5.26 Because of the predominance of Sanskrit, Persian and English at various stages of history in the administrative field, no Indian language ever got the opportunity to develop to an extent that it could replace English immediately after Independence. Some of the regional languages were permitted to be used to a limited extent at the lower administrative levels and in lower courts.
5.27 After Independence, a new patten emerged. The various State Governments adopted the predominant language of their area for use in all the spheres of administration, in consonance with popular aspirations. in some States, the switch-over to these languages was rather swift, sudden and without adequate prior preparation . It created some difficulties for the administration itself in the initial stages. It also caused hardship to that section of the population whose mother tounge was different from the official language. For instance, the fixation of the language qualification for entry into the State survice proved a serious handicap to many prospective candidates. If persons had not been able to acquire adequate knowledge of the State's official language, the fault lay with the defective educational policies of the previous governments and not with the people who were now placed at a disadvantage. Since the advent of the British, education had been employment-oriented. When a section of students found that employment opportunities would be denied to them for lack of knowledge of the regional language, for whose compulsory teaching there were inadequate arrangements earlier, they were naturally worried. Besides, low literacy, particularly in the rural areas, made it difficult for many citizens to convey their grievances or demands to the administration in a language other than their own mother tongue. Like other linguistic minorities, the Speakers of Urdu also experienced difficulties.
5.28 There was yet another disquieting factor in the case of Urdu. The politicalization of the language issue in the late thirties lies and early forties had left little scope for rational thinking. The image of Urdu as an integral part of the common national heritage got blurred. In certain quarters, this bred an attitude of apathy and even of antagonism towards Urdu. Unfortunate as the development was, it placed the speakers of Urdu at a disadvantage and it has taken about two decades for these aberrations to subside and a healthier atmosphere to prevail. The greatest single stablizing factor has, of course, been the Constitution of India, which recognized Urdu as an important Indian-language by giving it a place in the Eighth Schedule.
5.29 The Constitution has laid down broad guidelines in respect of the languages of the Union and the States. These have been dealt with at some length in the chapter on Constitutional Safeguards. The details of future policy were filled in subsequently by the Centre and the State Governments.
States Reorganisation 5.30 Demands for the redrawing of the administrative map of India on linguistic lines had been voiced in pre-Independence days also. As time went on, these grew in intensity and the Government of Inda
77
appointed the States Reorganisation Commission in 1953 to examine the question in detail and to make recommendations. The Commission submitted its report in 1955 and the States were reorganisd in 1956.
5.31 The Commission had foreseen clearly that none of the States could be absolutely unilingual and that each State would have to tackle the question of linguistic minorities within its territory in a manner that satisfied their legitimate aspirations. However, it envisaged that a state could be unilingual where the speakers of a particular language constituted 70% or more of the total population. As a corollary, it was stipulated that "where there was a substantial minority constituting 30 per cent or so of the population, the State should be recognised as bilingual for administrative purposes" . *
5.32 "The same principle", it went on, 'might hold good at the district level; that is to say, if 70 per cent or more of the total population of a district is constituted by a group which is a minority in the State, the language of the minority group, and not the State language, should be the official language in that district It will also be of advantage if, in bilingual districts and municipal areas, or other smaller units such as talukas, where there are minorities constituting 15 to 20 per cent of the population, documents which are used by the people at large, such as government notices, electoral rolls, ration cards, etc., are printed in both the languages. It should also be permissible to file documents in the courts ,etc.,in the minority language. Likewise, where the candidates seeking election to any local bodies arc required to have a working knowledge of a language, the knowledge of a language of such minor language groups should be given recognition. These suggestions are for the consideration of the Government of India. What we wish to emphasise is that the Government of India should adopt, in consultation with the State Governments, a clear code to govern the use of different languages it different levels of State administrations and that effective steps should be taken to ensure that this code is followed". *
5.33 The concepts propounded by the State Reorganisation Commission were aimed at discouraging fissiparous tendencies and at the same time at safeguarding the genuine interests of smaller language groups. The Commission did not contemplate inflexibility for the criterion evolved by it. In any event, unilingualism referred only to the use of the majority language for all official purposes. It did not preclude the minority languages from being employed in specified areas and for specific purposes. In fact, unmixed unilinguism is unknown to the scheme of reorganisation, which has built in provision for a multilingual population.
5.34 We are not called upon to pronounce a view on whether the States are technically speaking unilingual or bilingual; we are aware of the differences of opinion on this point. But now that the linguistic reorganisation of the States has come to stay, the fact that the composition of population in most States is multilingual cannot be overlooked. It is imperative to enusre constant vigilance in regard to the rights of linguistic minorities that are built in the scheme of reorganisation, irrespective of a State's stand on unilinguism. On their part the minorities have to accept the importance of the official language of the States,
5.35 In our view, it would be more in conformity with the spirit of the Constitution and the, whole scheme of reorganisation of the States on a linguistic basis, not to contemplate rigid or static proportions of population to determine the eligibility of a linguistic minority for claiming certain basic facilities in the administrative sphere. In the larger national interests of integration and cohesion, linguistic minorities should be enabled to secure, their legitimate linguistic rights even where the statistics may not provide a helpful percentage in an area. This view is reinforced by the constitutional provisions in Articles 350 and 350A as also by the Fundamental Rights, which we have discussed in some detail in the Chapter on Constitutional Safeguards.
5.36 The percentage of population as envisaged by the States Reorganisation Commission was found wanting by the Southern Zonal Council and a more liberal interpretation had to be given to it. The constitutional provision under Article 345 empowers the States to allow the use of languages other than the official one, for purposes and areas to be specified, and does not stipulate any percentage of population for the eligibility of a linguistic minority to concessions or special protection.
5.37 Once the provision of facilities, like the translation of gazettes, notices, etc., the right to present applications, etc., in courts and government offices in one's mother tongue, is agreed to in principle and acted upon by a State, they should automatically become available to smaller concentrations as well, without any significant increase in expenditure or addition of staff. There can hardly be any valid objection to such an extension. But, in pleading for an enlargement of the scope we would like to caution the linguistic minorities that the safeguards are intended to prevent discrimination against them and not to operate in a manner which tends to perpetuate separatism or to hinder the process of national integration.
5.38 We would like to quote here from the Report of the States Reorganisation Commission
"An important question connected with the reorganisation of States is that of providing safeguards for linguistic groups which are in a minority in different States. The problem of such groups exists in unilingual States and not merely in composite States. In a way, the problem is a cause as well as an effect of the movement of linguistic units. On the one hand, it is argued that multilingual States arrest the cultural growth of linguistic minorities and retard their political and
* Report of the States Reorganisation Commission, page 212.
78
economic advancement, and on the other hand, it is contended that it is implicit in the very formative principle of a` linguistic State that in such a State linguistic minorities must be reduced to the status of inferior citizens.
"The scheme of redistribution of State territories which we have recommended will result in many cases in bringing together people speaking a common language. To that extent, it will reduce the number of linguistic minorities. It is, however, quite evident that even if the linguistic principle were applied very rigidly, the problem of linguistic minorities will by no means, be solved. This is because there are obvious limitations to the realisation of unilinguism at the State level, the limiting factors being the following":
(i) not all the language groups are so placed that they can be grouped into separate States;
(ii) there are a large number of bilingual belts between different linguistic zones; and
(iii) there exist areas with a mixed population even within unilingual areas.
"Besides, the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement to all citizens of India. The present picture of the linguistic composition of a various administrative units of India, therefore, can by no means be regarded as static"
"It is true that often the complaints about the plight of minorities in composite states or bilingual areas are greatly exaggerated. In fact, we have noticed a tendency to whip up a kind of 'persecution complex'amongst minority language groups to secure their support for certain demands. This, however, does not mean that such groups have nowhere been discriminated against. By way of illustration we may refer to the enforcement,in a number of States, of domicillary qualifications and language tests for recruitment to services, which undoubtedly cause hardship to minorities. The problem of linguistic minorities, therefore, is not unreal."
Amplification of Safeguards 5.39 As part of the exercise to evolve a code of conduct to safeguard the interests of linguistic groups as envisaged by the Constitution and the Commission, it was necessary to provide guidance to the States either under the provisions of the Constitution or under the scheme of the Reorganisation of States. This could be done only after consulting all the States and Union Territories and, in agreement with them, to finally spell out specific safeguards.
5.40 The process, it will be recalled, had started way back in 1949 when the Education Ministers' Conference thought of laying down certain guidelines in the field of education. Now, a more comprehensive approach covering not only the educational but also administrative and cultural fields, was needed.
5.41 The Memorandum : The whole position was carefully examined by the Government of India in consultation with the States, and the outcome was embodied in the Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1956 (Appendix IV). The Memorandum was laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament and commended to State Governments for implementation. It constituted a landmark in inter-lingual adjustments and served as an all-India code embodying the agreed minimum of safeguards for the smaller language groups in the States and Union Territories.
5.42 The administrative safeguards for linguistic minorities in regard to the use of their languages for official and allied purposes are contained in paras 8 to 13 of the Home Ministry's Memorandum. These can be summarised as follows :
(i) Where any language is spoken by 30 per cent or more of the population in any State or district, the State or district would be recognized as bilingual and the minority language concerned would be placed on the same footing as the regional language for official purposes.
(ii) Where the linguistic minority constitutes 15 to 20 per cent of the population in any areas, Government notices, rules, laws etc. will be reproduced in the language of the minority in that particular area;
(iii) The linguistic minorities have the right to represent to any officer or authority of the Union or in the States, as the case may be, in their own language even if that language is not mentioned in the Eighth Schedule.
5.43 Safeguards have also been provided to linguistic minorities in regard to State services. These are two-fold; firstly no restrictions are to be imposed with reference to the residence of candidates for recruitment to any branch or cadre of State services; and, secondly, linguistic minorities who constitute 15 to 20 per cent or more of the population of the State have been given the option to elect as medium of examination, in any examination being conducted for recruitment to the State or the district services, their own language. Subordinate services are not included. The test of proficiency in the State language may, in the second category of cases, be held after selection but before the end of probation.
5.44 The State Governments have also been advised that where any cadre included in the subordinate services is treated as a cadre for district, any language which has been recognized as an official language in the district should also be recognized as a medium for the purposes of competitive examination in the district.
*Report the States, Reorganistation Commission, page 205.
79
5.45 Residence rules and requirements which operate to the disadvantage of the minority groups have also been recommended for revision.
5.46 The State Governments have also been reminded about the rights to freedom of trade, commerce and inter-course and equality of opportunity, and have been asked to respect them. Existing restrictions on such freedom and rights are required to be reviewed wherever they might have crept in.
Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities 5.47 The scheme of safeguards as envisaged in the Constitution and later elaborated by the States ReOrganisation Commission had envisaged the existence of a machinery to ensure proper implementation of these safeguards. On behalf of the linguistic minorities also, it was strongly represented that the constitutional safeguards provided would prove ineffective with out the creation of a high-power agency to keep an eye on the implementation of the existing constitutional guarantees. The Union Government, accordingly, came up with certain amendments to the Constitution, embodied in the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. It added Articles 350-A and 350-B to the Constitution.
5.48 Article 350-B provided for the appointment of a special officer to investigate all matters relating to the constitutional safeguards for the linguistic minorities. In pursuance of the amendment, Office of the Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities was created on July 30, 1957. The Commissioner submitted his first report on December 23, 1958 which was placed on the Table of both the Houses of Parliament. It has become a regular Practice for these reports to be presented before Parliament. They deal with complaints and suggestions received from individuals and organisations regarding the implementation or non-implementation of constitutional and other safeguards. Notwithstanding the difficulties often faced by the Commission in securing ready compliance, it has proved beneficial to the linguistic minorities for the redressal of their grievances,
5.49 The first Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities, Mr. Justice B. Malik pleaded,for generous treatment to the linguistic minorities as he felt that the removal of their genuine difficulties ensured unity and integration, while unnecessary hurrying and rushing through. with changes led to bitterness and suffering. He said
"India, except on rare occasions, has suffered due to internal dissensions, jealousies, bitterness and lack of a sense of common loyalty for the well-being of the country as a whole. It is necessary that every attempt should be made, and if necessary a little extra expenditure incurred, to create a feeling of unity, common loyalty and friendliness among the people and avoid all sources of friction, discontent and jealousy."
"The recognition of the minority languages for certain specific purposes which touch the day to day life of these people will not retard the growth of the State language. In their own interest and to be able to do their work satisfactorily and not to lag behind, permanent residents of a State and all Government servants will try to acquire proficiency in the State language. So the ultimate purpose of developing the State or regional language will be served. Any attempt to hurry through the process will create bitterness and jealousy and make the interests of the country as a whole to suffer."
5.50 The guidelines already provided in the Home Ministry's Memorandum of 1956 were further re viewed by the Ministerial Committee of the Southern Zonal Council in May 1959 and, later, by the Conference of Chief Ministers of States and Central Ministers in 1961.
5.51 The Ministerial Committee of the Southern Zonal Council was the first body to go deeper into the question of the multilingual nature of the various States, which had been carved out primarily on considerations of language. It noted that on the basis of the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission none of the States, at least in that zone, would qualify for bilingualism. There was hardly a district where the linguistic minority in a State constituted 30 per cent or more of the population. Therefore while a State or an area could or could not qualify technically for unilinguism or bilinguism, in point of fact almost all our States were multilingual. The theoretical formulations of the groups contending for the unilingual or bilingual character of the States,touched only a fringe of the main issue. The crux of the problem was that the minority languages which existed in almost every State were entitled to the safeguards already agreed upon and required to be enforced in areas where the speakers of such languages constituted fifteen to twenty per cent of Population or more in the States in general.