Sociolinguists study the valorization of specific languages as a ‘language ideology’. Contemporary nation-states frequently identify with and promote specific languages. Such linguistic nationalism is a language ideology, but not the only one. This article examines earlier millennia to uncover the dynamics by which imperial systems managed linguistic diversity and how and why they favored and disfavored particular languages and scripts. I analyze states and empires as coalitions of interest groups. I invoke the scribal masters of imperial chanceries and archives as one such group. I develop a heuristic framework (or “model”) to understand the interactions of language and power that unfolded across West and South Asia. I begin with a great empire, the Persian, that did not employ its founders’ ethnic speech but instead refined an older state language in governance. That choice entrenched an interest group that endured through a thousand years till displaced by Arab conquest after 660 CE. But a simpler ‘New Persian’ revived in the eastern Iranian lands. Turkish and Mongol conquest elites emerging from Inner Asia carried this language and its scribes into their growing domains in the Indian subcontinent. I then explain why the non-Persian Mughals in the 1550s selected Persian as their state language and rejected the constant pressure to use Urdu creole. Mughal rule left behind a tenacious Persian-writing elite that the early British empire employed. Finally, I explain the state processes behind the colonial-era decline of Persianate administration and the emergence of a new linguistic politics in colonial India.

With increasing demand for large numbers of testing during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, alternative protocols were developed with shortened turn-around time. We evaluated the performance of such a protocol wherein 1138 consecutive clinic attendees were enrolled; 584 and 554 respectively from two independent study sites in the cities of Pune and Kolkata. Paired nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were tested by using both reference and index methods in a blinded fashion. Prior to conducting real-time polymerase chain reaction, swabs collected in viral transport medium (VTM) were processed for RNA extraction (reference method) and swabs collected in a dry tube without VTM were incubated in Tris–EDTA–proteinase K buffer for 30 min and heat-inactivated at 98 °C for 6 min (index method). Overall sensitivity and specificity of the index method were 78.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71–86) and 99% (95% CI 98–99.6), respectively. Agreement between the index and reference method was 96.8% (k = 0.83, s.e. = 0.03). The reference method exhibited an enhanced detection of viral genes (E, N and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase) with lower Ct values compared to the index method. The index method can be used for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 infection with an appropriately chosen primer–probe set and heat treatment approach in pressing time; low sensitivity constrains its potential wider use.

The past two decades have seen a dramatic renewal of interest in the subject of historical memory, its reproduction and transmission. But most studies have focused on the selection and construction of extant memories. This essay looks at missing memory as well. It seeks to broaden our understanding of memory by investigating the way in which historical memory significant to one historical tradition was slighted by another, even though the two overlapped both spatially and chronologically. It does this by an examination of how the memory of the Marathi-speaking peoples first neglected and then adopted the story of the Vijayanagara empire that once dominated southern India.

An important part of the by now enormous literature on nationalism has focused on its conditions of possibility, on what we may call the processes of pre-formation that underlay the explosive rise of those “imagined communities” in the modern era. How indeed has modernity (however defined) impacted on the mechanisms by which identities—including national ones—are formed, felt and enacted? This question has frequently been addressed in recent decades, especially as studies of nationalism have broadened their ambit to take in the non-Western world. This expansion has certainly generated major works—most famously, of course, the first edition (1983) of Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities which made the stimulating suggestion that print capitalism was a central pre-formative institution for incipient nations.