Language as a Divisive Factor in Indian Federalism Critical Analysis

Journal of Research and Development A Multidisciplinary International Level Referred and Double Blind Peer Reviewed, Open Access ISSN : 2230-9578 | Website: https://jrdrvb.org Volume-17, Issue-9(V)| September 2025 106 Language as a Divisive Factor in Indian Federalism Critical Analysis Chaitanya S. Sawant1, Abhijit M. Zende2 1Assistant Professor, Yashwantrao Chavan Law College Karad, Maharashtra 2Associate Professor, Yashoda Technical Campus, Satara, Maharashtra Email: [email protected] Manuscript ID: JRD -2025-170926 ISSN: 2230-9578 Volume 17 Issue 9 (V) Pp. 106-109 Sept. 2025 Submitted:15 Aug. 2025 Revised: 25 Aug. 2025 Accepted: 10 Sept. 2025 Published: 30 Sept. 2025 Abstract India is marked by extraordinary linguistic diversity, where languages change every few hundred kilometers and dialects shift even more rapidly. Language has long been a double-edged sword in India’s federal experience: it represents the richness of cultural heritage, while simultaneously creating political and constitutional challenges. Since independence, linguistic politics have influenced the drawing of state boundaries, driven mass movements, and created tensions between the Union and states. This paper critically examines how language has acted as a divisive factor in Indian federalism. It analyses the colonial legacy, debates in the Constituent Assembly, constitutional provisions, and judicial approaches. It further considers regional movements in South India, Bengal, Maharashtra, Punjab, Odisha, Gujarat, and the North-East. Comparative insights from other multilingual federations such as Canada, Belgium, and Switzerland are included. The paper argues that while language remains a source of contestation, the accommodation of linguistic pluralism continues to be the bedrock of Indian democracy. Keywords: language politics, Indian federalism, constitutional provisions, linguistic diversity, regional movements, multilingualism, identity, judicial interpretation, cultural pluralism, national integration. Introduction India is unparalleled in terms of linguistic diversity. According to the Census of India (2011), the country is home to 19,500 mother tongues, of which 121 are spoken by over 10,000 people. The Eighth Schedule of the Constitution presently recognizes 22 languages, while hundreds of others flourish in oral and regional traditions. India thus represents a unique model of a multilingual federation, very different from states such as France or China, which centralized linguistic authority around one dominant language. In India, language acts as a major divisive element, especially when viewed from the perspective of constitutional law. The nation hosts a variety of languages, each linked to unique cultural identities and local connections. Such linguistic variety may result in social division and disputes, particularly regarding governance, education, and political representation. The Indian Constitution acknowledges language as a divisive element by recognizing various languages and working towards inclusivity while also fostering national unity. Yet, reconciling these interests is an intricate challenge that persistently develops within India's varied socio-political environment. The current discussions about language policy emphasize the importance of thoughtfully addressing both regional identities and national unity in determining India's future. However, this diversity also brings structural challenges. From the anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu, to the Gorkhaland movement in West Bengal, from the Punjabi Suba agitation to the assertion of tribal languages in the North-East, India’s federalism has been repeatedly tested by linguistic demands. Language is not merely a medium of communication—it is deeply tied to culture, history, and dignity. The following sections trace how language functions as a divisive factor in Indian federalism. 1 Colonial Legacy and the Politics of Language The British left behind a contested linguistic landscape. Quick Response Code: Website: https://jrdrvb.org/ DOI: Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work noncommercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations ae licensed under the idential terms. Address for correspondence: Chaitanya S. Sawant, Assistant Professor, Yashwantrao Chavan Law College Karad, Maharashtra How to cite this article: Chaitanya S. Sawant, Abhijit M. Zende (2025).Language as a Divisive Factor in Indian Federalism Critical Analysis . Journal of Research & Development, 17(9), 106-109 Original Article Journal of Research and Development A Multidisciplinary International Level Referred and Double Blind Peer Reviewed, Open Access ISSN : 2230-9578 | Website: https://jrdrvb.org Volume-17, Issue-9(V)| September 2025 107 With Macaulay’s Minute on Education (1835), English became the language of governance, education, and law. This created a sharp divide between the English-educated elite and the vernacular-speaking masses. Simultaneously, the colonial census classified populations by language, hardening linguistic boundaries and identities (King, 1997). Colonial policies also sowed early seeds of linguistic nationalism. For example, the Partition of Bengal (1905) ignored linguistic-cultural unity, leading to mass protests and eventual reversal in 1911. Similarly, the colonial state elevated Urdu in North India, antagonizing Hindi-speaking populations and laying the ground for post-colonial contestations. There is official acknowledgment of the significance of Mother Tongue (MT) education in India Constitution and the national and state educational policies established subsequently. Article 350Aof the Constitution asserts that the “state shall strive to offer sufficient facilities forteaching in the native language during the initial phase of schooling to kids belonging to ‘Groups in the minority' (Constitution of India, 2008). The Three-Language Formula (TLF) established in 1957 suggested employing a first language/regional language, Hindi, and/or English across various levels of schooling. The TLF received support in the National education policy of 1968 and 1986 and has stressed that the Primary Language (PL) for teaching in elementary grades ought to be in the Mother language of the child, and instructed the states to guarantee in government schools (Mohanty, 2008). The recent National Education Policy (NEP)-2020 of India expands the definition of Medium of Instruction (MOI) should incorporate local and regional languages at least until grade 5. Ideally up to the eighth grade (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2020) Language Legal perspective 1. Language in the Constituent Assembly The Constituent Assembly debates (1946–1949) reveal how deeply divisive the question of language was: a. Pro-Hindi members argued for Hindi as the sole national language. b. South Indian representatives, such as T.T. Krishnamacharya, warned that Hindi imposition would relegate nonHindi speakers to “second-class citizens.” c. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar proposed a compromise: Hindi as the official language of the Union, English to continue for 15 years as an associate language, and states free to adopt their own languages. This compromise shaped Articles 343 to 351 of the Constitution, which provide for Hindi as the official language, continued use of English, recognition of Scheduled Languages, and promotion of linguistic diversity. 2 Indian Federal structure and language The federal structure of India is a distinctive model, designed to accommodate its vast diversity while ensuring political unity. The Constitution does not use the term “federal,” but Articles 1 to 4 establish India as a “Union of States,” making the Union indestructible though states can be reorganized by Parliament. The distribution of powers under the Seventh Schedule—divided into Union, State, and Concurrent Lists—illustrates the framework of shared authority, while Article 246 defines the scope of legislation. Institutions like the Inter-State Council (Article 263) and special provisions for certain states under Articles 371 to 371J further reinforce federal features. At the same time, the strong role of the Union, reflected in residuary powers (Article 248) and emergency provisions (Articles 352–356), demonstrates a central bias that keeps the federation cohesive. Within this constitutional arrangement, language has historically emerged as a decisive factor influencing state boundaries, political identity, and inter-state relations. The linguistic reorganization of states in 1956, based on the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission, gave language a constitutional and political recognition that directly shaped the federal map of India. While this move strengthened democratic participation by allowing people to identify with their states in linguistic terms, it also entrenched language as a potential source of division. Demands for new states, protection of minority languages, and inclusion of additional languages in the Eighth Schedule continue to create political frictions within the federal framework. It is therefore evident that language, though not the only divisive element in Indian federalism, remains one of the most prominent. Alongside factors such as caste, region, and religion, language carries a distinctive constitutional and cultural weight, making it both a unifying symbol of identity and a persistent challenge for maintaining cooperative federalism. 1 Judicial Perspectives The Supreme Court of India has played a balancing role in safeguarding linguistic rights while preserving federal integrity: a. State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society (1954) – upheld minorities’ right to education in their mother tongue under Article 30. b. K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1985) – recognized the significance of linguistic identity in defining backwardness. c. Naga People’s Movement v. Union of India (1997) – indirectly affirmed the special cultural-linguistic protections under Article 371A for Nagaland. d. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) – reiterated linguistic minorities’ autonomy in educational institutions. These cases reflect judicial awareness that linguistic rights are central to federal balance and cultural identity. Journal of Research and Development A Multidisciplinary International Level Referred and Double Blind Peer Reviewed, Open Access ISSN : 2230-9578 | Website: https://jrdrvb.org Volume-17, Issue-9(V)| September 2025 108 Regional Movements and Linguistic Federalism 1 South India and Anti-Hindi Resistance  Andhra Pradesh (1953): Created after Potti Sriramulu’s hunger strike, it became the first linguistic state, proving that linguistic aspirations could redraw India’s map.  Tamil Nadu (1965): Anti-Hindi agitations marked a turning point. The DMK rose to power in 1967, rejecting the three-language formula and insisting on Tamil and English.  Karnataka (1980s): The Gokak agitation demanded primacy for Kannada in education.  Kerala: Tied Malayalam to cultural and literary revival, strengthening regional pride. 2 Bengal and Gorkhaland Bengal has historically asserted linguistic pride, resisting Hindi domination and defending Bengali in education and governance. Yet within Bengal, the Gorkhaland movement (1980s–present) reflects Nepali-speaking minorities’ demand for autonomy, showing how language divides even within linguistic-majority states. 3 Maharashtra and the “Marathi Manoos” The Samyukta Maharashtra Movement (1950s) demanded a Marathi-speaking state with Mumbai as its capital. Later, the Shiv Sena mobilised around the slogan “Marathi Manoos,” linking language with employment, migration, and urban identity. 4 Punjab and the Punjabi Suba The Punjabi Suba Movement led to the trifurcation of Punjab in 1966. Linguistic assertion here became intertwined with religious identity, with Punjabi in the Gurmukhi script tied closely to Sikh politics. 5 Nagaland and the North-East The North-East presents a different dynamic, with hundreds of tribal languages:  Nagaland (Article 371A): Protects Naga customary practices and linguistic rights.  Assamese Language Movement (1960s): Efforts to impose Assamese triggered violent opposition by Bengali minorities.  Bodoland and Karbi movements: Reflected assertion of smaller linguistic-ethnic groups. 4.6 Odisha and Gujarat – Overlooked Cases  Odisha (1936): Became the first state in India to be created on linguistic lines, decades before independence, on the demand for Odia-speaking identity.  Gujarat (1960): Formed alongside Maharashtra, after protests by Gujarati speakers who resisted merger into a larger Bombay state. These examples highlight how linguistic mobilizations have redrawn boundaries and shaped federal bargaining. 5. Constitutional Balancing Act The Indian Constitution adopts a pluralist model:  No national language, but Hindi as official language of the Union.  22 Scheduled Languages recognized under the Eighth Schedule.  States empowered to adopt their own official languages (Article 345).  Articles 350A & 350B protect mother-tongue education and linguistic minorities.  Special protections for North-East states (Articles 371A–371G). This framework reflects deliberate avoidance of linguistic homogenization. Contemporary Challenges 1. National Education Policy (2020): Revived the three-language formula, which immediately faced strong resistance from Tamil Nadu and similarly placed states. Tamil Nadu has historically opposed any attempt to impose Hindi or alter its two-language policy, linking language to Tamil identity and cultural pride. From the perspective of federalism, this opposition reflects the enduring tension between national integration measures and regional autonomy. The challenge posed by Tamil Nadu demonstrates how language remains a sensitive issue where educational policies, though framed at the Union level, are often contested on grounds of state identity and cultural preservation. 2. Demands for recognition: Demands for recognition of additional languages such as Bhojpuri, Tulu, Rajasthani, Garhwali, and others for inclusion in the Eighth Schedule continue to generate debate within India’s federal framework. While the Constitution presently recognizes 22 languages, the pending claims numbering over 35 reflect the aspirations of diverse linguistic communities for cultural legitimacy, educational promotion, and administrative use. Committees like the Sitakant Mohapatra Committee (2003) examined these demands but no final decision has been made, highlighting the political sensitivities involved. The unresolved issue underscores how language-based recognition remains a contentious element, influencing both identity politics and center–state relations. 3. Digital divide: English dominates higher education and technology, marginalising regional languages. 4. Judicial accessibility: Supreme Court functions primarily in English, limiting linguistic justice. Journal of Research and Development A Multidisciplinary International Level Referred and Double Blind Peer Reviewed, Open Access ISSN : 2230-9578 | Website: https://jrdrvb.org Volume-17, Issue-9(V)| September 2025 109 5. Migration and Urbanisation: Cities like Bengaluru, Mumbai, and Delhi witness linguistic tensions between locals and migrants. Conclusion Language in India is not only about communication but about identity, dignity, and culture. From the creation of Andhra Pradesh to the anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu, from Bengal’s cultural pride to Maharashtra’s Marathi Manoos politics, from Punjab’s Punjabi Suba to Nagaland’s tribal assertions, language has consistently shaped the contours of Indian federalism. The Indian Constitution has adopted a flexible, pluralistic approach that accommodates linguistic diversity without imposing uniformity. Judicial pronouncements have attempted to strike a balance, while scholars remind us that linguistic pluralism is central to democratic legitimacy. Comparative experience suggests that India’s experiment with multilingual federalism is fragile yet innovative. Ultimately, India’s unity lies not in linguistic uniformity but in respecting plurality. The future of Indian federalism depends on ensuring that language continues to be a source of cultural richness, not political division. References 1. Austin, G. (1966). The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford University Press. 2. Brass, P. (1991). Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. Sage. 3. Constitution of India. (2008), Retrieved from: https://www.india.gov.in/mygovernment/constitutionindia/constitution-india-full-text 4. Kothari, R. (1970). Politics in India. Orient Longman. 5. King, R. (1997). Nehru and the Language Politics of India. Oxford University Press. 6. Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2020, July). National Education Policy - 2020. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/MHRD-NEP-2020 7. Mohanty, A. K. (2008). Multilingual education in India. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 5, 2nd ed.). Bilingual education (pp. 165–174). New York: Springer. 8. Sen, A. (2005). The Argumentative Indian. Penguin. 9. Constituent Assembly Debates (1946–1949). Government of India. 10. Census of India (2011). Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner. Key Supreme Court Cases: 1. State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society, AIR 1954 SC 561. 2. K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1985 SC 1495. 3. Naga People’s Movement v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 454. 4. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2002 SC 1980.