IT is disappointing to observe how all those
who talk of, or deal with, science in India sideline and marginalize
Indian universities. Seminar 547, March 2005, is no exception.
None of the authors is currently or even recently from
an Indian university. At the same time many of them have mentioned in
their articles the need to strengthen science teaching and research
in universities. Most of them have recognized the need for research
and teaching to go side by side and for associating young, inquisitive
minds with the older professors and other faculty. One would have liked
to get the point of view of a current professor from a university on
their problems and solutions.
Seminar
547 is not alone in ignoring universities. The Scientific Advisory Committee
to the PM does not have any representation worth mentioning from the
universities. The plan to grant Rs 100 crore to the Indian Institute
of Science as a first instalment to upgrade it to the level of world-class
universities like Oxford and Harvard demonstrates the woeful ignorance
of the authorities about the differences in the nature of these universities
and that of IISc, Bangalore.
Even the proposal to set up two new science universities
instead of strengthening science departments in the existing Indian
universities is a sad reflection on the thinking at the policy-making
levels. With many universities running on deficit budgets, few of them
have any means left for research, upgrading laboratories and libraries
after paying salaries and pensions and looking after basic maintenance.
Even Osmania University in Hyderabad has been running on deficit budgets
for the last three years and suffers from lack of funds for research,
although it is considered one of the richer universities in the country.
Considering that almost the entire educated manpower
of the country comes from universities, it is a pity that no one seems
to be interested in strengthening and upgrading them. Here one is not
talking of science only. One is as much concerned about the state of
teaching and research in humanities, liberal arts and other disciplines
which fall within the purview of universities. The general policy of
the government seems to be to create institutions for research outside
the universities whereas everyone realizes that teaching and research
must go together at the postgraduate level.
M.
Krishnamurthi
Former
Chief Controller
Defence
R &D Organisation
Secunderabad
ONE
can’t help the impression that Peggy Mohan, in the article, ‘Is English
the Language of India’s Future?’ (Seminar 545, January 2005)
is too sweeping in her argumentation to be careful about serious psycho-linguistic
factors involved in the project she so enthusiastically advocates, i.e.,
learning of English by Indian students. She prescribes ‘dislocation’
and ‘leapfrogging’ for transition to a state where English will be a
natural language in India. Perhaps it is all due to frustration arising
out of her wasted effort of ‘a quarter of a century agitating for India
to do like Japan, China and Korea … and restoring to Indian languages
the top end of their functional range, now occupied by English.’ Mohan
is concerned about the lack of proper level of English among the non-elites
of our country. Although she has not specified, one can safely assume
that among the non-elites she would include students residing and trying
to acquire English in rural and small town India.
There can be no disagreement over the fact that good
knowledge of English distinctly occupies a prominent place in today’s
career calculation and job market. The condition of security and success
in this calculation and market is good English, which simply means an
ability to understand English texts (written or spoken) of a reasonable
standard and express this understanding, and one’s response to it, in
writing and orally. Mohan thinks that this ability can be acquired just
by going on the venture ‘to first pick up English words and slot them
into a Hindi sentence, then slot in larger English chunks, and then
take out the Hindi structure altogether. ‘Here one finds a recommendation
of something like violence in the process of trying to learn a foreign
language that has to be acquired in an ambience dominated by mother
tongue. Violence never pays; and here it only can disrupt and dislocate
without producing the effect so dear to Mohan. This violence is the
product of a pedagogical mind-set which believes in the idea of avoidance
of what some call ‘mother tongue interference’ in the process of learning
a foreign language. The issue needs examination.
The students of small towns and the rural hinterland
suffer from multiple disadvantages caused by the hegemonic standards
of leaning English as the second language. These standards originate
in England and America, are lapped up by the elite metropolitan Indians
(who are very comfortable with the idea of avoiding ‘mother tongue interference’
because, in their case, the hiatus between the school and the home is
fast decreasing) and accepted, nolens volens, by the vast majority of
village and small town level students who need a sound knowledge of
English for their real empowerment vis-à-vis their metro brethren.
Let us have a glance over the metro effect of teaching
and learning English as a second language on small town graduates and
postgraduates, many with an English medium background up to the + 10
or +2 level. By way of institutional certification, they have passed,
in some cases with high marks, in English, but practically their English
is, of course with a few happy exceptions, simply pathetic. Their condition
may be described as theoretical superiority nullified by functional
mediocrity. Having failed to land employment which is secured at a competitive
bidding of merit, they have become grossly ill-paid teachers in schools
with signboards displaying nomenclatural obsession with English, have
started computer ‘centres’ with ‘awe-inspiring’ abbreviated names, or
have opened coaching ‘institutions’ with a highly self-conscious advertisement
of pedagogical perfection. A tendentiously self-conscious advertisement
is the common thread which binds all these professions joined by default.
And the central belief of this self-consciousness is an obstinate self-perception
that their knowledge of English is good, very good. This situation is
doubly dangerous. A false self-perception is a tiresome state of mind,
and it breeds a feeling of false self-sufficiency and obstructs the
effort to reach out to knowledgeable persons and other sources of amelioration
and advancement.
Why is this situation so common in rural and small town
India? One can answer that this is so because in teaching and learning
English there is unthinking emphasis on a uniformity of pedagogical
methods and materials in all the schools and colleges of the country
or in a state. The operative environment engendered by parents, peers
and the neighbourhood playground is not taken into account. And when
this mingles with the performance of incompetent teachers, the result
is just intolerable.
How to ameliorate this situation? What should be the
best approach to teaching and learning English in a rural and small
town setting whose hallmark is, undeniably and with no regret, the unbreakable
ambience of mother tongue, the resultant context being inescapably bilingual.
Naturally, an approach which insists on the clinical avoidance of ‘mother
tongue interference’ would be unnatural, and so, bound to miserably
trip behind the real target of achieving a satisfying level of linguistic
competence in English. This tripping behind takes the form of ‘targetitis’
– an obsession with passing in the subject of English with the help
of classroom spoon-feeding coupled with market-supplied help books of
substandard quality.
How to achieve the real target? By evolving a well-thought
out technique in which the resources of mother tongue act as a vehicle
of power which propels the process of learning English. Why a vernacular-based
technique of learning a foreign language? Because both history and nature
back it up. Our context is a replica of the situation in which the Europeans
found themselves in India in the later years of the 18th century vis-à-vis
the Indian languages. Their sense mingled with the pressing need to
learn modern Indian languages, and they ventured upon learning these
languages through their mother tongues. Out of this emerged the curious
but salutary fact of Indian linguistic history that the first grammars
of modern Indian languages were written by European scholars in their
native languages for the benefit of their compatriots who worked in
India either as Christian missionaries or administrative officials.
Manoel Da Assupcam, a Portuguese missionary, wrote the first grammar
of Bengali in Portuguese for the Christian missionaries in Bengal. The
book, Vocabulario em Idioma Bengalla a Portugez, was published
from Lisbon in 1743. For the British civil servants came A Grammar
of the Bengal Language from the pen of the famous orientalist Nathaniel
Brassey Halhed in 1778.
It will not be true to say that India lacked research
efforts in the field of grammar. On the contrary, we had a rich tradition
of grammatical learning before the advent of the Europeans. The traditional
Indian education had grammar as an important component, and the corpus
of grammatical literature here was very rich and copious. But Indian
scholars, though deeply engrossed with the problems of Sanskrit grammar,
and to some extent those of Arabic and Persian, did not feel the need
to write grammars of the languages used by the common people around
them. There was no pedagogic necessity since the modern living languages
were not studied at a higher level. The scholars of language and literature
did not consider these languages worthy of scholarly attention and investigation.
The list of writers of the first grammars of modern Indian languages
is interesting in not being very short, which shows that scholars almost
all over India were on the same wavelength. Father Beschi, an Italian
Jesuit, wrote the first grammar of modern Tamil in Latin in the first
decade of the 18th century. The credit for writing the first grammar
of Malayalam goes to Angelos Francis, a Portuguese, who wrote it in
Latin. John Gilchrist is remembered for the first grammar and dictionary
of Urdu. Sindhi and Punjabi owe their first grammars to Ernest Trumpp
and William Carey respectively.
The replica arches over the aspect of motivation also.
The missionaries learnt Indian languages for translating the Bible and
propagating it among the masses. The British administrators learnt them
for the immediate practical necessity of running the administrative
machinery. The overwhelming majority of Indians want and need to learn
English for getting jobs. On the other hand, the possibility of going
beyond the confines of immediate necessities remains alive. From among
the foreigners, a prominent group of scholars and administrators with
a scholarly bent of mind went beyond these confines and gave impetus
to a new intellectual movement which took a concrete shape in the Asiatic
Society of Bengal established in 1784. India is proud of the Indians
who posses remarkable felicity in English and express native observations
and experiences of nativity in a language which is not native.
Professor Sudhakar Marathe of the University of Hyderabad,
looking into the situation of English in pre-1947 India, which continued
well into the initial decades of our independence (when the Indian learners
of English loved their mother tongues) explicitly says, ‘… despite unmodern
or premodern methods of languages teaching… the rate of success of language
learning was high indeed, most who entered the enterprise coming out,
far more competent within the limits than the average of the millions
who enter the enterprise every year today’ (‘The Un-Makers of “Indian”
English’ in C.D. Narasimhaiah, ed., Makers of Indian Literature,
Pencraft International, Delhi, 2003, p. 284). The ‘limits’ to which
he refers to was that ‘by and large … English was used in its inscribed
form, bookishly, formally, and it was limited also in the range of subjects,
aspects of life it had to manage; purely personal and affective matters
being omitted from the demands made on ‘students’ English’ (ibid.).
One thing was certain – their English was good, with all the implications
of being good. This admirable situation is alive today in small islands
of motivated learners. An illustrative example can be given. Now it
is common knowledge that the performance at the UPSC conducted civil
services examinations has taken a ‘subaltern’ turn. It means that the
number of successful candidates belonging to the middle class Hindi
heartland of India (particularly UP and Bihar) is, to say the least,
very considerable. Some of them write their exams in English and some
in Hindi, the common thread binding informational and conceptual clarity
in the chosen subjects through their readings of standard books written
in standard English. These readings make their own demand on their English,
which they meet admirably. Another common characteristic found in them
is their preference for English as being, to recall Professor Marathe
with slight alterations, inscribed, bookish and formal. Their ‘personal
and affective matters’ are taken care of by their Hindi, even their
Bhojpuri, Magahi and Maithili. They are confident enough to keep themselves
in right shape even without joining the wow-shit-my foot-damn it … circuit.
Why is a mother tongue so important? Because it is not
just a verbal pile. It is a psychology, an environment, a source of
cultural and cognitive sustenance, an emotion, a bond, and many collateral
things. To attempt to guard against its ‘interference’ is an act of
violence with a pernicious potential to damage some vital nerves of
the emotional-cultural-artistic continuum of a learner’s personality.
The right pedagogical philosophy is that which believes in the possibility
of osmosis of energy between the mother tongue and the second language.
Most second language learners want and expect to operate as bilinguals,
rather than monolinguals. It is the natural state of participation in
the learning process. What is more, insistence on the monolingual approach
to leaning English as a second language leads to another insistence
– the insistence on treating English as a permanently foreign language
with its pristine foreignness remaining intact. The manifesto of liberation
penned by our renowned Raja Rao was quoted with full endorsement by
Mulk Raj Anand in his presentation (‘Changeling’) at a CIEFL Seminar
on Indian English held in July 1972. The operative position of the manifesto
– We cannot write like the English. We should not. We can write only
as Indians – links itself seamlessly with the conviction of Gilles Deleuze
and Felix Guattari that the mother tongue is ‘vernacular, maternal and
territorial.’
The vital point is that English in India is here to stay
and should stay fruitfully, as an asset, not as a liability. An all-out
effort should be made to enhance and widen its acceptability, which
entails an attempt to ‘deforeignise’ it. The attempt at ‘deforeignisation’
of a language simply means a confident interface with the native language
of a particular area. The context being inescapably bilingual and the
command over English weak, a profuse dose of the vernacular is mixed
with English in the process of teaching, but all by default, without
conviction and with a sense of guilt. What should be done is to confidently
tap the resources of the mother tongue and harness them in the pedagogical
endeavour. This would entail learning the rules of English grammar well,
and applying these rules in a constant practice of translation from
the mother tongue into English. This practice must not be token and
meagre. Reams and reams of paper should be spent on it. While fulfilling
S. Pitt Corder’s condition of exposure to ‘the language data’, it would
lead to the students of a bilingual context feeling their linguistic
base of English getting stronger with translating complicated structures
of their mother tongue into English. It would result in a liking for
the target language, which would lead naturally to a love for a varied
range of texts written in English.
R.P. Singh
Government
College, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
WHILE
I thank Fali Nariman for his spirited rejoinder (Seminar 546,
February 2005) I need to say simply that the observations he makes concerning
my alleged role in justification of the Emergency dishonours my reference
to the legendary endowment of media freedom that Romesh Thapar so valiantly
instituted and promoted. No record of resolute resistance to censorship
in the Third World contexts, matches and measures his. And it trivialises
this beacon achievement even to mention my name in the same breath!
Incidentally, Mr. Nariman errs in the sheer excess of
allegations; any archival resource to Doordarshan will repel the extravagant
attribution that I several times over and unabashedly extolled ‘the
Internal Emergency as an act of rare statepersonship, necessary for
disciplining the populace of India.’ Further, in my Supreme Court
and Politics (1980) I have fully reflected on similar attributions
to my public interventions during the course of the Emergency, not as
Mr. Nariman now says ‘only after the Emergency was lifted.’
The Internal Emergency lasted for two years, though devastatingly
destructive of many a lifetime. The entire point of my rejoinder to
was to highlight the fact that the Union Carbide Corporation, and its
now globalizing cohorts, have declared a more enduring, and menacing,
state of emergency for the peoples of India, and of the Global South.
This indeed is a conjuncture in which we all poignantly miss the robust
voice of Romesh Thapar, when most needed.
Upendra Baxi, Warwick, UK