To what extent the written or oral history of the languages democratise the linguistic sphere in the state generally forms the basis of philological analysis. Recently, the rule of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in Goa was traced to demarcate the philological boundaries between the Marathi and Konkani in the state. He is popularly known as the king of Ryots or Bahujan (masses), and the political idea of Bahujan based in his ‘Hindavi Swarajya’ (People’s Republic) shapes the electoral success in the state. But the consciousness of his republican ideas is not only limited to Marathi; it is also found in Konkani, Kannada and spread beyond the boundaries of erstwhile Deccan. Therefore, those who revere him as the people’s king should also aim to make Marathi and Konkani the people’s languages. The parameters through which the development of Konkani is generally mapped also need to be extended to evaluate the success of Marathi in Goa. This will democratise the languages and prevent the communalisation of the languages.
The questions which are generally asked to the Konkani protagonists need to be also posed to the proponents of Marathi. Despite the historical legacy of Marathi in Goa, why do the masses struggle to internalise Marathi? Is Marathi in Goa really progressive? Does Marathi carry the legacy of Prakrit? What are the aesthetics of Marathi linguistics in Goa? Is Marathi in Goa different from Maharashtra? What is Gomantakiya Marathi? To what extent does the Marathi in today’s Goa conform to the ideology of emancipation of the masses? Such questions need to be raised in the Marathi discourse to further strengthen it.
The civil society in Goa is in a race to trace the archival location of the linguistic evidence to determine the historicity of the language. One who finds it a bargain with the political elites. The archival proofs further make philology an area of cultural supremacy. The caste and communities who do form the subject matter of archival repositories fail to receive philological attention in the formation of the languages. Didn’t they have languages? Or shall we agree to the proposition of the post-modern intellectuals who argue that the subaltern cannot speak? The archival logic of the philology makes the marginalised communities mute in post-colonial polities. The comrades of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj were not in search of linguistic archives to establish Hindavi Swarajya. The language based on archival philology is known as linguistic post-colonialism.
The common people need to realise that Konkani-Marathi is not only a language controversy but also a philological aspiration of those who want the newer generations to ape their philology. It is a philological race. Amidst this race, it is very important to know to what extent the Prakrit has contributed to the philology of Konkani and Marathi in Goa? Generally, those who affect the philology transform the language for the next generations. The linguists have largely displaced the Prakrit and indigenous dialects from the philology in India. To justify their claims, the definitions of UNESCO regarding indigenous people and folk languages are cleverly cited. This process is also well known as post-structuralism. In the name of philology, the vocabulary of Marathi and Konkani has been clearly categorised, which limits the imagination of the students. One who wants to write freely ends up with a quatrain due to the epistemological constraints.
Every community has its dialect. Sociologically, the dialect of the dominant community is considered a language, and the tongues of the socially backward as folk tales having no capacity to form the language. That’s where Indian philology has failed. The majority of the linguists uphold this superstition, undermining the study of linguistics in India. There is a need to equate the philologically acceptable languages with the Prakrit languages to enhance the democratisation of linguistic discourse. Then, Marathi will not remain bound to Shivaji Maharaj.
Post-independent India witnessed linguistic movements led by political leaders to reorganise the states on linguistic lines. These leaders later on became the symbols of linguistic identities. Goa also witnessed similar political movements for the Konkani and Marathi identities, and those who led these movements emerged as the heroes of linguistic assertion. The literature of linguistic activists is very crucial in developing the language but not enough to develop the philological assertion of the language. Languages evolve. Till when will you keep them lingering in the past?
Goa has seen agitations against English on several occasions where Marathi and Konkani supporters came together due to philological convergence. In such circumstances, the linguistic rhetoric deserves academic scrutiny. According to Aristotle, classical democracy in Greek Athens evolved through linguistic rhetoric. The art of rhetoric is dialectic in nature and may result in common good or loss to the human race. Hence, Aristotle alerts the citizens to be wary of the linguistic rhetoric in the society and ensure democracy. People should understand the linguistic rhetoric placed around Shivaji Maharaj and build a people-centric approach towards the official languages of the state.
(Dr Nawoo Varak is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Government College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Khandola, Marcela)
