Introduction
Constituent Assembly Debates on National Language:
Resolving the language issue was not an easy task in the hands
of the framers of our constitution. Our founding fathers went through a series of
intense and often heated debates over the question of having a national
language. Here are some glimpses of the debate that engrossed the constituent
assembly for a while.
A significant
kerfuffle happened over the place of Hindustani language (a historical mixed
language that borrowed its lexicons freely from both Hindi and Urdu) in the
independent India. Before partition, there was overwhelming support for
Hindustani but as the partition reached to its conclusion, the contempt for
Urdu became commonplace for obvious reasons leading to a deliberate attempt of
separating Hindustani into Hindi and Urdu. Hijfur Rahman of the United
Provinces pressing this point in the constituent assembly warned that the
consequences of moving the country away from Hindustani to Hindi and Urdu by
relentless Sanskritisation can be disastrous. According to Rahman, it was a
blatant violation of the Gandhian ideology and principles that the Congress
espoused.
R V Dhulekar, most
vociferous in his support for Hindi said: "People who do not know Hindi have no right to stay in India."
Dhulekar was convinced that among all major Indian languages only Hindi was
worthy of being not only an official language but also the national language.
Another pro-Hindi member Seth Govind Das supporting the cause of Hindi said:
"We have accepted Democracy and
democracy can only function when the majority opinion is honored.
I express my gratitude to
my friends from South India and other non-Hindi regions for having accepted at
least one thing – that is Hindi in Devanagari Script alone can be the language
of the Union, whether we call it the National language or the State language"
There was strong opposition to these views too. Some of the members like
Naziruddin Ahmed batted for the continuance of the English language till such time an Indian
language was ready to take over the responsibility of the National language. People
like G Durgabai and T T Krishnamachari of Madras were most vocal in their
opposition to the popular idea of giving Hindi the most prominent place among
Indian languages. Durgabai cautioned that the fight for Hindi was a fight to
effectively prevent the national influence of other Indian languages on the
composite culture of India. Though she offered support for Hindustani i.e Hindi
plus Urdu only for the sake of satisfying the sentiments of the majority which
she termed as a sacrifice for the Gandhian philosophy and the Gandhian
proposition that the official language of India should be only that which is
commonly understood and easily spoken and learned. T T Krishnamachari speaking
against what he called the "Hindi imperialism" said: " It is up to my friends in UP to have a
whole-India; it is up to them to have a Hindi-India. The choice is theirs."
According to him, the Hindi imperialism would be tantamount to sowing seeds of
secession in the large part of non-Hindi speaking India.
Some of the
distinguished members of the constituent assembly even suggested Sanskrit be
adopted as the language of the state. For them Sanskrit was ancient, pure and
mother of all languages in India which was indeed a preposterous claim because the South Indian languages belong to the Dravidian family rather than the
Indo-Aryan of the north.
Amid the flurry of
frenzied interventions, there were some voices of sanity and wisdom. Nehru was
clearly not in favor of neither Sanskrit nor the chaste Sanskritised Hindi.
For him, favoring any language other than the common lingua franca of the
masses can lead to great instability. Though he hold the fort for Hindustani
for the work of the nation, he was very much inclined to make English the part
of our multilingual repertoire. Essentially he was determined to democratize
the use of English as a language.
The constituent assembly resolved the language issue by giving in
to the multilingual character of the country and also by leaving many options open
for the future parliamentarians to decide. It was decided not to have a national
language altogether. Hindi in the Devanagari script became the official language
of the union (Art. 343 of the Indian Constitution). The Constitution also sought to afford relief to
regional linguistic groups by allowing the respective State Legislatures (Art.345) and the President (Art. 347) to recognize some language or language other
than Hindi as the languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes
of the state. The constitution also provided in Article 343(2) for the use
of English for all practical purposes of the union for the period of 15 years.
However, by 1965 owing to the widespread violent agitation in south India
over the anticipated fear of Hindi domination, the Official Language Act, 1963
came into existence that almost eternalized the status of English as an
associate official language.
Thus the
constituent assembly handled the language issue with great prudence and
foresight. Our founding fathers, instead of finding a common link of language
left the multilingualism to symbolize the nation.
One Nation One Language:
Language chauvinists view multilingualism as an impediment to national integrity which is simply not true. Our collective belief in the
constitution and the national emblems like the national flag and the national
anthem is in itself enough to determine the robustness of our national unity
and integrity. 'One Nation One Language' is itself a failed 19th century
European idea bequeathed to us by our colonizers. A quintessential example of the
failure of this idea is the division of Pakistan that happened primarily because
Urdu language and culture of West Pakistan was forced on the Bangla speaking
people of Bangladesh (erstwhile East Pakistan).
Conclusion:
70 years of our country's existence shows that diversity has
only helped achieving the democratic goals of prosperity. There is no need to
view linguistic diversity as a cultural burden. Every language has its distinct
knowledge system, world view, history and culture; and multitudes of languages
in India only add profound colors to its many life-worlds. People feel strongly
about any imposition of language because language is at the core of an
individual's identity and imposing an unfamiliar language on someone means
robbing him of his culture, worldview, and identity. Oneness is not sameness and
India can be one nation inspite of its great diversity. We should aim to
achieve only that i.e. 'unity in diversity'.
References:
1. Introduction
to the Constitution of India by D. D. Basu
3.
http://www.constitutionofindia.net/
Vikram Raj
B.A. LL.B 1st year
Email Id: vibrantvikramraj@gmail.com
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete