Language and power: What Ambedkar and Periyar teach us about Maharashtra's Hindi debate
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
23 minutes ago
- First Post
'Illegal migrant': Can US strip Mamdani's citizenship as Trump, Republicans ramp up attack?
The Trump administration is considering stripping Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, of his US citizenship over accusations that he concealed ties to 'terrorism' during his naturalization process, as the President and Republicans ramp up their attacks. read more The Trump administration has suggested it might strip Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, of his US citizenship as part of a crackdown on foreign-born citizens accused of certain crimes, according to a report from The Guardian. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president is considering an investigation after Republican Congressman Andy Ogles called for Mamdani's citizenship to be revoked. Ogles claims Mamdani may have hidden his support for 'terrorism' during his naturalization process. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Mamdani, 33, was born in Uganda to Indian parents and became a US citizen in 2018. He has drawn national attention—and controversy—for his outspoken support for Palestinian rights. Trump threatens arrest Asked about Mamdani's call to stop undercover ICE agents from deporting immigrants, President Trump said on Tuesday, 'Well, then, we'll have to arrest him,' according to Axios. In response, Mamdani posted on social media, 'The President of the United States just threatened to have me arrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp and deported. Not because I have broken any law but because I refuse to let ICE terrorize our city.' He added that Trump's threats are an attack on democracy and an attempt to silence those who speak out. My statement on Donald Trump's threat to deport me and his praise for Eric Adams, who the President "helped out" of legal accountability. — Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) July 1, 2025 Islamophobic attacks and political backdrop Mamdani has also faced Islamophobic attacks since winning last week's New York mayoral primary, defeating figures including former Governor Andrew Cuomo. The controversy comes as the Trump administration has directed government lawyers to prioritize efforts to denaturalize foreign-born citizens who committed certain crimes or lied during their citizenship process. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Ogles urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate Mamdani, accusing him of possibly gaining citizenship through false statements or concealing support for terrorism. As evidence, he cited a rap song by Mamdani praising members of a group convicted of funding Hamas, as well as Mamdani's refusal to condemn the phrase 'globalize the intifada.' Ogles also posted on social media, calling Mamdani 'an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York,' and saying he 'needs to be deported.' When asked about Ogles's claims, Leavitt said, 'I have not seen those claims, but surely if they are true, it's something that should be investigated.' The Justice Department confirmed it received Ogles's letter but declined further comment. Democrats push back Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, condemned the push to denaturalize Mamdani, calling it 'racist bullshit.' 'Trump will stop at nothing to protect billionaires and price gouging corporations, even racist bullshit like this,' Murphy wrote. 'Zohran won because he ran a campaign focused on putting power back in the hands of working people. And that's a threat to the Mar-a-Lago crowd.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Mamdani, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, has faced intense scrutiny of his social media posts and activism since his primary victory, where he promised left-leaning policies for New York City if elected. Trump's continued criticism Amid criticism from conservatives, Trump has labeled him 'a pure communist' and threatened to cut federal funds to New York if Mamdani becomes mayor and 'doesn't behave himself.' At a press event in Florida, Trump repeated his 'communist' accusation and hinted Mamdani might have obtained citizenship illegally. 'We don't need a communist in this country, but if we have one, I'm going to be watching over him very carefully,' Trump said. 'A lot of people are saying he's here illegally. We're going to look at everything.' Praise for Eric Adams Trump also praised current New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who is running for reelection as an independent after leaving the Democratic Party. Trump said Adams was 'a good person' and hinted he'd helped him, possibly referring to the Justice Department dropping a corruption case against Adams earlier this year. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In his post, Mamdani said it was unsurprising that Trump praised Adams while threatening him.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25 minutes ago
- Business Standard
LIVE news updates: PM Modi embarks on 5-nation visit, says India committed to Brics
Latest news updates LIVE: Prime Minister Narendra Modi reaffirmed India's dedication to BRICS as a crucial platform for cooperation among emerging economies as he embarked on a week-long tour of five nations, including Brazil, where he will attend the group's summit. "Together, we strive for a more peaceful, equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order," he said in his departure statement. His itinerary includes visits to Ghana, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Brazil, and Namibia, with Ghana being his first stop on July 2–3 at the invitation of President John Dramani Mahama. Former South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer is launching a Republican primary bid against Senator Lindsey Graham, criticizing the senator as insufficiently conservative for the state. Bauer, a wealthy real estate developer and staunch Trump supporter, positions himself as a genuine "America First" conservative. His run sets up a midterm clash with the four-term senator, whose ties with Trump have fluctuated but who currently has Trump's backing for reelection. A lawyer representing Elon Musk's X told an Indian court that an excessive number of government officials — "every Tom, Dick, and Harry" — had been empowered to issue content takedown orders, prompting a sharp response from the government's counsel. X has frequently clashed with Prime Minister Modi's administration over takedown demands. The statement came during a hearing on the platform's legal challenge to a government website it claims operates as a 'censorship portal.' Indian authorities maintain the site is only intended to facilitate compliance notifications for online platforms. Connect with us on WhatsApp
The Print
29 minutes ago
- The Print
The Preamble won't be changed back to the original. Here's why
The very first sentence of the Constitution has been studded with a lie for the last fifty years. We don't mind misattributing even grave things to the deceased Constitution makers. The Preamble, a one-sentence credo, carries the date 26 November 1949 in present tense, despite being altered 26 years afterwards. All this while leaders have been propagating with gusto that it is given by a demigod-like leader, BR Ambedkar. The irony of Indian politics can be understood by the condition of the Preamble of the Constitution. Our habit of playing with words and phrases is in full play here. Just review the issue. The Preamble of the original Constitution (1950) described India as a democratic republic. Twenty-six years later, two heavy political terms were added to it: 'secular' and 'socialist'. India was re-christened as 'democratic socialist secular republic' only on 26 November 1949. Now, fifty years after that deceit—intended or not—there is again a clamour to revert it to the original. No surprise if this turns out to be just another game of our leaders. The change was made during the Emergency. And the amendment was passed in the Parliament without genuine deliberation, as the Opposition was put in jail. It was perhaps a plot of an intellectual coterie that convinced Indira Gandhi to do it—she was not an ideologue like her father to flaunt such heavy terms. Also read: JP wasn't a saviour of Constitution. He called Mao his guru Tampering with basic structure The amendment proved to be a great distortion of the Constitution. Look at the facts: First, all political theorists considered the original Preamble remarkable. The famed British political scientist Ernest Barker began his 1952 book Principles of Social and Political Theory with the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. He said that it stated 'in a brief and pithy form the argument of much of the book'. This was a unique commendation for the original Preamble. Second, in political science or law teaching in India, the Preamble was called the soul and foundation of the Constitution. Therefore, to tamper with it was interfering with its soul. Third, the Supreme Court of India in the Berubari Union case (1960) described the Preamble as not part of the Constitution but an overall guiding principle of it, through which other provisions of the Constitution may be understood. So, the Preamble was itself a standard, a scale. And whoever heard of tampering with a scale? Fourth, the Supreme Court again, in 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, declared that while the Preamble of the Constitution is not exempt from amendment, its basic structure cannot be changed. It grates against what was done three years later with it. Their Lordships, too, turned a Nelson's eye to this great contradiction. On all those four counts, it is undeniable that the alteration made to the Preamble was grave. The consequences have been graver still. The change made in 1976 hit the basics of the Constitution. It was especially damaging as it was an ideological amendment. It must also be noted that 'socialist' and 'secular' were known concepts to the Constitution makers. In fact, they discussed the issue of adding 'socialist' and 'secular' and rejected it. It is, therefore, a sin on the part of the leaders of the country to cheat the people by falsely propagandising this distorted Preamble for the last fifty years. Current propaganda, that it all is a 'legacy of Dr Ambedkar', is still more sinful. It is more so because it was Ambedkar himself who categorically rejected the proposal to include the words 'secular' and 'socialist' into the Constitution. It happened in the Constituent Assembly on 15 November 1948. A member of the Constituent Assembly, Professor KT Shah, had proposed to include the words 'secular, federal, socialist' into the Constitution. Rejecting it in toto, Ambedkar said: 'Mr. Vice‑President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly, are two. In the first place, the Constitution…is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State…What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether…It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better…I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form…This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed…The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous…If these directive principles…are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be. Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.' Though he did not separately comment on the word 'secular', he dismissed the entire proposal. The Constituent Assembly concurred with him. Despite such rejection, the very terms were inserted into the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. It is noteworthy, too, that the Janata Party government comprising the Jana Sangh, socialists, and other non-Congress parties continued with the distorted Preamble. They repealed many sections of the 42nd Amendment through the 44th Amendment in 1978, but they chose to keep the distortion of the Preamble. Thus, all political parties have injured the 'soul' of the Constitution. Also read: Hosabale, Dhankhar, Shivraj & Himanta give Modi yet another reason to amend BJP constitution Vote-bank politics After that, the character of the Constitution itself began to change. It gradually bore bitter fruit. It led to the establishment of an unstated anti-Hindu mindset in Indian politics, which slowly infiltrated the entire political and educational sphere. It is a dark irony that until the word 'secular' was added, the Constitution was indeed secular, treating all communities equally. But after inserting the word 'secular', most Indian leaders—knowingly or unknowingly—interpreted and applied it in ways that effectively rendered Hindus as second-class citizens. Now Hindus have become 'eighth-class citizens', to use the term from Anand Ranganathan's book Hindus in Hindu Rashtra. With time, Indian leaders competitively turned the terms 'minority' and 'secular' into mere tools of vote-bank politics. In the process, the original intent of the Constitution and the universal principles of common justice and morality have been undermined. Since all this unfolded gradually, it constituted a double betrayal of the Indian people. All political parties used the excuse of the 'Constitutional' mandate of secularism and a distorted reading of 'protection of minorities' as per Article 29 to provide facilities and privileges exclusively to non-Hindus. This, too, was against the intent of the Constitution makers, who had taken care to ensure every benefit to minorities without excluding the non-minorities from any benefits. But this exclusion is perpetrated by all rulers, especially after the distortion of the Preamble. In the absence of any political party to sincerely oppose it, Hindus were left with no means to even detect the wrong being done, let alone counter it. Most political leaders intended to woo bulk votes from a particular non-Hindu community. They quietly but openly cheated the unaware, helpless Hindu citizens. Therefore, any hope of correcting the distortion in the Preamble seems futile. Our political parties are deeply immersed in the quagmire of 'minority-ism'. It is unlikely that any of them will find the courage to come out of it. The issue will most probably be used to create a public uproar, each party using it to consolidate its constituencies. There will be talks of discrimination, accusations, and counter-accusations. Nothing more should be expected. Shankar Sharan is a columnist and professor of political science. He tweets @hesivh. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
