In a major policy change on language, the Maharashtra Government has issued a new Government Resolution (GR) stating that Hindi will no longer be compulsorily taught as a third language in state board schools. This order, brought into force on April 16, 2025, is applicable to all the Marathi and English medium schools affiliated with the Maharashtra State Board and extends to classes 1 to 10. The step, although welcomed by some as a gesture toward increased linguistic freedom and openness, has not gone unscathed, with many terming it as "mere eyewash."

The round so-called supports student choice by enabling any Indian language to be chosen as the third language, as long as a class has at least 20 students taking it. Without the minimum number, the language can be taught online. But the policy's fine print and the timing of its announcement have been an eyebrow-raiser for educators, language rights activists, and political observers.

The Core of the New GR

The GR says that Marathi and English are going to be compulsory languages in all schools, but students now have the freedom to select their third language. Hindi, which dominated the curriculum traditionally, is no longer a requirement. Instead, students can select from a variety of Indian languages such as Urdu, Sanskrit, Kannada, Tamil, Telugu, Bengali, Gujarati, etc.

The choice is reported to be a reflection of the government's desire to value India's language diversity, honour regional languages, and grant students a larger say in deciding the course of their studies. As per the circular, if the chosen language attracts 20 students or more in a class, it will be taught offline. Otherwise, schools are directed to provide it through online channels.

The Language Politics Behind the Move

This policy revision must be considered within its broader context. Maharashtra is a complex, multilingual state with language being an emotionally charged issue. The state has traditionally been a bastion of Marathi pride, and multiple political groups, such as the Shiv Sena and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), have been opposed to what they see as the Central government's attempts to push Hindi.

In this respect, the new GR is regarded by most people as an attempt to reaffirm regional identity and linguistic sovereignty. "This is more about politics than pedagogy," opines Dr. Rekha Joshi, a Mumbai University sociolinguist. "It's a nuanced push back against the Centre's initiative toward a more Hindi-centric education model. But the implementation of this policy remains strongly skewed towards Hindi."

In an indirect answer, critics have also argued that while they eliminate the compulsion to learn Hindi, they do not go entirely in the direction of promoting other languages. Most schools, particularly in urban areas, are very likely to persist with Hindi as the third language due to ease of availability, existing infrastructure for teaching and learning, and parental demand.

Challenges of Implementation

At the centre of the criticism is the logistical clause: a third language can be provided offline only if there are at least 20 students in a class who choose it. The figure, even if it appears reasonable, becomes a deterrent in practice. In most schools, particularly those that have small class sizes or do not have much diversity, achieving the number may not be possible for less widely spoken languages.

Therefore, it is argued by the critics that the policy still indirectly benefits Hindi because it stands to be the most probable in reaching the 20-student threshold. In addition, the provision of educating language online also questions accessibility, particularly in rural and weaker sections where students might lack stable internet or equipment.

"Such a provision makes the policy useless," quotes Ramesh Kadam, a Pune teacher. "It's an illusion of choice. In reality, Hindi will prevail because schools can't afford the gamble of putting resources into a language that fails to find the minimum number of enrollments.”

Mixed Reactions from Stakeholders

Reactions from teachers and parents are varied. While some appreciate the flexibility provided by the policy, others remain doubtful about how it will be put into practice on the ground.

Smita Dandekar, the principal of a top school in Thane, opines, "In theory, this is a good move. Allowing children to opt for any Indian language is a tribute to our country's diversity. But in practice, it puts schools under pressure to manage niche options with sparse resources."

At the same time, parents have been in a state of confusion and worry. "My son is in Class 4, and he has been studying Hindi as the third language. If I choose a different language now, who will teach him? Will his marks be affected? What about compatibility for national competitive exams in the future?" wonders Neha Verma, a parent from Mumbai.

The National Context

This follows at a time when the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has also been in favour of encouraging regional languages and mother tongues. The move by Maharashtra can be interpreted as a halting response to this suggestion. But the inability to fully disband the current system reflects the tug-of-war between infrastructure and ideology.

This is why many people believe Maharashtra strikes a balance between regional pride and national policy mandates, neither of which it goes too far on. Political writer and analyst Anurag Mehta observes, "It's a calibrated move. The state government is trying to look progressive and independent but without losing sight of the larger Hindi-speaking voter base.”

A Symbolic Shift or a Genuine Change?

The essence of the controversy is the disconnect between policy and practice. While the circular gives the promise of freedom of choice, the inherent conditions — such as the 20-student norm and online instruction for specialised languages — function as structural impediments. And so, it is argued by many critics that the new policy is symbolic rather than real.

Language activists have called for greater action, from state funding for additional language teachers, curriculum development for less widely known languages, and student and parent awareness campaigns. Without them, they warn, the new GR will become a gesture of politics instead of a radical shift.

Looking Forward

To make this policy effective, the government needs to do more than just issue circulars. Support for implementation, training for teachers, investment of money in multilingual curriculums, and technological support for online learning are essential. Periodic evaluation and feedback mechanisms will ensure that areas of gaps are discovered and corrected in advance.

The larger vision must be to empower students in language, academically, and culturally. That is when Maharashtra can say it is really adopting multilingual education.

Ultimately, the motivation for the GR can be good, but it will succeed only on the strength of sturdy implementation. Whether it proves to be a game-changer or merely another eyewash from the bureaucrats is yet to be seen.

.    .    .