The escalating tussle between Tamil Nadu and the Union government over the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is not just a dispute over language policy ~ it is a deeper battle over state autonomy, cultural identity, and federal governance.

Tamil Nadu, historically resistant to Hindi imposition, views the NEP as a direct challenge to its well-established two-language policy. The Centre’s decision to withhold crucial educational funds unless the state aligns with the NEP has only intensified this conflict, turning an educational framework into a political flashpoint. Tamil Nadu has long championed its two-language policy ~ Tamil and English ~ as a reflection of its linguistic heritage and a tool for maintaining cultural distinctiveness. The three-language formula proposed under NEP, while ostensibly flexible, is perceived in the state as a veiled attempt to introduce Hindi through the backdoor. This resistance is deeply rooted in decades of opposition to linguistic homogenisation, dating back to the anti-Hindi agitation movements of the 20th century. The present standoff reinforces the sentiment that language policies cannot be dictated from the Centre without acknowledging regional aspirations. However, the state’s opposition to NEP goes beyond language.

Advertisement

Tamil Nadu argues that the policy undermines its autonomy in shaping education tailored to its socio-cultural needs. The state has sought to develop its own education policy, one that aligns with its principles of social justice and inclusivity. The NEP, with its push for vocational education from an early stage, has raised concerns about reinforcing caste-based occupational roles ~ an issue that Tamil Nadu has actively worked to dismantle over the decades. The Centre’s decision to withhold over Rs 2,000 crore in Samagra Shiksha funds has further fuelled this dispute. Education, a subject on the Concurrent List, requires cooperative federalism, but the conditional release of funds undermines this principle. The state government has framed this move as an attempt to strongarm Tamil Nadu into submission, calling it “blackmail.”

Even the opposition within the state, despite political differences, has largely supported the DMK government’s stand, underscoring the widespread rejection of NEP in the region. On the other hand, the Centre argues that NEP is designed for national educational standardisation and that Tamil Nadu should not be an exception. It insists that the three-language formula does not mandate Hindi but offers flexibility, allowing students to learn any third language, including foreign languages. However, given the historical context of language politics in Tamil Nadu, such assurances have not allayed fears of cultural imposition. This standoff highlights a broader issue ~ the delicate balance between national policy frameworks and regional autonomy. Education is not just about curriculum and language; it is about identity, opportunity, and governance. Tamil Nadu’s defiance is not merely political posturing but a reflection of deep-seated concerns about central overreach. A resolution to this conflict will require dialogue, mutual respect, sagacity, and a recognition that a one-size-fits-all approach to education may not work in a diverse nation like India.