One branch lives in the Gir forest, Gujarat; the other in the north Karnataka woods. A three-lakh-strong silk-weaving community scattered in Tamil Nadu gets along by speaking Saurashtri in the heart of Dravidian country.(The cultural encounter seems to have given a Raga Saurashtram to Carnatic music.) On Minicoy island—a slender, one-street marvel on the extreme south of the Lakshadweep group, where the men are full-timers at the sea and women run the local economy—they speak Mahl, linked via Sinhalese to the northern Indian languages rather than to the Malabarese spoken on the other islands. Or take Brahui, in Baluchistan, discovered about a century ago to be a Dravidian language—a fact that has been rich fodder in the competing claims over the Indus civilisation.
More slices of life. Step out of the office where this piece is being written, into a messy south Delhi market, and find Sikh shopkeepers who talk to each other not in Punjabi but Pashto—their Kabuli background also makes them conversant with Russian, a gift that still guides their economics. Mostly, this seething linguistic undergrowth fails to register on the official consciousness, but sometimes it exhibits a studied sensitivity. All India Radio's Srinagar station—which, as a journalist put it, "is called Radio Kashmir to appease local sentiment"—broadcasts in "seven languages: Kashmiri, Shina, Balti, Pahadi, Gujri, Urdu, Punjabi" (and we still haven't counted Ladakhi, Zanskari, Dogri...).
What are we to make of this melange, this unruly ensemble, this 'buzzing, blooming confusion' that is the real linguistic India? Do we strut about with dialects with guns, silencing it into submission? What indeed does it mean to engage in a language tourism, scooping out exotica for the benefit of 'Indian' ethnological albums? We run the risk of creating a gallery of specimens, a linguistic museum smelling of formaldehyde, unless the talk is leavened in some fashion. Desire, memory, a volitional gesture, some sign of life. Everyone speaks, incessantly pouring words out into the public, yet it's an aspect of being that inheres in us so totally: like the brick and mortar of cognition. We think in it, so to think it we can do no better than to spin metaphors. One is to invest language itself with life, and all that's biological—birth, growth, decay and, yes, death. Languages die. Ahom is dead in Assam. A dozen Andamanese tongues are extinct, more are probably going as you read this.... This prospect evokes two contrasting responses. One is crude social Darwinism: let the brutes survive, and those who'll adapt; damn the rest. The other echoes the conservationist's apocalyptic chants. One makes a virtue of ignorance, the other puts languages on a par with trees and lion-tailed macaques.
The other is to restore it to a political space. A conscious play, manifest or subtle, of dominance, resistance, accommodation, submission. One way speakers deny their own language is in a silent transaction between the periphery and the core of the linguistic state (or bigger sub-national identities). Say, Maithili vs Hindi or Sylheti vs Bengali. The educated elite is perpetually sliding towards the centre, and covering its tracks. They internalise its norms of goodness, notions of what is vulgar and what is refined; provincial ego is inverted into its negative, the identity collapsed with that of the whole. The effect: desuetude, partial eclipse, and with the numerically fragile, possible obsolescence.
Languages also survive. In fact, they exhibit a self-preserving trait, a tenacity, which can be understood only culturally. Indo-Portuguese, a creole, clings on in pockets like Daman. Konkani speakers who fled persecution in colonial Goa 500 years ago are strewn all down the west coast—no script, no institutional backing, yet in innumerable little domestic fiefs they keep the faith, coming back home to the mother tongue from the alien out-there everyday.An archaic Punjabi still lives in a Hyderabad suburb, and a Lahore hotel bellboy speaks Kangri at home, three generations after Partition—the polyglot, a daily refugee in what Gumperz calls "the ethnic separateness of home life", as a fact of the tormented, modern world.
The India that Gumperz saw in the '50s was no placid idyll; in that young nationhood, politics was never too far from the surface. In a few years, Punjabi Hindus would, almost to the last man, record their language as Hindi. Then there was this other, more pernicious fallacy—India's linguistic partition. "I used to ride around on a bicycle in a western UP village, doing my field work. At one house they'd remark, 'How well you speak Hindi!'. Yards away, another family would compliment me, 'You really speak good Urdu'. Both referring to the same thing!" Gumperz recalls. This is a delusion the modern Indian state has worked hard to reinforce, via its textbooks, the media and its proliferating babble.
Soon, the South discovered itself. Ram Jivan was a Hindi teacher in the mid-'60s when news came of the language riots in Tamil Nadu. "I was incredulous. How could anyone hate Hindi?" He was moved enough to go south and find out for himself. Over the years, he mastered Tamil—and taught it to dozens of people, "right up to Shankar Dayal Sharma". He spent the rest of his life working on a multi-language comparative dictionary, but the maverick philologist's orientation stayed. "Modern Tamil vocabulary is 40 per cent Sanskrit-based," he told this writer a few monsoons ago. Chauvinism, one mirroring the other's, has set the tone for what should've been a calmer reflection on a great, long history of contact, cohabitation, assimilation.
Allow for the messy empirical—even the Rig Veda shows traces of dialectal variation; none of the 'Classical' authors were probably native speakers; and Sanskrit too is, naturally, not without Dravidian borrowings. We are left with a named duality that is rich at the representational level: Sans-krit, the Well Created, arching above all else as the unchanging ideal; defined against Prakrit, the Natural, fluid and mysteriously alive. A crucial substratum still eludes this ambit. The Tribal, the word itself a web of stigmata. It gives us this paradox: an average Munda boy, on India's lowest social/literacy echelon, has more linguistic competence than anyone above him. He knows his own language, two neighbouring tribal languages, the lingua franca Sadari, and a fair bit of Magahi, Bhojpuri and bazaar Hindi. (Compare the repertoire of an urban techno-brahmin; one and a half?—and thank Macaulay for it.) Of more fundamental interest is the reading that Munda has lent a climatic context to every other language group, morphing them all into a specific Indian type. Not via lexical conquest, but the unconscious devices and protocols of grammar. The question, 'What is Indian in Language?', may yet lead us down the least heralded path.
The State aspires to be panoptic, but it's petrified of the natural order—it sees in it clutter and anarchy. Difference is disintegrative; the koine is its preferred currency. It's blind to the kind of fragile resolutions that happen on the ground, deaf to its phonic ebb and flow. English is a different curry on each regional palate. Hindi is one thing in Buxar, quite another in Bombay; around Hyderabad, it meets Telugu and becomes Dakkhini. Meitei loses its script to the Vaishnavite conquest, but the encounter produces a new admixture, Bishnupriya.If the northeastern states agree to disagree, they have Nagamese to do it in. In the south, the long trade with Arabia spawns Arwi—it lives 800 years, and dies quietly with its historical context. It's mapped on our brain, this archive of a billion memories. Outside it, there's collective, programmed amnesia.