C Aryama sundaram Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
India is a country built out of diversity, whether in demographic profiles, languages, cultures, traditions, customs, physical features, religious beliefs or even behavioural characteristics. Her greatness lies in creating a unity of this diversity. But it is a unity that requires constant nurturing to ensure that each feels equally protected sans his identity being trampled on.
Of the various differences, the most important is language. While other distinctions permit a uniqueness, which can be preserved without disturbing the overall oneness of the country, it is not so in case of language since, how can a country whose people cannot communicate with each other, act with unity of purpose and as a true homogenous union of its parts? The fact is, that our country is innately a heterogeneous union. But one where the majority species require the minority to blend into their way of life. “Speak my language since most of us do and we need not make any attempt to speak yours!”
Perhaps sensing this potential danger, our founding fathers devoted special attention to language and a separate provision was included in the Constitution with a separate Schedule of official languages. While dealing with an official language for communication they were careful not to dub it a national language. The states’ use of their own language was clearly recognised and protected. But the majority linguistic groups attempting to thrust their language, commenced a bare 15 years later, which was violently resisted by the people of Tamil Nadu. In the bloodbath that followed, the attempted imposition of Hindi was withdrawn with a promise to desist therefrom in future.
A promise, never kept. The renewed attempts excused on the basis that Hindi was only being encouraged, not imposed. The thin line between the two leaving it to the respective perceptions of the ‘encouragor’ and the ‘encouragee’. The untiring efforts of making Hindi the national language continues. The latest being the Karnataka issue of signage on metros.
As to why sleeping dogs cannot be allowed to lie, one needs only a look at the nature of man. A constant desire to conquer, whether by geographical conquest or in more psychological ways, is the basic fabric of the human species. While the creation of a Union from independent states could be a product of physical conquest or out of circumstances, its preservation is an ongoing challenge—one to be met with constant understanding and reassurance of inclusivity—not just cosmetic, but real.
The reasons given for introducing Hindi signages on Metros as purportedly to facilitate communication to those who could not understand English or Kannada was absurd, if not ludicrous! Has the ruling party forgotten that hardly two per cent of Karnataka’s population speaks Hindi and a much larger segment spoke other southern languages. If the purpose of including Hindi was to enable those who did not know English or Kannada to understand the signage, why use the language that most of such people did not understand? Why not Assamese, Bengali or Gujarati? The answer is simple! It was another attempt to get people in non-Hindi speaking states to learn the language and over a period of time get Hindi to be a national language—something that the forefathers of our Constitution desisted. And so, the ugly head of a linguistic divide rises again!
Unfortunately, the manner in which the language issue has been handled over the past decades displayed a remarkable lack of political sagacity. Instead of a common language naturally evolving as a necessary means of communication for people in different parts of India—a natural corollary to interconnection through trade, commerce, education and employment—thrusting the majority language on the minority has been counterproductive. The ‘magnanimous’ offer of a three-language formula is laughable. All it means is that non-Hindi speaking states shall have three languages with Hindi being one, while those speaking Hindi shall have only two.
The Hindi speaking population needs to learn no other language, but the non-Hindi speaking states shall! If this is not a deliberate imposition on an unwilling minority, then one wonders what is! A wise majority would normally have allowed the minority to naturally learn their language. That is the manner in which languages in most civilisations evolve. The lack of foresight, patience and statesmanship has led to this impasse—with non-Hindi speaking states digging their heels in and, therefore, supporting a non-native English language as the communicating link. Have the overzealous in their attempt to promote Hindi resulted in the thwarting of its natural evolution into the national language?
aryama_sundaram@hotmail.com