<div dir="ltr"><h1 class="gmail-title">
The perilous march of Hindistan
</h1>
<div class="gmail-author-container gmail-hidden-xs">
<span class="gmail-author-img-name gmail-1">
<a href="http://www.thehindu.com/profile/author/D.-Shyam-Babu-8005/" class="gmail-auth-img gmail-lnk">
<img src="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article18619689.ece/alternates/SQUARE_80/Th30-Shyam%20Babu" alt="" title="" class="gmail-adaptive gmail-placeholder">
</a>
<a href="http://www.thehindu.com/profile/author/D.-Shyam-Babu-8005/" class="gmail-auth-nm gmail-lnk">
D. Shyam Babu
</a>
</span>
<div class="gmail-ut-container">
<span class="gmail-blue-color gmail-ksl-time-stamp">
January 23, 2018 00:00 IST
</span>
<div class="gmail-teaser-text gmail-update-time">
Updated:
<span>
January 23, 2018 03:38 IST
</span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail-artcl-social-media gmail-hidden-xs">
<ul class="gmail-aricle-share"><span class="gmail-share-artcl">Share Article</span><li>
<a>
<span class="gmail-cnt"></span>
</a>
</li><li>
<a>
</a>
<br></li><li class="gmail-hidden-xs">
<a>
<span class="gmail-cnt"></span>
</a>
<br></li><li>
<a href="mailto:?subject=The%20perilous%20march%20of%20Hindistan&body=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehindu.com%2Ftodays-paper%2Ftp-opinion%2Fthe-perilous-march-of-hindistan%2Farticle22493797.ece" target="_self">
</a>
<br></li><li class="gmail-hidden-xs">
<a href="http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/the-perilous-march-of-hindistan/article22493797.ece#comments">
</a>
<br></li><li class="gmail-hidden-xs">
<a>
PRINT
</a>
</li><li class="gmail-hidden-xs">
<span class="edite-text-cont">
<a id="gmail-small" class="gmail-small-text">A</a>
<a id="gmail-medium" class="gmail-medium-text gmail-active">A</a>
<a id="gmail-large" class="gmail-large-text">A</a>
</span>
</li></ul>
</div>
<div class="gmail-ad-container gmail-ad-box gmail-hidden-xs">
<div id="gmail-test_ad_14840939" class="gmail-add gmail-hidden-xs gmail-hidden-sm" style="width:640px;height:90px">
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail-lead-img-cont">
<div class="gmail-lead-img-cont">
<div class="gmail-img-container gmail-picture" style="width:100%">
<img src="http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/article22493795.ece/alternates/FREE_660/23thshyma-babuG7C39IMFU3jpgjpg" style="width: 100%;" title="SATWIK GADE" class="gmail-media-object gmail-adaptive gmail-placeholder gmail-lead-img">
<span class="gmail-lead-img-caption">
<p>SATWIK GADE
</p>
</span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h2 class="gmail-intro">
The project to replace English with Hindi and other Indian languages is reaching an inflection point
</h2>
<p>Congress leader Shashi Tharoor recently questioned in Lok Sabha the
purpose of making Hindi an official language at the United Nations. He
said: “I understand the Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister can
speak in Hindi, but what if a future External Affairs Minister comes
from Tamil Nadu or West Bengal, who couldn’t speak in the language?”</p><p>Last
year, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah termed the three-language
policy as “not reasonable.” He was pleading with the Centre to remove
Hindi signage in Bengaluru’s Namma Metro in response to popular
sentiment against Hindi in his State. In effect, he sought exemption for
Karnataka from the three-language policy (like Tamil Nadu) but stopped
short of demanding a policy change.</p><p>Both leaders raised relevant
questions on our language policy, but they should have asked their own
party, the Congress, how it created a situation where Hindi is feared to
be subsuming many subnational identities in the country.</p><p><b>The three-language policy</b></p><p>In
the sixties, when the language policy ran into rough weather, the
three-language formula was conceptualised as a modus vivendi (an
acceptable solution). Parliament passed the Official Language Resolution
in 1968, stipulating that a “modern Indian language, preferably one of
the southern languages”, be studied in Hindi-speaking areas (along with
Hindi and English) and that Hindi be studied in areas where it is not
spoken (along with the regional languages and English).</p><p>The
three-language policy was meant for the entire country. However, the
policy took a whole different shape as if it was a prescription for
non-Hindi-speaking States alone. While non-Hindi-speaking States (except
Tamil Nadu) adhered to the three-language policy, Hindi-speaking States
took a U-turn: they not only gave up on teaching a non-Hindi language
in their schools but effectively delegitimised English.</p><p>The
mischief of using the three-language policy to spread only Hindi took
place when Congress enjoyed power at the Centre and in most States. Even
the move to make Hindi an official language at the UN was a
recommendation that the Committee of Parliament on Official Language
(CPOL) made in 2011. So, the issues that Mr. Tharoor and Mr.
Siddaramaiah have raised are the handiwork of their own party.</p><p><b>Recommendations</b></p><p>Though
the CPOL was created in 1976 “to review the progress made in the use of
Hindi for the official purposes... of the Union” and make
recommendations on the same, its current mandate is much more. In fact,
the Committee operates not only to promote Hindi everywhere but also
banish English from the land. It appears to believe that Hindi cannot
thrive as long as English survives.</p><p>In 2011, in its ninth report,
the panel made 117 recommendations and the President approved more than
95% of them. Of the handful of recommendations that the President did
not accept, two merit attention to understand the wrong direction that
the panel is showing to the nation. The first recommendation pertains to
adding a column on Hindi fluency in the annual confidential report of
all employees/officers. This obviously targets Central government
employees in non-Hindi States. The second is to have only Hindi or one’s
mother tongue as the language to be used in Parliament. In fact, the
panel is more magnanimous than Article 120(2) of the Constitution. While
the Article (in abeyance since 1965) seeks to make Hindi the sole
language in Parliament, allowing any other language as an exception when
a member cannot speak in Hindi, the panel recommendation gives equal
space to Hindi and other Indian languages. It is not clear what the
Committee meant by mother tongue. Even if it meant languages in the
Eighth Schedule (22 and counting), and if this recommendation is
accepted in future, Parliament would become an assembly of tongues.</p><p>What of those recommendations has the Centre accepted?</p><p>The
Committee’s fervour is palpable in every recommendation, throwing
rationality, pragmatism and national interest under the truck. It says
that students in colleges and universities in non-Hindi-speaking States
will henceforth have the option of taking exams and interviews in Hindi.
It asks that government advertisements in Hindi newspapers be of
“bigger size” and “at starting pages”, while those in English newspapers
be of “relatively smaller size” and “in middle or ending pages”. It
mandates the purchase of more Hindi newspapers and magazines in all
Central government offices, public sector undertakings, institutions
funded by the government, and private companies engaged in public
service. Recommendation No. 107 reads: “In order to end the dominance of
English (not its use), such schools should not be given recognition by
the government which do not impart education in Hindi or mother tongue.”
So on and so forth.</p><p><b>Caught in between</b></p><p>Broadly, two
factors are relevant to our language policy. One, English has become a
global language and a certain fluency in it is taken as a given for
mobility as well as for access to global knowledge. Hindi possesses no
such advantages. Two, many non-Hindi Indian languages are older than
Hindi and their speakers are justly proud of their rich cultural and
literary heritage. They strive to make their respective languages
prominent in governance and education, while keeping English for what it
is. These States lack both the desire and the need to learn Hindi.</p><p>In
any case, it is not apparent how not knowing Hindi renders one less of
an Indian, or even less of a Hindu. As the president of the Maharashtra
Navnirman Sena, Raj Thackeray, said in an interview toThe Hindulast
year: “There could be Marathi Hindu or Tamil Hindu and so on, but one
cannot make blanket imposition of Hindi on the entire country. All
Hindus cannot be Hindi.” He likened India to Europe — a mosaic of
cultures, languages and traditions. His stance seems to have found
resonance even in a faraway State like Assam.</p><p>Non-Hindi States are
unlikely to accept the ‘imposition’ of Hindi, even if it comes in a
friendly garb and with a smile. Only time will tell if they make a
common cause on the issue.</p><p>India finds itself sandwiched between a
relentlessness that assumes semi-religious overtones to banish English
and a vehemence with latent subnationalism to reject Hindi. Ironically,
any impassioned deliberation on India’s language policy highlights the
centrality of English not only as a link-language but as a glue that
binds India together.</p>D. Shyam Babu is Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+<br><br> Harold F. Schiffman<br><br>Professor Emeritus of <br> Dravidian Linguistics and Culture <br>Dept. of South Asia Studies <br>University of Pennsylvania<br>Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305<br><br>Phone: (215) 898-7475<br>Fax: (215) 573-2138 <br><br>Email: <a href="mailto:haroldfs@gmail.com" target="_blank">haroldfs@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/" target="_blank">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/</a> <br><br>-------------------------------------------------</div>
</div>