Every country has one or more officially recognized languages for administrative and educational purposes. But this becomes more complex in multilingual countries like India where linguistic diversities are huge not only among the states but also within the states. In India, the significance of language as the basis of identity in India was recognized in the early twentieth century when Congress had organized itself on the linguistic lines. But after independence, the Congress had shown its reluctance to organize states on the linguistic basis till the State Reorganization Commission made its recommendation for linguistic organization of states. Soon after independence, most states recognized the language spoken by the majority as the official language, whereas some, like Nagaland, chose English. Some others also chose two official languages depending on the sentiments and demographic composition of their respective territories. 

 

Another issue that demanded attention was deciding the language in education and the medium of instruction in state-run schools which was responded to by the government with the three-language formula (TLF). The state departments of education provided special provisions for linguistic minorities, who were granted the fundamental right by the Constitution to establish educational institutions imparting education in the mother tongue. As discussed earlier the State Reorganization Commission made its recommendation for linguistic organization of states, this reorganization of the states on the linguistic basis in 1956, however, did not resolve the language question.

 

In several states, there are sections who speak languages which are different from the languages spoken by the majority of people in such states. They are known as linguistic minorities. The unresolved issue of language question gave rise to the language- based conflicts within the states. In India, on several occasions’ language has become an issue of political contest. This has impacted the politics of several linguistic groups in India. Such politics or the linguistic politics has been impacted by the following factors: perception of linguistics of themselves and of the linguistic majorities; the linguistic majorities’ perception of the linguistic minorities; and the attitude of the linguistic majorities towards linguistic minorities. 

 

The linguistic majorities in several states demand that the other linguistic groups accept the language of the majorities as medium of instruction in educational institutions, and as the official language. Several linguistic groups demand recognition of language as an official language or its inclusion in the VIII Schedule and their recognition as official language. Such demand is generally made by the linguistic groups along with other demands relating to them such as economic development, employment, protection of their cultural identities and political autonomy. In this respect the demands of the linguistic groups are also their demands as those of ethnic groups.

 

The linguistic minorities demand protection of their own languages by asking for opening educational institutions where the medium of instruction could be their mother tongue rather than that of the linguistic majority. The differences between linguistic groups in a state often lead to linguistic conflicts. There are innumerable examples of linguistic conflicts in states in India. This conflict has been a major issue in northeastern India where conflict is between indigenous, who have been living there for generations and those who have migrated to the region in search of employment and for any other purpose and settled there permanently e.g. the Assamese-Bengali linguistic conflict. Also in the 1960s, the Assamese government attempted to make Assamese compulsory as a medium of instruction in the institutions in the areas where non-Assamese were spoken by most people which led to violent clashes by non-Assamese speakers. 

 

It also resulted in demand for a tribal state in the Khasi dominated part of Assam. All non-Assamese communities including Bengalis, other non- Tribals and tribal groups launched an agitation in the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo hills for the formation of a separate state. The new state of Meghalaya was formed in 1972. In another example, as discussed by Sanjib Baruha in India against itself, after the signing of the Assam Accord in 1986, the Bodos underlined that their identity was different from Assamese, and Bodo was their language. Another example is of linguistic conflict between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka who were involved in fierce language-based riots in 1992. Although the riot was not directly related to language. But the Tamil speaking community was targeted by the Kannada speakers in Karnataka.

 

Paul R Brass argues that the state governments introduced discriminatory policies against the minority languages and the central government did not provide protection to them. The central government’s attitude towards Urdu and Mithila spoken in north Bihar is among such examples. Any attempt to give Urdu as a status of official language is met with criticism by certain groups and is viewed as appeasement of Muslims. But the Urdu speaking section of society consider the opposition to Urdu as an attempt to discriminate against the linguistic minorities. In Punjab, the linguistic issue got linked with the communal divide between Hindus and Sikhs during the Punjabi Suba movement of the 1960s. Hindus in Punjab apprehended that creation of separate states of Punjab would reduce the Hindus to a minority community in Punjab. Among the most crucial examples of language politics is the case of Hindi language in South India, especially Tamil Nadu. In the 1960s, there was an agitation against adoption of Hindi as an official language following the decision. 

 

The ongoing dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra over the status of Marathi and Kannada-speaking towns and villages along the border is one latest example of the linguistic issue which coincided with border dispute. In this dispute parts of the Belagavi district, among some of the other areas of northern Karnataka, are claimed by Maharashtra on linguistic grounds. When state boundaries were redrawn on linguistic lines as per the States Reorganization Act of 1956, Belagavi became part of the erstwhile Mysore state. Maharashtra claims that parts of Belagavi, where Marathi is the dominant language, should remain in Maharashtra.

 

However, G. N. Devy says “the dispute is in the name of language, but it is not linguistic in essence. The Karnataka-Maharashtra border tensions are a fallout of competitive politics in this context appealing to language; chauvinism acquires an instrumentalist political demand. “