Why language hierarchies must go

Primacy to English instruction has marginalised those who think and express themselves in Indian languages

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 advocates that our students learn three languages, with at least two – one being their mother tongue – drawn from India’s linguistic heritage. However, we have recently witnessed passionate arguments about the three-language formula in India. The NEP’s emphasis on Indian languages in education brings the significance of multilingualism to the forefront again with a commitment to collective national consciousness.

Since the earliest discussions on multilingualism in education, the intricate relationship between Indian languages and cultural consciousness has remained a defining issue across India. For 1.4 billion Indians, Indian languages are more than communication tools – they are deeply tied to identity, tradition, and how people make sense of the world. The NEP champions multilingual education and the use of Indian languages as a medium of instruction as a necessity for bridging the persistent divides – urban and rural, privileged and underprivileged. It reminds us that when the student’s first language is not the medium of instruction, the consequences extend beyond language preference. The foundations of learning, cognitive development, and social equity come under strain.

Focus on multilingualism and the Indian language medium should shape educational priorities and curriculum frameworks at the national level. In this context, the NEP suggests that linguistic hierarchies in education should disappear, and the long-standing gap between English-dominated instruction and the Indian languages should be removed so that learning outcomes do not decline, cognitive development is not hindered, and social inequalities do not deepen.

Students acquire critical thinking skills and adaptability when they engage with learning in their first language. When a second language, such as English, becomes the primary medium of instruction, students are not only grappling with understanding the subject matter but also struggling with an unfamiliar language. As a result, the essence of education – deep understanding – remains just out of reach. Introducing a second language – English, for instance – as the primary medium of instruction places an unnecessary hurdle in their path. If we force students to focus more on decoding an unfamiliar language than exploring knowledge, no academic strategy can compensate for the loss of conceptual depth, higher-order reasoning and intellectual confidence. Even with a well-structured curriculum, highly skilled teachers, and motivated students, the struggle shifts from grasping the subject to overcoming linguistic obstacles.

There are many ways to approach language policy, yet the goal remains the same – encouraging curiosity, sustaining intellectual growth, and ensuring effective education for all. The refusal to educate students in the language they grasp most effectively disregards their fundamental learning requirements. There are broader implications as well – how can an education system claim to be inclusive if it does not accommodate linguistic diversity? Perhaps the real challenge lies not in the availability of research or successful models but in the willingness to implement what is already known to work.

Exclusion, a colonial legacy

It is a flawed belief to assume that emphasising Indian languages comes at the expense of English proficiency. Consider the evidence. Students who receive education in their mother tongue do not struggle with English; they develop a stronger command of it. An effective way of providing students with linguistic dexterity, sharpened comprehension and fluency across languages is to teach them in a multilingual learning environment. Therefore, far from diminishing English skills, learning in one’s mother tongue enhances them. The connection is well established, yet the misconception persists.

Excellence in education cannot be measured by adherence to an inherited linguistic hierarchy; it must be defined by a student’s ability to think critically, create meaningfully, and innovate freely in the language that best allows expression. The many forms of linguistic exclusion manifest in privileging English as the sole medium of intellectual legitimacy, marginalising those who think, learn, and express themselves in their languages. Fluency in English should not be mistaken for academic success, nor should intellectual potential be confined to a single linguistic frame. This exclusivist attitude is no accident. It is the residue of a colonial past. Institutions that claim to champion learning must reckon with this reality if they are to remain true to their most fundamental responsibility – creating spaces where education is not a privilege of the English-educated but a right accessible to every Indian.

While the NEP promotes any Indian language medium of instruction and multilingualism in education, meaningful implementation mandates persistent effort, institutional commitment, and an uncompromising challenge to ingrained resistance. Without conscious intervention, linguistic hierarchies will aggravate, and the exclusion of Indian languages from education will continue – not as an inevitability but as time-tested linguistic choices left unimplemented.

(The writer is a retired chairman of the University Grants Commission)