua's example of Dakkani speakers in Mysore-the required language repertoire
can be as high as five languages (Dakkani, high Urdu,
Kannada, Hindi, English). This is a dramatic load compared to aHindi belter's ability to get by with studying only Hindi
and English. Yet this appears not to be a significant source of conflict, and
in any event high levels of multilingualism have long characterized the South
Asian region. But the second point, perhaps more apposite for our purposes,
lies in the way that new relationships of linguistic categories have indeed
created new minorities and new majorities with unequal relations of power.
After the major
states reorganization in 1956, individual states in India passed their own state-level
laws to promote and develop various official languages of state; obviously,
given that each state does not contain a homogeneous population, some citizens
will de facto be speakers of minority languages. The creation of these new
minorities for example involved the oppositions at one level of linguistic
salience-English and Hindi, that find themselves recursively projected onto
progressively smaller levels as well. (For another example see also Susan Gal,
"Bartok's funeral: representations of Europe in Hungarian political
rhetoric," American Ethnologist 18, no. 3 (1991): 443-7, Irvine and Gal,
"Language Ideology and Linguistic Difference," 62-5.)
So the formal
symmetry of dominant::subordinate opposition of English and Hindi finds itself
again projected onto pairs in the following way: English::Hindi,
Hindi::Kannada, Kannada:: Urdu.
Or English::Hindi,
Hindi::Gujarati, Gujarati::Kacchhi (and/or
Gujarati::Urdu::Kachhi). These iterated oppositions can be identified
throughout the country; their existence is at present no cause for alarm, but
observers interested in a more fine-grained analysis of language and polity
certainly should be cognizant of the pattern, precisely because the recursive
nature of these oppositional pairs suggests that whatever the dimensions
of legal recognition for language regimes at local levels, patterns of
dominance in some form or another will remain a feature. Janaki Nair has
argued, with respect to the 1990 and 1994 Bangalore language riots (anti-Tamil
and anti-Urdu, respectively) that the failure of the Karnataka state's project
to uniformly and universally implement Kannada, with English the primary
operating language of this global technology hub city, leads to a Kannadiga
mode of resentment manifested in anti-Tamil or anti-Urdu actions. See Nair,
"Kannada and Politics of State Protection."
So many overviews of
language policy overlook a crucial feature: how the state creates policies that
affect literary production. Our (2008.World-Journal.net) Bringing Back the
Local Past: Who Made Pakistan? yesterday showed the efforts to forge a Punjabi
literature in Pakistan as a means of redressing longstanding state biases
against the language, and notions of self and community identity cannot be
understood without reference to the cultural products that communities lay
claim to. In fact one could ad that post Independence
struggles over administrative boundaries and national languages created small
subnational states, in which a regional language could serve as the language of
state.
This narrative
provides insights into governmentality as it affects education, electoral
processes, and official institutions of the state. But what about cultural
production?
Given India's
enormous linguistic diversity, and its many literary traditions with long
histories, the question of literary and cultural production would appear
important. Intriguingly, this multi-layered multilingual state project has
involved literature and cultural production from the start. The electronic
media were very early repositories for new governmental language propagation
efforts. Radio was long a domain of communication operated and administered by
the state; the trajectory of the national language project can be seen in the
post-independence death of a project begun in the pre-independence years to
codify a Hindustani vocabulary for All-India Radio. The composite Hindustani
effort would end, to be replaced by separate Hindi and Urdu broadcasts.
Regional nodes of AIR (renamed Akashvani, or ''voice
from the sky" in official Hindi), would create programming in regional
languages, following the pattern of the linguistic provinces. Doordmshan, India's state television, follows a similar
structure, national programs are created in Hindi and English, relayed
throughout the country, with additional programs created at the state level in
the various regional languages.
India's unique
literary heritage was considered so critical for national development that a
government resolution in 1954 created the Sahitya Akademi
(India's National Academy of Letters). It began operation in 1956;
www.sahitva-akademi.orgfsahitva-akademi/orgl.htm
The Sahitya Akademi exists entirely to serve as a sort of national
bureau of literary recognition, with programs to translate work from one Indian
language into another, as well as into English, not to mention the annual
bestowing of awards for literary merit in each of the languages recognized in
the Constitution. Intriguingly, the Sahitya Akademi
gives annual literary awards for work in Dogri, Maithili, and Rajasthani-none
of which have a place in the Eighth Schedule. These awards are grouped with the
awards given to the Eighth Schedule language-literatures, as distinct from a
separate program of awards for languages not recognized in the constitution
(the Bhasha Samman awards). See www.sahitvaakademi.orglsahitva-akademilor23.htm
Of course, the
project is not without its conceptual dilemmas. As Sheldon Pollock argues, a
paradox inheres in the fact that this Akademi had to
be created in order to forge awareness of the national literature it assumes to
already exist. (Pollock. "Literary Cultures in History," 10.)
Yet at some level,
the visibility the Sahitya Akademi programs offer
surely does provide a greater sense of inclusion, not to mention greater
consciousness of the creative literary work that might otherwise be unable to
cross language barriers. In this sense the Akademi
tries to mediate the many "partial publics," some overlapping but
many not, that coexist in a cultural region so diverse. (See also Miriam
Hansen, "Forward," in Public Sphere and Experience, ed. Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge, University of Minnesota, 1993,
xxxvii.)
Indeed, the Sahitya Akademi is exceptionally active: according to its official
website, it has published more than 2000 books in translation (from twenty-four
languages), and has convened more than 6000 programs of discussion at the
national and regionallevels.60 By comparison, the only measure of the Pakistan
Academy of Letters' output that I have been able to locate reports the
publication of 150 books.
If the Sahitya Akademi represents a state-instantiated effort to develop
the idea of a national literature, it does so in conjunction with active
voluntary associations. Throughout the post-Independence history of Indian
language and literature, collaboration between agencies of the state and the
multitude of language associations so active in Indian literary life appears to
have been a central organizational model for language development. Particularly
with respect to Hindi, this may have come at a very high cost: as Jyotirindra Das Gupta notes, the "Hindi literati"
played a significant role in the creation of modem standard Hindi-picking up
from where the Hindi language movement left off in the late 19th century---coining
an extensive array of new terms for modem life from Sanskrit, and promoting a
brand new form of the language that aimed to create a veneer of a different
kind of linguistic geneology, i.e., the modem
inheritor of the great Sanskrit tradition.( "Official Language: Policy and
Implementation" and ''Language Associations: Organizational Pattern"
in Das Gupta. lAnguage Conflict and National
Development, 159-224. See also Dalmia, Nationalization of Hindu Traditions.) By
implication as well as overt claim, this new geneology
served to sever official Hindi from the Persianized vocabulary of its conjoined
twin, Urdu.
What has become clear
from the preceding narrative is the extent to which India the country speaks in
many tongues, apart from question of whether the speakers of those tongues
imagine themselves as constituting a nation. The way the national language
policy has emerged has not been in accordance with the earlier high plans for
propagating one singular national language (Hindi); in actuality, the "stable
equilibrium" of multilinguality owes much more
to notions of metis than to any policy foresight-and
certainly its stability suggests the wisdom of such a system for the
political-cultural order.
Thus the early
organizing efforts of the Indian National Congress provided a template for what
has become the current language policy-with certain slippages--but the central
lesson was this: a mass, grassroots anticolonial nationalism took place in
India, the enormity of which remains unparalleled in human history, and this
took place through a congeries of different languages, including English. The post Independence efforts to make a national language in
the singular fell on the sword of its own diversity, producing a multilingual
national policy that effectively mirrors the sort of multilingual existence
deep-rooted in the region. In this sense practices with much longer precedents
rode roughshod over the bureaucratic imagined idea of a national language.
The ideological
‘content’ carried by the national language project and its proponents, namely
organizations seeking to fuse the national language and thereby the nation with
an Aryan overlay, was the most important feature of the conflict with India's
southern states, particularly Tamil Nadu. The Dravidian anti-Brahmin populism
which characterized the state's politics of the 50s and 60s could hardly have
welcomed the introduction of a language explicitly presented as some high-water
mark of Aryan cultural achievement. This demonstrates how the social-ideological
context trumped the program for forging national linguistic unanimity.
Secondly, the case of India shows how and why literature and its histories
matter. Long senses of literary traditions inscribe the history of regions with
cultural exemplars, a narrative biography of a language's past.
These ideas are
difficult to undo. But because of its size, the decision to administer a
federal system with states drawn along lines of language communities, and
considerable efforts to incorporate the work of the many language associations
as effective arms of language policy, perhaps India cannot offer the most
appropriate comparison for the language policy decisions taken by Pakistan. For
that, we should look instead at the historical experience of Indonesia.
Indonesia received
independence from Japanese occupation in 1945, but formally attained
sovereignty in 1949 after a four-year tussle for regional power between the
British and the Dutch. Yet the similarities between Pakistan and Indonesia
however are so striking that one wonders why the two rarely received sustained
attention in a comparative fashion. Born within two years of each
other-Pakistan in 1947 and Indonesia in 1945/4963-the two countries share a
number of common features. Prior to 1971, both countries were nearly the same
size in population terms: Pakistan had 75 million people in 1951,64 compared to
Indonesia's 84 million in the same year. (Detailed Statistics on the Urban and
Rural Population of Indonesia:1950-2010, Washington. DC: US Bureau of the
Census, Center for International Research, 1984, 13.)
Since 1971 and
Pakistan's truncation, Indonesia is much more populous, home to the largest
Muslim population in the world, and Pakistan is now the second; recent
population figures are 206 million for Indonesia (2000 census) and 150 million
for Pakistan (estimate based on 1998 census). Both countries are overwhelmingly
Muslim, 97% for Pakistan and 88% for Indonesia. CIA World Facthook
2003. Pakistan's Muslims are approximately 77% Sunni, 20% Shi'a-a schism which
has its own ongoing conflict.
Both have been ruled
by authoritarian regimes for the better part of their independent existence,
and have long had highly centralized polities. The military has and continues
to playa disproportionate role in politics, industry,
and society in both countries. Up until the mid-1970s, both countries had
similar human development indicators in terms of literacy and per capita
income. Indonesia's economic miracle began to take off with the discovery of
oil in the early 1970s, but really took flight in the 1980s. Indeed it was not
until 1986 that President Suharto would make primary education universal in the
country-and by now a vast gulf of literacy and education separates Indonesia
from Pakistan. For example, illiteracy in Indonesia decreased from 39% (1971)
to 10% (1999). See Table 15 in Biro Pusat Statistik
Government of Indonesia, Sensus Penduduk
1971 (Jakarta: Government of Indonesia, 1975),69. Compare with Pakistan's
current 54% overall illiteracy rate-an improvement over 1971's illiteracy rate
of 78%. Statistics Division Government of Pakistan, Statistical Pocketbook of
Pakistan 1981 (Karachi: Government of Pakistan, 1981),58.
Both countries are
home to bewildering ethnolinguistic diversity, yet within that diverse mosaic
both have a dominant ethnic group comprising approximately half of the
population: Punjab's 56% of Pakistan, (at Partition, East Bengal comprised the
numeric majority of Pakistan's population. with 56%, and Punjab at that time
accounted for 22%). and the Javanese 48% of Indonesia. And despite this,
both chose national languages which were the first languages of only a tiny
percentage of the population: at independence, native Bahasa -Indonesia
speakers comprised only 4.9% of Indonesia's population; native Urdu speakers
comprised nomore than three percent of Pakistan (East
and West wings; 7% of the West wing alone) at the same moment.See
also Anton Moeliono, Language Development and
Cultivation: Alternative Approaches in Language Planning, ed. W.A.L. Stokhof, trans. Kay Ikranagara,
vol. Pacific Linguistics, Series D, No.68, Materials in Languages of Indonesia
(No.30) (Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific
Studies, The Australian National University, 1986), 27.
Most importantly for
my argument here, Indonesia sought to use Bahasa Indonesia to create a cohesive
Indonesian identity, envisioned as secular whereas Pakistan sought to use Urdu
to forge a cohesive identity envisioned as Islamic. Indonesia's efforts to
propagate its national language have by all accounts achieved successes that
make Pakistan's troubled experience with Urdu all the more striking, given the
two countries' broad similarities. To explore this divergence, this section
examines Indonesia's experience with national language formation as the most
obvious counterfactual comparison to Pakistan.
Bahasa Indonesia is the
state-developed form of a lingua franca, Malay, which had developed across the
sea trade routes in Southeast Asia. Malay is widely used in southeast Asia, for
in another national version (Bahasa Melayu) it is the
national language of Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore (where it is one of
the four national languages), and it is in use though without official
patronage in two southern provinces of Thailand.71 Malay is a member of the
Austronesian language family, as are many of the other major Indonesian
languages, such as Javanese, Sundanese, Balinese, Batak. The region was deeply
influenced by contact with Hinduism and Buddhism, reflected in the fact that up
until the fifteenth century, Malay was written with a Sanskrit-derived script.
Malay developed in a context in which Tamil, Arabic, Javanese, Chinese,
Bengali, and Gujarati all interacted. For example, the colonial scholar Sir
Richard Winstedt's conclusion with respect to the
many divergent versions of the Ramayana in the region that the source was
itself an oral version and that into it had flowed the flotsam and jetsam from
the east, the west and the south-west of continental India..." Sir Richard
Winstedt, A History of Classical Malay Literature (petaling laya: Malaysian Branch
of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1991[1940]),27.
Islam came relatively
late to the region, via traders in the fourteenth century, but its influence
was quickly felt on the written language: between the fourteenth and nineteenth
centuries, an Arabic-derived script called "Jawi"
superceded the Sanskritic script.73 With colonization
by the Dutch (Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia) as well as the British (British
Malaya, now Malaysia and Singapore), in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
a roman alphabet ("Romi") as well as the
first dictionaries were developed for this lingua franca, a preoccupation in
particular of Dutch philologist-colonizers. On scripts and Indonesian
languages, an extraordinary reference with beautifully reproduced images of
manuscripts was recently published by the Lontar Foundation. See Ann Kumar and
John McGlynn, Illuminations: the writing traditions of Indonesia (featuring
manuscripts from the National Library of Indonesia) (Jakarta; New York: Lontar
Foundation and Weatherhill, 1996). The Jawi script is used even today for formal government signs
in Malaysia (though not for newspapers or books). These modern-day forms of
public inscription serve to further orient Malaysia toward the Middle East. The
Jawi script is hardly visible on Java, however,
though it is used in other parts of Indonesia. I have seen it on the island of Penyengat in the Riau province, and it is apparently in
greater use in Aceh. (penyengat is said to be an
important seat of Malay culture). As an aside, I was struck by the Jawi-script modifications to the Arabic alphabet to produce
letters for the sounds "p" and "g"-three nuqte on the letter "fe,"
and one nuqta on the "kaf," respectively, which suggests to me that
the script was not transmitted through Persianinfluenced
traders from India but came directly from Arabic instead. Had the Jawi script come via anyone using Persian rather than
directly through Arabic, they would already have found a three-nuqte letter on the "be" series to make a
"p" sound, and an extra line rather than a nuqta on the "kaf' to
make a "gaf." I have not seen any
commentary on this anywhere.
The roman script is
now the official script in use today for Malay Indonesian. As a lingua franca,
Malay was used by traders and those who encountered them in the region. Its
minimalist grammatical features (in its lingua franca form) bear witness to
this: for example, verbs are not conjugated for tense, there is no gender nor
plural forms of nouns (plurals are indicated by reduplication), word order is
variable, and there are no honorific forms. This sets Malay apart from
Javanese, which has very highly structured hierarchy embedded in the language
itself. See also Joseph Errington, Structure and style in Javanese: a semiotic
view of linguistic etiquette (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1988), Siegel, Solo in the New Order: Language and Hierarchy in an Indonesian
City.
In Javanese, it is
not simply that one adds honorific titles or particles to words; rather, there
are distinct modes of speaking that depend on the speaker's place in relation
to the addressee. While Malay was a commercial language which spread-again, in
a lingua franca form-due to merchant travels, we should also note that Old
Malay was the language of state of the great Sriwijaya
empire, centered in southern Sumatra. The much more populous island of Java,
however, was the site of the region's literary giant, Javanese. It was an
important language of the Majapahit kingdoms, and it
includes extensive poetic traditions, performing arts, and written epics.
Javanese managed to survive and indeed flourish from the impact of Sanskrit and
Pali influence (early Hindu and Buddhist periods) as well as the sacred
language of Arabic when Islam gradually became the dominant religion of the
archipelago from the fourteenth century onwards. The famed Javanese epics
Ramayana and Mahabharata, are of course drawn from the eponymous Indian
Sanskrit literary works, the performance of which comprises the primary form of
popular theater in several distinct puppet-theater forms in Java.
Given the rich
cultural heritage of Javanese, it is perhaps surprising that this lingua
franca, Malay, would become the national language. But it was a purposeful
choice, one made by those challenging colonial authority. Nearly all narratives-oral
or written-of Indonesia's independence struggle and the development of Bahasa
Indonesia as the national language invoke the Sumpah
Pemuda, or Youth Pledge, as a moment that crystallized the fusion of the
anticolonial nationalist movement with a vision of civic national belonging and
a singular language: Firstly: We the sons and daughters of Indonesia declare
that we belong to one fatherland, Indonesia Secondly: We the sons and daughters
of Indonesia declare that we belong to one nation, the Indonesian nation.
Thirdly: We the sons and daughters of Indonesia uphold as the language of unity
the Indonesian language.
The above is
translated as given by Khaidir Anwar, Indonesian: The
Development and Use of A National LAnguage
(Yogyakarta: Oadjah Marla University Press, 1980),
15. Anwar gives the Indonesian as cited from Teeuw's
Modern Indonesian Literature: "Pertama: Kami putera dan puteri Indonesia mengaku bertumpah darah yang satu, Tanah Indonesia.
Kedua: Kami putera dan puteri Indonesia mengaku berbangsa yang satu, Bangsa Indonesia. Ketiga: Kami putera dan puteri Indonesia menjunjung bahasa persatuan, Bahasa Indonesia. "
This Youth Pledge,
taken by a group of nationalists at the second Youth Congress on October 28,
1928, fonns the commemorative basis for the
Indonesian nation and is celebrated annually. This Congress-in the same way
that Ekushe functions for Bangladesh-marks the
beginning of the historical narrative of the Indonesian nation that culminates
with its independence. Its significance is widely accepted, and the story of
the Second Youth Congress is told and re-told today as the national point of
origin. For our purposes, its significance lies in the fact that it
instantiated an allegiance to a very new idea of a homeland, defined in
national terms, and articulated as national through a single language. This
pledge also gave the Malay language a new national name, Bahasa Indonesia,
which served to inaugurate the twin trajectories of the nation and its language
with one stroke. Most importantly, the Youth Congress chose a language for this
national exercise that they knew had only shallow, but far more geographically
widespread, roots in the region. It was the language of no one for all intents
and purposes-but the young nationalists felt (with great foresight) that it
offered the best opportunity to unify a disparate region into one with a larger
sense of cohesion. The Indonesian nation and its national language were
literally willed into being.
There is a great deal
of interpretive work on Indonesian, its early links with nationalism, and its
relationship with the imagined nation. The best known would be of course
Anderson, Imagined Communities. But see as well: Benedict Anderson,
"Language, Fantasy, Revolution," in Making Indonesia: Essays on Modern
Indonesia in Honor of George MeT. Kahin,
ed. Daniel S. Lev and Ruth McVey (Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell
University, 1996), Benedict R. 0'0. Anderson, Language and Power:
But the Youth Pledge
could hardly by invocation alone transform what was not yet an independent
country into a nation-state with an Indonesian-language speaking population. In
a remarkable example of nation-building and language development, both
recursively fortifying the other, key intellectuals undertook the project of language
modernization to develop the Indonesian language such that it could become a
vehicle of expression for a modem nation-state.
Of course, two
moments in the pre-Independence history had laid some of the groundwork for
Indonesian to emerge with the possibility of becoming a national language.
First, the Dutch had patronized Malay and their work in developing dictionaries
and basic readers resulted in the systematization of bazaar Malay, or brabbel Maleisch, into
"school Malay," which then became the language of educated Indonesian
elite. See also See Hoffman, "A Foreign Investment: Indies Malay to
1901." Professor Anton Moeliono, the former head
of Indonesia's Pusat Bahasa (Language Center) and the intellectual inheritor of
Alisjahbana's role in terms of stewardship of the
national language, believes that modern Indonesian grew out of school Malay,
not from bazaar Malay. Interview, December 11, 2002. Also see Moeliono, Language Development and Cultivation: Alternative
Approaches in Language Planning, 97-8 n4.
It was, however, only
used by those fortunate enough to attend the limited number of colonial schools
(the number of Indonesians educated in Dutch was fewer). Balai
Pustaka, the colonial publishing house, offered short literary works in this
emergent school Malay, while also publishing in Javanese and Sundanese. The
nationalist intellectuals, however, sought something different than a
school-gibberish, and began to create new reading materials in Indonesian that
would "satisfy the demands for a more nationalistic literature. Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana
was the towering figure among these nationalists. His prolific writings-in
English as well as in Indonesian-exemplify the spirit of modernist enthusiasm
for the great project of new language-making as nation making. High modernist
ideals of systemization led to spelling reforms, the development of new
vocabularies for new fields, and the emergence of literary magazines written in
this new language. A mere glance at the titles of some of his many English-language
writings readily illustrates his focus on the nexus of language, nation, and
becoming modern. See also Sutan Takdir
AJisjahbana, The Concept of Culture and Civilization:
problems of national identity and the emerging world in anthropology and sociology,
published version of speech given at Symposium on New Social Thought. Cordova
(April 18, 1985), organized by U.N. University, Tokyo ed. (Jakarta: Dian
Rakyat. 1989), Sutan Takdir
AJisjahbana, Indonesia in the Modern World, trans.
Benedict R. Anderson, English ed., Basic Books-Congress for Cultural Freedom
(New Delhi: Prabhakar Padhya for the Congress for
Cultural Freedom. 1961), Sutan Takdir
AJisjahbana, Indonesia: Social and Cultural
Revolution, 2nd, first published in English as "Indonesia in the Modem
World", translated by Benedict Anderson for Basic Books series of the
Congress for Cultural Freedom, 1961 ed. (London: Oxford University Press,
1966), Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana, Indonesian Langauge
and Literature: Two Essays, Cultural Report Series No. 11 (New Haven: Yale
University Southeast Asia Studies, 1962), Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana, "The
Indonesian Language: By-product of Nationalism," Pacific Affairs 22, no. 4
(1949), Sutan Takdir AJisjahbana, Values as Integrating Forces in Personality,
Society and Culture (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1966), Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana,
ed., The Modernization of Languages in Asia (Kuala Lumpur: The Malaysian
Society of Asian Studies, 1967).
In Indonesian, Alisjahbana would go on to found a new literary magazine in
1933, Pujangga Baru
("New Poet"), as well as take part in the writings which became known
as the "cultural polemics," or Polemik Kebudayaan.
Secondly, the three
years of Japanese occupation of Indonesia (1942-45), according to nearly every
historian of language in this period, eliminated what had been the prestige
relationship of Dutch to the archipelago by eliminating its use entirely and
inaugurated a far greater rationalization of the Indonesian language that had
previously been the case. Since no one spoke or read Japanese, the most
expedient language for the Japanese authority's administrative exercise census,
labor conscription, not to mention propaganda-was Indonesian. (Aiko Kurasawa, "Propaganda Media on Java Under the Japanese
1942-1945," Indonesia, 1987, 44)
These three short but
apparently highly efficient years made deep inroads for Indonesian's spread. By
the time of Indonesia's national independence, there appeared to be little
contest or even question as to the language of the new nation-state, despite
the fact that this country comprised of thousands of islands had nine languages
with millions of speakers and hundreds of lesser-spoken languages. Sukarno's
invented national ideology of Pancasila, ("Five Principles"), the
adoption of which was required by law for all institutions and associations in
the country, counted among them the "unity of Indonesia," the
elaboration of which invoked the 1928 Youth Pledge. On Pancasila and its em/deployment by the major institutions of the Indonesian
state, see Douglas E. Ramage, Politics in Indonesia: democracy. Islam, and the
ideology o/tolerance (New York: Routledge, 1995).
The entire month of
October would become a nationally recognized month of commemoration,
culminating in the annual celebration of the Youth Pledge on October 28th. It
was a confirmation of a situation yet to be realized, but apparently
unobjectionably so. By comparison with India and Pakistan, Indonesian's
uncontested emergence as a national language is something of a marvel and
extraordinary in its impact. It was not an issue of protest, and throughout
Indonesia's independent existence, language issues have been neither
politicized nor the focus of violent conflict.
That this new
national language, known by all to be in fact in the process of ‘development’
and contributing to the development of the nation at the same time, has met
with widespread acceptance requires a closer look. How did this language,
forged first as an informal lingua franca by traders, then shaped into a
‘school Malay’ by the Dutch, later literally propagated throughout the country
by the Japanese, finally become a language of state, science, and modem
commerce?
The answer to this
question appears to lie in the purposeful creation and development of Indonesian
as a language explicitly allied with modernity, and the vehicle for national as
well as individual progress. If Alisjahbana was
representative of his time as well as the unique circumstances of the formation
of modem Indonesia(n), we should take seriously the preoccupations his work
embodied. Like Pakistan's intellectual Jameel Jalibi,
and indeed mirroring the concerns voiced by Nehru, Patel and Sitaramayya in India, Alisjahbana
similarly saw deep-rooted regional languages as forces of division. Historian
of language Khaidir Anwar writes that Alisjahbana's contributions to the "Cultural
Polemics" showed his conviction that the region's old cultures would
"promote divisive regionalism and hinder the growth of the spirit of
national unity." Further, Alisjahbana would
define the idea of Indonesian-ness as "... the will which emerges in the
twentieth century among these millions of population to unite into a single
nation, and through that create unity to strive together to secure a rightful
position beside other nations." (Anwar, Indonesian: The Development and
Use of A National Language, 24. Alijshahbana quote
cited from Sutan Takdir Alijshahbana, Polemik Kebudajaan in A. Kartahadimadja,
ed. Djakarta, 1954, 26.)
In another passage
from an early essay of the "Cultural Polemics," Alisjahbana
fully spel1ed out a vision of cultural and linguistic rupture which he
envisioned as the key to forging a new Indonesia: Indonesia, being the ideal of
the young generation, is not a continuation of [the] Mataram
[kingdom], not a continuation of the Banten kingdom, not the kingdoms of
Minangkabau or Banjarmasin. Likewise, in the perspective of this [young
Indonesia], Indonesian culture cannot possibly be a continuation of the
Javanese culture, the continuation of the Malay culture, the continuation of
the Sundanese culture, or any other cultures.
The above is
translated by Ariel Heryanto; cited in Heryanto, Language of Development, 14. Original: Indonesia
yang dicita-citakan oleh generasi
baru bukan sambungan Mataram, bukan sambunga kerajaan Banten, bukan kerajaan Minangkabau atau
Banjarmasin. Menurut susunan
pikiran ini, maka kebudayaan Indonesia pun tiadalah mungkin sambungan kebudayaan Jawa, sambungan kebudayaan Melayu, sambungan kebudayaan Sunda atau kebudayaan
yang lain.
This idea of a new
nation, with its new language conceptualized as part of the process of becoming
modem/young, a discontinuity from the traditional/old, infused the nationalist
movement. Of course, embedded in such an idea is the acknowledgment that the
traditional/old is the situation actually in existence and that in order to
actually become modem/young, some re-engineering would be required. The
challenges, then, would be to "develop" the language into one
suitable for modem life, while simultaneously promulgating the language
nationally so that it could be understood. Indeed, in 1949 Alisjahbana
acknowledged this challenge: "...the Indonesian people must learn as
quickly as possible to think and to express themselves fluently in their
national tongue, so while Indonesian has constitutional status as the language
of state, article thirty-six of the constitution also contains a clause
mandating that regional languages be "respected and preserved" The
Ministry of Education and Culture in 1952 issued a directive "To foster
and develop Indonesian language and literature, including regional languages
and literatures.
In the education
system, regional languages can be used as the medium of instruction up to the
third grade, though this is only possible for regions in which there is a local
homogeneity of language. South Sulawesi, for example, a multilingual region,
must use Indonesian instead of any of the regional languages. Given the
hundreds of languages in use in Indonesia, many of which have few speakers, the
compromise formula produced supports a mere few regional languages for these
early years of primary education: Javanese, Sundanese, Madurese, Batak,
Balinese, Acehnese, and/or Buginese, Minang, Banjarese, and Sasak. There
appears to be some confusion on the exact languages permitted for use in the
primary years; Moeliono reports two different rosters
(which I've separated above). But Jacques Berttand
reports that only five languages (Balinese, Batak, Buginese, Javanese,
Sundanese) were allowed for primary level use. See Bertrand, "Language
Policy and the Promotion of National Identity in Indonesia," 279, MoelioDO, Language Development and Cultivation: Alternative
Approaches in Language Planning, 37.100819. The census data appears only to
break out population counts for Javanese, Sundanese, Madurese, Batak,
Over the course of
decades, the Indonesian state has put its full moral and financial muscle
behind developing the Indonesian language. It now has a huge scientific and
technical vocabulary, fully systematized grammar explicated in grammar books,
and comprehensive dictionaries. This process of "developing"
Indonesian has been a state project at the very highest of levels. The national
language institute, Pusat Bahasa, reports directly to the president, which
conveys how important the country considers this language project to be. Making
a national language, like managing the armed forces, or overseeing the finance
ministry, has cabinet-level status. Pakistan's Muqtadira
Qaumi Zaban. or National
Language Authority, is a department of the Cabinet Division; in this regard it
should be noted that it was founded only in 1979. and appears to have had
difficulty convincing the entrenched bureaucracy to replace English with Urdu.
Interview with MQZ Chairman Fateh Mohammad Malik. October 15.2002.
The Pusat Bahasa,
created in 1975, is the organizational successor to a number of different
language institutions, including Balai Pustaka, Balai Bahasa, and Lembaga Bahasa Nasional, all of which had
been actively creating and furthering this language for decades. Most
fascinating is how this exemplary language project has actually managed to
produce not only a national language now widely spoken and written throughout
the country, animating new kinds of literature but marking successes not seen
in comparable situations such as India or Pakistan.
For updates click homepage here