top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Congress ditched us first: Sunil Tatkare

Mumbai: In a significant escalation of the ongoing friction within Maharashtra’s political landscape, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) state unit chief Sunil Tatkare has squarely blamed the Congress party for the disintegration of the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance. In a candid interview with a Marathi television news channel, Tatkare asserted that the Congress was the first to "ditch" its partners, a move he claims fundamentally broke the trust required to sustain the coalition and...

Congress ditched us first: Sunil Tatkare

Mumbai: In a significant escalation of the ongoing friction within Maharashtra’s political landscape, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) state unit chief Sunil Tatkare has squarely blamed the Congress party for the disintegration of the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance. In a candid interview with a Marathi television news channel, Tatkare asserted that the Congress was the first to "ditch" its partners, a move he claims fundamentally broke the trust required to sustain the coalition and forced the NCP to reconsider its political future. Tatkare’s revelations come at a fragile moment for the NCP, which is still reeling from the sudden accidental death of Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar in late January 2026. The tragedy has sparked intense speculation about a potential "Ghar Wapsi" or reunion between the rival NCP factions. However, Tatkare has emerged as a lightning rod for criticism from the Sharad Pawar-led NCP (NCP-SP), with leaders like Shashikant Shinde and Rohit Pawar accusing him of being a "blockade" acting at the behest of the BJP to prevent the party from coming back together. Addressing these allegations, Tatkare defended the party’s decision to remain aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under the Mahayuti banner. “The BJP and the top leadership of NDA have given us a trust and the clarity that they would take us along ahead. We have even worked as part of the UPA earlier. I was the state president of the party even back then. We have closely experienced – and even suffered - the ill treatment mated to the allies there. We have also observed the BJP’s conduct since 2014,” Tatkare said while explain what went behind his party’s decision to go along with the BJP. While elaborating on the specific incidents that led to the beginning of the end, Tatkare gave a specific anecdote from the seat sharing talks with the Congress. “I was the state party chief and we were in seat sharing talks with Prithviraj Chavan representing the Congress. We wanted some seats exchanged. We were asked to furnish the list. Despite my suspicion and hence opposition, we shared the list. My nightmares came true. The Congress declared their candidates on all the seats. That was the first fissure within the MVA,” Tatkare said. He noted that unlike their experience with the Congress, the BJP has consistently followed "alliance conduct" and treated its partners with cordiality. He dismissed the reunification rumours as baseless, emphasising that the party is committed to carrying forward the ideology and political stand established by the late Ajit Pawar.

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page