Article

Language as an Society and Culture in South Asia

7(2) 314–337, 2021

Identity: Hindi–Non- © 2021 South Asian University

Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-
Hindi Debates in India permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/23938617211014660
journals.sagepub.com/home/scs

Amit Ranjan1

Abstract
Non-Hindi speakers in India always accuse that Hindi is imposed on them.
As language is an essential component of an individual’s and group’s
identity particularly in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, Hindi is largely
seen as Aryan’s language spoken by north Indians. Tensions between
Hindi and non-Hindi language have roots in the British India.There were
demands for linguistic states in colonial years that accelerated in post-
independent India. Although an idea to create states based on language
were not accepted by early Indian leadership, they were gradually created.
This paper attempts to critically examine the politics of language-based
identity and related tensions.

Keywords
Constituent assembly, Hindutva, identity, linguistic states, regional languages

Introduction
Language is an inherent part of an individual’s identity. Any attempt to
subjugate that identity is vehemently resisted by the people. In India, Hindi
is not only seen as a language per se but also linked with North Indian
Hindus. In the past, the introduction and imposition of Hindi in non-Hindi-
speaking states, mainly Tamil Nadu, had faced strong opposition. Since
the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Hindu Nationalist
Party—Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP)—elected to power in May 2014, the

1
Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.

Corresponding author:
Amit Ranjan, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, 29 Heng
Mui Keng Terrace, #08/09-06 (Block B), Singapore 119620, Singapore.
E-mail: amitranjan.jnu@gmail.com
Ranjan 315

union government has taken certain measures to promote the use of the
Hindi language in India. The new rupee notes issued by the Reserve Bank
of India after the demonetisation in November 2016 carry Devanagari
numerals. In March 2017, milestones on national highways in Tamil Nadu
were suddenly changed from English to Hindi (Iyengar 2017), and in
April 2017, the then president of India, Pranab Mukherji, gave ‘in
principle’ approval to the recommendation made by a parliamentary panel
requesting the human resources and development ministry to make
credible efforts to make Hindi a compulsory subject in schools until the
10th class (Report of the Parliament Committee on Official Language
2017; The Indian Express 2017a). These measures have been strongly
resisted in the non-Hindi-speaking states of the country. Almost all regional
parties and many groups from non-Hindi-speaking states of India have
opposed the union government’s efforts to use the Hindi language in their
respective areas. For such regional parties and groups, it is seen as an
attempt to demolish their identity. To protect their linguistic identity, which
is inextricably intertwined with other identities, people in non-Hindi-
speaking areas have protested in the past and also resist such attempts in
the present. This article looks at the debates between Hindi and non-Hindi
speakers since the years of the anti-colonial movement in India. It examines
the character of the movement to promote Hindi and the resistance against
the Hindi movements in India. This article also discusses the demands for
language-based states in India. In this paper, the author argues that in the
non-Hindi-speaking states, Hindi is mainly looked at as a means to
subsume and suppress the native’s identity. In this paper non-Hindi
speakers mean whose mother tongue is not Hindi or any of its dialects.
Likewise, non-Hindi speaking states mean where majority of the population
have language other than Hindi or its dialects as their mother tongue. The
following section discusses the issue of identity and language.

Language and Identity

Language is one of the multiple identities through which an individual
can define his or her self and differentiate it from that of others. It is an
essential identity that also constructs an imagination of belongingness to
a nation. Highlighting its significance, Benedict Anderson writes, ‘What
the eye is to the lover-that particular, ordinary eye he or she is born with-
language-whatever language history has made, encountered at mother’s
knee and parted with only at the grave, pasts are restored, fellowships are
imagined, and futures dreamed’ (Anderson 2015: 154).
316 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

Recognising a language was easier in Europe, where originally the

idea of ‘one nation one language’ evolved and was adopted. Even today,
despite being multilingual, European countries have their own respective
national languages. Unlike them, many post-colonial states have been
multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-linguistic. In the majority of such
states, to run affairs, a common or a link language is being used for
all official purposes, and more than one language has been accorded
the status of national language. Politically, however, in all such post-
colonial states, the dominant group recognises itself as a nation, defines
nationalism and tries to impose its own language over the people speaking
different languages (Foucault 2010). It is being argued and justified by
the dominant group that the nation requires a common language—and
this common language is what is spoken by the dominant group. Notably,
this dominant group is not necessarily majority in number; it may be a
small group of people who control the social, political and economic
resources of the country. Through such control, a small number of
people easily establish their hegemony over the demographic majority.
Michael Foucault sees such imposition in terms of relationships between
the powerful and powerless groups (Foucault 2010). For him, it has a
symbolic value, as imposition makes the dominant group establish and
enjoy power over the relatively powerless or weaker groups.
Almost all such language impositions have been resisted, because,
as Paul Brass said, people speaking similar languages are emotionally
linked with their fellow speakers (Brass 1991). An appropriate example
of such situation is the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. In British India,
a large number of Muslims from Bengal supported the demand for a
separate country for the Indian Muslims. In 1947, as British India was
partitioned, East Bengal became part of Pakistan, and a large number
of Muslims accepted the newly born country as their country. During
the early years of Pakistan, the country’s leadership argued that as the
country was carved in the name of Islam, its national language should be
one spoken by Muslims, which they believed to be Urdu. On the issue of
language, the founding father of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, said:

The state language, therefore, must obviously be Urdu, a language that has
been nurtured by a hundred million Muslims of the sub-continent, a lan-
guage...which more than any other provincial language, embodies the best
that is in Islamic culture and Muslim tradition and is nearest to the language
used in other Islamic countries. (Quoted in Fazal 2016)

Acceptance of Urdu as the national language was opposed by the Bengali-

speaking leaders from East Pakistan. In the constituent assembly of
Ranjan 317

Pakistan, a Hindu leader, Dhirendranath Datta, opposed the move to

accept Urdu as the national language and called for an amendment
(Tripathi 2014: 35). However, the Urdu-speaking political elites were
adamant to make their language the national language of Pakistan.
Justifying Urdu as the national language of the newly born country,
Liaquat Ali Khan, then prime minister of Pakistan, said that Pakistan was
created as a Muslim state, which must have a lingua franca, a language of
a Muslim nation—and the language of Muslims was Urdu (Ahmad 1970).
As the Bengali language did not get recognition, initial protests against
what Bengalis saw as the imposition of Urdu on them began in East
Pakistan in 1948. In 1952, at a larger scale, students carried out a protest
movement with the demand to make Bengali a national language of
Pakistan. In that protest, two students were killed and a few were injured.
The two protests, mainly that of 1952, were the beginning of the making
of a cultural–linguistic nation in East Pakistan. The Bengali-speaking
population realised that they were different from the West Pakistanis,
and the myth of religion as a binding force among people was broken.
Although, in 1955, Bengali was given the status of a national language,
in the succeeding years, many more differences cropped up between the
two wings of Pakistan. Consequently, in 1971, after months of civil war
and the Indo–Pakistani War, Bangladesh was eventually liberated.

Hindi and Provincial Languages in Colonial India

In India, language-based identity has significantly divided the population
into elites and masses. Soon after their formation between 600 bce and
300 bce, many of the states in ancient India had adopted Sanskrit as the
court language. It was spoken by the Brahmin elites of that time while
the masses communicated in their local dialects (Thapar 2014). Over
time, the elite’s language kept changing with the change in the rulers of
respective kingdoms; however, the languages of the masses remained the
same. With the rise of Buddhism in India in the fifth century bce, Pali
replaced Sanskrit in many courts. Later, as a result of Islamic invasions
in India, mainly between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, Persian
became the court language in India. It was the language spoken by the
majority of the Muslim rulers in India. Afterwards, Persian was replaced
by Urdu as the court language in 1839 (Truschke 2016).
After the East India Company set foot and established itself in India,
it promoted the English language for its own advantages. In 1835,
Secretary of State Thomas Macaulay, in his famous Minutes on Indian
Education, urged the managers of the East India Company to train a
318 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

group of interpreters who could create a bridge between the imperialists

and Indians. At that time, English aroused deep interests among the
Indian middle class. Many affluent Indians received education in
English-medium schools and became part of the British administrative
system in India.
Despite such enthusiasm for the English language, many of the then
social reformers in India thought that the spread of education in India was
possible only when it was promoted in the regional languages. In Bengal
and other regions of India, campaigns to educate the child in the regional
languages were held. Against this, there was a group of reformers who
felt that as there were many regional languages in India, there was a
need for a language that would act as a link. This link language, they
argued, would help people from different regions communicate with
each other. Both the Brahmo Samaj1 and the Arya Samaj2 were in favour
of spreading the use of Hindi as the link language. To encourage popular
use of the Hindi language, the weekly newspaper Udant Martand (The
Rising Sun) was started in Bengal in 1826. An eminent Bengali writer,
Bhudev Mukhopadhyay, made efforts and succeeded in introducing
Hindi in the law courts and schools of Bihar (Gupta 1970).
Later, to promote the use of Hindi, Banaras Institute was formed in
1861, followed by Allahabad Institute. These institutes mainly consisted
of educated Hindu professionals who began to question whether the
regional vernacular was Urdu or Hindi and searched for an appropriate
script (Rai 2000). Then, the Nagari Pracharini Sabha of Banaras was
founded in 1893, followed by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (HSS) in 1910
in Allahabad (now Prayagraj). The efforts by all these institutes, groups
and individuals in the British India government such as Sir Anthony
MacDonnell, Lieutenant Governor of North West Province &Oudh,
bore a fruit when on 18 April 1900, it was accepted “permissive-but not
exclusive-use” of Devanagari in the courts of the province (Rai 2000).
In times of competitive communal politics in colonial India the
supporters of the Hindi language portrayed it as a national language of
the country. For the leaders like Madan Mohan Malaviya, Hindi was a
cultural marker and part and parcel of Hindi–Hindu nationalism (Orsini
2009). HSS had many Congress leaders as its members, including
Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhi also linked self-rule with
Hindi (Rai 2000: 107). For many years, Hindi was known as swarajya

1
The Brahmo Samaj was founded by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1828 in Calcutta (now
Kolkata). It began as a monotheistic reform movement in Hinduism.
2
The Arya Samaj was founded by Dayanand Saraswati in 1875 in the Bombay Presidency
(now Mumbai). It believes that the Vedas are infallible.
Ranjan 319

bhasha (self-rule language), and the Hindi-based examinations that the

HSS used to conduct all over the country—an alternative ‘nationalist’
track in education—were described proudly as swarajya parikshaaen
(self-rule examinations) (Rai 2000: 108).
On the use of language in India, the Motilal Nehru Committee in
its report in 1928 said, ‘It becomes essential therefore to conduct the
business and politics of a country in a language which is understood
by the masses. So far as the provinces are concerned this must be the
provincial language’ (Nehru Committee Report 1928). It also maintained:
‘We are certainly not against the use of English…provincial languages
will have to be encouraged and, if we wish the province to make rapid
progress, we shall have to get it do its work in its own language’ (Nehru
Committee Report 1928: 62).
By the 1930s, HSS turned into a more communal organisation,
mainly because of the strong communal challenge it received from
Muslim communalism. HSS resisted what was thought of as Gandhi’s
efforts to conciliate the Muslim demands for Urdu. The members of
HSS increasingly identified Hindi with Hindu and Sanskrit culture and
returned to the policy of magnifying and sometimes manufacturing
divergences between Hindi and Urdu (Gupta 1970). Frequently, Urdu
was branded as an alien language imported by the former invaders.
By the end of 1935, control of HSS passed into the hands of a more
communal group of leaders, which ultimately made Gandhi, Nehru and
other proponents of ‘broader Hindi’ or Hindustani resign from HSS
(Gupta 1970).
The rise of Hindi nationalism and the linking of the Hindi language
with Hinduism also had an impact on regional languages. The influence of
Hindi nationalism was such that, contrary to the spirit of accommodating
regional languages, the Congress governments that were formed after the
1937 elections were found indulging in promoting Hindi and Sanskrit in
non-Hindi-speaking provinces.
More than in any other province, the introduction of Hindi was
strongly resisted in Madras, where the government under Chief Minister
C. Rajagopalachari wanted Hindi to be taught in schools. It was seen as an
effort to oppress the Dravidian identity by imposing the Aryan language
(Pandian 1987). E. V. Ramasamy Naicker (‘Periyar’) led an intensified
battle against Hindi. In Madras, Brahmins were considered as Aryan,
different from the Dravidian race to which the majority of people from
the province belonged to. There was already anger entrenched in a large
number of Dravidians against Brahmins, because of the latter’s domination
in all sectors and services of the province. It is estimated that by 1920s,
320 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

despite forming only 3% of the total population in the province, Brahmins

disproportionately dominated the bureaucracy and other professions, such
as education, journalism, law and medicine (Ramaswamy 1997: 27). Their
association towards the non-Tamil languages—Sanskrit and English—
made the Tamil-speaking non-Brahmins declare the Brahmins community
as an “enemy” of the Tamil language (Ramaswamy 1997; Geetha and
Rajadurai 2011; Anandhi and Vijaybhaskar 2017).
To resist the introduction of Hindi and in opposition to the Brahmin’s
domination in Madras, anti-Hindi agitations, also called the Self-Respect
Movement, was carried out at multiple levels. It was not that all those
who joined the protests felt equally or as intensely about the Tamil
language or its hoary past; many of them became part of such resistance
because of its anti-Brahmanical character (Geetha and Rajadurai 2011:
483). Periyar advocated that the Tamil language should enrich itself
by borrowing from all other languages except Sanskrit. It was largely
seen as an embodiment of an entire system of values through which the
Tamil people had been enslaved in the past. The agitation was a fight for
social justice against the Brahmanical domination in the province. For
Tamil enthusiasts of various persuasions, the self-respecters’ philosophy
of language and society was less important than their political will and
determination to resist Hindi (Geetha and Rajadurai 2011: 485).
To deal with the communalisation of languages, Gandhi came up
with the idea to use Hindustani—a mix of Hindi and Urdu. To promote
the use of Hindustani, in 1942, Gandhi and his followers founded the
Hindustani Prachar Sabha. Contrary to Gandhi’s thinking, Hindustani
could not influence the course of the Hindi movement in North India,
though it gained some success in South India. Earlier, in 1918, Gandhi
had founded the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha in Madras for
propagating Hindi in South India. This organisation had always worked
with HSS. However, after the split in the HSS in 1935, it remained
aligned more with the Hindustani Prachar Sabha than with HSS (Gupta
and Gumprez 1968 ).
Gandhi’s support to Hindustani for communal harmony was not taken
positively by many from the Congress and other groups. He was looked at
as an enemy of Hindus by the communal groups. One of the accusations
his killer Nathuram Godse made against him was that Gandhi was more
in favour of Hindustani than of the Hindi language (Rai 2000: 103).
The language debates of the anti-colonial movement , as described in
the below section, continued in the constituent assembly of India. The
members of the constituent assembly fiercely debated the language issue
before reaching a compromised democratic conclusion.
Ranjan 321

Constituent Assembly Debates on Language Issue

The constituent assembly was set up in 1946 to draft the future
constitution of India. As India was regarded as a nation, a common
language for it was debated. The case for Hindi as the national language
was strongly supported by the majority members from Hindi-speaking
northern and central India. Against this was a group from eastern India
and South India who were in favour of English and regional languages.
The central points of the controversy were the length of time English
should continue to be used as the language of the government and the
status of the other regional languages (Austin 1972: 267). Another major
issue was the definition of Hindi. The supporters of Hindi believed that
it should be the ‘national’ language by virtue of its inherent superiority
over other Indian languages and replace English for official union
purposes immediately or in a very short time. Against both groups, there
were moderates who demanded English as the de facto national language
and that it should be replaced very slowly and cautiously. Nehru was part
of this group (Austin 1972).
On the debate between Hindi and other languages in the constituent
assembly of India, Pandit Laxmi Kant Maitra came out with a view
to make Sanskrit the national language of India. Maitra said: ‘…Mr.
President, press on my friends for acceptance of my amendment, that
is, my proposal for adoption of Sanskrit as the national and official
language of India…’ He also said:

Sir, we are proud of the great provincial languages of this country—Bengali,

Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and others. They
constitute a variety of wealth of Indian culture and civilisation. This is not a
province’s property. It is all our national property. But all these languages derive
their origin from Sanskrit. That is the parent language and even in the case of
the languages in the South, they have taken a large number of Sanskrit words
to enrich their language. Therefore, I submit that if we could set our hearts on
it, we could develop a simple, vigorous, chaste, sweet style of Sanskrit for the
general purposes of our life. (Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. IX, 1949)

Opposing the adoption of Hindi, another member of the constituent

assembly, T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar, said:

Not only that, you are permanently handicapping us. Those whose mother
tongue is Hindi, they learn only Hindi. But we in the South, we have got to
study not only Hindi but also our own mother tongue; we cannot give up
our mother tongue. There is also the regional language; we have to study
that. Permanently, for ever, you are handicapping us by this arrangement.
322 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

You in the North have to realise what sacrifice we are making. (Constituent
Assembly Debate, Vol. IX, 1949 & CAD Official Report, 1989)

Against the opposers of Hindi, besides many from the Congress party, was
Dr Syama Prasad Mukherjee, founder of the Bhartiya Jana Sangh. He was
from a non-Hindi-speaking province—West Bengal. His support to the
Hindi language was mostly due to ideological reasons, because at that time,
he was also a leader of the Hindu Mahasabha. Arguing for acceptance of
Hindi as the national language of India, in the constituent assembly, he said:

Why do we accept Hindi? Not that it is necessarily the best of Indian lan-
guages. It is for the main reason that that is the one language which is under-
stood by the largest single majority in this country today...we would be
suffering from a sense of inferiority complex if we examine the role that the
English language should play in this country from any narrow standpoint.
There is no question of the English language being used today for political
purposes or for dominating any system of national education. It will be for
us, the representatives of the people of free India, to decide as to how pro-
gressively we will get rid of the English language; if we feel that all time for
certain purposes, we will allow English language to be used or taught we
need not be ashamed of ourselves. There are certain matters which we have
the courage to speak out, not in individual or sectional interest, but where we
feel that such a step is to be taken in the interest of the country as a whole…
I am now happy that the amendment proposes to include in the body of the
Constitution itself a list of the principal regional languages of India. I hope
we will include Sanskrit also. I shall speak here with frankness. Why is it that
many people belonging to non-Hindi-speaking provinces have become a bit
nervous about Hindi? If the protagonists of Hindi will pardon me for saying
so, had they not been perhaps so aggressive in their demands and enforce-
ment of Hindi, they would have got whatever they wanted, perhaps more than
‘what they expected, by spontaneous and willing co-operation of the entire
population of India’. But, unfortunately, a fear has been expressed, and in
some areas that fear has been translated into action, where people speaking
other languages, not inferior to Hindi by any means, have not been allowed
the same facilities which even the much-detested foreign regime did not dare
to deprive them of. (Constituent Assembly Debate, Vol. IX, 1949)

To settle the matter, a committee under K. M. Munshi and A. K. Ayyangar

was set up. After the prolonged debate over language and taking into
consideration the Munshi–Ayyangar report, Part XVII in the Indian
constitution was drafted. According to the provisions in this part:

Article 343. Official language of the Union.—

(1) The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.
The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union
shall be the international form of Indian numerals.
Ranjan 323

(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteen years

from the commencement of this Constitution, the English language shall
continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which
it was being used immediately before such commencement: Provided
that the President may, during the said period, by order authorise the
use of the Hindi language in addition to the English language and of the
Devanagari form of numerals in addition to the international form of
Indian numerals for any of the official purposes of the Union.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, Parliament may by law provide
for the use, after the said period of fifteen years, of—(a) the English
language, or (b) the Devanagari form of numerals, for such purposes as
may be specified in the law. (Constitution of India, 2015 edition)

Further, there is Chapter II on regional languages. Article 347 states:

Article 345: Official language or languages of a State.—Subject to the provi-
sions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law adopt
any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language
or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State:
Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the
English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within
the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement
of this Constitution. (Constitution of India, 2015 edition)

On official language for communication between states and the union or

between states, article 346 of the constitution states:
Official language for communication between one State and another or between
a State and the Union.—The language for the time being authorised for use in
the Union for official purposes shall be the official language for communica-
tion between one State and another State and between a State and the Union:
Provided that if two or more States agree that the Hindi language should be the
official language for communication between such States, that language may
be used for such communication. (Constitution of India, 2015 edition)

Regarding special provisions, article 347 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 lan-
guage 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. (Constitution of India, 2015 edition)

Finally, article 348 (2) states:

the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, autho-
rise the use of the Hindi language, or any other language used for any official
purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court having its principal
324 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

seat in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judg-
ment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court. (Constitution of
India, 2015 edition)

After independence of India in 1947, official terms in English were

translated into Hindi. Many such translations were very difficult so
attracted criticism. Irritated by the translation works, at one point, Nehru
exclaimed in the parliament that the Hindi broadcasts of his own speeches
were highly critical of the new Hindi. Irritated by the translation works,
at one point, Nehru exclaimed in the parliament that the Hindi broadcasts
of his own speeches were incomprehensible to him. There were
differences between the colloquial and classic Hindi promoted by the
people engaged in translating English words into Hindi (Gupta and
Gumprez 1968).
Linked with the issue of languages was the demand for linguistic
states. The next section explains the demand for linguistic states in the
independent India.

Demands for Linguistic States in India

Demands for linguistic states increased in the independent India; some
regions raised demands for a separate province even during the colonial
period of India. One such early demand was for the creation of a Telegu-
speaking province through carving out Telegu-speaking areas from the
Madras province. Tensions between Telegu and Tamil speakers created a
Telegu political consciousness by 1885 (Bhardwaj 2015). By the 1920s,
the movement to have a Telegu-speaking province was further
consolidated. However, the British did not create a separate province for
Telegu speakers.
On linguistic provinces, the Motilal Nehru Committee report stated:

If it [a province] happens to be a polyglot area, difficulties will continually

arise and the media of instruction and work will be two or more languages.
Hence, it becomes most desirable for provinces to be regrouped on a linguis-
tic basis…. In a linguistic area all these factors [of culture, traditions, and lit-
erature] will help in the general progress of the province. (Nehru Committee
Report 1928: 62)

The British government was not in favour of creating linguistic provinces,

whereas the Congress leadership, to a fair extent, was supportive of
having such provinces.
Ranjan 325

Besides Telegu speakers, there were also demands for some other new
provinces, such as Orissa and Sindh. Tensions between Oriya speaking
people with Bengali and those who live in Madras province and speak
Telugu and Tamil languages, sparked an agitation to have a separate
province for Oriya speakers. They mainly agitated against what they saw
as an ongoing effort in Bengal to designate Oriya as a non-standardised
variant of Bengali (Bhardwaj 2015). The agitation by the Oriya speakers
and the British policy of keeping Indians divided led to splitting of Bihar
and Orissa from Bengal in April 1912. They were clubbed together to
form a new province. In 1936, Orissa was separated from Bihar and a
new province, solely based on linguistic identity, was formed. Sindh was
also separated from Bombay in 1936 and became a new province.
To settle the issue of linguistic provinces, in independent India, the
Linguistic Provinces Commission (LPC), popularly known as Dhar
Commission was appointed by the President of the constituent assembly,
Rajendra Prasad, in 1948. LPC had to study the feasibility of forming
linguistic states in India (King 1994). The LPC submitted its report in
December 1948 in which it found that many of the grievances regarding
ethno-regional conflict and neglect were genuine; nevertheless, it did not
recommend the formation of new states on the basis of language (King
1994). In its report the LPC said that formation of states on the basis
of language is against the largest interests of the Indian nation (King
1994). To study the details of the LPC’s report the Congress party set
up a committee called as JVP after its members, Jawaharlal (Nehru),
Vallabhbhai (Patel) and Pattabhi (Sitaramayya). In its report, the JVP
committee found that time was not ripe for formation of linguistic states;
however mentioned certain exceptions in the larger public good of the
country. Both—LPC and JVP—adopted an assimilationist view of
nation building and warned that the demand for linguistic states would
lead to rise of sub-national biasness at the time when nationalism and
nation-building process were at infancy (King 1994).
On the implications of the linguistic states B. R. Ambedkar wrote,

Linguistic provinces will result in creating as many nations as there are groups
with pride in their race, language and literature. The Central Legislature will
be a League of Nations and the Central Executive may become a meeting of
separate and solidified nations filled with the consciousness of their being
separate in culture and therefore in interests. (Cited in Bhardwaj 2015)

He further stated, ‘A linguistic state with its regional language as its

official language may easily develop into an independent nationality’
(quoted in Bhardwaj 2015).
326 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

Although leaders were not ready to create linguistic provinces,

demands for such states increased. There were campaigns for Samyukta
Karnataka, Samyukta Maharashtra, Mahagujarat movement, a separate
state for Sikhs, et cetera (Guha 2008: 184). One of the earlier agitations
was carried out by Potti Sreeramulu, for a Telegu state to be carved
out of the Madras province. After a few days of a hunger strike for his
demand, Sreeramulu died. His death led to massive agitation and riots in
the Madras province, which compelled Nehru to accept the demand for
establishing the first linguistic state in India—Andhra Pradesh—in 1952.
Subsequently, to address the rising demands for linguistic states,
Nehru appointed the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1953
(King 1994). The SRC consisted of S. Fazal Ali, K. M. Panikkar and
H. N. Kunzru. It submitted a report in 1955. On the issue of having
language as a basis for creation of a state, after going through arguments
and counter-arguments, the committee talked about taking a ‘balanced
approach’, by which it meant:

(a) to recognise linguistic homogeneity as an important factor conducive

to administrative convenience and efficiency but not to consider it as
an exclusive and binding principle, over-riding all other considerations,
administrative, financial or political;
(b) to ensure that communicational, educational and cultural needs of dif-
ferent language groups, whether resident in predominantly unilingual or
composite administrative units, are adequately met;
(c) where satisfactory conditions exist, and the balance of economic, politi-
cal and administrative considerations favour composite States, to con-
tinue them with the necessary safeguards to ensure that all sections
enjoy equal rights and opportunities;
(d) to repudiate the ‘homeland’ concept, which negates one of the funda-
mental principles of the Indian Constitution, namely, equal opportuni-
ties and equal rights for all citizens throughout the length and breadth
of the Union;
(e) to reject the theory of “one language one state”, which is neither justified
on grounds of linguistic homogeneity, because there can be more than
one State speaking the same language without offending the linguistic
principle, nor practicable, since different language groups, including,
the vast Hindi-speaking population of the Indian Union, cannot always
be consolidated to form distinct linguistic units; and
(f) finally, to the extent that the realisation of unilinguism at state level
would tend to breed a particularist feeling, to counter-balance that feel-
ing by positive measures calculated to give a deeper content to Indian
nationalism; to promote greater inter-play of different regional cul-
tures, and interstate co-operation and accord; and to reinforce the links
between the Centre and the State in order to secure a greater co-ordinated
Ranjan 327

working of national policies and programmes. (Ministry of Home

Affairs, Government of India 1955: 46)

After taking into consideration the factors suggested by the commission,

the union government agreed to look into the issue of linguistic states.
The acceptance of the SRC report led to the formation of Mysore as a
state, which was renamed as Karnataka in 1973. Then, in May 1960,
Gujarat was carved out of Maharashtra. The movement to create a
separate state for Gujarati-speaking people from Maharashtra, which
was popularly known as Mahagujarat movement, had been going on
since 1956.

Resistance Against Hindi Language

In the early years after independence, there were apprehensions among
the non-Hindi speakers that at one point of time Hindi would be imposed
on them. Therefore, despite the assurance given by Nehru, protests
against the Hindi language erupted in Tamil Nadu in the 1950s. It was
spearheaded by M. Karunanidhi, the leader of the then newly formed
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). Shops run by North Indians in
Tamil Nadu were picketed, and Hindi names appearing on public
billboards were tarred (Ramaswamy 1997). Karunanidhi gained his early
fame in 1953 when he successfully led his party workers to change the
name of the industrial town called Dalmiapuram to its Tamil original,
Kallakudi (Ramaswamy 1997).
Apprehending further conflict over languages, Jawaharlal Nehru
piloted the passing of the Official Languages Act in 1963, which provided
that from 1965, English ‘may’ still be used along with Hindi in official
communication (Guha 2008: 392). While participating in a debate over
the official-language bill in the parliament, Nehru said:

…apart from the assurances I may have given, that English has to continue as
an associate language or an additional language—call it what you like. The
door remains open, and it will be used. As a matter of fact, it is circumstances
prevailing in the country that will compel us to use it. If we try to suppress
its use, undoubtedly we will not only create a hiatus but stop our progress in
many directions which cannot be achieved at the present moment entirely
through Hindi. (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of
India, 1963: 66)

In 1965, as the ‘appointed date’ was coming near, there were state-wide
protests in Tamil Nadu against Hindi. Even the then union government
328 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

under Lal Bahadur Shastri, as some assumed, was in favour of replacing

English with Hindi. In a symbolic opposition to any such move, on 11
February 1965, two union ministers from Tamil Nadu resigned from
their office (Guha 2008: 392). The resignations and the then ongoing
agitation against Hindi in Tamil Nadu made the Shastri government keep
the promise made by Nehru. Shastri announced that his government
would honour Nehru’s assurance that English would be used as long as
the people wanted (Guha 2008). As the government was trying to pacify
the agitators from Tamil Nadu, a movement against the continuation of
English and for acceptance of Hindi as the national language started in
Hindi-speaking states. It was led by the Hindi Sangharsh Samiti whose
1964’s proposal against the continuation of English beyond 1965 had
gained supporters across political ideologies and parties (Rai 2000: 117).
Later, to dismay the fears of the non–Hindi speakers, in 1967,
amendments were made in the 1963 Official Language Act. Under it,
the union government agreed that English may continue as an official
language in addition to Hindi (Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India 1967). Subsequently, in 1968, the National Education Commission
under Daulat Singh Kothari was set up. The Kothari Commission
recommended a graduated formula to promote the Hindi language. On
the development of languages, the commission stated:

Regional Languages: The energetic development of Indian languages

(a) 
and literature is a sine qua non for educational and cultural develop-
ment. Unless this is done, the creative energies of the people will not
be released, standards of education will not improve, knowledge will
not spread to the people, and the gulf between the intelligentsia and
the masses will remain, if not widen further. The regional languages
are already in use as media of education at the primary and secondary
stages. Urgent steps should now be taken to adopt them as media of
education at the university stage.
Three-Language Formula: At the secondary stage, the State
(b) 
Governments should adopt, and vigorously implement, the three-
language formula which ‘includes the study of a modern Indian lan-
guage, preferably one of the southern languages, apart from Hindi
and English in the Hindi-speaking States, and of Hindi along with
the regional language and English in the non-Hindi-speaking states.
Suitable courses in Hindi and/or English should also be available in
universities and colleges with a view to improving the proficiency of
students in these languages up to the prescribed university standards.
Hindi: Every effort should be made to promote the development of
(c) 
Hindi. In developing Hindi as the link language, due care should be
taken to ensure that it will serve, as provided for in Article 351 of the
Ranjan 329

Constitution, as a medium of expression for all the elements of the com-

posite culture of India. The establishment, in non-Hindi States, of col-
leges and other institutions of higher education which use Hindi as the
medium of education should be encouraged.
Sanskrit: Considering the special importance of Sanskrit to growth and
(d) 
development of Indian languages and its unique contribution to cultural
unity of the country, facilities for its teaching at school and university
stages should be offered on more liberal scale. Developments of new
methods of teaching the language should be encouraged, and the pos-
sibility explored of including the Sanskrit in those courses (such as
modern Indian language, ancient Indian history, Indology and Indian
philosophy) at the first and the second degree stages, where such knowl-
edge is useful.
International Languages: Special emphasis needs to be laid to be on the
(e) 
study of English and other international languages. World knowledge
is growing at a tremendous pace, especially in science and technology.
India must not only keep up its growth but should also make her own
significant contribution to it. For this purpose, study of English deserves
to be specially strengthened. (National Council for Education, Research
and Training 1986: 39–40)

Politically, the assurance given by Shastri worked for the Congress party
for a longer period of time. In the 1977 general elections, when the
Congress was wiped out in North India because of national Emergency3-
related brutalities, in the southern parts the party managed to keep its
voters intact. One of the reasons for this was the fear among the
southerners that the Janata Party leadership might impose Hindi on them
(Sitapati 2016). However, after coming into power, the Janata Party
stood by Nehru’s policy on the language issue. Himself from the non-
Hindi-speaking state of Gujarat, the prime minister under the Janata
Party government, Morarji Desai, was not in favour of making Hindi a
national language of India (Gandhi 1984: 78). Years later, to promote the
use of Hindi, in 1986, the government of India came out with another
education policy that reiterated the three-language formula recommended
by the Kothari Commission.
Like in the 1960s in Tamil Nadu, in the 1980s, the Amra Bangali
(we are Bengali) movement by the Ananda Marga group gained some
influence in West Bengal. This movement was for the spread and
3
Under Article 352 of the Indian constitution, on recommendation of the council of
ministers, the President of India can impose national emergency when there is a threat to
the country due to “external aggression” or war or “internal disturbance.” Amendment was
made in it under the 44th amendment act in 1978.
330 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

promotion of the Bengali language. It was short-lived and regained its

hold in parts of northern Bengal in 2008 (Bhattacharya 2018). However,
it could not become a major force in the state. In support of the Bengali
language, in early 2000, poet–novelist Sunil Gangopadhyay led a
movement for making Bengali mandatory on the signboards of every
business establishment in Bengal (Bhattacharya 2018).
Despite resistance against Hindi in the Parliament and on the streets
of non-Hindi-speaking states, the Hindi nationalists have kept on pushing
the need for a declaring Hindi as an national and official language of India.
Such language nationalism is on rise along with the Hindu nationalism, as
the following section analyses.

Hindi and Hindu Nationalism

Statistically, according to the 2011 language census of India, Hindi is the
mother tongue of about 528,347,193 people (Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India 2011). This number includes the people who speak
different dialects, such as Awadhi, Bhojpuri, et cetera, as their mother
tongue. The percentage comes to about 43%, but if one excludes those
who speak the different dialects that are recognised as Hindi, the
proportion of Hindi-speaking people in India comes down to around
26% (Sen 2019). Another interesting fact presented by the 2011 language
census is that Hindi is not the mother tongue of even a majority of
Hindus. Nevertheless, the Hindu nationalist groups such as the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP believe in the idea of a ‘Hindi–
Hindu–Hindustan’. In a rush to promote such ideology, they have
renamed many cities, like Prayagraj, which was earlier called Allahabad
(Daniyal 2018).
The BJP was formed in 1980 by the members of the Bhartiya Jan
Sangh.4 At that time, the party adopted Gandhian socialism as its
ideology; however, it soon sought and found political shelter in Hindutva
politics. In 1989, the BJP joined the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s demand
for construction of a Rama temple at a disputed place in Ayodhya in the
Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. The party’s leader launched a rath yatra
(chariot march) from Somnath to Ayodhya in support of the temple.
This paid off for the party politically, which won 120 seats in the 1991
general elections and became strong in North India. In December 1992,
Babri Masjid at the disputed site in Ayodhya was demolished. This led

4
The Jan Sangh was founded by Dr Syama Prasad Mukherjee in 1951.
Ranjan 331

to communal riots in India and helped the BJP emerge as a political

power in India. The BJP formed a coalition government at the centre
in 1997 and from 1999 to 2004. Both times, as the party had to depend
a lot on regional parties, including those from the non-Hindi-speaking
regions, the BJP government did not show any intention to implement
confrontational policies, like vigorous promotion of Hindi, though
references were made. Unlike in the past, in 2014, for the first time, the
BJP attained an absolute majority by itself; however, allies have been
accommodated in the government. Again in 2019, the BJP came into
power with a larger majority than in 2014.
As the BJP began to promote the Hindi language, it united regional
chauvinistic groups from different states, such as the Maharashtra
Navnirman Sena and the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike. In 2017, the two
groups came together despite their differences to oppose the imposition
of Hindi in their respective states. A meeting of the forum to oppose
Hindi was held in Bengaluru, and the two were also joined by groups
from Kerala and Tamil Nadu (Poovana 2017).
In Tamil Nadu, M. K. Stalin, then working president of the DMK,
said that the changes in signages on the Chittoor–Vellore highway
and National Highway 77, which connects Krishnagiri to Tindivanam,
showed that the BJP did not respect Tamil Nadu. In a statement, Stalin
said: ‘It [changes in signages] showed the BJP’s disrespect to the
sentiments of Tamils. This is bringing Hindi hegemony through the
backdoor in Tamil Nadu’ (Iyer 2017). He accused the Narendra Modi-
led government of ‘thrusting’ Sanskrit and Hindi upon states that do not
speak either language (Iyer 2017).
In West Bengal, a group called Bangla Pokkho (Bengali Party),
which draws inspiration from the anti-Urdu movement in East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh) during the late 1960s and early 1970s and the anti-
Hindi movements in the southern states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka,
is leading the anti–Hindi imposition agitation in the state. This group
feels that the rise of the BJP and its slogan ‘Hindi–Hindu–Hindustan’ is
a threat to Bengal (Bhattacharya 2018). It successfully protested against
the Kolkata Police’s decision to put up signboards in Hindi and Urdu in
non-Bengali-speaking areas of the city (Bhattacharya 2018). The group
also found success when Indian Institute of Science Education and
Research in Nadia district, run by the union ministry of human resource
development, withdrew its notification that said knowledge of Hindi
was mandatory for applying for teaching and non-teaching positions
(Bhattacharya 2018). It also staged protests against the disappearance of
Bengali from the signboards along national highways in the state.
332 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

Besides, in May 2017, sensing the mood of the larger population of

the state over the language issue, the West Bengal government made
the Bengali language compulsory in all schools across the state. The
education minister of West Bengal, Partha Chatterjee, announced: ‘From
now on, it will be compulsory for students to learn Bengali in schools.
English medium schools will have to make Bengali an optional subject
from Class I so that the students can study it either as a second or third
language’ (The Indian Express 2017b).
The Biju Janata Dal chief and Odisha’s chief minister wrote a letter to
the then union minister of road transport and highways and shipping, Nitin
Gadkari, seeking the inscription of Odia on milestones and information
boards on national highways in the state. In his letter, Patnaik wrote
that the absence of the Odia script on identifications boards on national
highways caused huge inconvenience to the public (Pragativadi 2017).
Promotion of Hindi is also being opposed in the BJP-ruled state of
Karnataka. In the state, a confrontation between the ruling and opposition
parties erupted over a tweet from the union Home Minister Amit Shah
on ‘Hindi Diwas’ (Hindi Day) on 14 September 2019. In his tweet,
Shah pitched for a common language for India and said that Hindi can
unite the whole country. Pro-Kannada group Kannada Rakshana Vedike
threatened to launch a state-wide agitation if the union government
made a move to impose Hindi on Kannadigas (Outlook 2019). However,
defending the introduction of the Hindi language, the minister of primary
and secondary education, S. Suresh Kumar, said that Hindi should be
given an equal place as Kannada (Outlook 2019).
Not only in Karnataka but also in other non-Hindi-speaking states,
Amit Shah’s tweet on Hindi Diwas in 2019 was seen as a ploy to impose
Hindi. To further clear his position, on the same day, speaking in New
Delhi, Shah said: ‘diversity of languages and dialects is strength of our
nation. But there is need for our nation to have one language, so that
foreign languages don’t find a place. This is why our freedom fighters
envisioned Hindi as “Raj bhasha”’ (Hindustan Times 2019). Later, amidst
opposition to his tweet and statement, Shah came out with a clarification
in a programme in Ranchi on 19 September 2019. He said: ‘…should
you choose to learn a second language then learn Hindi. This is the
appeal I made on Hindi Divas. What is wrong in it, I fail to understand’
(India Today 2019).
Maharashtra is another non-Hindi-speaking state that has made the
regional language compulsory in schools across the state. The Shiv
Sena-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (Great Development Front) coalition
government passed a bill in the assembly in February 2020 making the
Ranjan 333

Marathi language compulsory from classes 1 to 10 in a phased manners

in all schools of the state. This will be applicable to all schools no matter
to which board they are affiliated with. The Maharashtra Compulsory
Teaching and Learning of Marathi Language in Schools Bill, 2020, was
proposed to levy a fine of `1 lakh on schools failing to comply with the
law (Suttar 2020).

Conclusion
As discussed in this article, language is intricately linked with the identity
of people. Any disrespect to one’s language, in any form, such as through
imposition of another language or subjugation of one’s language through
not giving respect, is being resisted. In some cases, individuals belonging
to a linguistic group do not even hesitate to fight against the might of the
state, as happened in Bangladesh, and violently protest, as Tamil speakers
did in India in the 1950s and 1960s. The demand for linguistic states in
India was also a demand to accord respect to the people speaking a
particular language and live in a given region. Over the years, almost all
major linguistic groups have got states.
In India, Hindi is considered as a natural language associated with the
majoritarian religious groups and North Indian Hindu power elites. The
Hindu power elites promote this as a language of the nation, which it is
not, as mentioned in this article—a large number of Hindus do not speak
Hindi. With the rise of Hinduism and political domination of the BJP, the
issue of the Hindi language has once again gained prominence. The union
government, under the BJP, is promoting the use of the Hindi language in
non-Hindi-speaking states and faces opposition from regional political
parties and various groups.
While promoting the Hindi language, the supporters of Hindi
nationalism fail to understand that almost all languages have the ability
to spread themselves through different means and ways. In India, the
popularity of Hindi films in non-Hindi-speaking regions is an apt
example of the spread of the language through some means. People in
those regions watch, enjoy and learn the Hindi language through those
films. While doing so, they do not feel that they are being forced to
learn the Hindi language or that it is being imposed on them. Besides,
the Hindi language has spread itself across non-Hindi-speaking states
due to internal migration and continuous interaction between people
speaking different languages. However, the moment people from a non-
Hindi-speaking region find that the Hindi language is being imposed
334 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

on and forced upon them, they resist such move. This is innate human
nature; people learn by choice but resist what they see as forced upon or
imposed on their identity.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or
publication of this article.

References
Ahmad, Jamil-ud-Din. 1970. Historic Documents of the Muslim Freedom
Movement. Lahore: Publishers United Ltd.
Anandhi, S., and M. Vijaybaskar. 2017, 11 July. ‘Making Sense of Tamil Nadu’s
Anti-Hindi Protests.’ The Wire. https://thewire.in/156390/tamil-nadu-anti-
hindi-protests/ (accessed 4 August 2017).
Anderson, Benedict. 2015 First Indian Print. Imagined Communities: Reflections
on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
Austin, Granville. 1972. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation.
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Brass, Paul R. 1991. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Bhardwaj, Vasudha. 2015. ‘Ambedkar’s Paradox of Differentiation: Language,
Nation and Recognition of States in Post-colonial India.’ The Indian
Economic and Social History Review 52 (1): 79–108.
Bhattacharya, Snigdhendu. 2018, 6 July. ‘Anti-Hindi Movement Re-surfaces
in Bengal, Leader Says BJP’s Rise a Threat to Regional Languages.’
Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/anti-hindi-
movement-re-surfaces-in-bengal-leader-says-bjp-s-rise-a-threat-to-regional-
languages/story-waqTnAfUTHrNyqKmZyPw8N.html (accessed 27 July
2019).
Constituent Assembly Debates, Constituent Assembly of India, Volume IX, 1949.
https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_assembly_debates/ volume/
9/1949-09-13 & http://164.100.47.194/loksabha/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/
C13091949.html (accessed 14 July 2020).
Constituent Assembly Debates: Official Report. 1989. New Delhi: Reprinted by
Lok Sabha Secretariat.
Constitution of India. 2015 edition. ‘Part XVII Official Language Chapter-I:
Language of the Union.’ http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.
Pock%202Pg.Rom8Fsss(23).pdf (accessed 18 September 2017).
Ranjan 335

Daniyal, Shoaib. 2018, 20 November. ‘No Hindi, Hindu, Hidustan? Implemented

Fully, BJP’s Hindutva Renaming will Wipe Out a Lot of India.’ Scroll.in.
https://scroll.in/article/902177/no-hindi-hindu-hindustan-implemented-
fully-bjps-hindutva-renaming-will-wipe-out-a-lot-of-india (accessed 12
January 2019).
Fazal, Tanveer. 2016. ‘Religion and Language in the Formation of Nationhood
in Pakistan and Bangladesh.’ In Decolonisation and Politics of Transition
in South Asia, edited by Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, 324–47. Hydrabad: Orient
Black Swan.
Foucault, Michel. 2010 edition. The Archaeology of Knowledge and Discourse
on Language, translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Vintage Books.
Gandhi, K. L. 1984. The Problem of Official Language in India. New Delhi:
Arya Book Depot.
Geetha, V., and S. V. Rajadurai. 2011. Towards A Non-Brahmin Millennium:
From Iyothee Thass to Periyar. Samya: Kolkata.
Guha, Ramchandra. 2008. India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest
Democracy. Oxford: Piccador.
Gupta, Jyotirindra Das. 1970. Language Conflict and National Development:
Group Politics and National Language Policy in India. Berkeley, Los
Angles, and London: University of California Press.
Gupta, Jyotirindra Das, and John J. Gumprez. 1968. ‘Language, Communication
and Control in North India.’ In Language Problems of Developing Nations,
edited by Joshua A. Fishman, Charles A. Ferguson and Jyotirindra Das
Gupta, 151–66. New York, London, Sydney, and Toronto: John Wiley &
Sons, INC.
Hindustan Times. 2019, 14 September. ‘On Hindi Diwas, PM Narendra
Modi Says “Hindi Integrates Simplicity, Clarity and Elegance”.’ https://
www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/on-hindi-diwas-pm-narendra-
modi-says-hindi-integrates-simplicity-clarity-and-elegance/story-
m206xHwNCOazleHOURUvOP.html (accessed 15 September 2019).
India Today. 2019, 19 September. ‘Karnataka Welcomes Amit Shah’s
Clarification on Hindi.’ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/karnataka-
amit-shah-hindi-1600834-2019-09-19 (accessed 21 September 2019).
Iyer, Aditya. 2017, 30 April. ‘“Modi Government Contemptuous of Tamil
Nadu, Imposing Hindi”: DMK’s Stalin.’ Hindustan Times. https://www.
hindustantimes.com/india-news/modi-govt-contemptuous-of-tamil-nadu-
imposing-hindi-dmk-s-stalin/story-WRlJK7qJMubfv7Z4KmluQJ.html
(accessed 12 June 2019).
Iyengar, Radhika. 2017, 20 April. ‘By Pushing Hindi is the Government Pushing
It?’ The Indian Express. http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/web-
edits/by-pushing-hindi-is-the-government-pushing-it-4619642 (accessed 25
April 2017).
King, Christopher R. 1994. One Language, Two Scripts: The Hindi Movement in
Nineteenth Century North India. Bombay: Oxford University Press.
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 1955. ‘Report of the State
Reorganisation Commission.’ Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
336 Society and Culture in South Asia 7(2)

India. https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/State%20Reorganisation%20
Commisison%20Report%20of%201955_270614.pdf (accessed 18 July 2019).
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Department of Official language.
‘The Official Language Act 1963, As amended in 1967.’ http://rajbhasha.nic.
in/en/official-languages-act-1963 (accessed 18 September 2017).
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 2011. ‘Data on Language
and Mother Tongue.’ http://censusindia.gov.in/2011Census/Language-2011/
Statement-1.pdf (accessed 27 July 2019).
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. 1963.
Publications Division, From Speech in Lok Sabha During Debate on
the Official Language Bill April 24, 1963. Jawaharlal Nehru Speeches
1957–1963, Vol. 4.
National Council for Education, Research and Training. 1986. ‘Statement By
Shri Arjun Singh, Minister of Human Resource Development Regarding
Modifications to the National Policy on Education (NPE).’ https://www.
mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/document-reports/NPE86-mod92.
pdf (accessed 18 September 2017).
Orsini, Francesca. 2009. The Hindi Public Sphere 1920–1940: Language and
Literature in the Age of Nationalism. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Outlook. 2019, 14 September. ‘Hindi Not National Language: Karnataka
Opposition Parties Oppose “Hindi Diwas”.’ https://www.outlookindia.com/
website/story/india-news-hindi-not-national-language-karnataka-opposition-
parties-oppose-hindi-diwas/338661 (accessed 21 September 2019).
Pandian, J. 1987. Caste, Nationalism and Ethnicity: An Interpretation of Tamil
Cultural History and Social Order. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
Poovana, Sharan. 2017, 15 July. ‘Forum to Combat Imposition of Hindi Wants
Constitutional Amendment.’ Livemint. https://www.livemint.com/Politics/
cdXULLaLkeuhIFwmhLerXL/Forum-to-combat-imposition-of-Hindi-
wants-constitutional-ame.html (accessed 12 July 2019).
Pragativadi. 2017, 4 May. ‘Naveen Writes to Gadkari Urging Inscription of Odia
on Milestones on NHs.’ https://pragativadi.com/naveen-writes-gadkari-
urging-inscription-odia-milestones-nhs/ (accessed 26 June 2019).
Report of The Committee of Parliament on Official Language. http://rajbhasha.
nic.in/sites/default/files/policy31mar17eng_1.pdf (accessed 18 September
2017).
Rai, Alok. 2000. Hindi Nationalism: Tracts for the Times. Hyderabad: Orient
Longman.
Ramaswamy, Sumathi. 1997. Passions of the Tongue: Language Devotion in
Tamil India. California: University of California Press.
Report of The Committee of Parliament on Official Language. http://rajbhasha.
nic.in/sites/default/files/policy31mar17eng_1.pdf (accessed 18 September
2017).
Sen, Sumant. 2019, 17 September. ‘Data: Just 26% Indians Speak Hindi as
Mother Tongue.’ The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/just-
26-percent-of-indians-speak-hindi-as-mother-tongue/article29439701.ece
(accessed 17 December 2019).
Ranjan 337

Sitapati, Vinay. 2016. Half Lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao Transformed India.
Gurgaon: Penguin.
Suttar, Kamlesh. 2020, 27 February. ‘Maharashtra Assembly Passes Law
Making Marathi Language Compulsory for All Schools.’ India Today.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/maharashtra-assembly-passes-law-
making-marathi-language-compulsory-for-all-schools-1650683-2020-02-27
(accessed 21 March 2020).
The Indian Express. 2017a, 19 April. ‘Hindi Mandatory Till Class 10: President
Agrees in Principle.’ http://indianexpress.com/article/education/hindi-
mandatory-till-class-x-president-agrees-in-principle-4618914/ (accessed 25
April 2017).
The Indian Express. 2017b, 16 May. ‘West Bengal: Mandatory for Students to
Learn Bengali in Schools, Says Education Minister.’ https://indianexpress.com/
article/cities/kolkata/west-bengal-mandatory-for-students-to-learn-bengali-in-
schools-says-education-minister-4657715/ (accessed 19 August 2019).
Nehru Committee Report. 1928. The Nehru Report: An Anti-Separatist
Manifesto, New Delhi: Michiko & Panjathan.
Tripathi, Salil. 2014. The Colonel Who Would Not Repent: The Bangladesh War
And Its Unquiet Legacy. New Delhi: Aleph Books.
Thapar, Romila. 2014. The Past as Present: Forging Contemporary Identities
Through History. New Delhi: Aleph.
Truschke, Audrey. 2016. Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court.
London: Allen Lane.