Vignesh Karthik K.R. 
The debate over the imposition of Hindi as a unifying national or “link” language in India has a long, deeply rooted history. Nowhere is this contestation more evident than in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, which continues to resist what it perceives as efforts to compromise its linguistic autonomy.
The origins of this resistance date back to the 1930s and, more prominently, to the mid-1960s, when the Parliament debated declaring Hindi the sole official language of India. Today, the controversy has taken a renewed shape through the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, specifically its three-language formula.
While the policy’s text claims flexibility, India and Tamil Nadu’s experience – both past and present –suggests that the practical outcomes would inevitably favour Hindi, thereby reinvigorating a battle that began decades ago under the iconic leadership of C.N. Annadurai (popularly known as Anna).
This article examines the contemporary conflict over Hindi imposition by using three speeches delivered by Anna in the Rajya Sabha between 1963 and 1965 as key reference points. These speeches, in which he fiercely opposed Hindi’s elevation as the sole official language, serve as pivotal moments in understanding Tamil Nadu’s continued resistance.
By revisiting Anna’s arguments and applying them to present-day concerns surrounding the NEP 2020, this discussion highlights how his warnings against linguistic domination and his advocacy for federalism remain relevant in today’s political and educational landscape.
The opposition to Hindi in Tamil Nadu is not an isolated phenomenon but is deeply intertwined with the region’s historical experience of resisting centralised control. As explored in the recent work by Rama Sundari Mantena, the rise of linguistic nationalism in South India, particularly Tamil and Telugu nationalism, was not merely a cultural assertion but also a political movement rooted in self-determination and the idea of provincial democracy.
Also Read: Why the Three-Language Formula Threatens South India
Scholars have noted that linguistic identity in colonial Madras was a crucial tool for mobilising public sentiment and structuring regional political movements, particularly in the face of attempts to impose a singular national identity from the Centre.
Tamil Nadu’s linguistic politics were shaped by a broader history of provincial assertion, wherein language became a mechanism for both resisting the colonial state and articulating a vision of postcolonial self-rule that rejected majoritarian dominance. The Dravidian movement, which gave rise to Anna’s leadership, drew heavily from this tradition of asserting linguistic and cultural autonomy as central to democratic governance.
By situating the present struggle over the three-language policy within this historical trajectory, we see that Tamil Nadu’s resistance is not just about language – it is about maintaining a vision of federalism that recognises the legitimacy of regional identities. The echoes of Anna’s speeches in contemporary debates reaffirm that language imposition is not simply a matter of education policy, but one of constitutional principles and political rights.
Historical underpinnings and Annadurai’s relevance
In the 1960s, Anna – who was then a Member of Parliament and later became the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu – rose as a passionate and eloquent advocate against attempts to impose Hindi as India’s sole official language. Through his speeches, he articulated a core conviction: India’s true strength lies in its rich linguistic and cultural diversity, and genuine national unity can only be fostered through inclusivity rather than enforced uniformity.
Anna warned that mandating one language, particularly Hindi – which already held sway in central and northern India – would sow seeds of resentment among non-Hindi speakers. He argued that such a policy would create a structural imbalance, granting Hindi-speaking regions an inherent advantage in areas such as education, public administration, and employment.
In his address on resisting the so-called “Hindi menace,” he stressed that the adoption of Hindi as the exclusive link language would not only marginalise other linguistic communities but would also corrode the federal spirit enshrined in the Indian Constitution. His impassioned call for “unity in diversity” resonated deeply; for Anna, imposing linguistic uniformity was tantamount to erasing the cultural and historical identities of India’s many regions.
Moreover, Anna’s speeches consistently highlighted the pragmatic role of English as a neutral medium. He contended that retaining English alongside regional languages leveled the playing field – since no Indian community has English as its mother tongue, it would not privilege any one group over another.
This argument was crucial not only for safeguarding Tamil’s unique cultural heritage but also for ensuring socio-economic mobility, as English opened global opportunities for education and employment.
Also Read: In Trump’s Uncertain World, India Needs Internal Harmony but Modi Govt Is Threatening It
His insistence that true unity must come from respecting regional autonomy, rather than enforcing a single language, continues to inform debates on language policy even today. In his later remarks on the dangers of linguistic uniformity, Anna famously contrasted “unity” with “uniformity,” emphasising that a nation composed of many voices would suffer if one language were to dominate.
In essence, Anna’s legacy in these debates remains as relevant now as it was then. His clarion call against the imposition of Hindi – rooted in a deep understanding of India’s diverse cultural fabric – foreshadows contemporary controversies, such as those surrounding the National Education Policy’s three-language formula.
By questioning any form of linguistic dominance incompatible with India’s federal structure, Anna laid the ideological groundwork for Tamil Nadu’s continued resistance, a stance that champions the preservation of regional identity and equitable cultural representation.
The lingering shadow of linguistic uniformity
Despite the Constitution’s purported dedication to linguistic and cultural pluralism, Hindi continues to be projected as India’s “connecting language.” During the 1960s, the proposal to make Hindi the primary official language triggered massive protests in Tamil Nadu, culminating in anti-Hindi agitations that claimed several lives.
These events indelibly etched into Tamil consciousness the notion that any compulsion to learn Hindi diminished the region’s centuries-old linguistic identity.
In the current era, the New Education Policy’s three-language formula revives these concerns. Though it ostensibly provides states the choice of multiple “Indian languages,” Tamil Nadu’s past experiences reveal that implementation often defaults to Hindi or Sanskrit – either due to ease of finding teachers or prevailing centralised guidelines.
Thus, what appears voluntary on paper becomes de facto mandatory in practice. As India’s history has shown, these schemes invariably prioritise Hindi in non-Hindi-speaking areas and Sanskrit in Hindi-speaking regions, resulting in asymmetric language choices that fail to reflect genuine linguistic diversity.
Empirical Contrasts in Educational Trajectories
Tamil Nadu’s two-language policy – Tamil and English –has drawn considerable scrutiny from central authorities. Yet, evidence suggests that states embracing a three-language framework have not necessarily outperformed Tamil Nadu in developmental or educational metrics. Data (from various studies and policy reports) often highlight Tamil Nadu’s relatively robust outcomes in areas such as literacy rate, school enrollment, and other social indicators.
For instance, Bihar – which has historically followed or been open to the three-language regime –continues to lag behind in critical indices such as per capita income, literacy, and general well-being. Gujarat, a state often lauded for its economic growth, also faces shortfalls in social development and education benchmarks when compared with Tamil Nadu’s more balanced approach.
This contrast refutes the notion that learning multiple Indian languages, including Hindi, guarantees superior educational results or fosters holistic development.
Moreover, no consistent evidence exists to demonstrate that northern Hindi-speaking states proactively integrate southern languages – like Tamil, Telugu, or Kannada – into their schools as part of the three-language mandate. The imbalance is striking: if linguistic uniformity were truly the goal, it would require a reciprocal appreciation of southern languages in northern education policies, which is largely absent.
Protecting Socioeconomic Mobility Through English
A section of those who object to the compulsory teaching of Hindi often assert that other Indian languages can be taught to children, and concomitantly as a society unite in their opposition to the hegemony of English. This perspective, however, neglects the role English plays in enabling social and economic mobility, especially among marginalised communities.
English proficiency can open doors to higher education, international employment opportunities, and a broader global network. Anna himself – despite being an ardent champion of Tamil – pointed out that English remained the most convenient common link across states, ensuring no single Indian language held an upper hand.
A two-language policy that combined English with Tamil in Tamil Nadu’s government-run and State board schools thus helped preserve the local language’s primacy, while simultaneously equipping students with skills for national and international competitiveness.
Any attempts to “villainise” English, risk exacerbating socioeconomic divides by curtailing the upward mobility of underprivileged students who benefit most from exposure to English-language resources.
Federalism, constitutional rights, and the way forward
Beyond the educational realm, this debate cuts to the core of India’s federal ethos. Critics of Hindi imposition consistently argue that the country is a union of states, each possessing its own language, culture, and historical identity. Article 345 of the Constitution, combined with states’ rights over education in the concurrent list, underscores that Tamil Nadu’s stance is not simply “politically motivated,” as alleged by central leaders, but constitutionally valid although not always possible should the union choose to override the State.
In the words of Anna, unity must be built on mutual respect, not forced uniformity. Tamil Nadu’s refusal to adopt a language that its population neither identifies with nor requires for regional communication is, from its perspective, a legitimate exercise of democratic choice.
The tension escalates when federal mechanisms – such as conditional funding or ministerial guidelines – pressure states to adopt policies they have historically rejected, prompting warnings of renewed language conflicts.
National Education Policy’s three-language formula reasserts many of the same questions
Despite spanning decades, Tamil Nadu’s clash with the Union government over Hindi reveals how profoundly language influences questions of identity, autonomy, and social opportunity. Anna’s 1960s speeches in Parliament foreshadowed the present impasse, emphasising that culture thrives on diversity and that imposing a single language is an affront to that diversity.
Today, the National Education Policy’s three-language formula reasserts many of the same questions about uniformity, federalism, and local aspiration.
Supporters of Tamil Nadu’s two-language policy emphasise the state’s comparatively strong educational indicators, the critical role of English for marginalised communities, and the inherent constitutional freedoms of linguistic regions to determine their own paths. Hindi imposition, they argue, is neither an educational panacea nor an emblem of unity; rather, it risks stifling the nuanced pluralism at the heart of India’s democracy.
Ultimately, the debate is not merely about how many languages one studies in school. It is about whether India can sustain its identity as a confluence of many voices – each equally validated – rather than as a monolingual structure. In that sense, Anna’s clarion call for linguistic equality remains as resonant now as it was six decades ago, underscoring the urgent need for dialogue that respects both cultural pride and constitutional equity.
Vignesh Karthik KR is a postdoctoral research fellow of Indian and Indonesian politics at the Royal Netherlands of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies, Leiden and a research affiliate at King’s India Institute, King’s College London. He posts on X @krvtweets