❈ ❈ ❈
Three Speeches, One Struggle
Vignesh Karthik K.R.
The debate over the imposition of Hindi as a unifying national or “link” language in India has a long, deeply rooted history. Nowhere is this contestation more evident than in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, which continues to resist what it perceives as efforts to compromise its linguistic autonomy.
The origins of this resistance date back to the 1930s and, more prominently, to the mid-1960s, when the Parliament debated declaring Hindi the sole official language of India. Today, the controversy has taken a renewed shape through the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, specifically its three-language formula.
While the policy’s text claims flexibility, India and Tamil Nadu’s experience – both past and present –suggests that the practical outcomes would inevitably favour Hindi, thereby reinvigorating a battle that began decades ago under the iconic leadership of C.N. Annadurai (popularly known as Anna).
This article examines the contemporary conflict over Hindi imposition by using three speeches delivered by Anna in the Rajya Sabha between 1963 and 1965 as key reference points. These speeches, in which he fiercely opposed Hindi’s elevation as the sole official language, serve as pivotal moments in understanding Tamil Nadu’s continued resistance.
By revisiting Anna’s arguments and applying them to present-day concerns surrounding the NEP 2020, this discussion highlights how his warnings against linguistic domination and his advocacy for federalism remain relevant in today’s political and educational landscape.
The opposition to Hindi in Tamil Nadu is not an isolated phenomenon but is deeply intertwined with the region’s historical experience of resisting centralised control. As explored in the recent work by Rama Sundari Mantena, the rise of linguistic nationalism in South India, particularly Tamil and Telugu nationalism, was not merely a cultural assertion but also a political movement rooted in self-determination and the idea of provincial democracy.
Scholars have noted that linguistic identity in colonial Madras was a crucial tool for mobilising public sentiment and structuring regional political movements, particularly in the face of attempts to impose a singular national identity from the Centre.
Tamil Nadu’s linguistic politics were shaped by a broader history of provincial assertion, wherein language became a mechanism for both resisting the colonial state and articulating a vision of postcolonial self-rule that rejected majoritarian dominance. The Dravidian movement, which gave rise to Anna’s leadership, drew heavily from this tradition of asserting linguistic and cultural autonomy as central to democratic governance.
By situating the present struggle over the three-language policy within this historical trajectory, we see that Tamil Nadu’s resistance is not just about language – it is about maintaining a vision of federalism that recognises the legitimacy of regional identities. The echoes of Anna’s speeches in contemporary debates reaffirm that language imposition is not simply a matter of education policy, but one of constitutional principles and political rights.
Historical underpinnings and Annadurai’s relevance
In the 1960s, Anna – who was then a Member of Parliament and later became the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu – rose as a passionate and eloquent advocate against attempts to impose Hindi as India’s sole official language. Through his speeches, he articulated a core conviction: India’s true strength lies in its rich linguistic and cultural diversity, and genuine national unity can only be fostered through inclusivity rather than enforced uniformity.
Anna warned that mandating one language, particularly Hindi – which already held sway in central and northern India – would sow seeds of resentment among non-Hindi speakers. He argued that such a policy would create a structural imbalance, granting Hindi-speaking regions an inherent advantage in areas such as education, public administration, and employment.
In his address on resisting the so-called “Hindi menace,” he stressed that the adoption of Hindi as the exclusive link language would not only marginalise other linguistic communities but would also corrode the federal spirit enshrined in the Indian Constitution. His impassioned call for “unity in diversity” resonated deeply; for Anna, imposing linguistic uniformity was tantamount to erasing the cultural and historical identities of India’s many regions.
Moreover, Anna’s speeches consistently highlighted the pragmatic role of English as a neutral medium. He contended that retaining English alongside regional languages leveled the playing field – since no Indian community has English as its mother tongue, it would not privilege any one group over another.
This argument was crucial not only for safeguarding Tamil’s unique cultural heritage but also for ensuring socio-economic mobility, as English opened global opportunities for education and employment.
His insistence that true unity must come from respecting regional autonomy, rather than enforcing a single language, continues to inform debates on language policy even today. In his later remarks on the dangers of linguistic uniformity, Anna famously contrasted “unity” with “uniformity,” emphasising that a nation composed of many voices would suffer if one language were to dominate.
In essence, Anna’s legacy in these debates remains as relevant now as it was then. His clarion call against the imposition of Hindi – rooted in a deep understanding of India’s diverse cultural fabric – foreshadows contemporary controversies, such as those surrounding the National Education Policy’s three-language formula.
By questioning any form of linguistic dominance incompatible with India’s federal structure, Anna laid the ideological groundwork for Tamil Nadu’s continued resistance, a stance that champions the preservation of regional identity and equitable cultural representation.
The lingering shadow of linguistic uniformity
Despite the Constitution’s purported dedication to linguistic and cultural pluralism, Hindi continues to be projected as India’s “connecting language.” During the 1960s, the proposal to make Hindi the primary official language triggered massive protests in Tamil Nadu, culminating in anti-Hindi agitations that claimed several lives.
These events indelibly etched into Tamil consciousness the notion that any compulsion to learn Hindi diminished the region’s centuries-old linguistic identity.
In the current era, the New Education Policy’s three-language formula revives these concerns. Though it ostensibly provides states the choice of multiple “Indian languages,” Tamil Nadu’s past experiences reveal that implementation often defaults to Hindi or Sanskrit – either due to ease of finding teachers or prevailing centralised guidelines.
Thus, what appears voluntary on paper becomes de facto mandatory in practice. As India’s history has shown, these schemes invariably prioritise Hindi in non-Hindi-speaking areas and Sanskrit in Hindi-speaking regions, resulting in asymmetric language choices that fail to reflect genuine linguistic diversity.
Empirical Contrasts in Educational Trajectories
Tamil Nadu’s two-language policy – Tamil and English –has drawn considerable scrutiny from central authorities. Yet, evidence suggests that states embracing a three-language framework have not necessarily outperformed Tamil Nadu in developmental or educational metrics. Data (from various studies and policy reports) often highlight Tamil Nadu’s relatively robust outcomes in areas such as literacy rate, school enrollment, and other social indicators.
For instance, Bihar – which has historically followed or been open to the three-language regime –continues to lag behind in critical indices such as per capita income, literacy, and general well-being. Gujarat, a state often lauded for its economic growth, also faces shortfalls in social development and education benchmarks when compared with Tamil Nadu’s more balanced approach.
This contrast refutes the notion that learning multiple Indian languages, including Hindi, guarantees superior educational results or fosters holistic development.
Moreover, no consistent evidence exists to demonstrate that northern Hindi-speaking states proactively integrate southern languages – like Tamil, Telugu, or Kannada – into their schools as part of the three-language mandate. The imbalance is striking: if linguistic uniformity were truly the goal, it would require a reciprocal appreciation of southern languages in northern education policies, which is largely absent.
Protecting Socioeconomic Mobility Through English
A section of those who object to the compulsory teaching of Hindi often assert that other Indian languages can be taught to children, and concomitantly as a society unite in their opposition to the hegemony of English. This perspective, however, neglects the role English plays in enabling social and economic mobility, especially among marginalised communities.
English proficiency can open doors to higher education, international employment opportunities, and a broader global network. Anna himself – despite being an ardent champion of Tamil – pointed out that English remained the most convenient common link across states, ensuring no single Indian language held an upper hand.
A two-language policy that combined English with Tamil in Tamil Nadu’s government-run and State board schools thus helped preserve the local language’s primacy, while simultaneously equipping students with skills for national and international competitiveness.
Any attempts to “villainise” English, risk exacerbating socioeconomic divides by curtailing the upward mobility of underprivileged students who benefit most from exposure to English-language resources.
Federalism, constitutional rights, and the way forward
Beyond the educational realm, this debate cuts to the core of India’s federal ethos. Critics of Hindi imposition consistently argue that the country is a union of states, each possessing its own language, culture, and historical identity. Article 345 of the Constitution, combined with states’ rights over education in the concurrent list, underscores that Tamil Nadu’s stance is not simply “politically motivated,” as alleged by central leaders, but constitutionally valid although not always possible should the union choose to override the State.
In the words of Anna, unity must be built on mutual respect, not forced uniformity. Tamil Nadu’s refusal to adopt a language that its population neither identifies with nor requires for regional communication is, from its perspective, a legitimate exercise of democratic choice.
The tension escalates when federal mechanisms – such as conditional funding or ministerial guidelines – pressure states to adopt policies they have historically rejected, prompting warnings of renewed language conflicts.
National Education Policy’s three-language formula reasserts many of the same questions
Despite spanning decades, Tamil Nadu’s clash with the Union government over Hindi reveals how profoundly language influences questions of identity, autonomy, and social opportunity. Anna’s 1960s speeches in Parliament foreshadowed the present impasse, emphasising that culture thrives on diversity and that imposing a single language is an affront to that diversity.
Today, the National Education Policy’s three-language formula reasserts many of the same questions about uniformity, federalism, and local aspiration.
Supporters of Tamil Nadu’s two-language policy emphasise the state’s comparatively strong educational indicators, the critical role of English for marginalised communities, and the inherent constitutional freedoms of linguistic regions to determine their own paths. Hindi imposition, they argue, is neither an educational panacea nor an emblem of unity; rather, it risks stifling the nuanced pluralism at the heart of India’s democracy.
Ultimately, the debate is not merely about how many languages one studies in school. It is about whether India can sustain its identity as a confluence of many voices – each equally validated – rather than as a monolingual structure. In that sense, Anna’s clarion call for linguistic equality remains as resonant now as it was six decades ago, underscoring the urgent need for dialogue that respects both cultural pride and constitutional equity.
(Vignesh Karthik KR is a postdoctoral research fellow of Indian and Indonesian politics at the Royal Netherlands of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies, Leiden and a research affiliate at King’s India Institute, King’s College London. Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia, and M. K. Venu.)
❈ ❈ ❈
Why the Three-Language Formula Threatens South India
Apoorvanand
The Indian Union government has threatened to stop funding Tamil Nadu under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan if it does not implement the three-language formula. The education minister says that this is an integral part of the new national education policy and Tamil Nadu is duty bound to implement it or else it will not get any money from the union government.
On the surface, this seems reasonable because if a state does not implement a ‘national’ policy, it should not expect money from the “Centre”. After all, it is the Centre’s money! Tamil Nadu has in turn asked what will happen if it stops sending its share of taxes to the coffers of the Union government. In the past too, Tamil Nadu has said that the Union government sends it a very small amount in proportion to the amount of taxes it pays.
How can Tamil Nadu be happy if Uttar Pradesh/Bihar are not? We are not getting into this debate right now, although the state’s point is valid.
BJP’s hostility to states in south India
States such as Bihar, Uttar Pradesh pay less taxes to the union treasury than states like Tamil Nadu but they get more money from the Union government than Tamil Nadu. The counter argument is that we are all Indians, how can Tamil Nadu be happy if Bihar or Uttar Pradesh is backward? Tamil Nadu should think about Bihar, but do we ever ask Bihar or Uttar Pradesh to feel for Tamil Nadu or Kerala?
What place do Tamil Nadu and Kerala have in the social consciousness of these states ? The attitude of the union government headed by the BJP has been one of hostility towards the states of south India since they have not elected BJP to run their governments.
Even during and after natural calamities like cyclones and floods, the federal union has refused to give them adequate funds from the National Disaster Fund. Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala had to go to the Supreme Court to force the union government to release adequate funds for relief and rehabilitation.
How can we trust the intentions of someone who refuses to lend a hand in the times of crisis? Are the people of Tamil Nadu wrong if they do not trust the assurances of the Union Government that the three-language formula does not talk about imposing Hindi?
Is their apprehension wrong that this is a way to sneak in Hindi through the backdoor? They know that the BJP led union government has been trying in various ways to promote Hindi. The Union Home Ministry has asked the Ministry of External Affairs to take steps to promote the use of Hindi in government offices, banks and embassies in other countries. As soon as the BJP came to power, a Hindi cell was set up in the Ministry of External Affairs in 2015.
For the first time, a joint secretary level officer was appointed solely for the promotion of Hindi abroad. Tamil, Khasi, Kannada speakers may ask why only Hindi should enjoy the favour of the union government? Does the Indian diaspora consist only of Hindi speaking people?
There are more examples of the bias of the BJP government in favour of Hindi. Union home minister Amit Shah, who was on a tour of the North Eastern states 3 years back, announced that Hindi will be made compulsory in all the states of that region.
He said that Hindi is “the language of India” and it would be the contact language for the states of the North East. He also announced a plan to appointment of 22,000 Hindi teachers for the region. This move was met with strong opposition in all the North Eastern states.
Back in 2022, the Committee of Parliament on Official Language headed by Shah had recommended that the medium of instruction should mandatorily be Hindi, and local languages, in all technical or non-technical educational institutions including central universities.
In response to the recommendations, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to raise his objections against what he called the Union government’s attempts to “impose Hindi by all possible avenues” in the country.
Three Language Formula as Trojan Horse?
When we see the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh spewing venom against Urdu, a language rooted in the state, we can guess the approach of the BJP governments towards Tamil or Tulu.
In 2017, the BJP government shifted the broadcasts of Tamil, Malayalam, Bengali etc. from the Delhi-based Central Broadcasting Service of Akashvani from Delhi to the states. It resulted in loss of job for the readers and translators of these languages based in Delhi.
Apart from that, this move had a symbolic meaning. When you move the languages from the national capital to “their” regions, you want to say that they are regional and not national. Have we ever asked why languages like Tamil or Malayalam are called regional languages and Hindi the national language?
These examples should be enough to make us appreciate the concerns of states like Tamil Nadu when they feel that three language formula would ultimately be used to stealthily impose Hindi on them. The Education Minister is calling the three-language formula a constitutional provision. But that is not true. There is no such provision in the matter of language anywhere in the Constitution. The three-language formula is also not a law. Doesn’t the Education Minister know this? Then why is he threatening Tamil Nadu?
The policy regarding language teaching is part of of the New Education Policy of 2020. NEP was never discussed in Parliament. It is the brainchild of the union government and implemented through a cabinet decision. The representatives of the states have no role in framing it. The union government has also made the forum of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) redundant by not holding it. It was a platform on which representatives of the states used to discuss matters related to education.
The idea is not to centralise decisions. Should the states accept a policy which has been framed violating the federal spirit of the constitution? It should also be kept in mind that any such policy cannot be binding on any state. No school curriculum framework designed at the centre can be made mandatory across the country. NCERT books are also not compulsory.
Education is anyway in the concurrent list. No decision regarding it can be or should be taken solely at the central level. NEP is not binding on the states. All such policies are not suggestive in nature. State governments are better placed to know how education should be planned in their respective states. But the BJP led union government is again using stealth when it makes the syllabus of CBSE the basis for all competitive examinations like NEET. This is how you force the schools in the states to use the NCERT textbooks.
Tamil Nadu’s principled opposition
We need to understand that the opposition of the language formula is part of the principled opposition of Tamil Nadu to the NEP. The way it has always opposed NEET. When I am opposing a policy you cannot ask me to agree to implement a part of it.
There are well wishers of Tamil Nadu who say that it should welcome three language formula as it is right in its spirit. Its history however tells us a different story. It was conceptualised in early days of post-independence India and later adopted as part of the education policy in 1968.
It makes a provision for “teaching of Hindi, English and modern Indian language (preferably one of the southern languages) in the Hindi speaking states and Hindi, English and the Regional language in the non-Hindi speaking States.”
The argument for Hindi being part of the set in the non-Hindi states was that it would help the people of these states communicate with the people of the rest of India. Which meant the acceptance that Hindi is the link language of India.
Tamil Nadu has been against this primacy of Hindi in the national scheme. It says that English is sufficient for it to connect to the world outside which also includes other Indian states. Moreover, it has not stopped the teaching and learning of Hindi in the states. Lakhs of people from Tamil Nadu take the Hindi examinations organised by various Hindi bodies like the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha. What it has been opposing is a policy and not a language which in this case is Hindi.
Coming back to education, we know from our history of 75 years that Tamil Nadu was more honest than the “Hindi speaking” areas. They did implement the TLF but chose an easy way out. They introduced Sanskrit as the third language. Students were bribed into opting for it as they were assured of high marks in it. Generations of students who passed out do not have a rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit. Also, they never felt a need to learn another Indian language.
If we look at this question, people from the Hindi regions have a real need to learn at least one South Indian language as they move to these states for higher, professional education and also different kinds of jobs. The reverse is not true.
Advocates of Hindi have no right to preach to Tamil Nadu
You do not find people from these states in Bihar and UP looking for jobs. But the Hindiwalas are so arrogant that they think it is not their job to learn Kannada or Tamil. They should instead learn Hindi to make it easy for the Hindiwalas to live there.
It is also a fact that the people from the South Indian states are more multilingual than people from UP or Bihar. In fact, the latter group’s proficiency even in Hindi is doubtful. The number of students failing the Hindi examinations in these states is telling.
So, the advocates of Hindi have no right to preach to Tamil Nadu. The people of BJP certainly do not.
It is right for Tamil Nadu to be apprehensive of Hindi nationalist politics. The need is not to correct the language, but to correct the politics. As Dhumil had written:
“भाषा उस तिकड़मी दरिंदे का कौर है
जो सड़क पर और है
संसद में और है
इसलिए बाहर आ!
संसद के अँधेरे से निकलकर
सड़क पर आ!
भाषा ठीक करने से पहले आदमी को ठीक कर…”
(Language is the morsel of the beast
Which is different in the parliament
And very different on the streets.
So, come out on the street
Out of the darkness of parliament.
But before correcting the language
make sure that its the people who come clean.)
(Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University. Courtesy: The Wire.)
