Sanjay Pandey
The political friction between the Tamil Nadu government and the Centre has escalated once again, with Chief Minister M.K. Stalin launching a scathing attack on Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan for allegedly tying education-related funds to the state’s acceptance of the National Education Policy (NEP) and the three-language formula. Stalin accused Pradhan of “blackmail” and asserted that the Tamil people would not tolerate such coercion. The controversy stems from Pradhan’s remarks in Varanasi on February 15, where he reportedly stated that Tamil Nadu must “come to terms with the Indian Constitution” and that the three-language policy is the “rule of law.”
Stalin, in a post on ‘X,’ tagged a video of Pradhan’s comments and challenged the minister to specify the constitutional provision that mandates the three-language formula, which includes English, the regional language, and Hindi. He questioned whether the Centre was deliberately withholding funds as a pressure tactic, emphasizing that the state was only demanding its rightful share from the Union government. The Chief Minister argued that if Pradhan treated Tamil Nadu’s demands as though the state was asking for his personal wealth, then Delhi would soon witness the resolute spirit of the Tamil people. His strong rhetoric underscores Tamil Nadu’s long-standing opposition to Hindi imposition, a sentiment deeply ingrained in the state’s political and linguistic identity since the anti-Hindi agitation of the 1960s.
The Centre’s push for the NEP and the three-language policy has been a contentious issue in Tamil Nadu, where successive governments—across party lines—have upheld the state’s existing two-language formula of Tamil and English in schools. The state government views the NEP as an attempt to centralize education policies in a manner that disregards regional autonomy. The DMK, in particular, has consistently opposed any move that could be perceived as linguistic or cultural imposition by the BJP-led Union government. Stalin’s attack on Pradhan is therefore not just about education funding; it is a continuation of Tamil Nadu’s larger struggle against perceived encroachments on its linguistic and educational policies.
Political analysts argue that Pradhan’s remarks, whether intentional or not, play directly into Tamil Nadu’s historical anxieties regarding Hindi imposition. Senior journalist N. Ram noted that such statements from Union ministers only serve to strengthen regional parties like the DMK, which have built their political narratives on safeguarding Tamil identity. “The BJP has struggled to make electoral inroads in Tamil Nadu precisely because of its association with policies that are seen as culturally and linguistically homogenizing. Remarks like these reinforce the perception that the Centre is indifferent to Tamil Nadu’s concerns,” he stated.
Economist and policy expert Usha Sunil pointed out that the linkage of education funds to policy compliance raises constitutional and governance-related questions. “Education falls under the Concurrent List, meaning both the Centre and the states have jurisdiction. However, coercive federalism, where funds are withheld to force state governments to comply with a centrally dictated policy, violates the spirit of cooperative federalism,” she argued. Tamil Nadu has long argued that its successful education model—marked by high literacy rates and social welfare-oriented policies—should not be disrupted by a uniform national framework that does not account for regional diversity.
The BJP, on the other hand, has framed its stance as one of inclusivity and national integration. Pradhan, responding to Stalin’s criticism, questioned whether the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister believed that only students in private schools should learn multiple languages. He accused the DMK of promoting an outdated language policy from the 1960s that, in his view, deprives government school students of linguistic opportunities available to their peers in private institutions. The BJP’s argument is that the three-language formula provides students with better career prospects, particularly given the dominance of Hindi in government services and private-sector jobs across North India.
However, critics argue that this perspective ignores the reality that Hindi is not necessary for students who seek opportunities either within Tamil Nadu or internationally. Senior political commentator S. Gurumurthy, though aligned with the BJP on many issues, has previously remarked that Tamil Nadu’s economic and educational successes are proof that a two-language formula does not hinder students’ prospects. “Tamil Nadu’s IT sector thrives without mandatory Hindi education, and its students excel globally with just Tamil and English. The Centre’s argument that Hindi is essential does not hold water,” he stated.
The confrontation over the three-language policy and NEP also has electoral implications. With the 2024 general elections approaching, the DMK is leveraging this controversy to consolidate its voter base by positioning itself as the sole defender of Tamil interests against alleged central overreach. The BJP, on the other hand, is attempting to challenge the DMK’s hegemony by projecting itself as a party that promotes national unity and economic opportunity. However, as political scientist Prof. R. Venkatesan notes, “Every time the BJP raises the issue of language, it plays into the DMK’s hands. Tamil Nadu’s electorate has historically rejected any policy that appears to threaten its linguistic identity. The BJP risks alienating potential voters rather than gaining support.”
At the heart of this debate lies the broader question of federalism and the distribution of power between the Centre and the states. Tamil Nadu has been vocal about its demand for greater autonomy in policymaking, particularly in areas like education, where regional priorities often differ from national objectives. The DMK government sees the NEP as a vehicle for centralized control, whereas the BJP views it as a necessary reform to standardize and modernize India’s education system.
As the war of words between Stalin and Pradhan continues, the issue is likely to remain a flashpoint in Centre-state relations. With Tamil Nadu’s history of linguistic pride and resistance to Hindi imposition, any attempt to enforce the three-language formula is bound to meet with fierce opposition. The DMK’s stance reflects not just political posturing but a deeply ingrained cultural sentiment that has shaped Tamil Nadu’s identity for decades.
The larger question remains—will the Centre push ahead with its language policy in the face of Tamil Nadu’s resistance, or will it adopt a more conciliatory approach to avoid further alienating a state that has consistently opposed any form of linguistic imposition? The coming months may provide the answer, but one thing is certain: Tamil Nadu’s battle for linguistic and educational autonomy is far from over.
The political friction between the Tamil Nadu government and the Centre has escalated once again, with Chief Minister M.K. Stalin launching a scathing attack on Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan for allegedly tying education-related funds to the state’s acceptance of the National Education Policy (NEP) and the three-language formula. Stalin accused Pradhan of “blackmail” and asserted that the Tamil people would not tolerate such coercion. The controversy stems from Pradhan’s remarks in Varanasi on February 15, where he reportedly stated that Tamil Nadu must “come to terms with the Indian Constitution” and that the three-language policy is the “rule of law.”
Stalin, in a post on ‘X,’ tagged a video of Pradhan’s comments and challenged the minister to specify the constitutional provision that mandates the three-language formula, which includes English, the regional language, and Hindi. He questioned whether the Centre was deliberately withholding funds as a pressure tactic, emphasizing that the state was only demanding its rightful share from the Union government. The Chief Minister argued that if Pradhan treated Tamil Nadu’s demands as though the state was asking for his personal wealth, then Delhi would soon witness the resolute spirit of the Tamil people. His strong rhetoric underscores Tamil Nadu’s long-standing opposition to Hindi imposition, a sentiment deeply ingrained in the state’s political and linguistic identity since the anti-Hindi agitation of the 1960s.
The Centre’s push for the NEP and the three-language policy has been a contentious issue in Tamil Nadu, where successive governments—across party lines—have upheld the state’s existing two-language formula of Tamil and English in schools. The state government views the NEP as an attempt to centralize education policies in a manner that disregards regional autonomy. The DMK, in particular, has consistently opposed any move that could be perceived as linguistic or cultural imposition by the BJP-led Union government. Stalin’s attack on Pradhan is therefore not just about education funding; it is a continuation of Tamil Nadu’s larger struggle against perceived encroachments on its linguistic and educational policies.
Political analysts argue that Pradhan’s remarks, whether intentional or not, play directly into Tamil Nadu’s historical anxieties regarding Hindi imposition. Senior journalist N. Ram noted that such statements from Union ministers only serve to strengthen regional parties like the DMK, which have built their political narratives on safeguarding Tamil identity. “The BJP has struggled to make electoral inroads in Tamil Nadu precisely because of its association with policies that are seen as culturally and linguistically homogenizing. Remarks like these reinforce the perception that the Centre is indifferent to Tamil Nadu’s concerns,” he stated.
Economist and policy expert Usha Sunil pointed out that the linkage of education funds to policy compliance raises constitutional and governance-related questions. “Education falls under the Concurrent List, meaning both the Centre and the states have jurisdiction. However, coercive federalism, where funds are withheld to force state governments to comply with a centrally dictated policy, violates the spirit of cooperative federalism,” she argued. Tamil Nadu has long argued that its successful education model—marked by high literacy rates and social welfare-oriented policies—should not be disrupted by a uniform national framework that does not account for regional diversity.
The BJP, on the other hand, has framed its stance as one of inclusivity and national integration. Pradhan, responding to Stalin’s criticism, questioned whether the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister believed that only students in private schools should learn multiple languages. He accused the DMK of promoting an outdated language policy from the 1960s that, in his view, deprives government school students of linguistic opportunities available to their peers in private institutions. The BJP’s argument is that the three-language formula provides students with better career prospects, particularly given the dominance of Hindi in government services and private-sector jobs across North India.
However, critics argue that this perspective ignores the reality that Hindi is not necessary for students who seek opportunities either within Tamil Nadu or internationally. Senior political commentator S. Gurumurthy, though aligned with the BJP on many issues, has previously remarked that Tamil Nadu’s economic and educational successes are proof that a two-language formula does not hinder students’ prospects. “Tamil Nadu’s IT sector thrives without mandatory Hindi education, and its students excel globally with just Tamil and English. The Centre’s argument that Hindi is essential does not hold water,” he stated.
The confrontation over the three-language policy and NEP also has electoral implications. With the 2024 general elections approaching, the DMK is leveraging this controversy to consolidate its voter base by positioning itself as the sole defender of Tamil interests against alleged central overreach. The BJP, on the other hand, is attempting to challenge the DMK’s hegemony by projecting itself as a party that promotes national unity and economic opportunity. However, as political scientist Prof. R. Venkatesan notes, “Every time the BJP raises the issue of language, it plays into the DMK’s hands. Tamil Nadu’s electorate has historically rejected any policy that appears to threaten its linguistic identity. The BJP risks alienating potential voters rather than gaining support.”
At the heart of this debate lies the broader question of federalism and the distribution of power between the Centre and the states. Tamil Nadu has been vocal about its demand for greater autonomy in policymaking, particularly in areas like education, where regional priorities often differ from national objectives. The DMK government sees the NEP as a vehicle for centralized control, whereas the BJP views it as a necessary reform to standardize and modernize India’s education system.
As the war of words between Stalin and Pradhan continues, the issue is likely to remain a flashpoint in Centre-state relations. With Tamil Nadu’s history of linguistic pride and resistance to Hindi imposition, any attempt to enforce the three-language formula is bound to meet with fierce opposition. The DMK’s stance reflects not just political posturing but a deeply ingrained cultural sentiment that has shaped Tamil Nadu’s identity for decades.
The larger question remains—will the Centre push ahead with its language policy in the face of Tamil Nadu’s resistance, or will it adopt a more conciliatory approach to avoid further alienating a state that has consistently opposed any form of linguistic imposition? The coming months may provide the answer, but one thing is certain: Tamil Nadu’s battle for linguistic and educational autonomy is far from over.
(Author, a seasoned bilingual journalist, is an expert on Jharkhand’s sociopolitical landscape.He can be reached at pandeysanjay945@gmail.com)
