During the monsoon session of 2010, Lok Sabha witnessed a stormy exchange, dividing its members along linguistic lines. The incident revealed an outdated thinking on the part of even some senior MPs. To recap, dur¬ing question hour on August 13, some MPs complained about the failure of their language interpretation devices while a question was being raised in Hindi. It was first reported by Erode MP Ganeshamurthi and subsequently taken up by former union minister T R Baalu. Thereafter, some MPs, cutting across party lines, pleaded their helplessness in following the proceedings without an English translation.

Paying heed to the protests of the affected MPs, the speaker adjourned question hour for 15 minutes while the ‘technical fault’ was rectified. Upon reconvening, the speaker tendered an apology to the house for the inconvenience but the courteous gesture was drowned by the chauvinistic sloganeering that ensued. Some MPs took it upon themselves to reopen a closed debate on languages, among them senior member and BJP deputy leader (Lok Sabha) Gopinath Munde. He said (in Hindi), “Hindi is the national language. No other language can be equal to it.”

The first statement is false: the constitution does not confer any language with such a status. Technical difficulties in comparing languages aside, the second statement is sheer hypocrisy coming from someone whose regional ally in his home state is the pro-Marathi Shiv Sena.

In such matters, the law of the land articulates a more objective and impartial perspective. It says: Article 343(3) of the constitution authorises the use of English (along with Hindi) for official purposes. The Official Languages Act, 1963 clearly states that both Hindi and English shall compulsorily be used for purposes such as resolutions, general orders, rules, notifications, administrative reports, official papers to be laid before a house of parliament, contracts, agreements and so on. So, a plain reading of the law tells us that Hindi and English are accorded an equal role in official communication.

But, taking the debate forward, does not the present policy on ‘official languages’ reflect an obsolete thinking? Does not restricting official communication to two languages hinder effective communication? Can the Indian parliament lay a just claim to being a multilingual institution?

What does the law say here? Within parliament, MPs are allowed to speak in any language. Article 120(1) states that the speaker “may permit any member who cannot adequately express himself in Hin¬di or in English to address the house in his mother tongue”. However, the Rajya Sabha Handbook (Chapter 2.9) states: Parliament only provides simultaneous interpretation services for Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Malayalam, Marathi, Punjabi, Oriya, Tamil and Urdu. Such speeches are then translated into only Hindi or English. Therefore, the indirect expectation is that MPs must be well versed in English or Hindi in order to follow proceedings of the house.

Popular perception is that only a small minority of Indians is not comfortable with English or Hindi. But, according to Census 2001, only 42.2 crore speak Hindi and less than 5,00,000 speak English as their first language. Even after including Hindi and English as preferred second and third languages, the numbers increase only to 55.1 crore and 12.5 crore, respectively. So, in total, only 67.6 crore people can understand Hindi or English at a basic level. It is obvious that limiting official communication to Hindi and English deprives nearly half the country’s population from its intended use.

So, there is a case to be made for includ¬ing more languages for official communication in India. The eighth schedule of the constitution lists 22 languages and simultaneous interpretation services must be provided in all of these languages.

It is an exercise that is not implausible. The European Union parliament offers simultaneous inter¬pretation services in 23 official languages to all its members. A large proportion of the documentation of proceedings such as legislative business and reports are translated into the 23 official languages. During negotiations on legislation (akin to our parliamentary committee meetings), the members may request translators to be present. The European Union parliament, thus, guarantees the highest degree of multilingualism for its constituents.

If the Indian parliament is to be representative of the democratic values, then it must start with an inclusive attitude towards fellow languages. The highest democratic institution in the country must espouse the notion of language equality and include 22 languages for official communication. Only a system in which all languages are treated on an equal footing will encourage transparency and trust in the political process.

(Views expressed here are personal.)