The Unspoken Sound of Linguistic Hegemony

Hegemony creates many problems ranging from domination to exploitation as much as it foments resistance and conflict; and here is a case of Manipur and Meiteilon language in the Indian scheme of things. 

 

There are some Hindi terms and expressions that many Manipuris love to use: achha-achha, thali, bhabhi and so on. It is no surprise because language is an organic entity. It evolves, grows, expands, changes, absorbs, loses all the time. However, the point is the unintentional use of such terms and expressions by people in a periphery creates a problematic hierarchy. It is even worse when they do not realise that such phenomenon creates hegemony, and when it comes to hegemony, there is always a problem of/for the ruler and the ruled, the developed and underdeveloped, the hegemon and the public, and in the case of Manipuris, the mainland and the locals.  

 

The Starting Point

The phenomenon of linguistic hegemony manifests at a broader context in different forms as is evident from the relentless North–South divide in mainland India. This tribalistic notion of separation, predominantly based on geography, society, economics and politics is seemingly boundary-less too, just as we can witness it throughout the world--ranging from the local North-and-South-Delhi and North-and-South-Bombay debate to the relentless Global-North and Global-South dominance. When it comes specifically to language in India, the balance of power is stable to a large extent. 

Definitely the power play resulted in the anti-Hindi agitation of the mid Sixties, and ever since, the North’s proclivity for considering that part of the world as the centre of the globe has been making them rub others up the wrong way. Only one way goes out of here and the people from the North must empathize with others. They just have to reflect on how others might love their own language. It is as much as they do theirs! The issue becomes critical in exceptional cases. 

The hangover of the Sixties’ agitation is not completely gone. Many people in Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, as always, are not in line with the present authoritarian Hindu-supremacist regime that is based wholly in the Northern part of the country where Hindi is the main vernacular and coincidentally it is also the region from where Hindi lobbyists belong to. As far as the use of language, or against its use is concerned, it is a tool that many people use from time to time according to a given context or convenience. A politician divides mankind, Friedrich Nietzsche puts it succinctly, into two classes: tools and enemies.

Different societies have their own cultural constructs and structures. In a State such as India where numbers can drastically affect the body politic, the minorities are always on the receiving end. It becomes acute when there are sublayers of loss as can be seen from a place like Manipur. The Meiteis are hardly two million in strength. Check some of these numbers: the house size of the entire Manipur is 60 in the State Legislative Assembly out of which 40 is allotted to them. In India, the big ones include Uttar Pradesh with 403, Maharashtra 288 and Bihar 243) and it sends two members to the Parliament and only one parliamentary constituency is assigned albeit anyone can compete regardless of the ethnicity. Again, amongst the highest, UP has 80, Maharashtra 48 and Andhra Pradesh 42.       

Antonio Gramsci, Bhaiya and Bhasha 

Antonio Gramsci’s formula of cultural hegemony can be applied to all the problems of control and power. The ruling class exists not only on the addition of political and economic power but also on multiplication of cultural institutions and ideologies. The sum is internalised on its own and becomes as natural and inevitable as the sum of 2 and 2 is 4. Do not be surprised if the hegemons make it 5. Likewise, linguistic hegemony follows the same formula, albeit it involves around the dominance through language. The point of discussion for tonight is the dual setbacks faced by minorities through both everyday politics and the politics of language.     

Linguistic hegemony manifests when a dominant language marginalizes minority languages, often resulting in the erosion of cultural identities and the silencing of alternative worldviews. This process is not merely about communication but also about power dynamics, where the dominant language becomes a tool for maintaining control over marginalized groups. The suppression of minority languages is a deliberate act that reinforces the social and political status quo, making it difficult for minority communities to challenge their oppression.

In conflict zones, linguistic hegemony compounds the difficulties faced by minority communities. These regions are often characterized by violence, underdevelopment, and political instability. The imposition of a dominant language exacerbates these issues, leading to a two-fold setback for the affected populations:

Politics of Violence and Underdevelopment: Conflict zones are marked by ongoing violence, political strife, and economic instability. Minority groups in these areas are disproportionately affected, facing displacement, loss of livelihoods, and lack of access to basic services. The systemic marginalisation in such contexts often prevents these communities from participating fully in the socio-political landscape, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement.

Politics of Language: The imposition of a dominant language further alienates minority communities. Language is a critical component of identity and cultural heritage. When minority languages are suppressed, it not only hampers communication but also erodes cultural traditions and historical narratives. This cultural erasure contributes to a loss of self-esteem and a sense of inferiority among minority groups, making it more difficult for them to mobilize and assert their rights.

And in hindsight, it is not complex considering the material condition of this phenomenon. Personally, it is beyond toleration level, when my friends speak in Hindi in Imphal. When people start calling West Asia as Middle East, there is definitely some form of ignorance on part of the locals.  

Dual Setback and Its Consequences

The dual setback of political violence and linguistic hegemony creates a vicious cycle that is difficult for minority communities to break. The immediate effects include:

Loss of Cultural Heritage: The suppression of minority languages leads to the gradual loss of folklore, oral traditions, and historical knowledge. This cultural erosion weakens community bonds and diminishes the richness of cultural diversity.

Educational Barriers: Linguistic hegemony often translates into educational disadvantages for minority children, who may struggle to learn in a dominant language that is not their mother tongue. This barrier affects academic performance and limits future opportunities.

Economic Marginalisation: Proficiency in the dominant language is often a prerequisite for better employment opportunities. Minority individuals who are not fluent in the dominant language are thus excluded from higher-paying jobs and remain trapped in cycles of poverty.

Political Disenfranchisement: The dominance of a particular language in legal and political arenas means that minority groups have less access to political discourse and decision-making processes. This disenfranchisement perpetuates their marginalisation and inhibits their ability to advocate for their rights.

Long Story Short

Linguistic hegemony in conflict zones exacerbates the challenges faced by minority communities, creating a dual setback of cultural and economic marginalisation. By understanding the dynamics of linguistic hegemony through the lens of Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, we can better appreciate the profound impact of language politics on these vulnerable populations. Addressing linguistic hegemony requires concerted efforts to promote multilingualism, recognize minority languages officially, and support cultural preservation. Only through such comprehensive strategies can we hope to mitigate the adverse effects of linguistic hegemony and empower minority communities in conflict zones.

It will be no surprise if critics see any sort of irrationality in arguing how Hindi is problematic for Meiteilon speakers while writing in English. Nobody can deny the bias, howsoever badly hidden, towards what North Indians have always wanted call as the national language; but it is more about concepts and constructs today. A more impartial approach lies in the language-in-use than in Meiteilon that will only drown us further within the state and without it is in already. Besides, to cite another example, Tamil and Malayalam will never have this sort of issue for the simple reason that there is no Hindi dominance over these South Indian languages.

Cultural homogenisation can result in the annihilation of local cultures and languages on one hand. On the other hand, minorities can help build innovation and diversity in addition to fighting off dependency and vulnerability. When you speak Hindi like a gentle people in this corner of the world, there is nothing gentle about it. More importantly, I say, Manipur must learn this language of politics.