Classical Language Status: Promoting A Cheap Sense Of Cultural Nationalism바카라 웹사이트

Where on earth does a government recognise languages as classical? It happens only in India! But why? The plain answer is appeasing the linguistic and cultural sub-nationalities―an instance of vote-bank politics. Instead of settling for this plain answer, this article in the first part reviews the politics of classical languages, providing the historical background of the Sanskrit and Prakrit, the multilingual ecology of Indian languages in the present and the past, Sanskritic theology and the degenerative sense of history; and in the later part discusses the challenges and probable directions of the politics of classical languages in the coming decades. 

It all began in 2004 when the then United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government declared Tamil as a classical language, followed by Sanskrit (2005), Kannada (2008), Telugu (2008), Malayalam (2013) and Odiya (2014). Eventually, it became commonplace to say that in the near future all the languages in the Eight Schedule would become classical. And indeed, that seems to be happening now that Marathi, Bangla, Assamese, Pali, Prakrit and Persian were accorded the same status in October 2024. It is indeed absurd for a government to recognise some of its languages as classical as it creates a dichotomy by leaving some languages as non-classical. It becomes a perplexing problem to make sense of the non-classical, as it creates a clear political hierarchy and leads to a spiteful competition among the linguistic states to demand and get the classical status. 

This article is an attempt to contextualise the two phases of declaration of languages as classical in the politics of the respective governments. However, before I begin, I would like to clarify that I have argued elsewhere (in a BBC Marathi article in 2018) that Marathi does not qualify to be called a classical language. I still maintain that position. In fact, here I extend that argument to all the languages declared as classical except Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrits, Persian and Tamil. These other Indian languages, of the Indic family, declared as classical, can be argued to be related to one of the several ancient Prakrits, and their claim to antiquity entirely rests on this relation alone. And therefore, after having declared Prakrits to be classical, it is redundant to accord the status to the modern-day new Indic languages. It is nothing but the politics of appeasement. 

It should be noted that the official Press Information Bureau (PIB) release on October 3, 2024, mentions Prakrit in singular, whereas Prakrits are―among many other types, mainly―literary and/or liturgical (of religious texts and worship) languages of ancient India. To name a few of those: Ashokan Prakrit, Pali (prācīnatamā prakr̥ta – the oldest Prakrit - as some Prakrit grammarians refer to it), Māhārāshtri, Māgadhi, Shauraseni and Ardhamāgadhi. These are languages of literature [for example, lyrical poetry like Gāthāsattasai (Gāthāsaptaśatī―the story/poem in 700 verses) in Māhārashtri Prakrit, Māgadhi is believed to be the language of the Buddha and Mahavīra, and also one among the Dramatic Prakrits―modern-day eastern Indic languages―Bangla, Odia, Assamese and several of the Bihari languages can be related to this ancient Prakrit). Ardhamāgadhi, in addition to Māgadhi, became an important language of Jaina canon, Shauraseni―the one among Dramatic Prakrits―is prescribed by Nāṭyaśāstra to be used by, among many other characters, the Kṣhatriya and Brahmin women].

In short, Prakrit(s) is an umbrella term for several of the Prakrits. Some of the Prakrits are named by the region, but their function in the ancient literature is not thoroughly linked to the region alone. The Prakrits spill over or, at times, get associated with the specific themes of the narratives. For instance, in the medieval age, Saint Mira Bai who hails from Rajasthan composed in Braj because it was conventional to use Braj for Krishna라이브 바카라 devotion. In matters related to Rāma, Avadhi was the preferred language. It should also be mentioned that it is not entirely true that these Prakrits were the languages of the common men then. While Prakrits may have had appeal and functions in domains other than Sanskrit, there also existed an interesting bilingualism in Sanskrit and Prakrits. Prakrits, due to their literary, courtly and religious affiliations were not entirely the languages of common parlance of the little people. 

We began with wondering if any government body should certify some languages as classical. Clearly, it is not the government라이브 바카라 prerogative to do so. But then how do we develop an understanding of some languages as classical? Some languages become indispensable for the study of the ancient world and knowledge systems, and these languages can be termed classical. If one studies the ancient Arab world, and one discovers that Arabic and Hebrew are inevitable to study it―indeed these become classical. If one studies ancient China, and finds that sources in Classical Chinese are a must-read, it becomes classical; and so are languages like Sanskrit, Persian, several of the Prakrits, Chughtai (Babur라이브 바카라 mother tongue!) and Tamil are classical. In short, when historians, linguists and philologists study the ancient world, some languages are essential for their study and those are termed classical.

One cannot study ancient Europe without reading sources in Greek and Latin and therefore these become classical. Being a classical language, is therefore, a consequence of the relevance of the language as a resource for the study of the ancient world, not a thing to be accorded the status externally by a body. So, in the case of recognition of some Indian languages by the Government of India, rather than any serious attitude and interest in research of ancient India, it is clear that recognising some languages to be classical over others is a matter of promoting a cheap sense of cultural nationalism. 

There is some provision for giving special multi-crore grants for research of the recognised classical languages. The actual release of these grants and their spending on the research of the languages remains a topic of separate study, and I don’t intend to digress with that here. By and large, the idea of granting classical status to the languages in India is linked rather to politicising the linguistic identities and telling the voters that they matter to us.

However, since Independence, Indian language education and education in general have been consistently subordinated to other concerns by governments. It is for this reason too that the politics of classical languages is rather an instance of cultural nationalism and the performative aspect of it―holding grand functions to honour the languages, creating a festival out of it, while not doing anything concrete at the policy and implementation level which would empower these languages in the present times. Granting such a status to the ancient stages of languages leaves no responsibility to do anything to serve the current status of the languages which are constantly subordinated to English or other languages. 

On paper it all appears neat and tidy. The state governments submit a report of a ‘scholarly’ committee who dig some tailored past or just collect the popular beliefs and submit these as the reports of the classical language committee to the central government. There is no history of ensuring any serious academic international scholarship being invited to review these reports. It would be an interesting academic and journalistic exercise to review the reports submitted to the Central Government by the states. 

Even a cursory look at the report submitted by Maharashtra is sufficient for understanding the abject poverty of academic rigour. But it라이브 바카라 not just Maharashtra, the report on Malayalam can give Maharashtra a run for its money. Quite clearly, it is futile to expect any academic sincerity and analytical depth in this is shallow politics of language sentiments. 

It is a symptom of an enduring malaise that Indian ethnicities, federal states, or linguistic communities have long grappled with. This malaise manifests in the belief that our present lacks greatness, compelling us to seek solace in the ancient past, where we once thrived as a magnificent civilisation. Over time, that glory has diminished, and the easiest way to feel a sense of pride is to evoke an imagined grandeur of the past and assign blame for its loss.

This degenerative view of history—that everything has been in a state of decay since antiquity—has been attributed to a certain Sanskritic theology. In this framework, one language is deemed sacred and eternal, while others are considered profane and destined to deteriorate. This logic has shaped how we situate our linguistic and cultural past, deriving a sense of greatness merely by asserting that our antiquity stretches back thousands of years. Such an approach absolves us of the responsibility to achieve meaningful progress in the present, allowing us to remain fixated on lost glory. 

This mindset may also stem from guilt over the failure to empower Indian languages as mediums of learning, instruction, and knowledge (jñānabhāṣās). By designating certain languages as “classical”, we alleviate this guilt, excusing ourselves from the lack of serious efforts to strengthen these languages over the past seven decades. Interestingly, both major political parties have played their cards by recognising some languages as classical in the last three decades. However, the effectiveness of these decisions and whether they were grounded in a proper understanding of the socio-political landscape can now be critically examined.  

In this article, I compare the approaches of different governments and parties. While superficially similar, the underlying motivations for these decisions reveal distinct triggers, particularly concerning the decentralisation of power and the respect for federal states in practice. 

The Indian National Congress laid the groundwork for linguistic reorganisation early on, establishing Provincial Congress Committees based on language regions as far back as 1920 during the Nagpur session. This set the stage for the formal reorganisation of states by language after Independence, culminating in the States Reorganisation Act of 1956. The recognition of classical languages during the UPA 1 and 2 regimes can be seen as an extension of this historical emphasis on linguistic identity. By conferring classical status, the coalition governments reinforced the cultural and historical significance of certain languages. While this cannot be equated with the linguistic reorganisation of states, it reflects an acknowledgment of regional and community identities as special in the eyes of the nation. Though the status is linguistic, it carries far-reaching cultural implications and potential electoral benefits. 

However, this move is not without critique. A significant presumption in linguistic reorganisation—and by extension, in recognising classical languages—is the neglect of the unique role each language plays within India라이브 바카라 multilingual ecology. Languages and communities have historically coexisted in complex, intertwined ways, with each language serving distinct functions in people라이브 바카라 lives. By carving out regions dominated by a single language and declaring it supreme, linguistic subnationalism was fostered, undermining the cohesive coexistence of languages. This sharp political and geographical association of languages with regions has had lasting consequences. 

One such consequence is the rise of aggressive linguistic nationalism, even among communities that were not historically assertive. For instance, languages like Bangla and Tamil, already strong in their subnational identities, were joined by others seeking similar recognition. This has led to a belief that one must adopt a linguistic nationalist stance to truly belong to a state, contradicting India라이브 바카라 traditionally porous and inclusive bilingualism, which views languages as complementary rather than exclusive. The sentiment of “if they are classical, we are classical too” is a direct extension of this mindset. 

The political ramifications of such decisions are significant. The displeasure of communities whose languages were not recognised as classical could translate into electoral losses, depending on the cultural and political centrality of the language. This explains why all major Dravidian languages were granted classical status during the UPA regimes. Similarly, Odia라이브 바카라 recognition can be seen as a concession to an ally of the UPA, particularly in response to assertive Bengali nationalism. Malayalam라이브 바카라 recognition in 2014 was not surprising, given that most Lok Sabha seats from Kerala went to the Congress at the time. By 2014, it became indirectly evident that the number of Lok Sabha constituencies a state could deliver influenced the prospects of its language being declared classical. 

The dynamics shifted intriguingly when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014. For two consecutive terms, the party largely avoided engaging with the politics of classical languages, steering clear of linguistic fault lines. It is surprising for a party known for its willingness to exploit communal divides. Yes and no. The ‘yes’ can be explained so: The likely explanation lies in the decentralised nature of India라이브 바카라 federal linguistic states, which stands in contrast to the BJP라이브 바카라 centralised power structure under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The party may have feared that granting classical status to languages would amplify state leadership―potentially creating contenders for central power. Moreover, the BJP has emerged as a dominant national party, relying on allies or subordinate regional leaders who do not challenge the Modi-Shah leadership. Engaging directly with linguistic identities would require the party to assert a regional face, an area where it has yet to demonstrate proficiency. 

The ‘no’ too can be made sense of in this way: For a party like the BJP, which inherits its grand political agenda of Hindu India from RSS, it needs not be understood as surprising if it goes on to declare as many languages of the Eighth Schedule as classical. For, it then feeds in to the party라이브 바카라 agenda of unifying and homogenising―and of course straightjacketing―India and its languages in the classical fold. This classical fold then can easily be conjoined with the Sanskrit-dominant imagination of India. By pushing the histories of modern Indian languages to the first millennium―one of the defining criteria of the classical language status―the Post-Sultanate languages, cultures can be conveniently obliterated and the whole idea of ‘one nation, one past’ becomes handy. 

The decision in 2024 to declare Marathi, Bengali, Assamese, Prakrit, Pali, and Persian as classical languages can thus be understood now as both: the one that marks a departure from this cautious approach, and the one that paves path for pre-Islamic existence of the contemporary Indian languages and cultures. This grand discourse of Hindu India indeed helps us understand the policy and praxis of the BJP regime, but alongside, the immediate causes and motives behind the recent recognition of the classical languages can be analysed for its political undertones.

Marathi라이브 바카라 case is particularly notable, as the BJP likely sought to capitalise on public sentiments amid the fractured state of Maharashtra라이브 바카라 politics. By ensuring that regional leaders like Eknath Shinde or Devendra Fadnavis could not claim exclusive credit, the central BJP positioned itself as the benefactor. Bengali라이브 바카라 recognition appears to be aimed at appeasing voters in West Bengal, where local issues may challenge the Trinamool Congress (TMC) in future elections. Assamese, with its submissive regional leadership, posed no threat to the central BJP. Prakrit라이브 바카라 recognition may have been an academic decision or an attempt to please Jain voters in western India, while Pali라이브 바카라 status aligns with its historical significance in Buddhism and ancient India. Persian라이브 바카라 inclusion likely reflects an effort to connect with Iran and Shia Muslim and Parsi communities. 

This move can also be interpreted as a desperate attempt to pre-emptively address voter dissatisfaction or sway potential swing voters. It may also reflect a hell effect as they call in psychology—a willingness to experiment with divisive politics after exhausting all other strategies. In the long-term, the BJP will need to reconcile its national image with actions that resonate with regional aspirations, especially given its reluctance to rely on intermediaries to bridge this gap. The party라이브 바카라 ability to navigate this tension will determine its success in maintaining both its national aura and relevance to the regional ethos. 

(Views expressed are personal) 

(The author teaches at IIT Kanpur)