Answer

Introduction

India’s National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 advocates a three-language formula promising flexibility and inclusion. However, in practice, it has sparked concerns of top-down imposition, especially in diverse and marginalised regions. As warned by political scientist Samuel Huntington, institutional fragility amidst rapid reforms can lead to societal disorder instead of unity.

Key Challenges in Implementation

• Perceived Language Imposition: The three-language formula is often seen as a tool for centralised control, especially in non-Hindi speaking states.
  Eg: States like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have resisted the formula, interpreting it as indirect Hindi imposition and erosion of federal autonomy.
• Lack of Trained Teachers: Absence of qualified language teachers hinders smooth implementation.
• Four-Language Burden in Tribal Areas: Children in tribal belts face an overload of languages without transitional support.
  Eg: Santhali-speaking children in Odisha and West Bengal must learn Hindi/Bengali/English along with their mother tongue, causing confusion and alienation.
• Undermining of Mother Tongue: Insufficient emphasis on native language shrinks space for identity expression.
  Eg: Tribal student dropout rates rise as instruction excludes their first language, reducing engagement and learning outcomes.
• Infrastructure and Funding Gaps: Policy ambition outpaces ground realities in underfunded schools.
  Eg: Schools forced to rotate unqualified staff or provide no third-language instruction due to funding gaps.
• Psychological and Cultural Disconnect: Language unfamiliar to a child’s context causes learning anxiety instead of discovery.
• Uniform Policy in Diverse Contexts: The policy lacks contextual adaptation to regional linguistic needs.
  Eg: Unlike Odisha’s MLE model, most states lack decentralised language planning involving local stakeholders.

Strategies to Turn Language Policy into Empowerment

• Local Language Committees for Tailoring Policy: Form decentralised committees with local stakeholders to design appropriate language mix.
  Eg: A tribal-majority school can democratically choose tribal + regional + national language, avoiding central imposition.
• Scale Multilingual Education (MLE) Models: Expand successful MLE programmes that begin in a child’s mother tongue.
  Eg: Odisha’s MLE model in Santhali and Kui improved attendance and learning; NCERT found MLE students outperforming peers in math and language.
• Invest in Multilingual Teacher Training: Recruit and train local graduates in native languages to ensure sustained instruction.
• Flexible Implementation of Third Language: Allow states/schools to pace or delay third-language introduction based on readiness.
• Shift to Participatory Language Policy: Move from top-down imposition to bottom-up participatory design.
  Eg: Like Indonesia-Australia’s bilingual pilot model, co-create curricula with community feedback to improve learning and engagement.
• Protect Linguistic Identity in Curriculum: Embed mother-tongue pride and identity in early schooling narratives.
  Eg: UNESCO studies show education in the mother tongue is a key factor for inclusion and quality learning.
• Legal and Normative Safeguards for Choice: Ensure that ‘choice’ is not rhetorical but institutionally enabled.

Conclusion

The three-language formula under NEP 2020 represents India’s aspiration for inclusive multilingualism, but without institutional maturity and participatory design, it risks deepening linguistic fault lines. Huntington’s insight cautions us: symbolic modernisation without institutional strength invites disorder. A truly empowering language policy must listen before instructing, co-create before mandating ensuring that no child learns at the cost of their linguistic identity.

DOWNLOAD PDF