|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Tuesday, May 09, 2000 |
|
Front Page |
National |
International |
Regional |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
Features
| Previous
| Next
Essential skill for employment
THE MOST important reason why parents prefer English as the
medium of education in India is economic. The reason why aping
Western culture is seen as desirable and superior is because of
the superior economic position of the people with an easy
familiarity with English. As of today, in India, knowledge of
English opens opportunities in employment and education, not
available to those who only know a vernacular language. Forceful
attempts to thrust the vernacular down the throats of an
unwilling public will not succeed unless it can be assured that
the products of this kind of schooling are capable of securing
employment with the same level of remuneration as those who know
English. It is obvious to the general public that no government
in India today can make any such assurance with any degree of
credibility. Thus, the perorations of the self-appointed
guardians of this or that vernacular language are merely self-
serving. They seek to protect the interests of a small group who
have made the knowledge of the language their source of
employment. No one will quarrel with the right of any group to
employment provided it is not inimical to the interests of the
public at large.
Unfortunately, the attempt to force Tamil as the medium of
instruction is precisely this - an attempt to protect the
interests of a few at the cost of many. If Tamil is forced as the
medium of instruction in Tamil Nadu, all that will be achieved is
that the circle of privilege will become smaller, as all those
parents who can manage it will move their wards to the CBSE
schools or to another state. Those, who till now have scraped and
scrounged to put their children in the second-rung English medium
schools will be the worst affected. They will be forced to forgo
the window of opportunity that these schools have offered.
All those who point to Japan, Germany and other such countries as
examples, which have not needed English to achieve progress, fail
to face certain basic facts. First, all these countries have only
one main language, whereas India has at least 16. The problem of
communicating within the country itself is enormous.
Second, all these countries had a fairly well developed science
and technology base, whereas at the time of independence,
colonised India had fallen far back. It was knowledge of English,
which helped to jump-start our technological base, and if we have
done better than most countries of Africa, it is at least
partially, due to the advantage which fluency in English gave us,
thus opening the doors to the Western knowledge base. But we are
far from being at the cutting edge of science and technology in
most areas, and can ill-afford the time and money required to
translate all scientific literature into all the major languages
of India.
Third, emigration for economic reasons is the exception in all
developed countries while it is the rule in India. In other
words, a large section of the Indian labour force, both manual
and intellectual, seek employment opportunities in other
countries. I wonder if any government has the right to deny them
this opportunity when it cannot provide employment options within
the country. Let us not forget that it is not only graduates of
the IITs or medical colleges, who migrate abroad.
They are merely the most visible of the constant stream who seek
foreign employment. Hardly anybody leaves the country of their
birth without a pang of regret. But when fruitful life is
difficult, migration will appear attractive. Until and unless a
country can assure gainful employment to at least the majority,
if not all of its citizens, it has no right to take any policy
decision which will reduce the possibility of such employment.
The initiative to introduce Tamil as the medium of instruction is
mere pandering to a pressure group, and not based on any true
concern for the welfare of the students. If a hundred Tamil
scholars can be considered popular pressure, what about all the
parents who want English as the medium education? It is also
misconceived parochialism. In Chennai city alone, live numerous
people from other states for whom Tamil is not the mother-tongue.
If it is psychologically distressing for them not to study in the
mother-tongue, how will it be less distressing to study in Tamil
than in English?
The ruling class in the world today are the English-speaking
elites of the developed world. In India, the ruling class are the
English-speaking industrial and rural elite. All the railing
against MTV and Enid Blyton serve only to obfuscate a basic fact.
The common people do not choose the environment in which they
live. They merely seek to better their position within certain
boundaries enforced by the state, which is the representative of
the ruling class and acquiring fluency in English is a method of
bettering one's position. Any attempt to take away this
opportunity is not in the interest of the common people. It will
only help a certain section of vested interests. They will
arrogate to themselves many privileges as the protectors of
Tamil, while those whom they claim to protect, the common people,
will continue to languish.
It is therefore clear that, for the vernacular to become the
natural medium of instruction, it is necessary to have economic
developments, so that employment within the country is seen as
the most desirable option. Underpinning this economic
development, there will also be a social and cultural development
in which indigenous cultures are not seen as inferior to Western
ones.
Till such time, a single point programme of introducing this or
that cultural change will be against the interests of the common
people. Contemporary history is full of examples of such
misguided policies forcefully thrust on an unwilling people,
which have only pushed them deeper into deprivation. An extreme
example is Pol Pot's Cambodia. Democracies, however imperfect,
are based on choice. The state cannot arrogate to itself the
right to impose the medium of instruction.
THOMAS GEORGE
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : Features Previous : Betting and abetting Next : Know Your English | |
|
Front Page |
National |
International |
Regional |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyright © 2000 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|