Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said on Monday that he does not oppose Hindi but asserted that it is not the country’s national language, underlining his government’s commitment to protecting Kannada and the rights of Kannadigas. Speaking at a public programme, he framed the issue as one of constitutional clarity and cultural respect rather than linguistic hostility, drawing applause from supporters who have pressed the state to take a firmer stand on language policy.Siddaramaiah’s remarks came amid renewed debate over the place of Hindi in public life, education and administration across several states. “I do not oppose Hindi. But Hindi is not our national language,” he said, adding that Karnataka would “stand firmly” for Kannada. The comments aligned with a long-held position of successive administrations in the state, which have argued that linguistic diversity is a cornerstone of the Union and that no single language enjoys national-language status under the Constitution.
The chief minister’s statement sought to balance acknowledgement of Hindi’s widespread use with a clear rejection of any perceived imposition. Officials close to the government said the emphasis was on safeguarding linguistic rights guaranteed to states while ensuring that citizens are not disadvantaged in education or employment because of language choices. Kannada, they stressed, remains the principal language of administration and public life in Karnataka, reflecting both law and social reality.
Language has been a politically sensitive issue in the state for decades. Kannada movements have periodically mobilised public opinion, particularly in urban centres such as Bengaluru, where migration has increased linguistic diversity. Activist groups have argued that the visibility of Hindi in signage, commercial spaces and central government communication can marginalise regional languages. The state has responded over the years with policies promoting Kannada in schools, government offices and public signage, while stopping short of restricting personal language use.
Siddaramaiah’s intervention also follows exchanges between state leaders and the Centre over language in competitive examinations and official correspondence. While central authorities maintain that Hindi and English function as link languages for administration, non-Hindi-speaking states have repeatedly sought assurances that regional languages will not be diluted. Karnataka’s government has reiterated that proficiency in Kannada is essential for state-level public service, a stance upheld by courts in earlier cases.
Political analysts note that the chief minister’s remarks resonate with a broader federal argument gaining traction in southern and eastern states, where leaders emphasise linguistic equality as integral to cooperative federalism. By explicitly stating that he does not oppose Hindi, Siddaramaiah appeared to pre-empt accusations of parochialism, positioning his argument within constitutional bounds rather than cultural antagonism.
Opposition leaders offered mixed reactions. Some welcomed the clarity, saying it reflected popular sentiment and constitutional reality. Others cautioned against escalating language debates, urging focus on governance and development. Within the ruling party, leaders said the message was aimed at reassuring Kannadigas that their language and identity would be protected while maintaining harmony with speakers of other languages who live and work in the state.
Educationists and policy experts say the debate has practical implications. Medium of instruction, access to public services, and employment requirements often hinge on language policy. Karnataka has expanded Kannada teaching while continuing to offer options in other languages, a model supporters say balances inclusion with cultural preservation. Critics argue that inconsistent implementation can create uncertainty, particularly for migrants and businesses.