In Defence of the "Accent"

We all speak English now.

But in our own ways.

Indian English is perhaps like no other. Each and every country has its plurality of accents but I refuse to believe that any other country could have so many variations as we do. I mean, I do acknowledge the fact that the Americans have the New York, West Coast, Texan, Hispanic, African-American and so many other accents. The not-so United Kingdom has quite a few of theirs too.

Lets have a sample of what we have- Marwari, Gujju, Bihar-U.P. Hinterland, Bengali, Keralite, Tamil, North-eastern etc. These have a solid ethnic reason to exist. But the reason I say we have no competitors in this space simply emanates from the metropolitans. Here, you have a assortment of all global varieties- some speak American, some cockney and some the Brit private-school. Trust me, I have even heard renditions of Irish and Australian. So it works like this- we have cloned varieties of most of the other accents, some mix-up jobs and hybrids and can claim a few (actually many) of our own; of our own vintage.

Then we have our oh-too-famous neutral accent. Clearly-spoken, no twangs, no drawls, no nothing. One of the reasons for our success- businesses all over the world dig this clear articulation. The importance of this can never be overstated: I have to go through the pain of making calls to people of all nationalities, who sadly, do not have this wonder tongue.
Most people say I have a neutral accent. That explains the job. It must have been the way I speak; the words seldom have any meaning.

So is life difficult for us Indians then? I mean every time you have to listen carefully what the other guy is bumbling out. That could mean at least two things- we develop a good hearing ability and hence less divorces; I keep reading that divorces keep happening because couples are not listening to each other! In fact, the divorce rate in India is actually quite low, albeit rising.

Moving aside from this case of spurious reasoning, I have generally noticed the "neutral" metropolitans have an equal distaste of their "firang" brethren and the "desi" bumpkins. The former tries to be too cool and the latter, well, may never grasp what goes as "cool".

Is this justified?

I mean the bumpkin can't help himself. It'll take a lot of time and effort to speak right and even then it may not turn out right. But the "uncool"stigma forces them to adopt a hybrid version of American-Australian-Brit-Irish and probably Yiddish. The logic is apparently right: if you aim for the stars, at least you reach the clouds.

Alas! it doesn't quite work that way. If someone knows you're a bumpkin and then you graduate to an occidental (without going through the breeding and sometimes despite the breeding) you become branded as a "wannabe". Trust me, that is no sign of aspiration and ambition.

The firang brethren are of many colours. Some are indeed very good at it. Bred in a manner detached from the real India, these people are role models for communication- impeccable English styled with the "right" accent. Some are not so good. They are the ones who usually speak in hybrid tones, retaining their last bit of Indianness (in speaking) or trying to be too many things at the same time. They get no respect either. The "Neutrals " look at them with disdain and try to convince themselves and others that they're putting it on. And theirs is the "right one". The bumpkins are more divided in their opinion. Some admire and imitate; some despise and distance themselves.

How does all this help?

I mean the "breds" and the bumpkins cannot help the way they speak. Neither can the "Neutrals". Everyone is just being themselves. Even when you're imitating, you're trying to be something that you're not now. "Now" is the keyword. That's you all the same. You aspire and you wish for it. Strictly speaking you're not trying to be someone else.

So I say, let's declare a peace on the war of accents and live and let be.

Anyone?