Imposition of Hindi... Pros/Cons of Diversity

[prasen9]

India will never reach the lofty heights it is capable of reaching if we keep being mired in multitude of these multi things. Unity in diversity is the bane of India.

You may be. But, what are these lofty heights? Imho, if we lose our linguistic diversity, that is taking us to a low, not a high. I understand that we have to make some sacrifices to achieve something. But, what are we achieving by imposing Hindi on a large part of the country and making them feeling like second class citizens. I think the costs of that exercise are a lot more than any gains. It will certainly make those in the Hindi belt get government jobs more easily, at least for a generation or two until the rest of the country learns Hindi. As the Spanish-speaking in the U.S. have seen, etc. What really are we gaining and why can it not be achieved without creating de facto first and second class citizens in the country?

And, JIC, has actually made your point/fallacy very clear. Then, why stop at Hindi? Why not just take Mandarin and force it on the whole world and go with it. That way, humanity will reach even more "lofty heights" whatever that is. How would you feel if that happened? I certainly would not be very happy. It is not about squeezing the last bit of GDP growth always but about how people feel about things too. Creating more divisions for the sake of getting economic benefits or whatever benefits are in your lofty heights definition is maybe not the way to go at all cost.

[Atithee]

Prasen, I didn’t say a word about Hindi and its imposition. I was just commenting on the extent of diversity India has, and how that impedes our progress. Linguistic diversity is probably least of these impediments. Please don’t read into things selectively.

[prasen9]

Got it. Sorry. How does diversity impede our progress? Diversity actually has been shown to produce better results in workplaces, etc.

[Atithee]

I think this is hard to answer. And, of course, it is opinions. I believe diversity at workplace helps, because it encourages creativity and together we end up with a far better solution than any of us alone. The key is that we are all, purportedly, working for the same company. And, here is where the diversity I am talking about diverges.

The diversity of religion, culture, customs, etc., just creates discord and kills creativity. My belief is that China, Korea, and many other south Asian countries are developing faster than us because there is a level of homogeneity, which encourages nation first, rather than region/subset first. For example, we are fighting to create more and more states and then argue over water rights etc. I’m not sure why Telanagana and AP had to be split, for example. Two governments means two huge bureaucracies for some small probable gains, which could also have been achieved as one more easily at a lower cost.

It’s hard for me to articulate. I hope I’ve explained it somewhat reasonably.

[prasen9]

Maybe you did not have this in mind, but, I think what you are getting at is somewhat related to this question.

Harvard article: What is the optimal size of a country?

More important than diversity or homogeneity is being open to trade. India needs to liberalize further (and here I will anger my leftist friends) to allow for freer trade (with strong regulations to prevent exploitation, thereby angering my rightist friends).

And, it may be different if we are talking of democracies vs. autocracies. China is a large, diverse country, but, they are ruthless wrt human rights and are trampling the rights of other ethnicities, etc. except the Han. So, maybe an autocracy can be larger ... Etc.

Anyone else having pointers to the issue that Atithee raised is useful. I think too much diversity can be bad and too little can be bad too. What is the optimal organizing principle?

[Atithee]

Even autocrats find it useful to be ruthless in a largely homogeneous country

[prasen9]

Even? Autocrats are always ruthless everywhere. Where is Jay?

[jayakris]

^^^ haha... Is even Atithee using the Indian "even"? Should I even get into this "even" matter this evening? Will just evening up the argument and saying we are all even in this discussion even start to end it?

But seriously, I don't think diversity by itself is India's problem. Relgion and religious diversity is a problem. Neither of the two majority religions in India (Hinduism and Islam) work all that well for productivity and development if there aren't Kings patronizing the said religions. Both can work very well under monarchies though. Democracy basically works only for Christianity, because it was essentially made in Europe to keep the church away. Confucianism is the only principle that brings in discipline by itself (with some family-centric selfish rules actually, to be very simplistic), so either communism or communist capitalism (China) or Capitalist democracy (Japan/Korea) would all flourish with Confucianism at the root. India has two majority religions whose co-exsitence requires democracy, but neither brings in personal discipline and productivity by themselves under capitalism. We will have to wait for plain economics to bring in the necessary personal discipline in Indians, but we wasted 44 years of independence keeping capitalist economics away. We are better than we were 30 years ago but have a long way to go in selfish discipline driven by capitalist economics.

So, again, rather than diversity in languages and other things, it is really the diversity in religions that causes trouble for us. If all of India were Christians for a couple of centuries, we would be something incredible actually after independence, or so it would seem!

[prasen9]

That is a lot to unpack. I have to think about it and search the literature to see what people have been saying on these lines. Very interesting ideas. Thanks Jay.

[jayakris]

That is a lot to unpack. I have to think about it and search the literature to see what people have been saying on these lines. Very interesting ideas. Thanks Jay.

I don't know if there is such a theory out there. It is just something I thought up this evening. Made some sense to me, and I can't think of too many countries as counter-examples to the "theory".

[prasen9]

I only know bits and pieces here and there.

For example, the NPR did a piece on how Muslims prefer a religious-based government. article In some sense, I wonder if India's preferring a Hindu religion-based government is a reaction to that. Christianity, of course, did not co-exist with secular democracies. There were eras of reform and eventual acceptance. Maybe Islam is too young and the mellowing/acceptance will come later. Or maybe it is too different.

Here is another article: Religion/democracy

I do not think Hindus see democracy as something not compatible with our religious beliefs though. I think it is people who have whipped up religious fervor for political gains. Of course, we will possibly differ on that assessment.

[Atithee]

^^^ haha... Is even Atithee using the Indian "even"? Should I even get into this "even" matter this evening? Will just evening up the argument and saying we are all even in this discussion even start to end it?

Even is properly used here. I’ve never even had the problem.

[Atithee]

I’ll try to simplify it here. When diversity leads to one faction feeling superior to another (or others) just because, it is a problem. Religion is the easiest example of this destructive diversity. However, when diversity is about different ideas to advance a common cause, e.g., national development, it is great. Literacy, work ethics, hard work, gender equality etc. are good examples of this constructive diversity.

Quite simple.

[jai_in_canada]

I think this is hard to answer. And, of course, it is opinions. I believe diversity at workplace helps, because it encourages creativity and together we end up with a far better solution than any of us alone.

Depends on the type of workplace and what type of diversity. If it is a mine, factory, construction site, plumbing, electrician work, firefighting, special forces soldiers, civil engineering, some technology development, harvesting fruit, working in a paddy field, herding cattle on a ranch, garbage pickup, sanitation/water works – then I don’t think gender/racial/theological diversity adds any value. But in advertising, entertainment, governance, policing, nursing etc. gender/racial/diversity MAY be an advantage. But advantage how? Post World War 2 there was a massive economic boom in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan etc. Most of the company leadership and boards of directors were white male. Didn’t seem to be a hindrance to economic growth.

Which then raises the question – what does “reach the lofty heights it is capable of reaching” really mean? Is it just economic growth? Equitable distribution of wealth for every single person on Earth? Peace on Earth? Ecological sustainability?

Or Is it some utopia where all of human hierarchy of needs are satisfied without any damage to the environment, extinction of species, exploitation of the underprivileged and conflict between peoples?

The diversity of religion, culture, customs, etc., just creates discord and kills creativity. My belief is that China, Korea, and many other south Asian countries are developing faster than us because there is a level of homogeneity, which encourages nation first, rather than region/subset first.

You may be right on this (except which South Asian country is developing faster than India?_. But then look at what Communism tries to achieve – uniformity by the suppression of diversity and individuality. Has not proved to be a successful model in the long run. Again is “developing faster” the only measure of success of a society?

For example, we are fighting to create more and more states and then argue over water rights etc. I’m not sure why Telanagana and AP had to be split, for example. Two governments means two huge bureaucracies for some small probable gains, which could also have been achieved as one more easily at a lower cost.

Telangana was formed for one simple reason – so that KCR can get so stinking rich that all the perfume in the world can’t mask the scent of that Kachara.

I think too much diversity can be bad and too little can be bad too. What is the optimal organizing principle?

Optimal diversity is an interesting concept. But diversity of what? Diversity of genitalia? Diversity of skin colour? Diversity of height? Diversity of weight? Diversity of age? Diversity of visual impariment? Diversity of hearing impairment? Diversity of diet? Diversity of religious belief? Diversity of follicular growth? Diversity of country of origin? Diversity of mother tongue? Diversity of accent (aural minority)? Diversity of education (including illiteracy)? Diversity of financial status? Diversity of IQ?

Diversity of ideas may be what matters most. All the other attribute-based diversity (physical/mental/religious/racial/linguistic etc. etc. )might just be more hindrance and distraction to progress, as Atithee says.

So what does this mean to the imposition of Hindi officially and unofficially?

[jai_in_canada]

I will add my personal experience, for what it is worth.

The best team that I was part of through my 3-decade career was one that I led a few years ago. We achieved great things, and we were the envy of other teams for our camaraderie and enjoyment. Someone came up with the team name “The Jai Walkers” – because I encouraged people to walk at lunch. The team was comprised of an English-Canadian woman (Ops Manager), a French Canadian Man who was a Jehovah’s witness (Ops Manager), a white American from California who was also a Jehova’s Witness (Warehouse Manager), an Ismaili Muslim of Indian background from Tanzania (Financial Analyst), a Nigerian Woman who was a strict Catholic (Supervisor), a woman from Hong Kong (Analyst), a young woman of Italian-Canadian background (Analyst), and a gay man of Polish-Canadian heritage (Project Manager), a woman of Philippino background (Ops Cordinator), a guy from Bangladesh (Finance Manager) and myself. I did not set out looking to build a diverse team. When I hired I looked intently for competence, ability & willingness to learn, curiosity, intelligence, compassion, team spirit, process orientation, self-motivation, and a sense of humour. I ended up with diversity.

I know that this is a small data set. But my experience over 30+ years in industry has led me to be skeptical of studies that show that diversity improves performance. There may be a correlation but it cannot prove causation. If I had put my diversity blinders on and selected my team based on quota composition then I would have likely ended up with a lousy team. But by focusing on performance attributes I ended up with a diverse team – because I cared more about the content of their character & competence rather than the colour of their skin, gender, religion, age or sexual orientation.

A peer within the company (my level of management) had a very homogenous team – he was Anglo-Canadian and he mostly hired White Anglo-Canadian straight men. It was well known that he was comfortable with Old Stock Canadians of English heritage – but I hesitate to call him racist, “narrow-minded” would be more apt. His team was competent but didn’t effect as much process/performance improvement as our team, and they certainly didn’t have as much fun.

Often people will criticize diversity by saying “Oh, you are obviously not hiring the best. You are just trying to fill quotas.” But in this case people questioned whether my colleague was hiring the best available BECAUSE his team was NOT diverse. Due to people like my colleague, Employment Equity Laws get passed – by Left Wing Ideologues who envision an utopia of equity – which then leads Right Wing nut jobs to play victim, lament the death of meritocracy, and criticize the rise of political correctness.

Still I think making diversity the main goal is a mistake. If you focus on content of character, competence and connection of people then I believe diversity will automatically follow. Because intelligence and competence are not the monopoly of people with a specific set of characteristics. At least in my limited experience.

P.S. And the women on my team, on a level comparison, made more than the men - because they happened to have more education, experience, and expertise within the pay band. Pay equity would have resulted in these women making LESS.