Language in Indian Cities: Unity or Division?

Explore contrasting views on language politics in urban India—Joshi’s cultural unity vs Kala’s critique of elite hypocrisy and deeper social inequality.

Introduction: Language Debate in Indian Cities

The question of language in India’s rapidly growing cities has become one of the most heated debates in contemporary society. Should migrants be expected to learn the local language of the cities where they work and live? Or is this demand an unfair burden that distracts from more pressing issues like poverty, unemployment, and urban infrastructure? Two compelling perspectives emerge from writers Aakash Joshi “Language Forms the Basis of Culture and Identity” (The Indian Express, July 18, 2025) and Leher Kala. (“Language Issue is a Distraction” (The Indian Express, July 18, 2025). Joshi argues that language is a vital bridge to cultural belonging, while Kala counters that the obsession with language masks deeper societal failures. This essay examines both arguments in detail, compare their strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately determine which viewpoint offers a more convincing vision for India’s linguistic future.

Language as Cultural Belonging

Aakash Joshi presents a passionate case for why migrants should learn the local languages of their new cities. He acknowledges that recent pushes for regional languages—such as Marathi in Mumbai or Kannada in Bengaluru—have sometimes led to discrimination and even violence against migrants, particularly those from poorer backgrounds. However, he insists that these extreme cases should not overshadow the deeper value of language as a unifying force.

For Joshi, language is not just a means of communication but a key part of identity. He argues that when migrants refuse to engage with the local language, they remain outsiders, disconnected from the culture and people around them. He contrasts two Indian cities to illustrate his point:

• Kolkata, where Bengali remains dominant even among the elite, encourages migrants to learn the language naturally. Because Bengali is widely used in business, education, and daily life, newcomers find it practical and rewarding to adopt it.
• Mumbai and Bengaluru, where English and Hindi dominate professional spaces, create a divide. Wealthy residents often avoid learning Marathi or Kannada, while poorer migrants—who might benefit most from linguistic integration—face pressure to conform without the same social incentives.

Joshi’s central message is that language should not be seen as an imposition but as an opportunity. When people embrace the local tongue, they build bridges rather than walls. His argument is rooted in idealism: a vision of India where linguistic diversity strengthens, rather than fractures, society.

Language as a Political Distraction

Leher Kala takes a sharply different stance. She begins by highlighting recent incidents where migrants were publicly shamed or attacked for not speaking regional languages—scenes that often go viral on social media. To her, these conflicts are not spontaneous cultural clashes but manufactured crises, designed to stir up resentment and divert attention from more urgent problems.

Kala makes several key points in her rebuttal to Joshi:

• English, Not Local Languages, is India’s True Connector

• She argues that in reality, English is the language of opportunity. Government forms, job interviews, and higher education all rely heavily on English.
• For a migrant laborer or a small business owner, learning Marathi or Kannada might offer emotional satisfaction but does little to improve their economic prospects.

• The Hypocrisy of the Elite

• Kala points out that the wealthiest urban Indians—software engineers, corporate executives, and media professionals—often live in English-speaking bubbles, sending their children to international schools and avoiding local languages unless it suits them.
• She calls this the “gated community mentality,” where elites lament the loss of regional culture while doing nothing to preserve it in their own lives.

• Language Battles Hide Bigger Failures

• The real issue, Kala insists, is not language but failing public services, unemployment, and inequality.
• Politicians and activists exploit language debates to avoid addressing these systemic problems, turning public anger toward vulnerable migrants instead.

Kala’s argument is grounded in pragmatism. She does not dismiss the emotional value of language but insists that survival comes first. For millions of working-class Indians, learning a new language is a luxury they cannot afford.

Level of Cogency

Joshi’s perspective is appealing in its optimism. He imagines an India where linguistic diversity enriches society, where learning a local language is an act of respect and integration. His examples, like Kolkata, show that this ideal is possible. However, his argument has weaknesses:

• It overlooks economic realities. Many migrants are struggling daily laborers or street vendors who lack the time and resources to learn a new language.
• It underestimates political manipulation. Language debates are often weaponized to create divisions, as Kala demonstrates.

Kala’s counterargument is stronger because it confronts these harsh truths. She does not deny that language can foster unity but insists that unity cannot be forced. Her focus on systemic inequality—how elites escape linguistic expectations while the poor bear the burden—makes her case more persuasive.

Most importantly, Kala shifts the debate from “Should migrants learn local languages?” to “Why are we focusing on language instead of real problems?” This reframing exposes the hidden agendas behind linguistic nationalism.

Towards a Resolution

If the goal is to secure a flourishing, inclusive urban society, it is not enough to merely guard against imposition or violence. We must also dismantle the “gated” mindsets that perpetuate separation and indifference. Therefore, my own standpoint aligns firmly with Kala: the civic embrace of language is not only a right to be shielded, but a responsibility to be undertaken.

Let us, then, champion a model in which:

• No one is forced to surrender their mother tongue,
• No migrant or resident is scorned for linguistic difference,
• Nor do urban elites cloister themselves in linguistic self-sufficiency.

Instead, let us imagine a polity in which language becomes the common ground—a site for both preservation and transformation. Only then can India’s cities become not just places where people earn a living, but where they forge a life together.

Conclusion

Both Joshi and Kala care deeply about India’s future, but their solutions differ. Joshi believes in the power of language to unite; Kala warns against letting language become a tool of division.

Ultimately, Kala’s argument is more convincing because it addresses the root causes of India’s linguistic tensions: not cultural differences, but inequality and political exploitation. True progress will come not from forcing language compliance but from ensuring fair opportunities for all—whether they speak Hindi, Kannada, or English.

As India’s cities grow, the challenge is not to choose one language over another but to create a society where no one is excluded—linguistically, economically, or socially. Only then can language truly become a bridge rather than a barrier.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias

Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias

The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH