The Language and Identity Struggle in Maharashtra
For weeks, a fierce debate over language and cultural identity has been unfolding in Maharashtra, India’s most economically developed state. This conflict began in April when the state government mandated that primary schools under its jurisdiction teach Hindi as a third language, alongside English and Marathi—the dominant language of the region. The decision was framed as an effort to align with a federal policy requiring students to learn three languages in school.
The National Education Policy (NEP), first introduced in 1968, is designed to guide and regulate education across India. While it has undergone periodic updates, the most recent version, launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration five years ago, has faced significant controversy since its implementation.
In Maharashtra, the government’s move to introduce Hindi as a third language sparked immediate backlash from civil society groups, language activists, and opposition leaders. Critics accused the government of attempting to impose Hindi—primarily spoken in northern and central Indian states—onto a region where Marathi holds deep cultural significance. Language has always been a sensitive topic in India, particularly in states like Maharashtra, which were formed along linguistic lines after independence. For many, the local language represents regional pride and identity, and any changes to this status quo are often seen as threats to cultural heritage.
This sensitivity is especially pronounced when it comes to Hindi. Over the years, efforts by federal governments to promote Hindi have raised concerns among non-Hindi-speaking states about the erosion of their local cultures. These fears have been compounded by the increasing migration of people from less-developed Hindi-speaking regions to other parts of the country, especially the south, in search of employment opportunities.
Political analyst Abhay Deshpande notes that these anxieties have intensified since the rise of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014. Leaders within the BJP, which has strong support in Hindi-speaking states, have frequently made controversial statements that favor Hindi, further fueling tensions.
Despite the growing unrest, the Maharashtra government—ruled by a BJP-led coalition—retracted its decision and established a committee to reassess the three-language policy. However, the controversy continues to dominate public discourse.
The timing of this issue is particularly significant, as it coincides with the upcoming municipal elections, including those in Mumbai, home to India’s wealthiest municipal corporation. The dispute has turned into a political battleground between the ruling coalition and opposition parties, with each side accusing the other of exploiting the issue for electoral gain.
Reports of violence against non-Marathi speakers have also emerged. In April, two women in Thane district were allegedly assaulted after they spoke in a language other than Marathi. Similarly, a security guard in Mumbai was reportedly beaten up by members of the MNS, a nativist party known for its aggressive stance, after he admitted not knowing Marathi. In May, a couple in Mumbai refused to pay a delivery agent who declined to speak Marathi. A viral video showing a shop owner being attacked by MNS workers for not speaking Marathi further escalated tensions.
Political Rivals Unite Over Language Issues
Amid the rising tensions, two political rivals have found common ground. Uddhav Thackeray, leader of the Shiv Sena (UBT) party, and Raj Thackeray, head of the MNS, recently held a joint rally to oppose the perceived imposition of Hindi. These cousins, once bitter rivals, have put aside their differences to advocate for Marathi pride. While the strength of their alliance remains uncertain, experts believe that their collaboration could benefit their political prospects in the upcoming municipal elections.
Prashant Dixit, a former political journalist, emphasizes that the issue of Marathi language and culture resonates deeply with people, especially in Mumbai. He notes that this sentiment has been present since the 1960s, when the Shiv Sena, led by Bal Thackeray, launched campaigns against migrants from southern states. Over time, the focus shifted to migrants from northern states, with the party blaming them for taking jobs away from locals.
These tensions are likely to persist. According to data from India’s last census, the Hindi-speaking population in Mumbai increased by 40% between 2001 and 2011. Marathi-centric agitations have historically appealed to voters, particularly in Mumbai, and some believe they could influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.
However, not everyone supports this approach. An editorial in the Indian Express titled “Slap In Mumbai’s Face” criticized the focus on linguistic identity as “deeply troubling” and warned that parochialism can lead to violence, something that should not be tolerated in India’s most industrialized state.
Dixit agrees, arguing that while such movements may attract short-term support, long-term success depends on addressing real issues like job creation and better governance. “People want leaders who deliver on promises and focus on tangible progress,” he says.
