Socio-Political Influences on Language in Pre- and Post-Independent India

Anthropology 33
Huda Bint Aumir
104325962

Introduction
Language and religion have been the predominant symbols signifying group identity in India over
the past century. Consequently, over time, these symbols soon developed a complex relationship
with each other, becoming almost indistinguishable from sentiments of nationalism and caste
solidarity. Therefore, a linguistic analysis of the society cannot be done in isolation from the
innumerable indexicalities that language denotes in the nation. To investigate evolution of
linguistic patterns, this research is restricted to the dynamics of language, in relation to religion
and nationalistic fervor, based within northern Indian states, primarily Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and
Madhya Pradesh (M.P.) (Refer to Section #1 in the Appendix). The emphasis of this paper is to
understand the predominant language ideology in North India today, as a consequence of language
loyalty and the evolution of political expression employed to advocate interests of respective
language groups. This investigation is based on a linguistic biography of the family of Syed
Mohammed Hamid (Refer to Section #2 in the Appendix), and attempts to recognize the factors
that have cemented their specific language ideology over the last 50 years. This paper argues that
the social, political and religious aspects surrounding the Indian independence movement have left
a deep, permanent scar in the linguistic fabric of the country. It is as a consequence of these factors
that, even though each one of the family members has had distinctly different migratory patterns,
the language ideology passed down three generations is identical.

Even though the family of Mr. Hamid is firmly rooted in their identity as Bhopalis (belonging to
the city of Bhopal in M.P.), every member has had unique and diverse cultural experiences. The
significance of this is two-fold: Firstly, it helps identify the influence of the initial language
ideology the members carried with themselves when they left India. This is primarily done by
observing the language education imposed on the children of the family. Further, this diversity can
also be a useful indicator of the extent to which language is a source of national and religious
identification.

Predominant Language Ideology

Conversations with the Hamid family revealed the primary language ideology that were passed
down three generations, beginning directly from Mr. Hamids parents. This ideology primarily
holds that all children must at least acquire three languages:
(1) English Considered the most powerful, and absolutely essential. Proficiency in English
is placed above all others, and there is an unspoken expectation of every member to hold a
strong grasp of its grammar and syntax. It should also be noted that despite the importance
given to English, it is never used within the house or at any ceremonies or functions. The
use of English for communication with family members is considered rude and can be
perceived as dissociating oneself from the rest of the community.
(2) Hindi This language is learned based solely on nationalistic and political reasons rather
than cultural ones. The argument made for Hindi is one that concerns legal paperwork that
one might be required to conduct at some moment in an individuals life, with the
underlying assumption that any such paperwork would be unavailable in English.
Consequently, the emphasis is more on written language than verbal communication.

(3) Urdu Contrary to the views towards Hindi, fluent speech in Urdu is required of every
child in the family. It is considered a basic courtesy to the family heritage for every child
to respect the importance of his/her mother tongue especially the children who grow up
outside of the homeland. Clearly in this case, familiarity with written script is of little
significance as long as one can converse in the language with proper syntax and adequate
vocabulary.

It is worthy to note that language acquisition is very highly valued in the family. Any languages
picked up by children, irrespective of origin or its community of speakers, are appreciated, and
any interests to pursue language are largely encouraged by all members of the family as long as
the languages mentioned above have been satisfactorily mastered first.

The origins of this specific ideology will further be developed roughly in chronological order.
Hence, the remainder of this paper will investigate the origins and conflict of Hindi and Urdu in
the political landscape of occupied India. These are largely based on societal concerns of the
bourgeoisie and their attempts to attach religious significance to language. This will then be
followed by the rise of English in this linguistic hierarchy post Indian independence. The spread
and popularity of English deals predominantly with the political restrictions imposed on the society
affecting opportunities of education, employment and growth.

The Hindi-Urdu Controversy in Developing a National Identity of India

Author:

(Were there any languages that you specifically wanted to teach your children?)

Saba Ausim:
. .
.
.

, .
(No, not particularly. Well, we did realize that usually children who are brought up outside India
lose touch with their mother tongue. Since we were in England, we were confident that they would
pick up English well from school and friends. So we decided to only use Urdu for conversation at
home. Over time, even the children began to tease us if wed mistakenly use English at home. They
used to say, Amma (mother), no English in the house!)

The significance of Urdu in the Hamid household transcends geographical barriers. However, this
did not seem to be the only concern that led Saba and her husband to make such a decision. Sabas
words seem to be indicative of a larger ideology held by many Asian Indians who live outside the
country; the inference that ones inability to speak their mother tongue makes them inherently
less Indian. The view that, irrespective of citizenship, ones true identity lies in their assimilation
to the language of the society which they chose to identify with. Hence, as a symbol of their own
patriotism, Saba and Ausim ensured that their children could truly identify themselves, not just
with India, but also their specific community within the country.

Similarly, in another conversation with Syed Autif:

Author:


(Are you afraid that in the future there will be a language barrier between your daughter and
your parents? Afraid that they will not be able to bridge this communication barrier and will
need a third person to translate?)

Syed Mohammed Autif:

.
.

.

 .
.
(No I do fear that, I do. Like for example, Aairah just set up a new email address and decided to
email her grandmother. But when her grandmother replied, there were a few Urdu words, typed
in Roman script ofcourse, which Aairah could not understand. And Aairah immediately turned
around and said this is too difficult for me to understand. And so there was that barrier. But even
in spoken language sometimes; because Aairahs Urdu is so basic, others can easily understand
her, but she has trouble understanding them. The problem is mostly on her part I think)

The linguistic burden, once again, is on the child to develop her fluency on spoken language until
it is up to par to the standard spoken in the family. It is interesting to note that it is not sufficient
for Aairah to merely be able to communicate, but instead to establish competency in the language.
Her current linguistic prowess is adequate for conversation, and she has a reasonable grasp on
lexicon, grammar and syntax. However, until she masters the vocabulary, the family continues to
consider her language unsatisfactory.

This standard for language seems arbitrarily imposed and predominantly redundant. This
generation of the family is almost entirely based in countries that do not recognize Urdu as an
official, or socially dominant language. Even within India, it is extremely rare to find communities
that continue to use advanced Urdu for day-to-day communication, much less publish prose or
literature. With the diminishing social currency of the language, the stringent requirement to meet
antiquated linguistic traditions, on the surface, appears to be unnecessary and with the absence
of any focus on written language even useless. Therefore, it seems pertinent to investigate the
possible reasons Urdu continues to hold such a high status in this specific community, and why
they are unwilling to abandon or adapt this language.

Since the Hamid family follows Islam, the first area of study is the relationship of Urdu with the
Muslim community. In both cases, with Saba Ausim and Syed Autif, Urdu seemed fundamental
not only to develop national identity, but also specifically identify with their native community.
This association of language of nationalistic and religious identity initially seems to have
developed culturally. However, deeper analysis on the socio-linguistic landscape of India reveals
a much greater influence of politics and the Muslim Separatism movement on the subsequent
relationship between Urdu, Islam and India. To ensure terminological consistency, separatism in
this context is used to describe all efforts made to establish a differentiated group consciousness
and identity within a social group.

The historical scholarship on Hindu-Muslim relations in the country range from arguments of
friction and fundamental differences in religious beliefs to those that vouch for India as a country
of a composite culture, which has always accommodated all religious beliefs and cultures. This
paper does not conform to either of these extreme opinions, but instead argues that the adaptation
of religious and cultural separatism into political movements was entirely a result of changing
socio-political structures, specifically in U.P. (then, known as United Provinces), over the past
century. There is significant evidence to argue that the ideologies of Muslim separatism were
developed by the elite to maintain their political influence, by manipulating symbols that
emphasized the objective differences between Hindus and Muslims and highlighted Muslim
unity. According to Paul Brass, It was the ideology of this dominant Muslim upper-class elite
which ultimately spread throughout eastern and western India from its base in the United Provinces
and which led to the formation of a set of political demands by Muslim political leaders for political

concessions warranted not by their numbers, but by their desire to retain, if not dominance, at least
equality with the much larger Hindu population of the country (Brass 1974: 121).

One of the characteristic practices of internal differentiation of the two religious communities was
that of language. It is important to note that Muslims did not share a homogenous language
throughout the country. The majority of followers of both religions conformed to the language
spoken within their localities, and were largely at peace with this arrangement. Urdu was the lingua
franca only of the Muslim elite concentrated in Northern India, which did not change significantly
even after British occupation. However, the bitter controversy between Hindi-Urdu soon revealed
the degree to which objective similarities between languages cease to matter when subjective
significance is attached to them.

There were two main factors that initially contributed to the divergence of Urdu and Hindi:
linguistic and sentimental. The first factor, was the decision of Muslim rulers in north India to
write Urdu in a Persian script, as opposed to the indigenous Devanagari. With the spread of the
Mughal empire, Urdu flourished by the 18th and 19th century, drawing heavily from Persian
vocabulary. Even though Hindus and Muslims both contributed to literary works in the Persian
script, only Hindus continued to hold on to Devanagari. The second factor was the selection of
Urdu in the Persian script at the local vernacular after the establishment of British rule. Between
1868 and 1900, Hindus resented this decision, and campaigned to replace Urdu with Hindi in
Devanagari. Over time, the British government decided to vote in favor of the greater Hindu
population. Eventually, this resulted in further development of both languages, as each attempted

to differentiate itself from the other; Hindi continued to draw influences from Sanskrit, while Urdu
took inspiration from Persian. Culturally, this difference started to hold a religious significance.

As one of the key religious symbols, the language further held political affiliations with the
creation of Pakistan, according to Rizwan in Shifting Dunes:
The ideology of the Muslim League held that Urdu is the language
of Muslims. Jinnah, the leader of the Pakistan movement, speaking
at Dhaka University in 1948 argued that Urdu ... more than any
other provincial language [of Pakistan], embodies the best that is in
Islamic culture and Muslim tradition and is nearest to the languages
used in other Islamic countries (in Uddin, 2006: 2). In Jinnahs
ideology, Bengali, whose speakers outnumbered Urdu speakers, was
not good enough to be the national language of Pakistan. The
association of Urdu with the creation of Pakistan impacted the
perception of Hindus about Urdu and Muslims in India. Purushottam
Das Tandon, a prominent Congress leader, the President of the State
Congress party and an ardent supporter of Hindi, in 1948 said: The
Muslims must stop talking about a culture and civilization foreign
to our culture and genius. They should accept Indian culture. One
culture and one language will pave the way for real unity. Urdu
symbolizes a foreign culture. Hindi alone can be the unifying factor
for all the diverse forces in the country (in (Khalidi, 1995: 138:
emphasis mine) The result of the political events surrounding 1947
was that Urdu in India became iconized with lack of patriotism,
foreignness, and antithetical to Indian culture and genius. Metcalf
(2006) notes the consequences of Partition for Urdu in India, In any
case, the fact that Urdu then became the national language of
Pakistan, a country established on the grounds of the religion of the
population, made the position of Urdu in its own homeland even
more difficult.

Therefore, it cannot be denied that Urdu was a consequence of Muslim Mughal rule, and played,
an authoritative role in defining not just the identity of the ruling elites but also in the nature of
the state that was formed, in the words of Parangpe, from his book Altered Destinations. He went
on to say, No matter how much precedence is accorded to secular forces, the fact that religion
was the source of political policy and self-definition cannot be denied. This reality was

underscored, once again, in the movement for Pakistan, which was explicitly and constitutionally
a religious and Islamic state. As a result of these social connotations carried by Urdu, the
language became an almost inseparable symbol of religion. Muslims eventually felt the need to
pass down Mughal heritage in the form of the language, refusing to compromise with the script or
title of national language.

By the 1920s, the increasing cultural divide was highly criticized by Gandhi. He recommended,
instead, a third language, Hindustani, which would be an amalgamation of the two, and could be
written in either script. Since elite Hindus and Muslims used Hindi and Urdu as a means of
competitive mobilization, Gandhi hoped that Hindustani could be the language of mass education.
However, the elite were competing for administrative, political and economic power, and
employed religious and linguistic symbols merely for political advantage. It was eventually this
divide that cemented the association of language with identity and religion in the Northern states.
It should be noted, however, that this divide still only continues in U.P and M.P; there is still no
linguistic divide between religious groups in the rest of the country.

Gandhis reluctance to decide on either one of the written scripts over the other was a source of
high criticism. One of the most well-articulated criticisms of Gandhis language ideology, as
reported by Vasudha Bharadwaj in Languages of Nationhood is:
You want to destroy the scripts of all Indian languages derived from
or largely influenced by Sanskrit and substitute Devanagari for them
for the sake of those who want to learn the various languages You
want to preserve the two scripts, Devanagari and Urdu, for one and
the same language spoken by Hindus and Muslims. Others, who also
number millions and who have the misfortune of speaking different
languages, should allow their scripts to be destroyed and displaced
by Devanagari, learn Hindi-Hindustani and also learn Urdu script in

order to understand and come into contact with 130 million Hindus
and 70 million Muslims! Does this not sound ridiculous and
represent the highest form of tyranny? ... Before you propose to
destroy the various scripts, should you not attempt to destroy one of
the scripts, Devanagari and Urdu, for one and the same language?
Why should Muslims and Hindus speaking the same language use
two different scripts?
Gandhis response to this criticism was:
On the question of script ... I [do not] apologize for the opinion I
hold... Different scripts are an unnecessary hindrance to the learning
by the people of one province the language of other provinces. Even
Europe which is not one nation has generally adopted one script.
Why should India, which claims to be and is one nation, not have
one script? I know I am inconsistent when I tolerate both Devanagari
and Urdu scripts for the same language. But my inconsistency is not
quite foolish. There is Hindu Muslim friction at the present moment.
It is wise and necessary for the educated Hindus and Muslims to
show mutual respect and toleration to the utmost extent possible.
Hence the option for Devanagari or Urdu scripts. Happily there is
no friction between provinces and provinces.
As is glaringly evident from this exchange is that both religious groups were in a political quest
for power, at a time when Indian nationality was at its very inception. Establishing control of the
linguistic environment, at that time, would be fundamental in deciding the future of these
communities within the country. It is clear that once unable to establish a strong political
presence for Muslims in India, Urdu became the driving force on which the case of Pakistan was
made and executed. At such a time solidarity with Urdu translated to solidarity with Muslims
the community was trying to develop a political presence and necessarily required Urdu to be the
language of its people. With Mr. Hamid arriving at Aligarh Muslim University within 10 years
after Indian independence, at a time when the Muslim League continued to hold some power in
U.P., the correlation between religious unity and language must have been a prevalent ideology.
It can be argued that the emphasis to maintain high standards of Urdu goes beyond concepts of
knowledge and articulation, but are at the very core of religious indexicality within the country.

On the contrary, the argument for Hindi continued to be driven largely by Hindus. The Devanagri
script was considered to be indigenous to the country, and a case was made that this was the
purest form of Indian language. The separatism with Urdu lay predominantly in the fact that it
was brought by Persian rulers who invaded the land in the 12th century hence was a foreign
product and must be shed from national identity. However, post-Independence, when Pakistan
decided to strongly attach symbols of patriotism to Urdu, India also had to undertake linguistic
organization of the country. In 1951, the biggest ministrial conflict occurred between Nehru and
Tandon, a conservative U.P. politician. In Language and Nationality Politics, Prakash discusses
that, Nehru, the consistent defender of the regional languages and advocate of the go-slow policy
on Hindi, was forced by exigencies of power to delay linguistic states, while Tandon, the logical
supporter of Hindi and a unitary state, was advocating linguistic re-distribution! This debate on
linguistic reallocation of provinces was heavily charged and played a large role in community
formation of the country. Asha Rani addresses this in Politics of Linguistic Identity, as a result of
two key processes: the first is the formation of the linguistic community into a specific social
group, but then also the development of these politically powerful groups into an ideologicalpolitical agenda for linguistic nationalism.

It is exactly this complex dynamic between community and linguistic identity which lay at the
roots of the formation of the nation. In this process, the ties between religion and language became
intertwined such that for individuals of the Independence generation, linguistic traditions continue
to remain the fundamental connection to religious groups. It is out of fear of loss of this religious
heritage that standards on language are maintained and enforced. Language no longer merely needs

to satisfy communication, but also be a marker for social orientation. After discussing the
relationship of Urdu with Hindi, a more complex dynamic with English needs to be better
understood.

English to Combat Muslim Backwardness

The British rule brought to India, for the first time, a solidarity in language. English, as a medium
of communication gradually came to supersede the Indian languages in the work, activities and
thought processes of the higher intelligentsia of all the linguistic regions and served as a link among
all the educated people of the country (Das Gupta, 1970:40) This key advantage was immediately
recognized by Syed Ahmed Khan, who later came to establish Aligarh Muslim University, as an
educational organization that aimed to provide Western education to the minority Muslim youth
in 1877.

The study of Aligarh primarily concerns itself with two aspects: first, the educational institution
and the significance of the college charter, but also the Aligarh movement as a social measure.
Since the Aligarh university has an overbearing significance in the Hamid household, as the alma
mater of almost the entire extended family, both these aspects will be further analyzed. While the
institution itself developed a system of language hierarchy, moving focus away from the study of
Urdu and towards English literacy, the Aligarh movement had more widespread effects on the
political landscape of U.P.. It should be noted, however, that even though the Hamid family was
based in M.P., U.P. still functioned as the imperial center for Muslims and played a leading role
for all Muslims in Northern India.

Since the basis of the Aligarh movement inherently lay in education advancement, the academic
prospects for Muslims post colonization, which eventually led to the formation of the university,
will first be discussed. Prior to the Colonial era, Muslim education predominantly lay in religious
centers of knowledge, such as maktabs, mosques, khanqahs and madrasas, according to Ruswan
in 1997. During the Tughlaq dynasty, before the arrival of the Mughals, Firuz Shah (1351-1388)
was a fore runner of education. He devised a regular stipend in the investment of education, which
included setting up more madrasas and making education more accessible to lower income
families and slaves. The next substantial contribution to education was during Mughal emperor
Akbars (1556-1605) reign. Akbar devised community centers, called Ibadatkhana, to encourage
multi-disciplinary discussion, especially pertaining to religion.

The arrival of the East India Company, however, drastically altered the merit of traditional forms
of education. Even though, initially, the educational practices of the country were of no concern
to the English, they eventually realized that it would be in their financial interest to educate and
employ the local populations. In 1813, the colonizers set up two schools, a madrasa for Muslims
and a Sanskrit school for Hindus. An important distinction to be made here is that the education
reform the English were implementing was not in the academic interest of the community, but
instead merely of financial benefit of the colonizers. Education was a dangerous pursuit for them,
for they feared that self-awareness of rights and citizenship would spark aggression and resistance
in Indians who would then demand independence.

It can be claimed that this educational reform was the beginning of Hindu-Muslim tensions. This
had not particularly been the case in India until the arrival of the English. With the advent of the
British, the dynamic between Hindus and Muslims was heavily distorted. In 1813, a charter was
issued by the government stating, ... a sum of not less than one lac of rupees in each year shall be
set apart and applied to the revival and improvement of literature and the encouragement of the
learned natives of India and for the introduction and promotion of a knowledge of the sciences
among the inhabitants of the British territories in India (Ruswan 1997:17). Since the primary
purpose of the British was to financially benefit from the labors of the community, this charter was
directed at the majority Hindus, with the promotion of Sanskrit learning. By 1835, the Governor
General, Lord Bentinck, released a resolution stating, that all funds appropriated for the
purpose of education would be best employed on English education alone (Ruswan 1997:18).
These measures, in addition to the other educational practices implemented in the country, imposed
onto India a foreign culture by stripping them of the opportunity to develop their own. This
removed any existing sense of self-reliance or liberty, and forced Indians to conform to English
ways achieving the intended purpose of the colonizers.

Syed Mohammed Hamid:

. .
.
. .
. .
.
(It became an internal conflict for Muslims, shortly after the British abolished the Muslim
Mughal rule. Muslims were constantly crushed, tortured and killed. Meanwhile those who
accepted the new British education were favored over Muslims. This situation pained Sir Syed
Ahmed Khan greatly. He was an Urdu writer, only spoke Urdu, and worked at a government job.
When he saw this plight of Muslims he grew worried of the future of the community. This led him
to carve a mid-way path between the two ideologies. He decreed a college charter that suggested

that Muslims abandon any bitterness with the British, and accept this new Western education to
build trust amongst the colonizers)
The reason Sir Syeds pursuit of Western education for the Muslim community is considered
groundbreaking is because, at the time, there was heavy opposition towards English education.
The community suspected that the motive behind Western education was to spread Christian
beliefs, which was eventually revealed to be a valid concern. Kaurs work, released in 1990, quotes
a member of the commission involved with conducting an inquiry in education, Sir Charles
Trevelyan, as having said:
.. the primary design of the Government scheme of education is to
advance the progress of civilization in India by the diffusion of
useful knowledge, as the phrase is generally understood. The design
of the Missionary institutions is to convert the Natives to
Christianity. The two objects are distinct, but they are by no means
opposed to one another.

This concern was also the first sentiment that was discussed by Syed Mohammed Aumir and Syed
Mohammed Hamid at the mention of Aligarh Muslim University:
Syed Mohammed Aumir:
One of its founding ideas was to teach English to Muslims
Syed Mohammed Hamid:
And Western education
Syed Mohammed Aumir:
And Western education in general. Bring Western education to Muslims. That is why it
came into being.
Syed Mohammed Hamid:
And earlier it was considered only religious education is the real education. In Muslims
this was the idea.
Syed Mohammed Aumir:
And studying English could somehow corrupt your religious beliefs.

Syed Mohammed Hamid:

Yes.
Syed Mohammed Aumir:
So the founder of the university, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, faced a lot of challenges as he was
trying to establish the university. But the university did a lot to bring modern education to
Muslims. But this is 1800 something.
Syed Mohammed Hamid:
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan when he started thinking about Muslims, and education among
Muslims especially, he saw a lot. After the 1857 revolution, when probably, the situation
in Europe, these things may not really be very clear. English people did a lot of injustice to
Muslims. You know before 1857, we had Muslim rulers Mughals. And the British people,
they did not like it. What happened to Mughal rulers, you know?
Author:
Yes, I think so. I believe there was a revolution between the English and the people of
Bahadur Shah Zafar, which the Mughals eventually lost.
Syed Mohammed Hamid:
Yes, the British people called it gadar, or revolt, but actually this happened because of
British policies. They wanted to kill and murder everything associated against their regime.
So people had a lot of, I mean,
.
.
(The people were very deeply hurt by the English rulers. And it wasnt like the British
were good rulers either; they consistently tried to crush Muslims)
I dont know whether you would like to write it down like this or not. But this was the real
fact.
.
. .

(The voices of Muslims were crushed. The ruler, at the time, favored the English and their
education, but were against Muslims. Consequently, the Muslims started to believe that
were they to adopt, or teach their children, English ways of life and English education, it
would be kufr*)
*Kufr: Kufr is a religious concept, which is used to suggest the association of an object, or
being, with or as God. This kind of behavior, or thinking, is heavily condemned in Islam.
In this context, kufr can be interpreted to mean acts against God.

After the mutiny of Mughals with the British in 1857, the ulama started to establish Muslim
educational institutes, the most prominent of which was Dar al-Ulum in Deoband. However, this
education was predominantly concerned with the preservation of Muslim beliefs, and distanced
itself with English. Since English was a necessary prerequisite for Government employment and
scientific education, this greatly limited the potential of the community. Syed Ahmed Khan not
only identified this hindrance to the society, but also actively worked to correct this fundamental
flaw in Islamic education.

Santosh Kumar Mishra addresses this concern in English Language Education in India, by
pointing out that that, while the British education policy might not have directly been exploitative,
it did increase the socioeconomic divide. The arguments for this are three fold: firstly, English
education was not equally accessible across the country and favored colonial centers. Secondly,
the purpose of the education policy was not so much to enlighten, but instead to train executives
to serve in the government. Lastly, regional and religious teaching practices no longer received
adequate government support, as these forms of education were considered to be secondary to
English education.

The establishment of this university, initially as Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College, set the
linguistic standard in the Hamid family. In the words of Mr. Hamid:
.
.
. . .
.
. ;
. .

(Sir Syed had passed away by the time the institute became a university from a college. At his
time, only the Principal used to be Muslim, but the Head of the Departments was almost always
English. My maternal uncle, Zaheer Bhais father, Mansoor mammo, and his entire family
studied from there; everyone graduated with a B.A.. Even until then, they were taught by the
English. I remember, by the time I graduated from high school, our textbooks for Geometry,
Algebra and Science had already been translated in Urdu. Before we went to university, I had a
friend who used to cram, word for word, the theorems of Geometry, The first theorem is so ...
the second is so ... the proof goes this way . I never mindlessly crammed these rules; instead I
used to understand them and write them in my language, Urdu.)

This lay at the core of the fundamental language ideology of the family English must be the
medium of education, and a good grasp of the language is essential to any career path one may
eventually take. This establishes the underlying significance of English in the family. Even
though understanding was key, and could take place in any language, the subsequent transfer of
those ideas into English was equally important. It is the only language of the rest that promises a
secure economic future. Therefore, of the three languages required of all children, English is the
only one in which written and spoken fluency is demanded.

One of the most fundamental achievements of Aligarh Muslim University was to maintain its
character as a minority organization, and be sensitive to requirements of the Muslim community
specifically. In Shamim Akhtars paper on Constitutional Provisions for Minority Institutions,
the legal rights available to minority communities are discussed. According to Article 30 of the
Indian Constitution:
Article 30. Right of minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions.
(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have
the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice.
(2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions,
discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it

is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion

or language.
An amendment was made in 1978 (effective, 20 June 1979) to insert
the following clause, after Clause 1 of the above article. This reads
as follows:
(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition
of any property of an educational institution established and
administered by a minority referred to in clause (1) the State shall
ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for
the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or
abrogate the right under that clause.
It is important to note that the Parliament is not given any provisions to frame laws that neither
dictate the nature of institution nor decide to scope of its entitlements. This meant that the courts
had to make the rulings in situations where the differences of minority and ordinary institutions
became significant. This specifically became important in the student riots of 1965, also called
the Aligarh Movement. Post-independence, Aligarh Muslim University maintained its minority
character and controlled the social composition of the students and faculty. In Distorting the
Reality of Aligarh Muslim University, Iqbal Ansari discusses that on no occasion did any national
leader, from Nehru to Indira Gandhi, question the legitimacy or necessity for minority education.
If the secularity of the state had been enforced, the university would have to necessarily reduce
Muslim representation to 12%, consistent with the presence of Muslims in the country. However,
the university held seats in the engineering and medical courses for internal students. In 1965,
the Ministry of Education required the university to reduce the percentage of internal (Aligarh)
students from 75% to 50%, in the medical and engineering colleges. Such a decision would serve
to dilute the Muslim contingent, which struggled for representation in technical disciplines
throughout the country. In Muslim Education in India, Theodore Wright describes this as, To do
so would touch a raw nerve because Muslims have continued to lag behind Hindus educationally
and believe that they are discriminated against in admission to other Indian universities. It was an

issue calculated to appeal to all Muslims from orthodox to modern. Thus the basic question of
the purpose and character of the institution was thought to be at stake. It was at this point that
the educated alumni of the university rose, demonstrating a strong political presence and
successfully maintained the university charter.

While, Aligarh University recognizes the significance of Urdu in Muslim communities, it

attempts to establish the fundamental benefits of an English education. The high influence of the
university on the members of the family represents the transmission of this ideology through
generations, reinforced by socio-economic factors that dictate the benefits English provides in a
globalized environment. This specific combination of political factors targeting a specific
religious, and even to a large extent linguistic, community is indicative of large shift on linguistic
attitudes. Sir Syed Ahmed Khans efforts for Muslim education are celebrated to this day within
the family, and his keen vision is considered to be the only reason for the development of the
Muslim community in North India. To reiterate, of the conflicting dynamics between English,
Urdu and Hindi, English rises up in the hierarchy specifically due to this educational
organization.

To conclude this argument on North Indian language ideology, a final analysis of education
policies of the state will shed light on the modern transformations on linguistic attitudes,
stemming from the rich socio-political history of the country. The focus of this analysis will be
on the legally identified linguistic rights for minorities, and the extent to which these are
successful in maintaining linguistic diversity.

Linguistic Rights in Modern Education Policy of India

It is widely recognized that a monolingual education is not reflective of the countrys diverse
multilingual reality. As a solution to this proposed multilingual education, a three language
formula (TLF) was issued in 1957, and adopted across the country. According to Thomas
Benedikter in Language Policy and Linguistic Minorities in India, this system is defined as:
Thus, the TLF regulates the medium of languages of instruction
along the following combination possibilities:
The first language to be studied must be the mother tongue
or the regional language
The second language:
o In Hindi speaking states this will be some other
modern Indian language or English
o In non-Hindi speaking states, the second language:
Hindi or English
The third language:
o In Hindi-speaking States the third language will be
English or a modern Indian language not studied as
the second language
o In non-Hindi speaking states, the third language will
be English or a modern Indian language not studied
as the second language.
The expectation of this system was that Hindi would function as a link language between states,
and would eventually overtake and replace English in higher education. However, the political
imposition of Hindi meant that basic level of competence in written language was achieved, and
for non-Hindi speaking states, some comprehension of verbal interaction was established.
Largely, the study of prose and literature has been absent, and is often considered irrelevant.

On the contrary, an unexpected rise in the popularity of English was recognized, which was not
even under consideration when linguistic rights for minorities were established. At the initial
stages of the development of language policy, English was not perceived as a threat to mother
tongue and so the resistance was focused largely on Hindi, or dominant state languages.

However, in the current educational environment there seems to be no hindrance in the spread of
the domination of English.

In an interview with Shazia Aumir, her ideologies on English education became apparent:
Author:

(Is there any language that you feel you had to make sure your children would master, even if
they resisted from learning it?)
Shazia Aumir:
. . .

(English. I knew that I had to teach both my children atleast a basic, satisfactory level of English.
I wouldnt force them though. I would make some games, and make the language engaging to help
develop proficiency.)

She then further discussed the impact of an English education on her life, having grown up in a
city with predominantly Hindi medium schools. English had earned her social recognition, and the
ability to pursue economic pursuits. She mentioned that a school she temporarily taught at soon
shot to fame for hiring an English teacher proficient in the language.

This is indicative of a growing belief in the country, which holds that English is essential to
economic success. This ardent advocacy of English is not without cause, as discussed by Usree
Bhattacharya in Colonization and English Ideologies in India. Bhattacharya explains,
Within this socio-economic scenario, English skills are highly
coveted. This is because there is signicant correlation between
English-language skills and salaries. Azam et al. (2013) found, e.g.,
that male uent speakers of English earn 34 % more than nonEnglish speakers in India, while the average increase in hourly
wages was 13 % for those men who spoke some English.

Disadvantaged communities in particular have been making

increasing demands for English because they recognize its role as a
gatekeeper to higher education and higher-paying jobs.

In a study of linguistic anthropology, it is of interest to recognize the impact of this on linguistic

minorities. The TLF was designed to protect linguistic minorities, however the shift in focus
towards English has distorted the ultimate result of the system. This shift is chiefly a result of
concerns about socioeconomic mobility and language privileges. In the thesis of Chaise Ladousa,
Saraswati and Seacrest, Ladousa found from extensive field study that,
It has also been pointed out that the three language formula grants
no legitimacy to regional languages not associated with state
boundaries and, at the same time, strengthens the idea of a standard
associated with state languages or Hindi. Indeed, the three language
formula continues to organize language teaching in schools to the
present as well as represent official, national ideals about how
language should be recognized and valued as a legitimate medium
of pedagogy as well as medium of communication in official
domains. What is lacking in the aforementioned work, however, is
any description or analysis of language implementation in schools
beyond the hypothetical, represented in legislation and plans for
implementation. That there exists linguistic diversity in India, that
often some forms and not others are legitimated, and that often a
conscious, political rationale orders such change is clear. These are
in themselves extremely important strides in understanding
language in India. What is not clear is how any of these processes
occur within schools and among acting subjects, and not just within
the halls of policy debate.
This system of education ties together the language ideology of the family. The importance of
multilingualism was first brought up by Sir Syed Ahmed Khans charter, in the context of the
Muslim community based in North India. However, this thought progressed through time and
cemented in the approach to language in education. This ideology has, in its modern form, proven
to be successful and has passed down through the generations.

Conclusion
This paper attempted to investigate the factors that encourage individuals to preserve approaches
to language and understand the extent to which these are susceptible to migratory experiences.
The argument made in this study was that the nature of the language ideologies, in the Hamid
family, is far too deeply rooted to vary with individual experiences of migration or
socioeconomic growth. The Urdu and Islam are very closely related, and heavily enforced in
North India. The influence of Urdu on Islam does not seem to waver, and the identification of
this religious community with social expectations of language standards maintain the traditional
language practices. Urdu is seen as the primary way to convey religious indexicality, and is a
required trait amongst respectable families. The discussion also tracked the rise of English in
the linguistic and socioeconomic hierarchization of society. The advantages of an English
education are recognized globally, and considerable effort to remove its colonial implications is
made. This rise in English eclipsed the popularity of Hindi as a link language. Consequently,
Hindi, in its pure sense is primarily studied for the purposes of carrying out government paper
work, and for basic verbal communication. The political imposition of the language largely
affects the reach of Hindi, and would substantially reduce once this ceases to be the case
especially with growing recognition of English. Since these factors are so fundamental to
national and religious identity, it has been crucial for all parents through the generations to
enforce these ideologies. Especially in the case of families migrating away from Bhopal,
language is seen as the primary link to the family heritage and so is preserved religiously by all
members.

Bibliography

Agnihotri, Rana. Second Language Acquisition: Socio-Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of

English in
India. New Delhi: Thousand Oaks Calif., 1994.
Ahmed, Rizwan. Shifting Dunes: Changing Meanings of Urdu in India. n.p., 2007. (Thesis)
Akhtar, Shamim. Constitutional Provisions for Minority Institutions and the Case of Aligarh
Muslim University: The Legal Search for a Solution Since 1965. Social Scientist 42
(May 2014): 6368.
Ansari, Iqbal. Distorting the Reality of Aligarh Muslim University. Economic and
Political Weekly 41, no. 2 (January 14, 2006): 1013.
Benedikter, Thomas. Language Policy and Linguistic Minorities in India: An Appraisal of
the Linguistic Rights. n.p., 2009.
Bharadwaj, Vasudha. Languages of Nationhood: Political Ideologies and the Place of
English in 20th Century India. University of Rochester, 2010.
Bhattacharya, Usree. Colonization and English Ideologies in India: A Language Policy
Perspective. Language Policy January 12, 2016.
Brass, Paul R. Language, Religion and Politics in North India. Lincoln, 2005.
Guha, Ramachandra. India After Gandhi: The History of the Worlds Largest Democracy.
New York: Ecco, 2007.
Gupta, Jyotirindra Das. Language Conflict and National Development: Group Politics and
National Language Policy in India. Berkeley, CA, United States: University of
California Press, 1970.
Kaur, Kuldip. Madrasa Education in India: A survey of its Past and Present. Chandigarh,
India: Center for Research in Rural and Industrial Development, 1990.
Kumar Mishra, Santosh and Naveen Kumar Pathak. English Language Education in India.
Language in India 14 (March 3, 2014).
Ladousa, Chaise. Saraswati and Seacrest: Schools and Language Medium Politics in North
India. n.p., 2000. (Thesis)
Paranjape, Makarand. Altered Destinations: Self, Society and Nation in India. New Delhi:
Anthem Press India, 2009.
Prakash, Karat. Language and Nationality Politics in India. n.p.: Bombay: Orient Longman,
1973.
Ruswan. Colonial Experience and Muslim Educational Reforms: A Comparison of the
Aligarh and the Muhammadiyah Movements. Institute of Islamic Studies July 1997.
(Thesis)
Sarangi, Asha. Language and Politics in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Wright, Theodore. Muslim Education in India at the Crossroads: The Case of
Aligarh. Pacific Affairs 39, no. 1 (1966): 5063.

Appendix
Section #1

Source: http://www.indiatourismecatalog.com/india_states/state_tourism_map.html

Section #2
Family Structure

Background of Interviewees
Syed Mohammed Hamid
Born in occupied India, Hamid experienced the partition of India and its after-effects, especially
for the Muslim community that decided to stay back. He went on to study at Aligarh Muslim
University, graduating with a degree in Engineering. During his career, he had to travel around
North India, and spent a considerable amount of time in Delhi. After retirement, he moved to his
hometown of Bhopal. He has an active interest in languages, and has a PhD in Arabic. He is also
currently pursuing Persian.

Syed Mohammed Aumir

Born in 1965, Aumir moved from Bhopal to Delhi, depending on the job requirements of his
father. He followed his fathers footsteps and completed his undergraduate education in Aligarh

Muslim University, earning a Bachelors in Engineering. His work then took him to South India,
Jeddah and finally Dubai. He is currently working for a German company, and has also picked
up German over the years. Aside from English, he is also proficient in Hindi and Urdu.

Syed Mohammed Autif

Autif completed his school education in Delhi, and completed his Bachelors in Architecture. He
then moved to the United States for his Master education, and settled there for 14 years. He then
decided to move closer to his parents, so his family made the move from Minneapolis to
Indonesia, where he is currently settled. Autif also speaks English, Hindi and Urdu, but has
picked up some Spanish and Bahasa from his migratory experiences.

Saba Ausim
Saba Ausim, was born in Belgium but raised primarily in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. After
completing her schooling in an Indian Embassy school, Sabas family decided to move to Dubai.
A few short years after completing her undergraduate education, Sabas father decided to move
back to Bhopal, India, and look after his mother. Soon after, Saba married a man of her familys
choosing and flew to Nottingham, England with him. During her years in Nottingham, Saba gave
birth to three precious children and became an active part of the society. She worked with local
schools and volunteered at numerous events, whenever possible. However, a few years ago, her
family decided to return to India and be closer to their parents. It has now been over 5 years since
she has settled down in Bhopal.

Shazia Iqbal
Having lived most of her life in a small town in India, Shazias experience with language was
rather limited to local languages that held cultural importance. Having spoken primarily Urdu at
home, Shazia even picked up Sanskrit, Hindi and English at school. Shortly, after she completed
her Bachelors degree, she got married and moved to Saudi Arabia. Shazia was quick to pick up
fragments from Arabic to help her communicate adequately through her time there. In a few
years, she then moved to Dubai, where she went on to raise her children. Her positive attitude
with language further carried on to her children. In addition to English and Arabic in school,
Shazia was especially keen on encourage her children to pick up French. However, she later
settled on Hindi instead, asserting that basic literacy in ones home tongue is an essential skill to
hold.

This distribution of family members was chosen to demonstrate the significant difference in
migratory patterns and lifestyles. It also signifies the passage of time, and the developments in
the approach to language. The experiences of Syed Mohammed Hamid, and those of Aairah
Autif are drastically different, but the same ideology is practiced by both individuals. It is despite
this difference of life experiences that the language ideologies are firmly and identically rooted
in the same principles.