Chennai: At a time when states including Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra and West Bengal are up against the three-language policy, Prime Minister Narendra Modi...
The UP CM had said that DMK was trying to divide the country on the basis of region & language. Stalin posted on X that Yogi’s comments were ‘political black comedy at its darkest’.
Amid Tamil Nadu-Centre row over NEP's three-language formula, the Union Education Ministry presented state-wise data in Parliament, responding to a query by DMK MP Kanimozhi.
The 3-language formula envisaged under NEP 2020 recommends students learn 3 languages, at least 2 of which must be native to India. Formula applies to govt as well as pvt schools.
The DMK’s opposition to three-language policy is a classic case of party over nation. Perhaps it is time for the party to take pride in Kathak as we north Indians do in Bharatanatyam.
The Joint Action Committee that Stalin has proposed isn’t just symbolic. It could become a rallying point for a larger North Vs South political showdown over delimitation.
After education minister Dharmendra Pradhan said Samagra Shiksha funds would not be released to TN until it aligns with NEP, CM Stalin asserted Centre cannot indulge in ‘blackmail’.
In tactical terms, the shirtless protest was worse than a self-goal. Suddenly, the fiascos of the AI Summit were forgotten, and the Youth Congress’s disruption became the issue.
IAF is fine with accepting the aircraft with 'must-haves', even if some other steps remain pending, which may take at least another year, it is learnt.
Let us be a bit braver here.
Bharatiya languages coexisted for centuries, never saw feuds like this.
Then, two things happened:
(1) Urdu was born as a direct consequence of Rasulullah (SAWS)’s OG two-nation theory – believers being supposed to differentiate themselves from non-believers in every aspect (including language). You can see this in Urdu, e.g. Urdu people will set themselves apart form Hindi-speakers by even things as petty as minor pronunciation differences (e.g. prārthanā –> prāthnā , parvat –> parbat, etc.), and of course the entire Perso-Arabicisation that is obvious at a first glance.
Significance: This is the beginning of the idea of language as a marker of communal identity, separate from and antithetical to that in the immediate environment (I am not pro-homogenisation, so I reject the idea of “one” mainstream – but the difference here is intended to set oneself apart, or really stick out [like a sore thumb sometimes] from one’s immediate surroundings).
(2) The advent of English which came with a clear hierarchy, where all languages of the uncivilised “orient” were inferior, rustic, backward, and not worth studying or using in education, science, official purposes etc.
Significance: Combined with the rise of British power, the capture of education by missionary and colonialist forces over a couple of centuries gradually led to the internalisation of the hierarchy of world languages, where English is at the top, and other western languages a close second, with Bharatiya languages being good-for-nothing at best or often even a mark of shame.
Thus, we internalised two different notions from these historical experiences: (1) Urdu imperialism taught us that language is a marker of identity (it is, no doubt) – BUT “identity” is perverted into a separatist/adversarial sense. Then, (2) taught us that there is a hierarchy of languages, superior and inferior, a view we did not hold before (as an example, consider the rich exchange of vocabulary between Thamizh and Sanskrit, and how both nourished and enriched the other Bharatiya languages in their spheres of influence).
Let us be a bit braver here.
Bharatiya languages coexisted for centuries, never saw feuds like this.
Then, two things happened:
(1) Urdu was born as a direct consequence of Rasulullah (SAWS)’s OG two-nation theory – believers being supposed to differentiate themselves from non-believers in every aspect (including language). You can see this in Urdu, e.g. Urdu people will set themselves apart form Hindi-speakers by even things as petty as minor pronunciation differences (e.g. prārthanā –> prāthnā , parvat –> parbat, etc.), and of course the entire Perso-Arabicisation that is obvious at a first glance.
Significance: This is the beginning of the idea of language as a marker of communal identity, separate from and antithetical to that in the immediate environment (I am not pro-homogenisation, so I reject the idea of “one” mainstream – but the difference here is intended to set oneself apart, or really stick out [like a sore thumb sometimes] from one’s immediate surroundings).
(2) The advent of English which came with a clear hierarchy, where all languages of the uncivilised “orient” were inferior, rustic, backward, and not worth studying or using in education, science, official purposes etc.
Significance: Combined with the rise of British power, the capture of education by missionary and colonialist forces over a couple of centuries gradually led to the internalisation of the hierarchy of world languages, where English is at the top, and other western languages a close second, with Bharatiya languages being good-for-nothing at best or often even a mark of shame.
Thus, we internalised two different notions from these historical experiences: (1) Urdu imperialism taught us that language is a marker of identity (it is, no doubt) – BUT “identity” is perverted into a separatist/adversarial sense. Then, (2) taught us that there is a hierarchy of languages, superior and inferior, a view we did not hold before (as an example, consider the rich exchange of vocabulary between Thamizh and Sanskrit, and how both nourished and enriched the other Bharatiya languages in their spheres of influence).