Modi-Times Now interview and the issue of language

BY ARJUN RAJKHOWA| IN Media Practice | 15/05/2014
Will we continue to have interviews in which the head of a state will speak in Hindi while being asked questions in English?
ARJUN RAJKHOWA on the language disconnect English language anchors have with Narendra Modi

The Narendra Modi-Times Now interview may have evoked a variety of reactions in India but for someone outside the country a standout feature was its manifest language ‘disconnect’. While interviews where two languages are used in parallel are not inherently disorientating (we are not unaccustomed to interviewers asking questions in English and interviewees responding in Hindi, or vice versa), the Times Now interview, given the political context, nevertheless stuck a discordant note. No doubt it was not an interview in which exclusively English was used by the interviewer but a large part of the interview, in its most substantive segments, evinced signs of a  language ‘disconnect’ which became, to a viewer outside the context of a domestic English- language audience, an indication of internal ‘diaphony’. This was not, in their mind, merely an instance of India’s multilingualism at work but, given the position of the person being interviewed, a sign of a broader political lacuna.  

By virtue of the subject’s position and proximity to political office, it would behoove the journalist conducting the interview to speak in the interviewee’s chosen language. Arnab Goswami opted to, but only part of the time. Disregarding for a moment the immensely complex and irresolvable questions that surround the politics of language in India, speaking to a political leader in the language that he or she is most comfortable in is a matter of etiquette and courtesy. When that person is someone who aspires to become prime minister, the extending of such courtesy is less a matter of whimsy and more of prerogative.  

There is a peculiar discourtesy and condescension that mars interviews in which a person of this stature is being asked questions (and sometimes hectored) in English while the responses are in Hindi. This discourtesy, which in addition to fostering a disconnect between the participants of the conversation also alienates the audience, is something of an Indian idiosyncrasy and peculiarity that appears more jarring when one is abroad. Anyone unfamiliar with Indian history finds the situation patently absurd. Flummoxed Chinese students look askance at the video and ask disparagingly, ‘Why does he continue to speak in English?!’   

For Indians, the concerns are less (strictly) linguistic and more political. More than the specificity of the language prioritised in such conversations, an overriding concern is the aporia between the idioms of political discourse in circulation. A gulf, not of incomprehension and misunderstanding but of sensibility, separates the two parties (state/governed, authority/interlocutor), and when the arena in which this gulf is especially visible is the arena of national politics then one should be concerned. For meaningful dialogue to exist, recognition of and proficiency in the political idiom in use is a prerequisite. Instead, the gaps and fissures between our political languages seem now to be widening faster than ever; the words, ideas and principles that animate each of these languages do not permeate each other in a productive manner. As a consequence, we risk becoming a polity alienated from itself, unable to communicate our needs, demands and wants effectively and meaningfully.  

Arguably, there is nothing new about any of this. India has been grappling with the ‘language question’ since time immemorial. The reason this assumes some urgency now is its implications for dialogue with any future government. 

Will we continue to have interviews in which the head of state (whoever they may be) will speak in Hindi while being asked questions in English? There are practical considerations at work here: any such presentation of our communicational style internationally will contribute to an ‘image’ problem, making us appear, on an overt level, discombobulated and self-alienated. What strikes one as jarring from the outside is not just the use of two languages in a single interview (which in and of itself can be both necessary and pragmatic) but the implications this has given the interview’s subject and context. The communicational gap that we know exists in the country assumes gargantuan proportions when a leading candidate and his interlocutor consistently speak two different languages on national television. The intention of this critique is not to make a reductive argument – there is of course Hindi news and people watching English-language channels expect a certain kind of presentation (and perhaps have no problem resolving any resulting language dilemmas) – but to highlight an incongruity that may be invisible to Indian audiences long used to the dualistic character of ‘national’ political discourse.  

Besides, another point to consider could be whether journalists should by training aim to be bilingual. In a country where a majority of people speak two or three languages fluently, and are trained in at least two through their school education, journalistic training (conversational fluency) in two languages should not require a great leap of imagination. The intent is not to impose linguistic straightjackets but to facilitate meaningful conversations on television and in print media. To this end, the onus evidently lies on English-language channels, but whether or not this is something that viewers and journalists consider desirable or constructive is up for debate.  

Finally, a politician like Narendra Modi, given the tone of the BJP’s campaign in various constituencies as well as his political ‘past’, obviously has a lot of questions to answer, and it would be so much more productive if he were challenged and asked these questions in his own idiom.

Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps.

Subscribe To The Newsletter

The Delhi High Court is inviting suggestions via  a Google form regarding how ongoing court proceedings should be reported. It says, " As per the deliberations of the Committee in its meeting held on 31.08.2017, questionnaires are hereby circulated to the members of the general public to give their suggestions on the subject matter to the Committee within 21 days." A committee on media reporting in courts was constituted by the acting CJ of the DHC earlier this year.                            

Santanu Bhowmick, a journalist from Dinrat news channel, was killed on Wednesday and several people were wounded in ongoing clashes between supporters of two rival tribal associations in Mandwai, about 28km from the Tripura capital of Agartala, HT reports.  He was covering an agitation and road blockade by the Indigenous People’s Front of Tripura.                     

View More

The Washington Post  is rolling out Talk  a new commenting system that will allow the paper to better engage with readers who comment on its stories and help promote civil conversations. The software was developed by the Coral Project, a collaboration between The Post, the NYT and Mozilla, funded by a grant from the  Knight Foundation. The Post will integrate Talk with ModBot, its AI-powered comment moderation technology.                                                                         

Propublica has built a  Facebook bot which is a tiny computer program that automatically converses with you over Facebook Messenger to determine you experiences with reporting hate speech on Facebook. Its says its objective is to learn more about Facebook’s secret censorship rules and what the social media determines is hate speech. (Nieman Lab)                                       
View More