By Prof (Dr) Hitesh D Raviya
From the 2026–27 academic session, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) will implement a core recommendation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) 2023: the introduction of a third language in Class 6. At least two of the three languages must be Indian. English, within this framework, may be treated as a “foreign” language.
The change appears administrative, yet it carries symbolic and structural weight. By 2031, students appearing for the Class 10 Board examination will be required to write an examination in the third language as well, unlike the present two-language system. Multilingualism will thus move from policy aspiration to examinable reality.
NEP 2020 situates this shift within a philosophical vision. Language education, it argues, plays a crucial role in keeping students rooted to their country, enabling connections with culture, heritage, and society. The third language (R3), introduced in the middle stage (Classes 6–8), is to be given adequate time to develop basic communication skills, acknowledging the cognitive demands of learning an unfamiliar language.
English as “Foreign”: Semantics and hierarchy
The categorisation of English as “foreign” has sparked debate beyond pedagogy. English in India is no longer merely a colonial residue. It has evolved into a lingua franca of higher education, law, science, administration, and global commerce. Indian English literature enjoys international recognition, and urban aspiration frequently speaks in English.
Calling English foreign therefore appears paradoxical. Yet the classification is administrative rather than cultural. The three-language framework requires that at least two languages be native to India. If a school teaches English in Class 6, it may count as the one foreign language alongside two Indian languages. If French or German is introduced instead, English must still be paired with two Indian languages.
The debate, then, concerns hierarchy more than exclusion. For decades, English enjoyed disproportionate prestige, often overshadowing regional languages. The new structure seeks recalibration rather than removal. English remains but no longer stands alone at the apex.
Decolonisation and the politics of renaming
This linguistic adjustment unfolds alongside a broader cultural narrative. Since 2014, colonial-era names have been replaced across public spaces: Rajpath has become Kartavya Path, Race Course Road is now Lok Kalyan Marg, and South Block has been rededicated as Seva Teerth. Such changes form part of a visible project of symbolic decolonisation.
Within that climate, repositioning English inside a balanced linguistic triad appears as curricular decolonisation. Public geography has been re-inscribed with indigenous vocabulary; educational linguistics now reflects similar impulses. Whether interpreted as civilisational reclamation or symbolic politics, the message is clear: language has returned to the centre of national self-definition.
Multilingualism as pedagogic vision
The NCFSE envisions continuity. All three languages, R1, R2, and R3, will extend through the secondary stage. By Grade 10, students are expected to demonstrate communicative competence in all three and academic proficiency in at least two.
India’s linguistic diversity is structural rather than ornamental. With 22 scheduled languages and hundreds of dialects, plurality defines the national landscape. Exposure to multiple languages, the policy suggests, strengthens appreciation of unity in diversity and deepens national identity.
CBSE is reportedly preparing learning materials for nine Indian languages for the 2026–27 session, including Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Gujarati, and Bangla. Textbook development, teacher recruitment, and assessment redesign will be essential. The ambition is pedagogic, not merely rhetorical.
Logistical challenges and public anxiety
Policy ambition must confront ground realities. Many urban parents fear that diminishing English’s centrality may affect global competitiveness. Private schools must restructure timetables and recruit additional language teachers. Smaller institutions may struggle with resources.
The third-language paper in the 2031 Board examination intensifies these concerns. Assessment systems must measure proficiency rather than rote memorisation. Without careful scaffolding, multilingualism risks becoming an added burden instead of intellectual enrichment.
Moreover, semantics carry emotional resonance. English in India has undergone indigenisation; it absorbs Indian idioms and registers. Labelling it foreign administratively may obscure this evolution. Yet the policy does not eliminate English; it situates it within a balanced framework.
Beyond symbolism: The real measure of reform
NEP 2020 advocates holistic and multidisciplinary education, urging flexibility and dismantling rigid silos. The three-language formula aligns with this broader educational philosophy. Education, the policy contends, must cultivate cognitive ability alongside cultural sensibility.
However, symbolism alone cannot guarantee success. India continues to confront foundational literacy gaps, uneven infrastructure, and disparities in teacher preparation. Language reform must be accompanied by capacity-building, sustained funding, and pedagogic clarity. Otherwise, the rhetoric of rootedness may falter in practice.
At a linguistic crossroads
The implementation of the three-language formula marks a decisive moment. By 2031, multilingual competence will be formally assessed at the secondary level. The reform seeks to harmonise global engagement with civilisational confidence.
The question is not whether English belongs in Indian classrooms, it already does. The deeper question concerns coexistence without subordination: whether Indian languages can flourish alongside English without anxiety.
India’s intellectual past once produced scholars conversant in multiple classical and regional tongues. Linguistic plurality was a strength, not a threat. If implemented with seriousness and institutional support, the new framework may cultivate generation equally comfortable drafting research in English and engaging literary discourse in Tamil or Gujarati.
Language policy ultimately reflects imagination. Decolonisation is not achieved through renaming alone but through lived confidence. When learners move across languages with ease rather than compulsion, reform acquires substance. The success of the three-language framework will depend less on ideological fervour and more on educational depth. If that balance is achieved, Indian classrooms may indeed become laboratories of multilingual modernity.
The author is the Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts; Professor and Head, Department of English; Chairperson, Board of English Language and Literature; Principal (OSD), Baroda Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya; Director, Communication Cell; and OSD. (Public Relations and Communication), The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETEducation does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETEducation will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.
