In an unusual move for a ministry often accused in southern states of privileging Hindi over regional languages, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has issued an official response in Malayalam to CPI(M) MP
John Brittas.
The communication, dated 14 November, is believed to be the first instance of a Home Minister replying in Malayalam, adding political resonance as Kerala enters election season.
The gesture comes as the BJP seeks to widen its influence in the state, particularly after securing its maiden Lok Sabha seat from Kerala in the 2024 general election. Against this backdrop, Shah’s decision to respond in Malayalam is being viewed as a calibrated attempt to acknowledge regional sensibilities.
Brittas’ objections on OCI notification
The response was addressed to Brittas’ detailed representation dated 22 October regarding the Central government’s notification allowing cancellation of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration on the basis of chargesheeting alone.
Brittas argued that the measure violates due process, undermines natural justice and exposes OCI cardholders to arbitrary executive action in the absence of any judicial determination. He stressed that the OCI framework has long functioned as a symbolic and practical bridge between India and its global diaspora, built on continuity and emotional connection.
While Shah’s letter remained procedural in nature, the inclusion of a complete Malayalam version alongside Hindi stood out for its political and cultural significance.
Linguistic politics
John Brittas has been a consistent advocate for linguistic parity within Parliament. He has repeatedly demanded translation devices for MPs who find it difficult to follow lengthy Hindi speeches, arguing that equitable access to parliamentary debate requires linguistic inclusivity.
In this context, Shah’s choice to communicate in Malayalam appeared to acknowledge the language in which objections were originally raised, at a time when wider debates on linguistic federalism and regional identity have gained traction across India.
Despite the symbolic impact, Brittas maintains that the central legal concerns surrounding the 12 August notification are unresolved. He contends that the notification exceeds the mandate of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and could set troubling precedents for administrative overreach.
