dialogue with major stakeholders. These include central and local governments, parents and communities, school administrators and teachers, other providers of essential services, and even NGOs. They need to be educated about the cognitive and educational, socio-cultural, economic, and political consequences of multilingualism. There should be no negotiation with aims of an equal, socially just and democratic education. The access to knowledge and knowledge construction is must be enabled for all without discrimination. The concern regarding access to knowledge and participation in knowledge constructions is reflected in the recommendations pertaining to ‘pedagogic’ dimension of the policy objectives. If we imagine education as a process of one-sided –non dialogic-transmission of facts or by a more informed teacher to uninformed students, we reduce language to a mere communication medium, devoid of its cultural, critical and action potential. This makes us satisfied with models of education where home languages of students are ‘only’ used in the early years, aiming to “mainstream” or transit to dominant language- as early as possible! Such models only encourage children to see themselves as recipients and repeaters of knowledge but never contributors to it. However, - if we imagine education as an interactive-dialogic process between the teacher and students that does not reduce them to blank states -waiting for knowledge deposits, as conveyed in Freire’s baking concept of knowledge… - if we agree that education itself has to be a democratic process where democracy is experienced and not just “taught”, - if we imagine an education -that encourages critical and reflective consciousness inspiring learners to question injustice, oppression and inequality and become empathizing, sensitive and tolerant humans, Then, must have models where children’s home languages are recognized as more than ‘bridges’ for transition. We need to invest in models that see presence of many languages not as obstacles but as useful pedagogic resource- as works of scholars like Prof. Ramakant Agnihotri in learning grammar or Prof. Minati Panda-in learning mathematical concepts- show. These models recognize the significance of home languages and other languages in an individual’s life without imposing a hierarchal arrangement on languages where some are made more ‘advantaged’ and ‘advanced’ than others. When struggles of comprehension are made absent for some and salient for others by sheer match or mismatch between home and school language or the aims of multilingualism are restricted to the already multilingual- conveniently excluding monolingual speakers of dominant languages, this is a matter of intentional and institutional ‘advantaging’ or ‘disadvantaging’. As Tove Skutnabb-Kangas has written, a