Journey from a Keyboard to Published Page

On 6/1/10 10:40 PM, "Sudhir Jain" wrote:

Isaac Chotiner (Globish for beginners, May 31) exaggerates the
importance of English in India. Yes, among the elite classes all over the
country English is the more often used common language. But Hindi has taken over in bazaars, factories, low level jobs in offices and every place where average Indians congregate. On my recent visit to India I was surprised that people in Maharashtra and Karnataka preferred to talk to me in Hindi rather than in English. That is largely due to Bollywood – if most of your entertainment is in Hindi it doesn’t take long to become fluent in it, particularly when there are so many similarities with your mother tongue. While English has long beenthe important second language of the elite, it is Hindi that has taken over as the second language of the masses in non-Hindi areas of South and East India.

Sudhir Jain


From: "themail, TNY" , June 14, 2010 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: English in India
To: Sudhir Jain

Thank you for your recent letter to the editor. It is among those we are
considering for publication. We'd like to confirm that you wrote it, and that the preliminary edited copy below looks acceptable. We
think we've preserved your most salient point, while taking into account our limited space. Please let me know what you think as soon as possible, either by E-mail or by calling 212-286-5450. If your letter is one of our final selections, it will appear in the next issue. A quick response would be most appreciated. Thanks again.

Katherine Stirling
Letters editor

In his review of “Globish” by Robert McCrum, Isaac Chotiner
exaggerates the importance of English in India (Books, May 31st). Yes, among the elite classes all over the country English is the more often used common language. But Hindi has taken over in bazaars, factories, low level jobs in offices and every place where average Indians congregate. This is largely due to Bollywood: if most of your entertainment is in Hindi, it doesn’t take long to become fluent in it, particularly when there are so many similarities with your regional mother tongue. While English has long been the important second language of the elite, it is Hindi that has taken over as the second language of the masses in non-Hindi areas of South and East India.


On 6/14/10 4:55 PM, "SUDHIR JAIN" wrote:
Thank you for your message. I did write the letter and your editing enhances it. I will be happy to see it in print.
Thank you and best wishes..

Sudhir Jain

Dear Mrs.Jain:

Thank you for your recent Letter to the Editor to The New Yorker. I am a fact-checker and am writing to confirm the accuracy of fact-based assertions in the letter, as we do with all printed materials in the magazine. When you say that “Hindi has taken over in bazaars, factories, low-level jobs in offices...,” are you speaking from personal observation? Similarly, what is your source for “it is Hindi that has taken over as the second language of the masses in non-Hindi areas of South and East India”? Obviously, we permit personal opinion in these letters; it is protocol that we ask letter-writers their source of information.

We are hoping to go to press with the letters tomorrow. If you could get back to me at your earliest convenience, that would be wonderful. Thanks so much.

Best,
Jiayang Fan

On 6/15/10 5:25 PM, "SUDHIR JAIN" wrote:
Thank you for your enquiry.
My remarks are based on my observation in my travels all over India. Most 'ordinary' people started conversation with me in Hindi and had problems with English. I heard Hindi in the bazaars and public places much more often and English only rarely. Whenever I asked where they learnt Hindi, the answer was always the same - "From the 'films'." My wife is English and her Hindi is sketchy. Still, most of her conversation with 'people on the street' was in Hindi.
In my experience, even educated Indians have problems with American and British accents just as we do with theirs. I remember many embarassing incidents due to this problem during my first few months in England fifty years ago.
I hope this is satisfactory.
Best wishes.

Sudhir Jain


Hi Mr.Jain,

Thanks so much for your thorough response. That sounds fine. In the sentence “Hindi has taken over in bazaars, factories, low-level jobs...,” we have added an “it seems to me” (so it reads “Hindi, it seems to me, has taken over...”) just to indicate the element of personal observation.

Thanks again for writing!

Jiayang

Thank you very much for getting back to us about your letter. It will appear in the magazine that comes out Monday, June 21, with a cover date of June 28, 2010. Thanks again for your help.

Brenda Phipps

From The New Yorker, June 28, 2010
STRICTLY SPEAKING
Isaac Chotiner, in his review of “Globish,” by Robert McCrum, exaggerates the importance of English in India (Books, May 31st). Yes, among the élite classes all over the country English is the more often used common language. But I found, on a recent visit to India, that Hindi has taken over in bazaars, factories, low-level jobs in offices, and everywhere average Indians congregate. This is due largely to Bollywood: if most of your entertainment is in Hindi, it doesn’t take long to become fluent in it, particularly when there are so many similarities with your regional mother tongue. While English has long been the second language of the élite, it is Hindi that has taken over as the second language of the masses in non-Hindi areas of South and East India.

Sudhir Jain
Calgary, Alberta

Stray Thoughts:

Move to centre
Re: "Grits, NDP deny reports of merger," Herald Online, June 9.
If the report of denial is true, the leaders of these parties must give a reason why Canadian voters have to choose between two very similar slightly left-of-centre platforms (three in Quebec) who make a poor opposition and have no chance of forming a government against a now-united right. A united centrist party in opposition will keep the Conservatives more in line with what Canadians want and when they form the government, will be similarly constrained by the Conservatives. It is clear from recent government fiascos that the current system is not providing Canadians the government they deserve. (Calgary Herald June 12, 2010)

Killer can take a hike
So, Vince Li is “ready to leave the facility for hours at a time so long as he is accompanied by two special constables.” (“Critics pan bus killer’s walk pass,” June 2.) Pray tell, who will pay the constables. Not me, thank you. (Calgary Sun, June 6, 2010)

The $1-billion summit
The argument is not whether the money is being spent carefully but whether it is being spent wisely ($1-Billion For G20 Security Not A Blank Cheque – May 29). An event that needs security of this magnitude should have a demonstrable payoff, which the Olympics perhaps did and few others can claim. I am sorry, but a three-day meeting with unenforceable agreements – if there are any agreements at all – that have already been reached among bureaucrats does not qualify for a substantial portion of the federal budget deficit for the year.

An apt description
While reading the review of Kent Nagano and MSO performance of Mahler Ninth, I thought of the words of Alex Ross in New Yorker about the last few bars of the great symphony, "a whisper of love at the edge of the grave." I have never seen a more apt description of a work of art and I am not likely to if I lived a thousand years.

Pause on new drilling
The knee jerk condemnation of industry by environmentalists and other anti oil groups in response to the spill is expected but one would hope for well considered reactions from the President of the U.S. New drilling in the Gulf and other deep sea locations is necessary to produce oil for the rapacious consumers all over the world. To stop exploration in prolific areas without any sensible steps to reduce consumption is a recipe for sky high prices of crude and of the gasoline at the pump. I shudder to think what it will do to our already shaken economy.

Proportion and the G20
I will bet $900-million of other people’s money that Osama bin Laden is laughing in his cave at all the gyrations our leaders go through in the name of security (G8/G20 Security Costs Could Reach $900-Million – May 25). Sept. 11, 2001, was a triumph for al-Qaeda because it terrorized our leaders so much that they have lost all sense of proportion when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money for their ego trips. (Globe and Mail, May 26, 2010)

Not less but more and efficient
While the principle of limited government may have been fine a hundred years ago, it was largely the tough regulation of financial institutions that saved Canada from the last economic crisis. It is not less of, but more efficient government that is needed. So long as we get more of the services citizens need for what we pay in taxes without incurring budget deficits, we will prosper. Efficiency and competence are the keys, not the cutting based on outdated ideology.

Reverse Prejudice:
The tolerance of Jihadism of Islam and support for extremist violent movements like Tamil Tigers in SriLanka and the separatist Sikh groups in India among liberal elites in the West is nothing but reverse prejudice. It is similar to patronizing the immigrant professionals who provide poor service even though one could switch to the competent ones of the same community next door. It is dangerous and needs to be discouraged although I would take it to the vicious prejudice I have come across albeit rarely.

Why models are white
An artist always starts with a white sheet, whether he is a painter or a dress designer, irrespective of what he finds more attractive; brown or pink.

Mulroney’s place in history
Ever since the Tory leadership battle between Jo Who? and Brian Mulroney, many Canadians did not like what they saw behind the Irish charm. The smiling eyes had something shifty about them and all that concern about public perception looked like the fear of being found out. The identity of true Mulroney will always be an issue and his place in history a much debated point.

U.K. and Afghanistan
U.K. Defense Secretary Liam Fox is quoted (National Post, May 22) to have said, “We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education policy in a broken 13th – century country. We are there so the people of Britain and our global interests are not threatened.” Well Mr. Fox, till the citizens of Afghanistan and their kin elsewhere are brought kicking and screaming into the modern age, Britain and its global interests will remain threatened. The two are intertwined even more than the Conservative and Liberal-Democrat parties in the government you represent.

Loudest is heard
The plea of Preston Manning (Our unruly question period, May 21) must be truly heartfelt. As Mr. Manning knows first hand, the loudest is heard not only in the House of Commons but in the public domain as well. Mr. Manning made numerous sensible suggestions during the 1993 campaign which were shouted down by the ruling party. Fortunately, Mr. Chretien and Mr. Martin were listening while making sure no one else did and made it their policy in the next government. The result! Canada can boast today of a sound financial system while the rest of the world is floundering.

Voters angry
Re: “American voters ready to oust anyone who’s in,” (May 17).
Lisa Van Dusen is right. American voters are angry. They are angry because either they personally, or people close to them, have lost jobs and/or homes and there is no respite in sight. They need someone to take their anger out on and who else but the elected officials to take the blame. (Calgary Sun, May 19, 2010)

Inheritance will save the day
Ms. Wente greatly exaggerates the shock. There are two groups of Canadians who have not saved for their retirement: One group is poor and have had hard enough time making ends meet; they will find the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security adequate. The other group is the people who have earned a lot and spent even more. A large majority of them are children of savers like Ms. Wente; they will inherit the Earth just around the time they are due to retire.

Dare to be Gloomy!

It is true that the indices have never looked as good as they do now whether they relate to health or wealth. Gross Domestic Product, a generally accepted measure of prosperity, has grown decade after decade in developed and developing countries. Humans are living longer, new cures are being discovered for old and new diseases and delightful gizmos are being invented every week. No doubt there are problems in the world, like global warming and declining reserves of essential commodities. But that is nothing new and several authority figures led by Bill Gates, the most successful entrepreneur and the richest man in the world, assure us that science will solve the problems as it has done for last two hundred years and the life on the planet will continue to get better. However, the dominant sense among the populace is not optimism but the doom and gloom, thanks to the dire predictions of almost total destruction within our children’s lifetime being broadcast on the media by experts from various disciplines. The future looks bleak to many thoughtful people, not necessarily for themselves but for the mankind as a whole. What makes these people so gloomy?

There are many reasons for being despondent. Leaving aside environmental and commodity concerns which science may resolve, one may worry about close to home issues like the only superpower threatening to collapse under the weight of government, corporate and personal debts and ideological warfare between the polarized citizenry, pervasive cultural and moral vacuum and poor quality of schools where we teach what kids will learn rather than what they should learn. But most frightening are two interrelated issues: the growing population and increasing gulf between the rich and the poor. More humans inhabit our planet now than have lived cumulatively since the beginning of time. Not only the numbers are larger, each individual expects higher comfort level, i.e. more food, more clothes, better shelter, more gadgets. The growing population is even more of a concern because the birth rate is highest in already densely populated countries and is not declining enough to make up for increasing longevity. What exacerbates the problem is that the poor and the illiterate in the villages and shantytowns of these countries have the largest families. The children in such families are malnourished and grow up with physical and mental handicaps. Most of these children do not go to schools but form pools of cheap child labour which is essential in some old industries like carpet weaving and new ones like electronic recycling. They grow into illiterate adults who can barely do the menial very poorly paid jobs when they can find them. Thus, the number of adults who have no chance to find adequate means of livelihood in the age of growing technical complexity is growing rapidly in spite of rapid economic growth around them.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other charities are doing commendable work in developing countries to improve the living conditions, particularly nutrition and medical care. However, very little attention is paid to the root problem: increasing population. Voluntary birth control does not work among the poor and illiterate who do not know how to use the devices that they can’t afford anyway. Forcing this issue doesn’t work in a democratic country as the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi discovered to her dismay in India in the seventies. As if that was not enough in itself, the religious scruples hold back the governments and social workers from working on birth control. There does not seem to be any will among the leaders to face the issue of population explosion.

The developing countries face the conundrum: their economies are growing at a good rate; more people are living better but due to growing population the number of poor people is also increasing. The overall wealth is growing but so is the concentration of wealth in a fewer hands. The average growth rates hide the fact that not only the poor are poorer, there are more of them. The growing disparity among well off and poor causes tension in the populace. The civil unrest in Thailand, Indonesia and Pakistan are daily news stories. What is generally not know is that vast areas of India are in a state of siege by rebels supported by poor farmers in the rural areas. News of unrest in China leak out with alarming regularity in spite of the totalitarian regime with complete control over the media. The situation is more dangerous than most people realize because lethal weapons are now available everywhere to any one who wants to use them. It is not only El Qaeda who is looking for weapons of mass destruction, insurgent groups in armed conflicts everywhere are trying to acquire the most destructive weapons they can find and they are not reluctant to use them. The most depressing thought is that the violent protest groups will continue to multiply and become stronger because the root problem – growing poverty – will be with us till the population declines to an optimum level and no one has any idea when and how that will happen.

If the optimists want to lift the cloud of gloom, they could start by suggesting plausible ways to reduce the human population. Let us face it; if the humans won’t do it, the nature will. And nature will be much harsher and indiscriminate than humans.

Hitchens’ Book is not Great

Christopher Hitchens, the author of the best seller “god is not Great: How religion poisons everything” was born in an elite prosperous family in England and went to expensive private schools. I was born in a family on the rocks and went to free religious schools in India. We both became atheists but with a different ‘attitude.’

Two factors were critical in my early years in the development of my thought process. My parents stayed together through a succession of struggles and brought up three sons who became successful professionals. Both of them were deeply religious and believed wholeheartedly that God would look after them. While it can be argued that this faith contributed to their misfortunes by shifting responsibility from their shoulders, it did provide them strength to stick it out. My brothers believed the later and follow their own versions of Hindu belief systems. Although I think that there is some truth in both viewpoints, I became an atheist. Second important factor in my growth was that considerable reading about religions and numerous discussions with advocates of different faiths did not convince me of the existence of a super power or of the need to believe in one to lead a normal productive life.

One of the gifts I received last Christmas was the book by Hitchens. It took me a while to get to the book because I have a natural reserve towards popular things. As a writer whose book and the blog are rarely opened, I am not qualified to express an opinion on what makes a best seller. However, I do think that most books are bought not to be read but to be given as gifts. I suspect that the kindly gift givers only rarely read the books they give. They came across a good review, think of some one they owe a gift to who may enjoy it and help the book on its march to the top of the charts by ordering it. I was afraid that the book fell in this category and my fears were realized when I read it.

Hitchens accuses all major religions with complete impartiality in nineteen different ways in nineteen chapters of the book. The author focuses on monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam excepting occasional contemptuous comments on Hindu and Buddhist practioners. The 283 page long tirade can be summarized in a few words: God is a creation of man. It follows that all religious tracts, Old Testament, New Testament, Quran are human constructs which have misled their followers. Religion is the root cause of all evil; not only has it spread falsehoods through the ages, it has deliberately attempted to thwart the search for truth.

As Hitchens acknowledges towards the end of the book there is nothing in it which has not been said before. The misuse of authority, whether arbitrary or based on religion, has always been acknowledged and harping on it makes no contribution to the debate on God and religion. On the issue of the source of scriptures, atheists and agnostics do not need to be told that all scriptures have human origin. For the book to serve a purpose, it has to reach beyond the converted and convince the faithful away from their belief in the existence of God. Ear-splitting preaching of the fundamentalist, whether evolutionist or creationist, does not convince and it can’t be done by repeated blows of the same hammer on every page. Persuasion may sometimes succeed but that art is not displayed by Hitchens in this book. Moreover, it does not merit his consideration that the crimes he blames on religions were committed just as often in the era before religions took hold nor does it matter to him that educational institutions, hospitals, care facilities for the homeless, elderly and otherwise helpless have been provided through the ages much more frequently by religious organizations than by the self-righteous non-believers. Very conveniently, Hitchens equates the atheist criminals like Mao, Stalin and Hitler with religious figures because they used the strategies of religious tyrants. It escapes him that megalomaniacs use whatever systems are available to them to gain and retain power without necessarily believing in their underlying principles. He harps on the evil actions of clergy, without realizing that clergy is made up of ordinary humans who sometimes bend their beliefs for their own ends. He overlooks that from the groups of men and women who go through the same schools and pray in the same churches, some grow up into solid upright citizens, some not so good adults and vast majority in between. Noble humans act nobly and evil ones despicably. They have through the ages and so they will till Armageddon, with or without the backing of religion.

For this atheist the book has another basic problem: its only focus is reason; emotions have no place in this book. No doubt one has to eat and drink and have sex, though perhaps not as often as Hitchens repeats in the book. But a human being also has the stresses of daily life to cope with, failure to meet expectations, rejection by or the illness and death of the loved one(s), sudden unforeseen unpleasant change in circumstances of one’s life just to name a few. Hitchens may find it easy to toss such events in the life of others lightly as statistical mishaps; most people believe that the suffering individuals need support. If that support is provided by beliefs held over by humanity for hundreds of generations, how does it help to tell them that their beliefs are not based on facts? I find my solace in Mahler’s symphonies, my parents found it in Bhagvad Geeta, some friends find it in Bible or Quran and yet others in Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. The origin of these is immaterial as long as they help us cope with the vicissitudes of life. An ideologue like Hitchens needs to comprehend that there is more to life than living by his idea of realism. Every man and woman has a right to live by the principles he or she is comfortable with. Whether they are based on an idea, Messiah’s vision or a charlatan’s hallucination is not other people’s business