‘Hegemonic’ Hindi heats up language row

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to Hindi imposition dates back to 1937, when the Congress government in Madras Presidency, led by C Rajagopalachari, introduced compulsory Hindi in schools. The move sparked outrage among Tamils, who saw it as an erosion of their Dravidian heritage. And over the years, Hindi was framed as a symbol of North Indian domination over the South.

The three-language formula under NEP, which recommends students learn another language alongside their regional language and English, is seen by the DMK as a covert attempt to introduce Hindi through the back door.

Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has strongly refuted these claims, maintaining that NEP 2020 allows linguistic freedom and does not impose Hindi. In a letter to Stalin, Pradhan stated: “There is no question of imposing any language on any state or community. NEP 2020 upholds the principle of linguistic freedom and ensures that students continue to learn in the language of their choice.” He argued that NEP’s multilingual approach would broaden educational access rather than restrict it.

Despite these reassurances, political leaders in Tamil Nadu remain staunch in their opposition. Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin reiterated: “Tamil Nadu has always been against the three-language policy. We will never accept that. The Centre wants to use NEP as a backdoor entry for Hindi.”

The three-language formula was first proposed by the Education Commission (1964-66), officially known as the Kothari Commission. It was formally adopted in the National Policy on Education (NPE) 1968 under then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The policy was reaffirmed in NPE 1986 under PM Rajiv Gandhi and revised in 1992 by Narasimha Rao’s Congress government to promote linguistic diversity and national unity.

The commission, chaired by physicist Dr Daulat Singh Kothari, recommended that students learn their mother tongue or regional language, the official language of the Union, a modern Indian or European language, apart from the first two.

According to NPE 1968, Hindi-speaking states should teach a modern Indian language, preferably a southern language, alongside Hindi and English. Non-Hindi-speaking states were to include Hindi, their regional language, and English. The policy was reinforced in NPE 1986 and its 1992 revision, with the aim of achieving a national consensus on Hindi as a link language.

However, the 1992 policy also admitted that “the implementation of this part (three-language) of the 1968 Policy has, however, been uneven. The policy will be implemented more energetically and purposefully.”

The Centre maintains that the new policy allows more flexibility without enforcing any language. NEP 2020 states: “The three-language formula will continue to be implemented while keeping in mind the constitutional provisions, the need to promote multilingualism as well as promote national unity. However, there will be greater flexibility, and no language will be imposed on any state.”

NEP 2020 further clarifies that “the three languages learned by children will be the choices of states, regions, and of course the students themselves, so long as at least two of the three languages are native to India.” This ensures that while the policy promotes linguistic diversity, states retain autonomy in their language preferences.

Tamil Nadu’s refusal to implement key aspects of NEP 2020, particularly the three-language formula, has resulted in the Centre withholding Rs 573 crore in central education assistance under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). According to policy rules, states must comply with NEP guidelines to receive SSA funding, of which 60 per cent is provided by the Centre in states like Tamil Nadu.

Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, launched in 2018, has been strengthened under NEP 2020 to focus on experiential learning and foundational literacy. The SSA funding structure varies from general states and Union Territories (UTs) with legislatures receiving 60 per cent central funding, northeastern and Himalayan states getting 90 per cent central funding and last but not the least, UTs without legislatures receiving full funding (100 per cent) from the Centre.

Education is a part of the Constitution’s “Concurrent” list, which means that both the federal and state governments can make and enact laws around it. Schools and colleges follow different syllabi and rules depending on who oversees them — the federal or state governments.

India, where states are mostly organised on linguistic lines, has nearly two dozen official languages, including Hindi, Tamil and English. But southern states have often protested against efforts by successive federal governments to privilege Hindi over other languages.

It is an especially sensitive issue in Tamil Nadu, which has historically been at the forefront of such protests.

Stalin and his party — who say they are not against Hindi itself — have argued over the past few weeks that the policy’s eventual aim is to force the language on non-Hindi-speaking states.

The chief minister wrote on X last month that Hindi — which emerged as a standardised language for easy communication during the British era — ended up dominating other languages and dialects spoken in northern India, such as Bhojpuri and Awadhi.

His party’s MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi also recently questioned why a student should be forced to learn three languages.

“Students have enough burden in schools. You have to learn so many subjects, and on top of that you are forced to learn three languages instead of two,” she has been quoted as saying according to media reports. But Pradhan has denied allegations that the policy will force Hindi through.

India is one of the world’s most linguistically diverse countries and some estimates say thousands of languages are spoken here.

But there are only 22 official languages, with Hindi — spoken by more than 46 per cent of the population — being the most widely used, according to the last census held in 2011.

After the British left India in 1947, the newly independent nation sought to promote Hindi as a link language to replace English. The Constitution — enacted in 1950 — also nudges the federal government to promote the spread of Hindi.

This invited fierce opposition from non-Hindi-speaking states, prompting the federal government to continue using English as an alternate official language for 15 years after 1950.

As the deadline year of 1965 approached, violent protests over fears of Hindi “imposition” erupted again across Tamil Nadu, leading the federal government to pass a law that assured the continued use of English as an official language.

However, successive federal governments have introduced policies or made announcements that have kept these anxieties simmering.

The 1968 NEP adopted the three-language formula for the first time and, in the same year, the government introduced policies mandating the teaching of Hindi in non-Hindi speaking states, leading to fresh protests.

Over the years, the issue of Hindi versus other languages has made headlines repeatedly. In 2023, Stalin criticised the Modi government for replacing some colonial-era laws with ones bearing Hindi names (the Indian Penal Code, for instance, has been replaced with a law named Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).

A federal government commission that examined the language policy during 1948-49 acknowledged that the issue’s sentimental nature made it “difficult to consider it in a calm and detached manner”.

“No other problem has caused greater controversy among educationists and evoked more contradictory views from our witnesses,” it maintained.

Tamil Nadu has been at the forefront of the fight against Hindi imposition since India’s independence. The Dravidian movement, which shaped Tamil Nadu’s political identity, has always viewed the promotion of Hindi as a form of North Indian linguistic and cultural dominance. The most significant of these protests took place in 1965, when a proposed policy to replace English with Hindi as India’s sole official language led to violent agitations in Tamil Nadu. As a result, the Indian government passed a law assuring that English would continue as an official language alongside Hindi.

In response to these concerns, Tamil Nadu adopted a two-language formula, where schools only teach Tamil and English, rejecting the three-language policy that mandated Hindi in other non-Hindi-speaking states. This has remained a defining feature of Tamil Nadu’s Dravidian governance, with the DMK and AIADMK governments fiercely protecting it.

Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEP 2020 goes beyond language. The state also rejects several structural changes in the policy, which it believes will harm students from disadvantaged backgrounds and reinforce caste-based discrimination.

“It denies financial aid to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. It introduces national-level entrance exams even for arts and science colleges. It aims to push students out of the education system by implementing exit options from Class 10. It enforces caste-based vocational education from Class 6. That is why we are firmly stating that we won’t accept it,” said Stalin.

The state has already fought a long battle against the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for medical admissions, arguing that it disproportionately affects Dalit, OBC, and rural students.

Stalin has called NEP 2020 “anti-poor, anti-reservation, and anti-social justice”, accusing the BJP of trying to dismantle Tamil Nadu’s progressive policies that have ensured equitable access to education.

The policy’s emphasis on standardised testing at multiple school levels, including grades 3, 5 and 8, is another contentious issue, with the state fearing that it could exacerbate educational inequality and increase dropout rates, particularly in rural areas. Additionally, the push for vocational training from class 6 has been criticised for potentially diverting students from higher education paths, restricting career mobility and reinforcing socio-economic stratification.

The Tamil Nadu government maintains that its existing education model, which has produced high literacy rates and successful professionals across industries, does not require a structural overhaul dictated by the Centre. The resistance, therefore, is not just about financial incentives but about preserving the autonomy of a system that Tamil Nadu believes has already proven its effectiveness on a national and global scale.

The real issue lies in execution and political trust. Tamil Nadu fears that once NEP is adopted, the Centre will dictate implementation in a way that erodes state autonomy. The BJP, on the other hand, sees Tamil Nadu’s resistance as politically motivated, aimed at keeping the DMK’s anti-Hindi, pro-state autonomy narrative alive. With neither side willing to back down, the chances of a negotiated compromise looks bleak and the impasse is likely to continue, leading to students getting caught in the crossfire.