Talk:Languages of India

Archives
Archive 1

Suggested Improvements

• Flesh out the main body of the article. How about a set of tables giving the number of people speaking each language as their first tongue?
• Each state should be listed in a table, with the first (and, if possible second) language(s) listed
• The detailed work on phonetics and alphabet should be moved to a sub-article once the main article has been expanded. It's really far too detailed to be of any use to a casual reader but I suspect it's not rigorous enough right now to avoid offending an expert.
• Despite the suggestions above, we should avoid turning this into a massive set of lists (which is what has happened to the Native American languages article)

Sadly, I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to act on my own suggestions here, so I'll go and try to be more useful somewhere else. However, I'd love to see this article get on the main page someday... Kayman1uk 10:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the map

A nitpick, but the state of Andhra Pradesh has been labelled as 'andhra' in Telugu on the map. Given that we've added the appelation 'pradesh' to all other states having 'pradesh' in their names, I think it makes stylistic sense to label Andhra Pradesh as 'ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్', and not simply 'ఆంధ్ర', as it is labelled now.

Help add input for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)

Help add input for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)--Dangerous-Boy 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

tamil aspirates

"This classification is observed in all the languages under discussion" - what about tamil, which doesn't even have aspirated consonants except when special characters are used for writing Sanskrit (Granthakshara)?--Grammatical error 06:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please reword it. See Tamil language#Phonology. I'm not an expert on such issues; but, one can ask Arvind for any clarifications. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've refactored the lead per WP:LEAD. This article needs a lot of improvement. Currently, beyond the lead, there's nothing except the alphabets. We need to somehow shed our inclination to mention data about individual languages and [instead] create a proper encyclopaedic article on the subject at hand. We need good maps as in African languages and the layout could be a modified version of Gbe languages. Because all the Gbe languages are linguistically related, they were able to talk about language features, whereas, we need to have smaller summary subsections talking about features of the 4 linguistic families plus Andamanese languages. A good test for not wavering beyond the topic is the extent to which we avoid mention of individual languages in favour of language families. The lead section should ideally be the only place for their mention. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head, and good job on the lead, that looks very good. The alphabets section needs to be shortened (and/or split into writing systems and phonology which is what much of it is really about), and then you're right the article needs some expansion on the various families. They should get space relative to the number of speakers of each family, though not exactly proportional. The Gbe languages article is a good model for what to cover, but we should work on a proposed outline of what the article should ideally cover, then we can go do some research to get good sources to cite. General linguistis topics would be history, writing system, phonology, morphology, syntax (grammar), and maybe a bit on corpus linguistics and translation. I fear that if we cover that four times the article may be unwieldy, though maybe not it we don't create that many subsections for each of the language families. The smaller families could just have one or two paragraphs that summarize all of that. Should the major subsections be the topics I listed above or should it be the 4 or so language families and then cover those topics in each section? - Taxman ^Talk 11:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, thanks for your outline above and the copyedit done by you. The outline sounds good. We could add a distribution map if there's a definitive source. This book and others from CIIL can be useful. This, being an important main article related to India, merits good attention. Hope more editors join in the effort to improve it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but which outline do you think would work better (my last question)? It would be hard to switch. - Taxman ^Talk 12:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thinking of the semantics, I lean in favour of the former. But, we need not have subsections for each language family; we could just have paragraphs. The other outline doesn't sound bad either. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In principle, I support the former. The article will need to discuss how the language families have influenced each other in grammar (e.g. the Tolkappiyam's rather strained identification of seven cases), phonology (retroflexes in Indo-Aryan), morphology and vocabulary, and it will need to do so in the context of theories such as Murray Emeneau's model of the Indian linguistic area. It seems to me we can best do this with a structure that discusses the families together, rather than separately. -- Arvind 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be the scope of the article? Languages native to India? If no,t we can also include Portuguese, French, (I don't know if Dutch was ever spoken in Kerala), and Aramaic. Pali seems to be absent, so too NE languages. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I suppose it depends on the data for the number of speakers. I would propose the coverage should be balanced by that and importance/ other factors. The article would be remiss without mention of English's role, but it seems like it would be better off without a linguistic coverage of it, instead just a survey of the role it has/had. Pali is Indo-European, so it should be covered in that context. What do you mean by NE - Northern European? And please comment on which approach to the layout you prefer based on the above. - Taxman ^Talk 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NE = North East India, one of the most poorly documented regions of India. Sundar, maps shouldn't be a problem anymore since we've got a featured SVG map. Basic drawing using inkscape would solve the problem. Having subsections for each language family might lead to the page becoming too cluttered. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If we get some data on Portugeese, French, Dutch and possibly Hebrew speakers, we could, in the interests of completeness, make a mention in a single line or a short paragraph. Yes, even I've observed the poor coverage on NE here and elsewhere. Let's do proper justice to those language families as well. Glad to know that maps are not a problem. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Cochini jews had a special dialect, often called Judaeo-Malayalam which might be interesting enough to mention. We should also at least mention the existence of pockets of native speakers of Goan Portuguese (does it differ from "Standard Portuguese"?) and English since those have deep roots. Chinese and other immigrant languages probably don't merit a mention. -- Arvind 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed the following text as too detailed on one language and innacurate anyway:

Urdu is unique among Indian languages. Grammatically it is 'genetically' linked to the older language of Prakrit. Much of its vocabulary is derived from neighboring Arabic, Turkish, Farsi and Sanskrit. Indeed, Urdu is the Turkish word for "camp", "tent", or "military encampment". Urdu arose due to contact between the Mughal armies and speakers of the local derivatives of Sanskrit and Prakrit. It has since evolved into a rich independent language. The modern Urdu script evolved from the Arabic script. It was introduced via Persia by invading Mughal armies, and was fitted to the local Indian phonology. Thus, even though Urdu is deeply connected with other Indian languages, and its phonology differes from that of Hindi by only six sounds, its script shows no influence from neighboring Indian alphabets.

It has grains of truth but makes it sound like Urdu is unrelated to Hindi, which no scholars would support. Besides it's too much detail for one language and I'm not sure it should be in even if properly balanced. I made other changes to start working towards what was discussed above. I'll need to go get some more sources to do much more. - Taxman ^Talk 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you, Taxman. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Telugu

I have removed "italian of the east" . Telugu is much more sweeter and italian does not stand anywhere near it. There is no need to add such old colonial phrases in the languages of India article.Bharatveer 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While I would cringe at including subjective things such as comparing the 'sweetness' of a language, I would, however, disagree on the contention that the phrase in question is a relic of colonial-era thinking. The sobriquet was originally given by Sir CP Brown, one of the few Telugu authors of European descent, and a person who was far removed from colonial era prejudices. He's a friend, not a foe.

Maps

Can Nichalp or someone else go to this site, select "culture" in the "journey highlights" and grab the information required for creating maps for linguistic distribution, by clicking on "modern language distribution" etc., Since it's in flash, I'm not able to get absolute URLs. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded the screenshot of an enlarged version (showing Asia) here. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Going forward

Let's start working with the layout suggested by Taxman above. Each of us shall take up some tasks and take the article forward.

• For writing systems, which are the ones prevailing here? Brahmic scripts, Konyak orthography then?

• Don't we need to talk about epigraphy?

• Language mutual influence (examples have been cited by Arvind above)

A number of ebooks are available at CIIL's site.

By the way, another article languages in India would have a different scope and perspective, wouldn't it? I can imagine that article talking about the language movements, influence on our polity, states reorganisation, political integration, language law etc., Pretty interesting, isn't it? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oughtn't we to also discuss some of that here? I'd think the article would be incomplete if it didn't at least summarise the basics of the legal and social status of the various languages in India today.

And shall we try to put together a more detailed outline here first, before going on to actually write it? -- Arvind 10:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Can you place a tentative outline at /Draft? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't classification be the first section in order to introduce the families? That could use a nice table of languages and their classification and perhaps a map or a chart too. Anyone? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gender vs. measure words

Bengali language has numerical classifiers similar to the East Asian languages, and does not have masculine/feminine grammatical gender like most Indian and European languages do. Is this also true of other languages in eastern India? --JWB 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Less mentions of Marathi language

Surprised to see that there are very few mentions of Marathi language in this article.There's very few information given about Marathi.Im not a expert but perhaps what's relevant to Hindi,Bengali,Punjabi and Gujarati is also obvious to Marathi,but those mentions have not been given.

Marathi is an important language hence please give an comprehensive information about it here(just like Tamil/Kannada and Hindi). (mahawiki 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

In an article on a country with so many languages there is very little space for each individual langauge. The answer is probably not to add more information on a particluar language, but to remove some of the mentions of others and replace it with general information about language families. The only time a specific language should be mentioned is when some unique feature of them is important enough to justify it. - Taxman ^Talk 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV

It seems that certain users insist on pushing their POV on the declaration of Tamil as a 'Classical language'. Sarvagnya insists on including "While the experts consulted by the government refused to endorse Tamil's case"... in the article. The citation provided by him in support of this says: "...despite the objections of experts it consulted and after a committee it had appointed refused to recommend it. It is not the government's business to tinker with such cultural issues as language and literature, the president and secretary of the Sahitya Akademi, the academy of letters, who were members of a 'committee on languages' specifically wrote to the government. No government in any country has found it necessary to sit in judgement and 'declare' if a language is 'classical? or not. An effort was made to convince the establishment that language does not need to be declared ?classical?."

Read in full the news article says simply this: The experts in the committee were reluctant about tagging any language as a so-called 'classical'. There was no opposition to Tamil due to its apparent ineligibility to be declared as such. Sarvagnya's version give such a picture. Sarvagnya's insistence in reverting repeatedly to his version shows a desperate and immature desire to somehow show Tamil in a less than desirable light. This needs to be seen along with his other immature edits in this article and elsewhere:

• In the Classical language article where he defames Devaneya Pavanar by calling him a crackpot
• In the Languages of India article he uses the pejorative "jokers" in the ref tag seemingly commenting on Jayalalitha and others.

In my opinion this is nothing other than disruption. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 06:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Parthi's comments above. Also, if we include this one (only?) news item to show a political motivation for this tag, we should also include Hart's and other scholars' opinions that argue the opposite. Lotlil 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Sarvagna's insistance on using such language seems churlish. The content has to sound encyclopaedic, at least. I have added a "Citationcheck" tag to the "classical languages" section for now. --Amit 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What sentence in that section now isn't verified by the reference? Would you care to point out please? Gnanapiti 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the "Citecheck" tag. I've also changed "declared Tamil as classical language disregarding expert opionion" to "declared Sanskrit and Tamil as classical language disregarding expert opinion". This should address Parthi's concern above. -- Amit 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The text in the "language conflicts" section read "..the union government in 2004 elevated Tamil to a newly created official status of classical language together with Sanskrit..". The "together with Sankrit" doesn't fit in this section either stylistically or factually. Stylistically, the reference to Sanskrit is out of place in this sentence. It would merit a different sentence on its own; however such a sentence would be irrelevant in a "conflicts" section since the status of Sanskrit has never been the subject of debate. Secondly, Sanskrit was not declared classical along with Tamil; the declaration of Sanskrit as a classical language postdated the declaration of Tamil as such by a year. Ive deleted the "along with Sanskrit" from this section.

Please sign your names ev'body Amit 04:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we nuke the entire second paragraph ("govt of india assuages ...") of the "Language conflicts" section. It's utter trash and doesn't belong here. This is not a newspaper column. Amit 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the conflict

While I agree that NPOV needs to be brought in the "classical" languages section, are people willing to work towards improving this very important article? There have been discussions in the past at #Cleanup and #Going forward. Any volunteers? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Classical languages

This section seemed to focus a little too much on "official" classical languages. Since this article is about "Languages of India" and not "Official status of Indian languages", it seemed to me that it should have a broader focus, also discussing languages that are considered classical in the academic literature regardless of what the Government of India says. So I've gone ahead and taken a stab at expanding it. I'm fairly sure I've read stuff in the Annals of Oriental Research (Madras) which discusses the "classicity" of the Telugu of the Andhra Mahabharata, early Kannada literature and a couple of Prakrits other than Maharashtri, but I can't remember where and when. Anyway, hopefully my additions are a base upon which others more familiar with the sources can build. -- Arvind 20:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Arvind, for expanding the section. Hope someone will take the trouble of going through the references, or may be I'll get around to doing it sometime. We'll need to update the Classical languages article too to bring it in line with this one.

Also, let's please keep the discussions on this page, as some discussions seem to have continued on Arvind's talk page. Amit 04:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Arvind. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Language conflicts

This section needs to be renamed and the coverage needs to be broader. For example, if it doesn't mention the struggle by Potti Sreeramulu, it's incomplete to say the least. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's this section gone to? Communalism (South Asia) links to it and it seems to have disappeared.. Secretlondon (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit. It was so poorly cited and imbalanced, that I can't say I disagree with the removal. While there does need to be a section covering language conflict, and some of that does need to cover the Hindi issue, it needs to be redone I think. Sundar, what did you have in mind for a proper section title? - Taxman ^Talk 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The consensus was not to move. Sarvagnya 05:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Languages of India → Indian language — Move to a standard language-type article's name —Wikipedian 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' oder *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support FinaleFever 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Languages of India are many and there's no parallel with articles on individual languages like English language, Spanish language, etc., Languages of India don't even fall under a single family of languages, btw. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Languages of India" and "Indian language" are not even the same things.. I mean what is "Indian language" anyway? Sarvagnya 06:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - It doesn't make sense to try and match articles about single languages like English language or Spanish language when this article describes many different languages. It matches the format of Languages of China and Languages of Africa, and should not be changed. DAJF 08:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Existing article name has no problems, conforms to the pattern of other articles and all naming conventions. Proposed article name is ambiguous and inaccurate. Andrewa 10:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposed name is inaccurate; and I note that Hindi, for example, does not follow the alleged pattern, which is only a system of disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. and what? Only those people who doesn't even have the basic knowledge about different languages spoken in India can request this move. Gnanapiti 16:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Majorly disagree with this one. I mean are you going to group 500+ languages together and call them the "Indian Language." --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There is no such thing as "The Indian language" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 05:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I support. It should be move to Indian language so it matches the other language-type articles like English language, Spanish language, etc. FinaleFever 05:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changing section order

I suggest switching the position of "Official Languages" and "Classical langs of India" sections. What say thee? Amit@Talk 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

map title?

Why does the map title say people's republic of china in chinese? 154.20.115.35 00:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Map needed

Can we get a map showing the locations of the actual languages (not language families)? 131.123.121.146 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Austro-Asiatic

It needs to be stated which language(s) are Austro-Asiatic in India (the purple areas on the map). 131.123.121.146 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move back to "Languages of India"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Station1 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The present title ("Languages of Republic of India") is ungrammatical, the earlier one is clear and concise. ～J.K. 11:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Was any reason given for not restoring the original title? Andrewa (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No. ～J.K. 07:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In view of that and subsequent arguments, changed from weak to to unqualified support. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. It's clear and it's what the article is about. — AjaxSmack 02:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. On 23 July "Languages of India" was changed to "Languages of the Indian subcontinent"; on 27 July it was reverted and immediately changed to "Languages of Republic of India", all without discussion. "Languages of India" is in line with articles on the languages of many other nations. Station1 (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Total speakers for each language

As suggested at Talk:List of Indian languages by number of native speakers, it would be useful to have a "List of Indian languages by total number of speakers", which could either be separate or integrated. Right now, it's impossible to use Wikipedia data answer questions like, "What fraction of the population can speak English?" because second and third languages aren't counted. -- Beland (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

kerala demand!

I believe demand by kerala for classical status for malayalam is certainly encyclopedic and provides a better context to the classical status of languages in India. Not including it is violation of WP:NPOV. Docku: What up? 19:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kerela's demand may be encyclopaedic , but not the opinion of a politician questioning the classicalness of Kannada and Telugu. Cant accomodate the views of every Tom-dick-harry on wikipedia.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the comments by a politician. There are millions of people who have their own opinions. Wiki is the not the place for it, unless one is trying to forward an opinion, which would fail WP:SYN.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he is no authority on this issue. However, it is important to write that kerala demand was result of granting of status to Kannada and Telugu. Docku: What up? 20:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Docku, you are unfortunately still trying to forward an opinion. Please start an Rfc and get concensus if you want to include the opinion of a politician. There are no shortage of opinions by Karnataka politicians about Tamil getting a classical status. Has that been included? No.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, even the opinion of Geogre Hart regarding Tamil sould not be included because it is qualified by a statement about other languages, which is clear WP:SYN on part of whoever put it there. At the end of the day, it does not matter what Chief minister of Kerela thinks about Kannada/Telugu. Is it official or not? That is what matters. Just because classical status for Malayalam is being demanded does not degrade Tamil/Kannada/Telugu/Sanskrit. If Malayalam is classical, it will be accorded that status, and lets all be happy for Kerela. Anyone who reads the concerned discussion on Talk:India will see that this is pure POV material, and an attempt to deride a few Indian languages, which will fail any Rfc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Wikipedia says nowhere that the opinion of a notable politician, which is reported by reliable sources, and quoted to boot, is not notable. When I reverted user:DK's previous edit which had cited newspapers, the reason for the reversal was not the fact of citing newspapers, but rather the different criteria of antiquity reported by the newspapers. Official status, as a classical language, is no more reliable than the usual definition of classical languages in the secondary literature. There, in Google Scholar, for example, I might note, there is scant evidence in the literature of the last two centuries that Kannada is regarded as a classical language. All 63 links there refer to Sanskrit or Tamil as the classical language concerned. In one of the links, B. M. Srikantaiah, the major Kannada poet says it all, when he refers to

" English as 'our cultural and political language', Sanskrit as 'our spiritual and classical language' and Kannada 'our native and speaking language' ... ”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

ec(undent) - The gentlemen quoted have no locus standi on the issue. If they want to plead Malayalam's case, they're free to file formal requests with the concerned ministry of the GoI. As Ambika Soni noted, there are no pending demands from anybody at the moment. Wikipedia is no place to parade these gentlemen's ignorance. Sarvagnya 22:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia says nowhere that a language becomes classical by virtue of a Government's declaration. If there is a learned committee of members who have made this decision, where is the published literature (by them or by others) that says so in internationally recognized peer-reviewed scholarly works? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask your questions to the Govt of India. If your arguement is valid, then none of the listed classical dances in the India article should remain. How about that?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see valid points raised by Docku, Sarvagnya, F&f and Dinesh. I concur with Sarvagnya n Dinesh and feel quoting Kerala polictician is WP:UNDUE. Rather a single (or two) sentence(s) like "the announcement faced opposition in Kerala" etc should suffice. I just wish we could lay our hands on the criteria laid by the GoI! I support F&f on the renaming the title ==Official classical languages== as ==Classical languages== is ambiguous. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 06:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear if the "anonucement faced opposition" if you see the multiple newspapaer citations. Some Kerala politicians did not like Malayalam being left out, while Kannada and Telugu were included. But why should that opposition or their displeasure be introduced here. This is not a newspaper. Its an encyclopaedia. If and when Kerela government makes a formal request to the Ministry of Culture, with all necessary documentation and research, then its probably worth mentioning that Kerela's request is pending at the ministry. That is how this topic should be approached. It is not an issue of derision or ridicule (that some users have tried to make this into) but a natural competitive process between neighbouring states. Were all the classical dances declared classical at the exact same time? If they were not, does it make the later declared dances less worthy? Were all the folk and theatre arts of India so desinated at the same time? If not, are some lesser than others? Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, even an official and formal request by the Kerela government with the Ministry is not worthy of mention here (perhaps on the Malayalam page). There must be dozens of formal requests, including inclusion in scheduled language list, and wiki cant accomodate each and every request.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I decided to stay away and thought would throw in my two cents as KHP2 stepped in made a fair assessment. I really wish that we could lay our hands on the criteria used by GOI for according status. But, my guess is GOI will not make it explicitly available to outsiders given the sensitivity of the issue. This report kind of affirms the notion that antiquity was decreased from 2000 to 1500 to 1000 years. Inherent dangers section in the article just makes one feel sad about the state of affairs in India and wish that politicians were more sensible and I dare question the intelligence of anyone who started this mess in the first place.

No one is deriding any language. My point is, it is clearly political issue and political opposition and opinions are encyclopedic. It is interesting you view this whole issue as a "natural competitive process". It kind of "rhymes" with "political".

Well, If you dont or dont want to recognise this as a political issue, we will probably not see eye to eye on this issue.Docku: What up? 15:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No news paper proofs please. I have already provided a citation from the ministry of culture, regarding the criterea for classicalness, citation #18.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is another article which states more a thousand years as the criteria. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why no newspaper proof? 18th ref is a 2006 news release and Kannada was accorded status on 2008. 18th ref confirms the downgrading of 2000 to 1500 which supposedly happened in 2006. I dont expect a 2006 news release to confirm what happened in 2008. On the other hand, we have a newspaper ref which confirms 1500 to 1000. This report is also confirmed by this report by The telegraph (as KHP2 pointed). Well, my question is, do you not recognise this as language politics to appeal to the votebank? Docku: What up? 16:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please show me the word "downgraded" in that GOI citation. The citation standards cant change to forward an opinion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

@Docku - I can show you more than a few citations from the same newspapers(one of which is already on the Talk:India page) that the antiquity requirement was raised after Kannada and Telugu demands came. Also, read the citations closely and you'll realise that there was no committee of linguistic experts at all that went over Tamil's case. Tamil was accorded the status in keeping with the promise made to DMK by the Congress before there was even a "Official classical languages" category, let alone 'eligibility criteria'.

To facilitate this (ie., according Tamil the status), the govt., referred to the Sahitya Akademi which in turn came up with some requirements which curiously mirrored those set out by Hart in his letter to somebody (Annamalai? Maraimalai?). The Sa. Ak further recommended that a new category of "Classical languages" be created to facilitate the process and the govt., did it... apparently in deference of the Akademi's opinion.

However when the govt., got petitions from Telugu and Kannada, not only did they raise the eligibility criteria but also decided to refer the matter this time to a Committee of Linguistic Experts (and not the litterateurs of the SA) - a standard of rigor that didnt exist when T was accorded the status. And this Comm. of Linguists had on board, among others, the likes of Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi. It is only after these experts recommended the tag to these languages that the Govt., decided to confer it upon them.

Here again, there was a delay due to the strong arm tactics of "Tamil enthusiasts" who decided to throw a spanner in the works. It was this inordinate delay by a "secular" govt., which had yet again decided to "prostitute its soul at the altar of oppurtunistic coalition politics" that the governments of K and AP protested. As for these clueless gentlemen and their like-minded friends, they can feel free take up the issue with the GoI and/or the experts. Wikipedia, however cannot play host to their whining. Sarvagnya 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, I dont want to go back and forth with twisted facts and uncited references, I dont have time for that. I just have one question for you. If I were to ask you to rate Kannada, Telugu, Sanskrit and Tamil in the order of literary antiquity, independent literary tradition, how would you rate it? Docku: What up? 23:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sarvagnya and Dinesh here. Come on, the status has been granted. Wikipedia is about stating facts. And the fact is GoI has conferred "classical status" to Kannada and Telegu. Whether some people are not satisfied with the decision is not our concern. As for the criteria lets wait for the next Press Information Release. Lets bury this matter. (at least for now!). --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 07:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with KHP2, Sarvagnya and Dinesh on the issue. GOI has granted and let us include it in this page. GOI status has its own intrinsic encyclopedic value. I, however, thought we were talking about including the dilution of years of antiquity and Kerala opposition. Apparently, you dont think it is encyclopedic? Well, in my opinion, dilution of antiquity (if not Kerala opposition) is not just encyclopedic but fundamental. I dont agree with Sarvagnya and Dinesh that it wasnt diluted at all. I am also not so sure about the press release, it may actually never happen (again for political reasons), we just have to deal with available reliable secondary sources.

The conversation was diverted by Sarvagnya to Tamil and therefore I had to ask him that question, as his answer (I believe) would explain the several questions he had asked in his last message. Hope he will answer to it. You know what, sometimes I am just replying because I cant resist the temptation. I guess we all do. If you all want to stop the conversation here, I am fine. Docku: What up? 14:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, Docku, K. Satchidanandan, the Chairman of India's Sahitya Akademi (The National Academy of Letters) from 1996 to 2006, who seems to be an internationally known poet, says (according to The Hindu newspaper link of November 2, 2008 you provided above):

" “I said, with the language politics obtaining in India, the question was sure to be politicised and the declaration of any language as classical by the government would open a Pandora’s box leading to claims and counter-claims to classical status. But we were coerced to form a committee that recommended granting (of) classical status to any language that is proved 1,500 to 2,000 years old and has a considerable body of ancient literature recognised by scholars as maintaining a high standard and capable of being an example of excellence for generations.

“But at some point the decision was diluted and it was declared that 1,000-1,500 years of existence is enough for a language to be declared classical, of course with the accompanying provisions. Naturally there were more claimants to the status and it gave the State governments a chance to manipulate their people’s natural love of their language and to bargain with and even to threaten the government of India and thus win popular support within the states.

“Now that Kannada and Telugu also have been declared classical – subject to the court decision in the ongoing case – many more claimants are sure to come up with all kinds of evidences from manuscripts to stone edicts.

”

Keep your eyes peeled. I am guessing sooner or later the details will be outed. What criteria were used by the Government of India to make this declaration of classical status, and whether the criteria were the same for all languages, is important for this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break

OK Docku. Here you go - sources and all Sarvagnya 20:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

@Docku - I can show you more than a few citations from the same newspapers(one of which is already on the Talk:India page) that the antiquity requirement was raised after Kannada and Telugu demands came.[1][2][3][4] Also, read the citations closely and you'll realise that there was no committee of linguistic experts at all that went over Tamil's case. Tamil was accorded the status in keeping with the promise made to DMK by the Congress before there was even a "Official classical languages" category, let alone 'eligibility criteria'.([5][6][7] To facilitate this (ie., according Tamil the status), the govt., referred to the Sahitya Akademi which in turn came up with some requirements which curiously mirrored those set out by Hart in his letter to somebody (Annamalai? Maraimalai?). The Sa. Ak further recommended that a new category of "Classical languages" be created to facilitate the process and the govt., did it... apparently in deference of the Akademi's opinion. At this point the Sa. Ak. flatly refused to be a part of this and recommended that the govt., should not take it upon itself to accord such a status to languages. However, due to the "pressure" (in the words of the same "world famous" Malayali poet Satchidanandan who is still frothing today) brought upon the govt., by the DMK, the Akademi was in turn pressured by the govt., to play ball. The Akademi had to finally yield and they, rather reluctantly, came up with a set of criteria which stipulated 1500 years.[8] Curiously however, while announcing that Tamil had been accorded the tag, the 1500 years had become 1000 years.[9][10] This, probably is the "dilution" that Satchidanandan is talking about now. However when the govt., got petitions from Telugu and Kannada, not only did they raise the eligibility criteria but also decided to refer the matter this time to a Committee of Linguistic Experts (and not the litterateurs of the SA)[11][12][13][14] - a standard of rigor that didnt exist when T was accorded the status. And this Comm. of Linguists had on board, among others, the likes of Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi.[15]. In order to make their case before the Centre's committee of linguists, the Karnataka and AP governments constituted their own expert committees. The Karnataka expert group was manned by Dr. Chidananda Murthy, Prof. L S Sheshagiri Rao, Dr. N. S. Taranath, and B. B. Rajapurohit.[16] These experts painstakingly put together a 300 page report[17] which was submitted to the centre's committee of Linguists. The AP experts (of the "SOLC") also submitted their own report arguing Telugu's case. The committee of linguists (which included, among others, Bh. Krishnamurthy and K. V. Subba Rao of Delhi Univ) went over these reports and only then did they recommend the tag to these languages.[18] And it was only after getting these experts' nod that the govt., decided to award the tag to the two languages. Here again, there was a delay due to the strong arm tactics of "Tamil enthusiasts" who decided to throw a spanner in the works.[19] It was this inordinate delay by a "secular" govt., which had yet again decided to "prostitute its soul at the altar of oppurtunistic coalition politics" that the governments of K and AP protested. As for these clueless gentlemen and their like-minded friends, they can feel free take up the issue with the GoI and/or the experts. Wikipedia, however cannot play host to their whining.

And since you apparently cannot be bothered to do your research before patronisingly dismissing others work - I've put together a collection of quotes from various sources. Next time, please do your homework before you land on Talk pages arguing one way or the other. Kannada and Telugu and perhaps everything South Indian may be 'exotica' to you and a bunch of others here, but it is not so for me. Nor is Wikipedia and its policies. So don't you try throwing the rulebook at me.

Meanwhile, the Director of the Mysore-based Central Institute of Indian Language, Udayanarayan Singh, who is a member of the committee of experts constituted for the purpose by the Centre, has stated in his report that Kannada fulfils the requisite criteria. The four criteria are: antiquity of early texts, recorded history of over 1,000 years (the period was subsequently increased to 1,500 years); a body of ancient literature, texts that are considered a valuable heritage by generations of speakers; a literary tradition that is original and not borrowed from any other speech community; and the classical language and literature could be distinct from its current form or could be a discontinuous one with its own forms or its off shoots. - The Hindu, Sep 15 2008 Taking a cue from Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka too made claims for the classical tag to Telugu and Kannada. The two States, however, faced an uphill task because when they made the claim, the Union government enhanced the eligibility period of antiquity of languages from 1,000 to 1,500-2,000 years. 'The Hindu - Nov 1 2008 .... It delved into records and took photographs of several edicts as historical evidence and submitted the claim before the seven-member “Linguists’ Committee” of the Ministry of Culture. The committee which has two Telugu experts as members -- Bh. Krishnamurthy, former Vice-Chancellor, University of Hyderabad, and K. V. Subba Rao of Delhi University... - The Hindu - Nov 1 2008 The minister said there were no languages pending with the committee seeking classical status. - would somebody be so kind as to forward this piece of news to Comrade Achutanandan and his Guv please? ...Ever since the UPA government accorded the classical status to Tamil on September 17, 2004 in its very first Cabinet meeting following a demand from the Tamil Nadu government ruled by the DMK, the Centre had kept the proposal from the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh governments pending. ...The Centre later formed a committee to determine the eligibility of the languages to be considered for classification as classical. As per a parliamentary reply, these criteria included high antiquity of its early texts/recorded history of over 2000 years (this was 1,000 years earlier, changed to 2,000 years after demands from Kannada and Telugu came);... While these two states kept up the campaign, Tamil enthusiasts did their best to sabotage the Telugu and Kannada campaign insisting that Tamil is the oldest spoken language in the world and that Telugu and Kannada should not be placed on the same pedestal. Mukhyamantri Chandru Chairperson, Kannada Development Authority “Four years ago, Central Gover nment had given the classical status to Tamil. At that time, there was no technical committee. ...It was purely based on pressure exerted by the Tamil Nadu government. Later, the Central government set a few guidelines and criteria for a language to get the status, like it should have 1,500 years of recorded history and that the language should not be influenced by any other language. In keeping with the promise made in the Common Minimum Programme, the Union Cabinet today decided to create a new category of languages as "classical languages" and declare Tamil as the first language under the category... ...Jaipal Reddy, said the formation of a separate category of classical languages had been recommended by an experts committee under the Sahitya Akademi. It had also recommended a set of criteria for declaring a language as classical and accepted a proposal to declare Tamil as the first such language - The Hindu Sep 18 2004 The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had promised this in its Common Minimum Programme agenda for governance. ...The criteria for declaring a language as classical language are that it should be of great antiquity and should have its early texts dating back at least 1,000 years. The Sahitya Akademi office bearers told the government three months ago -- when the move was first made -- that it would be unwise to grant such recognition to just one language in a country of such diversity. The government replied that the UPA had promised the classical status for Tamil in its Common Minimum Programme (CMP) and the experts had to find some way of implementing the promise. The Sahitya Akademi office bearers wrote a second time. In essence, they repeated that it was not the government?s business to declare a language ?classical?. ?It is a classically foolish move,? a source said. But the government brought pressure on the committee through the bureaucrats representing the ministries. Despite that, the committee decided that ?it did not want to play into the hands of the government and decided to make space for other languages to be included,? a source in the committee said. Members of the committee felt that the pressure was being brought on it because of the compulsions of the Congress and the UPA government to appease its ally, M. Karunanidhi?s DMK. The Centre, which had accorded classical status to Tamil, unconditionally, owing to political pressure, had formulated rules that insisted on a 1,000-year history of a language as a basic criterion for granting ‘classical’ status. Later it was enhanced to 1,500 years.

Oh and as for your question requesting my opinion about literary antiquities, I can only repeat to you what Nilakanta Shastri proclaimed - "Literature in all Dravidian languages owes a great deal to Sanskrit, the magic wand whose touch raised each of the languages from a level of patois to that of a literary idiom".

Equally true, however is also the fact that each of these languages have come a long way since then and have developed into truly classical languages with distinct classical registers. Along the way, they have also influenced each other and other languages a great deal, though obviously not on the scale that Sanskrit has.

In other words, K and Te may be deemed classical by whatever yardstick Tamil may be deemed classical. And that is precisely what the Committee of Linguists decided. If you want citations for that, go ask Bhadriraju Krishnamurthi and the other experts. Or better still, read up on South Indian languages and histories. Or confine yourself to defending Bihar's sorry case (oh.. I'm not doubting for a moment that all of India and the world is responsible for their sorry state) on a dozen coatracks. huh. Sarvagnya 20:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)