Contemporary Perspectives Vol. 1, No.

1, January – June 2007, 86 – 106

Nehru and the Language Question

Salil Misra
Faculty of History, Indira Gandhi National Open University

This is a descriptive essay on Nehru’s experience with the language question

during his long political career, both as the leader of the national movement,
and as the Prime Minister of independent India. It begins by describing the
linguistic scenario as Nehru found it in his capacity as the Congress leader.
It then goes into a discussion of how Nehru attempted to handle the major
language problems during the course of the national movement. As with so
much else, the year 1947 constitutes an important point of departure as far
as the language question was concerned. Therefore the two periods, the
one prior to independence and the one after, are treated separately.
Nehru’s involvement with the language question (in other words language
conflict and controversies of his times) was not linked integrally to his
political-intellectual universe. Left to himself he would probably not have
taken the trouble of articulating and developing his thoughts on the language
question. He was not a linguist or a language reformer. Language was an
issue that he, along with his political contemporaries, inherited from the
past. The language question appeared to Nehru in the form of a problem
whose solution had to be worked out. It was also one of the important
issues that were confronted by the national movement. So what was the
language issue? And why was it a problem?

The Language Question in History

India’s language landscape through the preceding centuries represented a
mix of continuities and changes. Some of its features were in conformity
with the general linguistic principles; some were quite unique to India. In
the main, India’s linguistic profile was characterised by the presence of one
dominant language and literary tradition – the Hindavi tradition – that
continued as an unbroken chain from about the 12th century till the 18th
century, and covered parts of the northern, central, western India and also
 Nehru and the Language Question 87

some southern pockets. Hindavi, more of a language amalgam rather than a

language in a narrow sense, was known in different parts by different
names. Hindui, Hindi, Dakkani, Gujari, Dehlavi and Bhakha were some of
the names that were associated with this broad language-tradition. The name
Hindavi was coined by Amir Khusro (1253 – 1325), a prominent Sufi poet
from Delhi and he may justifiably be called Baba-i-Hindavi (grand old man
of Hindavi). Nazir Akbarabadi (1740 – 1830) of Agra, generally considered
the ‘great poet of common man’ may be considered the last great poet of
the Hindavi tradition.
Around the 18th and the 19th centuries this literary and linguistic reservoir
began to be gradually depleted. The depletion was caused by the outflow of
two separate literary streams from the Hindavi tradition. These two streams
later came to be identified as Urdu and modern Hindi. In other words, there
was a complex process in which the composite Hindavi heritage got
bifurcated and, after a process of internal standardisation and external
differentiation, resurfaced in the form of two identifiably separate literary
traditions of Urdu and modern Hindi. There are a variety of ways in which
the two languages have been defined and understood. But it is important to
look upon them as modern literary creations. Because of their springing
from the same Hindavi root, the two resembled each other almost like twins,
yet got involved in a serious contest in north India in the second half of the
19th century over the question of official recognition and patronage. The
British were initially inclined to grant this status to Urdu and this led to the
emergence of a Hindi movement launched by Hindi enthusiasts demanding
that the same status be accorded to Hindi. The U.P. government responded
favourably to the movement at the beginning of the 20th century by allowing
Hindi the same official status (of the language of lower court and
administration) as Urdu. The 19th century contest thus resulted in a draw
but it could also be seen as Hindi’s triumph in that it had successfully
questioned Urdu’s domination, and claimed parity with it. Another important
development in the realm of Hindi and Urdu in the 19th century was their
normative identification with Hindus and Muslims and their projection as
Hindu and Muslim language, respectively. Hence, a fierce Hindi-Urdu rivalry
that started in the second half of the 19th century and developed further in
the 20th century was one component of the language ‘problem’ that Nehru
inherited.
88 Salil Misra

A simultaneous and parallel growth of regional languages and literatures

was another aspect of the language question. Economic, administrative and
political unification during the 19th century was not accompanied by linguistic
standardization and unification as happened in Europe. Instead the 19th
century Indian society experienced linguistic and literary proliferation. A
number of regional languages developed in the 19th century. Equipped with
their own scripts, these regional languages developed their own literatures,
dictionaries and grammar books leading to standardisation, and an intelligentsia
that strongly identified with its own language. Around the second half of
the 19th century, general awareness regarding India’s linguistic plurality had
become common, and the Linguistic Survey of India, compiled and prepared
(in 19 volumes, published in the 1920s) by G.A. Grierson, supplied the
concrete empirical back up to the idea of India’s linguistic plurality. According
to the Survey, India had a total of 179 languages and 544 dialects. The 1921
Census put the number of Indian languages at 222. The idea of India being
a land of many languages, with a few with well-developed literatures, may
possibly have been perceived in certain circles as a disqualification for nation
building. Nehru, on his part, reacted rather strongly to a projection of India
as a land of many languages and called a ‘cry of the ignorant’:
… the question of language is an important one for us. It is not
important because of that cry of the ignorant that India is a babel
of tongues with hundreds and hundreds of languages. India, as
everyone who looks around him can see, has singularly few
languages considering its vast size, and these are intimately allied to
each other. India has also one dominant and widespread language
which, with its variations, covers a vast area and numbers its
votaries by the hundred million. Yet the problem remains and has to
be faced.1
Nehru was obviously counterposing the idea of linguistic plurality with
the idea of linguistic compositeness. Why did he react so strongly to the
idea of plurality in the realm of languages? He probably expressed his
disapproval partly because he had also inherited from the 19th century the
idea of a lingua franca and a strong passion attached to it. The European
notion that language forms the bedrock of a nation directly fed into the

1 Nehru’s note to National Language for India (A Symposium), compiled by Z.A. Ahmad,
Allahabad, 1941, pp. 45 – 46.
 Nehru and the Language Question 89

concern that India should have one major language for the entire country.
Prominent 19th century leaders like B.G.Tilak and K.C.Sen, litterateurs like
Prem Chand and linguists like Suniti Kumar Chatterji strongly advocated the
idea of one-nation-one-language. A single language was seen as the
instrument through which a single nation could be forged and developed.
The existence of a number of developed languages posed the ‘national’
problem of linguistic integration and, by extension, of a lingua franca. The
very notion of lingua franca was understood in a variety of ways – national
language, official language, or even a link language – but that did not solve
the problem. Nehru on his part preferred to define lingua franca in terms of
a ‘common’ language. The question however was: out of a pool of a number
of available languages, which language should be conferred the status of a
lingua franca? In the West this recognition generally went either to the
language endowed with literary prestige, or to the language of economic
heartland, or to the language of the politically dominant region within the
country. But the complex linguistic scenario of India did not follow such
neat dividing lines. The question of a lingua franca for India was therefore
important, but not easy.
So, a seemingly irreconcilable Hindi-Urdu rivalry threatening to spill
into politics and the national movement’s efforts at achieving national unity;
spread and distribution of regional languages and literatures; and a strong
passion for and dependence on the idea of lingua franca were three major
constitutive elements into what could be called a language problem for Nehru.
How did he go about handling it?

Nehru and the Language Controversy

Briefly speaking Nehru underplayed the Hindi-Urdu rivalry, favoured the
creation of linguistic provinces and projected one all-India common language
that was neither fully Hindi nor fully Urdu or any of the regional languages.
Instead he promoted Hindustani as the alternative inclusive language that
could satisfy the lingua franca aspirations. Let us look at the three in some
detail.
According to Nehru, there was no reason for Hindi and Urdu to compete
with each other. The relationship between the two was to be that of
complimentarity and not that of competition. He saw their relationship with
each other like two separate heads on a single body – ‘‘We want both and
90 Salil Misra

we must accept both. We must realise that the growth of Hindi means the
growth of Urdu and vice versa.’’ It was important for both the languages
to develop as they were both inadequate ‘for the proper expression of modern
ideas, scientific, political, economic, commercial and sometimes cultural’.
But they were both growing languages and Nehru found it inevitable for the
two to come closer as they grew:
I have no doubt in my mind that Hindi and Urdu must come nearer
to each other, and though they may wear different garbs, will be
essentially one language. The forces favouring this unification are
too strong to be resisted by individuals. We have nationalism and
the widespread desire to have a united India, and this must triumph. 2
Regional languages, in Nehru’s scheme, were to be promoted by creating
administrative sub-zones along linguistic lines. Provincial units would
correspond to broad linguistic zones and the administration of the zone
would be carried out in the language of the area. Congress had already in
1920 committed itself to the creation of linguistic provinces. Nehru added
that the various scripts would however need to be standardized in order to
facilitate printing and typing etc. And so, broadly resembling scripts like
Nagari, Bengali, Gujarati and Marathi on the one hand, Sindhi and Urdu
script on the other, and the scripts of Dravidian languages (Tamil, Telugu,
Kannada and Malayalam) on yet another, could be unified so that the number
of available scripts could be reduced to three, if not two (by possibly uniting
the Dravidian scripts with the Nagari).
The question of national language would have to be solved with the
acceptance of Hindustani by everybody ‘as common language of future
India’. But the only problem was that Hindustani simply did not exist as a
fully formed language. The rich Hindavi heritage had been bifurcated and
appropriated by Hindi and Urdu. That left Hindustani with very little linguistic
substance and virtually no literature of its own. The Congress leaders had
also realised that Hindustani was nothing more than a tendency in literature.
Nehru proposed that a basic Hindustani could be evolved along the lines of
Basic English. Creating a Basic English was a successful experiment carried
out in England by a number of language scholars. They had created a new
type of English that was indistinguishable from the original English, and yet
was easy to learn by a non-English person. In this experiment grammar had
2 Ibid., p. 58.
 Nehru and the Language Question 91

been made virtually invisible except for a few simple rules and the basic
vocabulary had been reduced to about 980 words, excluding scientific,
technical and commercial terms. Nehru explained, ‘‘The whole vocabulary
and grammar can be put down on one sheet of paper and an intelligent
person can learn it in two or three weeks”. His proposal was that a basic
Hindustani could be created along these lines, which may not initially be
suitable for literary, scientific and other technical purposes but would serve
the purpose of a link language and would be easy to learn. Given its ‘basic’
character it would also not threaten other languages and would easily coexist
with them. He felt that, if the linguists and other scholars took up the
challenge they could create a new language with an elementary, almost
non-existent, grammar and a vocabulary of not more than a thousand words.
Nehru had great expectations from this basic Hindustani. He hoped that
it would promote linguistic cooperation without carrying any risk of rivalry
between languages; bring Hindi and Urdu closer; and also promote Indian
nationalism:
Such a Basic Hindustani should be the all-India language, and with
a little effort from the State it will spread with extreme rapidity all
over the country and will help in bringing about that national unity
which we all desire. It will bring Hindi and Urdu closer together
and will also help in developing an all-India linguistic unity.3
So what happened to the project of creating basic Hindustani? It also
had the support of Mahatma Gandhi, in particular, and the Congress
organisation in general. If we concentrate on the period around 1947 just
prior to independence, we find that both the major issues – Hindi-Urdu
rivalry and the search for a common all-India language – were as unresolved
as earlier. Why did the Hindustani experiment not succeed?
The Hindustani experiment did not succeed because it could not be
taken up in the manner envisaged by Nehru. For most part there was a lack
of clarity on what exactly was meant by Hindustani. In spite of Nehru’s,
and also Gandhi’s, attempts at providing clarification, the term continued to
carry a lot of ambiguity in its usage. This ambiguity had accompanied the
term through the18th and the 19th centuries when this term was used for
the first time. The origin of the term went back to the 18th century when
the popular language that was neither Persian nor Sanskrit was called by
3 Ibid., p. 64.
92 Salil Misra

the European writers Lingua Indostanica or Hindustanica. 4 The term

Hindustani was coined by Gilchrist in 1787 who eventually became a
professor of Hindustani at the College of Fort William that was set up in
1800 to train young British officials who were to be posted in India. From
then onwards the exact meaning of the term kept shuttling between being
some form of Urdu and a composite language of the people of north and
central India. The College of Fort William treated Hindustani as a form of
Urdu. Grierson, in his Linguistic Survey of India, enlarged this definition
and looked upon it as the common language of north India: ‘Hindustani is
primarily the language of north Doab and is also the lingua franca of India
capable of being written both in the Persian and the Nagari characters and
without purism, avoids alike the excessive use of either Persian or Sanskrit
words when employed in literature.’5 The British used the term as some
form of Urdu or as a substitute for Urdu in their census enumeration in the
early decades of the 20th century. The meaning that Nehru imparted to the
term Hindustani was only one of the many meanings that had existed since
the 19th century. Therefore when he recommended the use of Hindustani, it
was possible for some to take it to mean Urdu and for some others to look
upon it as another word for Hindi.
There was another, more important and generic, reason why Hindustani
experiment remained a non-starter. The world of languages had begun
arousing considerable emotions through the 19th and the 20th centuries.
This was partly because in this period languages had emerged as powerful
vehicles of identity formation. Languages began to be seen as exclusive
carriers of religious and cultural communities.
This normative congruence of language, culture and religion and the
investing of language with the power to create new identities was a 19 th
century phenomenon. It was the product of a climate in which numerous
small and indigenous communities were dissolving and giving way to the
creation of pan-Indian religious communities of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs
among others. In this process of the formation of pan-Indian religious
identities, language had begun to be seen and employed as an important
instrument. These religious communities were understood and projected as
culturally and linguistically homogenous. Likewise it was also considered

4 Ram Babu Saksena, A History of Urdu Literature, 1927, Lahore, p. 7.

5 Linguistic Survey of India, Volume I, Part I, 1921, p. 167.
 Nehru and the Language Question 93

essential that different religious communities must necessarily have different

languages. This process had started in the 19th century, got further
accelerated in the 20th century and was eventually placed at the service of
specific political and ideological imperatives.
This type of relationship between language, religion and culture was
new and different from the general sense in which language had been, and
had also been seen, as a part of one’s culture. However in modern times,
under a whole range of influences that could be related to modernity, language
emerged in new role, as a powerful input into culture and identity. This
new role linked language to culture and ethnicity in an integral manner. In
19th century India this was manifested in an alliance of language, culture
and religion, which influenced the destiny of both Hindi and Urdu.6 Both
the languages found committed supporters who were committed not to
Hindi and Urdu per se, shorn of their cultural and religious accompaniments,
but they were committed precisely to the package that contained Hindi and
Urdu along with their social and cultural meanings lending them new support
and strength. Hindustani, by comparison, emerged as a language primarily
of politics. It was expected to serve a political purpose. It had to bring
Hindi and Urdu closer and also serve the function of a link language. Because
of its perceived political role, it had important patrons promoting it like
Gandhi and Nehru and other leaders of the national movement. However in
cultural and religious terms, Hindustani was found to be quite neutral. Those
brought up and conditioned into looking upon language as part of a package
of specific religion and culture, would have asked the question: Which culture
and religion does Hindustani represent? Hindi and Urdu carried no cultural
ambiguity as they had been slotted into different cultural packages. And so
when they did not get a ready-made answer to their question, the Hindi
enthusiasts assumed Hindustani to be a form of Urdu; the Urdu supporters
did just the opposite, accusing Hindustani of being nothing but disguised
Hindi. Some questioned the very existence of the language called Hindustani.
Commenting on Gandhi’s and Nehru’s effort to handle the language problem
by promoting Hindustani, an Urdu supporter wrote in the Calcutta based
English Daily, Star of India, that an ‘‘attempt is made to make confusion

6 On how this combination of language, culture and religion functioned in the 19th century
India, see Salil Misra ‘From the Mainstreams to the Margins: Urdu in North India’,
Contemporary India, Volume 1, Number 2, 2002, pp. 127 – 29.
94 Salil Misra

worse confounded by trying to solve this [language] question by giving a

new name ‘Hindustani’. This is a pure myth. There does not exist any such
language as Hindustani. There is either Urdu or Hindi.”7 The reactions
from Hindi supporters were very similar. Hindustani thus lost out in the
race and failed to find enthusiastic supporters, because it was unaccompanied
by any cultural and religious baggage.

Nehru and the Language Question in Independent India

The linguistic scenario sketched above changed dramatically after
independence. Some questions acquired a new sharpness and urgency; some
became redundant. The Hindi-Urdu rivalry in particular lost the vigour that
it had in the pre-independence period. Out of the three possible candidates
for the status of national/official language Urdu was the first to lose out. Its
association with the Muslim League’s movement for Pakistan, the making
of Pakistan, and the declaration of Urdu as the official language of the
independent state of Pakistan, sealed Urdu’s fate as a serious candidate for
any official status in independent India. Some claims were made on behalf
of Hindustani but finally it was Hindi written in the Nagari script that was
declared the official language of independent India. Hindi found new
competitors in English and regional languages. The story of language politics
in independent India under Nehru is essentially the story of maneuverings at
the Constituent Assembly (hereafter CA) on the question of official language,
the question of creating provinces along linguistic lines, Hindi’s journey
towards acquiring consensus in non-Hindi areas, and English’s status in
independent India. How did Nehru cope with all these issues as the leader
in the CA and also as the prime minister of independent India?
The major language disputes during the period immediately after
independence were played out at the CA and during its tenure (1946 – 50).
Interestingly Hindi’s claim as India’s official language turned out to be quite
contentious compared to Urdu’s in Pakistan. Contrary to expectations, Hindi
was not accepted with the same ease as Urdu was in Pakistan.8 The language

7 ‘The Camouflage of Hindustani’ (emphasis added), Star of India, Calcutta, 5 July 1940.
For more information on reactions to Hindustani, see Salil Misra, ‘Transition from the
Syncretic to the Plural: The world of Hindi and Urdu’, Jamal Malik and Helmut Reifeld
(ed), Religious Pluralism in South Asia and Europe, 2005, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 288 – 94.
 Nehru and the Language Question 95

debate in the CA was indicative of the nature of the politics of language that
was to develop in the 1950s and 60s. It is therefore necessary to go into
some details of how the language question was handled at the CA.
Broadly speaking, three positions developed at the CA on the question
of an official language for India. The largest group wanted Hindi written in
the Nagari script to be declared the official language (a small minority within
this group wanted Hindi to be designated the national language and not just
an official one). This group was led by leaders like Govind Das, Purshottam
Das Tandon and Sampurnanand. A small but influential group, led by Nehru
and Maulana Azad, wanted to retain the word Hindustani for the official
language that could be written in both the Nagari and the Arabic script.
Then there was a group consisting of members from south that did not
want any single language to be declared official and wanted this question to
be deferred. This group was led by T.T.Krishnamachari who accused Hindi
enthusiasts of practising linguistic totalitarianism. There were other positions
also but ultimately these three emerged as the dominant ones.
Confident of majority support and therefore victory, the Hindi group
wanted the question to be resolved through voting. But Nehru and Rajendra
Prasad, president of CA, prevailed upon the Assembly to discard the method
of taking decisions exclusively on the basis of majority opinion. As a result
CA agreed not to impose the majority decision on the rest and to resolve the
major disputes through consensus building. This compelled the major actors
to make compromises through mutual concessions. The Hindustani
supporters were the first to give up their demand of making Hindustani the
official language. Sensing the general mood Nehru dropped Hindustani but
tried hard to project a version of Hindi that contained all the features of
Hindustani and some of Urdu. Advocating this language he said at the CA:
I have no objection to the word ‘Hindi’. I like it. I was a little
afraid that it might signify some constricted and restricted meaning
to the others … . We find that in a particular subject or type of
subjects we speak better in Hindi than in Urdu and in another type
8 Urdu’s elevation as the official language of independent Pakistan was not completely
problem-free. Although there was no major dissent to Urdu being made the official
language, the attempt to impose it on the Bengali speaking population of East Pakistan
evoked resentment and culminated in a popular agitation for the official recognition of
Bengali language as well. Many students were killed in the agitation. Eventually Bengali
was recognised along with Urdu in the Constitution of Pakistan.
96 Salil Misra

of subjects Urdu suits us better. My point is that I want both these

instruments which strengthen Hindi that is going to be developed
as an official and national language of the country.9
In the Assembly Nehru acted as a bridge between the pro-Hindi and the
anti-Hindi lobbies. He accepted Hindi and insisted that the House accept it
too. But he also insisted on the Hindi lobby not to seek to impose Hindi on
everybody. He therefore made a plea for a Hindi that was inclusive and not
exclusive. He also tried to convince the pro-Hindi group that Hindi, as a
national language did not exist. It would have to grow and adapt and
sometimes even change to fit into that role. Nehru explained to the Assembly
“Powerful forces are also working at the formation of that all-India language.
Language ultimately grows from the people; it is seldom that it can be
imposed … . The surest way of developing a national all-India language is
not so much to pass resolutions and laws on the subjects but to work to
that end in other ways’’.
The other major group at the CA consisted of some members from the
south, around 40 in number, who resented the imposition of Hindi. They
called it linguistic imperialism and warned that the imposition of Hindi, if
pressed too far, might result in a secessionist movement. Nehru’s assurances
did go some way in neutralising the apprehensions of this group.
Finally a compromise formula was worked out. Two Congress leaders
from the non-Hindi areas, K.M. Munshi and Gopalaswami Ayyangar prepared
a composite draft that accepted Hindi written in the Nagari script as the
official language of the Union and met various other positions half-way. A
total of 300 amendments to their draft were tabled at the Assembly. The
draft, generally known as the Munshi-Ayyangar formula, was slightly
modified in the light of the amendments, accepted by all and finally
incorporated in the Constitution of India.
Thus the dawn of independence brought about a swing in the fortunes
of Hindi. Almost overnight it was transformed from a language of protest
to a language of the establishment. Hindi emerged in a new role as the
inheritor of a status that once belonged to Sanskrit, followed by Persian
and then English. It may be mentioned here that, in spite of being spoken in
a large area, Hindi had not enjoyed any official status before. Except in
9 Nehru’s speech at the Constituent Assembly, Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, (hereafter
SWJN), II series, Volume 13, 1980, p. 154. For the full speech see pp. 146 – 55.
 Nehru and the Language Question 97

small princely states like Gwalior and Indore it had not been the official
language anywhere. A concession was made to India’s linguistic plurality
by introducing a Schedule, which acknowledged 14 main languages:
Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Marathi,
Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu and Urdu.10 Contrary to expectations
many concessions were made to English. It was to remain the language of
administration for a period of 15 years from the date of the implementation
of the Constitution. The Constitution was to be written in English language
and the international numerals were to be treated as official.11
That the Constitution makers had accorded tremendous importance to
the language question was evident from the fact that as many as eleven
articles (from 343 to 351 with the addition of 350A and 350B) and one whole
Schedule were devoted to this question. Not many constitutions of the world
have gone into such details on the issue of language. Inaugurating the debate
on the language question in September 1949, the President of the Assembly
acknowledged its importance: “There is no other item in the whole Constitution
of the country which will be required to be implemented from day to day,
from hour to hour, I might say, even minute to minute in actual practice.”12
It was expected by the leaders of the Assembly that strong passions would
be aroused on this question and that the consensus would have to be achieved
most carefully and with tact. It was clear that the though language disputes
had only been settled temporarily, they were far from resolved. Therefore,
any consensus achieved on the question was going to be short-lived. The
language enthusiasts of all types had only agreed to accommodate the rival
viewpoints in the interests of unanimity; they had not abandoned their language
convictions and loyalties. This was as true of the Hindi enthusiasts as of the
anti-Hindi enthusiasts. The Constitution of India thus made great efforts to

10 The number of languages included in the eight schedule increased subsequently and now
stands at 22 with the inclusion of Bodo, Dogri, Konkani, Maithili, Manipuri, Nepali,
Santhali and Sindhi.
11 There was initially a lot of opposition to the use of international numerals but much of
it subsided when Nehru convinced the members of the Assembly that these were originally
Indian numerals which had travelled from India to Arabia and from there had spread to
the world. In accepting the international form of numerals India was only reclaiming its
original system, Nehru explained. See his speech at the Constituent Assembly, SWJN,
Volume 13, pp. 154 – 55.
12 Rajendra Prasad’s speech at the Constituent Assembly, Constituent Assembly Debates,
Volume IX, 1949, p. 1312.
98 Salil Misra

settle the language disputes that had arisen. But it also created an opening for
new disputes and controversies. These disputes were played out over the
next two decades before subsiding somewhat.
It was clear that though the leaders of the CA (Nehru, Azad and Rajendra
Prasad in the main) had understood what exactly the language problem
was, they were far from being able to solve it or even begin to proceed
towards its resolution. The Hindi enthusiasts wanted Hindi to be
acknowledged as the national/official language. Nobody in the Assembly
seriously contested the idea that independent India needed a common
language. It was also clear that only Hindi of some kind was suited to claim
that position. But the common agreement within the CA ended here. The
trouble was that the Hindi enthusiasts were unwilling to take cognizance of
the fact that India at the time of independence was still in a process of
evolving a common language. The administrative, judicial, economic and
political unification of the country in the 19th century was accompanied by
a process of linguistic diversification. A national language did not exist on
the ground; it existed only as a metaphor. In other words a national language
was not an empirical reality but a normative principle. A political passion for
a national language nonetheless existed and was widely shared.
Significantly, the desire for a national language was not the only linguistic
passion that existed in India at the time of independence. A strong craving
for the creation of administrative sub-units based on language was another
tendency that asserted itself immediately after independence. Congress had,
during the national movement generally promoted the idea of linguistic
provinces and had formally accepted the principle in 1920. But the experience
of partition may have made the Congress leaders rethink their earlier
priorities. In fact leaders with otherwise divergent views on other political
issues, such as Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, K.M.Munshi and Ambedkar, were
however united in expressing reservations on the question of the creation
of linguistic provinces. A committee, constituted by Congress on this question
in 1948 (generally known as JVP committee after its leaders Jawaharlal
Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya) advocated the adoption
of a cautious approach on creating administrative sub-units on linguistic
basis. The initiative for creating linguistic provinces actually came from
below. From 1948 onwards the demand for a Punjabi Suba (linguistically
homogeneous Punjabi State) began to be voiced in Punjab and the Akali
party assumed the leadership of this movement. In the Andhra area, a part
 Nehru and the Language Question 99

of Madras State, Potti Sriramallu committed suicide by going on a fast unto

death in support of the demand for the creation of an Andhra state of
Telugu speaking people.
Some more instances of this linguistic tendency could be seen in a
memorandum submitted to the State Reorganisation Commission set up by
the Indian government in 1953. The memorandum pushed ahead the case for
linguistic provinces by arguing that ‘linguistic groups are distinct societies
and cultural entities’, ‘the unity of language denotes membership of a common
society possessing a common cultural, literary and historical tradition’ and
that in a federation ‘the federating units must be based on socio-cultural
homogeneity as denoted by unity of language’. The memorandum made a
forceful plea that in the Union of India ‘the states must necessarily be based
on such [linguistic] test and no other’. Such a passion seeking a congruence
of speech communities and administrative units was also experienced by the
Dar Commission (named after its president S.K. Dar, an ex-judge) constituted
in 1948 by the president of CA to comment on the creation of linguistic
provinces. Wherever the commission went there were vehement
demonstrations for a linguistic redistribution of India. The Dar Commission
submitted in its report that such a redistribution of the Union would not be
in the interests of Indian nation and therefore in the formation of new
provinces, oneness of language should be only one of the many factors but
not the ‘decisive or the main factor’. The Commission observed, ‘If India
lives, all her problems will be solved. If India does not survive, nothing will
be gained by solving her linguistic provinces problem alone’. In other words,
there was an increasing realisation by the national leaders that language was
not just a binding force but also a separating force.
It was thus clear that there was a great vertical divide on the question
of the creation of linguistic provinces. The organisers of the CA and the
leadership of the Congress party now in charge of the Indian State were
generally apprehensive about giving into what they thought were the forces
of linguistic chauvinism unleashed by the ideology of ‘linguism’.13 But they

13 Linguism may be defined as the belief that language ‘is the product of a mystic folk
unity and its speakers have, therefore, an inalienable right to govern the region which
they occupy. It identifies language with culture and equates culture with political frontiers’.
This argument has been developed by K.M. Munshi in his book Indian Constitutional
Documents: Pilgrimage to Freedom, 1920 – 1950, Volume 1, 1967, Bombay: Bhartiya
Vidya Bhavan, p. 222 – 225.
100 Salil Misra

were also confronted by a passion insisting on the language being made a

criterion in the creation of administrative sub-units of the country. Therefore,
the newly formed states more or less conformed to the broad linguistic
division of the country, the separation of Hindi speaking areas from the
Punjabi ones in 1966 in the erstwhile province of Punjab, being the last step
in that direction.
Thus, it was that on the question of linguistic provinces Nehru gave in
to the pressures from below. Since then language has generally been treated
as the legitimate criterion for redrawing the administrative boundaries of the
old states. In the 1950s many people warned Nehru against this on the
ground that it might lead to a linguistic balkanisation of the country. It was
predicted that states thus formed would soon develop strong regional identities
based on language and culture and would even be prepared to go to war
against each other. This would retard the process of nation formation and
the growth of a national culture.14 It can however be concluded that the
worst fears expressed in the 1950s and 1960s have turned out not to be the
case. The disastrous consequences of linguism have not materialised. On
the other hand the Indian polity appears to have evolved a suitable mechanism,
which, in harmony with national priorities, can be utilised for redrawing the
administrative boundaries of the country. The creation of linguistic states,
in the context of the 1950s, appeared to many as a problem and obstacle in
the creation of a national culture, language and polity. However, it should
now be possible to look upon the creation of linguistic states, not as a
problem, but rather as a solution to the problem of strong linguistic passions.
The linguistic states have not fed into the linguistic passion and chauvinism,
but have helped subside it.
The development of Hindi as the national/official language was another
issue that continued to haunt the linguistic scenario in the 1950s. The
Constitution of India had agreed to English being used as the official language
only for a period of 15 years. This meant that Hindi would have to be
developed and prepared to take over from English in that period. This implied
evolving of legal, administrative, technical and scientific technology. Extensive
translations from English to Hindi had to also take place before 1965, the
date of changeover from English to Hindi. One problem in all this was a big
gap in the world-view of those at the top of the government and those

14 Ibid., pp. 232 – 35.

 Nehru and the Language Question 101

implementing their orders. Although Hindi had been agreed upon unanimously,
difference on its interpretation persisted. Nehru, Azad and Rajendra Prasad
all understood Hindi to be a form of Hindustani – inclusive rather than
exclusive and plural rather than unilinear. But many of those who had to
implement Hindi were purists who felt that the Hindi language was available
– in a finished, fixed and standardised form – for implementation as the all-
India official language.
The haste and impatience displayed by the Hindi enthusiasts in
implementing Hindi was matched by reluctance on the part of non-Hindi
areas in accepting Hindi as the official language. Most non-Hindi states
wanted the changeover to be more gradual and phased out. Some of them
wanted the introduction of Hindi in the intra-state administration only after
it had been established in the state-centre and the inter-state administration.
Some other states wanted Hindi to be established first in education before
being implemented in administration. But most non-Hindi states were of the
opinion that a changeover was not possible at least before 1970.
Due to the perceived slowness in the replacement of English by Hindi,
some Hindi enthusiasts launched a ‘Banish English’ movement in 1957, led
by Ram Manohar Lohia, a socialist leader. Though the movement was not
very widespread and its major activity was confined only to removing English
posters and effacing English road signs from roads and public buildings, it
was a sign of things to come in the 1960s. It was assumed, somewhat
naively, by the Hindi leaders that English constituted the only obstacle to
Hindi’s growth as the national language and that the removal of English
would automatically install to the position of lingua franca.
The ‘Banish English’ movement may have provided the justification for
a much-hardened resistance to Hindi shown by some of the leaders of non-
Hindi areas. The strong anti-Hindi attitude became evident at an all-India
Language Conference that was organized in 1958 by C. Rajagopalachari.
Rajaji, as the premier of Madras presidency during 1937 – 39, had been
chiefly instrumental in spreading Hindi in South India in the 1930s. But his
estrangement from the Congress and the aggressive campaign of the Hindi
enthusiasts may have pushed him into the anti-Hindi camp. He stated at the
Conference that Hindi was as alien to the non-Hindi areas as English was to
Hindi areas. Frank Anthony, a supporter of English language, branded Hindi
as the symbol of all that was reactionary and retrograde. Akali leader Master
102 Salil Misra

Tara Singh called Hindi a great danger to Indian unity. The very next year in
1959 Frank Anthony moved a resolution in the parliament for an inclusion
of English in the eighth Schedule of the Constitution. What followed was a
heated and a fierce debate in the parliament. It thus became clear that no
consensus existed on the question of a national or an official language and
that the compromise formula worked out by the CA was only the tip of the
iceberg containing the potentials for a formidable contest.
Sensing the mood against Hindi, Nehru gave an assurance to the
parliament that the question and the timing of the replacement of English by
Hindi would be decided by the people of the non-Hindi speaking areas. He
followed his assurance by introducing an Official Language Bill in 1963
making more concessions to the non-Hindi speaking people. The Bill stipulated
that English ‘may’ continue to be used along with Hindi even after 1965.
The Bill that became an Act was also an acknowledgement of the impossibility
of such a huge changeover in such a short time.
The pro-Hindi and anti-Hindi positions soon crystallised into a north-
south divide on the language question. The anti-Hindi position was articulated
mainly from the southern states and the pro-Hindi lobby found it confined
to the Hindi speaking areas. This new identification of Hindi with North
India was different from the pre-independence period when a great deal of
support for Hindi had come from leaders from outside the Hindi speaking
areas. The reason for this support was that many 19th century regional
leaders were convinced of the need for popularising one major Indian
language to serve as a link language for interregional communication. The
earliest support for Hindi came from Bengal where the first Hindi newspaper
was published in the 1820s. The expansion of British administration to North
India transplanted and established many Bengali communities to these areas.
These Bengali communities were very active in advocating the cause of
Hindi in North India.15 Leaders like Rabindranath Tagore, Bal Gangadhar
Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, C.Rajgopalachari, K.M. Munshi and Sardar Patel,
all upheld the idea of Hindi (or Hindustani) as the potential national language
of India. It was generally said that for its growth and expansion, Hindi
owed its greatest debt to three leaders from Gujarat – Dayanand Saraswati
(during the 19th century), Mahatma Gandhi (during the national movement)

15 Jyotirindra Das Gupta, Language Conflict and National Development, 1970, Bombay:
Oxford University Press, p. 82.
 Nehru and the Language Question 103

and K.M.Munshi (during the CA proceedings and even later). It should

however be added that all the three promoted Hindi from entirely different
ideological locations.
The new north-south divide on the language question was in some
ways similar to the Hindi-Urdu divide of the pre-independence period, which
had receded after 1947. Importantly the new north-south linguistic divide
was so pervasive that it extended even to those political formations that
were all-India in character. And so Congressmen from south thought
differently from Congressmen from Hindi areas on the question of a national
language. What was true of Congressmen was also true of Communists
and Socialists.16 Samyukta Socialist Party (SSP), which was confined to
the north took a much more pro-Hindi position. The Praja Socialist Party
(PSP), which was more all-India in its area of influence, tended to tilt
towards multi-lingualism. The Jana Sangh, confined only to north, was an
ardent supporter of Hindi while the Dravida Munnetra Kazagam (DMK) in
the south was agitating against Hindi and in favour of English.
Nehru played a very crucial role in this newly emerging north-south
divide and the display of linguistic passions. On the one hand he constantly
emphasised the desirability and necessity of Hindi emerging as the national
and official language. On the other hand he also successfully prevailed upon
the Hindi enthusiasts in not showing undue haste in imposing Hindi on the
non-Hindi areas. His attempt was to give Hindi enough time in which to
create a climate of acceptance in the non-Hindi areas. He also provided an
assurance to the non-Hindi areas ruling out any imposition of Hindi on them
against their consent. The Official Language Act of 1963 was a further
ratification of the assurance. But his death in 1964 removed a great source
of moderation between the two hostile camps and tilted the scales in favour
of Hindi. As 1965 approached various governments departments began to
prepare enthusiastically for the changeover from English to Hindi, in spite
of the Official Language Act. Its immediate reaction was the beginning of
an anti-Hindi agitation in Madras, the most intense language agitation
undertaken after independence.
The anti-Hindi movement was started in Madras in January 1965, led
by Rajaji and DMK, against the replacement of English by Hindi. Slogans
like ‘Hindi never English ever’ summed up the spirit of the movement.
16 Ibid., pp. 228 – 232.
104 Salil Misra

After the arrest of Annadurai, the DMK leader, the agitation became
spontaneous and two DMK activists burnt themselves to death. The
movement continued for about two months in which over 66 people died
and many more injured. It ended after the central government made
assurances against any imposition of Hindi. An important aspect of the
agitation was not just resentment against Hindi but a positive preference for
English. In the first two decades after independence English had made steady
inroads among the students as the language of career. In the 1960s Madras,
with a population share of 8 per cent, had a share of 18 per cent in the all-
India administrative services. It was widely believed in Madras that its
disproportionately high share in the services was because of greater familiarity
with English language. It was therefore not an accident that students had
played a very active part in the agitation against the substitution of English.
Thus, the entry of English into the language politics was an important part
of the language landscape of the post-independence period.
It may be argued that with the anti-Hindi agitation of 1965, the linguistic
passions in independent India may have reached their peak. During the
period that followed the DMK agitation, the high tide of vehemence on the
language question began to recede all over. A general spirit of pragmatism
became the defining feature of the language question from this period
onwards. The internal composition of the Congress party, the largest in the
country, had begun changing since the early 60s. After the 1962 general
elections, its parliamentary representation from the non-Hindi areas had
increased from 100 to 124 and that from the Hindi areas had dropped from
186 to 150. This trend continued in the next general elections held in 1967
and the non-Hindi group gained greater prominence within the organisation.
One indirect result of all this was a much greater importance now being
paid to the development of the regional languages at the initiative of the
central government. In the decade after independence, the great debate
between Hindi and English had appropriated all the energies on the
language question and as a result the future of regional languages had
remained at the margins of the major concerns that were occupied more
with the question of a national/official language for India. With the warning
signals of the DMK agitation and a more pan-Indian representation in the
ruling Congress party, the focus began to shift to the development of the
regional languages.
 Nehru and the Language Question 105

Around 1967, as many as 35 universities in the country allowed

instructions in the regional languages. The Union Ministry of Education
proposed a substantial investment for the preparation of textbooks in the
regional languages and for the general development of these languages. There
was also an increasing realisation that the opposition to Hindi from non-
Hindi areas was partly due to the fact that not enough attention had been
paid to the development of regional languages during the 1950s. It was
now hoped that with the growth of regional languages there would be greater
acceptance for Hindi as the link language. Signs of pragmatism became
visible when a Bill in the parliament providing for continued use of English
in accordance with Nehru’s assurance of 1959, got an overwhelming support.
The Hindi lobby, led by Govind Das could muster only 25 votes against it.
The new Act settled the anxieties of the non-Hindi regions regarding the
imposition of Hindi on them. With the passing of the new amended Act
along the lines prescribed by Nehru, one important phase of the language
politics in independent India ended. What began with tremendous passions
ended with a show of pragmatism on the language question. Nehru had
played the most important role in bringing about this transition from linguistic
passion to a spirit of pragmatism, even though some of the major effects of
Nehru’s stand on the language question became manifest only after his
death.

Conclusion
What is the over-all assessment of Nehru’s position on the language question?
On the basis of the discussion above, it would appear that, till 1947 Nehru
had certainly not been very successful in contributing to a resolution of the
major language problems of the day. He promoted Hindustani but could not
generate enough support for it both inside and outside Congress. The Hindi-
Urdu rivalry also defied solution. It would be true to say that some of the
language problems were exhausted rather than solved by 1947. It was
however in the period after 1947 that Nehru displayed greater skills that
were able to bring about a compromise on a range of language issues. He
supported Hindi and enabled it to gain support from non-Hindi areas, yet
was able to restrain the Hindi enthusiasts from imposing Hindi as the national
language. On the question of linguistic provinces he allowed the incorporation
of popular aspirations in the redrawing of administrative boundaries along
106 Salil Misra

linguistic lines. Some of the warnings that he issued to the Hindi enthusiasts
in forcing hasty decisions on the country came true after his death in the
form of the DMK movement. This movement became a final catalyst in
pushing ahead a spirit of moderation on the question of deciding a national
language for India. Nehru thus, triumphed in the end by being able to evolve
a mechanism for handling language disputes, which remains operative even
today.