NEW DELHI: A fierce clash erupted on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, within India’s Rajya Sabha, as Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge's remarks ignited strong reactions from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The incident began as opposition members pressed for accountability from Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who had previously accused Tamil Nadu's DMK MPs of distorting facts related to the contentious language policy.
During the heated discussions, Kharge, attempting to intervene, lamented what he perceived as dictatorial control over the debate. He stated, “Hum poori tayyari se aaye hain aur aapko kya kya thokna hai thik se thokenge,” expressing the opposition's preparedness to confront the government strongly. Such remarks prompted BJP leaders, including Health Minister J.P. Nadda, to demand Kharge’s statements be retracted and criticized as disrespectful to the Parliament's decorum.
Nadda condemned Kharge's choice of words as “derogatory” and amplified calls for him to apologize: “The language used by the Leader of Opposition, the aspersions on the chair, is condemnable,” he declared. Deputy Chairperson Harivansh echoed these sentiments, stressing the need for respectful dialogue within the House.
Facing mounting pressure, Kharge eventually extended his apologies, clarifying, “I never spoke against you. I criticised the government’s policy, and I say sorry if my words seemed harsh to you.” His retraction sparked mixed reactions, illustrating the tense atmosphere surrounding this issue.
Meanwhile, the backdrop of this clash reveals broader political tensions surrounding the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration, the NEP has faced backlash particularly concerning its proposed three-language policy, which emphasizes the teaching of Hindi alongside two other languages. Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister, MK Stalin, has openly accused the federal government of retaliatory actions for his state's reluctance to comply, alleging it was being penalized for resisting what he terms the imposition of Hindi.
The tensions escalated on the same day as the parliamentary squabbles unfolded, with Stalin's party, the DMK, protesting against Pradhan’s earlier comments branding them “uncivilized” and accusing them of complicity in fueling language disputes.
Dramatic exchanges unfolded as the Rajya Sabha was adjourned for about 40 minutes due to the opposition's demands for discussions on delimitation issues linked to the language policy. DMK’s R. Girirajan spotlighted how states implementing effective family planning, such as Tamil Nadu and Punjab, could face political underrepresentation due to proposed constituency redistricting.
Education Minister Pradhan, defending the government's policy, stated, “We have never expressed dictates on any state; what matters is education based on the mother tongue, which means Tamil will prevail in Tamil Nadu.” Despite such clarifications, Stalin’s assertion remains: the NEP’s ultimate aim is alleged to have heavy-handed Hindi imposition.
The language debates are amplified by historic grievances, particularly from southern states, where linguistic identity is cherished and has historically been pitted against perceived northern dominance. The political strategy surrounding NEP reflects India’s complex relationship with its vast linguistic diversity—a factor often threatening to spur unrest.
Reflecting on this, Tamil Nadu’s political discourse has consistently opposed the three-language policy since its inception and sees it as continuation of systemic governmental biases against non-Hindi languages. Compounding this narrative, the Tamil Nadu government has lamented insufficient federal funding for educational initiatives, referencing stalled allocations tied to NEP compliance.
Tensions continue to mount, with Stalin having recently corresponded with Prime Minister Modi, urgently requesting the release of 21.5 billion rupees ($247 million) earmarked for educational projects entangled with adherence to the NEP. “We will not compromise on our languages,” he emphasized, reiteratively reinforcing his party’s stance on this sensitive issue.
The depth of these parliamentary confrontations also embodies larger dialogues on representation and cultural integrity across India’s diverse states. While the BJP maintains its stance on fostering national unity through language education, friction reveals underlying anxieties among regional leaders about cultural erosion and identity.
Stalin and other leaders have consistently characterized the language discourse as beyond mere educational policy; they see it as central to regional identity, echoing sentiments formulated during past struggles against perceived northern imposition.
These nuanced dynamics warrant attention as they reveal the fissures and alliances shaping India’s political narrative, emphasizing how issues like language and representation can ignite intense debate. Both the opposition and ruling party remain at odds over the NEP and other interconnected themes, leaving the discourse around language education—and the governance behind it—far from settled.