The three-language formula, which suggests that students in non-Hindi speaking states must learn Hindi in addition to their regional language and English, has been a contentious issue. Tamil Nadu, in particular, has been vocal in its opposition to the policy, arguing that it undermines the state’s linguistic and cultural identity. The state government maintains that the imposition of Hindi, a language not widely spoken in Tamil Nadu, would infringe upon the rights of Tamil speakers and harm the state’s educational system.
Pradhan’s statement, which came during a press conference, highlighted that Tamil Nadu’s refusal to accept the three-language model had implications for its educational funding. He suggested that the state could face delays or reductions in the allocation of financial resources for educational development unless it conformed to the national policy framework.
In response, Stalin labelled the statement as "sheer blackmail," asserting that such threats were an attempt to impose a top-down approach on the people of Tamil Nadu. The Chief Minister emphasised that the state would not tolerate what he referred to as the "arrogance" of imposing Hindi on its residents. He further stated that Tamil Nadu’s commitment to protecting its linguistic heritage was unwavering, and the state would continue to reject any policy perceived as a threat to its autonomy.
The issue of the three-language policy has been a long-standing point of contention in India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where linguistic pride is deeply rooted in the state’s history. Tamil Nadu was at the forefront of the Dravidian movement, which fiercely opposed the imposition of Hindi in the 1960s. The state’s political leaders, including Stalin, have consistently argued that the introduction of Hindi as a mandatory language would marginalise non-Hindi speakers and lead to cultural erosion.
Education experts have weighed in on the debate, with some arguing that a national language policy is necessary for creating unity and improving communication across India. Others, however, believe that the imposition of Hindi on states like Tamil Nadu is both impractical and insensitive to the region’s unique linguistic and cultural landscape. They contend that education policies should be flexible enough to respect regional preferences and promote multilingualism without forcing the learning of a specific language.
The controversy surrounding the three-language policy has also ignited a wider debate about the role of language in India’s education system. Critics of the policy argue that it could lead to a reduction in the quality of education, particularly in states that already face challenges in terms of infrastructure and teacher training. There are concerns that resources would be diverted towards promoting Hindi, rather than addressing more pressing issues such as improving literacy rates and modernising educational facilities.
Despite the backlash from Tamil Nadu, the Union government has maintained that the three-language policy is in line with the NEP’s vision of fostering a multilingual, integrated society. The government argues that learning multiple languages is crucial for students’ cognitive development and can open up opportunities in a globalised world.
However, Stalin’s statement highlights a broader trend of resistance from regional political leaders who view the policy as an imposition on their autonomy. The dispute is not limited to Tamil Nadu, as other states have also expressed reservations about the three-language model. For instance, Karnataka and Maharashtra have similarly rejected the inclusion of Hindi as a compulsory language in schools, citing concerns about the preservation of regional languages.
The political fallout from Pradhan’s remarks is likely to fuel further tensions between the central government and states that are already wary of the increasing centralisation of power. Regional parties, particularly those in Tamil Nadu, have long argued that the Union government’s policies often fail to account for the diverse linguistic, cultural, and socio-economic realities of the states. They claim that such policies risk undermining the federal structure of India and fostering resentment among state governments.