On 30th May 2025, the people of Minicoy, the southernmost island of the Lakshadweep Archipelago, took to the streets in protest against the imposition of Hindi as a mandatory language and the removal of Mahl and Arabic from the school curriculum. This change was introduced through an order issued by the Education Department on 14th May 2025, under the National Curriculum Framework (2023).
The protests quickly gained momentum, uniting students, teachers, and the broader community in defense of their linguistic and cultural heritage. By 5th June 2025, the movement had grown so significant that the Kerala High Court granted an interim stay on the directive, marking a temporary victory for the people. To truly understand the essence of this resistance, one must examine the cultural landscape of Lakshadweep.
The Lakshadweep Archipelago, a Union Territory comprising 36 islands, has 10 inhabited islands. The entire native population is classified as Scheduled Tribe (ST) by the Government of India. Around 100% of the population is Muslim, practicing Sunni Islam, specifically following the Shafi’i school of jurisprudence. Arabic, as the language of the Qur’an, holds great religious importance and is taught in madrasas across the islands. The commonly spoken languages include Malayalam and Jeseri (a dialect of Malayalam enriched by Arabic and Tamil influences). However, in Minicoy, the southernmost island, the dominant language is Mahl, a variant of Dhivehi (spoken in the Maldives). Thus the exclusion of Mahl and Arabic is a direct attack on their religious and cultural heritage.
But these are not new. The current fascist BJP regime, in its fixation on creating a “Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan” has, over the past decade, unleashed several anti-democratic schemes such as the National Education Policy, the Three-Language Policy (under the NEP), and the beef ban (imposed in Lakshadweep since 2020) etc. All of which have created a sea of exclusion and trampled upon the democracy of numerous communities. Also, the seamless functioning of this fascist machinery, despite the presence of Article 29 and Article 350A, which mandate the conservation of the mother tongue, and Articles 21, 29, and 30, which protect personal liberty and the religious rights of minorities, raises critical questions. A reflection on the socialist state under the Soviet Union and its sheer triumph in preserving cultural and religious heritage prompts us to ask: Is a mere regime change sufficient to foster democratic values, or must this entire exploitative state apparatus be smashed and replaced by a new one?
