On the plea of decolonizing the nomenclature of our political and administrative system, as well as that used in our socio-cultural habitat, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has started a campaign to rechristen old and familiar terms that are used in English, and replace them with new names that have Sanskrit origins. This venture to revive a past legacy of a so-called Hindu civilization (that itself is riddled with conflicts and contradictions) and incorporate it into modern rhetoric has however led to a situation of utter confusion among the common people as well as Modi government’s own bureaucracy, and beyond our borders among the global powers and institutions. Will India be known as `Bharat’ from now onwards – at the UNO and other world institutions ? The wording of President Murmu’s invitation letter to the G-20 invitees, the Prime Minister’s repeated use of `Bharat’ in his speeches and public statements , indicate that the government may be moving in the direction of renaming our nation state.
There is nothing wrong in renaming a nation state. Recently, the name of Turkey was changed into Turkiye. In the past, the name Ceylon (given by the old British colonial rulers) was changed into Sri Lanka by the newly independent government. Similarly, the territory in Africa known as Rhodesia (named after the British colonial official Cecil Rhodes), was renamed as Zambia and Zambibawe, after independence. Such renaming was widely welcomed by their people.
But in India, the present Modi government’s attempts to give new names to our existing laws are fraught with dangerous implications – both within our country and abroad. To start with, unlike the other nation states which renamed themselves on the basis of a homogeneous linguistic and socio-cultural identity, India is inhabited by a heterogeneous population – various sections among which nurture their respective languages, and follow social and cultural practices that differ from one region to another. They cannot be brought under one common umbrella of a uniform language and a homogeneous socio-cultural regime. For instance, Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement that Hindi should be a medium of unification of Indians by assimilating local languages which would empower them (re: his address to the nation on September 14, celebrated as Hindi Diwas) has quite predictably, provoked hostile reactions from the non-Hindi speaking politicians of the south. Tamil Nadu’s sports minister Udhayanidhi Stalin dismissed Shah’s statement as “totally absurd,” saying: “Hindi is spoken only in four or five states in the country… While we are speaking Tamil here, Kerala speaks Malayalam. How does Hindi merge and empower us ? Amit Shah should stop oppressing non-Hindi languages by calling them just regional languages.” (Re: The Times of India, September 15, 2023)
Modi’s concept of `Bharat’ is exclusivist as opposed to the all-embracing inclusive message of our national anthem
Let us turn to Narendra Modi’s ideas and practices that shape his concept of `Bharat.’ They are at total variance with the spirit of our national anthem. The song `Jana Gana Mana…’ evokes an image of a Bharat which encompasses all the inhabitants ranging from the north to the south, from the west to the east: “Punjab, Sindhu, Gujarat, Maratha, Drabir, Utkal, Bango, Bindhya, Himachal, Jamuna, Ganga….” The next lines composed by Rabindranath Tagore in his original song (which are ignored by our present rulers) pay tribute to Bharat’s tradition of welcoming all religious communities. Addressing `Bharata Bhagya Bidhata’ , he wrote : “Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Muslims, Christians, the East and the West, come to your throne, and get bonded in a necklace of love.”
These verses by the composer of our national anthem are a far cry from the hate speeches, lynching of Muslims and Dalits, raping of women , killing of rationalists, arrests of social activists – atrocities that are taking place under the benign gaze of our Prime Minister. During the last nine years of his rule, Narendra Modi had done his best to split the nation by allowing his patrons in the RSS and the foot soldiers of the Hindu Sangh Parivar to indulge in such atrocities. Further, those verses were chosen for our national anthem to reflect the concept of federalism that is enshrined in our Constitution. But Modi is violating that constitutional obligation by appointing members from his own BJP flock as governors in states which are ruled by non-BJP parties. Giving up their responsibility of being impartial, these governors – in Kerala, Bengal, Telangana, Tamilnadu, to take up a few cases – are frustrating and encroaching upon the rights of these state governments, by refusing to sanction their proposed laws.
Let’s get back to Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s claim that Hindi is the language of unification. Given the record of his divisive policies and provocative utterances, that have alienated large sections of Indians, will his claim evoke any positive response from the people of the north-west (in Jammu and Kashmir, where they are literally living under a martial regime) and north-east (in Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, where they are engulfed in conflicts over ethnic divisions) ? They speak languages that are far removed from the Sanskritized Hindi that Narendra Modi and Amit Shah use in their speeches. Apart from the Hindi-speaking people in central Indian states, and people in Punjab and Haryana in the north, and Maharashtra and Gujarat in the west (who share certain common Hindi-sounding vocabulary), how many people in the rest of India (the vast south India and the eastern Indian states of Bengal, Assam, Tripura and Orissa) care to listen to the weekly drivel of Modi’s `Maan ki Baat’ ?
Why is a self-proclaimed `chai-walla’s’ son discarding the popular lingo in favour of the elitist Sanskrit ?
Further, the new names that Modi is proposing for the three criminal laws that are on our statute book – IPC, CrPC and Indian Evidence Act (easily pronounceable and understood by common citizens) are highly Sanskritized. How many people – even in the Hindi-speaking belt, who speak in simple local dialects – would be able to understand and pronounce these tongue-twisting terms : Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill (replacing IPC); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill (replacing CrPC) and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (replacing Indian Evidence Act) ? Curiously enough, while Sanskritizing the English names of those three Bills, Modi retains the English suffix `Bill.’ Haven’t his speech-writers and advisors been able to find a Sanskrit synonym for that English term ? Or, take the name of the latest bill on women’s quota in. legislatures – Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam. How many women in our far flung villages, whether in the Hindi-speaking states or outside, will be able to make sense of it ? Incidentally, in this case, the English term `bill’ (which was a suffix for the earlier three legislations ) has been replaced by a new term Adhiniyam – yet another Sanskrit word that is hardly understood by the common people. They are unpronounceable not only for the vast masses, but also for the professional classes belonging to different linguistic communities who are spread over all India.
Narendra Modi’s preference for Sanskrit words in order to Indianise English terms – despite his upbringing in totally non-Sanskritic OBC surroundings in Gujarat – reflects a trend of upward mobility through linguistic devices. This trend has an interesting history. Under the British colonial rule, the English language offered the newly educated middle class Indians a route for climbing up the ladder to occupy posts in the administration and other important occupations. The elite among these English-educated Indians like barristers, doctors, and others were trained to pick up, in addition to their knowledge of English, certain classical Latin terms in their respective fields of specialization like jurisprudence and medical sciences – terms which are still in use in current discourse in India. These Latin terms were introduced by the British administrators to create an awe-inspiring ambience in the courts that would overwhelm the common litigants into accepting the verdicts which were interspersed with these high sounding words. Similarly, in the medical field, doctors in their diagnosis of ailments, began to use Latin terms to describe certain diseases while prescribing medicines for their patients, who were impressed by these foreign-sounding words and accepted whatever they recommended. Some of these Latin terms still dominate the proceedings of our courts – like Ad Litem (meaning an attorney representing an absent litigant), or Subpoena (writ commanding a person to appear before the court), words that are frequently used by our judges and lawyers, but which are incomprehensible to the common citizens who approach the courts. Similarly, in the medical field, some Latin terms continue to be used by our doctors in their reports – like postpartum (after birth), and ante mortem (before death). These obscure Latin terms can be easily replaced by their common local equivalents in different languages in various parts of India. But such grandiloquent and sonorous jargon, difficult for a layman to understand, is being retained by the elite members of these professions, apparently to impress, or over-awe their clients in their respective fiefdoms.
The British colonial rulers backed up English with these classical Latin terms, which were used to inspire respect and fear, among their subjects. In a similar style, Narendra Modi is carving out a path to suit his political objectives. Modi is exploiting Sanskrit to impress the electorate and overawe his audience by his booming utterances of Sanskrit terms that intersperse his Hindi speeches. It is with this objective that he is renaming old laws, and is christening them with new ones in Sanskrit – moves that are calculated to impress the Hindu middle classes.
The lure of `Sanskritization’ – and Narendra Modi’s political upward mobility
Narendra Modi’s preference for Sanskrit terminology has to be located in a wider socio-political context, as well as his personal ambition. His rise to power is an illuminating illustration of social and political upward mobility by the deprived and oppressed members of the OBC, to whom the path was opened up by the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendation of 1990, which provided them with quota in government jobs and other areas. For the first time, having been empowered thus in the administrative arena, they quite justifiably extended and asserted their new found rights to the political arena. It is not a co-incidence that in the 1990s, Lalu Yadav in Bihar won the elections and became the chief minister, and that in 1996 in UP, Mulayam Singh Yadav won a Lok Sabha seat, and reached Delhi to become a defence minister in the Union government then. A few years later, in 2001, in Gujarat, yet another OBC politician, Narendra Modi emerged as a chief minister.
But unlike his OBC counterparts in Bihar and UP, Modi followed a different path. He leaned towards the upper caste Brahminical leaders of his RSS political patrons, and to please their visceral anti-Muslim prejudices, he presided over the massacre of Muslims by his party’s foot soldiers in Godhra and other parts of Gujarat riots in 2002. This record of his, lifted him up in the hierarchy of the Sangh Parivar – and ultimately propelled him to the position of the Prime Minister of India. His modus operandi is an excellent example of what the well-known Indian sociologist M.N. Srinivas described as `Sanskritization.’ In his book `Caste in Modern India’ (1962), Srinivas wrote: “Sanskritization is a process by which a lower caste or tribe or any other group changes its customs, rituals… ideology and way of life in the direction of a higher or more often twice-born caste.” Thus, by adopting the values of the upper castes, they get co-opted into the ruling elite. Narendra Modi meticulously followed this route – even without reading Srinivas. .
The lure of English degrees – and Narendra Modi’s prevarication
But Narendra Modi is caught in a dilemma. While trying to satisfy his RSS bosses with his efforts to Sanskritize the English colonial terminology, he is at the same time at pains to win over the English-educated urban middle class professionals in India, as well as the Indian diaspora abroad, and to impress the foreign audience which gather at global forums where he is invited to address them. In these public spheres, Modi has to establish his credentials as belonging to their peer group. One such effort of his to enter this group has ended up in a funny fiasco ! He claimed to have obtained an MA (Master of Arts) degree issued by the Gujarat University, dated March 13, 1983, which supposedly stated that he was granted the degree in the subject of `Entire Political Science.’ But there is no subject known as `Entire Political Science’ that is recognized in academic syllabi, whether in India or abroad.
In April 2016, the chief minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal approached the Chief Information Commission (CIC) of the Union government, and sought information about Narendra Modi’s educational degree. The CIC directed the Gujarat University to provide Kejriwal with the relevant information regarding Modi’s degree certificate. At the end of a seven-year long legal battle to obtain the information, on March 31, 2023, the Gujarat High Court gave relief to Modi. It set aside the CIC’s directive of 2016. Instead of respecting Kejriwal’s legal right to obtain information about Modi’s degree, the court imposed on him a fine of Rs. 25,000.
Mystery surrounds the search for Narendra Modi’s degree certificate. Why has it not been placed by him in the public domain ? Surely, it is not a secret document, which if revealed, would endanger national security. Applicant for jobs produce their degree certificates to prove their qualification. Under our democratic and egalitarian system, politicians are not required to produce such certificates to contest in elections, or assert claim to positions of prime ministership and other important posts. But then, Modi himself stirred up the debate by claiming that he had a degree in the dubious subject of `Entire Political Science.’ In all probabilities his claim could have been initially motivated by his desire to impress the English-speaking elite, both in India and abroad. But now he has landed up in a mess, with his political opponents demanding proof of his claim. He is lucky to have the Gujarat High Court quashing the case against him. Gujarat being his own fiefdom (which includes the local judiciary), can continue to protect him against charges of making false claims. But how long can Modi be able to sidetrack such dubious claims of his, in the wider public sphere – where in the coming 2024 Lok Sabha polls, the Opposition parties (united now under INDA) will make the most of his gaffe ? They are sure to approach the urban educated middle class voters, exposing his dubious claim to a degree (that has never been confirmed), and will thus try to disabuse them of their fascination for Narendra Modi as an honest politician. The controversy over Modi’s educational degree will be kept alive by them to become an issue among these urban voters during the electoral campaign on the eve of the 2024 general election.
Will Narendra Modi rename his self-descriptive term `chai-wala’ with a new ear-catching term ?
Now that Narendra Modi is on a spree of renaming all old terms, may be should consider renaming his own self-promoting image as a `chai-wala’ (tea-seller). He was never a chai-wala. The cat was let out from the bag by his own younger brother Prahlad Modi, when at a rally at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on December 27, 2022, he revealed that Narendra never sold tea. Prahlad said: ”Don’t call him a tea-seller….call him a son of a tea-seller.” (Re: Janbharat Times, December 28, 2022). Prahlad, as the vice-president of the All-India Fair Price Shop Dealers’ Federation, was addressing the rally to support the demands of fair price shop owners, who were being denied their rights by the discriminatory policies adopted by his elder brother, the prime minister.
But then, how long can Narendra Modi keep on concealing the uncomfortable and embarrassing facts about his past ? They will keep up cropping every now and then – and quite justifiably, should provide fodder to the Opposition parties in their electoral campaign on the eve of the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.
Sumanta Banerjee is a political commentator and writer, is the author of In The Wake of Naxalbari’ (1980 and 2008); The Parlour and the Streets: Elite and Popular Culture in Nineteenth Century Calcutta (1989) and ‘Memoirs of Roads: Calcutta from Colonial Urbanization to Global Modernization.’ (2016).
