Intensifying divisions between North and South in our country are getting increasing attention, whether it is about finances—the five Southern states contribute nearly 29%of the central government's tax revenue but only get 15% of its resources—or about political representation (the looming threat of a delimitation after 2026 that would empower the more populous Hindi-belt states at the expense of the South). But the issue that flared up last month and continues to roil the already troubled relationship between Tamil Nadu and the Union government is a somewhat unexpected one: that of the three-language formula.
Not A New Concept
India's three-language formula has been around for a while. It was originally introduced in the 1968 National Policy on Education, and aims to promote multilingualism in the country by requiring students to learn three languages: their regional language (assumed to be their mother tongue), Hindi (or another Indian language for Hindi-speaking states), and English.
But it suddenly became a bone of contention again when, in the context of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the Union government refused to release educational assistance to the Tamil Nadu state government under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan because of the state's failure to implement the three-language formula.
Why Some States Are Upset
Tamil Nadu has historically opposed the three-language formula, adhering instead to a two-language policy of Tamil and English. The state views the inclusion of Hindi as an imposition and a threat to its linguistic and cultural identity. The state has historically been at the forefront of resistance to “Hindi imperialism”, with passionate agitations and language riots having taken place in the past, even leading to self-immolations and deaths. It is the only state not to host any Jawaharlal Navodaya Vidyalayas, financed by the Central government, because those schools teach Hindi as a compulsory subject.
Chief Minister MK Stalin has also severely criticised the NEP 2020 for linking central educational funds to the adoption of the three-language formula, denouncing such a move as coercive. He has accused the central government of using the NEP to push a political agenda and has vowed not to implement it in Tamil Nadu. Stalin has also expressed concerns that the NEP could create hurdles for children from marginalised communities in the state. “Do not throw stones at a beehive,” he declared, warning that the Union government's stand would be seen as a provocation.
Shoddy Implementation
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, on the other hand, has defended the NEP, stating that it does not impose any language and aims to broaden educational opportunities. He has urged Tamil Nadu to rise above political differences and implement the policy for the benefit of students. He points out that the NEP 2020 in fact emphasises that states and students can choose the three languages, provided at least two are native to India. This flexibility aims to address concerns about Hindi imposition in government schools. (Private schools increasingly offer foreign languages as the third option, driven by student and parent demand.)
Proponents of the three-language formula argue that it enhances linguistic skills and national integration, while critics highlight its uneven implementation and the socio-political tensions it creates. It is undeniable that the implementation of the three-language formula in India has been inconsistent and influenced by regional politics, cultural preferences, and administrative challenges, including finding competent teachers.
Linguistic Diversity, And Policy
Most non-Hindi-speaking states typically offer their regional language, plus both Hindi and English, except Tamil Nadu. In Hindi-speaking states, however, the formula often includes Hindi, English, and rudimentary Sanskrit—an easy option that critics argue is a cop-out that doesn't fulfil the spirit of learning another modern Indian language. How many students in Uttar Pradesh are learning Tamil, point out critics in Chennai who resent being asked to learn Hindi. The answer, in government schools: none.
North Indian states tend to stick to familiar northern languages: Haryana, for instance, has implemented the three-language formula for Classes IX and X, making English and Hindi mandatory, with an optional third language from Sanskrit, Punjabi, or Urdu.
The three-language formula has fostered multilingualism and national integration in many regions but remains a contentious issue in states like Tamil Nadu. It highlights the complexities of balancing linguistic diversity with educational policies.
'Coercive Federalism'
But the decision of the government to withhold education funds from Tamil Nadu over its refusal to adopt the three-language formula is deeply implicated in the principles of federalism, state autonomy, and the role of conditional funding in governance. Inevitably, such a step looks like using the Centre's funding powers to blackmail the state, provoking the reaction in Tamil Nadu that self-respect demands that it not surrender to such tactics.
Education is a subject on the Concurrent List in the Constitution, meaning both the Union and State governments have jurisdiction. Tamil Nadu argues that linking funds to compliance with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 infringes on its constitutional autonomy to set its own educational policies. What Pradhan is doing, they say, is "coercive federalism”, using the states' financial dependence on the Union as a tool to enforce central policies.
Withholding funds under schemes like Samagra Shiksha affects critical areas such as teacher salaries, student welfare programmes, and infrastructure development. This could disproportionately harm students, especially in government schools.
Don't Let Politics Get In The Way
The Union government's case is not entirely weak, though. Proponents argue that linking funds to NEP compliance ensures uniformity in educational standards across states and promotes multilingualism. After all, conditional grants are a way for the Union to ensure that public funds are used for the intended purpose and align with national priorities.
The broader implications of this debate, however, must not be lost sight of. The contestation over the three-language formula raises critical questions about the balance between states and the Union, and between cooperative and coercive federalism. While the Union government has the right to set national policies, enforcing them through financial penalties can strain Centre-State relations and undermine the spirit of cooperative governance that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has himself touted.
Resolving the impasse over the three-language formula requires a balanced approach that respects both national objectives and regional sensitivities. Questions of regional identity are the reason that states assert their autonomy in educational policies. We can't wish this reality away.
Flexibility As A Virtue
Since implementation of the three-language formula has varied widely, we could make flexibility a virtue, by allowing states to choose the third language based on their cultural and linguistic preferences. For example, Tamil Nadu could include another Indian language or even a foreign language instead of Hindi. That would ensure that there is no Hindi imposition, aligning with the NEP 2020's emphasis on flexibility.
There is also a strong case for preferring incentives to penalties, and persuasion to coercion. Instead of withholding funds, the central government could offer additional incentives to states that adopt multilingual education, encouraging voluntary participation. It should also, as a matter of policy, strengthen the teaching of regional languages across all states, including Hindi-speaking ones, to foster mutual respect and understanding.
Equally, instead of seeming to threaten Tamil Nadu, the central government could adopt a conciliatory approach, launching a campaign, for instance, to highlight the benefits of multilingualism—such as cognitive development, greater mobility and better career opportunities—to build public support. Another could be to implement pilot programmes in select schools to demonstrate the benefits of the three-language formula, allowing states to assess its impact before wider adoption.
Necessity And National Integration
Let's face one fact: People learn languages because they are useful to them—to survive in some environments, to get jobs, to communicate with customers, or just to enjoy popular entertainment (Bollywood has done more to promote Hindi in South India than the NEP has!). The three-language formula was an excellent idea in our multilingual country, but it will only really work when students believe that all three languages will be worth learning because they are useful to know.
Ironically, increased migration from northern to southern states for work and education has led to a greater need for Hindi-speaking migrants to learn southern languages—and often for their southern employers to master basic Hindi to communicate with them! Necessity is not just the mother of invention, but the spur for national integration.
Indians tend to assimilate wherever they go—whether it is Sikh dairy farmers speaking fluent Italian to work in that country, or Hindiwallahs picking up Tamil in order to survive in Kanyakumari. In 2019, Kerala's school board exams in Malayalam were topped by Dilshad, the son of Bhutto Sajid, an illiterate Bihari migrant labourer.
Let There Be Dialogue
One thing this episode makes clear is the need for collaborative federalism in our country. Whether on delimitation or the three-language formula, there is an urgent need to establish a dialogue between the central and state governments to address concerns and find common ground.
It's a pity that the Inter-State Council has not served as a vehicle that assembles representatives from all states to help mediate and propose solutions to such disagreements. Such steps could help bridge the gap between national policy and regional autonomy, fostering a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.
If such a body could be created or revived—in time to promote dialogue on delimitation next—some larger good could yet come out of this debate.
(Shashi Tharoor has been a Member of Parliament from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, since 2009. He is a published author and a former diplomat.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
