The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has introduced a three-language policy for class 9, requiring students to study three languages, with at least two being Indian. Under the new framework, students may choose their mother tongue, the state language, and a third language, or any two Indian languages plus a foreign language. The policy is part of the government's National Education Policy, which argues that multilingualism offers cognitive benefits and prepares students for future growth.
The policy has caused anxiety and uncertainty among students, teachers, and parents. This comes after a series of other disruptions in the education sector, including the leak of NEET question papers and the chaotic rollout of CBSE's On-Screen Marking (OSM) system. These events have eroded the credibility of the system, affecting lakhs of students.
While the benefits of learning multiple languages are widely acknowledged—such as enhanced cognitive development, reasoning flexibility, problem-solving abilities, and greater adaptability—the implementation faces significant practical hurdles. States like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Karnataka view the policy as a ploy to impose Hindi on unwilling students. Several regional political parties regard it with suspicion, arguing that the introduction of a particular language can become a means of political domination. In the past, this perception triggered movements and agitations in the South against language policies.
Education is on the Concurrent List, but a centralised policy like language in the educational curriculum undermines the federal structure. This was the main reason the erstwhile DMK regime in Tamil Nadu opposed the three-language policy strongly. A new language is always welcome when pursued voluntarily, but is resented when imposed from above.
Another overlooked aspect is the rural-urban divide in providing the needed infrastructure, teaching aids, and qualified faculty to teach new languages. While corporate and private schools can afford to hire language teachers at short notice, schools in rural areas, often run by modest management, may struggle to secure necessary teaching resources and faculty. The policy could, therefore, widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and deepen the divide between rural and urban students, since many educational policies are already urban-centric.
Experts quoted in the source argue that any major restructuring of the existing pattern should begin at the foundational stage rather than be introduced midway through the academic cycle. The policy's hurried rollout, combined with infrastructure gaps and teacher shortages, raises concerns about its effectiveness and fairness.
