2011 Chelsea L. Booth ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THESE PEOPLE DEPRIVED OF THIS COUNTRY: LANGUAGE AND THE POLITICS OF BELONGING AMONG INDIANS OF NEPALI DESCENT by CHELSEA L. BOOTH A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Anthropology written under the direction of Dr. Laura M. Ahearn and approved by ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey May, 2011 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION These People Deprived of This Country: Language and the Politics of Belonging among Indians of Nepali Descent By CHELSEA L. BOOTH Dissertation Director: Dr. Laura M. Ahearn This dissertation explores the way ‗language,‘ like other forms of social designations— e.g. race, ethnicity, or caste—gains meaning through social, legal, and linguistic practices and ideologies. Indians of Nepali descent have lived and worked in the Darjeeling hills for more than 150 years yet are, throughout India, often labeled as ‗foreigners,‘ ‗tribals,‘ and ‗squatters.‘ They also speak Nepali, a major factor that contributes to such perceptions despite their Indian citizenship. To counteract these labels and those discriminatory policies and practices they have incited, the Indian Nepali community in Darjeeling founded an organization in 1972 whose goal was the constitutional recognition of Nepali a national language of India. This recognition would, they argued, lead to an acceptance of their language and, more importantly, the recognition of their Indian citizenship. Although the Nepali language was finally included in the constitution in 1992, the anticipated social, political, and legal acceptance of the community was not forthcoming. Continuing discrimination, along with economic and political shifts in the region, has led to significant changes in the linguistic practices and language ideologies ii among Indians of Nepali descent in Darjeeling—most notably the increasing, and conflicted, use of English that was only visible when both ethnographic and linguistic methods (matched-guise test) were utilized. iii Acknowledgements My deepest thanks to my advisor and committee chair, Laura Ahearn, for her unending support. I could not have asked for a more meticulous editor or warmer mentor; her belief in my project, and in me, were crucial to my intellectual development and success. My dissertation committee—Ousseina Alidou, Chaise LaDousa, and Parvis Ghassim-Fachandi—provided critical comments, intellectual guidance, and wonderful encouragement. David Hughes participated in my dissertation proposal defense and provided very helpful methods guidance. Ana Y. Ramos-Zayas and Frances Mascia-Lees each supervised a field statement. My fellow graduate students entertained and stimulated me during our years together—Mona Bhan, Arpita Chakrabarti, Chaunetta Jones, Fatimah Williams Castro, Noelle Molé, Nell Quest, Rebecca Etz, Kari Prassack, Sharon Baskind-Wing, Kartikeya Saboo, Emily McDonald, and Bria Dunham. Special thanks to my dissertation writing group of Debarati Sen, Sarasij Majumder, and Satsuki Takahasi. From my time in the Rutgers University writng program, I greatly benefited from the friendship and support of Craig Iturbe, Josh Gang, and Sarah Morgan. Without the quantitative analysis skills of Drew Gerkey and Luca Morino, chapter 5 would never have been written. I was a latecomer to statistics and remain in their debt for their patience and friendship. Thanks also to Sarah Alexander and Ariella Rotramel for years of friendship and sympathetic ears. You both made writing, and living, more delightful. My writing benefited greatly from the feedback provided by the Rutgers Center for Historical Analysis 2008-2009 ‗Vernacular Epistemologies‘ seminars, our Linguistic Citizenship panel at the 2009 AAA meeting, our Borderlands Politics and Policy panel at iv the 2010 AAA meeting, and participants of SALSA 2009 at University of Texas-Austin, particularly Anastasia Nylund and Lauren Terzenbach. Dissertation research was supported by the American Institute of Indian Studies. Financial support from Princeton University‘s Program in Urbanization and Migration and Office of Population Research, Rutgers University‘s Special Opportunity Grant, Rutgers University‘s South Asian Studies Program, and Rutgers University‘s Department of Anthropology allowed me to complete predissertation research in Nepal and India in 2005. A FLAS (Foreign Language Area Study) grant provided funding for Nepali language study at the South Asian Summer Language Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I had, while in India, the support of various researchers, especially Keera Allendorf, C. Townsend Middleton, and again, Debarati Sen. Breakfasts, and Buddhist philosophy, with Matthew Turner brightened the monsoon. To my neighbors and friends Jonathan and Karen Lovitt, I owe more than I can say. Special thanks to the faculty of the anthropology department at Ball State University, especially Dr. Enya Flores, Dr. Don Merten, Dr. Benjamin K. Swartz, and Dr. Evelyn Bowers. They provided my first home in anthropology and helped set me on my current path. My family—Doug and Vicki Booth, Ashley Booth, and Rob Heise—sustained me with love, encouragement, and laughter through this process. To my Lonnie, the writing phase was much improved by your careful eye and, more importantly, your love. My most important thanks, and deepest debts, lie with those with whom I worked in India and Nepal. Although I cannot name you, this work is dedicated to you. /Nybad( - v Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Chapter One Introduction 1.1 Argument and Intervention 5 1.2 Darjeeling, West Bengal, India 10 1.3 Positionality 17 1.4 Language Politics in India 23 1.4.1 Planning languages, planning nations 25 1.5 Mixed-method approach 36 1.5.1 Ethnographic 37 1.5.2 Archival/Historical 40 1.5.3 Linguistic Survey and Matched-Guise Test 41 1.6 Chapter Overview 42 Chapter Two Key Theoretical Approaches and Concepts 2.1 Theorizing Social Difference 44 2.1.1 Early caste research in India 44 2.1.2 Postcolonial and Subaltern perspectives on caste 51 2.1.3 Colonial institutions and the caste system 51 2.1.4 Alternative perspectives on difference 53 2.1.5 Tribal status in India 58 2.1.6 The census 59 vi 2.1.7 Critical Race Theory 62 2.1.8 Racial Formation Theory 69 2.1.9 Language and race 72 2.2 Mediating Social Difference 77 2.2.1 Language and power 78 2.2.2 Language ideologies 86 2.3 Engaging Linguistic Practices 98 2.3.1 Indexicality 98 2.3.2 Linguistic syncretism 99 2.4 Conclusion 100 Chapter Three Differing Visions of our Glorious Future 3.1 A rose or a ―thorny cactus?‖ 102 3.1.1 Data and source material 105 3.2 By any other name… 107 3.3 Language Politics in India 108 3.3.1 Linguistic reorganization of states 111 3.4 Politics of Nomenclature in Darjeeling 124 3.4.1 Narratives of language politics in Darjeeling 124 3.4.2 Pre-Gorkhaland (until late-1970s) 127 3.4.3 GNLF and Gorkhaland Movement (1980s) 136 3.5 Implications and Conclusions 143 vii Chapter Four Language Has Never Become a Bone of Contention 4.1. Key Players 149 4.2 Language and the Indian Constitution (8th Schedule) 152 4.2.1 Private Member‘s Bill to include Nepali 154 4.3 Parliamentary Debates—10 April 1992 (Day One) 155 4.3.1 MP Bhandari presents her initial argument 156 4.3.2 General discussion 165 4.4 Parliamentary Debates—24 April 1992 (Day Two) 168 4.5 Parliamentary Debates—8 May 1992 (Day Three) 172 4.5.1 MP Khuller presents his initial argument 172 4.5.2 General discussion 185 4.6 Parliamentary Debates—19 August 1992 (Day Four) 189 4.7 Parliamentary Debates—20 August 1992 (Day Five) 204 4.8 Darjeeling response to Eighth Schedule inclusion 206 4.9 Conclusion 211 Chapter Five Language Attitudes 5.1 Matched-guise research 214 5.2 Matched-guise test in Darjeeling, India 219 5.2.1 Format and composition of fall 2007 survey 226 5.2.2 Ethnographic description of matched-guise 229 technique 5.3 Results 235 5.3.1 Statistical Significance of Results 235 5.3.2 Proudy 237 viii 5.4 Conclusion and Implications 254 Chapter Six ―Our Future is Uncertain‖ 6.1 Same story, new players 257 6.2 These people deprived of this country 259 6.3 Contributions 260 6.4 Future directions 264 6.5 An elegy for hope 269 Appendix A: Acronyms and Terms 272 Appendix B: Memorandum of Settlement between GNLF and 273 Central Government of India, 25 July 1988 Appendix C: Constitution of India (selections) 274 Appendix D: 8th Schedule of the Constitution of India 277 Appendix E: Indo-Nepal Treaty (1950) 278 Appendix F: Gazette notification of the Government of India 280 (23 August 1988) Appendix G: Treaty of Segauli (1815) 281 Appendix H: 1968 Official Language Resolution 283 Appendix I: Matched-Guise Recording Text 285 Appendix J: Matched-Guise Test and Survey 287 Appendix K: Nepali Language and Nepali Speaking Indians 295 Appendix L: G.N.L.F letter to Union Home Minister, 25 300 November 1987 Appendix M: Gazette Notification Regarding Amendment of 301 Constitution ix Appendix N: Scheduled languages in descending order of 302 speakers' population Appendix O: Growth of Scheduled Languages [1971-2001] 303 Appendix P: Speaker Distribution by State or Union Territory 304 Appendix Q: Case for Constitutional Recognition of Nepali— 305 Eighth Schedule, What are the Norms? Appendix R: An Introduction to Nepali Language and a 311 Case for Its Recognition [selections] Appendix S: Self-reported language distribution of tourist 319 Shop workers [n=38] Appendix T: West Bengal Official Language Act of 1961 321 Appendix U: 22 August 1988 Memorandum of Settlement with 322 GNLF Appendix V: Interview with the Prime Minister, Mr.