Language and Level-Headedness

 

A. N. R. College, Gudivada

Ever since we attained independence, we have been confronted with scores of problems a good many of which have proved formidable. But India is not the only country to face challenges soon after assuming self-governance; food, education, agriculture, industry and defence are the major fronts with which all countries have had to grapple to ensure the betterment of the people. While this thought consoles our turbulent mind and inspires confident march ahead, it is extremely nauseating that a comparatively smooth path in the nation’s onward march should have been hemmed in by thoughtless thorns: this is the language front.

More heat than light has been generated in almost all the sporadic sessions of debate over the language controversy. Unfortunately, common sense has been the chief casualty even when eminent elders have participated in the debate. It should be useful to delve into the developments of the language issue albeit desultorily to keep an open eye and mind so as to arrive at a practical and pragmatic solution.

In the pre-independence era when the Englishman came to be despised for his organised drain of our economy and his refusal to quit the country, it was only natural to hate everything symbolising him, including his language. Even so, many level-headed people could perceive the richness of the language and its internal status. They were therefore glad that the spread of English was a gain for the country. This attitude did not make patriotism suspect nor did in any way undermine the growth of indigenous languages. On the contrary, they developed a new lion.

Mahatma Gandhi was one of the best writers in English. Abolition of English was not one of his aims in his programmes of national reconstruction. He could easily have dispensed with English. Some friends suggested to him that he should stop publication of the English edition of “Harijan”. He refused and said “Englishmen, as well as Indian scholars of the English language, consider me to be a good writer in the English language.” If Tagore had had a narrow approach to language, India would not have had a Nobel laureate in literature.

However, it was universally recognized that education should be imparted in the child’s mother-tongue instead of in English–as far as possible. Consequently the instruction medium was changed up to the stage of secondary education. It is noteworthy that the system was not extended to higher education. The main reason for it was the inadequacy of the indigenous languages to serve the needs of university or technical education.

With the advent of independence, we became absolutely free to mould our own destiny. Feelings suppressed or inhibited hitherto got a release and a relief. Strong opinions were voiced about a rehash of the language pattern and policy. The place of English vis-a-vis administration and education had to be reviewed and revised.

The Constituent Assembly was charged with the task of choosing between English and Hindi to be the official language of India. The Assembly was equally divided and the chairman’s casting vote tilted the balance in favour of Hindi. (Ironically enough, the Constitution itself was written in English.)

Now, Hindi happens to be spoken by the single largest segment of the society and hence its enshrinement in the Constitution cannot and should not be grudged. However, the propostion of all non-Hindi-speaking people is far higher. It behoves this privileged Hindi section of the people to see that their non-Hindi brethren do not suffer disadvantages deriving from a geographical incidence. The fact that the English Schedule to the Constitution mentions all the fourteen languages as national languages is a pointer in this direction. The blessing and the boost Hindi received gave a lever to a section–a sizable and vociferous section–of Hindi peopleto advance its claims in an indecent hurry.

A new language cannot be learnt as easily and quickly as it is imposed. Additionally the imposition, under Constitutional cover is tantamount to bad manners. Fifteen years is too short a period for a complete change-over from English to Hindi but voluntary acceptance and spread of Hindi have been further stalled because of emotional and psychological factors. The blame for this should be squarely laid on Hindi zealots.

Jawaharlal Nehru had abundant common sense whatever his other virtues might have been. While he was emphatic as a free nation should have our own national language, he was quick to realise that the introduction of Hindi as the official language should in no way prejudice the interests of non-Hindi people. Speaking in the Lok Sabha on August 7, 1959, he said that English would be retained as an associate official language “as long as people require it, and I would leave the decision for that not to the Hindi-knowing people but to the non-Hindi-knowing people.” And Lal Bahadur Shastri who, as Railway Minister, refused to present his budget in English and even before he succeeded Nehru as Prime Minister, also realised the injustice that would be engendered by replacing English with Hindi. Speaking at the convocation of all-India Youth Congress in September, 1962, he observed: “English is more or less a common language of all states, and communication between the states and the centre is in English: and if English were to be dropped, India would be divided into water-tight compartments and the country would be disintegrated. The question of language should be considered in the wider context of national integration.” For their part, non-Hindi States who had originally demanded a constitutional amendment for making English an associate official language came down as a peg and were prepared to accept the proposed Official Language (Amendment) Bill which has yet to be introduced in Parliament. Countries like Canada, Belgium and Switzerland have plurality of official languages. There is no reason why India should hesitate to accept English as an associate official language.

The place of English in education should now be discussed. The principle that education is best imparted in the student’s own language is unexceptionable. But the approach to this question should also be practical and rational, rather than emotional and egoistic.

For almost two centuries English has been with us. Coeval with its spread, knowledge has advanced by leaps and bounds. Consequently we have had modern education in and through English. We won independence just twenty years ago. Nobody can seriously claim that our regional languages are as rich and competent as English. How then can they replace English in a specified period of time like 5 years, without detriment to the already diluted standards?

Two extreme and mutually incompatible views have been forcefully advanced in this regard. One section of people wants English to continue to be the medium of instruction for all time, the other wants immediate replacement of English by the regional languages. Both are untenable. A cool and careful study of the tussle can be helpful. Perhaps the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

Knowledge both in sciences and humanities has made tremendous strides in recent years. The addition to existing knowledge is so vast, varied and staggering that few individuals even among specialists can comprehend all of it in their own special branch.

If we are to have the regional languages as media of instruction for even higher education, the vast fund of knowledge has to be translated into them. And even before the translators are half-way through it, more fresh knowledge gets heaped on the mass. Additionally, it is the experts in each subject that should do the translation. Would it not be unwise to waste their precious talent in the mechanical work instead of utilizing it for a natural and national good?

Reacting to the proposal to adopt regional languages as the media of education at all stages and in all subjects, six eminent people recently issued a joint statement which said: “While we should welcome the development of the regional languages, we are convinced that to allow the teaching and learning of English to weaken at the university stage will more quickly make India a number in all learning, particularly science and technology, and even in the social sciences, than anything else one can think of.” The signatories were C. D. Deshmukh, H. N. Kunzru, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, A. L. Mudaliar, M. C. Setalvad and B. Shiva Rao. For pleading in this way, none of these can be charged with a weak sense of nationalism. Nor other stalwarts and statesmen like Rajagopalachari and Radhakrishnan can be branded anti-Indian for their proficiency in English or pronouncements on English.

Another massive rally (not mass rally!) for a cautious approach was by 5,000 students of the Bombay University in form of a memorandum to their Vice-Chancellor. They said: “To abandon English at this stage out of misconceived political considerations would be to deny ourselves access to the war reservoir of knowledge and research.” The signatories are among the most brilliant and disciplined students in the country.

Granting that translation of even the most up-to-date knowledge is possible, a more serious problem will stare in our face. Each region will have its own set of words and terms and students of one region will be utter strangers in another region. The tragic implication of this development is that inter-state mobility of students and teachers will come to a standstill. Surely, this is not the best way of promoting national integration.

It has been almost decided that even for all India services examinations would be conducted in all the regional languages. It is not clear how the evaluation of answers can have a uniform standard. Further, can the tendency of examiners to catapult the worth of candidates from their own respective regions be ruled out? All these fantastic moves only highlight the linguistic chauvinism to which we are reduced in our bid to jettison English. We are almost on the verge of cutting our nose to spite our face.

A list of technical words is said to be almost ready for use and it has borrowed words from English as well as the regional languages so that it could have universal appeal and acceptance. Even such a list cannot be free from imbalance. For instance, the proportion of Tamil words may not be exactly equal to that of Hindi words. And the “foreignness” of the words still continues as far as any single region is concerned! We thus find ourselves in a rather comical position: in order to avoid English, a foreign language, we have prepared a patchwork whichcontains words from more than one language! Let us make no mistake. To an Andhra, for example, English is as foreign as Hindi or Bengali.

That students can acquire knowledge best in their own language is indisputable. The most practical and sensible course would be to adopt this three-point recipe:

1. Retain all advanced technical terms in English. We can easily do this since we have got over our objection to retain some English terms. We can then carry on teaching and examining the regional languages. Since the terminology is the same throughout the country, mobility of scholars will not be hindered. For a scholar from one region to pick up a working knowledge of another regional language should be fairly easy.

2. Intensify the study of English even from the secondary stage of education. A sound knowledge of English is a sure passport for higher learning at home or abroad. Even in countries like Russia, Japan and China more and more students are enabled to imrove their knowledge of English.

3. Work the three-language formula whole-heartedly. This will not only enlarge the students’ minds but will eventually enlarge their hearts also. That will surely pave the way for emotional integration.

The suggestion to retain English and international terms will be treated by some purists as infra dig as it would undermine our languages. But adoption and adaptation of foreign words cannot in today’s one-world concept and context, be completely avoided nor an ostrich-like attitude can automatically put our nationalism on a high pedestal.

If English, today, is such a rich language, it is largely, or even wholly, because of its ever-willing readiness to borrow words from other languages including those of India. In an article on “Linguistic wealth from the Indies,” Lincoln Barnett observes that while some individual English words have worked their way into the various Indian languages, “the reverse process has been of quite a different order. The Oxford English Dictionary lists 900 basic words derived from India, plus thousands of derivatives.”

When such is the case with commonplace vocabulary, why should we fight shy of borrowing, appropriating and amalgamating technical words from English? That is the only way we can master modern knowledge easily and quickly.

It is pertinent here to recall that the so-called Arabic numerals, which are used all over the world, originated in India and were carried westward by the Arabs. No nation is incapable of “manufacturing its own numerals. Circumscribed feelings of nationalism have not blinded other nations to the convenience of continuing the foreign numerals. Reciprocally, therefore, our advocates of pure Swadeshi can feel proud that we too have contributed a vital aspect of life to the world. Accordingly, we need not shut our doors to “foreign” technical terms.

Let us realise that acquisition of knowledge and its application to the welfare of mankind is more important and urgent than squabbles over whether a word here or a phrase there is our “own” or not. After all, are we not already using many commonplace English words like “bus”, “road”, “rail” and ever so many English names of implements like “wrench”, “screw”, “nut”, etc.? Let us not become numbers by trying to treat English words as “untouchables.”