Activists Slam State Over Decline in Marathi School Enrolment, Demand White Paper on Language Policy
Nagpur: Expressing serious concern over the closure of Marathi medium schools, a group of activists has questioned the Maharashtra government's commitment to its Marathi Language Policy.
The campaign group 'Chalval Marathi Chya Vyapak Hitasaathi', in a strongly worded letter addressed to chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, school education minister Deepak Kesarkar, and Marathi language minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha, has demanded urgent corrective measures and a white paper detailing the state's language policy.
The group highlighted the closure of 40 Marathi-medium schools in Mumbai alone and a drop of nearly 50,000 students in Marathi as a subject.
Campaign convener Shripad Bhalchandra Joshi stated that the government claims "not a single school will be shut", yet the ground reality is entirely different.
Joshi described the government's approach to language policy as "confused, contradictory, and opaque." Despite having adopted a formal policy mandating administration in Marathi, he argued, the state lacks the awareness or the political will to enforce it.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
He reiterated the long-standing demand for a government-issued white paper on the current status of Marathi across sectors in Maharashtra.
Calling the decline in Marathi-medium schools and student enrolment "painful and unacceptable," Joshi urged the government to immediately announce concrete steps to stop the erosion and revive shuttered institutions.
He further questioned whether the government's objective is to preserve Marathi-medium education or to systematically dismantle it.
He demanded that the government disclose the total number of Marathi schools shot down across the state and detail any revival efforts.
Joshi also criticised the state for invoking the National Education Policy (NEP) to push Hindi as a third language from early grades, despite the Supreme Court clarifying that NEP is not binding on states. Ironically, he noted, the same policy advocates instructions in the mother-tongue — yet the state continues to justify closures based on low enrolment and has declared 25,000 teachers as excess.
Nagpur: Expressing serious concern over the closure of Marathi medium schools, a group of activists has questioned the Maharashtra government's commitment to its Marathi Language Policy. The campaign group 'Chalval Marathi Chya Vyapak Hitasaathi', in a strongly worded letter addressed to chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, school education minister Deepak Kesarkar, and Marathi language minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha, has demanded urgent corrective measures and a white paper detailing the state's language policy.
The group highlighted the closure of 40 Marathi-medium schools in Mumbai alone and a drop of nearly 50,000 students in Marathi as a subject. Campaign convener Shripad Bhalchandra Joshi stated that the government claims "not a single school will be shut", yet the ground reality is entirely different.
Joshi described the government's approach to language policy as "confused, contradictory, and opaque." Despite having adopted a formal policy mandating administration in Marathi, he argued, the state lacks the awareness or the political will to enforce it.
He reiterated the long-standing demand for a government-issued white paper on the current status of Marathi across sectors in Maharashtra.
Calling the decline in Marathi-medium schools and student enrolment "painful and unacceptable," Joshi urged the government to immediately announce concrete steps to stop the erosion and revive shuttered institutions.
He further questioned whether the government's objective is to preserve Marathi-medium education or to systematically dismantle it.
He demanded that the government disclose the total number of Marathi schools shot down across the state and detail any revival efforts.
Joshi also criticised the state for invoking the National Education Policy (NEP) to push Hindi as a third language from early grades, despite the Supreme Court clarifying that NEP is not binding on states. Ironically, he noted, the same policy advocates instructions in the mother-tongue — yet the state continues to justify closures based on low enrolment and has declared 25,000 teachers as excess.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why think when you can act? Kristi Noem's leadership manual
Kristi Noem's political career has never exactly followed a straight line. She started out as a rancher in South Dakota, made her way into Congress, then became the Governor of South Dakota, and now she's sitting in one of the most powerful security roles in the country—Secretary of Homeland Security. Sounds impressive, right? But lately, her choices have raised more eyebrows than cheers. Let's just say, if there were a leadership manual with Kristi Noem's name on it, it might be titled something like: 'Why Think When You Can Act?' Because that's been the theme of her biggest controversies so far—especially the two most recent ones, involving a family dog and a suspiciously sketchy assassination plot against Donald Trump. A dog named Cricket (RIP) Let's start with the dog. Noem dropped a political bombshell earlier this year when she released her memoir No Going Back. In it, she talks about her 14-month-old German wirehaired pointer named Cricket. According to her, Cricket was a nightmare: unruly, aggressive, and a threat to livestock. So Noem did what no pet owner expects to read in a political memoir—she drove Cricket out to a gravel pit and shot her. Yes, you read that right. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Truque caseiro eficaz contra o bigode chinês (faça hoje mesmo) Notícias | Beleza | Mulher Saiba Mais Undo She shot her dog and then wrote about it like it was just another life lesson on tough decision-making. Her reasoning? The dog was 'untrainable' and had 'a mean streak.' Noem framed it as a metaphor for leadership—that sometimes, you just have to do the hard thing. But to millions of pet owners, animal lovers, and even her own supporters, this wasn't some John Wayne moment. It was shocking, brutal, and not exactly the kind of anecdote that makes someone sound stable enough to lead a federal security agency. Social media exploded. Pundits questioned her judgment. Late-night hosts had a field day. And it didn't stop there. Critics pointed out that the dog story wasn't just bad PR—it revealed something deeper about Noem's instinctive, act-first-think-later style. Then came the 'assassination plot' If the dog story wasn't weird enough, buckle up. In May 2025, Noem made headlines again. This time, she claimed that a 54-year-old undocumented immigrant named Ramon Morales Reyes had threatened to assassinate Donald Trump. According to Noem, Reyes sent a handwritten letter outlining his intent to kill the former president. The claim was huge, and of course, it caught fire everywhere. But, like Cricket's obedience training, things didn't go according to plan. After some digging, investigators revealed that Reyes may not have written the letter at all. In fact, handwriting analysis suggested he had nothing to do with it. Even worse? There's speculation he was framed to keep him from testifying in an unrelated assault case where he was a victim. The whole thing unraveled like a bad TV crime plot. Suddenly, this wasn't a case of national security—it was a story of someone possibly being falsely accused for political theater. And once again, Noem was at the center of it, making bold claims without waiting for facts. A pattern emerges When you look at these two incidents side by side, a pattern becomes hard to ignore. Whether it's putting down a family pet or accusing someone of trying to kill a former president, Noem seems to default to the same playbook: take swift, dramatic action first, worry about accuracy later. Sure, some folks admire decisiveness. In politics, it can be refreshing to see someone act quickly, especially when we're so used to endless debates and red tape. But in Noem's case, her brand of 'leadership' feels more like cowboy justice than thoughtful governance. And let's be real, when you're the Secretary of Homeland Security, overseeing complex threats, managing border security, and coordinating disaster response, you need to be precise. You need to weigh risks, consider the consequences, and maybe, just maybe, get the facts straight before going on TV. So why does all this matter? Well, it matters because Noem isn't just a political figure with a few controversial stories in her past. She's now in charge of a massive federal agency with over 240,000 employees. The Department of Homeland Security isn't some casual gig—it's the organization responsible for everything from cybersecurity to counterterrorism. And in a world where national security threats are often complex, multilayered, and involve a lot of gray areas, you need someone with a cool head. Someone who doesn't treat every situation like a showdown at high noon. Instead, we've got someone who's already demonstrated a knack for overreaction. Whether she's executing a family pet or making a public example out of someone who might be innocent, Noem doesn't seem all that interested in nuance. And when it comes to Homeland Security, nuance isn't optional—it's everything. At the end of the day, Kristi Noem's story is less about one dog or one letter and more about what kind of leadership we need in high-stakes roles. Do we want someone who sees every problem as a nail because they're always holding a hammer? Or do we want someone who takes the time to investigate, reflect, and make the right call—even if it's not the flashy one?
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC verdict may hike tax burden on OTT platforms, gaming apps
New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruling allowing dual taxation on television broadcasters may increase tax burden on over-the-top (OTT) platforms such as Amazon Prime and Netflix and other subscription based digital content and even gaming applications, said its May 22 judgment on Asianet Satellite Communications and others, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh ruled that broadcasting involves delivery of service and delivery of entertainment and can be taxed by different means the Centre can impose service tax on the act of broadcasting, while states are allowed to charge entertainment tax on the content consumed by viewers. "The ruling is mainly premised on the basis that both taxes deal with different aspects of broadcasting activities and hence, there is no overlap in taxing powers of the Centre and state," said Saloni Roy, partner, Deloitte India. She added that although the case relates to the pre-goods and services tax (GST)era, the judgment could have "significant implications" and that it has created tax uncertainty for the industry. Experts said it may lead to decentralisation of tax. "By endorsing the 'aspect theory', which permits separate taxation of different elements of the same activity, the court has opened the door to potential dual taxation on digital platforms such as OTT services, gaming apps and social media," said Saurabh Agarwal, partner, EY. He added the ruling has not only created more confusion for the industry, but also goes against the spirit of the GST, which was designed to unify and replace various indirect taxes, including entertainment tax. "This ruling may pave the way for states or even local bodies-under Entry 62 of the Constitution-to reintroduce such levies under the label of 'entertainment," Agarwal said, adding that this may pose a challenge for the GST Council. In the pre-GST era, state governments were empowered to levy tax on entertainment. "With the introduction of GST, state governments are still empowered to levy tax on entertainment and amusement. However, this is permitted through local bodies such as panchayats, municipalities, etc.," Roy said. For instance, Haryana Municipal Entertainment Duty Act, 2019 permits levy of duties with respect to admission to public entertainments, which includes any exhibition, performance, amusement, game, sport or race to which persons are ordinarily admitted on payment. Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act, 2023 provides for the levy of duty in respect to entry to entertainment or exhibition, including direct-to-home broadcasting service, which is to be collected by local bodies. Similarly, Tamil Nadu charges both GST and entertainment tax on Indian Premier League match tickets. The digital industry under the streamlined tax regime under GST was aware of the taxation burden, but this decision reintroduces uncertainty, with the possibility of more states taxing OTT platforms , content creators and gaming applications in the name of entertainment. "There are many factors which should act against higher taxes for digital media as an indirect impact of this judgment, including the lack of territoriality in delivery of such services," said Shashank Mishra, Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Trump gets SC nod to revoke legal status of 5 lakh migrants; Lady Victoria Hervey says, ‘We need this in UK'
The Donald Trump-led dispensation has hailed the Supreme Court's decision to cancel a Joe Biden-era immigration programme that granted legal status to 500,000 people from four countries - Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who entered the US legally under 'humanitarian parole' programs. Following the Supreme Court order, Trump shared an image on his official Instagram account featuring dozens of aeroplanes taking off simultaneously, with bold text in the centre reading: "Let the deportation begin." The post also caught the attention of socialite Lady Victoria Hervey, who commented, 'We need this in the UK now.'Trump and his Republican leaders hailed the high court ruling, and said: 'You can't have a situation where the Biden administration can fly in half a million illegal aliens in the last 24 months, and we're having a conversation about, 'Oh, maybe they should get to stay for life,'' Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was quoted as saying by Politico — although neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has ruled that the Biden-era programmes were illegal. Read | Donald Trump doubles tariff on worldwide steel from 25% to 50%, claims China violated trade deal The Supreme Court has allowed Trump's administration to end temporary legal status, known as humanitarian parole, for over 500,000 migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. This decision reverses a lower court's order and could lead to swift deportations while legal battles continue. The programme had been introduced by former President Joe Biden to manage immigration at the US-Mexico border, allowing people to live and work in the United States temporarily for humanitarian reasons or public benefit. Read | 'So much for being nice guy': Donald Trump says 'bad news' is China 'totally violated' trade agreement with US Trump, who returned to office in January, signed an executive order on his first day to halt these parole schemes. His administration argued that the change would help facilitate faster deportations through a process called 'expedited removal.' The Supreme Court's decision was issued without explanation, as is common in emergency cases. However, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating that the move would harm hundreds of thousands of people without a full review of their legal rights. Guerline Jozef, executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance, one of the plaintiffs, expressed dismay at Friday's decision. "Once again, the Trump administration blatantly proves their disregard for the lives of those truly in need of protection by taking away their status and rendering them undocumented. We have already seen the traumatic impact on children and families afraid to even go to school, church or work," Jozef was quoted as saying by Reuters. The administration called Friday's decision a victory, asserting that the migrants granted parole had been poorly vetted. Ending the parole programs "will be a necessary return to common-sense policies, a return to public safety and a return to America First," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. While many of those with parole status are at risk of deportation, at least 250,000 had pending applications for another legal status, according to Karen Tumlin, director of the Justice Action Center, one of the groups suing over the parole termination. Those applications had been frozen by Trump's administration but the freeze was lifted this week, said Tumlin, adding: "Those should be processed right now."
