By : Oken Jeet Sandham/IFP
What the exponents of the educational systems are possessed by the ghost of hypersensitive nationalism, they often, in the name of national characteristics, try to keep indigenous students segregated from the rest of the world. It must always be borne in mind that the ties that afforded opportunities of mutual contact and understanding between people should never be broken, but should always be made stronger, for here lies the seed of collective welfare. In the process of giving this tangible welfare a concrete shape the passionate zeal foe nationalism may suffer a little jolt, but wise people must stand up to such setbacks and surrender their prejudicial zeal by any means. It is just referring to the ties of human unity. Well, take for instance the case of pre-independence Pakistan or India . The English language, though imported from overseas, was alone responsible for the creation of the unifying link among the diverse people of India . That is not all. Indians were acquainted with and introduced to the rest of the world through the medium of this very language. In those days Indian students, with a tolerable knowledge of two languages---their mother-tongue and English---were eligible to enter the Temple of Learning and Knowledge. In India today if anybody tries to abolish the English language their efforts, at best, shall be nothing short of snapping that unifying link. It is not proper by any stretch of the imagination to overburden the young shoulders of the students with a heavy load of languages simply to satisfy the fate of Sindhi speaking students in Pakistan today. How many languages have they got to learn? 1. Sindhi, their month-tongue; 2. English, the world language; 3. Arabic or Persian, the religious language; and 4. Urdu or Bangali, the national language, or both languages if they want better jobs. In other words, not less than five languages are being imposed on the heads of students. Are these students supposed to learn and attain knowledge or go marching about with their burden of language? On the other hand if the unbridled trend of nationalism is checked to some extent the rest of the languages can be safely excluded from the syllabus, leaving only two---English and their mother tongue. If students study in the media of these two languages, English and their mother tongue, or if they can awaken their thirst for knowledge through these languages, then in time to come, propelled by their own urge, they may learn not only the other three, but ten or twenty other languages also. In schools and in colleges too, it is good to have as many optional languages as possible. Such as arrangement should not be criticized. To impose on the young shoulders the burden of paying for and rectifying the whimsical bias of their elders for nationalism, communalism and for that matter any “ism,” is surely the height of injustice. The elders of course, should determine what sort of education should be given to students to mould them into the proper citizens of tomorrow. However, in determining this principle it will not do to let the elders have complete monopoly just to satisfy their inclinations and caprices. It is also necessary to also look to the needs and convenience of our youngsters.
A world of language for the global community for the purpose of mutual exchange of ideas is necessity, and that language must be learnt and taught in all countries of the world with equal stress and seriousness. From the standpoint of popularity, comprehensibility and power of expression, English deserves to be recognized as the global language in the present world. Every person should accept the English language with equanimity as the universal medium of mutual understanding and exchange of ideas and expressions, without considering it as the language of England alone. By this universal acceptance, no one’s mother tongue will suffer any setback. If any sense of false prestige stands in the way of the cultivation of this universal language, it will certainly add no feathers to the cap of human society. That people of one country should always remain incomprehensible to those of another country is certainly not desirable. Of course, in the distant future people may select other language as the global language in place of English as per the necessity of the age, for the English language cannot enjoy the same privilege forever.
The Imphal Free Press
What the exponents of the educational systems are possessed by the ghost of hypersensitive nationalism, they often, in the name of national characteristics, try to keep indigenous students segregated from the rest of the world. It must always be borne in mind that the ties that afforded opportunities of mutual contact and understanding between people should never be broken, but should always be made stronger, for here lies the seed of collective welfare. In the process of giving this tangible welfare a concrete shape the passionate zeal foe nationalism may suffer a little jolt, but wise people must stand up to such setbacks and surrender their prejudicial zeal by any means. It is just referring to the ties of human unity. Well, take for instance the case of pre-independence Pakistan or India . The English language, though imported from overseas, was alone responsible for the creation of the unifying link among the diverse people of India . That is not all. Indians were acquainted with and introduced to the rest of the world through the medium of this very language. In those days Indian students, with a tolerable knowledge of two languages---their mother-tongue and English---were eligible to enter the Temple of Learning and Knowledge. In India today if anybody tries to abolish the English language their efforts, at best, shall be nothing short of snapping that unifying link. It is not proper by any stretch of the imagination to overburden the young shoulders of the students with a heavy load of languages simply to satisfy the fate of Sindhi speaking students in Pakistan today. How many languages have they got to learn? 1. Sindhi, their month-tongue; 2. English, the world language; 3. Arabic or Persian, the religious language; and 4. Urdu or Bangali, the national language, or both languages if they want better jobs. In other words, not less than five languages are being imposed on the heads of students. Are these students supposed to learn and attain knowledge or go marching about with their burden of language? On the other hand if the unbridled trend of nationalism is checked to some extent the rest of the languages can be safely excluded from the syllabus, leaving only two---English and their mother tongue. If students study in the media of these two languages, English and their mother tongue, or if they can awaken their thirst for knowledge through these languages, then in time to come, propelled by their own urge, they may learn not only the other three, but ten or twenty other languages also. In schools and in colleges too, it is good to have as many optional languages as possible. Such as arrangement should not be criticized. To impose on the young shoulders the burden of paying for and rectifying the whimsical bias of their elders for nationalism, communalism and for that matter any “ism,” is surely the height of injustice. The elders of course, should determine what sort of education should be given to students to mould them into the proper citizens of tomorrow. However, in determining this principle it will not do to let the elders have complete monopoly just to satisfy their inclinations and caprices. It is also necessary to also look to the needs and convenience of our youngsters.
A world of language for the global community for the purpose of mutual exchange of ideas is necessity, and that language must be learnt and taught in all countries of the world with equal stress and seriousness. From the standpoint of popularity, comprehensibility and power of expression, English deserves to be recognized as the global language in the present world. Every person should accept the English language with equanimity as the universal medium of mutual understanding and exchange of ideas and expressions, without considering it as the language of England alone. By this universal acceptance, no one’s mother tongue will suffer any setback. If any sense of false prestige stands in the way of the cultivation of this universal language, it will certainly add no feathers to the cap of human society. That people of one country should always remain incomprehensible to those of another country is certainly not desirable. Of course, in the distant future people may select other language as the global language in place of English as per the necessity of the age, for the English language cannot enjoy the same privilege forever.
The Imphal Free Press
No comments:
Post a Comment