<div dir="ltr"><h1>The language of choice</h1>
<div class="">
June 9, 2014 12:35 am </div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><a class=""> </a></div>
<div class=""><a class=""> </a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:5px 5px 0px" valign="top"><br></td></tr> <tr><td style="padding:0px 5px" valign="top"><br></td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" style="text-align:right;padding-right:5px">
<a href="https://www.google.com/url?ct=abg&q=https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py%3Fcontact%3Dabg_afc%26url%3Dhttp://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-language-of-choice/99/%26gl%3DUS%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dca-pub-9517772455344405%26ai0%3DCqxAyz-KVU7icEc7X-QOf3oGoDczC8-cF9KeIjWPAjbcBEAEggp3WDFCqse2M-_____8BYMm-44q0pOQPoAGUkJX9A8gBAagDAaoEpwFP0Bkpba6m7e2YeD000qcefXVNK66rCr5NpZa0vsfj_5wLkUNH064mWQ1SowA4cSl8Rv4Pu3rZU_zI54y2paeeQ6xEP016DBYORjfH8BUDSLlHdBX4JRcpceOdir6mibK0V55RecvyBec_tsPh_qpd_VV-7sy8UyO1WUQNLCC3nN3Eopzo-iOb9TPVwxrr2Z_XNZSNZUkXPGEhRjtP0mFqAU748ckbRYgGAYAH1O_qAg&usg=AFQjCNEZ2olNfFNCeGdznvX9nOdSixoJ-A" style="font:10px arial;color:rgb(186,186,186);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Ads by Google</a></td>
</tr></tbody></table>
</div>
<div class=""><br></div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<img class="" src="http://images.indianexpress.com/2014/05/supreme-court.jpg" alt="Research has maintained that familiarity with school language is crucial to progress in early years and while the verdict does not counter this position, it seeks to enable an element of choice in education. " height="267" width="480">
Research has maintained that familiarity with school language is
crucial to progress in early years and while the verdict does not
counter this position, it seeks to enable an element of choice in
education. </div>
</div>
<h3>Summary</h3>
<div class="">Supreme Court judgment marks an important turn in the debate on language education policy.</div><br>
<div class="">
<div class=""></div><p></p>
</div><div class=""><p></p>
</div>
</div></div>
<p><em><br></em></p>
<p>In 1876, Ramabai, 18, set off on a long and arduous journey from
south India to Bengal and the north to become a scholar. Trained in
Sanskrit scriptures, philosophy and languages early on, Ramabai would
soon be conferred the title “Pandita”, speak seven languages and go on
to write engaging scholarly books in Marathi and English. Travels
between different languages and knowledge systems were central to
Ramabai’s educational experience and her work.</p>
<p>Language continued to occupy centre stage in the story of India’s
formal education as well and its steady expansion over the course of the
last century. Despite the tradition of plurilingual pedagogic practices
and an outpouring of research on the importance of home-language(s) in
education, the place of language remains contested and forever
unresolved. Given that considerations of employability, higher
educational opportunities and regional pride increasingly govern the
perceptions of language in education, no policy decision can confine
itself to educational ideals alone.</p>
<p>In this context, the judgment by a constitutional bench of the
Supreme Court (dated May 7) offers a significant turn in a series of
long-standing dilemmas on language education policy. Responding to the
government order on the medium of instruction in 1989 that eventually
became the language policy in Karnataka in 1994, the bench considered
the following questions: (a) Who is the rightful authority to decide the
medium of instruction for students? (b) What does “mother tongue”mean
and who is the rightful authority to decide what can be called mother
tongue in a particular context? (c) Can education in one’s mother tongue
be imposed? (d) Is the right to choose implicit in the right to
education? Discussions of each of these questions were framed within the
scope of three articles in the Constitution: Article 350A, which calls
for the state and local authorities to ensure adequate facilities for
instruction in the mother tongue to children from linguistic minority
communities; Article 19, which is entitled “right to freedom”, including
freedom of speech and expression, freedom to form unions, move and
practice a profession; and Article 21A, which resolves that the state
shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age 6
to14.</p>
<p>Thinking through the questions of medium of instruction in light of
the constitutional scheme, the judgment involves four important points.
Adhering to a rather narrow interpretation of the term “mother tongue”
the judgment holds that in the context of the Constitution, mother
tongue would mean “the language of the linguistic minority in a state”
and it would be the child or the parents who will have decisive power to
declare their language as the mother tongue. Second, the bench also
holds that “the child, or, on his [sic] behalf, his parent or guardian,
has a right to freedom of choice with regard to the medium of
instruction in which he would like to be educated at the primary stage
in school.” Considering a liberal interpretation of the terms “freedom
of expression’’ the judgment holds that the right to freedom of speech
includes the freedom of a child to be educated in a language of “the
choice of the child”. Finally, the judgment holds that the state cannot
impose mother tongue as a medium of instruction.</p><div style="display:block" id="tapbeyond"><div id="loginroot"> <div style="color:rgb(51,51,51);display:inline-block;vertical-align:top;margin-top:10px">to help us personalise your reading experience.</div>
</div></div>
<p>The verdict privileges Article 19 over others and foregrounds
individual liberty and choice as primary drivers of access to education.
The judgment does not engage with issues of pedagogy, educational
philosophy and instructional practices. Research on right to education
has maintained that familiarity with school language is crucial in
enrolments and progress in early years and while the verdict does not
counter this position, it seeks to enable an element of choice in
education. In the same line, the judgment suggests a shift in the
state’s role as loco parentis and goes on to re-order the power of
authority in education.</p>
<p>The distributive authority in determining educational access and
content is positioned alongside the arguments of freedom, individual
liberty, choice and lesser involvement of the state. This narrative,
while in contrast with much that stands for right to education, is
closely connected to the dramatic growth in private schooling and the
manufacturing of English as a “cure all”. The current judgment will not
affect Kannada as a subject in class I to IV but its broad orientation
does signal a turn.</p>
<p><em>The writer is a member, faculty in education programme, at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore</em></p><a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-language-of-choice/99/">http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-language-of-choice/99/</a><br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>**************************************<br>N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its members<br>and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message. A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)<br>
<br>For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to <a href="https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/">https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/</a><br>listinfo/lgpolicy-list<br>*******************************************
</div>