[lg policy] India: Return of language politics

Mon Apr 24 14:44:22 UTC 2017

Return of language politics

   -

   Prasenjit Biswas | Shillong
   April 24, 2017 | 01:26 PM

[image: students]

Representational Image (Photo: IANS)

Can language become a dominant factor in polarising politics of our time?
Seemingly Assam education minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s positioning of
Assamese as a compulsory medium of instruction up to Class X is based on a
sentimental ownership of the language and not by sound educational logic.
As the choice of a language should be left to students and their parents,
the minister is withdrawing options for them by declaring a kind of
mono-lingual authority for Assamese that does not augur well for the
multi-lingual state of Assam.

Of course, the minister left two small options — one, Bodo for tribal areas
of Bodoland and Bengali for the Barak Valley. The overwhelming emphasis on
Asomiya is reminiscent of the earlier emphasis on Sanskrit, which was later
given up and revised. The issue here is not just about policy-making but
also recognising linguistic diversity in Assam and allowing free choice of
a language as a medium of instruction.

It is important to understand why the imposition of language and using it
in a certain way becomes the hallmark of state policy towards the
minorities. It won’t be out of place to mention that recently the West
Bengal government in North Bengal initiated a committee to research into
the status of the Rajbangshi tongue as a language and proposed to recognise
it in the context of North Bengal. The West Bengal government intended to
address the question of the Kamtapur demand by recognising Rajbangshi
language.

Unfortunately no Rajbangshi scholar is included in the committee and only
scholars with a particular language and scientism were included in the
committee. It has scholars like Nrisingha Prasad Bhaduri, Ananda Gopal
Ghosh, Subodh Sarkar and Bijay Sarkar, all of whom are known for their
theoretical inclination to undermine languages that are minority languages
as part of Bengali.

The two cases of Assam and West Bengal run parallel to each other. In the
case of Assam minorities are subjected to a compulsorily learning the major
language of the state. In case of West Bengal a recognition of Rajbangshi
as a language qualified to become a medium of instruction sounds
far-fetched, as many of the these scholars believe that Rajbangshi is a
dialect of Bengali. Again in Assam, tribal languages which are used as a
medium of instruction will now face a fear of extinction if Assamese has to
be compulsory up to Class X. In both cases, there is a clear attempt to
bulldoze minority languages.

The question is, why should a state policy be so biased that it has to
establish superiority of language of the dominant cultural identity? What
is the compulsion of the ruling group to secure the dominance of the
dominant language while the languages of marginalised groups are left to
languish and probably to die out? This act of immiserisation of
marginalised languages constitute the policy of ensuring dominance of a
ruling elite often formed on the basis of language, religion, caste and
tribe.

The other question is can the ruling elite be homogeneous in language and
culture? Seemingly Biswa Sarma and the West Bengal government are carrying
out an implicit agenda of setting up dominance of the language of the
majority. The justification for such a language policy remains in the
linguistic division of states and provinces in India. Similarly, the recent
approval of the President of India for ministers and top officials to speak
only in Hindi creates a similar situation in Parliament and the high
echelons of power.

It is definitely important to understand how a particular state treats its
linguistic and cultural minorities as there is no alternative to giving a
fair and equitable treatment to minorities at every level of our national
life. If we have to build up a national identity based on “unity in
diversity” as a principle, it is to be recognised that a majority
linguistic group in one state is necessarily a minority in another state.
The way minority languages are denied a fair treatment in West Bengal, it
has its immediate backlash in states where Bengali is a minority language.
Needless to say it will induce a sense of alienation and iridescence for
those perceived majority languages in places where they are in minorities.

In case of Assam’s multicultural and multilingual mosaic, imposition of
Asomiya as the only medium of instruction has a bitter history of falling
apart and fostering mistrust. Similarly in North Bengal, leaving out
smaller linguistic groups while giving a partial and not-so-acceptable
recognition of Rajbangshi as a language, creates mistrust for smaller
groups like Rabha, Bodo, Dhimal, Santal and others. This kind of a skewed
policy of recognition to some and disrecognition to immediate others
creates a double trap. On the one hand, it creates challenges for a
language as it gets identified with dominance and on the other, it leads to
appropriation of smaller linguistic groups. In the context of Assam, such a
skewed policy creates a lot of unease among Non-Asomiya linguistic groups,
as they are constantly threatened by such linguistically aggressive state
policies.

The government remains insensitive to cultural and linguistic diversity. As
there is an increasingly racist, linguistic and culturalist fundamentalism
fanned by state policies, the latest diktat by the governments have a
serious fall-out. In bigger countries like the US and Canada, there is an
official policy of multiculturalism that India never has. It has been
emphasised by the Centre that the Constitution guarantees fundamental
rights of freedom of conscience and recognition of everyone’s religion and
language and prevent discrimination on the basis of race, caste, sex and
religion, which is a foolproof arrangement towards cultural and linguistic
equality. As things emerge, the government and the ruling elite and the
state policy become the biggest source of casualty in this
constitutionally-given mandate of protection and propagation of minority
cultures.

The justification that comes from Assam government for making Asomiya,
Bengali and Bodo compulsory for schoolchildren, is the reason that children
are forgetting their mother tongue in private schools. While this aspect of
policy framing is for the good of future generations, imposition of a
dominant language on other language groups causes an equal obstruction to
learning of their mother tongue. In the Brahmaputra valley, where there are
many tribal languages, the policy needs to be corrected by a rider that
children from tribal groups will also have the right to learn their own
mother tongues. This recognition of tribal languages will be in line with
various articles of the Constitution, while the imposition of a state
language on ethnic and linguistic minorities goes against the grain of
Constitutional intent.

The policy of the West Bengal government to give a political recognition of
Rajbangshi as subsidiary language but without situating it in its proper
historical and cultural context creates a deeper sense of anxiety and
alienation among Rajbangshi speakers. The rationale for such a onesided
decision stems from a majoritarian sense of belonging to a dominant
language as part of a democratic power game and reduces language to a mere
political tool of statecraft. One needs to remember that language is the
finest expression of human essence and hence entry into any language is
taking part in a form of life. If the interest of building up a unified
nation is to be formed, the governments of Assam and West Bengal need to be
extremely sensitive to the ground reality of tribal and minority languages.
Bereft of this, turning language into a tool for politicisation is a
polarising act that has a terrible fall-out in breakdown of common and
shared faith in living together in mutual co-existence.

*The writer is an author and a philosopher based at the North Eastern Hill
University, Shillong. His latest book is Bet Thought and Consciousness,
Notionpress, 2017*

http://www.thestatesman.com/features/return-of-language-politics-1493020551.html

-- 
**************************************
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, 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)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20170424/eb80c810/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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