 |
|
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, particularly its three-language formula, has ignited a significant controversy in India, exposing deep-seated linguistic and cultural fault lines between the Union government and several states, particularly those in the non-Hindi speaking regions. The core of the issue revolves around the perceived imposition of Hindi, a language spoken by a significant but not majority portion of the Indian population, at the expense of regional languages and cultural identities. This conflict extends beyond mere linguistic preference, touching upon fundamental questions of federalism, cultural preservation, and the very definition of Indian national identity. The Tamil Nadu government's unprecedented move to approach the Supreme Court, seeking the release of funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS), underscores the intensity of this dispute. Tamil Nadu alleges that the Union government is deliberately withholding funds to coerce the state into adopting the NEP, which they view as a thinly veiled attempt to promote Hindi. This action highlights the state's staunch opposition to the three-language formula and the perceived pro-Hindi bias embedded within it. The dismissal of a plea by the Supreme Court, seeking directions for Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal to implement the NEP, further complicates the situation. While the court acknowledged its limitations in mandating policy decisions on state governments, the aggrieved states continue to assert that these attempts to impose Hindi are part of a larger agenda orchestrated by the Sangh Parivar and the central government, aimed at undermining local cultures, languages, and the diverse fabric of India. This perception of cultural imperialism fuels resistance and strengthens the resolve of these states to protect their linguistic heritage. The controversy is not limited to Tamil Nadu alone; Maharashtra has also witnessed significant protests against the compulsory introduction of Hindi as a third language in primary schools. The sheer breadth of opposition, encompassing a wide range of political ideologies from the Congress and Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray to the CPI(M) and Raj Thackeray's Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), demonstrates the depth of concern over the potential erosion of Marathi language and culture. This unlikely coalition united in their opposition to the imposition of Hindi, highlighting the sensitive nature of language politics in the state. The government's subsequent decision to backpedal on the Hindi mandate underscores the power of public opinion and the political risks associated with perceived linguistic imposition. The concerns raised by stakeholders, such as Mahendra Ganpule, former head of the Maharashtra School Principals Association, regarding the potential impact on students' learning capacity, further validate the opposition to the compulsory introduction of a third language. The lack of consultation with experts on the Hindi issue, in contrast to the decision regarding English, also raised questions about the transparency and inclusivity of the decision-making process.
The resistance to Hindi extends beyond Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, with states like Punjab, Telangana, Kerala, and West Bengal also expressing growing impatience with the perceived dominance of Hindi. This widespread opposition has sparked a broader debate on the need to protect India's linguistic diversity, with fears that regional languages and dialects are being systematically suppressed by the Centre's relentless push for Hindi. The historical context of anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu, dating back to 1937, further underscores the deeply rooted anxieties surrounding the imposition of Hindi. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin's characterization of the NEP as an instrument of "Hindi colonialism" reflects the strong sentiments prevalent in the state. His son and Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin's assertion that this is not just a language struggle but also an ethnic struggle to protect Tamil culture highlights the intertwined nature of language, identity, and cultural preservation. The confrontation between Stalin and Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged threats to withhold funds further intensifies the conflict and underscores the high stakes involved. The Punjab government's decision to make Punjabi a mandatory subject in schools and its opposition to the CBSE draft norms, which allegedly omitted Punjabi from the subject list, demonstrate a proactive approach to safeguarding the state's linguistic heritage. Similarly, the Telangana government's enforcement of Telugu as a mandatory language for students from Class I to X reflects a commitment to promoting and preserving the state's linguistic identity. West Bengal's adoption of the State Education Policy (SEP) 2023, which experts claim is a covert replication of the NEP, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. While the state government initially opposed the NEP, the SEP incorporates several NEP-like reforms, including the three-language policy. However, the issue of Hindi remains a sensitive one, with concerns raised about the lack of protest against the Centre's perceived emphasis on Hindi as the only viable third language option. The controversy surrounding the NCERT textbooks, with their Hindi-centric titles and the omission of references to certain historical periods, further fuels the perception of a deliberate attempt to promote Hindi and rewrite history. The Kerala government's criticism of these changes as being "against federal principles and constitutional values" and a bid to "foist Hindi on Malayalis" reflects the widespread concern over the politicization of education and the imposition of a particular cultural narrative.
The demographic shifts resulting from economic migration from Hindi-speaking states also contribute to the linguistic tensions. The increasing presence of Hindi speakers in non-Hindi speaking regions, as evidenced by the census data in Maharashtra, has led to anxieties about the potential marginalization of local languages and cultures. The focus of nativist parties like the Shiv Sena and the MNS on opposing Hindi speakers reflects these underlying concerns. The opposition from figures like Laxmikant Deshmukh, former IAS officer and president of the state language advisory committee, highlights the perception of Hindi imposition as a "cultural attack" on Marathi. The arguments against special state patronage for Hindi, as articulated by historian Manu S. Pillai, underscore the importance of allowing all languages to thrive in a diverse country. The questioning of the inflated number of Hindi speakers in India by cultural scholar G.N. Devy, who points out that the census figures subsume several smaller languages under Hindi, raises doubts about the legitimacy of claims regarding the dominance of Hindi. Devy's assertion that a minority of the population should not impose their will on the majority resonates with the concerns of non-Hindi speaking states. The perception that the BJP-RSS are pushing a unitarian model on India, encompassing religion, language, and culture, further fuels the opposition to the perceived imposition of Hindi. The association of the "Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan" push with the Hindutva project, as highlighted by academic Apoorvanand, underscores the ideological dimensions of the language debate. While BJP spokesperson Prem Shukla denies any attempt to foist Hindi on anyone, the historical context of the three-language formula and its implementation in different states reveals a disparity in the integration efforts. The assertion that Hindi states refuse to integrate with non-Hindi speaking states, while forcing the latter to integrate with them, highlights the unequal power dynamics at play. The attempts to push the cultural dominance of Hindi through various channels, such as the Reserve Bank of India's language policies, further reinforce the perception of a deliberate effort to promote Hindi at the expense of other languages. Ultimately, the language debate in India boils down to the fundamental question of whether different groups and communities can respect each other's linguistic and cultural identities without attempting to impose their own. The recognition of India's inherent plurality and diversity, as articulated by G.N. Devy in his book, is essential for fostering a truly inclusive and harmonious society. The preservation of India's linguistic diversity is not merely a matter of cultural preservation but also a cornerstone of its national identity.
Source: Language wars: Three-language formula or one-nation agenda?