This article argues that first-person positioning (The first-person positioning refers to the author’s claim that the usage “ek rāṣṭrabhāṣā Hindī” is a move from unity to uniformity because the Constitution does not recognize any national language. The writer suggests replacing rāṣṭrabhāṣā with rājabhāṣā to reflect the Union’s official language status and to preserve cohesion without exclusion. The usage of “first-person” to mark interpretive choices and invite readers to check them against Articles 343 to 351 and the Eighth Schedule.) is not an indulgence in policy writing but a method for making institutional assumptions explicit. Using the Central Institute of Hindi (CIH) anthem as a case study, I show how a call to unity is tied to a single language and how that symbolism can depart from India’s constitutional commitment to pluralism. My analysis draws on a Lacanian view of the unconscious, which can mask self-interest as virtue; on agenda-setting theory, which explains how repetition naturalizes claims; and on a kaizen approach to continuous, incremental improvement. The paper clarifies key constitutional anchors, including Articles 343 to 351 and the Eighth Schedule, and it distinguishes rājabhāṣā (official language) from the nonexistent category of a national language. (Articles 343–351 govern Union language policy; the Eighth Schedule lists the languages recognized for representation and development.) I then propose a practical, one-percent kaizen revision to the anthem’s wording that preserves cohesion while respecting multilingual reality. The contribution is threefold: a defense of first-person disclosure in policy discourse, a compact framework for auditing institutional texts for linguistic inclusion, and a concrete, simple revision path for institutional anthems that aligns practice with constitutional values.