Kannada or Sanskrit - There is No First or Second Grade among Languages

In an interview to Vijaya Karnataka, a Kannada daily, last week, renowned Kannada litterateur S L Bhyrappa has advocated knowledge of Sanskrit as a necessary requirement for learning Kannada and for writing quality literature in the language. To justify his claims he not only mentions the examples of the poets of the yore like Pampa, Ranna, Janna and Kumaravyasa, but also cites the examples of the poets of the modern 'Navodaya' literature -who all had good knowledge of Sanskrit. He further goes on to say that Sanskrit grammar is pretty much similar to Kannada grammar and that possessing elementary knowledge of Sanskrit is a must.

This is not the first time that Bhyrappa has made such claims. In fact, just about a month ago, in a programme organized by 'Samskrita Bharati' in Mysuru he had claimed that it is impossible to write top grade Kannada literature without the knowledge of Sanskrit. With all due respects to the litterateur’s contributions to the flied of Kannada literature, it must be said that the above claims are not based on scientific facts.

Consider the languages like Latin, Greek, Persian, Arabic etc. These languages rose in prominence in different periods of history, and evolved mature literary traditions. There is also no dearth of scientific literature of the corresponding ages in these languages. In the same lines, in the modern era, languages like English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean etc have made great progress, be it in the field of literature or science. It should be noted that these languages, be it in the yore or in the modern era, did not require Sanskrit to evolve top quality literature.

If you take the instance of Kannada, it is said that the language came to be written about 2000 years back. It is undisputed that that first pieces of literature in Kannada were heavily influenced by Sanskrit. Kannada poets of those days, not only borrowed plenty of Sanskrit words but followed the Sanskritic poetic tradition too. But prior to this development, Kannada had evolved into a full-fledged language over a period of thousands of years, spoken across a large part of the Deccan. Such development and evolution of the spoken language did not require Sanskrit at all. It is well known and accepted that Kannada and Sanskrit evolved from different roots, and hence linguists classify them under different language families (Dravidan and Indo-European respectively).

Coming back to the subject of literature, by the time Kannada literature blossomed, Sanskrit literature was already at its zenith. So it is natural for the Kannada poets of that time to be heavily influenced by the Sanskritic literary tradition. Had there been another language in place of Sanskrit in those days, the Kannada poets would have undoubtedly been influenced by the poetic tradition of that language.

For example, many European languages have imbibed the literary tradition of Latin and not that of Sanskrit. Needless to say, such influences depend on cultural, geopolitical, commercial and religious factors prevalent in those times and in those territories. Hence the influence of Sanskrit literature on Kannada too should be seen in the light of cultural, geopolitical, commercial and religious factors prevalent in those days in the Kannada speaking regions. Considering Kannada as incapable or incomplete without Sanskrit is a mistake.

Can one consider the Vachana literature that developed at about the twelfth century as lacking in quality just because it developed natively, and did not follow the Sanskritic tradition? That is impossible. There are hundreds of folk songs and epics in Kannada, can they be considered lower rung or not of top quality because they are not in the Sanskritic tradition?

Looking at it scientifically too, any subject that can be expressed in one language can also be expressed equally well in another language. There is no evidence that suggests that one natural language is somehow better than another in expressive power. So, based on Linguistics science, there is no difference between languages that are considered to be classical and languages that are called as tribal.

For example, any subject that can be expressed in a classical language like Latin can also be expressed in a tribal language like Xhosa. One may consider Latin as more refined, but the concept of refinement is quite subjective. Hence one cannot, in absolute terms, consider Latin as somehow more refined than or superior to Xhosa. One can only say that both languages are equally beautiful and that they differ in the forms of beauty.

The advocacy of Sanksrit for learning Kannada, and considering Kannada incapable of superior literary expression without the support of Sanskrit arise from ignorance of the above facts. The beauty of a Kannada expression and the beauty of a Sanskrit expression differ only in kind and not in quality. Both are equally beautiful and one is not superior to the other. But only if one's opinion is heavily prejudiced in favour of Sanskrit, can one come to the conclusion that only Sanskrit is capable of top quality literature and that languages like Kannada require the support of Sanskrit.

Vachana literature has already proved that such opinions as incorrect, several centuries ago. At about the same time that Vachana literature bloomed, i.e., in the twelfth century, a Kannada poet by name Andayya showed that beautiful poetry can be composed without using Sanskrit words by writing 'Kabbigara Kavam'. In the twentieth century, Kolambe Puttanna Gowda's 'Kaaloora Cheluve' and 'Achchagannada Nudivanigalu' are shining examples of the beauty of native Kannada.

It is true that Sanskrit has a great literary tradition and there is a wealth of knowledge in the language. The study of the language and its literature should be, no doubt, encouraged. But words like 'Sanskrit is a necessary requirement for writing quality literature in Kannada' are far from truth and derogatory in nature.

What India Needs Today Is Linguistic Equality, Not Another Link Language

A news report published recently in The Hindustan Times, reports that the Samskrita Bharati, a non-profit organization associated with the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, will launch an outreach drive to propagate the use of Sanskrit throughout India.

Does a nation require a common link language?

The report states that the organization’s one-day campaign called 'Graham Graham Samskritam' (Sanskrit in every home) is aimed at establishing Sanskrit as the 'rajbhasha', a pan-India medium of spoken and written language. While the idea of having a single common language as a means of communication still has many takers in India it is so old-school that many advanced nations have abandoned such policies in favour of providing equal rights and privileges to all linguistic communities. So, how long are we going to continue to fool ourselves that the Indian Union needs a 'link language' that will serve as some kind of a unifying factor?

It seems natural that nations, which are linguistically diverse should promote a link language to help facilitate communication across all its regions and also to serve as a national unifying factor. But as we have learnt from history, in the instances of Bangladesh, USSR etc., such attempts have mostly been counter-productive leading to frictions between linguistic groups and ethnicities, and have often resulted in disintegration of nations. On the other hand promoting different languages can enhance mutual trust between language groups and help achieve unity that national governments strive for. This can be seen in several countries in Europe like Belgium and Finland, where all languages are treated on par and the rights of its speakers are protected as a state policy. The European Union actively encourages fostering of linguistic and cultural diversities, as a way to promote integration between its member states.

How pragmatic is the promotion of Sanskrit in this age?

Questions of pragmatism and practical sense also arise. Sanskrit may have been used as a liturgical language by the learned few for more than two millennia in India but as linguists and historians attest, it (proto Sanskrit) evolved into various Prakrits more than two thousand years ago. These Prakrits evolved into the various languages and dialects spoken across the northern part of India today. What is the point in bringing back to speech (to whatever possible extent) a language that has already evolved into various languages and dialects? As we know it, speech is constantly under flux. So, even if one succeeded in bringing Sanskrit back to speech in a few groups and regions, it will inevitably change and evolve into different dialects in decades and centuries to come. Should one take up the Sanskrit campaign again then? This is not only so unnecessary and inefficient but also counter-productive. 

Instead, it makes a lot more sense to promote various languages spoken across the country in education, administration and in all other possible spheres of life. It will not only help literacy and education, but also help people obtain citizen services and official government communication in the language they are most comfortable with. Often, some people argue that promotion of Sanskrit will enrich the other Indian languages too, but linguistically speaking this is a false argument. Also, why is Sanskrit being taken to every home? Don’t these homes already speak their mother tongues? What is the need to oblige them to speak Sanskrit in place of their respective mother tongues?

How good is Sanskrit as the medium of instruction?

The organization has also submitted a proposal to the Union government, says the report, to continue to use the mother tongue as the medium of instruction between class 1 and 8 and move to the Sanskrit medium from class 9 onwards. It is scientifically proven that for a child there is no better medium of instruction than his/ her mother tongue. In this respect the organization's proposal to use the mother tongue in the primary education is right. But its suggestion to switch to Sanskrit medium from class 9 is not justified. The decision to use a particular language or languages of instruction in schools should, at the most, be left to respective linguistic communities. Linguistic communities may work with their respective state governments towards an acceptable resolution on the medium of instruction if needed. Recommending Sanskrit medium to the children of several hundreds of different linguistic communities across a vast landmass of a billion plus population, without the consultation of the communities themselves is not correct.

In Karnatique, we have always supported the mother tongue as the medium of instruction, for scientific reasons. Not just primary education, even offering higher education in the mother tongue will benefit the respective linguistic communities. For their own benefit, linguistic communities should work towards that goal. But trying to promote a different language, be it English, Hindi or even Sanskrit as medium of instruction will be counter-productive. It should be noted that no country has ever progressed by using a language other than people’s language in education.

Such proposals to the Union Government too are inappropriate as the Union represents all linguistic communities and not just one or two. Private organizations are free to promote any language but they should not go to the extent of violating linguistic rights of other linguistic communities. Encouraging people to learn Sanskrit and teaching the language through private institutes and classes are all fine, but promoting it with the intent of making it a pan-India language, especially by using one’s influence in the Union Government, in order to serve as a language of official use throughout the country or introducing it as a medium of instruction in education on various other unsuspecting linguistic groups is a mistake.

All Indian Languages Ought to Be Promoted in Fields of Science

Pic source: indiandiasporaclub.com

As per this report that appeared in the Economic Times dated 25th of August, world Hindi conference will be organized at the city of Bhopal in the month of September. The whole event is being sponsored and organized by the Government of India.Apart from its focus on literary activities in Hindi, strategies to promote the Hindi language in the fields of science and technology, foreign affairs, Information Technology and etc., will be debated in the event, says the report.

Promoting the usage of Hindi in the several fields of science is certainly good for Hindi, and its speakers. However, shouldn't the Union Government of India, which is a representative of all the linguistic communities of India, be equally concerned about other Indian languages? Why does the Union Government fund and organize events related to Hindi language alone? Shouldn't all Indian languages be used in science and technology? Why are non-Hindi languages of India not treated at par with Hindi?

These are the questions we all need to ponder!

Is There a 'Right' Kannada?

“Kannadigas themselves do not speak Kannada properly”, “Many Kannadigas do not know the right way of pronouncing Kannada words”, “We Kannadigas have spoilt our language because of our lack of understanding of the right pronunciation of Kannada words”. If you are a Kannadiga, chances are that you have heard such statements quite often. There is also a lot of ridiculing of such 'incorrect' pronunciations that you may have heard of. For example, pronouncing the word 'dhana' (ಧನ - meaning wealth in Sanskrit) as 'dana' (ದನ - meaning cattle in Kannada) by dropping the mahaprana (aspirate) is often mocked at. In reality, we know that most Kannadigas pronounce it as 'dana', including those who mock, unless they are speaking in a formal setting and are quite self-conscious.

But how can one claim that most native speakers of a language do not speak it properly or often mispronounce its words? It seems quite strange, and to understand this situation we need to understand what really defines a language, and what indeed is the 'right' pronunciation of a language's words. Since I am taking this subject up in the Kannada context, I will keep the whole discussion mostly around Kannada, though the arguments may be applicable to any language in a similar situation.

We see languages in two forms, spoken and written. Most often we think that the written variety to be the 'right' one and all spoken forms are assumed to be corruptions of this variety. So, is the written variety or the one that is used in formal contexts, the 'right' version of a given language?

Languages came into being in the form of speech, several thousands of years ago. But the written form is a relatively recent invention. It only came into being only a few thousand years ago, and till recent times in history, only a small fraction of the world's population used writing. Many languages, to this day, are not written.
 
Also, as speech changes and evolves, the written variety too changes accordingly. For example, the written variety of Kannada today is not the same as that in the tenth century. As spoken Kannada changed over time, the written variety too has changed along with it.

So, it is clear that for a language, speech is the ultimate source of truth. A language may have no writing but may be very vibrant and alive. On the other hand languages like Latin, may still be used in writing, but as they have no speakers, for all practical purposes they are dead. Languages have several varieties and dialects. Even if the dialects are mutually intelligible, having to read all the different dialects in the written form is cumbersome for readers. Writing, inevitably requires standardization, so, there is usually a single variety or dialect of the language adopted as a standard for writing. That is how standardization in writing evolved.

So, one should see the written form just as one of several forms of the language, and not as a superior or the 'right' variety. So, the dialect spoken by a backward community, for instance, and the dialect spoken by learned people, are simply two different varieties of the same language. Neither one is superior to the other or is the right variety of the language.

Now, let us look at the history of standard varieties used in Kannada writing. During the times of Halegannada (Old Kannada) it is said that the Jainas of Coastal Karnataka were the first to begin writing in Kannada. So, it is quite obvious that they used their dialect in writing which later became the standard. Writing in Nadugannada (Middle Kannada) is said to have been begun by the Lingayaths of northern Karnataka, and needless to say their dialect was adopted as the standard. Literature in Hosagannada (New Kannada) was started by the Brahmins of Mysuru. As a result, it is their dialect that forms the standard variety across Karnataka today.

Now that we have a writing standard that is accepted across Karnataka, should we take this standard as close to all the dialects as possible or should we take it farther and make it much tougher to the Kannada speakers? The answer is obviously the former; have the written form as much close to the spoken varieties as possible. But there are a few practices in Kannada writing that has kept the standard variety as far away as possible from the spoken varieties when there is much scope to bring it closer. Simple changes can help address the issues.

Take for instance the word for earth 'boomi' (ಬೂಮಿ). Many argue that it should be pronounced as 'bhoomi' (ಭೂಮಿ) - the first letter should be a mahaprana (aspirate). In reality, Kannadigas do not utter or use mahapranas in regular speech. Even those who argue that mahapranas are a must, do not use it in regular speech. So, mahaprana consonants in loan words (native Kannada words do not have mahapranas), become non-mahaprana consonants, as in ಸ್ತಾನ (staana), ದೀರ್ಗ(deerga),  ಸಂಸ್ತೆ (samste), ಸುಕ (suka), ಅನುಬವ (anubava) etc, in regular speech.
 
There is a misconception that this phenomenon is only seen in the southern districts of Karnataka, especially in and around Mysuru, and that the mahapranas are prevalent in the northern parts, and the coastal regions. But this is a myth, mahapranas do not appear in the spoken varieties of Kannada across all regions. Given this, should such loan words be written as they are pronounced or as they are ought to be pronounced?

Needless to say, writing them as they are pronounced should be the right approach. So, dropping mahapranas out of the alphabet will benefit the masses. It reduces quite a lot of confusion and makes learning so much easier. There is a similar problem with letters like ಋ, ಷ, and ಅಃ. They are not there in Kannada speech, and forcing to retain them in writing creates unnecessary confusion and people inevitably make mistakes. And a small minority that is good at these make fun of the vast majority that make mistakes.

When we talk of getting the written form as much closer to speech as possible, there are many who intentionally misinterpret it. Take the word 'ಹೊರಡು' (horadu - Kannada for 'leave' or 'exit'). It is pronounced differently in different dialects, like 'ಒರಡು' (oradu), 'ವೊರಡು' (voradu), 'ವೊರ್ಡು' (vordu), 'ವೊಳ್ಡು' (voldu) etc. They not only make fun of such pronunciations but also ask if all these various 'uncultured' pronunciations be incorporated into writing, and in that case what would happen to standardization.

Making fun of people and their dialects is uncalled for, but the question of standardization is definitely a valid one. But in our effort to get writing "as much close to spoken forms" as possible we do not have to give up on standardization. "ಹೊರಡು" is a standard form that has been accepted and can be retained as it is. Instead, one may avoid the usage of words like 'ನಿರ್ಗಮಿಸು' (nirgamisu), which do not exist in any spoken forms of Kannada. This is how you get closer to people.

Why should it be a problem if a few such loan words are used, one may ask? Borrowing from other languages will only help our vocabulary, won't it? It appears so on the surface, but Kannada writing, especially science literature, is filled with so many unknown and unfamiliar borrowings and 'coined' terms that it is literally impossible to read and make sense out of them. Take for example, these words I found in the eighth class Science text book (Government of Karnataka): 'ಲವಣ' (lavana), 'ಸಸ್ಯ' (sasya), 'ವನ್ಯಜೀವಿ' (vanyajeevi), 'ಶೈವಲ' (shaivala). These can be easily replaced by familiar words like 'ಉಪ್ಪು' (uppu), 'ಗಿಡ' (gida), 'ಕಾಡುಜೀವಿ' (kaadujeevi), and 'ಪಾಚಿ'(paachi). There are tons of such words in textbooks and there is no way any student or even teachers can make sense out of them, let alone learn science.

Considering the scope to reduce the gap between spoken and written forms of Kannada, two steps need to be taken. One, we need to get the Kannada script inline with the phonetics of the language. As discussed above, there are several extraneous letters in the alphabet which can be removed. Two, in usage of words and coining new ones, we need to ensure they are not alien to Kannada speakers. While there is no need to remove well-known loan words, there is also no need to borrow unknown or unfamiliar ones. Known Kannada words can be used in their place. And finally, we need to understand that there is no dialect or a language that is superior to another. All languages and all their dialects are equally capable of expressing human thought. Let us respect them all and treat them and their speakers with dignity. 

(Image: ecml.at)

Classicalization of Literary Form Erects Barriers to Mobilization

Pic Source: librarykvkasaulihp.wordpress.com

Several articles on Karnatique in the past have talked about the distance between colloquial Kannada and the literary form of Kannada. If you have not come across this topic before, you would get a fair understanding by reading this article.

In many of the discussions regarding the distance between colloquial Kannada and the literary form, the question invariably arises "is this something specific to Kannada?". The answer is "no". Some people have also suspected that because Kannada belongs to Dravidian family of languages, borrowing words from the Sanskrit language (belonging to Indo-European language family) for usage in literary form of Kannada is the reason for this distance. Well, it might come as a surprise to many that even the languages belonging to Indo-European family, Hindi for instance, have this enlarged gap between the colloquial and the literary forms. The gap is mainly due to giving up of the words regularly used in spoken forms to make way for words from the Sanskrit language. One research paper that was published in the year 1968 has captured this phenomenon. Language Hindi is the subject of study in that research paper. In this article, we shall understand the phenomenon, with the help of findings mentioned in the research paper.

Linguists Joshua A. Fishman, Charles A. Ferguson and Jyotirindra Das Gupta have come up with a book titled “Language Problems Of Developing Nations”. The book, first published in 1968, is a collection of research papers around the subject of socio-linguistics. In the book, there is a research paper titled “Language, Communication and Control in North India”, jointly written by Jyotirindra Das Gupta and John J. Gumperz.

The research paper talks about the developments around languages in the geographical area that fall under the present day states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, in the Indian Union. The developments recorded in the research paper have occurred in the 1900s. The below pasted text is an excerpt from the research paper that sheds light on how the standardization efforts moved the literary form of Hindi far away from the colloquial forms.

The Hindi scholars have interpreted the task of language development as being synonymous with increasing classicalization. But classicalization implies that the literary language diverges sharply from the common speeches, thus causing an increasing separation between the media of elite communication and mass comprehension. Evidently, the Hindi scholars are less concerned with standardizing the language for popular use than for retaining its purity from the contamination of the outside influences. Hence the policy of elitist sanctity has been of greater salience to their conception of language planning than the policy of extension of mass communication.

In summary, the official Hindi that is being used in teaching and for governmental communications today is built to suit elite communication, rather than mass comprehension. As the written form of a language moves away from the spoken form, naturally the masses find it difficult to comprehend.

The authors of the research paper have also listed a couple of examples that have been sourced from sign boards intended for the public, and also from the text of the Indian Constitution. The examples listed below have been reproduced from the research paper.
Example 1:
- dhuumprapaan varjint hai (official text)
- smoking prohibited (English translation)
- sigret piinaa manaa hai (approximate equivalent in the colloquial)

Example 2:

- raastrapati kaa nirvacin eek aisee nirvaacik gan kee sadasy kareengee (official text)
- the president’s election will be done by electors chosen to include (English translation)
- raastrapati kaa cunaaoo eek aisee cunee huwee sadasy kareengee (approximate equivalent in the colloquial)

Apart from these two examples, the authors also cite the words used commonly in the literary Hindi and their counterparts in the colloquial Hindi. Some of those are:

- yadi for agar (if)

- kintu for magar (but) 

- atah for isliye (therefore)

- pratham for pahlaa (first)

By citing these examples, and highlighting the differences between the literary Hindi and the colloquial Hindi, the authors opine thus:

It seems evident that the new grammatical differences between colloquial and literary Hindi resulting from recent language reform materially add to the ordinary speaker’s task of learning literary Hindi. Many of the new rules are irregular in that they affect only certain parts of the vocabulary. Others affect deeply ingrained pronunciation patterns. Considerable exposure time is required before such rules can be mastered. Many native-speakers of Hindi, including some educated persons, feel uneasy about their control of literary Hindi. On the other hand, those who have been exposed to the present form of literary Hindi as part of their family background have considerable advantage in the educational system. New barriers to mobilization are being created, providing an opportunity for elite particularism to assert itself.

The situation is not much different in my mother-tongue Kannada. The present day literary form of Kannada language has drifted far from the colloquial Kannada. There are efforts to bring the literary form of Kannada as close to the spoken form as possible. Such efforts help undo the barriers to mobilization that have been erected. In the end, any language standardization process must strive to make the literary form suitable for mass communication. Mass communication will only succeed with mass comprehension, won't it?

People's Languages Key For Growth and Eliminating Inequalities

French economist Thomas Piketty's celebrated book, 'Capital in the Twenty First Century', has been a much discussed one since its first publication in 2013. The book discusses in depth on the subjects of generation and distribution of capital (or wealth), and analyses their causal factors, relying mostly on historical tax data and other records of several countries, spanning over two to three centuries. Based on these records Piketty analyses distribution of wealth, historical ups and downs in the economies of various geographical regions, economic inequalities, and also discusses various solutions that can address inequalities - both within nations and between them. In this article we will examine Piketty's analysis of global distribution of wealth across nations and major geographical regions, the resulting inequalities and their causal factors, and see what lessons we can take for a developing country like India.

In economics, Gross Domestic Product, or simply GDP, is one of several important parameters used to measure a country's economic development. It is the total output of all goods and services within a nation, in a given year. There is also another important parameter to measure economic development - per capita GDP. Simply put, it is the GDP of a nation divided by its total population. Thomas Piketty makes some important observations on historical global distribution of wealth using per capita GDP as a parameter, and analyses its possible causes. He chooses two continental blocs, Europe-America and Asia-Africa, the former with mostly developed economies and the latter having mostly under-developed ones, and observes historical economic inequalities, starting from 1700s. Here is a graph of the percentage of the global average of per capita GDP of both the continental blocs:



With a per capita GDP share of 150% of the global average in the 1700s, the Europe-America bloc, shows a consistent rise with time. As the West goes through an industrial revolution, the Asia-Africa witnesses a fall in the per capita GDP share. From the 1700 onwards the two lines show a consistent divergence from each other with the developing world trying to pull back only from the 1990s. Convergence of these two lines now, does not appear to be all that complex after all. The developed nations already have enough capital, and they can invest in the developing economies that are in need of money. Apparently, it is win-win for both, as the developed countries can profit from investing additional capital they already have, and the developing countries can benefit by utilizing the capital for production and output. Not so easy, says Piketty.

If nations have to achieve true economic development it is important for them to build highly skilled labour force that can provide top-quality goods and services, with which they can also compete in an open global market. So, it is important to keep scientific and technological skills of the population on the rise. Piketty cites the examples of economic development witnessed by Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and also China, in the recent years. So, if these two lines on the graph have to really converge, it is important that the under-developed nations develop skills of their population to be able to effectively benefit from the opportunities of the open global market. Piketty uses the term 'knowledge diffusion'. So, by the detailed analysis of historical data, Piketty comes to the conclusion that development of skills of the population, is of prime importance, and investment in quality education, especially in science and technology, is key for development of poor nations.

So, it follows that poor nations, like India, will benefit from building strong primary and higher-education systems. So, how strong are the education systems in India? Is india headed towards building stronger education systems that will help drive development? The answer, is a clear NO.

It has been proven beyond doubt that mother tongue based education is most effective in learning. Studies conducted around the world have time and again proven this fact. UNESCO not only recommends mother tongue based education but also considers it a right of every child. It is important that governments focus on building strong primary education systems in the mother tongue, and also strive to build institutions of higher education in the language of the people. This will provide a strong foundation towards achieving 'knowledge diffusion' that Piketty talks about. Successive governments in India have done trifle little in building higher education systems in people’s languages. Unfortunately, educationists, intellectuals and civil activists too have failed in building a narrative in this regard.

Industrialization alone, without much focus towards knowledge diffusion, has its limits in achieving economic development. Building a highly-skilled labour force is critical, and an education system based on people’s languages plays a key role, as is the case in the examples of countries like Japan, and South Korea.

But India, unfortunately, seems to have succumbed to a notion in education that is pulling it in the opposite direction.  The narrative that the English medium education is a panacea has successfully hijacked the society into believing in the myth that English medium is the only way to achieve success in the era of globalization. It appears that to be successful, people have to cross the English language barrier, which only a small percentage can manage to do. A huge mass of people aspiring to be part of the anglicized elite that the system has built, is still deprived of quality education. So, what we really need is a far-sighted focus towards building strong primary education systems, followed by top-notch higher education systems, in our languages.

It is important to note that Japan and South Korea that are part of the Asia-Africa bloc managed to close the gap with the West by building strong mother tongue based education systems. Needless to say, nations like Britain, France and Germany that witnessed development with the industrial revolution, and countries like Sweden, Denmark and Finland that caught up with them later too developed on the foundations of education systems in the languages of their respective people. And it is not a co-incidence that nations in the Asia-Africa bloc that have struggled to achieve economic development despite investments flowing in, have failed to build education systems in their languages.

Lessons for India are very clear. Industries are important, but there is no way we can eliminate inequalities and reach the levels of development achieved by the West without education in people's languages.