Political parties firm on moving education back to State list, retaining two-language formula

Under Article 246 of the Constitution, legislative powers are symmetrically divided between the Union and the States through the Seventh Schedule. At the commencement of the Constitution, 'Education' was exclusively a state subject under List II, reflecting the Constituent Assembly's intent to keep educational policies closely aligned with regional socio-cultural needs. However, during the period of National Emergency, the sweeping 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 transferred education, alongside forests, wildlife protection, and administration of justice, to the Concurrent List (List III). This critical shift permitted both the Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws regarding educational policies. Crucially, under the doctrine of repugnancy enshrined in Article 254, if any state legislation contradicts a central law on a Concurrent List subject, the central legislation prevails. Regional parties argue that this constitutional reconfiguration has systematically eroded state autonomy, enabling the Union government to incrementally encroach upon the states' domain and enforce standardized frameworks across deeply diverse regions.

The manifesto demands to restore education to the State List illuminate the persistent friction surrounding cooperative federalism and the modern trend of administrative centralization. The placement of education in the Concurrent List undeniably enabled the Union government to spearhead monumental reforms, such as the Right to Education Act of 2009 and the comprehensive National Education Policy 2020 (NEP). Proponents of concurrent jurisdiction argue that central oversight is indispensable for maintaining standardized academic quality, facilitating the inter-state mobility of students, and ensuring an equitable distribution of financial resources across the country. Conversely, state governments counter that centralization inadvertently imposes a rigid, 'one-size-fits-all' blueprint that actively disregards unique local socio-economic contexts. State leaders assert that regaining exclusive legislative control over education is essential to tailor curriculum design, independently manage state-level university appointments, opt out of centralized testing mechanisms like the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, and formulate assessment methodologies that truly reflect the linguistic and cultural realities of their specific demographic.

The pedagogical debate over language remains a highly emotive and historically charged issue in Tamil Nadu, deeply intertwined with Dravidian political identity. This resistance traces its origins to the massive anti-Hindi agitations of the 1930s and 1965, which were sparked by fears of linguistic hegemony and the contentious provisions of the Official Languages Act. As a direct consequence, the state legislature passed a landmark resolution in 1968 to implement a strict two-language policy comprising only Tamil and English. This explicitly rejected the Three-Language Formula—a national pedagogical strategy that historically expected students in non-Hindi speaking regions to learn Hindi as a third language. The current political assertions are heavily fueled by apprehensions that recent national frameworks, including the NEP 2020, subtly attempt to reintroduce Hindi imposition under the guise of multilingualism. For UPSC aspirants, this scenario perfectly illustrates the delicate constitutional balancing act required to foster national integration through a potential link language while simultaneously safeguarding India's rich mosaic of linguistic diversity and sub-national cultural pride.