The Politics of Language: The Case of Assam

Right since childhood, a persistent obsession of mine has been to find a resolution to human conflict. One may argue that conflict is an inevitable and inseparable part of human existence. But despite conflict’s eternality, history is replete with examples of the creative energies of Man transforming conflict into a synthetic, differentiated form which in turn gives rise to its own set of conflicts, albeit with different logics.

At this passing phase of human history, especially in the context of Assam, a potentially destructive source of conflict could be conflict over language. That, in the long run, could have the effect of Balkanization of Assam. The preliminary effects are already being felt in the form of the Bodo, Karbi, and Koch-Rajbongshi statehood movements.

There are two ways of trying to resolve this conflict: One is to deal with the language question alone. And the other, at a more theoretical level, is to problematize conflict itself. The aim of this essay, however, is not to suggest any ‘recipe’ of conflict resolution. Rather, it aims at explaining what exactly “politics of language” is. This would hopefully enable the reader to take well-informed policy decisions in the long run. Before addressing the issue of politics in and around language, one must first define the terms of this discourse.

“Politics of Language", as I view it, can be understood in two ways:

Firstly, it may be understood as the politics (often, eventually translating into party-politics) which emerges in particular contexts when different groups of people (inhabiting the same geographical or political space) speak different verbal languages which leads to certain conflicts (imagined or real) of interests among them, and consequently, to insecurity among some or all of those groups. Following this, most often, different political actors emerge from within each or either of these groups, and claim to articulate the political interests of their respective groups in terms of certain ideas like "sovereignty", "autonomy". "minority rights", "referendum", "injustice", etc. This is the dominant mode of thinking on this issue. The general politics surrounding the various statehood movements within Assam falls under this category. And sadly, most of the policy-interventions, so far, have addressed only this angle.

Secondly (and this is what I focus on), "Politics of Language" can be understood as the politics of Language in general. Now, this type of politics is not confined to the very specific context of conflict (leading to politics) between more than one group of people. Rather, it can take place (and obviously, is taking place) between just two persons or even within the same person at any time and place. Let me explain this to you with an example: X is a girl from the city of Chennai (a specific region with a specific history) and her native verbal language is Tamil. And Y is a boy from the city of Guwahati in Assam and his native verbal language is Assamese.

There are numerous other factors governing one's identity but if we focus on a set of four factors — sex (biological identity), location in space (region), location in time (history of the region and my own autobiography), and the verbal medium of the articulation and the assertion of my identity (language) — all of them together form a distinct system of thought which governs the subject (here, the person). This system of thought is composed of attitudes, ideas, beliefs and practices (modes of action) that construct both, the subject and the world, of which, the subject speaks. For example, the factors governing X’s identity (sex, region, history, verbal language), all taken together, make X have a particular attitude, think in a particular way, believe in certain things, and behave in a particular way. Thus, these factors construct X and her identity as a subject (a unique subject who differs from all other subjects and at the same time shares many similarities with many different groups of subjects). Moreover, and very importantly, these factors also construct the world of which X speaks [Because the world is not the same for every person. X looks at the world in one way while Y looks at it in another way. Thus, the same factors which constructed one’s subjectivity (or personhood) have also constructed one’s world]. Now, the final question: What do we call this system of thought which governs one’s being? Foucault defines it as "discourse". Discourse sits right at the top of hierarchy of units of language.

This ‘greater’ definition of language (understood as the entire system of thought governing our behaviour) which influences (and dare I say, determines to a large extent) the verbal language which you and I (and the people of Bodoland or Karbi Anglong) speak with our mouths. This larger language (discourse), through everyday interactions and activities among different members of the Bodo-speaking or Assamese-speaking communities, is actually as important as the verbal language (Bodo or French) because this is what determines how they construct their respective worlds and perceive each other's verbal language and personhood. Although these personal interactions are often thought of as non-political, they are not. In fact, they are absolutely political, and are the root cause of the "politics" we are looking at.

Now, there is not one discourse but many competing discourses (relating to competing perspectives on the economy, gender, law, and the likes). The competition between two discourses is what leads to politics (and hence, conflict). An example of such conflict would be the competing discourses of "Bodo" identity; i.e. How to deconstruct the Bodo identity - As the product of an ancient tribe? A modern Assamese individual who "ought not to be" concerned about primitive linguistic roots? Or simply a Bodo-speaker?

These conflicts lead to certain forms of games. Wittgenstein argued that "speaking a language is part of an activity, a form of life." Therefore, let me compare two such languages/games (say Tamil and Assamese) with two different sports (say, cricket and soccer). Now, both these languages (or sports) have certain rules which govern them. X is used to following the rules of the game she is more familiar with, and the same goes for Y. But if Y forces X to play his game, X would be at a disadvantage. Now, if I extend this simplistic example (of cricket/football v/s Tamil/Assamese) to illustrate a slightly more complicated language-based game between a Tamilian and an Assamese, the picture would become clearer.

Whenever, during my own stay in Chennai, I (an Assamese) had asked someone to tell me who precisely is the deity "Sri Ayyappan", the person who I asked this question to always tried to define Ayyappan in terms of Shiva and Vishnu. Some said Ayyappan is a form of Shiva; some said He is a form of Vishnu; whereas others said He is an incarnation of Lord Karthik, Shiva's son. Now, s/he tried to explain it to me in terms of Gods that I, an Assamese, might possibly be familiar with, and in that process the original meaning of “Ayyappan" (which is neither of these definitions) was lost! Actually, Ayyappan is the mythical child of Shiva and Mohini (a female incarnation of Vishnu), and in Assamese culture and mythology, the concept of Ayyappan is practically absent. In Assam, no one knows who the child of Shiva and Mohini is. In this particular game that both of us (the Tamil-speaker and me) played, we both lost! Because he/she tried to talk in terms of my language (which is not merely confined to the verbal language but also culture and mythology) and even I could not relate to what he/she said because my subjectivity was constructed through a different discourse. Such games are what I mean by "politics".

If the various language-based conflicts presently shaping demographic politics of Assam are analysed through these lenses, one would realize that a paradigm shift is urgently required in the way we have viewed and handled this issue so far. As a State, we have overemphasized the first type of politics over language (verbal) while ignoring the much more important aspect of Language as discourse. Until and unless the so-called ‘mainstream’ Assamese society accepts the existence of parallel discourses in the same geographical territory, mutual losses in language-based games, not unlike the anecdotal case illustrated above, would only aggravate the fragmentation of Assam along ethnic and linguistic lines.