Give languages room to coexist, flourish

LANGUAGE binds us, divides us and often defines us. Recently, a junior colleague from a Hindi-speaking state sighed at the latest language controversy, calling it a fresh irritant, I reminded him sharply of Rahat Indori’s line, “Humarey moonh mein, tumhari zubaan thodi hai” (It’s not in my mouth that your language dwells). I argued that the notion of a single national language belonged to an outdated era — 1920s to 1940s. Today, insisting on linguistic uniformity feels as obsolete as driving an Ambassador in the age of Tesla.

Historically, languages have profoundly shaped nations. Kemal Pasha modernised Turkish, solidifying Turkey’s identity as distinct from its Ottoman past. Israel brought back Hebrew, once confined to religious rituals, into daily life, creating a sense of cultural pride and unity. Yet, these successes weren’t universal. In Pakistan, when Muhammad Ali Jinnah sought to impose Urdu as the sole national language in 1948, students at Dacca University fiercely opposed it. Their demand for equal respect for Bengali ignited the linguistic nationalism that eventually birthed Bangladesh. This vividly illustrates that linguistic imposition rarely achieves unity but instead fuels resistance.

India, rich in linguistic diversity, faced even greater complexities at Independence. The framers of our Constitution selected Hindi, crafted in Devanagari script by British scholars at Fort William in Calcutta, hoping it would unify the nation. But resistance erupted soon thereafter. The strongest protests erupted in Tamil Nadu in the 1960s, and resistance echoed across several states, not just in the South.

Punjab rejected Hindi, asserting its right to use Punjabi in the Gurmukhi script. After an intense agitation, Punjab achieved its separate linguistic identity in 1966. Similarly, in eastern India, Oriya speakers resisted the dominance of Bengali, securing Odisha’s cultural autonomy. Assam’s linguistic anxieties triggered riots against perceived Bengali encroachment, leaving scars still visible in the stereotyping of every Bengali-speaking Muslim as Bangladeshi.

These disputes underline a critical truth: language is deeply tied to identity, dignity and pride. The Supreme Court recently affirmed, “Language is culture. Language is the yardstick to measure the civilisational march of a community and its people… its earliest and primary purpose will always remain communication.” Language should serve as a bridge, not a barrier. Yet, it often becomes a tool manipulated by political interests seeking dominance.

Despite historical lessons, periodically, the official impulse to enforce Hindi resurfaces, especially in moments of heightened nationalism. Politicians sometimes view language as an easy shortcut to national unity, overlooking the complex realities of India’s multilingual society. But India’s unity thrives precisely because of its linguistic diversity, not despite it. Imposing Hindi risks alienation, not cohesion. The notion of linguistic dominance is fundamentally flawed — it breeds division, resentment and social fracture.

Today’s digital age, dominated by English, further transforms language dynamics. English has become a global linguistic bridge, essential for international commerce, science, technology and diplomacy. Regional languages, in contrast, have become islands of localised expression. In this new landscape, demanding Hindi exclusivity is impractical and irrelevant. Language flexibility, multilingual capabilities and openness are now prerequisites for global success and even domestic harmony.

For instance, a Hindi-speaking businessman who masters Chinese or Russian has enormous global advantages. Can he realistically insist that everyone within India, whether in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal or Punjab, must respond solely in Hindi? Such an insistence would not only harm business interests but also create unnecessary friction. Effective communication thrives on mutual understanding, respect, and linguistic adaptability, not on forced uniformity.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s judgment in April emphasised multilingual coexistence: “Our misconceptions, perhaps even our prejudices against a language, have to be courageously and truthfully tested against reality, which is the great diversity of our nation: Our strength can never be our weakness,” wrote Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in Varshatai vs Maharashtra. Indeed, India’s strength lies in its diversity, including linguistic diversity. Social harmony depends on respecting this diversity, not suppressing it.

Educational systems should also reflect an inclusive approach. Linguistic education should aim not merely at proficiency in a single national language but at nurturing multilingual skills, promoting linguistic respect and appreciating diverse cultural heritages. Schools must emphasise linguistic equality rather than superiority. It would foster greater national integration, cultural appreciation and mutual respect among citizens.

Furthermore, languages are repositories of history and culture. They carry unique stories, traditions and perspectives. Suppressing a language or elevating one at the expense of others risks erasing these rich cultural narratives. The push for linguistic homogeneity ignores the deeply emotional and personal attachment communities have to their mother tongues. It disregards the truth that language is more than just communication — it is heritage, emotion and identity.

The solution lies not in forcing a uniform language but in fostering an environment where languages can coexist and flourish together. The challenge is to encourage linguistic harmony without dominance, promoting multilingualism as an asset, not a problem.

As I firmly told my colleague, no one has the right to dictate another person’s language or force their understanding. Your language does not reside in my mouth. The freedom to choose one’s language is fundamental, reflecting individual and community dignity. Respecting linguistic autonomy fosters social cohesion, mutual respect and true national unity.

India’s melody emerges from diverse voices harmonise — like the timeless “Miley sur mera tumhara…”

Unity isn’t uniformity; it’s about celebrating our differences and creating a vibrant national symphony together. True nationalism appreciates diversity and seeks strength through inclusion, not exclusion. Let’s embrace linguistic diversity not as a challenge to unity but as its greatest strength. After all, language is about communicating, understanding and connecting—not dominating or dividing.

Sanjay Hegde is a senior advocate at the Supreme Court.

Comments