LANGUAGE IN INDIA

ADOPTING A CONSTITUTION FOR A NATION --
THE LAST DAYS OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA
AND THE ADOPTION OF LANGUAGE PROVISIONS
M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.
B. Mallikarjun, Ph.D.

OUR LAST ARTICLE ON THE EVOLUTION OF A LANGUAGE POLICY FOR INDIA DURING THE FREEDOM STRUGGLE

This is our last article in the series of articles on the subject of Indian Freedom Struggle and Language Policy. Our earlier articles may be accessed as given below:

• LANGUAGE POLICY IN THE FORMATIVE YEARS OF INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 1885-1905
• LANGUAGE DYNAMICS OF A POLITICAL SPLIT : SURAT CONGRESS, TILAK VS GOKHALE
• EARLY GANDHI AND THE LANGUAGE POLICY OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS
• THE ROOTS OF LINGUISTIC REORGANIZATION OF INDIAN PROVINCES - DR. ANNIE BESANT AND HER HOME RULE MOVEMENT
• LANGUAGE POLICY IN THE MOTILAL NEHRU COMMITTEE REPORT, 1928 - SEEDS OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
• LANGUAGE POLICY OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS DURING THE PRE-PARTITION PERIOD 1939-1946
• LANGUAGE POLICY OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS 1935-1939 - SOWING THE SEEDS OF A POLICY FOR FREE INDIA - And the Anti-Hindi Agitation in the South
• THE EVOLUTION OF THE LANGUAGE POLICY IN THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA

Kindly note that these articles are work in progress, and we do hope to edit these further with references in all their details, and to re-write and collate these in a book form some time soon.

EMOTION CHARGED ATMOSPHERE

In this last article, we describe the emotion-charged atmosphere within the Constituent Assembly, when issues relating to language use were raised. But, immediately, let us review the basic facts and the progress of a consensus draft, which outlined the official language of India, and its subsequent unanimous adoption by the Assembly.

As pointed out earlier in our last article, neither the Draft Constitution prepared and circulated by the Constitutional Adviser, Sir B. N. Rau, as a first step toward formulation of the Indian Constitution nor the Draft Constitution settled by the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly, after much discussion on various issues by the Constituent Assembly, contained any article or clause on the Official Language of the country.

LANGUAGE PROVISIONS - NO DIRECTIONS FROM THE ASSEMBLY TO THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE

This was but natural because of the cautious attitude toward the issue adopted by the top Congress leadership. It was an unwritten understanding among the Congress leadership that issues that would raise much heat and dust and would generate intense conflict and emotions to the point of dividing the nation be dealt with only at the end of the life of the Constituent Assembly. Thus, in the absence of any direction as regards the official language from the Constituent Assembly, the Drafting Committee headed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar did not include provisions for the official language policy in its draft version.

However, these draft versions contained, as I mentioned earlier, only the provisions regarding the language or languages to be used in the Union Parliament and in the State Legislatures. And yet, of all the issues, it was the language question that was uppermost in the minds of the members of the Assembly, and it was the language use that was more often raised during the consideration of the Draft version submitted by the Drafting Committee.

The opinions expressed were very divergent and were of a conflicting nature.

In view of the emotions displayed and the widening divergence between opposing views, the Indian National Congress took the initiative to consider the issues in discussions outside the Assembly to arrive at a consensus.

THE CONGRESS PARTY MEETING IN AUGUST 1949

The Congress Party in the Constituent Assembly met in August 1949 to iron out the differences between pro-Hindi and anti-Hindi viewpoints. Hindi in Devanagari script was ultimately to be the Official Language, according to the decision.

Since differences of opinion on both sides continued, now mostly with regard to the place of English (Arabic or International) and Devanagari numerals, but also in some measure with regard to the decision "Hindi Only" as the official language, a special Committee was formed, with members of the Drafting Committee as well as Abul Kalam Azad, G. B. Pant, P. D. Tandon, Balakrishna Sharma, Syoma Prasad Mookerjee and K. Santhanam with responsibility to draft an appropriate provision, based on the Congress Party consensus, for the consideration of the Constituent Assembly.

Let us read what Shiva Rao (1968) reports on the matter:

The Committee suggested that English would be the only official language for ten years; thereafter, if both Houses of Parliament decided by a two-third majority of the members present and voting, it could be extended for another five years. The Committee also suggested the adoption of international numerals. These suggestions were not accepted by the Party. The search for general agreement continued and the Drafting Committee made a further attempt to evolve such a formula. The proposals of the committee were again discussed by the Party but no agreement emerged. There was keen controversy on a number of issues, particularly the arrangements for the transition period. The question of numerals also evoked differences.

Towards the end of August 1949, Munshi and Gopalaswami Ayyangar prepared detailed draft compromise provisions for inclusion in the Draft Constitution. In a letter to Chairman of the Drafting Committee on September 1, 1949, Ravi Shankar Shukla, the Premier of the Central Provinces and Berar, strongly advocated the replacement of English by Hindi as soon as possible. (India’s freedom struggle: some aspects, by B. Shiva Rao. Published Bangalore, Gokhale Institute of Public Affairs, 1968.)

A DECISION NOT TO DECIDE ON A PARTY BASIS

The Munshi-Ayyangar draft again came up before the Congress Party on September 2. After a heated discussion votes were taken on the issue whether or not the draft should be moved in the Constituent Assembly as an official proposal on behalf of the Drafting Committee. It was finally decided that the question would not be decided on a party basis, that the Munshi-Ayyangar draft would be moved by Ambedkar, Munshi, and Gopalaswamy in their personal capacities; and members would be free to move amendments and vote in the Asssembly as they pleased.

MANY INTERESTING POINTS AND VIEWS

Discussion on Language was postponed to the very end of the Assembly. Many interesting points were raised, and views were expressed. A great patriot from the great state of Maharashtra would declare his view as follows.

INDIA IS MY NATION, I AM AN INDIAN, BUT MY LANGUAGE IS MARATHI!

A beautiful statement was made by Shankarrao Deo from the great state of Maharashtra, who said:

As I have tried to understand Indian culture, Sanskritic, Indian religion and Indian Spiritual traditions, it is not uniformity but unity in diversity. It is vividhata that India stands for. That is our richness, that is the contribution that India can make to the world-culture and world progress. I would like to maintain the variety of cultures, the different languages, each without obstructing, hindering or killing the unity of the country. Therefore when people use the term, "national language," my heart does not respond to it. I admit India is a nation and I am an Indian, but if you will ask me, 'what is your language?' Sir, you will excuse me if I say, "My language is Marathi." I am one of those who have been insisting that this language, which will replace English, should not be called the national language. If you mean by national language one language for the whole country, than I am against it. I must make it quite clear. India is a nation and I am an Indian, but my language is Marathi.

This long article presents various aspects of the language problem discussed in the final days of the Constitutent Assembly and presents how English happened to be retained.

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR A PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION OF THE ENTIRE PAPER.

M. S. Thirumalai and B. Mallikarjun

Minority Rights and Education - The Question of Survival of Minority Languages | Madhu Sudan Das : A Tribute on the Occasion of Utkal Dibas | Practicing Literary Translation
A Symposium by Mail - Sixth Round | Irony as an Intrinsic Feature in Short Stories by Khushwant Singh | An Overview of DUBLINERS | Bringing Up Children Bilingually - Problems and Prospects | Adopting a Constitution for a Nation -- The Last Days of the Constituent Assembly of India and the Adoption of Language Provisions | C-Semiology in Search of Panini | LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION
A Review of Professor O. N. Koul's Book | HOME PAGE | CONTACT EDITOR