OFFICIAL  VS. NATIONAL LANGUAGE
In India, the terms "official language" and "national language" have distinct meanings, and when discussing Hindi, it is crucial to understand them. 

• Official Language:

An official language is a language recognized and used by the government for official purposes, such as in government documents, communication, and administration. India recognizes multiple official languages at the national and state levels. These languages are specified in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Hindi is one of the official languages of India, as specified in Article 343 of the Indian Constitution. However, it is important to note that it is not the sole official language; there are 21 other officially recognized languages in India, including English.

• National Language:

India does not have a national language as per the Constitution. The term "national language" is often used colloquially and erroneously to refer to Hindi, but this is inaccurate. Hindi is spoken widely in India and is one of the most commonly spoken languages, making it a prominent and influential language in the country. However, there was a misconception that Hindi would become the sole national language at the time of India's independence, leading to significant protests in the non-Hindi-speaking regions of India. As a result, the Indian government adopted a policy of linguistic diversity and made provisions for the protection and promotion of multiple languages, recognizing them as official languages.

So, Hindi is an official language of India, but it is not the national language. India is a linguistically diverse country with multiple official
languages, and the Constitution of India safeguards the linguistic rights of its citizens and promotes linguistic diversity. English also holds the status of an official language alongside Hindi at the national level, and different states in India may have their own official languages as well.

However, there are constant debates on whether Hindi should be made the National Language. Let's read a couple of articles to find out more on both sides of the argument, and answer a few simple questions along the way. 

National Language Debate: What Does It Mean for Indian Pluralism?

Author(s): EPW Engage

Source: Economic and Political Weekly (Engage).

ISSN (Online): 2349-8846

Published by: Economic and Political Weekly (Engage)

Article URL: https://www.epw.in/engage/article/national-language-debate-what-does-it-mean-indian

The debate over Hindi being India's "National Language" has been ongoing since the Constitution was written. This discussion was recently reignited by the Draft National Education Policy, which appeared to prioritize Hindi over other Indian languages. Notably, only around 44% of India's population are native Hindi speakers, a figure that includes speakers of languages like Bhojpuri.

Imposing a single language carries several risks. It can hinder the learning ability of non-native speakers, negatively impacting their self-confidence. It can also endanger other languages and dialects, thereby reducing linguistic diversity. National integration should not come at the expense of people's linguistic identities, as language is central to culture. Prioritizing Hindi over other languages spoken in India diminishes its rich diversity.

This argument has frequently been voiced by southern states, particularly Tamil Nadu, even before independence. For example, when the Draft National Education Policy was released, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam President M. K. Stalin reminded the central government of Nehru's promise that Hindi would serve only as a linking language and would not be imposed on non-Hindi speaking states as long as they opposed it. Protests have also occurred in other southern states, such as Karnataka, where pro-Kannada groups like Karnataka Rakshana Vedike held discussions to address "Hindi chauvinism." Similar organizations, like Bengal Pokkho, have emerged in Bengal to lead movements against Hindi imposition.

This reading list provides context for the long history of the national language debate in India.

1) Language is a Primary Constituent of Identity

One reason people feel strongly about issues related to a national language or its "imposition" is that language is fundamental to an individual's identity. It is through language that individuals conceptualize and communicate thoughts, enabling active participation in society. Language also provides a primary group affiliation as people can identify with each other through a shared language. As Papia Sengupta states:

Language is not simply a tool for communication but is a central and defining feature of identity as all human thoughts are conceptualised through a language and all human values are pronounced and perceived through it. It follows that since language is a significant factor in building one’s identity, it must be preserved.

She further argues that not knowing the dominant language can negatively impact an individual's political identity:

Language is the most important tool of participation in the polity of the state and not being able to speak in the dominant language (or languages) of a state can have a serious impact on an individual’s employment, educational and recreational opportunities. This leads to discrimination and injustice.

2) The Role of the Constituent Assembly

The National Language Debate dates back to the Constituent Assembly, which was tasked with addressing the language question. However, scholars like Rama Kant Agnihotri believe that the assembly debates were largely dominated by elites, marginalizing the aspirations of minorities.

Even though India’s Constituent Assembly debates were informed by remarkable seriousness, scholarship, and integrity, most of the linguistic decisions taken by the Constituent Assembly, in many cases insightful, were located in consensual democracy and the domination of the elites in that body. The multilingual and multicultural ethos that is constitutive of Indian society was ignored. The focus was so much on containing the existing political safeguards available to the religious and backward minorities that the rights of linguistic minorities were compromised.

3) The Deceptive Eighth Schedule

With millions across the continent speaking multiple languages, the Eighth Schedule emerged as an elusive solution. It comprises a list of official languages that the government is obligated to develop. However, the Eighth Schedule has inadvertently led to the decline of mother tongues relegated to subordinate positions. Sadhana Saexna explains this point:

The Eight Schedule (ES) takes no cognisance of various languages. Empowering a few has impoverished and marginalised others by exclusion. Consequently, the ES languages have gained power, recognition and prestige as 'mainstream' or 'standard' languages. The others have been left to languish with demeaning labels such as "dialects', 'minor languages', 'tribal languages' and so on. Education, the judiciary, administration, mainstream trade and commerce, national communication networks and media, even most non-government organisations all use the ES languages, totally ignoring the vast majority of Indian mother tongues. Ironically, a foreign language not listed in the ES enjoys maximum prestige.

Speaking of the local reaction to a standardized language, she adds that people recognize its importance but not at the cost of their mother tongues being deemed inferior.

Ordinary people usually come out with clear reasoning. They want to learn the standard language to deal with government officials, otherwise they will not be considered literate and their voice will not be heard. But never do they believe that a standard language will replace their spoken language. The distinction they make is very clear. They want a language of power to acquire power, but not by suppressing their own languages. Obviously, this points to the need to build a multi-language milieu.

4) Language: The Centre of Nationalist Propaganda

Various language policies framed by both central and state governments have been labeled as forms of linguistic chauvinism. These include making Bengali compulsory in schools in West Bengal and a push to make Marathi compulsory in all schools in Maharashtra. Another controversial policy was the three-language formula in the South.

Papia Sengupta highlights this, stating:

Such policies threaten the diversity and federalism of India. The states' fear of the central government's ideology of monopolising faith, education, and language will adversely affect the Indian political system, which is based on pluralism and accommodation. The policies of the centre as well as states should be viewed with precaution as they further advance the politics of majoritarianism.

Hany Babul MT takes it a step further, asserting that unilingual government policies have led to a "chaturvarna system" of languages, wrongly dividing them into a hierarchical structure.

The Indian language policy is informed by a pull towards unilingual identity, inspired by the European model of nation state that is predicated on the homogeneity of its people. Language hegemony works at two tiers in India—at the state and the centre. The Constitution fails to pay more than lip service to the linguistic plurality and multilingual ethos of the peoples of India and has created a chaturvarna (four-tier order) of languages, with Sanskrit, Hindi, scheduled, and the non-scheduled languages occupying various rungs of the ladder.

S Srinivasa Rao believes that "nationalists" today are intent on promoting linguistic nationalism, viewing other Indian languages as inferior to Hindi.

If Macaulay and his successors have rubbished the numerous indigenous and minority languages in the name of incivility and lack of richness of literature and, therefore, are not suited for the elitist raj, the nationalist protagonists revealed their similar intentions in the artificial construction of “nationhood” through language.

5) The Emphasis Should Be on Official Languages

V. K. R. V. Rao advocates for a patient and national approach to the language problem, urging decision-makers not to be swayed by temporary passions or short-term expediencies. He believes the focus should not be on establishing one national language but on strengthening the official languages, whose importance cannot be disregarded.

National integration in a multilingual country does not require the imposition of one official language on the country, especially when the language selected for the purpose is one of its many regional languages even if it happens to be that of the largest linguistic group in the country. At the same time, the convenience, in fact the necessity, of having one or more languages as the official (not national, as all languages spoken in a country can claim to be national) language or languages for centre-state and inter-state communication for political, economic, legal and even social reasons cannot be disputed.