Parasakthi team celebrates Pongal with Prime Minister Modi in New Delhi

The recent news about the team of the film "Parasakthi," themed around the anti-Hindi agitations of the mid-1960s, celebrating Pongal with Prime Minister Modi, offers a timely reminder of a pivotal moment in India's post-independence history. This event underscores the enduring relevance of language politics in India's diverse federal structure and provides an excellent opportunity to delve into the complexities of the anti-Hindi agitations.

**Background Context and What Happened:**

Post-independence, one of the most contentious issues faced by the Constituent Assembly was the choice of an official language for the Union. Hindi was eventually chosen, but strong opposition from non-Hindi speaking states, particularly in the South, led to a compromise. Article 343 of the Constitution declared Hindi in Devanagari script as the official language of the Union, but English was to continue for all official purposes for a period of 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution (i.e., until January 26, 1965). The expectation was that Hindi would gradually replace English. However, this transition was met with significant apprehension, especially in Madras State (now Tamil Nadu), where there was a deeply ingrained cultural and linguistic identity centered around Tamil.

As the 1965 deadline approached, fears intensified that the imposition of Hindi would marginalize non-Hindi speakers in central government jobs and administration, effectively making them second-class citizens. This fear ignited the anti-Hindi agitations. While initial protests were seen in the 1930s (against compulsory Hindi education by the then Congress government in Madras Presidency) and 1950s, the mid-1960s saw the most widespread and violent phase. On January 26, 1965, the day Hindi was to become the sole official language, massive student-led protests erupted across Madras State. These protests, often turning violent, involved self-immolations, clashes with police, and widespread destruction of public property. The state government, then led by the Indian National Congress, struggled to contain the unrest.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **Central Government:** Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru (who had assured non-Hindi speakers that English would continue as an associate official language as long as they wanted) and his successor Lal Bahadur Shastri, and later Indira Gandhi, were key figures. The Union government had to balance the constitutional mandate for Hindi with the need to maintain national unity.

2. **Political Parties in Tamil Nadu:** The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), under leaders like C.N. Annadurai and M. Karunanidhi, played a pivotal role in mobilizing public sentiment against Hindi imposition. The Congress party in the state, despite being in power, found itself increasingly isolated due to the Centre's language policy.

3. **Students and General Public:** University and college students were at the forefront of the agitations, organizing protests, boycotts, and rallies. They represented the widespread public sentiment against perceived linguistic imperialism.

**Why This Matters for India and Historical Context:**

These agitations were a watershed moment for Indian federalism and language policy. They highlighted the profound challenges of nation-building in a multi-linguistic society. The intensity of the protests forced the Union government to reassess its approach. The outcome was significant: the **Official Languages Act, 1963**, which allowed for the continued use of English alongside Hindi even after 1965, was further amended in **1967**. The **Official Languages (Amendment) Act, 1967**, guaranteed that English would continue to be used for official purposes by the Union and for communication between the Union and a State that has not adopted Hindi as its official language, *until all non-Hindi states agreed to discontinue it*. This effectively made English a permanent co-official language, defusing the immediate crisis and solidifying a de facto "two-language formula" at the Union level.

This episode profoundly reshaped the political landscape of Tamil Nadu. The Congress party, which had dominated the state's politics since independence, suffered a massive defeat in the 1967 general elections, paving the way for the DMK's rise to power. Since then, Tamil Nadu's politics has largely been dominated by Dravidian parties, demonstrating the lasting impact of the anti-Hindi agitations on regional identity and political autonomy.

**Constitutional Provisions and Broader Themes:**

Several constitutional articles govern India's official language policy: **Article 343** (Official language of the Union), **Article 344** (Commission and Committee of Parliament on Official Language), **Article 345** (Official language or languages of a State), **Article 346** (Official language for communication between one State and another or between a State and the Union), and **Article 351** (Directive for development of the Hindi Language). The anti-Hindi agitations underscored the importance of **Article 350A**, which mandates facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage, and the spirit of linguistic equality embedded in the Constitution. The agitations are a prime example of the interplay between **federalism**, **center-state relations**, and **national integration** in India.

**Future Implications:**

The legacy of the anti-Hindi agitations continues to influence India's language policy. Debates around the "three-language formula" (Hindi, English, and a regional language) in education, the use of regional languages in competitive examinations, and the promotion of Hindi remain sensitive issues. Any perceived attempt at Hindi imposition can still trigger strong reactions, particularly in Southern states. The episode serves as a powerful reminder that while a common language can be a unifying force, forced imposition can be deeply divisive. India's strength lies in its unity in diversity, and respecting linguistic pluralism is crucial for maintaining social harmony and federal balance. The current government's engagement with the film team, while symbolic, reflects an ongoing effort to navigate these historical sensitivities and foster national inclusivity, even as debates around language policy continue to simmer beneath the surface of Indian polity.