Medium of instruction: jingoism resurrected

The Karnataka Knowledge Commission (KKC) has submitted, among others, its much anticipated report on primary education. It is a disappointing – and controversial – report that one did not expect from a highly respected body of professionals.

Among the several recommendations which run into volumes of heavy counselling, it has said little that is innovative. The 92-page report has highlighted what everyone already knows like “school education should be “uniform and standardised;” or, it has merely indulged in platitudes like “no child should be deprived of quality education” without specifying in clear terms how this can be achieved.

One would have expected something more path-breaking from a Commission specially appointed to suggest reforms in this area. What is the use of serving old wine in new bottles which is exactly what every other commission – both at the state level and the Centre – has been offering these last several years?

Our governments would do well to implement the positive suggestions made by earlier commissions instead of appointing new ones at great expense to hear the same old truisms like “for the girl child, the government should ensure 12+3 years of guaranteed education.”

The KKC has made other bold recommendations which, unfortunately, cannot be implemented because they are neither viable nor legally valid. They concern the thorny topic of languages to be adopted in schools. If implemented, they will only put the state government in a quandary.

One of them concerns the medium of instruction in prim-ary education. It is common kno-wledge that the Karnataka government has had a long and troubled history in this regard. It has tried various tactics to give supremacy to the state langua-ge, more in the interests of poli-tical expediency than education.

Since 1994, when the Gokak Committee first recommended Kannada to be the sole first language in elementary and secondary schools, the language issue has been a contentious one. Either religious minority institutions have objected to it on constitutional grounds, or linguistic minorities have moved courts in protest.

But, the state government has not given up. It formed a special committee under the chairmanship of H Narasimhaiah after the first one misfired. This commission recommended that school education should be imparted totally in the child’s mother tongue. The government could not implement this recommendation either, since Karnataka was home to a variety of mother tongues, and schools would not be able to find the text books or teachers to teach. Besides, the unaided schools in the state revolted against an arbitrary government order which prevented them from functioning in freedom.

The SC finally put an end to the language war by decreeing in no uncertain terms that parents should be given a choice in deciding the medium of instruction for their children. It also granted freedom to the unaided minority schools in the state to choose their own language of instruction in all classes. 

This landmark judgment not only reversed the earlier unconstitutional orders of the state government, but it also recognised the child’s right to learn in the language of her choice. When the highest court in the land has spoken, the recommendation made by the KKC will amount to contempt of court if implemented. It will only lead to more litigation.

If the state thought it could revive the issue by cleverly appointing yet another commission to make its recommendations, it has merely landed itself in more trouble and possibly, in litigation. The latest commission categorically states: “As Kannada is the mother tongue of the majority population in the State and is also the State language, it would be most practical to have Kannada as the medium of instruction in all schools up to class 4.” 

Multilingual citizens
At the same time, it declares that “English is also a very important language because of tremendous professional, industrial and economic opportunities,” so children must learn it from Class 5 onwards. Then, it adds “Hindi is the national language and its knowledge is equally important, hence it cannot be ignored as an additional language.”

And, as if that was not enough, its final recommendation that “future citizens need to be proficient in many languages” is supported by the statement “Sanskrit and foreign languages etc, are also preferred by many students.” 

One can safely conclude that schoolchildren of this state will be trained to become multilingual citizens. At the same time, the report suggests that science and mathematics could be tau-ght in English from class 5 onwards which will place non-English speaking pupils, who learnt their lessons in Kannada up to class 4, at a great disadvantage.

According to its chairman, “there is a strong scientific evidence to support the fact that children learn best when the medium of instruction is the mother tongue of the child.” In which case, what happens to the children who speak Telegu, Tamil, Marathi or any of the my-riad languages spoken by citizens from other states who have made Karnataka their home?