In the context of “language policy” (put in quotes because in reality we hardly have any), the ‘Report of the Committee for Evolution of the New Education Policy 2016’ (MHRD), in general, makes welcome observations, often borrowing from earlier formulations on the issues of language.
In many aspects it does echo the suggestions made in the earlier documents including the National Curriculum Framework of 2005 (NCF 2005) and the Position Papers on the Teaching of Indian Languages and on the Teaching of English, two of the NCERT’s National Focus Groups’ set of 21 papers that are constitutive of NCF 2005. However, in some significant ways it falls far short of NCF 2005.
To the extent the report recognizes the multilingual innate potential of a child (6.13.12), it deserves our appreciation as it does for noting that ‘even (my emphasis) differently-abled children who do not use the spoken language develop equally complex alternative sign and symbol systems for expression and communication with ease and facility’. One is not sure (note the ‘even’ above) whether Sing Language being not just a set of signs and gestures but as potent and communicative a rule-governed system as say Sanskrit or Hindi is recognized; one is also not sure whether the problems confronting the visually, orthopedically and mentally challenged persons are being fully appreciated. One does not need to recommend the creation of committees and commissions (9.24.25) for these purposes.
This is an area where problems and solutions are well recognized; the issue really is one of not appreciating the idea of inclusion in its true spirit. It is no rocket science to say that we should have a Signer in each class where needed; nor does it need an intensive five-year plan to suggest that books in Braille and software like Jaws and embossing facilities should be available at all sites irrespective of whether a visually impaired person is around or not (who knows who may need it when!!); again it should not be difficult to realise that it is not just the set of people presently called ‘disabled’ who need accessible physical and intellectual spaces. All of us do.
It is also commendable that the report recognizes that ‘primacy should be given to the mother tongue as the medium of instruction in the initial stages, before the child enters primary school. This is imperative, as repeated studies have indicated that basic concepts of language and arithmetic are best learnt in one’s mother tongue (6.13.13).’ However, it is not just language and arithmetic but all systems of knowledge are transacted and constructed through language. And why should the use of mother tongues be limited to initial stages? Do we ever wish to adopt the agenda of making our own languages media of serious discourse or not?
More seriously, it is perhaps not appreciated that situations which are constituted by heterogeneity will not admit of any homogeneous solutions. If children are born with an innate multilingual potential and if India has such a diversity of languages, is it not obvious that each classroom will inevitably reflect that fluidity? The theory and pedagogical practices of such classrooms can then not be conceptualised in the terms of ‘a language’; they will have to be thought through in terms of multilinguality. That in fact is the direction in which contemporary research is moving and NCF 2005 initiated that process in India also. Proficiency in Hindi, Oriya, English, Tamil or Angami will be achieved through the prism of multilinguality; the techniques of using that potential available in the classroom started emerging in the 1990s. In fact, contemporary research has shown that multilingualism is an asset for language learning, scholastic achievement, cognitive growth and social tolerance. The ultimate goal of any language teaching enterprise must therefore be enhancing proficiency in that language and nourishing multilingualism. That the study of Hindi and English needs to be encouraged is important. However, this has to be done not at the cost of the languages of children in the classroom but in a theoretical and pedagogical paradigm that sustains and promotes multilingualism. The basic tenet of multilinguality is that the voice of every child is equally important and must find a space in the classroom processes. All these aspects were explicitly recognized in NCF 2005 Position Papers.
Then there are issues of Sanskrit, Hindi, English and the Three Language Formula (TLF). There is no doubt that Sanskrit is an important language for a variety of reasons and needs special emphasis both as a classical and modern language (6.13.19 and 6.13.20). Yet, it may not be true to say that it is so for the whole country since a greater part of the South and North-East and the whole tribal belt across India may have very different priorities. One also needs to appreciate that our children may benefit equally from the study of say Greek or Persian. Coming to Hindi, the threat that members like Durgabai felt in the Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD) seems to persist when one hears that ‘Hindi is the most prominent and wide-spread language in India (6.13.3)’, though recognizing in the same breath that a large number of people counted therein actually speak the ‘dialects of Hindi spoken in the Hindi belt, such as Braj Bhasha, Haryanvi, Bundeli, Kannauji, Hindustani, Awadhi, Bagheli and Chhattisgarhi’. Even a moment’s reflection would make it clear that if at all these languages should be called the ‘mothers’ of Hindi than its dialects, which is a socially loaded, stigmatized word for a lay person.
There are also the issues of Hindi and English being the Official and Associate Official languages (6.13.4) and the 8th Schedule. The spirit in which the 8th schedule was created is perhaps misrepresented (6.13.6). It is important here to return to the CAD and realise that it was largely to accommodate the fears of the non-Hindi speakers that Hindi had to be recognized as the ‘official’ and not the ‘national’ language, the space for continuing English as an additional official language kept and the 8th schedule intelligently called just ‘Languages’ (not ‘official’ or ‘regional’ languages). Its strength has grown from 14 to 22 over a period of time not so much for any official or linguistic purposes as for political expediency, social identity, psychological strength and a kind of national aura. In principle, it does not from the point of the constitution lend any special status to the language in question; any social group that makes the effort can have its language included in it.
So far English is concerned I think the time is ripe in India to put a question mark on the aura and power associated with it. Two aspects already indicated above concern education in the mother tongues and the cause of multilinguality. We will also need to appreciate the difference between the facts of the matter and the aura to create which the whole English language industry invests millions of dollars and sterling. English is neither the most widely spoken language nor the most powerful one either in India or abroad. It is projected as an aspirational goal (6.13.16) and is claimed to be the most powerful language of computers. A UNESCO 2009 study found that the number of English websites showed a yearly decline from 75 % to 45 % during 1996 and 2008 and it has not improved since. Languages like Chinese, French and German don’t turn to English for help when working on the internet. In the case of number of web-pages multiplying during 2001-2011, the percentage increase in Chinese, Spanish and Russian has actually been far greater than English. We have languages like Bangla, Tamil, Marathi, Malayalam etc. (the count is really amazing); do we wish to empower them as languages of art, serious discourse and computers or keep celebrating the greatness of English at the cost of our languages. What is generally not appreciated is that if technology empowers X, it has the same potential to empower Y.
In the case of TLF, the Report does recognize the failure of the states to implement it and recommends that states ensure primary education in the mother tongue (which, given the classroom diversity), states should be allowed to choose their own second and third languages (6.13.26). However, why is there still an insistence on some kind of TLF, one does not understand. Perhaps we love our fossils more than our living beings.
(Having retired from the University of Delhi as Professor of Linguistics, the author is Professor Emeritus at Vidya Bhawan Society.He can be contacted at: agniirk@yahoo.com)