From: vprasad@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: I HATE TAMILS (2)
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:13:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: uoft02.1992Aug19.221331.9576
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <2A917C79.1561@orion.oac.uci.edu>, sundar@indigo1.hsis.uci.edu (M.
Sundaramoorthy) writes:
>
> 	Tamils too feel irritated in the same way when they are blamed
> 	for initiating separtism. Where did the Punjabi and Kashmiri
> 	separatists get that idea?. From Tamils or Pakistanis?. Pakistanis
> 	started the separitsm and succeeded and Tamils asked, but did
> 	not get. Now that Pakistanis are out, it is easy to blame Tamils.

	Speaking for myself, I do not blame tamils for *initiating* separatism. 
	I learnt enough of Indian history, to know that it is not the case.
	BUT, Tamils did certainly insist on separatism and yes, it is right
	to place the blame squarely where it belongs. I have seen a few
	remarkable understatements like "yes, Tamils asked for a separate
	nation of Dravida Nadu and that too they stopped after 1962"!! To 
	think that Tamils leaders like EVR and CNA were persistent in their 
	efforts to secede from the Indian union till *fifteen* years after 
	independence is appalling. Nobody in the Indian union (of present 
	day) exactly wah-wah'ed the formation of Pakistan either; and both 
	deserve equal condemnation.

	Coming to your point, if you think asking for a linguistic state and
	asking for a separate nation are one and the same, you are wrong. 
	There is separatism and then there is affirmation of one's own
	identity. You are repeatedly confusing both. It is like equating 
	Jinnah to Gandhi. 

> 	When you can not accept a closer language Tamil, then how do you
> 	find it easier to accept Hindi. 

	You need to read again what I said. I am NOT against accepting Tamil
	language. You may be surprised to know that I know how to read and
	write Tamil script. I learnt it *on my own*. What I am against is the
	imposition of Tamil, in that *every* official transactions in the
	pre-independence era were exclusively done in Tamil, a language alien 
	to us. Which is why I support the formation of linguistic states.

	Hindi is *not* imposed on us; official transactions are *not* done
	exclusively in Hindi, never since 1950 (formation of AP) as far as I
	know. Yes, Hindi learning was made compulsory; but don't you see that
	the emphasis on Hindi is very minimal in our state?? For a commoner,
	it is not necessary to know deep knowledge of Hindi for *day to day* 
	survival, as it was with Tamil in the erstwhile Madras presidency.

	When you think about it, introducing young children to a third language
	can only be an enriching experience for them. By all means, please do
	place emphasis on your mother tongue. Children are whizzes at learning.
	Learning Hindi will be no more tough than learning English (which are
	both alien tongues to the kid) and it doesn't require any substantial
	effort. Learning another language, opens up a window of opportunities
	in terms of jobs etc. and it also makes you appreciate the richness
 	of a language other than your own. Learning Hindi (or any other lang.)
        at an adult stage requires substantial and persistent effort on the
	part of the individual; it is easier if it is done when quite young.

	Wrong or right, Hindi had been voted as the official language of India.
	Also, approximately half of India speak one or another dialect of
	Hindi. Which means, substantial increase of opportunities for a young
	man of today, if only he knows the language. I can't speak for you,
	be free to be paranoiac about Hindi if you want, but I do think that
	learning Hindi can only be good.
> 	
> 	Yes. It is an insult to Periyar too. You find commonality in
> 	Indianness, but refuse to find a commonality in Dravidianness.

	Listen friend, in case you do not know, Dravidians are Indians too.
	The primary loyalty should be to the Indianness and AFTER that, to
	Dravidianness. That is just my opinion, you do not need to care.
	I am staunchly against the creation of a separate nation on the basis
	of "commonality of Dravidianness". If only Tamils had asked for a
	separate *state _within_ the Indian union*, on this basis, you 
	wouldn't find any objections from me or from other Telugus either.
	But the "big man" deserves all the blame he gets for being separatist
	and parochialistic.

	This discussion is now moot anyway, since the modern research shows
	that there is no such thing as Aryans and Dravidians, all are natives
	to India. The Aryan Invasion theory has been shown to be a myth.

> 	In Tamil Nadu two language formula works very effectively. Tamil
> 	is not imposed on non-Tamils. First language is mother tongue if
> 	one chooses and the second language is English.

	I know that, I heartly endorse it and wish that other states in
	the union too follow TN in that example (letting people study their
	mother tongue even in a different state). But I still think that
	three-language formula is more advantageous than two-language.

> 	tAmil as third language.  We can not afford to spend     
> 	three hours for learning languages out of six class hours.

	Why not make it seven class hours per day and three languages?? The
	increase in opportunities for employment this provides, greatly 
	outweigh the amount of effort put in learning it. As I argued before,
	it doesn't require too much of an effort on part of the kids for this.
	If you still elect to close your mind to learning Hindi inspite of 
	knowing its benefits, please be my guest. 

	Siva Prasad				vprasad@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil