First published in MIDWEEK REVIEW of The Island on November 3rd, 1999
It is often asserted than an important cause of the current crisis in our
country is the so-called lack of understanding’ between the Sinhalese and
Tamil communities. This view leads to the conclusion that promoting
inter-communal communication should be an essential component of a possible
solution to the problem. So the teaching of Sinhalese to Tamil
school-children and Tamil to their Sinhalese counterparts is upheld as a
good practical measure that will ultimately contribute to the establishment
of lasting peace in the land.
No sane person would deny that mutual understanding is a good thing for
private individuals or whole races to achieve, because such understanding
is a prerequisite for the creation of an atmosphere of mutual respect,
accommodation, give and take and fair play so vital for any friendly social
relationship to flourish. Language certainly can be exploited as a means of
moving towards better communication between different groups of people.
However, we must not forget that politicians sometimes tend to make
simplistic analyses of serious problems and propose fantastic solutions to
them. Norman Tebbit, who later became the Chairman of the Conservative Party
in Britain, during a radio address in November 1985, traced the cause of a
popularly perceived rise in football hooliganism to a decline in the
teaching of English grammar in British schools! What caused him to make
this strange link between grammar and personal behaviour? The answer might
be that he equated the discipline that he believed would be generated in
school-children through the teaching of grammar with such manifestations of
obedience to authority as respect for elders, school discipline, personal
cleanliness, etc.
In our own country, under a previous regime, Lovadasangarawa’ (an ancient
Sinhalese compendium of religio-ethical instructions in verse form) was
made compulsory reading for school students, following violent youth unrest
(which, incidentally, on two occasions, was suppressed by the authorities
with the worst excesses of brutality imaginable defying every canon of
civilised conduct.)
The current policy of teaching Sinhalese to Tamil students and vice versa
can easily be shown to be a facetious solution to our problems. A moment’s
reflection is enough for us to see that a common language will by no means
guarantee peace anywhere in the world. Think about Northern Ireland where
for decades a separatist conflict has been devastating an ethnically
homogenous community that speaks the same language. Think about the Middle
East, Algeria, Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia and the newly independent
former Russian republics where internal fratricidal conflicts are engulfing
people sharing the same language. On the other hand, the people of
Switzerland speak four different dialects, but still there is peace in that
country. So language by itself is no guarantor of communal harmony.
Suppose we teach all our children both the national languages and thus
enable them to break down the alleged language barrier between them. Then
do you think we are going to be able to cheer ‘Hey Presto! The problem is
gone!’? Not likely in view of the above evidence unless certain other
things are put right first.
In reality instruction in grammar or ethics, or building linguistic links
between races, has little to offer by way of a solution to a country’s
problems, when these measures are introduced in isolation. Problems facing
a country arise from a complexity of political, social, economic and other
causes. These need to be seriously studied and remedies must be formulated
and implemented.
Nonetheless I do not deny that language can be used for promoting peace and
progress. Obviously the policy of teaching Tamil and Sinhalese students
Sinhalese and Tamil respectively as a second language does not seem to be a
very well thought out proposition. How can we motivate our children to
address themselves to this task of learning an additional second language,
when that additional second language is either Sinhalese or Tamil? Can we
offer our Sinhalese speaking children as an incentive for learning Tamil,
or our Tamil speaking children for learning Sinhalese anything other than
the distant prospect of ‘national unity’ which, they know better than we
would care to admit, is only a pipedream in the context of the present day
realities of our country such as economic poverty and chronic political
corruption?
What do we learn a language for? It is rare that we learn a language for
the sake of a mere knowledge of that language. Rather, we learn a language
to get something else through it such as a job, to acquire a knowledge
of sciences, technologies, skills etc. that are not available in the
languages that we already know. We need not be so blindly patriotic as to
assert that either Sinhalese or Tamil has much original information to
offer in modern science, technology, business, engineering, medicine and
other similar fields. This is not to disparage our own national languages.
The same is true about thousands of the world’s other languages including
such widely used languages as Chinese, Hindi and Arabic. The reason is
nothing intrinsically defective in these languages. What prevails today is
the scientific, technological, industrial system that evolved through
centuries of mainly western domination of the world. The major players in
this arena have been the English speaking peoples. It is predicted that by
the year 2000 about one billion all over the world will be learning
English. The purpose for which they will learn English is too obvious to
explain. Although numerically English is not perhaps the most widely used
language in the world today, it is certainly the most powerful global
medium. It enjoys the most widespread dominance economically, politically
and culturally.
If we envisage a linguistic component for a broad-based solution to the Sri
Lankan ethnic crisis, the simplest and surest way to achieve that would be
for us to do a better job of our teaching of English in schools, colleges
and universities. That would be far more useful than trying to impose on
our children something that they are naturally inclined to reject. Children
of all communities will generally be more receptive to English than to
either Sinhalese or Tamil as a second language for reasons already outlined.
Learning a language is greatly facilitated by constant exposure to that
language. In Sri Lanka, there are a lot of opportunities for students to be
exposed to English in education, sports, entertainment, communication and
other fields. This situation naturally makes English attractive to us.
While paying special attention to the teaching of English we must not
neglect our own local languages. Language is an inalienable part of any
culture. We must do everything in our power to protect and foster our
respective cultural identities, but we should not get unnecessarily
circumscribed within a narrow shell in the name of ethnicity
or culture. So my opinion is that our children, while being instructed in
their own mother tongues, should be taught English as a compulsory second
language. Provision must also be made for those who wish to study Tamil or
Sinhalese as an optional second language.
At the university level, science, engineering, medicine, agriculture and
similar professional subjects should be taught entirely in English.
Subjects such as religion, history, philosophy, local languages and
literary arts can be taught through the medium of national languages, but
even here students must be equipped with a sound knowledge of English in
order that they will be able to utilise sources of information beyond the
limits of their own languages. The same emphasis on English must be
maintained in all institutions of higher education including teacher
training colleges, technical institutes, etc.
However, we all know that this is easier said than done. Is it reasonable
to expect students who qualify to enter university and other centres of
higher learning to be able to follow courses in English or at least to do
reference in the library in that language, when they have been instructed
only through the medium of their mother tongue from the beginning to the
end of their school career? A clear ‘no’ is the answer to this question
considering the state of English language teaching in our schools today.
This has to be remedied first.
A three year course of intensive English language training could be a good
foundation for the type of English medium higher education I have in mind.
The first part of such a course may be conducted in the last two years of
school, i.e. in the GCE (Advanced Level) class. The syllabi of this course
must be drawn in such a way that the English that the students learn will
be oriented to the subject areas they are likely to follow at the higher
education level. The third and final year of the intensive English course I
am suggesting will coincide with the first year of lectures at the
respective institutions (i.e. universities, technical colleges, etc). Such
an English course will be so designed as to make possible a smooth switch
over from vernacular languages to English as the medium of instruction as
well as a natural passage from school to higher education. It will
definitely save the new entrants of these centres of higher education the
frustrating shock of the three or six months of intensive English that is
being administered now on a rather perfunctory basis.
The importance of English for national progress both in terms of
educational achievement and economic development has been well understood
by our people. Unfortunately, its popularity is being exploited by
businessmen as clearly shown by the proliferation of private tuition centres and
international schools in their thousands in all parts of the island. State
educational authorities have hardly any control over them: private
tuition providers, apparently, need only be registered as business
establishments. This parallel system of education which has emerged in
response to urgent public demand for more and more English education
remains to be investigated in earnest with a view to regulating it in order
to accommodate the broader national interests.
Education is a supreme national need and it should not be left in the hands
of private individuals whose only motive is money-making. The government
school system should take cognizance of the realities regarding the
position of English in education and introduce and implement the necessary
measures to make it available to all our students, thereby eliminating
their exploitation by unscrupulous businessmen who have intruded into the field
of education.
While discounting the efficacy of teaching Sinhalese to Tamil children and
Tamil to Sinhalese children, I have here tried to outline the advantages of
teaching English as a ‘lingua franca’ to all our children whether they are
Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim or Burgher. If mutual understanding is the aim of
teaching our children the vernacular languages as second languages, that
goal may be better achieved by teaching them English instead. Although a
common or shared language can help promote mutual understanding between
communities, it will not necessarily ensure peace by itself. The real
causes of communal division, to my mind, lie elsewhere. In fact, any lack
of mutual understanding may not even be among those causes. What is actually
required is the creation of conditions that will bring people together:
common interests and common goals, and a democratic environment in which to
pursue these ends in freedom and equality.
In the past there were situations in our country in which Sinhalese,
Tamils, Muslims and Burghers lived and worked together in complete peace
and harmony in spite of their divergent ethnic backgrounds. Even now,
ordinary Sinhalese and Tamils realise such peaceful co-existence. From
history, we know that the English-educated, mostly westernised elite of our
country under the British formed a close-knit community despite their
varied racial backgrounds. In such harmonious situations, what is important
is not race or language, but the community of interests and the opportunity
to promote those interests without hindrance. Of course social elitism,
which depends on a system of exploitation of the majority by a privileged
minority, cannot be a model for us to follow. I merely alluded to it here
as an illustration of my belief that shared goals and mutually beneficial
means of reaching them are a more potent factor in generating communal
harmony, than language.
What we need to do is to create democratic conditions for the people of all
communities without discrimination. In such an environment, no community,
whether a majority or a minority, can demand special treatment. All
communities should be allowed to enjoy the same rights and privileges.
This degree of democracy is closely bound up with economic development.
Where there is need and poverty there cannot be harmony or happiness. If
Sri Lanka were an affluent country, perhaps these conflicts would not be
there; then people would not fight for separatism, or try to migrate to
rich western countries as genuine or false refugees, because no one would
want to leave or spoil a sound economy. So perhaps, our poverty is at the
root of all these troubles.
To create healthy political conditions and a sound economic set-up we need
a broadminded, educated younger generation free from backward insularity.
This is where a high level of education has an important part to play. In
this connection, the value of English is immense; not only will it enhance
our educational standards, it will also widen the horizons of our
knowledge. The adoption of English as a more productive vehicle can thus
contribute to national unity through the education of our young by training
and allowing them to pursue common goals in peace, harmony and equality.
The forced teaching of Sinhalese and Tamil to the unmotivated young is not
likely to produce the same result; it could even be counterproductive.
Rohana R. Wasala
No comments:
Post a Comment