Slaying Mother English - The cold blooded parricide of the lingua franca

Had you asked the Duke of Wellington in 1813, who the greatest enemy of the English was, his answer would in all probability have been "I don't care a twopenny damn what becomes of the ashes of Napoleon Bonaparte " [Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington]. Fast forward around 200 years, we now sit at a threshold where English is sitting at the crossroads of change. The new bêtes noires are the internet and the SMS world. Great commanders like Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin have threatened the very existence of England in different phases of her history but none of these challengers, have had the guts to throw the gauntlet, in an attempt to thwart and destroy the English language. This language that has stood the test of time for over close to 6 centuries now, is now undergoing a period of grave crisis from which it may or may not resurrect and what happens only time can say. How is it possible that this language which has spread to faraway lands like USA, Canada, Australia, Newzealand, India, Pakistan so to name a few, is facing extinction? Who is the so redoubtable enemy now? The internet and SMS lingo spawned off by the USA and that is spreading far and wide now - and of course the neti/mobizens, who execute the scheme flawlessly to destroy the last strands of what remains Mother English.

To start off, how many letters comprise the English alphabet? Sitter huh. 26 videlicet from 'A' to 'Z'. If this had been your answer, congratulate yourself for not being a part of the mob that has descended to spell the doom for English. The so called "netizens/mobizens" who are now "revolutionising" the English language claim that there are more than 26 letters to the English alphabet. Like to sample a few of them?? Well - the letter '2' as in '2mrrw' (tomorrow as the puritans call it), the letter '4' as in '4ever' or '4got' or 'b4' etc.

Vowels are a part of almost all the major European languages in the world. And on top of this, vowels are the most natural sounds that a human can vocalise. The new generation killers of English don't feel the need of vowels at all. For is there a need for vowels when 'have' becomes 'hv', 'some' becomes 'sm','to' becomes '2', 'and' becomes 'n' et cetera. No wonder, in the near future, we shall find a lot of text compression algorithms making use of "data compression by vowel obviation" (patented by me :D).

Of all the factions of the mob, the contribution of USA for the slaying of English has been the most impressive. From the widely used "gonna", "wannabe" et cetera to "New World a.k.a. Webster's spelling innovations [sic!]" like "color" (for colour), "story" (for storey) to the abominable misuse of the nominative, accusative case mixups as in "Me thinks that's rite", the Americans have done more than their 2 cents for paving the way for the destruction of the Queen's English. It reminds of how when Winston Churchill went to Canada during WWII and addressed the Parliament there saying "It is me, Winston Churchill" that the puritans in UK were shocked. Though faux pas like these do happen with great orators too, this should not become an excuse for us to start forgetting the basic grammar.

How can the Indians be lagging behind the Americans? The Indian version of "I think we can go to the cinema today. Shan't we?" translates to "Me thinks aaj v cn go 2 d moov. Hai naaa?". This hybrid amalgamation of Hindi and English can hardly be understood by people basically from outside the subcontinent but owing to the geographic diversity of our diaspora, this Hinglish has the potential of entering the mainstream language.

At this point of time, I might seem to be reeking of heavy chauvinism towards the Queen's English to the reader, more so if she/he is a user of Anglish/Hinglish. While we need to appreciate the diversity that gets added to English by means of other language speaking peoples, we need to take note of the deviations that we make in the spelling which can prove disastrous in the future. It is very well possible that an English speaking child born 100 years hence, may not be able to comprehend even a word of some of the greatest classics of the yesteryears. While the French are enriching their language by adding terms like "courier électronique" to signify electronic mail (e-mail), we are destroying our English language by abbreviating to a great extent.

Let us finally look at if we can do something to stop the further molestation and further denigration of the English language. It is never too late to go back to basics and brush up our English. Let us try to ditch frenz and make friends, let us do things the right way rather than the rite way. Introspection of the most frequently used words by every person and correction of the same would be the quickest way to fix our usage of the language. It shall not take a great effort to do all this. Just typing two more letters in our mail/scrap/chat will not take the life out of us. I don't expect all the readers to suddenly get up, take notice and change the way they use their English. At least those who feel that English should be a living language for centuries to come, should take note of this and do the needful. Each of us should be committed to the correct usage of English as that is the only way one can rectify the mistakes that one would have done in his life or les erreurs ont fait dans une vie as the French say.

"Vive la langue anglaise et les haut-parleurs anglais"
Long live the English language and its speakers

God - More capitalist than most capitalists?





It struck me yesterday, whether God wished to create all men to be equal (at least in course of time) in the first place. For those atheistic readers, as Voltaire said, "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer" or anglicising the same "If God did not exist, he would have to be invented" and hence this discussion assumes the existence of God/Nature/Providence whatever be her/his appellation. This blog shall dwell on why God injects inequality among men and what are its benefits.

Firstly no rational (or super-rational) entity irrespective of how great it might be, shall thwart the very basis of its own existence except in dire life threatening circumstances. Argued from a system based on incentives, there is no incentive for someone rational to undermine his own authority. A few examples for the above would include

1) Dictators not organising genuine polls since it might overthrow their authority.
2) The general secretary of a political party stifling the growth of those who might pose a challenge to her at a later date.

Also if equality is ensured among all men always, there would be no reason for men to genuflect before an authority like God. If all men are created and made to live equal i.e. assuming that there is no "first among equals", ceteris paribus, men don't have an incentive to compete against one another, no differences shall develop or exist among men and God cannot play her/his role of a referee or "natural selection". In simple words, no controversies would mean no referees/umpires. In the light of the above arguments, God shall not try to unsettle the equilibrium of "inequality among creatures". By this simple rational act he has succeeded in preserving his raison d'être.

What does God finally try to achieve by creating inequalities? One thing that we must accept is that if all men were identical and equal in all respects, there is no need for the existence of so many men. It is just that variety adds spice to life and breaks the monotony in life. Morever there should be some incentive for every man to live on earth. If he is going to be treated at par with everyone else, he has no incentive to outperform others. So God unleashes a wave of free market capitalism (FMC from nowon), this time, God's FMC is stronger than that of USA, UK et al. This FMC quickly weeds out the grossly unsuccessful ones thus trying to improve the quality of mankind or so He claims. Periodically the so called superpowers are defeated and God establishes his supremacy. Isn't this "If someone who challenges me, I will rout him" attitude again a characterestic of someone who wants to hold on to power? So when Napoleon challenged the Pope and thereby God, he was brought down by a peg or two. Ditto with Stalin too. So though inherently evil, there is this certain selfish motive for God to assert his authority and save his position too. And anyway these great lessons of history teach men more than what a thousand sages can.

The FMC of God is so ruthless that there is no way one can escape from it unscathed and inefficient. This form of FMC may not be the best for the world but it is the best one available. Here I would like to quote the iron man of England (Churchill). He once described the difference between capitalism and socialism as the difference between the ladder and the queue. "We are for the ladder," Churchill said. "Let all try their best to climb. They [the socialists] are for the queue. Let each wait his place until his turn comes." (Source: www.winstonchurchill.org) It is better for us to be proactive and climb the ladder rather than stand in the queue awaiting our turn. So the ultimatum from Providence is "Perform or perish". There are the leftists who try to create a "mediocrocracy". But as have seen in different times in history, communism has almost failed everywhere. Of course, we have the still Left veering Latin America, "Cuba de Castro" and the neo-India that intends to impart social justice (by Govt policy recently) but still even there the people in the gubernatorial ranks have realised that the natural instinct of humans is to compete rather than to remain tied to "egalité" forever. Time to put an end to my jabberings ; The crux is that

Aeroplanes are safer in the hangar but they are not meant for that purpose. Hence my fellow humans, in this FMC system devised by God, the best system till date, you have to keep fighting in order to live. As Adolf Hitler said

Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live

Bouquets and brickbats welcome
Arvind

Crossing the Rubicon - Indian culture at crossroads

This is my first blog and is about the clash of cultures that is sweeping over India. Sandwiched between the conservative Indian culture and the mushrooming liberal western culture, India is today at the crossroads of a cultural invasion from the West. Should the Indians cross the rubicon in adopting the western culture? This blog of mine is devoted to discussing about the cultural compatibility(?) of this country with the Western notions of culture and the possibility of the Indians adopting the western culture.

Recently in an Indian city that does not boast of a great night life a la its more westernised siblings, a newspaper had published the photographs of scantily(by Indian standards) dressed women shot inside a club where people were dancing, thus provoking protests from the "social welfare" and "women's welfare" groups. The result was a huge set of restrictions imposed by the particular state Government on the business hours of clubs of that city. Of course there are other cities in India where life is more liberalised but still not at par with the West.

For those Europeans/Americans/urban Indians reading this, the restrictions imposed might seem ridiculous. After all why should there be such brouhaha for such a simple issue like the functioning of nightclubs. The answer for this may not be evident prima facie, but if we can delve into the problem we can find many surprising answers. That is precisely what this blog is all about.

First of all we should understand that the metropolises of today's India are how the cities of London, Paris or Rome would have been in the pre-Renaissance era. My personal view is that a society is only as developed as its women are. Rooted in conservatism, held back by dogmatic beliefs (though I don't want to pull the Church into this), characterised by the suppression of women as a social class etc. these cities of the erstwhile Europe were as bad or even worse than in India today. Though women in the west were slowly breaking off their chains, I strongly feel that the second world war despised by many, was the event that triggered the claim of women to be treated equally (due to the rising demand for women to join their fighting countrymen in the war) and finally established the "egalité" of the sexes in the West. This liberation of women also led to the explosion of sexuality in the West. People started to be more open and liberal towards the issue of sexuality as a whole. As a result the functioning of nightclubs, presence of bordellos (some of them with government support), homosexuality, transvestitism, transsexualism etc seem to be "natural" developments in an "enlightened" society.

Is it that Indians are typically very conservative? If you bother to turn back the pages of history, you will be surprised to note that India was a very liberal state in the ancient ages. This was the land that gave "Kama Sutra" (a treatise on sex) to the world at large. The world's oldest profession was thriving in this part of the world long before it spread out. Pre-marital sex was not considered taboo at one point of time. In fact it was glorified by the Hindu concept of Gandharva vivaha. While the Greeks were toying with the idea of homosexuality be it the mythological Achilles, the great Socrates or Alexander the Great, the common Indian had already gone through all these stages (Rig Veda in 1500 BC talks about homosexuality) and decided to practise monogamy (Rulers and aristocrats were exceptions) and fidelity was considered a virtue. Now you would have got the right picture that Indians had never been the laggards in the domain of sexuality but they have tried out various models long before the West had and found stability in the "heterosexuality-monogamy-fidelity" model. An additional reason for the supposed "cultural backwardness" of India is that they were separated by an iron wall from the Europeans till the Mughal emperors were in power. Even until 1947 when India got freedom, it was pretty much isolated from the rest of the world. As a result of this "closing up of India" an artificial cocoon of conservatory attitudes was spun around Indians. Just when the boat seemed to be in cruise control mode, the waves of liberalisation from the West came to rock the Indian ship.

The Indian now is completely confounded by what he sees. As the economy grows thereby spurring the material wealth of the average middle class Indian, he seems more inclined to tilt towards the West. Add to that the constant exposure to the West - be it the TV channels, Maxim, Playboy, personal/business trips to the West and you get a picture of how much an Indian is exposed to the western way of life. A few cities of India notably New Delhi, Bombay and Bangalore have moved rapidly towards the West thus creating a "cultural chasm" separating them from the rest of India. Here "relationships" have come to replace "marriages". Even in these cities there is that lowest class of proletarians who are still conservative. It is mainly the middle class that is seeing a sudden rise in incomes enough to qualify themselves as nouveau-riche who are in a dilemma as to their attitude towards the western culture.

Having thus got some reasonable background information on the issue let us now look at some of the factors that may favour or scupper the cultural transition of the Indians.

The following are a few factors that can favour the transition:

1. The major factor that will act in favour of the transition is religion. The majority of Indians are Hindus as of date (although the demography is fast changing) and Hinduism being a very tolerant religion means that though there might initially be protests from the hardliners, in the long term there shall not be any issue.
2. The economy of the country which seems to have only one way (up) to go is the next major driver of the transition. Ceteris paribus, a growing economy implies a growing working population, making the wallets of the Indians bulge. With due apologies to Keynes, the propensity to spend will increase with the increase in the paypackets at least in the Indian scenario. This ensures financial independence for everyone in the long run. This acts as an incentive for people to accumulate material wealth, ape western lifestyles etc. Already the philanthropic attitudes of most Indians have disappeared as they appear to be more hedonistic than ever in their history.
3. The United States of America which has taken over the world (Ask an Iranian kid what is McDonald's, Starbucks or Victoria's Secret and you will get the right answer) has its mission carved out. It has injected an idea that spending is the greatest virtue and personal integrity et sexuality is the least thing to be compromised en route a "great" life. Demographically India has around 65% of people below 30 and more than 50% of them have already been "americanised".
4. The last conservative generation would be gone in another 25 years. What was taboo to the Indian parent of 1980 is now the norm. This is going to continue the same way favouring the transition.

The following are the factors that can work against the transition:

1. The realisation that the Occidental is turning towards the Oriental after pursuing hedonistic targets for decades is something that might come to the Indian mind. Increasingly we see that the Westerners trying to adopt an Indian "voie-de-vie". Examples abound from the girls in the west taking oaths of abstinence till marriage, Britney Spears talking in favour of preserving her virginity till marriage etc. Whether these are to be followed or just hollow promises is yet to be clear.
2. The insecurity that arises from occasional flings, one-night-stands as depicted in the English movies (a la "Derailed") might act as a deterrent for those Indians on the verge of crossing the rubicon. The essential base of the Indian family system was the security that each spouse derives from the relationship which breaks down as soon as fidelity is under siege. So I feel that the Indian will think twice before taking the plunge.
3. There are always conservatives in every country. Even in USA we have the Republicans who are anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-............. So in case some event happens that can tip the scale in favour of these conservatives, then the average Indian will be convinced to stay on the Indian turf.

How the future might unfold in this clash of cultures depends mainly on the above factors though few other events might shape the things to come. All said and done, there will a few Indians who will remain conservative even in the case of a western sweep of India, if at all that happens. Equally likely are Indians who are americanised to such an extent that they have gone beyond the point of no return vis-à-vis their cultural affiliations. This blog is dedicated to the remaining those who are on the fringe of crossing but hesitant to completely turn back or move ahead. These fence-sitters, as they have in the history of many nations and revolutions, shall dictate the fate of this nation and its culture. Their sway shall decide the fate of the Indian culture.

Whatever decision that is going to be made, I feel, should be made without any influence of what others might think. Each Indian should think on his own before deciding to take the plunge. I am asserting this because Indians are easily influenced by what their neighbours do and adopt the so called "in thing" of the day. But in this case for one, he has to use his faculties perfectly, for this can transform his way of life. In addition to this micro effect there is also the bigger picture wherein the outlook of an entire nation towards life, will be metamorphosed permanently. So this nation as a whole is trodding delicately along the thin line between the Occidental and the Oriental with a nudge here another there towards either side. At last the time has come for the Indian to decide.

As said by Caesar long back "Alea iacta est" - The die is cast.

~ Arvind

Bouquets and brickbats welcome ;-)