It does out of a sense of pragmatism rather than any deeper association to national identity. English is not an indigineous language to India and was enforced upon the populace for a few hundred years. Indian people do refer to themselves as Indian when speaking English, but not when they’re speaking an actual Indian language, which I assume is similar for countries like Germany etc.
The problem with saying “X language is not indigenous to Y place” is that it just depends how far back you go. France, Spain, Portugal and Romania had Latin enforced upon them, and what about Patois and Nigerian Pidgin where they’ve developed to the point of being different languages, spoken only in the place they developed, or Singlish where nobody forced English due to the circumstances surrounding Singapore’s colonisation, but it was a common language spoken by all of the various ethnic groups there and picked up features from some of the other languages spoken there?
If Indian people don’t refer to themselves as Indian when speaking English, then that’s just a characteristic of Indian dialects of English.
Did you think someone was unaware that India’s use of English stems from colonialism? Because otherwise I don’t understand what you’re saying.
The purpose of my comment (to clarify) was that English is a commonly used (even official) language in India, and that the name when using that language is India, rather than Bhata, because your comment to me implied that “India” just wasn’t used by the citizens of India when conversing with fellow citizens at all.
Did you think someone was unaware that India’s use of English stems from colonialism? Because otherwise I don’t understand what you’re saying.
It would be naive to assume otherwise. Most curriculums, including many Western, do not cover colonialism. So there are, as remarkable as it may be to you or me, many who don’t know.
English is a language that is used in certain institutional settings due to the legacy of colonialism. It’s not commonly used by laypeople, especially within regions with common linguistic roots because that would be unnecessary.
Due to it being a particularly diverse region (ethnically, liguistically and culturally) Indian people in India don’t generally refer to themselves as such except when they need to be understood from a foreign perspective. That being said its not really that different from a German referring to themselves as die Deutschen. People in Germany are not running around calling themselves German to each other.
I agree with you. When the language is used, which tends to be within legacy colonial institutions, the term India is used. That’s just not a common circumstance.
What about in the second official language of India, English? :P
The constitution uses “India” in English.
But yes they’re the English names…
It does out of a sense of pragmatism rather than any deeper association to national identity. English is not an indigineous language to India and was enforced upon the populace for a few hundred years. Indian people do refer to themselves as Indian when speaking English, but not when they’re speaking an actual Indian language, which I assume is similar for countries like Germany etc.
The problem with saying “X language is not indigenous to Y place” is that it just depends how far back you go. France, Spain, Portugal and Romania had Latin enforced upon them, and what about Patois and Nigerian Pidgin where they’ve developed to the point of being different languages, spoken only in the place they developed, or Singlish where nobody forced English due to the circumstances surrounding Singapore’s colonisation, but it was a common language spoken by all of the various ethnic groups there and picked up features from some of the other languages spoken there?
If Indian people don’t refer to themselves as Indian when speaking English, then that’s just a characteristic of Indian dialects of English.
Did you think someone was unaware that India’s use of English stems from colonialism? Because otherwise I don’t understand what you’re saying.
The purpose of my comment (to clarify) was that English is a commonly used (even official) language in India, and that the name when using that language is India, rather than Bhata, because your comment to me implied that “India” just wasn’t used by the citizens of India when conversing with fellow citizens at all.
It would be naive to assume otherwise. Most curriculums, including many Western, do not cover colonialism. So there are, as remarkable as it may be to you or me, many who don’t know.
English is a language that is used in certain institutional settings due to the legacy of colonialism. It’s not commonly used by laypeople, especially within regions with common linguistic roots because that would be unnecessary.
Due to it being a particularly diverse region (ethnically, liguistically and culturally) Indian people in India don’t generally refer to themselves as such except when they need to be understood from a foreign perspective. That being said its not really that different from a German referring to themselves as die Deutschen. People in Germany are not running around calling themselves German to each other.
I agree with you. When the language is used, which tends to be within legacy colonial institutions, the term India is used. That’s just not a common circumstance.
but what’s your point in stating the obvious?