The debate over the Hindi language in India has long been a contentious issue, particularly in South India, where linguistic diversity is a cornerstone of cultural identity. Recently, Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan and Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu have advocated for Hindi as a unifying language, sparking a heated controversy. In contrast, Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed what it perceives as Hindi imposition, with political leaders arguing it threatens regional linguistic identities. This article provides a detailed analysis of the ongoing debate, incorporating major remarks from South Indian politicians.
Hindi Language Controversy
India’s linguistic landscape is diverse, with 22 officially recognized languages and hundreds of dialects. Hindi, often promoted as a "link language" by the central government, has faced resistance in non-Hindi-speaking states, particularly in South India, where Dravidian languages like Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam dominate. The opposition to Hindi stems from fears of cultural and linguistic marginalization, especially in states like Tamil Nadu, where the anti-Hindi movement has historical roots dating back to the 1930s. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which proposed a three-language formula, reignited this debate, with critics in South India viewing it as an attempt to impose Hindi.
Pawan Kalyan’s Pro-Hindi Stance
Pawan Kalyan, Andhra Pradesh’s Deputy Chief Minister and leader of the Jana Sena Party has emerged as a vocal advocate for Hindi, describing it as a unifying force that complements rather than threatens regional languages. Speaking at the Golden Jubilee celebrations of the Department of Official Language’s “Dakshin Samvad” in Hyderabad on July 11, 2025, Kalyan made several notable remarks:
Pawan Kalyan called Hindi a “common denominator among all Indian languages” and a “unifying force” that connects India’s diverse states. He urged people to overcome hesitation and embrace Hindi, stating, “Why are you ashamed to accept the Hindi language?” He emphasized that learning Hindi does not diminish the importance of mother tongues like Telugu, Tamil, or Kannada. He highlighted Hindi’s economic significance, noting that 31% of South Indian films are dubbed into Hindi, generating substantial revenue. He questioned, “Do you need Hindi for business or not?” and criticized the “pathetic attitude” of opposing Hindi while profiting from its market.
In a striking analogy, Pawan Kalyan described Hindi as a “peddamma” (maternal aunt or big mother) and regional languages like Telugu as “amma” (mother), suggesting Hindi’s role as a familial, complementary language. He stated, “If Telugu is like mother, Hindi is aunt,” emphasizing its role in uniting linguistic families.
Pawan Kalyan argued that blindly opposing Hindi impedes development, especially in education and employment. He cited former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a Tamilian who embraced Hindi, to underscore that accepting Hindi does not mean losing one’s identity. His remarks align with his party’s alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has long promoted Hindi as a national language. However, his stance marks a shift from his 2017 comments, where he urged North Indian leaders to respect India’s cultural diversity, a contradiction that critics have highlighted.
Chandrababu’s Support for Hindi
Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu has also supported Hindi, aligning with Kalyan’s narrative. While Naidu has been less vocal, his endorsement reflects a strategic alignment with the BJP-led central government. He has emphasized Hindi’s role as a link language that facilitates communication across India, complementing regional languages. His support is seen as part of Andhra Pradesh’s broader alignment with the central government’s linguistic policies. Chandrababu has stressed the practical benefits of learning Hindi, particularly for students and professionals seeking opportunities outside their home states. He has also advocated for learning foreign languages like Japanese and German, framing Hindi as equally essential for global and national mobility.
Tamil Nadu’s Strong Opposition
Tamil Nadu has been a stronghold of anti-Hindi sentiment since the 1938 protests against mandatory Hindi education. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and other regional parties view Hindi promotion as a threat to Tamil’s cultural and linguistic identity.
DMK spokesperson Saravanan criticized Kalyan’s remarks, arguing that Hindi should not be forced and that English remains the true link language, supporting economic progress without disadvantaging non-Hindi speakers. On March 15, 2025, DMK leader TKS Elangovan reiterated Tamil Nadu’s commitment to a two-language policy (Tamil and English), stating, “We have been opposing Hindi since 1938… Tamil Nadu will always follow the two-language formula.”
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has consistently opposed the NEP’s three-language policy, viewing it as an attempt to impose Hindi. In February 2025, Stalin clashed with Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, who defended the NEP’s linguistic flexibility. Stalin argued that promoting Hindi marginalizes Tamil and other regional languages. Tamil Nadu’s opposition is rooted in the belief that Hindi promotion undermines the state’s linguistic heritage. The DMK and other parties argue that Tamil, one of the world’s oldest living languages, should not be subordinated to Hindi, which they see as a tool of cultural hegemony.
Other South Indian Perspectives
The Hindi debate extends beyond Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, with varied responses from other South Indian states also. The Congress-led Karnataka government has leaned toward a two-language policy, resisting the NEP’s three-language formula. On June 29, 2025, the Karnataka Congress posted on X, stating that mandating Hindi as a third language creates discord and learning difficulties for speakers of Kannada, Tulu, and Kodava. Pro-Kannada groups and education experts have also opposed dropping the three-language policy, citing concerns for Hindi teachers’ livelihoods.
Prakash Raj’s Criticism on Pawan Kalyan
South India actor and political commentator Prakash Raj sharply criticized Pawan Kalyan’s remarks, calling them “shameful” on social media. He argued that language should connect hearts, not create divisions, and accused Kalyan of aligning with the BJP for political gain.
A Polarized Debate
The Hindi language debate in South India reflects deeper tensions between national integration and regional identity. Pawan Kalyan, Chandrababu Naidu’s advocacy for Hindi aligns with the BJP’s narrative of Hindi as a “Rashtra Bhasha” (national language), emphasizing its role in economic mobility and national unity. Their stance is pragmatic, focusing on Hindi’s utility in business, education, and cross-state communication. However, it has drawn criticism for ignoring historical sensitivities and aligning with the central government’s agenda.
Tamil Nadu’s opposition, led by the DMK and Stalin, is rooted in a long-standing resistance to perceived Hindi imposition, viewing it as a threat to Tamil’s cultural primacy. Karnataka’s mixed response highlights the complexity of the issue, with resistance to Hindi coexisting with concerns about educational and economic impacts. Prakash Raj’s outspoken criticism underscores the emotional and cultural dimensions of the debate, accusing pro-Hindi advocates of political opportunism.
The controversy also highlights a generational and political divide. Younger leaders like Lokesh frame Hindi as a tool for globalized opportunities, while traditionalists in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka prioritize linguistic sovereignty. Pawan Kalyan’s shift from his 2017 anti-Hindi stance to his current pro-Hindi position has fuelled accusations of inconsistency, with critics like Prakash Raj and netizens pointing to his BJP alliance as a motivating factor.
The Hindi language debate in South India is far from resolved, with Andhra Pradesh’s leadership advocating for Hindi as a unifying force and Tamil Nadu standing firm against perceived imposition. The contrasting narratives reflect broader questions about India’s linguistic diversity, national identity, and the balance between unity and cultural preservation. As the debate continues, it will likely remain a flashpoint in South Indian politics, shaped by historical grievances, economic realities, and evolving cultural dynamics.