The language debate in India has reignited with Tamil Nadu’s strong opposition to the Three-Language Formula under NEP 2020, citing concerns over Hindi imposition and also Supreme Court’s stand on linguistic freedom.
NEW DELHI: Language has always been a sensitive and politically charged issue in India, a country with immense linguistic diversity. While languages serve as a bridge for communication, they have also been a source of conflict, particularly when one language is perceived as being imposed on a region. The latest controversy revolves around the Three-Language Formula introduced under the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020, with Tamil Nadu opposing it on the grounds that it facilitates the imposition of Hindi on non-Hindi-speaking states.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has been vocal in his opposition, asserting that NEP 2020 is a tool for promoting Hindi in Tamil-speaking regions. The issue gained further momentum when Tamil Nadu accused the central government of withholding ₹573 crore under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan scheme because the state refused to implement NEP 2020 and join the PM SHRI initiative, which aims to establish model schools.
Is the Three-Language Formula a New Policy?
One of the major questions raised in the debate is whether the Three-Language Formula is a recent development introduced by the BJP-led central government or whether it has deeper historical roots.
The reality is that the concept of a Three-Language Formula is not new. It was first proposed in the 1968 National Education Policy based on the Kothari Commission’s recommendations and was reaffirmed in the 1986 and 1992 education policies. Under this system:
- In Hindi-speaking states, students were to learn Hindi, English, and a modern Indian language (preferably from South India).
- In non-Hindi-speaking states, students were to study their regional language, English, and Hindi.
This policy aimed to encourage linguistic diversity and national integration while ensuring that students in different parts of India had exposure to multiple languages.
Historical Background of Language Policy in India
- The Radhakrishnan Commission (1948-49)
Before India’s independence, the Radhakrishnan Commission on University Education emphasized the importance of a three-language system for higher secondary education. The commission argued that:
- Every student must learn their regional language.
- They should also acquire knowledge of the federal language (Hindi) to facilitate national communication.
- English should be taught as a global language.
The commission noted that multilingualism was a norm in many European countries, such as Switzerland and Holland, where students commonly learned three or more languages.
- The Anti-Hindi Agitations in Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu’s opposition to Hindi dates back to 1937, when the Congress-led Madras Presidency introduced Hindi as a compulsory subject in schools. The move was met with strong resistance from Dravidian leaders like Periyar E.V. Ramasamy, who saw it as an attempt to suppress Tamil identity.
The protests reached their peak in 1965, when Hindi was set to become India’s sole official language under the Official Languages Act. Massive student-led agitations erupted across Tamil Nadu, resulting in numerous deaths and widespread unrest. The central government was eventually forced to reconsider its stance, leading to a compromise where English remained an associate official language along with Hindi.
Since then, Tamil Nadu has consistently refused to implement the Three-Language Formula, sticking instead to a Two-Language Formula where only Tamil and English are taught in state government schools.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Grants Centre Three Months for Delimitation in Northeast States
How Does NEP 2020 Differ from Earlier Policies?
The New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 once again brings back the Three-Language Formula but introduces some key differences:
- Flexibility in Language Choice
- Unlike earlier policies, NEP 2020 explicitly states that no language will be imposed on any state, leaving the choice of languages to the states and students.
- The policy emphasizes that two out of the three languages must be Indian languages, allowing greater linguistic diversity.
- Promotion of Regional Languages
- NEP 2020 strongly encourages teaching in mother tongues and regional languages at the primary education level.
- It also pushes for hiring teachers proficient in regional languages to ensure better learning outcomes.
- No Compulsion of Hindi
- Unlike NEP 1968, which sought to make Hindi mandatory in schools, NEP 2020 does not require any specific language to be compulsorily taught.
- Ties to Central Education Funding
- A major point of contention is that implementing NEP 2020 is a prerequisite for availing funds under schemes like the PM SHRI initiative, which aims to develop model schools across India.
- Tamil Nadu argues that this indirectly forces the state to adopt the Three-Language Formula, which it has historically opposed.
As discussions surrounding the National Education Policy (NEP) continue to spark controversy, the Supreme Court of India has previously higlighted the importance of “linguistic secularism”—
“a principle that acknowledges and accommodates the linguistic diversity of the nation”
In its 2014 judgment in U.P. Hindi Sahittya Sammelan vs. State of U.P., the apex court observed that
“both law and language in India evolve organically, with language laws being designed to be flexible and inclusive rather than rigid”
The court emphasized that the overarching goal of these laws is to uphold linguistic secularism, ensuring that the aspirations of speakers of various languages across the country are recognized and respected.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to Hear Suo Motu Case on Lokpal’s Authority Over Judges Today (March 18)
Linguistic Concerns in National Policy
Amidst this legal backdrop, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has expressed strong opposition to what he perceives as the imposition of Hindi through the National Education Policy. He argues that such policies undermine Tamil Nadu’s significant advancements in education and threaten the linguistic and cultural fabric of the state.
The Union Government, however, remains firm in its commitment to implementing the National Education Policy. Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has reiterated that the policy aims to promote multilingualism while preserving linguistic diversity. Nevertheless, critics fear that certain provisions may lead to the dominance of Hindi at the expense of regional languages.
Historical Legal Perspectives on Language
The legal discourse on language in India has been an ongoing subject of contention since the time of the Constituent Assembly. The Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment extensively referenced constitutional expert H.M. Seervai’s commentary, which detailed the debates that arose in 1949 regarding Hindi’s status. A compromise was ultimately reached through the Munshi-Ayyangar formula, leading to the inclusion of Article 343 in the Constitution.
This provision designated Hindi in the Devanagari script as the official language of the Union, rather than the national language, acknowledging that Hindi, while spoken by the largest linguistic group, did not have a majority status across the country. Furthermore, regional languages such as Bengali, Tamil, Marathi, and Gujarati were regarded as equally or more developed than Hindi at the time.
Judicial Caution Against Language Imposition
In its deliberations, the Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against the imposition of any language upon unwilling populations. Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, in his covering letter to the Law Minister on the 216th report of the Law Commission of India, noted that
“language is an emotionally charged issue with the power to unify or divide a nation”
He warned that
“imposing any language against the will of a section of the populace could prove counterproductive”
Echoing this sentiment, former Supreme Court judge Justice Krishna Iyer remarked that
“while he personally favored Hindi, he strongly opposed its compulsory imposition, emphasizing that linguistic militancy could foster division rather than unity”
Instead, he advocated for federal pluralism as a more democratic and sensitive approach.
Balancing Constitutional Duties and Individual Rights
Despite the emphasis on linguistic inclusivity, Article 351 of the Constitution places a
“duty on the Union government to promote the spread of Hindi, with the aim of developing it into a medium of expression for India’s composite culture”
However, judicial interpretations have consistently clarified that this directive does not override individual rights or institutional autonomy. In the 1982 Sunil K.R. Sahastrabudhey vs. Director, IIT Kanpur case, the Allahabad High Court ruled that
“while Article 351 outlines a duty to promote Hindi, it does not confer any legal right on citizens to demand education in a particular language”
Similarly, Article 29(1) of the Constitution guarantees
“every section of society the fundamental right to conserve its distinct language, script, or culture“
The Supreme Court has emphasized that this right extends to both majority and minority linguistic communities, reinforcing the principle of linguistic secularism.
Right to Choose Medium of Instruction
The question of language in education has also been a subject of extensive judicial consideration. In State of Karnataka vs. Associated Management of Primary & Secondary Schools, the Supreme Court ruled that the
” fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 includes the right of a primary school student to choose their medium of instruction. The court asserted that the state cannot impose its control over this choice.”
Drawing parallels with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1924 ruling in Pierce v. Society of Sisters of Holy Names, the Indian Supreme Court reinforced the principle that
“a child is not merely a creature of the state. Instead, those responsible for a child’s upbringing have both the right and the duty to guide them towards fulfilling their personal and societal obligations”
The Supreme Court’s advocacy for linguistic secularism reaffirms India’s commitment to its pluralistic ethos. The judiciary’s stance underscores the necessity of fostering an environment where language policies are guided by accommodation rather than compulsion.
As debates surrounding the National Education Policy continue, the court’s previous rulings serve as a crucial reminder that linguistic diversity must be protected as an integral aspect of the nation’s democratic and cultural fabric.
READ MORE REPORTS ON THREE LANGUAGE FORMULA
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
