Primacy to Hindi-Sanskrit?

IN PERSPECTIVE

Language is an inseparable part of personal and socio-cultural identity. Wars have been fought on the basis of language, exemplified by West Pakistan imposing Urdu on the Bengali-speaking people of East Pakistan, causing the birth of Bangladesh in 1971.

Article 351 of the Constitution accords Hindi and Sanskrit prime status by making it the duty of the Union to promote the spread of Hindi and secure its enrichment, drawing primarily on Sanskrit for vocabulary. Primacy accorded to Hindi-Sanskrit in 1950 was understandable, given that communications were poor and the languages and cultures, particularly of Southern and Eastern India, were not widely known.

Since then, electronic communications and physical mobility have increased awareness of India’s cultural and linguistic plurality. Thus, in 2003, the Eighth Schedule listed 22 languages, and Census 2011 recognised 31 languages. Although constitutionally directed, the primacy of Hindi-Sanskrit is being questioned today.

The Congress ordered compulsory Hindi in schools of Madras State in 1937. Following anti-Hindi-imposition agitation, it was withdrawn in 1940. In 1948, Congress again introduced compulsory Hindi, followed by agitations and withdrawal of the order. In 1965, riots followed Congress making Hindi the sole official language. Repeated attempts at Hindi-imposition have resulted in Congress’ influence and presence in Tamil Nadu getting decimated.

Tamil, with 6.9-crore speakers, is an ancient language with a rich heritage, culture and literature. Tamilians are not against Hindi per se, but they oppose imposition of Hindi. That the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, founded by Gandhiji in 1918 in Madras, functions even today is proof. The Kasturirangan Panel submitted a draft National Education Policy (NEP) to the Union government on May 31, 2019, stirring a hornet’s nest. Non-Hindi-speaking states alleged “imposition of Hindi”. Tamil Nadu saw public protests against the three-language formula (TLF), while West Bengal and Karnataka opposed the imposition of Hindi, demanding primacy to the regional language.

Notwithstanding, the government approved NEP-2020 on July 29, 2020. To its credit, NEP-2020 states: “The purpose of the education system is to develop good human beings ... for building an equitable, inclusive, and plural society as envisaged by our Constitution”.

Non-Hindi speakers, taken together, are 56.37%, but Hindi at 43.63% is the single largest spoken language, with Bengali a distant second at 8.03%.

NEP-2020 terms Sanskrit “an important modern language”. Because of its literary wealth, it“will be offered at all levels of school and higher education ... including as an option in the three-language formula”. Further, “India also has an extremely rich literature in other classical languages, including classical Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Odia.”

The government accorded Tamil “Classical” status in 2004, followed by Sanskrit (2005), Kannada (2008), Telugu (2009), Malayalam (2013) and Odia (2014). The antiquity of Tamil compares with, perhaps even exceeds that of Sanskrit. With the exception of Sanskrit, these “also” Classical languages are all living languages, each with a wealth of ancient, medieval and modern literature. Sanskrit undoubtedly has priceless but predominantly ancient literature and a minuscule 24,821 speakers.Notwithstanding, NEP-2020 forefronts Sanskrit “due to its vast and significant contributions and literature across genres and subjects, its cultural significance, and its scientific nature”, and mainstreams Sanskrit “...with strong offerings in schools – including as one of the options in the three-language formula – as well as in higher education”.

NEP-2020 retains TLF, and assures that “no language will be imposed on any state”. The three languages learned by students “will be the choices of states, regions, and of course the students themselves”.

Making Sanskrit a TLF option was earlier objected to by non-Hindi speaking states, since North Indian students preferred Sanskrit to a South Indian language. As one report noted, “... indeed contrary to the spirit of TLF no South Indian language is generally taught in most schools in Hindi speaking states.” Terming Sanskrit a modern language and, despite its negligible speaker-population, according it primacy over other living languages, is a questionable gambit of current majoritarian politics.

Some examples demonstrate how Hindi-speakers view non-Hindi speakers. A CISF official at Chennai airport asked MP Kanimozhi if she was Indian for requesting her to explain something in Tamil or English; during a virtual training session, Ministry of AYUSH Secretary Rajesh Kotecha said participants who did not speak Hindi “could leave”; a Hindi professor from a prestigious college in Delhi University is quoted to have asked: “Saabji, yeh ‘Kannad’ kahaan ki bhasha hai?”.

Thus, Hindi-speakers ranging from a low-ranking CISF official to a Secretary-level official to a university professor, reveal the Hindi language-culture mindset: # Every Indian needs to know/understand Hindi, # There is no need to know any other language for All-India duties, # Hindi is understood by non-Hindi speakers, and # Ignorance of non-Hindi names, places and cultures remains.

As DH reported, this mindset was rudely dismissed in Tamil Nadu with Twitter-trending T-shirts bearing the Hindi-get-lost slogan, “Hindi Theriyadu, Poda”.

Civilized social transactions between individuals whose language or appearance are different, is based upon education and respect for differences in language, religion, custom, etc.

Fraternity, envisaged in our Constitution, can be promoted only with genuine interest in India’s diverse languages and cultures, and by upholding the dignity of individuals speaking these languages. This is not possible if one language or culture is given primacy over another. The political consequences of language imposition in Tamil Nadu in 1937, 1948 and 1965 and East Pakistan should be remembered.

The concerns of non-Hindi speakers that Hindi-imposition leads to cultural homogenization detrimental to their cultures, need to be sincerely addressed, lest divisiveness rather than integration grows.

Building “... an equitable, inclusive, and plural society as envisaged by our Constitution” cannot happen by giving primacy to Hindi-Sanskrit over other languages. It may only increase Hindi-speakers’ insularity. TLF needs revision to give due importance to non-Hindi languages, for an inclusive and plural society.