Karnataka's third language call marks priority shift

The move is expected to reduce anxiety and enable greater focus on core disciplines such as mathematics and science, which are more consequential for higher education.

The Karnataka government’s decision to alter the assessment pattern for the third language in the SSLC examinations has drawn mixed reactions and invited sharp criticism alongside support. Announced by School Education Minister Madhu Bangarappa, the reform replaces marks with a grading system for the third language, removes it from the aggregate score, and eliminates the pass–fail requirement. While appearing for the examination remains mandatory, a student’s overall result will no longer hinge on performance in this subject.

According to the government, the new policy addresses a serious concern: the 2024–25 examination saw over 1.4 lakh students fail in Hindi, which is taught in nearly 96% of state syllabus schools. The move aims to mitigate the risk of students losing an academic year due to a single non-core subject. This is expected to reduce anxiety and enable greater focus on core disciplines such as mathematics and science, which are more consequential for higher education.

However, critics question the timing: introducing such a significant change on the eve of the examination betrays students who have spent the year preparing for the paper. Policy shifts of this magnitude are best introduced at the start of an academic year. There are also apprehensions about a possible dilution of academic rigour. If a subject no longer contributes to the final score, it risks being treated as incidental by both students and institutions.

They see this not as a genuine educational reform but as a knee-jerk reaction taken under pressure from Kannada activists—a convenient political exit. Supporters, on the other hand, counter that Hindi proficiency is not essential for employment outcomes and that classroom time may be better utilised in building practical life skills.

They situate this reform in a broader historical context. Resistance to ‘Hindi imposition’ has deep roots in the state, from early protests in the 1930s to the 1963 Town Hall resolution in Bengaluru advocating a two-language formula. The student unrest of the late 1960s underscored the depth of this sentiment. Proponents further argue that the three-language formula has been unevenly implemented. While students in the South have had to contend with Hindi, many northern states meet the requirement through the ‘Sanskrit loophole’, with limited engagement with other Indian languages.

While the state defends this as a balance between student welfare and socio-political realities, it follows a pattern of lowering benchmarks—previously seen in the reduction of pass percentages—to artificially improve SSLC results. Such systemic shifts require careful deliberation so that, in the process of reducing the burden on students, the value of the certificate itself is not inadvertently diminished.