Treat English as a native language, not a colonial imposition

Rahul Singh

Some months back, I did a column on the contentious issue of language, pointing out that it could be even more divisive than religion. Religion had made West and East Pakistan, though separated by 3,000 kms of Indian territory, into one nation in 1947. But the forcible imposition of Urdu on East Pakistan, where Bangla speakers outnumbered the Urdu speakers, led to the creation of Bangladesh. In India, too, in the early 1960s, there were violent riots and 70 deaths in Tamil Nadu against the imposition of Hindi. There was even a demand for a separate nation of ‘Dravida Nadu’. Democracy came to India’s rescue when the DMK was elected to power in the state in 1967 and the separatist movement died down. We remained united while Pakistan split up. India’s second Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, had also reassured the non-Hindi-speaking states that English would continue as an official language, along with Hindi.

Earlier, C Rajagopalachari and Subhas Chandra Bose suggested that Hindi, or rather Hindustani, would be more acceptable to the south if it was in the Roman script. But the Hindi fanatics would have none of it. I believe there was a good opportunity then to have made Hindustani in Roman script the lingua franca of the country. Turkey, ruled by that great reformer Kemal Ataturk, did something similar in 1928 when it abolished the 1,000-year-old Arab script and replaced it with Roman. Turkey’s literacy rate shot up from 10 per cent to 90, on par with advanced countries. Indonesia, too, made the Roman script national, and has had no serious language problem since then. In India, however, a three-language policy was put in place that has simply not worked as it is grossly unfair to non-Hindi-speaking Indians, especially in south India.

The New Education Policy has been widely commented upon. Unfortunately, the disastrous three-language policy continues. The false notion that English and, by inference, the Roman script are “colonial” impositions on us and therefore unacceptable underlies the NEP. How come Turkey and Indonesia, along with a host of other countries in Africa and Asia, did not find it “colonial”?

The NEP also seems to ignore the hard realities on the ground and is full of airy platitudes. Learning outcomes in India, particularly in government schools, are abysmal. Which is why more and more children, even from relatively poor households, are gravitating to private schools. Another reason is that English is an aspirational language even for poor families because it is a ladder for jobs. Many parents might not speak it, but they want their children to do so. The result is that almost half of Indian children are now enrolled in private schools, whereas schooling should really have been the responsibility of the government. In most other countries, especially in the West, state-run free schools (called “grammar schools” in the UK and “lycees” in France) are top class. Margaret Thatcher, one of Britain’s most outstanding Prime Ministers, was the product of a grammar school. Elite schools like Harrow (where Nehru went) and Eton are also excellent, but with fees that only the rich can afford, as is indeed the case in India, with the likes of Doon School and Mayo College.

Returning to English, I made my first trip to China some four decades ago. I was amazed to find that the state-run radio and TV had long daily programmes on how to speak English. Even then Beijing had realised that if the country was to catch up with the advanced nations, more Chinese who knew English were needed. And look at China now, the second-largest economy in the world and an IT super power. And in India we are trying our damnedest to get rid of an asset, English, we already have, and which has at least made us into an IT and outsourcing giant. How short-sighted and foolish! Let us recognise English not as a “colonial” language imposed on us, but almost three centuries later, a “native” Indian language. As it is, it is spoken with so many varying accents that the way a Bengali, or a Punjabi, or a Tamilian speaks it, one can barely comprehend the other!

In conclusion, let me directly quote the NEP: “The three languages learned by children will be the choices of states, regions, and of course the students themselves, so long as at least two of the three languages are native to India.”

Note the sly use of the word “native”. The clear intention is to eliminate English, whereas I would argue that English has become “native” to India. Don’t get me wrong. We certainly do need a lingua franca that almost every country has. Perhaps in India, two are required: Hindustani — not shuddh Hindi — and English, or Hinglish. A recent survey shows that English is now the second most spoken language, cutting across all linguistic groups (the first of course is Hindustani). English is also globally the most spoken language. These are facts that cannot be wished away.

The NEP would ideally like all children to learn three languages. For a south Indian, that means three different scripts, as not only do we have 22 official languages, but numerous scripts as well. Do we want to produce children who spend most of their school and college time getting proficiency in languages and neglecting the study of other subjects that give a well-rounded education? Taken to its logical conclusion, we will become a nation of linguists — with skills in nothing else.

— The writer is a veteran journalist

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.