Shaleen Mahajan
India’s democratic system functions within one of the most linguistically diverse societies in the world. The country recognizes 22 languages in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution and thousands of dialects spoken across different regions. Language in India is not merely a tool of communication; it is a marker of identity, culture, and political representation. Because of this, debates about language often extend beyond grammar and vocabulary to questions of dignity, regional identity, and democratic participation.
A recent controversy in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly surrounding the use of Dogri and Kashmiri during legislative proceedings has once again brought these issues into focus. The debate illustrates how linguistic diversity interacts with legislative procedure, constitutional law, and political sensitivities. It also raises a fundamental question: when languages are officially recognized by law, how far should legislative institutions go in ensuring their practical use within democratic forums?
Language plays a central role in democratic governance. In a representative system, elected members are expected to articulate the concerns of their constituencies. Often, those concerns are most naturally expressed in the language spoken by the people they represent.
When a legislator speaks in their native language, they are not simply communicating information. They are symbolically representing the culture, history, and identity of their community. In multilingual societies like India, therefore, the question of which languages can be used in legislative institutions becomes deeply significant.
India’s constitutional framework recognizes this reality. Instead of imposing a rigid linguistic uniformity, the Constitution adopts a flexible approach that allows different regions to determine their own official languages while simultaneously protecting linguistic minorities. This approach reflects the understanding that linguistic diversity is not a weakness but a defining feature of India’s federal democracy.
The recent controversy emerged during the budget session of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. During Question Hour, Satish Kumar Sharma, a Member of the Legislative Assembly representing the Billawar constituency, asked a supplementary question in Dogri.
Initially, members of the Assembly listened to the question without interruption. However, objections soon arose from the treasury benches regarding the use of Dogri. The issue prompted the Speaker of the Assembly, Abdul Rahim Rather, to intervene.
The Speaker announced that the remarks made in Dogri would not be included in the official proceedings of the House. His reasoning was practical rather than political. Tthe reporters responsible for maintaining the official record of the Assembly did not understand Dogri or Kashmiri, making it difficult to accurately document the statement.
He therefore directed members to use languages that could be properly recorded and understood by the reporting staff.
The situation attracted further attention when the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, responded to the issue. He remarked that if the member expected an answer from the government, the question should be asked in a language that the minister could understand. The MLA subsequently repeated his question in Hindi.
The matter resurfaced later during the budget discussion when another member, Altaf Ahmad Wani, spoke in Kashmiri and questioned why Dogri could be used while Kashmiri could not. Members of the BJP objected to this remark, arguing that Dogri was unfairly being singled out. Wani clarified that he had no objection to Dogri itself but was highlighting the broader issue of comprehension and linguistic representation in the Assembly.
Once again, the Speaker reiterated that remarks made in Dogri or Kashmiri would not be included in the official record if they could not be properly understood and transcribed.
This exchange transformed what initially appeared to be a procedural matter into a larger debate about language, identity, and representation.
The Constitution of India contains several provisions that address the use of languages in governance and legislative proceedings.
One of the most relevant provisions is Article 210 of the Constitution of India, which governs the language used in state legislatures. The provision states that the business of a state legislature shall ordinarily be conducted in the official language of the state or in Hindi or English. However, it also provides an important safeguard that is the Speaker or Chairman may permit a member who cannot adequately express themselves in those languages to address the House in their mother tongue.This provision reflects the Constitution’s attempt to balance administrative efficiency with linguistic inclusivity. It recognizes that legislative functioning requires a degree of procedural order while also acknowledging the linguistic realities of India’s diverse society.
Another important provision is Article 345 of the Constitution of India, which empowers state legislatures to adopt one or more languages used within the state as official languages for administrative purposes. This allows states and union territories to design language policies that reflect their regional demographics and cultural diversity.
Additionally, Article 29 of the Constitution of India protects the cultural and linguistic rights of minorities. It guarantees that any section of citizens with a distinct language, script, or culture has the right to conserve and promote it. While this provision primarily focuses on cultural preservation, it reinforces the broader constitutional commitment to linguistic diversity.Together, these provisions demonstrate that language policy in India is guided by the principles of accommodation, protection, and flexibility.
Both Dogri and Kashmiri hold constitutional significance. Kashmiri has long been recognized as one of the languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, reflecting its historical and cultural importance in the region. Dogri, meanwhile, gained constitutional recognition through the Ninety‑Second Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, which added several languages to the Eighth Schedule, including Dogri.The inclusion of these languages in the Eighth Schedule symbolizes national recognition of their cultural heritage and encourages their development through educational and institutional support.
However, constitutional recognition alone does not automatically guarantee their use in legislative proceedings. For languages to function effectively in parliamentary or legislative debates, there must be adequate administrative mechanisms such as translation services, transcription facilities, and trained reporting staff.
The linguistic framework of Jammu and Kashmir underwent significant changes in recent years. The Jammu and Kashmir Official Languages Act, 2020 formally recognized five official languages for the Union Territory that is Kashmiri, Dogri, Urdu, Hindi and English.The Act also provides that the business of the Legislative Assembly may be conducted in any of the official languages of the Union Territory. In principle, therefore, both Dogri and Kashmiri can legitimately be used in legislative debates.
The controversy in the Assembly, therefore, was not about whether these languages are legally recognized. Instead, it was about whether the institutional mechanisms exist to support their practical use.
Legislative debates are formally recorded as part of the official proceedings of the House. These records serve several important purposes. They provide transparency to the public, ensure accountability of elected representatives, and create a historical archive of legislative discussions.If a statement is made in a language that the reporting staff cannot understand, accurately recording the proceedings becomes extremely difficult. This was the concern raised by the Speaker during the debate.
Without proper transcription, translation, and verification mechanisms, the reliability of the official legislative record may be compromised. From an administrative perspective, therefore, the Speaker’s decision appears to have been motivated by practical considerations rather than by opposition to the languages themselves.
However, the incident also highlights an institutional gap. If languages such as Dogri and Kashmiri are officially recognized, the legislative system ideally should be equipped to accommodate them.The Parliament of India offers an instructive example of how linguistic diversity can be managed within legislative institutions. Members of Parliament are permitted to speak in any language listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
To facilitate this, Parliament provides simultaneous interpretation services. Professional interpreters translate speeches into multiple languages so that other members and the official record can accurately capture the proceedings.
This system allows legislators to express themselves in their preferred language while ensuring that debates remain understandable to all members.
Similar practices exist in several multilingual democracies. The European Parliament, for instance, operates in dozens of languages through a sophisticated interpretation system. These examples demonstrate that linguistic inclusivity in legislative bodies is achievable when supported by appropriate institutional infrastructure.
In Jammu and Kashmir, language is closely linked to regional identity. Dogri is primarily associated with the Jammu region, while Kashmiri is widely spoken in the Kashmir Valley. As a result, discussions about language often carry deeper political and cultural meanings.
When legislators insist on speaking in their native language, they are often asserting the identity of their constituencies. At the same time, disagreements about language use can sometimes be interpreted as regional or political tensions.This is why language policy in legislative institutions requires careful handling. Decisions should ideally be guided by principles of fairness, inclusivity, and administrative feasibility rather than political rivalry.
The Dogri–Kashmiri debate in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly highlights a broader challenge faced by multilingual democracies like how to reconcile linguistic inclusivity with procedural efficiency.
One possible solution is to develop translation and interpretation facilities within the Assembly. Training reporting staff in multiple languages or employing professional interpreters could significantly reduce the barriers to linguistic participation.Another step would be to clarify procedural rules regarding language use in legislative debates. Clear guidelines can help prevent confusion and ensure that all members understand the conditions under which different languages may be used.Investing in such institutional infrastructure would not only resolve procedural difficulties but also strengthen democratic representation.
The controversy surrounding the use of Dogri and Kashmiri in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly is not simply a dispute about language. It reflects the deeper relationship between linguistic identity, constitutional rights, and democratic governance.
While both languages enjoy constitutional recognition and official status under the law, their practical use in legislative proceedings remains limited by administrative constraints. The incident therefore exposes an institutional gap rather than a legal prohibition.
In a country as linguistically rich as India, democratic institutions must strive to reflect the diversity of the people they represent. By investing in translation services, strengthening reporting mechanisms, and developing inclusive procedural rules, legislative bodies can ensure that linguistic diversity becomes a source of democratic strength rather than conflict.
This serves as a reminder that language in a democracy is more than words. It is a voice of identity, participation, and representation.
(The writer is a final year student of Law, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar)
