Karnataka: Can government impose the medium of instruction?

Sat Jul 5 14:15:40 UTC 2008

Can government impose the medium of instruction?

If an Indian is entitled to a precious right, he is entitled to a less
precious right too; the Constitution may not entitle him to a more
precious right in the interest of the country's security; eg, the
nuclear deal is not in the public domain..
CJ: S Shivakumar, merinews ,

PARENTS AS well as managements of Karnataka's recognised unaided
schools heaved a sigh of relief, with the Karnataka High Court
bringing to an end the 14-year-long battle between the state's
education department and the managements of the said schools on the
issue of medium of instruction. As a result, students studying in
unaided private schools are free to choose the medium of instruction.

Way back in 1994, the Karnataka government ordered that all recognised
schools follow Kannada or the respective mother tongue as the medium
of instruction from class one to five. The order, for reasons best
known to the government, did not apply to schools in operation prior
to 1994. Vexed with the order, school managements approached the high
court, challenging the directive. The court directed that status quo
be maintained.

Since 1994, some 5,000 plus schools were permitted to come into being
subject to the condition that they would not introduce English medium.
In fact, the schools were required to furnish an undertaking to the
effect that they would teach only in Kannada or the mother tongue of
the students. But after obtaining permission hundreds of such schools
actually took to teaching in English medium. The reasons were obvious
– parents preferred their children to be taught in the English medium
and the schools willy-nilly violated the terms under which they were
permitted to operate.

Hurt by the brazen violation, the education department cracked the
whip and forced the closure of around 2,000 schools by derecognising
them. Since the closure affected the future of lakhs of children
studying in the derecognised schools, popular pressure mounted and
bowing to the pressure, the government came out with a compromise in
the form of a voluntary scheme. Under the scheme, derecognised schools
in urban areas were required to pay Rs 1,00,000 and derecognised
schools in rural areas were required to pay Rs 25,000 every academic
year if they wanted to continue.

The court ruled that the government's decision to have Kannada as the
medium of instruction could be enforced only in aided and
government-run schools. The government policy compelling children in
other government-recognised schools to have primary education in
Kannada violated Articles 19 (1) (g), 26 and 30 (1) of the
Constitution. A full bench comprised of Chief Justice Cyriac Joseph,
Justice N Kumar and Justice Manjula Chellur quashed clauses 2, 3, 6
and 8 of the government order pertaining to school language policy for
schools not run or aided by the government. The clauses had been
challenged by the Karnataka (Recognised) Unaided Schools' Managements
Association. The court observed that parents and children choosing
English as a medium of education was not a crime. The policy to
introduce Kannada as first language for children whose mother tongue
was Kannada was valid as was Kannada as a subject for students whose
mother tongue was not Kannada. The court observed that the government
had the power to formulate a language policy and implement it. But the
policy should not come in the way of the fundamental rights of a
citizen. The policy to have primary education in mother tongue or
regional language should be implemented in government and aided
schools. There was no compulsion for children to be admitted to
government schools. At the same time, the state government could not
compel any child to have primary education in mother tongue or
regional language.

Anyway, all is well that ends well and so students of unaided and
private schools are at last free to choose the medium of instruction.
But what of their brothers and sisters studying in government and
aided schools? Who will take up the cudgels on their behalf? They will
be denied the privilege of studying in the English medium at least
until class five. What is the reaction of our law makers who
conveniently educate their children and grandchildren in schools which
follow the CBSE / ICSE syllabus, so they will not be affected by the
state government's 'only Kannada medium' policy? They have typically
played to the gallery.

The state's primary and secondary education minister Visveshwar Kageri
said he would have to study the judgment in its entirety. He would
discuss the outcome of the verdict with legal luminaries,
constitutional experts, pro-Kannada organisations and educationists to
enable the government to formulate its response. The Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) government, however, would do everything to ensure that
Kannada language continued to retain its supremacy, and the
linguistic, cultural and territorial interests of Kannadigas were
protected.

The chairperson of Kannada Development Authority Mukhyamantri Chandru
said the court's verdict was highly regrettable. It amounted to
injustice to Kannada and Karnataka. The judgment would adversely
affect the development of Kannada. BK Chandrashekhar, former education
minister of the state, who taught law at Indian Institute of
Management (IIM), Bangalore for sometime said he was not convinced
that the right to freedom of speech and expression included the right
to choose the medium of instruction. Linguists all over the world had
said that children learnt best in their mother tongue.

M Veerappa Moily, former chief minister of Karnataka, who issued the
controversial 1994 government order said he passed the order because
one should be taught in one's mother tongue. It was a well-tested
fact. Linguists and experts all over the world without exception had
said that mother tongue should be the basic foundation. Even the
Mahatma had said that children should be taught in the mother tongue.

One is at a loss to understand how the judgment threatened the
supremacy of Kannada language or affected the linguistic, cultural and
territorial interests of Kannadigas. Even more difficult to understand
is the argument that the judgement would adversely affect the
development of Karnataka. The right to freedom of speech and
expression is more precious than the right to choose the medium of
instruction. If as an Indian I am entitled to a precious right, I am
automatically entitled to a less precious right although the
constitution may not entitle me to a more precious right in the
interest of the country's security. For example, the Indo-US nuclear
deal is not in the public domain. Linguists all over the world may
have said that children learnt best in their mother tongue but it does
not mean they practised or practise what they preached or preach -
just as the children or grandchildren of the powers that be do not
pursue their studies in Kannada medium. What does the former IIM,
Bangalore professor have to say to this? Mahatma was against
industrialisation. He was against drinking and smoking. He believed in
austerity. He did not believe in clinging to power at all costs. Let
Moily set an example by practising whatever Mahatma preached. We will
follow suit.

I would also like to know if the children and grandchildren of the
foregoing dignitaries are pursuing their studies in Kannada medium.
The medium of instruction that a parent chooses for the child is the
parent's personal affair. None can be more interested in the child's
welfare and future than the parent, least of all our politicians.
There is some subjectivity involved in these matters. Our powers that
be would do well to remember that there is no accounting for taste. A
European friend of Jawaharlal Nehru (I forget his name) wondered how
Indians managed to eat without using spoons. The friend received a
humiliating rebuff. Nehru, himself a user of spoons, replied that
Indians felt uncomfortable using spoons – it was like making love
through an interpreter.

http://india.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=136971

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
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. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************