Tensions between state language policies and the Union government have reached new heights, particularly surrounding the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP). Tamil Nadu has firmly rejected the NEP’s three-language formula, characterizing it as an attempt to impose Hindi and Sanskrit on the state, which traditionally follows a two-language policy of Tamil and English. On the other hand, Haryana has fully embraced the NEP, becoming the first state to implement its three-language policy, which mandates schooling in English, Hindi, and one additional language selected from Punjabi, Urdu, or Sanskrit.
This heated debate reignited recently when Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan warned Tamil Nadu about potential funding cuts—specifically, the suspension of Rs. 2,000 crore—in light of its refusal to adopt the NEP. During his address, Pradhan stated, “Unfortunately, it was never implemented in letter and spirit, leading to a decline in the systematic teaching of Indian languages,” highlighting the historical significance of the three-language policy since its introduction as part of India's education reforms. Despite pressure, Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister M.K. Stalin unequivocally declared, “If we introduce NEP, we will end up taking the State backwards by over 2,000 years,” indicating his administration’s commitment to maintaining regional linguistic integrity.
The root of Tamil Nadu’s resistance can be traced back to its precise linguistic identity. The state’s political parties, ranging from the ruling DMK to the opposition Congress and AIADMK, have united against the NEP, criticizing it as infringing on the rights of states. DMK spokesperson Salem Dharanidharan articulated concerns about the threats posed by the NEP to language equality, truthfully stating, “It is very clear...the BJP’s new NEP pushes Sanskrit...and Hindi is forced in all the non-Hindi-speaking states.” Tamil Nadu's political discourse has become laden with references to historical anti-Hindi protests, which initially sparked strong regional political movements and reflect deeply ingrained sentiments surrounding language and governance.
Conversely, the Haryana government has been quick to adopt the NEP framework with enthusiasm—an initiative hailed by the Punjabi Teachers and Language Promotion Society (PTLPS). President Harjeet Gill affirmed the decision as one promoting moral values and enhancing job opportunities, both within the country and internationally. Haryana’s recent educational reforms outline specific language instruction combinations starting from the 2025-26 academic year, with clear guidelines on options available to students, emphasizing their right to choose among languages. This strategic move positions Haryana as progressive, contrasting sharply with Tamil Nadu's uncompromising stance.
The sharp divide between these two states encapsulates broader national issues about language, identity, and educational policy. While Haryana’s viewpoint celebrates linguistic diversity, Tamil Nadu’s opposition is rooted deeply within the framework of regional autonomy and cultural preservation. Kanimozhi, another prominent DMK leader, criticized the central government for its approach, arguing, “When the people of a State or ethnic group resist imperial arrogance...they are labelled as divisive and regressive,” thereby framing the conversation not just as educational but fundamentally as one of power relations and cultural respect.
Historically, language has played an instrumental role in shaping Indian politics and societal norms, serving at times as both unifier and divider. Tamil Nadu’s resistance to perceived impositions resonates with historical grievances of linguistic disintegration and cultural dilution. Even within educational institutions such as Kendriya Vidyalayas, administration shifts have seen the discontinuation of other languages, like German, replaced by Sanskrit. These decisions raise questions about the practical utility of such policies compared to the value of regional languages and educational opportunities for students.
Haryana’s adoption of the NEP, with its promise of increased employment readiness and moral education, continues to be the narrative pushed by the local government. Yet, the broader implication remains clear: as one state adopts and executes the new policy, another remains staunchly opposed, foreshadowing future confrontations. This clash, mirroring regional political dynamics, may well signal the beginning of more intense scrutiny surrounding language policies nationwide.
Both states present contrasting images: Tamil Nadu, rooted firmly in its linguistic heritage, cautions against overarching central authority; Haryana, poised at the intersection of tradition and modernity, looks toward the advantages potentially garnered by multilingual competence. The consequences of this divide not only affect educational access and cultural identity but may also illuminate the way forward for India’s approach to language inclusion and integration, setting the stage for future debates on autonomy versus conformity.