Protecting Kannada should not come at the cost of cultural inclusion, academic opportunity, or linguistic diversity
The Karnataka government's decision to shift from the existing three-language formula to a two-language policy is deeply concerning, not only for its educational consequences but also for its broader implications on India’s linguistic federalism and cultural inclusivity.
While it is understandable that the state seeks to preserve
its regional identity, particularly against what it views as the imposition of
Hindi, the conversation must rise above political posturing. It’s not about
imposition, it’s about opportunity. As Indians, familiarity with Hindi, the
most widely spoken Indian language, should be considered a matter of national
connectedness, not coercion. Denying students the chance to learn it limits
their professional and social mobility across the country.
Karnataka’s current three-language policy is one of
flexibility and inclusiveness, vital in a state that is home to speakers of
Kannada, Urdu, Tulu, Telugu, Tamil, Marathi, and Konkani. This model has
allowed students to learn Kannada and English, while also giving space to their
mother tongues or another Indian language. In doing so, it has honoured
Karnataka’s pluralistic ethos while ensuring Kannada’s primacy is protected.
The proposed two-language model, however, risks shrinking
this linguistic space. Narrowing the curriculum to only Kannada and English not
only alienates linguistic minorities but also denies students the
well-documented cognitive, cultural, and academic benefits of multilingual
education. A third language, far from being a burden, enhances intercultural
understanding, improves brain development, and equips students to thrive in a
diverse and interconnected India.
The government's concern that Hindi may be a burden on
non-Hindi-speaking students has some merit. However, the solution is not to
eliminate the third language. Rather, students should be given the freedom to
choose from a wide range of Indian languages, Tamil, Telugu, Tulu, Malayalam,
Marathi, Sanskrit, or Hindi. Rejecting Hindi imposition does not require
rejecting India’s linguistic diversity.
Additionally, the abrupt implementation of this policy has
livelihood implications. Over 15,000 language teachers, particularly those
teaching Hindi, Urdu, and other regional languages, now face job insecurity.
Nearly 4,000 Urdu-medium schools are staring at educational disruption, and the
chain reaction could affect thousands of families and communities.
Educational policy must be built on inclusion, flexibility,
and long-term vision, not political reactions or cultural insecurity. While the
NEP’s three-language policy does have a perceived Hindi bias, it still provides
scope for states to interpret and implement it in ways that suit their
linguistic realities. States like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra have resisted
certain aspects of the NEP, but they have simultaneously strengthened their language
ecosystems.
Karnataka must follow a similar path, not by eliminating
language choice, but by expanding it. Kannada and English can remain the core
of the curriculum, but the third language should be left to the students and
their families. That is true linguistic freedom.
To advocate for linguistic justice should not mean
sacrificing linguistic opportunity. Karnataka has long been a beacon of
cultural richness and intellectual openness. Its education policies must
reflect that spirit, not retreat from it.
The goal should not be a Karnataka with fewer languages, but
a Karnataka that encourages every language and culture to flourish.
No comments:
Post a Comment