UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

NEP 2020 clearly reiterates that there will be no imposition of any language on any state; the three-language formula is to be implemented flexibly, respecting regional and student choices.

Option A:
This option contradicts the explicit assurance in NEP 2020 that the Centre will not impose a fixed set of three languages on all states.

Option B:
Making only English and Hindi compulsory everywhere ignores India’s linguistic diversity and is not what NEP 2020 prescribes.

Option C:
This option matches the policy’s emphasis on flexibility and the no-imposition principle while still encouraging multilingualism.

Option D:
Allowing only foreign languages and excluding Indian languages runs directly against NEP 2020’s strong emphasis on Indian languages.

Statements A, B, D and E express the broad thrust of multilingual language policy. A is true because many policies support use of local or mother tongue languages. B is true as multiple language options help different learner groups. D is true since bilingual materials aid understanding and language transition. E is true because policy often encourages creation of academic resources in Indian languages. C and F are false because multilingual approaches can support quality and English need not be abandoned entirely to pursue multilingualism.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it omits D and E, thereby not mentioning bilingual materials or policy support for Indian language terminology and resources.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it leaves out A and includes only B and D, so it does not explicitly state policy support for multilingualism while still omitting the development of Indian language materials.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it includes E but omits A and B, thus failing to connect national language resource development with broader multilingual access.

Option D:
Option D is correct as it combines A, B, D and E, the four true statements on policy support, access, bilingual resources and language development, while excluding C and F, which treat multilingualism as incompatible with quality or as requiring complete discontinuation of English.

NEP 2020 notes research that multilingual children often develop stronger cognitive flexibility and problem-solving skills, and stresses that knowing multiple Indian and foreign languages supports cultural rootedness, social cohesion and improved employment prospects.

Option A:
The idea that learning many languages confuses students is rejected by the research evidence cited in the policy.

Option B:
This option is correct because it captures the cognitive, cultural and economic advantages of multilingualism highlighted in NEP 2020.

Option C:
Encouraging learners to abandon their mother tongues would undermine cultural identity and is contrary to the policy’s emphasis on valuing home languages.

Option D:
The policy prioritises Indian languages alongside English and other foreign languages; it does not insist on learning only foreign languages for overseas jobs.

NEP 2020 encourages resources in mother tongue and local languages to support comprehension and inclusion. It suggests creating textbooks in these languages and optionally bilingual formats where local language and English appear side by side. This helps in gradual language transition while maintaining conceptual clarity.

Option A:
Insisting on English only would disadvantage many learners and contradict the pedagogical emphasis on mother tongue instruction.

Option B:
This option exactly reflects the recommendation to strengthen local language materials and use bilingual editions. It connects to the multilingual vision of the policy, so it is correct.

Option C:
Avoiding Indian languages altogether is opposite to NEP’s promotion of linguistic diversity and heritage.

Option D:
Foreign language comics alone cannot serve as serious textbooks for conceptual learning; this idea is not in the policy.