Marathi language being 'insulted': Raut on govt meetings over 3-language policy
Amid a row over the three-language formula, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut on Tuesday (June 23, 2025) claimed the Maharashtra government's move to hold a series of meetings on the issue was an "insult" to Marathi language.
Talking to reporters, Mr. Raut also questioned the "silence" of prominent Marathi literary figures and celebrities, and claimed many of them were not vocal on the issue due to their association with the government.
He also said children of several Cabinet Ministers and literary personalities studied in English-medium schools, hence they have no moral right to speak about conserving the Marathi language.
The state government last week issued an amended order, stating Hindi will generally be taught as the third language to students in Marathi and English medium schools from Classes 1 to 5, leading to a controversy.
The government had maintained that Hindi would not be compulsory, but mandated consent of at least 20 students per grade in a school for studying any Indian language other than Hindi.
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis held a meeting on Monday (June 23, 2025) night and said a final decision on the three-language formula will be taken only after consultations with all stakeholders, including litterateurs, language experts and political leaders.
Mr. Raut criticised the government over its policy and meetings over the issue.
"There is no need to force the learning of Hindi in Maharashtra. Why is CM Devendra Fadnavis insisting on it? He is doing something else under this guise," the Sena (UBT) leader claimed.
"Did the CM and DCM ever hold meetings for the promotion of Marathi? Fadnavis and Shinde are enemies of Maharashtra," he alleged.
The Rajya Sabha member further targeted Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde over the row.
"Hindi is not mandatory in Gujarat. Does Dy CM Eknath Shinde have the courage to ask the BJP why Hindi is not being forced there like in Maharashtra?" he asked.
On the recent deliberations by the government regarding the three-language policy, Raut claimed these meetings have no meaning.
"All this government needs to do is issue an order and withdraw the decision. He (referring to Shinde) is only spoiling the atmosphere. Holding such meetings again and again is an insult to the Marathi language," he claimed.
Asked about the state government's decision to consult literary figures, Raut dismissed the move.
"There is no need to meet literary figures. Does Fadnavis even know 10 names of prominent literary personalities from Maharashtra? Can Shinde name even five?" he asked.
Taking a dig at Marathi celebrities, Raut said actor Prakash Raj from the South has taken a clear stand against the imposition of Hindi under the three-language policy.
"Where is Nana Patekar? Where is Prashant Damle? Where is Madhuri Dixit? Where are our Marathi cricketers? Marathi people have supported and celebrated their achievements, but when it comes to the Marathi language being attacked, they remain silent," he said.
Mr. Raut claimed many renowned literary personalities have been silenced due to their associations with the government.
"Don't lecture us about literary figures. Ninety per cent of them have received awards and felicitations and have been kept indebted by the government," Mr. Raut said.
Taking aim at the ruling party's leadership, Raut questioned their commitment to the Marathi language.
"My own children studied in Marathi-medium schools. But most cabinet ministers and literary figures have admitted their children in English-medium schools. They have no moral right to speak about conserving the Marathi language," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
38 minutes ago
- The Print
JP wasn't a saviour of Constitution. He called Mao his guru
Second, a look at the events prior to the declaration of the Emergency reveals an opposite scenario, one that can be verified from press records. It was the anti-Indira agitators, led by Jayaprakash (JP) Narayan, who brazenly and repeatedly acted against the Constitution. This involved insulting MLAs, forcing them to resign, instigating police and security forces to disobey, forcibly stopping students from going to schools and colleges, beating up government officials, calling for and forming 'parallel government' and 'parallel Assembly', forbidding people from paying taxes, and burning newspaper offices. What were these actions if not arrogant violations of the law and Constitution? First, the action was perfectly constitutional. It was quickly proved, too, both legally and politically. Gandhi's opponents, after they came to power in 1977, could not prosecute her on such a count. Instead, they found Article 352 (1) as the 'culprit', hence its amendment in 1978. So, charging Gandhi as the 'murderer' of the Constitution is a deliberate falsehood. To call the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 25 June 1975 a 'murder' of the Constitution is quite misleading. Therefore, the Emergency imposed to stop it all was quite in order, not only in letter but also in spirit. Article 352 (1) of the Constitution said that in case of 'internal disturbance', the President may declare a state of Emergency. Weren't the JP movement's actions, listed above, a case of internal disturbance? Of course, many initiatives of the government, especially the forced sterilisation, bred resentment. Otherwise, the people's response was mixed. Rather, many things during the Emergency were appreciated, including punctuality in government offices, full attendance in every office, fear among corrupt employees, reduction in bribery, and trains running on time. Only the pre-censorship of the press and incessant government propaganda were not popular. So, let's not glorify JP as a democratic icon unthinkingly. Fifty years later, we need to look at the JP movement critically, too. Who was truly anti-Constitution? Before the imposition of the Emergency, most anti-Constitution activities were done by anti-Indira agitators. JP gave a public call in Bihar to surround the MLAs and force them to resign. He said that people can even 'slap' the MLAs. The Bihar MLAs were elected in 1972 for a term of five years. But in 1974, JP was asking students to force them to resign. The students averse to the boycott were beaten up. In such an incident, a student, Brinda Prasad, was killed in Nalanda. Efforts were also made to forcibly close shops, offices, and traffic. The Patna office of Searchlight, a leading English newspaper of the state, was burned down. Pro-Indira parties such as the CPI were threatened. The Governor was also prevented from going to the Bihar Assembly to deliver his address. In fact, public anger started brewing over such violence and coercion by the JP movement. The situation changed only after the imposition of the Emergency and the arrest of Opposition leaders. But before this, JP compared his anarchist movement to 'the revolution of 1942'. It is well-known that in 1942, an attempt was made to end British rule by violence and destruction. So JP himself indicated that he and his supporters were to remove the Congress from office by creating mass disorder with violence. The RSS and the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (the older avatar of the BJP) were with JP in the agitation, thus disrespecting the Constitution. 'When these men are so shameless, what is left for the people to do but to go to their houses and bring them out—without touching any member of their families—and tell them that they have to go,' JP said at a public rally in Patna on 6 October 1974. What about the constitutional rights of the MLAs? What were their individual crimes? None. JP's calls were similar to what fascists did in Italy a few decades earlier. The mentality of the JP agitators was hardly more than anti-Indira fanaticism. Opposition leaders just wanted to replace Congress leaders with themselves. And it did happen after the Emergency was lifted and Gandhi voluntarily called for the general elections. But her opponents had little ability to run even a routine government, and fell apart in two years. The people reinstated Gandhi less than three years after the Emergency. If the Emergency was truly the horror it is made out to be, this would not have happened. Why undermine this vital fact today? Also read: English is now code for 'Khan Market Gang'. BJP is fighting a phantom enemy Guru Mao The leaders emerging from the JP movement showed nothing more than a lust for office. During 1974-75, JP, the RSS, and the CPM were only trying to use each other to gain power. There was nothing glorious or exemplary in their effort. And JP's ideals were anything but in accordance with the Constitution. The leader gave the call of 'total revolution', which was ipso facto against the Constitution. The very meaning of revolution is to forcefully end an existing system, destroying that which the current Constitution maintains. All revolutions in the world—the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Khomeini Revolution—destroyed the existing systems in their respective countries. So, JP's very call for 'revolution' was against the Constitution. If that was not enough, he mentioned Mao as his 'Guru', saying that 'only a revolutionary knows another revolutionary'. (Patriot, 27 October 1974). JP was calling himself a disciple of Mao, the very leader whose ugly Cultural Revolution caused unprecedented destruction in China. It is difficult, therefore, to find a more anti-Constitution stance than JP's. The terrible import of his statement can be better understood by the fact that a few years before, JP was 'toying with the idea of military dictatorship in India'. (Indian Express, 8 May 1967). He was of the view that in case of a situation of political instability in the country (a power vacuum was felt in many states after the defeat of the Congress), the army could take over. This was a sort of provocation by JP to the army. Senior CPM leaders AK Gopalan and Basavapunnaiah had warned JP against the idea, since they thought that it amounted to 'patronising flattery of our armed forces and utter contempt of the people'. (SS Khera, India's Defence Problem, 1968, Orient Longmans, p 81). That such statements were noted by Khera, a former Secretary of Defence, indicates the gravity of JP's observations. During his agitation, JP tried to provoke the police and paramilitary forces. A point Gandhi mentioned in her address to the country on 25 June 1975. In his speech at the Gandhi Maidan, Patna on 5 June 1974, JP attempted to foment discontent in the police, and asked paramilitary forces to refuse 'open fire'. Despite his impatience to remove the Bihar government, JP had no clear plan after the victory of his movement. And the less said about his directionless followers, the better. In fact, JP had been thinking about a 'party-less democracy' for a long time. In 1974, too, he opined that his 'Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti' (student struggle committees) could replace political parties and get candidates fielded directly by the public, under the samiti folks' guidance. But when asked, earlier, if there was any example of his party-less democracy, JP responded with an idea of Pakistani dictator Field Marshal Ayub Khan. Now, what JP meant by his movement being 'a second 1942' and 'moving toward a new revolution' is anybody's guess. All that JP's words and actions reveal is a contempt for the Constitution. Or, as the present BJP leadership would call it, 'murdering' the Constitution. In the 1970s, it was JP and his allies, including RSS-Jan Sangh, committing this murder, not Gandhi and her Congress. Take another example, when JP said that 'the student and mass movement in Bihar is ready for a decisive offensive from 2 October 1974'. For what? For the forced removal of the elected state government in Bihar. That was the core of his movement: a complete disregard for constitutional mandates. In such circumstances, it would have been natural for any ruler to protect the constitutional system from such revolutionaries. Indira Gandhi undertook a perfectly constitutional step by imposing the Emergency; the atrocities during the period are a different matter. It is wrong to call the proclamation of the Emergency a 'murder of the Constitution' and to make it a state commemoration. It may mislead the new generation and create hate among political activists of different orientations. If anything, the act amounts to partisan indoctrination, quite against the spirit of the Constitution. Shankar Sharan is a columnist and professor of political science. He tweets @hesivh. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Operation Sindhu: IAF brings home 268 Indian nationals from Israel
New Delhi: The Indian Air Force (IAF) on Tuesday brought back 286 Indian nationals, who were residing in Israel, from Sharm-El-Sheikh, Egypt, bringing the total number of citizens coming home from Israel to 594. Union Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs L. Murugan welcomed the Indian nationals upon their arrival in New Delhi. This is the second IAF flight bringing back the Indians from Israel. Earlier in the day, an IAF flight carrying 165 Indians had arrived in the National Capital. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) took to X and posted, "268 Indian nationals who returned in the third flight from Israel were received by MoS L. Murugan. The IAF C-17 flight from Sharm-El-Sheikh, Egypt, landed in Delhi at 1100 hrs on June 24. 594 Indians have returned so far from Israel as part of Operation Sindhu." The IAF joined in the operations with its C-17 aircraft to evacuate the Indian nationals and the citizens of friendly nations, including Nepal and Sri Lanka, from war-hit Israel and bring them back home to safety. Earlier in the day, before the IAF aircraft landed in India, the MEA announced that the Israel leg of Operation Sindhu started on Monday, June 23, via Jordan, marking its first successful repatriation flight, with 161 citizens landing in New Delhi from Amman on Tuesday morning. "We are closely monitoring the situation and are committed to providing all possible and necessary assistance to our citizens in Iran and Israel. Under Operation Sindhu, all the nationals are arriving safely," the MoS added. Meanwhile, a similar evacuation process continued in Iran, and so far, according to the MEA, 2295 Indian nationals have been brought back home. The Government of India has launched Operation Sindhu, a strategic evacuation initiative to repatriate Indian nationals stranded in both countries.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
India has two options: Share Indus water fairly or we'll take all six rivers, says Bilawal Bhutto
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has warned India against suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, deeming it an illegal act. He asserted that Pakistan would retaliate if its water rights were violated, even suggesting potential military action. He also advocated for renewed dialogue and counterterrorism cooperation, while accusing India of targeting Pakistan on international platforms and politicizing terrorism issues. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads No Legal Basis for Suspension, Says Bhutto Urges Resumption of Dialogue and Anti-Terror Cooperation Accuses India of Targeting Pakistan on Global Platforms Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Indus Waters Treaty: A Rare Surviving Accord Popular in India Not the first time Bhutto has threatened India Former Pakistan foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari issued a strong warning to India on Monday over its suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), stating that Pakistan would not remain passive if its water rights were infringed. Speaking during Pakistan's National Assembly budget session, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) chairman called India's decision 'illegal and provocative.''India has two options: share water fairly, or we will take it from all six rivers,' Bilawal said, referring to India's announcement to suspend the 1960 treaty following the April 23 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan-based maintained that the treaty does not permit unilateral withdrawal. 'India's claim that the treaty is in abeyance has no legal basis. According to the UN Charter, cutting off water is a form of aggression,' he said, adding that India's course of action could risk open conflict. 'We do not want war, but if water is used as a weapon, Pakistan will be forced to act — and we are in a position to defeat India just as we have before,' he former foreign minister also urged the resumption of dialogue and counterterrorism cooperation . He argued that India's politicisation of terrorism issues had hindered regional peace. 'Without engagement, violence will only increase,' he further accused India of misusing international forums to target Pakistan, referencing India's lobbying efforts during Pakistan's removal from the FATF grey list. He criticised what he described as 'PM Modi's new normal,' where terrorist incidents are followed by immediate threats. 'We suffer more attacks than India — many linked to Indian funding. Should we respond in kind?' he concluded by stressing that sustainable peace in South Asia requires dialogue and mutual trust. The IWT, signed in 1960, allocates water from six rivers between India and Pakistan. India controls the eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas and Sutlej – while Pakistan has rights over the western rivers – Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.'The Indus is ours and will remain ours - either our water will flow through it, or their blood,' former foreign minister was quoted saying by Pakistani media few days after India put the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance in response to the Pahalgam massacre.(With inputs from TOI)
