The Literate English Class By : Prashant Saxena

The Indian definition of Literate :

Lakshya : I like Baba Ramdev for what he is doing. Reena : Yeah he is brainwashing the masses? Lakshya : What do you mean by brainwashing? He is teaching them the essence of yoga and spirituality. Reena : How can someone who is illiterate himself teach the essence of yoga and spirituality? Lakshya : What do you mean by illiterate? Reena : Did he ever go to school? I guess he doesn't even know english. Lakshya : You mean you have to goto school or know english to be literate?

The more we look at it, the clearer it becomes. In context of language, today, its a psychological norm that if we know english or a little western literature, only then we are considered "literate". Even usual conversation between two people starts from English and then it may finally land up to Hindi. In the northern belt alone, where people speak fluent English, where there is no regional or linguistic clash e.g in Delhi, most of the times one is sneered upon if he/she 'initiates' in Hindi. But interestingly "cool, wannabe or superior" factor that has been conditioned in the minds of the Indians is usually directly proportional to the ignorance of the history of India and the Indian literature. Those who are affected by the western materialism are ignorant on the history of India. In context of scriptures, they perceive the Indian literature through the eyes of westerners and think Indian scriptures are all about "mantra jaap (incantations) and havans/yagna". Many times we find people saying that they are brahmins even though they wouldn't be knowing the classification of the Veda, what the Veda is all about or slightest touch to the spirituality. One may ask these souls as to how they are brahmins and the typical answer would be (with a suprised look on their face) that I'm born in a brahmin family and then they tell about their surname.

Let us analyze the basic definition of the varna system? What the Vedic knowledge conceptualizes is the "class system" and not the "cast system". It accentuates on the classification on the basis of 'profession' and not 'birth'. Hence, all the soldiers in the Indian army irrespective of their surnames and religion are 'kshatriya', all the people serving the society in the intellectual work as 'teacher, researcher, scientist, doctor' etc are brahmin. Does it

serve any logic to say that a doctor's kid is a doctor 'by birth'?

In ancient India, the definition of a brahmin was one who could enlighten others in all the intellectual things, the master of the Veda, modes of consciousness, spirituality and performed Vedic researches. A brahmin was the master of the yoga and sanskrit which today is considered as the most scientific language. But in today's modern world, the same brahmin who talks of Vedic knowledge and spirituality, is considered as an illiterate by the self-certified teenagers and the youngsters. This breed that is most prevalent in India itself is of opinion that Veda consists of "stories, superstitions, false belief" etc. They don't even know, let alone understand, that the Veda consists of the hymns dedicated to the individual elements of the nature personified in a metaphoric form. e.g The Veda, which is a part of shruti and not smriti, has the hymns dedicated to Agni personfied as "agni-dev". Similar hymns can found for vayu, rudra etc. Most importantly, Veda itself means knowledge and promote the spirit of questioning. Consciousness cannot be raised without questioning and free thinking from any sort of beliefs and hence it conceptualizes on the nature of bhraman which again is a divine concept which is not to be confused with the modern meaning of bhrama. Because of this acceptance of questioning and tolerance, one can understand why Buddha was never burnt or killed for questioning the brahmins who got deviated from their path in his time which lead to distortions like "animal killing and cast system".

Promotion of the English Language :

In a recent article of Times of India, they asked "Do teachers of Gujarat's schools need lessons in spoken English to communicate better?". Do we really need English to communicate better?

The language of the ancient India was Sanskrit which evolved into different languages both in India and around the world as we know. The Indian literature consists of the Veda, Upanishads, Puranas etc which beautifully express the science and spirituality. Modern science in many ways has been influenced by the Vedas and the Upanishads and sanskrit has been revered as the most scientific language of the world. English which is considered as a language filled with ambiguous terms and lack of expressions is hardly comparable to Sanskrit. It even lacks many basic syllables that constitute the spectrum of the sound generated by the mouth. Thus, one can realize why the Englishmen or the people from the west face problem to pronounce the sanskrit or even the Hindi words. Their communication is limited and their expressions are full of flaws when they try speaking in Hindi or Sanskrit. Therefore, one may ask who really faces a problem to communicate better : A person speaking English or a person speaking Hindi (Sanskrit or other Indian languages)?

Would the extent of communication be better in a language as inferior and limited as English or a highly scientific and modular language like Sanskrit which gives much more scope to expressions, words and their clarity? The word "read" is pronounced differently in present and past, "here and hear", "our and hour", "there and their", "vein and vain" etc sound the same.

A language is only a tool to communicate and English is not a benchmark for awareness, literacy, scientific standards, morality or spirituality. It has become a trend to percieve those who speak fluent english as "knowledgable" or "morally sound". In colleges, a student may be mocked if he cannot speak fluent English. A normal conversation usually starts in English and then may end up in a local language. In the language of the teenagers, it constitutes the "cool factor" to speak or abuse in fluent English. It is percieved as a symbol of modernity. The quotes from the English literature are usually favoured and those from the Indian literature are assumed as unscientific or unmodern.

Food for thought : "There is no egg in eggplant or ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. Is cheese the plural of choose? If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? In what language do people recite at a play, and play at a recital? Ship by truck, and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell? Park on driveways and drive on parkways? Sweetmeats are candies, while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write, but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce, and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So, one moose, 2 meese? One index, two indices? How can the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell another? When a house burns up, it burns down. You fill in a form by filling it out, and an alarm clock goes off by going on. When the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible. And why, when I wind up my watch, I start it, but when I wind up this article, I end it? English muffins were not invented in England or French fries in France. How can 'slim chance and a fat chance' be the same, while 'wise man and a wise guy' are opposites?

"

Mission Successful In the history of India, a christian missionary christened "Lord Macaulay" wanted to break the spiritual backbone of India by inducing english language and western literature and create a class of Indians who are English in taste and Indians only in color. In his minute on Indian education, he stated "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.". He further stated, "we are free to employ our funds as we choose; that we ought to employ them in teaching what is best worth knowing; that English is better worth knowing than Sanscrit or Arabic". Thus with the introduction of English, it seems macaulay has succeeded in what he desired and a local breed has indeed been created which excels in belittling its own heritage. The "macaulayites" or "the children of macaulay" have the following symptoms : * Ignorance of Indian history * Pride of speaking English over any other Indian language * Inferiority complex of speaking Hindi (mostly applicable to the youngsters from the north) * Giving english nicknames/petnames * indulging in what westerners are notorious at like drugs, incessant drinking etc.

References : Sri Aurobindo (1956) The Secret of the Veda http://gyanpedia.in/tft/Resources/books/readings/25.pdf http://www.vvv03.com/Minutes.pdf