Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s ‘anti-English language speech’ has sparked a fresh controversy. Delivered during the release of former IAS officer Ashutosh Agnihotri’s poetry collection, the speech began by highlighting the linguistic heritage of the nation but soon took a turn into criticism of the English language. The minister remarked that “a time is not far when people will feel ashamed to speak in English” and asserted that a foreign language like English cannot truly comprehend the country’s culture and religion. The poetry collection titled “Main Boond Swayam, Khud Sagar Hoon” (I am a drop myself, yet I am the ocean) explores themes of global humanity, modern philosophical thought, love, and political theory. Ironically, the release of such a work became entangled in a narrow linguistic debate.
For those with a general understanding of the BJP and the central government's language policy, this cannot be dismissed as mere linguistic narrow-mindedness; the political agenda of Hindutva was subtly embedded in that speech. Naturally, once the speech was broadcast under the guise of such political intentions, criticism began pouring in from various quarters within hours. Despite multiple justifications and counter-efforts by the Sangh Parivar-affiliated cyber handlers, the government reportedly turned its attention toward the media outlets that had reported the speech. Under pressure, some of the media houses that had initially covered the speech in real time were compelled to retract their reports. This is not the first time that Amit Shah and other spokespersons of the central government have used language as a political tool. The idea of “One Nation, One Language” is being advanced in the same vein as slogans like “One Nation, One Tax”, “One Nation, One Election”, and “One Nation, One Law”. Even as a concept, this has already proven to be problematic and highly complex in practice. We’ve seen time and again that the imposition of linguistic hegemony tends to be more harmful and divisive. The Modi government’s push for linguistic uniformity is not very different from the earlier Hindutva slogan of “One Nation, One Culture”. It reflects a continuity in ideological vision that prioritises centralisation over diversity. In reality, the beauty of the idea of India and the strength of the Indian Republic lie in its linguistic and cultural diversity. Our national identity is like a rainbow—rooted in natural plurality and unified by coexistence. However, the extreme nationalism promoted by the Hindutva ideology, which is based on ethnic majoritarianism, has never truly embraced this multi-coloured India. When they came to power, they, who were always opposed to this pluralistic India, started implementing this plan, wrapped in seemingly patriotic slogans.
During the first term of the Modi government, the federal structure of the country was challenged with the introduction of the One Tax policy. By the end of the second term, paths were laid toward One Election and One Law. Now, it’s only a matter of time before these are implemented. What remains is the agenda of ‘One Culture’. At the annual All India Representatives Meeting of the RSS held in Bengaluru last March, this was raised as a key requirement. The entry point to this vision is One Language. When asked what the national language should be in a country divided across linguistic lines, both Modi and Amit Shah answered, “the majority language”. That language is Hindi. The initial steps are clearly aimed at establishing Hindi as the dominant language across the nation. States like Tamil Nadu that have resisted these efforts are being portrayed as adversaries by the central government.
In 2022, at the 37th meeting of Parliament’s Official Language Committee, Amit Shah proposed that Hindi should replace English as the official language. While the idea of replacing English with Hindi may sound interesting, in practice, it would primarily displace regional languages and the cultures rooted in them. This is not merely a linguistic shift—it is seen as a political strategy to consolidate power in regions where Hindi already holds dominance. In many southern states, for instance, Hindi often struggles to gain traction, whereas English enjoys broader acceptance. This dynamic has become a point of discomfort for the Sangh Parivar, as it challenges their vision of linguistic and cultural uniformity. The push for a monolingual imposition under the guise of anti-English sentiment is rooted in the assumption that portraying English as a symbol of colonialism will reduce criticism. However, history shows that even those who led strong anti-colonial struggles did not frame their resistance as opposition to the English language itself. While English was at a certain point weaponised in specific historical contexts, that was later subjected to criticism. On the contrary, many leaders at the forefront of India’s freedom movement adopted a policy of embracing English, recognising its global relevance. This practical approach acknowledged the reality that English is widely accepted as a global language. Now, however, language is being used as a new weapon by the Sangh Parivar to advance their racist agenda. Resisting this linguistic domination is an imperative.