New Delhi tweaks Hindi language bill after south India protests 

In this May 23, 2019 picture, election results are announced in English and Hindi on a screen at a counting center in Mumbai, India. A proposed law making Hindi a mandatory third language to be taught in schools across India is facing strong resistance in southern Indian states, especially Tamil Nadu. (AP file photo)
Updated 03 June 2019
Follow

New Delhi tweaks Hindi language bill after south India protests 

  • Bill seeks to make Hindi a mandatory third language to be taught in schools across India
  • In 1965, Tamil Nadu faced violent protests when the center proposed to make Hindi India’s only official language

NEW DELHI: After strong resistance from the southern Indian states, especially Tamil Nadu, the Indian government on Monday revised a controversial draft bill that proposed to make Hindi a mandatory third language to be taught in schools across India.

The government said in a statement on Monday that “flexibility in the choice of languages” in schools has been changed, omitting any reference to teaching Hindi to non-Hindi states.

The draft bill released on May 31 by the Human Resources Development Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank was one of the recommendations for a new national education policy that intended to have a three-language formula in schools, a departure from the existing two-language set-up.

It proposed to teach in the Hindi-speaking north Indian states a modern Indian language besides Hindi and English. However, in non-Hindi speaking states, which comprise mostly east, northeast, west and south India, Hindi learning was proposed to be made mandatory besides a regional language and English.

There was a a huge political outcry in Tamil Nadu within hours of the release of the draft bill with most of the political parties, including the ruling All India Anna Dramuk Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), a regional ally of New Delhi’s ruling party, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), strongly objecting to changing the existing two-language formula.

Resistance was also visible on social media with many in south India launching the hashtag #HindinottheNationallanguage.

A Twitter handle called “1000 friends of South” wrote: “The BJP government’s real face is beginning to emerge ... Hindi is being imposed on South Indians. Tamil Nadu has rebelled against BJP-Govt. Let’s join them to fight the imposition of Hindi!”

On Monday, after the tweak of the draft bill, popular India musician and composer A.R. Rahman tweeted: “Beautiful solution. Hindi is not compulsory in Tamil Nadu … draft has been rectified.”

A. Saravanan, of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), a powerful regional party of Tamil Nadu, said: “The BJP government, which caters to Hindi states, doesn’t believe in pluralism.”

Saravanan told Arab News: “We believe in the concept of unity in diversity but they believe in uniformity. The strength of India lies in diversity and pluralism. By imposing Hindi on non-Hindi speaking states, the BJP wants to consolidate the Hindi-speaking vote banks.” 

He added: “What was the need to bring in a three-language policy when a two-language policy was working fine? If someone wants to study Hindi instead of Tamil then that option is available under the two-language formula. Why impose Hindi on students?”

Kovai Sathyan, of the ruling AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, said: “There should not have been so much protest over a draft bill.”

Sathyan, a spokesperson for AIADMK, a regional ally of the BJP, added: “Education is in the hands of the state and the center cannot impose any law on education on the state. So those opposing the draft bill are overreacting. We are committed to maintaining a two-language policy.”

Sathyan told Arab News: “A country like India cannot have one official language.” 

H.D. Kumaraswamy, the chief minister of Karnataka, one of the five south Indian states, said: “One language should not be imposed on others for any reason in the name of a three-language policy.”

Raj Thackeray, a regional leader of the western state of Maharashtra, said: “Hindi is not our mother tongue, do not enforce it on us and incite us.”

Faced with the protests, New Delhi went in for damage control on Sunday with two of its ministers — Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and the Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar — issuing a statement on Sunday saying that “the draft will be reviewed before implementation.”

In 1965, Tamil Nadu faced violent protests when the center proposed to make Hindi India’s only official language. 

The people of Tamil Nadu are proud of their language, Tamil, which is considered the most ancient language of the Indian subcontinent. The politics in the state centers around the Dravidian movement, which worships the Tamil language and literature, and any attempt to promote another language becomes a highly emotional issue. 

According to the 2011 census, about 44 percent of the Indian population speaks Hindi, making it one of the most widely spoken languages in the country. 

India does not have a national language but designates 22 languages as official languages. Hindi and English are among the official languages of India and they are widely spoken.

N. Sathiya Moorthy, of the think tank Observer Research Foundation (ORF), said: “The controversy was totally avoidable but the timing seems to have been motivated yet miscalculated.”

Moorthy added: “If the central ministers Jaishankar and Nirmala Sitharaman say that there will be consultations then why you are not going ahead with consultations straightway without kicking up a controversy?”

He told Arab News that the BJP was trying to test the waters in South India and “that way it is trying to find a new element to consolidate the Hindi heartland.”

In the recently held elections, the BJP could not open its account in three of five south Indian states. Traditionally the party is known as a north Indian phenomenon with its base coming from the Hindi-speaking population in the north and west of the country.


World leaders react cautiously to US and Israeli strikes, death of Iran Ali Khamenei

Updated 3 sec ago
Follow

World leaders react cautiously to US and Israeli strikes, death of Iran Ali Khamenei

BRUSSELS: How long will it last? Will it grow? What will the conflict and the reported death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. mean to us — and to global security overall? Those questions echoed across the Middle East and the planet Saturday as world leaders reacted warily to US and Israeli strikes on Iran.
US President Donald Trump said on social media that Khamenei was dead, calling it “the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country.” Iranian state media said early Sunday the 86-year-old leader had died without elaborating on a cause.
Israeli officials previously told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that Khamenei was dead. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a televised address, said there were “growing signs” that Khamenei had been killed when Israel struck his compound early Saturday.
The apparent demise of the second leader of the Islamic Republic, who had no designated successor, would likely throw its future into uncertainty — and exacerbate already growing concerns of a broader conflict. The UN Security Council scheduled an emergency meeting.
Perhaps cautious about upsetting already strained relations with Trump, many nations abstained from commenting directly or pointedly on the joint strikes but condemned Tehran’s retaliation. Similarly to Europeans, governments across the Middle East condemned Iran’s strikes on Arab neighbors while staying silent on the US and Israeli military action.
Other countries were more explicit: Australia and Canada expressed open support for the US strikes, while Russia and China responded with direct criticism.
The US and Israel launched a major attack on Iran on Saturday, and Trump called on the Iranian public to “seize control of your destiny” by rising up against the Islamic theocracy that has ruled the nation since 1979. Iran retaliated by firing missiles and drones toward Israel and US military bases in the Middle East.
Some leaders urge resumption of talks
In a statement, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called on the US and Iran to resume talks and said they favored a negotiated settlement. They said their countries didn’t take part in the strikes on Iran but are in close contact with the US, Israel and partners in the region.
The three countries have led efforts to reach a negotiated solution over Iran’s nuclear program.
“We condemn Iranian attacks on countries in the region in the strongest terms. Iran must refrain from indiscriminate military strikes,” they said. “Ultimately, the Iranian people must be allowed to determine their future,” they said.
Later, at an emergency security meeting, Macron said France was “neither warned nor involved” in the strikes. He called for intensified efforts for a negotiated solution, saying “no one can think that the questions of Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic activity, regional destabilization will be settled by strikes alone.”
The 22-nation Arab League called the Iranian attacks “a blatant violation of the sovereignty of countries that advocate for peace and strive for stability.” That coalition of nations has historically condemned both Israel and Iran for actions it says risk destabilizing the region.
Morocco, Jordan, Syria and the United Arab Emirates denounced Iranian strikes targeting US military bases in the region including in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the Emirates.
Under former President Bashar Assad, Syria was among Iran’s closest regional allies and a staunch critic of Israel, yet a statement from its foreign ministry singularly condemned Iran, reflecting the new government’s efforts to rebuild ties with regional economic heavyweights and the United States.
Saudi Arabia said it “condemns and denounces in the strongest terms the treacherous Iranian aggression and the blatant violation of sovereignty.” Oman, which has been mediating the talks between Iran and the US, said in a statement that the US action “constitutes a violation of the rules of international law and the principle of settling disputes through peaceful means, rather than through hostility and the shedding of blood.”
Careful wording is (mostly) the order of the day
New Zealand refrained from full-throated support but acknowledged Saturday that the US and Israeli attacks were keeping the Iranian regime from remaining an ongoing threat. “The legitimacy of a government rests on the support of its people,” New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters said in a joint statement. “The Iranian regime has long since lost that support.”
Countries in Europe and the Middle East used careful wording, avoiding perceptions that they either support unilateral American action or are directly condemning the United States.
Others were more blunt. Russia’s Foreign Ministry called the strikes “a pre-planned and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state.” The ministry accused Washington and Tel Aviv of “hiding behind” concerns about Iran’s nuclear program while actually pursuing regime change.
Similarly, China’s government said it was “highly concerned” about the US and Israeli strikes on Iran and called for an immediate halt to the military action and a return to negotiations. “Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity should be respected,” a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement said.
Despite recent tensions with the US, Canada too expressed its support for the military action. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East,” Prime Minister Mark Carney said.
And the UN Security Council scheduled an emergency meeting on the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, at the request of Bahrain and France.
Concerns expressed of ‘new, extensive’ war
Palestinians in the occupied West Bank said they were largely unfazed as war erupted Saturday, barely pausing as booms echoed across the sky from Israel’s Iron Dome intercepting missiles overhead.
Unlike Israel, Palestinian cities have no warning sirens or bomb shelters, despite the risk of falling debris or errant missiles. As people sheltered less than 10 miles (16 kilometers) away in Jerusalem, streets in Ramallah swarmed with shoppers browsing meat counters, vegetable stalls and Ramadan sweets, some stopping to record the sounds of distant sirens and missile interceptions.
But as Israel closed checkpoints to the movement of people and goods on Saturday, gas stations saw longer-than-usual lines as residents filled spare canisters in case of supply disruptions.
The Palestinian Authority, in a statement, condemned the Iranian attacks on Arab nations, many which have historically helped underwrite its finances. It made no mention of the Israeli or US strikes.
Nervousness is perceptible across multiple countries. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told Norwegian broadcaster NRK that he was concerned the failure of negotiations between the US and Iran meant a “new, extensive war in the Middle East.”
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons condemned the US and Israeli strikes on Iran in harsher words. “These attacks are totally irresponsible and risk provoking further escalation as well as increasing the danger of nuclear proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons,” said its executive director, Melissa Parke.
EU leaders issued a joint statement Saturday calling for restraint and engaging in regional diplomacy in hopes of “ensuring nuclear safety.” The Arab League, too, appealed to all international parties “to work toward de-escalation as soon as possible, to spare the region the scourge of instability and violence, and to return to dialogue.”