The ongoing conflict between the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government over the three-language policy under the National Education Policy (NEP) has intensified, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighting India's history of linguistic coexistence. Addressing the 98th Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Sahitya Sammelan in New Delhi, Modi emphasized that Indian languages have always coexisted peacefully, influencing and enriching each other without animosity. He remarked that whenever attempts were made to create divisions based on linguistic differences, India’s shared cultural and linguistic heritage had always countered such efforts. His remarks, while not explicitly targeting any specific entity, were widely interpreted as a response to the Tamil Nadu government’s strong opposition to the three-language formula under the NEP.
Tamil Nadu, under the leadership of Chief Minister MK Stalin and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has long resisted the inclusion of Hindi in its education system, continuing its adherence to the two-language policy of Tamil and English. This stance is rooted in the state’s history of anti-Hindi agitations, which date back to the 1930s and gained significant momentum in the 1960s, ultimately shaping Tamil Nadu’s linguistic and political identity. The DMK has consistently opposed what it perceives as an attempt by the Centre to impose Hindi on non-Hindi-speaking states, arguing that such policies threaten regional languages and dilute linguistic diversity.
The latest confrontation was further escalated by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who urged Tamil Nadu and other southern states to put aside political differences and embrace the NEP for the benefit of students and educational institutions. In a pointed response to Stalin’s objections, Pradhan accused him of twisting progressive educational reforms into threats to sustain political narratives. He emphasized that the NEP was designed to be flexible and customizable, allowing states to implement it according to their specific educational needs. However, the DMK government has maintained that the Centre is using the policy as a tool to exert pressure on Tamil Nadu, allegedly linking the state’s due share of central funds to the adoption of the three-language policy.
Stalin’s letter to Prime Minister Modi reiterated Tamil Nadu’s firm stance against the three-language formula, arguing that the state's successful two-language model has served its students well and does not need alteration. In response, Pradhan criticized Tamil Nadu’s reluctance to implement NEP 2020, arguing that continued opposition deprives students, teachers, and educational institutions in the state of the immense benefits and opportunities the policy offers. He urged the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider its position, stating that the NEP is not a rigid framework but a flexible policy that can be adapted to state-specific needs.
The debate over language has historically been one of the most politically charged issues in Tamil Nadu, with multiple movements and protests shaping the region’s linguistic policies. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s led to the state adopting a strict two-language formula, with successive governments ensuring that Hindi did not become a compulsory subject in schools. This legacy continues to influence the DMK’s approach to language policy, making any attempt to introduce Hindi a highly sensitive and contentious issue. The party has framed its opposition to the three-language policy as a defence of Tamil identity and linguistic self-determination, a stance that resonates strongly with its voter base.
The Centre, on the other hand, has maintained that the NEP’s three-language policy is aimed at fostering multilingual proficiency among students and enhancing their career opportunities at the national and global levels. Supporters of the policy argue that learning an additional language, including Hindi, could provide students with better access to employment and educational resources across different states. However, Tamil Nadu’s leadership sees this as a veiled attempt to impose Hindi, given past instances of perceived linguistic imposition.
The ongoing tussle highlights the broader tension between regional identity and national policy directives. With the Tamil Nadu government remaining firm in its refusal to implement the NEP’s language policy, and the Centre continuing to advocate its adoption, the standoff is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. The question now is whether the two sides can find a middle ground that respects Tamil Nadu’s linguistic preferences while also accommodating the broader objectives of the NEP, or whether the impasse will further deepen the divide between regional aspirations and national educational reforms.
As political and cultural sensitivities continue to shape this debate, the outcome of this standoff could have significant implications for the relationship between the Tamil Nadu government and the Centre, as well as for the future of language policies in India. Whether the Centre will make concessions to address Tamil Nadu’s concerns or hold its ground in pushing for a nationwide implementation of the NEP remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear—language will continue to be a defining issue in Tamil Nadu’s political and educational landscape.
