Disillusioned from the book launch and the shallowness of who I thought to be a good story-teller I turned to the comfort of my real friends.
A friend who had some perspective to things beyond, work, life and money and yet was modest and humble with all he knew. He fulfilled the need of some decent conversation with a genuine perspective rather than some empty spiel of an insurance salesman.
The topic of conversation – language.
Language as the single most powerful driver of globalisation.
Is globalisation the spread of economy and accessibility or does it lie in the ability of people to communicate their thoughts and connect with like-minded people.
Were we global when prophets, missionaries spread themselves across areas to spread a thought or are we global now with various branches across nations selling the same product we do in our own country. What good is globalisation when people don’t share thoughts?
From the need to share thoughts comes language, a means to communicate those thoughts. According to this friend, when people realised they need to know more than one language they truly became global – a different perspective, open to many interpretations.
There are various interpretations of our religious texts, but which interpretation is correct and which is not? Who knows. Who knows which language has the ability to precisely guide interpretation of various individuals with a different set of values towards the same perspective. He claimed Sanskrit and explained the nuances of the same. Wish some time in life I get an opportunity to study the language and then read ancient texts without the prejudice of the various interpreters over the years. What is the truth and where does it lie, who knows. Is there anything as one truth or again does it depends on your perspective?
Language is just not a way of communication, but a way of life, a binder which unites. In pre-British days, despite the internal fighting and constant struggles various religious factions co-existed in the country. They peacefully followed their religion inside their homes and chose to concentrate on the commonalities outside their homes. As a result, they peacefully co-existed. Then came a third-party, who said, ‘Hey! That’s unfair, how can the two of them live together when they are so different. Let me explain them their differences.’ The third-party offered a different perspective. We still suffer the consequences of that perspective.
History, the way society is shaped and moreover in the near future our DNA will be shaped by the language we speak. Another interesting concept was the one based on the necessity on correct pronunciation in Sanskrit which our forefathers practised has enables us Indians to grasp the subtle differences in British and American English or speak with the same Spanish accent as a Spaniard. Our tongue has been genetically modified to suit the need of the tough Sanskrit pronunciation. But will our children bear the benefit of such qualities? Will the dead language be resurrected for the sake of science? Don’t know.
Where does this debate lead to, don’t know. Is this conclusive, definitely not. Have more light to throw on this debate, feel free to leave comments.