Who needs books anyway? 3 problems with CBSE's 3-language policy

A new language mandate has arrived without the most basic tool a student needs, a textbook. Schools have been told to begin anyway, teachers are expected to improvise, and students are left to keep up. This is not how learning expands, it is how confusion begins.

In Short

• CBSE mandates passing three languages through class 10 under NEP 2020
• Schools lack clarity on textbooks and curriculum for third language
• Adding a third language increases academic pressure on students

It feels like Deja vu for the Indian education system.

There is something deeply familiar about the way the Central Board of Secondary Education has rolled out its three-language policy this year. A big reform is announced with confidence, neatly aligned with the vision of the National Education Policy 2020, and then quietly pushed into classrooms that are nowhere near ready for it.

On paper, the policy is hard to argue against. Multilingualism is a strength in a country like India as it sharpens cognition, builds cultural bridges, and opens doors. No one is disputing that.

But education policy is not judged on intent alone, it is judged on what happens inside a classroom on a Monday morning, when a teacher has to explain something new to 40 students with limited time, limited resources, and no clear roadmap.

Right now, that is exactly where this policy is beginning to fall apart.

Before that, here is what has changed. Earlier, the third language in CBSE schools often existed on paper and was not always strictly enforced in board outcomes. Now, under NEP 2020, students must study and pass all three languages till Class 10, turning the third language into a compulsory, exam-linked subject that directly affects progression.

This shift is not a minor change, yet it has been introduced with startling casualness.

1. A policy without preparation is just pressure

The first problem is not an ideological one, it is purely logistical.

Schools are still scrambling for clarity on textbooks, curriculum design, and assessment patterns for the third language mandate. Teachers are being asked to implement something that has not been fully explained to them. In many cases, even the sequence of learning remains unclear.

The CBSE’s own communication makes this contradiction hard to ignore. Schools have been asked to ensure compliance within days, while textbooks are still “to be made available shortly." In the same breath, schools have been instructed to begin teaching immediately using locally available materials strictly in accordance with the competencies prescribed in NCFSE-2023.

This is not reform, but an improvisation dressed up as policy.

Dr Sheetal Rampal, a former Dean at Delhi University’s Faculty of Education, says India has a long habit of announcing reform before building its foundation. Language learning, she argues, cannot be stitched together mid-session without continuity, training, and context.

And this is not new. From sudden syllabus cuts during the pandemic to last-minute exam changes, CBSE has repeatedly treated schools like shock absorbers for its fast-paced decisions.

This policy, unfortunately, feels no different.

2. An added subject without subtraction is academic overload

The second problem is the one policymakers avoid because it is inconvenient for them to do so.

Where exactly does this third language fit?

A Class 6 student today is already juggling core subjects, internal assessments, project work, and co-curricular expectations, along with a quiet but constant pressure to perform. Adding another compulsory, exam-linked subject without removing anything else does not enrich learning. It dilutes it.

Dr Sneha Kumari from the Centre for Social Research puts it sharply when she says multilingualism is being romanticised without acknowledging classroom realities. "For many first-generation learners," she explains, "even two languages are a stretch. A third, introduced poorly, risks becoming a source of anxiety rather than opportunity."

Parents are beginning to ask what should have been the first question. If nothing is being taken away, why is everything being added to the curriculum?

3. A reform that could deepen inequality

The third problem is the most serious and the least discussed one. This policy risks widening the gap it claims to bridge.

In well-resourced urban schools, the three-language model may work. These schools have trained teachers, flexible timetables, and access to additional support. Students here could genuinely benefit. In government schools and budget private schools, however, the reality is harsher. Teacher shortages are routine, training for additional languages is limited, and infrastructure is uneven.

Professor Krishna Kumar has long warned that language policy in India often ends up reinforcing inequality because implementation varies so sharply. "A strong school may turn this policy into an advantage, but a struggling school will turn it into compliance." That difference, he insists, is not academic. It is life-defining.

Add to this the complete lack of clarity on teacher recruitment and training, especially for regional and less commonly taught languages, and the gap becomes even sharper. As Anita Karwal from AICTE has pointed out in the past, no reform survives without investing in teachers. Right now, teachers are being asked to stretch without support.

GOOD POLICY RUSHED TO A WEAK SYSTEM

The very idea of a three-language framework is not flawed, it is thoughtful and, in many ways, even necessary. But good ideas do not survive careless execution.

If CBSE truly believes in this reform, it needs to pause and do the hard work it skipped. This should start by building capacity, training teachers, most importantly releasing textbooks on time, and listening to schools.

Because right now, this does not feel like a reform designed for students, but a policy imposed on them. Haven't Indian classrooms seen enough of those?

- Ends