Poverty and illiteracy are concentrated in the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. India alone, where 56% of the population is below the poverty line, houses 400 million of illiterates constituting 50% of the total world illiterate population. This frightening statistics has often blinded scholars and planners to certain basic cultural facts of life in these countries.

Illiteracy is often equated with lack of education. In historical times, at least in India, this was not true. The existence of voluminous folk wisdom pertaining to philosophy, sciences and the life cycle based on agriculture will bear testimony to this. With the conquest by aliens, onset of modernism and destruction of the rural centers of dissemination of traditional culture and knowledge an illiterate person is reduced to the level of the uneducated. In the context of literacy movement this factor has to be borne in mind. Recently the Central Institute of Indian languages, in collaboration with the Jabalpur University, experimented in reviving the use of traditional folk communicators for the dissemination of modern knowledge. A two week orientation programme organized by the Institute for about thirty folk communicators yielded such rich dividends that its immense possibilities were recognized and commended by no less a person than the Minister for Information and Broadcasting of the Govt. of India.

 

Before talking about the communication constraints a statement is in order about the literacy curriculum. In countries where there is a good deal of central planning at successive levels of planning and administration, the curriculum is designed by experts at the top without reference either to the felt needs of the community or needs of the community is observed by trained social scientists. In many cases therefore the material used for literacy is irrelevant to the community and it is no wonder that it fails to motivate the people. A word of caution is necessary at this point. If the material is to be relevant in the sense of improving the quality of life of the illiterate masses and arousing and preparing them to participate in the socio-economic reconstruction of the country, then this may appear to clash with the entrenched elitist vested interest. It is in this sense that Paulo Frere speaks of education as being subversive. Unless there is an awareness of these problems by all concerned and carefully laid down plan of action the literacy efforts are doomed to failure.

In multilingual countries literacy poses a serious challenge. Diglossia situation, in one sense, is a simplified reduced version of the multilingual situation. Take for instance the Tamil situation in India, a person is simultaneously confronted with the Pre-Sangam, Sangam and the Post-Sangam literary language, the Brahmin and the non-Brahmin varieties of speech forms, the Aiyar and Aiyangar, the Padeyachi and the fisherman sub varieties, the speech forms of Coimbatore, Kanyakumari or Madras city, the platform speech and the speech of intimate communication, the various styles and registers of Tamil besides the other languages one may be called upon to use as part of his vocation. In this context literacy efforts must solve the conflict between instant communication and the process of standardization. In multilingual countries, therefore a, multi-model approach to literacy is essential. This approach would accept instant communication as the starting point, but relate it to the standard as well as the diverse manifestations of the language so that the scale of communication may be widened both in the synchronic and the diachronic axes. This will not only make inter group communication possible and help accelerate the process of standardization possible and help accelerate the process of standardization but also make the accumulated wisdom of the past available to the new learner.

In multilingual countries languages enter into dominant and minority relationship. In countries where a few dominant languages are recognized as media for higher education, administration and mass communication, literacy efforts among the minority languages must develop a bilingual focus. Without a clear strategy linking the language of instant communication with the language of education, intellection and thus of privilege, the literacy efforts are bound to suffer.

All these demand a good deal of sophistry in planning and education and participation of linguists with applicational bias in this venture. There are miles to go in this regard.

This small monograph of Prof. M.W.S. De Silva demonstrates the role and commitment of linguists in this important area of national reconstruction in the developing countries. Prof. De Silva's affiliation with the Institute for six months was possible through a Ford Foundation grant. We are thankful to Prof. De Silva for giving this monograph to the Institute which embodies research results not only of this visit, but earlier and later visits to the subcontinent. I have no doubt that this monograph will be a valuable addition to the linguistic literature pertaining to literacy.

Christmas 1976