Evidence-based policymaking relies on data, research, and statistical analysis — not ideology, untested assumptions or political convenience. It ensures that policies address real needs, maximise effectiveness, and avoid unnecessary burdens. By this standard, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020’s push for a third language in schools fails to meet the mark.
What do surveys say?
Any discussion on teaching a third language must begin with an honest evaluation of India’s school system and its capacity to teach subjects effectively. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a global test which evaluates reading, math, and science skills of 15-year-olds, conducted every three years by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, highlights India’s struggle. In 2009, India ranked 73 out of the 74 participating countries, ahead of only Kyrgyzstan. Since then, India has withdrawn from PISA. In contrast, countries like Singapore, China, South Korea, Estonia and Finland have consistently ranked near the top, reflecting the strength of their school education systems.
Domestic surveys paint an equally dismal picture. The National Achievement Survey (NAS), conducted every three years since 2001, assesses learning outcomes in Classes 3, 5, 8, and 10. NAS 2017 found that only 48% of Class 8 students could read a simple paragraph in their regional language or Hindi; only 47% could write an essay or letter; and just 42% had a good grasp of grammar. NAS 2021 showed slight improvements of 56%, 49%, and 44%, respectively. NAS 2018 found that English proficiency, tested only at the Class 10 level, was equally poor. Notably, NAS does not assess third-language proficiency, raising concerns about policymakers’ reluctance to scrutinise its effectiveness.
The Annual State of Education Report (ASER), conducted by the NGO Pratham, assesses school enrolment and learning outcomes in rural India. ASER 2018 found that 27% of Class 8 students couldn’t read even a Class 2-level text properly in their regional language or Hindi. This worsened to 30.4% in 2022. In 2016, the percentage of Class 8 students who could not read even simple sentences in English was 73.8%; in 2022, it was still a staggering 53.3%. Like NAS, ASER does not evaluate third-language proficiency.
Many of India’s school students are struggling with even their mother tongue and barely managing English, which raises the question: isn’t it better to teach two languages well rather than three poorly? The absence of credible data on third-language proficiency shields the policy from scrutiny. Even NEP 2020 fails to address this data gap.
Therefore, wouldn’t it be wiser to allocate scarce resources toward strengthening core subjects like math and science, and emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI)? China is already piloting AI in 184 schools, including for six-year-olds. Estonia, Canada, South Korea, and the U.K. are integrating AI into secondary education.
What does research say?
NEP 2020’s trilingual policy oversimplifies a complex issue, offering a single-sentence endorsement without references to global best practices.
The Cambridge Handbook of Third Language Acquisition highlights that cognitive benefits occur when learners are challenged but not overwhelmed. Learning a third language (L3) increases cognitive load. If students are still struggling with their first (L1) and second (L2) languages, learning L3 may exceed their cognitive capacity, causing mental fatigue and diminished learning efficiency. It also reduces practice time for L1 and L2, risking their attrition, with L2 being more vulnerable. Cross-linguistic interference can cause pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary mix-ups. Achieving equal fluency in three languages is rare; one typically dominates while the others weaken. Research also shows that language similarity impacts learning ease. Speakers of Marathi, Punjabi, and Odia (Indo-Aryan languages family) experience facilitative transfer when learning Hindi as L3 due to shared grammar, vocabulary, and phonetics. In contrast, Tamil (Dravidian), Santali (Austro-Asiatic), and Mizo (Sino-Tibetan) speakers face non-facilitative transfer, making L3 acquisition much harder and creating an asymmetric learning burden.
NEP 2020’s rigid trilingual mandate overlooks these complexities.
Implementation challenges
While students can study multiple languages privately, it’s not cost-effective to fund the teaching of more than two languages in public schools. Adding a third language requires significant investments in teacher recruitment, training, textbooks, and technology — a major challenge for rural schools and budget-constrained States.
NEP 2020 claims that no language will be forced on States, and students are free to choose any three languages, provided that at least two are native to India. However, this “choice” is illusory. Imagine a school in Tamil Nadu where 30% of students want to learn Telugu, 20% Malayalam, 20% Kannada, 10% Hindi, and 10% Sanskrit as their third language. Such varied preferences make it impractical to hire enough qualified teachers for each language. There is a hidden push here for Hindi or Sanskrit in non-Hindi-speaking States because cost and supply constraints will compel schools to offer one or both as the third language.
NEP 2020’s three-language policy ignores these real-world challenges.
A policy stuck in the past
NEP 2020 vaguely mentions using technology for language learning but overlooks the game-changing potential of AI-powered translation tools. They can instantly translate text, images, and audio across languages, and also convert text in any language to audio in another language and vice versa, reducing the necessity for multilingual education in its current form.
While learning one’s mother tongue or regional language and English are essential for foundational literacy and should be taught using traditional classroom methods enhanced by modern digital tools, the third language doesn’t require the same proficiency or classroom instruction. Instead, why not leverage AI to let students learn additional languages independently, based on their needs and at their own pace? This approach would be cost-effective and flexible.
The NEP 2020’s approach to language learning clashes with the aspirations of parents and students. It treats languages as cultural pursuits, ignoring their practical value in the job market. Additionally, the policy reveals its ideological bias by dedicating more discussion to Sanskrit — a language with little practical use and limited career opportunities — than English. At a time when nations across Europe, Asia and Latin America, including Russia, China, South Korea, Japan and Brazil, are actively promoting English education, the NEP 2020 fails to acknowledge its crucial role in higher education, science and technology, and global job markets.
Beyond English, languages like French, German, Spanish, and Mandarin offer clear career advantages worldwide. Hindi and Sanskrit as third languages do not. By limiting foreign language options to just one (invariably English), NEP 2020 undermines the only real benefit of learning a third language — better job prospects.
Lessons from Singapore
In From Third World to First, Lee Kuan Yew, himself of Chinese origin, recounts how he resisted intense pressure from Singapore’s Chinese majority (74.3% of population) to declare Mandarin as the sole national language. Recognising that this would alienate Malays (13.5%), Tamils (9%) and other minorities, and to ensure fairness, Lee chose English — a colonial legacy but a neutral language — as Singapore’s lingua franca.
Singapore adopted a bilingual education system, with students learning English as their first language and their mother tongue (Mandarin, Malay, or Tamil) as the second. Parents supported English-medium education for better career prospects, while the mother tongue reinforced cultural identity. This policy fostered social cohesion, prevented ethnic tensions, and ensured cultural preservation. English also drove Singapore’s economic rise, transforming it into a global hub for multinational corporations, finance, and innovation. Singapore’s school education system is among the best in the world — in PISA rankings, it was 1 in 2015, 2 in 2018, and 1 again in 2022.
Why Hindi won’t work as a unifier
The 2011 Census states that 43.63% of Indians speak Hindi. However, noted scholar G.N. Devy, in India: A Linguistic Civilization, reveals this figure is inflated by including 53 other languages as “dialects” of Hindi. Several of these languages like Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Brajbhasha, Magadhi, Chattisgarhi, and Rajasthani, are completely independent languages, much older than Hindi. Excluding these, true Hindi speakers account for just 25% of the population.
Moreover, the 2011 Census highlights that 63.46% of Indians have never left their birthplace, 85.27% remain within their native district, and 95.28% never migrated out of their home State. With job opportunities concentrated in non-Hindi speaking States in the south and west and New Delhi, inter-State migrations are mostly away from the Hindi heartland. When only 25% of Indians speak Hindi and 95% of Indians remain within their home States and use only their languages, the push for Hindi as a national lingua franca, whether direct or indirect, is completely misguided.
The idea that a single language is essential for national unity is a European import. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Romania and several other European countries embraced linguistic nationalism. But applying this model to India — one of the world’s most linguistically diverse civilisations — is deeply flawed. It is like replacing a vibrant, biodiverse forest with a sterile monoculture.
Historian John Keay, in Midnight’s Descendants, credits India’s linguistic flexibility for its unity, unlike Pakistan, which tried imposing Urdu as the sole national language, alienating Bengalis and leading to Bangladesh’s creation. India recognised 22 languages in the Constitution’s Eighth Schedule, reorganised States linguistically, and retained English as an official language — defusing tensions, preserving unity, and strengthening federalism.
Evidence over ideology
The NEP 2020’s mandatory three-language policy is a textbook example of ideology trumping evidence. When India’s schools struggle with basic proficiency in two languages, enforcing a third without any clear benefits or consideration for cognitive strain, funding and implementation is deeply flawed.
One reason non-Hindi speaking southern States, particularly Tamil Nadu, outperform the Hindi heartland economically is because of their greater embrace of English. Tamil Nadu’s successful two-language policy, in place since 1968, proves that linguistic pragmatism fuels progress. Yet, NEP 2020 disregards both internal successes and global best practices, pushing a rigid trilingual mandate.
India should learn from Singapore and adopt a pragmatic two-language policy, emphasising English for global competitiveness and regional languages for cultural preservation. Linguistic nationalism must give way to policies that empower students.
Writer is a retired IAS officer and former VC of Indian Maritime University, Chennai.
Published – March 28, 2025 08:30 am IST
