[lg policy] Nigeria: The Ary language policy

Fri Dec 22 15:24:19 UTC 2017

The Army language policy
By *Editorial Board*
21 December 2017   |   4:01 am
Did the Nigerian Senate make us proud?
10 hours ago
<https://guardian.ng/opinion/did-the-nigerian-senate-make-us-proud/>
Over-zealousness of security agents
11 hours ago
<https://guardian.ng/opinion/over-zealousness-of-security-agents/>
Burning issue
11 hours ago
<https://guardian.ng/opinion/burning-issue-2/>

Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai
Although in principle there may be some merit in the new local language
policy recently proposed by the Nigerian Army, the idea of the army
compelling all its personnel to be proficient in the three languages of
Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba by December 2018 is largely contentious. It is also
discriminatory, unrealistic and unlikely to be effective.

According to reports, the new local language policy was a directive from
the Chief of Army Staff, Lt. Col. Tukur Buratai, aimed at promoting
national integration and thereby foster peace and unity in the country.

No doubt, the idea of learning and becoming proficient in indigenous
languages is a laudable one. Amongst other things, proficiency in the
language of the community in which one works is a veritable instrument of
mutually beneficial human relations. It creates a sense of belongingness
and affinity. A better understanding and appreciation of the people and
their culture is enhanced, whilst seemingly intractable problems are easily
addressed.

Moreover, the Nigerian armed forces, especially the army, are reputed to be
one institution that promotes national integration by the way military
personnel are posted all over the country. By such deliberate
administrative policy, it is not unusual for a military officer who has
served for about a decade to be fluent in the languages of places he has
worked. This is highly commendable and should be encouraged.

Notwithstanding, that three languages only, amongst the multiplicity of
languages spoken all over the country, have been selected for the
implementation of the policy, is ad hoc and biased. Furthermore, the idea
that these languages are viewed as major languages is unfair.

For whom are they major languages? As one legislator argued, this policy
may ìlead to discrimination and exclusion from employment opportunities,
promotion and ambush of the legitimate aspirations of overwhelming numbers
of non-native speakers of Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa in the Army.î

Apart from being a subtle linguistic domination of minority
ethno-linguistic groups by the hegemony of the three dominant languages, it
is a tough demand to subject the army personnel to begin proficiency crash
programmes in Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo within so short a time.

Nonetheless, in support of the directive of the Chief of Army Staff, some
informed commentaries have praised the proposal for its timeliness, arguing
that it is a demonstration of the army’s resolve to ensure internal
security and national unity.

Granted that the use of indigenous language in public affairs is long
overdue, the argument that the directive to learn Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo,
ipso facto, demonstrates the army’s passion internal security and national
unity, is a very spurious argument.

It is spurious because there is no connection between the furtherance of
internal security or national unity and proficiency in three languages. How
can it be demonstrated that internal security and national unity in
multilingual Nigeria could be promoted by proficiency in three languages?

It is also unfortunate that the Nigerian Army, an institution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, is being used to pioneer this ambiguous
proposal. Should this proposal scale through, it is very likely that such
requirement would be demanded from other workers in federal institutions.

Since language mirrors the identity of a people and also expresses their
experiences of the world, it is that peculiar activity by which people make
sense of their existence and the world around them. In other words, a
Yoruba man cannot compel an Ijaw lady to understand her existence from a
worldview expressed in the Yoruba language. To do that is to re-create her
existence for her. Thus it becomes an infringement of the rights of people
whose languages are construed as minority languages to impose a policy that
marginalises other language under the guise of expediency. There is no
sense in speaking of ìmajor languagesî in a country of about 400 languages.

It is for this reason that this paper stands with the position of members
of the House of Representatives in kicking against the policy. It should be
discontinued.

Howbeit, cognizant of the fact that proficiency in our indigenous languages
is relevant to social cohesion, the authorities concerned should begin to
put modalities in place for effective socialisation mechanism through the
use of indigenous languages.

An effective way of getting through this would be by encouraging the
speaking of our mother tongues in both private and public events.
Besides, the ministry of education should step up modalities to promote the
teaching subjects of indigenous language in schools.

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

 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/20171222/7f10ccdd/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