SGTB Khalsa College LLC

All the LLCians ,best of luck fot the nightmare that gonna happen tommorow in the day light!!!
darna mat!!!
dew pina!!!!
;-)

Globalization

“Anthropology has become, of necessity, a study of change as well as
of stability” (Keesing & Keesing 1971, 346). This has been one of the
major topics of anthropology ever since researchers first noticed that
primitive peoples were not as untouched by change as they had initially
thought. Although globalization is often mistaken as an exclusively
economic phenomenon, it is obvious that “humans on all frontiers are
being forced either to shift their ideational systems radically and quickly
or to live in a thought-world that no longer fits the way their world is”
(Keesing & Keesing 1971, 343). Keesing points out that as: “rewards of
“economic development” become universal aspirations, they [people]
react to this challenge in sharply contrasting ways”. From this
perspective, globalization cannot continue to be exclusively defined as
6
an economic development, but it’s social, cultural and political effects
must also de addressed.
I found Ulrich Beck’s “What is Globalization?” one of the most
comprehensive and accessible sources for addressing issues of
theoretical controversy concerning globalization and the contradictory
meanings associated with it. Beck divides the theoretical controversy
into two major categories, those who point to “one dominant logic of
globalization” and those suggesting “a phenomenon with a complex set
of causes” (Beck 2000, 30). The former implies a single cause for
globalization, while the latter claims multiple causes for globalization.
Beck divides these theories into the following: capitalist world-system,
post international politics, world risk society, the thesis of
McDonaldization, glocalization and a few other derivations of these
interpretations.
Wallerstein is one supporter of the capitalist world-system theory.
Instead of seeing societies as individual separate entities, Wallerstein
sees one world-system in which all things, products and people must
accommodate themselves in a single dimension of labor. Capitalism is
seen as a “world–system” that “provides the framework for the
measurement of social inequalities on a world scale” (Beck 2000, 32).
According to Wallerstein the capitalist world economy has three
elements. Firstly it’s seen as consisting of a single market governed by
profit maximization, secondly nation-state structures hinder free market
flow in order to improve their own profits, and lastly surplus labor is
exploited among the “heartlands”, “semiperipheries” and “peripherial
countries and regions” (Beck 2000, 33). As Beck points out,
Wallersteins theory is mainly monocausal and economic in its
interpretations. Globalization is solely seen as an institutionalization of
the world market.
Beck discusses the theory of post-international politics of globalization
from the views of Rosenau, Gilpin and Held. Rosenau sees that
7
humanity has entered a stage in which national powers must share the
global arena with other international, political and social organizations in
tackling trans-national questions. Rosenau sees world politics
polycentrically in opposition to Wallersteins view of a single worldsystem.
Instead of seeing globalization as one trans-national power
exerting control, polycentricism of world politics means that all nationstates,
international organizations (the UN, IMF, World Bank, NGO’s)
compete among each other to achieve their goals. Gilpin understands
globalization as “the expansion of trans-national spaces and actors,
dependant upon national authorities and the tacit consent of nation
states” (Beck 2000, 36-37) Held sees “sovereignty” as” divided and
shackled… it is making obsolete the concept of political sovereignty”
and losing the core of it’s national power (Beck 2000, 37).
The theory of the world risk society differs from the above mentioned
theories in that it concentrates on more ethical questions; ecological
catastrophes, humanitarian crises, economical imbalance,
technological-industrial dangers and genetic-engineering threats. Beck
states: “Threats create society, and global threats create global society”
(Beck 2000, 38). World risk society implies that trans-national social
spaces are born through “unintended, denied or repressed threats” and
conflicts (Beck 2000, 39)
The threat of cultural uniformity is referred to as “McDonaldization”. The
globalization of world economy and the development of trans-national
markets have caused a worldwide generation of hamburger eating,
coca-cola drinking, cell phone kids. The threat to local cultures and the
extinction of cultural and ethnic diversity seems inevitable. However,
cultural globalization theorists such as Roland Robertson emphasize
the paradoxical effects of globalization. Beck states that: “Their basic
insight is that globalization does not mean globalization automatically,
unilaterally or ‘one-dimensionally’ – which is one of the endless sources
of misunderstanding in this debate.” (Beck 2000, 46). On the contrary, a
global process must have roots, a place, origin, locality, even trans8
national firms must develop local connections for their businesses.
What Roland Robertson sees happening is a “localization” of the global,
or “de-location” and/or “relocation” of globalization. Globalization is
developing its own local cultural traits and dimensions. Robertson calls
this process “glocalization”.
The difference between the previously mentioned ‘world-system’ theory
and the “new culturally attuned sociology of globalization” as expressed
by Beck redefine the key elements of cultural studies (Beck 2000, 49).
To understand globalization one must re-understand the world and how
culture, diversity, politics, ethnicity, race and homogeneity are
manifested. For the generations of people who are accustomed to
understanding and defining the world through narrowly and artificially
constructed national identities it is a challenge to break from these
conceptions of identity. Cultural globalization theorists sense a change
in the public, which they claim is partially due to the media’s attention
on global events and the emphasis on the inter-dependency of
humanity. Research increasingly focuses on how “the world horizon
opens up in the cross-cultural production of meaning and cultural
symbols” (Beck 2000, 47). Dialectical theories on universalism and
particularism, connection and fragmentation, centralization and
decentralization, conflict and balance and modes of distinction are
some of the areas of research.
Arjun Appadurai takes dialectical theory on glocalization a step further
in his “cultural flows” studies. In his book “Modernity at Large”,
Appadurai describes at least four “landscapes” through which people,
refugees, tourists, immigrants, exiles and “guest-workers” move on an
international level. Appadurai doesn’t see globalization as the
homogenization of culture, but as the ever changing and “flowing” of
technology “techno-scapes”, economy “finance-scapes”, media “mediascapes”
and ideology “ideo-scapes” through the movement of people
over cultural and national boundaries. These “flows” through “-scapes”
change the conceptions of “center” and “periphery” and create imagined
9
worlds that are created by different people and groups. Appadurai
states that: “... ethnography must confront the changing social,
territorial, and cultural reproduction of group identity. As groups migrate,
regroup in new locations, reconstruct their histories, and reconfigure
their ethnic projects, the ethno in ethnography takes on a slippery, nonlocalized
quality, to which the descriptive practices of anthropology will
have to respond. The landscapes of group identity – the ethno-scapes –
around the world are no longer familiar anthropological objects, insofar
as groups are no longer tightly territorialized, spatially bounded,
historically unselfconscious, or culturally homogenous” (Appdurai 1996,
48).



Culture

The word culture comes from the Latin, cultura or cultus. Cultus means
to cultivate. The original meaning of cultus was closely linked to the
cultivation of soil, agri cultura. The understanding of the word culture
has changed from its root meaning as an activity to a condition, a state
of being cultivated. Though the meaning of culture was originally tied to
activity, the question of the activity of what and to what end is inevitable.
The Romans linked culture to humanitas; man vs. animal, urbanitas;
city vs. rural and civilitas as in civil and good manners opposed to
barbaric ways. Many, however, felt this to be a superficial concept, and
interpreted culture as being Bildung, the cultivation of a complex inner
life. Kroeber and Kluckhohn in Culture a Critical Review of Concepts
and Definitions state that: “The most generic sense of the word “culture”
– in Latin and in all the languages that have borrowed the Latin root –
retains the primary notion of cultivation or becoming cultured. This was
also the older meaning of “civilization”. A second concept to emerge
was that of German Kultur, roughly the distinctive “ ‘higher’ values or
enlightment of society.” (Kroeber & Kluckhohn 1952, 35) At the time that
Kroeber and Kluckhohn wrote their book, the word culture was still
under construction. Different academic disciplines could not agree upon
10
a common meaning: “few explicit definitions were given. Usage was
rather consistently vague, and denotation varied from very narrow to
very broad.” (Kroeber & Kluckhohn 1952, 36.) Though anthropology,
sociology and the other social sciences have come a long way since
then, a “fully systematic scientific theory of man, society and culture has
yet to be created” from the perspective of the process of globalization.
Culture is a universal phenomenon explicit to man, and a process that
can encompass small, medium or vast groups of peoples.
From the perspective of globalization, culture should be seen as the
process of the cultivation of an intricate inner life that takes on form and
meaning in social action on a global scale. Inner life in this context
would refer to the knowledge of mankind as a single and inseparable
species common to earth. This can be understood as the
comprehension of the reality of man and his surroundings. From a
global perspective, inner life could take on form and meaning only
through action, specifically social action, though the importance of
personal action cannot be underestimated. Though inner life refers to
the knowledge of the perceived reality of mankind, it is in itself a
process and it is the cultivation of this process and it’s realization in the
concrete world through social action that gives us real global culture.
From the perspective of globalization, the individual and humanity on a
collective level, is being posed a challenge; to understand mankind’s
interconnected reality on a universal level and cooperate to cultivate
this diversity to serve humanity on a global scale.
The sharper the perception of reality, the more likely the result is a long
lasting phenomenon instead of a temporary expression of a “sub”-
culture. The perception of reality must change, evolve, fall or advance.
Carrithers points out in Why Humans Have Cultures, that “…learning
and mastery are very close to the underlying processes which make
social variability possible. Think of the process of one generation
following on from another. A marker of real understanding is being able
to do something new with what is learned, not just to copy blindly what
11
others have done.” (Carrithers 1992, !). From this point it is easy to
understand that culture and the understanding of culture is in a
continuous state of fluctuation, change and development.
How people understand themselves and surroundings in an everchanging
world, which is increasingly inter-dependant and international,
is the focus of this study. It is obvious that the world has become
politically inter-dependant, but has this same inter-dependence been
realized in people’s social actions and identities as well?

Identity

Stuart Hall’s article “The Question of Cultural Identity” in Modernity and
its Futures, speaks of the three subjects of identity; the enlightened
subject, the sociological subject and the post-modern subject. The
renaissance subject saw man as a coherent, rational, spiritual being,
whose inner essence, his soul had it’s beginning at the time of
conception. This inner self developed though it’s essence never
changed. This inner self was “identical” with its outer manifestation and
was understood to be man’s identity.
The sociological subject mirrored the increasing complexity of modern
life. The inner self was in constant dialogue with other beings and
developed through this dialogue. Identity developed through the
interaction of the individual and society, the internal nucleus remained
but now it was constantly adapting, always being “rewritten” in a
continuous dialogue with external cultural worlds and identities. Hall
sees the post-modern subject as fragmented; it’s neither coherent nor
intact. The inner self consists of many different identities that are
changing, retreating and developing all the time. Often they are in open
conflict with one another and the “identification process” is becoming
more diverse and problematic. This creates the “post-modern subject”,
which doesn’t have a concrete, set identity. Hall sees that identity is
12
shaped through the ways we are represented and addressed by society
around us (Hall 1999, 23.) Identity is not biologically defined but
historically and socially constructed.
Identity came into anthropology relatively lately from the fields of
philosophy and psychology. Anthropology has often linked identity to
terms such as “ethics, “world view” and “values”. According to the
erikson-psychosocial tradition, identity is seen as the feeling of
continuity, identification and acceptance that the individual experiences
within a group. Kenneth Gergen has criticized this tradition, because it
is hard to access, prove or realize another’s identity, since one cannot
hope to pe*****te into another’s head (Aro 1996, 38.) One can have
different identities at different times in different places, which can cause
conflicting identities and an increasing sense of insecurity. Hall feels
that a complete, definite, coherent identity is sheer fantasy. This fact is
unfortunately in conflict with the myth of a single, ethnically and
nationally defined identity. This has and continues to confuse the
individual’s identity construction; particularly those who (willingly or
reluctantly) travel and live beyond the borders of easily defined national
and ethnic borders. Identity always changes and fluctuates within an
individual regardless of background and living circumstances. However
for those who fall beyond the ”traditional” borders of accepted identity it
can be a special challenge to find coherence in ones self and
surroundings. “The history of the world, rather than moving towards
cultural homogenization, has demonstrated the opposite: a trend to
cultural differentiation and cultural complexity. With these
developments, each individual increasingly belongs to many cultures –
people have multiple cultural identities. Increasingly, one goes through
life picking up identities. In this sense, identity is never finished.” (King
1997, 16). The question is how to find coherence of self and of others in
the process of a global intensification of interaction.

Legacies and Limitations: Legislating Linguistic Diversity in India
By Aimee R. Fullman
George Mason University
March 2005

Legacies and Limitations: Legislating Linguistic Diversity in India
Cultural Diversity
In October of 2005, the Director General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) will submit a final draft of the Convention on the Protection of the
Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expression (Convention on Cultural Diversity) to the General
Conference. The proposed Convention on Cultural Diversity intends to ensure states’ “capacity to
develop and implement measures to support diversity of artistic, linguistic and cultural expression, within
and among nations; and taking into account the potential impediments to these goals that may arise from
international trade, investment and services disciplines.”i
Over forty member countries are in support of protecting cultural diversity, in defense against the
homogenization of culture augmented by the increased flow of goods, services, people, ideas, and
information more readily accessible due to the Internet and other technologies. This threat, often
interpreted as Americanization, has driven many countries to use protectionist measures in order to
preserve their national culture and identity from cultural imperialism.
India, the largest democracy, is arguably one of the most culturally diverse nations. Although
traditionally nations have shared a common ethnicity, religion, language and history, India is a
multiethnic, multi-religious, multicultural and multilingual nation of nearly one billion people with a
history of assimilating various cultural practices from conquering civilizations. Since her independence,
just over fifty years ago, India has had to cope with the internal politics of diversity most particularly
concerning language status and use. Thus India is a useful microcosm to analyze the politics of cultural
diversity and the ability of states to have an influence on internal and external pressures that impact
diversity. Despite India’s attempt to legislate linguistic diversity domestically and promote a “national”
identity through the promotion of one particular language, the decreasing diversity of Indian culture as
measured through the survival and utility of her languages serves as a warning for the success of the
Convention on Cultural Diversity.
The Politics of Language in India
As of 2003, India currently has 22 scheduled or official languages. Each one of these languages
represents a majority in one of the Indian states and is often a minority language in others. But Hindi, the
“official” language of administration has been promoted and favored by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Ministry of Law, Information and Broadcasting, and the Ministry of Education over the interests of the
other now 21 official languagesii in hopes of encouraging a national identity. However, the English
3
legacy has continued from colonial times to its present use as an important link language within India as
well as a bridge to global economic opportunities.
Through the 1991 Census, 1576 mother tongues were recognized and grouped into 114
languages. Indian languages are derived from 6 language family groups with the majority of speakers
coming from the Austro-Asiatic, Dravidian, and Indo-European languages. Mother tongues with fewer
than 10,000 speakers are not identified or grouped but are classified as “other.” Over 96% of the
population speaks the 18 major languages: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kashmiri, Kannada,
Konkani, Malayam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindi, Tamil, Telagu, and Urdu.
These major languages and their communities have played an important role in India’s development as
both a democracy and as a state as India seized the idea that language “often serves as one of the most
important symbols of identification and distinction”iii by utilizing languages as the determining factor for
geopolitical state partitioning. See Appendix A & Appendix B.
At the time of independence, the linguistic diversity of India was seen as a potential destabilizing
force which makes it surprising that the founders would allow division based on language which as a
unifying cultural factor would lend itself to secession. Religious controversies were allowed to spill over
onto language selection at this time. Before the partition of India and Pakistan, Gandhi had pushed for
“Hindustani” as a unifying national language based on the following criteria: “1. It should be easy to learn
for government officials. 2. It should be capable of serving as a medium of religious, economic, and
political in*******se throughout India. 3. It should be the speech of the majority of the inhabitants of India
4. It should be easy to learn for the whole of the country. 5. In choosing this language, considerations of
temporary or passing interests should not count.”iv Hindustani fulfilled these criteria as it clearly forged a
compromise betwen Urdu, spoken by most Muslims, and Hindi that reflected a third of the population.
These two languages were conveniently considered mutually intelligible. However, with the separation
of Pakistan, proponents of Hindi gained ground and Hindi rather than Hindustani was written into the
Constitution as the “official language.” English, the language of the colonial power, was retained as an
associative administrative language for a planned period of 15 years during which the national promotion
of Hindi would gradually replace English for all government and administrative operations. This
rejection of a truly unifying language has continued to create internal divides within India through the
present day.
The current policy framework concerning linguistic diversity is derived from constitutional rights
and has created a multifaceted language formula that honors Hindi as a national language, English as a
link language, continues to organize its states based on majority language, and provides protection to
minority speakers. In contrast to other models built to accommodate minority rights where special groups
4
like Native Americans in the United States are exempted from public laws, the Indian model is inclusive
and through the past 50 years has evolved in attempting to provide a workable framework of
accommodation.
The Indian Constitution and Cultural Rights:
“The success of a state in coping with the challenge of linguistic diversity depends on its capacity
to respond through constitutional accommodation of diversity and adequate policy responses through firm
and clear social, political, and economic initiatives.” Language rights in India are created and supported
by the constitution and the international law documents detailing human and linguistic diversity that India
is a signatory to. Article 29(1) of the Indian Constitution states that: “Any section of the citizens residing
in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script, or culture of its own shall
have the right to conserve the same.” In December of 1992, India signed the Universal Declaration of
Human Rightsv which among other applications provided justification and judicial recourse for parents to
choose the medium of education for their children. Thus, language right is treated synonymously with
linguistic rights and linguistic human rights.vi Discussion of language rights normally revolves around
rights of linguistic minorities of which the sources for the rights are in international declarations like the
Universal Declaration on Linguistic Rights and the Universal Convention on Cultural Diversity, the
constitution, policy statements, reports, and judgments of the courts.vii
Through its adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UNESCO’s
recommendations on primary education in mother tongues, India has made a legitimate attempt to
accommodate minority language speakers. However, simultaneously its promotion of Hindi as the
“national” language has created conflict. According to the Convention for Cultural Diversity, the nation’s
ability to decide and protect its culture should be effective in preventing influence by outside cultural
forces. However India proves this wrong. Its emphasis on Hindi as a favored language has backfired and
forced it to make concessions to politically charged groups in the South that have strengthened the role of
English, the outside cultural force.
The steps that India has taken to legislate language has had repercussions on access to
employment opportunities, preservation of language, and thus cultural identity, her ability to compete in a
global environment, and educational policies. In summary, as Noam Chomsky states, “Questions of
language are basically questions of power.”
Hindi versus “Indy”
With some interpretation of the 1991 Census numbers derived from counting the 22% of the
population whose mother tongue is Hindi, the 42% of the population that speak it as a language, the
5
6.16% who count it as a second language, and the 2.6% who have learned it as a third language, it can be
stated that Hindi is known to 50.98% of the whole population, a clear and important political majority. viii
Although, Hindi is not defined officially as a “national language,” it is considered to be the lingua franca
by sheer numbers and is found nationwide in the over 20 major dialects of Hindi. Demographically, 78%
of Hindi speakers reside in rural areas.ix
Due to the popularity of films, television and radio, “Non-Hindi speakers in India are like passive
smokers of Hindi.” x Bollywood movies out produce even Hollywood with between 800-1000 movies per
year. Although there is a token independent film industry in Tamil, a Dravidian language, only Hindi
films are distributed throughout India. See Appendix C “Mass media is the major user of Indian
languages. In 1987, newspapers were published in 92 languages, whereas in 2000, newspapers are
published in 101 languages and dialects.”xi
These distributional challenges for other language groups echo the concerns felt on an
international level as media becomes more concentrated and commercialized. Herman and McChesney
support this argument in their book The Global Media by including a weakening public sphere, and the
degradation of local cultures in their list of possible negative externalities of the commercialization of
culture and the media. Concerns about media ownership concentration of radio, television, and print
media have been heightened even in the United States. These private and often multi-national cultural
industries are motivated by profit and thus have self-interest in providing content that is commercially
profitable and accessible to a large audience. Media and cultural industry consolidation represents a
division between private interest and public interest and national policies have affecting them have an
impact on the culture in terms of guaranteeing impartiality of the source, access to information, and
diversity of ideas. India has taken a nationalist agenda approach rather than a public interest approach in
exploiting its ability to impact popular culture by using the Bollywood film industry as a tool to provide
cultural unification and consolidation through the promotion of Hindi.
The greatest opposition to Hindi exists primarily in the South. In general, linguistic minorities
are afraid of majority languages as a tool of oppression that is divisive of community. Because of this,
when faced with a choice, many communities in the South who are primarily associated with Dravidian
languages, have preferred the use of English over Hindi. A prime concern is the national test for
government service which is administered in Hindi and English. In 1965, Madras erupted in riots with
the slogan of “Hindi Never, English, Ever” over their right to continue to be educated and take the
government exam in English which was considered at least an equalizer between the various languages.
This neutral role of English against Hindi’s populous use is a prime factor in the retention of English as a
strong force in the local politics of India in education, employment, and government.
6
The English Effect:
“Why would that a nation of one billion souls, home to not one but several of the great traditions
of world culture, has{sic} not divested itself of the language of its former conquerors, even though the
vast majority would prefer there to be only one language for the entire nation, an indigenous one at
that?” xii
India made every attempt to phase out English, its former language of oppression and elite
opportunity. However, today English functions as an essential link language even though native English
speakers, in a declining trend, were only numbered at 178,598 in the 1991 Census. The percentage of bi
and trilinguals in the same census came to 8 and 3.5 % respectively which outdistanced the language of
Hindi which has 6.15% and 2.16% respectively.xiii Overall it is widely estimated though that only about
3% of the entire population speaks English and this population is elite in terms of wealth, education, and
connectivity into the global economy.
The perceived usefulness of English as both a neutral ground in subaltern Indian politics and
worldwide has kept English as an administrative and more importantly a primary educational and
scholarly language. In Nations of the World Norman Berdichevsky goes so far as to say that “It is no
exaggeration to claim that, thanks only to English, India has managed to effectively stay united and
progress due to the attraction of this foreign and European or even imperialist language that has earned an
absolutely essential importance for a tiny, bilingual, English-and Hindi-speaking elite that dominates the
country’s cultural, scientific, commercial, and literary life.” This claim of domination is substantiated by
the fact that English accounts for more than half the books published on the subcontinent.xiv A national
readership survey in 2002 conducted by National Readership studies Council (NRSC) further
substantiates English’s growing prevalence with evidence that there is a “sharp growth in the sales of
English newspapers in towns with populations ranging from one lakh to five lahks, whereas growth in
Hindi and regional language newspapers is from the towns with populations below five lakhs. English is
becoming more popular in the rural areas due to the growth and development of reading skill in English
through school. English, thus, is establishing a solid mass base for itself in the rural areas,”xv exactly
where Hindi is strongest.
Indian citizens, who have had to learn several languages for school and work, are actually more
affected by linguistic diversity than uneducated Indians who rarely leave their home area. The impetus
for learning a second language are motivated by forces in the free market which include: “travel,
education, career advancement, business and job opportunities, research and intelligence gathering,
appreciation of another culture, social conviviality and convenience.” xvi However, the overall
integration of English into Indian society goes beyond these reasons and is such that, “many Indians feel
7
that English is no longer a foreign language-they have made it very much their own. Regarding Hindi,
they indicated that regardless of its status as a national language, people communicate with whichever
language or mixture of languages they are most comfortable with.”xvii With the access that English
affords on the global market combined with the hostility that much of the South historically and currently
feels at the forced adoption of Hindi, it is unlikely that English will ever be completely phased out as a
link language.
This is an important signal to those that hope that national policies can control culture within their
borders. The strong support for English signifies an individual choice that goes in direct contrast to the
state legislated preference for Hindi to function as a national and link language.
Practicality versus Preservation:
India’s incredible potential for growth in the global economy is countered by the facts that over
90% of its citizens do not graduate from the equivalent of high school, its literacy rate as of 2001 was
only 65.2%xviii, and 90% of the world’s languages are not on the internet. xix Since English is the default
language of Internet, its appeal and ability to become diffused within in the Indian Society is exacerbated.
xx
Despite the recognition that English might provide a useful tool in getting ahead, cultural
attachment to native languages remain strong particularly in the realms of education. The importance of
mother tongues are well documented. Research shows that mother-tongue instruction combined with the
majority language gives the best results at school and fosters children’s cognitive development and
learning ability.xxi This has led to the development of the Three Prong Formula which established that
the regional tongue or the mother tongue would be taught in primary school, alongside Hindi or in Hindi
speaking areas another language, and then English or another modern European language would round
out the third language of instruction. Considered to be a failure by many; nonetheless, this policy was an
honest and inclusive attempt at legislating linguistic diversity. According to Kamal Sridhar (as cited from
p.22 in English in Indian Bilingualism), this policy is, “a compromise between the demands of the various
pressure groups and has been hailed as a masterly-if imperfect-solution to a complicated problem. It
seeks to accommodate the interests of group identity (mother tongues and regional languages), national
pride and unity (Hindi), and administrative efficiency and technological progress (English).”xxii
Each Census documents a loss of overall languages utility and existence in India. In addition,
even within education under the Three Prong Formula, the All India Survey conducted by the NCERT
indicates that the diversity of languages utilized in education has progressively decreased. In the last 25
years in fact it has been nearly halved from 81 in 1970 to 41 and the medium of instruction has decreased
by about 1/3 from 47 to 18. “This indicates that in the era of industrialization, people were going away
from their mother tongue as a language of schooling and as a medium of instruction. If a language is not
8
learned as a mother tongue for wider purposes of communication and governance, there are possibilities
that the concerned language will gradually vanish from the society as an effective medium, and will
assume the role of an identity marker only. Even the role of a language as an identity marker may not
happen in India, because caste, religion, attire, food habits and even personal names often may provide
important identities for the individual or the family or the society.”xxiii
The importance of education in mother tongue must be emphasized in relation to the preservation
of language. According to UNESCO’s fact sheet on endangered languages, over 50% of the world’s 6000
languages are endangered, 96% of the world’s 6000 languages are spoken by 4% of the world’s
population, and one language disappears on average every two weeksxxiv The ramifications are such that,
“the consequent reduction of cultural diversity may threaten humanity’s survival. Our adaptive success as
a species—with over 5 billion people in such diverse environments as jungles, deserts, and the Arctic—is
due to “culture,” implying the communication of ideas through language. Linguistic diversity relates to
adaptational ideals about property, health care, food, children, power, and disputes. The loss of language
diversity diminishes our ability to adapt because it decreases the pool of knowledge from which to draw.”
xxv
Conclusion:
Left with a legacy of English as a link language that continues to this day, India’s choice to
promote a national language that served in reality less than 1/3 of its population’s cultural interests has
proved to be divisive and the greatest weakness of its linguistic policies. The limitations of India’s
language policies, despite their foundation in protection for linguistic diversity and human rights and then
legalized in the Constitution and international law, show that stronger forces than the state are at play in
cultural politics. Indians most of all want greater opportunity for themselves and for their children.
While they might insist on primary mother tongue education, the realities of living in a multicultural
nation force them to learn multiple languages. With English providing access to the internet, greater
economic opportunity, higher education, and governmental administrative posts, there is no impetus for
English to be phased out.
The complexities of the linguistic policies of India provide for maximum choice to individuals in
what languages to be educated in, work, and utilize. Preservation of languages is a noble goal with proven
uses but India fares no better than other nations who are gradually losing languages with no script or the
ability to act as economic gateways. India has provided all of the rational policies available to encourage
diversity including bilingual and trilingual education, two functional federal administrative “link”
languages, and maximum state guaranteed choice in the determination of majority and minority language
and education. But, even India cannot hold back the tides of progress and globalization.
9
Unfortunately, India’s failure to maintain its longstanding cultural diversity despite policies that
promote and allow for flourishment of multiple languages is a sign to those promoting the Convention for
Cultural Diversity that despite the state’s goal of maintaining and protecting national identity the choice
comes down to each individual. As long as larger economic opportunity can be accessed through other
global languages, the majority of information provided through the internet excludes 90% of global
languages, and citizens feel that promotion of a national culture impedes their progress or is
discriminatory to their own cultural identities; state mandated diversity in democracies doesn’t have a
chance. Nevertheless, only by creating opportunities as India has done for minority groups and
individuals to preserve and develop what is important to them can the diminishing effects of globalization
be slowed by the counteractive forces of niche preferences and markets.