Political parties and apolitical organizations have been protesting again against a move by the Centre to make Hindi a compulsory language up to class X. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has raked up this old issue by pushing the cause of Hindi in non-Hindi speaking areas of the country. Hindi is not spoken by over half the country’s population (about 57 per cent) and therefore it is unjustified to push any one language that does not have the status of mother language across the country as the national language. Shah’s Cabinet colleague Rajnath Singh had once clarified in Parliament as Union Home Minister that Hindi is ‘Raj Bhasha,’ official language, and not ‘Rashtra Bhasha,’ national language. Predictably, Shah’s controversial remarks made at the 37th meeting of the Parliamentary Official Language Committee have triggered widespread criticism by Chief Ministers and Opposition politicians from eastern, north-eastern and southern states where Hindi is not the primary language. Shah said 70 per cent of the agenda of the Cabinet is prepared in Hindi and as such the time has now come to make the official language Hindi an important part of the unity of the country. The non-BJP political parties and governments see in it a move to impose a monolithic, uniform cultural domination which forms the core of BJP politics. After One Nation One Card, One Nation One Tax, this is a move towards establishing One Nation One Language policy, which would create a whole set of people who would be treated as second class citizens based on their inability to speak good Hindi. This could easily be followed by One Nation One Food where non-vegetarians might suffer.
While as the chairman of the Parliamentary Official Language Committee, it is within his ambit to promote the spread of Hindi, Shah gave a call for the use of an Indian language among people who spoke languages other than Hindi. He said Hindi should be accepted as an alternative to English and not to local languages. The intent is too obvious, though couched in a language that is known as equivocation. His strong pitch for Hindi appears to serve two purposes – undermining the importance of English and promoting Hindi. Question could be why is Shah promoting Hindi at this particular time.
Also Read
If one views the political map of India, it is easy to understand that the BJP is incapable of entering states where Hindi is not the mother language. Take for example the case of Orissa. The BJP came a cropper in the recently held Panchayat polls not because the BJD alone matters but more so primarily because of the sops offered by the regional party and also the unspoken feeling that BJD belongs to Orissa while the leaderless BJP is a north Indian party. The case of Assam could be different. First, the BJP needed a breakaway Congress to help it gain grassroots reach. Himanta Biswa Sarma satisfied that need. Secondly, the Assamese had long ago given up their original script in favour of Bengali script. This demonstrates the absence of possessiveness of one’s own language amongst those people.
English is abhorrent to the present day ruling class because it stands for internationalism, education and a questioning intellect. Anyone questioning is a troublemaker who should be condemned. Hindi on the other hand, will not only localize but gravely limit worldview by its sheer limitations in reach and translation. Forcible imposition of Hindi will squeeze other regional languages and probably the present political leadership hopes fluent Hindi speaking leaders will then seem more appealing to voters all across the country. The current trouble is that regional parties are putting a spanner in the works of the BJP which hopes to ‘unify’ India in its uniquely perverted outlook. Only a Hindootva outlook does not seem to suffice in creating a new order in India.
It is up to the states to decide what their language of communication should be. There cannot be a fiat from the Centre not to use English. There is no doubt that English is a foreign language but it is equally foreign for all citizens. No one particular group or state has any undue advantage when it comes to English. Hindi speakers will definitely have an edge over other non-Hindi speaking people if it is imposed as the national language. Take for example any Oriya living in Delhi for over two decades. Whether that person admits or not, an Oriya speaking Hindi is quite discernable in comparison to a Haryanvi or UPite speaking the same language. Language supremacy is known to destroy cultures and thereby break countries. When the Soviet Union existed, Russian was forced as the link language. With the collapse of Communism and fragmentation of the erstwhile USSR, regional languages sprung back. The bitterness generated from imposition of political supremacy and language has led to war like situations amongst the erstwhile sister countries that were part of the union.
India too is a very diverse country. Any use of force today could possibly result in unforeseeable disasters tomorrow. India is not a country that was always as we see it today. Language, food, clothing and even the kind of Hindooism practiced differs from place to place. Many a times, it surpasses the political boundaries of states formed under the Constitution. Dealing with such an entity with so many people is not an easy task. While seeking to unify with a single point agenda, it has to be kept in mind that diversity could be damaged. India’s diversity is the glue that keeps it united.
The question is why the Union Home Minister raised the issue knowing well the position of the Opposition parties and the sentiments of the people of non-Hindi speaking states. It could not even be that he is testing waters. The real purpose could be to divert the people’s attention from the burning issues of the day such as the soaring prices of essential commodities in the wake of unprecedented and too frequent hikes in the prices of petrol and diesel in the past few months coupled with joblessness.
This is cynical politics. The ruling party would do well to address the problems of livelihood and jobs plaguing the country instead of playing with the people’s sentiments.
