'Hindi should be taught from Class 5, not Class 1 in Maharashtra schools': Ajit Pawar
Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar has opposed the move to introduce Hindi as a third language from Class 1 in the schools of the state, and said it should instead be taught from Class 5. NCP chief and deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar (Hindustan Times/File)
Speaking to reporters in Mumbai on Tuesday, Pawar also said students should learn Marathi from Class 1 so that they are able to read and write it well.
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, which triggered a controversy.
The government maintained that Hindi would not be compulsory, but mandated the consent of at least 20 students per grade in a school for studying any Indian language other than Hindi.
Speaking on the issue, Pawar said, "The chief minister convened a meeting on the issue yesterday (Monday). I believe Hindi should not be introduced from Class 1 to 4. It should begin from Class 5. Students should learn Marathi from Class 1 and be able to read and write it fluently."
He added that while no one is against the teaching of any particular language, it is inappropriate to burden young students with an additional language at an early stage.
Following the meeting in Mumbai, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had said a final decision on the three-language formula would be taken only after consultations with all stakeholders, including litterateurs, language experts and political leaders. Meanwhile, actor Sayaji Shinde also voiced his opposition to teaching Hindi from Class 1.
"Students should be allowed to learn Marathi, which is a very rich language. They should become well-versed in Marathi at an early age, and not be burdened with another language. If at all it is to be made compulsory, let it be after Class 5," he said.
Shinde, who has acted in several Marathi, Hindi, Tamil, Telugu and other regional language films, also demanded that the decision on introducing a third language be withdrawn.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How India's chances to host 2030 Commonwealth Games got a boost as Canada's bid hits a snag
The Canadian province of Ontario, which was in the race to host the 2030 Commonwealth Games, has chosen not to pursue the bid further due to cost-related issues. It dealt a blow to the 'United Canada' bid as Ontario was one of the four provinces that had expressed interest in jointly hosting the 2030 edition. The decision seemingly boosts the chances of the Games returning to India after 2010, as Canada was seen as a key competitor for the event that has struggled to find any takers. Apart from India and Canada, Nigeria was the third country that had submitted an Expression of Interest to host the 2030 edition, the Commonwealth Sport had said in a statement back in April. However, as per reports in the Nigerian media, the country's bid — centred around the capital city of Abuja — is yet to 'take off'. Two other unnamed countries were interested, too, the governing body added without revealing details. While Canada and Nigeria are still stitching together a competitive bid, India has raced ahead with the preparations for the 2030 CWG, which the country sees as a 'test event' for the 2036 Olympic Games. Ahmedabad is the frontrunner to host both Games, with some events likely to take place in other cities as well. An Indian delegation comprising ministers and bureaucrats from the Gujarat government, the Union Sports Ministry, and the Indian Olympic Association met top Commonwealth Sport leaders in London on June 7. Following their discussions, it is learnt that the Commonwealth Sport officials will be visiting Ahmedabad in August, days before the August 31 deadline to submit the bid officially. If it happens, it will be the Commonwealth Sport officials' second visit to Ahmedabad after their first trip in late January. Canada was seen as a strong contender not just because of its proven track record of hosting big-ticket events but also due to sentimental reasons. Hamilton, Ontario had hosted the first British Empire Games, as they were called back then, in 1930. The Games' return to the port city in 2030 would have marked the 100th anniversary. The Ontario government's decision not to bid for the CWG came days after the Indian visit. According to the Canadian media, the decision was taken following a 'cost-benefit' analysis. The Hamilton Spectator reported on Wednesday that there was a 'pushback against spending big money on the Games. It further added that to make it less costly, the most recent proposal, which was submitted to the Commonwealth Sport, was to 'hold the event in multiple provinces at the same time to make use of existing facilities and eliminate many costs'. The opening or closing ceremonies, it added, were likely to be held in Hamilton. With Ontario no longer interested in hosting the event, it is unclear whether there will be a 'United Canada' bid for the 2030 CWG. The province of Alberta, too, had earlier withdrawn from the race, citing cost factors. While Canada will now have to return to the drawing board to come up with another feasible proposal, if at all there will be one, the Gujarat government had identified the 2030 CWG as one of the key events to gain hosting experience in the country's bid for the 2036 Olympics. In August, Ahmedabad will host the Commonwealth Weightlifting Championship and then the Asian Swimming Championship in October. The interest from India also comes at a time when the Commonwealth Sport has found few takers to host its flagship event. In 2022, Durban was chosen as the host but the South African city later pulled out citing financial reasons. Birmingham was then named the new host. Similarly, the Australian state of Victoria surrendered the hosting rights after winning the bid for the 2026 CWG. After a Commonwealth-wide hunt, Glasgow stepped up to rescue the Games. However, unlike the previous editions, Glasgow CWG will only be a 10-sport event with a tight cap on the number of athletes to make it affordable.
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What is Zohran Mamdani's net worth? All about Indian-origin New York City Mayoral candidate's earnings, properties
Zohran Mamdani has emerged as the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City by defeating former governor Andrew Cuomo. In 2025, Zohran Mamdani declared his intention to run for mayor of New York City. New York mayoral candidate State Rep. Zohran Mamdani's net worth was mostly made up of his state pay and a small income from his previous musical career.(Getty Images via AFP) According to recent trends, the 33-year-old received 43.5% of the vote, while Cuomo finished in second with 36.3%. Mamdani's net worth was mostly made up of his state pay and a small income from his previous musical career. Mamdani and NYC mayoral election in November With this triumph, Mamdani was able to guarantee his place as the Democratic contender for the NYC mayoral election, which are scheduled to take place on November 4, 2025. Mamdani, the Indian-origin, Uganda-born, New York City-raised, will face incumbent Eric Adams, who became mayor on the Democratic Party line in 2021 but is running for reelection as an independent for a second term after being charged with federal corruption in September 2024 and being pressured to step down. Zohran was born in Kampala, Uganda, and moved to New York as a kid with his mother, the celebrated director Mira Nair, and father, the renowned scholar Mahmood Mamdani. The major factor influencing Mamdani's personal financial impact has been his own job, despite the fact that his well-known family indicates exposure to significant cultural and educational resources. Also Read: Zohran Mamdani's victory over Cuomo sparks outrage among MAGA supporters as 9/11 warning issued: 'Jihadist, dangerous' What is Zohran Mamdani's net worth? Mamdani has served as the representative for Queens' 36th Assembly District since 2020. His most recent 2024 tax returns show that he was paid $131,000 year as a state lawmaker. Additionally, he earned $1,267 in song royalties from his past hip-hop endeavors while going by the name 'Mr. Cardamom.' Following graduation, he tried his hand at rapping and worked on his mother's movie sets. During his brief musical career, he recorded many songs, including Nani and Sidda Mukyaalo. Forbes estimates Mamdani's net worth to be between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 (about Rs. 1.6 crore to Rs. 2.5 crore). After obtaining US citizenship in 2018, he contested for a seat in the New York State Assembly in 2020. He receives $1,42,000 (about ₹ 1.18 crore) annually for the job. He continues to collect modest royalty checks from his previous musical endeavors totaling around $1,267 (roughly ₹ 1.05 lakh) year, according to Music Essentials. It has been 25 years since Mamdani came to the United States. According to official records, he owns four acres of land in Jinja, Uganda, and it costs around $1,50,000 and $2,50,000. If Mamdani win the November election, he would become the youngest NYC Mayor after Hugh John Grant, who was elected at the age of 30 in 1889. He will also create history by becoming the city's first Muslim mayor.
Hindustan Times
44 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How the Emergency changed Indian politics
No other single event in Indian post-independence history has had more dramatic political consequences in the immediate term, and led to deeper structural political shifts in the long term, than the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi exactly fifty years ago. Visitors at an exhibition organised to mark the 50th anniversary of the Emergency imposed in 1975 by then PM Indira Gandhi in New Delhi on June 25. (PTI) The years between 1975 and 1977 altered the citizen-State relationship, created a new political culture, and triggered radically different political alignments. The citizen-State dynamic At a conceptual level, think of how the Indian State was seen for most part since 1950 after the Constitution was promulgated. For citizens, the State was benign, an instrument of justice, a vehicle to protect fundamental rights, a structure for political self-expression of the collective, a democratic and pluralist platform, the culmination of the historic freedom struggle. To be sure, this was not a neat linear story. From the First Amendment that curtailed freedom of expression to the dismissal of elected governments starting from Kerala, from the brutal crackdown on challenges to State authority in the Northeast to the utter deprivation that marked the lives of the majority of citizens, the State didn't always meet the vision of the founders. But it was not until the Emergency that citizens saw the State's brutality and arbitrariness on scale. Suddenly, the Indian State could not be trusted to protect civil liberties; it was instead a threat to civil liberties. The political leadership could not be trusted to play by the rules of the democratic game; instead, the leadership itself could be a threat to the rules of the democratic game. The bureaucracy and judiciary and media could not be trusted to speak for the citizens against the State; these institutions could well turn against the citizens themselves. Public health was not about the well-being of families; instead, it was about recklessly ending the dreams of many to have families at all. The Emergency ended the almost instinctive faith that many citizens had in the State as an instrument of good, by making them realise that the State's character could well turn in an instance and become an instrument of darkness. Indian democracy and the political legitimacy of the Centre took a clear hit. And while it is hard to draw any causal linkage, and this is only speculative, it is worth pondering why was it that within a few years of the Emergency that India saw the most serious set of political-internal security crises simultaneously, from Punjab to Assam to Kashmir. It is also worth pondering why over the decades, the instinctive suspicion of the State and political leadership has only increased. Something did break in the 1970s. And there was no greater rupture than the Emergency. The political culture shift The Emergency also shaped Indian political culture, for good and bad. Indira Gandhi's 'high command' culture was already visible before 1975, but the Emergency marked the high point of centralized and authoritarian rule in India. It changed the incentives for those within the Congress. It was no longer enough to have been a freedom fighter or a Gandhian or even a Nehruvian. Unless one was a Indira sycophant, with complete loyalty to one person and her son, Sanjay, the driver of the Emergency, there was no future in the party. The period also showed how authoritarianism could persist without a major public backlash, especially when dissent was chained. Do note that Indira Gandhi called elections not because of external pressure but her own internal voice and assessment. All of these patterns -- of political parties turning to family fiefdoms, of political leaders centralizing all authority, of political authoritarianism going unchecked — would only grow in subsequent decades in different forms, even if the Emergency itself was not imposed again. And the reason no regime has dared impose an Emergency again is because this also marked the golden period of dissent. Thousands went to prisons. New solidarities were formed. New civil liberties organizations took roots. Gutsy journalists found new ways to communicate news of the demise of democracy to readers. A quiet churn happened beneath the calm. And eventually, the 1977 elections saw the defeat of Indira, the first time that the Congress was defeated since the first election in 1951, and the first time India would get to see a non-Congress coalition formation in power. This too showed something fundamental — and fundamentally heartening — about the resilience of Indian democracy. In a society as large, as diverse, as chaotic, citizens would not accept rule by fiat from the Centre, where order was prioritized at the cost of freedom and justice. Alignments and leadership But the most visible impact of the Emergency was in the nature of political alignments itself and the emergence of a new generation of leaders. Resistance to Indira had brought socialists and the Sangh together in the run-up to the Emergency itself. This was not new in itself, for these ideologically diverse formations had formed coalition governments in 1967. Jayaprakash Narayan's towering leadership was the glue as student movements arose in Bihar and Gujarat. But the Emergency created new bonds between those who were at the forefront of the cultural battles for Hindutva and those who were at the forefront of the social justice battles on the caste and class axis. Time spent together in movements and in prisons helped. For now, they had one common adversary: Indira's Congress. And when the elections were called, splinter formations from the Congress led by Morarji Desai, socialist formations led by Raj Narain and George Fernandes and young Turks such as Chandrashekhar, peasant formations led by Charan Singh, and most importantly perhaps, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh led by Nanaji Deshmukh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani, came together to form the Janata Party to pose a unified challenge to the Congress. The last minute exit of the veteran Dalit leader, Jagjivan Ram, from the Congress infused additional energy in the anti-Indira camp. JP was too old and frail to provide effective everyday guidance but was the moral force behind the formation. For the Jana Sangh in particular to give up its own identity was a major decision given its roots in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, but it also meant getting legitimacy and recognition as a part of the wider opposition and accessing State power. For socialists to accept Jana Sangh colleagues may have been equally difficult, but it also meant access to the RSS's formidable organizational machinery and base that proved to be indispensable. The anti-Emergency struggle and the formation of the Janata revealed something that has persisted in Indian politics. When one force becomes dominant, ideologically disparate formations come together often to oppose it to introduce a balance in the polity. The Janata's surprise win was the biggest electoral surprise in Indian history, leading to Morarji Desai's elevation as the PM. And its biggest achievement was in restoring Indian democracy and constitutionalism. This was a formidable achievement in itself, which is not recognised adequately because of the short-lived nature of the Janata experiment. Internal factionalism and competing ambitions and egos marked the functioning of the party. This was often couched as ideological differences, with a strong push against 'dual membership' of those who had belonged to the Jana Sangh and owed their loyalty to the RSS but also were Janata leaders. Eventually, Indira Gandhi succeeded in playing on these internal rifts, propped up Charan Singh briefly as PM, before pulling the rug and returning to power in the next election. This too has been a recurring phenomena, of coalitions formed against one party unable to sustain positive governance and political programmes and overcome internal squabbles. But in this short period itself, from 1975 to 1977, think of the leaders who emerged. Narendra Modi cut his teeth in anti-Emergency politics. Arun Jaitley was Delhi University Student Union's star president who took on the regime. Lalu Prasad was the young rooted leader from Bihar, as were his friends turned foes, Sushil Modi and Nitish Kumar. Ram Vilas Paswan got elected to the Lok Sabha from Hajipur with a record margin, even as Sharad Yadav came to Parliament from Jabalpur. From DP Tripathi to Subramanian Swamy, leaders from the Left and Right stood up for political liberty and democracy. The fact that these leaders then went on to shape Indian politics in decisive ways and some continue to dominate it is a result of the Emergency. Indira Gandhi, triggered by an adverse judicial verdict and prodded on by her over-ambitious and entitled son, betrayed her party and her father's legacy as she trampled on Indian democracy that fateful night on June 25, 1975. But little would she have known that her midnight proclamation would reshape India's State-citizen relationship, political culture, political alignments and political leadership in such fundamental ways that it continues to define India fifty years later. That is the political legacy of the Emergency.
