Language policy in India rarely stays confined to the classroom. It touches identity, access, mobility, and the purpose of education itself. That is why the recent debate around CBSE’s three-language scheme has drawn such close attention. A careful reading of the policy trail suggests that the central issue is not whether India should value multilingualism. That question was substantially settled long ago. The real question is how a multilingual policy should be implemented in a way that is educationally sound, administratively fair, and publicly well understood. Seen in that light, CBSE’s recent move deserves a fuller and calmer reading than it has sometimes received.
The first point is historical. The three-language formula did not begin with CBSE in 2026, or with the National Education Policy of 2020. It belongs to a much older attempt to reconcile India’s linguistic richness with national connectedness and modern educational aspiration. The broad framework can be traced to the Education Commission of 1964-66, which was subsequently reflected in the National Policy on Education, 1968. NEP 2020 did not invent the principle anew. It retained multilingualism as a core educational value, recasting it in more flexible and learner-centred terms. The current discussion, therefore, is not about a new idea suddenly entering Indian schooling. It is about a familiar idea entering a new stage of implementation.
Let us closely see why this newer framing matters. NEP 2020 places a stronger emphasis on “promoting multilingualism and the power of language in teaching and learning.” It also stresses the educational importance of a familiar language. It states that, wherever possible, the medium of instruction should be the home language, mother tongue, local language or regional language at least until Grade 5, and preferably till Grade 8 and beyond. In policy terms, the underlying assumption is that comprehension, participation, and confidence are strengthened when children are educated in languages they know well. It further adds that additional languages can then be built on stronger foundations rather than imposed as disconnected requirements.
The National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) 2023 translates that philosophy into curricular form by describing the three languages as R1, R2, and R3. R1 is generally the language in which literacy is first developed, say the mother tongue; R2 and R3 are additional languages acquired through the school years. CBSE’s current scheme derives directly from this framework. Its key rule is that at least two of the three languages studied must be native Indian languages. This is the provision around which much of the present discussion turns. Properly understood, it is not a bar to English or foreign languages. It is a curricular safeguard designed to ensure that Indian languages remain central rather than incidental in school education. The recent public debate has not always made this important distinction clearly enough.
Progression, not burden
A complete understanding of the three-language policy also requires looking beyond Classes IX and X. Multilingual schooling under NEP 2020 is meant to be cumulative. It is not intended to arrive suddenly at the secondary stage as a fresh burden. In line with that logic, CBSE’s circular dated 9 April 2026 directed affiliated schools to introduce R3 from Class VI in the 2026–27 session. It also clarified that only those R3 languages offered by a school from Class VI onward would ordinarily be available later in Classes IX and X in that school. This clarification clearly shows the policy as a progression. By the time students reach the secondary stage, they are meant to have already encountered and developed an additional language through the middle grades.
The curricular design for Classes VI to VIII reinforces the fact that the aim is not to make the third language a high-stakes academic burden for students at the middle stage. Every day, oral communication, listening, reading, and simple written expressions, such as short paragraphs, letters, and invitations, are to be practiced. The aim is functional familiarity. Students are not forced to gain a sudden mastery. That has two implications. First, the policy is better read as developmental than punitive. Second, the later extension of the three-language structure into Class IX is more coherent when viewed as the next step of a sequence already envisaged from Class VI onward.
CBSE’s 15 May 2026 circular stated that from 1 July 2026, students in Class IX must study three languages, namely R1, R2, and R3, with at least two being native Indian languages. It also clarified that the foreign languages may be studied as R3 if the other two languages are Indian. A foreign language can also be studied as an additional fourth language. As some public debate projects, the policy does not close the door on foreign-language study. Rather, it prioritises two Indian languages within the core structure while still leaving room for wider linguistic learning.
Much concern has centred on whether this will place extra pressure on students. Here, too, the scheme has been often described by critics not carefully enough. CBSE has explicitly stated that there will be no Board Examination for R3 at the Class X level. Instead, R3 will be assessed internally by schools, and no student will be barred from appearing in the Class X Board examinations because of R3. At least for the current transition phase, the third language is being introduced as a learning requirement without being made into a high-stakes public examination.
Also read: In India’s NEET and CBSE exam crisis, the only adults in the room have been children
Challenges
CBSE also recognises that school systems work through teachers, timetables, textbooks, and local capacities. It notes a 75-80 per cent overlap in core competencies between middle-stage R3 and secondary-stage R3, and therefore allows Class IX students to use Class VI R3 textbooks for 2026–27 until dedicated textbooks are available. It also says that textbooks in 19 scheduled languages will be made available. For the remaining Indian languages, the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and other state-level resources can be used. No doubt these are clearly transitional arrangements. But they indicate that CBSE aims to implement the shift in a managed manner. It does not view it as a rigid directive detached from school realities.
Teacher availability is the other practical challenge. Here again, the Board’s response has been flexible. Schools may draw on inter-school collaboration through Sahodaya clusters, virtual or hybrid teaching support, retired teachers, and suitably qualified postgraduates until more regular capacity is built. Let us, of course, not pretend that such stop-gap arrangements are a substitute for long-term investment in recruitment and training. They are not. But it is equally inaccurate to suggest that the scheme has been announced with no attention to feasibility whatsoever. The sensible question is not whether challenges exist. They plainly do. The more useful question is whether systems are being given pathways to meet them, and the CBSE’s circular suggests that they are.
There is a broader educational case for multilingualism in this debate. Let us not lose sight of it. UNESCO has repeatedly underlined the importance of learning in a language children understand, and of multilingual education for inclusion and stronger outcomes. The European Union, in a different setting, has long encouraged proficiency in the language of schooling plus two additional languages by the end of upper secondary education. Every system has its own context. But they do remind us of a simple fact. Multilingual competence is widely regarded as an educational asset. In India, where multiple languages already structure social and cultural life, that asset is especially relevant.
The CBSE scheme does not state that any particular Indian language is compulsory for every child across India. What it does is require three languages, with two native Indian languages, inside a curriculum drawn from NCFSE 2023. It ensures that R3 does not become a punitive Board subject. The scheme keeps the option to learn foreign languages.
It is time for schools to adopt the CBSE’s three-language scheme. It has built-in flexibility for local contexts. The scheme can help students become more linguistically capable and more grounded in shared national belongingness. Let us preserve Indian languages and cultivate multilingualism as a resource while keeping the door open to global languages.
Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, Chairman, Review Committee for NEP 2020, Ministry of Education, formerly Chairman, UGC and Vice-Chancellor, JNU. Views are personal.