# Talk:Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu

The article as it stands is written almost entirely from the Tamil POV ("Indian security forces massed into Tamil Nadu and their ruthless shootings of unarmed demonstrators" etc), and is very short on what these "impositions" and their rationale actually were. Jpatokal 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This article ONLY focuses on the Tamil perspective of Hindi-Agitations. While it is true that violent agitations primarily occurred in Tamil Nadu only, there are many other states, including, but not limited to, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, West Bengal, the Northeastern states, and many others had mild "agitations" against Hindi imposition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.87.114 (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 

Would the recent Marathi riots of Maharashtra incited by Raj Thackeray of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena fall under this article or should there be a wider resistance to Hindi category?
Hcobb (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I support adding that too into this article as its almost the same kind of agitation
A Soosai Prakash (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
And now there's more of the same.  It makes me wonder sometime why Bollywood doesn't move out of state or just switch to English.
http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/news/2008/jaya-raj-thackeray-apology-090908.html
Or perhaps this just needs to go in the MNS article as it doesn't seem to have legs outside a tiny fringe?
Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reference for this sentence under "Post Independence" section?? If not it should be removed. I'm not sure about the meaning of "Indian security forces", does it mean the Army, CRPF or TN police?
"In addition to the killings by Indian security forces", Chinnaswamy, Muthu, Ranganathan, Sarangapani, Sivalingam and Veerappan poured petrol (gasoline) over their bodies and burned themselves to death in protest of Hindi imposition.
(68.162.44.102 (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Its a POV source. It does not meet the criteria of WP:RS. So please refrain from inserting information from its pages. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have done some work trying to add more information. The job is still unfinished. Will work on it whenever I get time. Others are welcome to improve upon. Docku:“what up?” 04:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya has made these changes without providing any reference to it.  I brought it up in his talk page. His answer is If you think it is missing something.. add it! Or sit back and relax. Somebody will get to it eventually. Sorry, that is not the way it works. You just dont add unreferenced material especially if it is disputable and controversial. The article is missing references for agitations in other parts of India. Docku:“what up?” 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "Anti Hindi agitations" looked up on Google Scholar gives me articles talking about TN alone [1]. All opposition to Hindi as National language wasn't termed as Anti-Hindi agitation. Agitation is indeed a strong word and was used only (correct me here if am wrong) for the ones that happened in TN at two different occasions. The other oppositions can be termed as Opposition to Hindi as National language where Anti-Hindi agitation would be a part, but not otherwise. 9/11 will redirect to September 11 attacks atacks because the media termed it so and not to September 11. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should focus only on the 1965 agitations (which can be described much better than they are). Of course, the article should then be moved to Anti-Hind agitation, or the "Anti-Hindi agitation of 1965'. Comments? --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 02:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the 1937 protests. I wouldnt mind if it provides a historical context. But, in its currents state, without sufficient sources, it better be gone. Your rewriting of introduction is nice, pls keep it up. Docku:“what up?” 03:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I would rather assume that the 1937 protests were indeed major cause of the later agitations in 1965. The plural form (agitations) is used for the 1965 protests since it wasn't just one or few incidents, but most of Madras state had been involved and people of many social classes (from students to wealthy industrialists) were involved. The context ot 1937 protests to the 1965 one can be found here (I have tried my best to point the link to the right page- sorry if access would be denied). Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 13:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I read the article you point to and think that the 1965 agitations merit an article of their own. The 1937 agitations should be a part of the Official language of India article (which, BTW, is bland considering how charged the issue is) unless there is enough material to spin off an article of its own. The Official language article should contain more information about the Hindization of India (starting, perhaps, with the Arya Samaj movement's push to separate Hindi from Urdu). A small start with a cohesive 1965 agitation article would be good though. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 13:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts I guess the 1937 protests should be part of background rather than part and parcel of the agitations. Id est, this article to focus on 1965 agitations and probably an independent entry on Opposition of Hindi as National language of India including details of the 1937 protests. Or would it be better to have a seperate standalone entry for 1937? I'm undecided and inputs may help. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I see what RP means. I would suggest we create a new article like Constitutional passage to official languages in India or something simpler and nicer. But, we need to keep in mind that we have to provide context to anti-hindi agitation which might mean retaining some (if not all) info in this article. So, let us carefully examine the requirement for split. Let us not forget that anti-hindi agitation is an integral part of passage to officaldom (?) to languages. One possibility is work on this article on both aspects and split when the rationale for split is more compelling. Docku:“what up?” 15:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The agitation wasn't confined to Tamilnadu - though the anti-Hindi part seems to have been. I seem to remember something about mobs in Delhi going around painting out signs in English and painting out car license plates that were in English as well. Not sure if the two episodes were concurrent or what the impetus for the Delhi 'pro-hindi' agitations were, but it does seem that an overview article that captures the complexity of official language politics in India would be useful. Particular agitations of note can then have their own articles, properly contextualized of course. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 21:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I have read about it. I am just not sure of its intensity and if it was in response to anti-Hindi agitation. I would like to see more references on that. I agree official language issue should cover all details including pro and anti-hindi ratioanle and protests, constitutional debates, opinions of notable politicians of that time and so forth. Docku:“what up?” 21:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Delhi or the events you mention, but the agitation certainly was not limited to Tamil Nadu.  The agitation was perhaps at its most vociferous worst in TN, but it was still quite widespread.  This paper for example while it delves deep into the "Madras Anti-Hindi agitation of 1965", does not still forget to mention that  -- "...In spite of many efforts to assure the non-Hindi speaking people of India that the change-over to Hindi would not be precipitate and their legit interests would be safeguarded, there was much alarm in the non-Hindi areas, particularly in the State of Madras... This article concentrates on the agitation in Madras State and the response to it...".
The article also goes on to mention other things which clearly point to the fact that it wasn't limited to Madras (like for instance the fact that Congress heavyweights from Bengal, Karnataka and Andhra also gathered to throw their might behind the agitation.  To be sure, though, I am not aware of suicide by insecticide and immolation being reported from any other part of India).
So does the agitation of Madras deserve an article?  You bet!  Do we however represent it as a issue limited to Madras state?  Certainly not!  Do we need one article to cover the agitation in Madras and a different one to cover those in other parts?  Overkill and unjustifiable imo.  Do we describe it as a pan-India agitation and devote a separate section to the dramatic events in Madras?  Perhaps the way to go.  What we don't need however, is people throwing fits at imagined slights and jumping to revert without so much as bothering to read about the subject.  Sarvagnya 21:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Your quote: "In spite of many efforts to assure the non-Hindi speaking people of India that the change-over to Hindi would not be precipitate and their legit interests would be safeguarded, there was much alarm in the non-Hindi areas, particularly in the State of Madras... This article concentrates on the agitation in Madras State and the response to it and Congress heavyweights from Bengal, Karnataka and Andhra also gathered to throw their might behind the agitation...." Is there more than this in the article which describes anti-Hindi agitation other than Madras state in the article? or Is that it? I would like to read the full of it before responding to you. I would certainly like to see another reference dealing with "agitation" in other parts other than Madras state. While we should be careful that we write the article neutrally, we should make sure that we are not a part of rewriting history. Docku:“what up?” 21:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Sarvagnya summarizes it well - no comment on the last sentence though :-). I know this is not the point but it is quite amazing that within a twenty year period at the beginning of the 20th century, Hindi replaced Urdu as the dominant language of the north (or rather, devanagri replaced arabic as the dominant script). The politics of hindization are closely tied with the anti-Hindi agitation, and without that context, the logic of the agitation is skewed. The Madras agitation does deserve its own article because it was the prime reason for the shelving of the Hindi agenda, and also the major factor in the rise of the DMK. But do we need a contextual article as well? I think that hinges on whether we can find appropriate references for an active agitation or movement, not necessarily concurrent with the Madras ones, in other parts of India as well (the pan-India movement). Bengal perhaps? The north-east? Andhra? Otherwise, it may make more sense to include the context within this article itself with summary information in other articles (the official language of india article, for example). It is time to search the literature! --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
agree. Literature is the place to start. Just making my point clear. Regents Park proposes to discuss pro-Hindi agitation and Sarvagnya wants to include anti-Hindi agitation in places other than Madras state. I agree with including both in the article in a way agreeable to all. But, the problem is there is really nothing to discuss about without references. Hindization will provide a suitable context. Hindi-Urdu controversy is another article which needs more work. Docku:“what up?” 22:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"...and Sarvagnya wants to include anti-Hindi agitation in places other than Madras state..".  Not exactly.  All I am saying is that, regardless of what the article's focus is on (whether Madras or other parts), the lede certainly cannot claim or make it appear like the "opposition" (the word I used) was confined to Tamil Nadu.  That is at once simplistic and factually incorrect.  The article can mention in the lede that the "opposition" was widespread (ie., not limited to TN) and go on to describe the "Madras Agitation of '65" at length.. and still be at peace with itself (assuming uninformed reverts don't disturb that peace). Sarvagnya 22:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I am not explaining it well. Let me try again. I am even willing to compromise to title "Hindi agitations" and include pro and anti-hindi agitation in all places of India. But, the introduction has to be specific about where all these agitation happened. It has to mention Karnataka if we have reference only for Karnataka or any other state. We certainly dont want to implicate states which did not or did not want to participate in those agitation. If it needs to be generic "opposition was widespread", we would need references for it to have happened in other non-Hindi speaking states, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, kerala and so on. But what we need is references. We simply dont have the power to do anything without references. Pls show me some ref and the issue is over. Docku:“what up?” 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) (ec) I think that what the lede says will depend on whether we can find evidence of riots elsewhere. I've found some circumstantial evidence of anti-English riots in some northern states (UP, Bihar, and Rajasthan) that appear to be concurrent with the anti-Hindi agitation in the South. I think, based on a cursory reading, the anti-hindi part of the 1965 riots were mainly in Madras, or, at least the serious agitation. But, it appears unlikely that this (Hindi) was not an issue in the north east, andhra, etc. Meanwhile, this article says, or at least implies, that the current language policy is at odds with what the constitution says. Let's wait for more evidence before we go around changing the lede. Better to be narrow and mostly correct than broad and possibly wrong! --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 23:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that you'll find evidence of major riots elsewhere.  At the same time, the "agitation" in Madras didnt materialize out of thin air.  It was a response to the general Hindi-ization policy of the centre and the move to make Hindi the sole official/natl lang proved to be the immediate cause for the riots.  Further, the demands of the rioters was supported not merely by the TN political leadership but also by the leaders of Bengal, Karnataka and Andhra.  Some important political meetings and decisions happened in Bangalore.  "All India" student bodies were involved (see the article I linked).  The first link here refers to the anti-Hindi sentiment in Bengal.  The more you dig, I'm sure you'll find more such evidence of alarm and opposition in other parts of India too and not only Madras.  All these are part and parcel and provide the context and milieu in which the riots in Madras happened.  And surely, the political muscle exerted by the non-Tamil leaders too played an important role (even if lesser) in the final results.  So while the Madras riots were the most visible and vociferous face of the events of '65, they were certainly not on their own.  Whether this article wants to be about the "Events of '65" or about the "Events of '65 (Madras)", it cannot make it appear like the two were mutually exclusive. Sarvagnya 00:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Much of what you describe can be provided in the context (both in the article as well as elsewhere). I guess we almost definitely need an article on the Hindi-ization of India, perhaps the Hindi-Urdu article can be rewritten and renamed. Hindi-ization provides the context for the agitation. But, the agitation does stand alone as well because, without the violence (mainly, it appears, in the response of the government, Hindi may very well have been the national language of India. The Duncan F. article makes this point somewhere as well. I'm not finding much out there - just the one article on anti-English riots which seems to imply that they were concurrent but I think they were later, in 1967. There is so little archival information about India online and Indian newspapers are way behind and moving their archives onto the internet. Unfortunate, because historical memory in India is also poor. Anyway, I think we should focus on improving this article first (focusing on the Madras agitation of 1965) and then, as more material is unearthed, see about wrapping it in a more general article. This article desperately needs help! --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 02:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
A general article about oposition to Hindi or to English as official language would be a brilliant idea. I bumped into this paper while researching on another article. As I said earlier (and I still not convinced otherwise) - Anti Hindi agitations was a term used by academics to talk about the protests that occured in Madras State alone and not elsewhere. Incidents of elsewhere are used when narating in context and never other way round (correct me if am wrong here). Nevertheless, it would be horrendous sacrilege if this would imply that people of Madras State alone made a change. So, it is indeed a great idea to get an overall article on all the opositions, pro- and agaisnt- Hindi/English, but not into Anti-Hindi agitations article. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from the ref you just mentioned, The recommendations of the Official Language Commission led to some serious developments in Assam. Likewise, anti-English riots and demonstrations began in northern states – U.P., Bihar, M.P. and Rajasthan and the mobs, mostly students, indulged in acts of lawlessness and violence involving destruction of government property. To counter this, in 1967, anti-Hindi demonstrations by students began in Madras, soon spreading to Andhra Pradesh and Mysore."
Apparently, this second phase of violence starting in Madras and spreading to Andhra Pradesh and Mysore seems to be a reaction to anti-English agitation in North India in response to the "solving" or "shelving" of 1965 language crisis. It would be interesting to see more references on this info especially on Assam. Docku:“what up?” 14:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Assam is indeed a very much forgotten state within India, which is such a shame. Well, getting back to context, Anti-English demonstrations in the Hindi belt seems to be very interesting. I reckon that deserves a standalone. Depends on what others think too. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

From reading about this, it appears that there was a constitutional requirement that Hindi be the official language of India (and hence the language of the government). Was there an amendment to get around this (I don't thing so)? What legal mechanism did the Shastri government use to get around the constitutional requirement? --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 02:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling this article has the answer for it. I dont have access to it though. Docku:“what up?” 03:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article. Apparently nothing was decided and the whole issue just got shelved never to be taken up again. The use of language is now governed by the Official languages act of 1963. I could email the article to you if you like. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 13:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. very nice of you. I am at work now and have access to it here. will read and post my op later. Docku:“what up?” 15:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose we move this article to Madras anti-Hindi agitation of 1965 (or Tamil anti-Hindi agitation of 1965), with appropriate redirects of course. Then we can rewrite it adding context, description of the agitation itself, and consequences (language and DMK). I propose we defer decisions about a broader agitation until we're satisfied with the state of this article. (If we find enough evidence of a broader movement, we could drop the Madras from the title.) Comments?

I support the idea. I just have this suggestion though 1965 ant-hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu. Docku:“what up?” 02:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to differ, but as I pointed out earlier the search string "Anti Hindi agitation" (or plural with s) would point out the 1965 agitations in Madras State alone. I'm really not fussed about the move proposal to be honest, but I guess we stick on to this title. Protests and demonstrations don't make it as an agitation, but the incidents of 1965 were pretty violoent with student immolating themselves and education institutions shut for months. I still recollect the stories from my parents how they used to go to their teacher's house in George Town to study Hindi with fear of violence breaking down in the streets anytime. No wonder the academics used the word "agitation". Nevertheless, if it is supported by the community to move the article, please go ahead. For such a move, please get some comments by posting a message in Wikiproject Tamil Nadu's talk page before it is done. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I supported the move only because I didnt want to sound like an obstructionist. I am yet to see references for agitation other than in year 1965 and states other than in Tamil Nadu which demand a disambiguation at this stage. Quoting Regents Park for the record, But, the agitation does stand alone as well because, without the violence (mainly, it appears, in the response of the government, Hindi may very well have been the national language of India. The Duncan F. article makes this point somewhere as well. The point is that it is not just the agitation, its historical significance. I am all for legitimate neutral presentation of articles, but not for liquifying the subject not supported by reliable sources for conceivable intentions. Docku:“what up?” 12:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
If I understand you (wikiality) correctly, your objection is to the making the article specific to Madras or to the Tamils? The word agitation stays either way. The case for adding the locational or ethnic qualifier is because the agitation was confined to Madras state (unless we see references to other states) but was a part of a larger theme, that of hindi-ization (this is pretty much borne out by reliable sources) that was greater than the Tamil agitation alone. Anyway, I'm open to other ideas (how about Anti-Hindi agitation of 1965?) but would like to see the date in the title (that way the focus of the article will be clear and it will be better written) and I think we should drop the plural since there was only one agitation in 1965 (though many instances of protest). Do note, however, that dropping Tamil or Madras from the title will invite addition of text that refers to other locations as well. (Addendum: I think that, in general, having a clear title is important because it focuses the article and provides an appropriate constraint for what other editors can add. The current title is too general (it could, for example, include the Punjabi mahasabah agitations as well because there was an underlying anti-hindi sentiment there and it was an agitation). --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Your argument for specifying year and geography or ethnicity is compelling. On a different note, wasnt Punjab Mahasabah agitation related to state reorganisation rather than official language? Docku:“what up?” 15:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Punjabi mahasaba was related to state reorganization (the separation of Punjab into Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal. However, there was a strong undercurrent of language in all this with the Sikhs taking a punjabi stance and the hindus taking a hindi stance. It is not the same as the anti-Hindi agitations in Madras but my point is that not focusing the article will invite all sorts of stuff into it. The advantage of having a focused article is that if editors with other agendas appear, they can be told 'take it elsewhere'.--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 01:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)OK, I will try to explain myself better now. All anti-Hindi sentiments do not come under Anti-Hindi agitations. What will help the article is for us to create a new article on all the oppositions of Hindi as national language and have a section on the very top of anti-Hindi agitations article stating This article is about agitations in Madras State and for other... bla bla bla which prevents misunderstanding of editors in the future on what this article is about. If you want to add the year, its OK, but my point is, its not really necessary. We gotto remember that this is an encyclopedia. If someone is looking particularly for the term Anti Hindi agitation, he/she should end up in this article, since these are the incidents that are termed by academics and press as Anti-Hindi agitation (try searching for "anti hindi agitations" with quotes on any search engine and you will see what I mean). I reckon we should start preparing the overall article and may be most of us would have had a change of mind (including me) on the title change. What do you think? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The academic literature tends to refer to it as the anti-Hindi agitation of 1965, often with a specific tamil identification. cf. "The Madras anti-Hindi agitation, 1965" (Duncan Forrester); or "The riots in Tamilnad" (Hargrave). Thus the focus is 1965 and is Madras anyway. And, anti-Hindi agitation can always be redirected to the article. I'm easy with whatever the consensus is but do feel that the article is letting itself open to all sorts of stuff if it is left with a too-general title. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 01:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Not just the header, but please look into the text too. Anyways, my point was, no other anti-Hindi oposition was called  "anti Hindi agitation". If the consensus is still to move the article, make sure you remember that Madras State doesn't just include Tamils. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The state was still called Madras state even after Andhra and Karnataka became separate states in 1956. Ok guys, I see both of you make excellent points. If having a specific title helps eliminate the ambiguity, let us go for it. I take the liberty to move to one of the names suggested above. Docku:“what up?” 17:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Tamil anti-Hindi agitations of 1965 doesn't make any sense. Looks as if there is a Tamil VS Hindi crisis. If details are to be added make it as Madras anti-Hindi agitations. FYI, people of Tamil Nadu is different from Tamil people. I don't think we can ever find good references that Tamil alone took part in the 1965 agitations in Madras State. Ambiguity would be there only if someone doesn't understand the subject. Anyways, this is rather surprising that such a move has been made. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
makes sense. RP also suggested this. I dont mind as well. Docku:“what up?” 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Riots in Tamilnad: Problems and Prospects of India's Language Crisis
The Madras Anti-Hindi Agitation, 1965: Political Protest and its Effects on Language Policy in India
En / Gendering Language: The Poetics of Tamil Identity --CarTick 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks carTick. I began my rewrite without posting my collection of sources here as there are more than 30!!. This is going to be one massive rewrite. --Sodabottle (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
sure. I will help you with what I can. I dont have as much access to sources you do. good luck. --CarTick 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose to proceed like this :

1) New section on Official languages Act 1967 amendment
2) Remove current consequences section and move the text to 1965 riot timeline and 1967 amendment runup section
3) New section on 1968 protests and annadurai scrapping three language formula using legislation
4) New section on 1984/6 anti hindi week/protests by karunanidhi
5) New section on later hindi protests (the token variety organised by dmk whenever some hindi wallah proposes something stupid) the latest one being kapil sibal's three language push
6) New section on 1948 marai malai adigal protest
7) Rewrite of 1938-42 agitation
8) A final legacy and impact section at the end of the article--Sodabottle (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
sounds good to me. I added some stuff. I guess I will let you take over and join later once you are done. Besides, the second section (periyar's role) is kind of sticking out like a sore thumb. needs to be better integrated for a smooth flow. --CarTick 13:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
it seems to have been written by a DK fan. we would have to change the whole "role of periyar" to Protests of 1938-42--Sodabottle (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

though it is implicit what was amended from earlier context, it is is better to write it here again for the sake of clarity. --CarTick 15:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

the last line from forrester was technically true as he published the article in 66. we could keep it saying it was the last time it was discussed in 65.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
correct. I gathered it. good idea. --CarTick 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
it would be helpful to quote the exact text of the section 3 of the Official languages Act which ensured the permanancy of both languages. --CarTick 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
They added a lot of stuff to section 3. previously it was only 3 lines without any subsections. the amendment added four more subsections and expanded the first 3 lines into another subsection. 1963 version and Amended version. i think We can say subsection 1  and subsection 5 ensures bilingualism. can you take a look and confirm?. i am not sure if i am correctly intrepreting the legalese --Sodabottle (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought the amendment would be very small. Since it contains too much text, we probably dont need to quote it. we could rather describe it how it is described by secondary sources. In fact, your current writing may just be fine if that is how secondary sources describe it. --CarTick 20:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For the subheadings, should they be renamed as "agitation of 1965" or "1965 agitation" instead of protests?. suddenly "protest" sounds lame to me--Sodabottle (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

it shouldnt matter how it feels to us. Robert Hardgrave calls it riots. Duncan Forrester calls it agitation. both are independent, neutral scholarly work. we can choose either of the terms. --CarTick 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
changed to agitation--Sodabottle (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

can we say that AHA was responsible for the language policy in India as it is now? do we have references for that? --CarTick 13:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

yes we can. i think MSS pandian and company have written on it. i was planning to put this in the legacy section but havent gotten around to it.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Also the language section needs to be rewritten a bit - it begins with a census of 61. We need to put a main article link to languages of india and reduce the statistics a bit. The stuff on gandhi, hindustani and common language needs to be expanded instead.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

absolutely. u are the master of resources. --CarTick 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thinking over it again, 1961 census makes more sense to an issue which took place in 1965. of course, there were agitations before and after, but, 1965 agitation seems to be the central one. dont you think? --CarTick 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
they were central to the official language issue. but not before that. the background is for the whole linguistic situation and to function as the starting part of the narrative. since the 37 section immediately follows the background, starting with 61 statistics is little bit awkward. So i rewrote it as a general sitrep : here is india, there are lots of languages; back in the days of the raj, this is how it all began. 61 stats are jarring in such a narrative. Again it all depends how we rewrite the lead. I am currently doing the lead. will post it here in a few seconds. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

since this section deals with events across a few years, it is better to mention the year with every date. --CarTick 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

done--Sodabottle (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

just adding images which are available and I deem appropriate. we can always change our choice as we make better finding. --CarTick 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

there is one showing periyar with rajaji in the periyar article. but it looks like a later image from 60s.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I found two excellent images in the web. I have written to the copyright holder (Tamil actor Mohan Raman and son of DMK leader VP Raman) asking for permission via CC SA 2.5. Here is the link to the picasa album:
http://picasaweb.google.com/mohanraman/AVRamanFunction31stJanuary1968#
--Sodabottle (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

that is a good find. hope he will agree. --CarTick 19:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
He gave his permission. I have sent him the formal consent form to forward to commons. Once that is done, i will upload to commons and put them here--Sodabottle (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
way to go. --CarTick 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu refer to a series of agitations happened in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu (formerly Madras State and part of Madras Presidency) during both pre- and post-Independence periods. The term encompasses all mass protests, riots, student and political movements that happened in Tamil Nadu, concerning the official status of Hindi in the state and in the  Indian Republic.
The agitations that occurred before Indian independence were conducted against the introduction of Hindi as a compulsory subject in the schools of Madras Presidency. Periyar E. V. Ramasamy and the Dravidar Kazhagam were the principal organizers of the agitations. They succeeded in preventing compulsory teaching of Hindi in the schools in Tamil Nadu.
The agitations of the post-independence period were conducted to ensure the continuation of English as an Official Language and to prevent Hindi becoming the sole Official Language of India. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, descendent of Dravidar kazhagam, spearheaded most of thempopular uprisings. These rebellion agitations helped to shape the current  Official Language Policy of the Indian Republic.
--Sodabottle (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite is done barring copy edits. Whew... the effort has sucked the soul out of me :-).
Things that have been done in this rewrite

1)Tamil Tribune and other POV sources have been eliminated and replaced with RS. This will hopefully avoid any future edit wars due to questionably reliability of sources.
2)All the agitations of the 20th century have been woven into a single narrative. (they all are part of a single narrative)
3)Backgrounds for the agitations and language policy has been fleshed out.
4)Direct quotes have been added wherever possible (instead of saying "nehru's assurance", his actual words have been used)
5)Language has been kept bland deliberately, without any rhetoric
What hasn't been done in this rewrite:

1)The protests that occurred in Bangalore, Bengal and NE states have been left out as the article specifically is about what happened in TN
2)The "Dravida nadu" secessionist demand hasn't been woven into the narrative (though anti hindi and dravidastan were fellow travelers from 1940 to 1963), since it has got its own article. Only passing mentions have been made.
3)Legacy section has two missing points 1)How AHA have preserved the Indian Union from reactions to the antics of Hindi chauvunists (see Thackarey, Raj) 2)How they indirectly lead to software industry in south india, because English was preserved. I couldnt find any RS except blogs for these issues.
-Sodabottle (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

that is an excellent job.
leaving out is fine. Gokak agitation deals with Kannada language rights agitation. It could be extended. Other agitation in Bengal and NE states are yet to be made into new aticles.
i see no problem with this as well
both these are extraordinary implications and we would really need good scholarly work to be included.
In summary, I believe you have a done a beautiful job, I even think we can nominate this article for a Featured Article review. what do u say? --CarTick 14:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
we need more images. we have to scour wikipedia and Internet for relevant and possible PD images. --CarTick 14:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!!  i dont know about FA!!!. ( i havent read FA requirements). But if you think this qualifies for FAR. i am all for it :-)).--Sodabottle (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no good experience either. But the FA criteria, IMO, seems to be met in this case. May be we need some more images. I dont think we can ever get hold of any agitation image. but atleast, the images of major players should be good enough, Annadurai, Karunanidhi, Nehru, Shastri to name a few. May be we can place it in Wikipedia:Peer review to begin with. --CarTick 16:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
that is a good choice of image, periyar with Jinnah and Ambedkar. but, are u certain it was him seeking support. --CarTick 16:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
yes the reference specifically says he was seeking support. page 172 in more's book has a quote from him that he asked for and got their support.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Found one RS for the Indian software success story being a indirect result of AHA and Annadurai [2] (actual TOI link [3]). The author is a widely read columnist who publishes in Economic Times and TOI. What do you think? is this enough to get the software point into the legacy section?--Sodabottle (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

hmmm. who is the author. The fact it is from Times of India is good, which doesnt carry pro-Tamil POV. Again, it will likely be dismissed of as the opinion of one person. We need a few more or atleast one more especially a non-Tamil opinion, or better still, a well researched article. The issue is, it is relatively a new phenomenon and perception and it will be a while before scholars take notice of this (if it persists). --CarTick 20:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
yes a single article isnt enough. it has to wait for future scholars to catch up (may be i will do my long lamented dissertation on this issue ;-)). BTW, swaminathan iyer is a well known economic columnist. He is a quasi-libertarian. I have been reading him for at least ten years now. has his own article - Swaminathan Aiyar. Gscholar says he has lots of citations [4]. Trivia - he is the younger brother of mani shankar iyer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

i worked on the lead a bit. I will look at it later again. u r welcome to improve. --CarTick 23:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

rewrote it a little bit (rearrange, phrases, copy edits etc.)--Sodabottle (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well seems that the reader's editor of The Hindu, uses wikipedia for research. Feels pretty weird for me to read our words here on a newspaper. Granted, they have done some additional research and worked hard to rearrange our phrases, but the base is still our article :-)). --Sodabottle (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

that is awesome. well, it is a cycle. as long as they make sure they copy from well-researched and cited articles. good job.----CarTick 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
exactly my feeling. an hour ago i was sleepily drinking my morning glass of milk and browsing the paper and almost spilled my milk when i saw this. My mom still refuses to believe me when i told her "my words" (sort of ;-)) are appearing in the middle pages of the The Hindu. I have underlined the specific phrases and facts they have taken from here and showing her the comparison between the two articles. Well our 15 seconds of fame! (too bad that only we two would recognize it as such :-)).--Sodabottle (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
pretty dramatic. :) u could write to the author. --CarTick 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

anybody who reads the article would want to know why Rajaji changed his position so dramatically from 1938 to 1965. did he feel politically isolated and cornered. did he regret his early decisions. or, just he didnt like Kamaraj, as an extension Congress and therefore everything Congress did. just speculating, i have no sources yet. --CarTick 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

mostly fed up with the way indian union was shaping up in the 50s. I think, Rajaji was always a federalist libertarian at heart. He was against the soviet style 5 year planning, centralized command economy, the central govt taking more powers. etc. So when the hindi wallahs were pushing for a homogeneous union he had to oppose them. So i think it had to do with his libertarian leanings than his dislike of all things congress. His writings in swaraj could be evidence for that, but they are not online.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If I had understood this as the author would have intended, the overall idea was to make sure that South Indians/Tamils to play vital role in national politics. The logic being that if regions which are now Pakistan were still with India, Hindustani would have easily become lingua franca void Dravidian heartlands. Dravidians (especially Tamils) who would have then been an insignificant minority would be in deep trouble. However, the post partition scenario was quite the opposite. The book also claims that Rajaji was against strong center. Probably not worth here but in Rajaji wiki article. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thats a good one. I had guessed different. I think Rajaji got frustrated by the "hindiwallahs" during the framing of the constitution. The Central provinces, united provinces delegates seem to have pissed off everyone except them (urdu, bengali, hindustani, everyone eventually seem to have fed up with them). This Kanchan Chandra book (from page 350 onwards) explains how they frittered away the goodwill in three years between 1946-49. [5] --Sodabottle (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
interesting stuff. Imagine the constitution was written today, it feels like it was written when many of the Indian states were deep asleep. --CarTick 01:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

nominate for FAR? --CarTick 19:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

shouldnt we go to GAR first?.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
i dont know what is the correct way to go forward. nobody cares to do GAR anyway. Besides, i believe the article is FA quality. --CarTick 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This article surely deserves to be a FA and I congratulate Sodabottle and CarTick. I have translated this into Tamil Wiki இந்தி எதிர்ப்பு போராட்டம் pl.--Rsmn (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

i have to admit most and important work was done by Sodabottle. thanks anyway and good job translating. --CarTick 12:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Some IPs and editors have been adding the Dog story by Annadurai in the article. The story itself is relevant and is a good addition to the article. But, the source it comes from is the Tamil Tribune site. It has been contested as a RS and as a POV source before many times (because of the inflammatory separatist statements it carries). The other ref chennaionline has copied it from Tamil Tribune. The dog story as far as i can determine comes from one of Anna's medai speeches and not his Rajya Sabha speeches. I am looking for a book reference (and will eventually find it, when i go through enough library books). We are aiming to take the article eventually to FA status and Tamil Tribune or Chennaionline would not be acceptable to FA reviewers as sources. Even the sangam.org and dmk.in links were questioned during peer review. I will remove the story for now. I will DEFINITELY add it back, when i find a published book that mentions the story. So please don't add the dog story, unless you can find a source other than Tamil tribune (and others which have copied from tamil tribune).
In short : we need a published book (tamil or english), which mentions the speech in full. (if it gives date and place, it would be even more helpful)--Sodabottle (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi , we need to add that story at anycost & im trying hard to find a best source which everyone could agree ...cause i wish our next generations too are aware of the speeches & why we never had any Hindi or else what our elder's & we have done would be wrongly understood ....--Doctor muthu's muthu  wanna talk ? 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your sentiments, but we need a better source to substantiate because a lot of "myth making" has happened with our leaders and it is difficult to distinguish between legend and reality. Give me a few months (i am constantly adding more sources and expanding this article). The Dog story is in my top priority list. I will find a RS by then.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
sure ! tht would be great .....--Doctor muthu's muthu  wanna talk ? 10:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SBC-YPR (talk)
I will be reviewing this article over the next several days. The version I will be reviewing is this one, and subsequent changes will not form a part of the initial review. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have not been able to complete the review of this article sooner due to some RL constraints. The review will be up in a couple of days. Apologies for the delay. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


### Preliminary Review
Thank you for nominating this article for good article review. I have assessed it against the
six good article criteria, and commented in detail below:
1. Writing:

(a) Prose
The article reads well throughout. A few issues to be addressed:
Names of individuals need not be spelt out in full each time. For example, C. Rajagopalachari can be mentioned subsequently as Rajaji, particularly since you have mentioned the abbreviated form in parantheses at the first instance in the lead. Likewise with Periyar, Radhakrishnan etc.
Hindustani is not exactly an amalgam of Hindi and Urdu - the part within parantheses in the Background section is unnecessarily confusing (the link provides sufficient explanation) and should be removed.
who viewed it as an attempt to make Tamils subordinate to North India is problematic. It should either be Tamil Nadu or North Indians.
Citations should be placed immediately after (and not before) a punctuation mark.
Is Justicy Party a typographical error, or was it the name of the Justice Party at that point of time?
Rajaji's persistence was viewed by opponents - whose opponents? Rajaji's or Hindi's?
Ramnad, Tinnevely, Salem etc. should link to the respective districts and not the towns, keeping in tune with the preceding part of the sentence.
Rajaji used the Criminal Law Amendment Act against the agitators, so that they can be charged of "non-bailable" criminal offenses - the tense should be consistent with the surrounding narrative. This inconsistency in tense also occurs in other places in the article (which uses the past continuous and past perfect tenses for the most part) and needs to be fixed throughout.
Periyar was fined 1,000 Rs  - incorrect usage. It should be either Rs. 1000 or 1000 rupees.
Quotations should not be italicised.
Why does Ramakrishna Dalmia link to Dalmia?
All three words in Official languages act should be capitalised throughout. Likewise, the words Act, Bill etc. referring to the same should also be capitalised.
The first part of the second paragraph of the Official languages act of 1963 (the "may/shall" debate) is rather cumbersome to read. It could be paraphrased and rewritten using better prose.
The word anti in anti-Hindi should not be capitalised. Also, a hyphen between anti and Hindi muist be used throughout, to maintain consistency with the title of the article.
Why is the word "volunteers" in the Madurai Incident sub-section within quotes?
crore should not be capitalised. A link could be provided instead of the figures in parantheses.
Instead of Currently, use As of 2009 etc.
I will help out with some general copy-editing.
All done
(b) Manual of style
The lead does not mention the agitations after 1967 - a sentence or two could be added.
Done
Overlinking is rampant throughout the article and needs to be removed. A few instances – Periyar E. V. Ramasamy, Indira Gandhi, Madras, India, Constitution of India (there are others as well).
The Agitation of 1937-40 seems to have ended in October 1939. The section should be renamed accordingly.
Done
It was suspended in October 1939, but the threats/negotiations/editorial attacks dragged on till January 40.
The titles of sections 2 and 3 are inconsistent – either change the first to 1937-1940 or the second to 1940-50.
Done
The section Language and Indian constitution could be renamed to Official languages and the Indian Constitution or some such, to make its purpose more clear, since the discussion for the purposes of this article is confined only to Part XVII and not the Eighth Schedule as well.
Done
Legacy is ordinarily used to refer to persons. The section could be renamed to Effects or Impact instead.
Done
2. Sourcing:

(a) References
Good use of references. The article is soundly referenced to reliable sources. Some issues with the formatting of existing references:
Reference 9 seems to be a chapter of some book. The book's name and publisher need to be mentioned.
Done.
It would be a good idea to move references that are cited more than thrice (9, 37, 45, 50, 68) to the References section and then cite specific pages inline (see below).
For some of the books i don't have individual page numbers. ref 9 (Perumal) and 37 (Annamalai) are published books, but are available online in different formats - in perumal's case as individual pdfs for each chapter and for Annamalai, HTML pages for each chapter. So i don't know the individual page rages in the paper book format. 45 (simpson) is a single page ref and 68 (Mitra) is a 3 page range ref. 50 (hardgrave) explained below.
(b) In-line citations
Several of the citations (4, 7, 18, 50, 59, 82) are generic and either do not mention specific page numbers or mention a range of pages. Would it be possible to cite more specifically, mentioning individual page numbers?
Similar problem as above. The page ranges are from works which discuss the agitations in a broader context and the facts are spread over pages : for example in ref no 18, Irschick discusses it as a part of tamil revivalism in 1930s. So he reports one incident in page 221 and launches into an analysis for a couple of pages, then adds one more detail in 223. So when i take only the facts to fill two lines in the article (dates, names and places) out of the whole analysis which is spread over six or seven pages there are as many citations as there are pages. Hence the page range. Same is the case for 4 (Guha discussing hindi imperialism), 7 (JBP more writing about muslims and general political situation), 59 (Rajagopalan discussing the parliament's actions during 1962-3), 82 (Kannan describing what Anna was doing the agitation). I have tried to maintain a balance - keeping the no of cites manageable, while keeping the page range reasonable. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
(c) Original research
The article is free from original research.
3. Broadness:

(a) Topic coverage
The article addresses the main aspects of the topic.
(b) Focus
I would suggest that the sections on the Agitations of 1937-40 and Agitation of 1965 be split off into separate articles, with the current article providing only a summary of the main events instead of going into them in exhaustive detail. A link to the sub-articles could then be provided using the {{Main}} template.
Has it grown that unwieldy? When i started the rewrite it was small enough, but it has now become huge. For me it looks fine (not enough strategic distance to see it objectively). I checked the guideline for splitting and it said not absolutely necessary unless it goes about 100k. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
A link to Part Seventeen of the Constitution of India could be provided under the section on Language and Indian Constitution.
Done
If possible, reactions to these agitations in North India and elsewhere could be elaborated upon.
Sourcing for this is a problem. The scholarly sources dont mention what people in the North were thinking. They are focused on the Madras alone. Partisan sources are one dimensional - Tamil ones call north indians "fanatics" and "imperialists". Even the Time magazine article from 1965 describes jan sangh activists as "roaming about" in Delhi blackening english name boards.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutrality:

The article represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. Stability:

The article is stable and has not suffered any recent edit wars or content disputes.
6. Images:

(a) Copyright status
The images have been tagged with their copyright status. Some concerns regarding the first image were raised during the peer review, but since then seem to have been addressed.
(b) Relevance and captioning
The captions should identify individual persons in the photograph by their location (i.e. L-R, R-L, front, side etc.)
Done
Overall, this article is well-written and referenced, and stands a good chance of passing the review if these issues are addressed.
As a result of the above, the article has been placed on hold for a period of ten days, at the end of which I will check back to see whether the issues have been resolved. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page (or by leaving a query on this page) for any clarifications. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


#### Clarifications
Regarding references: In the case of Perumal's book, since the page numbers are provided on the chapter PDF, they can be used; since the reference is being made to the e-version of the book rather than the print edition, this should be fine. As to Annamalai's book, would it be possible to reference it chapter-wise, as has been done for Ramaswamy (Reference 6)?
switched to harvnb and single page refs for Ravichandran. But for Annamalai all refs come from a single chapter (which is in the ebook as a single html page). I have given the chapter name ("Language Movements Against Hindi as An Official Language"), but not able to provide page ranges.
Regarding splitting: The article is long but not unwieldy; nevertheless summary style requirements stipulate that an article should provide a balanced and complete overview about the whole topic, without going into too much detail. In the present case, the article is about the Anti-Hindi agitations in TN in general, and hence more specific details about individual agitations of 1937-40 and 1965 (like exact details of riots, quotations etc.) could be hived off into separate articles and the existing sections could be trimmed. Also, consider merging (at least the first paragraph of) the section on Impact of 1965 Agitation into the section on Agitation of 1965, to complete the account of the latter and keep the narrative cohesive. Wasn't the OL (Amendment) Act, 1967 also a result of the 1965 agitation?
impact of 1965 implemented. 1967 OL was not direct result. rather indirect result. see explanation below. Will split the articles soon.Done
Was there any connection between the Congress' defeat in the 1967 TN Assebly elections and the timing of the OL (Amendment) Act, 1967? If so, this should be brought out.
No. It was more due to Congress's reduced majority in the LS and Indira's attempts to gather the support of 25 DMK MPs. She was facing pressure from the syndicate within the party and needed as many external allies as possible in the parliament
Since Tamil Nadu was known as Madras State until 1968, all references to it prior to that year (except quotations) should also reflect the name as it stood then.
Done
Why is reference 33 (Guha) repeated in the list of external links?
Removed
The article remains on hold, pending resolution of these issues. Please post queries/responses, if any, below this message. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Will incorporate the changes by sunday.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
All comments implemented--Sodabottle (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


### Final review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Following some excellent editing on the suggestions provided, the article now satisfies all the Good Article criteria. I have now passed it as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page under Social sciences and society. For the record, User:Sodabottle contributed significantly to this GA pass (with five or more major edits during the course of the review). Compliments to all the editors who helped in writing the article – especially with the sourcing, which was a job done quite well. I wish you all the best if you decide to take this article up for FA review. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for review, valuable comments and suggestions. This article is much better because of the review.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Recently the gujarat high court has said Hindi is not tht national language. Let all people be clearly told that this is it. no national language. everyone has their own mother tongue. hindi not needed for non hindi people  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.180.195 (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC) 

The high court verdict is mentioned clearly in the Languages with official status in India article, which is linked from here. This article's scope is limited to the agitations and the background (this does mention, there is no national language). --Sodabottle (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC

Hi all... it is not Anti-Hindi. it is anti-Hindi imposition. No one protested against schools which taught hindi. Hindi is still being teached by several schools and organizations in Tamilnadu without any disturbances. They were not protesting against Hindi. They were protesting against Hindi-imposition. There is a big difference. If anyone doesn't oppose, I would like to have the title changed to Anti-Hindi imposition agitations of Tamil Nadu.Rajavel 2k12 (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's more nuanced than what you're making it to be. Reliable sources refer to it in the current format (and that has been discussed earlier too), so it shouldn't be moved. Besides the actual nature of the agitation is explained both in the lede and in the body of the article. —SpacemanSpiff 06:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a big difference between anti-hindi and anti-hindi imposition. It was a protest against imposition... not Hindi.. I guess the title should reflect the actual meaning of the protest. "Anti-Hindi" makes it sound like a hatred protests which is not the case. Even though the references might mention it as anti-Hindi, it is not true. The title is actually misleading. It should mention as "anti-Hindi imposition agitations in Tamilnadu" or "Protests in Tamilnadu against the imposition of Hindi" Rajavel 2k12 (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Rajavel 2k12's request for title change is appropriate with NPOV policy. The Tamil Wikipedia article title also has been changed as Anti-Hindi imposition agitations of Tamilnadu.--Ravishankar (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
If anyone else doesn't object with a valid reason; shall we go ahead and change it?Rajavel 2k12 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
THere isn't a valid reason to change. If you want to get consensus to change, then do so using the process at WP:RM. —SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, the current title is misleading and incorrect; and that is the valid reason to change. It was not a movement against Hindi. It was a movement against Hindi imposition. If you have any valid reason on why the title should not be changed; let us discuss that. Rajavel 2k12 (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
As I have mentioned earlier, en.wiki works on the principle of verifiability and not truth. Therefore, we use the title that is most commonly used by sources. If you have evidence, by way of scholarly sources, to suggest that the title should be different , then you are welcome to open a discussion as per WP:RM and if consensus supports your view, then it can be moved. As of now, I see the current title as the most appropriate choice per sources. —SpacemanSpiff 14:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate the work put in this article. Previous sections on this talk page tell me that User:Sodabottle and User:CarTick are the primary contributors. I really applaud you guys. And please continue improving it if possible and make it an FA. These articles are important especially considering the current atmosphere. - Nirinsanity (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://education.nic.in/language_new/lang_overview.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627120533/http://kalachuvadu.com:80/issue-105/page44.asp to http://kalachuvadu.com/issue-105/page44.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110802071514/http://rajbhasha.nic.in/IIContent.aspx?t=enevents to http://rajbhasha.nic.in/IIContent.aspx?t=enevents
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/g/t/49/Toc.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/ijsl.1999.140.1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203092215/http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/18cs.htm to http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/18cs.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505141357/http://www.kalachuvadu.com/issue-106/page32.asp to http://www.kalachuvadu.com/issue-106/page32.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517063603/http://rajbhasha.nic.in/GOLPContent.aspx?t=endolact to http://rajbhasha.nic.in/GOLPContent.aspx?t=endolact
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220050622/http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/Resumes/04assly/04_02_2.pdf to http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/Resumes/04assly/04_02_2.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105142951/http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/Resumes/08assly/08_03.pdf to http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/Resumes/08assly/08_03.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619081628/http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html to http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

2016 saw an important victory in anti-hindi agitations as earlier Tamil wasn't a compulsory language in CBSE schools, and hindi a compulsory language, in CBSE schools in Tamil Nadu.

The AIADMK led Tamil Nadu Government in 2014 passed order to make Tamil a compulsory language in all schools in Tamil Nadu.
A 2015 Press release by the Tamil nadu Government said that Tamil shall be taught in all schools from 2015-16 academic year. 
CBSE made Tamil a compulsory language in all CBSE schools in Tamil Nadu, in 2016. Tamil became the first language. 
In the year 2017, Tamil Nadu state government made Tamil classic Tirukkural compulosry from the new academic year. 
--Kanhakris2297 (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You did not add all these references in your edit which was added with two unreliable sources. The unreliable livechennai source and india.com  does not talk about any political party. The content about the political parties you've added is your personal analysis.
2016 saw an important victory in anti-hindi agitations as earlier Tamil wasn't a compulsory language in CBSE schools, and hindi a compulsory language, in CBSE schools in Tamil Nadu. - Sources?
The AIADMK led Tamil Nadu Government in 2014 passed order to make Tamil a compulsory language in all schools in Tamil Nadu Unreliable source, source does not talk about any political party and how is this relevant to this article?
 A 2015 Press release by the Tamil nadu Government said that Tamil shall be taught in all schools from 2015-16 academic year. CBSE made Tamil a compulsory language in all CBSE schools in Tamil Nadu, in 2016. Tamil became the first language. In the year 2017, Tamil Nadu state government made Tamil classic Tirukkural compulosry from the new academic year.
You've added livechennai.com again. How are these content about government implementing Tamil in schools relevant to this article about "anti-Hindi agitations". Claiming there was a victory for the anti-Hindi agitations is your personal analysis. -   SUN EYE 1 10:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that livechennai is not a reliable source, but not sure how india.com is unreliable. Anyway here's another reference for the 1st point. It is from thehindu.com.
I will reword and write it, if you have problems with the wordings.

In September 2014, the  Tamil Nadu government passed an order to make Tamil a compulsory language in all CBSE schools in Tamil Nadu, except Central government schools.  A 2015 Press release by the Tamil nadu Government said that Tamil shall be taught in all schools from 2015-16 academic year.  CBSE schools teach Hindi as an add-on subject. In the year 2017, Tamil Nadu state government made Tamil classic Tirukkural compulsory from the new academic year. 
These 2016 changes could be added under Impact section.
--Kanhakris2297 (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

First you need to explain, how this content is relevant to the subject of the article which is "Anti-Hindi agitations". Does the sources say these actions were the "impact" of or a cause of anti-Hindi agitations?   SUN EYE 1 12:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
It is quite clear that anti-hindi agitation in the state of Tamil Nadu is also Pro-Tamil agitation. Apart from it being a common sense, here's a news article that also substantiates the point. P Subbarayan, education minister in the Madras cabinet during the agitation said that one of the cries during the agitation was ‘Let Hindi die, and let Tamil live' . (scroll article)
Actually even this line could be added to the article.
the hindu article has DMK leader saying, "The anti-Hindi agitation was against suppression of Tamil ...." which quite clearly means that the impact of anti-hindi agitation is stoppage of suppression of Tamil.
Even this statement by DMK leader could be added.
Or do you feel like anti-hindi agitation is due to hate for hindi and not a pro-tamil agitation?
--Kanhakris2297 (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It is quite clear that anti-hindi agitation in the state of Tamil Nadu is also Pro-Tamil agitation. Apart from it being a common sense
This is why you were warned multiple times about WP:OR.
I have no objections with P Subbarayan's statement as long as you don't write your personal analysis.
Or do you feel like anti-hindi agitation is due to hate for hindi and not a pro-tamil agitation?
Really? Read the article. You can't write whatever you feel unless you got reliable sources which says it. -   SUN EYE 1 13:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The article refers to the series of agitations in the past tense. While the radical phases of agitations were in the past, the overall opposition to Hindi-imposition is still alive. Noteworthy incidents have happened even recently. For example: 

https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/tn-85-year-old-dmk-cadre-self-immolates-in-salem-protesting-against-hindi-imposition-cm-stalin-reacts20221127013059
https://www.indialegallive.com/magazine/dahi-curd-fssai-language-fracas-karnataka-tamil-nadu-nandini-aavin/
Hence, I request that the tense of the article be changed at appropriate places. Also, sub-sections dealing with individual phases can be made into separate Wikipedia articles. --MS2P (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a movement like Nevertheless, she persisted. How do we integrate it into the article? Here's a good link for a start. Kailash29792 (talk)  07:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)