Paperback
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781847690326 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Multilingual Matters Ltd. |
| Publication date: | 02/04/2008 |
| Series: | Bilingual Education & Bilingualism , #67 |
| Pages: | 136 |
| Product dimensions: | 5.80(w) x 8.20(h) x 0.30(d) |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
English as a Language of Decolonization
Administratively decolonization refers to the dismantling of colonial machinery and the departure of the colonizer in a grand or gory manner. For instance the spectacle of the British leaving Hong Kong and handing the territory over to China at midnight on 1 July 1997 was performed on the world stage with the pomp of a great Empire leaving in a dignified fashion. The exit from India of the British Empire in 1947, on the other hand, was bloody. The 'divide and rule' policy of the British was successful in dismembering South Asia into Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. The birth of these nations left millions dead in rioting between Hindus and Muslims, a past that these three countries have re-enacted since 1947 in smaller wars and daily border skirmishes. The foundation of the divorce between these countries was linguistic: Urdu in the Arabic script for Muslims in Pakistan versus Hindi in Devanagari for Hindus in India.
Decolonization as a psychological process for a nation is more complex. In the case of Africa decolonization has substituted neocolonialism in place of Empire. Young (2001) defines Nkrumah's idea of neocolonialism as colonization through institutions like the World Bank, the IMF and the Summer Institute of Linguistics, which try to Christianize indigenous populations and make them indebted through financial aid. 'Neocolonialism is ... the worst form of imperialism. For those who practice it, it means power without responsibility and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress' (Kwame Nkrumah, in Young, 2001: xi). This system is supported by an indigenous Western-educated elite that colludes with the ex-colonial masters for its own benefit.
Young's critique of Nkrumah's term neocolonialism is that it does not provide agency and voice to the colonized. He writes, 'His stress on a continuing neocolonial dominance has the disadvantage of suggesting a powerlessness and passivity which underestimates what has been achieved since independence, including the independence movements themselves, perpetuating stereotypes of helplessness even while it implies sympathy, and reinforcing assumptions of western hegemony with the third world being portrayed as its homogeneous eternal victim' (Young, 2001: 48). I think India is an illustration of how neocolonialism has been avoided due to Gandhi's unique methods of resistance, which challenged linguistic and other forms of imperialism, and will be discussed in detail later in this chapter.
The first half of this chapter is somewhat descriptive in nature as here I map the linguistic terrain of independent India in the form of a country case study. Starting with a documentation of the major and minor languages, or Scheduled and Non-Scheduled languages, as they are called in the Indian Constitution, I go on to explain the current national language policy and subsequently present the Three Language Formula (TLF), which is India's language-in-education policy. In the second more analytical half of this chapter I discuss the politics of Hindi as a national language and Gandhi's idea of Hindustani. Also, the issue of media of instruction in the debates on national education will be described as an illustration of the processes of decolonization that have, to a large extent, prevented the stranglehold of neocolonialism. Finally I show how the TLF is changing due to the impact of globalization and the demand for English. Attitudes towards the three languages in the TLF and their economic/cultural capital are illustrated through the 'subaltern speak' of Ram Nivas.
India: A Case Study
With 114 languages and a population in the 2001 census of just over one billion, India presents a fascinating case study for scholars of language in education and society. The census presents a more homogeneous picture of linguistic diversity in India than is the reality. For instance the Central Institute of Indian Languages finds that 'Over 1652 languages belonging to four different language families are spoken in India' (http://www.ciil.org). Annamalai (2001: 35) comments that India 'is functionally multilingual with forty-seven languages used in education as medium, eighty-seven in press, seventy-one in radio, thirteen in cinema and thirteen in state-level administration'. The decennial household census of India, one of the largest door-to-door household censuses in the world, has not yet tabulated all the results of the 2001 census at the time that this book is being written. Thus the language data presented in this case study are from both the 1991 and the 2001 censuses.
The 114 languages of India show immense philological diversity and consequently present a challenge for the national school system, which has to grapple with the schism between home language and media of instruction. This diversity is represented in Table 1.1 (http://www. censusindia.net/results/provindia1.html).
The Constitution of India divides these 114 languages into Scheduled and Non-Scheduled languages. The former is a set of 18 languages that appear in the VIIIth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, thus the term 'Scheduled Languages'. Only these 18 languages receive funding from the Central government in New Delhi for language maintenance, which include making provisions for these languages to be taught in the national school system as media of instruction, second or third languages. Linguistic groups must mobilize themselves to attain the privileged status of entering their languages as Scheduled Languages. The linguistic history of India, since the country gained independence from the British in 1947, shows that through political movements, some of which resulted in constitutional amendments, many new languages have been added to the VIIIth Schedule. According to the 1991 census, 18 languages are considered Scheduled Languages (Table 1.2, Bose, 1998: 151).
In December 2003 four minority languages, Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santali, were added to the list of Scheduled languages, bringing the total up to 22. This was implemented when the Parliament of India passed the Constitutional Bill of 2003, which is the 100th amendment to the Constitution of India (Mohanty, 2006).
The list of Non-Scheduled Languages consists of 96 dialects or languages, as shown in Appendix 1. As this list is from the 1991 census, it also includes Bodo, Dogri, Maithili and Santali, which, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, are now in the list of Scheduled Languages. Though the strength of some Non-Scheduled languages, like Bhili/ Bhilodi spoken by 5,572,308, is more than that of Konkani (no. 15 in Table 1.2), a Scheduled language spoken only by 1,760,607, Non-Scheduled languages do not have funding from the Central Government. In fact, most Non-Scheduled languages are spoken by tribal communities in the Central or North-Eastern States of India. In the context of India 'tribal' refers to communities, usually of non-Aryan origin, which some anthropologists consider to be the indigenous inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent predating the Aryans. These are disadvantaged groups living in remote rural areas practicing a highly animistic form of religion that some think is a form of Hinduism. Tribal communities are one of the least mobilized in the country. However, there is a Commissioner of Linguistic Minorities to protect their rights. The VIIIth Schedule is a highly amended document: as groups mobilize themselves and agitate for linguistic human rights, new languages are added to it. Of the 18 languages shown in Table 1.2, only 15 existed in the original set made in 1956.
National language policy and schooling
India's national language policy, which was formulated in the 1950s, is modeled on that of the then USSR, a gigantic influence on the socialist politics and economy of India until the 1990s. The status of national language that Russian occupied in the language planning of the ex- Soviet Union was given to Hindi by language planners in India. Like Russian, Hindi has uneasily worn this crown. In the Indian Constitution of 1950 Hindi was declared the national language and English the official language for the next 15 years till 1965. In these 15 years there was meant to be adequate corpus planning in Hindi to equip it to take over the role of official language from English. However, as 1965 approached there were linguistic riots in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, as non-Hindi speakers sensed impending disenfranchisement. In the face of such opposition, Jawaharlal Nehru, then Prime Minister of India, had the Constitution amended and in 1968 both Hindi and English were declared co-official languages. Though corpus planning in Hindi still continues, there is no date on which it is supposed to take over from English as an official language, a strategy of ambiguity that has successfully created the illusion of equitable distribution of linguistic capital.
Currently both Hindi and English are co-official languages. The Constitution of India does not contain a statement that declares Hindi to be the national language of the country. Each of the 28 states within the Indian federation has its own 'national' and official language combinations. These states were established in 1956 along linguistic boundaries, i.e. Hindi-speaking people were grouped into the state of Uttar Pradesh, Marathi speakers into Maharashtra and so on. Thus the geographical boundary of each Indian state is actually an isogloss. This linguistic organization of states, which was opposed unsuccessfully by both Gandhi and Nehru, was the result of mini nationalisms that in India have always centered around language as providing a distinct group identity.
Providing free and compulsory basic education till the age of 14 for all Indian citizens, a constitutional right, is a serious challenge for a developing country with a population of one billion. Though the Central Government has made strides, basic education is still a privilege, not a right. Table 1.3 is a snapshot of the growth of the school infrastructure in India. The educational institutions represented in Table 1.3 are managed by government bodies and do not include a large number of elite educational institutions that are privately funded. However, a majority of Indians use the subsidized government school system. The most widespread amongst these are the Kendriya Vidyalayas (Central Schools), supplemented by chains like the Rajkiya Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalayas (Sarvodaya Girls Schools) and Nagar Nigam Bal Vidyalayas (Municipal Schools). All schools in India, private and government funded, have to implement the TLF.
Though India has worked towards improving educational statistics, a lot more needs to be done. According to the 2001 census the literacy rate of India is 65.38% and that of the city of Delhi 81.82%. In both statistics great strides have been made since the 1991 census, which showed the literacy rate in India to be 51.63%, and that of Delhi as only 75.29% (www. censusindia.net). However, I also agree with Dreze and Sen that in the field of elementary education India has done worse than even the average of the poorest countries of the world. In this respect India is behind Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Burma, Philippines, Zimbabwe and Zambia (Dreze & Sen, 2005).
Vernaculars as media of instruction
In a multilingual country like India, media of instruction has always been a highly contested linguistic site. In 1882 there was a raging debate amongst the intelligentsia and the masses about media of instruction in the national school system. For instance the Sikh National Association wrote a memorandum to the Education Commission asking for Punjabi-medium education in primary schools in Punjab instead of Urdu-medium education, which was current at that time. In the same year the Punjab Brahma Samaj put in their petition for Persian and Urdu in the primary schools of Punjab to be replaced by Hindi. The arguments of these social groups were that Urdu is a foreign language for Hindus who speak Hindi in the province of Punjab. The replacement of Urdu by Hindi was contested by Muslims in the districts of Aligarh, Bulandshahr, Rurki and Meerut, who filed a petition of their own with the Education Commission. In this document they asserted that, 'Urdu is not our religious or national language. Nor was it introduced here from any foreign country. It is the product of India itself. It owes its origin to the joint action of both the Hindus and the Muhammedans. It has thus gradually become the vernacular language of India' (Bhattacharya et al., 2003: 173). Similarly the priestly class of Hindus wanted Sanskrit to have a place in the education system and some religious education to be built into the curriculum.
These debates confronted the Indian National Congress in 1947 when India became independent. Meeting the demands of the major linguistic groups and at the same time forging a national character through a common language was a serious challenge for a young nation. This was dealt with by the TLF.
The Three Language Formula
India's language-in-education policy, the TLF, was recommended by the All India Council for Education in 1956. It is part of the Kothari Commission Report of 1964–65, which is a comprehensive document planning India's educational future. After various modifications the TLF was codified in the National Policy on Education in 1968, which is considered by most sociolinguists as the date when the TLF came into effect. This language in education policy was endorsed by the National Education Policy of 1986 and then again by the Programme of Action in 1992, testifying not only to the entrenched nature of the TLF but also to the sensitivity of language issues in India, which the government thinks is best left untouched ( Annamalai, 2001). In addition to being India's bilingual education policy in the national school system, it is also part of the state's agenda for promoting multilingualism/multiculturalism and equipping Indians with a language of globalization.
According to the TLF all school-going children will have first, second and third languages by the time they complete secondary school. The first language or medium of instruction is the mother tongue/regional standard language, which must be used at the primary school stage (Grades 1–5). In cases where children speak a dialect of the regional standard or a different language altogether, they are being educated in a language different from their mother tongue. The second and third languages are introduced in secondary school (Grades 6–10, divided into lower and higher secondary) and are:
(1) Modern Indian Language (MIL) for Hindi speaking children, Hindi for non-Hindi speakers.
(2) English.
In many cases a classical Indian language like Sanskrit is taught to Hindi speakers instead of a modern Indian language.
The TLF is customized in each of the 28 states that make up the Indian federation. For instance the teaching of Hindi is obligatory in all Indian states except in Tamil Nadu, Tripura and the Karaikal region of Pondicherry. Similarly, though the teaching of English is obligatory, the state of Bihar refuses to comply. The state of West Bengal refuses to teach Hindi. The stage at which the second and third languages are introduced is dependent on the resources and ideology of the state. In general English is compulsorily taught in Grades 6–9.
Despite the entrenched nature of the TLF, it has numerous drawbacks. Annamalai (2001) raises the issue that the TLF does not really contribute to multilingualism in India. He writes that multilingualism in India is of three types: formal, nonformal and informal. The first is implemented through schooling, the second through adult literacy programs, distance learning and other such programs, and finally informal multilingualism is created through the lived experience of an Indian. Though the census data that Annamalai uses, from 1961 and 1981, are dated considering the year the book was published, he shows convincingly that 'in the bilingualism of the school age group less than half is contributed by schooling' (Annamalai, 2001: 52). The 1991 census shows that 19.44% of India's population is bilingual and 7.26% trilingual (http://www. censusindia.net/ results/ provindia3.html). Though these numbers look somewhat strange to me because I have never really met an Indian who is truly monolingual, I share Annamalai's hypothesis that this is the result not of schooling but mainly of 'informal' learning of languages that takes place in the life of an Indian.
A further shortcoming of the TLF is that it does not accommodate languages that are not regional standard languages, thus giving primacy to the needs of the state rather than the individual. For instance very few of the languages and dialects in Appendix 1 are part of the TLF, as they are the languages of disenfranchised, mainly tribal, minorities. Thus the TLF is not able to make good the Constitutional directive that the medium of education in primary school must be the mother tongue. Also, there is no constitutional or legal definition of a Modern Indian Language (MIL). In most schools MILs are not taught to Hindi speakers; instead a classical language like Sanskrit or Arabic is taught. Finally it favors Hindi speakers by laying less of a burden on them for acquiring a third language as compared to non-Hindi speakers.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Biliteracy and Globalization"
by .
Copyright © 2008 Viniti Vaish.
Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
PrefaceIntroduction
1. English as a Language of Decolonization
2. Biliteracy and Globalization
3. In what Languages is English Taught?
4. What is Taught?
5. In what Contexts is English Taught?
6. How Much is Learned?
7. Conclusion Bibliography
Appendix 1: Non Scheduled Languages
Appendix 2: 15 day Training Schedule for a Call Centre
Appendix 3: Photos