Can Sanskrit ever be India’s national language?

Recently, a comment by former CJI S.A. Bobde raised eye-brows. He famously  said “Sanskrit can do exactly what English can do, namely be the link language throughout the length and breadth of the country,” speaking at the Akhil Bhartiya Chhatra Sammellan organised by the Sanskrit Bharti. Apart from the fact that Sanskrit is a dormant and almost unspoken language across the country, there are various problems that make this proposal not worthy of any consideration. Curiously, however, this is not the first time a prominent person has made a comment about a ‘link language’. The debate over a national language – having the potential to be a the link language across the country – has been widely discussed since Independence and even before. The Constituent Assembly discussed the importance of language, national language and other issues to arrive before it arrived at some solution. It is important to revisit the discussions that occurred and the arguments that were made at the time so that references can be made to those early discussions. This would enable a more informed evaluation with a proposal such as the former CJI’s.

Human civilisation without language would have been shallow and slow in terms of its progress. As the depth and varieties of languages grew, even in terms of words and vocabulary to express complex phenomena, it became easier to propagate ideas and discuss them. With varying factors, and speed, diverse sets of languages developed across the world. In India too, different languages such as Sanskrit, Pali (Prakrit), Urdu, Hindi, Tamil, Kannada etc developed at different periods of time. Languages are in many ways, representative capsules of information of the time in which they flourished. A simple indicator is the way how Portuguese trade with India and their control of Bombay has influenced many words that we have today in Hindi such as the word Pineapple- is ananás in Portuguese and ananas in Marathi, Chai- is Cha in Portuguese and Chai in many languages including Hindi, Soap –Sabao in Portuguese, Sabun in Hindi, Sabbu in Telugu.^[1]

However, their similarity of words or vocabulary is not enough to be tool to bind them together as the same language. For every word that develops in a language, there is also grammar, syntax and etymology, a context; and, for every dialect within such language, there is a complex history. The kind of literature that develops in a region is interlinked to how well developed the language is and the socio-economic features of that region. A region that is plush with agriculture and irrigation would likely develop a romantic literature while a region experiencing scarcity and oppression would more likely develop radical/revolutionary literature, thus contributing different sets of words, phrases etc. The Indian Subcontinent witnessed different cultures, kingdoms and sets of customs- and consequently different languages developed (emerged) over centuries. Moreover, there was no unifying imperial power for centuries combined with an unwaveriing strength to have given India a uniform culture, religion and language. Therefore, when such a union of states was being formed in 1947, a debate on language was inevitable for administrative and unification purposes. The discussion over a national language had occurred even before the Constituent Assembly was formed.

The Language Question during the freedom movement

Gandhi supported a national language in India to unify communities and support the independence movement. However, it’s unclear what type of language he meant, as he used terms such as “link” and “common” interchangeably. He aimed to bring people together and achieve independence through nonviolent tactics and promoting a single language.

Gandhi pushed for Hindustani (a spoken mix of Urdu and Hindi), which then resulted in Hindi being chosen as the official language of the Indian National Congress in 1925. This was criticised by former Congress President Annie Besant as ‘provincial’. Gandhi defended his stance, stating that Hindustani, a combination of Hindi and Urdu, was the best option as a national language after attending Congress sessions and speaking with delegates.^[2]

In response to the exclusionary Simon Commission and the notion of the British that Indians cannot govern themselves, the Motilal Nehru Committee was formed after an All Party Conference. The report submitted by the committee, famously known as the Nehru Report, asked for dominion status to India. Additionally, it also had provisions regarding language that Hindustani, either in Devanagari or Persian,          shall be the language of the commonwealth, with provinces having a principal language of their own.^[3]

Constituent Assembly and the Language Question

The debate in the Constituent Assembly can be divided into three groups. One is the group which advocated for Hindi to be the national language. Second is the group that did not want Hindi to be the national language. Third is the group which worked for a compromise between the former two groups. Although there were various other propositions, this was the composition of the assembly on the question of language.

As already stated above, both Gandhi and the Congress were firm on Hindi having a unifying status. One issue that surfaced after India was partitioned, was the unfortunate extrapolation of the ‘religious’ with language: therefore Urdu with the Muslims and Hindi with Hindus, thus communalising the debate around language.

A compromise, famously called the Munshi-Ayyangar formula, was proposed by N.G. Ayyangar, in the form of an amendment, which would give Hindi the official language status, with English accompanying it for the first 15 years after the Constitution came into force. This was met with both support and opposition in the Constituent Assembly.

Naziruddin Ahmad, a Sanskrit scholar stated that Hindi cannot be the national language immediately and therefore, until then, then English should be an accompanying national language for some time. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra, quoting the example of Israel having Hebrew as their official language, stated that Sanskrit should be the national language while accepting the suggestion that English should continue for 15 years. Algu Ram Shastri, a member from the United Provinces stated Sanskrit is not spoken on a mass scale, and Syama Prasad Mookherjee stated that the question of language should be decided through a consensus. P. Subbarayan proposed that English be added to the list of languages under the Eighth Schedule.

Nehru also spoke about national language with a distinct tilt towards Hindi while rejecting Sanskrit as a potential national language. He invoked Gandhi’s bid for Hindustani as a national language and gave his support for Ayyangar’s amendment. Durgabai Deshmukh, a member elected from Madras, argued for Hindustani as national language as an extension to her efforts in the south to propagate Hindustani and adhering to Gandhi’s call to propagate Hindistani. Shankar Rao Deo, a member from Bombay stated that Hindi was not spoken among all people of the country and therefore, whatever assumptions are there within the assembly that Hindi is spoken by the ‘majority population’, these should be re-considered. He quoted the example of people from Bihar not speaking in Hindi. The difference between Hindustani and Hindi is that the former is a mixture of Hindi and Urdu. Gandhi advocated this so it can not only unite Muslims and Hindus together but find a resonance among all Indians since this was the closest to a mass spoken language.

Purushottam Das Tandon, despite being an admirer of Sanskrit, said that it being the national language would not be a practical solution. He stated“Then, Sir, something was said about the adoption of Sanskrit. I bow to. those who love Sanskrit. I am one of them. I love Sanskrit. I think every Indian born in this country should learn Sanskrit. Sanskrit preserves our ancient heritage for us. But today it seems to me-if it could be adopted I would be happy and I would vote for it–but it seems to me that it is not a practicable proposition that Sanskrit should be adopted as the official language”

It can thus be stated that although there were advocates for Sanskrit, it was clear then that Sanskrit cannot be the national language and the only language that had such potential was Hindi. And finally, the Ayyangar-Munshi formula of Hindi being the official language with English accompanying it for 15 years, was adopted.^[4]

Ambedkar on Sanskrit as National Language

Though it is widely reported that Ambedkar actually supported Sanskrit as national language, but he did not speak for any such adoption in the Constituent Assembly. All we have as evidence is, newspapers reporting on September 11, 1949 that Ambedkar supported the amendment to make Sanskrit the official language. However, two years before, Ambedkar had supported Hindustani in Devanagari Script as the national language, and we do not find a rationale as to why Ambedkar’s stance suddenly changed.^[5]

Conclusion

There was an unopposed understanding during the movement for Independence and thereafter that, the adoption of a national language is/was a necessity to bind the nation together. Partition experience was a grim reality and keeping India united was important. Today, we need to ask whether the same factors hold. India is more united and cohesive today, politically at least, than ever before. The consolidation of all provinces and cultures under one Indian identity has been a success. At this juncture, to somehow push for a new national language with a ‘special identity’ or a single official language with more privileges would be detrimental to the unity that India enjoys now.