Opinion Language Matters: The long history behind Tamil Nadu’s recent protest against NEP

It is important to remind the Union Minister that the agitation against the imposition of Hindi in Tamil Nadu has a long history, going back to the 1930s when it was still a part of the Madras Presidency. The anti-Hindi protests continued even after Independence, including during the students’ movement in 1965. It was Jawaharlal Nehru’s assurance in 1959 and the passing of the Official Languages Act, 1963, by the Lal Bahadur Shastri government, that brought some calm to the state. Since then, there have been attempts to impose Hindi through other means, under the guise of promoting the language as stated in Article 351 of the Constitution. This is why Tamil Nadu has resisted the NEP 2020, even as most of the other states have implemented it.

It is important to underline that the NEP, 2020 which has huge ramifications for the relationship between the Union and the states, has not even been deliberated in Parliament. That not a single state has had the opportunity to discuss the likely impact of NEP, 2020, over its own laws, is a matter of grave concern.

The double standards of the Union government are evident in how it criticises the Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi, even as it exploits the anti-democratic foundations laid down by a decision taken during the same period, which took five concurrent subjects, including education, out of the states’ jurisdiction. It is critical to observe here that the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution specifies the allocation of law-making powers between the Union and the states. Education was on the State list until the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1976. It was moved to the Concurrent list following the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee in 1976. This paved the way for the appropriation of states’ rights over education completely, even though the fact that education is on the Concurrent list means that any decision requires at least some consultation or discussion with the states. The NEP, notably, contains several provisions that are inconsistent with federal features of the Constitution.

There may be some parallels drawn between the 1986 decision of the Rajiv Gandhi government to introduce the Navodaya schools and the current crisis over the NEP, although the context for the two developments are vastly different. In both, the terms and conditions as laid out by the Centre are not in consonance with the state’s two-language policy. Yet, education funds that were due to the state were not denied by the Congress government at the Centre, back then. The future of students and teachers and the education process itself will likely suffer if the present stalemate between the Centre and the state continues.

It is also a mistake to believe that no state other than Tamil Nadu objects to the language policy of the NEP. Other southern states, as well as West Bengal and the Northeastern states too have demanded a national debate over this. Through its protest, Tamil Nadu, among other states, is inspiring and defending the idea of India and ensuring the survival of the spirit of multiculturalism.

The writer is a Fulbright Scholar, political scientist and social activist in areas of education, human rights and sustainable development. He is currently the Director, Multiversity – Centre for Indigenous Knowledge Systems, Kurumbapalayam Village, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu.