Mind their language: The State should abstain from imposing choices

The three-language policy, under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, has sparked an avoidable controversy that local politicians are exploiting. The latest debate has been simmering for at least a year and reveals that no political party is free of language chauvinism. Significantly, the controversy has roiled India’s more industrialised states — Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra (where residents are being harassed for not being able to speak the local language) — principally over fears over the imposition of Hindi. From blue- to white-collar, all three states have been recipients and beneficiaries of large cohorts of migrant workers from India’s less prosperous northern and eastern states, the former being predominantly Hindi-speaking. Sporadic incidents of violence against migrants had happened in the past, but the NEP 2020 has unwittingly succeeded in taking it to a new level. If such violence is allowed to spread, the economic benefits from migrant workers will soon disappear, striking a blow to these states’ model of economic development. 

The policy, being implemented in phases, stipulates that students learn at least three languages. The policy does not mention any specific language. But the recommendation that two of them should be “native to India” has raised apprehensions among non-Hindi-speaking states that the policy will lead to the imposition of Hindi. These fears are principally on account of the federal government’s focus on Hindi usage in official communication, including the redrafting of laws with Hindi names. Although the latest NEP states that “no language will be imposed on any state”, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin had alleged earlier this year that the Centre was withholding funds for schemes under the Right to Education (RTE) Act because his government had not signed an agreement with the government in New Delhi to implement the NEP. In June, the Madras High Court ruled that the Centre’s financial obligation under the RTE Act could not be contingent on NEP 2020 compliance. 

But the latest controversy in Maharashtra has not allayed these misgivings. It was sparked after the Bharatiya Janata Party-led state government made it compulsory for state-run primary schools to teach Hindi as a third language, apart from English and Marathi. With municipal elections looming, the outbreak of violence against Hindi speakers and demonstrations asserting Marathi-speaking identity caused the government to hastily backtrack. Given that language was largely the basis on which independent India’s states were formed, the propensity for politicians of all ideological hues to exploit it for electoral gains is high. For instance, Congress-ruled Karnataka has been actively promoting Kannada, instructing that all public signage be written in Kannada, and encouraging the defacement of English signage. The NEP’s three-language formula, which was first introduced in 1968, offers convenient grist to the local identity mill. At a time when population debates are undermining federalism, controversies and law-and-order problems provoked by language chauvinism are needless. Equally, the choice of languages at school level should be taken out of the political arena and left to parents and students. The increasing integration of Indians, speaking a rich variety of languages, both across the states and globally, demands that individuals be left free to make the choice that suits their circumstances best.