Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala
Narendra Modi has decided to speak with foreign dignitaries in Hindi-even when they are English speaking. This is a departure from Vajpayee who spoke in English with English-speaking dignitaries and in Hindi with non-English-speaking dignitaries. Speaking in Hindi certainly makes a major cultural statement. It is assertion of our Indian culture. There is a flip side, however. Speaking with an English-speaking dignitary in Hindi through a translator would not be able to establish the one-to-one chemistry that may be developed by speaking directly in English. We have to weigh the gains from this better chemistry against the gains from assertion of our Indian culture. Modi has also issued orders for Central Government officials to do work in Hindi. Use of Hindi will certainly put our non-Hindi speaking countrymen at a disadvantage. I was once travelling with a friend in train from Bengaluru to Delhi. Two of us were speaking in English. Our co-passengers felt ignored and downcast. Ultimately, one of them made an outburst and we started talking in Kannada. Increasing use of English in national discourse will put vernacular speaking persons at a distinct disadvantage. Here again we will have to weigh the gains from national integration obtained by the use of English versus the gains we will obtain by assertion of our national identity.
Use of vernacular may also endanger our global economic prowess. An article in the Harvard Business Review gives startling statistics from a different perspective. The writer asserts that “there is a direct correlation between the English skills of a population and the economic performance of the country. Indicators like gross national income go up.” Statistical data provided by him indicate that the average per capita income rises from US Dollars 10k to 60k per year as the nation’s English Proficiency Index (EPI) rises from 45 to 70. To cite a specific example, Russia has a EPI score of 50 and Income of US dollars 20k per person per year. In comparison Singapore has EPI score of 60 and average income of 60k per person. This shows that countries that adopt English have higher incomes. At an individual level, recruiters and HR managers around the world report that job seekers with exceptional English compared to their country’s level earned 30-50% percent higher salaries.”
There is a vast body of anecdotal evidence that indicates a positive impact of English on income. Japanese Company Rakuten implemented 100 percent use of English.  Swiss food giant Nestlé saw great efficiency improvements in purchasing after it enforced English as a company standard. When Germany’s Hoechst and France’s Rhône-Poulenc merged in 1998 to create Aventis, the fifth largest worldwide pharmaceutical company, the new firm chose English as its operating language over French or German. These and many other examples indicate that global economy is inexorably moving towards the use of English. This is happening, I believe, because the driver of the global economy is technology which has largely been developed in the United States in the last century in English language. Therefore, abandonment of English means losing in the race of technology and of prosperity. These costs, however, are of a short term nature. The pain of adopting English and some losing the race would persist for a decade or so only. The gains from adoption of English come over the long run.
The objection to English more seriously comes from the argument of cultural diversity. It is feared that adoption of English will smother our native cultures. English-speaking children, for example, appear to have lesser knowledge of the Ramayana and the Koran. This connection between language and culture appears dubious to me though. Our ancestors of the Indus Valley Civilization used the Indus Language. In due course of time the Indus language evolved into Brahmi and then to Sanskrit and Hindi. The Rig Veda and other scriptures have been written in this Sanskrit. The culture of the people of the Indus Valley was transmitted jumped from Indus Language to Sanskrit. Similarly writings in Latin which are the foundations of Western Culture have been transmitted in English. I have, for example, read the Rig Veda mainly in English; and I regularly refer to Monier-William’s dictionary of Sanskrit. This shows that culture can move from one language to another just as the passenger changes platform on the railway station. Indeed, reading the texts in the original language is best. Errors may creep into translations. But similar errors also happen in interpreting the texts in the original languages. Therefore, we must not be deterred by this.
The respect expressed by Modi towards Indian culture by stressing the use of Hindi is welcome. The challenge, however, is to assert our identity in a way that also enables us to develop good chemistry with visiting foreign dignitaries and also helps our people integrate with each other and engage more aggressively with the English speaking world. The way forward is not to reject English and confine ourselves to our desi languages. The way forward is to adopt the middle path of bilingualism.  We must not jettison local languages for English; nor reject English and restrict ourselves to the use of native languages. We must make it compulsory to learn English as well as one’s mother tongue beginning from the primary schools. Second, we must try to modify and adapt English to our requirements. Singapore is creating ‘Singlish’ by combining certain grammatical features of Singaporean with English. We must similarly create Hinglish by a combination of Hindi and Tinglish with a combination of Tamil. Third, we must take up a massive program to translate our scriptures and regional literature in English so that it becomes accessible to the people world over. We must make English an instrument of spreading our culture globally.
We should look at the positive features of English and use them to spread our own culture instead of enscombing ourselves in the narrow confines of our native languages. Language is only the vehicle of our culture. It is not the content of our culture. We must focus on holding on to the content and not get distracted in focusing on the language. It is like writing a bad exam in Hindi versus writing a good exam in English. The Congress Party was established by the British rulers to provide a platform for the native leaders to vent their feelings and thereby stabilize the British Empire. Gandhiji turned it around and used that same organization to throw the British out of India. Similarly we must use English to spread our culture across the globe instead of letting it become an instrument of the death of our culture. Let the bureaucrats do the job of governance instead of consulting Hindi dictionaries.

Poonam I Kaushish
Even as Delhi was wilting in the blistering loo, another kind of hot air was blowing through the corridors of power. As part of a continuing farcical drama playing out to perfection, Prime Minister Modi new Government is busy over-hauling Constitutional bodies, whereby  those occupying posts like the Governor, Chairpersons of the National Commission for Women, National Commission for ST/SCs, NDMA et al have been asked to quit. No matter, it exposes a culpable facet of our rulers’ democratic temper!
Call it déjà vu or Et tu NDA, either which way Modi’s 2014 is not National Front VP Singh’s 1989, neither NDA Vajpayee’s 1999 nor UPA Manmohan Singh’s 2004 who got Governors appointed by their predecessors to resign. Succinctly, it is problematic. What with some of the nine Governors — Kerala’s Sheila Dikshit, Maharashtra’s Sankarnarayana and West Bengal’s Narayanan digging their heels and refusing to vacate their Raj Bhavans.
All resting their case on a 2010 Supreme Court ruling which laid down that a change of Government at the Centre was not a ground to remove Governors, even if they were out of sync with the policies and political ideologies of the Party in power. The order was in response to a PIL filed by a BJP MP who had challenged the removal of the Governors of UP, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa by the UPA in 2004.
That Modi means business was apparent when the Government made clear it intends using the on-going CBI probe into the Augusta Westland VVIP helicopter pay-off deal which implicates Goa’s B V Wanchu and Narayanan (ex-SPG and NSA chiefs respectively) to get them to quit or be removed by the President as the investigating agency is waiting to question them
In fact, already the Centre has asked Maharashtra Governor Satyanarayanan to desist from nominating MLCs to the Legislative Council. Resulting in an ugly face-off between the BJP and Congress. Pertinently, in the worst case scenario an ugly and protracted legal battle could ensue if even one of the Governors decides to move court.
Ironically, Modi’s tit-for-tat policy doesn’t square with what his Party elders A B Vaypayee and L K Advani had said when the UPA sacked NDA appointed Governors, terming it as a “big blow to democracy and a dangerous practice.” Two Union Ministers for Finance Arun Jaitley and Urban Development Venkaiah Naidu had also called the move “”a gross Constitutional impropriety” and “anti-democratic.”
Notably, this has once again opened the constitutional Pandora’s box on the role of the Governor, his qualifications and his Constitutional obligations and duties. Raising a moot point: Are Governor’s the Centre’s chaprasis? Or, are they the keepers of the people’s faith as the Constitutional head of their respective States. Are ideologies to be the touchstones for matters of this Constitutional nature? Would not this weaken the federal structure of the country?
Alas, the prism of time has distorted the role a Governor has to play wherein today this high Constitutional office has been unabashedly politicized turning him into a kathputli of the Centre who acts as a pawn of his political mai baaps in Delhi. Overlooking the letter and spirit of the Constitution and its framers.
Instances are aplenty. Circa 2008: Meghalaya, Circa 2007: Karnataka, Circa 2005: Goa, Bihar and Jharkhand. The common denominator? Each Governor interpreting read misinterpreting the rule book any which way he wanted, drawing his own conclusions based more often than not on delusions as long as he and his benefactors at the Centre could rule the roost.
Moreover, it has become the perfect lollypop for political castaways, parting gifts for subservient bureaucrats and convenient posts for inconvenient rivals. The essential criteria for a Governor’s selection is no longer whether he is a man of stature and known for his integrity and objectivity, but whether the man can be a yes-man, a chamcha.
In fact, petty politicking, gross interference, open partisanship and vision of personal grandeur are increasingly becoming the routine attributes of the Governors. Raj Bhavan postings have come to be seen as the best way out for the Ministers under a cloud. We have examples of power-brokers being appointed Governors and their returning to active politics after a gubernatorial stint. Former Union Home Minister Shinde was Andhra Governor earlier as was ex-Foreign Minister SM Krishna of Maharashtra.
Sadly, over 60 per cent of the present lot of Governors are active politicians and the rest ‘pliable’ bureaucrats, police officers and Army Generals. Ever ready to function as the Centre’s lackey and destabilise the State ship. By playing the I-spy game—petty politicking, gross interference, open partisanship at the Centre’s behest. Even, using a minor law and order problem to the Centre’s political advantage to impose Central rule in the State. Bluntly, make life hell for the Chief Minister.
Tragically, all lament the decline of the Governor’s institution but continue to exploit the office and play merry hell with elected Governments, be it NDA, UPA, NF etc.  A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!
Top experts affirm that the basic role of the Governor is not just to represent the Centre but, as the head of the State, to serve his people and fight their battles with the Centre, not vice versa. He has to bear in mind the overall national interest, not partisan Party interests.
The Constitution empowers him to influence the decisions of an elected Government by giving him the right “to be consulted, to warn and encourage” His role is overwhelmingly that of a “friend, philosopher and guide” to his Council of Ministers with unrivalled discretion. A lot more than those of India’s President.
To curtail the Governor from playing politics in the Chief Ministerial stakes, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution headed by Justice Venkatachaliah, advocated significant changes. It wanted the Chief Minister to be directly elected by the Assembly to obviate the need to test majorities in the Raj Bhawan. The Commission was of the opinion that this would combat the growing menace of horse-trading (sic.).
Pertinently, the Sarkaria Commission had also made two weighty recommendations. One, the Governor should be appointed in consultation with the Chief Minister of the State. Two, his tenure of five years should not be disturbed, except in rare circumstances for “extremely compelling reasons”.  Basing it on the premise, of the Governor being a “Constitutional sentinel and vital link between the Union and State, not a subordinate or subservient agent of the Union Government”.
What next? Clearly, the Governor’s office has to be revamped and restored to its old glory with assured tenures. It is the time to rise above politics, appoint neutral Governors and men of eminence not jee husoors who could distance themselves from the eternal battle of Party politics.
As long as the Centre continues to play petty, partisan politics, India will be greatly hurt. The Governor must not be reduced to the level of a glorified chaprasi! It is now imperative that a Prime Minister who postulates the Constitution also practices what he solemnly preaches! INFA

Col J P Singh, Retd
Sham Lal Sharma, Cabinet minister and a senior Congress leader is supporter of  Regional Councils in J&K.  He reiterated it while speaking on the eve of 193rd Coronation and State Foundation Day Celebration on 17 June 2014 at Akhnoor. “Much talked about discrimination with Jammu will not end till Jammu gets Regional Council”, he said. Consider Regional Councils for Rajouri – Poonch, Chenab Valley and Pahari Speaking Areas of Kashmir as well if you consider Union Territory status for Ladakh, he stated. The Congress leader is known and hailed for raising the issues concerning Jammu on and off. The real issue although is trifurcation but Regional Councils may be a step towards dowsing the fires and minimising discrimination lest the demand for trifurcation picks up vigorously prior Assembly polls.
The era of discrimination started with the end of Dogra rule after independence and Sheikh Mohd Abdullah’s rise as a popular Kashmiri leader. He was made Prime Minister of the J&K by Maharaja Hari Singh soon after he acceded his Princely State to India. It was done on the insistence of Pt Nehru, the Prime Minister of India. Having led Quit Kashmir movement against the Dogra Ruler who hailed from Jammu, Sheikh  began his rule with anti Jammu agenda. He missed no opportunity to crush Dogras and Jammu sentiments  with a heavy hand. Not only that he crushed Jammu sentiments, he also turned anti India resulting into his dismissal as Prime Minister of J&K and subsequent detention and trial.
People of Jammu and Ladakh have been living with a sense of neglect and grievances since independence. They feel that they are being oppressed and discriminated by Kashmiri elite. They also feel that New Delhi did not give them any attention during the turbulent periods of partition. Moreover Delhi did not give the region its due for their nationalism and having borne the maximum brunt of partition & 1947 – 48 Pak invasion. National Conference, the mainstream political party and beneficiary of partition, started its rule with a step motherly treatment to Jammu and Ladakh. Main reason for the grievances is lop sided political power structure which is in favour of Kashmir. It has not been addressed ever since the formation of 1st elected NC govt in J&K despite various protests.
Movement for State’s trifurcation erupted after Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest. Ironically the Congress leadership in Delhi viewed it as anti national activity allowing the regional chasm to accentuate and take a violent turn to be ruthlessly crushed. But the movement never died down nor did it pick up like Telangana. The power remained concentrated in the hands of few Kashmiri leaders. A stage came when the demand for trifurcation died down because many political parties and some sections of society were lured to share political power. Business class saw a greater opportunity in united J&K. The BJP and Panther Party were in the forefront on the trifurcation of J&K but could not mobilise the masses.  Hence the demand for trifurcation got different shades at different times and went through many twists and turns.
Congress has always been for the status quo despite its eroding base in Jammu region. When a senior leader bats for regional councils to end discrimination, the issue gets reinforced and calls for serious debate. Will Sham Lal Sharma be a lone crusader against discrimination with Jammu or the other anti change agents also don the mettle of change. Status quo is likely to be challenged again. Jammu State Morcha has already raised trifurcation in a memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister. If BJP plays on Article 370 sentiment, Panthers will advocate trifurcation and Congress will exploit discrimination. This has been the dilemma of our State politics which revives at the time of elections.
Reorganising and creating new states is authorised by the Constitution of India. This is how number of new states were created after independence and today their number is 29 after the creation of Telangana. At the time of re-organisation of states in fifties, the State of Jammu & Kashmir was excluded from the preview of SRC on the plea that issue relating to the future of J&K is pending in the United Nations. Now that Andhra Pradesh has been bifurcated and J&K is no more an issue before the UN and the reasons for its re-organisation being similar to Andhra; demand of various political and social organisations should be seriously considered. At one point of time Dr. Karan Singh’s view was that Jammu be merged with Himachal and Ladakh be made centrally administered union territory. He had advocated a unilingual Kashmiri speaking area  North of Bannihal Pass to be a separate unit. Present arrangement, he felt, was ‘administrative monstrosity’ with the govt moving up and down between Jammu and Srinagar every six months. His views were shared by most of the political and social establishments but never forced forcefully. Despite darbar move being an existing practice, it can’t continue indefinitely. Kashmir as unilingual state with two regional councils; one for the valley and the other for Paharai speaking areas comprising of 24 Assembly seats will be a very compact unit and easier to administer, develop and defend. Similarly vast mountainous Ladakh as Union Territory and Jammu as separate state will be easy to defend and develop. Interlocutors, in their report have recommended Regional Council for Jammu. Least of all, greater devolution of administrative and economic powers by the state govt to Jammu and Ladakh divisions, with a direct financial package form the centre should have been granted. Since the report has been dumped, another SRC should be constituted. This is dictated by distinct regional and communal polarisation in Lok Sabha election verdict. If it is left to the people of Jammu, Kashmir  and Ladakh to decide what they want, trifurcation better be made an election issue for the Assembly polls and the truth will come out. Re-organisation of J&K cannot be overlooked any longer.
Article 370 was a major issue of Lok Sabha election in J&K. All exploited it to the hilt hoping to win the election. After NC-Congress devastation in the election, they are caught between the devil and the deep sea. Assembly election will be highly complicated and more difficult for them because of the surcharged political atmosphere because of Article 370. Article 370 and discrimination is likely to come up in the coming session of the state legislature. It is said that a politician thinks of next election whereas as a statesman thinks of next generation. Let there be no clash of interests between politicians and statesmen. Sham Lal Sharma has been speaking for Jammu. His voice must be heard even if other voices are ignored.