In India, it is violence that often brings language to the forefront. This time, Mumbai has become the epicentre of the debate around language. Three key questions have emerged. First, what should be the policy on language education in Indian schools? Second, is Hindi being imposed on non-Hindi speaking regions through covert means? Third, must everyone living in Mumbai be required to speak Marathi?

Let us begin with the first question: the policy of language education in India. The current debate was triggered by a Maharashtra government order mandating the teaching of Hindi as a compulsory third language in schools. Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray strongly opposed the move, alleging that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was attempting to impose Hindi on Maharashtra. As a result of the backlash, the government was forced to withdraw the order.

The original order had implemented the three-language formula in schools and specified Hindi as the third language. Critics, including the Thackeray brothers, questioned why Hindi was the only option, with no provision for other languages to be chosen instead.

Startled by the protest and fearing further backlash, the government issued a revised order allowing any language opted for by 20 or more students to be taught as the third language. This too was opposed, with critics claiming it was merely an attempt to reintroduce Hindi through the back door. Ultimately, this order was withdrawn as well.

Following the reversal, parties led by Uddhav and Raj Thackeray held victory rallies, claiming they had thwarted a plan to impose Hindi on Mumbai.

This brings us to a deeper question: can there be, or should there be, a single policy for language education in a multilingual country like India? And is the three-language formula a sound pedagogical approach?

The Union government insists that the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 mandates the teaching of three languages at the school level, and that this must be followed by all states. However, this recommendation is not new; previous policy documents also mentioned the three-language formula, but with far more flexibility and without making it mandatory. Those earlier governments understood that it was a recommendation – not binding policy.

Education falls under the Concurrent List, giving states the constitutional right to frame their own policies

The BJP-led Union government, however, treats the formula as mandatory policy and insists on its implementation by all states. This approach overlooks the fact that education falls under the Concurrent List, giving states the constitutional right to frame their own policies.

Take Tamil Nadu, for example. The state has never adopted the three-language formula, following instead a two-language system for decades. Yet, Tamil Nadu’s students have not lagged behind those from states that follow the three-language formula.

For the first time, however, a Union government has withheld funds, arguing that Tamil Nadu is not implementing a key NEP component. Ironically, it presents itself as a protector of Tamil children’s rights, accusing the state government of depriving them of language education.

In recent years, the Union government has taken a more rigid stance on the sanctity of the three-language formula. It claims that the goal is to help children learn more languages. But, as many educators have argued, the formula is not a pedagogical solution to the question of language education. No research in language education supports the compulsory teaching of three languages at the primary level.

The formula is more of a political and cultural proposition than an educational one. It was envisioned as a way to bring India’s diverse linguistic regions closer. The idea was that students might learn at least one language from outside their region – for example, a girl from Bihar learning Malayalam, or a boy from Kerala learning Bengali. The hope was that this would foster national integration, a term popular in Nehru’s time.

But unity should not be built on linguistic homogeneity. True unity depends on mutual understanding and respect for diversity. Political attempts to impose one language or culture on all Indians are misguided. No language should be treated as the default “first language” across the country.

Also Read: The Word ‘Secularism’ in the Constitution's Preamble is a Thorn In the BJP's Side

Ironically, the so-called Hindi-speaking states have shown the least sincerity in implementing the three-language formula. In southern and northeastern states, Hindi was introduced as a second or third language. But in states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, or Rajasthan, Sanskrit was adopted as the third language.

The spirit of the three language formula demanded teaching of southern languages like Malayalam, Tamil, or Bengali in the so-called Hindi regions. It was not done. That was a clear betrayal. And the quality of Sanskrit education in these regions is often abysmal. This inconsistency undermined the spirit of the three-language formula and created distrust. People in the South saw that those in Hindi-speaking regions were not reciprocating the gesture of linguistic openness.

It bears repeating: no educational research supports the necessity of learning three languages, especially at the primary level. There is no scientific rule dictating when students should start learning second or third languages. Context matters. In fact, proficiency in one language often aids in learning others.

So why fix the number at three? Why not two or four? Language policy should be guided by context, not rigid numbers.

Around the world – in the U.S., China, Africa – students begin learning second languages at different stages. In the U.S., for example, students typically begin learning a foreign language in grades 4 or 5, especially if they plan to pursue higher education.

In India, English has long been one of the three languages taught in schools – both in the North and the South. This is due to historical reasons, and while once seen as a symbol of colonialism, English is now a practical necessity. There has never been consensus, however, on when English education should begin.

Rethinking the three-language formula in light of global research on language education

Those who studied in government schools in the 1970s will remember starting English in Class 6 – or in some places, Class 4. Professor Krishna Kumar, for example, recalls starting English in Madhya Pradesh in the 1960s, a decade before others in Bihar.

Elite public schools introduced English from the first grade, and because the children of influential families studied there, society gradually began to see this early start as ideal. These schools also helped make English the medium of instruction – a practice that government schools later adopted under social pressure.

But regardless of when language instruction begins, what matters most is the quality of teachers. Even in Hindi-speaking regions like Uttar Pradesh, lakhs of students fail Hindi exams. Between 2018 and 2020, between 8 and 11 lakh students failed in Hindi – despite it being their first language.

This should have triggered serious introspection among educational policymakers. Instead, energy is wasted lamenting that Tamil Nadu or Telangana students aren’t learning Hindi.

Consider that in 2024 alone, 1.42 lakh students failed Hindi as a subject in Karnataka. Educationists rightly question the value of teaching Hindi as a third language:

"Even if Hindi is taught as a third language, it holds little value in terms of knowledge, business, higher education, or daily life. Instead, the government should prioritise Kannada and English education, ensuring students receive quality education in these languages, which are crucial for their academic and professional futures."

The issue is not about Hindi per se, but about whether a third language is necessary at all in early education. More than 60 years have passed since the three-language formula was introduced. It is time to rethink it in light of global research on language education.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.