It takes a certain kind of faith to believe that a major reform, revised schedules, new textbooks and fully prepared teachers will all align by next Monday. The Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) implementation of the three-language policy for Class IX from July 1 may be grounded in sound intention, but it raises a difficult question: has the system planned for the lived reality of schools, or merely for the elegance of policy?
On May 15, the CBSE issued a mandate that, from July 1, all Class IX students must study three languages, with at least two of these being native. The circular also made clear that the third language would not be a board examination subject in Class X and that schools could, during the transition, rely on temporary textbook arrangements and flexible staffing models.
The three-language idea has deep roots in India’s educational history, having been articulated in the 1968 National Policy on Education, reiterated in 1986 and then finally carried forward in the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020, in a more flexible but still clearly multilingual framework. The NEP says that, wherever possible, students should learn three languages, with at least two of these being native to India, while also insisting that no language should be imposed on any state.
Challenge of implementation
That wider objective deserves respect. In a country where language carries not only practical value but cultural memory, multilingual education can deepen cognitive flexibility, widen social understanding, and preserve linguistic heritage. However, the difficulty lies not in the aspiration but in the execution.
The circular itself reveals how compressed the transition is. Schools were informed of the change in mid-May; further guidance was to follow by June 15; schools had to update their OASIS portal offerings by June 30; and implementation begins from July 1. Even before one enters the politics of language, this is an extraordinarily narrow administrative window for institutions that have already begun sessions, prepared timetables, assigned teachers, and settled student choices.
The consequences are especially visible for students who have invested in foreign-language study. Under the revised scheme, a foreign language may be taken only when the other two selected languages are native Indian languages, or else as an additional fourth language, if the school offers that option. For many students, that means a pathway once treated as stable may now become conditional, compressed or administratively inconvenient.
This is where policy risks colliding with pedagogy. Several petitions before the Supreme Court have argued that the abrupt shift may cause “irreversible harm” to students and affect the livelihoods of foreign-language teachers. The CBSE has suggested that schools may rely on non-language teachers with “functional proficiency” in the required language, share staff through Sahodaya clusters, use hybrid or virtual teaching support, engage retired teachers, or appoint suitably qualified postgraduates during the transition. To introduce a language mandate without ensuring adequate teacher-readiness is to confuse symbolic implementation with meaningful learning.
Politics & policy
The politics surrounding the policy make the matter even more delicate. The three-language formula has long been entangled with anxieties over linguistic hierarchy, especially in states such as Tamil Nadu, where resistance to perceived Hindi imposition is rooted in a long political history. Recent disputes between the Centre and Tamil Nadu over NEP compliance and education funding have only intensified suspicion that a formally flexible policy may, in practice, carry political pressure.
Broader educational context
The educational question is therefore larger than language alone. ASER 2024, based on a rural household survey covering 6,49,491 children across 605 districts, found encouraging recovery in several indicators, but it also showed that foundational learning remained fragile. Nationally, in government schools, only 23.4 per cent of Class III students could read a Class II-level text and only 27.6 per cent could do basic subtraction; by Class V, 44.8 per cent could read a Class II-level text and 30.7 per cent could do division.
These figures do not directly predict what will happen in Class IX classrooms, but they do offer a cautionary lesson. When basic literacy and numeracy are still uneven, any curricular expansion must be paced with exceptional care. South Africa offers a cautionary example, though not because multilingualism is inherently flawed. The problem was that in multilingual schools, the move towards English as the language of instruction outpaced the system’s ability to support it, leaving learners and teachers caught between policy ambition and classroom reality.
A more persuasive rollout would have phased in the change, protected existing foreign-language learners, given teachers time for genuine preparation, and ensured that schools were equipped before they were instructed.
(As told to The Tribune’s Neha Saini)
