India’s language fault line

India’s enduring language conflict has re-emerged as a pressing threat to national unity and economic equity. The renewed push to impose Hindi as a dominant language by the BJP-led government in Delhi has sparked fierce resistance, particularly from Tamil Nadu.

Far from being a regional squabble, this battle over language strikes at the heart of Indian federalism, democratic values and inclusive development. Tamil Nadu has long held an assertive position on language policy. Chief minister M.K. Stalin recently labelled the National Education Policy (NEP) of the Union government as a “destructive Nagpur plan”, rejecting it outright even if the Centre were to “offer 10,000 crore rupees in exchange.”

His government has reaffirmed its commitment to the two-language policy— Tamil and English—which has been instrumental in securing strong educational and economic outcomes in the state. Backing this stance, Tamil Nadu minister for IT and digital services, Palanivel Thiaga Rajan (PTR), has been particularly vocal in rejecting the Centre’s three-language formula. According to PTR, the real issue lies not in language pedagogy but in the Centre’s overreach into areas constitutionally assigned to the states. Tamil Nadu’s consistent resistance to Hindi imposition—rooted in its historical anti-Hindi protests — reflects both a cultural assertion and a commitment to equitable development.

The language conflict in India is far from symbolic—it carries significant economic and social implications. As PTR argues, forcing a third language would disproportionately burden students from rural and marginalised backgrounds, who may already struggle with basic educational access. Instead of linguistic diversity being a strength, such impositions threaten to turn it into a tool of exclusion.

Tamil Nadu’s resistance also speaks of a larger crisis of federalism. The Centre’s increasing use of conditional funding — tying financial support to policy compliance — amounts to coercion.

PTR has likened this to “extortion”, asserting that Tamil Nadu will uphold its constitutional rights even at the cost of losing central funds. This resistance is not only about language but also about defending the principle of decentralization, which lies at the core of India’s pluralistic democracy and its constitution.

Language remains one of the most complex and challenging issue to resolve anywhere in the world. Unlike religious, ethnic, or regional divisions, which often remain confined to specific social or cultural spheres, language influences every aspect of daily life, from education and employment to political participation.

Language also consolidates economic power in the hands of those who speak the dominant language. By controlling access to education and employment, speakers of the dominant language gain disproportionate Tamilians protest against what they see as the imposition of Hindi by the BJP-led Union government influence over political and economic institutions.

The struggle over language is thus not merely about cultural preservation but also about economic survival and political representation, making it an even more pressing issue than religious or ethnic divisions. India’s struggle with linguistic diversity is not unique; similar conflicts have occurred worldwide.

In Sri Lanka, the imposition of Sinhala as the official language in 1956 marginalised Tamil speakers, contributing to the decades-long civil war between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In Belgium, linguistic tensions between Dutch-speaking Flanders and French speaking Wallonia have led to political deadlocks and repeated calls for separation. Canada’s Quebec separatist movement has been driven by efforts to preserve the French language in an English-dominated nation. In Spain, Catalonia’s independence movement is rooted in the desire to protect the Catalan language from perceived Spanish imposition.

Similarly, in Ukraine, language has played a crucial role in the conflict between the government and Russian-backed separatists in the eastern regions.

The Ukrainian government’s efforts to promote the Ukrainian language over Russian have been met with resistance, contributing to geopolitical tensions and an armed conflict that has cost thousands of lives. Language conflicts have also led to the fragmentation of nations. The dissolution of Yugoslavia in the 1990s was driven by ethnic and linguistic divisions among Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and other groups.

The inability to maintain a unified linguistic and cultural identity contributed to violent wars and the eventual breakup of the country into multiple independent states. A similar situation occurred in Pakistan, where linguistic tensions played a crucial role in the secession of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971. The Pakistani government’s attempt to impose Urdu as the national language alienated Bengali speakers, fuelling nationalist sentiments that eventually led to a brutal war and the creation of an independent Bangladesh.

This serves as a stark warning that linguistic suppression can lead to the complete disintegration of a country. The BJP government must learn from these global examples. Any attempt to force linguistic homogeneity in a diverse nation risks deepening divisions and destabilising national unity. While English has historically served as a neutral link language, its role is being challenged by the increasing emphasis on Hindi. To prevent language disputes from escalating into national crises, the BJP government must adopt inclusive and balanced language policies.

The lessons from global language conflicts are instructive. India cannot afford to repeat these mistakes. The idea of a homogenised linguistic identity is fundamentally incompatible with its rich and diverse linguistic heritage. Imposing Hindi risks deepening fault lines, alienating large swathes of the population, and undermining national cohesion.

To navigate this challenge, the BJP government must adopt inclusive, flexible language policies that reflect India’s federal character. Recognising multiple official languages, ensuring bilingual or multilingual education tailored to regional contexts, and respecting the rights of states to determine educational frameworks are essential steps.

Tamil Nadu’s model offers a pragmatic and successful alternative to top-down language imposition. As Stalin and PTR rightly warn, this is not just about Tamil Nadu—it is a national issue with profound implications for India’s unity, democracy, and economic fairness. If language continues to be used as a tool of political dominance, it may well become the most potent force of national division.

Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden. You can read more of his writings here