Tamil Nadu’s Opposition to the National Education Policy: A Linguistic and Political Battle

 Tamil Nadu has long resisted central government efforts to impose Hindi in its educational system, and its pushback against the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is the latest chapter in this linguistic and political struggle. At the heart of the controversy lies the central government’s decision to withhold ₹252 crore in funds for Tamil Nadu’s education scheme, citing the state’s refusal to implement NEP in its entirety.

The Funding Controversy

The Union Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, has made it clear that Tamil Nadu will not receive these funds unless it complies with the NEP. The Tamil Nadu government, led by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, argues that withholding funds unfairly penalizes 40 lakh students and 32,000 teachers who depend on them for salaries and resources. The DMK government has accused the center of using education policy as a political tool, rather than as a means of improving educational standards.

The Three-Language Formula vs. Tamil Nadu’s Two-Language Policy

The core issue behind the state’s opposition to NEP is its three-language formula, which requires students to learn three languages, with at least two being Indian languages. While the policy does not explicitly mandate Hindi, Tamil Nadu sees it as a backdoor attempt to impose the language. The state has followed a two-language policy—Tamil and English—since 1968, a policy first proposed by former Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai.

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to Hindi dates back to the anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s, when protests erupted against efforts to make Hindi India’s sole official language. The state remains deeply protective of its linguistic identity, as do other states like Karnataka, Kerala, West Bengal, and Maharashtra, which have also resisted Hindi imposition in varying degrees.

Political Implications and the DMK’s Stand

M.K. Stalin and the DMK have taken a strong stance against NEP, with Stalin even declaring that his party would rather face imprisonment or lay down their lives than allow Hindi imposition. His rhetoric may be dramatic, but it underscores the deeply emotional and political nature of the issue. Stalin has demanded that the central government recognize Tamil as an official language on par with Hindi and redirect funds toward Tamil rather than promoting what he called the "dead language" Sanskrit.

P.T.R. Palanivel Thiagarajan, Tamil Nadu’s Minister for Information Technology, has further clarified that the state is not opposed to schools voluntarily teaching three languages. However, he argues that mandating the three-language policy for state-run schools would be an unnecessary imposition. He also pointed out that several North Indian languages have faded due to the dominance of Hindi, warning that Tamil could face a similar fate if not safeguarded.

The BJP’s Position and Other Southern States

The BJP, which has been pushing NEP across India, argues that the three-language formula benefits students by expanding their career opportunities. In Tamil Nadu, BJP state president K. Annamalai has actively campaigned for its implementation, claiming that Tamil Nadu benefits from the BJP’s promotion of Tamil culture, as seen in the renaming of trains after Tamil heritage sites.

However, other southern states have reacted differently. Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu supports multilingual education, even advocating for five-language instruction in universities. Karnataka, another BJP-ruled state, has historically resisted Hindi imposition, with Kannada activists often demanding prominence for their language. Kerala and West Bengal have also expressed reservations about NEP, delaying its implementation.

Education in the Concurrent List: Legal Grounds for Resistance

Education falls under the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution, meaning both the central and state governments can legislate on it. Before 1976, education was a state subject, but it was later shifted to the Concurrent List, giving the center more influence over education policies. Despite this, states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal can legally oppose central education policies and develop their own frameworks.

The key legal question is whether the central government can withhold funds from a state simply because it chooses not to implement NEP. Critics argue that linking funds to policy adoption undermines federalism and punishes students and teachers rather than addressing the policy debate itself.

The Larger Question: Should All Indians Learn Hindi?

The Tamil Nadu government’s opposition raises a broader question: should Hindi be promoted as a unifying language in India, or does this undermine the country’s linguistic diversity? Some argue that a common language fosters national unity, much like how France standardized French. Others contend that imposing Hindi risks erasing regional languages and cultures, reducing India’s rich linguistic diversity.

With Tamil Nadu’s assembly elections approaching, the NEP debate has taken on an even more significant political dimension. Whether the central government will soften its stance or Tamil Nadu will continue its defiance remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that language remains a deeply sensitive and political issue in India’s federal structure.