Maharashtra Government: Maharashtra scraps order making Hindi 3rd language in schools, ET Education
Advt
Advt
Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals. Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox.
Get updates on your preferred social platform Follow us for the latest news, insider access to events and more.
Mumbai, Amid a growing chorus against the introduction of the Hindi language in Maharashtra schools from classes 1 to 5, the state cabinet on Sunday decided to withdraw two GRs (government orders) on the implementation of the three-language policy Addressing a press conference on the eve of the monsoon session of the state legislature, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis also announced the formation of a committee under educationist Dr Narendra Jadhav to suggest the way forward and implementation of the language policy.The panel has sought three months to study the issue and prepare a report.Fadnavis alleged Uddhav Thackeray had accepted the recommendations of the Dr Raghunath Mashelkar committee to introduce a three-language policy from class 1 to 12 when he was chief minister and set up a committee to implement the policy."The state cabinet has decided to withdraw the Government Resolutions (GR) issued in April and June regarding the implementation of the three-language policy from class one. A committee headed by Dr Narendra Jadhav will be formed to recommend implementation (of the three-language formula)," Fadnavis said.He said the government will take a fresh decision based on the report of Dr Jadhav, a former member of the Planning Commission and ex-Vice Chancellor."The other names of the committee will be announced in some days. The panel will study the Mashelkar Committee's report and suggest from which standard (class 1 or otherwise) the three language formula will be implemented,'' he said.The Fadnavis government had issued a GR on April 16, making Hindi a compulsory third language for students in classes 1 to 5 studying in English and Marathi medium schools. Amid backlash, the government issued an amended GR on June 17 making Hindi an optional language.The move was criticised by the Opposition- Shiv Sena (UBT), MNS, and NCP (SP)- which dubbed it the "imposition" of Hindi in Maharashtra.Fadnavis acknowledged the difference of opinion over finalising the grade (class 1 or 5) for implementing the three-language formula."The decision (on language policy) has been taken in the interest of Marathi students. If three languages are taught, students will get credit in the academic bank," he added.Fadnavis said the then CM Thackeray had appointed an 18-member Mashelkar Committee on September 21, 2020, comprising reputed figures from the education sector, on how to implement the NEP. A GR was issued on October 16, 2020."The committee submitted a 101-page report on September 14, 2021. The panel stated that apart from the Marathi language, English and Hindi languages should be taught in classes 1 to 12. The report was tabled in the state cabinet on January 7, 2022. The minutes of the cabinet meeting are available,'' he said.He claimed Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Vijay Kadam, who runs an educational institution, was a member of the Mashelkar committee.Fadnavis also claimed Uddhav didn't mention that his government disagreed with the Mashelkar committee's report."At that time, Uddhav didn't say that his government was not accepting the three-language formula. The then government set up a sub-group on the Mashelkar Committee's report," he added.Accusing Uddhav Thackeray of playing politics over the language issue, Fadnavis said the Shiv Sena (UBT) chief was opposing the Hindi language as he wants to "lay red carpet for the English language".Fadnavis said the Mahayuti government headed by him issued the two GRs in April and June as part of the sub-group set up by the then Thackeray-led MVA government."We changed the decision to make the Hindi language mandatory and made it optional," he added.Shiv Sena (UBT) and MNS had announced a joint march on July 5 to oppose the "imposition" of the Hindi language. The march was cancelled after the government withdrew the GRs.Fadnavis also took potshots at MNS chief Raj Thackeray."Raj Thackeray was nowhere in the picture at that time. He should ask Uddhav why his stand changed when his party joined the Opposition," he said.Fadnavis said Babasaheb Ambedkar wanted everyone to learn the Hindi language."Any Indian who doesn't accept this proposal as part and parcel of a linguistic state has no right to be an Indian. He may be 100 per cent Maharashtrian, 100 per cent Gujarati, and 100 per cent Tamil, but he cannot be an Indian in the real sense of the word, except in geographical sense. If my suggestion is not accepted, India will then cease to be India," he said quoting Ambedkar from "Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: writings and speeches".Deputy Chief Ministers Ajit Pawar and Eknath Shinde were also present at the presser.Pawar appealed to Marathi people not to participate in the morcha given the government's decision to withdraw the GRs.Shinde said the government's decision will be in the interest of students. "We have no ego," he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 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.
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.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Sheikh who wrested soccer & coddles warlords
File photo: A Sudanese soldier looks through documents found in the bedroom of a Rapid Support Forces commander, days after the paramilitary was driven out of that part of Khartoum. (Picture credit: NYT) NAIROBI: Weeks before Sudan flamed into a calamitous civil war, one of the richest men in the Middle East, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, welcomed an architect of the chaos to his Persian Gulf palace. The sheikh, a younger brother of the powerful ruler of the United Arab Emirates, is recognised in the West as a collector of superyachts and racehorses, and is perhaps best known as the owner of Manchester City, a hugely successful English soccer team. Last year, his team in New York won approval to build a $780 million soccer stadium in the borough of Queens, the first in the city. Yet there he was, in February 2023, openly entertaining a notorious commander from the deserts of western Sudan — someone who had seized power in a coup, built a fortune on illicit gold and was accused of widespread atrocities. Mansour had hosted the Sudanese commander, Gen Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, two years earlier at an arms fair in the UAE. When Sudan's conflict exploded, in April 2023, Mansour helped the general wage war. Charities controlled by Mansour set up a hospital, saying they were treating civilians. But according to US and United Nations officials, that humanitarian effort was also a cover for the secret Emirati effort to smuggle drones and other powerful weapons to Dagalo's group, the Rapid Support Forces, or RSF. A flood of evidence has emerged of massacres, mass rape and genocide by Dagalo's forces. The Emiratis deny arming any side in the war, but the US has intercepted regular phone calls between Dagalo and the leaders of the UAE, including Mansour. An enigma of a Sheikh Despite owning one of the world's most famous soccer teams, Mansour, 54, has remained an enigma, often showing a chameleonlike ability to disappear into the background. Yet, in interviews with more than a dozen US, African and Arab officials, he is described as being at the sharp end of his country's aggressive push to expand its influence across Africa and the Middle East. In places such as Libya and Sudan, they say, Mansour has coddled warlords and autocrats as part of a sweeping Emirati drive to acquire ports and strategic minerals, counter Islamist movements and establish the Persian Gulf nation as a heavyweight regional power. 'He's the fixer, the handler, the one sent to places without much glamour or publicity, but which are important to the Emiratis,' said Andrew Miller, a former senior US diplomat. Tides beginning to change Last year, the British govt passed a law that, in effect, prevented Mansour from acquiring a venerable UK newspaper, fearing it could affect press freedom. Trials in the United States and Malaysia have uncovered accusations that Mansour profited from 1 MDB scandal, one of the world's biggest financial frauds. A UK panel is considering sweeping accusations that Manchester City has cheated on a grand scale. If found guilty, the team could be fined or stripped of titles. The story of the Emirates In his grandparents' time, most inhabitants of what is now the UAE were date farmers, camel herders and pearl fishermen. The discovery of oil in the 1960s transformed Dubai into an archetype of petrostate bling. The capital, Abu Dhabi, is a finance hot spot and aspiring AI superpower. One family sits at the top. The Al Nahyans of Abu Dhabi are the world's second-richest family after the Waltons of the US, by some estimates. They have ruled the UAE since 1971, and their power is concentrated in a group known as the 'Bani Fatima' — six sons of the favoured wife of the country's founding father, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. Three of the sons dominate. The eldest brother, Mohammed, 64, known as MBZ, has been the de facto ruler for over two decades. Under him is Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, 56, often referred to as the 'spy sheikh' — a sunglasses-wearing national security adviser and fitness enthusiast who has bonded with Zuckerberg over jujitsu. The thirdmost powerful brother, Mansour, as deputy PM and VP, controls key institutions, including the UAE central bank, the national oil company and the Abu Dhabi criminal authority. He chairs Mubadala, a fast-growing $330 billion sovereign wealth fund with investments in AI, semiconductors and space tourism.
