 LANGUAGES IN EDUCATION

Background

11.1.0 Languages are 'central to education. Education Policy should, therefore, spell out in clear terms the manner of their use and development. In our pluralistic society, use and development of languages in the education context is riddled with complexities. The magnitude of the problem is self-evident from the census data. There are 1652 mother tongues in India. There are over 100 languages spoken by about 662 million people. Ninety of them are spoken by 10, 000 people or more. The speakers of languages mentioned in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution are 632.3 million, that is nearly 96% of the total population. The languages belong to four principal families, namely, the Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Astro-Asiatic and Tibeto- Burman, howsoever these languages having been in close contact for centuries have come to develop and share certain commonalities in idioms, metaphors, images and semantic constructions. Languages which are used as media of instruction in the schools, as of now, are sixty- seven.

11.2.0 It is in the backdrop of these complexities that educational planners in India have had to evolve a policy for teaching and learning of languages in the educational system. The one now in existence is the policy set out in the National Policy on Education, 1968. The National Policy on Education, 1986 commended the implementation of the policy of 1968 "energetically" and "purposefully".

Languages in Education Policy of 1968:

11.3.0 For the sake of convenience, the Education Policy of 1968, so far as it concerns the development of languages, is presented below:

(a) Regional Languages

The energetic development of Indian languages and literature is a sina qua non for educational and cultural development. Unless this is done, the creative energies of the people will not be released, standards of education will not improve, knowledge will not spread to the people, and the gulf between the intelligentia and the masses will remain, if not widen further. The regional languages are already in use as media of education at the primary and secondary stages. Urgent steps should now be

251

(b) Three-Language Formula

At the secondary stage, the State Governments should adopt, and vigorously implement, the three- language formula which includes the study of a modern Indian language, preferably one of the southern languages, apart from Hindi and English in the Hindi-speaking States, and of Hindi along with the regional language and English in the non-Hindi-speaking States. Suitable courses in Hindi and/ or English should also be available in universities and colleges with a view to improving the proficiency of students in these languages up to the prescribed university standards.

(c) Hindi

- Every effort should be made to promote the development of Hindi. In developing Hindi as the link language, due care should be taken to ensure that it will serve, as provided for in Article 351 of the Constitution, as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India. The establishment, in non-Hindi States, of colleges and other institutions of higher education which use Hindi as the medium of education should be encouraged.

(d) Sanskrit

- Considering the special importance of Sanskrit to the growth and development of Indian languages and its unique contribution to the cultural unity of the country facilities for its teaching at the school and university stages should be offered on a more liberal scale. Development of new methods of teaching the language should be encouraged, and the possibility explored of including the study of Sanskrit in those courses (such as modern Indian languages, ancient Indian history, Indology and Indian philosophy) at the first and second degree stages, where such knowledge is useful.

(e) International Languages

- special emphasis needs to be paid on the study of English and other international languages. World knowledge is growing at a tremendous pace, especially in science and technology. India must not only keep up this growth but should also make her own significant contribution to it. For this purpose, study of English deserves to be specially strengthened.

The Three-Language Formula

11.4.1 To deal with the three-language formula first: The following problems have been encountered in the implementation of this formula:

- Often, the States offer, in the first, second and third languages more optionals than stipulated in the three- language formula. Even though the number of languages taught is three, the languages are not those in the formula. The preferred third language in the

252

Hindi State is often Sanskrit and not a modern Indian language a southern language though classical languages like Sanskrit do not find place in the three language formula. Controversies, consequently, arise in favour or against accommodating such classical languages within the formula.

- There are differences in the motivation for learning of the third language. While there is economic motivation for learning Hindi in non-Hindi States, the motivation for learning southern languages in Hindi States is largely cultural. This results in lack of uniformity in learning objectives and competence levels in the third language.

- The demand from linguistic minorities to fulfil the commitment for facilities to learn in the mother tongue in schools at the primary level is often not complied with The problem concerning the place of minority language in the three language formula gets confounded on account of the fact that every State is multilingual with two or more minority languages. The particulars of speakers of minority and majority languages in the various States are furnished below:

        
        State/Union        Majority language &        Percentage of speakers
        
        Territory           % of its speakers     of minority languages 
        
        Andhra Pradesh      Telugu         85.13               14.87
        Arunachal Pradesh   Nissi/         23.40               76.60
                            Dafla
        Assam               Assamese       60.89               39.11
        Bihar               Hindi          80.17               19.83
        Goa                 Konkani        56.65               43.35
        Gujarat             Gujarati       90.73               9.28
        Haryana             Hindi          88.77               11.23
        Himachal Pradesh    Hindi          88.95               11.05
        Jammu & Kashmir     Kashmiri       52.73               47.27
        Karnataka           Kannada        65.69               34.31
        Kerala              Malayalam      95.99               4.01
        Madhya Pradesh      Hindi          84.37               15.63
        Maharashtra         Marathi        73.62               26.38
        Manipur             Manipuri/      62.36               37.64
                            Meitei
        Meghalaya           Khasi          47.45               52.55
        Mizoram             Mizo/          77.58               22.42
                            Lushai
        Nagaland            Ao             13.93               86.07
        Orissa              Oriya          82.23               17.77
        Punjab              Punjabi        84.88               15.12
        Rajasthan           Hindi          89.89               10.11
        
        
                                         253
        
        State/Union         Majority language          Percentage of speakers
        
        Territory           % of its speakers        of minority languages 
        
        
        Sikkim              Nepali        60.97                 39.03
        Tamil Nadu          Tamil         85.35                 14.65
        Tripura             Bengali       69.59                 30.41
        Uttar Pradesh       Hindi         89.68                 10.32
        West Bengal         Bengali       86.34                 13.66
        
        
 Union territories 
        
        Andaman & Nicobar   Bengali       24.68                 75.32
        Islands
        Chandigarh          Hindi         55.11                 44.89
        Dadra & Nagar       Bhili/        68.69                 31.31
        Haveli              Bhilodi
        Delhi               Hindi         76.29                 23.71
        Lakshadweep         Malayalam     84.51                 15.49
        Pondicherry         Tamil         89.18                 10.82

(Based on 1981 census except information about Assam which is based on 1971 census

- Problems concerning provision of facilities in schools for teaching of minority languages often arise particularly in inter-State border districts. They also arise on account of demands made for provision of teaching in languages not necessarily identifiable with any particular State, e.g. Urdu and Sindhi. Demands are also made for facilitating learning of languages based on the inclusion in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution (here, particular reference is to Urdu, Sindhi, Kashmiri and Sanskrit languages).

- The three-language formula does not speak of the mother tongue but only of the use of regional language alongwith Hindi/Modern Indian Languages and English. So, the formula leaves itself open for varied interpretation giving rise to controversy from time to time.

- The three-language formula is restricted only to the secondary, stage. Consequently each State decides how many languages and to what degree fewer or more languages should be taught at other stages of education. The result is that different States have different policies at the primary level and at the higher secondary level.

254

11.4.2 On a subject like languages which is at once an integrative as well as disintegrative factor, a water tight stipulation-is not appropriate. What is important is appreciation of language as a means to an end, namely, imparting of communication competency for reading, writing and speaking in the overall national and international context. This appreciation is faciliated best by an understanding of the following sound considerations regarding language learning referred to in the report of Education Commission, 1964-1966:-

* Creation of motivation for learning languages is a complex social process. This depends more on social and economic factors outside the school than on academic programmes of the school itself.

* Learning of language should not be a burden on the child at the primary stage through imposition. 'Such imposition can vitiate his (child's) entire attitude towards his studies and may generate hostility to the school itself. This would be counter-productive at a time when our chief objective is to 'win the masses over to education.'.

* The priority should be for teaching the mother tongue well and eradicating illiteracy; the study of additional language at the primary stage should be kept at the minimum.

* Three languages at the elementary stage will interfere with the development of the child's mastery over his mother tongue and with his intellectual growth.

* At the secondary stage the student would have been 'won over to education. Compulsory study or a heavier language load at this stage does less harm.

* Learning of English/Hindi should be facilitated not in terms of years of study but in terms of hours of study and level of attainment. Two levels of attainment could be envisaged those who study for three years; and those who study for six years.

* Learning of other modern Indian languages in each region facilitates 'multiple channels of internal communication'.

* Language learning should also be construed as a means of securing national and social integration. This would be facilitated by learning of English or Hindi as link languages.

* Learning of English may be facilitated in the upper primary or secondary stages considering that this would be needed as a 'library language' in the field of Higher Education and, consequently, a storng foundation

255

in the language will have to be laid at the school stage.

* Learning of additional languages in general is a costly and difficult load which the education system is ill-equipped for. The States, most oft en, do not have adequate resources for provision of additional language teachers.

* Students (and parents) are often indifferent in the matter of school level learning of more languages which adds to their workload without directly providing skill or knowledge usable in immediate life.

11.4.3 Presented below is a statement on the atatus of implementation of the three-language formula in the various States.

256

257

258

259

260

11.4.4 As it is apparent from the statement, there is no uniformity in the number of years of learning of the various languages consistent with the considerations projected by the Education Commission 1964-66 though there has been a broad consensus in the country for the acceptance of the three-language formula. The Programme of Action (POA) . formulated with reference to NPE 1986 identified the following deficiencies in its implementation:

* All the languages are not being taught compulsorily at the secondary stage.

* Classical language has been substituted for a Modern Indian Language in some States; no provision exists for the teaching of South Indian languages for which the formula indicated preference for the Hindi speaking States (A point already brought out).

* Duration for compulsory study of three languages varies.

* Competency level to be achieved by students in respect of each language has not been precisely specified.

11.4.5 The Sarkaria Commission, having traced the entire history of the formula has called, in the following words, for its implementation uniformly and in its true spirit:

The States Reorganisation Commission has inter alia recommended that the Government of India should, in consultation with State Governments, lay down a clear policy in regard to instruction in mother tongue at the secondary stage. The All India Council for Secondary Education recommended the adoption of a three-language formula in September, 1956. This formula was also endorsed by the Chief Ministers' Conference 1961 in a simplified form. The National Policy on Education 1968 also laid down that the "three-language formula" should be vigorously implemented. The National Policy on Education 1986 has also laid stress on the implementation of the same.

Unfortunately, the "three-language formula has. been observed more in breach. Some States are following what is virtually a two-language formula. One State is imposing what is virtually a four-language formula on linguistic minorities. We are of the view that effective steps should be taken to implement the three- language formula in its true spirit uniformly in all the States in the interest of the unity and integrity of the country.

261

Recommendations

11.4.6 Whatever be the difficulties or unevenness in the implementation of the three-language formula, it has stood the test of time. It is not desirable or prudent to reopen the formula.

(i) In order to bring about uniform and rationalised implementation of the three-language formula the following measures should be taken: a) The Kendriya Hindi Sansthan (KHS), Central Institute of English and Foreien Languages (CIEFL) , and Central Institute of Indian Languages (CIIL), the three National level institutions charged respectively with the development of teaching of Hindi, English and modern Indian languages should come together and, in consultation with the CBSE and NCERT and each of the concerned State Governments, spell out modalities of ensuring uniformity in the matter of acquisition of language competency by the students in the school system. They should particularly bear in mind the observation of the Education Commission 1964-66 that learning of languages could be facilitated not merely in terms of years of study but in terms of hours of study and level of attainment (particular mention could be made in this context of the English language teaching package which the CIEFL has developed under the title 'English - 400' - a package which facilitates teaching and learning of English in 400 hours spread over three years. The objectives of the consultation mentioned above may be:

- Specification of the objectives of teaching different languages;

- Specification of levels of language proficiency to be reached in respect of each language; and

- Specification of the class from, and the duration for which the three languages will be taught.

(Though achievement of these objectives have been referred to as pre-requisites in the POA,1986, concrete effective action is yet to emerge).

b) One of the principal activities undertaken by all the three national level language development institutions, the KHS, the CIEFL and the CIIL is training of teachers of Hindi, English and modern Indian languages. The KHS trains teachers from non-Hindi speaking States in the teaching of Hindi as a second or third language.

262

Likewise, the CIIL trains teachers in the teaching of modern Indian languages as a third language. The CIEFL offers post-graduate diploma courses for those teaching at the college level. Further, they conduct in-service training programmes for teachers at the school level. These institutions, however, have been constituted differently. The CIEFL is a deemed university. The KHS is an autonomous Organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act. The CIIL is only a subordinate office of the Department of Education, Government of India. While the CIEFL and the KHS have considerable operational flexibility on account of their constitution, the CIIL is subject to all the functional rigidities of a subordinate office of the Government. Majority of the faculty of the CIIL even at the primary level are doctorate holders. In terms of teaching and research, they have been doing very important work in the area of development of modern Indian languages. Their work is also predominantly academic in nature. Unlike in the case of subordinate offices of the Government of India exercising regulatory functions of the government, as an academic institution, the CIIL deserves to be relieved of the functional rigidities of a subordinate office. It may be converted into an autonomous body.

The capacity of the CIIL for teacher training often remains considerably under-utilized as reflected by the following statistics:

        
        Year            Capacity                Capacity
                       (No. of Seats)           Utilized 
        
        
        1986-87        360                      354
        1987-88        360                      279
        1988-89        360                      391
        1989-90        360                      246
        1990-91        360                      259