Language is the key to power; language is manifestation of the exercise of power and language sustains power. Linguistic dominance, as a tool of cultural hegemony is well known and documented. Rajiv Malhotra, comparing language with marketing, notes, “Language is the vehicle through which this packaging and distribution is accomplished. Hegemony of language is therefore comparable to control of ideas by controlling their distribution. Since language is ultimately a 'game' of contexts and meanings, whoever defines the language of discourse controls the rules of the game.” Quoting Georg Feuerstein approvingly, “Language pre-structures the facts in a certain way and introduces various blind spots”, he asserts that language battles, especially implicit or invisible, are more critical than battles over the ideas.
It is imperative that greater attention and efforts are put in to study impact of language upon moral-ethical values of society, especially if state promoted language happens to be alien to local tradition; and take corrective actions wherever necessary. Question arises what is the source of values that India as a republic state espouses? Where are its roots? In an insightful article Devendra Sharma enumerate such influences.
In his critique of Indian constitution he points out “Present hegemonic regime governed by postulations of Weber, Bentham, Montesquieu and Marx as truly depicted in Indian constitution with stains of colonialist blots deserves denunciation at every level in absolute sense”. People steeped in constitutionalism, who are blind to failures of institutional structure and mechanism of present dispensation might argue that “there is deterioration everywhere and the present symptoms of perversion in administration, judiciary, political scheme, education etc. is merely reflection of deterioration in society.”
Countering such views he quotes Mahabharata, “Time is not the force that governs human affairs and relations. It is government who creates the times and human affairs. It’s a sutra to examine conduct and implication of government’s acts and omission on human affairs and relation viz-viz other individuals and institutions.” He favors primacy of governmental role in creating a suitable value-universe for a state and by and by exposes the infusion of Western values in garb of universal human values by political order and its Western cohorts in post-colonial India.
We are aware that hostile foreign rule weakened the hold of Vedic-dharmic values over Indian society. With failing local powers, frequent conflicts, pillage and dominance of culturally hostile rule, India saw a sharp decline in knowledge structures and systems which had carried on such values from ancient times. What remained was outcome of desperate haphazard attempts to recollect Vedic morals and ethics that had maintained continuity and social coherence.
The transfer of power agreement of 1947 designed by British rule was a desperate compromise treatise. It attempted a most acceptable and peaceful transfer of power in face of a rigid and threatening Islamists, divided scuffling native dharmic (so-called Hindu) society and numerous princely states. The ‘Hindu’ society still reeling under effects of an inimical foreign rule was looking for a Ramrajya (state guided by dharma and justice) and Islamists were dreaming for a true Islamic state connected to Ummah. Muslims did get their Pakistan by dividing Bharatvarsha. But even Gandhi’s compromised ‘Ramrajya’ always remained a distant reality and India (that is Bharat) as far as moral-ethical value dimension was concerned, continued with the slavish legacy of British colonial regime.
But even such compromises couldn’t endear Gandhiji to historians of Nehruvian school, who love him for neutralizing the Dharmic aspirations of the country, but turn livid at his disapproval of cow-slaughter, religious conversion and secular adharmic rule!
