SEE Ashwina, who was pulled away from me by the Malayalam section in the family in her childhood, striving to emerge into the unfettered levels of English, and compare it with the English kids striving hard to don the non-tangible shackles of feudal language. It may be remembered that even though Sanskrit is a very powerful feudal language with possible powers of wizardry, there is nothing on record to show that the majority people in the purported homeland of this language do show the personality enhancement that is typical in English speaking persons.

Living in ‘India’ among ‘Indians’ as a superior person naturally embeds a feeling of divine grandeur on to the person. I have seen this very visibly affecting many ‘Indians’ who had joined the government jobs. A feeling of being higher than others, beyond the purview of ordinary persons and secured from the sharp pierce of lower indicant words, with right to use pejoratives to all ordinary men and women, and also with the feel that that the ordinary people should only communicate with them from a position of servitude in posture and also, if possible in words and usages. It is not an issue of one person being good or bad. It is just that he or she becomes a tangible part of an evil structure.

Neither good nor evil

So I may intercede and make this declaration that when persons from feudal language social systems are assessed, it would not be right to define them as good or bad, based on ethical evaluation points. Most persons are connected firmly and powerfully to certain rigid social constructions such as public administration, private business ownership, private business employment, joint family, superior family, nuclear family and such else. I can explain what I am trying to say here, by giving this illustration:

An IAS officer (the highest level of the feudal Indian Administrative Service). He is a nice person, quite good natured, sincere and with a very benevolent attitude to the people. However, all these good things about him have no meaning to anyone other than to his wife, kids, relatives, companions and friends. When a member of the public approaches him, that person has to move through a special route of approach, that moves him through a lot of rude government clerks and ultimately the peon who stands in front of the door to the IAS officer’s cabin.

What he experiences would to a great extent depend on his own social standing. However, when one takes the case of an ordinary man who has a genuine need to meet the IAS officer for a personal issue, the process of meeting the IAS officer is quite crude and mighty rude. The security policemen, the clerks and the peons would be rude or may be polite when using despoiling pejoratives in their words of address to him. These things are necessarily defiling to the man’s features, both mental as well as physical. He will feel the power that makes him bend and be obsequious.

However when he reaches the IAS officer’s room, he would find a bright face, very friendly and cordial. He may even be asked to sit down, which is a rare experience in most Indian government offices, for the common ‘Indian’. Yet, even though, the IAS officer is friendly, he is definitely not a friend. That should be very much borne in mind. He cannot be addressed as an equal in the feudal array of words and usages. The communication would definitely go along the route of all higher level YOU, HE, HIS, YOUR, YOURS etc. compulsorily reserved for the IAS officer and his compatriots; and the lower You, He, His, Your, Yours etc. thrust upon the common ‘Indian’.

Now, what is the effective demeanour of this IAS officer, who is actually an epitome of kindliness and compassion? To continue to insist that he is actually a good man, but that he is powerless, is just like saying that the claws of a tiger is not dangerous. Only when the tiger compels it to poke into the preys, does it cause harm. The claw in a live tiger is a part of a dangerous structure which when one approaches, can cause hurt, harm and even dismemberment.

Now, it needs to be stressed that this idea of a good man is not confined to that of an IAS officer. All people in feudal language social systems are part of some social system and associated hierarchy. What he is or she is, is connected to the route to him. Though it may seem that this idea can be associated in planar languages like English systems also, actually the very fact that there is an array of indicant words which act as switching codes at each point in the communication makes this totally different from English systems.

For instance, in the communication between the IAS officer and the common man, the common man can also use any group of words and usages to define the communication. He can say Saar or Thaangal or Ningal or Thaan or Eyaal or even Nee. In each case, the IAS officer’s demeanour, mental equilibrium, disposition of friendliness or enmity or docility or domination, and his own mental stamina changes in accordance to the sense of the word used. If the common man goes on shifting in his choosing of word levels, the IAS officer would very well feel as if being tossed in a thunderstorm. However, in actuality, these things do not happen, for the common man is very well given a purposeful training in how he should behave to the IAS officer and what level of words he should use, by the various levels of officialdom he had to traverse to reach the IAS officer’s cabin.

Even if he does come in straight, without this traversing, in the usual cases, he would have undergone a thorough training in this regard from his low-quality Indian education, wherein he is mentally indoctrinated about the supernatural standards of the government officials. If he has missed this education, the society, with its various means would have given him the requisite inputs. In the feudal language communication software, for communication, regimentation and harmony to function without any disturbance, each level has to use the proper levels of usage codes, that are mentioned here as indicant words. In all these things, English systems do stand different. 

British-Indian rule versus British rule

There is one more thing of quite tantalising quality to be discussed in this context. Even though the British colonial rule of the sub-continent is generally known as the British rule, it is not an apt name for the second part of this rule. The truth is that the real British rule more or less ended with the demise of the East India Company rule. The East India Company rule was marked with a ferocious mood of no compromise on quality and no compromise to the native feudal lords and culture. It is true that there were many mistakes and a lot of learning that took place. Yet, the officials of the company had a very vehement attitude of being superior to the degrading inferiority of the ruling classes here.

However, with the coming of the British Crown rule, many native negative features and social machineries were given statutory stature. So that from this time onwards what this land experienced was not an unadulterated English mood of administration, but a mixture of Indian and English. A much compromised one. In which the English official classes had to mingle with and accept the culture and other negativities of the local feudal systems. Most of the officials of the emerging departments were full of local rich  people, even at the heights.

Well, in a mood of quaint incomprehension, the modern Indian may find that it was a welcome change. However, it is my contention that it was not. For, the local man from now onwards had to approach the local native ‘officers’ for getting remedies for their grievances. Whatever English education that these ‘officers’ had, they still knew the local feudal vernacular. And the way they behaved with the local common man would be defined by the feudal codes in them.

Even the Indian Civil Service also slowly started getting filled by the local rich men’s sons. They went to England and wrote the exam. By 1947, more than 50% of the ICS officers were natives of British-India. So, what was the real picture of the British rule here? It was slowly shifting more and more towards the native feudal systems. Beyond that from 1909 onwards, the various Presidencies were ruled by the native politicians. So, in fact, it was not really a British rule that was in position here, but a British-Indian version. GIVE LINK TO ICS OFFICERS

This was to affect the people very much. In the earlier times, when they wanted to meet a senior officer, it would be an Englishman who they would be meeting. Now, the chance of meeting an Englishman was lesser. Once the top man is a feudal vernacular speaking native, the same problems that the common man faced in the social system would continue to haunt him inside the government office also. For, even the top man would be connected and controlled by various nefarious loyalties. See this story by Rudyard Kipling: The head of the district

The fact is that the East India Company rule came through fantastic support of the lower class natives of the place. For, the got a first-hand experience of the native Englishmen. However, now what they were experiencing was again the terribleness of native ‘officer’ classes, who abhorred the local lower classes. In many ways, the various minor incidences of rioting and such that took place in some places can be attributed to the fact that the administration was filled with the feudal language speaking ‘officer’ class. Even the incidences that took place in Jallianwalabagh could have much connection to this degradation of the British rule to British-Indian rule.  

{Incidentally, Arobindo Ghosh, whose rich father sent him to England for this purpose couldn’t pass horse riding exam and thus couldn’t get through. Some joker has written thus in Wikipedia: By the end of two years of probation, Aurobindo had no interest in ICS exam and came late to the horse riding exampurposefully to get himself disqualified for the service. The question is why should this joker try to insult Ghosh? What is really wrong in admitting that he was not good in horse riding? See these next words: At this time, the Maharaja of Baroda, Sayajirao Gaekwad III, was travelling in England. James Cotton, brother of Sir Henry Cotton, for some time Lieutenant Governor of Bengal and Secretary of the South Kensington Liberal Club, knew Aurobindo and his father secured for him a place in Baroda State Service and arranged for him to meet the prince. What is one to understand by this type of silly jingoistic writing? That he refused to pass a public exam deliberately and then got into public service through family connections and nepotism? Well, if it is true it is a very bad example to showcase.] 

Have I digressed too much? I do not know for sure. I started this writing to discuss the various issues involved in improving others, from a very standalone posture, with only a very minimal of selfish personal boosting intended.