Congress leader Shashi Tharoor recently questioned in Lok Sabha the purpose of making Hindi an Official language at the United Nation. He said: "I understand the Prime Minister and External Affairs Ministers can speak in Hindi, but what if a future External Affairs Minister comes from Tamil Nadu or West Bengal who couldn't speak in the language?" Last year, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah termed the three language policy as "not reasonable." He was pleading with the centre to remove Hindi signage in Bengaluru's Namma Metro in response to popular sentiment against Hindi in his State. In effect, he sought exemption for Karnataka from the three language policy (like Tamil Nadu) but stopped short of demanding a policy change. Both leaders raised relevant questions on our language policy, but they should have asked their own party, the Congress, how it create a situation where Hindi is feared to be subsuming many subnational identities in the country. In the sixties, when the language policy ran into rough weather, the three language formula was conceptualised as a modus vivendi (an acceptable solution). Parliament passed the Official Language Resolution in 1968, Stipulating that a ",modern Indian language, preferably one of the southern languages", be studied in Hindi speaking areas (along with Hindi and English) and that Hindi be studied in areas where it is not spoken (along with the regional languages and English). The three language policy was meant for the entire country. However, the policy took a whole different shape as if it was a prescription for non-Hindi speaking States alone. While non-Hindi-speaking States adhered to the three language policy, Hindi-speaking States took a U-turn: they not only gave up on teaching a non-Hindi language in their schools but effectively delegitimised English.