Author – Tanoj Meshram, Date – Aug 5, 2020

During this week an important development happened – the release of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Understandably, there has been a lot of pushback against the most iniquitous aspects of the policy – particularly the language education policy. Many people have argued correctly about the hypocrisy of a governing and ruling class that sends its children to schools where English is the medium of instruction while at the same time rolling out an education policy that mandates that the vast majority of Bahujan students must study in their “mother tongue” in government schools. 

A few months ago, the Chhattisgarh government had announced that it will change the medium of instruction in Anganwadis from Hindi to the local tribal language of the district/region and the Maharashtra government had made the Marathi language compulsory up to 10th standard in all the schools in the state – more precisely in unaided schools – which it thought were not serious in teaching Marathi to their students. 

Unlike the NEP 2020, both these decisions incidentally were taken under the leadership of Congress and appear to promote mother tongues and therefore have evoked mixed reactions. Those who favor the promotion of mother tongues and its use in early grades are appreciating the decisions. However, what I am interested to deal with here is the interesting responses of the anti-caste activists and certain nuances of the way language affects education.

One representative response from the anti-caste activists has been that the position on (change of) medium of instruction for the education of Scheduled Tribe children of Chhattisgarh is, what I would call, a classic representative case of “good politics, bad expertise” in the movements. Whereas there are also cases of “bad politics, good expertise”, there are only a few who do both “good politics, good expertise” taking the Ambedkarite tradition of the same forward. 

I could not resist clarifying my position on this issue given the fact that for about a decade school education reform has been close to my heart and very recently I finished a 15-page section on what I call a “language problem in education” based on my empirical study of schools in tribal villages in tribal blocks in Maharashtra as a part of my dissertation which is focused on why learning outcomes of children in rural government schools are low. I, like many researchers, have found that a difference in the home and school language affects not just the learning outcomes and but also what Freire calls the development of critical consciousness.

Sometimes activists take a very simplistic view of the issue establishing a kind of direct or linear relationship between language, learning outcomes, and “success” (a notion which many would question) in a career. Though there is a relationship between the medium of instruction in the school a child attends and success in their career later, it is mediated by a number of factors, another concern of my research. And therefore, just picking up a language of so-called successful people as a medium of instruction for the socially marginalized such as tribes could do more harm than good. If we keep the school standards (resources, pupil-teacher ratio, teacher capacity, physical and academic infrastructure, etc.) constant, we will find that English loses its advantages to mother tongue unless English is the significant language used at home and or a part of the cultural capital a child brings at the school – which is often the case with English educated middle classes. 

There are some ideas which need to be understood before jumping into the debate about which language is good for the children. Inter-alia these include how children learn, comprehend and express, constructivism, development of critical consciousness. There is a good amount of literature, both national and international, on language in education which one can refer to, a couple of which are given at the end of this piece. 

As experts in education and language agree, education in early grades (1 to 4) should be given in mother tongue not only because it helps children to bring their prior knowledge and experience of their world to the classroom (useful to construct new knowledge based on their prior knowledge) but also because it helps them to comprehend well what is being taught as well as to express themselves and engage in conversations and activities inside and outside the classroom. 

I agree with this view and therefore feel that what the Chhattisgarh government has done is good. And it has not changed the medium of instruction in the school as is believed, if what is reported in the media is correct it has only changed the medium of “instruction” in Anganwadis (and studies show there is hardly any instruction that happens in Anganwadis) from Hindi to the local tribal language of the district/region. In my opinion, governments need to teach the children in their mother tongue in early grades and make a smooth transition to state languages like Marathi, Hindi, etc. and English as desired. For learning new languages such as English you need not change the medium of instruction and affect their foundational education but teach them English as a second language-ESL (or whatever “language of success” you feel) by the competent teachers during those early grades. Most of the teachers currently in government schools both in Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra – where I worked- are very poor in English, they themselves keep Marathi/Hindi and English language books for their own understanding as many of us have done while switching to English medium in 11th grade. Changing the medium of instruction to English without creating adequate capacity within the school system and outside (home environment) is often meaningless and remains only on paper. Children spend only 35-40 hours per week (less than 25% of the weekly hours) in the schools and rest of the time they spend at home and unless you have a home environment (English speaking people, books, newspapers, TV programs, audio-visuals, etc.) conducive to learn a new language such as English learning it will be difficult which will create learning deficit in all the subjects.

One more point that many of us miss is related to the content of education. Currently what is being taught doesn’t include not just the language but also culture and the world of not just the tribes but also other socially marginalized. And that wipes out their all familiar knowledge and experience-along with what is considered as deadwood- and makes them learn about alien knowledge and the world without anchoring it into their prior knowledge. As educationists say, education should be from known to unknown and not vice versa, and anchoring early education in home language helps to make this transition from known to unknown.

Let us now discuss the specific case of Marathi. The Marathi which is made compulsory is not the Marathi every Maharashtrian learns from her or his mother or father for that reason. What government of Maharashtra made compulsory is what is considered as “standard” Marathi (Praman Bhasha) which is actually a Marathi spoken mostly by Brahmins in Pune region (see the works of Maxine Bernstein for example) and is often called as Puneri Marathi and as the effect of Sanskritization would go is imitated by the middle classes among Bahujans. This Marathi is significantly different from Vaidarbhi or Zadi Marathi spoken in Nagpur region, Varhadi in Akola region, and the one spoken in Marathwada. The problem is in the name of promotion of Marathi as a mother tongue, Maharashtra government, and its school education department is actually promoting someone else’s mother tongue for the children and even adults of say Vidarbha and Marathwada region (Bernstein would say this is applicable to even so-called lower class, lower caste people of Western Maharashtra). This unfair standardization of Marathi spoken by social elites from the Pune region has not only affected the self-esteem of non-Puneri speakers and created an artificial notion of purity-impurity in language but also seriously affected the education of children in Vidarbha and Marathwada. Why can’t for early grades, Nagpur, Amravati, or Aurangabad divisions have their own version of Marathi as a medium of instruction in the schools (and is therefore included in syllabus, books, and evaluation)? Why shouldn’t people of these regions speak and write their version of Marathi on social and official platforms? Why can’t multiple versions of Marathi flourish at the same time? A survey by MSCERT (Darak, 2016) acknowledges that there are about 60 languages (Boli Bhasha) spoken in Maharashtra, out of which 16 are spoken by Scheduled Tribes alone and 28% of the children in primary school are not taught in their mother tongues. Taking a cue from Congress government of Chhattisgarh, given the plurality of spoken languages, the Maharashtra government should democratize the spread of people’s languages. In line with the thinking of the UN, it will raise people’s respect for their mother tongues (and therefore their prior knowledge), help them strengthen their foundational education, and also make a better transition to not only the so-called standard Marathi but also to English and Hindi.  

It’s here that social activists have to take cognizance of the nuance of the language politics and its relationship with education, what I referred to in the beginning, a case of good politics and good expertise. Many activists are admirers of Gramsci and it would be advisable for them to read his ideas on language. There is an interesting paper (citation below) in which it is argued that Gramsci advocated education in early grades in mother tongue to help children develop critical consciousness while agreeing that oppressed should also learn what he calls “standard language” of the region/nation “to master the tools to destroy the master’s house”. According to this paper, Gramsci does concede that such standard language should not be imposed, and neither there be, what he calls, a hegemony by consent.

What I call the “language trap” is this. To equalize the opportunity with the privileged sections in the labor market and also “to master the tools to destroy master’s house”, social activists sometimes unintentionally fall in this trap and advise going for standard or alien languages such as English forgoing one’s mother tongue which is so crucial for building critical consciousness which then helps to change the inequitable social structure. One can find a connection between an emphasis on the promotion of mother tongue, building of critical consciousness, and a socio-political change in a state such as Tamil Nadu.

Even from job opportunities point of view, there is hardly any clear-cut evidence which tells us that if English is your medium of instruction in schools you are likely to succeed in sought after professions such as civil services, management, medicine or technology if parents’ economic class and school standards are kept constant. It would be interesting to do some research on the medium of instruction in the schooling of IAS or whatever successful people you call from SC, ST, OBCs for a decade or two. You will get surprising results. Many of us who have gone to the best of institutions for higher education in India and abroad and have achieved professional success have studied in mother tongue in schools and built a strong foundation in education and language.

If keeping away marginalized sections such as Scheduled Tribes from their home languages in schools had helped them to excel, Scheduled Tribes would have done so by now as only 1 % of the children of STs in India receive education in their mother tongue! It is, therefore, I would argue that the marginalized in India should avoid falling in the language trap and build their own autonomous perspective on language and education. 

References

Ives, P. (2010). Global English, Hegemony and Education: Lessons from Gramsci. In P. Mayo (Ed.), Gramsci and Educational Thought. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

Mohanty, A., Panda, M., Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2009). Multilingual education for social justice. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.

P.S.

I think that clarification might be required on the article to ensure that there is no misunderstanding about my position both on the existing and what I think the ideal policy should be.

The problem I have outlined above is a pretty complex issue where the political argument for equality in the medium of instruction is competing with the educational argument for education in the home language.

Firstly, one objective is that educationally speaking for better understanding education should be given in the home language in early grades. The second objective is to ensure that Bahujan children learn English. English can be and should be taught from pre-school as one subject and regular co-curricular activity by well-trained teachers to ensure fluency in spoken and written English by the time children pass 5th grade. For this, the medium of instruction need not be changed and therefore you can achieve the second objective without compromising on the first objective. Of course, my dream solution is common schools in home languages with English as a second language from preschool and school standards at par with Kendriya and/or Navodaya Vidyalayas. This is what we should be organizing around.

Author a former civil servant and IIM-A alumnus is currently a Ph.D. Candidate at The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, USA, and finishing his dissertation on why is there a gap between education policy and its implementation. He brings a decade long experience in education policy and reforms.