The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) last week announced that a third language will now be mandatory for Class IX students from this academic year. By extension, as in middle school, three languages will now remain part of secondary education as well. While this decision is certain to revive the long-standing debate over the three-language formula—a politically sensitive issue for several states—it is equally important to assess it from the perspective of its impact on students.
Although the directive currently applies only to the 33,000-plus schools affiliated with CBSE, its implications may extend far beyond. CBSE functions as a model board for many state education systems, and with the BJP governing a majority of states, such measures could eventually acquire a broader national footprint.
The opposition to the three-language formula is not new. Since its inception, southern states—particularly Tamil Nadu—have resisted it. They view it as an indirect imposition of Hindi and argue that the combination of Tamil and English has served their students well. There are also concerns that the policy could gradually erode regional linguistic identities through the backdoor entry of Hindi.
CBSE has justified its decision by citing the National Education Policy 2020, which reiterates the continuation of the three-language formula first introduced in 1968. The original intent was to bridge linguistic divides, promote cultural integration, and foster national unity through schooling. Successive education policies have retained similar objectives—encouraging respect for India’s linguistic and cultural diversity.
The emphasis on mother tongue instruction during the foundational years, introduced more strongly in the current policy, has largely been welcomed. There is merit in the argument that promoting regional languages can help preserve them for future generations while deepening respect for cultural diversity. Some studies also suggest that multilingualism can enhance cognitive development. Similarly, All India Council for Technical Education allowing engineering and technical education in Hindi and regional languages has been viewed by many as a positive, if cautious, step.
However, where and how the three-language formula should be implemented is a separate issue. Adding another compulsory subject to the already burdened schedule of Class IX students deserves serious reconsideration.
Secondary education is a critical phase that shapes both higher education prospects and future employability. It is also a period when adolescents undergo significant physical, emotional and neurological changes. Puberty brings major hormonal shifts, while neuroscience research shows that adolescence is also marked by processes such as Synaptic pruning, during which the brain reorganises itself for greater efficiency. The demands on both mind and body are already intense.
Class IX also marks a noticeable increase in academic difficulty. Students begin thinking seriously about career aspirations, while simultaneously trying to balance academics with co-curricular activities. Subjects such as mathematics and science often become focal points. In such circumstances, introducing another compulsory subject risks stretching students beyond reasonable limits.
Education thrives on curiosity. Classrooms encourage students to ask questions, think imaginatively and explore their interests. Yet policymakers who advocate such reforms often fail to ask a fundamental question themselves: Does a child at this stage really need this additional burden?
Should learning a third language be compulsory? Or should it be left to students as an optional pursuit based on interest and aptitude?
Another concern is that foreign languages may now be pushed further to the margins, effectively becoming a fourth language option that many schools may be unable or unwilling to offer. At a time when global mobility and international employment opportunities are expanding, schools should ideally create pathways for students to acquire foreign language skills as well.
This move represents one of the most significant language-policy shifts at the secondary school level in recent years and aligns with the Centre’s broader push to operationalise multilingual education under the National Education Policy 2020. But policy goals cannot be pursued in isolation from student wellbeing.
The choice to learn a third language should ideally rest with students, perhaps through optional courses or after-school programmes. Their schedules are already packed with core subjects, co-curricular demands and increasing internal assessment pressures. Policymakers must recognise that while multilingualism is a worthy goal, it should not come at the cost of children’s mental health, academic balance and overall w
