“Language is not everything in education, but without language, everything is nothing in education”
- Ekkehard Wolff
The long-standing linguistic tensions in India, accentuated by recent events, highlight the urgent need for a cohesive national language policy. This is particularly significant as there is an evolving, socially-inflected relationship between language and education.
For instance, the for the Class X examination, which mandates Hindi as the second language, has sparked significant concerns among educators from non-Hindi-speaking regions. Many non-Hindi speaking states have–-Tamil Nadu, in particular--have storied histories of opposing the enforcement of Hindi. In the absence of a clear policy, individual states have begun taking matters into their own hands.
Andhra Pradesh, for example, allocated to promote, preserve, and innovate the Telugu language, highlighting its historical significance and aiming to enhance its propagation. Kerala went so far as to mandate that all official communications within state departments, public sector undertakings, quasi-government organizations, autonomous institutions, and cooperative institutions be ; and the Maharashtra governments plans to conduct all competitive examinations organised by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission in . These fragmented efforts and conflicts highlight a growing problem: India라이브 바카라 approach to languages is increasingly ad hoc and driven by political expediency, rather than guided by a well-defined national framework.
A Legal Framework Frozen In Time
The Indian Constitution does not designate any national language. It recognizes Hindi (in Devanagari script) as the official language of the Union, with English added as an additional official language following the Official Languages Act of 1963. What began as a transitional arrangement has effectively become permanent, with both Hindi and English being used for parliamentary proceedings and legislation.
This legal framework, however, remains static, failing to reflect the country라이브 바카라 changing linguistic landscape. Part XVII of the Constitution, which deals with official languages, has remained untouched for over five decades. Meanwhile, the lived realities of multilingualism and shifting educational demands have evolved considerably.
The Compliance Culture In Education
In higher education, institutions increasingly function as 'Institutions of Compliance,' responding to directives from central regulatory bodies like the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Ministry of Education. This culture diminishes institutional autonomy and reduces space for dialogue. This pressure to comply extends to language policy in education as well. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 reiterates the three-language formula, promising flexibility—“no language will be imposed on any State” (). Yet, implementation often suggests otherwise.
The perception of a covert push for Hindi, along with the elevation of Sanskrit, continues to generate mistrust. Even though Sanskrit appears only once in the 66-page NEP 2020 document, it is extensively promoted as an optional third language. Section 4.17 emphasises Sanskrit라이브 바카라 role in the curriculum, portraying it as an “,” even though it primarily functions as a classical source language rather than a language of daily communication.
The NEP라이브 바카라 repeated use of the word “recommendation” across its sections suggests a non-binding nature. However, when states like are told that funds will only be released upon implementing the policy in “letter and spirit,” it signals a shift from advisory to mandatory. This erodes the distinction between suggestion and imposition.
The Three-Language Formula: A Stalled Promise
India라이브 바카라 three-language formula, introduced in the 1960s, was originally meant to promote multilingualism. In practice, it has often failed. Many North Indian states show little interest in teaching South Indian languages, and some offer Sanskrit instead of a modern Indian language as the third language. Tamil Nadu has opted out entirely, favouring a two-language system: Tamil and English.
Scholars such as Agnihotri have observed that while the formula looks appealing on paper, it has been poorly implemented. The result is a schooling system with no consistent or effective approach to multilingual education. This is particularly troubling, given the global research consensus that children learn best in their mother tongue in the early years and that multilingualism confers cognitive benefits.
To its credit, NEP 2020 supports the use of the home language as the medium of instruction until at least Grade 5, preferably till Grade 8 (), and promises flexibility in language choice. It even encourages inter-state partnerships to exchange language teachers. However, these ideas require more than policy recommendations—they need systematic planning, funding, and institutional frameworks that only a national language policy can ensure.
Hindi라이브 바카라 Expanding Influence
Despite assurances that “no language will be imposed,” Hindi continues to expand its reach in the Indian education system. In Hindi-speaking states, it functions as the mother tongue, while English typically fills the second-language slot. In non-Hindi-speaking states, Hindi often becomes the default second or third language under the three-language formula. This pattern gives the impression that Hindi is quietly becoming a national default, reinforcing concerns about linguistic centralisation.
The NEP 2020 adds another layer to this debate by promoting Sanskrit prominently. While the policy offers various classical languages—such as Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Odia, Pali, Persian, and Prakrit—as options, Sanskrit receives disproportionate emphasis. Entire sections of the policy highlight its inclusion across all levels of education and describe it as an “important modern language” (). This framing conflates its classical status with contemporary relevance, in contrast to languages like Tamil, which actively function as both classical and modern languages in daily use.
Some public pronouncements have further deepened mistrust. Statements equating with linguistic control, and directives to replace with Sanskrit teachers in certain states, have added to fears of ideological imposition. Although the NEP allows students to choose from multiple languages, the visibility and positioning of Sanskrit—particularly when other classical languages are offered only as optional or online modules—suggest an imbalance.
Institutional structures also reflect these priorities. In many northern universities, Tamil is housed within departments of modern Indian languages, while Sanskrit is given the privilege of a separate department. Such distinctions subtly reinforce a hierarchy of recognition, favouring certain languages in policy and practice despite claims of inclusivity.
National Language Policy Before National Education Policy
While NEP 2020 emphasises flexibility, equity, and inclusion, these ideals cannot substitute for public deliberation on linguistic allegiance and identity. The absence of a prior national language policy has led to frequent standoffs and confusion in policy implementation. The statement, “Will not oppose if you don’t impose,” captures the sentiment of many state governments today—seeking respect for linguistic autonomy rather than uniformity.
Multilingualism is not a technicality but a social fact. As Martinet reminds us, “linguistic diversity begins at home and within one and the same man.” This idea is especially relevant in India, where language identities are layered, multilinguality is constitutive of individual, and deeply embedded. The NEP indeed addresses critical aspects such as language disadvantage and medium of instruction, yet notably remains silent on multilingual education (MLE). From a sociolinguistic perspective, language inherently implies multilinguality, and multilinguality is fundamental to human identity.
A clear national language policy must move beyond the binary of Hindi versus other major languages. It must affirm the status of tribal and minor languages, which often remain on the margins of educational discourse. While NEP 2020 mentions these languages, its vision remains incomplete without specific institutional support.
What India needs is not just an education policy with language provisions but a language policy that informs education. Such a policy should address not only issues of language status and use in education but also provide a roadmap for equitable development of all languages—major, minor, scheduled, and tribal. Without this, the NEP 2020라이브 바카라 assurances that “no language will be imposed” will continue to ring hollow and its implementation will go on to reveal otherwise.
Syed Imtiaz Hasnain (M.A, Ph.D. from Jawaharlal Nehru University) is a retired Professor of Sociolinguistics, Department of Linguistics, AMU Aligarh. Currently he is an Adjunct Professor in the School of Languages, Linguistics and Indology, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad.
Inzamul Sarkar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities and Sciences, MLR Institute of Technology, Hyderabad, India. He did his PhD in Linguistics from Aligarh Muslim University, in the area of Sociolinguistic Ethnography with a focus on Urdu in Madrasa Education of West Bengal.
