Talk:Languages with legal status in India

French and Pondicherry

French is an official language of Pondicherry. You can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pondicherry

Non availability of languagewise population figures

Still we are unable to know the language wise population of India as per census in 2001.When can we see these figures ? -Noorbasha Rahamthulla, Visakhapatnam.

Is gondi official language?

http://rajbhasha.nic.in/8thschedulehin.pdf

This official document doesnot show gondi as official language. Does any body knows the truth?

http://www.constitution.org/ What kind of authenticity this site has..Is this a Gov of India site?

I have seen that old nic site has given a link "National Languages" which says that there are 22 national languages in india... Your second site speaks about only Raj basha (official language).It need not have references about national language http://rajbhasha.nic.in/dolruleseng.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.132.54 (talk) 12:22, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Anti-English POV?

Well, let’s check it: almost all (if not all) the websites of official Indian state governments and Indian central government are primairly in English; English is the official language of the capital territory of Delhi, 7 states and 3 territories (being the sole official language in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Sikkim). Many Indian universities use English as a way of instruction. And many business, too. In any part of India, we can see billboards advertising in both Hindi (or local language) and respectively in English. Court proceedings are in English, as the same way that many parliament discussions and resolutions.

So, why it seems the article as the way it is written now wants to downplay the role and the importance of English (saying many and many times that “English is not the official language of India”) as the main language of all India together with Hindi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.232.230.231 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph not clear

The opening paragraph explains how things are "envisaged" without clearly stating how things "are". Can anyone please make this clear? Barrylb (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up now. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Union

"Union" is India. It is not the union government. The first article of the Constitution of India says: Name and territory of the Union: India that is Bharat shall be a Union of States. Article 2 then says Parliament can admit a new State into the Union. Obviously, they don't mean the Union Government! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

PS Please see Talk: India archives. I have two dozen references there from encyclopedias, UN agencies, British and US Government agencies, journal articles etc. Please don't keep changing Union to "union government." Hindi is the official language of India. Also, "national language" is a vague notion, so there is no reason to bring it up.

PPS. I see that the sentence about "national language" has been changed to, "Unlike other countries the Constitution of India doesn't define any national language. Again, "national language" is a vague term. The countries that are listed there, like Finland, have for Wikipedia purposes only "official languages" (see the infobox there); see also Official languages of the European Union. There is nothing there about the "national language of Finland." If a language satisfies the definition provided in the lead of the page Official language:

“ An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other territory. Typically a nation's official language will be the one used in that nation's courts, parliament and administration.("OFFICIAL LANGUAGE", Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, Ed. Tom McArthur, Oxford University Press, 1998.) ”

it is the official language regardless of whether the country calls it "official language," "national language," "native language," "lingua franca," or "heritage language." Please remove this sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is, that there is no national language in India defined by the constitution, and that there are nations, who have defined them per constitution. In a South Asian context, Pakistan has defined a national language, whereas India doesn't. We have to make sure, that people don't believe, that India has a national language. There are enough troubles because of such misunderstandings, for instance the current Marathi-North Indian conflicts. --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have now created another subpage of my user page User:Fowler&fowler/Official_language(s)_of_India with 15 focused references. Note that references 3, 4, 10, all of which are very reliable references call Hindi the national language. Reference 12 says "Official or national" and regards them the same. In other words I have more WP:RS sources for Hindi being the national language than you do for Hindi "not being a national language." In other words, I could easily change "official" to "official or national language" and will have sources to back it up. I agree with your point about misunderstanding, given the sensitivities in India about this issue, but I doubt we are going to be able to find any citation for this edit, and it will be regarded as WP:OR. Perhaps there is a better way to deal with it. Let me think about it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're kinda funny. Now, suddenly, you don't give any respect to the constitution. Instead you are trying to push somebody's view in the article. Infact, there were Anti-Hindi agitations 1965, who opposed the move to declare Hindi as sole "Official and National language" of India. See the Anti-Hindi agitation page. This move was obviously thwarted. So, there are two points: First, NO constitutional description of any national language. Agitation against National status to Hindi resulted in Official languages of States and English as Official language of Union. Overall the edit should be implemented.--Kalarimaster (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

F&F, whatever your references are, the Constitution is the over-riding source here and it does not specify a national language. I hope you see my point. I dont thhink you can claim Union = India, arent the states and their governments part of India. In the Constituion, the Union refers to the state and so I think Union Government is a more appropriate and less ambiguous term than simply India. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not the overriding secondary source. It is a primary source. Primary documents can be used for some obvious statements; even there, it can be tricky. For example, the interpretation of Union=India and not union government, is something that belongs to the realm of secondary sources, even though Article 1 and 2 clearly imply it. The secondary sources (all 15 reliable ones I have quoted above) have clearly interpreted "union" to mean "India," and not "the Government of India." WP:RS secondary sources are what count on Wikipedia. Even if primary sources were allowed, how, by the way, are you going to show that the Constitution doesn't define a "national" language? By citing every page of the Constitution as a negative? Equally, I could add dozens of sentences like: the Constitution doesn't define a mother tongue, a lingua franca, a heritage language and cite all the pages of the Constitution as a negative. A national language is an ill-defined term. The Wikipedia page national language says that if it says anything. If the linguistic-sub-nationalists in India have a problem with the word "national" and apparently confuse "official" with "national," that is not Wikipedia's problem; it is theirs: they need to read history, linguistics, do some soul searching, or see a therapist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In all such instances (especially on such controversial issues) I always say, let's go for a Wikipedia mediation. It is the best form of dispute resolution. You lay out your argument and your sources, and the mediator helps out with a solution. I am happy to go for a mediation with either/both of you about either/both of the disputed issues here (Union=India; redundancy of mention of "national language.") Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have always wondered of the difference between official and national language. I agree, National language is, indeed, a vague term. There is no need to write about something so vague, doesnt exist and doesnt have to exist. There is a lot of countries which dont define a national language, I dont see one in Canada article for example. Docku: What up? 22:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Raj Basha is the term, which is used in the Hindi version of the constitution. Rashtra Basha means National language. Raj Basha means Official language. Enough said. --Kalarimaster (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To Kalarimaster: Since you were quick to quote the Press Information Bureau, Government of India, for the dispute about "Classical Languages," how do you think the Government of India, has itself, interpreted "Union?"

• On its website page, "Republic Day," it says in the second paragraph: "26th January, 1950 was the day when the Indian republic and its Constitution came into force. It was this day in history in 1965 when Hindi was declared as the official language of India."
• The Press Information Bureau itself says (please scroll down half-way down the page to 40 Officials Awarded Prizes etc and read: "Speaking on the occasion, the Secretary, Legislative Department Dr. Raghbir Singh congratulated the recipients of awards in various categories of competitions for promotion of Hindi as the official language of India."
• The Education Ministry of the Government of India, says, in the Introduction, "In its Eighth Schedule the Constitution of India has specified 15 Modern Indian Languages. Of these, Hindi has been accorded the status of the official language of India and English of an associate language."
• The "General Information about India" offered by the Government. It says: LANGUAGE: Hindi is the official language of India, but English is widely understood and spoken."
• For those who claim that Union = Government of India, The National Council of Educational Research and Training whose task it is "to advise and assist the Government of India in formulating and implementing policies and programmes in the field of education, particularly school education." says on page 2 of its webpage on School Curriculum, "... emphasising the teaching of Hindi as the official language of India and Samskrit as the language of traditional wisdom and culture of the country." (Since its curriculum is followed by over 15 million high-school students all over the country, Hindi is not just the official language of the Government.)
• These same 15 million students, when they get to grade 12 in high-school, what do they learn in the Chapter 12 of the On-line textbook produced by the Education Council above? The chapter, India after independence: A constitution is written (which, sadly, is better written than the Wikipedia article) says, on page 164(5), "A compromise was finally arrived at: namely, that while Hindi would be the “official language” of India, English would be used in the courts, the services, and communications between one state and another."

Do you really want me to keep going? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

inclusion classical languages

I think this should be included, since it's an official matter of India. Therefore this is the right place to put it in, especially with the proposed draft:
In addition to the constitutional defined official languages, the government of India created a category of official classical languages.
Please tell exactly why this should not be included here user:fowler&fowler. --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

I am afraid, I hadn't really paid attention to this article, but the entire article is full of original research. There had been some concerns about this in July 2007, but since the main author user:Lexmercatoria, who apparently was a lawyer, left, people assumed it was OK (or that is what I thought myself). The article, however, is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy. Almost every other sentence is an interpretation of the Constitution for which the citation is the constitution itself. Wikipedia is very clear about only using secondary sources, and unfortunately, this article doesn't use any; it is written like a paper in a law journal. The article will require a major cleanup. Not sure who will be up for it, but fixing it is not going to be easy, in my estimation. Perhaps, I will ask someone experienced like user:Venu62, who wrote Political integration of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)