Watch the above video-clip.
The controversy centers on the distribution of Oxford English-Telugu dictionaries to students in Andhra Pradesh under a government scheme led by former Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy. Allegations surfaced on social media and in political debates claiming that the dictionary’s definition of “God” was altered or presented in a way that exclusively refers to the Christian or Semitic God, implying that Hindu gods are polytheistic and not equal to the Christian godhead.
However, fact-checks and news reports clarify that the Oxford English-Telugu dictionary distributed was not altered by the Andhra Pradesh government.
The definition of “God” in the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary typically describes God in the context of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism as “the being or spirit that is worshiped and is believed to have created the universe,” which is standard in many English dictionaries.
The controversy arose because this definition does not explicitly include Hindu conceptions of divinity, but it is not unique to the dictionaries distributed in Andhra Pradesh—it is the same as the standard Oxford dictionary definition.
The issue became politicized, with opposition leaders accusing the government of promoting a Christian agenda and undermining Hindu beliefs. However, there is no evidence that the government modified the Oxford dictionary’s content to favor any particular religion.
The debate is part of a broader controversy over the government’s push to switch the medium of instruction in state schools from Telugu to English, which has faced criticism for potentially undermining local language and culture.
However , the English in colonial times did play mischief on Indian subjects by showing their disdain for certain cultural fixtures of Indian life . Through the Oxford Dictionary they concocted dubious, derogatory meanings for certain native Indian words , names and expressions. The most notorious example being the meaning given for the word “Kumbakonam!”.
There was a well-known controversy regarding the meaning of “Kumbakonam” in the Oxford Dictionary during the British colonial period. The Oxford dictionary once included two meanings for “Kumbakonam”:
• The primary meaning was as a “temple town in South India.”
• The secondary, derogatory meaning described people from Kumbakonam as “not straightforward” or essentially as “cheats”—a stereotype held by some British officials at the time.
This negative connotation caused significant resentment among the local population.
In 1925, the Kumbakonam municipality officially passed a resolution demanding that the British authorities remove the derogatory meaning from the Oxford dictionary. The campaign was successful, but it took several years of local protest and formal requests before the offensive definition was finally removed.
So, it took from the early 20th century until after 1925—following official protest and sustained efforts by the local community—for the Oxford Dictionary to change and remove the derogatory meaning associated with “Kumbakonam”.
********* ********** *********
Be that all as it may , my own view on the controversy is that the subject is too lofty, too profoundly Vedantic in nature to be turned into low level political propaganda guerrilla street-side warfare as it is sought to be waged in Andhra Pradesh.
Here is my take :
The term “God” is used by multiple world religions and is not exclusive to Christianity. Its meaning and attributes depend on the religious context in which it is used.
In our Hindu Sanatana Dharma , God has no name : the Upanishads know him only as Brahmann. … and the nameless Brahmann is denoted only by its intrinsic nature , which is Sathyam, Gnyaanam, Anantham i.e. Truth, Omniscience and Timelessness:
sa̠tya-ñjñā̠nama̍na̠nta-mbrahma̍ !
Elsewhere , the same Upanishad describes the nameless Brahmann in a circumlocutory way only because it is impossible to put Brahmann in any fixed category of nomenclature. So, Brahmann is described in terms of its functions:
yatō̠ vā i̠māni̠ bhūtā̍ni̠ jāya̍ntē । yēna̠ jātā̍ni̠ jīva̍nti । yatpraya̍ntya̠bhisaṃvi̍śanti । tadviji̍jñāsasva । tadbrahmēti̍ ।
Thus, the nameless Brahman functions as the origin, the sustenance, and the dissolution of the universe.
This nameless Brahmann is a metaphysical entity whose reality is difficult to conceive by mortal minds. Without names , objects and forms in the world become inconceivable to the mortal senses or faculties . All things in the universe are known by their names, forms and qualities ( Guna).
So, the human mind came up with the idea of conjuring up and giving countless names (naama) to the Nameless Brahmann…. This was an act of kindness on the part of the great Rishis who tried to show ordinary mortals like us an easier way to conceptualise and comprehend the Nameless Brahmann.
The Vishnu Sahasranama Stotra was one of the earliest of Rishi efforts to give names to Brahmann. It was compiled by Veda Vyasa who declared:
yAni nAmAni gauNAni vikhyAtAni mahatmanaH |
R^iShibhiH paragItAni tAni vaxAmi bhUtaye ||
“I am giving for the benefit of all, those names of His which are far-famed, which are indicative of His attributes, and which find a place in the exalted hymns of the R^iShis.”
The long and short of it all is then only this :
In our Hindu faith , Brahmann is Brahmann no matter by what name or how many names you denote it by … In this uniquely philosophical aspect, Brahmann is but what that famous poet wrote : “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
I for one don’t really care a damn how the Oxford English Learner’s Dictionary defines the word God. Why? Because I think Oxford itself has so much yet to learn and comprehend indeed about the Vedantic conception of Godhood.
Sudarshan Madabushi