The decision of the Delhi university (DU) to make Hindi/MILs (modern Indian languages) a compulsory paper in the foundation course of the four-year BA programme starting with the academic year 2013-14 was strongly protested by the students from the northeast. Although the decision was applicable to all who wish to pursue education in DU, many from the northeast felt humiliated by it. Several northeast student organisations came together under a committee christened as the Northeast Students Committee against Imposition of Compulsory Hindi/MILs. The committee in association with some left organisations and progressive teachers carried out a series of protests in the campus and in front of the HRD ministry. They demanded revision of this requirement and insertion of an alternative English course or other English-medium course in its place.

What is interesting is that the official decision on compulsory language was taken arbitrarily. There are logistic and technical issues and the sentiments centred on language that needed to be addressed before coming up with the policy. The apprehension of the students sounds logical to some extent. Firstly, most colleges lack teachers and infrastructural support to offer MILs. During my graduation course, the college could not provide a teacher for the Manipuri language. On the other hand those who were enrolled in a college in south Delhi and chose Manipuri had to attend MIL course at the MIL department which is located in north Delhi. As a result many students were forced to offer Hindi or other subject or had to face the burden of attending class in the north campus. They had to spend extra money, time and labour.

Secondly, only Assamese, Boro and Manipuri are the languages recognised as MIL from the northeast. However, given the linguistic diversity the northeastern states have their own language policy in educational set-ups. To cite the example of Manipur, students up to class 12 under the BSEM are allowed to offer either MIL or alternative English or any of the following dialects such as Hmar, Lushai, Mao, Paite, Poula, Rongmei, Tangkhul, Thadou/Kuki and Vaiphei. The recent decision of the government of Manipur to delete Additional English from the list of first language, vide notification A/SC/6/V/76/Pt-II dated 23-03-2013, is being widely resented by a section of the population.

What one may not fail to acknowledge is the emotive sentiment either for a particular language or against another that is persistent in the context of politics of assertion or negation centred on community identity. The northeast students in Delhi, composed of different communities having different linguistic affiliations, holistically constitute an assertive class who had migrated for education and career. Overnight migration and metropolitan livelihood had not changed them from what they subscribe to the respectively articulated patriotism centred on community identity in their ‘homeland’. Socially in Delhi they are exposed to the alleged discrimination and social profiling in the neighbourhood and in the public places. Politically, despite recognising the capital as a place of learning and opportunity, most of them perceive it with suspicion as the commanding centre of domination and discrimination. The language policy of DU was suspected as hegemonic and forced imposition of ‘alien’ language against their will. They considered that it had a discriminating impact by keeping them in a disadvantaging condition.

How far the DU decision would fall within the larger paradigm of hegemonising Hindi has not been spelt out. Neither the prospect of Hindi towards developing the knowledge skill of the non-Hindi speaking students has been explained. But the demand against imposition of Hindi /MIL has been legitimate from the perspectives of those who wish to reaffirm their citizenship, defend pluralism and seek an academic career without additional burden of learning a new language. In their bargaining the student bodies rallied on the pre-existing racial and regional stereotyping and finally on April 10 they obtained a notification from the university that conceded their demand. The protest had achieved the goal.

However, it remains disappointing to many that one of the most prestigious institutions of the country had failed to think through before taking a decision that would affect many. The decision had invoked sentiment that directly or indirectly culminated into radicalism and protests by students who were hitherto peaceful and studious. Although the demand was fulfilled and it would benefit the newcomers; the loss incurred by the students in the weeks-long protest remain uncompensated. The authority was largely responsible for the restless situation. Will this trend continue?