Many states do not speak Hindi. Many North Indian speakers do not ever try to learn Telugu or Malayalam. So far, the government has failed to fund, develop, and teach a single Indian language as an alternative to English. Even the constitutional courts are forced to understand English while each state has a greatly enriched language. This is unfortunate.The late N.T. Ramarao was the champion of Telugu Vaibhavam and Andhra self-respect. Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandrababu Naidu, while supporting the three-language formula, said Telugu should be prioritised, but Hindi and English are also useful for communication.Until this point, Naidu was understandable but he then said that Hindi was a national language:“Language is not something to hate. Our mother tongue is Telugu. National (Jaatiya bhasha) language is Hindi. The international language is English We should learn as many languages as possible for our livelihood, but we should never forget our mother tongue. “If we learn a national language like Hindi, even if we go to Delhi, it will be easy to speak fluently,” he said, adding that unnecessary politics should not overshadow the practical benefits of language learning. “Everyone must understand, instead of this unnecessary politics, we must think about how we can learn as many languages as needed for communication.’’His deputy chief minister Pawan Kalyan also said that Hindi should be the national language of the entire country, and defended the importance of all Indian languages, questioning why Tamil films were dubbed into Hindi if Tamil Nadu was against the language. He also stated that the mindset of hating any language needed to change.Kalyan questioned Prakash Raj, who was the villain in many of their films, and tried to clarify the distinction between opposing Hindi imposition and disliking the language itself.“Saying ‘do not impose your Hindi on us’ is not the same as hating another language. It is about protecting our mother tongue and our cultural identity with pride,”The issue is not the politics of opposing Hindi or DMK leaders.Both the chief minister and deputy chief minister of Andhra Pradesh must have confused the national language with the official language. This difference was discussed among eminent personalities who were associated with building the constitution of India in the Constituent Assembly.After the commencement of the Constitution on Republic Day in 1950, the largest set of provisions is contained in Part XVII, which is devoted in its entirety to ‘Official Language’. Part XVII has four chapters and nine Articles that address the ‘Language of the Union’ (Articles 343 and 344); ‘Regional Languages’ (Articles 345 to 347), which in fact relates to the official languages of the states; and the language of the Supreme Court and the high courts and legislative enactments (Article 348). Articles 120 and 210, respectively, address the language of legislative proceedings in the chapters on Parliament (Part V, Chapter II) and State legislatures (Part V, Chapter III).One should also emphasise that the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III include cultural and educational rights in Articles 29 and 39. They extend to linguistic minorities. In most minority language schools, it will have a serious impact on the mother tongue. For instance, thousands of Telugu students’ language are taught in Delhi, because this was one of the several ‘official’ languages which was to be distinguished from the National Language. The Constituent Assembly thoroughly discussed the status of language for India and settled on the fact that there would be multiple ‘official languages. The Eighth Schedule selectively enumerates a growing list of Indian languages and thereby affords them ‘official’ status.Separation of TelanganaIt is most significant that Andhra leaders should understand that Article 3 confers on Parliament the power to change state boundaries and create new states, like the formation of state Telangana in 2014. Having so many official language statuses has provided great insights into the constitutional and political development of the cultural and social sectors of India.In the Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, author Sujit Choudhry said:“For example, the drive to adopt Hindi as the official language of the Union government and to resist linguistic reorganisation were part of an integrated strategy to build a common national citizenship that would sustain the unity of the world’s largest democracy in the face of staggering diversity and in the aftermath of Partition, and were designed to pursue a number of specific goals under this overarching framework: creating a common platform for the establishment of a mass, democratic, national politics; dissolving social and economic hierarchy through promoting literacy in a common tongue that would permit social and economic mobility; and providing a basis for direct communication between Indians and public administration in an indigenous language.“Non-Hindi speakers, who feared that privileging Hindi and denying official status to regional languages would distribute economic and political power towards Hindi speakers and away from them, resisted this integrative strategy. They invoked precisely the same objectives to argue for the retention of English at the Centre, and the creation of linguistic States with regional languages having official status.”He further emphasised:“The specific provisions of Part XVII deploy a multiplicity of other devices to broker constitutional compromise, including delays (eg, Article 343), deferrals (eg, Article 344), defaults that can be displaced through ordinary legislation (eg, Article 345), and low thresholds to constitutional change (eg, Article 3). Although the principal institutional sites for the constitutional politics of official language were the Constituent Assembly, Parliament, and State legislatures, the courts have increasingly played an important role in cases on minority language education arising under Article 30. In the course of working out the relationship between the power of States to set the language of educational instruction and minority language educational rights, the courts have articulated their understanding of the consequences of linguistic reorganization on an original, pan-Indian conception of citizenship that treats all of India as home to all of its linguistic communities which emerged from the Independence movement, and a newer conception of citizenship that may have replaced it.”Political leaders play a very significant role in protecting national diversity among different languages and cultures.Andhra leaders heading the state, especially after the separation of Andhra Pradesh from Telangana, should be concerned about these cultural diversities as even voting is based on political party-related power-centred considerations.The members of the Constituent Assembly spent hours and days on this single issue of the divisive considerations of an official language of the Union government. But central politics are different from the Union’s needs. It synchronises with national necessities and uniting the country’s diversity.It pains to listen to speeches in public meetings which reveal no understanding of national needs and language diversities. While explaining in his analysis of ‘official languages’, Choudhry said:“At Independence, the official language of the British colonial administration was English, which was spoken by less than 1 percent of the population. Most Indians spoke one of approximately a dozen regional languages. Hindi was India’s most widely spoken language, commanded by approximately 40 percent of the population. Very few speakers of the other languages spoke Hindi; indeed, the principal languages of South India are radically different from Hindi and from entirely different linguistic families. In the assembly, the main questions were whether to replace English, in whole or part, with an indigenous language as the Union government’s official language, and which indigenous language(s) should receive official status in central institutions.”Article 343 of the constitution has designated Hindi as ‘the official language of the Union’, but at the same time one should read the multidimensional compromise between Hindi and other ‘official languages’. It is not asking to support or hate Hindi or other official languages, only that they exist together. This diversity suffers when we describe it as a ‘national’ language.Though English is not spoken or understood everywhere, it has to be retained as the language of the government and the Supreme Court of India including state high courts. Otherwise, how do we run an administration? We, the people, know that many of the country’s problems are because we are suffering from an ignorance of language.The governments simply left these serious issues to find a national alternative to English, as if we are still being ruled by Britishers.It is once again necessary to quote Choudhry:On why English is the primary language“For example, consider Parliament. Article 348(1)(b)(I) provides that English is the language of primary and secondary legislation, until legislation to the contrary is enacted. This continued the status quo of English indefinitely, and shifted the burden of legislative inertia onto those who would adopt Hindi as the language of legislation—the reverse of Article 343(1).On why the official language is Hindi “Although the Official Languages Act 1967 mandates that there be an official Hindi translation of a central statute, the Supreme Court has held that Article 348(1)(b) makes the English version authoritative and that it prevails over the Hindi version in the event of conflict. [Nityanand Sharma v State of Bihar (1996) 3 SCC 576; Prabhat Kumar Sharma v Union Public Service Commission (2006) 10 SCC 587.]On why notifications are issued under central law“The importance of Article 348(1)(b) is underlined by the fact that its reach extends to notifications issued under central legislation. [Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal AIR 1962 All 240.]On why Article 120 allows to debate in the mother tongue“The Indian Constitution also differentiates between the language of parliamentary deliberations and the language of legislation. Article 120 permits the use of Hindi or English in parliamentary debates, and permits the Speaker of either chamber to permit a member to use his or her mother tongue (with the right to use English expiring in fifteen years unless extended through legislation, as in the case of Article 343). The possibility of multilingual parliamentary debates, however, is treated separately from the language of the legal outputs of those proceedings, which presumptively remains English.On why English is the language of the Supreme Court“The courts are also governed by rules that depart from Article 343. Article 348(1)(a) establishes English as the language for Supreme Court and High Court proceedings and judgments. While Article 348(2) authorizes State legislatures to legislate the use of Hindi or regional languages in High Court proceedings, that power does not extend to the constitutional requirement that judgments be in English (which would require a constitutional amendment to alter). Moreover, for the Supreme Court, the Constitution does not create a legislative mechanism to alter the language of its proceedings, which could only be achieved through constitutional amendment. Indeed, the Court has declined to permit parties to present arguments before in languages other than English, on the basis of Article 348(1)(a), even though it arguably has the inherent authority to do so. [Madhu Limaye v Ved Murti (1970) 3 SCC 738.] Against the backdrop of the provisions, the rejection of an Article 14 challenge to holding the Delhi University Law entrance exam in English should be understood as rooted in the special constitutional status of English in the legal system. (Shailendra Mani Tripathi v University of Delhi 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3328 (Delhi High Court).On why English is the ‘official’ language though not ‘national“Article 346 impliedly maintains English as an official language for center-state communications, by preserving the linguistic status quo in this arena as well.”Except for a few well-educated advocates and judges, the ordinary clients are confused as to what is happening. This is a major failure of all the governments including this ruling party.Courts suffer as well. How can those who don’t know English understand the conversation between advocates and judges? Does this gap not kill justice?Does the Andhra Pradesh chief minister or his deputy know how many advocates and judges are suffering along with the common person?Should we find an alternative or fan the language of divisive politics and deepen the north-south separation? Not just Chandrababu Naidu or Pawan Kalyan, but all central political players should be concerned with this national need.Dr. Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, is professor, Mahindra University, Hyderabad.