The Official Languages Act was finally amended in 1967 by the government of Indira Gandhi, which provided for the indefinite use of English and Hindi as the country`s official languages. There were other unrest in 1968 and 1986, but they were limited to certain states. [9] H.M. Seervai, Official language, Constitutional Law of India, Vol 3, 4 ed., Delhi: Universal Book Trust, p.2581, 2008. On the other hand, supporters of the Hindi language claim that English is still a “symbol of slavery” for part of the Indian population. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia said that English divides the nation into 2 castes: Anglophones, i.e. the powerful elite, and Anglophones, i.e. the vulnerable masses. A very important question that arises as soon as the subject of the national language is broached, what is the need of the national language and what is the whole cry.
There is a wide range of nuanced reasons why English has become the language of India`s elite and governance, even leaving aside the original Macaulyism. Nevertheless, Indians have come to believe that the prosperity of their nation, as well as their own, depends entirely on learning not only English, but learning it exclusively as a first language. It started with the traveling elite, exploded within the middle class hired by multinationals, and trickled down to the vast majority hoping to escape poverty but couldn`t afford a private education in English. Curiously, many states in India have tried to make English the language of instruction in all schools in order to alleviate the demands of the poor. However, the lack of teachers who speak English is surreal. All this while the vast majority are able to communicate in their mother tongue. According to Indian census data, the most widely spoken languages in India are Hindi (422 m), Bengali (83 m), Telugu (75 m), Marathi (71 m), Tamil (60 m), Urdu (51 m), Gujarati (46 m) and Punjabi (29 m). As such, the states of India are usually drawn on linguistic lines, with each state having its own history of literature, art, dance, politics and value system; to be similar to the European Union in this respect. Take, for example, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, where Telugu is the national language: these two states together have larger populations than France, South Korea and Turkey.
However, unlike these countries, due to the strict use of English, the language of the majority is in disarray with a prejudice due to governments and companies unnecessarily conducting national affairs (with great difficulty) in English when they could reach many more people in the local language. If it is true that English is an integral part of communication between states, the central government and foreign companies, is it really necessary to use it in a state where most people have the same mother tongue? To be clear, no sane person could argue that English should not be taught. In fact, it would be unwise not to teach modern lingua franca (or inglese, if you will), but there`s no reason to believe that people wouldn`t be able to speak fluently if they learned it as a second language from the start. This is what is done in so many other countries like Sweden, Germany, Japan, Thailand, Greece, Finland, Italy, Egypt and so on. The inclusion of these languages in the calendar gives speakers and supporters of these languages identity as well as emotional satisfaction. Many scholars have suggested that English should be adopted as the nation`s only official language, as it has been used in official Union functions for about 162 years and Indians are accustomed to the language. Moreover, “English-speaking intelligence has contributed greatly not only to the formation of the modern institutions we value today, but also to modern ideas of equality, freedom, or progress.” [25] Therefore, the English language has the following advantages, which may lead it to become the official language of the country: Many researchers have advised making English the national language in India. But English cannot be our national language, although it plays an important role in our social life and has strengthened our freedom movement because it is neither our language nor our culture.
However, care must be taken not to overemphasize the regional language in order to jeopardize the integrity of a nation. H.M. Seervai says the constitution is based on a strong rejection of the two-nation theory (which led to the formation of Pakistan), according to which differences in race, religion and language were sufficient to call for a separate state. And it would be ironic if, after rejecting such a theory, we ended up accepting the theory of ten to twelve nations, which is based only on language. [43] Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more interesting legal content. The issue of the national language has become more complex than the drafters of the constitution thought. The question of maintaining the official language left by colonial masters and choosing alternatives to have a distinct Indigenous identity and national image becomes a complicated issue in the midst of complex public opinion and divided views. [39] The recent separation of Telangana as a separate state from Andhra Pradesh is also the result of language conflicts.
It is obvious from this case that a language has the power to make or break a country. People develop a bond with those who speak their language. Man began to communicate language 100,000 years ago. Each country has its own national language, through which the day-to-day affairs of the population of that country are managed. India is a diverse country with different languages, dialects, religions, regions and cultures and has a problem with lingua franca. The problem of lingua franca in India is important because language is fundamental. The objective of the constitutionalists in trying to make India a monolingual nation was not to promote the monopoly of Hindi by overthrowing other Indian languages. Instead, they wanted to introduce “a pan-Indian language” that could be used for the government of India and that citizens could use to communicate with others who did not speak their language.