India's 3-language policy in a tug-of-war: Balancing national unity and state rights
While some states continue to adhere to a two-language model, others have paused or scaled back implementation of the Centre's recommendations, highlighting the persistent tension between national education guidelines and regional linguistic priorities.
At the heart of this debate is the three-language formula, a framework originally introduced in 1968 to promote multilingualism, national cohesion, and equitable access to language learning.
Though reaffirmed in successive education policies, its adoption has remained uneven across India. The most recent flashpoints, involving Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, have drawn renewed attention to the formula's legal status, practical challenges, and implications for federalism in Indian education policy.
Understanding the three-language formula
The three-language policy traces its roots back to the Kothari Commission recommendations of 1964-66 and was first implemented through the National Policy on Education in 1968.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Memperdagangkan CFD Emas dengan salah satu spread terendah?
IC Markets
Mendaftar
Undo
The framework has since been reinforced in subsequent education policies, including the current NEP 2020.
The policy's requirements are straightforward on paper:
Every student must learn three languages during their school education
At least two must be native Indian languages
States, regions, schools, or students themselves can choose which languages to include
Implementation should cover both government and private institutions
Crucially, no language can be imposed on any state or individual
However, the practical application varies dramatically across India's diverse linguistic landscape. Hindi-speaking states typically combine Hindi, English, and a modern Indian language – often from southern India. Non-Hindi-speaking states generally opt for their regional language, Hindi, and English.
The resistance: States assert their rights
The current pushback against the three-language formula reflects long-standing regional concerns about linguistic autonomy and cultural preservation.
Tamil Nadu has maintained its opposition since the late 1930s, consistently offering only Tamil and English in its curriculum. The state's resistance to Hindi instruction has remained unwavering through multiple policy iterations.
Karnataka recently declared its intention to continue with the two-language model of Kannada and English, particularly in government schools, despite earlier indications of compliance with the central policy.
Maharashtra has suspended implementation of the three-language policy in primary education, becoming the latest state to formally step back from the Centre's recommendations.
Constitutional framework: Where authority really lies
The legal landscape surrounding language education reveals why states feel empowered to challenge central directives. India's constitutional structure provides clear protections for state autonomy in educational matters.
Education falls under the Concurrent List in the Constitution's Seventh Schedule, meaning both the centre and states can legislate on the subject.
However, Article 350A specifically mandates that states arrange primary education in the mother tongue for linguistic minorities.
Most importantly, there exists no legal compulsion for states to adopt the three-language formula. This constitutional freedom has enabled states to design language policies that reflect their regional demographics, historical contexts, and cultural priorities.
The funding controversy: Conditional support raises stakes
The debate has intensified due to concerns over conditional funding through the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), the centre's flagship education scheme that typically covers 60% of costs whilst states contribute 40%.
In 2024, central assistance worth over INR 570 crore was reportedly withheld from at least one state due to non-compliance with NEP 2020 provisions, including the three-language formula. This development has raised alarm bells about the centre using financial leverage to enforce policy compliance, potentially undermining the federal structure of Indian governance.
Implementation reality: A patchwork approach
Across India, the three-language policy's implementation reveals stark regional variations:
Non-Hindi-speaking states like Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha typically offer their regional language alongside English and Hindi, though with varying degrees of emphasis and quality.
Hindi-speaking states often fulfil the requirement through Hindi, English, and a third option such as Sanskrit, Urdu, or Punjabi – though critics argue that choosing classical languages defeats the policy's modern communication objectives.
Private institutions, particularly those affiliated with international boards, frequently substitute foreign languages like French, German, or Spanish for the third Indian language, catering to parental aspirations for global competitiveness.
The broader implications
This ongoing tension reflects fundamental questions about India's federal structure and the balance between national unity and regional identity. The three-language policy, designed to promote multilingualism and national cohesion, has now become a flashpoint for debates about cultural autonomy and state rights.
The centre continues to advocate for the policy as essential for national integration and equitable access to opportunities.
States, however, view their linguistic policies as core to their cultural identity and constitutional prerogatives.
As the debate continues, the three-language formula remains what it has always been; a non-mandatory framework that states can choose to adopt or reject. The current resistance from major states suggests that any future resolution will require greater sensitivity to regional concerns and perhaps a more flexible approach to implementation. The outcome of this debate will likely shape not just language education in India, but also set important precedents for federal-state relations in educational policy-making.
Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Maharashtra politics has let down Marathi-speaking people
It all began in February 1956 when the States Reorganisation Commission led by Justice Fazal Ali, with K M Panikkar and H N Kunzru as members, recommended a bilingual Bombay State, including Maharashtra and Gujarat, with Bombay its capital, thereby denying Maharashtra's exclusive claim over the city. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Home Minister Vallabhbhai Patel were against the restructuring of states on a linguistic basis, but the death of Potti Sreeramulu, the Telugu activist who went on a fast to press for the demand to create Andhra Pradesh, compelled them to alter their stand. But they were unwilling to concede Maharashtra's right over the city of Mumbai. The apparently adamant stand of Nehru and Patel triggered independent India's first all-party coalition against the mighty Congress party, which was accused, rightly so, of being anti-federal. It necessitated the formation of the Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti, which came into being in February 1956, the first all-party anti-Congress front of independent India that had the likes of communist Sripad Amrut Dange, aka Bhai Dange, socialist S M Joshi and activists such as Keshav Sitaram 'Prabodhankar' Thackeray and other well-known Maharashtrians. With the 70th anniversary of the formation of the Samiti, which successfully led the agitation demanding an independent state for Marathi-speaking people with Mumbai as its capital, a few months away, Maharashtra is witnessing another all-party mobilisation against the allegedly anti-federal Centre. The difference between now and then, however, is that the once-strong omnipresent Congress at the Centre has been replaced by the BJP. There are two striking similarities between the situations then and now. Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, or Guruji, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief then, had extended open support to Nehru and Patel in their initial stand that was against states' reorganisation on the basis of language. The RSS and Nehru-Patel, strange as it may sound, were on the same page — both believed that linguistic divisions could lead to fragmentation and instability and become a threat to the integration of the newly independent nation. This explains the BJP's insistence on Hindi. Spoken predominantly in the north Indian states, Hindi remains central to the saffron camp's grand design of 'nation building', which envisages Oneness — one nation, one religion and one language (and one political party, one leader, BJP critics might add). It also explains Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis's recent political experiment to bring in Hindi as the third language in school education from the primary level. The move backfired but, on the way, it galvanised the Opposition, which wasted no time in forming an all-party front, à la 1956, to oppose the BJP. Maharashtra is crucial as the only state south of the Vindhyas for the RSS's long-envisaged plan of Hindi-isation of India. Had Fadnavis, a true swayamsevak, succeeded in making Hindi mandatory from school level, Maharashtra would have been the first big state outside the cow belt to embrace the north Indian language. United in thwarting his efforts were the Thackeray brothers, Uddhav and Raj, who buried their hatchet, if only for the time being, to challenge the ever-so-strong Centre, taking a cue perhaps from their grandfather Prabodhankar, who had played a significant role in spoiling the Nehru-Patel design 70 years ago. So, like in 1956, there is a Thackeray involved in the current politics of language as well. The 70-year gap between then and now illustrates how Maharashtra politics has let down the Marathi-speaking people. Following the formation of the state of Maharashtra, with Nehru later conceding the state's demand for Mumbai as its capital, the Samiti that spearheaded the agitation against Nehru-Patel was dissolved, and then the Shiv Sena rose. Led by maverick Bal Thackeray, the son of Prabodhankar, it espoused the cause of the Marathi manoos, but it didn't go much further than ensuring lowly jobs for locals in state-run PSUs. Unlike the DMK in Tamil Nadu, the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal or even the Assam Gana Parishad in the Northeast, the Shiv Sena was far from being a pan-Maharashtra party. It was, till a few years ago, confined to Mumbai and the Konkan. It lost its mojo after aggressive Hindutva became the mainstay of politics. The Thackerays, having strayed from the Marathi cause, jumped onto the Hindutva bandwagon. It didn't take much effort for the BJP to first overshadow the Sena and then split it into two. Meanwhile, Raj Thackeray, the Shiv Sena founder's successor in charisma, tried his hand at exploiting Marathi sentiments. Like Thackeray Sr, he, too, lost steam on the way and settled for playing second fiddle to the BJP. Led now by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, it was much easier for the BJP to neutralise the younger Thackeray and make his political outfit, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, redundant. In its zeal to run the state on its own, the BJP's aggressive leadership tried to politically weaken the two Thackerays. The Fadnavis government's ill-timed decision — now rolled back — to introduce (read: Impose) Hindi at school level came in this fraught context. It was nothing short of bowling a full-toss in the death overs for a team battling to stay afloat. The BJP government's move not only rejuvenated the two Thackerays and their two Senas, in the bargain it also sullied the saffron party's anti-federal image further. The BJP now is being compared with the old Delhi-centric, all-powerful Congress. It is certainly not a comparison the BJP would be happy about. Now, like in the Sixties, the issue of Hindi has crossed political boundaries and has taken a Maharashtra vs Might of Delhi turn. In the Sixties, the fall-out of the Samyukta Maharashtra movement was the Congress's defeat in subsequent elections. Will history repeat itself with the BJP, which has replaced Congress now? Only time will answer this question. But meanwhile, like the play Six Characters in Search of an Author by Italian dramatist Luigi Pirandello, Maharashtrians' search for a genuine and honest regional political party that can go beyond hooliganism and thuggery in the name of Marathi manoos continues. The writer is editor, Loksatta
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
All eyes on Uddhav and Raj Thackeray sharing stage after 20 years
MUMBAI : Two decades after they parted ways, following a power tussle, Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray will be seen in a joint rally in Worli today. The victory rally titled, 'Awaj Marathicha' (voice of Marathi) was planned by the two parties together after the ruling Mahayuti government rolled back its decision to make Hindi mandatory as a third language in the state's primary schools recently, following a strong opposition both from Raj and Uddhav, and intellectuals from civil society. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) Chief Raj Thackeray along with Shiv Sena Chief Uddhav Thackeray at the Bal Thackeray Memorial at Shivaji, Park, Dadar, Mumbai, India on Monday, November 17, 2014 on Bal Thackeray's 2nd death anniversary..(HT Photo) It has been observed in political circles that the Thackeray cousins uniting over a common cause could also set the stage for their political reunion, especially with an eye on the local body elections later in the year. Both parties have pulled out all the stops to put up a strong show of strength for the rally, which is being held at the NSCI Dome, Worli. A leader from Sena (UBT) told HT that while the auditorium's capacity is 8,000, the audience turnout is likely to be far more. However, those that are unable to reach the venue can watch the event on LED screens which have been set up outside the auditorium. Marathi director-producer Ajit Bhure will anchor the event. 'We have erected a grand stage with the map of Maharashtra in the background, headlined 'Awaj Marathicha'. We have arranged nearly 6000 chairs. Tents have been set up on all sides of the NSCI Dome, and screens propped up high on footpaths. We expect people to come spontaneously. Traffic on Annie Besant Road may have to be stopped,' said MNS leader Yashwant Killedar. Earlier, senior leaders such as Anil Parab from Shiv Sena (UBT) and Bala Nandgaonkar from MNS were assigned to oversee the planning and arrangements, which they have been executing with the help of their respective leaders through the week. The duo also held a meeting of functionaries to ensure everything goes according to plan. Local leaders have also been asked to set up LED screens in their areas. Teasers showing both brothers as lions fighting a cackle of hyenas are doing the rounds on social media and banners showing the cousins with Shiv Sena founder, the late Bal Thackeray, have been placed at several places across Mumbai, particularly Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar and Worli, and the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR). The messages writ large are: 'Who brings down the government to its knees? Marathi manoos' and 'Unity of the Marathi people is the need of the time and real strength for us.' Kunal Manikar, MNS's western Mumbai chief, said: 'The Marathi mandals have heeded our call. A Jai Jawan Govinda Mandal will form a human pyramid at the venue.' Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Kishori Pednekar said, 'Though the rally is for the cause of Marathi, it could be the beginning of a renewed alliance between the cousins ahead of the local body polls.' Another leader from the party, Vinayak Raut, said, 'People will come from across Maharashtra to see the two brothers together. Leaders from allied parties such as Jayant Patil of NCP (SP), and CPI and CPM will join us.' HT has learnt that the heads of Sena (UBT) allies in the Opposition – NCP (SP) chief Sharad Pawar and Congress chief Harshwardhan Sapkal – will not attend the rally, although their representatives will participate.
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
India faced 3 adversaries inOp Sindoor: Top general
NEW DELHI: India faced not one but three adversaries during the four-day military confrontation with Pakistan under Operation Sindoor two months ago, a top general said on Friday, putting the spotlight on the crucial battle support provided to Islamabad by allies Beijing and Ankara, and the lessons learnt from the May 7-10 clash. Deputy chief of Army Staff Lt General Rahul R. Singh speaks during a conference-cum-exhibition on 'New Age Military Technologies: Industry Capabilities & Way Forward' organised by FICCI, in New Delhi, on Friday. (PTI) Beijing saw the confrontation as a 'live lab' to test the performance of the weapons and systems supplied by it to Pakistan, and the Chinese actions reflected its strategy against India of 'killing with a borrowed knife' (using Pakistan for its own gains), said Lieutenant General Rahul R Singh, deputy chief of army staff (capability development and sustenance). China also gave real-time inputs to Pakistan about India's weapon deployments, he said. Singh also explained why Pakistan asked for a ceasefire. 'Because there was a punch that was ready, and they realised that the hidden punch, in case it comes through, Pakistan would be in a very, very bad condition.' He was likely referring to the current leadership's muscular response to terror strikes. Previously, the understanding was that Pakistan sued for peace after Indian strikes on several of its military and air bases on the morning of May 10, but it was always suspected that New Delhi had a larger strike in the works, perhaps with the Indian Navy also getting involved. Singh's comment is the first official acknowledgement of that. 'So few lessons that I thought I must flag as far as Operation Sindoor is concerned --- firstly, one border, two adversaries. So we saw Pakistan on one side, but adversaries were two. And I would say actually three. Pakistan was the front face. We had China providing all possible support… Turkey also played a very important role in providing the type of support that was there,' said Singh at a conference on New Age Military Technologies organised by industry grouping FICCI. This is the first time that top levels of the Indian military have detailed the role of China and Turkey during the four-day military clash, the most intense conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbours in decades. India launched Operation Sindoor in the early hours of May 7 and struck nine terror and military installations in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) as a response to the Pahalgam terror strike in which 26 people were shot dead by terrorists. It sparked a four-day military confrontation with Pakistan involving fighter jets, missiles, drones, long-range weapons and heavy artillery before the two sides reached an understanding on stopping all military action on May 10. 'And it's (Chinese support) is no surprise because if you were to look at statistics in the last five years, 81% of the military hardware that Pakistan is getting is all Chinese. And China, of course, (used) the good old dictum 'kill by a borrowed knife'…So he would rather use the neighbour to cause pain, rather than getting involved in the mud-slinging match on the northern borders,' Singh said, referring to the long-standing issue of an undefined border between India and China . Indian air defence systems and radars gathered considerable information on Chinese-origin equipment, particularly the J-10 and JF-17 fighter jets, PL-15 beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile and HQ-9 long-range air defence system. This was the first known use in combat for most of this equipment. Singh highlighted how China evaluated the performance of the weaponry supplied by it to Pakistan. 'China, perhaps, has seen that he is able to test his weapons against, say, various other weapon systems that are like a live lab, which is available. That is something we have to be cognisant about,' he said. Pakistan was getting real-time inputs from China about the positioning of Indian weapons during the clash, Singh said. 'When the DGMO level talks were going on, Pakistan was actually mentioning that 'we know that your such and such important vector is primed and ready for action and I would request you to perhaps pull it back.' So he was getting live inputs from China.' This is the first time that India has confirmed details of real-time coordination between Beijing and Islamabad. The Congress was quick to cite Singh's comments and demand a discussion on India-China relations in the Parliament. 'Lt Gen Singh has revealed some details of the extraordinary ways by which China helped the Pakistan Air Force. This is the same China which completely destroyed the status quo in Ladakh five years ago but to which Prime Minister Modi gave a public clean chit on June 19, 2020. For five years, the INC has been demanding a discussion on the full gamut of India-China relations in the Parliament. The Modi government has consistently refused to have such a debate,' said Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, who is also the party's general secretary in-charge communications. The Congress will continue to make this demand in the forthcoming monsoon session of Parliament, and the government must agree so that a consensus can be built for a collective response to the geopolitical and economic challenges that China poses to India --- directly and through Pakistan, Ramesh said. In his lecture, the army's deputy chief touched upon Turkey's role too, especially the drones supplied by it to Pakistan. 'Bayraktar (drones), of course, he (Turkey) has been giving (to Pakistan) from before. We saw numerous other drones also coming in, landing in the face of war, during the war, along with trained sort of individuals who were there.' India's population centres were not quite targeted by Pakistan during the skirmish but, in the next round, the country must be prepared for that, Singh said. 'For that, more and more air defence, more and more counter rocket artillery, drone sort of a system has to be prepared for which we have to move very fast,' he said. The defining thing about Operation Sindoor was that the strategic messaging by the country's leadership was unambiguous, he said. 'You cross the redlines and there will be action. There would be punitive action if required. There is no scope of absorbing the pain the way we did a few years ago,' he said, likely a reference to terror strikes in the past to which India did not respond militarily. India has now made it explicit that any sub-conventional attack (such as a terror strike) will be responded through conventionally (a military strike). He said stopping the war at the appropriate time was a masterstroke by India. 'An important consideration was that we should always be on top of the escalation ladder. When we reach a political military objective, we should try and put a stop to it. So a lot of naysayers say, why did we stop now? So war is easy to initiate, but it's very difficult to control. I would say that was a masterstroke to stop the war.'
