It’s Not about Hindi

MAHATMA GANDHI HAD called India a “Beautiful Tree”. The analogy can be used for language too—multilingual India as a beautiful tree of languages where there are more than 4,000 languages used by 140 crore people in their daily lives. India’s people have always been multilingual and that’s why the Indian state has historically tried to promote multilingualism. Back in the day, Emperor Ashoka used many languages in his inscriptions, such as Prakrit and Greek and scripts like Brahmi and Kharoshthi. Pali, Prakrit, Sanskrit, Apabhramsa, as well as many regional languages were used by both the public and the state. Even in medieval India, the state promoted languages like Arabic and Persian but the presence of classical languages like Sanskrit and other old regional languages had continued.

In the early days of British rule, there was a lot of discussion in the British parliament on how to deal with the multilingualism of India. The three-language matrix had emerged out of these debates. The classical-vernacular-English triangle formed the three-language formula, with classical like Sanskrit and Persian, called ‘Oriental’ by the British, and vernaculars like Bangla combined with English to form the linguistic triangle in colonial governance and education policy.

At the Third Round Table Conference, Gandhi too pushed the three-language formula, giving prominence to Hindi and regional languages. While advocating swaraj in a broader cultural context, Gandhi never opposed English, knowing its importance in communicating with the world. But he inspired Indians to read, write and work in Hindi instead of English. He also believed in inculcating intimate relationships between Hindi and regional languages like Tamil, Gujarati, Telugu and Bangla, and suggested in his deliberation at the Kashi Nagari Pracharini Sabha in Varanasi in 1916 that our main task was to learn Hindi but that we should also learn Tamil. If others learnt Tamil, then Tamils would also learn Hindi. English would remain the language of Raj-Kaj. Gandhi proposed that education be imparted to children in their mother tongue from Class 1 to Class 8. In his lecture at Navjeevan School in Wardha, he outlined his plans for promoting education in the mother tongue. It later appeared in his Wardha Education Scheme and became part of his Nai Talim.

Jaipal Singh Munda, eminent tribal face of the national movement, also argued for learning one more Indian language in addition to one’s mother tongue while speaking in the Constituent Assembly on September 14, 1949. SP Mookerjee too advocated respect for India’s multiple linguistic resources, with importance given to the ‘Rashtra Bhasha’ in the educational pedagogy. Thus, a consensus had emerged among the leaders of India’s national movement to learn one’s own mother tongue along with another Indian language (which could be Hindi) while English retained its unstated position as the language of wider communication.

Jawaharlal Nehru too advocated multilingualism and, in his speech on December 21, 1955 during the discussion on the States Reorganization Commission, said: “The House will forgive me if I mention something personal; this is related to my daughter when I had to face a problem with her education. Unfortunately, I was not a good father and could not be with her for years. When she was a little girl, I tried to make sure she could learn some Indian languages in her childhood. I sent her to a school in Pune, not in Uttar Pradesh. I sent her to a Gujarati school in Pune because I wanted her to understand the Marathi and Gujarati languages and their impact.”

The three-language formula, therefore, has historical roots and emerged out of this discourse of the national movement. Since then, it has been articulated more clearly.

After Independence, policy, governance and education remained focused on a two-language scheme, such as Hindi-English, Tamil- English or Bangla-English. The third language remained limited to parliamentary debates but governance and education. In 1968, the first National Education Policy (NEP), based on the Kothari Commission’s report, proposed a three-language formula in education. The NEP of 1968 proposed that every Hindi-speaking student would learn another Indian language while non-Hindi-speaking students would learn Hindi. But the policy was not implemented well on the ground. Congress, which claims the legacy of the national movement, could not do much to help a three-language multilingualism emerge in the education system.

What NEP 2020 proposed as a three-language formula was in fact the commitment of the national movement and the consensus of its leaders who had come from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Thus, it emphasises mother tongue as the medium of primary education and suggests that all Indian students learn at least three languages—two native languages, meaning at least one regional language for each student. English would be the third and essential language. Emphasis on mother tongue could bring three benefits— first, exploring the cultural origins of the student; second, respecting various linguistic identities; and third, decolonising the mind.

Language was an important factor in the freedom struggle and led to the demand for language-based states after Independence. It became a major mobilising issue in politics during the 1950s and 1960s, with many leaders from Tamil, Telugu and Kannada background leading the demand for linguistic demarcation of states. BR Ambedkar had also supported the idea of language-based states but with certain caveats. Language became the rationale behind the emergence of many regional parties too and it gradually evolved as a powerful political capital, as cultural constituents tend to do. When language becomes political capital, it can enter the domain of education and turn it into a zone of conflict. Needless to say, such a turn can harm the future of younger generations and in the long run become a hindrance to nation-building.

It’s interesting that Congress, which had initiated the three-language formula in 1968, hasn’t come forward to support the well-designed formula of NEP 2020. We can observe how Tamil Nadu politics is organised around linguistic political capital. Chief Minister MK Stalin and DMK are opposing NEP 2020 with suspicions and rumours about the policy forging Hindi dominance in the education system.

In response to Stalin, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan hsa said that the three-language formula is the backbone of the Constitution. DMK cadres had begun deleting Hindi text on government signage at railway stations, post office, etc. The power of language as political capital can be understood by the fact that all parties in Tamil Nadu except BJP are opposing the three-language formula of NEP 2020.

However, NEP2020 puts major emphasis on mother tongue, which could be Tamil, Telugu, etc. It also emphasises Bharatiya Bhasha (Indian language) through the entire process of education upwards from primary. The policy does not reveal any Hindi assertion while English could be the third language.

Guided by NEP 2020, UGC will bring in new regulations attaching priority to research publications in Indian languages. Students who gets their education, from the primary to the higher level, in their own Indian language may get due preference in the recruitment of school teachers and university faculty.

Political mobilisation against linguistic multiplicity in the educational sphere can damage the values of the national movement. Languages contain entire life universes and histories of experience. So, we need to engage with them by becoming multilingual. Language as political capital may help parties to some extent but it will hurt the growth of the young. We need to let India remain the beautiful tree it is.

Hindi languageLanguage rownational languageNEP 2020North-South IndiaTamil Nadu