Is 'indigeneity' a valid criterion for language policy in a linguistically plural country like India? Critically examine with reference to the NEP 2020 three-language formula.

NEP 2020's three-language formula requires at least two of the three languages studied to be native to India, with English positioned as the non-native option [1]. This makes "indigeneity" an operative legal-administrative category — one the Supreme Court directly questioned in August 2026 while hearing challenges to CBSE's rollout [4]. The criterion has genuine value, but fails as an exclusionary test.

Where indigeneity is a defensible criterion

• Constitutional backing: Article 351 and the Eighth Schedule, listing 22 languages, oblige the State to develop Indian languages [3]; an indigeneity preference operationalises this duty.
• Pedagogical evidence: NEP mandates the home/mother tongue as medium of instruction till at least Grade 5, preferably Grade 8, because children learn concepts fastest in a familiar language [1].
• Equity and preservation: it counters the English-medium head start enjoyed by urban elites and shields smaller, undocumented tongues from attrition.

Where the criterion breaks down

• No constitutional definition: the Eighth Schedule is a list for official recognition and Hindi's development (Articles 344, 351), not a test of what is "indigenous" [3]. Using it as a proxy is administrative convenience, not law.
• Entrenchment ignored: the Official Languages Act, 1963 allows English to continue indefinitely alongside Hindi for Union purposes, removable only by resolutions of non-Hindi legislatures [2]. The Court noted English's use in courts and several States, and that "native" itself carries a colonial connotation [4].
• Origin tests are arbitrary: Hindi's Sanskritic lineage is itself migratory; a strict provenance rule destabilises many languages.
• Federal and capacity strain: the formula revives Hindi-imposition anxieties in non-Hindi States, and the Court sought data on teachers and textbooks for the 23 language options offered [4].

Indigeneity is best retained as a promotional principle — nurturing Indian languages — rather than a gatekeeping classification. Grounding the formula in NEP's own assurance that no language will be imposed [1], with State consultation and teacher capacity built first, would serve both linguistic pluralism and cooperative federalism.