A language doesn't improve and grow if it is not used in all aspects where a language is relevant, such as exclamations, catch phrases, personal conversations, formal conversations, professional communication, etc. One of the ways to attain such level of language proficiency is to actually train ourselves in that language. Such training is easier when the medium of teaching in schools is the regional language for all subjects, except the other languages. However, the sight in our country is that English medium schools are rising while regional language medium schools are dwindling.

Note that, in this post, English medium schools represent the set of all non-regional language medium schools. They anyway constitute almost 100% of the non-regional language medium schools in a particular state. Also, the benefits put forth for using regional languages as the medium of teaching may appear to be not applicable to literally all students in the institution, since all of them may not have the same mother tongue. Nonetheless, majority of them will be native dwellers. And of those who came from other parts of the country, it is in their urgent interest to learn the regional tongue for their every day life; else communication and social fitting will suffer. Therefore, the benefits are applicable to all students.

Students do not get as proficient in their mother tongues as the rest of the local population is when studied in English medium schools. This deficit can lead to struggles in communicating and socially fitting with the rest of the population.

English medium schools also contribute to loss of cultural fitness. If we do not grow up with local ethos, very soon we will find ourselves struggling to fit with it. Language is one of the key elements of one's culture and if you neglect it, a good part of our cultural fit gets compromised, and if you neglect it systematically, then an upcoming generation gets culturally lost.

Going regional language medium will not only fix this deficit, but will also contribute to the evolution of the language given that new fields such as science and technology are becoming part of our daily communication. And since language is a socio-cultural element, any progress made to language is also progress made to society, and consequently to human species.

The argument that because students already speak their mother tongue, it will be easier for them to understand topics when explained in that language, is tenable. The evidence for this can be found among those Bhāratīyars who go to European countries for their medical education. Because it is taught in their regional language (I have the deepest admiration for this decision), foreign students spend their first year learning that language. Despite this, they still require resources of that language, such as the dictionary, for comprehension of their course.

One might argue that in an English medium school, the language is inculcated slowly, year by year, unlike medical students learning the foreign language in a year, and therefore language resources won't be necessary. This is true. But the argument was not that a child will never learn English and therefore will never understand the curriculum. The argument was that it will be easier for a student to understand something if explained in a language he or she is already speaking. And this is true.

Learning in mother tongues or regional languages will not hamper the student's English communication skills because English is still taught as a subject (so long as it is taught properly). Students may not get that proficient in English to the extent that they use it over and over in their day to day lives, but such level of proficiency is not required for a Bhāratīya. The proficiency requirement is with the mother tongue and link language. That is not to say that they will not get proficient in English at all. With Internet penetration, children are exposed to loads of English content to complement their English skills.

One of the arguments for an English medium school is the acquisition of English proficiency among students that will enable them to "work abroad, communicate with global citizens and excel in critical industries like IT". As mentioned earlier, English will be taught as a language and with external exposures, students will gain proficiency in English enough for the stated uses.

But a larger concern of that argument is the goal stated of going abroad. Our education system must not be focused on creating talents to export. It must be focused on creating a generation that builds its own society and nation whatever the conditions are; and only after that, contribute to others.

On excelling in technical industries, technology is language agnostic. We do not have to bend our ways to interact with technology, it will bend its way so we can interact with them. US, Russia, China and Nordic countries are the greatest examples of achieving technological dominance using their mother tongues in the domain — even the numerals on Russian and Chinese aircraft cockpits and vehicle number plates are written in their script.

In the domain of technology, there will be slight difficulty in adopting regional language because people are used to using English to interact with technology. Lotha is trying to bridge this gap with our products. It may still be difficult for those who got used to the English-Technology pair. In this case, we can at least work on influencing the new generation who are not used to anything in specific — and changes in the education system will do that.