Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Three-language formula

The Three-language formula is an educational policy in India mandating the study of three languages at the secondary school stage to promote multilingualism and national integration, specifying the mother tongue (or regional language), Hindi, and English in Hindi-speaking states, and the regional language, Hindi, and English in non-Hindi-speaking states. Formulated as part of the National Policy on Education in 1968 following recommendations from the Kothari Commission (1964–1966), the policy emerged as a compromise amid post-independence linguistic tensions, including violent anti-Hindi agitations in southern states during the 1960s that underscored resistance to Hindi's dominance as a national language. Implementation has been uneven, with many states adopting variations or adhering to a two-language model (regional language and English) due to practical challenges like teacher shortages, curriculum overload, and preferences for English-medium instruction, while northern Hindi-speaking regions have more consistently followed the formula. The policy's defining controversy centers on perceptions of Hindi imposition, particularly in states like Tamil Nadu, which rejected it outright in 1968 and continues to prioritize bilingualism to preserve regional linguistic identity against central directives, leading to ongoing federal disputes. Revived with greater flexibility in the 2020 National Education Policy—requiring three languages, at least two native to India, without mandatory Hindi—the formula persists as a flashpoint for debates on cultural federalism, educational equity, and the causal role of language policy in either fostering unity or exacerbating regional divides.

Overview

Definition and Core Principles

The Three-language formula constitutes an educational policy framework in mandating the study of three languages in school curricula to accommodate the nation's linguistic pluralism. Originating from the recommendations of the (1964–1966), it was formally adopted in the 1968 , prescribing that students in non-Hindi-speaking states learn their regional language (or mother tongue), as a national link language, and English as a global medium. In Hindi-speaking states, the structure shifts to , one additional Indian language (often regional), and English. This configuration seeks to standardize multilingual instruction while differentiating based on regional linguistic contexts. At its core, the formula embodies principles of multilingualism and national cohesion, positing that proficiency in multiple languages enhances cognitive development, cultural empathy, and economic mobility. It prioritizes the mother tongue for foundational learning to ensure comprehension and retention, integrates a unifying Indian language to bridge regional divides, and incorporates English for international access and employability. These elements reflect a causal approach to language policy: regional languages preserve local identities and facilitate primary education, while Hindi and English serve instrumental roles in inter-state communication and global integration, respectively. The policy's design avoids monolingual dominance, aiming instead for additive bilingualism that builds upon rather than supplants native competencies. Subsequent reaffirmations, such as in the , emphasize flexibility in implementation, stipulating that the three languages include at least two native Indian ones, selected per constitutional provisions, regional aspirations, and community preferences, without rigid imposition of any specific tongue. This adaptability underscores the principle of federal linguistic equity, recognizing India's constitutional schedule of 22 official languages and the practical challenges of uniform enforcement across diverse states. Empirical rationale draws from evidence that early multilingual exposure correlates with improved metalinguistic awareness and adaptability, though the formula's success hinges on adequate teacher training and resources, often variably applied.

Objectives and Rationale

The three-language formula, formalized in the of , sought to cultivate multilingual competence among students to bridge inter-regional communication barriers in India's linguistically diverse landscape. Its core objectives included promoting national cohesion by mandating the study of as a link language in non-Hindi speaking states, while ensuring proficiency in the regional or mother tongue to preserve cultural and cognitive foundations rooted in early . Additionally, incorporating English aimed to sustain access to global scientific, technological, and administrative resources, recognizing its entrenched role in and affairs since colonial times. Underlying this framework was the rationale that monolingual policies risked exacerbating regional divides, as evidenced by post-independence language agitations, including the 1965 anti-Hindi protests in that prompted policy recalibrations. The Kothari Education Commission (1964–1966), which informed the 1968 policy, argued for a balanced trilingual approach to foster cognitive advantages from mother-tongue instruction—such as improved comprehension and retention—while advancing 's constitutional status as the without coercive imposition, and retaining English to avoid disruptions in elite education and economic productivity. This structure differentiated implementation: in Hindi-speaking states, students would learn Hindi, English, and a modern Indian or classical language like ; in non-Hindi states, the regional language, Hindi, and English. Empirically, the policy drew from observations that bilingual or multilingual exposure enhances problem-solving and adaptability, as supported by educational studies predating the , though its primary causal aim was pragmatic : integrating over 22 major languages and hundreds of dialects into a functional national system without alienating southern or eastern states wary of dominance. Critics of the era, including linguists, noted potential overload on curricula, but proponents emphasized long-term benefits for labor mobility and reduced dependency on English-only elites.

Historical Origins

Linguistic Diversity in Pre-Independence India

Pre-independence , encompassing British-administered territories and princely states, was characterized by extensive linguistic diversity, with the 1931 Census recording 225 distinct languages spoken by a population exceeding 350 million. This figure arose from enumerators documenting mother tongues, though classifications faced challenges due to dialectical variations and overlapping nomenclature, as noted in the census reports' discussions on Indo-Aryan subgroupings. Earlier surveys, such as George Grierson's (completed by 1928), had identified 179 languages, underscoring the subcontinent's role as a hotspot for philological complexity with languages from multiple families coexisting in close proximity. The predominant language families included Indo-Aryan (part of the Indo-European group), spoken primarily in northern and western regions by roughly three-quarters of the ; Dravidian languages in the south; Austroasiatic (including Munda branches) in central and eastern tribal areas; and Tibeto-Burman tongues in the northeast and . Indo-Aryan languages like Hindustani (encompassing and variants), , and dominated numerically, with Hindustani alone accounting for about 20-25% of speakers based on returns, yet no single language approached universal prevalence, reflecting geographic, ethnic, and historical fragmentations. such as , , and formed a non-Indo-European core in the Deccan and south, preserving ancient substrates predating migrations, while smaller families like Austroasiatic supported communities often marginalized in colonial records. This mosaic posed administrative hurdles for governance, which initially favored as the court language until the 1835 English Education Act shifted higher administration and elite education to English, relegating vernaculars to primary schooling and local courts. Colonial censuses from 1881 onward systematically tabulated languages to aid revenue collection and demarcation, revealing concentrations like over 50 languages in alone and dialectal continua blurring boundaries, such as between dialects and Rajasthani variants. Such diversity, compounded by script variations (, Perso-Arabic, , etc.), inhibited unified communication, fostering reliance on bilingual intermediaries and setting precedents for post-colonial multilingual policies.

Post-Independence Language Debates (1947–1960s)

Following independence on August 15, 1947, India's leaders grappled with formulating a language policy amid profound linguistic diversity, encompassing over 1,800 languages and dialects spoken by a population exceeding 360 million. The Constituent Assembly debates from 1946 to 1949 highlighted intense divisions, with Hindi proponents like R.V. Dhulekar and Seth Govinda Das advocating for Hindi in Devanagari script as the sole official language to foster national unity and replace English expeditiously, arguing it was spoken by approximately 40% of the population as a first or second language. Opponents, particularly from southern and eastern regions, countered that imposing Hindi would marginalize non-Hindi speakers, who constituted the majority, and emphasized English's role as a neutral link language established under British rule, with one delegate warning against "imposing" any regional tongue on the nation. The compromise embedded in Article 343 of the 1950 Constitution designated as the official language but permitted English's continued use for official purposes until January 26, 1965—fifteen years post-adoption—to ease the transition and accommodate administrative realities, as English dominated higher , , and inter-state communication. This provision reflected pragmatic recognition that 's speakers, while numerous in northern states, lacked proficiency in southern ' regions, where , , and others prevailed, potentially hindering governance efficiency. Post-1950, efforts to accelerate adoption, including a 1957 "Banish English" campaign by Hindi advocates, intensified southern apprehensions of , as states reorganized linguistically under the 1956 States Reorganisation Act, which created Hindi-dominant heartland states alongside -majority . By the late , the -English escalated at the federal level, with non-Hindi states insisting on English's permanence for equitable access to central services, while Hindi proponents viewed its retention as a colonial vestige delaying unification. Parliamentary debates revealed persistent tensions, as southern representatives argued that Hindi's promotion via and overlooked the 30% of Indians for whom it was alien, risking administrative disruptions in multilingual federation. These concerns culminated in the Official Languages Act of 1963, which extended English's use indefinitely alongside Hindi for Union-non-Hindi state communications, averting immediate replacement but failing to quell fears of gradual imposition. In , early anti-Hindi sentiments, rooted in movements since the 1930s, erupted into organized protests by the early 1960s, led by parties like the (DMK), which mobilized students against perceived northern linguistic dominance, viewing the 1965 deadline as a threat to Tamil's primacy despite constitutional safeguards for regional languages under the Eighth Schedule. Agitations intensified in 1965, involving demonstrations, clashes with authorities resulting in over 70 deaths, and self-immolations, underscoring causal links between federal promotion and regional identity assertions, as non-Hindi states demanded a balanced multilingual framework to preserve administrative functionality and cultural autonomy. These debates exposed the impracticality of monolingual imposition in a federation where 's natural spread was confined largely to the north, paving groundwork for hybrid policies integrating regional tongues, , and English.

Formulation and Early Policies

Kothari Commission and 1968 National Policy

The Indian Education Commission, commonly known as the , was appointed by the on July 14, 1964, under the chairmanship of physicist Dr. D. S. Kothari to conduct a comprehensive review of the education system and propose a unified national pattern. The commission, comprising 16 members including educators, administrators, and experts, examined challenges in school and amid India's linguistic diversity and post-independence needs for national cohesion and scientific advancement. It submitted its report, Education and National Development, on June 29, 1966, emphasizing education's role in fostering , productivity, and . In addressing language policy, the Kothari Commission advocated a three-language formula for secondary education (ages 11–17) to promote multilingual proficiency while prioritizing the mother tongue for early learning and accommodating regional variations. Specifically, it recommended that students study: (1) the mother tongue or regional language as the primary medium; (2) Hindi (or the regional language in Hindi-dominant areas); and (3) English or a modern foreign language for access to global knowledge, with flexibility for Hindi-speaking states to substitute the third language with a non-Hindi Indian language, preferably from southern India, to encourage inter-regional understanding. This approach aimed to mitigate Hindi imposition concerns from non-Hindi regions, reduce English's dominance as an elite barrier, and integrate classical languages like Sanskrit optionally for cultural depth, all while ensuring Hindi's gradual promotion as a link language under Article 351 of the Constitution. The commission stressed early introduction of the second and third languages via the mother tongue as an auxiliary medium to avoid cognitive overload, projecting that by 1986, 80% of secondary students would adopt this formula nationwide. The commission's recommendations on languages were influenced by prior debates, such as the States Reorganisation Act's linguistic state boundaries and anti-Hindi agitations, seeking a pragmatic balance between and national integration without coercive uniformity. It critiqued over-reliance on English for and technical fields, proposing its phased reduction while retaining utility, and called for standardized teacher training in multiple languages to ensure effective implementation. The (NPE) of 1968 directly adopted the Kothari framework, marking the first formal national endorsement of the three-language formula through a parliamentary resolution on July 11, 1968. The policy mandated its application in secondary curricula: in non-Hindi states, the regional language, , and English; in Hindi states, , English, and the regional language (with options for other languages). It reiterated the mother tongue's primacy for instruction up to Class 8, aligning with the commission's goals of equity and integration, and allocated resources for , textbooks, and examinations in these languages. However, the policy noted implementation challenges, urging states to adapt flexibly while monitoring progress toward universal secondary enrollment by 1986. This integration positioned the formula as a cornerstone of India's strategy, though uneven state-level adoption soon emerged due to political and logistical hurdles.

Official Language Act Amendments

The Official Languages Act of 1963 established in script as the official language of the , while permitting the continued use of English for official purposes beyond January 26, 1965, the date initially set for 's full adoption under Article 343 of the . This provision aimed to facilitate a gradual transition amid India's linguistic diversity, but it sparked intense opposition in non-Hindi-speaking regions, particularly , where fears of dominance fueled riots and political unrest in 1965. In response to these agitations, the Act was amended through the Official Languages (Amendment) Act, 1967 (Act No. 1 of 1968), which inserted provisions guaranteeing English's indefinite role alongside Hindi. Specifically, the amendment mandated that English remain in use for all official Union purposes not yet transitioned to Hindi and for communications between the Union government and states preferring English, effectively preventing any unilateral imposition of Hindi. This change, enacted under Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri's administration, addressed demands from southern states and was formalized to ensure bilingual functionality in governance without constitutional alteration. These amendments de-escalated immediate conflicts over , creating a stable environment for subsequent educational reforms. By affirming English's associate status, they complemented the three-language formula outlined in the , which integrated (or another Indian language), English, and regional languages to foster multilingual competence without privileging one over others in . The policy linkage underscored a pragmatic , prioritizing administrative continuity and national cohesion over rapid linguistic unification, though implementation varied by state autonomy in education.

Implementation Framework

Structural Components Across States

The three-language formula's structural components in states generally involve the sequential of three specified languages as compulsory subjects from upper primary levels (typically Classes V–VI) through (up to Class X), integrated alongside the , which is usually the regional or language. The allocates dedicated instructional periods—often 4–6 per week per language—for developing listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills, with assessments via state board examinations emphasizing basic proficiency. Central guidelines, derived from the 1968 , prescribe distinct language selections to promote national cohesion while accommodating regional identities, though states retain autonomy in scheduling and resource deployment. In Hindi-speaking states such as , , and , the structure designates (incorporating elements where applicable) as the first , English as the second, and a —preferentially from non-Hindi regions like , , or —as the third, introduced by Class VIII in some curricula to foster exposure to linguistic diversity. This configuration aligns with the formula's aim to prioritize the dominant local while mandating English for global utility and a southern to encourage inter-regional understanding, with serving as the instructional base in many schools. Non-Hindi states adopt a mirrored yet adapted structure, positioning the (e.g., in , in , or in ) as the first, English as the second for instrumental purposes, and as the third, commencing similarly from upper primary stages. Examples include 's , where , English, and are taught concurrently with regional medium instruction, and 's model emphasizing alongside English and to balance local primacy with national linkage. In states like and , the third language may include as an alternative to , reflecting flexibility within the formula's framework. To support these components, the operates a financial assistance scheme for appointing language teachers, reimbursing up to 100% of salaries for educators in the third language—southern languages in Hindi states and in non-Hindi states—targeting shortages that hinder uniform rollout. Regional Language Centres under the Ministry of develop teaching materials and conduct to standardize , ensuring materials align with state syllabi while addressing pedagogical gaps like multilingual resource scarcity. Despite this scaffolding, structural variations persist due to state-specific board regulations, with some regions delaying third-language onset to Class VII or substituting languages based on viability, often resulting in uneven proficiency outcomes.

Guidelines for Language Teaching

The three-language formula stipulates a phased introduction of languages during school to build incremental proficiency without overwhelming students. In the original 1968 , language instruction begins primarily with the mother tongue or from the primary stage, serving as the , while the second and third languages—typically and (or another Indian in Hindi regions)—are introduced at the upper primary or secondary level, specifically classes 6–10, to ensure foundational literacy in the precedes multilingual expansion. This graduated approach, recommended by the , prioritizes oral and aural skills in the initial phases of second and third to foster basic communication before advancing to reading, writing, and grammar. Teaching methodologies under the formula emphasize practical usage over rote , with curricula designed to integrate languages through , such as dialogues, simple texts, and cultural references relevant to students' environments. In Hindi-belt states, Hindi receives extended exposure from early classes as the primary language, while non-Hindi regions delay intensive Hindi instruction to align with regional linguistic dominance, aiming for equivalence in proficiency across the three languages by secondary completion. Assessment focuses on functional competence, including speaking and comprehension, rather than solely literary analysis, to support national integration without supplanting local identities. The refines these guidelines by extending multilingual exposure to the foundational stage (ages 3–8), where playful, activity-based methods like , rhymes, and introduce multiple languages alongside the mother tongue, which remains the primary instructional medium until at least Grade 5 and preferably Grade 8. Interactive pedagogies are mandated, prioritizing oral fluency and conversational skills through experiential activities, bilingual resources for subjects like , and integration of digital tools or cultural media to make learning engaging and cognitively beneficial. States retain autonomy in sequencing and selecting languages—requiring at least two native Indian ones—but must ensure students demonstrate proficiency in all three by , with one enabling literary study; no imposition of specific languages occurs, and bilateral teacher-sharing agreements are encouraged for resource-scarce regions.
  • Foundational and Preparatory Stages (Classes 1–5): Emphasis on mother tongue for conceptual understanding, with gentle exposure to other languages via songs and oral activities to build .
  • Middle Stage (Classes 6–8): Deeper in the second and third languages through projects like "," focusing on and basic composition.
  • Secondary Stage (Classes 9–12): Advanced skills including , writing, and optional classical languages, with flexibility for students to drop one language post-Grade 8 if proficiency is achieved.
Teacher training is integral, requiring educators to model multilingual competence and employ child-centered methods, though implementation varies due to resource disparities across states.

Regional Adoption and Resistance

Approaches in Hindi-Belt States

In Hindi-belt states such as , , , and , the three-language formula has been adopted since the 1968 , with serving as the primary language of instruction and mother tongue, English as the associate second language, and a third selected based on local availability and demand. This structure aligns with the policy's framework for Hindi-dominant regions, where compliance has been higher than in non-Hindi states, though full varies by state. The third language is predominantly across these states, chosen for its perceived simplicity relative to , abundance of teaching materials, and availability of instructors, despite the policy's original recommendation for Hindi-speaking areas to include a modern South Indian language to promote national linguistic exchange. In , is the default in most government and aided schools; and similarly prioritize it, with offered in areas of Muslim concentration; sees in approximately 90% of schools, supplemented by or where demographic needs arise. This preference deviates from the formula's intent to foster inter-regional language exposure, as southern languages like or receive negligible uptake. Empirical data underscores limited diversity in third-language offerings: a 2009 survey indicated 65.2% of schools taught as the third language, with only 7% offering others, while had 56% coverage and minimal alternatives like or Odia. Enrollment in southern languages remains marginal; for instance, reports just one student studying and three in as of recent records. By 2023-24, fewer than 50% of schools in had fully implemented the formula, hampered by teacher shortages for non- options. Under the National Education Policy 2020's flexible provisions, plans to enforce the three-language requirement from Class 9 starting in the 2025-26 academic year, maintaining Hindi's centrality while allowing state discretion in third-language selection, though practical adherence continues to favor over broader Indian languages. This approach reflects administrative amid resource constraints but has drawn critique for not advancing the policy's goal of equitable multilingualism across India's linguistic regions.

Non-Hindi States: Patterns of Compliance

In non-Hindi states, the three-language formula has generally been incorporated into state curricula since the 1970s and 1980s, with the serving as the primary instructional medium, English as the second language for global and administrative utility, and as the third language to align with objectives. This structure was formalized in most states following the 1968 , though introduction of the third language often occurs from grades 5–6 to prioritize foundational in the mother tongue. States such as , , and have maintained this triad—regional language, English, and Hindi—across government and aided schools, reflecting structural compliance despite periodic political debates. Implementation data indicate varying degrees of adherence, measured by the proportion of schools offering all three languages. In , 71.7% of schools provided three languages in the 2023–24 academic year, with , English, and or alternatives like comprising the standard set, though the state emphasizes flexibility to avoid perceived imposition. reported 76.4% compliance, where , English, and are mandated, supplemented by options for or other Indian languages in some districts. follows a similar pattern with , English, and , achieving broad curricular integration but with modifications allowing classical languages as substitutes in select institutions. While formal policies ensure inclusion of Hindi in over 80% of non-Tamil non-Hindi states' schools as the third language, practical compliance is tempered by resource constraints, including shortages of qualified Hindi teachers and uneven enforcement in rural areas. and exhibit moderate execution, with , English, and taught sequentially, though state boards permit delays or exemptions in foundational years to focus on regional proficiency. This pattern underscores a pragmatic alignment with central guidelines, prioritizing multilingual exposure without uniform rigidity, as evidenced by higher southern state averages compared to the national 61.6% school compliance rate.

Tamil Nadu as a Focal Case of Opposition

Tamil Nadu's resistance to the three-language formula originated in the 1930s, when the Congress-led provincial government under introduced compulsory education in 1937, prompting protests led by () against perceived cultural imposition. This early agitation framed as a tool of northern dominance, aligning with movements emphasizing linguistic identity over Sanskrit-derived languages. Opposition intensified in 1965 amid plans to transition English to as the sole official language post-1965, sparking widespread student-led protests across the (now ). Demonstrations involved rallies, self-immolations, and clashes with police, resulting in over 60 deaths from firings and unofficial estimates of up to 150 fatalities, which contributed to the ouster of the government in the 1967 elections. The agitations, coordinated by the (DMK), highlighted fears that proficiency would disadvantage non-Hindi speakers in federal opportunities. Following the Official Languages (Amendment) Act of 1967, which retained English alongside , under formally adopted a two-language policy in January 1968, limiting school curricula to Tamil and English while rejecting the national three-language recommendation from the . This stance persisted through successive DMK and AIADMK governments, with the state assembly resolution emphasizing that , a concurrent subject, allowed deviation from central guidelines. In response to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which reiterated a flexible three-language framework prioritizing Indian languages, Tamil Nadu's DMK government under reaffirmed the two-language model in 2025, unveiling a state-specific that excludes a third language to avoid any perceived mandate. Officials argued that the preserves -medium instruction's effectiveness, citing high rates and English proficiency as evidence of success without , though critics contend it limits multilingual exposure in a diverse nation. This position has led to tensions over central funding, with opting out of NEP-linked grants to maintain .

Evolution Under NEP 2020

Key Provisions and Flexibility Measures

The National Education Policy (NEP) retains the three-language formula while introducing enhanced flexibility to accommodate regional linguistic diversity and avoid any perceived imposition of specific languages. Under this framework, students are required to learn three languages in school, with at least two being native to , aiming to foster multilingual proficiency without mandating or any other particular language in non-Hindi speaking regions. The policy explicitly states that "no language would be imposed on any State," allowing choices to be determined by states, regions, districts, and individual students or parents, thereby prioritizing local contexts over a uniform national template. Flexibility measures include provisions for states to select language combinations that align with their demographic and cultural needs, such as pairing a with in Hindi-speaking areas or opting for other languages elsewhere, while English remains a common third language option for global connectivity. Students may change one or more languages upon entering Grade 6 or 7, provided they achieve proficiency in three languages by the end of , including at least one language studied to a level. To support implementation, states and union territories are encouraged to form bilateral agreements for exchanges, ensuring availability of qualified instructors for chosen languages, particularly those from the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. Additional provisions promote integration of classical Indian languages, offering , , , , , Odia, or others as elective options where desired, alongside foreign languages like or at the secondary level for students opting out of a third Indian language. Early exposure to begins in the foundational stage through play-based activities, with formal language instruction starting from Grade 3, and the up to at least Grade 5—and preferably Grade 8—using the home or to build foundational . These measures emphasize high-quality, interactive teaching methods and bilingual textbooks for subjects like and , aiming to leverage cognitive benefits of while respecting regional autonomy.

Post-2020 Implementation Challenges

Despite the flexibility afforded by the , which allows states to select languages without mandating and emphasizes promotion of through at least two Indian languages, implementation of the three-language formula has faced persistent obstacles rooted in regional , resource limitations, and logistical gaps. Non-Hindi speaking states have interpreted the policy as retaining elements of historical Hindi imposition, leading to uneven adoption and legal disputes. Tamil Nadu has steadfastly maintained its two-language policy (Tamil and English), rejecting the three-language requirement as incompatible with state linguistic autonomy and cultural identity, a stance tracing back to agitations but intensified post-2020 amid NEP rollout. This resistance prompted the to withhold Rs 573 in funds under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan , which allocates 60% central support for education, as the state declined compliance with NEP guidelines. Similarly, abandoned NEP implementation altogether, citing alignment issues with local priorities, while Maharashtra's April 16, 2024, order mandating as the third language for grades 1-5 in Marathi and English-medium schools was rescinded weeks later following public protests and the formation of a review committee. Resource shortages exacerbate these political tensions, with acute deficiencies in qualified teachers proficient in non-native languages; for instance, non-Hindi states report persistent gaps in instructors and materials, hindering curriculum delivery. Broader multilingual efforts under NEP suffer from inadequate training for educators in regional and tribal languages, compounded by societal preferences for English-medium instruction over mother-tongue based learning. Logistical challenges, including underdeveloped aids and uneven across diverse linguistic regions, further stall progress, particularly in tribal-dominated areas where integrating local dialects remains under-resourced. These hurdles reflect deeper federal frictions, as states prioritize regional identities and practical feasibility over national integration goals, resulting in fragmented policy execution without centralized enforcement mechanisms. Union officials have reiterated state discretion in modalities as of July 2025, yet without resolved funding disputes or capacity-building, full-scale adoption lags, underscoring the policy's reliance on cooperative federalism amid entrenched resistance.

Purported Benefits

Contributions to Multilingual Proficiency

The three-language formula promotes multilingual proficiency through a structured curriculum that requires students to engage with their mother tongue or regional language, a second Indian language (typically Hindi in non-Hindi regions), and English, fostering foundational skills in reading, writing, and comprehension across linguistic domains. This exposure is intended to build additive multilingualism, where learners acquire complementary language systems without displacing native proficiency, drawing on evidence that simultaneous exposure to multiple languages from primary levels supports metalinguistic awareness and vocabulary expansion. In regions adhering to the formula, such as central India, secondary-level pass rates in language subjects have increased from 45% to 62%, with Hindi proficiency among tribal students improving by over 15 percentage points, indicating measurable gains in basic competency for non-native speakers. Cognitive advantages further underscore potential contributions, as trilingual education correlates with enhanced executive function, including superior performance in tasks requiring switching and problem-solving, as observed in studies of children learning three languages. Applied to the context, this framework equips students with tools for navigating diverse linguistic environments, evidenced by multilingualism rates where 26% of the population is bilingual and 7.1% trilingual per the 2011 Census, partly attributable to policy-driven language instruction spanning over five decades. Notwithstanding these elements, empirical assessments reveal that contributions are often confined to passive knowledge rather than fluent usage, with urban educated cohorts showing higher functional proficiency while rural and minority groups exhibit gaps in due to implementation variances. Overall, the formula's supports incremental proficiency building, aligning with broader on multilingualism's role in cognitive , though outcomes depend heavily on pedagogical quality and .

Role in Fostering National Cohesion

The three-language formula, introduced in the 1968 National Policy on Education following recommendations from the Kothari Commission (1964–1966), was explicitly designed to strengthen national integration by mandating the study of the mother tongue or regional language, Hindi (or another Indian language in Hindi-speaking areas), and English at the secondary stage. This structure aimed to bridge linguistic divides in India's multilingual society, where over 1,600 languages and dialects exist, by fostering reciprocal exposure: students in non-Hindi-speaking states learn Hindi as a link language, while those in Hindi-belt states study a southern or other regional Indian language. Policymakers argued that such multilingual proficiency would reduce inter-regional alienation and promote a unified national identity without eroding local linguistic heritage. In implementation, the formula supports cohesion through institutional mechanisms like Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, established in 1986, where adherence to the three-language model accompanies inter-state student migration quotas—typically 30% of seats reserved for rural and underrepresented regions—to encourage cross-cultural interactions and diminish state-specific biases. Government initiatives, such as the ' Centres since 1971, further operationalize the policy by training teachers in the formula to enhance linguistic tolerance and social harmony across diverse groups. The 2020 National Education Policy reaffirms this role, emphasizing flexible application of the formula to integrate languages in ways that advance national unity alongside cultural preservation, with at least two of the three languages being native to . While the policy's causal impact on cohesion remains debated due to uneven adoption—evident in resistance from states like Tamil Nadu—proponents cite its endurance across six decades of education policies as evidence of perceived value in mitigating language-based separatism, as articulated in official resolutions linking multilingual education to reduced communal tensions. Empirical assessments are limited, but frameworks like the National Curriculum Framework (2005) describe the formula as an additive strategy for building empathy through shared linguistic competence, rather than subtractive monolingualism that could exacerbate divisions.

Evidence from Language Acquisition Outcomes

According to 2011 Census data, Hindi-belt states adhering more closely to the three-language formula exhibit markedly higher rates, with over 90% of residents in areas like speaking only one language, up from 90.2% in 1991 to 95.2% in 2011 among Hindi speakers. In comparison, non-Hindi states like , which implement a two-language policy focused on the and English, demonstrate rising bilingualism, as monolingual speakers declined from 84.5% in 1991 to 78% in 2011, with English speakers increasing to 18.5%. English proficiency metrics further underscore disparities, with southern states outperforming Hindi-belt regions despite the latter's policy emphasis on multiple languages; for instance, scores 96.2 on English fluency indices, followed by at 82.9, while states like and report lower rates around 4.6-6.7% English speakers. National Achievement Survey (NAS) 2018 results reveal poor overall language competencies, including English at Class 10 level, with no assessment of third-language proficiency indicating superficial or absent gains from the formula. Empirical analyses attribute these outcomes to implementation flaws, such as curricular overload, shortages, and perfunctory of the third , resulting in minimal retention and practical skills rather than enhanced multilingual competence. Research on supports that focusing on two robust languages—mother tongue and English—yields stronger proficiency and problem-solving abilities than diluted efforts across three, as observed in policy evaluations. Overall, available data suggest the formula correlates with stagnant or declining multilingual outcomes in adherent regions, contrasting with bilingual models' association with improved .

Criticisms and Shortcomings

Claims of Hindi Imposition

Claims of Hindi imposition in the context of India's three-language formula originated in the 1930s, when the Congress-led government in the under introduced compulsory teaching in schools in 1937, prompting widespread protests led by figures like E. V. Ramasamy () who viewed it as an assault on linguistic identity. These early agitations framed promotion as favoring northern, Hindi-speaking elites and Brahminical interests over regional languages. The most intense opposition erupted in 1965, following Union Education Minister K.K. Shah's parliamentary statement that would gradually replace English as the sole , igniting riots in that resulted in over 70 deaths and the resignation of . In response, assured the continuation of English alongside , leading to the adoption of the three-language formula in 1968 by the , which recommended , (or another Indian language in Hindi states), and English—but non- states like interpreted the default emphasis on as coercive, rejecting it in favor of a two-language model ( and English). Under the formula, critics in southern states argue that is effectively mandated as the third in practice, despite nominal flexibility, as central funding and curriculum guidelines prioritize it, allegedly eroding regional s and imposing a northern . leaders, including (DMK) figures, have consistently claimed since the that this setup disadvantages non- speakers by requiring them to learn an "additional" dominant while states learn fewer practically useful ones, exacerbating educational burdens without reciprocity. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 reignited these claims, with Tamil Nadu's government, led by Chief Minister , denouncing its three-language recommendation as a "backdoor" imposition that violates federal autonomy and Article 345 of the , which safeguards state control over mediums of instruction. Protests in , including demonstrations and legislative resolutions, echoed historical fears of linguistic marginalization, with opponents citing inadequate for non- languages and central incentives that favor adoption. Similar sentiments surfaced in in 2025, where the state assembly revoked a three-language resolution amid accusations of enforced learning, highlighting perceived inconsistencies where the formula burdens southern students with proficiency irrelevant to local economies.

Practical and Logistical Hurdles

A primary logistical challenge in implementing the three-language formula is the widespread shortage of qualified teachers proficient in the required languages, particularly in non-mother-tongue subjects like or regional languages in Hindi-dominant states. In , authorities have resorted to hiring retired teachers on minimal remuneration to fill gaps in Hindi instruction, while faces recruitment difficulties for and educators. reports significant vacancies, including 34% for posts and 71% for , exacerbating the issue in rural and understaffed schools. Many states remain in the initial phases of teacher training under the , with incomplete programs hindering effective rollout. Resource constraints further compound these hurdles, including shortages of updated textbooks, digital materials, and infrastructural support for multilingual instruction. In , the introduction of early Hindi teaching in 2025 was delayed due to the absence of new textbooks, prompting policy reversals that affected approximately 80 students. Rural government schools, in particular, struggle to provide even basic bilingual resources, relying sporadically on non-governmental organizations for translations and training in tribal regions like . Outdated national surveys, with the most recent comprehensive data from 2009 lacking school-level granularity and public accessibility, impede targeted resource allocation. Uneven implementation across states underscores additional logistical disparities, with less than 50% of schools in , , , and adhering to the formula as of the 2023-24 . Low enrollment in third languages persists, as seen in where only marginal numbers of students opt for southern languages—such as one in and three in —due to limited availability and perceived irrelevance. encounters specific attendance and engagement problems in third-language classes, while urban-rural divides amplify burdens, with government schools overburdened by the added alongside core subjects like .

Inconsistencies in Reciprocal Learning

The three-language formula, as outlined in the 1968 and reaffirmed with flexibility in the , envisions reciprocal learning whereby students in Hindi-speaking states acquire proficiency in a non-Hindi , while students in non-Hindi states learn alongside their mother tongue and English, fostering mutual linguistic exposure across India's diverse regions. This reciprocity aims to promote national integration by ensuring balanced , with the third language selected to encourage inter-regional understanding rather than rote options like . In practice, however, implementation reveals significant asymmetries, particularly in Hindi-dominant northern states where the third language is frequently Sanskrit or another classical tongue, rather than a southern or eastern regional language such as or , resulting in negligible functional proficiency or reciprocal exposure. Surveys and reports indicate that students in these states often complete schooling without conversational or literacy skills in the third language, undermining the policy's goal of mutual learning; for instance, as a third language yields low retention, with many graduates unable to read or speak it beyond basic phrases. Conversely, non-Hindi states like have historically adhered to a two-language model ( plus English), rejecting inclusion and thus forgoing the entirely, which deprives northern learners of reciprocal incentives while southern students remain insulated from Hindi-medium interactions. Even where non-Hindi states nominally adopt the third language as , enforcement varies, with opt-outs or superficial teaching, leading to uneven proficiency; data from the Annual Status of Education Report highlights persistent gaps in acquisition in southern schools, mirroring the north's disengagement from . These discrepancies perpetuate a one-way linguistic flow favoring Hindi dissemination southward without equivalent northern uptake of regional languages, as evidenced by state-level policy divergences post-NEP 2020, such as Maharashtra's 2025 withdrawal of guidelines mandating as the third language amid backlash. Critics, including regional policymakers, argue this lack of mutuality erodes the formula's integrative intent, with empirical outcomes showing Hindi speakers' limited exposure to non-Indo-Aryan languages compared to the reverse, despite constitutional safeguards for linguistic diversity under Article 351 promoting 's development without imposition. Such inconsistencies, attributed to regional political and inadequate teacher training, hinder verifiable multilingual outcomes, with no nationwide assessments confirming reciprocal proficiency gains since the policy's inception.

Broader Controversies

Federal Tensions and Political Motivations

The three-language formula, recommended by the in 1968, has exacerbated federal tensions in by pitting the central government's emphasis on national linguistic integration against states' assertions of cultural and educational autonomy, particularly in non-Hindi-speaking regions. Non-Hindi states, led by , have historically resisted the policy's requirement for students to learn alongside their regional language and English, viewing it as an infringement on federal principles under the of the Constitution, where education falls under shared jurisdiction. In , opposition traces back to the 1937 proposal to make compulsory, sparking sustained agitations that framed promotion as a threat to linguistic identity and regional . These tensions intensified in the 1960s, culminating in widespread anti-Hindi protests in in 1965, which contributed to the fall of the Congress-led state government and the rise of committed to a two-language model ( and English). The central government's persistence with the formula, despite states' opt-outs, has led to recurring standoffs, including funding disputes; for instance, in 2021, the Union Ministry of Education threatened to withhold Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan funds from for non-compliance, highlighting coercive federal dynamics. Politically, the policy's enforcement reflects motivations rooted in Hindi-belt majoritarianism, where proponents argue it fosters unity in a linguistically diverse of 22 official languages, but critics contend it advances a agenda favoring northern demographics comprising about 40% of India's population. The revival of the formula under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has amplified these frictions, with the policy mandating three languages—two native to India, at least—from Classes 6-8, ostensibly with flexibility but interpreted by southern states as de facto Hindi imposition due to central curriculum guidelines and exams like the National Assessment Centre's potential language proficiency tests. Tamil Nadu's DMK government, in power since May 2021, has explicitly rejected NEP implementation, passing resolutions in the state assembly on February 10, 2025, to uphold the two-language system, framing compliance as a surrender of federal rights amid broader north-south economic disparities. This stance aligns with regional parties' electoral strategies leveraging linguistic pride against perceived central overreach, while the BJP-led center defends the policy as equitable multilingualism, citing the original 1968 intent to reduce linguistic silos without reciprocity enforcement from Hindi states. Such debates underscore deeper political motivations: central efforts to consolidate national identity versus states' use of resistance to bolster subnational solidarity, often amid accusations of vote-bank politics in multilingual electorates.

Alternatives: Two-Language vs. Three-Language Models

The two-language model, emphasizing proficiency in the regional or mother tongue alongside English, represents a streamlined alternative to the three-language formula, allowing deeper mastery of fewer languages amid resource constraints. States like have adhered to this policy since the , explicitly rejecting the inclusion of to prioritize English for economic and global integration. This approach aligns with causal factors in , where focused instruction yields higher competence levels compared to divided attention across three languages, particularly when foundational skills remain weak. Empirical indicators support the efficacy of the two-language framework in practical outcomes. Tamil Nadu demonstrates elevated English proficiency relative to many northern states implementing the three-language model, correlating with stronger performance in English-medium higher education and sectors like information technology and services, which contributed to the state's per capita income exceeding the national average by approximately 30% as of 2023 data. National assessments reveal systemic deficiencies even in bilingual basics: the 2022 Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) found that only 43% of Class 5 students could read a Class 2-level text in regional languages or Hindi, while National Achievement Survey (NAS) 2017 data indicated just 48% of Class 8 students proficient in simple paragraph reading in their primary language. Introducing a third language under such conditions increases cognitive load without commensurate gains, as evidenced by third-language acquisition research showing diminished efficiency in prior languages when core proficiencies are underdeveloped. Proponents of the three-language model argue it fosters and national cohesion through broader linguistic exposure, drawing on general studies indicating enhanced problem-solving in balanced trilingual environments. However, in India's context of uneven implementation, teacher shortages, and overburdened curricula, this often results in superficial knowledge across languages rather than depth, undermining where English serves as the primary economic . Two-language advocates counter that reallocating instructional time to core subjects and English bolsters measurable outcomes like and STEM performance, as Tamil Nadu's resistance to the formula has coincided with leading enrollment in and courses nationwide. Debates persist on long-term cultural impacts, but available data prioritize bilingual depth for causal drivers of socioeconomic mobility over aspirational trilingual breadth.

Empirical Debates on Effectiveness

Empirical assessments of the three-language formula's reveal a divide between theoretical advantages of and observed outcomes in schools, where implementation often yields superficial proficiency rather than mastery. on trilingualism indicate potential cognitive benefits, such as enhanced executive function and , as trilingual children outperform monolinguals and bilinguals in tasks requiring and problem-solving. However, these findings derive from controlled or contexts and do not directly evaluate the formula's mandated structure, which requires early introduction of a third amid resource constraints. In practice, national surveys like the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) document persistently low foundational across languages, with only 44% of 5 students able to fluently read 2-level texts in their primary instructional , suggesting that adding a third dilutes focus without building core competencies. A study of 1,272 primary students found that while mother-tongue instruction aids reading acquisition, multilingual policies in diverse settings correlate with weaker comprehension in non-native languages due to inadequate exposure and teacher training. data further shows that only 5-15% of Indians achieve functional trilingualism, largely attributable to environmental factors rather than schooling, with bilingual rates at 22-44% failing to exceed global multilingual norms despite decades of policy enforcement. Comparative analyses highlight shortcomings: states adhering to two-language models (regional plus English), such as , exhibit stronger English proficiency and literacy outcomes than Hindi-belt regions implementing the full formula, where divided instructional time impedes depth in any language. Critics argue this reflects causal overload, as evidence favors concentrated instruction in two robust languages for superior cognitive and academic results over dispersed trilingual efforts. Rigorous, large-scale longitudinal studies specific to the formula remain scarce, underscoring a reliance on ideological goals over data-driven validation, with implementation inconsistencies exacerbating inequities in tribal and non-Hindi areas.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] NPE-1968.pdf
    (b) Three-Language Formula: At the secondary stage, the State Governments should adopt, and vigorously implement, the three-language formula which includes the.
  2. [2]
    Tamil Nadu vs three-language formula: A look at state's history of ...
    Mar 2, 2025 · The three-language formula was first proposed by the Education Commission (1964-66), officially known as the Kothari Commission. It was formally ...
  3. [3]
    What is Three Language Formula? History, Challenges and Facts
    Jul 11, 2025 · Originating post-independence and formalized in 1968, it mandates teaching three languages, usually Hindi, English, and a regional language.
  4. [4]
    Why is the three-language policy controversial? | Explained
    Feb 23, 2025 · Tamil Nadu resists Hindi imposition in education, sparking conflict with Union Government over NEP 2020 three-language policy.
  5. [5]
    [PDF] National Education Policy 2020
    However, there will be a greater flexibility in the three-language formula, and no language will be imposed on any State. The three languages learned by ...
  6. [6]
    India's language war: Why is Hindi sparking a north-south divide?
    Apr 10, 2025 · The original policy mandated a three-language formula. Hindi-speaking states in northern India were required to teach Hindi, English and a third ...
  7. [7]
    Three Language Policy: Balancing Regional Identity ... - Vision IAS
    Jul 1, 2025 · The three language formula, first recommended by the Kothari Commission in 1968, aimed to address this challenge through structured multilingual ...<|separator|>
  8. [8]
    Three-Language Formula in NEP 2020 - INSIGHTS IAS
    Feb 24, 2025 · Definition: A language policy introduced in the National Education Policy (NEP) of 1968 to standardize language education across India.
  9. [9]
    The Three-Language Formula in India: Evolution, Implementation ...
    Formally adopted by the Indian government in 1968 as part of the National Policy on Education, the formula was designed as a compromise solution to India's ...
  10. [10]
    Three Language Formula: Implications, Successes & Challenges
    The Three-Language Formula (TLF) under NEP 2020 fosters linguistic diversity and national integration but faces challenges like political resistance and ...The Three-Language Formula... · Constitutional Provisions for...
  11. [11]
    Three Language Formula in India by NEP 2020 - LEAD School
    Apr 23, 2025 · Originally formulated in the 1968 National Policy on Education, it proposes that students learn three languages: The regional language (mother ...
  12. [12]
    Three-Language Formula in India's Education System - PolSci Institute
    Mar 11, 2024 · The Three-Language Formula, introduced in the 1968 national education policy, aims to foster linguistic unity and diversity in India.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  13. [13]
    [PDF] 39740_1931_TLS.pdf - Census of India
    The cenSU$ report 'of 1931 was 'easily the most: compr~hensive, of all such reports c9mple~e with; maps, statistics, ethnographic ~ounts aq4 the province~' ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Census of India, 1931 - Thomas Piketty
    Jun 4, 2025 · ... British India and States; French and Portuguese India; Exter!llil ... languages; Difficulties in classifying Indo-Aryan languagea ...
  15. [15]
    The Census of India, 1931 - jstor
    The total cost of the 1931 census of India was nearly $I,8oo,ooo. The census reports occupy 28 volumes. The total area covered by the census was I,8oo,ooo ...
  16. [16]
    Linguistic Relations - India - Country Studies
    The languages of India belong to four major families: Indo-Aryan (a branch of the Indo-European family), Dravidian, Austroasiatic (Austric), ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Linguistic history and language diversity in India
    Two other major language families in. India are the Austro-Asiatic (the Munda sub-branch of this family is represented by about a dozen languages in central.
  18. [18]
    a brief background of the language issue in india - Penn Linguistics
    In 1961, over 190 languages were listed, which was a paring down of the 1,652 language names submitted by census takers. Many of these reductions affected ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Debates on Language Policy in Independent India
    Upon independence in 1947, India faced the challenge of crafting a language policy that balanced its linguistic diversity with the need for national unity. The ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] English in postcolonial India, 1946–1968 - ETH Research Collection
    Abstract: India's “official language controversy” spanned over two decades from. 1946 to 1967, during which the proposal to replace English with Hindi met ...
  21. [21]
    Multilingualism, language policy and the constituent assembly debates
    This short paper looks at the Constituent Assembly Debates about language issues in India as well as the language provisions in the Indian Constitution.
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Language Policy and National Development in India
    The Hindi-English controversy unfolded mainly at the federal level. Every state in the federation had the right to select its own official state language.
  23. [23]
    The Language Problem in Post-Independence India - Writing with Clio
    Jul 28, 2017 · In 1957, the Hindi enthusiasts started a 'Banish English' movement, though not very successful, had the effect of aggravating the anti-Hindi ...
  24. [24]
    Official Language Act - Government of India
    An Act to provide for the languages which may be used for the official purpose of the Union, for transaction of business in Parliament, for Central and State ...
  25. [25]
    Education and National Development - Centre for Policy Research
    The report deals with the general aspects of qualitative improvement in elementary education with recommendations such as the development of a national policy.<|control11|><|separator|>
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Kothari Education Commission (1964-66) - GSCE Publication
    • Three language formula: The Kothari commission and language education intended for the adoption of three language formula by the state governments at the ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Language, Multilingualism and Education: The Interplay - NCERT
    Seemingly, these schools maintain a multilingual environment in the spirit of Three Language Formula. (proposed by Kothari Commission in. 1964-66, reiterated ...
  28. [28]
    THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT, 1963 | Ministry of Home Affairs
    Jun 18, 2024 · An Act to provide for the languages which may be used for the official purposes of the Union, for transaction of business in Parliament, for Central and State ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1967 No. I OF 1968
    where Hindi or the English language is used for purposes of communication-. (i) between one Mjnistry or Department or office of the. Central Government and ...Missing: 1976 | Show results with:1976
  30. [30]
    Three-Language Formula: Resistance, State Decisions, and NEP ...
    Jul 15, 2025 · What is the Three-Language Formula? · In Hindi-speaking states: Hindi, English, and a modern Indian language (preferably from the South). · In non ...<|separator|>
  31. [31]
    Three-Language Row And Some Hard Facts You Can't Wish Away
    Mar 27, 2025 · North Indian states tend to stick to familiar northern languages: Haryana, for instance, has implemented the three-language formula for Classes ...
  32. [32]
    Three Language Formula and Language Learning in India's ...
    Mar 31, 2025 · The first National Education Policy (NPE) of 1968 introduced the Three Language Formula, which proposed that students should learn: Their ...
  33. [33]
    States Struggling With The Three Language Formula - Daily Excelsior
    Jul 7, 2025 · Maharashtra's struggle with implementation of the three-language formula under NEP 2020 is the latest example. Actually, India has 19 non ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  34. [34]
    Most states, even non-BJP, offer Hindi or Sanskrit as 3rd language
    Mar 14, 2025 · The 3-language formula envisaged under NEP 2020 recommends students learn 3 languages, at least 2 of which must be native to India.
  35. [35]
    [PDF] revised scheme of financial assistance for appointment of
    In keeping with the Three Language Formula, which sanctioning Central. Assistance under this Scheme, preference will be given to the appointment of South.
  36. [36]
    Central Institute of Indian Languages - Ministry of Education
    Feb 19, 2021 · The centres work for the implementation of the three language formula of the Government and preparation of instructional materials. The RLCs ...
  37. [37]
    Rethinking the Three-language Formula in Plurilingual India: Towards a Pragmatic Bilingual Model
    ### Summary of Empirical Evidence and Arguments on the Three-Language Formula's Impact on Multilingual Proficiency in India
  38. [38]
  39. [39]
    Third language choice: Hindi in non-Hindi States, Sanskrit in Hindi-belt
    Apr 4, 2025 · However, the insights remain relevant, as the LS reply from 1995 states that 27 States/U.T.s had implemented the three-language formula (Table 1) ...
  40. [40]
    Data bare 3-language Hindi irony: North states shun south lingo ...
    Mar 26, 2025 · NEP 2020 modified the three-language formula while giving greater flexibility to the states to teach any Indian language as a third language.<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    UP Board students to study 10 subjects, 3 languages now
    Jun 20, 2024 · According to officials, three language formula will be implemented in class 9 from the 2025-26 session and in class 10 from 2026-27. Under this ...
  42. [42]
    [PDF] government of india
    Mar 24, 2025 · However, there will be a greater flexibility in the three-language formula, and no language will be imposed on any State. The three languages ...
  43. [43]
    Kerala embraces 3-language formula, but politically resists Hindi ...
    Mar 3, 2025 · The three-language formula, while controversial in some states, has not sparked significant protests in Kerala. This is partly because Kerala's ...
  44. [44]
    Gujarat & Punjab rank highest in the three-language policy
    Mar 27, 2025 · On a national scale, only 61.6% of schools follow the three-language formula. Among the southern states, Kerala (71.7%) and Karnataka (76.4%) ...
  45. [45]
    [DOC] File 1 - OPEN PEER REVIEW
    The Three-Language Formula, when interpreted rigidly, is viewed in many regions as a vehicle for Hindi imposition, sparking protests and policy rejections. Thus ...
  46. [46]
    Is Tamil Nadu Govt's Opposition to the Three Language Policy ...
    Mar 11, 2025 · The first 'resistance' against a third language (Hindi) in Tamil Nadu can be traced back to 1937 when Periyar E V Ramaswamy Naicker led a ...
  47. [47]
    Tamil Nadu's opposition to three-language policy has historical roots ...
    Feb 24, 2025 · Periyar led an intensified battle against Hindi, Brahmin domination and Brahmanical values. Tamil Nadu CM M K Stalin said, "We are not opposing ...
  48. [48]
    Anti-Hindi agitations in Madras - Tamil Nadu - The Hindu
    Aug 18, 2024 · In the 1960s, the DMK led the protest against the enactment of the Official Languages Act, 1963. Apart from the struggle for Independence, ...
  49. [49]
    When fire and poison stalled Hindi's march to Tamil Nadu
    Mar 7, 2025 · In 1965, when Hindi was to become India's official language, Tamil Nadu (then Madras State) saw fiery protests that are said to have claimed 150 lives.
  50. [50]
    Remembering the 1965 Anti Hindi Struggle - Tamilnation.org
    In the two months of anti-Hindi demonstrations and rioting which followed in Madras, more than sixty people were shot in police-firings, and unofficial reports ...
  51. [51]
    Tamil Nadu's battle against Hindi imposition: A legacy of resistance
    Feb 19, 2025 · The ideological struggle against Hindi came to a head during the 1965 anti-Hindi agitations led by the DMK. As Anandhi pointed out, these ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  52. [52]
    How the two-language policy officially came into force in the State of ...
    Feb 18, 2025 · In early 1968, Parliament adopted The Official Languages (Amendment) Act, 1967, to permit the continuation of English, in addition to Hindi, as ...
  53. [53]
    Why Tamil Nadu Resists Three Language Policy in Education?
    Mar 13, 2025 · In January 1968, Tamil Nadu's state assembly passed a resolution that the state education board would adhere to a “two language formula” and ...
  54. [54]
    EXPLAINER: What is three-language formula at centre of row ...
    Mar 12, 2025 · The three-language formula in NEP 2020 recommends that students learn three languages, at least two of which must be native Indian languages.
  55. [55]
    Tamil Nadu Unveils Its Education Policy, Sticks To Two-Language ...
    Aug 8, 2025 · Tamil Nadu Unveils Its Education Policy, Sticks To Two-Language Formula. This rollout comes near the end of the DMK government's term.
  56. [56]
    Explained | Tamil Nadu's 2-language policy and opposition to NEP ...
    Feb 25, 2025 · The Tamil Nadu government reiterated that there would be no change in its two-language policy of Tamil and English which has been in force since 1968.
  57. [57]
    Tamil Nadu Refuses NEP Language Policy, Risks ... - Frontline
    Feb 24, 2025 · Tamil Nadu has pushed back strongly against the efforts of the Union government to implement the three-language formula as part of the National Education ...
  58. [58]
    Stalin's defiance of NEP's three language formula is not about ...
    Feb 27, 2025 · ... Tamil Nadu's obstinate resistance to NEP 2020 is both regressive and self-defeating. The three-language formula respects linguistic ...
  59. [59]
    What Is NEP 2020's Three-Language Formula? How Tamil Nadu ...
    Mar 13, 2025 · Tamil Nadu's DMK government opposes NEP 2020's three-language formula, seeing it as Hindi imposition. Historically, the state favours a two- ...
  60. [60]
    Challenges and pathway for advancing multilingual education ...
    On the other hand, Tamil Nadu State has actively resisted the implementation of NEP 2020, particularly the three-language formula. There have been multiple ...
  61. [61]
    Three-language policy implementation is left to States and UTs, says ...
    Jul 22, 2025 · The policy emphasised the promotion of multilingualism and encourages States/UTs to adopt the three-language formula ... Kerala Tamil Nadu ...
  62. [62]
    Language Learning and the Indian Education System
    Sep 26, 2025 · This paper analysed the Three-Language Formula (TLF) which is the basis of the Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) curriculum in India ...
  63. [63]
    The Impact of the Three-Language Formula on Tribal Students in ...
    Sep 4, 2025 · Quantitative analyses reveal that while secondary-level pass rates rose from 45% to 62% and Hindi proficiency improved by over 15 percentage ...
  64. [64]
    Cognitive Consequences of Trilingualism - PMC - PubMed Central
    This study is the first comprehensive analysis of how learning a third language affects the cognitive abilities that are modified by bilingual experience.
  65. [65]
    Learning three languages essential for cognitive growth
    Jun 6, 2025 · Mariana Vega-Mendoza, in a co-authored 2015 study, showed that “trilingual children showed superior performance in certain cognitive tasks ...
  66. [66]
    Amid three-language war, data shows only one-fourth Indians are ...
    Mar 2, 2025 · In 1968, a national education policy (NEP) formulated by the Indira Gandhi-led Congress government had introduced the three-language formula ...<|separator|>
  67. [67]
    [PDF] Effect of State's Language Policy on Learning Outcomes of ...
    Sep 15, 2023 · This paper examines how the language policies of linguistic states in India influence the educational outcomes of linguistic minorities.
  68. [68]
    Vice President Dwelt Upon the Working of Three Language Formula ...
    Mar 29, 2011 · Hamid Ansari has dwelt upon the working of the “Three language formula” in the country. ... National Integration and understanding. The Vice ...
  69. [69]
    OpenCms | Vision & Mission - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti
    Adherence to Three-Language Formula. The Scheme of Navodaya Vidyalayas ... Promotion of National Integration. Navodaya Vidyalayas aim at inculcating ...
  70. [70]
    About Regional Language Centres | Official Website of Central ...
    Jul 18, 2024 · The Government's resolution of the 18th January, 1968 on the language Policy ... Three-Language Formula and to offer assistance. To Hindi speaking ...
  71. [71]
    Multi-Lingual Education Programme - PIB
    Aug 12, 2015 · ... Three Language Formula in order to promote National Integration through multi-lingual education. No specific budgetary allocation has been ...
  72. [72]
    [PDF] “8” pib.nic.in PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU GOVERNMENT OF ...
    Dec 17, 2018 · NCF also states that the 'Three Language Formula' is an attempt to address the challenges and opportunities of the linguistic situation in ...
  73. [73]
    Over 90% in Hindi-belt states speak only one language, rest of India ...
    Mar 5, 2025 · Tamil Nadu-Centre language debate reignites over SSA funds; data shows English preferred over Hindi in non-Hindi-belt States.
  74. [74]
    C-17: Population by bilingualism and trilingualism, India - 2011
    Jan 19, 2021 · This table gives for each mother tongue, the number of speakers, who are bilingual among them. Further, the speakers have been classified according to the two ...Missing: rates | Show results with:rates
  75. [75]
    Which State in India Speaks the Best English?
    Apr 3, 2025 · States Leading in English Fluency ; Kerala, 1, 96.2 ; Karnataka, 2, 75.4 ; Tamil Nadu, 3, 82.9 ; Maharashtra, 4, 82.3 ...
  76. [76]
    How Many People in India Speak English [2025 Data]
    Mar 20, 2025 · Roughly 10% of India speaks English but the average English-speaking population is even lower in Rajasthan (4.6%), West Bengal (6.7%), and ...Number of English Speakers... · English Speakers in India by... · Conclusion
  77. [77]
    NEP's three-language formula: Rhetoric vs reality - dtnext
    Apr 14, 2025 · English proficiency, tested only in NAS 2018 at the Class 10 level, was similarly poor. Tellingly, NAS never assesses third-language proficiency ...
  78. [78]
    (PDF) Rethinking the Three-language Formula in Plurilingual India
    Aug 4, 2025 · This article revisits the TLF in the context of contemporary educational, political, and linguistic developments in India. It draws on recent ...
  79. [79]
    The three-language formula is a bad idea - Hindustan Times
    Jun 3, 2019 · The three-language formula is a bad idea. Hindustan Times | ByKumKum ... There is considerable research evidence to show that young ...
  80. [80]
  81. [81]
    What is the NEP controversy? Explaining Tamil Nadu's resistance to ...
    Mar 18, 2025 · Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister MK Stalin has led the opposition, labelling the policy a “Hindutva policy” that prioritises Hindi and Sanskrit over regional ...
  82. [82]
    Does three-language formula in NEP actually impose Hindi
    Mar 13, 2025 · Tamil Nadu has alleged that the New Education Policy 2020 is an attempt at imposing Hindi in the Tamil-speaking state.
  83. [83]
    Tamil Nadu's two-language policy, its opposition to Hindi imposition
    Mar 9, 2025 · A collection of exclusive stories by The Hindu on Tamil Nadu's two-language policy, its opposition to Hindi imposition mooted through National Education Policy ...<|separator|>
  84. [84]
    Hindi 'imposition' row: Maharashtra government cancels 3-language ...
    Jun 29, 2025 · "But the attempt to enforce the learning of Hindi by students in Maharashtra through the three-language formula has finally been defeated, and ...
  85. [85]
    Three-Language Policy: Challenges in Implementation Across India
    Apr 3, 2025 · Non-Hindi-speaking states: Hindi, English, and the regional language. The policy was introduced to ensure linguistic diversity and national ...Missing: official | Show results with:official
  86. [86]
    NEP 2020 & The 3 Language Formula: A Test Of Policy, Politics ...
    Jul 31, 2025 · The three-language formula recommends that students learn three languages at school: typically, their mother tongue or regional language, Hindi ...
  87. [87]
    LANGUAGE POLICY AND NATION-BUILDING IN POST ...
    'three-language formula' whereby a local language, Hindi and English would all ... A reciprocal learning of languages would potentially allow for greater ...<|separator|>
  88. [88]
    India's Language Wars: Resistance Rising - South Asia Journal
    Apr 8, 2025 · The BJP's implementation of the three-language formula is seen as an ... A truly inclusive language policy would encourage reciprocal learning ...
  89. [89]
    Cow belt's hypocrisy over three-language formula exposed
    The three-language formula has been subverted in Hindi-speaking states where students opt for Sanskrit but can neither read, speak or write in it.
  90. [90]
    We need honesty in the three-language formula debate
    Mar 2, 2025 · ... formula spark a debate on India's language politics and the erosion of native tongues ... errors: We found a few errors: We found a few errors:.Missing: reciprocal | Show results with:reciprocal
  91. [91]
    Maharashtra Withdraws GRs On Hindi As Third Language
    Jun 30, 2025 · Three-language formula given by the Kothari Commission(1964–66): ... Reciprocal Learning: Encourage Hindi-speaking states to learn Southern ...
  92. [92]
    Should a third language be compulsory? | Explained - The Hindu
    Feb 26, 2025 · The NEP, 2020 has retained the three-language formula albeit with a key difference that it doesn't impose any language on any State. It ...
  93. [93]
    Finding Solutions to India's Language Policy Challenges
    1. Asymmetric Federalism in Language Policy · Allowing states like Tamil Nadu to maintain their two-language policy without penalty · Requiring Hindi-speaking ...
  94. [94]
  95. [95]
    [PDF] Rethinking the Three-language Formula in Plurilingual India
    Jul 26, 2025 · In non-Hindi-speaking states, qualified. Hindi teachers are in short supply. For example, Tamil Nadu and Kerala reported less than 25% teacher ...
  96. [96]
    Challenges of three-language policy - The Hindu
    Mar 27, 2025 · For example, in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Rajasthan, the first language is English, the second is Hindi, and Sanskrit is the third language. In ...
  97. [97]
    Why the Three-Language Formula Threatens South India - The Wire
    Mar 1, 2025 · The Indian Union government has threatened to stop funding Tamil Nadu under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan if it does not implement the three-language formula.
  98. [98]
    Hindi v Tamil - India's language battle heats up - BBC
    Mar 11, 2025 · Many of its recommendations were not legally binding on state-run schools - Tamil Nadu, for instance, teaches only two languages, English and ...
  99. [99]
    Why NEP has revived the language debate - Times of India
    Mar 2, 2025 · National Education Policy (NEP2020) and its three-language formula have reignited a longstanding debate, particularly between the Centre and Tamil Nadu.<|control11|><|separator|>
  100. [100]
    The flawed push for a third language - The Hindu
    Mar 28, 2025 · When India's schools struggle with basic proficiency in two languages, enforcing a third without any clear benefits is deeply flawed.
  101. [101]
    Which State in India Speaks the Best English?
    May 12, 2025 · States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Delhi topped the list almost every time. In a 2022 survey by Education First (EF ...
  102. [102]
  103. [103]
    Effects of Mother Tongue Education and Multilingualism on Reading ...
    Apr 25, 2024 · In a highly multilingual country like India, challenges and opportunities arise in education and language policy.
  104. [104]
    Comparison of Cognitive Functions among Bilinguals and ... - NIH
    Firstly, the experience of managing many languages may have improved cognitive control and executive function in multilingual individuals, which could lead to ...
  105. [105]
    Literacy and Linguistic Diversity in Multilingual India (Chapter 8)
    In India, only 44 percent of students in government schools can read Grade 2 texts in Grade 5 fluently, as measured by the ASER test, which focuses on decoding ...
  106. [106]
    [PDF] Language Learning and the Indian Education System
    By critically examin- ing the Three-Language Formula (TLF), which forms a basis for language education, seeing if concurrent study of language is cognitively ...
  107. [107]
    Investigating quality education in mother tongue: Ensuring children's ...
    The case of India's inconsistent Three Language Formula and the South African constitutional multilingualism-overshadowed by English's dominance, further ...