UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

NEP 2020 strongly recommends that young children learn in their home language, mother tongue or local language at least till Grade 5, as this supports better comprehension, confidence and concept formation.

Option A:
This option directly reflects NEP 2020, which emphasises using the child’s home, mother tongue or local language as the medium of instruction in the early years.

Option B:
NEP 2020 does not prescribe English as the only medium; it may be taught as a subject but is not imposed as the sole language of instruction in early grades.

Option C:
Choosing any foreign language as the main medium in early grades would be pedagogically unsound and is not suggested in the policy.

Option D:
Sanskrit is encouraged as an optional language, but NEP 2020 does not ask that it be the compulsory medium of instruction for all students.

NEP 2020 calls for expanding the use of Indian languages and bilingual modes in higher education and for producing high-quality textbooks and resources in these languages to improve access and participation.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because banning Indian languages from university instruction contradicts the policy’s emphasis on multilingualism and inclusion.

Option B:
Option B is correct as it summarises the strategy of promoting Indian languages and bilingual teaching supported by appropriate academic materials.

Option C:
Option C is wrong since allowing only foreign languages in HEIs would marginalise many learners and undermine local scholarship.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because NEP encourages research outputs in Indian as well as foreign languages, not exclusively in foreign languages.

NEP 2020 acknowledges the importance of ISL for learners with hearing impairment. It recommends efforts to standardise it across the country and develop teaching-learning materials. Teacher training in ISL is also encouraged. This supports inclusion and access to curriculum.

Option A:
Rejecting ISL would create serious barriers for deaf learners and is against the policy.

Option B:
This option reflects the supportive and developmental stance of NEP towards ISL as a full-fledged language.

Option C:
Foreign sign languages may be useful but ISL remains central in the Indian context.

Option D:
Denying curriculum access to ISL users violates equity and rights principles.

NEP 2020 recognises Sanskrit as a rich classical language and recommends that it be widely offered as an attractive option in schools and universities using innovative and communicative pedagogy, while remaining a matter of student choice.

Option A:
This option incorrectly states that Sanskrit should not be taught, whereas NEP expressly promotes it.

Option B:
This option accurately reflects the policy of widely offering Sanskrit as a valuable but optional language in schools and higher education.

Option C:
Replacing all other Indian languages with Sanskrit would undermine linguistic diversity and is never proposed in NEP.

Option D:
Restricting Sanskrit only to specialised research institutes would prevent ordinary students from learning it, contrary to the policy’s intent.

NEP 2020 envisages IITI as an institute to build capacity in translation and interpretation across Indian and foreign languages and to support materials and expertise for multilingual education.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because engineering skills are addressed by technical institutions, not by IITI.

Option B:
Option B is correct as it directly states the translation and interpretation functions linked to language policy that NEP assigns to IITI.

Option C:
Option C is wrong since sports coaching is unrelated to IITI’s language and translation mandate.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because a film acting school does not correspond to the academic and linguistic role described for IITI in the policy.

NEP 2020 stresses that learners must have access to quality textbooks and materials in their home and regional languages, encouraging both original writing and translation, with states adapting content to local culture while meeting national standards.

Option A:
Restricting textbooks to English alone would disadvantage many learners and goes against the policy’s emphasis on promoting Indian languages.

Option B:
This option is correct because it reflects NEP’s call for strong local-language materials created and adapted by states to ensure comprehension and relevance.

Option C:
Depending only on foreign language textbooks ignores India’s linguistic diversity and would make learning harder for many students.

Option D:
Relying solely on online videos without structured textbooks would make it difficult to ensure coherent, curriculum-aligned learning resources.

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.