On one hand we have strident demands for regional language teaching, and on the other a booming market in ‘Learn English’ coaching classes. The bandwagon demanding regional language teaching and textbooks is gathering voice, the gravy train called English training has gathered momentum.
The voice of the people is often heard through the money they spend. Which means that the people want to learn English more than they want regional language tuition. If there was such a strong felt need for regional language training, people would have found the money for it, as they have, for English language training.
Of course the demand for the English language is based on the number of employment opportunities it opens up. If work in offices was conducted in regional languages, then there would be less incentives to invest in a ‘foreign’ language, surely. But employment at higher levels of pay demands the ability to communicate in English almost everywhere in India.
There is clearly a role for regional language teaching especially in younger years. Children do understand their mother tongue better than they can interpret a language they may not have heard in their homes or outside. Many do remain far more comfortable with their first language through their early years and are able to process information faster if it is delivered in that language. It is also likely to slow down their ability to process information in other languages when required, even if they have learnt other languages. It is also well researched and proven time and again that those who learn two to three languages have higher order learning skills than those who restrict themselves to one language.
There is also a limit to what regional languages can do for an ambitious and capable individual. The region. If one has the capablilty to perform a job outside a region, the lack of an inter-regional or international language will clearly restrict mobility. Not just that, the lack of multiple perspectives learnt from other regions via global languages will result in a very limited individual – unable to step up to a higher plane. Upward mobility is clearly hampered by restricting language skills.
At the same time, we are faced by the ghostly faces of those students who committed suicide in higher education institutions as they could not keep up with English medium teaching. That was indeed a tragedy. It is easy to say that they should not have been there in the first place if they could not cope with the curriculum. But cannot be a valid argument when regional language options of similar quality are unavailable. Also, mere language cannot hold back capable engineers and doctors, or even philosophers. They have to be given a chance to break through their barriers, and the support to do so.
Therein lies the problem. We do not have external or internal pathways to traverse language barriers.
If any student signs up for a higher education degree in say, Germany, without any knowledge of the language, then what happens? How do they manage? Well, for starters, they need to have a working knowledge of the language. That is a given. But more importantly, once they are there, they have the option of investing in onsite and offsite language courses. That part of our infrastructure is seriously lacking. And needs work.
Of course there will be those who will say – but that is abroad. Why should we be made to feel inferior in our own country? Why should we have to retrain in languages that do not belong to our country (and pay for it) when we have perfectly well developed languages that have stood the test of time? Why should we pander to our colonial past? And so on.
Sure, you have the option of staying out. If there are enough of you that seek regional language higher education, I am sure you will be able to mobilise support to create a case – both economic and emotional foregional language institutions. But having made that choice, please do not complain that mobility in employment is limited. Do remember, employers do not owe you a living. They invest only in those who can stay and progress with them in the long run. This is the choice one makes when one seeks to remain in the well one started off with initially.
The other issue in reinforcing regionalism via language is of course political. As I write this Bangalore is awash with rumours that people from the north east are fleeing in droves as they feel threatened. That is shameful. What is more shameful is that such a rumour was not laughed at as ridiculous – as one would expect in a country that is comfortable with its multi-regionalism. In India-defined by language.
Language teaching of course is the remit of state governments, and bilingual textbooks in early learning have been seen as a way out of this conundrum. Students can learn at their own pace and chose to transition to the language of mobilty at the stage they want to, not before. It is also true that many classrooms in India are already de-facto bilingual classrooms with the teachers using regional languages to get their meaning across comprehensively.
The secret here is that there is no secret. We know regional language teaching is valuable. We know global languages are essential to reach higher pay grades. We know that this takes two things – intent and funds. We have the resources to design and deliver this. Why not invest, then?
(For those who do not get the title: the well is from the ‘frog in the well’ sydrome; the beanstalk is the one that took Jack places that he could not access otherwise)