 |
|
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment, rejecting a petition that challenged the use of Urdu on the signboard of a municipal council building in Patur, Akola district, Maharashtra. This ruling not only upholds the Bombay High Court's order allowing the use of Urdu alongside Marathi but also delves into the deeper socio-cultural perceptions surrounding the Urdu language in India. The court, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, emphasized that the prejudice against Urdu often stems from a misconception that the language is foreign or alien to India, a notion they vehemently refuted. The justices underscored the importance of recognizing Urdu as an Indo-Aryan language, born and nurtured within the Indian subcontinent, deeply intertwined with the country's rich cultural tapestry. The decision highlights the critical need to foster understanding and acceptance of linguistic diversity, promoting unity rather than division. The case originated from a complaint filed by a former member of the Patur municipal council, who argued that using Urdu on the signboard was not permissible under the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022. Her initial complaint was dismissed by the council, which deemed the display of Urdu alongside Marathi as justified. Subsequently, she filed an application under the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965, which initially ruled in her favor, asserting that government proceedings should exclusively use Rajbhasha Marathi. However, this decision was later overturned by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, and subsequently by the Bombay High Court, leading to the matter reaching the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP). The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized the role of municipal councils in providing services to the local community, catering to their daily needs. The court reasoned that if a significant portion of the local population is familiar with Urdu, there should be no objection to its use on the municipal council's signboard, alongside the official language, Marathi. This reasoning highlights a pragmatic approach to governance, prioritizing the accessibility and inclusivity of services for all residents, regardless of their linguistic preferences. The court further elaborated on the essence of language as a medium for exchanging ideas and fostering communication, emphasizing that it should not become a source of division or conflict. The judgment also addressed the historical context of Urdu, highlighting its origins and evolution within the Indian subcontinent. The court pointed out that Urdu developed and flourished in India due to the necessity for people from diverse cultural backgrounds to communicate and exchange ideas. Over centuries, it underwent refinement and became the preferred language for numerous acclaimed poets and literary figures. The court observed that Urdu continues to shape daily speech across India, with many common words used in Hindi and other Indian languages being of Urdu origin. The court cited examples of Urdu words prevalent in legal parlance, such as 'adalat,' 'halafnama,' and 'peshi,' demonstrating its profound influence on the Indian legal system, even within the English-dominated official language of the Supreme Court and high courts. The judgment underscored the distinction between language and religion, emphasizing that language belongs to a community, a region, and its people, not to a specific religion. The court characterized language as a cornerstone of culture and a measure of a community's civilizational progress. Urdu, in particular, was described as a prime example of 'ganga-jamuni tehzeeb' or 'Hindustani tehzeeb,' representing the composite cultural ethos of northern and central India. The Supreme Court's decision received widespread acclaim from various sections of society. Legal experts, such as Sanjay Hegde, praised the judgment's eloquent writing. Social commentators and political figures, including B.R. Naidu, lauded the ruling as a rebuke to those who seek to divide India based on language and religion. Filmmakers like Onir expressed gratitude for the protection of India's diverse cultural heritage. Lyricist Javed Akhtar provided historical context, recounting the initial opposition to translating the Quran into Urdu and highlighting the misconception that Urdu is inherently a Muslim language. The Supreme Court's judgment serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of linguistic diversity and cultural harmony in India. It challenges prevailing misconceptions about Urdu and affirms its rightful place as an integral part of the country's linguistic landscape. The ruling sends a strong message against linguistic discrimination and promotes the inclusive use of languages in public spaces, ensuring that governance is accessible to all citizens, regardless of their linguistic backgrounds.
The historical context surrounding the Urdu language in India is deeply intertwined with the country's complex socio-political landscape. Urdu emerged as a 'lingua franca' during the medieval period, primarily as a result of interactions between Persian-speaking Muslim rulers and the local populations speaking various Indo-Aryan languages, including Hindavi, which served as the foundation for both modern Hindi and Urdu. The language, initially known as Hindustani or Rekhta, flourished in the courts of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, gradually evolving into a refined and sophisticated literary language. Over time, Urdu became associated with a distinct cultural identity, particularly among the Muslim elite in northern India. However, it is crucial to recognize that Urdu was not exclusively a Muslim language. Many prominent Hindu and Sikh poets, writers, and intellectuals contributed significantly to Urdu literature. The 'ganga-jamuni tehzeeb,' which the Supreme Court aptly described, represents the harmonious blending of Hindu and Muslim cultural traditions, with Urdu serving as a vibrant expression of this syncretism. During the British colonial period, Urdu continued to thrive, gaining prominence as an administrative and educational language in various parts of India. However, the language also became entangled in communal politics, particularly in the lead-up to and aftermath of the partition of India in 1947. The association of Urdu with Muslim identity led to its marginalization in some regions, particularly in post-partition India, where Hindi was promoted as the national language. The perception of Urdu as a 'foreign' language, despite its Indian origins, further contributed to its decline in public life. The Supreme Court's judgment seeks to address these historical biases and misconceptions, reaffirming the Indian identity of Urdu and highlighting its importance as a cultural heritage for all Indians. The court's emphasis on language as a tool for communication and cultural exchange underscores the need to move beyond narrow sectarian interpretations and embrace linguistic diversity as a strength. The ruling challenges the notion that language is inherently linked to religion, emphasizing that language belongs to a community, a region, and its people. This is a crucial point in the context of contemporary India, where linguistic and religious identities are often politicized and exploited to create divisions. The Supreme Court's decision promotes a more inclusive and tolerant approach to language policy, advocating for the recognition and protection of all languages spoken in India, regardless of their historical associations or perceived religious affiliations. The judgment also has practical implications for governance and public administration. By upholding the use of Urdu on signboards and other public spaces, the court is ensuring that services are accessible to a wider segment of the population, particularly those who are more comfortable with Urdu than with other languages. This is particularly important in regions with significant Urdu-speaking populations, where the language serves as a vital means of communication and cultural expression.
The Supreme Court's emphasis on the distinction between language and religion carries profound implications for the broader discourse on identity and belonging in India. In a society often characterized by its diverse linguistic, religious, and cultural identities, the politicization of these identities can lead to social divisions and discrimination. The court's assertion that 'language is not religion' challenges the simplistic and often misleading conflation of linguistic and religious affiliations. This is particularly relevant in the context of Urdu, which, as the court noted, has been historically associated with Muslim identity in India. This association has, unfortunately, led to the marginalization and stigmatization of the language in some quarters, despite its deep roots in Indian culture and its widespread use across different communities. By decoupling language from religion, the Supreme Court is advocating for a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of identity, one that recognizes the multiple and overlapping dimensions of belonging. A person's linguistic identity, religious identity, regional identity, and national identity are not mutually exclusive. They can coexist and interact in complex ways, shaping an individual's sense of self and their relationship with the world around them. The court's judgment encourages a move away from rigid and essentialist notions of identity, towards a more fluid and dynamic understanding that acknowledges the diversity and complexity of human experience. The principle that language belongs to a community, a region, and its people, rather than to a specific religion, has significant implications for language policy in India. It suggests that the state has a responsibility to protect and promote all languages spoken within its territory, regardless of their perceived religious affiliations. This includes providing access to education in one's mother tongue, promoting the use of minority languages in public administration, and ensuring that linguistic diversity is reflected in cultural and media programming. The Supreme Court's judgment can serve as a guiding principle for policymakers seeking to create a more inclusive and equitable language policy, one that respects the linguistic rights of all citizens and promotes the harmonious coexistence of different linguistic communities. The court's emphasis on language as a tool for communication and cultural exchange also underscores the importance of promoting multilingualism in India. Multilingualism not only enhances communication and understanding between different communities but also fosters creativity, innovation, and cognitive flexibility. By encouraging individuals to learn and use multiple languages, India can tap into its vast linguistic resources and create a more vibrant and dynamic society. The Supreme Court's judgment, therefore, is not just a legal victory for the Urdu language but also a call for a more inclusive and tolerant approach to language policy and identity politics in India. It is a reminder that linguistic diversity is a strength, not a weakness, and that by embracing our linguistic heritage, we can build a more united and prosperous nation.
Source: Language not religion, but culture: Supreme Court schools on Urdu, upholds signage in Maharashtra