Costly Confrontation

The bitter dispute between the Union government and Tamil Nadu over the three-language policy is related to the principles of federalism and linguistic identity. Tamil Nadu’s steadfast opposition to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, particularly its language provisions, has allegedly resulted in the withholding of over Rs 2,152 crore in education funds under the Samagra Shiksha scheme by the Centre. Tamil Nadu’s resistance to the three-language formula is rooted in history. The state has witnessed major anti-Hindi agitations in the past, from the 1930s protests against Rajaji’s move to introduce Hindi in schools to the violent demonstrations of 1965 that resulted in the deaths of dozens of protesters. Since a long time, Tamil Nadu has maintained a strict two-language policy—Tamil and English—which it sees as essential to preserving its linguistic and cultural heritage. Successive Dravidian governments, whether DMK or AIADMK, have remained firm on this stance.

The Centre insists that the NEP 2020 does not force any state to adopt Hindi, only that students must learn at least two Indian languages alongside English. In theory, this offers flexibility. But in practice, Tamil Nadu perceives it as a backdoor attempt to promote Hindi. The fear is that given the limited resources available to teach non-Hindi Indian languages, Hindi would inevitably become the default third language in most schools. Further scepticism arises from the BJP-led government’s consistent push to promote Hindi across various sectors, including education, administration, and official communication. Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has framed Tamil Nadu’s opposition as a politically motivated stance, accusing the state government of having a narrow, outdated view. He argues that rejecting the NEP denies Tamil Nadu’s students global opportunities and deprives them of learning India’s rich linguistic heritage. But Tamil Nadu’s argument is not just about sentiment—it points to practical achievements. The state’s two-language system has not hindered its educational progress. In fact, Tamil Nadu outperforms many other states in literacy rates, school enrolment, and higher education metrics. The argument that adding a third language will automatically improve students’ prospects is not backed by any conclusive evidence.

The real concern, however, is not just about education policy but about coercion. By withholding crucial education funds, the Centre appears to be punishing Tamil Nadu for refusing to comply with a policy it never agreed to. This raises serious questions about federalism and cooperative governance. Education, though placed in the concurrent list during the Emergency, has traditionally been a state subject. Forcing a state to adopt a policy by cutting off essential funding sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the very spirit of India’s diverse federal structure. The BJP’s push for the three-language policy also needs to be viewed in the context of its electoral ambitions in Tamil Nadu. The party has long struggled to find a foothold in the state, and the language debate provides a political battleground. Tamil Nadu’s ruling DMK, sensing an opportunity, has framed the issue as another attempt at Hindi imposition. The DMK is willing to turn this into a major political flashpoint ahead of the 2026 state elections. This confrontation helps both parties politically—the BJP can position itself as the champion of the NEP and national unity, while the DMK can reaffirm its Dravidian identity and stand as a protector of Tamil culture. However, it is the students and the education system that ultimately bear the brunt of this standoff. A compromise is needed to ensure that Tamil Nadu’s linguistic identity is maintained while enabling students to access diverse learning opportunities. The Centre must recognise that uniform policies cannot work in a country as diverse as India, and states should have the autonomy to decide what works best for their people.

Rather than using financial blackmail to enforce compliance, the Union government should engage in meaningful dialogue with Tamil Nadu. If the aim of the NEP is truly to enhance education rather than impose a particular ideology, it should allow states the flexibility to implement reforms in a way that aligns with their linguistic and cultural realities.