Context:
- The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 mandates a three-language policy in schools to promote multilingualism and inclusivity.
- Recent political resistance in Maharashtra over prioritising Hindi as the second language till Class 5 has reignited debates on linguistic imposition, federalism, and national integration.
- The controversy highlights enduring linguistic sensitivities in non-Hindi speaking states.
Key Highlights:
Three-Language Policy under NEP 2020
- Students are expected to learn:
- Two Indian languages
- One foreign language
- Provides greater flexibility compared to earlier rigid language formulas.
- No explicit imposition of any particular language in the policy text.
Maharashtra Case
- State government proposed Hindi as the compulsory second language till Class 5.
- Triggered strong political backlash from:
- Uddhav Thackeray
- Raj Thackeray
- Concerns centred on Hindi imposition and erosion of Marathi linguistic identity.
- Government rolled back the move.
- A committee led by Dr. Narendra Jadhav was constituted to examine:
- Policy implementation
- Stakeholder concerns
- Linguistic feasibility
Political and Social Dimensions
- Hindi, associated with central political power, is perceived as gaining disproportionate influence.
- The ruling party views the policy as a tool for national unity, but uniform application risks alienation of linguistic minorities.
- Regional pride and identity politics strongly shape public responses.
Implementation Challenges
- Uneven ground-level implementation:
- Minimal uptake of southern languages (e.g., Tamil, Kannada) in northern states like Bihar.
- Maharashtra allows choice among 15 languages if 20 students opt, but:
- Teacher shortages
- Infrastructure limitations
- Curriculum constraints make true multilingualism difficult.
- Growing preference for English due to:
- Employment prospects
- Global competitiveness
Broader Implications
- Language policies can unite or divide political rivals depending on public sentiment.
- A uniform language framework risks promoting linguistic chauvinism.
- Cultural federalism is crucial for sustaining India’s pluralistic democracy.
Relevant Prelims Points:
- Issue: Linguistic tensions arising from implementation of NEP’s three-language policy.
- Causes:
- Perceived Hindi dominance
- Centralised policy application
- Inadequate local consultation
- Government Initiative:
- NEP 2020 three-language formula
- State-level committees (e.g., Jadhav Committee)
- Benefits:
- Promotes multilingual competence
- Enhances cognitive development
- Encourages cultural exchange
- Challenges:
- Linguistic hegemony fears
- Infrastructure and teacher shortages
- Regional resistance in non-Hindi states
- Impact:
- Reinforces debates on federalism, identity, and governance
- Shapes Centre–State relations in education policy
Relevant Mains Points:
- Facts & Framework:
- NEP 2020
- Education as a Concurrent List subject
- Role of States in curriculum and language choices
- Key Concepts:
- Linguistic Hegemony: Dominance of one language marginalising others
- Identity Politics: Language as a marker of political and cultural identity
- Cultural Federalism: Regional autonomy in cultural affairs
- Analytical Perspective:
- Language is deeply linked with power, access, and identity.
- Imposed uniformity undermines India’s linguistic pluralism.
- Way Forward:
- Reassess the three-language policy through a consultative federal process.
- Allow regional autonomy within the NEP framework.
- Invest in teacher training, infrastructure, and curriculum development.
- Promote voluntary multilingualism, not coercive standardisation.
- Strengthen mother tongue-based education in early years while balancing national and global communication needs.