Maharashtra’s Three-Language Policy and NEP 2020
Maharashtra’s Three-Language Policy and NEP 2020
Introduction: Education, Language, and Contested Spaces
Language has long played a pivotal role in shaping identity, fostering inclusivity, and uniting diverse communities across India. Education policy, especially language instruction, is therefore not merely an academic matter—it’s deeply political and cultural. In this context, Maharashtra’s recent reversal of its decision to implement a new Three-Language Policy for primary education brings to light the wider debate around the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, especially its implications for linguistic federalism and cultural autonomy. The unfolding events in Maharashtra, juxtaposed with similar concerns in Tamil Nadu, highlight how language policy continues to stir strong sentiments in a multilingual nation like India.
Maharashtra’s Policy Reversal: A Clash of Language and Identity
On April 16, the Maharashtra government had issued orders to adopt a Three-Language Policy for primary education in line with NEP 2020 guidelines. However, the move quickly encountered resistance from opposition parties and language rights activists. Critics argued that the policy might facilitate the imposition of Hindi and eventually erode the prominence of the Marathi language in educational institutions. Responding to the backlash, the state government decided to temporarily halt the policy and appointed a committee to examine its potential impact.
This decision has profound implications for nearly 80 lakh students enrolled in Marathi and English medium schools under the state board. While the new formula has been suspended for primary levels, it remains in place for secondary education. The situation illustrates the delicate balance that states must maintain between national policy directives and regional linguistic preferences.
Tamil Nadu’s Continued Resistance to the Three-Language Formula
Tamil Nadu, a state with a longstanding tradition of linguistic pride and assertiveness, had already rejected the Three-Language Policy in March—just a month before Maharashtra’s initial announcement. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin reaffirmed the state's commitment to the existing Two-Language Policy that includes Tamil and English. For Tamil Nadu, the inclusion of a third language, especially Hindi, is perceived as a covert strategy to impose linguistic uniformity on a culturally diverse nation.
This opposition is not new. Tamil Nadu had resisted similar attempts even during the implementation of earlier education policies in post-independence India. The state’s consistent stance underlines its resolve to protect linguistic diversity and regional autonomy within the federal structure of the Indian Union.
The National Education Policy 2020 and Its Structural Shifts
NEP 2020, launched with the vision of transforming India’s education system, introduced significant structural reforms. One of the major changes was the shift from the 10+2 format to a 5+3+3+4 curriculum structure, emphasizing foundational learning, conceptual understanding, and critical thinking.
- The Foundational Stage (ages 3-8) consists of three years of pre-school and two years of primary education, promoting play and activity-based learning.
- The Preparatory Stage (ages 8-11) focuses on discovery-based learning in Classes 3 to 5.
- The Middle Stage (ages 11-14) covers Classes 6 to 8, emphasizing experiential learning across sciences, arts, and humanities.
- The Secondary Stage (ages 14-18) comprises Classes 9 to 12 and supports multi-disciplinary and flexible learning pathways.
Within this structural overhaul, the Three-Language Formula was reintroduced as a key recommendation, aiming to foster multilingualism among students. However, the interpretation and implementation of this policy have raised questions about its implications for state autonomy and linguistic equality.
Understanding the Three-Language Formula: Intent vs. Reality
The Three-Language Formula, as suggested by NEP 2020, encourages students to learn:
- The regional language or mother tongue as the first language.
- Another Indian language as the second (often assumed to be Hindi due to its wider usage).
- A foreign language, mainly English, as the third.
Importantly, the policy does not mandate any specific language combination and allows states the autonomy to choose. In principle, this appears flexible and inclusive. However, in practice, several states have expressed concerns about an implicit preference for Hindi, especially in centrally sponsored textbooks and curriculum frameworks.
The policy also stipulates that a language must be offered if 20 students express interest. Yet, such provisions often remain theoretical. For example, it is unlikely that Tamil will be offered in a school in Bihar or that Marathi would be made available in Assam, due to logistical and demographic constraints. This has led to Hindi becoming the de facto second language in many regions, even where it is not widely spoken.
Challenges and Concerns Raised by States
The implementation of the Three-Language Formula has brought to surface several challenges that state governments and educators are grappling with:
- Hindi Imposition Fears: States like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu fear that the policy may lead to the compulsory inclusion of Hindi, sidelining their own regional languages.
- Unity vs. Uniformity Debate: Critics argue that the aim should be unity in diversity, not uniformity through a dominant language. Enforcing a single linguistic model could undermine India’s cultural heterogeneity.
- Threat to Regional Identity: Regional languages are deeply connected to local heritage. Imposing a dominant language could lead to a gradual decline of less-spoken languages.
- Unequal Implementation Across States: The provision allowing any language to be taught if 20 students request it may not be operationally viable, especially in states where a particular language has limited relevance.
- Political Overtones: Some regional leaders view the promotion of Hindi through NEP as part of a larger political agenda by the central government to consolidate cultural influence in non-Hindi speaking states.
Language Policy and Federalism: A Constitutional Dilemma
The issue also brings into focus the federal nature of India’s governance. Education falls under the Concurrent List of the Constitution, meaning both the Centre and the states can make laws on it. However, when central policies are seen to override regional preferences, it can generate friction between state and Union governments.
In this context, Maharashtra’s and Tamil Nadu’s resistance should be viewed not as acts of defiance, but as assertions of their constitutional right to protect regional identity and autonomy. It is also a reminder that policymaking in education must be collaborative and sensitive to local realities, especially in a country as diverse as India.
The Way Forward: Embracing Linguistic Diversity
A constructive approach to India’s language policy would emphasize respect for diversity rather than uniformity. While multilingualism is a worthy goal, it must not come at the cost of cultural erasure. The choice of instructional languages should be left to individual states, which understand the sociolinguistic contexts of their populations better than any central authority.
Educational policies should aim to strengthen linguistic inclusivity, promote mutual understanding among linguistic communities, and ensure the preservation of India’s regional languages. This includes increasing investments in teacher training, curriculum development, and translation efforts to make quality education accessible in all languages.
Conclusion: Rethinking Language and Education in a Federal Democracy
The debates around the Three-Language Formula and NEP 2020 reflect deeper concerns about identity, equity, and federalism. Maharashtra’s cautious rollback and Tamil Nadu’s firm opposition are signs that language policy must be negotiated, not imposed. As India advances towards educational reforms, it must balance the goals of national integration and cultural pluralism.
Language is not merely a medium of instruction,it is a vessel of heritage, expression, and identity. Any attempt to shape education must therefore tread carefully, respecting the vast linguistic mosaic that makes India truly unique.