EThe creation of politics based on vision relies on data, research and statistical analysis-no ideology, untested assumptions or political comfort. It ensures that politicians deal with real needs, maximize efficiency and avoid unnecessary burden. According to this standard, national educational policy (NEP) 2020 from 2020 is not fulfilled in schools.
What do surveys say?
Any discussion of teaching a third language must begin with an honorary evaluation of the Indian school system and its ability to learn objects effectively. A program for international students (PISA), a global test that evaluates reading, mathematics and scientific skills of fifteen -year -olds carried out every three years organizations for economic cooperation and development, emphasizes the Indian struggle. In 2009, India placed on 73 out of 74 participating countries, before only Kyrgyzstan. Since then, India has withdrawn from Pisa. On the other hand, countries like Singapore, China, South Korea, Estonia and Finland have been constantly placed on top, reflecting the power of their school educational systems.
Home surveys depict the same depression. National Success Survey (NAS), carried out every three years since 2001, evaluates the results of classes in classes 3, 5, 8 and 10. NAS 2017 found that only 48% of class 8 students were able to read a simple paragraph in their regional language or Hindi; Only 47% could write an essay or letter; And only 42% had a good understanding of grammar. NAS 2021 showed a slight improvement of 56%, 49%and 44%. NAS 2018 found that knowledge of English, tested only at class 10, was just as bad. In particular, NAS does not judge the expertise of the third language and increases concerns about the unwillingness of politics creators to control its effectiveness.
The annual report on the Status of Education (ASER), performed by NGOs of Pratham, evaluates the results of registration and learning in rural India. ASER 2018 found that 27% of class 8 students could not read the text of class 2 correctly in their regional language or Hindi. In 2016, the percentage of class 8 students who could not read even simple sentences in English, 73.8%; In 2022 it was still stunning 53.3%. Like NAS, ASER does not evaluate the expertise of the third language.
Many Indian school students are also fighting with their nursery language and hardly manage English, which raises the question: Isn’t it better to teach two languages well than three badly? The absence of credible data on the professional competence of the third language moves policy from control. Even the NEP 2020 cannot solve this data gap.
Wouldn’t it be wiser to allocate rare sources to strengthen basic objects such as mathematics and science, and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI)? China is already piloting AI in 184 schools, including six years. Estonia, Canada, South Korea and Great Britain integrate AI into secondary education.
What does research say?
NEP 2020 Trijaliční policy is too simplified by a complex problem and offers accompaniment of one sentence without reference to global proven procedures.
The Guide for Gaining a Third Language from Cambridge emphasizes that cognitive benefits occur when pupils are invited but are not amazed. The learning of the third language (L3) increases cognitive load. If students still fight with their first (L1) and second (L2) languages, L3 learning can exceed their cognitive capacity, causing mental fatigue and reduced learning efficiency. It also reduces the practice of L1 and L2, which risks their wear, with L2 more vulnerable. Interpinguistic interference can cause pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. Achieving the same flow in three languages is rare; One usually dominates while the others are weakening. Research also shows that language similarity affects the ease of learning. Marathi, Panjaby and Odia speakers (Indo-Aaryan family) experience facilitating Hindi learning as L3 as a result of shared grammar, vocabulary and phonetics. On the other hand, Tamil (Dravidian), Santali (Austro-Asiatic) and Mizo (Sino-Tibetan) loudspeakers face non-profile transmission, giving L3 much harder and creating asymmetric teaching loads.
NEP 2020 Rigid Trilingual Mandate overlooks these complexities.
Challenges of implementation
While students can study multiple languages privately, it is not cost -effective to finance teaching more than two languages in public schools. Adding a third language requires significant investments in recruitment, training, textbooks and technology of teacher-head challenge for rural schools and states limited by budget.
NEP 2020 claims that no language will be forced in the states and students can choose any three languages, provided at least two come from India. However, this “choice” is illusory. Imagine a school in Tamil Nadu, where 30% of students want to learn Teluga, 20% Malayalam, 20% Kannada, 10% Hindi and 10% Sanskrit as their third language. Thanks to these different preferences, it is impractical to hire enough qualified teachers for each language. For Hindi or Sanskrit, there is a hidden pressure in the states of non -drying, because the limitation of costs and supplies forces the school to offer one or both as a third language.
The NEP 2020 policy ignores these real world challenges.
Policy stuck in the past
NEP 2020 unclearly mentions the use of language teaching technology, but overlooks the potential of changing translation tools driven AI. They can immediately translate text, images and sound across languages, as well as converting text in any language into sound in another language, and vice versa, which reduces the need for multilingual education in its current form.
While the study of mother tongue or regional language and English is essential for basic literacy and should be taught using traditional methods in the classroom improved by modern digital tools, the third language does not require the same knowledge or teaching in the classroom. Instead, why not use AI to allow students to learn other languages independently, based on their needs and their own pace? This approach would be cost -effective and flexible.
The NEP 2020 approach to language teaching encounters aspirations of parents and students. It treats languages for cultural persecution and ignores their practical value in the labor market. In addition, this policy reveals its ideological bias by devoting further sanskrit – language with small practical use and limited career opportunities – than English. At a time when nations throughout Europe, Asia and Latin America, including Russia, China, South Korea, Japan and Brazil, they actively support English education, NEP 2020 cannot recognize its key role in higher education, science and technology and global labor markets.
In addition to English, languages such as French, German, Spanish and Mandarin offer clear career benefits around the world. Hindi and Sanskrit like third languages. By limiting the possibility of a foreign language to only one (always English), NEP 2020 undermines the only real advantage of learning a third language – better job prospects.
Lesson from Singapore
Lee Kuan Yew, himself from the third world to the first, they themselves say the Chinese origin how he resisted intensive pressure from the Singapore Chinese majority (74.3% of the population) to declare mandarin as a single national language. Lee realized that it would alienate Malaysia (13.5%), Tamils (9%) and other minorities, and to ensure justice, Lee chose English – colonial heritage, but neutral language – as Singapore Lingua Franco.
Singapore accepted a bilingual education system, while students learned English as their first language and their mother tongue (Mandarin, Malay or Tamil) as the second. Parents supported English secondary education for better career prospects, while the mother tongue has strengthened cultural identity. This policy supported social cohesion, prevented ethnic tensions and ensured cultural protection. English also managed the Singapore economic increase and turned it into a global center for multinational corporations, finance and innovation. The Singapore School Educational System is one of the best in the world – in the PISA ranking it was 1 in 2015, 2 in 2018 and 1 again in 2022.
Why Hindi will not work as a unifying
The census in 2011 states that 43.63% of the Indians speak Hindi. In India, however, he noted that Scholar Gn Devy: Linguistic civilization reveals that this figure is inflated by 53 other languages such as “dialects” of Hindi. Several of these languages, such as Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Brajbhasha, Magadhi, Chattisgarhi and Rajasthani, are completely independent languages, much older than Hindi. With the exception of these, real Hindi speakers represent only 25% of the population.
In addition, the 2011 census emphasizes that 63.46% of the Indians have never left their place of birth, 85.27% remains in their native district and 95.28% have never been migrated from their home state. Given that job opportunities have focused on the non-Hindi speaking states in the south and in the west and in Delhi, interstate migrations are mostly far from the Hindi heart. When only 25% of the Indians speak Hindi and 95% of the Indians remain in their home states and use only their languages, the pressure on Hindi as a national lingua Franco, whether direct or indirect, is completely misleading.
The idea that the only language is necessary for national unity is European imports. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Romania and several other European countries received linguistic nationalism. The use of this model in India – one of the most linguistically various civilizations in the world – is deeply defective. It is like replacing a pulsating, biological forest with a sterile monoculture.
Historian John Keay, in midnight descendants, attributes Indian linguistic flexibility for his unity, unlike Pakistan, who tried to save Urdu as the only national language, to alienate Bengal and leading to Bangladesh’s creation. India acknowledged 22 languages in the eighth schedule of the Constitution, reorganized states linguistically and maintained English as an official language – disposed of tension, preserved unity and strengthened federalism.
Evidence of an ideology
The compulsory policy of the three languages of NEP 2020 is an example of a textbook of evidence of trumping ideology. When Indian schools fight basic knowledge in two languages and enforce a third without clear advantages or consideration for cognitive tensions, financing and implementation is deeply defective.
One of the reasons why non -flammable southern states, especially Tamil Nadu, overcome the economically Hindi heart because of their greater embrace of English. Since 1968, the successful policy of two tongues of Tamil has proven that linguistic pragmatism has promoted progress. However, the NEP 2020 does not take into account both internal achievements and global proven procedures and promote a rigid tricial mandate.
India should learn from Singapore and accept the pragmatic two language policy that emphasizes English for global competitiveness and regional languages for cultural protection. Linguistic nationalism must retreat to politicians that empowers students.
The writer is an IAS officer in retirement and former Indian Maritime University, Chennai.
Published – March 28, 2025 08:30
