Why The Fear Of Imposition Reemerges In The Recent Language Debate?

Shuktara Goswami, Christ University

India, a nation celebrated for its civilizational depth and diversity, is also home to an intricate and often contested linguistic landscape. Globally admired for its rich history, traditions, and cultural pluralism, internally, the country continues to face recurring friction over the place and power of languages in its democratic and social fabric.

This tension has re-emerged prominently in recent times, particularly surrounding the question of linguistic imposition, where concerns about the dominance of Hindi are drawing attention and criticism across various regions—especially in the southern, northeastern, and eastern parts of the country.

India is not a monolingual nation. With over 1,200 mother tongues identified in the 2011 Census, and 22 languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, the nation operates through a complex multilingual framework. Hindi and English are both official languages of the Union, as per Article 343 of the Indian Constitution, with Hindi in the Devanagari script serving as the default official language unless otherwise provided by Parliament. However, there is no “national language”—a point that is often misrepresented in public discourse.

Statements such as “Every Indian must know or speak Hindi” have surfaced periodically, intensifying linguistic insecurities among communities that do not use Hindi as a native or primary tongue. Such narratives are seen as undermining India’s constitutional multilingualism and fostering a sense of linguistic hierarchy.

The resulting resistance is not without precedent or reason. In Tamil Nadu, strong sentiments against the promotion of Hindi date back to the Anti-Hindi agitations of 1937–40 and 1965, rooted in opposition to Hindi being made the sole official language. These agitations helped define the state’s firm pro-Tamil stance, which continues today. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin recently voiced opposition to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, characterizing it as a veiled form of Hindi imposition and warning of a renewed "language war" if the policy encroaches on the state’s linguistic autonomy.

In Karnataka, there have been documented incidents of signboards in languages other than Kannada being vandalized or removed, as local groups push for prioritizing Kannada in public signage. While these acts have drawn criticism, they are often framed by supporters as measures to preserve linguistic heritage and resist cultural dilution.

In Maharashtra, political groups such as the Shiv Sena (Uddhav faction) and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) have championed Marathi-first policies, including in signage and public services. While often couched in terms of local pride, such campaigns have occasionally resulted in hostility toward non-Marathi speakers, particularly in urban areas like Mumbai and Pune.

In Assam, longstanding friction between Assamese and Bengali-speaking populations, especially in districts bordering Barak Valley, has been a source of unrest. Historical movements like the Assam Movement (1979–85) were as much about linguistic identity as they were about migration, and such divides remain sensitive today.

These examples are manifestations of a broader concern: the perceived erosion of regional languages and cultures due to centralized language promotion policies. For many, language is not just a tool of communication, but a symbol of cultural memory, identity, and autonomy. When a language is perceived to be imposed, it can trigger deep-rooted fears of marginalization.

The National Education Policy 2020, introduced by the Union Cabinet, aims to make education more inclusive and rooted in Indian values. It encourages multilingualism and promotes mother tongue or regional language instruction up to Grade 5, wherever possible. It also states that no language will be imposed. However, critics argue that Hindi’s frequent presence in curriculum models and national frameworks reveals a soft push for uniformity, particularly in non-Hindi-speaking states.

This has raised concerns about unequal access to education based on language. Students from non-Hindi or non-English backgrounds often face structural disadvantages in classrooms that do not support mother-tongue learning. Numerous studies have confirmed that early education in a child’s first language significantly improves learning outcomes. Yet, funding and institutional support for multilingual or bilingual education remains inconsistent across states, leading to regional disparities.

India’s linguistic challenge is not merely administrative—it is deeply political and emotional. While Tamil is considered by linguists to be among the oldest living classical languages, dating back more than 2,000 years, other regional languages like Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Bengali, and Odia also have rich literary and historical legacies. English, as a global lingua franca and administrative language, plays a pragmatic role but cannot replace the cultural significance of indigenous languages.

The way forward lies not in linguistic homogenization, but in pluralism and mutual respect. Language should not be a source of conflict or forced conformity. Instead, it should be celebrated as a medium of cultural pride and individual identity.

India’s democratic ethos is anchored in its diversity. The country cannot afford to let linguistic chauvinism endanger social harmony. Instead of imposing a linguistic order, national policies must work toward equal recognition, support, and empowerment of all languages—major or minor, classical or contemporary.

Only when every Indian feels free to speak, learn, and preserve their own language without fear or compulsion can we truly realize the nation’s vision of unity in diversity.