Can you see on the wall the tree?
How it dances, how it weaves?
Black has so many shades you know,
It makes you appreciate the colours more.
Darkness needs light to showcase its beauty.
While light needs darkness to shine brightly.
So when the power is cut for an hour or two,
Kickback and enjoy the live art show.
-Written on March 25, 2008
- Yes, yet another power cut, but only for a couple of hours. I enjoyed the trees dancing on the wall. As cars passed by at times there were more colours and shapes changed even. The music of insects humming outside, the swish of cars speeding by, the absolute silence, the peace... it was better than meditation according to me. :)
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
A Conversation Revisited
I recently attended a talk (interactive session) on ‘Animation and its Role in Society’. Up stands a social analyst and Senior Editor and comments that animations are spoiling the ethos of society and need to first educate mothers, since they park their children in front of cartoons and go about their work. It annoyed me to see so many nods in the audience and amused me to see the flummoxed animator from USA wondering how animations were responsible for poor availability of child care. The following is a record of a conversation I had with this so very concerned individual:
I questioned the veracity of the comment that ‘mothers’ parked their kids in front of TV. I stated that I was sure he meant ‘parents’.
No the mother is the prime care taker and she absconds from this great responsibility by either hiring others (in USA even teenagers!) to do work she should be doing. She does not seem to realize that kids learn values and ethics from their parents.
I remarked that since they (kids) learn values and such from their ‘parents’, perhaps the father too should be involved in the child care and thereby is equally responsible for ‘the deterioration of society’ as is claimed by such an esteemed analyst?
But you do not understand, or more likely refuse to understand, the mother is the primary care taker, all said and done.
Sure, till the child is about 2 at most, if you consider breast feeding etc. Then, anyone can take of the child. Or are men not competent?
Of course, men are competent, but they have to work as well. When do they take care of the child?
What about women? Do they not work? When would they fulfill their obligations?
They have household help for such things. And the market is inundated with appliances for their convenience. Yet, you all crib.
Since appliances do not, as yet, run on their own and subordinates (servants) do need monitoring, women do work as home managers these days and not maids, but nevertheless, they have work! Just as Finance MBAs are not glorified accountants according esteemed people, or that editors do not work less than reporters who actually file stories; so too women do not just have ‘conveniences’ and no responsibilities. ( I was desperately trying to be cool and collected at this point).
See you are veering away from the topic. It began with social responsibility of animations.
No sir, I am very much within the topic. Since gender sensitivity is part and parcel of society and it s needs, attitudes like yours need to be questioned.
See, the fact of the matter is children are not taken care of properly and watch cartoons that do not teach them values adequately. While women may have other responsibilities as well, we need to realize that children are our priority.
When do cartoons get televised in India? I mean on regular channels. And which are the popular timings for cartoons?
Evenings and weekends generally. Which is why I do not understand why children are parked in front of the TV? Now you cannot claim that women are working!
Of course, I can claim that! They are busy with household chores.
Household chores!!!!!! What chores? Everything is done for them.
Ok. Even if I grant this point. And I do agree with you that children should not have been parked in front of the TV and they should have someone entertaining them in other ways.
See. I am right.
Yes. Of course. Why whatever are the men, also at home at this time, doing? When children learn values etc from their parents, why are the fathers not teaching them? They have chores and no priorities???
Well, women have always been the traditional caretakers.
Hmm. Joint families have also been traditional systems. We no longer follow them.
Exactly. Women have broken this system that allowed them to share chores and take care of their children better. And now the poor children are suffering.
Hmm. When the woman is wed she goes to her husband’s place?
Yes. (impatiently)
Mostly, in India at least, if the guy is staying in the same town as his parents, he stays with his parents. Boys always feel this strong responsibility to take care of their parents.
Am I wrong?
No no. Indian children always are dutiful.
In that case, the joint family system is only broken when the guy moves away. His job leads him to new places and the wife goes along with him as is tradition. So the joint family has broken down into a nuclear family only because of guys and not women.
Men need better jobs for their families. (Desperately. Did I mention that this guy’s parents are elder brother and in Latur and he with his nuclear family is in Mumbai due to his job? Well consider it said.)
Of course. But the women have not broken down the system. And the ones responsible for taking away the child rearing support system themselves do nothing to supplement the shortage as peak time for cartoons are exactly when these considerate, family loving group is at home. Ergo, parents, i.e. fathers and mothers, are responsible for any ‘deterioration of society’ and cartoons are not a cause of such. (I look at him for his point).
(I am met with silence. Angry silence. And a refusal to concede verbally, even for now.)
(I rest my case. )
– I am also not satisfied with this dialogue for obvious reasons. I am only butting my head against a people who refuse to grow up and realize that men and women are equal; that men can nurture as well as women and that women can be as personally ambitious as men. Neither choice is wrong, unless it hurts the person concerned. Even family and friends have to recognize this right to choose happiness that does not aim to hurt other people. Personal goals are not wrong, whether they involve being a homemaker or a gardener or a scientist or a business person.
– One cannot be happy in relationships if one is not satisfied with the person one is and the goals one has achieved. Why can’t people understand this instead of forcing down compromises that individuals are not ready for. If someone is going to thank you for your choice 2 years down the line, why force the person to abide by your decision today? In 2 years the concerned individual is going to happily choose your path anyway right? This is the age of second chances. Allow people to take them.
– My parents argue that if a child is committing a mistake, parents of curse must rectify it. True. But to what extent do you correct a child? A child fights with his/her best friend. You advice. You can encourage them to make up. But if they don’t, you leave them be. Other friends will come along. And the child will learn form this mistake to never take anyone else for granted. You force them to interact and you would most probably ruin the friendship. If a child is envious of another person’s achievements, you do not preach envy is a sin; you teach the child to achieve in one or the other field and to take pride in its achievements. The envy will automatically disappear.
– Similarly, with adults. Why force them when you can guide them to voluntarily choosing the path that is ‘correct’ for them? Why force sacrifices? Why not allow them to reorganize priorities at their own speed? Why not respect individuality?
– I am not talking about values or such philosophical things. I am concerned with the right to choose careers or life partners or even what to eat today.
– Written on March 22, 2008.
I questioned the veracity of the comment that ‘mothers’ parked their kids in front of TV. I stated that I was sure he meant ‘parents’.
No the mother is the prime care taker and she absconds from this great responsibility by either hiring others (in USA even teenagers!) to do work she should be doing. She does not seem to realize that kids learn values and ethics from their parents.
I remarked that since they (kids) learn values and such from their ‘parents’, perhaps the father too should be involved in the child care and thereby is equally responsible for ‘the deterioration of society’ as is claimed by such an esteemed analyst?
But you do not understand, or more likely refuse to understand, the mother is the primary care taker, all said and done.
Sure, till the child is about 2 at most, if you consider breast feeding etc. Then, anyone can take of the child. Or are men not competent?
Of course, men are competent, but they have to work as well. When do they take care of the child?
What about women? Do they not work? When would they fulfill their obligations?
They have household help for such things. And the market is inundated with appliances for their convenience. Yet, you all crib.
Since appliances do not, as yet, run on their own and subordinates (servants) do need monitoring, women do work as home managers these days and not maids, but nevertheless, they have work! Just as Finance MBAs are not glorified accountants according esteemed people, or that editors do not work less than reporters who actually file stories; so too women do not just have ‘conveniences’ and no responsibilities. ( I was desperately trying to be cool and collected at this point).
See you are veering away from the topic. It began with social responsibility of animations.
No sir, I am very much within the topic. Since gender sensitivity is part and parcel of society and it s needs, attitudes like yours need to be questioned.
See, the fact of the matter is children are not taken care of properly and watch cartoons that do not teach them values adequately. While women may have other responsibilities as well, we need to realize that children are our priority.
When do cartoons get televised in India? I mean on regular channels. And which are the popular timings for cartoons?
Evenings and weekends generally. Which is why I do not understand why children are parked in front of the TV? Now you cannot claim that women are working!
Of course, I can claim that! They are busy with household chores.
Household chores!!!!!! What chores? Everything is done for them.
Ok. Even if I grant this point. And I do agree with you that children should not have been parked in front of the TV and they should have someone entertaining them in other ways.
See. I am right.
Yes. Of course. Why whatever are the men, also at home at this time, doing? When children learn values etc from their parents, why are the fathers not teaching them? They have chores and no priorities???
Well, women have always been the traditional caretakers.
Hmm. Joint families have also been traditional systems. We no longer follow them.
Exactly. Women have broken this system that allowed them to share chores and take care of their children better. And now the poor children are suffering.
Hmm. When the woman is wed she goes to her husband’s place?
Yes. (impatiently)
Mostly, in India at least, if the guy is staying in the same town as his parents, he stays with his parents. Boys always feel this strong responsibility to take care of their parents.
Am I wrong?
No no. Indian children always are dutiful.
In that case, the joint family system is only broken when the guy moves away. His job leads him to new places and the wife goes along with him as is tradition. So the joint family has broken down into a nuclear family only because of guys and not women.
Men need better jobs for their families. (Desperately. Did I mention that this guy’s parents are elder brother and in Latur and he with his nuclear family is in Mumbai due to his job? Well consider it said.)
Of course. But the women have not broken down the system. And the ones responsible for taking away the child rearing support system themselves do nothing to supplement the shortage as peak time for cartoons are exactly when these considerate, family loving group is at home. Ergo, parents, i.e. fathers and mothers, are responsible for any ‘deterioration of society’ and cartoons are not a cause of such. (I look at him for his point).
(I am met with silence. Angry silence. And a refusal to concede verbally, even for now.)
(I rest my case. )
– I am also not satisfied with this dialogue for obvious reasons. I am only butting my head against a people who refuse to grow up and realize that men and women are equal; that men can nurture as well as women and that women can be as personally ambitious as men. Neither choice is wrong, unless it hurts the person concerned. Even family and friends have to recognize this right to choose happiness that does not aim to hurt other people. Personal goals are not wrong, whether they involve being a homemaker or a gardener or a scientist or a business person.
– One cannot be happy in relationships if one is not satisfied with the person one is and the goals one has achieved. Why can’t people understand this instead of forcing down compromises that individuals are not ready for. If someone is going to thank you for your choice 2 years down the line, why force the person to abide by your decision today? In 2 years the concerned individual is going to happily choose your path anyway right? This is the age of second chances. Allow people to take them.
– My parents argue that if a child is committing a mistake, parents of curse must rectify it. True. But to what extent do you correct a child? A child fights with his/her best friend. You advice. You can encourage them to make up. But if they don’t, you leave them be. Other friends will come along. And the child will learn form this mistake to never take anyone else for granted. You force them to interact and you would most probably ruin the friendship. If a child is envious of another person’s achievements, you do not preach envy is a sin; you teach the child to achieve in one or the other field and to take pride in its achievements. The envy will automatically disappear.
– Similarly, with adults. Why force them when you can guide them to voluntarily choosing the path that is ‘correct’ for them? Why force sacrifices? Why not allow them to reorganize priorities at their own speed? Why not respect individuality?
– I am not talking about values or such philosophical things. I am concerned with the right to choose careers or life partners or even what to eat today.
– Written on March 22, 2008.
Modern Times are Coming Around…
“Boys may kindly ‘help’ around, girls do the housework
Of course society has progressed.”
“Guys are such little boys
Their macho needs can be easily humored.
Girls are so mature
Why bother splitting hairs?”
“You, girl, are too controlling
What will you do after the wedding?”
“How dare you, girl, ask a guy who dominates
What he will do if his wife retaliates?”
“Girl, don’t laugh so loud, it’s unbecoming.
Boys hurl abuses to only let off steam”
“Work hard, but don’t be proud.
Humility is a virtue and its own reward.”
“A boy has his pride and it has to be protected,
If he is angry, it is because he is deeply offended.”
“If a girl is out late,
She is a loose character of the worst sort!”
“If it is a boy though, who reaches home late
He is sowing wild oats, don’t snort!”
“Can you believe she ran away,
‘To chase her dreams’? – Such an ingrate.”
“Did you hear he fought with his parents and parted ways?
So independent, wanted to establish himself in his own way.”
“Guys crave adventure
They roam the world over.”
“Girls are steady,
They hold together the family.”
“If not anchored, guys will drift away,
That is why homes and names of girls are changed.”
“Girls adapt to change, by and large.
Take guys away from their hearths and they’ll be lost.”
Hey! These are not my statements.
Guys are equal to gals is the modern opinion.
The above quotes are the traditional view.
I am a modern. How about you?
– Written on March 21, 2008
– The poem is pathetic and fails abysmally in rhyme, structure and anything that defines poetry. However, my thoughts flowed this way and so here it is.
– I have been either reading books and articles, or viewing films, or hearing comments from people that it is so nice that boys these days help around the house. The very same books/films/people also manage to imply that the girl who is not satisfied looking after her hearth and home is a character to be pitied. She will later repent her ambitious choices. I wonder why the same is not said of guys. Why not ask them to seek contentment in compromising professionally to take care of hearth and home? They can and should make such compromises for their parents, for their religion even, and even if they do compromise for their children and/or life partner, it is made clear that they are making a sacrifice to satisfy their conscience and they are thereby great heroes. However, the woman who makes such a compromise is merely one who knows where her priorities lie and it is not as much a sacrifice as it is a rearrangement of plans to gain sublime happiness!!!!!!! Bull shit. I am still in an angry mode.
Of course society has progressed.”
“Guys are such little boys
Their macho needs can be easily humored.
Girls are so mature
Why bother splitting hairs?”
“You, girl, are too controlling
What will you do after the wedding?”
“How dare you, girl, ask a guy who dominates
What he will do if his wife retaliates?”
“Girl, don’t laugh so loud, it’s unbecoming.
Boys hurl abuses to only let off steam”
“Work hard, but don’t be proud.
Humility is a virtue and its own reward.”
“A boy has his pride and it has to be protected,
If he is angry, it is because he is deeply offended.”
“If a girl is out late,
She is a loose character of the worst sort!”
“If it is a boy though, who reaches home late
He is sowing wild oats, don’t snort!”
“Can you believe she ran away,
‘To chase her dreams’? – Such an ingrate.”
“Did you hear he fought with his parents and parted ways?
So independent, wanted to establish himself in his own way.”
“Guys crave adventure
They roam the world over.”
“Girls are steady,
They hold together the family.”
“If not anchored, guys will drift away,
That is why homes and names of girls are changed.”
“Girls adapt to change, by and large.
Take guys away from their hearths and they’ll be lost.”
Hey! These are not my statements.
Guys are equal to gals is the modern opinion.
The above quotes are the traditional view.
I am a modern. How about you?
– Written on March 21, 2008
– The poem is pathetic and fails abysmally in rhyme, structure and anything that defines poetry. However, my thoughts flowed this way and so here it is.
– I have been either reading books and articles, or viewing films, or hearing comments from people that it is so nice that boys these days help around the house. The very same books/films/people also manage to imply that the girl who is not satisfied looking after her hearth and home is a character to be pitied. She will later repent her ambitious choices. I wonder why the same is not said of guys. Why not ask them to seek contentment in compromising professionally to take care of hearth and home? They can and should make such compromises for their parents, for their religion even, and even if they do compromise for their children and/or life partner, it is made clear that they are making a sacrifice to satisfy their conscience and they are thereby great heroes. However, the woman who makes such a compromise is merely one who knows where her priorities lie and it is not as much a sacrifice as it is a rearrangement of plans to gain sublime happiness!!!!!!! Bull shit. I am still in an angry mode.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
In response to Comment on MA Education in Hindi
While I agree that English is becoming the medium of communication globally, one must understand that we have in our education system a large section of the society who study in their vernacular. They in fact form the majority of our population. Do we deny them the need to think more theoretically by denying htem access to tertiary texts in their language?
Why is India so obssessed with educating its people in English anyway? So many countries worldwide have highly quaified thinkers and doers who know only their native language and are not conversant with English. However, the world gives them their due space. We translate texts into English French writings or German research or Japanese technologies and herald them as seminal works. These philosophers or researchers could not have possibly written such world wide acknowledged treatises in English. They also could not formulated their thoughts with such clarity and precision if they had been denied tertiary education in their own language.
Yet, in India, where we supposedly respect natie knowledge, we require the encoding of that knowledge to be in English. I think this paritiality exisits for one reason alone - to save costs. You see in our sector we do not want to spend too mch on education. Texts in English are difficult to source in tertiary education and when takes into account the costs of translating the requisite works into other languages and then publish them and distribute them..., why the cost is too prohibtive to imagine. We would rather have fewer articulate thinkers and doers than pay such exhorbitant prices to develop our future. However, since we cannot couch it in such terms, we state that this done so that no one is kept out of the circle of globalisation!!! That these thinkers and doers for whose ultimate benefit education in the vernacular is denied would anyway be kept out of the circle since they are not articulate enough in the new 'world language' is conveniently ignored.
We seem to not realise that language has a huge impact on the mind. There are a few feelings, thoughts that we primarily encode in our first language even if we have been exposed to other languages and have graduated to thinking almost exclusively in a language that is not part of our linguisitc community. The brain thinks pictorially, however, abstractions require to be worded. It is for this reason that children are not assumed to be able to think in the abstract. They who have limited access to language would naturally be not able to articulate their abstract thoughts. It is for this reason that deaf and dumb people were often termed dumb. Their access to any language was delayed and their stages of acquisition are more prolinged than those of a physically enabled child. However, today we recognise that we were the ones blind to the brilliance of some of these physically enabled people and are therefore keen on developing programmes that enable these people to access tertiary education in their own language. Yet, we refuse to extend the argument that language encodes thought and therefore limited access to language will also limit the thinking prowess of so many of our vernacular students.
We must also understand that proficiency in communicative English is not enough to be able to engage in texts that demand higher levels of discourse strategies. This requires fluency in the concerned language and fluency in thinking. The two are so interconnected that the lack in one is assumed to be the lack in the other. Genrally, we ignore the lack of language skills of a student and assume that it is their cognition that is average or below average. We understand, today, the difficulties of a dyslexic person. We understand that the person is merely deficient in picking up langauge skills, but is most likely to have above average intelligence. We are trying to include them in our study programmes. However, the average person who may not be skilled wnough to pick up two or more languages is denied his intelligence, because he is not able to engage with tertiary texts in a lnaguage not his own.
Given today's economic environments, the need to teach others to communicate in English is absolute. However, who decreed that individual research and philosophising must be articulated in English as well? If we look at models of countries that exhibit innovative thinking, we will find that most allow their people to study almost exclusively in their own language. I have met German Profs who speak more 'tukda' (broken) English and even the University peon manages to speak more competently in English. However, these Profs are highly acclaimed thinkers. Communication is achieved and their thoughts are shared with many because they were allowed to articulate in their language and now are improving their skills in the new 'world language' to communicate and not to philosophise or innovate.
Thinking is an extremely individual activity and to ensure that people be highly skilled in English to do manage in higher academia seems to me grossly unfair. At present, it is denying our country the treasures of knowledge encoded in one or the other vernacular. It demoralises an entire task force that is actively seeking recognition for its worth and is denied its rightful place of being considered an equal merely on the grounds of its incompetency in a particular langauge. In the future, I fear we will have lost many many languages. Today, there are many of us who do not know to read and write in mother tongue and have gradually lost our competency in languages like Hindi, which we did know to read and write in, simply because we think exclusively in the language of power - English. I doubt we will emphasise the importance our linguistic ethnicity to the ext generation, if we follow this trend. Even if we do stress that our vernacular be learnt, children most likely will not retain the language as their thoughts would be expressed primarlity in English. When a language is not worthy enough to articulate complex thoughts in and be recognised, then why teach it to children? Let them learn only the language that the world trades in. Let them learn only the English language.
Since languages encode cultures, with the death of languages, our cultures will be lost in the annals of history pages as well. The very structure of a language indicates the world views of its people. a very simple example would be the recognition of an object as masculine or feminine. It clearly encodes the paprameters of what constitutes masculine and what is feminine. While some might say there is all the more reason to switch to one of the most neutrally gendered languages of the world, English; we also would lose the ability to identify other living and non-living entities as equal to human life. The rules for the placement of an adjective before or after a noun is another example of structured world views. Does a particular linguistic community give more credence to a person, place etc., or is the description more valued? How important is abstraction to an average user of the language? Does a particular language allow for a more epigrammatic style of expression than another? Some languages follow more elaborate grammar rules than others indicating a highly evolved structure of governance within that community. Some tribal languages, for example, have fewer grammatical rules and their governance structure is also fairly primitive and simple. The examples I hve given are extremely basic and there are actually many more nuances to studying the realtionships between langauge, mind and society. However, I am sure you get my point about the importance of a language to any ethnic community.
In a world that is busy rediscovering its past to recover its future, we seem to be in a mighty hurry to erase our past that we have held on to for so long. Do we really want the death of our languages?
Why is India so obssessed with educating its people in English anyway? So many countries worldwide have highly quaified thinkers and doers who know only their native language and are not conversant with English. However, the world gives them their due space. We translate texts into English French writings or German research or Japanese technologies and herald them as seminal works. These philosophers or researchers could not have possibly written such world wide acknowledged treatises in English. They also could not formulated their thoughts with such clarity and precision if they had been denied tertiary education in their own language.
Yet, in India, where we supposedly respect natie knowledge, we require the encoding of that knowledge to be in English. I think this paritiality exisits for one reason alone - to save costs. You see in our sector we do not want to spend too mch on education. Texts in English are difficult to source in tertiary education and when takes into account the costs of translating the requisite works into other languages and then publish them and distribute them..., why the cost is too prohibtive to imagine. We would rather have fewer articulate thinkers and doers than pay such exhorbitant prices to develop our future. However, since we cannot couch it in such terms, we state that this done so that no one is kept out of the circle of globalisation!!! That these thinkers and doers for whose ultimate benefit education in the vernacular is denied would anyway be kept out of the circle since they are not articulate enough in the new 'world language' is conveniently ignored.
We seem to not realise that language has a huge impact on the mind. There are a few feelings, thoughts that we primarily encode in our first language even if we have been exposed to other languages and have graduated to thinking almost exclusively in a language that is not part of our linguisitc community. The brain thinks pictorially, however, abstractions require to be worded. It is for this reason that children are not assumed to be able to think in the abstract. They who have limited access to language would naturally be not able to articulate their abstract thoughts. It is for this reason that deaf and dumb people were often termed dumb. Their access to any language was delayed and their stages of acquisition are more prolinged than those of a physically enabled child. However, today we recognise that we were the ones blind to the brilliance of some of these physically enabled people and are therefore keen on developing programmes that enable these people to access tertiary education in their own language. Yet, we refuse to extend the argument that language encodes thought and therefore limited access to language will also limit the thinking prowess of so many of our vernacular students.
We must also understand that proficiency in communicative English is not enough to be able to engage in texts that demand higher levels of discourse strategies. This requires fluency in the concerned language and fluency in thinking. The two are so interconnected that the lack in one is assumed to be the lack in the other. Genrally, we ignore the lack of language skills of a student and assume that it is their cognition that is average or below average. We understand, today, the difficulties of a dyslexic person. We understand that the person is merely deficient in picking up langauge skills, but is most likely to have above average intelligence. We are trying to include them in our study programmes. However, the average person who may not be skilled wnough to pick up two or more languages is denied his intelligence, because he is not able to engage with tertiary texts in a lnaguage not his own.
Given today's economic environments, the need to teach others to communicate in English is absolute. However, who decreed that individual research and philosophising must be articulated in English as well? If we look at models of countries that exhibit innovative thinking, we will find that most allow their people to study almost exclusively in their own language. I have met German Profs who speak more 'tukda' (broken) English and even the University peon manages to speak more competently in English. However, these Profs are highly acclaimed thinkers. Communication is achieved and their thoughts are shared with many because they were allowed to articulate in their language and now are improving their skills in the new 'world language' to communicate and not to philosophise or innovate.
Thinking is an extremely individual activity and to ensure that people be highly skilled in English to do manage in higher academia seems to me grossly unfair. At present, it is denying our country the treasures of knowledge encoded in one or the other vernacular. It demoralises an entire task force that is actively seeking recognition for its worth and is denied its rightful place of being considered an equal merely on the grounds of its incompetency in a particular langauge. In the future, I fear we will have lost many many languages. Today, there are many of us who do not know to read and write in mother tongue and have gradually lost our competency in languages like Hindi, which we did know to read and write in, simply because we think exclusively in the language of power - English. I doubt we will emphasise the importance our linguistic ethnicity to the ext generation, if we follow this trend. Even if we do stress that our vernacular be learnt, children most likely will not retain the language as their thoughts would be expressed primarlity in English. When a language is not worthy enough to articulate complex thoughts in and be recognised, then why teach it to children? Let them learn only the language that the world trades in. Let them learn only the English language.
Since languages encode cultures, with the death of languages, our cultures will be lost in the annals of history pages as well. The very structure of a language indicates the world views of its people. a very simple example would be the recognition of an object as masculine or feminine. It clearly encodes the paprameters of what constitutes masculine and what is feminine. While some might say there is all the more reason to switch to one of the most neutrally gendered languages of the world, English; we also would lose the ability to identify other living and non-living entities as equal to human life. The rules for the placement of an adjective before or after a noun is another example of structured world views. Does a particular linguistic community give more credence to a person, place etc., or is the description more valued? How important is abstraction to an average user of the language? Does a particular language allow for a more epigrammatic style of expression than another? Some languages follow more elaborate grammar rules than others indicating a highly evolved structure of governance within that community. Some tribal languages, for example, have fewer grammatical rules and their governance structure is also fairly primitive and simple. The examples I hve given are extremely basic and there are actually many more nuances to studying the realtionships between langauge, mind and society. However, I am sure you get my point about the importance of a language to any ethnic community.
In a world that is busy rediscovering its past to recover its future, we seem to be in a mighty hurry to erase our past that we have held on to for so long. Do we really want the death of our languages?
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
MA Courses in Regional languages?
Well I am not sure what I wish to write. I have so many ideas buzzing in my head.
Meeting wonderful people at Seminars and Academic Meetings and Workshops is exhilarating and yet intimidating for I always come away with a sense of awe that I was lucky enough to be able to interact with such esteemed dignataries who are revered the world over for their knowledge in their fields and also a feeling of beig totally unworthy of the luck and a questioning of ability to sustain any kind of dialogue with these learned geniuses and activists for a longer period.
I came across so many young people who are so active in NGO operations that I feel ashamed of my puny efforts. Here are people with the conviction to act on their beliefs, no matter how much it costs them personally. I admire them. I wish I could be more dedicated than I am.
In our meeting, we discussed the value of organising the MA Education Programme in Hindi medium as well. There were stong proponents and opponents. A major concern was that with the increasing impact of globalisation English is fast gaining precedence over other languages and so for the students professional prospects, it would be better to guide them to only English programmes and help them learn better English. A valid point that got raised was that are we running a course to coach PG students in Education or English? What do you think guys, should PG programmes be conducted exclusivley in English and not in regional languages?
Furthermore, translation of English academic texts into Hindi seemed to be a major obstacle. Apparently, the dearth of competent translators is a mjor concern. However, I firmly believe that one has to start somehwere. In fields like education and other social science related subjects like disaster management, course should be conducted in regional languages. There are so many out there who do ground work who are not ocncerned about transacting in English or any other language since most of their work never progresses beyond the state level, if it at all passes the district level. Indeed, to be effective, NGOs and other organisations have to ave personnel who can communicate in the local language. So which is in the position of power when it concerns language - English or the regional dialect?
Additionally, with the availibility of academic texts in their languages, activists will be able to encode their rich experience and vast knowledge of grassroot reality in a language that will make people sit up and take notice. Translation will not remain a one way medium that involves only translating material from English into regional languages, the reverse flow will occur as well. This can only be an enriching process for all concerned.
A pertinent question raised was - are to allow our languages to die and force people engaging with a local dialect to articulate themseles in English, simply because it is easier to keep track of one language or because it is difficult to find competent translators and such? When so many countries refuse to engage with English academia and continue their tertiary displinary learnings in their native language, why do we persist with the colonial hangover?
Don;t get me wrong. If regional dialects come into play in the academic field, I will lose out the most, since my primary language has evolved to be English. Yet, I cannot but endorse the promotion of tertiary education in regional languages as true spreading of education. Education and not literacy, which is only what we will achieve if we try to force information only in English in our efforts to empower people in the name of education.
Do write me in your comments.
Meeting wonderful people at Seminars and Academic Meetings and Workshops is exhilarating and yet intimidating for I always come away with a sense of awe that I was lucky enough to be able to interact with such esteemed dignataries who are revered the world over for their knowledge in their fields and also a feeling of beig totally unworthy of the luck and a questioning of ability to sustain any kind of dialogue with these learned geniuses and activists for a longer period.
I came across so many young people who are so active in NGO operations that I feel ashamed of my puny efforts. Here are people with the conviction to act on their beliefs, no matter how much it costs them personally. I admire them. I wish I could be more dedicated than I am.
In our meeting, we discussed the value of organising the MA Education Programme in Hindi medium as well. There were stong proponents and opponents. A major concern was that with the increasing impact of globalisation English is fast gaining precedence over other languages and so for the students professional prospects, it would be better to guide them to only English programmes and help them learn better English. A valid point that got raised was that are we running a course to coach PG students in Education or English? What do you think guys, should PG programmes be conducted exclusivley in English and not in regional languages?
Furthermore, translation of English academic texts into Hindi seemed to be a major obstacle. Apparently, the dearth of competent translators is a mjor concern. However, I firmly believe that one has to start somehwere. In fields like education and other social science related subjects like disaster management, course should be conducted in regional languages. There are so many out there who do ground work who are not ocncerned about transacting in English or any other language since most of their work never progresses beyond the state level, if it at all passes the district level. Indeed, to be effective, NGOs and other organisations have to ave personnel who can communicate in the local language. So which is in the position of power when it concerns language - English or the regional dialect?
Additionally, with the availibility of academic texts in their languages, activists will be able to encode their rich experience and vast knowledge of grassroot reality in a language that will make people sit up and take notice. Translation will not remain a one way medium that involves only translating material from English into regional languages, the reverse flow will occur as well. This can only be an enriching process for all concerned.
A pertinent question raised was - are to allow our languages to die and force people engaging with a local dialect to articulate themseles in English, simply because it is easier to keep track of one language or because it is difficult to find competent translators and such? When so many countries refuse to engage with English academia and continue their tertiary displinary learnings in their native language, why do we persist with the colonial hangover?
Don;t get me wrong. If regional dialects come into play in the academic field, I will lose out the most, since my primary language has evolved to be English. Yet, I cannot but endorse the promotion of tertiary education in regional languages as true spreading of education. Education and not literacy, which is only what we will achieve if we try to force information only in English in our efforts to empower people in the name of education.
Do write me in your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
