Maharashtra Government Mandates Hindi as Third Language in Schools, Sparks Controversy

New Delhi: On June 17, 2025, the Maharashtra government issued a Government Resolution (GR) that has stirred significant debate across the state. The resolution mandates Hindi as the “general” third language for students in Classes 1 to 5 in Marathi and English medium schools, as part of the implementation of the State Curriculum Framework for School Education 2024. This framework aligns with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasizes a three-language formula to promote multilingualism while respecting regional linguistic diversity. However, the decision has ignited fierce criticism from opposition leaders, educationists, and Marathi language advocates, who view it as an imposition of Hindi and a threat to Marathi identity.

Details of the Government Resolution

The GR, issued by the Maharashtra School Education Department, stipulates that Hindi will be taught as the third language to students in Classes 1 to 5 in both Marathi and English medium schools. However, it provides an option for students to opt out of Hindi if at least 20 students per grade in a school express a desire to learn another Indian language instead. In such cases, the state will arrange a teacher for the chosen language, or the instruction will be provided online. The resolution emphasizes that Marathi remains a compulsory language across all medium schools, ensuring its primacy in the state’s education system.

This policy is a step toward implementing the State Curriculum Framework for School Education 2024, which is rooted in the NEP 2020. The NEP 2020 advocates a three-language formula, requiring students to learn at least two native Indian languages alongside English, without imposing any specific language. It also recommends that, wherever possible, the medium of instruction until at least Grade 5 (and preferably Grade 8) should be the mother tongue, local language, or regional language. In Maharashtra, this translates to Marathi as the primary language, with Hindi as the default third language unless an alternative is chosen by a sufficient number of students.

Historical Context: The Three-Language Formula

The three-language formula has its origins in the National Education Policy of 1968, which was based on the recommendations of the Kothari Commission. The 1968 policy mandated that students learn their mother tongue or regional language, an official language (Hindi or English), and a modern Indian or European language. The goal was to foster multilingualism, promote national unity, and enhance cognitive development through exposure to diverse languages. The NEP 2020 builds on this framework but offers greater flexibility, emphasizing student choice and regional preferences while discouraging language imposition.

Constitutionally, the policy aligns with Article 350A, which directs states to facilitate instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage, particularly for linguistic minorities, and Article 351, which calls for the development and promotion of Hindi as a link language. The cultural significance of the three-language formula lies in its potential to promote multilingualism, multiculturalism, and national integration while providing cognitive benefits to young learners.

Rationale Behind Hindi as the Third Language

Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis defended the decision on June 18, 2025, stating, “What is wrong in learning one of the most spoken languages of India?” He highlighted the practical advantages of including Hindi, noting that Hindi teachers are widely available across the state. Fadnavis emphasized that the policy adheres to the NEP 2020’s three-language model, which mandates the mother tongue (Marathi), an Indian language (Hindi), and English as the most widely accepted global language. He further argued that proficiency in Hindi would benefit students after Class 12, as the central government places significant weight on third-language scores in higher education and competitive examinations.

Education Minister Dada Bhuse echoed Fadnavis’s sentiments, describing Hindi as a widely used language in daily communication. Bhuse also noted that the policy was initially reconsidered after public backlash in April 2025, when the government proposed making Hindi compulsory from Class 1. Following criticism, Bhuse had assured that Hindi would not be mandatory and that the three-language formula was “on hold.” The revised GR, however, reintroduces Hindi as the default third language, reigniting the controversy.

Opposition and Criticism

The decision has drawn sharp criticism from opposition leaders, educationists, and Marathi language advocates, who argue that it undermines Marathi identity and imposes Hindi through a “backdoor” approach. Maharashtra Congress president Harshwardhan Sapkal accused the Mahayuti government of betraying the Marathi people. He described the requirement of a minimum of 20 students to opt for an alternative language as a “planned conspiracy” to impose Hindi and marginalize Marathi. Sapkal went further, alleging that the policy reflects the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) agenda of “One Nation, One Language, One Culture,” which he claimed threatens Maharashtra’s cultural heritage. He framed the issue as a battle between Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj’s vision of Hindavi Swaraj and the BJP’s Hindutva.

Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray, a vocal advocate for Marathi language and identity, also condemned the policy. In a letter to Chief Minister Fadnavis, Thackeray alleged that a “northern Indian IAS officers’ lobby” was behind the imposition of Hindi in Maharashtra’s education system. He questioned why Hindi was being prioritized in Maharashtra when it is not compulsory in states like Gujarat, the home state of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP leader Amit Shah. Thackeray argued that the government was implementing the policy “through the back door” without public consultation, despite earlier assurances to the contrary.

Education experts have also voiced strong dissent. Ramesh Panse, a senior educationist and member of the steering committee for the State Curriculum Framework, called the policy an attempt to “crush Marathi children” by burdening them with Hindi at a young age. He urged parents and political parties to oppose the policy to protect Marathi students. Vasant Kalpande, former director of school education, criticized the requirement of 20 students to opt for a non-Hindi language, arguing that it discourages the selection of alternative languages. He also pointed out that expecting young students to differentiate between Marathi and Hindi, which share a similar script, is unrealistic and burdensome.

Deepak Pawar, founder of the Marathi Bhasha Abhyas Kendra, accused the government of breaking its promise to the Marathi people. He warned that silence on this issue could dismantle the federal structure and erase the legacy of the Samyukta Maharashtra movement, which fought for the creation of a Marathi-speaking state.

Challenges in Implementing the Three-Language Policy

The three-language formula, while well-intentioned, faces several challenges in implementation, particularly in a linguistically diverse state like Maharashtra. These challenges include:

1. Politicization of Language: Multilingual education is often perceived as a threat to linguistic identity, leading to protests like the “son-of-the-soil” movements in Maharashtra and Karnataka. The imposition of Hindi is seen by critics as an attempt to erode Marathi culture and identity.
2. Choice vs. Imposition: Critics argue that learning languages should be a matter of choice, not imposition. The requirement of a minimum of 20 students to opt for an alternative language is seen as a practical barrier that effectively mandates Hindi.
3. Overburdening Young Students: Introducing three languages in primary education is viewed as a burden on young learners, particularly in an education system already grappling with issues of basic literacy and resource constraints.
4. Implementation Challenges: In linguistically diverse states like Nagaland or among tribal communities, implementing the three-language formula is complex due to limited resources and a lack of trained teachers for multiple languages. The provision for online teaching of alternative languages further complicates access for students in rural or under-resourced areas.

Public and Political Reactions

The public response to the GR has been polarized. Supporters, including members of the ruling Mahayuti coalition, argue that Hindi’s inclusion aligns with national education goals and prepares students for broader opportunities. Critics, however, view it as a betrayal of Marathi identity. On April 18, 2025, posters by the MNS proclaiming “We are Hindus, but not Hindi” were displayed near Shiv Sena Bhavan in Mumbai, reflecting the intensity of the opposition.

The controversy has also drawn comparisons to other states. Critics like Kalpande noted that Hindi is not a compulsory third language in states like Gujarat and Assam, raising questions about the consistency of language policies across India. The opposition has called for large-scale protests to protect Marathi identity and resist what they describe as a “Hindi imposition.”

Conclusion

The Maharashtra government’s decision to make Hindi the default third language in schools has reignited a contentious debate about language, identity, and education policy. While the policy aligns with the NEP 2020’s three-language formula and aims to promote multilingualism, its implementation has been criticized as a covert attempt to prioritize Hindi over regional languages like Marathi. The requirement of 20 students to opt for an alternative language, coupled with logistical challenges like online teaching, has fueled accusations of imposition and betrayal.

As the debate continues, the Maharashtra government faces the challenge of balancing national education goals with the state’s linguistic and cultural heritage. The resolution’s outcome will likely shape the discourse on language policy in India, with implications for federalism, regional identity, and the education of future generations.

Frequently Asked Questions