 |
|
The article details a political spat between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Tamil Nadu and the state's Chief Minister, MK Stalin, concerning the allocation of funds to Sanskrit versus Tamil language development. The core of the dispute revolves around Stalin's criticism of the central government, led by the BJP, for allegedly prioritizing Sanskrit over Tamil. Stalin argues that more funding should be directed towards Tamil, a vibrant and widely spoken language, rather than Sanskrit, which he refers to as a 'dead language.' He also criticizes the BJP's actions, specifically the installation of the Sengol in Parliament, viewing it as a superficial gesture rather than genuine support for Tamil language and culture. Stalin demands that Tamil be recognized as an official language on par with Hindi and that the central government cease its alleged attempts to 'saffronise' Thiruvalluvar, a revered Tamil philosopher and author of the Thirukkural.
In response, K Annamalai, the President of the BJP in Tamil Nadu, vehemently refuted Stalin's claims. He accused Stalin of hypocrisy, pointing to the historical disparity in funding between Sanskrit and Tamil during the period from 2006 to 2014, implying that Stalin's party, the DMK, which was in power during that time, did little to address the issue. Annamalai also questioned Stalin's efforts to promote Tamil beyond the state's borders, suggesting that his actions are primarily driven by political propaganda rather than a genuine commitment to the language. Furthermore, Annamalai criticized Stalin's perceived negativity towards symbols and initiatives associated with the central government, such as the Vande Bharat Express, highlighting a deeper ideological divide between the DMK and the BJP.
The dispute over language policy is not new in Tamil Nadu. The state has a long history of resisting the imposition of Hindi, viewing it as a threat to the distinct cultural and linguistic identity of Tamil people. This resistance stems from a deep-seated fear that promoting Hindi will marginalize Tamil and disadvantage those who do not speak the language. The DMK, in particular, has been at the forefront of this resistance, advocating for the preservation and promotion of Tamil language and culture. The current controversy is rooted in the central government's trilingual approach outlined in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which advocates for the teaching of Hindi in non-Hindi speaking states. The Tamil Nadu government has consistently rejected this policy, adhering to a two-language formula (Tamil and English) and arguing that the imposition of a third language would place an undue burden on students and dilute the focus on Tamil language education. This long-standing disagreement highlights the complex and sensitive nature of language politics in India, where language is often intertwined with issues of identity, regionalism, and national integration.
The Sengol, a historical scepter, has emerged as a symbolic focal point in this political battle. The BJP-led central government presented the Sengol as a historical artifact symbolizing the transfer of power from the British to India in 1947 and installed it in the new Parliament building. Stalin and his DMK party view this as a symbolic gesture lacking substance, arguing that true respect for Tamil would involve concrete actions such as making it an official language and providing adequate funding for its development. The debate over the Sengol underscores the different perspectives on how to promote and preserve Tamil language and culture, with the BJP emphasizing historical symbols and cultural heritage, while the DMK prioritizes practical measures such as official recognition and financial support.
The accusation of 'despiritualizing' Thiruvalluvar adds another layer of complexity to the dispute. Thiruvalluvar is a highly revered figure in Tamil culture, and his Thirukkural is considered a timeless classic offering guidance on various aspects of life. Annamalai accuses Stalin of distorting Thiruvalluvar's teachings to fit his political agenda. This accusation reflects a broader concern about the politicization of cultural icons and the potential for their messages to be misinterpreted or manipulated for partisan purposes. The debate over Thiruvalluvar's legacy highlights the importance of preserving the integrity of cultural heritage and ensuring that it is not exploited for political gain.
The allocation of funds to Sanskrit and Tamil has been a contentious issue for many years. Critics argue that Sanskrit, despite being a classical language with a rich literary tradition, is not as widely spoken or used in modern communication as Tamil. They contend that Tamil, as a language spoken by millions of people and a vital part of the cultural and economic life of Tamil Nadu, deserves greater financial support. The historical disparity in funding between the two languages has fueled resentment and a sense of injustice among Tamil speakers. The BJP's defense of its funding policies is likely to be viewed with skepticism by many in Tamil Nadu, who see it as further evidence of the central government's bias towards Hindi and Sanskrit at the expense of Tamil.
The political rhetoric employed by both sides in this dispute reflects the intensity of the emotions surrounding language and identity. Annamalai's use of the term 'hypocrite' to describe Stalin is particularly strong and indicative of the deep animosity between the two political figures. Stalin's criticism of Sanskrit as a 'dead language' is also provocative and likely to be perceived as disrespectful by those who value the language and its cultural significance. The use of such inflammatory language serves to further polarize the debate and make it more difficult to find common ground.
The ongoing language policy dispute in Tamil Nadu has broader implications for the relationship between the state and the central government. It underscores the challenges of reconciling regional aspirations with national unity in a diverse and multilingual country like India. The central government's efforts to promote Hindi and Sanskrit are often viewed with suspicion in non-Hindi speaking states, where they are seen as attempts to impose a dominant cultural identity. Finding a balance between promoting national integration and respecting regional linguistic diversity is a crucial task for the Indian government. This requires sensitivity to the concerns of different linguistic groups and a commitment to ensuring that all languages are treated with dignity and respect. Failure to address these concerns could lead to further alienation and undermine the foundations of national unity.
The dispute also highlights the role of language in shaping political identity and mobilizing support. In Tamil Nadu, language has long been a potent force in political mobilization. The DMK, in particular, has successfully used the language issue to rally support for its cause and to project itself as the defender of Tamil language and culture. The BJP, on the other hand, has sought to challenge the DMK's dominance on the language issue by promoting Sanskrit and highlighting the historical contributions of Tamil culture to Indian civilization. The competition between the two parties over language is likely to continue to shape the political landscape in Tamil Nadu for years to come.
Ultimately, the resolution of the language policy dispute in Tamil Nadu will require a willingness on both sides to engage in constructive dialogue and to find common ground. The central government needs to be more sensitive to the concerns of the Tamil people and to ensure that its language policies do not undermine the status of Tamil. The Tamil Nadu government, on the other hand, needs to be open to exploring ways to promote Hindi and other Indian languages without compromising the integrity of Tamil. Finding a solution that respects the linguistic diversity of India and promotes national unity will be a challenging but essential task.
Source: 'Only a hypocrite would question more funds for Sanskrit over Tamil': BJP counters CM Stalin