Everyone knows language is a touchy issue in many parts of India. Yet, we like to play with fire for the sake of politics. Right from 1937, Tamil Nadu has witnessed many anti-Hindi battles and campaigns. People have rioted, committed suicide and organised mass protests over ‘Hindi’ imposition right from 1937. C Rajagopalachari decided to introduce compulsory Hindi teaching in the Madras Presidency schools. Periyar EV Ramasamy, Soma Sudara Bhartiyar and others took the lead against this mandatory introduction of an alien language, and the street battles and riots that went on for nearly two years resulted in the deaths of two protesters and arrests of thousands of people, including women and children. Ironically, it wasn’t the British government that led the crackdown; it was a supposedly nationalist government led by the Indian National Congress and its stalwart C Rajagopalachari. The massive agitation resulted in Rajaji losing the chief ministership in 1939. Lord Erskine, the Governor of Madras, withdrew the mandatory Hindi education for unwilling people in February 1940. When we won independence, after extensive debate, Hindi was adopted as the official language of India, with English as an associate official language for a pre-set period of 15 years. Hindi was supposed to be the sole official language on January 26, 1965.
By 1963, the southern states feared a total Hindi imposition, despite Jawaharlal Nehru enacting the official language act in 1963 to ensure the use of English beyond 1965. However, as D-day approached, Tamil Nadu was again rocked by anti-Hindi agitations. If BJP members are now trying hard to justify the central government’s stand of imposing NEP with a three-language formula and withholding educational funds to one of the most educationally progressive states, it was the Indian National Congress of Tamil Nadu who clashed with their anti-Hindi protestors. It became a fullfledged riot that spread across the state and went on for two months, resulting in 70 deaths, self-immolations, arson and other forms of lawlessness. Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri stepped in to calm the waters and ensure that English would continue as the official language as long as the non-Hindi states wanted. One side effect of this agitation was that Congress was finished in Tamil Nadu and never returned to power after that date.
Given the contentious history of language imposition, it is surprising and deeply concerning that, once again, the issue is being raked up for no apparent reason or tangible benefit. If we consider all social parameters— from literacy rates to economic development and healthcare access to educational achievements—the non-Hindi states, especially from South India, lead the Hindi-speaking states by a vast and measurable margin. When more than 25 per cent of Hindi speakers remain illiterate even after 78 years of independence, the fervent enthusiasm to impose Hindi on states for whom the language is historically alien and culturally distant is both baffling and potentially counterproductive. Given the colossal population imbalance and persistent social regressiveness in what is commonly called the Hindi belt, the number of illiterates among Hindi speakers is many times more than the entire population of South Indian states combined—a stark reality that demands immediate attention. One wishes more resources, effort, and strategic planning would be put into making this vast population literate in their mother tongue before pursuing ambitious plans of linguistic expansion on unwilling people.
As such, there is apprehension among many that there is an attempt for backdoor entry of Hindi. Many nationalised banks now have only forms in Hindi and English with no language of the state, irrespective of where the bank is located. In railway stations and airports, one finds Hindi words changed into Roman and other Indian language scripts instead of the corresponding words in those respective languages. This is a new way of sneaking in Hindi. For example, all central government schemes are named in convoluted Hindi names that non-native speakers struggle to pronounce. If one travels to North Indian states, finding English boards even in government offices is becoming increasingly rare, and this is when everyone else is instructed to follow a three-language policy.
India and Hinduism have so far thrived on their diversity. There is no one holy book, one holy place, one God, one religious head or authority, or one form of worship. That has been its inherent strength that helped it to withstand invasions and foreign rule. So, this obsession with one language in such a diverse country will be troublesome and counter-productive. The languages of India have thousands of years of history, and Hindi is a relatively new language and is more alien than English to many parts of the country. It serves no purpose for those living outside the Hindi-speaking states other than to communicate with those residents when needed. Governments should avoid dictating who should learn which language, when and how or try to sneak in languages on unwilling people or withhold deserving educational grants to states that have been far more successful in education and literacy than many others. If anyone wants to learn any language, whether it is Hindi, Sanskrit, Tamil, French or Cantonese, it isn’t difficult in this era to find sufficient online resources for free. Enforcing anything will only create mutual hatred and open opportunities for politicians to fish in troubled waters. We have an adequate amount of hatred floating around in social media over religion and caste, and we need not add language to this horrendous list. It sounds silly to fight over language in an era when translations are available at a click. Also, it would be nice to fix that vast illiteracy issue pulling our beloved country backwards. The day when all native Hindi speakers can read and write in that beautiful language like their Malayali counterparts have been doing in theirs for the last 40 years will be a true tribute to Hindi.