Just when it seemed that controversies over language were a thing of the past, an ugly legacy happily buried in the sands of time, another unseemly fracas breaks out. First Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav made it known that if Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee chose to employ English in his address to the MPs of both Houses during the Clinton visit, he for one would boycott the proceedings. Whether Vajpayee took the threat seriously is not known, but he did speak in Hindi at Wednesday's joint session in Central Hall. This immediately had Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi expressing his deep disappointment over Vajpayee's ``surrender'' to the Samajwadi Party on the issue. He felt that the Prime Minister had wasted an opportunity to engage with the international world by choosing to speak in Hindi. Although Yadav and Karunanidhi were playing to their respective political constituencies, clearly they were both wrong. Their sparring even had Vajpayee observing ruefully that it is easier tospeak Hindi in the UN than in India.By employing Hindi in his address, Vajpayee certainly did not let the nation down, as Karunanidhi seems to think. The world, after all, listens carefully to what French President Jacques Chirac or Chinese leader Jiang Zemin have to say even though they do not employ the Queen's Tongue. It is the stature of these leaders and the substance of their speech that do the talking for them, literally. In any case Hindi, with its rich literary associations and close links with other languages spoken in northern India, is a language this country can take pride in, especially when it is used with the eloquence of a Vajpayee.But having said this, Yadav's churlishness in insisting that the address be in Hindi is a matter of regret. As a long-time MP, Yadav must know that according to the Constitution business in Parliament can be transacted in both Hindi or English and the presence of a foreign dignitary does not alter this fact. In any case, to regard English as a ``foreign language'' in a nation that has had more than a passing acquaintance with it for 200 years of colonial rule and another 52 years of independence amounts to splitting hairs. Indeed, if India can today ride the cyberwave of opportunity, it is only because a significant percentage of its citizens is familiar with this language. Countries like China and Japan recognise this and are now taking care to ensure that their emerging generations are made more familiar with a language that has become the only truly international one.Interestingly, this nation's founding fathers had the foresight to anticipate this. The Constitution has a cautionary note meant for anyone attempting to make Hindi the national language. This, it states, should be done only after due regard is paid to the ``industrial, cultural and scientific advancement of India, and the just claims and interests of persons belonging to non-Hindi speaking areas in regard to the public services''. It seems then that the earlier pragmatic, liberal approach to the deployment of a language is in danger of being overtaken by a narrow, chauvinistic one. Exclusivist notions, whether it is of the Hindutva kind with slogans like ``Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan'', or the unthinking anti-Hindi attitudes that saw language riots break out in the Madras of the mid-sixties are therefore to be rejected outright. Language, let it be remembered, is a means of communication. It must not be the cause for a breakdown in communication.
