Language in Education: Minorities and Multilingualism in India

Author(s): Kamal K. Sridhar

Reviewed work(s):
Source: International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift fr
Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l'Education, Vol. 42, No. 4, The Education of
Minorities (1996), pp. 327-347
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3444906 .
Accessed: 27/09/2012 06:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Review of
Education / Internationale Zeitschrift fr Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l'Education.
http://www.jstor.org
LANGUAGE IN EDUCATION: MINORITIES AND
MULTILINGUALISM IN INDIA
KAMAL K. SRIDHAR
Abstract - The
question
of education in India cannot be
properly
discussed without
referring
to its
socio-linguistic
context. This
paper provides background
information
on the
linguistic profile
of India. The term "minorities" in the Indian context is defined,
and the
protection
offered to
linguistic
minorities in the Indian Constitution is
examined. A discussion of
language policy
in Indian education follows in which the
recommendations of the different education commissions are
analysed.
The
impor-
tant issues covered include: the number of
languages
that are
taught,
the medium of
instruction,
and the educational
policies regarding speakers
of
minority languages.
The article also discusses different
language
movements and their
impact
on Indian
education.
Zusammenfassung
- Die
Frage
der
Bildung
in Indien kann ohne einen
Bezug
zum
sozial-linguistischen
Kontext nicht hinreichend diskutiert werden. Dieser
Artikel liefert
Hintergrundinformationen
zum
linguistischen
Profil Indiens. Der
Begriff
"Minderheiten" wird im
Zusammenhang
mit Indien definiert und der den
Sprachminderheiten
in der indischen
Verfassung zugestandene
Schutz untersucht.
AnschlieBend wird die
Sprachpolitik
im indischen
Bildungssystem angesprochen
und
die
Empfehlungen
unterschiedlicher
Bildungskommissionen
werden
analysiert.
Die
wesentlichen
abgehandelten
Themen beinhalten
folgende
Bereiche: die Anzahl der
unterrichteten
Sprachen,
die
Unterrichtssprache
und die
Bildungspolitik
hinsichtlich
der
Sprachminderheiten.
Der Artikel befal3t sich aul3erdem mit unterschiedlichen
Sprachbewegungen
und ihrem EinfluB auf die indische
Bildung.
R6sum6 - On ne
peut
vraiment d6battre la
question
de l'Education en Inde sans
la
replacer
dans son contexts
socio-linguistique.
Cet article foumit une information
de base sur le
profil linguistique
de l'Inde. II
y
d6finit le terme de minorit6s dans le
contexte de ce
pays
et 6tudie la
protection que
la Constitution indienne assure aux
minorites
linguistiques.
I1 s'ensuit un
expose
de la
politique linguistique
dans
I'enseignement
de ce
pays,
incluant une
analyse
des recommandations des diff6rentes
commissions
pldagogiques.
Les
points
essentiels trait6s
portent
sur le nombre de
langues enseign6es,
la
langue d'enseignement
et les
politiques p6dagogiques
touchant
les locuteurs de
langues
minoritaires. L'article
analyse
enfin les diff6rents mouve-
ments
linguistiques
et leur influence sur l'6ducation en Inde.
Resumen -
La cuesti6n de educaci6n en la India no
podri
discutirse adecuadamente
sin hacer referencia a su contexto
sociolingfiistico.
Este
trabajo provee
informaciones
de fondo sobre el
perfil lingilistico
de la India. Define el t6rmino de "minorias" en el
contexto indio
y
examina la
protecci6n que
la Constituci6n de la India ofrece a las
minorias
lingilisticas.
A ello se
agrega
una discusi6n de la
politica lingiistica
en la
educaci6n
india,
en la
que
se analizan las recomendaciones de las diferentes comi-
siones de educaci6n. Fntre otras
cosas, los
puntos
tratados son: el nfimero de
lenguas
que
se
ensefian,
el medio de
instrucci6n, y
las
politicas
de educaci6n referentes a las
International Review
of
Education
-
Internationale Zeitschrift fir Erziehungswissenschaft
-
Revue Internationale de l'Education
42(4): 327-347, 1996.
? 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
328
personas que
hablan
lenguuas
minoritarias. El articulo tambi6n trata los diferentes
movimientos
lingfiisticos y
sus
impactos
en la educaci6n en la India.
Pc3IOMC
-
lpo6jneMa o6pa30BaHHu
B HHJAiK
He MOXCCT
npaBran
HO
o6cyiKaricCS
BHC CC
COIOJIiHHrBHCTH?ecKOro
KOHTCKICTa. B
cTraTbc aeCTCc
4OHOBax HH(opMaUHII
O
nI0 IHrBHCTKqCCKOO
c
CHTyaLUHI
B
HHREIH.
Onpe,censaeTc TCpMaH
MttmH^r-IWHTBS
B
KHH,AllCKOM KOHTCKCTC,
HCCnJCycCTCZ npo6neCMa
3amLHTbI
r3bKOBmX MCHLUIHHCTB
B
RHARICKOH
KOHCTHTyI.,Ha.
,aJIec
cJnclyCT o6cyxKCHHC
3wiKOBOa
nonJaTHK
B
HHAiHCKOM
o6pa30BaHHH, fnpicM aHanj3HpyirTCs peKOMCHiAaIag
pa3niHaHUx o6pa3oBaTCnJHblX
KOMHCCHi.
Baxie
o6cyx,uaeMHe sonpocs
BKJioaqarr: KOnJIHqCThO
npenoAaBaeMMX I3mrKOB, cpc,lCTBa o6yqeHmz
H
o?6p3oRnaTenwiaa
nonJIHTHKa
B
OTHomICHmI rOBOpIUHX
Ha
x3LfKaX
MCHbIHHCTB.
B CTaTbC TaKXC
o6cyxcaawOTC
nIHHBHCTHqCCKHC
ABHRCCHIH
a HX
BnXHmnH
Ha
o6pa3nnaHRe
B HHAmH.
Indian
multilingualism
Language
is one of the most debated
topics
in Indian education.
Being
a demo-
cratic, multilingual country,
India and its educators are
constantly grappling
with the issue of what
languages
should be the media of
instruction,
partic-
ularly
with reference to
speakers
of
minority languages,
some of which lack
standardized written forms. India's
linguistic diversity
can be attributed to:
(i)
different waves of invasion and colonialization
(the Aryans,
the
Moghul,
the
Portuguese,
the
British); (ii)
free
migrations
within and between the
different states and union
territories; (iii) political
influences
leading
to the
linguistic reorganization
of states
following
Indian
Independence
in
1947;
and
(iv) presence
of different ethnic and
religious
minorities distributed
throughout
India (Buddhists Jains, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians,
and
others).
Politically,
India is divided into 27
linguistically organized
states and nine
union territories. The
linguistic
scene in India is
very complex (For
an
overview see Kachru
1983,
1990; Khubchandani 1988; Pattanayak 1990;
and
Sridhar
1989a).
In
every region
or
state,
in addition to the
majority regional
language,
the
linguistic
situation is
complicated by
the
presence
of several
minority languages,
as well as caste and class dialects, some
lacking recog-
nized
scripts.
Given that there is little
agreement among linguists
as to what
are
languages
and what are
dialects,
it is difficult to
say
with
certainty
the
exact number of
languages spoken
in India. The earliest
attempt
at
codifying
the
linguistic diversity
of India was that of Sir G. A.
Grierson, who identi-
fied 179
languages
and 544 dialects in his
Linguistic Survey of India,
carried
out between 1886 and 1927. The next
attempt
was made in the 1951 Census,
following
India's
independence.
The census listed a total of 845
languages,
329
including
dialects,
of which 60 were
spoken by
not less than
100,000 persons
each for the redefined
territory
known as the Union
Republic
of India.
According
to
Pottanayak (1990: 1),
a much more
dependable
account of the
language multiplicity
in India was
presented
in the 1961
census,
based
upon
the
language
classification scheme of the
Linguistic Survey of
India. The list
presented
193 classified
languages corresponding
to
1,652
mother
tongues
that were
actually reported (Pattanayak
1990:
1).
The
languages belong
to four
different
language
families:
Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, and
Tibeto-Burman. The
majority
of the
population speak
one or more of the 17
languages specified
in Schedule VIII of the Indian Constitution. Ishwaran
(1969: 124) points
out:
This
bewildering variety
of
languages may
be
misleading
if it is not noted that 91%
of the
population speak
one or the other of the 15
[now 17] languages specified
in the Indian Constitution
(Pattanayak
1990:
2).'
Table 1
presents
the scheduled
languages
of India from the Census of
India, 1981,
in
descending
order of
speakers' strength
as a
percentage
of total
population.
As seen in Table
1,
no
single language emerges
as the dominant numeric
majority language
of the
country.
Even
Hindi-Urdu,
the
single largest
lin-
guistic grouping,
is
spoken
and understood
by only
45% of the
population.
The Constitution
recognizes
Hindi as the official
language
of
India,
and
English
as the associate official
language along
with a number of other
Table 1. Scheduled
languages
in
descending
order of
speakers' strength.
Language
Number of
speakers
% of Total
population
Hindi
264,188,858 39.94
Telugu 54,226,227
8.20
Bengali 51,503,085
7.79
Marathi
49,624,847
7.50
Tamil
44,730,389 6.76
Urdu
35,323,481
5.34
Gujarati 33,189,039 5.02
Kannada
26,887,837 4.06
Malayalam 25,952,966 3.92
Oriya 22,881,053
3.46
Punjabi 18,588,400
2.81
Kashmiri
3,174,684 0.48
Sindhi
1,946,278 0.29
Assamese'
70,525 0.01
Sanskrit
2,946
Source: Census of India
(1981).
*
No census was taken in Assam in 1980.
330
Table 2. State-wise distribution of
regional
and
minority languages.
State/Union
territory
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu and Kashmir
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Manipur
Meghalaya
Nagaland
Orissa
Punjab
Rajasthan
Sikkim
Tamilnadu
Tripura
Uttar Pradesh
West
Bengal
Andaman and Nicobar
Arunachal Pradesh
Chandigarh
Dadra and
Nagar
Haveli
Delhi
Goa, Daman and Diu
Lakshadweep
Mizoram
Pondicherry
Single largest language
and the total to household
population (%)
Telugu (85.13)
[No Census taken in 1980]
Hindi
(80.17)
Gujarati (90.73)
Hindi
(88.77)
Hindi
(88.95)
Kashmiri
(52.73)
Kannada
(65.69)
Malayyalam (95.99)
Hindi
(84.37)
Marathi
(73.62)
Manipuri (62.36)
Khasi
(47.46)
Ao
(13.94)
Oriya (82.83)
Punjabi (84.88)
Hindi
(89.89)
Nepali (62.57)
Tamil
(85.35)
bengali (69.59)
Hindi
(89.68)
Bengali (86.34)
Bengali (24.68)
Nissi/Dafla
(23.59)
Hindi
(55.11)
Bhili/Bhilodi
(68.69)
Hindi
(76.29)
Konkani
(56.65)
Malayalam (84.51)
Lushai/Mizo
(77.59)
Tamil
(89.18)
Percentage
of
population
speaking
other
minority
languages
14.87
19.83
9.27
11.23
11.05
47.27
34.31
4.01
15.63
26.38
37.64
52.34
86.06
17.17
15.12
10.11
37.43
14.65
30.41
10.32
13.66
75.32
76.41
44.89
31.31
23.71
43.35
15.49
22.41
10.82
Source: Census of India
(1981).
languages
included in Schedule VIII
(see below).
Scores of other
languages
are not recognized.
Each district in
every
state/union
territory
in India is
bilingual
and/or
multilingual,
with
speakers
of
"minority" languages ranging
from the
highest (86.06%)
in
Nagaland
which has no
"majority" language
to the lowest
(4.01%)
in Kerala
(Census
of India
1981).
Table 2 shows the
distribution of
linguistic
minorities in all the states and union territories on
India.
Thus,
looking
at the
figures presented
in Table 1 and 2 above, it is clear
that India is a nation of
linguistic
minorities.
331
Minorities in the Indian context
In a
democracy
such as
India,
where
people
are divided in terms of
religion,
language, caste, race, culture,
and socio-economic
factors,
one of the tasks
of the framers of the Constitution of India was to devise
safeguards
for the
country's
different minorities. At the time
[c. 1950],
the
demographic
scene
presented
a
peculiar composition.
There were
politically recogni7ed
minori-
ties,
often with
religious identities,
such as the
Sikhs, Muslims, Christians,
Parsees
(Zoroastrians
who came to India two millennea
ago
to
escape perse-
cution in
Persia),
and
Anglo-Indians (born
of mixed
marriages
between the
English
and
Indians).
In
addition,
a
very large
number of other cultural and
linguistic groups,
could be
distinguished
within the
population
and often
demanded to be
recognized
as scheduled castes and tribes.
The tribal communities in India deserve
special
mention.
According
to the
1980
census,
the
population
of the scheduled castes was
104,754,623,
and
the
figure
for scheduled tribes was
51,628,638.
About
23.519%
of the
country's
population
consisted of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes
(India
1985:
18;
Shah
1982).
The census listed 613 different tribal communities
(Government
of India
1978) using
304 tribal mother
tongues (mother tongues
not claimed
by
non-tribal
communities),
which were reduced to 101 distinct identifiable
languages.
What makes the
linguistic
scene so
complex
is that fact that most of the
tribal communities are
linguistically heterogeneous
in their mother
tongue,
and some are
ethnically heterogeneous.
This is obvious from the difference
between the number of tribal communities and the number of tribal mother
tongues
mentioned above. For
example,
in the northeastern state of Assam
and in Central India
(Madhya Pradesh),
whose tribal
populations
are 7% and
22%
respectively
of the total tribal
population
of the
country,
the 22 tribes of
Assam have 60 mother
tongues grouped
into 40
languages,
and the 58 tribes
of
Madhya
Pradesh have 93 mother
tongues grouped
into 38
languages (Itagi
et al.
1986).
In some
cases,
the dominant
languages
with which a tribal
community
is
in contact are also diverse. This is due to the fact that either
(a)
the
geo-
graphical boundary
of a tribal
community living contiguously may
have more
than one dominant
language
around
it,
or
(b)
a tribal
community may
live
non-contiguously
in the midst of more than one dominant
language.
Out of
the three million
Santhals,
for
example,
about 30% are in contact with
Bengali
in West
Bengal,
some 13% with
Oriya
in
Orissa,
and some 49% with Hindi
in Bihar
(Annamalai
1990:
26).
In the case of
India,
in addition to
religious
and ethnic
minorities,
one can
also
identify
different
types
of
linguistic
minorities:
(i) speakers
of minor
languages (languages
not included in schedule VIII of the
Constitution);
(ii) speakers
of
major languages
who become minorities as a result of
migra-
tion
(e.g., Telugu migrants
in the
Kannada-speaking
state of
Karnataka);
(iii) speakers belonging
to scheduled castes and tribes
(e.g., Gondi, Santhali,
332
etc.); (iv) religious minorities, e.g.,
Urdu
speaking
Muslims all over India
(Chakledar 1981;
Dua
1986); (v) linguistic
minorities who
speak major
lan-
guages
but are a
minority
because
they
lack numerical
strength
in their
juris-
diction of residence
(e.g., speakers
of
Sindhi, Kashmiri, etc.); and,
finally, (vi)
ethnic minorities
(e.g., Anglo-Indians, many
of whom claim
English
as their
native
language).
Protection offered to minorities in the Indian Constitution
The
problem
of the
minority
arises
only
in a
democracy,
observed Professor
Humayun Kabir,
"... There can be no
question
of minorities
except
in a
democracy.
Unless there is a
democracy
the
problem
would not arise in that
form at all"
(quoted
in Kumar 1985:
9).
The framers of the Indian Constitu-
tion were well aware of the
complexity
of the
minority problem
in
India,
and
the divisiveness that could result in a
newly independent country
if the safe-
guards
for the minorities were not
clearly spelled
out. The fundamental
rights
are
guaranteed
to the citizens as a whole. This means that these fundamental
rights (including
the
right
of all citizens to maintain their
languages,
estab-
lish their own
schools,
etc. For details see Kumar
1985),
are available to
every
citizen of India
regardless
of their
caste, creed, sex, language,
race,
or culture.
Political and social
rights
are
guaranteed
to all the citizens. In order that no
section of citizens suffer
by
whims and
caprices
of the
majority,
the
Constitution has further
provided
not
only
basic
rights
to the minorities but
also such
rights
as would
help
them conserve their
religion,
culture and
language (Imam
1972:
81). Special rights
for the minorities have been
designed
in the constitution to
bring
about
equality by ensuring
the
preser-
vation of the minorities institutions and
by guaranteeing
to the minorities
autonomy
in the matter of the administration of these institutions.
Measures taken for
protecting
minorities were
important.
The British
policy
of "divide and rule" had made minorities
suspicious
of the
majority.
In his
book India in
Bondage,
J. T. Sunderland
proclaims,
. . Before the British came to India,
there seems to have been little
hostility
between Hindus and Muslims.... It is
only
since British Rule in India
began
... (1928:
267).
During
the
struggle
for
independence
one of the
problems
in the transfer of
power by
the British rulers was the
problem
of the
protection
of minorities
in India. Since the
problem
of minorities had assumed
religious
and
political
color,
the Indian national
Congress (the
dominant nationalist
political party)
was of the
opinion
that the
only
solution to the
problem
of minorities was to
incorporate
in the constitution a detailed list of fundamental
rights, applicable
to all Indian citizens
irrespective
of their affiliation to
any particular religion.
While it is not
possible
here to discuss the debates that followed,
and the revi-
sions that were
made,
several resolutions were
adopted.
For our
purposes,
333
Articles 29 and 30 under Part III of the Constitution are most relevant,
and
are
presented
below:
Article 29 "Protection of interests of minorities.
(1) Any
section of the citizens
residing
in the
territory
of India or
any part
thereof
having
a distinct
language,
script
or culture of its own shall have the
right
to conserve the same.
(2)
No citizen shall be denied admission into
any
educational institution maintained
by
the State or
receiving
aid out of state funds on
grounds only by religion,
race,
caste, language
or
any
of them."
Article 30
"Right
of minorities to establish and administer educational institu-
tions:
(1)
All minorities whether based on
religion
or
language,
shall have the
right
to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
(2)
The state shall
not,
in
granting
aid to educational institutions,
discriminate
against any
educational institution on the
ground
that it is under the
management
of a
minority,
whether based on
religion
or
language." (Kumar
1985:
27)
The States
Reorganization
Commission that was set
up
in the
early
1950's to
rationalize the administrative structure of the
country,
soon realized that
languages
of
minority groups
were
commonly
not
among
the
languages
mentioned in Schedule VIII of the Constitution.
It, therefore,
recommended
certain measures to
promote
the cause of
linguistic
minorities.
Consequently
Article 350A and 350B were added to the Constitution.
Accordingly,
Article 350-A "It should be the endeavour of
every
State and of
every
local
authority
within the State to
provide adequate
facilities for instruction in the mother
tongue
at the
primary stage
of education to children
belonging
to
linguistic minority groups;
and the President
may
issue such directions to
any
State as he considers
necessary
or
proper
for
securing
the
provision
for such facilities."
The facilities translates as follows:
...
arrangements
must be made for instruction in the mother
tongue by appointing
one teacher
provided
there are not fewer than 40
pupils speaking
the
language
in
the whole school or 10 such
pupils
in a class ...
(India
1971:
81).
Article 350-B makes
provisions
for a
special
officer,
the Commissioner for
Linguistic Minorities,
whose sole
responsibility
would be to
safeguard
the
educational and
linguistic rights
of minorities.
Article 350-B "There shall be a
special
officer to
investigate
all matters
relating
to the
safeguards provided
for
linguistic minorities under this Constitution and
report
to the President
upon
those matters at such intervals as the President
may
direct,
and the President shall cause all such
reports
to be laid before each house
of
Parliament, and sent to the Governments of the States concerned . ." (Ekka
1984:
6).
The Office of the Commissioner for
Linguistic
Minorities has been
given
the task of
protecting
the educational
rights
of
linguistic
minorities in India
(Yaqin 1986).
The
question
we need to ask is how well have these
linguistic
334
minorities been able to exercise their
rights?
More
specially, regardless
of
their numerical
strength,
have the minorities been able to exercise the basic
right
of
being
educated in their own mother
tongue?
In the
following section,
we will examine in some detail the use of
minority languages
in the Indian
educational
system.
Minority languages
and the Indian educational
system
The
major language
related issues in Indian education are:
(1) languages
that
can serve as the medium of instruction at various levels and in different
fields,
(2) languages
that should be studied as
subjects,
and
(3)
roles to be
played
by
Hindi and
English (see
Khubchandani 1981, 1988;
Sridhar
1985, 1989b,
1991;
S. N. Sridhar
1987).
For historical
reasons, English
became the medium
of instruction
during
the British rule in India. Soon after
independence,
it
was felt that the
only way
to revive the
long-neglected
Indian
languages,
and
to ensure democratic
rights
was to use Indian
languages
as media of instruc-
tion. Prior to 1864
(when English
was instituted as the sole medium of instruc-
tion),
the
major regional languages
of India
(See
Table
1)
were used as media
of instruction.
Hence, they could,
with some
modernization,
fulfill this new
role,
but the
major problem
was in the case of the
minority languages.
The
debates after
independence
centered around two main issues:
(i)
what should
be the medium for
minority language speakers
at the
early stages;
and
(ii)
for how
long
should
English
continue to be the medium at the
university
level?
Series of
reports
were
produced.2
For ease of
discussion,
we will consider
the most recent
reports, beginning
with the
University
Education Commission's
Report (1949).
This Commission recommended that students of the
Higher
Secondary
and
University stages
should be conversant with
(a)
the
regional
language; (b)
the
general language, e.g.,
Hindi;
and
(c) English (India,
1959:
126-127).
This
policy
did not favor the
speakers
of
minority languages,
so
it was
replaced by
the recommendations of The
Secondary
Education
Commission
(1952).
The Commission recommended that at the
Secondary
stage,
the
following languages
should be studied:
(a)
the mother
tongue; (b)
the
regional language
of the
state; (c)
the link
language
Hindi;
and
(d) any
one of the classical
languages
-
Sanskrit, Pali, Arabic,
Persian
(India,
1953:
49).
The Central
Advisory
Board of Education reviewed this
report
and
proposed yet
another
policy, generally
known as the "Three
Language
Formula". This was reviewed and
accepted
in 1961.
According
to this
formula,
a child should
study: (a) regional language
of the
State; (b)
Hindi in non-Hindi
area and
any
other Indian
language
in the Hindi
area; (c) Fnglish
or
any
other
moder
European language.
The Education Commission
(1964-1966)
examined this
formula,
and further
improved
it
by recommending
a
modified
graduated
"Three
Language
Formula" to include:
(a)
the mother
tongue
or
the
regional language; (b)
the official
language
of the Union
(Hindi)
or the
associate official
language
of the Union
(English);
and
(c)
a moder Indian
335
or
foreign language
not covered under
(a)
and
(b),
and other than that used
as medium of instruction. The modified
graduated
Three
Language
Formula
from Nadkarni
(1977: 101)
is summarized in Table 3 below.
Traditionally,
the mother
tongue
has been considered the obvious and
optimal
medium of instruction in schools,
at least at the
elementary
level. The
rationales for the use of the mother
tongue
are both educational and socio-
cultural. UNESCO
recognized
the
importance
of the mother
tongue
as the best
medium of education and stated it thus in its decree of 1957. As Skutnabb-
Kangas rightly points
out
(1994: 624),
In a civilized state, there should be no need to debate the
right
to maintain and
develop
the mother
tongue.
It is a
self-evident, fundamental
linguistic
human
right.
...
It means the
right
to learn the mother
tongue, orally
and in
writing, including
at least basic education
through
the medium of the mother
tongue,
and to use it in
many
official contexts.
The choice of the mother
tongue
covers about 75% of the
population.
This
still leaves out a
huge
block of
linguistic
minorities
(of
various
types),
whose
size
nearly equals
the entire
population
of the US. Given the
large
number of
Indian
languages,
and the fact that not all of them have
scripts,
and some
that have
scripts
lack
any
kind of
literary tradition,
how feasible and
prac-
tical is this
population? (Sridhar 1994).
Table 3. Modified and
graduated
three
language
formula.
Educational level
Lower
Primary
(Grades I-IV)
Higher Primary
Lower
Secondary
Higher Secondary
University
Languages
as
subjects
of
study
Mother
tongue (Regional language)
(1)
Mother
tongue (Regional language)
(2) English
(1)
Mother
tongue (Regional language)
(2)
Hindi in non-Hindi areas and a modem Indian
language
in Hindi area
(3) English
Any
two from
Group
A or
Group
B
(A) (1)
Mother
tongue (Regional language)
(2)
Hindi in non-Hindi areas and a modem
Indian
language
in Hindi area
(3) English
(B) (1)
A modem Indian
language
(2)
A modem
foreign language
(3)
A classical
language,
Indian or
foreign
No
language compulsory
Source: Nadkami (1977: 101).
336
A further
complication
is added
by
the
prestige
accorded to
English.
The
English language enjoys "power"
and
"prestige" (for
a detailed
discussion,
see Kachru
1990;
Sridhar
1977, 1989a;
Dasgupta 1993).
Since
English
con-
tinues to be used in both national and state-level
education,
and is the medium
of instruction in most subjects at the
university level,
most
parents
are anxious
to send their children to
English-medium
schools. There is a
flourishing private
industry purporting
to educate children
through
the
English
medium from
the earliest
age.
All these factors have
compounded
to create a situation where
the mother
tongue
is not
perceived
as the most viable medium of instruction.
As Nadkari
points out,
...
Our
approach
to mother
tongue
education is so
befogged
with sentimentalism
that is has become
impossible
for us to view
language planning
in education in
clear
pragmatic
terms
(Nadkarni
1986:
31).
The fact remains that not all
languages enjoy equal
status.
Only
17
languages
have been included in schedule VIII of the Constitution.
Considering
the
number of
languages
that are
spoken, only
58 of them are studied and used
as media of instruction in the states and union territories at
present.
The 58
languages
can be
sub-grouped
as follows:
Twenty-one languages
are considered cultivated
literary languages (with
the
exception
of Khasi and
Mizo),
are
recognized
official
languages,
and are used
as
first, second,
or third
languages (Arabic, Assamee, Bengali, English,
French, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Khasi, Konkani,
Malayalam, Manipuri,
Marathi, Mizo, Oriya, Persian,
Punjabi,
Sanskrit, Tamil,
Telugu, Urdu).
Eleven
languages,
most of which are tribal
languages (except
for
Sindhi,
Nepali,
and
Tibetan),
are either used as media of instruction or are studied as
second or third
languages (Angami,
Ao, Chokri, Garo, Karen, Konyak, Lotha,
Nepali,
Sema, Sindhi, Tibetan).
Twenty-six languages
are studied
only
as
subjects,
as second or third lan-
guages (Bodhi, Bodo, Chakma, Ghang, Dogri,
German, Hmar, Kashmiri,
Keiemnunger, Kuki, Lai, Lakher, Latin, Nicobarese, Pali, Pawi, Phom,
Portuguese, Rengma, Sangatam,
Santali, Syriac, Tripuri, Yimchunger, Zeliang)
(Chaturvedi
and
Singh
1981:
37-38).
The official
policies
of the
government
of
India,
as well as all the state
governments,
subscribe to the
principle
of
using
the mother
tongue
as the
medium of instruction at least in the initial
stages, ideally throughout
the
educational career. In the case of
speakers
of the
major
national
languages
of
the
country
who reside in their "home" states
(i.e., approximately
91% of the
population),
there has been no serious
problem
in
implementing
this
policy.
This
policy
has been harder to
implement
in small towns and rural areas where
teachers
may
not be available for small numbers of children of
migrants.
The
real
problem
is the choice of medium of instruction for the minorities who
speak
one of the
unrecognized (tribal
or
other) languages.
In the absence of
337
any
official
recognition
for these
languages,
the main reason for
using
them
as
subjects
and/or media is to affirm the student's
linguistic identity
and to
aid the
learning
of basic skills such as
literacy
and arithmetic.
Beyond
this
state,
it is felt
(by
teachers and even
parents)
that
many
of these
languages
are of little
practical
value to the
child,
if
only
because there is little written
material available in these
languages (Sridhar 1989b, 1991).
The
policy, therefore,
has been to
provide
three
types
of schools: one,
where
the
"principal"
medium is the official
language
of the state
(the majority
of
schools are of this
type); two, where a
minority language
is used as the
medium of instruction whenever there are at least 10 students in a
given
class
who
request it;
and
three,
where a
minority language
is used as the
primary
medium in the entire school
(usually
these schools are either run
by minority
institutions,
or
by
state
governments
in areas with substantial
presence
of
minorities).
In the case of the so-called "uncultivated" or tribal
languages,
they
are used as media
usually only up
to the end of the
primary grades (hence
referred to as "subordinate"
media)
at which
point
the state
languages
take
their
place
as the chief media. This has been referred to as
"mainstreaming".
When the
minority language
is one of the
recognized
national
languages
(e.g.,
Kannada in Andhra
Pradesh),
it is allowed to be used
throughout
the
school
years.
All the states and union territories have their own state official
language
as the
major
medium of
instruction,
but other
languages
as well as
some
unrecognized tribal
languages
are allowed to be used as subordinate
media,
only
in the
primary grades (Chaturvedi
and Mohale 1976:
46;
Khubchandani
1988;
Sridhar
1991).
At the
college/university level,
replacing English
as the medium of instruc-
tion has
proved
to be more
problematic. Many
of the reasons for this situa-
tion are common to
many multilingual
former colonial nations.
English
is
valued as a "neutral"
language among
rival native
languages,
and it is
regarded
as a
language
of international value which can also be used nation-wide. There
are certain
advantages
to
having English
as the medium of instruction: it has
no territorial
restrictions,
and it is more
developed
in
vocabulary
and
regis-
ters in such areas as
science,
engineering,
and medicine. On the other
hand,
fear of
provincialization
and
retrogression
in an
age
of
rapid mobility
and
technological innovations,
plus
the
delay
in
giving
official
recognition
to the
regional languages
in such domains as administration and
law,
contribute to
the
perception
that the
regional languages
have limited value in
higher
edu-
cation.
Thus,
while the
policy-makers recognize
the need to
promote
all
mother
tongues,
several
problems
are encountered in its
implementation.
Even
when a local or state
language
is made available as medium in a school or
university,
it is not a
popular
choice
among
the students or the instructors.
Krishnamurti
(1979: 44)
cites several reasons for the
popularity
of
English.
Pragmatically,
education
through
the medium of
English provides
nationwide
mobility,
while education
through
the
regional languages
is
perceived
as a
restrictive force. The sheer
prestige
of
English
as a
symbol
of
power,
know-
ledge,
and
sophistication
is
undoubtedly
a factor in itself.
338
For reasons cited
above, English
continues to be the most
opted
for medium
of instruction at the
college/university
level. The Commonwealth Universities
Yearbook
(1987,
volume
III) provides
information about the medium of
instruction for
only
some universities. In its
introduction,
the Yearbook sum-
marizes the
question
of the medium of instruction at the
college/university
level in India.
Historically, English
was the medium of instruction at the
college/university
level when the modem universities were started in the
1850s. With the
growth
of the nationalist movement,
and soon after inde-
pendence,
it was felt that Indian
languages
would
grow only
if
they
were used
as media of instruction at
higher
levels. In the vast Hindi
belt,
some
colleges/universities
have switched to Hindi as the medium of instruction.
This
pattern
has been followed with one or two other Indian
languages too,
... but the bulk of the universities continue to have
English
as the medium of
instruction with an
option given
to students to use their own
language
also.
[espe-
cially
in
writing
examination answers
{my personal note}] (Krishnamurti
1990:
30).
Of the 154 institutions listed in the 1987
Yearbook,
there are 8 Central
Universities,
5 Indian Institutes of
Technology (IIT's),
24 Professional
(Agriculture, Technology, etc.) Universities/Institutes,
20 "Deemed
[to be]
Universities" and Institutions of National
Importance,
and 96
multi-faculty
universities
(Krishnamri
1990:
19).
The media of instruction at these institu-
tions
higher learning
are summarized in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Medium of instruction at universities/institutes.
Institutions Number Medium of Instruction
Central Universities 8
English
Indian Institutes of
Technology
5
English
Professional
UnivJInstitutions 25 Not stated for most
Agricultural
Universities 22
generally English
Gujarat Ayurved
Univ. 1
J. N.
Technological
Univ. 1
Indira Kala
Sangit
Univ. 1
Deemed to be Universities 20
English (not professional institutions),
Sanskrit, Hindi, English (for language
institutions)
Multi-faculty
Universities 96
English
at
post-graduate
level and
regional language
as
optional
medium
at the
undergraduate
level
Total 154
Source: Krishnamurti
(1990: 20).
339
Regarding
the use of
minority
and tribal
languages,
while there is an
implicit recognition
of the need to
preserve
and foster all
languages
and the
principle
that
primary
education at least should be
imparted
in the mother
tongue,
the
problem
has been at the level of
implementation.
The terms
"minority"
and "tribal" are loaded,
connoting
a somewhat
inferior/marginal
status
compared
to the other
languages. Also,
the
stereotype
was that children
belonging
to scheduled castes and tribes are not believed to be as smart as,
for
example,
the Brahmin children
(Rath
et al.
1979).
In several studies
dealing
with education of children
belonging
to scheduled castes and tribes conducted
all over India
(Ganguly
and Ormerod
1980;
Malik
1979),
the
findings
are
similar to those
reported by Singh:
A
large
number of teachers felt that scheduled caste and tribe students are
poorer
in
intelligence
...
Quite
a
large
number of teachers consider the scheduled caste
to be
inherently
inferior.... A
large
number considered the
atmosphere
at home
to be
responsible
for the
inadequacy. Poverty
was not considered to be an
impor-
tant factor ...
(1979: 288).
These
prejudices
are at times
inadvertently
or
intentionally
communicated to
members of these
minority groups. Pattanayak quotes
a news item from The
Hindu,
one of the most
respected
and
widely
read
daily newspapers
in India.
In the news
item,
a tribal child addresses his friend in Gondi
(a
tribal
language),
which is followed
by
"shut
up, you village
idiot" from the irate
teacher. The author further
writes,
Cowed
down, little Bishnoo
(name
of the
child)
does not know whether it is the
fact that he
spoke
or the fact that he used Gondi in the classroom which has invited
his teacher's ire. But in the next few months he learns that
speaking
his native
tongue
in the classroom in an offence. And
though
he cannot understand the Hindi
of the teacher or of the text books, he realizes that the
only language
he knows
has no
place
in the school.
(Pattanayak
1994: 16)
A sad
statement,
but nevertheless true for most
speakers
of
minority
and tribal
languages
in
India,
as well as in
many
other
multilingual
countries.
This
"perceived worthlessness" of
minority languages
is evidenced from a
pilot survey
conducted in the state of Bihar
by
the
present
author in the
summer of 1987.
According
to the 1981
Census,
Bihar
(along
with
Orissa)
has the third
largest
concentration of tribal
population
in India
(5.9
million
persons each)
after
Madhya
Pradesh
(12 million).
The
survey
elicited infor-
mation
by
means of a
questionnaire given
to 56
faculty
members
teaching
in
schools and
colleges
in various towns and cities in
Bihar, e.g., Ranchi, Chas,
Dhanbad,
Lohardagga,
and
Jhumritellaya.3
About 45% of the
faculty
members
stated that
they
had students from various
minority language backgrounds
(languages
mentioned in footnote
3).
Asked if
they
had a
say
in
choosing
the
medium of
instruction,
93%
acknowledged they
did and chose Hindi as the
medium of instruction. The reasons for the choice become
apparent
in
response
to a
subsequent question.
When asked about the
language
their students felt
340
most comfortable
in, 95%
responded
Hindi.
Thus,
for tribal
speakers,
the
regional language
Hindi is
preferable
to their mother
tongue
or
English,
at
least in the
opinion
of the teachers. Their rationale for
preferring
Hindi
becomes clear when we look at the next set of
questions
the answers to which
are summarized in Table 5. Asked if the "Three
Language
Formula" was
necessary
and to
explain
"which three
languages
should be studied and
why",
the
respondents
were unanimous in their
support
for the "three
language
formula".
The
respondents
were well aware of the
realities,
and their choices in the
above
question
are further
supported
in their
response
to the
question:
"What
level of
competence
should be
expected
in each of the above
languages"?
Their
responses
are summarized in terms of the overall
competence they
expect
their students to achieve in each of these
languages:
Hindi: Full command
(understand, speak,
read, write);
English: Only
read and
write;
Tribal: Understand and
speak.
The
data,
though limited, suggests
that it is the economic and cultural
pressure
that is
forcing
the tribal
languages
to
perform
most "L" functions
(Ferguson
1959).
Hindi is not
accepted universally by
all
language groups.
Several of
them have been
agitating
for their
rightful place
in the Indian
socio-political,
economic,
and educational
systems.
While some
languages
have been
agi-
tating
for official
recognition,
others for more roles and
thereby
more
power
and
prestige
for their
language(s).
In the
following section,
we will examine
some of those movements and their
impact
on the Indian educational
system.
Table 5. Reasons for
studying
various
languages, according
to teachers.
English
should be studied because it is:
an international
language
67.8%
language
of tourism 16.1%
language
of
higher
education 7.1%
an
easy
and concise
language
11.1%
Hindi should be studied because it is:
our national
language
and for national
integration
58.9%
our mother
tongue
26.8%
easy
to understand;/our language
7.1%
Tribal
language
should be studied:
for
regional/cultural development
73.2%
only
in the
primary stages
26.8%
Source: Sridhar (1991: 100).
341
Language
movements and their
impact
on Indian education
The state
policy
of India is affirmative toward
minorities;
there are no threats
to annihilation nor are there
pressures
to assimilate. A number of constitu-
tional
safeguards
exist for the
protection
of all
minorities,
regardless
of their
size or educational level. India has been able to maintain its
multilingual
nature
for thousands of
years by allocating
different
types
of
social/political
roles to
different
languages.
As a
result,
it has sustained a
non-conflicting type
of
societal
bilingualism. Implicit
in it has been a
pluralist practice
which encour-
aged linguistic
minorities to retain their cultural distinctiveness.
However,
several recent
language-related policies
of the federal
govern-
ment are
being perceived
as threats to
linguistic/national identity
and are thus
being opposed by
different
minority groups
in the form of
linguistic
move-
ments
(Annamalai 1979).
The
rallying points
for the movements revolve
around the
following
issues:
(a)
the
government's
exclusionary
policies
as
reflected in the
granting
of
special
status to selected
regional languages by
including
them in schedule VIII of the
Constitution; (b)
demand for
language
standardization
(e.g., Bengali)
and
linguistic purism (e.g., Tamil); (c)
demands
by
tribal
groups
for
using
their
languages
as media of instruction
(e.g.,
the
Santhals); and, finally, (d)
the
government's
decision to elevate Hindi,
a north
Indian
language,
to a status intended to make it become the official
language
of India.
Speakers
of Hindi
are,
in
fact,
pressuring
the federal
government
to
accelerate and
promote
the use of Hindi as the official
language
of India.
The above issues
plus
the reaction/backlash
against migrant populations
and
their
perceived unwillingness
to learn the state
languages
have been at the
heart of the
linguistic
movements in India. The situation has become acute
because the
question
of role allocation for different
linguistic
codes has been
politicized.
As one
political
scientist
apply puts
it:
Linguistic diversity
has existed in India from the
beginning
of her recorded
history.
What is new and
significant
for
political study
is the mobilization of
language
groups
for social and
political objectives.
These
processes
of mobilization invari-
ably
result in the
political restructuring
of forces in Indian
society. (Das Dupta
1975:
70)
Some of the
problems
that we face
today
are due to the fact that
prior
to
independence,
India was divided into
princely states,
with each state
following
its own
linguistic policies.
With the creation of Pakistan and the formation of
regional linguistic
states soon after
independence,
a few of the
languages
that
were
important
as official
languages
felt
powerless
in the new
system. Only
a few were raised to the status of
regional
official
languages.
This blocked
the social
mobility
of the members from other
speech
communities.
Speakers
of
Konkani,
for
example,
felt that lack of standardization was the reason for
their
language being
excluded from schedule VIII of the Constitution.
Konkani,
a
language spoken
in Southwestern
India,
is written
using
different
342
scripts: Roman, Devanagari,
Kannada,
and
Malayalam (S.
N. Sridhar
1992).
Standardization of
script, recognition
as an official
language
of the State of
Goa,
and inclusion in Schedule VIII were
among
the demands of the Konkani
speakers.
A
separate identity
was demanded for
Maithili,
a sister
language
of
Hindi from Northern India
(Bihar).
Maithili and Konkani were
recently
incor-
porated
into schedule VIII of the Indian constitution. Others have not been
so successful.
Speakers
of Sindhi are
demanding
their own
"homeland",
as
the
speakers
do not have a
geographical
area
they
can claim as their own.
They
are distributed all over India and Pakistan.
Some tribal
groups
in India also feel
oppressed.
While some tribal
groups
have
accepted
the
regional language (e.g.,
the
Kurux)
and
opted
for
adapta-
tion
(Ekka 1979),
others
attempted
to
gain autonomy
or to assert their ethnic
identity through
the revival of their
languages (Rao 1984;
Phadnis
1990).
The Santhals are a tribal
community spread
over four different states:
Bihar,
Assam, Orissa,
and West
Bengal.
The
majority
communities want to
impose
their own dominant
languages
for the
region (e.g.,
Hindi in
Bihar, Oriya
in
Orissa
etc.),
and in this
attempt
at detribalization
expect
the Santhals to
give
up
their tribal traits. The tribal leaders fear
losing
their cultural values and
have initiated a movement for the
preservation
of tribal
education,
called "a
great
tradition". This movement is meant to create and establish new cultural
and
linguistic
markers to ensure the survival of the tribe
against
assimilation
and
absorption.
The main demands of this
group,
known as the "Adivasi
(aboriginal)
movement" include
(i)
the establishment of a
separate province
for the tribal
groups; (ii)
the
representation
of the tribe in the state cabinet
by
least one educated member of the tribal
group;
and
(iii)
the introduction of
Santhali and other tribal
languages
as media of instruction in schools. In this
movement,
language
and traditions of the
community play
a
major role,
a
sort of nativization movement. Instead of
adopting
the traditions of their Hindu
neighbors,
there is an
attempt
to
codify
traditions of the tribal Santhal
group
in
writing
and to
develop
a distinctive
script
to record these traditions.
Mahapatra (1979) writes,
The whole
attempt
has been in
creating
and
perpetuating
new
boundary
markers
which will save the tribe from assimilation,
whether these markers are
beef-eating
or cow sactifice, language
maintenance or traditional dances, drinking
rice beer or
worship
of the traditional
gods
or the sacred
grove. (113)
The Central Institute of Indian
Languages (CIIL),
which has been
assigned
the task of
devising scripts,
curriculum,
and instructional materials for the
tribal
languages, organized
several
meetings
and conferences on these
topics.
At one such
meeting,
in
May
1982
(Annamalai 1983),
it
provided guidelines
for material
production
in tribal
languages.
For those
languages
that lacked
a
script,
the
script
of the dominant
regional language
was recommended for
use
("mainstreaming").
This
policy
has been
implemented,
and several
primers
and other instruction materials have been
published using
several of the tribal
languages.
Certain tribal
groups,
however,
favor
learning
Hindi and other
343
regional languages (discussed above,
in
Minority Languages
and the Indian
Educational
System).
With
respect
to the Hindi
language,
two different
types
of
opposition
language
movements
may
be identified. One
type
of movement is evidenced
in collective
opposition
to Hindi
by
other
linguistic groups.
For
purposes
of
unification and
nationalism, Hindi,
the
language
most
widely
used in India
during
the
independence
movement was chosen to be the official
language
of
India. Once elevated to this
status,
the
strongest proponents
of Hindi were
in favor of
promoting
an artificial but
"pure" variety
of Hindi and not the
common "bazaar"
variety,
known as
"Hindustani",
which was the
language
of the
independence
movement. Hindustani draws its
vocabulary
from both
Sanskrit, Persian,
and other
regional languages.
The
purists, voicing
Hindu
nationalism,
wanted to eliminate words of Persian
origin
for
political
reasons.
They
also wanted an immediate switchover to Hindi and elimination of
English.
This
angered
the non-Hindi
speakers,
who
perceived
it as an
example
of
linguistic tyranny
and chauvinism. For these
reasons,
... the broad
appeal
that the
language enjoyed
in the
struggle against
the colo-
nizer waned in the
post-independence period
as the
regional languages began
to
consolidate their
power
and constituencies and feared the
hegemony
of the numer-
ically strong
Hindi.
(S.
N. Sridhar 1988:
300)
Hindi was
widely opposed violently by
several
regional language groups,
most
violently
in West
Bengal
and Tamil Nadu
(South India).
The
people
in these
states felt that Hindi was a more recent
language compared
to their
languages,
Bengali
and Tamil
respectively. They
also
argued
that Hindi lacked the rich
literary
traditions that
Bengali
and Tamil
enjoyed. They
feared that with the
proposed policy,
Hindi
speakers
would have an undue
advantage
over non-
Hindi
speakers (Dwivedi 1981).
There has also been
opposition
to Hindi from within. This is led
by
dif-
ferent
speech
communities whose
linguistic
codes are
traditionally
treated as
regional
dialects of Hindi. The movement in this case is a demand for
separate
states, e.g.,
the creation of
Bhojpur,
Vishal
Haryana,
and Bundelkhand.
According
to the
protagonists
of these
movements,
the
existing
state bound-
aries drawn on the basis of dominant
languages
are artificial because
they
cut across
linguistic boundaries,
dividing linguistic
minorities. For
example,
speakers
of
Bhojpuri (a regional
dialect of
Hindi)
are
spread
across Uttar
Pradesh and
Bihar;
speakers
of Bundelkhandi dialect are found in Uttar
Pradesh and
Madhya Pradesh;
and
speakers
of
Haryanvi
are found in three
states:
Haryana,
Uttar
Pradesh,
and Delhi
(Srivastava
1984b: 108,
see also
1984a).
Thus,
language
movements
against
Hindi illustrate the conflict on the
following
levels:
(a)
as a
language
of national
communication,
it comes into
conflict with
English,
which is
recognized
as the associate official
language
of the
Union; (b)
as a
developed (inter-) regional language
at the state level
it comes into conflict with
Tamil,
Bengali, etc.; (c)
as a
lingua
franca for its
344
own
dialects,
it comes into conflict with
Maithili,
Bhojpuri,
etc.; (d)
as an
alternate
literary
variant it comes into conflict with
Urdu;
and
(e)
as an
interethnic link
language,
it comes into conflict with
Santhali, Khasi,
etc.
(Srivastava
1984b:
109).
Several
minority
and tribal
languages
are
agitating
at one or more of these levels
currently,
which adds another dimension of
complexity
to an
already complex
situation.
Conclusion
In this
paper,
I have tried to show how India is
trying
to come to
grips
with
a
complex language
situation in
formulating
educational
policy.
The educa-
tional
system
has to deal with mass
illiteracy (currently
about
50%)
as well
as
space age technology;
it has to reconcile the understandable nationalistic
pull
toward the
indigenous languages
with the realistic need for continued
reliance on the colonial
language;
it has to ensure national
mobility
without
offending regional linguistic
interests.
Against
this
background,
the
govern-
ment and the
experts
have
forged
a
compromise
-
one that institutionalizes
multilingualism by actively promoting
the
study
of three
languages.
Some
minority
communities in India are
slowly becoming
aware of their
rights
and
are
demanding
a definite
place
in the Indian educational
system.
Others are
using
the
strategy
of selective
adaptation
and assimilation. The three
language
formula,
together
with an
ongoing
massive
literacy campaign,
constitutes one
of the
greatest experiments
in
language
education that mankind has ever seen.
Developments
in the next few
years
will be crucial for
answering
the
question:
whether
major languages
such as Hindi or
English
will be
"replacive"
or
whether the
minority language speakers
will assert their
right
to be educated
in the mother
tongue, thereby extending
a tradition for
bilingual
education,
in which
minority languages
will have a
place
of
equal importance.
This is
not an
easy task,
especially
for a
developing economy.
But with its commit-
ment to democratic
principles,
India is
making
a serious effort toward the
preservation
and
promotion
of
minority languages by promoting
their use in
the educational
system.
Notes
1. Since the
publication
of this
paper,
two more
languages,
Konkani and Maithili have
been added to the
list, bringing
the total to 17. Since the two
languages,
Konkani
and Maithili were added after 1981, figures
for these
languages
are not available
in the 1981 Census and are not
reported
in Table 1.
2. Some of the
major reports
are The Conference of the vice Chancellors of
Universities
(1948),
The
University
Education Commission
Report
of
1949,
The
Secondary Fducation Commission
(1952),
The
English
Review Committee
(1955),
The Central
Advisory
Board of Education
(1957),
and The Education Commission
1964-1966. For detailed discussion on these
reports
as well as on this
topic,
see
Naik and Nurullah (1985).
345
3. Of the 56
faculty
who
participated,
89% claimed Hindi as their mother
tongue,
while 47% claimed
bilingualism
in Hindi and a tribal
language (e.g., Oraon,
Mundari, Kurux, Kharia, Ho, Adivasi, etc).
Most of the
respondents
were
highly
educated, with 91%
possessing
bachelors
degrees
and
beyond.
References
Annamalai,
E. 1990.
Linguistic
Dominance and Cultural Dominance: A
Study
of Tribal
Bilingualism
in India. In: D. P.
Pattanayak, ed., Multilingualism
in India
(25-36).
Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Annamalai,
E. 1983. A National Framework for
Bilingual
Education for Tribal
Children. Vartavaha
(CIIL
Occasional
Bulletin)
3: 11-14.
Annamalai,
E. ed. 1979.
Language
Movements in India.
Mysore:
Central Institute of
Indian
Languages.
Census of India. 1981. Series
I, India, Households and Household
Population by
Language Mainly Spoken
in the
Household, Paper-I
of 1987. Delhi.
Census of India.
1961,
1964. Vol. I Part
nI-c(ii), Language
Tables. Delhi.
Census of India.
1951, Paper I, Table I, II, II. Delhi.
Chakledar, S. 1981.
Linguistic Minority
as a Cohesive Force in Indian Federal
Process. Delhi: Associated
Publishing
House.
Chaturvedi, M. G. and
Mohale,
B. V. 1976. Position
of Languages
in School
Curriculum in India. Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and
Training
(NCERT).
Chaturvedi, M. G. and
Singh,
S. eds. 1981. Position
of Languages
in School
Curriculum in India. Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and
Training
(NCERT).
Commonwealth Universities Yearbook 1987
(Vol. III).
London: The Association of
Commonwealth Universities.
Das
Gupta,
J. 1975.
Ethnicity, Language
Demands and National
Development
in India.
In: N. Glazer and D.
Moynihan, eds.,
Ethnicity: Theory
and
Experience. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Dasgupta,
P. 1993. The Otherness
of English.
New Delhi:
Sage
Publications.
Dua,
H. R. 1986.
Language Use, Attitudes and
Identity Among Linguistic
Minorities.
Mysore:
Central Institute of Indian
Languages.
Dwivedi,
S. 1981. Hindi on Trial. New Delhi: Vikas
Publishing
House.
Ekka,
F. 1984. Status of
Minority Languages
in the Schools of India. International
Education Journal
1(1):
1-19.
Ekka, F. 1979.
Language Loyalty
and Maintenance
among
the Krurxs. In: E.
Annamalai, ed.,
Language
Movements in India
(99-106). Mysore:
Central Institute
of Indian
Languages.
Ferguson,
C. A. 1959.
Diglossia.
Word
15(2):
325-340.
Ganguly,
S. R. and
Ormerod,
M. B. 1980. Attitudes to
English Among Pupils
of Asian
Origin.
Journal
of Multilingual
Multiculural
Development 1(1):
57-80.
346
Grierson, G. A. 1927.
Linguistic Survey of
India. Vol.
1,
Part I. Delhi: Motilal
Banarasidas.
Imam,
M. 1972. Minorities and the Law.
Bombay:
N. M.
Tripathi
Private Ltd.
India 1985. Publications Division, Ministry
of Information and
Broadcasting,
Government of India.
India,
Government of. 1978.
Background Papers
on Tribal
Development,
Scheduled
Tribes and Scheduled Areas in India. New Delhi:
Ministry
of Home Affairs.
India, Government of. 1971. The
Twelfth Report of
the Commissioner
for Linguistic
Minorities in India. New Delhi:
Ministry
of Home Affairs.
India,
Government of. 1959.
Report of University
Education Commission 1941-49,
Vol. I. New Delhi.
India,
Government of. 1953.
Report of
the
Official Language
Commission. New Delhi.
Ishwaran, K. 1969.
Multilingualism
in India. In: N.
Anderson, ed., Studies in
Multilingualism (122-150).
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Itagi,
N.
H., Jayaram,
B. D. and Vani, V. 1986. Communication Potential in the Tribal
Population of
Assam and
Madhya
Pradesh.
Mysore:
Central Institute of Indian
Languages.
Kachru, B. B. 1990. The
Alchemy of English.
Urbana:
University
of Illinois Press.
Kachru,
B. B. 1983. The Indianization of English.
New Delhi: Oxford
University
Press.
Khubachandani,
L. M. 1981.
Language,
Education, Social Justice. Poona: Centre for
Communication Studies.
Khubachandani,
L. M. ed. 1988.
Language
in a Plural
Society.
Delhi: Motital
Banarasidas.
Krishnamurti,
Bh. 1990. The
Regional Language
vis-a-vis
English
as the Medium of
Instruction in
Higher
Education: The Indian Dilemma. In: D. P.
Pattanayak, eds.,
Multilingualism
in India
(15-24). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Krishnamurti,
Bh. 1979. Problems of
Language
Standardization in India. In: W. C.
McCormack and S. A.
Wurm, eds.,
Language
and
Society: Anthropological
Issues
(673-692).
The
Hague:
Mouton.
Kumar,
A. 1985. Cultural and Educational
Rights of
the Minorities Under Indian
Constitution. New Delhi:
Deep
and
Deep
Publications.
Mahapatra,
B. P. 1979. Santali
language
movement in the context of
many language
movements. In: E.
Annamalai, ed.,
Language
Movements in India
(107-117). Mysore:
Central Institute of Indian
Languages.
Malik, S. 1979. Social
Integration of
Scheduled Castes. New Delhi: Abhinav
Publications.
Nadkami, M. V. 1986.
English
and the Medium of Education. The
Heritage 2(3):
29-38.
Nadkari,
M. V. 1977. Educational level and
language
choice. In: Seminar in
Sociolinguistics (no editor). Hyderabad: Telugu Academy.
Pattanayak,
D. P. 1994. The Tribal Child and Tribal FAucation. South Asian
Language
Review
4(2):
12-17.
347
Pattanayak,
D. P. ed. 1990.
Multilingualism
in India.
Clevedon,
Avon:
Multilingual
Matters.
Pattanayak,
D. P. 1981.
Multilingualism
and Mother
Tongue
Education. Delhi: Oxford
University
Press.
Phadnis, U. 1990.
Ethnicity
and
Nation-building
in South Asia. New Delhi:
Sage
Publications.
Rao,
M. S. A. ed. 1984. Social Movements in India. Delhi: Manohar.
Rath, R., Dash,
A. S. and
Dash,
U. N. 1970.
Cognitive
Abilities and School
Achievement
of
the
Socially Disadvantaged
Children in
Primary
Schools.
Bombay:
Allied Publishers.
Shah,
V. P. 1982. The Educational Problems
of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
School and
College
Students in India.
(Indian
Council of Social Science
Research)
Delhi: Allied Publishers.
Singh,
N. K. 1979. Education and Social
Change. Jaipur:
Rawat Publications.
Skutnabb-Kangas,
T. 1994.
Linguistic
Human
Rights
and
Minority
Education. TESOL
Quarterly 28(3):
625-627.
Sridhar,
K. K. 1994. Mother
Tongue
Maintenance. TESOL
Quarterly 28(3):
628-630.
Sridhar, K. K. 1991.
Bilingual
Education in India. In:
O. Garcia, ed., Bilingual
Education
(89-101).
Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Sridhar, K. K. 1989a.
English
in Indian
Bilingualism.
Delhi: Manohar.
Sridhar,
K. K. 1989b.
Language Policy
and
Planning:
The Case of
Minority Languages
in Indian Pducation. In: P. H.
Nelde, eds., Plurilingua
10: 1-20.
Sridhar,
K. K. 1985.
Bilingualism
in South Asia
(India): National/regional
Profiles
and Verbal
Repertoires.
Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics
6: 169-186.
Sridhar,
K. K. 1977. The
Development
of
English
as an elite
language
in the multi-
lingual
context of India: its educational
implications. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation.
Urbana-Champaign: University
of Illinois.
Sridhar,
S. N. 1992.
Language
Modernization in Kannada. In: E. C. Dimock,
B. B.
Kachru, and Bh.
Krishnamurti, eds., Dimensions
of Sociolinguistics
in South Asia
(223-236).
New Delhi: Oxford and IBH
Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Sridhar,
S. N. 1988.
Language Spread, Variation,
and Attitude: The Case of Hindi.
In: P.
Lowenberg,
ed.,
Language Spread
and
Language
Politics
(300-319).
Georgetown University
Roundtable on
Languages
and
Linguistics. Georgetown:
Georgetown University
Press.
Srivastava,
R. N. 1984a.
Literacy
Education of Minorities: A Case
Study
from India.
In: F. Coulmas, ed., Linguistic
Minorities and
Literacy (39-46).
The
Hague:
Mouton.
Srivastava,
R. N. 1984b.
Linguistic
Minorities and National
Languages.
In: F.
Coulmas, ed., Linguistic Minority
and
Literacy (99-114).
The
Hague:
Mouton.
Sunderland,
J. T. 1928. India in
Bondage.
Calcutta: R.
Chatterjee.
Yaqin,
A. 1986. Constitutional Protection
of Minority
Educational Institutions in
India. New Delhi.