Now I aim to delve deep into the theme. The significance of this study should not be lost on the reader. For, language is the software program on which the whole society functions. In years to come, one may understand that language is the very powerful tool, or structure, which dictates and designs the whole of human functioning as a group. Every single significant word, spoken and also unspoken, does have a singular effect on the whole society. And the blueprint of social topography is encoded in unmistakably powerful codes, in the language of the place.

Indicants

In all Indian languages, there are Key words or indicants*, which are seemingly insignificant, but the usage, or presence of them can give deep insight to the onlooker or the hearer, on the financial, social or feudal position of the person referred to, or of the person to whom it is addressed, or of the person himself who has spoken it. These words are usually very short, and to the person who does not know the language, it may not even be audible in the whole chatter of seeming gibberish. However this gibberish would be compact communication packages, which convey not only information, queries and feelings, but also strong social designs; which can force a person to bend, pay homage, show respect, show indifference, be arrogant, be condescending, be insincere, be insecure, be mentally disturbed, be efficient, be intolerant to capability and efficiency, show signs of mental instability etc.

When thinking in English, one may not understand this. But persons from native-English ancestry who during the colonial era married into native families in the South Asian peninsular region, and joined their social systems, after imbibing the local languages, may have understood and endured the power of feudal languages. However, whatever shock they must have felt, could never be conveyed to the inhabitants of England. For, there was no tool available for them to gauge it, and mention it.

Many British colonial official of integrity have commented on this theme, but what they got in return from the British citizen sitting at home was a harsh judgement based on English logic. A superb example of this would be Robert Clive. His claim that all systems, and ethics and etiquette in British-India are the exact opposite of what was there in Britain was possibly taken with scorn. I don’t know whether he could convey what he meant. Possibly not. In fact, it was not a matter of all systems, ethics and etiquette being different. More it was that there were differing systems, ethics and etiquette towards different levels of people, in the South Asian subcontinent. There was no universality in these aspects.

The language structure

We will first begin with the language structure. It has already been discussed in a minor manner in the earlier pages.

The Key words or indicants, in the case of the Indian languages are usually the following: You, He, She, His, Her, Him, For him, For her etc. There are usually three forms for each of these words. One is of deep respect, conceded to persons who are commonly accepted as superior, and should be given deference.

The second is of secondary level of respect. This level is of a slightly insecure level, for its usage sometimes presupposes that the speaker is undecided whether he judges him to be of social worth or not. It is also a stage of intense monitoring, measurement and disturbingly intense and penetrating queries on personal issues.

The third is the level of no respect and of disdain, or of intense intimacy. Actually, this is the most stable of all stages, for it cannot go further down. Once a man is snubbed to this level, and he mentally accepts this level, he loses a lot of his social abilities, in the sense that others immediately perceive it mentally. And tend to keep him to this level. For otherwise, if he is allowed more freedom of staying at their level would not only not increase his level, but also reduce the other person’s level in the eyes of others. It is a complicated machinery at work here. Cannot deal with it in detail here.

However another attribute of this level also needs to be made clear here. This is a level, which gives the most amount of freedom to the addresser on the addressed. It can very well be intrusive freedom. But then this is also the level of deep intimacy. So, this is the level at which intimacy exists between friends. And also, this is the level of intimacy that exists between husband and wife, man and lover etc., with the latter being in the lower indicant level. Yet, the fact remains that in many languages, this level is imposed on the female, while the husband has to remain on the first or second level of indicants.

In certain languages like Tamil etc. even verbs come embedded with indicants. That is, for the statement Please sit down, there are a varied levels of words to be used. At the same time, it may be borne in mind that there are no equivalent words for the word Please. For that matter, one may not find equivalents for so many others words like Kindly, Sorry, I apologise, I regret, Beg your pardon, which can convey the same sense in feudal languages. For, all words, which are used as equivalents, do come with feudal overtones, and cannot be used by a senior to a junior, a superior to an inferior etc. If it were done, the social effect would be ludicrous.

Words like sit down would have a term affixed to its end, if it were addressed to a superior or honourable man, which would signify hallowed respect. To persons who the other person measures as of lower social status, the appendage of respect would be avoided.

All this works beautifully in a homogenous society, where everyone’s social and financial status is known and maintained in immutable positions. Possibly in a country like Japan, it may have been possible for a long time. However in India, the reality is different. More so, after the arrival of the British rule. There has been severe tumbling down of centuries-old feudal hierarchy. In this new half-baked liberation, the feudal languages create havoc.

As of now, people have to move among varying groups, and interact with newer social situations. Each person is automatically monitored and measured, and a sort of ranking mark is assigned for him in the society. Howver this monitoring and measuring may be irksome for decent persons, especially when persons of base cultural standards do it.

At times, a person may not be able to display his real, exceptional social attributes. Or he may fail in this endeavour; or the other man with malicious intent would care not to take into consideration, the superior attributes and with deliberate strategy concentrate on the weaker attributes. Then the final result would be tragic as far as his social circumstance is considered.

To facilitate the correct usage of indicants, the people have developed an unconscious mentality of monitoring other fellow beings in the society. It is expressed in the form of an uninhibited curiosity into other’s affairs. People, whom you meet even casually, exhibit an intense desire to know your background with emphasis on your professional, social and financial status etc. When two persons get casually acquainted in a place, say a train, the talk is not on detached subjects but more on each other’s intimate attributes. This helps them to measure each other and categorise the persons, which helps them to immediately qualify the relations in the expressions and words used in oral communication, that is, indicants.

In many cases, one cannot say that one is not interested in divulging all these details to all persons, who are not from a very intimate social circle. If one does say that, it is taken as an offence and also a feeling that he or she has some lower or negative attribute to hide becomes acute. If one is for some time in close contact with any group of persons, who are persisting in their query, and he or she refuses to divulge more, they would very naturally become offensive. For this lack of interest in sharing one’s social levels may be taken as an affront. They would claim it as a right to know more about him. In a way there is a reason for it. For, without such information, they would not be able to place a man in the right file or folder in their brain. For each person should be assigned a position, and he should be stored along with the correct group of people. Then all the necessary indicants and other attributes come naturally from that location. In its absence, he becomes a sort of continuing nuisance to the brain.

What really happens is that when two persons of not markedly different social status meet and converse, they initially commence acquaintance with a level of equality and mutual respect. Once both want to pursue their social communication, they would, in an instinctive manner, which is, more or less, spontaneous, ask each other questions which in an English setting may be taken as purely intrusive. A sort of sub-conscious or even sometimes deliberate measuring of the other person takes place. According to that measurement, a change in the indicant words becomes imperative, and takes place with shocking speed. Sometimes it may be to a higher indicant, very respectful terms, or in the other case, to a lower indicant, purely derisive usages. The real distress comes in the case when the other man, either spontaneously or even deliberately, ignores some of the positive features, and uses the lower indicants to the utter anguish of the other man. These are all continuing factors that repeatedly cause mental fracture in the society.

All indicants come in a package. For, example the lowest level of You will be packed with the lowest level of Him or Her; and with the lowest level of His or Hers. In a tightly packed closed society, these indicants become a sort of attribute of the personality of the person itself, from which it is not at all easy to escape.

Another factor of these packages is this: In English, one may call an individual, You dog, or You son of a bitch. Now in the feudal languages, it is not possible to say You, son of a bitch, when the You used is of the superior or secondary level. Only with the lowest indicant can the sentence You, son of a bitch or He is a son of a bitch, work. Other combinations will not work. In other words, one cannot be extremely impolite to persons who are in the higher indicant levels. At the same time, to persons who are in the lower indicant levels, impoliteness and downright vulgar behaviour comes very easy. Actually, impoliteness is implied when a person is addressed in the lowest indicant level.

The lowest levels are of the servants, the staff, the subordinates, the poor, the dependants, the financially weak, persons of lower age etc. The lowest indicants indicate a sort of defenceless situation, with no cloak or armour of respectability to protect oneself from the piercing and intrusive questions and queries that reach right inside the most intimate sections of one’s personality. Along with it, comes an invitation to taunt other persons. Actually, this tendency to taunt individuals who are in weaker situations spring from the insecurity that many individuals suffer in this language situation, wherein they themselves are at a disadvantage in a certain combination of social situations.

For example, persons who are of comparative lower age have to exist on the lower indicant, in the presence of relatives of senior age. And sometimes in the presence of outsiders of senior age, also. They get taunted. There is a pecking order. Generally, persons in this language situation exist with a sort of multiple personalities. In the presence of acknowledged seniors, they put on a cloak of meek obsequiousness, and bear the taunts extended by the seniors. However they seek to avenge this by perpetually seeking for individuals over whom they can dominate. Once they get one, they also do the taunting. In most cases, it is borne cheerfully, even though it has its toll on the individuality as well as the general stature of the individual concerned. Generally, this taunting goes down the ladder of social interaction, with each group seeking a lesser group. However, the relationships are not pleasant, with communication always hinging on offensive talk, and not on intelligent communication of ideas.