Deutsch et al (1957) define integration as “the attainment within a territory, of a ‘sense of community’ and of institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to assure, for a ‘long’ time, dependable expectations of ‘peaceful change’ among its population”. Multiplicity of languages in India bring to some western scholars and their Indian allies “alarmed warning of imminent balkanization” (O’Barr, 1976). Many languages are always seen as linguistic confusion and local nationalism a counterposture of nation-wide nationalism. But in multilingual countries many languages complement one another in different domains and not always in confrontation with one another.

The concept of a nation state in the West is built around unitary symbols. It is presumed that each nation has one language, one religion, one culture, and therefore is nationally integrated. This is what explains ‘Deputies’ in the French Assembly, speaking time and again that there are no languages other than French in France and that French has no dialects. This also explains the many theories of integration propounded by dominant monolingual nation states. The United States, for example, spoke of the ‘Melting pot theory’. It was visualised that people belonging to different ethnicities speaking different languages professing different religious must ‘melt’ and fuse their identity to become American. When it was discovered that identities did not melt they came out with a second theory which is popularly known as the ‘salad-bowl theory’. It was visualised that as different leaves, vegetables and fruits keep their separate identity and yet becomes single a ‘salad’, similarly, people could retain their differences and yet be considered as ‘nationals’ of a nation state. It is not theory but a practice however which tells a different story.

At different times in the United States not only study of Japanese and German had been forbidden by law but at the present time there is a move to declare English as the national official language of the USA. Speakers of black English, Peurto Rican Spanish and many America Indian languages has to struggle to maintain their minimal identity.

Even social science theories are built to disable multilingual communities. It has been said that one language is a necessary condition for development and anything beyond two or three languages is bound to muddle the situation. Neustupny has propounded a theory which says that people must accept one language to be modern but develop multilingual sensibility to be contemporary. These are absurdities the world has to live with but it is important to recognise them as such. The Russian experiment of prescribing a single language while maintaining a multilingual character of the State is possible only because of a centrally structured system of Government. In a Democracy it is impossible. It is possible only through education of the masses and the leaders and is a time consuming process.

National integration as has been defined above is not a matter of linguistic integration alone it is a matter of integration of ethnicities, religions, and cultures. In India such integration has taken place by exploring unity in diversity. One can explore unity only if one recognised diversity. The present problems are particularly due to the non-recognition of diversity.

Linguistically, people have spoken of a language of wider communication which link people of different languages. However, in multilingual countries there are layers of integrating languages. Take for example, the tribal regions of India, language diversity is the maximum. In the north-east there are languages created through Pidginization of Assamese and the local tribal languages, which is a language of wider communication in that region. In mid-India, similarly, Sadari/Sadani is the Pidgin formed by Hindi and the diverse tribal languages. Further, South in the Andhra-Orissa border there is Desia, a third Pidgin, which is a language of wider communication among the tribal people. All these Pidgins are also medium of communication between the tribals and non-tribals of the region. In every state the dominant language is used as the link language for diverse language speakers living in the state. At the national level, the national official language - Hindi and the national associate official language - English, link different clientele. Thus it will be seen that the resolve of the Government through its new education policy to develop all languages and all cultures without building boundaries around them is a very significant step. So that is the three-language formula which is accepted as a strategy and policy frame for language used in the school system. Any person who is to pass through the system is required to know three languages, all the three being languages of wider communication. If it is not properly implemented in some states it is a matter of implementation detail which is vigorously debated all over the country.

In a plural society, subsidies and support are distributed through linguistic, ethnic and religious channels. Naturally the interpretation of the statute is also affected by all these phenomenon. Of all these, language being the medium of expression of laws, plays a more important role. Language is to faithfully express the intention of the law makers, interpret the law in terms of the changing realities, make law accessible to the people and thus not only foster sense of participation in the legal process but also become a watchdog of equality. Since language unites some and separates others language of law should be such that at different levels it could speak to different levels it could speak to different people and accept partnership of one another to transcend interest group boundaries and aim towards national integration.