Members from parties such as the DMK, TMC, and Congress expressed their displeasure, calling the move a ‘symbolic imposition’ of Hindi
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI – Opposition parties on Thursday raised concerns over the exclusive use of Hindi titles for bills introduced in the Rajya Sabha, claiming it to be an instance of Hindi imposition. The issue has sparked heated debate over linguistic inclusivity and federalism in the country’s multilingual democracy.
During the current session of the Rajya Sabha, several bills were presented with titles exclusively in Hindi, accompanied by English translations. Members of the opposition, particularly from southern and northeastern states where Hindi is not widely spoken, argued that this practice alienates a significant portion of the population that does not use Hindi as their first language.
Members from parties such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Trinamool Congress (TMC), and Congress expressed their displeasure, calling the move a “symbolic imposition” of Hindi.
Taking part in the discussion on ‘The Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024’ that seeks to replace the 90-year-old Aircraft Act to boost the ease of doing business and attract investments in the aviation sector, TMC MP Sagarika Ghose opposed the bill’s name while Kanimozhi NVN Somu of DMK asked the government to change its name, according to a PTI report.
“Why do so many laws have Hindi names? This is the imposition of Hindi. The mandate of the people in 2024 was for diversity, dividend, and the federal principle but the government is persisting in the ‘Hindification’ of laws. This is Hindi imposition,” Ghose asserted.
She further said the Indian Penal Code has been changed to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indian Aircraft Act has now been changed to Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak.
Expressing similar sentiments, DMK member Somu said, “I would like the Union government to change the title of the bill to Aircraft Bill 2024. Don’t try to impose Hindi on people who don’t speak Hindi. I request the Union government to refrain from naming bills in Hindi and Sanskrit.”
In the same way, S Niranjan Reddy of YSR Congress Party, also asked the government to reconsider the “nomenclature” of the bill, not because he is opposing ‘Hindi imposition’ but saying there is a constitutional requirement that since it has been brought in English and the title cannot be in Hindi.
“We are now going to have the possibility of a constitutional court, a high court or the Supreme Court striking down this part saying that this part is unconstitutional because Article 348 (1B) requires authoritative text to be in English,” PTI quoted Reddy as saying.
Reddy clarified, “I am trying to speak for 56 per cent of the Indian population which does not have Hindi as mother tongue… not to oppose (the bill),”
The opposition claims that such practices undermine the federal character of the country, which recognises 22 official languages under the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. They argue that while Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union government, prioritising Hindi over others disregards the linguistic diversity of the country.
DMK leaders highlighted that similar debates have arisen before, citing Tamil Nadu’s historical opposition to Hindi imposition since the 1960s.
Responding to the allegations, Union ministers defended the use of Hindi titles, asserting that it is in line with the constitutional provisions for promoting Hindi as the national language. They argued that English translations ensure accessibility for non-Hindi speakers. However, the government has not clarified if it plans to adopt a multilingual approach for bill titles in the future.
Ghanshyam Tiwari of the BJP, however, refuted the charges of ‘Hindi imposition’ and pointed out that the bill with a title in Hindi has been presented to the House by a Telugu-speaking minister.
He said the step has been taken as per constitutional provision and the name coming in any language is not an effort to impose any language. “This shows their colonial era mindset,” he said referring to the opposition members’ objections to the Hindi titles.
The incident has reignited debates over language policies in India, where tensions often arise between Hindi-speaking states and non-Hindi-speaking regions. Critics argue that promoting Hindi disproportionately could marginalise regional languages and undermine the linguistic balance enshrined in the Constitution.
