Jayakanthan and Tamilian language sentiments

Jayakanthan, a popular Tamil writer, is known to have made his infamous remarks deriding Tamilian sentiments about their language and their agitation over language corruption when speaking at a function after winning the Jnanpith (Gnanapeeda) Award.

I am one of many who appreciate and feel proud about Tamil saints, scholars and others who have fought long battles over the last hundred years and more to salvage Tamil from what is known as its ‘manipravaalam’ form (Note 1), to revive Tamil music, and so on. No one could have guessed the battle would become even more complicated some decades after India freed itself from British colonial rule.

This is how the British set out to do educate their Indian subjects as part of their ‘civilizing mission’, as recommended by T B Macaulay (to the then British Governor-General) in his “Indian Education Minute of the 2nd of February, 1835”:

QUOTE

We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.

UNQUOTE

It appears that post-independent India is trying to not only complete what the British set out to do but could not complete before leaving India (in 1947), but even outdo Macaulay in one sense: to Anglicize or creolize their language(s), as is well underway with Hinglish (the Hindi+English composite).

On the other hand, the ongoing globalization has brought along call-centre jobs that require the jobbers to not only switch language but submerge their identity altogether and simulate or slip into alien identities. The relevant point here is that they have to speak ‘good’ English, bereft of any native Indian accent, so as to be acceptable to their distant customers. But these are jobs that could be ‘clicked’ away to other shores in search of lower costs.
{In case we think that “globalization” is a new phenomenon, we are indeed sheep misled by the global media. What then is the last empire in which the sun never set?}

In the case of Tamil Nadu, of independent India (in case, we forget), a child can complete his / her education from nursery to university without ever having to learn the mother tongue (Tamil) in school. Tamil Nadu is the only state in all of India where this happens. I have personally heard of cases of young children scolded / ‘punished’ by convent teachers if they were to talk of their “Amma” and “Appa”, instead of their “Mummy” and “Daddy” (Note 2).

Lest we regard this as essential preparation for future software developers, let’s be reminded that the Japanese, Russians, Israelis, Scandinavians and such have been producing far more software for a longer time even as they are schooled in Japanese, Russian, Hebrew, etc.

Language is not only about communication; it also shapes and structures your thoughts and innermost sensibilities and sensitivities. These are also being confirmed by latest advances in cognitive sciences and neurolinguistics.

The neglect that Tamil language is suffering in Tamil Nadu’s school system has to be quickly addressed and corrected. Tamil Nadu politicians of all parties should be taken to task on this matter. Otherwise, we would all be sorry to witness the effects of growing illiteracy in Tamil amongst Tamil Nadu’s young and future generations.

There is much more that the government of Turkey, for instance, does for the Turkish language than does the Tamil Nadu government for Tamil language (Turkey and Tamil Nadu are approximately equal in terms of population).

What’s the point of having billboards in Tamil when more and more of the younger generation grow up unable to read and write Tamil?
What’s the point of fiery oratory about the greatness of Tamil when the language is marginalized in the education system under the watch of the very same politicians?

If the above state of affairs were to persist, Jayakanthan, for instance, would have to face the prospect of a shrinking pool of readers for his Tamil novels in future. He should be more concerned about this, rather than leading himself into comparing between Tamil and Sanskrit (Note 4) (Note 5) (Note 6). We could then have been spared another comparison: between 'the dog that licks its own legs' (as he is known to have had characterised the Thani Thamizh adherents) and 'the dog that licks the master’s feet' (Note 3). We do NOT want an equalization by turning Tamil into another ‘dead’ classical language. Let Tamil maintain its distinction as a ‘living’ language for many, many generations to come.

A sense of the audience that Jayakanthan may be playing to emerges from an essay in the Frontline (22 April 2005), a publication of The Hindu group. In tracing his evolution from the days of writing for the “common man”, the essay notes that his entry into a “new cultural world” is marked by the transition from the “language of the slum” to the ‘Brahminical’ language:

QUOTE

…..After establishing himself as a notable writer of the common man, Jayakanthan entered another phase of his life. Impressed by his popularity among a section of readers, mainstream magazines such as Ananda Vikatan, Kumudam and Dinamani Kadir started publishing his stories. This widened his horizon and helped him reach greater heights. He took up larger issues and dealt with them in greater detail and in a more sophisticated way, taking advantage of the form of long stories serialized by these magazines. Knowing full well that he had to write for a different type of reader and address different types of issues, Jayakanthan appeared to have equipped himself with new tools and techniques. He had to adapt himself to a new language that these magazines had standardized over the years and adopt a different style of writing.

The transition from the language of the slum to the “Brahminical” language was smooth. In fact, this marked his entry into a new cultural world. And ultimately he scored remarkable success…..

UNQUOTE

The above words are seeping with so much arrogance that it is hard to believe that they appear in cold print on the pages of a respectable publication. Even the colonial Macaulay was not as condescending when he was comparing English to the ‘vernacular’ languages of India. One hundred and seventy years later, one of the denizens of “a new cultural world” that seems to have emerged in independent India disparages the language of the “common man” - for whom the post-independence Tamil writer Jayakanthan once wrote - as the “language of the slum”, in contrast to the so-called “Brahminical” language. What is this “Brahminical” language? I have not heard of any language described as such before. One is left to infer that a social group of self-assumed ‘cultural’ importance has quietly carved out, NOT from the English language of Macaulay but from the ‘vernacular’ language of Tamil, a ‘new’ language for itself whilst the rest of the Tamil-speaking world had been busily engaged in shoring up and debating about ‘Thani Thamizh’. Is this new language going to be the counterpart (in the language domain) of what’s referred to in the religious sphere as ‘Brahmanical’ Hinduism?

Wonder if Jayakanthan also sees himself as having started out as a writer in the “language of the slum”?

Does Jayakanthan, who opposes Tamil language purism, also see himself now as a writer in the so-called "Brahminical" language?

Note 1:

முன்னாள் அமைச்சர் தமிழ்க்குடிமகன் அவர்கள் அந்தக்காலத்திய 'உபதேசரத்நமாலை'யிலிருந்து எடுத்துக்காட்டிய மணிப்பிரவாள நடை:

"மணவாளமாமுனிகள் தமக்காசார்யரான பிள்ளையுடைய ப்ரசாதத்தாலே, க்ரமாசுதமாய் வந்த அர்த்த விசேஷங்களைப் பின்பற்றாருமறிந்து உஜ்ஜீலிக்கும் படி, ப்ரபந்தரூபேன உபதேசித்து ப்ரகாசிப்பிக்கிறோமென்று ச்ரோத்ரு புத்தி ஸமாதாநார்த்தமாக ப்ரதிஞ்ஞை பண்ணி யருளுகிறார்."

இந்த நடை பற்றி மறைமலையடிகள் சொன்னது:

"மக்களை விட்டு மொழியும், மொழியை விட்டு மக்களும் உயிர் வாழ்தல் சிறிதும் இயலாது. " எனது விருப்பப் படிதான் யான் பேசும் மொழியைத் திரித்தும் அயல்மொழிச் சொற்களோடு கலந்து மாசுபடுத்தியும் வழங்குவேன், அம்மொழியின் அமைப்பின்படி யான் நடக்கக் கடவேனல்லன்" என்று ஒவ்வொருவனும் தனது மொழியைத் தன் விருப்பப்படி யெல்லாந் திரித்துக் கொண்டு போவானாயின், சிறிது காலத்தில் ஒரு மக்கள் கூட்டத்தாரிலேயே ஒருவரையொருவர் அறிந்துகொள்ள முடியாத வகையாய் ஒவ்வொரு சிறு கூட்டத்திற்கும் ஒவ்வொரு புதுமொழி காலந்தோறும் உண்டாகி அம்மக்களை ஒன்று சேரவிடாமல் அவர்களைப் பல சிறு கூட்டங்களாகப் பிரித்துவிடும்."

(நன்றி: செந்தமிழ்ச் செல்வி, ஏப்ரல் 2000)

Related Blog:

Malayalam: Motivated genesis of a language (12 Nov 2005)

Note 2:

"விகடன்" 1.9.1932 இதழில் "பாஷைக்கு அடிமைகள்" என்ற தலைப்பில் கல்கி எழுதியதாவது:

"சாதாரணமாய் நமது கல்வி முறையின் கீழ் மூன்றாம் வகுப்பிலிருந்தே இங்கிலீஷ் பாஷை முக்கியமான பாடம் ஆகிறது. ஹைஸ்கூலுக்குப் போய்விட்டால் கணக்கு, சரித்திரம், பூகோளம், ஸயன்ஸ் முதலிய எல்லாப் பாடங்களும் இங்கிலீஷீலேயே கற்பிக்கப்பட வேண்டும். தமிழை மட்டும் தமிழிலேயே கற்பித்தாக வேண்டியிருக்கிறது. முடியுமானால் அதைக்கூட இங்கிலீஷீல் கற்றுக் கொடுத்து விடுவார்கள். இதைப்போல் சர்வ முட்டாள் தனமான முறை உலகில் வேறெதுவும் இருக்க முடியாது. குழந்தைகளும், சிறுவர்களும் தாய்மொழியிலின்றி வேறு மொழியின் மூலம் உண்மையான பயிற்சி பெறுவதென்பது இயலாத காரியமே.

ஒருவன் தனது சொந்த பாஷை பேசுவது கண்டிக்கத்தக்க குற்றமாகுமென்று யாராவது எதிர்பார்க்க முடியுமா? தமிழ்நாட்டில் தமிழ் பேசுவது ஒரு குற்றம். அதற்குத் தண்டனையுண்டு யென்றால் வெளிநாட்டார் யெவரும் நம்பமாட்டார்கள். இந்த அபூர்வமான உலகிலே எங்கும் இல்லாத சட்டம் நமது நாட்டில் அதிலும் பள்ளிக் கூடங்களில் இருந்து வருகிறது.

பிள்ளைகள் ஒருவருக்கொருவர் தமிழ் பேசினால் வார்த்தைக்கு இவ்வளவுவென்று அபராதம். சென்னையில் தேசிய பெண்கள் பள்ளிக்கூடம் என்று சொல்லப்படும் ஒரு ஹைஸ்கூலில் இந்த அழகான முறை இப்போதும் அமுலில் இருந்து வருகிறது. மாணவர்கள் யாரும் தமிழில் பேசக்கூடாது. பேசினால் வார்த்தைக்கு ஒரு தம்பிடியோ, காலணாவோ அபராதம்."

NOTE 3:

தமிழ் முரசு ( 25.5.2005 ):

தமிழ்நாடு தொடக்கப்பள்ளி ஆசிரியர் மன்றப் பொதுச் செயலாளர் க. மீனாட்சி சுந்தரம் வெளியிட்டுள்ள அறிக்கையின் முக்கியப் பகுதிகள் சில:

'யாமறிந்த மொழிகளிலே தமிழ்மொழிபோல் இனிதாவதெங்கும் காணோம்' என
சமஸ்கிருதத்தையும் உள்ளடக்கியே கூறினார் மகாகவி பாரதியார்.

'லோகத்திலே உள்ள பாஷைகளுக்கெல்லாம் தாய் பாஷை சமஸ்கிருதமே' என அன்றைய சங்கராச்சாரியார் வடலூர் வள்ளலாரிடம் கூறியபோது, 'நீங்கள் குறிப்பிடும் அந்தத் தாயையும் அடக்கியாள்கிற தந்தை பாஷை தான் தமிழ்' என்று பதிலடி தந்தார் வள்ளலார்.

தமிழை உயிராகவே நேசித்து, பிறமொழி கலப்பால் தமிழ் அழிந்துவிடக் கூடாது என்பதற்காகவே தனித் தமிழ் இயக்கம் கண்டவர்கள் தமிழறிஞர்கள் மறைமலை அடிகளார், திரு வி. கல்யாணசுந்தரனார், பேரறிஞர் அண்ணா, ரா.பி. சேதுப்பிள்ளை, நாவலர் மற்றும் பல அறிஞர்கள். தமிழ் வாழ வேண்டும் என்பதற்காகவே தங்கள் தேக்குமரத் தேகத்தைத் தீக்கிரையாக்கியவர்கள் தமிழக மொழிப்போர் தியாகிகளாக வணங்கப்பட்டு வருகிறார்கள். அத்தியாகிகளின் தியாகத்தால் தான் தமிழகத்தில் திராவிடர் பாரம்பரியத்தினர் ஆட்சிக் கட்டிலில் அமர முடிந்தது.

இத்தகைய சூழலில் எழுத்தாளர் ஜெயகாந்தன், ஞானபீட விருதுக்கு உரியவராக
அறிவிக்கப்பட்ட நாள் முதல், தன்னை விட அறிஞர் இவ்வுலகத்திலேயே யாருமில்லை என்ற அகந்தையின் காரணமாக ஏதேதோ உளறுகிறார்...... சமஸ்கிருத சேவா சமிதி பாராட்டு விழாவில் பேசிய அவர், தமிழில் தான் எழுத வேண்டும், பேச வேண்டும் எனக் கூறுபவர்கள் தன் காலைத் தானே நக்கிக் கொள்ளும் நாய்கள்! தமிழ் நமக்குத் தாய்மொழி என்றால் சமஸ்கிருதம் அதை விட மேலானது! எனக் கூறியுள்ளார்.

இவ்வாறு கூறுபவர், சமஸ்கிருதத்தில் எழுதி ஞானபீட விருது பெறாதது ஏன்? சமஸ்கிருதந்தான் மேலான மொழி எனக் கூறும் ஜெயகாந்தனுக்குத் தமிழிலே எழுதியதற்காக ஞானபீட விருது தரப்பட்டது சரிதானா? என்பது
சிந்தனைக்குரியதாகும்.


தமிழ் முரசு ( 15.6.2005 ):

சமஸ்கிருதம் பயிலாத ஜெயகாந்தன், தமிழை விட சமஸ்கிருதம் மேலானது
என்று கூறியது சரியல்ல என்று கரந்தைத் தமிழ்க் கல்லூரி பேராசிரியர் இளமுருகன் கூறினார்.....ஜெர்மானிய அறிஞர் மாக்ஸ் முல்லர் ( Max Muller ) இல்லாவிட்டால் இன்றைய சமஸ்கிருதம் நடைமுறையில் இல்லாது போயிருக்கும் என்றார் இளமுருகன்.

Note 4:

Some of the weaknesses of and difficulties with the Sanskrit language find mention in Sir Nirad C Chaudhuri’s Hinduism: a religion to live by (Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 216-7:

“….. All scholars make use of the Hindu basic and exegetical texts without considering how far they can be utilized to give a rational view of Hindu religious beliefs and practices.

The very first difficulty arises from the nature of the Sanskrit language. There is
an impression among those who want to learn the language that its grammar is difficult, both in accidence and syntax. It is not, and anyone with a good memory can learn the elaborate declensions and conjugations in six months. Sanskrit syntax is also for the most part a matter of arbitrary rules, and can be memorized. The real difficulty in Sanskrit is over the meaning of words. Ancient Sanskrit lexicography was never good, and the modern is also very unsatisfactory. So one can never be sure what a word means in a particular context.

This was perceived even before the eleventh century by the great Muslim scholar Alberuni, who had learnt the language. Thus he said in his famous book Indica, in which he gave an account of the religious and philosophical ideas of the Hindus:

The language (Sanskrit) …… (used) one and the same word for a variety of subjects, which in order to be properly understood, must be distinguished from each other by various qualifying epithets. For nobody could distinguish between the various meanings of a word unless he understood the context in which it occurred, and its relation both to the following and preceding parts of the sentence.

Modern lexicographers of Sanskrit, both Indian and Western, have not as yet produced any dictionary which can be considered to be adequate, especially in regard to religious texts. There is besides a special defect of the modern dictionaries due to the fact that a very large number of words in classical Sanskrit are to be found in all modern Indian Sanskritic languages, in which they are wholly unaltered in form. But these words are often used in meanings which are different from the ancient, and they also have different meanings in different modern Indian languages. All modern Sanskrit dictionaries are coloured by local or provincial usages, and one can never be sure that these correspond to ancient usage and meaning.

Next, difficulty springs from the fact that most of the texts are in verse, and for the sake of metre different words have to be used for the same meaning, and also many
superfluous words or particles have to be introduced. This was also referred to by Alberuni. After explaining that verse was employed by the Hindus to facilitate memorizing, he observed: ‘Now it is well known that in all metrical compositions there is much misty and constrained phraseology merely intended to fill up the metre and serving as a kind of patchwork, and this necessitates a certain amount of verbosity.’

But besides this linguistic difficulty in the way of interpreting any religious text in Sanskrit, there is the whole Hindu attitude to language. From the very beginning of their speculations the Hindus exhibited a deep reverence for the Word per se……… But for the Hindus the Word is not the Logos of the Greeks, Romans, and Christians, who identified Logos with the reason immanent in the cosmos. With them it is just word, speech as uttered or embodied in writing. This led the Hindus to create a world of words parallel to and co-existent with the world in which they lived and carried on their activities. ……..

This peculiar disposition to speak and write without any relation to what existed objectively in the world and what could influence their actions is seen even in the practical treatises of the Hindus. All of them are padded with theoretical and even fanciful notions which have no relation to the practical instructions given, and, besides, they indulge in a systematization which is thorough to the point of absurdity……….

Sanskrit rhetoric and poetics – Alamkara or Rasa Sastra as these were called – were as pretentious as they were arid. They divided the heroes and heroines of literary works into types in an elaborate taxonomy, and reduced their states of amorousness to ridiculous abstractions. …. The only service that these rhetoricians and analysts rendered to Sanskrit literature was by preserving as illustrations to their categories some gems of lyrical poetry, which otherwise might have been lost. Their writings gave Sanskrit literature a bad name as a collection of mere artificial prettiness and far-fetched conceits. ……..

The largest part of the Hindu religious literature is taken up with mythology, and the most important works in this class are the Puranas, or treatises on old times. These are composed in Sanskrit verse, but possess no poetic merit. For that one has to go to Sanskrit literature in its truly literary genres, to which many Puranic stories furnish the themes. The Puranas are as entertaining as the Arabian Nights in their mythological stories. If, however, anyone tries to extract a consistent account of the gods and of their character and activities from them he will be baffled at every point by their inconsistencies and exuberance. "

We presume that Sir Nirad Chaudhuri knows enough about Sanskrit to make the above observations. However, he appears to be wholly ignorant about pre-Vedic or Dravidian India and its civilizational accomplishments (e.g. Mohenjodaro, Harappa) even before the nomadic Aryans arrived. The late Nirad Chaudhuri, a scholar and writer from Bengal, was conferred a knighthood (the CBE) by the Queen of England as well as an honororay D.Litt by Oxford University.

Note 5:

T. K. Oommen, Professor of Sociology, Centre for the Study of Social Systems, Jawaharlal Nehru University, in his article 'Religious nationalism and democratic polity: the Indian case' in the journal Sociology of Religion (Dec 1994), wrote as follows:

“…… First, Sanskrit is not a living language and is today spoken only by a handful of people. Second, it is not true that Sanskrit is the exclusive heritage of Hindus; it is a common Indian heritage cutting across religious categories. While Sanskrit was an ancient and highly developed language of ancient India, so were Pali and Tamil. (Of these three languages only Tamil is a living vibrant language.) Given the above, Sanskrit is at best identified with Aryan Hinduism, Pali with Buddhism, and Tamil with Dravidian Hinduism. Consequently, Sanskrit is not even the common heritage of all Hindus…….”

Note 6: (inserted on 19.03.06)

Pathmarajah Nagalingam ( owner of website www.siddha.com.my ) writes in akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com (18 March 2006) as follows:

"..... I agree that sanskrit is not a very good communicative language - words and meanings are too vague and easily misunderstood, like 'dharma' for instance. Perhaps thats why there is so much repetition in each hymn. It may also explain why writers over the millenia, in a subconscious need, padded the sanskrit texts, especially the puranas and itihasas until it ballooned to what it is today. Obese texts. Thats the word. Thats a fatal flaw, indicating its a primitive language, and explains its early cardiac arrest. It died long before latin and greek. But it is nice to chant in sanskrit. I do that everyday!!

Nice also to quote in romanised sanskrit, using diatrical marks. Gives a hallowed and scholarly feeling.

(It may also explain why Indians cant understand each other, and resort to plenty of verbiage, but still essentially talking past each other! ) "

Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com