CHIMI READING NOTES

Kristina Boureus- Discursive Discrimination and Its Expressions

READING
 Preservation and improvement of human race is important to state interest.
 Psychologically and physically inferior people are a burden to the society (says this
mentality has been pervasive for a long time)
 There is social and physical hostility against them. They are persecuted and
discriminated against. Could extend to genocide.
 Concerns three points in time: 1932/-33, 1970/-71, and 1994/-95.
 Location: Sweden
 Subject matter: how people categorised as deaf, as intellectually handicapped, as
prostitutes, and as immigrants have fared in the Swedish public discourse at these
different points in time
 Main objectives:
 1. Develop better ways of understanding discursive discrimination
 2. Info about the treatment of these groups

OTHERING

 Uses the understanding of ‘to other’ based on de Beauvoir (1997/1949) and on

Todorov (1999).
 Othering: Mental distance created between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
 Less othering-more identification with others-more similarities.
 More-more rapprochement-greater differences.
 It is not necessarily discriminatory
 Doesn’t imply a negative stance towards the other.
 Example: Exoticism, the other is seen as strange but beautiful, superior. All sorts of
heroes might be othered, because they have good traits which we lack, which creates
the diff btw us and them.
 Differences:

Discrimination Othering
Avoidable and can be fought Unavoidable (premised on human
tendency to categorize)
Hostile and pejorative As seen earlier not necessarily hostile.
  Two ways in which it is done:
 1. HOW OTHERS ARE REFERRED TO: different ways of referring to a category
might create more or less distance btw us and them.
 Most effect is seen when a category is referred to by a noun or adj used in a noun like
way, indicating the category is set in langage, and thus fairly permanent, and thus,
strog othering. Example: presently in Swedish discourse, ‘immigrant’ (‘invandrare’),
is a commonly used noun. Adj being used in a noun like manner, example: use of the
adjective ‘mentally deficient’, ‘sinnesslö’. All this indicates that the categoris are
conventionalized. Not all adjectives can be used in this noun-like way: if someone is
tall it takes very special contexts to leave out the noun since TALL PERSON is not a
conventionalised category.
 A slightly less otherin way is by using expressions which are conventionalized in
langaue but are not NOUNS or NOUN-LIKE ADJ. this way seems to leave more
scope for the categorization of the person, thi means that the diff btw us and them is
less emphasized. Example: expression ‘people with intellectual handicaps’
 Least way of othering is referring to a category by description which is specific to
that context. Example is the use of wordings like ‘a man who immigrated to Sweden
12 years ago’. IMMIGRANT is there but, the expression makes it clear that e has
done other things in life and can be categorized in other way too, thus reducing the
distance.
 2. HOW OTHERS ARE DESCRIBED: in the definition of down syndrome
(Nationalencyclopedin 1991, ‘Downs syndrom’), the intellectually handicapped are
not only defined diff intellectually but also physically. Thus it has a srong othering
tone. The norm, the typical, has not been explicitely stated; but is very much implied.

DISCURSIVE DISCRIMINATION

 ‘Discrimination’ in this study is understood as unfavourable treatment of members of

a group on account of their membership of that group.
 It is a violation of the ideal of a fair and equal soc.
 Discursive discrimination: add linguistic expression to the above definition.
 Not only immigrants, but their locally born children might also be called ‘foreigners’.
 Types of Discursive Discrimination:
 1. EXCLUSION: deliberate exclusion of human beiings from a group. This might
take several forms:
 a) MAKING INVISIBLE: ppl can be made so in different ways:
 i) under representation: in media cis straight white young ppl are most shown, because
they are assigned a high social value, and others are given a low value, this
undermining further diminishes their position in the discourse. Tuchman (1978) uses
the term ‘symbolic annihilation’ to cover both the under representation of women
found in the television of several countries and the playing down of women’s
importance by trivialising them. This type of making invisible imppies that thes
people are uninteresting and unimportant.
 ii) linguistic exclusion: done solely by words. Included in groups which are made for
others. Example: women are a part of MANkind, or blatant use of ‘he. This shows
that the typical is man. Also excludes their experinces. In hetro sex, male centred
word ‘penetrate’is used rather thn ‘enclose’.
 b) EXCLUSION OF VOICES: ppl of a certain grp are barred from taking part in
discourses pertaining to them. Example: no individuals classified as ‘mentally
deficient’ were heard in the discussion that went on in 1933 in Sweden on a
sterilisation law, despite one of the main target groups being just ‘the mentally
deficient’.
 2. NEGATIVE OTHER-PRESENTATION: the term comes from van Dijk. It refers
to the ways that an in-group can express that an out-group is inferior. This can be
done by- derogative labelling (example: calling intellectually handicapped people
‘idiots’)
 3. DISCRIMINATORY OBJECTIFICATION; when a grp is treated aas object for
some purpose of agents. The sterilisation debate may serve as an example once more.
They were also treated only as objects for the alleged purpose of the policy, racial
improvement. Not seen as people wht own needs and intersts. Personal example:
experiments by Darwin and anthropologists.
 4. ARGUING FOR UNFAVOURABLE TREATMENT OF GROUP MEMBERS:
happens when some negative treatment (other than purely linguitive) is asked for a
particular group. This aspect of DD has connection to D outside discourse. Example:
the xenophobic party Ny Demokrati, New Democracy, put out propaganda material
for the 1994 Swedish general election with the slogan: “Deport foreign criminals who
 have committed serious crimes.” It was to be understood that “foreign criminals”
included Swedish residents who were not citizens (if not also immigrants who had
citizenship).it is discriminatory because it singles out unfair treatment of a particular
group.
 These four ways of DD are likely to interact with D. DD is a part of the larger D in
soc.
 Interaction of ‘Othering’, ‘Exclusion’ and ‘Derogatory labelling’, with the ‘Deaf and
Dumb’ example of 1932-33.
 Different school were there for these kids. They were called abnormal children within
quotes.
 Othering: ‘Deaf and Dumb’ a set category for them, also a regularly used adj. ‘deaf
and dumb’ in place of ‘pupils’ was used as a noun. ‘Dumb’meant that the deaf child
does not express itslf orally, abnormal, OTHER KARO ISKO.
 The meaning of ‘dumb’ in ‘deaf and dumb’, thus, seems to be that a deaf child does
not spontaneously learn to speak orally and/or that s/he only learns a ‘defective’ way
of speaking. The term ‘dumb’ (‘stum’) was used, despite the fact that the word in
normal language use referred to a complete disability to speak. This created a paradox
 Two possible explanations for this paradox:
 1. the word ‘stum’ is a remnant from earlier times when it was believed that people
who became deaf early in life were both deaf and (truly) mute
 2. the label is the result of a very othering strategy
 The otheing attitude is strengthended by recurring pointing of the diffs btw us and
them.
 Exclusion: voices of the deaf were excluded. In parliament several issues pertaing the
ppl of this category wer discussed, but there is no record of their ideas being listened
fo r the same. And on the matter of their schooling, only economic arguments were
raised.
 Derogatory labelling: ’abnormal’, ‘defective’, in labelling deaf people. As was stated
above, the ‘deaf and dumb’ was one of the subgroups of people called ‘abnormal’.
Abnormal- deviates from the law, the common, the natural. The use of abnormal was
ther in the parliamemt too.
CLASS
 Richard Ruiz

READING
Orientation means one’s inherent positioning towards language and its role in the

society.

● This prevailing tendency towards language is unconscious and is pre rational (before

the development of intelligence).

● Orientation helps determine and influence policies. They also help in determining the

language attitudes of the society i.e., they determine what can be thought of language

in a society.

● Language is a means to sentimental attachment. Here, ‘means’ refers to the fact that

language facilitates the communication between people. Language is a means of

self-expression and self-identification, and hence is deeply connected to our group

identity, culture and thereby creates a sense of belonging in the society.

● That is why language-based discrimination is seen as a threat to the very existence

and character of that specific community.

● Language policies based on the parameters of clarity, redundancy and efficiency

can have devastating consequences.

● Ex: During the print-capitalistic period in Europe, indigenous languages and various
dialects were destroyed because of the production of mechanically efficient languages

by the capitalists. Though it did help people understand each other, many

non-dominant languages had been wiped out of existence to make space for standard

languages.

● Language as a PROBLEM: Language planning is actually considered an organized

pursuit to find solutions for a language problem (fishman) and sometimes its even

said that language problems are necessary for language planning to exist (Karam).

✔ Language problems are inherent in a multilingual situation as when there are

more languages to choose from the more complex the problems get.

✔ Language is considered another problem with respect to modernization of

societies; after the Enlightenment people became more rational in their

thinking and they began to develop an inclination towards structure and

efficiency rather than expression of thought and the feelings/experiences.

This led to the slow pushout of the ancient languages and brought in

languages which were well structured and could communicate modern

beliefs easily and were also easily understandable by the people.

✔ It led to the destruction of the lesser spoken tongues- mainly those of the

marginalized classes of the society.

✔ And to ease the administrative process, there began a declaration of ‘official’

languages so that people speak the same tongue and there’s a wide

dissemination of the modern ideas.

✔ The official languages brought people together and according to some it

reduced the chaos and disunity amongst the people. But what is not being

considered is that they are mistaking unity for uniformity. When there’s
uniformity many people do get disadvantaged because they don’t speak the

dominant language, and the narrative of people attaining unity only if they

think and speak alike loses its credibility.

✔ The disadvantaged groups face issues like low social mobility, poverty,

educational handicap, etc.

✔ Program to alleviate this handicap- Bilingual Education Act by the USA in

1968, to help the disadvantaged bridge the gap. But this program didn’t do

what it set out to achieve, it emphasized on English education at the expense

of the mother tongue.

✔ A group like the Mexican-Americans cannot benefit from the programs

devised by the American government because the pedagogy and the structure

of the program is highly inclined towards the Anglo-Americans. The cultural

differences and the deficiencies of English doesn’t help the efficient transfer

of knowledge from the teacher to the student.

● The poverty, malnutrition due to the deplorable conditions of the parents linked with

the ethnic traits of the community is the reason for the identification of the

Mexica-Americans as a disadvantaged group in the first place.

● A different approach has to be taken up to ensure the proper education of these

groups- like structured curricula and more individual attention towards these kids

because of the fact that the current curricula is not helping them get the education they

deserve due to the inherent biases that are present in the system towards English and

the American culture.

● There’s an economic disadvantage that is linked to the inherent language-minority

situation because of the fact that language barriers do impede attainment of economic
opportunities and benefits.

● Notion of Sociolinguistic Darwinism- It emphasizes on the fact that people who

speak little languages need help in the form of an education in the English language,

Fishman goes ahead and says that proper monolingualism (English) would solve all

the socio-economic problems of the disadvantaged sections of the society.

● Speakers of “little” languages share an intrinsic connection with the intellectual

limitation in the field of conventional knowledge (PROBLEMATIC). Escape from these

languages is

seen to be as a liberating force in the lives of these people as it would open up a whole

new world of opportunities for these people but at the loss of their heritage and

culture that was associated with their language.

● There is an entire debate surrounding the transitional v maintenance based linguistic

programs. The examples of the cases like Lau v Nichols (English as universal

equalizer) show us that the general inclination of the government is not towards the

maintenance of a language or a sub-culture. The emphasis on transition- based

policies has been embodied in various policies and legislations in the USA. The original BEA
made poverty a requirement for eligibility in bilingual programs, which

makes it regressive because it shows that the government highly emphasizes on an

English education and sees English as a liberating force in the lives of the socially

disadvantaged section of the society. Fishman said “the little languages need

bilingualism, they need us”

● The primary goal of these programs happens to be the development of fluency in

English so that these kids can be enrolled in the ‘regular’ program conducted in

English. In real sense, the transitional programs are being called ‘irregular’. There is

already an inherent bias in the system as to what constitutes regular and irregular
education and hence the scope for development of the child in his own mother tongue

is extremely limited.

● The state draws a connection between language diversity and social problems and it

feels that multilingualism hampers social cohesiveness of the society. There is hence,

a big emphasis on the need to promote unity by promoting monolingualism and

thereby bringing uniformity in the nation (as people would think and speak in the

same way) but this uniformity should not be mistaken with the ‘unity’ that is

developed by the state, but in reality, these two are mistaken for each other which

helps the state justify its policies.

● Language problems are never only language problems as they have an effect on all

spheres of social life.

LANGUAGE AS A RIGHT:

● Language is considered to be a basic human right.

● Language is intrinsically connected to the participation of people in governmental

programs: unemployment benefits forms in regional languages (done in Spain),

bilingual voting materials and pamphlets.

Right to use ethnic language is emphasized upon due to the fact that if a litigant

doesn’t understand the language of the court, he won’t be able to enforce his rights in

the best way and thereby putting him at a disadvantage in a so called equal judicial

process.

● There is also a demand to use these regional/ethnic languages in the media, and in

contractual documents and official papers so as to increase the dissemination of

information by widening the ambit of the readership.

● There are two kinds of language rights according to Macias: 1) Right to freedom from
discrimination on the basis of a language, and 2) Right to use your language in

communal activities.

● There’s also the consideration that the mother tongue of a person is an inalienable

right.

● Formal processes like voting, public service examinations, judicial, and administrative

proceedings are not the only things affected by language considerations, even the

fundamental right to freedom and enjoyment are also affected.

● Factors affecting rights-orientation:

✔ Nature of legal system of the country- A string of cases has served to

highlight the importance of the protection of language-minority groups.

There is a connection between national origin and language, but this

connection is not recognized by everyone leading to a debate about the legal

status of the language rights.

✔ Trans-national Concerns- There are documents which contain important

statements on language-based discrimination. Language rights are placed in

the larger context of human and educational rights; need to link language

planning with social and educational rights.

● Ethnic researchers have focused on the fact that language identification is a legal

entitlement and a natural endowment. MALDEF (Mexican American for Language Defense
and Education Fund) has devoted a lot of resources towards the resolution of

legal status of language rights.

● There needs to be short term protections and long term guarantees to protect the

interests of the linguistic minorities and for the codification of their interests.

LANGUAGE AS A RESOURCE-
● A resource-oriented approach would help in language planning.

● Language as a resource doesn’t exactly fit into the cost benefit theory as there’s a

difficulty in measuring it and separating it from other resources.

● Seeing language as a resource could help alleviate the status of the ‘subordinate’

languages as many people would start speaking it and resources would be put into the

development of that language and it can also ease the conflict between the majority

and the minority communities.

● A resource-oriented approach will help change attitudes about language and language

groups.

● There has been a constant emphasis on the development of language skills, teacher

training programs, and diversification of school approaches including bi-lingual

schools for all.

● Development of language capabilities helps in international trade and diplomatic

relations and is an important aspect of enlightened leadership in foreign policy.

● English monolingualism is bad for business, this is due to the globalization process

which has created an economically interdependent world which requires fluent

communication and hence foreign languages would play a big role here.

● There’s obviously, a constant effort for the development of language as a resource, but

on the other hand there’s a constant degradation of existing linguistic resources owing

to bad management and repression.

● Even with the diverse ethnicity of people, there’s no efficient utilization of linguistic

resources to train the population in a language other than English.

● School programs encourage the study of standard foreign languages for personal

enrichment, international understanding or foreign services, but discourage the study

of languages spoken by ethnic minorities.

● There have been studies that prove that bilingualism can actually aid in conceptual

learning and skill development.

● There has been a constant emphasis on ‘deparochialization’, but for that we need to

understand parochialization. Parochialization actually means having a narrow outlook

or a view of things and in this context, it means that people keep thinking and living

through one lens because of the fact that they haven’t been exposed to the nuances of

other languages. Deparochialization would actually help in building an awareness in

the people that their way of thinking is not actually the only reasonably possible way

of thinking. Some cultures may be keenly perceptive in some areas in which other

cultures are short-sighted.

● Bilingualism would actually help in coping with modernity.

● Language planning starts with the assumption that language is a resource to be

managed, developed, and conserved. This would not only help develop

language-competent individuals to train others but the community could offer

multilingual opportunities for its members.

● Ex: Students of Japanese being prepared for a foreign service would benefit from an

internship at a Japanese community center in LA.

● This would help students as they would get more natural language experience and

would give balance to the written language training as people would enhance their

spoken skills which are usually neglected by programs which give high importance to

written texts.

● Enhancement of spoken language skills by the community would be an incentive to

promote the language maintenance programs, which would contribute to

social-cohesion and togetherness amongst a community.

CLASS

Ruth Rubio-Marin- Language Rights: Exploring the Competing Rationales

INTRODUCTION:

 Language rights have received led theoretical recog as legal or moral categories. With
growing debate on multiculturalism this is to change.
 Lang diversity is a challenge to orthodox liberal principles.
 The state needs to function in some language, so it canot entirely do away with the
preferences of existing dominant majortities. It is a linguistic entereprize because it
relies on language for amny funtions like law. And governance.
 Recognized the intimate culture between language and culture.
 It is not culturally neutral as a form of communiation
 Many nationalists have language claims in their agenda. Example; Think of Basque or
Catalan speakers in Spain or the Francophone speakers in Quebec.
 Acc to them lang rights are articulated as a cultural defence againt the powerful
dominant lanagues.
 Makes the case for the need for a common language:
 1. Linguistic dimension of the state is inevitable. This forms a defence againt the
chage of cultural assimilation
 2. Privileging one langueg is due to functional demands.
 3. Modern econmies require standardization in many aspects
 4. Political legitimacy, from the will of the people, requers deliberation, which
requires a common language.
  5. Notion of state as a community resting on trust.
 However, in spite of this many minority groups resist language assimilation into the
dominant one. Why?
 Says state will always have to function in a limited no of langaues. This will always
create problems and obstacles for some people.
 Therefore, expands the scope of language rights from cultural protection, to
overcoming such obstacles too.
 Overcoming these óbstacles’ entails “enjoyment of the sphere of bounded equality
which state membership entails while avoiding liabilities linked to linguistic
capabilities.”
 For this, she says there is a need for common language.
 “In this chapter I propose giving up the more or widely endorsed classification of
tolerance verus promotion-oriented language rights”

CHAPTER 1: Language Rights in Tolerance versus Promotion-Oriented Language Regimes:

A Classification of Doubtful Usefulness

 Tolerant Language Regime: “defined as one that ensures that the state will not
interfere to restrict the spontaneous expression of linguistic preferences in civil
society.”
 The most active participation would be in form of fighting against societal prejudices.
 This regime doesn’t conceptualize the formation of new form of rights.
 “'tolerance language rights' are just specific ways in which more of the traditionally
recognized freedoms can be enjoyed.”
 Example: freedom of speech includes the right to choose language of expression, and
not just the content. The same can be said for the freedom of press, and the right ot
education. THESE ARE NEGATIVE FREEDOMS. They are present to ensure states
neutrality. To ensure cultural neutrality.
 Promotion Language Regimes: “represent a model in which the state is actively
committed to the protection of a certain language or certain languages.”
 Most salient feature: express recognition of a certain language/langagues.
 State is not neutral and active in protection of certain language(s) that are impotant to
the public culture.
  Thus, here are both NEGATIVE freedoms and POSITIVE rights.
 Reasosn why the disticition btw the above two, with connection to + rights and –
freedoms are not a good analytical tool:
 1. Implies that TLR is more feasible than it actually is, because as stated before the
state cannot guarantee perfect linguistic neutrality, for the same reasosn stated before.
State will invariably rely on select language(s) and this will favour those speakers.
“Symbolic recognition is definitely at stake”, and the resources, rights that come with
it. “The chances of cultural reproduction are also compromised.”
 2. Implies that whenever a state actively recognizes a language (especially a minority
lang), it does so to protect it, and the culture it represents. This is not necessarily true.
Other reasons for the same- right to translation services in criminal trials, this is
because to follow the due process of law.
 3. “the distinction seems to suggest that, when the state protects individual spaces of
freedom and autonomy through non-interference rights, allowing for such spaces to be
used as spaces of cultural and linguistic expression is simply an inevitable corollary,
not something that the state actively pursues in order to protect or promote certain
languages and cultures. And that, again, is not necessarily true.” (smjh nhi aaya)

CHAPTER 2: Non-Instrumental Language Rights

 More interesting analytical tool for addressing the question of language rights is the
distinction btw instrumental and non-instrumental rights.
 Diff btw instrumental and expressive interest in language has been discussed to
explore its potential to construct a theory of rights.
 Main distinguishing feature: PROTECTED GOOD. Not, – vs +.
 Distinguishes btw
 1. “those language claims that aim at ensuring a person's capacity to enjoy a secure
linguistic environment in her/his mother tongue and a linguistic group's fair chances
of cultural self-reproduction which we could call language rights in a strict sense”
 AND
 2. “those language claims that aim at ensuring that language is not an obstacle to the
effective enjoyment of rights with a linguistic dimension, to the meaningful
 participation in public institutions and democratic process, and to the enjoyment of
social and economic opportunities that require linguistic skills.”
 Ppls attachment to lang is not just because of communication, but also it is a mark o
identity, cultural inheritance, expression of that community. Thus, a dual nature of
language is there. This is what instru v non instru tries to capture.
 Non instrumental language rights:
 Notion behind Non instrumental language rights is language protection, especially
minority ones, becasu e the major langauges would see their needs being fulfilled by
mainstream institutions. What such rights do is allow a certain language minority to
avoid the trade-off between state citizenship and cultural identity by ensuring that its
speakers can live in then language in every relevant sphere, including the public
sphere.
 These are always grp rights, membership of which is determined by the linguistic
communityone belongs to. These serve a collective public good, which is collectively
enjoyed.
 NILRs focus on cultural dimension of lang.
 Lang rights as cultural protection can be of three sorts (assumption behind all three:
that a minority language group cannot flourish if it cannot take part in public life in its
language, and if it lacks the basic means of cultural reproduction):
 1. the state and its institutions accommodate language minorities in both practical and
symbolic ways. Non majority being given the status of official langs is the most
common mechanism here. Other rights connected to this- right ot learn this lang by
citizens, use it in interaction with public offices and authorities, and public officials
using these langs to talk to them (this includes, statues being published in multiple
langs, publicly funded media, public edu)
 2. Language minorities' powers of self-government that enable them to protect their
own linguistic environment. Example: quebec’s autonomous ling policy. Therefore,
here a federal, or decenteralized govt would be way better. Extent of decenteralization
depends on- first, on whether the borders of the federated units ensure tha
ethnolinguistic minorities form local majorities and, second, on the precise powers
accorded to these units and their linguistic relevance.
 3. namely, promotional rights to assist the linguistic minority in its attempt to assert
itself and fight against the assimilation pressure of the dominant language. Example:
 qualified access to public funding to promote the use of minority languages in the
media, in technology, or in the arts.
 Author finds the first two inevitable, as the state must function in some language.
 How states will accommodate the third will depend on- their willingness to protect
minority languages and their more general views about the state's role in correcting
social power differences even when they are not directly linked to a present or even
past form of state discrimination
 These rights are not to perpetrate hegemony, therfre the englisb only movment in the
US is noth the thing here.
 Who is minority? In Quebec, French are majority, and English minority; while the
opposite is in Canada. The candain law has done the same and similarly granted the
minority staus to both in the specific regions. Acc to author: its flawd, and rather than
no. it should be seen if English speakers are actually hindered in functioning in Qubec
given tht English is predominant in the rest of the country.
 Continues to say that ths type of solution is contextual, and very much depend on the
amount of decenteralization. But certainly syas in the bove cases English would need
much less protection because it is majority in the rest of the country.
 LANGUAGE RIGHTS ARE TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE SPEAKING THOSE
LANGS AND NOT THE LANGS THEMSLEVES.
 “we should keep in mind that there are also strong general interests that would be
better served by linguistic homogeneity even in a pluralist democracy; and it is not
clear why these should not prevail over the benefits of language diversity (Baubock
1999). Think of the interest in the lower costs that multilingualism in the
administration of public services would entail, or the interest in furthering a common
identity which will then enhance solidarity among citizens, or, simply, the importance
of having a common language as a means of communication for a transparent political
process

CHAPTER 3: Language Rights from an Instrumental Perspective

 Sometimes they are expressly sanctioned in national constitutions.

 One of the most common rights is the right to the assistance of an interpreter in
criminal proceedings as part of a larger set of procedural guarantees
 Sometimes been made explicit by courts.


 Intrumental language rights:

 Notion behind ILRs is language should not be a liability in the enjoyment of one's
general status of civil, social, and political rights and opportunities in society.
 Called so because their primary purpose is to help instrumentally in the protection of
the goods that other rights which have been generally recognized are primarily
concerned with.
 Assumption: don’t punish people for traits they didn’t choose, which are essential to
their idnentiy, ppl don’t choose their native language.
 Why is learning second lang difficult? The factors are:
 1. Mastery of 1st lang.
 2. Age at which learing process starts
 3. Linguistic talents.
 4. Resources.
 Inspite of learing lang ppl don’t losses accents. This can have a stigmatizing affect on
people, because accentsa re tied in culture.


 Now the dominant lang sspeakers would be ‘poor speakers’and understand the
problems of the non-native speakers.
 Hoever, accommodation of minority langaue is still pertinent. Thee langs need public
visibility.


 Example: the right to education, right to fair trial, right to vote, right to pulic heath.
Thus, diminished access to state benefits. Extends to freedom of orifession, but is iit
really free when not knwin dominant lang hinders your acess?


 How to tell whether a specific accoomodaion is an instrumental or non instrumental

right?

  The calaim to have primary edu in mother tongue? Instru or non?
 IT DEPENDS
 NILR: if this, then the force of the claim would be that such edu is crucial for
successful linguistic socialization process in one's language. this right makes cultural
reproduction for the group possible. language community with its own institutions
will have greater visibility and, hence, social respectability.
 ILR: if this, then it could be that evidence of sociolinguistic studies that point to the
importance of mastering one's mother tongue for further optimal cognitive
development, including the kind of development required to learn a second language;
and thus it could be argued that this should be recognized as a language right that
derives instrumentally from the general right to education.
 NILR and ILR are not unrelated. The minority can abandon their lang to adopt the
mainstream for greater access. Communication and culture aspect of LRs cannot e
separated.


CHAPTER 4: The Right or Duty to Learn the Dominant Language(s) as an Alternative

Response

 RIGHT TO LEARN THE DOMINANT LANGUAGE:

 With ILRs the concern is the communication aspect of lang.
 ILR claims imply therefore, facilitate them earning dominant rather than
accommodating their language.
 Because:
 1. Dominant lang access is the best way to overcome obstacles of lang access
 2. Best in society’s interst to minimize the cost of accommodation.
 This is the diff btw I and NI approach, the latter requires accommodation of minority
langs.
 Hiven this, one might rgue that make it a right of people to learn the state langs. But
probably the best defence would be simply that it should be part of what any
conception of the more generic right to education should encompass in a linguistically
plural state committed to notions of democracy, the rule of law, and distributive
justice.
 Edu is imp, no doubt. The reason why there has not been a greater need to spell out
this right to learn the dominant language as an essential element of the right of
education probably has to do with the fact both compulsory education and the use the
official or public language(s) of the state as vernacular languages in the education
system are generally accepted, so that most people naturally come to learn them.
 Hoever these rights can become controversial:
 1. Several public langaues in a state? Will you make all of them official?
 2. Not an official language, but ejoys a dominant postion in economy.
 In these cases, there should be a prima facie duty of the state or the educational public
authorities to teach all the relevant languages. Even in multinational societies with
mechanisms designed for the permanent protection of ethnolinguistic identities, such
a right ensures a minimal exit option for individuals who may not be willing to forgo
the possibilities linked to the knowledge of the dominant languages.
 3. Should it include adults along with children? Especially if they are immigrans? Acc
to author, yes. The right to public education until a certain age makes sense if we start
with the assumption that new members of society are born and educated within it. But
a society which accepts new members on an ongoing basis needs to ensure that the
conditions for their equal access to rights and opportunities are also secured. As well,
the needs of citizens who, for some reason or other, might have spent their childhood
outside of their country and then return as adults should be taken into account.
 Why the right to learn dominant lang will always be controversial because, even if
agreement can be reached in the domain of principles, there will probably be
 disagreement as to what the fulfilment of such a right exactly requires, even for
children.
 The more commited the state is to ensure right to learn majority lang. the less demand
for minority lang there would be. This does not entail that the state completely give up
minoritly language accomondation.
 Main reason why right to learn majority language cannot cancel out other
instrumental rights- no matter how genuinely committed the state may be, the learning
of a second language may well be beyond what many people can achieve even under
largely favourable conditions.
 DUTY TO LEARN DOMOINANT LANG:
 People should regard the acquisition of the language(s) of the state as a civic duty and
not just a right, given the overall relevance of learning the language for the proper
functioning of a democratic society committed to the rule of law.
 Often this duty is recognized indirectly
 Example: contion for entry and/or naturalization of immigrants. Compulsory
education in a language. However, does not cover everyone, like non naturaized
immigrnts, tourists etc
 Linking the right and duty to education to a right and duty to learn the dominant
languages at school is therefore defensible. Becayse peeps are born in a soc and there
is no gautrantee that they will be able to learn this lag at home.
 Diff case for adults, because if they are immigrants, khudke pair pe kulhadi maari.
Therefore they will be held responsible for learning the language.
 Does this duty exempts the state from accommodating instrumental language needs
when people fail to fulfil thse dutoes?
 NO. the duty fullfillment of people depends of external factors too, unlike crime.
Ultimately, one may argue, the state may be more or less demanding in imposing such
a duty on newcomers who intend to stay; but once they are in, often for good, to allow
their rights to be de facto limited by obstacles to linguistic access seems to be largely
objectionable
 Common objection that supporting instrumental language rights can actuslly
contribute to failure to learn the majority language, as people may think they can gt
byy without learning it. I and NI rationales aer not disconnected. ILRs will have
cultural spillovers. Acknowledgement of otherness mught people make proud of their
 distinctiveness, which may prevent them from linguistic assimilation, which
guarantees true equality.
 Author finds assumption behind this questionable. Indeed, one may argue that the
opposite is more likely to be true. One could say that, because immigration is
generally triggered by a desire to enjoy the larger opportunities that the receiving
society has to offer and the acquisition of linguistic skills is indeed a precondition for
such enjoyment, one can in principle assume that immigrants will be motivated to
learn the majority language. If this is the case, making such knowledge a condition for
even minimal enjoyment of those rights that require linguistic interaction may
aggravate their reality of exclusion and marginalization.
 She says the root casue of exclusion is langaguge. If effective inclusion is the leading
concern, instrumental language rights and the right and opportunity to learn the
majority language should coexist with, not compete against, each other.

CHAPTER 5: Reasonable Limits to Instrumental Language Claims

 Because there might be endless unreasonable claims, all institutions in all langauges.
Also, once we are willing to recognize the distinction between instrumental and non-
instrumental language rights, there is no reason to limit the instrumental rights to
autochthonous national minorities.
 1. GROUND OF THE RIGHT. Education>>>social benefit. So priority to those
langauges which support the former.
 2. LINGUISTIC CONDITIONS. Trial translation>>>>bilingual social services. What
is at stake is not the right ground here. Trial could be for a minor fine too. But the
former is a primarily linguistic activity, which has its fundamentals on the linguistic
exchange, and there is restriction of place and time; unlike the latter, which has room
for mistake.
 3. PURPOSE OF RIGHTS. ILRs are not a protection of cultural identity rather
overcoming language obstacles, that are fundamentally based on linguistic
interactions. So, if we think of language rights in the judicial realm, a right to use and
be understood in one's language by the courts or the jury may be a non-instrumental
right, but the instrumental rationale would be satisfied simply by the right to a
translator. 'minimally effective enjoyment' standard should therefore apply. Such a
 conceptualization requires sacrificing the optimal for the feasible. Translator does not
maximizes. People of similar lang culture have other stuff too, IT IS MINNIMUM
ONLY.
 4. MONETORY COSTS. In this respect two factual considerations ought to be
mentioned: numbers and geographical concentration. When the numbers of speakers
of a language are high, and when these speakers are geographically concentrated, it is
more feasible to accommodate their language needs. The regrettable but inevitable
limitations that derive from cost considerations can only make the right to learn the
state language(s) even more compelling. Feasibility or cost considerations account for
only part of the intuition that numbers matter. This is because rights, of whatever
kind, do not exhaust the conditions of legitimacy in the exercise of state power. Some
of those conditions are actually expressed through general commitments to principles
of legitimization.

CHAPTER 6: A Right to Bilingual Ballots for Hispanics in the US Southwest?

 1. Is the right at stake is fundamental in nature? YES. (Democracy blah blah…)

 2. To what extant is language relevant here? Even though there is Spanish media,
VERY (options angrezi me hain..dikhado padh ke)
 3. whether the means for learning English are properly provided, both for children of
school age and for adults? I mean….
  4. Whether enough people know the language? I deduced NO. one may argue in the
US that eng language is a precondition for nturalization. BUT author states that is
only 3rd grade level English, fundamental literacy is at 5th grade AND acc Tresvina
explanations of ballot propositions, are written at levels as high as college English.
 5. What makes bilingual ballots better than cheaper alternatives? Like education
system improvemt. Answer- geographical concentration. Southwest me hi to hain
saare, poore desh ka edu change kroge tum. Also makes voting more compelling and
stuff.
 It is interesting to note that the 1975 Voting Rights Act amendments which, for the
first time, introduced bilingual ballots in the US were indeed sensitive to almost all
the considerations mentioned above. Indeed, Congress incorporated bilingual election
provisions of voting rights requiring that written materials and oral voter assistance be
made available in languages other than English.

Ajit K. Mohanty: Languages, inequality and marginalization: implications

of the double divide in Indian multilingualism

1. INTRODUCTION:

 196 endangered langs in india. Highest in Atlas of the world’s languages in danger
(UNESCO 2009).
 Loss of langagues is not natural. There is agency and intentionality involved.
 Skutnabb-Kangas describes it as linguistic genocide.unequal power relations btw
languages are fundamental to this linguistic genocide paradigm
  Interrelated agencies. Unequal control over resources, state policies of discrimination
and homogenization, and socially constructed inequalities among langs are pushning
some to disuse and marginalization and eventually extinction.

CHAPTER 1: Multilingualism in India

 India’s linguistic diversity ranks fourth in the world (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000), with
varying estimates of 300 to 400 languages in the country belonging to five language
families.
 Sociolinguistic heterogeneity is deep-rooted, with linguistically pluralistic
communities spread all over the country — almost half of the districts having
minority linguistic groups exceeding 20% of the district population.
 Most Indians use atleast two langs across different domains. In spite of this diversity,
grassroot comm is still strong in india. Because uk…widespread bilingualism.
 In situations of contact between minority and dominant languages, most of the
minority language speakers tend to become bilingual/multilingual in their MT as well
as the dominant contact languages. This ensures maintainance of minority langs as
well as stable multilingualism. Thus minority langs have existed for centuries in spite
of contact with majority ones.
 In india, language maintainance is norm, and lang shift is deviation. Ppl don’t reject
langauges of contact, they accommodate them. Thus, bilingualism becomes an
adaptive strategy.
 In many other dominant monolingual societies, there is langaue shift from minority
to majority.
 High lang maintaiance in indnia because fluidity of perceived boundaries between
languages. This comes at a cost tho.
 Typically, language users move between various patterns of language use in their
social interactions and in various domains of their daily life. Diff langs for home,
work, etc. this ensures that no one lang is sufficient. The grounds for this allocation
are complex and socio pychological and based on power relations btw langs.
 Under such conditions, code-mixing and code-switching have functional significance
in communication and they often express multiple linguistic identities.
 MULTILLINGUALISM IS A POSITIVE FORCE. From an indificual and
community perspective.
 IT IS A BURDEN. From a policy perspective. Identity politics makes languages
seem as divisive.
 Some studies in India sought to examine empirically questions relating to the social
and psychological consequences of multilingualism: (a) is mother tongue
maintenance and multilingualism at the individual and community level a barrier to
intellectual and educational development (and, thus, socio-economic mobility) of
linguistic communities, particularly the disadvantaged minorities? and (b) does
linguistic diversity and bi-/multilingualism lead to social disintegration, as is
commonly believed?
 STUDY ON: KOND TRIBAL PEOPLE (indigenous to kandhamala district of orissa)
 Aim: examined the cognitive and academic consequences of contact bilingualism
 Workiing: These studies compared Kui-Oriya bilingual and Oriya monolingual Kond
children on a number of cognitive, metalinguistic and academic measures.

 Thus, same cultural and socioeconomic status of the sujects of the study.
 Findings:

 This model suggests that, in a multilingual society, bilingualism is supported by its

pluralistic norms and early language socialization
 also shows that bilingualism promotes the social integration of contact communities.
 The findingsof the Kond studies question the common perception of linguistic
heterogeneity as divisive and multilingualism as a cognitive burden.
CHAPTER 2: Languages, power and inequality: the other side of multilingualism

 Multilingualism and language maintainance does not ensure equality of status, power
and opportunities for the languages.
 Languages do differ in their form and structure, but, in the cultural spheres of their
use, they are all equally functional in serving the required expressive functions.
 RECOGNIZE INHERENT EQUALITY AND SUFFICIENY OF ALL
LANGGUAGES.
 The speakers of minor and indigenous languages in India are multiply disadvantaged;
as a group they are mostly poor, belonging to rural and backward areas sharing many
features of disadvantage. This contributes to the association of these languages with
powerlessness and insufficiency.
 There is institutional linguistic inequality in india. 22+1 official languages. While
many MTs with less no. of speakers are either cubbed under “other MTs category”.
1957 langs, <10k speakers, total around 1% of population.
 Lang discrimination is visible in idnia in social, economic, political, educational
spheres. Dominant ones are the lang of law, trade etc. the use of langs in edu is a
major indicator o institutionalized discrimination. Mostly 22+1.
 There is a wide gap between the statuses of languages and, therefore, Indian
multilingualism has been described as a “multilingualism of the unequals” in which
languages are clearly associated with a hierarchy of power and privileges.
 Language maintenance in the hierarchical multilingualism in India involves
marginalization, domain shrinkage, identity crisis, deprivation of freedom and
capability, educational failure (due to inadequate home language development and
forced submersion in majority language schools), and poverty.


 These non dom langs are restricted to domestic domains, and the dominnt ones take
u[p the domanins of power like law and edu. , and pushed out of public domains.
 Example: kond women selling their produce in villiage marketshere kui lang was
used. Now the kui lang has been pushed out of these villiages and women are in
problem. Another example, SAORA TRIBE similar fax.
 Language shift is averted to these APS’ and forced bilingualism.


CHAPTER 3: The double divide and linguistic hierarchy

 Eng (elite)>>>>>>major (mass middle rungs)>>>>>ITM (worst off)

 Leads to depravation of ITMs
 Linguistic minorities and speakers of marginalized and dominated languages in these
societies seem to be adopting various strategies of negotiation and assertion of their
identities.
 Dec 2003, bodo and santhali first tribal langs to become an official lang
 In Nepal (two domiant, eng nepali), 100 lang are asserting.
 In pak (3 official, eng urdu, sindhi), 72 others asserting
 39 in Bangladesh, Bengali is official, eng is major
 Eng is typical of all south Asian countries, and is the lang of power, bnefitting from
interal cnoficts. Example: tamil v hindi, tamil v Sinhala
 Elite v mass multilingualism:

 The hierarchical relationship of languages has affected the identity strategies of the
speakers of dominated and indigenous languages. Some cases have led to language
movmements (bodo, santhali, tamil), others have led to passive acceptance.


 IMPLICATIONS OF DOUBLE DIVIDE:

 Eng is dominant in edu at all lvls.
 TLF (3 LANG FORMULA)-1957---cahnges in 1967 to make hindi optional---no
distinction btw MT and regionl lang---the provisions were not very well enforced in
reality---it failed to balance langaues.
 Also the reason war increasing dominance of English medium private schools.
 Inspite of this, ENG is the major 2nd language in most ataes.
 Two takeaways from here:
 1. English increasingly dominant in school edu all over the country
 2. MT in school edu is on a constantly loosing significance.
 No. of Lang in school edu: This number declined from 81 in 1970 to 41 in 1998.
 At present, the number of languages taught or used as media of instruction (MI) is 31
in primary level (Grades I to V), 25 in Grades VI and VII, 21 in Grades VIII to X, and
18 in higher secondary levels (Grades XI and XII).
 Eng is not only in higher levels but lower lvls of edu too. INCREASINGLY.
 Eng has replaced hindi as the most pervasive lang in schools.
 In pvt schools eng is the MI, in most govt schools it is hindi or major regional langs.
Tribals to bhool hi jaao.
 Eng medium schools are socioeconomically heteoenous, because elite lang, so sought
afte, only those who cannot afford it go for toher ooptions.
 5 categorues of schools:



 Welat Zeydanlıoğlu- Turkey’s Kurdish language policy

CHAPTER 1: Language and the making of the Turkish nation

 Ottoman empire, gone. RoT created following Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. Diverse
pepulation in ethnicity, religion, and language. Some homogenisation following
Armenian genocide in antolia, and the exchange of ppl btw turkey and Greece.
 official language of the Empire, Ottoman Turkish (Osmanlıca), which was a version
of Turkish with extensive borrowings from Arabic and Persian as well as other
languages. ---represented diversity.
 RoT was nationalist, aiming homogenization .
 Founder wanted to create a western secular nation-state.
 Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (meaning the “father of the Turks”), the founder of the
country
 Diversity of people created anxiety and insecurity over the question of constituetns of
indentity.
 Founder was conviced that demise of ottoman empire was due to its diversity, which
made it vulnearable to foreign manipulation. Traumatised by this, they (nationalist
military officers) n were convinced a strong nation was the only solution to lasting
stability (same ideas, relatilbility and stuff)
 policy of “Turkification” (türkleştirmek) predates the founding of the Republic of
Turkey and has its foundations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when it was
developed by nationalist intellectuals. Did not consider kurds a separate nation,
claiming they didn’t have a diff culture.



 Naturally, as in most other nationalisms, language was at the heart of the Kemalist
nation-building project
 Modern Turkish- lingua franca
 Ottoman past deemed to be lethal obstacles to the creation of a new nation. In this
way, the pluralism associated with the Ottoman Empire was cast as an anachronism,
as a remaining component of “Oriental civilisation”.
 WHAT ALL WAS DONE:
 Latinization of Turkish language, this form would attribute a modern Turkish national
identity. Kemalist language reforms aimed to guarantee the “purification” of the
Turkish mind from “backwardness” and “religiosity”.
 Aim was to break ties with the Islamic west and facilitate communication with the
western world.
 the aim of the alphabet reform was “to unite Turkey with Europe in reality and
materially”
 the language revolution had an imp role in advancing the national culture.
 New latinized Turkish alphabet made compulsory in the public sphere.
 The revolution was to ensure that all citizens could consider themselves part of the
new nation through a common language. Being able to speak Turkish was the single
most important criterion for being considered Turkish,
 “Law of Unification of Education” centeralized and secularized it. Mixed gender edu.
Banned medrese.
  “law of surname” either Turkish or Turkish derived surnames for everyone.
 An important institution at the heart of the language revolution was the Turkish
Language Institute (Turk Dil Kurumu) founded in 1932. The aim of The Language
Institution was the creation of pure Turkish (öz Türkçe) through eliminating Persian
and Arabic words and influences and in their place inventing new words or
introducing “pure” Turkish words assembled from various Turkish dialects.
 Throughout the 1920s and 1930s the Kemalist regime mobilised all its forces to
promote Turkish and spread the ideas and products of the language revolution.


 “Turkish History Thesis”: Turks had historically been “culture creators” and
disseminators of “civilisation”. And that region has been the cradle of civilization
 “Sun-language Theory”: Turkish was the source of all languages
 This was because the whities looked down upon them as backward and made them
iinsecure.
 Turkish nationalism in this period “deployed a form of orientalism in which the East
is cast as a separate and primitive realm,
 Added their ideology in school textbooks and stuff, the govt.

CHAPTER 2: The Turkish state and the Kurdish language

 Turkey established a tradition of refusing to admit its ethnic cleavage, depicting the
millions of Kurds as ‘mountain Turks’ ”
 Their distinct identity was denied and treated as a threat to the state in the official
torkish discourse.


 This was backed by physical force of the army

 Primary diff btw turks and kurds was lang. ELIMINATE KURDISHHH!!!! Became
the aim of the state.
 Accordingly, the modern history of Turkey can be read as not only the denial and
oppression of the Kurdish ethnic identity, but particularly the long-term policy of
annihilating the Kurdish language.
 Turkey’s Kurdish language policy has therefore been referred to as “linguicide” or
“linguistic genocide”. “To kill a language you have to either kill the individuals
speaking it or make these individuals change their mother tongue. Turkey tries to
change the mother tongue of the Kurds and make Turkish their mother tongue”
---------------Skutnabb-Kangas.
 The Kurdish uprisings in response to this were brutally crushed. “Eastern Reform
Plan”: rebellion.
 a law was passed which was aimed at “liberating” and “protecting” the “pitiful”
people of the Dersim province by dismantling the tribal structure of the area, in order
to better “civilise” (temdin) and “assimilate” (temsil ) its inhabitants All such coercive
Lgineering policies were being pursued in breach of the Treaty of Lausanne. Its much
quoted Article 39 stipulates:


CHAPTER 3: Military coups and language policies

 Turkification of kurds persisted inspite of all the coups and revolutions (1950:
transition into a multi-party state and election of the democratic party (DP),
military coups in: (1960, 1971 and 1980)
 In 1959, Law No. 7267 stipulated that “village names that are not Turkish and
give rise to confusion are to be changed”
 Article 54 of the new 1961 Constitution, prepared by the military regime repeated
the previous constitutional provision that, “Everyone bound to the Turkish state
through the bond of citizenship is a Turk”.
 Article 58 of the Law Concerning Fundamental Provisions on Elections and Voter
Registers stated, “it is forbidden to use any other language or script than Turkish
in propaganda disseminated in radio or television as well as in other election
propaganda”
 Kurdish intellectuals arrested and sent to concentration camps without trial.
 Parties addressing Kurdish question were banned as seperatists. Turkish Workers’
Party.
 Boarding schools were build in Kurdish provinces to cut off children from
families.


 Turkey has used sciences as a tool to further state interests.

 Proposals of the report:
 Forced and voluntary migration
 Financial incentives
 Sever ties btw “kurds” in turkey and iran
 Kurdish longs with Turkish lyrics
 Turkology institute to prove tht Kurdish has origin in turkey.
 Convince the Kurdish intellectuals. \
 In 1970s kurds radicalized as an opposite intended effect of these policies.


 Art 2: RoT bouned to nationalism of the founder

 Art 3: Turkish is indivisible, and Turkish is its lang
 Art 4: prohibits amdts, and the proposal of amdt to these provisions.
 Art 26: “no language prohibited by law shall be used in the expression and
dissemination of thought” (amended in 2001)
 Art 42: which is still in force today, provides that “no language other than Turkish
shall be taught as a mother tongue to Turkish citizens at any institutions of
training or education”.
 LAWS AND STUFF:


 However, instead of silencing Kurdish nationalism, these laws have played a

crucial role in fuelling the largest Kurdish insurgency in the modern history of
 Turkey launched by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Launched armed rebellion I n
1984.

CHAPTER 4: Easing restrictions?

 Military formally left office in 1983, but still had LARG E POWER.


 This was the beginning of State’s “low intensity war” against kurds.


 Death and destruction in the 1990s. expulsions, torture, rape etc.

 

 Kurds politicians harassed and murdered.

CHAPTER 5: The beginning of a new era?

 The EU’s Copenhagen criteria, which requires that the candidate state has institutions
to preserve democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the recognition and
protection of minority rights, has led to a number of reforms, however, there have
been serious problems with their actual implementation
 Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership was initially accepted in 1999
 The justice and development party has spearheaded many of the reforms. Introduced
through “harmonization laws”. However, they have become cautious because the
military has threatended to oust them from power.
 It is also worth noting that not a single one of these constitutional and legislative
amendments ever refer to the Kurdish language or Kurds specifically.


 However, widespread suppression of kurds continued. Example: organisers of a

Kurdish football tournament faced prison sentences of up to five years after
footballers played in kits sporting the Kurdish national colours
 Example:

 Example:

 Politicians prosecuted.
 Example (education, show this with education in some prev chimi reaiding):

 CHALO KUCH TO ACCHA HO RHA H EXAMPLE:



 However the channel ran into problems



 EXAMPLE:

 SINCE THE RULING OF THE CONSTI COURT BANNING A PRO KURD

PARTY (NAMED DTP):
 

 An Istanbul court had recently suspended the Kurdish language newspaper for two
months under another article of the Anti-Terror Law
 A further two editors of the newspaper, as well as editors of various other Kurdish and
dissident leftist publications are currently facing separate charges and lengthy prison
sentences

CHAPTER 6: Conclusion

 many Kurds continue to face daily a web of legal restrictions and an insecure and
hostile social context informed by a hysterical Turkish nationalist discourse.

 E. Annamalai- Conflict between Law and Language Policy in Education:

Deliberations of Indian Supreme Court

ON POLICY:

 Definition: set of principles based on an ideology that guides a pattern of behavior to

achieve a goal.
 It should include object (target of behaviour) and domain for the behaviour to achieve
a goal.
 In the case of language policy in education: OBJECT- Language. DOMAIN-
Education. GOALS- Lang related issues like, development of language; political
issues, nation formation, conflict avoidance, democratic governance.
 In the Indian consti the language policy (Article 29(a)) is limited to preservation of
mother tongue. THIS DOESN NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO USE IT IN
EDUCATION.
 Langauge use in the domain of education is AN OBLIGATION OF THE STATE
(NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT) with regard to linguistic minorities in article
350A.
 NPE prescribes 3 langs in schools, one of which is the mother tongue or the regional
langaue of the state.
 language policy is also made by other agents, especially the community and the
individual. BUT ONLY STATE POLICY CAN BECOME LAW.
 State policy is made by legislation or executive action. These should not be in conflict
with other laws.
 No conflict arises when the language policy is legally maintainable and preferred by
the community and individuals.
 Conflict can arise through agitations or legal recourse. BOTH HAPPENED IN
INDIA.
 THIS PAPER TALKS ABOUT THE LEGAL RECOURSE.
 It must be noted that the considerations of the three agencies involved to arrive at
their conclusions may be different. (jud, exec, leg)
 CONSIDERATIONS (largely):
 1. Legislative- political
 2. Exec- administrative
 3. Judicial- legal
 Lang policy on education relates to two issues:
 1. Lang of MI
 2. Lang to be taught as subjects.
 SCOPE OF THE PAPER:
 1. Primary to education (1-10)
 2. Three kinds of schools- pubic, private, minority by religious or linguistic
minoritites
 3. Issues stated above
 4. Two illustrations- TN, Ktka
  One of the basic questions that courts look into when a language policy in education
is challenged is whether duties of the State and the rights of the citizens conflict.
 Any claim of existence of conflict is often not a result of the mechanics of legal
interpretation, since the interpretation is often mediated through the social philosophy.
A judge as a person may subscribe to a conservative or a liberal philosophy about the
society and this fact affects the outcome of the interpretation of the Constitution.

CONTINUITION OF POLICY

MADRAS:

 In 1937, 51% of schools in madras presidency had Tamil, which was the largest
spoken language.
 1950, became madas state; 1956, became tamil dominant state after kicking out telgu
kannada Malayalam. 1956, tamil became official lang. both private and public schools
during this period were largely tamil. EXCEPTION- IB shools, and central govt run
schools (came ito being in 1963)
 All this happened during congress government in the state.
 IN 1967, Dravidian Progressive party (DMK) came into power, on the wave of
emerging agitations against Hindi.
 DMK engaged in cultural politics
 To show their credibility- Renamed Madras to TN in 1969, resolution passed by the
legislature (in 1968) to take expeditious action to make Tamil the medium and a
language of study at the college level within five years. a policy on the medium at the
college level was necessary to reinforce students‟ preference for the same medium at
the school level.
 RISE OF ENGLISH:
 DMK considered promotion of English rather than tamil to be more effective againt
the hindi dominance.
 Made English continue to be official language after 1965, when it was scheduled to be
replaced by hindi.
 DMK removed hindi from the three lang formula in TN in 1968, and thus it beame a
two lang policy.
 Ther was a perception of advantage of English, among the people. This included
English in higher education.
 The nationalistic “independence generation” started to pass out in the 70s, this firther
paved the way for English.
 RISE OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS:
 This was the period marked by the rise of fees run private schools.
 These offered English as a separate subject and English as MI. it was also afforded
more grade value and lecture hours.
 Government of Tamil Nadu (under President’s rule) brought them by an Order (2816)
under the jurisdiction of the Directorate of School Education in 1976
 Thus, regulation.
 This arrangement was, however, changed by another Order (188) by the elected
government (All India Anna Dravidian Progressive Party (AIADMK), a splinter party
of DMK) in 2001, probably due to lobbying by the managements of these schools,
and a new Directorate of Education was created to supervise these schools.
 This put the pvt schools in nebulous position with regards toimpplementaion of state
policy.
 LEGAL CHALLENGE TO TAMIL:
 DMK in Jan 1999, via an order, sated atlest two of three subjects, Maths SST Sc,
should be taught in tamil apart from tamil sub I nursery and elementary schools. THIS
WAS CHALLENGED IN HC, by 9 schools.
 While this was pending, in may 1999 govt issued an order, appointing a high level
Committee under the chair of the retired Supreme Court Justice Mohan to examine
the demands of Association of Tamil Scholars, whose earlier petition with larger
demands for the use of Tamil in education was not acted on by the Government
 Comm suggestion:
 1. All educational institutions in Tamil Nadu should have only Tamil as the medium
of instruction up to V Standard. From VI Standard onwards, English should be taught
only as a language subject at all levels.
 2. As the textbooks in Tamil are already available or in the stage of introduction in all
departments of Higher Education including Engineering, Medicine, Law and
 Technologies, Tamil should be introduced as the medium of instruction from the
ensuing academic year in the above field.
 3. The priority in employment shall be given to those who have studied through Tamil
Medium of Instruction in the Government/Government Undertaking Departments.
Item number (1) above is alone relevant to the issue of language in school education
discussed in this paper.
 While this was haoening, the HC decision came. The Court‟s decision restricted the
Government Order of 1999 as applicable only to students whose mother tongue is
Tamil. The writ petitioners appealed against this decision. That is, they wanted the
Government Order to be inapplicable to Tamil mother tongue students also so as not
to make Tamil the mandatory medium for them also.
 THE GOVT PASSED ANOTHER ORDER TO SUPERSEDE THE COURT’S
DECISION:
 2. In all Schools (Matriculation Schools, State Government Schools, Aided and
Unaided recognised Schools) Tamil or Mother tongue shall be the first language.
 3. In all schools from classes 1 to 5 (Matriculation and Schools with the State Board
Syllabus) Tamil or mother tongue shall be the medium of instruction.
 Items (2) and (3) in the above Order have direct bearing on the issue under discussion.
 THE HC QUASHED THIS (bhencho kya chl rha h ye!!!) on the following grounds:
 1. Comm members didn’t include all the stakeholders like the representative of Board
of Education of Matriculation Schools, even tho they were consulted before passin the
order (HYPOCRSY). One of the members had open opinions, BIAS. Very little time
for deliberation. Hence, comm recommendations didn’t carry weight.


 LAPSES and OBSERVATIONS in the judgement acc to the author:

 1. The Court did not take cognizance of the fact that the parent‟s choice of language
such as English may discourage the students from contributing to the flow of thought
in the classroom because they cannot express themselves in that language or are
discouraged from speaking in to express in ill-formed sentences. Such a choice of
language encourages silence on the part of students.
  2. The courts in general do not see any link between these two Articles, i.e.
conservation of language and establishment of educational institutions.
 3. But the Court did not look at English in this way, which is a compulsory language
for most of the students, probably on the ground that parents make that choice. Article
(15) is also referred to in relation to this right, which is the right not to be
discriminated by the State „on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth
or any of them‟. This reference, it must be noted, is made in spite of the fact that the
Constitution does not include language as one of the grounds.
 4. Court’s extended interpretations and linkages could be disputed, the Court did not
recognize that there are pedagogical solutions to the Constitutional issues raised by
them. For example, if the „right to life‟ favors the choice of English for parents, the
solution is not using English as the medium of instruction, but teaching it well as a
language subject.
 5. The Court gave precedence to the rights of citizens over responsibilities of the
State. That the sovereignty of individuals is more sacred than the power of the State is
a good legal principle. But one could argue that ensuring public good is the
responsibility of the State.

KARNATAKA:

 Case heard by the ktka HC arose out of govt order on use of kannada lang in schools
based on the recommedations of the Gokak comm. Many recomms were sillilar to the
one discussed b4.
 Policy:
 1. every student in secondary school must learn Kannada as the first of the three
languages in the curriculum
 2. Kannada will be taught as a language from class 1 for students whose mother
tongue is not Kannada (in addition to their mother tongue)
 Challenged by the English Medium Students Parents Association:
 1. primarily on the ground that it was discriminatory against non-Kannada students as
it places „undue burden‟ on them. And not treating all students equal b4 law under
article 14.
 2. Another groudh was that it restricted the rights of minorities unders art 130.
  GOVT ORDER STRUCK DOWN.
 Govt modified order:
 1. Kannada would be an optional language from class 3 for non-Kannada students
 2. one of the two languages learnt from class 5 and it would be one of the three
languages in secondary schools
 3. One of the 8 MT of ktka (inc kannada) would be MI from class 1 through 4.
 ALSO CHALLENGED, THIS TIME IN SC
 Grounds:
 1. „undue burden‟ was not imposed only in the first two classes
 2. there was still compulsion, as one of the optional languages needed to be Kannada.
 COURT UPHELD THE ORDER (one of the judges on the two judge bench was
justice mohan of the TN comm)
 Judgement:
 1. student studying in Karnataka needs to know the regional language (which is the
official language of the state)
 2. conceded that the „the State knows how best to implement the language policy‟. In
other words, the State has the power to implement a policy of language in education
as long as it is not in conflict with law

CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH:

 CASE WENT TO SC AGAIN, THIS TIME THROUGH THE ROUTE OF A

CONSTI BENCH.
 NOTE THAT CHRONOLOGICALLY TN CASE HAPPENED LATER THAN
KTKA.
 The courts, however, differ in interpreting when a policy is in conflict with law,
 The bench was asked the following ques:


 ANSWERS:
 1. The Court chose to define mother tongue from the point of view of the
Constitution, which mentions mother tongue only in the context of linguistic
minorities. There is no constitutional mandate to use the rest of the mother tongues as
medium.
 INPUTS OF THE AUTHOR: The Court accepts the value of mother tongue medium
in primary education acknowledging the consensus among experts. So the question
the Court wants to answer is not whether mother tongue medium is pedagogically
desirable but whether the government's order for mother tongue medium is in
violation of the Constitution. Its conclusion is that it is.
 COURT’S arguments are the following.


 AUTHOR’S OBSERVATION:
 1. The Court does not take into cognizance whether the alien language (e.g. English)
medium makes the students silent in the classroom.
 2. VERY MUCH SIMMILAR TO THE TN JUDGEMENT, EXCEPT ON TWO
THINGS.
 (a) The constitutional amendment (86th) giving citizens the right to education does
not include any right for them to choose the type of education including the medium
of instruction that the government provides. This interpretation, however, does not
apply to schools not funded by the government.
 (b) Running schools in the private sector is a business enterprise and the citizens have
the right to conduct any legally sanctioned business in the manner they want.
  3. The Supreme Court with this judgment legalizes two different models of education,
public and private.
 4. It also legitimizes educating children to be doing business with them (or their
parents). These reflect the philosophy of the market economy to which the laws of the
civil society are subordinated and are interpreted by the Supreme Court to aid that
economy.

CODA:

 Author is basically showing the schools as money hungy, lobbying businesses

 They successfully forced the government, by invoking contempt of court, to recognize
their schools which teach English and use it as the medium of instruction from the day
the child enters the school
 The Karnataka Government‟s curative petition to the Supreme Court to reconsider the
decision of its constitution bench was dismissed also.
 The government was forced to decide to accredit new schools also with English as the
first language and as the medium of instruction.
 The exclusion granted to self-financing private schools from the state‟s language
policy is likely to be extended to government financed public schools under political
pressure

CONCLUSION:

 Supreme Court frames the issue as a matter of purchasing power of the consumers of
education to which the State must yield unless it finances education
 In other words, the question is how language rights are to be interpreted for the good
of the citizens in contravention to market forces. The answer lies in demonstrating the
ill effects in the long run of any ill-informed exercise of one‟s language rights