
Reframing the language question
In this context, India's New Education Policy (NEP), 2020 is a bold step towards much-needed modernisation in the education sector. Yet, in its implementation, especially of the three-language formula, it reveals signs of the very breakdown Huntington warned of. The policy promises that no language will be imposed, but in practice, this assurance falters amid infrastructure gaps, uneven capacity, and socio-political fault lines. For many, the multilingualism offered feels less like inclusion and more like pressure.
Much of the national conversation has centred on the idea of language 'imposition'. But this framing reflects only one side of the debate: the question. To move forward, we must reframe the question itself, from 'What language should be imposed?' to 'How can language be used to empower?' That shift, from political to governance, opens space for solutions that affirm identity, foster equity, and strengthen learning.
Choice without capacity?
The real test of any policy lies not in its prose but in its practice. Across States, reports continue to highlight teacher shortages for third-language instruction. A news report found that 'underfunding and a lack of qualified teachers plague the system', forcing schools to hire part-time or retired instructors to teach languages such as Sanskrit and Hindi. In Maharashtra, some schools reportedly assigned untrained teachers, or none at all.
But the issue cannot be reduced to an administrative hiccup. In tribal and rural hinterlands, it increasingly feels like a policy devoid of participation. For instance, in Odisha and West Bengal, Santhali-speaking students are expected to study in Bengali or Hindi without any transition support. In the absence of trained teachers, schools fall back on patchwork solutions, hiring retirees, rotating unqualified staff, or offering no support at all. Add English and their native tongue to the mix, and students face what educationist calls a 'four-language burden'.
The NEP's written assurance of 'choice' often breaks down in practice, particularly in under-resourced schools. If there is no Santhali teacher available, can Santhali truly be considered a choice?
The consequences of this are as political as they are pedagogical. When a new language is introduced alongside two others, the space for a child's own language inevitably shrinks. And when that language is absent, or barely acknowledged, in the classroom, education begins to feel like erasure. This is reflected in tribal student learning outcomes and dropout rates.
Voice before vocabulary
Much of the policy defence of the NEP, 2020 rests on the cognitive benefits of multilingualism. But language is not just a pedagogical tool; it is the first marker of identity, the anchor of one's emotional and cultural world. When education unfolds in a language alien to a child's lived experience, the classroom becomes not a place of discovery, but a site of anxiety.
Global research reinforces this reality. UNESCO notes that children taught in their first language perform better academically, stay in school longer, and are more likely to engage actively in class. But beyond its measurable outcomes, mother-tongue instruction carries an essential normative weight. It affirms the learner's sense of self. It tells a tribal or rural child: your voice matters; it belongs here. In Odisha's tribal districts, a Multilingual Education (MLE) programme introduced instruction in Santhali, Kui, and other local languages before transitioning students to Odia and English. The results were both empirical and emotional, where attendance improved, confidence surged, and parents became more actively involved. A subsequent NCERT evaluation found that the programme had a significant impact on student's achievement in both language and mathematics. Children in MLE schools outperformed their peers in non-MLE schools across oral, written, and overall assessments.
India is not alone in grappling with the challenge of multilingual education. Other democracies, too, have experimented with different models. Indonesia, one of Asia's most linguistically diverse nations, mandates 'Bahasa Indonesia' as the language of instruction, though it is the mother tongue of less than 10% of its population. This top-down approach has meant that most children begin schooling in a language they barely understand, resulting in persistently low learning outcomes. In response, a joint initiative by the Indonesian and Australian governments piloted a transitional bilingual education model that integrated students' first languages into early instruction. The results were telling — students became more engaged, classroom participation improved, and teachers observed a visible boost in confidence. Early findings from the pilot affirm a larger truth that language-based empowerment cannot be imposed from above; it must be built from below, through systems that listen, adapt, and co-create with communities themselves.
Participation, not prescription
Much of the resistance to the three-language policy, particularly in States such as Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, does not reflect opposition to any language, but unease with centralised, top-down mandates. As the Supreme Court rightly affirmed, even mother-tongue instruction must respect the individual's right to choose. The fault line, then, is not language, but the fear of control. Here are four interlocking strategies that shift us from a framework of 'imposition' to one of 'empowerment' through participation.
First, States and districts should form language committees composed of teachers, parents, linguists, and local leaders. These bodies can tailor the three-language mix to their region's context. A tribal-majority school, for instance, might adopt a tribal language, the regional State language, and Hindi or English, not by fiat, but by choice.
Second, NEP rightly recommends beginning education in a child's home language, especially in foundational years. Pilot programmes such as Odisha's MLE demonstrate that early literacy in a familiar language builds stronger bridges to regional and global tongues. These programmes should be scaled with care, guided by local success stories.
Third, multilingual education cannot succeed without multilingual educators. Governments must invest in recruiting and training instructors for both widely spoken Indian languages and vulnerable tribal tongues. Local graduates should be incentivised to teach their own languages.
Last, prioritise depth over number. Introducing a third language prematurely risks shallow learning in all. Schools must be empowered to delay or pace third-language introduction based on readiness, as NEP itself allows. Optional advanced studies can offer motivated students further enrichment without overwhelming others.
Each of these steps reframes multilingual education as a negotiated project, not a bureaucratic edict. Contemporary modernisation often cuts short the process in the rush for outcomes. But language policy demands time and deliberation. As Huntington argued, institutional legitimacy must match societal changes. A multilingual India is not a paradox; it is a democratic path forward. When language policy listens before it instructs, it ceases to divide and begins to unite.
Abhishek Sharma is a researcher and candidate at the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi; views are personal

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
CBSE's two-board exam policy: A step towards fairer and flexible assessments
In a landmark move aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has introduced a two-board exam policy for Class X students, starting from the academic year 2025-26. This shift reflects a growing consensus in India's education system: high-stakes, one-time exams are no longer the only way to evaluate a student's academic performance. The new system allows students to appear for the board exams twice in a year once as the main attempt and once as an improvement attempt bringing India closer to global best practices and offering a more student-centric, equitable, and flexible assessment model. A breakdown of the new exam structure Under the updated policy, students will take the main board exam in mid-February, covering the full syllabus. If they wish to improve their performance, they can opt to reappear for one or more subjects during a second exam scheduled for May. This second attempt is optional and selective—students can choose to appear for improvement in a maximum of three core subjects. Internal assessments, however, will be conducted only once before the main examination and are not repeated for the second attempt. Importantly, the exam pattern and syllabus will remain consistent across both phases. Eligibility and scope The first examination (Phase 1) is mandatory for all fresh Class X students and also open to previous years' repeaters, compartment, and improvement candidates. The second exam (Phase 2) will be available only to those who appeared for the first phase and fall under eligible categories such as improvement, compartment, or those granted special permissions including sports persons whose events clash with the first exam, or winter-bound schools. However, a key exclusion exists: students who are absent in three or more subjects in the first exam will be marked as 'Essential Repeat' and will not be eligible to appear for the second exam. Two separate Lists of Candidates (LOCs) must be prepared, one for each phase. The first is mandatory, while the second can include only existing candidates from Phase 1. No fresh entries or subject changes are permitted unless explicitly allowed by policy. NEP 2020 alignment This policy is a clear implementation of NEP 2020's vision outlined in Paragraphs 4.37 and 4.38. The policy calls for reducing exam pressure through modular and flexible assessments and recommends allowing students multiple opportunities to perform. The two-exam model moves away from the one-size-fits-all approach of previous years and embraces a learner-first mindset. By offering students a second chance to improve scores without repeating an academic year, this system helps de-stigmatize failure and encourages reflection, resilience, and continual learning. Student benefits: Performance without pressure The two-board exam system gives students the rare but vital chance to redeem themselves without academic penalty. If a student underperforms in the first attempt due to illness, anxiety, or other reasons they have a built-in opportunity to recover. This not only reduces the pressure associated with a single high-stakes exam but also nurtures a growth mindset. It allows students to treat the first attempt as a diagnostic experience and return better prepared, emotionally and academically, for a second chance. In the final result, only the better score between the two attempts will be considered a thoughtful step to ensure fairness. Implementation challenges: A shared responsibility While the intent is noble, the transition comes with logistical hurdles for schools, teachers, and the board itself. ♦ For Schools: Managing two full-fledged rounds of board exams within a four-month span increases administrative complexity. Schools must maintain two sets of LOCs, duplicate exam centre arrangements, and manage invigilation and staff deployment often during holidays or the start of a new academic year. ♦ For Teachers: Balancing regular classes with preparation for the improvement exam means extended responsibilities. Teachers will also need to guide students and parents through result interpretations, eligibility rules, and their implications for college admissions. ♦ For Students: Though student-focused, the policy may inadvertently create added pressure. Some students may feel compelled to reappear even when their initial scores are satisfactory, extending academic anxiety over a longer period. ♦ For the Board: Conducting two rounds of national exams requires significant operational planning and budgeting. From printing question papers to managing supervision and logistics, the resource burden is likely to double. A progressive step forward Despite the challenges, the CBSE's new two-exam system marks a major shift towards more compassionate and learner-friendly education in India. It recognizes that students deserve multiple opportunities to demonstrate their abilities and that learning is not a one-time event but a continuous journey. If implemented thoughtfully with adequate support systems in place, this move could reshape board exams in India from a source of anxiety to a platform for reflection, resilience, and reform. (The author is Principal-New Town, Orchids The International School)


Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
OPS urges Centre to release education funds for Tamil Nadu
Expelled AIADMK leader O Panneerselvam (OPS) on Tuesday condemned the BJP-led Union government for withholding funds amounting to ₹2,151 crore under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan from Tamil Nadu over the state government's refusal to accept the three-language formula mandated by the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020. OPS is presently a part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), under whose banner he ran as an independent in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and ultimately lost (File photo) 'Not releasing funds citing this reason is an act that affects the education of innocent, poor and needy students and teachers. This is strongly condemned,' OPS said in his statement. 'This action of the central government is against the Right to Education (RTE) Act and the principle of federalism…The Central Government's approach has created a pathetic situation where 25% of students cannot be enrolled in private schools under the RTE…' OPS is presently a part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), under whose banner he ran as an independent in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and ultimately lost. He has reportedly been unhappy over a perceived lack of respect for him within the alliance. According to an expelled AIADMK leader close to OPS, who spoke on condition of anonymity, 'Some of us had advised him to remain independent and not to join the BJP long back last year.' OPS' statement on Tuesday led to speculation of him joining the actor Vijay's fledgling Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK). 'That is an option but as a former chief minister, it is better for OPS to contest on his own along with whoever is willing to join hands with us,' the leader quoted above said. AIADMK general secretary Edappadi Palaniswami (EPS) expelled OPS in 2022. Both had been sharing power to run the party up till that point. Another expelled AIADMK leader TTV Dhinakaran's party Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) also joined the NDA last year, after the AIADMK had broken away from the BJP in 2023. However, the party rejoined the NDA this April. EPS reportedly failed to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his two-day visit to the state from July 26 to 28, even after seeking an appointment . BJP state president Nainar Nagendran said he had been unaware that OPS wanted to meet the PM. 'If I had known, I would have definitely arranged a meeting for him,' Nagendran said and did not react to OPS' statement on releasing of central funds. (ANY REACTION FROM DMK TO THE STATEMENT? HAS ANYONE IN BJP ALSO SPECIFICALLY RESPONDED TO IT?)


NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
Demographic Changes In Assam, Bengal "Ticking Time Bomb": Tamil Nadu Governor
Gandhinagar: Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi on Tuesday expressed concern over what he called demographic changes in some parts of the country, including Assam and West Bengal, as he described the trend as a "ticking time bomb" and urged stakeholders to find solutions. Amid raging language rows in some states and claims of Hindi imposition, including in Maharashtra, he noted it is not in India's character or culture to have bitterness in the name of language. "This country always managed to fight external aggression. But when it comes to internal matters, what happened in the past? In 1947, India was Partitioned because of internal implosion. People following an ideology announced they don't want to live with the rest of us. This ideology broke our nation," emphasised Mr Ravi. The Tamil Nadu Governor was addressing students and faculty members at the Rashtriya Raksha University (RRU), Gandhinagar, on the occasion of commencement of the academic year 2025-2026. "Is anyone concerned about the changes in demography which took place in Assam, West Bengal and Purvanchal (parts of UP and Bihar) during the last 30-40 years? Can anyone predict today that in the coming 50 years, work for partitioning the nation will not happen in these areas?" he asked. "We should conduct a study on the sensitive demography growing in some regions and what will be its future. This issue is like a ticking time bomb. We have to think about how we will deal with this issue in the future and start finding solutions from today itself," stressed the former IPS officer. According to him, a country's military strength was not adequate enough to deal with internal disturbances. Mr Ravi argued the Soviet Union would not have disintegrated in 1991 if its military strength had been sufficient to handle internal problems. Amid the ongoing rows over language in Maharashtra and Karnataka, Mr Ravi said it is not India's character to have bitterness in the name of language. "After independence, we started fighting with each other. One of the reasons was language. They (those advocating states based on linguistic identity) called it linguistic nationalism," the Governor maintained. He pointed out that central leadership has time and again made it clear all Indian languages are in the same league and deserve equal respect. "Union Home Minister Amit Shah has said on numerous occasions that all Indian languages are our national languages and we respect each one of them. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also said that at least primary education should be imparted in local languages in each state," said Mr Ravi. The Governor insisted bitterness among people in the name of language is not part of India's ethos. "It is not in the character of India to have bitterness among ourselves in the name of is not in our culture. After independence, we lost our sense of nationhood. As a result, our diversity, which was our strength, became a weakness," he added.