top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Sena minister fueled UBT narrative

Mumbai: Shiv Sena Minister Sanjay Shirsat has inadvertently fueled opposition propaganda. While reacting to an editorial in Shiv Sena (UBT) mouthpiece Saamana on Saturday he suggested that his party and the BJP could contest the 2029 elections separately. The statement strengthens the UBT’s ongoing narrative that the BJP plans to sideline its current alliance partners. Shirsat essentially validated these opposition speculations instead of firmly dismissing them. The Saamana editorial...

Sena minister fueled UBT narrative

Mumbai: Shiv Sena Minister Sanjay Shirsat has inadvertently fueled opposition propaganda. While reacting to an editorial in Shiv Sena (UBT) mouthpiece Saamana on Saturday he suggested that his party and the BJP could contest the 2029 elections separately. The statement strengthens the UBT’s ongoing narrative that the BJP plans to sideline its current alliance partners. Shirsat essentially validated these opposition speculations instead of firmly dismissing them. The Saamana editorial specifically named Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena and Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar’s NCP and alleged a grand BJP strategy to absorb the NCP completely. It also hinted that Shinde faction legislators might eventually be pushed to join the BJP. Shirsat walked right into this political trap. He responded to the explosive claims by defending the idea of fighting elections independently rather than projecting alliance unity. He stated that every party has the right to strengthen its own organization. He explicitly noted that no political bond forces allies to stay together permanently. He even reminded the public of past instances where the BJP and Sena broke ties to fight alone. The Saamana editorial claimed state leaders are obsessed with political realignments while ignoring real governance. It highlighted unaddressed public issues concerning farmers, widows, and persons with disabilities. The BJP notably maintained its silence on these allegations. Political observers point out that the historical relationship between the BJP and the undivided Sena was always marked by shifting loyalties and seat-sharing disputes. Shirsat’s latest remarks now serve to highlight the fragile and fluid nature of the current state coalition.

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