The three-language formula, introduced in India in 1968 and reinforced under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, was intended to promote multilingualism and national integration. However, decades later, it still falls short of achieving these goals. Despite being positioned as a forward-thinking educational policy, its actual results raise serious concerns — especially when analyzed through the lens of data and evidence-based policymaking.
Patchy Implementation and Weak Outcomes
The central claim is that the three-language formula has been successfully implemented across India, barring Tamil Nadu. But the 2011 Census tells a different story: only 7% of Indians speak three languages. In states like Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh, this number falls below 2%.
This shows that the formula has largely failed to create multilingual citizens, even after decades of effort. In contrast, Tamil Nadu’s two-language policy has been consistently implemented and has not hindered educational or social progress.
Students Struggling with Two Languages
Learning outcomes paint a worrying picture. The National Achievement Survey (NAS) in 2017 showed that fewer than half of Class 8 students could read or write at grade level in their regional language or Hindi. NAS 2021 showed only marginal improvement.
English proficiency was no better. In NAS 2018, Class 10 students performed poorly in English, and no data has ever been released for third-language proficiency — likely to avoid exposing systemic failures. The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2022 echoed these trends, with 30.4% of Class 8 students unable to read a Class 2-level regional language text, and over 50% unable to read basic English sentences.
Given these outcomes, the continued push for a third language appears impractical. If students are struggling with the first two languages, it makes little educational sense to add a third.
Cognitive Load and Unequal Burden
NEP 2020 claims that multilingualism boosts cognitive ability — a view not entirely supported by research. While bilingualism offers cognitive advantages like improved executive function, studies suggest that the benefits do not scale linearly with more languages.
When learners face difficulty mastering even two languages, adding a third can cause mental fatigue, lead to confusion between languages, and reduce overall learning efficiency.
Furthermore, language similarity affects learning ease. Speakers of Indo-Aryan languages may find it easier to pick up Hindi due to shared linguistic roots. However, for speakers of Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, or Tibeto-Burman languages, the learning curve is steeper — leading to unequal cognitive burdens and poor retention.
The Four-Language Problem in Tribal Areas
Millions of tribal and minority language speakers face an even worse scenario — a four-language burden. These students must juggle their mother tongue (which often has no support in schools), the State’s dominant language (used as the medium of instruction), Hindi or Sanskrit (imposed), and English (taught poorly).
This overload leads to cognitive stress, alienation from classroom content, and increased dropout rates. Among tribal students, the dropout rate is over 35% — triple the national average.
Despite Article 350A of the Constitution and support from both UNESCO and NEP 2020 for primary education in the mother tongue, most schools do not follow this. Ten non-scheduled languages with over a million speakers each still remain excluded from the Eighth Schedule, further limiting inclusive education.
Illusion of Choice and Hidden Imposition
While NEP 2020 promises that no language will be imposed, the ground reality is different. The claim of student choice in selecting any third language falls apart under logistical and financial constraints. Most schools are unable to offer multiple third-language options due to limited resources and staff.
As a result, Hindi and Sanskrit become default choices — not by student demand but by administrative convenience. This leads to a subtle standardization across the country, diminishing linguistic diversity and student agency.
Moreover, NEP 2020 devotes more space to Sanskrit — a language spoken by fewer than 25,000 people — than to English, which is vital for employment, global communication, and higher education. This preference reveals an ideological slant in language policy, sidelining practical needs in favor of cultural symbolism.
Ignoring Global Trends and Career Needs
Countries like China, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil are rapidly strengthening English instruction to compete globally. India, despite its strong service-sector economy, lacks a clear plan to improve English proficiency under NEP 2020.
Moreover, the policy misses the growing demand for foreign languages like French, German, Spanish, and Mandarin in the global job market. For instance, over 50,000 Indian job postings on Naukri.com mention a preference for French or German speakers, while Sanskrit appears in fewer than 100 listings.
The NEP’s third-language mandate, as currently framed, does not support these career-oriented goals. It treats language learning as a cultural requirement rather than a tool for professional development.
A Pragmatic Way Forward
India’s language policy should be rooted in real-world outcomes, not ideology. Instead of mandating a third language, the focus should be on improving fluency in two:
- English – for employment, research, global opportunities.
- Regional Language – for cultural identity, inclusiveness, and early learning.
For those interested in learning more, schools can offer optional third languages as electives, not mandatory subjects. Additionally, AI tools can support translation and communication across diverse languages — reducing the need for every student to master multiple languages.
Conclusion
The NEP’s three-language formula, though well-intentioned, is a classic example of policy shaped by ideology rather than outcomes. It is time to re-evaluate its relevance and adopt a flexible, evidence-based language model that prioritizes student success.
India’s future lies not in symbolic multilingualism, but in functional literacy, employability, and inclusiveness — all of which are better served through a focused two-language system.
