Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale emphasized that India’s growth is dedicated to the welfare of other nations rather than asserting dominance over them. Speaking at a book launch event on Monday, he reiterated India’s global role as a contributor to the world’s prosperity.

Hosabale asserted that India’s progress is not driven by self-interest or power ambitions but by the desire to uplift other nations. “India is living for the world. India will rise not only for its benefit. India will rise not to crush or bully other countries; India will rise for the welfare of other countries. This is India’s aim,” he stated.

The RSS leader highlighted the impact of British rule on India’s cultural and educational landscape. He noted that while Indians did not feel inferior during Mughal rule, British colonialism imposed a sense of superiority of English culture, which continues to influence the country today.

“During the Mughal period and the time of Islamic invasions, the people of the country never felt that they were inferior to the Mughals. However, during the British period, Indians started feeling that the British were superior to them. This mindset still exists today, which is why Englishism is still prevalent. Due to Englishism, people feel that those who cannot speak English are inferior, which is why the prominence of English-medium education persists. We need freedom from the colonization of the mind,” said Hosabale.

Dattatreya Hosabale also questioned the continued official use of “India” instead of “Bharat” and called for rectifying this practice. Citing recent examples, he pointed out that during the G-20 summit and the Republic Day celebrations, official invitations bore the term “Republic of Bharat” in English.

“It is the ‘Constitution of India’, ‘Reserve Bank of India’…why is it like this? Why do we have to do this everywhere? Such a question should be raised. It should be rectified. If the country’s name is Bharat, it should only be called that way,” he asserted.

His remarks add to the ongoing debate over the preference for “Bharat” in official and constitutional references, a subject that has been discussed in political and social circles in recent times.

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has expressed support for the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. However, he has stressed that any such action must comply with legal provisions since the site is protected under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), a status granted during the previous Congress-led government.

Speaking at an event on Saturday night, Fadnavis said, “We all want the same thing, but it has to be done within the framework of the law. The site was given ASI protection during the Congress regime some years ago.”

The demand for removing Aurangzeb’s tomb was initially raised by BJP’s Satara MP Udayanraje Bhosale, a descendant of the Maratha warrior king Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Bhosale’s call for action gained traction in the political landscape, prompting a response from the Maharashtra CM.

The debate around Aurangzeb’s legacy in Maharashtra has been reignited, especially after Maharashtra Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi recently made statements praising the Mughal ruler. His remarks sparked widespread criticism, leading to his suspension from the Maharashtra legislative assembly until the end of the budget session on March 26.

The ongoing dispute between Tamil Nadu and the Centre over the imposition of Hindi escalated further, with sharp exchanges between Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

The row over the three-language formula under the National Education Policy (NEP) ignited a storm in Parliament and beyond, as Tamil Nadu’s ruling party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) strongly opposed the Centre’s move, calling it an attempt at “Hindi imposition.”

Heated exchange in Parliament

Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, speaking in the Lok Sabha, accused the DMK of “ruining the future of Tamil Nadu students” by resisting the new education policy. His remarks, including a controversial term for Tamil Nadu, were later withdrawn from the Parliament’s records. He claimed that Tamil Nadu had initially agreed to implement the NEP, only to retract its decision later due to “political motives.”

Pradhan further alleged internal rifts within the DMK had fueled this stand-off and accused the party of using language politics to influence voters in upcoming elections. His comments triggered a protest from DMK MPs inside and outside the Parliament, forcing an adjournment of proceedings for 30 minutes.

Stalin hits back at centre

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin launched a strong counterattack on social media, condemning Pradhan’s statements and calling him an “arrogant king.” Stalin asserted that Tamil Nadu would not accept the three-language policy and accused the Centre of attempting to force it upon the state.

“The Union Education Minister, who thinks of himself as a king and speaks arrogantly, needs to be disciplined!” Stalin wrote, questioning whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi endorsed Pradhan’s remarks.

The Tamil Nadu CM also demanded a clear response from the Prime Minister regarding the Centre’s alleged threats to withhold education funds unless the state complied with the three-language formula. Stalin had previously called this move “blackmail” and reiterated that the state had “completely rejected the National Education Policy.”

BJP vs DMK: The battle over language

The war of words extended beyond Stalin and Pradhan, with BJP leader and former Tamil Nadu Governor Tamilisai Soundarajan accusing the DMK of denying underprivileged students the opportunity to learn a third language. “If students from affluent families can learn three languages, why not the poor?” she questioned.

On the other hand, DMK leaders Dayanidhi Maran and K Kanimozhi countered the BJP’s claims, stating that Tamil Nadu never agreed to the NEP’s three-language policy. “We are not against Hindi, but it should not be forced. Our students should not be made to learn three languages while students in the north study only one,” Maran argued.

The ‘Hindi imposition’ debate

The imposition of Hindi has been a sensitive issue in Tamil Nadu, with historical roots tracing back to the violent anti-Hindi protests of the 1960s. The DMK argues that the state’s two-language policy (Tamil and English) has served its people well, negating the need for a third language. Meanwhile, the BJP maintains that a uniform language policy will help students seeking opportunities outside Tamil Nadu.

In a recent interview, Pradhan accused the DMK of creating a “false narrative” and depriving students of national integration and better career prospects. However, Stalin fired back, reminding the Centre that past attempts to impose Hindi on Tamil Nadu had failed, emphasizing that the state “will not tolerate Hindi colonialism replacing British colonialism.”