National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has paid a great deal of attention to language. Justifiably so, in our opinion, considering that it is through language that humans connect with the world. It has dealt with the question of the promotion of our classical languages, the promotion of tribal languages, and the promotion and preservation of our endangered languages. It has dealt with language education, translation for language education, the problem of the digital divide, the use of technology in education, and overcoming the language barrier, among others. Let’s look at the policy with regard to language education, more specifically, the three-language formula.
One of the important objectives of language education in NEP 2020 is the promotion of multilingualism, as in the earlier education policies (1966 and 1986). The three-language formula (1968) implements it. In brief, at the school stage, the learner has to learn three languages. For those whose mother language is Hindi, the three languages would be Hindi, English, and an Indian language, preferably a South Indian language. For one whose mother language is not Hindi, the three languages would be his (her/their) mother language, English, and Hindi.
This policy did not satisfy either the Hindi speakers or the non-Hindi speakers, especially those from the Southern States. The Hindi speakers considered learning a South Indian language an unnecessary load because they did not see how it would be functionally useful for them. They were aware that Hindi was emerging as the link language in the country, and because of that, they would be able to manage their affairs in the non-Hindi States. Tamil Nadu (it was not the only State, by the way, it was just the most vocal State) saw the three-language formula as an attempt by the Centre to impose Hindi on the State. For some, there was a related problem: language being a carrier of culture, imposing a language would amount to imposing a culture.
Thus, this policy was unacceptable to the Hindi-speaking States and the non-Hindi speaking Southern States. The Eastern States and the Northeastern States were also not enthusiastic about it. To fulfil the requirement of the formula, those States who strongly opposed it (the Northern and the Southern States) generally chose a classical language, like Sanskrit, in preference to a South Indian language or Hindi, as the case may be. Some States chose only two languages: the mother language and English. More details are unnecessary for our present purpose. This much is sufficient to place the version of the three-language formula as articulated in NEP 2020 in context.
NEP 2020 has resolved the issue of the perception that the three-language formula was a means to impose Hindi on the non-Hindi States. It clearly states that “no language would be imposed on any State.” In the NEP 2020 version of the three-language formula, it is for a State to choose the three languages. The only constraint is that at least two of the three languages are “native to India.” Now, the “at least two” provision allows a State to choose all three languages that are native to India, which obviously means that the requirement of the formula can be met when English is not chosen as one of the three languages.
Similarly, a State need not choose Hindi, choosing English and two Indian languages. A State can choose Sanskrit as one of the two Indian languages; Sanskrit is viewed as “an important modern language mentioned in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India.” A State can exclude English and Hindi in its choice of three languages. One would think this is surely odd because Hindi and English are the official languages of the Union. One would think it rather strange that the National Policy of language education allows, in principle, a citizen of the country not to enjoy the benefit of learning the official languages of the country in the education system it devises for the country.
Now, is it possible that a State does not choose the mother language and chooses English, Hindi, and another Indian language? There is nothing in the three-language formula that would not permit it. But then this policy would be in conflict with the policy regarding the medium of instruction: “Wherever possible, the medium of instruction until at least Grade 5, but preferably till Grade 8 and beyond, will be the home language/mother tongue/local language/regional language.” Therefore, the mother language/regional language has to be chosen. By not doing so, the State would fail to implement the policy of the medium of instruction; by choosing it, the State would not fail to satisfy the requirement of the three-language formula.
One might argue that choosing the mother language becomes compulsory for the State, but then one has to remember that the natural medium of instruction at the early stages at least has got to be the mother language. Early education in the mother language needs no justification; early education in another language certainly does.
But why three languages, one might ask? Shouldn’t two languages, the mother language and English, the language of widest communication, be sufficient? Isn’t the third language an avoidable language load? Granted that knowing more than one language gives young students cognitive benefits, as NEP 2020 puts it, would these benefits be significantly more if one learns three languages rather than two? As far as we are concerned, multilingualism should be promoted because ours is a multilingual country; the very experience of multilingualism would be enriching.
The three-language formula of NEP 2020 (a) implements multilingualism, which is not just desirable but to a great extent necessary in our multilingual country, (b) accommodates English, which can be said to be the answer to the aspirations of the people, (c) provides for mother language instruction at the early levels at least, and (d) does not impose a language on any State. This version of the three-language formula can be said to constitute a significant improvement on the earlier versions.
(The views expressed are the writer’s own)
Prof. B.N.Patnaik
Retd. Professor of Linguistics and English, IIT Kanpur
Email: [email protected]
(Images from the net)