NEP 2020 and the three-language mandate

The NEP 2020 recommends that students learn three languages. According to the policy, at least two of these languages be indigenous to India, with the third language available for the student’s choice—often English or another language. This structure is meant to promote multilingualism while ensuring that regional languages are given due importance. Importantly, the policy emphasises that states and regions have the authority to decide on the specific languages taught, aiming to mitigate concerns about the compulsory imposition of Hindi.

Despite this intended flexibility, Tamil Nadu remains deeply sceptical. The state interprets the policy as a thinly veiled effort to introduce Hindi into its schools. Further complicating matters is the linkage between the three-language formula and eligibility for central funding schemes Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). In effect, states are pressured to adopt the formula to secure critical financial support for their education systems. For Tamil Nadu, this conditionality is unacceptable; it feels that the central government is compromising state autonomy by tying funding to policy implementation.

Historical roots of Tamil Nadu’s language policy

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to the three-language formula is not a new phenomenon. The state’s history is marked by a long-standing commitment to preserving Tamil as a central pillar of its cultural and educational identity. The roots of this resistance can be traced back to the early 20th century and have evolved through several pivotal moments: 

Early resistance (1930s–1960s)

In 1937, the Madras government, under C. Rajagopalachari, attempted to introduce Hindi as a compulsory subject. This move triggered widespread protests led by the Justice Party and influential Dravidian leaders, including Periyar. The protests were so intense that the policy was revoked in 1940. This early confrontation with Hindi imposition laid the groundwork for Tamil Nadu’s future educational policies.

The Kothari Commission and the 1968 National Policy on Education (NPE)

The Kothari Commission (1964–66) played a pivotal role in shaping India’s education reforms, recommending the adoption of a three-language formula. The 1968 NPE incorporated this formula by prescribing Hindi, English, and a modern Indian language (preferably a southern language in Hindi-speaking states; a regional language in non-Hindi speaking states). However, Tamil Nadu opted out, preferring to maintain a two-language system centred on Tamil and English.

Political consolidation and the two-language policy

Under the leadership of Chief Minister C. N. Annadurai, Tamil Nadu formalised its two-language policy. The state rejected the addition of Hindi, emphasising that Tamil and English sufficiently met the needs of its students. This stance was reinforced during subsequent anti-Hindi agitations, notably in 1965 when a move to replace English with Hindi as the sole official language sparked massive protests. Such historical events have deeply ingrained the belief that language policy should reflect regional identity rather than central imposition.

Understanding the legal context and rationale behind Tamil Nadu’s opposition

While education is now a concurrent subject, it was a state subject before the Emergency. Therefore, there is a degree of autonomy that states once enjoyed. When the Indira Gandhi government, during the Emergency, moved Education from the state list to the concurrent list, the reasoning was to have a uniform education policy for all of India with Union taking the responsibility of framing such uniform policy.

However, prior to this change in the Constitution, the opposition to three language policy was an equal fight—with Centre armed with Article 351 which directs the Union to work for the spread of Hindi while the States being armed with education being in the State List. This balance was tipped in favour of centre when education was moved to Concurrent List via 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.

The later governments did not put Education back in the State list—continuing the central control over the coveted education. This meant that the Union gave itself the way to implement its Article 351 directive at the cost of States’ power.  This enabled the Union to give directives from a position of legitimate authority. However, NEP is not a binding document, and it never has been. The Concurrent List’s character of giving the Centre made law primacy over a state made law does not arise here since NEP is not an act by the Parliament.

Despite NEP being non-binding, Centre using the 3-language formula to stall the funds naturally does not support the claims of it being bonafide.

TN’s reasoning in opposing the 3-language formula 

Tamil Nadu asserts that its education system is already successful, as recognised by the Central Government itself. Given this, the state questions the necessity of the three-language policy when its current two-language model has consistently produced strong educational outcomes.

Moreover, Tamil Nadu highlights the practical difficulties of implementing the NEP’s language requirements. The policy mandates two native languages and one foreign language in addition to English. Since Tamil Nadu already teaches Tamil and English, this leaves space for one more native language. The state argues that this requirement forces it to allocate resources for teaching an additional Indian language, which it sees as unnecessary.

The key concern is infrastructure. If a third language must be introduced, what resources exist to support various native languages? Tamil Nadu lacks the necessary infrastructure for most Indian languages, whereas the Centre has both the directive and the financial resources to promote Hindi. This makes Hindi the most easily implementable option, creating an indirect imposition.

Furthermore, Tamil Nadu sees the linking of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) funds to compliance with the three-language policy as coercion. If funding is conditioned on language policy today, the state fears that future schemes will also come with similar mandates—potentially requiring Hindi as the second native language, further eroding state autonomy in education.

Tamil Nadu’s Education Minister has publicly accused the Union government of using funding as a bargaining chip—effectively forcing the state into conforming to the three-language policy. This funding dispute is not merely a financial issue; it reflects a broader struggle over the balance of power between the Union and the states in India’s federal system.

Broader implications for federalism and education policy

At its core, the controversy surrounding the three-language formula speaks to larger questions about state autonomy and cooperative federalism in India. Education is a concurrent subject—meaning that both the central and state governments have the authority to shape policy. However, Tamil Nadu’s experience demonstrates that financial dependency on central funds can force states to adopt policies that conflict with their own priorities and cultural values.

Proponents of the three-language formula argue that multilingual education has cognitive benefits, such as improved memory, enhanced attention, and better problem-solving abilities. They also stress that a multilingual approach is essential for preserving India’s vast linguistic heritage. Nonetheless, a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate in a country as diverse as India. Instead, there should be a more flexible framework that allows states to design language policies that best suit their local contexts. 

Conclusion

The debate over the three-language formula in NEP 2020, and Tamil Nadu’s enduring opposition to it, is emblematic of a broader struggle over cultural identity, state autonomy, and federalism in India. Tamil Nadu’s historical resistance to Hindi imposition is rooted in a deep commitment to preserving its linguistic heritage and tailoring education to its unique social and cultural needs. The state’s successful two-language policy—centring on Tamil and English—has delivered strong educational outcomes without the added burden of a compulsory third language.

The fiscal dispute that has arisen from the central government’s decision to withhold crucial education funds only deepens the divide. By linking funding to compliance with NEP guidelines, the Centre appears to be leveraging its financial resources to enforce a uniform policy across a diverse nation. This tactic not only undermines state autonomy but also raises serious questions about the equitable distribution of resources in India’s federal system.

The ongoing standoff serves as a reminder that the success of India’s education system depends not only on policies like the NEP 2020 but also on a balanced approach that honours the linguistic and cultural plurality of the nation. Moving forward, a collaborative framework that genuinely incorporates state perspectives will be key to ensuring that educational reforms benefit all regions and strengthen the very fabric of India’s diverse society.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

Rejecting NEP embodies Tamil Nadu’s fight for federal autonomy

Indian federalism is a dialogue: SC

The post Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEP 2020’s three-language formula: a federal pushback against central imposition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chief Minister MK Stalin’s fiery response to the NEP, which he claims will push Tamil Nadu ‘backward by 2000 years,’ reflects the deep-rooted resistance within the state against the Union government’s continued disregard for federalism and linguistic diversity. Stalin has further emphasised that the NEP, with its centralised approach, ignores the unique educational needs of each state and is a blatant effort to homogenize education across India.

This is what you call an Opposition! Bravo! @mkstalin https://t.co/am1ZuKwZvt

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) February 22, 2025

Tamil Nadu’s long-standing resistance to Hindi imposition

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to Hindi imposition is deeply entrenched in its socio-political fabric. The anti-Hindi movement in the state has a long and vibrant history, beginning as early as 1937, when the C. Rajagopalachari-led Congress government in the Madras Presidency attempted to introduce Hindi in schools. This triggered a massive outcry, leading to widespread protests by students, teachers, and political leaders who saw this as an attempt to undermine Tamil language and culture

The language protests reached a boiling point in 1965 when the Indian government attempted to replace English with Hindi as the sole official language of the country. Students, intellectuals, and political leaders took to the streets, culminating in violent protests that ultimately forced the Centre to relent and retain English as an associate official language alongside Hindi. These events cemented Tamil Nadu’s defiant stance against linguistic imperialism.

Nehru’s 1959 promise and the betrayal

In the wake of these protests, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in 1959, assured the people of Tamil Nadu that English would continue as an official language for as long as non-Hindi speaking states wanted it. However, successive governments have tried to renege on this promise, subtly pushing Hindi through policies like NEP. The so-called three-language formula is nothing but a tool to coerce non-Hindi speakers into learning Hindi while Hindi-speaking states face no such compulsion to learn southern languages.

A flawed model: Hindi-speaking states lagging in education

The Centre’s argument that Hindi is necessary for national integration crumbles under scrutiny. Hindi-speaking states consistently perform poorly in education, employment, and economic indicators. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh, the heartlands of Hindi, have some of the lowest literacy rates in the country, proving that Hindi is not a magic wand for progress. If anything, Tamil Nadu, which has refused to embrace Hindi, has done far better in education, employment, and social development.

The NEP and its assault on federalism

The NEP is not just about education; it is a direct attack on the federal structure of the Constitution. Education, which was originally in the State List, was forcibly moved to the Concurrent List in 1976, taking away states’ autonomy over a crucial subject. The NEP exacerbates this by allowing the Centre to dictate syllabi, control educational institutions, and impose a uniform framework that disregards regional languages and cultures. The Tamil Nadu government’s demand to restore education to the State List is, therefore, not just about resisting Hindi but about reclaiming constitutional federalism.

Succinct. Articulate. Objections to Bill both national and a federal, serious federal concern. This unikn govt is a hatchet regime rejecting the tenets of the Indian Constitution! @mkstalin https://t.co/2tyC8P3bU7

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) February 23, 2025

Mohan Bhagwat’s questionable advice to ‘ditch English’

Amid this policy battle, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat has added fuel to the fire by advising Hindus to stop speaking English and embrace Indian languages instead. Ironically the RSS that claims itself to be a merely ‘cultural outfit’ is not simply the backbone of the three times elected Modi regime, but often wades in everything that is political.

Withholding funds: The centre’s strong-arm tactics

Tamil Nadu’s refusal to implement the NEP has led to the Union withholding Rs 2,150 crore in education funds, a clear act of coercion. This financial strangulation tactic is reminiscent of colonial-era policies where dissenting states were punished. The Union’s message is clear: ‘Implement our policies or face financial retribution.’ But Tamil Nadu is not one to bow down and its chief minister M.K. Stalin in fact said he is not ready to accept NEP even if centre offered Rs. 10,000 crores.

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to the NEP and Hindi imposition is not just about language—it is about protecting the rights of states, preserving linguistic diversity, and upholding the federal structure of India. The state has historically been at the forefront of social justice movements, and its current stand against NEP is another chapter in its fight against central overreach.

The Union must realise that a one-size-fits-all policy will never work in a country as diverse as India. Until then, Tamil Nadu will continue to resist, unyielding and unapologetic.

Related

Indian federalism is a dialogue: SC

The post Rejecting NEP embodies Tamil Nadu’s fight for federal autonomy appeared first on SabrangIndia.