School education has been the subject of many disputes in India, particularly regarding what and how to teach. One recent dispute involves Chief Minister M K Stalin’s strong condemnation of the Union government for reallocating funds intended for Tamil Nadu under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) scheme to other, BJP-ruled states.
This is not an isolated incident. More and more states ruled by opposition parties have accused the Centre of discrimination in distributing discretionary transfers.
The funds due for Tamil Nadu under the SSA were not released on the pretext that the state government had not signed a memorandum for implementing the PM-Shri schools, which requires implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) in Tamil Nadu—which this state and many others have vehemently opposed.
Freezing funds that constitute 7-8 percent of the state school education budget to impose a centralising agenda of the Union Government, which directly impacts lakhs of students, isn’t just a blot on federalistic ethos, but is also a travesty of Indian democracy. Denying a state funds recommended by the constitutionally mandated 15th Finance Commission—unless it complies with the Centre’s arbitrary and legally non-binding policies—is nothing short of authoritarian coercion.
The Tamil Nadu government has been implementing a number of commendable aspects of the NEP through schemes such as Ennum Ezhuthum (for foundational literacy and numeracy), Pudhumai Penn (guidance for girl students to get into higher education), and the CM Breakfast scheme, many of which pre-date the NEP’s rollout.
On a number of fronts the state has surpassed NEP targets. For instance, the NEP aims to achieve a 50 percent gross enrolment ratio by 2030. But Tamil Nadu’s GER in 2022 was already 51 percent, making it almost a decade ahead in implementation.
The Tamil Nadu government has primarily objected to the NEP on two grounds: the three-language policy with significant curriculum changes, and implementing the 5+3+4 system.
Imposition of the three-language formula is being viewed as a measure to pave the way for Hindi to enter through the backdoor. A 2022 information request revealed that the Kendriya Vidyalayas in Tamil Nadu did not have a single Tamil Teacher.
Paragraph 4.5 of the NEP initially states, “The three languages learned by children will be the choice of states and of course the students themselves.” But a later part of the clause adds, “so long as at least two of the three languages are native to India”. One can only assume that the other language would mostly be Hindi, and not Odia or Bengali. This is why many states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka fear imposition of Hindi through manipulative mechanisms.
But this should not be viewed as a measure to deprive individuals of the opportunity to learn Hindi or any other language. The Dravidian parties in Tamil Nadu have never opposed the voluntary learning of Hindi or any other language—they only oppose their direct or indirect imposition. On the contrary, with 5,80,000 students appearing for the Prathmik exams in 2024, Tamil Nadu has a legacy of large cohorts voluntarily choosing to learn Hindi.
Another poignant question is why an education policy should deprive individuals of the freedom to learn international languages such as German, Japanese or Mandarin, given their strong economies face significant labour shortages and are seeking both skilled and unskilled workers from India. This is pertinent because the Union government is insisting on liberal work visa regimes while negotiating trade agreements with various countries. Limiting access to foreign language learning, thus, impedes its own policy objectives.
In Tamil Nadu, opposition to the three-language formula is not solely from the ruling party—it has garnered near-unanimous support across party lines, which should be understood as an expression of the collective will of the state’s polity.
The second point of contention is the NEP’s recommendation to conduct public examinations for students in the third, fifth and eighth grades. The World Bank’s research has identified that in developing economies, failing school exams is the biggest factor contributing to higher dropout rates, particularly among girls. So, to achieve high literacy, Tamil Nadu decided to introduce the first public exam after the 10th grade. This policy has ensured that the state maintains the highest GER for girls in the higher secondary.
The Centre’s approach of directly imposing its ideological agenda on elected state governments through schools reinforces a centralisation fetish that we have seen increase over the last 10 years. The states that were denied funds—Kerala, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Delhi and West Bengal—are among the top performing states on NEP objectives that include bridging gender and social gaps as well as promoting equal opportunities. Instead of incentivising states that have performed well, the Centre is penalising them.
Tamil Nadu is already squeezed for funds, receiving back only 29 paise for every `1 it contributes to the central kitty. Denial of apportioned funds to such a top-performing state will only hinder India’s growth. Countries can prosper only when individual states thrive. What they require is more autonomy and solutions tailor-made for their socio-economic growth.
(Views are personal)
Dharanidharan Sivagnanaselvam | Spokesman and deputy secretary of IT Wing, DMK
Vishal Vasanthakumar | Doctoral student, University of Cambridge