Editorial: Preserve linguistic diversity
Three-language policy structurally privileges Hindi-speaking students and undermines fairness, federalism, regional equality and linguistic diversity
For a country that celebrates rich linguistic diversity, it would be incongruous to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. The latest government circular, making it mandatory for CBSE schools across the country to implement the three-language policy for class IX students from July 1, is one such move that is incompatible with the basic principles of federalism. It reflects a clash between centralising educational impulse and the federal compact that India’s diverse polity rests on. The move also follows a familiar pattern of the NDA government’s appetite for over-centralisation and its repeated attempts to dilute the powers of the States. The May 15 circular has placed unreasonable pressure on children and also on government resources. Though the circular does not explicitly mandate compulsory teaching of Hindi, the structure of the policy could gradually normalise its expansion in CBSE schools across southern India. Understandably, critics view this as a calculated attempt at linguistic imposition since it advances Hindi in non-Hindi-speaking regions without ensuring parity. The policy structurally privileges Hindi-speaking students and undermines fairness, federalism, regional equality and linguistic diversity. Besides, there are also concerns over implementation challenges, including teacher availability, training capacity and funding. No consultations were held with the States, nor was there a wider debate before imposing the policy. Such an untimely move, in the middle of the academic session, could create structural disadvantages for students from non-Hindi-speaking States. It also disrupts preparation for Class X Board examinations amid inadequate infrastructure, such as trained teachers and textbooks.
It must be pointed out that there is no provision in the Constitution that makes the three-language policy mandatory. Apart from Tamil Nadu and other southern States, West Bengal and North Eastern States have demanded a national debate over the issue. The NEP contains several provisions that are inconsistent with principles of federalism. It is deplorable that the Centre has positioned the NEP as an end in itself without having any meaningful deliberations on the issue. The NEP 2020, which has huge ramifications for the Centre-State relations, has not been deliberated in Parliament. Though the three-language formula, integral to the NEP, is ostensibly aimed at promoting multilingualism, there are fears over imposition of Hindi language on reluctant people. As education is on the Concurrent List, it requires concurrence between the Centre and States for the success of any policy. The protests against the three-language policy have been particularly vociferous in Tamil Nadu, which has a long history of anti-Hindi agitation. The primary purpose of a language is to help people communicate — among themselves and with the government. Since Hindi is limited to a geographic region, the makers of our Constitution adopted the pragmatic approach of retaining it just as one of the many official languages in the country. When it comes to communicating with each other, the argument that Hindi is the lingua franca of India is flawed.
