Identifying Correct Statements on India's National Language Debate

The question asks us to identify the correct statements regarding the language debate in India, particularly around the time of independence and the making of the Constitution. Let's carefully analyze each statement provided.

We need to evaluate the accuracy of the following statements:

1. By the 1930s, the Congress has accepted that Hindustani ought to be the national language.
2. Durgabai wanted Hindi to be declared as national language.
3. Mahatma Gandhi retained his faith in the composite character Hindustani.
4. Each province was to be allowed to choose one of the regional languages for official work.
5. R.V. Dhulekar was against Hindi be used as the language in Constitution making.

Analysis of Each Statement

Let's examine each statement based on historical context regarding India's national language debate:

• Statement A: By the 1930s, the Congress has accepted that Hindustani ought to be the national language.
  This statement is historically accurate. Mahatma Gandhi, a prominent leader of the Congress, strongly advocated for Hindustani as a language that could bridge the gap between different communities and regions in India. Hindustani, in his view, was a composite language drawing from both Hindi and Urdu. The Congress generally supported this idea in the years leading up to independence, seeing Hindustani as a unifying force.
• Statement B: Durgabai wanted Hindi to be declared as national language.
  Durgabai Deshmukh, a member of the Constituent Assembly from Madras, was involved in the language debate. While she recognized the need for a national language and initially supported Hindustani, her position, particularly later in the Constituent Assembly debates, was nuanced. She spoke about the difficulties faced by non-Hindi speakers and stressed the importance of compromise and respecting regional languages. It is not entirely accurate to say she simply 'wanted Hindi' as the national language without acknowledging the complexities of her stance and the context of the debates where finding a widely acceptable solution was key. Many members from non-Hindi speaking areas were apprehensive about Hindi imposition.
• Statement C: Mahatma Gandhi retained his faith in the composite character Hindustani.
  This statement is correct. Throughout his life, Mahatma Gandhi consistently promoted Hindustani, which he envisioned as a blend of Hindi and Urdu, written in either Devanagari or Persian script. He believed this composite language was the most suitable lingua franca for India because it was spoken by a large number of people and represented a synthesis of different cultural streams.
• Statement D: Each province was to be allowed to choose one of the regional languages for official work.
  This statement is accurate regarding the policy that emerged and was incorporated into the Constitution. While there was debate over the national language, the principle of linguistic diversity at the state level was widely accepted. The Constitution allowed states to adopt one or more of the languages used in the state as their official language(s).
• Statement E: R.V. Dhulekar was against Hindi be used as the language in Constitution making.
  This statement is incorrect. R.V. Dhulekar was a strong and vocal proponent of Hindi. He was known for his assertive stance in the Constituent Assembly, arguing vehemently for Hindi to be the language used for the proceedings and to be recognized as the sole national language of India. He was certainly not against Hindi's use; he was its fervent champion.

Conclusion on Correct Statements

Based on the analysis:

• Statement A is correct.
• Statement B is likely incorrect or an oversimplification of Durgabai's position.
• Statement C is correct.
• Statement D is correct.
• Statement E is incorrect.

Therefore, the correct statements are A, C, and D.

The option that lists A, C, and D as the correct statements is (a).

Revision Table: Language Debate in India

Additional Information: The Language Question in the Constituent Assembly

The question of language was one of the most contentious issues debated in the Constituent Assembly of India. There was a strong push by proponents of Hindi to declare it the national language, while members from non-Hindi speaking regions, particularly the South, expressed fears of linguistic and cultural domination.

Key points about this debate include:

• Demand for Hindi: Many members from the Hindi-speaking belt argued that Hindi, spoken by a large population, should be the national language and the language of the Assembly's proceedings.
• Opposition from Non-Hindi Speakers: Representatives from states like Madras, Bengal, and others strongly opposed the immediate and exclusive imposition of Hindi. They argued that it would disadvantage those who did not speak Hindi and could threaten their regional languages and cultures.
• The Hindi-Hindustani Divide: Within the pro-Hindi group, there was also a difference between those who favored Sanskritised Hindi and those, like Gandhi, who preferred Hindustani, a more colloquial and composite form.
• The Munshi-Ayyangar Formula: A compromise was eventually reached through the efforts of leaders like K.M. Munshi and Gopalaswami Ayyangar. This formula, adopted as part of the Constitution (Article 343), declared Hindi in Devanagari script as the official language of the Union, but also allowed the continued use of English for official purposes for a period of 15 years. It also provided for the recognition of regional languages for official use within states (Article 345) and listed several languages in the Eighth Schedule.
• Significance of Regional Languages: The Constitution's acceptance of regional languages for state-level official work was crucial in preserving India's linguistic diversity and addressing the concerns of non-Hindi speaking regions.

Understanding this historical context helps clarify the positions mentioned in the statements, particularly regarding Gandhi's stance on Hindustani, the provincial language policy, and the positions of individuals like R.V. Dhulekar.