It is imperative to understand why non-Hindi-speaking states, particularly Tamil Nadu, resist any attempt to impose the Hindi language on them. Tamil is not only the oldest Indian language but also one of the oldest languages in the world, dating back thousands of years. The four Southern classical languages - Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam – have a very rich linguistic tradition and cultural heritage. The decline of Sanskrit, the 'mother of Indian languages,' has historical reasons. Hindi and Urdu, impacted and influenced by the Persian language - the official language of the Mughal Empire - developed much later.

The opposition to the imposition of Hindi in Tamil Nadu goes back to the Indian freedom struggle. The Madras Presidency had witnessed the anti-Hindi agitations in the 1930s and 1940s. The main opposition party to the Indian National Congress in the state, the Justice Party, came under the leadership of Ramaswamy Naicker, a prominent social activist and politician popularly known as Periyar. In 1944, the Justice Party was renamed as Dravidar Kazhagam. In the 1950s, the DMK continued the anti-Hindi tirade, even threatening to secede from the Indian Union and establish an independent state of Dravida Nadu.

On January 28, 1956, Annadurai, Periyar, and Rajagopalachari signed a resolution passed by the Academy of Tamil Culture endorsing the continuation of English as the official language. In 1963, the DMK dropped the threat to secede, following the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which inserted the words "that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India" in the 'Forms of Oaths or Affirmations' in the Third Schedule.

As the opposition to Hindi grew stronger, Prime Minister Nehru assured the non-Hindi speaking people on August 7, 1959, in Lok Sabha: "I believe …there must be no imposition…I would have English as an associate additional language which can be used not because of facilities and all that ... but because I do not wish the people of non-Hindi areas to feel that certain doors of advance are closed to them because they are forced to correspond in the Hindi language. They can correspond in English. So, I could have it as an alternate language as long as people require it and the decision I would leave not to the Hindi-knowing people, but to the non-Hindi-knowing people."

The Official Languages Act 1963 gave legal status to Nehru's assurance. Lal Bahadur Shastri and his senior cabinet members Morarji Desai and Gulzari Lal Nanda strongly advocated Hindi as the sole official language. This led to increased apprehension that Nehru's assurances of 1959 and 1963 would not be honoured. Following the announcement that Hindi would become the official language of the Union from January 26, 1965, on completion of 15 years after the commencement of the Constitution, the anti-Hindi agitations in Madras State were intensified with the involvement of the students. Between January 25 and February 11, the riots broke out throughout the state, resulting in arson, looting and damage of public property, by an official estimate of around 10 million rupees, and the death of some 700 people.

Shastri backed down and broadcasted through All India Radio on February 11. Expressing shock over the riots, he promised to honour Nehru's assurances. He assured Tamilians that English would continue to be used for Centre-State and intra-state communications. In the 1967 general election, a student leader, P Seenivasan, contested against the powerful Congress leader ex-chief minister, K Kamaraj, in the Virudhunagar constituency and defeated him. Many students from all over the state campaigned for him, ensuring his victory. The Congress party was also defeated in the Assembly election, and the DMK came to power. Since then, for nearly six decades, the Congress has never returned to power and has been reduced to a marginal player in Tamil Nadu.

The Congress Working Committee, in its meeting on February 22, 1965, passed a resolution, taking a flexible stand on Hindi. It sought to implement the three-language formula, which was endorsed by the Chief Ministers. In 1967, the Official Languages Act was amended, incorporating Nehru's assurances explicitly. The Amendment modified Section 3 of the Act to guarantee the use of English and Hindi as the official languages.

According to the three-language formula of 1968, the states would adopt three languages in schools. That is the regional language, English and Hindi, in non-Hindi-speaking states, and in Hindi-speaking states, Hindi, English and one of the Indian languages, preferably a southern language. However, the three-language formula is not enforced in the Hindi-speaking states and is sought to be imposed on non-Hindi-speaking states. Tamil Nadu resisted it throughout and was officially exempted from adopting the three-language formula. It follows the two-language policy, Tamil and English, in state-run schools.

Nevertheless, teaching Hindi in private schools or Kendriya Vidyalayas is never opposed. Nor are the students prohibited from learning Hindi voluntarily. In fact, the Tamil Nadu government does not stop the lakhs of children learning Hindi through the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha. All that it is saying is that it would not adopt Hindi as a third language in its schools. It is not against Hindi, but its imposition.

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 seeks to enforce the three-language formula, though it does not say the third language has to be Hindi. This ipso facto amounts to imposing Hindi on non-Hindi-speaking states. The Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan says the third language could be any Indian language, not necessarily Hindi. He cleverly hides the real intention. Why should Tamil Nadu be interested in promoting any language – say Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Bengali, Sanskrit, etc. - as the third language, and for what benefit?

The three-language formula is a failure. In Hindi-speaking states, it is virtually reduced to a one-language policy. No South Indian language is taught as the third language in these states. Even the second language, English, is either ignored or neglected. P Chidambaram says, "It is a matter of record that government schools in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Madya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Haryana follow effectively a one-language policy of only Hindi. Most children enrolled in government schools in these states learn no other language because there are few English teachers and hardly a teacher of any other language…In the few schools that offer a third language, it is invariably Sanskrit."

Therefore, before talking of the third language and promoting multilingualism, it is important to ensure uniformly in all the states that school children acquire proficiency in the two languages first, the regional language and English. They must improve their communication skills in the two languages by appointing qualified language teachers. There is a growing demand for English medium schools nationwide as parents see a future for their children in learning English. The quality of education, not the three-language formula, should be a priority.

The Union government discriminates against Tamil Nadu by linking the release of the central funds under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan and PM SHRI Schools to its acceptance of the NEP and the three-language formula. Tamil Nadu expressed strong concerns about certain provisions of the NEP, and these concerns were communicated by the Chief Minister through his letter on August 27, 2024, to the Prime Minister, followed by a detailed memorandum.

When the Centre is bent on enforcing the three-language formula for non-Hindi speaking states, especially Tamil Nadu, it should ensure that the Hindi belt states accept another regional language, preferably a southern language, as the third language. These double standards speak of a political agenda rather than a genuine concern for implementing the three-language formula initially meant to bridge the chasm between the Hindi and non-Hindi-speaking states. As it is, the partisan role of governors in non-BJP-ruled states has paralysed the elected governments, creating a constitutional crisis and undermining the federal structure. And now this needless language row has added to their woes.

In his letter on February 20, 2025, to the prime minister, Stalin said linking the releasing of central funds to the NEP that seeks to enforce the three-language formula is "fundamentally unacceptable" and urged him to intervene and release the state's share of ? 2,152 crore under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan. He wrote: "For many decades, Tamil Nadu has been steadfast in its two-language policy, which is deeply rooted in our educational and social milieu. The tremendous strides made by our state in the last half century and its trend setting initiatives can be traced back to our progressive policy making, built on the two-language policy and social justice… that any change in our two-language policy is non-negotiable for our state and our people." Pradhan in his letter February 21 to Stalin insisted that "it is inappropriate for the state to view NEP with a myopic vision" and requested him "to rise above political differences and look into the matter holistically keeping in mind the interest of young learners."

Stalin charges that "more than 25 north Indian native languages have been destroyed by the invasion of hegemonic Hindi-Sanskrit languages…if Tamil Nadu accepts the trilingual policy, the mother tonguage will be ignored. Ever wondered how many Indian languages Hindi has swallowed? Bhojpuri, Maithili, Avadhi, Braj, Bundeli, Garhwali, Kumauni, Magahi, Marwari, Malvi, Chhattisgarhi, Santhali, Angika, Ho, Kharia, Khortha, Kurmali, Kurukh, Mundari and many more now grasping for survival."

What is more important? Should native Hindi-speaking children be encouraged to learn English for broader access and mobility, or should non-Hindi-speaking children be asked to learn Hindi? The data shows that people in non-Hindi States are more willing to learn and speak new languages, while the same cannot be said for those in the Hindi belt. A trend of declining English proficiency is seen in Hindi belt states, whereas non-Hindi speaking states saw an increase in people speaking English.

This raises the core utilitarian question: which language best equips children in their pursuit of better opportunities? A report in The Hindu on March 3, 2025, says, "a comparison of Human Development Index (HDI) scores across States and Union Territories reveals a clear trend-regions with a higher share of English speakers tend to have higher HDI, while States with a greater proportion of Hindi speakers generally exhibit lower HDI scores. This suggests a positive correlation between a higher standard of living and a greater prevalence of English proficiency."

A significant number of people from Hindi-speaking states are moving to non-Hindi-speaking states like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Telangana in search of better educational and economic opportunities. In other words, the States with higher English proficiency and better development indicators are attracting more migrants.
The Centre should consider this ground reality and concentrate on improving the quality of education instead, rather than igniting the language war by invoking the three-language formula - a policy which was recommendary in nature and never meant to be made mandatory.

The language policy serves best when left to the states. The Centre must be sensitive to states' concerns. The three-language formula, if re-enforced, will lead to linguistic chauvinism. The lack of proficiency in English among school-going children is practically sealing their education and job opportunities.