The One-Page Notice: Grammar, Scope and a Missing Matra
A district agriculture office must issue a one-page Hindi notice for a micro-irrigation subsidy scheme before close of office on 14 July. The last date is 15 July and about 4,200 applications are expected. Two drafts are circulating on the office WhatsApp group. Draft A reads: “अनुसूचित जाति एवं जनजाति के किसानों को छोड़कर, जिनकी भूमि दो हेक्टेयर से कम है, सभी किसान 15 जुलाई तक आवेदन कर सकते हैं।” Draft B reads: “दो हेक्टेयर से कम भूमि वाले सभी किसान - अनुसूचित जाति एवं जनजाति के किसानों सहित - 15 जुलाई तक आवेदन कर सकते हैं।” The scheme rules make every cultivator with under two hectares eligible; the phrase “एससी-एसटी को छोड़कर” was only an officer's oral remark at a review meeting and no notification supports it. Separately, on 14 July an application arrives in which the ration card spells the name ‘कुँवर सिंह’ and the Aadhaar card spells it ‘कुंवर सिंह’. The dealing clerk recommends rejection on grounds of name mismatch and asks for a written order.
1. Which draft is defective, and what exactly in the Hindi sentence structure produces the defect?
Read the worked answer
Draft A is defective on two independent counts, and only the second is a drafting problem that a grammatical fix can cure.
First, it is substantively wrong: it excludes SC/ST cultivators from a scheme in which the rules make them eligible. No amount of good Hindi repairs a false statement of eligibility, so the oral remark in the review meeting must be recorded as overruled.
Second, the sentence is structurally ambiguous. The exclusion phrase ‘…को छोड़कर’ is fronted and then interrupted by a comma-separated relative clause, ‘जिनकी भूमि दो हेक्टेयर से कम है’, before the main clause begins. A reader cannot tell whether the relative clause restricts the excluded group (SC/ST cultivators whose land is under two hectares) or the eligible group (all cultivators whose land is under two hectares). Both readings are grammatically available because the relative clause has no unambiguous head noun immediately before it.
A third, smaller flaw: ‘15 जुलाई तक’ is inclusive of the date but silent about office hours and about applications received after closing time, which is exactly the dispute a notice exists to prevent.
2. Rewrite the operative sentences of the notice in Hindi so that eligibility, the deadline and the excluded category cannot be misread. Justify each change.
Read the worked answer
A defensible operative text:
“लघु सिंचाई सहायता योजना के अंतर्गत दो हेक्टेयर से कम भूमि वाले सभी कृषक पात्र हैं। इसमें अनुसूचित जाति तथा अनुसूचित जनजाति के कृषक भी सम्मिलित हैं। आवेदन 15 जुलाई (समावेशी) को सायं 5:00 बजे तक कार्यालय में अथवा ऑनलाइन प्राप्त होने चाहिए। इसके पश्चात प्राप्त आवेदन स्वीकार नहीं किए जाएँगे। भूमि संबंधी दस्तावेज़ अनिवार्य हैं।”
Justification, clause by clause. (i) ‘को छोड़कर’ is removed entirely; an exclusion is the wrong instrument when the true rule is universal eligibility, and any future exclusion should be a separate numbered sentence. (ii) Eligibility and deadline are split into separate sentences, so no relative clause sits between a modifier and its head noun. (iii) ‘पात्र हैं’ replaces ‘आवेदन कर सकते हैं’ in the eligibility sentence, because ‘सकते हैं’ expresses permission, not entitlement, and invites officials to refuse. (iv) ‘समावेशी’ and the closing time are stated explicitly; ‘तक’ alone does not settle whether 5 p.m. receipts count. (v) Open-ended words such as ‘आदि’ and ‘अन्य दस्तावेज़’ are avoided, since they give counter clerks unlimited discretion. (vi) The negative consequence is stated in the passive with a clear cut-off, matching the register of a statutory notice.
3. How should the office dispose of the application with the ‘कुँवर सिंह’ / ‘कुंवर सिंह’ discrepancy?
Read the worked answer
The application should not be rejected on this ground. The difference is orthographic, not onomastic: चंद्रबिंदु and अनुस्वार are both used in standard Hindi to mark the same nasalisation before a consonant, and the same name is routinely transliterated differently across ration-card, bank and Aadhaar databases maintained by different agencies at different times. Neither spelling changes the pronunciation or creates a second identifiable person.
Rejection would also be bad administration. It would be an adverse order resting on a formality, passed at the deadline when the applicant has no time to appeal, and it would generate grievances and RTI requests that cost more than the verification.
The correct course is corroboration, not rejection. The clerk should match at least two independent identifiers - father's or spouse's name, village, land survey number, date of birth - take a self-declaration in the prescribed format recording the spelling variation, note the variation in the register against the application number, and process the application on merits. If the office has a name-variation standard operating procedure, the entry should cite it; if not, the incident is a reason to issue one before the next enrolment drive. Rejection is justified only if corroboration fails or the identities genuinely diverge.