TSR Subramanian Former Cabinet Secretary of India
There have recently been incidents protesting the ‘imposition’ of Hindi in Karnataka, especially following the trilingual (Kannada, English and Hindi) signboards and announcements in the newly-inaugurated Metro Rail system in Bengaluru. Much media debate, especially on TV, has taken place, which included aggressively chauvinistic postures from Hindi protagonists and an equally virulent response from ‘patriotic’ Kannadigas—while lot of heat emanated, there was no clarity in the substance of the debate.
Firstly, what is the legal position? The Official Languages Act was first promulgated in 1963, amended thereafter in 1976 and 1987. The original intention was that Hindi will be the national official language and will, in limited time, replace English. The Tamil agitations of 1965, 1968
and 1986 are also relevant dates, where Annadurai’s leadership (following EVR’s abolish Hindi or quit India call in the earlier two decades) strongly influenced the amendments to language policy.
There is no ‘national’ language covering the whole country. There are 22 ‘official’ languages in India, which speaks in 122 major and 1,652 other languages—illustrating the complexity of the issue. The official language of the Government of India is English and Hindi. As the Constitutional framework stands today, no language—including English or Hindi—can be imposed on any state. The citizens of each state can decide on their own language of communication—indeed, a number of states have chosen their own preferred language, some of them outside the official languages.
The three-language formula (TLF) evolved in the ’60s through the Official Language Act as a negotiated compromise to accommodate diverse views. Effectively, this relates to the teaching of languages in the school curriculum. The fact is, the TLF has utterly failed. Whereas most universities in north India provided for some south Indian language to be taught in the two decades after Independence, one can hardly come across any institution doing so today. In other words, the TLF, meant for national integration, has not performed any role.
The above is the legal position, as perceived by this writer. However, the language issue goes to the root of the psyche and culture of most people—and is addressed through emotions. So many anti-Hindi agitations and riots took place in the first two decades of independence, when it was perceived that Hindi was being forced in the south. The fact is that farsighted people in the then government let natural forces play their role, and did not see imposition as a necessity. As a result, Hindi has percolated all over India, and to a significant extent in the south, especially in the cities and smaller towns.
Let us briefly touch upon the Swiss experience, where there are four national languages—German, French, Italian and Romansch (the last, like our Sanskrit, largely an unused ancient language). All these are taught in schools. However, all activities—transport, local commerce, art and cultural activities—are highly localised in one of the three languages, in each Canton. Only in Federal offices, and national common services, are the three languages displayed. The Swiss is fiercely patriotic, while being equally chauvinistic about his own language. Surely, this is a sensible model to follow in India. Any perception of a language being imposed will immediately attract strong reactions.
English may be the language of Keats, Milton and Shakespeare, as well as Macaulay, but it is alien to the country, and it is not the common man’s language. It is surely desirable to have a language, which is acceptable and usable all over India. Hindi is the best candidate for this. But the worst way of reaching this objective will be to aggressively pursue its spread—the best way will be to let natural forces, including trade, tourism and employment, play the role over time.
India is one of the most undeveloped countries in the world, and has slid substantially in every human index in the past 70 years. The only national focus now needs to be on development of opportunities for the citizen. National energy should not be used in diversionary activities such as language chauvinism, or cow vigilantism or the like. A balanced approach by all, particularly policy makers, would be highly desirable.
tsrsubramanian@gmail.com