Opening statement Honourable judges, respected opponents, and everyone present, We stand firmly in support of the motion that Indian states should not be divided on the basis of language. Let us be clear: we are not against Indian languages. We are not against cultural diversity. We are not against people preserving their mother tongue. We are against the idea that a difference in language should automatically become a reason to redraw the political map of our country. India's greatest strength is its ability to unite people who speak different languages, follow different traditions, and come from different backgrounds. Our state boundaries should be drawn to improve governance, development and public welfare, not to turn linguistic identities into political borders. A language deserves respect, protection and promotion. But it does not automatically deserve its own state. We will establish that language-based division can deepen social divisions, fails to guarantee good governance, and creates avoidable administrative and economic challenges when better alternatives are available. Argument 1: Language-based states can weaken national unity by turning identity into territory Claim: Language should be a cultural right, not a compulsory political boundary. Reasoning: India is united by constitutional citizenship, not by everyone speaking the same language. When state boundaries are closely tied to linguistic identity, political movements can start treating a language as the property of a particular territory. This creates three risks. First, linguistic majorities may begin to believe their state belongs primarily to them. Second, speakers of minority languages within that state may feel excluded. Third, migrants who speak another language may be treated as outsiders despite being equally entitled to citizenship and constitutional protections. A linguistic boundary cannot guarantee that everybody living on either side of it speaks the same language. Impact: Instead of reducing identity-based conflict, a policy centred on language can shift the conflict from the national level to state borders and local communities. Debate line: “A language should give people a voice, not decide who belongs where.” Anticipate the Opposition: They will argue that linguistic states make people feel recognised. Your answer is that recognition matters, but it can be achieved through education, official-language policies and representation without making territorial division the default solution

A state should be organised around the people it serves. When citizens cannot understand the language used by their local administration, accessing public services becomes harder and democratic participation becomes less effective. Linguistic state boundaries can help bridge that gap by bringing administration closer to the people. India’s experience supports considering language in state reorganisation: Andhra State was formed in 1953, followed by the States Reorganisation Act of 1956. These changes reflected the importance of linguistic identity in political representation. The fear of division is understandable, but recognising linguistic diversity is not the same as encouraging national division. A citizen can take pride in their mother tongue and remain fully Indian. The answer is not to ignore language, but to balance it with economic viability, administrative efficiency and minority rights. A state’s boundaries should serve its people, not force its people to struggle with the boundaries.

[No submission - Time expired]