Anti Hindi storm brewing in Tamilnadu

[INDIC]

How would you know that exactly ? That he/she is Sinhalese ?

He mentioned Sinhalas in the list, so I expect he is a Sinhala.

 

[kurup]

India is a union of erstwhile small kingdoms or "countries" with very different culture. Tamils are nationalistic people and their nationalism is not towards Indian union but a secret(yet public) desire for a Tamil nation. It can be easily understood the way Tamils react in the inter-state disputes. Here's a video for you. Tamils marching up to western neighbouring Kerala state to "fight" and "own" regarding ownership of a Dam in Kerala. Unfortunately, the average North Indian don't understand the complexities.

How can inter-state disputes be a measure of nationalism ??

 

[Gibbs]

He mentioned Sinhalas in the list, so I expect he is a Sinhala.

He/she also mentioned Hindi,North Indians, Brahmins, Kanndigas, Malayalis among others

Does any body else mention you as a Maratha, Gujarati or a Bengali when discussing India ? Or as an Indian ? So unless you know for sure he is Sinhalese try not to make assumptions.. Sri Lankan does not equate to being just a Sinhalese

 

[INDIC]

He/she also mentioned Hindi,North Indians, Brahmins, Kanndigas, Malayalis among others

Does any body else mention you as a Maratha, Gujarati or a Bengali when discussing India ? Or as an Indian ? So unless you know for sure he is Sinhalese try not to make assumptions.. Sri Lankan does not equate to being just a Sinhalese

But mentioning Sinhala was 'odd man out' in the list and since he inserted it, not difficult to recognize he is a Sinhala.

 

[Indrani]

The Hindi literature is traced back to Bhakti era Dohas of 14th century in Khariboli and Brajbhasha. Its not merely 200-300 years old language.

Khariboli developed out of Shauraseni Apabhramsha and so on. We can trace all Indian languages back to Sanskrit. But Hindi as we know it is 200-300 years old.

 

[INDIC]

Khariboli developed out of Shauraseni Apabhramsha and so on. We can trace all Indian languages back to Sanskrit. But Hindi as we know it is 200-300 years old.

200 years back, there was a fight for official recognition and heavy Persianized form was only popular among Mughal aristocracy and nawabs, you will see no trace of Persian in doha poetry. Urdu/Hindi never had official recognition until 1837 as Persian was the court language. but to appease the muslim aristocracy, British replaced Persian with Urdu and English causing resentment among Hindus who 85% of the population who wanted Sanskritized form of it in Devanagri script, this was followed by court cases. most of us in North India aren't acquainted with Persianized spoken Hindi, its mostly bollywood songs that we know little bit of it. otherwise expressions like 'Qabil e ghaur' or 'tashreef rakhiye' rarely used in Hindi vernacular.

 

[Gibbs]

But mentioning Sinhala was 'odd man out' in the list and since he inserted it, not difficult to recognize he is a Sinhala.

What ? Thats not even making sense.. He also mentioned Sri Lanka, And he is talking about the TN political class and their disdain to anything not Tamil especially Lankans and specifically the hatred towards Sinhalese which is well known.. So the mere mention of Sinhalese makes him one ? Wow what stupid logic.. With 16,500 posts under your name, We'd expect some kind of sensibility of you

I may have mentioned Sinhalese hundreds of times in the forum.. So does that make me Sinhalese to you ?

 

[INDIC]

Khariboli developed out of Shauraseni Apabhramsha and so on. We can trace all Indian languages back to Sanskrit. But Hindi as we know it is 200-300 years old.

There is indeed small percentage of Persian influence on Hindi, but I believe you are exaggerating the extent of Persianization(perhaps your opinion is based on the Urdu you listen in Bollywood dialogues and songs). Also, many of such Persian words had already been replaced by their English equivalent in Hindi vernacular since language evolves.

What ? Thats not even making sense.. He also mentioned Sri Lanka, And he is talking about the TN political class and their disdain to anything not Tamil especially Lankans and specifically the hatred towards Sinhalese which is well known.. So the mere mention of Sinhalese makes him one ? Wow what stupid logic.. With 16,500 posts under your name, We'd expect some kind of sensibility of you

I may have mentioned Sinhalese hundreds of times in the forum.. So does that make me Sinhalese to you ?

Yes, I read your signature but tell me if he is a Sinhala or not and close the case forever.

 

[Indrani]

200 years back, there was a fight for official recognition and heavy Persianized form was only popular among Mughal aristocracy and nawabs, you will see no trace of Persian in doha poetry. Urdu/Hindi never had official recognition until 1837 as Persian was the court language. but to appease the muslim aristocracy, British replaced Persian with Urdu and English causing resentment among Hindus who 85% of the population who wanted Sanskritized form of it in Devanagri script, this was followed by court cases. most of us in North India aren't acquainted with Persianized spoken Hindi, its mostly bollywood songs that we know little bit of it. otherwise expressions like 'Qabil e ghaur' or 'tashreef rakhiye' rarely used in Hindi vernacular.

Yeah, I read about it. Problem is that is what the Delhi based media as well as Bollywood have been popularizing. I would have no issues with Sanskritized Hindi being made the national language with the eventual aim of moving towards Sanskrit as the national language. That still seems a circuitous route when we can actually start teaching Sanskrit itself.

 

[Gibbs]

Yes, I read your signature but tell me if he is a Sinhala or not and close the case forever.

What does it matter to you if he is Sinhalese.. He made that comment as a Sri Lankan and it is not your place to make assumptions of his ethnicity.. Others have not

He is Lankan

 

[INDIC]

What does it matter to you if he is Sinhalese.. He made that comment as a Sri Lankan and it is not your place to make assumptions of his ethnicity.. Others have not

If you can mention specific ethnic group from India, why can't I do it.

 

[osama zafar]

hindi and english as offical language in india i think

 

[Saradiel]

Just read the 1815 Kandyan convention. I will see the evidence.

Kandyan convention was put into dustbin after 3 years later (1818) and kandyan chieftains could not do much about it. (why? they ignored the current realities when signing it, like you today). And do you want SL to consider kandyan convention in current policing?
The reason kandyan convention refers to whole country was because other kingdoms had no power to question it. The low lands of SL came under brits based on an agreement between dutch and brits. Does that make dutch the owners of current SL low land, going by your logic on kandyan convention?
You still do not get the idea, history does not matter, it is the current realities….pinhead

Well it shows that Sinhalese was the main language of the country. The national language. It is not wrong to reinstate it in 1956. There were no ulterior motives behind it.

It shows Sinhalese was the main language of kandyan kingdom not rest of the island. No one is saying it was wrong to make Sinhala official language in SL, the point here was not making tamil an official language along with Sinhala.

Why should Sinhalese do that. Always it is the minority that must respect the majority. If majority start respecting the minority while minority doesn't do the same. Then there will be serious undermining of majority. In every country former is the basic procedure not the latter.

Where has not tamils respected Sinhalese’ right to language? Where?
It was the Sinhalese who dumped tamil and their right to language. When SWRD gave a speech in Sinhala Maha sabha in English cos he cannot speak Sinhala it was a Tamil in the crowd, Ramanathan who told SWRD he should be ashamed for not knowing his native language. Tamil politicians at that time were strong supporters of Sinhala people and politicians who were victimized by British in 1915 riot. It was because of staunch support of tamil leaders for Sinhalese which made Tamil leaders lose moor support since then.

There is no "if". Western countries has put there weight behind the Tamils. There is nothing we could do. I have explained you the reasons for that.

They have not, idiot…they have not,,but yes tide is turning..and your reasons are dumb as those of a Montessori kid.

So what bad is happening to the Tamils now? I think they can forget the past and see the current realities.

I guess we are talking about 56 language policy. It was wrongs done to them at that time which triggered a whole lot of problems. Yes still problems are there. But how can we as a country go forward when people like you are even reluctant to acknowledge the wrongs?
Tamils very well see the current realities…you don’t….

Well you seem to slow to understand. Here a basic version. The land was united under one banner before the arrival of British and were so in 1505.

Then what is Jaffna kingdom?
And don’t come with they paid tribute, they did for a small period of time and even if they did it does not mean that banner is going to work ..
What you fail to realize is SL cannot function or go ahead with that Sinhala banner? We did and doing now and alienating non Sinhala people for which we had to pay a price for a 30 year war. How does a nation of which 25% is non Sinhala can be called a Sinhala nation? The nation struggled and tragicomically the Sinhalese are migrating to non Sinhala countries after dragging their Sinhala country down.

Yeah reading and parroting the history books are not right. One has to logically analyses what has written. Then one will get a more balanced view of history. You should try that too. It seems you are too preoccupied with certain things about the past.

I did not ask you to logically analyze what was written. I told you to think about current realities. Because current realities matter not history.
‘preoccupied’? that doesn’t suit your argument.
I am student of history. History is important, but what matters is current realities….especially in policies of a country.

Yes history doesn't matter in certain occasions and it do also matter in another type of occasions. You seems to ignore the history which doesn't suite your views and try to focus on history which suites you.
If you are so adamant on historic connections. Why defend the Tamil homeland theory. Just ignore the history and face the current reality. Which is the Sinhalese majority Sri Lanka.

Idiot I am not defending tamil homeland theory. I am rejecting the idea of an exclusive Sinhala homeland. Either you suffer from memory loss, I have engaged in many arguments over that with manlion. The tamil homeland theory they come up with is much different to what I say here. I am pointing out that it is wrong to say tamils are aliens and have no ownership to the country.
I am not ignoring history, it is you with total omission of Jaffna kingdom who ignores parts that are disadvantageous to you. Actually you have ignored many points in my comment as well for the simple reason you have nothing to say.

India is still call Hindustan. "The land of the Hindu's". It is not refereed to as "multi religous country". Be sensible and rational, mate. Any country is depicted by what defines it. This is same to Sri Lanka. In 1948 Sri Lanka was defined by Sinhalese only. However now it has changed a lot.
Oh Japan is not secular. It is just simple as Sri Lanka is not being socialist despite the name tag.

No one put on itself a name like ‘multi religious state’. Hindustan is a name, much like Rathnadeepa of SL. India identifies itself as a multi religious state. That is the official stance. That is why Hindutva fellows take time to correct it but not successful. Of course be sensible , my a$$..you are the one to ask others to be sensible…the irrational incredibly stupid racist!
Depiction and identity are two different things. India in character is Hindu but in identity is multi religious….i am talking about the identity. SL while putting up a Sinhala identity destroyed its Sinhala chatacter. India with multi religious label secured its hindu character. World is not a straight forward place. Japan does not have a religuos identiy no matter what sort of secularism they have. It is the lack of religious identity. Now don’t tell me this % of japs are Shinto because I am not talking about the relgion they believe in but religious identity if you dumbo have the brain to differentiate between the two.
And again pinhead, having a multi religious banner is a PR move….a necessary one.
And yes defining SL as a Sinhala country was the problem…the thing is a country with 25% non Sinhala population cannot define itself a Sinhala country. Forget historical and moral reasons it cant be defended given the current realities then and now.

What about the agreement between Portuguese and the Sinhalese kingodm at Kotte.
BTW the agreement was to transfer the land. The legal right to the land belonged to the person who belongs it. Hence the convention. If the Northern lands was belonged to the Tamils then the agreement should have being between Tamils and the British. But that didn't happen. Which reinforce my point that Tamils had no legal authority to the land let alone the language in Sri Lanka.

Because tamil leaders were defeated at war and taken in as prisoner. There was none to stand on behalf of public. The land transfer of low land was between brits and dutch in 1796. Does that mean Sinhala low lands are owned by dutch and no Sinhala kingdom existed?

I think that is what you want not me because you are the one keep pushing it up everytime. Of course Sinhalese do not need to see Tamils adopting Sinhala language and become Sinhalese. They just want the respect the country's history deserves.

So did the country see the respect you think deserve? What I see is Sinhala fellows going for non-Sinhala land forgetting their Sinhala ness because they have made the Sinhala country an undesirable place for them to live…
The one who started talking about some respect was you. It was not me…so don’t flee when you have no answer. How does tamils not respect country’s history by rejecting Sinhala only?
The reason Sinhala only was brought, state sponsored (<- look at this word, I cannot explain again. If you can’t understand use a dictionary) Sinhala settlement, was to sinhalize SL.

Jaffna wasn't an independent kingdom. It was part of the Sinhalese kingdom of the south. Hence the land belongs to the Sinhalese king and it's people.

For the nth time it was for a ‘brief’ period pin head.

What is wrong with Tamils learning Sinhala? However apart from the government officials other was required to learn Sinhala. If Tamils learnt Sinhalese then the gap between the both sides should have been bridged.

What about Sinhalese learning tamil then? That too would have reduced gap ne.. if gap is the only thing you care…
I have pointed this out earlier pinhead go and read. And make sure you understand other’s point before hitting the reply button. The point is Sinhala=Tamil…that is why only tamils requiring to learn Sinhala is wrong.
The wrong is with imposition. Had SL waited a decade tamil officers would have willingly learnt Sinhala..it was the imposition (use a dictionary, I know you will make a mess with this word) that is wrong.

Because of the validity of the language policy to the 1815 Kandyan convention.
However do you believe that there was Indian enforcement in 1978?

Kandyan convention had no validity it was abrogated 3 years later. And even if it had any validity still a Sinhala only would have been wrong, irrational and stupid given the current realities.
Yes 78 constitution was impacted by indo lanka accord. It is widely known.

Well then why oppose to the settlements and temple building in Wanni and Jaffna?

What temple? And any “state sponsoring” settlement and temple building is wrong.

US is federal because the original 13 colonies were independent entities. They formed as a single unity for protection while retaining their independence. That is federalism. Every federal country are collection of independent political entities.
But in Sri Lanka which is not the case. See how history plays a major role here.

I point that out US because you said federalism is separatism. I did not say I support federalism. But as I said people with brains like you will surely make SL federal.

Yes I cheered. Somethings are inevitable. For a example you hold your hand over a candle long enough you will be burnt. That is inevitable.

And then your gover has to bend backwards to humba countries to negate the negative effect…The point is you people are amazingly incredibly irrational and stupid……more than racist.
And you didn’t answer this,
If it is history that matters and Sinhala is the identity of SL and Sinhala should be the only official language of SL and with no power devolution,
Why did MR have elections in north and east?
Why did SL make Tamil an official language and MR continue to do so?
The fact is when faced with current realities you run with your tail behind. People like you only know how to instigate the issues and flee. You have no idea of the gravity of the issues you create and the current realities you face. Such racist idiots influencing SL policies are the greatest misfortune this country faced.
You fled when I pointed out how india preserved the togetherness of the states by not imposing hindi and how SL made a mess of it.
You didn’t answer this

 

[INDIC]

Yeah, I read about it. Problem is that is what the Delhi based media as well as Bollywood have been popularizing. I would have no issues with Sanskritized Hindi being made the national language with the eventual aim of moving towards Sanskrit as the national language. That still seems a circuitous route when we can actually start teaching Sanskrit itself.

The Bollywood mainly use it because the film industry is mix of Hindi and Urdu and they need Urdu for certain genre of songs, now even Punjabi is used. The Hindi media don't use such language, the popular Hindi newspapers hardly use Persian-English words in their news reports. As for North Indians, we are acquainted with such words but still don't use it either in speech or literature. As I told you many of such Persian words has also been replaced by English equivalents.

 

[qamar1990]

---
no . no natioanl language in india..
hindi and english as offical language ..as per indian constittutuation..

@Ravi Nair should hindi be official?