By IPA Webdesk
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has endorsed the rare political reconciliation between Maharashtra鈥檚 Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray, praising their united stance against what he deems Hindi imposition under the National Education Policy鈥檚 three-language model. The rally in Mumbai, celebrating the withdrawal of government resolutions mandating Hindi from Class鈥1, drew unprecedented praise from Stalin, who framed the movement as a national linguistic rights struggle transcending regional boundaries.
The Thackeray cousins, long estranged since their political split in 2005, reunited for a 鈥淰oice of Marathi鈥 victory procession following Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis鈥檚 rollback. Raj Thackeray condemned the abrupt introduction of Hindi, questioning why Hindi-speaking states such as Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan compel their students to learn a third language, and lamented that Hindi-speaking regions lag economically despite their linguistic dominance. Uddhav Thackeray echoed this sentiment, challenging efforts to enforce Hindi in states like Tamil Nadu and Bengal: 鈥淲e are not against any language, but if you make any compulsion, we will show our power鈥.
Stalin welcomed their combined message and urged a national wake-up call. He posted on X that the Tamil Nadu movement against Hindi imposition 鈥渉as now transcended state boundaries and is swirling like a storm of protest in Maharashtra鈥. The chief minister strongly criticised the central government for linking education funding鈥攕pecifically 鈧2,152 crore under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan鈥攖o Hindi acceptance, and he demanded immediate release of withheld funds.
Maharashtra鈥檚 U鈥憈urn followed intense backlash. Thackeray-led protests, including public burnings of the government resolutions, culminated in organized marches on 5 July. Maharashtra Deputy CM Ajit Pawar condemned the compulsory introduction of Hindi from Class鈥1, supporting an optional approach from Standard鈥疺, and backed statewide Marathi-first preaching. The state government cited NEP鈥搈andated implementation for all Indian languages, while assuring Marathi鈥檚 primacy and mandating infrastructure to support students opting for other tongues.
Within Tamil Nadu, Stalin鈥檚 condemnation of the NEP鈥檚 language policy has been longstanding. The city鈥檚 government has steadfastly resisted the new policy, dragging the issue to the Supreme Court and refusing to partake in PM SHRI initiatives. The state has held firm in its own two鈥憀anguage policy of Tamil and English, citing the historical significance of anti-Hindi agitations dating back to the 1930s, and the enduring legacy of Dravidian-led opposition. Stalin has consistently urged that all languages recognised by the Indian constitution be treated equally鈥攁n appeal that struck a chord with Thackeray鈥檚 rhetoric.
Stalin also highlighted that economic backwardness of Hindi-speaking states undermines claims that learning Hindi ensures prosperity. Raj Thackeray鈥檚 pointed question about why Hindi had failed to uplift its home states was quoted approvingly by Stalin. The Chief Minister framed the issue not in narrow regional terms, but as preservation of India鈥檚 pluralistic, inclusive ethos: 鈥淭he struggle waged by the people of Tamil Nadu against Hindi imposition is not only emotional but also intellectual and logical to protect India鈥檚 plural culture鈥.
The spline of this political alignment could signal the resurgence of linguistic pluralism as a unifying political force. Maharashtra鈥檚 linguistic identity, championed by Shiv Sena and MNS, converges with Tamil Nadu鈥檚 enduring Dravidian resistance鈥攕uggesting potential synergy in broader opposition to centralising cultural policies. Political analysts suggest this could invigorate regional parties sensing threat of cultural homogenisation from NEP-style educational reforms.
Opposition to compulsory Hindi teaching, beyond linguistic preservation, taps into wider anxieties over federalism and cultural autonomy. Maharashtra鈥檚 rollback demonstrates the potency of coordinated public dissent鈥攂e it through student bodies, civil society, or political parties. For Stalin, the Thackeray rally validated his advocacy and showcased the merits of cross-border solidarity: 鈥淐ome, let us unite,鈥 he urged.
As central authorities prepare to decentralise the implementation framework of the NEP, state-level pushback continues. Tamil Nadu has not only legally challenged the policy, but also politically rallied support. India鈥檚 linguistic landscape鈥攅ncompassing 22 constitutionally recognised languages鈥攆aces renewed debate, as the tension between national integration and regional self-expression resurfaces with vigor.
The alignment of Tamil Nadu鈥檚 opposition with Maharashtra鈥檚 regional defence marks a significant moment in India鈥檚 policy discourse. A movement that originally aimed to preserve Tamil鈥檚 status has now found resonance in Marathi-speaking circles. As education ministries reconsider language rollout, and funding hinges on policy adoption, the conversation has shifted from classrooms to the courts, platforms, and regional capitals鈥攗nderscoring language as both cultural signifier and political instrument.