10. The disintegrating codes that radiate

Let me continue.

In India, the common citizen’s Thoo : Aap ratio would vary much depending on his or her social stature. However, most of them would be around 80%Thoo : 20%Aap.

Compare this is to the ratio of a middle level government official’s stature:

30%Thoo : 70%Aap,

and to a senior government officials’ stature:

15%Thoo and 85%Aap.

This content ratio can be very easily seen in the personality features of an individual.

This is a phenomenon that has no correspondence inside pristine-English social systems.

This is a very significant information that needs to be in one’s thoughts when speaking about such things as democracy, human rights, human dignity, social equality, workers’ rights, wage structure in the society, stature of women and much else. Whatever is mentioned in English simply goes into unintelligent disarray when relocated into feudal language scenarios.

Since I have very limited proficiency in Hindi, I need to shift to the traditional languages of Malabar and to that of Travancore, for further discussion. And a bit to Tamil also, even though my experience in Tamil is also quite brief.

The Malabari ‘You’ is ‘Inhi’ (lowest) and ‘Ingal’ (highest).

Malayalam ‘You’ is ‘Nee’ (lowest) and ‘Saar’ (highest)

It can be equated to ‘Thoo’ (lowest) and ‘Aap’ (highest) in Hindi.

There is a continual undercurrent of terror in the social communication. On one side, the very addressing by the ‘Lowest You’ by another (who cannot be thus addressed) can literally crush the individual.

However, a vast majority of individuals grow up and live their lives in this crushed level. So they do not have a terror. They only suffer the crushing hold on them.

The real terrific terror is that the lower person would use the lower ‘You’ on the higher person, if and when he or she gets a position of dominance. This is a content of nightmares and other such eerie experiences.

The Lowest and the Highest indicant words are actually 180 degrees vertically opposite to each other.

When the lower man goes up, the higher man has to necessarily come down. It is a See-Saw situation. Not a scenario that can be imagined in English. In English, when a lower person comes up, there is no such drastic flipping of positions in the social communication, wherein the whole social universe goes up-side down.

Actually it is not any kind of crushing hold that takes place between the two individuals concerned. It is that when a person goes down, every connected verbal code connected to him starts moving down in the mind and words of all persons in the system. And all persons are all in the same up and down web of words. The weight of everyone’s eyes and minds bears upon the person.

In short, the flipping that is accomplished might spread through the social system, leading to the whole social system going up-side down. This is the terrible terror in the eventuality.

The social system is one in which no one wants a lower person to improve his or her situation. For, a slight improvement itself will create terrific upheavals in the social arrangement maintained in word-codes.  

There is no code for equality in feudal languages. Attempting to raise a lower individual to levels of equality only has two terrific possibilities. Either the lower man goes up and he then presses down the do-gooder to the gutter levels in the verbal codes

That is Thoo-Aap changes to Aap-Thoo.

Or the do-gooder falls down to levels of equality with the lower person (Thoo-Thoo).

In these both cases, the do-gooder will experience the social system going up-side down for him.

During the English rule period in South Asia, the English individuals were placed on the Aap (highest) verbal level by their local native subordinates. Keeping the Englishmen on these highest ie. Saab, MemSaab &c. levels, the local native staff arranged themselves under them. To the other local natives, these staff members remained on the higher verbal brackets due to their proximity to the English officials.

That was a very attractive experience for the Englishmen and women. I do not want to go into the complexities in this, now.

However, as of now, the native-English individuals’ experience in England could be quite different.

When the English citizens arrange the swarmed-in feudal language speakers in levels of equality with them, there is no one to position the Englishmen and women in the higher secure levels of Aap / Saab / MemSaab levels.

The feudal languages speakers simply place them in the lowest bracket of their native communication codes. They have no qualms in defining the native-English at the gutter levels of their own communication codes. In fact, they would have the argument that these are words which they use among themselves. So what is there to be worried about?

What is wrong in mentioning an English woman as an Aval? (Aval is lowest she). There is an issue.

It is a deep topic, which I will not pursue here. However, I will give the link to a wider discussion of this idea later.

I will pass on a few illustrative scenarios to bring the spot light on what is happening.

Even in South Asia, I have found that in certain communication code areas in the society, words used in the social system can unite a husband and wife. At the same time, there are locations where the verbal codes can bring in a splinter in the husband-wife relationship.

In the early 1990s a lot of practically uneducated-in-English persons from South Asia arrived in the US as computer software workers. They came from a typical feudal language mindset, in which they very clearly knew the verbal position of each kind of job.

I happened to hear from one such group of people. They were working for a female citizen of the US. She was a software engineer. (In those days, Software was in the hands of the native-English nationals. Now it is not).

She invited her employees to her house on her birthday or some other similar occasion.  She introduced her husband to them.

He is a carpenter, she told them.

The feudal-language guests took some time to absorb this shocking information. Over here in South Asia, a carpenter is a lowly person inside the feudal languages. In many places, he is not allowed to sit on a chair. There is a verbal hierarchy that bears upon him. He is nowhere a person to marry an ‘engineer’.

He is an Avan or an Oan (lowest he, him, his) and she is an Avar or Maadam or memsaab (highest She, Her, Hers). If such a marriage takes place in South Asia, in every social conversation, the husband and wife would be pulled apart. They would themselves feel the vertical distance between them.

The husband would feel the reverential stature of his wife and the wife would feel the distasteful repulsiveness of her husband.

It is these kinds of terrible social design codes that have entered into native-English nations from all over the world.   Not only family relationships, but every other kind of social relationship also will go into disorder. Feudal language codes do radiate through the eyes also. Words need not be spoken.

Check this book of mine for more on this:

English racism is powerless against these things.

Maybe I would do a couple of posts about similar scenarios. After that I will go back to describing the population content of South Asia, which the English Company came across.