<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me begin with the following.<b> During their colonization of India, the British created precisely the kind of territories that Van Den Berghe talks about: Cantonments. </b>Though ostensibly so, they were not just military stations of sorts, and that is why they have retained an alien ring in the indigenous culture to this day. In these cantonments, English was not just the lingua franca. Rather, the language or speech community defined the territory. Creation of these or similar territories is not the result of racism or of colonial superiority, but an understandable reflex when viewed from the perspective of Western history. These kinds of territories were not restricted to the cities alone; their creation continued right into the heartland of India.
Why do such areas, even today, retain their alien ring? The British have upped and left a long time ago, so what explains this perception? Here is one reason: within our intuitive world models, language does not play an essential role in constituting an ethnic group, much less that territorial and linguistic boundaries coincide. As a normal course of events, one learned, where necessary, to be equally profi-cient in oneâs âmother tongueâ and in the lingua franca of the community where one lived.
Obviously, I am not making the absurd claim that every Indian is bi-lingual. But what I am claiming is that the relationship between a speech community and being an ethny did not, does not, hold in In-dia. Should this be the case, the alleged relationship between language and territory does not exist ei-ther.
Unfortunately for me though, I can give you no evidence in favour of my claims. All I can call upon are my personal experiences, and personal memories are of dubious value in the best of circum-stances. So, I will not even try to mention them. All I am left with, as a result, are some considera-tions which may, or may not, sow seeds of doubt. But, I shall try nevertheless.
Consider a second generation German in America who does not (almost as a rule) speak German anymore. This appears to support Van Den Bergheâs thesis: the German has become an âAmericanâ or, at least, has ceased being a German. Consider a third generation Tamil living in the north who continues to speak Tamil at home. Does that mean that he continues to identify himself as a member of the Tamil ethny? Prima facie, one might be inclined to answer in the affirmative: why else, it might be asked, does he continue to speak Tamil at home and not, say, Punjabi? Notice though, that this question presupposes as true precisely what being contested: the relationship between ethnicity and language. Consider now an Urdu-speaking peasant, living next door to a Malayali-speaking peasant family in an area where the lingua franca is Kannada or Marathi. If we consider further that they have been there for generations, which is not infrequent in India, we shall have to ask ourselves what kind of an ethnic identity they have. Whatever your answer, which depends on your experiences of village India, it should draw your attention to the following puzzling element in the situation: individual families continue to speak their mother-tongues at home, even while living amidst communities where the lingua franca is different from their mother-tongues. This continues for generations on end. In this sense, what is a pretty normal thing in India is almost non-existent in Europe or America (ex-cept in a special form, more about which later). When an individual family migrates to another place where the lingua franca differs from the mother-tongue, within two generations none of the family members have a mother tongue different from the language of the community. Surely, this fact draws our attention to the nature of our cultural history as something which is in all likelihood different from that of the West with respect to language and ethnic identity? <b>Of course, the reorganization of states along linguistic lines in independent India has hopelessly confused issues forever. Our leaders accepted the conventional wisdom of the West, and instead of solving any problem with such a measure, they have merely bequeathed us with problems we could have done without. </b>Is it really so preposterous to suggest that Van Den Bergheâs thesis merely extends European history to other cul-tures as well? In any case, empirical enquiry is urgently required before this question can be answered.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do such areas, even today, retain their alien ring? The British have upped and left a long time ago, so what explains this perception? Here is one reason: within our intuitive world models, language does not play an essential role in constituting an ethnic group, much less that territorial and linguistic boundaries coincide. As a normal course of events, one learned, where necessary, to be equally profi-cient in oneâs âmother tongueâ and in the lingua franca of the community where one lived.
Obviously, I am not making the absurd claim that every Indian is bi-lingual. But what I am claiming is that the relationship between a speech community and being an ethny did not, does not, hold in In-dia. Should this be the case, the alleged relationship between language and territory does not exist ei-ther.
Unfortunately for me though, I can give you no evidence in favour of my claims. All I can call upon are my personal experiences, and personal memories are of dubious value in the best of circum-stances. So, I will not even try to mention them. All I am left with, as a result, are some considera-tions which may, or may not, sow seeds of doubt. But, I shall try nevertheless.
Consider a second generation German in America who does not (almost as a rule) speak German anymore. This appears to support Van Den Bergheâs thesis: the German has become an âAmericanâ or, at least, has ceased being a German. Consider a third generation Tamil living in the north who continues to speak Tamil at home. Does that mean that he continues to identify himself as a member of the Tamil ethny? Prima facie, one might be inclined to answer in the affirmative: why else, it might be asked, does he continue to speak Tamil at home and not, say, Punjabi? Notice though, that this question presupposes as true precisely what being contested: the relationship between ethnicity and language. Consider now an Urdu-speaking peasant, living next door to a Malayali-speaking peasant family in an area where the lingua franca is Kannada or Marathi. If we consider further that they have been there for generations, which is not infrequent in India, we shall have to ask ourselves what kind of an ethnic identity they have. Whatever your answer, which depends on your experiences of village India, it should draw your attention to the following puzzling element in the situation: individual families continue to speak their mother-tongues at home, even while living amidst communities where the lingua franca is different from their mother-tongues. This continues for generations on end. In this sense, what is a pretty normal thing in India is almost non-existent in Europe or America (ex-cept in a special form, more about which later). When an individual family migrates to another place where the lingua franca differs from the mother-tongue, within two generations none of the family members have a mother tongue different from the language of the community. Surely, this fact draws our attention to the nature of our cultural history as something which is in all likelihood different from that of the West with respect to language and ethnic identity? <b>Of course, the reorganization of states along linguistic lines in independent India has hopelessly confused issues forever. Our leaders accepted the conventional wisdom of the West, and instead of solving any problem with such a measure, they have merely bequeathed us with problems we could have done without. </b>Is it really so preposterous to suggest that Van Den Bergheâs thesis merely extends European history to other cul-tures as well? In any case, empirical enquiry is urgently required before this question can be answered.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->