September 11th, 2011
Every nation has its own absurdities. Our Hindiwaalaas are obsessed with the idea of a ‘pure’ or ‘unsullied’ identity. Hindi nationalism is the dupe of deliberately distorted history in which the Hindus were made out to be the victims of unceasing brutality by the Muslim rulers. This distortion helped the British in their policy of Divide and Rule. They have gone, but the divisions created by them remain.
Hindi in the देवनागरी Devanaagaree script, unsullied by words of Arabic, Persian and Turki origin, was created to fracture the हिन्दुस्तानी hindustaanee language that had come into being because of the demand for a tool of communication. Perhaps, because of the falsehood perpetuated by British about how it came to be, Hindi has suffered from a deep seated inferiority complex which has led its votaries into some amazingly absurd situations.
“Hindi newspapers have, by and large, decided to drop the नुक़ता nuqtaa or dot and cannot render the words, jazz and breeze. They write जैज jaijj and breej. This unnecessary and meaningless exercise illustrates the inferiority complex of the users of Hindi.”
Here, we deal with the absurdity of dropping the dots नुक़ता. One of the automobile manufacturers has introduced a new compact car and named it Jazz. Another has named its product Breeze ब्रीज़. Hindi newspapers have, by and large, decided to drop the नुक़ता nuqtaa or dot and cannot render the words, jazz and breeze. They write जैज jaijj and breej. This unnecessary and meaningless exercise illustrates the inferiority complex of the users of Hindi and can only be considered as an exercise in ‘cutting off one’s own nose to spite one’s own face’.
As long as self proclaimed revivalist Hindus continue to be devotees of Chand Bardai’s Prithviraj Rasoa and believe that Shahabuddin Ghori was killed by a blinded Rai Pithaura directed by his poet and ignore the evidence of coins and chronicles, this kind of puerile behaviour will continue.
In Maharashtra (where portraits of Adolf Hitler adorn history-made-easy books) there is an unthinking adulation of Shivaji Bhonsle which is based not on the cold facts of history, but the verses of Shivaji’s court poet and bard Mahakavi Bhushan.
As we have said earlier, 1947 saw a little ‘liberty’ and a lot of ‘transfer of power’ Those who got the power were parliamentarians who were elected to either the Lok Sabha by the people on the basis of universal suffrage or to the Rajya Sabha through an electoral college.
At Independence, there existed a convention that no one would seek a third term in the Rajya Sabha. This is no longer observed. The prime minister is in his fourth term as a member of the Rajya Sabha from Assam.
The Central government represents the Ibne Macaulay (sons of Macaulay) culture and has no idea of people’s participation in decision making. The recent confrontation with Anna Hazare saw procedures being pitted against principles and the government repeatedly faced embarrassment and indignity.
The Indian government is not seen as people friendly. No citizen would approach a policeman or any petty official for help. A meeting with the government functionary is like grasping a nettle.
In this context, it was heart warming to see the Ministry of Culture consulting all concerned (art lovers, art historians, dealers, teachers, etc) on the proposed amendments to the Antiquities Act 1972.
The Act requires objects older than 100 years to be registered with the Archaeological Survey of India. Six photographs of each object are necessary. This is found burdensome and expensive by collectors. Also, the privacy of their lives is compromised by this act of registration. It is said that many thousands of objects were destroyed to avoid registration because of the fear of harassment by petty officials.
Only some 3,50,000 objects have been registered in the nearly 40 years since the Act was passed. Many of these are fakes. When it is noted that the temple of Madurai Meenakshi alone has some five million sculptures, this number appears miserable and shows that the Act has not succeeded.
The Archaeological Survey appears to be blissfully unaware of the damage caused by the 1972 Act and feels that making the Act more draconian would help. Its proposed amendments were read out in details and opposed by all non-official sections present.
The Secretary Culture emphasised that this was only the first meeting and the salient points raised would be collated and circulated so that more meetings could be held to reach some kind of consensus.
This welcome approach is in keeping with the spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity contained in the Rights of Man as pronounced by the Assembly of the French Revolution on 27 August, 1789 and the Minister of Culture and the senior staff should be complimented for it. Hopefully, a new and sensible Act will replace the failed 1972 Antiquities Act.
It would appear that the much needed change in Indian polity is beginning to occur. The people must, however, be vigilant, as ‘eternal vigilance’ is necessary to sustain liberty.