Guarantees at the State and Regional Level.

One other factor that ought to be mentioned in any discussion of overall policy is what happens to small linguistic groups that are not given control of a territory or linguistic state, but still expect the same rights as larger groups. India has many minorities with population sizes on a par with such European nations as Denmark or the now independent Baltic states, such as Tu d lu, a Dravidian language spoken around Mangalore in Karnataka State. Tu d lu possess a grammar, a dictionary, and a folk literature of some amplitude, but it controls no territory and has no independent script, so Kannada script it used for whatever is written in Tudlu, and Kannada is the language of literacy in the area. Similarly further north, Konkani struggles for recognition as a language separate from Marathi, though with less success; Maithili in the Hindi area is another candidate for language status, but has not been recognized.

When the Indian language planners borrowed the Soviet model, they seem to have ignored the fine print. Though minorities as small as the Abkhazians (with a population less than 100,000 speakers (Lewis 1972:58)) were entitled to use their language for at least elementary education in the USSR, the only guarantees that linguistic minorities (those not mentioned in the Eighth Schedule) possess at the sub-state level are vague references to rights to maintain the language; language groups mentioned in the Eighth Schedule, who have a right to some schooling at state expense in areas where they are strong enough, nevertheless have little to fall back on in terms of guarantees with teeth feel when they feel that violations of these provisions have occurred .

In order to ferret out just what rights linguistic minorities have who live in states where other languages are dominant or official, one must consult such sources as the Andhra Pradesh government's Brochure (Andhra Pradesh 1989), the Karnataka Government's statement on provisions for linguistic minorities in Karnataka (Banakar 1982), or the periodic reports of the Commissioner for Linguistic Minorities in India (e.g. Twelfth Report 1971). The latter outline various `scheme[s] of safeguards for linguistic minorities', but despite avowals of freedom to language, culture, freedom of speech etc., contained in the Constitution of India (e.g. Article 29(1) which empowers people having a distinct language, script or culture to conserve the same) linguistic groups having a grievance must petition the President of India, who may direct the State to officially recognize such language. These articles were incorporated into the Constitution in the revisions of 1956. Article 350A states that

It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups and the President may issue such directions to any State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities.

Furthermore, Article 350B(1) specifies that the President may appoint a Special Officer to investigate all matters relating to the safeguards provided for linguistic minorities. In fact the central government provisions are so weak that states have had to resort to regional solutions to these problems. Even before the Indian Constitution of 1952 was ratified, Provincial [now State] Education Ministers met in 1949 to decide what provision of facilities for instruction through the mother-tongue should be made. Then in 1956, a joint Government of India and Chief Ministers of the States memorandum was issued. In 1960 the Southern Zonal Council, representing the four southernmost (Dravidian language) States, made decisions regarding safeguards of linguistic minorities, i.e. what rights should be guaranteed Telugu minorities in Karnataka, Tamil minorities in Andhra, etc. But though these regulations are quite specific and useful, they are essentially ad-hoc solutions, and depend on the good will of the states involved, rather than providing legal and statutory teeth. Some states are prouder than others of their record in this area; Indian states vary, of course, in the percentages of mother-tongue speakers. Interestingly, the state with the highest percentage of mother-tongue speakers, Kerala, with 96% in 1971 (Panikkar 1985) also has the highest literacy rates. One wonders whether there is any correlation between the two.