A Karnataka HC order gives the go-ahead for private primary schools to adopt English as a medium of instruction:
- The court ruled it was repressive of the state to impose its language policy on private institutions
- The desire to learn English is "no crime"
- The court order has come as a relief for private schools facing derecognition
- Kannada activists fear a spurt in the number of English schools. They maintain the state's language will suffer.
- Experts feel that schools should teach students to be proficient in both the local and global languages
***
Hemalatha Mahishi, lawyer for 16 Kannada intellectuals who were respondents in the case, says there is a need to test before the SC the primacy it accords to "parents' right" to choose the medium of instruction. "If parents' right is supreme, what do you do with the Juvenile Justice Act that protects children against their own parents? If private institutions want to do their own thing, then why should they even seek government recognition for their syllabus and also a government certificate," she asked, speaking to Outlook. Besides, there is an SC judgement that approves mother tongue as a medium of instruction, but "one needs to check if it was merely an observation".
Eminent linguist Prof. K. V. Narayana has an out-of-the-boxsuggestion: "Ever since the '70s, education policy and language policyof the state have been incompatible. One counters the other. Thegovernment has to realise that education is one of the instrumentsthrough which social justice can be imparted. Therefore, as a welfarestate it should think of offering aid to all primary schools acrossthe state. The moment it does that it becomes easier to implement itslanguage policy and the current judgment. It will save time and moneylost in court battles. This wouldn't cost much because there are onlyabout 2000 schools that are unaided at the moment while there arenearly 56,000 either aided or government schools. The governmentshould treat the aid to the 2000 schools as a small fee that it ispaying for outsourcing education, which is its duty. Privateinstitutions may say that they won't follow the state's languagepolicy because they are not taking grants, but they should be remindedthat they are constantly using various infrastructure created by thesociety."
Udaya Narayana Singh, director of the Central Institute of Indian Languages, says the issues pops up three kinds of problems. "First, it opens up the complex question of linguistic rights. Are individual linguistic human rights more sacrosanct or is it the social agglomerate that has the right to decide what is ideal as the school language? It is generally the individual rights that receive protection in a legal system. Second, although experiments worldwide prove one's mother tongue is the best language to be educated in, the market forces tilt the balance in favour of an option that suits its needs. Third, none of the players gives a serious thought to a pluralistic option, whereby all schools develop a programme that allows their children to be proficient in both local and global languages."
Given the depth of arguments and the running passions, it is unlikely matters will settle in the near future. After all, the HC verdict took 14 long years to come.
