Historic Compromise On Hindi, Hindustani & English

Narad Prasad Kimothi ‘Neeras’

There are certain dates in the history of India’s Constitution-making that cannot be viewed merely as dates on a calendar. September 12, 13 and 14, 1949 are three such dates. During these days, the Constituent Assembly held a decisive debate on an issue that concerned much more than the language of official business. The question was: In what language would independent India hear and speak the voice of its governance? Would English, the language of colonial rule, continue in independent India? Would Hindi be made the Official Language of the Union? If Hindi was to be adopted, what kind of Hindi would it be—Sanskritised Hindi, Urdu-influenced Hindustani, or some broader form combining the two? Would the Devanagari script be compulsory?

What form would numerals take? What would be the language of the judiciary and laws? And, most importantly, would Hindi be introduced immediately or would English continue for a transitional period? The answers emerged in the debates of 12 to 14 September. That is why viewing 14 September merely as “Hindi Diwas” would be to reduce the significance of this historic process.

The question of the official language was one of the most emotional, political and contentious issues in the making of India’s Constitution. At that time of Independence, there was no single language that could be regarded as the undisputed common language of the entire country. Hindi was widely spoken and understood across large parts of northern and central India. Bengal, Madras, Bombay, Assam and several regions of southern India, however, had their own rich linguistic traditions. At the same time, owing to nearly two centuries of colonial rule, English had become the language of administration, the judiciary, higher education and legislative work. Therefore, removing English overnight would have involved serious administrative risks.This was the fundamental dilemma.

The role of K. M. Munshi and N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar in resolving the language dispute was decisive. The proceedings of the Constituent Assembly on 12thSeptember hold the key to understanding the entire story. The compromise formula presented on that day had been prepared based on the recommendations of the Language Committee of the Assembly and extensive deliberations. Later, it is to be known as the Munshi-Ayyangar Formula.

The basic spirit of this Formula was clear: the Official Language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script; and for official purposes, the international form of Indian numerals would be used. English would not be discontinued abruptly. A transitional period would be provided so that administration and non-Hindi-speaking population could prepare themselves for Hindi.

Parliament would also be empowered to plan for the continued use of English.Besides, Hindi was to develop in a manner so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all elements of composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment from other Indian languages and thereby evolve as an inclusive language of the country. This approach is also reflected later in the spirit of Article 351 of the Constitution.

After the Formula was presented on 12th, the debate on 13 September became more political and emotional. For supporters of Hindi, this was a historic opportunity. Members such as R. V. Dhulekar felt that after years of struggle, Hindi was finally receiving its constitutional place. Seth Govind Das believed that Ayyangar’s proposal accepted Hindi but simultaneously opened the way for English to remain for an excessively long period.

Naziruddin Ahmad presented an entirely different perspective. He objected to determining an all-India language through an immediate constitutional declaration. His suggestion was English should continue until an all-India language emerged capable of expressing ideas in every field. It would not be appropriate, he argued, to declare a language as that of the entire Union merely through a decision of the members of the Constituent Assembly; voluntary acceptance of the people was also necessary.

From southern India, S. V. Krishnamurti Rao also presented an important perspective. He felt that Ayyangar’s proposal provided a balance: it gave supporters of Hindi an opportunity to develop their language, while assuring other regions that it would not be imposed upon them.

On the 14th, the debate reached its climax. Mohammad Ismail moved an amendment in favour of Hindustani. His proposed official language of the Union should be Hindustani, and its scripts be both Devanagari and Urdu. Durgabai also pointed towards this broader approach. She also linked the language dispute with questions of employment and opportunity.

The language debate was not confined to words and scripts. The form of numerals was also a matter of dispute. Ultimately, the draft sought to adopt the international form of Indian numerals for the official purposes of the Union.

In regard to the Official Language(s) of States, arrangements were made to recognise their language wherever possible for official work. At the same time, English was proposed to continue for inter-State communication and that between a State and the Union, although Hindi could be used between two States if they mutually agreed to do so.Thus,the ConstituentAssembly was not merely deciding the language of the Union, it was creating the broader administrative framework of a multilingual federation.

Regarding the judiciary, the use of English would have to continue in the Supreme Court and High Courts because even a single word in the language of a law could alter its judicial consequences. It was argued that the judiciary had years of experience and precedents for interpreting laws framed in English. Achieving the same degree of precision in Hindi overnight would not be easy.

Ultimately, on 14th, the Constituent Assembly accepted the basic arrangement: “The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script.” Alongside, the international form of Indian numerals was accepted, and a transitional period was prescribed for the continued use of English.It was also decided that after 15 years, Parliament could legislate to determine the continuation of the use of English.

Was this a historic victory for Hindi? Yes—it was for its supporters. But the use of English did not end immediately. Hindustani was not made the official language. The principle of developing Hindi by drawing upon other Indian languages was also accepted. Most importantly, Parliament was given the power to plan for future use of English. Therefore, the real story of 14 September is less of victory than of compromise.

Another extremely important aspect of the three-day debate was that the Constituent Assembly did not adopt the concept of “national language” as the constitutional term. But, in the Constitution, the practical and constitutional term that found a place was “official language.”The distinction was not insignificant.“National language” could suggest an emotional and cultural form of dominance, whereas “official language” meant prescribing it for official functions of the Union.This distinction became important in constitutionally safeguarding India’s multilingual character.

Finally, on 14 September, Hindi received constitutional recognition as the Union’s official language. Therefore, to describe that date merely as a victory for Hindi would be historically incomplete. In reality, it was a day of compromise among three forces: the national aspiration for Hindi, the apprehensions of non-Hindi-speaking India, and English as an administrative necessity.

These debates remain a key to understanding why language in India has never been merely a question of language. It has also been a question of identity, power, culture, opportunity and national unity. And the solution evolved by the Constituent Assembly was more important than the victory of any one side. It represented an Indian democratic experiment in carrying diversity together through consensus.The Constituent Assembly chose Hindi—but not at the cost of India’s multilingual soul. As Bharatendu Harishchandra famously put it: निजभाषाउन्नतिअहै, सबउन्नतिकोमूल, बिननिजभाषा-ज्ञानके, मिटतनहियकोसूल। (The progress of one's mother tongue is the foundation of all forms of advancement. Without knowledge of one's own language, the sorrow and anguish of the heart cannot be dispelled).---INFA

(