PROMOTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ENGLIS IN INDIA :
IMPLICATIONS FOR A CROWN COLONY
It is enshrine in the Constitution of India that primary education to every child would be imparted in the mother tongue. Childhood learning is learning attitudes, connections, skills and information. If experience is a precondition to abstraction and generalisation, the mother tongue is not only the primary experiential language, but is the language which builds the ability to accept and understand generalisation. Mother tongue provides rootedness in one's eco-culture, anchors one in a social group through labelling and extends one's intellectual and emotional range. It is the launching pad for further education. Any language as a bridge to further learning enriches experience, but as a substitute to mother tongue induces alienation, anomie and culture perception blind spots. This substitution can be seen at two levels. The Hong Kong parallel of Cantonese being sought to be substituted by Putonghua is the Indian situation of Bhojpuri or Maithili being substituted by Standard Hindi in school. The second is common to both India and Hong Kong, where the major languages are substituted by English. The low literacy and mediocre educational performance in the Hindi area can be attributed to both mother tongue substitution at the elementary schools and near elimination of English at the secondary level. Unless the education system assumes responsibility for linking the home language of the child with the school language, the child would cease to be creative and innovative. When a non-English child gets an all-English education, she not only does not finds words for common plants and flowers, birds and beasts, and changing moods of nature in English and thus lacks balanced relationship with the environment, but also lacks ability in understanding and expressing native myths and symbols. This results in emotional sterility and cultural deprivation.
It is important to examine at this stage a statement like given the enormous variability in language socialization which children may receive at home, it would be a mistake to talk about the notion "language at home" as if it were a homogeneous and monolithic entity and to compare it with "school language." It is surprising that such a naive statement comes from Suzanne Romaine who has otherwise many sensible things to say about language acquisition. In the same sense one can speak of the English language in spite of its variability, one can speak of the 'language at home', whether it is a conglomerate of dialects, sociolects and styles, or different languages used in complementation indifferent experiential contexts. The changes in the context of interaction at home and at school, the changes from the child as the motivator of language use to teacher as the motivator of language use, the culture sensitivity of home and the culture neutrality of the school, the extension and limitation in the use of different varieties of one or more languages at school, the playful and authoritarian correction at home and school play a role in the linguistic socialization of the child. In the total context of acquisition of languages of a child, if learning and teaching are not complementary, if home language and school language are not complementary, if languages at different levels of education and maturation are not complementary, then it leads to a great deal of psychosocial stress. If the initial language is derided and denied, the resultant attitude towards mother tongue and the subsequent languages affect not only creativity and innovativeness but also the network of social relations adversely. In multilingual societies, therefore, linkage assumes greater importance than dominant monolingual societies. In the first instance, often variation is considered a burden and a handicap, whereas, in the latte instance, variation is underperceived. The net result on the child is the same though there may be difference in degree.
India has to cope with 1652 mother tongues, between 200 and 700 languages belonging to four language families and a host of writing systems. One of its greatest strengths, however, is that India is a single linguistic, sociolinguistic and semantic area, and all the scripts, except Roman and Perso-Arabic, belong to a single family. The three-language formula, as a strategy developed as a consensus, has to be linked with the mother tongue/home language in one direction and with the classical language(s) and foreign language(s) on the other. No matter how difficult it may appear to education management experts, the cultural matrix is as rich as it is complex and is a challenge to the ingenuity of those who aspire to mange human destiny.
India is also the beneficiary of dual heritage like all the developing countries with a colonial past. Unfortunately, vested interests have sought to project English as adversary to other Indian languages which stifle the growth of Indian languages. Many proponents of English do not see any role for Indian language in the modernisation of the country, while many opponents of English do not see any significant role for English in, future India. Such polarisation of attitudes has resulted in the drop of standard of both Indian languages and English in many cases. Indians have established their ownership over English and use the brand of English called Indian English. Indian teachers of English are accepted as class-room models elsewhere and there is no longer a need to import English teachers form England on a large scale. English has not only been accepted as the Associate Official Language of the Union, but also the language of High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, there is neither the question of banishing English form India no dilute its standard. The question is one of determining the domains of its use and ensuring that it supplements the Indian languages and not take over their functions. It is important to know that English as supplement to the Indian languages is a source of strength, whereas as substitute it is a source of deblilitation.
In Hong Kong, there is a need to redefine the roles of both English and Chinese. Planners must, however, hasten slowly to ensure that English remains the important auxiliary language of Hong Kong and the heritage of English becomes an asset and advantage not only to Hong Kong but also to their mainland China.
In countries like India, teaching of English at the primary level not only undermines the culture of all groups, but, by weakening the mother tongue base, it builds disabilities in the system which undermines education itself. With 5.04 lakhs of primary schools, having over 1213 lakhs of students, and about 40 lakhs of teachers, it is inconceivable that English could be taught to all at any time. The net result is that while a small number of good English schools continues to add to the growing educational inequality, the large number of non-standard English schools continue to perpetuate mediocrity. By creating an elite which values English more than its mother tongue, it weakens one's identification with the nation and leads one to search for an English-speaking homeland outside one's national boundaries. India is committed to mother tongue promotion in different regions and promotion of English as language of elite communication within the country and window to the wide world for purposes of knowledge and cultural communication. What needs to be done is to provide good English education for lesser number of years with good materials, updated methods and trained teachers. Unless this is done, Indian education system will continue to produce a large body of mediocres without ability to either respond to the national aspirations or fulfil their cherished life styles. This has implications for Hong Kong, as there are many things in common between the two countries.
Hong Kong is on the cross roads.
Is Mandarin to hold reducing native varieties to indigenous groups' home use or condemning them to extinction?
Is English to take hold giving Mandarin junior partners status and make other varieties to disappear? Burney Report as far back as 1935 found "the pupils" English unimpressive and then Chinese well behind that of their contemporaries in China. At the present time "English has more prestige than Chinese in most public domains in Hong Kong".
Answer to these questions would have serious consequence for cultural cohesiveness of Chinese communities and political and economic development of the Hong Kong State.
Hong Kong is a cosmopolitan society, heterogeneity in culture. Its complex multilingualism has a parallel with India. Although Indian languages belong to four families, all Indian scripts belong to one family. In Hong Kong, where almost 98 per cent speak Cantonese, it is the bai hua, the modern standard written Chinese, which is the binding force among mutually unintelligible Chinese languages. In spite of the common ancestry, different scripts sustain different identities in India in the same way as different spoken varieties of Chinese sustain different identities among Chinese communities in Hong Kong in spite of the common writing system.
In Hong Kong there are languages of Indian and Malay ancestry in the same way India had languages belonging to Tibeto-Chinese ancestry. Malay, however, come as guest workers partly to provide cheap labour and partly to fulfil the need of English teachers in middle class Chinese homes and do not have the status of language in residence as the Indian language. As Hindi is the de facto link language among the common populace, and English among the educated elite in India, Chinese and English have parallel role and function in Hong Kong. That English has a higher prestige than Putonghua of Hindi in both places in nothing to be surprised of. The international backing for English, neglect of the mother tongue, the engineered adversary position among local languages, and, above all, protection of the vested interest give this edge to English. Territorial and linguistic homogeneity are propounded by western theorists as a prerequisite to nationhood and to modernity, which contribute to the status of English above the indigeneous languages.
It must be recognised that those who speak against the mother tongue and those who speak against English sail on the same boat. Both, in their own ways, reinforce English. Those who speak against mother tongue and for Putonghus in Hong Kong also reinforce English. If English is the language of rank, status and wealth at the national level, then why Putonghua ? In fact this is the argument against Hindi by both regional language and English chauvinists in India.
The Indian language speakers and speakers of other minority languages need not be treated as second class citizens in Hong Kong. They have as much right to maintain their language and culture as the Hokkien or Hakka speakers and they have as much right to bai hua as the others. Education system must assume responsibility of bridging minority language education with Chinese language education. From the published reports it appears that the Chinese government is hedging about the status of South Asians in Hong Kong and the British have offered passports without a guarantee of citizenship. Such uncertainly will not only weaken the social fabric, but is bound to hurt the economic interest of Hong Kong to which they have made a small but significant contribution.
Every individual is part of a body politic which extends in concentric circles both in terms of social and communicational dynamics. Since language is vital to human group formation, and communication brings out the most distinctly human aspects of life and living, it is the moving force of the body politic which ranges from the individual to the world community. It is important to know that there is no level jumping in communication excepting in the spiritual sense. With modern gadgets one may bypass the neighbour and communicate with the distant, but it is bound to have deleterious effects both on the individual and the world, as it distort identities.
Mother tongue provides rootedness in one's culture; while acquainting one with the world, it provides localisation and name to objects and events. It helps establish balanced relationship between the environment, the community and the child, through the process of labelling. Loosening of mother tongue loyalty not only develops a sense of alienation, but distances one from the values the culture holds dear to it. Take for example, words like Wai Sun 'Mother's brother's son', Wai Sun niu 'Mother's brother's daughter', biao ge 'Mother's sister's son', biao jie 'Mother's sister's daughter', tang ge 'father's brother's son', tang jie 'father's brother's daughter', zhi zi 'father's sister's son', zhi nu 'father's sister's daughter', in a Chinese dialect. All these, when replaced by a simple English word cousin, not only affects perception of familial ties but deculturises the anglicised Chinese.
The myths and symbols available in the mother tongue become inaccessible and, with the mother tongue, the loyalty to the mother land also is slowly eroded. The English elite in India finds a greater affinity with the English speaking world outside the country today than his/her village. Such an elite, produce of an all English education, not only cannot appreciate traditional Indian dance and music, art and architecture, which make use of myths, symbols and tradition tores, they also cannot be creative in their own language or even English. If Hong Kong does not learn from the India experience and promotes English at the cost of mother tongues, then it will result in the production of what T'sou and Lord call 'cultural Eunuchs'.
Hong Kong can ill afford to lose English and the benefit accruing from it. But, if like Singapore, it follows the path of annihilation of the mother tongues, symbolic propagation of Mandarin and promotion of English, then it is bound to move towards becoming a dominantly monolingual English speaking state. It is, therefore, necessary that it develops a strategy of education which would permit micro and macro identities to complement one another. For this purpose it must adopt a three-language formula which is emerging as a consensus in multilingual countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The formula would dictate a strategy of bilingual primary education where beginning with one's mother tongue one would make a transfer to the modern standard Chinese by the end of the primary stage. Mother tongues thereafter may be offered as additional optional subjects if need be. English should be introduced at the post primary stage only, after standard modern Chinese bilingualism with the mother tongue is established. Languages, then, would be complementing and not contesting one another. Formal education will provide equality of opportunity to Cantonese, Hindi and Malay speakers to study modern written Chinese so that they may participate in national reconstruction as equal partners.
Today the Chinese are spread all over the world. American, Canadian and Indian Chinese are Chinese in culture, but citizens of the countries which they have adopted as their abode. They have enriched the cultures of the adopted countries in the same way non-Chinese have enriched the Chinese culture. Maintenance of Cantonese in Hong Kong will strengthen the golden bond between Hong Kong and mainland China. Its non-maintenance will weaken the bond. An education system based on the solid foundation of early mother tongue education and provision for linking first, second and further languages would provide competence both in standard modern written Chinese and English which will be a source of strength for China. Weakening in emphasis on early mother tongue education is bound to lead to lack of competence both in standard Chinese and English, which not only will result in mediocrity, but remain a vulnerable outpost for China. Only by adoption a pluralistic approach in seeking a solution to its own problems can China aspire to claim leadership role in multilingual and pluricultural Asia, Africa and Latin America, and Hong Kong be proud of its ancestry and look forward to a pride of place in the community of Chinese speaking territories.