Hindi's Hindutva problem that supporters are not ready to reckon with
But the episode has stirred discomfort beyond Maharashtra, particularly in the so-called Hindi heartland. On social media, many self-identified Hindi-speakers expressed anger, not only at the rejection of Hindi in the classroom, but at reports that individuals in Mumbai had been physically assaulted for speaking Hindi, accused of ignoring Marathi.
This has triggered the familiar argument: no one should be forced to speak a language nor prevented from speaking one. Yet those voicing this sentiment are often silent when Hindi is imposed elsewhere – through state policy, bureaucracy, or cultural dominance. They regard Hindi as a necessary, if bitter, medicine – one that will supposedly integrate the 'non-Hindi' Indian into the national mainstream.
At the same time, many of these voices oppose Karnataka's directive that all schools, including central boards, like the Central Board for Secondary Education, introduce Kannada. Why should Hindi be compulsory in non-Hindi regions but not Kannada in Karnataka? If Hindi is necessary to thrive in India, why is Kannada not essential for life in Bengaluru?
It is important to be clear here: those who attack others for not speaking Marathi are not defenders of the language. They are agents of a majoritarian politics in which Marathi is merely a pretext. The same, in truth, applies to the loudest champions of Hindi. Their allegiance is not to a literary tradition or linguistic richness but a political project: Hindi becomes a vehicle, not a value.
In Tamil Nadu, no one is stopping anyone from learning Hindi, but imposition is wrong. If you want to impose Hindi in Tamil Nadu, then let's impose Tamil in Uttar Pradesh: @dharanisalem, Spokesperson, DMK #PawanKalyan #Super6 #HindiLanguage #LanguageRow | @akshita_n pic.twitter.com/lQ0OXkL6vz
— IndiaToday (@IndiaToday) July 14, 2025
When violence is enacted in the name of language, the issue ceases to be linguistic. It becomes a matter of power, of asserting dominance over communities that are seen as outsiders. Especially when such violence is collective and organised, language becomes a stand-in for territorial control and cultural assertion.
Some Hindi speakers protest: 'We have never forced our language on anyone.' But this selective memory erases the lived reality of non-Hindi speakers in cities like Delhi, Patna, or Varanasi – Tamils, Malayalis, Manipuris – who have acquired functional, even fluent, Hindi through daily life, not coercion. Their children learn it in school.
But must the same logic apply in reverse? Should residents of Tamil Nadu or Karnataka be expected to mirror this? The claim that Hindi makes one 'more Indian' is deeply flawed. Does speaking or knowing Hindi confer a deeper Indianness? Are Hindi speakers more Indian than those who speak Tamil, Assamese, or Bengali?
The myth of Hindi as India's unifying language has long been dismantled. Today, for better or worse, English functions as the lingua franca across universities, courts, corporations and bureaucracies. Not knowing Hindi is not a barrier to participating in public life. Those who insist otherwise are rarely asked: in what way is Hindi essential?
Supporters of Hindi often express surprise at the resistance the language faces in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu or Karnataka. Why, they ask, should people oppose Hindi so vehemently? Why should they – the Hindiwalas – be expected to learn regional languages? Many even dream of a future where every Indian learns Hindi, so that they can relate to the Hindi speaker.
A recent video showed a bank employee in Bengaluru declaring that she would speak only in Hindi with a customer. Where once public-facing professionals – doctors, clerks, shopkeepers – learned the local language, today there is defiance: 'We will not speak Kannada. You must speak our Hindi.'
Viral video shows a bank manager in Karnataka refusing to speak Kannada, insisting on Hindi: 'I will not speak Kannada for you.' The incident has sparked outrage, drawing sharp criticism from Kannada activists and political leaders. pic.twitter.com/fkPxPvV3IZ
— Mojo Story (@themojostory) May 22, 2025
What lies behind this entitlement?
Do Hindi speakers believe they own the country by sheer force of numbers? Do they see their claim on the republic as more legitimate than that of others? Is Delhi the centre and the rest of India their fiefdom? Is that why they feel no obligation to learn Marathi in Mumbai, while expecting Mumbaikars to speak Hindi?
Why is that even in Mumbai, the city of Hindi cinema, there is resistance to Hindi? Because the spread of Hindi is not organic. It travels not by affection, but by state sponsorship: through official mandates, public funds and policy incentives. It is buoyed by the demographic muscle it enjoys in Parliament and bureaucracy.
No other Indian language enjoys the same institutional backing. In Indian embassies, officers are assigned to promote Hindi. Government recruitment prioritises Hindi translators over others. Official communication defaults to Hindi even in places and institutions where it is unnecessary. They see massive funds being allocated for Hindi to be made a language of the United Nations Organisation.
Speakers of Tamil, Bengali, Malayalam see this and understand the politics behind it. They, too, are citizens of this republic. They, too, are entitled to cultural dignity and state resources. But Hindi gets a differential treatment by the Union government, privileged over others.
Why must one learn Hindi? Is it a repository of global knowledge? A gateway to world literature? Would a Tamil speaker feel drawn to Hindi for these reasons? The answer is no. Nor is Hindi a bridge to the country's many languages. Translation initiatives, by Sahitya Akademi, National Book Trust, remain sparse and focused mostly on creative literature. Most of these works are already more widely accessible in English. Once again, Hindi appears optional, not essential.
It is unfortunate that the BJP continues to feed the illusion that Hindi is now receiving its rightful place through measures like introducing it as a medium of medical or engineering education. These initiatives were announced with fanfare and quietly abandoned when students rejected them. Yet, the party continues to boast of these policies, misleading Hindi speakers and offering them a false sense of linguistic pride. They live in a bubble of self-deception.
Today, Hindi's most potent function is not literary or cultural but political. That explains the opposition to it. The Hindiwalas often say that it is the politicians of these non-Hindi states who oppose Hindi whereas the people are learning it. That is exactly the point.
There is no opposition to Hindi as a language but Hindi as the vehicle of North India-centric majoritarian politics.
Hindi is vital to the project of Hindutva. One must ask why the ideologues of Hindutva, most of them from Maharashtra, choose Hindi as their language of power? The answer is not cultural, but demographic.
The Hindi belt is the largest reservoir of the imagined Hindi/Hindu majority. Here, Hindutva manufactures its strength of numbers. How is this number fabricated? Those who identify Hindi as their mother tongue are often either Bhojpuri or Maithili or Bajjika speakers. Hindi is not their first language. But they are counted as Hindi speakers which helps swell the number of Hindi speakers.
Those who remember Partition can recall how Urdu speakers entered Hindi as their mother tongue. The battle for Hindi and against Urdu was fought in the medium of Urdu. This was to inflate the numbers of the Hindi speakers. In this sense, Hindi is not a language but an instrument of majoritarian politics.
Three years ago, a Bengali friend from Jabalpur told me of an interesting event. A senior leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh – himself a Bengali – addressed a gathering of Bengalis in Hindi in a bold, even insolent, gesture. His reasoning: Bengalis, he claimed, originally migrated from Kannauj in Uttar Pradesh, so Hindi is their true tongue. They must adopt and own it as their language, he insisted. This is the logic behind the RSS slogan in Bengal: 'No Durga, No Kali; Only Ram and Bajrangbali.'
To replace Durga with Ram is to overwrite Bengali cultural identity with a north India-centric Hindi-ised Hindutva identity. Similarly, the elevation of the deity Vamana over Bali in Kerala represents an effort to impose a Sanskritic, North Indian order on Dravidian memory and Malayalam culture.
Let there be no ambiguity about the project of this political Hindi: the Hindi promoted today is not the Hindi of Gandhi, writers and poets like Premchand, Mahadevi Verma, Muktibodh, Agyeya or Omprakash Valmiki. It is not the syncretic Hindi that embraced Urdu. What is seen today is a purified, Sanskritised and sanitised version, purged of 'foreign' words, molded into a Hindu tongue.
This is a resentful, weaponised Hindi, the Hindi of Hindutva. That is why political scientist Suhas Palshikar warns that leaders like Raj Thackeray and Uddhav Thackeray, if they continue their dalliance with Hindutva, will soon find themselves ensnared by this Hindi.
Hindutva and Hindi are no longer separable. Why else would Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis advocate Hindi, or Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan champion it in the Telugu state? The answer is clear: both are emissaries of Hindutva's politics and Hindi is now its standard.
Hindi speakers, too, must confront this uncomfortable truth. For their own sake, and for the sake of Hindi, they must begin the difficult task of disentangling their language from the ideology that now speaks in its name.
The sooner this happens, the better. For Hindi. And for the republic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC declines plea to deregister AIMIM, suggests broader petition on communal appeals
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to deregister parliamentarian Asaduddin Owaisi-led All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen as a political party. A bench of justices Surya Kant and justice Joymala Bagchi suggested that the petitioner could file a plea on the larger issue of political parties invoking communal statements. "We are not on communal parties , etc. Sometimes, regional parties invoke regional sentiments... So what should be done... There are parties who also invoke caste issues that are equally dangerous. Without criticising anyone, such issues can be raised," justice Kant said. The bench allowed the petitioner to file a fresh plea raising larger issues regarding the validity of political parties with religious objectives. The plea was filed by Tirupati Narasimha Murari , who alleged that AIMIM 's declared objectives were to serve the Muslim community alone, violating the principle of secularism, and hence it cannot be recognised as a political party. The bench, however, observed that as per the constitution of the party, its objective is to work for every backward section. The bench said the party's constitution is "for every backward class in society, including those belonging to minority community... backward both economically and in the field of education... that's what the Constitution professes". Justice Kant said, "There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities under the Constitution... party's political manifesto or constitution says it will work for the protection of those rights granted under the Constitution." The senior judge pointed out that India's Constitution grants protection to minorities. "Suppose a party says we will promote untouchability; that is absolutely offending. That must be struck down, that must be banned... Suppose a religious law is protected under the Constitution and a political party says it will teach that law, they will teach because it is protected under the Constitution... What is only within the framework of the Constitution (that may not be objectionable)," justice Kant said. SC advised the petitioner to file a "neutral" petition.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20 minutes ago
- Business Standard
'India's Deng Xiaoping': Andhra Pradesh CM Naidu on Rao's reforms
Describing former Prime Minister (PM) P V Narasimha Rao as 'India's Deng Xiaoping', Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister (CM) N Chandrababu Naidu on Tuesday said the economic reforms unveiled by the Rao-led minority government in 1991 were the reason India's coalition governments delivered better results than those with clear majorities. The Andhra CM is on a two-day visit to the national capital, where he is scheduled to meet PM Narendra Modi, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, and others. He met Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Tuesday. In his meetings with the PM and Union ministers, Naidu will seek the Centre's support for projects in his state, release of pending funds, the Polavaram–Banakacherla river-linking project, and issues related to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Telugu Desam Party (TDP) sources said. On Tuesday evening, Naidu delivered a lecture on 'The Life and Legacy of P V Narasimha Rao' at the Prime Ministers Museum and Library (PMML) in the national capital. His lecture was the sixth in the PMML-organised Prime Ministers Lecture Series. He described Rao as a 'true Telugu bidda', or Telugu son of the soil, who 'reshaped the destiny' of India, and said the Telugu community is proud of his contributions. Rao, who passed away in December 2004, was posthumously awarded the Bharat Ratna in 2024. Referring to the recent controversy over some states accusing the Centre of imposing Hindi, Naidu said Rao had mastered 17 languages and serves as an inspiration in the current context. The Andhra CM said Rao, despite leading a minority government, accomplished the near-impossible task of forging consensus on economic reforms among socialists, communists, and capitalists alike. Naidu credited Rao's prime ministerial tenure, and subsequently that of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, for India's first-mover advantage in the information technology sector and for building world-class infrastructure, especially in roads and telecommunications. Naidu said that in 1978, when Deng launched China's economic reforms, both India and China were $140 billion economies, while the US economy was 15x larger at $2.3 trillion. Now, the US economy is only 1.5x bigger than China's, and more than 7x bigger than India's. 'They (China) are catching up (with the US). We are behind,' Naidu said, stressing that the journey from being the world's fourth- or third-largest economy to one of the top two will be much more challenging. Naidu said 2014 was a turning point in India's growth story, with the country getting Modi as PM, who has 'ushered in a new era of bold and decisive leadership'. He said the goal is not just to grow fast, but to grow fairly, where every citizen, every region, and every sector shares the fruit of progress. Citing World Bank data, he said India is among the top four most income-equal countries but stressed that the country still needs to become more equitable. He urged the top 10 per cent of India's wealthy to uplift the bottom 20 per cent, appealing to them to follow tech billionaire Bill Gates' example and 'give back to society'. On his vision for Andhra, Naidu spoke about his government's Quantum Valley initiative in Amaravati. He urged youth to join politics and said the TDP's parliamentary party is the youngest in the Lok Sabha. He also noted that TDP's representative in the Union Cabinet, Civil Aviation Minister K Ram Mohan Naidu, is the youngest minister at the Centre. During his visit to Delhi, Naidu and Telangana CM A Revanth Reddy are also scheduled to attend a meeting on water issues being facilitated by the Centre on Wednesday. The Telangana government is expected to press the Centre to grant approvals and funds for its long-pending projects. It had earlier conveyed its objection to the Centre regarding Andhra's Banakacherla river-linking project, saying that it hurts Telangana's interests.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
BJP ally TDP seeks clarity on SIR, says exercise shouldn't link to citizenship or burden voters
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel New Delhi: Taking a contrarian view on the Special Intensive Revision ( SIR ) of electoral roll , key NDA ally Telugu Desam Party ( TDP ) said the purpose of the exercise should be clearly defined and delinked from citizenship verification , wrapped up at least six months before elections and the burden of proof should not be on the a four-page representation submitted to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Tuesday, TDP sought clarity on the SIR's purpose -- a move seen as a guarded way of questioning the on-going exercise in openly criticising SIR, TDP has made four submissions which are against the current approach of ECI. TDP, whose 16 MPs provide crucial support to BJP-led NDA government at the Centre, has sought clarity on the "scope of SIR" and wants it to be completely delinked from the citizenship question. "The purpose of SIR must be clearly defined and limited to electoral roll correction and inclusion. It should be explicitly communicated that the exercise is not related to citizenship verification, and any field instructions must reflect this distinction," reads the TDP representation. It said adequate time should be given for such an exercise and it should take place "ideally not within six months of any major election". This is contrary to what is underway in Bihar, where a new assembly will be in place by November-end and SIR is underway with elections just three months documentation, TDP stated, "Voters who are already enrolled in the most recent certified electoral roll should not be required to re-establish their eligibility unless specific and verifiable reasons are recorded." TDP has sought to make a distinction between intensive roll revision and electoral roll revision and suggested that the last electoral roll revision be made the base year. This means that for Bihar it should be the electoral roll revision of January 2025 which should be the base year, not 2003. It cited a Supreme Court judgement in Lal Babu Hussein vs Electoral Registration Officer to say "prior inclusion created a presumption of validity and any deletion must be preceded by a valid inquiry."In the Bihar SIR, the ECI sought proof and asked voters to fill a form to ensure inclusion. However, TDP representation said: "The burden of proof lies with ERO or objector, not the voter, especially when the name exists on the official roll".
