Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad threatens protest against three-language policy
According to the new GR, Hindi will be the third language taught from Class 1 onwards. However, any student can opt to learn any other Indian language as their third language as well. If over 20 students wish to learn a language other than Hindi, a teacher will be provided for that language. If the number of students is less than 20, they will be taught the language through online mode of learning.
At a press conference on Wednesday, Milind Joshi, chairman of Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad, said, 'In Maharashtra, we had to protest to make Marathi a compulsory language in education, but now we have to have meetings to ask the government to not make Hindi compulsory… Many Marathi organisations have gathered to write a letter to the CM to cancel the GR released today.'
Deshmukh said, 'The Chief Minister has said that a third language other than Hindi can be chosen, but we do not accept a third language. We do not want it… We know how teachers struggled online during COVID-19. Teaching a third language online is not okay and it won't happen as well. Indirectly — due to Hindi teachers being available as it is already being taught in Class 5 — it will be imposed. We don't oppose Hindi from Class 5, we just do not accept it being taught from Class 1. Otherwise, it is being taught for the last 20-30 years from Class 5.' Deshmukh also claimed that the Modi government's New Education Policy 2020 does not mandate teaching a third language from Class 1.
The letter, signed by Joshi and Deshmukh, said that according to child psychology, learning three languages at a young age is extremely difficult. It also said due to the lack of teachers, in many cases Class 8 students aren't able to read English and Marathi texts from Class 2. It added that in such a low quality teaching environment, teaching another language will be even more distressing for the student.
Next, the letter raised the question of 'Hindikaran' of Maharashtra, and that even cities like Nashik and Pune have 'become Hindi'. It said teaching a language other than Hindi will not be possible in most cases due to a lack of qualified teachers, and the quality of online education is known for being poor. It stated Hindi is 'attacking' Marathi and erasing the latter's identity.
The letter also stated, 'No other state is teaching three languages from Class 1, then why are we imposing this on Maharashtra?'
Joshi stated that the organisation was a non-political entity related to literature and culture, but that they would have to come out and protest on the streets if the government's decision is not taken back.
Soham is a Correspondent with the Indian Express in Pune.
A journalism graduate, he was a fact-checker before joining the Express. Soham currently covers education and is also interested in civic issues, health, human rights, and politics. ... Read More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 minutes ago
- Time of India
Déjà vu in Delhi! India knows the sting of tariffs
US President Donald Trump's decision to impose punishing tariffs on India might seem unprecedented — until you flip the calendar back 36 years. In 1989, Washington tried to pry open the Indian economy by threatening tariffs, leading to a 12-month bitter stand-off between the two nations. Eventually the US backed down, but the conflict left a scar on the bilateral relationship. A look back at the Super 301 episode can help us better understand the dynamics at play today. In the late 1980s, the US was engaged in an intense trade war with Japan, its primary economic rival at the time. Washington developed an arsenal of diplomatic and economic weapons for its war including Super 301, a legal mechanism upgraded in 1988. It authorised the US President to identify countries with 'unfair' trade practices and punish them with retaliatory tariffs. Once the statute came into force, President George HW Bush did not limit its use to Japan. His administration sought to address America's rising trade deficit by using the threat of Super 301 to strong-arm several countries, including American allies like Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. Parallels with the current administration are evident. In his first term, Trump used tariffs to battle China; now he uses them on friends and foes alike. Once Washington develops a policy tool to coerce one country, it becomes all too tempting to use that tool indiscriminately and sometimes unthinkingly. It is an important facet of US hegemony, regardless of who occupies the White House. Many countries tried to avoid Super 301 by hastily cutting deals with Washington to open their markets or voluntarily restricting their exports. In June 1989, the Bush administration declared that it would target three countries — Japan, Brazil and India. New Delhi was taken by complete surprise. Its relations with Washington had been improving in the previous few years. Its trade surplus with the US was relatively paltry. Washington's two central demands, that India allow American investments and foreign insurance companies, seemed arbitrary. Unlike Japan and Brazil, India refused to even enter into negotiations with the US. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said he wouldn't let the US dictate how to run the country. American heavy-handedness sparked intense outrage in the Parliament, further tying the govt's hands politically. At the same time, the American threat of tariffs posed serious risks for the Indian economy. US share in India's exports at the time was about one-fifth, the same as it is today. India was much less dependent on foreign trade in 1989 than it is today, but it was also a much smaller and more vulnerable economy. India failed to enlist world opinion to its side. Western countries, including even Japan, agreed with Washington that India was too restrictive of foreign investments. Today, Indian diplomats looking for international solidarity against US tariff assault may discover a similar situation. Many countries may deplore Trump's ham-fisted tactics, while endorsing his goals of lowering Indian protectionism and weaning it away from Russian oil. PM VP Singh, elected in December 1989, tried to placate Washington through a tightrope act. While India continued to refuse negotiations on the two demands under Super 301, it offered concessions on other economic fronts. Americans were not satisfied with Indian offerings. In April 1990, Japan and Brazil were dropped from the Super 301 list, leaving India as the sole target. Washington issued a two-month ultimatum to New Delhi. American 'bullying' was loudly condemned by Indian media and politicians. In the end, the showdown never arrived. At the expiration of the ultimatum deadline, the Bush administration determined that following through with its threats was not worth it. It declared that while India was an 'unfair trader', it was not in American interest to take retaliatory actions. The Super 301 process against India was discontinued. The Bush administration backed down without much loss of face because Washington's trade campaign was global and India was only a small piece of it. Same remains true today. Although the tariffs are a major issue for New Delhi, they are just one battle among dozens that Trump is fighting on multiple fronts. The Indo-US relationship quickly bounced back, buoyed by alignment of certain economic and geopolitical interests. However, the Super 301 episode left a bad taste in the Indian mouth. It was yet another reminder that American power can unexpectedly become capricious and overbearing. In the last few years, many commentators have expressed befuddlement at why New Delhi resists moving closer to Washington despite its persistent conflict with Beijing. Its reticence partly stems from its fear that greater dependence on the US will leave it more vulnerable to Washington's volatile high-handedness that manifests from time to time. Trump's tariff assault has again affirmed the wisdom behind India's caution. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
The Wire
5 minutes ago
- The Wire
Explainer: The Trump–Putin Summit and its Immediate Consequences For New Delhi
New Delhi: For India, the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage was more than a geopolitical spectacle in the frozen north. Rather, it carried immediate consequences for New Delhi's economic future. With the US having slapped punitive tariffs on Indian goods for Russian oil purchases, New Delhi watched the meeting closely, weighing whether Trump's diplomacy might ease the pressure or deepen its bind. Here is The Wire's explainer on what unfolded in Alaska on Saturday (August 16), and what it could mean for India. What exactly happened at the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage? The day began with a carefully staged welcome at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. US President Donald Trump's plane landed shortly after 10:20 a.m., and Russian President Vladimir Putin followed about half an hour later. Just after 11 a.m., the two leaders walked out onto a red-carpeted platform marked 'Alaska 2025,' framed by four F-22 fighter jets and a flyover that included a B-2 stealth bomber. After the handshake and photo op, Trump invited Putin into his presidential limousine. The pair spoke privately for a few minutes on the short ride to the venue, a break from protocol that underscored Trump's preference for unscripted encounters. Formal talks began around 11:30 a.m. in a 'three-on-three' format. Trump sat with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff, while Putin was flanked by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and adviser Yuri Ushakov. The discussions ran for nearly three hours before concluding in the mid-afternoon. At about 3 p.m., the two leaders appeared before the press to deliver short statements, but they took no questions and announced no breakthrough. Putin departed soon afterwards, while Trump left Anchorage in the early evening for his return flight to Washington. In total, Putin's first visit to US in ten years, lasted less than six hours. Did Trump manage to secure a ceasefire, or did the talks end without progress? While flying to Anchorage, Trump told a Fox News anchor on Air Force One that he 'won't be happy' if he did not get a ceasefire deal at the summit. That set expectations for the meeting, which ran for nearly three hours behind closed doors. Yet when the two leaders appeared before the press, it was clear no such agreement had been reached. Trump nonetheless struck an upbeat note. 'We really made some great progress today,' he said, stressing that negotiations were ongoing and that more meetings would follow. He did not provide details of what that progress involved. 'There were many, many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there, but we've made some headway. So there's no deal until there is a deal,' he said. Later in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, he said that the onus was now on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to get a cease-fire deal. Putin also kept up the optimistic narrative. 'We held our talks in a constructive and mutually respectful atmosphere, and they have proved substantive and productive.' The Russian President flattered Trump by stating that the Ukraine war would not have started if Trump had been president. He also restated Moscow's demands for a 'long-term and lasting' settlement on Ukraine war – addressing the 'root causes' of the conflict, ensuring 'all of Russia's legitimate concerns' are met, and restoring a 'fair security balance in Europe and the rest of the world.' He signalled, standing next to the US President, that the roadblock lay across the Atlantic. 'We hope that Kiev and the European capitals will take the current developments constructively and will neither try to put up obstacles nor attempt to disrupt the emerging progress with provocative acts or behind-the-scenes plots.' Does the outcome make Putin the real winner of the meeting? For Vladimir Putin, the Alaska summit represented a clear diplomatic victory, one achieved without compromise. Back in Moscow, the tone was jubilant. 'The very fact of the meeting in Alaska, its tone, and its outcome represent a significant and joint success for both presidents, each of whom made a tremendous personal contribution to achieving the best possible result at this time," Konstantin Kosachyov, a chair of the foreign affairs committee of Russia's upper house of parliament, wrote on Telegram, according to Reuters. Others were more blunt. As one senior Russian policymaker told The Guardian, 'Putin gave Trump nothing, but still got everything he wanted.' The absence of new sanctions, Trump's tacit recognition of Moscow's red lines, and the symbolism of being treated as an equal to the US president all fed into the narrative of triumph. Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev also singled out Trump's refusal to escalate pressure on Moscow over Ukraine as one of the most important outcomes. He described the summit as a restoration of top-level dialogue that was 'peaceful, free of ultimatums or threats,' and noted that Putin had 'presented our conditions for ending the conflict in Ukraine … in person and in detail.' In the United States, however, the verdict was also clear that Putin had scored a PR goal. The Washington Post called the summit ' not a disaster, but it was a US defeat.' The New York Times argued that Putin had effectively achieved a major war goal. ' He has gotten out of the box of sanctioned autocrat, and was greeted by the president of the United States as a peacemaker. He has bought time. He has defused all that talk of sanctions on his oil sector. And he gave up nothing'. How did Europe and Ukraine react to the summit? European leaders, led by Germany, France, the UK, Italy and the EU, issued a joint statement reaffirming their unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and insisting that Russia could not dictate Kyiv's future ties with NATO or the EU. They pledged to tighten sanctions and maintain economic pressure on Moscow until what they described as a just and lasting peace is achieved. While leaders such as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron praised Donald Trump's initiative in meeting Vladimir Putin, they stressed that any talks must be coupled with strong security guarantees for Ukraine. Kyiv's response was more guardedly optimistic. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy welcomed Trump's proposal for a trilateral format with Ukraine included, but said European participation was essential to ensure binding guarantees. He confirmed he would travel to Washington on Monday after a 'long and substantive' phone call with Trump, noting 'positive signals' about the United States taking part in future security arrangements. Trump's post-summit remarks on Fox News, however, fuelled unease in Kyiv and in several European capitals. In an interview with Sean Hannity, he contrasted Russia's status with Ukraine's, saying: 'Russia is a very big power, and they're not' and added that Zelenskiy 'gotta make a deal.' For many European officials, this reinforced fears that Trump might pressure Kyiv into concessions without securing reciprocal guarantees from Moscow. How did New Delhi react, and what drives that stance? India welcomed the Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, framing it as a positive step toward dialogue. 'India welcomes the Summit meeting in Alaska between President Trump and President Putin,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi 'consistently advocates dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict.' He noted that India 'appreciates the progress made in the Summit'. 'India welcomes the Summit meeting in Alaska between President Trump and President Putin,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi 'consistently advocates dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict.' He also noted that India 'appreciates the progress made in the Summit.' New Delhi's response can be read as relief that the focus on dialogue creates a potential opening for India, which has been squeezed between its strategic partnership with Washington and its heavy reliance on Russian energy. That pressure intensified earlier this month when the US raised tariffs on Indian goods to 50 percent, following secondary sanctions of 25 percent on Russian oil purchases. India, the second-largest buyer of Russian crude after China, was singled out by the measures. While Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity that he would hold off on penalising China for now, the uncertainty over whether India will face continued tariffs remains. Could India gain some relief on US tariffs as a side-effect of Trump's diplomacy? Donald Trump's latest push to nudge Moscow towards a Ukraine deal has raised questions in New Delhi over whether India might see relief from the steep US tariffs imposed on Russian oil imports. The additional 25 percent duty, announced in late August, coincided with signs of Trump's growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Indian officials viewed the sanctions partly as an extension of that irritation. En route to Alaska, Trump told Fox News that India had been forced to stop buying Russian oil because of the tariffs. Former Indian ambassador to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria described the Alaska meeting as 'reassuring' for India. 'The first good news is that the meeting took place,' he told The Wire, noting there were 'no shock outcomes of trouble' and no sign of 'a complete breakdown in that relationship.' He said Trump appeared to hint at flexibility. 'There was an indication he will either give more time to India for the 25 percent sanctions… or he will reverse them, or he will give that a bigger timeline,' Bisaria said. While there was brewing backlash in Washington that Putin may have gained an upper hand, Trump may still continue to believe that he is on the right path. 'He may be hearing other voices in his ear,' he said, pointing out that while some in Trump's circle are Russia hawks, 'the MAGA base supports him ending the wars. So, there won't be an issue with them.' Bisaria, however, added that conditions in Ukraine could yet derail any opening. 'If there's a major escalation in battlefield violence, that is a danger to the process, because right now it's the most fragile,' he said. In his view, both Trump and Putin are interested in a deal, with Ukraine and Europe seeking at least the optics of being consulted.
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Russia claims more villages, Ukraine says rebuffed attack
Russian forces said on Saturday they had captured two more villages in eastern Ukraine while Kyiv said it was pushing back a rapid Russian advance that had pierced through its defences. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency In Russia, Kursk region governor Alexander Khinshtein said a Ukrainian drone attack in the district of Rylsk had killed two people in their car -- a 52-year-old man and his 13-year-old son. The latest developments in the war came hours after US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held talks on ending the conflict, with few visible results. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas Prices In Dubai Might Be More Affordable Than You Think Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Get Quote Undo The Ukrainian army, smaller and less equipped than Russia's, has been on the defensive for months as Russian forces advance slowly but steadily. Russia's defence ministry said its troops had taken the village of Kolodyazi in Ukraine's eastern Donetsk region and the village of Vorone in the neighbouring Dnipropetrovsk region. Live Events Kyiv and Ukrainian military analysts from the website Deepstate did not confirm the advances. Russian troops earlier this week broke through Ukrainian lines in one part of the Donetsk region near the town of Dobropillia, close to an important road connecting key cities in the area. Ukraine said it sent reinforcements and claimed Friday to have re-taken six villages. "For a second consecutive day we have been successful in extremely difficult sectors in the Dobropillia and Pokrovsk directions," Zelensky said on social media on Saturday. "The destruction of occupiers who tried to infiltrate deeper into our positions continues," he said, adding that Ukraine had also captured an "important" number of Russian POWs. Zelensky also repeated his warnings about possible further Russian attacks "in the coming days". "The Russian army may try to increase pressure and strikes against Ukrainian positions in order to create more favorable political circumstances for talks with global actors," he said. Russia has pushed into Ukrainian territory for almost 3.5 years, occupying large swathes of the east and south of the country. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, launched by Putin in February 2022, has killed thousands. Russia launched 85 attack drones and a ballistic missile at Ukraine overnight, Kyiv said Saturday, hours after the Putin-Trump talks in Alaska. The highly anticipated meeting in the remote US state ended with no breakthrough in halting Russia's more than three-year-long Ukraine invasion. Ukraine's air force said Moscow had "attacked with an Iskander-M ballistic missile and 85 Shahed-type" drones, while also attacking "frontline areas" in four regions. In its daily report, the air force said the attacks took place "on the night of August 16" and starting in the evening of August 15 -- when Putin and Trump held their negotiations. Kyiv said its air defences shot down 61 of the drones.
