ONE POLICY, MANY CONCERNS: Nagaland’s Language Dilemma

Renthunglo Shitiri 
HOD, English; Delhi Public School Dimapur

The Implementation of the language policy under National Education Policy 2020 has brought significant structural changes to language learning in schools affiliated with Central Board of Secondary Education. While the policy is rooted in the vision of multilingual competence and cultural understanding, its application in states like Nagaland presents a unique set of challenges. 

A key feature of the revised framework is its implementation timeline. It began with Class VI from the academic year 2026-27 and is to be gradually extended up to Class X by 2031. Schools have therefore, started the first phase of implementation at the middle school level. Just few days back, directives regarding the implementation of the three-language framework in Classes IX and X have also generated concern among schools and parents, particularly regarding language load, and long term- academic implications. At the core of the NEP reform is the three-language structure (R1, R2, R3). Students are required to study three languages, of which two must be Indian languages, while the third can be English or another foreign language. This structuring significantly alters the earlier flexibility, especially in how English is positioned within the system. 

In principle, the model promotes linguistic diversity and encourages students to learn and retain regional languages. In practice, however, it becomes complicated in the context of our state. One of the primary concerns is the limited recognition of local dialects under CBSE. Naga dialects/languages except Tangkhul are not listed as approved Modern Indian Languages (MIL), leaving schools with more or less, no viable options. And even if Naga dialects do get listed and textbooks are prepared, for a linguistically diverse and urban setting like Dimapur where students come from multiple tribal backgrounds, offering one tribal language does not reflect the inclusivity the policy aspires to promote. It would also not be viable options for schools even to offer some, if not all the tribal languages for want of qualified language teachers or because of the financial implications. 

Schools affiliated with CBSE are bound to comply with the curriculum and language structures prescribed under national policy. Institutions have little administrative flexibility. In the absence of regional MIL options, Sanskrit has emerged as the default alternative. Sanskrit, therefore, is not necessarily imposed by individual schools, but emerges as the most practical and compliant alternative within the existing system. It is academically structured and administratively convenient, particularly due to its linguistic proximity to Hindi. For many in Nagaland, Sanskrit is neither culturally rooted nor functionally necessary, raising questions about relevance and accessibility, yet it becomes a compulsory choice due to the absence of options. For over two decades, many parents have also accepted Sanskrit without major objection. Only a small number have opted for alternatives such as French. 

Another layer of complexity arises from the introduction of the third language from Class III. Schools and parents now face a strategic dilemma: whether to introduce Sanskrit early to build foundational proficiency for future compliance, or to risk a steep learning curve when it becomes mandatory in higher classes. The positioning of English within the framework also deserves attention. While the policy allows English to be one among the three languages, in reality, it remains indispensable. English is the primary medium through which most academic subjects are taught and understood. Replacing or sidelining it in favour of another foreign language could hinder comprehension and overall academic performance. 

The issue raised by the Dimapur Naga Students’ Union (DNSU) seeking the intervention of the Governor of Nagaland regarding the implementation of Sanskrit in CBSE schools in the state, reflects growing concern over inadequate ‘academic preparation, trained teachers or transition support system for students’. While the NEP 2020 language policy is progressive in intend while safeguarding indigenous languages, its implementation in our state highlights the gap between policy vision and ground realities. It has also led to heated and worried discussion among parents centering on cultural representation and linguistic autonomy ~ their concern is legitimate because students’ genuine linguistic choice is limited and with it, the academic challenge of learning a new language. Changing schools/boards may offer only a temporary alternative, as other educational boards could eventually come under the purview of the national policy. For students intending to continue higher education and prepare for competitive examinations in India, the IB curriculum may present certain challenges as it may not always correspond closely with the requirements of Indian examinations which are often more syllabus-specific and exam-oriented?

This situation raises broader concerns about linguistic equity, the need for greater inclusion of indigenous languages within national educational frameworks. The way I see it: the challenge lies less in the study of Sanskrit itself and more in the fact that the process of registering Naga Languages as Modern Indian Languages (MIL) under CBSE has not yet been initiated. Until such steps are taken, schools remain limited in their ability to offer regional language options within the existing framework.  CBSE schools in Nagaland are not the villains. 

The way forward would require constructive dialogue between policymakers, educational boards, and state stakeholders to ensure that multilingualism does not come at the cost of cultural identity, educational practicality, or linguistic inclusiveness. These realities call for educated, passionate and informed leaders¬¬- someone who can courageously raise the concerns of our people at the national level and fight tirelessly for our rights, rather than merely standing in the assembly to recite prepared speeches devoid of conviction and action.