The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) chief M.K. Stalin has criticised the three-language policy under the New Education Policy (NEP), arguing that demanding linguistic equality is not chauvinism. He believes the policy imposes Hindi on non-Hindi-speaking states, which he sees as unfair.

Stalin contends that the promotion of Hindi, as is often portrayed, is not a promotion of linguistic diversity but a kind of cultural hegemony of the North over non-Hindi-speaking states, especially in the South.

The Dravidian leader used entertainment magnet Franklin Leonard’s popular quote to emphasise his point: “When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression,” adding that he was reminded of this quote “when some entitled bigots brand us chauvinists and anti-nationals for the ‘crime’ of demanding Tamil’s rightful place in Tamil Nadu.”

Stalin also accused the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), and its ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) of questioning the patriotism of the DMK, despite their contributions during various wars.

CM Stalin also called for Tamil to be made an official language on par with Hindi and emphasised the need for practical measures to support Tamil culture rather than symbolic gestures.

An image of Periyar with B.R. Ambedkar and Jinnah. Courtesy: Periyakural

“Instead of hollow praise, make Tamil an official language on par with Hindi and allot more funds for Tamil than a dead language like Sanskrit,” he said emphatically adding “Stop wasting taxpayers' money on the nonsense of ‘Hindi Pakhwadas’ in Tamil Nadu.”

He criticised the union government for the use of Sanskrit names for government schemes and trains in Tamil Nadu, advocating for Tamil names instead. Stalin argued that true love for Tamil should be demonstrated through actions, not symbolic gestures.

He warned the government saying “History is clear. Those who tried to impose Hindi on Tamil Nadu have either been defeated or later changed their stance and aligned with DMK. Tamil Nadu will not tolerate Hindi colonialism replacing British Colonialism.”

On the other hand, BJP’s Tamil Nadu state chief K Annamalai called Stalin a hypocrite for attacking Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the allocation of funds for Sanskrit, Hindi and Tamil. Annamalai argued that the three-language policy is necessary for people to communicate when they travel to other parts of the country.

Although India’s National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which is the harbinger of the current controversy, does not explicitly impose Hindi in any state, as of now, Tamil Nadu has been strongly opposing it, primarily due to its stance against the three-language formula and perceived imposition of Hindi. The opposition is rooted in historical, political and cultural reasons.

Tamil Nadu traditionally follows a two-language policy (Tamil + English) and has rejected the three-language formula since 1968.

The NEP 2020 suggests that students must learn three languages, with two being Indian. While Hindi is not made mandatory, the underlying concern among states like Tamil Nadu is that Hindi is being indirectly promoted as the ‘Rashtra Basha.’ Tamil Nadu sees this as a threat to its existing two-language system, which, it says, has worked well for decades.

Hindi and the Constitution

The Constituent Assembly had extensive debates on the question of official languages of the Union and the adoption of Hindi in the draft article was seen as a huge concession given by members from the non-Hindi speaking regions. Nonetheless, it is relevant to mention how the Constitution has referred to the question of official language.

Article 343 (1) of the Constitution states: “The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script. The form of numerals to be used for the official purposes of the Union shall be the international form of Indian numerals.” As per the second paragraph of this Article, English will continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution.

Paragraph 3 states that the Parliament may provide for the use, after the period of fifteen years, of the English language for such purposes as may be specified in the law.

Article 344, paragraph 1 states that “at the expiration of five years from the commencement of this Constitution and thereafter at the expiration of ten years from such commencement, by order constitute a Commission which shall consist of a Chairman and such other members representing the different languages specified in the Eighth Schedule as the President may appoint.”

This Commission is mandated to make recommendations as to:

(a) the progressive use of the Hindi language for the official purposes of the Union;

(b) restrictions on the use of the English language for all or any of the official purposes of the Union;

(c) the language to be used for all or any of the purposes mentioned in Article 348;

(d) the form of numerals to be used for any one or more specified purposes of the Union;

(e) any other matter referred to the Commission by the President as regards the official language of the Union and the language for communication between the Union and a State or between one State and another and their use.

Paragraph 3 of the Article instructs that the Commission “shall have due regard to the industrial, cultural and scientific advancement of India, and the just claims and the interests of persons belonging to the non-Hindi speaking areas in regard to the public services.”

This being the content of the Constitution pertaining to the status of the official language of the Union, it will need a deeper examination to understand why the course of action instructed by the Constitution could not fructify and whether the enshrining itself was the outcome of a flawed debate in the Constituent Assembly.

Nonetheless, the profound resistance raised by the Tamil population against the preference for Hindi as a ‘national’ or ‘official’ language lays bare these fault lines that may or may not have been aptly interrogated by the founding fathers.

Historical resistance to Hindi imposition

Tamil Nadu has a long and deeply-rooted history of resistance to the imposition of Hindi, dating back to the early 20th century. The first major opposition emerged in the 1930s when the British-era Madras Presidency attempted to introduce Hindi as a compulsory subject in schools.

The move was met with strong protests from Tamil scholars, activists and politicians, who viewed it as an attempt to diminish the significance of Tamil and impose North Indian cultural dominance.

The agitation, led by prominent figures like E.V. Ramasamy (Periyar) and members of the Justice Party, argued that Tamil Nadu had a distinct linguistic and cultural identity that needed to be preserved. The protests forced the British government to withdraw the proposal in 1940, marking one of the first victories for Tamil linguistic nationalism.

The role of Hindi Prachar Sabhas and the evolution of language politics

The push for Hindi promotion in South India dates back to the pre-independence era, well before the rise of the BJP as a political force. The Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, founded in 1918 by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was one of the earliest institutions dedicated to spreading Hindi in non-Hindi-speaking regions, particularly in the southern states.

Initially conceived as a means to facilitate national communication, it gradually became part of a broader Hindi promotion agenda, which many in Tamil Nadu perceived as a linguistic imposition.

During the early years of independence, the Indian National Congress-led central governments actively pursued policies to promote Hindi as a national language, often at the cost of regional linguistic identities. The Official Language Act of 1963 reinforced Hindi’s role in governance, and the push to replace English with Hindi as the sole official language by 1965 triggered widespread opposition, culminating in the 1965 Anti-Hindi Agitation.

Tamil Nadu witnessed massive student-led protests, including demonstrations, hunger strikes and violent clashes with police, leading to self-immolations and multiple deaths. The agitation, largely spearheaded by the DMK, positioned the party as the defender of Tamil identity against perceived North Indian cultural dominance.

The crisis forced Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri to assure that English would continue alongside Hindi as an official language, a policy that remains in place.

The 1965 agitation had lasting political consequences – it strengthened the Dravidian movement, bringing the DMK to power in Tamil Nadu in 1967 as the first non-Congress government in the state. Rejecting the three-language formula that included Hindi, Tamil Nadu adopted a Two-Language Policy, allowing only Tamil and English in schools.

This resistance to Hindi imposition continues today, with successive governments maintaining a firm stance on linguistic autonomy.

While the BJP did not create India’s language policies, its Hindi cultural nationalism aligns with historical efforts to expand Hindi’s role in governance and education. Unlike Congress, which faced strong resistance to its language policies, the BJP has strategically leveraged linguistic politics to consolidate its voter base in Hindi-speaking states, notwithstanding the potential of such moves to fuel regional tensions.

For Tamil Nadu, the opposition to Hindi is about more than language – it is about regional identity, history and political autonomy.

Leaders in the state argue that Tamil, one of the world’s oldest classical languages, deserves national recognition on par with Hindi, rather than being sidelined. The deep-rooted struggles have ensured that any central policy perceived as Hindi promotion is met with swift political resistance and mass opposition.

While a common national language could, in theory, serve as a unifying force, the real concern lies in intent, that is, who wants to promote it and for what ostensible reason.

As an eminent Tamil academic emphatically told The Polity: “When language becomes a tool of power rather than a bridge for people, any thinking individual should be deeply concerned. History has shown that language imposition is rarely about communication – it is about control. A truly inclusive nation does not dictate identity through language but embraces linguistic diversity as a strength, not a hierarchy.”

Tamil Nadu’s language policy and preference for English

Tamil Nadu has long embraced English as its primary link language, both within India and on the global stage. This choice stems not as much from the historical resistance to Hindi imposition as would be the practical advantages that English offers in education, employment and international mobility.

Unlike Hindi, which is seen as representing North India, English is viewed as a neutral language that does not favour any particular region.

The state’s Two-Language Policy, mandating only Tamil and English in schools, reflects this strategic decision. Unlike states following the Three-Language Formula, Tamil Nadu has consistently rejected the inclusion of Hindi in its school curriculum, reinforcing its commitment to English as the preferred second language.

Tamil Nadu’s thriving Information Technology (IT), manufacturing and business sectors – with major hubs like Chennai, Coimbatore, and Tiruchirappalli – require English proficiency for global communication. Companies operating in these industries, as well as Tamil professionals seeking opportunities abroad, benefit from English rather than Hindi.

The large Tamil diaspora in countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Canada, the US and Australia further strengthens this preference.

Beyond employment, English is also the language of higher education and research, ensuring that Tamil Nadu remains competitive in a rapidly modernising world. In contrast, Hindi is often viewed as a regional language with limited national and global utility.

A Madras University student shared his perspective on the ongoing language debate with The Polity: “In a world where English dominates science, technology, and global commerce, imposing Hindi in professional and academic spaces does nothing to make India more competitive. Shouldn’t our policies equip us for the world stage rather than confining us within linguistic boundaries?”

Student protests against Hindi imposition in 1965. Courtesy: Ellalanpadai 

Another student pointed to the inequalities such policies create: “No one should feel like a second-class citizen in their own country just because they do not speak Hindi. A Tamilian, Bengali, or Malayali should have the same career opportunities in Delhi or Mumbai as a Hindi speaker has in Chennai or Bengaluru. True national integration is about equal access, not linguistic uniformity.”

A third student was more direct in questioning Hindi’s national significance: “We are told Hindi will ‘unite’ India, but unity shouldn’t come at the cost of excluding millions. In the corridors of global business and innovation, English matters far more than Hindi. Why should career opportunities be dictated by a language with limited global relevance?”

Perceived centralisation of education

Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed the NEP 2020, viewing it as an infringement on state autonomy. While education falls under the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution, the state argues that curriculum design, language policy and higher education regulations should be primarily under state control.

It believes that such one-size-fits-all policies fail to account for regional linguistic and cultural diversity, making them unsuitable for Tamil Nadu’s unique educational landscape.

A major concern is the push for a uniform curriculum and standardised assessments, particularly the Common University Entrance Test (CUET). Tamil Nadu fears that students from its state board may be at a disadvantage due to differences in syllabi, undermining their chances in centrally controlled admission processes.

The state has historically developed its own school syllabi and textbooks, incorporating Tamil history, literature, and regional perspectives—an approach that it sees as threatened by central standardisation.

Additionally, the NEP’s proposal for a single regulatory body for higher education, replacing existing institutions like the UGC and AICTE, has raised concerns. Critics argue this weakens state control over universities, particularly state-run institutions that have traditionally operated with autonomy. Tamil Nadu fears this would impose national directives that may not align with its educational and economic priorities.

This push for greater central oversight is seen as part of a broader trend of reducing state powers in favour of centralisation. Given its long-standing commitment to federalism and regional autonomy, Tamil Nadu has rejected NEP 2020 outright and is developing its own State Education Policy tailored to its linguistic and academic needs.

Linguistic diversity and the resistance to Hindi imposition

India's linguistic landscape reflects its deep-rooted diversity, where regional languages hold immense cultural and political significance. The debate over the three-language policy and the perceived imposition of Hindi has sparked varied reactions across non-Hindi-speaking states, each navigating the issue based on its historical, social, and economic realities.

While Tamil Nadu remains the most vocal opponent, other states have adopted more nuanced stances. Karnataka and Kerala accommodate Hindi in their curricula but prioritise their regional languages alongside English. West Bengal, meanwhile, positions Bengali and English as its primary languages, viewing Hindi with scepticism.

Andhra Pradesh and Telangana take a similar approach, focusing on Telugu and English while seeing Hindi as non-essential to their academic and economic aspirations. Maharashtra balances regional identity with practical considerations, maintaining Marathi as dominant while accepting Hindi in cosmopolitan hubs. Punjab, while prioritising Punjabi and English, assigns Hindi a secondary role.

The Northeastern states present a distinct case due to their linguistic diversity and strong indigenous identities. English is the preferred link language in governance, education and employment, with Hindi holding little prominence. States like Meghalaya, Manipur and Mizoram see its imposition as a potential threat to their native tongues.

These varied responses highlight a broader tension between national integration and regional autonomy. While Tamil Nadu’s resistance is rooted in historical struggles, other states opt for pragmatic policies that reflect local linguistic realities. This divergence underscores the need for a flexible, decentralised approach to language policy rather than a uniform framework.

The broader backlash against Hindi dominance

The resistance to Hindi is not just about language preference but also linguistic equality, federalism and diversity of cultures across the nation.

Several states view the growing visibility of Hindi in official communication, government exams and public institutions as an implicit attempt to elevate it as a de facto national language. This has sparked concerns over the marginalisation of regional languages, leading to various forms of resistance.

In Karnataka, pro-Kannada organisations frequently oppose the increasing use of Hindi in administration and public spaces, advocating for Kannada’s primacy in governance and education. West Bengal, too, resists policies that appear to prioritise Hindi over Bengali, reinforcing the idea that linguistic diversity should be preserved rather than dominated by a single language.

Kerala, while not as vehemently opposed as Tamil Nadu, insists that language policies should be determined by states, ensuring Malayalam and English remain dominant.

At the core of such widespread resistance is the unresolved debate over whether Hindi is a national language or simply one among many regional languages. As mentioned earlier, the Indian Constitution designates Hindi as an official language but does not confer upon it the status of a sole national language.

However, political and policy discourse often blur this distinction, leading to tensions. States opposing Hindi imposition advocate a decentralised language policy that respects India’s multilingual character. Their emphasis is not just on rejecting Hindi but on safeguarding linguistic heritage and ensuring equitable governance.

This growing opposition signals the urgent need for a more inclusive, state-driven approach – one that fosters national cohesion by respecting regional identities rather than enforcing uniformity.

Global parallels: Lessons from multilingual nations

India’s struggle to balance linguistic diversity with national unity is not unique. Several multilingual nations have successfully managed linguistic pluralism by implementing decentralised policies that respect regional identities while maintaining a shared national framework.

Two notable examples – Canada and Switzerland – offer valuable insights into how India could refine its approach to linguistic federalism.

Canada: Bilingualism through federal language autonomy

Canada is a federation with two official languages, English and French, recognised at the federal level. However, language policies are largely decentralised, allowing provinces to determine their linguistic frameworks.

Quebec, where French is the dominant language, enforces the primacy of French in government, business, and education through the Charter of the French Language (Bill 101). While federal institutions in Quebec operate bilingually, provincial institutions function primarily in French.

In contrast, New Brunswick is the only province officially designated as bilingual, granting equal status to both English and French. Other provinces, such as Ontario and British Columbia, primarily operate in English but provide French-language services where necessary, ensuring inclusivity without enforcing bilingualism.

Canada’s model demonstrates how linguistic diversity can be accommodated through regional autonomy without compromising national integration. This approach aligns with the demands of India’s non-Hindi-speaking states, which seek to protect their regional languages from centralised imposition while maintaining linguistic inclusivity.

Switzerland: A decentralised model of linguistic coexistence

Switzerland exemplifies a successful multilingual system with four official languages – German, French, Italian and Romansh – each dominant in different linguistic regions (cantons). The Swiss model is built on strict regional autonomy, ensuring that local linguistic identities remain intact.

Each canton has the authority to determine its official language(s), and the federal government does not impose any language nationwide. Instead, it ensures that all national institutions operate in multiple languages and that citizens have the right to communicate in any of the four official languages.

Education policies also prioritise regional languages, with additional languages introduced gradually, fostering multilingualism without undermining native tongues.

Switzerland’s decentralised approach resonates with India’s federal structure, where states could have full authority over their language policies while ensuring that no single language dominates at the national level. 

Lessons for India

The experiences of Canada and Switzerland offer valuable insights for India as it navigates its own linguistic challenges.

One of the key lessons is the rejection of a uniform language policy. Just as Canada does not impose French across its English-speaking provinces, India should avoid enforcing Hindi in non-Hindi-speaking states. Instead, the emphasis should be on a flexible system where each state determines its linguistic priorities based on cultural, historical and practical considerations.

Another important takeaway is the need to strengthen linguistic federalism. Switzerland’s cantonal system allows each region to retain complete authority over its language policies, ensuring that local linguistic identities are preserved without interference from the central government.

Similarly, in India, states should have the freedom to shape their language policies without pressure to conform to a centralised framework. This would allow regional languages to thrive while ensuring that English remains a neutral link language for national and international communication.

Promoting multilingual inclusivity is another crucial aspect that India can adopt. National institutions should provide equal access to all scheduled languages, ensuring that no single language is given undue precedence over others. This could be achieved by improving translation services, expanding language access in government examinations and fostering a stronger presence of regional languages in media and governance.

Rather than positioning Hindi as a unifying force, the focus should be on enabling linguistic coexistence, where multiple languages can function within a shared national framework. Our political leadership should know that the imposition of any language, like any aspect of culture, rarely succeeds through force; rather, it invites resistance.

Language is deeply personal – woven into the identity, history, and emotions of its speakers. When a language grows, it does so organically, shaped by its relevance to people’s lives, their aspirations and the opportunities it provides.

No language can be sustained purely by decree; it must earn its place by proving its utility in education, employment and daily interactions. India’s linguistic landscape has evolved naturally over centuries, with languages flourishing where they find purpose. Any attempt to artificially elevate one language over others disrupts this equilibrium, creating divisions instead of unity.

True linguistic harmony comes not from imposition but from an environment where languages thrive on their own merit, embraced by people in their own time and space.

Our country’s diversity is not just a cultural asset but a defining feature of its federal structure. The debate over Hindi imposition is, at its core, a reflection of India’s struggle to balance national cohesion with regional autonomy. Tamil Nadu’s resistance is not merely about language; it is a larger fight against centralised governance that ignores regional identities and linguistic realities.

The historical pushback against Hindi dominance, from Periyar to Stalin, underscores the deep-seated demand for a decentralised linguistic framework, where states retain the power to shape their own language policies.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, the question remains: Will India embrace a truly pluralistic language policy, respecting its federal character, or will linguistic nationalism dictate its future? The answer to this will shape not only the politics of Tamil Nadu but the very nature of Indian democracy itself.