Beyond Hindi: Why Karnataka’s third language debate raises bigger questions on learning

Learner-centred education strengthens regional languages and builds multilingual skills

The Karnataka government’s decision to replace marks with grades for the third language in schools, and the High Court’s direction to continue marks-based evaluation, have brought renewed focus on Hindi. As the debate continues, it is important to zoom out and reflect on language education in multilingual India. Committees and experts have outlined strong reasons for teaching multiple languages in Indian schools: from nation-building to livelihood skills to personal enrichment. A few key aspects emerge from the current debate.

In India, children often acquire multiple languages simultaneously and use them depending on context. It is primarily in school that languages are organised into a hierarchy: L1 (usually the mother tongue), L2 and L3.  That said, when done creatively and effectively, language learning can enhance cultural exposure. Beyond this, learning L2 and L3 alongside L1 builds metalinguistic awareness, the ability to think about language itself. Learners begin to notice differences in sounds, structures and expressions across languages, and draw connections between them. This interplay helps each language reinforce the other: L1 supports the learning of L2 and L3, while additional languages deepen one’s understanding of L1.

This improvement in L1 includes the ability to compare and contrast, develop analogies, identify counter-examples and spot gaps in logic — that is, higher-order thinking skills. These are transferable skills, critical to learning in science, mathematics and the social sciences. Research suggests that cultivating these skills is far easier in a language the student knows well. This explains the long-standing insistence among educationists that the medium of instruction should be the learner’s language.

This is also why many linguists are concerned about states shifting to English as the medium of instruction: building higher-order thinking skills is difficult in a language that neither the teacher nor the student speaks at home. 

An academic burden?

When language teaching is conducted the way it often is in India’s school system, it can add to the academic burden. Last year, 89% of SSLC students who did not pass in Karnataka failed in the third language. However, government data for 2025-26 shows a startlingly significant improvement: only 1.3% of students failed did so in the third language. While more analysis is needed to understand the reasons, it is clear that L3 need not be an academic burden.

The National Curriculum Framework for School Education (2023) outlines curricular goals for the third language in the middle stage (Classes 6 to 8), focusing on basic communication skills rather than academic proficiency. As such, L3 content is not intended to be as cognitively demanding as that in L1 and L2. Meeting these goals will require new learning materials and a shift in pedagogy, with clear implications for teacher training.

Educational theory and experience emphasise that the learner’s interests must be at the centre; all other considerations are secondary. Yet, policy-makers often invoke ‘systemic realities’ to divert attention. 

If school education is to be taken seriously, constraints such as teacher availability cannot be accepted as given. In a learner-centric system, ‘exam pressures’ point to the need to reform assessment patterns. The onus is on the system to adapt to serve the best interests of the learner. 

Further, policy documents are often riddled with loophole-laden phrases such as “where practicable,” “as far as possible,” “depending on resources,” and “time permitting.” These ‘clawbacks’ allow reluctant educational bureaucracies to stymie meaningful change. In a deeply unequal society like ours, educational disparities remain vast and persistent. 

Widening inequalities

Over the years, the third-language education policy is not delivering meaningful outcomes: students are not learning the language well enough even to pass the exam, let alone acquire functional proficiency. It is also widening inequalities — the majority of those who fail are rural students, children from linguistic minorities and Indigenous children.

As is often the case worldwide, school systems tend to ‘manufacture’ failure among disadvantaged social groups. This happens through the standardisation of curricula, learning materials and pedagogies that are designed for socially advantaged learners, while neglecting the contexts of the disadvantaged. When such learners fail, the blame is frequently shifted onto them — they are labelled “uneducable.” We need to seriously rethink how education systems can recognise their needs and support their aspirations. 

Given the complexity of India’s multilingualism, context sensitivity is essential. However, what forms it can take requires more thinking and consultation. While the need for context sensitivity has already been noted in relation to socially disadvantaged groups, it is equally relevant to linguistic diversity.

Language policy 

Variations within each state — in patterns of language use across rural and urban areas, and in language mixing in border districts, to name just two — are significant. A context-sensitive curriculum that responds to these realities would enhance both the experience and the usefulness of learning multiple languages. 

There is also an overarching reality about most Schedule VIII languages, which overwhelmingly serve as the languages of schooling in India. The states where they are widely spoken are the only places where these languages can be strengthened through the school education system. Kannada, for instance, has limited educational presence outside Karnataka. A strong Kannada language programme in the state’s schools is therefore essential for the language to flourish. At scale, it cannot be strengthened elsewhere. Language education in schools must, therefore, address regional linguistic identity and its vitality. 

But does this mean educational opportunities must be compromised? Evidence from effective multilingual programmes worldwide suggests otherwise — it need not be an either-or choice. A robust Kannada-language education system does not diminish educational opportunity.

With a well-designed programme, students can emerge as high-level multilinguals, academically proficient across multiple languages. 

Beyond politics 

Language education has always been deeply political. Our rich linguistic and cultural past, along with our fears and aspirations for the future, shapes how language policy is imagined and implemented today. Mother-tongue-based multilingual education directly addresses these concerns. 

It envisions a progression “from the mother tongue to other tongues.” These additional languages, in turn, metalinguistically strengthen the mother tongue. The critical thinking skills developed through this multilingual process transfer to the learning of other subjects. In all this, the learner’s interests remain paramount. 

(The author has worked with the School of Education, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru. He blogs on language and education in English, and in the planned language Esperanto)