Language Politics Was Never Really About Language

On January 25, 1965, 50,000 students, workers, and activists flooded the streets of Madras, chanting “Hindi Ozhiga! Down with Hindi!” in open defiance to the threat of ‘Hindi imposition’. In Madurai, what began as a peaceful demonstration turned violent. Protesters set fire to railway cars and Hindi signage.

The police responded with force—batons, tear gas, and eventually bullets. Over the next two weeks, dozens were killed, many of them young students. The state erupted in anger, and the protests became more than just a fight over language. They were a rejection of the central government's attempts at political control and a demand for respect.

This resistance had been building for decades. In 1937, the Congress-led Madras Presidency, under C. Rajagopalachari, introduced compulsory Hindi in schools. Many in Tamil Nadu saw it as an attempt to erode Tamil identity. Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and the Justice Party led widespread protests, with arrests in the thousands and two young men—Natarajan and Thalamuthu—dying in custody. The policy was repealed in 1940, but the fear of Hindi imposition never faded.

After Independence, the Central government라이브 바카라 push to replace English with Hindi as the national language revived old tensions. By 1965, Tamil Nadu라이브 바카라 opposition had reached a breaking point.

More than half-a-century later, the battle over language is still an ongoing resistance against what many in the South see as a form of linguistic imperialism.

When, on March 7, 2025, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin declared, “Tamil Nadu will not tolerate Hindi colonialism replacing British colonialism,” his words carried the weight of history.

“Nothing in this drama is new,” says writer, cultural activist, and founder of the People라이브 바카라 Linguistic Survey of India Dr. G.N. Devy. “Neither the formula nor the opposition to it. But what is new is the context.” That context, he explains, is the looming spectre of delimitation—a process that, if implemented, could drastically shift political representation towards the Hindi heartland at the expense of the South. With the census indefinitely postponed and the Central government라이브 바카라 silence on the matter, Southern leaders believe that language is not just a cultural issue but a deeply political one.

The roots of Hindi라이브 바카라 privileged status are tangled in colonial history. During British rule, Persian was replaced as the official language of administration, and a choice had to be made: English, Hindi, or Sanskrit? The British settled on the Indo-Aryan language, Hindi. Thus began the slow but systematic elevation of Hindi's hegemonic dominance.

This was not an unchallenged ascent. When the Nehru Report of 1928 was being debated, a global rise in fascism could be seen as closely connected to monolingual nations. India라이브 바카라 founding fathers were acutely aware of the perils of a linguistic hegemony. “Italy and Germany were the countries that had opted for a single-language nationalism in the 19th century,” Dr. Devy points out. “But in the first quarter of the 20th century, India라이브 바카라 leaders realised that this could become very myopic, totalitarian, and anti-democratic, and therefore they opted for the idea of a multilingual India.”

Mussolini라이브 바카라 fascism and Hitler라이브 바카라 rise had left a mark on the political psyche of the time. Leaders understood that the imposition of one language was not merely about communication—it was about erasure, about absorbing regional identities into the monolith of the state.

In September 1949, as the Constituent Assembly of India deliberated on the language issue, the idea of a national language was decisively rejected. Instead, Hindi and English were designated as official languages—tools for administration only. The Eighth Schedule of the Constitution recognised 14 major languages at the time; today, that number has risen to 22. But the recognition of multiple languages on paper has done little to curb the disproportionate state support for Hindi라이브 바카라 development.

In the education policy, the 1968 three-language formula was framed as a way to promote linguistic diversity, requiring secondary school students to learn three languages, including their mother tongue.

In theory, this policy upheld multilingualism, but many in the South saw it as a Trojan Horse, a way to enforce Hindi on non-Hindi-speaking states. Now, with reports emerging of the Central government withholding crucial education funds from certain states, what was once a policy debate seems to have turned into a coercive strategy. Dr. Devy describes this as an "unfair practice," a fiscal maneuvre designed to erode linguistic autonomy under vague and unilateral terms.

This financial pressure is seen by many as part of a broader ideological push to establish Hindi as the singular national identity. Union Home Minister Amit Shah라이브 바카라 repeated assertions that Hindi should serve as the national language have only heightened these concerns.

The belief in Hindi as a unifying force is not incidental—it is a direct outcome of decades of state-driven investment into its development at the cost of other regional languages.

“Every government since 1952 has invested heavily in the development of Hindi,” Dr Devy says. “If you compare the funding for Hindi to that of Bengali, Telugu, or Marathi—the next most spoken languages—Hindi has received significantly more.”

The 2011 census stated that Hindi is the mother tongue of 44% of Indians. Many linguists argue that this number is an artificial construct, as it lumps together distinct languages like Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi, and many indigenous languages under the umbrella of Hindi.

“It is not a clean trick,” Dr Devy remarks, pointing out that these languages, many of which have origins that predate Hindi, are being absorbed into a homogenised Hindi identity, erasing their distinct cultural and linguistic histories. Even if the census numbers are accepted as accurate, a majority of Indians do not claim Hindi as their mother tongue, challenging the idea of Hindi as a unifier.

But why is there such a push for Hindi? According to Dr. Devy, “The repeated attempts to say that Hindi must be accepted by all other states, that Hindi should become Rashtrabhasha, not just Rajbhasha, are made in order to divert the attention of Hindi speakers from their situation of lack of sufficient livelihood opportunities.”

He adds, “It is not so much for politically conquering the yet unconquered areas, but it is really to retain what has been conquered and what is showing economic collapse.”

This is the crux of the battle. The push for Hindi is not about education, linguistic diversity, or national unity—it is a smokescreen for economic disparity and political control.

More than 70% of national wealth is being produced in the South and West, in non-Hindi speaking parts of the country, yet the government라이브 바카라 focus remains on the political weight of Hindi-speaking states, where economic stagnation runs deep.

The imposition of Hindi then, Devy notes, is not just about language—it is about appealing to voters without making any real, tangible reform.