Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has once again reaffirmed his strong opposition to the “imposition of Hindi,” declaring that the state is fully prepared to resist any such move, even if it means another full-fledged language war. His remarks come amid growing tensions between the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government and the BJP-led central government over the latter’s three-language policy.
For decades, the DMK has strongly opposed any attempt to enforce Hindi as a mandatory language in Tamil Nadu, arguing that such a move would undermine the state’s unique linguistic and cultural heritage. The party insists that Tamil and English are sufficient for governance and education and that imposing Hindi is an unnecessary and politically motivated decision that disregards the sentiments of Tamil speakers. The resistance to Hindi imposition is deeply rooted in the state’s history, with the most notable example being the anti-Hindi agitations of 1965. These protests, led by the Dravidian movement, played a crucial role in preventing Hindi from being declared the sole official language of India and cemented the DMK’s identity as a champion of Tamil identity and federalism.
When asked whether the Centre’s policies were “sowing the seeds for another language war,” Stalin responded with an unequivocal “Yes, certainly. We are ready for it.” His strong words reflect the DMK’s continued stance against what it sees as an attempt by the BJP to push a Hindi-centric national identity. The chief minister’s remarks have reignited the long-standing debate on language policies in India, drawing both support and criticism from various quarters.
Tamil Nadu BJP president K Annamalai was quick to hit back at Stalin’s statement, accusing the DMK of hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to language education. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Annamalai questioned why government school students in Tamil Nadu were denied the opportunity to learn a third language, while students in CBSE and private matriculation schools—many of which are owned by DMK-affiliated individuals—are allowed to study multiple languages.
“Is Mr. Stalin implying that there is no restriction on learning a third language, but if you want to learn it, you should enroll your children in CBSE or matriculation schools run by DMK members?” Annamalai wrote, arguing that the DMK had created an unfair system with “one rule for the wealthy and another for the poor.” He further accused the ruling party of manipulating the language issue for political gains while doing little to genuinely improve Tamil Nadu’s education system.
Annamalai also took a dig at DMK cadres who have been actively protesting against Hindi imposition by painting over Hindi signs in public spaces. “Your party members, who are roaming around with paint cans, seem to have forgotten to clarify the difference between Hindi and English in your statement,” he said, mocking the protests as a superficial and performative political stunt.
Beyond the heated language debate, Stalin also raised concerns over another major issue that could impact Tamil Nadu’s political representation: the upcoming delimitation process. Speaking to reporters after a Cabinet meeting at the Secretariat, he announced that an all-party meeting would be convened on March 5 to discuss the matter. The chief minister warned that Tamil Nadu was at risk of losing as many as eight Lok Sabha seats due to its success in implementing family planning policies that led to effective population control.
“Tamil Nadu succeeded in population control through the family planning programme. Just because our population is lower, we are now facing a situation where our Lok Sabha seats will be cut down. We stand to lose eight seats, and as a result, we would be left with only 31 MPs instead of the current 39,” Stalin explained.
He further argued that such a reduction would not only diminish Tamil Nadu’s representation in Parliament but would also weaken its ability to raise concerns on crucial national issues such as the National Education Policy (NEP), the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), and the allocation of central funds. The DMK has been a vocal critic of NEET, arguing that the exam systemically disadvantages students from state board backgrounds and rural areas, making medical education less accessible to economically weaker sections.
Stalin’s strong remarks on both Hindi imposition and delimitation indicate that the DMK is gearing up for a larger political battle against the Centre in the coming months. The party has long positioned itself as the defender of Tamil identity, federalism, and social justice, and these issues provide another opportunity to reinforce that image ahead of the upcoming elections.
The BJP, on the other hand, has been steadily working to expand its influence in Tamil Nadu, a state where it has traditionally struggled to gain a foothold. The party’s strategy has involved promoting Tamil culture and leaders like K Annamalai while advocating for a more integrated national identity including Hindi. However, language has always been an extremely sensitive issue in Tamil Nadu, and any perception of Hindi being imposed from the Centre is likely to be met with strong resistance from the people.
As the political discourse intensifies, the coming months are expected to see further confrontations between the DMK and BJP on these contentious issues. The language debate, in particular, has the potential to reignite old wounds and bring back memories of past struggles against Hindi imposition. Meanwhile, the delimitation issue could have long-term consequences for Tamil Nadu’s representation in national politics, making it a critical issue that extends beyond party lines.
With Stalin taking an assertive stance and Annamalai pushing back with equal force, the political landscape in Tamil Nadu remains charged, setting the stage for a series of high-stakes debates and showdowns in the near future.
