Decode Politics: Why ‘Hindi imposition' row is back again in Maharashtra
A Maharashtra government order issued earlier this week has brought back the 'Hindi imposition' conversation in the state.
In April, following a barrage of criticism, the Maharashtra government withdrew its decision to make Hindi the mandatory third language for Classes 1 to 5 in Marathi and Hindi-medium schools under the state board.
In the new Government Resolution (GR) issued on Tuesday, the state government removed the word 'mandatory', but because of restrictive conditions on alternatives to Hindi as a third language, many are claiming this is a 'new push' for Hindi. However, the state government still insists Hindi is just an 'optional' language.
The new GR is a revision of the earlier order that said three languages would be taught from Class 1 in Marathi and English-medium state board schools, with Hindi as the mandatory third language. The established practice for these schools in Maharashtra has been to introduce a third language to students in secondary school or after Class 5.
The order was withdrawn after criticism from political parties and education experts, and an assurance was given that a new resolution would be issued to clarify that Hindi would just be an 'option' as a third language.
The latest GR states, 'Hindi will generally be the third language for classes 1 to 5.' If students wish to 'study any other Indian language instead of Hindi as their third language', they will be permitted to do so if a 'minimum of 20 students from the same class in the same school' express 'interest in learning that particular language'.
If not, the GR says, 'language will be taught through online methods'.
The inclusion of the word 'generally' has sparked fresh criticism. The revised order, according to the critics, fails to provide any options or alternatives to Hindi apart from stating that it has to be an Indian language. They say that there are multiple Indian languages and the state has to clarify what can be taught and define the curriculum.
Educationist Kishore Darak also identified the need for a structured curriculum for third languages. 'Teaching pedagogies for languages are different. The assumption is that those who can teach Marathi can teach Hindi … The script of the two languages is similar but that does not mean no extra effort by children or teachers in terms of learning,' he said.
Teachers have also questioned how the government plans to make arrangements for students when they want to study an alternative language. Some have even raised objections about the need for 20 students per class as a prerequisite to studying another language.
Senior educationist Vasant Kalpande said that 'over 80% government-run schools' in Maharashtra would not be able to meet the criteria, thereby automatically making Hindi the default third language.
'A lot of government-run schools have a total enrollment of less than 20 students in a class. Hindi will then become, by default, the third language. And with no curriculum, no textbooks and no teachers (for other languages), no government-run school will be able to provide an option to Hindi,' Kalpande said.
Girish Samant, the chairman of the Shikshan Mandal Goregaon, which runs a popular Marathi medium school in suburban Mumbai, flagged issues with the direction on online teaching. 'This is very unclear as the government is asking schools to seek online platforms to teach languages alternative to Hindi without providing a curriculum, textbooks or any other support. The main problem stands… The government does not justify how language can be taught online to Class 1 students.'
After the revised GR sparked a heated debate, state school education minister Dada Bhuse issued a clarification on Wednesday evening.
'Marathi will be a compulsory subject in all schools, regardless of the medium of instruction. Strict action will be taken against schools that do not teach Marathi,' Bhuse said, doubling down on the importance given to Marathi.
An official from the school education department said detailed guidelines would be issued soon on alternatives to Hindi.
After the original order was issued in April, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) president Raj Thackeray took the most aggressive stand on the issue, joined by his cousin and Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray. The state Congress, too, joined the regional parties to staunchly oppose the alleged imposition of Hindi in state schools.
The MNS, whose core plank is built around Marathi identity politics, has again strongly criticised the new GR and warned that such a move threatens the cultural and linguistic identity of the state.
'Why is Hindi being forced only in Maharashtra? Are you going to teach Marathi as the third language in Bihar or elsewhere in the country?' Raj Thackeray asked at a press conference on Wednesday. The MNS chief has also written to school principals, advising them against implementing the order.
The Congress targeted the government, saying the latter 'was merely playing with words'. 'This is a part of the RSS's strategy of imposing Hindi on all regions and destroying the regional culture,' alleged Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal.
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has said the three-language formula is as per the recommendations of the New Education Policy (NEP). 'We are backing English but hating Indian languages. This is not appropriate. Indian languages are better than English… Earlier, we had said that the third language should be Hindi. Now we have removed the 'mandatory' clause. Students can learn any other third language, but there should be 20 students in a class. We will provide teachers. We will also provide online teaching,' Fadnavis said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
34 minutes ago
- First Post
Five years since Galwan: The two-front threat looms larger for India
In recent years, China–Pakistan military cooperation has deepened significantly. In response, India has enhanced its preparedness and strategic coordination, even as managing simultaneous threats on two fronts demands careful resource prioritisation and long-term capability building read more It has been five years since India and China's skirmish in the Galwan Valley, giving rise to bitter relations between the two. It was after nearly 45 years, after the Tulung La conflict in the Arunachal Valley in 1975, in which four Indian soldiers were killed in the Chinese ambush, that India and China suffered military casualties at the borders. There was another incident in Sikkim in which the Indian soldiers chased away the Chinese soldiers; however, no casualties were reported on either side. This led to a worsening of the relations between the two Asian giants, leading India to reorient its approach towards its relations with China. India managed to control the situation from a position of strength and refused to be cowed under pressure from China. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD During the night of June 15-16, 2020, Indian and Chinese soldiers engaged themselves in hand-to-hand combat with the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Both sides incurred casualties; India conceded that twenty soldiers died in the combat, and the Chinese acknowledged only four casualties, but sources confirmed 45 deaths on the Chinese side. Over the next eighteen months both the countries increased the number of forces on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and even exchanged shots against each other. This episode was a landmark in India-China relations, and India revised its strategy towards LAC. Indian forces had minimal armed forces present at the LAC earlier; now it was decided that India would maintain at least 50 to 60 thousand troops permanently besides 40 thousand troops on a rotational basis depending upon the climatic conditions and operational requirements. The Indian foreign minister termed it a 'premeditated and planned action' by the PLA to change the status quo on the borders. How have things changed for India after the conflict? How has the Galwan Conflict changed the dynamics between Pakistan and China, and is India prepared for a two-front war? These are the questions that are being asked by the Indian citizens. Have things changed on the India-China borders? Things have eased up, but tensions are still there. The troop numbers have increased, and it has made a qualitative difference in the situation at the borders before the Galwan. The talks have been going on at three levels between India and China. They are: STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 1. Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination (WMCC) These are mainly at the diplomatic level and practical level to manage the borders and for de-escalation of conflicts. As of March 2025, 30 rounds of WMCC have taken place, the last one being in August 2024. 2. Corps Commander Level Talks These are aimed at de-escalation and toning down of conflicts at specific levels along the LAC. There have been 21 commander-level talks between China and India. 3. Special Representative Level Dialogue These are high-level talks between political representatives of both countries and are focused on a long-term boundary settlement. 21 rounds of discussions have been held between the two countries. In terms of securing the borders, India undertook significant military and strategic reforms to bolster its security posture along the China border. India is now in a position to rapidly reinforce its troop presence at the borders and has established robust defensive positions besides maintaining a regular deployment of acclimatised troops for high-altitude deployment, giving it an advantage over China. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India has also initiated what it terms the 'Cold Start' doctrine for quick mobilisation and created multiple mountain strike corps focused on the Indo-Tibetan borders to promptly respond to these threats in the border regions. In terms of deployment of military equipment, Indigenous artillery, armoured vehicles, and heavy tanks (like T-90 and T-72) were deployed. The Indian Air Force upgraded and expanded air bases near the border, improving logistics and strike capabilities. Diplomatic messages going across the borders have also been very strong. India increased diplomatic engagement, sought international support, and deepened strategic partnerships, notably with the US and the Quad, signalling a readiness to counterbalance China's assertiveness. Has the Galwan Crisis brought India and Pakistan together? The Galwan crisis has proved to a large extent the Kautilyan theory that an enemy's enemy can be a good friend. The collaboration between Chinese and Pakistani militaries has increased. This is not only because of the crisis in the Galwan Valley but also because there have been ongoing investments in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), in which China has invested approximately $50 billion, linking China to the Gwadar port in the Balochistan province of Pakistan. This route flows via Indian territory in the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD There is a strategic alignment between China and Pakistan and a sort of 'collusive threat' from both towards India; this was seen partly in the recent escalations between India and Pakistan over the Pahalgam terrorist attacks. Pakistan used large numbers of Air Force and military hardware against Indian armed forces which are of Chinese origin. China and Pakistan are also colluding economically, politically and diplomatically with each other at a deeper level and with a greater understanding. Is India prepared for a two-front war? India has made significant progress in its military preparedness, but challenges remain on the two-front war on the question of a hypothetical conflict between India and its northern and western neighbours. India has dwelt upon this at a military level and is acutely aware of this. In January 2020 Chief of Army Staff MM Narvane was confronted with this question, and later Chief of Defence Staff Bipin Rawat also acknowledged this hypothetical situation. Even the Chinese have similar fears. As it has India on one side and other adversaries in the Indo-Pacific and the China seas on the other. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In terms of India, we need to address this in the right earnest. In view of increasingly powerful and assertive China, Indian armed forces strategy and preparedness need a complete overhaul. Military observers feel that Indian armed forces' preparedness is constrained and its resources overstretched, and the conversion of some strike corps for China-facing roles has reduced offensive power against Pakistan. India's strategy involves deterring Pakistan with credible military threats, as observed in Operation Sindoor, while seeking to diplomatically avoid escalation with China, recognising that fighting on both fronts simultaneously would strain resources and in the meantime keep preparing itself for such operational readiness. Conclusion Since the 2020 Galwan crisis, India has made incremental security improvements through diplomatic agreements and infrastructure development, yet significant challenges remain. The Pakistan-China strategic partnership has deepened considerably, with China providing substantial military assistance to Pakistan. While recent border agreements with China show promise for tension reduction, India needs to be prepared for a potential two-front war. The sustained deployment of over 100,000 troops along contested borders reflects ongoing security concerns. Despite diplomatic progress, India must continue strengthening its military capabilities and border infrastructure to effectively counter coordinated threats from both Pakistan and China in an increasingly complex regional security environment. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Amitabh Singh teaches at the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
The Wire
36 minutes ago
- The Wire
India Did Go to the G7, But It is Still Alarmingly Isolated in the World
Now that the G7 summit is done and dusted, we may try to assess whether it has helped India break its disastrous isolation that Operation Sindoor revealed. , prime minister Narendra Modi did get a last-minute invitation to join the G7, but not as a participant – only as an observer. There was jubilation among his lesser-informed fans, fanned also by his multi-million rupee IT cells and the enthralled majority in Indian media. The narrative was that he is too important not to be invited and that India is not isolated, or never was. It is, was and continues to remain the Vishwaguru. Facts, unfortunately, speak otherwise and the drift is just too stark, even for jaundiced eyes to miss. History will surely contrast India's current isolation with the post-colonial decades (1940s to 1960s), when Jawaharlal Nehru and India strode like a colossus among the newly liberated nations. Her draconian Emergency notwithstanding, Indira Gandhi will never be forgotten for giving India its finest hour in 1971 by dismembering Pakistan and forcing 93,000 troops to surrender in Dhaka. These are the stuff of legends – however much we dispute, denigrate or deny. The present 'hyphenation' of India with Pakistan, an almost failed state, is a deliberate insult inflicted on Modi's India to cut to a realistic size and to taunt a drum-beaten narrative that we are almost a superpower. True, India's self respect was salvaged when PM Modi was invited by the new Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney – of Harvard and Oxford, former Governor of the Bank of Canada and then of England, overrode objections from cantankerous Sikh separatists. But to what effect? America, the very fulcrum of G7, disappeared from the scene after Trump gave just a sneering glance and left – to avoid the overtures of the European heads, keen to catch his ear, to drill some sense. Not only could Modi not hug his dear Donald for photo ops, but he had to gulp the ignominy of watching the big man wine and dine his bête noire, the dreadful de facto ruler of Pakistan, Field Marshal Asim Munir. This lunch may have been offered to distance him from Iran, but now that the wily soldier has declared publicly that Trump must get the Nobel Prize for peace, the blonde man is just swooning. All of Modi's efforts to woo him with delirious Indian crowds screaming ' Abki baar, ' at Houston's 'Howdy, Modi' bash has gone down the drain. The bells have been clanging quite cacophonously for India – when, after hyphenating and equating Pak with India, the west-dominated the UN Security Council went a step forward to torpedo India's righteous indignation at Pakistan sponsored terrorism that killed 26 innocents at Pahalgam. India's screams notwithstanding, the UN Security Council declared Munir's Pakistan to be the vice chair of the committee to combat terrorism. "Friend" Russia looked on, with a smirk, as India's recent track record of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds backfired. It hurts all of us and more tragic is the fact that even after two full months, India could neither produce evidence before the international community. Nor could it enforce 'accountability at the highest levels' for the "intelligence failure" at Pahalgam that India's former Army chief, General Shankar Roychowdhury, had openly declared and . The UN Security Council also appointed Pakistan as chair of the Taliban sanctions committee. This is not only ironic, but a repayment with compound interest. In fact, Human Rights Watch, an international organisation that 'new' India reviles for its constant criticism of India's track record over the last 11 years, had boldly recorded Pakistani involvement with the Taliban, long ago. It said: 'Pakistan's army and intelligence services, principally the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), contribute to making the Taliban a highly effective military force'. But, since then, much water has flowed down the Indus, on which India has no tap, despite our current bluster to stop water. We chose not to hear these bells and blame it all on the Trump family's commercial interest in World Liberty Financial's new deal with Pakistan – to make it 'the crypto capital of South Asia" and a "global leader in the digital finance revolution." Back to our theme that India is completely isolated, especially after Operation Sindoor, we sifted through every phrase uttered at the pined-for G7 summit but could find not a word of support for India's justified war on terror. Even the Pahalgam attack was taken up by G7 only after India launched its operation against Pakistan. On the third day of the furious battle of aircrafts, missiles and drones (with no boots on the ground), the G7 did wake to 'strongly condemn the egregious terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22' without pointing fingers. But G7's chief focus was to 'urge maximum restraint from both India and Pakistan' (note how both are equated) and to 'call for immediate de-escalation and …engage in direct dialogue towards a peaceful outcome.' This is when the calculated blunderbuss Trump walked in to claim he pulled apart the two fighting children. To drive home USA's infatuation with Pakistan, the US Central Command chief General Michael Kurilla said that America appreciates Munir's cooperation against the Islamic State Khorasan Province (IS‑KP). At the G7 Summit, nations waited for Trump to ramp up pressure on Russia and the Group was ready to lower the price cap on Russian oil from $ 60 to $ 45 dollars per barrel. This would drastically decrease Russia's oil revenues that financed its war in Ukraine. Not only did Trump veto the proposal (rewarding Putin) but he expressed his undisguised annoyance at G7 for dropping Russia from the original G8. Those Indian GDP enthusiasts who swear that high GDP means world power may note that Russia figures nowhere in the list of top 10 GDP countries. These consist of the G7 ones and China, India and Brazil. So, India's fourth GDP rank counts for so little in the Game of Thrones. Salt on wounds do not seem to stop as Trump is even reported to have suggested inclusion of China into a new G9. Wasn't he at Xi Jinping's throat – until the latter kicked his anatomy where it hurts the most? India's foreign office must surely have noted Trump's penchant for kissing those who behave the worst. Remember how passionately he had wooed the terribly unreliable Kim Jongun of North Korea? But not even mentioning India to expand it to G 10 is a diabolical outrage, meant to wake us up to play rugger the way he does. Incidentally, this G7 summit was among the rarest – from which no joint communique could be issued – so fragmented are the big boys. It is time for India to assiduously befriend just two of the European four and try to strengthen positive relations with Japan to the next level. If China and Türkiye can stand rock-like behind Pakistan, India can not be so hopelessly isolated that not one major country comes out boldly, as an all-weather friend. Well, PM Modi did get a day's rest in Canada when the leaders of G7 huddled together, without the other 'invitees'. He figured not in the actual G7 photo, but in that of the extended group – standing somewhere on the second row, looking lost as others were busy networking. It goes, however, to a dignified, erudite Canadian PM's credit that he kept the few handful of Sikh agitators at bay and took positive steps to normalise relations with India. And, surely, PM Modi must have held bilateral talks with most – and one sincerely hopes that they begin to matter. After all, his visit to a record total of 74 countries so far could not persuade even one country– even Guyana or Fiji or Papua New Guinea would do, to begin with – to come out and say that they condemn Pakistan's terrorists and support India's retaliation. Also read: Rousing Rhetoric for Diaspora, Tourist Spot Visits, Courting Domestic Voter Base: What MPs Did Abroad The hyper-publicised seven 'all party' delegations are back home after visiting 32 countries. My former colleagues in parliament must all be tired. But the 31 political leaders from the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) must now be happy that Modi has finally cast his benevolent gaze at them – after excluding most, for years together, from either importance or power. The 20 politicians from 'other parties' are also grateful for this unique world tour and one of them weaponised it against the detractors in his party. Fine, but it is doubtful if even one of the 32 countries visited would stand up for India. But politics is politics and neither performance nor results matter – something else does. That's why I left it. We have taken the PM and his prickly, ultra-pontificating foreign minister to task in the earlier piece for landing us in such a friendless world. But we also have to admit that there is surely a strong malicious tinge in this west's disaffirmation of India's indisputable economic elevation. India's manufactured superpower narrative is also hot air, because economic growth is only one factor. History shows that no nation has ever been conferred a place on the high table without facing initial scorn, condescension and trial by fire. England, for instance, was just pooh-poohed as a nation of shopkeepers until Poseidon (or Varun) intervened with unruly storms in 1588, for Francis Drake to defeat the invincible Spanish Armada. But, England continued to face ridicule from the continental powers that dominated land warfare and its conquests in India and elsewhere attributed to a cocktail of fluke and bribery. It was only after Wellington managed to defeat Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, with dollops of timely assistance from Field Marshal Blucher and his merciless Prussian cavalry that England mattered. If we look intently at each one of the other nations of G7, we will understand how much blood and gore they have gone through in the past centuries. In fact, the dropped-out eighth nation, Russia, alone has witnessed more death and devastation than any other country. What is more relevant is that the entire population of these nations was involved and every village lost her sons. There was, therefore, no time for pampered citizens to indulge in warmongering from air-conditioned homes. Those mercenary TV anchors who won imaginary victories in Pakistan (and their counterparts there) have brought shame to the profession and are now a laughing stock among informed global citizens. India's isolation is a current reality and while we break out of it with all we have in us, we must also realise that 'demeaning an upstart' is left-handed recognition. The rest of the nation's journey up is long, perilous and, hopefully, less violent. Jawhar Sircar is a former Rajya Sabha MP of the Trinamool Congress. He was earlier Secretary, Government of India, and CEO of Prasar Bharati.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
English 'empowering' not 'shameful', must be taught to children: Rahul Gandhi
English is "empowering" not "shameful" and must be taught to every child, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said on Friday and alleged that the BJP-RSS don't want poor children to learn this language because they don't want them to ask questions and attain equality. Gandhi's comments came a day after Home Minister Amit Shah 's reported remarks on English. In a post in Hindi on X, Gandhi said, "English is not a dam, it is a bridge. English is not shameful, it is empowering. English is not a chain, it is a tool to break the chains." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Hunde Expertin deckt auf: Diese stille Infektion ist Grund für Maulgeruch und Sabbern Gesunde Haustiere Mehr erfahren Undo "The BJP-RSS don't want poor kids of India to learn English - because they don't want you to ask questions, move ahead, and attain equality," the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha said. In today's world, English is as important as one's mother tongue because it will provide employment and boost one's confidence, Gandhi said. Live Events "Every language of India has soul, culture, knowledge. We have to cherish them, and at the same time teach English to every child. This is the path to an India that competes with the world, that gives every child an equal opportunity," the former Congress president said.
