 LANGUAGES IN EDUCATION

15.1 The present policy was enunciated by NPE 1968. After examining the question in great detail, the NPE came to the conclusion that the essentials of the 1968 Policy on languages could hardly be improved upon and that they continue to be relevant. The NPE commended energetic and purposeful implementation of the 1968 Policy provisions. The NPERC also reiterated the 1968 Policy. It concentrated on a study of the implementation of the policy and of the measures needed to improve its implementation. Its recommendations 3Ñ3 Š are useful for improving the ongoing schemes and for toning up the performance of the institutions in this field, such as the Kendriya Hindi Sansthan (KHS), the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages (CIEFL) and the Central Institute of Indian Languages (CIIL).

15.2 In regard to the Three-Language Formula, the NPERC opined that whatever be the difficulties or unevenness in the implementation of this formula, it had stood the test of time and that it was not desirable or prudent to reopen it. Two of us, however, are of the view that English should be the link language. The NPERC had urged the uniform and rational implementation of the Three-Language Formula and had made many suggestions in the area of language teaching, training of language teachers and curriculum development. It also had suggested proper coordination between KHS, CIEFL, and CIIL for ensuring uniformity in the matter of acquisition of language competency by the students in the school system (R.No.235). The NPERC also suggested conversion of CIIL into an autonomous body like CIEFL and KHS.

15.3 The NPERC also made many very useful suggestions for promoting the use of Indian languages in higher education, special measures for development of Hindi. as per Article 351 of the Constitution, maintenance and coordination of academic standards in Sanskrit education, development of Sindhi and other inter-state languages like Gorkhali, Santhali, Maithili and Bhojpuri, national level facility for training and translation, a fresh linguistic survey of India and use of technology for language development (R.Nos.236 -241 and 244- 247). We are of the view that all these recommendations, except R.Nos.239 and 246, are useful and should be taken into account in the revision of POA.

15.4 R.No.239 suggested the merger of Kendriya Hindi Sansthan (KHS), Central Hindi Directorate (CHD) and Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology (CSTT) with a view to strengthening and unifying the efforts for promotion of Hindi as envisaged in Article 351 of the Constitution. However, we feel that the merger of these three institutions would not be desirable. The charters of each of these institutions is different. The CHD is meant for production of bilingual, tri-

lingual, multi-lingual dictionaries and propagation of Hindi in non- Hindi speaking areas, KHS for training of Hindi teachers and CSTT for evolution of terminology in Indian languages. Further, the body that would emerge from the merger would be unwieldy; merger is also likely to generate service litigation as the service conditions of the employees of these three organisations would be affected.

15.5 R.No.246 suggests that a fresh linguistic survey of India based on rational principles should be undertaken. We notice that many agencies including the Registrar General of India, Anthropological 33 Š Survey of India and some institutions of educational research are already engaged on the collection of data on languages. In view of this as well as sharp differences of opinion on the issue of languages, and the possibility of controversies arising out of a linguistic survey, we feel that a fresh linguistic survey is not desirable.

15.6 The NPERC also supported the recommendation of the Ali Sardar Jafri Committee on the development of Urdu. We have been informed that the Department of Education, Government of India, are processing the entire report of the Ali Sardar Jafri Committee in consultation with the educationists and experts on Urdu language. We, therefore, are not offering any view on this recommendation.