CHAPTER FIVE

LANGUAGES IN INDIA TODAY

1. INTRODUCTION:

Language in India is a sensitive and debatable issue for various reasons. It is debatable
because it contains religious, ethnic, national, regional, casteist, and status sentiments. It is
believed to be a highly potent political issue like caste and religion in Indian politics.
Moreover, when combined with caste and religion, its power becomes reinforced. The
sensitive nature of the language could be seen in pre-independent India to even today in
Indian politics.

It is not uncommon that India’s language is highly politicized. It has been an issue of
discussion in the public domain in Indian politics because of its ability to inflame the
sentiments of people. Because of its political potency, language was used as one of the criteria
to decide the formation of the states, to demarcate the boundaries of the states, to flare up
emotions during elections, to keep the interstate undecided fluid boundaries issues alive and
wherever convenient as one of the manifestos in the elections. The power of language was
visible while deciding the Official Languages in the Constitutional Assembly, the languages
for the Eighth Schedule of the constitution, and the State Official Languages while
formulating the national and state educational policies and language planning and
development.

“There is a close relationship between language and identity, particularly cultural and ethnic
identity.”1 When speakers of one language feel threatened or oppressed by speakers of
another language, language disputes emerge. Language disparities become strong indicators
of social, cultural, and political divisions during a linguistic dispute, and territorial, religious,
and power battles ensue.2

Language plays multiple roles in a multilingual country like India. “As a medium of
communication, it engages with the ‘other’ for a divergent cultural experience. However,
language as an identity marker also provides a window to ‘other’s culture to understand and
emphasize the other.”3 Viewed from this angle, language can be inherently creative, socially
constructed and politically neutral. When language is viewed from a parochial, communal and
ethnic identity can provide an a priori excuse for violence.4 Moreover, there is a hierarchy of
identities in multilingual societies. Each group stresses primary attachment to one identity and
differing degrees of attachment to other identities. 5 Though Bill Bryson writes, “Social

164
pressures and the desire for a common national identity may encourage people to settle on a
single way of speaking”6 “the superiority of one language or dialect over another has social
and historical rather than genuinely linguistic origins.”7 It means identity is prominently
‘political’ where different units become formed, represented and mobilised.8 Identities, as
Charles Taylor puts it, are “partly shaped by recognition or absence, often by misrecognition
of others.”9 Therefore, languages, wherever they are spoken, have attained a unique status,
perhaps due to the redefined nature of Identity Politics. They raise the questions like 1. Does
it matter when a language itself transforms due to modern culture? 2. Do languages survive
even after adaptations? 3. Do they make a comeback or return to the past glory? How do
Governments manage Language Identity Politics? Etc.

In addition to all the above, another important question that haunts linguaphiles today is
whether the importance of languages is becoming minimal due to different occupational
patterns. Due to Internet technology, online jobs, and work-from-home trends, the English
language has emerged as a ‘global language’, and due to its unavoidability, local languages
are used minimally at the workplace. Future employability attracts more and more people to
obtain proficiency in English which inadvertently leads to negligence towards other
languages. This tendency is neither hate nor indifference but utilitarianism. Moreover, work
patterns today do not demand knowledge of literary English but conversational English,
which indicates that the power of language is decreasing, entailing us to examine the role of
languages in India today.

2. MOTHER TONGUE DEBATE IN INDIA:

In India, the debate on Language evolves around the ‘Mother Tongue’ and various aspects
connected to a particular language. The definition of the mother tongue is elusive and
changing. The Oxford Concise Companion to the English Language defines Mother Tongue
as a “General term for the language of the childhood home, learned at mother’s knee, often
used synonymously with native language.”10

This dictionary meaning of the word mother tongue cannot be comprehensive because, in a
patrilocal community, the child learns the father’s Language. In patrilocal or Patri-lingual
marriages, as R.A Hudson says, “The linguistic consequence of this rule is that a child’s
mother does not teach her Language to the child, but rather the Language which she speaks
like a foreigner...”11 This demonstrates that a child's mother tongue need not always be the
language spoken by the mother.

165
When a mother tongue is considered one’s ‘native language,’ as in the above definition, the
term ‘Native language’ should be differentiated from ‘mother tongue.’ The term ‘native’ is
used in contrast to ‘foreign.’ The word ‘native’ had a pejorative meaning during India's
British rule. British referred to Indians as ‘natives’, likening them to aborigines. As a result,
the aboriginal language is used to refer to the native tongue. In a nation linguistically as
varied as India, the native language is distinguished from a regional language, which is
classified as a minority language. The native Language appears equal to the indigenous
Language in this sense. In a strange turn of events, the English language, which was brought
from a distant location not too long ago and has now evolved into the native mother tongue of
Anglo-Indians, is considered ‘foreign.’ Others define “mother tongue as the original language
from which the other springs"12. For instance, Sanskrit is considered the progenitor of all
Indo-Aryan languages, whereas Latin is the mother of all Romance languages spoken today.
This definition does not include the meaning we intend to the mother tongue.

The Census Department of India defines the word mother tongue varied during the
consecutive Census displays the non-unanimity regarding the definition of the mother tongue:

“Census 1881, 'the language spoken by the individual from the cradle.'

Census 1891- ‘parent tongue' (the Language spoken by the parents of the individual)

Census 1901- ‘language ordinarily used.'

Census 1911 'Language spoken in the household.'

Census 1921 'language ordinarily used.'

Census 1971- 'the language is spoken in childhood by the person's mother to the person”13

“In the case of the deaf and the mute, the mother tongue is the 'language spoken by the
mother.' However, these definitions again have drawbacks because, in the Indian context, a
child grows up in a patrilocal atmosphere, and it is the language of the father that
dominates.”14

Keeping this in mind, Debi Prasanna Pattanayak writes, “Some scholars have accepted
learning a language without formal training as mother tongue.” 15 This indicates that the
language acquired by the infant via the most intimate forms of socialisation is known as the
mother tongue. If the child grew up in a multilingual context, the child might develop

166
multiple mother tongues. For example, an Oriya boy married to a Tamil living in Calcutta's
Bengali environment may speak English at home with a Hindustani Ayah and Nepali Gorkha
security. In such a situation, the children may speak six languages: Oriya, Tamil, Bengali,
English, Hindi, and Gorkahali. 16

Nonetheless, it is evident from the Indian Census responses that many Indians could not
accurately identify their mother language to the census officials. “As the respondents were
made to feel free to return the name of his mother tongue and same was recorded faithfully” 17
the total number of mother tongues so returned included 19569 of which some were not actual
languages. As a result, these 19569 raw returns were rationalised, and only 1369 were treated
as mother tongues. Among the mother tongue returns of the Indian Census, one finds
Bilaspuria (place name), Teli (caste name), Haridasi (sect name), and Bahargoan/Pardeshi
(location outside the present) also being enumerated as mother tongues. Therefore, mother
tongues are not necessarily language names but identity tokens awaiting further clarification.
Therefore, they need to be interpreted, tested and explained. Planners are often frightened by
the number of mother tongues spoken and shun discussion, which has led to the
endangerment and death of languages for which the governments directly become responsible
through their inadequate policies.

Scholars find it apt to call the mother tongue ‘home language in such a dilemma.’ However, if
many languages are spoken simultaneously at home, defining the mother tongue as the 'home
language' will demand clarity. For this sake, some scholars opine mother tongue is the “home
language in the chronological ordering of the language known by the child, which a child
acquires through informal learning through exposure to the least conscious formal teaching
that makes the mother tongue different from the language learned in the school even in the
school the same language is taught.”18

3. MOTHER TONGUE AND IDENTITY:

Language is a significant force that creates identity. “Individuals utilise social categories to
organise their social surroundings and simplify the world. One of the variables used to
classify 'others' is language. Therefore, language also has a stimulating effect on the
development of social identity and ethnic identification. Social identity is the portion of a
person's sense of self that arises from his (or her) knowledge of his (or her) membership in a
social group (or groups) and the values and emotional importance linked to that
membership.”19 writes William B Gudykunst.

167
By speaking, human beings relate to one another and form groups. They distinguish
themselves from one another and form identities. Identity formation and loss can happen
through the use or non-use of Language. Language can create identities through dialect,
sociolect, styles, and varieties. Similarly, “region, social group, discourse fields, medium and
attitude can also create an identity within a language.”20 Moreover, the use of language in
various domains also creates identity. Therefore, identities can be multiple. Identities also can
be micro or macro. The identity of English, in general, can be macro, whereas 'British
English' or 'American English' can be micro “when seen as distinct from the national standard
English.”21

Language is not only a force of identity formation but also an identity assertion because “the
concept of collective identity is …relational to the extent that it is composed of comparisons
and references to other collective identities from which it is distinguished.” 22 So, it is based on
understanding the ‘self’ in opposition to the ‘other’. It is a way of defining self by
distinguishing ‘us’ from ‘them’. From this angle, Mother Tongue, Script, Dialect, and Nation-
states can become the aspects of Identity formation and assertion. Various language
movements in India blatantly emphasize this point.

Though India is a multilingual nation with subsequently diverse identities, Sanskrit acted as
the cultural barometer of identity for most of the population in the country by providing a
common vocabulary, syntactic structure, semantic field, themes, modes, and aesthetic
perceptions. Therefore, despite diversity, we see a complementarity of manifold identities
culminating in a macro-identity called the Indian identity. For instance, a citizen of Dakshin
Kannada District of coastal Karnataka has a micro identity of Tulu mother tongue, Kannadiga
identity of the state of Karnataka and a Macro identity of being a citizen of India. All these
identities are not antithetical to each other but complementary.

Various aspects of Language can be a source of identity stimulation: For example, the script.
Major writing systems used in India are Assamese, Bengali, Manipuri, Gujarati, Gurumukhi,
Nagari, Oriya, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil, Perso-Arabic, and Roman. Perso-Arabic
and Roman are recent external acquisitions. Even though India's languages belong to five
language families, out of ten writing systems, eight are from a single source, Brahmi. Hindi
and Marathi are written in Nagari script. Since languages have an emotional heritage, they
stick to their script-based identities. For example, though the Konkani Sahithya Academy
award is conferred only for the books written in the Nagari script, Konkani writers have an
emotional bond in Goa for Roman Scripts, and Karnataka for Kannada script has resulted in a
168
movement to recognize the Konkani literature written in all the five scripts. Alternatively, the
Bodos, who wanted to establish a unique identity, did not accept the Assamese script but a
foreign Roman Script as a medium to write Bodo.

Occasionally script-based identity runs counter to language-based identity. As noted, Konkani

is written in Nagari, Kannada, Malayalam, Roman, and Perso-Arabic scripts. Konkani,
written in Malayalam script, seeks to establish an independent identity. Sindhi is another such
case. The quarrel between two groups contending for Nagari and Perso-Arabic scripts has
been a hurdle in developing the Language. In this case, religion is opposed to script-based
identity, undermining the Language.

A Dialect of a language also can be a source of identity assertion. Example: In India, Hindi
has various dialects like Bhojpuri, Maithili, Rajasthani, and Pahadi. In the words of Asha
Saarangi: “...the Hindi language subsumes forty-seven languages under its fold. Herding these
forty-seven languages under one banner enforces labels such as ‘dialects’, ‘minor languages,’
‘secondary languages’, etc. Thus, governments become the cause of language identity
annihilation.”23

Today, dialects of Hindi, like Maithili, try to assert themselves as independent languages.
When their loyalty was to the Hindi language, the speakers accepted a single reading system
and interaction. However, the same language loyalty vanished when politically motivated by a
dialect’s minority identity. In the words of Mithilesh Kumar Jha, “In general, the Maithili
language movement has been studied as a community initiative which, at the height of the
national movement, accepted and adapted to Hindi but at the same time fought relentlessly for
its recognition as an independent language of modern India when it began to be classified as a
dialect of Hindi.”24

Language and script can create and reinforce an identity when identified with a religion. For
example, Urdu with Perso-Arabic script is identified with Islam, as Sanskrit and Nagari
scripts are identified with Hinduism. “Even though Urdu is a common heritage of Hindus and
Muslims alike and significant portions of Muslims speak regional languages, Urdu is an
identity token of Muslims persists. Similarly, the Gurumukhi script is identified with Sikhism.
The Bengali language is identified with the Brahmos, and the Pali language is identified with
Buddhism. These are identity markers in their respective contexts.” 25 Konkani, written in
Roman script, is identified with Christians, and Konkani, written in Devnagari, is identified
with Hindus in Goa.

169
“According to the 2011 Census, India had 1369 mother tongues”26, and “ten major writing
systems- Assamese, Bengali, Manipuri, Gujarati, Gurumukhi, Nagari, Oriya, Kannada-
Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil, Perso-Arabic and roman. The last two are acquisitions from
external sources.”27 It means the script is not essential to writing a language. For example, the
world's second highly spoken language, English, does not have a script. It uses Roman script.
Similarly, the third-ranking Language in the world, Hindi, does not have a script. Instead, it
uses the Nagari script.

Moreover, a language can be written in many scripts. For instance, Konkani is written in five
scripts. However, sometimes the scripts are created to write a language with a specific
purpose, which becomes the mark of identity formation. “The Grantha script was created to
write Sanskrit as the Tamil script was found inadequate. The Modi and Karani scripts were
used for record-keeping and accountancy purposes. The users of these scripts are marked as
social groups. Many scripts are designed to replace the multiplicity of scripts and provide a
unified identity to all Indians. Instead, they seem to have added to the multiplicity.” 28 So, in
India, one enjoys multiple identities.

Another important aspect, according to Lisa Mitchell, is that “…because of the migration and
settlement in different linguistic localities, the members of the same family may have a shift
in their mother tongues, ...which makes a strong case for arguing that the acquisition of
linguistic identity is indeed a historical process, rather than any primordial natural
identification.”29

The government’s Reductionist policy is the cause of the loss of language identity and revolt
by the minority language speakers. The Constitution makers and planners had a formidable
challenge to sort out the language problem faced by independent India. Nevertheless, they did
not venture into a total solution. Their first concern was figuring out which languages would
be official and which would be in the Eighth Schedule. “The placement of a language in the
Eighth Schedule of the Constitution was not motivated by an ideology of Fundamental Rights,
the Principle of equality of opportunity, ideology of integration or invasive assimilation.”30
Due to the inclusion of some languages in the Eighth Schedule, a gap was created between the
majority and minority languages. Some languages assumed a superior position on the socio-
economic ladder.

In the ‘General Note’ of the 2011 Census of India, we can see an example of the Reductionist
policy where the mother tongues that did not have more than 10,000 speakers were termed

170
‘Languages not Recognised’. The mother tongue of this group was not reported in the Census.
“The so-called ‘assimilationist goal’, while laudable from the 'national' and administrative
point of view, is a device to swallow the small fish...that has led to the loss of identities for
many languages.”31

Governments under the Reductionist policy may think of homogenization of languages and
claim it is required for ‘national integration’ and ‘assimilation of cultures,’ but the fact is that
it diminishes linguistic diversity and causes linguicide or language death.

National Education Policy 2020 notes, “Unfortunately, Indian languages have not received
the attention and care they need, and the country has lost over 220 languages in the last 50
years alone. 197 Indian languages have been designated as ‘Endangered’ by UNESCO.
Numerous unwritten languages are particularly at risk of extinction. Moreover, even those
Indian languages that are not technically on such endangered lists, such as the 22 languages of
the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, suffer grave challenges on many fronts.” 32

Though various factors are responsible for language death, the government’s role in language
policies and language planning strategies cannot be denied. For instance, as the Report,
Census of India 2011 records, the raw returns of mother tongues with less than 10000
speakers were classified and “relegated to the ‘other’ category” 33. Moreover, the same census
report treats more than 57 languages as Hindi dialects. For instance, among those dialects,
Hindi proper has 32,22,30,097 speakers, whereas the dialect of Hindi, Puran /Puran Basha,
has 12,375 speakers, and Bishnoi has 12,079 speakers. 34 If the above policy of relegating a
language to the ‘other category’ continues, during the next census, Puran and Bishnoi will be
vulnerable languages if they fail to have more than 10,000 speakers. Therefore, “The decision
to standardise an Indian language is multifaceted as it involves narrowing down the diversity
at various levels: grammar, pronunciation, and script”35, which paves the way for language
vulnerability.

Governments may presume that the Reductionist policy benefits the nation since it lessens the
economic and administrative burden. For instance, 2011 Report, the Census of India listed
270 mother tongues with 10,000 speakers and relegated these 1099 rationalised languages to
the ‘other’ category, which denied them their conspicuous existence and caused their
vulnerability. If the government continued the same policy in the future, Sanskrit, which has,
according to the Census Report 2011, ‘24,821’ speakers36, would soon become extinct. On the
other hand, the National Education Policy 2020 emphasises Sanskrit and states that “it will be

171
offered at all levels of school and higher education as an important enriching option for
students, including as an option in the Three-Language formula.”37 Here, the governments
must realise that national identity does not depend on a single dominant factor alone.
“National identity is about the national self-definition, how a society understands and defines
itself. It cannot be articulated abstractly but only from the perspective of the country’s history,
current circumstances and self-understanding, expectations for the future, and an appraisal of
the emerging world with which it must contend. A nation is constrained by its past and how
its history has moulded it; it cannot be anything it desires to be.” 38 The 1099 rationalised
languages are also part of the Country’s identity with their history, self-understanding, and
hopes. Hence the governments rationalising them will probably lead to their annihilation and
less likely for their identity assertion.

The Constitution has defined the identity of the Indian nation. Even though there were
differences of opinion in the Constituent Assembly, “they all agreed that Indian civilisation
was multifarious and comprised several moral and intellectual currents, ranging from
polytheism to atheism and from basic materialism to the highest form of idealism.” 39

For instance: To Z.H Lari's request, a Muslim member of the Constituent Assembly to impart
Urdu education to the Urdu-speaking families’ students, Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant replied
that “there is no particular language attached to the followers of any particular religion. No
language is the Language of the Hindus, and no language is the language of the
Muslims…boys are taught in their mother tongues in their primary schools, and the mother
tongue of Hindus and Muslims and all boys is more or less the same. There is no difference
whatsoever.”40 These words were greeted with loud cheers in the august house.

In addition, “K.M. Munshi, who advocated a broad right to the practice of religion as well as
educational and cultural rights for religious and linguistic minorities, rebuffed categorically
any reservations for these minorities in the legislative bodies of the new state because such a
move would dangerously strengthen extra-political identities.”41 Further, the Constitution’s
framers had a soft corner to grant minority status based on Language but not a religion
because the members like Loknath Misra pointed to the danger of such articles attenuating or
weakening the unity of India. For example, “Jayaprakash Narayan also argued that the
secularisation of general education is vital for developing a national perspective. Therefore,
unity necessitated that the constitutionally granted cultural and educational rights be limited to
linguistic minority exclusively.”42

172
“Damodar Swarup Seth suggested that the only minorities to be recognized should be those
based on Language: recognising minorities based on religion or community was not in
keeping with the state’s secular character. If such minorities were granted the right to
establish and administer educational institutions of their own, it would block the way to
national unity and promote communalism and antinational outlook.”43 This was a version in
the Constituent Assembly that led to an Indian identity for all its citizens, including all micro
identities not based on any minority tag like religion, language, caste, or gender.

The above discussion in the Constituent Assembly shows that the Constitution’s framers were
primarily interested in safeguarding one Indian identity and its unity rising above diversity
and micro identities. Language identity was not their concern, but linguistic right was granted
to preserve their identity as a “guarantee to all linguistic and religious minorities the right to
establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” 44

Probably the mind of the Constitution framers regarding the identity of India as a nation can
be summarised in the words of Romila Thaper “A nation cannot be founded on a single
identity, nor is it possible to combine multiple identities of religion, caste, language, etc. in
the hopes that something will emerge. A country as a state is a novel historical phenomenon
that necessitates a new identity. Idealistically, this would be the identity of an Indian citizen
based on the premise that all citizens are equal before the law and have the same rights and
responsibilities. Our Constitution provides the theoretical foundation for this, which must be
applied.”45

4. MULTILINGUALISM AND MOTHER TONGUE IDENTITY:

According to the 2011 Census Report, India is a polyglot country “with 1369 mother
tongues”46, with about “4000 castes and communities and an equal number of religious faiths.
However, interestingly it is a country of minorities. The country’s languages are so distributed
that this nation is multilingual, and each constituent unit, state or district, is also
multilingual.”47

Indeed, Hindi was considered the language of the majority, with 52,83,47,193 speakers and
approximately 43.63% using it as their mother tongue. Although labelled a single language, it
is communicatively heterogeneous, with more than 57 dialects in its mantle. In the total
population, Bengali, with 8.03 and Marathi, with 6.86 per cent, occupy second and third
place.48 Thus, the major languages between eighty-five and ninety-five per cent of their

173
respective states are equally heterogeneous in communication. These languages are mapped
by several dialects, sociolects, styles, and registers.

A study from the Census of 2011 indicates that between 45 and 65 per cent of the population
speak some major languages in their corresponding state. For instance, the total population of
Karnataka is 61,130,704.49, out of which the Kannada speakers are 4,37,06,512. Similarly, the
total population of Assam is 31,169,272, out of which Assamese speakers are 1,53,11,351.50.
Thus, Kannada and Assamese are two such languages.

There are yet other areas where no language is spoken by more than twenty per cent of the
people in a state. For instance, as per the 2011 census, Nagaland’s total population was
19,78,502. However, it has 17021 Assamese speakers, 74753 Bengali speakers, 7372 Bodo
speakers, 1269 Dogri speakers, 277 Gujarati speakers, 62942 Hindi speakers, 337 Kannada
speakers,77 Kashmiri speakers, 51 Konkani speakers,1453 Maithili speakers,2916 Malayalam
speakers,9511 Manipuri speakers, 2659 Marathi speakers, 43481 Nepali speakers,4561 Odia
speakers, 2249 Punjabi speakers,156 Santali speakers, 82 Sindhi speakers, 1125 Tamil
speakers, 1188 Telugu speakers, and 1095 Urdu speakers. 51 Thus, it will be seen that no
matter how one views the Language demography of the country, one cannot escape the
conclusion that it is a country of minorities with multilingualism.

There is no doubt that the Mother Tongue is the primary expression of an individual and a
group. Mother tongue is the primary responsible factor in attaining linguistic, ethnic,
religious, or cultural group solidarity. Through the mother tongue, a person formulates his
initial concepts, through which he socializes and connects with one's social and cosmic
environment. He starts naming the objects, habitats, and environment through the mother
tongue, builds cosmic and social relationships, and develops a ‘we’ feeling. The ‘we’ feeling
is fortified by sharing myths, symbols, systems of beliefs, and social practices naturally
transmitted through the mother tongue. When the mother tongue's survival is in jeopardy of
extinction, endangerment, assimilation, or insult, the gap between the ‘we-they’ widens, and a
feeling of ‘we’ comes in adversary relation with ‘they.’

In India, languages become the providers of institutional identity layers. For example, for a
person living in the Mangalore City of Karnataka, Konkani or Tulu is the primary identity;
Kannada is the secondary identity; and Hindi, a tertiary identity, provides three institutional
levels of identities. Hence in a multilingual context, languages complement each other rather

174
than being in an adversary position. They remain indefinable domains. For example, six
languages are in harmony in Mangalore city of Karnataka.

Knowing the power of language, Governments use a dominant language to develop a

particular identity desired by it through the educational system in multilingual countries. This
identity could be national, regional, or state. For example, the country’s Tri-lingual
Educational Policy may not hinder students from studying in their mother tongue. However,
future job prospects often compel students to study dominant regional/Official languages like
Hindi or English, by which the study of their home language or mother tongue is sacrificed,
thus intending to create a national identity through Hindi, Kannadiga identity through
Kannada, and Dravidian identity through Dravidian languages.

Even though the National Education Policy 2020 stipulates, “When possible, the medium of
instruction will be the home language/mother-tongue/local language, at least till Grade 5 and
ideally until Grade Eighth.”52, it also states that “the Three Language Formula, followed since
the adoption of the National Policy on Education in 1968 and endorsed in the National Policy
on Education 1986/1992 and the NCF 2005, will be continued bearing in mind the
Constitutional provisions and the aspirations of the people of the regions and the union, as
well as the need to promote multilingualism and national unity.”53 At this juncture, the words
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak become meaningful: “In short, in multilingual, multi-ethnic
countries of the world, language use in education, in administration and mass media has
begun to threaten the very fabric of the nationhood of the countries.”54

Every language is imperative because it is a marker of self-identification. At the same time,

languages have the power to form communities, societies, and nations and break them.
Therefore, various language movements in India are perceived as movements for recognizing
their identity, rights, responsibilities, and being and becoming.

Language, especially the home language, is a component and medium of culture. It preserves
the heritage and sustains knowledge across generations. Being the basis of imagination
creates literature. It is also the repository and transmitter of cultural heritage. Hence,
governments should consider mother tongues as social capital and not a social burden.

A language may have many dialects. For example, Konkani is spoken by 42 communities
with their dialects. All these dialects are mother tongues. A dialect is a part of a language and
also a mother tongue. However, it is more than a language connected with social memory and

175
individual and collective dreams as a mother tongue. One can be most creative and innovative
in the mother tongue, and without the mother tongue, one grows intellectually sterile.

Culture and community bonds are built through the mother tongue, history is transmitted from
generation to generation, and identity is shaped. A culture with its worldview also becomes
extinct if a language becomes extinct. Continuity is lost with the loss of history, tradition, and
heritage. With the death of a language, the identity - individual, communal, and global is lost.
It is through Language that we learn. With the death of a Language, learning is lost. The
Language of knowledge is dependent on the knowledge of the Language. With the loss of
Language, knowledge is lost.

Despite the multilingual world with thousands of languages, the mother tongue’s viability is
questioned due to the monolingual orientation. Mother tongue as the Language of intimacy
with psychological, sociological, and educational significance is forgotten. “Mother tongues
have been discriminated against, stigmatized, neglected, and suppressed. They have been
referred to as dialects, languages without grammar, vernaculars, and ethnic languages.
Shelving mother tongues on these grounds is forgetting the central condition of human
existence: human beings constitute the locus of language functionality, and language
development is human resource development.”55

A mother tongue status is negated to a language for various reasons. First, some languages
assume vested interests by being used in education, administration, and communication. For
example, Tamil in Bangalore, Marathi in Belgaum, or Kannada in Kasaragod have
communicative or political interests. When their vested interests are perceived as a threat in
their locality, their mother tongue rights are negated. Hence, any threat of competition hinders
the growth of a minor language. Secondly, as we have already seen, the considerable
ambivalence and confusion inherent in the definition of the mother tongue itself are sufficient
to deny them the mother tongue status. Example: Till the other day, Konkani was not
recognized as a language of independent existence but as a dialect of Marathi. Thirdly, when
the nation's dominant philosophy demands unitary symbols, it does not encourage recognizing
the minority languages as mother tongues. For example, presently, 49 languages are grouped
under Hindi, and these languages are not considered independent languages but dialects of
Hindi. Fourthly educationists are hesitant to use mother tongues as a medium of education as
they find the ideas and experiences are pretty extensive. For Example: If Governments were
to introduce Tulu or Konkani as the medium of education in Tulu and Konkani-speaking areas
of Karnataka, the time, money, personnel, and infrastructure required to implement this
176
project would be enormous. Fifthly mother tongues are scarcely standard and lack the
adequate vocabulary to express modern knowledge. For example, Konkani, written in five
scripts and has 42 dialects, varies from community to community, raising the question: Which
is the standard Konkani? Which is the script acceptable to all? Which is the correct
orthography?

India is multilingual, and many languages are acquired through socialization seamlessly by
participating in the communicative world because languages complement and respect the
ascribed domains of each other. The ‘other’ is respected for being ‘different’ in a multilingual
country. Hence, “Whether it is the Kerala-Karnataka border, Karnataka-Maharashtra border,
Andhra-Orissa border, Orissa-Bihar-Bengal border, one Language merges into the other
creating twilight zones where one Language is familiar to the speakers of another.” 56
Nevertheless, when some assimilationist tendency creeps into some groups to preserve their
group's separate culture, the respect for the ‘other’ or ‘different’ collapses, and the
multilingual society is threatened. The elite becomes increasingly intolerant of variety and
variation, and the government becomes authoritarian.

In a multilingual country, when one Language dominates, the other languages are constantly
put under tension. When English asserts, Hindi is threatened; when Hindi asserts, Kannada is
threatened; and when Kannada asserts, Konkani, Tulu, or Kodava are threatened. A constant
call for national integration attests to this tension. National integration can become an excuse
to force a linguistic minority to dominate language under the guise of ‘assimilation to the
mainstream, forgetting that the mainstream is synonymous with the dominant language or
culture. It should not be forgotten that the main streams are bound to dry up without the side
streams. When the American ‘Melting Pot’ theory that the diverse identities would melt and
fuse themselves to form a single American identity is yet to become a reality is to be kept in
mind while assimilating the minority languages.

Unequal treatment of languages by the government is the cause of resentment among various
language groups. For instance, according to the 2011 census, Kashmiri is spoken by
67,97,587, Santhali by 73,68,192, Sindhi is spoken by 27,72,284, 57 and Gond by 29,84,453
people. Bhilli/Bhillodi is spoken by 1,04,13,637 and Kurukh/Oraon by 19,88,350 58 people.
Compared to Kashmiri and Sindhi, those who speak Santhali or Bhilli are more. Nevertheless,
they are not included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, while Kashmiri and Sindhi
are. Though Mizo and Khasi are Official State languages, the Indian state does not recognize
them. This type of unequal treatment of languages paves the way for language movements.
177
Similarly, Sanskrit, which has only 24,821speakers according to the 2011 Census 59, is
recognized as a Scheduled Language. However, of 99 Non-Scheduled languages, 86
languages have more speakers than the Sanskrit language. As a result, they feel deprived of
the privileges associated with the status of recognised languages.

In a multilingual country, the question of inclusion and exclusion or ‘we’ and the ‘other’ is a
matter of attitudes from the perspective of dominant monolingualism. According to Debi
Prassanna Pattanayak, “In the modern industrialised world, the prevailing monolingual
perspective is promoted, and as a result, two languages are regarded a nuisance, three
uneconomical, and numerous languages ludicrous. In multilingual nations, several languages
are an integral part of life; any constraint on the choice of usage is a nuisance, and using a
single language is expensive and ludicrous.”60

Minorities and majorities vastly differ in their attitude towards maintaining linguistic or
cultural identities. “The Minorities sometimes shift loyalties under pressure. Those do not
display an integrative orientation by maintaining their indigenous Language and culture and
positively viewing the dominant neighbouring Language and culture. On the contrary, the
majorities display a segregation orientation by negatively viewing the smaller languages. The
fact that both bi/multilingual majority and minority language speakers have a positive self and
other identification prove multilingualism's role in ensuring an integrated society.” 61 The
interesting conclusion is that multilingualism ensures an integrated society in both cases.
Moreover, multilingualism will not lead to national disintegration.

However, language can be a blade with two edges in a multilingual nation since language and
culture are related to identity and can quickly motivate people to divide and isolate one group
from others. Language movements, language riots, and demand for linguistic states are
examples of the divisive force of Language.

In India, inter-state boundaries are an excellent site to observe language as a source of power,
representing the myriad ways an underlying culture might reveal itself. “Whether it is in
Kerala-Karnataka border, Karnataka-Maharashtra border, Andhra-Orissa border, Orissa-
Bihar-Bengal border, one language merges into the other creating twilight zones where one
language is familiar to the speakers of another.”62

The Selective Language Standardization and Modernization followed by the various

governments have given rise to dominant indigenous languages, which begin to oppress the
minor languages. It is the story of big fish-eating small fish. If English dominates over Hindi,
178
Hindi dominates over Kannada and Kannada over Tulu is a kind of Internal Colonisation
spoken by Erwin N Epstein. It is a condition in which a single race, sex, ethnicity, or
linguistic group strives to control others by destroying the weaker through using the dominant
language. In other words, “the Language associated with the most respected and/or
linguistically advantageous positions tends to infiltrate and handicap the Language associated
with the inferior and less ideal roles or positions” 63 Internal colonialism is very well exemplified
in the Three-Language Formula followed in India which places the learning of the mother tongues
like Tulu and Konkani in a vulnerable position.

The potential of languages to determine position, prestige, and money, and to confer
advantages on a select few, atrophies democracy. The elite becomes increasingly intolerant of
variety and variance, and the governments become increasingly autocratic. A nation founded
on one language, religion, and in its most extreme manifestations, one party and leader is
nothing more than a dictatorship. One may argue that this nation is extremely patriotic.
However, such nationalism is not always humane or respectful of human rights. “Many
languages are viewed as a nuisance and a burden by the elite due to the nation-drive states to
combine minority identities and seek stronger affiliation with 'national' goals.” 64 Such a
perspective generates several conflicts in multilingual society and pushes the nations
comprising a multilingual state to seek independence, endangering the state’s very existence
and, as a result, driving it towards greater dictatorship. Thus, the dominating monolingual
nations view other languages as a hindrance rather than an opportunity to acquire another.

5. LANGUAGE POLICY AND PLANNING:

Language policy refers to the various tactics of power that operate at multiple levels in
language planning. These levels could be local or national, individual or collective, covert or
latent, de jure or de facto, top-down or top-up. Language policies determine how a language is
viewed or shaped through which orientation or ideology. For example, the dominant
monolingual countries will impress the policy of ‘one nation, one language.’ However, a
multilingual country will say, ‘Petals of the same lotus.’ The issue of power plays a vital role
while determining language policy. “In a multilingual and plurilingual country, the foundation
of a good education policy can only be laid on the sound language policy because language
plays a central role in the modernization and development of the country. A wrong policy
could result in knowledge capitalism by a few, and a well thought out policy can create an
egalitarian society.”65

179
In India, language legitimization takes place either through officialization or through naming.
In the Indian context, Language legitimisation is political or ideological motivations. Even
defining Language can either legitimize it or fail to do so. Census Reports of India have
sometimes denied the rights to some mother tongues through their definitions.

When dialect types are classified under one linguistic category, some variety is downplayed
or neglected, resulting in the invisibility of several linguistic varieties. For instance, Kumaoni
is not included as an independent language. Kumaoni people consider it the dialect of Hindi.
However, it is not included among the 49 dialects of Hindi. The power of labelling would
enable the Census Department to include 95% of the Indian population in the Scheduled
Language, lowering the percentage of non-scheduled languages to 5% is explained by
rationalisation and defining the mother tongue from a broad perspective.

Recognizing the existence of a language is the first step in determining its status. However, it
may occasionally appear expedient to disregard or reduce language distinctions in the interest
of group cohesion. Minimising linguistic status through the denial of variety is motivated by
political and ideological presumptions. This minimising or reluctance to recognise a minority
language is more subtle than legitimization in the Census and might also be a policy goal.
Perhaps minimising is the opposite of legitimization and might be positioned above
prescription on a continuum of restrictive to permissive policies.

5.1. Declaration of Official Languages: Articles120 (1) and 343 to 351 speak about the
official languages of the Union. The Constituent Assembly had many other important issues
to discuss. It partially discussed the language issue. It was restricted to Hindi vs English as the
official language. Support for Hindi came into instant conflict with English, Bengali, and
Telugu. Hindi came into conflict with Urdu because of religious reasons. Hindi also
conflicted with Maithili and Bhojpuri as they affirmed their independent identities. The
Constituent Assembly debated the official language issue from 12th September 1949 to 14th
September 1949. After an acrimonious debate, a consensus was struck in which Hindi in
Nagari script with Roman numbers was accepted as the official language. Article 343(3)
permitted the Parliament to enact laws to continue English for fifteen years. 66 Article 344(6)
empowered the President to issue instruction concerning Official Language on the advice of
the Language Commission of 1955.67

According to Article 343 of the Constitution, English was to remain the Official Language
only for 15 years after the implementation of the Constitution. As the 15-year transition

180
period started to wind down, it was anticipated, particularly in non-Hindi communities, that
eliminating English as a Co-Official Language would be problematic and devastating. The
primary political obstacle to making Hindi the official language was that it would
disadvantage non-Hindi regions.

Though proponents of Hindi, such as Govind Das and P.D. Tandon, urged rigorous fulfilment
of the fifteen-year deadline, G.B. Pant, Jawaharlal Nehru, and others advocated a patient and
measured approach. As a direct consequence of this, the proportion of seats won by the
Congress Parliamentary Party in the national elections held in 1962 got reduced (from 186 to
150) from the Hindi States, and representation from non-Hindi States increased (from 100 to
124), paving the way for passing the Official Language Act in 1963.

The Official Languages Act 1963 was passed on 10th May 1963. It specifies the languages
that may be used for official purposes of the Union, for conducting business in Parliament, for
Central and State Acts, and for a particular purpose in High Courts.

The 1967 general elections bolstered non-Hindi representation in the State Assemblies and
Lok Sabha. Even while the Congress party regained control at the national level, it fared
badly in more than fifty per cent of the states. Significant was the breakthrough Dravida
Munnetra Kazagham (DMK) made in Tamil Nadu as a result of DMK's anti-Hindi
stance. Hindi and non-Hindi groups were dissatisfied with the Official Language Act
and demanded a modification. Thus, the Official Languages Act of 1963 was revised in 1967.
The 1967 Act, as modified, created a dual-language policy for government transactions. It
stipulates that a state may transact with the Union in English if Hindi is not its Official
Language. Thus, “the transition to Hindi has been postponed indefinitely by allowing the use
of English as an extra Official Language for all reasons it has been used thus far. The position
was to be reviewed only after January 26, 1975. It has not been reviewed so far.”68

5.2. Declaration of Scheduled Languages: Articles 344(1) and 351 recognize 22 languages
of India as the scheduled languages. “Articles 344 (1) and 351 state that the Eighth Schedule
includes 22 languages. Initially, the list included 14 languages. Sindhi was added to the list in
1967. Konkani, Manipuri, and Nepali were added in 1992 by the 71 amendments. In 2003, by
the 92 amendments, Bodo, Dogri, Maithili, and Santali were added.” 69

“Inclusion or exclusion from the Eighth Schedule is not based on any particular philosophy or
ideology. The Eighth Schedule is not founded on the philosophy of Fundamental Rights or the
notion of opportunity equality. In addition, it was not founded on the notion of national
181
integration or invasive assimilation.”70 “The Constitution does not provide any criteria for the
inclusion of a language in the Eighth Schedule. When the Commission for Linguistic
Minorities suggested adding a language to the Schedule, the Union government amended the
Constitution to accommodate it. Though the Constitution is silent regarding the criterion, the
parameters the Santali Bhasha Morcha mentioned in its Memorandum for the inclusion in the
Eighth Schedule are the following: 1. Support of the cultural associations and organisations to
the language representatives. 2. A large number of speakers of a language. 3. Large corpus of
literature. 4. Recognition by Kendra Sahitya Academy. 5. Possession of own Script 6.
Possession of publications like newspapers and magazines. 7. Language being taught in
schools and colleges.”71

In addition, many communities insist that their language be added to the Constitution’s Eighth
Schedule. Currently, 38 languages are awaiting addition to the Eighth Schedule. However, the
government's lack of adherence to any criterion for declaring a language scheduled or
unscheduled has resulted in an artificial divide between the major and minor languages.

5.3. Policy on Minority Languages: Including 22 languages in the Constitution’s Eighth

Schedule raised questions about the other unrecognized languages. Therefore, to safeguard
the rights of such minority language communities, Article 29 of the Indian Constitution
expresses provisions for protecting the interests of minorities, which states:

1. “Any section of the citizen residing in India’s territory or any part thereof having a distinct
language, script, or culture shall have the right to conserve the same.” 72

2. “No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the
State or receiving aid from State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language,
or any of them.”73

Thus, an explicit right was granted to the Minorities to maintain their culture and language,
protecting their right to receive and provide education in their language. Furthermore, article
30 ensures that minority groups are not subjected to prejudice when it comes to obtaining
funding for educational purposes from the government.: It states:

1. All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice.”74

182
2. “The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any
educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority,
whether based on religion or Language.”75

Besides the above, Article 350 guarantees that “all people’s right to use a language they
understand for the redress of grievances is a superior protection for minorities regarding their
Language and education.”76

In the Seventh Amendment that was made to Constitution, two articles were inserted that go
far beyond the provisions of the majority of the national constitution in terms of addressing
the concerns of linguistic minorities:

“Article 350A facilitates instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage: It shall be the
endeavour of every State and every local authority within the State to provide adequate
facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education to children
belonging to linguistic minority groups, and the President may issue such directions to any
State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities.” 77

Thus, different languages are recognized and encouraged for their gradual growth by
providing different opportunities.

5.4. Education Policies of the Government: Every society hitherto has used prestigious
Language for educational purposes. India was not an exception to it. For generations, Sanskrit
was used as a medium of education. Persian was used under the Mughals from the 16 to 19
centuries. English was the medium of education during British rule and under the East India
Company from 1858 to 1947.

“There have been significant debates regarding the medium of education during the British
Rule in India and even after Independence: Vernacular vs English, Orientalist vs Angliscist,
Mother- tongue vs State language, and State official language vs National Language.” 78
However, after independence, as there were many diverse opinions and demands regarding
the languages throughout the new nation, various solutions came up through the commissions
and committees appointed for this purpose from time to time. 79 After the independence in
1947, a firm decision could not be taken regarding language-in-education due to the
competing needs of the country’s demographically distinct states and the wide range of
perspectives held by citizens everywhere.

183
Commissions and Committees were appointed to address Language in education. The
following are a few significant attempts initiated to address the language issues:

Table 3

Recommendations of Various Commissions and Committees on Language Education 80

Sl. No. Year Mile Stones
1 1947 Expert Committee of the Indian National Congress
2 1948 The National Planning Committee on General Education and
Technical Education and Developmental Research
3 1949 The Central Advisory Board of Education and the State
Education Ministers' Conference
4 1952 The Secondary Education Commission
5 1949 The All-India Language Development Conference
6 1956 The Central Advisory Board of Education
7 The official Language Commission
8 1961 The Conference of Chief Ministers of various states
9 1964–1966 The Education Commission
10 1966 Education Commission modified Three- Language policy
11 1968 A Resolution of Parliament on the Official Language Policy
12 1968 The National Policy on Education
13 1979 The National Policy on Education (Draft)
14 1986 The National Policy on Education,
15 1992 The National Policy on Education
16 2020-21 National Education Policy

Source: History of Education Policy in India by Sujatha Patel.

5.4.1. The Gist of all Educational Policies:

5.4.1.1. Regional Languages:

1. Acknowledged the significance of Indian languages

2. Knowledge dissemination in regional languages to bridge the divide between the elite
and the common people

184
3. “Recommend taking immediate action to promote regional Language as a medium of
instruction at the university level, as it already was at the elementary and secondary
levels.”81

5.4.1.2. The Three Language Formula:

“The First Language- to be studied by a child must be the mother tongue or the regional
Language.

The Second Language –

 In Hindi-speaking states should be some other Modern Indian Language (MIL) or

English, and
 In non-Hindi speaking, states should be Hindi or English.

The Third Language –

 In the Hindi-speaking States, will be English or a Modern Indian Language (MIL)

not studied as the Second Language, and
 In non-Hindi speaking States, will be English or Hindi not studied as the Second
Language.”82

5.4.1.3. Study of Sanskrit:

Sanskrit’s role in the creation and evolution of languages and its contribution to cultural
cohesion has been momentous in India. As a result of the recommendation to incorporate
Sanskrit in the study of Indian languages, history, ideology, and Indian philosophy83, research
has been conducted on the history of Indian languages.

5.4.1.4. Study of International Languages:

Emphasis on studying international languages, especially English, promotes science and

technology in India.84

The fundamental intention behind ‘The Three Language Formula’ has been national cohesion
and facilitating intrastate, interstate, and worldwide communication. This objective's
accomplishment required the formula's confirmation by the Centre, States, and Union territory
governments. However, the policy implementation is uneven and has yet to achieve its
desired results for various reasons: The Formula has not achieved the expected results in the
real sense of the spirit due to the complex multilingual nature of our states. For example,

185
North-eastern states are multilingual providing education in all languages will be difficult for
the government.

Some of the reasons for the failure of the Three Language Policy to obtain desired success
could be the following:

1. Emotional and political passions are attached to a Language used by the political elite to
attain power: Tamilians and Kannadigas call their mother tongues mother – Tamil Thai and
Kannadambe. These emotions are used as a tool for the procurement of economic and
political benefits. Perhaps while appeasing people based on the language, Formula must have
suffered in its uniform implementation in states like Tamil Nādu.

2. Initially, South Indian States resisted the designation of Hindi as the only Official
Language because they feared it would deprive them of government employment.
Consequently, they sought Associate Official status to English.

3. The teaching, either in the home or in the regional language, is supposed to start in the
first grade as per the Formula. However, due to the multilingualism in a state, if the Official
or an Associate Official Language is recognised as the state's official language, then this
Language takes precedence over the mother tongue due to languages’ plurality. Moreover,
there should be a demand from an adequate number of students and their parents to teach in
their respective mother tongues.

4. Further, according to the Kothari Commission’s recommendations, the introduction and

teaching of Hindi or English as a second obligatory language and the length of time for its
teaching were left to the State governments’ discretion. Therefore, implementing the Three-
Language Formula was the responsibility of respective state administrations.

5. Though the Three Language Formula was designed to achieve national integration, it was
perceived as an imposition of Hindi on Non-Hindi states to neutralize the anti-Hindi feelings.
It was envisioned as a linguistic formula in which ‘Hindi-speaking regions’ students would
learn one of the languages of southern states, while students from the southern states would be
required to acquire Hindi as a second or third language.’

6. Education, the Concurrent List subject, permits the Union government to make a policy,
but its implementation depends on the States. States with political priorities modify the
formula for their political connivance, making it a two or four-language formula. For
example, Hindi-speaking states have diluted the formula by teaching Sanskrit rather than one
186
of the contemporary Indian languages, and some Boards of Education teach French, Spanish
or German without providing them with Hindi or any regional languages.

As a policy, the consensuses regarding the Three-Languages-Formula are non-existent per its
implementation. The factors responsible for the seamless implementation of the formula could
be: 1) School curriculum being loaded with studying many languages. 2) the Hindi-speaking
States are indifferent to teaching South Indian languages. 3) South Indian states like Tamil
Nadu and Pondicherry defy teaching Hindi. 4) The States count the cost involved in teaching
three languages.

These reasons have prompted the States to implement the formula with their modifications,
making it Two-Language-Policy or Four-Language-Policy, depending on their political or
social exigencies. The policy may be criticised that even where it is implemented as intended,
it has lost its symbolic value and remained just an examination ritual, “however, no one can
avoid adopting the Three-language formula as a springboard for a new and innovative
educational programme in the country.”85

Perhaps with all respect to the Three-Language-Formula’s good intentions, it must have been
ideal if it was understood that regional languages and mother tongues are distinct for many.
Unfortunately, students whose home language is not the Official or Regional language have
the unenviable task of learning not one, not two, but three or even four scripts in addition to
their mother tongue, which may be both a hardship and a blessing. For example, a student
whose Mother Tongue is either Tulu or Konkani has to learn Tulu/Konkani, Kannada, Hindi,
and English. However, a student whose home language is Hindi has to learn only two
languages. Though learning four languages could be considered an advantage, the students
who have to study an unknown language face stricter challenges than their colleagues.

The Right of the Child to Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009 includes the following
provision regarding instruction in the mother tongue: To the greatest degree, the child's native
language should be utilized as the medium of instruction in education. “However, the
effectiveness of this programme is contingent on social, economic, political, and linguistic
elements. Before introducing a minority language as the medium of instruction, the size,
concentration, and political power of the minority population are always considered.
Numerous reports and studies on minority education have demonstrated that minority mother
tongue education is denied. The Linguistic Survey of Tribal Dialects and Cultures, which
focused on the four districts of Orissa, concluded that India has failed to achieve its goal to

187
universalize primary education and provide fundamental human rights due to this linguistic
problem.”86

In Andhra Pradesh, English medium instruction was opted for their wards by their parents to
achieve higher status mobility and economic advancement. However, a brief examination of
Indian educational choices reveals that English is the medium of teaching from basic to higher
education, even for those who cannot afford it. Realizing this, for example, even the State
governments like Karnataka have begun to teach English from the primary level, which raises
a genuine concern not only among language lovers but also in every concerned citizen,
whether this would result in making not only minority language endangered but also the
regional and even Official languages into minority languages?

The investigation into the subject has led to exciting conclusions and prompted us to ask some
relevant questions: Important conclusions are:

1. Though India is multilingual, there are no clear and consistent definitions of a language,
dialect, or mother tongue.

2. Determining a language/dialect/Mother-Tongue depends on some government officials or

departments like the Census Department, whose overt or covert motives can decide the fate
of a language.

3. As there were no strict criteria to enlist language as Eighth Scheduled Language or

Classical language, it becomes evident that language per se was not the only reason for
recognizing a language.

4. Though the Constitution guarantees protection to the minority language and provides
policies for schooling in the home language, the execution of these policies differs from
state to state.

5. With all good intentions, the Three-Language Formula has strengthened the National-level
languages in education planning either implicitly or explicitly.

6. Though the Constitution tries to protect the rights of linguistic minorities, the policy and
practice of officialisation, labelling, and reductionism lead to minimizing minority
languages.

188
7. Often, Indian multilingualism is acclaimed as “Unity in Diversity.” However, it seems that
the language policies in practice emphasize unity than diversity, relegating the identities of
the communities. Here, the minority language community tend to ask: Unity over diversity,
at whose cost? Language policies fail to realize that the policies can cater to legitimatized
language communities and not for linguistic minorities. Language communities are
legitimized, keeping in mind the power dynamics.

“Since the Three Language Formula was formulated by national consensus, suggested by the
Constituent Assembly, blessed by the Father of the Nation, resolved by the CABE in 1956,
approved by the Chief Ministers’ Conference in 1961, adopted as the National Policy of
Education in 1968, approved by the Parliament in the same year, and supported by the
Conference of Vice-Chancellors at different times, it is incorrect to think that the Central
Government imposes the Three-Language Formula on State Governments.”87 Now and then,
questions are raised in Parliament regarding its implementation. For example, the Ministry of
Home Affairs, on 5th August 2014, was asked to state whether the Government has notified
the Three-Language- Formula for its implementation in the country, and it was answered by
the Minister of the State, Mr Kiran Rijiju. 8 8

Further, since education is a state subject, states have considerable freedom in determining
language options. For instance, the State of Tamil Nadu has the Tamil Nadu Official
Languages Act of 1956 and the English Language Act of 1964 to ensure the continuation of
English. Moreover, most states have laws that mandate the gradual use of dominant languages
in all administrative areas. Nevertheless, some states use language as a political tool against
the centre instead of a gateway to knowledge and a window to the broader world. Especially
opposing Hindi, which has resulted in making millions of students handicapped in competing
for jobs, is a clear indication that politicians gained mileage at the expense of the millions of
students also cannot be denied.

Since India has adopted the Three-Language-Policy in school education, we must differentiate
Mother Tongue from L1, L2, and L3, namely First, Second, and Third. The First language
refers to the language in the priority of introduction in the school. For example, in Indian
multilingual situations, the State language can be L1, Hindi, and English can be L2 or L3.
Even when the language of a State is the home language of the major part of the population of
the state, for a sizable number of Konkani or Tulu speakers in Karnataka, L1 or the First
language is not their Mother Tongue, which is an indication to show that perhaps India needs
a well-defined, stable Language Policy.
189
However, as D. P. Patanayak suggests, a clear Language Policy is not easy: “It must be
realized that the Three-Language Formula for this country is not a goal, but a strategy. It does
not restrict learning but focuses on the bare minimum required for a person to identify with
their immediate group, the nation, and the worldwide community. One may have to learn
more languages than these to meet specific needs and purposes. One may have a different
opinion on three languages to learn, at what stage to learn them, and the quantum of learning,
but there is no alternative to accepting the Three-Language-Formula as a springboard for
novel and experimental educational programs in the country.” 89

Probably existence of a clear Language Policy could have thwarted the various language
movements or agitations like the Gokak Movement in Karnataka, the Konkani Movement in
Goa, the agitations in the Barak Valley, the affirmation of a Two Language Formula by the
Tamil Nadu Assembly, the anti-Hindi agitation in some non-Hindi States, the anti-English
agitation in some Northern States, the anti-Urdu agitation in U.P. and many Tribal
movements. However, all problems are addressed as ad hoc responses in law-and-order
situations.

A good Language Policy gives the linguistic majority the right to study their Mother Tongue.
However, Kendriya Vidyalayas and the Navodaya Vidyalayas do not provide instruction in
the mother tongues and prepare entrants for English medium colleges. Due to this reason,
Tamil Nadu has not started Kendriya Vidyalayas and the Navodaya Vidyalayas in the state.

Language policies, in general, can lead to language attrition. For example, the “English-only
policy” in the US has endangered many languages. However, unlike the US, India has
followed a policy of multilingualism. The policy’s fundamental objective is to learn at least
three languages at the end of their schooling. According to NCERT’s All India School
Education Survey, conducted on September 30, 2002, 92.07 per cent of schools in the Eighth
survey elementary schools teach using their home language.90 According to the 1971 Census
Report, India had 1,652 languages, of which only 58 were used as languages of instruction. It
means India has a long way to go. However, the great relief is that many states recognise
more than three languages as the medium of instruction. For example, the State of Sikkim has
permitted mother-tongue instruction in more than seven languages - Bhutia, English, Hindi,
Lepcha, Limboo, Nepali, and others.

Those who are not in favour of Three-Language or multilingual formulas have proposed the
following arguments against it:

190
1. “Multilingualism presents great difficulties to unifying any State’s population, and each
state must devise a way of dealing with linguistic diversity among its population.” 91 Those
who propagate this theory are uncomfortable with diversity. They tend to think that one day
all languages will assimilate into one language of their choice, and after that, there will not be
any linguistic loyalties.
2. “In a multilingual state, each linguistic group seeks to perpetuate its distinctiveness over
the other linguistic group, which normally leads to hardened linguistic cleavages.”92 The
exponents of this theory think India is a confederation of independent nation-states rather than
one linguistic unit and one state. They also tend to think that every language is autonomous.
This idea is autocratic and inconceivable in a multilingual society.

3. The multilingual formula is a waste of time, economically burdensome on the state, and
an intellectual burden on the child. However, those who emphasize the monolingual formula
should know that a language used to preserve one’s cultural identity and establish bonds of
communication with one's language community will not become a burden or waste of time.

4. Those who oppose education in the Mother Tongue also argue that it cannot meet the
growing demands of science and technology due to a lack of suitable terminology. This
objection is answered by saying that the beginning level of learning is concept formation and
construction or terminology acquisition.

5. The argument that acquiring a second language through bilingual schooling is regressive,
burdensome, and dulls intelligence is answered by saying that a child can learn more than four
languages at 6 to 7 years. For example, an Israeli child learns seven languages at the primary
level.

Some social scientists question the usefulness of adopting the Mother Tongue as a medium.
Debi Prassanna Pattanayak answers them, saying that no one can achieve the accuracy of
thought and lucidity of ideas without speaking effectively and reading and writing correctly
and proficiently in one’s home language. “Mother tongue is that language in which one is
most creative and innovative and without which one grows intellectually sterile.”93

After considering all the aspects of the question, the expert view summarised through the
words of UNESCO seems sensible: Even in circumstances in which there are not enough
native speakers to enable the widespread creation of educational content, it may still be
beneficial to provide children with early education in their mother language. 94

191
Quoting the Calcutta University Commission Report of 1917-1919 by Sadler Commission,
Debi Prassanna Pattanayak says, “Though Mother Tongue is of primary importance, the
school system has disregarded the use of home language in India as a mental training tool for
decades.”95

“The grassroots multilingualism in this country militates against the concept of a monolithic
language state. Each state reflects the same multilingualism reflected in the country.” 96 All
states of India have a significant variety of multilingual populations. According to the 2011
Census, at least one person speaks Assamese, Bengali, Gujrathi, Kannada, Malayalam,
Marathi, Nepali, Odiya, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu in all Indian states and union
territories which makes every state multilingual. Realizing that these minority linguistic
groups cannot be wished away, the governments have provided compulsory education in the
Mother Tongue. If such minority groups were educated in the dominant regional language,
they would have suffered from an identity crisis and asserted their identity through the
language. However, this system has not cleared the path for the seamless medium transition
from the Mother Tongue to the regional or state language.

It is not recognition of diversity that has often led to disintegration but non-recognition. Non-
recognition of diversity stimulates identity assertion movements. “Karnataka, where 64 per
cent of the population speaks Kannada as its Mother Tongue, faced opposition when the
Gokak Report sought to impose Kannada as the first language for everybody. The Goa State
with Konkani as the Official language was created when Konkani demanded its place as an
independent language and not as the dialect of Marathi. The Telugu Desam, Tamil Nadu, and
Kannada Nadu slogans have thrived on imposing a single identity at the regional level and
opposing a macro identity at the national level. In the absence of a viable Language Policy,
the various governments have struggled to cope with it. Hindi or English, Hindi and English
as Central policy have proved inadequate for integrating the country.” 97 The fact is that the
Indian identity is plural. An Indian citizen is a Tulu South Kanarese, a south Canara
Kannadiga, and Kannadiga Indian.

"Language not only unites but also successfully separates individuals. It produces not just
sentiments of identification but also animosity: Often, the most indestructible barriers among
people are ‘walls of words.”98 In a multilingual country like India, language is the potential
for frailty or strength since it can divide communities and, at the same time, unite through
accommodation, assimilation, and the manifestation of the underlying culture. Since

192
languages are an emotive issue and are closely connected with identity, language planning
must be considered closely with economic planning.

Usually, in Three-Language-Formula, two languages are of broader communication. Hindi is

among the country's ordinary people, and English is among the national elite. Regional or
State languages are usually used as first languages, and choosing one's mother tongue needs
intellect. In this setting, the relevance of instruction in a child's home language increases since
it aids in the pursuit of self-determination, establishing group identification, satisfying the
need for cultural rootedness among the populace, and guards against extremism. It creates a
healthy interaction between the kid and his environment and optimises the potential for early
learning. It allows the adult learner to view the difficulties from a typical person’s standpoint.
The people who design curricula for the mother tongue need to understand its significance in
developing ideas, critical thinking, creative thinking, and social values.

However, the guideline has been flagrantly violated by the eagerness to utilise English as the
language of teaching as early as preschool. As a result, even in remote villages, the Mother
Tongue has been relegated to oblivion. Andhra Pradesh, the first State created due to
linguistic nationalism, has embraced English as its instructional language. The Government of
Andhra Pradesh, accepting 58 pages report of the State Council of Education Research and
Training, introduced the English medium in public schools for the academic year 2020-2021.
Before submitting the report, the SCERT had a referendum of 1,7 97,168 people, out of which
only 53,943 showed a willingness to teach in the Telugu medium, which was a clear
indication that language passions are not as powerful as that of the safety and security needs
of the people and globalization had overpowered nationalism. In other words, it was a
utilitarian mandate toward life and Language.

6. LANGUAGE MOVEMENTS TODAY:

Social movements have been a part of world politics. All movements are a demand for
change. This change can be for fair treatment, ideal situation, restoration of past glory, or
demand for identity. The movements are classified as revolutionary, reformist, redemptive,
and alternative based on their objectives. Post-independent India has witnessed various
movements, including language, to fight for its reorganisation.

The language movements raise tough questions in India: Any movement involves either a
latent or overt conflict, a symptom of social division. Firstly, various language movements
started after Independence to restructure the States on linguistic lines questioning the need for

193
parochial linguistic separatism in a country that had attained freedom from the British
manifesting so much patriotism. Was it because of a regional sense of affection and identity?
Were these movements for the love of the languages or economic and political consolidation?
If the movements were against the Government's decisions, were they so because they
hindered their upward social movement? Can the Dravidian movement be viewed from this
angle?

Another question to be raised regarding the language movements in India is whether they
were mass movements or instigated by the English elites because their political, educational
and economic mobility is hindered. If not, why was there no protest against English? Did
language movements result from India's stratified hierarchical society whereby English is at
the top, Hindi at the centre and regional languages at the bottom of the strata? Have social
roles ascribed to various languages in Indian society caused a conflict?

Nevertheless, another essential question from Language movements is whether linguistic

conflicts wedge a cleavage between communities leading to socio-ethnic religious colour in
the linguistic movements. For instance, the Urdu movement, which started with the Urdu
language, later created a cleavage between Hindus and Muslims, ultimately manifested in a
religious divide leading to the creation of Pakistan. Similarly, the Punjab Subha movement
that started to create a Punjabi linguistic state was limited to language alone or whether it had
any religious connotations.

Another vital aspect to ponder from the language movements is their impact on language and
educational policy. For example, the Official Language Policy was formed not overnight but
through various struggles. The ramifications of the Official Language Policy come up
repeatedly while drafting the educational policies by the Union and in its implementation by
the States.

Undoubtedly language as a social factor is related to ethnicity. However, what is the role and
impact of ethnicity in linguistic movements? Language movements will also be analysed to
determine how they could unite the ethnic, communal and political aspects with linguistics.
For example, the Dravidian movements accused Hindi of being the Official Language as the
imposition of Aryan-Brahminical culture.

Above all, to what extent the Language movements that India had witnessed were a reaction
to the policies of the different governments towards language is an important question to

194
contemplate, and to what extent these reactions were an assertion of their political expression
of their language and not anti-national in intent and practice.

6.1. Language Movements - Causes and Implications:

The following are the causes of language movements in India:

1. When a linguistic group comes in contact with other groups due to policy change,
administrative setup, immigration, redrawing of boundaries due to internal political decisions,
urbanization, and industrialization, there develop strains that result in the language movement.
For example, in 1900, when a group of Hindus of U.P and Bihar demanded to recognize
Hindi in the Devanagari script as the Second Official Language, the Urdu movement was
born.

2. When a regional linguistic group opposes national and international languages and minor
local languages, it creates a language movement.

3. The choice and use of national, official, regional, and local languages may result in
language movements - for example, the English versus Hindi debate in the Constituent
Assembly regarding the official language choice.

4. Language use or lack thereof in education, administration, and mass communication may
result in language movements. In 2014, when “the Home Ministry ordered that government
employees and officials of all ministries, departments, corporations or banks, who have made
official accounts on Social Networking Sites should use Hindi, or both Hindi and English but
give priority to Hindi”99

5. The choice of a script may lead to language movement. For example: “The Bodo language
in Assam, earlier written in the Assamese Script, rejected the script favouring the Roman
alphabets as a mark of a distinct identity.”100

6. When a group's identity is threatened or tries to assert its identity, it gives rise to language
movement. “Punjabi written in the Gurumukhi Script and Urdu written using the Perso-
Arabic script owe their identity to these scripts. Were they written in Devanagari, the fear is
that they would lose their identity?”101

195
7. Choice of style, dialect, and register may lead to language movement. ‘Konkani
movement’ in Goa, for instance, is “an attempt to establish itself as an independent language
and not as the dialect of Marathi.”102

Language movements also have far-reaching consequences on the nation’s social, economic,
political, psychological, and administrative scenarios. Thus, the language movements reflect a
country’s socio-economic and cultural life shift. Some of the movements that can be
emphasized are:

6.2. The Sindhi Movement:

In 1843, the British recognized Sindhi as the Official Language of Sindh, and in 1853 they
also recognized the Perso-Arabic officially as a script for Sindhi. Thus from 1843 to 1947,
much literature was created in Perso-Arabic script.

In 1872, Ernest Trumpp said in his ‘Grammar of Sindhi Language’, “None of

the Alphabets suited the Sindhi language more accurately than the Sanskrit (Devanagari
script), since Sindhi being a real daughter of 'Sanskrit and Prakrit. However, religious
prejudice prevents the great majority of the population (Muslim majority) from using the
Sanskrit (Devanagari) character.”103 When Ernest Trumpp demonstrated the non-suitability of
Arabic script to the Sindhi language, another scholar, John Beames, also pointed out how the
“Arabic character is very ill-adapted to express Sindhi sounds.”104 In December 1948, the All
India Sindhi Sahitya Sammelan recommended using the Nagari script for the Sindhi language,
and the all India Sindhi person convention held in August 1949 endorsed the Sindhi Sahitya
Sammelan resolutions.

In July 1949, when a few secondary school teachers of Bombay pleaded Perso-Arabic script
to be retained for Sindhi, the Union Ministry of Education forwarded the arguments contained
in their resolution to the Sahitya Sabha for their opinion. The Sindhi Sahitya Sabha submitted
its scholarly opinion on every point in January 1950 raised by the teachers’ group. The Union
Ministry, in their letter, No F 14-14/48-D.I. of 9 March 1950, informed all provincial state
governments and centrally administered areas that “the Government of India have given
careful thought to the proposal of responsible Sindhi scholars and educationists to change the
scripts for Sindhi language from Arabic into Devanagari and in consultation with all the state
Governments (and centrally administered areas) have decided to have accepted the
proposal.”105 Sri Jayaramdas Daulatram, a former member of Parliament and the leader of the

196
Sindhi community, who demonstrated the long tradition of Devanagari in writing Sindhi, was
responsible for persuading the Sindhi Scholars to adopt the Devnagari Script.

Even after the government’s order, the groups who were unhappy with the decision requested
the government give an option so that the student’s parents could choose the Arabic script. As
the controversy was brewing for nearly twenty years, the younger Sindhi speakers had
become exposed to the Devanagari script without any inkling of the Arabic script. However,
the older generation remained divided in their approach to the script. In the Sarva Bharat
Sindhi Bholi Sahitya and Kala Vikas Sammelan held in New Delhi in 1970, they again
reiterated the resolve of the Sindhi community to adopt Devanagari as the script of the Sindhi
language. They also resolved that the Union Government should establish an adequately
staffed and well-equipped Sindhi Department to research and develop the Sindhi language
and literature as an integral part of the Central Institute of Indian Languages. During the fifth
plan, the government established an Autonomous Board and allotted one crore rupee for
Sindhi's development. Nevertheless, the board could not function during the plan period due
to the fight over the script, and the language suffered development.

After Jayaramdas Daulatram, the Devanagari script’s protagonists’ hold became weak, and
those favouring the Arabic script became powerful. As a result, primary schools teaching
through the Nagari medium in Rajasthan, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Delhi were
closed down, and only those using the Arabic script continued.

The only achievement of the Sindhi script movement was the addition of Sindhi to the Eighth
Schedule of the Constitution in 1967.

6.3. Anti-English Movement:

“The movement against English unfolds an equally bizarre scene.” 106 The movement against
English has occurred in various phases and with various changing motives. “Though the first
English Jesuit priest came to India in 1579, the English language history begins only after
1759.”107

The first phase of the anti-English movement could be seen in the clash between the
Orientalists vs the Anglicists: When Wilson and Elphinstone favoured oriental learning in
India, Macaulay and his team inclined towards Anglicism. “By introducing English as the
language of education in India, Macaulay sought to create a class of translators between us
and the millions we govern: a class of people who are Indian in blood and skin, but English in
taste, ideas, morality, and intelligence.”108 Rajaram Ram Mohan Roy adhered to Macaulay by
197
writing to William Pitt in December 1823, saying, “…the Sanskrit education system would be
best calculated to keep the country in darkness if such had been the policy of the British
Legislature. However, the improvement of the native population is the object of the
Government. It will consequently promote a more liberal and enlightened system of
instruction embracing mathematics, natural philosophy, chemistry, and anatomy, with other
useful sciences which may be accompanied with some purpose by employing a few
gentlemen of talents and learning educated in Europe and providing a college furnished with
necessary books, instruments, and apparatus”109 By the nineteenth century in the conflict
between Orientals and Angliscists Macaulay’s prediction was materialized. The English
language and English lifestyle began to dominate India.

At the dawn of the 20th century, a disliking of English began when the freedom movement
gained ground. Gandhi commented on Macauley’s Education Policy acidly: “Lord Macauley
made many blunders in his life, all unconsciously, but so far India is concerned, there was
never a greater blunder made than when he penned that minute on Education.” 110 In 1925,
Congress revised its Constitution: “As far as viable, Congress sessions should be held in
Hindustani. If the speaker does not know Hindustani or if it is required, the English language
or another Provincial language may be utilised. Conventionally, the Provincial Congress
Committee must hold its meetings in the language of the province involved. Hindustani is
also acceptable.”111 “Nothing substantial was achieved due to resolution or encouraging Hindi
during the 1935 Ministry formation by Congress in some states. Despite 150 years of
favoured position, the 1951 census showed that English was known by less than two per cent
of the population.”112

The anti-English third battle phase began during the Constitution’s drafting when the
Constituent Assembly considered official language questions from September 12 to 14, 1949.
The difficulty was the transition time frame from English to Hindi. If Hindi's proponents
desired a speedy switch from English to Hindi, non-Hindi areas urged preserving English for
an extended period, if not permanently. “Nehru advocated for Hindi to be the national
language. However, he was also in favour of maintaining English as a secondary official
language, easing the transition to Hindi, and aggressively promoting English literacy due to
its use in the modern world.”113 After an acrimonious debate - as a compromise formula -
Hindi in Nagari script with Roman numerals was recognised as the Official Language.
“Official Languages of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari Script…. (Article 341(1)).
However, from the commencement of the Constitution, the English language shall continue to
be used for all official purposes of the union for fifteen years.” 114 So, Article 343 (1) declared
198
Hindi with Devanagari script as the official language, Article 343 (3) granted powers to the
Parliament to enact laws for the continuance of English even after 15 years, and Article 344
(6) empowered the President to issue instruction concerning Official Language aided by the
recommendations of the Language Commission of 1955, which was all due to the tug of war
between English and Hindi protagonists.

Parliament is the origin of the fourth phase of the anti-English movement. In 1959, when the
Calcutta University Senate approved a resolution advocating the incorporation of English in
the Eighth Schedule, Hiren Mukherjee opposed it in Parliament. In the Lok Sabha, Frank
Anthony introduced a bill to put English in the Eighth Schedule. However, the bill was not
enacted; English advocates demanded assurance from Jawaharlal Nehru. Prakash Vir Shastri
termed the assurance unconstitutional and compared the blunder with the same magnitude as
promising a referendum in Kashmir.

Pro-Hindi and Anti-English agitations started again during 1956-60. In 1955, the National
Language Commission proposed replacing English with Hindi as the Official Language by
1965. The Special Joint Parliamentary Committee revived the Commission Report, and its
implementation was recommended. Accordingly, in April 1965, the President issued an
order saying that “...after 1965, Hindi would be the primary official language, but English
would remain as the Associate Official Language with no limits on its usage.” 115

The recommendations of the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee were: (i) Principal
Official Language status to Hindi from 1965, (ii) Continuation of Associate Official language
status to English without any restrictions, (iii) Status of Alternative medium of examination to
Hindi in Union Public Service Commission. The Central Government took measures to
promote Hindi following the Committee's recommendations, which “included the
establishment of the Central Hindi Directorate, publication of standard works in Hindi,
translation of major legal texts into Hindi, and promotion of their use in the courts.” 116

In 1963 the Official Languages Bill was introduced by Lal Bahadur Shastri to fulfil Nehru’s
assurance. However, there was such an uproar that the Times of India, on April 14, 1963,
reported that never before in Parliament's history were such disorderly scenes witnessed.
Disapproving Shastri's assurance to amend the Official Languages Act, 55 pro-Hindi MPs
from 8 different states resigned.

Subsequently, the Official language Amendment Bill of 1967 was introduced in Parliament.
“On November 27, Indira Gandhi introduced a bill to alter the Official Language Act of 1963.
199
Following a heated discussion, the law was passed. The Lok Sabah approved the measure
granting the English language the rank of Associate Official Language on 16 December 1967
by a vote of 205 to 41.”117. The pro-Hindi groups staged a walkout. In the meantime, the
government passed a resolution providing specific promotional steps for Hindi. The Hindu
reported forty-nine incidents of student violence in December 1967 on the language issue.
Twenty-three of these were anti-English.

6.4. Tribal Language Movement:

“North-East India consists of eight states, namely Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya,
Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. It is also known as the land of seven
sisters. The several ethnic groups in the northeast have their own ethnic identity, culture,
customs, languages, religion, and traditions.”118

North East India is also prone to the insurgency. Different insurgent groups have different
demands. Generally, three kinds of movements are s seen in the Northeast. They are demand
for regional autonomy, secessionist movements, the movement against outsiders or foreigners

While speaking about the tribal-linguistic movements, it is to be remembered that many tribes
have inter-alliances, which are for monetary advantages. For instance, in Manipur, other than
the Meiteis, 29 clans are comprehensively partitioned into Nagas and Kukis.

The Tribal language movements in the northeast had their origins:

1. Inter-script conflict in the case of Meitei included decision-making between Script

invented by Naorem Phalo and the Old Meitei script.

2. Intra-script conflicts again in the case of Meitei whether it should have 27- Letters,18
primary plus nine supplementary, 25- Letters, or 18- Letters. As there is a difference of
opinion among scholars and research bodies about old scripts, their use, and the number of
letters in the alphabet, a big conference was held in 1969 to resolve issues. The agreement
was reached on the 27 letters though the State Kala Academy favoured a 35-letter alphabet.

3. Language and Script Conflict: The conflict source is confused about the relationship
between language and script and the number of letters to be followed. The administrative
language of Manipur is Meitei. Until the 18th century, it was written in Meitei or Meitei
Mayek script, replaced by Bengali Alphabet. Then, in the 20 century, the Meitei script's
sudden resurgence was a movement for the Meitei’s comprehensive search for identity.

200
4. Inter-language conflict: The conflict between the Lepcha and Nepali languages in
Darjeeling was inter-lingual. Different Language Associations in Darjeeling were
established with different objectives, like the Hillman Association in 1913, Educated the
Nepali Elite, Himalayan Seva Sangh around the same time and the Akhil Bharatiya Nepali
Bhasha Samiti on 31 January 1972. The Bhotiya Welfare Association was started in
Darjeeling in 1968, and another organization, the Bhotiya Association, with almost the
same aims. The functional body for maintaining the Lepcha language and script is the
Lepcha Association, a revival of the Lepcha Association established around 1934.

“The Akhil Bhartiya Nepali Bhasha Samiti aims to include the Nepali language in the Eighth
Schedule of the Constitution. The Bhotiya Association aims to protect the group's social and
economic rights and encourage studying the Tibetan language and culture. The Lepcha
Association aims to make people conscious about their language, script, and tradition, obtain
from the government the recognition of the Lepcha language, and have the Lepcha language
included as or broadcast language from the Kurseong Centre of the All-India Radio.”119

In 1939 G.T. Sigling (Lepcha) fought an election as an independent candidate. His platform
was the welfare of the Lepcha people and promoting the Lepcha language and script. He lost.
At the same time, Parasmani Pradhan advocated for the use of Nepali as the language of
teaching. The government issued a circular saying that the Lepcha could also be utilised as a
teaching medium. The Nepalese objected to it, saying there was no need to treat Lepcha as the
medium as all Lepchas know Nepali.

In 1961 a delegation of Nepalis met Nehru and B.C Roy, demanding that the official language
of Darjeeling, Kalimpong, and Kurseong should be Nepali. Later, a law was passed to this
effect. However, the delayed implementation made things worse. Finally, in 1973, the
government issued a decree mandating the use of Nepali in official issues.

Between April 1972 and November 1975, the Akhil Bhartiya Nepali Bhasha Samiti gave at
least six memorandums to the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister. After this, the Nepali
language was recognized by the Sahitya Academy.

The Bhotia Association saw discrimination in excluding Bhotiya as one of the Bengal Civil
Service examination papers. There is a provision for teaching the Tibetan language from class
fifth in education. However, although the provision exists for teaching up to the B.A. level, it
is not taught beyond secondary.

201
“The movement rests on the perception that economic benefits will flow from recognising
languages. Besides, they feel their cultures will be maintained by recognising their languages.
The movement has heightened ethnic consciousness among the three groups. All three groups
have gained. The Sahitya Academy recognises Nepali, but it has been recognized for official
work in all three hill subdivisions. Tibetan has been introduced in primary schools, and
Bhotiya programs are broadcast by AIR, Kurseong. Lepcha is taught in private and
government primary schools, although the community subscribes to this. Lepcha dances are
arranged by the song and drama division of the West Bengal Government.” 120

6.5. Bodoland Movement:

Bodos are an ethnic and linguistic community centred on the Kokrajhar, Udalguri, Baksa, and
Chirag districts in Assam.”121 They are the largest Katchari group that started the demand for
a separate land for Bodos in 1930 when Gurudev Kalicharan Brahma submitted a
memorandum to the Simon Commission, which the British or Indian government did not
meet.

The Bodo movement is one of the stringent movements in contemporary Assam. They draw
the source of their movement from their feeling of discrimination, deprivation, and injustice.
They emphasize their ethnic difference from other people in Assam and the demand for self-
determination. They felt that they were economically and educationally deprived. Their
movement is to preserve identity, culture, tradition, religion, language, extra. Therefore, they
demanded a separate homeland from Assam. They believed their cultural and social identity
could no longer be sustained without political autonomy, so they started the Bodoland
movement. They formed the All-Assam Tribal League in 1933. “The British rulers provided
them with separate electorates in 1935.”122 They started Bodo Sahitya Sabha in 1952 and
wanted to introduce the Bodo language as an optional subject and Sanskrit and Pali in the
school of Assam, which became the platform to discuss their problems. “In 1967, they formed
an organization called Plain Tribal Council of Assam (PTCA), which submitted a
memorandum to India's president in 1967 which they demanded autonomy for the Bodos and
power to conserve their languages, culture, customs, and protection from political domination
by non-tribals. Bodo Sahitya Sabha started a movement for script in 1975.”123

As the Bodoland movement got violent to resolve the issue, the Bodoland Autonomous
Council emerged in 1993. However, the Bodo Accord of 1993 failed miserably because the
Assam State government failed to abide by the Bodo Accord's proposals. Since the Bodoland

202
Autonomous Council failed to implement Bodo Accord, they started an underground
movement under the Bodoland Liberation Tiger Force banner and advocated an independent
Bodoland state inside the Indian Union. Another group, the National Democratic Front of
Bodoland, demanded a sovereign Bodoland outside Indian Union. The Bodoland Liberation
Tiger force resorted to certain violent activities but later declared solidarity with the Indian
Government and agreed to a unilateral ceasefire. The NDA government realizing the gravity
of the situation, signed a memorandum of understanding with the Bodoland Liberation Tigers
Force in 2003, agreeing to establish the Bodoland Territorial Council under the Sixth
Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

The Bodoland movement has a significant impact on the politics of Assam. After the
Bodoland Territorial Council, their political participation increased, and they started their
political party in the state called Bodoland People's Front.

“The agitation for linguistic rights was intended to bring the Bodos together, was a source of
the political movement.”124 The enactment of the Language Act of the government of Assam
in 1960 gave a fillip to the Bodoland Movement. The Assam Government recognized the use
of Bodo in primary schools in Bodo concentrated areas in 1963 and for higher secondary
schools in 1968, followed by a movement against the Bengali-Assamese script, which led to
the recognition of the Nagari script in 1975. The demand for Udayachal and the political
phase began with forming of the Plains Tribals Council of Assam (PTCA).

One of the causes of setting up PTCA was India’s proposal to give Assam a federal structure.
On 2 April 1970, the autonomous state of Meghalaya was formed within Assam. Enactment
of the North-Eastern Areas Reorganization on 22 December 1971 created five states of
Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, and two Union Territories, Mizoram and
Arunachal. Their formal inauguration in the first half of 1972 precipitated language trouble in
Assam. Following the Assamese declaration of the two universities’ sole medium, an Assam
Linguistic Minorities Rights Commission was formed. All organizations voiced linguistic and
political demands.

“On 12 September 1974, the Bodo Sahitya Sabha launched a movement demanding the
approval of the Roman script for the Bodo language. They introduced the Bodo English
primer. The government stopped grants to schools using unauthorized texts. The agitation
continued. Finally, the Government of Assam referred the matter to the Central government.
After a protracted discussion with the Director, Central Institute of Indian Languages,

203
entrusted with finding a solution, as per the Prime Minister's wishes (PM Secretariat letter of
19 April), the Sabha accepted Devanagari as the Bodo language script.”125

6.6. Anti-Hindi Movement in Tamil Nadu:

British rule in India mandated English. In the early 20th century, efforts were made to make
Hindustani the mass language and unify diverse linguistic groups against the British. “To
popularize Hindi as the national language in south India, Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha
was started by Mahatma Gandhi in 1918.”126. “In 1925, Congress amended its constitution,
which read: The proceedings of the Provincial Congress Committee shall ordinarily be
conducted in the language of the province concerned. However, Hindustani may also be
used.”127 Periyar considered this change from English to Hindustani as the thrusting of the
Hindi language and its hegemony on non-Hindi states of south India.

In 1937 C. Rajagopalachari, fondly called Rajaji, who had “termed Hindu culture as the
culture of the world”128 the supporter of the propagator of Hindi in South India within a
month of his becoming chief minister of Madras presidency, expressed his intentions of
introducing the Hindi in secondary schools. On October 4, 1937, Periyar and allies held a
convention against Hindi. However, Rajaji's Government Order on 21 April 1938 mandated
Hindi in Madras Presidency's 125 schools. Hindi opponents considered this action
undermining the nation's oldest language, Tamil. The anti-Hindi campaign supported by
students, youth, and women was a mass agitation. Though anti-Brahmin, several Brahmins
and Tamil-speaking Muslims backed it. In July 1938, Governor of Madras Lord Erskine
wrote to Viceroy Linlithgo that the imposition of obligatory Hindi in the province had caused
great turmoil and was against the desires of the majority of the populace.

Anti-Hindi activists saw the Hindi Act as a Brahmin plot to impose Hindi and Sanskrit on
Tamil. This view was based on the fact that there were initiatives to adapt Sanskrit-worded
English textbooks into Tamil. The Tamil Nadu Congress party's anti-Hindi campaign blamed
Brahmins for northern Hindi imperialists' destruction of the Tamil language and culture.
Rajaji became a Tamil adversary. In August 1938, a convention against Hindi split the ruling
Congress Party. Sathyamurti and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan wanted to make Hindi an optional
subject in schools so parents may opt out of Hindi. However, Rajaji and his companions had
determined to adopt Hindi as India’s official language. Satyamurti also opposed invoking the
1932 Criminal Law Amendment Act against anti-Hindi agitators.

204
Rajaji went on justifying his order dated 14 June 1938 by introducing Hindustani in the
curriculum of the secondary school of the province, i.e., the sixth, seventh, and eighth years of
schooling, which will not interfere with the learning in the mother tongue since it was not a
replacement for Tamil. Rajaji dismissed the demonstrators' demands as "anti-Aryan
sentiments" and "hatred of the Congress." Rajaji charged the demonstrators with ‘non-bailable
criminal offences’ under the Criminal Law Amendment Act after the police used excessive
force to quell the demonstration. There were 1,198 arrests and 1,179 convictions, including
women and children. Periyar was fined a fine of Rupees 1,000 and ordered solitary
incarceration for a year, but he was liberated on 22 May 1939 owing to medical reasons. On
June 7, 1939, everyone imprisoned for involvement in the rally was released without any
explanation. Rajaji organised pro-Hindustani rallies in reaction to demonstrators. Rajaji's
Congress Government resigned on October 29, 1939, to protest India's involvement in World
War II. Governors ruled Madras province. On October 31, Periyar stopped protesting and
petitioned the Governor to repeal the necessary Hindi decree. Governor Erskine made Hindi
an elective on February 21, 1940. The Justice Party, the main opposition to the National
Congress, renamed itself Dravidar Kazhagam and led the Dravidian Movement, which
stopped the state from making Hindi obligatory and shifted from pro-Tamil to pro-English.

The Cabinet Mission arrived in India on March 4, 1946.129. They included members of the
British Cabinet and three ministers who advised holding an election to write the new
Constitution. In July 1946, the principles of the Cabinet Mission were endorsed, and elections
were conducted for the Constituent Assembly. 130 On 9 December 1946, the Constituent
Assembly was convened with 129 members to design a constitution. “The most contentious
issue in the Assembly was language: the language to be spoken in the Assembly, the language
in which the Constitution would be written, the language that would be given the singular
designation, ‘national’.”131

On the one hand, representatives from ‘Hindi-speaking provinces such as Algu Rai Sastri,
R.V. Dhulekar, Balkrishna Sharma, Purushottam Das Tandon, Babunath Gupta, Hari Vinayak
Pataskar, Ravi Shankar Shukla, and Seth Govind Das. These individuals introduced many
modifications that would benefit Hindi and fought for the language’s status as the only
national language. On 10 December 1946, Dhulekar said, “Those who cannot speak Hindi
have no right to reside in India. People present in the Assembly to draft the Indian
Constitution who does not speak Hindi are unworthy of membership. They should depart.” 132

205
At this time, it is crucial to understand the difference between Hindi and Hindustani: The
Devanagari-written Hindi borrowed greatly from Sanskrit. Urdu, written in an Arabic script
with modifications, draws inspiration from Persian and Arabic. The lingua franca of most of
northern India, Hindustani, was a different blend of the two languages. As Hindu-Muslim
hostilities in India increased in the 19th century, the two languages started diverging further.
On one side, there was a planned drive to anchor Hindi firmly in Sanskrit and Urdu in the
ancient language from which it was derived. Particularly in the literary community, purified
Hindi and Urdu began to spread. 133

Amidst all these, Hindustani functioned as a popular lingua franca for Hindi, Urdu, and those
who were speaking Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Marwari, and other languages in the Indo-
Gangetic plain except the people of eastern and southern India, the majority of whom had
their rich literary tradition and script. However, due to years of British rule in India, English
became the official language of higher learning and administration. So, the question arose in
the Constituent Assembly, which would be the national language of India? Nehru, who had
known the country’s pulse and believed English was far removed from the masses, admired
the Provincial languages, intending to unite the south and north, and Hindus and Muslims
favoured Hindustani as the national language along with Mahatma Gandhi.

“Partition largely put an end to the cause for Hindustani.”134 The Members of the Constituent
Assembly supported declaring Hindi as India’s national language and grew increasingly
obsessive. According to Granville Austin, “The Hindi-wallahs were willing to risk dividing
the assembly and the nation in their unreasonable quest of uniformity.”135

“During the heated arguments, south Indian legislators who could neither understand Hindi
nor Hindustani would request an English translation. S. V. Krishnamurthy Rao was the sole
rational voice in the wilderness for South Indians when the demand for making Hindi the
national language grew.”136 After 1949, following deliberations for three years, the parliament
stuck to a deal of compromise known as the Munshi-Ayyangar formula, which found a
balance between the demands of all factions and did not establish a ‘National Language’ but
just an Official Language, “The official language of the Union, must be Hindi in the
Devanagari script. (Article 341(1). However, the English language will continue to be used
for all official purposes of the union for fifteen years after the Constitution's ratification.
(Article 343 (3).)”137 Article 344(2) stipulates the creation of a commission to advocate
“increasing use of Hindi for official purposes of the union and restrictions on the use of
English for all or any official purposes of the union”138
206
“The official language of the Union will be the official language for communication between
one state and another state and union territory (Article 346). However, two or more states may
agree to use Hindi as their official language for interstate communication. (Article 343 (3).” 139
“All legal documents, including court proceedings, bills, statutes, rules, and other restrictions,
would be written in English (Article 348).”140 “The Union was obligated to promote the
dissemination and use of Hindi (Article 351).”141

Pro-Hindi politicians, like Syama Prasad Mookerji, the founder of the Jan Sangh, who pressed
for the status of a National language to Hindi, vehemently attacked the introduction of
English as the official language with Hindi. However, they gradually mellowed their demand
for the Official language: “The Hindi bloc was also forced to compromise ….that Hindi
would be the Official and not the National language.”142 Moreover, both pro-Hindustani and
Pro-Hindi blocs had seen in the Congress Legislative Party a neck-to-neck fight near the rift,
and the margin of winning by the Hindi bloc was one vote that was 78 to 77.

The subject of Hindi’s official recognition was settled shortly before the deadline for
switching from English to Hindi, resulting in a division between regions that spoke Hindi and
those that did not speak Hindi. As Hindi advocates wanted it immediately, the proponents of
non-Hindi wanted English for an extended period or the status quo to be maintained until the
decision of the future Parliament. However, Nehru, a statesman, advocated for adopting Hindi
as one of the official languages while supporting the maintenance of English as an additional
official language.

Hindi’s only merit in being declared the official language was that many spoke it but not
necessarily the majority. Many criticized it as a less developed language, not even a literary
language, politics and science, and understood only by the urban majority. Though all these
criticisms were valid, the main fear in making Hindi the official language was that it would
place the non-Hindi people in a disadvantaged position in the educational and economic areas,
especially when it came to Government and Public Sector appointments domination of Hindi
speakers. Hindi, written in the Devanagari script, was chosen to be the official language of
India by the framers of the Constitution. However, they also stipulated that English would
continue to be used for all official purposes until 1965 and possibly even beyond that if the
parliament so chose. This was done to minimise the potential negative consequences.
Additionally, it was provided to facilitate the gradual adoption of Hindi as an official
language. In addition, the Constitution obliged the government to advance and disseminate
the use of Hindi.
207
Nevertheless, attempts were undertaken shortly after the adoption of the Constitution on
January 26, 1950, to promote Hindi in official administration. The Ministry of Education
began a voluntary Hindi education programme in 1952, and on May 27, 1952, Hindi was
included in judicial appointment warrants. On 3 December 1955, the administration began
using Hindi and English for Union-specific reasons. All Federal government ministries and
departments got in-house Hindi training in 1955, and the administration began using Hindi
and English that day.

According to Article 343, Nehru constituted the First Official Language Commission on 7
June 1955 under B.G. Kher, which reported on 31 July 1956. Finally, it proposed several
ways to replace English with Hindi. The report included "dissenting views" from P.
Subbarayan of Madras and Suniti Kumar Chatterji of West Bengal. Under Govind Ballabh
Pant, the Parliamentary Committee on Official Language studied the Kher Commission
Report in September 1957. The Pant Committee gave its recommendations to the President on
8 February 1959, suggesting that Hindi be recognised as the Principal Official Language and
English as the Secondary Official Language. Frank Anthony and P. Subbarayan, "non-Hindi"
politicians, criticised the Kher Commission and Pant Committee proposals. At a conference in
1956, the Academy of Telugu opposed the switching from English to Hindi. “The former
president of the Hindi Pracharini Sabha in the South, C. Rajagopalachari, stated that Hindi is
as strange to non-Hindi speakers as English is to Hindi's proponents.”143 To oppose the
widespread use of Hindi, he called for the ‘All India Language Conference’ to be held on
March 8, 1958. At the conference, speakers of Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Assamese, Oriya,
Marathi, Kannada, and Bengali shared their knowledge of their respective languages.

In April of 1960, the President approved the Kher Commission Report after a Special Joint
Parliamentary Committee had examined it. The following are the suggestions that the
committee made: (j) Beginning in the year 1965, Hindi shall take over as the major official
language; (ii) English should continue to be recognised as the secondary official language
without any restrictions; and (iii) Hindi should be a choice for the Union Public Service
Commission Examination. According to the recommendations of the committee, the Union
government adopted various initiatives to promote Hindi, including “the establishment of the
Central Hindi Directorate, the publication of standard works in Hindi, Hindi translation in
various fields, mandatory training of Central government employees in Hindi, and the
translation of major legal texts into Hindi and promotion of their use in the courts.”144 Even at
that time, many Hindi politicians criticised Nehru for postponing the replacement of English.

208
“Dr Lohia’s Samyuktha Socialist Party and the Jan Sangh started a violent struggle for the
immediate replacement of English with Hindi that lasted nearly two years.”145

Non-Hindi communities were filled with distrust, apprehension, and vehement antagonism to
Hindi due to these events. Finally, on August 7, 1959, Nehru promised non-Hindi speakers, “I
would have English as an alternate language for as long as the people desire it, and I will
leave the decision to the non-Hindi speakers, not the Hindi speakers.”146 This guarantee
temporarily allayed the South Indians’ concerns.

Between 1946 and 1950, Periyar successfully organised anti-Hindi protests whenever the
government attempted to establish Hindi as a mandatory language in schools. This prevented
the proposal from being adopted. After the country gained its independence, on January 26,
1950, the new Constitution was ratified, and in 1965, the Indian government tried to adopt
Hindi as the only official language of the Union. However, many Indian states that did not
speak Hindi expressed their desire to keep using English after 1965. “In Madras, the Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led opposition to Hindi. To assuage their concerns. Prime
Minister Nehru created the Official Language Act in 1963 to ensure that English would
continue to be used beyond 1965. However, the Act did not appease the DMK and heightened
their scepticism because it stipulated that English might continue to be used alongside
Hindi.”147 Though the Non-Hindi group had not questioned Nehru’s offer of an unequivocal
commitment, they wished that the word ‘may’ be altered to ‘must’. The DMK contended that
future governments might read the phrase ‘may’ as ‘may not’ They feared that the minority
position would not be acknowledged and that the opinions of non-Hindi-speaking people
would be disregarded. Nehru informed the legislators that ‘may’ had the same meaning as
‘shall’ in this instance. In that situation, the DMK sought to know why ‘shall’ was not used
rather than ‘may.’

The bill's main opponent, Rajya Sabha member Annadurai, stated that making English the
official language would "equally share benefits and disadvantages" between Hindi and non-
Hindi speakers. He desired a permanent status quo. The Bill was signed into law on April 27
without any textual adjustments.

Annadurai organised state-wide Hindi protests. In November 1963, he and 500 DMK
militants were arrested for setting fire to Article XVII of the Constitution at an anti-Hindi
protest and sentenced to six months in jail. Demonstrators persisted. Trichy DMK member

209
Chinnasamy burned himself to protest the government's Hindi mandate on January 25, 1964.
He was hailed as a "language martyr" for delaying the DMK's second anti-Hindi campaign.

College students boosted the anti-Hindi movement in Madras on January 26, 1965. As Hindi
became the only official language, this happened. Because of the extensive usage of Hindi in
the Central government and civil service exams, students from throughout the nation joined
the anti-Hindi campaign. They worried Hindi might supplant English in classrooms.

State-wide student conferences protested Hindi imposition. They wanted Constitutional

Article XVII suspended indefinitely. On January 26, Guljarilal Nanda and Indira Gandhi's
Home and Information & Broadcasting ministries issued circulars ordering the substitution of
English with Hindi. Annadurai declared the 26th a mourning day on January 16. Chief
Minister Bhaktavatsalam warned political students that they would be punished if Republic
Day was polluted. Day of Mourning was advanced one day. Annadurai and 3,000 other DMK
members were detained on January 25 to prevent January 26 rallies. 50,000 Madras college
students marched from Napier Park to the government buildings on January 26 to petition the
Chief Minister. They failed.

A Madurai demonstration between Congress party members and students turned into state-
wide violence on January 25. Protesters fired, looted, and destroyed train coaches, Hindi
name boards, telegraph poles, and railway lines. Infuriated by police involvement, unruly
mobs killed two police officers. According to official figures, the Madras State Congress
Government's paramilitary troops crushed the demonstration, killing roughly 70 people,
including two police officers. In addition, self-immolation and self-poisoning killed several
agitators. Thus, the unrest caused 70 deaths, over 500 unofficial deaths, enormous property
damage, and countless student arrests.

On January 28, the Congress party was divided: K. Kamaraj opposed forcing Tamils to learn
Hindi, while Morarji Desai supported it. Agitation continued. Annadurai's appeal failed. Both
parties attempted a settlement. On February 11, Tamil Nadu Union Ministers C.
Subramaniam and O.V. Alagesan resigned in protest of the linguistic policy. India's president,
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, rejected Prime Minister Shastri's resignation offer. Demoralised by
this, Shastri broadcast the following speech on All India Radio on 11 February: “For an
extended duration... English would be my second language... Because I do not want the
residents of non-Hindi places to believe that some avenues to progress are closed to them, I
will not close these doors. I would have [English] as an alternative language for as long as

210
people need it, and I would leave the option [to keep or remove English as a link language] to
those who do not speak Hindi.”148

In response to the query, ‘What would have happened if Hindi alone were mandated as the
Official Language of the Indian Federation in 1965?’ C. Subramanian said, “If Hindi had been
mandated and English had been abolished as a link language, protest movements would have
been more virulent, and the dormant separatist movement would have become resurgent and
may be victorious.”149

On February 12, the students adjourned the protest indefinitely based on Shastri’s assurances,
and the resignations of C. Subramaniam and O. V. Alagesan were retracted. On March 7, all
charges against the student leaders were dropped. The Anti-Hindi imposition agitation council
suspended the movement on March 14. Members of Jan Sangh, infuriated at Shastri’s
remarks, smeared tar on English signage around the streets of New Delhi. The resentment
developed into a sense of opposition to Congress over time. P. Seenivasan, a student leader,
successfully defeated Kamaraj in the elections of 1967 with the assistance of the student
campaign. Consequently, the Congress party was soundly crushed, and the DMK made its
debut as the ruling party in Madras State. DMK “became the first cultural nationalist party to
seize control of an Indian state with its victory in the provincial elections of 1967.” 150. In
addition, the country’s political rhetoric shifted from territorial nationalism to cultural
nationalism.

Tamil Nadu’s anti-Hindi imposition protests spread to Andhra Pradesh, Mysore, and Kerala’s
neighbouring states. 55 pro-Hindi legislators from eight states resigned in response to
Shastri’s pledge to modify the Official Languages Act. During their meeting with the Prime
Minister on February 25th, 106 Congress MPs proposed that he desist from amending the Act.
Congress MPs from Madras did not discuss the subject while it was being debated on the
floor of the Parliament but did argue it when they met with the Prime Minister on March 12th.
Congress and the opposition parties postponed discussing the topic in the parliament because
they did not want their significant differences of opinion to become public knowledge. During
the Congress Working Committee meeting on February 22, K. Kamaraj pushed for
modifying the Official Languages Act. Morarji Desai, Jagjivan Ram, and Ram Subhag gave
him immediate resistance. The working committee of Congress finally accepted a resolution
to prevent the imposition of Hindi as part of the three-language formula. In addition, it was
decided to administer the public services examination in all regional languages. The Chief
Ministers reached a consensus on these choices during their February 24.
211
In April of 1965, a cabinet subcommittee meeting discussed the possibility of keeping English
and Hindi as the link languages. It did not support quota schemes or regional languages in
public service examinations. They drafted a modification to the Official Languages Act in
which Nehru’s commitments were conveyed clearly and explicitly. The measure to ensure the
use of English in interstate and state-Union relations, as long as non-Hindi states desire, was
given the green light for discussion on August 25 by the Speaker of the House. However, it
was removed following a heated discussion because the Punjabi Suba movement made the
timing inappropriate.

In January 1966, Shastri passed away, and Indira Gandhi took over as the prime minister.
Even though Congress retained power after the 1967 elections, its majority at the Centre
diminished. Students led a vociferous campaign against the atrocities committed by the
Congress Government in Madras State, which resulted in Congress being ousted and DMK
coming to power in Madras State. Bill was introduced for modification on November 27,
1967, and passed on December 16, 1967, with 205 votes in favour and 41 against Bill. With
the presidential approval of Section 3 of the 1963 Act on January 8, 1968, English and Hindi
became the official languages of transactions.

Even though the amendments to the official language Bill in 1967 did not resolve their
concerns regarding the three-language formula, anti-Hindi activists refused to relaunch the
agitation since the DMK was in power. In addition, moderates within the Tamil Nadu
Students’ Anti-Hindi agitation committee supported the Annadurai administration in finding a
settlement. “Barnet contends that Annadurai’s troubles stemmed from his projected goal of
gradually making Tamil the predominate and possibly exclusive medium of instruction in
government universities.”151 Extremist factions, however, required the complete removal of
the three-language formula, the cessation of the teaching of Hindi in schools, the elimination
of the use of commands in Hindi in the National Cadet Corps, the prohibition of Hindi films
and songs, and the dissolution of the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachara Sabha, an organisation
for the spreading of Hindi in South India.

The unrest, which started on December 19, 1967, became violent on December 21. Annadurai
defused the tension by granting the majority of their requests. The Legislative Assembly
resolved and approved the following on January 23, 1968: the elimination of the Tri-lingual-
Policy, the removal of Hindi from the curriculum, the teaching of just English and Tamil, and
the banning of Hindi commands in the NCC. Within the next five years, Tamil should replace
English as the medium of instruction and the ‘language of administration’ in all educational
212
institutions. In addition, it was demanded that the Central government remove the provision in
the Constitution that gives Hindi a special status, to ‘treat all languages equally,’ and to
provide financial assistance for developing all Eighth Schedule languages. These steps
appeased the agitators, and by February 1968, ‘normalcy’ had been restored.

However, anti-Hindi agitation often resurfaces in Tamil Nadu whenever the Central
government has attempted to overtly or surreptitiously impose Hindi. In 1986, Rajiv Gandhi
enacted the National Education Policy and established Navodaya Schools with mandatory
Hindi instruction. The ADMK, headed by M.G. Ramachandran, was in power, while the
DMK, then led by M. Karunanidhi, was in the opposition. Karunanidhi voiced opposition to
the building of Navodaya Schools in Tamil Nadu and called for a demonstration. On
November 13, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly voted in favour of a resolution that
demanded the abolition of Part XVII and the establishment of English as the sole official
language of the union. On November 17, 1986, DMK members burned Article XVII of the
Constitution to protest the new education programme. Twenty thousand members of the
DMK, including Karunanidhi, were arrested and condemned to 10 weeks of solitary
confinement. Twenty-one self-immolated. The speaker expelled 10 DMK MLAs. Rajiv
Gandhi advised Tamil Nadu legislators that studying Hindi was optional. Tamil Nadu did not
receive Navodaya schools as part of the deal. Presently, only Tamil Nadu does not have
Navodaya schools.

When the Home Ministry issued an order in 2014 requiring ‘government personnel and
officials of all ministries, departments, businesses, or banks which have created official
accounts on Social Networking Sites to use Hindi, or both Hindi and English, but give
precedence to Hindi,’ all major parties quickly condemned the measure, claiming that it
violated the law and spirit of the Official Language Act. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu,
Jayalalitha, requested that the Prime Minister change the directives to make English the
language of communication on social media.

Tamil Nadu’s ardent affection for the Tamil language and culture is seen in the anti-Hindi
imposition protests. It is a challenge to the dominance of the Hindi North. In Tamil Nadu, the
Dravidian Movement successfully prevented the Congress party from gaining power, opening
the space for non-Congress leaders. Numerous students who served as student leaders during
the unrest widened the political base and emerged as outstanding leaders. Although the
movement’s initial attitude was anti-Brahmin, it subsequently evolved into a more inclusive

213
anti-Hindi and pro-English campaign. The movement ultimately resulted in the present policy
of providing education in both Tamil and English in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

The agitations against the imposition of Hindi brought together persons with a variety of
social and political interests, some of which were irreconcilable with one another, such as
Maraimalai Atikal, religious revivalists and avowed atheists like Ramasami and Bharathissan,
the person who fought for the integration of India like Kalyanasundaram and secessionists
like Annadurai and Karunanidhi, University professors like Somasundara Bharati and M.S.
Puralingam Pillai with uneducated street poet, populist pamphleteers and college students for
a common cause.

Protests against the use of Hindi resulted in the enactment of the Official Languages Act in
1963 and its subsequent modification in 1967. These two pieces of legislation ensured that
English would continue to function as India’s official language. Thus, they achieved the
‘virtual indefinite bilingualism policy’ in the multilingual Republic of India.

6.7. The Gokak Agitation:

The Gokak agitation is a 1980s language rights movement that advocated for Kannada to be
recognised as Karnataka’s primary language. Gokak Movement was led by V.K. Gokak, who
advocated for Kannada’s supremacy in state schools. Kannada belongs to “The Dravidian
language family, the world’s fourth-largest”152, with 25 languages spread over the South
Asian subcontinent. Kannada is one of the oldest languages, whose history goes back to the
fourth century AD, and is one of India's Scheduled and Classical languages.

Karnataka had adhered to the Three-Language-Formula in education from the linguistic

reorganisation of states in 1956. The belief that Hindi, Sanskrit and other dominant languages
threatened Kannada in schools resulted in an environment where students could complete
their high school education without studying Kannada, which led to agitation. Till 1979
students who studied Sanskrit as the first language in High Schools were securing high marks
since Sanskrit teachers were liberal in giving marks. As a result, those who studied Sanskrit,
mostly higher caste people, secured more seats for higher studies like Medical and
Engineering. Chief Minister Devaraj Aras declared Kannada to be the primary language
taught in school to rectify this injustice. 153

The Sanskrit lovers opposed this decision of the Government. To resolve the issue, Mr Gundu
Rao, then the Chief Minister, appointed a committee of experts to study the status of

214
languages- Kannada, English, Sanskrit, and other languages in school education under the
leadership of V.K.Gokak. The committee intended to decide the hierarchy of languages in the
school curriculum. The committee recommended Kannada as a compulsory first language
with 150 marks, the second language compulsory with 100 marks, and a third language
optional with 50 marks. Languages like Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu, Persian, Telugu, Malayalam,
and others were declared third languages.

Several public sectors, especially minorities from various non-Kannada-speaking

communities, opposed the Gokak Report. Even after the committee formally presented the
findings, the government did not issue a ruling or statement, resulting in modest
demonstrations from authors and pro-Kannada, pro-Karnataka organisations. However, the
public response was mild, and there were no indications that the government intended to
execute the Gokak committee’s recommendations.

Numerous figures from the world of Kannada literature and film backed the initiative. As a
response, the entire Kannada cinema industry ceased production and participated in state-wide
demonstrations. Under Dr Rajkumar's direction, the agitation gathered a significant pace, and
the general populace of Karnataka state responded dramatically differently. In every rally,
topics such as the significance of Kannada as a mother tongue and the value of a basic
education, which includes learning Kannada, were covered in depth.

Karnataka government which the Chief Minister led at the time, R. Gundu Rao, recognised
the seriousness of the movement, welcomed the report presented by the Gokak Committee
and pledged to provide the language with all the primary facilities it deserves as the mother
tongue of the population of State of Karnataka and its official language.

6.8. The Hindi-Urdu Controversy:

“Hindi is a new Indo-Aryan language spoken in the North of India. It belongs to the Indo-
Iranian branch of the Indo-European family of languages.”154 “Hindi as a language is said to
have emerged from patois of the marketplace and army camps during the period of repeated
Islamic invasions and establishment of Muslim rule in the North of India between the eighth
and tenth centuries A.D.”155

Afghans, Persians, and Turks living in the territories surrounding Delhi spoke Khari Boli, the
native language of the region, in order to communicate with the people who lived there.
Gradually this Khari boli spoken by them developed into a language called Urdu. “This

215
variety, naturally, had a preponderance of the borrowings from Arabic and Persian.” 156 “Urdu
gained some patronage at Muslim Courts and developed into a literary language; the general
population's variety gradually replaced Sanskrit, literary Prakrit, and Apabhramsas as the
literary language of the midlands. This latter variety looked to Sanskrit for linguistic
borrowings and Sanskrit, Prakrits, and Apabhramsas for literary conventions. It is this variety
that became known as Hindi.”157

Thus, the common ancestor of Hindi and Urdu is Khari Boli, a dialect of Delhi. Since they
were mutually intelligible, they were sometimes considered the dialects of a Hindustani
language. Nevertheless, there are slight differences in their phonology, morphology, and
syntax. Hindi was written in Devnagari, but Urdu was written in Perso-Arabic script.
However, like spoken languages, they were entirely intelligible to each other. So the Hindi-
Urdu controversy revolves around which of the two languages should be assigned the official
language status in colonial India.

South Asia started to adopt a Persianized-form-of-Hindustani under the Delhi Sultanate and
Mughal Empire. In the southern part of India, it was known as Dakkani, while in the northern
part of India, it was known as Hindi, Hindavi, and Hindustani and eventually became India's
national language. Though the Hindustani was written in Devanagari, Kaithi, Gurumukhi, and
Perso-Arabic script, in the late Mughal period, the 18th century, it underwent a Persianization
standardising process and gradually was christened as Urdu, which means ‘language of the
camp.’ It was then that it took shape as the literary language of the Mughal Empire.

Standardization of Hindi as a dominant literary language in the Devanagari script took place
in the 19th century due to Hindi’s efforts, which gave it a name - Hindi and displaced the
official position of Urdu. “Hindi triumphed over Urdu, Hindustani, and Persian in the first
decades of the twentieth century, following an arduous fight fought mostly along communal
lines since the mid-nineteenth century.”158 “In 1893, the Nagari Pracharini Sabha was founded
in Benaras as the most significant organisation campaigning to use the Hindi language and the
Devanagari script. Furthermore, in 1910, Allahabad hosted the Hindi Sammelan with a
similar purpose.”159

The dispute between Hindi and Urdu took place in the region today known as Uttar Pradesh
but was once known as ‘the North-Western Provinces and Oudh.’ At the time, ‘Hindi’ and
‘Urdu advocates were lobbying for the official use of the Hindustani language with the
Devanagari script. Babu Shiva Prasad and Madan Mohan Malaviya, in Northern India, were

216
two of the movement's earliest proponents who created Hindi groups fighting for the
development Hindi language and its official status in the Devanagari alphabet. However, in
contrast to the Hindi Movement, the Urdu movement, under the patronage of one of its most
prominent champions, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, began to preserve Urdu's official status.

The government passed a decree in 1900 providing Hindi and Urdu equal symbolic
importance. However, after then, Hindi and Urdu started to diverge linguistically, with Hindi
depending on Sanskrit for formal and academic terminology and eliminating Persian parallels.
Mahatma Gandhi deplored the separation between Hindus and Muslims and recommended
harmonising the standards under Hindustani. During the 1950 authoring of the Indian
Constitution, Hindi, written in the Devanagari script, and English, written in the Roman
script, replaced Urdu as one of the Official languages.

While adopting the Nastaleeq writing system, Urdu maintained the vocabulary and grammar
of the native Delhi dialect. 75% of Urdu terms are derived from Sanskrit and Prakrit, while
25% of the language's lexicon comes from Persian or Arabic. Hindustani was written using
the Perso-Arabic and Devanagari scripts during the 18th and 19th centuries. However, a gap
soon developed between Muslims who wrote in Urdu and Hindus who used the Devanagari
script to write Hindustani. This division widened when Hindi movements began to gain
momentum near the end of the 19th century. Paul R. Brass penned the following in his book
‘Language, Religion, and Politics in North India’, “The animosity of the Hindi-Urdu issue
indicates how little objective similarities across language groups matter when individuals
attach subjective meaning to their languages. The willingness to communicate using the same
language is distinct from basic communication competence.”160

In 1867, some Hindus in Agra and Oudh united provinces requested that Hindi replace Urdu
as the official language. “In 1897, When Madan Mohan Malaviya presented Sir Antony
MacDonnell, lieutenant governor of the North-Western Provinces of Oudh, with the Nagari
Prachrini Sabha’s petition, Court characters and primary education in N.W.P and Oudh
accompanied by 60,000 signatures, the response was noncommittal. Therefore, MacDonnel’s
order in 1900 on Nagari’s use as a court script was a surprise. It was a battle smoothly won
from which a bruised Urdu would never recover. The division - Hindi for Hindus, Urdu for
Muslims - had more or less been completed.”161

In the year 1893, the Nagari Pracharini Sabha was established in Benaras. In the year 1910,
the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was established in Allahabad. Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar

217
Sabha was established in 1918, and Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samithi was established in 1926.
In 1837, the British East India Company decided to make the local vernacular language rather
than Persian the official language used in the administrative offices and subordinate courts of
some different provinces. As a result, Urdu, rather than Hindi, became the dominant language
written in Devanagari in the country’s northern regions.

Consequently, the government encouraged the use of both Hindi and Urdu as a medium of
instruction in schools, but for official reasons, it barred the use of the Hindi and Nagari script.
This method gave rise to competition for government employment among students educated
in Hindi or Urdu, which, in the end, took on a sectarian aspect. This competition finally led to
tensions between different religious groups.

The Hindi movement gained steam after 1881 when Urdu became the official language of
Bihar and supplanted Hindi in the Devnagari script written in the Persian script. Several
different memorandums containing the following requests and justifications were sent to the
Education Commission in several different cities:

1. Since most of the population speaks Hindi, introducing the Nagari script would boost
education and the likelihood of obtaining government employment.
2. Urdu script rendered court papers unintelligible, fostered falsification, and promoted
Arabic and Persian terms with complicated morphology.

Urdu advocates, led by Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu, defended Urdu’s official status by

asserting:

1. The scripts of the Hindi language were difficult to transcribe quickly and lacked
standardisation and nomenclature.
2. Urdu is an Indian language and is not a foreign tongue.
3. The majority of individuals can also speak Urdu fluently.
4. The official status of a language and script is not required to disseminate education.

As linguistic conflicts flared up repeatedly towards the close of the 19th century, the
government-appointed Hunter Commission examined education progress in the north-western
and Oudh provinces. However, Hindi and Urdu proponents utilised the Commission to push
their interests.

218
Both linguistically and culturally, Hindi and Urdu proceeded to distance themselves from one
another. Linguistically, Hindi borrowed vocabulary from the Sanskrit language, and Urdu
enriched its lexicon from Persian, Arabic, and Chagatai, a 1921-extinct Turkish language. As
a result, Urdu became culturally associated with Muslims, whereas Hindi became associated
with Hindus. At this time, Hindustani was “accepted by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian
National Congress as a symbol of national identity throughout the struggle for
independence”162. The Indian National Congress and Mahatma Gandhi's vision was to
integrate Hindus and Muslims. Accordingly, he tried to re-merge Hindi and Urdu languages
under Hindustani’s one name in 1920, equally recognizing the Devanagari and Perso-Arabic
scripts. Even though he was unsuccessful in uniting Hindi and Urdu under the Hindustani
umbrella, he successfully popularised Hindustani in places that did not speak Hindustani.

Despite Gandhi’s best attempts to bring these two languages together, the Hindi-Urdu Debate
was responsible for planting the roots of Muslim nationalism in the country. In his famous
speech in Patna in 1883, a Muslim leader like Sir Sayed Ahmed Khan stated Hindus and
Muslims as lustrous eyes of a beautiful bride called India. To cite his speech: “...Muslims
have adopted hundreds of Hindu rites, while Hindus have adopted hundreds of Muslim
practises. We interbred so extensively that we generated a new language, Urdu, which was
neither our nor their language.”163 After the linguistic dispute, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who
visited Mr Shakespeare, the Governor of Benaras, expressed that because of their
respective religions, Hindus and Muslims could never unite as one nation.

By then, Hindi’s exponents had resorted to linguistic purism advocating pre-Islamic pure
Hindi by cleansing it from whatever is Persian. So, Sanskrit replaced the words taken from
Persian, Arabic, and Turkic.

Amidst this controversy, MacDonnell’s order in 1900 granted equal official recognition to
both the Nagari and Perso-Arabic scripts of Hindi in the North-Western Provinces. This order
was welcomed by the Hindi supporters and protested by Urdu supporters. However, this order
was a symbolic gesture to pacify the Hindi supporters because the Perso-Arabic script
predominated until independence in the provinces of North-Western and Oudh.

The British government appointed the Simon Commission in November 1927 to study the
India Act of 1919 and recommend constitutional reforms for India. However, since there was
no Indian in the Commission, it was opposed by nationalist leaders of India. So, the British
government invited the Indians to draft a constitution. Soon, the All-Parties Conference

219
meeting was convened to set up a committee. A committee was appointed under Motilal
Nehru, Ali Imam, Tej Bahadur Sapru, M.S. Aney, Mangal Singh, Shuaib Qureshi, Subhas
Chandra Bose, and G. R. Pradhan were its members. Jawaharlal Nehru was secretary of the
committee. The committee submitted its report on August 10, 1928. Among other things, the
committee suggested that Hindi become the administrative language of India.

The whole issue of Hindi-Urdu-Hindustani was no longer an issue of national language but of
religious nationalism and Hindu-Muslim antagonisms, which ultimately cost the unity of
India. The two varieties of the same language - Hindustani - Urdu, and Hindi are understood
by both Hindus and Muslims. On the other hand, Urdu and Hindi became the languages most
closely identified with Muslims and Hindus, respectively, due to the desire of Muslims for a
different country. Urdu became the national language of Pakistan, while Hindi became India's
official language after Pakistan's creation. Hindi has 'Hindu' connotations, whereas Urdu has
'Muslim' connotations. “The script used to write Hindi is derived from one of the scripts used
to write Sanskrit. Urdu is written in a modified form of the original Arabic-derived Persian
script. This is the crucial proportion of a symbol that must always be kept in mind: Hindi:
Hindu: Hinduism = Urdu: Muslim: Islam.”164

6.9. Suba Movement:

Resolutions of Muslims in Lahore demanding a separate state for Muslims in 1940 added
momentum to Sikh ambitions for a Sikh state. Nonetheless, Sikhs of Punjab, in contrast to the
Hindus of Bengal, took longer to comprehend the significance and reality of the partition.
“Initially, they were adamant that they would remain where they were. However, when the
likelihood of division grew increasingly apparent, they demanded a new state for themselves,
which they named ‘Khalistan’. This petition was not taken seriously by Hindus, Muslims, or
the British.”165 Therefore, Sikhs were in a conundrum about whether they should join India or
Pakistan. Jinnah had approached the Sikhs and offered them the security of life, property,
religious freedom, and the rights they had experienced during British rule.

During the period of partition, they felt “deserted by the British, tolerated by the Congress,
insulted by the Muslim League, and most of all, exasperated by the inadequacies of their
political leadership.”166 As a result, they joined India, seeing India as their home.

Though Mahatma Gandhi in March 1931 had assured them that they had no reason to fear and
Nehru had assured them an independent state, Sikhs who pledged to remain in India

220
encountered a novel situation when the migrants from West Punjab came and settled about
Ghaggar River forming a majority of the Sikh population.

“Before 1947, the communalism in Punjab was a triad with Muslim, Hindu and Sikh
communalisms opposing one another and the latter two, often joining forces against the first.
After August 1947, Muslim communalism having disappeared from Punjab, Hindu and Sikh
communalisms were pitted against each other,”167 An ill-will was created between the Hindus
and the Sikhs when refugees of both the communities scrambled for the property abandoned
by Muslims in the Eastern and Southern Punjab while migrating to Pakistan. Moreover, the
Sikhs who experienced a delay in granting those agricultural loans began doubting their
decision to join India. Moreover, Sikhs believed that “they were continually exposed to
discrimination, tyranny, harassment, disgrace, and victimisation, and that there were various
conspiracies against them.”168 In addition, they charged Hindus with “enforcing Brahminical
despotism onto them and endangering their 'Sikh identity.” 169

On July 15, 1948, Sardar Patel established a new state and designated the Patiala and the East
Punjab States Union (PEPSU) as the Sikh Homeland. This brought the Sikh-dominated
districts of East Punjab and PEPSU together and theoretically created a Sikh State.

Before independence, “the Congress consistently committed to the redrawing of province

boundaries along language lines”170 understood that the linguistic reorganisation of the states
in India was substantially more time-consuming and controversial, and it addressed more
fundamental questions regarding the relationship between the Center and the States. Hence, it
changed its attitude regarding the linguistic reorganisation of Punjab and Sikhs. Although the
Commission was established under the leadership of Justice Dhar to study the feasibility of
redrawing the State boundaries, it did not include Punjab because other linguistic groups
might also demand separate states.

The proposals made by the Dar Commission were supported by the J.V.P. Committee,
composed of Jawaharlal Nehru, Valla Bhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramaya. The Constituent
Assembly established this committee to investigate the Dar Commission's conclusions.
Nonetheless, the approval of this report by the Congress Working Committee in April 1949
was viewed as flagrant prejudice against the Punjabi-speaking people, namely the Sikhs.

The struggles of the Sikhs in Punjab for a separate state, unlike southern agitations, were not
solely on a linguistic basis but language and religion. “Hindus made up around 62% of the
Indian Punjab population in 1950, while Sikhs made up approximately 35%. However, these
221
numbers revealed a significant geographical disparity. The eastern portion of the province
was predominantly a Hindi-speaking region, with 88 per cent of the population Hindu. Sikhs
comprised somewhat more than half of the population in the Punjabi-speaking, Sikh-
dominated western part.”171

The mapping of the divide by language did not accurately match religion, as Punjabi was the
primary language spoken by all Sikhs and even some Hindus. When Sikhs claimed Punjabi as
an independent language, Hindus considered it a Hindi dialect. Moreover, for Sikhs, Punjabi
was a sacred language because they believed that the alphabets of their Gurumukhi script
were pronounced from Guru’s mouth.

Though the communalization of language had begun in Punjab in the early 19th century, a
solution formula was provided in October 1949, under the direction of Bhim Sen Sachar,
Giani Kartar Singh, Gopi Chand Bhargava and Ujjal Singh as its members, which were
popularly called the ‘Sachar Formula’ which is as follows:

1. There are two spoken languages in East Punjab, Punjabi and Hindi, and there are also two
scripts, Gurumukhi and Devnagari.

2. Hindi will be the regional tongue in Hindi-speaking regions, while Punjabi will be the
regional tongue in Punjabi-speaking regions. The Provincial Government will determine
such areas after expert advice.

3. Punjabi shall refer to the Gurmukhi script, while Hindi shall refer to the Devanagari script.

4. The Punjabi language is to be used as the medium of instruction in all schools in the
Punjabi-speaking area until the Matriculation level. Additionally, Hindi is to be taught as a
compulsory language beginning with the first class of the Primary Department.

5. If the parent or guardian of the pupil wishes to get instruction in Hindi and not in the
regional language in such cases, arrangements will be made for instruction in Hindi during
the primary stage, provided the number of students in the whole school wishing to be
instructed in Hindi is more than forty or ten such pupils in each class.

6. “Hindi shall be the medium of instruction in Hindi-speaking areas in all schools up to the
matriculation stage, and Punjabi shall be taught as the compulsory language from the last
class of the Primary Department and up to the Matriculation stage.” 172

222
Members of Arya Samaj, Jan Sangh, and Hindu Mahasabha, not accepting the Sachar
Formula, prevailed upon the Chief Minister to modify the formula by allowing the parents to
choose the mother tongue for their ward. However, unfortunately, concession resulted in the
communal division because the mother tongue was decided based on the territory where a
child was born and not based on one’s choice.

Under these circumstances, Master Tara Singh, a former Hindu who had converted to
Sikhism, became the leader of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, a politico-
religious body of the Sikh, joined the movement and became its leader, on 10 October 1949.
He claimed that the Sikhs had a right to self-determination since they had their own culture,
religion, traditions, language, and script. This Tara Singh as he was “arrested several times
between 1948 and 1952 for defying bans on public gatherings and .... inflammatory
speeches.”173

In May 1950, a resolution favouring a state based on the Punjabi language was endorsed by
the Akali Dal working committee, and the Panthic Convention later adopted it. However, to
undermine the claim of the Akali Dal, the Arya Samaj and its adherents selected Hindi as
their mother tongue when they had to fill in the response sheet to the census enumerators in
the language column of the 1951 Census. In response to the subsequent riots, the Union
Government opted to abandon the language column of the census form blank.

With the passing of Potti Sriramulu in 1952, Andhra Pradesh, the first linguistic state based
on language, was created in response to the agitation. In 1953, the Union Government's
announcement of the States Reorganization Commission gave the Sikhs optimism for their
state. “...before the SRC, the Akali Dal, and the CPI in 1955, several Congressmen and
Punjabi thinkers urged the restructuring of the state along linguistic lines that would result in
the formation of Punjabi–speaking Punjab and Hindi–speaking Haryana. The SRC denied the
request because there was little distinction between Hindi and Punjabi and little support for a
change among the Punjabi population.”174

In October 1955, Master Tara Singh and Akalis dismissed the State Reorganization Report. In
Amritsar, on October 16, 1955, Master Tara Singh convened a meeting of all Sikh
organisations and groups and resolved to lead a team to meet with Prime Minister Nehru on
October 24, 1955. However, this meeting did not provide the expected outcomes.

Partap Singh Kairon, who resisted the Akalis and the Punjabi Suba movement, was
responsible for implementing the Regional Formula. “Educated in America, Kairon was a
223
man of drive and ambition, characteristics somewhat lacking in the other chief ministers of
the day.”175 Nehru appreciated him for his determination and courage against the Punjabi
Suba. Nehru was initially opposed to the Punjabi Suba because he had established three ‘No
Negotiations Rules’ while addressing militant agitations and their demands. “There was no
negotiation if a party's demands were separatist, if a group resorted to violence, or if its
demands were founded on religion or communalism.’ Nehru was well aware of the fascist
nature of radical communalism, particularly its Akali variation under the command of Master
Tara Singh. At the same time, Nehru, extremely conscious of the sensitivities of minorities,
attempted to appease the Akalis by meeting their secular aspirations as far as possible.” 176

In the State Reorganization Act of 1956, the Southern States’ boundaries were demarcated
according to the traditional linguistic regions but not Punjab. However, in the thumping
victory in the Punjab Assembly election in 1956, Congress won 120 out of 166 seats, of
which 58 were Sikh legislators and 50 were representatives from the Punjab region. Pratap
Singh Kairon, who became the Chief Minister, took 2 Akalis into his cabinet to pacify Akalis.
However, he encountered problems from Arya Samaj, who resisted the Regional Formula. In
resistance to Punjabi, they launched under the leadership of the Hindi Raksha Samiti ‘Save
Hindi’ movement.

The Chief Minister, Partap Singh Kairon, was willing to make certain accommodations for
the Hindi language. The Regional Formula, which Nehru had envisioned and which the
Akalis had embraced, was not, however, able to be implemented in word and spirit, which
resulted in the reignition of the Punjabi Suba movement. Master Tara Singh and Sant Fateh
Singh made several persistent demands for the Punjab Suba in 1961. Nevertheless, as the
Indo-Pak war broke out, their efforts slowed.

After the war, on February 19, 1966, representatives from the Congress party, the Punjabi
government, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Congress President K. Kamaraj got together to
talk about the Punjabi Suba. As a result, the Cabinet subcommittee on Punjabi Suba was
formed on 22 February 1966. The Congress Working Committee proposed on March 9, 1966,
that the current state of Punjab be split off and used as the basis for creating a new state with
Punjabi as the official language. However, the Congress Working Committee had delegated
the Government the responsibility of deciding how to execute its resolution.

Union leadership may have supported the demand for Punjabi Suba for various reasons,
including the belief that Sikh involvement in the Indo-Pakistan War of 1965 bound them to

224
help India in future wars. However, on the other hand, it was a need for a separate state for the
Hindus of the Haryana region and their resistance to accepting Punjabi even as a second
language had become more pressing.

The Jan Sangh leaders criticised creating a second state out of the current state of Punjab with
Punjabi as its official language as a setback for the nation's forces of rapprochement and
unification and utter surrender to separatism in the border state.

The Jan Sangh, Arya Samaj, Sanatan Dharam, and business circles turned to demonstrations,
fasts, rallies, and rioting, for a while after Sikhs had accepted and approved of the CWC's
decision. Despite the violence, the anti-Suba movement was unsuccessful because the people
of the Hindi and Sikhs supported the decision to split the old state in two. Only the Punjabi
Hindus were at risk in this situation because, as Punjabi speakers, they would feel strange in
the Hindi-speaking states of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.

The idea to restructure Punjabi Suba based on language and make it a monolingual state was
founded on March 18, 1966, by the Parliamentary Committee on Punjabi Suba, which Hukam
Singh led. It also recommended the formation of an Expert Committee if any border changes
were to be made between Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Haryana.

However, adaptations were not as simple as geographical proximity because linguistic and
cultural affinity did not exist. On April 23, 1966, the Indian government formed a Boundary
Commission of three members to decide the boundaries of the new Punjabi-speaking State of
Haryana. Applying linguistic principles based on the 1961 Census data and other pertinent
factors suggested that Chandigarh had to join the projected state of Haryana. The Union
Cabinet accepted the report on June 10, 1966, and on that same day passed the Punjab
Reorganization Bill,177, which made it possible for a truncated version of Punjab to be created
based on the Punjabi language and Chandigarh, which was to become a Union Territory and
be administered by the Central Government.

The legislators of Haryana, who opposed establishing Chandigarh as a Union Territory,

threatened to resign en masse. The Chief Minister, Mr Ram Kishan, and his Ministers
tendered their resignation to Mr Ujjal Singh on June 22, 1966. Mr Ram Kishan’s resignation
made it possible to enforce the President’s rule and nominate Mr Dharma Vira as the
Governor of Punjab. On June 26, 1966, the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr K.V.K.
Sundaram, announced the fourth General Election. On June 29, 1966, shortly after taking his
oath of office as Governor of Punjab, Mr Dharma Vira approached President Dr S.
225
Radhakrishnan with the suggestion of imposing Central Rule in Punjab. On July 5, 1966, a
Presidential rule was imposed. However, there was a notable exception in the case of Punjab,
when the State Legislature was not dissolved, but rather its legislative duties were put on
hold. Up to October 2, 1966, the State Legislature’s regular session was put on hold. On
September 3, 1966, the Punjab Reorganization Bill was introduced before the Loka Sabha,
and it was subsequently adopted on September 7, 1966. Following Bill’s passage through
both chambers of Parliament on September 18, 1966, it was presented to and granted assent
by the President, clearing the way for establishing Punjab and Haryana on November 1, 1966.
There were demonstrations led by the Akali party in Punjab about the Punjabi-speaking areas.
Punjab was officially founded on November 1, 1966, notwithstanding all of the
reorganisations that had taken place previously.

Sikhs indeed got their linguistic state. However, why did they get it late and truncated?
Though Patel had declared that Punjab was the ‘homeland o Sikhs’ and though Nehru was
impressed by the Sikhs, the Central Congress leadership resisted the demand out of concern
that the creation of Punjabi Suba would give the majority of Sikhs a ‘Homeland on the border,
adjacent to Pakistan,’ which could lead to complications. Hence, the leadership of the Central
Congress rejected the demand. Nevertheless, when the Centre was left with no political
choice but to linguistic Punjab, they ensured that such a possible vulnerable state was
geographically tiny.

In India, state reorganisation has been founded on a linguistic basis; however, in Punjab, the
Boundary Commission and the Government of India applied a variety of additional
considerations, including cultural, geographical, demographic, administrative, and economic
ones. A disagreement among different political parties in Punjab over the interpretation of
these principles was responsible for the delay and shrinking of Punjab. Regardless of the
claimed ideology, the underlying motivation for the restructuring of a state is an attempt to
redistribute power. However, power as the ultimate objective was rarely acknowledged
because explanations and rationalisations masked it. Moreover, it is impossible to rule out
Punjab’s proximity to the Jammu and Kashmir State and the neighbouring hostile nation of
Pakistan.

6.10. Konkani Language Movement:

Due to the continuous invasion of Goa by Bahamani Sultans, Bijapur sultans, and the

Portuguese 13 from the 14th century till independence, the Konkani language and literature

226
suffered a severe setback. When Goa came under Portuguese rule on 25 November 1510 178,
they tried preaching Christianity in the Portuguese language and exterminating Konkani
through the inquisition and imposition of the Portuguese language in Goa. In 1687 Conde De
Alvor banned Konkani, and even after three years, when it was not exterminated, he imposed
Portuguese.179 Portuguese was made the official language of communication and mandatory
to secure government jobs. In 1684, the official language of worship in the churches was
changed from Konkani to Portuguese through a Church Edict. However, this was revoked in
1761.

Nevertheless, due to the inquisition, Konkani manuscripts and literature were burnt. However,
among the Hindu majority, Konkani persisted as a home language. They also utilised
translations of sacred Hindu writings into Marathi. Thus, Brahmins who spoke Marathi came
to serve in Hindu temples. Though it survived in Karnataka and Maharashtra, Konkani could
not enjoy patronage in Goa. During this time, Fr Thomas Stevens published a book on
Konkani grammar, and Fr Angelus Maffei wrote literature in Konkani in Roman script. Rao
Saheb, and Dr V. P. Chavan, tried to revive the Konkani language and literature in the
Devanagari script. However, despite numerous attempts, Konkani’s status in Goa did not
improve. In order to gain posts in the colonial government, Catholics in Goa began sending
their children to Portuguese-medium schools in the 19th century. The private sector initiated
the development of Marathi and English medium schools. As a result, Konkani remained the
language of households and trade, confining and developing their dialects within the
respective communities. By then, the Portuguese had stopped the anti-Konkani attitude.
However, the Portuguese’s anti-Konkani attitude made the Hindus of Goa cynical towards the
Konkani and enticed Marathi. Both middle-class Hindus and Catholics were accustomed to
enrolling their children in English medium schools during independence. Marathi-medium
schools accommodated economically disadvantaged youngsters.

Even after achieving independence, the Portuguese continued to control Goa. When
preparations for Goa’s accession to the Indian republic began, a pro-Konkani group arose to
save the Konkani language. Post-1958 witnessed the formation of a pro-Konkani camp that
included the following men of calibre at various times: Joaquim Heliodoro da Cunha Rivara,
Fr. Angelus F.X. Maffei, Dr Sumitra Mangesh Katre, Dr S. B. Kulkarni, French linguist Jules
Bloch, English scholar John Wilson, and Senai Goyebab.

The Konkani language movement sought an autonomous linguistic status for Konkani, not as
a Marathi dialect, and opposed Goa's incorporation into Maharashtra. Dr Joseph Pereira
227
demonstrated in his work ‘Konkani a Language’ that Konkani is unquestionably a unique
language. A resolution to request the Kendra Sahitya Academy to recognise Konkani was
passed during the Eighth All India Konkani Parishad meeting held in Margao in 1962,
following Goa’s independence. The referendum on January 16, 1967, demonstrated the
people of Goa’s desire for a language identity and linguistic state. 180 On May 30, 1987, Goa
was officially recognised as a State, and at that time, Konkani was designated as the State’s
sole Official Language. On February 26, 1975, the Kendra Sahitya Academy recognised
Konkani, written in the Devanagari script, as a distinct language. This decision paved the way
to include Konkani in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which elevated it to the
status of an official language of India.

7. FINDINGS OF THE CHAPTER:

7.1. In a multilingual country, fighting for the existence of mother tongue identity is one of
the main reasons for language conflict. However, the government’s constitutional and
administrative measures can protect and threaten mother tongue identity. Moreover, the very
administrative measures of defining a Mother Tongue can threaten the existence of a
language. For example, the administrative measure of Rationalization and Reductionism by
the Census Department of India can threaten some languages’ existence.

7.2. India does not have a comprehensive clear-cut Language Policy. Present language
policies evolved gradually from Constitutional provisions like Official Languages, Scheduled
Languages and various Educational Policies. Many of the grey areas in the existing language
policies give rise to language conflicts and language movements.

7.3. Soon after independence, India witnessed many language movements. These language
movements express the political potentiality of language. These movements were linguistic in
nature externality but political in spirit internally. Many a time, language was just an excuse
to score political goals. They were movements to recognise their cultural and linguistic
identity in a multicultural environment. The agitation for identity recognition started when
there was a threat of annihilation or vulnerability to their existence. At the same time, the
movements were an attempt to attain political power that cannot be denied and can be
ascertained by the rising of Dravidian and regional political parties.

7.4. Language as a whole is not required for a language movement. On the contrary, any
single aspect of language also suffices for the same. For instance, the contention of the Sindhi
Movement was between Devanagari and the Arabic script for the Sindhi Language. Though
228
scientifically, the Devanagari script is appropriate for writing the Sindhi language, and though
it got approval from the government, political lobbying camouflaged with religious
sentiments was able to bring back the Arabic script for the Sindhi language. In this external
script tussle and internal communal agenda for prestige, the loser was the Sindhi language.
Therefore the deduction that follows from the above argument is that what matters is not the
development of the language but personal and communal prestige. In a way, rationality is
taking the back seat, and selfishness is occupying the front seat. It also indicates something
more substantial than language in the Identity assertion - religion.

7.5. The anti-English movement, which had taken place in various places, was mixed with a
love for Indian essence and other factors. In a way, it was not only a fight against the British
but for Indianness. However, the anti-English movement was a fifty-fifty movement. In other
words, it was not a mass movement. Even when deciding the Official Language for India,
English won just by one vote, which shows there was a Tug towards English. Though the
anti-English movement was for Hindi, the social psyche of India was ‘Yes, but’ or ‘Hindi and
English mode’. In other words, it was an elitist split mind regarding decision-making.

7.6. The anti-Hindi movement was not just against the declaration of Hindi as a national
language but a demand for Dravidian linguistic-cultural-ethnic identity. It was a movement
against the imperialism of Hindi. It was a movement triggered by the fear of the deprivation
of non-Hindi people in India’s political and administrative strata. Moreover, it is a fact that
the Dravidians are an independent race in South India with distinct physical features,
ethnicity, culture, language, script, religious beliefs, mythological heroes, et cetera.
Therefore, the Dravidian movement becomes a fight for the unique cultural, linguistic and
communal identity when viewed from this angle.

7.7. The Gokak movement, though viewed as a movement for the primacy of Kannada in
Karnataka for the benefit of Kannada students, failed in its momentum because no State in
India is unilingual. There are people in Karnataka whose mother tongue is Tulu, Kannada,
Marathi Konkani, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam. The Gokak movement has proved that
multilingualism is an established norm in India, and there is no room for linguistic fanaticism.
When language elites use linguistic passions to flare up emotions, rationality upholds the
multilingual Spirit.

7.8. Though the Hindi-Urdu controversy looks like a battle for the respective languages, it
was a war for religious supremacy. Hindi was associated with Hinduism, and Urdu was

229
associated with Islam. It was a struggle to establish religious identity through language
because Urdu was written in Arabic, with more Arabic words considered the language of
Muslims. On the other hand, Hindi, with more Sanskrit words written in Devanagari Script,
was considered the language of Hinduism.

7.9. Though the Punjabi Suba movement looked like a demand for a Punjabi-speaking state
by Sikhs, it also had religious undertones. While the demand for other linguistic states was
granted in 1956, Punjab was denied because of the fear that the border state adjacent to
Pakistan may start a movement for an independent nation.

7.10. Konkani language movement was for independent language identity and a new State
of Goa. It would not have become a movement if the demands had been immediately met.
However, the delay in a declaration of forming a new State of Goa gave it a language
movement character.

7.11. From the analysis of language movements, it becomes clear that any one aspect of
language can cause language movements. For instance, the Bodoland movement was for the
recognition of Roman script, the Konkani movement was for the recognition of Konkani as an
independent language and not as a dialect of Marathi, Gokak moment was to favour the
students who studied Kannada as their first language, Urdu movement was favouritism for the
Persian language, and Hindi movement was favouritism for the Sanskrit language, Tamil
Language movement was for Dravidian nationalism, and North-Eastern language movements
were for the ethnic identity recognition.

7.12. All the movements had more than one objective. If language and its aspects were one
objective, the other objectives included political, religious, ethnic, cultural and economic. The
language was the overt objective; political, religious and economic objectives were
intelligently camouflaged. These language movements helped to achieve status, recognition
and identity for languages along with financial and political benefits, especially for the
language elites. Regional political parties in South India are clear examples to show how
language movements have enabled political power.

8. CONCLUSION:

In multilingual India, defining the Mother Tongue is not easy. Even the Census Department of
India was inconsistent in defining Mother Tongue from census to census. As a result, the
Mother Tongue is confused for religion, region and even for caste in India becomes certain

230
from the raw returns of the Census Forms. However, the Mother Tongue is an identity
marker. Mother Tongue, with its various aspects like dialect and script, can also create an
identity and be used as a tool of identity politics. When a Mother Tongue is connected with
religion, it reinforces the identity. In a secular country, the language could be used as a buffer
to claim a religious identity.

Moreover, one can have multiple linguistic identities in a multilingual country - micro and
macro. Language shift and identity shift become easy due to multiple identities, and language
shifts lead to language death. Sometimes even government policies like Rationalisation and
Reductionism are responsible for Language Death. India does not have a comprehensive
Language Policy. The country's Language Policy is derived from the Constitution and various
Educational Policies. These policies have created a division between major and minor
languages. Minor languages press for their official recognition of identity due to their fear of
annihilation. Various Language movements and agitations demand the recognition of their
identity, not the secession from the Union of India.

231
 END NOTES

1. Rickson E M, Hilton Barry. 2012. The 5- Minutes Linguist. Sheffield UK: Equinox
Publishing Limited. P. 93.
2. Ibid. P. 94.
3. Das Satya Brata and Choudhury Soumyabrata. 2015.The Weight of Violence. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press. P. 202.
4. Ibid. P. 203.
5. Pattanayak Debi Prasanna. 2007. Multilingualism in India. New Delhi: Orient
Longman Private Limited. P. 101.
6. Bryson, Bill. 1990. Mother Tongue: The Story of the English Language. Great
Britain: Penguin Random House. U K. P. 162.
7. Bauer Laurie and Trudgill Peter. 1998. Language Myths. England: Penguin Books.
P. xviii.
8. Dirks B Nicholas. 2014. Castes of Mind. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 13.
9. Baruah, Sanjib. 2007. Durable Disorder: Understanding Politics of Northeast
India. New Delhi: Oxford India Press. P. 101.
10. McArthur, Tom. 2005. The Oxford Concise Companion to the English Language.
New York: Oxford University Press. P. 386.
11. Hudson, R. A., 2017. Sociolinguistics. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
2nd Ed. P.7.
12. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 61.
13. Ibid. Pp. 132-133.
14. Ibid. Pp. 61-62.
15. Ibid, P. 63.
16. Ibid, P. 64.
17. Census of India 2011. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General, India. P. 4.
18. Ibid. P. 66.
19. Gudykunst, William B. 1988. Language and ethnic identity. Philadelphia:
Multilingual Matters Limited. P. 5.

232
20. Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; leech Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jain. 2010. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley
(India) Private Limited. P. 16.
21. Ibid. P. 19.
22. Commuri, Gitika. 2010. Indian Identity Narratives and the Politics of Security.
New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd. P. 6.
23. Sarangi, Asha (ed.). 2010. Language and Politics in India: Themes in Politics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 303.
24. Jha, Mithilesh Kumar. 2018. Language Politics and the Public Sphere in North
India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. P. 2.
25. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1.New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 406.
26. Ibid. P. 15.
27. Ibid. P. 406.
28. Ibid. P. 406.
29. Mitchell, Lisa. 2014. Language, Emotion, Politics in South India: New Delhi:
Permanent Black. P. 98.
30. Sarangi, Asha (ed.). 2010. Language and Politics in India: Themes in Politics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 302.
31. Ibid. P. 303.
32. National Education Policy 2020. Ministry of Hyman Resource Development.
Government of India. P.53.
33. Census of India 2011. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General, India. P.2.
34. Ibid. P. 4.
35. Sarangi, Asha (ed.) 2010. Language and Politics in India: Themes in Politics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 309.
36. Ibid. P. 15.
37. National Education Policy 2020. Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Government of India. P.14.
38. Bhargava, Rajeev. 2009. Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press. P. 44.
39. Ibid. P. 45.
40. Ibid. P.132.
41. Ibid. P. 341.
233
42. Ibid. P. 349.
43. Ibid. P. 349.
44. Pandey J.N.2015. Constitutional Law of India. Allahabad: Central Law Agency. P.
378.
45. Thapar, Romila. 2014. The Past as Present: Forging Contemporary Identities
Through History. New Delhi: Aleph Book Company. P. 41.
46. Census of India 2011. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General, India. P.4.
47. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 644.
48. Census of India 2011. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General, India. P.15.
49. Ibid. P. 2.
50. Ibid. P. 15.
51. Ibid. Pp. 23-30.
52. National Education Policy 2020. Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Government of India. P.13.
53. Ibid. P.14.
54. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 686.
55. Ibid. Pp. 699-700.
56. Ibid. P. 645.
57. Census of India 2011. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General, India. P.16.
58. Ibid. P. 19.
59. Ibid. P. 15.
60. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 646.
61. Ibid. Pp. 732-733.
62. Ibid. P. 645.
63. Ibid. P. 734.
64. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 32.
65. Ibid. P. 836.
234
66. Panday J. N. 2015. Constitutional Law of India. Allahabad: Central Law Agency.
P. 785.
67. Ibid. P. 787.
68. Ibid. Pp. 786-787.
69. Ibid. P. 786.
70. Sarangi, Asha (ed.). 2010. Language and Politics in India: Themes in Politics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 302.
71. Jabeen, Shakira. “The 8th Schedule: 23 Languages and Counting | Deccan Herald.”
Deccan Herald, 8 Sept. 2017, www.deccanherald.com/content/632160/8th-
schedule-23-languages-counting.html.
72. Panday J. N. 2015. Constitutional Law of India. Allahabad: Central Law Agency.
P. 376.
73. Ibid. P. 376.
74. Ibid. P. 378.
75. Ibid. P. 378.
76. Ibid. P. 786.
77. Ibid. P. 786.
78. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited P. 458.
79. Ibid. P. 459.
80. Patel, Sujatha. ‘History of education in Policy in
India’epgp.infilibnet.ac.in,epgp.infilibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S00
0033SO/P000300/M013097/ET/145258955205ET.pdf.Accessed 1 Nov.2022.
81. Kothari Commission Report. Volume I: General Problems. First edition, 1966
National Council of Educational Research and Training. New Delhi 16. P. 34.
82. Ibid. Pp. 34-35.
83. National Education Policy 202. Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India. P. 14.
84. Ibid. P. 15.
85. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The
Writings of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan
Private Limited. P. 206.
86. Ibid. P. 52.
87. Ibid. P. 266.
235
88. “Three-language Formula Not Implemented Effectively: MHA - the Hindu.” Three-
language Formula Not Implemented Effectively: MHA - the Hindu, 6 Aug. 2014,
www.thehindu.com/news/national/threelanguage-formula-not-implemented-
effectively-mha/article6287829.ece?homepage=true.
89. Patanayak Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 266.
90. “Eighth All India School Education Survey.” All India Education Survey NCERT,
ncert.nic.in/pdf/programmes/AISES/8th_AISES_Concise_Report.pdf. Accessed 19
Oct. 2022. P. 89.
91. Adhikari, Sudeepta. 2014. Political Geography. New Delhi: Rawat Publications. P.
293.
92. Ibid. P. 293.
93. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 814.
94. “Why Mother Language-based Education Is Essential | UNESCO.” Why Mother
Language-based Education Is Essential | UNESCO, 18 Feb. 2022,
www.unesco.org/en/articles/why-motherlanguage-based-education-essential.
95. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 69.
96. Ibid. P. 224.
97. Ibid. P. 244.
98. Sarangi, Asha (ed.). 2010. Language and Politics in India: Themes in Politics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 313.
99. Sharma, Aman. “Narendra Modi: Home Ministry Asks Bureaucrats to Use Hindi on
Social Networking Sites-the economic Times.” The Economic Times,
economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/home-ministry-asks-
bureaucrats-to-use-hindi-on-social-networking-
sites/articleshow/36677599.cms?from=mdr. Accessed 19 Oct. 2022.
100. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 448.
101. Ibid. Pp. 447-448.
236
102. Ibid. P. 453.
103. Ibid. P. 486.
104. Ibid. P. 486.
105. Ibid. P. 486.
106. Ibid. P. 458.
107. Ibid. P. 458.
108. Guha, Ramachandra. 2018. Gandhi the Years that Changed the World 1914-1948.
Gurgaon: Penguin Random House India. P. 30.
109. Ibid. Guha, Ramachandra. 2012. Makers of Modern India -1948. Gurgaon: Penguin
Random House India. P. 45
110. Guha, Ramachandra. 2018. Gandhi the Years that Changed the World 1914-1948.
Gurgaon: Penguin Random House India. P. 30.
111. Chandra, Bipin; Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mukherjee, Aditya. 2000. India since
Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books. P. 120.
112. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 459.
113. Chandra, Bipin; Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mukherjee, Aditya. 2000. India since
Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books. P. 120.
114. Pandey, J.N. 2015. Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad, Central Law Agency. P.
785.
115. Chandra, Bipin; Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mukherjee, Aditya. 2000. India since
Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books. P. 119.
116. Ibid. P. 119.
117. Pandey, J.N. 2015. Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad, Central Law Agency. P.
785.
118. Basumatary, Rituraj. Ethnic Movements in North East India. P. 1.
119. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 461.
120. Ibid. P. 461.
121. Basumatary, Rituraj. Ethnic Movements in North East India. P. 2.
122. Ibid. P. 1.
123. Ibid. P. 1.

237
124. Pattanayak, Debi Prassanna. 2014. Language and Cultural Diversity: The Writings
of Debi Prasanna Pattanayak. Vol.1. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private
Limited. P. 462.
125. Ibid. P. 462.
126. Mukul, Akshaya. 2017. Gita Press and Making of Hindu India. Noida: Harper
Collins Publishers. P. 195.
127. Chandra, Bipin; Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mukherjee, Aditya. 2000. India since
Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books. P. 115.
128. Mukul, Akshaya. 2017. Gita Press and Making of Hindu India. Noida: Harper
Collins Publishers. P. 195.
129. Pandey, J.N. 2015. Constitutional Law of India. Allahabad: Central Law Agency.
P. 14.
130. Ibid. P.15.
131. Guha, Ramachandra. 2017. India after Gandhi. New Delhi: Picador India. P. 116.
132. Ibid. P. 116.
133. Ibid. P. 117.
134. Ibid. P. 118.
135. Granville, Austin. 2016. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of the Nation. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press. P. 267.
136. Guha, Ramachandra. 2017. India after Gandhi. New Delhi: Picador India. P. 119.
137. Pandey, J.N., 2015. Constitutional Law of India. Allahabad: Central Law Agency.
P. 785.
138. Ibid. P. 786.
139. Ibid. P. 785.
140. Ibid. P. 785.
141. Ibid. P. 785.
142. Chandra, Bipin; Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mukherjee, Aditya. 2000. India since
Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books. P. 116.
143. Ibid. P. 119.
144. Ibid. P. 119.
145. Chandra, Bipin; Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mukherjee, Aditya. 2000. India since
Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books. P. 120.
146. Ibid. P. 120.
147. “Official Language Act | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology,
Government of India.” Official Language Act | Ministry of Electronics and
238
 Information Technology, Government of India, www.meity.gov.in/content/official-
language-act. Accessed 19 Oct. 2022. P. 1.
148. Baruah, Sanjib. 2012. Ethnonationalism in India. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press. P. 366.
149. Ibid. P. 367.
150. Ibid. P. 367.
151. Ibid. P. 367.
152. Comrie, Bernard. 1990. The World’s Major Languages. New York: Oxford
University Press. P. 425.
153. Phalaksha. 2018. Karnataka SamskrutikaItihasa, Shashi Prakashana. P. 372.
154. Comrie, Bernard. 1990. The World’s Major Languages. New York: Oxford
University Press. P. 470.
155. Ibid. P. 471.
156. Ibid. P. 471.
157. Ibid. P. 471.
158. Mukul, Akshaya. 2017. Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India. Noida: Harper
Collins Publishers India. Pp. 4-5.
159. Ibid. Pp. 4-5.
160. Brass, Paul.2005. Language, Religion and Politics in North India. USA: iUniverse,
Inc. P. 128.
161. Mukul, Akshaya. 2017. Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India. Noida: Harper
Collins Publishers India. P. 5.
162. Comrie, Bernard. 1990. The World’s Major Languages. New York: Oxford
University Press. P. 471.
163. Guha, Ramachandra. 2012. Makers of Modern India. Gurgaon: Penguin Random
House India. P. 69.
164. King, D Robert. 1998. Nehru and Language Politics in India. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press. P. 75.
165. Guha, Ramachandra. 2017. India after Gandhi. New Delhi: Picador India. P. 13.
166. Ibid. P. 13
167. Chandra, Bipin; Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mukherjee, Aditya. 2000. India since
Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books. P. 423.
168. Ibid. P. 423.
169. Ibid. P. 424.
170. Ibid. P. 156.
239
171. Guha, Ramachandra. 2017. India after Gandhi. New Delhi: Picador India. P. 181.
172. Krishan. Dynamics of Punjabi Suba. New Delhi, India, Deep and Deep Publications
Limited, 1999. P. 141.
173. Guha, Ramachandra. 2017. India after Gandhi. New Delhi: Picador India. P. 182.
174. Chandra, Bipin; Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mukherjee, Aditya. 2000. India since
Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books. P. 426.
175. Guha, Ramachandra. 2017. India after Gandhi. New Delhi: Picador India. P. 318.
176. Chandra, Bipin; Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mukherjee, Aditya. 2000. India since
Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books. P. 425.
177. “Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966.” Indian Kanoon, indiankanoon.org/doc/933499.
Accessed 19 Oct. 2022. Pp. 6-7.
178. Moras, Paul. 2002. Konkani Challvoll. Mangalore: Konkani Institute, St. Aloysius
College. P. 25.
179. Ibid. P. 43.
180. Ibid. P. 211.

240