Hindi Hai Hum?

Kapil Sibal with his basket of reforms, whether good or not, has done one great thing. It has brought education back into the public debate. Though his proposed educational reforms were released a few months back, the discussion on We the People yesterday brought to forth different perspectives on the 'three language formula' proposed by Kapil Sibal. He has urged the state boards to follow the three language formula with the vernacular-Hindi-English subjects at the school level.

This has instigated the age old debate - the one that was started in the 1930s. The two viewpoints are - the Hindi speaking states in India think that Hindi should be the langua franca. While the non-Hindi speaking states (especially Tamil Nadu) do not agree to that point. The first such conflict was seen in 1937-38 when the Congress Government of Madras Presidency under Rajagopalachari tried to make Hindi a compulsory subject in schools. Anit-Hindi imposition protests, finally, led to withdrawal of compulsory teaching of Hindi in 1940

Take two. After the independence, in 1950, Hindi was chosen as the national language of India by constituent Assembly. But, again, because of the protests of the non-Hindi speaking states, the resolution was deferred for 15 years.

Take three. In 1965, protests from the DMK and other regional parties, led Lal Bahadur Shastri, the then Prime Minister, to give up the agenda of making Hindi as THE national language. [source]

Take four. It's Kapil Sibal now - who is, in a way, trying to reiterate 1938, 1959 and 1965. So, essentially, what Sibal is proposing is nothing new. We have seen this many times in the history. One of the arguments against Sibal's proposal is that why should only the South learn Hindi? Why shouldn't the North learn a South Indian language? Hindi is just another regional language just as Tamil, Telugu, or Bengali is. The 'hindiwalas' argue that since the majority of the population in India speak Hindi, the others should also learn the language.

While being jingoistic about the language, we are forgetting the purpose of having a language: to communicate our thoughts and ideas. Sure, there are very strong cultural connotations to it, but the basic function remains the same - to communicate.

Our school followed three language formula - even before Kapil sabil proposed it. So, I studied English and Hindi till class XII and Bengali for two years - VII and VIII. Despite two years of formal education in Bengali, i was not very fluent in it. This is because, apart from the 45 mins class, i never felt the necessity to communicate in Bengali. In Kolkata, one doesn't need to know Bengali. But, when i joined the university, there was suddenly a need to learn Bengali as most people around, especially the 'babus' spoke Bengali. And that was it. I picked up the language in the first few months itself. The point i am trying to make is that what i couldn't learn in two years, i learned in a few months because there was a necessity. Of course, my two years of formal education made it easy.

When I was in Hyderabad, where again, one doesn't need to know Telugu, I picked up a few words of Telugu. This was because of my social initiative, Vriddhi. We go to schools of the under-privileged and conduct various workshops. Now, these children do not know Hindi or English well. They know only Telugu. So, i learned a few frequently used words to get by. Again, the point i am trying to make is that i learned Telugu (though just to get by) to help me in my social initiative (Vriddhi).

The resident 'Hindiwalas' don't feel the need for learning a South Indian language and south Indians don't feel the need to learning Hindi. However, both feel the need of learning English. This is strange because, English was brought to us by the Britishers who made India their colony and were not particularly liked by the Indians. Nevertheless, we still learn English. This is because of the immense opportunity it brings in. We forget about our past experiences with the British and learn English. So, clearly, it's more about demand and supply than about culture. If there is a demand for a particular language, one would definitely learn it.

For the non-Hindi speaking states, it make sense to adopt the three language formula. There is no harm to learn one more language. And, if given a choice to select the third language, Hindi would have been the obvious answer as Hindi would empower a person from a non-Hindi speaking state to connect to more people than any other language would. Pranab Mukherjee said that he cannot become the Prime Minister because he cannot speak Hindi. Also, his broken Hindi, perhaps caused a rift between him and Laloo.

Having said that, which language should a 'hindiwala' learn? If i were in a position to influence, i would propose the following:

Map a Hindi speaking state to a non-Hindi speaking state. The mapping, of course, would not to one-to-one. Now, these states should help each other in various aspects - like in trade, education, governance, etc. It's like the 'buddy program' in various universities. The Hindi speaking state, then learns the language of the buddy non-Hindi speaking state. This will boost cultural exchange, trade and travel between the states - which in turn would aid in development of India.

Indian are comfortable with plurality. And this plurality, if not replaced by narrow jingoism, can help in making India not only a more developed country but also a model of others to learn from.

Think...

Hash Include

Hash Include

Inclusion seems to be the new buzzword. From financial inclusion (as mentioned by the Indian President Pratibha Patil on the eve of Independence Day) and sexual inclusion (by the amendment of section 377 of IPC) to inclusion (at least, by being a witness on national television) into the process of selecting a groom. Not to forget the evergreen first line of a C program.

However, this word was more popularly used in the context of education. It refers to a state where children with and without disabilities study together. As on everything else, there are people who support the notion and there are people who do not. While, as on everything else, most people don't really care. I am not going to discuss whether or not 'educational inclusion' should be practiced. The reason is that apart from the obvious cases we don't know who falls and who doesn't fall under 'retarded' category.

Though, in theory, we may be able to classify people in terms of those with and without disabilities, the fact remains (and as hinted by Pauli's exclusion principle) that every child is unique with his own learning curve. So, while the know-all work out whom to include in which category and fight for what level of 'inclusion' is optimal, there is one thing we can do without much controversy.

Let me explain. The process of children education has two end-points - the producers (teachers) who are the sources of knowledge and the consumers (children) who take in the knowledge. Of course, there is self learning and self exploration. But for children, it works the best if the source of knowledge is another person. So, instead of having all teacher-for-the-normals teaching to 'normal' schools, we should have some 'special teachers' also in the 'normal' schools.

There are cases where children who need special teachers are sent to 'normal' schools - probably, because they are not thought of as 'special'. These children, obviously (and by definition), don't do well in the school and are deemed 'slow learners'. This makes the matter worse. One way to address this is to have special teachers in all 'normal' schools. These teachers would help in identifying students with special needs. They would also make other teachers - who put a lot of unnecessary and virtual pressure (reminds you of your boss?) on the students - sensitive to the fact the every child is unique.

This is what i thought of when i (again) watched Taare Zameen Par. We need people to identify and deal with children with special needs. We need 'inclusion' among teachers. I am sure this is not something which will arouse a lot of debates. Nether would the serial-topper's mother be worried about her child slowing down in study because some of his classmates have special needs. This is one area where we not only lack inclusion but also lack debate on it.

Do share your views on the concept of inclusion applied to teachers.