data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/29597/295978c98a2e99de3e9787b04793cb448b449087" alt=""
The Tamil Nadu government has accused the Centre of withholding crucial education-related funds, claiming that the state is not receiving its due share under schemes such as the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), PM Poshan (midday meal scheme), and RUSA (Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan). The DMK argues that the central government is deliberately sidelining non-BJP-ruled states, particularly Tamil Nadu, when it comes to fund disbursement.
Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has strongly criticized the Centre, alleging that the BJP is using financial policies as a tool to exert pressure on states that refuse to implement its ideological agenda. The Tamil Nadu government has repeatedly sought pending funds and demanded greater autonomy in utilizing education grants.
On the other hand, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has dismissed these claims, asserting that Tamil Nadu has been receiving its rightful share of funds and that any delays are due to procedural issues rather than political bias. He further stated that the Centre has been increasing financial support for education nationwide and accused the DMK government of politicizing the issue.
Another key flashpoint between the DMK government and the Centre is the three-language formula, which the BJP has consistently pushed under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The policy suggests that students should learn three languages—one being their regional language, the second Hindi, and the third English or another foreign/Indian language.
Tamil Nadu has historically opposed the imposition of Hindi, advocating for a two-language policy (Tamil and English) instead. The DMK has remained steadfast in its rejection of the three-language formula, seeing it as an attempt by the BJP to impose Hindi on non-Hindi-speaking states.
CM M.K. Stalin has repeatedly voiced Tamil Nadu’s firm stance against Hindi imposition, stating that the state’s linguistic identity and cultural heritage should not be diluted under the guise of education policies. He has argued that Tamil Nadu has successfully functioned with the two-language system for decades and does not need the three-language formula.
BJP’s Tamil Nadu president K. Annamalai, however, has defended the three-language policy, calling it a step towards national integration. He argues that learning Hindi would open up greater opportunities for Tamil students, especially in central government jobs and national-level competitive exams. Annamalai has accused the DMK of fostering “anti-Hindi propaganda” and using the issue for political mileage rather than prioritizing students’ future.
The education fund row and language policy dispute have triggered strong reactions from various quarters.
Opposition parties in Tamil Nadu, including the AIADMK, have largely supported the demand for pending funds but have maintained a cautious approach regarding the three-language formula.
Tamil language activists and student organizations have staged protests against any attempt to implement the three-language policy, arguing that it is an attack on Tamil identity.
The BJP and its allies in Tamil Nadu have maintained that the Centre’s education policies are aimed at national unity and better opportunities for students, dismissing the DMK’s concerns as baseless.
The ongoing conflict between the DMK government and the BJP-led central government over education funds and the three-language formula highlights the deeper ideological and political differences between the two parties. While Tamil Nadu continues to resist what it perceives as the Centre’s overreach, the BJP remains firm in its stance that its policies benefit students across the country.
With the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections approaching, these issues are likely to remain at the forefront of political discourse, shaping the state’s education policies and Centre-state relations in the coming years.