[ Badak Yomgam ]

The implementation of centralised educational policies in linguistically diverse regions brings distinct structural challenges to the forefront of administrative planning. When national frameworks like the Central Board of Secondary Education’s mandatory three language formula for Classes 9 and 10 are applied uniformly alongside the University Grants Commission guidelines, they often intersect awkwardly with the established communication patterns of specific areas.

In states characterised by an extensive variety of distinct indigenous speech forms, top down curricular mandates require careful evaluation to ensure they align with the practical needs of the student population.

The visual evidence of current textbook requirements highlights the exact nature of this academic challenge.

Complex Sanskrit grammar grids required under mandatory language frameworks. Decisions regarding core academic requirements are frequently finalised by small administrative bodies whose standard frameworks may not fully reflect localised educational realities. Forcing multiple script systems and rigid grammatical structures onto students can create an unnecessary academic burden during crucial school years.

The arbitrary nature of this imposition is already facing critical legal resistance across the nation; a public interest litigation (PIL) has recently been moved in the Supreme Court against this sudden mandatory framework, reflecting severe panic among parents and educators in states like West Bengal, while other states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have structurally rejected the directive through their own state education policies to protect student autonomy.

This structural disconnect is further aggravated by an orchestrated, step-by-step rollout within our own educational apparatus. First, the direct recruitment of Bhoti language teachers – both TGT and PRT – reveals a deliberate, foolproof framework to institutionalise external linguistic systems at the expense of our native heritage. What began quietly through conducting a workshop on Devanagiri script over the Roman script has rapidly advanced into providing Sanskrit teachers’ training, serving as a coordinated prelude to cementing rigid establishing a UGC and CBSE mandatory guidelines.

This systematic implementation occurs despite a glaring, undeniable ground reality: many students found difficulties in reading and writing in Hindi. Rather than addressing these foundational literacy gaps, public machinery is being utilised to force scripts that hold no indigenous roots in our soil.

This article serves as an urgent wake up call to the stakeholders of our state. It is deeply concerning to witness the uncharacteristic silence of our student community, including apex bodies like the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union (AAPSU), who seem to have missed the gravity of this shift. Where has the collective vigilance gone when our cultural fabric is being overwritten? Most disheartening is that, in this process, a few intellectuals also participated to legitimise this process. This trend is not an educational development; instead, it is forcing Students to learn criteria which are neither indigenous nor capable of generating viable employment opportunities or career advancement for the youths of Arunachal Pradesh, consuming precious academic windows that should belong to our youths.

While supporters of these policies often emphasisethe phonetic completeness of specific traditional scripts, this structural argument does not always address the functional needs of daily communication. In addition, the very terminology used to evaluate these systems relies on global linguistic standards that are already well accommodated by existing administrative languages. This issue is magnified when Sanskrit is introduced as an extra language requirement, which levies a significant additional burden upon students who may already face difficulties with standard Hindi.

The student community has already developed effective systems for regional and administrative interaction without relying on additional standardised language layers. English continues to serve as an efficient and neutral medium for formal education and official documentation, ensuring clarity across different groups. For daily social and commercial transactions, the population naturally developed Arunachalee Hindi over several decades. This unique regional variant functions as a highly successful common speech form that ensures clear communication among everyone in the area.

Because the region has already established these practical linguistic compromises, adding further language requirements can redirect valuable instructional time away from essential subjects. Modern educational priorities are increasingly shifting towards technological literacy and future ready skills that prepare students for contemporary global industries. Rather than exhausting valuable instructional hours on complex mechanical memorisation and mandatory language frameworks, public resources should be directed towards building competitive technical capabilities that are accessible to every student, regardless of background.

To truly modernise the workforce and create viable career opportunities, the state must transition towards practical skill-building and establish vocational AI education training at free of cost. (The writer is a research scholar)