JOIN USDoes the NEP’s push for classical languages make sense?
That Sanskrit was officially notified as a ‘classical language’ (in 2005) after Tamil (notified in October 2004) must be one of life’s more absurd paradoxes. Or perhaps, some act of divine correction given that for long, Tamil’s rightful position was denied to it as Sanskrit was considered the fount of all Indian languages. Tamil’s elevation to this status was the result of a battle that raged for more than a century.
In 1870–71, the education department began to distinguish between Indian languages as classical or vernacular. Sanskrit was designated as a classical language and Tamil and many other Indian languages were listed under the vernacular. It was a position that troubled Tamil scholars no end.
Post-independence, this classification came to an end with the Constitution’s position on languages that specified no national language and instead classified Hindi and English as official languages and 14 others (later expanded to 22) as ‘scheduled languages’ whose status was on par with the official, becoming the norm. In 2004, political machinations ensured that the ‘classical language’ status was enshrined on Tamil followed by Sanskrit in 2005. This soon sparked a contest of sorts with other languages too clamouring for this status. An obliging Centre then added others to the list: Kannada and Telugu in 2008, Malayalam in 2013 and Odia in 2014. As of July 2019, Marathi’s claim to classical status was under ‘active consideration’.
As with all bureaucratic decisions, classical status was determined on the basis of certain eligibility criteria: a recorded history over a period of 1500-2000 years, a body of ancient literature, an ‘original’ literary tradition not borrowed from another speech community and the classical language and literature being distinct from the modern.
Classicism as an idea is a Western construct emanating from the study of Latin and ancient Greek in the schools and colleges of the West. The ideas and arguments behind the study of these ancient tongues were probably developed as a result of questions asked about the utility of studying these long-dead languages in modern times. It has been held that the literature in these two tongues displays certain characteristics: Antiquity, Harmony, Clarity, Restraint, Serenity, Idealism, Universality, Reason, Order and Humanism and to engage with these languages and their literature is to partake of all of these. The value of these qualities, needless to say, is well-established.
NEP & the teaching of ‘classical languages'
The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) unveiled a few weeks ago has to this to say on the issue of classical language teaching: ‘In addition to Sanskrit, the teaching of all other classical languages and literature of India, including Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Odia, Pali, Persian, and Prakrit, will also be widely available in schools as options…’
To the obvious question of why, the justification is provided in the point following the one above: ‘For the enrichment of our children, and for the preservation of these rich languages and their artistic treasures’.
In another place in the policy, the emphasis is on mother tongue/local language/regional language as the medium of instruction at least till Grade 5, but preferably till Grade 8 and beyond. The emphasis is also in implementing the three-language formula as it stands—English, Hindi and a regional language in the non-Hindi speaking states and English, Hindi and ‘a modern Indian language’ in the Hindi-speaking regions. The classical language options will be in addition to these three languages. At the secondary level, the teaching of foreign languages is also envisaged.
Essentially, the policy as it has been spelt out throws up several questions. How will this mélange of languages be taught to students? What are the pedagogic implications of so many languages being taught? Will it perhaps result in overburdening the student? To negotiate the alphabet, the literature, the grammar et al of all these languages is not going to be a cakewalk. Also important to consider is the issue of diglossia (the distance between the written and spoken language) that is problematic to negotiate even for students studying in their mother tongue. There is also the issue of ‘standard’ languages and dialects which queers the pitch of language teaching.
And what is likely to be the status of the classical language insofar as examinations are concerned? If passing it is a must, then a whole bunch of implications follow. If they are treated as a mere adjunct, then in all likelihood, little learning of the language will take place.
Another tantalising possibility has been thrown up by this policy. For as long as the three-language policy has been in existence, many in the Hindi-speaking belt have gotten away with studying Sanskrit as a third language thereby diluting the spirit of the policy which envisaged that Hindi-speakers would study a language like Marathi, Tamil, Bengali or another language. A greater degree of national integration was the objective. But while Hindi is studied as a third language in many non-Hindi speaking areas of the nation (exceptions exist), there has been little reciprocation. Now that Sanskrit has been kicked upstairs, will this duplicitous practice of studying Sanskrit as a third language come to an end?
The value of studying a classical language (however contentious this idea) cannot be denied. But, to balance economic interests, which necessitates the teaching of English and to a lesser extent, Hindi, with preserving treasures from the past is a call not easily taken. For a shot at higher education, school education is a must. Will complicating this stepping stone, as the policy seems to be headed towards, therefore result in vexing the issue further?
(Karthik Venkatesh is an editor, writer and deeply interested in language affairs)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.