We must emphasize Indian languages too along with English

 After India won its independence from the British in 1947 after a long struggle, the leaders of the newly-born Indian nation felt a need to unite the many linguistically-diverse regions of India with a common, universal language. Mahatma Gandhi felt that a common language was one for the pre requisites for the emergence of India as a united nation. He laid out five key requirements for any language to be accepted as the national language: 1. It should be easy to learn for government officials. 2. It should be capable of serving as a medium of religious, economic, and political intercourse throughout India. 3. It should be the speech of the majority of the inhabitants of India. 4. It should be easy to learn for the whole of the country. 5. In choosing this language, considerations of temporary or passing interests should not count. Mahatma Gandhi’s thoughts on the question of national language date back to as early as 1906, when Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his book Hind Swaraj or Home Rule, that the national language should be Hindi with the option to use both the Nagari and the Persian characters to foster Hindu-Muslim unity. Mahatma Gandhi also supported Hindusthani at times as a tool of integration between Muslims and Hindus, and many of his later speeches and writings favoured Hindusthani over Hindi. This position was also supported by the 1928 Motilal Nehru report. Mahatma Gandhi also often emphasized the importance of provincial languages, and the seeds for linguistic provinces were sown in the early 20th century itself. For example, the Indian National Congress in 1917 decided to constitute a separate Andhra Congress Provincial committee, and a consensus was also slowly emerging that administration had to be provided in a language that was understood by its people. In spite of a potential conflict between Hindi or Hindusthani as a national language and the concept of linguistic provinces, however, the Congress, at that time naturally wanted to avoid partition and show that it was not opposed to the interests of the Muslims, and emphasized religious harmony over linguistic identity. As English was widely seen to be a symbol of oppression and slavery, Mahatma Gandhi and most others only favoured a limited use of English in fields such as scientific endeavour, diplomacy and international trade, and most certainly not at the expense of Indian languages. Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders of India’s freedom movement were critical about the role of English in India, claiming it lead to intoxication, subordination of national interests, distortion of cultural values, denationalization, a stifling of innovative and creative thinking and a slavish mentality.

Mahatma Gandhi also blamed English for the lower level of competence achieved in other subjects. He claimed, for example, that had he been taught in Gujarati, he would have learnt Euclid’s theorems in half the time. After Partition, the support for Hindusthani declined drastically, and there were moves to purge Hindi of Persian loan words and emphasize its Sanskrit vocabulary. Hindi zealots also appear to have profited immensely from Gandhi’s avowed preference for Hindi or Hindusthani over English, and Hindi nationalists such as Purushottam Das Tandon, Seth Govind Das, R V Dhulekar, Babunath Gupta and Ram Manohar Lohia fought heroically in favour of Hindi, often adopting dogmatic positions over consensus-driven approaches, and as American scholar and expert of the Indian constitution late Granville Austin observed, at times creating deep schisms in the parliament and even going to the extent of imperilling India’s national unity. Among all the anecdotes that would serve to illustrate the above, none has perhaps become more firmly etched in the minds of people than this: On the 10th of December 1946, R. V. Dhulekar of the United Provinces moved an amendment and began speaking in Hindustani. The Chairman then reminded him that many members did not know the language. This was Dhulekar’s reply: “People who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India. People who are present in this House to fashion a Constitution for India and do not know Hindustani are not worthy to be members of this Assembly. They had better leave”. The remarks created a commotion in the House. “Order, order!”, yelled the Chairman, but Dhulekar then moved that the Procedure Committee should frame rules in Hindustani and not in English. “As an Indian I appeal that we, who are out to win freedom for our country and are fighting for it should think and speak in our own language (in singular form). We have all along been talking of America, Japan, Germany, Switzerland and House of Commons. It has given me a headache. I wonder why Indians do not speak in their own language (again, in singular form). As an Indian I feel that the proceedings of the House should be conducted in Hindustani. We are not concerned with the history of the world. We have the history of our own country of millions of past years. I request you to allow me to move my amendment.” The Chairman: Order, order! I do not permit you to proceed further. The House is with me that you are out of order.’

After much deliberation and consternation in some circles, the Indian constitution, in 1950, declared that Hindi in the Devanagari script would be the official language of the union. International numerals would however be used. Unless Parliament decided otherwise, the use of English for official purposes was to cease 15 years after the constitution came into effect, i.e., on 26 January 1965. The union government took many steps to promote Hindi with great zest and zeal. The Indian government either set up new institutions or strengthened many associations such as the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha which already existed at the time of independence to promote Hindi throughout India, even as Nehru and others insisted that Hindi would never be imposed on non-Hindi speaking peoples. The government also funded writers, poets, and translators to produce works in Hindi. Committees were formed to develop Hindi in order to give it a more comprehensive vocabulary which would allow it to discharge its official functions which much greater ease and efficiency. Even though Hindi was clearly the preferred choice in political circles, there were many blocks to its achieving success as the national language. One of these was the high position of English-a position it has retained until today despite the plan to phase it out of all government communications by 1965. However, because of English’s importance internationally and the many advantages conferred upon those who could speak it, the study of English continued with even greater vigour than before, whereas the study of Hindi was neglected in many regions where people felt very little or no need for it. This ensured that a large section of the educated workforce who joined government services needed to use more of English than Hindi in doing their jobs. Accordingly, English has not only shared its position as an official language with Hindi but has also relegated Hindi to second-class status. Interestingly, both English and other Indian languages have proven to be the biggest roadblocks in Hindi’s quest for unbridled supremacy, and many have all along opined that English and other Indian languages should formally share Hindi’s role as an official language of the Central Government. In a nation of mind-boggling diversity such as India, this was probably sine qua non.

Another thorn in the flesh for the hegemony of Hindi was the formation of linguistic states. While the idea of linguistic states predated independence, the movement for linguistic states got a fresh impetus in the 1950’s, and speakers of Marathi, Kannada, Oriya and later Gujarati wanted their own states. However, the strongest demand for linguistic states came from Andhra Pradesh where Potti Srirmulu, a long time disciple of Gandhi fasted unto death and became a martyr for linguistic states. This led to the division of India on linguistic lines, and naturally weakening the case for Hindi further. Interestingly, no attempts appear to have been made to re-examine the language policy in the light of the formation of linguistic states. Supporters of Hindi also never appear to have understood the role of trade, commerce, industry and the private sector in both directly and indirectly espousing the cause of English, and all their efforts were bereft and devoid of vision and clarity and were doomed to end in failure. Sometime in early 1965, when the associate official status of English was due to end, attempts were made to impose Hindi by brute force in Tamil Nadu, sparking widespread protests in the state. This was not the first time there were Anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu. The Tamils had been protesting the proposed national language policy since the 1930’s, and were often joined by smaller groups of people from the West, East and other parts of South India, and opposition to India’s proposed language policy in Tamil Nadu was almost universal. Although British divide-and-rule techniques and outdated historical models may have played a role in dividing North and South, as well as other cultural differences, it was clear that India’s proposed language policies would be highly discriminatory against Tamils and other non-Hindi speakers.

Firstly, it would require the students of some states to learn three languages while others could get away by learning two. Secondly, Hindi-speakers in the Hindi speaking states would learn it as their native language, while others would learn it as a foreign one. Thirdly, Hindi speakers in Hindi-speaking states would learn Hindi as a first language, while others would learn it as a second language. Within a few years, this kind of a policy would enable the native speakers of one language to take over the job market through unfair and unethical methods. Even Rajagopalachari, who had earlier espoused the cause of Hindi, had changed his stand in due course, and became an opponent of the language policy. In 1967, the DMK won the election in Tamil Nadu on the plank of India’s alleged discriminatory language policy. The Union Government was then left with no other option but to permit the use of English in the workings of the central government and in inter-state communication indefinitely. This naturally dismayed Hindi zealots, many of whom had worked hard, for example, to ensure that examinations like All India Civil Services Examinations would not be conducted in any language other than Hindi, and many of them saw it as treachery and betrayal.

The Angrezi Hatao Andolan or the Banish English campaign was a very strong and emotive movement in the early years of independent India; key leaders of the movement were Ram Manohar Lohia and Atal Behari Vajpayee and cities like Allahabad and Lucknow were eminent centres of the movement. This very significant movement to banish English was launched by Ram anohar Lohia in April 1957. As the country had gained independence from the British the English language was considered passé and a symbol of a bygone era and had to be phased out as quickly as possible keeping in mind the provisions of the constitution which favoured phasing out of English by 1965. By all accounts, this movement was a failure as it strongly reeked of parochialism, and came to be decried as Hindi imperialism- it had few if any supporters in the West and East, and had virtually no supporters in the South. This led the Hindi speaking belt to retreat into some kind of a cultural cul de sac. For example, Karpoori Thakur banished English as a mandatory subject in Bihar to help students hailing from or belonging to rural areas, and 1982, the left government in West Bengal did the same in their state too. Nowadays it is very difficult to imagine surviving without a minimal knowledge of English. It has not only become the tool and weapon of globalization, but is a practical neutral lik language in a polyglot nation like India unlike Sanskrit which is most probably non-implementable and non-communicable. Of course, the principles of language dynamics must be borne in mind at all times as a vital and a very significant guiding force,

However, the learning of English did greatly suffer and stagnate in the 1970’s due to India’s inward looking and autarchic policies and the thrust given by governments of both Hindi and non Hindi states to Hindi or their own respective languages. Some states like West Bengal took much more myopic and ill-conceived stands: not only was Hindi never taught, but the learning of English was effectively abolished at the elementary school level, only to be reintroduced many years later. In late 1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated and the baton passed on to her son Rajiv Gandhi. Although his tenure as Prime Minister was short, the changes he brought in proved to be irrevocable, and the reforms he ushered in were continued by his successors across political parties. Globalization and liberalisation, besides the ubiquity and pervasiveness of English on cyberspace, have made English a window to the world, and interest in English has since increased by leaps and bounds, and has entrenched itself more than ever before in India’s history. However, India’s language policy is still perceived to be illogical and differences of opinion continue to surface from time to time between the central government and the states and between politicians belonging to various political parties. A minor agitation also took place in Tamil Nadu in 1986 against the opening of Navodaya schools in the state where Hindi would be mandatory, and in 2014, minor protests erupted as a result of the Modi governments Hindi push. In February 2015, India’s HRD minister Ms Smriti Irani hailed India’s linguistic diversity and seemed to acknowledge not only the fact that politically-driven attempts to homogenize India’s diverse cultures would come to naught, but also seemed to agree that there was no option but to celebrate India’s cultural and linguistic diversity. Speaking in a conference in Chennai, she said “Multilingualism in our nation extends back to several millennia. This multilingualism is an asset, a heritage we have inherited, and is in fact a resource we deeply cherish. There are more than thousand mother tongues spoken in our country. This is not just a number but a reason to be proud of.”

We have written extensively on linguistics and language dynamics, and this encompasses at least half a dozen core papers. Readers are requested to go through them as such. Planners must also naturally bear the principles we had enshrined in these papers in mind at all times. We had also written about the need to develop Indian and other non-dominant languages lexically (including technical guidelines for this). We had proposed a large number of practical and pragmatic guidelines for this. We had also developed the concept of linguistic skills, capabilities and performance, along with non- linguistic skills, capabilities and performance i.e. the theory of linguistic expectation, and the theory of non-linguistic expectation. Both are important to some degree, and their relative importance would naturally vary based on the job type besides several other factors including cultural and social ones i.e contextual ones. Even among those who study in Hindi/Telugu/Tamil medium schools, some go on to learn and speak English later in life. However, most do so only in their late 20s, and early 30s, and depending on the circumstances they are in in, and not as children. Also most learn technical words easily, and are unfamiliar with words used in English literature and poetry. But who cares? A majority of professions require functional, business and technical English mainly. Children also tend to express themselves much more clearly, lucidly, and eloquently in their early years, with English proficiency not being achieved till adulthood. In the age of the internet, advanced word processors, and AI-based translation tools, translation is easier than ever before, and many jobs emphasize technical and managerial skills too. The Author performed a study on this in 2018. Many people who study in their mother tongue tend to be technically strong. But there can never be a one size fits all bill. India is a very diverse country. That is why grounds up and data-driven assessments are also important, i.e. context-based ones, and the principles of sociolinguistics must also be borne in mind. As a crude rule of thumb, English and the mother tongue must be given maximum importance, or with the language of the state in some cases. A third Indian language or a foreign langue can come later, if at all they are required. At the same time, linguistics and various subfields of linguistics must evolve and mature with the times, and incorporate a wide variety and plethora of social and cultural perspectives from different parts of the world. The automation of education, and the use of AI in education can also be explored and expanded as and when technology improves and advances, while retaining a human touch. Functionalism is education must be pursued aggressively, and the unnecessary flab weeded out. It is also not possible to prevent children from being enrolled in English medium schools – in some contexts, they simply do not produce the right kind of results, This is also because in a vast majority of cases, particularly in rural regions, the teachers themselves barely know any English, and the students end up learning neither their own mother tongue, English, nor a third language like Hindi (some teachers in Rajasthan and UP put in their papers saying they were unable to teach in English- but government and vernacular schools can be made as attractive as possible. As such, readers are requested to read our various papers not only in linguistics, but on various aspects and facets of the globalization of science as well, particularly for the social sciences, which must become one of the foundational pillars for the twenty-first century.  Also, along with the lexical development of Indian and other non-dominant languages on the lines that Malaysia and Indonesia have done, other aspects must be promoted; for example, scientific journals could be promoted in various Indian languages. A judicious mix of English and Indian languages can also add to the gross national product. Of course, and as we had already stated multiple times in the past, the nexus between linguistic capability and economic performance also needs to be probed and deeply and thoroughly investigated by linguists and social and cultural anthropologists.