[lg policy] Fwd: Mother tongue decision in court

Thu Feb 13 16:11:54 UTC 2014

Karnataka Language Policy Issue

 Forwarded From: E. Annamalai <annamalai38 at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Mother tongue decision in court
To: Harold Schiffman <haroldfs at gmail.com>

Dear Harold,

As I told you, the linguists in India wanted give the Supreme Court their
professional opinion on the questions it raised. My response to the
questions is below, which was prepared for the linguists to use as a base
to develop their response. As you have asked for it, I am giving it to you.

E. Annamalai
Director Emeritus
Central Institute of Indian Languages
Mysore, India

*Considering the importance of the issue, the bench of the Supreme Court
framed five questions: *

 *** What does mother tongue mean? If it refers to the language in which
the child is comfortable with, then who will decide the same?
** *Whether a student or a parent or a citizen has a right to choose a
medium of instruction at primary stage?
* Does imposition of mother tongue in any way affect fundamental rights?
* Whether government-recognized schools are inclusive of both
government-aided schools and private and unaided schools?
* Whether the state can by virtue of Article 350A of the Constitution
compel linguistic minorities to choose their mother tongue only as medium
of instruction in primary schools?

*Linguists' response*

1.      The term mother tongue is understood in different senses such as
the marker of ethnic identity, indicator of level of language competence as
a native speaker, the communication system acquired from the household. For
the pedagogical purpose, mother tongue is the language of early childhood
experience with which the child understands the world around her and forms
her identity in relation to others. A child can have more than one mother
tongue in this sense. The mother tongue could be the sign language. When
there is more than one mother tongue, the child, i.e. her parent on her
behalf, will choose one of them for the educational purpose.

Mother tongue in educational discussions refers to two distinct entities.
One is that it refers to a language that is in opposition to the majority
and / or the official language of the State where the child lives. This is
specified as the minority mother tongue. Another is that it refers to a
language in opposition to English, and it could be the majority language of
the state. In the context of the question under discussion, both are mother
tongues for different populations.

The parent decides the language of the early experience of his or her
child. There is, however, the possibility of choosing a language like
English, which the child is not experienced with, as the child's mother
tongue for extraneous reasons. In such a case, a verification method needs
to be established by the school.

2.      At the primary level, the child, i.e. the parent on her behalf, has
the right to choose her mother tongue, as defined and determined as above,
as the medium of instruction. It could be the sole medium or be a medium in
conjunction with another language, generally the official language of the
State, in a bilingual education programme or language-across-curriculum
methodology. This right is circumscribed by the mother tongue of the child
and does not extend to any random language.

A consequential question when the mother tongue is not the official
language of the State is whether the State has the right to obligate the
students to learn the official language as a subject in order for the child
to function effectively in the State and participate in the government when
she becomes an adult. The State has this right and can decide when and how
the official language of the state is introduced as a  subject in the
curriculum.

3.      Limiting the choice of medium of instruction to the mother tongue
at the primary level is not an imposition. It is based on the sound
educational principle that the language of the early childhood experience
at home is the best means of relating the school with the home and a
natural extension of the way of learning at home to school. It is thus not
a violation of the fundamental right to education. (Everyone has a
fundamental right to marry, which can be extended to marry someone of the
same sex, but not to their sibling. This restriction is not a violation of
one's rights.)

4.      Using the mother tongue of the child as the medium of instruction
at the primary level is the natural justice for any child irrespective of
kind of school she attends. It is not a matter of government's will. It
treats all children equally irrespective of the difference in mother
tongues. As such, all kinds of schools, whether aided by the government or
not, will exercise the natural justice.

5.      Article 350(A) is related to the right of minorities including
linguistic minorities to establish and manage educational institutions.
Read in conjunction with the preceding Articles, it is for preserving
minority culture, language and script. Using a language and a script in
school is a step in the direction of preserving them. But the courts have
read 350(A) not in conjunction with the preceding Articles. It must be read
in conjunction with preservation of culture of minorities in multilingual
India and so the mother tongue of a minority must be taught in primary
schools. With regard to the medium of instruction, it will be the medium if
it is the language of early experience of the child. If not, such a
language will be the medium.

  On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:04 PM, Harold Schiffman <
haroldfs at gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *E. Annamalai* <annamalai38 at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: Mother tongue decision in court
To: Harold Schiffman <haroldfs at gmail.com>

I am sharing a  draft of the note to the Court that E. Annamalai sent to
the Court
some time ago.   .

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:32 PM, E. Annamalai <annamalai38 at yahoo.com>wrote:

 Dear Harold,

Language Policy list today carries the news of Indian Supreme Court's
Constitutional Bench taking up the case of the issue of mother tongue in
education. When I was in Mysore, some linguists at the national level
wanted to give a brief to the Court as a professional view. Unfortunately,
there was no agreement. Some linguists wanted to raise the sociolinguistic
issue of mother tongues of children and to propose a language policy in
education. I wanted to specifically address the Court's questions, which
are legal in nature. The Court, I believe, is looking for legal answers to
the educational question, not for educational reform. We the linguists of
India missed an opportunity.
I am attaching my draft of the note to the Court that I made for discussion
among linguists. I thought you might be interested. It is attached.

anbudan,
Annamalai

-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

 Harold F. Schiffman

Professor Emeritus of
 Dravidian Linguistics and Culture
Dept. of South Asia Studies
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305

Phone:  (215) 898-7475
Fax:  (215) 573-2138

Email:  haroldfs at gmail.com
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/

-------------------------------------------------

-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

 Harold F. Schiffman

Professor Emeritus of
 Dravidian Linguistics and Culture
Dept. of South Asia Studies
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305

Phone:  (215) 898-7475
Fax:  (215) 573-2138

Email:  haroldfs at gmail.com
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/

-------------------------------------------------

-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

 Harold F. Schiffman

Professor Emeritus of
 Dravidian Linguistics and Culture
Dept. of South Asia Studies
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305

Phone:  (215) 898-7475
Fax:  (215) 573-2138

Email:  haroldfs at gmail.com
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/

-------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20140213/54234b5e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Supreme Court questions answered.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19562 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20140213/54234b5e/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list