top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

Power struggle in NCP intensifies

Mumbai: The Zero FIR lodged in Bengaluru by NCP (SP) leader Rohit Pawar has become the news flashpoint for a larger battle over the party’s future, exposing deep divisions within the Pawar family and the Nationalist Congress Party. Rohit’s accusations against state president Sunil Tatkare and working president Praful Patel, Tatkare’s sharp counterattack, and DCM Sunetra Pawar’s intervention have laid bare a bitter struggle for control in the aftermath of Ajit Pawar’s death. Chief Minister...

Power struggle in NCP intensifies

Mumbai: The Zero FIR lodged in Bengaluru by NCP (SP) leader Rohit Pawar has become the news flashpoint for a larger battle over the party’s future, exposing deep divisions within the Pawar family and the Nationalist Congress Party. Rohit’s accusations against state president Sunil Tatkare and working president Praful Patel, Tatkare’s sharp counterattack, and DCM Sunetra Pawar’s intervention have laid bare a bitter struggle for control in the aftermath of Ajit Pawar’s death. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, meanwhile, dismissed the FIR as politically motivated, calling it “an attempt by the Karnataka government to malign Maharashtra’s image.” The controversy began on Tuesday when Rohit Pawar filed a Zero FIR in Bengaluru, alleging irregularities and conspiracies within the party. Zero FIRs are typically registered when victims cannot reach the jurisdictional police station but want immediate action. Rohit today followed up with a scathing attack on Tatkare and Patel, accusing them of trying to hijack the party after Ajit Pawar’s demise. He claimed the two leaders had written to the Election Commission earlier this year, seeking to vest sweeping powers in Patel as working president, sidelining the Pawar family’s leadership. Baseless Charges Tatkare hit back strongly, dismissing Rohit’s charges as baseless and accusing him of attempting to seize control of the party himself. In a veiled warning, Tatkare said, “We have detailed information of what happened after post-mortem in Baramati hospital. Stop the nonsense else we too have many things to speak about.” His remarks suggested that the feud was not only political but also deeply personal, rooted in the Pawar family’s legacy in Baramati. Amid the escalating war of words, Ajit Pawar’s widow, Sunetra Pawar, stepped in to assert her authority. Recognised as the NCP’s national president, she wrote to the Election Commission asking it to disregard any correspondence from Patel and Tatkare. Her intervention underscored the Pawar family’s determination to retain control of the party and prevent parallel claims of leadership. The issue quickly spilled into the Maharashtra legislature, where CM Fadnavis addressed the controversy. He explained that Zero FIRs are meant to help victims register complaints when they cannot reach the local police station, but insisted that the FIR in this case was politically motivated. “This is the Karnataka state government’s attempt to malign Maharashtra’s image,” Fadnavis said.

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