Upholding the use of Urdu on the signboard of a municipal council building in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said language is culture and must not become a cause for dividing people, and Urdu “is the finest specimen of Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb, or the Hindustani tehzeeb”.
The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s finding that the use of Urdu is not prohibited under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022, or in any provision of law.
A former councillor had filed a petition challenging the use of Urdu on the signboard of the Patur Municipal Council building in Akola district of Maharashtra.
“Our misconceptions, perhaps even our prejudices against a language, have to be courageously and truthfully tested against the reality, which is this great diversity of our nation: our strength can never be our weakness. Let us make friends with Urdu and every language,” the SC said.
The court said it is a “misconception that Urdu is alien to India”, adding that “it is a language which was born in this land”.
Writing for the bench, Justice Dhulia elaborated on the bench’s views on Urdu and languages in general. “Language is not religion. Language does not even represent religion. Language belongs to a community, to a region, to a people; and not to a religion,” said the judgment.
“Language is culture. Language is the yardstick to measure the civilisational march of a community and its people. So is the case of Urdu, which is the finest specimen of Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb, or the Hindustani tehzeeb, which is the composite cultural ethos of the plains of northern and central India,” it said.
Story continues below this ad
“Before language became a tool for learning, its earliest and primary purpose will always remain communication,” Justice Dhulia said. “The purpose here for the use of Urdu is merely communication. All the municipal council wanted to do was to make an effective communication. This is the primary purpose of a language, which the Bombay High Court has laid emphasis on,” the court said.
“We must respect and rejoice in our diversity, including our many languages. India has more than hundred major languages. Then there are other languages known as dialects or ‘mother tongues’ which also run into hundreds. According to the 2001 Census, India had a total of 122 major languages including the 22 scheduled languages, and a total of 234 mother tongues. Urdu was the sixth most spoken scheduled language of India. In fact, it is spoken by at least a part of the population in all States and Union Territories, except perhaps in our North-Eastern States,” it said.
“In the 2011 Census, the number of mother tongues increased to 270. However, it is to be noted that this number was also arrived at by taking into consideration only those mother tongues which had more than 10,000 speakers. Thus, it would not be wrong to say that the actual number of mother tongues in India would run into thousands. Such is the immense linguistic diversity of India,” it said.
“The prejudice against Urdu stems from the misconception that Urdu is alien to India. This opinion, we are afraid, is incorrect as Urdu, like Marathi and Hindi, is an Indo-Aryan language. It is a language which was born in this land. Urdu developed and flourished in India due to the need of people belonging to different cultural milieus who wanted to exchange ideas and communicate amongst themselves. Over the centuries, it attained… greater refinement and became the language of choice for many acclaimed poets,” it said.
Story continues below this ad
The court noted that the language debate started even before Independence. “It was accepted by a large number of Indians that the language which is a product of amalgamation of various Indian languages such as Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi, is what is known as ‘Hindustani’, which a large mass of this country speaks,” it said.
Jawaharlal Nehru “acknowledged that Hindustani is bound to become the all-India medium of communication, since it is spoken by a large number of people in the country. At the same time, he recognised the importance of provincial languages by emphasising that the intention was not to replace provincial languages with Hindustani. Thus, he put forward the idea of Hindustani as a compulsory second language”, the court said.
“It is clear that the country was moving forward to accept Hindustani as its national language during our struggle for Independence”, but that did not happen. “It is now clear that the main reason behind this was the Partition of the nation in 1947 and adoption of Urdu by Pakistan as its national language. The ultimate victim was Hindustani,” it said.
The court said that “under Article 343 of the Constitution, Hindi is the official language, while the use of English was made permissible for official purposes for a period of 15 years”. “But this does not mean that Hindustani and Urdu have become extinct. This was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution,” it said.
Story continues below this ad
“Even today, the language used by the common people of the country is replete with words of the Urdu language, even if one is not aware of it. It would not be incorrect to say that one cannot have a day-to-day conversation in Hindi without using words of Urdu or words derived from Urdu. The word ‘Hindi’ itself comes from the Persian word ‘Hindavi’. This exchange of vocabulary flows both ways because Urdu also has many words borrowed from other Indian languages, including Sanskrit,” it said.
“Urdu words have a heavy influence on Court parlance, both in criminal and civil law. From adalat to halafnama to peshi, the influence of Urdu is writ large in the language of the Indian Courts. For that matter, even though the official language of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as per Article 348 of the Constitution is English, yet many Urdu words continue to be used in this Court till date. These include vakalatnama, dasti, etc,” it said.
The court said that Urdu has also been adopted by many States and Union Territories as the second official language. “When we criticise Urdu, we are in a way also criticising Hindi, as, according to linguists and literary scholars, Urdu and Hindi are not two languages, but one language,” it said.
“Hindi and Urdu met a roadblock in the form of the puritans on both sides and Hindi became more Sanskritised and Urdu more Persian. A schism exploited by the colonial powers in dividing the two languages on religion. Hindi was now understood to be the language of Hindus and Urdu of the Muslims, which is such a pitiable digression from reality; from unity in diversity; and the concept of universal brotherhood,” it said.
Story continues below this ad
Upholding the HC view, the SC bench said: “A municipal council is there to provide services to the local community of the area and cater to their immediate day-to-day needs. If people or a group of people, residing within the area covered by the municipal council are familiar with Urdu, then there should not be any objection if Urdu is used in addition to the official language i.e. Marathi, at least on the signboard of the municipal council. Language is a medium for exchange of ideas that brings people holding diverse views and beliefs closer and it should not become a cause of their division.”