Hindi Imposition in Naming Laws? Opposition MPs Raise Concern

Is the government covertly imposing Hindi while naming the new bills and laws in parliament? Opposition MPs have raised concerns over it during the debate on Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak Bill 2024 on 5th December. The bill seeks to replace the existing Aircraft Act of 1934.

TMC Mp Sagarika Ghosh became vocal while addressing the covert ‘Hindification’ by the central government. She said in her comments—“The government has a penchant for changing names. The Indian penal code has been changed to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Now the Indian Aircraft Act has been named The Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak. There is a change in name but there is nothing much that is new in the Bill.”

Ghosh also alleged that the government is only a ‘Name-changer’, while it portrays itself as a ‘Game-Changer’.

Adding to her comments, Ghosh said—“Why do so many laws have Hindi names? This is imposition of Hindi. The mandate of the people in 2024 was for the diversity dividend and for the federal principle. But the government is persisting in the Hindification of the laws. This is Hindi imposition. Article 348 of the Constitution says any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State shall be in the English language.”

On a similar line as of Sagarika Ghosh, DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) MP kanimozhi N.V.N Somu started her deliberation asking the government to rename the Bill and to stay away from naming legislations only in Hindi.

“Don’t try to impose Hindi on people who don’t speak Hindi. I request the union government to refrain from naming the Bills in Hindi and Sanskrit”—she said.

Before them, Congress MP Syed Naseer Hussain said that name of the Bill should not be in Hindi as 60 of the population doesn’t use Hindi while speaking.

As a reply, union civil aviation minister Kinjarapu Rammohan Naidu said that the Bill’s name may be a little difficult for some people to pronounce. ‘”It might get stuck in the throat, but it is nothing to be ashamed of”—he defended.

Article 348(1)(b)

The Article 348(1)(b) of the Constitution says that the authoritative texts of

(i) All Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State,

(ii) Of all Acts passed by Parliament or the Legislature of a State and of all Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State, and

(iii) Of all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued under this Constitution or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State, shall be in the English language

Opposition Targets Rising Airfares & Dominance of Private Players in Civil Aviation

Terming the Bill is an ‘old wine in a new bottle’, Kanimozhi said that the civil aviation ministry has lost its duty pertaining to the aggressive role provided to private players. She furthered—“Tomorrow if there is a crisis, the government will have to beg the private airlines which have become the monopoly in the aviation sector. Only the prime minister and president of India have the luxury of travelling in government aircraft while all others are dependent on the private carriers.”

CPI(M) MP A.A. Rahim alleged the government has no control over the Indian aviation industry. “It is controlled by a three-man army – Tata, Indigo and Adani. These three men control the entire aviation sector. Almost all major airports are in Adani’s hands while the skies are dominated by Tata and Indigo,” he said.

Similarly, AAP MP Raghav Chadha, during the debate on Tuesday (December 3), also highlighted the rising airfares which made air travel a luxury in addition to the  increasing prices of food and beverages at airports as well as  the lack of compensation for delayed or cancelled flights.

“If there is excess baggage of even 1 kg, airlines charge passengers thousands of rupees but do they compensate us for a flight delay of several hours,” Chadha said.