Karnataka Government Makes Kannada Must for All Official Work
The Karnataka government has told all officers and workers to use Kannada in all government work. This rule is from the Karnataka State Language Act, 1963. Kannada is the main language for government offices in the state.
What Must Be in Kannada
If someone sends a letter in Kannada, the answer must also be in Kannada.
Office name boards, public notices, meeting papers, and letters must be in Kannada.
Orders about staff transfers, appointments, and leave must be in Kannada.
Forms and files, even if in English, must be filled in Kannada.
Meeting notes, records, and agendas must also be in Kannada.
When English Can Be Used
You can only use English if:
You are writing to the central government,
You are writing to another state, or
You are writing to the courts.
What's Going Wrong
Some offices are still using English.
Some officers write notes on files in English.
Some departments, like Public Works, are making reports only in English.
Zilla Panchayat officers are sending meeting details in English too.
The Chief Minister has said:
If a file is not in Kannada, it will be sent back. Officers will need to explain why they used English.
The government says:
All officers and workers must follow this rule.
It applies to all offices, boards, colleges, and local bodies.
If someone does not follow the rule, they will be punished.
The Kannada Development Authority is checking and reporting offices that do not follow the rule.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
"Devendra Fadnavis' government hit a sixer and cancelled the decision": Union Minister Ramdas Athawale on Maharashtra three-language policy
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Union Minister Ramdas Athawale welcomed the Maharashtra government's decision to withdraw the three-language policy and said that the Devendra Fadnavis government cancelled the policy even before agitations took to the reporters on his visit to Raipur on Tuesday, Athawale said, "There was a controversy in Maharashtra regarding the three-language formula. Hindi has always been our national language , and we respect it, but some people argued that there is no need to teach any other language in Marathi schools. Marathi people took an opposing stance. However, Devendra Fadnavis' government hit a sixer and cancelled the decision to (mandatorily) use the Hindi language even before any agitation took place."RPI chief Athawale's remarks come amid Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis ' announcement to withdraw the resolution on the three-language policy on June Maharashtra government came under fire on April 16, as it passed a resolution mandating Hindi as the compulsory third language in Marathi and English-medium in response to the backlash, the government revised the policy on June 17 through an amended resolution, stating, "Hindi will be the third language. For those who want to learn another language, at least 20 willing students are required."On June 24, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated that the final decision regarding the three-language formula will be taken only after discussions with litterateurs, language experts, political leaders, and all other concerned parties, which has now led to the cancellation of both the resolutions and the formation of a committee under Narendra asked about the Centre's decision to conduct a caste-based census , Athawale criticised Congress for not conducting one during their Athawale said, "Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Indian government have decided on the caste census, and this is a historic decision, as for many years it was demanded but was not conducted during Congress' rule. Rahul Gandhi was demanding it, but why did he not do it when his government was in power?""The Parliamentary committee will begin its work. The percentage of each caste will be known. We will get to know, after the independence, how much a caste has developed in terms of employment, and (participation in) agriculture and industries. And this will help the government to support the (backward) castes," he told the reporters.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Karnataka Congress in troubleshoot mode as state in-charge meets disgruntled MLAs
'We are also trying to understand from our legislators the status of congress organisations in their respective constituencies,' Surjewala told reporters in Bengaluru. Randeep Singh Surjewala, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) General Secretary in-charge of Karnataka, met with several MLAs in Bengaluru, taking turns to address concerns that have been piling up for some time now. Bengaluru: Karnataka Congress went into overdrive Monday trying to address grievances of its disgruntled legislators as its internal issues threaten to fuel an implosion within the ruling party and the state government. Surjewala called it an 'organisational exercise' to understand the status of the party's guarantees in their respective constituencies. Around 40 legislators—most of whom have publicly voiced their dissatisfaction with the administration's functioning and raised allegations of corruption—were called to meet with Surjewala. Legislators like Raju Kage, B.R. Patil, and several others have been relentless in their criticism of the Siddaramaiah-led government, accusing some ministers of corruption and highlighting systemic failures. With CM Siddaramaiah and his deputy, D.K. Shivakumar, already engaged in a bitter battle for dominance, the allegations by its legislators have only made things more difficult for the two-year-old administration as well as provide the opposition with fresh ammunition to corner the government. Surjewala will be meeting all Congress legislators over the next 3 days as some of the anger was targeted at the general secretary as well for remaining more in Delhi than addressing the grievances of the state he holds charge of. Also read: How license fee hikes by Karnataka's Congress govt are driving distillers to neighbouring states 'Congress high command a ghost' Siddaramaiah Monday tried to dispel claims that all was not well with him and his deputy, Shivakumar. 'He (Shivakumar, addressing him in the singular) and I are on good terms,' Siddaramaiah told reporters in Mysuru. 'This government will be safe as a boulder,' the CM added, using the Kannada word 'bande'—a term used by Shivakumar's supporters to emphasise his political resilience. But much of this camaraderie appears to be for the cameras, with sources indicating that Shivakumar is pressuring the party high command to keep its promise of replacing Siddaramaiah midway through the current term. But the 76-year-old CM and his loyalists have been firmly opposed to the idea, thrown their weight behind Siddaramaiah, and even called for replacing Shivakumar as the state party chief. Minsters, MLAs and others have taken turns to weigh in on the issue, leaving the party red faced. K.N. Rajanna, the cooperation minister said that there is likely to be a change of guard after October and also lamented the presence of multiple power centres in the state. Several other MLAs and ministers, too, have aired their opinions, exposing the faultlines and bitter infighting within the Congress. AICC President, Mallikarjuna Kharge, too, said that the party high command will take a decision on any leadership change in the state. 'See, that (change in leadership) is in the hands of the high command, nobody can say here what is going in the (minds of the) high command. This is left to the high command. (The) high command has power to take further action but unnecessarily one should not create problems,' Kharge told reporters in Bengaluru. His repeated emphasis on the high command, despite being the national president of the Congress party, gave BJP leaders a handle to take jibes. 'The Congress High Command is like a ghost. It is unseen, unheard, but always felt,' it said. The Congress High Command is like a ghost. It is unseen, unheard, but always felt. Even the Congress President, who people thought is the high command, whispers its name and says it's not him. So eerie! — Tejasvi Surya (@Tejasvi_Surya) June 30, 2025 'Fighting to fix the system' Surjewala met legislators one by one after they were summoned on Monday. B.R. Patil, one of the seniormost among them—who had earlier resigned as the CM's political advisor and accused the housing ministry of corruption—also met with Surjewala. 'I have met him and brought to his attention all the issues. He has taken note of it. What action they will take is up to the high command,' he told reporters in Bengaluru. He added that he was not a disgruntled leader. 'I did not air out my dissent. I am not unsatisfied but a fighter who is fighting to fix the system,' he said. Raju Kage did not meet Surjewala but is expected to Tuesday. Parameshwara, Karnataka's minister for home affairs, said that Surjewala was in Bengaluru to check the party organisation ahead of the long-delayed local body elections. He said that he, too, had sought time with Surjewala but did not specify the purpose. The national leadership of the Congress was accused by some leaders of not paying enough attention to the growing problems in Karnataka. Kharge, too, refused to react to the statements of his own party members. 'I cannot react to all their statements. I can only talk about what happens at the AICC level, if I start giving reactions to each and every statement …. There are enough questions for which we cannot keep looking for answers,' Kharge said. But the AICC president said that Surjewala will submit a report of his findings to the high command upon which further action will be taken. (Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri) Also read: Karnataka's bills on misinformation & hate speech to be reviewed as Siddaramaiah faces rising heat
Scroll.in
2 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Language and power: What Ambedkar and Periyar teach us about Maharashtra's Hindi debate
Since mid-April, Maharashtra became the centre of a major linguistic storm. The state government's decision to make Hindi a compulsory third language in Marathi- and English-medium schools from Classes 1 to 5 sparked a sharp backlash. Protests came from teachers, students, civil society groups and political parties across the spectrum. Although the government on Sunday eventually withdrew the policy, the episode exposed a deeper anxiety: is India drifting from its pluralistic roots toward a homogenised national culture? At the heart of the debate lies the question of who decides which languages matter in India's classrooms, and by extension, in its public life. This question has been asked before by the architect of the Indian Constitution BR Ambedkar, by Dravidian leader EV Ramaswamy 'Periyar' and even by Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci, each offering insights into how language relates to identity, democracy, and power. What Ambedkar knew BR Ambedkar, a native of Maharashtra, argued powerfully in favour of primary education in the mother tongue. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly on 2 September 1949, he said that education in a child's native language is not just pedagogically sound, but it is essential for democratic participation. This view finds echo in a 2025 Unesco report titled Languages Matter: Global guidance on multilingual education. It confirms how children learn best in their first language. In Maharashtra, where Marathi is the mother tongue for nearly 70% of the population (according to the 2011 census), imposing Hindi from the Class 1 risks disrupting that learning process – particularly for rural and marginalised students already struggling with access to education. Ambedkar also cautioned against making Hindi the national language. On September 14, 1949, during heated Constituent assembly debates, he warned that Hindi speakers, while a significant group, were still a 'minority of the population'. He pointed out that privileging one language over others risked alienating vast regions of India and fracturing its federal spirit. His later writings, especially Thoughts on Linguistic States (1955), championed the idea of reconstituting Indian states on linguistic lines to ensure administrative efficiency and cultural autonomy. The formation of Maharashtra in 1960, after the Samyukta Maharashtra Movement demanded a separate state for Marathi sapeakers, reflects this principle. Today, policies like compulsory Hindi in schools can take away the pride and dignity that past language movements fought hard to earn. The illusion of choice The National Education Policy 2020 reaffirms the old three-language formula (previously proposed by Kothari Commission in 1966): regional language, Hindi or English, and a third Indian language. On paper, this seems fair. In practice, however, it disproportionately burdens non-Hindi states. Tamil Nadu has long rejected the formula, sticking to its own two-language policy, which was a result of decades of anti-Hindi agitations. Paradoxically, in many Hindi-speaking states, schools do not actually offer any non-Hindi Indian languages. The result is an asymmetry: non-Hindi states must accommodate Hindi but not vice versa. This contradicts Ambedkar's idea of cooperative federalism, where cultural decisions like language policy should be made with consent and context, not by default. Maharashtra's rollback was thus not just political damage control, but it was a reassertion of federal balance. But as long as the New Education Policy eaves room for interpretation, the risk of cultural overreach remains. What Periyar fought against While Ambedkar believed in institutional safeguards, Tamil leader Periyar waged a more direct war against what he saw as linguistic oppression. In the 1930s and 1960s, Periyar led massive protests in Tamil Nadu against the compulsory teaching of Hindi. For him, this was not about curriculum, but it was about cultural dominance. He warned that compulsory Hindi would lead to 'linguistic slavery'. His fear was not hypothetical. It was grounded in the lived reality of Tamil speakers who saw their language, literature, and identity sidelined by an increasingly Hindi-centric nationalism. Periyar's critique resonates in Maharashtra today. Many there view the push for Hindi as an attempt to dilute regional identity and cultural autonomy. His message remains urgent: language policy is rarely neutral; moreover, it often reflects the power of some to define the identity of others. The language of power Italian philosopher and political theorist Antonio Gramsci never wrote about India, but his theory of 'cultural hegemony' helps us understand how language operates in complex societies. Gramsci argued that dominant groups do not just rule through laws or violence, but they shape what people see as 'common sense'. Language is one of the most powerful tools in this process. When a Marathi-speaking child from Vidarbha or Marathwada region is told to learn Hindi from Class 1, without any reciprocal push for Hindi speakers to learn Marathi, that child absorbs more than grammar. She internalises the idea that some languages (and by extension, cultures) matter more than others. This is the slow, often invisible work of hegemony. It does not always come from diktats. Sometimes, it arrives as curriculum reform. Beyond Maharashtra The controversy in Maharashtra is not unique or isolated. In 2017, Bengaluru witnessed the #NammaMetroHindiBeda campaign, opposing Hindi signage in the city's metro system. In Tamil Nadu, resistance to Hindi remains a political mainstay. West Bengal saw students protesting Hindi-only policies in scientific institutions. In Punjab, Panjab University students demanded respect for Punjabi in official communication. Even the North East – India's most linguistically diverse region – has pushed back. In 2022, the central government mandated Hindi up to Class 10 in all North Eastern states, prompting fierce objections from local cultural groups who saw the move as cultural erasure. Each of these movements' points to a deeper struggle: the protection of linguistic identities in a centralised nation-state. Who gets to decide? India's strength lies not in any single language or culture, but in its ability to hold many together. Ambedkar reminds us that language should be a tool of empowerment, not exclusion. Periyar shows that resistance is necessary when institutions fail. Gramsci teaches us to look beneath the surface of policy and ask: who benefits? The Maharashtra controversy is not just a local educational dispute. It is a national moment of reflection. Should language be used to unify, or to dominate? Should it reflect our diversity, or override it? And most crucially, who gets to decide? Aniruddha Mahajan is a doctoral researcher at the University of Edinburgh, UK. His research interests include caste inequalities, student activism, nationalism, regional and linguistic politics, and the intellectual history of South Asia.
