On English in India, the New York Times offers confusion, not light

Mr. Manu Joseph, writing “India Faces a Linguistic Truth: English Spoken Here” in a “Letter From India” in the New York Times, makes some incredible claims about the status of English in India, with random bits of “evidence” that wouldn’t pass muster with, I’d wager, most Indians familiar with its linguistic diversity. Indian issues are not showcased too frequently in the New York Times, and, as an Indian reader of the NYT, I feel especially sad that such a superficial piece received prominence (particularly when the topic is close to my heart, incredibly complex, and strongly defies the kind of casual reductions Mr. Joseph indulges in).

The article begins by invoking a currently popular Bollywood number, “Sheila ki Jawani,” saying that Indians find it unremarkable that a Bollywood song utilizes English. Plenty of Bollywood songs comprise of Hinglish lyrics, and that claim is (one of the few that is) easy to agree with. The next set of claims, not so much:

That what has become one of the country’s popular Hindi songs opens with an English sentence is unremarkable for Indians. So is the truth that Hindi films are now written in English — the instructions in the screenplays are in English, and even the Hindi dialogue is transcribed in the Latin alphabet. Mumbai’s film stars, like most educated Indians, find it easier to read Hindi if it is written this way.

Actress Katrina Kaif

As someone who falls into the category of “most educated Indians,” I find this a stunning claim. I grew up in New Delhi, immersed in the Hindi belt, and have never found it “easier” to read Romanized Hindi. I don’t know anyone from Delhi who has ever confessed it’s easier to read Romanized Hindi-we learn the language in Devanagari, and trying to shift it into a different script entails difficulty for those of us who are naturalized to experiencing the language in its original script.

Not that it isn’t done, but I’d wager “most educated Indians” who had studied the language in the Hindi belt would agree with me. Mr. Joseph’s argument lacks nuance because he forgets (or deliberately decides to leave out, for the sake of his argument) the major differences that would exist for those growing up in the Hindi belt and for those outside of it.

In fact, the first few claims he makes are correct, until he gets to the phrase “most educated Indians.” The problem is that Bollywood scripts are written in English for a complex set of reasons: screenplay writers, for example, may not be proficient enough (originally they were primarily Hindi or Urdu poets or writers, but now they draw from many walks of life) and also, people working in Bollywood come from diverse linguistic areas of the country (where Hindi may or may not be spoken). In fact, Ms. Katrina Kaif, the star performer of “Sheila ki Jawani,” has had many of her dialogues dubbed in Hindi films because she was raised primarily by an English mother, and grew up outside of India. The shift, then, in contradiction to Mr. Joseph’s claims, is not merely because “most educated Indians” prefer to do so, but because of the alteration in the demography of Bollywood. ….

Excerpted from Found in Translation, the blog of the Berkeley Language Center. Read the rest of Bhattacharya’s post here.