
Commentary: India's state and central governments still aren't speaking the same language
Language has reappeared at the forefront of Indian political discourse over the National Education Policy (NEP), a recent revamp of the education system. But while this conflict's flashpoint is language, it hints at something deeper about India's governance.
The union government has unilaterally demanded that all states implement the NEP, despite education being an area of shared responsibility between the union and the states. One of the key sticking points is the three-language formula.
While its professed aim is to foster greater understanding between India's diverse regions by requiring states to teach the local language, English and one other Indian language of their choice, some states view the policy as a veiled scheme to enforce Hindi.
While most non-Hindi-speaking states offer Hindi as their third language, Hindi-speaking states tend to teach its extinct classical parent Sanskrit instead of a contemporary language from another region.
India's complicated debate over language is etched into the national psyche. At its core lies a tension between two public policy priorities – the long-standing Indian national project on the one hand, and the more recent pursuit of rapid economic development on the other.
The two need not necessarily be contradictory but are increasingly diverging as India's economic liberalisation rubs up against its inward-looking instincts.
INDIA'S TWO-LANGUAGE SYSTEM
As a newly independent nation in 1947, India was desperate to construct national unity. English was seen as the language of colonialism and India was keen to remove signs of imperialism across public life. Though several major languages could be seen as regional connectors, there had never been a common language spanning the entire subcontinent before the British imposed English.
Independence leaders in the Hindi belt were keen to implement Hindi as the language of commerce and public life but the political climate made the task impossible. Many communities within India had fought as much to liberate their own linguistic community as to liberate 'India' as a whole, so the idea that another 'foreign' language would replace English has always been a political non-starter.
The current status-quo is an effective two-language system – English is the dominant language of commerce and interstate cooperation, and regional mother tongues occupy prominent cultural, social and political roles in their homelands.
Yet the union government officially maintained that Hindi should be the 'link' language within India, including in the 1986 National Education Policy.
A common argument for the three-language formula is that there must be a language to facilitate internal migration. But English is the only common language explicitly prescribed by the policy, creating a coordination problem in selecting an Indian language to be taught across all states.
According to the 2011 census, 57.1 per cent of Indians spoke Hindi as a first-, second- or third-language, compared to 8.9 per cent who speak the next most common Indian language.
Hindi might seem the most practical option, but the number of speakers is greatly inflated because the government lumps 56 languages under the Hindi umbrella – the proportion of first-language Hindi speakers falls from 43.6 per cent to 33.6 per cent if the 12 languages seeking distinct recognition are removed.
And even though Hindi is spoken on the largest scale, its fraught political history has seen its increasing presence create tensions in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra and West Bengal, making it untenable as a link language.
Plus, the vast majority of migration in India is intra-state, where people speak the same or similar languages. Inter-state migration, accounting for only 12 per cent of all migration, is likely too insignificant for an entire language policy to be designed around it.
Migration that crosses linguistic boundaries primarily involves people from northern states moving to southern states for work, where different languages are spoken and Hindi is more opposed.
Another problem is that Hindi has yet to demonstrate significant commercial value. India's impressive GDP growth is driven by the 10 per cent of the population with relatively high disposable incomes.
Becoming part of this elite segment usually requires proficiency in English and a professional job in the formal economy – most of which are located in the non-Hindi-speaking southern states. Even if the government pushes learning Hindi, the market offers no reward.
ENGLISH IS A POLITICALLY NEUTRAL CHOICE
Given these realities, English is the most economically beneficial and politically neutral choice for internal communication.
Since teaching three languages is time- and resource-intensive, India must focus its limited resources on prioritising goals that will lead to the greatest marginal benefit for economic outcomes.
Only 51 per cent of new graduates are considered employable and a lack of English fluency has been identified as a significant issue. The 2011 census found that only 10.6 per cent of India's population speaks English, underscoring the urgent need to expand English education.
If economic transformation is the priority, India should recognise the political status quo and the realities of development. Permitting or encouraging states to pursue a two-language policy, with mother tongues as the primary languages of public and cultural spaces and English as the language of commerce and cooperation, will enable India to access the world while maintaining stability.
With only around 20 years before its demographic dividend begins to expire, India has to act quickly to demonstrate that it should be a hub for industry and foreign investment. The union's quest for a national language may need to be abandoned for India's economic ambitions.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNA
3 days ago
- CNA
US allies in tough balancing act amid concerns of tariff tensions affecting defence ties: Analysts
In April, United States President Donald Trump promised to work on 90 deals in 90 days before enforcing his sweeping reciprocal tariffs. Three months later, only two agreements have been reached. The first is a limited deal with Britain to keep a 10 per cent rate on most goods, with preferential treatment for some sectors. The other is with Vietnam, with import tariffs slashed to 20 per cent from the previously proposed 46 per cent. Trump has since postponed his tariff deadline from this month to Aug 1, but doubled down by sending letters to more than a dozen nations threatening them with elevated duties if they fail to strike a deal. As trading partners scramble to negotiate, analysts said it is difficult for allies to take a hard stance when they have to balance economic, diplomatic and defence ties. 'Probably the best way to negotiate the tariffs is to be very tough, as the Chinese were,' said James Crabtree, a distinguished visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. '(Beijing) did what US allies couldn't do – which was using rare earth (minerals) as a point of leverage.' Washington and Beijing agreed in May to temporarily lower steep tit-for-tat tariffs on each other's goods, and last month confirmed a trade framework had been reached. But for allies dependent on the US, economic interests and national security concerns are often at odds, Crabtree said. 'If you push back hard on the economic side, the big risk is that Trump then (refuses) to sell you any more F-35s,' he said, referring to the stealth fighter aircraft that the US manufactures and sells to its closest allies. 'So, getting this balance right is extremely difficult.' DIPLOMATIC TIES UNDER STRESS Japan and South Korea, the US' key allies in Asia, are facing levies of 25 per cent. Negotiations initially showed promise but seem to have moved further away from an outcome. Trump last week called Tokyo 'spoiled' for its reluctance to import US rice. 'This is perceived to be a humiliation for Japan. It tried to do a comprehensive deal, and failed,' Crabtree said. 'It doesn't look good if you're a US ally and you're being treated like this. In Tokyo and Seoul, there will be a lot of bad feelings about the way that the US is treating them.' University of Adelaide (UA) professor Peter Draper said the deadline extension is unlikely to deliver more trade agreements, at least to the tune of Trump's expectations. 'The US is not exactly in negotiations mode. It's in demand-making mode, for the most part just expecting countries to concede and concede,' he told CNA's Asia First programme on Thursday (Jul 10). WHAT'S WITH TRUMP'S TARIFFS? Trump has insisted the reciprocal tariffs will narrow the trade imbalance between the US and its trade partners. The policy will also incentivise businesses – both American and foreign – to set up shop in the US, creating jobs. But analysts pointed to a bigger elephant in the room: China. The US' largest bilateral trade imbalance by far is with China – US$295 billion in goods deficit last year. Washington also accuses Beijing of stealing American intellectual property, as well as engaging in unfair trade practices. '(Beijing channels) funds to companies to give them an unfair advantage … and use the power of the government to keep foreign competition out. That's why the US has responded with all of these tariffs on China,' said Steven Okun, CEO of advisory firm APAC Advisors. Chinese exporters have tried to dodge the tariffs – which Trump launched in 2018 during his first term as president – by rerouting manufacturing or shipping through other countries, many in Southeast Asia. Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are among the hardest hit by tariffs as goods 'skirt blocks put in place through tariffs and other investment restrictions' through these countries, Okun said. 'ASEAN is China's B team,' he added. The bloc's members Laos and Myanmar could be slapped with 40 per cent tariffs come Aug 1, while Cambodia and Thailand are looking at 36 per cent. Vietnam, even following its deal with the US, needs to crack down on illegal transshipments. Goods deemed to be transhipped will still be subject to a 40 per cent levy. NOT GOOD FOR AMERICA EITHER Analysts reiterated that the tariff policy and ongoing deadlock in negotiations are certain to strain America's relations with its partners, potentially pushing them closer towards China. 'The US is engaging in an act of economic self-harm by cutting itself off from these trading middle powers … trade-intensive Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Cambodia. This (presents) opportunities for China,' Crabtree told CNA's East Asia Tonight. 'Trump … focuses almost exclusively on goods trade deficit, completely ignoring the services trade … or (ties with) allies,' said Draper, pointing to traditionally close partners of the US such as members of the European Union. 'The (Europeans) don't get any favourable treatment. In fact, in some ways, they are treated even worse than some of US' longstanding geopolitical foes like Russia,' added the executive director of UA's Institute for International Trade. The Trump administration has justified a lack of tariffs on Russia due to sanctions imposed over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. Crabtree said that Trump likely believes his tariff policies are successful as, in the short term, there would be higher purchases of US goods and lower trade barriers for American firms. 'But in the long run, it's very damaging to the US and its reputation as a reliable and economic partner of choice,' he said. '(We) end up with regions which the US is less connected to, (including) the emerging economic powerhouses of Asia. Trade and globalisation (will also be) limited. All of that is bad for the US.'


AsiaOne
3 days ago
- AsiaOne
'You need to do some homework': Trump's ambassador nominee to Singapore under fire at Senate hearing, Singapore News
Dr Anjani Sinha, US President Donald Trump's nominee for ambassador to Singapore, endured a torrid time during a Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday (July 9). The session, which included four other nominees, saw the nervy Dr Sinha at the receiving end of Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth's barrage of questions about his knowledge of Singapore. "This is not a role you can just pick up on a whim or because you think it will be glamorous, or because Singapore is a great place to live," said Duckworth, while expressing her doubts about Dr Sinha's qualifications for the post. "I'm concerned about how your lack of understanding may even inadvertently cause friction in our critical relationship. Will you even be able to effectively lead our mission in Singapore?" Duckworth then asked Dr Sinha: "How large was the US trade surplus with Singapore in 2024?" Dr Sinha, who appeared nervous, replied: "$80 billion… $18 billion." "$2.8, you're off by a huge factor," said Duckworth. "The United States had a $2.8 billion trade surplus with Singapore in 2024." Dr Sinha was then asked he would explain to "our friends in Singapore the president's threats to slap tariffs as high as 25 per cent on their country", given the US' trade surplus with country. In April, the Trump administration slapped a 10 per cent baseline tariff on Singapore, despite a free trade agreement since 2004. Dr Sinha replied: "We are not walking away from any dialogue between the two countries and two leaders. If confirmed, I will make a personal (relationship) with the Government of Singapore. "I will make sure the dialogue continues, and we settle the issues of trade together." Dr Sinha did not respond when pressed on whether he supports Trump imposing tariffs on Singapore. "I believe in the president's decision of free trade with any nations in the world, and he's resetting the trade numbers with each country," he added. Trump named Dr Sinha as his nominee to be the country's ambassador to Singapore in March. According to the US Department of State's website, India-born Dr Sinha is a surgeon specialising in orthopedics and sports medicine. A graduate of MGM Medical School and Delhi University in India, he is also an "accomplished entrepreneur' with specialised teams across eight locations in New York, and has served as a senior surgical consultant in Florida". "Anji is a highly respected entrepreneur, with an incredible family," said Trump in a post on Truth Social. "The United States' relationship with Singapore is vital, and I have no doubt that Anji will strongly represent our nation's interests and put America first." During the Senate hearing, Dr Sinha was unable to answer Duckworth's question on when Singapore was next slated to take over as Asean chair, prompting her to respond that it is in 2027. The Thailand-born senator then quizzed Dr Sinha on what is critical importance to Singapore as Asean chair. "Defence… economics," replied Dr Sinha, to which an exasperated Duckworth said that his answer was too "broad". The ambassador-nominee to Singapore was also criticised for his answer to a question on the US Navy's work in Singapore. "Can you name a specific thing, please? I'm trying to help you here, but you've not even done your homework, sir," said Duckworth. "If you want to be ambassador to Singapore, one of the most important alliance friends we have in the Indo-Pacific, a key place that we're going to be fighting against our greatest adversary in the region, the PRC. "Singapore may feature incredible culture, but that should not be treated as a glamour posting. This nation is too important to United States to Asean, to the entire region." Duckworth then raised her concerns about Dr Sinha's nomination, which she saw as a "political pick" from Trump. "I just think we're not taking this seriously. And you think this is a glamour posting that you're going to live a nice life in Singapore, but what we need is someone who's going to do the work," said the senator. "You are not currently prepared for this posting, period. And you need to shape up and do some homework." 'We have a strong connection already' Questioning Dr Sinha about his priorities for the bilateral relationship, Republican Senator Pete Ricketts noted that he met with Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and Defence Minister Chan Chun Sing at the Shangri-La dialogue here last month. "I think you should make a good connection with the foreign minister there, he's also a physician," Ricketts said about Dr Balakrishnan. Dr Sinha replied that he and Dr Balakrishnan have 'so many things in common'. 'He went to school and became an eye surgeon. I went to school and became an orthopaedic surgeon,' he said. "His wife is a physician who became a neurologist. My wife is an anaesthesiologist. His kids are lawyers. Our kids are lawyers and doctors. So, we have a strong connection already." In his opening remarks, Dr Sinha noted that Singapore is a "key strategic partner and friend" for the US in the Indo-Pacific region. "If confirmed, my duty will be to advance and implement the policies of the US, and to promote US interest in Singapore. I look to expand and deepen our defence and security cooperation, economic and trade relationship (as well as) people-to-people ties." After the hearing, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relation will vote on whether to report a nomination favourably, unfavourably, or without recommendation to the full Senate. If approved by the committee, the nomination proceeds to a vote by the full Senate. Upon Senate confirmation, the ambassador may then present credentials to the host country. [[nid:673471]] chingshijie@


CNA
4 days ago
- CNA
Bridge collapse kills 9 in India's Gujarat state
VADODRA, India: At least nine people were killed after a bridge over a river collapsed in India's western Gujarat state on Wednesday (Jul 9), news agency Press Trust of India reported while quoting police officials. Gujarat's Health Minister Rushikesh Patel said several vehicles were on the bridge when a portion of it collapsed, sending many into the river. He said at least five people were rescued. The incident occurred in Gujarat's Vadodara district, which has witnessed heavy rains over the past few days. The bridge was constructed in 1985, Patel said. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the accident was 'deeply saddening' and offered condolences to those who died. India's infrastructure has long been marred by safety concerns, sometimes leading to major disasters on its highways and bridges. In 2022, a century-old cable suspension bridge collapsed into a river in Gujarat, sending hundreds plunging into the water and killing at least 132.