ISSN 0970-8669 Review

Colonial Philology and the Issue of Linguistic Distinction in ‘Odia Swatantra Bhasa Nahe’

Snigdha

The Ooriah of this district, whether it may originally Through a reading of this text published have been, is not but a dialect of Bengalee, from in 1870, this study illustrates how an academic which it differs chiefly in pronunciations and in its question about linguistic difference between Odia written character…I would submit as a measure and Bengali came to be put in service of proposals of policy, it is desirable that the Ooriah to remove Odia from schools. Often such should cease to exist as a separate language within argument invoked the social, religious, political the British territories.1 and migratory history of the Odia-speaking people to make the case for derivative and subordinate -— Collector of , the capital of the Orissa nature of the Odia language. That is, by historicizing Division of the Presidency,1854 the development of the Odia language against the In Odisha, apart from an increased backdrop of social, cultural and political changes attention of the ability of Odia language and in Odia-speaking areas in the longue duree these literature to sustain primary and higher level arguments produced a cultural life-history of the vernacular education, the most important feature Odia language and established a link between the of the Odia Bengali debate of the 1860s was the fortunes of a language and its speakers. question of the relationship between Odia and The context for Bhattacharya’s discussion Bengali. Advocates for the use of Bengali in was the ongoing discussion among colonial Odisha argued that Odia was merely a dialect of philologists about the origins, classification and Bengali and need not to be used separately in interrelation between various vernacular Odisha school and State institutions. Proponents languages. The chief interlocutor among colonial of the independence of Odia as language argued philologists was John Beams. Beams, a noted that the similarities between Odia and Bengali were linguist and long time senior colonial official in due to the common origin of the two languages. Odisha, wrote extensively about the philology of A highlights of this debate was the publication of the Odia language and its relationship with other 3 a Bengali monograph titled Uriya Swatantra North Indian languages. Bhasa Naye (Odia is not an independent John Beams addresses the problem of language) written by Kantichandra Bhattacharya,2 classification of Indian languages in his 1867 text a Bengali school teacher from the Odia-speaking Outlines of Indian Philology. Beams wrote the district of . Outlines as a preliminary statements about the

36 April - 2017 Odisha Review ISSN 0970-8669 norms of philological study of the North Indian accidents, religion, differences of pronunciation, languages.4 These norms formed the basis of his education.5 subsequent three volume work titled “On Dialects” Hence, Beams called for a juxtaposition in the Outlies, Beams attempted to treat the of observations of contemporary speech patterns, commonly held standards that were used to vocabulary and socio-cultural context along with determine whether a language was dialect of the study of the historical context for the another language or an independent language in development of languages in . Interestingly, its own rights. Here, Beams attacked the despite his efforts to propose a multi pronged commonly held test to ascertain whether a approach the study of languages differentiation, language was dialect or an independent language the overall consequence of such efforts was an based in the rule of ‘mutual intelligibility.’ According to this rule if the speakers of two increased attention to the search for material that different languages could understand each other would serve as evidence in the linguistic study of than the two tongues were dialects of the same languages. Invariably, apart from ethnographic language. Beams argued that such a test was observation of common speech, the primary unsuitable for Indian languages because many source of evidence for linguistic analysis came to languages either shared similar words (like be textual. This is evidenced by the subsequent and Bengali) or the same grammatical structure efforts by Kantichandra Bhattacharya’s efforts to (like Hindi and Punjabi). Beams warned that these illustrate the similarity of Odia and Bengali through pitfalls could result in misclassification of Indian the use of evidence from school texts in both languages. These pitfalls, he argues, could be languages. This privileging of textual language as counteracted by supplementing the rule of ‘mutual evidence might explain the Odia anxiety about the intelligibility’ with another set of parameters. To lack of a modern Odia textual tradition. this end he noted that; In the case of Odia and Bengali, he noted, 1. The test of mutual intelligibility is a very the undesirable element was the tribal population unsafe one, as it depends on the intelligence of of the Odia-speaking areas. In Bhattacharya’s individuals, the savage and the peasant will scenario, the advent into India was exaggerate it; and the man of education will make accompanied by the introduction of into too light of it. India. Gradually, a number of spoken languages sprung from Sanskrit. Bengali was one of these 2. By taking into consideration certain language or Mula Bhasha. This root language, in influences which have operated on the people, its migration away from its site of origin interacted the mutual intelligibility test may however be with languages spoken by tribal populations of brought to bear to this extent that, it may be fairly various areas and produced a number of dialects. said of two forms of speech that if they are not In the case of Odisha this mixing produced what mutually intelligible, they ought to be, and infact commonly known as Odia. This mixing, he pointed they may often be so much alike, that the student out, resulted in the transformation of Bengali into who is master of one would almost, if not “a rude, harsh, impure, colloquial and lowly altogether, understand the other, though two dialect.” Also, he analyzed the language used in natives could not. school textbooks and popular works of literature 3. These influences are, geographical to establish that in its refined, written form the position, civilization, political and physical Odia language almost the same as Bengali.

April - 2017 37 ISSN 0970-8669 Odisha Review

Bhattacharya’s narrative reveals that he Both Beams in his speech at the Asiatic society understood the influence of tribal language only 1871 and Richard Temple in his review in the as the introduction of easily removable extraneous Calcutta Review wondered why the author had impurities rather than fundamentally constitutive chosen only words of Sanskrit origin used in of the Odia language. This attitude was at odds Bengali and Odia to make his case. Beams with the prevailing understanding of the role of questioned Bhattacharya’s methodology by tribal language in the emergence of Indian asking why he did not account for spoken vernaculars. As John Beams statement in the language ion his thesis. Outlines of Indian Philology reveal, colonial philologists agreed that even though eventually the In plain English,such Sanskrit words, as aboriginals peoples were enslaved and colonized were used by the Uriyas and twenty- by the invading , they left their mark on five centuries ago, have since then undergone the the resultant Aryan dominated .6In usual fate of works, and have been corrupted, both of his books, the Outlines of Indian abraded and distorted,till they often bear no Philology as well as Comparative Grammar resemblance at all to the original word. As it is of Modern Indian Languages, Beams these corrupted, or they are called Tadbhava painstakingly proved that Odia drew heavily from words, that are the real living words of the tribal languages.7 language, the words that have worn into their present shape by long use in the mouth of the Bhattacharya analyzed the words used in people.These words our fastidious writers reject, Odia schools textbooks, biographies, dictionaries and when by going back to the Sanskrit for their and folk songs in order to establish that the words, they have composed a work to their languages used in these texts was the same as taste ! They say Uriya and Bengali are one Bengali, baring slight difference in diction. He language; for proof read such and such work, I argued, with the increasing development of would suggest rather, let them take a chasa of education in the whole of Bengal the ‘dialects’ Dacca and chasa of Gumsur, and then see how that had resulted due to the distorting influence of 10 ‘uncivilized races’ would gradually be straightened much they understand of one another’s talk. out. Therefore, it would be a fallacy to think that Articles appeared in the Odia press that Odia is a separate language when through criticized Bhattacharya’s argument about the education the distortion of language can be derivative nature of the Odia language. For removed. At last Bhattacharya called for instance, in a review article published in Utkal concerted efforts to “purify the lowly corrupted Dipika built on the point made by Beams and language of the southern region (Southern region Temple and queried Bhattacharya on his method of the Bengal Presidency, namely Orissa of proving the similarity between Bengali and Odia Division).”8 by drawing on words with Sanskrit roots. The Bhattacharya’s claim about the derivative article inquired why Bengali should be considered origins of the Odia language excited strong an independent language if the occurrence of responses from various quarters. Professional common Sanskrit words in Odia and Bengali philologists such as John Beams and Richard makes Odia a dialect of Bengali. Then would not Temple, attacked his lack of methodological rigor Bengali be considered a dialect of Hindi on the and claimed that the text was based on an same ground? Perhaps, in order to respond to inadequate knowledge of the Odia language.9 this question, the author with the assistance from

38 April - 2017 Odisha Review ISSN 0970-8669

Hunter argues that all these languages have a References: singular root but he will not be able to deny that 1. Quoted in S.C.Patra, Formation of the Province these languages are separate.11 of Orissa : The Success of the First Linguistic Movement in India, Calcutta,1979, p.101. The term Kantichandra Bhattacharya brought this Ooriah is a corrupted form of Odia and was often mode of historicizing the Odia community to the used in official correspondence. 2. Kantichandra Bhattacharya.,Odiya Swatantra attention of the Odia public sphere by basing his Bhasa Nuhe, in Odiya Bhasa Andolana,ed., argument on this primal linguistic history of the Bansidhar Mohanty, Cuttack, 1989. This is an interaction of aboriginal speech with Aryan Odia translation of the original Bengali text. . The Odia vernacular press had to argue 3. John Beams, A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan , Delhi,1966. for the constitutive role played by aboriginal 4. In his introduction Beams maintained that “The languages in the emergence of the Odia language following pages are a compilation from the best in order to counter Bhattarcharya’s claims about and the most accessible books on the science of language, supplemented by facts derived from the derivative nature of Odia, which was based personal observations. They donot pretend to on an understanding that these tribal influences be anything more that the outline for the use of were merely superficial impurities that made Odia those who having no knowledge of linguistic appear different from Bengali. While this avowal science, which to record and preserve dialects of obscure and uncivilized tribes with whom they of tribal influence re-enforced the uniqueness of may come into contact or any of the countless Odia culture, it also laid the open peculiarities of leading Indian languages which to comments like that made by W.W.Hunter in may be spoken in their neighbourhood. “See the preface of Beams, Chatterji, and Gries on Outlines his History of Orissa where he described Orissa of Indian Philology and Other Philological as a primal,uncivilized land which still has evidence Papers, Calcutta,1971. of primevial life extinct elsewhere.12 This led to 5. Ibid, P.53-54 the persistent Odia dilemma centred on how to 6. See John Beams., “On the Distribution of Indian Languages” in Beams, Chatterji, and Grieson., represent the tribal legacy in the Odia social, Oulines of Indian Philology and Other religious and cultural life. Philological Papers, p.24-25. 7. Ibid., Beams, A Comparative Grammar of Modern The more immediate consequence of Indian Languages of India. Bhattacharya’s text was the re-enforcement of the 8. Bhattacharya., Odiya Swatantra Bhasa Nuhe, prevailing Odia anxiety about the lack of p.207. appropriate Odia texts that could be used as 9. See John Beams., “On the Relation of the Uriyas to Other Modern Aryan Languages,” school text books. Bhattacharya’s text argued that Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of none of the existing literature in Odia-whether it Bengal(1870).192-201 and Richard Temple, was school textbook or folk tales-was unique to “Review “ reprinted in Appendix 2 of Mahanti., Odisha and uniquely Odia. Whether or not his Odia Bhasa Andolana p.215. 10. The term chasa in both instances denotes the claims were true, the publication of his text drew cultivator caste of Odisha and Bengal. Ghumsur media attention to the fact that there was very is an Odia-speaking area. little modern being produced in 11. Bhattacharya.,ibid,p,200 Odisha at that time. In the subsequent period that 12. W.W. Hunter, History of Orissa, 2 vols, anxiety about the lack of text which emerged from London,1872. the seemingly innocuous question of textbooks impelled of the most productive, contested and Snigdha Acharya, Ph. D Research Scholar, P.G. influential debates on Odia literature. Department of History, , .

April - 2017 39