ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Impulsive Imposition: Language and Politics of

Majoritarianism in India
PAPIA SENGUPTA

Papia Sengupta (papiasg@jnu.ac.in) is at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi.
Vol. 52, Issue No. 52, 30 Dec, 2017

The declaration of making Bengali and Malayalam languages compulsory in state-run

schools in West Bengal and Kerala has been seen as a step to promote regional languages in
India. This article argues that these are reactionary steps to the centre's rigorous policy of
promoting Hindi along with the larger agenda of negating federal principles. Such policies
threaten the diversity and federalism of India. The states' fear of the central government's
ideology of monopolising faith, education, and language will adversely affect the Indian
political system, which is based on pluralism and accommodation. The policies of the centre
as well as states should be viewed with precaution as they further advance the politics of
majoritarianism.

Every country has one or more officially recognised languages for administrative and
educational purposes. The situation is complex in multilingual countries where the selection
of a single language representing all peoples and communities becomes a source of
contention. India went through the turmoil of choosing one language as the medium of
administration and education during the drafting of the Constitution.

The language issue took the maximum time to reach consensus, eventually becoming a
“half-hearted compromise” between different sections of the Constituent Assembly (Austin
2014: 330). After vigorous debates, disagreements, and deliberations, Hindi and English
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

became the official languages of the Indian union for communication between the union and
the constituent states. Such a decision was agreeable to most states on the condition that
they were free to choose the state’s official language(s).

Soon after independence, most states recognised the language spoken by the majority as
the official language, whereas some, like Nagaland, chose English. Some others also chose
two official languages depending on the sentiments and demographic composition of their
respective territories.

The second issue that demanded attention was of deciding the language in education and
the medium of instruction in state-run schools. The three-language formula (TLF), presently
followed by most state government schools, was the result of long-drawn discussions
between 1948 and 1961, with specially appointed committees and commissions. The first of
these was appointed in 1948 under the chairmanship of Tara Chand, a well-known historian.

It recommended that: (i) admission to the degree course should be preceded by a course of
primary and secondary education for at least 12 years; (ii) of the above 12 years, five years
should be spent at the Junior Basic stage, three years at the Senior Basic or pre-secondary
stage, and four years at the secondary stage; (iii) the teaching of the federal language
should be started at the end of the Junior Basic stage and should be compulsory throughout
the pre-secondary stage, but may be optional thereafter; (iv) English may be an optional
subject at the Senior Basic stage and should be compulsory at the pre-secondary and
secondary stages so long as it remains the medium of instruction in the universities; (v) the
federal language should become a compulsory subject at the secondary stage when English
ceases to be the medium of instruction in the universities (GoI 1948).

The state departments of education provided special provisions for linguistic minorities, who
were granted the fundamental right by the Constitution to establish educational institutions
imparting education in the mother tongue. This was further consolidated by the
recommendations of the Provincial Education Ministers’ Conference held in 1949, which
concluded that the mother tongue must be the medium of education in primary as well as
secondary levels, with students having the choice of answering examination papers in the
mother tongue for two years after the state language was started in schools. The States
Reorganisation Commission (SRC) appointed by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to
consider the matter of linguistic reorganisation of Indian states also suggested that
linguistic minorities should not be discriminated against as language was a strong reflection

of one's cultural heritage. It recommended the following of Article 347[1] by the states and
proposed that a clear policy should be formulated by the Government of India in
consultation with the state governments, in this regard.

The Government of India proposed the seventh constitutional amendment, following the
SRC’s recommendation in 1956 and India was reorganised on a linguistic basis. This
amendment also inserted two articles—350a and 350b—providing for mother tongue
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

education at primary levels and establishing a special officer for the linguistic minorities,
respectively. Viewing the language matter as capable of becoming conflictual, the Indian
government called a conference of chief ministers in 1961. The main agenda of this meeting
was to decide the medium of instruction and language-in-education.

The TLF which was already being discussed was comprehensively debated and reviewed in
this meeting. Among other things, the ministers reiterated the desirability of developing
Hindi as the medium for interstate correspondence, but emphasised the usage of English for
international communication. Finally, the expert review of the TLF was delegated to the
Kothari Commission, which submitted its report in 1964 and recommended certain
modifications to the TLF. The objective of the Kothari Commission was “to accommodate
group identity, national unity, and administrative efficiency" (NCERT 2006). It brought in
the mother tongue group identity marker, Hindi for national unity, and both Hindi and
English for administrative functioning, thereby fusing three interests into one framework
known as the TLF. Indian states were left to adopt the TLF according to their contextual
uniqueness. The TLF that emanated from this conference became a central feature of the
National Education Policy (NEP) of 1968 and was not modified by the NEP 1986. This is not
to say that the TLF is the perfect language formula, but it did fairly well in India and
avoided any further linguistic conflicts.

Playing Politics with Language-in-Education

The centre’s order in April 2017 making Hindi compulsory in all Central Board of Secondary
Education (CBSE) affiliated schools till the secondary level evoked various responses. Some
asserted that the policy was contradictory to the right to education, which gives the student
the right to choose their set of languages (New Indian Express 2017), while others
expressed discontent that the centre may promote any language, but not at the cost of
regional languages and “certainly not imposition of any language” (Deccan Chronicle 2017).

While the Ministry of Human Resource Development assured that no language will be
imposed, it was also reported that the President of India had, “in-principle,” approved the
suggestion of the parliamentary panel (making Hindi compulsory till Class 10). The
presidential order, however, stated that, “the Centre, however, should draw up the policy to
make Hindi a compulsory subject in consultation with states” (GoI 2017). There is no
communication from the centre regarding any decision for such a joint meeting with states
on the issue of making Hindi mandatory. The Supreme Court rejected a plea seeking
directions to the centre to make Hindi compulsory till Class 8, citing that “people speaking
other languages may also start asking why their languages are not being taught and that the
government could look into it” (Telegraph 2017).
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Though a final decision on the Hindi issue is still pending,[2] the West Bengal and Kerala
governments reacted by making Malayalam and Bengali compulsory in all government,
aided, unaided, and self-financing schools in Kerala (Hindu 2017a), and in all CBSE and
Indian Council of Secondary Education (ICSE) board schools in West Bengal (Hindu 2017b).
The political party at the centre has an ideological agenda in making Hindi compulsory, but
the state governments’ response to it has only made them party to the rightist plot.

Utilising the Language of Federal Power-sharing

India took nearly five decades to move from quasi to a somewhat cooperative model of
federalism, which seemed to be becoming a reality in the wake of coalition politics, with
state governments becoming significant players in national politics. One of the greatest
merits of the coalition government was its representation of diverse opinions based on
India’s plural population. It is true that in the past, India has witnessed the centre’s decision
overriding the states, but the time has come to take serious cognisance of this power play in
a federal democratic polity.

Federalism essentially connotes a balance of power between the centre and the states
wherein one should not be able to override the other. Significantly, the federal government
is given an upper hand in matters relating to foreign affairs, defence, currency and finances,
but the realm of primary and secondary education, which forms the backbone of state
reorganisation, should have been left to the states.

Education was transferred from the state to the concurrent list by the 42nd constitutional
amendment in 1976 with the objective that in states where educational development is
minimal or not improving, the centre will share the burden and also introduce technical and
vocational institutions for facilitating employment opportunities. The concurrent list
incorporates fields that require collective wisdom of both the states and the centre and
should not become another way of the centre's interference into state affairs. The conflict
between the centre and the states could be resolved through a democratic dialogue utilising
the federal language of power-sharing and understanding.

The centre's reach into the state's domain in terms of the language of education demands a
fresh look at the federal principle of power-sharing, which seems threatened by
centralisation of decision-making in India. In such a context, it remains important to revisit
India’s federal principle of decentralisation and sharing of power as enshrined in the
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

Constitution. Changes in language-education has monumental effects on people’s well-being

in the country. The future generation’s economic and social prospects, freedom of choice, as
well as India’s journey as a democratic polity founded on pluralism are too precious to be
sacrificed at the altar of centre–state conflicts based on impulsive impositions. Such
reactionary policies have a domino effect.

While scholars and intellectuals are wary of the conservative policies of the government at
the centre with its narrative on nationalism adversely affecting religious harmony, the state
governments' policy of making their majority languages as mandatory furthers the march of
majoritarian politics and places a question mark on the rights of minority-language speakers
in India.

End Notes:

[1] Article 347 of the Indian Constitution states: “On a demand being made in that behalf
the President may, if he is satisfied that a substantial proportion of the population of a State
desire the use of any language spoken by them to be recognised by that State, direct that
such language shall also be officially recognised throughout that State or any part thereof
for such purpose as he may specify.”
[2] There is no notification in the public domain, as neither the CBSE nor the MHRD website
has any circular or information on Hindi being made compulsory.

References:

Austin, Granville (2014): The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, New

Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Deccan Chronicle (2017): “Hindi is Must for CBSE Students from Class 6,” 20 April,
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/200417/hindi-is-mu....
GoI (1948): “Report of the Committee on Secondary Education in India,” Pamphlet No
52, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India,
http://www.teindia.nic.in/mhrd/50yrsedu/g/52/4P/524P0101.htm.
GoI (2017): Resolution, 20012/1/2017-O L (Policy), Department of Official Language,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 31 March,
http://rajbhasha.nic.in/sites/default/files/policy31mar17eng.pdf.
NCERT (2006): “National Focus on Teaching of Indian Languages,” Position Paper
1.3, pp 12, National Council of Educational Research and Training,
http://epathshala.nic.in/wp-content/doc/NCF/Pdf/Indian_Languages.pdf.
Hindu (2017a): “Malayalam to Be Made Compulsory in Schools,” 5 April,
ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/malayalam-to-be-made-compul....
Hindu (2017b): “Bengali Now Compulsory in West Bengal Schools,” 17 May,
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/mamata-govt-makes-benga....
New Indian Express (2017): “Mixed Response to Centre’s Order Making Hindi
Mandatory in Schools,” 21 April.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2017/apr/21/mixed-....
Telegraph (2017): “Supreme Court Turns Down Plea (By BJP Leader) to Make Hindi
Mandatory in All Schools,” 4 May,
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1170504/jsp/frontpage/story_149774.jsp.