Myths about colonialism

This will be a reoccurring post and will deconstruct myths about colonisation. Yes, I know colonisation was terrible but it was not genocide. I am tired of it getting misrepresented because it has consequences on people living in former colonial nations. The idea that we were passive observers of our own destruction  

Myth 1- The English language was imposed on us.

• At present (2014) the Republic of India does not have a national language. However, we have official languages- Hindi (in the Devanagari script) and English. India has over 700 languages and dialects. State languages are equally represented. 
• A highly Persianized and technical form of Urdu was the lingua franca of the law courts of the British administration in Bengal, Bihar and the North-West Provinces & Oudh. Until the late 19th century, all proceedings and court transactions in this register of Urdu were written officially in the Persian script. In 1880,  Sir Ashley Eden, the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal abolished the use of the Persian alphabet in the law courts of Bengal and Biharand ordered the exclusive use of  Kaithi  a popular script used for both Urdu and Hindi Given the diversity of languages we have always chosen one spoken by the majority.
• In late 1964, an attempt was made to expressly provide for an end to the use of English, but it was met with protests from states such as  Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Karnataka Puducherry and Andhra Pradesh. Some of these protests also turned violent.
• Given the kind of ethnocentrism we have towards our regional languages English is neutral.
• Learning English does not mean you wont remember another one. There is such a thing as multilingualism.

The idea of us being forced to learn English and not our mothers tongues is lovely for a few sado masochists who enjoy hearing stories of the Raj and its many oppressions or for Indian nationalists. It might be good to back a few centuries in the pure past for a few but for most of us adapting to a language that can help us expresses our current reality suits us best.  Partha Chatterjee's essay   - Whose Imagined Community? questions this assumption by pointing out how the writing in regional languages was encouraged displacing Persian (the language of bureaucracy). 

Reference- Chatterjee, P. (1991). Whose imagined community?. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 20(3), 521-525.

We used to be known for cinema now we have man and woman dancing around a tree.

I am using films as a methodology in my thesis. Discussing this the other night with a friend made me realise while Indian cinema is now technologically at par with the west it lacks something fundamentally when it comes to writing stories. This has not always been the case. Bollywood films have at times toppled the dominance of Hollywood winning awards and being remembered for telling universal stories that people could relate to. Between the 1940’s and the present day a lot has changed, from this noble, uplifting thing we now have a cinema that says nothing about the human condition but titillates and creates an imagined India. 

The obvious cardboard sets, painted scenery and hastily put costumes were not a hindrance when it came to telling the story. Post independence cinema had all the elements we now consider hallmarks of Bollywood yet they were not mere entertainment. Even the minor characters contributed in some way. I remember watching black and white films about challenging the caste system, skin colour, unwed mothers and so many issues which are still realties. I do not see those films anymore. The 80’s for me was a decade of films with ear piercing romantic songs, man woman and lots of synchronised dancing around trees. The 90’s was about action films. Then the 2000’s saw a return to fluff and over the top affluence and glamour. I do remember art films but they were too few and in recent years always are banned. Often because they depicted a sexual scene, funny as there is worse stuff on mainstream cinema. I have seen mainstream popular films and frankly, they are not the stuff to watch with your kids or anyone for that matter. Art films deglamourise sex yet they become contentious.

What has changed since 1950? Why have we become complacent? We seem to have become a culture that is content to see women’s bodies being used and abused on screen all in the name of entertainment. We seem to look at a screen for three hours and not think or be challenged.