The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has sparked a major controversy between the Tamil Nadu government and the Central Government, primarily over the policy’s three-language formula. While the Centre advocates for a flexible language approach, Tamil Nadu strongly opposes what it perceives as an attempt to impose Hindi on non-Hindi-speaking states. This dispute has escalated into a broader conversation about linguistic autonomy and federalism in India.
Tamil Nadu’s Historical Opposition to Hindi Imposition
Tamil Nadu has a long-standing tradition of resisting the imposition of Hindi in its education system. The state has consistently followed a two-language formula—Tamil and English—since the 1960s. This stance is deeply rooted in the anti-Hindi agitation movements in the 1930s and 1960s, where large-scale protests erupted against mandatory Hindi education.
These historical movements have shaped Tamil Nadu’s strong linguistic identity, making any attempt to introduce a third language—especially Hindi—a highly sensitive issue. The state government and its people view such moves as an infringement on their cultural and linguistic rights.
Why Tamil Nadu Opposes the NEP’s Three-Language Formula
Under the NEP 2020, the Centre has proposed a three-language formula that encourages students to learn three languages, at least two of which are Indian languages. While the policy claims to provide flexibility, Tamil Nadu argues that it indirectly pushes Hindi and Sanskrit into non-Hindi-speaking states.
The Tamil Nadu government, led by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, has made it clear that it will not adopt the three-language formula. The state has written to the Prime Minister, urging him to reconsider this policy and respect Tamil Nadu’s autonomy in education. The chief concern is that making Hindi a third language could disadvantage Tamil students in competitive exams and employment opportunities.
Centre’s Justification and Tamil Nadu’s Counterarguments
The Union Government, particularly the Ministry of Education, has defended the three-language formula, stating that it does not impose any particular language and allows students to choose freely. Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has emphasized that the policy aims to create a more inclusive and competitive education system that enhances linguistic diversity.
However, Tamil Nadu’s School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi has countered this argument, stating that the state already implements many positive aspects of the NEP through its own initiatives but rejects any element that forces an additional language. The state government believes that its two-language formula has been effective and does not require any changes dictated by the Centre.
Tension Over Education Funds
Adding to the controversy, the Centre has linked the release of funds under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) to the implementation of the NEP, including the three-language formula. This has further fueled tensions, as Tamil Nadu sees this as an attempt to pressure states into compliance.
Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has urged the Central Government to delink educational funding from policy implementation, arguing that states should have the freedom to determine their education models without financial coercion.
Our Previous Blog: Former Bihar Chief Secretary Amir Subhani Remarries at 60
Implications of the Ongoing Dispute
The ongoing standoff between Tamil Nadu and the Centre highlights larger issues of federalism and linguistic identity in India. While the Central Government argues that a uniform education policy will promote national integration, states like Tamil Nadu stress the importance of preserving regional languages and cultures.
This debate is not just about education but also about state rights and autonomy. The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for other states that wish to retain control over their education systems and linguistic policies.
As the conflict continues, it remains to be seen whether the Centre will reconsider its approach or whether Tamil Nadu will find a way to maintain its independent stance without facing financial repercussions.
