Linguistic Heterogeneity: A Framework for Language-in-Education

Introduction

“Language policies, as regulatory tools governing how languages should coexist and be used in specific social political and economic contexts, are always inherent representations of different language ideologies^[1], i.e. beliefs, visions and conceptions^[2] of the role of certain language(s) held by different (most commonly institutional) social actors” (Bhattacharya, 2017). Language ideologies, in turn, impact linguistic hierarchies and the associated perceptions towards communities. Considering that India ranks fourth in the world with regards to the number of languages (Panda & Mohanty, 2013), a language policy sits on a pedestal, withholding enormous power to guide and represent the hierarchies and inequalities in the society, while simultaneously combating injustices.

With the recognition of “multilingualism and the power of language”, the National Education Policy (NEP) (2020) was touted to be a venture towards an overhaul in the language-in-education system^[3] (Mahapatra & Anderson, 2023). It sought to rectify the deficiencies (of previous policies) and better institutionalize the linguistic complications of Indian society. After all, there are incredible linguistic diversities in the Indian society: the 2001 Census of India counted over 6,600 mother tongue (MT) language declarations by the people, which were consequently rationalised to 3,592 MTs^[4]. Furthermore, the People’s Linguistic Survey of India (PLSI) (Devy 2014) has identified at least 780 languages in India^[5] (Mohanty, 2019).

NEP advocates for Mother-tongue based instruction, such that, “the medium of instruction until at least Grade 5, but preferably till Grade 8 and beyond, will be the home language/mother tongue/local language/regional language” (NEP, 2020). The policy seeks to institute these changes through the publication of high-quality textbooks^[6], updated dictionaries, and/or the utilization of the student-teacher communication style^[7]. It recognizes the increased retention and cognitive capacities of young children who learn in their home language/mother tongue. The central focus lies on the implementation of the three-language formula, though with greater flexibility, with the states in the choice of languages. The policy does hint towards moving beyond a focus on the formal medium of instruction, to instead establish a harmonious multilingual/bilingual environment in the classroom. This shall be facilitated by an “enjoyable” and “interactive” style of conversation, spanning across languages (NEP, 2020). Most importantly, the policy lays down the government’s intention towards the inclusion of tribal and other local knowledge throughout the curriculum.

In spite of the noble intent, the policy has seen major hiccups in its implementation, which has been slow and uneven across different states. Reports allude to logistical challenges, resource limitations, and societal preferences for English, among others. However, this brief argues that^[8] the central cog creating the issue in the effective conceptualization of this multilinguistic linguistic machine is, foundationally, the conceptualization of Language itself i.e. the way the current policy understands and conceptualizes language, multilingualism or plurilingualism is, to put, is detached from how they actually function on the ground.

Indian Multilingualism^[9] is unique for it exists beyond mere circulation of multiple languages in the society (Panda & Mohanty, 2013). Indian languages breathe in conjunction with each other; prompting the users to incorporate them in multiple ways as part of their daily lives. The boundaries of the languages are, hence, incredibly fluid, owing to the complementary usage of languages in different domains of life. This leads to a multiplicity of linguistic identities and a highly vibrant landscape with early multilingual socialization. Thereby, the average Indian often engages in Translanguaging, fluidly travelling across languages and cultures, beyond language boundaries.

This context helps us understand linguistic frameworks as “Heterogeneous languages” (Canagarajah & Said, 2009), having multiple norms and diverse grammars, arising out of the interaction of languages in different contexts. The dominant languages and the indigenous/regional languages interact to create local varieties through a process of a two-way exchange^[10]. Such a framework advocates for a complementary relationship between languages, leading to an equitable relationship.

To provide an example, the population and linguistic systems being categorized as “Hindi” do not comprise a homogenous entity. Instead they include localized varieties such as Bihari Hindi, Jharkhandi Hindi, Himachali Hindi and Andamani Hindi, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Chhattisgarhi – encompassing rich cultural and linguistic traditions, with distinct grammars and vocabularies. Not just this, owing to the diversity in local understandings and varieties of English, there is little consensus on the number of Indians who “speak” or “know” English, varying from 4-20% or more (Panda & Mohanty, 2013). The measurement of language speakers currently occurs largely based on a standardized and homogeneous conception of English.

This brief argues that the current system of education, as per the National Education Policy 2020, is based around homogeneous linguistic standardization, grounded in hierarchies which foster linguistic ostracism and social exclusion. These Sanskritized or westernized (in the case of English) lead to erosion of language, culture and even loss of intergenerational linguistic ties, especially excluding tribals, Dalits, and their regional identities. The need of the hour is to shift our focus away from conceptualizing language as a singular, standardized entity, and instead systematize the dynamism of language systems, taking cognizance of the influence of localization and historicization.

Loopholes in NEP 2020

Firstly, NEP relies heavily on the concept of the “medium of instruction”, evident in the three-language policy^[11] (Mahapatra & Anderson, 2023). The focus on medium of instruction distorts the outcomes from its well-intentioned policies to promote cultural and linguistic expression. It is a reductive framework. It derives from the language-in-education frameworks based on monolingual populations. This causes the multilingual policies to be simply “additive” of the different languages (Mahapatra & Anderson, 2023). Such a model is bound to face a hierarchization of languages, riddled by the dominance of some, owing to its application in unequal social contexts. It unfairly and simplistically compartmentalizes languages. It does not recognize the fluidity of boundaries across languages evident in social interactions in communities of rich diversity, such as India.

Secondly (and quite relatedly), it views languages as a singular “standardized” entity (Abbi, 2021). It fails to recognize that even dominant languages, such as Hindi or English, have multiple “versions” owing to distinct social, cultural and geographical contexts (Abbi, 2021). Languages interact with other regional, indigenous and tribal languages, creating a mosaic of local dialects, leading to the creation and conceptualization of a “heterogenous” language.

Lastly, NEP seems oblivious to the realities of Linguistic Hierarchization in Indian society^[12]. Mohanty propounds that India's linguistic landscape is shaped by a hierarchical, pyramid-like structure comprising three tiers, marked by a “double divide.” At the top of this tier is English, occupying the highest position of power and prestige. The middle tier includes Hindi and other major regional languages—many of which are listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. At the bottom are the Indigenous, Tribal, and Minority (ITM) languages, which remain the most marginalized. The first divide separates English from the major regional languages (the English–vernacular divide), while the second lies between these regional languages and the ITM languages (the vernacular–other divide). ITM languages have historically been excluded from formal education and public discourse, leading to their continued exclusion from contemporary educational institutions.

The challenge of the double divide is insurmountable for the ITM children who have to tackle the English-Vernacular and the Vernacular-Other language divide simultaneously. These challenges lead to lower levels of comprehension, engagement, and academic achievement, exacerbating existing inequalities.

Scholars like Khubchandani (1978) have noted that concerns about ‘language privileges, cultural prestige, and socio-economic mobility’ have influenced the selection of languages in the three-language formula. The “hegemony of Hindi and English” in particular has led to the marginalization of other languages, leading to regional tensions and conflicts in implementation.

Taking this into consideration, this brief recommends the institutionalization of a system of linguistic heterogeneity as a framework for languages-in-education to ensure an inclusive environment.

Institutionalizing Linguistic Heterogeneity

Educational policies must shift away from teaching “languages” to teaching “Language”, i.e., language must be taught in conjunction with its social system, taking cognizance of its diverse varieties, rather than focusing on a fixed code (Canagarajah & Said, 2009). The goal of language education is not mastery over a singular or multiple languages, but the ability to negotiate across multiple norms and contexts. At the foundation lies the formulation of language heterogeneity and a liberationalist model of education.

Though the original model by Canagarajah focuses on the idea of developing a “lingua franca core”, in view of linguistic heterogeneity, that is a long, drawn-out process that would not be the immediate goal for the Indian context. The lingua franca core refers to “a possible grammar that does not belong to any national variety, but facilitates communication when speakers step outside their communities”.  I believe that there is merit in the formulation of linguistic heterogeneity even before the eventual and necessary formulation of such a lingua franca core. At the ground level, the incorporation of the local varieties and their specific grammar would help make the language more accessible.

At present, in a rudimentary stage, regional speech patterns need to be incorporated into classroom teaching and curriculum, complemented by space for cross-linguistic and hybrid expressions. Assessment models do need to evolve as well, from evaluating language correctness to recognizing situated performance, language awareness, and negotiation strategies. The development of resources for these requires active partnership across communities, necessitating interaction between children of diverse backgrounds in the school setting and creation of avenues that improve the  possibilities of generating empathy and mutual respect.

We do witness examples even today of class activities informally conducted in multiple languages, with local contexts, when the prescribed language is not the home language for most students^[13]. With regards to English education, it is seen that teachers, in low-cost english-medium schools, used “mostly Hindi in the class to make the students understand the subject matter” (Panda & Mohanty, 2013). Typically, the teacher would say something in English, and quickly proceed to translate the text or elaborate on the main theme in Hindi, often freely inter-mixing the main content words in English with Hindi. Often, children are also seen to engage in “translanguaging” (García, 2009), drawing from their mother tongue and school language.

One may question the possibilities of chaos of multiple varieties and standards. It is important to mention that both the dominant (more well-established) norms, along with the local standards, are highly relevant (and need to be taught). What holds the most importance is the ability to negotiate across the variability of norms. Though it may appear as a daunting and chaotic endeavour, it builds upon the already existent social practices in multilingual societies, wherein individuals regularly use strategies of negotiation for communication across communities/contexts. It has been seen that multilingual students and adults draw on “intuitive^[14] resources and skills to negotiate diversity effectively” (Canagarajah & Ashraf, 2013). Hence, such a system builds upon the socialized skills and can lead to the enhancement of cognitive flexibility and development. Tribal teachers in Odisha, for instance, blend Oriya and Kui or Saora to teach English, using bilingual strategies that are contextually meaningful and inclusive. Such examples affirm that community participation in curriculum development is not only possible but transformative^[15]. Recent efforts like Uttar Pradesh’s dialect dictionary also signal potential movement towards strengthening Mother-Tongue Instruction (MTI).

Conclusion

Ultimately, institutionalizing linguistic heterogeneity is not about managing chaos, it is about legitimizing the already creative, negotiated linguistic practices of Indian classrooms and communities. It is about shifting from assimilation to participation, from linguistic elitism to linguistic democracy. It is about tapping into the largely unutilised or underutilised “plurilingual and sociocultural repertoires of students” and the society at large. The present-day language-in-education policies need to be cognizant of the same.

References

1. Abbi, A. (1995). Language Contact and Language Restructuring: A Case Study of Tribal Languages in Central India. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 116, 175–185

2. Abbi, A. (2021). Social cohesion and emerging standards of Hindi in a multilingual context. The Cambridge Handbook of language standardization, 115-138. 

3. Bhatt, R. M. (2008). In other words: Language mixing, identity representations, and third space. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(2), 177–200.

4. Bhattacharya, U. (2017). Colonization and English ideologies in India: A language policy perspective. Language policy, 16, 1-21.

5. Canagarajah, S., & Ashraf, H. (2013). Multilingualism and education in South Asia: Resolving policy/practice dilemmas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 258-285.

6. Canagarajah, S., & Said, S. B. (2009). English language teaching in the outer and expanding circles. In The Routledge companion to English language studies (pp. 169-182). Routledge.

7. de Varennes, F., & Kuzborska, E. (2016). Language, Rights and Opportunities: The Role of Language in the Inclusion and Exclusion of Indigenous Peoples. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 23(3), 281–305. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44631155 

8. García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 128–145). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan

9. Iseke-Barnes, J. M. (2004). Politics and Power of Languages: Indigenous Resistance to Colonizing Experiences of Language Dominance. Journal of Thought, 39(1), 45–81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42589774 

10. Ishtiaq, M. (1998). Determinants and correlates of language shift among the tribals of Central India. GeoJournal, 45(3), 189-200.

11. Khubchandani, L. M. (1978). Multilingual education in India. In B. Spolsky & R. Cooper (Eds.), Case studies in bilingual education (Vol. 2, pp. 88–125). Newbury House: Rowley, MA.

12. Mahapatra, S. K., & Anderson, J. (2023). Languages for learning: a framework for implementing India’s multilingual language-in-education policy. Current Issues in Language Planning, 24(1), 102-122.

13. McCarty, T. L., & Nicholas, S. E. (2014). Reclaiming Indigenous Languages: A Reconsideration of the Roles and Responsibilities of Schools. Review of Research in Education, 38, 106–136. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43284064 

14. Mohanty, A. K. (2019). Language policy in education in India. In The Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia (pp. 329-340). Routledge.

15. Nayar, B. R. (1968). Hindi as Link Language. Economic and Political Weekly, 3(6), 297–305. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4358239 

16. National Education Policy (2020). Ministry of Human Resource Development. Government of India.

17. Panda, M., & Mohanty, A. (2013). Language policy and education: Towards multilingual education. In Psychology, development and social policy in India (pp. 103-129). New Delhi: Springer India.

18. Peoples, C., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2010). Critical security studies: an introduction. Routledge.

19. Rice, S. (2017). The study of Indigenous languages. The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 38-58. 

20. Singh, A. K. (2025). From policy to practice: Challenges and pathway for advancing multilingual education through India’s national education policy 2020. Policy Futures in Education, 14782103251320532.

21. Veena Naregal. (1999). Colonial Bilingualism and Hierarchies of Language and Power: Making of a Vernacular Sphere in Western India. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(49), 3446–3456. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4408687 

22. Virginius Xaxa. (2005). Politics of Language, Religion and Identity: Tribes in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(13), 1363–1370. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4416402

Footnotes

^[1] Though agreeably, they themselves may be deemed to hold the potential to frame and guide the language ideologies.

^[2] Can relate to conceptions of contempt or prestige, among others.

^[3] Though foundationally (as shall be discussed), the three-language formula was continued.

^[4]  Out of these, 1,635 with more than 10,000 speakers each were listed and the remaining 1,957 were clubbed under a single “other” MT category.

^[5] Evidently, the language estimates by various organizations and surveys have been riddled with inconsistencies owing to differential categorization of dialects and so on.

^[6] The publication of high-quality material in all the local languages/home languages is a large investment and an administrative dilemma owing to the diversity of the languages, which ultimately leads to the formal usage of the regional language as the medium of instruction.

^[7] This dependence on teacher-student dynamics does raise concerns about situations where the marginalized or indigenous languages are not spoken by the teacher themselves.

^[8] In addition to the previously mentioned reasons.

^[9] An additional point may be made here that Indian society is a mix of multilingualism and plurilingualism, wherein the latter denotes that the numerous languages and cultures are not separate entities, but rather intersect across contexts and influence one another. However, that debate requires its own in-depth analysis, which lies outside of the scope of this brief.

^[10] Becomes important to mention two-way exchange - to show how influence happens across levels and boundaries - and to break the myth of sanctity of a language - that often actually derives from an elitist, privileged section of the society - as the ground realities are the intermixing and cross-cultural interaction - it also democratizes access to languages and opens gates to view and understand the marginalized languages

^[11] The existence of the three-language formula in conjunction with the medium of instruction as the local language, together recognize that diversity of languages is necessary and multilingualism is a reality. However, these fail to encapsulate the nuanced manner in which this multilingualism exists in the society, how diversity overlaps, leaving traces behind; failing to pay attention to this reality, makes the formula redundant as it is very natural that it will run into issues of implementation in the domain of administration and even social perceptions.

^[12] The policy does seek to promote the Indian Languages, Arts and Culture. It expresses it as such, “The promotion of Indian arts and culture is important not only for the nation but also for the individual. It is through the development of a strong sense and knowledge of their own cultural history, arts, languages, and traditions that children can build a positive cultural identity and self-esteem” (NEP, 2020). However, this prompts the questions of: What about the identity dilemma and crisis that many face owing to multiple overlapping and cross-cutting identities? A cohesive sense of cultural identity would also need to recognize the manner of interaction of these identities/languages.

^[13] It is quite evident that the ground-level realities with respect to positioning of languages in Indian education are quite diverse, far removed

^[14]  intuitive because these are “untutored”

^[15] Greater participation of tribal teachers in the process of planning and teaching has led to positive outcomes in school practices.