Wed Jul 16 03:00:00 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary of the text and a news article version:
**Summary:**
The article, written from an Indian perspective, emphasizes the importance of religious and linguistic diversity in maintaining India’s secular character and national unity. It argues that Indian secularism, unlike its Western counterpart, is intrinsically linked to both religion and language. While guaranteeing religious freedoms, it also empowers the state to address communalism based on religious or linguistic grounds. The author stresses the need to protect all languages, including those not listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, to uphold linguistic secularism. The article highlights the resistance to Hindi imposition in some states and expresses concern over recent violence in Maharashtra targeting non-Marathi speakers, attributing it to divisive identity politics. It concludes by urging political parties to uphold the constitutional protection of India’s diversity and warns against conservatism that could fragment society.
**News Article:**
**India’s Secularism Hinges on Protecting Linguistic Diversity, Expert Argues Amid Maharashtra Tensions**
**Mumbai, July 16, 2025** – In light of recent communal tensions and violence in Maharashtra, a leading expert on governance is highlighting the critical role of linguistic diversity in upholding India’s secular fabric.
C.B.P. Srivastava, President of the Centre for Applied Research in Governance, argues that India’s unique model of secularism extends beyond religious tolerance and actively safeguards linguistic rights. In an article published today, Srivastava emphasized that India’s Constitution recognizes the importance of all languages, not just those officially recognized.
“India’s diversity in religion and language is a cornerstone of our nation’s unity,” Srivastava wrote. “Protecting each and every language, irrespective of region or State, is essential for maintaining linguistic secularism.”
The article acknowledges the historical resistance to Hindi imposition in some southern and northeastern states. However, it specifically addresses the recent violence in Maharashtra against non-Marathi speakers, attributing the unrest to divisive identity politics rather than genuine cultural preservation.
“The violence is not to protect its cultural identity. Had it been related to the protection of culture, the ‘protectors’ of Marathi language would have considered that ‘tolerance’ and ‘liberality’ are the two pillars of India’s unity in diversity,” Srivastava writes.
The piece underscores the constitutional guarantees for linguistic minorities and the importance of Article 29, which ensures the right to protect one’s language, script, or culture.
Srivastava concludes by urging political parties to prioritize the protection of India’s diverse cultural landscape, warning that a conservative approach to religion or language could lead to societal fragmentation. The article serves as a timely reminder of the delicate balance required to maintain India’s secular identity in an increasingly polarized world.
First Piper 