Dr. Mahendra Dubey
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s repeated accusations against the BJP-led Union government for using financial allocations as a coercive tool to push centrally mandated policies are not mere political rhetoric but a direct challenge to what he perceives as an encroachment on the state’s autonomy. His resistance to the imposition of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the three-language formula is deeply tied to Tamil Nadu’s historical opposition to Hindi imposition, a sentiment that has defined its regional politics since the 1960s.
The latest flashpoint in this confrontation emerged when Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan suggested that the release of ₹2,152 crore under the Samagra Shiksha scheme was contingent upon Tamil Nadu embracing NEP 2020 and its three-language policy. Stalin has categorically rejected this condition, asserting that it undermines the state’s right to shape its education system based on its linguistic and cultural ethos.
Tamil Nadu has long upheld its two-language policy (Tamil and English) and has fiercely resisted any attempts to impose Hindi. The anti-Hindi agitation of the 1960s remains a defining moment in the state’s political consciousness, shaping the Dravidian movement and influencing government policies to this day. Stalin’s opposition to the NEP aligns with this historical stance, reinforcing his image as a guardian of Tamil identity.
Stalin’s argument against the Union government’s approach is rooted in the principle of federalism. The DMK has repeatedly accused the BJP-led Centre of undermining the spirit of cooperative governance by imposing a one-size-fits-all policy framework on states. Political commentators argue that withholding funds until a state complies with central directives is not just an economic issue but a larger constitutional concern. As constitutional expert Prof. N. Sreekumar puts it, “Attaching conditions to fund allocations weakens federalism and sets a dangerous precedent for Centre-State relations.”
With the Lok Sabha elections on the horizon, Stalin’s sustained focus on this issue is also a strategic move. By portraying the BJP as a force attempting to erode Tamil Nadu’s autonomy, the DMK seeks to consolidate its regional base. The BJP, despite its efforts, has struggled to gain a substantial foothold in the state, where the Dravidian parties—DMK and AIADMK—dominate the political landscape. Senior journalist R. Gopalakrishnan notes, “For the BJP, Tamil Nadu remains a tough terrain. Stalin’s resistance to NEP serves both as a policy stance and an electoral strategy to keep the BJP at bay.”
The three-language policy has triggered strong reactions from students, educators, and political leaders across Tamil Nadu. The AIADMK, despite being ideologically closer to the BJP, has also voiced its reservations, signaling that opposition to NEP transcends party lines. Stalin’s stance taps into the deep-seated fear among Tamil Nadu’s population that the state’s linguistic and educational policies are being dictated by Delhi.
Despite the BJP’s concerted efforts, its vote share in Tamil Nadu remains marginal. The party has relied on high-profile visits from central leaders to gain visibility, but its ideological positioning remains at odds with the Dravidian identity politics that dominate the state. The push for the three-language formula has only intensified local resistance to the BJP’s expansionist ambitions.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s opposition to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 goes beyond the realm of education reforms; it is a strong political assertion of the state’s autonomy against what is perceived as an encroaching central government. His resistance is deeply rooted in Tamil Nadu’s longstanding struggle for linguistic pride and self-governance, values that have defined Dravidian politics for decades. The DMK has consistently opposed policies that impose Hindi or a uniform national framework, seeing them as threats to the distinct identity of Tamil Nadu.
Stalin’s firm stance against NEP 2020 aligns with this broader ideology, positioning him as the defender of Tamil cultural and political sovereignty. The policy’s emphasis on a centralized education system and promotion of Hindi is viewed in Tamil Nadu as an attempt to dilute regional identity. By rejecting it, Stalin is not only safeguarding the state’s educational priorities but also reinforcing a strong anti-BJP sentiment. This issue provides the DMK with a potent political narrative ahead of the upcoming elections, rallying support from those who see the Centre’s policies as incompatible with Tamil Nadu’s socio-political ethos.
The battle over NEP is thus emblematic of the larger tensions between Tamil Nadu and the BJP-led central government. With the state historically resisting any perceived overreach from Delhi, Stalin’s opposition signals a continuation of this ideological and political struggle. As the Centre continues to push its agenda, the growing friction is likely to deepen the political divide, making Tamil Nadu a significant battleground where regional assertion takes precedence over national imposition.
(Author, a Ph. D. In Social Medicine and Community Health from JNU, is a lawyer and social-political commentator)
