<div align="justify">The anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu have a history of almost 80 years. The language movement in the then Madras Presidency was mainly on issues of Dravida race, language and culture. <br /><br />Evoking the Dravida identity had its beginning in race studies and the incongruity of its application to people and language. After independence, the Tamil language community formed a linguistic state. Ideally, the language paradigm chosen for the formation of states should have wiped out all the other differences which were plaguing the social fabric of India.<br /><br />History of agitations: In 1937, the Madras Presidency was ruled by the Indian National Congress led by C Rajagopalachari. Hindi was introduced as a compulsory subject in schools. This move was opposed by E V Ramasamy and the Justice Party. It is the same Justice Party which came to be known as the Dravida Kazhagam later.<br /><br />As a response, the introduction of Hindi was withdrawn by the British government. There was another move in 1946 to reintroduce Hindi in schools of the Madras Presidency. C N Annadurai of the later DMK spearheaded the opposition on behalf of EVR and the government backtracked. After independence, Hindi was introduced again. <br /><br />The 15 year constitutional provision given to English as the associate official language were to end on the Republic Day of 1965. The anti-Hindi imposition agitation launched by the students garnered public support all over Tamil Nadu and raged for two weeks. It caused death and mayhem. As a result, English got many more 15 years. As a mark of protest, the people of Tamil Nadu rejected the Congress in the elections of 1967 and voted the DMK into power. The Congress has not come back to power in the state since. <br /><br />Every time, it is not dialogue but protests which have made the government at the Centre to listen to the people of Tamil Nadu. The number of MPs representing the state has had direct bearing on the response of the Union government to the agitations. The repeated attempts by the Union governments to impose Hindi in the post-modern era amounts to linguistic mischief. <br /><br />Tamil linguistic identity: Identity construction in general is based on the idea of ‘sameness’ vs ‘difference’. The Tamil linguistic identity construction is no exception to this rule. In spelling out what constitutes this ‘identity’, there was a need to spell out what it was not. <br /><br />The narrative of Tamil linguistic identity was based on binaries-Tamil language-Hindi, south-north, Arya-Dravida, local-national, Tamil-Sanskrit, Brahmin-non Brahmin etc. The Dravida movement that began with a demand for a separate national identity, had the responsibility to find a footing within the nation space. <br /><br />Tamil was posited against Hindi which in fact was stepping into the shoes of the hegemonic role of English. Periyar’s narrative was built on the fear that Hindi would play the hegemonic role which would pose a threat to Tamil language and culture. The Dravida movement posited this fear psychosis at its centre which appealed to the people. <br /><br />The Dravida movement was a counter narrative not just to Hindi but also to Sanskrit — the language and the culture supposed to have been practiced predominantly by the Brahmins — presumed to be Aryans. The Dravida identity construction was also a movement against the upper castes/Brahmins. Woven into this narrative was the idea of ‘Tamil taayi’ — language as mother. <br /><br />No national language<br />The truth is that India does not have a national language. Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union. The states have their own official language/s. The idea of a national language is a part of the received wisdom that a nation must have a single language. This line of thought is tailored for the nations that are supposed to be inhabited by people of one language, race and religion.<br /><br />A multilingual and multicultural India needs a different line of thought and the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution is an attempt to include many languages. The linguistic diversity of this country is a rich treasure trove of many world views. Monolingual attitude either by the Centre or the state destroys this heritage. <br /><br />The ground reality regarding language/s is different from the official language policy. Mass education, privatisation of education and a desire for better job opportunities are dictating a different language story. A large number of Tamil students are learning Hindi through the `distance learning’ mode. <br /><br />It is not Hindi as a language but the hegemonic tone of the imposers that instigates opposition. The opposition is based on the connection drawn between language and race and skin colour. The opposition is to the perception that one language people are better than the other. Imposition creates insecurity. <br /><br />There is one truth that those who impose a language and those who resist it should pay heed to both at the Centre and the states — learning multiple languages improves the cognitive skills of a child. The same is empowerment in adults. <br /><br /><em>(The writer is Associate Professor and Head, Department of English, Nehru Memorial College, Sullia)</em></div>
<div align="justify">The anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu have a history of almost 80 years. The language movement in the then Madras Presidency was mainly on issues of Dravida race, language and culture. <br /><br />Evoking the Dravida identity had its beginning in race studies and the incongruity of its application to people and language. After independence, the Tamil language community formed a linguistic state. Ideally, the language paradigm chosen for the formation of states should have wiped out all the other differences which were plaguing the social fabric of India.<br /><br />History of agitations: In 1937, the Madras Presidency was ruled by the Indian National Congress led by C Rajagopalachari. Hindi was introduced as a compulsory subject in schools. This move was opposed by E V Ramasamy and the Justice Party. It is the same Justice Party which came to be known as the Dravida Kazhagam later.<br /><br />As a response, the introduction of Hindi was withdrawn by the British government. There was another move in 1946 to reintroduce Hindi in schools of the Madras Presidency. C N Annadurai of the later DMK spearheaded the opposition on behalf of EVR and the government backtracked. After independence, Hindi was introduced again. <br /><br />The 15 year constitutional provision given to English as the associate official language were to end on the Republic Day of 1965. The anti-Hindi imposition agitation launched by the students garnered public support all over Tamil Nadu and raged for two weeks. It caused death and mayhem. As a result, English got many more 15 years. As a mark of protest, the people of Tamil Nadu rejected the Congress in the elections of 1967 and voted the DMK into power. The Congress has not come back to power in the state since. <br /><br />Every time, it is not dialogue but protests which have made the government at the Centre to listen to the people of Tamil Nadu. The number of MPs representing the state has had direct bearing on the response of the Union government to the agitations. The repeated attempts by the Union governments to impose Hindi in the post-modern era amounts to linguistic mischief. <br /><br />Tamil linguistic identity: Identity construction in general is based on the idea of ‘sameness’ vs ‘difference’. The Tamil linguistic identity construction is no exception to this rule. In spelling out what constitutes this ‘identity’, there was a need to spell out what it was not. <br /><br />The narrative of Tamil linguistic identity was based on binaries-Tamil language-Hindi, south-north, Arya-Dravida, local-national, Tamil-Sanskrit, Brahmin-non Brahmin etc. The Dravida movement that began with a demand for a separate national identity, had the responsibility to find a footing within the nation space. <br /><br />Tamil was posited against Hindi which in fact was stepping into the shoes of the hegemonic role of English. Periyar’s narrative was built on the fear that Hindi would play the hegemonic role which would pose a threat to Tamil language and culture. The Dravida movement posited this fear psychosis at its centre which appealed to the people. <br /><br />The Dravida movement was a counter narrative not just to Hindi but also to Sanskrit — the language and the culture supposed to have been practiced predominantly by the Brahmins — presumed to be Aryans. The Dravida identity construction was also a movement against the upper castes/Brahmins. Woven into this narrative was the idea of ‘Tamil taayi’ — language as mother. <br /><br />No national language<br />The truth is that India does not have a national language. Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union. The states have their own official language/s. The idea of a national language is a part of the received wisdom that a nation must have a single language. This line of thought is tailored for the nations that are supposed to be inhabited by people of one language, race and religion.<br /><br />A multilingual and multicultural India needs a different line of thought and the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution is an attempt to include many languages. The linguistic diversity of this country is a rich treasure trove of many world views. Monolingual attitude either by the Centre or the state destroys this heritage. <br /><br />The ground reality regarding language/s is different from the official language policy. Mass education, privatisation of education and a desire for better job opportunities are dictating a different language story. A large number of Tamil students are learning Hindi through the `distance learning’ mode. <br /><br />It is not Hindi as a language but the hegemonic tone of the imposers that instigates opposition. The opposition is based on the connection drawn between language and race and skin colour. The opposition is to the perception that one language people are better than the other. Imposition creates insecurity. <br /><br />There is one truth that those who impose a language and those who resist it should pay heed to both at the Centre and the states — learning multiple languages improves the cognitive skills of a child. The same is empowerment in adults. <br /><br /><em>(The writer is Associate Professor and Head, Department of English, Nehru Memorial College, Sullia)</em></div>