Tamil Nadu stands firm on two-language policy as Navodaya row deepens

Tamil Nadu has refused to budge on its two-language policy and its decision not to allot land for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, setting the stage for a fresh confrontation with the Centre after the Supreme Court urged the state to reconsider its position on Hindi.

The court’s observations have also produced an unusual political alignment in Tamil Nadu, with the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) and Opposition Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) finding common ground on the language issue and the proposed establishment of Navodaya schools.

The state’s position was reiterated by School Education Minister and TVK leader Rajmohan Arumugam a day after the Supreme Court told Tamil Nadu to “change its mindset” on Hindi and questioned its stand that the language should not be taught on its soil.

Rajmohan said the government remained committed to Tamil Nadu’s longstanding two-language policy and would continue to withhold land for Navodaya schools.

“As far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, the bilingual policy has been there in the past and continues to be there today. Trials are going on in model schools, and we are not giving land for CBSE schools. We are committed to the bilingual policy,” he said.

He also stressed that the Supreme Court’s remarks were made during the hearing and did not amount to a final verdict. The minister maintained that Tamil Nadu was not opposed to Hindi or any other language but wanted Tamil to retain its importance in the state.

“Justice Nagarathna has given her opinion, not an order. We are not against Hindi or any other language. We should give importance to Tamil on this soil,” Rajmohan said.

The issue has meanwhile found support from an unlikely quarter. Leader of the Opposition and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin welcomed the TVK government’s decision to remain firm on the two-language policy.

Udhayanidhi also suggested that the Tamil Nadu Assembly could be convened for a special session, if necessary, to pass a resolution opposing the establishment of centrally sponsored Navodaya schools in the state.

The latest developments have turned what began as a dispute over the establishment of schools into a wider debate over language, education policy, federal powers and Tamil Nadu’s political identity.

Navodaya schools at the centre of dispute

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas are centrally funded, co-educational residential schools administered by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti under the Union Ministry of Education. They were established to provide quality residential education, particularly to talented students from rural areas.

The schools follow a three-language formula, with Hindi forming part of their language structure.

The Centre has sought the establishment of Navodaya schools in Tamil Nadu as part of its nationwide network. The state, however, has resisted the proposal, citing its longstanding two-language policy and the political and cultural significance attached to the language question in Tamil Nadu.

But beneath the larger debate over Hindi lies a more immediate and practical dispute — land.

Tamil Nadu has refused to allot land to the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti for establishing the schools. The state’s position is linked to its argument that it should not be required to facilitate a Central education scheme whose language framework does not conform to its own policy.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, Tamil Nadu also raised issues relating to its policy-making powers and cooperative federalism. Its position has been that Navodaya is a Central initiative and that the state should not be compelled to facilitate the scheme when it follows a different education and language framework.

The Centre, meanwhile, has maintained that Tamil Nadu should identify and provide suitable land, with the Centre bearing the cost of establishing the schools.

The Supreme Court has now extended the timeline by three months for Tamil Nadu to comply with its earlier direction to identify suitable land in every district, keeping the immediate dispute alive.

What the Supreme Court said

The latest observations came while the Supreme Court was hearing Tamil Nadu’s challenge to directions concerning the establishment of Navodaya schools in the state.

The Bench questioned Tamil Nadu’s resistance to Hindi in the context of the schools and urged the state to reconsider its position. Justice BV Nagarathna told the state to “change its mindset” and observed that it could not take the position that Hindi would not be taught on Tamil Nadu’s soil.

The court also cautioned that individual states could not function like separate countries and questioned why the state should oppose the establishment of an additional set of schools.

The Bench indicated that Navodaya schools could provide another educational opportunity without requiring Tamil Nadu to shut down or alter its existing institutions.

However, the observations made during the hearing did not finally settle the broader language-policy dispute. This distinction has been central to Rajmohan’s response, with the minister stressing that the remarks should not be treated as the final judgment in the case.

The court also encouraged the Centre and Tamil Nadu to continue discussions and resolve their differences through cooperative federalism rather than allowing the dispute to block the establishment of the schools.

Tamil Nadu has been given three more months to act on the earlier direction concerning identification of suitable land.

An unusual political convergence

The Navodaya dispute has also produced a rare moment of agreement between political rivals in Tamil Nadu.

For much of the recent political contest, Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay and Opposition leader Udhayanidhi Stalin have stood on opposite sides of the state’s political divide. Their parties have repeatedly clashed since Vijay’s TVK emerged as a major political force and formed the government.

Yet the language issue has brought them onto the same side.

Udhayanidhi has backed the government’s decision to defend Tamil Nadu’s two-language policy and oppose the establishment of Navodaya schools. He has argued that the state already runs model and residential schools that provide quality education to disadvantaged students.

He has also urged the government to continue making its case before the Supreme Court and said a special Assembly session could be convened, if required, to reiterate Tamil Nadu’s opposition to Navodaya schools.

On Hindi, Udhayanidhi has drawn a distinction between opposing the language itself and opposing its compulsory imposition.

“We are not against any language, including Hindi. We are not functioning as a separate state. We are a state with our own uniqueness,” he said.

That position has created an unusual overlap between the ruling government and the Opposition. Their differences on other political issues remain sharp, but on protecting Tamil Nadu’s two-language policy and resisting the proposed Navodaya schools, they have found common ground.

The immediate question now is whether further talks between the Centre and the state can resolve the land dispute within the extended three-month window, or whether the issue will become another flashpoint in Tamil Nadu’s long-running debate over language and federal autonomy.