RSS unveils its own ‘3-language formula’ and targets critics of the ‘North-South divide’.

In a move that has sparked fresh debate over language policy in India, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a prominent Hindu nationalist organization, has proposed its own version of the ‘3-language formula’ to address linguistic diversity across the country. At the same time, the RSS has criticized those who claim that the formula could exacerbate the existing ‘North-South divide,’ which has long been a contentious issue in India’s language politics.

This proposal comes at a time when the Indian government has been considering various ways to make the ‘3-language formula’—which advocates the teaching of three languages at school—more inclusive and practical across diverse regions of the country. While the idea of a national language policy is not new, the RSS’s intervention adds a new dimension to the ongoing discussion about regional language rights and national unity.

The ‘3-Language Formula’: RSS’s Perspective

The ‘3-language formula’ traditionally suggests that students in India should learn Hindi, English, and their regional language. However, the policy has faced criticism over the years, especially from southern states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala, where there is a deep-rooted resistance to imposing Hindi as a mandatory language. These states have argued that the promotion of Hindi could lead to the marginalization of their native languages.

In response to these concerns, the RSS has unveiled its own version of the formula, one that seeks to maintain the nationalistic objective of linguistic unity while addressing regional sensitivities. The RSS proposal stresses that the three languages should include one regional language, one national language, and one foreign language, with English being given prominence as the link language for global communication.

The RSS has emphasized that its version of the formula will give regions the flexibility to choose their own regional language, thus mitigating the concerns that Hindi could dominate educational curricula in the South. At the same time, it seeks to strengthen the position of Hindi as a national language, while keeping English as a vital tool for international communication, science, and technology.

“This formula is not about imposing one language over another but about fostering unity in diversity,” said an RSS spokesperson. “The formula will ensure that students are proficient in their mother tongue, Hindi as a national language, and English, which is indispensable in today’s globalized world.”

Criticism and the ‘North-South Divide’

While the RSS’s proposal has been framed as a balanced approach to India’s linguistic diversity, it has not been without its critics. The most vocal opposition has come from leaders and activists from southern states, who view the promotion of Hindi as a threat to their regional languages, such as Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada. In the past, these states have witnessed strong protests against the imposition of Hindi, citing it as a form of cultural imperialism.

In response to these critics, the RSS has taken aim at those who raise the ‘North-South divide’ as an argument against the three-language formula. The organization has argued that these claims are exaggerated and politically motivated. The RSS believes that the perception of a ‘North-South divide’ is a result of political maneuvering, and that language should not be a divisive issue in the country.

“The so-called North-South divide is being used as a political tool to create unnecessary tension. The three-language formula is about practical and inclusive education, not about dividing the country,” the RSS spokesperson added. “We should not allow regional politics to dictate the educational policies of the nation.”

The RSS’s comments have sparked a new round of debate about the role of language in shaping India’s national identity. Critics argue that while the formula may be well-intentioned, it fails to address the deep-seated linguistic pride and identity that many regional communities hold. In Tamil Nadu, for instance, the issue of language has been a highly sensitive topic, with political parties like the DMK and AIADMK fiercely opposing any move that could force the people of Tamil Nadu to learn Hindi.

National Unity vs. Regional Identity

The issue of language in India is not just about communication but also about identity. Each region has its own linguistic, cultural, and historical ties to its language. For many, their regional language is closely linked to their sense of self and autonomy. The imposition of Hindi, even in a formulaic context, has often been seen as an attempt to homogenize the rich cultural diversity of India.

On the other hand, proponents of a unified national language policy argue that a common language like Hindi, along with English, can help bridge the gaps between the diverse linguistic communities in the country. By teaching a common language, advocates believe, India can promote national integration and improve communication between people from different regions.

The RSS’s proposal, therefore, stands at the intersection of these competing values. It seeks to balance the preservation of regional identities with the need for national cohesion, all while navigating the complexities of India’s linguistic diversity.

Moving Forward

As the debate continues to unfold, it is likely that both the RSS’s proposal and its critics will continue to refine their arguments. The broader discussion on language in India raises important questions about how to manage diversity within a unified nation. While the RSS’s new formula aims to strike a middle ground, its success will ultimately depend on how it is received by regional governments, linguistic communities, and the larger public.

In the meantime, India’s educational system faces the challenge of finding a formula that respects regional languages, fosters national unity, and prepares students for a globalized world. Whether the RSS’s ‘3-language formula’ will become a practical solution or remain a subject of political contention remains to be seen.