A link language is a good idea but forcing people to learn a language that is not of their region is not acceptable. Imposition has never worked in any context and is unlikely to work in this instance also.
Premangshu Ray
A row has erupted in Karnataka with a girl and some boys assaulting a Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) bus conductor and insisting that he learn Marathi. In a similar incident, the driver of a Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus was attacked while on duty in Chitradurga, Karnataka.
The incident in late February in Belagavi district of Karnataka that borders Maharashtra, in which the conductor of the KSRTC bus was attacked, led to the call for a statewide bandh by Kannada Okkoota, an umbrella organisation of Kannada organisations. Meanwhile, the other incident, in which the driver of the MSRTC bus was attacked, led Maharashtra’s transport minister, Pratap Sarnaik, to suspend the bus service from Kolhapur to Karnataka.
These incidents have brought into focus the controversy over language that has plagued the country for decades. The row is not limited to Karnataka and Maharashtra but involves a large part of the country, particularly the southern states, with Tamil Nadu being in the forefront for the most part.
Some people contend that Hindi should be the official language of the country as it is an Indian language. These people posit that having one national language is logical as India is one country and doing so will bring about uniformity in communication. They also suggest that this would have the added benefit of bringing together people from various parts of the country. Proponents of Hindi as the official language point out that it is spoken by the majority of the people in this country.
Steeped in diversity
All these arguments would have had merit had the circumstances been different. However, this does not hold true for India. This has been repeatedly pointed out during anti-Hindi agitations in various parts of the country, particularly the southern states. Tamil Nadu’s resistance to the imposition of Hindi is rooted in the Dravidian movement’s ideological opposition to the dominance of languages of other regions of the country. For the people of the state, the struggle is also about preventing cultural homogenisation of the country and thus preserving their cultural identity.
This is a valid argument. India is a country that is steeped in diversity, including that of culture. The idea of having one national language at the cost of supressing the growth of others, which is bound to happen if Hindi is imposed across the country, is at odds with this diversity. The imposition of Hindi would also adversely impact the culture of the various regions where this is not the dominant language.
There is another potent argument for opposing the imposition of Hindi. People from all over the country make an effort to learn Hindi when they migrate to regions where that is the dominant language. This is also often done by large sections of people in the metro cities of several states not because they have ventured out into the Hindi heartland but rather to facilitate communication with those who do not know their language. However, the converse is not true. Only a miniscule number of those who have migrated to the southern states, the eastern and northeastern regions of the country, or western states such as Maharashtra and Gujarat have learnt to speak the local language. This is galling. A large section of those who drive cabs in Kolkata or sell tea and jhalmuri on the roadsides of the city are from the Hindi heartland. These people and their families are totally dependent on the money they make in the city for almost everything in their lives. However, they do not make any effort to learn the local language. The situation is similar in Bhubaneswar, Chennai, and Bangalore.
Blatant attempt
In this context, it is naïve for the central government to expect support from across the board for the three-language formula that it has proposed. The formula envisages that in non-Hindi speaking states the first language will be the regional language, with the second and third languages being Hindi and English. In Hindi-speaking states, the first language will be Hindi. People can then choose any two modern Indian languages or one such language and English as the other two languages that they have to learn.
This clearly shows that everyone must learn Hindi, if the proposal is cleared. This is a blatant attempt at imposition of the language on everyone in the country.
A link language is a good idea but forcing people to learn a language that is not of their region is not acceptable. Imposition has never worked in any context and is unlikely to work in this instance also. The government would do well to let the link language evolve. It would also do well to ensure that people who migrate to non-Hindi speaking regions make an effort to learn the local language, just as people who migrate to the Hindi heartland do.
Image: Wikimedia
The author is a senior journalist who writes on sociopolitical and socioeconomic issues.
