The linguistic landscape of Tamil Nadu
According to the Language Atlas, the State had a total population of 7,21,47,030 that spread across an area of 1,30,060 square kilometres in 32 districts (based on Census 2011). Of this, 7,20,98,315 people (99.93%) reported speaking one of the 22 languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India, while only 48,715 people (0.07%) spoke other languages. A total of 96 languages were identified within the administrative boundaries of Tamil Nadu during the 2011 Census.
In the Language Atlas, the term 'speakers' referred only to individuals who reported a particular language as their mother tongue during the Census enumeration. This count excluded those who may have spoken the language but did not declare it as their mother tongue in the Census.
Among the scheduled languages in Tamil Nadu, Tamil had a total of 6,37,53,997 speakers. This included 6,37,43,847 people who reported Tamil as their mother tongue in the Census schedules, along with 10,150 individuals whose mother tongues were classified under the Tamil language group.
This was followed by Telugu with 42,34,302 speakers, Kannada with 12,86,175, Urdu with 12,64,537, Malayalam with 7,26,096, Hindi with 3,93,380, Gujarati with 2,75,023 and Marathi with 85,454 speakers. Among the non-scheduled languages, English had the highest number of speakers at 24,495, followed by Tulu with 2,636, Bhili/Bhilodi with 1,405, Arabic/Arbi with 1,119 and Kurukh/Oraon with 817.
District-wise distribution of languages Tamil
Being the official language, Tamil was the most widely spoken language in the State. Tamil Nadu had a total of 6,37,53,997 speakers, making up 88.37% of the State's population. The Tamil-speaking population was concentrated in Chennai (5.71%), Kancheepuram (5.65%), and Villupuram (5.24%), Vellore (4.96%), Tiruvallur (4.88%), Salem (4.83%), Tirunelveli (4.76%), Madurai (4.41%), and Tiruchirappalli (4.09%). Telugu
Telugu was the second most spoken language in Tamil Nadu, with 42,34,302 speakers, comprising 5.87% of the total population. The Telugu-speaking population was concentrated in Coimbatore (13.32%), Chennai (10.21%), Tiruvallur (9.80%), Krishnagiri (9.57%), and Vellore (7.53%). Some of the other district that also had significant shares of Telugu speakers were Tiruppur (6.47%), Erode (5.49%), Salem (5.00%), Kancheepuram (4.77%), Virudhunagar (4.07%), and Theni (3.75%). Kannada
Kannada speakers in the State numbered 12,86,175, accounting for 1.78% of the population. Their presence was most prominent in Coimbatore (18.73%), Krishnagiri (18.57%), The Nilgiris (13.98%), Erode (9.75%), Theni (7.62%), Salem (6.73%), and Tiruppur (4.41%). Malayalam
Malayalam was spoken by 7,26,096 people, representing 1.01%of Tamil Nadu's population. The Malayalam-speaking community was primarily concentrated in Coimbatore (23.34%), The Nilgiris (18.16%), Kanniyakumari (14.75%), and Chennai (14.46%), Tiruvallur (8.28%) and Kancheepuram (5.99%). Urdu
Urdu were 12,64,537 in numbers, making up 1.75% of the population. Vellore district had the highest concentration, accounting for 30.21% of the State's Urdu-speaking population. It was followed by Chennai (15.70%), Krishnagiri (8.73%), Villupuram (5.34%), Tiruvannamalai (5.19%), Kancheepuram (4.91%), and Tiruvallur (4.83%). Hindi
Hindi was spoken by 3,93,380 people, forming 0.55% of the State's population. The largest share resided in Chennai (40.54%), followed by Tiruvallur (10.80%), Kancheepuram (10.06%), Coimbatore (7.13%), and Vellore (4.42%). Gujarati
Gujarati speakers numbered 2,75,023, comprising 0.38% of the total population. Madurai had the largest share at 35.67%, followed by Chennai (11.63%), Thanjavur (9.35%), Salem (7.81%), and Ramanathapuram (7.51%), Dindigul (5.89%), Kancheepuram (3.71%), and Coimbatore (2.92%) Marathi
Marathi was spoken by 85,454 persons, making up 0.12% of Tamil Nadu's population. The community was primarily concentrated in Chennai (20.94%), Vellore (13.51%), Krishnagiri (10.44%), Kancheepuram (9.68%), Tiruvallur (7.90%), Coimbatore (6.31%), and Thanjavur (4.30%). English
English was spoken by 24,495 individuals, accounting for 0.03% of the total population. The majority of English speakers were concentrated in Chennai, which accounted for 41.98% of the State's total English-speaking population. Other notable districts included Tiruvallur (11.57%), Kancheepuram (10.96%), Coimbatore (7.56%), Tiruchirappalli (5.72%), and The Nilgiris (3.27%). Tulu
Tulu speakers in Tamil Nadu numbered 2,636. Their presence was primarily concentrated in Chennai, which accounted for 39.87% of the total Tulu-speaking population in the State, followed by Coimbatore (11.99%) and Kancheepuram (10.74%). Smaller shares were found in Tiruvallur (8.84%), The Nilgiris (7.17%), and Krishnagiri (4.93%).
Bilingualism and Trilingualism
Tamil Nadu remained predominantly a monolingual State in terms of linguistic ability. According to the 2011 Census, 5,17,30,760 people (71.70%) spoke only one language. The number of bilingual speakers, excluding those who were trilingual, was 1,79,69,107 (24.90%), while 24,47,163 individuals (3.39%) reported speaking three languages.
The Language Atlas also recorded the number of individuals who reported that they could speak various languages, irrespective of whether it was their mother tongue or not. In Tamil Nadu, a total of 6,94,04,292 people reported that they could speak Tamil (96.20%), followed by 1,33,37,789 people who reported that they could speak English (18.49%). A total of 58,04,634 individuals said they could speak Telugu (8.05%), 18,70,602 Kannada (2.59%), 15,24,049 Hindi (2.11%), and 10,08,468 reported that they could speak Malayalam (1.40%).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Aided-school teachers allege foul play in appointment of PG teachers
Teachers of a government-aided school in Madurai district, through a petition to Collector and Chief Educational Officer, have expressed their grievances about new regulations and a suspected foul play by school administration in appointing teachers. A schoolteacher from the PKN Boys Higher Secondary School in Tirumangalam, requesting anonymity, alleged that the teachers were coerced by the school administration into giving a letter stating that they did not want promotions. 'In government-aided schools like ours, teachers who meet the required educational qualifications for vacant posts left by retiring teachers in the school will be promoted,' the teacher added. Currently, the school has vacant postgraduate teacher positions in English, Chemistry and Physics and in the ongoing academic year, a PG Tamil teacher was also retiring, they added. But, instead of promoting the two most senior and qualified teachers among them, the school's secretary had pressurised them to write a letter rejecting the promotion, they alleged. They noted that for the vacant positions, as they would not need to require Teachers Recruitment Board examinations for appointments, the school administration was directly recruiting through their own procedure, they stated. Alleging cash-for-job for appointment of PG teachers, the teachers said that they suspected a foul play in appointment. By stopping elevation of the existing teachers, the school administration thought they could take people from outside on their own will. Apart from this, a teacher said that in the recent two years, following the appointment of a new secretary, new rules and regulations were being implemented to curb the teachers' freedom. For instance, installation of CCTV cameras in classrooms and monitoring teachers' each and every move mentally restricted them from discharging their duties, the teacher added. Even a bit of deviation from what the school administration expected could attract disciplinary action against them, the teacher noted. Not only the teachers, but also the school administration, by keenly noticing the students' activities, imposed strict punishments. 'The school administration by informing parents for even minor mistakes mentally demotivated the students. The school strength which was over 2,300 has now come down to 1,700,' the teacher alleged. Lacking even basic gender sensitivity, the school administration directed all the women teachers to wear coats over their saris when on school campus. This could not be justified as teachers were well aware of what to wear and how to maintain a decorum, the teachers observed. By pressurising the teachers to wear over coats, the school administration had been taking an authoritarian position, they added. This would not only demotivate the teachers, but would also affect their mental health and the eventual loss would be to the students, they said. The school administration replying to the grievances raised by the teachers said it was due to the regulations imposed by the school to discipline them. The CCTV installation in classes and direction to wear coats were for their own welfare, said the administration. 'As it is a boys' school, we wanted the women teachers to maintain a dress code,' they added. With regard to coercion of staff to refuse promotion, they said that the teachers were only instructed about the offers and procedure, and the decision was up to theirs.
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Deported after Pahalgam attack, Pakistani woman to get visitor's visa: MHA tells J&K HC
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has informed the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that it has decided to grant a visitor's visa to Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani woman who was deported from Jammu after the Pahalgam terror attack, prompting the court to dismiss her petition seeking nod to return to her family here. The court, however, stated that the MHA order should not constitute a precedent in any manner. Rashid (62), a Pakistani citizen who married Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed 35 years ago in Jammu, was deported as part of the decision taken by the Indian government to deport Pakistani nationals staying in India in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the home ministry, informed the court that after considerable deliberation and in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, an in-principle decision had been made to grant a visitor visa to Rashid. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal acknowledged this in its order. The bench further noted that Rashid can pursue the two applications moved by her regarding acquiring Indian citizenship as well as a long-term visa. The court recorded the submission of the solicitor general and noted that "once an in-principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly any doubt that, post compliance of the requisite procedures and formalities, the authority would process and accord a visitor's visa to the respondent at the earliest". The court dismissed Rashid's writ petition seeking relief from the deportation, saying that as a natural consequence, the impugned interim order loses its relevance and thus ceases to exist and operate. On July 22, Mehta requested the court to defer the proceedings to enable him to explore whether the respondent could be helped in any manner or if it was still feasible to address her concerns. In response, Rashid's counsel, Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, submitted that she was agreeable to the course suggested by the solicitor general. On June 6, a single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the Central government to "retrieve" Rashid. While passing the order, Justice Bharti observed, 'This court is bearing in mind the background reference that the petitioner was having long-term visa (LTV) status at the relevant point of time, which per se may not have warranted her deportation, but without examining her case in a better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, she came to be forced out.' Rashid was served with a Leave India Notice on April 28 under Sections 3(1), 7(1), and 2(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946, issued by the Criminal Investigation Department, directing her to leave the country by or before April 29. She approached the high court and sought interim relief to stay the operation of the order. However, she was issued an exit permit and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border in Amritsar by the authorities, from where she crossed over to Pakistan. Rashid, a resident of Jammu's Talab Khatikan area, has four children who continue to reside in Jammu and Kashmir. Rashid, daughter of Mohammad Rashid from Namuddin Road in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a 14-day visitor visa to visit Jammu. She continued to stay under an LTV granted by the authorities on an annual basis. During her stay, she revealed that she married an Indian national. "It wasn't disputed either that her LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she had applied for an extension on January 4, 2025. But no such extension was ever accorded," the order noted. Her husband expressed happiness over the decision and thanked the court. 'We are relieved... The entire family was under tension. We were suffering due to the decision (to deport her),' he said.
NDTV
6 hours ago
- NDTV
Home Ministry Allows Visitor Visa For Pakistani Woman Deported After Pahalgam Attack
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has informed the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that it has decided to grant a visitor's visa to Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani woman who was deported from Jammu after the Pahalgam terror attack, prompting the court to dismiss her petition seeking nod to return to her family here. The court, however, stated that the MHA order should not constitute a precedent in any manner. Rashid (62), a Pakistani citizen who married Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed 35 years ago in Jammu, was deported as part of the decision taken by the Indian government to deport Pakistani nationals staying in India in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the home ministry, informed the court that after considerable deliberation and in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, an in-principle decision had been made to grant a visitor visa to Rashid. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal acknowledged this in its order. The bench further noted that Rashid can pursue the two applications moved by her regarding acquiring Indian citizenship as well as a long-term visa. The court recorded the submission of the solicitor general and noted that "once an in-principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly any doubt that, post compliance of the requisite procedures and formalities, the authority would process and accord a visitor's visa to the respondent at the earliest." The court dismissed Rashid's writ petition seeking relief from the deportation, saying that as a natural consequence, the impugned interim order loses its relevance and thus ceases to exist and operate. On July 22, Mehta requested the court to defer the proceedings to enable him to explore whether the respondent could be helped in any manner or if it was still feasible to address her concerns. In response, Rashid's counsel, Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, submitted that she was agreeable to the course suggested by the solicitor general. On June 6, a single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the Central government to "retrieve" Rashid. While passing the order, Justice Bharti observed, "This court is bearing in mind the background reference that the petitioner was having long-term visa (LTV) status at the relevant point of time, which per se may not have warranted her deportation, but without examining her case in a better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, she came to be forced out." Rashid was served with a Leave India Notice on April 28 under Sections 3(1), 7(1), and 2(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946, issued by the Criminal Investigation Department, directing her to leave the country by or before April 29. She approached the high court and sought interim relief to stay the operation of the order. However, she was issued an exit permit and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border in Amritsar by the authorities, from where she crossed over to Pakistan. Rashid, a resident of Jammu's Talab Khatikan area, has four children who continue to reside in Jammu and Kashmir. Rashid, daughter of Mohammad Rashid from Namuddin Road in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a 14-day visitor visa to visit Jammu. She continued to stay under an LTV granted by the authorities on an annual basis. During her stay, she revealed that she married an Indian national. "It wasn't disputed either that her LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she had applied for an extension on January 4, 2025. But no such extension was ever accorded," the order noted. Her husband expressed happiness over the decision and thanked the court. "We are relieved... The entire family was under tension. We were suffering due to the decision (to deport her)," he said.
