The Three-Language Formula in India: Balancing Multilingualism, Education, and Identity

Introduction

India’s linguistic diversity is both a strength and a challenge, shaping its education policies and national identity. Introduced in 1968 and reaffirmed in NEP 2020, the Three-Language Formula was designed to foster multilingual proficiency, national unity, and career mobility. However, its implementation remains controversial, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where it is viewed as an imposition on linguistic identity and state autonomy.

The state’s historical resistance, rooted in anti-Hindi agitations and Dravidian politics, highlights broader debates on federalism, cultural preservation, and educational priorities. While the central government sees the policy as essential for national integration, critics argue it neglects regional realities and places undue pressure on students. A flexible, inclusive approach is necessary to balance multilingualism with educational effectiveness and state autonomy.

Historical and Constitutional Foundations of Language Policy in India

India’s language policies are deeply shaped by its colonial past and post-independence nation-building efforts. Under British rule, English became the language of governance, law, and higher education, creating a class divide between the English-educated elite and the vernacular-speaking majority. The Macaulay Minute of 1835 institutionalised English-medium education, marginalising indigenous languages like Sanskrit, Persian, and regional dialects. The colonial administration also standardised and classified Indian languages, often reinforcing linguistic hierarchies that did not previously exist.

When India gained independence in 1947, language emerged as a major point of contention in the Constituent Assembly Debates. While Hindi was proposed as the national language, strong opposition from non-Hindi-speaking states led to a compromise—Hindi was designated as the official language, with English continuing as an associate official language. The Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution recognised multiple regional languages but left out many tribal and minority tongues. The linguistic reorganisation of states in 1956 further reinforced language as a defining feature of Indian federalism, but tensions between Hindi-speaking and non-Hindi-speaking states continued to persist, particularly in education policy.

The Three-Language Formula: A Controversial Model

The Three-Language Formula (TLF) was introduced in 1968 as part of the National Policy on Education to promote multilingual proficiency, national integration, and cognitive benefits. It mandates that Hindi-speaking states teach Hindi, English, and another modern Indian language (preferably from the South), while non-Hindi-speaking states must teach their regional language, Hindi, and English. The central government argues that this formula encourages linguistic harmony, enhances career prospects, and fosters a shared national identity. However, its implementation has been uneven—many Hindi-speaking states prioritise Sanskrit over a South Indian language, defeating the formula’s intended spirit, while states like Tamil Nadu reject the inclusion of Hindi altogether.

Tamil Nadu’s Resistance: A Historical and Political Perspective

Tamil Nadu has vehemently opposed the Three-Language Formula, instead maintaining a Two-Language Policy (Tamil and English). This resistance dates back to the Anti-Hindi Agitations of 1937 and 1965, when widespread protests erupted against the perceived imposition of Hindi by the central government. The Dravidian movement, led by parties like Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), framed Hindi as a tool of North Indian domination, arguing that it undermined Tamil identity and culture. The 1965 protests turned violent, prompting the Union government to reassure Tamil Nadu that Hindi would not be imposed. This historical backdrop explains why Tamil Nadu remains steadfast in rejecting the Three-Language Formula, viewing it as a threat to its linguistic sovereignty.

The Federalism Argument: State Autonomy vs. National Policy

Tamil Nadu’s resistance is not just about language; it is also a battle for state autonomy. The Indian Constitution grants states the power to determine their official language policies, making education a concurrent subject—one where both the Centre and states have jurisdiction. Tamil Nadu argues that imposing a centrally mandated language policy violates this federal principle. Successive governments, cutting across party lines, have reiterated that Tamil and English are sufficient for education, professional opportunities, and international communication. The Centre, however, insists that compliance with the Three-Language Formula is necessary for receiving educational funding under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, raising concerns about whether financial support should be conditional on linguistic conformity.

The Role of English in the Language Debate

Tamil Nadu’s preference for a Tamil-English education model stems from pragmatism rather than linguistic isolationism. English, unlike Hindi, provides global employment opportunities and facilitates higher education mobility. In contrast, Hindi, while spoken widely in North India, is of limited practical use in Tamil Nadu’s economic and professional landscape. The 2011 Census indicates that 26% of Indians are bilingual, and 7% are trilingual, with higher rates in urban areas. However, this multilingualism often develops organically, driven by migration, economic necessity, and social interaction, rather than policy mandates. Tamil Nadu’s high literacy rates and economic success, achieved without Hindi, challenge the assumption that trilingual education is essential for national progress.

The Centre’s Perspective: National Integration and Multilingual Proficiency

The central government argues that the Three-Language Formula is crucial for fostering national unity, promoting cognitive benefits, and expanding career opportunities. Research suggests that multilingual individuals have better problem-solving skills and academic outcomes. Additionally, knowledge of Hindi could enhance job prospects in North India, where it is the primary language of business and governance. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 retains the Three-Language Formula but introduces flexibility, allowing students to choose their languages. However, the linking of educational funding to compliance with the formula remains a contentious issue, with critics viewing it as a coercive tactic that undermines federal principles.

Challenges in Implementing the Three-Language Formula

Beyond Tamil Nadu’s objections, the Three-Language Formula faces practical difficulties across India. Many Hindi-speaking states fail to implement the requirement to learn a South Indian language, opting instead for Sanskrit. Teacher shortages make it logistically difficult to provide quality instruction in three languages, especially in rural schools. Students are often overburdened, struggling to attain proficiency in multiple languages while also managing other academic subjects. In many cases, the third language remains a token subject, with students learning it mechanically without achieving real fluency.

Education Quality: A More Pressing Concern

While the language debate dominates education policy discussions, India faces far more urgent challenges in its schooling system. Reports from the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) indicate alarming deficiencies in basic literacy and numeracy. Many students in Class V struggle to read Class II-level texts, highlighting fundamental flaws in teaching methodologies and resource allocation. India’s education expenditure hovers around 3-4.5% of GDP, well below the 6% target set by the NEP 2020. Instead of fixating on language mandates, policymakers must prioritise teacher training, school infrastructure, digital education, and foundational learning.

Balancing Multilingualism with Federal Sensitivities

Given the complexity of India’s linguistic landscape, a rigid, top-down approach to language policy will only deepen regional resistance. A flexible, decentralised framework is necessary, respecting state autonomy while encouraging voluntary multilingual learning. Instead of enforcing Hindi, the Centre should promote optional language learning, incentivising students through skill-based programmes rather than mandates. Furthermore, educational funding should be delinked from compliance with language policies to ensure equitable access to resources. Strengthening mother-tongue education and English proficiency should remain the primary focus, ensuring that language learning enhances cognitive development without becoming a political battleground.

Conclusion

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias

Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias

The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH