The stand-off between the Union ministry of education and the Tamil Nadu government has reached Parliament. It started following the Centre’s decision to hold back funding under the Samagra Shiksha scheme to Tamil Nadu, citing the latter’s refusal to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Tamil Nadu has alleged that the three-language formula proposed in the NEP is a ploy to impose Hindi.
However, the controversy, which threatens to engulf all states ruled by parties other than the BJP or its allies, has ceased to be just about the NEP. Questions about federalism, language policy and central allocation of funds have been flagged in this debate which is also happening under the overhand of the delimitation issue. Education is on the concurrent list in the Constitution, which means both the Centre and the states are allowed some say in the sector. Simply put, both need to work together if policies and funds are to deliver the goods. The Centre draws up national policies and provides some funding, but the states alone have the agency to produce the results. This arrangement is inescapable considering India’s size and diversity. However, the Centre wants states to adopt its policies in full to receive funds. Such intransigence is avoidable since it can upset the delicate federal balance. The Centre ought to view the NEP as a broad guideline and let the states tweak it as per local considerations. Surely, it must try to convince dissenters to come on board, but the negotiation should not foreclose the option of holding an open-ended conversation.
Similarly, while Tamil Nadu’s concern about federalism is understandable, its stance on the language formula is flawed: NEP does not insist on compulsory learning of Hindi. And the state’s insistence that children should be taught only two languages is flawed. Tamil Nadu can offer a southern language such as Malayalam, Telugu or Kannada as the third language instead of Hindi (or simply choose to let demand drive the policy; if enough students want to learn Hindi, it should be offered). Chief minister MK Stalin can surely extend the political solidarity he seeks among southern states to their languages as well.
{{/usCountry}}Similarly, while Tamil Nadu’s concern about federalism is understandable, its stance on the language formula is flawed: NEP does not insist on compulsory learning of Hindi. And the state’s insistence that children should be taught only two languages is flawed. Tamil Nadu can offer a southern language such as Malayalam, Telugu or Kannada as the third language instead of Hindi (or simply choose to let demand drive the policy; if enough students want to learn Hindi, it should be offered). Chief minister MK Stalin can surely extend the political solidarity he seeks among southern states to their languages as well.
{{/usCountry}}Meanwhile, the Centre must ask itself if so much energy should be lavished on school education in Tamil Nadu, instead of say, Uttar Pradesh or Bihar. The Gross Enrolment Ratio at the secondary level (classes nine to twelve) figures are instructive: Enrolment was 89.5 in Tamil Nadu in 2023-24, compared to 58.5 in Uttar Pradesh and 37.8 in Bihar (UDISE report published by the ministry of education). The Centre should not micromanage public education in Tamil Nadu — or any other state — or present the NEP as an iron-clad policy. However, it may study the Tamil Nadu and Kerala models in public education and see if they have lessons for educationally backward regions.