The Maharashtra government has mandated that all officials and visitors in government, semi-government offices, and local self-government bodies across the state communicate in Marathi, as per a recent resolution. While this move has been seen as a boost to the ethnic Marathi community, the Adivasi communities in the state have not received similar linguistic recognition or justice.
Although intended to preserve the ethnic identity of Marathi speakers, this move risks further marginalising Adivasis by restricting their participation in governance, public services, and legal processes. Who would have thought that cultural assertion of Marathi would have such a detrimental impact on Adivasis within the Marathi-speaking land?
Marathi-only policy: A long-awaited reform
In October 2024, the Union government conferred classical language status to five Indian languages, including Marathi. The demand for this recognition dates back over a decade. In 2013, the Congress-led state government officially urged the Union government to grant Marathi classical language status.
Parallel to this push, the Maharashtra government has implemented several policies in recent years to strengthen Marathi’s role in education, governance, and public life. The government passed the Maharashtra Compulsory Teaching and Learning of Marathi Language in Schools Act, 2020 making Marathi compulsory in all schools across Maharashtra, including CBSE and ICSE schools. In 2022, a Bill was passed in Maharashtra Assembly making the Marathi language mandatory for officials working under civic bodies, corporations, and local authorities.
Following Marathi’s recognition as a classical language, the state government has further reinforced its position by introducing a Marathi-only policy. The draft of Maharashtra State’s Marathi Language Policy was approved by the cabinet in a meeting held on March 12, 2024. Following this approval, as per the government resolution (GR) dated March 14, 2024, the Marathi language department has officially announced the state’s Marathi Language Policy.
To implement the recommendations of the policy, on February 3 this year, Maharashtra’s BJP-led government issued a resolution, with an aim at ensuring the preservation, promotion, and development of Marathi, not only in education but also in all public interactions and transactions. A key objective is to establish Marathi as a language of knowledge and employment over the next 25 years.
The resolution mandates that in all government, semi-government offices, local self-governments, government corporations, and government-aided establishments, employees must communicate in Marathi with visitors and among themselves. The exceptions from this are foreigners and non-Marathi speakers from outside Maharashtra. It also states that, offices must display sign boards clearly stating that communication should be in Marathi. The name and designation boards at all Union government offices in Maharashtra should also be in Marathi.
If a government officer/employee fails to communicate in Marathi, complaints can be filed with the concerned office head or department head. If the complainant finds the decision unsatisfactory, they can appeal to the Marathi Language Committee of the Legislature. The responsibility of implementing the Marathi Language Policy at the district level will be assigned to the District Marathi Language Committee.
According to the resolution, all purchase orders, tenders and advertisements placed in the media need to be in the Devanagari script. Moreover, the names of all government entities should be in Marathi, and in places where the entities need to be referred to in English, the names should not be translated, but the Marathi names themselves should be written in the Roman script.
Why the same language justice is not offered to Adivasis
Historically, Adivasi languages have always been excluded from governance and education. It has resulted in the gradual erosion and assimilation of Adivasi communities into dominant linguistic and cultural structures. The post-constitutional era has been witness to the aggressive attempt of integration of tribal languages with the dominant regional languages under the veneer of inclusion. But this has meant systematic marginalisation of Adivasi languages and reduced capacity of Adivasi communities to effectively engage with the state and assert their own development.
Although the spirit of the Indian constitution is to grant special protection for Adivasi languages in view of preservation, protection, and promotion of their linguistic identities, not much has been done to bring their languages within the governance framework. On the other hand, policies adopted by different states have resulted in promoting strong dominant languages and reinforcing a structure that continues to exclude the Adivasis.
Also read: Civil Society’s Long Struggle for the Recognition of Assamese as a ‘Classical Language’
Maharashtra is no exception.
The state has arbitrarily treated its diverse tribal groups, including the Gonds, Bhils, Katkaris, Korkus, Kolams, and Madias, without recognising their distinct linguistic identities. Moreover, efforts by Adivasi communities to revive their languages and cultural heritage often face legal action, restrictions, or accusations of wrongdoing. For instance, the case of the first Gondi school in Maharashtra, run by Gond Adivasis, was criminalised when the state declared it ‘illegal’ and imposed a fine. Furthermore, the state’s politics have also neglected these languages and were only aimed at absorbing Adivasi linguistic identities into a broader dominant linguistic and cultural framework.
The recent resolution further exacerbated these challenges. In such a situation, if there is no linguistic representation of Adivasi language in public services, it builds on their exclusion from systems that supposedly exist to help and support them. It would alienate Adivasis from state apparatus and thereby ensure that the social hierarchies persist along with Adivasi marginality.
The already threatened Adivasi languages, due to historical neglect, would be further eroded if not protected and promoted at the governance structures. Imposition of a single language in public life marginalises Adivasi voices and their participation in many ways.
For instance, in many parts of Gadchiroli, Adivasis struggle to communicate in Marathi within official settings. This mainly holds true for the Madia community, which is categorised as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG).
Shravan Taram, a high court advocate from the Adivasi community in Gadchiroli, highlights this challenge:
“Since Marathi is not our mother tongue, our people are unable to communicate properly in government offices. This has been a big hurdle for us. Making officials and Adivasis speak only in Marathi in government offices is certainly a violation of Article 14 of the constitution. Most of my clients feel more comfortable conveying their issues in their local language. Instead of making Marathi compulsory, there should be a separate help desk with interpreters in all the offices in Adivasi-dominated [areas] to ensure governance remains accessible to the community.”
This is not only the case at the grassroots level but extends to Adivasi-elected representatives. A salient example of this can be observed in the case of Amashya Padvi, an Adivasi MLA from Nandurbar. As he failed to take an oath in fluent Marathi during the oath ceremony of the recent Maharashtra government, Padvi was trolled and criticised. This brings into question the gap between the official language of governance and the linguistic reality of Adivasi communities. Padvi’s experience serves as a poignant illustration of how language barriers can marginalise not only the communities themselves but also their duly elected representatives, further hindering their engagement with the formal structures of governance
Furthermore, the Xaxa committee report in 2014 pointed out that the issue of language acts as a barrier in the low utilisation of healthcare services in Scheduled Areas. In the absence of functionaries speaking Adivasi languages, the report notes that serious communication barriers are created. Besides physical inaccessibility, the very language of communication itself keeps the Adivasis away from seeking medical care.
Dr Shubham Badole, who served as a Medical Officer at a remote primary healthcare centre in the Etapalli region of Gadchiroli, shared his firsthand experience of treating Madia Adivasi patients in the area. He said:
“Communicating with patients who only speak Madia and not Marathi was initially challenging. Patient could not communicate their health concerns clearly to me. Over time, I learned the basics of their language, and the difference was remarkable. When I spoke in Madia, they became more responsive and happier, unlike before when they were hesitant. The language barrier was particularly difficult in maternal healthcare, as many preferred home deliveries due to cultural practices, making it hard to convince them to seek hospital care during complications. Similar issues occurred with childhood vaccinations, as they would hide in their farms during our village visits. Language remains a major obstacle to effective healthcare delivery.”
When the governance system is already exclusionary towards Adivasi languages, making Marathi compulsory further alienates these communities. How will Adivasis communicate their grievances, access welfare schemes and public services, or navigate bureaucracy if the language of governance is inaccessible to them? While the state has undertaken significant efforts to promote and enforce the use of Marathi, including punitive measures for non-compliance, it must not do so at the expense of constitutional empathy toward its own Adivasi population.
Are Adivasi gram sabhas bound by Maharashtra’s Marathi-only policy?
The GR raises a crucial question about its applicability in Adivasi gram sabhas. Since it explicitly mentions local self-governments, it implies that even gram sabhas, which are constitutionally recognised as grassroots democratic institutions in Scheduled Areas, should also operate exclusively in Marathi.
Gram sabhas in Scheduled Areas differ from municipal bodies or state-controlled panchayats in not being mere local self-government institutions but, as a matter of fact, are autonomous, self-governing bodies under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), which was enacted to empower Adivasi communities to govern in consonance with their customs, traditions, and languages.
On the other hand, PESA has vested Adivasis with the right to conduct governance in their languages, but this Marathi-only policy goes against the spirit of PESA. Marathi imposition in the gram sabha’s deliberations would erode the autonomy of self-governance.
Many leaders and village heads of Adivasis do not know fluent Marathi. Ravi Chunarkar, who is working with the community in Gadchiroli on forest rights, highlighted the linguistic challenges faced by Adivasi gram sabhas in the forest rights claims process, stating:
“Everything, from filing claims to hearings and official communication, is in Marathi, making it difficult for Adivasi members of Gram Sabhas to participate meaningfully. Hence, most rely on NGOs or intermediaries, creating a dependency. Language barriers prevent even those with legitimate grievances from approaching government offices. Official documents, including GRs related to forest rights claims, are in Marathi, excluding these communities from fully engaging in decision-making processes that impact their rights.”
Notably, imposing Marathi as the language for gram sabha communications would severely limit the participation of members in deliberations and the passing of resolutions, effectively silencing them on matters that directly affect their lives. Forcing gram sabhas to give up their languages is a violation of the right to self-govern in a linguistically and culturally relevant manner.
Can Scheduled Areas be exempted from the resolution?
As many as 59 Talukas in 13 districts of Maharashtra are either partially or fully notified as Scheduled Areas under the Fifth Schedule, thereby enjoying special constitutional protection. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Samatha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) held that Scheduled Areas are so identified to protect the tribal people’s autonomy, culture, economic empowerment and social, economic and political justice. This recognition itself is, in fact, an admission that Adivasi communities in Scheduled Areas are situated within a peculiar socio-linguistic ecosystem.
Despite having the constitutional authority to exempt Scheduled Areas from such mandates, the Maharashtra government has chosen not to act. Under Article 244(1), read with Paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule, the governor has the power to exempt Scheduled Areas from state laws or apply them with modifications suited to Adivasi communities. This means the governor could have, through a simple notification, excluded Scheduled Areas from the Marathi-only mandate. The fact that this has never been invoked is not an administrative lapse, but a carefully administered lack of the voice of Adivasis in governance.
The failure of the Maharashtra government’s language resolution is further compounded by the role of the Tribal Advisory Council (TAC), a constitutional body mandated under Article 244(1) Paragraph 4, to advise on matters concerning the welfare of Scheduled Tribes. If the government is sensitive towards the Adivasis, it should have allowed the TAC to go through the policy and suggest exemption for Scheduled Areas. But there is a growing apprehension that the TAC, with elected Adivasi members from the ruling party and other members who are aligned with its interest, is failing in its role of representing the true interests of Adivasi communities.
This highlights a deeper systemic issue, where bureaucracy and governance structures fail to reflect the interests of Adivasi communities.
Need for a cultural and linguistic sensitive policy reform
In response to these persisting concerns, there is a dire need for policy reform.
A targeted policy initiative like ‘Shasan Adivasinchya Dari’ (Government at Adivasis’ Doorstep), modeled after the Eknath Shinde-led government’s ‘Shasan Aplya Dari’ scheme, should be introduced in Scheduled Areas to ensure effective governance for Adivasis. ‘Shasan Adivasinchya Dari’ would focus on delivering welfare schemes, legal aid, and essential services directly to Adivasi communities, considering their unique socio-cultural context. A one-size-fits-all approach, as seen in the ‘Shasan Aplya Dari’ scheme, will not work – governance must reach Adivasi communities not just geographically but in a culturally and linguistically meaningful way.
Moreover, the government needs to intervene to create an inclusive environment in all official settings, enabling Adivasi communities to communicate effectively and access government schemes and policies without language and cultural barriers hindering their participation.
Key measures could be intensive training of government staff in Adivasi languages and cultural sensibilities and making available linguistically sensitive assistance in administrative offices. The health sector especially needs to see immediate intervention. As has been practiced in New Zealand, where health professionals have been trained in Māori language to enhance the health of Indigenous peoples, the same must be practiced in Scheduled Areas.
As a first step towards ushering in accountability and efficacy, tribal councils need to be set up in Scheduled Areas, comprising traditional local leaders, elected representatives, and subject experts from within the community as members. In the absence of such essential reforms, systemic exclusion of Adivasi communities will persist, further exacerbating their marginalisation. The question remains – will the state move forward to complete its constitutional obligation, or will it allow this exclusionary status quo to persist at the cost of Adivasis’ dignity?
Bodhi Ramteke is a lawyer, researcher, and an Erasmus Mundus Human Rights Scholar currently pursuing a master’s degree across multiple universities in Europe and the UK.