2006. “baNlar khoabnama” SOtobOrser aloke bONgo bhONgo, parikOtha. Kolkata: Pustak Bipani. (pp. 426- 447).First published in parikatha. VII:2 (pp. 320-40)
This paper is a Bangla translation/elaborated version of the two English papers: SSRN Abstract ID: 2024842, and abstract ID: 2015951, though the India census reports since 1871 were put to show the lacunas of statistical survey techniques that helped to construct genealogical fantasy and nation statist boundary. Secondly, the tensed relationship between Laksminath BejBarua, an Asamiya writer, and Rabindranth Tagore was shown to understand the impact of extra-linguistic variables at the moment of a birth of nation in the context of colonialism. Thirdly, the role of print capitalism was depicted through the abstract ID: 2015951] endeavor of Fakirmohan Senapati, an Odia writer, by analyzing the discourse of his biography. [Cf. Otherwise the abstract of this Bangla paper is as same as Abstract ID: 2024842.
All the linguistic movements in colonial India lead to the demand/desire for autonomy in different spheres and were linked with anti-imperialistic nationalist movement, though on the contrary, all these movements had become the mirror image of dominant others’ nation statist mimic imagination. In this way, there was a demand for “autonomous” and “pure” tool indigenous grammar (free from “adulteration”) of a well-defined enumerated and “pure” language which is selected centrally as a standard language. Therefore language-managers of a given community did two things: a) they, as a member of imagined community, defined the language boundary (i.e. selection of standard and extension of the standard language from centre to periphery) and b) managed that language with the help of a tool called grammar.
In this paper, the author tries to show the Bengalee intellectuals’ (language judge/-police/-managers) perspectives (19th. C. and the first three decades of the 20th C) on the issue of autonomy of two neighbouring languages, viz. Oriya and Asamiya, two neighboring languages of Bangla. The paper shows a classical centre-periphery relation, where Bengal as a centre, wanted to subsume the periphery through hegemonic selving in course of standardizing and extending the political geography of Bangla with the supposed language module. The situation shows dialectic of hegemonic inclusion, which creates internal colonization, and thus captive languages with a feeling of derivative nationalism were trying to combat external colonization as well. These cases in the colonial period and at the time of the birth of a new nation states might help us to apprehend the post-colonial withdrawal syndrome from the other defeated varieties (i.e., so called “dialects”).
2006. “baNlar khoabnama” SOtobOrser aloke bONgo bhONgo, parikOtha. Kolkata: Pustak Bipani. (pp. 426- 447).First published in parikatha. VII:2 (pp. 320-40)
This paper is a Bangla translation/elaborated version of the two English papers: SSRN Abstract ID: 2024842, and abstract ID: 2015951, though the India census reports since 1871 were put to show the lacunas of statistical survey techniques that helped to construct genealogical fantasy and nation statist boundary. Secondly, the tensed relationship between Laksminath BejBarua, an Asamiya writer, and Rabindranth Tagore was shown to understand the impact of extra-linguistic variables at the moment of a birth of nation in the context of colonialism. Thirdly, the role of print capitalism was depicted through the abstract ID: 2015951] endeavor of Fakirmohan Senapati, an Odia writer, by analyzing the discourse of his biography. [Cf. Otherwise the abstract of this Bangla paper is as same as Abstract ID: 2024842.
All the linguistic movements in colonial India lead to the demand/desire for autonomy in different spheres and were linked with anti-imperialistic nationalist movement, though on the contrary, all these movements had become the mirror image of dominant others’ nation statist mimic imagination. In this way, there was a demand for “autonomous” and “pure” tool indigenous grammar (free from “adulteration”) of a well-defined enumerated and “pure” language which is selected centrally as a standard language. Therefore language-managers of a given community did two things: a) they, as a member of imagined community, defined the language boundary (i.e. selection of standard and extension of the standard language from centre to periphery) and b) managed that language with the help of a tool called grammar.
In this paper, the author tries to show the Bengalee intellectuals’ (language judge/-police/-managers) perspectives (19th. C. and the first three decades of the 20th C) on the issue of autonomy of two neighbouring languages, viz. Oriya and Asamiya, two neighboring languages of Bangla. The paper shows a classical centre-periphery relation, where Bengal as a centre, wanted to subsume the periphery through hegemonic selving in course of standardizing and extending the political geography of Bangla with the supposed language module. The situation shows dialectic of hegemonic inclusion, which creates internal colonization, and thus captive languages with a feeling of derivative nationalism were trying to combat external colonization as well. These cases in the colonial period and at the time of the birth of a new nation states might help us to apprehend the post-colonial withdrawal syndrome from the other defeated varieties (i.e., so called “dialects”).
2006. “baNlar khoabnama” SOtobOrser aloke bONgo bhONgo, parikOtha. Kolkata: Pustak Bipani. (pp. 426- 447).First published in parikatha. VII:2 (pp. 320-40)
This paper is a Bangla translation/elaborated version of the two English papers: SSRN Abstract ID: 2024842, and abstract ID: 2015951, though the India census reports since 1871 were put to show the lacunas of statistical survey techniques that helped to construct genealogical fantasy and nation statist boundary. Secondly, the tensed relationship between Laksminath BejBarua, an Asamiya writer, and Rabindranth Tagore was shown to understand the impact of extra-linguistic variables at the moment of a birth of nation in the context of colonialism. Thirdly, the role of print capitalism was depicted through the abstract ID: 2015951] endeavor of Fakirmohan Senapati, an Odia writer, by analyzing the discourse of his biography. [Cf. Otherwise the abstract of this Bangla paper is as same as Abstract ID: 2024842.
All the linguistic movements in colonial India lead to the demand/desire for autonomy in different spheres and were linked with anti-imperialistic nationalist movement, though on the contrary, all these movements had become the mirror image of dominant others’ nation statist mimic imagination. In this way, there was a demand for “autonomous” and “pure” tool indigenous grammar (free from “adulteration”) of a well-defined enumerated and “pure” language which is selected centrally as a standard language. Therefore language-managers of a given community did two things: a) they, as a member of imagined community, defined the language boundary (i.e. selection of standard and extension of the standard language from centre to periphery) and b) managed that language with the help of a tool called grammar.
In this paper, the author tries to show the Bengalee intellectuals’ (language judge/-police/-managers) perspectives (19th. C. and the first three decades of the 20th C) on the issue of autonomy of two neighbouring languages, viz. Oriya and Asamiya, two neighboring languages of Bangla. The paper shows a classical centre-periphery relation, where Bengal as a centre, wanted to subsume the periphery through hegemonic selving in course of standardizing and extending the political geography of Bangla with the supposed language module. The situation shows dialectic of hegemonic inclusion, which creates internal colonization, and thus captive languages with a feeling of derivative nationalism were trying to combat external colonization as well. These cases in the colonial period and at the time of the birth of a new nation states might help us to apprehend the post-colonial withdrawal syndrome from the other defeated varieties (i.e., so called “dialects”).
ARS CATT
Graeme STMT
Fema) crew, comm Swat, em ewe aR) com FA
‘wraieet fret em ero ee) _cemrera eb wietaer Fe
a afta 6.1
—Srarscmne, ffear cae (908)
Cre ean on 8 a cere as
HITE SCAG HOES ORE MITES GNM] A aL et aR aT
ie eo I Ta eT a ra GARG TKI oA RTE
eo SRR SOE ce oF ae a orseem Fara core SHAM
are : ena Bibs come eM") oa TE GA AIR
Fae ca GR, WEAR IH ser—as Fixtory ARG PrawaR Cet
Fee, Fees, eT
eee wee ce eRe EH Coste AA, EATERY cra“
Pre” tm fom om aes Raia ore wate ™)
ib ar eg ra | eres FL ce eetace ely, eI_—aI
crore fh et a FAR erm a ee A ER —
“ec et mo ata, AE i, TA, RAT AE
a done are Rae fee ae cnfoe afk oe Hee ate, aE
a on ocr 6 eR es a Fy Rr Bs wa ATR RCA
sere oe sm) Boers AeA sem fe era eM eT TT
fects tel arent eae Bi sam fe aw eI eM, COR
cet in can rere”
et go poe Fora, 8 AR eA, “AR CH SA TOFS
ra wey Gh a carer ee AH MN TE A IG A
fa aera on Bw 7H Re cel a wT TS os
ce eek wet TR IR HER Ge FT ea Feet
FAR ETT, FA HM er com”
‘an A GG Tec Ct ReSENE CA S F
1 of, RRC SoH TEAL Raw Fone 1 ce
<5 OROCNT eH H ACE W, PT BAA AES KR T
‘sr ea AT
ahh red FR IT AHN cw a Deore OTT CH SIT
Reore A aA tgs A oro Bae Pre,
“LAR or ee PA SATA LANSY CFA TE A
a ear ret At) Bee em HGNC SI oT AKT Hae
re aa fing te ores aR ora Wo SME H-SH, TET
ate erm as org Se ARReee orem sferare ea
oR AA my, cooretere Teera er si-ofeme te ere A
x, we era ete ret Vora et Boysen te ory
Soom ea ice AA
nf ones ATA ea eH TM coe IC FAT
caer af na ae ee TEC CTR co ee
in the couse of sure, it as sometimes teen dicult decide whee
«piven for of speach fo Be looked upon a a independent ngage
‘ras dict of some other dinite form of spe. In pacce has
teen found tha it 8 sometimes imposible to deide the question in
‘anne which Wil gio univer aceepunee, The two words “aguas”
tnd dle ae i i fespe, Ike mourn” abd “hil (Soer 8)
ALONG, Co) FR TRY SPST ANS EE) CITT
re FR Rene IER MER THA ATTA CSUR OTA OT
oR MOH TATE! ENE Den eer Se BIT, a BH
MRA TE OE A OPH! IR FAR ESI AI, a FEAR
epesenit wa vt oan wo Fe core Tet, em woe Fee
ome
ARE ete Fe aor, “fy, feet SIE A ER RL Gee cae,
privet wip a are, erry wet Rar ARG A HH, wT a
am apeg 19 wm fe CE
weft sree ered after ree Bem | dex meet area se
Reon FER eRReRea Perot cron ore a Fee, “oT
rte IPE Aone Mya ‘cre oe mer’ PE eIBTORET
FH ERIS CoH CHR TEAR TT BY aR CH a aR
aS THR Gen aN) Bl COG ROUSE Rare Se
ftom —efera—Reerora Frcs afeene) yA IR ere aT
SCE BRE, eas eH “a -arghe AT She Ta ea Com RCE
mem Fea) eR ORO CRA, ore ARO aT FE
orga FO ERROR CR ci te
it Fao ecm em, TEA TE RT| TT CoM EH ATE
som a"
ara card Dee wa, “a ore a1 ipo aR at SST
SRO AT: emis es Pao ae oe oe) ee “AE
sea area wearer oa en Pomme wT Hew SR
RRL RR SIRT TT Ten! TERT SHSM
ara, FT ar oe aT, cree wa weet FUE aE
sre coer a9
‘aro free area ca RS "omens ea eT
cx Sm ea eM, we ATE tem we, eMgfie APT OT
Cr Cra I" bt Roe REM Re, sacar of fen orf -
SUCH COR ATOR WH, COR AC, Coa Sw eH ATA
care Se ne wpe were Free Tey He EE
Fa. 2g Roe rea aT He Teg SeraRS Tee etl et
rr LR EMS IEA FEF ACE AR ROT OTE CR
ere ee RR RH cH TOCA Boe re a aT aN Fc
fc +
5 core -eNTST Hr CUR TAT ca ae HE
<1 eo Tora Fer a coe Oba Pega cw Ae aR
uge, a comm
Ril Qomelies, om-nen wags eemsTLeM Tess BE
ca. Pree ig Ree
feu SreTs “Cor ony eter (cre “OMe enétTe
saien/eemfeontan/ conta” ACRE eT PTs aa”
Borne Ber Fale) Ca ATMA TE HL
fr oR ergs a mm eA andor TOA
‘elt en fr Meares anes of Fe sree a ferment
eaten ares tt
eR Fonts re GOL A aR, “es se fem IE EAE
TER FS CR ACER” aR ea HR, TH BUF a oe,
ri a ee aR at Fe, Frere GR wea aH RR, Rca
eee wae ee cee CIR CeLH” ETM cat OA ET
HE CHER) TE Col ls CARR oH, wa Fh eM COL BERL
its oma ARE AT Gre, Ben cameTeR a Gre ae Ta
srs wy, aerators at er aS Cie aR Sem gT
cee 99 FECA CARL
e
Sap, cree et or, aR go Ga FERRER eM CME
A BiB Fee sey EH ON Cre oT, UE A
see crm, SIA RANA OTF RS ANSE CN |
come IS CR ek, cea AA eA “Bee
SL SENN aE Boor creat ace ameTS ae HE