Opposition members, including TMC MP Sagarika Ghose, criticized the exclusive use of Hindi titles, viewing it as a move toward imposing the language across India's diverse linguistic spectrum. They argued that such measures disregard the federal principles enshrined in the Constitution, particularly in a nation that recognizes 22 official languages. Ghose highlighted that many regional populations would struggle to identify with titles written solely in Hindi.
The government, represented by BJP leader Ghanshyam Tiwari, strongly denied the accusations, calling them remnants of a colonial mindset. Tiwari asserted that the titles align with constitutional provisions and clarified that no specific effort was being made to favor one language over others. He emphasized that English translations of the proposed bills remain available, ensuring accessibility for all linguistic groups.
The bill in question seeks to replace the Aircraft Act of 1934 with updated regulations aimed at fostering investment and enhancing business operations in the aviation sector. While the opposition acknowledged the importance of such reforms, they maintained that the choice of Hindi in the bill's title sets a precedent that could marginalize non-Hindi-speaking communities.
Amid these exchanges, some experts weighed in on the broader implications of language politics in legislative processes. The Constitution of India stipulates Hindi and English as official languages for parliamentary proceedings, but critics argue that privileging Hindi in bill titles may alienate millions of citizens who communicate primarily in regional languages. Linguistic experts noted that such practices could inadvertently deepen regional divides, especially in southern states where resistance to Hindi imposition has a longstanding history.
This debate is not without historical context. Language has often been a politically charged issue in India, from the anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu during the 1960s to ongoing debates about language use in administrative and educational domains. The government’s move to include Hindi prominently in legal titles revives these concerns, raising questions about inclusivity in policy framing.
Supporters of the government’s stance argue that promoting Hindi reflects its constitutional status as the national language. They also point out that legislative practices should evolve to strengthen a collective identity. However, critics remain unconvinced, contending that linguistic diversity is a core strength of the Indian federation and must be safeguarded against homogenization.