"Liking a language is different from being fanatic about a language, particularly one's own language. While the former favors the language, the later destroys it."
There could be anywhere between 5000 to 7000 languages in the world, according to some estimates. India has about 122 major languages and another 1599 languages, of which, about 22 languages are recognized as scheduled languages with official status. While Hindi serves as a bridging language across a majority of Indian states, languages namely, Tamil, Sanskrit, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, and Odia have been recognized by the Government of India as classical languages. Indian languages are from multiple language families. They have their own history of origin and evolution, and languages listed as classical, carry in them a continual legacy from the past.
Though the purpose of a language is to communicate, language is also used by people to identify themselves. It begins with the ease a common language provides for communication. Ideally, people who speak a common regional language are likely to have prior knowledge of the traditions and practices of the region. Now, this sense of familiarity, in terms of both language and the subjects they speak, cultivates a sense of belongingness in them, to the region, and the language they use. Thus regional linguistic identification is born. It's fine for all practical purposes, but the problem arises only when we start fighting with each other in the name of 'language and linguistic identity'.
Those who are flaming this linguistic rivalry, are either doing it out of foolishness or doing it intentionally for political gains. But all these fanatics, who are extra vocal about linguistic superiority, are people who have a primitive understanding of language. They roar like lions to their fellow frogs in the well. Incidentally, even common people, who are getting carried away by their theatrics, are not spending a sane few minutes to reason why their propaganda has nothing to do with preserving the language.
The foremost question we should ask any linguistic fanatic is, "What's more important, language or the message?" Language is a 'carrier of message'. It can carry any message; from something silly to something philosophical, from something obscene to something pleasant. So when someone says, "I'm proud of my language," it often refers to the 'region and culture' it denotes and literature in the language, which speaks about both.
Literature, for its part, gives a theatrical portrayal of lands, people and culture. Its artistry appeals to people. A literature may carry all the appealing elements like, subjects of mass appeal, sense of pride and poetic grandeur. But the presence of all these elements in a literature need not necessarily mean it carries anything valuable to the human thought process. If we can look through a shelf of literature, even the classical ones, without indulging in the poetic intoxication of the language, we will find that there are great literature, also substandard ones, in terms of the usefulness of the messages they carry. But most often, we get carried away by the artistic fervor in literature. It only proves that literature and language can also intoxicate and mislead. But then, language by itself cannot mislead, as language is just a tool of communication. A literature can mislead, when the art in it supersedes the purpose of delivering meaningful messages, or nullifies them, by creating apparently beautiful, but inherently meaningless array of words. Some creators of literature; writers, and poets can mislead. We have a whole lot of misleading literature, still enjoying the patronage of people, just because they sound beautiful, and carry the tag 'classical'. We should know that even great poets of the past are mortals like us with un-rectified flaws.
In all, what we need to understand is, "language is just a tool," which a sober man can use as well a stupid man can, a terrorist can use even a crusader of justice can. The so-called guardians of language, who hail greatness of a language and proficiency of language in people, fail to see that the intention of the communicator and the usefulness of the message are far more important than even language and proficiency. But as language alone matters to these linguistic fanatics, they cluster everything together, even flimsy literature, as classics people must preserve.
If someone genuinely wishes to promote language and literature, the first thing the person should do is to judge these literature based on the messages they carry. The person should also learn more languages. By doing so, the individual will be able to carry good messages from the literature of one's native language to other languages, likewise, bring valuable messages from the literature of other languages to one's native language. Such people can function as a bridge between people and inspire others to learn languages to access the world of wisdom outside their region and literature.
Linguistic fanatics, stubbornly resist such an evolution of language. They see with their narrow vision learning other languages as a threat to the survival of their own. By saying, "I will not allow any other language into my state," they are conceding defeat even before a competition. First of all, we needn't see it as a competition. But since they see it as competition, for the sake of argument, we can say that they want the running track to be free, so that they can be the only relay runners and winners. They are just insecure beings with low self-esteem, trying to find a purpose for themselves, by scuttling anything that's beneficial for people. Unfortunately even literature, in their own languages, which speak of equanimity, have not been able to broaden their vision.
Like language and the message, proficiency in a language and nobility of the self, are two distinct traits. If someone has both, it's great. But proficiency in a language, with a crooked mind, can only result in creating disoriented leaders who can corrupt people's mind. We have many such people across the country, in various states, who have made language into another religion to divide and rule people. To them, we have only one thing to say, "Languages are born of sounds and symbols, which are universal. If you can't unite people with this universality, at least don't divide them with differences for petty political gains."