Are our language rows leading to soft sedition?

A shopkeeper was attacked by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) workers for not speaking Marathi. And this episode is not isolated as similar attacks have been reported across Maharashtra and India. In Bengaluru, destruction of signage written in Hindi is becoming a norm and in Tamil Nadu, anti-Hindi campaigns have a long history, which often resurface in response to perceived threats to the Tamil language.

Even in our capital city Delhi, sneers and subtle exclusions follow those who speak with a southern accent or hail from the Northeast. Indians are being targeted simply for speaking a different language or merely looking different outside their home states. These are not isolated instances of regional prejudice, but illustrative of an emerging trend of linguistic vigilantism that is increasingly spreading across the nation. Any pretext of regional pride shrouds an odious belief system. It may not aspire to secession, yet it dramatically undermines national integration. This constitutes a new type of “soft sedition” in India. It represents a kind of regional hegemony that does not use violence of arms, but instead lives by cultural bullying, verbal violence, and everyday discrimination. The underlying causes of this crisis resurfaced with the implementation of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, especially its three-language equation. NEP 2020 aims to develop multilingualism and enhance national integration, but its implementation requires students to be taught three languages including at least two Indian languages. On paper, it allows states to choose the languages to be taught.

Advertisement

However, in many parts of non-Hindi India, it was seen as a surreptitious advance of Hindi creating a reasonable sense of backsliding, fears of cultural dilution and threats to local languages. Politicians at all levels, from all sides and regions, used this opportunity for political gain, turning language pride into language extremism. As usual, they started to play on peoples’ fears. They started muddying the waters with ideas of Hindi imposition justifying overt threats and violence against Hindi speakers and migrants from Northern regions. What may have started as a reform with good intent is now a tool that creates division between communities and states. State leaders irrespective of party have either turned a blind eye or openly endorsed this brand of rising chauvinism. Even our national parties are hesitant to address this, lest their regional partners take umbrage. Silence in such a situation is not neutrality.

It is complicity and sets a bad precedent with an idea of appeasing certain section for cheap politics. The ramifications of this crisis are serious and need us to look again at the philosophical and constitutional basis of the Indian republic. Article 1 of the Constitution declares, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” The specific choice of words reflects a conscious rejection of the idea that Indian states are sovereign, cultural or political entities. Unlike a federation that unites countries through treaties, India is a civilizational polity where states derive their legitimacy from the Union, rather than the other way around.

The 1956 linguistic reorganization was intended to accommodate diversity through better administration, rather than an invitation to weaken national identity along linguistic lines. Language in India has a strong sense of identity and belonging, but it needs to be framed as a common resource, not a right of the state. Language is, in essence, the oldest and most effective way for humanity to connect with one another. Language is the means through which we connect minds, share minds and create communities. Therefore, our rich diversity of language should not be a reason for division, but a means by which we understand and are understood. In the same way, our Constitution gives every Indian citizen freedom through Articles 14, 19 and 21. Every Indian has the right to not only speak their language but also to work and reside throughout the country. A Bihari living in Bengaluru or a Manipuri living in Mumbai is not an outsider; they are co-equal citizens of the nation. This is not just a cultural sensitivity issue, but constitutional morality that Ambedkar warned against when speaking of majoritarian tyranny. Any attempt by political or local actors to create linguistic conformity is a direct violation of the Constitution. Yet, in recent years, we have observed a dangerous rise of regional chauvinism in the states. Such linguistic violence impinges on more than constitutional rights. It impacts internal migration, essential for India’s economy, by making workers fear discrimination in unfamiliar states. Socially, linguistic chauvinism exacerbates mistrust between linguistic tribes, as it undermines the social fabric that holds India together.

This anxiety proliferates into educational contexts, job interviews, housing preferences, shrinking the ambit of what it means to be Indian. Psychologically, it creates fearfulness and exclusion, particularly among migrants and students. Cultural majoritarianism does not simply become political, as Ashis Nandy warned, but alters how people see themselves, and their social location. This leads us to an incredibly pivotal legal moment and the phrase “Soft Sedition”. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, updates how we interpret threats against the nation. This law replaces the colonial Section 124A of the IPC with a broader provision against acts that threaten the “sovereignty, unity or integrity of India”.

Section 152 of BNS acknowledges that threats to the nation state do not always take the form of rebellion, insurrection, or armed revolt, as its predecessor did. And divisive violent acts of language-based exclusion, violence, and campaigning align well with this expanded interpretation. They are not just “cultural assertions”. They are deliberate attempts to redraw the invisible map of India, cutting out zones of exclusion to the constitutional social contact. This ideological subversion of identity politics must be addressed as a potential national security threat and assault against authority on “the unity and integrity of India”.

Supporters of regional identities have consistently stated that linguistic pride is essential to the federal character of India. There is, to some extent, truth in this. India’s strength has always been its ability to bind together many languages, cultures and traditions. But diversity should never be confused with division. Love for one’s mother tongue does not condone hostility towards another. It is one thing to assert one’s cultural confidence, it is another to express exclusionary aggression, and that boundary is now being crossed far too often for anyone to ignore. And thus, our executive must act quickly and decisively. Clear directions should be sent by the Central government instructing law enforcement agencies to identify, monitor, report and prosecute language-based hate crimes under the new BNS provisions. Political parties disseminating linguistic hatred must be held accountable under the law. The judiciary cannot afford to be passive either. Inaction by them would be a failure of judicial activism. High Courts, and the Supreme Court, must take suo moto cognizance where public or viral statements incite hatred based on language or region.

There should be zero institutional tolerance for such violations. As the final protector and guardian of the constitution, Supreme Court must act now. In addition to a legal process, the Union government should consider launching a National Linguistic Harmony Mission, preferably in coordination with the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Ministry of Culture, to actively monitor interstate animosity, promote mutual respect through media usage and education, and create outlets where citizens can interact and interact across language divisions.

The Home Ministry should issue public advisories clarifying that verbal abuse and online troll attacks based on language will be considered a crime under the BNS. Linguistic extremism can no longer be treated as merely a cultural concern. It must be identified as a genuine threat to national security and public order. Let it be clear that in the Republic of India, no one is a second-class citizen. Not because of caste, not because of gender, and never because of the language they speak. India’s strength has never come from forcing sameness, but from embracing difference.

From Kalidasa and Tagore to Bharati and Premchand, our greatest voices came from different corners, yet spoke to the same soul. India does not need a lingua franca; it needs a lingua familia, where each language is celebrated without any hierarchy. This is not just a call to protect words or languages. It is a call to protect who we are as a people. If we fail to act now, we risk losing not just our harmony, but the very idea of India itself.

(The writers are, respectively, Assistant Professor, Aryabhatta College, University of Delhi, and an Advocate, Delhi High Court.)