Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister and DMK Youth Wing Secretary Udhayanidhi Stalin has once again criticised the New Education Policy (NEP), accusing the BJP-led central government of trying to impose Sanskrit and caste-based education across India. Speaking at a public event, Udhayanidhi said that the NEP promotes an education system rooted in inequality and cultural dominance, warning that Tamil Nadu will firmly resist such policies. He added that the state government’s education framework, shaped under Dravidian principles, values inclusivity, rational thinking, and regional language development.

I am writing about this because the NEP debate reflects one of India’s most crucial policy discussions — the balance between national standards and regional identity. Tamil Nadu has long opposed policies perceived as promoting Hindi or Sanskrit dominance, arguing that education should reflect the state’s linguistic and cultural diversity. Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks reignite this debate at a time when education reforms are shaping the country’s future workforce. Understanding the tension between the Centre’s push for uniformity and states’ demand for autonomy helps us see how education in India is not just about schools — it’s also about identity, culture, and federal values.

Tamil Nadu’s stand against NEP

Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed the National Education Policy 2020, claiming it goes against the federal structure and undermines the role of states in educational policymaking. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin and the DMK government have openly stated that the state will not implement NEP, insisting instead on following the State Education Policy (SEP), which focuses on mother tongue-based learning and social equality.

Udhayanidhi Stalin, in his speech, reinforced this position, stating, “The BJP is trying to impose Sanskrit and caste-based education through NEP, but Tamil Nadu will never accept it.” He added that the DMK government would continue to defend the principles of social justice and linguistic pride that have long guided the state’s education system.

The deputy chief minister argued that the NEP’s focus on Sanskrit and its three-language formula would disadvantage non-Hindi-speaking states like Tamil Nadu, where Tamil is both a cultural identity and a constitutional right.

Understanding the controversy over Sanskrit in NEP

One of the key points of contention in the NEP 2020 is the promotion of Sanskrit as an optional language at all levels of education. While the policy states that no language will be imposed, critics argue that placing Sanskrit at the centre of the curriculum structure subtly prioritises it over regional languages.

Udhayanidhi and other leaders have claimed that this move could lead to a gradual sidelining of Dravidian and regional languages, reducing linguistic diversity in Indian classrooms. Tamil Nadu, which has historically resisted both Hindi and Sanskrit imposition, views such policies as threats to its cultural autonomy.

Education experts in the state have pointed out that while learning Sanskrit can have academic benefits, making it a preferred or dominant language risks marginalising others. They emphasise that students should be encouraged to learn in their mother tongue, especially in the foundational years, to ensure better understanding and cultural continuity.

Dravidian model of education

The DMK government often refers to the Dravidian model of education, which focuses on accessibility, equality, and the upliftment of marginalised communities. This model rejects caste-based hierarchies in education and aims to provide equal opportunities for all students, regardless of their background.

Udhayanidhi’s criticism of NEP as “caste-based” stems from the concern that the new structure may revive traditional hierarchies by linking vocational skills and academic streams to social divisions. He stated that Tamil Nadu’s education system would continue to prioritise inclusivity and scientific temper over what he called “ideologically driven frameworks.”

The state government has launched several initiatives aligned with this approach, including:

• Illam Thedi Kalvi (Education at Doorstep) for community-based learning.
• Naan Mudhalvan scheme for skill development and career guidance.
• Pudhumai Penn scheme for promoting higher education among girls.

These programmes reflect Tamil Nadu’s effort to create an education system that is both modern and socially equitable.

Political and cultural implications

Udhayanidhi’s statement is not just an educational critique but also a political response to the Centre’s growing influence in education. His remarks come at a time when several opposition-ruled states have expressed concerns about the NEP’s centralised approach, arguing that it limits the states’ ability to design education according to local needs.

The BJP, on the other hand, maintains that the NEP is inclusive, flexible, and aimed at preparing Indian students for global competitiveness. However, leaders from southern states view it as an attempt to reshape the education narrative along cultural and ideological lines.

Political analysts believe that Udhayanidhi’s criticism is part of the DMK’s broader campaign to protect linguistic and state rights, a theme deeply rooted in Tamil Nadu’s political history. From the anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s to today’s NEP debate, the state’s stand has remained consistent — education and language policy must reflect regional identity and equality, not uniformity.

Voices from the education sector

Educationists in Tamil Nadu have supported the deputy chief minister’s call for caution. Professor R. Vijayalakshmi, an education policy researcher, said, “While NEP offers some good reforms, it cannot be implemented uniformly in all states. Tamil Nadu has a strong foundation in public education that prioritises inclusivity. Any new policy must adapt to that framework.”

Meanwhile, student organisations across the state have also echoed similar concerns, stating that language and curriculum decisions should be left to the states. Many also worry that centralisation may reduce diversity in thought and regional representation in education.