Fri Mar 28 03:00:00 UTC 2025: ## NEP 2020’s Trilingual Policy Criticized: Data Shows Need for Pragmatic Approach
**Chennai, March 28, 2025** – A retired IAS officer and former Vice Chancellor of Indian Maritime University, Chennai, has penned a scathing critique of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020’s mandatory three-language policy, arguing it prioritizes ideology over evidence and ignores the realities of India’s education system. The article, published in *The Hindu*, contends that the policy’s push for a third language is impractical given the existing struggles with foundational literacy in many parts of the country.
The author cites data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the National Achievement Survey (NAS), and the Annual State of Education Report (ASER) to highlight India’s poor performance in reading, writing, and mathematics. These surveys reveal a significant portion of students struggle with even their mother tongue and English, raising concerns about the feasibility of adding a third language. The lack of data on third-language proficiency further weakens the policy’s justification.
The article argues that instead of focusing on a third language, resources should be allocated to strengthening core subjects like math and science, and integrating emerging technologies like AI into education, citing examples of other countries successfully integrating AI in schools. It also points out the cognitive overload of learning a third language when proficiency in the first two is lacking, and the potential for linguistic interference.
The author further criticizes the NEP’s claim of choice in selecting languages, arguing that practical constraints, particularly in rural areas, will likely lead to a de facto push for Hindi or Sanskrit in non-Hindi speaking states. The article suggests leveraging AI-powered translation tools as a more cost-effective and flexible alternative to mandatory classroom instruction for a third language.
Drawing parallels with Singapore’s successful bilingual education system, the author advocates for a pragmatic two-language policy focusing on English for global competitiveness and regional languages for cultural preservation. The piece concludes by asserting that the NEP 2020’s rigid trilingual mandate, ignoring both domestic successes and global best practices, is fundamentally flawed and should be revised to empower students rather than imposing an unrealistic linguistic burden.
First Piper 