THE LINGUIST IN MULTILINGUAL INDIA
Indian Linguistics has made great strides during the last fifty years. The contribution of India and foreign linguists to the study and development of Indian languages can be seen from the two bibliographies released on the last Silver Jubilee day of the Linguistic Society of India. Even though the contribution is enormous, the areas of weakness continue to be large. The departments of Linguistics produce good teachers of Linguistics, but they generally fail to initiate Linguists to wider areas of study where problems of language are correlated with the more relevent social issues of the country, and thus the linguists continue to remain in the periphery of nation building activities.
All over the world there is deep concern about tensions between nationalism and a world community. The accent on the uniqueness of nationalism blurs the communality among differing ways of life. Those who are working towards meeting the challenges of a divided world, torn by ethnic, religious, linguistic, tribal and ideological factionalism, naturally grope in darkness to reset the disturbed mosaic. One of the reasons for their frustration is that, while the fact that the world is populated by diverse man and women with differing language, religion, food and dress habits, modes and manners, economic and political structures, is better realised by those planning for the reconstitution of the human community, it is not so with those planning for modern nations. It is assumed that modern nations have a dominant language, and dominant religion, a dominant ethnic group and a dominant way of life. The minority ways of life are enclaves and islands in a modern nation, either to be bypassed or to be finally absorbed by the dominant.
This cultural and developmental monomodel laying down rules for linear and vertical progression towards material progress and development, naturally, comes into conflict with actual facts of life where poverty, affluence, impotence and power are tackled variously by differing culture groups. The fact that in large parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America diverse populations and cultures live autonomous, yet interdependent, existence within vaguely defined land masses, creates problems for nation builders. Those who have built up entrenched privilege bases on the national models feel disturbed and threatened at the alternative presented by these multilingual, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural countries. The reason is two-fold. Once the idea of an alternative is accepted, the instruments created for developing and managing nationalism would be obsolete. Secondly, there would be greater demand for a humane treatment of those damned for their difference within the system, and, consequently, threaten the privileges of the advantaged.
India, with its ruling minority elite trained in the western tradition, illustrates the conflict between pluralism an nation building more vividly. The elite constantly harp on a 'viable polity', 'a strong Prime Minister', 'a centralised government', 'a national market', 'big modern plants', 'and a 'national mainstream'. According to them, the alternative to these is fragmentation, loss of statehood, anarchy or non-government. The fact of pluralism, if not decried outright, is painted as a great inconvenience and a barrier to building a modern nation state. Modernisation is equated with westernisation and, therefore, whatever does not fit into the model approved and accepted by them is considered quaint, archaic and outnoded.
Language brings out in clearer focus the inegalitarian society created as a result of ignoring the pluralistic base of Indian culture. In a country with 1652 mother tongues, ten major script systems, language development and language use pose major challenges. Through manipulation of language use in education and enforcing the notion of a dominant and a standard language or dialect, millions of children are made illiterate in their mother tongue. 88 out of every 100 drop out of school before Standard V and are, to a large degree responsible, for the 70 pre cent adult illiteracy in the country. The institutional education system is geared to the creation of a limited elite who have access to rank status, and wealth in the society. The others are branded drop-outs at different stages of education and are provided 'employment', while those who are uneducated are made to pay for maintaining this inequity. Higher education attracts the relatively more privileged. Only 1.8 per cent of the university students are from the weaker sections of the society.
Use of an artificial standard language or dialect in schools not only stigmatises the many spoken languages. It also creates a gulf between the home language and school language, which in turn creates low self image and low achievement through the entire education system. The argument for an imposed standard language or dialect and a language neutral between various contending interests is built on fear psychosis of fragmentation and guilt complex of anti-nationalism and anti-development. In this way, institutional education upholds the cause of the limited elite and creates newer inequities and introduces subtler discriminations.
Whether it is adult education or mass participation in the process of socio-economic reconstruction of the country, the entire exercise leads to frustration because of the non-recognition of the pluralistic base of communication. As large scale printing demands and promotes monolingualism, advanced technology, like Telestar technology, because of limitation of channels, inhibits pluralistic communication. Large scale data processing involving most modern computer operations would also favour reduction of data and operations to binary manipulations. This situation is naturally propitiate for the builders of nation states who would like to destroy the autonomous existence of small groups and individuals who stand as barriers to the monomodel of nationalism.
Administrative convenience was used as an argument by the colonial rulers for imposing English in administration. The same arguments in a different garb are being used even today. Whenever a concession is made to the local languages in education, it is offset by a calculated policy of rejection of its products in administration. There is evidence that Marathi medium students were discriminated against while seeking admission to higher professional courses. First class Tamil graduates were rejected in favour of Second class English graduates in Tamilnadu in the recent past. By resisting to link one level of education with another, and language of education with language of administration and language of mass communication, the managers of people's affairs have succeeded in fostering and sustaining an inequitable system which favours themselves.
Language is the key to the understanding of the mutually reinforcing relationship among language use, elite formation, vertical growth of education, unequal opportunities, and greater social and economic inequality. Research has shown not only higher correlation between higher social strata and higher education but also negative correlation between lower social status and higher opportunities. The social hierarchies are reinforced by institutional education, thus creating newer inequities where none existed before. The understanding of the socio-economic process would not be completed without an understanding of the dialectic relationship between language and society. It is a challenge to the profession of Linguists to make these language-related issues explicit and create a favourable atmosphere for a people-oriented approach. Indian linguists can provide leadership to the Third World countries in this regard and help the forces seeking an alternative to the present oppressive authoritarianism built around a pseudonationalism. Linguists should rise to the occasion of protecting the existing communities, thus laying down viable principles for building a world community.
The linguistic and cultural pluralism in the country is threatened by planned action in favour of one language and one script. Diverse ways of life and multiform expression of the Indian culture are threatened by imposed standardisation, pressures of large scale printing, one language and one script movement which seeks to replace variety by one, and, above all, by institutional education which promotes mono-lingualism.
A cursory look at the realities in India will prove that all border zones among languages are bilingual, if not trilingual. The work force in industrial cities and towns are bilingual. Speakers of most minority languages are bilingual. Even the tribals for mutual contact have developed a Desia, a Sadari or a Nagamese as a bridge to the neighbouring dominant languages. The Sindhi, Punjab and the Keralite people, who, for business or employment, are spread all over the country, are multilingual. It is only those who are schooled argue about and argue against the need for learning more languages. For, the reality is the greater the schooling the greater is the demand for less and less language.
A new vocabulary has been added to the discipline of education by calling language a load. Nobody thinks that learning local, regional, national and world history is a load. But an argument is put forward that learning languages for local, regional, national and international communication is a load. People forget that whether a language is taught as a subject or a medium, the main purpose is communication. The communication may be from speaker to hearer or from writer to reader. Therefore learning a language is more than learning a content subject. It is learning a new universe of discourse. Learning a new language is acquiring ability to perceive reality in a new way. When the same reality is perceived and described variously by different languages, cultivation of many languages is not merely enriching, if acts as a shield against ethnocentric prejudices. Secondly, unless one is competent in various language skills through which one has acquired knowledge, he cannot aspire to do well in content subjects. If language competence is low, then, clarity of concepts is bound to be affected and consequently clarity in expression is bound to suffer. As the UNESCO Report on "Interaction between Linguistics and Mathematical Education" shows, performance in Mathematics is related to the performance in language skills.
If the aim is to reach education to the 88 out of hundred who do not get a chance to go beyond the primary school, then a strategy must be evolved to link their mother tongue with different segments at different levels within and outside the country. Therefore, any reduction of language in the curriculum will not only affect education adversely, but also create an oppressive atmosphere affecting the very basis of Indian culture.
No matter from whichever point one looks at the Indian reality, Language planning based on functional hierarchy among multiple languages is the only way. It is challenge to the linguists of the country to help in planning and implementation of a language programme based on the acceptance of the multilingual bases of the country.