It is not surprising that there should be so much confusion and conflict over the issue of language. It is assumed that it is single problem with a unique solution. One group argues that English lan­guage owes its position to British imperialism and that it is inconsis­tent with national self-respect to continue to use it to the exclusion of our beautiful regional languages. A second group contents that, whatever the evils of British imperialism, English has helped Indian nationalism to achieve freedom; that it has been the vehicle of higher education, technology and scientific research and that it has been the invaluable link for forging the unity of India and any attempt to discard it will result in a breakdown of our educational system and take the country back by two centuries in all aspects of modern life A third group is convinced that as all regional languages of India arc well developed and have worth literatures, all of them should have equal status.

There is a lot of confused thinking going on in India today over the problem of finding a universally acceptable link language for the country. The debate on the subject rages 'ad infinitum' in all available forums like the parliament, the press, the platform etc; but none of the many points of view being put forward every day appears to be gaining acceptance. That is so mainly because most of the thinking on the subject is super-charged with emotion and the issues involved have been greatly clouded by the import of pre­judices which can be traced to extra-national loyalties.

What is precisely meant by a ''link language"? The term is of comparatively recent coinage. In the pre-independence years, the same connotation was sought to be conveyed through 'national language'. But the expression underwent a change in meaning when the constitutions-makers of free India conferred the status of 'natio­nal language' on fourteen regional languages (now 15) in use in the country as also on Sanskrit. In the constitution, the term which came nearest to expressing the idea was 'official language'. Over the last two or three years however, even this term has been replaced with another, viz., 'link language'. The change is significant. It is symptomatic of the trend of popular thinking on the subject.

The people were prepared to accept their own regional languages as the 'official' languages in their states. But when it came 10 accepting another Indian language for the purposes of inter-stale and state-centre-communications, they were not prepared to submit to the hegemony of another Indian language. In that context, the word 'official' in the expression 'official language' snacked for imposition and they were not prepared to brook any imposition whatsoever. Hence 'official' had to yield place to 'link' which was found to be more in accord with the spirit of the times.

The context in which the problem has to be considered has radically changed since 1950 when the founding fathers laid down official policy in the matter. At that time, the problem did not appear to be so intractable. The leaders of the national movement had almost unanimously endorsed the choice of Hindi as the official language of India. They were not, however, unmindful of the diffi­culties involved in a sudden change-over. Therefore, they made provision that English should continue to be used for all official purposes for 15 years after the introduction of the constitution, i.e. up to 1965. Even after that, the Parliament was given the option to extend the period, if necessary.

All these precautions were designed to cushion the shock of change by making it a gradual process. Even then, within a few years, the proposed change became the subject of nation-wide debate which has several time assumed the proportions of a law and order problem. In the main, it was a direct consequence of the ruling party's disproportionate pre-occupation with linguism. That led to the reorganization of states on a linguistic basis in 1956 (and the process has continued since). The step, though taken with the object of creating conditions in which the regional languages could flourish and come into their own, encouraged separatism, and strengthened the forces of disintegration. It gave rise to a sort of linguistic patri­otism which gained precedence over nationalism in the affections of a large number of people.