Characterizing the Debate on Constructing Scientific Terms in Hindi: A Study of Influences and Motivations

Science writing in Hindi (a popular vernacular and one of the official languages in India) began in the latter half of the nineteenth century, in a context that was shaped by the evolution of a specific form of the language (which itself was indeed part of a contentious political process) as well as by the emergence and growth of the anti-colonial freedom movement, yoked to the idea of cultural and economic nationalism. Hindi science writing witnessed considerable growth in the early twentieth century. Over time there was a remarkable increase in the volume of Hindi writings on science and science related subjects. Notwithstanding these achievements, the efforts towards science writing were soon faced with the limitation of the language, in terms of the inadequacy of terminology in Hindi that could be used to define phenomena scientifically and to describe scientific principles. This lacuna was soon recognized and led to some interesting initiatives to construct glossaries of scientific terms in Hindi. This paper is an attempt to describe some aspects of this development. It traces the process that went into creating the dictionary of scientific terms, including the main principles that shaped the same. The paper bases itself primarily on a survey of the content of one of the first popular science periodicals of India, Vigyan. It brings particular focus to the debates around the foundational principles for creating a glossary of scientific terms. The central point of these debates was the source of vocabulary to be used for constructing scientific terminology in Hindi. There were those who argued for a continued use of popular scientific terms, thus upholding the universal character of science. While others demanded a puritan approach, contending that classical sources of Sanskrit and Arabic should be utilized for the purpose. There were yet others who feared that the latter approach could invoke communal competition and therefore promoted a middle path of some sort. Debates also hovered on whether the nation should have one uniform glossary of scientific terms to facilitate scientific communication or should different languages continue with their own evolution. The paper thus shows that these debates in fact reflected some of the contentious questions in the history of science. At the same time, they were also indicative of the larger political conflict coloured by linguistic nationalism framed alongside or in conjunction with a revivalist perspective.