Review of Kubchandani's 1981 Book
Language, Education and Social Justice

Chapter 1: Language and Education

LK reviews what education was like before colonialism. Education was regarded as `an extension of primary socialisation imbibed through immediate environments of family, caste, creed, and tradition'. Emphasize disciple/maste} relationship between pupil and teacher; designed to preserve segmental identities by catering to the needs of the Advanced and Ordinary (sic) traditions.

1. Advanced: gurukul and madrasseh traditions of `elegant' education for elites (sons of priests, ruling classes, high officials): reading of scriptures and historical texts through Sanskrit or Perso-Arabic.
2. Ordinary: pathasala and makta} traditions stressed practical education provided to administrators, merchants through locally dominant vernaculars (use in lower courts, for accounting).

Structure was hierarchical both in society and in education. Thus there were local varieties, sub-regional dialects, supra-regional dialects, and `high-brow' styles, arranged in complicated diglossias. Education provided fluidity in use of language, according to appropriate conditions of identity, context and purpose, a strength of plural societies.

Report of 1823, Bellary Dist., enumerating of 533 schools in district, 235 used Kannada, 226 Telugu, 23 Marathi, 21 Persian, 4 Tamil, 1 English medium, plus 23 schools for Brahmins taught in Sanskrit.

British (during consolidation of rule in 19th c. but not before) introduced schools which eclipsed traditional systems in most of British India. This differed from previous attempts such as by missionaries, private societes and indviiduals supported somewhat by E. India Company. Early attempts relied on extant systems, expanding madressa's and Sanskrit colleges. Indigenous rulers and British did not at first see responsibility for state education, since in Britain itself there was no public state system; this looked much like pre-renaissance Europe.

Eventually changes occurred both in Europe and this was extended to British India as well, turning away from elitist educational goals to dela with needs of humbler subjects. Debate over classical vs. scientific subjects: classicists thought classical education ennobled people, refined soul and character. People wanting science thought this would help modern industrializing nations. Classics were too narrow, incomprehensible, irrelevant. Science and English was utilitarian. Took until 19th century (in Europe in general after the French revolution).

Respectability of Vernaculars Use of English in schools was low-status in England until the 19th century, and even after that it was the medium of education but not the subject. Victorians accepted class divisions and accepted that some people ought to have utilitarian education and others elitist. Gradually study of English literature also legitimized. English didn't acquire respectability as a subject until 20th century. Progressive theories began to question methodology, rote learning, etc.

Colonial situation Concerns back in Britain about these goals and issues affect the ways they conceived of education in India, but despite gradual changes, LK says the Brits never resolved three issues:

• The content of education: initially change from traditional (classic) to western (utilitarian) knowledge did not affect the others very much.
• The Spread of education: how broad in society should it be, i.e. who should get it. Missionaries wanted it to go deep and be broad; wanted local vernaculars etc. while rulers wanted to attract respectable members of Indian society to man the administration through English medium.
• the Medium of education. At first British used local classical mediums; then they began to question this: the battle between the ``Orientalists" (Princep) and the ``Anglicists" (Grant and Macaulay) heated up and went on for some time.

Indian elites were also realizing that English was the key to power and participation, and abandoned classical languages. Many reformers cried out for access to English (Ram Mohan Roy etc.), pleading with rulers to give themn English.

Macaulay's hard-line: ``Indian languages aren't fit to convey the ideas we want to; we must form an intermediate class of people with English tastes and intellect, but Indian in blood and colour. His Minute of 1835 decided this and the government made it official: spend all gov't money on English education, found English universities, etc. Hardinge (1844) proclamation made recruitment for public offices only through English schools. This was of course focused on elites only.

Later the British recognized they had to think about the masses, too, and recommended use of vernaculars.

In actuality,the British recognized 3 types:

1. English medium, in urban areas, for elite, from beginning.
2. Two-tier: vernacular for primary, English for advanced, in smaller towns.
3. Vernacular medium: in rural areas for primary ed.

Thus tho in England English represented an opening to the masses, humanistic values, etc. in India it represented elitism, and occupied the space of classical languages. It dichotomized education: English vs. vernacular. But the content of education through English did have an effect on the Indian psyche, getting ideas that were not elitist. Nevertheless, Indian reformers (Gandhi, Tagore, Gokhale etc.) campaigned for vernacularization of education, universalization of education, even use of mother-tongue in administration. These leaders were thus planning ahead for a language policy in an independent India .

It would deal with:

1. Medium: vernacular or English/foreign?
2. Content: urban values/rural needs?
3. Spread: how many people would have access?

Gandhi etc. wanted to bring education and life together, make ed. meet needs of poor and rural people, e.g. connecting it to handicrafts, work. During the independ. struggle, however, most of the quarrelling was about the medium issue while ideological issues of content were ignored. The needs of white-collar urban elite overshadowed, and still overshadow, needs of rural areas.

On the other hand, focus on certain issues, e.g. facility of expression in mother-tongue and superiority of mother-tongue education were highlighted rather simplistically, always contrasting mo-to against English. Taken for granted that foreign medium is bad; taken for granted that Hindi would be better for everybody! Supporters of mo-to haven't defined what they meant, nor was attention paid to hierarchy of different ling. forms, diglossia etc. prevailing in pluralistic societyes. If needs of urban-based people are primary, the diglossia of vernaculars becomes exacerbated. Urban- based dialects may be as difficult for rural people as another FL. Leaders acted as if substitution of NL for FL would solve all problems.

1. Chapter 2: Language and Society.

During indep. struggle, people did not understand how pluralistic Indian society was, and the sociolinguistic complexity of India's linguistic situation. Especially didn't understand

1. diglossia
2. fluid nature of language boundaries (dialect continuum): speakers of Pahari, Lahnda, Rajasthani, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Chattisgarhi etc. may declare that they are Hindi speakers; or may not.
3. inconsistent labelling: Hindi? Urdu? Panjabi?
4. tendency to declare linguistic loyalty to a language not their mo-to, such as Urdu for Muslims, Panjabi for Sikhs. Declaration of ling. identity is often a declaration of ethnicity, not of ling. habits.
5. Tendency for declarations (in census) to fluctuate: between 1951 and 1961, changes of more 14,000% (sic) were recorded for some languages.
6. In pluralistic societies, people often claim native competence in more than one langauge/dialect. (e.g. Oriya/Telugu in Ganjam Dt., 1931 census).
7. Wide-spread code-switching may also be evident.
8. Grassroots multilingual is widespread, but may be non-literate . It is thus devalued (also because it may be in non-standard forms) unless they move toward standard mastery.
9. Many people do not recognize that they are in fact bi or multilingual; it's just their repertoire, and they do not declare it.

The plurality of mo-to's may be more widespread even than recorded; a phenomenon not known in the west. Problem may be that linguistic identity may not be congruent with other identities, such as religious, ethnic, national, etc. These identities cross-cut other identities, rather than lining up with them. There may be one kind of ``speech" but many different kinds of variety, lack of unity, diversity). No one trait dominates the other. In Europe or other insular societies, various social identites are congruent and their boundaries are co-terminous.

Gandhi is quoted as having said that in India, a person's identity is embedded in concentric circles which radiate out forever, instead of stopping at some boundary and then piling up in a kind of cone.

Table 1: Speech Behavior and Language Education

an example from Rural Marathi community around Nagpur.

Speech Varieties 1	Communication Situations 2	Languages Taught 3	School Values 4
Nagpuri Marathi	close ingroup	--	denied prestige, and used minimally as substandard varieties
Supra-dialectal Marathi	wider ingroup	--	denied prestige, and used minimally as substandard varieties
Standard Marathi	ingroup mass communication	Marathi	promoted through `autonomy' values in all situations
Neighboring varieties of Marathi	optional familiarity through mobility	--	regarded as non-presgitious and their use not promoted
Nagpuri Hindustani	inter-group	--	use signifies non-prestigious upbringing
Standard Hindi/Urdu	inter-group mass communication	Hindi	learnt as `exercises' for eventual use after school career (not related to immediate use)
Regional English usage (a few phrases)	optional modernistic acquaintance	English	learnt as `exercises' for eventual use after school career (not related to immediate use)
Sanskrit or Arabic (a few phrases)	optional ritualistic acquaintance	Sanskrit Persian	learnt as an optional `classical' language for religious and literary scholarship

Table 2: Rural Santali Community in Bihar.

1	2	3	4
Local Santali	close ingroup	--	denied prestige, used minimally as substandard varieties
Supra-dialectal Santali	wider ingroup	--	denied prestige, used minimally as substandard varieties
(Standard) Santali	--	Santali (standard set by language-elite)	medium for primary education
Other tribal languages (Munda, Ho, etc.)	optional familiarity through mobility	--	regarded as non-prestigious, use not promoted
Sadri (Sadan), a hubrid Bihari language	tribal intergroup	--	use signifies non-prestigious upbringing
Bihari languages (Maithili, Magahi, etc.) Regional Bengali or Oriya	non-tribal intergroup	--	regarded as non-prestigious, use not promoted
Regional Hindustani	urban contact	--	use signifies non-prestigious upbringing
Standard Hindi/Urdu; standard Bengali or Oriya	mass communication	Hindi	medium for further education
Regional English usage (a few phrases)	optional modernistic acquaintance	English	learned as an `exercise' for eventual use after the school career (not related to immediate use).
--	--	Sanskrit	learned as an optional `classical' language for religious and literary scholarship

Problems with this analysis:

1. Compare this with Mackey's boxes, or my Concentric Circles:



• With Mackey's boxes, we would have many more than the 4 (home, region, school, nation) but as many as eight or nine.
• Not clear if they should be nested as they are with Mackey, since there are many auxiliary languages.
• Is the concentric circle model, with compartmentalization as we move outward from the home environment, preferable?.
• LK also doesn't allow for diversity within the home as we often get in S. Asia (and in Indonesia!): speaking one Language with mother, or women folk; another with father/menfolk, or with servants.
2. Problem of literacy programs in plural societies: what kind? how much, and for whom? Should be geared to facilitate communication with prevailing socialization values extending from native language (assoc. native speech) to 2nd lang. and on to foreign language

The S. Asian pattern is not just linear: child --> school --> region, but probably nested circles, and language boundaries (and codes) are not discrete.

• Everyday verbal communication: fluidity and diversity of codes in the informal situation
• Formal (written) situation: rigid, compartmentalized, `appropriate' and `correct' usage.
• socially favored styles are called standard language and widely used in society over a wide network.
• speech varieties with smaller networks (dialects, slang, jargons) are thought of us uncouth, vulgar, or quaint.

Standardization is done by the officially-accredited custodians of linguistic reality in grammars, dictionaries, etc. Standard usage is the shift from event-centered discourse (what actually happens) to ideal-oriented correct expression. Contextual and functional fluidity is deprecated. In actuality, uniformity and homogeneity are myths, but they are what is cultivated by custodians. Literacy is a crystallized entity characterized by a distinct tradition embodied in a literary language When standardization occurs today, it is done to serve the needs or urban elites and their tradition-inspired value system.

Chapter 3: Communication

Language and the needs society have for/of it are not often thought of as primarily communicative . Society tends to think of language as an either-or, right or wrong situation, instead of deviations from the norm as appropriate if serving such needs as being purposeful, amusing, pejorative, offending, ironic, ambiguous, hazardous, unintelligible, socially neutral or group-identifying (region, strata, class etc.)

LK summarizes in Table on p. 40:

Chapter 4: Language Privileges

Center-periphery hypothesis. Parallel to the Developed/Developing economy model, language also treated to the same categories: Developed countries have more homogeneity in language, less developed countries have heterogeneity in language. To get higher economic development, ergo, get rid of heterogeneity. Introduce homogenization a la European societies.

Economic model says `get rid of the handicapped language' and introduce the privileged one. Less-favored languages are thus condemned to extinction (or lg. shift). The age-old harmony of hierarchic patterning of different varieties in the verbal repertoire of pluralistic societies gets disturbed, and disharmony occurs: language strife, state boundary disputes, fights over language privilege in education, which language to be used for exams, etc. Keeping up with the Joneses: less favored varieties struggle to catch up with favored ones, which have gone on to higher technological uses (email, computerization, internet, etc.)

One approach in S. Asia has been to try to legislate the role of various languages in the public spheres: communication, administration, education, mass media etc. Legislators have tried to affix labels to language, to differentiate their status:

• Home language
• Regional language
• Link language
• National language
• Official language
• Literary language
• Library language
• World language
• etc.

Long before modernization, the conflict between Hindi and Urdu illustrated the kinds of conflicts possible in S. Asia. As role of Persian declined, persianized Urdu arose in its place. British meddled in this (divide and conquer) aggravating language loyalties, resulting in eventual partition of country.

Dominance of English during British period brought an equal and opposite reaction against it after Independence, which has to do with alienation of elites from masses. But elites still want their privileges, and English still favors meritocracy in business and technology; even the masses want a piece of the pie. How to reduce the role of English from dominant to one of linguistic partnership?

Meanwhile, the same kind of elite behavior favors Sanskritic Khari-Boli over local varieties such as Bombay Hindustani; people speak Bombay H but have to write in KB Hindi; KB Hindi is not used in real life (except by elites in Delhi etc.) so an old pattern continues of language being divorced from life and usage. Language taught as an exercise or prep for a test, which, once passed, is never used again. Takes on role of the classical language in early renaissance Europe; the notion of what you actually do with language is ancillary.

Role of small minority languages After regional standard languages took over in the states, the role of smaller languages was less protected. University Education Committee (1949) and Official Language Commission (1956) deemed the languages of the large advanced and organized groups as fit media of instruction, but not the lgs. of minorities. Using them for education would be colossally expensive and only feasible if group was large and compact. 1961 Census shows that 87% of India are speakers of one of 12 major languages; 76% reside in their own homelands (and will therefore get education in their language) while another 11% reside outside their homeland and are thus minorities in other states [with little protection and provisions for education, hs]. The remaining 13% [approximately 130,000,000 speakers in 1999, hs] are thus ignored.

Recently some concessions and arrangements for these groups are being made, e.g. for elementary education, and perhaps even secondary. Articles 350A and 350B, seventh amendment 1956 states that:

``It shall be the endeavor of every State to provide adequate facilites for instruciton in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups."

However, without teeth for these provisions, little can be expected.

Chapter 5: Squabbles Among Language Elites

Some States initiating bilingual schooling for their tribal populations; various minority communities, esp. in urban areas, also prefer bilingual models:

Informally in these models, we see much code-switching and hybridization of the languages in contact. The actual usage or type of model varies tremendously: there may not be exclusive use of the preferred medium, but shifting and other kinds of variation depending on context, domain and channel:

HS: I might add that in the first category ( Passive and active media ) the language that may be `official' as medium is used in texts, written on blackboards, etc. but all explanation is done in another language:

• English and Nagamese in Nagaland schools: English is official but not used to communicate anything, and never used for explanation. Explanation all done in Nagamese.
• In Tamil pre-university courses, supposedly taught in English, the subject matter is presented in English and then explained in spoken (!) Tamil.
• In Singapore schools where Tamil is the subject of instruction, Literary Tamil may be the subject, but explanations are given in spoken Tamil and/or English .

This model (not mentioned by LK) may be more widespread than reported; it tends to be denied when observed and commented upon by foreigners etc.

We therefore may have to speak of a language of explanation in addition to medium of instruction, subject of instruction, etc. (end HS comment.)