Siddaramaiah stated that Karnataka faces cultural and linguistic marginalisation due to policies that, according to him, favour Hindi and English at the expense of Kannada. His address at the Rajyotsava Day event focused on language, federal equity, and educational policy, with language serving as the central axis of the critique. He asserted that Karnataka contributes significantly to national revenues yet receives limited fiscal support in return. This framing positioned language issues within a broader argument about federal fairness and regional autonomy.
He argued that the linguistic balance in education has shifted away from the mother tongue, leading to a decline in what he described as creative development and cultural grounding among children. He referenced examples from developed countries where primary education occurs in native languages and suggested that similar norms should apply domestically. According to his position, prioritising Kannada in foundational schooling is necessary to maintain identity continuity and support cognitive growth rooted in the cultural context. He highlighted the dominance of English and Hindi in schools as a practical concern rather than a symbolic one, claiming that this dominance undermines children's natural linguistic abilities linked to their environment and upbringing.
The address included allegations that central support for Indian languages is uneven, with larger resource allocation directed toward Hindi and Sanskrit. He described this as an institutional bias that marginalises Kannada despite its status as a classical language. His remarks linked language preservation to political responsibility and collective identity, calling for legal reinforcement to ensure Kannada remains the primary instructional medium in early education across Karnataka. The suggestion implied that policy intervention, not only cultural sentiment, is needed to address the perceived imbalance.
He also framed linguistic protection as a matter of collective resistance, urging residents to oppose what he described as anti-Kannada forces. His comments aligned with a broader discourse in the state that challenges uniform language policies and argues for the autonomy of regional languages within the national framework. The speech referenced the ongoing debate surrounding the three-language formula and mandatory signboard implementation, situating Kannada advocacy within a larger narrative of defending federal values and cultural sovereignty.
