One More Bhasha, Many Questions
Morning Standard
Central Theme
The article critically examines the University Grants Commission’s draft guidelines that encourage or enable instruction in Bharatiya Bhashas alongside or instead of English in higher education. While acknowledging the intent of linguistic inclusion, the author raises concerns about implementation, academic rigour, equity, and unintended consequences.
Key Arguments in the Article
Language inclusion versus academic preparedness
The article argues that introducing regional languages as mediums of higher education without adequate academic infrastructure risks disadvantaging students rather than empowering them.
Symbolism over systemic readiness
The policy is portrayed as rhetorically attractive but institutionally underprepared, especially in terms of trained faculty, technical vocabulary, textbooks, and research ecosystems.
Inequality within inclusion
Students from elite or urban backgrounds may navigate multilingual transitions more easily, while first-generation learners could face cognitive and career disadvantages.
Employability and global linkage concerns
The author highlights the risk that graduates educated primarily in regional languages may face reduced global mobility, academic exchange opportunities, and private-sector employability.
Pedagogical burden on faculty and institutions
Expecting faculty to teach, assess, and conduct research across languages may dilute academic depth and overstretch already strained institutions.
Author’s Stance
The stance is cautiously critical, not dismissive.
• Supports linguistic diversity in principle
• Opposes rushed or under-designed implementation
• Emphasises academic outcomes over cultural symbolism
The article clearly distinguishes between language as identity and language as an academic tool, warning against conflating the two.
Biases and Editorial Leanings
Academic-elite bias
The argument privileges global academic competitiveness and research standards, sometimes underplaying cultural empowerment goals.
English-centric pragmatism
While not explicitly defending English dominance, the article assumes English proficiency as a necessary bridge to global knowledge systems.
Institutional realism bias
Greater focus on constraints than on potential long-term transformation or phased success models.
Pros of the Argument
• Raises implementation-level questions often ignored in policy debates
• Flags risks of deepening educational inequality
• Aligns language policy with employability and research output
• Prevents romanticisation of cultural policy in higher education
Cons of the Argument
• Underestimates symbolic and psychological value of mother-tongue learning
• Limited engagement with successful regional-language higher education models
• Does not fully explore phased, bilingual, or hybrid solutions
Policy Implications
Higher Education Governance
Need for phased rollout, pilot institutions, and robust capacity-building before large-scale adoption.
Faculty Training and Knowledge Creation
Requires massive investment in terminology development, translations, and teacher training.
Equity Safeguards
Language choice must remain optional, flexible, and reversible to avoid disadvantaging students.
Alignment with NEP 2020
The article implicitly warns against selective or symbolic implementation of NEP without ecosystem readiness.
Real-World Impact
Short term
• Confusion among universities and students
• Uneven adoption across states and institutions
Medium term
• Risk of parallel academic tracks with unequal prestige
• Possible stratification of degrees by language medium
Long term
• If uncorrected, may weaken India’s research competitiveness
• If well-designed, could democratise access to higher education
UPSC GS Paper Alignment
GS Paper II
• Education policy and governance
• Implementation challenges of NEP 2020
GS Paper I
• Language, culture, and identity
GS Paper IV
• Equity, inclusion, and unintended consequences of policy
Essay Paper
• “Language empowers only when institutions are prepared”
• “Cultural assertion versus academic competitiveness”
Concluding Assessment
The article performs a necessary corrective function in the language policy debate. It does not oppose linguistic diversity but insists that good intentions cannot substitute institutional readiness. Without safeguards, the reform risks becoming symbolic inclusion with practical exclusion.
Future Perspective
A sustainable path lies in:
• Strong bilingual or multilingual models
• Optional, student-centric language choice
• Heavy investment in academic infrastructure
• Clear linkage between language policy and employability
