Purvam nishchitya pashchat karyamarabhet (First deliberate thoroughly, then commence the task). This quote by Chanakya encapsulates a principle as relevant to public policy as it is to personal conduct: thoughtful planning must precede action. Every significant undertaking requires preparation, assessment of consequences, and an understanding of the circumstances in which it will be implemented.
It is against this yardstick that I, as a parent of two children studying in Classes VII and IX, find myself questioning the implementation of a policy whose objectives I broadly support.
I support multilingualism and the idea that children should have the opportunity to develop a deeper connection with India’s linguistic heritage.
What I do not support is asking children to bear the cost of a transition that should have been planned years ago and implemented gradually, not hurriedly.
My younger child, now in Class VII, has been studying a foreign language alongside English and Hindi since Class IV. She chose it enthusiastically and has spent the last three years building familiarity and confidence in it. Like many children her age, she is now apprehensive about suddenly having to pick up Sanskrit, a language she has never studied before.
My older child followed a similar path. She studied a foreign language as her third language until Class VIII and entered Class IX expecting to continue under the framework that existed when she made those choices. She, too, has never studied Sanskrit. Yet under the revised guidelines, she may now be required to alter an academic pathway she has followed for years.
Neither of my children is an exception. Across schools, countless children have spent years studying French, German, Spanish, Japanese, and other foreign languages within a framework that existed when they entered school.
My older child entered Class IX in April with a clear understanding of the subjects she would be studying and the academic pathway she would follow. Then, in mid-May, after the academic session had already begun, CBSE announced that from 1 July, students would be required to study three languages, with at least two of them being native Indian languages.
An ill-prepared education system
For families like mine, that announcement has created uncertainty where there was clarity previously. Students who have already made language choices now have to revisit them. Schools are being forced to rethink timetables and subject combinations. Parents are trying to understand what the changes mean for their children.
At the same time, questions remain about the preparedness of the wider educational ecosystem. If schools and students are still waiting for essential textbooks such as Mathematics (Part II) and Social Science, it is reasonable to ask whether the system is ready to absorb another major curricular change. Reports have also highlighted concerns about transitional arrangements, language-teacher availability, and the practical challenges schools face in implementing the new framework.
Educational reforms may be well-intentioned, but they cannot be implemented as mid-session experiments.
Class IX is not a policy laboratory. Students should be spending their time mastering concepts that will shape their academic future, not deciphering circulars, reconsidering subject choices or worrying about whether the teachers, textbooks, and academic support required for the new curriculum will be available in time.
As a parent, I do not question the objective. I question whether the system is adequately prepared to deliver it without placing the burden of that transition on children.
Educational reforms should protect students caught between old and new systems. Instead, the present implementation risks doing precisely the opposite.
Another aspect of the policy that troubles me is the narrowing of choice in the name of diversity.
The requirement that students study at least two Indian languages is intended to preserve India’s linguistic diversity and strengthen learning in familiar languages. In principle, I find that objective entirely reasonable. If implemented thoughtfully, it could enrich children’s educational experience and deepen their connection with India’s linguistic heritage.
I live in Delhi-NCR, a cosmopolitan region where children come from families that speak Punjabi, Sindhi, Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam, Marathi, Assamese, and numerous other Indian languages. If the objective is to promote India’s linguistic diversity, students should have meaningful access to a range of scheduled languages. A Punjabi-speaking child should be able to study Punjabi. A Sindhi-speaking child should be able to study Sindhi. A Tamil-speaking child should be able to strengthen her connection with Tamil.
The policy should strengthen linguistic roots, not limit them. If its objective is truly to celebrate India’s linguistic diversity, then diversity must mean more than a single practical option.
Many schools may find themselves gravitating toward Sanskrit as the default and, in some cases, the only practical option. I want to be clear: this is not an argument against Sanskrit. Sanskrit is one of India’s great classical languages and deserves respect and recognition within the curriculum.
Today, however, my younger child may find herself with little real choice but to replace her chosen language with Sanskrit because alternative Indian-language options are simply unavailable.
Children in Class IX face a different but related dilemma. Having studied foreign languages until Class VIII, they may technically be permitted to continue them as a fourth language. But the new Class IX curriculum has already introduced substantial changes and additional academic demands. What appears on paper to be an additional option may, in practice, become an additional burden.
As a parent, I feel that foreign languages have not been prohibited, but educational pathways that were previously available have become more difficult and, in some cases, practically impossible to pursue.
The measure of success is not whether an additional language has been mandated. It is whether children are genuinely able to study the language that reflects their interests, heritage, aspirations or prior years of learning.
The missing transition policy is where I struggle most with the current implementation.
Also read: CBSE’s three-language policy is misunderstood
Absence of a fair transition policy
We are repeatedly told that the three-language framework is intended to be developmental rather than burdensome, with students beginning their third-language journey in Class VI and progressing gradually through the system. If that is indeed the philosophy underpinning the policy, then the logical course would be to implement it for students entering Class VI in the 2026–27 academic session and roll it out cohort by cohort.
Students currently in Classes VII, VIII, and IX entered middle school under a different set of rules and expectations. Many of them invested years learning a foreign language because that option was available and encouraged when they began.
Students currently in Class IX have never had the opportunity to experience the gradual transition that the policy assumes. Neither did those now studying in Classes VII and VIII.
To tell these students that the policy was always intended to begin in Class VI misses the central point. They were never given the opportunity to participate in that gradual rollout.
My concern becomes even greater when I look at my younger child in Class VII, who will, in all probability, have to drop her chosen language, if not this year, then in Class VIII or IX, and pick up another language much against her wishes. Years of effort, familiarity, and enthusiasm could simply be set aside, not because she failed to learn it, but because the rules changed midway through her schooling.
Educational reforms are most successful when they are phased in for new cohorts while protecting those who made academic choices under an earlier framework.
If multilingual education is to begin in Class VI, it should begin with students entering Class VI, not with those already approaching the board years.
Above all, I worry about readiness.
Multilingualism may be an educational goal. Readiness is an administrative responsibility. One cannot be achieved sustainably without the other.
As a parent, I do not underestimate the burden this transition places on students. What appears in policy documents as “functional familiarity” translates in practice into uncertainty for children already navigating the academic demands of middle and secondary school.
For students in Classes VII, VIII, and IX, the sudden requirement to alter language choices does not merely change a timetable. It represents a significant disruption to established academic pathways, with potential consequences for students’ confidence, mental well-being, and academic focus.
This should not be reduced to a debate between Indian and foreign languages. Most parents recognise the value of multilingual education. The concern lies in the timing, the retrospective implementation, and the absence of a fair transition policy.
Acharya Chanakya’s advice remains relevant. A wise policy is not merely conceived; it is prepared for, planned for, and only then put into practice. If the three-language framework is intended to begin in Class VI, it should be implemented prospectively from Class VI, not retrospectively for Classes VII–IX. That would uphold both the spirit of multilingualism and the principle of fairness.
Shillpi A Singh is an award-winning communications professional, independent writer, and translator of Tumhari Auqaat Kya Hai, Piyush Mishra. Views are personal.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)