The Supreme Court, through its frequent interventions, is pointing to what the Central Board of Secondary Education does not seem to have thought through in its three-language policy.
Regardless of its final judgment, the Court’s intent at this stage is to flag the pitfalls and soften the rough edges.
In its latest ruling, it has said current Class 6 students should get the same relief as students of Classes 7, 8 and 9, whose final Class 10 examination in the third language will be only an internal assessment, not a Board examination.
Earlier, the Court had asked if the policy could start from 2027, not 2026, to lessen the load until schools are ready. The CBSE has stubbornly resisted compromise.
The Court had also intervened to point out that suddenly learning a new language in Class 9 would be too disruptive if students had not studied a second Indian language till Class 8.
It had mooted treating English as indigenous, questioning its categorisation as a foreign language.
This debate has a direct bearing on the Northeast.
English is not a foreign language here. It is the de facto link language, the medium of instruction, the language of courts, higher education and employment.
It has been in use in the region for over a century and a half, and in states like Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, it is the official language and the only common bridge across tribes.
The Northeast lives the real diversity the three-language policy claims to promote. A child in Shillong may speak Khasi at home, use English in school and learn Hindi as a third language.
A child in Churachandpur may speak Thadou, write in English and pick up Manipuri. To impose a template of Hindi plus Sanskrit as the two Indian languages will be unworkable here and will shrink, not expand, linguistic horizons.
The National Education Policy 2020 advocates two Indian languages but also mentions the importance of foreign languages for global mobility.
The Hindu’s reportage has shown that since English is the medium in CBSE schools, it will become the only so-called foreign language. Many schools will stick to Sanskrit as the second Indian language till Class 10 while Hindi remains the first.
In the South, schools may keep Tamil or Kannada. In the Northeast, the practical consequence will be worse: the removal of choice and the sidelining of mother tongues.
What the region needs is protection for its own languages, not the addition of another distant Indian language for Board marks.
A Khasi, Garo, Mizo, Bodo or Ao language has more cultural and practical value for a student here than a forced third language he may never use.
If the goal is national integration and federal strength, as the Court itself has noted, learning more Indian languages has merit. But integration cannot come through a uniform formula.
Forcing a student in Tura or Aizawl to learn Hindi and Sanskrit to pass Class 10, while ignoring his own mother tongue, achieves the opposite.
A strenuous third language for Board examination serves little practical purpose, though it may cater to atavistic impulses. The two-language policy — English and mother tongue — would be best for the Northeast and for India.
A third language, if at all, should be of the student’s choice and tested only through internal assessment, not as a make-or-break Board paper.
