Final answer:
Salman Rushdie considers language dominance, especially the overarching prevalence of English in Indian literature, as a key friction point. Multilingualism brings richness to literature, but the dominance of English can diminish local languages and cultures. The debate on bilingual education also tracks these tensions.
Step-by-step explanation:
In Rushdie's view, the real area of greatest friction in Indian literature has to do with language dominance. This refers to the prevalence of English as a central force in education, government, and business, often at the expense of local languages. Multilingual writers, who navigate different linguistic and cultural norms, offer valuable perspectives and enhance their work by drawing from their diverse linguistic inventory. Within this context, Rushdie sees the dominance of a single language like English over the multitude of other Indian languages as a source of friction.
While policies have changed to encourage bilingualism, the issue is complex due to the sheer number of indigenous languages and their varying degrees of preservation and use. For instance, in Australia, there is a sharp contrast between the widespread usage of English and the decline of indigenous languages. Bilingual education attempts to address inequalities by offering instruction in minority languages, yet this remains a controversial topic with arguments both for and against it.
It is significant that multilingualism enriches literature through the cohesiveness of separate languages and offers an extensive inventory for authors to draw from. Rushdie's concerns with language dominance reflect a broader understanding of language as not just a means of communication, but also as a carrier of culture and identity.