There are certain perennial issues that have always been part of India’s legal and political discourse – judicial appointments, reservation, the uniform civil code, and the status of Hindi. Periodically, incidents arise that bring these issues back into spotlight. For instance, cricketer Ravichandran Ashwin’s recent remarks over Hindi have reignited the language debate in India. Speaking at a graduation ceremony, Ashwin asked the audience on the language he should speak in: English, Tamil, or Hindi – posing the question for each language in turn. The response to Hindi was tepid, prompting him to remark, “Hindi is not the national language; it is an official language.” His statement quickly gained attention and sparked debate.
Ashwin’s remarks were factually correct, as India does not have a national language. However, the issue is far from straightforward. Time and again, politicians, civil society members, and even constitutional court judges mistakenly refer to Hindi as the national language. In 2023, for example, Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta, in a judicial order, referred to Hindi as the national language, echoing a misconception held by some judges in the past. Respectfully, this categorisation is inaccurate and contrary to the text of the Constitution, which does not prescribe a national language. In fact, the term “national language” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution recognises an official language and various regional languages, and expresses a hope for Hindi to someday serve as a common lingua franca. In this column, I will explore the constitutional position on languages and the historical context behind their unique statuses.
The debate over a national language for India is not new; it dates back to the freedom struggle. During the independence movement, prominent Congress leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru advocated for Hindi to be adopted as the national language. Naturally, when the Constituent Assembly deliberated on the question of a national language, it became a contentious issue. The Assembly was divided into two camps: the North, which largely supported Hindi, and the South, which opposed it.
Members from the northern states argued that Hindi, being the most widely spoken language, should replace English—a colonial legacy—as the national language. Conversely, members from the southern states contended that adopting Hindi as the national language would disadvantage their people, who would be forced to learn an unfamiliar language. Ultimately, a compromise was reached in the form of the Munshi-Ayyangar formula, which designated Hindi as an ‘official language’ rather than a national language. Furthermore, English was to continue as a language for official purposes for the next fifteen years, leaving it to the future Parliament to revisit the question of a national language. This compromise was codified in the Constitution under Part XVII.
The Constitution envisions two categories of languages: an official language for the Union and regional or official languages for the states.
Official Language for the Union:
According to Article 343, Hindi is designated as the official language of the Union and is to be used for official purposes. However, in line with the Munshi-Ayyangar formula, clause (2) of the article provides that English would continue to be used for all official purposes of the Union for a transitional period of fifteen years. Furthermore, clause (3) empowers Parliament to enact legislation authorizing the use of English beyond this initial fifteen-year period. These clauses reflect the compromise reached between the northern and southern members of the Constituent Assembly.
While this compromise aimed to balance differing regional interests, it was not meant to be the final word. Other provisions in the Constitution underscore the aspiration for Hindi’s gradual evolution into a lingua franca. For instance, Article 344 mandates the President to constitute a commission five years after the commencement of the Constitution to recommend measures for the progressive use of Hindi in the Union's official work and to suggest restrictions on the use of English. This provision clearly indicates the intent to promote Hindi and reduce reliance on English over time. Similarly, Article 351 places an obligation on the Union to promote the spread of Hindi and develop it as a medium of communication, emphasizing the drafters’ intention to encourage Hindi’s growth into a common language.
However, the framers of the Constitution also incorporated safeguards to ensure linguistic harmony. For example, the commission envisaged under Article 344 must include representation from different regional languages to respect linguistic diversity. Additionally, Article 351 explicitly states that the development of Hindi should not encroach upon or interfere with the development of other Indian languages.
Official Language for the States/ Regional Languages:
Article 345 empowers State legislatures to adopt one or more languages for official purposes, designating these as the official language(s) of the State. The choice of language is based on the languages in use within the State or Hindi. The inclusion of Hindi as an alternative reflects a subtle preference for the language, even in matters concerning the States.
This preference for Hindi is further evident in other constitutional provisions. For instance, the proviso to Article 345 allows two or more States to agree to use Hindi as their official language for inter-state communication. Similarly, Article 348(2) permits the Governor of a State, with the President’s consent, to authorize the use of Hindi or any other language used for official purposes within the State in High Court proceedings.
A study of these constitutional provisions highlights that while the framers granted States discretion in selecting their official language(s), a distinct preference for Hindi persists. In this context, Hindi can be seen as “first among equals” when it comes to languages at the state level.
Despite the Constitution mandating a complete transition to Hindi for the Union government’s official purposes after 15 years, India continues to use both English and Hindi as its official languages. As the 15-year period approached in 1963, the prospect of this transition sparked violent protests in the southern states. In response, Prime Minister Nehru assured that Hindi would replace English only if non-Hindi-speaking states willingly supported the change. Consequently, Parliament enacted the Official Languages Act, 1963, permitting the continued use of English alongside Hindi as an official language.
Nehru’s successor, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, attempted to promote Hindi as the primary language of the country. However, these efforts met significant resistance. On December 3, 1965, the Shastri government issued directives to increase the use of Hindi in official correspondence, administrative reports, government resolutions, and legislative enactments. Government offices and institutions were also instructed to adopt Hindi names alongside their English counterparts, and ministries were tasked with translating official forms, rules, and manuals into Hindi.
These measures provoked intense opposition, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where protests included burning effigies symbolizing a “Hindi demoness”, self-immolations, and other acts of defiance. Facing escalating unrest, Shastri ultimately paused his initiatives. In an address on All India Radio, he assured the public that English would continue to be used at the Union level as long as the people desired. He also guaranteed States the freedom to conduct their internal affairs in their preferred language and to correspond with Parliament and other States in English.
The resistance from the southern States has prevented the Union from adopting Hindi as the sole official language. While promoting one language over others may seem inequitable to non-speakers, it is also true that the Constitution itself envisages a preference for Hindi. However, the framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom, balanced this preference with safeguards, prioritizing national unity over linguistic imposition. Any discussion about an official language for India must be guided by this spirit of unity and accommodation. The framers' approach underscores that linguistic harmony is not achieved through compulsion but through respect, inclusion, and consensus—a lesson that remains as relevant today as it was at the time of drafting the Constitution.
Swapnil Tripathi is an Advocate and a DPhil (in Law) Student, University of Oxford. He tweets at S_Tripathi07.