The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 does not restrict the number of languages to be learned at school to three, which is the requirement of the three-language formula. It provides for the learning of Sanskrit. “Sanskrit,” it says, “will be offered at all levels of school and higher education as an enriching option for students, including as an option in the three-language formula.” Needless to say, when it is chosen as one of the three languages, it becomes a compulsory language. The important thing about this language in the present context is that it is to be taught for its rich literature, both imaginative and knowledge-based. NEP 2020 deals with the possible objection to it being religious literature, associated with the Hindu religion, by saying that this literature contains contributions from “people of various religions as well as non-religious people.”
We may note that whereas the objective of the three-language formula is to promote multilingualism, it is different in the case of Sanskrit. As already mentioned, it will be taught for its rich literature. Learning Sanskrit literature, NEP 2020 assumes, would be an aesthetically enjoyable and intellectual experience for the learners. The policy provides for the learning of one or more of the other classical languages of India (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Odia, Pali, Prakrit, Marathi, Bengali, and Assamese) as options for the same purpose as for Sanskrit. But unlike Sanskrit, these could be taught “possibly as online modules.” But why the online mode, one would wonder; why should students study these languages outside school hours? NEP 2020 does not say anything about it. We know that online teaching is no substitute for face-to-face teaching. It’s the exception and can obviously not be the norm, especially when rural students are at a disadvantage with respect to this mode.
Incidentally, when a language is taught for its literary value, it may not be unreasonable to expect that the learners would read the literary texts of great value in this language later in life. Now, Sanskrit is already being taught as a compulsory or an optional subject at the secondary and higher secondary stages in many States. Does the learning of Sanskrit at school lead to reading, later, the great classics in this language in the original, that is, in Sanskrit language? Not many would say that indeed it has, in their cases. Most are acquainted with the great Sanskrit classics from their English or regional language translations. The same would hold for the other classical languages. Exceptions apart, which would be very few, if at all these are there, Odias, for instance, would know Tamil or Malayalam or Assamese classics through their English or Odia translations.
If this is the case, why teach these languages at the secondary or even the higher secondary level? It would be more reasonable to teach these at the level of higher education. At the school (up to the higher secondary) level, languages should be taught for functional purposes, be it the mother language or English or even the third language, not for literary or cultural purposes. In fact, NEP 2020 says this, although implicitly. Incidentally, this does not mean that literary and cultural texts would not be used in teaching these languages; these would be used for functional purposes. The expression “functional purposes” has to be understood as the development of soft skills. These are “communication, discussion, and debate,” as mentioned in NEP 2020.
At the secondary level, foreign languages “such as Korean, Japanese, Thai, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian” would also be offered as optional courses, mentions NEP 2020. These will be offered so that students learn “about the world and to enrich their global knowledge and mobility according to their own interests and aspirations.” NEP 2020 does not explain the choice of these specific languages. Perhaps it is encouraging the younger generation to explore economic and educational opportunities in the associated countries, which it assumes are emerging as their choice for work or, in some cases, study. So far, the preferred destinations of Indian students and professionals have been the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada – English-speaking countries all. Now, if they have to go to non-English speaking countries, it will be to their advantage if they already know the language of their chosen country.
The ideas appear unobjectionable, namely, (a) these languages, the classical and the foreign, can be studied by the students as optional subjects (fine, if some students do not choose any of these languages) and (b) there are a number of languages in the basket for the student to choose from, at the secondary stage and beyond. Now, the real challenge lies in the implementation of the offering of these courses. For how many languages would a certain State provide the necessary facilities? Would all or some of these languages be available, at the higher level, to the students of all branches of knowledge: humanities, social sciences, sciences and technology, commerce, and law, for instance? Would there be enough takers? One would know when the policy is implemented. It is difficult to have an idea now of the equation between the availability of resources and the demand in this regard.
Still on the subject of options, let us consider the options in the teaching of the mother language. “Wherever possible,” recommends NEP 2020, “the medium of instruction until at least Grade 5, but preferably till 8 and beyond, will be the home language/mother tongue/local language/regional language.” To clarify the difference between home language and mother language, it observes that “at times, in multilingual families, there can be a home language spoken by other family members which may sometimes be different from the mother tongue or local language.” Let us not go into the important question of how sharp indeed the differences are in the real-life context. The policy has the lofty ideal that every child must receive education in his (her/their) mother language. But the clause “wherever possible” takes away the loftiness. Mother language education has often been implemented as regional language education. This is what has been happening all these years. All concerned know this. It is allowed by the “wherever possible” clause. In the name of mother language education, a child who speaks a tribal language has been receiving education in the regional language of the State (implementation of the “wherever possible” clause). For him, the three-language formula becomes the four-language formula. He has been deprived of the “cognitive benefits” of mother language education, and on pragmatic considerations, this discriminating situation has been generally accepted as the best solution under the circumstances.
Affirmative steps have got to be taken in this respect. It is heartening to learn that the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, has recently prepared primers for about a hundred languages for the pre-primary stage. The Centre of Excellence for Studies in Classical Odia, Bhubaneswar, has recently prepared primers for some tribal languages. This is certainly an important step towards achieving the goal of mother language education at the early stage. Obviously, a great deal remains to be done. For instance, talking about material production, it will be useful if a bilingual dictionary of (the basic words) of a tribal language and the relevant regional language is prepared. It will help the teacher of the tribal language concerned, who, for quite some time, will be an outsider to the speech community.
NEP 2020 makes important recommendations about the teaching of language. About that, in the next piece!
(The views expressed are the writer’s own)
Prof. B.N.Patnaik
Retd. Professor of Linguistics and English, IIT Kanpur
Email: [email protected]
(Images from the net)