Three language formula needs rethinking

Mr. Kapil Sibal has big agenda as Union HRD minister or he wants to remain in the news for one or the other reason. After scraping the compulsory 10th board exam, now he is taking dig at an old controversial issue. Issue of having one national language - Hindi. When he says that Hindi should be promoted throughout the country then he is not doing anything wrong or unconstitutional. Constitution of India says that the language - Hindi - should be promoted by the state but it never says that Hindi should be imposed on the people. But Mr. Sibal wants all schools in the country to teach Hindi.

A large number of 'elite' people have started supporting that there should be only one language in the country as it is in China, Italy, Germany and France etc. The argument goes further to get support from the economist. Single-language-supporters argue that single language will promote free movement of people and there will be more skilled workers will be available and the workers will have more opportunities in the country. Invariably this single language turns out to be English because it gives jobs to the 'elite' class in all the multinationals. But the argument of mobility is baseless as language is not the only hurdle why people do not go to different region in search of work. It is the connection with the culture, language, society that stops mobility. Will we tomorrow impose single-food-habit rule all over the country? Every one should eat Chai-samosa or idli-vada or vada pav only depending on what the HRD minister likes. It is complete non-sense.

What he has proposed or initiated is the three language formula that became part of 1968 national education policy. It was an compromised formula because it was difficult (or nearly impossible) to enforce Hindi all over India. The policy-makers came with this idea of three languages. The deal was that the Hindi-speaking people will also learn one other Indian language (preferably south Indian). It never happened. No one ever imagined that the students in Haryana studying Tamil or in Panjab studying Bodo or Khasi. It was thought that Hindi is the national language and superior to other languages so Hindi speaking people did not need to learn other Indian language. This arrogant attitude of hindi-speaking people has done more harm to Hindi proliferation than anything. South Indian states have become more adamant to introduce Hindi in their states.

In my opinion if there needs to be three languages then the first language needs to be mother tongue or as close to it as possible. It has been found that the mother tongue is the best for learning. Philippines has introduced mother-tongue based primary education in the country that is supported by UNESCO. Similar opinion is also building in Kenya. Second language should be from a pool of national languages. It is not possible to have all the languages in this option but it should cover as many as possible. It should be a mandatory course from class sixth (primary education) onwards. Now when there is no pressure to pass the class 10th board why not introduce third language at class 9th or 10th? This language can be any foreign language including English. Anyone who is not looking for international career does not necessarily need to study English anyway. Point is necessarily but if someone wants s/he can. And also most of the career starts after at least bachelors degree that gives good five years to master the language that is good enough to learn a language.

This formula gives freedom to learn whatever language students wants or like rather than forcing a language for dubious reason (national integration). We do not need to speak same language for national integration. A Tamil or Malyalam or Nagaland feels equally India as anyone speaking Hindi feels about. A same language speaking person can also be foreign agent, militant or molester. Language can not change one's character or feelings.