During a class on “cultural capital”, my students and I found ourselves discussing the role of the English language in the Indian context. The conversation turned out to be a comparison with countries like France and China, where people have deep-rooted pride in their language. In contrast, many of my students admitted that they barely know their native tongues — some can understand them, but few are able to speak or write with confidence. They expressed a quiet sense of loss, even as they acknowledged the prestige and professional opportunities that come with speaking “good” English in India. It is this sense of confusion that shapes my view on the CBSE’s proposal to introduce mother-tongue instruction at the primary level. I find it hard to take a definitive stance, but if I had to describe my position, I would call myself a sceptical supporter.
The idea of supporting one’s mother tongue comes from many writers such as Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Frantz Fanon, and J M Coetzee, who have long written about decolonising the mind and reclaiming identity through native languages. Their work highlights how colonial legacies and global hierarchies have privileged English and sidelined local languages, entrenching cultural and cognitive hierarchies.
Yet, even if we agree in principle, practical questions remain, like which language to choose in a country as linguistically diverse as India. That’s why the ongoing language mapping exercise in schools is not just welcome — it is essential. While I agree that collecting languages children speak at home is a smart and necessary step, I think it should have been done before issuing the directive.
Children are now entering school at a much younger age than in the past.Students normally enter school at about three years of age. For a child entering school for the first time, everything is unfamiliar — the space, the people, the routines and expectations. Language, at the very least, can offer continuity and comfort. The emotional security of being taught in the language spoken at home can ease this early transition and help children settle into learning more naturally.
Having said this, we also do see a generation of students in elite private schools who are growing up with little connection to their native languages. At home and in public life, most children communicate in English. They are growing up within a single language system, disconnected from their linguistic roots. Mother-tongue instruction holds the potential to reverse that trend.
When children are taught in a language their families understand, learning becomes a shared experience. Parents and even grandparents, especially those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, can engage more actively with their child’s education. This strengthens the link between home and school and can lead to improved outcomes.
Critics argue that such a directive may disadvantage children later, given English’s dominance in higher education and the job market. But this policy move is about the primary level, where the focus should be on building core literacy, numeracy, and confidence. The transition to English can still happen, but must take place thoughtfully. What we need is a gradual, well-supported, and pedagogically sound design for that transition.
Even from a cognitive standpoint, support comes from UNESCO and UNICEF, which advocate for mother-tongue instruction in early education. Early literacy in the mother tongue lays a strong foundation for later academic achievement. Teaching in English from day one, especially to first-generation learners, often results in confusion and lower overall comprehension.
This topic made me think of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “symbolic violence”. The term is used to describe a wide range of actions that involve imposing meaning or authority in an arbitrary way — actions that appear neutral or natural but actually reflect power. The education system, through form and content, exercises symbolic violence in different ways — it imposes ideas, values, or norms that carry hidden power. English-language instruction can be seen as a form of symbolic violence where students are alienated from their mother tongues. Instruction in the mother tongue is a pedagogical choice that resists the treatment of children’s home languages as inadequate or inferior.
Choosing which language to prioritise in each region will involve tough decisions, and owing to India’s multilingualism, there are no perfect answers. Ensuring that schools once again do not fall into the cycle of symbolic violence by imposing a few people’s mother tongue on others is important. Now that the CBSE directive has been issued, what matters most is how this is implemented.
The timeline for implementation raises serious concerns. Expecting schools to pivot over a single summer break, already too short, is unrealistic. Overhauling curricula, training teachers and preparing materials will take time. Without this investment, the risk is a superficial rollout driven more by political optics than pedagogical substance. One should not reduce a well-intentioned intervention to another hurried rollout. Done right, this could be the beginning of a more inclusive, just, and effective education system.
The writer is a Sociology teacher in a Delhi school
