English — a prescription for global reach
GEORGE PAUL
|
To throw out English, which we have inherited for better or worse as a colonial legacy, would be foolish
|
THE ARTICLE titled "The root of the real inequality problem" by Clarence Maloney (Open Page, July 2) tries to imply that use of vernacular language might be the key to development in India. The arguments are specious and assume a simplistic solution to the burden of India's linguistic diversity. In fact the 1.1 billion people of India speak and communicate in more than a thousand languages and the fine line separating dialects from real languages is sometimes indistinguishable.
English, for all its apparent foreignness, still appears to be the best bet as a link language. In fact it still remains a strong communicative language that binds the federal nature of India's existence. It is the predominant language of the superior courts, legislature and the executive. The experiments to introduce Hindi have proven dangerously disruptive in the south and potentially so in the Northeast and Bengal. Another attempt would be imprudent. In these circumstances we need to re-examine the exclusive focus on the mother tongue and in the process lose global access to information, jobs and business opportunities.
Not appropriate example
The argument that the developed West and some countries in South East Asia have succeeded in providing universal education is not an appropriate example that can be followed in India. The author argues that "even small countries such as Finland, Hungary, etc." have succeeded despite using their own language. It is true that they have succeeded, but the success is not so much because they used their own language but because they were small and had only one language for the whole country.
Even China which has numerous languages (like India) has the advantage that the written script conveys the same meaning in all its various languages. This has made primary education simple and it gives everybody in the country a level playing field.
It is again wrong to assume that Japan, China and other countries have developed only because they used their mother tongue. In a protected socio-political environment of the last century it was not necessary to have a global reach for development. In the altered scenario of the last few decades more and more Japanese are striving to learn English. The same is true of the Chinese, Koreans and East Europeans.
Since our issue is with inequality and we do not have a `national vernacular,' we can now understand that using Hindi as a vernacular will cause disquiet for the people in the south and the east and obviously the rest of the nation will be unhappy with Tamil, Bengali or Malayalam as a national vernacular. As for Sanskrit and Persian, we have all acknowledged their historical demise and the impractical proposition of reviving it for common use. That leaves English which will not only afford a level playing field for all Indians but will also be a link to the rest of the world in which the English language appears to be the acknowledged lead player.
To throw out English, which we have inherited for better or worse as a colonial legacy, when everybody else is trying to learn it would be patently foolish. India needs to work on this advantage to become a global player.
It is a myth to imagine that learning two languages would be a burden on one's intellect. It is believed that only 4 per cent of India is facile with English. It is also known that virtually all of these are equally competent with one or more other languages. In a country as large as India with its myriad of languages, the mother tongue needs to fulfil the role of establishing cultural moorings and English as the medium of intra-national and international intercourse in science and business.
The attempt therefore should be to introduce English along with the mother tongue as a link language rather than impede the wider aspirations of the common man by restricting his ambitions to his linguistic State or region. The state's paternalistic attitude that the poor and the marginalised learn only in their mother tongue while the rich metro educated children can cope with the mother tongue and a global language appears to have a sinister motive.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
