THE LANGUAGE PROBLEM
[HISTORY- POST INDEPEDENCE CONSOLIDATION AND REORGANIZTION WITH IN
THE COUNTRY]
The language problem was the most divisive issue in the first 20 years of independent India.
It created the apprehension among many that the political and cultural unity of the country was in
danger
The problem posed to national consolidation by linguistic diversity has taken 2 major forms
1. The dispute over official language of the union
2. The linguistic reorganization of the states
1. THE DISPUTE OVER OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE UNION

The dispute was not over the question of a national language, but over official language
of communication.
Reason: The constitution makers declared all the recognized languages (now 22) as
“languages of India” or ‘India’s national languages”.
 WHY INDIA NEED OFFICIAL LANGUAGE?
India is a multilingual country.The country’s official work could not be carried on in so many
languages. There should be one common language for the central government to carry on its
work and maintain contact with the state governments.
 OPTIONS:- English or Hindi
 WHY NOT ENGLISH TO BE CONTINUED?
Belief that the foreign language could not spread out the culture and genius of the people of a
free country (independent India)
 ARGUMENTS FAVOURING ENGLISH:
1. Language of international commerce and diplomacy
2. Contain rich literary treasure
3. Introduction to western thought and culture
 ARGUMENTS FAVOURING HINDI:
1. Played key role during the national movement especially during the phase of mass
mobilization
2. Most widely spoken and understood language in the country.
 ARGUMENTS AGAINST HINDI FOR OFFICIAL LANGUAGE:
1. Hindi was the language of the largest number but not the majority.
2. Less developed than any other language as a literary language and language of science
and politics.
3. Main fear:- Disadvantageous for non-Hindi speaking areas especially South India in
education and economic spheres, competition for appointments in government and public sector
jobs.
4. It would lead to political, social, economical and cultural domination of Hindi areas on
non-Hindi areas.
 HINDI OR HINDUSTANI?
 Hindi is written in Devanagari script and Hindustani is written in Devanagari or Urdu
script.
 After partition, Pakistan claimed Urdu as the language of Muslims and Pakistan.
 Then, the votaries of Hindi demanded the Hindi in devanagari script to be made India’s
national language.
 However, the national leader convinced them to accept that Hindi will be made official
language.
 TIME FRAME ISSUE:
The issue of time frame for a shift from English to Hindi produced a divide between Hindi
and non-Hindi speaking areas.


Hindi areas wanted immediate switchover to Hindi.
Non-Hindi areas advocated retention of English for a long period if not indefinite period.
 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
1. Hind in devanagari script with international numerical would be made India’s official
language.
2. Hindi was to be introduced in phased manner and would replace English as official
language completely by 1965.
 GOVERNMENT DUTY INTHIS REGARD AS LAID BY CONSTITUTION:
1. To promote the spread and development of Hindi.
2. Appointment of a language commission and JPC to review the progress in this respect.

The constitution makers believed that by 1965, every obstacle in making Hindi as official
language would be cleared.
 WHY THEIR BELIEF WENT IN VAIN?
1. Spread of education was too slow.
2. Proponents of Hindi themselves
 They tried to popularize colloquial Hindi as spoken and written in Hindi areas in other
parts of the country.
 Sanskrit zed the language, replacing commonly understood words with newly
manufactured and little understood words. This made it more and more difficult for nonHindi speakers to understand and learns it.
 Too much sanskritization of Hindi news bulletins of AIR. Many listener would switch off
their radios when the Hindi news was broadcast.
Thus people of non- Hindi areas lost interest to learn Hindi.
 OFFICIAL LANGUAGE COMMISSION:
 Set up in 1955 and gave report in 1956.
 Recommendation:- Hindi should start progressively replacing English in various
functions of central government. By 1965, the process should be completed. Thereafter
Hindi would be solo official language.
 These recommendations were reviewed by JPC.
 PRESIDENT ORDER TO IMPLIMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF JPC:
1. After 1965, Hindi would be principal official language but that English would continue as
the associate official language without any restrictions being placed on its use.
2. Hindi would also become an alternative medium for the UPSC exams after some time. For
the present, it would be introduced in the examinations as a qualifying subject.
 GOVERNMENT’S STEPS TO PROMOTE HINDI:
1. Central Hindi Directorate was set up.
2. Publication of standard works in Hindi or in Hindi translation in various fields.
3. Compulsory training of central government employees in Hindi.
4. Translation of more texts of law into Hindi and promotion of their use by the courts.
 PROTESTS I:
 All these measures aroused suspicion and anxiety in non-Hindi areas and groups & soon
led to protests on account of their grievances and fears on making Hindi as solo official
language.
 Meanwhile, agitations started by pro-Hindi leaders claiming that government deliberately
delaying the process. They demanded immediate replacement of Hindi over English.
 ASSURENCE BY NATIONAL LEADERSHIP:
 The GoI and national leadership were fully aware of the danger that the official language
could pose to Indian polity
Therefore, they took the grievances of non-Hindi areas seriously and handled the issue
with great care and caution.
 The government of India passed OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT 1963. It stated that “the
English MAY be continued to be used in addition to Hindi after 1965.
The non-Hindi groups criticized the use word MAY in place of the word SHALL in the act.
 PROTEST II:
 In 1964, the central government declared that it was considering making Hindi an
alternative medium in public service examinations
 It meant an extra advantage for Hindi speaking people in competing for public service
exams.
 Many non Hindi leaders in protest change their line of approach to the problem of official
language.
 Previously  they demanded for slowing down of the replacement of English.
 Now  there should be no dead line fixed for the changeover. Some leaders from
Tamilnadu went further claiming English should be made the official language.
 Anti Hindi movement started in non Hindi areas (esp TN) with slogan “HINDI NEVER
ENGLISH EVER”.
 It was a popular movement with students in the lead.
 Demanded to amend the constitution to make English as official language.
 It became violent soon
 Hindi supporters tried to organize a counter agitation in Hindi areas but they did not get
much public support.

The agitations forced the union government to revise its stand.
 AMMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE ACT 1963: [in 1967]
English as an associate language in addition to Hindi as official and link language would
continue as long as the non-Hindi states wanted it.
 SOME OTHER POLICIES REGARDING LANGUAGE ISSUE:
1. Public service exams were to be conducted in Hindi, English and all regional languages.
2. The states were to adopt a 3-language formula
 Non Hindi areas  mother tongue +Hindi|+English or some other language to be taught
in school.
 Hindi areas  Hindi + English + a non-Hindi language.
3. Indian languages would ultimately become the medium of education in all subjects at the
university level. The time frame for changeover would be decided by each university to suit its
convenience.
 END OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE ISSUE:
Finally, India had arrived at a widely accepted solution (above two points) to the problem of
official and link language for the country.
Since 1967, this problem has gradually disappeared from political scene.
 PROGRESS OF HINDI AS OFFICIAL AND LINK LANGUAGE:
1. Hindi has been making rapid progress in non-Hindi areas through education, trade,
tourism, films, radio and TV.
2. The use of Hindi as an official language has also been growing though English is still
dominant.
3. Growing number of news papers and TV channels in Hindi language is a direct proof of
increasing popularity of that language.
4. Most of the parliamentary functions are being carried out in Hindi.
 CRITICISM ON THE GROWTH OF HINDI COMPARED TO ENGLISH:
English remains and likely to grow
a) as a language of communication between the intelligentsia all over the country.
b) as a library language.
c) as the second language of the universities.
Hindi failed to perform any of these roles compared to English.
COCLUSION: Whatever may be the progress of Hindi, the ideal of making Hindi the link
language of the country remains.
But the way in which enthusiastic protagonists of Hindi promoted the language pushed back the
chances of this happening for a long time.
******
2. THE LINGUISTIC REORGANISATION OF THE STATES
The demand for linguistic reorganization of the states came to the forefront immediately after
independence.
 WHY THIS DEMAND?
 Boundaries during British rule were drawn in a haphazard manner for administrative
convenience. No heed was given paid to linguistic or cultural cohesion.
Reason:- The British conquest of India had proceeded for nearly a hundred years.
 HISTORY FOR THE IDEA OF LINGUISTIC REORGANISATION OF STATES:
 During the national movement, the INC undertook political mobilization of masses in
their mother tongue.
 In 1921,it amended its constitution and reorganized its regional branches on linguistic
basis.
 Since then, our national leadership repeatedly promised the redrawing of the provisional
boundaries on linguistic lines.
 ARGUMENTS FAVOURING THE LINGUISTIC STATES AS ADMINISTRATIVE
UNITS:
1. Language is closely related to culture and customs of the people ==> common needs and
aspirations.
2. Growth of mass literacy can only occur through the medium of the mother tongue.
3. Democracy can become real to the common people only when politics and administration
are conducted through the language they can understand.
The mother tongue can be medium of education/ administration/ judiciary activity only when
the state is formed on the basis of such a predominant language.
 VIEWS ON LINGUISTIC PRINCIPLE AFTER INDEPEDENCE:
Things changed after independence and partition. Our leaders felt that carving out states on
the basis of language might lead to disruption and disintegration.
Reasons:
1. Partition had created serious administrative, economic and political dislocation. It already
caused serious economic, law and order problems.
2. There was vexed Kashmir problem and war like situation with Pakistan ==> National
security problem.
3. They felt that most important tasks after independence were to consolidate national unity
and to attend social and economic challenges the country was facing.
4. They feared any effort undertaken immediately to redraw the internal boundaries might
(a) dislocate administration and economic development; (b) intensify regional and linguistic
rivalries; (c) unleash destructive forces; (d) damage the unity of the country.
Therefore, the central leadership decided to postpone matters.
 DHAR COMMISSION:
In 1948, the constituent assembly appointed the “linguistic provinces commission” headed
by justice S.K,Dhar to enquire into the desirability of linguistic provinces.
Report:- advised against the step at the time for it might threaten national unity and also be
inconvenient for administration
But the public opinion was not satisfied, especially in the south India and the problem
remained politically alive.
 JVP COMMITTEE:
To appease the vocal votaries of linguistic states, the congress appointed JVP (Jawaharlal,
Vallabhai, Pattabi seetaramaiah) committee in December 1948.



It advised against the creation of linguistic states for the time being.
It emphasized on unity, national security and economic development as the need of the
hour.
However, it left some room for the creation of linguistic states where the demand was
strong and agreeable to other language groups.
 FORMATION OF ANDHRA STATE:
 Protests began in the Telugu speaking areas of the Madras province demanding
separation from it.
 The Tamil leader leadership also agreed to it. But Madras city became the bone of
contention as both the parties wanted it.
 Therefore, the GoI was unable to take decision immediately.
 The movement gathered momentum with time
 On 19 October 1952, Potti Sriramulu, a congress leader and veteran Gandhian went on an
indefinite fast that led to his death after 56 days
 This caused great unrest and resulted in violent outbursts in Andhra region. People in
large numbers took to streets. Many were injured and lost their lives in police firing.
Finally, the PM announced the formation of separate Andhra state in Dec 1952. It came into
existence in Oct 1953with Kurnool as capital. Simultaneously, Tamilnadu was created as
Tamil speaking state with Madras city as capital.
 EFFECCT OF SUCCESS OF ANDHRA STRUGGLE:
 It encouraged other linguistic groups to agitate for their own state on language basis.
 These struggles forced the central government to appoint a “State Reorganization
Commission” in 1953 to look into the question of redrawing of the boundaries of the
states.
 SRC:
 Chairman  Justice Fazl Ali ; Members  K.M.Panikkar and Hridaynath Kuzru.
 Report submitted in October 1955.
 It recommended redrawing of state boundaries on linguistic basis.
 However, it opposed the splitting of Bombay and Punjab.
 It also laid down due consideration should be given to administrative and economic
factors.
 SRC’s recommendations were accepted, though with certain modifications and were
quickly implemented.





STATE REORGANISATION ACT:
Passed by Parliament in Nov 1956
It provided for formation of 14 states and 6 UTs.
The Telangana area of Hyderabad state was transferred to Andhra and
ANDHRAPRADESH was created.
KERALA was created by merging the Malabar district of old Madras presidency with
Travencore-Cochin.



Certain Kannada speaking areas of the states of Bombay, Madras, Hyderabad and Coorg
were added to Mysore state (renamed as Karnataka in 1973).
Bombay state was enlarged by merging the states of Kutch, Saurastra and the Marathi
speaking areas of Hyderabad state.
Punjab was also enlarged by adding PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab states Union) to it.
 BOMBAY STATE ISSUE:
 There was strong demand for the formation of Maharashtra and Gujarat in Bombay state
since independence on linguistic basis.
 After SRC’s report made public, there was strongest reaction against the report from
Maharashtra. Widespread rioting and violence broke out in agitations demanding
Maharashtra state on linguistic basis.
 DECISION 1:
 Under pressure, the government of India decided in June 1956 to divide Bombay state
into two linguistic states of Maharashtra and Gujarat.
 Bombay city would be made UT.
 This move was strongly opposed by the Maharastrians.
 DECISION 2:
 The GoI changed its decision and now decided to form Greater Bilingual
Bombay.
 This move was however opposed by the people of both Maharashtra and Gujarat.
 The Gujaratis felt that they would be a minority in the Bilingual state. Also they
were not ready to lose Bombay city to Maharashtra if divided.
 Violence and arson spread throughout the region.
 In view of disagreement over Bombay city, the government struck to its decision of
Greater Bilingual state and passed SR Act in aug 1956.
 But the matters could not rest there. Popular agitation continued for nearly 5 years.
 FINAL DECISION:
 The government finally agreed to bifurcate the state of Bombay into Maharashtra
and Gujarat.
 Bombay city being included in Maharashtra and Ahmadabad made the capital of
Gujarat temporarily.
 THE PUNJAB CASE:
 In the bilingual Punjab state, the issue of which language to be made language of
administration and schooling gradually led to demand for carving out a separate Punjabi
suba in the Punjabi speaking part of the state.
 The SRC rejected the demand on the ground that there was no much difference between
Hindi and Punjabi.









After a great deal of discussions, an agreement was arrived in 1956 between the Akalidal
and GoI. It led to merger of Punjab and PEPSU.
However the problem did not end here. Now it assumed communal character.
The Akalidal under the leadership of Master Tara Singh organized a powerful agitation
around the demand for formation of Punjabi suba.
It argued that the Sikhs needed a state of their own in which they could dominate as a
religious and political community because of their larger number.
The Hindu communalists and HarijanSikhs(Mazhani Sikhs) opposed this demand sternly.
The government of India refused to concede the demand mainly because of its communal
underpinnings. It felt that the acceptance of a communal demand would threaten the
secular fabric of the state and society.
Later two developments cleared way for the creation of a Punjabi suba.
 Sant Fatch Singh ousted Tara Singh from the leadership of Akalidal. He declared
the demand for a Punjabi suba was entirely language based.
 Major political parties and social organizations in Haryana demanded a separate
state and those in Kangra asked for its merger with Himachal Pradesh.
Consequently, in march 1966, the PM(Indira Gandhi) announced that bifurcation.
After long negotiations on the question of Chandigarh, it was made UT and joint capital
of both Punjab and Haryana.
 CONCLUSION: Thus after more than 10 years of continuous strife and popular
struggles, the linguistic reorganization was largely completed. By doing so, the national
leadership removed grievance which could have led to fissiparous tendencies.
 “STATE RE ORGANISATION IS BEST REGARDED AS THE GROUND FOR
NATIONAL INTEGRATION”: A CRITICAL EVALUTION
 Arguments in favor of the statement:
1. After reorganization, the language has not defined the politics of the states.
2. It has not affected the federal structure of the union as many feared.
3. No complaints of discrimination in the raising or expanding of the resources on the
ground of language.
4. The national government has been strengthened by the creation of coherent state units.
Thus, state reorganization has not only not weakened the unity of the nation, but as a whole
strengthened it.

Criticism:
State reorganization did not, of course resolve all the problems related to linguistic
conflicts.
1. Disputes over boundaries between states, linguistic minorities and economic issues
such as sharing of waters and surplus food persist.
2. Linguistic Chauvinism (idea that one’s language is superior to other) also finds
occasional expression.
However, the reorganization has removed a major factor affecting the cohesion of the
country.
******
Source: India since Independence - Bipin Chandra.
R.PADMA KISHORE