Tamil Nadu's Language Politics, PM SHRI Schools and Students' loss

 

Tamil Nadu's Language Politics, PM SHRI Schools and the Students' loss

The issue of language politics has once again provided an opportunity for Tamil Nadu’s ruling party, the DMK, to reinforce its political stance. Over the past five decades, the party has consistently framed itself as a defender of regional identity, often attributing its challenges to the policies of the Central Government. The recent controversy over the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) and the PM SHRI schools scheme follows a familiar pattern, with the DMK portraying itself as a victim while the BJP positions itself as its principal opposition in the state.

Origins of the Dispute

In February 2024, the Union Government reached out to the Tamil Nadu Education Secretary regarding delays in signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the state’s participation in the Prime Minister Schools for Rising India (PM SHRI) initiative. Tamil Nadu responded in March, expressing its willingness to sign the agreement and stating that a committee had been formed to assess the matter. The state government also requested the release of pending funds under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA).

By August 2024, Tamil Nadu communicated its willingness to proceed with the MoU, provided that references to the NEP were removed from the agreement. This led to a stalemate, with the Centre opting to withhold ₹2,152 crore in education-related funds—resources that had been previously disbursed based on the state's assurances. The Central Govt's stand is that if the NEP is not being implemented, then the funds would not be disbursed. The earlier funds also would be taken back after some time perhaps! 

The Core Issue: Policy vs. Autonomy

At the heart of the dispute is Tamil Nadu’s opposition to the NEP, particularly the three-language formula, which the state views as a step towards the imposition of Hindi. How is this possible is known only tho them. While the NEP does not mandate Hindi, it does recommend the inclusion of a third language, which could be any Indian language. The Tamil Nadu government has strongly resisted this aspect, maintaining its long-standing policy of a two-language system. However, this two-language policy is not at all official. The Govt even refused to provide data on the students who study 3 languages and 2 languages which indirectly states something wrong here. 

The DMK has framed the Centre’s decision as an unfair financial penalty imposed on the state for refusing to comply with the NEP. The government has warned that the withholding of funds will impact the payment of teachers’ salaries and hinder improvements in government school infrastructure.

This statement is ridiculous. A Bank offers a loan amount to a party for doing a business. However, if the receiver fails to start a business, how can he/she expect the bank to disburse the loan? TN Govt's stand is similar to this! 

A Political Standoff

Despite its repeated legal challenges against the Central Government on various issues, the Tamil Nadu government has yet to seek judicial intervention in this matter. Instead, the DMK has leveraged the controversy across mainstream and social media, reviving allegations that the BJP-led Union Government is attempting to impose Hindi through indirect means stoking the emotions. This also had helped the Govt to divert the attention of the people from its failures. 

For the BJP, this dispute provides an opportunity to establish itself as the primary opposition to the DMK in Tamil Nadu, a role it has been striving to secure over the past five years. Meanwhile, the DMK benefits from rallying its voter base by portraying the BJP as a threat to regional autonomy.

Until the Tamil Nadu government decides to pursue legal action, this debate over the NEP and the three-language formula is likely to remain a political flashpoint rather than a resolved policy matter. Unfortunately, the real impact of this impasse will be felt by the students in government schools, who risk being caught in the crossfire of political maneuvering.