Editorial: Kamal-Kannada language row

These days, it is difficult to say anything with certainty. There are more questions than answers. With what intent was it said? Was it literal, figurative or metaphorical? Was it a scientific fact, or was it just a plain, baseless assertion? Was it a marketing gimmick? Did he say it in the capacity of a venerable thespian or an average politician in the making? The only thing that’s perhaps clear is that these days, every controversy gets politicised. Especially if it has the potential to polarise and widen the divisions in society.

Actor-politician Kamal Haasan, a thinking actor who is known for his acting and his erudition, which he tends to show off, finds himself in an unseemly controversy for trying to be too clever by half. Speaking extempore at a film function, he seems to have got carried away and said in a flow that Kannada was born out of the Tamil language. If one were to see the issue in its entirety and its context, the actor’s defence and clarification seem tenable. He explained that his statement was made out of love and he didn’t mean anything (else). As the politicians jumped on the bandwagon by singling out the controversial statement, the actor said that politicians, including him, are not qualified to talk about language, which should be left to experts.

There are lessons to be learned from this controversy. Firstly, people need to learn the difference between legitimate pride and love for one’s mother tongue and language chauvinism, which derides or ridicules other languages. Whose language is the greatest is the wrong framing of the question.

One could celebrate one’s language without getting into one-upmanship. Secondly, the politics of language has to be understood in the context of the formation of linguistic states wherein language as an integral part of culture was a defining aspect. With time, increased interstate mobility primarily due to economic reasons has resulted in people speaking different languages moving to cities that are part of a linguistic state. Mumbai, and later Bengaluru and Chennai, have seen an influx of people from other linguistic states, resulting in tensions between “locals” and “non-locals” as the latter often resist learning the local language. Unfortunately, a city often becomes cosmopolitan at the cost of the local language and to the advantage of another language. In times of politics of polarisation, these language controversies get blown out of proportion, making them more difficult to resolve.

To solve the language issue, society should evolve enough to understand and appreciate the importance of language as central to social and cultural identity. Governments should be cognizant of people’s sensitivities against language imposition. In a free and open society, people will be more receptive to learning and appreciating languages other than their own. It starts with mingling and socialising and develops further through the consumption of cinema, literature and popular culture. Of course, creative minds should refrain from – wittingly or unwittingly – ridiculing or demeaning other languages and associated cultures through vulgar stereotyping. Language is a vehicle of thought, a medium of love, mutual tolerance and respect. Language is a tool of communication which should serve as a unifying, and not a divisive, force. In a multi-lingual country, no language should feel threatened by its importance, relevance and existence.