The recent inclusion of the Bhutia language as a second language in ICSE and ISC-affiliated schools is a commendable move by the Sikkim government towards the preservation of ethnic languages. The Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) has taken a significant step by allowing private schools to teach Bhutia, following persistent efforts from the Bhutia Literary Association (BKYT) and the Sikkim government. However, while this initiative marks progress, it also highlights broader systemic gaps in India’s approach to linguistic preservation.
For decades, ethnic languages have been marginalized in mainstream education. Bhutia, despite its deep cultural and historical roots, was largely absent from private school curricula due to a lack of institutional recognition. The CISCE’s decision rectifies this oversight, but the fact that such recognition had to be arduously fought for exposes the reluctance of educational boards to embrace linguistic diversity proactively. Why must communities struggle for what should be a fundamental right—education in their native tongue?
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 prioritizes native languages in education, yet implementation remains sluggish. Many local languages in India still face systemic neglect, with insufficient educational materials, trained teachers, and governmental support. The availability of Bhutia textbooks at the primary level is a step forward, but is it enough? Ensuring long-term survival of ethnic languages demands a robust framework that includes continuous curriculum development, teacher training, and student engagement strategies.
Moreover, linguistic preservation must go beyond textbooks. A language thrives when it is spoken and lived. The Bhutia language, like many indigenous tongues, is at risk not just because it is not taught in schools, but because its usage is diminishing in daily life. Cultural integration through digital content, literature, and media exposure is crucial. Without a comprehensive plan, formal education alone will not prevent linguistic erosion.
Another pressing concern is the disparity in language inclusion across different educational boards. While CBSE-affiliated schools in Sikkim already teach Bhutia and other local languages, CISCE schools lagged behind until now. This inconsistency points to the lack of a unified policy on language education, which risks leaving many students without access to their linguistic heritage. Shouldn’t linguistic preservation be a national educational priority rather than a scattered, community-driven effort?
The CISCE’s recognition of Bhutia should serve as a precedent for other endangered languages in India. However, true linguistic preservation demands more than symbolic inclusion. It requires an active, multi-faceted approach backed by policy support, infrastructure, and community participation. The survival of ethnic languages is not just about education; it is about sustaining identity, history, and cultural richness for future generations. If India genuinely values its diversity, it must institutionalize—not merely accommodate—its linguistic heritage.
