Nordic languages and Hindu-Urdu are great examples of how political language is. The reason Urdu was made a separate language was because of political reasons of the Mughals. Similarly, I believe Norwegians gave a separate legal status to Norwegian to make it distinct from Danish, as a mark of defiance to Danish colonial rule of the past.
TO be fair Hindi, even though it grew more organically was given a formal status of national language by the predominantly Northern Indian Congress government post-independence to use it as an instrument to exert central political influence on the rest of the country, rather unfairly. At the time of India's independence, there were far more Tamil and Bengali speakers (not just native) than Hindi, but the central government forced Hindi to the rest of the country which did lead to a lot of understandable backlash, primarily in the South, which is why they dare not make it the official language of the country.
This ignores the fact that Bengali attained its status because of British who ruled India from Calcutta and enabled Bengali hegemony. No native speakers learned Bengali as second language in rest of the undivided India. Only Bengali diaspora moved to different parts of country as part of British civil services.
'Hindi... was given a formal status of national language by the predominantly Northern Indian Congress government post-independence to use it as an instrument to exert central political influence on the rest of the country'
Another propaganda. Hindi-Urdu (or Hindustani) was the most spoken and widely understood language in undivided India. Hindustani was official language of British. It might lose to Bengali IFF one divides it into Hindi and Urdu. But that division happened AFTER independence, when the spoken Hindi was standardized to a Sanskrit base, and Arabic-Persian words were mercilessly pruned-off to enable non-Hindustani speaking people to grasp it easily. The only people who got the short end of the deal were Tamil, because Tamil language has got almost (almost) nothing to do with Sanskrit.
To blame a newly formed government of an enslaved country, of 'exerting political influence' is the racist tirade Tamils latched on to, after there beloved masters left the country and didn't leave them in charge.
> Another propaganda. Hindi-Urdu (or Hindustani) was the most spoken and widely understood language in undivided India.
Disagreed, if by Hindi you mean khari boli, a language restricted to the "cow belt". You gave an explanation why Bengali was prevalent, OP's point was that Bengali was prominent. Why it was so was besides the point.
>To blame a newly formed government of an enslaved country, of 'exerting political influence'
It still does not change the fact that it was imposed. BTW I am by mo means Tamil.
> khari boli, a language restricted to the "cow belt".
Khari boli is a dialect that, after independence, turned into standardized dialect of Hindi. But it was widely understood unlike Begali. And it was in no-way restricted to cow belt[1], even after ignoring how big that belt really is and how much population it holds. People in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat fully understand Hindustani[2]. Hell, Ghandi was from Gujarat and he used Khari boli.
> You gave an explanation why Bengali was prevalent, OP's point was that Bengali was prominent. Why it was so was besides the point.
OP said there were more Bengali speakers than Hindustani. I am saying that it is not true.0 I will have to check what effect inclusion of Bangaldesh might have had, but remember we are talking about national language. It ought to be understandable to large parts of nation - large parts of ethnically different groups.
Btw, if you want to step onto political land-mine, try comparing grammar and vocabulary of Bengali and Bhojpuri/Bihari. The idea of Hindi vs Bengali will take a new meaning :) Language is indeed political.
> It still does not change the fact that it was imposed.
Hindi was supposed to be encouraged over English, but it has never been imposed. You just have to get down in Chennai railway station to know that. The anti-Hindi propaganda is purely political in nature. As a matter of fact, no body in even "cow-belt" (Haryana + Delhi + UP + Bihar) + Madhya Pradesh + Gujarat [1] speaks standardized Hindi (though they all understand Khari boli). If you speak it in Delhi - the heart of Hindustani as it was - you will literally be laughed at.
> BTW I am by mo means Tamil.
I don't care man! :) I am not a native speaker of khari boli either.
For what it's worth - the backlash is still kind of the case in the South (not speaking statistically, just from personal experience). I grew up around Mumbai and traveled to the southern part of the country 5 years ago where Hindi is not the native tongue.
Hindi was not particularly well-spoken nor was it always well-received by the other person. We wound up talking in English most of the time.
In South Africa, many Tamil Hindus, when asked what their religion is, say "Tamil", not "Hindu". "Hindu" to them, refers to Hindus of North Indian descent (of Gujarati and Hindi origin). Since their ancestors came to South Africa more than 150 years ago, this sort of separatist instinct seems to long predate modern India.
TO be fair Hindi, even though it grew more organically was given a formal status of national language by the predominantly Northern Indian Congress government post-independence to use it as an instrument to exert central political influence on the rest of the country, rather unfairly. At the time of India's independence, there were far more Tamil and Bengali speakers (not just native) than Hindi, but the central government forced Hindi to the rest of the country which did lead to a lot of understandable backlash, primarily in the South, which is why they dare not make it the official language of the country.